Believe it or not, all coding for this scenario is in one World sub-class constructor. The score-counter, time-counter and blue-dot are Actor objects that each control themselves. A later update will reveal the code.

I clicked him and I got 5 Points! ^^ @danpost Could you add a highscore?

@joeschmoe, the click is detected upon release of the mouse button. @Busch2207, do you want one to track highscores between compilations or one using UserInfo storage?

@joeschmoe, also, as far as clicking on the dot, the image of the dot is much larger than the dot itself -- giving a much bigger 'hit zone'. It would have been a whole lot harder had I reduced the size of the image to the size of the dot (the image would be about one-fourth the size while the dot would remain the same).

Will add 'best and near' high scores later (if not entered in the competition, at the end of the month; if entered, probably not until after results of competition). This it so everyone who wants to see the code can check it out, as is.

I have to be honest. I've written a bot which made all this clicks! ;) But he's not perfect, yet. It was just a small gimmick. :)

And thank you danpost! I've created my image by using your 'Viral Spiral'-scenario to generate the grid. I just changed some values (Made the panel much bigger, let only the outermost line be drawn and changed the random(6) to random(180)). Then I filled the grid with colors and then with textures. And after that I wrote me a program, that removed the lines! :)

@Busch2207, did you do something to spam the view-count on this scenario? I cannot believe that it has gotten well over 600 views in less than one day and it seems to be increasing at a regular rate. Also, there are only 11 different users that have played a complete game while logged in.

Actually, there are easier ways to spam the site... I wrote a greenfoot program that accessed scenarios every act cycle to boost the view count. Greenfoot.org doesn't have a good way of testing whether it is a human or just a robot trying to access the page (google sites like youtube do though). Anyway, I only used it on two of my scenarios before I felt like I was cheating: everything except cube runner and textured cube are entirely legitimate counts. Besides, I don't think anyone can really put too much credibility into the number of views as a measure of popularity: voting is much more accurrate.

@MatheMagician, I do not think that view is a reliable measure of popularity either. But the ratio of votes per views is altered by illegitimate view counts. Oh, and I had always thought that you had some web-presence that brought people in to boost your view count on those scenarios.

@danpost, I am not promoting it at all. I was just trying to point out that there is a weakness in the system (as a warning for people). I am sorry I did add those views. As a note though, on cuberunner, I only added a small fraction of those hits at the end. I believe what happened was that because I called it "Cube Runner" (the title of a somewhat popular game on the apple store) anytime someone searched for "cuberunner", my scenario came up in the top ten. I have since changed the title and the views stopped coming in.

@MatheMagician, I am neither for or against the spamming of views on one's own scenarios. You can do what you please with your own. I guess that boosting views would put your scenario illegitimately high on the 'Most views' or 'Most views (this week)' search results. But, I doubt that those options are used that much. It is the blatant disregard that one displays toward things that are not theirs that I oppose (and as far as I know, of this, you are not a culprit).