While somehow those in favor are more eager to share their +1's about it publically on the forum, there has been a poll with a majority plurality showing they are against the changes, and not trying to sound like a nag, but improving 5 to 6 still seems somewhat minor.
If someone fills the cap which now gets decreased they won't be getting anything extra.
Comment has been collapsed.
46% is not a majority. The majority were either for or indifferent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on you look at it, Indifferent doesn't mean someone is okay with it neither against it, it's exactly what it says, you are counting indifferents along with a yes.
Of those that voted for or against the changes, the majority did vote against it.
Eitherway how you look at it, the numbers are still big enough for a hugh split about the changes.
Aye Aye Captain! 397(32%)
How about no?567(46%)
Indifferent is my middle name. 263(21%)
Comment has been collapsed.
Here is another poll with 151 voting for the changes, and 133 voting against.
I do agree that users are very much split, and if we go in either direction, it's going to be very controversial. However, this might mean we're on the right track. If 50% of users think points should be lowered, and 50% of users think points should be raised, then perhaps points are balanced and just right?
Comment has been collapsed.
If 50% of users think points should be lowered, and 50% of users think points should be raised
That's not what the poll says, the poll says X% of users think points are fine (they like the update) and Y% think they should be higher (they want them back like before). Noone says they should be lowered further (but to be fair, that option wasn't presented either).
Meaning the "right" balance is somewhere between the new system and the old one, I guess. So change #1 makes sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wasn't referring to that poll in particular, but the general idea that users debating about raising or lowering a value might be a good sign that it's close to being balanced.
But yes, you're right, a poll to better show this would be asking if users want points lowered, the same, or raised.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well what i pointed out below but to recap in short and it's simply put, 2 polls one for points refresh and the cap (both with a reasonable range of options), else what you are suggesting, you still get people saying it's too much or not enough if you raised it or lowered it.
Grab an average from the poll results with what i suggested then you really get everyone's opinion from it and one can't really complain afterwards.
Comment has been collapsed.
But people voting they are okay with the changes, are usually ones that already have a hard timing spending points in that it suits them, doesn't mean they are all against those that want points, to get a few more.
Or people want some change, but doesn't say to what extend they find things acceptable or unacceptable.
The yay voters also use it all under the cause of limiting bots and auto scripters, which personally i'd still have my doubts on it's effectiveness and it also affects just the normal people liking to enter things.
You can say 50-50% is "balanced" but it's like the american election system, one election it are the republicans that win, and they hate what the democrats are doing, and the next election it's the other way around.
You would actually want a majority that is acceptable for a group that's about 75% atleast.
A poll now, or after a week, would be fair, but not just a simple yes/no, but something like:
How do you feel about the latest changes?
I like it and it's fine the way it is.
I like it but it still needs improvement
I don't like it
Indifferent.
Maybe even a poll for points to refresh (4 to 10) and one for the cap too, so a majority can vote for that too, then atleast everyone could have had their say in it, but if you start with these 2, you dont even need to make the other poll.
What Khalaq said, the cap should reflect the increase of points and that gets taken now (you give some, but you take some).
Personally i'd think 7 or 8 points would be much closer to being "fair" for those that want their points without causing much controversy for those in favor of the changes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can spend all the points I get, but I'm still happy with the change
Comment has been collapsed.
That poll is at 169 to 164 now, that's not in favor at all anymore. (edit: it now turned into negative!) Basing the whole post introduction part on a half-hidden low-attention thread with low participation numbers solely cause it suited the desired result, while ignoring the other, bigger poll with a clear negative vote is highly questionable.
If 50% of users think points should be lowered, and 50% of users think points should be raised, then perhaps points are balanced and just right?
Nearly no-one wants a further reduction. It's a stay-or-higher situation with higher being favored. Not as high as it was before but in the middle of now and then, a balanced approach, like I was promoting since the beginning. (Writing a more detailed answer [finished] currently but in short 9p is the number, between 5p now and up-to 16p before)
Comment has been collapsed.
I hadn't noticed that poll, I'm sure others hadn't either, it seems it's pretty even atm, but I would pay more attention to the results of the more popular poll.
Comment has been collapsed.
46% is not a majority
Actually in this case (46% for, 32% against, 21% neutral) it is. It's called a relative majority, as opposed to an absolute majority
The majority were either for or indifferent.
Lol. If you want to read it this way, you could also say the majority were either against or indifferent 👀
Comment has been collapsed.
relative majority
Ah, yes that's a nice phrase, I hadn't seen it used before, but have seen (and used) plurality in its place
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyhow though, since neutral are, by definition, fine with either way, the dominant choice is clearly "against" (59% vs 41% if we ignore the "neutral" option, like we do with blank votes in elections 🦄)
Comment has been collapsed.
No matter how you try to spin it, it doesn't change the fact that 54% are ok with the change.
Or you can look at a different poll were the majority of people are clearly in favor of the changes anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
"No matter how you try to spin it it doesn't change the fact that 67% are ok with the way it used to be"
Also, lol at how 42% vs 38% is "clearly in favor"
Jeez you must work at CNN...
Comment has been collapsed.
67% are ok with the way it used to be
Sure, but a change was made to counter a problem with the previous system and most people are okay with it. I also suspect that a good portion of the people against it are exactly those the change was meant to curb.
Things will not go back to the previous system, but cg is trying to fine tune the changes and find a good balance.
Also, lol at how 42% vs 38% is "clearly in favor"
I should have refreshed that thread before I posted. I had it opened for a while in another tab and the difference was much higher earlier.
Comment has been collapsed.
Counting the indifference towards the result you'd like and the fact that you insist on it is simply amazing!
Comment has been collapsed.
Does't change the fact that only a minority have issues with the fix, and that minority includes the very people it was designed to block so their opinion isn't really valuable.
Comment has been collapsed.
Calling the relative majority (by a fairly wide margin) of those who voted as "the very people the system was designed to block" and "people whose opinion is not really valuable" is insulting, mean-spirited, aggressive and shows a clear bias. Cg asked us, so our opinion is obviously valuable. 33% of those who voted in that poll, like the new system, 46% don't, that's the fact, the rest is interpretation with an agenda and sad attempts at spin.
Comment has been collapsed.
Calling the relative majority (by a fairly wide margin) of those who voted as "the very people the system was designed to block" and "people whose opinion is not really valuable" is insulting, mean-spirited, aggressive and shows a clear bias.
It's a good thing I didn't do that then.
those who voted in that poll, like the new system, 46% don't
Exactly, less than 50% of the users dislike the new system, and the ones the new system was designed to block are a part of that group.
Are you saying we should value the opinion of those who were using autojoiner scripts and are now unhappy that they can't cheat the system anymore? Because in that 46%, I'm sure there's a good number of those salty users.
the rest is interpretation with an agenda and sad attempts at spin.
Yes, your desperate attempt to paint this change as something that's disliked by the majority is pretty sad. The new system is there to stay, with some fine tuning being done to improve on it. Better get used to it and stop whining.
Comment has been collapsed.
33% of those who voted like the new system. One in three. Dwarfed by those who dislike it.
Whining is not my thing, you assume too much. I will just call you out if you try to insult my intelligence the way you do. I'd do the same if the tables were turned, if a mere 33% of the users had voted they disliked the system and 46% liked it and someone was claiming "the new system is liked by less than half the people" as the verdict of the poll. It'd be lame.
If the system is here to stay, so be it, it's not my call, I've been asked to express my opinion as every member of this fine community and that's all I'm doing.
You cannot determine what percentage of "the very people the system was designed to block" is part of those that voted "no". Saying "I'm sure there's a good number of those salty users" does not help to determine an accurate amount I'm afraid. Hence, you have to accept every "no" vote or dismiss all "no" votes. You seem to have chosen the latter, but doing that is very problematic to the fair users who don't like the new system.
Comment has been collapsed.
33% of those who voted like the new system. One in three. Dwarfed by those who dislike it.
Sure, there are more people who dislike it than there are who like it. That doesn't change the fact that there are more people who aren't bothered by the new system (54%) than there are people who are (46%).
That's been my point all along and no amount of arguing from you is going to change the fact that the majority of users do not have a problem with the new system. Just because you could lump the indifferents with the dislikes to claim that the majority didn't mind the previously broken system doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You cannot determine what percentage of "the very people the system was designed to block" is part of those that voted "no".
I can't, but whether it's 1%, 20% or 44% it doesn't really change the results. It would only matter if the dislikes were over 50%.
Comment has been collapsed.
It does, since by your logic, 67% are ok with the old system, a clear majority
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice job, cg !
It's cool to change as you wish but also listen to everyone :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your continued updates & communication. Any thoughts on "point banking" for those more frequent visitors?
Perhaps returned points should have a time limit (1) and/or dilution rate (2).
Examples:
- If one removes entries from a GA within x time period (say 1 hour or 1 day), full points are returned, after which time no points are returned
- Optional: exemption for won GAs & automatic removal of entries
- Every hour (or day) after a GA was entered, returned points are diluted by y% (say, 10%)
Comment has been collapsed.
You'll punish every one but the Autojoiners with this. They can just have a script which leave and join GAs every x time.
Comment has been collapsed.
auto-join scripts should be dealt with separately, this idea is to prevent users from "working around" the implemented points ceiling
Comment has been collapsed.
auto-join scripts should be dealt with separately
How? A good script's actions are indistinguishable from a user's actions.
this idea is to prevent users from "working around" the implemented points ceiling
But Moony is pointing out it is also exploitable. It's not a bad idea, but it's not thought out enough to avoid introducing another obvious workaround.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never suggested it be implemented exactly as stated. Even the wording is explicitly flexible.
Comment has been collapsed.
Point banking should either be forbidden by the rules or should not be dealt at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Clearly by the response I got here, users want it allowed :)
I used to bank points during certain floods, but in the end I thought it was too much work and don't any more.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think there are people who have your opinion and other people who don't. It's always good for a community if many people bring in their different opinions and suggestions. At the end it is cg who has to make a decision. If he would forbid it I would definitely stop it otherwise it helps me to use the points on puzzles, trains and whitelist giveaways instead of competing with dozens of bots at the public part. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand what problem you're trying to solve. Why should people have an incentive to spend all their points on shitty games (because the threat of losing them is definitely an incentive) instead of saving them to win a wishlisted game they would love to play?
I'll just link this comment here:
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/ZRvyze7
Also, as Moony1986 has noted, your solution only punished manual point-savers while leaving enough freedom to inventive script-writers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cg's post in that thread stated, "...users should not need to invest this much time into entering giveaways..."
Point-banking is investing too much time in trying to work the system.
If someone's problem is not having enough points to enter wishlist games, perhaps suggesting the point system revert back to being based on a percentage of the created GAs would make more sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
No it's not. It takes 2 min to to go last page of GAs, open 5 20p GAs and enter them.
And it takes way more time to constantly sit in front of PC, refreshing new tab and spending ridiculous amount of points into 1-hour GAs just to spend them and not waste them. That was reason behind this change. To not give users ridiculous amount of points so that they feel forced to spend them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I used to bank points during certain floods, and had several "bank" GAs end with me having forgot to remove my entry. In the end, I thought it was too much work (for myself) and don't any more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, if you tried to bank majority of points that were available it could be a chore (like 2-3k points daily).
But when you have 480 (or 580p after proposed change) it's not much and you don't need to spend tons of time to do this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if that's the problem, I don't think that punishing people who do invest too much time is a good idea.
For example, I think that people should not need to work two jobs to feed their children. The correct solution would be to remove that need. Your anti-banking solution is more like forbidding to work two jobs by introducing a huge tax on the income from the 2nd job.
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems like you are advocating for the point system revert back to being based on a percentage of the created GAs. Which, for the record, I think would make more sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
Since, like MSKOTOR, I don't feel that storing points is a lot of work (unlike working two jobs), personally I'm fine with either system. However, the new system definitely makes people value their points more and makes them think before entering games they are not interested in. This, I think, is the main benefit of the current system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Point banking was a problem back then when there were almost unlimited points. Bots/Auto-script users took huge advantage of it. Which seemed to be a unfair advantage over normal user.
But since we have limited points per day that unfair advantage is almost diminished.
I don't think "point banking" is playing the system or exploiting the system. It simply means you are saving points so that you can enter for the game you like. If I save my 500 points this day for future GAs and I spend all my 1000P(saved 500P + next day's 500P), how am I taking advantage of the system? I have spent the same point like the any other user would do like 500P he/she entered day before and the 500P the next day.
Every new changes that has been made I agree with that. It has users investing their point in games they like, it has limited huge advantage that the bots/auto-join script users had. But this will clearly hurt the normal users too. What's wrong with saving for a car instead of buying a motorbike?
I think "point banking" shouldn't be taken that negatively specially after the changes. That's my opinion :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Trying to stop or penalize people from banking points is like punishing someone for opening a savings account and buying something nice after saving their money for a while instead of spending it on impulse buys right when they get it just because they have it. Basically you are saying people should live paycheck to paycheck and spend their money right when they get it even if it's not something they really want or else they will lose that money.
Penalizing people for banking points will encourage people to spend points on games they don't want, exactly what we are trying to stop. Everyone gets the same number of points, why should we punish people who don't throw all their points at every giveaway with the best odds of winning to get a +1. People should have the option to store their points and enter for games they actually want, we should not punish people for entering less giveaways.
I personally have over 8000 games blocked on SG and don't enter for games I don't want to play, so I have more points than I can spend when there are not a lot of giveaways for something I am looking for. We are all given the exact same number of points, so why should I be punished by having my points taken away for doing the right thing and only entering for games I want to play?
Comment has been collapsed.
Why is there no poll on the front page ? Polls on the forum doesn't represent the whole community.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think homepage polls are better suited to questions that can be quickly answered, since users usually spend a fraction of a second thinking before their vote. For example, if I post a homepage poll asking if everyone should receive 1 million points today, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority voted yes, because it does sound great for a second. However, users taking more time to consider the situation would probably realize that it's actually not a great idea, and it would come with a lot of negatives. That's why I think certain topics are best left to discussions, and why polls can be misleading.
Comment has been collapsed.
Would you prefer receiving :
- points per minute
- points per GA created
- A sweet combination of both
Comment has been collapsed.
First one doesn't change much, so I'm ok with it. Two others ones sound like a good changes.
One addition that is very wanted, returning points from deleted giveaways, that would be great.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, only problem I see with this minor tweak is that keeping in mind 20p/h is a cleaner number than 24p/h. :p
Comment has been collapsed.
12 min is 1/5 of an hour, 20%, it's a beautiful round number just not in decimal system D:
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey Moony1986, you'll most likely see that change in the next site update. The only question remaining is the one I posted in that discussion, and whether it should apply to all deleted giveaways, or only open giveaways that are deleted.
Comment has been collapsed.
will it treat entries as if they are removed? I am curious if it would keep the entry count incremented
Comment has been collapsed.
Why only open giveaways? The others doesn't cost points?
Comment has been collapsed.
Unless you implement an automated strike system for anyone who deletes a giveaway, implementing point returns will be used so massively to store ridiculous amounts of points through 100-point one-month-long software "giveaways", it will not even be funny. Ever since games can cost lower than 1 US cent, getting giveaway slots costs practically nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
In my opinion the participants should get their points back if the GA is deleted before the end and the winner should be get the points back if it isn't his fault that he can't get the GA, but I don't know how difficult the second part is to implement.
Examples for second part:
Positive:
- A key is a dupe / wrong game and creator and winner accept a deletion
- A user from Germany creates a GA for Borderlands 2 and doesn't add country restrictions and someone from Russia wins it and can't redeem it.
Negative:
- A GA gets rerolled because of a rule break
At the support ticket the moderator could have a checkbox to return points for the winner.
If it is possible it would also be nice if the returned points would not be lost if the current point value + the returned value is bigger than the point cap (Same with return of points of other entries at winning a game =) )
Comment has been collapsed.
I was getting used to the new system. Actually, I'm having a hard time spending my points.. But I have a huge game library, so I don't enter most of the giveaways on the site, I bet a lot of users need all of those 500 points daily :)
As for the changes:
-
1&2 are ok, 500 seems to be a bit too much and rewarding users regularly visiting the site sounds ok to me. BUT, wasn't this change made against the auto-join script users. So what's the point of giving bots more points now?
-
For 3, the poll results were actually pretty close, the change was unnecessary. When you consider this change in combination with 1, people can only enter 4 giveaways with all their points at a time, this is a big change from the current number which is 10. Not sure how much of a problem this can cause if the new humble bundles include 100P software/games in the future. As you said high point games/software are rather rare so this is probably not a needed change either.
While you are at it can you return us the points for deleted giveaways cg? I was almost sure this was gonna happen, when I saw you replied in that thread, but it seems it is not included in the changes.
Comment has been collapsed.
1&2 are ok, 500 seems to be a bit too much and rewarding users regularly visiting the site sounds ok to me. BUT, wasn't this change made against the auto-join script users. So what's the point of giving bots more points now?
The change would benefit more frequent users, but only a little. It's a world of a difference to what we were experiencing last month. In early September, we had days with over 3,000P. With the 300P cap, that meant a user visiting the site every 2.4 hours could use 10x as many points as a user visiting once a day. Outside of bots, not many users could visit every 2.4 hours day and night, so it was very much in their favor. This change would let users spend up to 1.4x as many points as a once a day visitor. If they visit twice a day, or every 2.4 hours, they still only have 1.4x as many points. Visiting twice a day is very possible without using a bot, and even if a user can't visit twice a day, they would only be a small disadvantage, not a 10x disadvantage like last month.
While you are at it can you return us the points for deleted giveaways cg? I was almost sure this was gonna happen, when I saw you replied in that thread, but it seems it is not included in the changes.
Yes, those changes will be coming, as mentioned above.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the explanation cg. I see the new changes won't give bots any advantages over human users and people won't be forced to visit the site every 3-5 hours, so it should be fine.
- As a suggestion to counter banking and returning points abuse I recommend adding a daily cap for returned points like 100 or 200. You can solve both of these issues at once.
Eg: RP 0/100 --> RP 20/100 after removing entry or deleted giveaway, resets every day to RP 0/100 (RP = Returned Points)
Comment has been collapsed.
My own thoughts based on what I've seen so far;
We were told that the system wouldn't impact how often a user wins. That users would have less points and enter less giveaways, but those giveaways would have higher odds of winning. That users would win the same number of games, but need to invest less time into joining giveaways.
That hasn't exactly happened as people are not distributing their points equally between different games. More desirable titles are getting similar entries to before so people aren't often seeing their chances of winning things they really want improved - but 'active' users are having less points to spend on additional giveaways so are seeing their chances of winning anything decreased.
I'm not buying the theories that some people are putting forward that everybody has less chance to win now or everybody is being 'punished' by the new system. Games are still going somewhere and if somebody isn't winning them then somebody else is.
I'm not even getting into the debate of whether the changes are a good thing or a bad thing or whether people should actually be obsessed with the 'metagame' of trying to win just anything.
The fixed point regeneration never seemed a great idea to me as it is clearly only going to lead to frustration when popular bundles are released and there are a flood of games. And it didn't seem to address some fundamental issues that it was meant to solve - why keep flash giveaways if it wasn't desirable for people to wake up in the middle of the night and log on? And in practice the 'active' users are just logging on multiple times per day to micromanage giveaway entries instead of using new points.
Personally I didn't spend all my points before and I don't spend all my points now. So whatever. Just the stuff I noticed...
Edit: I'd frankly much rather bitch about the proposed changes after we all have the benefit of hindsight, but after some consideration I suspect these latest changes will neither mollify 'active' users who will still have less points (especially when the next humble monthly rolls round) or serve to fulfil the stated intentions of the original changes. It'll just end up a compromise deal that annoys everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
What about this suggestion?
Obviously not something that benefits anyone, but it would be fun to have a "Dunce cap" for wasting all of your points that lasts like.. 24 hours or so :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Point regeneration addresses long-term participation (having "too many points"), but it is the point cap which affects short-term participation ("floods").
I submit that the point-cap and the maximum points per giveaway are related. Most of the complaints come from people not being able to enter more than a few of their most-desired giveaways whenever there is a flood of them. With a 400 point cap and 6p/min, 60-point giveaway can be entered seven times in the first hour (max of 16 in the first day). Compare that to what normally happens (over 30 one-hour giveaways in the first two hours) and the frustration is understandable. If you are going to raise the max points per giveaway, it is reasonable for the point cap to reflect that.
My own situation is a prime example of how the recent changes have affected people. I normally sit at point-cap because I'm picky about what I enter. When one of my wishlisted games floods the site, however, I am forced to watch approximately half of those giveaways pass me by because I don't have the points to enter them. There are time-intensive ways around that problem, but turning my participation in giveaways into work seems counter-productive. (Not to mention the fact that I'm already starved for time.)
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 You guys should have had a staff meeting first. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
This is exactly what I'm also worried about the new changes, thanks for the post Khalaq.
I'm also picky about what I enter, when a new bundle is released there will be a lot of 1 hour giveaways of a game I'd like to enter, just as you described there's nothing else to do except watching those giveaways pass me by.
I think a lot of users suggested raising the minimum giveaway time to 12 hours as a possible solution to this problem when the new point system was introduced.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with Khalaq, too
but not with giveaway minimum time expansion (max what I think could do is 2 hours, no more)
Comment has been collapsed.
Wouldn't a dynamic system be better for those situations, like we used to have? But reduce the number of points given by giveaways created to avoid the points flood that we had, reduce it to 75% or 50% of what used to be.
This would help when there is a flood of giveaways and allow people to not be so frustrated with points, but they would still need to make decisions since they would not have the same number of points that they used to have.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like the points given out throughout the day. It won't change how many points we receive compared to the system now because we get a set amount, but you will always have to make sure you clear your points as low as possible or you will lose anything you have sitting in your bank when it fills again.
What happens if something comes up and you weren't able to get to SG to spend your points before the new replenish happens and now you just lost 500 points because your bank was already full? Getting to SG an hour or 2 late would only lose you 20 or 40 points with the current system and not 500.
Also, what about time zones and when people are available? For some the points will replenish in the middle of the night when they are sleeping or when they are at work. I think it is more fair and easier to manage how it is now.
I think it will also create a huge imbalance and fluctuations with entry numbers in short giveaways. The short 1 or 2 hour giveaways soon after the point replenish will have a lot of people entering, but if you wait 6, 12 or 18 hours, most people will have spent their points and not be able to enter giving you much better odds if you save your points. I think this will heavily encourage banking of points in future giveaways.
I really like the lower point generation to force people to enter for games they want to play instead of everything, but I think the point generation should be dynamic so that we can enter more giveaways when more are created and are not flooded with points when less are created.
To stop the bots, I think we should use captchas at 1 per hour as I stated here.
Comment has been collapsed.
This means a once a day visitor would be able to spend 400P, while a more frequent visitor could spend 576P. I think that's fair, it would give more regular users 30% more points compared to someone that just stops by once a day. I think it would be appreciated by more frequent visitors, and they only need to visit twice a day to get that 30% benefit.
I'm not sure if that's fair. Isn't one of the reasons the pointsystem changed was to be more fair. And not the constant entering of bots, and scriptjoiners. Give everybody an even chance. Everybody 400/500p. With your chance the more active user gets more then 40% extra and can therefore enter more and win more. That's not what I would qualify as fair.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with the new changes suggested here. Moving from 5P/15m to 6P while lowering the accumulated cap to 400P does benefit regular visitors, making sure diligent members had some benefit over those who only drop by once in a while. I think this is fare.
Although I miss having enough Ps to participate in every single giveaway of games I'd like, the idea is sinking in slowly and I'm getting used to the new system. The frustration of skipping giveaways is leaving as I become more picky with which GA I participate in. And as expected, my odds haven't dropped: less Ps for everyone means less participants in many GAs, which balances out the fact that I participate in less GAs.
I was opposed to the change when it began, but I guess 1 week was enough to convert me and have me accept the new system as better.
Now, if you could change the time system to add more hours per day so I can actually play all my games. 1hour every hour, with a 24-hour cap/day is not enough. Raising the days to have 40 hours would be nice. I'd even settle for 30 :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Being an active user in SG, like almost all the active people I tallked with and are agree with me, I have to say this:
-
Well, at least is one point more. In my case, I have lost a lot of opportunities to win wishlisted games (of 30P, 40P, 50P...) with 10 entries more or less. I don't have points (even if I earn, because to enter a GA of 50P I have to wait 2h and a half, and I don't have to win it, and are 2h and a half lost), since the new system I didn't see more than 200P together in my account, and with the bad lick I'm suffering these days, I can't enter almost nothing. But well, althoug for me 6P is little, at least is one point more.
-
I like this idea. 500 to 400 is perfect. Even to 300 again. 300P in 750 minutes are 12,5 hours, being 2 visits every day (I see it fair to the active users) and 2 visits for the not so active users, I think is better. But at least, 500 to 400 is good, of course.
-
In this point... well, are a small GAs that are affected. Anyway, if we see soon a software bundle (like clickteam fusion, for example) if the liit is 100P, bye bye to the points :P
Comment has been collapsed.
No issue with any of the changes. More than all I'm curious to see the 1-month impact on auto-entry. I hope you'll post a follow up and update about the results.
Comment has been collapsed.
-
Seems fine. 20% more is fine.
-
Not a fan of reducing the cap again. 500 helped reduce the advantage of auto-joiners. I don't see why more frequent visitors should deserve more points than others. Also makes banking more important again, and more likely overflow when entries are auto-removed on a win.
-
Good change (or reversion).
Comment has been collapsed.
Can I suggest something? I think that is more fair if the giveaways follow the criteria of the points for the minimum time alive. If a giveaway have 100P, the minimum time that this giveaway should stay opened is of 4 hour and 16 min (based on 6P/15m), to give a chance to who really want to participate of that giveaway to join it. If it has 30P, should stay opened a minimum time of 1.hour and 15min. And for giveaways with less than 24P the minimum time will always be 1h.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not a bad idea, though I feel like 4 hours is still pretty darn short (thus still open to complaints about 'flash' GAs).
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, but I think that is fair for that specific giveaway. Sometimes bundle sites sell bundles with good expensive games (like this one with Borderlands on Humble Bundle) and a lot of people create flash giveaways just to increase their levels as soon as possible. So a lot of giveaways that demand a lot of points are created and if you have one of these games on your wishlist, you can't enter them all because of the lack of points.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, let's say 3 of the same game drop. Per your calculation, I'd only be able to enter 1 if all are set to that minimum duration. Doubling or tripling the time allows me to enter at least one more.
If your point is that it "is more fair if the giveaways follow the criteria of the points for the minimum time alive", only allowing us to enter a single option (presuming you started with 0 points at the time the GA started) isn't a whole lot different, especially in a wave from a bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi cg,
i see it in a close way to heavenhairsixes.
You made the changes to make anything against the autojoiners. From my point of view not the right things against them.
It was said that the normal players not will win lesser GA's because all have lesser points and so on.
Look at my screenshot to see that my stats dropped very much AND i avoid to join the AAA titles from my wishlist that are under lvl2 and sometime i avoid all (lvl2+ too) because the high entries. So i would say i am very picky where i spend my points.
You made the point change that the people must invest not more so much time on the site.
That fits by the entry the GA's (because lesser points = lesser entries) BUT not fit's all in all when you try to micromanagment to get points back from GA's that have after a while to much entries and you try to spend this points better.
I personal use sg maybe 20% of the time before what is good for all other in my life.
But from the changes a lot of the fun with this site is gone too.
Because the mainpart "do anything against autojoiners and boters" are not reached.
You should kick 100k of them and the problems will solved afterwards "from alone".
Yes i think that are AT LEAST the numbers we speak from -i fear the real numbers are around 500k-
It is INFESTED on lvl 0 and 1 (at higher levels the autojoiners are very active too but the bots are not such a big problem)
And now you will change the pointsystem to more points (good for bots and autojoiners) and reduced cap (only good for bots and autojoiners).
I am complete against this change. It supports the autojoiners and botters.
50p change back to 100p i am against too.
It fit's only for a little part but you reduced the points and after the change back to 100p this points are higher then before (because the people have lesser then before the first change).
Look as extreme example on the RPG Maker Software GA's (only on the points). And set it in combination to the real price payed by humble bundle software bundle (~12€/$15).
Many hundrets of points and a high CV.
And now look on new AAA games (as examle the new Mordor Game that will come). It is not fair that a generous GA Creator will get less then a software bundle buyer AND loose much more after a short time from the price reduce.
From my line of sight it is a punishment for the people that are generous.
And over the software bundles it is very easy to push the level on sg (much to easy for my taste).
When i set up software stuff on sg i will set it as open for all and lvl 0 to feed the bots and autojoiners. I want not that any real player waste such a lot of points for such stuff they can buy themself for really less money.
I think you really want change anthing to the better but i don't think that you push the right buttons (NUKE EM ALL would help...^^).
I am ill with fever and stuff so sorry no thinking at the moment over better ways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would suggest that the cap either stays the same or only gets lowered to 450. Why? For the poor souls that work 8 hours a day and can't check SG at work. 8 hours of sleep + 8 hours of work + driving time can easily be over 16,6 hours. Before when you got much more points it wasn't that much of an issue, but now that you get less of them you gotta make every point count ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
+1, with the low point generation, at least the high cap allows us to bank and have a stash to "invest" in case one of our wishlisted GA gets bundled.
Comment has been collapsed.
or when you work 12 hours :D
atleast i can check it sometimes on mobile app
Comment has been collapsed.
One argument against this new change is that it may mess up the results of the previous change. For example, in programming it is a good idea to change things one by one and thoroughly test the code each time before introducing more changes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for all of the feedback on the recent changes. Overall, I think they're working well, and the last user poll on the forum seemed slightly in favor of the new point system. However, it's pretty clear any modifications to the point system will result in some heated debates, and I highly doubt any solution will appeal to everyone. Nonetheless, I would like to make a few more adjustments after talking to a wide range of people and reviewing comments the past week. I was thinking about making the following changes in the next couple of days...
Switching from 5P to 6P every 15 minutes. There is no right answer here, because some users found they still had too many points, and others believed they were too limited. I would like to raise it a little though, and I'm leaning towards 6P every 15 minutes, which will give users an extra 96P per day (576P compared to 480P) to join a few more giveaways.
Decreasing the point cap from 500P to 400P. After further thought, I think 500P is too high for the point cap, and it evens the odds a little too much for the once a day casual visitor compared to users that visit two or three times a day. I want to lower this to 400P. If we switch to 6P every 15 minutes as mentioned above, users would reach a 400P cap after 16.6 hours. This means a once a day visitor would be able to spend 400P, while a more frequent visitor could spend 576P. I think that's fair, it would give more regular users 44% more points compared to someone that just stops by once a day. I think it would be appreciated by more frequent visitors, and they only need to visit twice a day to get that benefit.
Switching the maximum number of points to enter a single giveaway back to 100P instead of 50P. I'm fairly indifferent about this change since it would affect a small number of giveaways. Users also seemed relatively split in a recent poll, but they voted in favor of 100P, so I'll side with the vote in this case.
Comment has been collapsed.