Jump to content

Add Briland as a MMO  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Briland as a MMO?

    • Yes
      23
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

My name is Briland and I would like to join Tinfoil and Fox D in the mission making office.

 

I am a computer engineering major, coding is what I do for a living. I have always strived to make high quality and well written missions, so much so that I have two missions on the primary that have been through six straight months of modpack changes without breaking. I have also contributed by making a mission for our latest in community TvT event. I have spoken to azwort about the need for an Arma 3 training mission for UOTC and would be more than willing to work on that. I am very passionate about my missions and the mission making community.

 

It is not my intention to take over the office, but instead work alongside the other officers. I have talked in-depth to Fox D and have brought many ideas for improving the mission making office to the table. I want to become an officer so I can enact policy changes with the help of the other officers to further the continued improvement of United Operation’s mission base.

 

A major undertaking that I have planned is a complete rewrite of Mission Office documentation to be modern, clear, concise, and helpful to all mission makers at UO. This would consist of ensuring that the MMO SOPs are up to data as well as a detailed section of the wiki dedicated to mission making guides, tips, tricks, and techniques. I want to take steps to make mission making easy to get into and help ensure that they produce high quality missions from the start.

 

Another thing I would like to attempt would be to run mission testing events once or twice a month. These events would be run by a Mission Making Officer or a certified delegate and consist of 5 to 15 minute test sessions per mission (These are not playtests) to fully test new missions and help work out bugs. These would help mission makers who find a hard time getting quality tests of their missions in and especially be useful for new mission makers to get feedback before their missions hit the primary server.

 

All of these ideas are still up for discussion and probably need to be refined before they are implemented. I feel like with more mission making officers and delegates we can increase the quality of the office and also increase the overall quality of mission on the server.

 

If you have any questions, especially about the ideas I have mentioned above or those still rattling around in my head please feel free to ask.

This poll requires a majority vote lasting 2 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post

Although Briland is a new regular, his expertise in scripting and mission making is top notch. He has stated and spoken with me in ts his willingness to work with foxd and tin to get things moving again. voting Yes

Share this post


Link to post

I voted yes, I support the idea of having two Officers running the office, missions are the most important thing when it comes to Arma, the Server stands and falls with the missions we have. I support both FoxD and Briland for the job of MMO.

Share this post


Link to post

After speaking at length to Briland he has very much impressed me with bothhis enthusiasm for the MMO and how well thought out his many ideas for updating the office.

 

I would be more than happy to work with him in updating and refining the documentation within the MMO and on anything else that may come up

 

Voting yes

Edited by Fox D

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to hear some specifics on what policies you'd like to change and what practices you'd like to implement. I don't need fully refined SOPs; I just want some general ideas on where you're planning to take the mission making office, and by extension the entire Arma community.

 

In addition to that primary question, there's a few others I'd like to hear from you on:

 

What are the ideals you'd like to see of the office, and what do you think you can realistically achieve of those ideals?

Are you specifically displeased with current policies or you do just feel as if it could be done better?

Do you have the time to commit to reviewing missions in the queue? Currently the biggest requirement of the MMO office is timely reviewing and uploading of missions. 

Share this post


Link to post

Verox, You've asked a lot of good questions and I will answer them slightly out of order.

The only thing I am currently displeased with in the office is the lack of solid documentation. For example the mission review process and its requirements were vacillating and a lot of its specifics, like what features of the mission were actually looked at in the review, were transmitted orally or through precedent rather than thought out and recorded standards.  I feel that all the standards that we hold both our  Mission Makers and the office itself to should be clearly documented and simple to understand.

Aside from that I am not displeased with any of the policies that are in place.

 

I really like the idea of  mission review, but recognize that in the state that it was implemented previously it was a train wreck for the office. I have plans for fixing the mission review process and reinstating it for new mission makers. The main change of this is that a review will be able to be done by any whitelisted mission maker; the whitelist will be maintained by the Office and consist of all mission makers in good standing with the office. Initially all of the mission makers with live missions on the primary will be added to the list and any of the mission makers who have had missions on the Arma 3 primary in the past can be grandfathered in upon request.

Aside from mission review, and the other ideas mentioned in my initial post, the idea of mine that will be found most controversial is that I would like to make Olsen's Framework the official framework for United Operations. I would like to quickly clarify that this does not mean that mission makers would ever be forced to used this framework. Rather, new mission makers would be guided to it and more documentation would be provided for it on the wiki. Olsen's Framework is also the medium that I find most useful to make mission making more accessible for aspiring content creators. I am also best prepared to support it out of any other choices because of how well I know the code. 

 

All of these policy changes and work towards two guiding ideals I have for the improvement of the office. One, to make mission making more approachable for new members, and to make it easier for them to create quality content. And two, to increase the overall quality of the missions for the server. I feel like the first of these two is much easier to achieve and many of the current plans in place support it well. The second, of increased overall mission quality, is much more difficult to achieve and progress will only be made slowly over time. The path forward in this regard is much less clear, but Fox and I have already discussed a few points to help here; most significantly, a revamp of the briefing standards. The current briefing rules are fickle at best, and Fox and I have already looked at taking steps to ensuring briefings focus on what matters most to the mission and resist redundancy.

 

The timely reviewing and uploading of missions and the mission guidelines themselves are the to most important aspects of the office.  I am personally willing and able to dedicate time to mission review and upload, and I know Fox has expressed his willingness as well.  Even so it is pretentious to believe that just the one, or even two of us, would be able to maintain an adequate presence one-hundred percent of the time as life gets in the way.  To this end both Fox and I want to bring in more delegates to help with the uploading and monitoring of new missions, ideally from diverse time zones. There is a lot of work to be done here, and the best way to ensure missions are uploaded constantly and reliably without individuals getting burnt out is to spread the load out.

 

As a community our gameplay can only be as good as the missions we play on, there is no room to compromise.

If you have any more questions or would like elaboration on any of the topics mentioned above please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post

The office does not need a third officer, it only needs an active officer. Mission reviews, documentation, uploading and broken missions can be done as a delegate.

 

Voting no.

Share this post


Link to post

If a mission framework is made official, does this mean that the mission making office will work to improve and expand this framework, or is it just making it official in order to say it's official?

 

What will improve by making the Olsen framework The Official Framework for UO missions?

Share this post


Link to post

Aside from mission review, and the other ideas mentioned in my initial post, the idea of mine that will be found most controversial is that I would like to make Olsen's Framework the official framework for United Operations. I would like to quickly clarify that this does not mean that mission makers would ever be forced to used this framework. Rather, new mission makers would be guided to it and more documentation would be provided for it on the wiki. Olsen's Framework is also the medium that I find most useful to make mission making more accessible for aspiring content creators. I am also best prepared to support it out of any other choices because of how well I know the code.

 

Ew.

 

Guiding Mission Makers into using one framework WILL limit what they can do, as any framework does, and to pigeon hole new mission makers (even if you're not forcing it, it will happen) rather than presenting them with all of the options and allowing them to make their own decisions about which framework to use is counter-productive.

 

It would be much better rather than jumping off to make one single official framework to making a single, very extensive guide that gives mission makers options and teaches and explains what is expected and how they can do what is expected, together with an efficient support network where they can ask questions and have them answered well.

 

That's what's missing from our Mission Making Office, better guidance for new mission makers, not a limiting Official Framework.

Edited by Herbiie

Share this post


Link to post

Ew.

 

Guiding Mission Makers into using one framework WILL limit what they can do, as any framework does, and to pigeon hole new mission makers (even if you're not forcing it, it will happen) rather than presenting them with all of the options and allowing them to make their own decisions about which framework to use is counter-productive.

 

It would be much better rather than jumping off to make one single official framework to making a single, very extensive guide that gives mission makers options and teaches and explains what is expected and how they can do what is expected, together with an efficient support network where they can ask questions and have them answered well.

 

That's what's missing from our Mission Making Office, better guidance for new mission makers, not a limiting Official Framework.

 

Noted, my intent wasn't to limit anyone, and I surly don't want to discourage mission makers from using other frameworks. My intent was just to help get new mission makers comfortable with the process.  I intend to write a guide like yours for developing your first mission with Olsen's and also write guides for other mission making techniques,  most of which don't require a specific framework.

 

If a mission framework is made official, does this mean that the mission making office will work to improve and expand this framework, or is it just making it official in order to say it's official?

 

What will improve by making the Olsen framework The Official Framework for UO missions?

 

The intent was to guide new mission makers to a format that is easier to get into then a bare mission.  I have already developed several modules for Olsen's framework which expand its functionality and will continue to do so. The framework was written to be modular and lends itself very well to group development and creativity.  More mission makers creating modules will expand the common code-base of the community and will prevent reinventing the wheel.  

Edited by Briland

Share this post


Link to post

I see your intention with making the Olsen framework official, and the idea is a good one, but for terminology's sake I would leave out the "official". I echo VKings sentiment about the additional support on Olsen's framework, if it is selected as the primary framework for new mission makers; there have been issues in the past with this framework where it would break and subsequently all missions on the primary that used it would break. We'd need to know that there would be timely fixes to these problems, should they ever occur again.

 

In regards to mission reviewing, would this mean mission makers are able to review and pass their own missions? This has the potential to severely damaging, especially as all active mission makers are included upon release. We've been having trouble recently with some mission makers not even doing cursory testing on their missions like checking for script errors, or if the mission even loads. As I'm sure you're aware a corrupted mission is capable of bringing every single ArmA server we own down (that share the same mission repository) until someone can remove that mission and restart the server. This is a nightmare whenever it occurs for the people who manage the server, as it's usually Impulse (and at times myself) who will first discover it's broken and have to drop whatever we're doing to fix it, sometimes hours later as people have a extremely annoying habit of not notifying us of problems.

 

The rest of your ideas are pretty good and you seem overall pretty motivated, but I'd recommend you break it down into smaller manageable tasks, prioritize them, create a timeline and publish that timeline. It's a problem that has plagued UOTC since almost it's creation that plenty of good things can be implemented, but there just isn't the manpower or time and eventually nothing gets done at all.

 

I'm abstaining my vote for now pending the answer to my above concerns, but leaning towards a yes.

Share this post


Link to post

In regards to mission reviewing, would this mean mission makers are able to review and pass their own missions? This has the potential to severely damaging, especially as all active mission makers are included upon release. 

 

Missions would need to be peer reviewed, this means that yes you can have your friends review your mission, but if an individual is noted for multiple bad reviews they will be remove from the whitelist and be unable to review any further missions at all. 

 

I'd recommend you break it down into smaller manageable tasks, prioritize them, create a timeline and publish that timeline. 

 

That is a good idea and I'll speak to Fox about coming up with something, documentation will be very time consuming but the hope is to get more contributors from the mission making community.

 

I see your intention with making the Olsen framework official, and the idea is a good one, but for terminology's sake I would leave out the "official". I echo VKings sentiment about the additional support on Olsen's framework, if it is selected as the primary framework for new mission makers; there have been issues in the past with this framework where it would break and subsequently all missions on the primary that used it would break. We'd need to know that there would be timely fixes to these problems, should they ever occur again.

 

I hear these concerns and acknowledge  what you all are saying. I feel confident that I can fix any minor to medium problem in Olsen's framework myself quickly in the absence of Olsen himself. 

Edited by Briland

Share this post


Link to post

 I intend to write a guide like yours for developing your first mission with Olsen's and also write guides for other mission making techniques,  most of which don't require a specific framework.

 

I think that a guide that is far more comprehensive than mine (which is beyond my ability to create) would be very good.

 

On the subject of frameworks, a tutorial that sets up the bare basics might not be a bad idea, one that allows the new mission maker to create a simple "Clear this town!" mission that gives them an extremely basic framework that they have created themselves rather than one that has been premade for them would be good, as this would show how everything works. You can then point to the existing frameworks and open up their options, and therefore still achieving your desired effect for the Olsen's Framework while bypassing the issues of over-reliance and pigeon holing.

 

A series of UO-approved modules that can be dropped into missions for the 'Polished' parts of a mission wouldn't be a bad idea either (examples being TVT Set up timers, AO limits, that annoying thing that covers up the map except the AO etc.), so long as they come with a detailed read me that explains how it works so the new mission maker can understand a bit better.

 

Combined with a good system for dealing with questions this sort of thing would make it much easier for new mission makers to start producing missions, although it would require a lot of work.

Share this post


Link to post

A series of UO-approved modules that can be dropped into missions for the 'Polished' parts of a mission wouldn't be a bad idea either (examples being TVT Set up timers, AO limits, that annoying thing that covers up the map except the AO etc.), so long as they come with a detailed read me that explains how it works so the new mission maker can understand a bit better.

 

These modules already exist in the framework and work fantastically. I haven't used all of the modules so I cant verify they all work, but the ones I have used worked. These modules are very easy to write for an established mission maker who is comfortable for SQF and are the main benefit of Olsen's framework.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, and not at the moment but it would probably be a simple thing to write a standalone bit without the framework to plug the modules into.

Share this post


Link to post

I have looked for any readme files on the different modules many times and could only find a wiki that had minimal info on it. Please point their location out too me.  As a new mission maker I could not find any info that I could use on how to use the frameworks, what was required, and were to start so i gave up.

Share this post


Link to post

I have looked for any readme files on the different modules many times and could only find a wiki that had minimal info on it. Please point their location out too me.  As a new mission maker I could not find any info that I could use on how to use the frameworks, what was required, and were to start so i gave up.

 

Each module has its own documentation in its settings.sqf file. This file can be found at /modules/<Module-Name>/settings.sqf  

The only framework files that a mission maker should even open are the files found in /customization/ (not in /customization/core/ ) and the settings files for each of the enabled modules. Each of these files contains guiding comments and documentation in the file itself.

 

To be fair this is not stated clearly, although each of the steps you need to take to make a mission with the framework are indeed referenced on the wiki.

 

Thank you for bringing this lack of basic clarification to my knowledge. 

Edited by Briland

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...