Author (Read 6111 times)

Travis Carter · « **on:** May 11, 2015, 10:00:13 PM »

Hey, guys. So this is my first post on PCF! I'd like to get a little input on the deck I'm currently designing. 'Inferus' in Latin means 'faceless.' Therefore, all of the courts have been stripped of their faces.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1706628143/inferus-playing-cards#
It's currently funding on Kickstarter. As you can see, it's not doing so well. That's why I'm here. I'd like to have everyone's opinion on what I should improve upon. I don't think this project has a high chance of succeeding, so I plan on relaunching but I believe I should fix a number of things. So I need your help and guidance on what those things are. Here's a few designs below. Please take a look at the designs I've put on Kickstarter as well and let me know what you all think!

Regards,
Travis

Don Boyer · « **Reply #1 on:** May 12, 2015, 02:32:13 AM »

Allow me to welcome you to the forum, Travis.

Actually, inferus is Latin for several things, none of which mean "faceless." Drop the Latin - it's become very cliché these days.

The back design is as boring as watching paint dry. Sorry, but it had to be said.

The half-pip designs you've created look like the remains of tortured butterflies and do nothing to improve on the original design; quite the opposite, in fact. Stick with whole pips.

The woodburnings are an interesting idea - but they're expensive enough that they'll end up dragging down your project rather than boosting it.

I hate to say this as well, but courts without faces is also not a new idea - I have a few decks with this as a feature, including Bicycle Clot Ltd. Editions and the Mystery Deck by Collin Stover (to me, the best of his "BeDeceived" trilogy). Your courts in particular look nearly identical to the Bicycle Clot Ltd. Editions deck, but don't take my word for it - look for yourself.

http://www.playingcardforum.com/index.php?topic=1095.0;all

That deck came out in December of 2011. The only major difference is that your deck leaves the hair on the "heads" of the Kings and probably the Queens.

Better to have a more original idea. Everyone remembers the first team to the top of Mount Everest. Almost no one remembers the third team. They would if they did something ELSE to make them more unique, something worth noting, something desirable (something more than just harder-to-read split pips). But otherwise, no one will remember.

HolyJJ · « **Reply #2 on:** May 12, 2015, 08:04:17 AM »

Hello Travis, and welcome to PCF!

I'll go for something of a traditional and simplistic approach to feedback‎ -- a few points about the pros and cons (at least as I see them). I'll start with the cons first...

Cons:
- The half pips aren't that attractive at all brother. Although they are fairly recognisable in the corners, as central pips (especially in the arrangements that they've been put it), they are pretty difficult to recognise (as in they look nothing like hearts, diamonds, clubs, or spades), and unless you look at the corner indices, at first glance it's pretty tough to tell some of the higher value numbers.
- ‎I do appreciate that the W, M, T, T letters have meaning for you as the designers of the deck... but for people like myself who use cards for games and gambling routines, it's totally meaningless, and it actually reduces the appeal. Stuff like that is probably best for "private reserve" decks which only you guys will use or give away to friends and family.
- The back design is really a little too simple... and whilst an increasing number of decks are going for the minimalist style, this deck doesn't come across as that -- after all, the faces of the cards don't have a minimalist style to them.
- The tuck... it doesn't have any "wow" factor to it at all. If anything, it looks like a semi-complete piece, rather than a finished, final product. The lettering/font looks rather unattractive... I'm sure you can find a better font for it.

‎
Pros:‎
- As Don has already pointed out, the faceless courts is an idea that has been done before... however, I still think it looks pretty cool. Barring the half-pips, I think the courts are nice. I really like the border that you've used on them.
- The Ace of Diamonds is nice. The Serpentine deck by LPCC also had the AoD as the ornate ace, and it worked really well.

Another point I'd like to add -- although you've mentioned that you'd be printing the deck with LPCC (which is of course, an excellent choice -- because USPCC quality sucks), you've not mentioned which of the three stock/finishes the cards will feature. Will it be diamond finish, classic finish, or emerald finish?

As I'm sure you'll have realised, you'll be losing a lot of international backers due to the shipping. I'm personally backing projects which LPCC are doing the fulfilment... and that's purely because of the shipping costs.
‎
Wishing you the best of luck for the project.‎

Travis Carter · « **Reply #3 on:** May 12, 2015, 04:08:16 PM »

Hey guys. Thanks for your comments, and also thanks for welcoming me to PCF.
So first off, I'm actually quite new to graphic design. This my very first big graphic designing project and I've been learning as I go. I've gotten a pretty good understanding of what I'm doing in the past few months. So I can understand why you guys think the designs look a bit unfinished.

Inferus - So I realize that when you Google Translate 'Inferus,' it does not come up as 'faceless.' This is quite strange because when I translated it a WHILE ago, it translated correctly. As did the quote, "Faceless, there is little left to judge." So I'm not too sure as to why it's not translating correctly now. But I've attached a screenshot of a search I found on the translation. 'Inferus' does, in fact, translate to 'faceless.' We've, however, been discussing new deck names so we'll figure out what's going on there.

Pips - As far as the pips, you two are really the only ones who've said they dislike the pips. Everyone else seems to really love them. They say that's the best aspect of the deck. I do not find them very difficult to read and neither have anyone who's backed the Kickstarter. I also have a forum on UC, and no one has said anything negative about them there either. Only positive things.

Back Design - We will end up tweaking the back design a bunch and give it a more interesting look. We will most likely get rid of the initials and also a few other things that seem to be unnecessary.

Tuck Box - This is mostly where my inexperience in graphic design has come into play, haha. I was still learning a lot while creating this tuck, so I'm definitely gonna go back in there and fix a lot up.

Courts - So this where most of the 'faceless' aspect of the deck comes into play. I understand that this 'faceless' design on the courts has been used before, but I don't believe it's been a theme for a deck before. Majority of the backers seem to enjoy them. I just don't have them all finished quite yet.

LPCC - Yes, we are using LPCC for manufacturing. I had not even thought about including what finish we'll be using, so I'm glad you said that, Holy. We'll most likely end up using their Classic Finish. Also, we decided that we were going to fulfill the orders ourselves because, as you may know, having LPCC fulfill our orders for us can get extremely expensive. And also, with those projects that do have the company fulfill their orders, they most likely already have the shipping costs included in the reward tier. For example, a One Deck Reward Tier will cost you about $15/$16 with "free shipping." Then you go to another project in which the creator is fulfilling the orders themselves and you'll go to the One Deck Reward Tier and it'll be $11/$12 plus around $5-$7 for shipping (international.) You're paying around the same either way.

I want to thank you guys for your input and welcoming! I will definitely improve on a few of these things.

Regards,
Travis

Levent Suberk · « **Reply #4 on:** May 12, 2015, 04:21:58 PM »

Very good design. Letters and pips can be bold to easy understand. Keep up good work.

Travis Carter · « **Reply #5 on:** May 12, 2015, 04:48:20 PM »

Levent,

Thanks for your compliment! I really appreciate it, man.

Regards,
Travis

HankMan · « **Reply #6 on:** May 12, 2015, 10:01:18 PM »

Hi Travis,

And welcome to the Forum

about the faceless court cards, as you said there are many who are using this features. it might not a theme, but if you check BRuT tarot and poker deck they have faceless court cards and I say they had done something original there. Its not only faceless but it also give that uniqueness feel of the cards.
For me your deck is missing that feel. I don't see anything special about it, even though you used it as a theme.

I agree the pips is something different, but I think it is some thing that people either hate or love. On the other hand having the whole pips is acceptable to everyone and this will determine greatly the result of your campaign.

As for the fulfilment, I am also on the minority supporters side for LPCC fulfilment. for me it is more affordable to get it directly from LPCC.
It might not be the case for US customer but for me who lives in Australia or HolyJJ who is in the UK, we end up paying more for it.
Let me show you what I mean,

LPCC fulfilment (International Shipping to US, AUS or UK):
Price per deck = $11/$12
Shipping = $5
Total Price per deck = $16/$17

You fulfilling the order:
price per deck = $15/$16
US Shipping = Free
International Shipping = $9 (+$2 per deck)
Total Cost for international backers = $24 for 1 deck or $21 for 2 decks

Hence international backers prefer to have LPCC fulfilling the order.
I am not sure if you have done it before, but fulfilling the order is not something easy to do. You have to have a lot of time commitment to get the order as soon as possible. Not to mention you have to deal with lost parcel or damaged parcels. So think it carefully and ask around from those who had experience.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2015, 12:53:57 AM »

For me, I'm not seeing how half-pips go with faceless courts. I'd say choose one concept or the other - and I'd choose faceless over half-pips. They're not easy to read at all, especially since they're placed in custom layouts on the cards. I've seen a lot of designers push the limits to make their deck unique - to which I say that unique is not synonymous with either beautiful or practical. Being unique alone isn't enough.

I use a very simple rule of thumb for testing the practicality of a pack of cards - I call it the "poker night" rule. If I put this deck on the table at poker night and it doesn't end up immediately used for throwing practice, the deck is practical enough for using in a card game. This deck would not pass that test. They might tolerate the faceless courts, they might tolerate the Latin printing in the background of the courts, but the half-pips with the whacky patterns would be the last straw - I'd be lucky if the deck didn't end up out the window, or worse, through it.

Another thought just occurred to me. I noticed you have dots printed in the border around the back design. If you're planning on having a thin border, as thin as the one you showed on this project, those dots will have to go. There's no card company that can print a thin-enough border accurately - the addition of the dots in essence is cutting down the effective border from the perspective of the printing press. The "border" begins where the printing ends, so those dots are effectively the edge of your back design. You'd run the risk of these borders not getting cut with an adequate degree of accuracy unless you made them wider or eliminated the dots, making the effective border thicker.

Brian M · « **Reply #8 on:** May 13, 2015, 08:13:25 AM »

I can imagine various reasons for doing faceless cards. Possible points that the artist might be trying to make. But the point is not obvious in this case, and it looks like the only aim is to be different or "cool". The name of the deck, supposedly Latin for "faceless", doesn't help me at all. The courts are faceless. So, what?

BiggerDee · « **Reply #9 on:** May 13, 2015, 09:51:49 AM »

I'm not a fan of the gray, and I think that the back design could be larger, or have lines that are more bold, but otherwise, I really like the deck. You are off to a very good start!

To be clear, unlike many of the others, I look at it from a pure collector's/very casual user's standpoint, not as a cardist/magician/heavy poker player as some of the above do. Note that they all have VERY valid input from their particular point of view, so consider everything as you modify your design!

Travis Carter · « **Reply #10 on:** May 14, 2015, 12:00:09 AM »

Hey, guys. Thanks for all your input! So I've recently been working on a new back design. I felt that the original back was a bit too straight. All straight up and down lines and such. So I decided to get some curvature in there. I don't believe it's completely finished yet. But it's a concept so far. Let me know what you think!

Levent Suberk · « **Reply #11 on:** May 14, 2015, 06:32:32 AM »

Travis, this card back design is better. It is more solid. Keep up good work.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #12 on:** May 14, 2015, 11:37:34 AM »

It's a step in the right direction, to be sure. It looks like you took the outline of the King of Diamonds you created and used it as your card back shape - and that's not a bad thing here. You've got the beginnings of something that's original without being horrible or boring - build on it. And be careful to try to maintain radial symmetry.

Travis Carter · « **Reply #13 on:** May 16, 2015, 07:38:37 PM »

Hey, guys. Thanks for the feedback! I tweaked the card back a bit; mainly the middle. I felt that the back design didn't have anything at all to do with the theme. So the back design below is what I came up with. I've also been hard at work with the new tuck box. I also felt that the tuck didn't really have much to do with the theme. Please let me know what you guys think!

Don Boyer · « **Reply #14 on:** May 17, 2015, 06:48:08 AM »

Quote from: Travis Carter on May 16, 2015, 07:38:37 PM

Hey, guys. Thanks for the feedback! I tweaked the card back a bit; mainly the middle. I felt that the back design didn't have anything at all to do with the theme. So the back design below is what I came up with. I've also been hard at work with the new tuck box. I also felt that the tuck didn't really have much to do with the theme. Please let me know what you guys think!

Why the question marks in the vaguely head-like shapes? It doesn't look good at all.

The back design doesn't always have to directly or literally tie into the theme. The connection can be more indirect, or it can just be a really good design that works as a "classic" on a playing card back.

Travis Carter · « **Reply #15 on:** May 17, 2015, 08:05:11 AM »

Don - Yeah I've felt that question mark has looked a bit off for a while. I'll get rid of it and see how it looks. Also, regarding the card back, I'm going to go back in there and fade out the inside of that diamond more so it's not purposely standing out from the rest of the back. Thanks for your input!

Travis Carter · « **Reply #16 on:** May 17, 2015, 09:17:58 PM »

Hey, guys. So I've basically finished up the tuck design. It's looking a lot nicer than the original. I'm honestly much much much more satisfied with this design rather than the original. I've also finished up the card back. I've posted them both below.
Thoughts?

Travis Carter · « **Reply #17 on:** May 25, 2015, 08:59:11 PM »

Hey, guys! I apologize for not responding in a while.

So I've finished up all the new number cards. The old number cards seemed a bit random. The pips just looked a bit randomly placed, so I've created a more uniform pip layout.
You'll see a sample of the number cards below:
Let me know what you guys think of those!

Also, I've been working on the design for the joker.
You will see the design I've come up with for the joker below:

The 'faceless' theme continues onto the joker as he has no face, so he is deciding which mask/personality he is going to put on.
Please let me know what you all think of these designs, thanks!

Regards,
Travis

HankMan · « **Reply #18 on:** May 25, 2015, 09:15:10 PM »

Definitely getting better

love the joker, but still 50/50 on the half pip index

you added some feature under it and that is a + side for me.

Travis Carter · « **Reply #19 on:** May 25, 2015, 09:19:52 PM »

HankMan -
Thanks so much!
Yeah, everyone either seems to like the half pip still being there or dislike it. I'll continue to look into it. Thanks for your comment!

Regards,
Travis

Don Boyer · « **Reply #20 on:** May 25, 2015, 09:49:31 PM »

I'm a fan of neither the half-pips nor the odd-looking pitchforks under the indices.

An index is meant to be SIMPLE. If anything, you should use the simple pip in the index and the odd half-pips in the body. I don't like them, but at least they won't be in the way when I'm holding my hand close to my vest!

Travis Carter · « **Reply #21 on:** May 25, 2015, 10:18:42 PM »

Don -
Thanks for the comment. I'll look into simplifying the indices. However, I've stayed in contact with my backers from the original kickstarter campaign and they seem to like the indices the way they currently are. Personally, I can distinguish which suit is which quite easily. And that's not just because I've seen and recognized them during this time I've spent designing this deck. I'll definitely look into it though.
Also, I've been working on some custom Aces, guys! Here they are below:

Don Boyer · « **Reply #22 on:** May 26, 2015, 12:25:54 AM »

Quote from: Travis Carter on May 25, 2015, 10:18:42 PM

Don -
Thanks for the comment. I'll look into simplifying the indices. However, I've stayed in contact with my backers from the original kickstarter campaign and they seem to like the indices the way they currently are. Personally, I can distinguish which suit is which quite easily. And that's not just because I've seen and recognized them during this time I've spent designing this deck. I'll definitely look into it though.
Also, I've been working on some custom Aces, guys! Here they are below:

I understand the importance of keeping backers attracted to your project and happy. But we're talking about the same backers who got you to nearly 8% of your needed funding in 33% of your project's time before you canceled it. You need to attract a larger pool of backers if you plan to succeed, or you need to convince these guys who love your design so much to invest at over 1,250% of their previous levels. Since the latter is highly unlikely, aim for the former. If you lose a handful of your current backers but gain a bucketful of new ones (and your hands are not larger than buckets), you have just improved your chances of success.

I can indeed distinguish the suits. But not easily, and certainly not as easily as I would with a more standard-looking index. I'm not the only one here to mention it. If you insist on making your "eight-percenters" happy instead of adjusting the design, you will also need to find a way to get your goal down to $1,300, because that's all they ponied up for you. It's not impossible, of course - but the cards you get won't be very good for the price, which has pitfalls all its own.

And you should drop the bit in the description about how you lacked time to launch sooner because of school. It makes it sound like you'll be using that excuse for when the decks arrive late, as well. People don't want excuses, they want results - it sounds unprofessional, and that has a negative impact on funding.

Travis Carter · « **Reply #23 on:** May 26, 2015, 06:27:15 AM »

Don -
You've got a very valid point. Also, regarding the funding goal, I'm dropping it significantly from 18,000 once I re-launch. My original decision to launch w12th 18k goal was solely based on getting profit, which I'm no longer worried. I'm now just focused on getting the cards out there. I'll also be having LPCC fulfill my orders, which will keep from the decks arriving late haha.
I learned a lot from having the project fail, and I've also learned a lot from all of you who give awesome feedback. So thanks, guys. It helps a ton to hear what you all have to say.

Regards,
Travis

HolyJJ · « **Reply #24 on:** May 26, 2015, 09:33:58 AM »

I really like the new layout of the pips (10 of clubs looks brilliant

), and the custom aces are very cool also. Thumbs up for the joker as well.

I still dislike the half pips on the corners... but everything else on the faces (including that two pronged fork type of design underneath the corner pip), I'm becoming a fan of.

I now like the direction this is going... probably the most improved design I've seen between a first attempt and a relaunch... you might just end up having me on board as backer!