BuzzerBeater Forums

It seems that the main point where you disagree upon is the fact that the viewer should or should not use generic animations for game action that is not written in the Game Engine (ie the position of players and passes leading up to a play-by-play sentence).

I think we can all agree that it's not possible to display animations for the actual game action, because the game engine does not contain these actions. So the question is, is it OK to use "fictional" or semi random animations for the sake of making the viewer more attractive?

I feel like your discussion would be more fruitful if it was centered purely around this question.

I personally think it could be OK as long as it's clear which part is fictional and which is actual, and I believe it's possible to make the animations in such a way that it's clear.

OK. I am not sure if everybody is on that same page. But, as an answer to your post, I am AGAINST using fictional animations because of these reasons:

(1) That is a lot of work and time, and we don't even know if they will be able to get the basic stuff done or when.
(2) Those animations will be fun during the first game we watch. But very soon they will become repetitive, boring or even annoying.
(3) There are a lot of real information that can be displayed and highlighted: they can mix the play by play with the statistics. When I watched games, I was alternating those three views (play by play with shots, statistics of my team, statistics of the other team). That mixing can be done by the viewer.
(4) There are a lot information that is not registered in the play-by-play but that is "public" and, solving some easy technical issues, can be added to the viewer: salary,. DMI, GS of the players, faces, league statistics and standings ...

We all enjoy this game for the data. If somebody needs a 3d simulation of graphic delicatessen, they won't stick to this game for long. We are data lovers and that is what the viewer has to give us.

I'm also against prioritizing those animations, I agree there are more important things and there's a lot to do even with the current available information. I just wanted to help your discussion ;)

I feel like your discussion would be more fruitful if it was centered purely around this question.

I agree. We people are tending to slip away from the purpose and the real meaning of a conversation because we like to talk. I do it very often and i know how exhausting can be. So back to the topic.

I agree of setting the real questions and try to find the real and important answers. I also want to add that BB its a game and it can includes "fictional" actions and events, just because BB itself is fictional. And if you try to change something and make it too realistic then there's a chance to make the contrast between realistic and fictional features even wider. And here it comes again... New thread new topic new "fight" of how can we change the rest fictional parts to realistic.

It's possible, it's a decision, yeah it's a decision of changing the hole game, it's gonna last veeeery long and it's gonna need money. But it's a decision that it has to be taken. So let's set the question.

I think it has been already set and it has been already answered.

So in the question of LA-Jeründerbar, i hardly believe that trying to achieve a better experience its not just not bad to have a fictional viewer which is trying to follow the pattern of olay by play, but it's one of the graphic touches that an app game (the browser maybe too) would needed.

Last edited by bobos-re at 10/5/2021 1:58:48 AM

I fully agree that it becomes useless from the fifth or tenth game you watch live ..

If the viewer has no decision-making power (substitutions or other change) or to see based on the animations of the statistics related to the game engine, the animation itself loses meaning ..

Now don't tell me that you would watch every game live with an unrelated and unimportant animation just to see pixels move around the screen ..

While I personally don't value those animations, I do think it's a legitimate question whether those animations can be of value to keep new users interested in the game. I can imagine a lack of animation can be disappointing when the first game rolls around, and maybe new users quit (partly) because of that disappointment. If the animations can be the difference to keep new users around, it might be valuable for that purpose.

However, in the context of an MVP of the app, I still don't think this should be part of it since it would be an overall improvement and not strictly required to make the game function via app.

Last edited by Jeründerbar at 10/5/2021 7:40:43 AM

And I would say one more thing about this.

If the current viewer uses so much processing capacity and even it is able to hang a web browser in a desktop computer (it seems due to some kind of memory leak) ... what can we expect from a graphical viewer with animations running in a mobile?

The current BB team is an obvious improvement. But even so, I don't think that they are at a level to ask them for extra stuff. The message we should give them is "make it work, in the more simple way possible". Any other message can drive the developers into paths that they are not prepared to solve successfully.

I think you are a little out of date when you talk about computers and computing power.
You have to think there are games (arcade games) that all computing is developed in the cloud. The user only recives graphical

BB is a very very light compare to that

Last edited by simba at 10/5/2021 1:50:15 PM

You should read this thread
https://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/forum/read.aspx?thr...

but it will take time, because it is very long.

You should read this thread
(https://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/forum/read.aspx?thr...)

but it will take time, because it is very long.

yea, but the problem there is a bad programming, not computing capacity