Green is just more the new turquoise is all and we all know that's so last season.
Comment has been collapsed.
You dont have to remove the contributor, just some little changes are required (example: if i donate a game with 20$ contributor and after 3 months his contributor go down to 10$ DO NOT make my total contributor go down, i donated it when it was 20 ffs :( )
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh boy. What will replace the contributor system if it's removed? Please look into reworking the system instead of throwing us back in to the stone age of SG. Here is Fortix.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 for a third option. Something like "Rework the current system." Change it to what? I dunno. I'll have to think about it some more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ever since CV giveaways were introduced, we've seen a large increase in the absolute number of giveaways. I guess this should be a quality vs. quantity debate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is this a quality vs quantity debate?
Before CV, there were "A-type" giveaways, made by altruistic members. With CV, you're saying we have crappy "B-type" giveaways, increasing quantity but not especially quality.
The point is, we still have the A giveaways - the B giveaways are just on top. Getting rid of CV giveaways would not create any more quality giveaways, it would just reduce what you term "low quality".
Keep the CV system, keep the increase in sharing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. I've given gift copies of several bundle games because I thought they were very good games. I don't see why your statement relates though? Neither I nor Chimcan ever said that AAA games are "high quality"
Comment has been collapsed.
I never passed judgement on what is low and high quality. In fact I would like you to point out where I ever said "low quality". In addition, your statement is up for debate. Are you entirely sure that "A-type" giveaways have stayed relatively constant? Or if they have grown, have they grown linearly with respect to the number of people who have joined the site since CV was introduced?
Comment has been collapsed.
Please describe what is this "stone age of SG". There's not much thing happened for the last 3 months.
Comment has been collapsed.
instead using games price for contributor system, why not using quantity of games?
example: making giveaway entry available only for account who already give at least 5 games.
Comment has been collapsed.
How would that solve any problems? One bundle for $1 = 8 giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
In the same boat here. It's a good idea overall but obviously there's some dissent in the ranks about how it should work. I'm not going to throw in any suggestions about that lest I be trampled o.o
Anyways, it's good to see cg is listening and looking to improve the site. Kudos.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree.. i like it! it just needs some tweeks to it.. not to be scrapped altogher!
Comment has been collapsed.
^This. It's sadly necessary, but it simply needs to be reworked.
If you're going to remove anything, remove group giveaways - those are what truly fragment the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pretty sure Group/Private giveaways promote more activity within the community/forums. Removing group would pretty much mean private would also be removed, and we'd lose the puzzles and other fun group/forum activities etc. Certainly, I could be incorrect, I haven't been haunting these parts for very long, but I personally stick around here so much partly because of the puzzles, whether I want the end result or not. I enjoy trying to solve them.
I personally believe that those who are willing to contribute to the community and be nice/respectful to others here should be rewarded in some way, whether it's access to a private giveaway through puzzles etc or access to giveaways in "Meets the standards" giveaway groups. Even if I have a really low contribution value myself and miss out on most of the things.
Comment has been collapsed.
It sounds like you're blaming the mods here; if you're not then I think we agree :)
If you can come up with a good, working, consistent system, I think the mods would be very happy to hear it. Short of only allowing giftable copies bought in the steam store, I don't see how it's possible to regulate the so-called CV-abuse. Manually monitoring and setting game price to the lowest sale price ever, anywhere, sounds like a lot of work.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it needs a third option of "Keep it, but it needs a major overhaul of some sort."
As is, the poll will probably pick up a good number of "Keep it" votes from people who think it is better than nothing, but still in need of a serious fix or change.
Comment has been collapsed.
This was a concern actually. However, this is just a "simple poll" as stated. A neutral option wasn't added because it is so fluid that almost everyone would vote for that without input on what would actually need to get changed. There have been a lot of suggestions and discussions on the topic but no solid changes that would be satisfying enough. When this is over, we will check it and work from that to see what could change. There might possibly be another poll too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't say I understand all the drama over this. I just see the following:
A) Bundle games clog the site if you don't own them yourself
B) Bundle games reduce significance of contrib values.
C) People want something for nothing and for bundle games to count more towards their contrib value.
I think if you could have an "ignore" option for games so that you won't see them whether you own them or not, would be the best thing to do first. Then continue reducing bundle games contrib value as we are right now. Perhaps leave the contrib value for games submitted a month or more before a bundle comes online. If you bought the game full price before the bundle and didn't share until after, tough crap. Life isn't fair.
The only other thing I can think of is capping contrib values. Because, well, once you get so high you're obviously in a position to freely buy games at your own will, so it kind of burns those who actually benefit from a gift.
This is a site about giving, not taking.
Comment has been collapsed.
giveaway filtering has been here for a while now
Also your second point: What if I just decide to spend my paycheck on games to give away one month, and then I get laid off the next month? You're saying once you contribute you should be screwed for eternity?
Comment has been collapsed.
Do not remove please, no cv = leechers winning =/
Comment has been collapsed.
Private groups are the REAL problem of SG. Keep CV (though it should be reworked), but remove group giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) It fragments the community and reduces the number of public giveaways.
2) Several groups exist just for the sake of boosting CV.
3) There's one group in particular that's whole purpose is to increase the odds for the group creator (calling out is against the rules, so sorry I can't be more specific).
Comment has been collapsed.
I happen to enjoy rewarding the active members of my group with giveaways. I also do a fair share of public giveaways.
Besides, if they removed Group giveaways then I would just make Private giveaways and only share the link on private group pages/chat.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see.
I don't agree with any of your points made there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Public:
1) If I make giveaway with for my region you can't play if you not form my country
2) No one check description if game have region lock
3) If no one check description they can report me as fake
Private Group:
1)Giveaways for people who lives in the same region as me
2)People can't enter because they are not in group
3)In Private Groups are less Leechers
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that the word leecher is quite lightly used.
Comment has been collapsed.
I consider leecher ppl that never gave and always win.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are more ways of contributing than giving games away.
Also I would like to discuss why people who have given more (and we could say have more money) are better targets for a giveawy and should deserve better chances of winning.
Comment has been collapsed.
Money makes the world go round.
Some altruistic deeds just seem selfish upon closer inspection.
Also the Bible still greatly influencing modern day life and its people:
Luke 6:38
"Give, and you will receive. Your gift will return to you in full--pressed down, shaken together to make room for more, running over, and poured into your lap. The amount you give will determine the amount you get back."
Comment has been collapsed.
Only for the record. The one that quotes the Bible every now and then in here is me, mkay? :-p
And I just wanted to raise a nice debate here.
Comment has been collapsed.
No offense taken :)
Also Matthew 20:16:
So the last will be first and the first last, for the called are many and the chosen ones are few.
Comment has been collapsed.
See? He did.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well since the site point is share games, there's no way to contribute than giving games away
Comment has been collapsed.
You can still be part of the community by posting in the forums. Everyone who does that isn't a leecher in my book.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see posting on the forums as contributing per se. To me it shows willingness to be part of the community and that the person isn't here just to get free games.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can always create room for discussion, add meaningful copies and so on and so forth. I don't think that judgind people in base on their disposable income is the best benchmark.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again it's not contributing, just socializing.
Also if people can't give games they can't complain about their odds of winning
Comment has been collapsed.
You are asuming they are complaining.
And socialising is a way of contributing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe on twitter or facebook or even on steamgroups :p
I'm not assuming, you said to don't judge people in base on their disposable income, I said that if people can't give they can't complain about their odds. If I'm giving games I should be able to chose who may win, or not?
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh sure. It's your game it's your call. I was trying to focus the debate on more like a theoretical and moral point of view.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why I'm saying, keep CV or allow rules on public giveaways. To finish my point, steamgifts is like a torrent if you just leech it and not seed, you aren't contributing with the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
"That's why I'm saying, keep CV or allow rules on public giveaways. To finish my point, steamgifts is like a torrent if you just leech it and not seed, you aren't contributing with the community."
Why can't we just get rid of CV and use private giveaways with rules?
Comment has been collapsed.
This might be a black and white poll but, as mentioned, it's a simple poll. Hopefully, we'll get enough feedback to show us the direction people tend to prefer. Just curious, if you are in the middle, why would you pick one and why would you pick the other?
Comment has been collapsed.
We didn't add a neutral option or a potential change option because we feared most will go for that and we wouldn't be able to see any actual opinion about it. We'll hopefully get some input with this poll to get more options or discussion after this.
Feel free to state your opinion as a comment though, voting or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really like it as there's always problems and drama and things of the sort around. Moreover I consider there's no fair way of rewarding users for their contributions. So I'm against.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bout this topic...Leechers Gonna Hate :D:D: i see so far it's 70% versus 30 % (30 % voted no,prob leechers)
Comment has been collapsed.
Did you read CGs post at all? Note the part where he says it's pretty much the same split among all the groups he's looked at.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a very wrong headed statement - I've voted to be rid of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Did you read CG's post at all?
A lot of high value contributors outed themself as downvoters already. With high contributors split up 50/50 as up and downvoters the chance is pretty high that many of the exploiters actually are upvoters while many non abusers are downvoters.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
well - actually a lot of actual contributors I know (not contrib boosters) are against contrib system.
Imho the people who will be against are mostly contrib boosters and low contributors - as they will be forced back to enter GAs together with non-contributors and they've contributed to little to get into groups.
Comment has been collapsed.
like me. :P I'm voting to keep because I've got just enough cv to pass the $.01 barrier which helps my odds with cv filters but isn't close to getting me into a group.
so I say keep cv, but tweek and fix it a bit to hide the holes so people can't abuse it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually according to the edit :
"Currently the results are roughly 66% for keeping the contributor system, and 34% for removing. I looked into the users voting to see if there were any interesting trends. I looked at only votes from contributors, votes from users that have contributed $100+, $1,000+, users that have been registered for more than a year, etc. No interesting data though, they were all similar to the existing results, with roughly 2/3 for keeping it, and 1/3 for removing."
So general results pretty much sum up the rest sub-categories currently.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is really unexpected. At least from my point of view I was totally expecting something along the line
"imo the majority of contributors will vote to keep it and majority of non contributers will vote to remove it (of course there is exceptions) so the end results will depends of number of contributors vs number non contributors members"-LodanZark
Comment has been collapsed.
Checking the trends and who voted what will help. From what I've seen in the comments so far (I am only 2 pages in though), there are quite a few high contributors voting for its removal and some non-contributors voting to keep it. Quite the diversity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Abortions for Some, Miniature American Flags for the Rest!
Comment has been collapsed.
Man, skeletal horses, kodos, and hawkstriders are so last year. I like my relatively newly acquired Onyxian drake and phoenix far far more.
Comment has been collapsed.
The site used to run well (Or so I've been told) without it.
What makes you think it will make giveaways dissapear?
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much this. It was a thoughtful idea, rewarding people for being nice and such, but it's causing so much drama and complaining, I'm not really sure how it could be "fixed." Someone's always going to find some reason to call some giveaways exploits, yell it's not fair, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they are motivated just by a virtual number, that doesn't even give them much advantage over others any more (considering the entries on giveaways) then they should reconsider and spend those money on their games for themselves. It's not really an investment, as some people state.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed, giving games as a investment is not what I consider a wise decision.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wormy2013!
On a serious note I think it's good but needs reworking.
Comment has been collapsed.
The option to keep it isn't exclusive of changing it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't want you to remove it but to make many changes on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've heard German a lot - had it mandatory for 3 years in school, and as I live close to German-Polish border there are a lot of German tourists in Wroclaw as well. And I still hate it ;p
And french language is awesome to hear :> Italian? Well - don't like to much, but at least it sounds funny ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
10 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by lostsoul67
1,095 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by FreeFall
121 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by kbronct
66 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
70 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by Carenard
31 Comments - Last post 13 hours ago by BlazeHaze
15 Comments - Last post 15 hours ago by funnyduck99
11 Comments - Last post 1 second ago by duville
65 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by xXxYEET
47 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by Mitsukuni
50 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by Cassol
677 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by FruitCober
2,419 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by JMM72
11 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Fluffster
We're working on a number of major updates to the community, and the contributor system is one that we go back and forth on quite a bit. Let's start with a simple poll.
Edit: Currently the results are roughly 66% for keeping the contributor system, and 34% for removing. I looked into the users voting to see if there were any interesting trends. I looked at only votes from contributors, votes from users that have contributed $100+, $1,000+, users that have been registered for more than a year, etc. No interesting data though, they were all similar to the existing results, with roughly 2/3 for keeping it, and 1/3 for removing.
Comment has been collapsed.