Subject: [GD] 2D vs. 3D

i do not say that i hundred times said new UX needed and topic is not about that but my friend @Damien2a likes to tease me every where so i suggest mods to do their job

3D and 2D are useful.

2D because useful for understanding how efficient is a tactic tested.
3D to see a nice game

Now, DEV have to improve in a large better way 3D because this view is not nice at all and useless as tactic viewer.
But, as surely said before, if some match engine are not corrected (bad behaviour of strikers in front of goal, players putting ball out of stadium with no brain at all or things similar... And there are many of these), a better 3D will be nicer but awful becasue of these problems let.

i suggest mods to do their job

I suggest you stop demanding how we should do our job... Cause I can, if you keep spamming :-)

well as you mod your behavior is unacceptable

Hi I use a Mac and I'm able to watch the games in 3D but not 2D. I've tried watching 2D with Safari and Google Chrome and neither work. Does anyone know how I can sort it out?

I'm on mac watch on Firefox all is good. Try clear browser cache?

does it try to download a .swf file instead of playing match?

I have that issue with the .swf file

I prefer 2D too. I think it's better to see the tactics' aplication in the game.

3D: I tried to see a few times and don't interested me.

if Chrome then install extension FlashEmbed
after that, You would be able to start loading a match but loading will stop on loading sounds
You need then click right mouse button to open context menu and choose Forward there
after that loading will end and the match will start playing but with no sound

So, why no new users are coming?

Some of you should check your glasses.

I think this is the main question...
but I believe that assuming answers based on our impressions is wrong. Maybe the devs have made some inquiries, but I have no news of the fact that concerned the live ... with all the points where the graphics are inadequate ...

I understand that the site's graphics are important, I understand that live is an important part of the site, but I don't understand why you shouldn't improve what works, rather than work on what doesn't.

last thing, the order of priority:
first of all, the game must not lose its playability, which is guaranteed by the ability to see the actions done on the editor on the field.

... then the graphics.

the world is full of beautiful games to see that nobody plays!

It is difficult for me to understand why the 2D is prefered. May be because you do not know well the 3D viewer?

in 3D viewer , if you set the camera in Stadium view with 80% high, you have the same view as 2D to analyse tactics.

so to see tactics it is the same, we have more options on 3D viewer to see the match

So you agree with me that no development is needed?

it is always possible to improve the viewer, but it seems not a first priority

I can't really understand the need for 3d.
I read about the need for making a "good looking game", and I disagree.

Sokker will never be played for this. That's not the kind of engagement the game need.

Sokker need to put on display its qualities first of all.
These qualities are: the match-engine, the editor, the solution to simulate the two phases of the game, the matching skills->behavior on the field,...

All this must be immediately visible and "measurable" by the managers.
All this is already possible with the current 2d.

+1

A good resume i must say.

+1