Playr Blog

Your resource for all things playr. New game announcements, updates, bug fixes, news, you can find it first here.


Monday, November 10, 2008

Bored, bored, bored.

OK, I'm bored of people complaining that it's not random.  If anybody emails me or submits a bug report saying that the CPU is rigged, the dice rolls are weighted or anything similar, I'm just going to ignore it.  I may print out a copy of the email, rub it in some butter then set fire to it, but that's all.

If you don't like losing games of chance, Zilch is not the game for you, sorry.

On the other hand, if you want to pay a certified software security specialist to audit my code, I'm happy to comply.  They usually clock in around $500, if you're really that angry about losing at a game of chance then it's money well spent to prove to yourself that you don't understand the strategy of the game.

If anybody is interested in doing some statistical analysis of a large number of game results, please let me know and I'll see what I can do to make the game logs available.

UPDATE:  Here are a few points to consider.
  • Why would a given RNG 'favour' one player over another?
  • How does the RNG know when the CPU player is currently taking their turn?
  • Why does the RNG 'favour' the CPU player by giving them 'better' rolls?
  • How does the RNG know what a 'better' roll is?
Any more points I can add here?

75 comments:

whtknt said...

You won't hear complaints from me (though my wife would beg to differ). I understand the concept of complete randomness; sometimes it seems that the computer is cheating. It isn't, but it might seem that way.

Anyway, great game. I'm loving it.

Night Shadow said...

People always get worked up like this in games of chance, don't let it get to you and just ignore them. You can be assured that plenty of us are enjoying your game, me included.

Absenm said...

People always get like that. Just read some of the comments on Kongregate for a card game called Castle Wars. For some reason people just can't seem to comprehend that in a game of chance there is a chance at losing. These of course are the same people who go to Vegas and are mind boggled when they return home brook. Also, saddly, most of the comments you may be getting about the game cheating are from nitwits who haven't even glanced at your comments or foreums or blog. It's more of a "flame now, don't listen to answers later type of thing."

Wolfgang DelaSangre said...

I don't like having to say this, but either the computer cheats or you're a bad programmer, dude. You know what happens with me? The computer will REGULARLY score ridiculous amounts of points and launch itself ahead to nearly-impossible-to-catch-up-to amounts. And if I DO get ahead? It will roll ridiculously large amounts of points to catch up to me or to launch itself ahead.

Wolfgang DelaSangre said...

Now, this may sound like the usual, "I lost, it cheated!" crap you keep running into, but it's not. I wouldn't get like this normally, but the REGULARITY of the computer's massive scoring is just to consistent to not be suspicious.

Griffer said...

Please, let the world once be cleared of retards.

@wolfgang: Read http://blog.playr.co.uk/2008/11/random-it-is-random.html

He even freaking posted the code, which shows that it IS random. Do you honestly believe such a programmer would rig the dice? After all these posts? Confirmations in comment that his code is correct and that it is random? Please, go play another game.

Wolfgang DelaSangre said...

XLII seems to disagree, Griffer.

Birdseed said...

One thing I have seen the CPU do though is take BOTH the four ones and the three pairs freethrow. That's cheating!

Wolfgang DelaSangre said...

Birdseed, that sounds more like a glitch or a small programming oversight, it's not quite as big a deal as the fact that the CPU rolls triples and free-rolls 90% of the time and that I'm only rolling single and double ones and fives 85% of the time.

I'm not saying I'm losing. Actually, I've only lost two games. I'm just saying that it's annoying as all get out.

Griffer said...

Wolfgang, don't make ridiculous claims unless you've got the proof, in forms of a video showing that the percentage is indeed 90%.

Gaby said...

The CPU may have clicked on both but it will only have got points for the dice it selected. It will have clicked the four ones, selecting them, then clicked the three pairs, selecting all six dice, taking the turn score down to 1500 points for that roll and getting a free roll.

Check the game logs, I'm sure they will show that.

Birdseed said...

Actually, to be honest, it's fairly obvious the computer doesn't cheat. If it did, I don't thin the game would be quite as easy as it is - after about twenty games I'm beating Realist consistently every time, and that's with stupid mistakes in every round.

BRIT! said...

I agree with Birdseed's latest comment. I've been able to beat the CPU with huge margins, so the people claiming that it rolls huge throws at the last second in order to catch up are just seeing what they want to see.

Great game!!

SkyPork said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SkyPork said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SkyPork said...

Well, as one who left a frustrated "Those dice are NOT @#(*%^! RANDOM!!" comment, I can now apologize and take it all back; I believe you when you say it's all random, and I appreciate that you dislike the "cheap" way to make games like this tougher by cheating the code. There are some amazing patterns in the rolls, but I've seen that in other games, and in Las Vegas. It'd be interesting to do a study to see if some people really do have worse luck....

Wolfgang DelaSangre said...

All right, here's the thing. Let's go ahead and establish a fact.

I AM WINNING CONSISTENTLY AGAINST THE COMPUTER. Let's just go ahead and make it clear that I'm not saying any of this because I'm losing.

Now we've got that there, just because I'm winning consistently against the computer doesn't mean I shouldn't see what's obviously there. The computer ALWAYS scores a minimum of 600-1500 points per round if it doesn't get the occasional Zilch. Me? I'm consistently scoring 1s and 5s, and rarely ever more than 1 or 2 at a time. How rare is it to get more than two 1s? About as rare as a shiny Ho-Oh.

I do occasionally get a free roll, but aside from that, I never score more than 700 points a turn myself. On the free roll turns, I don't score more than 2000.

How am I winning against the computer with the odds and rolls CLEARLY stacked against me? Don't ask me, I'm not a mathematician. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be seeing what I am, and neither does the fact that I'm winning.

ch-ji-ro said...

I find your game not bad a game and I understand how you may feel like. However, many other players like me are feeling extremely irritated because after playing for a full hour, not a single game was won. For me, most games when I reach 7000, the computer who I was winning would get 2000 or 3000 in a turn resulting in my loss. I personally suspect there may be something wrong with the RNG, as I have played games before using RNGs that never faced these problems. I still respect that you may be feeling frustrated, but I would like to provide another viewpoint that it may also be possible that there is something in the game that unknowingly causes this. Asking all my friends, they either win every single game or lose every single game. And not like lose more or win more, but like lose 10 then win 1, or win 10 then lose 1. Whatever it is, I hope that as we respect you as a creator you can also sympathize with us frustrated game players.

Magnetic Enigma said...

Because the game is random, it is entirely possible that the computer is winning a ridiculous number of games when you're not.

However, this is because the game is random. You may just be unlucky and be falling on the wrong side of random every single time.

Marcus said...

The reason why it may seem that the computer racks up huge points is because, unlike humans, the computer may not be riskaverse (it may be riskneutral depending on the CPU you play). Usually, as humans, when we get a high bank, we don't wish to lose it, so we store the bank. Sometimes the CPU is willing to take the risks that we are not, and, as a result, the payouts are higher, as is expected with higher variance.

-MrRubix

SmartGuy299 said...

I have seen the computer get several very fortuitous rolls in a row, thus catching up to me. I don't believe that the programmer would do it intentionally, or that there he made an error. If there IS an error, it's probably in the RNG, which, although I don't know for sure, I believe is built into Flash. The second, more statistically likely possibility is this: the people who have a string of bad or good luck are going to be the ones more likely to click on these links. Zilch has had over 400,000 plays on Kongregate so far; even if each person only played one game, something that has a 1/100000 or so chance of happening is most likely to have happened to four people already. It'd be like having 400,000 people flip 17 coins in a row; odds are, 3 or 4 people will flip all heads, and thus conclude the coins are weighted.

Chris Angelico said...

Wolfgang, if the numbers really are the way you say, you cannot possibly be winning. I've won some games and lost some games... I won one game by only a narrow margin after having had 5000+ points against the computer's 600... these things happen. But I have a suggestion. If you need your luck to change, get yourself a mascot or maybe a rabbit's foot.

Marcus said...

Gaby, I'd be interested in some statistical analysis. Mainly, I can prove the game isn't rigged, lmao.

Vlad said...

I would like to see play logs if possible, for statistical analysis. Why? Because it's fun. Ohh, the graphs you can do. Also, watching human strategies is interesting.
Kupokupkupo

Wolfgang DelaSangre said...

Chris, I AM winning. I'll admit I'm playing against the lowest level computer. But don't give me any of that "It's not risk adverse" crap. It gets these ridiculous rolls without even trying. It zilches when it doesn't score above 500 and rarely ever at any other time.

ImOnlySleeping said...

Wolfgang
The lowest level is the most risk adverse, so it will statistically have the most zilches, but higher odds of cashing in big (they always let it ride). Whereas the realist level is more cautious and has less of those big paydays.
Try playing the realist mode and see if you observe the same results. Or try changing your style of play (roll that 6th dice when you only have 400 points scored on the first 5) and see if your scores change.

ImOnlySleeping said...

Wolfgang
The lowest level is the most risk adverse, so it will statistically have the most zilches, but higher odds of cashing in big (they always let it ride). Whereas the realist level is more cautious and has less of those big paydays.
Try playing the realist mode and see if you observe the same results. Or try changing your style of play (roll that 6th dice when you only have 400 points scored on the first 5) and see if your scores change.

Robert said...

Wolfgang: DO YOUR HOMEWORK (see below) before accusing an honest programmer of lying to his customers. If you don't learn this kind of critical thinking soon, you'll grow up to be easy prey for every conspiracy theorist that passes by.

Simple way to gather evidence: the computer can't cheat if it doesn't have the dice to do so. Record the dice rolls and see if they are not, in fact, uniformly distributed over 1-6. Make sure to only record the *new* dice each roll (i.e. not dice that were previously used for score).

When analyzing the results, you should get approx 166/1000 of each die value, But remember that there is large variance in small samples -- in order to do this with any credibility, you'll need a large number of rolls i.e. greater than a few thousand (wikipedia: "law of large numbers", "confidence interval", "gambler's fallacy").

If the dice are random, the computer can't cheat. Period. Show me a statistically significant difference in the RNG distributions for the CPU and human players, or shut the hell up.

Player 03 said...

That is an excellent point, Robert. I think I'll bring it up whenever someone claims the game is rigged.

On the other hand, is it possible that the computer takes more risks when it's losing? This could lead to some impressive comebacks...

Wolfgang DelaSangre said...

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

If the computer scores LESS than 500, it zilches. Period.

If the computer scores OVER 500, it ends up scoring anywhere between 700 to 2000, sometimes 3000 points by my experience. One person on jayisgames.com reported a 7000-point throw for the computer, which is just plain ridiculous.

MOST of the time, the computer scores anywhere between 700-2000 points on a single throw. OCCASIONALLY, it will not make the minimum and just zilch.

I find this suspicious, even if I am winning.

Asmoe said...

Way to go Gaby! I love this game. Judging by the comments it could also turn out to be a great educational experience for some...

Griffer said...

'One person on jayisgames.com reported a 7000-point throw for the computer, which is just plain ridiculous.'

Are you really that retarded? The game has been played 550k times on Kongregate only. So ONE PERSON in ALL THOSE PLAYS saying that the computer once threw 7000 means the dice are rigged?

Try it yourself. While getting the awards for zilching, take as much risk as you can. If you do this several times you will notice that huge scores will pop up occasionally.

After that shut up and stop wasting our, and especially the developers, time.

Prios said...

I just got 7k in one turn without taking any risks. I've played about 50 games or so. I haven't yet seen the computer get 7k, 5k, or even 4k in one turn, ever. I guess the game must be rigged in my favor, right? ;)

martha said...

great game!
dissertation help

weege said...

Congratulations on the breakdown. If you can't take negative criticism, you're in the wrong business.

Holly said...

Here's what I think, though with so many comments I don't know how much it matters anymore, but I digress. To get big points you have to take big risks, that's why reckless gets some nice turns. The computer takes the risks and gets big points or zilches, I see it all the time. If you play safe and bank a smaller amount you are less likely to get the high scoring turns. My highest score in one turn was over 4,000 points because I took some chances, but I'm generally more cautious and therefore get a few less zilches. If the computer gets more zilches than me, I usually win. If it doesn't get the zilches then it scores pretty high and I can't catch up because I'm banking the sure things more often than not. Make sense? Its about risks.

Wolfgang DelaSangre said...

I'm going to try and explain this one more time.

The computer will either score at a certain minimum within 3 rolls and then continue until it reaches a ridiculously high amount or on rare occasions a zilch, or it will NOT reach that minimum within three rolls and will zilch. With me, the computer makes regular rolls of 700-2000 points, with its minimum being 400 points.

All of this within three rolls.

If you do not understand what I'm trying to say here, then you've officially taken away any faith I had in the intelligence of humanity and I leave you with this quote from the Power Puff Girls: "Just because you're a genius doesn't mean you're a smart guy."

Luiz Fernanado said...

It IS random, the CPU that is a freaking good player and know what he's doing.

And anyways, noone notes when the CPU keeps loosing repetedly, and it doesn't comply a single bit.

Calcanius said...

wolfgang, if you want to keep posting these claims, please, in the next post you make, post play logs of the claims you make, or please dont post anymore comments here. thank you.

Brimmy V. said...

Odd how many people complain about being left behind in a trail of smoke when they used to have a huge lead. I remember a time when I was trailing by 3,000 points and the CPU barely broke 10,000. By some odds, I managed to go through three free rolls, a couple times with only one die left to roll and cross my fingers on, and would come out ahead and win the game. What's better, this scenario happened twice in a row.

Now, does the CPU reverse that onto me? Oh, certainly. And does its scoring frenzies frustrate me? You better believe it. But it's a game of chance, and after my steam is gone, I'm ready for another game, perhaps to win it.

Fact remains that anyone who complains about their opponent tipping the scale with (perhaps often) insurmountable odds and claims a game is "rigged" look no better than a child whining about the action figure they didn't get. And they should've just quit playing to begin with and moved on instead of raising a ruckus.

S'weird. I personally am a fan though. Through arm-flailing wins and teeth-gritting losses, I'm a fan.

Quiz said...

I got kind of addicted to this game. In the past 2 days, I played over 50 games, winning most of them (against reckless and cautious cpu). If the game would have been rigged, like some people state above, how could that have happend?

Sometimes I win just barely, but I also got the award of winning with more than 5000 points between me and the computer. The games I lost were games of a mere 200 points shortage, but also of a couple of thousand of points. If that isn't random, then I guess nothing is.

Only 50 awards left to win... I'm playing on.

James Mancuso said...

The game's well-designed, I just naturally dislike things that are based on chance. My luck sucks, after all.

† Trevor † said...

Is it random??? Some argue that anything generated by a computer isn't random, and in fact there is a reason it gives the numbers it does.. ha well I suppose at the very root there is no such thing as randomness... regardless I love the game I just suck at it..

Games said...

Hey, it is NOT random.
I'm gonna hire someone to proof it,
(yeah i'm really rich).

Creating a new project at getafreelancer. for $500.

Rob said...

Can I just say, this games rocks and Wolfgang is a prick.

Chris said...

Guys, I don't think you understand what's going on here.

The computer ALWAYS gets ten thousand points on the first throw, because the dice are rigged like that.

No, I don't have video evidence for this. NO, I haven't written any of this down. Yes, I'll admit that all of you report fair rolls. But they're still rigged, you just can't tell because you're willing to blindly believe this clearly malevolent programmer.

God, you know what this reminds me of? That time that goddamn elephant took up residence in my front room. You know, every damn time I tried to tell someone about it, they didn't believe me. They'd just say stupid things like "take a video!" or "bring me some dung" or others stupid stuff. I mean, obviously it didn't show up on video because it was a magic elephant, and the same goes for the dung - it'd just evaporate if I tried to take it out of the house.

Then I realised that it's actually part of the room's structure, and everyone else has the same elephant in their front room! The whole world must be blind if they can't see an elephant in their room!

God. Just because they're geniuses, doesn't mean they're smart guys.

Chris said...

On a more serious note; your basic argument is flawed.

"I AM WINNING CONSISTENTLY AGAINST THE COMPUTER."

"The computer ALWAYS scores a minimum of 600-1500 points per round if it doesn't get the occasional Zilch."

Let's say, to be fair, that an "occasional" zilch is one that occurs one in five. And let's be generous to you and assume that the average in the range "600-1500" is about 900, below the middle of the range.

"Me? I'm consistently scoring 1s and 5s, and rarely ever more than 1 or 2 at a time."
and
"I do occasionally get a free roll, but aside from that, I never score more than 700 points a turn myself. On the free roll turns, I don't score more than 2000."
Actually, if you're only getting to count up 1s and 5s (and only 1 or 2 at a time), then you can't get more than 500 without a free roll. Again, let's be generous to your theory! This must've slipped your mind. And if we assume that you get to, say, 4 dice banked before backing down (and because the RNG is against you), let's assume you get about ~300 points a turn. You "occasionally" get a free roll. So, one time in ten? That's "less than 2000", so you get 1500, say.

So, the computer gets 900 points a turn, except every fifth turn where it zilches.

900
900
900
900
Zilch!
900
900
900
900
Zilch!
900
900
And it's won.

For you:
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
1500
300
300
300
5700... oh dear. Even if we give you a bit more generous scores and scale back the computer's scores (even though the Random Number God is stacked against you), that's an awful, awful large difference.

Maybe you're just convinced the dice are against you because you've got the common human one-two-whammy of overactive pattern recognition and a tendency to ascribe intent?

Chris said...

Oh, and as a side note if you've spotted a couple of >2 1s in your roll they're a damn sight more common than a shiny ho-oh, which the interbutts tell me has a 0.0001233 chance of appearing. Compare that to the 0.0623 of your initial rolls which will have >2 1s.

Annuity said...

I got wondered after reading this post. All information is looking so informative and people must be impressed with this blog same time.
CISS Systems

Ryne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryne said...

I completely agree with Wolfgang, except unlike him, i AM losing. And i'm getting the same thing he is. The cpu consistently gets over 1000 points. And don't give that crap about how the cpu takes more risks. Because it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with taking risks. They score 1000+ points ON THEIR FIRST ROLL!! Theres no risk taking there. The cpu gets free rolls ON THEIR VERY FIRST ROLL at least ten times more than i do. No, thats not a 'real' statistic, but i don't care. If i took the time to do the math, it'd probably be worse than that. I'm not saying its the programmer's fault, but theres definitely something wrong.

Chris said...

I'm sorry, did you seriously just say "I have some vague anecdotal evidence without proper recording on a small sample but if I did do proper analysis it would be worse?" And then follow up for the stupid high score with "I'm not saying it's the programmer's fault...", like you're playing against HAL?

Because you, my friend, are no longer even making sense.

Please, feel free to record, without bias, the results of every single dice rolled (that would indeed be 'real' statistics). It'd be an interesting study.

Chris said...

Wait, come to that, all you're claiming is that the computer gets free rolls on the first turn than the player. And that's even better, because it's easily countable! I'll get on that; I have to be in school for the next hour anyway.

Chris said...

Actually, even better than that, you're claiming a TENFOLD DIFFERENCE. That's a hell of a claim.

So far, I've seen the computer with 3/21 compared to myself with 0/21. Should I take that to be damning evidence of the system? No. It's not statistically significant, not anywhere near. Watch this space.

Ryne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryne said...

Ok yes, i'll admit my frustration caused me to exaggerate. But there's no need to insult my intelligence. I didn't say anything negative about anyone, you don't need to get pissed off. And since it's so easy to count the free rolls on the first roll, i did just that. So here's some 'real statistics' for you, although i'm sure it wont be good enough for you and i did it completely wrong but once again, i don't care. I'm not gonna take the time to do a massive study. I recorded some games and randomly took the results from three of them. #1: I lost in 13 turns, with 0 free rolls on first roll for me, 3 for the cpu. I had 1 turn with 1000+ points, cpu had 7. #2: I lost in 15 turns, 1 free roll on first roll, 4 for cpu. I had 1 turn with 1000+ points, cpu had 7. #3:I lost in 12 turns, 0 free rolls on first roll, 4 for cpu. I had 2 rolls 1000+ points, cpu had 6. (In case you misunderstood, I meant the first roll of each turn, not each game.)

Chris said...

See, problem is, that's still not a significantly large test. You've tested over 40 samples, with 11 to 1 (which is fairly impressive for now). I've got 44 so far, with 1 for me, 3 for the computer. At the moment, the computer seems to have the advantage, but the noise is still going to throw your results way out with a grand total of 84 results. Come back with 500 results and I'll be convinced; like I said, I've got time on my hands too.

(We'll leave the "over 1000" results out, as we've already gone into great detail as to how that's strategy-dependent.)

Ryne said...

It's not strategy dependent if for some reason the cpu gets better dice. If i'm playing with almost the same strategy as the cpu, but they are consistently getting better dice, it can't simply be happening because of a difference in strategy.

Ryne said...

And yes, that could be because of chance, but for how often it happens, I find it hard to believe that I just have that much bad luck.

Chris said...

Listen, because it's been said before and needs saying again:

People are bad at remembering what happened.

Not "you are bad". Not "some people are bad" or "stupid people are bad". Everyone is bad at it, including myself, including scientists and statisticians. That's why if you're trialling an analgesic they don't ask "how was your pain last Monday, on a scale of 1-5?", they tell you "On Monday, jot down how bad your pain is on this diary", because otherwise you'll distort your memory. I caught myself at it today; I was wondering how reliable a particular report in New Scientist had been, and found myself just inventing references that almost certainly were never there.

What is more, it will tend towards your biases. And we're both biased here - myself towards the integrity of the game, yourself against it. The only way of eliminating bias is mechanistically recording the facts, with no wriggle-room for "oh, that one didn't count" or "whoops, missed that, I'll chalk that up as a no."

So yeah. Anything where you didn't sit down, pick a session before it began and add that to your data - recording as you go - should be discarded because it's not a case of you might, but you will, have misremembered it.
======================
For a more entertaining illustration of the problem of working out if something is random (though please don't take it to heart because you can test with realistic certainty if something is truly random), Scott Adams has an accountant goblin sitting at a table saying "999999999999999999999999999999999999."
"What's that?"
"It's our RNG."
"Is that really random?"
"Well, it might be."
=====================
As to strategy: again, the problem with "If i'm playing with almost the same strategy as the cpu, but they are consistently getting better dice, it can't simply be happening because of a difference in strategy." is that well, yes, it can. Unless you are scrupulously following the exact strategy (which I seem to remember he's actually given us, at least for reckless and cautious, so you could, but one thing at a time) in all cases, then strategy, combined with a little selective memory (again, not deliberate cheating) can certainly account for the difference.

MadMags said...

People who whine about computer dice being rigged just don't understand the odds and probabilities of dice. (I play backgammon on the net, and hear the same sob story there) I suggest those who believe this program is rigged play Zilch on a kitchen table with a friend - then they can complain about the friend cheating instead, and we won't be subjected to having to read their posts here.

It's a great game, my compliments and thanks to the developer.

Kat said...

I love this game, and contrary to all the kiddies here who never played Zilch for real, with real dice on a table, this is totally realistic. I beat the CPU on a very short game. I had 18000+ points. (Made the weekly leader board) I rolled 6 1's. The CPU was back in the 3000's. It happens. Exactly what would the programmer get for loading the dice? Nothing. This isn't like he gets paid every time the CPU wins. :P Grow up.

Devon said...

One obvious reason you wouldn't rig the game is that there would be no reason for it. It's not like you make money when players lose. People who say things like that aren't thinking things through.

Isneha Sharma said...

flowers

Nice effort, very informative, this will help me to complete my task

Thomas said...

If the author truly wishes to demonstrate that the odds are not in the computer's favour then could simply include an ingame recorder for the computer and player's rolls. That would allow statistical analysis.

It would be pretty weird if the computer didn't cheat. Cheating computers is the norm for flash games.

marven said...

Thanks for informing me ,These of course are the same people who go to Vegas , It will be more best for me . logo design

x0ajzah327 said...

I’ve desired to post about something similar to this on one of my blogs and this has given me an idea. I’ve really found out a great deal studying this site. Plainly especially excellent content here.
reverse phone lookup

Shiraz Ahmed said...

It feels great when you find such a great content over the website.

gandT0560 said...

This is a really good site post, im delighted I came across it. Ill be back down the track to check out other posts that
maryland used cars

gandT0560 said...

Thanks a lot for enjoying this beautiful. I am appreciating your effort to write it! Looking forward to another great article. Good luck to the author! all the best!

maryland used cars

kathleese said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog, I will keep visiting this blog very often.
payday loan


payday loans

advance google place said...

Just would like to thank you for this special read. I definitely savored every little bit of it including all the comments and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.

web2.0 blogsite list

tomodachi said...

Well Actually never visit the site because I read a lot of other blogs feed through Google Reader. If I find something interesting, I starr it and that’s it. I visited today Guy Blog to see how the layout was hanging.

movies online free

Roger Fed said...

I like your article so that I read all of your articles in a day. Please continue and keep on writing excellent posts.
send gifts to pakistan

webci zenci said...

gogusestetigi Also, saddly, most of the comments you may be getting about the game cheating are from nitwits who haven't even glanced at your comments or foreums or blog. It's more of a "flame now, don't listen to answers later type of thing."