New FG Landing page

[ddavison]

Do people prefer something more like this?
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/buyFG/indexnew.xcp


I'm not a natural marketing guy, so please post some positive criticism or suggestions if possible.

[SquareCat]

I'd squish the yes/no features to the right further, and put the video clips on the left. Uses up a lot of negative/empty space. . . try doing yellow for gm and player, and red for player only; like you did with the green for the ultimate. Not a marketing guy either but right now my eyes are trying to figure out where to go.

[Mgrancey]

I have to agree that is, even with its organization, chaotic looking.
I don't think have the videos embedded the way they are is very helpful to format. Even with scrolling, I prefer not to, or its kept to a minimum on these kind of pages. So I would suggest maybe the videos being a seperate column to the right.

I'd also suggest keeping the information more condense, in this case less is better. Something along the lines of: Starting automated rules set include: Pathfinder; DnD 3/3.5, 4th, and 5th ed; and Numenera

I honestly think, you might want to make what the demo/unlicensed version of FG can do on another page. Focus on the Player, GM and Ultimate license differences are, and possibly simplify that the Ultimate license allows the GM host an unlimited number of unlicensed players.

List the universal stuff that all licenses have separately:

• library access
• 3D Dice
• Programmable hot keys
• Automated Character sheets
• Display persistent AoE effects and pointers on images (maps)

Maybe describe or list some of the GM stuff as Campaign Management rather than seperately.
Campaign Management with content, calendar, NPCs and Combat encounters, tables for random chance,

I'm not one much for visual artistry or much for understanding other people, so my advice might not be best. However, even though there is alot to FG, that page should probably be K.I.S.S.'ed or the three S's.

[ddavison]

Roll20's front page was held up as an example of something modern and clean that was easy for people to understand and follow. Is there something there you guys like that isn't represented by the new or old pages specifically?


MGrancey, I generally lean towards more condensed chunks of info but I think that is one of the things previously mentioned as not being welcoming. I'm not sure this is it either... just saying...

[Nylanfs]

Doug we have a Webdesign volunteer working on our website and forums right now. I'll get her in contact with you. I think that sums up my thoughts.

BTW I would change the 4e & 5e ruleset to "Ruleset Framework" or something to indicate that you have limited data.

[damned]

My thoughts:

Colours are a bit off
Full screenshots are too big
Hard to see the comparison when its over so many pages - i would put a [demo] or [video] link in all those instead
Sort the Features into the most important ones first or grab the core features at the top and then group other features after that
You should experiment with Symbols too:

• Fully Supported
• Partial Support (withe explanation below)
• Not supported

You need better names for the licenses - stop changing them once you settle on them
this is not my recomended view but you can see how much easier this is to read.

Attachment 7443

I dont think you should include: Create custom ruleset or extension using xml and LUA scripting - it implies these 2 editions assist in that....
I think you can also install other rulesets on the demo/free license too?

[damned]

Doug we have a Webdesign volunteer working on our website and forums right now. I'll get her in contact with you. I think that sums up my thoughts.

BTW I would change the 4e & 5e ruleset to "Ruleset Framework" or something to indicate that you have limited data.

Agreed - Ruleset/Framework or Ruleset/Mechanics
This applies to Numenera and CoreRPG too.

[ddavison]

Agreed - Ruleset/Framework or Ruleset/Mechanics
This applies to Numenera and CoreRPG too.

So then wouldn't we have to change the Wiki to indicate that each ruleset there is a ruleset/framework only too? Instead of listing it as a negative, I thought it would be better to highlight that 3.5E and PFRPG are rulesets + OGL Libraries. That's consistent with the product pages for Savage Worlds, C&C, etc. They are all rulesets plus libraries and extensions.

[damned]

im not sure what you mean by that. im not seeing anything negative in there. as much as its great to have 13,649 spells already typed up for you - anyone can type up the dozen or so spells they actually need into their character sheet - the amazing mechanics and automation - now thats the real magic. 4e and 5e mechanics! awesome.

[ddavison]

im not sure what you mean by that. im not seeing anything negative in there. as much as its great to have 13,649 spells already typed up for you - anyone can type up the dozen or so spells they actually need into their character sheet - the amazing mechanics and automation - now thats the real magic. 4e and 5e mechanics! awesome.

Mechanics only is perceived as negative by people - based on comments from Steam users and Roll20 people. Since there are 30 or so rulesets available for FG, I'd prefer the mechanics and game support to be the defining characteristics and then when we talk about officially licensed or OGL compliant rulesets, we can add that those also support built-in data libraries.