Do you think calculation of real CV for WON giveaways should be changed?
You should post this in the genereal SGTools thread and talk to Knsys directly. The point with the CV not calculated if you the giveaway has less than 5 entries is something I mentioned there already. But Knsys is aware of it and let it in purposefully. I think he gave a good reason but can't remember anymore ...
As for Steamgifts or the community overall: They can't really help with this as the "Real CV Won" is technically inexistent for Steamgifts.com.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe it's up to community here to decide which way is better. I don't think knsys would be against it if majority will require it. And I made it a separate topic to bring community attention to this. If I wanted just knsys opinion - I would have posted in his topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Knsys made this tool for the community. He shared this service for everyone, so yes, community opinion must be important for him. I can imagine only two reasons, why someone would make such service for the community:
1) He wants to help. If this is so - community opinion would be important for him.
2) He wants to get money from ads (oh, come on, really? is this even possible?) - well, in this case he is interested in more visitors, and so community opinion would be important for him.
I'm not saying that he must, or will, implement every community suggestion. It's up to him after all. But, before asking him to do something - I want to make sure community really want (or need) any changes/features. And that's the reason I made this topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it really doesn't count unless it has more than 5 entries, that should be changed.
It doesn't. I checked before making this topic.
doesn't matter if the chance was 0.001% or 99.999%.
It's not about chances. CV is reduced for >5 copies not because changes are higher, but to prevent abuse. Developer-made giveaways are basically free, because developers haven't paid a penny for the whole giveaway of 10000 copies, it's basically the same as gleam.io giveaways, just on SG platform. I believe that "free" games should not be counted as "won CV".
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe that "free" games should not be counted as "won CV".
no arguments here with that logic, it makes sense to me. but "won CV" on sgtools still reflects it because steamgifts still gives CV. the whole point in realCV is to show you the way steamgifts calculates it. if we alter sgtools but not steamgifts, then realCV would no longer be accurate like it's supposed to be.
Comment has been collapsed.
But wait, there is no "won CV" on SG at all, this is entirely SGTools feature.
Comment has been collapsed.
reversing sent CV is what was won CV is though. especially with nowadays gogobundles 50packs & digs bulk purchasing, there are a lot of non developer mass GAs that this would effect.
at least if we're going to start messing with realcv's in won or sent, it should be way more then just 5copies. like imo only the 1000+ copies really.
edit: odd typo strikeout.
Comment has been collapsed.
We must not mess with sgtools CV for sent gifts, because it should be exactly same as SG. My suggestion affects only CV for won gifts, which is entirely sgtools feature, and can be anything that suits majority of users. And, I believe that my suggestion is manking "won CV" closer to the "reverse sent CV" you mentioned. If giveaway creator gets less sent CV - giveaway creator should also get less "won CV". Of course, it's really hard to make it exactly equal, so I suggest just to make it some closer. As for "gogobundles 50packs & digs bulk purchasing" and other similar offers - yes, it makes making mass giveaways affordable for non-developers. But it is because games there are cheaper! I think that lower CV for mass giveaways is fair. SG have system to lower "sent" CV for mass giveaways already, so why don't make the same for "won CV" on SGTools? And, if we are doing this - why not make it close to the rules fo SG sent CV, i.e. start from 5 copies?
Comment has been collapsed.
i just think it will dramatically drop realcv far far too much.. for example i counted just my latest 50x wins 5+ copies, and 20 of my latest 50wins are 5+ copies. almost half my won cv would vanish if this were implemented.
edit: and you'd just about have 0 realcv from looking at only one page of your own.
Comment has been collapsed.
It won't vanish, just will decrease. Yes, if you win a lot of mass giveaways it could end up a big difference. But, once again - there is already HUGE difference for sent CV of such giveaways, why not for won CV? You said yourself, that won CV should be reverse to sent CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
i said won cv should be reverse meaning if someone sent something, then someone received something. imo if they had higher odds at winning, it should be even higher realcv won, not lower. but this is the next closest accuracy you can get really.
clearly we're going to keep going in circles though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, let's go into details.
Let's see how it is now:
I do a giveaway of 10 copies, every copy have full price of 1$.
Sent CV:
1+1+1+1+1+0.9+0.81+0.729+0.6561+0.59049 = 8.68559
Current implementation of won CV:
every winner get +1 won CV, giving us:
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10.
My suggestion of won CV:
every winner get 8.68559/10 = 0.868559
0.868559+0.868559+0.868559+0.868559+0.868559+
+0.868559+0.868559+0.868559+0.868559+0.868559=8.68559
So, my suggestion - is what needed to make possible this:
cv should be reverse meaning if someone sent something, then someone received something.
And once again - it has nothing to do with the chances to win, just quantity of copies.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no idea where he got this "0 realcv" from. It can't be 0 even with my suggestion. I tried to explain my idea as best as I can, but it seems that I failed again.
Comment has been collapsed.
He is right on the part with won gifts with less than 5 entries not counting towards the real cv won calculation. You can take my profile as reference as I have two of them. But as I said before I talked to Knsys before because it seemed unfair that I get an "advantage" by those gifts not being counted although I received them. But Knsys let it be purposefully like that. Can't remember the reason though.
Comment has been collapsed.
50 copies of a 4.99 bundle game>
1 0.7485 0.7485
2 0.7485 1.497
3 0.7485 2.2455000000000003
4 0.7485 2.994
5 0.7485 3.7425
6 0.6736500000000001 4.41615
7 0.6062850000000001 5.022435
8 0.5456565000000001 5.5680914999999995
9 0.4910908500000001 6.0591823499999995
10 0.4419817650000001 6.501164115
11 0.39778358850000006 6.8989477035
12 0.35800522965000003 7.25695293315
13 0.322204706685 7.579157639835
14 0.28998423601650003 7.8691418758515
15 0.26098581241485 8.13012768826635
16 0.23488723117336502 8.365014919439716
17 0.21139850805602853 8.576413427495744
18 0.19025865725042568 8.766672084746169
19 0.17123279152538312 8.937904876271553
20 0.15410951237284481 9.092014388644397
21 0.13869856113556034 9.230712949779958
22 0.1248287050220043 9.355541654801963
23 0.11234583451980387 9.467887489321766
24 0.10111125106782348 9.56899874038959
25 0.09100012596104114 9.659998866350632
26 0.08190011336493702 9.741898979715568
27 0.07371010202844332 9.815609081744011
28 0.06633909182559898 9.88194817356961
29 0.05970518264303908 9.94165335621265
30 0.05373466437873518 9.995388020591385
31 0.04836119794086166 10.043749218532247
32 0.043525078146775496 10.087274296679022
33 0.03917257033209795 10.12644686701112
34 0.035255313298888154 10.161702180310009
35 0.03172978196899934 10.193431962279009
36 0.028556803772099404 10.221988766051108
37 0.025701123394889464 10.247689889445997
38 0.023131011055400517 10.270820900501398
39 0.020817909949860464 10.291638810451259
40 0.01873611895487442 10.310374929406134
41 0.016862507059386977 10.32723743646552
42 0.015176256353448278 10.342413692818969
43 0.01365863071810345 10.356072323537072
44 0.012292767646293105 10.368365091183366
45 0.011063490881663795 10.37942858206503
46 0.009957141793497415 10.389385723858528
47 0.008961427614147673 10.398347151472676
48 0.008065284852732906 10.40641243632541
49 0.007258756367459616 10.413671192692869
50 0.006532880730713654 10.420204073423582
which copy did i win though is the issue, do all of them count as the 50th winner? or do all of them count as the 3rd winner?
there is no fair amount to be given to each individual user, and regardless of the amount of copies they won a game that's cv value is set in stone, it's not like they won all 50x copies.
Comment has been collapsed.
All of them count as an average of all 50 winners. It's more fair, and finding out winner number is impossible anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's still more accurate than count it as full value. At least this way we would get accurate result in total. Also, giving different "won CV" based just on the position in winners list is totally unfair (even if it was possible), so this is more fair also.
Comment has been collapsed.
so 1000 copies of a bundle games is instantly supposed to be worth less then a penny because they were massively generous instead of only moderately generous?
this makes no sense to me at all. i don't see how this makes anything more fair, all i see is how it makes it unbalanced and inaccurate. i've provided reasons why i feel it's less fair too, and you just keep saying it's more fair without actually providing a reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
so 1000 copies of a bundle games is instantly supposed to be worth less then a penny because they were massively generous instead of only moderately generous?
It is so for sent CV. Why it surprises you when I suggest same logic for won CV?
you just keep saying it's more fair without actually providing a reason.
No, it's you didn't gave me any reasons to support your words. I explained my reasons in detail, I even gave you a mathematical explanation, that plainly shows that my suggestion for won CV is closer to the implementation of sent CV. But you prefer just to ignore my reasons, or even your reasons, because "cv should be reverse meaning if someone sent something, then someone received something. " is your reason, and that's exactly what I suggested in this topic. Your comments are self-contradictory.
Comment has been collapsed.
because the gifter sent 1000 copies, the winners on the other hand are not winning 1000 copies. the rate of CV for 1 single copy won is accurate information.
my reasoning is, they didn't get half a game, or a 1/3 of a game, or multiple copies.. therefore 1 single copy worth of CV is already accurate information.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, you lied when you said that won CV should be reverse to sent CV? Okay.
Comment has been collapsed.
You said that "CV should be reverse to sent CV", and by that you mean that won CV should not be equal to sent CV... Small wonder that I get it wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
actually if you check again i said..
reversing sent CV is what won CV is though
is... not should be.. meaning i think it's accurate as is.
edit:
and reversing sent CV is what won CV is still is a accurate statement.. the winner won 1x single copy, therefore 1x single copy worth of CV is added to their won CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with your first point because yeah as long as a game is received, it's received, no matter if you were the only participant in the GA. I'm pretty surprised it doesn't already work that way actually. TIL :o
But for the same reason I also disagree with your second point: the game is received, so it's received. If you don't want to gain CV from winning a game given in large numbers, simply don't enter the GAs for it. If you still prefer to win the game, it means that it's worth getting the CV after all ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I should have made separate voting options for just 1 and just 2 suggestion. My bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
hehe, yeah that's pretty much 2 different problems.
I guess "changes different from suggested" is the +/- corresponding option ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
There is no such used things as Real Won CV on SG.
But of course that can be matched the used Real Sent CV.
But afaik ... there are no documented specifications or public information for cases like :
For a given game :
Question 1: How much Real Won CV should be counted for each WINNERS_A winners ?
We now add this new element :
Question 2: How much Real Won CV should be counted for each WINNERS_B winners ?
Question 3: Can this be determined consistently ?
Question 4: Does or CAN SGTools follow same implementations/specifications ?
Observation: From last time I have compared, SGTools fails to have exact same level calculation as SG Level, from Sent CV, which is manifestly easier to calculate (since you can do this data-mining only one SG profile) than Real Won CV, that would require checking all giveaways created by respective gifters...
So you probably shouldn't rely too much on accuracy of "Real Won CV" when you create filter based on real values.
Comment has been collapsed.
What are you trying to prove? Yes, calculating won CV, that would be exactly equal to sent CV, is very hard and heavy load task. That's why I propose approximate calculating, which, despite not being exactly opposite to sent CV, will be closer to it than current approach, and in the same time will be kept simple and won't require significantly more resources.
Also, about SGtools failing to show exact same level - it is a temporal issue, that happens when some games were added to bundles list on SG and SGTools didn't yet synced this data. The rest of the time it works good for me.
So you probably shouldn't rely too much on accuracy of "Real Won CV" when you create filter based on real values.
That's true, but people still tend to use it, so I thought improving calculation of this value would be a good idea. But from looking at votes I see that community don't support my suggestion, so whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
What are you trying to prove?
Nothing particular, apart that answers to how to consider/handle Real Won CV aren't necessarily trivial, and maybe multiple.
In the changes you suggest, how is it really going to impact our user experience ?
Comment has been collapsed.
People who win good games would have higher "won CV" because of first suggestion, and people who win cheap/developer keys from mass giveaways would have less "won CV" because of second suggestion. Overall, calculating of "won CV" would be closer to "correct", ratio in SGTools giveaways would be closer to "correct", everyone would be happy, smiling, and singing songs (hopefully).
Comment has been collapsed.
Just a quick note to let you know that I'm reading the thread and all your opinions.
I have no problem in changing how it is calculated if the majority of the users so desire, so keep debating about it :)
PS: At the beginning real won cv wasn't taking into account less than 5 entries, but several users asked for it and it made sense, that's why it got implemented (if the giveaway creator is not getting CV for it, it doesn't really make sense that the winner gets it in won calculations). If you are curious the discussion should be buried somewhere in the main SGT thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you! I hope you don't mind that I made this topic before talking to you, just wanted to understand if my point of view is shared among majority of users. And it seems by doubts were not void - seems people definitely against changes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I voted for I don't care tbh .
I use SGTools every now and then , it's nice little thing . But lately I see people coming up with some ridiculous requirements to enter gibs .. ofc that's their right ,but I still find some of them ex excessive.
Anyway rambling aside , why does it matter if it don't count such games ... In fact why does real won CV is a thing ...
Like for example a person who won 5 60$ games , some AAA stuff and given away 200 bundled games gets denied access based on so called Real Won CV , just cause A:he was lucky and won that stuff , and B maybe he just enter for stuff he actually want and it so happens that stuff is expensive.
Now obviously such users are rarity , but then you look at someone who gave away 100 games and won 250 bundled ones , and have better overall Real CV ratio cause of that .
Obviously there is the matter of how much money person A has spent compared to person B , but I really don't care all that much .
I rather see 2000 bundled games given away giving ppl chance to maybe win a game they want to play , rather then 10 copies GA of prey half of which will end in some hoarders.
But then again that's just me .
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm more than agree with your attitude, but thing is - people use Real CV ratio is used often, and I thought it could be improved. But if majority of people believe it's good as it is now - I don't mind at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
47 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Chris76de
6 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by Masafor
76 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by sensualshakti
34 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by JMM72
4 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by despiesi96
1,962 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by MeguminShiro
15 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by dingbat
94 Comments - Last post 6 seconds ago by axolotlprime
463 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Carenard
127 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Tristanpew
28,515 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by faelynaris
64 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by PicoMan
19 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by lext
103 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by UltraMaster
SGTools have a convenient calculator of "Real CV for Won Gifts". And it's more then just information tool - this value can also be used as part of the rules for entering giveaways, for example for "Minimum ratio using Real Value of gifts Sent/Won on Steamgifts". But recently I thought that this value isn't accurate...
I know, CV for sent gifts contain some limitations. Like, giveaway should have at least 5 entries to give you CV, and giveaways of more then 5 copies give decreased CV for copies above the first 5. I like those rules, but I believe they should be handled differently when calculating CV for won gifts.
Giveaway should have at least 5 entries to give you CV
Now SGTools don't count CV value of giveaways with less than 5 entries when calculating CV for won gifts. I think it's incorrect behavior. I'll try to explain. The aim of this rule - to prevent abuse, like giving away game in invite-only giveaway to just one recipient. So, don't counting it as sent CV is a good idea. But if someone won a game in such giveaway - he still received the game! Maybe he got a good game, and less than 5 entries is just because it was a hard puzzle. If he got a decent game - why don't count it? I believe those should be counted as CV for won gifts too.
Giveaways with >5 copies have reduced CV
And this is totally different. For now, if you win in a 1-copy giveway, and if you win in a 10000-copies giveaway, SGTools will count it as a same amount of CV for won gifts. I think this is rather unfair. Come on, it's a mass giveaway, so it's either a very cheap game, or a giveaway from developer, and thus free at all! Getting full CV for semi-free game does not seems fair to me. I think quantity of copies should be considered when counting counting CV for won gifts. Of course, counting all the giveaways of the same game for giveaway creator is troublesome in this case, but at least we know how many copies current giveaway had. I think CV, that giveaway creator (may) got for the giveaway should be the base for this. You know the formula for CV received, where every copy above 5 gets CV decreased by 10%. Knowing the quantity of copies we can count the total CV for sent gifts in this giveaway , and then we can just divide it by the quantity of copies, to get CV for won gift that every winner would get.
I hope I was able to explain my idea and basis behind it. I've made it as a separate topic, and not just a post in SGTools topic, because I believe it's important and needs to be discussed by the community, not just considered by knsys. So, what do you think about it? Share your thoughts, ask questions, give your suggestions
, throw dung at author.Comment has been collapsed.