No one entry is enough
There is being burnt for being in the center of the sun, and then there is this BURN!
Comment has been collapsed.
Where's the "No, this is a bad idea. One entry for everyone is good." poll option?
Comment has been collapsed.
You can actually enter a giveaway multiple times.
But each click adds only 1/unlimited entries.
Or you can enter infinite times, but the first click adds only half an entry, and each one afterwards gives half of the previous one.
(suggested change)
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to win more, create some good giveaways and join some nice gorups.
Comment has been collapsed.
{ font-family: "light hearted joke"; }
Good idea, but keeping up with the theme of "2", this option would only be available for those who have given away at least twice as much as they've won.
Edit: all jokes aside, a double-entry option would be nice in theory (I, for one, would benefit from it), but I'm not sure how it well it would work in practice. It may introduce its own problems, like an unfair advantage in some groups and whitelists where entries can be in the single digits.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I would like that.
I don't think ratio mentions in comments doesn't make sense in this topic, because same thing can be said for single entry as well. Someone who doesn't give anything can enter a giveaway and that's ok, but when he uses x2 points for x2 change, it is not? I think it's either both or none.
About why I would like that; I only enter games that I would play (as you can see from my profile, every SG won is played thoroughly) and I still filter a ton because of my backlog (which is nothing compared to %90 of SG users, currently 22 games). So, would it be unfair if I have more than one chance for a giveaway I want to enter (since I pay with points anyway)?
Even this could be good imo, make it double,triple... point for more entries. So for a 60 dollar game, 60, 120,180...
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't say not winning anything for a just over a month is a long time, however, not giving anything for over eight years I would consider a long time. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
All entries have equal chance to win. This suggestion would go against that. It has been suggested before and not implemented.
Comment has been collapsed.
I vote for the poll's title. :D
But, yes, myself, I dislike the idea of "multiple entries", where you end up competing with yourself. Indiegala has these "Extra Odds" GAs, and I never enter them (though those are worse, since you can buy as many tickets as you want).
Cheers!
Comment has been collapsed.
There are multiple websites that do multiple entries raffles and it's just such a pain to enter them all, and if you don't you don't have the same chances of winning as others.
So no, one entry = one person is fair and not complicated.
You can enter multiple GA's of the same game, so why bother with a system that would in the end give less chances to enter more GA's or give an unfair disadvantage.
Comment has been collapsed.
don't feed the troll
Edit: on the other hand i think you should be able to invade the wining user and take their key (seems fair) /sarcasm
Comment has been collapsed.
1 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by lostsoul67
71 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by lostsoul67
76 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Reidor
765 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by grimfandango8888
43 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by Qnemes
12 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by orono
17 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by SeaGoblin
69 Comments - Last post 20 seconds ago by OneNonLy
498 Comments - Last post 60 seconds ago by Cleverman
3 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Kappaking
1,252 Comments - Last post 26 minutes ago by ProphetFinagle
418 Comments - Last post 30 minutes ago by shadowshiv
6,335 Comments - Last post 32 minutes ago by lext
47 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by ClapperMonkey
So every now and then I have nothing to spend my points on, and haven't won a game a in a long while.
so, why not let players pay double points for double entry?
Comment has been collapsed.