Subject: [GD] 2D vs. 3D

A survey should have been started on this.

Well, I'm for 2D, because I can analyze my tactics better and also the opponent's tactics. It's practically impossible with 3D.

Obviously, the 2d engine is essential for tactics and that kind of thing, but it is not necessary to modify the 2d at all, just improve the 3d.
So you would have the possibility to watch the game live in 3d where it was more exciting and the 2d to see and analyze tactics

+1

Hi Raul!

Well, we all agree that 2d is necessary. We can use 2d for watching the tactics perfectly. It only needs some improvements because it has many false things as throw the ball out senseless.

However, a good 3d is necessary too. 3d would attract new users but it needs to be a good 3d viewer. We are used to poor viewers but I've checked with other games that it's possible to have a good 3d. It's much more attractive than 2d (it's logical).

In conclusion, new users will look mainly the 3d (you can check with your friends or other people who are looking for a game).

PS: In my opinion both are compatible. 2d is very useful for tactics and 3d essential in year 2020 if you want to be competitive.
I love 3d of football manager, pes club manager, Soccer Manager 2020 or top football manager (you can't compare them with 2d, it seems impossible to me).
(edited)

2D and only 2D

why? simple, tactics

If you ask the majority here in the forum they choose the 2d viewer. But for new users you need a 3d viewer.

Added. The current 3d viewer sucks.
(edited)

2D simply useful for tactics and feels old school. It is funny to see.
3D simply useless because not nice enough to see compared to other games and useless for tactics.
And wth, don't you use a poll for this simple question ? Nothing blocked in SK for these kind of question here.
What are you afraid of ?

I really believe that an improved 3d is necessary for sokker, I agree that 2d is necessary, both for PCs that do not work with a good 3d, and to maintain the essence of sokker, but I think that a 3d that is well achieved will give more Visibility to the game for new users, will make the game more realistic since also in the 3d options could be given such as customizing the colors of your own stadium, having the possibility of seeing your team play in your stadium, in a unique place in the game. This is simply one more option, be it good or bad, but nobody can deny that a 3d well done would add more customization to the game, which is much sought today in any game.
Tell me it wouldn't be nice to see your team play in their own stadium.
The current 3d does not have anything 3d and we all know that with a small investment you can get to make one more option so that watching the matches is even more exciting.
For me it is necessary that the 3d is developed well for a good future of the game for all the new options that it could give you.

perfect, it is exactly what I think

I understand the preference for 2D, but times change.

There will always be the "hardcore" players who will like to analyse every bit of the match, and the more "relaxed" and less involved players who will like to just watch the game for fun.

As in every game, you have to cater to a very wide range of users.

That's why I think that killing 3D would be a great step back.

If we really want our community to grow, we can focus on making 2D even better to watching how the tactics perform and make 3D even more entertaining.

They can be complementary, not antagonists.

3d would attract new users but it needs to be a good 3d viewer.

3D sokker is not so bad, but never attract more new users... It's a pity because it was a dev time very consuming when we (the users) asked for many small game changes and bug fixes.

This simple observation should stop any attempt to bring back 3D again.

Technically...
Accessibility for most HTML+JS terminals (desktop, mobile, various browsers...) is not easy and consume a lot of ressources when complex animations happens. The sokker s resilience (i mean: sokker keep alive when loosing users during years) is due to simple and accessible technology. That's another observation.

Finally, stopping 3D mean more time for all other changes updates and fix that sokker needs ^^
Please not that mistake a second time..

And for my pleasure (of topic)
Does that "weird cartoonist kid player faces" styles is in line with the usual sokker user: a game of strategy, easy to access not easy to master, and not for kids. When this faces appear many users tell me they have disabled these images. If Devs need invest in UI and graphic 3D is not the most important :)

Good morning!

I usually don't write in forums but I think this time is necessary. I can't say I'm new user but I am because now I'm playing more.

So, I understand that 2D is necessary as sokker works today, testing tactics and for some old users who don't see an update necessary. But if you don't want that sokker "die" soon, is necessary to adapt it to current times. For this in my opinion, 2D should be improved since it's a disaster and when you are new user the only thing you do is think that it's very unreal.

On the other hand and more important, I consider absolutely necessary to improve 3D. You can see tactics more clearly and enjoy of virtual reality that we have currently.
This is not FIFA and I don't want it, but we are no longer living in the 90s.
I have tried to recruit my friends but they back out seeing especially the 3D.

If we want to continue the same users in 2D we must focus. If we want to advance and to attract new users, I think not...

I prefer 2D but mostly due to the fact that in 3D I have to configure view every time and even after that I see the match details far worse than in 2D and some parts of the pitch are nearly out of camera range (I am writing what I remember, didnt saw 3D for a long time). I also think that if I want to see how my tactic work in the match, what work and what is not working, it is easier to understand from 2D engine point of view. I would say that it is something wrong with 3D view but cant say what exactly.
Oh, and also the 3D have some PLUS options which I didnt use due to lack of PLUS and that is also the reason I consider 2D as a better option because it does not have any PLUS-related shit causing positive/negative impact.

2d for old school and advanced users that can actually prepare a decent tactics

3d is good for attracting new users

3D sokker is not so bad

I think you haven't seen a good 3D. I think this is the main problem. Old users are used to this but if you test a really good 3d you' ll never back to watch a match in 2d. It's impossible. 2d is very useful for tactics, one of the most important part of sokker, and It must stay, but if you want to get users and enjoy, 3d is light years away.

See 3d of FM, or other games of Android (some of them are less than 100mg). How can you compare?

I think that the problem that you talk about consuming resources must be a joke. Nowadays all devices can support 20min of a match.
(edited)

I prefer 2D

2D first