meh, higher level is indeed increase the probability of winning, but still not increasing the probability of your wishlisted game got GA-ed
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm personally fine with the odds I have winning. Hell, I've given away a lot more then I've won, but... I've also won some pretty fantastic games. My luck has been so great, I can't even enter your giveaways because my won CV is higher then gifted CV, even though I've given away 4x times what I've won. However, a few of my giveaways have changed to $0 value due to being removed from store for remastered versions, or complete versions, etc etc. But yah, simply put, I don't think it would be right for me to get extra odds based on my ratio.
Comment has been collapsed.
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.... pay to win? LOL
Comment has been collapsed.
I see the negative criticism's points but still, good food for thought. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think equal chances for each qualifying entry works just fine, thanks. No need to change that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do get your train of thought, but since several people already made good points why I personally wouldn't agree with your proposal and you're asking for a bump, have a cute gif instead ;>.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Since I can't add anything to the discussion that hasn't been mentiones already... have a gif :3
Comment has been collapsed.
I like your taste in GAs. I have all but one.
As for the suggestion, it just creates another method to abuse the system. It's already hard enough with Real CV, etc. to get things accurate all the time. Would you use the new method, a combination of both, etc.? Too many coding headaches.
Comment has been collapsed.
Quantity =/= Quality.
People would spam 10cents trash to increase the ratio. Levels, which take care of real ratio, is more fair, money speaking (welp if people used it).
Comment has been collapsed.
Edit: Example of the idea: Person A sent 20 games and won 19, Person B sent 20 games and won 0, person B should have 2 or 3 or 4 times the chance of winning compared to person A (not equal chance), while CV Ratio of person B goes down his chance goes down too.
Hum, i thought he was speaking about CV too at first, but his example in his edit talk about numbers...
Comment has been collapsed.
Oooh, right this is a bit confusing indeed :s The GAs in the thread do filter using CV ratio though
Comment has been collapsed.
Besides my previous comment on one of your replies - you're misusing the word generous. Generous doesn't mean they give a lot and take only a few. Generous only refers to the given part, yet you consistantly refer to high-ratio people with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not how I use, it IS what the word means :)
Generous:
showing a readiness to give more of something, especially money, than is strictly necessary or expected.
(of a thing) larger or more plentiful than is usual or necessary.
Comment has been collapsed.
The meaning of Generous can be subjective,
i.e. a man who earns $100 and gives $20 is more generious than a man who earns $100,000 and gives $1000
Comment has been collapsed.
We're still only talking about giving, not taking from others ( I know the biblical story about the old lady, thought about as well, but here the given thing is given, no matter who gets it, so it wouldn't count for being generous)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thing is that the half of high-level users didn't spend a dime. There are lots of people who asked developers for keys to "promoting" their games here. 99% of them a total unplayable sh1t. They do it to get 10 lvl and to be able to obtain expensive games. With your idea, they gonna win even more without actually contributing sg.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most of the time they are selling them online for less than a cent. Those devs made games to profit on cards to them. So more they gave away, more cards it'll generate. Anyway valve kinda counters it with new card drop system, but we have dozens of 8-10lvl, who is looking for profit here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.