Do you think this is a good idea?
It was suggested in the past.
In my opinion - yes and no. It is a good idea for the points stated in your post, but as with mostly anything else, these kind of features are overlooking the issue of potential abuse. I want to farm CV with friends; I want to buy myself a game (The Game). A friend creates a private giveaway for The Game. I, along with 4 other friends, agree to the plan and all enter the giveaway. After it has ended, we re-roll until I win, then I buy myself the game and mark as received. Friend receives CV.
A quick solution - limit mutual re-rolls to 1 per giveaway. Anything more than that, and you have to request a re-roll the old-fashioned way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Didn't realize this was suggested before. I looked and didn't find anything. But I think that limitation is good. Maybe the limitation could be based on entries and whether the giveaway is public or private. For instance, if the giveaway is private (or group/whitelist only), and has 25 or less entries, it is limited to one reroll. Maybe if the giveaway has less than 10 entries you can't have a mutual reroll in order to prevent the issue you suggested. I think up to 3 rerolls for private is a good maximum. For public giveaways, I think 5 is a good max. Lower amounts don't apply too much on public giveaways since they always have large amounts of entries, but there could be some sort of scale (maybe one extra reroll per 1000 entries).
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with the suggested extra restrictions for private giveaways. For public ones I wouldn't add any restrictions, as it's not likely strangers would agree to a reroll without a good reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
the winner accidentally joined
"accidentally"
Comment has been collapsed.
I've accidentally joined a giveaway I didn't mean to before it ended.
It was one of the Unlucky 7 Group Giveaways with mere seconds left and was wishlisted.
Thankfully I didn't win, otherwise that would have been difficult to explain.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I don't know how you'd accidentally join a giveaway, but it's listed as a reason for a reroll so I figured I'd put it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The same as you can get pregnant. it was accident. And she said she was 18, i swear judge.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd agree to implement that but only for public giveaways, no exceptions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I voted no
Reason
can be exploited in small private giveaways easily .
There needs to be some support oversight or it would just become a thing where someone can just buy a game ... you make a giveaway for it ... ask 4 more ppl to join it ... reroll till that guy gets it and claim you gave it away
Sounds stupid but it can and will be done if that was the case
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, we discussed potential restrictions for private giveaways. I don't see this feature getting implemented without those restrictions or possibly even not able to do it with private giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes if there is only one re roll possible that way, for GA over 50 participants.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it can be exploited easily and for that reason it will not take the work out from support shoulders.
I voted yes because somehow it can work the way you suggested with a fair limitation for only 1 MRR (i love to abbreviate) allowed and if wasn't enough the support should be summoned to expurgue the evil from the world and slay the corrupted skeletons! (and fix the problem)
But, the way it works now is completely viable but implementing such thing could be great.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was thinking that an option for a mutual reroll (where both the winner and the gifter agree to a reroll) would be great for both support and SG users. It would take away a good amount of tickets from support and it would make rerolls faster for gifters. I think it would be particularly helpful for situations where the game can't be activated in the region the winner is in, the winner doesn't want the game anymore, the winner accidentally joined, or the winner already owns the game (although this issue seems to have been recently fixed).
What do you guys think?
Comment has been collapsed.