@Buu Could not agree more. +1 to everything you said.
Suggestions
Make Flight Rising better by sharing your ideas!
TOPIC | Adjust piece repulsion in Jigsaw
@Thrage
I've suggested this multiple times, and each time it has been overlooked or ignored.
I'm not saying to get rid of the repulsion and such- but perhaps create an area where pieces cannot connect together and will allow stacking so that we can reduce the clutter over the play area. It's simply too frustrating working on a puzzle with random pieces all over the place. I agree that the stacking method should go- well, I at least respect the reasoning behind it- but don't make everyone else suffer as a result. This idea may make it a little more tolerable for those of us who simply stack to clear space- not for the exploit.
Please consider it- I appreciate all that the staff have done to make this site improve- and I think my suggestion here- and I'm sure I'm not the first to put it out- will make the puzzles easier without allowing the exploit to be used. When working on a real puzzle I've always separated the edge pieces and piled up the rest to the side- and with a playmat as small as the one here on FR- it is impossible to separate the edge pieces and push the rest aside in a pile- it just repels itself all over the place.
I've had a very high opinion of the staff up til this point- you've listened and communicated with us thus far- please don't stop. If you won't consider the above ideas/solutions proposed- tell us why so we can have our piece. I've gotten the impression that you staff care about our opinions- and this entire thread is hurting that faith just a bit. I loved how you communicated with us- don't stop! Ignoring the opinions and ideas of the members is worse than telling us why they won't work- especially when so many people seem to be upset.
And a note, I don't agree with the stacking method- I do consider it an exploit- however, I respect your opinion and beliefs regarding it. I will say I've used it- but it took the fun out of the puzzle for me. Please respect my belief that is an exploit- just as I respect your belief that it is a 'strategy'. I've seen so many harsh words cross between opposing sides on this issue- and believe me- both sides are suffering from these changes. Let's try to work together for a better compromise to make the changes more bearable for all of us- even if we can't get them the way they were. Please?
I've suggested this multiple times, and each time it has been overlooked or ignored.
I'm not saying to get rid of the repulsion and such- but perhaps create an area where pieces cannot connect together and will allow stacking so that we can reduce the clutter over the play area. It's simply too frustrating working on a puzzle with random pieces all over the place. I agree that the stacking method should go- well, I at least respect the reasoning behind it- but don't make everyone else suffer as a result. This idea may make it a little more tolerable for those of us who simply stack to clear space- not for the exploit.
Please consider it- I appreciate all that the staff have done to make this site improve- and I think my suggestion here- and I'm sure I'm not the first to put it out- will make the puzzles easier without allowing the exploit to be used. When working on a real puzzle I've always separated the edge pieces and piled up the rest to the side- and with a playmat as small as the one here on FR- it is impossible to separate the edge pieces and push the rest aside in a pile- it just repels itself all over the place.
I've had a very high opinion of the staff up til this point- you've listened and communicated with us thus far- please don't stop. If you won't consider the above ideas/solutions proposed- tell us why so we can have our piece. I've gotten the impression that you staff care about our opinions- and this entire thread is hurting that faith just a bit. I loved how you communicated with us- don't stop! Ignoring the opinions and ideas of the members is worse than telling us why they won't work- especially when so many people seem to be upset.
And a note, I don't agree with the stacking method- I do consider it an exploit- however, I respect your opinion and beliefs regarding it. I will say I've used it- but it took the fun out of the puzzle for me. Please respect my belief that is an exploit- just as I respect your belief that it is a 'strategy'. I've seen so many harsh words cross between opposing sides on this issue- and believe me- both sides are suffering from these changes. Let's try to work together for a better compromise to make the changes more bearable for all of us- even if we can't get them the way they were. Please?
@Thrage
I've suggested this multiple times, and each time it has been overlooked or ignored.
I'm not saying to get rid of the repulsion and such- but perhaps create an area where pieces cannot connect together and will allow stacking so that we can reduce the clutter over the play area. It's simply too frustrating working on a puzzle with random pieces all over the place. I agree that the stacking method should go- well, I at least respect the reasoning behind it- but don't make everyone else suffer as a result. This idea may make it a little more tolerable for those of us who simply stack to clear space- not for the exploit.
Please consider it- I appreciate all that the staff have done to make this site improve- and I think my suggestion here- and I'm sure I'm not the first to put it out- will make the puzzles easier without allowing the exploit to be used. When working on a real puzzle I've always separated the edge pieces and piled up the rest to the side- and with a playmat as small as the one here on FR- it is impossible to separate the edge pieces and push the rest aside in a pile- it just repels itself all over the place.
I've had a very high opinion of the staff up til this point- you've listened and communicated with us thus far- please don't stop. If you won't consider the above ideas/solutions proposed- tell us why so we can have our piece. I've gotten the impression that you staff care about our opinions- and this entire thread is hurting that faith just a bit. I loved how you communicated with us- don't stop! Ignoring the opinions and ideas of the members is worse than telling us why they won't work- especially when so many people seem to be upset.
And a note, I don't agree with the stacking method- I do consider it an exploit- however, I respect your opinion and beliefs regarding it. I will say I've used it- but it took the fun out of the puzzle for me. Please respect my belief that is an exploit- just as I respect your belief that it is a 'strategy'. I've seen so many harsh words cross between opposing sides on this issue- and believe me- both sides are suffering from these changes. Let's try to work together for a better compromise to make the changes more bearable for all of us- even if we can't get them the way they were. Please?
I've suggested this multiple times, and each time it has been overlooked or ignored.
I'm not saying to get rid of the repulsion and such- but perhaps create an area where pieces cannot connect together and will allow stacking so that we can reduce the clutter over the play area. It's simply too frustrating working on a puzzle with random pieces all over the place. I agree that the stacking method should go- well, I at least respect the reasoning behind it- but don't make everyone else suffer as a result. This idea may make it a little more tolerable for those of us who simply stack to clear space- not for the exploit.
Please consider it- I appreciate all that the staff have done to make this site improve- and I think my suggestion here- and I'm sure I'm not the first to put it out- will make the puzzles easier without allowing the exploit to be used. When working on a real puzzle I've always separated the edge pieces and piled up the rest to the side- and with a playmat as small as the one here on FR- it is impossible to separate the edge pieces and push the rest aside in a pile- it just repels itself all over the place.
I've had a very high opinion of the staff up til this point- you've listened and communicated with us thus far- please don't stop. If you won't consider the above ideas/solutions proposed- tell us why so we can have our piece. I've gotten the impression that you staff care about our opinions- and this entire thread is hurting that faith just a bit. I loved how you communicated with us- don't stop! Ignoring the opinions and ideas of the members is worse than telling us why they won't work- especially when so many people seem to be upset.
And a note, I don't agree with the stacking method- I do consider it an exploit- however, I respect your opinion and beliefs regarding it. I will say I've used it- but it took the fun out of the puzzle for me. Please respect my belief that is an exploit- just as I respect your belief that it is a 'strategy'. I've seen so many harsh words cross between opposing sides on this issue- and believe me- both sides are suffering from these changes. Let's try to work together for a better compromise to make the changes more bearable for all of us- even if we can't get them the way they were. Please?
*snipsnip!*
[quote name="Buu" date="2013-06-27 12:42:46" url="main.php?p=mb&board=sug&page=19&id=165055#181502"]
I am actually also one of those "horrible, bad cheating" people. I could get my hard puzzles done in around 10 minutes on average. I think my best time was around 7 1/2 minutes with being super focused in and hellbent on beating my own 'best time' on the board....for shiggles. Time didn't matter in that game, it didn't increase the payout, and the scoreboard wasn't even working then, but it was fun to see just how fast I could actually do it in with the stacking method. It was a personal game against myself.[/quote]
Time DOES matter in the sense that in the space of the same time, the stacking makes more money than legitimate play. In your example, even. With your approximate payout of 4000 in 10 minutes sans lucky streak, you handily beat out the 3200 someone grinding Easies could make in the same time with relatively decent speed (2.5min per puzzle). If I simply want to efficiently get treasure, thus, I should do nothing but stack.
The labeling we could do without, of course. I'm not calling anyone bad or a cheater or saying their intent was malicious - I simply think the method defeats the point of a minigame with the goal of solving a puzzle.
Losing a superior method of getting treasure without any replacement on the horizon does suck, though. I also think, again, that treasure output should be greater in general, and the demand for time spent, especially in one sitting, lesser. We're not in disagreement over these points. I just don't think that the method that was used is the right solution for these issues, as opposed to actually targeting those issues on their own and upping treasure gains or whatnot.
On the other topic, I apologize for making it seem like I was suggesting folks should just take out their wallet if they haven't the time. The faulty wording was used in response to the wording of someone being a 'working, paying FR player'.
*snipsnip!*
Time DOES matter in the sense that in the space of the same time, the stacking makes more money than legitimate play. In your example, even. With your approximate payout of 4000 in 10 minutes sans lucky streak, you handily beat out the 3200 someone grinding Easies could make in the same time with relatively decent speed (2.5min per puzzle). If I simply want to efficiently get treasure, thus, I should do nothing but stack.
The labeling we could do without, of course. I'm not calling anyone bad or a cheater or saying their intent was malicious - I simply think the method defeats the point of a minigame with the goal of solving a puzzle.
Losing a superior method of getting treasure without any replacement on the horizon does suck, though. I also think, again, that treasure output should be greater in general, and the demand for time spent, especially in one sitting, lesser. We're not in disagreement over these points. I just don't think that the method that was used is the right solution for these issues, as opposed to actually targeting those issues on their own and upping treasure gains or whatnot.
On the other topic, I apologize for making it seem like I was suggesting folks should just take out their wallet if they haven't the time. The faulty wording was used in response to the wording of someone being a 'working, paying FR player'.
I am actually also one of those "horrible, bad cheating" people. I could get my hard puzzles done in around 10 minutes on average. I think my best time was around 7 1/2 minutes with being super focused in and hellbent on beating my own 'best time' on the board....for shiggles. Time didn't matter in that game, it didn't increase the payout, and the scoreboard wasn't even working then, but it was fun to see just how fast I could actually do it in with the stacking method. It was a personal game against myself.
Time DOES matter in the sense that in the space of the same time, the stacking makes more money than legitimate play. In your example, even. With your approximate payout of 4000 in 10 minutes sans lucky streak, you handily beat out the 3200 someone grinding Easies could make in the same time with relatively decent speed (2.5min per puzzle). If I simply want to efficiently get treasure, thus, I should do nothing but stack.
The labeling we could do without, of course. I'm not calling anyone bad or a cheater or saying their intent was malicious - I simply think the method defeats the point of a minigame with the goal of solving a puzzle.
Losing a superior method of getting treasure without any replacement on the horizon does suck, though. I also think, again, that treasure output should be greater in general, and the demand for time spent, especially in one sitting, lesser. We're not in disagreement over these points. I just don't think that the method that was used is the right solution for these issues, as opposed to actually targeting those issues on their own and upping treasure gains or whatnot.
On the other topic, I apologize for making it seem like I was suggesting folks should just take out their wallet if they haven't the time. The faulty wording was used in response to the wording of someone being a 'working, paying FR player'.
@Georgieanna I'm torn between 'what a lot of effort to put in just to get some pixel gold' and 'human ingenuity is utterly fascinating'.
@Georgieanna I'm torn between 'what a lot of effort to put in just to get some pixel gold' and 'human ingenuity is utterly fascinating'.
@Georgieanna Since you're more familiar with the process than I am
In your opinion, would my above suggestion of removing the jiggle from the middle of the board but maintaining it or adding a bounce around the edge of the board (about the width of a puzzle piece) prevent the process from being automated? Or is it necessary to prevent precise piece placement across the entire play area?
In your opinion, would my above suggestion of removing the jiggle from the middle of the board but maintaining it or adding a bounce around the edge of the board (about the width of a puzzle piece) prevent the process from being automated? Or is it necessary to prevent precise piece placement across the entire play area?
@Georgieanna Since you're more familiar with the process than I am
In your opinion, would my above suggestion of removing the jiggle from the middle of the board but maintaining it or adding a bounce around the edge of the board (about the width of a puzzle piece) prevent the process from being automated? Or is it necessary to prevent precise piece placement across the entire play area?
In your opinion, would my above suggestion of removing the jiggle from the middle of the board but maintaining it or adding a bounce around the edge of the board (about the width of a puzzle piece) prevent the process from being automated? Or is it necessary to prevent precise piece placement across the entire play area?
@Sochitelya
At some level I find the game of solving of how to do it more efficiently is more fun than the solving the puzzle.
I would rather enjoy playing jigsaws the regular way, but the game needs some tweaking til I feel like interacting with it for a duration. Honestly I'd rather play the jigsaw only for fun, due to the time it takes, and instead aim for earning gold in a faster paced game like a bejeweled or bubble shooter. One of the reasons the jigsaw payout is set so high is to offset the time costs I presume, but with the jigsaw experience as is, it does not offset the extra aggravation costs required to solve them.
At some level I find the game of solving of how to do it more efficiently is more fun than the solving the puzzle.
I would rather enjoy playing jigsaws the regular way, but the game needs some tweaking til I feel like interacting with it for a duration. Honestly I'd rather play the jigsaw only for fun, due to the time it takes, and instead aim for earning gold in a faster paced game like a bejeweled or bubble shooter. One of the reasons the jigsaw payout is set so high is to offset the time costs I presume, but with the jigsaw experience as is, it does not offset the extra aggravation costs required to solve them.
@Sochitelya
At some level I find the game of solving of how to do it more efficiently is more fun than the solving the puzzle.
I would rather enjoy playing jigsaws the regular way, but the game needs some tweaking til I feel like interacting with it for a duration. Honestly I'd rather play the jigsaw only for fun, due to the time it takes, and instead aim for earning gold in a faster paced game like a bejeweled or bubble shooter. One of the reasons the jigsaw payout is set so high is to offset the time costs I presume, but with the jigsaw experience as is, it does not offset the extra aggravation costs required to solve them.
At some level I find the game of solving of how to do it more efficiently is more fun than the solving the puzzle.
I would rather enjoy playing jigsaws the regular way, but the game needs some tweaking til I feel like interacting with it for a duration. Honestly I'd rather play the jigsaw only for fun, due to the time it takes, and instead aim for earning gold in a faster paced game like a bejeweled or bubble shooter. One of the reasons the jigsaw payout is set so high is to offset the time costs I presume, but with the jigsaw experience as is, it does not offset the extra aggravation costs required to solve them.
@mek, You can stack pieces anywhere on the puzzle board. I preferred to stack mine in the center.
Regardless, making changes to the site to prevent automation is, in my opinion, not the way to go. There will ALWAYS be users who figure out how to bot. Runestones could be botted - flip pieces until they match. Coliseum could be botted - set up your pets to battle constantly, using the same moves over and over again. Auction house could be botted - continuously search auction house for items priced under sell value, buy them, and sell them back to the game.
There will always be users who find ways to bot. Yes, it sucks, but it is a reality in any game like this one. Punishing the entire user base for the possibility that someone might bot someday is absolutely not acceptable.
Regardless, making changes to the site to prevent automation is, in my opinion, not the way to go. There will ALWAYS be users who figure out how to bot. Runestones could be botted - flip pieces until they match. Coliseum could be botted - set up your pets to battle constantly, using the same moves over and over again. Auction house could be botted - continuously search auction house for items priced under sell value, buy them, and sell them back to the game.
There will always be users who find ways to bot. Yes, it sucks, but it is a reality in any game like this one. Punishing the entire user base for the possibility that someone might bot someday is absolutely not acceptable.
@mek, You can stack pieces anywhere on the puzzle board. I preferred to stack mine in the center.
Regardless, making changes to the site to prevent automation is, in my opinion, not the way to go. There will ALWAYS be users who figure out how to bot. Runestones could be botted - flip pieces until they match. Coliseum could be botted - set up your pets to battle constantly, using the same moves over and over again. Auction house could be botted - continuously search auction house for items priced under sell value, buy them, and sell them back to the game.
There will always be users who find ways to bot. Yes, it sucks, but it is a reality in any game like this one. Punishing the entire user base for the possibility that someone might bot someday is absolutely not acceptable.
Regardless, making changes to the site to prevent automation is, in my opinion, not the way to go. There will ALWAYS be users who figure out how to bot. Runestones could be botted - flip pieces until they match. Coliseum could be botted - set up your pets to battle constantly, using the same moves over and over again. Auction house could be botted - continuously search auction house for items priced under sell value, buy them, and sell them back to the game.
There will always be users who find ways to bot. Yes, it sucks, but it is a reality in any game like this one. Punishing the entire user base for the possibility that someone might bot someday is absolutely not acceptable.
@mek
From a technical standpoint I wonder if such a thing is even possible. Anyway the edges are indeed used for maximum tightness of alignment, manual tight alignment in the center might still be possible, but I don't think a computer could blindly make a tight stack like it could in the corner. however it could still make a loose stack but I don't think itself could combine the pieces reliably at that point due to the random splay factor. So theoretically it could stop an automation of the process. However I also wonder how mathematical the jiggle is, could dragging it to the corner cause them to all jiggle to the same spot? As I presume it only jiggles based on the active piece rather than a cascading effect of wiggle-madness.
There is the question of would you want to break even the more manual stacking method or not, as with that method I was in the 10-15 minute range. Which is still quite lucrative if your arm can hold out.
I've listed my idea before, tho no idea if technically possible, of it caring about the height of the "stack" and so only able to match pieces within a few layers of each other, as in recently clicked on or not. Actually now that I think of it more it becomes less plausible in my mind due to it would having to determine if there were any pieces nearby to have to care about layer height or not otherwise it would not connect if had connected pieces considered bottom of stack or not to a top piece.
I know they're not the first team to have to deal with this issue in virtual puzzles, but not sure about in html5.
From a technical standpoint I wonder if such a thing is even possible. Anyway the edges are indeed used for maximum tightness of alignment, manual tight alignment in the center might still be possible, but I don't think a computer could blindly make a tight stack like it could in the corner. however it could still make a loose stack but I don't think itself could combine the pieces reliably at that point due to the random splay factor. So theoretically it could stop an automation of the process. However I also wonder how mathematical the jiggle is, could dragging it to the corner cause them to all jiggle to the same spot? As I presume it only jiggles based on the active piece rather than a cascading effect of wiggle-madness.
There is the question of would you want to break even the more manual stacking method or not, as with that method I was in the 10-15 minute range. Which is still quite lucrative if your arm can hold out.
I've listed my idea before, tho no idea if technically possible, of it caring about the height of the "stack" and so only able to match pieces within a few layers of each other, as in recently clicked on or not. Actually now that I think of it more it becomes less plausible in my mind due to it would having to determine if there were any pieces nearby to have to care about layer height or not otherwise it would not connect if had connected pieces considered bottom of stack or not to a top piece.
I know they're not the first team to have to deal with this issue in virtual puzzles, but not sure about in html5.
@mek
From a technical standpoint I wonder if such a thing is even possible. Anyway the edges are indeed used for maximum tightness of alignment, manual tight alignment in the center might still be possible, but I don't think a computer could blindly make a tight stack like it could in the corner. however it could still make a loose stack but I don't think itself could combine the pieces reliably at that point due to the random splay factor. So theoretically it could stop an automation of the process. However I also wonder how mathematical the jiggle is, could dragging it to the corner cause them to all jiggle to the same spot? As I presume it only jiggles based on the active piece rather than a cascading effect of wiggle-madness.
There is the question of would you want to break even the more manual stacking method or not, as with that method I was in the 10-15 minute range. Which is still quite lucrative if your arm can hold out.
I've listed my idea before, tho no idea if technically possible, of it caring about the height of the "stack" and so only able to match pieces within a few layers of each other, as in recently clicked on or not. Actually now that I think of it more it becomes less plausible in my mind due to it would having to determine if there were any pieces nearby to have to care about layer height or not otherwise it would not connect if had connected pieces considered bottom of stack or not to a top piece.
I know they're not the first team to have to deal with this issue in virtual puzzles, but not sure about in html5.
From a technical standpoint I wonder if such a thing is even possible. Anyway the edges are indeed used for maximum tightness of alignment, manual tight alignment in the center might still be possible, but I don't think a computer could blindly make a tight stack like it could in the corner. however it could still make a loose stack but I don't think itself could combine the pieces reliably at that point due to the random splay factor. So theoretically it could stop an automation of the process. However I also wonder how mathematical the jiggle is, could dragging it to the corner cause them to all jiggle to the same spot? As I presume it only jiggles based on the active piece rather than a cascading effect of wiggle-madness.
There is the question of would you want to break even the more manual stacking method or not, as with that method I was in the 10-15 minute range. Which is still quite lucrative if your arm can hold out.
I've listed my idea before, tho no idea if technically possible, of it caring about the height of the "stack" and so only able to match pieces within a few layers of each other, as in recently clicked on or not. Actually now that I think of it more it becomes less plausible in my mind due to it would having to determine if there were any pieces nearby to have to care about layer height or not otherwise it would not connect if had connected pieces considered bottom of stack or not to a top piece.
I know they're not the first team to have to deal with this issue in virtual puzzles, but not sure about in html5.
While it's true that the repulsion of the pieces is frustrating, along with server drops and heavy site loads, I do think some of you need to calm down. I highly doubt they're trying to "punish" the rest of their site-goers, especially when they're working hard to keep the site running.
While it's true that the repulsion of the pieces is frustrating, along with server drops and heavy site loads, I do think some of you need to calm down. I highly doubt they're trying to "punish" the rest of their site-goers, especially when they're working hard to keep the site running.
The longer I play the more frustrated I get with this repulsion mechanic. I started out playing hard puzzles because I ENJOY puzzles. I will sit here for hours and play this game just because there are jigsaw puzzles. That's a pretty big statement for any pet site. For example, when I was on Gaia that was literally ALL I did. Nothing else interested me on that site (I had some goals for my avatar, sure, but not REALLY and I wasn't really aiming at it) but I kept coming back. Why? Because they had a solid jigsaw system. It was a game I enjoyed and it could keep me interested. Why is this important? Because even if a user isn't interested in the main game right away, things that DO interest them will keep them around longer. The longer a user is around, the more likely they are to become invested in the game. The more invested they are in the game the more likely they are to pay or refer other players who might, in turn, pay (or refer yet more players, see the cycle there?) I can't stand doing the jigsaw here because I can't organize my pieces in any logical way. The canvas is simply too small and the repulsion only makes it worse.
There are plenty of interesting things here to do, yes, but the frustration over what I could easily call my favorite game type on a site is making it much harder to decide I want to stay. Sure, some people use it to make money, and that's fine, but I want to do puzzles just to do puzzles and I'm positive I'm not alone on this. As it is, I'm currently just grinding out on easy puzzles because they're the ones where the repulsion mechanic is the least frustrating (just due to the small number of pieces, but a bigger canvas would STILL help). See that word? Grinding? That is not a feeling I have toward jigsaw puzzles normally. This "game" has become "work" not to get money from but to just arrange the pieces in a way that I can work with.
An entire subset of people is being alienated just because of people who tried to "grind" money as I understand. Even worse, not everyone "grinded" money in that manner but even those that played purely for the money (in the "right" way) are being punished. This is one of the few ways to make money (as I understand, haven't fully explored this site, got too distracted by the draw of jigsaw puzzles) and it seems to no longer be an option for many people because of this repulsion.
I'd say take a look at Gaia's puzzle system. Maybe take some of the other suggestions into account, where the matching sides have to be within a certain proximity of one another (so that you can't just stack one piece on top of another and have it work) and PLEASE (repeating here) increase the canvas size.
There are plenty of interesting things here to do, yes, but the frustration over what I could easily call my favorite game type on a site is making it much harder to decide I want to stay. Sure, some people use it to make money, and that's fine, but I want to do puzzles just to do puzzles and I'm positive I'm not alone on this. As it is, I'm currently just grinding out on easy puzzles because they're the ones where the repulsion mechanic is the least frustrating (just due to the small number of pieces, but a bigger canvas would STILL help). See that word? Grinding? That is not a feeling I have toward jigsaw puzzles normally. This "game" has become "work" not to get money from but to just arrange the pieces in a way that I can work with.
An entire subset of people is being alienated just because of people who tried to "grind" money as I understand. Even worse, not everyone "grinded" money in that manner but even those that played purely for the money (in the "right" way) are being punished. This is one of the few ways to make money (as I understand, haven't fully explored this site, got too distracted by the draw of jigsaw puzzles) and it seems to no longer be an option for many people because of this repulsion.
I'd say take a look at Gaia's puzzle system. Maybe take some of the other suggestions into account, where the matching sides have to be within a certain proximity of one another (so that you can't just stack one piece on top of another and have it work) and PLEASE (repeating here) increase the canvas size.
The longer I play the more frustrated I get with this repulsion mechanic. I started out playing hard puzzles because I ENJOY puzzles. I will sit here for hours and play this game just because there are jigsaw puzzles. That's a pretty big statement for any pet site. For example, when I was on Gaia that was literally ALL I did. Nothing else interested me on that site (I had some goals for my avatar, sure, but not REALLY and I wasn't really aiming at it) but I kept coming back. Why? Because they had a solid jigsaw system. It was a game I enjoyed and it could keep me interested. Why is this important? Because even if a user isn't interested in the main game right away, things that DO interest them will keep them around longer. The longer a user is around, the more likely they are to become invested in the game. The more invested they are in the game the more likely they are to pay or refer other players who might, in turn, pay (or refer yet more players, see the cycle there?) I can't stand doing the jigsaw here because I can't organize my pieces in any logical way. The canvas is simply too small and the repulsion only makes it worse.
There are plenty of interesting things here to do, yes, but the frustration over what I could easily call my favorite game type on a site is making it much harder to decide I want to stay. Sure, some people use it to make money, and that's fine, but I want to do puzzles just to do puzzles and I'm positive I'm not alone on this. As it is, I'm currently just grinding out on easy puzzles because they're the ones where the repulsion mechanic is the least frustrating (just due to the small number of pieces, but a bigger canvas would STILL help). See that word? Grinding? That is not a feeling I have toward jigsaw puzzles normally. This "game" has become "work" not to get money from but to just arrange the pieces in a way that I can work with.
An entire subset of people is being alienated just because of people who tried to "grind" money as I understand. Even worse, not everyone "grinded" money in that manner but even those that played purely for the money (in the "right" way) are being punished. This is one of the few ways to make money (as I understand, haven't fully explored this site, got too distracted by the draw of jigsaw puzzles) and it seems to no longer be an option for many people because of this repulsion.
I'd say take a look at Gaia's puzzle system. Maybe take some of the other suggestions into account, where the matching sides have to be within a certain proximity of one another (so that you can't just stack one piece on top of another and have it work) and PLEASE (repeating here) increase the canvas size.
There are plenty of interesting things here to do, yes, but the frustration over what I could easily call my favorite game type on a site is making it much harder to decide I want to stay. Sure, some people use it to make money, and that's fine, but I want to do puzzles just to do puzzles and I'm positive I'm not alone on this. As it is, I'm currently just grinding out on easy puzzles because they're the ones where the repulsion mechanic is the least frustrating (just due to the small number of pieces, but a bigger canvas would STILL help). See that word? Grinding? That is not a feeling I have toward jigsaw puzzles normally. This "game" has become "work" not to get money from but to just arrange the pieces in a way that I can work with.
An entire subset of people is being alienated just because of people who tried to "grind" money as I understand. Even worse, not everyone "grinded" money in that manner but even those that played purely for the money (in the "right" way) are being punished. This is one of the few ways to make money (as I understand, haven't fully explored this site, got too distracted by the draw of jigsaw puzzles) and it seems to no longer be an option for many people because of this repulsion.
I'd say take a look at Gaia's puzzle system. Maybe take some of the other suggestions into account, where the matching sides have to be within a certain proximity of one another (so that you can't just stack one piece on top of another and have it work) and PLEASE (repeating here) increase the canvas size.