Isn't there already a cost the GA creator can set?
Namely the level requirement.
Apart from the usual like invite only through quizzes, group GAs etc.
Especially sgtools requirements.
If that isn't the best way to individualize your GA "cost" then ...
Edit: Wouldn't that also mean that every GA whose point requirements differ from the steam-id needs it's own entry in the database?
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, there are definitely ways you can lessen thoughtless entries, but as far as public giveaways go, I'd argue that CV is hardly a guarantor of that, just because someone has given away lots doesn't mean they don't enter for as many giveaways as they can regardless of whether or not they have any interest in the game
at your edit, yes, assuming it's a 32bit integer, two million giveaways @ 4bytes per giveaway would mean that a required 8MB of total space for storing giveaway entry cost, which is pretty small even on personal computers
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting idea, but I could see cg not implementing it because it would be confusing for new users. From the discussion about CV, cg wants a site that has simple-ish rules. This would just add a layer of complexity.
If giveaway creators can set the entry requirement, it's going to flood support with questions about why games cost differently. Bobofatt mentioned in the past that they get so many tickets every day to explain the CV system/why my level dropped?!?!?!. And think about people who don't understand that you're making a giveaway to give the game away, not receive it, despite there being a warning on the giveaway creation page if it's your first giveaway.
And all of this to benefit a subset of giveaway creators who want their gifts to be played (which I can understand).
Comment has been collapsed.
that's a fair point and something I really hadn't considered!
I'm personally an equally large fan of just reducing point generation which would have a similar effect, that would more of a behind the scenes change, however people seem far more resistant to point generation reduction :x
Comment has been collapsed.
Mm, I agree on point generation being more behind the scenes. It used to be 10% of all giveaways created, but then cg changed it to 5%. Not sure what prompted him to change it though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't read through the comments yet, but I just wanted to input that this idea, if implemented, will cause a massive amount of support tickets to be generated. Neither wbarton nor Crazee actively answer tickets nowadays, so they don't have to deal with all of the "why did my CV drop" and "why is my CV wrong?" tickets that we have to deal with on a daily basis.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like Castiglia, I was prepared to shout this down, but it seems fairly rational.
Maybe a "Point cost to enter: [Original P] [ Double-P ] [ Triple-P ] [ Quadruple-P ]" radio button style interface could be added, with, of course, the "no additional CV" and "limited to 300 P" disclaimers nearby. Keep it simple.
I'd vote this up.
Comment has been collapsed.
Potential problems:
- This will make entering giveaways much more complicated. A lot of people will use those high point giveaways as point banks (entering them just to remove entry and use points later). I bet we will see scripts just for that.
- Can be a problem for mass giveaway events where a lot of different people participate.
If this is capped at like 200% base points, I can't see any point at all. The whole thing seems to be about making 100-300p giveaways, giving entrants higher chances and preventing people from entering everything they see on SG.
Comment has been collapsed.
I still think it would be better to just reduce the amount of points we receive. Here's one of my replies to a previous topic about points:
I think the point system is pretty good the way it is, but it does encourage people to enter for games they don't want just because they have the points and they know they will lose them if they don't use them. As the site becomes more popular and more people create giveaways, the points regenerate faster and if you leave for more than a few hours, you max out at 300 points which means the people that sit on the site all day or use bots get an advantage.
I think this encourages people to use bots and enter for stuff they don't want just to increase their number of games on steam. I think a small change would cause people to think about what they are entering for and give better odds to the people that actually want to play the games.
Without putting too much thought into it, I would think it would be good to reduce the point generation by about 25-30%
Comment has been collapsed.
One thing why this idea isn't good: How mayn times have people lost points because a GA was deleted for various reasons. Now just imagine what happens when the creator made it a 100 point GA instead of a 20. Or the trolls with their fake GAs?
Unneccesary and would just complicate things here. The system is fine, if someone wants to restrict their GAs there are enough tools.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see the point. SG is all about giving to people who don't need and likely won't play their wins. That's what the level system does. Want do something to balance this? Add the ability to limit entries to people with under a certain number of wins or with under a certain number of games in their account.
If cg implements your idea and doesn't implement a win limit condition I will lose all faith in humanity.
Comment has been collapsed.
I remember when Snow Light, a bundled game cost $100 for a while and my level 7+ public giveaway for it got 93 entries. Guess a lot of people missed it in the bundle.
This thread made me think of that, what with it being a high entry fee for a very average game and you could look at the number of entries received 2 ways. Either that it won't make it hard to make giveaways and get a decent number of entries for cv etc. or that it might not even have the desired effect? I suppose that giveaway was different in the sense that nobody was going to buy it from the store at that time, it wasn't in a current bundle, and there weren't other giveaways for that game at that time that cost less to enter. Still, reminded me of it!
I'd be fine with it if possible to implement. It's not something I'd see myself using often. There are many features on SG that I don't use. The whitelist, and currently the blacklist which I have used in the past are two of those and it's not like that should make me think nobody should be able to use them. They're good for those that want to, and I think this could be too.
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel like that for many giveaway creators, winners who have little to zero interest in the game they've won...winners who just entered for the steam trading cards...winners who break the rules and don't even redeem the game really put a damper on the giveaway process. The other day I asked myself "What if creators could set the points requirements for their own giveaways?"
After brainstorming for awhile trying to think of any negatives and talking to a few people (including two wonderful mods Crazee and wbarton) I couldn't really find any negatives or drawbacks so as long as the already existing values are used as a MINIMUM (and presumably default) value. But what does it gain?
In short after discussing it and thinking it through it would be a great tool for giveaway creators to filter out (more) "useless" entries. By increasing the value to enter a giveaway it becomes more of an active decision for users to choose whether to enter or not and thus should decrease the overall number of entries as the entry fee goes up. More importantly, those who would have otherwise entered and now haven't, would be the ones who are less interested in the game, whereas the ones who still enter are more interested in the game and thus deemed the giveaway worthy of an entry at the increased entry fee rate.
I do want to clarify a few things. The already existing value would still be used for computing CV, point generation, and as I mention would serve as a default/minimum entry cost for all giveaways. So whether you make a Bad Rats Show giveaway for 300 points or for 5 points, it would still generate the same number of points for all users and give you the same amount of CV.
Potential upsides:
Potential "problems":
† Theoretically, IF the number of entries was proportional to the entry cost, it would be better to enter one 300 point giveaway than ten 30 point giveaways by a small margin. For example, if the 300 point giveaway had 10 entrants, you'd have a 1 in 10 chance, whereas if the 30 point giveaways had 100 entrants, you'd have a (1 - (99/100)^10) ~ 9.5% chance of winning at least one. Whether the number of entries would exactly be proportional to the entry cost is obviously unknown.
If cg is reading this, I am sort of curious if there was any specific reason that users weren't able to set giveaway cost in the first place (i.e. there is something inherently wrong with it) or the current system was chosen just for simplicity / some other reason.
Comment has been collapsed.