I don't, but the system as a whole encourages people to, which results in huge numbers of people entering giveaways just to use up their points.
I think it'd be better if the system had something that encouraged people to burn points on it rather than entering random giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, you're pretty wrong on this.
The way it is prevents hording, you're just thinking of this in terms of what benefits you most - not what makes the most sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you misunderstand what I'm suggesting.
I want to allow people to spend points on "bounties" for games that they want, which increases the contributor value of those games temporarily (and have a top ten list for the highest-bounty games.) This benefits everyone, because it encourages people to gift games that people want, and discourages people from spending points on games they don't want.
People who prefer to could of course continue to do things exactly the way they do now, and the only difference would be some shifts to a game's contribution to contributor value based on demand.
(I'm not suggesting that this would replace the current system; it would be done on top of the current system. Points could still be used the way they're used now, would still max out at 300, and would still be spent to enter giveaways as normal -- is that what's causing the confusion?)
How does this benefit me (beyond the ways I've described, which benefit everyone)?
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree. It in no way discourages or prevents hoarding. Sink your points into long-GAs and you have now hoarded however many points you have to. Cycle them out into long-GAs as they get closer to the deadline. Pull them out and invest them in any game you want.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Sink your points into long-GAs and you have now hoarded"
This is a an inherently paradoxical statement. A sink removes points. A source adds them. Holding and hoarding occur in the middle of those events. Currently the only point sink is having points in giveaways when they end. Also, you don't have points generated for you when holding 300P. So, putting points in long-GAs doesn't actually serve as a sink, since they exist in a retrievable state. /pedantry
Comment has been collapsed.
I, likewise apologize for my tone. I think the italics provide too much emphasis (at least in my head now).Also: Yay! we're on the same page.
I really should reread all the posts in a chain I'm replying to, to check where "it"s and such are pointed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends. I slip up once in a while, but I generally only enter GAs for games I want to play. However if I'm at 300 and I entered all the GAs for Warlock... Well, I was always curious about that Defenders of Ardania game. (Contemporary examples only, I don't know what games are being gifted much atm since I filter out all the ones I look at the store page for and say "meh". I'm actively entering for both of those :P)
Comment has been collapsed.
+(except I also like the op's idea too instead of being opposed to it and not seeing why 2 sinc options are mutually exclusive)
if I could dump all 300 of my points into 30 entries for that 10 point game I really wanted I'd do that(would work much better here than indiegala since here we all have the same pool of points to spend, so extra points in one giveaway is points not in another. so I'd have better odds there but others would have better odds eleswhere in places I opted not to put my points(other games I want but less than this one. not randoms I entered to use up points (which I don't do anyway really...jsut games i might not have entered for but look interesting so I guess I do sortof) although multiple entries or any other point sinc would obviously suck up those points first so yeah, them too)
I also like the bounty idea.
(edit- then again not sure how it'd be received here though so maybe not "work better than galagivaway"(maybe if extra odds had a diminishing return(entry 1 is +1, entry 2 is +.95 entry 3 is +.9(but its also simpler for extra entries to be straight extra entries so either way)), and maybe if bounty didn't change cv so much as just move it up the list of "most requested" or something)(and then again again I haven't really been here long enough to really support anything that'd change it yet on 2nd thought.((it'd probably change the feel of the site. so I'm actually going to vote neutral on all changes(including what I said myself elsewhere about the bundle list being pointless or needing changing)afterall. ...so nevermind, just ignore me lol))))
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a bad idea. Look what happened with Gala Giveaways - there are only 'extra odds' gas there and entering once into single raffle is barely pointless. Best thing on SG is that all entrants have the same chances to win. It's just pure random luck without any advantages.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont enter random giveaways i prefer to enter giveaways for games i want to play but.
it's easy to max out 300 points and i do feel like i have to enter giveaways for certain games i am only partially interested in.
now its easy to say...hey just enter the giveaways u want to enter but that logic is naive. you can only expect people to be people.
I think an easier approach would be a fixed number of points per hour where 300 points would take days to fill up rather than hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
personally I like it based on the point value of whats added. a well balanced hourly point system would give too many points in lulls (so itd be even more entering everything just to spend)and too few in times like now when everybody's posting gifts(so we'd get complaints about not having enough, or that the point bank isn't large enough to save for times like now or something).
point regen tied to existing gifts its more or less(cause duration varies by gifter preference) the system with a constant ability to enter only(well slightly more I guess because of missed hourly ones while you were gone) 5% of whats available right(maybe reducing that 5 to 4 or something i donno exactly. but the best way to reduce seems to reduce within the current system instead of dividing points from games imo)?
Comment has been collapsed.
What's with all these "I want this and that to change" threads lately, It's nothing personal but these last days half of the treads on SG tend to be about CV or the points system.
And it's starting to annoy me, since clearly most of the times it's only benefiting the person who came up with it.
If you have a shitload of points left structurally maybe that means that you own too many games already?
Maybe people should have a look at how crappy the competitors their websites are, you might notice that some of them also implement a lot of functions, that backfire as soon as people find a way to abuse those new things.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think its partly boredom. (for example I'm here cause I'm bored and this place is a site I visit and has a forum, and if theres nothing good going on the forum just now I'd try to talk about the site cause its the most obvious topic :) so I end up joining a thread complaining about the humble thq weekly bundle's impact on cv cause its whats happening right now and seems to be the one with the most people.)
and when people doing that end up thinking of an idea they like they make a thread about it to show others and see what they think (to use the forum because forum)
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess you've got a good point there, the fact that the only forum I use is this one does say something about how awesome this community is.
But the thing is, SG is so popular for a reason, it's a great site that works perfectly because all you do is enter GA's or create some and as soon as you start adding different layers/mechanics it might destroy the one thing that's so great about this site, equality.
just look at the ongoing discussion regarding CV ever since it's been implemented.
GalaGiveaways started out pretty much the same as SG, but if you take a look at it now you can see that all the new functions they have added have destroyed the main goal of the site, namely giving away games and giving everyone a fair chance at winning them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think the presented idea disrupts equality. It discourages bad behavior by providing an alternative action for members to take. It also helps people to decide which games to give by providing a meaningful way to determine interest in games. The timed nature of "bounties" means that only active site users can have input on this trait. Additionally, I only imagine it affecting games up to +10CV in extreme cases (game just came out, everyone wants it, but no one is gifting it yet).
If you feel that altering CV is inappropriate, what would you think of the idea if the "bounties" had no affect on CV, but a ranked top 20 list still existed?
Comment has been collapsed.
+(also yeah, I don't think he really meant it to be huge either(although the only way to know would be to ask I guess) more a way to sink points and vote. it'd be active instead of the passively harvested from steam wishlist we have now, and the cost of some points makes the votes less spammy)
Comment has been collapsed.
Such a list already exists, Giveaways->our wishlist.
I'm aware that a lot of people use their wishlist for other things but I don't think that adding a new function will work out as intended (like that wishlist)
Besides that, implementing a new function like that isn't as easy as importing something that already exists on steam & don't forget that such things cost a lot of money to implement.
I honestly couldn't care less about CV though, and i'm assuming that people who give away a copy of bioshock infinite for example don't care either.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, I got tired of galagivaways quickly(the only thing in its favor is that I seem to win more there lol)I was one of the ones complaining about their multiple entries thing and not having a filter to avoid it, I think alot of their problems seem to follow their system of tying points to giveaways generated(vs here with a single point pool we all share. you can see where they were going with it(force you to gift) but it didn't really work that well(for one thing you get more value from your points being a leach and using long term ga to hoard points than you do gifting.they made gifting an exchange of gifts for currency to enter for gifts, but you need so much to win you'd have to gift 10 games to get one so it can't be an exchange like they want it so its a bit broken at the core), and they keep adding features trying to balance it somehow. they need a clearer idea of what they're trying to do and focus on one thing at a time)
Comment has been collapsed.
I knew I recognized that pic. of yours from GG, you where the one who posted that on the forum over there right?
And now they've implemented something new, Feedback based increases on gained points, so now everyone creates GA's for people with feedback + extra odds & max players, and even though I have enough feedback over there it really ruins the whole idea of giving away games.
My OP might have been a bit over the top but what happened to GG is exactly what i'm afraid will happen here if SG decides to implement random new functions.
Comment has been collapsed.
probably. that might have been me(sounds like it), its also one of the generic avatars steam has(mount and blade is squirrels with weapons) so it might be a few people lol
yeah. thats the danger with adding too many features and/or doing too much too fast (or listening to the loudest voice like that guy on galagifts who kept telling them what to do cause he worked for a casino or something and made them panic and overcorrect when tinkering with their points. swinging from a 5k to 1k regen to 10k and back to 2 in a few weeks) any new suggestion has to be put on a delay to be thought about for awhile, considered with how it'd work with and impact what you've already got, tested somehow maybe polled again ect. they react way too fast trying to please everybody. not sure exactly but just that they did it wrong(kindof got a bit "inmates running the asylum" for a bit. suggestions keep sites alive/nonstagnent but you can't alienate current users to try and attract more ect. not sure where the balance is)
(so its probably good that steamgifts seems to ignore alot of the suggestions, or does what it gets pretty slowly, but they also occasionally reply which is nice too.
but for example they added support for groups and cv filters for public ect when people asked. so they still listen they just don't get carried away)
Comment has been collapsed.
Please explain this sentiment. I don't understand it, since the idea would not change the 300P limit and it would provide an alternate way to spend P.
Unless you are suggesting the value which point generation is tied to, would be the modified CV instead of Steam base cost. In that case though, P generation still shouldn't be ridiculous because every giveaway created at the higher value would reduce the value of the next giveaway of the same game. So the idea would dramatically reduce the effect of bundle game 'floods' on P generation.
Comment has been collapsed.
He probably didn't read the thread and assumed it was about storing points for future use instead of "losing" them.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I may share my two cents, this is an interesting idea. If I were to do a value system, I'd make it so that wishlisted items would have more value, and highly given games would have less. Of course, I'm not talking for SteamGifts. I think points are fine for what they are, and they shouldn't be used for anything else.
I think I can say that SteamGifts will never ever allow multiple entries. You can put that idea to rest.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wishlisted items as in community wishlist or personal wishlist?
Comment has been collapsed.
Community wishlist is the sum of all wishlists in the SG userbase.
Comment has been collapsed.
The main problem with that I feel is the large amount of inactive users on SG. They throw the wishlist off by a considereable amount.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see your point, but I think it's not something of high significance. Even if a game is high up on the community wishlist, despite being provided by many sales and bundles (like Saints Row 3), since there'll be more giveaways of it compared to other highly wishlisted items, it'll have a lower value compared to them.
Also, when you sync, your wishlist is synced with the site too, so I assume most of the wishlists SG takes from users are somewhat true, and represent what the community wants.
It would also make it harder to "abuse" the system, as unless you have something around 10k inactive users that have a certain unknown game wishlisted to boost its value, you won't be able to "farm" any contribution value. Any widely provided game, like the bundle games, will automatically have lower value as most users will give them away first.
Keep in mind that this is just an idea, and will not be implemented to SG in any way. I'm also not saying that this is the best solution possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think just less points generation would work fine. As it is, it just feels like too many points are available, and coincidently, too many entries on each giveaway = less chances to win each giveaway.
System works decent enough as is, but fewer points would equal the ability to enter less giveaways and increase the chances of winning each giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think you read necrotron's post properly. try again.
his wouldn't change anything about equality. nothing would be pay to win.
your way however that cuts point growth based on contribution...(and yes i know I sound biased based on my cv being only 5)
so I think you typed it and it just comes across wrong/unintended lol
Comment has been collapsed.
You misunderstand. Reducing the point generation would not have any effect on the number of giveaways or the contributions, only on the number of people per giveaway. So if you entered 10 giveaways with 100 entries each before, with a point halving you'd only be able to enter 5 giveaways with 50 entries each. Your estimated wins will be the same - 0.1, but your entries per win will be halved.
To point out the benefit: You'll join half as many giveaways, but will have twice the chance to win every one you join. So instead of, say, entering for 5 games that you're very interested in and 5 that you're not as interested in, you'll only enter for the first 5 and will be more likely to get them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering that I don't need to "log in" most of the time, and that I'm coming to the site about 10 times a day, when would point generation stop? It doesn't seem well tought of.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, someone who's active on the site could enter even more giveaways. (Or acucumulate an infinite amount of points) It would be even worse than it is now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good idea, wish I had more to add but I really don't
Comment has been collapsed.
What about some a TremorGames style shop? Get rid of the point cap, stop the points from growing overnight, add surveys and BANG! Sell games. E.g: Let's just say, The Binding of Isaac is 5 euro. That would make it 500 points. Or let's just say, XCOM is 40 euro. That makes it 4000 points.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah i still dun understand, someday i log in to find i have more then 4k points and somdeay i login to find there is not even 100 points
Comment has been collapsed.
on galagifts if points are under 10k they regen hourly, until a cap of 10k(takes 24 hrs) where regen stops.
and you can buy points, and you can earn points by doing givaways(its based on the pot of poitns spent to enter with a few other factors you can choose that will end up multiplying or subtracting) and sometimes the givaways are for points(10k at a time) and I think they were adding some sort of poker thing where you pay points for cards and bet points to win points or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
Make submitting support tickets cost 300P. Or allow them to be spent on cosmetic hats that don't improve your chances of winning yet show your prestige.
Comment has been collapsed.
I use my points on games I want to play and rarely have enough, thank you very much. Especially when wave of games I'd like to try arrives at one moment. It was impossible for anyone to enter all X-COMs for one. Try not clicking compulsively 'enter' on everything, maybe?
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that we earn points too quickly. I find myself having way too many points to enter for the games I want (except when there's a ton of giveaways for The Ship, as there are right now, and I'm entering every one of them in hopes of winning). As someone that is unlucky on the site (my one win being a 25k key giveaway and my estimated to win ratio being >3:1), I wonder how many people are dropping their unused points into giveaways they don't actually care about.
But then again, this is an unpopular opinion and more people complain about not earning points quickly enough than earning points too quickly, so I think the majority are doing just that - spending unused points in random giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm happy to get my hands on anything - which is why I enter everything. I have only won 1 game not including the one a friend gave to me via this site.
There's nothing to make my chances higher on games I actually want, and I enter literally every giveaway for the ones I do want (the ship, don't starve)
Comment has been collapsed.
13 Comments - Last post 44 minutes ago by CBlade
0 Comments - Created 45 minutes ago by CBlade
1,413 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by XJ777
115 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by APocketfulofStars
1,344 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by LuckyStrike1305
29 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Carlo
15,416 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by devotee
23 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Myrsan
82 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Mimiq
8,970 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by Haelsteir
108 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by Peiperissimus
81 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by Mitsukuni
26,493 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by JMM72
6 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by Fraden
I was discussing this in another thread and thought it deserved a thread of its own.
Basically, at the moment, Steamgifts encourages people to enter giveaways for games they don't really care about, because otherwise your points will max out and you'll waste any new ones. That seems bad -- ideally, we want games to go to people who actually want them.
So I think that the site needs some sort of "point sink" that lets you spend points on something unrelated to games. One idea I had in my other post (which was about tweaks to contributor values) was to let people spend their points on "bounties" that temporarily increase the contributor value of a game (for those who give it away in a certain timeframe); and have a top 10 list for the most highly-bountied games. This would have two good effects: It'd encourage people to give away games people want, and it would discourage people from entering giveaways for games they don't want (because they'll spend their points posting bounties for the games they do want instead.) As the game is given away by people, the posted bounty on it goes back down.
Obviously you wouldn't be able to give away a game you currently have a bounty posted on.
But anyway, if anyone else has ideas for point sinks like that, I'd be interested in hearing them.
Comment has been collapsed.