Make a public giveaway. Any sane contributor avoids those like the plague.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) make a private giveaway and put your rule(s) in the description. "only for non-contributors"-rules have been approved before, so you do not have to check it with the (currently non-existent) mods.
2) post the link in the forums and state the rule(s) in your forum post, too
have a nice day =)
edit: If you want this to be added to the features, you have to post it in the Support forum. Nothing will come of it if you post it here.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are mods but there are also "tiers" of mods. You have your basic fourm and chat moderators and then you have your site mods that have unlimited power. I believe that after Cult and DJ (something like that, really old mod) left there's only CG left with site power.
That means there's only one poor bastard rerolling or changing giveaways. A job I don't envy.
Comment has been collapsed.
you can not have rules in public giveaways, that's why I posted it has to be private.
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually try to avoid generalising and prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt but I think that you might me right in this example. I've been broke before and if someone was giving me the chance to get a game for free I would very well say thank you.
Comment has been collapsed.
People are free to give their gifts to whom they want. If one wants to give to people that haven't contributed, then by all means do so.
Comment has been collapsed.
True though I was not addressing about the possible implementation as a feature but the actual idea. These kind of giveaways can be done using e.g. private giveaway with special rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aye, had some experience with that lately. Still it is possible to do at the moment with given tools.
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean like a "maximum win value"? That makes much more sense. So you could exclude people that have won $50 of games or something, giving people who haven't yet won a much bigger chance.
The OP's idea does nothing more than spit into the face of the people helping run the site in the first place - the contributors!
Comment has been collapsed.
In my opinion, a bit better measurement of being poor or not would be the amount of games one has in Steam library. People with few games might enjoy and "need" those gifts more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Financial status can be used as a targeting method in same sense as puzzles (intelligence/wisdom), groups (social status), contribution (in some way, financial status itself) or any other method. This might not be a charity site but it has similarities in the way activity is done.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I'd never dream of not going through with a public giveaway, but I've felt pretty burnt at times when I'm giving a game to a non-contributor with 4-5x the amount of games I have in my library in theirs.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is how the system works. When everyone has equal chance of winning, you get all kinds of winners. You can have people that never even touch the game and some who enjoy countless hours with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I realize that, and I accept it. It's just hard not to be judgemental when I send a game to 8 wins, 10 comments, no contributions, and 800 games in their library.
Comment has been collapsed.
ET3D had the best idea so far - a max gifted value. So you could filter out to people who haven't won anything yet, or only won up to $x. You could additionally filter it to contributor only as current.
e.g. you could create a giveaway for people who have contributed $50 and won $0 - seems fair to me.
The reason I'm against OP's idea is it potentially penalises the wrong people - e.g. I have around $200 contributed. I've only ever won a DLC, a beta key (not valid) and one game from a private group. Using OP's idea he could put a max contrib value of $200 and exclude me.. but why? What did I ever do wrong? I gave too many games away? That's just backwards!
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 since steamgifts require users to sync their Steam accounts anyway it should be fairly easy to implement filters based on users games library.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even though I'm still against the contributor system in general, I think it'd be cool to have at least this alternative. All the contributor giveaways do is shorten the process of giving something ot our contributors (i.e. not doing a private giveaway where you check on every entrant), so I don't see any reason why this should not be shortened in the same way too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, when creating a giveaway, a contributor should have as many options as he wants
Comment has been collapsed.
You could make a group giveaway with special rules (with mod approval of course), and set a maximum contributor value. If someone wins but doesn't qualify, you simply ask for a reroll
Comment has been collapsed.
Your first mistake is assuming that the people with little or no contributions are poor. Yes, some certainly are but the majority of them are almost certainly simply leechers. This has been proven many times in giveaway groups and it also applies in general giveaways as well.
Secondly, having given aways hundreds (or even thousands) doesn't make one wealthy. For instance, I am unemployed but, in the course of 8 months, I've been able to create a very high contributor value. This is because when I buy games on Steam (or anywhere), I almost always get them when they are heavily discounted, not because I am wealthy or part of a wealthy family.
Every individual on this website could choose to do the same: buy games featured in the daily deal, through the numerous Steam promos throughout the year (Winter promo, Summer promo, the unexpected promos like the one that took place a few days ago), or through other websites that heavily discount Steam-redeemable games, and create giveaways whenever they are able to and consequently end up with a high contributor value after several months have passed. However, they choose not to because they aren't here to contribute, they are here to get free stuff. Not only that but they have a very entitled/privileged mentality and easily get angry when they see mistakenly-created giveaways (even though they, themselves, may have never created a single giveaway...).
That said, I support the idea of helping poor people win games but not through a "maximum contributor value". Instead, a giveaway group should be formed for people that fall into this group. Individuals from third-world countries could be invited, for example. The admins (along with more wealthy members of the group) could create giveaways for them (but not be allowed to enter them so that only poorer members would win). It would be basically like the groups for people who have never won games except this one's theme would be "poverty-stricken" gamers. (In citation marks because anyone who owns a computer is unlikely to be poverty-stricken. Maybe poor, but not exactly poverty-stricken.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Forming a group for this kind of behavior might be the best option at the moment but it still has drawbacks. It forces one to join in some group which may not suite everyone compared to working trough site like contribution system. Also managing that group would require some bureaucracy.
Who would get to join and how long? Living in certain country might be an indicator of economic level of the individual but it is possible to be poor in rich country and rich in poor country. Also, if some other measure like number/value of wins or number of games in library is used, moderators would have hard time keeping up with everyone. This kind of group would easily have thousands of members. Moderation could always be done at time of winning, which would make it much less time consuming but the element is still there.
All in all, it is not bad idea but I would prefer to have more options during giveaway creation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol you want to keep people out who give the most to the site?
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I would have been best used here... damn... curse my decision to actually write something QQ
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a very good idea! With this awesome new feature no one would create giveaways anymore, so they have better chances on winning. And then the contributors finally get their punishment for giving away games. I hate those contributors, only because of them we can win free games. They should better sell them to us, that would be awesome.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait, you want to exclude people who've contributed more than a certain amount? Sounds interesting, but I vote nay.
Comment has been collapsed.
No
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, i see only one person got the idea behind this... Sad so few people can see behind the obvious.
Lemme explain bit more, maybe some more people will get what i want to say then.
Let´s take user X, he contributed about 100$ of games each month. So obviously he has enough money to be able to buy games he wants. Why should i gift something to this person? He has money, no need to gift him! And no, i am not saying gifters are bad persons, of course they aren´t!
Now let´s take user Y, he contributed a total of 240$ but over a period of, let´s say 2 years. That´s just 10$/month. So he isn´t really a rich person, just a nice one. Imho he still "deserves" to win things.
With this system (or rather addition), the aim of gifting without thoughts behind it, would get pushed again. Like it is right now, it´s a lot about "i need amount x to be able to enter better giveaways and then i won´t give away anything no more!".
Sure, maybe - or probably! - the total amount of giveaways will decrease but the spirit of giving away would get pushed again and people "in need" would have better chances. Sure, there will still be thousands of leechers out there but there will always be, unless you add a huge amount of mods watching things.
Hope this is clearer now.
Comment has been collapsed.
That´s why i wrote it in " but still you don´t seem to get it. It´s not directly deserving, it´s plain logic. Rich people don´t need to win since they could buy the games themselves. If i would earn like 2000$/month, i wouldn´t be here leeching neither.
Although i see even people giving away 12k$ in eleven months enter giveaways. It just doesn´t seem right. It´s like if Bill Gates would play lottery!
Comment has been collapsed.
sure thing, I got it
the thing is people would like to join giveaway just for kicks
no harm done if they won, after all they have given so much already too
having said that your request is still valid, it might get into the TODO feature list of this site if more people wants to use it
Comment has been collapsed.
Fine, makes 2 people who get the idea instead of spamming "no" ;)
I´ll see where this goes and maybe, if i get enough feedback, i will get this to support. No reason to bother them with that right now, cg has enough to do right now, i suppose.
Comment has been collapsed.
g0t your point at 100% AmmokK
but I think MorphineBear comment is undeniable too
Comment has been collapsed.
I think a more preferable type of request would be a "Maximum Gifts Won" setup. If you're after giving newcomers or unlucky people a chance at winning, setting how many times they have won before would definitely reach them. People who contribute a ton of money into this site have won at least a few games. If you could say "Max Gifts Won: 3" for example, anyone who has won 3 or less games could enter. If you were really aiming to hit new/unlucky people, setting it to 0 would be the goal. That's just my thought on a better approach.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sounds interesting too.
I know my idea is far from perfect, but as stated: a "perfect" solution would include massive rules and mods - both things which aren´t simple to aquire if you want to do it absolutly fair.
Actually a decent portion of fairness would be sufficient. Sadly this is the hardest point to get.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, no matter which method is done, both have situations where one loses over another. In my case if someone won 4 DLCs or bundle games he'd be voided out of giveaways which have a maximum of 3 wins. In your case, if someone gave away a few games he got for free from like bundles/promotions/holidays, he could get cut off.
Regardless, both ways are extremely simple to setup and are something that the community would need to want. The negative is another box where people could be confused. All-in-all, I do feel strong about there being at least an option that says "Require no previous gifts won." I don't mind the rest, just thought it would be another way to help those unlucky people win =).
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not a bad idea. It might just increase the chance of winning just a little bit. And seen some people have entered over a 1000 times (even with giveaways), it might be nice for those people to have a higher chance to win something.
Maybe setting a limit to how many times someone entered giveaways without winning something, might be good. Like creating a giveaway and that only people who have entered 700 times without winning, can enter. Or that people actually have to place a comment with at least 8 letters to be able to enter =P
I do like that AmmokK wants to give everyone a bigger chance to win something, though I don't completely agree with helping the financially strained gamer; imo, anyone who has a computer and games can't be that poor (correct me if you think I'm wrong ^^).
Comment has been collapsed.
You would make big eyes if you knew how many really bad PCs are out there, running hardware that´s many years old, running everything on low and still having issues playing games that aren´t like 5 years old.
Just look at hardware survey on steam and see how many lowbudget machines are out there.
But i agree, the "max win" thingy at least sounds nice than my "max contibutor" approach. Guess that scares people away. (Did i mention before i´m too straight with what i say? ^^)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's okay to be straight up about things, as long as you remain friendly. And you do ^^
I actually have a less than, uh, high spec computer myself ^^. I had to change my ME2 and Orcs Must Die setting, to low, because, especially with ME2, I would lag up (and ME2 would still not run as smooth as in some vids I have seen). I also get lag with TF2, though not all the time. I am sure I can not play the newest games on my computer. Still, I'm sure that I don't have the worst out there. I could buy a more game speced computer, but games aren't that important to me and I need the money for more important stuff ^^.
Comment has been collapsed.
103 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by Ratha
70 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Foxhack
54 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Aetternumm
1,135 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by sfkng
79 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by MeguminShiro
16,630 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Kenruyoh
891 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by nhahtdh
22 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by HomieOhmie
126 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by ThePonz
132 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by NymCast
971 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by hawkeye116477
117 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by Willans
115 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by Xeradan
238 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by jm
I´d like to be able to create giveaways for people who haven´t given away hundreds and thousands here, so i actually reach the "poor" people who aren´t able to buy all those games.
So instead of a minimum contributor value i´d like to be able to set a maximum value. Guess that should be possible.
EDIT:
Okay, i see only one person got the idea behind this... Sad so few people can see behind the obvious.
Lemme explain bit more, maybe some more people will get what i want to say then.
Let´s take user X, he contributed about 100$ of games each month. So obviously he has enough money to be able to buy games he wants. Why should i gift something to this person? He has money, no need to gift him! And no, i am not saying gifters are bad persons, of course they aren´t!
Now let´s take user Y, he contributed a total of 240$ but over a period of, let´s say 2 years. That´s just 10$/month. So he isn´t really a rich person, just a nice one. Imho he still "deserves" to win things.
With this system (or rather addition), the aim of gifting without thoughts behind it, would get pushed again. Like it is right now, it´s a lot about "i need amount x to be able to enter better giveaways and then i won´t give away anything no more!".
Sure, maybe - or probably! - the total amount of giveaways will decrease but the spirit of giving away would get pushed again and people "in need" would have better chances. Sure, there will still be thousands of leechers out there but there will always be, unless you add a huge amount of mods watching things.
Hope this is clearer now.
Comment has been collapsed.