Conquer 4 [Quenched]

[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.

[Beko the Great]

Love the Idea! Graphics are cool for me, as well as bonus... er... Think I've nothing to add ....

[cicero]

Further to Gimil's latest image, please see my rough image below.
Note that I'm not suggesting that this one is 'correct' and Gimil's is 'wrong'. Bear with me if I use it to make the following points:

• 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.

[Excuse my rough graphic work, again done by pixel manipulation rather than something more sophisticated ... hence why I have not taken the time to incorporate all that is better about gimil's latest revision.]

[gimil]

[*]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.

[cicero]

• 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?

In your last image the 'explanation of rule 2' uses the "equal sign" and the "not equal sign".
I am suggesting that the 'explanation of rule 1' should also use the "equal sign" and not a "plus sign" instead as this is inconsistent.

Hopefully my intention is clearer ?

• 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.

It may be. Happy to let it go dependant on other opinions ...

[gimil]

Thanks cicero, ill hopefully have an update tomorrow

[cairnswk]

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]

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]

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.

[gimil]

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.

Acctually I began working on monday so my CC time has been cut in half. The other night I reformatted my computer to factory settings and lost the memory card with all my backups on it. After 2 days of stress I finally got everything back and found all my files.

Here, I think I captured everyones suggestions:

[TaCktiX]

The last +4 bonus example, and the last rule 2 example seem redundant. I'd say drop the upper one and keep the lower one.

[rocky mountain]

i do not get the explanation of 2 sets may not share more than one space. what happened to the animation? what with the =2 is bad and the =4 is good? it doesn't make sense... the animated way made a lot more sense.

[liamo6969]

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!

[Kaplowitz]

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!

All of the maps in the Map Foundry may become maps, there are no private maps




I think it should say "+2" rather than "=2" on the bonuses.

[whitestazn88]

animations were cool. i'd like them back

it really clears up the rules

[sfhbballnut]

looks pretty self explanatory to me, glad this is getting some attention again