I know level go down but do they go up too?

go back to school

A bundled game ( worth 15% CV) can become a free game ( worth 0% CV) so you can lose some by waiting, but never really gain.

For example:
+new 10$ game released on Monday, worth 10$ CV.
It will give 100% of 10$ CV -> 10$

+It will get bundled on Wednesday ( Sale with discount of 95% of the full USA price also works the same)
Giveaways created after this day will make it worth 15% only -> 1.5$

• it is given for free on Saturday: it will give 0% CV ->0$

Full price game can get bundled any day, and any full price or bundled game can get free. As rules are now, there is not going "backwards"

The CV for a game represents its current, normal market price. It is unaffected by whether or not you buy the game on sale. If you are able to purchase the game for a lesser price, that simply means you are a wise shopper.

The CV for a game is only affected when permanent changes are made in the normal pricing of the game. If you want "full CV" for a game, you should give it away before it becomes bundled or free. Once the game has been bundled, it will be considered a bundled game. Once it has gone free, it will never be assigned value (except in very rare cases). Even with "full price" games, your CV will still go down, eventually, as the game has its regular price reduced over time. For example, the original Quake used to be a $60 game. These days, it is worth $5.

Stop being a self-righteous prick.

Well, to be honest. Sooth is the site's most infamous self-righteous prick. Don't let it get to you ;)

Actually. early on they indicated they were intentionally spreading disinformation, and they did so across countless threads and giveaways, which gave them significant visibility and comparisons to Konrads, at that time. They continued to spread false information even after being corrected by countless people.

The hostility came later and, really, is objectively bad. If you're phrasing it as "a lot of people have trouble with", then you've either not seen his more exaggerated displays- wherein an entire page of comments is just him back and forthing with other people to crudely insult and harass them- or, by what I understand to be the typical interpretation of the label, you yourself are trolling (by deliberately belittling the reasonable perspectives of a group that is behaving within normal social expectations, to support someone who is attempting to undermine the stability, peace, and dignity of a community for no other reason than their own self-satisfaction in doing so).

Well, this clarification is here just because I invited the necessity for it myself. This'll be my last comment on the matter.

At least someone gets what the actual impolite trolling here was.

+1

Preach.

Well, it's a frequency thing more than a severity thing. We're talking trolling here, rather than toxicity, after all.
In terms of deliberately non-constructive, tangental posts, they exceed any other user I've come across by maybe a hundredfold.
There are definitely users who are far worse examples of humanity in terms of their conduct (for example, several of the users who have posted in this thread alone are firmly established bigots, nevermind their blaming the OP for their own inability to comprehend the OP's actual questions), though the user in question has definitely been escalating their behavior as time goes on, so maybe they'll reach that point eventually.

It could be that there's a difference in perception as far as the application of the term, of course. But I haven't seen anyone else get as much accreditation by others on that point other than Konrads, either, hence my willingness to go with the assertion of "arguably the biggest" over "one of the biggest" or "a significant" or similar. It's all fundamentally the same for the current context, though, as both you and I are intending focus on the "realness" of their "trolling".

To that point, there's no real arguing the fact that they're one of the more infamous users in being reliable for spamming and non-constructive input. Add in the fact that they're the most visible in the deliberate spread of false information, and it's hard to consider them a "not real" SG troll.

That said, the point wasn't to poke at the angry, spammy condiment, but to try and lessen the negativity directed towards the new site user by highlighting that the behavior was a trend, and not due to anything the OP themself had done. While I generally favor more abstract clarifications towards the nature of such users, Mayanaise was laying it on thick and I did want to emphasize as best as possible to the OP that they weren't at fault. Of course, many posters here seem to have had difficulty following along with the OP's perspectives, so perhaps some users have a bias against the OP because of that, but the OP's responses seemed rather intuitive from where I was sitting.