Slightly derailing but still very relevant, working towards users not having to visit the site 6x a day, would it also be possible to raise the minimum giveaway time range from 1 hour to maybe ...6?(preferably 8-12) It would also lessen the pressure for some users who think about whether they really want to join a certain giveaway or not. A higher point cap would be appreciated, it's true that when 20-60p title bundles drop, it's easy to use up 300+ points that's been sitting there the whole day before and I only want wishlisted games. The increased time range would allow users who've used up points during the influx to be able to wait out the points regen and still join the giveaways they want without being tempted to resort to scripts to help out.
I know that if everyone is short on points, the chances of winning are the same but that promotes the idea of jumping onto flash giveaways and increasing the number of visits to the site to catch those. I would like to join all the ones I'd like that I can see instead of needing to choose one giveaway over the other just because of high chances. Then maybe even needed to double check as those giveaway ends to make sure the chance of winning is worth the points invested. That was an extreme scenario example of course.
tl;dr - no to fixed, all for scaled down even less per giveaway but not fixed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, with steady generation of points expanding minimum GA time to 6 - 12h sounds reasonable.
It'd also cut the need to log into site at least once in an hour, trying to snipe those super short GAs. And those 1-hour GAs doesn't make much sense in the first place, as creators won't get their CV quicker (as they may think). As winner has 7 days to claim and confirm GA.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a frequent maker of 1h public GAs, I do it for things to be quickly over with, when I will be ready to swiftly check the winner and send keys immediately.
From an entering point yes, I'd prefer not to miss all those flash gibs.
From a makers perspective, getting that ability be taken away would be annoying.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe. But 1-hour limit is subjective, we could also have 30 min limit. Or 15 min limit. And still find people who'd defend this idea. If you know that you have time between 18 - 19, without ability to create 1-hours GA you'd create it for 24h, so it'd end at 18 giving you time to check inner and send keys.
Super short GAs punish all people that aren't in timezone that allows them to use SG right after bundle starts. Because they aren't able to check site and enter in those GAs (in contrary to people that can do this and sit, enter into everything and spend this huge point surge). Which only encourages them to use auto-join scripts to check every hour if there is something new from their WL.
So on one end we have people who are on huge disadvantage (not because of their fault, but because their timezone or job) and on the other "people that like to make short GAs". I like stuff to be equal and as much fair as possible, that's why (for me) taking care of 1st category is way more important than keeping status quo of 2nd category.
But that's just me ;P
Comment has been collapsed.
Super short only punish time zones if all bots are cleared from the site. I made quite a few flash GAs timed to make sure they run in a time period when it was 1 AM-3 AM in a certain region on a weekday, and still had a quarter of winners from there.
Comment has been collapsed.
could also have 30 min limit. Or 15 min limit
Honestly when throwing out some crap, I'd use that xD
But too low is more prone to manipulations, so that's the reason to not allow less.
If you know that you have time between 18 - 19,
If. Most times I can't predict that and then it's either a bother to interrupt something else or it will stay undone and as said I like for things to be quickly over with ;-)
Also I check entrants in my public gibs so fewer people is less work there too ^^
2nd paragraph
Agree there.
Though there are flash gibs in one's timezone too, it's not like those always happen outside of people's timezones.
It's as much of an advantage as of a disadvantage.
taking care of 1st category is way more important than keeping status quo of 2nd category.
In general the need of the GA maker always outweighs the entrant's.
So I'm opposed to changes that make it worse for those who give.
I like stuff to be equal
Where to draw the line? What about levels or groups? More pressing concerns in that regard, but full equality either-way isn't really achievable nor desirable.
Comment has been collapsed.
My thoughts:
- There is no need to keep up with point regeneration, nor is there anything wrong with idling at 300 points. I am a bit OCD, yet I remain at 300 points almost constantly.
- While reaching the point cap (300p) does not necessitate entering giveaways, having a giveaway you wish to enter does.
- With the current system, it is not possible to keep up with a flood of 60+ point giveaways. That is a good thing.
- The forum is a bigger draw for people than entering the giveaways. Changing the point cap will not affect that.
- The current glut of "bundle trash" has inflated the point distribution such that we are seeing 45,000 points per month.
The only real problem is #5. It is a problem because it promotes scripting to take advantage of utilizing "all points possible." It may also be contributing to the deluge of cheap giveaways as those who desire more points dump cheap games on the site to generate them. The solution to both of these annoyances seems obvious: a daily cap.
From time to time, SG is flooded with giveaways due to Steam sales and/or expensive bundles. It is only then that I am ever unable to enter all the giveaways I desire due to a lack of points. These events happen infrequently, however, and for a limited amount of time. A daily cap of perhaps 600 points would offer the following benefits:
- It would allow people to enter many of the giveaways they want, but not all of them.
- It would encourage people to check back daily during high-volume events without turning SG into a chore.
- It would remove most of the benefit of auto-join scripts as entering by hand would be more efficient.
- It would encourage people to space out their giveaways so that potential entrants have time to gather the necessary points.
- It would reduce the number of entrants for "bundle trash" as point expenditure would not keep up with giveaway generation.
I feel a daily cap would be a simple, effective, and elegant solution. If anyone has a better idea, I am open to suggestions.
Comment has been collapsed.
To me an equally effective and simple solution would be to reduce the point generation for previously bundled games (bundle trash), say 15% of normal points generation. 0 points generation if the game was free. These dollar bundles are full of them and very few people enter for them (because they already own them) while they create a glut of extra points. Points not spent entering the giveaways for those games.
At least the Humble Bundles have desirable games and I imagine the points spent on those giveaways properly scales with the points they generate..
600 points is overkill on the typical slow day, but when a truly popular bundle hits, it probably isn't enough.
Humble software bundles might still be an issue, but the Bundle Dollar Trash Stars bundles would get their point generation nerfed.
Comment has been collapsed.
would be to reduce the point generation for previously bundled games (bundle trash), say 15% of normal points generation. 0 points generation if the game was free.
Almost exactly what I stated in my own comment in this thread and I agree, if they're giving 15% CV, they should also only award 15% of the points. I believe that would solve (on its own) the points issue, with no other action necessary.
EDIT: In fact, CG has stated we're getting 6x the points we used to -- 15% is roughly 1/6 the points generated.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's valid point, but adding games to bundle list can sometimes take weeks. Not long ago bundle list wasn't updated for like 1,5 month? And games are never added to bundle list right after bundle start. So all those Shit Bundles For One Dolar would generate enormous amount of points for hours or even whole days after their start.
And GAs from "free" category shouldn't generate points in the first place
So we have to stick with either constant point generation speed, or day / hour point cap. We have at best 2 good bundles per month (monthly and maybe one other AAA / indie bundle). So more points are needed only in those 2 situations. But new pay 1$ to get 50CV bundles show up constantly and site is be flooded with points without any good GAs people would really want to win (to play in them instead of farming cards).
And IMO fighting with this flood of points from 1$ Bundle Stars bundles is more important that fact I will be able to enter "only" into 12 GAs instead of 30 GAs for game I want from monthly. I will simply focus on higher level GAs (giving myself better chance). And people on lower levels will be happier as well, as I won't enter in 18 GAs giving them better odds.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's valid point, but adding games to bundle list can sometimes take weeks.
Allow more mods to add bundles to the bundled list. Many bundled games are repeats anyway, and would already be on the list. They'd only be adding the previously unbundled.
Comment has been collapsed.
They already can do this.
Only permission that bundler has is "Manage Games - Contributor Value". Same as every other moderator (but not support member). But they don't do this for some reason, they just forward requests to Shoobo. And it's CG's decision to have only 1 bundler.
But I do agree that we'd need more people that would add games to bundle list quicker. And way more moderator / support members.
(Site could also benefit from "helpers" - support members with way less permissions - like only reroll approvals and ability to suspend for inactivated / multi wins (when they are spotted as part of reroll ticket), without ability to delete GAs and giving other types of suspensions. It'd cut easy tasks, so higher mods could focus on more complex cases. And could act as "eliminations" to promote helpers to full support members).
Comment has been collapsed.
But they don't do this for some reason, they just forward requests to Shoobo.
How do you know that?
benefit from "helpers" - support members with way less permissions - like only reroll approvals and ability to suspend for inactivated / multi wins
That's actually exactly the first 'support' role ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
1.. Besides bundle list wouldn't go not updated for more than 1 month when moderators would add games to list. This doesn't make sense to deliberately allow people to boost their level and win GAs that aren't made for their level for so long.
[2]. No. Only real difference between moderator and support member is that moderators can solve user reports. Less important stuff is add more GA slots, suspend for fake / misleading GAs and multi accounts. All others permissions are the same. (sheer number of user reports shows that there should be moderators to check mainly this category and don't have to bother with approving hundreds of super simple reroll tickets "oh winner already won this").
And I'm talking about new category that could ONLY moderate reroll requests that wouldn't involve deletion of GAs, checking winner games on steam (private profiles) etc. So only with permission to "Moderate Tickets", "Multiple Wins for the Same Games" "Not Activating Won Gifts". Can't check user games on steam, no discussion moderation, no playing in "good guys" by suspending people that make 3-copy GTA V GAs etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
1.jpg
That's one year ago.
bundle list wouldn't go not updated for more than 1 month
Doesn't happen anymore. Since around 2 months all mods can access the bundle list and they actively do with daily additions.
For example last IG bundle from friday is already added and the same goes for the previous ones.
2
Simply more staff is needed yes.
Comment has been collapsed.
So show me screenshot that shows "ok, I added this game go bundle list" ticket ;P I just used something that was true from my experience.
You're not entirely correct, as super mods could access bundle list and manage it for at least part 2 years. But they didn't, hence we had huge gaps in adding games to bundle list. No one knows who added those games to the bundle list, at least CG didn't state anywhere that someone besides Shoobo ads games there. And he writes about more trivial things in site Change Log like "Changed "less" to "fewer" on the stats page as requested" or "Upgraded software on server".
Good that we agree on 2nd part at least ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
It was true up until 2 months ago. I inform you of the current state ^^
Just follow the bundles & list and you'll see it is kept highly uptodate.
These 'Manage' permissions only got added recently with the 0cv gibs overhaul and mods got granted more access.
So either Shobo got super active or my explanation is correct ;-)
as super mods could access bundle list and manage it for at least part 2 years
all of those were inactive, the 1 or 2 that existed..
So show me screenshot that shows "ok, I added this game go bundle list" ticket ;
I can show you one concerning a 0cv revocation if that helps ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
So show me screenshot that shows "ok, I added this game go bundle list" ticket ;P
Here :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice. Too bad that they didn't make any notion about it in Changelog, people would stop to be angry at Shoobo if list wouldn't be up to date.
Now we just need more support members ;P
Comment has been collapsed.
Allow more mods to add bundles to the bundled list.
This seem to have gone unannounced and unnoticed but all mods can now.
And it is actively being done with daily additions, far more often than anything the months and years before.
Comment has been collapsed.
15% points for Bundle Games, 0% points for free games... sounds great and should solve the problem of the point spamming at the "Bundle days".
Comment has been collapsed.
Earlier in the month I wrote up a post about increasing the cap so that I could sleep at night. I suggested 500 points, and made a poll for different values. But I never posted it, as it just seemed like a temporary fix, and worried that at slower times users would be able to hold days worth of points. My suggestion would be to make the current cap dynamic, and allow it to hold 24 hours worth of whatever the current rate was. I always prefered the way the points came in faster when games were listed more frequently. I guess my distaste for the fixed rate is primarily because of that other giveaway site, which seems to do everything wrong.
That said, I'm all for any kind of change that takes away the advantage of scripts. If we're going the fixed rate route then I'd prefer a cap that holds 24 hours worth of points (480p).
The other thing that gives scripts an advantage is flash giveaways. If the min giveaway time was 24 hours, or 15 hours if that's what it takes to fill up your reserve, then that advantage would be gone as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
My suggestion is to reduce the point distribution by 80%. This brings it back just above '13/14 levels.
I also would like to suggest that point distribution be static for a given 24 hour period, instead of dynamic, based on the prior 24 hour period.
ex
For the 24 hour period of Oct 4th users created giveaways that would give 500 points.
On Oct 5th, the system distributes points at the rate of 21 points per hour. (approx 500 pts) While at the same time users created giveaways that would total 670 points.
On Oct 6th, the system distributes points at the rate of 28 points per hour. (approx 670 pts)
This should mean that the high frequency users would still need to check in twice a day to use all their points (based on '13/14 levels) to avoid ever hitting the max. While casual users could stop by once a day and still not feel as though they are being penalized.
As always, thanks for reaching out to the community for feedback cg.
Comment has been collapsed.
I"m somewhat new to SG and I also mostly enter wishlist games. sometimes others after I see what they are on steam and see if it's of interest and compatibility with my current pc. I often have points left but sometimes I don't if there is a bundle of lots of games going around as I try to enter what I can in hopes of having a better chance at winning. So with my still somewhat novice experience here ( have set up some of my own giveaways already as well) I think the suggestion sounds good to me. I'm just happy to have fun to enter and have a chance at winning something and anything that improves things for all I'm good with. so +1.
Comment has been collapsed.
I only enter games i want to play, and if you look at my hidden list there are thousands of games there, and still i run out of points. The Current System Works, just increase the point cap so people aren't forced to log in as often. Why change the whole system when there is only 1 small problem that is easily remedied?
Before you do anything i recommend having a poll about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe you could change the max point system to more rewards-based? For instance, level 0 peeps get 300 cap, level 1 maybe slightly higher (increase the cap by 10 per level), so level 10 people has 400 points?
Just an idea that popped into my head.
Comment has been collapsed.
^ Gosh, i wonder why, lmao.
In my opiniont that's actually a really good idea to promote leveling up.
It rewards people that make this site happen, and gives leeches something to think about.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are already too many people who are under the impression that the site is pay2win as it is. Higher levels should not come with added privileges. The idea behind steamgifts has always been to keep things fair among users.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you telling me the more i win, the lesser chance i got game ?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, your chances remain the same no matter how much you win.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems like a great change. Although it would lead to a lot of frustration every Tuesday when a new HB hits and point generation remains static, as users will use up their points in the first couple of hours and then there will be a bunch of 1 hour giveaways with 10-20 entries each for the next few hours. So users will be even more encouraged than now to be online at that time, to not miss the great chances, even if they have to wake up in the middle of the night for it. Of course, many will use bots instead while they're asleep.
The best solution I can think of for this is to increase the minimum duration of all giveaways to 12 hours, so users who visit the site twice a day and don't use bots aren't disadvantaged.
Comment has been collapsed.
Was the lower point distribution system already implemented?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems I'm having a lower amount of points incoming this morning than I usually do.
Comment has been collapsed.
did u think of increasing the cap to say like 600 instead or something like that it may help to cut down on people coming on the site constantly by a half. I only come on every morning and afternoon so twice a day already.
Comment has been collapsed.
Better increase the cap and cut the needed and given giveaway points by half. I don't like that you want a fixed number of points per month even tho more giveaways are created. More giveaways = More points and thats good.
"In short, users would win the same number of games, but need to invest less time into joining giveaways."
Think again. Thats just not true.
Comment has been collapsed.
Users who usually spend more 480P per day might win less, and those who usually spend less win more, but of course on average it will still be the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
I won't use it anymore ofc. Just my thoughts on this.I will win less with this system and I don't like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Play and enjoy what you have and whatever you'll win / buy, less wins may be less wins but enjoying gaming is more important than racking up wins. There was a life before SG and before winning anything, it can be done :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I am in favor of this idea ONLY if there is also a cap set on the points required to enter games. If we're limited to 480 P per day, giveaways should be limited to at most 30 P regardless of price on Steam, and even that may be too high.
You'd also need to fix the bugs for games like Whispered World which often takes 100P to enter for a $20 game.
A better fix could possibly be to increase the P cap. 300 is pretty low when so many games take 60 P to enter.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. At some point I gave up using all the point distributed in a day. It means the point system is nearly worthless.
Also at public giveaway, it's really hard to win for level 0 users recently. SG should offer the chance of winning to new users who are likely to have doubts about the credibility of the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
bump for 0.01% point generation since i haven't used a single point in a week.
#SelfishMentalityLikeEveryoneElseOnSG
Comment has been collapsed.
If you implement this new system then yes, most (real)users will be entering only GAs they want, but is this necessarily a good thing? If the points are severely reduced, over time, won't we end up with tons of 0 entry shovelware and DLC GAs? What happens then? Will the community change and start giving away more expensive or more sought after games? Or will they start not giving at all because it's more expensive to level up because shovelware is having trouble getting the entries needed to receive CV? I can also see tons of users having to spend more time on the site rather than less, not entering GAs, but watching and waiting for the best ones each day.
Also, how harshly will this effect private groups? If groups were to start shutting down in addition to the other shifts; How would this all effect the site's popularity as a whole?
I dunno it's hard to say how I feel about this without giving it a lot more thought. These are just a bunch of questions that popped up in my head.
At the very least, wait until auto-joiners/bots are weeded out to see how that affects the numbers before making a point system change.
PS Does anyone have numbers for active users vs total users?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know about the specific numbers, but in general I like the idea of getting less P over time compared to how it is now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, I haven't read all of the comments so I hope no one else suggested this in the meantime.
It would be great if the system had 2 caps. The first cap would be hit during normal operation. Once that cap is hit then points accumulate at a decreased rate until the second cap is hit. So a user that is more select with their entries could save up points until a bundle drops with games that they are really interested in. I only really enter wishlisted and a few other recommended games but it still feels like I need to log in a few times a day because when I do go on, I could end up with 10 wishlisted games and not enough points to enter them.
This combined with a decrease in the number of points should be fair to all. It might even make sense to give out points as a percentage of the previous month total.
Comment has been collapsed.
Completely agree with limiting points, but the cap needs to go up to the daily limit. I only check Steamgifts once a day for most of the week, so only having 2/3 of my points available would hurt a lot more than the current system which builds up quickly enough that I can enter the extra couple of games I want to.
Comment has been collapsed.
Level 0 5P x 15 minutes
Level 1 7P x 15 minutes
Level 2 10P x 15 minutes
Level 3 15P x 15 minutes
Level 4 20P x 15 minutes
Level 5 25P x 15 minutes
Level 6 30P x 15 minutes
Level 7 35P x 15 minutes
Level 8 40P x 15 minutes
Level 9 45P x 15 minutes
Level 10 50P x 15 minutes
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you sure it's just 480 average?? I log in two times a day and my points are capped both times (8 out of 10 times).
Anyways great job with this, this is going to reduce the amount of times we encounter decision fatigue and start entering random giveaways for games we don't actually want, just to get rid of points we have stored.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally i don't understand this one, but for me 300 points are good enough, but on certain cases.
I am speaking for myself when i'm saying that 300 points are good enough for me because i don't enter many giveaways i only enter giveaways for games that i know will want and play, so this no problem for me. However there are cases where for example there is game that costs 50 bucks or 60 bucks (doesn't matter in it's bundled or not) here the points will be 50 or 60 and there are 10 giveaways, i personally would want to join all of them, however due to the 300 points cap i can't. So i don't really care about the Cap, but it would be nice if you can enter more giveaways for games that you want that cost more then the average let's say 20 points.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi SG,
I'd like to get some community feedback on the point system. I attached a graph illustrating the number of points users have received monthly, since the site started. As expected, it looks very similar to the graph of giveaways per month, since points are currently distributed based on the number of giveaways being created on the site.
I think the downside of the current system is that we have a very high number of giveaways being created in recent years (this month is the highest on record, with over 4,500 daily giveaways), and this causes some adverse affects towards user experience on the site. In 2013 and 2014, users received an average of 7,500 points per month. This month users will receive over 45,000 points. That means users need to now enter 6x as many giveaways, and visit the site 6x as often just to use all of their points.
I see this as an issue, because users should not need to invest this much time into entering giveaways. People should also not need to wake up in the middle of the night to avoid hitting the point cap. It encourages people to look into scripts for entering giveaways, it takes some fun out of the site, and it turns entering giveaways into a part-time job (we have over one million giveaway entries daily). I'm proposing that we set points at a fixed rate of 14,400 per month, which means 480P per day, or 5P distributed every 15 minutes. With the average giveaway being 10P, that means users would still be able to enter roughly 48 giveaways per day. They would also reach the 300P cap after a reasonable 15 hours, so they do not need to consistently check back to avoid idling at 300P.
This would not impact how often a user wins (gifts are not disappearing). Users would have less points and enter less giveaways, but those giveaways would have higher odds of winning. In short, users would win the same number of games, but need to invest less time into joining giveaways. Fixed points would also come with a couple of other advantages. In the past, points would increase out of control when there was a bundle for a high point game, such as Clickteam Fusion (100P). Instead, points would now remain consistent and predictable for users. The change would also encourage users to focus their points on games they would like to play, which hopefully means users are more happy with the gifts they win in the community.
Please share your thoughts. Thanks.
Comment has been collapsed.