Should point income rate be reduced?
You've probably only slept twice since you joined the site. I think that's not enough research data to judge, if that actually happens after every sleep!
Comment has been collapsed.
Just think all the giveaways he missed at those 2 nights man. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's best how currently it is now.
EDIT: I just noticed you registered yesterday, welcome to Steamgifts!
About your suggestion, I think you need to spend some more time before coming with such idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I would disagree that someone should be here for more time before giving feedback - often it's people who are brand new who can see flaws the most clearly :)
Comment has been collapsed.
OP hasn't yet seen multiple of 30-60-100 point GA's, of course you might feel theres alot of points if you enter only 1-10 point GA's. You'll understand what I'm talking about, if you go and see how many entries OP has.
I partially agree with you, however this is different case, which in my opinion, requires more time, observation and opportunities, before making conclusion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. On some points new people might see flaws better, but this is an area on which you need at least some experience to come to a conclusion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Best Support Answer ever, and its best solution =)
Comment has been collapsed.
why do you care? No need to enter everything or use all the points you get. just relax, enter stuff you want at that moment and move on.
Comment has been collapsed.
As you advance in levels and gain access to more giveaways you'll be wanting extra points, especially around the times bundles are released and there's something you actually want from it. Not to mention the random unbundled stuff requiring 40+ points to enter.
Cost to enter is basically $1 = 1 Point, based on steam store real pricing. There are some glitches when "packs" are released, and singular games from those packs can end up requiring 100 points to enter. But if you want a chance at it, that's 100 points gone quickly.
You gain 1 point per 1 giveaway made, site-wide, More or less the strikeout. The points are distributed every 15 minutes to all users based on 5% of the total value of all giveaways created in that 15 minute time frame. So, if $100 worth of giveaways are created 5% being $5, 5 points would be generated. So to gain so many points is in many ways a good thing, a good indicator that the site is active.
http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/51Rfd/point-regeneration-and-enter-giveaway-changes
Comment has been collapsed.
That's subjective. I'm level 8 and cannot recall the last time I was under 200 points.
Well, I think I can, when I was trying to win the Dreamatorium of Dr. Magnus 2, because I didn't like its bundle that much. But before that…
Comment has been collapsed.
like you said - it is subjective - I'm lvl 10, never enter GAs below lvl6 unless they are whitelist/group/private and still I spend all my points all the time ;p
The thing is - if someone doesn't spend all the points why does he care? You would be spending the same amount as you are spending now whether point regeneration would be twice as big or two times lower ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
To reduce the "eh, I really didn't care about this game but I had points so I entered" entries and maybe finally push the played ratio of sent keys to double digits (in percentage)…
Comment has been collapsed.
Once every 15 minutes? Well, time to adjust my code...
Comment has been collapsed.
It's good as it is. No need to change everything in this site. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
The Point income rate is fine as it is , if you are not here to hoard and enter for stuff you actually plan on playing .
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd ague that the rate should increase with levels but I think most high level members wouldn't really care since they rarely need the points anyway. A decrease in general would probably be beneficial for people who actually give games away and detrimental to bots and script joiners.
Comment has been collapsed.
I need more points all the time! ;p But I don't agree with points increase with level idea - idea behind SG is that each user should have the same chances in GA they are entering. If I regenerated 5 times faster than you I'd enter 5 times more and have 5 times bigger chances ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure what you're arguing for but... even if the idea behind SG "is that each user should have the same chancees in GA they are entering" giving higher level people more points wouldn't increase theirs chances in any given GA. Besides that, if SG was at all about equal opportunity there wouldn't exist private and group giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Registered one day, clearly an expert on the system.
Anyway if I go to bed when it's in sub-100's of points, rarely am I back to 300 when I get up. Clearly this would depend on where you live, because if you sleep when most of the world is awake, then points will go up faster due to more people posting giveaways. Also during good times I rarely even see 300pts, and am always living in the sub-100 to 200pt range trying to keep up with good giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
As one of those who sleeps while most of the world is awake, it's usual to have 300 points on waking. Who knows how many points are added when a big bundle drops, like Humble main bundles or Weeklies, or Indie Gala.
Personally I think it would be better if the points system was calibrated (points cap and rate) so that on average a user would reach their max points (from zero) in 24 hours. As it is, often there's probably 500-1000 or so points made during a 24 hour period. If fewer people were entering GAs we'd all have higher chances of winning the ones we did enter. I'd prefer few low-entry GAs over many high-entry GAs.
EDIT... When I write "calibrate" I don't mean make point regeneration a fixed amount per hour or per day, but rather scale the percentage of points generated per GA created (e.g. 5% or 10%) to a level that would on average generate the max points in a 24 hour period. For example, if over the past 12 months the number of GAs created has meant on average there were 800 points being created every day, then I would change the rate from the current 5% to (5% x 300/800) = 1.875%. That might be a bit of a drastic change initially, but you get the idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
calibrated system is a horrible idea tbh. One day more GAs get created one day less GAs. So one day you get more points and one day you get less. With calibrated system - if a big sale or great bundle appears and hundreds of GAs are being made all the time - noone has points to enter them, while at other slow day you sit at max point and have nothing to do with them. System as it is now works perfectly towards higher and lower GAA numbers because you basically get always the same proportion on points compared to GAs available.
Comment has been collapsed.
On day where hundreds of GAs are being made all the time why do you say noone has points to enter them? Unless you mean group GAs (where afaik points don't generate EDIT... apparently this is false - group GAs do make points). There will be exceptions bust most of the time public GAs and group GAs are made roughly in the same proportions.
I only enter for games I want yet spend pretty much all the points I have, and to do that I have to log at least 3 or 4 times a day. The more points I have, the more I'm willing to use those points on lower-level GAs with high entries.
I feel like the current system is best suited to those who spend more time logged into the site (several times per day), which I will admit I'm one of. It also best suits those who tend to be logged on (as opposed to being asleep or at work) when most other users are actively creating GAs, as they can enter more GAs without hitting their points cap. This is the group I'm not really a part of, not that i'm complaining; just giving my perspective.
Comment has been collapsed.
let me explain:
- as you propose fixed point regeneration let's say it would be 20p generated per hour, which is pretty close to your proposed 500 daily generation. now imagine this - a new HUMBLE AAA MADNESS BUNDLE gets released and it contains Fallout 4, GTA5 and Witcher 3. Let's say you're only intrested in Witcher 3 and will only enter GAs for it, but ofc a lot of people will be buying this bundle and dumping all their keys to SG. So - let's imagine that 500 users buy the bundle and drop the kesy to SG and all set GA ending to 1 day. now that's 90000 worth of points to enter all and 30000 to enter all Witcher 3 GAs. With your proposal in 1 day before all GAs end you will be able to generate 500 points and enter only 8/500 Witcher GAs, even if you invest all your points only to game you're intrested in you're screwed, because there are simply too many GAs of it being made. Now on the other hand in current progressive system you would generate 5% of all GAs made points so at least 4500P (probably more because people will create GAs not only for these 3 games) meaning that you will be able to enter at least 75 GAs for the game you dream of.
- now imagine different situation - it's a slow day at SG two weeks later. Noone is making any intresting GAs, because all contributors spent their monies on this crazy bundle 2 weeks ago. All you see on GA page are just a few new GAs worth maybe 100p in total. Yet you still generate 500p per day and have nothing to spend these points at. God, now you wish you could spend these 500p 2 weeks ago, because as you were only able to enter 8 GAs in a day you didn't manae to win any of these amazing Witcher 3 GAs....
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh I see now I either didn't explain my suggestion well or you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't intend to suggest fixed point regeneration. What I meant was look at historically how many points are generated each day. i.e. an average, and then set the percentage of points generated per giveaway crated according to that. Currently it seems to be 5%. It used to be 10% when the site had fewer GAs. I'm sugesting maybe it should be 3 or 4 percent, or if fractions are possible 3.5% or something like that.
I agree completely that a fixed rate per time is nonsense, sorry to lead you along that route. I think the idea of percentage of points per GA created (the current system) is perfectly fine and logical.
I think calibration normally refers to adjusting parameters or tweaking things, not completely changing how a system works.
Comment has been collapsed.
ohh, ok then ;) seems I totally misunderstood you ;)
Still - as for parameters themselves you have to keep in mind one thing. Sure we have more public GAs now, but we also have loads of private and group GAs as well. I cannot tell about groups, guess it rose as well, because we have more groups but cannot tell how many, but the number of private GAs happening in the forums skyrocketed in SGv2 - we used to have few puzzles and GAs per day, now we have few trains per day each with tens of GAs. So we have to take that into perspective as well ;) While 5% generation may seem like a lot to someone who has a huge library (like you or me), to someone who is not in that many groups, someone who just enter public GAs etc. Such a person may have problems spending all his points and may believe the regeneration is too high. at the same time someone with small library, in many groups, digging forum and solving puzzles - will have 2-3 times more GAs to enter every day. And to him this 5% regeneration may even be too small to regenerate what he wants to enter. All in all - and not talking about you here, but about few other people in this thread - noone should judge the whole community and decide what is better/worse for it if looking only from his own perspective, because his/her perspective may not work for many other users ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, and taking all that on board, remember the point that Monukai makes further down in the thread - that reducing the number of points shouldn't lead to most users winning any less games.
The hypothetical person with a small library that might feel like they need a lot of points, that you refer to, would indeed be able to enter for fewer GAs than before, but he'd have higher chances than before as well. If the change is made properly, he should be equally likely to win as many games as before, but now the GAs he wins are more likely to be the ones he's more interested in.
Suppose they want mainly Witcher 3, but will spend any leftover points on Mad Max because they have some interest in that (but not as much as Witcher 3). If after the change they had fewer points to spend, they might not get to enter as many of the GAs for Mad Max, but would enter the same number for Witcher 3, so any reduction in their chances of winning Mad Max is compensated by an increased chance of winning Witcher 3, which in the end is the one they want more anyway.
Is this making sense?
I'm trying to take into account all users when making the suggestions I make. A change to the point regeneration rate (a decrease) as the OP proposes is something I'm in favor of because it could have some small effects:
-
Slightly disadvantages those who spend their points without self-control on games they don't want (this includes the use of bots) and advantages those who spend their points more sparingly (i.e. on the games they really want). I think this effect in particular most people would find it hard to disagree with.
-
Advantages those who can't or don't log onto the site as frequently as several times a day, disadvantaging slightly those who spend a lot of their free time on the site (or bots). In other words, advantaging those who currently hit the 300 cap a lot (because hitting the cap will become less common), disadvantaging those who manage to never hit the 300 cap.
-
Negative side effect could be that GAs that currently struggle to receive 5 entries (referring to just private or group GAs because for public GAs the 5 entries doesn't matter - they can receive 1 entry and still get CV) might be a little less likely to make it to 5 entries. It's hard to say for sure though.
I would raise the question of why the points regeneration was lowered from 10% to 5% in the first place, because it relates to this discussion. If this was mainly a result of a higher volume of GAs, then wouldn't it be still logical to lower the points regeneration even further if the reasoning is all exactly the same?
On a macro scale, the way I see it, comparing SGv2 now to the old days (for me this means 4 years ago), a big change is that Steam allows a lot more low-quality titles on the store, so naturally there are a lot more low-quality titles on SG (Uncrowded, anyone?), probably more now in proportion to highly coveted games than in SGv1. I'm not arguing in favor of changing what types of GAs are created but just noting that the changed environment can skew the way points are generated and how people choose which GAs to enter.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, you forget about one disadvantage this would have - very big events. Things like Simulataneous Giveaways, 2016 Train, London Metro Train, Rock'n'Rolla, Big group puzzles like ones made in the past by Jexel, jatan or me. All these require massive amounts of points - not even hundreds but thousands, sometimes tens of thousands. A lot of people taking part in these already do struggle a lot to get points when these are happening. Lower regeneration would mean that futher growth of big events would be impossible. If anything creators woyld be forced to cut them down, make them smaller because it would become impossible even for really dedicated participants to fully partake in them.
As for reasons for lowering point regeneration - only cg can know, but I can see at least a few possible reasons that caused it.
- Old point regeneration (10%) was set up years ago - in time when SG was much much smaller and there were a lot less GAs happening daily.. In dawn of SGv1 regeneration was too big already, people were able to hit the cap few times a day, in big humble bndle you could hit the cap in 30 minutes.
- SGv2 reduced max price for entry from 150p to 100p, meaning that you would need less points to enter even the most expensive GAs.
- SGv2 introduced region restricted GAs. These were already present in SGv1, but people were keeping them to regional groups or private GAs to bypass the rules. Private and Group GAs don't generate points thus these GAs were not generating points either. Now as these are public there is a big influx f public GAs just because of them meaning even more generation compared to SGv1.
- Ofc the thing we already talked about - there are way more GAs of all types available nowadays compared to even 1 year ago not to talk about 3 years ago (cannot talk about 4 years ago because I was not around ;p)
Comment has been collapsed.
Might be time to make another reply chain soon. :)
I see your point about the big events. That's a reasonable concern I agree. I feel like the needing 5 entries issue for private GAs is likely to be relatively unchanged whatever the point regeneration is set to though.
Out of the two things that can be adjusted, those being the points cap (300) and the point regeneration percent (5%), I have the impression the points cap is the one that impacts more on the need for points in big events.
If there's an event with a huge number of private GAs, and assuming private GAs created generate points for everyone, then there will be a resultant increase in the number of entries in public GAs and a reduction in the number of entries in the private GAs. I agree this could be an issue for those seeking to get the 5 entries for CV.
We're talking about a pretty specific and atypical scenario though, as in it's not the everyday experience of most users of the site. I don't recall the London Metro train struggling to get 5 entries in any of its giveaways (though I guess there would have been some). The big issue around that event seemed to be the several days SG was down, including the event ending before the site came back up.
There's an interesting balance to be struck between GA creators who want those 5 entries in their group/private GAs (like you or me perhaps, and esp people in groups like Bundlelicious) and those who want to have better odds in the GAs they choose to enter. Both are reasonable to argue for I think.
If points regeneration was lowed from 5% to 4% for example, one could lower the number of people entering a GA to get CV from 5 to 4 as well. This is not a change I would suggest as I assume their are good anti-abuse reasons to enforce the 5-entry rule.
Comment has been collapsed.
depends on an event ;) for let's say puzzle or train requiring 1000p to enter pointcap may be more important, but for example for simgiv, which required several tens thousands points in a single month point regeneration is much more importans. Generally - the bigger event the less important cap is and the more regeneration is. Because really big events no matter how big cap is it will not be enough - so you need to regenerate before an event ends.
assuming private GAs created generate points for everyone - private GAs (and group/WL GAs) does not generate points ;) That's why I brought events argument - these GAs don't generate points, so you need your public-generated points to enter them.
I don't have access to Metro stats, but can tell you that for example in last SimGiv we already noticed a big drop in entries # because of too big number of GAs. while in previous events top GAs were easilly getting 51+ entries, now onnly 6-7 GAs reached 50+, really top GAs that would previously get 51+ now were getting 41+. But the problem with less popular GAs was even bigger. In total we had 389 GAs that didn't give creators any Cv, because were under 5 entries. I revious event it was a little over 100 and in SGv1 it was 2X GAs (but then there was 2 entries not 5 entries required). With loiwered generation such events would have to be seriously trimmed down. Sure - these don't hapen every day. But they do happen. And for the more active part of the community events are the core of it. I personally will be much more hyped over 2016train than over whole month of entering public GAs ;p
And as for argument about lower % regeneration lower entries required - like you said yourself - the lower the entries # is the easier it is to exploit. It got to 5 in SGv2 because 2 entries were too easy to exploit and exploited a lot, thus lowering it again I don't see happening.
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems we need to establish whether private or group GAs generate points or not. Crazee further down in the thread seems to say they do.
As for requiring 1000 points for a train, that sounds a bit over the top to me. Firstly, the obvious point that no one needs to enter for every single GA on the train.
I'm not familiar with SimGiv, but there's two possible reasons giveaways are not getting enough entries:
1) People who want to enter don't have enough points
2) Not enough people want to enter or even reach that GA.
I guess for organisers of really big events they need to somewhat consider how many people will reach the GAs within moreso than how many points people have. Maybe reconsider putting really unpopular games behind a lot of barriers (hard to find/reach, high level). I remember putting at the end of one of my forum trains a private level 10 GA for Sinister City, more as a joke than anything as I didn't expect it to receive any entries at all, and that turned out to be the case.
I still think we're talking about scenarios that don't affect the vast majority of users. I'm not knocking big events but they do differ quite a large amount from the average user experience on the site and to decide rules and mechanics of the overall site based on those restricted cases is IMO not the way to go, but reducing the impact on them as well is desirable.
Comment has been collapsed.
well the thing with simgiv is that there were 7 events so far so there's quite a lot of data to compare among ;) and it was first such a significant drop - obviously because of the too big rise in # of GAs (from 1100 last event to 1600+ this event) so while ofc some people will not enter some GAs whether they have points or not I believe the main reason for drop was that people dind't have enough points and had to prioritize their GA entries much more not that these people suddenly in 6 months since last event started to be much more picky at average about what they enter :>
Ofc - these scenarios don't affect the vast majority of users, but we also should look at the fact that vast majority of users are lvl 0/1, ony going for public, not taking part in forums, community etc - should we really hurt the minority that is active and actually drives this site just because there are much more people who "don't care about your silly forum stuff" and just will have bigger chances in their public GAs instead?
Comment has been collapsed.
should we really hurt the minority that is active and actually drives this site just because there are much more people who "don't care about your silly forum stuff" and just will have bigger chances in their public GAs instead?
I don't see it that way. If anything, I think the change would benefit the minority more, and those level 0/1 users who don't contribute or barely contribute to the community will not have so many points to burn on games they don't really want.
In other words, I don't think it's as simple as this change negatively affecting active contributing users, and positively affecting the level 0s. I'm trying to think of the phrase that describes this, something like "false dichotomy".
Comment has been collapsed.
afair v1 point generation was based solely on public GAs, now on all. Problem is, closed groups GAs make up big chunk of all GAs (and more pricey than avg public), while being accessible only for a handful of user. At the same time points are given to all users, leading to flooding of public/forum GAs with entries. Mostly motivated with "not wasting points"/"to win something" attitude, no matter if one want's the game or not.
Lowered points generation wouldn't make big difference for events - simply GAs would be going for 4 weeks instead of 2 (as was in 2k16), same for puzzles. True, SimGive would take a hit, but let's face it - it's only ~100 users affected. Number not really comparable to XX thousands of average members
There is one more side effect not mentioned - big number of entries in each GA are very discouraging. This is especially true for new user that doesn't know yet about puzzles, groups, hadn't met the community. Take a look at number of entries when ppl start making "i never win" - afair it's in 250-500 range - it's a fraction of what is needed for the first win (with high probability)
Comment has been collapsed.
afaik group/private GAs don't generate points in SGv2, same as they didn't in SGv1. About group GAs I'm 99% sure - in last SimGiv event I observed my points the moment event went live. There were several hundreds Group GAs created in an hour worth thousands of points (I've had 7k points stored, used them all and was only in 1/3rd of GAs, and with my library size there were quite a few GAs I didn't even see) so I should get at least 1000 points statistically speaking. yet my points in this hour rose by 2X only ;p
As for "I never win" argument - when I joined SG over 3 years ago there were usually few hundreds of entries per public GA, maybe 1.5k for big AAA game. Yet people still were creating "I never win" threads the same as they do now. It has much less to do with what you imply here than with the simple fact that people cannot read, search or do a simple math ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
crazee says otherwise (up/down in discussion), but for sure only cg knows.
This is only the source of the numbers, I'm too lazy and it would take too much time to gently pull and parse all users data to get statistics on abandoned accounts. Most of users won't make a thread, just leave quaietly to never come back. It's less about calculating chances and more psychic wear: you enter, enter,..., and nothing - after long enough time everyone will break.
Comment has been collapsed.
the problem is these people always "break" before it's justifiable by math ;) Ofc if in past someone had 2k entries and never won it would be a case to break (even thou Khalaq didn't ;p), same as now if someone made such a topic after thousands of entries. but look at the numbers - most of these people have entered what? 100, 200 or sth GAs. If you break after entering 100 GAs each having 2000 entries - should we really change the system to please the people who doesn't know that 100 out of 2000 is not even close to 100%? ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
We both know probability, there is no argue at that )
Not everyone has Khalaqs patience - that's the point. It's the number of repeated actions without sucess that breaks ppl. Idk what is the average number causing that, but I'm pretty sure it's lower than 1-1,5k needed to win anything. If it is close to 1k, then there is no point for change, but if, say at 500, drop out rate rises significantly it's somethig to think about. Future of the site depends on the inflow of fresh blood, and it would be good if not only most desperate to get a free game stayed )
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem I see is that for someone who perfectly understands the probabilities, to enter 2000 2000-entry GAs to have an odds-on chance of winning just one would seem pretty depressing. As far as I can tell, to find and enter 2000 GAs, for most people it would be more effective to spend that time at their job and just buy the game themself. If the average GA I entered had 2000 entries I don't think I would bother entering anymore. Not because I'd be ungrateful or not want the games badly, but just because of the sheer amount of time spent in trying to win a game.
Of course this is not my experience as I'm in some nice groups and have had years to make giveaways and earn some CV. If I was a new user today I can't imagine being too enthusiastic about entering many GAs here. I would probably try to level up pretty quickly.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it is fine as it is. I normaly need only aroud 100 points when I wake up, taken I get even so low. But that is caused that I enter many GA that only 5p or so ^^ occasionaly there is a 20p or so in between. Perks of hidding al the stuff you dont want, cant enter the wrong GA. (had it once, luckily I didnt win (^.^) )
Comment has been collapsed.
Remember you're not obligated to use the points... :)
Trying to win games you don't want, just so you don't "waste" your points, it's your choice to do it... Only trying to win the games you want, and ignoring the rest, that's permitted... :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I vote everyone on the site posts a Barbie Dreamhouse giveaway, all ending at random times over the next month.
The OP then uses an auto-entry script for Barbie Dreamhouse giveaways.
Bam, no more point overflow problems!
Well, unless they win one of the giveaways, of course-
but then they'll have a copy of Dreamhouse, and that's clearly more important.
Comment has been collapsed.
A slight reduction (maybe halving) wouldn't sound that bad…
Comment has been collapsed.
If halving is your interpretation of slight, I sure hope you don't ever get a job as a barber- people might be a bit miffed when they ask for a slight trim from you :'P
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I usually do tend to halve my hair length when I get a haircut…
Comment has been collapsed.
If I would do that, I would lose about 10 - 15 cm. I wouldn't be happy about that at all...
Comment has been collapsed.
My friend wanted to trim her hairs when she was kid - in result of this when she was walking with her grandmother other people were saying "Oh, how nice grandson you have here!"
Lolz.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its a thing these humans do. I tried it once... it was terrifying.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is, the cap is really great for when there's a surplus of high-cost games. For example, the other day there were 6+ 50 point games I had wanted to enter for.
Comment has been collapsed.
I kind of like this but I understand why you could not like this. I've been entering everything I can for quite a bit and I realized that most of the games I won I'm not going to play, so currently I'm trying to mostly enter only if I have the game on my wishlist or I find it interesting enough to try. This reduces my winning chances greatly but if I do win I'll atleast enjoy the game fully and won't dissapoint the giver. I use like 100~ points a day, most of the time now. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Same here. I wouldn't really care if it got reduced, but sometimes there is a big train with a lot of great games and then it could be annoying if your point regenerate that slow.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with the OP, a reduction in point income would not be a bad thing. Might make it a bit harder to get 5 entries for crap games, but it would increase your chances of getting the games you actually want.
Comment has been collapsed.
Might make it a bit harder to get 5 entries for crap games
The lowest number on my latest flash crappy GA was 136 (and it was set to start in the middle of the night for Europe, so no Russia, no Poland), but the pack averaged above 500/giveaway. Apparently it'd take a lot to reach the point where a public GA cannot even get 100 entries, let alone five (or one).
Comment has been collapsed.
Moscow never sleeps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6c7ajAYsJk
Comment has been collapsed.
That may be true, but 10% of the winners ending in a '.ru' email address is one-third of the usual ratio I get on the public ones. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest, at one point my main e-mail had .ru ending, too (gmail wasn't availible back then yet). Now they have .com ending aswell. And I'm still using it ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
You've only been registered on this site for 1 day and you already want to do something major because lots of people are entering giveaways you want to join so reducing your chance to win.
The reason why they are building up so fast is because there is a sale on. It always happens when there is a sale on and for a little while after.
There has been days where the points grow really slow. There are days when you can't keep up with the points that are being generated. It comes and goes. Live with it. This argument has been made and rejected many times.
Next what are you going to do, complain people shouldn't giveaway games on levels because it keeps you from even having a chance at winning a game?
Comment has been collapsed.
Since I joined SG, I don't dare sleeping. I could miss giveaways!
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, actually. Not because I'm 'missing' giveaways, but because the only people who benefit from the high point generation are botters who can enter giveaways 24/7.
Also, it's pretty pathetic that some people are dismissing the OP because he's new. Because obviously, whether your idea is good or not depends on your join date or postcount.
Comment has been collapsed.
Join date counts. Not mocking OP, but how legit that sounds that " I go to sleep and wake up with 300P" if we talk about ONE night? How good do you think one can guess, or judge the point regen rate who haven't even spent 2 days here? Not prestige-wise lacking OP's regtime, but experience-wise.
I also think that some point reducing would be good, but that's for me, because after spending a year+ on the site, I ended up with the habit of entering for only a handful games.
Comment has been collapsed.
how legit that sounds that " I go to sleep and wake up with 300P" if we talk about ONE night?
Very, because it's like that every night. How often do you need to encounter a problem before you are allowed to call it a problem, anyway?
Forums are for discussion, so if you disagree with the OP, explain why you disagree with him. Going "you didn't join long enough ago so you're not allowed to have an opinion" isn't discussion, it's being a snob.
Comment has been collapsed.
How often do you need to encounter a problem before you are allowed to call it a problem, anyway?
And how serious the problem should be that based on one ocassion you state that it's not good that way?
Point regeneration depends on the number of giveaways created, so it can fluctuate a lot, that's why I said that they have a good point pointing out that one shouldn't make decisions on a single data. I'm happy that a new user immediately thinks about entering for less, but more wanted games, but that won't make a decision instantly good. Point regeneration is still for 5%? of the points required to enter, which is quite a good selection, not absurdly high. And it depends on what giveaways the user wants to enter for. Scatter it for cheap 1-3P bundled games, or enter for something worth 20-30P, bundles are full with that
Both point regeneration and feeling of "too much points" depends on how the current bundles fare, and because of this while the intention is good, I would also tell OP to wait like a month and check how the points are on the two-weekly HB's Tuesdays, or monthly bundles, just to name the two biggest. (For exampel if there are expensive games in the bundles I don't want, I have tons of points but just the average number of games to enter. Or good repeat bundle I want a game from which is bought by barely any people - no GA, while I can have points)
And I would be really grateful if you wouldn't address me with the example about the snobs after I straight out told that I'm borderline unaffected by the regeneration, I enter so scarecely. And no, opinion is never denied, but ignored, maximum. SImply because there's no such thing as an opinion that should be immediately and instantly respect without the chance to attack it. An opinion without facts is useless.
For example my opinion is that the population of spain is actually a descendant of a former civilization and they are not even human, but half duck half people hybrids. And the fact that this is my opinion it's not won't change on the fact that this is obviously a stupid nonsense based on the total lack of information.
Opinion = I feel / think like this. Opinion =/= this is anywhere true, correct or justificable.
Comment has been collapsed.
See, now you're actually bringing a counterargument. Not a particularly good one, because, like I said, it happens every night so it's a perfectly valid observation even if it's based on a small sample size, but still. And if the OP's newness triggers you: I've been here for four and a half years and I agree with him for the reason I stated earlier. Is my sample size big enough?
As for the snob thing, I would be really grateful if you wouldn't get upset over things I never wrote. I said that dismissing someone's opinion because he didn't join long ago enough is being a snob. I don't know why you feel that would apply to you if you didn't simply dismiss his opinion in the first place, but that's your problem, not mine.
Finally, I never said his opinion was objectively wrong or right, I just said that "you didn't join long ago enough" isn't a valid argument, because it doesn't address his claim at all. It might be used to call into question the validity of his observation, but it doesn't offer any actual counterpoint, so it's a useless statement.
TL;DR: Calm down and learn to read.
Comment has been collapsed.
it happens every night so it's a perfectly valid observation even if it's based on a small sample size
Guy here is for one night, but YOU are saying it happens every night. It's only valid observation in your eyes because you're using your experience, not his. You're incredible bad at logic -.-'
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think you're reading it right. OP is not stating that it happens every night.
Comment has been collapsed.
But Nayenezgani does, just above my last comment you replied to.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes and he also states that its a valid observation despite the sample size. Are you arguing that it's not because of logic?
Comment has been collapsed.
The two things is different.
After being on the site for 4 years, he can tell that yes, points regenerate. I've also seen it after my ~ 2 years.
But stop protecting people who claim (albeit true) things based on ad hoc guesses. OP has absolutely nothing to show up to support his claim, Nay did it instead of him. True or not, one can not judge the site's working state from ONE day's info.
Do you go outside, look at the night and say " every night the stars are visible" because you see them at that night? Or that the sun is shining because today is shiny? OP is right, but only by accident. And instead of protecting people's precious feelings about giving the good answer one should promote critical thinking to reach that conclusion. Even a stopped clock is accurate two times a day, similarly to the guesses based on a laughable sample size.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand what you're saying but it's still a valid opinion. Also one that happens to be true it seem. Maybe instead of arguing about whether it was a lucky guess or well researched you could argue against the suggestion. It looks to be a pretty good suggestion regardless how well researched it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest, it is. But with the best intentions I would recommend OP to spend 2-3 weeks on the site and think about this afterwards. Currently there's no weekly HB, monthly GAs are mostly out, the 2-weekly HB was uPlay mostly, and Bundlestars also repeating itself. If these would be in, there would be (at least I think) much more, mostly better giveaways to spend the points on, so wouldn't really feel so overwhelming. Even 1-2 game with 15-20P entry can almost instantly drain one's points if there are enough giveaways. Also there's a lot of new games on SG compared to Steam's promoted ones, good opportunity got to know /wishlist new games. Point regen is faaar from being too slow, but finding intresting things can make it feel more balanced. (I personally could fair with third-fourth as well :D but that would surely impact the entry numbers globally)
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems like we're in agreement about the suggestion then, that's good :)
I'm probably a bit biased because I mostly enter giveaways for cheap bundle stuff that I've missed in the past but I feel like less points to spend overall would be beneficial to the more dedicated givers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Facts don't change based on who observes them. If OP says something and I say he's right, it's not possible that he's wrong and I'm right.
Don't accuse me of being bad at logic when you try to tell me bullshit like this.
Comment has been collapsed.
But OP has no idea how the other days will work for him that's a potential wrong on his idea so yeah you can be right and he can be wrong based on his future experience. This is not a fact though. It's about personal experience with site. And this just makes more hilarious Mullins' post just below us.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a fact that you get more than 300 points in one night's sleep. It doesn't matter if you're basing this on two days or four years of experience with the site, the fact doesn't change. Whether you think that's a problem is an opinion, but that doesn't change that the OP's observation is correct.
Comment has been collapsed.
After seeing that edit OP wrote i feel like he is troll so i lost my interest on topic. All i can say that's not a fact either because i had an experience with 0-250 over a night with less sleep than usual yeah that's part of experience too. But it's a silly thing to discuss so most of the time you are right I accept that. I only had one night like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
if it were for me, i would reduce point regeneration to 10% of the normal value generated. :3
but like the op, that's just my opinion. someone else could come here and say "hey i need more points, pls up the point regen to 1000%".
threads like these are pointless, they are solely based on personal experience with steamgifts. hint: experience / 1 day here...........................
so yes, +1 to your reply.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reduction would be nice, it's sad seeing 300P all the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
too many pointsssssssss
can we sell our points to others? :3
[H] 300p all day long for 1 month
[W] 5 copies of Rise of The Tomb Raider
Comment has been collapsed.
When it's an average day: reduce.
When a game on my wishlist (or even worse, multiple games) has just been bundled into something appealing by cv/money ratio: increase.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 Usually I only spend 100 points or less per day, but when there is a bundle with a game I would like, I end up using all my points and not entering everything I want. So in my opinion it should stay like it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because you have points does not mean you have to use the,lowering point levels just because some have no self control and will spend all there points so they do not waste them.I ask why when the point system is fine now.I still only enter for games i want and will play,and most of the time i always have 200+ points.
As i said lowering how points are earned because some have no self control is just silly.You are not being forced to use them,but they are there for you to spend them how you see.Also they do not always come back fast,it depends on when bundles are released and so on.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's more like lowering point generation because most have no self control, which sounds reasonable to me
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah but then where do you draw the line?I mean some people have no self control and buy every bundle game,and then bitch about the next bundle being repeats and crap.Should they not be allowed to complain since they have no self control??
I am just saying for me it needs to be more then someone spending all there points just because they can and on games they do not want,because even if you lowered those same people are still going to spend all there points and most likely on games they still do not want.
In the end there is no real solution or answer to this,and i think it is fine the way it is.There points,they can spend it on what they want or waste them how they see fit,who are we to decide how and what they spend them on and how many they need.
Comment has been collapsed.
They can bitch all they want, why are you asking? Yes, people would still spend points just to spend them but there would be less to spend.
Distributing less points would lower the amount of bot/script entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
For the sake of argument, if one raises the point that you don't need to spend all your points, and one has usually 200+ points at any time, wouldn't it be quite logical to argue for fewer points generated?
It would impact on those who spend with no self-control and not really affect (or at least affect less) those who use their points very sparingly as they frequently "forfeit" points when up against the 300-point wall. In the end, this should translate to better odds for those who use points very sparingly, and make those who spend points with no self-control be more selective in what they enter. So it helps mitigate the problem you're describing, of people spending with no control.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. Sure if you give away something, you want someone to get it who is going to play it, but this is not the way to solve it in my opinion. If people want to enter for GA's they probably won't play, they are free to do so. If you want for people to play your games, put up a higher level, since there seem to be less high level users like that. To me it seems like OP just wants to increase his chances of winning.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess you're the one deciding which suggestions are stupid or not then? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
doesn't matter. how can this be valid suggestion if person joined less than an hour before making this thread?
Comment has been collapsed.
I totally agree. On some points he may have good suggestions, but he just has too little experience to know what he's talking about. He probably has not seen many (if any) long trains or days that less GA's are created. You just can't gather enough data from just one or two nights.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well it is stupid to raise them just so higher levels can win more big games.I thought this site was meant to give...seems like some on here want to win more then to give if they want the points raised.I doubt high levels are really struggling for games or lack games so i should hope wanting more points to win is not there main goal.
Hell i do not always have enough to enter GA if several pop up that are 60 points i have to pick and chose,and i am fine with that.I like winning but i do not need to win that bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
IMO the point income rate should be lowered. I literally can't sleep without hitting the point cap by the time i wake up.
A reduced income rate would make users consider entering only on giveaways of interest to them.
Edit: Whoa, i definitely hit people's nerves!
Comment has been collapsed.