Whoops, uh, yeah. Thanks for mentioning that, Mipey.

> there has been a huge amount of money thrown at studying how to get people to spend money, and using .99 is effective. It's not scummy. It works. Companies wouldn't do it so much otherwise.

>

Hilarious, if you think manipulating people in order to get them to pay you more money is not scummy then you're a fool. Companies usually couldn't care less if they're tricking the person into buying their product that's why they have marketing people. Farmville is the perfect example, their goal is to farm the player's money as much as possible. "I'm not going to treat you as a normal human being because I know I'll make more money off you this way".

I guess it comes down to an issue of respect, do you respect your players as intelligent people? Or do you just view them as a money resource who you should manipulate so you can make profits from them?

...

Seriously, of all the things companies do to make money, this is so far down the scummy list it doesn't even register.

Second, using Zynga of all companies as an example to prove your point is ridiculous both because using $.99 is probably the least scummy thing they do to make more money off each person, and also because basically every company on earth does this, from the slimeballs to best companies as well.

It's not cheating or manipulating people or even deceptive, the price is right there in front of them. Using the technique doesn't mean I or anyone else disrespects their customers, there are plenty of companies who respect and care about their fans plenty and yet still use it.

This isn't even remotely as big a deal as you're making it out to be, and there's especially no need to be so insulting. Chill. We can discuss this without throwing insults.

If the objects are global, they won't be destroyed when switching layouts. Or you could save all relevant info to an array, and recreate the objects.

family.count is bugged and isn't going to get fixed for 1.0 because the fix for it breaks construct in a much more significant way (tho I can't recall how).

To get the same result, you can use: for each object, add 1 to a variable.

You've abandoned us for unity?? Why, Davo, why??

*kidding*

Seriously looks impressive!

As I recall Lucid's 's' plugin does that.

Edit: alternately, you could save the result of a regular random to an array, then load that.

I'm talking to everyone who uses construct and doesn't know or is buggy and can cause crashes. Don't use it.

Don't use or. It's buggy and can cause crashes.

Not really. Try it in a blank cap, and make sure the layer name is unique and spelled correctly and is visible. If you've entered it correctly, it should appear after entering the name in the inheritance layer field and pressing enter.

Try using an inheritance layer (in the layer's properties). From the wiki:

Every layer has a property titled 'Inheritance Layer'. Using this property, it is possible to display the content's of another layer - even from a different layouts! Just specify the (unique!) name of the layer you would like to 'inherit', and Construct will search for that layer in the entire application. This is very practical to make things like HUDs appear in multiple layouts without having to copy their containing objects.