I don't have enough points!

i love the lore

you sound like a villain
i like it :D

Nicely done!

Fortunately I had banked quite a lot of points to spend this month, so I'm still okay so far. I've also avoided being lured in by you because experience tells me that there'll be plenty of entries by the time those several weeks are up. Should've made them a lot shorter! 🤣

Thanks for the generosity and hopefully the people who enter your giveaways will end up with some nice wins too 😄

:D It seems to have worked out for me. I just won a level 1+ GA with 174 entries, and if I wouldn't have made any GA, there could have been more entries in that GA, likely for me to not have won it in that case.

Of course though, to rely on big number of GAs to improve the odds, such isn't always that viable. Which is why I would consider it great if giveaway-makers could add a multiplier to the points needed for entry. To show that in an example:

There are 1,000 users with 150 points each, and there are 11 giveaways, one requiring 50 points to enter, and 10 requiring 20 points to enter each. As it is, 1,000 users would likely enter the 50p-GA, for a total of 1,000 entries, and enter 5 of the remaining 20p-GAs, which each would have on average some 500 entries.

And now let's assume that GA-maker can add a multiplier, making e.g. the 50p-GA require 150 points to enter. What would that mean? Either that nearly 1,000 users would go in high-stakes for that one GA, which would mean way improved odds to win something from the other 10 GAs, or many users rather going for a shot at more of the 20p-GAs, which would improve the odds at the high-stake GA.

At the end of day, there would be still "only" 11 winners of course. And while an user may not be able to enter as many GAs as before, it would also mean less entries at some of the GAs, which would make it more interesting for those of us who usually do not constantly farm for whichever +1 (as it would improve the odds for a game one wants to play). So, in my view that would make it better from an user-perspective, and by that arguably also make it better from a site-perspective, as especially a decreasing number of GAs over time means that more users get concentrated within those few GAs, not really making it fun having to enter some 1,000+ GAs to win at least something (which can easily take even months when one isn't around several times a day - and increased odds due to users then falling off, such isn't great at all).

And that's the story of why I would consider it great for there to be an option for a points multiplier, with such multiplier arguably also making it more attractive for GA-makers to make a GA low-level public, as the farmers are usually the main reason why quite a number don't make such GAs - and a multiplier would mean that the farmers would have to spend more of their allotment on such GAs or would not enter them, either way improving odds for newer users.