Would you prefer less points?
If we can bet all our point in one giveaway, it will be great .
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah except imagine this: someone hacks steam gifts for unlimited points. Said hacker then sinks thousands of points into a single giveaway, practically guaranteeing the win.
With the current system, a hacker can enter every single giveaway and still not win
Comment has been collapsed.
I think DarkTanner meant to enter a giveaway betting "all our points", not "unlimited points".. meaning the points could still be capped to a certain amount.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except a hacker could just refill their points again
Comment has been collapsed.
Horrible idea, this was implemented on galagiveaways in the past and it was the main reason I myself and a lot of others abandoned it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah that's why those sites suck and I'm not rly using them.
And that would be the last day for me on this site too if that would be implemented here too.
How could someone recommend such a ... thing? (this to DarkTanner)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, mostly because less points will make people be more selective with the giveaways they choose and increase the odds that the person winning a giveaway genuinely wants to play it instead of just padding their library or entering because they have extra points to burn.
I'm a low level but I think it would be fair that those who contribute more get more points as well. One could argue that goes against the spirit of the site but a rewards system like that usually helps folks be more generous, which in turn creates more giveaways, more points, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally I'm for the point reduction but I really don't see why you should need a contributor bonus there too when the contribution levels already give access to more giveaways and those more also being with better odds.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 If you want to reward people for giving away gifts just make it level restricted.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol....then this ll be like on SC.
on SC i saw 1 favorite game have +100.000 entry
because many player put all points on that.
XD
Comment has been collapsed.
Given the fact that you could still join a giveaway only once.. it will be the same.
Even now some giveaways have thousands of entries. For example the featured Tidalis has 11k+ entries and I honestly doubt 11k people really want to play it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Less points for some, miniature American fags for others! Crowd cheers
Comment has been collapsed.
Less points for users with more wins than aways. Its better.
My 300 points coming soon bcs no giveaways to join (2000 on blacklist) :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Wouldn't it be better to reduce the rate of earning points rather than decrease the cap? No matter how many points I spend, it seems I'm back up to 300 in a few hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your poll is missing the most important option:
- YES! I'm always sitting at 300 points because there aren't that many games I really want anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
what about
- NO! 300P is the right amount to enter giveaways I'm interested in and even save some for other interesting giveaway yet to come
Comment has been collapsed.
Spending the Points actually depends to your wishlist or your favorite games and each day giveaways lists ! . Sometimes in one day i need more than 300 point and some days i don`t need to 300 points indeed !
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklist games you dont want and then you'll have only games you are interested on the first 2 pages = no points wasted.
Comment has been collapsed.
OMG don't complain about it!
its like working and getting a salary of X money and you spend only half of it so you say to the boss "hey please lower my salary I cant spend it all!"
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a "complaint" it's a "suggestion"..
And I wrote it here with the thought of encouraging people in spending points in games they want.. I understand some people want more games than others, and that some need more points than others.
You missed the point:
For example, I won games that I didn't play and probably will not play them any time soon. As I see this is true also for you, since you won multiple games more than a half year ago and your steam profile doesn't look like you've played them. So probably other users wanted those games more than us.
Anyway, I respect and understand other opinions.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a problem, It's a thing I experience on the site. Taken like that any suggestion can be accounted as a complaint.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said it's a solution. It's simply a "suggestion".
I'm curious what a suggestion would be in your opinion..
Comment has been collapsed.
I got your point :)
But suggestions are meant to improve not to fix.. and I'm looking for improvement(at least in my opinion), not fixes. Ofc for others this may not be an improvement.
Based on your first comment I understand that:
"Suggestion: Search after number of points" is also bitching that you don't have a search by points option.
Anyway.. nice chitchat :)
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason you experience this issue is that there are very few games you want.
Earlier you mentioned Tidalis having 11k+ entrants... and I agree with you... the vast majority of those who entered do not want the game, they simply entered because it was the most efficient use of their points. (Gave them the best chance of winning something vs. points available) A reduction in point gain rate would likely still have seen close to 11K entrants.
This site gives out points with the idea that you can enter about 1/10th of all games offered. (Or thereabouts) So the reason the rate at which we gain points is so tremendous right now, is because a lot of games are being donated. To halve the rate at which we get points, simply have people donate half as many games.
Basically you want less than 1 in 20 of the games on offer and as such find few games you would want to throw points at.... for those who want every game on offer... they have to pick only 1 in 10 to join. As you pointed out - this is not necessarily an ideal system as those who don't really care for the game may get it because of 'spare' points. However dropping the rate of point gain to half what it currently is (so that you can only choose 1 in 20 games to enter) would still result in players having more points than they know what to do with if they only desired 1 in 40 of the games put on offer....
The current system is good in that it scales with the rate of donation, (but breaks if there ever happens to be less than 10 game donations for slightly above the average of the donation period) for me, I would think a reduction is a good idea, but I also acknowledge that it would NOT fix the 'thing', 'issue' or reason for your OP.
For those interested in different systems, there are different sites available...
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, perfectly stated :)
It's a matter of what are the needs of the majority. So if majority of users want 1 in 10 games, then the system is good as it is and it just happens I'm a bit off from the majority.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you assume the majority uses their points on"meh" games? Do you have statistics to back that position up.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, I would say that "ofc I don't" :)
but actually the poll is a statistic and it's 60%-40%..
also.. 11k+ entries on Tidalis is quite of an example.
Anyway the topic is way more delicate than I thought.
Comment has been collapsed.
The poll does not mention whether people use up leftover points and interpretting the number of entries in the Tidalis giveaway as meaning the same only works if you can get evidence that entrants consider it a "meh" game.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, of course is not the most accurate statistic.. but the poll actually mentions "I spend half of them on games I don't want anyway" and it's got some subscribers :)
It is for sure my subjective opinion. I'm not trying to build a case or look for evidence..
Comment has been collapsed.
I suppose with those words, you can assume that no more than 19% of Steamgifts registered users who read the forum post and responded to the included survey spend their extra points and feel that they (and others) should be prevented from doing so by reducing the number of point. (There is no clear definition of what the poll means here so respondants may want the max point level reduced or the number of points generated reduced.
Any argument made is a case built on evidence, yours included.
Comment has been collapsed.
sorry, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I watch NCIS or other..
I can also "read" the numbers.The poll was not intended for finding out who spends their extra points or not.. the question is plain simple "Would you prefer less points?"
anyway.. I'm out. Thanks for joining the chat & have a nice evening:D
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, as you point out, discussion can lead to improvements.
Thinking on it, a major reason we have such tremendous point gain rates is because of the idea that you should be able to try to win 1 out of 10 games on offer. This causes an imbalance because of bundle games. While the CV earned is 15% when putting a bundle up as a giveaway, I suspect the 'value' that the bundle game adds to the system is the full listed price.
As such a game like Don't Starve Together which is not yet on any bundle has the same contribution as Starion Tactics which some bundles even give 2 keys of with each purchase. This results in a lot of the 700,000 (Fortunately there only seem to be about 30,000 to 50,000 active) users using their 1 in 10 on DST while most ignore ST.
A potential solution is to also reduce the contribution bundle games make to 15-20% of full value. Thus the more 'desirable' non-bundle games being put in the system the more points we get to enter them while not being given as much for the bundled games. This should closer reflect the popularity (in the form of entries) we see on Steamgifts.
This way, instead of ignoring all the Suicidal Pigs and putting all points to the higher value non-bundle games, you are back to having to make a choice of which 'full price' game you want to try for.
Unfortunately, this will cause bundle games to receive even less entries than they currently do, but I do not see this as a bad thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Another possibility is to mix the Steamcompanion system in. But rather than being able to simply spend more points for more chances, the price of each successive 'chance' is doubled.
ie: 1 chance at Mirror's Edge is 20 points,
2 chances at Mirror's Edge is 60 points, (20 for the first, 40 for the second)
3 chances at Mirror's Edge is 140 points, (20 for the first, 40 for the second, 80 for the third)
4 chances at Mirror's Edge is all 300 points, (20 for the first, 40 for the second, 80 for the third, 160 for the fourth)
Leave the limit at 300 and thus having 4x the chance to win a particular giveaway might cost you all your points. (and in the case of higher value games, you may not even be able to get to 3x chance)
Comment has been collapsed.
I tend to cruse at 300 points, and drop them on things I want, I rarely run out except when there is a massive forum event.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, I could care less. This is really stretching to change things that are really not broken or need fixing. I know it's a suggestion, but "eh."
Comment has been collapsed.
I think having more points per contrib level would be nice,it'd be a way to get more people to raffle
Comment has been collapsed.
just don't enter, if it's a game you would spend money on enter, if its a game u would never get unless its free or Tier 1 bundle then don't enter, because that pretty much sums up what you will actually play or not
Comment has been collapsed.
I really don't see the issue with this as it's not like we're allowwed to have over 300 points as the way it sounds it's more like "I want people to have less points so they don't end up entering for things I want"
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, yes.. it basically translates to: "I want people to have less points so they enter only the giveaways they want, so they don't end up entering the things I want unless they also want it".
And is basically asking the general opinion if 300points is too much or not for them on an average day to enter for the games they are interested in.. ofc a number will never satisfy everybody as probably some people even wish for more points.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe just spend points on games you actually want? Nothing is forcing you to spend all of your points. If a game is "meh" to you, then simply ignore it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh I don't care spending (or not) all my points. If I want a game, I'll enter it without second guess, for games that are ok, it's by periods. When I'm out of them, it's because there is a worthy bundle somewhere (like the Star War one, even if I ended up to buy it the last day because there was no way I was letting Dark Forces II out of my library).
Comment has been collapsed.
im literally weeks and weeks capped at 300p without entering anything... I only enter the things i would play.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why? As the site grows in users, more giveaways are made, so more points should be created.
It makes sense.
I've actually kept running into the 300p limit recently unless I check back every 12 hours or so, they could raise it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is possible for the site to grow in users while the number of giveaways made fall... the system is set so that as giveaways fall off so does the rate at which we get points. Assuming all of the 700,000 users were actively participating, each giveaway would have an average of 70,000 entries. Less popular games get less entries allowing points to be put towards more popular games.
It is really thanks to people like you who keep their balances at max that we do not see 70,000 to 7000,000 entries per giveaway.
I think the limit is quite good. The rate of point gain however could do with a reduction.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree the limit is fine but I think the current 1 point earned per created givaway is just fine.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's actually about 1 point per 10 USD worth of giveaways. (I think it's actually worse than this... system might be rounding down fractions to calculate game worth.)
So if you created 10 Retention giveaways we would each gain 1 point. (estimated) A single Lara Croft Guardian of Light would give us 1 point each. (estimated)
Comment has been collapsed.
Which would make more sense anyway. :-) I knew this of course, I must have been thinking of something else while I typed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand, why do you need to spend all your points? What's wrong in having them left?
Comment has been collapsed.
nothing wrong:) but people do it (myself included) not to "waste them". I'll probably try to refrain from this habit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Think about it this way: it would be tragic for you if you had not enough points to enter new giveaway (game you desire) ending soon :).
Comment has been collapsed.
No and here is the simple reason why...
Instead of only checking the site and joining giveaways say every 8 hours, you're gonna have people checking the site every hour to make sure they don't hit the lowered limit. Then you will have people complaining "we should lower the points people get so they can't do that...
So no this should not happen. Lots of us talked about this during the long beta of V2 and it didn't go down it stayed at 300 points. Its fine where its at.
Also this has been brought up a number of times and shot down every time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find myself very often browsing first 10 pages of game listing and not spending all my points(I mainly spend them 2 times/day) then I'm inclined in joining giveaways for games that I'm more like "mehh ok". I would prefer to have higher chances on giveaways I'm really interested in, rather than entering more giveaways with smaller chances.
Maybe for lot of people having more points=more chances, but considering everybody has more points, everybody will join more giveaways so each giveaway will have lower win chance.
Also I know that some guys have a larger "wishlist" than others.. and that some people spend the points more frequently.. so for those who spend the whole day browsing for games there will be no change.
Also, maybe contributor level could include point adjustments if wanted..
For ex:
100 Points for everyone: +20points/level( or +10 )
It will mean you get 200points at level 5 and 300points at level 10.
Anyway.. check the Poll to have an idea of the "collective desire"
Comment has been collapsed.