Conquer 4 [Quenched]

[ZeakCytho]

I like the drop shadow, but I think it's too strong.

See my earlier comment on adding an image to each button/hole/whatever, also.

[yeti_c]

i think they look more like buttons now

Disagree with that - they quite obviously go into the screen - look at the shadow man!

C.

[gimil]

I like the drop shadow, but I think it's too strong.

See my earlier comment on adding an image to each button/hole/whatever, also.

I dont think adding a shape to the the circles is such a great idea. Keeping this image as simple as possible. The simplier the better I think in this case

[gimil]

Edited the drop shadow

[cicero]

Excuse me jumping late (and admitting I've not read much yet) ...

Having called the map "Conquer*4" ... surely the key should read "each Conquer 4 gains +2" or "each line of 4" ... rather than confusing the issue with "connect 4" ?

"line of 4" = 9 chars, "connect 4" = 9 chars - so no space problem.

Space wise the right edge of the board looks a little cramped where it meets the legend ...

Love & 2cents

Cicero

[ZeakCytho]

[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.

[cicero]

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).

[gimil]

Added some more space and shuffled things around a little.

[Kaplowitz]

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.

[gimil]

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

[TaCktiX]

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?

[ZeakCytho]

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?

[AndyDufresne]

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

[gimil]

What do we all think of the reshuffle?

[yeti_c]

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?