Author (Read 9485 times)

badpete69 · « **on:** March 10, 2014, 07:29:12 PM »

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2004436691/slick-custom-playing-cards

Don Boyer · « **Reply #1 on:** March 11, 2014, 02:07:58 AM »

Minimalist courts - interesting, even attractive, though I probably would have left out the blood dripping from the King of Diamond's axe.

Interlinking huge-numbers "spotless" spot cards - not to my liking. Aren't spot cards simple enough in the first place? Plus I can already imagine people getting confused by the sixes and nines that look too much like each other. It's why those cards have spots in the first place.

Value-in-pip indices with values off-center - ??

Card back and tuck box - dull as dishwater, despite being a nice shade in the vicinity of purple, lilac and lavender.

Overall grade: meh.

Afrank8 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 11, 2014, 08:13:13 AM »

I actually didn't mind the initial look of the tuck box but the rest left a little to be desired in design terms foremost among them probably being the back design for me.

tyl3r · « **Reply #3 on:** March 11, 2014, 10:08:37 AM »

Personally, do not like the look of this deck at all, as Dan mentioned the interlinking numbers on the pip cards are weird, especially the 6's and 9's.
As for the courts, they don't make any sense to me, there are hands coming out of heads, swords coming out of beards, just looks odd to me. I do enjoy minimalist designs, but this one doesn't catch my fancy. I'm sure it's different for others. I wish him all the luck in getting funded.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #4 on:** March 11, 2014, 10:57:56 AM »

Quote from: tyl3r on March 11, 2014, 10:08:37 AM

Personally, do not like the look of this deck at all, as Dan mentioned the interlinking numbers on the pip cards are weird, especially the 6's and 9's.
As for the courts, they don't make any sense to me, there are hands coming out of heads, swords coming out of beards, just looks odd to me. I do enjoy minimalist designs, but this one doesn't catch my fancy. I'm sure it's different for others. I wish him all the luck in getting funded.

Those courts were the one thing I did like. It was minimalist yet still managed to represent the court conventions found in a modern Anglo-American deck - one-eyed vs. two-eyes, which weapons/flowers/etc. are held by which courts, etc.

The rest...not so much.

PurpleIce · « **Reply #5 on:** March 11, 2014, 11:11:33 AM »

I always like to applaud designers for trying new stuff, and this (the courts), is a nice try.

As Don mentioned (while i was typing this reply), he managed to have a minimalist feel, while still being able to represent the characteristics of each court.

But the rest of the cards are...normal. Maybe he is trying to be "slick", but the back and tuck is really boring to me.

Rob Wright · « **Reply #6 on:** March 11, 2014, 11:27:54 AM »

Courts are nice enough, and I kind of like the interlocking numbers. I don't think they match each other in theme. Tuck and back- blah.
Maybe it's just me, but I think I've seen very similar courts on another deck.

Shebhnt · « **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2014, 01:05:08 PM »

The numbers remind me of Skip-bo

Olly Swinyard · « **Reply #8 on:** March 11, 2014, 05:07:49 PM »

Hey, I am the designer for this deck and your comments are really helpful! Although I am not willing to change the faces of the deck I have been getting a lot of negative feel back about the back design which I am willing to change and make more detailed and interesting.

If anyone has any general tips or ideas on how I could make the back better please feel free to comment, I will not be offended.

The more feedback the better!

Thanks,

Olly

Don Boyer · « **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2014, 12:21:02 AM »

Quote from: Olly Swinyard on March 11, 2014, 05:07:49 PM

Hey, I am the designer for this deck and your comments are really helpful! Although I am not willing to change the faces of the deck I have been getting a lot of negative feel back about the back design which I am willing to change and make more detailed and interesting.

If anyone has any general tips or ideas on how I could make the back better please feel free to comment, I will not be offended.

The more feedback the better!

Thanks,

Olly

First, welcome to the Discourse. If you have some time, stop by the Introduce Yourself board and make a topic so everyone can get to know you a little better.

I understand a desire for a certain amount of artistic integrity, in regards to not wishing to change the faces. But if that integrity gets in the way of making backers happy, it could become a problem that keeps funding levels lower than you'd like.

Consider a compromise - instead of placing a pair of pips in the background in light grey, remove them and in the leftover negative space put in the proper amount of pips in total and in the same color and shade as the indices.

Also consider an old convention used in some card games that rely on a big number in the middle of the cards: add a banner with the numeral's name (or at least a thick line) under the numbers for the 6 and 9 spot cards. USPC failed to do this when they introduced "Poker Peek" playing cards at the 2007 WSOP Championships. The players complained so much, they ended up digging around, found some old, still-sealed decks from 2006 and replaced the new decks with the old ones for the remainder of the tournament. Even with a design tweak, they're not exactly what I'd call popular.

Olly Swinyard · « **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2014, 04:10:41 AM »

Thanks Don, this is really great advise and appreciate you took the time to do this!

I'll start on the changes and see how they look.

I'll be sure to post them back to you see what you think.

Thanks again,

Olly

Shebhnt · « **Reply #11 on:** March 12, 2014, 12:19:55 PM »

A way to tell the difference between 6 and 9 is very much needed. Also, I think you should change the number in pip thing you have in the corners, they can be a little hard to read and don't really feel like they go with the rest of the design.

As far as the back goes, I feel like it is just missing something. I'm all for simple and minimal design but if it isn't done just right it will come off more lazy than beautiful. I like the idea but I feel like it is almost too minimal.

badpete69 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 12, 2014, 12:26:59 PM »

I am not quite sure what you guys mean by the 6 and 9 issue. They are totally different and you can easily tell them apart no matter how you spin the card?

EDIT: Plus let me add that logically you have to look at the card from top to bottom so you know immediately if you are looking at a nine or a six no matter how you turn the card

Shebhnt · « **Reply #13 on:** March 12, 2014, 01:21:34 PM »

You would think that but you would be how many people will get confused by it. It's why every major card game (for example Uno) puts the line there.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #14 on:** March 12, 2014, 03:34:03 PM »

Quote from: badpete69 on March 12, 2014, 12:26:59 PM

I am not quite sure what you guys mean by the 6 and 9 issue. They are totally different and you can easily tell them apart no matter how you spin the card?

EDIT: Plus let me add that logically you have to look at the card from top to bottom so you know immediately if you are looking at a nine or a six no matter how you turn the card

USPC used to think the same thing...before the 2007 WSOP tournament... It really fell under the category of "epic fail", especially when they wrote the commissioner's name - misspelled - on the card back... But hey, it could have been worse - a couple of their employees could have been bribed by a couple of players to include a MARKING SYSTEM in the back of the cards - oh, wait, that DID happen, at the 2011 tournament!! Yeah, it makes you wonder how they manage to keep their contract to provide the official cards of the WSOP.

It's not impossible that in a tired, addled moment, a player will confuse the two values, especially when looking at them in the flop and you're sitting on the farthest seat. (Or at least use that as an excuse when they foul the hand up.) Basically, when using two-headed cards and dealing with numerals that look like a different numeral when flipped over, it's better to have markers to indicate either the bottom of the numeral (thick line below number) or the numeral's name spelled out somewhere (banner with name on it).

badpete69 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 12, 2014, 03:39:09 PM »

Good argument Don but I would never use this deck to play a hold'em tournament or any other poker game. To me this is just a collector deck (maybe). By the way I have a regular hold'em tournament I organize and a while back I decided to bring the blue and red Ace Fulton decks. Worst deck to play poker with as I quickly found out with many confusing the spades and clubs. We threw away the decks very quickly and moved to standard decks hehehe

Don Boyer · « **Reply #16 on:** March 12, 2014, 04:11:17 PM »

Quote from: badpete69 on March 12, 2014, 03:39:09 PM

Good argument Don but I would never use this deck to play a hold'em tournament or any other poker game. To me this is just a collector deck (maybe). By the way I have a regular hold'em tournament I organize and a while back I decided to bring the blue and red Ace Fulton decks. Worst deck to play poker with as I quickly found out with many confusing the spades and clubs. We threw away the decks very quickly and moved to standard decks hehehe

...and that was one of the many reasons I never picked up the Ace Fulton's decks...

There's so many AWESOME cards out there, custom decks that are perfect for poker. How ironic is it that the ones that are named after a fictitious casino are among the worst choices?

But regarding this deck, I get the impression that it was made to be played, especially with a name like "SLICK". I thought it was odd that Olly mentioned he couldn't make the deck with USPC because he was in the UK. Big Blind Media's been doing it for a few years - Olly, did you do your homework on this? I'm assuming you've opted for using Cartamundi instead, based on the printer being in Belgium. I have yet to find a really good Cartamundi deck, but from what I hear of British decks, most of them could practically be beat by a deck made on newsprint, so perhaps it's not a bad choice. Consider using card-shark.de - they do a lot of card work, both through USPC and their own print shop. Their own decks are pretty good, and they know about making trick decks and gaff cards - imagine being able to offer a tier with a stripper deck option!

Olly Swinyard · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2014, 08:57:40 AM »

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2004436691/slick-custom-playing-cards/posts/775788

New back design idea?? if you could check it out on the link above that would be great. ( I didn't know how to post images).

Olly Swinyard · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:05:44 AM »

Quote from: Don Boyer on March 12, 2014, 04:11:17 PM

Quote from: badpete69 on March 12, 2014, 03:39:09 PM
Good argument Don but I would never use this deck to play a hold'em tournament or any other poker game. To me this is just a collector deck (maybe). By the way I have a regular hold'em tournament I organize and a while back I decided to bring the blue and red Ace Fulton decks. Worst deck to play poker with as I quickly found out with many confusing the spades and clubs. We threw away the decks very quickly and moved to standard decks hehehe

...and that was one of the many reasons I never picked up the Ace Fulton's decks...

There's so many AWESOME cards out there, custom decks that are perfect for poker. How ironic is it that the ones that are named after a fictitious casino are among the worst choices?

But regarding this deck, I get the impression that it was made to be played, especially with a name like "SLICK". I thought it was odd that Olly mentioned he couldn't make the deck with USPC because he was in the UK. Big Blind Media's been doing it for a few years - Olly, did you do your homework on this? I'm assuming you've opted for using Cartamundi instead, based on the printer being in Belgium. I have yet to find a really good Cartamundi deck, but from what I hear of British decks, most of them could practically be beat by a deck made on newsprint, so perhaps it's not a bad choice. Consider using card-shark.de - they do a lot of card work, both through USPC and their own print shop. Their own decks are pretty good, and they know about making trick decks and gaff cards - imagine being able to offer a tier with a stripper deck option!

I was going to get it printed by Cartimundi who said they would be able to create the same level of deck as DMC Great White, but so many people are put off by the fact that it won't be printed by USPCC that I'll try and get it printed by them and see what they say. In all honesty, I did think that USPCC don't print for anyone outside the UK but apparently I am wrong, which could work out for the best.

Shebhnt · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:53:46 AM »

Got you covered Olly:

Olly Swinyard · « **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:58:49 AM »

Thanks Shebhnt,

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2004436691/slick-custom-playing-cards/posts/775899

Above is a link to another potential change to the Number cards, any feedback again would be great!

badpete69 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2014, 11:06:30 AM »

There you go Olly

Shebhnt · « **Reply #22 on:** March 13, 2014, 12:17:15 PM »

I like the change to the numbers, still not sold on the back design. It is better than the original though so it is a step in the right direction. I just feel like it now has too much going on.... I Probably just sound like an angry man who won't can't make up his mind

Olly Swinyard · « **Reply #23 on:** March 13, 2014, 01:38:07 PM »

Quote from: Shebhnt on March 13, 2014, 12:17:15 PM

I like the change to the numbers, still not sold on the back design. It is better than the original though so it is a step in the right direction. I just feel like it now has too much going on.... I Probably just sound like an angry man who won't can't make up his mind

Haha its alright, I do prefer this new back design to the old. I know I went from one extreme to the other but hopeful people will react to it better than the old.

Lukeout · « **Reply #24 on:** March 14, 2014, 09:16:56 AM »

The numbered cards with doubled up pips confuses me - The "4" has 8 pips on it. For a deck that seems to skew young, that's probably not a great feature. I do like the back though.