Conquer Club

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

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:

• 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.]

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.

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

• as stated previously I believe that effectively stating the rules twice is redundant, hence we should remove them from below the "CONQUER * 4" title (1a) ... taking Oaktown's point about not needing to explaining the pulsing we should remove this (1b) which allows the whole image to be 'shorter' as shown.
• as stated previously I believe that removing one of the "=4" examples reduces clutter (2) ... note also the use of "=2", "=4", "=6" etc rather than "+2", "+4". "+6" etc - for consistentcy
• At (3) there are actually three possible lines in the first "may only share two" example hence both "not equal 4" and "not equal 6" are necessary. Colours and size as in gimil's latest image are better.
• At (4a) and (4b) wording, colours and size as in gimil's latest image are better.

cicero wrote:[*]as stated previously I believe that effectively stating the rules twice is redundant, hence we should remove them from below the "CONQUER * 4" title (1a) ... taking Oaktown's point about not needing to explaining the pulsing we should remove this (1b) which allows the whole image to be 'shorter' as shown.
Done

[*] as stated previously I believe that removing one of the "=4" examples reduces clutter (2) ... note also the use of "=2", "=4", "=6" etc rather than "+2", "+4". "+6" etc - for consistentcy
Can you better explain this one better please?

[*] At (3) there are actually three possible lines in the first "may only share two" example hence both "not equal 4" and "not equal 6" are necessary. Colours and size as in gimil's latest image are better.
I think the not equal to 4 will be enought for people to get the messege.

gimil wrote:

cicero wrote:

• as stated previously I believe that removing one of the "=4" examples reduces clutter (2) ... note also the use of "=2", "=4", "=6" etc rather than "+2", "+4". "+6" etc - for consistency
  Can you better explain this one better please?

gimil wrote:

cicero wrote:

• At (3) there are actually three possible lines in the first "may only share two" example hence both "not equal 4" and "not equal 6" are necessary. Colours and size as in gimil's latest image are better.
  I think the not equal to 4 will be enough for people to get the message.

gimil wrote:Thanks cicero, ill hopefully have an update tomorrow

cairnswk wrote:

gimil wrote:Thanks cicero, ill hopefully have an update tomorrow

Gimil, i am watching this from a Graphics-lickers POV....just so you hadn't thought i had forgotten about you.

gimil wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

gimil wrote:Thanks cicero, ill hopefully have an update tomorrow

Gimil, i am watching this from a Graphics-lickers POV....just so you hadn't thought i had forgotten about you.

ive been a little slow cairns with some comp issues. I hope to be back onto the maps today thou

cairnswk wrote:

gimil wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

gimil wrote:Thanks cicero, ill hopefully have an update tomorrow

Gimil, i am watching this from a Graphics-lickers POV....just so you hadn't thought i had forgotten about you.

ive been a little slow cairns with some comp issues. I hope to be back onto the maps today thou

no worries gimil...i suspected something of that manner...either that or you were having too much summer holiday fun.

liamo6969 wrote:is this like a map that we will be able to play? cause atm i am confused if this is a priavte/separate game or something tht is coming to cc!