What do you think about this idea?
So basically some people to have more chances than others to win a game?
Comment has been collapsed.
Its not like they have a huge advantage.. a fallout 4 giveway costs 60p right?
This example of giveaway already has 7.466 entries..With one entry, you have 0,0134% chance to win if you spend 60p + 66p (126 p) por 2 entries, you would have 0.0268% chance to win.. if this increase would be subsequent.. 60+66+72+78 = 276p for 0.05% chance
example: https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/Q7GwS/fallout-4
Comment has been collapsed.
how about giveaways that are way cheaper, at 10p or less, or just games that many people own or are less desired. Wouldn't there be situations where a giveaway will be mainly between two main participants (or a few more) with the majority of entries and the rest will be just extras? People will have to check each giveaway before entering if some people aren't already dominating the ballots with 50% or more of the entries, since it will probably be a lost cause. There will be some balancing issues, since I have a feeling the giveaways will be less random raffles and more just (luck increasing) bidding contests.
Comment has been collapsed.
People will have to check each giveaway before entering if some people aren't already dominating the ballots with 50% or more of the entries, since it will probably be a lost cause
No offense, but this is so wrong that it hurts to read. Why would it matter that for example I have 70% chance of winning a game (let's say by 70/100 entries) while you have only one from the remaining 30, or you having one while everyone else only having one? Your chance is still just 1%, no matter what are the chances of others. It's not a voting, it's still a "pick a winner ticket" system
Comment has been collapsed.
none taken, 1%, probabilistically speaking, would be the same in both instances, be it 99 random people with each individual entry, or one individual with 99 different entries, your one chance is still 1%, I am not denying that. But morally (and statistically) speaking, would people still be ok with joining a race where the odds are stacked against them, where the winner is pretty much predetermined (not saying it's certain, but the odds are in his favor) vs a giveaway where everyone has equal chances? That is what I meant by a lost cause. I imagine it will slowly evolve in a battle of odds, people will have to consider in which giveaway to invest more entries based on the current ones and to estimate how many more it might get, lots of number crunching.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, it goes against the site's "equal chances for each entry" ideaology, but on the other hand, it would be interesting to see the results - I did use steamcompanion for a while that had the same system, and I barely entered for games, then dumped all my points into something 500-1000 entries of something I really wanted. And once I still lost it (I don't remember the chances), but in another case, I won it - so in my case, I sacrifices weeks, even a few month's worth of points to focus on one giveaway :) I'm not sure it's necessarily bad, but yes, it's too different to be ever(?) implemented here. ( I'm REALLY curious how it would affect the small, bad games with cards vs popular good games entry numbers, so the profit-collecting hoarders vs want to win cool stuff)
Comment has been collapsed.
well, truth be told, having it as an option or in a form of beta would surly be interesting. I used steamcompanion a bit too, hoarded those points, thinking to do the same like you but when I eventually decided on that, the site was down (I checked, still down). I am not suggesting it being bad either, it will be...well...different. It will be strange to adapt, if the new system were to replace the current one, but merging it to the current one might be something a bit more tame, especially if it will be in small quantities at first, just to test it out, it might have a peculiar effect on the rest of giveaways indeed. things might go into chaos or things might find a different balance, who knows.
Comment has been collapsed.
from the communitywebsite perspective it's worse than current system, right now you are encouraged to visit site often, even few times a day, to spend all points, to snipe most GAs for ga,mes you want etc. In this idea you'd be more encouraged to just hoard points and burn on this one long running GA for this one game. Let's say you really really want XCOM2. Right now a few GAs pop for it per day, you are encouraged to visit site multiple times to snipe them to boost your chances for game you really want. More times you visit the site, more ads you view, more revenue you generate. In proposed system you'd find highest level longest running XCOM2 GA for biggest chance to win, and would just log in once ortwice a day (probably even bookmarked the GA and wouldn't even scroll through new GAs, just would load the one bookmarked GA page and burn all points every day). Less ppl visiting website, less revenue.
So not only the case of no longer equal chances but also less ad revenue.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is true only with the assumption that only you and nobody else is able to put multiple entries.
Hint: majority of entrants would spend all their points on that GA, giving you no advantage.
There is another side-effect you didn't thought about: new AAA giveaways would be suckin majority of global points pool, leaving other games with little to no entries
Comment has been collapsed.
Or entries who are taking it seriously enough to not just blow their points on the latest fad because it is expensive and therefore they want to get it for free.
Comment has been collapsed.
Funnily enough, the multientry system would pretty much guarantee me winning those few games I've entered for in past months (with the little help of points banking script)
Comment has been collapsed.
leaving other games with little to no entries
Meaning I could swoop in and grab all the great cheap titles like Reigns or Shenzhen IO! :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Reminds me of steamcompanion. It sounds a bit unfair though. Although, most giveaways are already unfair since they have 1000 rules or something, but still, every participant has the same chance to win. ;P
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why SGtools giveaways shouldn't be accepted here also.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just no, people get excluded from giveaways because they haven't given away enough or they won too many games here etc. It's ridiculous and certainly not the way this website was meant in the first place.
Your wishlist example is ridiculous also, is someone who spends night and day on Steam more eligible to enter said wishlist giveaway because he noticed a new release before others?
Steamgifts has its own tools to exclude people from your giveaway, there is a black/white list, you can make level restricted ga's, private ga's.
Comment has been collapsed.
just add to it that SGT was directly called out to cg in the past regarding them using reflinks on the site and cg responded himself it was fine. not directly related, but indirectly indicating it's fine in other aspects (otherwise cg prolly would have reacted).
Comment has been collapsed.
So Prince you'd rather it all public with 90% of entries being bots to go up against? Ok.
Comment has been collapsed.
private ga's
SGT GAs are essentially just private GAs though. It's the same thing as someone making a forum post saying "anyone who meets the following requirements, post here and I'll send you the GA link". Just it's automated so that the OP doesn't have to check every single person
Comment has been collapsed.
Then forbid puzzle as well please.
I mean it's totally unfair to exclude me from a giveaway just because I'm not willing to waste a lot of time for the slight chance of maybe winning a game.
Comment has been collapsed.
One of the intentions of this site is that everyone entered entered in a giveaway has the same chance to win. This suggestion has been shot down repeatedly.
Comment has been collapsed.
While everyone entered in a giveaway has the same chance to win not everyone is capable on entering each giveaway, so what does it truly matter? If it were to be truly fair to all then there should be no points, levels, groups, whitelists, etc, and everyone would be entered into every giveaway automatically to account for not being on 24/7. Even if this were implemented, each person entered could have the same chance to win as each person has the same point generation, the only difference is how they chose to spend those points. But as you said, this has been shot down already.
Comment has been collapsed.
They'd still have the same chance, they just chose not to enter additional times. Much like those that pass those restrictions you mentioned previous have to choose whether or not to enter a particular giveaway. If they do then they won't have those points to enter a different giveaway, perhaps one you've entered. In that case you both have different chances to win each particular giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
The original point I was trying to get across was why is it so important that each entrant has the same chance to win a particular giveaway as each other entrant when users don't have the same chance to enter giveaways? Shouldn't all users have the same chance to win, regardless of levels, lists or special clubs (groups) they are part of(assuming you want all things equal)? Why do you consider this the spirit of the site and not gifting itself?
But yes, in regards to your comment that "everyone has the same chance of winning a giveaway" I was talking about how everyone generates points at the same rate. Users A & B would be able spend the same amount of points on giveaway X, if they chose. The consequence of course would be the same, if they spend all their points on X they won't have points for giveaways Y and Z.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only thing that would accomplish is raising the chances for people who use autojoiner scripts since those are the only ones who manage to spend all their points before the reach the cap.
Comment has been collapsed.
But… it could potentially shut down those scripts by making them blow the points on 1-2 giveaways instead of 10-20.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm no programmer but I'm pretty sure it would be really easy to tweak those scripts that they only start entering the same GA multiple times after all whishlisted GAs have been entered.
Comment has been collapsed.
hey - I don't run any scripts and still I rarelly hit the cap ;p You simply gotta visit SG more often! ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
I spend way more time on SG than I should anyway but apparently I'm just too picky :D
The only times I find enough GAs that peak my interest to enter are when there are big events (like London Metro, Christmas-stuff...) and when the Humble Monthly used to come out (that was before I had a subscription myself).
Comment has been collapsed.
Prep yourself. I suggested this same thing about 7 months ago and got 20+ blacklists from it, lol
Comment has been collapsed.
lol.. sad to see such a ignorant response for a simple suggestion. i guess people adding to blacklist because simple thing like a discussion are just stupid..
Comment has been collapsed.
I would really like the idea.
but maybe with some improvements to make it a tad more fair.
maybe just allow multiple entries when a certain cap of joined people is reached. f.ex.
there should already be 600 entries befor you can throw in another ticket.
or make it +1/3 charge per extra entry. that way the chances shouldnt get too high even with multiple entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
I also have 300 pts most of the time but that doesn't mean I HAVE TO spend them all otherwise they go wasted
I'm fine with having the same chance as others on games I truly want since I guess they want them the same as me and I'm not that special to ask for multiple chances. SImple as that :)
Comment has been collapsed.
How would you deal with the GAs that cost zero points? Minimum cost or some other way?
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be too confusing for new users. Some people already have trouble understanding why they don't win.
Comment has been collapsed.
People be like: "I entered 173 GA's, where's my free game >:c"
Me, with 29,144 entered GA's over the course of 4 years and 54 wins: "Ha."
Comment has been collapsed.
For the thousandth time, NO. Greatest point of this site is equal opportunity, stop messing with it. High level users with a lot of games join only a few giveaways per day, we'd win any game we want easily and it would be disappointing for low levels.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol, can you imagine that? become a level 8+ user and just spam entries into level locked GA's. It gets worse when they're hidden forum GA games. I've entered GAs with 24 enterersat the end. If I could spam, ha ha. I'd definitely would've had some games I wanted right now.
Comment has been collapsed.
If this idea went on, people could just save their points in that looong 4 weeks GAs until a whishlisted GA came. And then spend ALL that lotta points in entries. Damn crazy, isn't it?
It's fairer for me like this, but thank you for the suggestion! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Seriously. I mean unless they put a cap on how many times you could enter the same GA. I'd be winning games out the wazoo. Most of the games I want are indie games not a ton of people are particularly interested in. You better damn bet i'd spam the crap out of those games with entries to guarantee a win.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think there are too many points and they should just reduce the points generated
This site takes way to much time of my life, as I always fear loosing points
Comment has been collapsed.
You get 1 point per ten dollars spent. You know how much money people would have to spend for people to get points? It already costs 100 dollars for us all to get 10 points, i'd really rather not eff with that system. I don't think it needs a reduction, or an increase.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not so bad anymore (there where this clickfusion spam where you had 300 points every hour or so), but still your points join really frequently. As games are mostly bundled people don't pay 10$, but more like 1 or so. Also with that system you can join every 10th GA. I think that is a lot you can join
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because from time to there's a large spike in accumulation of points. Doesn't mean the values should be affected. There's times where over 5 days there's a point drought and I will barely break 900 points over those days. Doesn't mean the point values should be increased. Points keep up a steady pace and generally hit the cap a couple of times over the day which is kind of needed between lower value GA's and triple A GA's, that can eat your points up in a snap. I think it's rather lame and boring to come back to a website where you'd only get to enter 20 odd GA's a day for a nil chance at getting a game. I have entered 29,144 giveaways in the 4 years i've been on this site and have won 54. That'd be 540 giveaways i'd generally have to enter before winning a game, granted those are just my odds. And that is with me actually spending a lot of time on this site. Imagine how it would be for others
Anyways, just because you don't want to miss out on points, that doesn't mean the value should be dropped. You don't have an obligation to be here and if you feel yourself controlled by the site you should get help controlling your impulses.
That's pretty much like saying they should increase the minimum giveaway time from 1 hour to 8 hours because you don't want to risk missing a chance on entering a giveaway you want.
Users are showing charity by giving games to other users for free and everyone also benefits because their game converts into points for everyone else, essentially rewarding everyone for someone elses donation.
Iunno, the idea of points taking longer to get bothers me in various ways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer everyone have an equal chance....all we would be seeing is the same person waiting for his points to refill and spam the giveaway into submission.
Comment has been collapsed.
thank you for your kind contribution to the topic :)
Comment has been collapsed.
i dont even know this website.. so.. thank you for your no contribution.. i guess..
Comment has been collapsed.
I would say change the setup slightly so it doesn't give such a big advantage on lower value GA's. For starters, max of 2 entrees to prevent abuse. And a flat "point fee" or even simply doubling the points needed might be better. Chance of winning would be very slightly increased without really impacting others chances significantly.
- e.g. 30P GA, it would be 30P for first entry and 60P for second. Not able to enter third time.
- 10P GA, would be 10 first time and 20 second time. No triples.
Etc
Comment has been collapsed.
Why people keep trying to tinker with the system? It's fair, isn't it enough?
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair is a concept that most of time depends on subject rules. I dont think its fair that many of this websites users take indie games from people that really want it and i do think its fair that you can enter mutiple times. Dont try to pass your fairness as if you are the rule of the universe.
Comment has been collapsed.
My suggestion is simple and probably other people already gave to this website but i dont come often to the foruns, so, forgive me if its an old idea.
My idea is simple, i see a lot of games that i dont want in the pool of giveways and i find myself often with 300points. I will not enter some giveway because i have the points, i dont want to win a game that i dont want to play (like i did in the past). I would rather spend more points for a game that i really want to play and enter twice in that giveway.
My suggestion is that each time that you enter a giveway again, you should spend the amount of points that giveway cost plus 10%. Of course, this is just a suggestion and the devs of this website could tweak the numbers as they wish.
Thanks for your time
edit: i geti t. people dont like this idea and im ok with it. I was just trying to discuss an idea that i thought it was good for the website. Im sorry if i did offend someone, it was not my intention.
Comment has been collapsed.