Training from Amerca's Army Games in ArmA3

[Sniperwolf572 758]

@Sniperwolf

I disagree with the notion that Arma2 is too complicated to learn whilst playing. That Arma2 cannot is a failure of its interface and overall design, not a fundamental truth of the medium. Arma2 is a game which as you note cover many aspects, neither of which are covered in simulator depth necessitating formal training to get your head around.

The infantry aspects of Arma2 require perhaps two or three buttons more than any other tactical FPS. Admittedly more if we count the F1-F12 to command AI. Many of the extra buttons used in Arma2 could have been eliminated given a better thought out control layout.

Every time a player; accidentally throws a grenade, sits in the wrong vehicle seat, fumbles and plants a satchel, gets shot fumbling with his sidearm, or a number of other examples. This is as much a failure of Arma2's interface as it is the player involved.

Tutorials

I think well crafted singleplayer scenarios would function well enough as an introductory to the meat and blood of Arma3's gameplay. As much as I hate crashing choppers in public games, often due to incompetent or simply inexperienced pilots, and as much as I wish I could force that pilot to take a tutorial-- such a heavy handed approach seems a bit unfitting for a sandbox style game.

If however piloting choppers or operating armored vehicles becomes such a complicated and advanced specialist task. That someone untrained would simply crash... Well, then the tables have turned, but so has the design goal of Arma.

-k

I'm against locking content away before doing tutorials aswell, my case is purely for a better tutorial/learning experience than we currently have with ArmA2, I hope it's noticeable from my previous posts here. OA was a step in a right direction. And yes, well crafted, ready available SP scenarios could and should be used as effective learning methods, it goes hand in hand with the story laced tutorials thing I was talking about.

Like you, I blame the control complexity and hard learning experience on some bad interface elements and control design that has not been revisited since OFP while adding a lot more functionality.

But I do not agree that the main focus of the game, infantry is only 2 or 3 buttons more than other FPS's. Sure, we might not be using ALL the functionality at ALL times, but it's still there.

While some stuff is explained, most isn't. It takes a trip to the controls screen to learn about a lot of things and even there some things for new players aren't clear. If you're just starting out, what's the difference between Eject and Get Out? Steer left vs Steer More Left? You and me know it, but someone just coming in might not.

And a lot of things aren't LIKE other FPS's. Your number pad does not change your weapons, it's for ordering infantry around. Then you find that F toggles between firemodes, but it also toggles grenades and satchels. Then you find some of your weapons in the action menu and you can also plant satchels there.

It's stuff like that which needs polishing the most in my opinion even at the price of reteaching all of us the controls again and in case it doesn't, people really need a good place to learn it ALL from. Controls rebind screen isn't a something you need to open to learn. That's year 2000's thing in my opinion.

ArmA is capable of teaching you things whilst playing, but those things aren't the controls.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Sniperwolf572

[xDNAPx 1]

i dont really see training ass a big factor, maybe some tutorials for new to the game players to show him the ropes and the basic commands but other then that training missions wouldnt be effective

for these reason...

1, armas more a toxybox then a game, meaning giving all the choices and roles u can play it would be hard to make a training mission of all the roles.

2, most peoples problem is tryna learn to much, (tryed to be everyone), yes this is good if ur just starting out but the keymapings change depending if ur a infarntry, air or armoured unit which will can but not always make it more difficult.

3, be your self, and what your good at !! if u love shooting down aircraft then why be a sniper when u can be AA?, if u love to lase targets for airstricks then why not be a forward operator? if ur into tanks but dont like to command be a gunner or driver, be your self and find what makes you happy, after all when u play MP UR more likly to be a on a large map with plenty of roles to play by, im shur your fav role will be among the list.

(i never really liked behing infantry where all the gunfire was, that why i choise forward air controller "im away from the main battle, but my actions can and will effect the flow of battle, and also gives me a chance to do some fighting, if the opfor deides the forward air must GO!!" "i also love to shoot airtillary so i can salfy say, my role in arma would be supporter and i try to stick with that and those classes in that range")

4. not really much more i can say in the lines of training, the games really good at throwing u into it with no clue what your doing, and sayin "your on your own", but if i can do it anyone else can, all i can say is "pick ur top 2 favorite classes" (so u dont bore yourself with someone you dont like) and learn the basics and keymappings, what guns u find easy to use and other actions like planing bombs and such. once you done that you can move onto finding out what ROLE you wanna play!! but that sometime for 2 or 3 months down the line id say but practise, practice cause its up to YOU to learn everything

id also like to say when i mean CLASSES im taking about "sniper, AA, AT, Medic, teamleader" and things such as that and when i say role i mean things such as "supported, assulter, spec ops" not particular roles

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I have mixed feelings. For us that know the game pretty well, it seems ridiculous. On the other hand, it might help those new to the game by forcing them to practice offline in order not to ruin the game for more experienced players instead of forcing admins to take away the servers from the public.

Every time a new Arma is out, it's the same thing. Tons of new players with few who can actually perform, causing havoc on the servers. Game looks popular, but gameplay is horrible, unless on a locked server. I'm not sure how much it would accomplish though, as many of these idiots appear to be doing it on purpose. Do the training, then join with sole purpose of being an idiot?

Another issue: When you join a server playing i.e. Domination, everyone can join because there are many "grunt slots". Next mission in the cycle is a pure special forces or flying mission, then what? Kick everyone who doesn't fit the bill?

I wouldn't mind it, but it needs some thought. Didn't vote for now.

[160thSOAR 10]

Honestly, the best kind of server is just one with good admins who know what they're doing. However, so many servers, even those of units that I respect, don't seem to have much coordination going on. The only server I have found that is consistently well-policed is the 7th Cavalry server, for the simple reason that the unit is big but still well-organized. Other units either have no real control over their public servers or are only in control for a small amount of time. In this game, quality of admin largely seems to determine quality of gameplay if something bad happens. This can be extremely annoying, because in many servers, this means that a single misbehaving player can ruin a game people have put hours into in a few minutes.

I'm trying to prevent this with a method that, I admit, is very heavy-handed, but I think is well worth it. If you can stop some idiot from running off with a rocket launcher to destroy a tank because he actually has to put effort into getting that rocket launcher, I think that's good. If you can stop a new player from crashing an MV-22 full of players into a mountain, why not? Yes, it's a pain in the butt for the ArmA veterans, but it will help keep out the influx of idiots in each new ArmA title. People who want to learn the game will learn it, and people who don't want to - well, they won't. If you're stuck on something as a new player, just be smart about it. Use the forums. Use other people on Teamspeak. Use the in-game text chat, for crying out loud. If you're not smart/determined enough to do these things, I'm not sure I want you next to me when the rest of the squad is dead and we're the last ones standing.

This is server-side. It's at the admin's discretion to utilize. It's not an issue if you don't want it to be.

As for the question about mission cycles.... Honestly, I think a mission cycle that goes between Domination and an airpower-centered mission would be kind of odd, to say the least, but I still don't think people who don't know how to fly aircraft/use certain weapons should be allowed to waste slots with those weapons in multiplayer.

[rye1 21]

Related to earlier posts, for those who haven't seen AA3 medic training: http://manual.americasarmy.com/index.php/Combat_Life_Saving

[Egodraco 11]

My opinion:

1) For multiplayer. Hosts could choose, whether people sould have passed some kind of training (say. an MP tank mission. You set requirement that all human players must have passed armour basic and armour tactics course, but you can also add exception names too), in order to play. So if you want no idiots, who are going to blow themselves up with an Mk-19, you choose yes! If you like them doing that, and it is a good source of Vitamin C for you, then you choose "noes!".

2) Separate tutorial/training camp scenarios, with a nasty training sarge, which will give you the qualification IF YOU PASS the test.

3) After all it doesn't makes sence to me, that a spec op (I mean when in campaign) is not qualified to drive a vehicle, or use some weapon/item.

[Bouben 3]

I voted YES. It is the most effective solution for dealing with idiots and casual gamers yet. And it wasn't any problem to pass the training in AA2, because I REALLY WANTED TO PLAY THE GAME. The result of it was that I was playing with other ones who REALLY WANTED TO PLAY THE GAME and not bored casual ones who wouldn't have any problem with spoiling it completely just for few minutes of "fun".

So it is not so much about gaining skills - it functions mainly as a good FILTER.

My two cents.

Hello all!

PS: and if it would be optional per server then there is absolutely no point in not having this in the game. Serious servers would get serious players and everyone would be happy.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Bouben

[Trauma.au 10]

I like the training systems in America's Army, but I don't think would fit into Arma or any other FPS off the top of my head.

[Whirly 1]

Optional 'AI squad command' tutorials would benefit newbies, Bohemia, and the community at large. It would be an effective and fun way to introduce the command interface to new players whilst teaching them how to organize and manage squads. The tutorials could increase in complexity as the player becomes more competent.