Should we add more CV levels?
as i said many times earlier, i think it is important and i hope it stays in place forever (or a similar CV based system), but that's another discussion... ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
All I want to know is what super secret clandestine group you do group giveaways in that have only 0 to 10 entries.
Who do I have to sacrifice to what gods for entry?
And sure, cranking it up to eleven!!1!! would be an option.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even if (I have nothing against ;) ) the numbers should be higher than what you propose. Value required for next level grows with every level. Difference between lvl1 and 2 is just 25$, between 5 and 6 is 250$ already, 7->8 and 8->9 are 1000$ each, 9->10 is 2000$ so 2.5k$ per level for next two levels doesn't seem that much. With 7.5k$ next tier you will find a lot of lvl11 users quite soon same as you did with lvl 10. 11 should be 10k$ I believe with 12 being at least 15k.
Comment has been collapsed.
i don't know, sounds a bit extreme. what about 8k and 12k? that would make level 12 = 12k, which is kind of cool, you have to admit. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Well - your reasoning was that lvl 10 became somewhat crowded (which is tru - 350% rise in 1 year) and not so elitist anymore - so the more extreme new level would be the better - because the lower you set the Value requirement the fastest the whole story would repeat itself ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
After Level 10 the requirement will just keep doubling. :P
If 10 is $5000, 11 will be $10k, and 12 will be $20k, 13 at $40k, and so on.
No need to have a cap, just let it go forever, like Steam levels.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mmm, sounds a bit unreasonable. 10, 20k OK..but I don't see anyone spending hundreds of thousands to get much higher than that. Maybe a smaller increase in tiers than doubling each time.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's already not reasonable to get even to lvl 10 as it is now ;p it would basically be an epeen thing anyway ;) Levels are just a bonus - you cannot treat lebveling up as an investment, getting levels is just a bonus. as ann example look at dys profile you responded to ;) Do you think it was worth for him getting to his lvl 9 for these 12 games he's won so far? Not really I believe ;) Does it stop him from creating GAs? Not really I believe ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, there are a good number of lvl10's so obviously it's not that unreasonable. And no, I don't see leveling up as an investment but it is nice to have recognition for your contributions, and an upper limit negates that somewhat.
Comment has been collapsed.
there are just 76 lvl 10 people compared to over 90000 lvl 1 people and 750000 lvl 0 people ;) it pretty much shows what is reasonable and what is not ;) Not that people have to do reasonable things :>
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I suppose the definition of reasonable is fairly subjective. I would say that if no one had reached level 10, it might be unreasonable. The fact that 76 people have means it's not unreasonable, but difficult. And what's the point of a high tier if everyone can reach it easily?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, actually . . .
http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/D5ig8/shameless-cv-farming
Comment has been collapsed.
Now the number of giveaways he won is 13, maybe it is worth now? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
A compromise would be to reduce the existing (levels 1 to 10) requirements a little bit to accomodate that later levels still get harder without having to raise the bar that much.
Comment has been collapsed.
not really fixing anything. OP bases his proposition on the fact that lvl 10 userbase already rised by 350% over a year. If level requirements would get reduced it would make it even more crowded and less elite, basically countering the point of KAs proposition ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
It would fix the problem with the numbers growing too high. If the distance between lower levels is reduced, then higher levels can be implemented with less intimidating gaps, which is what I meant :)
Comment has been collapsed.
but it would still be pointless - without wider gaps the number of highest levels wouldn't change much and would be quickly back to the same as it is now. Instead of 1000 users at lvl 7-10 we would have 1000 users at level 9-12 in a year or so, only thing thjat would change is that people would be entering higher level GAs with what they so far given away - which is contrary to what OP speaks of.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well that's why I said it was a compromise, and it's not exactly pointless, it just reduces the effect of your suggestion. But I understand your point.
Comment has been collapsed.
wait wait wait i haven't gotten to level 10 yet!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
I think, it should be like this:
7 750$ - level 11
10 000$ - level 12
14 250$ - level 13
18 750$ - level 14
24 000$ - level 15
Comment has been collapsed.
Hrm, wonder how much I could get selling a kidney ...
Not my own, of course. Don't be silly. :O
Comment has been collapsed.
why stop there???
lvl 11 20k
lvl 12 50k
lvl 13 100k
lvl 14 200k
lvl 15 500k
lvl 16 1M
lvl 17 2M
lvl 18 5M
lvl 19 10M
lvl 20 20M
Comment has been collapsed.
We could continue with level 21 to level 100.... :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Why add more? Is this a competition? xD Have you seen many people entering giveaways for level 10 users?
Comment has been collapsed.
a competition? no, not really. never felt that way. have i seen people entering level 10 giveaways? sure, all the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I said: "Have you seen MANY people entering level 10 giveaways?"
There aren't that many level 10 users. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Is this enough? There aren't even enough level 9 users. XD 76 level 10 users isn't much. Consider that not everyone of them will notice a giveaway and that also not everyone of them will be interested in a specific giveaway. So, some level 10 giveaways are probably struggling to get 5 entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
you don't need entries in Public GAs ;) Public GA even with 1 entry will still give you full value. 5 entries rule applies only to private/group/whitelist GAs ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
so now you know :> not that it's likely to happen anyway, even with lvl 10 GAs ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Gonna blacklist EVERYONE on steamgifts except 1 friend of mine and then make lots of giveaways to boost to level 10. :B Shit, I shouldn't have said it publicly. :( xD
Comment has been collapsed.
blacklist has a limit of 1000 users ;) And there are over 1000 users at level 7+, so it wouldn't work unless your "friend" would be level 8 or higher ;) And still - you'd get spotted and suspended pretty fast I guess - not sure it would be worth to lose lvl 8 account over something as stupid ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
Really? Thanks for that information!
I had a giveaway end with 3 entries last week.. it was level 1 and ran for almost a week for god's sake! But admittedly it was a crappy DLC and I guess really nobody owned the game... :P glad I still got my CV!
Comment has been collapsed.
see for yourself: http://www.sgtools.info/sent/DanZDK it gave you full value ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
there is not such a thing as "healthy entry count" in public GAs ;) Public GA with 1 entry will still give you full value (or bundled value).
Comment has been collapsed.
agree but the people that are level 10 gain nothing for doing giveaways, not that they need it, if they give is because they want to, but it would be cool to reward those persons
Comment has been collapsed.
There are level 10 giveaways. They can also enter any level's giveaway. They are probably whitelisted by everyone. So, this is surely a great reward.
Comment has been collapsed.
what leonidas meant is probably that there is no motivation for them to CONTINUE giving away games ;) Most of us still do, because well - gaining value nad levels is a nice bonus for creating the GAs but it's not the sole reason for us to create GAs. But hypothethically you could just ding lvl 10 and be done and leech freely from this point onward :>
And you are wrong by being whitelisted by everyone ;) For example I am myself blacklisted by quite a few people and also I have 2 lvl 10 people blacklisted myself ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmmm, I expected that level 10 users are adored by everyone, like gods or something. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
And by the way, if you want to, you can leech freely. Why would anyone judge you? Even if there are some people that hate leechers, still a level 10 leecher isn't someone that they could hate (at least, that's what I think).
Comment has been collapsed.
you'd guess wrong again ;) for example quite a few ppl blacklist me solely because of the # of my wins ;) and as for lvl 10 ppl - another example - there is a guy I won't call out by name who farmed lvl 10 by blackmailing indie game devs to give him free keys - he'd blackmail them that he'd use his big review/curator community to write fake reviews and bury their games if they wouldn't give him free keys for "review and promotional purposes" - one of the devs didn't agree to be bullied and posted all mails from him and ultimately he admitted doing this stuff. He's now blacklisted by quite a lot of people, but nonetheless - here's your example of lvl 10 user that is not really too "adored" ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
i think we all know who he is talking about. xD and yes, i blacklisted him, too. the only level 10 guy on my blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
well I seen some hi level giveaways with ZERO to ONE entries
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that really misses the point of CV in the first place, and at best it becomes a competition or achievement badge. At worst, it fosters elitism. I'm sure it would mostly be the former (since most of the GAs on the discussion forum don't go over level 6 and I rarely see any over 8), but that's kinda the point. Why bother in that case? I suppose maybe it would encourage more GAs from high level members who just want to see their levels get higher, but if it came at the cost of more people increasing the levels of their GAs overall (I dunno that it would), I wouldn't consider that a great tradeoff.
Now, if SG were to implement a 'Silver' and 'Gold' system (or something like that), where members get recognition for high amounts without an increased level, I'd be on board with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that Silver/Gold system would produce even more elitism than CV could ever create. Contribution should not give any special perks from the site's viewpoint. It is other members who do that at the moment, as it should be.
Comment has been collapsed.
What would a seperate, entirely 'achievement-esque' system do to foster elitism more than a system that actively gives people with more CV the ability to enter into more giveaways? Those aren't 'special perks', they're just shiny gold stars so people can say: 'Hey look, I did a thing'. No practical purpose whatsoever.
Comment has been collapsed.
I misunderstood your meaning of such system. I got the impression that such status would benefit the member with additional perks instead of being a mere badge in the profile. You are correct, mere badges wouldn't work in such a way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, yeah, no.
Badges might be a better way to phrase it.
Comment has been collapsed.
people can be elitist without levels, it just takes making a group and inviting whoever you want and excluding everyone else.
levels have nothing to do with elitism. they are just a way to recognize users' contributions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you have a good point there... I am still stuck at 9 and I have been trying to work my way up to 10 so I can finally become a cool kid around here :P Even so, I think levels could increase following the same logic currently in place (i.e. duplicating the required CV at each level)... that way, modifications to the site would be kept to a minimal I think
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought about it once... and my best idea was badges or achievements.
achievements usually incentivates you to reach goals and it is not necessarily level related.
that way you can set personal goals without change anything in current level system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah. I said about the same thing, and I think that's the best way to go for those who want to go for those 'bonus points'.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd update the limits for each level so that there are always ten (otherwise there would be no end, we already had CV in $ for that). Limits should change to keep a certain % of users in each level all the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. I don't even want to try to imagine how much "why my level changed" topics would pop up in the forum, how many support tickets would be created because of it and so on.
That's the reason why CG resign from this idea in the first place when he set up rules for SG v2.
Comment has been collapsed.
Link them to a page where everything is explained, just because many people don't get it doesn't mean we have to give up on the best system we can imagine. And "why my level changed" topics keep being created anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not everyone is fluent in english, I'm learning it for 15 years, can watch english films without subtitles but still I'm forced to look up for words or whole sentences because I don't know them.
So it'd be unreasonable to slam wall of text in foreign language to hundreds of thousands of SG users and just expect that they will understand everything. What more people already don't know that site has got FAQ, Comment Formatting section and so on.
Plus system like this gives nothing more than makes sure that if you're giving tons of games either as developer / closed ratio groups or something you will always stay as "elitist" member with high level. And it discourage low level users to give, because they would drop level all the time. So there isn't any kind of stability in something like this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Language isn't an excuse, users already need to understand a lot of things from the FAQ and the rules.
All the systems have the problem of developers / ratio groups giving tons of games, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. Anyway, it's really easy to solve: 0 CV (or very little) after the 5th copy of the same game (I know something like that is being applied but it's too generous).
And what kind of stability are you looking for in a system that is always changing? Total CV is always increasing, if you want a levelling system you need to add levels or update limits.
Comment has been collapsed.
MSKOTOR is right that there would be major flood of spamming both discussions and support with CV level topics if current level values were to be changed.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the explanation thread is pinned and each time someone asks the link to the explanation is given I don't see why there would be a major flood of spamming.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would reduce it but not prevent it. People have very short attention spans, unfortunately.
Comment has been collapsed.
original idea (well original after dropping no-CV at all idea ;p) in SGv2 beta was such flowing leveling system like you mentioned - where each level corresponded to top X% of userbase - and cg dropped it exactly because of what MSKOTOR said, so I doubt he changed his mind since then ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
So if there is a person with 10x more gifts value than rest of level 10s, that would give us $ 1000 treshold to make level 1 some day...
Comment has been collapsed.
No. He would be part of the 0.05% (for instance) of people who are in level 10.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even it it would be a bunch of people - they are giving more games than others.
There would be bigger and bigger treshold
Comment has been collapsed.
The threshold depends on how many people (in %) we decide are in each level. For example, let's say all the people that are in level 0 or 1 don't give anything in a month and that there are no new users. The threshold to reach level 1 and 2 wouldn't change. Meanwhile, high level thresholds might change if they keep giving games. (This is not completely accurate, just to get the idea).
Thresholds would change only to keep a defined % of users in each level.
Comment has been collapsed.
No thanks.Would cause too many issues with new users, and then it causes competitions among higher level users to stay in the top...
That should never be the point :P
Further, once you're at the top, you have an easier time of keeping someone new down, just give more than people who can't give as much.
Too many issues with this idea.
Creates a more elitist system... :P
Comment has been collapsed.
What are those issues with new users? You don't mention any.
The issues you mention with higher level users are either pointless (keep new people down) or they already exist (competition for high levels, and I'd argue if they are problems).
The problem in fact is not to add levels or change thresholds, as eventually a lot of people would reach level 10, making the levelling system useless/pointless.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if you consider how having a percentage of users at level X, then that means you prevent new users from attaining higher levels because those who have been here are already established in those levels and likely continue to give, therefore continuing to prevent lower levels / new users from attaining higher levels because they already out class them in terms of giving.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should new users reach high levels if they haven't given the same amount as those in higher levels?
I don't see a problem there, seems fair to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
so it would be people pushing each other to lower levels?
Comment has been collapsed.
Or pushing to higher levels, when new users sign up for instance.
But yes, overall you would lose levels little by little if you don't give any more, which makes sense to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
LvL over 9000 thousend in the future as well please
Comment has been collapsed.
Every new level should be double valued as last one. So you will need to give away exact same amount as you have spent from begging to obtain new level.
In my opinion there should be no limits in levels.
2 more? Only? :) There should be at least 15 :))
The most charitable person here should not have the maximum level.
From level 6 there is already a masive treshold for certain users and even some #immaleven10easypeasy would suffer on 11-12.
Comment has been collapsed.
Level 3 $ 50
Level 4 $ 100
Level 5 $ 250
Level 6 $ 500
Level 7 $ 1000
Level 8 $ 2000
Level 9 $ 3000
Level 10 $ 5000
Levels are pretty much doubled in case of CV requirement. So even if we'd have more levels 11th should start at 10k CV. And 12th on 20k :D
Comment has been collapsed.
don't know about you but i'm thinking the level 14 with 80k value
or the 13 with 40 k value:P
Comment has been collapsed.
9000 games on steam, let's say 5000 non-bundled. You can give away each game 5 times for it's full value. Even if average game price would be 10$ it's still possible to reach 250k unbundled CV ;) not to mention packs, DLCs etc, which each can also be given up to 5 times ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
actually, don't a reason for it. you make the end seem that more far for the rest of us ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I do not mind but... lest give them confusing names instead numbers. Like 11 - golden giver, 12 - generous heart Mc Flaffy:)
Comment has been collapsed.
i think need top 5 contributor too like old SG before hehe
re-roll every week or month
Comment has been collapsed.
not a good idea - basically anyone featured in top5 was instantly getting tons of beggars on Steam - I got to top 5 once and when I was featured there I was basically flooded with beggar scum. It could disencourage some people rather than motivating them to make GAs ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
okey got ur point
agree with u , coz i hate beggar too haha
Maybe incrase cap lvl SG to 15 or 20
n give some unique nickname (ex : colourfull ) or maybe acces emoticon post :3
i guess that think can motivating ppl to create GA more :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really think getting colored nickname or emoji would motivate people who are already at lvl 10 to give any more or any less ;) basically it would be what? 5000$ Value for use of emoticon? People are crazy but not that crazy ;) Top lvl users don't really need any more motivation I guess because they're giving a lot already - it's rather low levels, like lvl 0 or 1 that need more motivation ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
hmm i mean not only for lvl 10+
like every lvl can unlock something
for lvl 0 maybe cap point to 150p haha
btw thx for discuss w me n open my mind about lvl 10 haha
Comment has been collapsed.
I think your numbers are too conservative
Seeing as it takes $2000 to get from 9 to 10, I would recommend a doubling again
So 9k or better yet, just make it 10k even for level 11
level 12? Screw it, just make it 20k :P
Why make it something that's gonna be easy to obtain, and this has much longer effectiveness than 7.5k and 10k
Yes?
Comment has been collapsed.
SGv2 is not that new anymore, and the number of people on level 10 probably have quadrupled. I feel like it's time to give the high level SG members something to work towards again. I suggest the following:
I don't know how you guys feel about it, but I would like that. I wouldn't be able to enter all (public) giveaways anymore. But I would gladly accept that for a new long-term goal.
Good idea?
:)
Comment has been collapsed.