You're not forced to enter public giveaways. They're indeed a waste of points for the most part.
You can always try and enter Private Giveaways where the odds of winning are fairly more acceptable. Good luck finding them, however.
Comment has been collapsed.
But to get into private hand is difficult (to join the group), not every community maintains its own private hand here, my friends, and so give me some extra games without the rally, with that content.
I have a portal for distribution, how do I get to a private group? I do not often buy the game because hands often will not, but not often take part in the dealings of different games
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on what kind of lotteries. Most lotteries have some sort of entries to winners ratio that's pretty set in stone, scratchers and some state lotteries for example often has as high as 49% payback. However seeing as the prizes on this site are entirely supplied by the users you can't really compare it to a lottery. It is just giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh look, it's another person with almost no entries complaining about the site and coming up with ways to improve the odds of winning. People often compare this site with the lottery, which is fairly accurate, but this comparison misses one key point: You are paying absolutely nothing for a chance to win something. Even if you win a $1 DLC, you have still just achieved an infinite profit.
As has been stated in every thread like this that comes up: People think that they would improve their own odds with a system such as entry limits, but instead you are decreasing your chances of winning. "Why is this?" you might ask. Simply put, if you put a limit on the number of entries, then you have just made it so there's a good chance you won't even be able to enter the giveaway. You just reduced your 0.001% chance of winning to a 0% chance of winning.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. This keeps getting suggested, and it's not a better idea now than it was last time. Limiting the number of participants in a giveaway will only encourage bots. If you want to limit entries in your giveaways, make a shorter giveaway. Same effect, and it doesn't encourage bots quite as much.
Comment has been collapsed.
"but can be given a chance at one million, I think that it would be more realistic, not like you won a car"
Chance in one million? Exaggeration much. It's not like if after every giveaway you enter your chance goes down, each giveaway is SEPARATE from the other. Where's that one thread that explains it to math illiterates?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see a problem with it giving the gifter the chance to limit the entries to a certain number. Doing 1 hour giveaways already limits it.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are so many things you can already do to limit the entries though without resorting to a hardcoded limit that will just encourage a whole bunch of bots to enter it automatically, filling it up within minutes.
You can already:
1) Set the time to 1 hour
2) Make a private giveaway and put the link on the forums
3) Make a group giveaway for the public group
All of these are still public, and in the latter two cases you also cut out the people who can't be arsed to visit the community now and then. Seems to me that adding the option of a hard limit is an inferior choice that doesn't deserve the time it would take to implement.
Comment has been collapsed.
restrictions on time, are not fair for everyone because people saw that and took part, and the maximum number of participants may be established at any time.
I think those who participate will be enjoyable to participate with 100 participants and not a couple thousand for game cost $ 10
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait...time restrictions aren't fair to everyone but entry restrictions are? So it's not okay for the giveaway to be stated as 1 hour long, but it IS okay for a 2 week long giveaway to end in less than an hour because the max entries was reached?
Comment has been collapsed.
"the opportunity to win something unreal" this sounds pessemistic and somewhat selfish, you can interpert this like "i can't win, i want better chances", you're forgetting the fact that even though your chances are low there's ALWAYS a winner.
From my point of view, if there would ever be a possibility to cap the entry limit, it should be optional and set by the gifter.
Comment has been collapsed.
This doesn't really resolve the previously mentioned issue of entry bots. So instead of having a giveaway that fills up and ends, you now have a giveaway that is just sitting there but still nobody can enter it because the entries per hour are met within seconds of becoming available.
The concept of limiting entries has been brought up many times before, and I'm sure it will be brought up many more times, but the fact is that it just has no real benefit. Entry limits promote a site full of bots and people who are so concerned about being able to get into the giveaways that they don't have time for the forum. Thus, the dedicated members who contribute to the community but only visit every now and then are punished while the people who sit here just to enter as many things as they can, as fast as they can, are rewarded.
Then of course people always go the route of suggesting that the entry limit is only an optional setting. But here's the thing about that: Most people who are giving a gift away don't care how many people enter, so they wouldn't use it. The people who do care about how many people enter are the ones who are smart enough to make a group or a private giveaway. Either way, time and effort was just put into changing the site to add this option that virtually nobody uses.
Comment has been collapsed.
here wrote that limiting the number of participants limits the law of others to win, then let's let everyone participate in a hand, cancel the points, except for points not limit?
From the outset, participants limited the points that not everyone could participate! This system has just a little crash, and despite the limitations of participants very much. Therefore, making this feature will add the same point constraints.
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason why it's public is for everyone to have an equal opportunity to participate.
The purpose to me as it seems is that I can log onto the website in my own convenience and participate in the giveaways that I desire.
I would rather not be forced to sit and ponder on the website until I find a giveaway of a game that I'd look forward to playing and also knowing that the spots are limited.
Edit: In response to your second comment. That would be even worse. Users knowing that there would be no consequences would carelessly join any giveaways given the opportunity, lowering the chances of the people who would on the other hand want the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
61 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by BarbaricGenie
379 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by yush88
8,466 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Warriot
25 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Warriot
15,384 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by PoeticKatana
110 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by pb1
1,160 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by bniky95
72 Comments - Last post 43 minutes ago by Mithelis
77 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by Axelflox
134 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by afsejder
2,309 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Peppeo
91 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Bum8ara5h
346 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by xkingpin
34 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by kctan
Proposed maximum number entries in giveaways
Large influx users, the number of people involved in the distribution from 100 to 3000 users, the opportunity to win something unreal, I think should limit the maximum distribution limit entries according to their value.
from left value, right maximum entries
Maximum number of participants distribution
$ 5 - 50
$ 10 -100
$ 15 - 150
$ 20 - 200
$ 25 -250
$ 30 -300
$ 40 -400
$ 50 -500
$ 60 - 600
here wrote that limiting the number of participants limits the right of others to win, then let's let everyone participate in a hand, cancel the points, except for points not limit?
From the outset, participants limited the points that not everyone could participate! This system has just a little crash, and despite the limitations of participants very much. Therefore, making this feature will add the same point constraints.
Sorry for my English
Comment has been collapsed.