I agree with this, but the recent vote suggests people want contributor systems to stay.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly I feel like this would just complicate things and have no real benefits.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I think at least the non-adjusted contrib value should be considered as an option - for those like me who find the bundle list flawed (both in concept and implementation) this would give them the option whether to take it into account or not when creating giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
"would there be any disadvantages to having other complementary systems active?"
Yes and no - people already fail to read the FAQ and some even think they will win the game (instead of giving it away). For those people, adding more options on the giveaway page, would make things even more confusing.
But for people that know how to use the site it wouldn't be a disadvantage.
I would however prefer an option to make a giveaway available to several groups at once (don't lecture me on alternatives to achieve this).
Anyway, you can always post such suggestions in the support section, but let's hope a proper explanation of the CV (like a clickable question mark or a question mark with tooltip next to the CV) will be implemented first ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
+1, fuck it +1,000,000,000 to the multiple groups idea.
We need this big time, and I still have no clue on why it isn't on the site yet. Making privs and having to worry whether or not a groups' admin has set their groups' discussions to member only so you can safely post it in their "giveaways" discussion, or having to manually dole out links in chats is ridiculous. Making the option for multiple groups would be an easy, straightforward thing to implement.
Also, why isn't the list of groups presented when making a giveaway group only listed alphabetically? I know Steam's API sends them to the site in a different order, but it would be easy to have them dunked in an array that you first have sorted alphabetically before outputting to the listbox for choosing by the user, instead of directly outputting to the listbox.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shamelessly bumping in hope of more constructive discussion. :) The complexity of these options is something that would need to be dealt with somehow - and I agree with TheDopefish that stuff needs to be done to improve the explanation of site features to new users first before actually making things more complicated - but I think that implemented well, giving more control to giveaway creators with options like these would result in far less complaints about the contributor value system and greater willingness for some to make public giveaways, while still keeping the existing system in place so there's little to no disruption.
Comment has been collapsed.
39 Comments - Last post 26 minutes ago by Chris76de
2,060 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Wok
66 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Axelflox
380 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by VahidSlayerOfAll
8,466 Comments - Last post 13 hours ago by Warriot
15,384 Comments - Last post 15 hours ago by PoeticKatana
110 Comments - Last post 16 hours ago by pb1
97 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Prosac
2,384 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by lav29
116 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by ceeexo
10,358 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by GreenTomator
702 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by JMM72
85 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by GCR
1,172 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Gelweo
Although the option to add more giveaway-limiting options has been mentioned briefly before, I think most discussion so far on contributor value makes the assumption that we can only have one system. Other than the additional site resources potentially required (which I don't know enough about to comment on here) and an increase in complexity for users, would there be any disadvantages to having other complementary systems active?
For example:
$ contributor value - the system we have now
non-adjusted $ contributor value - contributor value without the bundle restriction
number of giveaways
number of unique games given away (so large quantities of a game would only count as 1 game)
(could also consider things such as number of wins, win/potential win difference, etc. but I'm focusing more on what someone actually contributes regardless of what they get back)
People making giveaways could set limits based on any combination of these.
Comment has been collapsed.