Conquer 4 [Quenched]

by **ZeakCytho** on Fri May 16, 2008 4:51 pm

[quote="cicero"]Space wise the right edge of the board looks a little cramped where it meets the legend .../quote]

I agree. If you move some of the holes closer together, like Cairns suggested, you could add a vertical divider - a thin red line, like your horizontal dividers between the title and names, or between the sections of the bonus area.

I guess the holes look okay now. The drop shadow is better. There's still a lot of contrast between the white parts of the hole and the board, but barring the addition of an image to the circle, I don't think you can really get around that...Unless, you could just make the background color behind the holes a very very light gray, just slightly off white.

Is there a way to get rid of the drop shadow that's at the bottom of the board while maintaining it for each hole? I don't think it looks especially good at the bottom.

by **cicero** on Fri May 16, 2008 5:04 pm

Further to my thought that the map is little cramped near the key I find myself thinking ...

"Combo making" is the art/skill of playing this map ... explicitly spelling out so many of the combos in the key might detract from the fun or , it could be argued, be somewhat redundant.

It seems there are only 2 rules which needs to be explicity stated:
(a) line of 4 = +2
(b) two bonuses may only share one space

... and if anything it's (b) that needs careful explanation - not extra space spent on (a).

by **gimil** on Fri May 16, 2008 5:14 pm

Added some more space and shuffled things around a little.

by **Kaplowitz** on Fri May 16, 2008 5:27 pm

The title looks like it was stretched up, while the names look like they were stretched sideways. Its not bad, it just looks strange next to each other.

by **gimil** on Fri May 16, 2008 5:36 pm

cicero wrote:Further to my thought that the map is little cramped near the key I find myself thinking ...

"Combo making" is the art/skill of playing this map ... explicitly spelling out so many of the combos in the key might detract from the fun or , it could be argued, be somewhat redundant.

It seems there are only 2 rules which needs to be explicity stated:
(a) line of 4 = +2
(b) two bonuses may only share one space

... and if anything it's (b) that needs careful explanation - not extra space spent on (a).

Ill get onto this for the next update

by **TaCktiX** on Fri May 16, 2008 6:14 pm

I'm noticing that all the text washes out when there's any glare on my monitor. Perhaps make the red less subdued to avoid this problem?

by **ZeakCytho** on Fri May 16, 2008 6:30 pm

I still think a vertical divider separating the bonuses from the map and title would be good.

I agree with Kaplo on the title/names stretching. It's not a major point, but is there anything that can be done to fix this short of using a different font/shrinking the current one?

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri May 16, 2008 8:08 pm

I think a better placement of your signatuares may be in the right bottom corner, perhaps going along the base and then up the vertical in the corner.

--Andy

by **gimil** on Sat May 17, 2008 8:39 am

What do we all think of the reshuffle?

by **yeti_c** on Sat May 17, 2008 8:48 am

Critique...

First up - I like the changes - everything seems to be slotting into place a lot more...

Rules - great idea. - consider having the red line above, below (or both) them.

Cicero's point about more space for rule 2 is still valid...

Consider dropping +8, +12, +14...

Then you have 3 lines of extra examples for Rule 2 -> which is the harder one to understand (also - the last example on +4 -> is also a rule 2 example.)

C.

PS -> Why is this still in ideas?

by **gimil** on Sun May 18, 2008 10:07 am

Some changes . . .

by **cairnswk** on Mon May 19, 2008 11:59 am

Gimil....luv the last version, which is what i was alluring to in my first comments on design space.
The "buttons" now look more like holes, to my eyes anyway.
Sorry, i can't move it for you.

by **Kaplowitz** on Mon May 19, 2008 3:03 pm

Explanation:
Two lines of four spaces in a row may only intersect in one place.

Is that good?

And the holes look better btw

by **oaktown** on Mon May 19, 2008 6:54 pm

This seems pretty "advanced" to me.

Can you do something with the colors of the circles in the legend examples? I have to look closely to tell them apart - the circles demonstrating what it takes to give a bonus should really pop out.

Any thought of making a 4x4 square a victory condition? Unless it's an advanced escalating game, anybody who holds a block of 16 should win anyway.

by **bryguy** on Tue May 20, 2008 6:59 am

oaktown wrote:Can you do something with the colors of the circles in the legend examples? I have to look closely to tell them apart - the circles demonstrating what it takes to give a bonus should really pop out

I have the same problem, maybe make the circles there all red, and the others bright red

by **yeti_c** on Tue May 20, 2008 8:27 am

oaktown wrote:Any thought of making a 4x4 square a victory condition? Unless it's an advanced escalating game, anybody who holds a block of 16 should win anyway.

Personally I really dislike this idea... for a number of reasons.

a) I don't think a +20 bonus is all seeing all powerful on this board (also proved by your "unless" comment)
b) I think this is completely against the ethos of the idea.
c) It would look like shit in the XML
d) It would look like shit in BOB's Objective summary

C.

by **gimil** on Fri May 23, 2008 11:46 am

Some reorganisation for rule 2 explaination using animation

by **TaCktiX** on Fri May 23, 2008 3:37 pm

The checkmark is a little too oblique, especially next to the bold crossed-out circle. Really good explanation of the rules now. There's plenty of room for creativity bonus-wise, and that's a good thing.

by **bryguy** on Fri May 23, 2008 3:41 pm

actually it still really confuses me.... but i like the animation!!

by **yeti_c** on Fri May 23, 2008 3:44 pm

I think at least 1 more example of a good bonus (i.e. the N) would be good...

As that shows - it is 1 shared space between 2 different lines...

If you use the N - then oscillate the animation so the pulse at different times -to imply that they are different.

C.

by **gimil** on Fri May 23, 2008 3:46 pm

yeti_c wrote:I think at least 1 more example of a good bonus (i.e. the N) would be good...

As that shows - it is 1 shared space between 2 different lines...

If you use the N - then oscillate the animation so the pulse at different times -to imply that they are different.

C.

I didnt even think about the "N" ill put it in.

by **seamusk** on Sat May 24, 2008 12:05 am

The animation is cool. It took me a long time to interpret though because I thought it was one example. I thought since they both were next to the same no set symbol that the example was saying that the diagonal on right and straight line on left were incompatible because they shared two spaces. Only they obviously don't. lol. I would remove one and keep one. Probably the diagonal. Or remove the checkmark one and have the top left one be one check four and the top right another that conflicts (uses two of the same). Then have the bottom one be the combination with the flashing illegals with the no set sign.

by **oaktown** on Sat May 24, 2008 9:47 am

Carry on.

by **gimil** on Sun May 25, 2008 11:17 am

Reworked rules 2 a little more.

by **cicero** on Mon May 26, 2008 3:21 am

Gimil

My thoughts, illustrated below, are that:

effectively stating the rules twice is redundant, hence my removing them from below the "CONQUER * 4" title.
removing one of the "=4" examples reduces clutter
the mixing of a "tick" with a "no entry sign" - when explaining rule 2 - is slightly confused. Perhaps the "=" and struck through opposite are better ?
"indicate" is more appropriate than "represent" in the flashing spaces text

Though I've not done it in the image I think it would be useful to remove the top line of spaces in the first example under rule 2 - for consistency with the last example and also to reduce the height of the image. The same 5 or 6 pixels could be lost underneath the map title.

[Excuse my rough graphic work, done by pixel manipulation rather than something more sophisticated ... and breaking your flashing spaces in the process. Some of the fonts/font sizes are certainly wrong too.]

Conquer 4 [Quenched]

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 4

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5 - Animated!

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5 - Animated!

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5 - Animated!

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5 - Animated!

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5 - Animated!

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5 - Animated!

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5 [I]

Re: Conquer 4. Page 1 + 5 [I]

Who is online