Stream safe UI

[iceman77 18]

There are ways to help streaming besides requesting BI to do it for you. Either use small blurs, make an client addon UI that ditches the shown data. Have the server admin disable the scoreboard. Surely he'd do that right? Seeing how important streaming is :rolleyes:. Those are just of of the top of my head. I'm sure there are other ways you could help your own selves. Don't die so much. Don't open dialogs every 2 seconds. Don't worry about streaming and play the game.. oh wait... oops.

[_Mofo_ 1]

Wait a second!?!? Who asked anyone to stream their activities?

While you may *think* it's in the best interest of the company to "stream so I can push more people to the simulator"... is it really and is that really your intentions? Highly doubt either.

The more people who come to the sim = the more people who whine about how it should be = drastic changes due to a shifting player base. What are the quality of viewers watching your stream? Are they brain dead? Do they come from other crappy series and want to shape this simulator into that crap series? etc etc etc..

Onto the fat elephant in the room.... YOU chose to stream KNOWING there is information being broadcasted. YOU run the risk of being stream sniped because YOU are streaming and not I. The stream is about YOU and not the company. You can call it "free advertising" all you want but it is not about you advertising for the company... it's about YOU getting all the viewers you can to make YOUR stream more popular.

Word of mouth is the BEST advertising out there and people aren't watching twitch to find the next best game to buy... they are watching because the STREAMER is a good entertainer. People will go out and buy a game on recommendations from their peers vs. randomly watching some stream.

If you want to eliminate stream sniping.... don't stream. Problem solved.

Why should the sim adapt to you rather than you adapting to the sim?

ARMA 3 :::: survive, adapt, win

Just sayin'

[Smurf 12]

FPDR

10chars

[NoRailgunner 0]

What about optional A3 UI elements that can be switched on/off and customized?

[chortles 263]

The more people who come to the sim = the more people who whine about how it should be = drastic changes due to a shifting player base.

And based on the changes I saw showcased in Arma 3's 2012 E3 and Gamescom presentations in the realm of infantry, if the shifting player base is responsible for that, then I encourage the streaming to continue to further shift the player base. :D

Seriously though, modular UI elements like what NoRailgunner suggested wouldn't be a bad idea at all, even if you can only move them around on the screen instead of actually toggling them, I've done it in games where that option is available simply to have "most combat pertinent" information closer to areas of the screen where my gaze tends to rest.

[_Mofo_ 1]

And based on the changes I saw showcased in Arma 3's 2012 E3 and Gamescom presentations in the realm of infantry, if the shifting player base is responsible for that, then I encourage the streaming to continue to further shift the player base. :D

Seriously though, modular UI elements like what NoRailgunner suggested wouldn't be a bad idea at all, even if you can only move them around on the screen instead of actually toggling them, I've done it in games where that option is available simply to have "most combat pertinent" information closer to areas of the screen where my gaze tends to rest.

I don't disagree that having UI elements that are configurable are a good idea... HOWEVER, if it holds up the release of the game, I'm not ok with that. Add it in patch 1 or at a later time... but it shouldn't hold up the release of the game so that streamers can be appeased at the expense of everyone else.

And no... I'm not saying the expose in the E3 or Gamescom is the product of a shifting player base... those are common sense "improvements" to the system where as we do hear players saying things like "It's a running simulator" (basically meaning they don't like the expansive maps.... could be read as... "I want smaller maps") or the players who complain there isn't "fast action" or "the sim is to boring" or "why aren't the graphics like BF3" etc etc etc... If the devs hear that enough and take it to heart... you end up with another COD / BF3 series instead of a simulator that we all love and enjoy.

Basically what I'm saying is... as those crap series chase the "broader player base".. they ultimately shoot themselves in the foot because they are trying give everyone what they want. Whereas it "appears" Bohemia is building a simulator that, while it appeals to all sorts of people, is not for everyone (And it should stay exactly this way). At this point in time... it still "appears" that Bohemia is NOT just chasing profits (players) and is still focused on chasing quality (which gives us a great product... and I'm happy to give them profits as well as referrals multiple times over). When they cross the line and start trying to appeal to everyone for every lil niche thing out there... this simulator will start to decline.

[chortles 263]

And no... I'm not saying the expose in the E3 or Gamescom is the product of a shifting player base... those are common sense "improvements" to the system where as we do hear players saying things like "It's a running simulator" (basically meaning they don't like the expansive maps.... could be read as... "I want smaller maps") or the players who complain there isn't "fast action" or "the sim is to boring" or "why aren't the graphics like BF3" etc etc etc... If the devs hear that enough and take it to heart... you end up with another COD / BF3 series instead of a simulator that we all love and enjoy.

I see things differently: to me if a mission ends up like a running simulator, that's the fault of the mission designer. ;)

I do however believe that the focus of the E3 and Gamescom presentations was influenced by the greater visibility of Arma (gee I wonder why) and the resultant feedback, and of course, the fact that video game conventions are primarily "visible" in terms of marketing (instead of aural) gives credence to the idea of "focusing on what you can show off" and have others turn into text hype, and I see this 'shift' as well in the fact that throughout 2012 it was Stratis alone that was featured at E3/Gamescom and in Stratis being the sole community alpha island. Finally, you call the changes "common sense", but I find them far-reaching and radical... especially considering what usually pops up in this subforum's suggestion/wishlist threads.

Bohemia has tightened up the shooting mechanics to make it feel much more like a traditional shooter when you’re on the ground; there’s a sense of responsive twitchiness to the infantry combat that ARMA has lacked before.

This here and

are actually my own favorite ways to to hype/promote/refer Arma 3 with. :D

At least we're in agreement about a modular UI though; considering how my eyes focus, I prefer to simply adjust the UI and HUD elements according to where I figure I'm likely to looking at on the screen, which neither COD nor BF let me do but MMOs do (in some cases natively, or in World of Warcraft's case when using addons).

[_Mofo_ 1]

I see things differently: to me if a mission ends up like a running simulator, that's the fault of the mission designer. ;)

I agree here too... HOWEVER, with the explosion of players coming for Day Z alone... with no understanding of the expansiveness of the sim... that mass player base "shift" holding the opinion that Arma (the series Day Z is built on) is nothing but a huge running simulator. That's the type of shift in player base I'm referring to.

Scenario:

Profits double due to Day Z

Day Z players complain about Arma being crap because you have to run to much (Keep in mind "WE" all know it's not.. but merely a bad mission... but "THEY" don't understand because they're new)

Bohemia Devs take notice of the shift in player base and kick around the idea that the shift in players requires appeasing those players since they pay the bills

I'm not saying that is the absolute truth.. but it's a conceivable scenario. It's a reference to the type of shift in player base that could hurt the series in a bad way. More does not always equal better.

BTW... I hadn't see that video yet myself... effin sweet he can lay back and shoot. Don't know if I'll ever use that but it's pretty sick.

[kilrbe3 37]

You know, I just thought about this for a good half a second, after I posted here a few times on this thread..

This is highly pointless..

DayZ is getting its on standalone as we all know, and is already planned for Stream safe UI...

So why we need this in ARMA3? To hide our names in Operations / Big games? No...

Just for wasteland? Oh wow, one mission... Ya this is a pointless discussion at this point. Sorry, use what you have/players already use. 3 Simple blur boxes, call it a day. I'd rather have more content, units, islands, and features in ARMA 3 than this. But that's me.

[iceman77 18]

If streaming is so important to you guys; Stream in private games then. Period. Else, use blurs & be happy, or make a client addon to disregard/toggle some of the text controls. As far as BI going out of their way, so these newly had cod kids can stream arma... nah. I mean, I'm sure that streaming is the big rage in cod/bf. Here, the majority have never wanted or even brought up streaming features (in a serious/competitive way) through the last ~12 years. I think we can do without any of this streaming nonsense...

[chortles 263]

BTW... I hadn't see that video yet myself... effin sweet he can lay back and shoot. Don't know if I'll ever use that but it's pretty sick.

The video link was to highlight where my own focus and what I use for Arma 3 "word of mouth"... I don't use "milsim" and "big environments", I use "oh my gosh it's the first Arma that doesn't seem to have weapons handling lag or clunky movement." ;)

(One thing that I have and have continued to notice re: Battlefield 3 that it seems a bunch of its haters here don't get, is there is/was a demographic of players interested in combined arms with "real world military weapons", and BF3 was aimed in that direction because COD is infantry-centric, so in a sense it has a niche "between Arma and COD". :P It seems clear to me that the creative leads for Arma 3 seem to have taken some of the lessons that Jake Solomon himself understood regarding "complexity vs. user interface simplicity," and to me one way to market Arma 3 is to "bridge the gap" -- without making Arma 3 less complex -- for those who aren't hungry for "milsim" but cool with the idea of combined arms... so I actually consider BF3 potentially useful as a compare/contrast point when talking up Arma 3.)

As far as the idea of "DayZ crossover", I don't believe that that's really a problem at this stage now that the standalone is more visibly under way. You'll have a bunch of people stay on for stuff that the standalone overtly will not support (i.e. anyone not willing to give up the various maps and other mods) which to me suggests that they'll become "yet another Arma 2 mod community demographic" which may well transition into Arma 3... though I almost expect the Wasteland "community" to be the first, since its Arma 2 incarnation that's a custom mission and not a conventional mod -- set the concept on Altis or Stratis, use vanilla Arma 3 assets only, and you've got the Wasteland concept ready to go... all set to be streamed :D

I'm really, really not worried about the "stay behinds" as a negative influence on Arma 3, in all honesty... it's not like the Lifers who were here before the DayZ influx have ruined your precious milsim, and I expect them to find their way into Arma 3 as well.

P.S. I should add however that I in fact follow DayZ dev blogs/videos to some degree for hints on Arma 3 development... the chance that Rocket might mention something done in Arma 3 ;) but also looking at the design philosophy/mindset for any clues as to what's cooking in Mr. Land, Mr. Crowe, Mr. Buchta, and so on's collective heads...

Edited February 6, 2013 by Chortles

[iceman77 18]

It's not about "hating". It's about the fact that just because there's an infux of new players from other games, into this series, doesn't mean that BI needs to say "how high" when you say "jump". Bottom line... We've been just fine without any streaming utilities. Most of us would just like the devs to do other things in preparation for the games release. First its some streaming utility, then its this and then it's that... and before you know it, we're making sacrifices for redundant features.. Sure, once the game is in top form, then go ahead and throw some redundant features in.

[dm 9]

We've been just fine without any streaming utilities.

Thank you so much for responding on behalf of the entire community. I'm sure you're totally able to speak for everyone when you respond on the forums.

First its some streaming utility, then its this and then it's that... and before you know it, we're making sacrifices for redundant features..

Sounds very chicken little to me. Oh noes the sky is falling.

Again, consider that the people who do the UI are not necessarily the same people that do everything else ingame...

Sure, once the game is in top form, then go ahead and throw some redundant features in.

If "redundant" features mean the game is more popular, which means that it will make more sales, which means that BI will be able to continue to support it. Then I, for one, am all for it.

[iceman77 18]

Yes I think it's safe for me to say that the majority of the longstanding community would like for the devs (yes even the "UI Devs"... :rolleyes:) to focus on doing other things, besides making the UI "streamer friendly"... Especially when there are already ways streamers can help themselves. You can't be serious?

Also, call it chicken little or whatever you like. Are you going to sit here and tell me you've never had any games you liked, ruined over time?

Edited February 6, 2013 by Iceman77

[dm 9]

longstanding community

I think a lot of the longstanding community members are not so against change that the game they play should be stuck in 2003...

[iceman77 18]

I think a lot of the longstanding community members are not so against change that the game they play should be stuck in 2003...

That's why this series has stayed good though. Because they stayed true to what brought in the original fan base. Not being worried about keeping up with the times/mainstream, so to speak. That's why the game is good and has always been good. I've never had to worry about BIS next release being a flop, because they changed shit up on me.

I'm not saying a streamer friendly UI is gonna "wreck the game". I'm just saying, a games turning point from being good, to turning to mainstream shit has to start somewhere, and I'll be happy to do all I can to nip that in the bud in an instant.

[maddogx 13]

I'm just saying, a games turning point from being good, to turning to mainstream shit has to start somewhere, and I'll be happy to do all I can to nip that in the bud in an instant.

So how exactly would a streaming friendly UI (a toggle to hide certain info, or whatever) constitute "turning to mainstream shit"? I don't see the connection.

(Don't get me wrong - I'm not attacking you here, just trying to understand your rationale.)

[derdoe 10]

This discussion is going off-topic and i agree with MadDogX that the mainstream discussion has nothing to do with the actual suggestion/request.

I totally support this request, i am not streaming myself but sometimes i wished those requested features were there, e.g. taking screenshots etc.

And i agree that the requested features are not that much of development work. Could be solved over a shortcut with parameters like -nosplash and you are good to go

[iceman77 18]

So how exactly would a streaming friendly UI (a toggle to hide certain info, or whatever) constitute "turning to mainstream shit"? I don't see the connection.

(Don't get me wrong - I'm not attacking you here, just trying to understand your rationale.)

I'm not saying a streamer friendly UI is gonna "wreck the game". I'm just saying, a games turning point from being good, to turning to mainstream shit has to start somewhere, and I'll be happy to do all I can to nip that in the bud in an instant.

Hi Maddog. Ofcourse the lone feature itself not going to turn the game into shit... it was a response to DM who was saying something about the game being stuck in 2003...because we don't have streaming utilities. My point being, that, that's why the game has stayed good. Because BI hasn't jumped on the bandwagon of these other mainstream games. Because streaming is apparently all of the rage in cod/bf, so now, it's supposed to be in Arma just because of a newly had fan base from cod? I suppose next, BI can divert some of it's resources to grant us a jump button/key... because what's the harm? It's only one small, easy feature & some newly had fans find it common place to have the luxury of jumping around.

Also, the points already been made, DayZ is going to be standalone... So that leaves streaming for pretty much one mode? aka wasteland. Sure, other modes may get streamed, but the main focus of streaming in general would no doubt be wasteland or w/e it's predecessor may be (if that's even gonna happen). So... In essence, BI should edit the GUI, so one (non-Official), game mode can have streaming utility, even though there's no guarantee that the mode will even exist in A3? So what if that's the case? We have a stagnant feature that hardly gets used?

@Derdoe, how is this thread going off topic? Were all talking about streaming utilities for A3. :confused: Also, how easy it is to code for toggling a ui element is irrelevant imo :)

Edited February 7, 2013 by Iceman77