Jump to content
Thawk

[Discussion] ARMA Barrier to Entry Concept

Recommended Posts

This motion makes me wonder about the type of information that is being taught through the course. UOTC tends to stretch out way beyond what's necessary for Arma in its scope, which in my humble opinion, tends to diminish the quality of the essential information trying to be conveyed.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

It'd be more if four or five players you allowed into the community fuck up there may be a problem with you.

Share this post


Link to post

It'd be more if four or five players you allowed into the community fuck up there may be a problem with you.

Perhaps that should be quantified more solidly then just 'around this number, you might have a problem'. In addition, I agree it is a significant disincentive, particularly to those more active in running this course. Only as an example; one person might do this course for 10 people and have 3 of their people get banned, another might do 200 and only have 5 of their people banned. In this case, would the person with 5 people out of 200 banned be in trouble more than 3 out of 10? In addition, making the trainers responsible for those they admit may force trainers to make the 'failure' rate very high to ensure they're not held responsible, which might make the entry barrier much stricter then originally intended.

 

Perhaps it would be better to say that if x% of people you admitted have problems, you will be suspended from running courses for a period of time or until you do the BSS Trainer course again?

Edited by zenjamin

Share this post


Link to post

It'd be more if four or five players you allowed into the community fuck up there may be a problem with you.

 

That's not what Thawk has stated.

 

Perhaps that should be quantified more solidly then just 'around this number, you might have a problem'. In addition, I agree it is a significant disincentive, particularly to those more active in running this course. Only as an example; one person might do this course for 10 people and have 3 of their people get banned, another might do 200 and only have 5 of their people banned. In this case, would the person with 5 people out of 200 banned be in trouble more than 3 out of 10? In addition, making the trainers responsible for those they admit may force trainers to make the 'failure' rate very high to ensure they're not held responsible, which might make the entry barrier much stricter then originally intended.

 

Perhaps it would be better to say that if x% of people you admitted have problems, you will be suspended from running courses for a period of time or until you do the BSS Trainer course again?

 

Exactly this, if I put in the effort to train many more people than someone else and a few of the guys (who I'm apparently now responsible for) get banned I'll then get in trouble when I've trained 10x more people than someone else who's had no one get in trouble.

 

I really don't like the sound of it.

Edited by StatusRed

Share this post


Link to post

Is it possible to do a trial run of this concept before charter modifications are made? I would find it comforting to know this concept has been tested practically before such sweeping changes are set in stone.

Share this post


Link to post

The good thing Overlord is that these do not have to be set in stone, we can go back to the community as is if the system were to not work, there is nothing stopping us from putting up a reversion poll.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, sorry, I'm going away to France tomorrow so needed to finish up all college assignments before today so I can pack and get ready and didn't really have a chance to reply to everyone. So I've gone through what I have missed and I'll reply.

 

Endy: Firstly, I was not talking about you when I said about the criticism. Your replies have been comprehensive and are a perfect example of constructive criticism. I do see your point and I think it's safe to say that both of us are on the same page, that we want to fix the problem on the primary but we disagree in the means. Which unfortunately is a bit of a problem in trying to convince you as we both see different solutions to the problem. So while I can't get your support for the means of change, I hope I can get it for change. Just to try the concept out. Because, as I said, I am hoping this barrier for entry will ultimately create a different atmosphere (more disciplined, stricter) from the bottom up, easily exposing out anyone who is playing and not up to standards and allow us to take action. Therefore, fixing your problem. That's my intent anyway.

 

Beta & Jimbo: As I have said, no one will be voting on an unfinished WIP. I've said it, and I'll say it again, and over and over until people understand. The lesson plan will be fully detailed, with timings and a video to demonstrate portions for the poll. Trust me.

 

Status & Zenja: Rereading over what I said, it looks a lot more serious then what I mean. Firstly, I am sorry if it is a disincentive. But there has to be an action in place for instructors who don't evaluate properly. I'm sure you understand the need for quality control. But this action would be a removal as a BSS, not a ban or anything. And I'd be strongly against quantifying it, that means if X happens you're gone and no one wants that. You should leave like you entered, through an evaluation from UOTC. Don't worry guys, this isn't going to be a, oh jesus Status let through this guy, kill him!. It would be a chat, see what we could improve on and if it came down to it, eventually, an instructor removal. But it's not a knee-jerk reaction. Need to be smart about this. And just to answer Zenja, I think, instructors should be thinking hard about who they are passing and not. That is the point of the whole thing.

 

Rambo (And by extension Zedic): Considering the amount of people proposing it, I think adding in a section about UO and the what not to do/how to act would be beneficial to everyone and something easily done within the 5 minute section, which was actually quite hard to fill with content. I'll add that to a revised lesson plan.

 

Anyway, this is coming along very, very well. Thank you to everyone who has been positive and criticised constructively. Excellent discussion so far and I am happy with the results it's yielding. The concept motors on!

Share this post


Link to post

I did not see this fact of UO implicated within the write up so I will address it here.

 

We can all agree that there is a small hierarchy within UO such as Non-Reg, Members (provided this passes), Regulars, Delegates, and Officers. There is also another hierarchy that Regulars are more aware of than the Non-Regulars.

 

I think that a portion of either the END of the course or the BEGINNING should emphasize the importance of REPUTATION. Similarly within real-life a first impression can never be taken back. Within this community in the Regular forums we have many a thread dedicated to individuals exhibiting their faults as well as their triumphs. There should be a part of this course that exemplifies the fact that all we have to base people on is their own inherent reputation and the way they carry themselves. Regardless of courses completed, status, experience, time in UO, or what have you, reputation here reigns supreme in my mind.

 

All it would need to be is just a brief description as to that the Regulars DO HAVE shit threads that they can post either good or bad things about Non-Regs and Regs alike. This would prove to embody on the individual within the community that what they do, what they say, how they are perceived, and their actions will impact how long or short their time within the community can or will be. Many of the Non-Regs take this place as just another server on the internet, I pride myself on knowing it is something more and what we have here is not often recreated. The founding members worked very hard to develop this place and the playerbase (those that are good) continue to maintain it. As such, REPUTATION IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.

 

That's my only real criticism, otherwise, THawk, excellent work on outlining this drafted document and the end state desired. Mild tweaking will be required, though you have created a solid foundation to support this massive undertaking. I await the lesson plan to apply any other constructive criticism.

 

**Note** I know what I said above comes as an ironic thing to say given that I am currently banned, however it is a fact of the dynamic of this community. All in all, whatever man, I might be banned, but I know that my reputation doesn't reflect a minor infraction. I'm still going to continue this sentence, and then be back on the server by Sunday ~ maybe late Saturday depending on work and if the ban will have ended by then. Regardless, Reputation is a major aspect of what makes a member into a Regular here at UO. It can make or break your status here. Thanks.

 

Again I'm glad that Thawk is getting this through and trying to get UO to a better days.

 

Now I bring up this quote to light because it's very interesting one and fresh and it

puts us player as humans who psychologically take its self-pride as big deal.

He got the point, this community is so different and as I like like to call it hardcore

that we should give bigger importance to pride and playing in this community.

 

We are not just some clan that hangs around to play something.This

mature, prideful community lead by experienced people who give a lot

of it's life to UO for the joy of all of us to play.And this should be really

really really get through everyone brains.

 

How to achieve that?

Maybe with instead of formal; ACE is a mod that allows us to enchance our...

We take pride that in our valuable community ACE is addition which serves...

and even further conveying how different/better is UO from others

which would lead into bigger and different thinking and perceieving of UO as a whole.

 

So bigger importance of UO, is equal bigger sense of reputation and

your own involvements in play (leading and playing standard roles as well

so having your reputation on stake you would act as best as possible in your position

which would lead into better better play on sever.

(think of this like every play on primary as regular or any other event.Trying to give the best you can.

 

Now if you want to expand or further brainstorm reputation idea I would like to

hear it zedic, or any other who agree that this is much important factor as well.

Edited by enex

Share this post


Link to post

The good thing Overlord is that these do not have to be set in stone, we can go back to the community as is if the system were to not work, there is nothing stopping us from putting up a reversion poll.

 

While I believe that in principle, it is my understanding that in practice, there is more difficulty overturning things than voting them in. Regardless, I hope Thawk's proposal works out for UO.

Share this post


Link to post

Disclaimer: Haven't read the whole thread.

 

Thought of one suggestion...

If you're worried about this passing or not, put an expiration on it. Say, a month and a half. If that vote passes, then exactly one month afterwards it gets another two week voting period to renew it to a more permanent state. This way you can actually see if this helps without requiring a permanent change and a drama-filled reversal poll. We all just wait and it goes away on its own, unless it ends up so disastrous that it warrants quicker removal.

Share this post


Link to post

I highly agree with this system and I would be willing to volunteer as a BSS instructor as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Status & Zenja: Rereading over what I said, it looks a lot more serious then what I mean. Firstly, I am sorry if it is a disincentive. But there has to be an action in place for instructors who don't evaluate properly. I'm sure you understand the need for quality control. But this action would be a removal as a BSS, not a ban or anything. And I'd be strongly against quantifying it, that means if X happens you're gone and no one wants that. You should leave like you entered, through an evaluation from UOTC. Don't worry guys, this isn't going to be a, oh jesus Status let through this guy, kill him!. It would be a chat, see what we could improve on and if it came down to it, eventually, an instructor removal. But it's not a knee-jerk reaction. Need to be smart about this. And just to answer Zenja, I think, instructors should be thinking hard about who they are passing and not. That is the point of the whole thing.

 

Okay, thank you. That's somewhat put my mind to rest.

Share this post


Link to post

I know this thread has rested for a few days, but thought I'd offer a perspective from someone very new to the community. I took the Famil course a few days ago, after learning of UO for the first time very recently while trying to find some kind of good and fun community with which to play ARMA2. I joined the primary for the first time today, and did two missions. I was impressed both by the course and my experience today. I've also been reading around on the forums (obviously) and have been impressed by the tone and the openness to dialogue with disagreement. This seems to be exactly the kind of community I was looking for.

 

So, as a fresh FNG, I'll say that I think this is a great idea. I do think that some of the basic theory and familiarization is covered already in some of the (great) videos available on the site. I like the idea of combining videos with hands-on training on a server. I understand Thwaks' resistance to that suggestion (a few pages back), but wonder if it might be done during the training rather than before it (relieving some of the pressure on trainers and ensuring standardization). In other words, rather than tell people to watch the videos before training (which they may not do), the first part of the actual training could be watching a video. Just an idea.

 

As someone who has taken the Famil course, I'd still want to take this BSS course. I think the real advantage of it would be the actual mission training. It's one thing for someone without much ARMA experience to be told how things work, and even for some people with a fair bit of ARMA experience but not much experience doing it as a milsim. It's another to have to do them. Getting the chance to do them in a training mission and be assessed and shown areas potentially in need of further work is good for both the community and the player. I think maximizing the time for hands-on, in mission basic training is the key.

Share this post


Link to post

i would like to agree that we need larger segment of playerbase to be compitent in being ftls and who atleast tried to be sls, so they would understant what squad leader need from his ftls. and ofc if people are conmpitent with their roles like at, ar and so on our overall effectiviness will drasticly improve.

 

in short, familirisation course is a must, but we should make it short and straight to point without advanced / non-related information, so people will be able to get all needed info in concentrated way to start playing as rifleman.

Share this post


Link to post

Current Situation guys is this, the BSS mission is being finalised by Zumorc and the detailed lesson plan will be released upon completion of that. As well as some short recordings of the various BSS course/features.

Share this post


Link to post

While reading the new posts of this thread I came across something that could

become a small problem with the system that is proposed.

 

With the current idea regulars and appointed non regulars can be 'BSS instructors' at any given time so we can offer courses at any given moment.

Now the way I understand it is that you also need to pass the 'BSS training mission' right? Now how do you want to do this with only a single guy?

If a certain person needs a private instruction because of time problems than how can he attend a 'BSS' mission?

 

Please correct me if I am missunderstanding what the BSS mission is.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, the same way you would do a 1 on 1 Famil. Or a 1 on 1 for any course. The BSS mission isn't a mission per se but a combination of training tools the instructor uses to speed up the teaching of the course. Such as frozen AI in formation, working slide show and if possible AI demonstrating actions on X.

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

Is this going to be revised for ArmA 3 or have two versions?

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Is this going to be revised for ArmA 3 or have two versions?

 

I was just thinking about that earlier this morning. It's still early days with ARMA III so I'd prefer to focus on ARMA II for now, at least until a later stage in IIIs development.

Share this post


Link to post

I was just thinking about that earlier this morning. It's still early days with ARMA III so I'd prefer to focus on ARMA II for now, at least until a later stage in IIIs development.

 

I agree with still focusing on ArmA II, but I think it's important not to ignore ArmA III as modders have already starting work and if modding for ArmA III is anything like mission making for ArmA III then a lot of it will work straight off the bat from ArmA II. So I'd imagine mods will start being released relatively shortly.

 

I'm sure a lot of what's taught in the course will be very relevant in ArmA III anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, the same way you would do a 1 on 1 Famil. Or a 1 on 1 for any course. The BSS mission isn't a mission per se but a combination of training tools the instructor uses to speed up the teaching of the course. Such as frozen AI in formation, working slide show and if possible AI demonstrating actions on X.

 

Allright thanks

Share this post


Link to post

So I'd imagine mods will start being released relatively shortly.

 

Seeing as the game hasn't actually been released yet, I doubt we should be concentrating on ArmAIII.

Share this post


Link to post

Seeing as the game hasn't actually been released yet, I doubt we should be concentrating on ArmAIII.

 

Yes I agree, it shouldn't be concentrated on, at the moment I enjoy playing on ArmA 2 more than I do ArmA 3, due to the mods we have etc.. All I'm saying is that whatever system is devised should not ignore ArmA 3 as that is quite likely to be the future of the community. Saying that however, I don't think many changes would need to be made to make the course relevant to ArmA 3. Especially by the time the mods we use at the moment are released for ArmA 3.

Share this post


Link to post

Yea Status, this system will be made to transfer easily over to ARMA 3. There is an option of, if the system is voted in, closing off the ARMA 3 server to people who have also not completed the ARMA 2 BSS, to just cull the retardation going on there. But I'm not sure if people would go for that.

 

Anyway quick update. Shitty time of year for me, christmas exams followed closely by mid term exams and assignments. So my playtime is pretty low and I've barely been at my PC. Good news is:

 

Lesson Plan is 75% done.

Mission is completely planned out and it's being created.

 

So we're pretty close to a launch here. Hopefully should be good by April to vote on this.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...