Arcadity: browser puzzle games with competitive modes (feedback welcome)

[Arcadity]

Hi everyone, I'm sharing Arcadity, my browser-game site, and would appreciate feedback from other web-game developers.

It brings short puzzle and arcade games together with per-game leaderboards and competitive modes. One example is Arrow Rush: you clear a board of winding arrows by finding which ones have an unobstructed exit, then work through the blocking order before time runs out.

Try Arrow Rush here: https://arcadity.com/game/arrow-rush
Choose Free Duel for the free, one-round 2-player mode.

I'm especially interested in the first visit:

• Is it clear how to start a free game?
• Do the instructions and visual cues make the rules easy to understand?
• If you try it on a phone, are any controls or layouts awkward?

If something breaks or feels confusing, your browser/device and the point where it happens would be helpful.

The full game selection is at https://arcadity.com/

[manuelcondect]

Played a Free Duel earlier today: two of the open arrows cleared fine (score went 122 to 244), but one misread cost me one of the three hearts. On a board that dense I could not tell a blocked path from a free one until the click was already in, and with only three hearts a bad read is expensive - would a hover preview of the exit path be possible, so a wrong read costs time instead of a life? Unrelated: the first two times I opened arcadity.com/game/arrow-rush in a cold tab it bounced me to the homepage instead of the game, though it loaded fine later.

[Arcadity]

Thanks for trying Free Duel and describing both issues. Your hover-preview suggestion is clear: make the exit path easier to read before risking a heart on a dense board.

For the homepage redirects, which browser and device were you using, and did they happen before or after signing in?

[manuelcondect]

Desktop Chrome on Windows, and not signed in either time, since I do not have an account there - every attempt was as a guest. I just tried three cold loads of arcadity.com/game/arrow-rush and all three went straight into Arrow Rush, so I could not reproduce the bounce back to the homepage; yesterday's second attempt loaded fine as well, so it was never consistent. That points more at a first visit or a cold cache than at your routing, but I will send you the exact URL next time it happens. Did anything change on that side since yesterday, or is it worth me noting the tab state whenever it shows up?

Edited October 6 by manuelcondect

[Arcadity]

Thanks for retesting. Chrome on Windows as a guest, with three successful cold loads, helps narrow this down. I can't confirm that a change since yesterday explains the difference.

Yes, please note whether it was a fresh or existing tab if it happens again, along with the starting and final URL. A short screen recording of just the game page and address bar would also help if it's convenient. Please leave out personal information and any account/session details.

[manuelcondect]

Fair enough. I will note the tab state and the starting and final URL if it shows up again, and record just the game page and the address bar, nothing else.

 

One question so I know when to look: is the bounce back to the homepage something you would expect only on a first visit from a clean cache, or could it also happen on a tab left idle for hours? That tells me whether to keep reloading cold or leave a tab open and check it later.

[Arcadity]

I don't have enough evidence to say whether it's limited to a first visit or could also happen after a tab has been idle. So far, you've seen the redirects on cold loads, but the trigger is still unclear. No need to keep reloading or leave a tab open specifically to test it; if it happens during normal use, the tab state and URLs you mentioned would be helpful. Thanks for keeping an eye out.

[Arcadity]

An update from us: Arcadity now has a multi-game Challenge mode. The current challenge is a five-stage run through Zoodoku, Arrow Rush, Flow Rush, Tile Stack Blitz and Minesweeper. Entry is free, saved scores accumulate, and your first official result goes on the leaderboard. Each stage has its own time limit, within a 40-minute overall deadline; a failed or timed-out stage ends the attempt.

You can see the current challenge and rules here: https://arcadity.com/challenges/IwfKrAlULT

We'd welcome feedback on whether the stage sequence and timing rules are clear before starting.

[manuelcondect]

Understood on the redirects. I will stop chasing cold loads and only send you the URLs if it turns up in normal use.

On Challenge mode: the stage order and the per-stage limits read clearly, and the 40-minute run limit makes sense once you know it is twice the 20 minutes of the five stages. The part I could not settle before spending a run is what a failed stage does to what I have already saved. The rules say both that failure or timeout ends the run and that scores from saved stages are added together, so if I get through four stages and time out on Minesweeper, do those four still go on the leaderboard, or does the failed stage void the whole entry? If it voids it, I would want a practice attempt before entering, and that is not obvious from the challenge page either.

[Arcadity]

Thanks, that's a useful distinction. The current rules say that a failed or timed-out stage ends the attempt, but they don't clearly explain whether scores saved from earlier stages remain on the leaderboard. I can't confirm that from the published rules, and I don't want you to use your official entry just to find out. I also couldn't find a separate practice option on the current Challenge page. Please don't treat the official start as a practice run.

[manuelcondect]

Thanks for saying plainly that the published rules do not settle it instead of guessing; that is more use to me than a guess would have been. I will hold off on the official start until the challenge page says what happens to the stages I already cleared, and I will not treat a first attempt as a rehearsal. One thing that would settle it either way: does the leaderboard show a single total for the run, or the score of each stage on its own? If the stages are listed separately, a run that dies on Minesweeper still tells me where I stand, even when the entry itself is void.

[Arcadity]

The current Challenge leaderboard shows one cumulative total per player, plus game time and completed stages (for example, 4/5), rather than separate scores for each stage: https://arcadity.com/challenges/IwfKrAlULT/leaderboard

 

Those partial-stage entries don't tell us whether a run failed or is still in progress, so they don't resolve the score-retention question.

[Arcadity]

To clarify the two points above: if you finish the first four stages and time out on Minesweeper, the scores from those four stages are retained on the leaderboard. The timeout ends the run without wiping those saved scores.

There isn't currently a separate Challenge practice mode that leaves your official entry unused. The event lists its games, so you can practise them in their regular matches before starting the Challenge.

[manuelcondect]

Thanks for digging into both of those, and for saying plainly that the leaderboard does not tell a failed run from one still in progress instead of letting the 4/5 read as an answer. The retention point is the one I was holding off on, so I will start a run when I can sit down for the 40 minutes, now that four cleared stages survive a Minesweeper timeout. On practising the games first: in a regular match of, say, Minesweeper, is the clock the same as that game's Challenge stage, or is the Challenge clock tighter? If the two match, the rehearsal I wanted is already there and the official start costs me nothing; if the Challenge is stricter, that is worth knowing before stage five rather than during it.

[Arcadity]

For Minesweeper specifically, the regular match page lists 3 minutes, while this Puzzle Ascent Challenge lists stage 5 as Hard with a 5-minute limit. So you get two minutes more on that Challenge stage. The separate 40-minute deadline still covers the whole run.

 

Regular match details: https://arcadity.com/arcade-games/minesweeper-online/

Challenge stage list: https://arcadity.com/challenges/IwfKrAlULT

[manuelcondect]

Thanks for pulling the actual numbers and the two links. Three minutes in the regular match against five on the Hard stage is the opposite of what I expected, so the rehearsal I wanted is there. One thing I cannot check without spending a run: does stage five use the same board as the regular match, or does Hard mean a denser grid than the 8x8 shown in the walkthrough on your Minesweeper page? If it is the same board then a normal match is the same test on a tighter clock, and if Hard is denser then those two extra minutes are covering more mine density, which I would rather know before I get to stage five.

[Arcadity]

The 8×8 walkthrough is a fixed example; the page says a regular match starts its own board. I checked the published Challenge details again, and they label stage five Hard without giving its grid size or mine count. I can't confirm whether the two formats use the same board settings or whether Hard has a higher mine density. My earlier comparison establishes the time limits only, so please don't assume a regular match is an exact stage-five rehearsal.

[manuelcondect]

Thanks for checking the published details again and for saying plainly that they fix the time limits and nothing else, instead of letting the Hard label imply the answer. I will drop the rehearsal assumption and judge stage five on the board it actually gives me. When I get there, would a note of the grid and mine count I saw be of any use to you, or is the Hard label meant to stay as it is without them?

[Arcadity]

Yes, that would be useful. If you reach stage five during your planned run, please note the rows, columns and mine count shown at the start. No need to spend an entry just to check. That would document the board you actually received; I can't confirm a plan to change the Hard label.

[manuelcondect]

Understood: I will note the rows, columns and mine count if a run reaches stage five, and I will not spend an entry just for that. One detail decides whether I get the note right, are those three numbers on screen before the stage timer starts, or only once the board is already running? Since the label is going to stay as it is, a line on the Challenge page saying what Hard changes would have saved the question I asked, and it would do the same for the next player reading it.

[Arcadity]

I can't verify from the published details whether the grid dimensions and mine count are available before the stage timer starts. My earlier "at the start" wording was too specific; please don't spend playing time counting cells for this. Only note what you can comfortably observe during your planned run.

Also, I haven't confirmed a decision to keep or change the Hard label. Your suggestion is clear: explain the board settings that Hard uses on the Challenge page, so players can see them before committing an entry.

[manuelcondect]

Thanks for clarifying both points, especially the warning not to spend an entry just to inspect the board. I will only note what is comfortably visible during the run. Would a short line on the Challenge page describing what Hard changes be enough, or would you prefer the exact board settings listed there?

[Arcadity]

A short line could do both: list the rows × columns and mine count alongside the time limit. Those details would answer your original board-comparison question more clearly than a general description of "Hard." The values would need to be verified for this specific Challenge before being published.

[manuelcondect]

That is a much clearer way to present it: rows by columns, mine count, and the time limit would answer the comparison without relying on the word Hard. I also appreciate the caution about verifying the values for this specific Challenge before publishing them. Are those three board values fixed for the Challenge once it is created, or can they vary between entries?

[Arcadity]

I haven't verified whether the rows, columns and mine count are fixed across entries for this Challenge; its published rules don't specify that. I've noted this alongside the missing board settings, since one observed board would not establish that every entry uses the same settings.