It was discussed multiple times. Someone can win game but it will be fake GA, it will be region restricted copy, GA creator can not deliver gift and so on. So it will never work like this, because it would be punishing winners of those GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the winner won just this GA, he'd win the fake copy / region restricted GA, etc. If he wins another giveaway, then someone else will win the fake copy / region restricted GA. So this solution is completely unrelated to the other potential problems. There's no "punishing", no injustice, just removal of a potential problem.
And BTW when I started writing my post I thought about ways to alleviate such issues (which are possible), but then I realised that a person winning multiple giveaways shouldn't be entitled to something better than anyone else just because of that fluke. (Well, potential fluke, if he's prevented from winning more than one copy. Which makes it even sillier to think that he's entitled to something.)
Comment has been collapsed.
But if you win a fake giveaway, and all your entries for the same game are removed, then wouldn't there be injustice towards the person who didn't actually win the game? Removing his chances to win a real giveaway is pretty unbalanced if you ask me.
Comment has been collapsed.
People not properly using the sync option is the problem, not like the whole ordeal would be that common. Even counting with low entry numbers of 300, there's 1 to 9000 chance to win the same game twice. Maybe it's just me, but for me 1 to 9000 or much, much less is absolutely not "natural and common enough" as OP stated. And maybe this is the time we live in, but I think individuals should work a little and properly resync instead of him advocating a solution that's resourceheavy while the personal solution takes only a few seconds (just sync it.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually re-sync after I buy a game or I win something here. That's probably once every week or so. Not the avid gamer I thought I was, after seeing how many games some people have. But still.
The automation of some stuff should never happen. Just because people are lazy and mean, it doesn't mean the system is flawed. As long as these are user faults, specific users should be punished, not the whole community, nor the system.
Comment has been collapsed.
I imagine its only somewhat common with Angry Erpel's Giveaways, since he give a whole lot of the same game in multiple seperate giveaways at once.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then don't take the person out of other GAs until they mark the first as "received". If they've won multiple times before they mark as received, then when they mark one as received it should automatically send a message to the users running the other GAs that they won that they should re-roll their winner.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 This.
It should be very easy for the SG system to check if the user has other giveaways running for the same game once they mark something complete.
Comment has been collapsed.
A slightly more complicated but possible solution would be:
Winner activates game and marks it received.
Site automatically scans his/her entered GAs for copies of same SteamDB entry.
If found and GA hasn't happened yet, entrant is removed from the GA.
If found and entrant has won the game again, site auto-rerolls another winner on that GA (with a courtesy message to the GA creator).
Comment has been collapsed.
Possible (and I thought of more complex solutions which would solve more situations), but as I said above, it's only necessary if you think that someone who won more than one giveaway is entitled to be treated better than other users just because of that fluke.
Comment has been collapsed.
easier to contact the creator and make a ticket to support. patience. :3
automating this will lead to more issues that can't be corrected, like it has been pointed out.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that contacting the creator and invoking support is much harder than an automatic solution. If you can think of real issues (not those mentioned by MSKOTOR) that you think can either not be corrected or would mean more work for support then please post them.
Comment has been collapsed.
mskotor pointed the real issue.
let's say you join 4 GTA5 GAs, all ending on the same week. you win the first and you get kicked out of the others automatically.
now, after 7 days of waiting for your won gift, the creator doesn't deliver, which means you lost a chance to win a real one on the other GAs.
i think that's a very good reason not to automate the system...
Comment has been collapsed.
Which only matters if you think that there's a compelling reason you'd get better treatment than others. If you win a giveaway, what makes you feel that you're entitled to win another giveaway of the same game, then choose between them?
I'll expand your example:
Suppose you won just the first giveaway, you don't get the game, you contact support, the giveaway creator gets punished, you don't get a thing. Another person wins the second giveaway, gets the game, he's happy.
Suppose you won the two giveaways. You get one of them, don't get the other. You might ignore the other GA because you got the game, so the fake giver isn't punished, or you might contact support anyway. You get a game so you're happy, but the other user who might have won isn't happy.
How is the second case better? Sure, it's better for you, but it's worse for the other person, so there's only a problem if you think that you deserve to win more than the other person, and there's no logical reason for that. Plus it's more likely that the giveaway creator who did something wrong will go unpunished.
So in the normal case where both GA's are fine, the automatic solution is of course much better, and in the case when one of the GA's isn't fine, the automatic solution is just slightly better.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm confused by your logic.
- I win a fake giveaway. I'm removed from other giveaways. I don't get the game and I'm unhappy. The person who wins the other giveaways is happy.
- I win a fake giveaway. I'm not removed from other giveaways and I win a second one. I'm happy. The other person wins nothing and is unhappy.
In both of the cases one person is happy and the others (all the other entrants) are not. What's the difference? Does it matter that technically this person won 2 giveaways and the others won none? One game, one happy winner. What does it matter who it is?
The fake givers aren't really punished anyway, their giveaway is just marked as not received.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's fine. So you're saying that these cases are equivalent, and of course if both GA's are fine the automatic solution is superior. So clearly there's no reason not to use it.
Comment has been collapsed.
While, ultimately, on a large scale those 2 cases are the same, it doesn't mean they are identical either. First, I believe the disappointment from thinking you won a game but then finding out you didn't is stronger than that of simply not winning. More importantly, with the current system, you can safely enter all the giveaways for the games you wish, without worrying. With the system you suggest, people will have to be careful not to enter fake giveaways, since that might lead them to lose a chance to win a real one. Don't you think that might lead to unnecessary suspition and calling out? People trying to warn the others not to enter a certain giveaway because they risk to lose more than just points? With the current system, the issue of winning a giveaway twice is solved fast and easy, just a minor annoyance. Is it really necessary to change to another system, which solves some issues but creates others?
Comment has been collapsed.
So by this logic, if you win a game and you don't receive it, you can no longer try to win it afterwards ?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why this follows. If you win a game and don't receive it you should contact support, get it sorted out, and they you can win it.
By your logic, if someone wins a game, doesn't mark it as received and doesn't activate it, he's supposed to be able to continue to enter giveaways for the game?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why this follows
Your logic is that you're not entitled to win multiple giveaways of a game and choose between them, and that the other user who might have won isn't happy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but I don't see how what you said follows.
If you've won and didn't get the game, you contact support. That's a normal way to go about it.
Thinking about it, allowing people to win when they've already won is fine if this mainly happens when there's fraud. If in most of the double-win cases one of them isn't a valid win, then allowing it reduces problems. If that's not the case, then the mechanism is more disruptive than helpful.
Comment has been collapsed.
really...
with your logic i should stop entering GAs 100% just to give everyone else a better chance O_o
edit: let me expand that:
with your logic i should enter ONLY 1 GA for each game, just to give everyone a better chance. because, that's more fair, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
My logic is simply that a fluke doesn't make you special. You want to win more, get more CV, solve riddles, etc. Getting more stuff by virtue of being able to win when you've already won is a bug, not a feature.
Comment has been collapsed.
Please close this thread. This is just embarrassing :(
Comment has been collapsed.
I will post here adding to MSKOTOR post a solution to the problem: the system auto-remove other entries when winner click "check as received". In that way, if you win a GA (let's assume fake one) but while he/she doesn't receive the game, still have chances to win it from others GAs because hasn't received it yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
If only OP wouldn't be so butthurt and actually saw your post. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Is there a particular problem you want to address?
So far my reroll requests were handled in less than an hour, so I do not feel that being an issue.
Yes, resolving a multi-win situation needs coordination from the winner's side, which may and do cause delays. However mere receival of gifts causes a delay already.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that the problem is clear. I can understand the answer from cg saying "it doesn't happen enough to warrant the time it will take to implement" or "such a solution will add too much overhead to performance, and the slowing down of the site isn't worth it". But saying "support can handle it", especially when there are clear examples on the forum of problems this is causing, is not a convincing argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
System could hold back secondary winnings until the fate of the first one gets decided. However it can involve a delay to up to a week which GA creators may find irritating.
Denying a win is something what GA enterers would find irritating. If you would also block them from entering GA-s for the same item during the uncertainty-period (a week in case of a fake), that is even better.
So far it is a draw at most.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you win a game a second time, you're supposed to ask the GA creator for a re-roll anyway, which then awards one of the other entrants into that same GA the win. If the GA creator doesn't ask for a re-roll, you mark the 2nd win as "not received" and move along.
The system in place seems to work properly, if people would just follow the rules and ask for those re-rolls.
(Unless, of course, you're just concerned about getting your points back from other entries if you win a game. BUT - you've just won a free game -- a few points back shouldn't be all that important, and if they are, remove your own entries manually)
Comment has been collapsed.
And the system would work perfectly if it was automated, and won't require people to behave in any particular manner.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except for the fact that you want to remove all of someone's entries for a game's GAs before the win is ever delivered/activated. You're completely sidestepping the issue of fake giveaways and people that just plain don't deliver (I've had one myself recently). So should all my other entries for that game have been removed (despite the fact that I won a game that was never delivered)? That just adds insult to injury IMHO.
You suggestion just won't work, as it's punishing some of the honest people as well as some of the dishonest ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
The question is, how common is it for games not to be delivered? If it's a large percent of giveaways then you have a point (but then the site is really sick, and this problem needs to be dealt with more seriously).
And again, I'm not punishing anyone. Suppose you could have won a giveaway, but someone else, who had already won, has won it. He could win it simply because there's a chance that the giveaway he already won won't be delivered. And most people on this thread think that's fair for some reason, that if you would have won, that's a punishment for that person. That it's not the fraudster's fault for not sending the game.
The site currently works in a way that doesn't add any fairness.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just had a game not delivered last week (and it was only a $1 game lmao), and I've only been active here for a couple months. It's actually a lot more common than you'd think for someone to "troll" by making GAs for AAA games or, in a few cases I've seen in my short time here, people create GAs for games they want to win thinking someone will gift it to them, and not realizing they have to deliver a game to a winner themselves.
No one is saying it's not the "fraudster's" fault for not delivering a game -- it is -- but why should the winner of those fraudulent GAs have their entries for the legit GAs removed simply because they might have won the game they wanted. (I say might have won because you've not won anything until it's delivered, activated, and marked as received.)
Now, keep in mind that a GA creator has up to a week to deliver a game to the winner, and during that whole week, under your rules, that person loses all other possible entries to win that game, along with the points they spent. The way it is currently, if you happen to win another copy of the game during that time, you simply ask the GA creator to re-roll and a new winner is chosen from the same pool of entrants that entered originally, so no one is losing out at all, and the winner will get them game they won. I've had to ask a GA creator to re-roll once so far, and he was more than happy to do so -- maybe because he wanted the CV, and maybe because he wanted someone to get the game that didn't already have it.
Your way wants to remove entries on the premise that someone has already received the game just because the site tells them they've won a game -- and that most definitely isn't always the case.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
What you're requesting is so obviously needed, that I'm amazed people are actually against it. I guess for those who don't bother to check their winners for multiple wins or those who consider it a minor felony and don't report it there's little interest in such enhancement, but for me it would save a lot of trouble.
Comment has been collapsed.
-1 just to keep numbers in balance.
Also, you write about entering GA-s for non-activated wins, while OP is about resolving a situation when people win a GA (but have not received the game yet) and have other live entries for the same game.
Actually I would agree with clearing entries for the same game at the moment of clicking Received, and would also agree with automatically filtering GA-s which someone won and marked as received already (regardless of their presence in the profile), just this discussion is about an other topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
i just entered 7 fallout 4 GAs at the same time, so if the first one i entered is fake, i will lose all the others too.
great automatic system indeed.
Comment has been collapsed.
i still think some people are lost in translation here... at least i hope that's the case.
the proposed system is really unfair, makes no sense at all. -.-
Comment has been collapsed.
If it means I have to file less tickets, I'd take it. At this stage I'm more interested in giving than winning, so nothing related to me entering giveaways is going to get me agitated.
I just want less hassle when sending the keys and checking the winners. For example, today I had 2 bad winners I had to file tickets for (and gladly both were approved), but the whole aspect of collecting evidence for the tickets is time consuming. Maybe some people enjoy going to sgtools, searching the winners wins and checking their steam profile, but I find it nothing more than an hassle (which I'm doing for lack of a better option). If the OP's suggestion means I lose a win once in a blue moon, no worries.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, only if you win it and it turns out to be fake. And the system could be set up to give you your points back.
And yes, it's a great system, because as I said you're no more entitled to win this game than anyone else.
Comment has been collapsed.
We're talking about two sides of the same coin. If the system prevents people from winning the same game more than once, I'll be able to stop checking my winners for multiple wins.
If you have other ideas on how to prevent multiple wins, then by all means feel free to suggest.
Here's one other (more extreme) idea - suspend these winners until they create a giveaway for the second copy and until the winner marks it as received. The giveaway should of course not count toward their CV and should not appear in their profile.
Comment has been collapsed.
A modified version of it, where the felon gets no credit or benefit whatsoever (other than returning the games they did not rightfully win, and thus getting un-suspended).
Do you have alternative solutions for this issue?
Comment has been collapsed.
You know, I hope your system gets implements. Just to see what you'll do when you win fake giveaway and have to wait whole week before you can click not received and again join giveaways for that game.
Hey, lets add another system, where fake-winner get personal message from cg where he'll write "hey, in that week when you were waiting to click not received on fake giveaway, there was N giveaways you COULDN'T enter and win, isn't that great because of fake giveaway and automated kick you couldn't join so many/little giveaways? I love that fact".
Comment has been collapsed.
Do not enter multiple Giveaways for the same game. That's how I avoid it happening.
EDIT - Let me expand on that. What I mean is, don't enter a bunch of GA's for the same game that end at the same time, or within a timeframe of you being able to remove your entry from said GA.
The major problem with this is a certain Dev I know who was just telling people to give away the extra keys to their friends. ReRolls are handled very quickly here, in personal situtations where someone has won the game before or purchased it and forgot their entry it's taken less than 2 hours to get a reroll done. There is nothing more needed from support or the site for this problem, it comes down to the user having to be responsible and not just spam enter GA's with no regard.
Comment has been collapsed.
And lose x-given chances to win the game because I'm lazy? No thanks. I'll enter ALL the giveaways of games I'm interested in, regardless of their start and end time (if, of course, I have the points) and I will just ask for re-roll if I win a game twice.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't get the power to ask for a reroll as the winner of the GA though. Only the GA creator can ask for a reroll from support, thus why people were upset with a certain developer who was telling them to just Mark it and give it away to a friend.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I can always contact the GA creator, can't I? I do understand what all the fuss is about, but these exceptions don't really mean much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes you can, and as long as the GA creator is willing to ask for a reroll nothing is an issue. However, not everyone feels that way. Some creators say they "can't be bothered" to make a ticket and wait for support.
I guess I just don't see why the site should change to something that would cause it to run slower than it already does, just because people have to mass enter GA's without paying attention to what they win, what they are entered in and when they synced their Steam account last. Being lazy is a choice, you aren't entitled to have everything you want at the same time just because you wish it was that way.
Comment has been collapsed.
In that case, you'd mark the 2nd game as "not received" after a week and move on, rather than risk suspension for giving away the 2nd copy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Correct, but how many people do you think that win multiple copy GA's are doing that?
Comment has been collapsed.
And those people get blacklisted/suspended.
IMHO it's not worth upsetting the honest people who happen to win a fake GA by removing all their other entries for the same game. The games you're talking about (and he's not a developer, by the way -- he just "runs" a few Steam groups) are all low-value games, so if the people winning multiple copies of those want to risk suspension and eventual banning for a $3 game, so be it. They have the opportunity to be honest and ask for a re-roll and mark it as not received, so it's up to them to weigh the risks/rewards.
However, it's the higher value GAs that would be really negatively affected by the OP's suggestion -- you enter a six GTA V giveways, you win one, all your other entries are removed, and the creator never delivers ... now you're not only out the game you won, but all your other chances at winning that game (at 50-60 points each). The way it is now -- if you do win two of them during that time, you activate one, mark it as received, and ask the other creator for a re-roll on the 2nd win. The same pool of entrants (minus you now) have a chance to win the game, and the creator is much more likely to follow through with the re-roll simply for the fact that it's such a high CV game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you and think that the OP's suggestion is not good. I was simply saying, there is an easy way to stop this - to remove your entry after you win, or to enter one at a time and when you don't win one you enter the next.
The person who replied to me however just wishes to spam enter a bunch of GA's, pay no attention to them and have the website do all the work for them because they are too lazy to be active in the website and put in a little bit of work for games that someone is taking their time and money to put up here for us to have a chance to win.
Comment has been collapsed.
My logic power is not high enough to understand your statements ;____;
Comment has been collapsed.
He's saying that the moment you win a game, the system should automatically remove all your entries in other ongoing giveaways for the same game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm talking about his replies to the users that clearly shown to him that this is not a good idea, yet he cant understand..
Comment has been collapsed.
I never won a normal giveaway, so I don't know how it looks like on the interface. (I joined yesterday)
So I guess you will get a message on this website if you won something. Wouldn't it be simple and possible to just add a "reroll" button that will be displayed on your win messages?
Comment has been collapsed.
If you win you will get the glorious space cat popup. All hail space cat!
Comment has been collapsed.
The space cat is disturbing on so many levels, yet cg has conditioned me to love it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just got one, I love that cat! I need to remember to check my notifications, they disabled the actual notification symbol due to server issues and now I forget to check.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do not think what you propose should be.
The policy on Steam Gifts is that you may not win a game that is in your Steam Library.
Your proposal is to impose another rule: you can not win a game if you are already chosen as a winner of the same game.
This would create a precedent that implies that the potential to add a game to your library is all that is needed to prohibit winning a giveaway for a game.
Based on that precedent,
users who own a gift or unused key to the game wouldn't be allowed to win,
users who have been promised a copy of the game by anyone wouldn't be allowed to win,
users who have something to trade for the game wouldn't be allowed to win,
users who have enough money to purchase the game wouldn't be allowed to win, and
users who are capable of earning money to buy the game wouldn't be allowed to win.
All have the potential to add the game to their library, the criteria that your proposal indirectly sets. Anyone who is capable of performing any service should then be forbidden from winning, including the completely destitute disabled, except in places where no charity or government support for such exists.
My belief is that the current policy would not be enhanced by your suggestion.
(I suppose it wasn't necessary to add: users who have a birthday coming up and could ask for the game as a gift from their parents, users who have hacked an account that has a key or gift of the game...)
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, what a flight of fancy.
No, when you win a game you're expecting to get that game. As I said before, I agree that if fraud is so rampant on this site that it's more likely that you don't get the game than you do, then the current system is fine.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know. People wanted logic, that's logic. I didn't say it would happen. (We are not logical. Such precedents would probably only be followed if it were in a system of law.)
My comment on your proposal just listed a risk, albeit dramatically extreme. I therefore included no excuses to keep the current system or justify it. I have only been the victim of one fake giveaway, I generally trust others to provide what they promise, and I generally try to withdraw from other giveaways of the same game even before receiving the win.
I personally have had to make dozens of reroll requests for winners accepting multiple wins but I do not think a fair technical solution exists to the prevent it. I think the most effective method of change would be educating users to not accept a second win, contacting giveaway creators or Support. I further think that the new limits to developer giveaways should dramatically reduce the number of new cases of multiple wins (other than those intentional) and that proposals of change should become mostly unnecessary.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your proposal is to impose another rule: you can not win a game if you are already chosen as a winner of the same game.
This would create a precedent that implies that the potential to add a game to your library is all that is needed to prohibit winning a giveaway for a game.
This is a fallacy because you're widening the scope of OP's proposition. The point of OP's proposal is for the system not to allow users to win a game more than once, which is sensible because you can only own (or, to be precise, be licensed to use) a game once on a single Steam account.
Comment has been collapsed.
People who win multiple giveaways for the same game right now aren't given "better treatment." They're treated the same way as everyone else on the site, and the site assumes that they'll do the right thing and ask for a reroll. What you want to do is treat them worse, by introducing something that punishes people for winning giveaways where the creator doesn't deliver.
Here's what I think you don't realize. People who win the same thing twice within a week are pretty rare. Fake giveaways are significantly more common. Your solution gets rid of a rare problem at the cost of making a common one worse. People already complain that they lose the points on fake giveaways, and you want to add the punishment of "You know that game you wanted? You can't even enter for it for another week." That's why everyone hates your idea. A lot more of us have won fake giveaways than won the same thing twice in a row by accident.
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems that people are fine with the idea of removing giveaways when a giveaway is marked as received, so it's possible to start with that.
As for the rest, you've convinced me that more stats are needed. I understand that the objections for my idea come from the assumption that fake giveaways are rampant while double wins are very rare and therefore the current system solves more problems than it creates, and that my idea will create more support issues than it will solve.
I think that if my system was implemented from the start, then people would have felt it's perfectly fine even in this case (and it wouldn't have created more support work), but people are naturally resistant to change, and if fraud is indeed rampant and double wins rare, then I'd tend to agree that it's better to remove entries when 'received' is clicked, rather than up front.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 on automatic entry removal once the giveaway is marked as received. Just don't know whether coding this is possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a programmer, I can tell you that it's entirely possible :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Never won the same game twice.
33% of my wins were "fake giveaways" and the shenanigans were apparent prior to day 3-4. So, a half week of waiting to re-enter would be frustrating.
Can't see why anyone would be against automatic removal after giveaways are marked as received (other than the potential server burden, which was highlighted recently by the site shutdown).
Comment has been collapsed.
A midway solution would be to only do this once the winner marks the gift as received.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with the idea of automatic removal after marking as received. However, since you and some others have mentioned increased server burden as an obstacle to this, I have to say that the only person who can judge whether there'll be a significant performance impact is cg. We users can only speculate, and to oppose good automation ideas upfront because of something we cannot know would be wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, automatic removal once a win has been marked as received is a much more acceptable alternative.
PS -- Sorry for the long- winded reply to your reply on my reply (hahaha) above. I read that earlier reply long before I read this post. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
What about adding a "REROLL" button for the giveaway winner?
And when the winner use that button another user will be chosen automatically...or something like that..
//sorry if my English is crap
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a brilliant idea!
It doesn't address the desire for an automated solution. However, it would still address all of the possible cases in which the winner does not want to claim their prize, including multiple copies of the same game. It's such a great idea, I'm not sure why its not already been implemented.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure if serious....
But...
The winner would see the key if the key was already marked sent by the GA creator. Which could just lead to a bunch of trouble.
Also, then there is no involving support and if support is not involved someone will find a way to exploit it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe sending the key to the winner automatically upon winning is an option, but I've only seen this once in any giveaways I've won and I've never done it in any GA i created.
So, the very simple solution to the problem you raise is to allow a winner initiated re-roll before the key is sent and not after.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like in bundles, where you either click "show key" or "send key as gift".
Comment has been collapsed.
Great idea. That should solve all the problems mentioned by MysticAarrgg, including automatically sent keys.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you have to click send key to send the key to the winner. But if you read the statement under the key box you enter keys in
Keys should be separated by new lines. Please enter Steam redeemable keys, or gift URLs from Steam or Humble Bundle. Key giveaways for 50 copies or greater will be automatically distributed to the winners, while giveaways with less than 50 keys will allow you to review the winners before the keys are sent.
So for the mass ga's that this is the biggest problem with, the keys would be autodelivered.
Comment has been collapsed.
Talk to cg and have him redesign the site and how Mass Key Giveaways are handled.
It's easy to just throw something up and say "Hey, they should do this!" but you are talking about changing the way things are properly running right now just to fix something that can be prevented on the User end of something. You want to add a little more traffic to the website by having the key revealed after a clickthrough?
Are you saying that when I as a GA creator hit Send Key, it sends it to the winner but they have two options "Show Key, Reroll" and it's totally up to them if they are honest about winning the Game already.
Adding too many steps with too many exploitable areas for it imo.
TL;DR - If it ain't broke why fix it?
Comment has been collapsed.
I see. Well, none of this discussion means that people 'should" change well-worn procedures. Apart from problems and their solutions being an interesting discussion, it is important to think about them, because the process itself can generate useful ideas and avoid stagnation.
"You want to add a little more traffic to the website by having the key revealed after a clickthrough?"
Essentially. Though by "clickthough" you may be implying a new page load and I doubt that's not necessary.
"Are you saying that when I as a GA creator hit Send Key, it sends it to the winner but they have two options "Show Key, Reroll"... "
Essentially. They could even be more intuitively titled something like "accept key" & "refuse key"
"...and it's totally up to them if they are honest about winning the Game already."
I'm not clear what you mean here.
"Adding too many steps with too many exploitable areas for it imo."
Good point. Changes will always open new exploit possibilities. Are you suggesting something specifically?
"TL;DR - If it ain't broke why fix it?"
I think people are discussing this because there is a problem. It seems like a minor problem to me, but it also seems like there's a minor solution that could reduce the support burden. Additionally, it could provide contextual information to GA creators regarding winners that don't promptly mark a key as "received", which might also reduce support burden - I'd certainly be more willing to wait a bit more for a winner to see their key before opening a support ticket.
Comment has been collapsed.
None of these topics are new or fresh ideas, they do not offer anything that has not been discussed before and if you search the forums you can see that. It's all the same stuff, I've been here just a few months more than you and I can think of multiple topics on the same thing with the same reaction and the same comments.
As for the quoted replies:
You do remember that the website just had massive problems with lag, including downtime and host issues, that were caused by the increased amount of users on SG. From the changes they've made I would say that the GA's entered and Messages were the main causes of said lag. I am not implying that a new page will load however if you implement those items they will need to send a receive messages to the server to trigger actions, which means when there are large GA events all ending at the same time you could cause even more unwanted congestion.
With your changes, you are taking the power to report people from the GA Creator's hands and letting the person who won multiple copies decide what to do with them. Multiple Wins of the same game is a 5 day suspension. Should that just go away and we give the person breaking the rules the chance to say oh wait "clicks Refuse Key" ok all better...
I'm saying that it's totally up to the person who is clicking "Accept Key" or "Refuse Key" to be honest as to winning a previous GA. With everything you've said there is no system check implemented (which would be impossible with the way Steam API is broken, if just checked against SG GA's it would create a lot of traffic with all the GA's going on), so it falls purely on the end user to be honest and click the correct button.
Yes, I'm suggesting you don't change what isn't broken. Is that hard to understand? I really am trying to make it obvious
The problem is people are greedy, it's an inherent human trait. We want everything we cannot have, if someone we know has it well we want it even more. It's what has driven marketing for years. The problem posted here - people win multiple copies of a GA. The solution? 5 day suspension. It just requires the community to do their jobs, inspect their winners before AND after sending the key or gift or link, as well as to make a ticket and report people you see violating these rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's natural and common enough for people to win the same game several times, which can then lead to problems resolving the situation. I think it would be better to have the system try to resolve the problem before the game is sent. A simple solution would be that once a game is won, the user's entries to other giveaways of the game will be removed.
Comment has been collapsed.