Blood Bowl User Interfaces

[VoodooMike]

I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on UI now that we have at least three different computer-based implementations of Blood Bowl. Blood Bowl is a game with a lot of information associated with it, but not all of that information is needed all the time. Some of it is.

What I'm hoping to hear from people is their thoughts on what does or would make for the best UI for online blood bowl matches. For folks who don't know how to answer that, I think the best idea is to answer the following smaller questions:

---

1) During a match, what information do you feel NEEDS to be visible all the time such that you just need to look at a part of the screen to get it.

2) What information should be EASILY available, but not necessarily always visible.. easily available means one click or a mouseover away at any given time.

3) For any digital BB you've played, what did you hate about the match interface.. either what it did, or what it lacked? The lack of chat lobby in BB2 is NOT an example that isn't the match.. the focus-stealing pop-up boxes FUMBBL had is sort'v an example, but we know that's wasn't a choice so much as it was just laziness in the initial writing. FUMBBL's board being exclusively horizontal would be a good example (for people who don't like that.. personally I prefer horizontal).

4) What level of interaction with the other player do you prefer... none, text chat, something more? What about spectators.. as much interaction as with the other player, or less?

---

Obviously if you have more opinions on the topic you can elaborate any way you want, but those questions are a good start. Each time one of these games is released people complain about the interface, but there has never been much discussion on "how it should be done" for the people who make the games to refer to when they have to puzzle out how to set things up for players.

[VoodooMike]

I figure I'll start off with my own random thoughts on the topic and answers to those questions:

1) At all times: the game board and layout of the players (obviously), a timer if one is being used, score, available re-rolls/apoths/wizards/cards/etc.

2) Easily available: individual player info (stats/skills), dice/results log, chat text, tackle zones and modifiers on the board (I know some people think that makes players lazy, but I think its ok to have it as a toggle that you don't need to use). Some player skills without having to select individual players (like the optional tags you can put on players on FUMBBL).

3) I hate cutscenes.. I understand Cyanide wants things to be fancy, but any fru-fru that lasts more than like 3-4 seconds is frustrating. FUMBBL's static client size bugged me a lot... though all programs that don't let me control the size of the visual area bug me unless there's a good reason for it.

4) For public games with strangers I'm a fan of NONE, or maybe text at the most. For games with people I know I like having voice communication. I'd be ok with video too, but probably wouldn't use it. That's more the realm of twitch-loving narcissists. It may be related to the general "feel" of online BB.. if BB shifted to be more focused on casual fun, the interaction might be a big part of it... currently it is not, at least for me.

In general I like minimal interface, but with the option to pile on a bunch more information that can likewise be dismissed at a moment's notice. The translucent chat and dice box in BB1 was good in that it didn't take up too much screen real-estate so you could still have the board taking up most of your screen, even seeing it through the background of the text. I prefer the non-3d board style of FUMBBL and PBeM versions.. 3d is very pretty, but beyond prettiness it serves very little purpose. That said, I find FUMBBL distractingly ugly and the interface outside of the style of board to be a punch in the eyeballs.

[plasmoid]

To me, the key issue is how to display skills/stats.
I'd certainly want complete statline/skills to be visible on mouse-over.

But I'd also want skills visible on the pitch, in a heavily costumizable way. Your preferences should be save-able, naturally.
Displayed skills could be shown either as icons, or as shorthand text. (In my old long term TT League, we had 3-4 letter abbriviations for all skills, and they had to be painted on the players base to be valid).

IMO, it should be possible to access a complete list of skills and stat-ups, with 4 check-boxes next to each:
[] Own skill, visible on your turn.
[] Own skill, visible on your opponents turn.
[] Opponent skill, visible on your turn.
[] Opponent skill, visible on opponents turn.

To fiddly for some perhaps, I'd love for a few standard options to also be available:
Don't show any skills/stat-ups for your own team (except where specifically modified using the list above).
Don't show any skills/stat-ups stats from starting profiles.
On your turn, only show opposing skills/stat-ups that are active during your turn.

Two more unrelated options I'd like:
*Toggle tacklezones on/off.
*The options to temporarily show passing ranges from any clicked player or Square. When you do, opposing players with disturbing presence, pass block, NOS, Catch and Very Long Legs should flash.

Cheers
Martin

[WhatBall]

Ok, full disclosure before I give my answers, I designed a LOT of the icons for FUMBBL and the interface background and layout (within constraints) for the client as well. I have not played Cyanide's since BB1 demo, but have observed streamed matches of the new version.

1. ENTIRE Game board, ALL players, RRs, Turn/half, score, critical skills on players (tagging), visual reminder of weather, chat window, number of reserves/CAS

2. dice/full log, full player stats, dead/injured/KO box, reserves

3. I play FUMBBL on a small laptop, so the client fits the screen fine, but it really bothers me it is not scalable. I know the FUMBBL icons better than most, but still find them difficult on occasion due to size limitations, even though I humbly think many are very good for the size they are limited to. I would love to do better scalable graphics for a new FUMBBL client.

Ability to rotate the pitch/board would be great for those who want it, but I like horizontal.

I ABHOR the cut scenes and animations in BB2. Waste of time. I like a static board, not these repetitive bobbing and weaving movements of the players. I would rather have the FUMBBL pixels over the fancy BB2 graphics. Ideally though, as stated, I would like to see better quality scalable graphics, with isometric style animation so they do look like they have some animation and follow the direction they are moving. Not critical though. I look at this game as an electronic board game. (like chess (but fun) on a PC)

I hate the BB2 interface. It is a mess. Too many overlays. Poorly thought out.

I am really tired of the old graphic wrapper I did for FUMBBL. It really needs an overhaul. There was some effort underway from another person to update, not sure where it is at.

4. I prefer text chat. Sometimes I wish I could hide the chat window, but not often. Chatting makes the game much more enjoyable, especially in leagues. I have no desire for voice or video chat. I love hearing the fans on FUMBBL (even getting booed is fun) and knowing the number of specs is fun. Players and specs should never be able to talk to each other, especially for leagues and tournaments.

There you go.

[VoodooMike]

Displayed skills could be shown either as icons, or as shorthand text. (In my old long term TT League, we had 3-4 letter abbriviations for all skills, and they had to be painted on the players base to be valid).

While I certainly agree that it'd be great to have that... and suspect most people would like it... I'm not sure how anyone would actually accomplish it. A player can potentially have a lot of skills, and the problem becomes how to display all that information on each player on a crowded board without the whole screen being an unintelligible jumble of eye-clutter.

Icons are more space-friendly than text (generally) but it's hard to make them intuitive, so people end up having to learn what they mean. I'm pretty sure BB2 got a lot of complaints about skills being displayed as icons that people didn't immediately understand. Also, depending on how big players/squares are on the screen, they could be pretty tiny icons.

Text is larger but easier to understand.. and while abbreviations may be smaller (not smaller than icons, generally) you'd run into hassle during localization (translating the game into other languages) as you'd need usable abbreviations in those other languages too. Text is also quicker to create a wall of clutter if there's too much too close to each other.

FUMBBL's arbitrary text tagging on players is certainly far better than nothing.

The options to temporarily show passing ranges from any clicked player or Square. When you do, opposing players with disturbing presence, pass block, NOS, Catch and Very Long Legs should flash.

Lets never speak of flashing anything again. If anyone ever figures out the whole "show icons on players" problem they could just use that to show relevant stuff on people, and maybe show what rolls would be needed to reach various teammates or whatever.

I would rather have the FUMBBL pixels over the fancy BB2 graphics.

I find they represent two extremes on the spectrum, myself. FUMBBL is excessively primitive - it reminds me of the sort of indy games they made for windows 3.1, using default window controls and pixel painting. BB2 goes over the top to use fancy graphics and such, but even BB1 did it to the extent that it gets in the way of playing the game.

I'm not sure what the thepretical optimum midpoint between those is. Probably closer in style to FUMBBL than BB2... the whole 3D graphics thing is fun for a match or two but then the novelty wears off and controlling the camera becomes a chore.

Players and specs should never be able to talk to each other, especially for leagues and tournaments.

Why not?

[WhatBall]

I'm not sure what the thepretical optimum midpoint between those is. Probably closer in style to FUMBBL than BB2... the whole 3D graphics thing is fun for a match or two but then the novelty wears off and controlling the camera becomes a chore.

I agree the optimum is closer to FUMBBL (for me). What I would like would be:
1. fixed cameras. Overhead horizontal and vertical options, possibly an isometric view to give a bit of 3D look.
2. Ability to zoom if you choose to do so.
3. scalable vector icons that looks more 3D than current sprites. A +ST player would actually scale up a bit more than a standard player, etc.
4. Ability to customize your players more. Home and away colours, change armour, etc.
5. Ability to have (in addition to team logos) custom pitches and also league logo overlays on the field.

Players and specs should never be able to talk to each other, especially for leagues and tournaments.

Why not?

There are some threads on FUMBBL about it, but it really (to me) comes down to specs interfering with the game, i.e. coaching the players. Also, the comments section can sometimes be overly critical of play selection, etc. I like the delineation between the two ongoing chats. Spec'ing big games and playing armchair quarterback can be fun.

[Kaiowas]

Players and specs should never be able to talk to each other, especially for leagues and tournaments.

Why not?

There are some threads on FUMBBL about it, but it really (to me) comes down to specs interfering with the game, i.e. coaching the players. Also, the comments section can sometimes be overly critical of play selection, etc. I like the delineation between the two ongoing chats. Spec'ing big games and playing armchair quarterback can be fun.

yea, it can get a little tasty in the specs zone, don't think its right to have any of that influence the two players.

I personally enjoy the same thing, sitting back and discussing the options, and wouldnt want that influencing the outcome in any way

[Darkson]

I agree with WhatBall and Kaiowas - spectators being able to chat with the players makes "armchair coaching" to easy. Spectators giving advice from the sideline is a big no-no in all the TT I've seen, unless it's invited by both coaches - I've seen games where, being mid- to low- table where one coach is up by 2+ TDs, and then trying to help the opponent make a consolation OTS seems to be acceptable, but only if the winning coach initiates it. I'm not sure if that would be feasible online (if both coaches allow it then specs can talk to them)?

[RoterSternHochdahl]

somebody who wants to do it online will find ways and means to facilitate it though

[VoodooMike]

Ability to customize your players more. Home and away colours, change armour, etc.

I think customization is something all the implementations of BB have thus far ignored and it's a massive mistake. One of the things that tabletop Blood Bowl has always been big on is bringing your custom-painted, customized team of minis to the games.. but customization options have been pretty sparse in digital versions.

The other side of that coin, of course, is pragmatism and ease of play... if a thrall always looks the same you can always recognize a thrall on sight vs. having to get to know the other guy's team every time you start a match. That said, I've rarely had much trouble figuring out which mini corresponds to which type of player during tabletop games... it's more of an issue with teams that have multiple positionals, and people who don't bring very distinct minis for those.

I'd probably say they should err on the side of customization and maybe give the option to toggle off the other guy's custom team in favour of default player graphics if you find it distracting or difficult to work with.

Ability to have (in addition to team logos) custom pitches and also league logo overlays on the field.

I totally agree with this one... doesn't FUMBBL do all that in its current incarnation? I'd probably want, as above, the ability to turn off the custom stuff in favour of default images just in case their choice of team logos, or custom pitch, was distracting.

If FUMBBL doesn't already do it, you'd think it'd be pretty easy to put in.

Spectators giving advice from the sideline is a big no-no in all the TT I've seen, unless it's invited by both coaches - I've seen games where, being mid- to low- table where one coach is up by 2+ TDs, and then trying to help the opponent make a consolation OTS seems to be acceptable, but only if the winning coach initiates it. I'm not sure if that would be feasible online (if both coaches allow it then specs can talk to them)?

I can see what people are saying about it... and I'm a bit torn on the topic. In many ways online BB has focused on the serious, competitive nature of the game which is certainly the direction the BBRC and online implementations have thus far been going... but the game was built as a social thing.. a "beer and pretzels" game. I often wonder if BB wouldn't be more fun for more people if the online versions moved more toward that and away from the considerably less pro-social competition aspect.

While I'd say your "both coaches agree to it" thing would work, I suspect that if one coach said yes the other would feel pressured to also say yes. Maybe a general setting that can't be altered once a match begins, such that you make your choice on a global level.. if you say "no" then spectators can never talk to the coaches in your matches... if you say "yes" then only when the other guy has his set to yes does it allow it.

In terms of being casual and social, I think it'd be great if the coaches and spectators could all hang out and chat about.... anything at all, really... while the game is going. I agree that for things like tournaments it's probably inappropriate even if it's not distracting.

somebody who wants to do it online will find ways and means to facilitate it though

Someone can "bring a friend" by having a messenger open or being on teamspeak/ventrilo/discord/whatever, sure... but random spectators will have a tough time giving unsolicited advice.

[GJK]

The user interface was what I had in mind primarily when designing a VASSAL module for BB. I've only been playing the game for a couple of years and so I wanted information to be readily accessible to me and to the players (skills, who blocked whom, etc). I also wanted a UI that was Pbem friendly as that is my play method of choice but one that works well for live play online as well. I don't know if anything that I implemented into the VASSAL module would be of interest to you but it's free to download and have a peek at if it does:

http://garykrockover.com/BB/

[VoodooMike]

The user interface was what I had in mind primarily when designing a VASSAL module for BB. I've only been playing the game for a couple of years and so I wanted information to be readily accessible to me and to the players (skills, who blocked whom, etc). I also wanted a UI that was Pbem friendly as that is my play method of choice but one that works well for live play online as well. I don't know if anything that I implemented into the VASSAL module would be of interest to you but it's free to download and have a peek at if it does:

I checked out VABBL back in November and you did a great job... I'm not sure the UI represents a significant difference from the UI on FUMBBL, though. I did love the kitch of things looking like a tabletop game board with the markers and such.

[VoodooMike]

I've been pondering stylistic options for player pieces lately, and there are a few things I thought I'd get people's thoughts on, if they care to share 'em.

Bases or no bases?

There are, I think, pros and cons of the idea.. on the plus side of bases, it gives something standard to draw on (like icons, player number, whatever) and it opens the door to more easily having "oversized" pieces on the board that might be too big to display in a single square while still being obvious which square its part of... the cons being that some people will obviously prefer to imagine the game as something other than just pieces on a board.

Representing prone and stunned

I find this one the toughest, personally. This is actually an occasionally tough one on tabletop, too, depending on the design and size of a mini. How should prone and stunned players be represented visually? In tabletop it's usually a matter of having the piece on its side and being face up for prone and face down for stunned.. in digital having a normal-sized (meaning... fits entirely into the square) piece rotated 90 degrees for prone, but if you use oversized (doesn't fit entirely into its square) pieces then you can wind up with rather messed-up looking in-square rotation.

FUMBBL represents prone and stunned by simply putting one or two slashes through the piece. I'm... not fond of that. I understand the choice... and it works for oversized pieces as well... but it takes a lot of getting used to. Maybe fading a piece out and putting a prone or stunned icon on the square? Still not wonderful, but unless you want to sacrifice the oversized pieces aspect or want to make a prone and/or stunned version of every piece (and there are a whole lot of different player types) it seems like half-assed is the only way to go.

Representing "already moved"

This is one that seems much easier in digital than tabletop... in the latter we usually turn the minis 90 degrees to flag them, or just keep track in our heads. FUMBBL fades the player out after it has been moved, and I don't mind that as a method... though it does mean fading the piece out can't be used to represent some other state (as above). Other options might be to leave only a dark outline of the player after it is done, or to change the colour of the square underneath them... or draw a different colour outline around them.

[plasmoid]

I'd prefer faded out for moved.
Reduced to Shades of grey = prone.
Reduced to Black silhouette = stunned.

No opinion on base or no base. But using the colored bases to denote positions is nice and easy to recognize over myriads of different icons.

[WhatBall]

No bases. You are working with limited real estate no matter how high your resolution, don't waste it on a base. The exception would be a tagging variant mentioned at the bottom that may look like a base.

Prone & Stunned, i like the / and X. I find it really easy to see and identify. If it were fading, you have problems. Sometimes with faded (moved) players on FUMBBL you can miss them more easily depending on weather and the pallette for the race.

For moved, faded works fine, but as above, they can on occasion be a bit hard to see. I would almost like to see a ~70% fade (versus 50%) and another symbol, maybe an em dash.

One thing you should consider, if you are doing tagging is allowing the user to set a background colour and opacity to the tagging text so it is more visible. FUMMBL works ok, but there are times when it is hard to read, depending on icon or the field.