The dire lack of good american football management games. - Page 2

JeffR · 08-06-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Out of curiosity, is EHM 2k5 more like FM or more like the last CM? (I haven't tried FM, so I can't really compare).

The reason I ask is because the sheer number of clicks required for certain routine tasks in EHM2k5 might be the one complaint I'd have after a couple of otherwise pretty doggoned enjoyable days.

Somewhere in between them, but probably a little closer to the old CM. The guys have done what they can to make the old interface easier to use, but FM has the advantage of starting from scratch. The slick right-click menus in FM vastly reduce the amount of screen-to-screen moves you need to make, but the limitations of the old code prevented a perfect implementation of that in EHM. So you get some right-clicking, but not for a lot of things you'd like to have it for.

Retrofitting hockey-specific things like the draft, individual line instructions, and so on into an engine that was originally intended for soccer has made parts of the interface a little clumsy, too. That's gradually getting smoothed out, though.

Philliesfan980 · 08-06-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Maple Leafs read my mind.

My mind as well. It took me awhile when I first got it to actually WANT to play the game rather than feel like it was a chore to play. I still don't play it that often mainly because of the interface.

Marc Vaughan · 08-06-2005, 07:20 PM

I personally think the FOF GUI isn't bad - presentation-wise it could be nicer and there are some usability issues kicking around (but the same could be said of FM

) ... but I've seen much worse in my time.

I have in the past tried to nudge Jim towards a less 'windowsesque' style of presentation, but he wants to spend the time on gameplay rather than window-dressing which is a decision I personally respect ....

Buccaneer · 08-06-2005, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I personally think the FOF GUI isn't bad - presentation-wise it could be nicer and there are some usability issues kicking around (but the same could be said of FM

) ... but I've seen much worse in my time.

I have in the past tried to nudge Jim towards a less 'windowsesque' style of presentation, but he wants to spend the time on gameplay rather than window-dressing which is a decision I personally respect ....

...because he can better support and manage a few thousand sales/customers instead of hundreds of thousands as with SI. For a solo developer, that is a brilliant decision (much like with Brian as well). Jim even said that if he had a staff (or at least someone who could design a better interface), his games would look and be different.

Maple Leafs · 08-06-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I have in the past tried to nudge Jim towards a less 'windowsesque' style of presentation, but he wants to spend the time on gameplay rather than window-dressing which is a decision I personally respect ....

I can respect it to, and in Jim's case it's probably the right call. But in general terms, there does come a point where user interface is a gameplay issue. It's not the either/or situation that some people around here like to pretend it is.

aran · 08-06-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yeah, that's where the thread went off the rails. Plus, I suspect GE's been drinking, because he doesn't normally type that badly.

Two suggestions, aran:

1. A lot of what you're talking about has been talked about at length before. Do a search and browse some previous threads on the topic.

2. This forum is filled with people who have extensive experience in real-world programming. I don't recommend acting like you know it all "Java, my friend" when you're 19 years old and just learning the trade.

1. I know it probably has been discussed to death. The FoF bit was an aside in my post. I wanted to know about the math side of assembling a football sim.

2. The guy who responed to me with annoying unproductive comments wasn't an expert. I took that tone with that one person who essentially proved to me that i knew more about CS than he did. Don't generalize so easily. I have a lot of respect for the people at this forum who know their stuff and have significant experience. I just want to improve things, and i have the time to try.

aran · 08-06-2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch

There's a big difference between Fido and aran. Fido was a computer geek while aran is a computer nerd.

You're a funny guy. Just because i haven't done anything for this community doesn't mean that i have never done anything in my life.

Why should i sit here and brag about what i've done in the past? I'm looking forward at things, not backwards. I could sit here and preach to you about the concepts of UI design that i think work the best, but i'm not. I'm just putting my foot forward, saying that i'd like to help with FoF or i'd like to put my own finger in the football sim pie.

Sheesh. Talk about a cursory judgement taken to extremes.

GoldenEagle · 08-06-2005, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aran

2. The guy who responed to me with annoying unproductive comments wasn't an expert. I took that tone with that one person who essentially proved to me that i knew more about CS than he did. Don't generalize so easily. I have a lot of respect for the people at this forum who know their stuff and have significant experience. I just want to improve things, and i have the time to try.

How do you know I am not an expert? Just curious how you can make this conclusion.

Coffee Warlord · 08-06-2005, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aran

I'm just putting my foot forward, saying that i'd like to help with FoF or i'd like to put my own finger in the football sim pie.

Then do it, more power to you. In all brutal honestly, don't be surprised (or irritated) that pretty much no one here will take your plans seriously until we've seen something produced. Just the way things work.

Cringer · 08-06-2005, 11:59 PM

Good luck to you aran, I hope you find someone to team up with on this project.

I find it hard to believe so many guys are being assholes about a desire to make a new game, but then again maybe there are just a lot of assholes.

Marc Vaughan · 08-07-2005, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

...because he can better support and manage a few thousand sales/customers instead of hundreds of thousands as with SI. For a solo developer, that is a brilliant decision (much like with Brian as well). Jim even said that if he had a staff (or at least someone who could design a better interface), his games would look and be different.

Thats exactly what I meant (and probably would have posted if my wireless network wasn't up and down all the time at the moment, leading to shorter posts and lots of frustration

).

I'm sure in time Jim will implement a 'funkier' GUI for his games, however at the moment I think his decision to concentrate upon gameplay is sensible - SI have the advantage of more man-power and so those people who aren't particularly 'into' gameplay can concentrate on GUI areas and similar functionality ..

wheels · 08-07-2005, 08:27 AM

all of this sounds eerily familiar.

Dutch · 08-07-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aran

You're a funny guy. Just because i haven't done anything for this community doesn't mean that i have never done anything in my life.

Why should i sit here and brag about what i've done in the past? I'm looking forward at things, not backwards. I could sit here and preach to you about the concepts of UI design that i think work the best, but i'm not. I'm just putting my foot forward, saying that i'd like to help with FoF or i'd like to put my own finger in the football sim pie.

Sheesh. Talk about a cursory judgement taken to extremes.

Sorry. I was being pretty rude. I agree with most of what you say. FWIW.

kcchief19 · 08-07-2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Anyway, two months later I see him again and he starts in with the Madden stories. I ask him about FOF, and he kind of shrugs and says he tried it but couldn't get into it. I asked him far he went, and he told me he didn't even get out of the pre-season.

That's the interface at work, folks. This guy has a science degree and sells technical equipment for a living -- he's no dummy. But he couldn't quickly figure out how the FOF interface worked and had better things to do with his time than spend hours learning it.

This doesn't happen to everyone, clearly, but it does happen. The new users are the ones who are leaving because of interface issues, not us oldtimers.

Let me start by saying that I'm bewildered by people who think the FOF interface is complicated or confusing. I think it is about the most self-explanatory interface you're ever going to see. And if you can't figure out how to use the interface, then RTFM.

I have always firmly believed that people use the FOF interface as an excuse, on both sides of the equation. Fans of FOF argue that the interface doesn't matter as long as the AI is solid and there are no bugs. Those who dislike FOF blame it on the interface.

But there are two main groups of interface critics: those who say it is complicated and those who say it is boring. The boring group I take at face value; I think these are folks raised on Madden and are unable or unwilling to accept an interface that doesn't have a soundtrack or lots of splash. That's their prerogative. But I don't buy the argument from the complicated group at all; I think their "real" complaint is that the game is complicated and they choose to blame the interface rather than admit that they game has more elements than they are looking for. If you are looking for a franchise mode that is deeper than Madden, FOF might not necessarily be for you because it is considerable deeper than Madden. I don't think that is an indictment of those users, I think it is just a reflection that it's not the interface.

I think by and large the interface for FOF is ideal for its audience. I have no doubt there are people who like FOF who wouldn't want a TPF-style interface. Would FOF increase it's market appeal with a different interface? Very likely, but I think it would come with a different set of headaches. A modified interface would certainly draw new users but almost cetainly with different expectations. I think FOF is designed for serious text-sim gamers; a "prettier" interface would likely attract people who are interested in eye-candy but not as much in substance, which would lead to disstatisfaction. I think FOF's current interface creates a realistic expectation of what the game will be like.

kcchief19 · 08-07-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aran

Does anyone here have experience (besides the FoF devs) with developing the mathematical end of a football sim?

Since this is the only question you want answer to, the answer is no. Doesn't sound like you're interested in much other feedback, which if I can offer constructive criticism isn't necesssarily the right approach for someone considering an open source project.

Dutch · 08-07-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Let me start by saying that I'm bewildered by people who think the FOF interface is complicated or confusing. I think it is about the most self-explanatory interface you're ever going to see. And if you can't figure out how to use the interface, then RTFM.

I have always firmly believed that people use the FOF interface as an excuse, on both sides of the equation. Fans of FOF argue that the interface doesn't matter as long as the AI is solid and there are no bugs. Those who dislike FOF blame it on the interface.

But there are two main groups of interface critics: those who say it is complicated and those who say it is boring. The boring group I take at face value; I think these are folks raised on Madden and are unable or unwilling to accept an interface that doesn't have a soundtrack or lots of splash. That's their prerogative. But I don't buy the argument from the complicated group at all; I think their "real" complaint is that the game is complicated and they choose to blame the interface rather than admit that they game has more elements than they are looking for. If you are looking for a franchise mode that is deeper than Madden, FOF might not necessarily be for you because it is considerable deeper than Madden. I don't think that is an indictment of those users, I think it is just a reflection that it's not the interface.

I think by and large the interface for FOF is ideal for its audience. I have no doubt there are people who like FOF who wouldn't want a TPF-style interface. Would FOF increase it's market appeal with a different interface? Very likely, but I think it would come with a different set of headaches. A modified interface would certainly draw new users but almost cetainly with different expectations. I think FOF is designed for serious text-sim gamers; a "prettier" interface would likely attract people who are interested in eye-candy but not as much in substance, which would lead to disstatisfaction. I think FOF's current interface creates a realistic expectation of what the game will be like.

I hated the TPF interface. It's not about pretty, it's about being intuitive. FOF wins that battle. If "pretty" is a feature, that's fine, but if you find out 30 minutes in that a majority of the time coding the game was on making it pretty, you'll probably lose me. I love realistic football stats and easy to get to stats. Front Office Football wins that battle every day of the week.

I think the problem I have with FOF is that the more "fluent" I become with the design interface, the more I wish certain things were available. Such as opening multiple windows to make comparisons. Back and Next buttons on Gameplan screens so we don't have to set one part of the game plan, exit, open up another, set it, close the window, open the other gameplan screen, verify numbers, close that window, open the other window, plug in numbers, rinse and repeat. (The Set All button is fine, but I hardly use it except in testing.)

A simple "back" and "next" button on the gameplan screens would allow us to more easily set our gameplans each game.

That's all I interpret from the UI complaints. Is FOF the best out there as far as game engine? There is really no doubt. Is the FOF UI the best? Probably. But it can still be improved. And not by adding more color!

Coder · 08-07-2005, 11:08 AM

That's very well put Dutch. I agree wholeheartedly with that comment. I think there's a difference between people wanting to improve the FOF UI, and the people who want to "graphicize" the FOF UI. Point A doesn't necessarily mean Point B, which is what some people seem to think. The MFC-library might not be the prettiest out there, but it serves it's purpose and lets Jim focus on writing a good sim-engine rather than invent a whole new control-framework.

Maple Leafs · 08-07-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Let me start by saying that I'm bewildered by people who think the FOF interface is complicated or confusing. I think it is about the most self-explanatory interface you're ever going to see.

Really? From the perspective of a first-time user, you think it's self-explanatory?

You load up the game and get a blank screen. The New Game button is small and out of the way, but you find it. The new game setup is pretty simple, but now you're back at a blank screen. Hopefully you notice that the icons at the top are now active, but there's really no way to know what they do. You mouse over them and don't get any sort of tool tip or other indication. The first three are all the same -- clipboard with colored lines on them. Chances are you click one to see what happens, and a screen appears, so you click them all. Now a lot of windows open up, but they don't all fit on the screen you have to start resizing and moving them (wow, hope you don't have to do that every time).

Now since it's pre-season, the first thing you want to do is look at your roster. There's a ton of links on your screen but you probably find the roster pretty quicky. Looks nice. Might want to make some changes, though. Where's the free agency button? Not on the roster screen. Not on the main screen. There's a trade button, but no free agency anywhere. Is it not in the game? Weird.

Forget it, it's only pre-season, let's just sim a game and see how that works. There's a big button at the top of the screen that says "Simulation Window", so that must be it. You click it and... nothing happens. You click is several more times. Nothing. Well, nothing except that the teams in the standings area of that window over there seem to be changing order for some reason. Hey wait, that window is called Simulation Window too. Oh, now you see the little Simulate Games link. Wonder why that's not more prominent. You're starting to get a little frustrated now...

This is the sort of thing that is probably happening all the time to new users. Some get through it, some don't. But none of this has anything to do with "I don't like the color scheme" or "I want spinning animated buttons". Interface design is more than that.

Dutch · 08-07-2005, 12:09 PM

www.explodinghouse.net/misc/UIsuggestion.zip

Maple Leafs, you should really check out how I organized FOF's menu in this Visual Basic exe (above). I know many people don't like drop down menu's, but this could easily be incorporated into the many windows that FOF2k4 provides (and still keep the linear drop down menu).

Forgive the bad look and feel, I'm not a programmer, it's just that Visual Basic allows non-programmers to do some things.

The idea is that the menu's are organized into Pre-Game, Global League Vantage, General Manager Duties, Coaching Duties, OC Duties, DC Duties, and then post-game stats (almanac).

You could almost design an active directory object oriented system for FOF, but I digress.

Buccaneer · 08-07-2005, 12:11 PM

Some people think there are only two choices: a spreadsheet-type interface or a spinning animated button-type inteface (ala Madden). I think Maple Leafs is right, it is about the interface controlling the gameplay and flow. I believe FBCB with its spartan interface does the best job at this.

kcchief, you missed my earlier point. You can play FOF in your sleep and the exact same thing can be said of those playing OOTP, FM or whatever. It doesn't matter how good or bad the interface is, the hardcore users of the game will allow it to become intuitive.

Ben E Lou · 08-07-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

kcchief, you missed my earlier point. You can play FOF in your sleep and the exact same thing can be said of those playing OOTP, FM or whatever. It doesn't matter how good or bad the interface is, the hardcore users of the game will allow it to become intuitive.

And you missed mine. Yeah, I can play FOF or OOTP in my sleep, but it takes me one or two clicks to get where I want in FOF. It takes me four or five in several places in OOTP. *That's* the issue. Yes, if I like the game, the interface is going to eventually become intuitive (even with a radical change like there was from FOF3-->FOF4), but no matter how much the user has memorized the interface, he still has to click and move to get where he needs to go. The question I'm concerned with is this: "Once I learn the interface, how long does it take me to do what I need to do?"

A few other comments, based on replies I've read in this thread...

If I recall, gameplanning screens *used* to be on tabs in earlier versions of TCY (which is a close cousin to FOF4 and 5, I'm pretty sure), allowing one-click movement from one screen to the next, but they were removed because the easy-to-use tabs were found to cause crashes on some systems.
The beginning-of-game and gameflow issue for newbies does *NOT* require an interface overhaul, just a few more e-mails. FBCB and TCY, for example, send the player an e-mail during every phase of the game telling the player exactly what needs ot happen during this stage. I'm not sure why this isn't offered in FOF, but it is the best solution I've seen to this issue.
It's not like I ever denied the "elitist" tag. I don't get the point that was being made there.
To the person that asked, yes, I count five posts in this thread that have been deleted--all by the person who posted. (Yes, admins, and perhaps mods, can see deleted posts, and who deleted them, and--if the person deleting chooses to post it--why the thread was deleted.)
That's a great point about the interface fitting the audience.

Maple Leafs · 08-07-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch

Maple Leafs, you should really check out how I organized FOF's menu in this Visual Basic exe (above).

That's pretty cool. The breakdown by coach and co-ordinator is an interesting idea.

Ben E Lou · 08-07-2005, 01:07 PM

More on what I'm talking about regarding experienced users and interfaces...

As I said, I know the OOTP interface pretty darned well by now, but the fact remains that in order to evaluate my roster to see what FA's I need to sign, I have to go through the following annoying set of tasks:

(Screen comes up on the "SIGN FREE AGENTS" screen, with all 0-0 standings.)
1. Click on my team's name. (C'mon, the game should *always* default to viewing the human player's team.)
2. Select the catchers.
3. Select "general ratings/info". (Because I want to see star ratings.)
4. {sometimes} Click on each individual player card. (Because often star ratings aren't enough information to determine if I need a FA or to make a trade. OOTP could really use a simple one-rating "Cur/Pot" model like FOF uses here. I've got a 24-year-old one-gold-star catcher. Can I give him a shot at the bigs? I don't know. I need to look at his card. If there was a simple "45/80" overall rating given, I'd be able to do it. There's not, so I need to look at the player card for positions at which my best player is 2 stars or less.)
5. Select the first baseman.
6. Select the @$%(*$@% "general ratings/info" category AGAIN!!!! (This is a classic example of intuitiveness versus functionality. Yes, I know exactly how it works. I know exactly what I need to do, but it is STILL annoying as all get-out to have to select this EVERY TIME I SWITCH POSITIONS. Very bad.)
7. Repeat steps 2-4 for every position group.

By comparison., when I want to evaluate my roster in FOF, I do the following:

1. Hit the "View Rosters" button.
2. Sort on "Current Estimate."
3. Sort by position. (Ah, this reminds me to another major issue I have with OOTP: no Excel-style sorting. The second sort does not take the first sort into account...)
4. Look at my QB's. (Hmmmm, Orlando Ozguner is signed to a five-year deal, and is rated 31/73. No need to sign a QB.)
5. With no extra clicks, just scroll down through the rest of the roster, which is neatly sorted position-by-position. (Because of the nice overall rating, I *might* need to check player cards for maybe one or two guys, but I *know* that since my second-best receiver is rated only 27/32, I need to look for one in free agency.

Yes, I know they are different sports, but the fact remains that with 16 position groups in FOF, I can evaluate my needs with 5 clicks, a little down-arrow scrolling, and maybe 4-8 total clicks to open and close the 2-4 player cards I might need to look at more carefully. On the other hand, with 11 position groups in OOTP, it takes me at least 34 clicks to look over my roster, and any additional looking at a player card requires 3 or 4 additional clicks to get all the information I need to make a decision, and close the player card again. The number of clicks that the OOTP interface requires cannot in any way be lowered by "knowing the interface" or "knowing the game" any better, either.

cthomer5000 · 08-07-2005, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Really? From the perspective of a first-time user, you think it's self-explanatory?

You load up the game and get a blank screen. The New Game button is small and out of the way, but you find it. The new game setup is pretty simple, but now you're back at a blank screen. Hopefully you notice that the icons at the top are now active, but there's really no way to know what they do. You mouse over them and don't get any sort of tool tip or other indication. The first three are all the same -- clipboard with colored lines on them. Chances are you click one to see what happens, and a screen appears, so you click them all. Now a lot of windows open up, but they don't all fit on the screen you have to start resizing and moving them (wow, hope you don't have to do that every time).

Now since it's pre-season, the first thing you want to do is look at your roster. There's a ton of links on your screen but you probably find the roster pretty quicky. Looks nice. Might want to make some changes, though. Where's the free agency button? Not on the roster screen. Not on the main screen. There's a trade button, but no free agency anywhere. Is it not in the game? Weird.

Forget it, it's only pre-season, let's just sim a game and see how that works. There's a big button at the top of the screen that says "Simulation Window", so that must be it. You click it and... nothing happens. You click is several more times. Nothing. Well, nothing except that the teams in the standings area of that window over there seem to be changing order for some reason. Hey wait, that window is called Simulation Window too. Oh, now you see the little Simulate Games link. Wonder why that's not more prominent. You're starting to get a little frustrated now...

This is the sort of thing that is probably happening all the time to new users. Some get through it, some don't. But none of this has anything to do with "I don't like the color scheme" or "I want spinning animated buttons". Interface design is more than that.

Even being an experienced FOF2001 user, you just gave the play-by-play on what i went through when playing 2004 for the first time (except for the FA part).

The interface can be extremelyt confusing to a new user.

aran · 08-07-2005, 02:00 PM

Thanks everyone for making this thread much more productive. Your ideas about interface design are interesting and insightful.

This is how i would approach designing a UI for a football management sim:
The first thing you need to do when designing a UI is examining how your game flows. You make an outline of this.
ex:

Code:

I. Offseason
  A. View some type of Player Progression/Scouting Report
  B. Staff Hiring
  C. Owner Options (ticket prices, etc.)
  D. Draft
  E. Free Agency
  F. Set Depth Charts
II. Pre-season
  A. Handle Hold-outs
  B. Sim games
  C. Sign Free Agents to replace Injured Players
  D. View Player Progression/Scouting Reports
III. Season
  A. Reorder Depth Charts
  B. Design General Gamplan
  C. View Schedule, design game plan specifically for Week 1
  D. play week 1
  E. Roster Management after week 1
  ...
IV. Play-offs
  ...

Next, i'd see what information is appropriate and necessary for each stage of gameplay. Using this analysis, i can determine what windows should display what information, and how prominent those windows should be. If i find certain bits of information that are needed or useful at all times, i'd put them in easy-to-find, hotkeyable alt menus (right below the title bar).

I'd also be sure to include information on the rules of, for instance, contract negotiations, free agency, etc. in easy to see locations, so new players have a good idea of what they're doing. I'd strongly consider giving the play reports on the general salary status of the league: the mean and median salaries for each position and other appropriate info, to give the player all the information that they need to make decisions.

The idea here is to give the player the information that he needs, the analysis that he needs, and the ability to easily and intuitively do what he needs to do, while not giving the player information that is too in depth so as to take away from the player's ability to make decisions.

Raven · 08-08-2005, 01:47 AM

SD, in OOTP, you could have just hit gen ratings, and sorted by position, then started with catchers, clicked on the player card, and hit next all the way through catchers. Done? Now you are on 1B. Why even go back to the gen ratings screen when you are going to click on the 1B player cards anyway? I know you've logged enough hours to already know that, but didn't think you were quite being fair to OOTP there.

I also don't think everyone wants a straight up Cur/Pot rating shown for all players. While it has it's advantages, it also seems to make things a little easier (maybe too easy?). Granted, it requires a lot less sorting through unnecessary players, but wouldn't it just incline people to base trades and a lot of their moves on those numbers alone (without much thought given)? Unless of course you could apply your own weights to create the Cur/Pot ratings themselves, like you mentioned earlier (I agree there, btw). Either way, I think enough people would support those ratings, and enough people would oppose them. I see advantages of both, and am torn on which I prefer.

korme · 08-08-2005, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raven

I also don't think everyone wants a straight up Cur/Pot rating shown for all players. While it has it's advantages, it also seems to make things a little easier (maybe too easy?). Granted, it requires a lot less sorting through unnecessary players, but wouldn't it just incline people to base trades and a lot of their moves on those numbers alone (without much thought given)? Unless of course you could apply your own weights to create the Cur/Pot ratings themselves, like you mentioned earlier (I agree there, btw). Either way, I think enough people would support those ratings, and enough people would oppose them. I see advantages of both, and am torn on which I prefer.

Agreed.. perhaps my favorite thing about OOTP and FM as well is that there is no overall type of rating for any player, besides the stars, which are really only seperating players into 5 different levels, which is no biggy..

Cringer · 08-08-2005, 02:44 AM

I find the future/current overall rating for players in FOF to be much less important then I did before, so it is not as big of a deal to me.

If you develop an offense, then get the guys who have the right skills for that offense you can often have your 55 rated guy out perform that 78 rated guy. I almost see the overall rating as something fairly deceptive actually, and guys can get screwed by it. So in that way it can add to the game. Seeing a guy sign a player probably just because he is rated in the 60's, even though that rating is higher then maybe it should be (ex. a RB who has decent return and receiving skills but fairly bad running skills), and think that guy will be the answer to his running game problems is funny to me.

Samdari · 08-08-2005, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Let me start by saying that I'm bewildered by people who think the FOF interface is complicated or confusing. I think it is about the most self-explanatory interface you're ever going to see. And if you can't figure out how to use the interface, then RTFM.

I have always firmly believed that people use the FOF interface as an excuse, on both sides of the equation. Fans of FOF argue that the interface doesn't matter as long as the AI is solid and there are no bugs. Those who dislike FOF blame it on the interface.

But there are two main groups of interface critics: those who say it is complicated and those who say it is boring. The boring group I take at face value; I think these are folks raised on Madden and are unable or unwilling to accept an interface that doesn't have a soundtrack or lots of splash. That's their prerogative. But I don't buy the argument from the complicated group at all; I think their "real" complaint is that the game is complicated and they choose to blame the interface rather than admit that they game has more elements than they are looking for. If you are looking for a franchise mode that is deeper than Madden, FOF might not necessarily be for you because it is considerable deeper than Madden. I don't think that is an indictment of those users, I think it is just a reflection that it's not the interface.

I think by and large the interface for FOF is ideal for its audience. I have no doubt there are people who like FOF who wouldn't want a TPF-style interface. Would FOF increase it's market appeal with a different interface? Very likely, but I think it would come with a different set of headaches. A modified interface would certainly draw new users but almost cetainly with different expectations. I think FOF is designed for serious text-sim gamers; a "prettier" interface would likely attract people who are interested in eye-candy but not as much in substance, which would lead to disstatisfaction. I think FOF's current interface creates a realistic expectation of what the game will be like.

I think you are missing an entire set of people here kcchief - I think I am part of a significant group of people who love FOF, but find the interface unwieldy, and in my case, tiresome. Its not that I cannot figure it out - I know how to get to everything, but hate how many clicks it takes me to do so. When simming, I find my team has an injured player, so I need to close the sim window, open the roster window, change the inactive/active status of two players (opening and closing another window for each), close the roster window, and then open the depth chart window, make the changes, close that window, and finally open the sim window and sim the rest of the week.

I don't care so much about pretty (although I do think it would sell more games) but I think the ease of use of the interface could be much improved. I just think there are some terrible design choices there. Two simple changes, that would not require any tech differences, merely some design choices, would greatly streamline the above.

Why do I need to open a players window to change his active/inactive status. Why can't there be a button on the roster screen to change that status?

Also, there not being buttons linking the roster screen and the depth chart is inexcusable IMO. Those functions to me are so inextricable linked, they should not be separate windows linked from other separate windows.

I love the game, just hate the whole modal window thing, and my enjoyment of the game would be enhanced by a more user friendly interface.

Anthony · 08-08-2005, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aran

You're a funny guy. Just because i haven't done anything for this community doesn't mean that i have never done anything in my life.

Why should i sit here and brag about what i've done in the past? I'm looking forward at things, not backwards. I could sit here and preach to you about the concepts of UI design that i think work the best, but i'm not. I'm just putting my foot forward, saying that i'd like to help with FoF or i'd like to put my own finger in the football sim pie.

Sheesh. Talk about a cursory judgement taken to extremes.

i fully support you and respect what you might have to bring to the table.

i've long felt jim has had the luxury of doing it his way more so than not primarily due to there being a lack of competition. MP in FOF was functional and rather stable for a first attempt, but it had that "tacked on at the last minute" feel, or moreso it felt that he included it in only after having his arm twisted. my biggest gripe w/ the FOF series is the lack of editability and customization you find in the OOTP series. i want to be in a league where the Commish has complete and total control over the league and what can happen in it, not where the Commish is a glorified "designated simmer" (all a MP FOF Commish does is hit the "sim" button and has to get grief when something goes wrong). jim has been stubborn in giving us *his* vision of pro football, rather than like OOTP which gives the user the tools to create their own versions of pro baseball.

so if you have a way to make the FOF experience better, i'm all for it. if you have the desire to make a new pro football text sim altogether, especially one that focuses on MP and particularly one that is free - i would support it.

i like jim, not personally since i've never met the guy, but i mostly like his online "personae", but i'm long past the "i'll buy anything he puts out and anything he puts out pwns other games" phase. just because as a customer you can interact with the creator in this website doesn't mean you have to blindly accept the creator's way as the *only* way.

go get 'em kid.

QuikSand · 08-08-2005, 09:40 AM

I confess to being one of the people who is just to familiar with the FOF interface that I am probably past the ability to recognize shortcomings that might prove confusing to a newer player. I think it's very fair to be concerned that a new player might have trouble with a user interface, and diminish his ability to enoy the game quickly -- which has to be an important factor in determing whether he will stick with it long enough to appreciate the actual game engine. So, I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing the value of a usable interface.

I guess I am prone to saying that the interface works for me, but am open to the idea that it might not work that well for everyone.

Specifics aside, I think aran's general idea of taking things a little more step-by-step is probably pretty sensible... right now, that function is done (to some degree) by the series of emails you get suggesting what it's time to do, but the game could certainly provide a little more direction in that regard, I suppose. As a veteran player, I don't need it, but for a new user, perhaps it could be useful.

Bee · 08-08-2005, 10:42 AM

I must be special because I've never quit playing any game because I couldn't figure out the interface. I've stopped playing games because the interface was poorly designed, but there's a distinct difference between the two. To me, one is not being able to figure out how to get from A to B...the other is the way to get from A to B is poorly designed. I don't think the FOF interface is easy to figure out, but it doesn't strike me as overly complicated either. It wouldn't surprise me if the people who give up on FOF before figuring out the interface, would give up on the game even if the interface were simpler. In my view, FOF isn't a simple game overall...if you can't even stick with it long enough to figure out the interface, I have doubts you'd stick with it long enough to figure out the rest of the game either. That's not to say, it wouldn't be better to improve the interface to make it easier for gamers to figure it out. That's always a positive thing, but in the end I don't see it being a major hurdle to overcome for the series. At least that's my opinion, and we've already established that I'm special.

SFL Cat · 08-08-2005, 11:02 AM

I think some aspects of the interface in FOF are a little daunting and I must confess that I was a little overwhelmed the first time I played it (personally, I still think the interface for FOF2 was better). That said, if you are into the game, it becomes intuitive. I like pretty graphics as much as the next guy, but honestly if it comes down to substance or eye candy, I'll go with substance every time.

Ben E Lou · 08-08-2005, 11:07 AM

Dang. This thread even got the attention of Joe Stallings.

Antmeister · 08-08-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Dang. This thread even got the attention of Joe Stallings.

Okay so that's where that dramatic soap opera music is coming from.

aran · 08-08-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Specifics aside, I think aran's general idea of taking things a little more step-by-step is probably pretty sensible... right now, that function is done (to some degree) by the series of emails you get suggesting what it's time to do, but the game could certainly provide a little more direction in that regard, I suppose. As a veteran player, I don't need it, but for a new user, perhaps it could be useful.

With my approach, i'm attempting to give the player more direction as to where he's going. I think that FoF will become MUCH more addictive and fun if you know where you are going, what you've done, and what you are doing, and you have fairly easy access to a vast majority of the information and analysis you need to make important decisions. The main problem is seeing where the analysis you provide is actually MAKING the decisions (or making them too easy).

JeeberD · 08-09-2005, 08:25 AM

FOF

Front Office Football, not Front of Football.

Sorry, but that's been bugging me throughout the entire thread...

Sebastian Palkowski · 08-09-2005, 01:22 PM

I work on a game myself and as a student don´t always have enough time to get the stuff I want done. I personaly hate to work on the GUI, it is boring and I would love to work on the "cool stuff". I´m a person who looks on the gameplay first and then on the graphics (I still play Ultima 7 and my all time favorite is Ultima5) but sadly, today a lot of people don´t even try a game if they don´t like the graphics even if the game is better then other games. So I try to get a "better then average" GUI and hope that people still try the game out once it is finished.

I like Jims approch ("gameplay first") since I have the same. So I want a realistic game-engine first (so far about 10.000 lines of code) and then an average GUI and then hope that people try it.

Here is an example of my GUI:

Screenshot

palli

rkmsuf · 08-09-2005, 01:24 PM

Who knew Tim Wakefield was 74 inches tall. Cool.

aran · 08-09-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeeberD

FOF

Front Office Football, not Front of Football.

Sorry, but that's been bugging me throughout the entire thread...

hahaha.. wow. I can't believe i was using "FoF". So used to little o's. FOF it definitely is.

BrianD · 08-09-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

By comparison., when I want to evaluate my roster in FOF, I do the following:
1. Hit the "View Rosters" button.
2. Sort on "Current Estimate."
3. Sort by position. (Ah, this reminds me to another major issue I have with OOTP: no Excel-style sorting. The second sort does not take the first sort into account...)
4. Look at my QB's. (Hmmmm, Orlando Ozguner is signed to a five-year deal, and is rated 31/73. No need to sign a QB.)
5. With no extra clicks, just scroll down through the rest of the roster, which is neatly sorted position-by-position. (Because of the nice overall rating, I *might* need to check player cards for maybe one or two guys, but I *know* that since my second-best receiver is rated only 27/32, I need to look for one in free agency.

The only thing that would make this better is the ability to set a default sort or to have the game remember the sort. I always do the "sort by potential", "sort by position" thing, but then setting a player inactive or renegotiating their contract resets to the default sort. When you have to keep going back and forth between screens, not having to re-sort each time would be nice.

Marc Vaughan · 08-10-2005, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palli

I work on a game myself and as a student don´t always have enough time to get the stuff I want done. I personaly hate to work on the GUI, it is boring and I would love to work on the "cool stuff". I´m a person who looks on the gameplay first and then on the graphics (I still play Ultima 7 and my all time favorite is Ultima5) but sadly, today a lot of people don´t even try a game if they don´t like the graphics even if the game is better then other games. So I try to get a "better then average" GUI and hope that people still try the game out once it is finished.

I like Jims approch ("gameplay first") since I have the same. So I want a realistic game-engine first (so far about 10.000 lines of code) and then an average GUI and then hope that people try it.

Here is an example of my GUI:

Screenshot

palli

Looks cool - I agree that the GUI isn't a lot of fun to work on (GUI stuff is my 'weakest' area of game design/implementation imho) but its essential if you're going to truly immerse people in your game (as a great GUI is one that people just use and forget about imho).

If you want a little constructive criticism on the screenshot you posted:

* The internal and external items should 'match' in their outside/inside layout.
By this I mean the top bar with the buttons should have a 'reflecting' bump with the player profile section displayed in the center of the screen.
This would make the screen layout look much easier on the eye to your average user.
* Ensure that all divisions within the GUI are equal where possible. By this I mean the gaps between the items in the internal area of the screen.
This makes the items look better 'balanced' to a user and again means their eye flicks around the screen more naturally.
* Ensure that all buttons are 'centralised' properly in the area they're displayed within, the ones at the bottom look like they're a tad too low and because of this I find my eye drawn to them.
* Use buttons which 'fit' with the overall GUI design, the circular buttons on the top right of the screen seem to be 'floating' around because of the angular nature of the screen design.

That being said I think its a very cool screen and at the end of the (1) there are 100 ways to skin a cat and there is no 'perfect gui', (2) as I said at the start my GUI design is crap so feel free to ignore me, (3) its the game play that counts at the end of the day.

Hope this helps,

Marc

moriarty · 08-10-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palli

Here is an example of my GUI:

Screenshot

palli

That's pretty sweet. What did you write it in?

Sebastian Palkowski · 08-11-2005, 03:48 AM

Marc, thank you very much for your words. Like I said, I don´t like to work on the GUI and I always have to do something else first.

I will definitively look into your points but I don´t understand the first one, maybe if you have the time you could explain it a little bit more? I have a few month left for my game since the planned release date is somewhere around season opener next year (there is another game released around that time, if I could just remember the name

, say hello to Markus from me, we are just 50 km away from each other right now). One more thing: I realy appreciate your work with small developers like me because it is a great motivation to keep up the work. I mean, I play your games since 99/00 and now I got some hints on my own game from you.

@ moriarty:

I write the game in C++. I use WXWidgets to write the GUI but will look into alternatives down the road since I´m not always happy with it.

For everyone:

If you are interested in more screenshots or you want to follow the development of a baseball manager text-sim game or have ideas and/or criticism on the game just visit my project-page with board. As I already said, the planned release date is early April next year and a first snapshot (or demo) is planned for the next few weeks.

Perfect Game

palli

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Looks cool - I agree that the GUI isn't a lot of fun to work on (GUI stuff is my 'weakest' area of game design/implementation imho) but its essential if you're going to truly immerse people in your game (as a great GUI is one that people just use and forget about imho).

If you want a little constructive criticism on the screenshot you posted:

* The internal and external items should 'match' in their outside/inside layout.
By this I mean the top bar with the buttons should have a 'reflecting' bump with the player profile section displayed in the center of the screen.
This would make the screen layout look much easier on the eye to your average user.
* Ensure that all divisions within the GUI are equal where possible. By this I mean the gaps between the items in the internal area of the screen.
This makes the items look better 'balanced' to a user and again means their eye flicks around the screen more naturally.
* Ensure that all buttons are 'centralised' properly in the area they're displayed within, the ones at the bottom look like they're a tad too low and because of this I find my eye drawn to them.
* Use buttons which 'fit' with the overall GUI design, the circular buttons on the top right of the screen seem to be 'floating' around because of the angular nature of the screen design.

That being said I think its a very cool screen and at the end of the (1) there are 100 ways to skin a cat and there is no 'perfect gui', (2) as I said at the start my GUI design is crap so feel free to ignore me, (3) its the game play that counts at the end of the day.

Hope this helps,

Marc

Izulde · 08-11-2005, 04:08 AM

My three favourite text-sim interfaces:

1. FBCB
2. TPB 2K5
3. OOTP6

I have to say that FOF is one of my least favourite interfaces and it still takes me a while to find my way around in stuff. That's one of the reasons why it took me so long to get FOF 2K4 was because the interface was a pain in the butt to navigate.

It's also why I never bought the CM series until FM/WWSM because I hated the interface beyond anything else.

Ditto the first incarnation of the SI-led EHM. The second one I haven't bought because I simply don't have money these days after I found out I get accepted into Wyoming.

Does it have to be gorgeous? No. I think FBCB being my favourite interface proves that.

But it does need to be functional, streamlined, and as intuitive as possible.

Marc Vaughan · 08-11-2005, 04:31 AM

Quote:

* The internal and external items should 'match' in their outside/inside layout.

Its a personal concept which most commercial GUI's follow.

For instance if you look at the quick reply section on this board ...

Its basically a series of squares within squares. This makes the styling complimentary to each of the components whereas if you have squares and circles mixed then it feels less well organised (imho) and coherant.

If you look at the FM GUI for instance we use square shapes with rounded edges, where these are placed within each other we try to ensure that each object fits into its 'parent' like a loosely fitting jigsaw puzzle, this to my eye gives the gui a coherant and thought out look.

In your screen shot the central area looks like its been placed in the wrong section on its 'jigsaw' because it doesn't fit its 'parent' shape (ie. the surrounding box with buttons etc. on it.

Hope that made some sort of sense ...

Marc

Sebastian Palkowski · 08-11-2005, 04:40 PM

Thank you very much Marc, now I understand and I will try to work something out that looks more professional.

But now I will continue first with some stuff for the player-importer (there is always something to to before I get to the GUI

).

palli

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Its a personal concept which most commercial GUI's follow.

For instance if you look at the quick reply section on this board ...

Its basically a series of squares within squares. This makes the styling complimentary to each of the components whereas if you have squares and circles mixed then it feels less well organised (imho) and coherant.

If you look at the FM GUI for instance we use square shapes with rounded edges, where these are placed within each other we try to ensure that each object fits into its 'parent' like a loosely fitting jigsaw puzzle, this to my eye gives the gui a coherant and thought out look.

In your screen shot the central area looks like its been placed in the wrong section on its 'jigsaw' because it doesn't fit its 'parent' shape (ie. the surrounding box with buttons etc. on it.

Hope that made some sort of sense ...

Marc

08-06-2005, 11:59 PM	#60
Cringer Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Edinburg,TX	Good luck to you aran, I hope you find someone to team up with on this project. I find it hard to believe so many guys are being assholes about a desire to make a new game, but then again maybe there are just a lot of assholes. __________________ You Stole Fizzy Lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and steralized, so you get NOTHING! You lose!

08-07-2005, 11:08 AM	#67
Coder College Prospect Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Gothenburg, Sweden	That's very well put Dutch. I agree wholeheartedly with that comment. I think there's a difference between people wanting to improve the FOF UI, and the people who want to "graphicize" the FOF UI. Point A doesn't necessarily mean Point B, which is what some people seem to think. The MFC-library might not be the prettiest out there, but it serves it's purpose and lets Jim focus on writing a good sim-engine rather than invent a whole new control-framework. __________________ IFL - Vermont Mountaineers ~ I am an idiot, walking a tight rope of fortunate things ~ Last edited by Coder : 08-07-2005 at 11:12 AM.

08-07-2005, 12:09 PM	#69
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	www.explodinghouse.net/misc/UIsuggestion.zip Maple Leafs, you should really check out how I organized FOF's menu in this Visual Basic exe (above). I know many people don't like drop down menu's, but this could easily be incorporated into the many windows that FOF2k4 provides (and still keep the linear drop down menu). Forgive the bad look and feel, I'm not a programmer, it's just that Visual Basic allows non-programmers to do some things. The idea is that the menu's are organized into Pre-Game, Global League Vantage, General Manager Duties, Coaching Duties, OC Duties, DC Duties, and then post-game stats (almanac). You could almost design an active directory object oriented system for FOF, but I digress. Last edited by Dutch : 08-07-2005 at 12:12 PM.

08-07-2005, 01:07 PM	#73
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	More on what I'm talking about regarding experienced users and interfaces... As I said, I know the OOTP interface pretty darned well by now, but the fact remains that in order to evaluate my roster to see what FA's I need to sign, I have to go through the following annoying set of tasks: (Screen comes up on the "SIGN FREE AGENTS" screen, with all 0-0 standings.) 1. Click on my team's name. (C'mon, the game should always default to viewing the human player's team.) 2. Select the catchers. 3. Select "general ratings/info". (Because I want to see star ratings.) 4. {sometimes} Click on each individual player card. (Because often star ratings aren't enough information to determine if I need a FA or to make a trade. OOTP could really use a simple one-rating "Cur/Pot" model like FOF uses here. I've got a 24-year-old one-gold-star catcher. Can I give him a shot at the bigs? I don't know. I need to look at his card. If there was a simple "45/80" overall rating given, I'd be able to do it. There's not, so I need to look at the player card for positions at which my best player is 2 stars or less.) 5. Select the first baseman. 6. Select the @$%($@% "general ratings/info" category AGAIN!!!! (This is a classic example of intuitiveness versus functionality. Yes, I know exactly how it works. I know exactly what I need to do, but it is STILL annoying as all get-out to have to select this EVERY TIME I SWITCH POSITIONS. Very bad.) 7. Repeat steps 2-4 for every position group. By comparison., when I want to evaluate my roster in FOF, I do the following: 1. Hit the "View Rosters" button.* 2. Sort on "Current Estimate." 3. Sort by position. (Ah, this reminds me to another major issue I have with OOTP: no Excel-style sorting. The second sort does not take the first sort into account...) 4. Look at my QB's. (Hmmmm, Orlando Ozguner is signed to a five-year deal, and is rated 31/73. No need to sign a QB.) 5. With no extra clicks, just scroll down through the rest of the roster, which is neatly sorted position-by-position. (Because of the nice overall rating, I might need to check player cards for maybe one or two guys, but I know that since my second-best receiver is rated only 27/32, I need to look for one in free agency. Yes, I know they are different sports, but the fact remains that with 16 position groups in FOF, I can evaluate my needs with 5 clicks, a little down-arrow scrolling, and maybe 4-8 total clicks to open and close the 2-4 player cards I might need to look at more carefully. On the other hand, with 11 position groups in OOTP, it takes me at least 34 clicks to look over my roster, and any additional looking at a player card requires 3 or 4 additional clicks to get all the information I need to make a decision, and close the player card again. The number of clicks that the OOTP interface requires cannot in any way be lowered by "knowing the interface" or "knowing the game" any better, either. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

08-07-2005, 02:00 PM	#75
aran High School Varsity Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA	Thanks everyone for making this thread much more productive. Your ideas about interface design are interesting and insightful. This is how i would approach designing a UI for a football management sim: The first thing you need to do when designing a UI is examining how your game flows. You make an outline of this. ex: Code: I. Offseason A. View some type of Player Progression/Scouting Report B. Staff Hiring C. Owner Options (ticket prices, etc.) D. Draft E. Free Agency F. Set Depth Charts II. Pre-season A. Handle Hold-outs B. Sim games C. Sign Free Agents to replace Injured Players D. View Player Progression/Scouting Reports III. Season A. Reorder Depth Charts B. Design General Gamplan C. View Schedule, design game plan specifically for Week 1 D. play week 1 E. Roster Management after week 1 ... IV. Play-offs ... Next, i'd see what information is appropriate and necessary for each stage of gameplay. Using this analysis, i can determine what windows should display what information, and how prominent those windows should be. If i find certain bits of information that are needed or useful at all times, i'd put them in easy-to-find, hotkeyable alt menus (right below the title bar). I'd also be sure to include information on the rules of, for instance, contract negotiations, free agency, etc. in easy to see locations, so new players have a good idea of what they're doing. I'd strongly consider giving the play reports on the general salary status of the league: the mean and median salaries for each position and other appropriate info, to give the player all the information that they need to make decisions. The idea here is to give the player the information that he needs, the analysis that he needs, and the ability to easily and intuitively do what he needs to do, while not giving the player information that is too in depth so as to take away from the player's ability to make decisions.

08-06-2005, 07:20 PM	#53
Marc Vaughan SI Games Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Melbourne, FL	I personally think the FOF GUI isn't bad - presentation-wise it could be nicer and there are some usability issues kicking around (but the same could be said of FM ) ... but I've seen much worse in my time. I have in the past tried to nudge Jim towards a less 'windowsesque' style of presentation, but he wants to spend the time on gameplay rather than window-dressing which is a decision I personally respect ....

08-07-2005, 08:27 AM	#62
wheels Creative Director, Grey Dog Software Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison, WI	all of this sounds eerily familiar.

08-07-2005, 12:11 PM	#70
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	Some people think there are only two choices: a spreadsheet-type interface or a spinning animated button-type inteface (ala Madden). I think Maple Leafs is right, it is about the interface controlling the gameplay and flow. I believe FBCB with its spartan interface does the best job at this. kcchief, you missed my earlier point. You can play FOF in your sleep and the exact same thing can be said of those playing OOTP, FM or whatever. It doesn't matter how good or bad the interface is, the hardcore users of the game will allow it to become intuitive.

08-08-2005, 01:47 AM	#76
Raven College Prospect Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Baltimore, MD	SD, in OOTP, you could have just hit gen ratings, and sorted by position, then started with catchers, clicked on the player card, and hit next all the way through catchers. Done? Now you are on 1B. Why even go back to the gen ratings screen when you are going to click on the 1B player cards anyway? I know you've logged enough hours to already know that, but didn't think you were quite being fair to OOTP there. I also don't think everyone wants a straight up Cur/Pot rating shown for all players. While it has it's advantages, it also seems to make things a little easier (maybe too easy?). Granted, it requires a lot less sorting through unnecessary players, but wouldn't it just incline people to base trades and a lot of their moves on those numbers alone (without much thought given)? Unless of course you could apply your own weights to create the Cur/Pot ratings themselves, like you mentioned earlier (I agree there, btw). Either way, I think enough people would support those ratings, and enough people would oppose them. I see advantages of both, and am torn on which I prefer.

08-08-2005, 02:44 AM	#78
Cringer Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Edinburg,TX	I find the future/current overall rating for players in FOF to be much less important then I did before, so it is not as big of a deal to me. If you develop an offense, then get the guys who have the right skills for that offense you can often have your 55 rated guy out perform that 78 rated guy. I almost see the overall rating as something fairly deceptive actually, and guys can get screwed by it. So in that way it can add to the game. Seeing a guy sign a player probably just because he is rated in the 60's, even though that rating is higher then maybe it should be (ex. a RB who has decent return and receiving skills but fairly bad running skills), and think that guy will be the answer to his running game problems is funny to me. __________________ You Stole Fizzy Lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and steralized, so you get NOTHING! You lose!

08-08-2005, 09:40 AM	#81
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I confess to being one of the people who is just to familiar with the FOF interface that I am probably past the ability to recognize shortcomings that might prove confusing to a newer player. I think it's very fair to be concerned that a new player might have trouble with a user interface, and diminish his ability to enoy the game quickly -- which has to be an important factor in determing whether he will stick with it long enough to appreciate the actual game engine. So, I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing the value of a usable interface. I guess I am prone to saying that the interface works for me, but am open to the idea that it might not work that well for everyone. Specifics aside, I think aran's general idea of taking things a little more step-by-step is probably pretty sensible... right now, that function is done (to some degree) by the series of emails you get suggesting what it's time to do, but the game could certainly provide a little more direction in that regard, I suppose. As a veteran player, I don't need it, but for a new user, perhaps it could be useful.

08-08-2005, 10:42 AM	#82
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	I must be special because I've never quit playing any game because I couldn't figure out the interface. I've stopped playing games because the interface was poorly designed, but there's a distinct difference between the two. To me, one is not being able to figure out how to get from A to B...the other is the way to get from A to B is poorly designed. I don't think the FOF interface is easy to figure out, but it doesn't strike me as overly complicated either. It wouldn't surprise me if the people who give up on FOF before figuring out the interface, would give up on the game even if the interface were simpler. In my view, FOF isn't a simple game overall...if you can't even stick with it long enough to figure out the interface, I have doubts you'd stick with it long enough to figure out the rest of the game either. That's not to say, it wouldn't be better to improve the interface to make it easier for gamers to figure it out. That's always a positive thing, but in the end I don't see it being a major hurdle to overcome for the series. At least that's my opinion, and we've already established that I'm special.

08-08-2005, 11:02 AM	#83
SFL Cat College Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: South Florida	I think some aspects of the interface in FOF are a little daunting and I must confess that I was a little overwhelmed the first time I played it (personally, I still think the interface for FOF2 was better). That said, if you are into the game, it becomes intuitive. I like pretty graphics as much as the next guy, but honestly if it comes down to substance or eye candy, I'll go with substance every time.

08-08-2005, 11:07 AM	#84
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Dang. This thread even got the attention of Joe Stallings. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

08-09-2005, 08:25 AM	#87
JeeberD General Manager Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Town of Flower Mound	FOF Front Office Football, not Front of Football. Sorry, but that's been bugging me throughout the entire thread... __________________ UTEP Miners!!! I solemnly swear to never cheer for TO

08-09-2005, 01:22 PM	#88
Sebastian Palkowski Mascot Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hamburg, Germany	I work on a game myself and as a student don´t always have enough time to get the stuff I want done. I personaly hate to work on the GUI, it is boring and I would love to work on the "cool stuff". I´m a person who looks on the gameplay first and then on the graphics (I still play Ultima 7 and my all time favorite is Ultima5) but sadly, today a lot of people don´t even try a game if they don´t like the graphics even if the game is better then other games. So I try to get a "better then average" GUI and hope that people still try the game out once it is finished. I like Jims approch ("gameplay first") since I have the same. So I want a realistic game-engine first (so far about 10.000 lines of code) and then an average GUI and then hope that people try it. Here is an example of my GUI: Screenshot palli

08-09-2005, 01:24 PM	#89
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	Who knew Tim Wakefield was 74 inches tall. Cool. __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

08-11-2005, 04:08 AM	#95
Izulde Head Coach Join Date: Sep 2004	My three favourite text-sim interfaces: 1. FBCB 2. TPB 2K5 3. OOTP6 I have to say that FOF is one of my least favourite interfaces and it still takes me a while to find my way around in stuff. That's one of the reasons why it took me so long to get FOF 2K4 was because the interface was a pain in the butt to navigate. It's also why I never bought the CM series until FM/WWSM because I hated the interface beyond anything else. Ditto the first incarnation of the SI-led EHM. The second one I haven't bought because I simply don't have money these days after I found out I get accepted into Wyoming. Does it have to be gorgeous? No. I think FBCB being my favourite interface proves that. But it does need to be functional, streamlined, and as intuitive as possible. __________________ 2006 Golden Scribe Nominee 2006 Golden Scribe Winner Best Non-Sport Dynasty: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty) Rookie Writer of the Year Dynasty of the Year: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)