Conquer 4 [Quenched]

[gimil]

Some changes . . .

[cairnswk]

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.

[Kaplowitz]

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

Is that good?

And the holes look better btw

[oaktown]

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.

[bryguy]

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

[yeti_c]

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.

[gimil]

Some reorganisation for rule 2 explaination using animation

[TaCktiX]

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.

[bryguy]

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

[yeti_c]

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.

[gimil]

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.

[seamusk]

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.

[oaktown]

Carry on.

[gimil]

Reworked rules 2 a little more.

[cicero]

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.]

[gimil]

Thanks cicero, yeti is on holiday atm. Well see what he says about this once he gets back.

Any other issues from anyone?

[t-o-m]

Thanks cicero, yeti is on holiday atm. Well see what he says about this once he gets back.

why would anyone go on holiday when you've got CC!
oh that yeti, he's crazy!

Any other issues from anyone?

i think its good, i like the flashing/glowing bit on the legend, although im slightly confused by it - but anyone can understand how it works anyway.
the "#4 #6" and the other "#4" next to the glowing thing on the legend isnt very bright, but is still readable -but if it was a bit lighter i think it would be better.
overally, wll done

[gimil]

i think its good, i like the flashing/glowing bit on the legend, although im slightly confused by it - but anyone can understand how it works anyway.
the "#4 #6" and the other "#4" next to the glowing thing on the legend isnt very bright, but is still readable -but if it was a bit lighter i think it would be better.
overally, wll done

Your looking at hte wrong image . . .

[t-o-m]

i think its good, i like the flashing/glowing bit on the legend, although im slightly confused by it - but anyone can understand how it works anyway.
the "#4 #6" and the other "#4" next to the glowing thing on the legend isnt very bright, but is still readable -but if it was a bit lighter i think it would be better.
overally, wll done

Your looking at hte wrong image . . .

how embarrassing!

ok now looking at the right image i see nothing wrong with it!

[cairnswk]

gimil....in the rule 2 example, have you got the correct number of rows and columns showing because one example looks short and doesn't quite represent the correct conquerage if you kwim.

[yeti_c]

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.]

I think I agree with everything Cicero has said...

Essentially - the Rule #2 examples MUST say how many they actually equal... I like the "Not Equal" bit too.

C.

[oaktown]

so, how does everybody see a game going down on this map? since there's no place to hide, I'm not sure what a winning strategy will look like... try to carve out a corner? grab the easiest four?

I know that the game is called Conquer Four, but does a set of four have to be called a Conquer Four? What if instead the first line of text said "Conquer Four in a row to create a set: +2" - this way throughout the rest of the legend you can just refer to a Conquer 4 as a set, which is far less clumsy.

Regardless, consider rearranging the legend like this:
1. First line of text as is (or as above).
2. First three examples of connect 4s, as is.
3. "Two (sets/Conquer 4s) may share one space.
4. Second of examples, with pulsating shared circles.
5. Additional rows of examples, current rows 3-6.
6. "Two sets may NOT share more than one space."
7. The three bottom examples with "≠" etc.
Lose the line about pulsating circles - it will be self-explanatory if it's shown right.

[yeti_c]

so, how does everybody see a game going down on this map? since there's no place to hide, I'm not sure what a winning strategy will look like... try to carve out a corner? grab the easiest four?

I know that the game is called Conquer Four, but does a set of four have to be called a Conquer Four? What if instead the first line of text said "Conquer Four in a row to create a set: +2" - this way throughout the rest of the legend you can just refer to a Conquer 4 as a set, which is far less clumsy.

Regardless, consider rearranging the legend like this:
1. First line of text as is (or as above).
2. First three examples of connect 4s, as is.
3. "Two (sets/Conquer 4s) may share one space.
4. Second of examples, with pulsating shared circles.
5. Additional rows of examples, current rows 3-6.
6. "Two sets may NOT share more than one space."
7. The three bottom examples with "≠" etc.
Lose the line about pulsating circles - it will be self-explanatory if it's shown right.

Hmmm - also good suggestions from Oak...

Especially about the last legend line.

C.

[cicero]

Lose the line about pulsating circles - it will be self-explanatory if it's shown right.

yup

[gimil]

Reorganised. I want to make sure I got the layout right before I redo the animation.