You’re probably asking yourself what I’m working on now after having released a lot of non-utility apps. I know you’re not asking yourself anything. I’m providing indirect exposition for this vague post that will (in the end) not even give you any detail about it.
Anyway, right now I’m working on a dating app. Yeah yeah, Tinder already exists, and PlentyOfFish is eating everything up. The problem with the dating apps of today is that they focus on increasing the number of people you match with, rather than trying to increase interaction with whoever you match. I’m going to take the opposite approach and see if I can create an intuitive way to engage people to talk to each other in a more meaningful way. Instead of dealing with swiping right or tapping like, you should base your judgment on how engaged the person is when in the conversation.
There are a couple different mechanics I’m going to be playing with to achieve this while sacrificing the old’ rapid-fire matchup scheme, which is just not long term. Maybe that’s what you’re looking for. In that case, this should definitely be a fun app to use. Stay tuned.
Wow, it’s been exactly a year since my last post. That is appalling, and I apologize. To make up for it i’ll be posting much more frequently from now on! On to my latest app:
Chiclets is a multiplayer game that tests your reflexes and compares your reaction time to anyone else.
Some things about my apps I just get so annoyed with, like it’s lack of any design path or usability, but my games frustrate me on a whole new level. This game in particular, i’m not even that good at. I tried. I really tried to be good at this, but the main mechanic rests on your ability to match the colors in front of your eyes with the colors in front of your thumbs/fingers.
The idea of the game is to beat your opponent by getting the highest score in 30 seconds. Every color you tap correctly will reward you stacking points, while every time you mess up your stacked points get reset and you get punished with negative points. Doing the scoring in this way prevents users from spamming all colors trying to get lucky with high stacking scores. If you win against the CPU, it doesn’t really count for much as I programmed it to be fairly easy. If you win against a real player, a point gets added to your global wins which you can always see on your top left. If you lose, you get nothing.
When the game finishes you’ll be granted with a score card that shows you your score and your opponents/CPU score. Under that you’ll notice an attractive looking grid graphic. I created an algorithm that creates this grid based on the game you just played. It takes your unique game pattern and properly displays it analogously within 40 milliseconds. If you trace from the beginning of the pattern you’ll realize that a certain square is a different color than the assigned three colors of your current game. This “inverted” color scheme intuitively shows you where you left off out of the 500 squares in the game.
The multiplayer portion of the game relies strictly on a couple of VPS boxes I have set up to handle a bunch of players at a time (should stack nicely if more people play).
Anyway, that’s about it, for this game/app. Moving on to my next projects (a dating app, service updates ;) ).
I’ve dabbled here and there in the world of micromanagement games, and most of my products and code usually always steer clear from offering the user too many options. So being on board a project such as a micromanagement game/app, there was a lot of things I needed to learn in terms of aesthetics as allowing a human as much customization as possible is difficult. You don’t really want to give them too much freedom as that opens up your game to a plethora of holes and pitfalls that a user can claim would “break” the very basic mechanics.
One of the quickest problems you run into especially with this genre is automation. After a certain point the user is going to get tired of constantly tapping the same level with no further extra accomplishment. So how do you really gauge when to start auto tapping for them? You give them a goal, and when they get to it you reward them for their efforts by taking that responsibility off their hands for them. Seems easy in theory, but then you add the multiple layers of k-level thinking that humans go through when trying to find the most efficient way to achieve something (ironically wanting to make the best use of their time while simultaneously playing a game designed to occupy their time).
Cue the reckless global use of In-App purchases.
Woah woah woah, hold on, hear me out for a second. We all know how much the average app user *hates* In-App purchases. It gives the casual gamer that feeling when they see a game with a tonne of DLC released. As if you’re paying for an unfinished game than have to buy credits, or cash, or tokens, or gems, or crystals just to revive your fuzzy gumdrop cinnamon stick warrior in the temple of caffeine so that you’re better than the other guy. I get it. Most companies who use In-App purchases are doing it wrong. In my perspective, the only purpose for these in-game currencies should be to speed up things abnormally rather than unlock something that the user could never get naturally.
For example, instead of forcing the player to upgrade their defence tower with in-game credits so that they have a chance at beating a wave of bosses, offer the in-game credits as something they can use if they don’t want to spend the time upgrading every tower to their maximum level just to be able to have a fighting chance. A lot of players refer to it as a paywall, but in reality it’s more plainly just a wall. Even if you pay, you now feel less accomplished for doing anything. Sometimes the concept of paying to be a better player than another is exciting to humans with lots of cash to spend, but if you’re the average player that likes to squeeze every last bit of play through out of something, having to pay just blocks you.
In-App purchases work when they are integrated properly and offer help to the player, not solely on additives. So yeah I guess what i’m trying to say is, it’s hard to make games and stuff.
To remove indecision you need to fully understand why you’d want to. The purpose of removing indecision from your daily thought process is for the sole fact that you can have a right, and you can have a wrong. Not both, and not neither. The opposite of wrong is right and the opposite of right is clearly wrong. But what is the opposite of indecision? Both choices? Moreover, why is it wrong to be indecisive in ANY situation even if you don’t have all the facts and you could be wrong? In programming the way we make design choices relies on having an intuitive and functional interface. These aren’t personal decisions, they are fact-based. I could drone on about heuristics and reciprocal altruism all day but you get the idea.
The way I see it, trust is the absolute basis of any relationship you can possibly achieve with any person / pet / distant animal.
In psychology a trust metric is an actual measurement to scale how much one person trusts another. In terms of relationships, trust almost ALWAYS boils down to being faithful / loyal to the one you “love”. At least in the latest generation that is definitely true, everyone worries about the actual act of cheating rather than the person themselves that would be considering to do it in the first place. An easy example of this that I see all too often is the typical situation where Girl #1 cheats on Guy #1 with Guy #2. Instead of Guy #1 attacking the root issue with Girl #1, Guy #1 involves himself with tackling Guy #2. Some cases even have the flip scenario where Guy #1 cheats on Girl #1 with Girl #2. In this situation, it’s literally circumstantial what Girl #1 does. There’s a 50/50 chance she’d confront Guy #1 AND Girl #2 to deepen herself in the drama. I’ve seen this far too many times, and even been involved with it enough for it to literally be taken a mass survey. Everything else comes after, right?