The trouble with getting people into Arma

[norsu 180]

Back in the days of Cold War Crysis this wasn't that much of a problem, since back then there wheren't that many shooters. People hadn't that many expectations how a shooter has to be. Therefore they aproached the game more open minded and took what it had to offer whithout moaning about all the things that where different to other games. Nowadays it seems necessary to somehow point out that Arma different gameplaywise from all those modern military shooters.

When it comes to campaign, Operation Flashpoint: CWC was a lot more newbie friendly in every way compared to ARMA 2. It started out slowly with simple missions where you had lots of friendly units and victory was pretty much assured even if you weren't fully aware what was going on (forgiveness). Each mission introduced something new and taught you important concepts without being too overwhelming (active training). I also liked how for the first half of the campaign you didn't have to babysit your fellow soldiers (a nod to traditional FPS). Instead you could concentrate on keeping yourself alive and study how the battlefield worked (introduction to OFP/ARMA universe).

Personally I don't really think the audience has changed much since 2001. Back then the fast paced FPS games were very popular (e.g. UT99 and Quake 3). Fast forward 11 years and the potential audience is still playing fast paced shooters.

[NoRailgunner 0]

CWC started from the viewpoint of a regular grunt who was just sitting on an remote island, counting days and hours to get back home.

A3 is mainly about Special Forces operating in enemy held territory. Would it be believable if the players character has to learn the basics during his mission? Or would it be more believable if the player has the opportunity to learn/refresh stuff before he goes to Limnos?

Think the player needs to practice + know: how to survive, how to adapt and how to win. You fight like you train. :)

[crazyjake56 10]

CWC started from the viewpoint of a regular grunt who was just sitting on an remote island, counting days and hours to get back home.

A3 is mainly about Special Forces operating in enemy held territory. Would it be believable if the players character has to learn the basics during his mission? Or would it be more believable if the player has the opportunity to learn/refresh stuff before he goes to Limnos?

Think the player needs to practice + know: how to survive, how to adapt and how to win. You fight like you train. :)

I don't see why you couldn't have the game introduce new mechanics as the campaign progresses. I don't think you're going to start out doing everything at once.

Edited February 19, 2012 by crazyjake56

[Defunkt 431]

Personally I'm really enjoying BF3 (and looking forward to ArmA 3 of course) but I'm amazed at the number of disaffected Battlefield fans who now seem to be pinning all their hopes on ArmA 3, you can hardly read a BF3 thread without somebody mentioning it. This strikes me as a huge turn-around since before ArmA 2 when most mainstream shooter fans had never heard of ArmA. Bodes very well for sales though I expect they're just perennially disappointed and will probably moan about ArmA just as much or likely more.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Personally I'm really enjoying BF3 (and looking forward to ArmA 3 of course) but I'm amazed at the number of disaffected Battlefield fans who now seem to be pinning all their hopes on ArmA 3, you can hardly read a BF3 thread without somebody mentioning it. This strikes me as a huge turn-around since before ArmA 2 when most mainstream shooter fans had never heard of ArmA. Bodes very well for sales though I expect they're just perennially disappointed and will probably moan about ArmA just as much or likely more.

meh its usually all talk, they will all end up buying the next BF game and they know it. They will do the same even if they migrate to Arma especially if it has some bugs in it at release I can already see the forums now in total chaos.

[froggyluv 2136]

Yep OFP had a nice gradual learning curve to it - but I could see myself being bored mindless if just trying to repeat that formula. The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see a plethora of training scenarios that would actually increase (or decrease) player stats in the campaign. The latest trend is unlocks -that being - spend enough hours grinding thru MP missions and get a medal of Knife Stabber Extrordinaire!!!

Thats beat and could care less. How about you spend enough time at the target range and actually increase your accuracy somewhat. Lead a team thru CQB excercises (laser tag perhaps) and earn a Command point depending on how successful your result. Command could effect quickness/precision of subordinates following orders or less suppression effect under fire or increase the maximium of men you can have under you. Helo exercises increasing your ease of flight and flight model etc...

Personally I love these sort of challenges that you can feel the earned achievement in a real way. If done correct (easy ones to learn basics -extreme ones for those who want to master) - this type of training could be extremely addicting. MP would be a whole list of other considerations but would love to see something like this in SP campaign as it would teach the beginners and give the Pros a challenge in realistic wargame fashion.

[Macadam Cow 1]

IIRC this was already suggested by someone else.

I have nothing against training having a positive effect on the AI (I even like this idea a lot !),

however this :

Helo exercises increasing your ease of flight and flight model

is a no go for me.

In my opinion, training should teach you the game's mechanics, not unlock some stuff.

Let's just take the example of DCS:A10C. There's a bunch of training mission in DCS, ranging from HOTAS fundamentals to start-up procedures and weapons employment.

Now those training don't unlock anything, they don't allow you to start the engines up more quickly. They're just there for you to learn. And if after those training you can start up more quickly or fire a weapon more effectivly it's not because the game allows you to do so but because you've earned some real experience.

This is what I like with ArmA, if you get better it's because you're more experienced, it's because you can handle the game's mechanics better, not because you've done this, killed xx numbers of enemies, spent xx ours flying and then automaticaly the game unlocks this or make that easier for you .

[JdB 151]

IIRC this was already suggested by someone else.

I have nothing against training having a positive effect on the AI (I even like this idea a lot !),

however this :

is a no go for me.

In my opinion, training should teach you the game's mechanics, not unlock some stuff.

Let's just take the example of DCS:A10C. There's a bunch of training mission in DCS, ranging from HOTAS fundamentals to start-up procedures and weapons employment.

Now those training don't unlock anything, they don't allow you to start the engines up more quickly. They're just there for you to learn. And if after those training you can start up more quickly or fire a weapon more effectivly it's not because the game allows you to do so but because you've earned some real experience.

This is what I like with ArmA, if you get better it's because you're more experienced, it's because you can handle the game's mechanics better, not because you've done this, killed xx numbers of enemies, spent xx ours flying and then automaticaly the game unlocks this or make that easier for you .

^ All of this ^

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[froggyluv 2136]

Yes in retrospect I think I overstated as far as a new or easier flght model.

Now those training don't unlock anything, they don't allow you to start the engines up more quickly. They're just there for you to learn. And if after those training you can start up more quickly or fire a weapon more effectivly it's not because the game allows you to do so but because you've earned some real experience

Really you could make this claim for any game tho -the more you play and practice, the better you are. I guess I like games that do give proficiency points (such as RPG's or top down tactical squad games) for specifically training in one area. There is a difference between just spending alot of mindless hours shooting stuff and then the magical UNLOCKED!! sign shows and a game like Mount and Blade where proficencies gradually rise in specific areas (Two Handed weapons etc). In reality are all soldiers equally proficient with all weapons having the same amount of weapon control etc?

Personally I would have a blast if the Training were a prequel to what skills you may have before you enter the Campaign and could make it play out quite differently each time. Again, just an idea for the Campaign, not the game as a whole.

[AndrewsRG 22]

Its a strange thing.

Personally playing the series since Flashpoint I understand the scale, movement feels normal and I have my 50+ keys mapped.

However, most gamers in general just don't want to work at it. I've ran reasonably large ARMA communities since 2007. The game with the addition of a decent mod like ACE2 is so much more complex than BF3 or any other title. The learning curve is huge and it's a Hobby, not a casual game. It takes up to an hour to start some large scale missions and although some of this is down to organisation, that organisation is a necessity to get the most our of the game.

I have never bothered playing the single player. TBH my computer couldn't handle it and I had a nice rig when ARMA and ARMA 2 came out.

Being a BF3 player also I see the mass appeal, it's a great bit of fun but lacks any sustenance. My guess is all the marketing and promotion will pay off for bohemia and cool looking ARMA 3 spec ops on the front page of the site will indeed attract the casual player to buy the game. However, once the hype is over, bohemia have there buck and those with no ARMA backbone fade away - We'll still be here wondering if BF4 players like ARMA 4.

Circle of ARMA life. I have the Sarani T-Shirt :)

[CzingerX 0]

multilayer missions out of the box. Ordinary gamer gets the game and he doesn't find multilayer maps, he ditches the game.

100% agree here.

[Macadam Cow 1]

Really you could make this claim for any game tho -the more you play and practice, the better you are.

What you said about the flight model reminds me GTA San Andreas where cars and bikes were easier to drive the more you used them.

Even if in itself you still sucked at driving, crashing into a wall/tree/car every 10 meters, the handling became easier after a while.

Personally I would have a blast if the Training were a prequel to what skills you may have before you enter the Campaign and could make it play out quite differently each time. Again, just an idea for the Campaign, not the game as a whole.

It'd be nice, yes, but again I'd rather see the opportunity to improve my skills than my character skills.

Let me take an example :

You start the campaign at boot camp. There you go through basic training teaching you the fundamentals to properly play the game (movement, weapons handling, scuba diving,...).

This training would be mandatory but you would have the opportunity to follow optionnal, in-depth, specific trainings.

Let's say for example there's a bomb defusing feature. You'd see that quickly (one kind of bomb) in the basic training but on the side you could go through the "bomb defusing training".

There you'd see more type of bombs with different fuses, how to use robots, etc.

This would be completely optional, you could just follow the basic training and directly start the campaign but then soon or late you'd face a bomb you've never learned how to defuse.

You could imagine as many specific trainings as you want : "sniper", "bomb defusing", "Forward air controller", "radio operator",...

I know this is not going to happen anytime soon, this would require the game to be a lot more complex (probably along the lines of the ACE mod) but this is what comes to my mind when we talk about "training= improving your skills".

I wouldn't mind a system like yours but it should remain for the campaign only, I wouldn't want to see that associate with some sort of MP profile.

[crazyjake56 10]

What you said about the flight model reminds me GTA San Andreas where cars and bikes were easier to drive the more you used them.

Even if in itself you still sucked at driving, crashing into a wall/tree/car every 10 meters, the handling became easier after a while.

It'd be nice, yes, but again I'd rather see the opportunity to improve my skills than my character skills.

Let me take an example :

You start the campaign at boot camp. There you go through basic training teaching you the fundamentals to properly play the game (movement, weapons handling, scuba diving,...).

This training would be mandatory but you would have the opportunity to follow optionnal, in-depth, specific trainings.

Let's say for example there's a bomb defusing feature. You'd see that quickly (one kind of bomb) in the basic training but on the side you could go through the "bomb defusing training".

There you'd see more type of bombs with different fuses, how to use robots, etc.

This would be completely optional, you could just follow the basic training and directly start the campaign but then soon or late you'd face a bomb you've never learned how to defuse.

You could imagine as many specific trainings as you want : "sniper", "bomb defusing", "Forward air controller", "radio operator",...

I know this is not going to happen anytime soon, this would require the game to be a lot more complex (probably along the lines of the ACE mod) but this is what comes to my mind when we talk about "training= improving your skills".

I wouldn't mind a system like yours but it should remain for the campaign only, I wouldn't want to see that associate with some sort of MP profile.

If something like this were to be used I'd have to wonder how they would pull it off. Would they go for the typical do such and such then move on to the next course or would there be some actual training missions? I think it would be neat if they did the latter because it would give more chance to apply your skills. Of course I'm speaking out of personal preference because simple training courses always seem to leave me looking at the controls menu.

[Dark SudoNix 1]

There should be no problem with getting people into ArmA... :rolleyes:

It has all what the ordinary (male) gamer likes:

• Great 3D graphics !
  
• Its a shooter !
  
• You can drive, fly, build, command ! (pretty basic & easy to learn)
  
• It has a Editor !
  
• It has a fun MP !
  
• It has tons of Mods and user created missions
  

So whats the problem ?

It starts with the antiquated controls, all feels clumsy and indirect.

Commanding your squad feels like playing a game from 1995.

Then there is no fast paced MP action, mostly due to the clumsy and indirect controls. And, last but not least, the official missions try to much to focus on the "simulation" aspect (and fail pathetic) instead of focus on a campaign with more cool action.

So if ArmA3 does have:

• Much better controls and a commanding system like the one from DR
  
• Fast paced, easy to fire up and fun MP action (Team-Deathmatch, CTF) like BF
  
• Much better missions which are more action packed and dont try so hard to simulate the "real thing"
  

Thats all i think, most new players would (at the beginning) not care about a better AI or all the Mods and User made missions. So BIS, please help them (and me) to have fun with this game !

You basically just described MW3 & BF3?!? Are you fucking kidding!!!

[kylania 568]

Thats all i think, most new players would (at the beginning) not care about a better AI or all the Mods and User made missions.

Those are exactly the kind of players I wouldn't want to play ArmA2/3 with. There's nothing worse than planning a mission or doing a stealthy insert with some snot-nosed kid who's 28 years old and keeps whining "when do we get to shoot something, why did i have to download 200mb of stuff, why is it nighttime!?"

[antoineflemming 14]

There should be no problem with getting people into ArmA... :rolleyes:

It has all what the ordinary (male) gamer likes:

• Great 3D graphics !
  
• Its a shooter !
  
• You can drive, fly, build, command ! (pretty basic & easy to learn)
  
• It has a Editor !
  
• It has a fun MP !
  
• It has tons of Mods and user created missions
  

So whats the problem ?

It starts with the antiquated controls, all feels clumsy and indirect.

Commanding your squad feels like playing a game from 1995.

Then there is no fast paced MP action, mostly due to the clumsy and indirect controls. And, last but not least, the official missions try to much to focus on the "simulation" aspect (and fail pathetic) instead of focus on a campaign with more cool action.

So if ArmA3 does have:

• Much better controls and a commanding system like the one from DR
  
• Fast paced, easy to fire up and fun MP action (Team-Deathmatch, CTF) like BF
  
• Much better missions which are more action packed and dont try so hard to simulate the "real thing"
  

Thats all i think, most new players would (at the beginning) not care about a better AI or all the Mods and User made missions. So BIS, please help them (and me) to have fun with this game !

You know, I'd actually support what you suggested, IF you only included the better controls and fast-paced aspect. Because, to properly simulate special forces (which BIS has done throughout the ArmA series), you've got to be able to simulate quick-reaction combat, and close-quarters combat, both of which ArmA 2 currently CAN'T do.

But, when you add in fun MP LIKE BF, less focus on better AI or Mods or user-made missions, and especially, more action-packed, LESS "real thing", that turns me off from your suggestion. Seriously, you basically said BIS should disregard everything that makes ArmA "ArmA".

Better AI, Mods, User-made missions, realism, are all aspects of a simulator, and therefore, aspects of ArmA. To not focus on those things is to not be ArmA. Not meaning any disrespect to you, but BF and COD are your kind of games. Not because of the fast-paced, and fun, MP, but because you DON'T like, or rather, don't VALUE, the simulator aspects of ArmA (mentioned in bold). So it sounds like ArmA isn't your kind of game. You'd be better off playing BF3 and waiting for BF4.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Quick to play MP is hard because..... You guessed it! Zero built in mod management and downloading.

[antoineflemming 14]

Hopefully going to go see Act of Valor this weekend. After the movie, I expect my suggestion for the Wishes thread will be something like this: "I want to be able to do THAT (Act of Valor action sequences) in ArmA 3." Because no one can shut me down then, or tell me that I just want Hollywood or COD or BF. No, that's REAL tactics, REAL movement, REAL action. And if they can do that, then there is no reason why an SBS character and a 10th SFG character in ArmA3, or SFOD-D guys in ArmA2 OA can't do that, and move that quickly in close quarters. No reason why a character should drop his weapon in water, when SF guys (especially SEALs) swim with their rifles all the time. After that movie comes out, there will be no real excuse for the chunky movement, and the terrible animation system (read: chunky movement). So, I expect nothing less from Smookie and the other animators. Especially since you play as special forces in ArmA 3.

Seriously, I know people try to bring up mod management issues, downloading issues, UI issues, command issues, etc. But look and feel is the first thing a potential player sees. You see the game through the videos. The first thing a player will check out once buying a game is the look and, more importantly, feel of a game. Why? It's the simplest thing to do in a shooter: move and shoot. That comes before learning all the controls, command keys, mods, or UI. That's the first impression. And if that isn't right, then regardless of the other features of the game, the game won't feel right, because there is an issue with something the player has to deal with ALL the time. Think about it. The player doesn't HAVE to issue commands. If he/she knows how to use the editor, then he can make him/herself one of the regular members of a team or squad (as in NOT a leader) so that all the player does is move and shoot. Now, yeah, you learn to deal with the issues. You learn to cope with it, but it doesn't go away. So, with the new features BIS is adding, I hope that a large percentage of their work is focused on improving the animation system and getting it operational and in a presentable format (so that potential players can see it EARLY on and give constructive feedback). Something like this really needs to be tested not only by internal testers but by the community. No, not as a "get the game early" kind of thing, but as something that, being so foundational to gameplay, shouldn't have to be tweaked and changed post-launch. Because changing that post-launch will be making major changes to the engine itself (pretty sure). Either way, it'll require large patches to get right. It's better that this aspect of the game is as good as it will get by launch time.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

I understand what your saying antoine, but the animation system and physics has already been dramatically improved from what we have heard. The AI is always improving no matter what, and I tend to throw that out as an important issue, as it often just serves those who already play this game. The graphics look and sound much more optimized from their presentations.

The problem is that we have not heard really anything in regards to improvements in multiplayer accessibility and mod management. There have been some "it might be on our list" hints from BIS, but they certainly have not taken any real spotlight. I understand that as far as advertising goes, you cant really advertise those sorts of improvements. But I certainly think that BIS has not truly grasped their importance in the long term. Since the OFP days, accessibility really has not improved in multiplayer besides JIP.

EDIT: And I know sickboy loves to pop on and say sixupdater any chance he gets, so I must mention. Look at the sixupdater and you will see why this community strives more better mod management.

[lukio 18]

There should be no problem with getting people into ArmA... :rolleyes:

So if ArmA3 does have:

• 
  
• Much better controls and a commanding system like the one from DR
  
• Fast paced, easy to fire up and fun MP action (Team-Deathmatch, CTF) like BF
  

Thats all i think, most new players would (at the beginning) not care about a better AI or all the Mods and User made missions. So BIS, please help them (and me) to have fun with this game !

Agreed, the controls are completely overwhelming and seem to feature lots of unnecessary control options which adds to the confusion. For MP Action something like capturing and holding controlzones or capturing a briefcase *cough* and bringing it back to the own HQ would be great. All within the normal ARMA simulation / experience of course.

Negative on

[*]Much better missions which are more action packed and dont try so hard to simulate the "real thing"

This is exactly what leads to a strong difference between the actual gameplay in MP and single player which is quite confusing, its like making a balancing act between "action shooter" and simulation, getting that right is really hard, it would be better to slowly get the player used to the whole simulation thing than give him the impression he is playing a action packed shooter. This will only lead to more frustration imho.

[liquidpinky 11]

What you said about the flight model reminds me GTA San Andreas where cars and bikes were easier to drive the more you used them.

Even if in itself you still sucked at driving, crashing into a wall/tree/car every 10 meters, the handling became easier after a while.

It'd be nice, yes, but again I'd rather see the opportunity to improve my skills than my character skills.

Let me take an example :

You start the campaign at boot camp. There you go through basic training teaching you the fundamentals to properly play the game (movement, weapons handling, scuba diving,...).

This training would be mandatory but you would have the opportunity to follow optionnal, in-depth, specific trainings.

Let's say for example there's a bomb defusing feature. You'd see that quickly (one kind of bomb) in the basic training but on the side you could go through the "bomb defusing training".

There you'd see more type of bombs with different fuses, how to use robots, etc.

This would be completely optional, you could just follow the basic training and directly start the campaign but then soon or late you'd face a bomb you've never learned how to defuse.

You could imagine as many specific trainings as you want : "sniper", "bomb defusing", "Forward air controller", "radio operator",...

I know this is not going to happen anytime soon, this would require the game to be a lot more complex (probably along the lines of the ACE mod) but this is what comes to my mind when we talk about "training= improving your skills".

I wouldn't mind a system like yours but it should remain for the campaign only, I wouldn't want to see that associate with some sort of MP profile.

To elaborate on this, I agree on it actually training the person and not upgrading his avatars skills as you are upgrading the person operating the avatar anyway.

They could however create a rating system for the training, such as 5 star for excellent at a particular task like bomb disposal or piloting etc. Maybe even have it upgrading during missions by actually doing the activity as well, not by being a certain class for an amount of time though as some idiot could just hide in a corner somewhere.

Then during an MP mission when a certain scenario arrises, like a bomb needing disposed you can check your team's stats and pick the right man fo the job that way.

Then servers could possibly lock out particular vehicle or weapon types to those who are deemed of too low a skill to use them.

[antoineflemming 14]

Hey, guys, check out the latest development blog post about ArmA 3. Dan Musil addresses like EVERYTHING mentioned in this thread and others. MP, animations, graphics, the whole nine yards.

[CTCCoco 1]

You know why? Because they like to play without thinking or make complex things. Some people simply don't wanna to do things, like play chess, it can be tired for some people... isn't it?

[dmarkwick 261]

You know why? Because they like to play without thinking or make complex things. Some people simply don't wanna to do things, like play chess, it can be tired for some people... isn't it?

I can agree with this, but the simple answer is that there are already games for these people, and ArmA wouldn't suit them. They are not the target market, the target market is us, and the people who would be us if the game were just a little different in some key areas, and stable on release.

[tedbell 0]

I know it's long, but if you wanna skip, just read the bolded part at the bottom.

Basically, things like more concise/organized UI, fluid animations (in the vein of BF3), and overall look and feel of ArmA is what can draw other players without taking away anything from the simulator that's already in there.

I certainly agree with this point, and the ArmA experience would be better for it. It may take longer to get there, but ArmA just gets better with each version, no question.