Conquer Club

WidowMakers wrote:OK here you go.

I made these changes:

1) 4d and 4c
2) 7h and 7d
3) JC to where JH is
4) JH to where JS
5) JS to where JD
6) JD to where JC

WM

Looks awesome...

Version 8 (for army number centering) <- actually - this would be easier for me with the 88's on (as long as they are the correct size)

C.

yeti_c wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:OK here you go.

I made these changes:

1) 4d and 4c
2) 7h and 7d
3) JC to where JH is
4) JH to where JS
5) JS to where JD
6) JD to where JC

WM

Looks awesome...

Version 8 (for army number centering) <- actually - this would be easier for me with the 88's on (as long as they are the correct size)

C.

OK will do. I will update the last post when I get to it.

WM

I pulled the image down and looked at what the Neutrals would look like and looks pretty good to me.

BBoz wrote:I pulled the image down and looked at what the Neutrals would look like and looks pretty good to me.

Cool - cheers.

C.

Version 8 has been updated in the post above to reflect 88's for XML coding.

WM

Hey this is an awesome idea! I can't wait to play it. And sorry if this has been asked before, but which suit is highest? I'm not sure if it would matter I guess it would depend on how many cards you have but it is possible for people to have the same hand but different suits. Would they both get a bonus in this situation? Or neither? Or would you have to put a legend on the map showing which suit is highest?

tubaman wrote:Hey this is an awesome idea! I can't wait to play it. And sorry if this has been asked before, but which suit is highest? I'm not sure if it would matter I guess it would depend on how many cards you have but it is possible for people to have the same hand but different suits. Would they both get a bonus in this situation? Or neither? Or would you have to put a legend on the map showing which suit is highest?

Suits really don't matter for this game besides whether or not they make a flush hand. You aren't comparing your hand to other player's hands. You are just getting a bonus based on what your best hand is.

P.S. Spades are the highest suit in Poker.

BBoz wrote:P.S. Spades are the highest suit in Poker.

Actually - I think all suits are equal in Poker.

If you have a straight flush in hearts 5-9 and someone has one in Clubs 5-9 then you share the pot...

However - if you have a run 6-10 in hearts - and they have 5-9 in clubs - then you win as you have a higher straight flush.

C.

With Neutrals/Starting positions


C.

WM

minor text case tweaks for consistency:

• Royal Flush "... Same suit" - should be "... same suit" - lower case "s"
• High Card "No related Cards" - should be "no related cards" - lower case "n", lower case "c"

Tempted to suggest the same for "No Territory Bonus" but actually I think that is 'different' and so is fine as is.

Great work here everyone. I'm looking forward to this one.

alright, looking solid.

Above changes to legend text are good, and i would tweak 2 pair because right now it sounds like you need four cards of the same value for two pair. How about "2 cards of same value + 2 different (or other) cards of same value".

And for the straights it might read better to say "5 cards of any suit in sequence" and "5 cards of same suit in sequence".

For royal flush you may want to say "in same suit" instead of "- same suit" just to be consistent with the language you've been using.

I'm trying to figure out what the possible pairs are that somebody could land to start the game, and i wonder why so many? I see a pair of 9s, 4s, 7s, Js, As, and 2s. Why is there no starting King? Or three? Or eight? Or ten? Swap the 8 and 2 at the top and you knock out a starting pair and they still don't touch. Or the 8 and jack int he top left. Or the Ace and ten in the bottom left.

But my biggest problem with the map continues to be the perspective. The table still looks rounded to me.

Oak,

The reason for the pairs being there is actually to prevent straights and flushes on the start and still leave a reasonable number of starting positions. (Kings, 8's and 3's have all suits made neutral as well as 2 suits from the rest of the cards to prevent straights and straight flushes at the outset, you can see earlier conversations in the thread for more details). Really, having a pair at start is only a +1 because everyone gets +3 no matter what they have, so it isn't a big balance issue if someone gets a pair at start. Plus the starting pairs are spread out so they aren't something that would be naturally easy to hold.

I don't see the "rounded" perspective thing you are seeing on the table. What is making it look off?

Good points on the wording stuff.

Thanks Oak for the wording. I will fix that next edit and post teh large image as well.

WM

BBoz wrote:The reason for the pairs being there is actually to prevent straights and flushes on the start and still leave a reasonable number of starting positions.

ah - I missed that earlier. Thanks for the clarification. Are there any other outsanding play issues I should be aware of, or are people thinking this is stamp-ready?

As for the "rounding" I still look at this image and I feel like the perspective is somehow off. I get that the image is intended to look like I'm sitting right up at the edge of the table, so looking down the cards are bigger and look to be receding less than those across the table. Trouble for me is that the cards at the left look to be falling off to the left, and the cards across the table look so much smaller than those in the foreground that this table must be about ten feet across.

If somebody has five minutes, a camera and a deck of cards they should lay the deck out and take a photo from a seat at the edge of the table for comparison.

oaktown wrote:

BBoz wrote:The reason for the pairs being there is actually to prevent straights and flushes on the start and still leave a reasonable number of starting positions.

ah - I missed that earlier. Thanks for the clarification. Are there any other outsanding play issues I should be aware of, or are people thinking this is stamp-ready?

As for the "rounding" I still look at this image and I feel like the perspective is somehow off. I get that the image is intended to look like I'm sitting right up at the edge of the table, so looking down the cards are bigger and look to be receding less than those across the table. Trouble for me is that the cards at the left look to be falling off to the left, and the cards across the table look so much smaller than those in the foreground that this table must be about ten feet across.

If somebody has five minutes, a camera and a deck of cards they should lay the deck out and take a photo from a seat at the edge of the table for comparison.

I agree with you oaktown but her is the deal. Humans do not see in 600x630 resolution.

I had to fit in the legend and the cards in that size. When using the camera in After effects I tweaked the zoom and distance off of the table. I then adjusted other rotations and distances. This was the best I could come up with right now.

If I make it more top view, the cards will be similar but we lose perspective. If I want perspective (large cards in front and smaller further away) we get the good effect BUT since the larger cards are closer (to the camera) they take up more room and thus there will be less cards visible the closer they are to the cameras (width wise) So I messed with he camera to get the layout yeti_c wanted.

I basically made a wide angle lens view. This will cause the effect you see.

Does that make sense?
WM

oaktown wrote:

BBoz wrote:The reason for the pairs being there is actually to prevent straights and flushes on the start and still leave a reasonable number of starting positions.

ah - I missed that earlier. Thanks for the clarification. Are there any other outsanding play issues I should be aware of, or are people thinking this is stamp-ready?

I think the consensus is that the key play and balance issues are worked out.

Yeti, do you agree?

yeti_c wrote:With Neutrals/Starting positions


C.

which color is which?

rocky mountain wrote:which color is which?

Gray=Neutral / Red=Starting

WM

BBoz wrote:

oaktown wrote:

BBoz wrote:The reason for the pairs being there is actually to prevent straights and flushes on the start and still leave a reasonable number of starting positions.

ah - I missed that earlier. Thanks for the clarification. Are there any other outsanding play issues I should be aware of, or are people thinking this is stamp-ready?

I think the consensus is that the key play and balance issues are worked out.

Yeti, do you agree?

Agree.

C.

what is that shadowy thing beneath the 8 of hearts?

I think it's a stain.

Where are the felt burns from cigars?

But honestly, it's looking good.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Where are the felt burns from cigars?

But honestly, it's looking good.


--Andy

Cheers Andy - glad to see you like it.

C.

i think the cards could use it to have the same amount of symbols as the value like in real cards cause now it looks quite dull, ofcourse if it is do-albe

so 4 of spades has 4 spades on the card

Lone.prophet wrote:i think the cards could use it to have the same amount of symbols as the value like in real cards cause now it looks quite dull, ofcourse if it is do-albe

so 4 of spades has 4 spades on the card

These symbols were removed for
a) clutter
b) with the armies in the way half of them were obscured
c) they are unnecessary

At first I disagreed with the idea - but I do think that it looks a lot better without them!!

C.