Jump to content
Thawk

[Discussion] ARMA Barrier to Entry Concept

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Sounds good.

 

Concerning making it compulsory for ArmA 3 players to go through the course, I think there may arise situations where that would be rather unfair. For example I'm sure, as time goes on people will join the community who do not have ArmA 2 but do have ArmA 3 and it's probably too much to expect them to purchase ArmA 2, install all of the mods etc.. do the course and then only play on the ArmA 3 server.

Edited by StatusRed

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds good.

 

Concerning making it compulsory for ArmA 3 players to go through the course, I think there may arise situations where that would be rather unfair. For example I'm sure, as time goes on people will join the community who do not have ArmA 2 but do have ArmA 3 and it's probably too much to expect them to purchase ArmA 2, install all of the mods etc.. do the course and then only play on the ArmA 3 server.

 

Yea, fair point. My intent with that, was to make the course mandatory on what is considered the primary ARMA game. So right now, ARMA 2 is the primary because 3 is just an Alpha. So the BSS course is run through ARMA 2. When we make the swap, ARMA 3 becomes the BSS medium.

 

But I think that may all be too complicated to go into. I think making it only apply to the primary ARMA game of the community is the solid option.

Share this post


Link to post

Run ARMA2 for now, and once ARMA3 catches up (post beta likely) then add the course for it. Keep both courses, and passing one is good enough for both games. Chances are there will be a point where you will need both versions as the community transitions, so plan to have both versions functioning at some point.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, firstly big thank you to Zumorc for getting the lesson plan formatted to UOTCs new style and fleshing out the Introduction portion. Secondly, the BSS Lesson Plan: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xp6VZpHO5vivdvmSC4KMkRW6YZxmwdkd0ANggZs3vhc/edit#heading=h.qb1acnbcwvbh Original document updated with a link in the Basic Soldiering Skills Overview section.

 

Now one thing to note, currently, the first phase is too comprehensive. Zumorc has gone through and bolded the important and in the end, the content which will be actually taught. I have personally run through this section and have done it in 5 minutes but we will need to review it one last time before it's finalised. We took on board what everyone was saying and made sure to include a Dos/Don'ts section and a portion on Respect and Reputation and exactly how these guys will be expected to act throughout their time at UO.

 

When Zumorc has finished the mission, expect two videos. A full run through of the mission and an overview of features. Oh and a "teaser" of the mission:

 

 

 

Here is the map layout: http://i6.photobucke...45/SCAN0021.jpg

 

right hand side didn't scan properly, what it says beside the lanes is (top down)

 

Village

Road

forest

Open Field

 

And the few bullet points:

* Not To Scale

* Completely controlled/enclosed

* Formation Boards could be turned into two slide projectors?

* Mac Candidates 20?

 

And finally the Key, top down:

Wall

Slide Show/Projector

Frozen AI

Sandbags

Path

Classroom

Low Wall

Board

Observation Tower

Porta-Potty

Target

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Really like the idea and structure of the course and would like to talk a little more in detail about the structure at some point this weekend if you are available. Let me know.

Share this post


Link to post

It should be noted that this is a barrier to entry to ArmA not UO. If this turns into a system where players that come here for other games need to require things specified for ArmA I will strongly oppose it. We are trying to move the community to a multi-gaming community and any community wide barrier I would be opposed to.

Share this post


Link to post

It should be noted that this is a barrier to entry to ArmA not UO. If this turns into a system where players that come here for other games need to require things specified for ArmA I will strongly oppose it. We are trying to move the community to a multi-gaming community and any community wide barrier I would be opposed to.

 

Noted. If you check the document, I inserted the word ARMA into a few places (title, server names) to try and get the message across that it is only that after Impulse brought that up with me.

Share this post


Link to post

Looks good to me so far. Tweakage will of course have to occur as we go.

 

Yea, definitely for the course. I'd like to do a dry run with UOTC first. Then get all potential BSS instructors in for another run.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Great. Thanks for the reassurance. It's a big initative. I would be willing to roll up my sleeves and help build this .

Share this post


Link to post

There is still some greater logistical problems to tackle, as the proposal is very vague on them.

 

As far as I understand Impulse, it currently looks as we'll not be able to create a fully automated "White-List" process as currently proposed, within a reasonable time frame. This is something we'll have to figure out before we vote this in.

 

Secondly we'll have to figure out in detail, how the operational/administrative aspect of this is organized, as in who precisely will be responsible for organizing, monitoring and overseeing the instructors. Naturally that would fall into UOTC's resort, but with the current resources available to the Training Center this is likely not feasible in the current form, especially considering the enormous demand the program will have in the initial implementation phase.

Share this post


Link to post

There is still some greater logistical problems to tackle, as the proposal is very vague on them.

 

As far as I understand Impulse, it currently looks as we'll not be able to create a fully automated "White-List" process as currently proposed, within a reasonable time frame. This is something we'll have to figure out before we vote this in.

 

Secondly we'll have to figure out in detail, how the operational/administrative aspect of this is organized, as in who precisely will be responsible for organizing, monitoring and overseeing the instructors. Naturally that would fall into UOTC's resort, but with the current resources available to the Training Center this is likely not feasible in the current form, especially considering the enormous demand the program will have in the initial implementation phase.

 

There is no white-list involved in this concept. It involves the altering of channel join power, something which can be done by anyone with TS privileges high enough. I tested this on a private server and it worked perfectly.

 

UOTC would ultimately control who is and isn't an instructor. But the implementation phase does not fall upon UOTCs lap alone, it would fall equally among all BSS Instructors. That is why the Training Centre is not mentioned in any great detail, because it is them, plus the supplementing instructors bearing the load. I see no problem with "current resources" considering the amount of people already volunteering for a BSS Instructor role.

Share this post


Link to post

I really like the debate and I believe that this concept is healthy and practical. Currently my biggest concerns are maintaining our reputation as an "open community" while minimizing the workload of UOTC to carry out this official function. I believe that having a training session once a month to process "non-members" would provide less stress on the UOTC staff while being often enough to still maintain our status as an "open community". I feel that any "non-member" who is willing to wait a month or less to be processed is already a good candidate without even knowing anything about the player. If "members" goof around on the server, they were given the rope to hang themselves with such training sessions.

 

Regarding the training instruction, the session should be an hour max. The intent of the training session should not be be an infantry course. The training session should be an orientation/indoctrination course instead with instruction on the basics (i.e. slotting, follow your leader, safety your weapon, behave yourself) and some instruction on infantry tactics (i.e. formations, point fire vs. suppressing fire, etc.). The idea is to get players to a tolerable state whereby they are no longer a nuisance on the server, but most importantly, versed in the functions and resources of the community so that eventually they will become more proficient players via participation in advanced UOTC sessions, forums, etc. We must all remember that we are a community of humans, and healthy interaction between us all is king. In one hour it is impossible to teach "new members" advanced tactics. Rather, we should give them a healthy foundation as members of the community so that they can train themselves in such matters proactively.

 

Force

Edited by Force_Majeure

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have time to read all of this so i'm operating on a number of assumptions

 

My recommendations:

1. Offer a way for new people to avoid having to take the course if they are vouched on by other regulars

2. Allow military servicemen in combat arms a voucher

3. Allow a voucher for those who take some sort of oath certifying that they have read a manual/rulebook, with the understanding that if they are found to be unable to perform, they will be removed4.

 

i.e. those who know their shit should not be bothered with stuff like this. I have been part of "Clans" before and had to suffer through basic training courses only to roll my eyes and know more than all the instructors. The objective of such a "Barrier of entry" would be to weed out problem players and to educate ignorant players - not to hassle experienced ones. I think all new members should be held ultimately responsible to some sort of manual/guidebook/class material though, whether they take it or not.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have time to read all of this so i'm operating on a number of assumptions

 

My recommendations:

1. Offer a way for new people to avoid having to take the course if they are vouched on by other regulars

2. Allow military servicemen in combat arms a voucher

3. Allow a voucher for those who take some sort of oath certifying that they have read a manual/rulebook, with the understanding that if they are found to be unable to perform, they will be removed.

 

i.e. those who know their shit should not be bothered with stuff like this. I have been part of "Clans" before and had to suffer through basic training courses only to roll my eyes and know more than all the instructors. The objective of such a "Barrier of entry" would be to weed out problem players and to educate ignorant players - not to hassle experienced ones. I think all new members should be held ultimately responsible to some sort of manual/guidebook/class material though, whether they take it or not.

 

I think if we go down that road, we might as well not mandate it at all.

  1. If you start giving any regular the power to vouch for people, you present an arbitrarily higher barrier to those that don't already know somebody in the community. Additionally how/on what basis are the regulars vouching for somebody (in other words by what standards do they judge if somebody knows everything covered by the course). We might end up having some regulars vouching if people just beg long enough.
  2. Without any intent to bear an insult to our fellow servicemen, just that fact alone that somebody has been or is currently serving in any given military/branch does not even to the slightest guarantee that he is familiar and aware of the contents of the course.
  3. Basically an interesting idea, in other words a "black-list" concept where people would be marked for lack of knowledge and then would have to take the course. Thus people would not have to sit through the course if they know it all. However this has some drawbacks. It would increase the administrative workload, but more importantly the course would not only become a mandatory necessity (that everybody has to go through), but a mandatory penalization, I don't think with the audience you end up with in these courses it would be an enjoyable experience for the instructors.

I have been guest, member, staff and founder in many online communities, units, clans and organizations as well. Many times have I been put through initial trainings and indoctrinations where I already knew large portions or the entire content and concepts presented. We are not talking about a 4 week cadet phase with hours and hours of training. We are talking of 40 minutes that you devote once and for all.

I know this changes this community in its core, so it is quite a leap for some. But if we present too many loopholes in it, it will loose its effect and fail its intent. So we either have to decide for it and commit to it, or try to make the desired change through different means.

Share this post


Link to post
...

That is completely correct.

 

...

If we make sure that the course is teaching more than just the basic Infantry techniques, for example how we slot for missions, what to do in a briefing, and talk about our forums etc the course turns away from teaching what they might already know to purely being a platform from which they can learn how best to perform in UO's Arma servers.

Share this post


Link to post

I think if we go down that road, we might as well not mandate it at all.

  1. If you start giving any regular the power to vouch for people, you present an arbitrarily higher barrier to those that don't already know somebody in the community. Additionally how/on what basis are the regulars vouching for somebody (in other words by what standards do they judge if somebody knows everything covered by the course). We might end up having some regulars vouching if people just beg long enough.
  2. Without any intent to bear an insult to our fellow servicemen, just that fact alone that somebody has been or is currently serving in any given military/branch does not even to the slightest guarantee that he is familiar and aware of the contents of the course.
  3. Basically an interesting idea, in other words a "black-list" concept where people would be marked for lack of knowledge and then would have to take the course. Thus people would not have to sit through the course if they know it all. However this has some drawbacks. It would increase the administrative workload, but more importantly the course would not only become a mandatory necessity (that everybody has to go through), but a mandatory penalization, I don't think with the audience you end up with in these courses it would be an enjoyable experience for the instructors.

I have been guest, member, staff and founder in many online communities, units, clans and organizations as well. Many times have I been put through initial trainings and indoctrinations where I already knew large portions or the entire content and concepts presented. We are not talking about a 4 week cadet phase with hours and hours of training. We are talking of 40 minutes that you devote once and for all.

I know this changes this community in its core, so it is quite a leap for some. But if we present too many loopholes in it, it will loose its effect and fail its intent. So we either have to decide for it and commit to it, or try to make the desired change through different means.

 

I agree with most of this.

Share this post


Link to post

Tutorial course(s) would help immensely. However, I haven't been around for too long to say "Yup the palyerbase has gone to hell..." because i have no comparison. There is some bad apples im starting to notice though.

 

Anyway, as the majority, if i could vote, it yould be a Yes. If it was me, i would even expand the basic training to firing range test with ironsighted AR15s and simple vehicle usage and recognition course( IFV-APC-MBT-... and such stuff, not the detailed names) and basic navigation. It could easily take up to 2 hrs and that is lenght of one decent mission. If the cannot stand that, they arent ready for UO.

However, the course should have moments where people are kinda forced to do mundane/out of context stuff, to see if they react to orders because they have to/respect leaders. Also some questions should be popped inbetween by the instructor, to see if they are following. The course has to have a touch of intimidation. Psychological pressure. Skills can be honed later with advanced courses.

 

If people are anxious about UO, that will make them stand on their toes and hold back. I always care not to dissapoint, because there is better, more experienced people than me and the longer i play/stick around, more of their experience i will inherit and in the end, that will make me a competent leader, not just a known face. When i saw UO videos on YT, i instantly knew you arent screwing around and i came in with that mentality. I know for a fact, if i fuck up a few times, my rep goes to hell and my time is wasted, others are dissapointed and their time wasted aswell.

 

Now, people that just come to "try" what UO is about, need to be steered in the right direction/mindset and such course could be the make or break thing for some, but that is good, you are rooting out the weeds from the very start.

Share this post


Link to post

Is there any WIP Lesson Plan we could see or do you guys want to wait until it's finished?

 

I think that referencing other UOTC courses during the Lesson would be a good idea, so, for example, while talking about bounding the instructor could say:

"There are two main types of bounding, Alternating and Successive, in alternating bounding both groups move past one another, while in successive bounding one group moves forward, and then the other group moves up to them to form a new line before the next bound, rather than running straight past the first group. This is explored in more detail in the UOTC's Fire Team Operations Course, but let's see if you guys can get the hang of it here."

 

And then go on with the course.

 

I believe this will encourage members to attend other courses and will also, perhaps, stop any feelings of "Well I did the introduction course, what else do I need?" as they will know that they are being taught the bare basics and that there is a lot more out there.

Share this post


Link to post

 

That doc is not a lesson plan. It's more of a scheme of work, with a plan somewhere it it.

 

It needs to be broken down into three clear documents.

 

1. A scheme of work.

A scheme of work is a document explaining course content, learning objectives, underpinning knowledge and recommendations for assessment.

 

 

2. Lesson plan

A lesson plan is a document designed to give a path of learning. It should have three areas for each section of learning;

learning content ( what is being learnt, how long, role of teacher ).

Activity for student ( what task will you give the student ).

Formative assessment ( checking student has learnt and is ready to move onto next section of learning ).

 

3. Summative assessment.

Assessment of leaning. This will define the roll of the assessor, methods of assessment and guildlines for evaluation.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the WIP screenshots of the BSS Course. Courtesy of Zumorc.

 

1 Classroom Area

 

arma2oa2013-03-2117-04-47-97.png

 

2 Formation Area

 

arma2oa2013-03-2117-05-01-48.png

 

3 Opposite side of Formation Area

 

arma2oa2013-03-2117-05-11-56.png

 

4 View of one of the unfinished FTX Lanes.

 

arma2oa2013-03-2117-05-19-17.png

 

5 Closer view of FTX Lane for idea of width.

 

arma2oa2013-03-2117-05-45-73.png

 

6 As above.

 

arma2oa2013-03-2117-05-48-94.png

 

7 Reverse View of Lane from entrance to Village section. (Soldier for reference)

 

arma2oa2013-03-2117-06-13-17.png

 

8 Entrance of Village Area

 

arma2oa2013-03-2117-06-20-41.png

 

9 WIP of Village Area

 

arma2oa2013-03-2117-06-25-63.png

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...