Recent posts by multifails on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Tap Adventure / What you want to improve in this game? [created by developers]

Resurrection timer revamp:
Instead of all heroes resurrecting at their individual timers, all dead heroes should resurrect at the same time. You can keep the times as they are, but calculate the time of resurrection as [all resurrection timers summed up / number of dead heroes ]. This way the time it would take for the heroes to resurrect would stay the same as it is now, it would just be done in a more pleasant manner for the player.

The reason why is because alot of the time the game works like this:
-All heroes up (5/5)
-Weak heroes die one by one(4/5….3/5….4/5)
-One weak hero resurrects (2/5)
-One weak hero dies (1/5)
-One weak hero resurrects(2/5)
-One weak hero dies /1/5)
Continuing on like this with the occasional “2 heroes resurrect close to each other” and “strong hero dies … strong hero resurrects”. Most of the time, this game is being played with 1-2 heroes up, out of which the other one is doing all the work.

It is quite annoying to go face bosses like this, since you’ve got 1 hero up at most times and he needs the other heroes to be cannon fodder for the 3 seconds they survive against the boss in order to dish out enough dps to kill it.

Flag Post

Topic: Tap Adventure / What you want to improve in this game? [created by developers]

Balance of different heroes is completely off 100% of the time. I can currently pick between spending 70T for upgrading and get +300b dps or use 130T for upgrading another hero and get 5.5T dps. It’s like the prices have nothing to do with what you get. They don’t have to be balanced to the letter, but this sort of difference is just ridicilous.

What I constantly see happen because of this is that 1 of the heroes has 10-100 times the dps and health of all other heroes put together and all other heroes are just cannon fodder and spend most of their time as gravestones, then when I hit an income level where I can take another hero to the next star level, he takes this place and the other continue being cannon fodder. Why do we have so many heroes in play at once when most of them are doing absolutely nothing?

The upgrade panel keeps jumping up and down when heroes die and revive. The revive button should not be where the upgrade button is, but on the left side so it’ll never get pressed on accident. Just keep the list as it is and add a button below the portrait that you can use to revive, that way the list won’t get wonky when heroes die and there will be no accidental revives. If you want to keep it as it is, at least calculate where it needs to be scrolled to so the player doesn’t see this jumping.

I keep getting items from the little guy that flies around, which then apparently I get. I can only assume they do something, but I have no idea what the item I just got does or how much it does whatever it is that it does. It would be nice to get a floating text that told me what I got and how much it does whatever it is doing.

Flag Post

Topic: Crusaders of the Lost Idols / Report a Bug v 2.0

Cooldown timers are not progressing at all for me. I came back to the game after weeks of not playing and boom, can’t use skills due to this.

Flag Post

Topic: Swords & Potions 2 / Reporting Bugs & Issues

Every time i do something it takes 5-10 seconds for the stupid message to go through and every day ends in an error and is made empty – the day passes but no items get done, no resources get used and all customers who visited the shop get angry.

Clearly a server problem.

Flag Post

Topic: Idle Online Universe: Discussion, Feedback, and Suggestions / Suggestions Thread: Aug 17 - 31

Make the rocks in mining die in 1 hit instead of 10 to balance out the increased energy timer – this will require bringing the reward from killing a rock 10x down as well.

Alternative way to do this is to increase max energy by a factor of 10 and the amount of energy gained per tick by a factor of 10, this will solve the problem even more cleanly.

Otherwise the timer change is a big fuck you towards the newer players, as their progress down the mine is seriously hampered (i mean seriously, it takes me like 2½ days [53 hours if mining in an optimal way] to get down one level now!)

Flag Post

Topic: Idle Online Universe: Discussion, Feedback, and Suggestions / 20 Minute NRG Timer is Too Much

Aside from all the other crap argued about in here, what I dont get is why is my progress through the mines suddenly dropped to a 10th of what it used to be? Now I feel like the devs are saying “Those who’ve already gotten deep in the mines will be crowned kings of ore, the rest of you, fuck off and stay at the other end of the mine please!”.

If the energy timer is put out to be 10x higher, then the rocks need to die 10x easier and the reward needs to stay the same (instead of 10x or whatever). Otherwise people will be fucked over.

Flag Post

Topic: Reckless Ruckus / Automatic diamond use without notification

Its complete bullshit that the game uses up my diamonds on things like arena when its on cooldown without telling me it’s doing so.

There is no indication that diamonds are being used until after press the challenge button while on cooldown.

There needs to be a fucking dialog telling me what costs diamonds and what doesn’t when it isn’t clear (ie, the object or button doesn’t clearly state the diamond cost).

Greedy little fucks.

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate Multiplayer Games / [Bionic Battle Mutants] Features and Ideas

Nice game in many ways, just a few things that end up being a little frustrating (this just caused a failed mission and 2 dead guys, no biggie, but frustrating :p):

It is way too easy to either shoot at the wrong target (for example when the one you want to shoot is obscured by a destroyable door) or just outright run next to the target when trying to shoot them.

I would consider at least giving the option (for example by pushing down alt, ctrl or shift) of choosing targets based on targeting the grid cells they are on instead, this would resolve the issue while not affecting the gameplay of those who don’t find this an issue. Programming wise this should be easy by simply changing the cursor to react to a cell-sized area at the objects feet instead of the object itself while the toggling key is pressed.

Other than that, great job on the game, its very well made and entertaining.

Flag Post

Topic: Card Hunter / Suggestions

Originally posted by FlaxativeCH:

This is a feature in progress.

Clear indication of my brilliance n_n

Flag Post

Topic: Card Hunter / Suggestions

Co-op adventures, for 2+ players.
*Possibility to invite friends to it or to search for a player for it just like in pvp.
*Exist on the map just like the other adventures, new ones opening up after beating the previous ones.

+Makes adventuring feel more like playing an actual multiplayer board game (immersion).
+Increase the social aspect of the game (immersion).
-Increasing the social aspect of the game decreases the time players spend living real life (delusion).

Sub-classing that was mentioned above is a great idea as well and it could easily be implemented as an extra item slot with 3’ish skills per item making it slightly smaller contributor to character diversity as race (which in addition to 3 skills, affects health and movement speed).

+Increases character diversity slightly, making end-game content grow boring more slowly.
-Requires creation of whole new skillsets and items

Making it possible to choose a harder difficulty for adventures so you could re-play them with your otherwise too-high-level characters, possibly making this mode recommeded to be played with lvl 20 characters (scaled for fresh 20’s for the first ones, well equipped for the latter ones).

+Increases the amount of ‘end-game’ content by a drastic amount without having to create actual new adventures.
-Requires re-balancing of each adventure for the harder difficulty, possibly adding skills to the monsters there as well.

Yes, I’m a genius.

Flag Post

Topic: Card Hunter / Bugs

If you cancel a spell, you can no longer right click on monsters or players to info on the cards attached to them until you use another card. Bug occurred while casting Burning Fingers. E: Only an issue with spells with a certain targeting system like Burning Fingers, single target things seem to be fine.

Altruism description should be: “…draw a card if 4+. Keep and Discard Unless 4.”.

Help The Weak – Is it intended that this spell heals targets with full health if they are the person with lowest health?


Topic: Card Hunter / Bugs

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Card Hunter / Bugs

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Card Hunter / Bugs

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Card Hunter / Bugs

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Card Hunter / Bugs

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Card Hunter / Bugs

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Card Hunter / Bugs

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
Flag Post

Topic: Card Hunter / Bugs

Spell Altruism (priest spell)
Description is extremely poorly written (or its functionality is wrong):
“When you play a Holy card targeting an ally other than yourself, draw a card. Keep Unless 4”

The correct form based on how the card works is:
“When you play a Holy card targeting an ally other than yourself, draw a card If 4”

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Problems in todays Kong

Lets listen to music instead

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Problems in todays Kong

Originally posted by player_03:

I agree. But that isn’t really Kongregate’s fault. And in fact it isn’t limited to games.

No, not really, just like it isn’t a goverments fault if its businesses do all kinds of fucked up things just to increase their profits and yet (I make the relatively safe assumption that) we both agree that it’s its responsibility to govern the consumer laws. Kongregate is no different in its role as the channel through which these developers interact with players. Both ‘responsibilities’ can also be dismissed through similar arguments (“the consumers makes their choises by themselves and are completely responsible for their choises in that regard”, “its not stupid to sell shit as gold, its stupid to buy it” and all the other cliches that businesses in general would like people to believe in order to justify doing whatever they want.

I don’t claim the above to be perfectly on the spot, just that its a fitting (even if hyperbole) parallel.

• I tentatively accept that it had the effect you described, at least for a month or three.
• I might believe that they intended the effect you described.
• I absolutely would not believe that they willingly waited six months.

And you know what? PvP is a huge deal. PvP makes players play more than normal. PvP keeps players from leaving. PvP can convince non-paying players to buy their first item. PvP makes paying players buy even more.

In short, PvP brings in more money for the developer than “hype for PvP” possibly could.

Exactly. The feature would be ready when it was ready, no amount of promises in any direction would change this, thus the situation is not “promise of pvp vs actual pvp” but “promise of pvp coming soon vs. not” and I think we both agree that a player is more likely to keep playing the game longer and spend money on a game if they believe that an important update is “coming soon” rather than “planned but developement halted at the moment”.

The third bullet point has nothing to do with the issue.

Hype of pvp brings in more money to the developer than not hyping for it ever could (due to all the things you mentioned about players naturally losing interest and such – the developer needs to keep the players engaged with updates if they want to keep them playing longer, but if that cannot happen, hype still increases the time before they naturally leave the game).

That helps, but… if I was going to make an estimate, I’d at least prefer to be able to see a record of the complaints and recount them. I wouldn’t trust my memory on this, and I certainly wouldn’t trust my memory of an estimate I made months ago while annoyed.


It’s good to see that you’re willing to admit it when a prediction turns out wrong. Is it safe to assume that you adjusted your mental estimates accordingly?

Did… did you just try to justify scope insensitivity?

Just saying that I won’t say something is ok just because its done to a smaller number of people. It may affect the methods used to correct the problem, but in this case I do not think the methods I’m proposing have any significant effect on kongregates finances.

I’m also not posting this because of a single event in a single game and I have not recorded every single event where I have observed something similar to it happen just in case I had to argue about it. If you want to use that to dismiss the argument, feel free to, but I’m not one to whine about a problem unless I have a reason to think (like encountering it on a regular basis [my experience] and having a valid reason to believe its intentional to a degree [common behaviour in business when money is involved]).

It’s never effortless. Even if they’ve already written most of the code they need, they still have to do extensive testing to make sure the new feature works correctly. You wouldn’t want it malfunctioning and failing to give a reward that was promised.

But that’s not all. We’re discussing software for moderating humans; the software isn’t the complicated part. Before you can even start on the software, you need to figure out how you’re going to get the humans in question to do what you want.

It’s tougher than it sounds. Incentives often don’t work the way you hope they will.

Of course its not something that can just be slapped up in a day and have it miraculously work. Still, we both know this is not a major undertaking for kongregate.

For instance, a second monthly contest would likely not cause developers to try and improve their games. Instead, the games that won the first contest will tend to win the second. And if you disqualify the first ten winners, then the ten runners-up will tend to win. You’ve already commented that players are slow to rate a game down; the same applies in reverse.

I’ll repeat the workings of the proposed 2nd contest: The games that did not win the first one were eligible for it (and only those). They would get the same prize money as the 10th place IF they managed to raise their ratings to that of the 10th game or above. Every one of them could win if they did that, but I would say its safe to say rising a games rating to that of the monthly top10 is a task that only the borderline games can achieve (ie. games that are ’good but not great).

Penalizing developers for lying… well, even if there was a good way to distinguish lying from being honestly mistaken, the developers wouldn’t like it. Kongregate is not the only option they have for distributing their games; they’d at least consider taking their business elsewhere. (Yes, that is a thing that can happen, and Kongregate is not at all happy when it does.)

Same applies to business everywhere, but I do not take it as an argument to allow them to be dicks. I also don’t propose it would be a nazi system where anyone missing their promises of an update by a day, just that they would be held accountable in terms of not using cheap tactics to increase profits (ie. “we were so busy that we could not find the time write 1 line saying ‘the developement of this update is halted due to other issues we’re having’. in fact so busy we couldn’t find the time in 6 months!”. and yes, i like to use this one as an example because of its so absurd). This is also why it requires human moderation instead of cold machine logic (nothing prevents me from proposing a system where the devs have to input features into dates when making promises of updates, being penalized immediately if they missed it by a certain margin. But I don’t, because that too, would be absurd).

Notifying players of updates? Ok, yeah, that one should be fine. Which may be why it already happens.

Blanket updates on the first page (which does not touch games that are fairly new) and a feature in playlist that doesn’t seem to be listed anywhere and not alot of people seem to know about (there are even posts in the forums asking why games they’ve had there pop back into their playlists). I still think there should be a button for that next to the rating buttons (for all intents and purposes, it could put the game into your playlist and not have it show up until it gets an update).

…And this is another reason I prefer to go for the “core” point of disagreement. Otherwise these posts get way too long. Don’t be too disappointed when I go back to short posts.

Just because some say size doesn’t matter doesn’t mean it doesn’t – it has a psychological effect. The saying refers to size not helping if one doesn’t know how to use it :)

Anyway, its ok, I don’t think anything will change based on anything we discuss here regardless of how we do it.

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Problems in todays Kong

Originally posted by player_03:

Instead what I’m trying to do is figure out which of our unstated assumptions are in conflict. Because then there’s at least a chance of resolving the argument.

In that case I would propose than the best way to do this would be to ignore the OP at first and begin at the other end of the chain: Are there things kongregate can and/or should do in order to increase the quality of the service it offers players (through improving game quality and dialogue between developer and player or other things) and game developers (through the platform [eg. apis, platform support, etc.] and carrotization of game developement [eg. rewards from achieving high ratings or alot of plays/playtime])?

My experience here gave me insight into the problems that the average player encounters here – eg. abandoned games that had huge potential (in my opinion) due to the only carrot continuing developement of said game would only show as increased revenue from ads and thus developers are more encouraged to rather continue their efforts in new projects; In other words, the current system encourages abandoning games in favour of new projects regardless of their potential. To begin fixing this, I thought a good starting point would be to begin with games that are good enough to get near the monthly top10 games in rating but still missing something and so I came up with the additional monthly thing that would encourage those developers to further refine those games.

This problem does not extend to games which monetize through in-game shops, where completely different problems arise – problems that are complex and hard to find fixes to, which is why I separated parts of this issue into all 3 points of my post: 1. fucking with players through creation of hype through lies – hype is fine, lying is not, 2. monetization through creating an annoying setting for the player and releasing them from it for as long as they kept paying and finally 3. seeking ways to force the player into visiting other websites in order to generate hits, which is just another – smaller but surer – way to generate revenue through annoying the player. Number 2 is many a times the industry standard for games with in-game-shops and number 3 is not that common and probably not counterable by kong anyway and thus I left those beehives un-poked for now (I can already imagine the amount of stupidity I would encounter with proposing that kong had some kind of standards for in-game monetization) but still wrote what I did in order to make it clear that I do think there are big problems with them as well in case someone agreed and had insights or wanted to discuss ways that it could be improved.

Yeah, ok, that is kind of unfair. Gameplays are so spread out across Kongregate’s games that making a list of enough individual games would take way too long.

Instead, I’ll be happy to accept categories, as long as you demonstrate that those categories are prone to having this problem. (Take a random sample or something to demonstrate it.)

The lying problem mostly affects mmos (eg, the two I mentioned), I would even go as far to say that if we agree that the Hofstadter’s Law applies in general (even though it is kind of stereotypization and in the way it is presented at times), then it is a general problem that games in general suffer from (altough there are always exceptions in those who realize this and do not hastily make promises they cannot keep).

Like so! This does indeed count as “a number of games with more gameplays than Magic Barrage.”

However, I looked at their forum posts, and I didn’t find any promises of the sort you described. All their promises as of late seem to be of the “coming soon” variety, rather than giving an exact date.

In this particular case, the featured PVP was deemed as “coming soon” (reinforced by in-game advertisement of said feature as “coming soon”) for at least 6 months (probably longer, but that is when I was playing the game). PVP was implemented this month. While I see nothing wrong in using “coming soon” when there is no clear date, but there are limits to how far ambiguous lines such as that can be drawn and I find it being the qualifier of 6 months to be nothing but a big fat lie made in order to make players think that the feature could be coming any day now to keep them playing and paying.

Apparently there was this, but that doesn’t meet my second criterion because the players didn’t seem very upset. (Not even in the threads posted before that announcement.)

By the way, another way to gauge the number of players affected by this sort of thing would be to post about it in the forums. If a lot of players posted in support, you could extrapolate and conclude that a large percentage of Kongregate’s players are affected.

If not very many players posted in support, extrapolating would lead to the conclusion that the issue doesn’t affect very many players overall. And if no one posted in support… you’d want to step back and ask yourself if you were falling prey to the false-consensus effect.

Just saying.

Personally I can testify to players being very annoyed by this in both kongregate chat and in-game chat of the game, unfortunately I cannot recall what the topics were at the forums as I was not whining about it there either (personally I already knew edgebee does not react to that kind of stuff at all).

As for statistics as proof of any of this, I have none to offer. Before using the forums to extrapolate anything, I would first need statistics on how many players bother to do that rather than letting it go and/or moving on to another game. I am surprised though to find no topics whining about the lack of the PVP update as people were not pleased with it in chat.

Originally posted by multifails:

Keep in mind what I said about gameplays and moneyflows earlier.

Keep in mind what you said about choice earlier. If your contest proposal is ok because developers can choose whether to participate, then games making money is ok because players can choose whether to buy anything.

Personally, I don’t care about money made, I care about players affected. Gameplays are a decent way to estimate the latter.

The reason I would not use the gameplays statistic alone is because I would say that in the case of games with in-game shops (which are the games mainly affected by the hype-lying), players who use the in-game shop can be said be the player most affected by the hype-lies (worst case scenario being investing money [by buying in-game things] in a product [the game] that is being sold to him with fraudalent advertising [by promises of which are not true]) while those who do not are mainly just annoyed by it. But ok, we can stick with gameplays for the sake of the argument. I would still say that even if a game had 10k gameplays in a year, it would not have the right to try to mislead people.

I’m having trouble parsing this. Are you saying that if the problem was bigger, we’d get less payoff from solving it?

No, I mean that the cost/benefit ratio doesn’t get bigger even if the problem encompassed every game in kong (which it obviously doesn’t) as the efforts needed to create the framework by which it works doesn’t require much effort due to that feature containing features kong already has implemented.

It’s also quite obvious that the problem is hard to map even to the point of being able to give a proper statistic on it (I am basing the need for it on personal experience as a frequent and critical kong user) and the point of this is that even if my estimate based on that proved to be bigger than the actual problem, that would only mean that upkeeping it would be less taxing (while the benefits in moderated cases are clear at least in my opinion).

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Problems in todays Kong

Originally posted by player_03:
Originally posted by multifails:

PS. Tell me honestly, are you discussing this with an open mind, or have you already decided how things are and actively try to find anything you can use to dismiss it?

Wow… that… actually kind of hurts.

That was meant as an honest question as from my point of view so far, you have made many counterarguments questioning the OP, but even though I (can only assume I) have properly been providing my reply to most of them (I’m excluding the part we are still debating on), you (at least seemed to) have ignored most of those and kept on arguing about the things that I may have been wrong on. In my experience this usually means that the discussion will always have the same song of me vs. the next argument the other person can find and it usually has ended with them thinking that finding one thing – however remote – not perfectly on the spot (or proven strongly enough for their liking, which usually means demands of presenting proof of massive proportions of something far fetched simply for the sake of argument [I should rather ask why the examples I provided aren’t enough for you – comparing kongergates unique users to the number of plays mean shit, as even the most played games don’t do that much better than s&p 2 – and what kind of logic you use to determine how many games need to be presented in order for something to exist]) in my argumentation means that everything I said is wrong and everything they say is right.

I did not mean it as a hurtful thing, sorry. I was confused because the way you debate is very high quality, but you have a very anti -attitude on this, purely concentrating on finding something wrong with what I said when you clearly have the intellectual capacity to come up with the solution to fix the argument even in the case that the argument was wrong.

The core point of the disagreement (funny to use that word as it doesn’t even become a disagreement until you disagree on something, in which case you should know what the core thing is that you disagree on, otherwise its just argumentational fishing) is that kongregates quality control of games and the effort they put into carrotizing devs to produce higher quality games (less bullshit and more polish (especially polish of things that most players find badly done in a game) = higher quality). That is 1). Then there’s 2) and 3) which are more complex problems by far.

Now for that “core of our disagreement” thing…

As I said, I don’t believe this is a serious issue. I arrived at this conclusion based on the math: Kongregate has over 21 million unique monthly users, and your best example was a game that only has 13 million gameplays. And it got those gameplays over an 18 month period.

As always, I am willing to reconsider. All you have to do is demonstrate the following:

1) A number of high-profile games made promises that they didn’t follow through on. (Look for at least as many gameplays as Magic Barrage has. Preferably more.)
2) A significant fraction of the players cared. (Look for highly-rated comments on the subject.)

Before I start wasting time on doing something as pointless as that (I have the feeling that no number of plays on a game that did that is going to be enough for you – either the game I present doesn’t have enough gameplays (eg. even the most played game on kong “only has 60m plays in 30 months”, which is only roughly 3 times as many as with s&p2 which has the same amount of plays per month as the highest rated game in kong) to your liking or you’re going to single it out as ‘just one game in the face of 21m unique visitors monthly’ and start demaning I screen every game in kong to create a statistic for you out of them), I’m going to ask: Are you really challenging my argument on the basis that this doesn’t happen in games in kong? Even after using Hofstadter’s Law in your argument? Are you sure? Really really sure?

Keep in mind what I said about gameplays and moneyflows earlier. Also, as you were arguing that the payoff isn’t big enough to consider things such as these, you do realize that the more games there are out there doing this, the more work it is going to be for the same effect and vice versa?

(If you really want some more games, just look at any game made by EdgeBee, the developer of s&p 2, they’re very good at fucking their customers in the ass). In other words, I already brought examples on to the table and you’re going to have to do better if you want to ‘assign me some more manual labor’.

Guilty as charged. Sure I was trying to get at that “core of the disagreement,” but I should have at least acknowledged the other points you made. Sorry.

Do you have anything constructive to say about anything then?

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Problems in todays Kong

Originally posted by player_03:

In some cases, I agree that developers could use a little encouragement to spend time improving their games. In other cases, their time would be better spent working on the next game. Applied indiscriminately, your advice would hurt as much as it helped.

For this one I’m going to want a little more explaining as to why it would hurt anyone.

It would be 100% the developers own choise wether or not they continued developing the game or moved on to the next project. The whole point of adding a second-month prize was to give devs who made good games that were lacking in polish or content an extra reason to spend a little more time on that particular game. That part would not even be able to hurt anyone.

As for penalizing lies and empty promises, I don’t see why the dev couldn’t simply say they are unable to give a release time for updates and just say they are working on them if that is the case. Again, this part can only hurt those who actively lie to players – how this could be a bad thing… I’m eagerly waiting for the explanation.

And in any case, the developers who need encouragement are not the developers who promise updates. Usually if a developer promises something, they really are working on it. The fact that sometimes it takes ages to deliver is Hofstadter’s Law in action.

Putting a pretty name to people pulling dates from their asses when they do not have an estimate doesn’t make it ‘ok’. Incapability to say “TBA” instead of “oh it’ll be done in 2 weeks” when one doesn’t have a clue is not something that should be enabled.

PS. Tell me honestly, are you discussing this with an open mind, or have you already decided how things are and actively try to find anything imperfect about it so you can pretend that one thing can be used to dismiss everything? I don’t think blanket arguing leads to anywhere (ie. moving from one thing to the other with arguments while evading/ignoring any counters to the previous ones in hopes of finding one argument that you get right).

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Problems in todays Kong

I would like to ask anyone partaking in this discussion to refrain from simply trying to dismiss the the OP using any, however small maybe-possibly-imperfection and try to type in some constructive input instead – if you think it’s wrong, FIX IT instead of dismissing it, the amount of time you’ll waste on the matter will be the same regardless.