Chinese Checkers [Quenched] May '07 re-opener?

RenegadePaddy · Post by **RenegadePaddy** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:37 pm

Ditto on the green.

Really looking forward to this map - simple and original idea well executed

everywhere116 · Post by **everywhere116** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:41 pm

Personally I like the circles in the red triangle.

Molacole · Post by **Molacole** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:14 pm

the ones on orange look like actual sphere peices.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:17 pm

I like the original...only because the other ones feel 'too deep' and don't quite mesh with the feel and look of the map.

--Andy

lVlaniac · Post by **lVlaniac** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:28 pm

i would like to play in this map soon so casted my vote i hope the add it soon

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:47 pm

I think the original ones are best. They look the cleanest if that makes any sense. Red and orange are definately a no go, but the green one's are okay. However, I don't like how the look on the centre part of the board and I guess we'd need to see them on every part of the board to make a final call.

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:28 pm

the ones in the red and the normal ones

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:33 pm

Wisse wrote:the ones in the red and the normal ones

agreed. i like the depth ones in blue the best because you erased all of the original outline, some of that is still on the red circles.
but my second choice would just be the original

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:20 pm

Enigma wrote:i like the depth ones in blue the best because you erased all of the original outline, some of that is still on the red circles.
but my second choice would just be the original

I did this version the easy way - just laid circles on top of existing circles, so I didn't get all of them right. Call it a beta.

I could play with the depth circles, but ultimately I don't think they're as good for game play. I have som other ideas to make the original white circles fit better with the map around them, the first being to change the shadow from the grey to a color that is already in the palette of the background, so the circles don't seem out of place. That's probably the way it'll go.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:23 am

That's too bad, I liked the depth circles more.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:54 am

oaktown wrote:
Enigma wrote:i like the depth ones in blue the best because you erased all of the original outline, some of that is still on the red circles.
but my second choice would just be the original
I did this version the easy way - just laid circles on top of existing circles, so I didn't get all of them right. Call it a beta.

I could play with the depth circles, but ultimately I don't think they're as good for game play. I have som other ideas to make the original white circles fit better with the map around them, the first being to change the shadow from the grey to a color that is already in the palette of the background, so the circles don't seem out of place. That's probably the way it'll go.

that sounds good too, either way the map will look good. but the more i look at the depth ones the more they grow on me- not the ones in orange, because you took out the texture. but the ones in blue are perfect.
sorry, i realize that was "beta", i didnt mean to criticise.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:18 pm

OK, I don't like the deep circles. I don't think they work with the board, it doesn't make sense to give them texture, and I think it makes it harder to read the army counts. Below are two versions I'd like opinions on. Please continue to ignore any out of place army counts - the coordinates aren't anywhere near finalized.

1. Original white circles... much the same as before, but with some little things cleaned up.

2. Slightly softer circles, using colors drawn from the surrounding palette.

Sargentgeneral · Post by **Sargentgeneral** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:23 pm

I think that the second one works better with the overall soft feeling you are trying to give this map so i choose that one.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:41 pm

The second for the same reason.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:53 pm

Yes, the second one is more consistent with the look of the rest of the map.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:23 am

yup, second.

just fyi- this version of the map doesnt have the circle in the middle. not sure if that was removed on purpose or just an older version of the map.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:22 am

Enigma wrote:just fyi- this version of the map doesnt have the circle in the middle. not sure if that was removed on purpose or just an older version of the map.

Oops! Good catch Enigma. Sometime I go back a step when I want to rework something - in this case the circles, which i wanted to work on pre-texture - but the danger is that I sometimes forget a change that happened along the way. The circle will be replaced.

everywhere116 · Post by **everywhere116** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:43 pm

First version for the triangles, second for the center.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:27 pm

OK, softer circles in large and small versions... no numbers, but take a look and make sure I haven't lost any changes we've made along the way.

Large, 740x500:

and small, 600x405:

I really will take one more crack at giving the circles the illusion of depth, but if it doesn't produce the desired effect I'm sticking with the circles above. I'd rather have flat circles that are easy for game play than throw in a cool effect that makes the numbers hard to read.

EvilOtto · Post by **EvilOtto** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:49 pm

I think we've all grown accustomed to the 'flat' circles. And they're fine. But I like the circles with depth more. Maybe not quite as deep as your mock-up (a page or two ago), a little less contrast maybe?

To me, the board is made of wood, and painted, so the holes for the marbles might not have the same texture, and they might not have the color (maybe they were cut out after the surface was painted).

I'd be happy to play on the flat circles as shown above, but if you put it to a vote I'm going for the circles with depth.

gavin_sidhu · Post by **gavin_sidhu** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:18 am

whats gung hay fat choi

EvilOtto · Post by **EvilOtto** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:50 am

gavin_sidhu wrote:whats gung hay fat choi

Happy Chinese New Year!

Now lets set off some fire crackers and play some checkers!

icettee · Post by **icettee** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:41 am

I remember looking at this map awhile ago. It looks great, I like all the changes you made since I last glanced upon it. It looks so much different compared to the first and second version I saw. I really like the background, the softer tones and the wooden board feel that it now has been given. I agree the white with gray gravitating or outlining looks good.
Anyway, it looks like you put a lot of t.l.c. into making it and the result shows...can't wait to play it someday.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:53 am

EvilOtto wrote:
gavin_sidhu wrote:whats gung hay fat choi
Happy Chinese New Year!

Indeed - Chinese New Year kicks off this weekend. Happy year of the boar, everyone!

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:23 pm

EvilOtto wrote:I think we've all grown accustomed to the 'flat' circles. And they're fine. But I like the circles with depth more. Maybe not quite as deep as your mock-up (a page or two ago), a little less contrast maybe?

To me, the board is made of wood, and painted, so the holes for the marbles might not have the same texture, and they might not have the color (maybe they were cut out after the surface was painted).

I'd be happy to play on the flat circles as shown above, but if you put it to a vote I'm going for the circles with depth.

I agree with EvilOtto on all his points.

One thing to consider, enlarging the title a little (though I see there isn't much room), or perhaps making the bonus description slightly smaller, to better differentiate between the two visually. Maybe, add an interesting themed lined seperating the two? Perhaps that'd be better.

Also, is the font you used for signing the same as the opposite side? I noticed the right side has the black outline, but I'm curious to see how that and the title and such would look if it was similar to your name.

Also, one more thing bugging me. I like symmetry in some things. Could you make the lines in purple more similar to that of blue? As then you could have the bottom triangles having the same color lines, the middle trianges, and the top.

--Andy

Chinese Checkers [Quenched] May '07 re-opener?

depth

Chinese Checkers Board

Re: depth