Personally, I liked "count to 5000" better even if we have already passed it. But "count to 7000" sounds pretty cool!
Count to 7,000 Game
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 17:06
#6152
6001
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 17:19
#6153
.........
NOOOOOOOOO, I was too late *Rage quits*
+1 count to 7000
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 17:31
#6154
6003
I'm going to keep going if other people will.
Are you going to add a 6002 somewhere, Inquisitive-Ego?
Edit: is that "+1" towards the actual count or the idea of counting to 7000?
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 18:44
#6155
6004
Count to 6005 game!
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 18:59
#6156
Remember, don't shoot food.
6005, I win.
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 19:15
#6157
6006
Vanaduke, you owe me. :3
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 19:58
#6158
6007
:D
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 22:16
#6159
6008
Break the boundaries of the game!
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 22:38
#6160
6009
6009
Sun, 12/27/2015 - 22:54
#6161
6000!
YEAH!
Oh wait, 6010.
Mon, 12/28/2015 - 00:01
#6162
6011
6011
Mon, 12/28/2015 - 05:49
#6163
6012
well im back after a while
@markus, if you think we should only count by counting and not post number, why skip them to "correct" it at all? theres no reason to make up for lost numbers if you dont care about fixing the larger issue with them
Mon, 12/28/2015 - 06:18
#6164
6013
---
Mon, 12/28/2015 - 11:54
#6165
6014 words
Earlier in the thread, we used to ask people to go back and edit their posts so those skipped over posts would reflect the correct number in the current sequence. However, over time it seems more people became disinterested in helping us minimize skipped numbers.
Either way, once someone posts without a number (or an inccorect number) it is an extra post in the thread that throws off the count--either with a skipped number (which they can go back and edit) or if we continue it makes our count lower than it should be in an ideal scenario and increases the count-post number gap. Skipping a number enables an opportunity to minimize the damage and save us an extra post in the future.
If your willing, Vohtarak, could you go in more detail about your idea. We go by post number, so if we switched to that, how would we deal with all the double posts since in the OP, Artistbma said no double posts?
Mon, 12/28/2015 - 16:50
#6166
6015
double posts should be fine to keep as counted numbers, its a bug with the forums and not intentional
and the rules could be modified to accomodate for it, as we see bma is still here to edit it for 6k after we went over 5k
Mon, 12/28/2015 - 18:42
#6167
6016
Fair points; except it is possible to not accidentally create double posts. If we switched to post number, how would we moderate double posts since we can't prove if it is intentional or not. Also, if someone clearly created multiple posts in a row intentionally, would we still accept those posts or at that point switch to regular counting?
Tue, 12/29/2015 - 13:31
#6168
6017
im just going to say this as ive been thinking it
the no double post rule itself is completely pointless and should not even exist in a game where the whole point is to count up
yeah, accept literally every post, if you really think its worth punishing then we could just ignore anything the spammer says for awhile so theyre effectively out of any conversation
Tue, 12/29/2015 - 19:19
#6169
6018
I like the no double post rule because it prevents people from posting hundreds/thousands of blank posts.
Wed, 12/30/2015 - 08:05
#6170
6019
if someone will actually do that they will do it anyways and get a ban, the rule itself is useless as we have no way of fixing things other than lessening the count and adding to the current problem of being far behind where we should be
Thu, 12/31/2015 - 01:14
#6171
6020
Slime Rancher won't be free when it gets on Steam?
Will Slime Rancher be free?
They could make it so there is a special DLC giving access to early builds and make the game itself free.
But for the game to declared free it must be decided by devs before it hits the stores.
For the game to be free while on store, it requires the most annoying component: MICROTRANSACTIONS.
Is there possible for a game to be free without microtransactions?
Wed, 01/06/2016 - 14:25
#6172
6021
...
Thu, 01/14/2016 - 15:57
#6173
6022
Whatever. Let's keep counting.
Mon, 02/01/2016 - 12:24
#6174
6023
Wait, we're actually doing this? Oh, ok
Mon, 02/01/2016 - 18:40
#6175
6024
Time to make my monthly post.
...I lurk way too hard.
Sat, 02/06/2016 - 10:28
#6176
No, I'm not back.
Yo. Switched to 7000, like you asked. Also, double post rule is necessary because it's way too easy to post like 1000 times if you tried and have moderately slow internet. Just ask LordofNecromancers or Shadownox about that one (if they are still alive, I don't actually know).
Mon, 02/08/2016 - 04:59
#6177
still
posting 1k times is a complete exaggeration
and if youre so against keeping things accurate that way we could easily just have it update to the post number every 50 (or page), which still negates spammers and actually fixes the problem periodically, rather than keeping a gap that just widens by people who dont bother to post a number
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 14:18
#6178
Ms. Proudmoore, I presume?
Well, I guess this is actually a thing now.................sooooo..............6025
#Bumphalfdeadthreads
Mon, 05/30/2016 - 08:25
#6179
Oh yeah, this thread...
6026
Tue, 05/31/2016 - 09:01
#6180
I'm a Wizard
i drip holy water here
be ded
6o²7
Tue, 05/31/2016 - 09:35
#6181
6
0
2
8
Sat, 06/04/2016 - 15:24
#6182
@Vohtarak
Posting 1k times is NOT an exaggeration. At least, it wasn't when I was active on the forums. I don't know if actions have been taken to fix the post-spamming issue by now.
As for your idea of realigning the count with the post number every page, that's actually a pretty good idea! The only reason I'd argue against it is because the game has gone on as it has for a long time and people tend to dislike change. However, I'm barely here to keep up with the thread, so if you few people who still actually count here decide you want to do it that way, I'd be fine with it.
Tue, 06/07/2016 - 20:41
#6183
#thisgameisbetterthanthecountfrom50game
0309
(read the number upside down to see what it is)
[EDIT] The subject is from the "Waiter, there's _______ in my soup game". I removed it.
Fri, 06/10/2016 - 22:12
#6184
Idea...
What if we allowed two or three numbers to be counted per post if the numbers were not aligned? Initially, we could slowly align the counted number with the post number without skipping a bunch of numbers, yet it would still take a complete team effort to realign the numbers. Afterwards, at the start of each page, we could use the same process to realign the numbers if we needed. Way back when, I think we did this for a couple pages while counting skipped numbers. (I didn't think about it till now.)
So I could do this:
6029 (skipped number)
6031 (regular)
Thoughts?
Mon, 06/13/2016 - 04:08
#6185
thoughts
Immediately realign it with the post number, less effort and now you cant use "OP wouldn't allow it" against me for suggesting it this time
Wed, 06/15/2016 - 09:01
#6186
6033
Out of curiosity, do you think it should be an instantaneous realignment just since it will be less effort, or do you have another reason for wanting it to be instantaneous?
Also, for clarification, your idea is just to have the same numeric value for the counted number and the post number? Not use the post number as the "counted" number... or do I have that backwards? (If you already explained this, I apologize for asking again, but I didn't see a post that elaborated on this question.)
Wed, 06/15/2016 - 11:27
#6187
ok ill clarify
Id prefer instantaneous as it would be easier to understand and is quicker, posting multiple numbers would confuse people who dont bother to read previous comments, so it would be easier to explain as follows:
"6034"
"6187"
"Wait what?"
"Numbers are now aligned to post number"
"Oh ok"
As opposed to
"6034
6035
6036"
"Why are you posting more than one, doesnt that break the rules?"
"(Insert long explanation I dont want to bother typing out for a hypothetical situation)"
So, 6034 as a current number, 6186 as updated whenever you guys decide on something
Sun, 06/19/2016 - 16:57
#6188
6035
I've been waiting for someone else to chime in, but at this rate it looks like you and I will have to reach an agreement on our own, Vohtarak. :P
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 16:51
#6189
6036
I want to be the one who does 6969 : p
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 23:52
#6190
Haha, unfortunately, at the rate we are going it might take 6037 days.
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 13:41
#6191
IM HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6191
Beans shouldnt be cool, they wouldn't taste good!
C O O L B E A N S
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 17:00
#6192
6039
Busterbrudder, we didn't decide to use the post number as the counted number, at least not yet.
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 19:13
#6193
A O K
@markus-Aurelius
Oh okay.
*deeply cries*
6035
Tue, 07/05/2016 - 03:19
#6194
6041
This thread has given me so much joy yet also so much pain...
Tue, 07/05/2016 - 07:46
#6195
6042
Hahahahhahahaahah
Tue, 07/05/2016 - 10:56
#6196
6043
Artist, I'm cool with you laughing with my joy, but don't laugh at my misery :(
:P
Mon, 07/11/2016 - 14:13
#6197
6044
I converted my account to steam, so I can't edit any of my old posts now. XD
Guess once we get to 7000 this game will finally be over.
Mon, 07/11/2016 - 13:54
#6198
"we didnt decide"
Of course we didnt decide, because you're adamantly opposed to fixing it
6045
Tue, 07/12/2016 - 17:37
#6199
6046
Well, yeah, it's not exactly broken, so why fix it?
Nevertheless, I am willing to try a compromise. However, it appears you and I might be the only regular participants, and I was hoping we could get more input and ideas bounced around, instead of just you and I hashing it out with Artistbma's approval. (I'll go back and read older posts and come back with a proposal at some point this week.)
Wed, 07/13/2016 - 05:48
#6200
6047
I would personally prefer it if we instantaneously aligned at the beginning of every page.
I win?
.
.
.
Well, now it's time to wait for Artistbma to return and change it to "Count to 7000 Game"...