I'd just rather see things kept as they are now and just remove games from the bundled list after they haven't been in a bundle for a long time. Limiting getting value for more than one copy is going to cause problems for legit giveaways as well. For instance, I doubt DeltaBladeX's massive Fortix giveaway would have happened to the level it did if we didn't get value for those. Many of the gifters had given Fortix before and a lot of the giveaways were for more than one copy.

How about people stop worrying about contributor amounts? Point of this site USE to be just to gift games, now its treated like a god damn investment firm. "Well, if I spend 2 dollars on this, I could get 60 dollars in games back". Fuck you people with this mindset.

So sick and tired of seeing these kinds of posts where people want the rules changed to benefit them. Im tired of seeing people who only do private or group giveaways, or a new group that require you gift once a month like a stupid circle jerk. Defeats the entire point of the site when it was created.

I still think using "lowest available price ever" instead of "Steam price" would be the best solution to fix those bundle abuse.

I'v already suggested a decent solution for that problem to the support like weeks ago. Personal user & game banlists would solve the issue.
How:

• Add users abusing the holes in the system to your giveaway banlist.
• Add games you think that are exploited/bundle/abused etc to your game banlist so they won't count in contrib value.

Community created bundle/exploited games list which would be updated regularly on a sticky forum thread can be the real solution.

So if I guy preorded 10x Bioshock Infinite to give it away he won't get $600 contributors? Seems fair to me...
Or even a known member (koff) that gave a bunch of Skyrim copies.

this is not bad

Maybe the only way is that people cant simply make more than one giveaway of those bundles, or a time limit period.
You can use the same game only once every 2 weeks. You will get the full amount the games are valued, bundle or not bundle, but the games on the list cant be giving so often.
That would be for me the best way to stop this. Yes you can give 10 crazy machines game, but it will take you 6 months.
Same with bundles, so you dont get the price lowered but you are limited by how fast you can improve you CV using exploited games.
That Way I dont see people buyinh 20 bundles and waiting so much.

Any changes made now are going to drastically change everyone's current contributor value.

I feel that those who care about it are going to be upset as they probably have the same game given away more than once or that they were "forced" to buy non bundle games, when they could have just waited. Those who don't really care aren't going to be affected by this. The only people who really benefit are those who want a high contribution value, but don't want to spend money to earn it.

If you want to change it for better, you need to come up with something that doesn't increase CV "inflation", and this idea certainly does. :(

I like this thread...I will read again later with no beer

What about a system that automatically checks your gift inventory to see if you are gifting a key or a game?

just remove the contribution value system and make this whole site the point bidding site.

If the concept is "contribution value", actual value should be considered. Example: Super Meat, boy costs, as I write, 14€ (about 18$) on Steam. I think it's unfair to estimate its value according to a bundle that was sold years ago. Obvious solution: lower bundle games value for a fixed timespan after the bundle release. But it'd be open to exploitation (sitting on a key until the period is over), not to mention hard to maintain. The problem is any ruleset will be audited for weaknesses and eventually exploited, in any context. Best solution I can suggest: few, simple rules, Occam's Razor.

In other words removing the contribution system altogether. Private and group giveaways are there anyway for those who don't want to share with the general public.

2) Limit the contributor value that a member can obtain from any single game to one copy. That means you get full value the first time you gift a game, but no more after that.

Bullshit.

I actually like the second idea.

Hell No! I stopped reading after the second rule! and I'll stop using SG if it comes to rules similar to yours! -_-

So if I give away 5 copies of Bioshock infinite I only would get CV for one of them? Maybe its rare for people to do this but I have seen it and it would be unfair to them...

I would have to disagree with the second rule, because it'd be unfair if I were to give away several copies of a certain AAA game and receive only 1-game worth of the contributor value.

It's amazing that people still can't use it's and its correctly. Its is the possessive pronoun; it modifies a noun. It's is a contraction of it is or it has. Just so you know. On the topic: whatever, really. If they changed it, you would get far less chance to win a certain game, since nobody would gift them multiple times.

It would make more sense to scale it down with every copy given away rather than limiting it. First copy 100% and then reduce by twenty percent or some such until you only get 20% of the value for each further copy. All systems are broken, so, whatever.

многабукаф

I think there should be an option where you can choose - key or Steam gift. If you choose key and game has been in bundle - then decrease contributor value. If you choose key but it hasn't been in bundle - give full value. If you choose Steam gift - you get full value because no bundle gives away Steam gifts. Because it's not fair when someone buys Steam gift for a game that was once in a bundle but doesn't get full contributor value because of that. If you give away Steam gift you should get full value!

I missed a to the moon bundle?! D: