Userfriendly Editor?

[Nikko 10]

I think its pretty good but it would be helpful if when you hover over a button it gave you a description of what it does.

[lonewolf12 1]

if you think that that editor is user friendly you need your head examining

[marcai 1]

"Hey, I'm giving feedback to a feature I think could be improved"

It looks like it's time to play Beta Forum Bingo!

- Someone compares the OP or their comments to playing CoD X

- OP is insulted by someone with 1,000+ posts X

- Posters imply that OP is wrong due to stupidity X

- Posters argue that if you're not willing to spend countless hours learning it, they don't deserve to use it X

All by page 2- that was fast I gotta hand it to you, you sure can show that the editor isn't the only unfriendly thing out there.

I can't help but agree with OP and sympathise with him quite a bit. I only just started learning how the editor works so that me and my friends have tongue-in-cheek missions that we can play together in a small group whilst learning more about fighting as a fire team. I ended up spending easily in excess of 5 hours of watching Youtube tutorials or livestreams, and forum-searching in order to find the tools, scripts and methods to make a 15 minute mine-laying mission. And that's not actually counting the hours I spent trying to figure out how they were used in the editor both before and after watching.

'User-friendly' doesn't mean taking complexity away. In fact, 'simple' doesn't mean removing complexity when talking about game design- being easier to use whilst retaining all functions is a benefit to *everyone*. For example, a set of pre-made scripts and descriptions of how they work would be nice, along with an explanation to what the various different scripting fields actually do. A 3D editor is begged for quite regularly online, allowing for indoor missions or snipers inside upper storeys of buildings as standard would be amazing; hell, a 3D viewer alone would be nice so that we don't have to fire up the game and test everything step by step just to make sure things aren't overlapping scenery. Some form of in-game tutorial would go miles in assisting new players in the creation of content, as plenty of people will see scripting and a shit-ton of unlabelled commands and instantly be intimidated into believing that it's beyond their capability to work at all. The fact that some scripts need to be added in a folder outside of the game, and then editing documents in other programs is pretty much the definition of something that isn't user-friendly. Needing to use other programs unprompted to do things not explained in the game to access simple features like a description is actually pretty damned unfriendly for users.

The editor can survive as it is now, definitely, but it's incredibly outdated when compared to the rest of the game. As for someone earlier who asked if it's a throwback to a generation of people willing to learn? Yes and no. Itss a throwback to an older generation where it was learn or not play at all. Is that a good thing? Debatable. If BI announced that they were going to use game designs from ten years ago in other aspects, people would likely see it as a step backwards. With more features and clearer icons and in-editor warnings of items or terrain colliding dangerously would render most of this moot, and increase what I think we can all agree is user-friendliness.

Tl;dr: Unusable? No. Perfect? Far from it. User-friendly? Eye of the beholder. To me a top-down view of abstract dots and lines on a map doesn't translate well in a 3d world with building interiors. Helping people write and insert scripts could be far improved. All functionality of a mission should be able to be accessed in the editor rather than forcing the use of external files.

[f2k sel 164]

I'm puzzled why they changed the layout, the input boxes are much smaller leading to multiple split commands and making it much harder to read.

There is so much wasted space that could have been used.

[Alwarren 2767]

- Posters argue that if you're not willing to spend countless hours learning it, they don't deserve to use it X

Ooh, exaggerating are we?

It's nob about "countless hours" or "do not deserve". But the matter of fact is, if you do not put at least some effort in it to learn the basics, you will have a hard time. That is a universal truth and applies to a lot of situations, you cannot have knowledge without learning, and everyone that uses the editor, or just about any game's editor will have to learn about it.

Arma is a very open platform, and this flexibility has its price. By now, it's much easier already to build in a briefing and tasks, or to add support options to a mission, but in the end, you won't get around investing a bit of time (and I am not suggesting "countless hours") into the editor and scripting.

Most of all, the forums are full of examples, tutorials, and helpful responses, and most of the time if you ask a specific question, you will get a specific answer. The Arma community is very helpful. However, it doesn't help to generalize and to complain about something that is clearly not in the scope of the editor or the game. Because with the same right you could complain that there is no way to spawn Zombies or put loot it.

Bottom line is, this is a very open game which you can turn into the next zombie apocalypse, the next Stalker, the next Colind McRae Rally, or even the next Skyrim. If you deviate far from the core gameplay, it actually lets you do that but it will require more effort. Effort that, in my experience, most people are not willing to put in.

[roguetrooper 2]

I just want to add this. And it is not meant as an insult to the OP or anybody else.

The editor IS indeed easy.

And as I said before, with the editor and with scripting (of which making a map consists of 95%+) you are able to create your own universe. BIS could out- uhm, or insource scripting stuff into the editor but this wouldn't make it easier as a whole to create a good and complex mission. Mkay, some things could be more explanative to first time visitors, but having spent half an hour in it, everybody is able to understand the few functions it offers ('few' in the meaning that scripting is the main part of mapping).

You just don't need to shreak away after having opened it for the first time and closed it after two minutes because you could not end up with something that 'runs'. When you are interested in the Armaverse and would like to make your own stuff, to set your own ideas free, then just get your lazy arses up - soldier - and try, learn and fight.

It's the same with the road signs in Chernarus. 'Oh my god, they are kyrillic' (not meant to the OP or anybody else - just an example). Then take it as a chance to increase your horizon. Aren't you able to learn twelve f***ing letters? (some are like the latin alphabet, some are a bit different, some are totally different/new).

I must admit that I haven't read the full initial thread as well. I'm not willing to browse through that pile of unformatted letters. Such kinds of texts are NOT cool or modern. They cause eye cancer. They are like being spit into the face. Stops, full stops, spaces and paragraphs are no remnants of an uncool past.

Edited July 3, 2013 by RogueTrooper

[Mirudes 1]

MulleDK13 is telling us on YouTube how to get access to the hidden 3D editor in ArmA3(Alp0r).

[...] a 3D viewer alone would be nice so that we don't have to fire up the game and test everything step by step just to make sure things aren't overlapping scenery.[...]

I have to admit - that is really a nice idea. By using the very limited 3D-Editor of ArmA3, having a button with "Preview in 3d editor" - whow!

[danny96 80]

MulleDK13 is telling us on YouTube how to get access to the hidden 3D editor in ArmA3(Alp0r).

I have to admit - that is really a nice idea. By using the very limited 3D-Editor of ArmA3, having a button with "Preview in 3d editor" - whow!

Now I'm really surprised why they don't take the old 2D editor and just put there button that will switch to 3D (or back to 2D map) which will show the 3D scenery instead of map. That's it, It's easy and you will get full 3D editor and everyone will be happy :P

I don't know what's the problem. It will work just fine.

To get back to topic - Editor is userfriendly enough, just include 3D preview and it will be fine.

[surfer 42]

Here's my list what should be inside the editor to make it userfriendly (and have it mouse drag & droppable please):

- create units: super easy

- waypoints: easy enough

- briefing: does it work without an external file?

- winning conditions: how to?

- 3d editor

[Alwarren 2767]

(and have it mouse drag & droppable please):

Drag and Drop makes sense in some circumstances, not so much in other. You will never get around using your keyboard to enter some text, and the way the editor works now is easy enough.

- briefing: does it work without an external file?

Yes. Check the modules.

- winning conditions: how to?

"Winning" is a pretty loose term. You can, via trigger, define up to six different endings plus one "lfail" ending, but for most intent and purposes you should use the function for ending the missing to get the "new look" ending.

- 3d editor

As much as I would like to see this, it's not going to happen any time soon.

While there is always room for improvement, the Editor as it is is user friendly enough. It takes some effort to learn the basics, but it is hardly rocket science. You cannot expect to have drag&drop Wasteland or Project Reality, anything more complex than a standard mission will require some scripting, but that doesn't mean the editor is user un-friendly. I still say that most people's problem with the editor is that they want to put zero effort in it and just expect everything to magically work out, but it doesn't.

[marcai 1]

Ooh, exaggerating are we?

It's nob about "countless hours" or "do not deserve". But the matter of fact is, if you do not put at least some effort in it to learn the basics, you will have a hard time. That is a universal truth and applies to a lot of situations, you cannot have knowledge without learning, and everyone that uses the editor, or just about any game's editor will have to learn about it.

Arma is a very open platform, and this flexibility has its price. By now, it's much easier already to build in a briefing and tasks, or to add support options to a mission, but in the end, you won't get around investing a bit of time (and I am not suggesting "countless hours") into the editor and scripting.

Most of all, the forums are full of examples, tutorials, and helpful responses, and most of the time if you ask a specific question, you will get a specific answer. The Arma community is very helpful. However, it doesn't help to generalize and to complain about something that is clearly not in the scope of the editor or the game. Because with the same right you could complain that there is no way to spawn Zombies or put loot it.

Bottom line is, this is a very open game which you can turn into the next zombie apocalypse, the next Stalker, the next Colind McRae Rally, or even the next Skyrim. If you deviate far from the core gameplay, it actually lets you do that but it will require more effort. Effort that, in my experience, most people are not willing to put in.

I don''t really think I'm exaggerating that much, no. In order to fully understand and use the editor, you're looking at a *lot* of time and effort required to do the required reading, tutorial-watching, script-hunting and trial-and-error usage. As I said, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but for a product that people play for fun, it can restrict their ability to actually participate if they're not already comfortable with spending that much time and effort on a game. I'll flat out state it, searching online for scripting -whilst sometimes cool- isn't exactly my idea of a fun way to spend my evening. I'm no programmer, but something as simple as an in-game script library (as you stated, these scripts are already written and online to use thanks to the player-base) with brief explanations hardly seems that painful to implement, yet would be beneficial to everyone with no real downside. That, my friend, is user-friendliness, and a step forward. These things aren't 'out of the scope of the game', it really is a library with tooltips.

As for laziness -if I may get a tad philosophical- humankind relies on it to progress. Inventors throughout history see things that we do regularly and say "How can I make that better/ easier/ faster/ more efficient?" and acts on it. The fact that I don't hunt my own food, didn't build my house, can access public transport is all down to someone being 'too lazy' to do something the 'old way'. Sure, the old ways still work fine, and in a lot of situations are actually better for you to learn, but we've perfected the art to the point that not everyone has to be a specialist in order to reap the reward. Not everybody has the time or patience to fully learn these skills, but because we've progressed, they don't need to, as it's a given that they'll be acessable to them regardless.

What I'm trying to say -in a long-winded way- is that sticking to an archaic design simply because it does the job isn't exactly the best idea. Not a bad idea, but not the best. There are always ways to improve things and make the experience better for all involved. I'm not saying we need to re-invent the wheel, and I don't think anyone else is saying that Arma should lose its modularity. Extra functions would improve the experience of using the editor without taking anything away, and may even give extra usability to those who didn't even know they needed it. From there, with a bit of guidance they may then look at scripts that are explained on the editor and say "I wonder if anyone has changed this line before?" and tinker with it, learning to produce community content far faster than someone simply given notepad and the knowledge the scripts are something you can learn about online.

[Varanon 892]

What I'm trying to say -in a long-winded way- is that sticking to an archaic design simply because it does the job isn't exactly the best idea.

There's always the principle of "never change a working system" too. The editor does it's job, and while I think it can be made much better (*cough* 3d editor *cough cough*), it's principal way of working won't change because it's basically dictated by the game's architecture.

A lot can be done with modules (there's been quite a number of improvements to those from Arma 2), but in the end, you can't change the fact that, for example, custom scripts are just much more flexible than anything else.

I think a good idea for people that want to get into mission editing and don't have a good grasp of scripting should team up with someone who does. A lot of people want to make missions (and know how to script) but lack the ideas, while others have ideas and know a lot about balancing and such but aren't able to script. I know from experience that some good missions can come out of it.

[Sneakson 1]

The current editor is awkwardly unfriendly considering it’s available right on the main menu as if it would be someone anyone was supposed to use.

Nearly nothing can be done without scripting and sitting with notepad or other external programs.

Watch StarEdit and learn.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Nearly nothing can be done without scripting and sitting with notepad or other external programs.

With some triggers and synchronization you can do some pretty advanced stuff, and 'standard'* missions with objectives can easily be made completely from within the editor. I doubt StarEdit lets you create entire gamemodes or nonstandard functions from scratch without any scripting.

*Standard as in standard army objectives like capturing/killing/extracting x people in a certain area, which usually covers most standard missions.

[surfer 42]

Thanks, Alwarren, for pointing me/us in the right direction, really appreciated!

Just, wouldn't it be much more intuitive i.e. for the briefing to have all the ingame elements like in the mapview/briefing? Just double click it, enter your text. Finished.

The above example could then even be placed automatically as [module/intel/create diary record] and synced to i.e. all playables. This way one would learn to use all the tools and dig deeper.

Another example for basic winning conditions: Double click "tasks", drag&drop objects to destroy, finished.

There's definitely a point in giving us the tools to create the most complex missions but as a designer I would always go from simple to complex.

There are a lot of ways Arma3 could be more user friendly or on other topics more immersive, more fun, even more realistic. Just too often it's conservative thinking, hindering the process.

[Alwarren 2767]

I don''t really think I'm exaggerating that much, no. In order to fully understand and use the editor, you're looking at a *lot* of time and effort required to do the required reading, tutorial-watching, script-hunting and trial-and-error usage

It doesn't take hours. Sure, you won't whip up a wasteland/dayZ in an hour or so, but you can make an entire campaign like the original Flashpoint campaign without a ton of scripting (IIRC, scripting in the original Flashpoint campaign was used mostly for cameras and cut scenes). Everybody can make a simple mission in an hour.

Inventors throughout history see things that we do regularly and say "How can I make that better/ easier/ faster/ more efficient?

There is a fine difference between making something efficient and making something automatic. You can make the perfect modelling package for 3D modelling, but you will still need to acquire the knowledge to use it. You can write the prefect programming language and you will still need to learn to program. Tools do not replace knowledge; you need the knowledge to use a tool. And that knowledge is only acquired through learning. You cannot make something that solves problems automatically, at least not for sufficiently complex problems.

What I'm trying to say -in a long-winded way- is that sticking to an archaic design simply because it does the job isn't exactly the best idea.

There is always a tradeoff between what you can want to do and what you can do with the resources you have. The editor has worked for ten years now, and while a 3D editor would be very very welcome, the editor itself works perfectly fine as it is. I don't think it is archaic, and I don't think that there is such a steep learning curve as you seem to suggest. But even if it were fully 3D, you would still need to know what a waypoint is, how to place it, how to synchronize it with triggers or other waypoints, etc. The often quoted CryEngine editor is no different, as a matter of fact, every editor for every game needs you to understand the principles of the game's control engine to make something out of it.

i know the Neverwinter Nights toolset was always touted for being such an easy-to-use, user-friendly editor, and there is no doubt it was. But even there, you needed to learn the principles. The only thing a tool can do is try not to put any additional obstacles in your way. The compact layout for the editor might not have enough information for new users, so I think that the old layout might have been better as default. But to call the editor archaic isn't doing it justice.

---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:47 ----------

There's definitely a point in giving us the tools to create the most complex missions but as a designer I would always go from simple to complex.

There are a lot of ways Arma3 could be more user friendly or on other topics more immersive, more fun, even more realistic. Just too often it's conservative thinking, hindering the process.

If there were one thing I would add to the editor to make it more friendly towards newbies, it would be "Wizards". There used to be the "New Mission Wizard" in Arma 2, but it never produced anything that could be loaded into the editor. What the editor could use was a number of simple templates. For example, there was a template in Arma 2 to get from point A to point B. It would pick two random locations, make the ending trigger react to your group, and add a few obstacles in the way. The result was playable, but not editable. If you could load this as a normal mission in the editor, people could build upon this, add stuff, without caring about the basics that are already handled by this.

In principle, the community could provide such templates. Being able to change a few parameters on the fly would just be a nice touch.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Another example for basic winning conditions: Double click "tasks", drag&drop objects to destroy, finished.

Group a unit to a trigger, select 'not present' in the trigger, on activation field contains whatever you want when the objective is reached.

EDIT: I dont think anyone actually does it this way, scripting is often considered tidier.

Edited July 3, 2013 by NeMeSiS

[xendance 3]

Is it possible to change the unit parameters for multiple units at the same time? Naturally the "grouped" menu would only show the common parameters, such as AI skill probably.

Is it possible to group multiple units under one commanding unit, or do I still have to drag the lines one by one?

Is it possible to sync multiple units to a trigger, or do I have to drag the lines one by one?

[surfer 42]

Thanks, Nemesis! Would be great if MY action of dragging the objects would produce YOUR trigger.

Arma should go from simple to complex more often instead of from complex to bearable.

[marcai 1]

It doesn't take hours. Sure, you won't whip up a wasteland/dayZ in an hour or so, but you can make an entire campaign like the original Flashpoint campaign without a ton of scripting (IIRC, scripting in the original Flashpoint campaign was used mostly for cameras and cut scenes). Everybody can make a simple mission in an hour.

What exactly is a 'simple mission"? For someone to be able to sit down without any prior knowledge and look at that screen, I'm 100% sure that it would take them longer than an hour to figure out some of the basic functions beyond unit placement. I spent six hours on my 15 minute mine-laying-for-a-convoy mission, so... I guess I must either be the worst person in the world at using the editor and copy-pasting scripts, or you may be mistaken on that one.

The editor has worked for ten years now, and while a 3D editor would be very very welcome, the editor itself works perfectly fine as it is.

You can't spawn a unit inside a building. You can accidentally clash units due to their sizes not correlating properly from the editor to the real map and cause explosions. You need to impliment scripts outside of the editor for mission-wide effects. As I've said, adequate, yes, but "perfectly fine", it definitely is not. I'm still not even sure how to do a briefing, as the only guides I found online were full of tutorial makers saying that the only way they knew was via on-screen text. I'm not saying the functionality isn't there, as I'm sure it is, but it's not just me who can't find rather basic functions of the editor. It's workable, but perfect isn't the word I'd use. The example you used, the old NWN toolset, was amazingly simple to get a grasp on and actually had 3D editing pre-made scripts and explanations for what they did, quite a bit like I just suggested a decade ago.. Coincidental that everyone liked it, eh?

And no, before this gets spun, I'm not saying BI need to make the NWN editor. In fact I've said the same thing for a couple of posts now, but I'd just like increased functionality and some in-game guidance.

[Alwarren 2767]

What exactly is a 'simple mission"? For someone to be able to sit down without any prior knowledge and look at that screen, I'm 100% sure that it would take them longer than an hour to figure out some of the basic functions beyond unit placement. I spent six hours on my 15 minute mine-laying-for-a-convoy mission, so... I guess I must either be the worst person in the world at using the editor and copy-pasting scripts, or you may be mistaken on that one.

Without guidance? Yes. That is what video tutorials are good for.

A simple mission is something like the included "Head Hunter" mission - kill three officers in the area. A basic tutorial will have you do such a mission in one or two hours. You do need a decent tutorial, but that is definitely possible.

You can't spawn a unit inside a building.

You can put them outside and put a waypoint on the building, then select the building position to move to. Would admittedly be easier with a 3D editor.

You can accidentally clash units due to their sizes not correlating properly from the editor to the real map and cause explosions.

Yes that might happen, but one test run will show the problem. Not a real deal breaker.

I'm still not even sure how to do a briefing, as the only guides I found online were full of tutorial makers saying that the only way they knew was via on-screen text. I'm not saying the functionality isn't there, as I'm sure it is, but it's not just me who can't find rather basic functions of the editor.

I agree, but still, that is something you can easily pick up.

The example you used, the old NWN toolset, was amazingly simple to get a grasp on and actually had 3D editing pre-made scripts and explanations for what they did, quite a bit like I just suggested a decade ago.. Coincidental that everyone liked it, eh?

Tell me about it, I hosted an NWN PW for a while :)

The pre-made scripts and explanation is there in Arma 3 as well, it's the function browser.

In fact I've said the same thing for a couple of posts now, but I'd just like increased functionality and some in-game guidance.

I am not denying that. There is always room for improvement. What I object to though is what the OP said, you cannot say that the editor is not user friendly because you cannot place a gun shop. And however good the NWN editor was, you still needed to do heavy scripting for most complex tasks.

[Masharra 10]

Just too often it's conservative thinking, hindering the process.

For example?

[surfer 42]

I won't scan through the forums to copy examples, so here's just a few:

- leave editor as is (see above)

- command interface

- voice acting and syntax

- object interaction

- many things that could make the game more fluid but "nooo if you want that, play CoD!"

I think Arma3 is getting better every day but for many of the above and further aspects there seem to be better solutions in other games/simulations. Why not adapt?

[Masharra 10]

I won't scan through the forums to copy examples, so here's just a few:

- leave editor as is (see above)

- command interface

- voice acting and syntax

- object interaction

- many things that could make the game more fluid but "nooo if you want that, play CoD!"

I think Arma3 is getting better every day but for many of the above and further aspects there seem to be better solutions in other games/simulations. Why not adapt?

You dont think time, resources, and ability play a larger role than "conservative thinking"?

bah offtopic :D

On topic I think the editor is quite fine. Script database wouldnt be bad but who will maintain it and its rights etc etc

[Varanon 892]

Why not adapt?

As I said before, that's what modules are for.