Jump to content
Thawk

[Discussion] ARMA Barrier to Entry Concept

Recommended Posts

[...]Like Zedic, I would like the fact emphasised that this assessment process doesn't finish once the course has been passed.

 

[...]

 

With bans in mind, do those who have been banned for a set period or longer (perhaps a month) have to resit the entry level assessment in order to regain entry to the primary or will they be given automatic right of re-entry?

 

John

[...] I think the problem is not the lack of basic knowledge.

If I ask somebody what is a staggered column he will most likely know what it is and how to do it. etc

 

The issue is the degradation of the mindset.

They know how to do a bound or peel but they will simply skip the whole thing and move together because of lazyness or other personal issues. [...]

 

What I want you to teach these guys is that they will know what NOT to do. For example, they should follow their leader (SL, FTL, buddy), they should NOT run on their own. They should listen to their leader. They should complete the task given by their leader to the best of their abilities. They should NOT disrupt slotting by talking or slotting into slots that are not called. They should NOT yell, harass etc. They should understand that if they are in a important position, that they have a responsibility (PL, SL, assets). They should know that they will not be tolerated if they come up with disruptive plans...

 

I also want to you to devise a system that when you teach these guys the "common sense" stuff that is apparently not so common sense and they passed your course, and I see that they are on the server blatantly disregarding everything or parts of it, there is a way for me to send them back to you so you can "teach them again".

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS IS WIP.

 

I have written this for myself to have a clear index of how I respond to likely problems. All responses contain a common schema according to:

Those in violation of the SOPs and charter rules will be warned and may be kicked by regulars. The Game Server Officer and Web Services Officer may issue a ban within their respective domains in order to neutralize a misbehaving player until further adjudication is possible.

 

Which is:

Warn -> (kick) Ban

 

A) Slotting - Ideally less than 5 mins

 

The following are actions, which affect the speed of the slotting process:

 

1) Player talking over CO, Admin, when not requested/required

2) Player taking slots as not instructed

 

Arguments and or Actions Disruptive to Gameplay and or Administration
Any general behavior that can be seen as childish or immature that is repeated after warned to cease

 

3) Player attacking other players

Harassment of Users
Personal Attacks/Racist/Sexist and other behaviors

 

4) Player not on TS

2. - Users must be present in the appropriate Game Channels, while playing.

 

5) Player has a different name on TS

3. - Users Names must be Identical to their In-Game Names.

 

6) Non-leaders slotting before leader

1.1.1 - A Leader will be established for any teams present before open slotting may occur.

 

7) Player's competency is questionable.

2.1 - Users that wish to take mission critical roles are expected to be competent in their use.

 

B ) Briefing - Ideally less than 15 mins

 

1) CO has no clue what he is doing

3.1 - A Leader will be expected to present a tactical & coherent plan for the mission selected.

 

2) CO is making a disruptive plan

Disruptive plans for missions or actions which serve place in no Tactical or Cooperative manner. Intent to Disrupt Gameplay.

 

3) A player is disrupting the briefing

Briefing/Marker Deletion and or Disruption

 

C) Mission - Coop (1-2+hours)/TvT (0.5-1hours)

 

1.) Removal of distruptive players

3.1.3 - A Leader may request the removal of players that are disruptive or detrimental to gameplay.

 

I) Pre-movement

 

1) Upon loading or after a player has ND with potentially kiling someone

Negligent Weapons Fire - Shooting when no enemies present,at base,idle times or when situation could compromise mission completion.[/size]
Negligent Teamkills - Accidental/Negligent

 

2) Player is not responsive

Communication Failures - non responsive members in critical assets, and or intentional ignoring of commands/orders.[/size]
4.1 - Users are required to be responsive (actions or vocal) when in game.

 

3) Player (pilot) damages other players/assets while flying somewhere

Negligent use of assets - with potential to lose or damage assets by reckless activities/actions.

 

4) Player going to crate, picking up stuff when not instructed

 

5) Player is inside of a vehicle and talking and talking, hindering Command instructions

4.2.2 - Users must stop constant communication if requested by Any Player. (Music/Singing/Etc)

 

II) Movement

 

1) Player is not following, is going idle, is not boarding

Communication Failures - non responsive members in critical assets, and or intentional ignoring of commands/orders.

 

 

III) Recon

 

1) Player opens fire when the entire platoon is about to get in position

Negligent Weapons Fire - Shooting when no enemies present,at base,idle times or when situation could compromise mission completion.
Negligent use of assets - with potential to lose or damage assets by reckless activities/actions.

-------------

 

IV) Engagement

 

1) Player backblasts/friendly fire grenades

5.2 - Users are expected to not misuse assets though negligence. (misfires/backblast/damage/destruction)

 

2) Player gets killed, no respawn, reconnects

Re-connection in TVT/No Repsawn Missions with intent to replay/continue playing and or meta-gaming to gain advantage.

 

3) SL goes unresponsive/ignoring

Communication Failures - non responsive members in critical assets, and or intentional ignoring of commands/orders.
Willful Refusal to follow ingame orders or commands by users in positions outranking, or with situational control above users in question.

 

4) SL goes against instructions of CO, for example pushing ahead...

Ignoring prior warnings or instructions by Mission Leader/Squad Leads/Game Masters/Officers

 

V) Reconsilidation

Edited by Rambo2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just going to repeat what i said in the other thread, it got no response or discussion.

 

Why don't we just let anyone play on the weekdays and keep the server locked for everyone that has not taken the course on weekends?

 

This will let new players have a taste of the primary on weekdays and still make them want to take the course to play on weekends. This will remove any worries about closing the community scaring newer players away.

 

(As usual, please don't eat me, its just an opinion!)

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting ideas all above!I'm glad that something big is moving and I would love to feel how well and enjoyable was to play in the past, or when UO was founded.

Thawk good work, I'm genuinely happy about this to come up and that people are trying to make UO place with higher standars to play.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just going to repeat what i said in the other thread, it got no response or discussion.

 

Why don't we just let anyone play on the weekdays and keep the server locked for everyone that has not taken the course on weekends?

 

This will let new players have a taste of the primary on weekdays and still make them want to take the course to play on weekends. This will remove any worries about closing the community scaring newer players away.

 

 

This wont actually help the problem we are trying to fix. We will have a huge tard fest throughout the week and a nice tight knit community. I feel as if this will only bring around "Flavor of the week" players and will actually diminish our playerbase of the seasoned guys. But just as you stated it's only my opinion so dont eat me.

Share this post


Link to post

To answer your last point, that figure will be very hard to actually acquire as candidates will have to be evaluated. Am I to understand you will vote no based on that lack of specific information? (I am just trying to get an idea of no votes)

 

At this point I would vote no, because this is not a course of action - it's a plan to make a plan. In its current state, it is not actionable.

 

In terms of course content, I would additionally vote no if it were to cover what is stated in the syllabus. I do not see players having issues using ACE/ACRE, or with basic squad formations/tactics. I do not think that any introductory course should talk about tactics, ACE, ACRE, etc at all, because learning about those topics will not improve the skills of the average new player, or their level of play on the server.

 

If we are going to put a weedout course in place, it should simply teach new players the expected behavior on the server - how to behave when slotting, briefing, and playing.

Share this post


Link to post

This wont actually help the problem we are trying to fix. We will have a huge tard fest throughout the week and a nice tight knit community. I feel as if this will only bring around "Flavor of the week" players and will actually diminish our playerbase of the seasoned guys. But just as you stated it's only my opinion so dont eat me.

 

Nomnomnomnom

 

The thing I think (And hoping) is going to happen is that the majority of players that plays during the weeks will want to play during the weekends. This way we are using the carrot instead of the stick.

Share this post


Link to post

I did something similar to new players that I was fixing their installation, I used to take them to the test server to test our their mods and explain how we slot up, brief and play ingame quickly.

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

At this point I would vote no, because this is not a course of action - it's a plan to make a plan. In its current state, it is not actionable.

 

In terms of course content, I would additionally vote no if it were to cover what is stated in the syllabus. I do not see players having issues using ACE/ACRE, or with basic squad formations/tactics. I do not think that any introductory course should talk about tactics, ACE, ACRE, etc at all, because learning about those topics will not improve the skills of the average new player, or their level of play on the server.

 

If we are going to put a weedout course in place, it should simply teach new players the expected behavior on the server - how to behave when slotting, briefing, and playing.

 

I assure you that this is not a plan to make a plan. That document is a comprehensive concept which is essentially ready to be polled. There is no follow up plan or next step. With those charter modifications, this concept would be a reality, straight up. I'm not sure where you are getting that from, or if you're deciding to vote no due to it being presented in a discussion form.

 

In terms of the course, the plan has always been to teach basic soldiering skills and get new candidates up to a level enough to play on the server. That is a combination of basic skills and mindset needed on the primary. The course itself is a continuous assessment of the candidates and those who fail to pass the evaluation for whatever reason, be it poor performance, immaturity, lack of ability to comprehend.

 

Once again, the BSS section was put together to show this concept as a whole. The lesson plan will be finalised and shown before polling. More time with UOTC was needed and I wanted to get the ball rolling with the concept. Hence this thread.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
In terms of course content, I would additionally vote no if it were to cover what is stated in the syllabus. I do not see players having issues using ACE/ACRE, or with basic squad formations/tactics. I do not think that any introductory course should talk about tactics, ACE, ACRE, etc at all, because learning about those topics will not improve the skills of the average new player, or their level of play on the server.

 

If we are going to put a weedout course in place, it should simply teach new players the expected behavior on the server - how to behave when slotting, briefing, and playing.

 

Bloodbane, that's been stated over and over by a few guys including me in the other thread but it was largely ignored and the same "Let's introduce a barrier of entry" was proposed when it is no solution, at least not to the original problem stated in that thread (with video samples) and also mentioned here. It was also clearly stated by Herbiie that new players were not the problem here. The problem was a part of the current populations' behaviour, mostly medium experienced or older players' attitude. And in order to deal with it, this suggestion introduces a short training, using parts of Famil and fireteam courses, clearly aimed at new players, knowledge of stuff which is widely familiar by the offending people. It's not lack of knowledge that's the problem on the primary and it can be easily observed - just join as a random rifleman in squad led by one of the lesser trained SLs, or with so-so FTLs and see for yourself what the problem is.

 

No offence to anyone and guys, I agree, training's good, courses are good, and this thing here might as well be a good thing overall (or crash the influx of new players, time will tell) but please state exactly what you think the main problem is and suggest a correct course of action because this one currently fits to the problem like a saddle on a sow :smile:

Edited by Endy

Share this post


Link to post

A good idea, but the fatal flaw is that the quality of graduates will be a a direct result of the quality of instruction and testing methodology. Will instructors really fail those that need to be failed?

Share this post


Link to post

A good idea, but the fatal flaw is that the quality of graduates will be a a direct result of the quality of instruction and testing methodology. Will instructors really fail those that need to be failed?

 

Yes. An excellent point. That is where the fact that those teaching it will be appointed by UOTC, which will allow us to screen instructors and brief them on what's expected.

 

The second measure in place is that successful candidates are attached to an instructors name. Therefore, if a problem occurs then it's easily traced back to the source and disciplinary action can be taken on both parties.

 

And can I just add that I have never meant this to be a sudden, magic change to the primary, not have I offered it as full solution to our problems. What I have said is this is developed as a means to an end. I cover it in the "Conclusion" portion; that this will solve our problem with newer players being A. Incompetent or B. Disruptive and what it will allow us to do for the current population is to be stricter, enforce more discipline and as described by Boon, an alternate punishment would be refusal from entry to the primary until the BSS has been completed, therefore bringing the person who slipped through up to the same level of competence.

 

I say this as I would ask people to not criticise this concept for not solving all our problems, as simply put, it won't and I never meant it to, nor do I think any solution exists that will fix everything. But action is needed and this is the first step. A means to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
I say this as I would ask people to not criticise this concept for not solving all our problems, as simply put, it won't and I never meant it to, nor do I think any solution exists that will fix everything.

 

Thawk, I can only speak for myself but I am not criticising the idea just for the fun of it, or that it's not a solution to end all problems. Let me try to explain what I mean and why you see criticism.

 

I am only trying to say that you, and some others see a problem with level of competence of both new and existing players which is the main reason why gameplay on the primary is crap. And on this basis, you develop a solution which can be a means to solve that problem. The thing is, I think you see the cause of the problem where it does not exist ie. lack of knowledge, of behaviour, formations etc. while the real cause is elsewhere. I've been trying to say, like a few others, that the cause of the problem is entirely different and what you're suggesting is using a wrong cure for a disease you see.

 

All I'm trying to say is you're trying to heal what is not sick if I may use a metaphor. To use another, you see the cause of the disease in the brain while it lies in the heart. And by applying a wrong cure on a relatively healthy part, you might damage the whole delicate balance and endanger the organism. But you will not heal the part that is sick this way.

 

I hope it makes it a bit more clear and you do not see it as a criticism just for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand what you mean, Endy.

 

On the primary at 1616Z today there is 35 members in the primary server TS. 15 of those have completed the familiarization course. That is over half the server that hasn't attended the most basic course we offer here at UO. I believe mindset and tactical knowledge is one entity that cannot be held separate of each other. A player with the right mindset that lacks tactical knowledge will impact the quality of the server just as much as a player who doesn't have the right mindset but has the tactical knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post

I also see what you mean J.B. and agree that untrained players can disrupt gameplay due to lack of basic skills, although I personally have not seen a single instance of it. All the disruptions came from something else entirely which was usually "I can't be arsed" attitude or mediocre squad or fireteam leadearship.

 

Although I'd also strongly disagree with the fact that not attending famil course means anything per se. It does not automatically mean such people have worse knowledge than others who have the tag and attended that course once in the past. You need to remember many people come here after playing in different clans or other communities and using ACE/ACRE/basic stuff is something they know well. I'm not saying all of them of course, just pointing out that many people skip it because they know this stuff, maybe have also watched UOTC tutorials first etc., and they get on the server right away and do just fine. I never really noticed a problem with knowledge of basics, but perhaps such exists.

 

By the way, I'll admit I also skipped the famil course when I first joined UO server before last summer as I knew ACE/ACRE from my previous clan. I of course also read UO guide first, checked Tasel's training videos beforehand, like Famil course just to see if there is anything specific I did not know or forgot. I just did not wait to attend the Famil course before joining the server, I jumped straight in but that was calculated risk based on previous knowledge. And since it worked well I did not, in the following year attempt to join the Famil course again since I saw no real reason (perhaps wrongly so) to do it just to get a tag on Teamspeak. I'd do it if there was a requirement but since it was something I already knew and was not demanded I just did not..

 

You might call it a bad attitude if you think everyone should go through a famil course even if he knows all the basic stuff, but I assure you, I value any training I can get my hands on, never thought of myself as "know it all" and I also like to watch UOTC courses like Fireteam Ops, Navigation, Mortar and Urban combat just to refresh the stuff I knew or learn new stuff from people more knowledgable than me. I just rarely have time to attend the more advanced training sessions or training times do not suit me at all, so I need to restrict myself to watching them on youtube...

 

Fitting in was never a problem, at least after reading some stuff on UO and watching the vids, you kinda knew what was expected of you and how to follow orders etc. If you would like to say that myself or people like me are the problem I can assure you that I am not, and I've always strived to play to the best of my abiilities and do what was expected of me in a particular role, and to play well in a tactical environment because that's why I chose this community to hang around, because I was specifically interested in what UO had to offer and a chance to enjoy myself and learn new stuff, as well as gave me a chance to meet the guys and join UOAF after some time and enjoy military flight sims in a tactical way as well, learning operational procedures, brevity communications etc etc.

 

Anyway, I'm not so much against Thawk's idea, just saying that the problem with improper gameplay will probably persist as this solution just does not address the real cause in my opinion, that's all :)

Share this post


Link to post

I also see what you mean J.B. and agree that untrained players can disrupt gameplay due to lack of basic skills, although I personally have not seen a single instance of it.

When people are lacking the skills and it affects the gameplay of the server I do not see it as disruption. What it does is that it hampers the gameplay. What I specifically refer to is the numerous times I've given a command to control fire and I've had to explain slow, normal and rapid fire to an AR or MG. When I have to explain the technique of an alternating or successive bound just before my squad actually has to assault an objective. I find it very hard to believe you haven't seen a single example of anything of the above or other situations where the manoeuvre is delayed or goes tits up because a person has to be taught something during a firefight. Either way a firefight isn't a an environment that gives good teaching circumstances.

 

All the disruptions came from something else entirely which was usually "I can't be arsed" attitude...

That is an example of people whom we would avoid ever making it to the server. That in turn would help further and care for the tactical mindset.

 

 

Although I'd also strongly disagree with the fact that not attending famil course means anything per se. It does not automatically mean such people have worse knowledge than others who have the tag and attended that course once in the past. You need to remember many people come here after playing in different clans or other communities and using ACE/ACRE/basic stuff is something they know well... as well as gave me a chance to meet the guys and join UOAF after some time and enjoy military flight sims in a tactical way as well, learning operational procedures, brevity communications etc etc.

 

That is all well and good. But how many do you think have the same background knowledge, mindset and commitment that you have showed, honestly? Two-thirds, half or lower? It seems self-evident that if more players were like you we wouldn't even have this discussion of a barrier to entry.

Share this post


Link to post
I find it very hard to believe you haven't seen a single example of anything of the above or other situations where the manoeuvre is delayed or goes tits up because a person has to be taught something during a firefight.

 

I guess i did see something you might be referring to a few times, I don't deny that can happen. But it's a rather rare occurence, at least in my eyes, and I'm just saying that's far from being the main or even significant cause of the problems referred to from the beginning of the thread. It can happen, but it's not something that degrades the gameplay on the server a lot, not to my knowledge. I've experienced degraded gameplay, but for other reasons which I spoke about in other posts and thread.

 

That is an example of people whom we would avoid ever making it to the server. That in turn would help further and care for the tactical mindset.

 

I can only applaud that and hope for the best but I doubt it's that simple. Such people will sit through the training, do all that's required, pass it and then continue to behave as usual on the server. I just don't see how teaching them stuff they know but ignore can change their behaviour or be kept away from the server if it can't be done with current methods or their possible modifications.

 

I understand you think lack of training is the main cause of degraded gameplay on the server and it might be so. But I do not really believe that or the fact you can blame it on half the players or so not knowing basic stuff. As I explained, I do not think that is the main cause of problems and this is where this whole discussion comes from. We just have different assumptions as to what causes problems on the primary and how to fix it.

It's a rather academical discussion of course, at least until you vote the changes in, but you keep a few things in mind. Will this really help the real problem that's plaguing the server at all and how it might influence UO or its image in general. Such internet communities as UO can be very fragile and there isn't much room for error, especially when applying radical changes to how the community works, such as entry barriers. Just something to bear in mind.

 

PS. Speking of implementation. For me that easy access to the server was one of the appeals of UO. Of course, vids and other stuff were cool but only the first mission gave me that "Wow!" factor. I could test and see for myself if it's worth staying or not. And if you deny people that, some, even possibly great and valuable players, might decide it's not worth the fuss of jumping though the hoops of entry level test mission before they're allowed access the primary. Of course, it largely depends on implementation (raises a bunch of new problems on its own) but you may accidentally throw out the baby with the bathwater and instead of filtering some few bad seeds you will discourage many good people as well and perhaps damage the influx of new players and what UO used to be.

Share this post


Link to post

I see Endy's point. But in almost any circumstance of any community, organization, military, government, it all does come back to the quality of Leaders. There is no true defined way to "Become a Leader"....it's either you are, or you are not. If we really wanted to attack the problem, it would almost require us to force a psychological exam prior to admittance into the server.....that sounds a bit ridiculous to me....

 

I think that the proposed solution is worth the effort. Should it fail, cool, we'll try something new. Should it work, cool, congrats, UO is fixed. Should we see nothing, cool, let's try to improve.

 

At least this idea, in my mind, is a sane choice compared to others that have been proposed in the past...

Share this post


Link to post

I have to mimic Zedic's thoughts here. We should at least give the proposal a shot. Their is nothing gained if nothing is tried. At the very least if it fails we will gain insight in to how to better improve UO.

Share this post


Link to post

You need to actually hammer out the lesson plan. Currently, the "40 minute" session is at 60 minutes. What knowledge about being a Rifleman, Grenadier, Automatic Rifleman are you going to explain? How are you going to explain the formations? etc.

 

Give a full script of all the information needed so a potential instructor simply has to read it to impart all the knowledge, a good instructor can tailor this base of knowledge to the students and add their own experiences. Same for the exercise, explain exactly how it is to be setup and executed, there is no room for interpretation if you want this to be done by a large number of instructors, if it is precise, you will have many more willing instructors.

 

Beta is right on the money.

 

I certainly would not be accepted into UO if the training is not improved and I was expected to be proficient after a 30 minute training session. Every community I have been in has had differing priorities. The devil is always in the details.

 

To vote for a using a training plan to limit entry before it is completely developed would be foolish.

 

So much of this proposal depends on the basic level training. Currently some of our basic training is good and many of the participants really enjoy it. But respectfully to all who are contributing we are doing a significant amount of lecturing and very little training. The lecture demonstration method may be great for advanced courses with players who are keen. The entry level mandatory course might need to be a different format. Just because someone listens to someone read and then participates in a maneuver once (or twice) doesn’t mean he has learned anything. Despite how much effort he puts out.

And it is unreasonable to think we can effectively evaluate and judge someone's attitude.

 

Beta is bang on. I like the concept proposed alot ... but the details need to be resolved before we adopt it.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. An excellent point. That is where the fact that those teaching it will be appointed by UOTC, which will allow us to screen instructors and brief them on what's expected.

 

The second measure in place is that successful candidates are attached to an instructors name. Therefore, if a problem occurs then it's easily traced back to the source and disciplinary action can be taken on both parties.

 

And can I just add that I have never meant this to be a sudden, magic change to the primary, not have I offered it as full solution to our problems. What I have said is this is developed as a means to an end. I cover it in the "Conclusion" portion; that this will solve our problem with newer players being A. Incompetent or B. Disruptive and what it will allow us to do for the current population is to be stricter, enforce more discipline and as described by Boon, an alternate punishment would be refusal from entry to the primary until the BSS has been completed, therefore bringing the person who slipped through up to the same level of competence.

 

I say this as I would ask people to not criticise this concept for not solving all our problems, as simply put, it won't and I never meant it to, nor do I think any solution exists that will fix everything. But action is needed and this is the first step. A means to an end.

 

The text that I've highlighted above has now worried me.

 

I am a non-reg who is up for volunteering as an instructor for this new scheme. Reading the text above now implies that if someone I've taught on a course fucks up or gets banned (for whatever reason), it's going to come back to haunt me and I'm going to get in some sort of trouble for it. I think if this is the policy, it's going to put off a lot of people who are considering helping the community and this scheme by volunteering as instructors.

 

I don't want to be effectively punished for spending my free time trying to keep the quality of play on the server high.

Share this post


Link to post

Just please promise at the end of the course you don't mass TK all the 'graduates' as happened at the end of my Famil course, really not the right thing to do and the right mindset to instill in the members that at the end of a mission you should just gun down everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...