ANSWERED:Ideas on Limiting Reoccurring Raffle Winners

[boscodelta]

I think a CD for the prize winners make sense. It won't really change the fact that its possible for someone to win two but it will at least clear up the selection pool for the RNG and its not like you would be taking past winners off the list permanently. I'd rather implement the store but in the meantime a CD doesn't seem like a bad idea. While I know this game is mostly luck based and how fast your connection is - theres no reason we can't even out the playing field a little

 

[VixenDra]

They are always free to choose not to enter in the following month. Why limiting them by force?

(and no, I've never won, neither my bf)

If they really have to get a limit, only the 1 following draw please...

 

I'm definitely in favor of the Store. Either as the only way, or one of the 2. To have both obtain ways would be nice.

Increased number of winners should also do some good. At least would increase the odds of new winners.

[Draconiusultamius]

For me, I like raffle + cooldown >store.  After a while, store-bought prizes are no longer 'rare'.  Though I like the idea of a store, I prefer a raffle for prizes.  Personally, 3 months isn't enough for me, I'd prefer at least half a year as it's monthly anyways.

[HeatherMarie]

I definitely would *love* to finally have the store implemented, but I also don't think we should say no to other suggestions in the meantime... It's been years since the store was first suggested, and multiple years since it was fleshed out in a fairly detailed manner, but it hasn't happened yet, and we have no way of knowing that it ever will. So in the meantime I think that figuring out other ways to help the raffle is a good idea.

 

Ideally, I'd love it if we had the store implemented, *plus* more winners each month, *plus* a one-month cooldown for winners. However, I kind of think that a one-month cooldown is the most likely thing of actually happening anytime soon (of course I have no idea what TJ thinks about this, that's just my opinion).

[deja]

I think cooldown would be fair/good idea. I mean what are the odds, in so little time, that we will have so many double (triple?) winners. Sure if it was this many in a year or more...but in what, 3 months? That just seems off. 

Also winners should not feel guilty at all. Congrats to all who won.

[olympe]

That's just the way chance works, actually. Which is why I hate games of chance. RNG never even comes close to distributing evenly - unless you have an infinite number of drawings, in which case things appear to roughly even out. Still, it's more appearance than anything.

 

In other words: It's (probably) a safe bet to say that we'll have our first 10-times winner before 90% of all players (who have been participating in the monthly drawings for a year or more) will have at least one CB prize. Mark my words.

[The_Impossible_Girl]

I would like to have the first idea implemented. If the users who win a prize dragon are able to get another prize dragon each and every month, then only a few users will end up having a monopoly on prizes. I don't think people who have won should never be able to win again; I just think that there should be something like a 6 month cool down or something to let other users have a chance.

[perzephone]

I would actually like to see a limit activated - like for Valentines/Christmas dragons. No more than 2 CB Prize of each type/grade (Gold/Silver/Bronze) per scroll. It helps keep the low-gen Prizes rare and keeps the raffle-winning pool fluid. That way, too, if you've already won your two CB Prizes of one type, you can still enter for the others - but if you've got your 2 of each, no more raffles until a new Prize dragon is implemented.

 

And that goes along w/it, too - maybe getting a new type of Prize dragon, since we've had the Tinsels & Shimmers for awhile now.

[Fuzzbucket]

That makes a lot of sense actually.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

48 minutes ago, perzephone said:

I would actually like to see a limit activated - like for Valentines/Christmas dragons. No more than 2 CB Prize of each type/grade (Gold/Silver/Bronze) per scroll. It helps keep the low-gen Prizes rare and keeps the raffle-winning pool fluid. That way, too, if you've already won your two CB Prizes of one type, you can still enter for the others - but if you've got your 2 of each, no more raffles until a new Prize dragon is implemented.

 

And that goes along w/it, too - maybe getting a new type of Prize dragon, since we've had the Tinsels & Shimmers for awhile now.

Oh! That's actually a nice Suggestion! 

[Cinnamin Draconna]

When you say 2 of each type, do you mean just 2 tinsels or 2 shimmers......... or 2 gold tinsels, 2 bronze shimmers. Because while I can agree with no more of two of each COLOR, I would not agree with just 2 of each type. Completionism and all that.. because if I had 2 gold tinsels, I'd still want 2 bronze and 2 silver tinsels AND 2 of each color shimmer.

[Predat0rs]

While atm a Holiday-type limit sounds nice, truthfully in retrospect if it was implemented, the further we get into the future, people will whine and complain about the limits like they do for Xmas/Val already. So, not sure if I'd like that particular idea tbh.

[HeatherMarie]

perzephone said "of each type/grade (Gold/Silver/Bronze)", so I'm assuming that's what they meant, that you could get 2 Gold Shimmers, 2 Silver Shimmers, etc etc.

[The Dragoness]

12 CB Prizes should be more than enough to keep anyone happy. Most of us probably won't ever reach that many anyway. It's a fair number; extremely lucky winners can get a male and female of each before becoming unable to enter future raffles. 

 

I can understand complaining about having 2 CB Val '09s, what with the decreasing rate of 2Gs being bred and all, but 12 CB Prizes? That's a lot. Up until now, 2Gs have been bred at a pretty normal (if you can call Prize breeding that ) rate with most winners only having 1 CB, so I don't think this would be a problem, especially with ongoing raffles. 

[Fiona]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:16 PM, w5aw5 said:

I would like to have the first idea implemented. If the users who win a prize dragon are able to get another prize dragon each and every month, then only a few users will end up having a monopoly on prizes. I don't think people who have won should never be able to win again; I just think that there should be something like a 6 month cool down or something to let other users have a chance.

Emphasis mine. That's not how random works. The chances of the same few people winning over and over for any length of time is astronomically small. Double and triple winners fits in with the nature of random and clumping but the prizes are never going to turn into some kind of monopoly with only the same few winning all the time.

 

I am totally opposed to a cooldown as long as 6 months. That's just discouraging for those who did nothing but be lucky. One or two months, sure, maybe. But you're proposing punishing people for something that was just luck and that's wrong. It's just envy rearing its ugly head.

 

I'm also completely opposed to any limit on how many of each anyone can win. You do know that if people win but don't take their prize it's just gone, right? Since the current raffles are automated I'd expect if someone was lucky enough to win a third of something it would just vanish into the ether if such a limit were implemented. So your chances of winning anything wouldn't be any higher than they are now.

[Draconiusultamius]

1 hour ago, Fiona said:

Emphasis mine. That's not how random works. The chances of the same few people winning over and over for any length of time is astronomically small. Double and triple winners fits in with the nature of random and clumping but the prizes are never going to turn into some kind of monopoly with only the same few winning all the time.

 

I am totally opposed to a cooldown as long as 6 months. That's just discouraging for those who did nothing but be lucky. One or two months, sure, maybe. But you're proposing punishing people for something that was just luck and that's wrong. It's just envy rearing its ugly head.

 

I'm also completely opposed to any limit on how many of each anyone can win. You do know that if people win but don't take their prize it's just gone, right? Since the current raffles are automated I'd expect if someone was lucky enough to win a third of something it would just vanish into the ether if such a limit were implemented. So your chances of winning anything wouldn't be any higher than they are now.

Honestly, its not really punishing people for being lucky to give them some sort of cooldown.  They can still enter and win, just not right away.

[Fiona]

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.

[perzephone]

10 hours ago, Cinnamin Draconna said:

When you say 2 of each type, do you mean just 2 tinsels or 2 shimmers......... or 2 gold tinsels, 2 bronze shimmers. Because while I can agree with no more of two of each COLOR, I would not agree with just 2 of each type. Completionism and all that.. because if I had 2 gold tinsels, I'd still want 2 bronze and 2 silver tinsels AND 2 of each color shimmer.

 

I thought that's what I described - ' No more than 2 CB Prize of each type/grade (Gold/Silver/Bronze)' - so 2 CB Tinsels of each level, 2 CB Shimmers of each level.

[HeatherMarie]

2 hours ago, Fiona said:

I'm also completely opposed to any limit on how many of each anyone can win. You do know that if people win but don't take their prize it's just gone, right? Since the current raffles are automated I'd expect if someone was lucky enough to win a third of something it would just vanish into the ether if such a limit were implemented. So your chances of winning anything wouldn't be any higher than they are now.

 

I'm not sure I follow your thought-process here. If someone wins and doesn't pick up the egg, it "vanishes", got it. But if there is some sort of limit, then people who reach that limit won't *be* winning. Nothing will "vanish" in that instance because winners "win" and can't pick it up because they are at their limit... They simply wouldn't win, someone else would. Or do you mean that someone with, say, the limit of Silver Tinsels could win another Silver Tinsel, and then wouldn't be able to pick it up, so it goes poof? I think that could probably be coded so that someone who's won a certain number of a certain color/breed couldn't win that color/breed, but could still win others. I'm almost positive it's possible for that to be coded that way. Have no clue how easy that would be, but possible yes.

[Fiona]

Once people had reached all the limits then yeah, they wouldn't be entered. But do you think TJ has it coded so each color/breed is a separate raffle? I doubt that very much. So say someone has two silver shims but not two of anything else. They're entered in the raffle. TJ's code picks the top five draws, which win gold shims. Not them. Next 5 draws win gold tins. Not them. Next 10 draws win silver shims. Them. Except they can't win more silver shims. Do you really think the code is going to check before it moves on? "Uh, there's a person in there who can't win that prize so draw another." No, I doubt that. So, for one, the raffle is short on awarding a silver shim, and two, that person misses out on winning anything because your idea denied them what they would have gotten. That scenario would only grow as more prizes were awarded.

 

Mind you, I don't know anymore than anyone else how the raffle is actually coded, but I think my scenario a lot more likely than it being coded as separate raffles, which is what your scenario would require.

 

Besides, maybe someone is in love with silver shims and would be heartbroken to know that they could only ever have the two.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

But what about the people who love silver Shimmerscales never won one because this other person ends up getting them? I mean, I simply adore my bronze tinsel but upon looking at the trading section, most people want a 2g Gold or Silver tinsel so bronze is not something people want often.

[Fiona]

Do you really think denying them means you're going to get what you want?

 

That's my whole problem with this general idea. It's being pressed by people who aren't getting what they want so they think the solution is denying others their good fortune.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

Well that's the thing.

 

Person A wants a silver Shimmerscale

 

Person B is winning Silver Shimmerscales and has won five raffles in a row and bound to win a sixth.

 

🤷 How is person A going to get any silver Shimmerscale if it's random and Person B~K ends up winning all the time? 

[Ruby Eyes]

5 raffles in a row? Now that's making drama where there is none.

I haven't won any Prize yet, but personally, I dislike this whole idea more and more (never really liked it to begin with anyway).

[Moonlight_Eevee]

Well, I'm not saying that won't ever happen, but I'm just saying that it could happen. I mean, someone already has won twice in a row and both times it was a gold tinsel.