ANSWERED:Ideas on Limiting Reoccurring Raffle Winners

[Ruby Eyes]

Yes, and I don't see anything wrong about that. I'm happy for them, just as I'm happy for those who won the old christmas raffles twice.

Who knows what you'll get so lucky with in the future?

[Nimrodel]

I did get lucky enough to win in the August raffle. I was incredibly surprised, I had never thought I was going to win anything in that raffle no matter how many months I participated, so of course I am beyond thrilled to have gotten something after all. But happy as I am about that, and much as I love my dragon, I still have to admit that it was my least favourite prize option. So, with the danger of sounding ungrateful and greedy, I would be sad to be excluded from future raffles and the lose the chance to eventually get my favourite.

 

That said, I do understand the desire to limit several-in-a-row wins. A month or two cooldown I could get behind. Or a limit of a certain number of wins per type of prize dragon. The suggestion I saw somewhere in the thread of making the cooldown six months though, that is way too long in my opinion.

[perzephone]

9 hours ago, Marie19R said:

 

 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.

 

It could be one of those 'if/then' statements. If 'rafflewinner' has (2) X dragon then award next available dragon', and a separate code for the raffle entry itself, which would be 'if player has all slots filled then player can not enter raffle'.

 

(It's been a long time since I've done anything in any coding language, and things have moved on a lot, so I don't even know if they still use stuff like that, but it gives a general idea).

[The Dragoness]

Just something I want to throw out there because it hasn't been mentioned yet...

 

Winners are pretty likely to be harassed over 2G Prizes. I don't think that it's okay in any way, but it has continued to happen ever since the first raffles and should be expected at this point. People with multiple CB Prizes are bound to be harassed even more, and, as many winners have done in the past, may just leave DC altogether. That means that those CB Prizes are no longer contributing to the low gen Prize pool, which is a serious problem. Let's say they continue to win again and again after they've left. Those eggs will disappear into the abyss.

 

This is where limits per color and type could help. Why does anyone need more than 2 of each anyway, even if it is their favorite? Maybe it's just me, but I think that's kind of greedy. Most of us will never even win 1. No, I'm not saying that winners should feel guilty and yes, it is random, but it has already been proven that past winners seem to be winning again at a fairly steady rate. I don't really think it's a form of punishmemt to say "you reached your limit, enjoy your shinies and be happy that you won, but it's someone else's turn to be super lucky." Drama will become a huge problem when a dozen people have 10+ CB Prizes and the majority has 0. 

 

Edit: cleared up what I said, since some of it didn't make sense due to spelling and grammar. The consequences of typing when I'm half asleep...

Edited October 6, 2017 by The Dragoness

[Fuzzbucket]

4 hours ago, Fiona said:

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.

 

This. I thought a limit of 2 of each type was a good idea, but I've gone right off it. And I post as one who hasn't' won and never will because that is my life vis a vis raffles

[Ruby Eyes]

30 minutes ago, The Dragoness said:

Let's say they continue to win again and again after they've left. Those eggs will disappear into the abyss.

Not happening, as you need to actively enter in order to win.

 

And now we're already at 10+ per person. Seriously?

Edited October 6, 2017 by Ruby Eyes

[Jazeki]

I'd be okay with a limit for each color. Either two or four of each color and type to allow for refusals/even genders if people want them. I haven't won any and sure I would like multiples, but I'd rather have a "better" chance at winning all of the types after a while and I don't mind giving up a possibility of "endless" multiple wins if it means that other people can have their chances improved as well. 

 

@Ruby Eyes- You can enter and then leave, so theoretically @The Dragoness's scenario could happen once. Unless someone plays seasonally and wins and leaves multiple times.  Some winners have mentioned that they came back just barely in the nick of time to pick up eggs because they weren't playing regularly and forgot about the raffle. 

 

Edit: To clarify, I meant that they can enter and leave the game and then come back to pick up their eggs or they come back long enough  to enter and then leave again, only to forget to pick up their prizes at all. And then those prizes poof. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Jazeki

[Fiona]

If people have left the forums after winning prizes one reason is because they've been made to feel guilty for winning, which threads like this foster. Did they deserve their luck? No. Neither do you. No one "deserves" to be lucky; that's why they call it luck. Making them feel guilty for being lucky is self-centered. It's envy at it's ugliest.

 

Limiting other people's chances of winning anything doesn't significantly improve your chances unless and until you make a huge dent in the number of other people entering. That becomes a very self seeking attitude.

 

And this number being thrown around of people winning 10 or more prizes before most people win one is hyperbole. Inflating the "if's" to scare people or persuade them to a skewed opinion is just using wrong thinking to press your personal agenda. Random is used for these things precisely because the highest odds are the widest dispersion. So, a few people will win twice, maybe even three times. A few people won't ever win. Mostly the goods will spread out - slowly, yes. But most who win will win once because that's how chance works.

 

So, there's no need or reason to limit how many of anything each person can win because odds are they won't win more than one anyway. Maybe if they're lucky they'll win two. (as we have an example now) If someone ends up being lucky enough to win more than that they ought to be out buying lottery tickets every week, because man. That's some luck.

[Ruby Eyes]

@Jazeki & Dragoness

Yeah, and how often is that going to happen? You're drawing worst-case scenarios here just for the sake of making a point for this suggestion, despite them being rather unlikely. I smell artificial panicking. Next one is going to announce the winner of 20+ CB Prizes.

 

Statistically, more one-time winners than double winners have left the game already, leaving their Prizes unbred. One was even frozen. Are you making plans for preventing this as well?

Edited October 6, 2017 by Ruby Eyes

[Moonlight_Eevee]

2 minutes ago, Fiona said:

If people have left the forums after winning prizes one reason is because they've been made to feel guilty for winning, which threads like this foster. Did they deserve their luck? No. Neither do you. No one "deserves" to be lucky; that's why they call it luck. Making them feel guilty for being lucky is self-centered. It's envy at it's ugliest.

 

Limiting other people's chances of winning anything doesn't significantly improve your chances unless and until you make a huge dent in the number of other people entering. That becomes a very self seeking attitude.

 

And this number being thrown around of people winning 10 or more prizes before most people win one is hyperbole. Inflating the "if's" to scare people or persuade them to a skewed opinion is just using wrong thinking to press your personal agenda. Random is used for these things precisely because the highest odds are the widest dispersion. So, a few people will win twice, maybe even three times. A few people won't ever win. Mostly the goods will spread out - slowly, yes. But most who win will win once because that's how chance works.

 

So, there's no need or reason to limit how many of anything each person can win because odds are they won't win more than one anyway. Maybe if they're lucky they'll win two. (as we have an example now) If someone ends up being lucky enough to win more than that they ought to be out buying lottery tickets every week, because man. That's some luck.

The original purpose of this thread wasn't supposed to be guilt tripping people and I apologize if my attitude was coming off that way. I think there should be a way where everyone should have a chance to win a prize (aka the store but that may or may not happen) or up the requirements of entering the raffle.

[Jazeki]

Yes, 10+ prizes is hyperbole at this point (it's not possible until next year--meaning they won at least 4 by the end of this year and continue their amazing winning streak into 2018 and then go out and gamble in real life), but it's not really a worst-case scenario since there are so many players. It's  just disheartening.  

 

And really, you can't prevent people from winning once or freezing or leaving, but you can limit how many times they win in a short amount of time. 

 

Edit: Also, @Ruby Eyes My initial comment was in reply to your quote and had nothing to do with the amount of CBs someone could have. Please don't say I'm inciting panic. I already mentioned my stance rather clearly in previous posts.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Jazeki

[Cinnamin Draconna]

On 9/30/2017 at 1:06 PM, Cinnamin Draconna said:

Best solution: get rid of the raffles and open the Store.

 

Raffles by their very nature are totally unfair.

And round and round we go about what is and isn't fair. So I repeat my original observation.. lose the raffles and bring in the Store. Because there is no fair solution to the problem, and 'random' is never fair.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

4 minutes ago, Cinnamin Draconna said:

And round and round we go about what is and isn't fair. So I repeat my original observation.. lose the raffles and bring in the Store. Because there is no fair solution to the problem, and 'random' is never fair.

But if we get rid of the raffle, it could be years before the store actually does open (if TJ actually approves it) and people will complain because of it not being implemented right after the raffles closed

Edited October 6, 2017 by Dalek Raptor

[Cinnamin Draconna]

I did not say lose them 'now'.. I'm just saying that we need the Store ASAP. The basic concept and 'how it should work' about the Store is pretty much ready to go. TJ just needs to code it. Figureing out how to get him to do it, when he doesn't want to, is the problem.

[The Dragoness]

1 hour ago, Ruby Eyes said:

Not happening, as you need to actively enter in order to win.

 

And now we're already at 10+ per person. Seriously?

I meant if they return now and again, but aren't actively playing. Sorry, I thought I said that 

 

I'm not sure why I'm being targeted for just pointing out that winning multiple times would put lots of stress on players. I even mentioned that no one should be treated unfairly in such a situation. And I never said anything about wanting to increase my own chance of winning? I'm far more concerned with keeping the low gen Prize breeding pool alive. Accusing me of "panicking" is unfair.

 

My ideas are clearly not welcome in this thread, despite this being an open discussion, so I'm just going to withdraw. This is turning into a hostile environment and I don't want to see anyone hurt.

Edited October 6, 2017 by The Dragoness

[Zeditha]

I think I'd support a one-month cooldown, but no more, and a limit of at least 4 on each type of Prize.

Any longer of a cooldown and it feels like that would be just cruel, and any fewer would limit lineage possibilities more than the low chances already do.

But I do support them, because it does create general low morale to see one or two people winning multiple Prizes in a row, while most of us still have none.

 

Of course, the Store is still a better idea than raffles, IMO. Preferably, the store alongside (perhaps reduced) raffles, maybe requiring a certain amount of store currency for a ticket. (I might go post more on that thought in the store thread.) But while we have just the raffles, a limit on winning (which, tbh, wouldn't come into play all that often, and definitely wouldn't be a problem if there was a new Prize species) and preferably a larger monthly Prize pool would be nice.

 

Also, a tiny side note, I for one would prefer a doubling of the pool per raffle to a doubling in the frequency of raffles, simply because of the fact that you can't win two dragons from the same raffle.

Another small side note, coding the exclusion of winners from getting, say, a fifth gold tinsel, would probably work mostly the same way people who've won a gold tinsel that raffle would be handled. That, or it just does a check when trying to give an egg to someone - do they already have 4 of that dragon? If not, pick a different winner. I'm pretty novice at coding, but I highly doubt it'd be a difficult thing to add.

 

And another thought that I'm going to leave here: since there are lots more Bronze prizes given than Silver and more Silver than Gold, if limits were to be imposed, should those limits be different for the colours? So, for example, you can have 2 of each gold Prize, 3 of each silver, and 4 of each bronze. Would people be more or less opposed to the limit suggestion of they scaled like this? (exact numbers are, of course, subject to discussion.)

 

One final thing.

There seems to be a lot of hostility in the thread, with accusations of jealousy and hoarding. While it may be true that we non-winners are jealous of people who have won (I certainly am!), please can we stop acting as if that is the only reason we might make such suggestions? I would assume the majority of us are intelligent enough to not be that petty. Yes, we all want a prize, but we also want a more even spread of prizes.

[purplehaze]

I could go along with a cooldown of a month or two, but see no need for limits. There is of hyperbole going on here. I doubt if anyone is going to win 10 raffles ever, let alone any time soon.

 

I would prefer to see the store, too, but since it hasn't yet happened, and may never, the raffles at least are a way of getting CB prizes into the hands of more people.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

20 minutes ago, Cinnamin Draconna said:

I did not say lose them 'now'.. I'm just saying that we need the Store ASAP. The basic concept and 'how it should work' about the Store is pretty much ready to go. TJ just needs to code it. Figureing out how to get him to do it, when he doesn't want to, is the problem.

Oh! I think I was misunderstanding you on this. I was reading it as the Raffles need to go asap. My mistake

[HeatherMarie]

I think it's very unfair to assume that people in favor of this suggestion are only doing so because they want something and don't want others to have it. That's just as much hyperbole as the "10-prize winners". I personally don't give a rat's behind about ever winning a raffle, because I don't care about owning CBs. The only reason I even enter is because I'd love to be able to *gift* 2nd-gens as much as possible.

 

But yes, for *other* people's sakes, I would like to see the raffle tweaked in a way that makes winning more possible for those who have never won before. It's a simple fact that multiple people have won more then once, despite the monthly raffle being fairly new, and at least one person won two months in a row. No one is suggesting that they should never be able to win again, but if there is some sort of cooldown then that means that, for however long the cooldown is, that's a few less people in the running for the win, so it stands to reason that there'd be a bigger chance of someone winning who hasn't actually won yet.

 

The limits on breed/type is not the ideal way to go about it, but I also don't think it's as absurdly unfair as some people are making it out to be. We already have limits on CB holidays, and while many don't like that, it's a simple fact of the game right now, so I don't see why limiting CB Prizes would be such a huge deal. And we are *all* assuming how the coding works; It's possible that the raffle is coded in such a way that changing it to take into account certain limits would be very difficult to do, or would even require a complete overhaul of the raffle coding. It's also possible that that's not the case, and it may be fairly simple to code in an "if/then" situation. We don't know either way.

[Stromboli]

I don't see a problem with a cool down on entering after having won the raffle. Every radio station around me has in their terms and conditions that you can't win again within 6-12 months of having won one of their giveaways.

[Nine]

I'd be fine with a cooldown of a month or so. A limit on how many specific prizes someone can win isn't a terrible idea either.

Can you imagine someone who's won their third bronze Tinsel and is like "Wtf mate". Maybe you have a realistic <1% chance of getting the prize you want, and maybe the chances of getting 3+ bronze tinsels is <<<1%, but that guy would probably be happier if he could never win a bronze Tinsel again.

 

Yes, I am totally suggesting someone is going to have a giant pile of CB bronze tinsels by the end of this year. Mark my words.

 

Btw, "Random number generators" tend to use algorithms and mathematical formulas to pick numbers-- actual true randomness is pretty hard to come by. I'm not saying the raffles are rigged (I doubt people are entered in the same order each time), just that some may be pinning their hopes on true 'random' a bit more than the coding is actually capable of.

 

For instance, I once picked up three eggs within a few seconds of each other in the cave. Their codes? Ozjlr, OzOwH, OZ3sl. Three random dragon codes, yet all start with a capital O followed by a z. Figure out the odds of that!

Please do, because I recently pick up four eggs-- two starting with O and two starting with 0-- and I'm beginning to think my scroll is cursed.

[Zeditha]

(I think codes can have a-z, A-Z, and 0-9 as characters. That's a total of 62, so the probability of a capital O being the first character is 1/62, and z being the second would be 2/62. (z or Z.) Some calculations later, I got a figure for getting Oz/OZ three times in a row as just under 14%. Unlikely, but not astronomical.)

 

My showing off aside, I do think that some limit on prizes is a good idea. Nothing unreasonable; I'd say around 4.

 

I'd like to just point out a particular question from my earlier post: how would everyone feel about a limit that scaled with the rarity of the prizes? If it scaled exactly as Prizes do in raffles, we'd have a limit of 5 Golds, 15 Silvers and 30 Bronzes, and let's be honest, nobody really needs 30 Bronzes. I doubt many people would be aiming to collect as many as 15 Silvers. (Especially when you think that these are just CBs - there's no limit at all on 2G+.) So a more simple 2-4-6 sort of numbering seems sensible to me - even numbers, of course. 

[olympe]

Uhm, 14% sounds like a lot. A whole lot. Getting one Oz/OZ code is around 1/62 * 2/62 = 2/3844 = 1/1922, which is roughly 1/2000 = 0,05%.

 

So, catching two eggs in a row with the same two letters at the beginning (where one of the letters is not case sensitive) is around 0,05%. (If the first egg you catch actually has a code beginning with two letters, not numbers.) Getting a third egg like this would then be at 1/2000 * 1/20000 = 1 in 4 million. That's not just unlikely, it's much closer astronomical. And it still happens. 

[Fuzzbucket]

Which just goes to show that RNG can throw up the remarkable even when it's not prizes involved.

[olympe]

Which is why I hate raffles with a passion. (Which doesn't mean I'm not participating, because I'd really like a CB prize of my own - but I'm most assuredly not expecting it to happen at all. Not with a luck-based system.)