what do you think of that general idea
This is similar to one of the first versions of CV discussed during beta. Originally, level 10 would be the top 10 users and everyone else would scale versus the 10th user.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, not quite...since its relative to the overall number of users the number of users in each level scale
and the scaling is not against one user.
everyones level is his cv relative to the cv of all other users.
so if you make a ga level 4, all but the lowest 10% of contributors can enter and so on.
actual percentage values for each level could be determined based on a current cv distribution histogram
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really care either way, but based on the current number of people in each level, top 1% would include almost everyone from levels 6 through 10. This means that everyone over $500 CV would be lumped in together in the same group. This kind of removes the "exclusivity" of higher levels, if you will.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would prefer a fixed system since it would be more reliable and quantifiable. A dynamic CV system seems absurd and contradictory because, in my opinion, CV is Contributor Value and that is quantified by the sum total retail value in USD of all gifts given away. If the level system was dynamic, that might work (though I still question its merits), but the CV should remain as a static variable, not a dynamic one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps it was just a language issue, but you contrasted "fixed cv" with "relative [CV]," and the closest comparable contrasting would be between static and dynamic CV's. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't get why so many people have a problem with the leveling system, its fine. It would be nice if cg gave us exact numbers for levels, but the system itself is quite good, you can get to higher levels with bundled or non bundled games. I don't think anybody can rightfully say they got less level value than they should have even if the contribution level itself shouldn't be a reason to giveaway games.
Comment has been collapsed.
323 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by Sidewinder99
70 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by Tenn
2,939 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by SebastianCrenshaw
29 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by skylarkblue1
193 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by reigifts
31 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by EloyOn
366 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Aliaxi
11 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by m0r1arty
16 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by Axelflox
63 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by xMisiu
31 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by RobbyRatpoison
54 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by xeos23
172 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by samwise84
600 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by Axelflox
instead of levels for fixed cv, why not make them relative?
lvl 0 - no giveaways
then sort all users (that were active in last 12 month) and assign a fixed fraction to a specific level
for example something like that:
lvl 1 - lowest 1%
lvl 2 - 4%
lvl 3 - 5%
lvl 4 - 10%
lvl 5 -30%
lvl 6 - 30%
lvl 7 - 10%
lvl 8 - 5%
lvl 9 - 4%
lvl 10 - top 1% contributors
this could encurage lower level people to contibute because first levels are easier to get as well as getting max level really quite hard.
instead of that values you could also just map the current cv spead to get better % values for each level.
leave in the fraction part of level to indicate to people how far they are away from levelup or leveldown
Comment has been collapsed.