And how many good and AAA games have you contributed?
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
It often seems as if people who don't have a high CV can't have an opinion on the contribution system on this site, people are ignorant that way.
Comment has been collapsed.
And yet, that invalidates his opinion? And what about every other time I've seen anyone even hint at a different CV system? In my opinion, the people with high CV's have just been here long enough that they don't see any reason to change it, and they invalidate anyone else's opinion on the subject.
Comment has been collapsed.
Noone said he was right or wrong, only that it's ironic that he's the one complaining about this since he himself is part of the problem.
Also, this has nothing to do with high CV I really don't get why people always bring up low CV as an argument for being mocked, it's simply that beggars can't be choosers, if he's willing to give away stuff as well there are tons of groups that do exactly that what he's suggesting, but clearly he only want to receive, not give.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, I'm reasonably confident that a majority of people with high CV want the most drastic change possible - to eliminate the CV system
Comment has been collapsed.
no, i dont want that at all. i believe the CV system is the reason we have high quality giveaways. if you just take it away, steamgifts could transform into something like galagiveaways, where you see 99% bundle games. i really don't want that. CV is a major motivation for many people (i do not exclude myself here, it was for me too for a long time). just look at how many threads we have here regarding the CV for bundle giveaways. people obviously want to raise their CV, and once they realize bundle games won't cut it, they start to give away other games.
that doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. i would like to have a more accurate system, that saves the price at the date of the giveaway creation. this would prevent exploitation.
what we definitely should not do, is to take away the motivation. we are egoists. all of us. we don't just want to give, we also want to get something in return. and if we don't see a number raising, if we don't see our chances for winning games ourselves raising, we will give away less games. the older members with high CV will continue to give away stuff, of course. they are already used to it. most of them hiding in private groups, giving away games mostly to the people they know and like (which i totally understand and do myself). but i think that at least many new members will just be leechers without any motivation to do otherwise. same goes for many of the members who now have like 35$ CV. what do you think why they gave away barely enough bundle games to reach 30$, and then just one more non-bundle game? so they can enter those 30.01$ giveaways. ^^ and that's not too bad. that's what populates the site.
no, i think the CV system (or a similar motivational system) is very important for this site. and i am surprised, how many of you constantly talk about removing it completely.
Comment has been collapsed.
on the other hand can't you understand our arguments? I know you earned your CV fair and square. A lot of us did, and we take advantage of it. BUT - as long as the system is in place no matter what changes staff implement - people will always find new ways to cheat it. People I cannot mention by name not to call out :). There are other ways to motivate users - good contributors will always find a spot in groups, get invited to private GAs, and we even have upcoming whitelist feature. Fake CV boosters on the other hand would get smacked with no-CV implementation. Not to mention a simple fact - both you and me already have over 5k$ CV, there is no point for us to earn any more, as 5k is maximum on Contri GA. So supposedly we have no motivation at all to make GAs. So why do we still do? ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
sure, i understand your arguments. i just don't completely agree. ;)
you say, other motivations would be spots in groups, private ga's and so on. i would say, this is stuff for the advanced users. new users won't get into good groups. and it's quite a bit of effort needed in order to get invited. and i dont think every new user even wants to deal with groups. i didnt want to, when i was new here. CV is a more direct way of saying "contribute just a little bit, and your chances will increase".
well, my suggestion would be to save the current price on the giveaway creation date. what do you think about that? i don't see how people could possibly exploit the system then. the only exploits happening right now work, because SG calculates with standard prices.
Comment has been collapsed.
well - there are 2 problems regarding keeping current price on SG that cg adressed when it was suggested last time. 1st is site performance - you would have to additionally keep "current price" value in DB on SG, as you cannot simply pull price from Steam like it's done now. Right now there's been 710617 completed and received GAs on SG. even more if you add all with 0 entries, deleted etc. It means nearly million more DB entries for now and number will grow with time. But the 2nd problem is even more important - it actually can be exploited quite badly and would require shitload of support work to deal with "exploits" and to maintain system fair to all users. A lot of times Steam sends broken prices - we've seen it before, TR2013 listed for 90p, F.E.A.R. 3 listed for 50p, Each of Total War games listed at price of full collection. and so on and on. A lot of them we're not even aware of, as when they occur there's none currently running GA for these games. Each time something like this happens if your system would be in place all users who created GA during this time would have boosted CV that would stay with them not only like now before pricing goes back to normal but this boosted CV would stay with them forever. To deal with it Support would have to track all these games and GAs made for them each time and alter the data for pricing each time.
Comment has been collapsed.
i dont think the database size would be a problem. 700000 is not very much. and we are not talking about new record sets in the database, just a new data field.
your second argument is not bad, this could indeed be a problem (although it's not like we have 10 pricing errors every day). but i think ways could be found to circumvent this. for example a table with the initial price for all games, which could then be used as a maximum value during the giveaway creation. i admit, it's getting a little more complicated now.
Comment has been collapsed.
A) People were giving out high quality giveaways before the CV system was ever implemented. In fact, bundle keys were prohibited from being given away, yet there were still tens of thousands of giveaways being made.
B) CV was not originally implemented to be an incentive system. I can dig up the post from cg if you want, although I'm not sure how he didn't see that it would essentially become a motivational factor.
C) Game value given away was always displayed on profile, even if it didn't apply to entering better giveaways.
D) Zel brings up a good point. Why do we still make giveaways if we've already reached max CV levels? Clearly there are other motivating factors in play, such as group enrollment, e-peen growth, etc.
Sorry for the bullet points - I didn't feel like writing transition sentences since I'm short on time this morning. I'm not denying that some people give away games purely for CV, but I do believe it causes a lot more problems than it solves. You know the easiest way to settle this debate? We need data on current non-bundle giveaways and data after transition to sgv2.
Comment has been collapsed.
Would it be better if I replaced "majority" with "a good number"? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Inflation? Currency exchange problems? Fiat currency does mean FAKE afterall...
Comment has been collapsed.
Bundles don't count to CV after $30 anyway, and games I believe 95% or over off don't count either.
Bad rats is a bundled game I believe.
I think it's fine as it is. There are plenty of good non bundle games that aren't on that wish list and there's no reason why people shouldn't get CV from it. Also, some games on the wishlist have been bundled.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pointing out, that is over a year old... things change...
Comment has been collapsed.
Playblink use a "wishlist" system to help determine value of gifts if you want to scope that site out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude you have given away a F2P game and an indie game that came out in 2006...really? REALLY? Sit down.
Comment has been collapsed.
also keydrop for ninjas
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I doubt you want more cv for yourself because you want to give away the wishlisted one.
Rather than that you want others to be encouraged to make AAA giveaways so you can win the ones you really want. But no. I don't really think you are a kind of person like this.
If you really want an other system you should check out the private GA groups. There are some with systems like the one you mentioned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Farmed? Maybe in the short run, but cheapass games will also have their base prices lowered more rapidly, which retroactively affects everyone's CV. So it's less "farm effective" (or whatever) than giving away decently priced, quality titles.
Comment has been collapsed.
SG takes the prices directly from Steam. So if steam devalues a game over time, which it does, the CV will lower here as well. I'm not sure how often personal CV is recalculated, but the frequency of threads commenting on it (or rather of people losing their CV) could be a proxy.
This system is also the reason sometimes giveaways will cost more or less than they should because their is some confusion with a bundle or pack on steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
Assassine, it seems that you need to read the FAQ.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you've read the FAQ, then you've read the part about CV being based on the game's Steam value. It would seem you simply didn't understand it. Here are the relevant bits:
"What's with these points?" (entire section)
. . .
"Your contributor value will be locked until you submit further giveaways that are not from bundles and will continue to rise gradually until the full value has been reached. "
. . .
"...only users that have successfully sent that value or greater to other users in the community..."
. . .
"...the game is included in the bundle list and thus you might not receive full contribution value for it."
. . .
"Giveaways created prior to a bundle always receive full value."* (Re: Important Updates to Contributor Values and Bundle Games)
CV is based off of the (rounded) dollar value of the games given to the SG Community. When the value of those games drops (through price decreases or other means), the CV for those games drops. In addition, bundled games have application of their full CV restricted to 20% of total non-bundled CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's actually the other way around. A $60 game is far more likely to see a price cut than a $5 game, and usually by a much higher percentage as well. If I give away a $60 game, a year later its full value may be only $20, where as a $5 is probably still going to be $5. Cheap games retain their CV for a much longer time in general.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that this "no CV for bundle games after 30$" is total shit, because doing this SG declare that bundle games after certain point START TO COST NOTHING. It's absolutely ridiculous and just unfair, some bundles cost one dollar, some 5, but 1 dollar and five dollars ARE MONEY TOO. I understand that SG wants to stop bundlebuyers from raise conribution value, but doing so that people spend money and got something like "lol, another bundle idiot, kek, live forever with your 30$ CV, asshole, even if you buy bundles for 10000$ you still be a 30$ jerk, lololol, get a life, freak" is pure, total shit of a conception. Why don't you give us just freaking dollar of CV for, I say, 10 bundle games, ok, even for 20, isn't it more fair than what is going on now? I think it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your bundle contribution above 30$ are still calculated as high as 20% of your non-bundle contributions. If you give non-bundled games, some of the contribution from your bundle games will be added to your CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why I stopped creating giveaways here. I get the reasoning behind the CV rules, but I strongely disagree with it. There are places that I can get 'rid of' bundle leftovers and people really appreciate it.
Comment has been collapsed.
you mean these places where you see 95% bundle games? ^^ the CV system at least gives us a decent amount of non-bundle games here, and the possibility to significantly raise your chances for specific giveaways. i think overall it's a great system.
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean like this site? If you check the giveaways here they are 95% bundled games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Strange... We have CV here at SG and people still seem to appreciate receiving bundled games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, but some DLC for 20 cent gets you more of your awesomesauce... I mean CV while 1/5 of a 3$ bundle tier doesn't. Each to their own :)
Comment has been collapsed.
You misunderstand both my response and the way in which the SG system works.
Comment has been collapsed.
after activating your game you got a extra copy in your inventory. so maybe you wanna be careful with your accusation.
Comment has been collapsed.
The guy didn't do anything wrong
Impossible, we are all but sinners
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a reason that people often make giveaways with the $30.01 CV limit, and that's to counteract fresh accounts with nothing but bundled giveaways. There's nothing wrong with making giveaways of games on sales, but I do agree that it would be cool to give a little extra bonus CV to people who offer games above a certain price on the wishlist. You know, as a reward to the few who are the most generous.
Comment has been collapsed.
Never seen a CV compaining topic from a user with CV more than 40.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you give games for CV you are doing it wrong.
Also, how about historical low? huh?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you can have new ideas. It's just that they're not necessarily better than the current situation and they're usually dismissed without much debate.
Not everyone likes the CV concept. Fair enough. But it's a fact that the mechanism is routinely exploited, so whether one believes the system is unfair or simply imperfect, I think it's natural for people to come up with ideas to change or improve it.
Person A can buy 5 poor random games that are 90% off, spending $5, gift them and get 50 CV. Person B buys 5 low tier Humble Bundles (example: Guacamelee, Dust, Giana Sisters, The Swapper), spending $5, gifts all games and gets whatever the 30-CV-bundle-rule allows them, which is potentially and often 0. The way I see it, there's room for improvement.
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason they are usually dismissed without much debate is because the people making the suggestions usually don't know what they are talking about.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're referring to me personally, what do I not know?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think 1 big problem is the remaining of the "is a bundled game"-marking.
A game which was bundled a year ago still has the marking of a bundled game. Sooner or later... OK, later nearly every game will have been in a bundle sometime and since then it will be handled as "bundled game without full CV" forever...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that particular problem has no ideal solution. A partial solution would be to never treat Steam gifts as bundle games; but I'm not even sure it would be fair to treat two methods to obtain the same game differently and to prevent abuse a trade bot should be set up to act as a middleman.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not quite. Games given away before being bundled still count as non-bundled games when it comes to CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually your assumption is (currently) incorrect. I kept track of additions to the bundle list vs. new steam releases for a couple of months. See here and here. I actually have data through February but I never bothered to post. Essentially, new Steam releases and bundled games are added at an essentially equal pace.
Note, however, that if you include DLC, Steam releases far outpace bundled games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not talking about the "amount" of bundled games vs new games, but the "if once bundled than it's forever bundled"
So if I'm buying a game right now, without a bundle or whatever, i still only get the CV counted for a bundled game because "anytime" it has been part of a bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was responding to "later nearly every game will have been in a bundle sometime"
Comment has been collapsed.
I was referring to those "new ideas" you mentioned which are "not necessarily better than the current situation and [are] usually dismissed without much debate." That description applies exactly to the idea expressed in the OP and its summary dismissal.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair enough. But even a not particularly innovative suggestion can be followed by a meaningful debate, which shouldn't be dismissed. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
True. The value of any discussion is only limited by the participants' willingness to learn from each other.
Comment has been collapsed.
The difference is that in case A, the person is buying for the sake of giving away. Usually in case B, that person is buying the bundle for him/herself, and then only giving away the extra copies because he/she has no use for them.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, well, in my examples both persons are buying with the purpose of giving every game away.
The difference I see is that person A is doing it too boost his/her CV, person B - in the "worst case" - too, but person A gets a lot more of what he/she wants (in this case, CV).
Comment has been collapsed.
Oops, I misread your post. I do believe that most people who give away bundle games are just giving left over keys, however,
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. But I also believe that the vast majority of those who buy bad games or DLC items when they're 90% off and give them away do so with the pure intent of increasing their CV. My point is that I see no reason why the behaviour I described should be rewarded more than the one you described.
Comment has been collapsed.
Before making suggestions as to how the current system might be improved, one should first make sure that he or she understands the current system. When one is obviously ignorant of how things work, people are unlikely to take one's comments seriously.
As for ignorant complaints, those are just plain annoying.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pointing out, he doesn't complain that he cannot win the "awesome games", he does say he's given up on the more popular games due to their high entry numbers. And why does someone have to have contributed a large value in order to have a valid opinion? Because someone cannot afford to give away $200+ their opinions are worthless? At what cash value can someone speak their mind?
Comment has been collapsed.
According to Citizen United v FEC and McCutcheon v FEC, money is speech. So the more you spend, the more you speak. Obviously, SG agrees with the rulings.
Comment has been collapsed.
To whom are you referring with "he?" Overking's comment was not directed at anyone in particular.
Comment has been collapsed.
So? When the price of the game changes the CV decreases even retroactively. That's much worse than people buying stuff at a discount.
Comment has been collapsed.
150 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Massulan
20 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by 420UNKNOWN
1,388 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Delisper
880 Comments - Last post 11 hours ago by sensualshakti
15,575 Comments - Last post 11 hours ago by devotee
44 Comments - Last post 12 hours ago by adveniat
563 Comments - Last post 14 hours ago by XxSeRyIxX
32 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by mrakotun
19 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by Lugum
17 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by Orionid
42 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by AKSH
72 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by vinirockman
46 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by MBcoder
1,703 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by reigifts
Right now the contributor system is flawed. People can get cheap gifts, or games that are often -90%, and use it to boost their contributor value.
What I think would be better is to reward people for gifting WANTED games. Yes, these games :
http://www.steamgifts.com/wishlist
Gifting those games would give more contributor points that unwanted games such as bad rats mhich is often at -90% nowadays.
Comment has been collapsed.