Okay, so assuming I put 9 entries into a game, and you only put 1... I got a question, why'd you only put 1? Either you didn't have enough points, (Meaning you spent them on something else you also wanted to win, while I couldn't because I spent my points on this.) or you didn't want to enter that many times because you'd rather spend your points on something else. (Read the previous text between parentheses.) And as to how I would feel... I'm not saying you HAVE to spend all your points on one game. If I do however spend all my points and enter 60 times, and they win with 1 entry, bad luck. But I'll still have 60x higher chances of winning, so it would rarely happen.

I know, and I hate people who use them. Sadly, I can't do anything about it, other than not create them myself.

Yeah, that's a reasonable argument. If you were to explain how it's true. Everyone has an equal chance.

I am selfish, yes. But I am far from an idiot. The cap doesn't stop those who visit regularly. While lowering it would cause points to fill more often and for more users, meaning more points get lost and thus fewer entries are made, increasing the chances. While lowering it is not a bad idea, I certainly think it's far from the best solution. And sorry you misunderstood me. Sarcasm is so difficult to understand through written text. I am not in favor of increasing the point cap, I would love for it to be lowered.

I'd really damn like it, but it's just another suggestion that we won't get through.

I am. Else I wouldn't be using values from 321-325, but instead values from 100-104. Your chances of winning are not affected by the number of people entering, but by the number of entries made.

If this "system" (As you called it.) wouldn't be in effect, you're right, you'd have a 1% chance of winning if there were 100 entries. Now, with the system, you're not the only one with 5 entries in that previous example. 49 others also have 5 entries, and each has a chance of about 1.54% then there's 25 who entered twice, giving them a chance of about 0.62%, and 25 who entered once, giving them a chance of about 0.31%. So only those who entered once are having their chances lowered to 0.31%, and the calculations I was performing showed the increase of your chances with the system in effect. And, yes, now I see what you meant. Let me re-respond to that previous post. You would have, yes, spent 5 times the points with the system in effect, but you wouldn't have been the only one. The points you and those 49 people spent on entries for this game, can not be spent on entries for other games, meaning others who entered twice, once, or not at all have higher chances than you at those games.

I'm not sure karhyy got the original point; I don't think they see anything wrong with their analogy and thus OP was right in replying with a serious answer :p

How was I to know I already had that DLC. It wasn't in my Steam inventory, but on a site I only went to, to get a cheaper Magicka. Pure coincidence my friend sent me a game on there just a little while later, so I checked my account. So, okay I didn't say that in the description. That does not change my point. Had I not activated it, and instead activated the one I had before, what was I to do with the one I won? Keep it simply because rules don't allow regifting? The way I understand it, regifting is not allowed because people want those who win the games to actually play them, to discourage entering a giveaway for no reason, or just to gain contributor value. And that's what I want too, that's why I created this thread.

Other Magicka's DLCs do show up.

Stuff doesn't have to be broken for it to be improved. People managed to live just fine thousands of years ago. Yet I don't think you'd prefer that to the life you have today. (Heck, maybe you do, in that case, I got no more arguments for that statement.)