I need a sword, two bows, and an axe. I will give axes in exchange. Edit: got everything I needed. Yay! I need a sword, two bows, and an axe. I will give axes in exchange. Edit: got everything I needed. Yay!

2009-11-22T13:59:02-08:00

true

1485979

375

65583

2009-11-22T14:15:00-08:00

196324

Ah, I just got another axe. If you've got your sword now, we can do the trade. Ah, I just got another axe. If you’ve got your sword now, we can do the trade.

2009-11-21T16:19:22-08:00

true

1483126

238

65583

2009-11-21T20:08:01-08:00

196324

Sorry, no deal. I just found some people in my chatroom who were willing to trade up-front, and am now temporarily out of axes. I suspect I'll get more at the same time you get more swords. Sorry, no deal. I just found some people in my chatroom who were willing to trade up-front, and am now temporarily out of axes. I suspect I’ll get more at the same time you get more swords.

2009-11-21T16:13:22-08:00

true

1483115

237

65583

2009-11-21T20:08:01-08:00

196324

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/1/topics/65583?page=10#posts-1483041'>sportsmaster19</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/1/topics/65583?page=10#posts-1483038">ThirdParty</a>:</cite> I’ll give an axe to anyone who gives me a bow or an axe.</blockquote> I’ll give you a sword, since you still have 1 spot open for that.</blockquote>Okay. I'll give an axe to whoever fills my last sword slot, as well as anyone who gives me a bow or axe. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/1/topics/65583?page=10#posts-1483041">sportsmaster19</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/1/topics/65583?page=10#posts-1483038">ThirdParty</a>:</cite> I’ll give an axe to anyone who gives me a bow or an axe.</blockquote> I’ll give you a sword, since you still have 1 spot open for that.</blockquote>Okay. I’ll give an axe to whoever fills my last sword slot, as well as anyone who gives me a bow or axe.

2009-11-21T16:05:18-08:00

true

1483089

235

65583

2009-11-21T20:08:00-08:00

196324

I'll give an axe to anyone who gives me a bow or an axe. I’ll give an axe to anyone who gives me a bow or an axe.

2009-11-21T15:50:15-08:00

true

1483038

232

65583

2009-11-21T20:08:00-08:00

196324

I need weapons, and will happily give an axe in exchange for anything I'm given. (As of this post, I have five axes available for trade, but for a more current count please see my profile.) I need weapons, and will happily give an axe in exchange for anything I’m given. (As of this post, I have five axes available for trade, but for a more current count please see my profile.)

2009-11-20T18:52:07-08:00

true

1480793

107

65583

2009-11-21T20:07:59-08:00

196324

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/1/topics/63534?page=1#posts-1432642'>Phoenix00017</a>:</cite> having dual-filters we debated but ultimately worried that it would confuse the interface too much. You can find most of what you need with the current setup and we felt this was the best power to ease-of-use ratio we could obtain.</blockquote>Okay. You're right, I can find most of what I want with the current setup. (The main thing I want is to be able to view all unearned easies and mediums, since I'm a completionist about those but not about hards and impossibles. But I can achieve that just by sorting unearned badges by difficulty.) <blockquote>When looking at another user’s badges, you should be able to sort by difficulty to look at their impossibles.</blockquote>What if I want to look at their mediums? Am I supposed to sort by difficulty and then page past all their easies (or else sort by difficulty the other direction and then page past all their impossibles and hards)? Wouldn't making me page past all those badges I'm not interested in put an unnecessary load on your server, since it'll be sending me icons and descriptions and whatnot that I'm not interested in? <blockquote>Badges they have but you don’t would be cool but complicated, so I’ll consider that to be an excellent suggestion that hopefully we can get to eventually.</blockquote>Fair enough. <blockquote>As for the number of results, that’s unfortunately something we had to do for the sake of efficiency – we’ve changed a lot of our page-by-page navigation to that style because it is significantly lighter on our database and servers. I’m not sure if we can eventually have a “XX results found” though – that might not be as bad.</blockquote>Again, making me page past all the badges just to find out how many there are seems like it puts an unnecessary load on the server--it will be sending me icons and descriptions and whatnot that I'm not interested in. So if you're really concerned about server load, you should benefit by adding a "count badges in this category" button so that if all I want is the number, that's all I get sent. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/1/topics/63534?page=1#posts-1432642">Phoenix00017</a>:</cite> having dual-filters we debated but ultimately worried that it would confuse the interface too much. You can find most of what you need with the current setup and we felt this was the best power to ease-of-use ratio we could obtain.</blockquote>Okay. You’re right, I can find most of what I want with the current setup. (The main thing I want is to be able to view all unearned easies and mediums, since I’m a completionist about those but not about hards and impossibles. But I can achieve that just by sorting unearned badges by difficulty.) <blockquote>When looking at another user’s badges, you should be able to sort by difficulty to look at their impossibles.</blockquote>What if I want to look at their mediums? Am I supposed to sort by difficulty and then page past all their easies (or else sort by difficulty the other direction and then page past all their impossibles and hards)? Wouldn’t making me page past all those badges I’m not interested in put an unnecessary load on your server, since it’ll be sending me icons and descriptions and whatnot that I’m not interested in? <blockquote>Badges they have but you don’t would be cool but complicated, so I’ll consider that to be an excellent suggestion that hopefully we can get to eventually.</blockquote>Fair enough. <blockquote>As for the number of results, that’s unfortunately something we had to do for the sake of efficiency – we’ve changed a lot of our page-by-page navigation to that style because it is significantly lighter on our database and servers. I’m not sure if we can eventually have a “XX results found” though – that might not be as bad.</blockquote>Again, making me page past all the badges just to find out how many there are seems like it puts an unnecessary load on the server—it will be sending me icons and descriptions and whatnot that I’m not interested in. So if you’re really concerned about server load, you should benefit by adding a “count badges in this category” button so that if all I want is the number, that’s all I get sent.

2009-11-05T14:40:03-08:00

true

1432950

63534

2009-11-05T14:40:49-08:00

196324

I love the new badge page (especially the ability to see my earned badges sorted by least awarded, so I can remember my greatest accomplishments), but there are a few things I'd like to be able to do that can't be done yet: # I'd like to be able to apply filters for both difficulty and earnedness at once. (e.g. an option for "Show mediums that I haven't earned.") # I'd like to be able to apply filters while viewing another user's badge page. (e.g. options for "Show this user's impossibles." or "Show badges that this user has earned but I haven't.") # I'd like a count of badges that meet the current criteria. (e.g. where it currently says things like "1-20" or "21-40 from the end", instead have it say "1-20 out of 268" or "229-248 out of 268") Currently I can only get a count by hitting "next" until I get to the last page. I love the new badge page (especially the ability to see my earned badges sorted by least awarded, so I can remember my greatest accomplishments), but there are a few things I’d like to be able to do that can’t be done yet: <ol> <li>I’d like to be able to apply filters for both difficulty and earnedness at once. (e.g. an option for “Show mediums that I haven’t earned.”)</li> <li>I’d like to be able to apply filters while viewing another user’s badge page. (e.g. options for “Show this user’s impossibles.” or “Show badges that this user has earned but I haven’t.”)</li> <li>I’d like a count of badges that meet the current criteria. (e.g. where it currently says things like “1-20” or “21-40 from the end”, instead have it say “1-20 out of 268” or “229-248 out of 268”) Currently I can only get a count by hitting “next” until I get to the last page.</li> </ol>

2009-11-05T10:52:12-08:00

true

1432528

63534

2009-11-05T10:52:35-08:00

196324

Fred walks into a restaurant, orders an entree, and eats it. He's still hungry. (It's not his fault that he's still hungry; in fact, he'd rather not be hungry. But nevertheless, he's hungry.) So he reaches over to the diner sitting at the next table over and grabs some food off that diner's plate. The maitre d' politely informs him that he's not allowed to do that; if he wants extra food, he must request it from the kitchen. Fred requests a second entree from the kitchen, and eats it, and then his bill arrives. He was charged for two entrees! He says, "That's unfair discrimination! You gave the other diners food until they were no longer hungry, and only charged them for one entree each." The maitre d' says "Yes, but they only ate one entree each, whereas you ate two." Fred says "Only because I was still hungry! That wasn't my fault; I didn't choose to still be hungry." The maitre d' says "It doesn't matter. You ate extra food. The money to purchase and cook that extra food has to come from somewhere." Fred says, "well, why can't you be the one who pays for the extra food?" The maitre d' says "I'm in the restaurant business; if I start giving away food I'll go broke." Fred says, "well then make the other diners pay extra". The maitre d' says "if I do that, they'll just start going to other restaurants, and I'd still need to collect two entrees' worth of money from you to pay for your meal." Everyone sides with the maitre d' here. It's perfectly reasonable for a restaurant to prevent a diner from messing up other diners' meals, and to charge extra to a diner who costs extra to feed. Now Fred gets on an airplane. Fred is obese. (It isn't his fault. He's not one of those people who eats extra just for the pleasure of eating or who can't be bothered to exercise; he eats when hungry until not hungry, and exercises periodically until tired, just like skinny people do. He's just more prone to hunger and tiredness than skinny people are. He wishes he weren't.) Carrying Fred costs extra money, just like feeding Fred did: he takes up extra volume (which could be stolen from the people sitting near him, except this wouldn't be fair to them; it makes more sense to put him in a bigger seat or have him take two seats) and adds mass to the plane, increasing its fuel consumption. The situation is completely parallel to that of the restaurant, in fact. But suddenly some of you think it's unfair for the airline to charge Fred extra, and think that instead it should pay the extra costs itself or should make the other passengers pay those extra costs. Those of you think that are wrong. It's perfectly reasonable for an airline to charge extra to fat people (or to tall people, or to people with extra luggage, or to people who smell really bad and so have to be put in a separate compartment from the other passengers, etc.). (Of course, airlines are also free not to do so, just like a restaurant is free to offer unlimited refills. Whatever they think will make the most business sense.) Fred walks into a restaurant, orders an entree, and eats it. He’s still hungry. (It’s not his fault that he’s still hungry; in fact, he’d rather not be hungry. But nevertheless, he’s hungry.) So he reaches over to the diner sitting at the next table over and grabs some food off that diner’s plate. The maitre d’ politely informs him that he’s not allowed to do that; if he wants extra food, he must request it from the kitchen. Fred requests a second entree from the kitchen, and eats it, and then his bill arrives. He was charged for two entrees! He says, “That’s unfair discrimination! You gave the other diners food until they were no longer hungry, and only charged them for one entree each.” The maitre d’ says “Yes, but they only ate one entree each, whereas you ate two.” Fred says “Only because I was still hungry! That wasn’t my fault; I didn’t choose to still be hungry.” The maitre d’ says “It doesn’t matter. You ate extra food. The money to purchase and cook that extra food has to come from somewhere.” Fred says, “well, why can’t you be the one who pays for the extra food?” The maitre d’ says “I’m in the restaurant business; if I start giving away food I’ll go broke.” Fred says, “well then make the other diners pay extra”. The maitre d’ says “if I do that, they’ll just start going to other restaurants, and I’d still need to collect two entrees’ worth of money from you to pay for your meal.” Everyone sides with the maitre d’ here. It’s perfectly reasonable for a restaurant to prevent a diner from messing up other diners’ meals, and to charge extra to a diner who costs extra to feed. Now Fred gets on an airplane. Fred is obese. (It isn’t his fault. He’s not one of those people who eats extra just for the pleasure of eating or who can’t be bothered to exercise; he eats when hungry until not hungry, and exercises periodically until tired, just like skinny people do. He’s just more prone to hunger and tiredness than skinny people are. He wishes he weren’t.) Carrying Fred costs extra money, just like feeding Fred did: he takes up extra volume (which could be stolen from the people sitting near him, except this wouldn’t be fair to them; it makes more sense to put him in a bigger seat or have him take two seats) and adds mass to the plane, increasing its fuel consumption. The situation is completely parallel to that of the restaurant, in fact. But suddenly some of you think it’s unfair for the airline to charge Fred extra, and think that instead it should pay the extra costs itself or should make the other passengers pay those extra costs. Those of you think that are wrong. It’s perfectly reasonable for an airline to charge extra to fat people (or to tall people, or to people with extra luggage, or to people who smell really bad and so have to be put in a separate compartment from the other passengers, etc.). (Of course, airlines are also free not to do so, just like a restaurant is free to offer unlimited refills. Whatever they think will make the most business sense.)

2009-10-25T21:33:23-07:00

true

1406513

208

40460

2009-10-25T21:34:29-07:00

196324

My boiler has three each of I, N, G, L, and Y (preferably jade or brass), and whatever else I feel like putting into it at the time. Currently I've got an X ("exactingly", "exasperatingly", "exceedingly", "excitingly", "excruciatingly", "exiling", "inexcusably"), a couple of F's and U's ("fatefully", "fitfully", "frightfully", "gleefully", "gratefully", "tastefully"), and some easy letters like S, A, and T. My boiler has three each of I, N, G, L, and Y (preferably jade or brass), and whatever else I feel like putting into it at the time. Currently I’ve got an X (“exactingly”, “exasperatingly”, “exceedingly”, “excitingly”, “excruciatingly”, “exiling”, “inexcusably”), a couple of F’s and U’s (“fatefully”, “fitfully”, “frightfully”, “gleefully”, “gratefully”, “tastefully”), and some easy letters like S, A, and T.

2009-10-22T01:28:58-07:00

true

1394802

61647

2009-10-22T01:28:58-07:00

196324

There is a "battle" button. It shows up when you arrive at the city, _before_ you enter it. (If Pia's the city you want to capture and you're already in it, you'll need to go somewhere else and then come back.) There is a “battle” button. It shows up when you arrive at the city, before you enter it. (If Pia’s the city you want to capture and you’re already in it, you’ll need to go somewhere else and then come back.)

2009-10-14T18:01:29-07:00

true

1370964

60767

2009-10-14T18:03:25-07:00

196324

I like Greg's solution. It doesn't leave unobtainable badges sitting around ruining people's hopes of one day managing to collect them all. It doesn't take away any badges that people had already earned. Yes, some users walk away with 15 more points than other equally-deserving users. (Such as myself: with help from the forums, I finally managed to find workarounds for all the bugs, and to complete all 25 levels on my Mac; but I managed it after the badge had already been downgraded. Boo hoo.) Big deal. Some users have _thousands_ of extra points for having been around back when game ratings were worth 5 points each instead of 1 point each. What's fifteen more? I like Greg’s solution. It doesn’t leave unobtainable badges sitting around ruining people’s hopes of one day managing to collect them all. It doesn’t take away any badges that people had already earned. Yes, some users walk away with 15 more points than other equally-deserving users. (Such as myself: with help from the forums, I finally managed to find workarounds for all the bugs, and to complete all 25 levels on my Mac; but I managed it after the badge had already been downgraded. Boo hoo.) Big deal. Some users have thousands of extra points for having been around back when game ratings were worth 5 points each instead of 1 point each. What’s fifteen more?

2009-10-14T12:20:55-07:00

true

1369895

60625

2009-10-14T12:20:55-07:00

196324

Thanks SenatorPenguin, that worked for me. Thanks SenatorPenguin, that worked for me.

2009-10-13T19:10:47-07:00

true

1368522

59744

2009-10-13T19:10:47-07:00

196324

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/3/topics/59744?page=1#posts-1367514'>thok</a>:</cite> 13 can be done without touching your mouse on a Mac in safari, but rather by typing some appropriate text. 19 is broken on Macs, as far as I can tell. I’ve done everything else but 24.</blockquote>Oops, you're right about 13. It worked to type in a description of doing what ought to work but doesn't. Silly me. That leaves only 19 as maybe impossible on a Mac. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/3/topics/59744?page=1#posts-1367514">thok</a>:</cite> 13 can be done without touching your mouse on a Mac in safari, but rather by typing some appropriate text. 19 is broken on Macs, as far as I can tell. I’ve done everything else but 24.</blockquote>Oops, you’re right about 13. It worked to type in a description of doing what ought to work but doesn’t. Silly me. That leaves only 19 as maybe impossible on a Mac.

2009-10-13T13:25:25-07:00

true

1367626

59744

2009-10-13T13:25:38-07:00

196324

Rothycat: on my MacBook it worked to turn the brightness up as far as it would go and then go to "Displays" and change the color profile from "Color LCD" to "Adobe RGB"; this made it bright enough to just barely read. For other people with a Mac: 25 didn't work in Safari but did work in Firefox. The only ones I haven't got are 13 and 19. I tried scrolling my mouse wheel on 13, but it didn't have any effect except moving the page up and down; some web searching suggests that Adobe Flash Player just doesn't support scroll wheels for Macintosh, so presumably the solution is "buy a PC, then repeat". On 19 nothing I do has any effect on it whatsover: I enabled camera, but my image doesn't appear in the box or anything, and neither waving at the camera nor fooling around with mouse or keyboard during any color of light does anything (it alternates between small green light and large red light, completely oblivious to my actions); I tried this on several different browsers, with both the debug and release version of Flash, etc.; again I'm guessing that the only solution is "buy a PC", but maybe somebody else can help. I'm kind of annoyed at Kongregate for giving a badge to something that requires a particular operating system. Rothycat: on my MacBook it worked to turn the brightness up as far as it would go and then go to “Displays” and change the color profile from “Color LCD” to “Adobe RGB”; this made it bright enough to just barely read. For other people with a Mac: 25 didn’t work in Safari but did work in Firefox. The only ones I haven’t got are 13 and 19. I tried scrolling my mouse wheel on 13, but it didn’t have any effect except moving the page up and down; some web searching suggests that Adobe Flash Player just doesn’t support scroll wheels for Macintosh, so presumably the solution is “buy a PC, then repeat”. On 19 nothing I do has any effect on it whatsover: I enabled camera, but my image doesn’t appear in the box or anything, and neither waving at the camera nor fooling around with mouse or keyboard during any color of light does anything (it alternates between small green light and large red light, completely oblivious to my actions); I tried this on several different browsers, with both the debug and release version of Flash, etc.; again I’m guessing that the only solution is “buy a PC”, but maybe somebody else can help. I’m kind of annoyed at Kongregate for giving a badge to something that requires a particular operating system.

2009-10-13T12:31:02-07:00

true

1367465

59744

2009-10-13T12:31:02-07:00

196324

I'm not a big fan of the games getting badged so far during EPIC Week, but I do approve of the precedent: theme weeks are a good idea. Maybe in the future we'll get a more fun theme, like Board Game Week or Food Week or something. I’m not a big fan of the games getting badged so far during EPIC Week, but I do approve of the precedent: theme weeks are a good idea. Maybe in the future we’ll get a more fun theme, like Board Game Week or Food Week or something.

2009-09-16T22:32:42-07:00

true

1304037

578

56552

2009-09-17T04:20:00-07:00

196324

It's hard to imagine that the input will be as precise as with controllers, or that there will be much extra realism given that you're still just watching everything on a television screen. But that's not really the point. The point is the obesity epidemic, to which video games have undeniably contributed. Consider the cigarette manufacturers. They knew that their product was harmful. They could have made it less harmful by designing better filters; instead they tried to ignore its harmfulness. Now their product is locked behind a counter, heavily taxed, covered with Surgeon General's warnings, illegal to market or sell to children, and the subject of a bunch of lawsuits. Video game manufacturers could take the same approach, but it's not a good idea. Video games are less addictive than cigarettes (the cravings go away quicker if one quits cold-turkey, and the withdrawal symptoms are fewer), so taxes and scary labels are going to be more effective. Children are the main market for video games, so removing that market would be a disaster for the industry. And obesity is a much bigger public health issue than smoking ever was (cigarettes _only_ killed a third of the people who used them, and did so relatively slowly), so the ultimate punitive damages are likely to be bigger also. So instead the video game manufacturers are trying to make their product less harmful. I applaud their foresight and wish them luck. It’s hard to imagine that the input will be as precise as with controllers, or that there will be much extra realism given that you’re still just watching everything on a television screen. But that’s not really the point. The point is the obesity epidemic, to which video games have undeniably contributed. Consider the cigarette manufacturers. They knew that their product was harmful. They could have made it less harmful by designing better filters; instead they tried to ignore its harmfulness. Now their product is locked behind a counter, heavily taxed, covered with Surgeon General’s warnings, illegal to market or sell to children, and the subject of a bunch of lawsuits. Video game manufacturers could take the same approach, but it’s not a good idea. Video games are less addictive than cigarettes (the cravings go away quicker if one quits cold-turkey, and the withdrawal symptoms are fewer), so taxes and scary labels are going to be more effective. Children are the main market for video games, so removing that market would be a disaster for the industry. And obesity is a much bigger public health issue than smoking ever was (cigarettes only killed a third of the people who used them, and did so relatively slowly), so the ultimate punitive damages are likely to be bigger also. So instead the video game manufacturers are trying to make their product less harmful. I applaud their foresight and wish them luck.

2009-08-05T00:25:13-07:00

true

1162372

51706

2009-09-17T03:52:36-07:00

196324

I _won_ after nuking every city on Normal difficulty with closed government. Still no Operation Iceberg achievement. Maybe it has to be done on Extreme difficulty? Maybe we're on the wrong track entirely. Has anybody tried winning without researching the vaccine? I read the "91" as an upsidedown "16", but it still doesn't mean anything to me. (There are only 14 cities.) The faces look like basic "comedy" style drama masks, which also doesn't mean anything to me. I won after nuking every city on Normal difficulty with closed government. Still no Operation Iceberg achievement. Maybe it has to be done on Extreme difficulty? Maybe we’re on the wrong track entirely. Has anybody tried winning without researching the vaccine? I read the “91” as an upsidedown “16”, but it still doesn’t mean anything to me. (There are only 14 cities.) The faces look like basic “comedy” style drama masks, which also doesn’t mean anything to me.

2009-07-25T17:16:41-07:00

true

1128685

50524

2009-09-17T03:45:41-07:00

196324

Ah, you're right. Interesting. I could swear it used to be "Iceberge". Maybe it was a typo and got fixed. Ah, you’re right. Interesting. I could swear it used to be “Iceberge”. Maybe it was a typo and got fixed.

2009-07-25T13:33:07-07:00

true

1128099

50524

2009-09-17T03:45:41-07:00

196324

According to the high scores list, _nobody_ has fulfilled Operation Iceberge yet, so evidently it's not something one can stumble on accidentally. So I've tried a few specific feats to see if they worked. They didn't, but here's a list for process of elimination: I won a game on Extreme difficulty with each transparency setting. I won a game on Extreme difficulty with each victory condition. I won a game on Extreme difficulty after dropping a nuclear bomb on three cities. I lost a game on Normal difficulty with each loss condition. None of these fulfilled the Operation Iceberge achievement. I'd be interested to know what things other people have tried. Neutron bombs? Something with timing? Nuking _every_ city? According to the high scores list, nobody has fulfilled Operation Iceberge yet, so evidently it’s not something one can stumble on accidentally. So I’ve tried a few specific feats to see if they worked. They didn’t, but here’s a list for process of elimination: I won a game on Extreme difficulty with each transparency setting. I won a game on Extreme difficulty with each victory condition. I won a game on Extreme difficulty after dropping a nuclear bomb on three cities. I lost a game on Normal difficulty with each loss condition. None of these fulfilled the Operation Iceberge achievement. I’d be interested to know what things other people have tried. Neutron bombs? Something with timing? Nuking every city?

2009-07-25T12:47:01-07:00

true

1128006

50524

2009-09-17T03:45:41-07:00

196324

Zening was a great game, but I gave up on it because of the microtransactions. Until I could unlock the high-level units and abilities, the people who had paid to unlock those units and abilities were virtually unbeatable. (One of the unlockable characters had three times as many hit points as the closest free equivalent. One of the unlockable spells hit twice as large an area as the closest free equivalent. Etc.) The way to unlock those characters and spells without paying was to maintain something like an 80% win ratio over an extended period of time--I was pretty good at Zening, and so might have been able to do this, except that the people who'd paid to unlock super-content were sufficiently frequent to wreck my ratio. So I quit. Last time I peeked in, maybe four or five months ago, it looked like everybody else had quit too. Seems sad. Zening was a great game, but I gave up on it because of the microtransactions. Until I could unlock the high-level units and abilities, the people who had paid to unlock those units and abilities were virtually unbeatable. (One of the unlockable characters had three times as many hit points as the closest free equivalent. One of the unlockable spells hit twice as large an area as the closest free equivalent. Etc.) The way to unlock those characters and spells without paying was to maintain something like an 80% win ratio over an extended period of time—I was pretty good at Zening, and so might have been able to do this, except that the people who’d paid to unlock super-content were sufficiently frequent to wreck my ratio. So I quit. Last time I peeked in, maybe four or five months ago, it looked like everybody else had quit too. Seems sad.

2009-07-24T22:14:50-07:00

true

1126621

50492

2009-09-17T03:45:33-07:00

196324

<blockquote>Your problem with hackers is: 1) They hack and they get points for it, even it doesn’t affecting you directly you still think it isn’t fair, but since that’s what bug you we shouldn’t delete high-scores. 2) They get on the leaderboards and kick out many users from it, if they got normal scores (like 300 seconds in Hexiom Random 6, instead of 0) they wouldn’t even appear on the leaderboard and that would be okay, but since they do disrupt the high-scores board it’s not ok, delete those scores!</blockquote>Some of both. Now that we have statistics on how rare achievements are, I'd like those statistics to be accurate. But the biggest issue is the high scores lists. I've started cluttering up my friends list with people who aren't friends but who do get legitimate high scores on games, just so I'll have _somebody_ to compare my scores against. <blockquote>Your problem with hackers is: 1) They hack and they get points for it, even it doesn’t affecting you directly you still think it isn’t fair, but since that’s what bug you we shouldn’t delete high-scores. 2) They get on the leaderboards and kick out many users from it, if they got normal scores (like 300 seconds in Hexiom Random 6, instead of 0) they wouldn’t even appear on the leaderboard and that would be okay, but since they do disrupt the high-scores board it’s not ok, delete those scores!</blockquote>Some of both. Now that we have statistics on how rare achievements are, I’d like those statistics to be accurate. But the biggest issue is the high scores lists. I’ve started cluttering up my friends list with people who aren’t friends but who do get legitimate high scores on games, just so I’ll have somebody to compare my scores against.

2009-07-17T18:39:46-07:00

true

1103476

49524

2009-09-17T03:38:52-07:00

196324

I wouldn't pay a dollar to unlock content within a flash game. Ten cents maybe, if it was a really good game. I wouldn’t pay a dollar to unlock content within a flash game. Ten cents maybe, if it was a really good game.

2009-07-17T16:19:38-07:00

true

1102771

49691

2009-09-17T03:39:55-07:00

196324

It would probably be a good idea for someone to update the "Current Challenges" page to say "one challenge per week" rather than "two challenges per week". It would probably be a good idea for someone to update the “Current Challenges” page to say “one challenge per week” rather than “two challenges per week”.

2009-06-19T13:43:18-07:00

true

1016869

46583

2009-09-17T03:23:13-07:00

196324

<blockquote>Adding a non-engineering employee, once you include their desk and IT, workman’s comp, health, and salary, would probably cost Kong in the ballpark of 100k per year. Rounding that’s $2000 per week extra that Kong would have to come up with to add another person.</blockquote>Surely Kong could find, among its gargantuan user base, a reasonably competent volunteer willing to make badges for free--and could set things up so that it could be done remotely from the volunteer's home. <blockquote>Adding a non-engineering employee, once you include their desk and IT, workman’s comp, health, and salary, would probably cost Kong in the ballpark of 100k per year. Rounding that’s $2000 per week extra that Kong would have to come up with to add another person.</blockquote>Surely Kong could find, among its gargantuan user base, a reasonably competent volunteer willing to make badges for free—and could set things up so that it could be done remotely from the volunteer’s home.

2009-06-17T10:13:02-07:00

true

1011794

167

44361

2009-09-17T03:11:26-07:00

196324