There's a thread about dream pve missions and such, but I wonder... what could be done on almost no budget?

 

None of this group would generate requisition or stats:

 

1)- Training mode hangar screen- Training mode could give you a hangar so you could use one of your actual ships.

2)- Free fly maps- This option would allow you to pick any map in the game and engage in free flight in the map.

3)- Multiplayer free fly map- queue as a group and all zone into the same free fly maps. Allow 1v1, 2v2, 3v1, and no compete (same team) options.

4)- Target dummy beacon- This target beacon would live in the training mode and have a million health and no armor.

 

With a little bit more budget:

5)- Manual wargame- You'd need a user interface, but this would allow you to preform 4v4, 8v8, or 12v12 games with willing combatants. You can choose any map (but it will somehow give nothing but Kuat Mesas Domination...)

6)- Enemy target training- Several enemy ships fly in fixed patterns in this training mode. The patterns are simple and short, but represent what a ship can do (aka, recordings of devs, like a Mario Kart ghost). The enemy ships take damage and explode normally, but don't fire back or vary.

7)- Defensive training- In this training mode, enemy drones fire missiles and railguns. You're still invincible, but your shields are not, so you can judge what's going on.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Verain

Great suggestions! Number 6 could really help new players a lot. I am not sure that it even requires much budget. If there were a dead GSF server, then 16 players with bots could implement this with no help from the developers at all.

 

For example, on shipyards, have 2 players go to A, one fly in straight lines, one fly in a circle. By the time you get to C there are two bombers crawling all over it dropping mines/drones and a scout zipping in and out of the obstructions. The bots would queue all the time. Players would que into it in groups of 1-4.

 

Of course, there is no dead GSF server and bots are against the TOS. However, I think a developer post of interest could get plenty of volunteers to record two 15 minute dummy runs in the middle of the night on a European server.

I suspect that they'd just recycle the code for the enemy ships in the PvE space missions rather than recording Devs flight paths.

 

Agreed in general though, the key learning elements that need to be addressed in some way are:

 

Ship choice, a stock flashfire does not represent the full range of mechanics in GSF. Let them choose their ship for the tutorial. Full hangar, or just ones they've unlocked, either would work. Monetize it maybe? 100 CC to unlock a ship in the tutorial, 25 CC to unlock a component upgrade. Old hands would grumble about unlocking things that they already have unlocked in their hangars, but they don't need the tutorial at this point (we hope).

 

Defensive mechanics. At the very least you should be exposed to the basics of LOS defense against missile and primary weapons, how to use a missile break, how to avoid a mine, and how to approach a heavily mined or turreted objective by taking out the mines/turrets/drones first. The value of not flying in a straight line or at constant speed when under fire should also be taught.

 

Offensive basics. Locking and firing missiles, including locking after a missile break. Firing at a moving target with direct fire weapons.

 

Energy management practice would also be nice, but for that to make a really big difference you're putting more time pressure on a newb than they're probably ready to handle. I think it's already mentioned in the tutorial in any case.

 

Hmm, the option to turn off the pop-up pages and a tutorial scoreboard with a time-elapsed, accuracy, damage done and damage taken breakdown would also be good. Let people see that they're getting better as they start trying speed runs through the tutorial mission. It'd be encouraging to have something that proves you're getting better at piloting even if it's not showing up in the scoreboard in real GSF matches yet.

 

 

Pretty much all of the above can be accomplished with static targets and, pop-up text explanations.

 

The only exception would be the moving target for offensive basics practice (I'd recommend Distortion field as the missile break for the target, because that wouldn't alter the target drone's flight path at all). For that you'd need to do some paths and script some triggers. Probably also test it a bit with an eye towards creative abuse, to try to catch any bugs with the moving target portion. I guess the tutorial hangar and scoreboard might also be work intensive, even with a high degree of code recycling. Still, this is the level of tutorial development that should have been completed about 14 months ago.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Ramalina

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=770330&highlight=rings+orbs

 

Rings and orbs is the go-to tutorial for companies that don't want to design full AI. Nothing can replace AI though, and if AI were implemented then we could easily have some sort of PvE GSF (which quite a few people have asked for)

 

Rings and orb tutorials have been around for ages, pilotwings comes to mind as well as other flight based games. In that post I outline how they can deal with missile breaks, power management, and other tactical based training. Most of the assets are already in game (IE reusing mines as orbs) leaving only the rings to be added (which would be dirt cheap and take almost no time)

 

Additions like accuracy ratings and ring completion %'s would take a little more work, the suggestion really is lean though. They can use most of the old tutorial and revamp some things based on suggestions. it wouldnt teach them about how to deal with unfriendly abilities, but im sure something could be worked up for that. IE orbs that use disto etc.

 

Anyways just wanted to drag this back up, every time someone mentioned a new tutorial I think of the linked post (which never seems to get any serious attention from anyone lol)

Edited March 1, 2015 by DamascusAdontise

I was thinking about this thread again today. The original suggestions by Verain are really good. If any developers look at the forum, I really hope they see this. It is a modest commitment of resources and the training area could revitalize gsf. In my opinion, his suggestions are easier to implement than the suggestions that followed.

We've been posting "Please BioWare, you're my only hope" threads suggesting a trainer park for literally YEARS now and not a reply or nod. We went as far as a good humored design doc written by people with experience with this engine and realistic cycle estimates to show it's not only a really important community driven feature, it is very economical as well.

 

I have lost faith in hokey religions and now rely on a good baster at my side.

lets at least get 1-4 !! cmon !! 5 minute job