ANSWERED:Ideas on Limiting Reoccurring Raffle Winners

[Rally Vincent]

18 hours ago, Fiona said:

Some sort of cool down, sure. A month isn't bad. Six months? Not good. That smacks of "You got lucky and I want to make sure you don't get lucky again because I want MINE." - jealousy.

 

That seems to be the whole point of this suggestion, regardless of the length of the sugggested coldown.

[HeatherMarie]

16 minutes ago, Rally Vincent said:

 

That seems to be the whole point of this suggestion, regardless of the length of the sugggested coldown.

 

Again, please don't generalize that way. As I said in my previous post, not all people feel that way and not all people are supporting this suggestion because they "want MINE". I'm supporting a suggestion to help even out the prize winners, hoping that something like this would make it more likely for *more people* to get one CB Prize. Not me. Not more likely for *me* to get a CB prize. More people in general.

[Rally Vincent]

Actually, this suggestion is not aimed to make it more likely for more people to get a CB, but to exclude a set amount of people to get a CB prize. You won't know if that makes it more likely in the first place, as you don't know if more people decide to enter the raffle next month because they think their chance to win a Prize alledgedly has increased. All you know is that certain players will not win under a cooldown. So yes - it certainly is "You got lucky and I want to make sure you don't get lucky again".

[perzephone]

5 hours ago, Rally Vincent said:

Actually, this suggestion is not aimed to make it more likely for more people to get a CB, but to exclude a set amount of people to get a CB prize. You won't know if that makes it more likely in the first place, as you don't know if more people decide to enter the raffle next month because they think their chance to win a Prize alledgedly has increased. All you know is that certain players will not win under a cooldown. So yes - it certainly is "You got lucky and I want to make sure you don't get lucky again".

 

Ok, let me break it down for you. This is why I think a breed limit would be a good idea:

 

The whole concept of the Prize dragons all these years, and their relative value on the 'trading circuits' is based on their rarity. They are super-special. You can't catch them in the Cave, they can't be bred or spawned, and when it was the Christmas raffle, in some cases you had to work for them. I, like many other people, have been playing this game for years. I've caught, been gifted or traded around to get CB Golds and Silvers, which are (aside from Holiday limited editions) the rarest CB cave-drops. I've been exceedingly lucky to have caught some really nice Hollies in the AP. I've managed to produce my 3 Guardians of Nature. But after all these years, I still haven't managed to catch or trade or be gifted a 2nd-gen Prize or even a 3rd-gen. It's my big score. They're super-rare. I think the Prize dragons should continue to be super-rare.

 

Once the monthly raffles were implemented, with the number of people who would automatically be given a Prize dragon, the potential number of low-gen Prizes or Prizekins out there increased. These aren't inactive players who only come online during the holidays - these are people active enough to at least raise 3 dragons a month and hit the Enter button. And in some cases, active enough to do it, and win, 2 months in a row.

 

And for everyone who thinks all of those suggesting cooldowns or myself for suggesting breed limits means that we're so jealous that we're trying to exclude people from ever winning again or whatever, fine. Keep the raffles, but don't announce the winners. Make it anonymous. Then if someone wins multiple times, no one knows. I didn't even know people were winning multiple times til I saw this thread, and I was like, 'there's nothing in place to prevent this from happening? What kind of RNG is being used here, because it's not very Random...'

[HeatherMarie]

7 hours ago, Rally Vincent said:

Actually, this suggestion is not aimed to make it more likely for more people to get a CB, but to exclude a set amount of people to get a CB prize. You won't know if that makes it more likely in the first place, as you don't know if more people decide to enter the raffle next month because they think their chance to win a Prize alledgedly has increased. All you know is that certain players will not win under a cooldown. So yes - it certainly is "You got lucky and I want to make sure you don't get lucky again".

 

That's true, I don't know that more people won't decide to enter. However, neither do you know that more people *will* decide to enter. We are playing with what-ifs here. It's true that I don't know for a fact that giving winners a one-month cooldown will make it more likely for never-winners to win once, but we also don't know for a fact that it won't. And if it's done correctly, it logically *should* have *some* sort of affect. If 100 (or however many winners there are each month) people can't enter in any given month, then it stands to reason that the people who do enter may have a better chance, because so many others *won't* be entering. If you think it won't have any affect because more people will enter when they find out about the cooldown, that's easily taken care of by simply not announcing when the cooldown is implemented, or how long the cooldown is for.

[Zeditha]

I don't think it would be fair to implement a cooldown without announcing when it starts and how long it's for. And not announcing it wouldn't do anything anyway - the people experiencing cooldowns would talk about it. That is how we know about multiple-time winners.

 

if, every month, the pool of last month's winners are excluded, the number of people entering the raffle is slightly decreased, giving everyone a marginally better chance. It also means that nobody can win two months in a row, which is something that people latch onto as an excuse for jealousy and harassment. These effects combined should spread Prizes a *little* more evenly, and also reduce one cause of hostility in the community.

If there's selfishness here from me, it's that I don't want one of my favourite communities to be full of jealous harassment and general low morale.

 

I also think that a limit on CBs would produce a similar effect. If the maximum you can get of any type is, say, 5, then you won't get people winning 10 gold tins in a short amount of time, which is another thing that people seem to dislike. Sure, there'll be people who reach the limit faster than others, but the effect of multiple-winners should be lessened. And once a player is permently out of the pool for a particular type of Prize, not only are they more likely to get a different one next time, but other people are more likely to win one of the type they have the limit of.

[Rally Vincent]

4 hours ago, perzephone said:

 

Ok, let me break it down for you. This is why I think a breed limit would be a good idea:

 

The whole concept of the Prize dragons all these years, and their relative value on the 'trading circuits' is based on their rarity. They are super-special. You can't catch them in the Cave, they can't be bred or spawned, and when it was the Christmas raffle, in some cases you had to work for them. I, like many other people, have been playing this game for years. I've caught, been gifted or traded around to get CB Golds and Silvers, which are (aside from Holiday limited editions) the rarest CB cave-drops. I've been exceedingly lucky to have caught some really nice Hollies in the AP. I've managed to produce my 3 Guardians of Nature. But after all these years, I still haven't managed to catch or trade or be gifted a 2nd-gen Prize or even a 3rd-gen. It's my big score. They're super-rare. I think the Prize dragons should continue to be super-rare.

 

If you base the cooldown on the fact of rarity, you'd have to implement a cooldown for every player who catches a CB Gold or CB Silver, as there are many players who neither caught or have been traded or gifted one.

 

I am not sure if I got your point with what you said. Their rarity doesn't change, whether the 60 Prizes are on 60 scrolls or on 58 scrolls.

 

2 hours ago, Marie19R said:

 

 If 100 (or however many winners there are each month) people can't enter in any given month, then it stands to reason that the people who do enter may have a better chance, because so many others *won't* be entering.

 

The assumption that "people who enter" have a better chance is incorrect unless you think every registered player minus (players < cooldowned people) entered the last raffle. The chance to win in the next raffle is 60/total numbers of entries. Your assumtion is that the number of entries decreases by excluding people, but neither of us nows if that is true. If 1.000 more players register and take part in the raffle, the chance to win might be much lower. Your assumptions only holds true if you compare it to the theoretically possible numbers of raffle entries. Assuming that the chance of a single player increases by introducing a cooldown is arbitrary.

 

Then, even when we assume every registered player enters the raffle - as soon as the first cooldowns wear off, you'll have the same (theoretical) number of entries. The excluded 60 from last month will be replaced by the 60 whose cooldown wore off. At that point, even excluding people will not raise the theoretical chance to win.

 

---

 

 

Call the suggestion by its real name, then argue your case and see if you can convince TJ. While I don't sympathize with the intention, I can understand that the concept of probability won't satisfy someone who didn't win (again, exclamation mark). But at least don't use the pretense of a higher cause. That is what I don't like about this thread.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

Well, let's not forget the people who become inactive for the entire month and their prize dragon just fades away. See the problem? They enter easily because of the fact that the can easily raise 3 Dragons and then enter the raffle before going back to being inactive or completely forgetting to check the raffle. 

 

I would still like to see what @TJ09 thinks about the whole situation.

 

[Confused Cat]

6 hours ago, perzephone said:

 I didn't even know people were winning multiple times til I saw this thread, and I was like, 'there's nothing in place to prevent this from happening? What kind of RNG is being used here, because it's not very Random...'

 

But... but... the way it is now is purely random... Preventing people from winning multiple times would make it not random...

 

 

Not directed at someone in specific:

 

Random does not mean "evenly distributed Prizes given out in random order" (which I think is what some commenters expect it to be).

We could get closer to that if we had one yearly raffle with 12 times as many Prizes, because then nobody could win more than one in a year.

And we could get even closer to a perfectly even distribution with one raffle every ten years, with 120 times as many Prizes. (Obviously that would cause other - bigger - problems. I'm not really suggesting it.)

However, with the monthly system we currently have, can everybody please stop saying there must be something wrong or "not random enough" when some players win more than once in a short time? It's not what we (or some of us) may want, but it's perfectly logical. It's what is to be expected with completely random drawings. Please stop being surprised at maths.

 

 

Anyway, maybe we have to introduce a cooldown to protect winners - and the community - from the consequences of anybody winning twice in a row.

It would not significantly raise everybody else's chances of winning, but I guess it might significantly reduce the impression that some players win over and over again.

 

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, Rally Vincent said:

I am not sure if I got your point with what you said. Their rarity doesn't change, whether the 60 Prizes are on 60 scrolls or on 58 scrolls.

 

The assumption that "people who enter" have a better chance is incorrect unless you think every registered player minus (players < cooldowned people) entered the last raffle. The chance to win in the next raffle is 60/total numbers of entries. Your assumtion is that the number of entries decreases by excluding people, but neither of us nows if that is true. If 1.000 more players register and take part in the raffle, the chance to win might be much lower. Your assumptions only holds true if you compare it to the theoretically possible numbers of raffle entries. Assuming that the chance of a single player increases by introducing a cooldown is arbitrary.

 

Then, even when we assume every registered player enters the raffle - as soon as the first cooldowns wear off, you'll have the same (theoretical) number of entries. The excluded 60 from last month will be replaced by the 60 whose cooldown wore off. At that point, even excluding people will not raise the theoretical chance to win.

 

---

 

Call the suggestion by its real name, then argue your case and see if you can convince TJ. While I don't sympathize with the intention, I can understand that the concept of probability won't satisfy someone who didn't win (again, exclamation mark). But at least don't use the pretense of a higher cause. That is what I don't like about this thread.

 

Well of course if you ENTER you have a better chance of winning. You do have to be in it to win it. And yes to that last bit. This thread isn't BASICALLY about how to make it fairer, it's about how to make it more likely that I (generic) will win. Not - to be fair - actually to stop anyone else winning,. but still - that IS what it boils down to.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dalek Raptor said:

Well, let's not forget the people who become inactive for the entire month and their prize dragon just fades away. See the problem? They enter easily because of the fact that the can easily raise 3 Dragons and then enter the raffle before going back to being inactive or completely forgetting to check the raffle. 

 

I would still like to see what @TJ09 thinks about the whole situation.

 

 

Is there any evidence at all that this has actually happened ?

 

14 minutes ago, Confused Cat said:

 

But... but... the way it is now is purely random... Preventing people from winning multiple times would make it not random...

 

 

Not directed at someone in specific:

 

Random does not mean "evenly distributed Prizes given out in random order" (which I think is what some commenters expect it to be).

We could get closer to that if we had one yearly raffle with 12 times as many Prizes, because then nobody could win more than one in a year.

And we could get even closer to a perfectly even distribution with one raffle every ten years, with 120 times as many Prizes. (Obviously that would cause other - bigger - problems. I'm not really suggesting it.)

However, with the monthly system we currently have, can everybody please stop saying there must be something wrong or "not random enough" when some players win more than once in a short time? It's not what we (or some of us) may want, but it's perfectly logical. It's what is to be expected with completely random drawings. Please stop being surprised at maths.

 

ALL this. Random WILL mean people showing up more than once.

 

Random is random. The second you put conditions  and limitations in it, it ceases to be random - and therefore becomes less fair, over all. The only way to have a non-random distribution is the store. And that looks increasingly unlikely as an option.

[Jazeki]

6 hours ago, Rally Vincent said:

 

If you base the cooldown on the fact of rarity, you'd have to implement a cooldown for every player who catches a CB Gold or CB Silver, as there are many players who neither caught or have been traded or gifted one.

 

 

Quoting to point out that the prizes are exclusive (only available to raffle entrants and not in cave) and CB golds and silvers are not. Everyone has a chance at those and saying they also need a cool down because rarity is not the same. I could try for a gold/silver  from the cave 24/7 except on holidays/during new release floods. I get one chance a month for a prize dragon with a very limited population.

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, Jazeki said:

Quoting to point out that the prizes are exclusive (only available to raffle entrants and not in cave) and CB golds and silvers are not. Everyone has a chance at those and saying they also need a cool down because rarity is not the same. I could try for a gold/silver  from the cave 24/7 except on holidays/during new release floods. I get one chance a month for a prize dragon with a very limited population.

 

Yes they are. But the suggestion was (I forget by whom - I think not you !) that the issue was their RARITY and by that token, golds and silvers should be included. Not that I agree with that as an idea, but if it's RARITY...

[Terrafreaky]

I really like the idea of limiting the wins to a limited number of each color+type.  

 

I'm not really sure a cooldown is going to help all that much.  I have no idea how many people enter each month, but a month or two of cooldown doesn't seem like it is keeping very many people out of the overall raffle pool, numbers-wise.  I suppose it would be effective at keeping  people from feeling the anguish of seeing back-to-back winners.    But I enjoy reading about things like that - just like I did when people got the April Fool's Mints (and I died  )

[HeatherMarie]

Okay, let me try again. Call the suggestion by it's "real name".... Okay, the suggestion is "limiting reoccurring raffle winners". That is exactly what I have been posting about, so... I don't see why the whole "real name" was brought up. To be honest I don't know the OP's main motive in suggesting this, and I'm not pretending to. What I am saying is that supporting this suggestion does not automatically equal greed, or jealousy, or wanting MINE right now. This suggestion is to "limit reoccurring raffle winners", which *to me* sounds like a decent way to spread out the Prize winners a little better.

 

The "assumption" that giving winners a cooldown *might* give people who enter the next raffle a *slightly* better chance is a completely logical assumption, I think. Yes, it's probably true that the number people entering the raffle in any given month differs, so we can't say for certain that Dec would have less entries then Nov if Nov's winners couldn't enter. However, in my mind it's still something to consider. Say we look at the number of entries for 6 months, and the average number is somewhere between 500 and 550. If 60 winners can't enter the next raffle, *and* more people then normal don't enter, that'd be what, 440-490 entries, if the average stays roughly the same? That's still a bit less then "normal", because of those who can't enter. It's perfectly possible that more people then normal may enter on that month, but it's also perfectly possible that the same number as usual will enter, minus the ones who one last time.

 

And yes, excluding people from some raffles makes it "not random", but perhaps "random" isn't the best way to distribute prizes if it means that multiple people win multiple times while many people don't win at all. "Random" may be "fair" in a certain sense, but that doesn't always mean *best*.

[Rally Vincent]

53 minutes ago, Marie19R said:

The "assumption" that giving winners a cooldown *might* give people who enter the next raffle a *slightly* better chance is a completely logical assumption, I think. Yes, it's probably true that the number people entering the raffle in any given month differs, so we can't say for certain that Dec would have less entries then Nov if Nov's winners couldn't enter. However, in my mind it's still something to consider. Say we look at the number of entries for 6 months, and the average number is somewhere between 500 and 550. If 60 winners can't enter the next raffle, *and* more people then normal don't enter, that'd be what, 440-490 entries, if the average stays roughly the same? That's still a bit less then "normal", because of those who can't enter. It's perfectly possible that more people then normal may enter on that month, but it's also perfectly possible that the same number as usual will enter, minus the ones who one last time.

 

You are putting assumption in " ", yet your argument bases on "say we" and "if". That is exactly my point. Everything is speculation. Let me give another example. Last raffle there were, say, 500 entries. 60 people will be excluded from the next raffle, and on average 100 players who said before "Why take part, I'll never win anyway" now enter because they think "my chances are higher".

 

My example is just as arbitrary as yours. I could not back it up with facts, and neither can you. Truth is, none of us will ever know how much our chances to win differ from the last or next raffle because all depends on the number of entries in that month. The only thing we know for certain is that a cooldown will prevent certain players from winning.

 

I find it highly irritating that so many people agree to disadvantage other players based on nothing but speculation for a probably miniscule increase to win.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Rally Vincent

[Stromboli]

I mean, yeah, odds of an individual winning are going to vary from raffle to raffle depending on how many people total are entered. A cool down wouldn't help any particular individual win, but it would mean you'll have unique winners over the cool down period. You'd get duplicate winners over the life of the raffle, sure, but you could put a two month cool down on winning and over the course of any three months know you'd have 180 unique winners.

[Jazeki]

1 hour ago, fuzzbucket said:

 

Yes they are. But the suggestion was (I forget by whom - I think not you !) that the issue was their RARITY and by that token, golds and silvers should be included. Not that I agree with that as an idea, but if it's RARITY...

Ah. Had to scroll up to find that and @Zeditha described them as "super-rare." And this was put along the same lines as GONs and I'm guessing holidays meaning you get a certain amount and then no more ever. Holidays are yearly exclusives and prizes are monthly. Even with taking rarity into account, it's not the same. Just because I can't catch a CB gold or silver doesn't mean they are super rare.

 

[DogLover]

So, just a curious question...does anyone actually know for a sure fact how many players have won multiple times, or are people just making assumptions based on the few poor players who have actually admitted winning more than once in the forums-and I say "poor" because to me, just reading though all this, even tho everyone claims not to be jealous, they sure are acting like they are....I know that I wouldn't even post if I did win even one, just because of that.

 

Personally, I'm just very happy that TJ is doing monthy raffles and that I have a small chance of winning each month...it sure beats the odds of once a year, or really beats the odds of no raffle at all, and I would sure hate to see him cancel the raffle all together because of people complaining.

[Fuzzbucket]

1 minute ago, pixiezbite said:

So, just a curious question...does anyone actually know for a sure fact how many players have won multiple times, or are people just making assumptions based on the few poor players who have actually admitted winning more than once in the forums-and I say "poor" because to me, just reading though all this, even tho everyone claims not to be jealous, they sure are acting like they are....I know that I wouldn't even post if I did win even one, just because of that.

 

Personally, I'm just very happy that TJ is doing monthy raffles and that I have a small chance of winning each month...it sure beats the odds of once a year, or really beats the odds of no raffle at all, and I would sure hate to see him cancel the raffle all together because of people complaining.

 

I agree. But I would SO much rather have seen the store come into being.

[Fiona]

Prizes are not rare. CB prizes are exclusive - i.e. handed out instead of caught or traded. But prizes are not rare.

 

Considering there are 60 winning numbers drawn each month and we hear from maybe half a dozen I'd say no one has any idea how many repeat winners there are. If I won ever I'd hesitate to say so, much less if I won multiple times, for exactly the reason you suggested.

[DogLover]

4 minutes ago, fuzzbucket said:

 

I agree. But I would SO much rather have seen the store come into being.

 

Agree for sure-what I wouldn't give to have a cb holly-lol!

[Jazeki]

@pixiezbite, go into the raffle discussion thread and take a look. There are some winners who also won in the original raffles and others who posted that they won more than once in the new raffles. it's better to look there first and then draw your own conclusions.

 

(Excuse typos. I am mobile.)

[DogLover]

I do follow the raffle topic, but considering how many players only come to the forums rarely...or if they do, they don't post. I know I tend to only post in trades, as for the most part I'm a lurker.

 

[Tecca]

I don't support this, except maybe breed limits on cb prizes. 2 each of gold/silver/bronze, Tinsel and Shimmer. That's up to 12 cb prizes someone could have, which seems like plenty to me. Until they meet that quota, I say let the lucky ones enjoy their good fortune, even if they win every month for a year.

 

I haven't won any raffles yet, but I'd like to daydream about having a full set, one day.

[Draconiusultamius]

6 minutes ago, Tecca said:

I don't support this, except maybe breed limits on cb prizes. 2 each of gold/silver/bronze, Tinsel and Shimmer. That's up to 12 cb prizes someone could have, which seems like plenty to me. Until they meet that quota, I say let the lucky ones enjoy their good fortune, even if they win every month for a year.

 

I haven't won any raffles yet, but I'd like to daydream about having a full set, one day.

I'm not really too big on breed limits.  I'd rather have an entry cooldown.  Or better yet, narrower requirements that people actually need to work for.  Such as having a certain number of a specific dragon, not having a CB prize on your scroll, certain lineages, etc.  Eg. one month could be 7 red dragons, one gaurdian, no CB gold prizes. next month could be no zombies, three z-coded dragons, fewer than 500 dragons total.  

These could prevent certain people from entering, giving others an advantage, without having any actual limits or cooldown.  It wold also be more fair imo.