I had too much time yesterday and I removed about 350 people from my blacklist xD That made me thinking. I mean - about who I decided to leave on that least after all.
Also I'm not really in a mood for forking today and that's why I decided to make this discussion.

Some users would be considered by most of people as "leeches".
In some cases sure they are. But at least they are not trying to cheat the system.
I mean - if I create lvl 0 giveaway - then I'm obviously ready to dump that key into the see of lvl 0 users and I don't care if it's gonna be redeemed by somebody with 1 ga created and 1000 games won.

On the other hand - when I create lvl restricted ga - it's because I want to give that key to somebody who contributed to the community. But then I see users for example on lvl 6 or 10 who have only whitelist/group giveaways created... and hundreds or thousands even games won from non group giveaways. Not to mention people who created couple of giveaways in 5 members group 5 or 6 years ago, just to get some "acceptable" level and not even one since then - but they are actively winning a lot of stuff to this day.

For me - that's cheating.

Perfect way to keep things balanced would be separate cv for each group - but that's too hard to implement.
So maybe remove CV from group giveaways completely? I mean - groups can have their own rules, points and whatever and that's ok (just check group recruitment threads). But i think that one persons level should show how much somebody contributed to WHOLE community - not just small part of it.

EDIT.
Some users pointed out that removing CV gained from group GAs would unintentionally hurt some users. But they also gave ideas how to reduce that negative impact, while trimming CV abuse, for example:

Removing CV from groups completely would the wrong way in my opinion. A better way would be a graduated value of CV based on the group size OR based on it if it's a public or closed group and if it's a public group, everyone should be able to see for which group the GA was created (if I don't know for which group it was created, I can't even know which one I have to enter).

View attached image.
3 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

Would you like to remove CV earned from group giveaways?

View Results
Yes.
Oh noes! My precious steamgifts level!
I don't care.
I don't care but would love to see all those threads "why my level dropped from 10 to 4 over night?".

I understand the idea. The thing is that there are open and closed groups. I don't know if it's possible but the best for me would be to remove CV for closed groups. The open ones being open, I think they can be considered as a sufficient part of the community to have their CV taken into account.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your idea is really good. If it could be done automatically. If support would have to manually check every group - then I't would be too much time consuming to work.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And then do same for private? Or maybe increase the number of entries required to something like 20 or 50?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Honestly - when I think about private giveaways I always connect them with puzzles xD But I guess you might be right - they can be used in the same way as small group gas. Increasing number of entries required would hurt users who make hard puzzles... but I don't think they would care honestly. Even now some of puzzles end with less entries than 5 entries xD

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How about making it based on the number of entries, both for groups and private?
Like (for instance), <5 entries like now (0), <10 30%, <15 60%, 15+ full value ("full value" being also affected by free/bundle/non-bundle status, obviously)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm happier gifting what I have to a group of people who are nice (my whitelist) or care about gifting stuff themselves/play their games (groups). Events in the forum (invite only) are a more fun way of hosting giveaways. But, to get rewarded for the stuff I give away, I would have to delve into the hell hole of auto joiners, rule breakers, bad ratios and people who haven't gifted in years. I get that I'm not the person you're against here but what you're suggesting would make SG a worse place for me.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You can make WL giveaway to... Idk give the game to somebody from your whitelist? Is really gaining some points from it the most important part here?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well - check my recent giveaways and you will see that we are pretty much in the same situation. I made quite a lot of gas in PA group (because I would appreciate if they were at least played), U7 and Lootboy (Since lb itself and IG are not as trustworthy as they should). I just think that I cv is not the most important part of participating in group activities.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, you reminded me that I haven't made a GA this year so far... D: I also haven't won anything though. I should probably have a key lying around somewhere that I can do something with though.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your cv for public GA equals about 600$ and I would give you lvl 6. It's not so big drop to be honest :)
I suppose my lvl would also drop from 6 to 5 but you know it's not that bad either.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think that people on your whitelist would appreciate WL ga even more, knowing that you got 0 points for it xD That means something :)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Honestly - that's the point.
It's steamGIFTS.com. Not steam-exchanging-game-to-points-that-allows-me-to-get-higher-lvl-so-i-can-win-more-games-in-the-future.com

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I just think that I cv is not the most important part of participating in group activities.

That's a bit contradictory.
This entire thread is about changing the way CV is calculated.
So it's obviously important enough for you to have started this discussion.
Or alternatively if it's not that important - this whole discussion becomes a moot point.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm afraid you didn't understand what I was trying to say.
CV from group GAs is not important for me - to the point where it could be removed.
For example if I'm giving game in PA - I care about the game being played - not about gaining level.

And thread is more about CV as a whole and ways that could improve fairness of gaining points... which seems to be quite complex problem.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

CV from group GAs is not important for me - to the point where it could be removed.
For example if I'm giving game in PA - I care about the game being played - not about gaining level.

As opposed to a game you're giving away unrestricted or in a private giveaway?
There you don't care about the game being played?
You only care for the CV you get?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

To make things clear - for me there could be no CV at all.
In general I would prefer my games to be played - but in most cases this site is for me a place where I can rid of keys I don't need (bundle leftovers, poorly chosen gifts and so on).
I'm too lazy for trading.

Sometimes I get key for game that have special place in my heart or heard good things about it and I just don't want it to end as unused +1 in library of somebody who would just farm cards to buy gta V with earned money xD I used to give higher lvl restricions in that case but oh boy - that was disappointment. Now I use PA group and I'm quite happy about it.

And yes. In fact there are games that I don't care if they are played or not. I usually make lvl 0 ga for them. Sometimes even I write in description that this game should be used as +1 to account and not even touched. And I care about CV gained from them just as much when I care about gaining something by throwing used diaper into garbage bin.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I feel the same, PA is also one of my go-to places for giveaways.
But to be honest, it wouldn't hit me too hard if I would be idk, level 4 instead of 8. Wouldn't take away my groups, my gifted games, people I know and it wouldn't stop me from making either public giveaways "for the hell hole of auto joiners" for CV or just dump the games into Unlucky 7 / PA without a care for CV. I don't want to be philosophical, but in the later case, isn't the reward that you know that in PA they will play the game, or that in Unlucky 7 someone sacrificed a limited "winning slot" to stay in the group, because they wanted your game that much?

Sure, someone could downtalk me, or you for being a lower level than we are now, but that's literally just their opinion, that giving games for 0 CV sucks. If your enjoyment of the site doesn't come from being level X, but participating in discussions or givaways in any way, it wouldn't ruin the site.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

My thoughts exactly!

View attached image.
3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Exactly :o)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't care about CV one way or another but I did stop making a lot of public giveaways because I got really tired of seeing winners who never made one giveaways and had won thousands of games, not played one of their wins and didn't even bother to say thank you.
I don't get the idea that groups are "elitist" and "abusing the system". To me, it's where the people who actually participate in the site are.
A little more civility as well.

If there was no CV, and levels were abolished, I would still make GAs. And I would still make them in groups unless the 90% of users who treat gifters like vending machines are off the site.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1 (for nearly all you wrote)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just thinking forward. I was thinking about community train xD Tried to reduce annoyance made by my carts xD Especially that I knew that a lot of users on my blacklist were added without reason xD

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

just blacklist them

and it s not fair for thoses who had created real group GA

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Blacklist is limited to 1000 users xD Also searching for people who met the criteria would take ages.
Also what do you mean by real group?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"real group" is for group giveaway but with lot of users, not only 5-6 ppl

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

why blacklist though?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sorry but I still can't forgive you that you convinced me to solve 300 and 400 piece jigsaws during Christmas only to not finish the event afterwards xD My family still points fingers at me because I preferred to spend time with computer instead sitting with them xD

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

how is that my fault? :D

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not finishing YOUR OWN event? Sure - it was my fault.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

which event i didn't finish?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

We had that conversation already.
Feels weird to remind you. Especially that's calling out (you ask though so it doesn't count).
Also there were decryption based event that you abandoned in the middle xD

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

come on, i've been here for a long time, i can't remember every conversation :D
as for events, lack of money/time was the factor, nothing to be sorry for, it happens

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You can feel sorry without feeling guilty, you and the participants all seem to be the victims of the circumstances.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

based on what this website is, i don't think talking about feeling sorry, being guilty or being victims is the right course of action here

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I generally feel pretty bad if I don't/ can't keep my given word ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also a definition of victim: a person who has come to feel helpless and passive in the face of misfortune or ill-treatment. So unless you knowingly and willingly broke your promise, then they indeed victims of "lack of money/time".

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's more like a reminder for me than some grudge against you :)
Whenever I see interesting event - I check if I can even enter creators giveaways to save my time xD
I'm probably loosing more than gaining since you make a lot of gas and proper events lately :D

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ok, this made me chuckle... welcome to my <3 :D

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So that was him... Forgot who made that event, but can't forget hours, days spent during the event and it just got abandoned.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, then also remove CV from all giveaways for other than 0 level. Remove CV from all region-restricted giveaways. Remove CV from trash flip-assets that was never bundled but sold dirt-cheap. Remove CV from all developers giveaways - they got their games for free! So many ways to exploit the site... Maybe we should remove CV completely, just to be sure?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Maybe we should remove CV completely, just to be sure?

It's not that bad idea either. But seriously - things you described have already mechanics that reduces cv (like for multiple copies) or in case of assets flip - if the asset flip is removed from store (and valve is making purges now and then) it's value drops to 0.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

if the asset flip is removed from store (and valve is making purges now and then) it's value drops to 0.

Are you sure about that? I always thought the last known store price is used for points to enter and cv calculation.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You are right.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Then I learned something new :)
On the other hand - even if they are asset flips - somebody paid for them... and somebody entered giveaway and activated key. Even if people who collect trash are beyond my understanding - they are part of the site as well. So I'm not sure why should we discriminate asset flips xD
They are as good +1 as 60$ game if they are both not played but left to rot in the library.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

A $60 asset flip received for free, gives the same CV as a $60 AAA game bought for full price.
So there is definitely discrimination here.
Much more than the supposed "closed group abuse" you're trying to prevent.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

60$ asset flip? show me one xD

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That was just an example.
What does it matter how much an asset flip is sold for?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nice! Now just wait for it to appear in 1$ bundle so users can skyrocket their cv for almost free :)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Did you see the developer's response to a negative review on this one?

"The price is really funny ;)"

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

ohmy xD he is a post-irony master, no less
I bet you didn't see his reply for one of the reviews in russian:
(through google translate)
"As for the impressions, I think you just were not ready for a project of this level. This is not a joke, but art, higher matters that are not always available to the average man in the street.
And I raised the price "to weed out most of the players, and to open the island only to those who really want it."

yeah, we are all just peasants, who are unable to understand art. 'higher matters', lol

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Haha! If he's being serious, there is no hope. LOL! He really sounds like an elaborate troll.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Saw this and thought of you...

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh good God. Imagine seeing the preview for that and actually paying the €42 they are asking. Are they mad? lol.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

More needed/wanted ?
Only the worst from today:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1591350/Island_World/ (12 cents in the RU stores)
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1591610/Old_Quarry/ (11 cents in the RU stores)
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1591400/Taoyuan_Adventure/ (11 cents in the RU stores)

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The only review it has says:
"Does not even start. Not worth the $50."

I certainly hope that person didn't pay full price for it...

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

LOL, I know, right?

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Best part is when you can see "low fps detection" message appears on the screen xD I mean - it's not the first time when I see lagging game movies on steam store page - but message like that is something new :)

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wrong, at46 are right with the "last used steam store price".

And no, it give much too less mechanics against all the abuse.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You get the point.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Maybe we should remove CV completely, just to be sure?

This, but unironically.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It was only half-ironical anyway.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

View attached image.
3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

In my case 81% of my CV comes from Public Giveaways, but in the last few weeks/months I changed my giveaways to Whitelist and Public ones with Lv.6 or Lv.7 as requirement.
At the same time I check the entries and also add people to my Blacklist - mainly cause they reached their high Lv. just because of group/invite only giveaways and/or region restricted ones (for regions they don't even live in).

I know, Lv.6 isn't easy to get, but at my last giveaway with Lv.4 as a requirement, around 33% of the ones I checked landed on my Blacklist. Giveaways without a requirement Lv. is a no go for me - cause of all the leechers/autojoiners/bots and so on.

Removing CV from groups completely would the wrong way in my opinion. A better way would be a graduated value of CV based on the group size OR based on it if it's a public or closed group and if it's a public group, everyone should be able to see for which group the GA was created (if I don't know for which group it was created, I can't even know which one I have to enter).

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

a graduated value of CV based on the group size OR based on it if it's a public or closed group and if it's a public group, everyone should be able to see for which group the GA was created

If it's possible to implement - this is way better than my first idea. Honestly - I don't know how the site works so I don't even know if removing cv gained from group/wl giveaways is possible (not to mention creating more refined system).

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Better just increase the requirement of entrants to get CV for a GA, from 5 to 20 or so for group/private GA's. Public should still be at 5.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Actually public at least by level is at 1...

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

TIL

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 months ago.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think it's wrong.
There are so many important groups, like the SGPillars, Unlucky-7 and others.
Also don't forget about community trains and puzzles. Many of them bring activity to SG and give users different experiences.
It would be wrong to remove the contribution for all this.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree with the premise, it's a good idea.
I created giveaways for mostly "open" groups like Playing Appreciated, or at a lesser degree, Unlucky 7 (have only a few wins, or you can be a gifter, but that means a few mandatory GA a year). If we take aside good intentions and look at maybe the biggest group - Steamgfits - the issue is pretty clear - it's an opt-in system, and people need to know about those groups to know that they can join them, even if it has no requrements.

It would be a less radical, but sensible thing to raise the entry number required for the giveaway, for it to give CV.
Why?
Because if I make a level 0 giveaway for S.Gifts, I can reach to 66,350 people in this moment. If I make a level 2+ giveaway on Steamgifts, 55,944 people can enter it.
Just to spell it out for everyone - level 2+ giveaways are more restrictive, than the biggest group. If we want to push a rule for "all groups" regardless of its size, we have to apply that to leveled giveaways as well. Also, you can just click and enter a lot of groups. You need to pay to get to higher levels

edit: I just realized that the level disparity partially comes from the issue you made the whole topic about. It would be interesting to see how the user levels would change if group giveaways would need idk, 50 members and/or 20 entries for GAs to count. Maybe a higher number? You know, something like this.

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So far I like the PotiNator idea the most.

a graduated value of CV based on the group size OR based on it if it's a public or closed group and if it's a public group, everyone should be able to see for which group the GA was created

I especially like the part about visibility of group requirements on giveaways. New user see ga he/she can't enter. Now it just raises questions. But if user could see that it requres you to join idk - PA or U7 or steamgifts group - that would benefit all.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Private GAs can be the same as group giveaways. Removing CV from group GAs will not "solve" the issue, as some invite-only groups - like Unlucky7, Playing Appreciated etc. are not here to casino-trade-1:1-giveaways like the ones you want to tackle. Only way to tackle those is to rise minimum number of people required to get CV. But then expect retaliation from monthly-subscription-trading-groups. As people do like to be in them apparently.

Instead of removing group CV from total CV - we could have public and group/private. Or public and total CV. Then people could decide if they want to gate their GA from people who made certain number of public GAs or not.

It doesn't solve problems of people who make a lot of private GAs as part of the puzzles or events though. It's like whack-a-mole. Or people who are tired of rule breakers and "leechers", so they migrated to WL and small groups. You can't "fix" one thing without creating issues in another.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Instead of removing group CV from total CV - we could have public and group/private. Or public and total CV. Then people could decide if they want to gate their GA from people who made certain number of public GAs or not.

For me that would be perfect. That's possible?

Also - thanks to discussion - i'm less in favor of my initial idea of removing group CV at all. But some changes wouldn't hurt :)

Edit:

But then expect retaliation from monthly-subscription-trading-groups.

That sounds like something that I would like to fight with proposed changes in the first place xD It's like trading + you got free lvl boost for it xD

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

For me that would be perfect. That's possible?

Sky is the limit!

But honestly, it's decision that only cg could make. It's his website after all. And it would require change in how CV is calculated, how GAs are made etc. So I would not have my hopes up :P I just wrote that it's technically possible. It's not part of the website right now.

View attached image.
3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I appreciate you chiming in. I have some follow up observations:

Only way to tackle [casino-trade-1:1-giveaways] is to rise minimum number of people required to get CV. But then expect retaliation from monthly-subscription-trading-groups. As people do like to be in them apparently.

I think its more that people like being in smaller groups that have lower entry counts and some semblance of fairness, so one of the easier & most reliable ways for group admins to accomplish that happens to be requiring at least one giveaway per month. In my experience as a group admin who tried to run a "fair" group without strict mandatory ratios or monthly GAs, it requires significant effort and/or programming to automate the effort.

Instead of removing group CV from total CV - we could have public and group/private. Or public and total CV. Then people could decide if they want to gate their GA from people who made certain number of public GAs or not.

It doesn't solve problems of people who make a lot of private GAs as part of the puzzles or events though. It's like whack-a-mole. Or people who are tired of rule breakers and "leechers", so they migrated to WL and small groups. You can't "fix" one thing without creating issues in another.

I'm normally all for exposing more data, though I personally don't like providing SG functionality that reinforces a stigma certain people have with how much people give publicly versus group/invite/WL because it would aid a specific value judgement of users: That public giveaways are the main or only way that someone contributes to the SG community.

I think the only widely popular stigma that SG users have of others, for better or worse, are people who have more Received/Won CV (real/raw or otherwise) than Sent/Gifted CV - So it makes sense that we have those stats.

If someone wants to blacklist people who do or don't give mostly public and/or invite only GAs, then they can skim through their list of GAs and easily eyeball GA types (public, invite, group, WL). I personally don't make that kind of judgement, because I don't assume that people have a "bad" motive or are a "bad" user for gifting mostly to groups. For all I know, they merely create group/WL/invite giveaways because they want to give other people a better than long shot 1 in 1000+ chances at winning a public GA once in a blue moon even if user spends their points consistently.

If someone wants to blacklist people who don't participate in Discussions forum, then they can view the user's profile and click Discussions to see the posts they've made and/or look at their comment count.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But really, how many people join such groups to avoid rule breakers or "leechers", and how many to have fair share of winnings going back to them?

Why is it unfair to give more than you win? I've been making train / puzzle GAs. I was making GAs for Playing Appreciated or Christmas even while barely entering them. It's not unfair when you win less than you sent. Groups without 1 per month requirement can easily collapse, as people who expected to win without giving see they get shorter end of the stick and leave. People in 1 per month groups will also leave if they decide that their "investment" did not yield results as they sent more than they won.

IMO you can only think that site needs to be "fair" for you when you are here expecting to win. So you join "ratio groups" to at least not "lose".

I know there are some groups of friends where people gift to each other for fun. But when you see new group with 1:1 ratio requirement that gathers people who don't know each other - it is simple trading-zero-sum kind of group.

I'm normally all for exposing more data, though I personally don't like providing SG functionality that reinforces a stigma certain people have with how much people give publicly versus group/invite/WL because it would aid a specific value judgement of users: That public giveaways are the main or only way that someone contributes to the SG community.

I also wrote that. Doing any changes in how CV is calculated would open pandora box of fierce supporters and enemies. One would be happy to "get rid of unfairness", second would complain "they lost something that was promised to them when they joined the site".

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But really, how many people join such groups to avoid rule breakers or "leechers", and how many to have fair share of winnings going back to them?

Some users, it may not be even most, are more likely to assess general fairness as their win probability and so I believe that becomes one of the primary external drivers for their broader interactions with the community. Like you said...

IMO you can only think that site needs to be "fair" for you when you are here expecting to win.

Its why there seem to be a lot more suggestion & help posts about how to level up or altering CV than handling "leechers".

A user's frustration threshold may be lower the more giveaways they make and can also be heightened from what personal value they get from giving, but I think users' pursue non public giveaways (groups, etc) to mitigate said frustration. According to current Average Entries Per Type stats, non-public GAs tend to have 10 times better odds than public GAs, and that can be driven even further down with more restricted groups. I think that's a pretty big motivator for many users.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You are right.

The users that join my group, do that of course because they want to win from time to time but a big ammount of the join too because we try to have a black sheep free group.

That means if we know someone use 20 accounts and bots to cheat at different freebie sites (and spoke openly about that behavior on top... -yes such people exists... and they are all high level users at sg)-, do such stuff at discord, abuse the shady RU shops like hell, join as many groups as possible, don't follow their rules and leech as long as possible till the staff members of that groups kick them, then we will decline a join into our group.

A lot that join our group are frustrated about sg in general, about all the exploiting and abuse they see but aren't able to prevent with the available tools.
That count for myself too.

I gave in my group 80 (mostly shared with the WL, = 0.5 calculating, so in the direction of 160 games) and won 7. That mean i gave above $500 more for my group as i won.
So i can say for myself that it isn't important for me to win a lot in a GOOD group with nice people.
It is GREAT to set the level resriction to ZERO and to know the Game go to someone that know the basic manners to say thank you and be in the most cases friendly. If it give a problem it can be solved without stress and in a friendly way too.

I would wish i can have that feeling with public GA's and i tested it many many many times (i made 130-150 public GA's... and i often biten my ass that i were again so dumb to try to give that way...) but i always were frustrated with the winners, the extra work after the GA's ends, the problems, the running behind the winners that they please please please take the wins and so on.

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Why remove CV from groups and not from whitelists or private giveaways? I think that this line of thinking could lead to the right conclusion, that the CV system itself is the problem.

CV was introduced as a way to encourage people to give. However, it's used by most as a measure of how worthy a person is to win anything.

That's not a very good criterion. Suppose someone who won hundreds or thousands of games made all their CV with public giveaways. Does that make the person worthy of winning more? They certainly don't need to win more.

A good solution would be to make people who win a lot have a harder time winning more. One way to go about it would be to create a criterion of "number of times won" or "number of times won in a year", which will allow limiting giveaways to those who haven't won a lot.

I said it quite a few times before, but I don't think such an idea will be accepted, because SG isn't really a giveaway site. It doesn't exist to let people give games to others who need them, something which isn't needed that much today. It's for collectors who like to get more games also giving games to other collectors -- in effect, random trading.

Since that's purely a game, rules can (and are) arbitrary. No CV suggestions will actually achieve anything tangible, because that'd assume in the first place that there's meaning to SG giveaways, where there's none.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's for collectors who like to get more games also giving games to other collectors -- in effect, random trading.

Is it though?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Random trading? I'd say that mostly yes. Collectors for collectors? Probably also the majority of giveaways.

SG is certainly not a place for charitable giveaways. Just registering requires owning a few non-bundled games, which isn't trivial. Then when you get in, the giveaways accessible to those without CV are for stuff that can be had for under a dollar. It's also not like it's that hard to get semi-random free games these days, or get a large number of games for very little money. Giveaways for games that really are worth something are typically reserved for those with very high CV.

So basically SG is a game where people who have a backlog of games gift to other people who have a backlog of games. Games won are typically those which the winners could easily buy for themselves. People here enjoy winning not because they can get games they otherwise wouldn't have been able to buy, but because of the thrill of the game that I call random trading. I also think it's safe to say that most winners don't play most of their wins.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

SG is certainly not a place for charitable giveaways

And yet a lot of people on the site are still making giveaways years after CV doesn't make a difference.

Then when you get in, the giveaways accessible to those without CV are for stuff that can be had for under a dollar.

What data are you basing that on? Just check the Archive for public 0 level CV. There are bundled and unbundled games, including the humble monthly games, and other current bundles that are not dollar bundles.

Giveaways for games that really are worth something are typically reserved for those with very high CV.

That's simply not true. Check the archive for Cyberpunk for example. In one year over 150 copies of the game have been given away on SG. One third was in groups, open or private. One third in Invitation GAs (most likely events and trains). One third in public giveaways.
90% of the Invite GAs were level 0 or 1. 80% of the public GAs were level 0 or 1. 15% level 2-5 and 1 level 10. Not 1%. One giveaway.
If you make a search by level right now, you'll see that less than 10% of the GAs for games 40P and higher are for level 5-10.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I stand corrected. I may have been too cynical, though it's based on my past experience. I haven't been active for a while and it's possible that things have changed. In that case, that's certainly good. I still think that there's quite a bit of people with over a thousand games giving games to other people with over a thousand games, but I'll try to tone my cynicism down. :)

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

We're all entitled to our cynicism. Just don't let it keep you out of the party though ;)
Happy Easter, Spring and all that.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

On the receiving part it's not cynicism. I know that I have more games than I will ever play (partly because I play a lot less than I did 10 or 20 years ago) and can buy any game I really want, so trying to win giveaways is a meaningless exercise. I stopped entering 8 years ago. On the giving part, yes, the cynicism is part of it. I'm not that motivated to buy games specifically to gift and my spare keys are old so might not work, and I don't want any trouble from that, so I just stay out. Looks like my last giveaway was 2.5 years ago. How time flies. I also used to be more active on the forum, but these days I only drop by occasionally.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I have to agree that gaining CV became sort of meta-game here.
Interesting idea with lowering chances to win in some circumstances. For example - if you won game - then for that month your chances of winning are reduced by half :) That would also force people to think more about whether they want to enter giveaway or not and not just to blindly spend all points they can.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm not sure I got your idea correctly : it looks like a matter of audience.
So, following other's ideas (dooder, PotiNator and DingDong2), I'll provide you my own similar suggestion :
Why not multiply CV by the number of entries in each GA ?
It will make unrealistic and stratospheric values, but at least it would scale the CV with the audience really reached by each GA.
Big drawback is that it favors famous games (AAA mostly) rather than lesser-known good games.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

A sigmoid-like function would help in this case, with a limit set on how much any game would provide.

Basically, between some small and larger numbers of entries (say, 5 and 1,000), the CV earned rapidly increases. While over that limit the CV will still grow, it would be significantly diminished, to the point that you would need many orders of magnitude change to see a difference.

And I don't see a drawback in promoting bigger games, generally.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sigmoid or linear is mainly a matter of implementing such an idea, and it's an anticipated debate here :)
To be fair, the linear function is easier to understand to everyone, and you keep "earning CV" over time, no matter how many previous GA you made : someone giving game 'A' to 'X' number of people do always get the same amount of adjusted CV (I mean here the "adjusted CV" should only depend on the game given and the amount of entries, not on how many CV you already have made which is a problem with the sigmoid function to my eyes)
About the drawback in promoting bigger games, okay it's a matter of personal taste, but I clearly saw a decent amount of GA made only to promote indie or lesser-known games, and it may be a wrong move to discourage this ???

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But that would also hurt people who create hard puzzles

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Which in turn is the idea of adjusting CV by audience : harder puzzle means less entries, so less "adjusted value" ?
A puzzle being harder doesn't necessarily mean it's a "better" contribution to the community, in fact it's only a harder puzzle, isn't it ?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But that would also hurt people who create hard puzzles

People who create really hard puzzles won't feel the difference, since some of them don't get even 5 entries xD So they hardly get any CV even now.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Interesting alternative, but it would make calculating the level requirements quite a challenge.

It would also be a (late) punishment for all the giveaways made with any kind of level restrictions, as that reduces the entries.
And if creating giveaways with level restrictions results in a disadvantage for the gifter, there'd be fewer such giveaways, therefor reducing the appeal to gain levels.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You can use the graph https://www.steamgifts.com/stats/community/users to see how many users there is by level.
Now, I think this is unuseful for me because there is only 3 levels for me : the levels 2 through 10 are only 40% of the peoples in level 1, so I count all of them as a single level for myself when thinking about the idea of "level on SG".
Maybe those levels could be replaced by the "adjusted CV" directly ? I don't know... But you can imagine more freedom for the GA creators when choosing the entry requirements ?
The appeal to gain levels is either none for people here to gift games (and whatever the level system is I think they will continue giving), either only made of the interest in winning more, which is the problem the OP want to adress, isn't it ?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nope, OP wanted the system to be fair(er).
And if the purpose would be for people to give only what and when they are willed to gift, without improving their own winning chances, the solution would be quite simple: Eliminate all levels.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So that's the part I wasn't understanding correctly... I had myself focused only on this line :

But i think that one persons level should show how much somebody contributed to WHOLE community - not just small part of it.

But anyway, I see a difference between (1) an increased chance of winning because one previously gifted games and (2) gifting games to increase one's chances of winning. The (2) is where I see an "appeal to give", and not in (1).
To address the unfairness, I don't know how to do, I'm afraid there may be no such computation possible because everyone has a different budget, and buying a same game has a different relative cost for each person here... !

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

this would also mean that short term GAs (like only for 1 hour) will also get less CV. this would encourage every GA to be as long as possible to get as many ppl to join in as possible.
maybe also add a time factor into the calculation?

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That would be side effect... but for some people it would be good effect. A lot of users are complaining about such short term giveaways. We have different time zones and so on. So if you make quick ga - you have less entries and CV. And you are allowed to do so. Sounds fair.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

thats where a lot of ppl differ.
i personally dont like long term GAs simply because of the lesser chance and i know that there are also ppl who prefer making short GAs and giving the "few" lucky ones who see it a higher chance to enter.
i know there were a lot of discussions about it where ppl wanted a minimum time of 1 day or so... but it was always countered by ppl who simply like to gift as individually as possible and that does include the possibility to make Blitz-GAs.
Having this "punished" seems wrong to me

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

GA creator decide the GA duration, so it's quite like when they choose to gift a bundled game, worth only 15% CV.
It would be much harder to scale CV by the duration because to do that with a fair computation formula, that said formula can only come after a deep statistical study on how behave GA audience (entries) depending on GA durations. You can't just divide by time because the number of entries in the GA is not a function of time (think about time zones, or the general behavior of people coming at their hours).
My idea of multiplying value by entries comes from the idea that a contribution to the community (that is a GA) is worth more when there's more audience reached, so it makes sense to do that multiplication that way, because such maths are taking into account what really happened (a said number of people entered the GA) after the GA ends.
IMO When you think about scaling by time, you add an unuseful layer of complexity that comes from the erroneous idea that if a short GA gets less entries, then it should be worth as much as a longer one that gets more entries. But that's a wrong reasoning, because you end up making computations on something that did NOT happen (there were really less entries in the short GA).

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yes i get what youre saying and i also dont like to make it overly complex.
but i think that other factors also come greatly into play
what about DLC? even if they are public they dont gather that many entries to begin with.
also where would you put the number of entries equaling 100% CV? i guess if that number was fairly low even short GAs wouldnt diminish too much.
also would that limitation on CV only trigger on group/WL/private GAs or also public ones?
Like i said, i personally like entering short GAs with less entries and my own GAs where never more than 1 day long. so i would dislike having those short GAs decrease because of that change. and i dont see "missing out" on a GA generally as a problem to begin with. i too have to sleep or dont have time to come to SG 24/7. winning games is luck, just as being around at the right time to participate i would consider is part of that luck as well.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

no, you're mixing up ideas from the p.o.v. of a creator and the p.o.v. of an entrant.
I was only suggesting to multiply the CV by the number of entries, a simple raw flat multiplication
so 100% CV for each entry
each entry is worth the same, no matter how many or how few entries there are
and the base CV remains unchanged, same as now, 0% for free games, 15% for bundled, multiple copies GA gets multiple CV as expected, and so on...
you're overthinking it, I was only suggesting to add that factor to take the "audience" into account, keeping everything else as is.
and of course, there are side effects, not only on short GA, also on any GA with any sort of restriction limiting the number of entries (like a high level, a group GA, etc.)
the side effects are precisely the mathematical effects of taking "audience" into account, I don't see any issue with that : either you like that idea, either you don't, but there is no computational magic that will make that idea desirable for you is you don't like it at first 😜
think about a tv show... if only 10 thousand spectators, no future funds, but if 10 millions, funds for 3 seasons at once !
of course if the tv show has restrictions, for example heavy gore plus sex scenes, there are less spectators (less children here)
but there will not be more funds because of those restrictions because funds depends on amount of spectators ("audience"), and not on the restrictions !
thus, none of those restriction has to be taken into account in the computations when the idea is to compute the importance of the "audience", hence, as I suggested, a raw flat multiplication
that's the idea I suggested, nothing more ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

ah ok i think i misunderstood a few things.
i thought by multiplication you didnt mean it to be like: x amount of CV * number of entries. that of course would require a whole different scale of how leveling works. though now that i understand i dont like it even more XD

i rather thought to multiply by a factor like 0,2 for a certain amount of entrants.
example using easy numbers: 1000 entrants (and more) would be 100% as in factor 1 giving full CV. lower entrants means lower factor like in this example 500 entrants would be a factor of 0,5 only giving half CV. the original scaling of levels would stay. (the 5 entrants minimum rule and bundled/nonbundled/free would still apply).
i would go along with something similar if the the 100% mark was lower like 100 entrants or something.. maybe it would only apply to group/WL/invite only GAs not to public ones. after all the whole discussion OP started was more about discouraging very small groups of best friends abusing the 5 entries threshold gifting among themselves.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

... a factor like 0,2 ...
... 1000 entrants (...) would be ...
... example 500 entrants ...
... factor of 0,5 ...
... lower like 100 ...

Those figures are arbitrary numbers you took from your hat. Either you're lucky and it provide good results, either you're screwed XD
(as with giveaways, you have a small chance of being lucky)
IMO this would lead to the same problem than the sigmoid func Gaffi suggested : for me each entry is worth the same, no matter how many or how few.
Anyway before "tweaking" the computation, you should decide and clearly define what goal you want to achieve with all those added factors and thresholds ; then I'm pretty sure a statistical study is needed to show what kind of function is needed to achieve that goal : an average func ? a median func ? a gaussian func ?
Doing it the way you do (that is, first decide about the numbers, then happens what happens) would most probably lead to caveats and defects of the computation formula, and in turn it would be exploited by at least some people. The final situation would end being the same as now, only the ways to exploit the system would change.
It was only my 2 cents... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

of course those numbers were made up and just examples of how i thought it could work and now i see its essentially very similar as what Gaffi suggested but linear.
well... its still just a suggestion. if ever implemented the numbers and the function would be up for discussion or simply up to cg.

and yes our suggestions want to approach 2 different things.

  • you want to reward users in a way that depicts their contribution by looking how many ppl liked and participated in their contribution. your idea would change how CV is calculated as a whole as you also would need a different scaling when each level is reached. it would also encourage users to make lvl 0 public GAs with 1 month time to get as many entries as possible which is not a bad thing generally but I'd say not to everyones taste.
  • i just wanted to approach the problem OP has mentioned about small groups "gift-trading" in between themselves abusing CV and hence limiting this kind of "abuse" by reducing the CV they gain by doing this. the system we have now how CV is calculated would stay the same and would only impact GAs with lower entries. I'd say it would be easier to implement.

just my 2 cents as well :D

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

... you also would need a different scaling when each level is reached. ...

Easy to sort out, one can fill levels by %-age of people. First, fill in lv0 with all people who never made a GA, then the remaining :
lv1 43,45% ; lv2 21,5% ; lv3 13,5% ; lv4 8,4% ; lv5 5,25% ; lv6 3,3% ; lv7 2% ; lv8 1,3% ; lv9 0,8% ; lv10 0,5%
sum = 100%, each level being around 1,6 to 2 times smaller than the previous, which makes more sense for me than levels made of a specific threshold of CV : there's a "smoother" progression curve, while still having each level being significantly more difficult to reach than the previous. Even if those figures are from my hat, this method of scaling levels is valid whatever is the method of computing CV because here a "level" means a given amount of people, not a value of CV. In other words, this method of making the levels allow to cut the debate in two independent parts : one debate about how to compute CV, another debate about how many people should be in each level. And I feel it would be easier to discuss, but it's not the way the site works now.

... it would also encourage users to make lvl 0 public GAs with 1 month time to get as many entries ...

I don't think you get that much more entries after the first week, it's not worth it IMO. From my very short experience on making GA (only 34 so far), even after the first 2-3 days, there is so few new entries...
Since GA slots are limited, you would get WAY much more CV by making ten 2-days GA one after the other (in 20 days or so) than a single one 30-days long. Thus your argument is wrong : with my proposal, the ones getting the more CV would still be the ones making the more GAs...

... hence limiting this kind of "abuse" by (...) would only impact GAs with lower entries. ...

There's a mistake in your reasoning : first you target some groups with a specific behavior ("gift-trading"), then you conclude that every GA with lesser entries is to be impacted... I disagree with you : the side-effect is much worse than the abusive behavior you're targeting at.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Easy to sort out, one can fill levels by %-age of people......

well it would still require a new system to be established

Since GA slots are limited, you would get WAY much more CV by making ten 2-days GA one after the other

while i agree with you that looking on time you would make more CV by making multiple shorter GAs than by making 1 in the same time... but i regard the keys rather to be the limited resource and not the time or even the slots.
if i had 3 keys and only the keys available to give away right now, then i'd rather would try to get as much CV out of it as possible, even if i had to wait longer. though i wouldnt go beyond 1 week myself (too impatient xD)

There's a mistake in your reasoning : first you target some groups with a specific behavior ("gift-trading"), then you conclude that every GA with lesser entries is to be impacted... I disagree with you : the side-effect is much worse than the abusive behavior you're targeting at.

as i stated in one of my previous posts, i personally would only apply this kind of calculation on group/WL/invite only GAs... just how the 5 entries minimum rule also only applies on those GAs

like i said i only want to tackle the group "abuse" mentioned by OP. some others suggested to raise the 5 minimum to like 20 or something. my suggestion i guess would just be a soft graduation instead of a hard cut on 20 entries.

while i enjoyed discussing things with you, it still feels a bit futile as there most likely wont be any changes like with most suggestions unless there is a miracle

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

well it would still require a new system to be established

Don't know what you mean by "system", but no, it can fit in the site code... nearly only the level threshold to change, once defined.

... i regard the keys rather to be the limited resource ...

At the whole site scale, my previous argument (with my proposal, the ones getting the more CV would still be the ones making the more GAs) is what seems to me the most relevant. Nobody is tracking everyone else's CV on a daily basis after each GA...

... i only want to tackle the group "abuse" mentioned by OP ...

Like many others already said, and according to the last graph there
~85 % of users are level 0
less than 1,1% are level 5+6+7+8+9+10
Even if there's some users with abusive behavior in those 1,1%, they are few... Thus to my eyes it's important to take care of not creating side-effects doing bad things for all the non-cheating people here : they're a vast majority.

I think you understood my suggestion the wrong way : you're looking for <insert something here> to fight against something deemed abusive. But I'm not suggesting anything against something : it's a proposal to change CV computation that can make IMO more pointless to follow abusive behaviors, without fighting against them.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The Blitz GA's get punished anyway because the autojoiners are always under the fastest ones :-D
That mean the Blitz GA creators have in a higher % as normal then problems after the GA's with running behind their winners and/or need to wait 4-7 days OR more (on top to all the running and writing).

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

what youre saying is that shorter GAs have more bots and autojoiners participate than "real" ppl, right? and that gifters often are struggling afterwards with winners not claiming or marking as received.
while i havent made nearly as many GAs as you have, i havent experienced problems of that sort myself yet, though i know from other discussions that this seems to be a big problem.
but i think that is an entirely different problem on SG that should be dealt with elsewhere and shouldnt "punish" gifters who simply prefer making shorter GAs.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No, not more as real people but a higher percentage as GA's with a longer run time have.

My words were nothing about punish someone/some side or give a advatange so a other side.
It was only a sideinfos which problem short GA's have in general.

If the autojoiners weren't a case, i would see the Blitz GA's as gifter as a nice thing.
I like them as someone that join them because the chances to win a higher and the result is sooner available (let's say the gambling feeling^^)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yeah not most but many.
and yeah i got that. i just wanted to add my general opinion on this ordeal.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Whether it's counted or not i would just like that it remains easily understandable.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Same as others, I like to have some chance game ends in good hands. Some games were unwanted trash, but some games I bought just to giveaway them, cause it were titles I love and would like to give them to someone, who would like to play them. For example Elex, Control, Skyrim, Fallout 4, Prey. I was seriously disappointed when I saw some of them even in tiny groups wasted by people who won't play them and just wanted cards.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

First i need to say, it's unimportant what we throw here in the ring because cg will not do much work if it don't hit his money purse -and force him that way-.

I don't think your idea are good, not because of my level or my group GA's, only because i see cv as a motivation to make more GA's.
To be very clear it don't bring much advantage, so if i am level 3 or 7 is nearly the exact same, besides the fact that i gave away games for $1k+ more as when i would be still level 3 (to lazy to check how much exactly -it isn't so important-).
So it is in all cases above level 2 or 3 a bad deal if someone only do it to gain something (besides the motivation) from it.

From your own words "trimming CV abuse" ...
If you want to trimm the cv abuse then set all games from the shady RU stores (and the asian ones that are around but in a much lower ammount -and i am more specialised on the RU stores-) to 0 cv.
Because right now bring a 20€ shady RU store game that get bought for 5 - 12 cents then first 20cv, later MAYBE 3cv.
That are a big bunch if you calculate then that this game and all others not only get gifted with one copy.
Let's say 5 games/week with each 5 copies = 25x20cv = 500cv or 25x3cv = 75cv, bought for (lets pick high) 25x10cents = $2,5.
You see if we would pick low it would be the half of this costs and the people that use that "loophole" do that daily.

Same for asian and russian groups that exchange the private only links to their GA's.
Your group cv kill or adjustment, would not hit them but they don't do something else as a "closed group".

And that are only a few fast examples. I would have much more...

I think it is good said here:
https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/Bo0c0/removeadjust-cv-from-group-giveaways#ieSmRMR

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

set all games from the shady RU stores (...) to 0 cv.

Sadly there is no way to say whether key is from shady store or not.
Some users already suggested counting cv based on number of entries - that would help with with private or region restricted giveaways... and create new problems in the meantime xD

it's unimportant what we throw here in the ring because cg will not do much work if it don't hit his money purse

I know. Discussion is clearly theoretical. But I like that I saw quite a lot of different points of view. Also I learned couple of things about the site itself.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's very clear to see which users do the shady RU shop games all the time at the day (and the following few days) after a game appear there.
And the hardcore abusers/exploiters are very clear to identify and in that cases are maybe 30-50 users involved.
I reported partly each day the Games from 3-5 users. That were the extremest daily games from the cv abuse/exploiting (maybe 10-20% games were not made from them, so a really high percentage detectable only from monitoring 3-5 users).
But i don't like to have such a daily work only because cg is to lazy and don't automate to take the infos from a tracker into a database and the support can't handle the ammount of tickets on top and i don't like to make myself work and wait then many months till something happen (if).

So in the most cases it is very clear if a key (or many copies) are from a shady RU shop or not.

When a game appear there you have direct after it a wave of Ga's from that game(s).

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It’s none of my business, but I think it’s ridiculous that you condemn people who donate games from "shadow shops", because you are no better than them.
I looked at your statistics, and I saw that you gave only 8.1% of your contribution to the public giveaway, which you will agree is very little. After reading your threads, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the giveaway you gave is in the reciprocal gift exchange group. Not just an exchange, but rather even a gift trade. Since you have requirements for the number of giveaways conducted by each member of the group.
In fact, I have nothing against this (although I myself try to avoid such groups), but I think your words are hypocritical.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It was clear that a few jump on it and i know your name since the christmas event.... (the calling out rule forbid me to say more).

But to make a few things clear, i explain them.
I not assume that you want to understand them but maybe other ones.

I don't condemn people that give away a copy of a game all blue moon that is from a shady ru shop because they maybe don't have much money.
But yes i condemn people that do that with a lot of copies from nearly all available game in that shops to abuse/exploit the cv system of sg to cheat their levels for a few cents.

I gave only 8,1% to the public is maybe true, i don't think so.
I know that i gave around 130-150 games to public Ga's and that is many times more as the common sg user do in all the years they have a account.
You know nothing about my group GA's -if your read a thread or two from me (which ever your read, none knows)-, so your assuming about "the reciprocal gift exchange group. Not just an exchange, but rather even a gift trade" is complete nonsense.
I assume you try to make a connection between my group and my group GA's in general but that connection don't exist in the way you mean and your trade exchange would a very bad for me. Alone in my group i gave over $500 more in worth and +73 in numbers.

So your "shaming" try is so bad that it is funny :-D
And your "hypocritical" sentence is then out of the mouth from a person like you the berry on top :-DDDDD

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I hope the word "hypocritical" is not applicable to me, since I try not to blame anyone for what I did myself (at least I sincerely strive for it). But, I do not deny that I am sometimes too harsh.
I can honestly say - there have been times when I have abused the СV system. Perhaps this is not normal, it is difficult to argue with this, but nevertheless, it was.
Therefore, I do not consider it possible to condemn anyone for such actions.
If you pay attention to what I said, I was not trying to shame you (if you thought so, I'm sorry - maybe it's because English is not my first language). I noticed that you condemn people for what you do yourself.

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Show me one game that i bought in a shady RU store or a GA that i made to abuse/exploit the cv system at sg.....

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I refer to CV abuse as closed groups, where there are requirements for the distribution of gifts (or the ratio of give / receive for participants). Your group is perfect for that.
But I don't think it's a bad thing. I can't say for what purpose this was done - maybe it's just a side effect, and the group did not pursue the goal of misusing CV. But it is there.
Either way, this is not a bad thing. Giving gifts is better than not giving anyway. It doesn't matter if they are for a closed group, or bought in the RU shadow store.

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Removing CV isn't going to stop these people from abusing the system. Look at the Evil Genius giveaway from the other day. They were 0 CV to begin with, yet we saw people giving away 5+ copies. They do it to artificially increase the number of games given away on their profile. They just inform everyone that they've been exploiting mass giveaways of certain games. lol.

Also, Lootboy put a DLC for Warhammer Underworld Online in their Gold/Thank You Pack. I gave mine away because I don't have the base game. Not many people would actually get it due to it having to be your 10th pack. I saw someone giving away 16 copies here almost immediately, meaning that they have multiple Lootboy accounts. That is, unless they've changed it and it's now turning up in regular lootpacks, but still, 16 is excessive for one account.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, they will always find a way to "cheat the system", if you want to call it that, and some of them are not doing it in groups but in public GAs. If you have a really great game and you want to give it to someone who will actually play it, consider joining Playing Appreciated or some of those groups. Yes, they're private groups, but they were created for the very reason that you made this thread.

I haven't the best record of playing my wins, but then I haven't the best record of playing any of my games in the past few years due to health issues so I haven't joined PA, but I still enjoy SG. IF I had a highly wishlisted game to give away, I would certainly ask to join one of those groups temporarily to ensure that it went to someone who really wanted it. You know?

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm a member of PA :) And I looked for group like that it when I had key for Clannad and I really didn't want it to end just like source for trading cards. At that moment the fact that somebody would play the game was more important then earning CV for giveaway.

Obviously - people will find a way to cheat the system :) I'm just trying to find some theoretical way to make it more difficult :)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

:)

The only way to make it more difficult for people to cheat levels would be to put another layer to it. For example, leave everything the way it is, but make a gold level giveaway option that is only open to entries from active site patrons, so that people can do giveaways for only those people if they wish to. No one could cheat their way past that. They're either supporting the site, or they're not.

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So changing it into pay2win? Don't like the idea of patrons only ga's...

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not really, you'd still have level 0-10 as it is now. Adding a "level 11" that is inaccessible to people who don't contribute wouldn't hurt anything and wouldn't turn the site into a pay 2 win. The majority of people would continue doing what they are doing. It would give people who are annoyed about cheaters an option to give outside of that without joining a particular group.

But that was just one idea off the top of my head. I would rather see some layer added (some other idea maybe) rather than taking away something from the people who do contribute to the site. Some of the groups on SG are healthy. Some of them not so much. BUT people like achievements. That's why some people want their games on Steam rather than other platforms. CV is sort of like achievements. You take that away, many people will stop giving altogether. I know that sounds ridiculous, but humans are weird animals. lol.

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You just gave me an idea - why steamgifts doesn't have achievements?
Another layer could be gifting to people with certain sg achievement xD

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Give me the 100% achievement^^ :-DDDD (i am sure a part of the people would pay for that too...)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

[I agree largely with MSKOTOR's observations, and some of my comments to them apply to your main post]

I'm normally all for exposing more data, though I personally don't like providing SG functionality that reinforces a stigma certain people have with how much people give publicly versus group/invite/WL because it would aid a specific value judgement of users: That public giveaways are the main or only way that someone contributes to the SG community.

I respectfully disagree with that value judgement, as I think the only widely popular stigmas that SG users have of others (for better or worse) are:

  • Users who have more Received/Won CV (real/raw or otherwise) than Sent/Gifted CV
  • Users who have any Not Received giveaways, regardless of underlying reason or long pending support ticket to resolve

...so it makes sense that we have stats around those things.

If you want to blacklist people who do or don't give mostly public and/or invite only GAs, then you can skim through their list of GAs and easily eyeball GA types (public, invite, group, WL). I personally don't make that kind of judgement, because I don't assume that people have a "bad" motive or are a "bad" user for gifting mostly to groups/WL/invite GAs. For all I know, they merely create group/WL/invite giveaways because they want to give other people a better than long shot 1 in 1000+ chances at winning a public GA once in a blue moon even if users spend their points consistently.

If you want to blacklist people who don't participate in Discussions forum, then you can view the user's profile and click Discussions to see the posts they've made and/or look at their comment count.

BTW there's a ESGST plugin that makes extracting & exporting giveaway lists easier (from SG page: Users, groups, etc).

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

lol who cares about CV?

In some cases sure they are. But at least they are not trying to cheat the system.

So winning 600 games without ever giving one, not even a freebie is not cheating the system but giving away games is cheating the system?

3 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If they haven't gave even one game - that makes them leeches obviously.
But just setting ga lvl on 1 is closing that ga for them.
That's honest at least :)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you for starting this discussion! I've learned a lot from the responses so far.

I think more transparency would certainly help reduce the value of "abusing the system". It seems like there is already a decent amount of transparency, for those who know what they are looking at (I don't. Lol).

A couple things I'd REALLY like to see on SG:

  • a user profile that's semi-customizable. So I can learn more about you all, and share a bit about me.
  • more tools for those running groups. It's no doubt time consuming to run a group fairly. I think making that easier to do, would go a long way.

There are clearly a lot of bots and people with multiple accounts.

One thing SG could do, is "are you a real person " questions periodically. Answer question correctly, get 50 points. Fail to answer the question over the course of a month or something, and get flagged.

Any change/improvement to the site, is no doubt way easier said than done. I really enjoy the site as it is, and am hopeful the people running it are trying to make it even better!

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

a user profile that's semi-customizable. So I can learn more about you all, and share a bit about me.

I suppose more user-specific info wouldn't hurt, that's what your Steam profile is for, one click away from your SG profile.

more tools for those running groups. It's no doubt time consuming to run a group fairly. I think making that easier to do, would go a long way.

As a group admin, rules among groups are often so unique and arbitrary that anything beyond the stats SG already gives (Sent, Received, CV, Diff, etc.) may not help most group admins. ESGST browser plugin exists for exporting giveaway lists which can be filtered & parsed any number of ways using Excel/spreadsheets.

One thing SG could do, is "are you a real person " questions periodically. Answer question correctly, get 50 points. Fail to answer the question over the course of a month or something, and get flagged.

Sure, or like most CAPCHA sites: Answer the CAPCHA thing correctly and you get to continue using the site. Fail to answer and you either have more CAPCHA questions or have to come back later. I don't think we need to give people more entries for GAs, as it is hard enough to win public GAs with thousands of entries.

Any change/improvement to the site, is no doubt way easier said than done. I really enjoy the site as it is, and am hopeful the people running it are trying to make it even better!

I feel the same way :)

3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't feel super invested in all this, but I see your point. Personally the two things that would IMO improve fairness on SG are:

  • the value of your GA is frozen at the time they were created. No more level dropping
  • leveling up requires a progressively increasing ratio between GA created and won
3 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.