There is a new puzzle over at the Puzzle Station! Will you be one of the ones to solve Quag's Weekly Puzzle #36 and earn a sweet prize?


"I suppose the question I should be asking is whether ya'll would prefer that rare adoptables be given out on easier puzzles so more people get them (but the value plummets) or harder puzzles that fewer people will solve (to preserve value). As I understand it, the goal of the "Official Puzzles" is to both entertain and rerelease retired adptables so newer users have a chance to get them."

This is probably a bigger discussion than just one on puzzle feedback ^^

But alas, I don't really care about value. Valuable adoptables seem to be traded so infrequently that their value is irrelevant, especially since so many of them are locked up on inactive accounts. I am happy that you are giving out retired adoptables in these puzzles - even though I'm not really doing them for the rewards, and rather because I enjoy them, it's clear that many people are. I much prefer this style to giving out, say, Golden Eggs.

I've also got to agree with Jabby's feedback on #36 (regarding the adoptables). Identifying the adoptables was /by far/ the hardest part of this, and I realized when I thought I was stuck that I had identified them incorrectly. Perhaps narrowing the search space would help ("these are monthly adoptables" or something else that's less broad than the thousands available).
I'm *SO* glad to hear you enjoyed it OF! You are quite a brilliant puzzle-solver. :)
Oblivion Flower
(As you might guess, since I love codebreakers) I really liked puzzle #35! The only feedback I can give is that the red herring gave away a bit too much of the puzzle. In a codebreaker like that, the hard part (at least for me!) is to decide which path to take and which path to discard: but the red herring strongly implied that the shape of the symbols was unrelevant, making me focus immediately just on colours, and the puzzle was practically solved (the hues themselves were too random-ish and the AA-44-CC pattern was standing out too brightly to ignore it). I underline I am not complaining at all, since I can see you don't want to make it so hard no one can solve it, but I thought to leave you my feedback anyway, take it just as that, in case you'll ever want to make a harder one^ ^. I still really love your style, the "princess" wrong answer was so cute! Thanks for all your effort!!
Someone pointed out that there was a typo in Puzzle #36 (I misspelled Pumpkin), so I have edited the image to give everyone that word. Just press Ctrl+F5 to refresh the image. Sorry about that! (The Quag does, sometimes make mistakes, hard as I try.)
On the "two ways to write the name of the adoptable", looking at the Method Hint. It reads:


But It could also be written:




In other words, both "Shiny" and "Air" could be written either way. Does that make a bit more sence?

And, yeah, I know Codebreakers require some knowledge ahead of time to solve, but the same could be said of any puzzle. I've had more than one person tell me they don't know how to do Nonograms (or understand the explaination), but most users seem to enjoy them so I post them regularly.

I suppose the question I should be asking is whether ya'll would prefer that rare adoptables be given out on easier puzzles so more people get them (but the value plummets) or harder puzzles that fewer people will solve (to preserve value). As I understand it, the goal of the "Official Puzzles" is to both entertain and rerelease retired adptables so newer users have a chance to get them. Still, puzzles with more logical progression to them are typically solved by quite a few people (sometimes 30+), and then the adoptable given out tanks in value because almost everyone has one or is selling one or is using it for Heart of Gold. I didn't want to do that to one of the most valuable adoptables on the site, so I made the puzzle pretty hard, something that many users (especially those who don't recall or didn't get the old Codebreakers puzzles Cyde made) would have difficulty solving.
I didn't like puzzle 35; I didnt understand it. Even after seeing the solution I'm still a bit confused. I've never even heard of a hexithing to text converter. While I appreciate that it was a hard puzzle it was so far out of my realm of knowledge I stood no chance. As for the newest puzzle; I have not started it. I dont recognize most of the adoptables so it is going to take me a long time to try to solve it so I want to be able to devote time. I did read thru it; and I seem to grasp the basic concept but the two ways to write the names is confusing me, maybe once I really start it I'll make sense of it. Thats my touch base on just reading and looking (first impressions). I will post again once I've started it/completed it and let you know what I think :)
I 'm very glad you enjoy them! I put a lot of effort into them. :)

I suppose I can see what you're saying, however, never using colors in any way would be nearly impossible. Some of my previous puzzles have used them (Examples: #31, #20), but I've always been careful to ensure that people who might not be able to see the colors still had the same oporotunity. As someone with vision dissabilities myself (and who feels incredible annoyance at sites like Discord, and practically every video editing or animation software out there, all fo whom refuse to take any steps to be more accessible to people like me despite my bringing it to their attention numerous times over the past few years), I totally understand how it feels!

I also understand that, when viewing source, people are usually looking for something very obvious, like a commented out line, and not at the code itself. That said, look at this series of hex codes rom the Method Hint and tell me that something doesn't seem pretty obviously different about every third code:


Especially when the puzzle codes *ALL* looked like this:

That was what you had to notice to solve the puzzle. That said, Codebreakers are far easier to see in hindsight, since they require figuring out some pattern that is critical to solving the puzzle. That's what makes it hard, I'm afraid (and what warrants such an awesome prize, since I try to base the prize rarity on the difficulty of the puzzle).

PS: I hope everyone enjoys this week's new puzzle style. I'd love to hear feedback on this style of word puzzle. (And, if anyone has trouble telling what an adoptable is because they can't see the color of one of the images, feel free to PM me. I think they should all be pretty clear, though.) Good luck to everyone! :)
I think I may not have been the clearest. It wasn't that not seeing the colors made it difficult -- I did make it to the page source, and could have solved it in principle if I got the hex codes thing, so I understand what the expected solution was.

It's more that having a puzzle where colors have any meaning at all is difficult. It's not about being able to see them or not; it's about giving meaning to something that's usually meaningless to me. And I recognize that this is the point of a lot of puzzles, looking for nonobvious sources of meaning to guide you to the right answer. But, to me (and feel free to disagree with this!), this makes it harder to find meaning in even the hex representations of colors, despite the fact that they're not technically linked.

I appreciate the work that you put into making your puzzles accessible - they're currently probably my favorite thing to do on the site :)
@JShadsly: Yes, this was a Codebreaker style of puzzle, not a logic or word puzzle. I, however, do provide a Method Hint. If you can 'solve' the hint (i.e.find out how the hint leads to the answer), that gives you a logical path to the answer. In Codebreaker style puzzles, it's not uncommon for you to need to view source to find some hint. There weren't a lot of other options for solving it after you found the red herring. When one viewed source, however, they should be looking for patterns, as that's what codebreaking is all about. It does, in it's own way, have a logic to it, but it's not the same kind of puzzle as, say, a logic or word puzzle. I know some people don't like Codebreaker puzzles (just as some people dislike word puzzles because English isn't their first language and some dislike math puzzles because they dislike math, and some don't like logic puzzles because they don't understand them, and so on). As I've often said, though, I try to make Quag's Weekly Puzzle a variety of many different styles of puzzles so that all preferences have a chance. It's been a long time since I did a Codebreaker-style puzzle, so I felt it was high time for another. I was quite happy to see that six people solved it. :)
You didn't need to see to colors at all. If you viewed source on the page, you should have noticed in the Method Hint that every third hexadecimal code was randomized, while the others were all 44s, AAs, and CCs, and that the randomized hex codes were similar to those in the puzzle itself. This required no color recognition, just recognizing text. Furthermore, the ability to see colors would not help you in any significant way. Viewing source was the *ONLY* path to the answer, and that required absolutely no color vision whatsoever. Once you realized that you needed every third hexadecimal code (because those were the ones in the Method Hint that weren't just 44s, AAs, and CCs), you just had to plug those hex codes into a hexadecimal to text converter. This would turn the four hexcodes from the hint into "Hello World!" and the 13 relevant ones from the puzzle into "The Cylin Muridae oh so tiny and cuddly". Then, all you had to do was Google "Muridae" to realize it's the family for mice, and you'd get the answer: Mouse Cylin. At no point in this puzzle was it required that you be able to see colors (nor would the ability to see colors be of any real help to you other than helping you see what was evident from veiwing source anyway). I was very careful to make it a puzzle that even color-blind people could do and I went out of my way to point out that color-blind could complete the puzzle in the CB. I didn't want anyone to give up just because the colors were so close to each other. Know that I do my best in all of my puzzles to make sure colorblind people are not disadvantaged. :)
Puzzle 35 felt like instead of a puzzle more like a very complicated maze with no actual puzzling that tests logic, and reading through the solution made me sad how natural it made it seem to expect people to see the pattern of the colors. It felt like there was more effort put into making the red herring obvious than providing an actual interesting or entertaining puzzle for the main part...
My feedback on 35 is mixed: I loved the fact that you put a red herring in there and also that it was obvious when we reached it, so we didn't have to spend time wondering if that was the right solution approach.

I wasn't the biggest fan of the colors simply because I'm colorblind ^^ I did at one point look at the source to see the color codes, so I suppose I could have solved it in principle. But looking at a puzzle where colors have any kind of meaning is tough when I can't see most of the differences between the colors to begin with.
My appoligies that it's a day late (real life stuff just kept cropping up unexpectedly), but I hope you like this new puzzle style. Feel free to give feedback (but no answers or hints, please), as I always love to hear what people think of the puzzles. :)
You must be registered to post on this site.

Saturday September 21 2019 10:14 am
16 users online | About Us | Rules | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

All original content on,, is (c) 2007-2019 Internoodles Limited
All other copyrighted characters are copyrighted by their respective licence holders. We are only a fan site and do not claim ownership of any licensed characters we draw.