My problem is that the contributor system isn't really logical at all. I thought that steamgifts was supposed to give away steam gifts to the poor gamers - but that's not what is happening. Instead, a lot of people prefer to make giveaways for high-leveled contributors, that already had enough money to contribute and reach that level. And I end up seeing giveaways even for level 10 users and I keep wondering why the h*ll would someone want to enter this giveaway - level 10 users don't have already enough money to buy this game, instead of winning it? Also, I see people saying that a lot of level 0 or level 1 users don't mark their won giveaways as received - oh, really? Then let's not allow any giveaways for the low-leveled users. Let's just give gifts to level 10 users that have full libraries. I'm obviously ironic. Shouldn't they have more giveaways for level 0 users? I really think so! Anyone agrees with me? If everyone disagrees with me, then ok, no hard feelings. But I will never-ever-ever-ever make a giveaway for contributors only.

I appreciate the arguments, even though I have to disagree for the reasons in my other comments and the fact that I don't think your solution (or any offered) are uniquely solvent and I think that the changes you're suggesting could end up leading to more drama and abuse, though in a different way.

Am I the only one who wants to go back to the old bundle CV system, where you were capped on how much bundle games could do for your total CV? Sure, it would hurt me, but it would fix bundle floods and keep the ratio of bundle games to store bought games much closer.

Oceans of salt. Mountains of salt. Unlimited saltworks.

I'm not entirely serious, but I would rather go back to the old system if we change it in any way than get rid of bundling all together. I have more relevant opinions, but I posted them on other peoples' comments already.

I would like to add though that we should not necessarily blame the "down-spiraling" of the community on CV. All communities get a little bit shittier the bigger it gets. Sad fact but true. It was inevitable that regifters would emerge in the community whether CV existed or not. While I have NO doubts that CV contributed to some regifters doing so more often or being prompted to start, we can't really measure how much CV really caused. CV is not the be all end all community ruiner. I'm sure there are tons of people who might never have tried giving away a game if not for the CV system. I'm sure there're people really happy with a game they just won from someone who just gave it away purely for the CV.

I don't view it as a bad thing. Could it use some improvements? Yeah, but I dunno what those would be. But I don't think removing it is the greatest solution. Any time there is any division in a community, SOMEONE will be unhappy but we cannot cater to everyone. Any time there are rules in a community, SOMEONE will attempt to break it and bend it but we cannot change every time there's wrong doings or we'd never settle on any system. I, for one, am just content to accept it for what it is.

If we're going based on the new system, lmk so I can change my profile picture to a hot girl and my username to something feminine. That way I'll get plenty of +rep because of the sheer amount of interest in me :D

Here's an interesting thought - an alternate system based on the number of entries in your completed giveaways, with multiple copies being a multiplier. In general, more popular games = more entries and commonly bundled games = fewer entries. It's a much more accurate indicator of how much you've done for the community. It also has a much smoother curve of value decrease. A game bundled for the first time might retain a good chunk of its entries, especially if it's in a high tier as the only game that people want. Once it's been in seven or eight bundles and reached the lower tiers, a lot more people will have it and entry counts will go down. Free games would have even fewer entries, so it may even be possible to allow free games on the site again - they'll have very low entry numbers, but there are always going to be people who missed the freebie.

As for current issues, it gets rid of a lot of them. It handles the region lock issue nicely. Region locked giveaways will have fewer entries, and an increased punishment for incorrectly marking your region to farm entries will take care of that. Small CV farming groups will have no point, and that hypothetical "group for russians only doing ROW group giveaways" that people are afraid of is also pointless. The value of your old giveaways also never goes down, so there's no more weird CV drop when giving away a game before it reaches the bundle list. The bundle list would still have to exist for the purposes of account creation, but other than maybe adding a "bundled" tag to the giveaway page to let people know, users wouldn't need to interact with it at all. And finally, people won't buy up a ton of copies of every game that goes over 90% off to farm the CV - the most cost-effective games to give away are the games that people actually want.

About the only group that it really hurts are the puzzle makers, but every change is going to hurt someone. And I feel like the people making a lot of puzzles are less interested in getting a lot of CV and more interested in the puzzles themselves, so it probably wouldn't slow them down too much.

I remember the discussion(s) about CV alternatives when SGv2 was still in beta.

I saved some of that discussions in one of my giveaways: http://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/sR6qL/

Unfortunately the original threads are no longer available.

I'm only posting this for the sake of "completeness", so other users can see part of the original discussions. Please don't try to argue about the suggestions in my giveaway ;) This is only to point out that alternatives have already been discussed and to show what an alternative could look like.

as long as there's something to farm, people will do it. they will cheat, and go in circles till they find a looophole.

the rep system presented here will be abused. it's probably even easier since you could have alts just clicking "rep" and never entering the site again. you can even invite friends that will never ever use sg, and they will register just to vote for you. or you could just act cool on the forums, and everyone will like and rep you too.

like others said the system will be based on how nice people are instead of how generous they are. not that i'm against that, since i prefer a nice person than a generous one, but i think the site isn't based on that... or else everyone would play nice without giving away anything and we would be stuck with overture and ratventure GAs till 2019. -.-

i suppose it's obvious what i voted for :3

View attached image.

Whatever system that creates less support tickets is the system that should be replaced or fixed.
That being said some people work towards increasing their CV level and I think it would be unwise to do away with something that incentivises the creation of giveaways. So as far as I am concerned and out of respect to the many generous people who give so much I would prefer it if the level system stays.
I would actually like to see the level uncapped, I am not sure why it is capped. I know that level 11 is thought to be almost unobtainable but even if it is twice the CV that it take to hit level 10 it is certainly doable.

If support has a high workload that becomes overwhelming because of a flaws, loopholes and genuine accidents that happen from time to time within the current system then there must be some kind of concept that can alleviate and improve on certain problems.
Its normally always easier to attack the largest problem head on so that the problem has less time to build up to mountainous proportions.
By establishing an understanding for each problem one problem at a time, I believe improvements can be made.
I don't believe drastic changes need to be made.
An unhappy support system is an unhealthy one. And I would prefer that our support staff get time to do things that make them happy rather than fuck about with way too many support tickets.
As a community we should support any changes that may need to be made.

I'-m-m-m just passing though..

(ಥ_ಥ)

CV has, ever since CV giveaways been introduced, solely rewarded those who "game" the system by making giveaways based on amount of CV earned and punished those that make giveaways because "Cool discount, cool game, lemme share".

I don't know about you. But I liked SG a lot more when a giveaway was appreciated and valued based on whether or not people wanted the game and not by whether or not it has been put on a "If you giveaway these games you are a peasant" list.

Actually, you can keep the CV giveaways, just get rid of the damn bundle list, the damn thing is arbitrary as hell, discourages people from making giveaways and most importantly. A game is a game is game. Regardless of where it was bought.

I vote to keep it. Period.

I think the only fix needed is to separate Private and Public CV. Your level is based on your public CV.

Bundle discount limit is dropped to 90%. Ignore regions since all public GAs that are region restricted will need to be marked as such.

Private groups don't need the CV system anyway since they all have their own rules. The site can keep track of the CV for them but it's not used for your public standing.

Mixed feelings on this. Personally I feel that the current system, though flawed, is probably the best way to go and getting rid of any cv equivalent would be unwise.

Disconnect

That is the major obstacle to any system we wish to implement, and it must be considered carefully.

"Khalaq, we are having a serious discussion, and here you are, jumping into the middle of things, probably without having read everything previously posted. What makes you think we should stop and consider what you have to say before moving onward?"

Because any "goodwill system" needs to address the disconnect between SG and society at large.

wut?

Yes, you heard me rightly. A "goodwill system" is based on what already exists within modern society, but unlike modern society, SG suffers disconnect from the world outside of it. Please bear with me. I will try to keep this intelligible while explaining it as briefly as possible.

Modern society encourages "good behavior" by rewarding it, and discourages "bad behavior" by shunning it and punishing it. Do good, and your reputation increases, people tend to like you, and they will want to reward you for being a "good guy." Do evil, and your reputation will quickly sink, people will not want to be around you, and it will become increasingly difficult to enlist their cooperation. This is generally the case, and a "goodwill system" operates in a similar manner.

Whereas Real Life™ takes into account everything that people are able to discover about you, however, SG is not able to achieve that. In Real Life™, society is able to adjust approval of you whenever a new facet of your life becomes exposed. SG, however, is limited to its own little "universe." The same disconnect from Real Life™ which allows people to be total dickheads online, often without suffering consequences in their daily lives, prevents any "goodwill system" of SG from being affected by the "real person" behind the account. It doesn't matter how you treat your mother, or what you did outside of SG to affect your "rep," all the people of SG see is the rating itself. Even if you used bribery, blackmail, and assassination to achieve it. Americans still remember Al Capone. On the surface, he was an upstanding citizen, but everyone knew that he was a terrible person in reality. Is it even possible for a similar "reality" to impost itself on SG?

That remains to be seen.

Well, my purpose for writing this was to call people's attention to something they should really be taking into consideration. I hope I have succeeded in that. I also hope and expect that the current discussion will continue as I see that as the path to a better solution. In the meantime, we will continue to pursue usefulness and functionality with the current system, flawed as it may be.

I like the current system. just add the ability to search GA's by level please. :D

Replace rep with rap in wbarton's post and it's all good.

I don't get it. If you don't like rep system - don't use it. Don't do lever-restricted giveaways, and be happy. But why do you want to take this system from the ones who like it? Why do you hate us?

Heres my personal 2 cents on this, being as objective as possible

I have zero grudge against people who want to restrict their giveaways to higher level people (before somebody things Im a jealous "leech"), good for them. But the big problem with it is that it also brought a very much toxic attitude with it, basically partly what c00lizz said: basically a "if you dont give away games we think you should, you are a loser" one.

As it was posted, there are more than 700k registered people with level 0, does it mean that all of them are cheapskates/leeches? I highly doubt. Then again I do not think that anybody has any obligation to give them anything whatsoever either.

However, im just gonna point this out, and take it for whatever you will: in my personal opinion (and please dont take it on yourself), gifting is only good if you are doing it of good faith, to make somebody happy with it. If you just want to please a closed group of people: feel free to do that, however I would respectfully disagree to say that it is giving back to the community, other than "giving game to people who I believe deserve it"

theres nothing wrong with that either, just lets call it on its name for what it is

whether or not CV should be removed? No, absolutly not. Should it be tweaked? Yes, by all means. Not because so that low leveled people can gain unfair advantages but to hopefully adress the general toxicity around this if anything.

Is it the system or the people. I think the problem lies with the people who are misusing the system. The biggest problem is that this community is too big for support. If they are still working on reports of 2 years ago, these abusers can continue their ways. Only a fast respons can take these people out. I'm not criticising support, they are doing the best they can.
But maybe they should hire more people. Many from us complain, but would you be willing to help?

Leave the system as it is. And improve if that is needed. To implement something new may take to long. If you find a loophole cloe it, and take down the culprits. No short-term bans for people who continue misusing SG for their gains.

And leave the happy gifters happy

(Hi monukun. :3)
I think I can I'm one of the oldest SG members(been active pretty much since I first joined), my activity has decreased from how much I used to post, but I'm still semi-active on the forums.

Ever since the launch of the CV system, people were trying to abuse it and get as high as they could on it to enter as many of the high ones are they could. The CV system was so good on paper, but it never really worked out. I remember I was for it, because it rewarded people who gave to the community, the ones who kept the site alive and thriving(like Crossbourne). But for awhile it's feel like the people just doing it for CV are a majority, while the generous are the minority. There are a lot less bitching threads about CV, but it still happens.

I voted fix/change the system (isn't replace pretty similar to fix/change?) but honestly, I don't see how their could ever be a good/'perfect' system. Especially with the bundle list bigger than ever and growing literally daily where like 1/5 or so of steam games are bundled; plus the region problems.

I used to think if CV was removed, there would be a lot less giveaways, and that people would leave. But maybe if people are doing it to just take advantage of a system, maybe we don't want those people, and it would be best if they just left.

I'd like to add the community is actually pretty decent right now though. :3 Compared to like last year or year and a half ago or something, is when it was kinda shit if I recall right. lol

Any contribution system that gives exclusivity will create complaints and increase misuse. They can be reduced by making it more complex (adding nuances and so on) but complexity comes with a cost (people not understanding, required management increases etc.).

In my opinion, a contribution system has following core points:

• It should be an incentive to contribute. Some may not like it because then people are not doing it for purely generous reasons but it will increase the number of gifts given. Incentive should have the following properties:
  1. More desired gifts should reward more.
  2. Metric should include some level of inflation thus encouraging people to gift more.
  3. Gifting rewards in some way hence the whole incentive part.
• It should have an objective measure. Any metric that requires user input is flawed because that will reduce the system into popularity contest and whitelists already cover that. No need for two same systems.

The major problem at the moment is the disparity between bundled and non-bundled games. I think bundle games are essential to the economy of gifting. They allow people to make gifts even if money is a bit thin. Removing bundle games would be pretty disastrous. At the same time there should be a difference between giving games from bundle and buying new AAA games. The latter are more rare so system should encourage/reward for such behavior.

I do not have any specific system ideas in the head at the moment. The problem is too big to come up with good solution on the spot. One direction could be the separation of contribution value. Instead of trying to mix them (limited in the older contribution value or mixed in the new contribution level) one could have three values: bundle value, non-bundle value and combined value (pure sum of the two, bundles give 100% value). Giveaway could have more than one value requirement (e.g. level 1 non-bundled + level 3 combined). Has following points:

• More simple. No hidden 15% tax for bundles. Still has bundles separated, though, and list will get retroactively modified so complaints stay.
• More options for gifters.

I don't think any option, regardless of what will be chosen, will come without pain. Keep, remove, change all have their problems.

I see two major flows with the current system. Bundle game value reduction isn't one. (Heck, even though 99% of my GAs are bundles game because actual reasons, I could live even with a drop from 15% to 10% in CV calculations.)

1. Contributor Value is based on one statistic and one stat only. Your real CV is $2500? You must be a great and generous guy! Your received real CV is over $10,000? Pffft, who cares, you gave away $2500, you are the toast of the town! And here is this guy who dared to not make a GA but has 20 wins of bundle games of a total of $7 CV? Burn the scummy leeching heretic! (No, dude, you taking a thousand times more out of this community is still cool, after all, we only care about your sent amount! Here, grab a torch to help with the burning.)
2. No inflation besides price drops on Steam (which either happen or not). Once someone reaches the maximum level, they can just stop giving away. Completely. They will remain level 10 forever and ever. If someone has been here for ages and spends some little amount monthly, they get to ridiculous high levels and stay there, and newcomers start with a massive advantage that can only be remedied by spending a lot of money. This is, essentially, a lightweight pyramid scheme, where the early comers can reap the benefits indefinitely and the new ones need to do a lot more work in shorter time to even have a chance at those benefits.

Also, I never, ever saw anyone associated with the staff ever mention a ratio-based system nor ever respond to it when it was mentioned by someone else. Why? Give/receive ratio is common is sharing groups. Heck, even many private groups here use that stat only and don't care about these so-called "contributor levels", because as a stat it is utterly meaningless.
CV now is like the GDP only stat. Looks good to throw around but nobody in economics gives a damn about it, since it is kinda important if you make 1000 billion USD with 100 million people or 1.2 billion. The former would indicate that the first country is much more effective and has higher general wealth, while the latter is essentially still a collection of busy beggars.
Similar with contribution. Contribution is not only measured by how much you put into the big pile but also by how much you are taking away in the meantime.

I just want levels to be replaced by ratios with a simple formula: (sentCV)÷(sentCV – receivedCV) This way you can even classify "leechers", because the more they win with zero sent, the lower they go into the negatives. Want to avoid the (forgive the pun) negativity associated with negatives and don't want a slider replacing levels? Then just have levels, but base them on certain thresholds again in the ratio.

there should be an extra CV for region locked keys, because they're mostly cheaper than than the ROW-keys

Whatever happened to the idea of average SG user wishlist being used to weight value of giveaways (if I remember correctly cg theorized about it)?

SG already loads our wishlists (up to 100 games as far as I know), and I believe every game would get covered if we line them up by how often they appear on wishlists.

So a Fallout 4/ GTA 5/ ARK giveaway would be valued more simply for being desired more. While Uriel's Chasm 2 wouldn't really give much value becasue seriously, who wants that? If the value given was dynamic, then you'd have a system that encourages giving new, unbundled, good or expensive or rarely discounted games. Value would decrease over time, more slightly for AAA games, faster for games that get bundled or put at 96% off, thus creating the incentive to continue giving. Or value would increase for a short period of time for games that just appeared and the news hasn't reached enough people yet.

The downside are the obscurity, a user wouldn't have direct insight into how much value would be assigned to the game he gave away or wants to give away and the inherent logic behind wishlists that if different for every user (some people choose to have only 3-4 games on wishlist, others like myself put them there as a reminder to check the game out in the future, some have private profiles and wishlist couldn't be loaded etc).