So a game like portal 2, with a MSRP of $50, you'd want it to cost 100-200 points to enter? That's a tad unreasonable, as the cap (if I recall correctly) is 300 points. The cap would have to be raised as well, leading to more point flooding of cheaper games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. The point system is only 300 points, after this week, everything should be balanced with many users retaining excess points from the implementation of the point system. Give it time and it'll be impossible for users to enter in more than a few giveaways a week.
Comment has been collapsed.
It will get better with the current system for the future, agreed, but with the current point system, a person with 5 wins is treated the same as a person with 0 win. A person with multiple wins out of a few thousand is not unlikely even with point-restrictions.
I'm just proposing a way for there to be a "penalty" to winning. Everything else should look the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems unreasonable now, but if everyone is refunded for bids they lost, then it is needed. Naturally, the cap will be raised.
Can you elaborate on "leading to more point flooding of cheaper games?" What did you mean by that?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think nerd means that if the costs compared to maximum allowance is too high, people will start flooding cheap or free games into the system just to keep points up. Like, say, giving away 25 copies of a game that could be gotten for free elsewhere. (Eets, Dark Messiah, etc.)
Gifting stuff that's free would probably be a problem. Cheap games though? There are a ton of cheap games that are worth getting and gifting.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree, multiple wins is part of the random process and it is working fine despite some irrational complaining and some valid complaints about re-gifting.
Just be happy you've won multiple times, I would be if I were you. Maybe you deserve it, ya know?
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree with points refunding since that would go against the purpose of points system.
There must be a risk factor (in this case points loss) to enter a giveaway, so that people would take time to think whether they should enter a giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
63 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by adam1224
70 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Carenard
1,094 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Gamy7
120 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Sh4dowKill
31 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by BlazeHaze
15 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by funnyduck99
46,874 Comments - Last post 12 hours ago by adambiser
34 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by BlackbeardXIII
6 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by Aksytick
9 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by ngoclong19
40 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by Serpy
528 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by CBlade
435 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Oppenh4imer
237 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by spodamayn
The problem I see with the current system is that point-wise, winning a game and bidding for a game are exactly the same. Why not actually add a cost to winning so that gifts are more spread out among the community?
I propose that lost bids are refunded 75%-100% (think bunker salvage) of the point cost, but the points used to win are forever gone.
To counteract the flood of points from all the refunding, all point costs to bid should be raised 2-4 times. This way, people will still be more selective in what they bid for.
The current distribution of multiple winners and those who haven't won anything is actually a likely scenario just because of how combinations work (think nCr). We need to implement a system to manually limit multiple wins, because it won't go away magically. However, I would still like to have "some" multiple wins and leave that up to chance so I think this is a good compromise.
What do you guys think?
Comment has been collapsed.