If you mean based on amount of previous giveaways by the entrant, all this would do is encourage large quantities of cheap games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd half the daily points. I've entered only the giveaways that interest me and I've never been even close to running out of points. If people had less points to spend, they'd enter only the giveaways they'd be actually interested in. As a contributor who actually buys games instead of gives excess keys from bundles, I want my games to end up to people who are likely to play them, not to someone who just collects a backlog.
And to those who can't count: having less points wouldn't mean you had less chances to win, because everyone else also had less points. Giveaways would have less people entering.
Comment has been collapsed.
There isn't a "daily" amount of points. They're tied to number of giveaways created.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's one thing with group giveaway I don't fully understand. If someone only makes giveaways for certain CLOSED groups, I don't see why can he/she enter public giveaways with high contributor value. I mean, it's really nice of you to giving away those games, but since it only affects people in the group, and the rest of the community never had a chance to win a game from you, maybe you shouldn't enter a public giveaway with, let's say, $800-900 contributor value either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about group giveaways generally, but only about these extreme exceptions. And I know I'm not the right guy to talking about these things here, I just think it's something that should be reconsidered. Private giveaways take this "problem" to a whole new level, since you can't be sure if someone made it to his close friends, or just used it for a puzzle giveaway (which is totally fine, because everyone have a fair chance here to begin with).
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
I won private giveaways before but IMHO private and group giveaways shouldn't give full contributor value. Group giveaways cv could be multiplied by (group members / steamgifts users ) or something less harsh. Private giveaways could have ratio suitable to number of entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
Get rid of point system, instead allow everyone enter x% of the current public giveaways, based on value (so the site won't be flooded with Fortix). That would remove whining for points, make "fake" giveaways pointless (pun not intended), and make people with OCD to spend points happy.
So for instance, the if current total value of public giveaways is 100000 USD, and x = 0.3, that would reproduce the current 300 point limit, except the current is for unspent points. When Mike goes havoc and creates 10000 USD of giveaways, everyone gets +30 points, basically allowing everyone to enter one or two out of those. If people enter too much / too few giveaways, then x can be tuned accordingly.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you join someone will come to your house and watches you that you read the faq and asks questions so they know you understand the site.
After this procedure the person is allowed to join SG.
but seriously just raise the worth of account for joining to $250 and after creating an account show them in big letters that if you create a giveaway you need to give the game to the winner also show them how to enter giveaways and a countdown from something like 24 hours after that you can activate your account
Comment has been collapsed.
I would like to see more stats. This includes a ranking system where you can see who has entered the most giveaways, most wins etc :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Make an option to filter out DLC for games I do not have. So no more 'missing base game' giveaways will show up.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is a manual way, I am looking for a option that automatically can hide giveaways that I can not enter
Comment has been collapsed.
increase point limit or decrease the points you get for giveaways.
Right now everyday I'm at the 300 point limit after I come back from work.
Second decrease contributor value of games which where already once in a deal.
Third auto-disable DLC of a game I doesn't own. And no it doesn't work with the add-on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Change the contribution system. If a game goes on sale for a low price, any giveaway for that game from that point on, only gives you that contributor value for that low price. Previous giveaways are unaffected.
Say a game costs $30 normally, anyone who gives it away here of course gets $30 contri. Now say the game goes on sale for $10. Everyone who makes a giveaway for it from that point on, forever, only gets $10 contri. I'm tired of people mass buying a game on sale just to get a high contri value. I see that as abuse of the system.
I'd love to say when the sale is over put the value of the game back to normal however that will make people just horde their copies until that time, defeating the purpose.
Comment has been collapsed.
Impractical as there are so many shops selling Steam keys that keeping up with every possible item is next to impossible. Also as pretty much every game has been, or will soon be, in sale, almost all games should have lower value.
I still don't understand why people associate contributor value to the amount of money one has used for gifts. They are not the same and never were intended as such.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was the maximum value for a long time and was just recently lifted to 5000. I don't see how that matters whether it is 5000 or 2000 as majority of people cannot enter either anyway. High contributor giveaways are meant for selected few. As people keep gifting more, it keeps rising thus allowing those kinds of giveaways to be created.
Comment has been collapsed.
Strictly speaking, the point of contribution requirement is to limit number of entries in a giveaway. One can also wager some larger ideas to be associated with it like encouraging people to give more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Strictly speaking, the point of contribution requirement is to limit number of entries in a giveaway.
I don't think this is true. The "point" is to thank gifters. It even says on the giveaway "This is a thank you giveaway for contributors. All users that have successfully sent $xxx worth of gifts are eligible to enter. Your contributions to date, $xxx"
Comment has been collapsed.
And that is achieved by keeping everyone else out. I agree with you but its technical purpose is to limit number of entries to a select few. I should have used better terms on my previous post. Like any other possible choice (e.g. group, private or special rules), it is a method to restrict who gets to enter. Reasoning behind this can vary from giveaway to giveaway but its purpose remains the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would change rules for bundled games. If you have a gift, then you would get full contrib for your game, because you obviously didn't get it in bundle. If you have a key, then bundle rules are on.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have red almost every post in this thread and only one question pops into my head: What is wrong with you people? There are ones that want to spy on others profiles, others want to limit the max contributor value, others want better ways to report (to eliminate competition obviously) etc etc. It is all about getting more and more to themselves, almost nothing about giving or the websites overall usability.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ability to sort "view entries" page. Specifically, filtering only the open entries. Searching for that giveaway you entered 4 weeks ago to cancel it since you won another copy, or to cancel it to get precious points back you require right in the next 30 seconds for that game on your wishlist; not very fun.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can already! On this page in the upper right, use the drop-down to select All, Open, or Closed
Comment has been collapsed.
I think there are some options that SG could take from Playblink and Gala.
For example, achievement system is better on Playblink. On SG there's too few of them. There could be an option to make a giveaway only for people with the 'unlucky' achievment (1k entries and no win), or 'veteran' achievement (more than a year on SG), or sth like that.
From Gala, SG could take those giveaway options like 'Max players' or the latest 'Extra Odds' feature. I think it would be fun, if a user could 'buy' more entries with his/her points. We have 300 points and there should be an option to 'buy 300 tickets for Fortix'.
TL;DR The more options for giveaway creators, the better.
Comment has been collapsed.
326 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by SirChrisSwan
36 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by ctype
24 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
165 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by ngrazer
40 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by xMisiu
812 Comments - Last post 11 hours ago by PicoMan
2,046 Comments - Last post 14 hours ago by Gamy7
69 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Fluffster
727 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Saikania
52 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by mrakotun
28,711 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by FranckCastle
842 Comments - Last post 54 minutes ago by CptWest
2,481 Comments - Last post 54 minutes ago by galiane
233 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by moonlightdriver
Something specific, not vague like "fix the contributor system", or jokes like "make me win every giveaway", or "get rid of leechers". Maybe more than anything you want to see giveaway replies on the "Replies" screen, or maybe you just want the background to be orange.
What would you change right now? Feel free to +1 if someone said your thing.
Comment has been collapsed.