So I was chatting with my close, personal freinds down at the Mana Cooler and we all came to the realization that we are close to the the 300p cap of this site. Now this leads me to think that there are plenty of people who have more points than they know what to do with and that's not exactly a good thing because the whole point of the point system (see what I did there) was to stop people with no self control from entering every giveaway that they don't already have the game for.
I HAVE TOO MANY POINTS AND I CAN'T STOP MYSELF FROM ENTERING FOR BORDERLANDS GOTY WHEN I HAVE THE POINTS TO DO IT.
I don't REALLY want Borderlands,(I think it looks fun) but never enough to actually buy it myself.
If I win, do i feel bad for depriving some guy who would LOVE to have won? No. I accumulated my points just like everyone else. I am not alone.

Frankly, we have too many points because people can enter for any game that looks slightly interesting or they might like.
What if we made the giveaways cost double or triple points they normally would?
You might not like this idea at the moment.
But do you really expect to have a decent chance for any games once this site gets even more members?
We are all in the wrong state of thinking. We SHOULD'NT be able to enter giveaways as easily as we can now. Instead of the multiple times we enter giveaways now, it should be something like once a day.

That's right, once a day. (depending on how many points the games you are interested are of course)

Having less points to spend means a better chance for you to get that game you REALLY want.
Thoughts?

1 decade ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

Personally I agree. I pretty much enter lots of games I'm just slightly intrested in just because my points are always near the cap. I'd rather spend more points on games I really want

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

cowabunga!

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

KIJIB I LOVE YOU FOREVER,

I was thinking this idea however a few days ago and was meaning to talk to Cg about it.
But it looks like i have an ideal companion! :D

Now we can get those greedy dogs out of here and get some true love back in games once again.

Kijib you surprise more and more everyday <3

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Or you could generate invites and seed the around sites.
But the idea is interesting none the less.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You want (I'll give a low estimate) 1000 people constantly at the level cap generating codes so the membership raises exponentially? Bad idea. It's hard enough winning something as it is.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is the worst Idea I have heard in the forum so far.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

no, the worst idea got to be giving a star to contributors, which they can spend on an entry for ANY game, and they get it back if they dont get it. lolwut?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that one was pretty funny. hmm, ok those would be in my top 3 of worst ideas on this forum.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

your a worst idea on this forum!

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

way to flame.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Really, Blue? I thought the worst idea was banning you. :P

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

why? thank you for that thoughtful comment and taking the time to explain

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

we already discussed it in chat, if you'd like to copy paste that go ahead.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you basically just copy and pasted your hate!

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yes but my hate is equally spread. Like the flame of a pyro's backblaster.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think it would be better if you could spend more points in order to get more than one 'entry', so if you really want that game, you would get more chances, and those who doesn't really want, they won't waste more points, and instead of it, they will use it in other games they would really want. So at the end, it's more or lees the same, cos they spend more points but just in the games they want. There's no need to complicate the point system, just let make more chances to win a game by doubling your entry points.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i concurr

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that would be further exacerbate the problem.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Why? Explain please. I did.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think he's just generally unhappy and negative just look at his face. No explanations from him

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If you can't make rational proposals then falling back on jokes about physical appearance doesn't help.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

simonsays sums it up pretty well.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The site has had arguments in the past and elsewhere about the system and how fair/just it is. The conclusion was that "one person, one chance" was basically agreed on as the fairest system possible. If you allow multiple entries you'll just have people exploiting the system, and cheating the spirit of the giveaways.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well we already have "One person 9001 Chances" >.>... i mean come on I'm sure people entered in loads of giveaways already :P

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Quantitatively it's much larger than that and the point of the rules isn't so You get to have the highest chance of winning. The rules are there so everyone has an equal chance of winning.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Okay, I understand this. It's reasonable. But I think entering giveaways that you just don't really want is not easy, it's just a fact and is what people are doing. And this... this just break up the better chances of the ppl who really entered the giveaway just because they love and really want that game. Isn't fair to calibrate this a bit?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You're trying to quantify human behavior as it embarks emotions. I'm sure people also entered the Valve Summer Camp giveaway not really interested in winning games and they may have won. It's just a fact of life. There doesn't need to be a council or equation to decide who is more deserving than others. Calibration would make the entire system unfair.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Emotions? No. I heard it's called pragmatism.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

better chances of the ppl who really entered the giveaway just because they love and really want that game.

You're skewing your theory to play toward emotions, instead of what is mathematically neutral.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

People are not robots. I don't think people WANT all the whole list of games gifted here. That's not a LOGIC and EMPIRICAL reason?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But how would people exploit or cheat the system, if you could enter multiple times? We're all given the same amount of points. I'm sure it's something obvious, but I dunno what it is.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You could always use your extra points to buy "open tickets" for people that don't have enough points to claim.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't get your argument, kijib. If you have too many points, and you're tempted to enter a giveaway for a game you're not all that amped for, then it isn't the site's or anyone else's job to rein you in. Get a hold of yourself, and either invite people to the site or just wait for those golden opportunities.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yeah, it seems very much like he's being subjective about the whole thing. Others are interested in a lot of games, he's not interested/ or has a lot of games already. That's not a problem with steamgifts.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, instead of increasing the cost to entry, we would lower the percentage of points distributed. At the moment, it's 10%. If users are finding they have extra points, and enter for giveaways only to use them up, it should be lowered. For example, if we lowered it to 5%, you would be able to enter half as many giveaways, but at the same time, you would have double the chances of winning those giveaways, since competing entries would be cut in half. It's a simple tradeoff, you just have to let me know which you prefer.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How about keeping it at 10% but not rounding up? So, $1 game submission nets everyone .1 points instead of 1 point.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Would you consider my idea? Let me try to explain a bit more: Let supose you only REALLY want one or two games, but you have enough points to just waste them in tons of other subs. Well, the idea is supose to be more or less fair, so winning a game to just fill up your game list is just... a mess. So if you just waste your points on that game you really want, you will get slightly more chances to win, because it's just that game you want. Maybe a combination of that and this could be even better. This site is growing so fast, and I think that 1 entry for each game and lots of points to waste on is gonna make this in something like the grand pize on a national lottery, something near impossible to win. Probability is cruel.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I like your thinking maybe also a way to decrease percentage based on amount of giveaways being made so on days where there is a lot of gifting the precentage is lowered and on a slow day it remains the same. But I think an increase in entry admission would work well too.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What about letting a giveaway sponsor set a point multiplier on creation? For example if I thought it might even the odds for people who REALLY want Bunny Poker 2099 I set the multiplier for 5x, so when you go to enter it now costs 50 points instead of ten. But someone else doing the same item may still set their for 1x.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I kind of like this one. Lowering the percentage of points distributed sounds pretty workable.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is what I was thinking, cg. Maybe we could try it at 5% for a while?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'd rather have a "spend points get pointless stuff for the website" doodad. Like hats.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm actually ok with this. Just because it's ridiculous.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

your a ridicu...ahh never mind

hangs up troll hat

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your trolling is very poor. If you'd like to improve, I can help you at reddit.com/r/circlejerk.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Hrm, maybe allow people posting giveaways to increase how many points it takes to buy in to their giveaways? Just a thought I had. Still thinking about whether this could work or not.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

it would just cause hyperinflation.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

not if the increased amount wasnt added to everyone's points. Interesting idea Simon

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i too like. it allows an effective method of control of giveaway numbers

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What economic models would prove its effectiveness? Stochastic, Non-stochastic mathematical, or Qualitative models?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

its called common sense: don't enter/do enter if you think the amount of points the gifter has set is worth it

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that's already in play with the current system. Your idea throws in extra variables with unintended consequences. You're making the system more complex so any statistics can become biased.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Inflation isn't just caused by increases in the money supply. It can also be cause by prices being set arbitrarily high. That's the foundation of economic principles.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Listen to this man, he speaks truth. Statistics prove it!

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ha! I just mentioned that and then hit page 2 and see you said it an hour ago. I concur.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

my 2 cents: regardless of mechanism to change it, giveaways are becoming too crowded. maybe points gained per dollar could be tried as a ratio to number of members but from what i see, the points are not limiting enough with this number of members

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your hypothesis is founded on the problem that too many people are being nice and it needs to be stopped?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No he is just one of the many people who knows that it is too easy to enter for games you don't REALLY want

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that's a logical fallacy.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

ok let's end this what giveaways are you currently entered in and how many points do you have?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

what would that accomplish?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

it gives me perspective on your situation

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If I answer high or low you will be biased. If I'm high you'll say it's proof that people are getting too many points. If I'm low you'll say I'm wasting it on games I don't really want. It's completely subjective and will turn into another logical fallacy.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

avoiding the question i see

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

my thoughts are more that with a higher barrier per giveaway total satsfacton would go up as you have to think even harder about which games you want

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

if less people are able to surpass the barrier to enter the marketplace that will decrease total satisfaction considering the majority of users don't win. The minority of people who did win will of course be satisfied.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that's a logical fallacy.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

3 fallacies in a row man. You're making this too easy. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be answering, you haven't responded to anything I put forth in highest chain on down.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

but your chanses of winning increase on a per giveaway bais

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your assumption that it will lead to hyperinflation is based on an economic model that isn't at play here. The giveaway sponsor does not profit or gain from modifying their numbers in a way that benefits them beyond personal satisfaction.
If I set it for a 1x point multiplier or a 5x point multiplier the only thing that changes for me as the sponsor is the feeling that the latter group may have had a higher number of individuals who really wanted that game. That's it.
So some would leave theirs at the default numbers, others would increase theirs.
Some might try to post several high multiplier giveaways in order to lessen the competition for another giveaway, but if you look at the existing ecosystem only a small percentage of the existing user base enter any single giveaway.
In the end the sponsor is still contributing games to the point economy.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

hyperinflation does apply because its setting an artificial price in a command economy since all prices are decided by steam, not by the community. This causes a boom and bust cycle. That's why you don't allow givers to inflate the price of a giveaway.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

given the fact that the giveaway maker doent gain anything at all looking at the issue form a tradition economic standpoint is fruitless. all gifting on this site is selfless messing with all models

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm definitely on the side of having waaaay more points then I could use, and everytime i spend some I'm right back up to 300 almost immediately, and given that the number of members and consequently the number of entrants for each giveaway is increasing so rapidly I'd be completely in favor increasing the point value of each game (or decreasing how many points we get when new games are put up for giveaway).
It seems there are so many points flowing through the system that they don't really mean much anymore, I can spend on anything anytime and I'll be back up to 300 quickly enough that their irrelevant to me.

Make points meaningful, and encourage people to spend them on games they really want... not just anything that even vaguely catches their attention. Which one pretty much can do now.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

exactly "Make points meaningful" not just some guy entering for dogfighter and audiosurf because he can

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I just just joined and I already have more than enough points to enter the giveaways i want.. I could see doubling the price being good.. make ppl who really want it try for it

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think it would be more effective if it were limited to x entries per day rather than changing the values. As a result more invites would be created from the saved points. On a side thought, what if invites were more expensive?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

limiting to x entries a day though doesnt reflect value of games. for tramper what if 3 games i really want are up one day and none are up for the next three. i would be arbitrarily punished. i also think that invites should be based on number of active members. as membership goes up prices for invites go up

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Having a ton of points is, in part, due to the recent fake giveaways.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think those points were removed. But this isnt a recent event its been like this for a while

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

They weren't removed as far as I know. But I accept your word for it that it's been like this for a while - it's not something I've been paying attention too, sorry.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sorry, i don't have time to read that all, but i'll state a problem in here. current system (with 10%) is great. The only problem is 90% of users don't need 90% of giveaways (which are DM MP, HB and some old Valve games, like CS and Portal). That's why you have enough points to enter every other giveaway. Once the flood of those useless giveaways stops, the whole thing will work great.
A small idea how to solve a problem about those useless giveaways is make them absolutely free.
i.e. once a same game appears more than e.g. 10 times a week, it is considered a flood and any other giveaway of that game costs nothing to enter and also does not provide any points.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

They should still cost points to enter but dont generate any :)

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

if they cost something and don't generate points, it would be really hard to get them.
i think, they should not cost you a point, but you should not enter that giveaway, if you have that game already, or don't want it anyway.

the main idea is, if they don't generate points, people will stop posting them for points. so there won't be a real problem with floods afterall and there won't be lots of free giveaways like that.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

also such a decision will solve the same problem with any massively exploited games in future, so administration won't even need to have some list of good or bad games. that will be done automatically.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

well crap i don't have em haha. I've been entering portal giveaways :)

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yes, i was also enetring portal giveaways, until i won one ^_^
i don't suggest to ban them actually, but making them take away all the fun is also a bad thing.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree. There is no real chance in winning anything if everyone can enter every giveaway, even for games they just semi want. I know exactly how you feel, I didn't enter any Magicka giveaway so far because im not interested in that game. Today I reached 300 Points. If I see it again, I will go for it, even though there are people who might really wanna have it.

By the rate we generate points (basically most from Humble frozenbyte bundles) we have to address this issue.
Maybe change the way Humble Bundles work (because most of those given away here are bought for like 0.01$ anyway).

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You should go for Magicka. Even the accidental suicides in that game are pretty funny.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I enter both for games that I know I want, but haven't bought, or I also sometimes enter for games that I think I might like, and that I am interested in. I don't personally see a problem with that. I might win a game that I might not have bought, and end up loving it to death.

Of course, I don't enter for games that I don't want, or games I don't have the slightest bit of interest in, but I don't see a problem entering for games I have an interest in.

I think a better way of doing it would simply be to add more filter options when you create a giveaway. Things like a max number of entries allowed, the same as we have a time limit we are able to set.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Frozen Synapse giveaways are expensive. I'm fine with the points right now :|

At least 'till I get my Frozen Synapse >_>

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

your chances won't be lower, if you enter less Frozen Synapse giveaways, but less people will enter those giveaways because of lack of points.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

considering you have entered so many giveaways and you joined a month ago I don't think it should be a problem for you to get Frozen Synapase just don't enter for every game you are kinda interested in

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

There absolutely is an issue here. I've been a member of the site for about a week now - mostly entering in giveaways that I really want, want, kind of want, or "ok, it would be nice to have this game I guess." And I'm still sitting at a comfortable 247P. There are far too many points being distributed with far too many entries per giveaway. The realization recently occurred to me that there is no need to hoard points because there aren't many AAA or sleeper hit titles hitting the front page at all. I like the ideas of lowering it from 10% to 5%, or even 3%. Also raising the cost of an invite to 2x or 3x. Additionally, consider "perks" for senior members or those who are REALLY contributing to the site with their giveaways, because freeloaders will always outnumber the generous. This would be really help out.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

exactly

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is getting unbearable, too many members, too many giveaways (I'll explain what's the bad thing) and too much points. We need the giveaways to be more expensive, to make this community be even more select with what they waste their points on. Right now you get RUSE 25 Copies at 1100 entries, lol. Expensive giveaways meant harvesting points would actually make sense (since right now you can enter pretty much everything and still have points) and make people, although enter less giveaways, participate in giveaways that offer the games that they really desire, not those would they just now heard about or saw 'em in the front page and thought "Mmm, why not? I have 200P left anyway"...

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yet RUSE giveaway provided a much better chance of a win:) more than 2% while most nonrepeating giveaways provide you less than a percent.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree with Making Enter's cost More Point's, Due to the Fact that 1. People will have to spend there point wisely and 2. It will give people that actually want the game a better chance at getting it (Like you said, people prob enter for the heck of it). Though, I would only say Double the Current Cost.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i'm sure that will just double the amount of HBs and DMs... and won't help at all.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

People will collect points faster, reach the max of 300 Faster, and hence have less points to spend unless there fast enough to spend them as they get them.

or, Double the Point Cost, Half the Point Gain from each one made. So it gives you the same amount of points you current get then.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

HBs and DMs don't generate points.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think this is just a temporary issue. We just had a huge steam sale and people used this opportunity to make giveaways. That means extra points -> extra invite codes -> new people with lots of extra copies of portal, HB, or Potato Sack games.

I'm quite sure in a week or two things will go back to normal without doing anything.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

its not ive been asking around plenty of people are easily floating around the 200 plus points

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How is that supposed to mean that it isn't a temporary thing?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

by floating around i mean theyve always had more than enough

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I hate to do this, but we have a different definition of floating.

  • Not secured in place; unattached
  • Inclined to move or be moved about
  • Short-term and usually unfunded. Used of a debt

The closest similarity would be floating in terms of currencies

  • free to fluctuate against other currencies in accordance with market forces

but neither definitions allocate that there is "too much" floating capital.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree, this is how economics works. Things go up, things go down. Trying to force things down, or force things up, is wasteful.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

except in this site's "economy" things are up too often.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How about that the person who creates the giveaway can adjust the points needed for the entry.
BUT they may not go lower than the minimal requirement of points of the giveaway.

As example :
Portal 2 = 50 points. The creator of this giveaway can adjust the amount of points, but cannot go lower than 50. He can change the points to 51, 52, 53 etc, therefore people who really want the game will participate and blablablabla

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You could just, like, you know, not be a total dick and have some self control. Then we wouldn't have problems like these.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Given the rash of fake giveaways, people selling invites, people having multiple accounts, people entering giveaways for games they already own etc I don't have a great deal of faith in that working out well. Leave people to their own whims and they tend to take advantage.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

this plus there are tons of people who have no self control IM EVEN TEMPTED AT TIMES (see first post). If i have 300p why not?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Because there are other people that want it more. Just because you have something doesn't mean you should use it.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that's what Im saying

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Closed 1 decade ago by kijib.