If you get rid off it the minumum entries on a giveaway will be like .. 1000 chance of winning.. 0.01% KEEP IT OF COURSE!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm in the middle, I just want it fixed where indiegala store bundles are also included and add 2 more tiers of game list:
They will have different set of calculations to add in CV
I came in SG with CV, kinda hard to adjust without it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not true that you need it to be done manually. Make an algorithm that changes the multiplier based on the amount of entrants in recent giveaways for that game. That way, if people like a game (lots of entrants) then there is increased incentive for people to gift it. Personally, I don't care if it's a bundle game as long as people want the game enough. But if it's like DOTA2 or The Ship a few months back, this type of system would devalue CB for those significantly.
TL;DR: Algorithm makes good games higher CV, bad games lower CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
That doesn't relate at all to what I said. So here's my reply:
Big turtles eat pink potatos.
TL;DR: Hardly a good algorithm; just because an AAA is overhyped doesn't mean it should reward you more than a new niche game. Also, that only gives gifters the incentive to make their giveaways 4 weeks long for the most entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm suggesting making this system into basic economics: if people demand it, give incentive to supply it. Misread multiple for multipliers
Keep feeding those turtles.
But if people want a new game, or a hyped game, then so be it, and why do you want people to make entries for games no one wants (four weeks long)? Look, AAA games get 2000-5000 entries, so did FTL. Niche games aren't given as much if they're not bundled. Anyway, the site is to let people give away steam keys, and if people want to enter for a certain game it's not my place to meddle. Demand doesn't lie.
Comment has been collapsed.
1 hour flash giveaways have much fewer entries
Entries is such a great metric because crazy machines is in a higher demand than the bethesda collection. I guess group and private giveaways might as well just give you no CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, Bethesda is a collection, and as stated in one of the "thank you" comments, most anyone owns one of those games. Crazy machines had so many entries because there were 5 copies, so 1500 entries/5 copies= 300/copy. So many entries there.
Your first point is valid, you could exclude those, or account for them. Modern computing can do quite a few crazy things.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was kind of the point (time interval & entry cost determines # of entries; not merely supply and demand on the basis of interest in a game)
Also a contributor should not me penalized relatively for giving away something people desire less especially if it's something the contributor actually wants to share (still referring to MiniTotent's suggestion).
Comment has been collapsed.
while your idea may seem good, someone will always find a way to exploit a system. It will for example not remove problem with flood of free/exploited keys (remember Metro 2033 FB event?). Or trying to regift, or anything else.
And if we get rid of CV system - people who want to give - will give. Ppl who just want to cheat/exploit to boost their CV will leave - and it's ok with me. Fok'em.
Comment has been collapsed.
There needs to be a change if anything. It de-incentivizes people from buying and giving away previously bundled games no matter how overpriced the bundle might be (eg: Indie Royale). And people try to boost their contribution with bad quality games.
I could live with a more strict or changed CV system or just none at all
Comment has been collapsed.
Sale is something that is sold for a lower price, a percentage, usually 80% maximum (never seen any above that).
A bundle is usually a set of games sold for 1$ with a set of games for those who beat the average. While in sales you get up to 5x the actual price in CV, in the latest bundle (tripwire) you would get 70$ CV for only 3$...
I say we should keep CV, and keep bundled games for a set time period
Comment has been collapsed.
Difficult one.
On one hand, there are a lot of people making giveaways with a contributor value requirement, so it's obviously popular in that sense. Many users don't want to give games to people who contribute nothing to the community. Some might not be in a position to contribute games, but are active in the forums and valuable members of the community, but there are a LOT of leechers here who only take, and do not give. I make next to no public giveaways already, at least in part for this reason, and I would not consider making a single one if there was no contributor option available.
One the other hand, the system causes a lot of bitching, anger and aggro in the forums. Most of that is from angry users who can't understand why the games they bought for $1 don't earn them $150 contributor value, but it IS a divisive issue. The calculation system is also imperfect, although it has improved since the provision for bundle games was added. If CV is to remain, it should be tightened up, not relaxed to reward bundlers and contrib farmers.
That said, I think a lot of people would stop making public giveaways altogether if the contribution option was removed, so leeches are unlikely to find a tsunami of public giveaways suddenly opening up to them. I suspect the outcome will be that a lot of contribution-based groups spring up to sidestep the removal of the contribution system, and some users stop giving on here altogether.
The attention of the entitled minority bitching about the unfairness of the bundle system etc will probably turn to closed groups, and how they should be abolished so there is more free shit available to them. I hasten to add that not everyone criticising the bundle system is doing it for selfish reasons, and there are good arguments made for adding the $ deals for Crazy Machines, Humble, etc to the list, but there are a lot of users falling into the "entitled" category who need to quieten down and be appreciative that the contributor $ value assigned to them is still far in excess of the money they actually spent on the games...
I'm probably more in favour of keeping the option of contribution based giveaways than removing them, but I can see a small amount of merit in getting rid. The main argument for change though, is pandering to a loud minority who are aggrieved about their own contributor status, and I'm not sure that's a compelling enough argument for changing a system that, for the most part, works relatively well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totally agree, unless they let us to use rules on public giveaways a lot of people will stop making public giveaways
Comment has been collapsed.
I've read all of this huge wall of text, and I agree. Removing CV giveaways will not make people give away more to leechers (using public giveaways) but will force creation of even more elitist groups and separation of those groups from the main community on the forums.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
The system needs a reworking from the ground up. Personally I believe statistics and demand-based-value is a much better answer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shiet son, spot on. Forgot to mention 'developer' CV. "HEY YO MR. INDIE DEV PLS GIB 1000 KEYS SO I CAN SHARE" >enters $2000+ gibwais.
Comment has been collapsed.
Elitist groups will always be there. Only the criteria will change depending on the given system at the time.
Though the idea of contributors' giveaways had a good intent, I think a lot of elitism, douchebaggery, calling out, exploiting and drama came out of it. It's really ugly when users are being tagged as "leechers" or valued just by checking some number on their profile.
Thanks for your input.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was talking about "exclude ppl" also = make a group for people you want included = can't be leaked = "leaking private giveaway" argument invalid.
Comment has been collapsed.
Groups existed long before them. CV has given those closed off people more incentive to make public giveaways if anything. Removing it will just remove the total amount of games and points from the pool, rather than make the same amount of giveaways contributor free. That's what people don't get.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm aware of that, and if it was possible I would love to see a new system in place, but since this site is free of charge it's a bit much to ask of the staff who're doing their work for free.
But the whole CV discussion just keeps on going, and the problem of games being added to the list just keeps growing bigger and bigger. (and because of that people get way to selective when choosing games to contribute most of the times)
That's why I wouldn't mind if the whole CV thing would be gone, it's the easiest & cheapest solution to this problem, and to compensate that mods could just create a few invite only groups for different tiers of contributors or something like that.
-edit- Might be a bit unclear in my post, but CV isn't really the problem, the way people try to exploit it and how the whole idea of gifting has become infected with a constant focus on CV is.
Comment has been collapsed.
The CV system needs a major overhaul.
Everything the CV system does now (encouraging giveaways, rewarding contributors, limiting the number of entrants, etc) can be done via Steam groups. But CV also causes problems that are non-existant in Steam groups that is, contrib. value farming and exploiting.
I could easily live without CV, but I do realise that removing it completely could cause some problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
Contributor value alone doesn't cause more problems, it's other aspects of it that causes problems. The fact that it is based on current Steam values and not what the value was when someone made the giveaway is one issue, the other is bundled games that haven't been in bundles since 2010 or 2011 and still are on the bundled list and now are rarely given away because of it.
Those two things could use to be changed in some manner. Contributor value itself is fine as it is and has enough benefits to be worth keeping.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm no fan of such an idea because what is of high value to one person is not so much to another. Like I hate shooters, so I'd put a low value on anything Call of Duty. Others would put a high value on them.
But really, I hate things that are subjective. I like hard and fast numbers that are based off fact, not opinion. Like right now it is a fact that over 1000 people want to keep CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
the CV is a surprisingly complex issue. At its best it is a way to reward people who give, but at its worst it is something else altogether. the fact that CV is too easily exploited through tiny groups essentially buying the same games and giving them to each other (in other words, just buying the games they want for themselves but gifting it round-robin so they all get contributor value when all they've done is bought games for their own account) means that the system is defunct. More or less useless. And couple that with the fact that people who have contributed 2k worth of games, well frankly probably don't need help in acquiring games.
There should be a minimum giveaway value, like bundles themselves have minimum purchase values, in order to participate. Give a little, get a little. It's not cool to see exploited CV and it wouldnt be cool to see a bunch of duplicate spam accounts winning a lot either.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know what might not be a bad idea: Come up with a way for support to freeze CV and remove CV. Then people who exploit the system can have their CV frozen or the exploited CV removed. They can still participate in giveaways if they have done nothing else to break the rules, but they won't earn any further CV for exploiting the system.
This would cover people like you are talking about, and also people who abuse the system in other ways, but people who are not exploiting it can keep earning. It would just take defining what is considered exploiting so we don't have honest folks caught by it and as many loopholes as possible are closed up.
Comment has been collapsed.
Determining what counts as exploited or not is the difficult part... just like determining what goes on the bundle list.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd be interested to know how prevalent this practice really is. Hardly anyone talks about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just like to be able to see a contribution value of $.01 simply so at least I'm giving away a game to someone who contributed 'something'. Also, it makes for a less likely chance of gifting a game to someone who will never acknowledge they received the game and really has no idea how the site works in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
Contrib value just needs to be static and not subject for decline in product value.
Really simple, once a game has been gifted, the value at THAT moment gets added to your account and doesn't get recalculated every time.
Can't get more easier then this to solve that problem :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This poses a slight issue with the current system. Games on the bundle list do not get added automatically, they are added by a user. That means that there will always be a slight delay between the bundle going live and its addition to the list. Same as when a bundle gets announced and people create giveaways before they can buy it, just to get a chance at full value. That's the reason it works retroactively and the dates listed are the dates that count.
About the prices from the store, those change automatically currently. Unsure if we could add multiple instances of a game to bypass the issue with price changes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I actually did give a suggestion on this before, so I'll mention it again here. What could be possible is to add in a database value for each item given that is static. It contains the value of the game at the time of the giveaway and then a value for bundle y/n (which can be changed when adding to the list).
So basically it would be something more attached to the profile itself and the CV gets added by those values, not pulled from Steam API constantly. It just pulls from Steam API at giveaway creation to determine that value and the number of points needed to enter.
While I am aware this won't help people who have experienced a decline of CV in the past, it will ensure no new cases get added, but it is a way to prevent decline of CV while still making it easy on those who enter stuff like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be more along the lines of they get removed at some indefinite time period after the game isn't bundled any longer. Basically when it gets to the point where it becomes evident that the bundle status is impeding upon giveaways being made for the game. If people have no way of knowing if/when a game will be removed, then keys won't be hoarded. Honestly, there aren't all that many keys still out there for the really old bundles and a lot of those bundles had one key, not individual keys. The games were just added to the bundle list to prevent exploits by making the giveaway as the single game and giving a whole bundle. Also, the bundle list was created because back then you could get a bundle for a penny, now you have to pay at least a buck for them and a lot of bundles don't even have Steam keys for the games that aren't BTA. Bundle Stars does this a lot, the DRM free games are the ones you get for $1, you have to pay at least $5 to get games on Steam. I'm happy to give bundle leftovers for no CV, that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that a lot of games on my wishlist were in really old bundles and aren't given away even when on sale now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll also say it's nice to be able to give a giveaway a simple contribution requirement so that you can ensure whoever wins at least contributed something and had demonstrated that they at least know how to use the sites give/receive check boxes.
Comment has been collapsed.
And what about linking contributions to points? You only earn more by contributing. More giveaways, less entries per giveaway, less entries per user, more focused, better probability to win. The system would be more fair and less arbitrary.
The actual contributor system doesn't solve the giveaways per user, entries per giveaway and entries per user unbalanced ratios. It just do it more elitist but elitism doesn't solve it in the long term.
If resources (points) are limited but there's a way for everyone to get more (giveaways) and that benefits to all the resource owners, the system works.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then this site becomes gala giveaways. Have you seen their site at all?
Comment has been collapsed.
If it is kept, we need specifics as to what is a "bundle game" and what is not. If you allowed at least one or two support members to modify it, things would go a lot better as well. The fact that the Humble Bundle Weekly was added and not the Indie Gala Store Bundles is a prime example of why we need these specifics. There is the situation of the Humble THQ Bundle games not being added due to "being a single key" despite HIB#1-3 and others being added while having a single key.
In the end though, removing the contribution system is the only realistic choice in my opinion. Whether it's another situation like the Humble Bundle Weekly or inevitable price drops, there will be people always losing contribution value and getting upset over it.
Rather than contribution value, we could replace them with contribution levels based solely on the number of giveaways. As it stands, the actual "value" of the game means nothing as no one is actually paying retail prices and the abuse is coming more from multiple purchases of the same game. and capping at a certain number per game. My idea for "contribution level" obviously removes the "value" of the game and you could easily set a cap of how many times a game is counted to prevent people spamming the same game.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's actually the biggest issue so far. What counts as a bundle game, an exploited game, an over-shared game? Can there even be a way to differentiate games that came from store purchases from keys without having to get every single giveaway approved by support first?
Having starting and ending dates on the list could be another idea, however that would probably promote hoarding of keys till they got "released" from bundle status, so once again that has a flaw. Maybe that could be implemented for old games that were included in a single key? Some of those games don't get shared any more just because they are in the list, despite them being amazing, yet I don't think there are people who would share those old humble keys by creating a giveaway for just one of them now.
Replacing it with something better or something more manageable can be an option. Hoping to see some opinions here that help decide.
As for the Gala Store bundles, I really can't say for sure why they weren't added or if they will be added. Having support excluded from managing the list might be so it's more objective and efficient, at least it feels like that sometimes.
I don't think a game "cap" would be a good idea, however maybe something that would determine value based on how many instances of the game have been shared over time could be an option? Stats would help a lot with that but still how much a value drops would be what's problematic.
Thanks for the input.
Comment has been collapsed.
4x Orc Must Die! (5 entries)
6x Don't Starve (7 entries)
9x Magicka (10 entries)
5x Saints Row 3 (6 entries)
and so on. So he got like 5k contribution or more, but games are certainly not 'wasted'. They circle around same people who bought them, and gived him to raise contribution. Pretty uncool.
There should be set options for contribution so like 0.01, 1, 10, 20, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000 and then custom values (but can't be less than 1000). So that could give a certain "achievement" progress to site.
Also, circling game to increase contribution should be forbidden.
Comment has been collapsed.
I tend to check the winners of my giveaways. Maybe we should all do so, so those cases do not pass impunely.
Comment has been collapsed.
I suspect if you created a report, Support would take a very dim view on this practice...
Comment has been collapsed.
The guy has broken no rules though. All of the winners have activated the games, and they don't look like side/fake accounts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hear what you're saying, and technically he hasn't, but then again neither (technically) have certain accounts (I am thinking of one in particular) who have run dev giveaways (sometimes of several thousand beta keys), then entered a whole load of giveaways they wouldn't otherwise have been entitled to, because of a colossal contributor status attained through what some might see as "unfair" means.
I vaguely recall something about how this has now changed, and dev accounts can no longer do this, but it's just an illustration of people abusing the system, and I think the situation outlined would definitely qualify as "shady" and one warranting a closer look...
Comment has been collapsed.
This is another reason why I think CV shouldn't count for private and group giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, i think must have 3rd option: Change it (change the system calculate the contributor)
Comment has been collapsed.
cq, support, mods: I really appreciate that you are working on updates to the community and that you are taking into account our opinion and suggestions to improve the site. Thanks.
Comment has been collapsed.
It may incentivize giveaway making but it also creates elitism. The guy that makes giveaways with spare bundle keys and cheap sale games that get considered "exploited" get seen as lesser by too large of a number of users with more CV and "better" giveaways. And the problem with "exploiters" that a lot of people complain about is a direct result of making CV more than just a stat. Turning something that can and is seen as a e-peen measuring stick into something meaningful was kinda dumb in my view in the first place. You shouldn't be making giveaways just to boost CV so you can brag and enter certain giveaways, not exactly the type of person I care to win my giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I say keep it. I've yet to contribute my own giveaways, but I think it makes sense that those who have contributed in giveaways, should be rewarded in some way. But...it should be improved as well...eg. you can't giveaway the same game in a certain time frame, otherwise subsequent games provide only 1/2 or 1/4 of their contribution value. Oh and something needs to be done with bundle games (as well as BTA).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, alot of people are giving away stuff just because to raise their CV.
If the CV-System is removed, these people do not have any intention to give away any more games.
The only games that will be given away are easy-to-obtain games (free games and such), because why giving away games when they do nothing to your profile?
With the current CV-system, people tend to give away games that raise their CV = games that are not easy to obtain.
Of course, the problem are bundled games or 95% discounted games. But better have these games given away, too, instead of no games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Still, a lot of people also avoid sharing certain good games because they are in the list, just read one of those posts exactly above yours. I don't think that either of them should think like that or share for such reasons but there will be consequences in what is given away, whatever is picked.
Comment has been collapsed.
I voted to keep it, though I don't agree that contributor giveaways are an important part of the community.
Quite frankly, I just like the greater odds of winning.
I wouldn't put a contribution requirement on my own giveaways.
If it was removed I wouldn't be bothered at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
216 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by Picollo30
0 Comments - Created 20 minutes ago by NattHS
6 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by WaxWorm
990 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by oldman82
288 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Birdie0
17 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by pb1
716 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by MeguminShiro
45 Comments - Last post 16 seconds ago by carlica
82 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by Wolfmaron
282 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by Dunther
53 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by Pe4enie
72 Comments - Last post 48 minutes ago by WaxWorm
2,522 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by neokarasu
207 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by neokarasu
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.