Define active. There are users online every 30 minutes for multiple years who never created giveaway.
Also you may check sgtools site, that is way how to set your invite only giveaway in way you want.
Comment has been collapsed.
They defined it, with the example of having created a GA in the past year :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I like the "has given in the last x amount of time" option as an idea. You shouldn't have to rely on SGTools for everything.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same, we had several similar suggestions in recent years.
But cg won't even bother about the request to raise the blacklist cap. Unimaginable that he'd then offer some feature that requires more effort while also making our blacklist struggles obsolete. Or at least less severe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah imagine the horror if all the leeches could not win and went someplace else with their bots... the ad revenue would plummet.
Gotta worry about the bottom line...
Comment has been collapsed.
Plot twist: Actually, CG is in cahoots with the Botters and Leechers, maybe even provides the Bots himself, to drive traffic to Steamgifts to earn money through Patreon and Ads and sells the won keys on the grey market to make some extra dough on the side ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't want to whitelist thousands of good users...
Comment has been collapsed.
Levels have become pretty much useless to make sure GAs are going to active users. There are tons of people sitting on level 5 or over who haven't made a giveaway in 7 years or more and made just a few GAs from when Humble Monthly games were not reduced CV games so what can you do?
Groups are one way to go but they can be very limited and they're not a guarantee, plus they leave a lot of good users out.
Comment has been collapsed.
It should also not count free games when it checks for the last giveaway, otherwise people will just give away a key they got in a free promotion once every 6 months or year to be able to get around this restriction. They could just collect a bunch of keys from a single free game promotion and then be set for many years. I guess you could do something similar with the keys you can buy for a few cents on gray market sites and there's not much you can do about that.
Maybe we should have the ability to restrict entries to people who have at least a certain real CV ratio, but that does not prevent the users who stopped creating giveaways like this thread is about. It seems like we need both options available.
Comment has been collapsed.
Setting a real CV ratio would be really strict, considering how low percentage of users is at least above 1.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't want the minimum to be anywhere near 1. You should be able to set it to pretty much anything you want, like 0.1, 0.4, or maybe even have another digit if it isn't too confusing for people, like 0.25.
Comment has been collapsed.
considering how low percentage of users is at least above 1.
And a lot of them are higher as level 1 because they exploit the cv system with freebies and cent games that aren't listed correct, for years, as freebies or bundled games.
With the real cv you hit a part of the normal users and partly miss the exploiters because their statistics are much better (because boosted)
Comment has been collapsed.
Tbh, if you wanted gift game to fair user who would play it, best you can do is skip sg at all and send it to him directly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Real CV has also problems until many of cheap DIG and free games count as full CV... (maybe if steam limited games not count same value as +1 games - but it is not this suggestion).
"Last GA without ** (no value) games" is good idea!
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, nothing will work perfectly. That's why our CV system is currently a mess because the mods can't keep up with all the fake or extremely cheap games that people use to abuse the CV system, but I still feel like it would be beneficial to be able to set a CV ratio minimum to be able to enter. It wouldn't work perfectly, but it has to be better than not having that option at all.
Support needs a better way to automate the identification of these types of games to allow them to fix the real CV values more efficiently because what we have now is clearly not working. Support is overworked because these devs keep pushing a never ending supply of these type of games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just checked and "Total War: ROME II - Emperor Edition" is bundled 2 times in 2015... still on full price. It is valuable, but bundled... maybe some users enjoy instant level 4 from 8 years...
Simple solution to high level admin. Filter all 18114 bundled games on barter:
https://barter.vg/browse/
Comment has been collapsed.
In both of those bundles it was in tier 3 which was $15. I didn't do the math, but I am guessing because it was $15, the discount for the games in tier 3 did not reach at least 95% which means it does not get added to the reduced CV list. This is also why some Humble Monthly bundle games end up not getting reduced.
Edit: I just looked up the SG thread for the Total War Encore bundle and it looks like the games were valued at $281 and would need to be sold for less than $14.05 to be added to the reduced value list. So the $15 price keeps tier 3 at full CV.
I am also not sure if they just use the full cost of the bundle vs the value of all the games or if they calculate each tier separately. They could calculate how much more tier 3 costs over tier 2 and then see if that cost is at least 95% off of the retail value of just the games in tier 3. I also don't know how they calculate the cost of the beat the average tier. I am guessing they just use the cheapest reported price.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same case RE Village. Game was in bundle in special tier which costed almost same as game alone.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, and RE Village was free limited time on alienware.
...and the lowest tier RE games also with full CV:
Resident Evil 2
Resident Evil 3
Resident Evil 7
Comment has been collapsed.
The old Humble Monthly selections mostly usually stayed at full CV. In the psychological gaming economy of those days, the Monthly was a pretty high-priced phenomenon, and it was a cut above - in game selection, often, as in price - the rest of the usual market. Holding the line on keeping the games with full CV was a policy decision, if I remember right, not an accident. The gaming world has changed a lot since then.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bigger problem is that DIG bundle games not up to date...
Comment has been collapsed.
Good idea, would be hard to implement. If the actual levels on SG would be say a 2-year running counter instead of total cumulative since account creation, that could work, though most people would never be able to maintain higher levels in that case. I am thinking of various sports world rankings for the top pros, like golf, tennis, snooker, etc, with their constantly refreshing totals that reflect their current standings based on earnings or points, however it's calculated.
Comment has been collapsed.
"2-year running counter instead of total cumulative since account creation" - this is also good idea! ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
A two-year cumulative is a good idea.
There's no point in creating a class of very high level players when most of the lower classes are taken over by bots.
This is similar to what's happening now in RL economy, with the discussions of taxing the rich, and with robots (AI) taking over jobs. With the exception that in our case the top class people have -- mostly, I think -- not created the bots, and are surely not benefitting from them to increase their levels on everyone's account.
Regardless of my rant, I find it a good idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was discussed many times https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/eg6IX/additional-giveaways-restriction/
and I see weird resistance towards any changes. People are mostly arguing that cheaters and exploiters will find way anyway.
Although I'm always for giving GA creators more options.
Nice to see that more discussions like that pop up, but I wouldn't expect any response from staff anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good idea. Bots have made the odds unfairly impossible.
Comment has been collapsed.
On GA create page somewhere "Who Can Enter" section maybe there will be fine if we have option to create GA only users who also give back GA's.
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaways/new
Reason: my blacklist are mostly people who not create any GA in last 5 years, but won recently. Most of these has very bad ratio/most of them are bot and I want to give games instead users who give back GA's.
So if I have for example "only users who creates GA in last year" checkbox will be good I think.
Comment has been collapsed.