
Moderator: Cartographers
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
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
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.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
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.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:Thanks cicero, yeti is on holiday atm. Well see what he says about this once he gets back.
gimil wrote:Any other issues from anyone?
t-o-m wrote: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
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:t-o-m wrote: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 . . .
cicero wrote:Gimil
My thoughts, illustrated below, are that: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.
- 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
[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.]
oaktown wrote: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.
yupoaktown wrote:Lose the line about pulsating circles - it will be self-explanatory if it's shown right.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Users browsing this forum: No registered users