Do you want to keep, change, remove, or replace the Contribution system?
In the interest of an open and informed discussion . . .
I present here information which has hitherto been unavailable to the general userbase. Every time in the past that this topic has been brought up, it has been presented as a false dilemma: either keep the system as it is, or have no such system at all. While it's perfectly obvious upon a moment's reflection that one could take other courses of action, it has remained generally unknown that an alternative system has been discussed and planned out to the point that little else besides coding and implementation need be done. For lack of any better name, I'll refer to this alternative system as the rep system for convenience. I don't think this information has been deliberately withheld, but it's long past time for it to be made known.
The system that has been put in place relies upon administrative action to be maintained. This stands in stark contrast to the way the site was before, where all forms of giveaway exclusivity were user-controlled: group and private giveaways. The rep system would be a return to user-controlled exclusivity, eliminating administrative overhead and making exploitation difficult in the extreme. I will outline the basics of the system below.
- Users will have a button on their profile allowing other users to 'rep' them.
- This can only be a positive value. There is no negative form of rep.
- This is limited to one rep per user and is either on or off and may be toggled at any time by that user.
- Giveaways created by users will feature a rep button which allows other users to rep them when looking at and entering their giveaways.
- The accumulated value of rep may be used in the same way that contribution amount is used in contributor giveaways to limit entry to those who have an amount of rep equal to or greater than that which the giveaway creator chooses.
It's that simple. It's essentially a rough measure of the amount of goodwill you've engendered in the community, rather than a poor approximation of an arbitrary dollar value that can be exploited by finding loopholes that an automated system has difficulty adapting to.
Speaking of exploitation, if one needed a few hundred rep to enter a giveaway, one could try to game the system by getting a few hundred of their closest friends to rep them or trying to set up a circle of a few hundred exploiters that all rep each other, or one could just give away a single bundle game. Exploitation would be difficult to the point of being almost pointless.
Also, people trying to exploit the system would be treated just like people who try to get their friends to mark their fake giveaways received have always been treated: immediate permanent suspension. Likewise, people trying to beg for rep will be treated the same as anyone who begs for anything else.
I think this would be a huge improvement over the contributor system, and it should appease most of the people who only argue to keep the system because they think it's that or nothing.
I can't recall what other concerns there may be with the system, but feel free to discuss it further, and I will try and chime in here and there if you have questions and such, but I have Fallout 4, so I'm already eager to finish this post. Don't expect timely responses.
Comment has been collapsed.
grinded it up, dissolved remnants in acid, and poured acid down the drain, then took apart acid infested plumbing pipes and gave to a junk yard to resale metal
Comment has been collapsed.
I used to reserve threads...
then I got a reversed in the Ni.
Comment has been collapsed.
The amount of possible abuse is so strong with this system that I can't find even one valid argument why would somebody put it.
Rep system never worked and was never reliable. People would be too lazy to rep a guy, and it could be so easy exploitable that you even pointed it out. Yes, it'd be pointless to do that, the same way it's pointless to do +rep on steam trades right now, but again, it's more simple to just remove the current system instead of forcing a replace with the one that doesn't make sense. And inventing a giveaway requirement, which would require from user e.g. 100+ reps to enter, would be so pathethic that I'd probably lose my interest in the site altogether.
Just, no. If we can't come up with the better system, let's leave it as it is, or remove altogether. Forced ideas are the worst ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't need to keep any secret. Look at steam trades rep system in it's current form. There was even one guy on the forum that suggested people to +rep him in exchange for giveaway, and due to no calling out rule I won't tell you who it was, but he was never suspended for that and those reps are still on his profile.
It just doesn't work, something like that would be pointless and cause even more butthurt than CV system. If you can't see it, it's unlikely that I'll make you do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nobody gives a shit about the trades section. This is a fact. No one will touch it because it's totally toxic. You apparently reached the word rep and stopped reading, though, since you keep trying to compare them when they're nothing alike.
You can't get hundreds of people circlejerk repping each other and keep it quiet. And when you get caught, you get permanently suspended.
Comment has been collapsed.
But I can still run a group, can still make giveaways, and can still make people giving away (which should be called trading) games between eachother, and rep eachother. It wouldn't be against the rules, same as it's not against the rules to make group giveaways or to gain CV from 5+ entries group giveaways. You can't stop that with your system, unless you make reps public-only or similar, and then it's even easier to exploit and has even less logic.
Told you, if you can't see a problem with your system, then I'm unlikely to make you do. I read your suggestion carefully because it's pathethic to respond to something one doesn't even know about, and I still remain with my opinion. That system doesn't fix anything, it adds even more work, is even easier to abuse, and would cause more butthurt than current one. Sorry, that's just my opinion, and I think we can leave it there.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
In addition, rep is completely and totally biased -- you'd have the "popular" folks (people whose names are easily recognizable from the forums) being repped a lot more than new people or people who don't spend all day on the forums.
At least the way it is now, CV is impartial, and everyone can earn it equally (if not always honestly).
EDIT: Doh! Just read your post a couple posts down that pretty much echo my sentiments with the "SG celebrities" earning rep more easily.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
Also, such a system as I understood it would be extremely vulnerable to scripts. Would there be feasible measures to prevent one to come up with a script to auto-rep other than to auto-enter giveaways? I think not. And in the former case, it'd be even more difficult to discern between legitimate +reps and automated +reps as a result of automatic entry methods.
The current system is far from perfect, but this new idea seems much easier to exploit and harder to control. My two cents.
Comment has been collapsed.
Something else to add to that --
As many people as we have now complaining about CV on the forums, can you imagine how many people we'd have shamelessly plugging for people to +rep them, even if those people weren't interested in joining their giveaways? Not to mention all the complaints about how X person deserves more rep than Y person because "reasons."
Then there's the fact that support would have no means of dealing with "false rep" situations or "rep farming". How do you prove how someone obtained their rep, since it's so subjective? You give people the choice to +rep or not, and the system is no longer equal for everyone.
At least with CV, there are rules in place to somewhat limit these situations and give support a measure of control over how these things are dealt with, and everyone receives CV commensurate with how much they give. Granted, CV has its flaws, but they're far fewer than those I foresee with a purely rep-based system. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I think wbarton has taken too long of a break from answering support tickets :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it also gives more power to the forums in a negative sense. Say something someone doesn't like? They could remove the rep they gave you for a giveaway. Currently you can only be blacklisted by them for their own GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
Also if you follow the link in the first line of the OP then you see that even 2 years ago there was talk of the existence of shady and dishonest CV boosting/farming groups that are abusing and misusing the CV system. Today you still hear that a lot and there is no smoke without fire. The new rep system would get the same attention by these said users.
The new rep system would also by more benificial for the proverbial "SG celebrities".
In my eyes this kind of rep system would be borderline apartheid with 2 sides being the veterans and the new users.
There was a poll some months ago that indicated that just over 50% of SG users think that to varying degrees there's antagonism between low and high CV levels. Imho the new system would most probably boost said antagonism.
With the CV system that's now in place you know what it is, what you get and what you can expect and it's the same for everyone on SG that is honest and rule abiding.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
Also, rep is fundamentally broken as an integer value. 1 rep could equal anything, from a Bad Ratz gib with meme description that I laughed at and +rep'ed or someone who gave something amazing away.
Comment has been collapsed.
This statement right here pretty much sums it up the biggest concern I have.
What would serve a better purpose? To gift an amazing AAA game or to gift 25 bundle games that cost less than a six pack?
We don't need this place to turn into reddit or imgur with upvoting, gold or rep whatever you want to call it.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
There's absolutely no way we would be able to discern "rep" exploits, making this system entirely useless.
Comment has been collapsed.
The difficulty of assembling a group of several thousand people and getting them to rep you far exceeds the difficulty of doing a few public giveaways, and the outcome is the same. Your 'exploit' is pointless because it's vastly easier to just give away a few bundle games than to try and get hundreds or thousands of people to rep you illegitimately. I'm sorry this simple idea is beyond you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yet somehow I think a certain duckman could do that faster than you typed your message.
Comment has been collapsed.
the comparison is not really fair. bring hundreds or thousands of people to rep you is not the same outcome as creating a few bundle games. you will need to give away a crap ton of bundle games in order to get an equivalent to thousands +rep. i mean, what would be the equivalent of level 10? if we calculate with 10$ per bundle game (which i am sure is above average bundle game value), that's 1.5$ CV per giveaway. that makes 3333.33 bundle giveaways to reach level 10. since so many bundle games are below 10$, it's probably even more like 4000. this is just so much work. and it's even slower due to the GA slot system. this is a task that can easily take years to accomplish. ^^
also, giving away bundle games is not really an exploit, is it? we gain something from that. people always complain about members who give away only to gain CV. but the site benefits from that. and if a real exploit happened - GA created between friends and no game delivered - we have means to act against that. we can spot those with easy-to-use tools (sgtools) and they can get suspended or even perma-banned, if necessary. how would you try to prevent abuse of the rep system? i agree it might be hard to get thousands of people to cheat the system. but it might be easier than you think to get a few dozen to do it. and i see no possibility to do anything against that. not unless we find the group where they gather and explicitly state what they are doing. and that is so much harder to do than checking non-activated games.
i would even argue CV is a major motivation, especially for new members. i was like that, 3 years ago. CV gives this feeling of achievement. i will gladly admit that quite a lot of my giveaways happened only because i wanted to gain CV. and even now that i am way beyond the need for CV, i still like seeing that number increase. it's not the reason to do giveaways anymore. but i like it anyway. and i think what happened to me happens to a lot of members. they start maybe with one little bundle game. just to get to level 1. and then an addiction develops. and they give more and more, just to see that little number increase. i think it would be a dangerous step to take away that motivation. i just don't see the same kind of motivation in the rep system.
i think it works pretty well as it is. exploitation is certainly possible, but only to a certain degree. regional restricted giveaways might be a problem (are they?). i am sure we could find solutions for that. maybe only russians should be allowed to give away RU/CIS games. i was once against that idea, but i like it more and more. of course then nationality has to come from the steam profile. i am no steam API expert, but i assume that's no big problem. the other form of exploitation would be very cheap games. the typical -98% game on steam. well, we can either live with the fact, that some people gain a little CV with those games - and i really don't think it's a big problem because of the reduced CV for 5+ games - or we could think about measures. like a second type of bundle category that grants only 10% CV value. it's just an idea, and it would result in extra work for you guys. and i think the 5+ reduction rule is enough already. so, what other kinds of exploitation are even happening right now? is there something i didn't think of?
:)
Comment has been collapsed.
So you think it's easier to conspire with 500 people to rep each other than to give away one bundle game?
Comment has been collapsed.
do you honestly think 500 rep would be equal to giving away one bundle game? i really don't think so. look at how many comments giveaways get nowadays. even if you make a public one without level restriction and get 5000 entries. you get maybe 50 comments. so i don't know how you want to get 500 rep with a single bundle game. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
This system might looks decent, but on the worst possible case (and we all know that there are people who simply want to exploit) is simply just as efficient as changing CV with # number of comments (I don't mean that there are similarities regarding these two, but that the effect is the same)
Comment has been collapsed.
Nobody gives a shit about the trades section.
The SG trade feedback is used as the main source of user evaluation in trades. So actually yes, a lot of traders, especially key to key traders give all the shit about the trade section, or more precisely the feedback portion of it.
The part when people are making "I want Fallout 4 + Wither 3 and I give you a key for Doorways: The Underworld" trades is another topic and not steamtrades/SG exclusive.
Comment has been collapsed.
+10
I was a little appalled to hear that statement coming from a member of the support team, to say the least. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I've traded give or take a couple; 300 games for games on SG trades and I do give a shit. I see the SG trades rep system as an indication of the trader ethics and trustworthiness. Also I find it disconcerting that SG Support doesn't give a shit about SG trade tickets even if it's about a serial scammer...
Comment has been collapsed.
The funny thing is that the person Archi is talking about is still active, still has all of his fake feedback and his last positive is from a couple of days ago from a +0/-0 user (who won one of his giveaways 3 months ago).
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess that person is also " pending " in the system. SG support doesn't give a shit about SG trade tickets and doesn't do anything about cleaning up the scammers and cheats. And then it's not surprising that the situation festers on and gets worse in time. Some scammers and dishonest people already know to well that support doesn't intervene and that they can do pretty much as they want without risk of sanctions or punishment. SG trades is proverbially becoming like a real life police no go zone. It's getting really that bad that I'm thinking of closing my one and only trade thread...
I just wish that SG support would clean up SG trades (with the very same intensity) like they clean up SG giveaways.
As long that there will be people there will be some bad people that abuse and misuse the system. There are those on SG trades that abuse and misuse the rep system by +rep abuse and by (trade) scamming others users. Like there are some bad people that abuse and misuse the CV system by CV boosting and CV farming in very small and shady private groups.
I've seen users here on SG and on Steam that actively offer +rep for +rep, those that have like 10 different kinds of +rep messages like good trader, great trader, went first etc one can choose from. I've even seen users ask for 50-150 gems for a +rep. But luckily not all the traders are rep abusers and scammers like not all SG users are dishonest CV boosting and CV farming cheats. I've even seen on SG a dev that was actively asking for whitelist for whitelist. These on both sides (trades+giveaways) are I hope a minority that give the rest of us a bad name but however they do exist...
Comment has been collapsed.
One of the major problems with catching scammers is the calling out. People seem to think that if they post an angry rant in public about someone scamming them and point a finger in their general direction, this will immediately cause a permanent ban for the evildoer. That's not what's going to happen. What's going to happen is that the scammer will have a chance to "clean up the tracks" and prepare counter-arguments based on what the victim posted. And the most bold of them will simply report the victim for calling out.
Sure, we have trouble weeding through the whole mass of 30k+ tickets, and many of the legit and well-prepared reports are still pending. But we're slowly making progress. And it would help immensely if users were as patient and thorough in their scammer reports, as they are passionate and loud in their calling out posts.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more easy to have patience in the first few months but how longer it's takes how more the patience dwindles and turns in a steep rising frustration. Also knowing for sure that there are more users than me scammed by the same scammer and said scammer is to date getting away with it and possibly making new victims isn't really a great feeling either.
Also about the calling out, if I say a user scammed me on SG trades without naming steam or SG nicks (and without posting screenshots or profile links) is that also seen as calling out because there are many thousands of users on SG, how can this be calling out? It's not that other users can read my support tickets?
Also it doesn't help that i've seen many times written in the SG discussions that after a certain time such tickets are closed.
Also seeing someone of support saying " Nobody gives a shit about the trades section " isn't reassuring either.
Comment has been collapsed.
Speak for yourself. I have traded stuff worth over $50k with people I first met on steamtrades.
Comment has been collapsed.
so you are saying its absolutely safe ?
i never died in mountains so...
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing of this sort is absolutely safe, but the trades here and especially the trade reps are the safest of the available options.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have 157 rep in SG trades, for me personally that number means that I traded over 300 game keys for other game keys I didn't own in Steam because I traded multiple times with the same traders sometimes multiple games at once so I do give a shit because that's 300 game keys that aren't wasted for me and another 300 games keys that aren't wasted for the traders.
For me the SG trade rep system is an indication of the users trading ethics with negative reps being similar to VAC, Game and trade bans on Steam. Also I trade only games/games so I needed worry about all the different kinds of real and Steam currency being used.
And it isn't because some users don't use or hardly use the SG trades that all users don't give a shit about SG trades.
Also I find it a real pity that Support doesn't give a shit about SG trades tickets as the ticket with hard evidence of a serial SG trades scammer that atleast has scammed 6 different users is already pending more than seven (7) months now. This is also a fact.
Comment has been collapsed.
We can easily see how "rep system" works for Trades: it doesn't. It's exploitable far more than the current one is. It will cause a lot of private begging. Now there is nothing a user can willingly do to increase someone else's CV/level, but if you give users ability to do so, it will become a spamfest.
It's ok as it is now, if it isn't broken don't fix it.
Comment has been collapsed.
tell me again, why is it pointless to give +rep on steamtrades?
Comment has been collapsed.
a few rep, yes. hundreds? not that easy anymore. if you want a safe trade, pick a trader with a few hundred rep, and you are good to go. i never had problems with anyone beyond 200 rep. yes, there may have been one or two exceptions. but those really don't matter. if someone has that amount of rep, you have a probability of a safe trade near 100%. in addition to that, you can (and should) take a look at what people actually wrote. if you find lots of comments about successful paypal trades, for example, that's a pretty good sign. and also very important: when did the guy start trading? a scammer might gather some rep for a few weeks or even 1-2 months and then start to scam people. but someone who had lots of successful trades over a long period (like a year) is so extremely unlikely to scam you. the rep system is far from pointless. it's actually the reason i never got scammed again, after 2 trades with low-rep members which i did in the beginning. it's an extremely useful system, if you use it it the way i described.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wouldn't this hurt new users more than CV though? A new person can go up CV levels in no time by giving away a big AAA game or two but the rep of active givers would (probably) be steadily increasing over time causing the rep limits people place to also increase. It wouldn't hurt the people that are already here and active but would shun new members.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, whole rep system would be strongly based on SG "celebrities", and would be totally unfair to typical SG user giving away bundle leftovers, as compared to a guy who would be repped by everyone just of the nickname, or giveaways he's doing.
That's why I think of myself as of typical SG user rather than my own person, because I know that I wouldn't have any problem fitting with new system, but many less recognized or unrecognized users would find it frustrating.
Comment has been collapsed.
So it's basically a highschool version of SteamGifts where only popular people and people with money feel good and all others hate it.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1... It'd be a popularity contest with people who give out a lot in public but never talk in forums being completely neglected and potentially some people who are very well liked being given rep based on something other than their giveaways. The popular people may have added a lot to the site and community with their posts and events and what not but popularity is just not what this site is based on.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
I know at least 1 person who prefers to not be known, and yet gives away a ton of stuff. Constantly. So their status would be lower, because less people would rep them?
Active forum people would receive more rep, and if someone got mad at someone else, they could just take it away.
Further, this system would push you to give outside groups, to get more rep.
Just some thoughts.
I'm definitely not in favor of the new system. CV has it's issues, but it works to an extent. You can always BL those you don't want entering your gibs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know at least 1 person who prefers to not be known, and yet gives away a ton of stuff.
If they giveaway on SG via giveaways and not say, forum key drops or random gifting, then their profile already has their entire history visible along with their CV. Reps are not forum specific but profile specific. So if a user gives away keys on the forums, users can still rep his profile. If the user gives a lot via giveaways, users can also rep him for that. On top of that, if I understand the system correctly, each user can only be rep'ed once per any other user. IE, I can only EVER give you 1 rep, and you can only give me 1 rep.
Comment has been collapsed.
Definitely I would say you understand it correctly, but this amounts to the same thing as the WL/BL toggle.
Potential for toxicity is there. Let's start a witch hunt privately and take away rep from someone because one time they said something we didn't like, who cares how much they've given away?
Currently we can just block them from entering our GAs, but then we could 'demote' their potential entries on the site as a whole.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good point. I'm not sure if I like this system now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not even worried about celebrities pulling ahead; how would established users grow past a certain point if they have everyone +rep them? The system breaks down. At least with CV I can see how far generous people blow past level 10, but with rep it would simply be who has the widest audience reach who can somehow convince to rep (such as rep or blacklist descriptions).
Comment has been collapsed.
+1!
I agree .. the whole rep system would encourage a hierarchy of celebrity users and unfair to those who can only afford to give away left overs from bundles, which I don't see as a problem. If someone is giving away a game, their "reputation" in the community shouldn't depend on whether or not its been bundled or some AAA game, or by their celebrity standing for that matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except, if I am understanding the rep system, each user can only rep a user once, not once per giveaway. So if an active gifter is giving away hundreds of dollars of games, gets thousands of reps, it doesnt punish a new user any more then a new user coming to the site presently and starting with 0 cv. The new user can get those reps just by making a comparable giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except what if people choose to only give rep to people they know?
Rep technically has the same rules as WL/BL at your own discretion.
So I could say, well you mostly only give bundle stuff (like me, cause that's what I can afford) so I'm not gonna rep you. Even though you've given away over 500 games.
But then someone could say, "Oh, but you're popular, here have rep anyways,"
It's Highschool all over again :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Except what if people choose to only give rep to people they know?
Thats not really any different from users who only giveaway in private groups IMO. The system wasnt fully explained, as far as how the bolts of it would work. Are their levels/tiers, or is it a very static amount. IE, if I can I set the rep requirement to ANY amount, or only say rep levels 4+? If its tiered, then popularity/name recognition wont be much of a problem since that would net only a few more reps compared to a giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
From my understanding it could be far greater. 1k is still 1k.
Check here and see if I misunderstood something.
http://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/ICUHw8a
Open to debate. I just don't personally get a good feeling from the proposal.
Comment has been collapsed.
With CV the only advantage to being here longer is that you have more time to give the same amount so it hurts the wallet less but some rep will become inaccessible over time. Unless rep disappears from your profile if the rep giver doesn't log in within so many days old users will have rep new users will never have access to. Not only that but every time somebody wins a game that is at least one less rep the other giveaways for that game are worth.
If I give away a brand new $30 game I get 30 CV. If I give away the same game within a month or two it'll still be worth 30 CV assuming no bundling or price reductions. But with rep they'd be worth nowhere near the same. I doubt all the people that have won or bought the game within that time will still look for giveaways for it to +rep people.
Comment has been collapsed.
If rep is only 1 per user to user, the same game, assuming the same people entering, would contribute next to zero to your new "level". Meaning it would be pointless to give away more than one copy of a game, which would be, for me, personally, terrible.
Comment has been collapsed.
People who even use the forum at all are a small minority of users. Most rep will come from random strangers hitting the button on your public giveaways. Your 'popularity' will only marginally affect your total rep. As far as people who've been around having an advantage over people who just joined, there's almost no system that wouldn't be true for unless it was specifically designed to favor new users, which seems unfair in itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Random strangers certainly aren't going to bother giving rep. Most people just hit enter giveaway and leave the site. It's going to be people on the forums who use it the most.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if entering a giveaway counts as an automatic +rep?
Comment has been collapsed.
That would be a strictly worse version of the number-of-entries = CV approach in my opinion. Similar flaws
- Encourages spam of 6 cent Lilly and Sasha giveaways and similar
- Disincentivizes group and private giveaways (not necessarily bad)
- Incentivizes leaving giveaways open for longest period of time possible (not necessarily bad)
Only (maybe) improvement will be ability to remove the +rep, but not that many people would use it.
Adds additional flaw of completely subjective profile rep.
Comment has been collapsed.
But +rep can only be given once per profile per user, so spamming Lilly does not mean you're going to get progressively more +rep for each giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks like this system has profile +rep which is once only, but also giveaway +rep which is once per giveaway.
Edit: incorrect interpretation
Comment has been collapsed.
Misreading. +rep on ga is the same +rep as on profile.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought it was what you said at first, but then after rereading, only the 4th bullet point mentions the giveaway rep which lead me to believe that the previous 3 bullets didnt apply to it. Especially since the 3rd bullet says "this" in reference to the 2nd bullet.
At any rate, I don't support either version so it doesn't really matter to me.
Edit: nvm, I just missed wbarton's reply to me. You are correct.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it's the other case, if you can only have 1 rep total, giving a 50 copy Lilly and Sasha featured giveaway that lasts 1 month will give you the equivalent of level 10+ worth of rep.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you underestimate the number of people who will see a button and think they have to click it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Covered this above with Sleepy. If the majority of the reps are coming from giveaways, then that just encourages you to spam Lilly and Sasha, which will give you a lot more rep than Fallout 4, for example.
Edit: See above
Comment has been collapsed.
So, basically all one needs is 1-2 copies of newest AAA game to reach equivalent of L10+ at the time system is launched and pretty much doesn't have to do anything else. Latecomers will have harder time, either would have to give more copies or won't be 'repped' at all (lazines, 'new' effect wearing off)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I mean, who is gonna rep consistently. It'll be a manual feature that will need to be dealt with instead of automated.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you do a public giveaway for a new AAA release, then, yes, you will probably get enough rep to be among the highest repped users. This will always be the case, and not just when the system is first put into place.
Aren't people who do public giveaways for new AAA games exactly the kind of people you want to be rewarded by such a system?
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem I try to point out is this will be often one time show. The new L8-10 would be full of people that "invested" making it even less useful than current system is.
Rhetoric question. But the rep system will not do that. However I won't mind if it's put into use as second CV system too see how it works 'live'
Comment has been collapsed.
I would be interested in seeing a trial run myself. Maybe there are some flaws that make it unworkable, but it seems pretty good right now. Seeing it in action would be enlightening.
Comment has been collapsed.
Push for it as secondary system, it's always better to have more options )
Big flaw is ppl will have to be re-evaluating all +rep given previously and remove some of them. It's not very likely to happen unless it's somehow forced. Without removing some of the reps, quite quickly there will be 2 or maybe 3 clusters of rep values. Nearly no rep, very high rep and maybe something in the middle - but moving upwards. All of this with the assumption that rep button will be used by big enough number of users, also in longer term.
Other flaw is (but connected with the one above), there is only one way to be L10 - give once one copy of new $60 game. Thats it. Giving multiple different games from $20 price range is unlikely to net the same amount of rep. End effect: rep is just some number on the profile with no meaning
Comment has been collapsed.
What happens if someone puts up a AAA giveaway, gets repped hugely, then deletes the giveaway before it finishes? Most people won't notice it was deleted or bother removing rep if they did, just believe that they didn't win (which is usual). They would lose a GA slot, I guess, and as an exploit it's obvious if it's someone's only GA so you could ban them but could staff remove the rep they got from that GA specifically if it was a "legitimate" deletion?
Comment has been collapsed.
That was discussed. Basically, reps given to a user through a giveaway page wouldn't count toward his rep total until the gift was marked as Received.
Comment has been collapsed.
This could kill a lot of private groups. Even tho I'm only part of 2 and only one of them have mandatory GA requirements, I think a lot of people will be upset.
Besides that, as another user pointed out, people will be lazy to do that.
Why not each rep+ be equivalent to an entry?
More entries, more people interested in the game.
But even that would have its downsides, like people avoiding creating GA at certain periods of the day, waiting for the peak hours with more active users on-line.
Why not make CV slowly decrease over time? Or when you win, you lose some CV, I dunno. Just brainstorming.
Comment has been collapsed.
This system does have the potential to kill private groups.
If only the people in your group can rep you, then you'd be forced to make pubilc GAs to get more Rep.
Of course if you only want to give and receive from people in the private group, no big deal. But how do you mean new people? Unless you don't want to. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyway, what the rep+ would be useful for?
Lets say that people with more rep+ would be able join giveaways for people with more rep+.
People then will create more giveaways with no rep requirement because it would get more people to rep+ them. And other people won't want to raise their reps because they would be able to join most of the good giveaways anyway.
Unless its proportional. For example, if there are 1000 users with 0 rep, and 1000 with 100 rep, and you create a giveaway for people with only 100+ rep, you will be getting double rep+ for each rep+. But there is still the group giveaways to join the equation. How it would be the multiplier? This would also prevent people of giving away great games most of the users of the group have, they would research at http://swl.mabako.net for the games most of the people in the group don't have (I use the site to giveaway games most people of the groups don't have, but as the CV would be the same anyway, I'm not gaming the system by doing this), instead of getting a great game the only a few don't have.
Anyway you try to think of a system, people will still game it, and there will be people thinking of multiple solutions to get more rep. rep rep rep rep. All this rep. So confusing. :P
There is no way to replace the system for other without completely change all the micro-communities created here (puzzles, private, groups, trains, etc), or to make it better. In the best hypothesis, it will remain kinda of the same, people will only change how they game the system.
Thinking of how much the site grew, all the complains are fair (I understand how growth can ruin experiences), but there is no way back, you know. You will attract all kinds of people.
I think the current CV system is the lesser evil. Minor improvements are welcome, but I see no point in changing it. Too much work for almost no return. There will still be a lot of room for exploiting, and the current problems would be replaced with new problems, and so on.
As already mentioned, if someone don't like how it is, the best way is creating your own private community, a group, whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
As already mentioned, if someone don't like how it is, the best way is creating your own private community, a group, whatever.
Which is exactly what some people have done, and stated they've done. Look at 2hu, or BQ(Bundle Quest), or Arise. All groups that use their own set of rules to balance things out. But unless you stay completely in those groups, it still affects you. For example, let's say we are talking about BQ. It's Primarily about Bundles. However sometimes AAA titles go through it. The vast majority don't though. Those you would need to find outside the group, and hence your rep again becomes an issue. Anyways, I'm digressing.
I pretty much fully agree with you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I was referring to those people/groups, I was just lazy to scroll and look for their nicknames haha (I'm kinda new so I don't know much of the community yet to remember everyone).
And you're completely right, people will still rationalize the system (or game, but this definition can be unfair for some cases), like in some groups made for bundled games.
I like the way it is now because it gives freedom for people to giveaway the way they want, and still be rewarded (even tho I don't think this is about rewards), or recognized, or even labeled (for requirements purposes, for example) the same way.
Only thing I could think of, instead of getting rid of CV, is getting rid of group/private/whitelist giveaways and llet ave CV/rep/lvl, whatever the system is, decides the rest. Want a higher level to join the better GAs? Giveaway and level up! But that yes, has the most potential to turn SG into a game and destroy the sense of community, thinking of how many users use this.
I wouldn't like that. With so many users, you need those small communities. I like the groups, I like the puzzles, I like the whitelists. I like the fact that there is groups for people who gave a lot more than they won, I like the fact that there is a group for Brazilians, I like that there are groups for bundled games, I like that I can make a whitelist of people I like and giveaway only to them, but I also like to make public GAs (even tho they are becoming less and less interesting each day because of how many bad profiles wins some of my GAs, I still make some in the hope of making happy someone that can't really afford it or want that game that I don't).
To sum it up, what I like is the fredoom. EDIT: The freedom to decide where I giveaway my games and don't have to be thinking about getting more or less CV/rep/whatever because of where I did, for what lvl+ I did it, at which time of day I did it, etc
It would be the ultimate solution, but by far the most unpopular and controversial, and we would see chaos everywhere. And I would be one to raise a voice against it.
So yeah, there is ways around it, but not without changing all those micro-communities we love.
Comment has been collapsed.
The system is designed to reward and encourage more public giveaways, and to address the community's perception of unfairness when people raise their value with group giveaways and then use it to enter high-value contributor giveaways open to public entry. Providing less reward for group and private giveaways is intended. If you're making those kinds of giveaways, chances are that you already have access to a number of exclusive giveaways already.
Comment has been collapsed.
But there is no other way of doing that, without ruining groups/puzzles/trains/invite/whitelist, etc? That is not only encourage more public giveaways, but will kill all other types of giveaways as well.
And even tho I like the idea of encouraging more public giveaways, I don't think the rep+ system would work either. We will see a lot of "but I gave away the same game as user X and he got a lot way more rep+ than me! This is unfair!" and these kind of topics.
Also, how would the won games work, with ratio and stuff? How would people keep track of fairness? If I give a cheap but very popular indie game, like Terraria, Limbo or Binding Of Isaac, I would get tons of rep probably, that would make me fine to win a lot more in $ value but less popular games?
People will keep rationalizing and gaming the system.
If the idea is encourage more public giveaways, why not end with groups/invite/whitelist giveaways, and make it a true global community? Even tho I wouldn't like that, cause I like the freedom of choosing to where I will direct some giveaways, it would be the only way to encourage the public GAs without being unfair.
See, the CV system overall is good enough. I don't think how you guys could do better without more resources, be database, or human. You will get rid of some problems, but will get tons of another.
PS: When you guys talk about Russia and other regions, keep in mind that with the average salary in Russia you can buy way less than with the average salary in US. The region prices exists for a reason. If you simply convert the US$ in the regional currency, the games will be incredible more expensive.
There is a thing that everybody forgets when talking about region locks: Nobody is truly exploiting anything by giving region locked games, because the games they could eventually win by boosting their levels will also be cheaper in their countries.
I'm from Brazil, and US$100 is much more money for me than it is for US residents. US$100, simply converting to BRL, its 1/2 of the Brazilian the minimum wage, while its less than 1/3 of the US minimum wave. And if we talk about average wage, the difference is even much higher.
So lets say I pay R$40 for a game to giveaway, which converting for dollars would be like $10, for a game that will give me US$30 CV. When I win a US$30 game, it means I could have paid R$40 for it anyway.
The problem is about people who uses VPN and such to buy something from other regions and everything, but that is another problem and should be addressed in another way. There should be a way to check if someone is giving away a game from a region different than his. If someone ends up with a region locked game for other region in their hands, by any reason, they will always have the possibility to trade it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole second half of your post is irrelevant. Regional pricing has nothing to do with this. And like I said, people making private and group giveaways are almost certainly already getting access to more exclusive giveaways. Rewarding them for it with a system like this as well is basically letting them double-dip, which the community has generally viewed as unfair.
As far as people not liking if someone has more or less rep than they should, they can quite literally just fix it themselves. If the community isn't happy with someone's rep level, they can change it by repping them or removing it. That's one of the strengths of the system, not a weakness. I continue to be amazed at how many people keep trying to attack the best points of the system like they're flaws. I don't know if they're confused or just desperate to protect their 'investment.'
Comment has been collapsed.
The second half was only to address your comment about RoW giveaways and people exploiting it. Just wanted to point it out its not a matter of black or white, there is shades of gray in that discussion. That was almost off-topic.
About the rest well as far as I can speak for me, I prefer a system where I can think the less about these things. I would think it will be unfair if I get less rep than other users giving away the same games, because I'm not popular or I don't comment in every thread, or because I change profile pic often and people don't recognize me, whatever. I wouldn't like to have to giveaway more than others to get the same rep as them, to "fix" my rep. Just for a sense of justice. In every aspect of life where people get unfair advantages, I will be against it.
As I suggested in my first comment (I think it was the first), something that could've been done, is to make the CV of the oldest games you gave away decrease slowly over time. To prevent people reaching a level only for better giveaways and then stopping giving away. I've seen this multiple times and I BL a lot of people because of this.
This would encourage people to giveaway more often.
I do agree encouragement for public giveaways is needed, but not with the rep system. Maybe getting a % less of CV for group/private/whitelist giveaways? Like 20%, 30% less?
And the "strengths" and "weakness" of the system is debatable.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would like to make a case FOR the current system, if that's alright... Or at least say why I prefer it.
I'm a shy/not very talkative person, in respect to this and other online communities, and as such, relying on the actions of other people to increase my rep/level would be a big 'turnoff' for me. I like the CV system because I can safely sit back and create GAs in order to increase my level (and by extension my chances of winning) without going through the rigmarole of trying to impress the community with a bunch of empty comments in threads I don't really have anything to contribute to. :(
Just my 2 cents. If I think of something to expand on I will edit this post.
EDIT: Something else came to mind: I can't comment on it myself since I've only been a member for a few months, but people like OP seem to be bemoaning the general negative attitude this site has taken since CV was implemented, but have also noted that the userbase was much, much smaller back in the 'good old days'. In reality, this is a phenomenon that can be observed in virtually any society or group (online or not, but usually more noticeable online since it happens faster).
As a website's popularity and user count grows, many different types of people join and some of them are guaranteed to be 'bad apples' (especially in the eyes of existing members who were already quite comfortable with the existing small group) and would have complained about things no matter what system was in place. Therefore people blame the negative attitudes they sometimes see on the implementation of CV (which, from what I understand, coincided with an especially large increase in user count) rather than the natural progression of a group society.
Of course I am not dealing in absolutes here, just theorizing.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
While I am an active person on the forums, I don't think it's fair for people like you who just want to give and don't need to be known.
Having your 'level'/'rep' determined by others seems like a circle j... yeah you know where I'm going with that. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the idea is that you rep people on giveaway pages and through their user profile. While yeah you can pick up extra "+rep"s from posting on the forum, even a super popular user will pick up far more +reps from posting giveaways since only a minuscule fraction of the near one million users use the forums actively
edit: even when considering just ACTIVE users on steamgifts, just a minuscule fraction of those are active forumgoers. You do have to consider whether the average joe using the site will give rep to people for their giveaways, but I'm sure giveaway descriptions like "Don't forget to rep if you like this giveaway!" would be allowable since the whole point of the rep system is to gain rep from making giveaways :p
Comment has been collapsed.
Active user base is much, much lover - no-level public Fallout 4 GA gets 15k entries only. Private one posted on forum got 1,9k entries.
0,5-1k reps from forum popularity is quite significant
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but under their new guidelines this could be considered begging for rep. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
It could be, I guess wbarton would need to clarify that. I was under the impression he meant if you're asking for rep on the forums or steamgifts chat.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if in your group, you require it? They can't presume to take action on anything conducted outside of SG itself. As said to me by SG staff when I questioned them once bout harassment.
Comment has been collapsed.
I used the forums as an example. Under this proposed system, a GA creator would likely have to 'impress' people to get +reps, whether in a giveaway or elsewhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
What about the posts "I gaveaway the same game that the user X gaveaway and I got half of the rep, this system is unfair".
It could be because user X is more popular, it could be because user X is advertising the giveaway in other social medias, it could be because user X gaveaway the game in a time of the day where more people are on-line... etc
Comment has been collapsed.
+1.
CV is impartial and equal for everyone ... rep is not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Rep = Highschool again. IMHO.
I should stop saying that though. People will likely get irritated seeing it. Last time though!
=D
Comment has been collapsed.
Only a small minority of users ever even set foot in the forum. Most rep will almost certainly come from random people hitting the button on your public giveaways. 'Popularity' will only get you so far anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Users will have a button on their profile allowing other users to 'rep' them.
This is limited to one rep per user and is either on or off and may be toggled at any time by that user.
Giveaways created by users will feature a rep button which allows other users to rep them when looking at and entering their giveaways.
Multiple questions.
So is the rep via user profile the same as the one for the giveaways? Or do those count differently?
Ultimately this is limited by the number of active people joining giveaways and bothering to rep people?
So no more silent people doing giveaways OBJECTIVELY gaining levels but rather replaced by a SUBJECTIVE system that can be used to blackmail people or be sold in a way?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because how are you going to prove someone is blackmailing you in the first place?
I mean, unless it's on SG, how are they going to be sure you're not lying and reporting someone?
That's one of the other issues.
How do they know for sure that people are requiring it on groups outside SG?
And how do they know that if someone reports some hanky panky that it's actually valid and not someone just 'getting even' with someone for some reason?
This system has so much potential for toxicity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Everything toxic about trading can easily transfer over to gifting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rep is rep. If you rep someone on their profile or on one of their giveaways, it's the same thing. It all adds into the same number. And it's pretty much impossible for anyone to blackmail or threaten you or whatever. I don't even know where you're getting that idea. "You better do X or I'm not going to rep you!" is pretty stupid.
Also, just to be clear, it's just a number and has absolutely nothing in common with the trade feedback. It's not like anyone will be able to leave comments or anything. And nobody can see who has or hasn't repped anybody else, except that users can see if they've repped someone or not, of course.
Comment has been collapsed.
Blackmail was because I thought people can see it but ultimately it can be gamed to lock people out of giveaways if gibs can be set based on rep
Comment has been collapsed.
Before the contributor system had levels, people could set any dollar amount they wanted and people frequently set it at $30.01 so that people who only gave away bundle games couldn't enter. Setting entry values to troll people and shut them out is old news and something that people are going to do as long as they have a system that lets them limit their giveaways to some people and not others. If you have that much of a problem with it, then you should support nothing but public giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't get the logic behind why wanting to prevent people from gaming it would mean I'd only support public giveaways? I'm assuming rep system of yours works like CV where it can be set for a GA for you to qualify entry. I'm not against setting limits on who may enter giveaways. It's not the creator I'm trying to pinpoint but other people who had rep'd you and unrep you to increase their chances or to lower your rep. It's totally plausible.
Also, one wrong statement or negative sentiment on something you said can change the views of those who previously repped you and unrep you basically undoing the worth of your previous GAs subjectively. Items being bundled can be watched and monitored. But people's opinion of you coupled with an ability to constantly change your rep value, would limit people trying to discuss something if they don't want to offend sentiments. It would increase people joining groups because they'd be safe from fluctuating levels that would limit them from joining public giveaways. Like you said in another reply 2 great GAs can equal one person's 100 GAs but for either of them one wrong sentiment in the forums can undo that because rep given isn't static.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are people that blackmail devs for keys. It might be harder, but I can see a scenario where these users threaten people with removing rep.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable having what is essentially a measure of my popularity hovering over me at all times.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is anyone? Didn't we leave that behind in Secondary School? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
It's always there, it just manifests itself differently over the years it seems. Constant and anonymous judgement is something that puts me off posting on places like Reddit, though at least removing negative votes should mitigate that effect to some extent...
Also I don't think this rep system will work well with my chosen methodology of occasionally creating fairly high value giveaways and then hiding them such that only a handful of people who bother to look deeper will find them. I guess the idea is to encourage the greatest reach of generosity, but that isn't something I'm interested in.
Not that it really matters to me in the end given how few giveaways I enter these days, but I might as well throw my self interest into the ring for the sake of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. If I wanted to just give something away to everyone, I'll make Public GAs, but I LIKE making puzzles. So in that sense, I'll be penalized because some people don't want to do puzzles. Or some people aren't good at them. I do public GAs too sometimes, but the vast majority are mildly hidden for fun.
Comment has been collapsed.
nonono, this isn't going to work. keep the rep system like it is, the CV system works fine.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is an interesting idea, Wes.
My main concern would be that if it was implemented, existing users may feel hard done by, as everyone would effectively start off with a blank slate. (Wesley has confirmed outside of the forums that nothing would be applied retrospectively, as rep does not equal value of games.)
For example, I used to be pretty active with on the site and forums but stopped about two years ago. Might have picked up a fair bit of rep back then but now I'll probably never get higher than around 50, due to mainly sticking with groups. Wouldn't matter so much in this case though, as I would already have access to exclusive giveaways within groups (and I have enough games to keep me busy til I'm old and wrinkly), but it would probably make puzzles and Steam groups based on gifting less popular. Others may also get frustrated by the lack of a "rank" or whatever they feel they deserve for the amount of money they've put in, regardless of whether it was public or private.
However, this system would encourage better participation, more public giveaways and less drama, so not a bad solution. Just one that may not go down so well with some. We shall see...
Comment has been collapsed.
However, this system would encourage better participation, more public giveaways and less drama, so not a bad solution. Just one that may not go down so well with some. We shall see.
Better participation, probably. Public giveaways, until they farm enough. Less drama, unlikely specially in a subjective valuation scenario.
If people really just cared about gifting, then those exclusive groups with giveaways wouldn't exist in the first place. The only way this could be fair for everyone is if they remove group/invite only giveaways altogether and let rep truly work.
Comment has been collapsed.
If people really just cared about gifting, then those exclusive groups with giveaways wouldn't exist in the first place. The only way this could be fair for everyone is if they remove group/invite only giveaways altogether and let rep truly work.
I understand your point, but then would we also have to rule out whitelists for the same reasons?
Personally, if group, private and whitelist giveaways were removed, I would stop making them altogether. I've had enough bad experiences with public giveaway winners and entrants, and have heard of so many more from friends who have been very active on here for years. It would be impossible to maintain a blacklist that long.
I don't think that means I don't care about gifting, I just like having a little control over who wins a game I spent money on (often at full price) so have resorted to groups. I've also gifted via invite-only or puzzles on the forum, but haven't been as active on the site lately.
I'm not saying the rep system would definitely work, but I think it's a possible solution. As shown by this thread, we can't please everyone so we will just have to see what happens.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean I agree with the wanting to limit or control your entrants. I think that's why a lot of people join groups or enforce CV limits on their giveaways anyway.
There's a reason I want CV because it's basically not a popularity contest. It has an objective basis why your level is this way. Reps are just too subjective for my tastes. I mean if it works, sure why not but like you said you already have a safe haven for your giveaways, the rest have to be active to rise to your levels. Increases participation but can also force people out of their comfort zone.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't like the idea of rep. The issue is the same as we see in large trading rings. People trade +rep for +rep and it becomes meaningless unless closely examined. In fact, this issue is one of the reasons why trading is so toxic, because +/-rep is ultimately a tool that can be used to barter. There have been examples of people leaving -rep because of being -rep'ed for actually failing to uphold their end of the bargain or because they want a better deal. Now, granted, this only has +rep, but on the other hand there are also huge issues with +rep being scammed by groups or other nefarious lowlifes who find some way to game the system. I would on principle completely ignore rep because even if you ban the scammers there is little way to tell if someone legitimately +rep'ed someone for a giveaway they themselves didn't win or is trading in on a group or chat room or forum thread somewhere. I'd rather see what someone legitimately gave rather than what people think about them that can be faked. Also, someone could create a huge giveaway for some super popular game, get 1000's of entries with a ton of +rep, and then not deliver and laugh it off. Sure, the winner might notice, but most people wouldn't know unless the winner called out, which is against the rules. Boom, more drama happens, nothing is solved. There's also no significance to a rep. Someone could give away a dozen crappy bundle games and get +rep from everyone who enters or one really good game and get +rep from everyone who enters, while people who legitimately contribute over a long period of time would eventually begin to have no means to progress. Unless you can rep with every individual giveaway (which leads to issues of people just spamming giveaways for rep, and trust me, I would expect to see rep or blacklist descriptions in a world with a rep system) established members would plateau with no chance to distinguish themselves further.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, someone could create a huge giveaway for some super popular game, get 1000's of entries with a ton of +rep, and then not deliver and laugh it off.
Actually, easier than that: Just delete the giveaway right when it's about to end. Rake in those reps!
Comment has been collapsed.
The plateau effect is anticipated, and I don't consider it a problem. The possibility of the giveaway deletion exploit has been discussed and some possible solutions have been proposed, like having rep gained from giveaways flagged as such and not finalized until it's marked received and similar ideas. Nothing was settled on firmly because it wasn't decided to implement the system, but there are fairly simple workarounds.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmm how about: "Hey guys! Be sure to rep my profile too!"
Or are you going to consider that begging?
Comment has been collapsed.
That may depend on the context, but consider how readily people will use referrals if there's nothing in it for them and I think you'll agree it shouldn't be much of a problem. I think asking for rep outside of giveaway descriptions would count as begging same as asking people to whitelist you would, though. Off-site begging is, of course, a thorny issue that extends well beyond the scope of this discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Too complicated and too easy to abuse.. just make region only GA and DLC GA no contribution value.. and your problem will all disapear.
If a game is region locked. then it's Gifter's responsibility to let everyone joins know abuot it.. that's what i do anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is abuse possibility here too. They can make a regional group but still set the GA as ROW :/
Comment has been collapsed.
not really. there are tons of rucis groups which the high level rucis gibbers are part of. You could easily see through their winners how it's like the same 20-30 people winning their gibs from each other
Comment has been collapsed.
+1, and "smarter" ones try hiding behind private only GAs
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what blacklist is for if u find them.. i always check people i don't know from winning my game...
Comment has been collapsed.
Concerning what you say it's far from only rucis users that do that including the hiding behind private giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know but they're the most prevalent userbase that does it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The most or not my point is if rucis would be taking on about this then also should be any and all other SG users that are doing this and that includes some local SG celebrities that totally act like the very same way and manner like those of rucis.
Comment has been collapsed.
there are "SG celebrities" that CV farm using cheap rucis keys? Because it's not the group or invite only GAs that is issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
CV boosting/farming in private giveaways and in very small private groups were like you said in your initial post the same 20-30 are winning from each other really doesn't happen in rucis alone but also in row.
Comment has been collapsed.
True it can be construed like that but the same metrics won't apply. One is cost they aren't paying for it cheap. Two is limitation, technically everyone can get in on that action unless they're not just marking it as ROW despite being a regional GA. Like I said, I understand your POV but rucis farming is infinitely more cheaper AND most of them don't give back to the community. They're technically high level leeches of ROW GAs. The celebrities won't be celebrities if they hadn't done something for the rest of the community. Unless you're picking singling someone out of the dozens because it doesn't really constitute a norm.
Comment has been collapsed.
With al due respect and I'm certainly not singling out one user or trying to pick a fight with you but if you look at some rucis users stats and you look at some row users stats then basically they are mostly each other mirror image in most of the average Joe and Jill users purview including mine.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dnw I'm don't feel like you're picking a fight me. Like I said, I understand how you can see it that way but I've already pointed out how I see it differently. Ultimately, they're not contributing to the community by just doing all the regional GAs but I'm not going to say there isn't anyone in ROW guilty of the one you're trying to point out. Difference is in the ability to join them. If you're from rucis, that's great you have a chance but if not you can't participate unlike in the ROW version. All you have to do is figure out how to get in them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your understanding and your insights!
Comment has been collapsed.
the only solution to that would be that bundled games because of regional prices to give non-bundled CV only if they are public and ROW
Comment has been collapsed.
Would you like to reiterate that? cause I couldn't make sense of this.
Comment has been collapsed.
If a game is marked as bundled on SG because it is dirt cheap in a locked region, the only way to get the full CV of it is to create a public without region restrictions giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Clearer to understand but basically makes the game bundled in groups and invite only giveaways regardless if your key was ROW to begin with. It will just have be given as "bundled" then because people would still like to control who will get the game bundled or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, but, as you said, there is no easy solution for group / private giveaways.
The only viable one I can think of is hard to implement and only works for gifts: giveaway creator sends the gift to a bot; the said bot checks the gift and determines either it should be counted as bundled or not and sends the gift to the winner.
PS: Sorry for the hard to read text. I think in my native language and translate mot-a-mot to english when I'm tired. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I doubt that will happen. Another site used that method and valve cracked down on those bots.
Comment has been collapsed.
That would kill off pretty much the entire user base though outside NA and EU or rename the site BundleGifts. I wouldn't be surprised if someone said at least half of the non-bundle GAs here are CIS and SA.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well.. they just have to buy Row Gifts so it's available to all...
Comment has been collapsed.
It's simpler and harder to abuse. By design. Your statement is factually incorrect.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure! I totally just repped you! You can trust me! Honest!
I mean, do you think people will be able to see who repped them? I don't understand the point of your comment.
Comment has been collapsed.
You think the regular person who comes on the site will know exactly how the rep system works? How many people do we have on the forums (not to mention support tickets) asking how levels and CV work?
Comment has been collapsed.
I still don't see your point. This is a bad system because people will have to learn how it works? And to demonstrate that you point out how people already have to learn how the current system works? So they're both bad systems and any good system should be self-explanatory? This post isn't even connected to your rep blackmail post in any way that I can see. I know you're not an idiot, but I fail to see any argument here at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but in our current system, the giveaway creator isn't punished for the ignorance of other people. As long as they provide the game they get compensated.
In your system, giveaway creators have to rely on other members knowing how the system and rep works in order to be compensated at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
The blacklist post was just a joke that you're taking way too seriously
Comment has been collapsed.
If this rep system is the right system to have then why is it that very few people, if any, want any part of it? Is it that we all fear for the security of our investment? will you fully reimburse each and every one of us for our losses : )
I can't understand how a rep system would improve upon things, even though I have read almost every one of your comments and to be honest the more of your comments I read the less I understand and the more confused I get.
Now call me an idiot if you like and I really couldn't care less, because obviously you can see things differently from almost everybody else here like some sort of visionary savant.
I hope you don't mind the style in which I question you, It's just that a lot of us here are failing to quite grasp what your trying to discuss. As you're obviously already very well aware, having to reply to lesser mortals over and over and over.
And finally a very short speech. One moment... while I put on my beret ! ! !
"This is our site.. not just your site. I do not take kindly to people who crudely impose their ideals on others... that is dictatorial and borderline tyrannical. You have been warned" - CHVNGE
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm failing to see how having a system where people could get rep from bots is better than the CV system.
Also maybe I am missing something but "user-controlled exclusivity" seems like something that would be abused, for example a exclusive ga with 20 or less potential winners seems more suspicious than a ga open to all or a ga with minimal restriction (cv level, regions,etc)
Comment has been collapsed.
And I fail to see how you think people will get rep 'from bots.' I don't think you grasp what's being discussed.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are already scripts that enter giveaways for the user. How would you prevent a script from clicking the rep button?
Comment has been collapsed.
And how is that bot going to recode the site so it can rep the same user over and over again when there's only one rep per user per user?
Comment has been collapsed.
It was not my intention to suggest that a single bot can rep the same user. Your statement was that you failed to see how people would get rep from bots. So if I code a bot and distribute that code to others and they use it, it could click a rep button. If I create a giveaway with a rep button and someone has configured a popular script to be able to click the rep button then I am likely to get a lot of rep "from bots".
Comment has been collapsed.
So what? This isn't any different from being repped by a user manually except a script is doing it. I don't understand why it's even an issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
So.. I was answering your question and trying to help you see how people could get rep from bots. It was you who chose to address that part dcrockerjr's statement. I was merely trying to be helpful :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh. I thought maybe you were on about it yourself. Carry on!
Comment has been collapsed.
the whole point of bots is that you automate the process of creating more, there is rarely such thing as "a" bot, they come in armies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
Comment has been collapsed.
People will be getting hundreds or thousands of rep from public giveaways. The number of active bots likely doesn't exceed dozens at most. It gets lost in the noise, not that being repped by a script instead of manually by the user operating it is even an issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
In several of the giveaways I've seen the originator has complained about "thank you" bots and so clearly and bluntly stated that anyone that put a thank you in the GA would be permanently blacklisted by them, and yet the "thank you"s rolled in just like normal. Those are the bots the two main OP's want to have give them rep points. Do you still think I am missing the point?
Comment has been collapsed.
•This is limited to one rep per user and is either on or off and may be toggled at any time by that user.
•The accumulated value of rep may be used in the same way that contribution amount is used in contributor giveaways to limit entry to those who have an amount of rep equal to or greater than that which the giveaway creator chooses.
This is essentially the CV system, only people don't have to pay money, just get a mob of friends flock here and get access to the current "high-level" giveaways with zero effort. This would so much shift the majority of GAs to circlejerk groups there are no words in English for that. :(
Why doesn't the site's admin staff ever even mention a ratio-based system when these discussions come up? This is again a system where you just measure exactly one value to assign a "level" to a user. Same as the old "10 dollars or more (oh, you also took 5,000 dollars worth? doesn't matter, come anyway)" giveaways, the same as the current "level only measured by sent stat" system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rep sistem? fantastic
It will be like returning to school, where everything good happens to you as long as you are popular
I guess its time to bring my magic deck and assume my place in the hierarchy
Comment has been collapsed.
Fuck, people have hundreds of close friends? I really am a loner.
Comment has been collapsed.
i think instead it would make people very hypocritical and go for a fake positive behavior just to get good ratings. also i think that it would discriminate others. i got a my little pony nickname and profile picture and am not planning to change it. see what I mean ? ratings would be influenced by non-neutral behaviors and nickname/profile picture displayed. this could lead so somebody who gave away 1 game to have more 'powers' than somebody else who gave away 100 games because the first is "socially" popular while the other one is totally not. it would ruin the principles of neutrality and independance of giving away games to put them on the side of looking cool in the forums and on your profile. also i find that valueing donations by their entries number is a so stupid thing, because in the end there is one winner per copy to win and nothing more, be it a 50 entries giveaway or 50 000. for that i find this system idea very bad
now for the current system i'm pretty happy with it. most games i give away here are games that are bundled because i'm rarely interrested in all the games that a bundle contains. it is known that the bundle can be bought for a low amount of money and the value is then lowered accordingly. people who gave away games prior to their known "deal" keep the full value of it, and others can be aware of that value drop if they even plan to buy the game to give away in the future. it lets people like me not being considered like craps because "lol you didnt pay much for this" and still have our donations taken in account for higher levels. this, unlike the system idea suggested in this thread, concentrates more (but not totally) the thing around actual donations (like it is now) and not what people have in their minds
i think people like OP are actually the greedy ones, more interrested in where do the gifts come from and their little self levels and taken-as privileges than the gifts themselves. praying generosity over greed and actually hunting for the bad ones who could have had a game 75% of its price ready to bark like hungry angry dogs protecting their bones
sorry for english
Comment has been collapsed.
As I've said elsewhere, most rep can be expected to come from public giveaways where it will be given mostly by people who never even visit the forum. 'Popularity' will have only a small effect.
And, frankly, if people who like to use the forum as their own private punching bag or drama theater get shut out of more exclusive giveaways as a consequence of their shitty behavior, then it's working as intended. In the real world, if you're a dick, there are consequences. There's no reason that shouldn't be the case here. Maybe some of those people would even take their toys and go home, along with the people who exploit the current system and treat their giveaways as an 'investment' and think they're owed something. Good riddance.
Comment has been collapsed.
And yet, the internet is not like the real world, in that here people are happy to use their quasi-anonymity to field all kinds of passive-aggressive and judgemental things. It's completely dickish to loudly judge someone for their appearance, but on the internet, laughing in someone's face for having an avatar of something unpopular can actually create a miniature avalanche of similar dickish chortles. Being a bit of an ass on the internet may not have exclusion effect you're thinking of. If anything, people who love to get on their soapbox and rant about various fandoms, groups and so forth are just as likely to gain rep than lose it. Rep would be a global currency with no allowance for 'flavour'. Even people who are a bit dickish can be popular, even if their appeal isn't universal.
I mean, this is gamers we're talking about here. Most of us gamers can't even handle the responsibility of taking part in a votekick, let alone considering the implications of a +1 flag. \:3/
Comment has been collapsed.
and don't you believe these people who "treat their giveaways as an 'investment' and think they're owed something" can also be those willing that system ?
how about the rep system related to giveaway entries ? i've talked about that but you completely avoided that point
anyway i think the current system and way better than what's suggested here aka "meh many people don't like that game so you'll get low rep because nobody enters it" or "woow so many people enter for this game ++++++ rep", this would deviate from the point of giving things and the levels system
Comment has been collapsed.
Compose a coherent post and I'll respond to it. I'm not replying to people who obviously don't understand what's going on, who can't communicate their ideas clearly enough to be understood, or who repeat things I've answered elsewhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
i think people like OP are actually the greedy ones, more interrested in where do the gifts come from and their little self levels and taken-as privileges than the gifts themselves. praying generosity over greed and actually hunting for the bad ones who could have had a game 75% of its price ready to bark like hungry angry dogs protecting their bones
The last giveaway I entered was on October 30th, 2013. I have so much to gain from the CV system being a level 8, yet I want it to be removed. I would argue that I am not greedy.
Comment has been collapsed.
ready to bark like hungry angry dogs protecting their bones
This made me laugh. Still have no idea what your point is though...
Comment has been collapsed.
As someone fairly new to SG and that will probably never get past lvl 4+ for reasons (and could potentially get more 'profit' from a rep system) I'm totally comfortable with the current system. Rep, karma or whatever you name it doesn't work. It even discourages different opinions. People will refrain from making a comment against a high rep user fearing retaliation.
Would only add options for types of GAs (ratio or something like that). Or use the steamdb price depending on the region to avoid CV abuse (but that is a lot of work probably)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think pretty much everything has ben said (I won't read every single reply to the post), I just wanna say for the record; this "rep" system is a bad idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
But then you would only need 2-4 good giveaways to try and reach the most people and wouldn't have to bother with making giveaways ever again, as you would already get all the rep you might need. As you've said there are very few people that are active on the site and might remove their rep after a while of inactivity from the person, the rest won't care and just leave the rep.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly. So far I have yet to read any valid arguments (based at least on numbers and/or educated approximations/guesses) as to why the rep-system would be an improvement at all.
Adopting a new system would require it to have merits of its own other than reasons why the person suggesting it doesn't like the current system.
Quite frankly it has similar or even the same problems as the current systems, offers workarounds for those problems....just like the current system can have with the appropriate effort.
My two cents would be to improve the current system on the spots were it is lacking. Otherwise you're just going for a new system based on gut-feeling to find out later it isn't that much better and then having to start over again. (And the current system definitely has enough potential with the right improvements added to it)
Now if there was a new proposed system that actually has its own merits and positive improvements then it would be a different story..but that just is not the case.
Comment has been collapsed.
So the way I'm understanding this it has some serious flaws and I can almost assure you (as evidenced by the above comments) that many of the active SG users will not like it. So here goes:
-
The points in this system are relatively finite. They are restricted by the amount of people that regularly enter GAs and would even bother clicking the +rep, while the current system doesn't theoretically have a point cap. (Sure Level 10 is the max right now but that can always be increased/adjusted.)
-
A person who gives away one or two games can theoretically be at the same level as a person who has given away hundreds.
-
You are heavily deincentivizing all giveaways outside of public, non-restricted giveaways as these will net you the most +reps (as it broadens the potential audience of users that haven't already +rep'ed you). This in essence makes the entire system pointless as the rewards for giving away games (the primary incentive in this system) will steadily decrease as those giveaways aren't the ones that will reward the giveaway creator.
-
I would also like to point out that this system would also be discriminating against users in those countries that are forced to give away region-restricted games due to region locks as those giveaways would most likely have far less potential entrants.
-
The subjective base of this whole system makes it extremely inaccurate. With CV you know what the degree of inaccuracy is, but with rep you don't. You don't know how the person is getting their rep or if a person isn't getting rep that should. Turning the site into a guessing game whenever you make a GA as you don't know if you will be given the appropriate compensation.
Comment has been collapsed.
-
Not an issue. I would regard people complaining about their rep plateauing in the same way I would regard someone who is now level 10 whining about there not being more levels.
-
Again not an issue. If one or two games gets you that much rep, they must have been truly outstanding giveaways (not that I'm at all convinced your numbers are anywhere close to accurate).
-
Private and group giveaways already have their own incentives for the most part. People who get rewarded for them with a system like this are essentially double-dipping. So, again, not an issue. A feature, in fact.
-
The way Valve handles regional pricing is shitty and there's not a lot we can do about it. There are already huge issues surrounding it with the current system. This would at least be an improvement, though I admit it's not perfect.
-
Accuracy isn't relevant, since there's nothing to be inaccurate. As a general measure of community sentiment, it can only be inaccurate if the community reps someone they actually don't like or elects not to rep someone they do, which is absurd. One of the strengths of the system is that the community has the power to control and enforce it themselves without staff intervention.
Comment has been collapsed.
-
But with this system it seems like it would be much easier to plateau your rep than it would be to reach Level 10 in the CV system. (Would also like to mention that new users would not have access to the +rep of old users that left the site before they joined, giving them an immediate disadvantage.)
-
They were just sample numbers, but the sentiment is the same. A handful of outstanding games doesn't make you a good, active member of the community, but with this system it would probably get you a lot of points. Also, from the information you've provided us, those that have given away hundreds of games right now will start with nothing. Meaning that, yes, someone who has given away a few games can have the same rep as someone that has given away hundreds.
-
Of course there is the incentive of better odds, but you're still punishing people for wanting to direct their giveaways towards an audience they believe better deserves it. I for one make puzzles and I spend a lot of time and money to set them up, and I usually put level restrictions on my puzzles/giveaways. I simply don't want people that don't care about this site or the community to win the games. Because of this I could have a much lower rep than a person who does a few public giveaways because I have a fraction of the audience that they do.
-
How would this be an improvement? A person in a region locked country would have a much smaller audience from whom they would get the majority of their rep from than a person in a non-region locked country. While a everyone in the current system is compensated equally no matter where they live.
-
How is accuracy irrelevant and how is this system not inaccurate? When dealing in the realms of subjectivity we can all be certain that everyone will have a different experience. This system will basically be anarchy with people doing as they please with it. You have next to no rules as to how a person can be given rep and you have no way to guarantee that someone will have the same experience from giving away the same game.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you touch it I'ma start some drama,
You don't want no drama,
No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama
So don't pull on my hand boy,
You ain't my man, boy,
I'm just tryn'a dance boy,
And move my hump.
Comment has been collapsed.
"For the most part it works okay"
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't say I know how it used to be. I'm not necessarily opposed to trying a site with no CV system but at the same time I don't think it'd change all that much. If anything I feel like a number of people will just move to strictly (or at least a lot more frequently) whitelist/group giveaways and as you said use their own "Contributor" system there.
Comment has been collapsed.
If people move to whitelist/group giveaways as a replacement for the contributor system, this ultimately gives the giveaway creators more power to decide who gets access to their giveaways. No bundle list drama, no support tickets about losing levels/CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
And SleepyCat can finally get a good night's rest.
Comment has been collapsed.
What is needed for better control is custom rules. Groups are best replacement we currently have, but all that can be said is it's better than nothing. The question is, if custom rules are no-no because of reroll tickets or there are other reasons as well? If it's 'only' the former I think it is possible to reduce that number significantly (with some changes to site code, and way how thecustom rules work)
Comment has been collapsed.
So what you're saying is, support is willing to trash the quality and respectability of the site, just so they don't have to deal with as many support requests.
Gotcha.
Snarkyness aside [though entirely serious], that you all can't see all the phenomenal issues the system you're presenting has, suggests you all are presenting it terribly, or just have very little grasp on how the system functions, or what users like about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
What are you talking about?
I said:
If people move to whitelist/group giveaways as a replacement for the contributor system, this ultimately gives the giveaway creators more power to decide who gets access to their giveaways. No bundle list drama, no support tickets about losing levels/CV.
I mean that if we get rid of the system entirely, whitelist and group giveaways seem like a working alternative to me. Lack of support tickets about the level decreasing / contriboosting / exploits is just a nice bonus.
Comment has been collapsed.
wbarton posted what he posted on his own from what I can tell. If they were presenting this formally I'm sure it would be an official post by cg detailing the system. (assuming when you say "system" you mean the rep system that wbarton posted)
Comment has been collapsed.
wbarton stated it was official: "it has remained generally unknown that an alternative system has been discussed and planned out to the point that little else besides coding and implementation need be done"
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pretty sure he posted it on his own. I hadn't heard of this in detail before, just in some offhand comments.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for the clarification. =O
That's certainly a relief to hear- I'm not really invested one way or another, but that system in particular sounded.. unfortunate. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
It was one of a dozen ideas discussed before the new site, that we decided against in favor of the current CV system.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why I think the current system works. There are ways to implement all of the OP's suggestions using whitelist/groups without needing to do any more work! Just, uh, don't destroy the current CV system, because it's an important metric in the system. (Yes, you can just count up the giveaways people do, but being able to see CV level lets us tell how much people give bundled stuff, which is an important metric for some people.)
Comment has been collapsed.
You came here when it was a small town with a dirt road and a posse.
Now it's a metropolis with a transit system, suburbs and gangs.
You want to turn it into a town again?
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally, I'd prefer to get rid of the current system or replace it with a different one. I believe it creates more problems than it solves, and newer problems keep popping up even if we slowly try to weed out the old ones. I believe that the replacement contribution system (if any) should not be directly tied to the store price of the games.
So my vote is for replacement for now.
Comment has been collapsed.
wouldn't be great if we created a new system where I was the only one that could enter giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
N-no. Please don't break things. -_-
Yeah, the current system has issues, but it's functional on a fundamental level. There are loopholes and bugs and stuff, but the grass isn't always greener on the other side. As it is, CV is a useful metric to measure user involvement and how much stuff, generally speaking, people give away. Yeah, it can be exploited, but for the most part it's a functional system.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is, more and more issues arise as time goes on. If we do not replace or at least change the system in the nearest future, I have a feeling that we'll have a boatload of new issues on our hands after this year's Winter sale.
Comment has been collapsed.
games being bundled due to massive discounts I assume. could be just 80% but in rus/india that''s enough difference in currency value that it's around 95% for them compared to the $ pricing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games are added to the bundle list due to currency conversion rates. Volatile currency + winter sale = half of Steam store is bundled.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, I didn't think about that. I vote for bundling all the games!
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't been a member as long as you have, Monu, but did join up just over 3 years ago. I used to love it here - there was a real sense of community, and it says a lot that the majority of my Steam friends are people I met here in the forums and still chat or play games with occasionally.
It was not long before I stopped actively using the site or forums mainly due to the drama caused by CV or frustration at those trying to game the system, and the fact that it was progressively getting worse. The last non-private/group giveaway I made was in April 2013.
I agree with your post and hope others will actually read it properly before voting. I feel it's too late to remove CV altogether - a lot of users are so invested in it, but do agree that a replacement or fix should be seriously thought about.
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel it's too late to remove CV altogether - a lot of users are so invested in it, but do agree that a replacement or fix should be seriously thought about.
I can understand the sentiment, as there definitely would be a large amount of backlash. I can definitely understand that such backlash might not make it worth removing the CV system for cg and support (as well as for the community even), but optimistically there would be better days on the horizon. Sadly, I think that the people gaming the system and the ones treating SteamGifts like it's a job/trading site are the ones that will complain the loudest, and they are the ones ruining the fun of the site in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why not have two systems in place. The current one would die pretty fast on its own..
Comment has been collapsed.
That's very true.
I seem to be at level 9.75 (levels weren't even a thing the last time I was on here...) and I couldn't care less if it was dropped. That being said, I don't think it's something they would want to do due to the backlash it would cause. Perhaps a fix or replacement would go down better and could help change things gradually.
Glad to see some serious responses and suggestions coming through on this thread!
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, there's a lot of old users I haven't seen here anymore, probably because of this system. Everyone was too busy making giveaways just to raise their CV so the sense of community got lost a little. There's still a good community here with new people though. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hello! o/
Good to see some old faces still around here!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm fairly new here so I don't have the point of reference that you do but, while I don't post a lot of comments myself, I do read the forum daily and I feel like there is still a good sense of community among the active forum users. Sure there are some negative threads about CV, rule-breakers, etc. but as with any forum it' easy to ignore the toxic threads in favor of the rest.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think contribution "points" should be awarded in dependence on the number of giveaway entries meaning the better / most wanted games would be given away more no matter if they were bundled or not (bundling a game doesn't make it worse or less enjoyable). So even if someone wants to misuse the system, they would have to do it with the games people want. And so that everyone doesn't make only month long giveaways, there could be a multiplier tied to lengh of the giveaway meaning the shorter the giveaway the higher the multiplier, so they get rougly the same amount of points no matter the lenght.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like this idea... but I need someone to give all my unwanted (and potentially terrible) bundle games too!
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem here is that it would create issues for people who create puzzle & general forum GAs. They would not get as rewarded as people who make public GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
And what happens to private or smaller group giveaways? The majority of my giveaways are private for the forum users, and quite a few puzzle, so not many entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends, there could be different multiplier for group and private giveaway and on top of that one tied to what is currently contribution value. Problem is some people think it's "unfair" to give to only small private groups and those giveaways should be rewarded less/not at all. In the end it depends on admin's decision, but this would at least solve "bundled games" and "at least 5 entries to gain CV" problems i think.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is one idea we talked about last year. A few concerns that came up...
- How does this work with invite only giveaways? You tried to cover this above, but it's not an easy one to solve.
- Time of day affects the number of entries, not just the giveaway length. A user can receive double the entries with a one hour giveaway during peak hours, compared to off peak hours. This means the system needs to start considering the time of day, or activity level on the site to determine the multiplier.
- The difference in entries isn't always proportional to the games value. A bundle game worth 50 cents might receive 400 entries, while a $15 game might receive 800 entries in that same time period. This would be a 30x difference in price, but only a 2x difference in entries. In this situation, a user would be much better off giving away lots of cheaper bundle games, which is the opposite of what we want to see.
- The number of entries doesn't decrease fast enough when a game is bundled. If Fallout 4 is bundled right now, a user could give away a number of copies over the next day or two, and still receive a high value for each giveaway. Users quickly taking advantage of bundled games would receive a high CV for a low cost this way.
- DLC such as Fallout 4 Season Pass might be highly desirable, but receive a similar number of entries to a bundle game. The system would need to start looking at the percentage of active users that own the base game to help accurately determine the value of the DLC giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I don't know how big are differences in number of users during time of the day, but about the actual reward - it doesn't have to be continual proportion in relation to any possible variable. Just imagine it as a chart curve that you can edit to your liking. For example the reward can go steeper up above 400 entries and even steeper after 1000 entries. The only problem I guess would be to find and implement propper mathematical function. And about the speed of entries change - well that's how demand for the certain game fluctates in reality. So if Fallout 4 was bundled and someone did a lot of giveaways of it, lots of people would be happy about that and the giver would be properly rewarded for it. Similarly like they would get lots of rep+'s in your proposed system. Or do you want to say that you don't want to have lots of Fallout 4 giveaways here (even if bundled). Eventually bundled games could be affected by some reward decrease, but less than they are now, since they would be allready affected by number of entries. The only problem I see in this system is, that someone who would give away a good game from brand new bundle would get more points than someone giving away the same game under same conditions few days later.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well that's quite an interesting suggestion but if we have complaints now about bundle games being added later on and people going backwards in levels, this system might create a whole new universe of complaints... Unfortunately, no system is going to make everyone happy.
Comment has been collapsed.
To the last point: That's the example of high value low popularity giveaway. I don't know if such giveaway would be much wanted since in the first place most people don't have the base game (without which it would be useless to them and they can't enter it anyway). But in relation to your proposed system: Do you think giver would get lot of +reps for such giveaway?
Comment has been collapsed.
- I think it works pretty well in general - the narrower the target demographic, the lesser the reward. It's a choice whether I want to boost my level or reward big contributors. Only puzzle rewards are treated unfairly (but that is also a case with hard ones and min 5 entries rule).
- No need for that imo. If one wants more entries, makes GA last longer - again wider reach is rewarded more
- Entries only measure roughly how much particular game is wanted. What needs to be added is multiplying it by price (ie, lowest recorded to date). Bonus from such calculation is that regional price differences start being insignificant. It still needs some workaround for Steam api bugs to be devised and keeping track of bundles
- That what bundle list is for - not a neat solution. Alternatively blacklist should be enough for abusers on higher levels
- This is valid concern and I don't have good answer for it now. But if base game is not widely owned then overall desirabiliy across the site is also kind of low
The cv value should also drop with time via exponential decay function to encourage continuous giving but I don't know if it's worth the drama it would make.
Comment has been collapsed.
An addenum to my reply. There is a hard road to take so there is good chance it will work ). First let users come up with ideas how the system should work. Something like this thread begins to. Then pick couple different approaches and let discussing details of each. Last step is implementing 2-3 of them to be used alternatively with the current system and actually see what works, what is used widely and after 3-6 months of testing and tweaking leave one or two most 'liked' or least problematic ones.
This would take about 1 year and put extra strain on you and the servers, but may actually end up with something most users are satisfied with
Comment has been collapsed.
WARNING This suggestion for a replaced CV system does not make the CV system more simple, but more complicated. At least for most people.
Why do I suggest it anyway? IMHO it solves CV farming with games nobody really wants and accounts for peaks during bundles.
Basic idea:
(number of entries)/(number of user) x (1+(number of wishlists the game is on)/(number of users)) x 1/(numbers of GA for that game created in the +3(?) days and -3(?) days)
For explanation below let's call it A/BxCxD
(Only viable if historical data is available, to convert current levels.)
A: The more people enter, the higher the reward.
Possible modifications:
sqrt() - High reward going from a few to some entries but flatten the reward for huge number of entries. In general GAs with low entry numbers are favoured against a high entry count.
()^2 (or 1.5) - GAs with many entries are (much) favoured.
B: Number of entries should be normalised to keep numbers small. A cap at an arbitrary number (50,000?) might be a good idea to keep numbers from getting too small. Another possibility would be the week's peak unique users.
C: If a game is on many wishlists it is desired and should be rewarded.
Concerns about early bundle adopters getting an advantage i) see D, ii) why not? Why not reward early adopters? Most big bundles launch at given times (more or less), so everybody desperate enough to spam F5 can farm "CV".
Changing the exponent to >1 or <1 can favour much wanted or relatively unknown games.
Why "1+..."? If a game is on 0 wishlists, it still gives "CV".
D: Changes are possible here:
- Why +/-3 day (or 5 or 10..) and not all-time? If a game was in one bundle a long time ago, there might be new demand now. If people saved their keys from that bundle they are lucky (Might need a global blacklist for games from Humble before the $1 rule).
- going for X/(...) with X > 1 would encourage to give away hidden gems.
- changing to "numbers of GA for that game created in the last 3(?) days" would give the possibility to get an exact "CV" when creating the GA but would ruin a smoothing in bundle peaks.
Further possible factors:
Further factors for public/group/private should not be needed due to the number of entries.
As an occasional puzzle maker, I would love something to boost puzzle GAs CV, but think most puzzlers can survive without a boost.
A factor of 1/(duration in hours) could be added. I would prefer such a factor only for GAs longer than 1 day.
My biggest concerns are the server load and the impact on the existing levels. I did not do any calculations but it might screw some users and drive of some users.
The serverload might require factors to use 30 minute averages for the number of wishlists and other parameters.
Direct answer to cg:
1) Are there that many private GAs that are not trains or puzzles that care for CV?
Open trains should receive sufficient entries.
For puzzles: let GA creators set a HTTP_REFERER to verify it is a puzzle and give a puzzle multiplicator.
If it is not working an "invite only" multiplicator can be added later.
2)So what? If I want to get entries in peak hours, I set my GA accordingly.
3) Cheap games will not be on so many wishlists, so that factor is going to be small. Cheap games that are given away too often will decrease in CV, if you take the number of GAs for the game in a given timeframe into account.
4) Timeframe again. As mentioned above the drawback is that you will get your "CV" only after a given number of days, when the number of GAs for that game in the timeframe is calculated.
5) If the DLC is on a high number of wishlists everything is fine.
I doubt the system is viable, due to the number of calculations necessary and the lack of transparency for users without a sense for math.
Comment has been collapsed.
One problem with this idea is that if you want to reward generous users by creating a giveaway with a high points threshold, you have to sacrifice your own ability to gain more points to do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
That doesn't have to be an issue, since you can have another multiplier proportionally increasing reward with point threshold. I think this multipliers system could work like LEGO. You want to change reward for given conditions? Just add or edit related multiplier to your liking.
Comment has been collapsed.
so whats the problem ?
you want to give games to generous ppl, ok
so why not make them private or in a closed group ?
i just dont get it
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm a higher level member and it might seem that I have more to lose by dumping the current CV system - but I don't think I can support it at this stage.
There are too many people trying to game the system and then too many people getting really upset when they lose CV for exploited games. In practice it works as a system of perverse incentives that effectively punishes people for making 'good' giveaways - such as new AAA games that will soon drop in price or games that are on the bundled list because of some glitch but are still heavily wishlisted by many people. I think it mostly just means the site gets flooded with whatever the cheapest way to gain CV is rather than games that people would like and at worst generates a level of antagonism between users.
There are arguments in favour of the CV system - dropping it might mean less giveaways or more private and group giveaways as an alternative. And I don't want to seem hypocritical as I got put off low-level or no-level giveaways very early on due to the problems I had and moved to at least level-based giveaways just to make sure that people understood why it was important to mark stuff as received rather than try and reward anyone. But personally I certainly wouldn't mind a huge overhaul.
Comment has been collapsed.
dropping it might mean less giveaways
It might be counterproductive for a site to encourage less of what it was designed to do, in this case for SG to remove CV and cause fewer games to be given away, but while quantity is easy to measure it shouldn't be the only metric. A better community is also important. I think CV favours (giveaway) quantity over (community) quality.
Points used to regenerate very slowly which forced users to be more selective about which giveaways they entered. If there were fewer giveaways then people would again be more selective about which giveaways they entered.
Personally I'm not on much and don't bother spending many points so no matter which system is used it's not going to significantly alter how many games I'm likely to gain from this site, so I'm not arguing for the removal of CV due to being a relatively low level user.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you make some good points. Less giveaways could actually be a good thing in terms of community (and if not that then server load). I think points regeneration is a separate issue because it could be adjusted without any other changes.
I rarely use my points so I wouldn't mind myself if points regeneration was reduced -but I suspect people who genuinely wanted games would still be badly outnumbered by bots and scripts though, possibly even by the same factor (bots, scripts and more selective users would all have to reduce their entries accordingly but would still remain present relative to each other in the same numbers and on average would still be entering each individual public giveaway in the same ratio).
Maybe if users such as myself who rarely used their points allotment entered more giveaways under an altered system it might skew things away from less discriminate users (and/or their scripts) but that is assuming any changes would lead to a significant improvement in giveaway quality (which isn't guaranteed) and statistically significant numbers of highly discriminatory users (which is unknown).
So in conclusion - I dunno.
Comment has been collapsed.
Current system is imho unfixable. Only replacement would do. Rough version could be something like this:
- Contribution value would be entries received multiplied by store price. This mitigates significantly regional pricing problems (real price is lower but at the same time user base eligible to enter is smaller too). Also it's incentive to step out of private groups more often
- accumulated CV value is reduced with time using exponential decay function - this would reflect more accurately how actively one contributes
This solutiond has it's drawbacks. First that comes to mind is it hits puzzlemakers hard, and I can't see easy way to mitigate it (besides whitelisting, but that's not systemic(?) approach)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I'm dumb, but I don't get it... What's the problem with buying a 4pack, and giving away the three remaining games?
Comment has been collapsed.
I probably didn't explain it properly. The users already had the game on Steam redeemed to their account, but SteamGifts hadn't synced yet so the site didn't think they owned it and they would enter these giveaways intentionally to give the creator contribution value. I am not sure on some of the details as I'm not a support member but obviously one 4pack alone wouldn't work since a giveaway needs 5 entrants for CV to be rewarded. This happened some months ago and there was quite a bit of drama about it on the forums and something similar to what I just said is what was listed as an explanation by a few different members. I know the person making the giveaways was permanently banned as well as all the entrants that were participating in the feedback fraud
Comment has been collapsed.
That's just because you are a devoted BARBIE FOLLOWER!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
Fuck yeah. There we go, that's the comment I've been scrolling to see. In my opinion, CV is an extra feature, but the gifting will still be the same whether or not the CV system exists or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know that most of people will hate me for that, but I'd just suggest moving to private giveaway group instead.
Look at me, and my Touhou Giveaways. I invented my own system with my own rules, my own tools (bot) and my own website. I invite people I feel are worthy, and we're all having great time giving away and winning games in a nice small group of friends. We don't care that much about the actual point system, hence, I won Shadow of Mordor GOTY today in my group for 0 group value (free giveaway). There are just people that love my system so much that they're giving away AAA games for no real profit or gain.
CV system has many flaws, and is definitely no way to go, but it's unlikely that you can invent or suggest anything better, apart from removing it totally. And removing it totally is definitely negative because it's a step back instead of step forward. I'd say, just accept that public SG system will always have flaws and will be always possible to exploit, more or less, by more or less people. There are just people who want to keep it nice and fair (like me), and those who boost their accounts with cheap unbundled RU/CIS gifts just for boosting CV purpose. That's a difference between public and private giveaways. Public giveaway can be called trash with regifters, rule breakers, fake giveaways, RU/CIS CV boosters, and many other negative things. CV is there to at least TRY to filter all of that, so I can make sure that only people who meet some criteria can join my giveaway.
Also, cg is unlikely to implement any changes, there are ton of better suggestions already finished and ready to go, and your issue doesn't even have any good solution, so you can yell about it as loud as you want, nothing is going to change anyway. Nothing would change even if you somehow invented a solution without drawbacks. That's why I say, invent solutions yourself instead of asking people to do something. Build your whitelist, join good groups, and enjoy what's the most important instead of being angry at people abusing the system.
Comment has been collapsed.
And removing it totally is definitely negative because it's a step back instead of step forward.
Well, that's a matter of opinion, I know I might not be in the majority, but I know I'm not alone when I say I think no CV system is better than the current CV system.
And this is why my solution is to remove it. I didn't not present a solution, you just fail to see it as one. I already have my own solutions, but it doesn't solve the problem of the CV system making the community/site more toxic, it just solves the problem of my own giveaways not being won by people gaming the system.
I'd say, just accept that public SG system will always have flaws and will be always possible to exploit, more or less, by more or less people. There are just people who want to keep it nice and fair (like me), and those who boost their accounts with cheap unbundled RU/CIS gifts just for boosting CV purpose.
For sure, but it's become far far worse since the implementation of the CV system.
If I may quote wbarton from the thread two years ago on this same topic:
This place used to be a lot less asshole-y before [the introduction of the CV system]. Was there some of that? Yes, of course. It's the internet after all. But after the contributor system was put in place, it was dialed up to eleven. Now every other thread and comment and support ticket is somebody pissing and moaning about something to do with their value or someone else's value, and every other suspension is somebody catching it because they were trying to exploit value somehow. The system would be fine if people weren't so shitty, but since they are, it has to go, or it's just going to keep on like this forever.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that community became more toxic with CV system, but it was implemented MOSTLY because of more and more users using the site, and more and more work for support regarding custom join rules, which as you probably know were allowed back then.
It's just a response to the problem. When my group was small enough, I also had a bunch of mods/admins that managed google doc with giveaways, ratios and everything for me, but when group became more popular and giveaways started to be arriving in hundreds per day, I had to invent something better - such as my ArchiBoT which would automatically track all of that stuff, decreasing work for my staff and allowing them to come up with group suggestions rather than doing boring tasks related to group maintenance.
Likewise, CV system was supposed to help things and decrease work for staff. And it did work, to some point. I totally agree with you that the system has flaws, is easily exploitable, but inventing better one is very hard, if ever possible, and removing it is step back to those ancient times, which would probably not be ever possible due to the amount of SG users and all of the things that happened since then.
Comment has been collapsed.
but it was implemented MOSTLY because of more and more users using the site, and more and more work for support regarding custom join rules, which as you probably know were allowed back then.
Not really. Why did it need to be implemented?
Is there any reason why they couldn't have just done this:
-Bundle games can be given away (for full value on your contribution stat)
-No custom rules on giveaways (which is how it is now)
These were simple ways to fix the problems at the time without adding CV, but the site opted to go the route of CV. The CV system was added as more than just a response to a problem... it wasn't necessary. It's not to say the idea wasn't without merits and that there weren't good intentions...there were, it just hasn't worked out as good as it looked on paper.
Comment has been collapsed.
It sounds more like you're just advocating the removal of the bundle CV system while still calculating CV. The issue is people don't typically check "real CV" anyway and so on. Someone the other day was talking about my $4.8k CV, and I laughed a little. Bundle games don't deserve to be full CV (also price exploited, etc.) because they don't represent actual charity, they often (unfortunately) represent someone CV boosting; heck, I do it with bundled games anyway. It's not a problem that they're bundled. In fact, I would say this is a necessary solution. As someone who was around "before" the change, bundled giveaways were being a problem, and there were tons of problems outside of that. If people are giving for CV, let them have to work for it. Otherwise, just give games that you want to give to people. It's not a problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, what I'm advocating is the site reverting to a simpler form. When I say things like still having the contribution stat, I just mean it's okay for that "Value of gifts sent" stat to still be user profiles. I'm fine with that being calculated with full value, maintaining the bundle list is hard enough let alone doing so in a fair manner with all the issues cropping up with regional giveaways. I think going back to the old ways is a good thing, let private and group giveaway creators judge a users contribution manually rather than trying to maintain a fair system via the site itself.
Bundled giveaways were only a problem because they weren't allowed at all. It was against the rules entirely. This site has never existed in a state where there was NO contribution system (with contribution giveaways) AND bundle games being allowed to be given away.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, issues with the bundle list are mostly because people don't like the 95% algorithm because of regional pricing. Other bundle list issues are usually just people who have opinions about things. Essentially, though, what this does is make CV level meaningless because I don't know who just bought five of every bundle and dropped them (and if you remove the 5+ CV reduction things go even further to hell, because I could get level 10 by just buying a ton of DIG bundles for about $1.55 each and get $60 CV per). If you remove levels entirely, I'm going to stop making contributor high level giveaways because I can't, which means users I don't know yet don't have the chance to win things like my 9+ Mad Max giveaway, which doesn't help the problem, it just makes everything I do into either group giveaways or free for all giveaways, which means all the cool stuff goes to groups.
Comment has been collapsed.
"This site has never existed in a state where there was NO contribution system (with contribution giveaways) AND bundle games being allowed to be given away." Wasn't there for a bit? Or did bundle games become 'legal' when CV giveaways became a thing? Been so long, I can't remember.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your group is genius. Your bot is genius. You are genius.
Are you my lost child?
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest though, I just decided that I don't want to deal with general public and lack of control who is joining my gibs, and decided to run my own group for the sake of maximizing my SG satisfation.
Not everyone likes that, some people are very anty-groups on SG, and I can understand them too because CV gained through group giveaways is being used on public ones.
But it's nothing compared to people buying RU/CIS gifts for 1/3 of the usa price, boosting their level to L4 or L5 for the cost of 3 average IG bundles, and joining ROW giveaways "because they can". This is probably the biggest flaw of CV system, and I'd strongly suggest to change it to region-based CV instead. Don't worry though, that won't happen, in fact, nothing will.
Comment has been collapsed.
You did well, i was serious, all your ideas are genius, and i've seen you talking about coding and/or programming, which in my case, i understand shit about it, but you look like an expert, and that seems cool.
Not everyone likes that.
Like I say, if we all start pointing fingers, takes us to nowhere, everyone should look at themselves instead of finding flaws in everyone, but i agree on the region-based CV
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing would change even if you somehow invented a solution without drawbacks.
That's one point that's not true. If anyone in the community came up with a better solution for CV, I'd gladly develop it. However, I don't think we've heard a better solution, and we've spent a lot of time discussing it over the years.
Personally, I like the levels, but I don't like the bundle list, or basing the value of a giveaway on the corresponding Steam price.
Comment has been collapsed.
I must admit, I didn't expect a response from you cg.
If we already summoned you here somehow. How do you feel about region-based CV I suggested above? Do you think it would be possible to do, something you would consider?
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason I don't get excited about region-based CV is that it feels like adding another layer of complexity to an already complex system, while at the same time introducing new concerns. I think we'd quickly see users no longer marking their giveaway region, in an attempt to receive higher public CV. If a user is buying cheaper RU + CIS copies, and listing them as region free giveaways in a primarily Russian group, then it would be a difficult thing to identify.
Comment has been collapsed.
indeed. http://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/KUWPlbj
I agree, if the CV system is to be replaced or changed, it needs to be as simple as possible, while still being efficient - else the forum will be flooded by threads from users that don't understand how their CV / CL is calculated.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totally agreed with you on that. Sadly, it seems that there is no good solution, and simplifying the current concept will lead only to more potential abuses.
With that in mind, I just say let's keep what we have currently, until we can find out something better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey cg,
It's a change of subject, but about 11 months or so ago a complete set of users/ levels were posted in the forums...
And chance we can see an updated? I'd be real interested to see exactly how far we've come from last years list...
... I'm probably not the only one. (it's maybe slightly relevant in that it would show how the community as a whole is reacting, are the percentages staying as skewed or are they moving? )
Also if there's an easy way to look that up and someone's thinking to themselves "Sheesh, this guy's an idiot" please enlighten me :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure...
- Level 0: 727,261
- Level 1: 87,239
- Level 2: 13,635
- Level 3: 8,679
- Level 4: 6,020
- Level 5: 2,169
- Level 6: 1,085
- Level 7: 600
- Level 8: 152
- Level 9: 97
- Level 10: 62
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been searching for this information for awhile. I could have sworn there was a stats page that showed this.
Thanks, my curiosity has been plaguing me.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is almost a tripling of size though which is good news :D. Lvl 7 is another one to get a big boon in pop. though it seems most lvls saw something of a 30% pop increase which isn't bad imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
Level 7 is the last level that can be reached still within reasonable efforts and money spent, probably that's why.
Comment has been collapsed.
what's a "reasonable effort and money spent" is pretty subjective
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if I could do it with a 500-Euro (530 USD) salary, living alone, and with an apartment loan that takes away a hefty portion of that, it should be doable. :)
But ever since hitting level 7, my level barely budges each week.
Comment has been collapsed.
Level 8 is only 152 people? I've coulda sworn I've been in a couple of level 8 giveaways with like 200 people or something. O_o
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems some of the highest level members can reach over Level 10. I'd see Lv 11+ users in the near future if possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well SG now automatically detects your region. Why not add a CV multiplayer based on the region users are from (for non public giveaways at least)?
With RoW regions being x1, Japan being x0.85, SEA x0.7, Ru/CIS x0.5 and so on (based on the perceived avg price difference between the regions).
Of course it's far from a perfect system, but would prevent abuse from region locked copies. On the other hand it would hurt users from locked regions that give away RoW games (bought elsewhere or acquired via trading).
Comment has been collapsed.
This is actually not a bad idea, wonder how it would work and obviously you'd have the problem of people dealing in currency prices higher than income, like people being assigned €/$ instead of their own currency
Comment has been collapsed.
would it be possible to tie the values to isthereanydeal prices for better accuracy?
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmm you like leveling up but nothing else about the contributor system. Got it! Let's make steamgifts into an RPG! 1 xp per post! 2 xp per giveaway! Prepare the spam gates!
Comment has been collapsed.
So wait we can farm B1 chains to gain XP?? What about the guy that's killing noobs in Goldshire?
Comment has been collapsed.
I won't say that I think the current system is perfect, but I do think it's good to have a system in place that incentives gift-giving. Currently I can't come up with a system that's better than the current one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly, I'm pretty sure the current system, although it has its flaws, is the best thing we could come up with. I remember there was a lots of discussing and debate about the contributor level/value system back in the SGv2 beta tests. For one thing, we learned that the majority of users (including me) prefer a CV system implemented. As for HOW it works, like I said - the current system was the "best" solution we could come up which would be balanced and "acceptable".
In the end, I don't really care about CV, but I'd rather give to level 4+ because I noticed that below this, the winners are usually a pain in the ass to deal with. As for my contributor level, I really don't care much about it. I gift more than I win, and I enter less than I comment.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cut-off is now at 5. And above that level is different can of worms. Don't even ask
Comment has been collapsed.
Barely ever had any problem with level 4, I feel like it's the sweet spot between too low and too elitist. Mind you, I only do private giveaways for the forum. Public giveaways are probably an entirely different thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm too talking about forum ones (my public count is negligible). Post-event or BAA kind of groups are completly different expirience.
Depends on how you define problems. And take a moment and look at the entrants, not only winners - bigger sample, better results.
Comment has been collapsed.
My counting 1+ giveaways actually don't invite that much pain. I think I've rerolled less than 5% of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I was speaking more related to horrible ratio, rule-breaking in the past few months but which were "taken care of" already, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Free games are free games. When more games are given away, more people are happy that they won a game.
You can continue to form groups and give away the best of the best AAA titles among yourselves, but please don't ruin the fun for the majority of SteamGifts users. Maybe it is not your kind of fun, but for me and many others, giving spare bundle keys to random strangers and occasionally receiving spare bundle keys from random strangers is a lot of fun.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you don't want things ruined for you, but consider it from my perspective, things were fun for me before the CV system, and since the CV system was implemented the site was ruined for me. (Well it wasn't ruined as that would be an over-exaggeration, but no less an over-exaggeration than I assume what fewer giveaways is to you)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeh, I don't see the point unless a new system is designed which puts less strain on support. Then again, it's hard for me to imagine CV actually being an incentive for anything, much less something to be abused. Bundles and freebies are already difficult to track, prices are impossible to reflect properly, any redesign will come with the same issues unless you go with a simple rep system of something. As a user, I couldn't care less. Whatever support wants to minimize their load.
Comment has been collapsed.
The best way to minimize support tickets is to remove support!
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been here since as long as you, and I agree with what you say.
The problem is that I wouldn't know other good alternatives for the system we are using currently, I think no matter what we change, there's going to be that problem of people trying to raise their value one way ot the other, unless of course we get rid of it altogether. Maybe I'm just not creative enough to come up with a decent solution, but that's how I feel.
Comment has been collapsed.
wbarton posted an alternate system that the support have been considering on the very first post to this thread
Comment has been collapsed.
One only needs to head over to the GOG forum to see a horribly implemented rep system... and even if you do away with neg-rep, there are always going to be issues and complaints with "They got high-rep by doing x, y or z and that is totally unfair!". Even a rep-system such as "rep is based on the number of entrants into each GA", wouldn't necessarily make the forum a better, happier place because as has been pointed out, those who make puzzles or other such fun, hidden GA's would suffer due to lower number of entrants - and I, for one, enjoy this type of amusement.
If the rep system were implemented based on number of posts a person makes, this would end up harming our less than loquacious members. And one certainly can't implement a rep system based on the number of responses a thread gets because then you've got the potential for a flood of spam posts.
Right now the reputation of any given user is based on reviewing what a member has gifted, what they personally see that member post in the forums and checking real CV + any rule-breaking on SGTools. It leaves room for reputation to be based on factual AND subjective input - something humans tend to lean towards anyway. Thus the WL/BL which has three choices - good, bad and indifferent...
Listen, I surely don't have the answer but right now, even with the administrative overhead that keeping the bundle list up-to-date creates, it's a working system. Personally, I'd like to see the factual information of real CV presented on a user's profile right along side the current measure but hey, I'm a bit lazy sometimes :-p
Comment has been collapsed.
You only see problems, where are no problems.
If you dislike CV, then create group and share games only in this group, or leave this site, or live with it.
If they remove CV, then there will be much less games.
Edit: now I see, that nearly all your GAs has up to 10 entries and were private, so why are you writing this topic? You gave nearly nothing to public and you are talking about public GAs! Think about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've given only 3 less public giveaways than you, yet here you are posting your opinions too! Anyways, my issues go a lot deeper than what you seem to think, I don't expect everyone to read my wall of text, but I at least hope people won't try to defame what I'm trying to say based on what I've given away.
Comment has been collapsed.
But technically aren't you gaming the system yourself? You're partially guilty of them since the GAs you do don't go to the public anyway? Sure the regional CVs are a cheaper way but the methodology is the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm fairly new around here (only joined this year), but I think the current system is okay.
Sure, it's not great, but I see fewer problems with it than with a rep-based system like that mentioned by wbarton, or with having no system at all. I think the rep system wbarton mentioned would be worse.
Any system will be 'gamed'; it's human nature. The current system does what it's supposed to do, I think, without too many problems.
Anyway, just my 2c.
Comment has been collapsed.
EDIT: OP was deleted. Skip to points 1 and 2.
Timespan isn't that significant- I've been here for four years and I'm 7.5ish, but I spent a good number of those away.
It's not even the principle of the argument; I'd rather not us ad hominem arguments. Just because someone isn't the core audience of the argument doesn't mean that they're wrong.
However, I also disagree. Not because I don't think Monukai has no authority to give opinions, because I think every user has the same legitimacy to make arguments. A level 2 user has the same legitimacy to pose something that they thing is legitimately useful.
On the other hand, an extensive overhaul at this point is something I would avoid for a few reasons.
- A bunch of users have given things away in the context of the current system for CV or what not. It's a petty reason to give things, but still a legitimate one, and invalidating their contributions is unfair. CV exists for a purpose, and while there are abuses, it's not like it should be abolished just because it's not perfect.
- The alternative presented, in my opinion, kind of sucks. Basically, it's no system except for if you scrape through users profiles and say "this user is cool" or "this user isn't cool". Yes, there's drama with CV. But there's a ton more drama with white/blacklists and those are essentially the alternative suggested at this point. Yes, there are issues with how CV is calculated that make some people butthurt, but you can't make everyone happy. Also, feedback fraud is very difficult to prove and I would not say that most users engage in such a practice. There are some, but I don't believe it's as much of a systemic problem as Monukai sees the CV system as.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's all good. I give games away to give games away. I'll do that no matter which system is in place. The joy of another user is enough motivation to keep me going. With that said, I have all the faith in CG that he will choose the right path to lead us upon.
ALL HAIL CG!
Comment has been collapsed.
Nix the bundle list and let groups and individuals judge a users giveaways and contribution themselves
I fear that this is highly prone to abuse. Giveaways can be undervalued or overvalued depending on how the masses want to gimp or praise a giver. Putting it in the hands of the masses removes objectivity and gains a subjective notion on value "This bad rats giveaway from Famous SG user is worth 100 doll hair. This badrats gibs from unknown user is worth 1 doll hair." Your suggestion doesn't give a set value for all the giveaways but rather renders each and every giveaway a different factor by itself. I'm sure it will even out after a while but putting value in the hands of other people brings another thing.
Drama
I mean how is that inescapable? You get a game bundled and there's already drama, what more with the different valuations of the same game?
Scrapping the system altogether
For the longest time it felt like people made giveaways to actually be generous and be a part of the excitement of giving.
Ok but since there's no "limiter" (CV levels) everything's either a free for all/invite only/group give away. You do realize the one of the bigger spikes of gifting was because people were gamify-ing the CV system. They're min-maxing to get to the next level. They treat it as a game itself and benefits members of the community. Once you remove that, there's really no reason to do giveaways aside from just plainly giving. All well and good but will significantly reduce the giving and probably increase the joining of groups or creation of groups with quotas.
BL&WL is subjective.
Comment has been collapsed.
I fear that this is highly prone to abuse.
I think maybe we're on two different pages here, when I say put it in the hands of the users, I just mean when user Bob makes a private giveaway where he wants to reward big contributors to the site, he'll just invite an arbitrary lists of users he consider to be contributors, likewise if he creates a group he can only invite users to the group whom he thinks have contributed to the site. I don't mean to imply that users will set some value that is stored in the database for each user's giveaway! Sorry for the confusion there
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't that what the CV level does? I mean those two things you suggested already happens? Via CV level + group GA/invite only GA.
Comment has been collapsed.
and back to my original post I mention how the publicity to giveaways for contributors that the contribution system introduces is what causes the large influx of people gaming the system and trying to cheat their way into more exclusive giveaways, hark back to the thread cg made two years ago polling users on the CV system (when it was relatively new) a lot of comments alluded to the fact that this was actually happening (I was there myself and I definitely saw an increase in people trying to game the system)
Comment has been collapsed.
But in your example Bob would inadvertently exclude a lot of contributors just because he is not familiar with them, whereas with the current CV system he could just create a public giveaway with a level 8+ restriction and doesn't have to worry about leaving anyone out of an arbitrary list.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's been over two years since cg made this poll thread, and I feel like it's time to re-examine the topic now that we've had ample time to experience the system. Keep in mind a few changes have occurred since this post, as they relate to CV, these are:
-Contribution levels
-Region locked giveaways
-Blacklist & whitelist
Some background
Firstly, I would like to state that I am a longtime member here on SteamGifts. I first started using the site in December 2011, and for context the Humble Indie Bundle 4 had just released and Skyrim was still a new game. At the time there were only a few mods active on Steamgifts: Raiden, Cult, and the heavy lifter Lokonopa. There was no contributor value system, however there was the "Contribution" stat on everyone's profile which was simply the dollar amount of all the games you had given away based on their current price. Some groups did use this for their own systems as well as some rules on giveaways (before such things were no longer allowed), but otherwise there was no contributor system as we know it today and certainly no contributor giveaways.
One of the other big differences on the site at the time was that bundle games couldn't be given away on the site. That was strictly a no-no, and closely tied to the contribution stat. Even then with just the contribution stat, people would still make bundle game giveaways, going against the rules, and they would still "boost" contribution with fake feedback. So the problem has always been there, even before the now implemented contribution system went into place.
So onward to the new contribution system. Initially it seemed like a pretty good idea, rather than contribution being something that was rewarded for in private (via groups) it was now publicized meaning anyone who had spent some money out of their own pocket could be rewarded with more exclusive giveaways. It's a great incentivization tactic and is one of the driving forces behind at least one other giveaway site out on the web that I'm aware of.
Yet here I am, making this thread. So what gives? What's wrong with the system?
The issues
By and large, my biggest issue with the system is the misuse. It doesn't sound like much but it introduces a headache of concerns. As of now the system does a mostly good job at what it's supposed to. It values items that have been bundled or deeply discounted less than those that haven't to try and get a good approximation of each users contribution level. Those users are in turn rewarded with more exclusive giveaways. I've already explained it. For the most part it works okay, however it's not perfect.
Fortunately boosting via feedback fraud has become more difficult (but hardly impossible) and seems to be less of an issue. However newer issues have emerged or at least have become more prevalent. Regifting is a good example, prior to CV regifting was rare, it happened but not at the rate that I see it happen today. I've seen a group of users banned for splitting four packs and then getting CV by making "giveaways" for those games. There are the more difficult to prove forms of misuse as well. For example there is nothing stopping users from begging developers for keys to giveaway (and in return give the developers promotion). Nothing technically against the rules perse (begging is not allowed but it could be argued that they didn't beg for the keys on SteamGifts itself) but it's definitely not in the spirit of the system and whether or not it break rules, I'd still label it as misuse. The newest concern seems to stem from region locked giveaways, again nothing against the rules, but a user from say the U.K. could "farm" CV by getting RU copies to giveaway via the new region lock giveaways.
Drama of course has been another issue since the introduction of this system. I myself have willingly got myself suspended (sorry mods for the extra work ;-;) for standing up against some users I feel are gaming the system, and I've seen plenty of other drama related threads based around the similar circumstances. I've seen arguments about so many types of CV related topics as well as plenty of criticism for poor Shobo who is doing one hell of a job working that bundle list (<3). The aforementioned region locked giveaways and how they relate to CV seems to be a more current hot topic on the subject.
I'll conclude by saying that I generally don't appeal to the good 'ole days, mostly because I'm not a very nostalgic person, yet in this instance I must. For the first year or two on this site the feel of the site and its community was much more positive and encouraging. When I first found the site I was amazed it was a real site, that people could be this generous, that something like this could actually exist. For the longest time it felt like people made giveaways to actually be generous and be a part of the excitement of giving. Some still do for sure, <3 to the forums and steam chats that keep this place great. Yet since the introduction of the CV system it has really taken a dive from my perspective. So many users treat this site like a job, evaluating the cost/benefit of price glitches, deep discounts, bundles, etc. You don't have to look far to see someone upset about why they have 39.99 CV or why game x has been put on the bundle list but game y hasn't. It sometimes seems like SteamGifts is just an extension of SteamTrades with a random component thrown in.
The fix?
I'll keep it simple. Replace it, remove it, or fix it. I for one would prefer to see it removed entirely, have the contribution stat on user profiles or don't, I don't care too much about that. Nix the bundle list and let groups and individuals judge a users giveaways and contribution themselves. This would also mean the full removal of contributor giveaways, something I would be all too glad to see. I personally don't see much incentive in fixing the system, one of the inherent problems is that it publicizes (for lack of a better word) the incentivization aspect of the site which may mean more giveaways but also means more of a headache dealing with all the extra baggage it comes with.
tl;dr
The contribution system has its flaws, letting some selfish and greedy users win giveaways intended for the most generous of users, it requires additional work by the support team to maintain, and has led to more than its fair share of drama since its introduction. Replace it, fix it, or remove it. Please.
P.S. I hate to be instigating all of this, but I really do feel like this site could be better with changes to the system (or more helpfully its removal or replacement). I wouldn't be making this thread if I didn't feel strongly for what I've posted. I like this site but my activity has dropped off drastically since the changes and I'm constantly jaded by users gaming the system and getting rewarded for it. So I'm sorry, but at the same time I'm not sorry.
Edit:
I went through and found a few choice posts by support members (whom I single out for their inside knowledge of some of the issues)
rep based system by wbarton
short post by cg
post by Khalaq
current state of affairs with the bundle list by SleepyCat
Some suggestions for alternatives by members
some different approaches by tubberware
entry based system approached by Ricki w/ response by cg
similar entry absed system suggsted by GauRocks
an older alternative provided by TheDopefish
Comment has been collapsed.