What design of cards should we make next? (28 Viewers)

[Cratty]

I can’t understand any issue with either Jacks honestly…but I will say the new clubs are definitely more “squished” and less defined IMO (ie little to no white space between the ‘leaves’). From a distance I do think they will be more easily confused compared to the old clubs.

If I could, I would use the old clubs, or an alternate version, on the new cards, just to make it even more clear.

These were the original clubs/spades that I recalled, not sure if these were on the yellow boxed set or not, but these raised a few notes of confusion by folks.

Original V1:

If lots of folks start noting concerns on the current professional/signature spade & club though, I’d be happy to change to the other club design back to the original V2 below (if that resolves the concern & if Justin also supports). I just suspect the legibility concern is a partial knee-jerk from playing with the V1 just prior, as folks typically want to over swing some after an issue.

That said, any and all feedback must come with a signed waiver that the individual’s prescription is up to date, and they’re not trying to infiltrate games with a 4 color deck agenda.

Professional vs Original V2:

Professional Peek View:

 

[GamingWithChips]

Oh wow, ya V1 was tough lol.

And thanks for the comparisons of V2 vs Professional. Definitely more legible but the professional are more like a V1.5 vs the “skinny” one being a V2, if that makes sense. I’d support the V2 club being used, my thought would be to err on the side of caution.

Now, this is just me being annoying and anal…but is there a reason for the club being smaller than all the other suits?

 

[Cratty]

Oh wow, ya V1 was tough lol.

And thanks for the comparisons of V2 vs Professional. Definitely more legible but the professional are more like a V1.5 vs the “skinny” one being a V2, if that makes sense. I’d support the V2 club being used, my thought would be to err on the side of caution.

Now, this is just me being annoying and anal…but is there a reason for the club being smaller than all the other suits?

No reason for the club being slightly shorter, not sure if that was how I submitted or the manufacturers changes (as they adjusted a few things), but a detail that I don’t pickup in person and wasn’t worth an adjustment. Every adjustment adds potential confusion and errors, especially when working with a foreign language native.

I think it might be partially design intent though and just an artifact of the club having a curved vs pointed top. If you grow the club the weight would seem too large.. but would need to take actually take another look at the art.

 

[GamingWithChips]

No reason for the club being slightly smaller, not sure if that was how I submitted or the manufacturers changes (as they adjusted a few things), but a detail that I don’t pickup in person and wasn’t worth an adjustment. Every adjustment adds potential confusion and errors, especially when working with a foreign language native.

Makes sense, and you’re right, not a big deal, but you’ve probably seen how picky I can be and since the design is being discussed I had to ask lol

Thanks for the info!

 

[Cratty]

Makes sense, and you’re right, not a big deal, but you’ve probably seen how picky I can be and since the design is being discussed I had to ask lol

Thanks for the info!

Yeah, and errors are largely the reason I’m hesitant in doing any design work with Tina/etc on existing designs that are “good”. Too difficult to communicate, and too easy to introduce new issues/errors with every small desired adjustment. IMO issues or changes need to be pretty substantial to want to take the risk in not getting something else wrong.

I still think Justin might have a hernia from the back/forth we had regarding the dozens of Tangiers changes and the amount of arguing between Tina and I. Ha

 

[Snapplefacts]

is there enough interest around to justify one run of a standard index bridge size?

 

[Cratty]

Made a pretty robust but quick anonymous survey… curious if folks can access and take it (first time using jotform). I’m sure the poll isn’t perfect, but hoping it should help some with determining priorities/interest.

https://form.jotform.com/261913768130054

Granted might need a good handful of responses to get good data.

 

[TheBigTater]

Main priority, keep the arrowhead AOS.

 

[Cratty]

25 responses in, good enough for now. Fed it into Claude and asked it to analyze - topline report below:

Spoiler: Report

Playing Card Customization Preference Read-Out

Overview​

This read-out reflects 25 survey responses on playing card customization preferences. Purchase intent was converted to estimated setups using midpoint values for each range, and the analysis below incorporates importance by applying an importance factor of 0 for Not important, 0.5 for Somewhat important, and 1.0 for Very important.

Under that method, the sample represents approximately 189 weighted setups before importance adjustment.

Purchase intent distribution​

• 13 respondents selected 1-5 setups.
• 5 respondents selected 6-10 setups.
• 5 respondents selected 10-20 setups.
• 1 respondent selected 20-50 setups.
• 1 respondent selected none.

Overall importance by category​

• Card size - 37 importance points.
• Index style - 31 importance points.
• Number of card colors - 27 importance points.
• Cardback color options - 27 importance points.
• Font style - 25 importance points.
• Card back design - 24 importance points.
• Cream box application - 16 importance points.
• Ace of Spades design - 11 importance points.
• Additional changes - best read directionally because one importance response applies across any selected options.

Choice-by-choice read-out​

Card size​

• Bridge sized - 18 respondents, 72.0% of the sample, 25 importance points, and 112.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Poker sized - 7 respondents, 28.0% of the sample, 12 importance points, and 23.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.

Index style​

This question included multi-select responses, so selection totals exceed the number of respondents.

• Jumbo (Professional) - 18 selections, 72.0% respondent share, 24 importance points, and 103.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Blackjack (Signature) - 11 selections, 44.0% respondent share, 13 importance points, and 38.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Regular - 3 selections, 12.0% respondent share, 1 importance point, and 1.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.

Number of card colors​

• 2-color - 21 respondents, 84.0% of the sample, 24 importance points, and 105.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• 4-color - 4 respondents, 16.0% of the sample, 3 importance points, and 16.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.

Card back design​

This question included multi-select responses, so selection totals exceed the number of respondents.

• Circle Back - 15 selections, 60.0% respondent share, 16 importance points, and 61.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Compass Back - 12 selections, 48.0% respondent share, 14 importance points, and 65.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Fictional/Casino Back - 8 selections, 32.0% respondent share, 11 importance points, and 51.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• New Arrow back - 8 selections, 32.0% respondent share, 8 importance points, and 25.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Other/New - 5 selections, 20.0% respondent share, 2 importance points, and 11.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.

Cardback color options​

This question included multi-select responses, so selection totals exceed the number of respondents.

• Blue - 16 selections, 64.0% respondent share, 20 importance points, and 65.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Green - 15 selections, 60.0% respondent share, 17 importance points, and 60.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Red - 14 selections, 56.0% respondent share, 18 importance points, and 62.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Gold - 13 selections, 52.0% respondent share, 16 importance points, and 55.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Purple - 12 selections, 48.0% respondent share, 14 importance points, and 61.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Black - 11 selections, 44.0% respondent share, 15 importance points, and 51.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Grey - 7 selections, 28.0% respondent share, 9 importance points, and 39.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Brown - 6 selections, 24.0% respondent share, 9 importance points, and 16.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Orange - 6 selections, 24.0% respondent share, 7 importance points, and 18.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Pink - 5 selections, 20.0% respondent share, 7 importance points, and 32.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.

Cream box application​

Blank responses were treated as None / no cream box.

• Numbers only (professional series) - 10 respondents, 40.0% of the sample, 7 importance points, and 33.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• None / no cream box - 9 respondents, 36.0% of the sample, 7 importance points, and 13.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• All - 5 respondents, 20.0% of the sample, 2 importance points, and 17.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Faces only (OG broken arrows) - 1 respondent, 4.0% of the sample, 0 importance points, and 0.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.

Ace of Spades design​

• Original/Current Arrowhead - 18 respondents, 72.0% of the sample, 6 importance points, and 43.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Indian Head (original professional series) - 7 respondents, 28.0% of the sample, 5 importance points, and 10.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.

Font style​

• Professional Series - 21 respondents, 84.0% of the sample, 21 importance points, and 96.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Original/Stylized - 4 respondents, 16.0% of the sample, 4 importance points, and 11.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.

Additional changes desired​

Blank responses were treated as None / no additional changes. The largest single response in this section was no additional changes, selected by 12 respondents, or 48.0% of the sample.

• No additional changes - 12 respondents, or 48.0% of the sample.
• Change to pip art (e.g. clubs) - selected by 7 respondents, or 28.0% of the full sample. Among those respondents, average sentiment was Somewhat important, with 37.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Vibrant red pips (vs current deep red) - selected by 6 respondents, or 24.0% of the full sample. Among those respondents, average sentiment was Somewhat important, with 9.0 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• More face art options - selected by 5 respondents, or 20.0% of the full sample. Among those respondents, average sentiment was Somewhat important, with 24.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• New finish/coating - selected by 1 respondent, or 4.0% of the full sample. That respondent rated it Somewhat important, with 7.5 importance-adjusted weighted setups.
• Overall, this section does not suggest that additional changes are likely to drive substantial sales improvement. If any of these changes are pursued, they would be best explored further to confirm they do not create sales risk rather than to assume they will materially increase demand.

 

[RocAFella1]

Do they have a different card stock?

Bump

 

[Cratty]

Bump

I included new stock in the poll, no one selected out of the 25. One person did select new finish/coating.

 

[RocAFella1]

There was a poll??

 

[Cratty]

There was a poll??

There’s a form linked above and report after 25 responses came in. Happy to rerun the report if a ton more responses come in. Obviously not the gospel, but interesting data nonetheless on preferences.

 

[TheBigTater]

There was a poll??

Reading is hard.... 3 posts above you and in the other thread about these new versions.......

 

[RocAFella1]

Reading is hard.... 3 posts above you and in the other thread about these new versions.......

I was on page 1

 

[Cratty]

My takeaways so far in reading the report/data (but can update once folks who disagree go into vote, ha):

• I’d be open to changing the pip on the clubs as there is a cohort that desires a change and not a real design tradeoff concern.
• I likely wouldn’t change the red font color to a more vibrant red. Not enough significant interest IMO to warrant a change, and more of a preference trade-off.
• Regular index and 4-color are all but dead right now. Likely worth continuing to grow signature lineup before changing.
• Poker sized also limited, probably need to keep to jumbo.
• Card back is pretty mixed. New card back seems like a good option, but also seems like there’s a lot of desire to keep filling out the colors in the existing (e.g. green/purple)
• Cream box preference points to keep as-is with professionals, but there’s a secondary none contingent worth looking at down the road.
• New faces for sure are very desired, something to potentially explore down the road to keep interest going after more backs/colors.
• Fonts are pretty locked in for now with professional series font.

That said, not perfect data again, but just a read of the responses.

 

[GamingWithChips]

I appreciate the one respondent who indicated they "will not be buying any setups" but they wanted to give their input regardless. Data points are important!

Also, I realized just now that I didn't see the club pip option in the "other" and left it blank even though I was advocating for it, whoops!

 

[extreme517]

I like these. If I had my pick I would want the green backs as pictured and then either maroon or brown as the other back color for the set.

I don't love the boxy font as used on the green/blue yellow box setups, but otherwise down for @JMC9389's other suggestions and/or the proposed signature series.

Upon seeing this design over and over for the past few days I'm less and less of a fan. It seems like a cheap version of the KEM arrow artwork, but not as elegant.

I would rather see a design that is cleaner/simpler, something like these examples? And/or circlebacks as they are literally perfect IMO:

And I definitely like non-standard back colors...anything in the teal to dark green range is a go, and then any other color that complements that is good...maroon to brownish is good. I pretty much hate red/blue setups and any other that uses red or blue (red/black, blue/gold, etc.).

Blue is for $1 chips and red is for $5 chips (generally speaking). So, I don't want card backs that match the chips in play.

 

[GamingWithChips]

I agree, this arrow design never really caught my eye like the circle backs did. I don’t hate it but I don’t love it.