Exactly, I see absolutely no point or benefit in the suggested ideas.
Comment has been collapsed.
HUNGRY!
I like setting the max entries - that would be fun. As long as there was a lower limit (like, you can't set the max entries to less than 10. Or something like that).
But I don't see the benefits to adding arbitrary time limits or time requirements besides what is already in place.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure where the benefit is to either limiting time or entries. Yes, moving them along faster would help the front page load quicker during times of flooded bundle giveaways, but that's a rare problem. Other than that, all you're doing is limiting the number of people who have a chance to enter, and that's not going to go over too well.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol I hadn't bothered checking, but I suspected as much. Every time someone tries to limit the number of entries on giveaways, it's a new user with 12 entries wondering why they haven't won already, and looking for a way to rig the game so they win something quicker.
Just so you know, Wheat, you can expect to go for hundreds or thousands of giveaways before you score a win. If you get one sooner, count yourself lucky, because it doesn't happen right away for most of us.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not a sore loser. 2 of the 14 giveaways I've entered have ended and I wasn't particularly amped about either one of those. The scenarios I am looking to avoid are floods of free or very cheap games and having a massive number of outstanding entries. Obviously 14 is not massive but after a Steam sale I'm sure I'll enter at least 50 and they'll probably all run for 72 hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
So 14 entries out of hundreds makes me ambivalent?
Comment has been collapsed.
Your sort of missing the point of the site. You should WANT more games to be listed. More games means more chances to win. Unless it's a case of a game being exploited, more listings is a good thing.
As for the number of entries, it's free games. Of course there will be a lot of entries. But even if you limit it to 1000 per, your odds are still not going to be THAT much better. All that will do is limit the number of people who can have the slim home of a win.
As for your entry count, you should be prepared to lose all 50 of those hypothetical entries. It's simply not realistic to expect a win within your first 100 entries, unless you are doing private giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you prefer having a 1 in 2000 chance for a 1P game because it lasted 8 hours VS. having maybe a 1 in 300 chance because you wore your ninja shoes that day?
Comment has been collapsed.
Id rather choose when my give away ends. I don't like this idea of having set times based on giveaway value.
Neat idea about having the option to have giveaways end after a certain amount of entries tho. But I would rather have choice in how many entries.
Freedom is nice. Extra options are nice too. I don't like the idea of putting extra constraints on what People would like to do with their own giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I oppose the removal of option to choose freely how long a giveaway will last. There are plenty of uses where it is very useful to be able set it as one pleases e.g. puzzles. If people want to do quick one hour Skyrims, let them. If they want to put up one month Fortix, let them. There is usually reason why giveaway creator has chosen to do so.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I am giving the games away then I should have some say over how long the giveaway will or will not be open. The option to have the giveaway end after "x" number of entries would be nice. I believe that if it isn't broke then it doesn't need fixing.
Comment has been collapsed.
You would still have "some" say but not carte blanche. I want the best experience for the members (myself included) and what is also beneficial to the host. I figure setting a max time limit would reduce or eliminate the need to manually "ban" titles that flood the list.
Also, to me, it looks better if the cheaper titles move quickly and the expensive ones hang around longer. Again, if a newbie flips through a few pages and sees nothing but cheap items they may lose interest very quickly. Naturally I assume most unaffiliated "free Steam key" sites to be shady or low quality at best.
Comment has been collapsed.
A "flash" giveaway on an AAA title gives a higher chance of winning to people. If changes like that were made I would only make group/private giveaways. That are stop giving all together and just select a random person I actually liked a game. As far as seeing only "cheap" games, that is what Kaitlyn's addon and the search feature us for.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't like the idea of me not being able to choose my time limit.
Comment has been collapsed.
31 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by smythe
16,457 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ClapperMonkey
257 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Gamy7
9 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Thexder
47,180 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by spiegelbrei
43 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by pb1
1,054 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by RobbyRatpoison
60 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by RePlayBe
550 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by okamiking
35 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by pb1
117 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by InSpec
182 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Mortvie
17,012 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Riszu
28,946 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Tooooo
It looks like at least one of these suggestions would require a significant redesign of the site, but I think they will make users happier.
First, I think there should be more of a restriction on time limits base on the game's point value. So cheap and plentiful games will move faster (also possibly reducing flooding if there isn't enough time for someone to enter) and more expensive games will take longer, giving more people the chance to enter. Again, as a suggestion, I think it would work well if a game had to be available for at least the same number of hours as its point value and at most double the amount of hours as its point value. So a 1P game giveaway will last 1-2 hours and a 40P game will last 40-80 hours. The exact time within that range would still be decided by the contributor.
Second, to maybe mix things up a little, why not set a giveaway to end after a certain number of entries? This won't work with the current "View Entries" page and it also means there would be a less than certain timeframe for withdrawing an entry. A specific timeframe could be set though, which could give members a period in which to withdraw but not enter, and also allowing the giveaway to end regardless of whether or not the entry requirement was met. Again, I would want the minimum entry requirement to be related to the point value, but setting a maximum entry amount wouldn't be necessary because of the time limit restriction.
Confused? Angry? Hungry? Let's hear your thoughts.
Comment has been collapsed.