Since there are many users and most giveaways receive entries in the thousands, the chance of winning something is small. Combined with the fact that we get so many points constantly, I think many people are entering giveaways that they don't really need to enter, just so they can win something and because they don't want to waste the points by reaching the limit.

I would suggest that allowing multiple entries (perhaps with a maximum of 3 or 5 or even 10 depending on what's reasonable) for the same giveaway would solve this problem. This way, if you really want a game, you'll spend more on it and have a slightly higher chance of winning. Comparing it to the lottery, it's just like buying more than one ticket to increase your chances.

What do you think?

Edit

12 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

No.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's because those with mutliple accounts would then have even more chance to spam the hell out of the giveaways they want. That's it.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

this.

now close the thread.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Suggested before. Nope

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

About a hundred times.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think more though.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Definitely more.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yes, your avatar is awesome

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

True, but still more.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

indeed, much much more

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks :-D

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Actually not, and a forum search only shows a few over the last 10 months (rare for a forum this size). And every time it has been suggested, the answers are either "No" with no justification, or a well written reason why it is an okay idea.

Not that our voices matter much, but among those willing to provide a coherent justification for their position, there is an overwhelming support in favor of the idea.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I say yes! allow only up to one less multiple entries to multi count-users!

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nope. Chuck Testa.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nicht.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

^dieses

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

^zugestimmt

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No, just no.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How about you explain why not? Not everybody has been around long enough to know.
I certainly have the problem where I have to enter random giveaways to not waste points.

I see no reason why this should not be implemented.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

same, I think it's good idea

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"How about you explain why not?"
How about people look up previous discussion so we don't have to discuss this and similar topics over and over and over again ?

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I forgot to mention it in the post but I did look it up and read the comments but couldn't find any reasons why it wouldn't be good to do it. Also, the discussions I could find were about 10 month old, and I think things have changed a bit since then.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I've only been here 5 month, but I'm positive I have seen this particular suggestion multiple times.
EDIT: That said, after a casual search, I haven't been able to find any more recent threads either.
Seems I have to apologize for the 'How-about-people-look-up-previous-discussions-first knee-jerk reaction of mine. Sorry about that :/

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No problem. I think you may be right that this has been discussed before, judging by all the short "no" replies and the "not this again" ones, but like you said, for some reason, they don't appear in the search results. That's why I was hoping to get a real discussion going in this thread and maybe settle the issue =)

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Im sure, like you, that this has come up many(read 3 or 4) times in the time I've been forum lurking.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1 on The No and ^^

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Only properly written answers I saw seemed to support the idea.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I feel that everyone should have an equal chance.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

They do.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I know.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Do explain how this makes the chances unequal? Both can make multiple entries. And if someone blows all his points on one game, he can't participate in an other (or others) for some time, raising your chances. The overall net effect is 0.
What matters is altering your chances to win one particular giveaway.

RL lotteries allow multiple tickets, no reason for it not be the same here.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

RL lottery tickets are bought with RL money, which have actual value as opposed to the points system.

Everybody who participate should have an equal chance. Nobody should be "more entitled" to win a giveaway because he "REALLY REALLY WANTS IT". Everyone who enters really really want it as they wouldn't be entering otherwise.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nobody would be more entitled since we all get the same amount of points and are free to spend them as we want. And I'm sure you can agree that everyone want certain games more than others, but since you can only enter once and then have points to spare, you probably will see a random game and think "hmm.. this doesn't look that bad" and enter even though you might not play it afterwards, lowering the chances of people who actually want that particular game.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

and this ^

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

this ^ but without lotteries

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you don't have to enter random giveaways (in fact, please don't, because i might want one of those!) entering a giveaway for a game you're not actually interested in playing is just as much a waste as letting your points get to 300. also if you have 300 points and suddenly a game you really want goes on sale you're more ready to enter the flood of giveaways that come from people buying the sale just to give it away.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I haven't dropped below 200 points ever since I started actively participating (like ~2 months I guess. Disregard the 9 months account age. I had forgotten about this place).

It's a waste to not enter random giveaways, because I'm actively losing points.
From my experience, the games I 'want' never show up in large enough amounts for your point to be valid (the cheaper ones I would buy myself anyway, and you don't see 100x, say, Skyrim, popping up).

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Actually its less of a waste, Atleast you get a game lol

Usually I only enter Half Life giveaways, But I always have >230 points so I decided to broaden a lil bit. Now I also enter Dota 2 & Dungeon Defenders. With the occasional "This looks interesting" game.

I wouldent do it normally but since I have the points & The game seems kinda fun, Might aswell give it a try :P

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

it's different if you're entering for a game you're sort of interested in versus just any game so you don't "waste" points. i'm saying the points are just as wasted if you use them for a chance to win a game you wouldn't play. that's because i don't put any value in having a game on my account that i'm not going to play, but i recognize some people just like to have every number as big as possible.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you don't have to enter random giveaways (in fact, please don't, because i might want one of those!)

Well that's the problem, since people see the points just sitting there and figure they might as well enter for a game that doesn't look too bad, even though they might never play it and therefore decrease the chances of people that actually want the game and would enjoy winning and playing it.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

true, but i'm not sure that allowing people to enter more than once is making things better overall. it seems to help decrease people winning games they could care less about owning, but make it more difficult for people who are interested in enough games being given away that they don't have extra points to win because other people are entering more than once. it would help if you doubled the point cost for each additional entry, like if it's 10 points for the game it'd be 20 more points to add second entry, 40 more for a third, etc. that also effectively builds in a limit so people couldn't put 300 entries on a 1-point giveaway (8 entries would cost 255 points, with the 9th entry costing 256 points).

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well that's why I suggested a limit of for instance 3. Maybe to start with, we could try a limit of only two entries.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It is a good idea. Nothing changes between entering 10 separate Nuclear Dawn giveaways and entering a single one 10 times. But most people are against any change without giving it the slightest second of thought. It's like the middle ages all over again.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Beacuse you will haord 300 points and then enter 300x in one giveaway.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well not if we have a limit of multiple entries like 3 or 5 or 10 =)

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ! With love <3 I repeat NO !

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No, nein, нет!

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Seems like a good idea , since you cant enter giveaways of games you already own

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'd support that if it was only for public giveaways. Group/private ones can end with a handful of entries so allowing it for those would be extremely unfair.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Or do this. The small group giveaways are usually good enough (because the really good one are probably hard to get into. At least there's now way I'm getting anywhere).

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Suggestion: Use search function.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I forgot to mention it in the post but I did search and found three threads from about 10 months ago about this: one, two, three. I read all the comments and couldn't really find a reason why this would be bad. People seemed to suggest that the discussion was old but I couldn't find any other threads about it. Maybe you could help if you know any? Thanks =)

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Assuming people haven't searched is dumber than not searching.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is not PlayBlink.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You're right, we actually win games here.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So true.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Made my day xD

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This. So much this. PlayBlink became utter crap when I realized that people who've payed (a rather ridiculous amount) get more chances than non-payers. Hell, I'd rather spend the cash on myself than there.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Or here!?

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Dude, you have to give away the (what I assume to be the) equivalent of 4 skyrim/triple AAA games to move up ONE LEVEL. There are TEN TOTAL LEVELS.

Steamgifts is a little more kind in that regard.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Good idea

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nope,

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

not a good idea at all.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It would make it harder for people who want the game to get the game. as for every entry double the chance plus the other entries to get your % of actually winning. so increasing that number does not increase your chance to win...just your chance to lose

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm not sure I understand your math. If we for instance imagine that everyone could enter once or twice, you would double your chance of winning if only you entered twice and everyone else entered once. However, if everyone entered twice, your chance of winning would be the same as before when you could only enter twice. Since not everyone will enter twice, the new value of your chance of winning will be somewhere between the two, meaning you will increase your chances by entering twice. The same math would apply if the limit was 3 entries, and so on.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that's only when you enter twice. if you only have enough points to enter once, then your chances are worse because somebody out there is going to enter twice.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well it's the same issue if you don't have enough to enter at all. Then your chances are not only worse, but zero. However, one would assume that you spend your points wisely and don't enter a bunch of random giveaways that you don't really want, especially when you know that you could enter twice for your favorite game.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

would ruin private/group giveaways

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Good point. Maybe it should be restricted for public giveaways.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Everyone deserves equal chance. Implementing this will only result in chaos. So my answer is no.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

NO WAY MAN

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That wouldn't be even sort of equal. Points are variable between games. Interest is variable between games; Frozen Synapse is not on my wishlist or one of the games I really, really want, but if I see one, I'll enter it. Someone else might really, really want Frozen Synapse, and thus enter it a shitton of times. Let's say ten. Suddenly, he has ten entries to my one. Because he wants something "more", he suddenly has ten times the chance of winning it that I do. Except, wanting something more is not a mathematically quantifiable value. Simply by having a varied taste and a list of games that I regularly enter longer than ten suddenly drops my chances of winning things. Between average entry numbers and varying points, the math of just "it's the same amount of points" doesn't really pan out as black-and-white as it seems. A simple equation can't possibly convey the full scope of it to determine whether or not, at the end of it, every single member has a fair shot. If even ONE member would somehow be at an advantage or disadvantage over it, it's suddenly not fair.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But varying preferences and different wish lists give certain disadvantages to some users whether the limit is at one entry or more. Since the amount of points is limited, the users that choose to enter several times in one giveaway will not enter other giveaways that they don't want as much. Think of it as the placement of your games on your wish list. If you want a game more than another, you will place it higher. In this case, if you want a game more than another, you will enter more for it. The result would be that the entries are more specialized, rather than everyone entering everything because they have the points and don't want to see them lost.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Varying preferences doesn't put people at a disadvantage by itself. People merely choose what they want to enter, and they have their entry in it. Once that happens, they are on equal footing for the game with everybody else.

I'm generally able to enter every giveaway for a game I want and rarely dip below 100 points, except maybe on a slow day. I'm able to go for everything I want. Such a system would suddenly hurt my chances of winning certain games because there's a demand for them. I fall into this middle ground that surely makes up a decent portion of the community; we have a lot of games that usually come up here, particularly the really expensive ones, but still lack certain games that come up frequently. I'm not the type to enter into a throwaway giveaway; anything I enter, I intend to play. Suddenly, that measure to prevent something I'm not gunning for lowers my chances.

There are a lot of ways to look at it, and the math for it, like I said, becomes a minefield of variables. The rationale for keeping it at one entry each is sound and seems the most fair to me.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"I'm able to go for everything I want. Such a system would suddenly hurt my chances of winning certain games because there's a demand for them. I fall into this middle ground that surely makes up a decent portion of the community;"

Well, I don't have any statistics, but that is of course your individual situation. I, for instance, can usually only play mac games, so I don't tend to enter giveaways for games that don't work on mac. But that is my individual situation. As for one entry being the sound and fair option, I'd like to again compare to real life lotteries and such. The advantage we have over real life is that the points are distributed equally and therefore nobody will have an unfair advantage.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wrong. In real life, you buy your tickets, and you have a cieling based instead on how much you can afford to and are willing to buy. If somebody spends 1000 dollars a week playing the lottery, they're only hurting their own chances of making actual money back. Also, the odds work differently. The lottery pulls up a series of numbers, and if a ticket matches them, that ticket wins. Often, there isn't a winner and it gets rolled over to the next week. If I buy a hundred tickets with different numbers, it only increases my own odds of winning by covering more ground, without at all reducing someone else's chances. The only way it can is if my number comes up as the winner, but somebody else has the same ticket, which is a separate issue from the one at hand. On this site, every giveaway is guaranteed to end with a winner, so the higher the volume of entrants, the lower each individual entry has of coming up.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Maybe "lotteries and such" was a bad description from me. There are "raffles" in real life, where you buy a certain amount of tickets and a winner is picked from those tickets.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Closed 12 years ago by Snookerman.