Wish to contribute to the project by donating? Heads up to our Patreon -> https://www.patreon.com/skylordsreborn

Jump to content
BEWARE: Multiaccounting May Cause Permabans! Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Hey Guys,

today I'm here do present my idea of a new card layout...

I wasn't happy with the old look of the cards. I know I'm used to it as the most of us are but its way to oldschool.

I mean think about it, it's like 10 years old :)

So I did a more new fession kinda look/design...mostly based on my own logo creation, the creation of the winner and the current logo.

 

So what I did was a whole card overhauling. Basically from scratch.

The only things I kept are pretty much the little icon for the abilities...since I kinda still like them...no matter that I NEVER EVER looked at them specifically since this task :D

Already thinking about something that either gives more information about the ability or leave them out completely.

 

All opinions are welcome...as well as suggestions.

 

So hope you guys like it.

1st (old one)                                                          2nd (new one)                            3rd (with improvements and suggestions)  4th (3rd orb visible neutral and border rarety turquoise)

 

kartefin.thumb.jpg.f12bc0768ce5684da2da1507644a25a2.jpg

Ah btw for now I used the old design of the Enforcer, but I will do a rework of his artwork too the next days ;)

Edited by YT Tobbezockt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see you changed:

1. The Orb layout

2. The borders

3. Removed the "Numbers"+"Type" Info

4.Rearanged the botttom line for DMg, Health and rarity

5. Not changged yet, but you either want to remove or change the ability display

 

Number 1: Not sure, it does not take away or give information so it is entirely a taste think, while it does look more intense then the old display I personally prefer simple displays so I'm more in favor of the older one. I would assume that veteranes of the old game also tend more to the older design.

2. The borders. They look very good, especially with the changed orb sign.

3. Removing additional information is an absolute no go in my eyes.

4.not necessarily bad, but not very intuitive either, it makes it seem as if the life of the card associates to the rarity of the card not the hearth behind it.

5. same as 3, if you just want to remove it then that would not be a good think, but more information depending on how you do it can be very welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think looks cool, a thing you can add a little description of the passive/active, something who no is explained in the originals and can be it, if the monster have more than 1 passives/actives probably can be more dificult introduce that info, but if you want know hat does more easy, only see the card and you know what he does, you can get the info for the wiki and summarizes in to the card.(its only my idea, i know its so slow do it in all cards).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't really think that the metallic borders and the new orb/cost-symbol fit the overall artstyle of the cards. Generally, I really like the old cards and being old does not necessarily disqualify designs, ie. there are plenty of good looking MTG-cards, that are 10 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the cards need a new layout. They still look pretty good. Even though your design looks good I still prefer the old one. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either I read over it or no one has mentioned it but the damage type and unit size are missing, which is important and handy information to have displayed on the card in my opinion. Regardless, I like the look @YT Tobbezockt, especially the bottom part to be honest. Maybe you've designed the power/orb part to be a bit too complex though. I personally don't feel like a new card design is required, but that doesn't mean yours doesn't look good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from agreeing that cards don't need a makeover as they are clear enough and induce a certain nostalgia factor, as well as not really being into the sleek design you used, there are quite some UI Design issues I must address.

  • There's currently no way of indicating what tier a card is. Everything looks like it requires 4 orbs. How would you represent neutral orbs over no orbs?
  • The power circle is a bit too small for a 3-digit number to be recognised clearly, especially when zoomed out.
  • Without a stroke or shadow on the text, the card and ability titles may be hard to read from afar
  • Leaving card abilities in is vital for players to get an overview of what a card does, especially with some abilities like "siege" or "swift" being common knowledge at some point.
  • You have completely removed the squad size, charges and unit type from the card. Card classes give an indication of what a card specialises at, such as supporting, besieging, or being a plain powerhouse. This may be quite essential to know. Same goes for the unit's race, as some of them imply whether the card flies or not, such as dragonkin. Finally, the number is more important than meets the eye, as it shows how many times a card can be used before going on exhaustion cooldown, and this should never be removed from the card.
  • You are missing the damage type and unit size on the card (S/M/L/XL). Without this information, there is no way to see how to counter and what to counter with this card. S damage units do 50% more damage to S size units, and so on, and so this is really something that should not be scrapped from a card.

Your cards look really sleek and modern, which I personally don't like that much, but the biggest issue is that the old BF cards had all the necessary points of information in there, which you're now getting rid of for the sake of prettiness. I do however think that it's clear to see what's health and what's damage, unlike Tam's 4th point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:mrxlink: already listed any objective criticism I have.

Personally I feel that the old design fits the cards quite well and apart from not being into the whole 'shiny metal' design myself I also find it to contrast the used look of the card frame in a bad way. If you go for modern and shiny imo you should improve on what is already there and change what doesn't fit. In that sense

  • The original design has a glossy edge that is supposed to give the card depth. It doesn't fit the used look but the effect is weak and doesn't disrupt the visuals. You exchanged it for a metal frame which serves a very similar purpose and looks way cleaner. This is a successful example of what I meant by improving on what is already there.
  • While the outer frame of the original is a bit glossy the inner frame is the exact opposite. It has a rugged, used look that really doesn't fit your style. If the design is supposed to be consistent you'll need to completely redo the inner frame.
  • The damage and health symbols of the original have an orange shine behind them to improve their readability. Your symbols are pretty but they neither stand out nor do they compliment the design right now. A suggestion of mine would be to give the outer line of the symbols the same roundness and depth of the metal frame and make the current colour a bit brighter and a tad more orange-y to make them pop out. Also try to scale the size of the symbols so that there's a bit more space towards the metal frame.
  • The edition badge already got a metal-like look in the original. In your design it feels a bit flat though, given the texture and depth of the metal frame.
  • On the same note have you tried making the metal colour the same as the rarity? That way one would immediately see the rarity and it might compliment a card. Keep in mind that for example the same brown doesn't necessarily work with both :fireorb: and :natureorb:.
  • The text style doesn't fit your design (the font is good though). Plain white text looks a bit weird when everything else got so much detail worked into it.
  • Overall the card should look like it has a glossy surface. A light reflection somewhere on the card (where it doesn't obstruct readability) could achieve this. But if you want to go all out you can redo the complete card texture if you want.

Just my 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tam Hawkins said:

As far as I can see you changed:

1. The Orb layout

2. The borders

3. Removed the "Numbers"+"Type" Info

4.Rearanged the botttom line for DMg, Health and rarity

5. Not changged yet, but you either want to remove or change the ability display

 

Number 1: Not sure, it does not take away or give information so it is entirely a taste think, while it does look more intense then the old display I personally prefer simple displays so I'm more in favor of the older one. I would assume that veteranes of the old game also tend more to the older design.

2. The borders. They look very good, especially with the changed orb sign.

3. Removing additional information is an absolute no go in my eyes.

4.not necessarily bad, but not very intuitive either, it makes it seem as if the life of the card associates to the rarity of the card not the hearth behind it.

5. same as 3, if you just want to remove it then that would not be a good think, but more information depending on how you do it can be very welcome.

1.you r right its pretty much a taste think :) to quote barney stinson:"new is always better" :D just kiddin

2.thx man ;)

3.i realised that after uploading...was not intentionally to spare them xD (but at the same time i think there are a lot of informations that dont need to be on the card itself...as u said simple is better, thats a little bit of a small path between "a lot informations are good and simple is good" both can be bad if its to much. to much infos are overwhelming and kinda exhausting and to less is also a rly bad think since the user might not know what to do with the card.)

4. thanks for that opinion, was thinking about that, and im already thinking about rearranging them...but do u rly think its that confusing...i bet a new player would know instant what is what...on the other side you r right there must be a comparison between the old design and the new...to make sure there are improvements. i will watch out for that

5.do u rly ever watched at the icons...? my intention behind maybe deleting all of them came when i realised how many of those icons exist...just take a look at the card database...its hilarious that i never ever looked at those and that the old devs never mentioned what they mean...in my opinion there was never a real use for them except for make it look better and maybe to create a bit of a difference between the abilities...

but be serious would you know what kind of ability it is just by looking at the icons themself?

 

AND THANKS for your comment i will keep your critique in mind.

9 hours ago, frankleitor said:

I think looks cool, a thing you can add a little description of the passive/active, something who no is explained in the originals and can be it, if the monster have more than 1 passives/actives probably can be more dificult introduce that info, but if you want know hat does more easy, only see the card and you know what he does, you can get the info for the wiki and summarizes in to the card.(its only my idea, i know its so slow do it in all cards).

im not sure if i understand it correctly what you are trying to say...but i think the old way was the best for the way the cards are presented in the cardpool. the description would be way to small on the cards themself i think. i can try it and maybe the way its presented in the yugioh online game would be the best way...

if the text is to long just write as much as possible but give another window that mentions the whole text when hovering over the card.

8 hours ago, ThomasMann said:

Yah I like it, but not so sure about the orb layout and as enforcer is a 2 fire orb card, 2 of the orbs should be red.

i swear i the moment i layed down in my bed i was like "wait a second...isnt he a 2 orb creature" xD

will change that thanks ;)

btw what is it that u dont like about the new orb design?

5 hours ago, Ladadoos said:

Either I read over it or no one has mentioned it but the damage type and unit size are missing, which is important and handy information to have displayed on the card in my opinion. Regardless, I like the look @YT Tobbezockt, especially the bottom part to be honest. Maybe you've designed the power/orb part to be a bit too complex though. I personally don't feel like a new card design is required, but that doesn't mean yours doesn't look good. 

na noone mentioned that...i just forgot about it ^^

well think about it...when u know or maybe play league of legends...with nearly all new designs or redesign made in lol...nearly the whole community cried about changed what already works and wanted to stick with the old...that the nature of us humans...we HATE things to change.

 

but after the changes were made and settled in everyone likes them

 

and its not that i want this to me realised i just did the new design for myself atm ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, YT Tobbezockt said:

btw what is it that u dont like about the new orb design?

There is no way to tell what tier a card is/there is no way to tell how many orbs it takes to summon the card. As some cards for t2 (2 orbs) have colourless meaning you can use any other orb to summon that creature. Take a look at the first ice orb, next to it you see a grey circle with the middle cut out, that is a colourless orb meaning you can use a fire, nature, shadow or ice monument to summon that creature. What we are saying is your new UI has no way of telling what tier (how many orbs it takes) to summon the card, to me it looked like the enforcer you were showing off as an example was a tier 4 card because of all the colourless circles.

Image result for battleforge cards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MrXLink said:

Aside from agreeing that cards don't need a makeover as they are clear enough and induce a certain nostalgia factor, as well as not really being into the sleek design you used, there are quite some UI Design issues I must address.

  • There's currently no way of indicating what tier a card is. Everything looks like it requires 4 orbs. How would you represent neutral orbs over no orbs?
  •  
  • The power circle is a bit too small for a 3-digit number to be recognised clearly, especially when zoomed out.
  • Without a stroke or shadow on the text, the card and ability titles may be hard to read from afar
  • Leaving card abilities in is vital for players to get an overview of what a card does, especially with some abilities like "siege" or "swift" being common knowledge at some point.
  • You have completely removed the squad size, charges and unit type from the card. Card classes give an indication of what a card specialises at, such as supporting, besieging, or being a plain powerhouse. This may be quite essential to know. Same goes for the unit's race, as some of them imply whether the card flies or not, such as dragonkin. Finally, the number is more important than meets the eye, as it shows how many times a card can be used before going on exhaustion cooldown, and this should never be removed from the card.
  • You are missing the damage type and unit size on the card (S/M/L/XL). Without this information, there is no way to see how to counter and what to counter with this card. S damage units do 50% more damage to S size units, and so on, and so this is really something that should not be scrapped from a card.

Your cards look really sleek and modern, which I personally don't like that much, but the biggest issue is that the old BF cards had all the necessary points of information in there, which you're now getting rid of for the sake of prettiness. I do however think that it's clear to see what's health and what's damage, unlike Tam's 4th point.

 

well i mentiond some of the points already but i will do it between your points...and since you mentioned some new ;)

  • There's currently no way of indicating what tier a card is. Everything looks like it requires 4 orbs. How would you represent neutral orbs over no orbs?

the neutral orbs are white and solid while no orbs are transparent...i can upload a comparision with a 4 orb creature ;)

  • The power circle is a bit too small for a 3-digit number to be recognised clearly, especially when zoomed out.

to be honest i made the number even larger then the old one, so it should be also a larger number even if it would be a 3 digit 

  • Without a stroke or shadow on the text, the card and ability titles may be hard to read from afar

there is a shadow, at least in the cardname:D but it is a bit to small to make it nicely to read...saw/see that as well

  • Leaving card abilities in is vital for players to get an overview of what a card does, especially with some abilities like "siege" or "swift" being common knowledge at some point.

i dont want to get rid of the abilities...just rework or delete the icons...i used to be at place 2 in 2vs2 and i never rly looked at the icons to be serious...no matter i have to admit that it might would look kinda naked and to stripped without a symbol

  • You have completely removed the squad size, charges and unit type from the card. Card classes give an indication of what a card specialises at, such as supporting, besieging, or being a plain powerhouse. This may be quite essential to know. Same goes for the unit's race, as some of them imply whether the card flies or not, such as dragonkin. Finally, the number is more important than meets the eye, as it shows how many times a card can be used before going on exhaustion cooldown, and this should never be removed from the card.

y mentioned that already...i just forgot about it...makes the design look even more naked...i totally agree that that informations are essential.

  • You are missing the damage type and unit size on the card (S/M/L/XL). Without this information, there is no way to see how to counter and what to counter with this card. S damage units do 50% more damage to S size units, and so on, and so this is really something that should not be scrapped from a card.

also already mentioned ;)

 

thx mate

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaliber84 said:

:mrxlink: already listed any objective criticism I have.

Personally I feel that the old design fits the cards quite well and apart from not being into the whole 'shiny metal' design myself I also find it to contrast the used look of the card frame in a bad way. If you go for modern and shiny imo you should improve on what is already there and change what doesn't fit. In that sense

  • The original design has a glossy edge that is supposed to give the card depth. It doesn't fit the used look but the effect is weak and doesn't disrupt the visuals. You exchanged it for a metal frame which serves a very similar purpose and looks way cleaner. This is a successful example of what I meant by improving on what is already there.
  • While the outer frame of the original is a bit glossy the inner frame is the exact opposite. It has a rugged, used look that really doesn't fit your style. If the design is supposed to be consistent you'll need to completely redo the inner frame.
  • The damage and health symbols of the original have an orange shine behind them to improve their readability. Your symbols are pretty but they neither stand out nor do they compliment the design right now. A suggestion of mine would be to give the outer line of the symbols the same roundness and depth of the metal frame and make the current colour a bit brighter and a tad more orange-y to make them pop out. Also try to scale the size of the symbols so that there's a bit more space towards the metal frame.
  • The edition badge already got a metal-like look in the original. In your design it feels a bit flat though, given the texture and depth of the metal frame.
  • On the same note have you tried making the metal colour the same as the rarity? That way one would immediately see the rarity and it might compliment a card. Keep in mind that for example the same brown doesn't necessarily work with both :fireorb: and :natureorb:.
  • The text style doesn't fit your design (the font is good though). Plain white text looks a bit weird when everything else got so much detail worked into it.
  • Overall the card should look like it has a glossy surface. A light reflection somewhere on the card (where it doesn't obstruct readability) could achieve this. But if you want to go all out you can redo the complete card texture if you want.

Just my 2 cents

  • The original design has a glossy edge that is supposed to give the card depth. It doesn't fit the used look but the effect is weak and doesn't disrupt the visuals. You exchanged it for a metal frame which serves a very similar purpose and looks way cleaner. This is a successful example of what I meant by improving on what is already there.
  • While the outer frame of the original is a bit glossy the inner frame is the exact opposite. It has a rugged, used look that really doesn't fit your style. If the design is supposed to be consistent you'll need to completely redo the inner frame.

You are right with this first two points...i will see if i can adjust it...the intention was not to scrap the whole old design and create somthing totally new...since i like the rough design too i tried to keep it...and i think it fits the game nice as well. maybe a bit less of a gold border would do it. btw it makes sense that the card design does not fit the overall look atm since i just took a old artwork...im planing to redraw the old artwork aswell...some of the older card artworks are just ugly AF xD

  • The damage and health symbols of the original have an orange shine behind them to improve their readability. Your symbols are pretty but they neither stand out nor do they compliment the design right now. A suggestion of mine would be to give the outer line of the symbols the same roundness and depth of the metal frame and make the current colour a bit brighter and a tad more orange-y to make them pop out. Also try to scale the size of the symbols so that there's a bit more space towards the metal frame.

you are right about the spacing to the border, but you are wrong with the shine...in the old artwork the symbols are dark on light bg...and to make them even more visible there is a orange/red shine behind them...in the new design its light in dark bg...a shine behind it would make it even worse...i already made it rly dark behind the symbols...i can make it even darker, but im not sure that it would make it look nicer...but you would be able to read it easier

  • The edition badge already got a metal-like look in the original. In your design it feels a bit flat though, given the texture and depth of the metal frame.

not sure if i understand that right, but i ll try to fix that

  • On the same note have you tried making the metal colour the same as the rarity? That way one would immediately see the rarity and it might compliment a card. Keep in mind that for example the same brown doesn't necessarily work with both :fireorb: and :natureorb:.

thats in fact a nice idea but im not sure if turquoise border would look so nice overall...but maybe there would be no need for the symbol then anymore?!

  • The text style doesn't fit your design (the font is good though). Plain white text looks a bit weird when everything else got so much detail worked into it.

also plain text in the old design...thats because its about information in the text and information should be easy to observe...a "worked" out textstyle would maybe fit the design of the old and of the new more but wouldnt be that wise since its harder to read.

in the old design its pretty much the same problem, but your eyes are used to the old design and therefor see thats its what u rly need to be able to see, and kinda ignore that it doesn fit that perfect...but i will try something between, maybe it works

  • Overall the card should look like it has a glossy surface. A light reflection somewhere on the card (where it doesn't obstruct readability) could achieve this. But if you want to go all out you can redo the complete card texture if you want.
i think i will give the border a little bit more work...it should ve been only a accent over the rough design of the inner card, but became a little bit to dominant. i think a rough design fits the "forge" better ;)
37 minutes ago, DawsonTheFish said:

There is no way to tell what tier a card is/there is no way to tell how many orbs it takes to summon the card. As some cards for t2 (2 orbs) have colourless meaning you can use any other orb to summon that creature. Take a look at the first ice orb, next to it you see a grey circle with the middle cut out, that is a colourless orb meaning you can use a fire, nature, shadow or ice monument to summon that creature. What we are saying is your new UI has no way of telling what tier (how many orbs it takes) to summon the card, to me it looked like the enforcer you were showing off as an example was a tier 4 card because of all the colourless circles.

Image result for battleforge cards

yeah know that...and mentioned it already...but thank you as well, nice how we all see this thing first xD

i will upload a t2 card and maybe some more examples soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YT Tobbezockt said:

.....

4. thanks for that opinion, was thinking about that, and im already thinking about rearranging them...but do u rly think its that confusing...i bet a new player would know instant what is what...on the other side you r right there must be a comparison between the old design and the new...to make sure there are improvements. i will watch out for that

5.do u rly ever watched at the icons...? my intention behind maybe deleting all of them came when i realised how many of those icons exist...just take a look at the card database...its hilarious that i never ever looked at those and that the old devs never mentioned what they mean...in my opinion there was never a real use for them except for make it look better and maybe to create a bit of a difference between the abilities...

but be serious would you know what kind of ability it is just by looking at the icons themself?

....

For 4. I'm 100% unsure about that, it was simply my first thought when looking at it tha tit seems strange. The big rarity marker in the middle feels out of place for me the way it is placed right now. (Maybe elevating it a bit would help? Again not sure just the first thougth that comes to mind)

For 5. seems i missunderstood what you wanted. I thought you wanted to erase the abilitie sign AND name. As it is just the sign but letting the name stay it is much less of a no go for me, BUT sometimes these signs are usefull. For example when an abilitie is infused.

 

*Edit:

Almost forgot. I actually do look at the signs from time to time and they do help, BUT (and that is a big BUT) I never played before so it is absolutely possible that i will not care about them ingame.

Edited by Tam Hawkins
Edited for additional informations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tam Hawkins said:

For 4. I'm 100% unsure about that, it was simply my first thought when looking at it tha tit seems strange. The big rarity marker in the middle feels out of place for me the way it is placed right now. (Maybe elevating it a bit would help? Again not sure just the first thougth that comes to mind)

For 5. seems i missunderstood what you wanted. I thought you wanted to erase the abilitie sign AND name. As it is just the sign but letting the name stay it is much less of a no go for me, BUT sometimes these signs are usefull. For example when an abilitie is infused.

 

*Edit:

Almost forgot. I actually do look at the signs from time to time and they do help, BUT (and that is a big BUT) I never played before so it is absolutely possible that i will not care about them ingame.

im not sure what u mean with "when an ability is infused"?

you look at them and you know what they are supposed to mean without looking at the further discription of the ability...then u r the first who is helped with those :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YT Tobbezockt said:
  1. you are right about the spacing to the border, but you are wrong with the shine...in the old artwork the symbols are dark on light bg...and to make them even more visible there is a orange/red shine behind them...in the new design its light in dark bg...a shine behind it would make it even worse...i already made it rly dark behind the symbols...i can make it even darker, but im not sure that it would make it look nicer...but you would be able to read it easier
  2. not sure if i understand that right, but i ll try to fix that
  3. thats in fact a nice idea but im not sure if turquoise border would look so nice overall...but maybe there would be no need for the symbol then anymore?!
  4. also plain text in the old design...thats because its about information in the text and information should be easy to observe...a "worked" out textstyle would maybe fit the design of the old and of the new more but wouldnt be that wise since its harder to read.
    in the old design its pretty much the same problem, but your eyes are used to the old design and therefor see thats its what u rly need to be able to see, and kinda ignore that it doesn fit that perfect...but i will try something between, maybe it works
  5. i think i will give the border a little bit more work...it should ve been only a accent over the rough design of the inner card, but became a little bit to dominant. i think a rough design fits the "forge" better 
  1. Sorry I didn't say exactly what I meant with the orange shine. I thought of making the inside (or the main line) of the symbols brighter and a bit more saturated (or orange) so that the symbols shine stronger on the dark background. What you are saying is right, I wouldn't add a shine behind the symbols nor would I darken the background further. But making the symbols themselves shine is something I imagine looks good.
  2. You do you, no need to if you don't want to. Everything that I say is only a suggestion based on my personal preferences. What I meant is a relief effect for the medal.
  3. The symbol is still needed to tell which edition the card is from. Also it looks nice.
  4. Yup. Maybe. Depends on the style. I don't really have any ideas for it though sry. I never did like the old text that much but it was readable and that's what text is for. So yeah it sufficed then and it suffices now but it could still be improved if anyone here has a flash of inspiration. ;)
  5. Again your choice. While I prefer 'used' I could still see a tidy and clean look too. If you do go for used though why not simply give the metal a couple scratches and a bit of rust here and there? And if you make the metal frame coloured by rarity the rare and ultrarare cards (or the promos) could have a cleaner, 'out-of-the-box' look.

Glad you took the time to read and think about my suggestions. I'm curious to see the next version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kaliber84 said:
  1. Sorry I didn't say exactly what I meant with the orange shine. I thought of making the inside (or the main line) of the symbols brighter and a bit more saturated (or orange) so that the symbols shine stronger on the dark background. What you are saying is right, I wouldn't add a shine behind the symbols nor would I darken the background further. But making the symbols themselves shine is something I imagine looks good.
  2. You do you, no need to if you don't want to. Everything that I say is only a suggestion based on my personal preferences. What I meant is a relief effect for the medal.
  3. The symbol is still needed to tell which edition the card is from. Also it looks nice.
  4. Yup. Maybe. Depends on the style. I don't really have any ideas for it though sry. I never did like the old text that much but it was readable and that's what text is for. So yeah it sufficed then and it suffices now but it could still be improved if anyone here has a flash of inspiration. ;)
  5. Again your choice. While I prefer 'used' I could still see a tidy and clean look too. If you do go for used though why not simply give the metal a couple scratches and a bit of rust here and there? And if you make the metal frame coloured by rarity the rare and ultrarare cards (or the promos) could have a cleaner, 'out-of-the-box' look.

Glad you took the time to read and think about my suggestions. I'm curious to see the next version.

1

1. tried that already before uploading this...was not that nice as it sounds or as you (we) imagine...but i ll give it another try ;)

2. well i just dont understand exactly what u mean :D

3. the edition does not has to be something that appears on the card itself...could be in the popup window when hovering it or even be a slider when filtering the cardpool

or what do u think?

4.would be nice...was searching for a nice font in my pool, will have a look again...have to finish my work for the card border the next days to move on with the artwork itself

5.also a nice idea, will give this a try as well ;) 

 

im always take the time for critique...most important part to improve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, YT Tobbezockt said:

im not sure what u mean with "when an ability is infused"?

you look at them and you know what they are supposed to mean without looking at the further discription of the ability...then u r the first who is helped with those :D

sorry wrong word. What i mean is sometimes abilities get slightly changed effects depending on the color added to the ability (red/fire/infused, blue/frost/blessed, purple/shadow/tainted, green/nature/gifted) and seeing the colour can help with making a fast decision on which card to take.

I do not know the exact effect of course^^, but it can give me a rouge idea.

for example:

diamond mostly seems to be for passives

square with arrow into it seems to be for activated abilities

lightning seems to be ranged attack

rotation arrows seem to be a switch in the modus the unit operates in

a straigth arrow from top left to bottom right seems to be a buff (normally targeted for other units)

 

this does not seem 100% coherrent and as I said I never played before, but that is what I could make out by studying the cardbase.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Tam Hawkins said:

sorry wrong word. What i mean is sometimes abilities get slightly changed effects depending on the color added to the ability (red/fire/infused, blue/frost/blessed, purple/shadow/tainted, green/nature/gifted) and seeing the colour can help with making a fast decision on which card to take.

I do not know the exact effect of course^^, but it can give me a rouge idea.

for example:

diamond mostly seems to be for passives

square with arrow into it seems to be for activated abilities

lightning seems to be ranged attack

rotation arrows seem to be a switch in the modus the unit operates in

a straigth arrow from top left to bottom right seems to be a buff (normally targeted for other units)

 

this does not seem 100% coherrent and as I said I never played before, but that is what I could make out by studying the cardbase.

 

what u mean is the affinity of a card...thats right, but there is also a orb in the right bottom corner of the artwork, that shows u what affinity it is ;)

ok, maybe i ll make up some symbols that makes it more clear for now  i will stick with those since maybe someone already knows them xD (na just because time is to short :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, YT Tobbezockt said:

2. well i just dont understand exactly what u mean :D

3. the edition does not has to be something that appears on the card itself...could be in the popup window when hovering it or even be a slider when filtering the cardpool

or what do u think?

4.would be nice...was searching for a nice font in my pool, will have a look again...have to finish my work for the card border the next days to move on with the artwork itself

2. Look HERE. It's mostly the use of shadow to create a more plastic and 3dimensional feeling.

3. I like it when it is seen on the card. But maybe I'm sentimental. :P

4. As I said I don't think the font itself is an issue. Rather it'd be things like font colour, texture, transparency, scale (for example the first letter of a word is always bigger), framing, etc... Usually card games use a simple, consistent font in white to improve readability but it often looks better when the text is designed for the background. You could google 'trading card games' for some inspiration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaliber84 said:

2. Look HERE. It's mostly the use of shadow to create a more plastic and 3dimensional feeling.

3. I like it when it is seen on the card. But maybe I'm sentimental. :P

4. As I said I don't think the font itself is an issue. Rather it'd be things like font colour, texture, transparency, scale (for example the first letter of a word is always bigger), framing, etc... Usually card games use a simple, consistent font in white to improve readability but it often looks better when the text is designed for the background. You could google 'trading card games' for some inspiration.

 

2. ah now i got you...but there is a relief in the border already tho ^^

3. good it will stay :D

4.not always bigger :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.