$30.00
Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: How should we deal with icons not being used ? [Artwork] rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Maycent Y
Singapore
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, as some our your may have seen our post on Consistency or Logic. The aim here is to give a clearer picture of the situation.


Firstly, as seen on the action cards at the top, numbers on the card indicate damage points ( the side with higher number wins). However, we have some action cards where there are no damage points( Cannot be used to battle)like the bottom card.

As such, should we use the bottom format, only having 1 icon (like the bottom picture) or use 2 icons, but the other icon is blanked out. We are really concerned that the blanked out icon can be misleading. Because why even have an icon there if it serves no use?


Poll
Which design do you think is clearer and better ?
Stick to the top design and replace the number with a icon/black circle
Change it to the design seen on the bottom card
      21 answers
Poll created by maycent
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Wionzek
Canada
Winnipeg
Manitoba
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
For an example of design-that-leads-to-consistency, take a look at Android: Netrunner.

Every card type is graphically unique, which leads to consistency that ALL cards that look like X do Y, and you never have to consider what something is or can-do, you know immediately by the card design.

Sure, that means that there's a quite a few different card designs to "learn", but the reminder text of the typing is also on the card. It just helps when you're fanning them in your hand, you can immediately see by card design approximately what you have.

Personally, I would say remove the element entirely. It doesn't have that function, so don't leave any legacy of the function-it-doesn't-have.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Frodge
United States
Plantation
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Consistency is logical.

Use the top, but put a "-" (minus sign) where the damage points would be.

Maybe also consider differentiating each type of Action card with an icon or symbol, or simply including text. You could call any Action that can't be used for battle simply "Action" and ones for battle "Battle Action". Like where it says "Combat card", you could replace that text with "Battle Action" or "Combat Action".

Or as the poster above said, change the design completely for each type of card.

You might also want to consider posting this in the Game Design forum, I think you'll get more, better, answers there.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would also consider a 0 damage marker then if at some point you decide to add in say a "+2 damage to all cards with damage less than 3" card it is easier to interpret.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jorath wrote:
I would also consider a 0 damage marker then if at some point you decide to add in say a "+2 damage to all cards with damage less than 3" card it is easier to interpret.
You could also use an "X" there. Which might be interesting as you could use both 0 and X, as Jorath's modifier could apply to the card that deals 0 damage but not to the card that is marked X where the damage would be.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maycent Y
Singapore
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
agentkuo wrote:
Consistency is logical.

Use the top, but put a "-" (minus sign) where the damage points would be.

Maybe also consider differentiating each type of Action card with an icon or symbol, or simply including text. You could call any Action that can't be used for battle simply "Action" and ones for battle "Battle Action". Like where it says "Combat card", you could replace that text with "Battle Action" or "Combat Action".

Or as the poster above said, change the design completely for each type of card.

You might also want to consider posting this in the Game Design forum, I think you'll get more, better, answers there.





Thanks for your reply. we were considering that if we were to stick to consistency. Actually, there is a differentiation which you may have missed out. The smaller circle containing an icon is actually the differential. However, even within Combat Action, there are some cards which damage points and some without...which is why we are so troubled.

Thats a good idea to post it on the Game Design forum, ill do it right away
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maycent Y
Singapore
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jorath wrote:
I would also consider a 0 damage marker then if at some point you decide to add in say a "+2 damage to all cards with damage less than 3" card it is easier to interpret.


We cant do that. Putting 0 is equivalent to changing the gameplay. By right it is only an action card. By introducing 0, we would have introduced another function with it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Wionzek
Canada
Winnipeg
Manitoba
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually I just realized, for a better example of this look at Warhammer 40K: Conquest. They've introduced cards that have varying costs depending on when they're played, and literally can't be played during certain action phases.

For example, there's new events that can only be played by Deep Striking them, and not normally at all. So in the "cost" bubble they've put a "-" to indicate you can never pay a "normal" cost for this card. A zero would indicate the card has a cost of zero, but the "-" indicates unplayability via that method.

Netrunner also has some cards with cost "X", where the X is defined in the card text itself. (Conquest may have this too, but not where I've noticed.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maycent wrote:
Jorath wrote:
I would also consider a 0 damage marker then if at some point you decide to add in say a "+2 damage to all cards with damage less than 3" card it is easier to interpret.


We cant do that. Putting 0 is equivalent to changing the gameplay. By right it is only an action card. By introducing 0, we would have introduced another function with it.


I was just wondering about future proofing, if you decide on an expansion with a new mechanic its easier if there is something in place. You could use A for action or E for event basically anything as a placeholder.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maycent Y
Singapore
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jorath wrote:
maycent wrote:
Jorath wrote:
I would also consider a 0 damage marker then if at some point you decide to add in say a "+2 damage to all cards with damage less than 3" card it is easier to interpret.


We cant do that. Putting 0 is equivalent to changing the gameplay. By right it is only an action card. By introducing 0, we would have introduced another function with it.


I was just wondering about future proofing, if you decide on an expansion with a new mechanic its easier if there is something in place. You could use A for action or E for event basically anything as a placeholder.


Ah, thats a good idea. so generally i get the feeling that you mean stick with the consistency and keep the damage circle empty. So in future if we can have an expansion (hopefully) we can introduce new elemets using the same circle correct ?

At any case, the reason why we do not want to put 0 as it can still be assumed as 0 damage point. We wanted it to be totally unable to be use for battle other than its effect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maycent Y
Singapore
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dragoonkin wrote:
Actually I just realized, for a better example of this look at Warhammer 40K: Conquest. They've introduced cards that have varying costs depending on when they're played, and literally can't be played during certain action phases.

For example, there's new events that can only be played by Deep Striking them, and not normally at all. So in the "cost" bubble they've put a "-" to indicate you can never pay a "normal" cost for this card. A zero would indicate the card has a cost of zero, but the "-" indicates unplayability via that method.

Netrunner also has some cards with cost "X", where the X is defined in the card text itself. (Conquest may have this too, but not where I've noticed.)


Thanks for your suggestions, we can see that you are really knowledgeable about games especially on the varieties and how they are used. This is an interesting idea we could use for our expansion. However, currently we are aiming at creating a direct and simple party game for our kickstarter campaign
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.