Limit Raffle CBs per scroll

[The Evil Doer]

4 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Is there any actual demonstrable evidence - other than Chinese-whispers hearsay and a couple of personal mates perhaps - that people are leaving over the raffle ? I know many who are cross about it - and I know two people who have left over something else entirely. It would be very SILLY to leave over something which, when all's said and done,  is a small part of a huge game.

 

Is a couple of personal mates leaving not good enough of an evidence? Assuming one communicates with 0.5% (me being generous) of the dc population and a few of them left due to the raffle, is it not logical that a much larger percentage of players has left as well? It's reasonable to me.

 

I don't think you could call anyone's reason as silly, simply since you view it as such, people don't like it when they dont have control over stuff, you have old players, who've put a lot of time in a game, that get a monthly reminder of how "unlucky they are", on another hand you have newbies with the most prized dragons, it's a monthly slap in a face to some players and when it reaches the point when a game is being more negative than positive it makes sense they would leave. That's why I dont view their reasons as silly, I wouldnt leave over it, but we all deal with stuff differently, and it's perfectly fine.

Edited February 22, 2019 by The Evil Doer

[Ruby Eyes]

18 minutes ago, Starscream said:

They can, because multiscrollers have anywhere from 2 to hundreds of chances to win a prize. although they cannot trade the prize to their base scroll, they can breed that dragon, and trade for rares, then the trades they get to their base scroll and gain a power advantage in things like CB rares, or neglecteds.

Again - how would a scroll-limit of whatever arbitrarily chosen number stop them from just creating more accounts?

 

To expand on it: Why would punishing honest winners stop multiscrollers from just getting around such a punishment by using the same cheat that was used as a reason to implement such punishment?

Edited February 22, 2019 by Ruby Eyes

[Dubious]

I am not sure really about how the winners are selected....the odds seem...odd.

 

I am not saying that anything dodgy is going on, because I absolutely do not believe that in any way, shape or form. I just have to question how, given the really low odds of winning, so many people have won twice and even THREE times. I can pull up TEN winners right now with two or more CB prizes just from looking at the trading section. So given that, it is reasonable to assume that there are a LOT more multiple prize winners. Which is why I have to agree with cyradis4 in that ' RNG is NOT random '. The statistics actually don't make logical sense given the massive player base numbers.

 

Admittedly I got frustrated with things and quit for a year over the prizes, so I guess I was one of those people. If you think that is stupid, fine, but it was simply the way I felt. I got too frustrated seeing people with scrolls less then a month old winning CB Prizes when others who had been on the site for almost ten years and wanted one more then anything, didn't have anything, and it built up to the point where it was ruining my enjoyment of the site. I considered it better to leave then to make an issue of it and cause trouble. I came back a year ago and was really pleased to see the raffles, it seemed to present a better system for CB prize distribution.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Dubious

[KrazyKarp]

The main thing with this is that it doesn't actually fix the CB Prize issues. It's like slapping a band-aid on a broken bone and calling it a day. To actually fix the CB Prize issues we need a completely different system in place for them based off of working towards getting them instead of crossing your fingers, plucking a four-leaf clover, and hoping to be one of the chosen ones.

 

So since this doesn't actually fix anything I don't particularly care if it's implemented. But I'm not sure why you would spend time with limiting raffle winnings instead of spending time on seriously fixing CB Prize issues.

[olympe]

Because, like the "limiting of raffle winnings", fixing the CB Prize issue probably won't happen within the next two decades. Hey, I'm being positive, I didn't say it wouldn't happen - did I?

[pinkgothic]

6 hours ago, cyradis4 said:

In fact, many RNG's are known to either "clump" or "band" winners, meaning that statistically, there are some people who are more likely to win than others, because the RNG is NOT truly random. 

Small correction: What you're describing in your post is a PRNG - a pseudo random number generator. Computers are actually capable of generating random integers, but not on their own. Modern operating systems all use so-called entropy (not to be confused with the physical concept of entropy) that's accrued from sources of noise - peripheral devices, network packets observed, et cetera. The problem with entropy is that it depletes - there's no point in using a pad of entropy more than once, that defeats the purpose, and a quiet machine might need more entropy than it gets. But there are services that offer entropy-based RNGs, such as random.org.

 

Even so, PRNGs are absolutely okay. While you're right about "many RNGs" if you count them by distinct algorithms, one of the most common PRNGs used to today is the Mersenne Twister, which passes many tests on statistical randomness - which is exactly what you'd want for a raffle.

 

That said, no PRNG or even RNG would save someone from modulo bias. (It's unlikely that would be making a huge difference here, though.)

 

That said, statistical phenomena like the birthday paradox can make even the best RNGs appear biased.

 

With that said: I don't think "but the RNG is fair" should be a counter-argument to this idea or any idea like it. The repeated winners are off-putting for a lot of people that never won. I consider that a usability problem. At the same time, I concur that it would feel wrong to exclude people who do want a shot at a second prize - it feels a bit as if we'd prevent people from trying to summon their second GoN until everyone with at least one trio set had acquired one (which is not trying to equate GoN and prize mechanics, just give a bit of an insight of where this sort of thing slots for me).

 

But:

 

13 hours ago, Tinibree said:

I'm of two minds on this because while I am horribly jealous of those that have one even one prize, and doubly so those that have won multiple, I also like Pureblood prize lines. I'm not sure if there's a solution in my case. Maybe when someone wins a second+ raffle there's a bonus winner that gets the same color/version they did? So that there's still 60 winners that didn't have any before, but allowing pureblood prizes to exist. But I doubt TJ would go for something like that in a million years.

 

I really like this idea!

 

(Also, I concur with the users that said anything done about repeat-winners will not solve the underlying issues of prizes, but I'm okay with little concessions here or there, which is why I'd be happy if somewhere were done about this minor problem.)

[angelicdragonpuppy]

As frustrating as it is to see some people with 3 Prizes while others have none (yes... I've seen this. And 2-time winners quite often), as has been said by others before me it won't make much of a difference statistically. It also would be unfortunate for those who win a Prize that, while amazing, isn't quite their dream one.

 

I'd much rather just see them added to the market.

[Jazeki]

I like the idea of bonus winners and I am (of course) in favor of adding to the market. I also like the idea of the number of "entries" being tied to whether or not a person has won already or not.

 

I agree that it is very disheartening to see a lot of multi-winners month after month with nothing to show for it, but I'm not sure if a scroll cap will actually fix anything. 

[Fuzzbucket]

6 hours ago, The Evil Doer said:

 

Is a couple of personal mates leaving not good enough of an evidence? Assuming one communicates with 0.5% (me being generous) of the dc population and a few of them left due to the raffle, is it not logical that a much larger percentage of players has left as well? It's reasonable to me.

 

I don't think you could call anyone's reason as silly, simply since you view it as such, people don't like it when they dont have control over stuff, you have old players, who've put a lot of time in a game, that get a monthly reminder of how "unlucky they are", on another hand you have newbies with the most prized dragons, it's a monthly slap in a face to some players and when it reaches the point when a game is being more negative than positive it makes sense they would leave. That's why I dont view their reasons as silly, I wouldnt leave over it, but we all deal with stuff differently, and it's perfectly fine.

 

Well, OK - go from the other direction - I don't know ANYONE who has left over this.And (mildly annoying !) three friends I introduced to this game have won.... Fair enough - it does seem silly to me, as there is so much more going on - but yes, people do feel differently.

 

4 hours ago, KrazyKarp said:

The main thing with this is that it doesn't actually fix the CB Prize issues. It's like slapping a band-aid on a broken bone and calling it a day. To actually fix the CB Prize issues we need a completely different system in place for them based off of working towards getting them instead of crossing your fingers, plucking a four-leaf clover, and hoping to be one of the chosen ones.

 

So since this doesn't actually fix anything I don't particularly care if it's implemented. But I'm not sure why you would spend time with limiting raffle winnings instead of spending time on seriously fixing CB Prize issues.

 

Yeah - put them in the market, as LUXURY goods with a price to match - that would work alongside the raffle. And you can SEE what was bought and what was won. So those concerned about VALUE will still have that magnificent CAVE word, rather than market !

 

2 hours ago, angelicdragonpuppy said:

As frustrating as it is to see some people with 3 Prizes while others have none (yes... I've seen this. And 2-time winners quite often), as has been said by others before me it won't make much of a difference statistically. It also would be unfortunate for those who win a Prize that, while amazing, isn't quite their dream one.

 

This, too. I MUCH prefer one to the other, and would be sad if I were limited after winning the "wrong one" - not that I will EVER win !

[osean]

I do not support this idea at all. Some people have more luck then others. My moms best friends mother in law won 3 lottos in three different states and got 8 mil between the three. 

I would rather see the amount given each month at least doubled or tripled. 

[Moonlight_Eevee]

13 hours ago, osean said:

I would rather see the amount given each month at least doubled or tripled. 

Plus one this. 60 people seems like only a very small amount to the hundreds/thousands of people playing this game and it seems a few of these lucky people have won twice (sometimes three times) 

[cerimonster]

I agree with having the market place at luxury prices AND having the raffle too. I also like the idea of having more prizes every month, but I think I like better if a previous winner wins again, then the number of prizes that go to previous winners also go to non winners as well. In fact, combining all three options seems to be the best view (if maybe somewhat impractical or unnecessary). To add more value to the Raffle, as someone else said, we could go back to adding in things like CB's of hybrids, and female hollies (these could be like one or two to either grand winners, or to follow up winners for every category of prize as a little chocolate chip on top). I feel that over all the "prizes" have lost a lot of value recently anyway, and no longer really feel like something that is actually valuable to the community as a whole, but is a commodity only to those who have them- only looking for prizeswaps or spriters alt offspring, especially now that they are a little bit more widespread (this is just sort of a snapshot of what i've seen recently, the actual reality may be different). A wider spread of prizes amongst more of the population may mean less of this. Ultimately, my goal is to find mates for some of my tinsel kin that I have and I prefer checkers. Prizes lost their shine a long time ago for me as anything of actual value, and I'd prefer to see them more as like a holiday dragon. Something that every one can have, but limited- my holiday dragons are some of my most prized possessions because of that.

A 3rd option could be to keep adding new prize dragons every new year (like a new years dragon) and keep expanding out the raffle that way rather than just blatantly upping the numbers, but this isn't really a solution and unlikely to be a popular one at that, it was more of just a thought to help expand the raffle, and to help bring more value to it while keeping it alive.

[StormWizard212]

I'd prefer prizes to not be limited. Since it barely impacts an individual's odds of winning, it seems unfair to me to cut off those who've already won from having another shot - especially since there are 6 different prizes and most people seem to have a clear preference, which isn't always the one they've won. I wouldn't mind another way to obtain prizes (through the market, for example) but I don't want to see a limit unless it's something like 2 of each to mirror holidays (12 total) which Kaini suggested. 

[Fuzzbucket]

4 hours ago, cerimonster said:

A 3rd option could be to keep adding new prize dragons every new year (like a new years dragon) and keep expanding out the raffle that way rather than just blatantly upping the numbers, but this isn't really a solution and unlikely to be a popular one at that, it was more of just a thought to help expand the raffle, and to help bring more value to it while keeping it alive.

 

PLEASE no more prizes. The ones we already have have caused trouble enough.

[olympe]

5 hours ago, cerimonster said:

To add more value to the Raffle,

We really don't need to add more value to the raffle. Having 6 sprites, the CBs of which are impossible to acquire through any other means, is more than enough value. The incredible value of Prizes is what originally caused a lot of strife within the community, and continues to still do so 8 years later. Let's not add fuel to the flames by adding new prize breeds that are even more valuable than the current ones due to being even rarer.

[DragonLady86]

Zero support for new prizes, it is a GOOD thing that prizes are starting to be a little less valuable.  Unfortunately, until there is a way to reasonably obtain them, they will continue to dominate trades.  Adding them to the market was closed due to no one even saving up for a gold at that time, now that it has happened and didn't cause a massive crash, could we please re-open that idea?

[Jazeki]

Oh dear. Please no doing things to add value to the raffle. I wish HMs could come back, but we don't really need to bolster the already apparently divide between those who have CB prizes (regardless of exactly how many they have) and those who do not. Throwing a whole new prize breed in would just hurt the "value" of things (as subjective as it is) even further. 

 

Edit: Yes, please, to increasing the number of monthly winners.

Edited February 24, 2019 by Jazeki

[blackdragon71]

As someone saving their shards for a gold or silver dragon (since the little jerks don't drop for me in the biomes) in the hope that I will eventually have something to bargain with to get a second 2G silver tinsel or shimmer, I can say I would support the Market idea.   I'd have to save up more shards to meet the large price tag of a market-born prize, but if patience would snag me 1) a prize I will probably never win in a (non)random raffle (haven't won one since they started being a thing, and it looks like my odds aren't any better with the current monthly raffle, either), and 2) I could choose the breed/color?  I'd be supportive of the opportunity.  Then I could breed all the 2G offspring combos I ever wanted, and have gift and trade fodder, too. 

 

I will confess here that I am one that walked away from the game for a while, not just because of hand surgery, but because it happened at a time when things were very very frustrating and lopsided in this game and the drama that arose from it all was making it not fun for me anymore.  The removal of the yearly raffle was one thing- and disappointing because I despaired of ever holding my own CB prize and would be at the mercy of those who had theirs and charged outrageous prices for even 3-4th gen offspring.  Then the monthly raffles began occurring, and even though there are thousands of people playing, I thought my odds would increase if there were "60 winners" every month.  Apparently, that is now not particularly true, either, according the RNG algorithms, since several of those are multiple-time winners.  So frustration all over, and just as I was beginning to enjoy the game again. 

 

So if the Market idea wouldn't crash the site (not sure how that could be, unless everyone met the price and bought the exact same prize at the exact same time which would be a truly random oddity), then yes, I'm all about that.  Or, limit the number of prizes available on the Market at any given time.   It makes it fair across the board, even to those who have several CB prizes already.   The other idea I would lend my vote to would be the raising of the number of prizes available every month.  The only problem I see there is that which may already be a thing- the RNG 'pools' winners and more prizes mean more winners in that category.  There will still be people who never get a prize, simply because they haven't won one already and the RNG overlooks them time-and-again.   

Edited March 6, 2019 by blackdragon71

[Jazeki]

14 hours ago, blackdragon71 said:

As someone saving their shards for a gold or silver dragon (since the little jerks don't drop for me in the biomes) in the hope that I will eventually have something to bargain with to get a second 2G silver tinsel or shimmer

Unfortunately, anything that comes from the market is essentially untradeable. You can abandon what you buy though.

 

I also agree that having prizes won't kill the market. Lots of people have been able to buy CB golds and their price has stayed the same for the most part. Plus not everyone wants the same breed or color of prize as what would be available.

[blackdragon71]

7 hours ago, Jazeki said:

Unfortunately, anything that comes from the market is essentially untradeable. You can abandon what you buy though.

 

I also agree that having prizes won't kill the market. Lots of people have been able to buy CB golds and their price has stayed the same for the most part. Plus not everyone wants the same breed or color of prize as what would be available.

True, I dis-remembered the no-trade thing with market dragons.   

 

[Suzumiya]

I agree with capping prize limits so we don't have multiple winners. I was super jealous and annoyed at all the CB Prize winners (especially the greedy ones who ONLY accept NDs or CB Golds for 2G offspring), but they are very rare and I realized it's silly to be jealous. We all have a chance. Some people are just insanely lucky. I still glare angrily at the people with three CB prizes, but...nothing I can do about it. A cap would be perfect. Or even stopping them from entering the raffle for six months after winning once. If that's too long, then three months. I won Iriria (my Gold tinsel) back in August, and if six months were the limit, I would already be eligible to enter again! It really doesn't seem that long and it would definitely help out people who just aren't lucky. I'm terribly unlucky, I can't even catch Xenowyrms in the cave and have to trade for them. My 200+ Cheese army...about 150 were traded for. Winning my Gold tinsel was probably one in a million. I will probably never win a prize again, and I'm okay with that. Let people who DON'T have one win. 

 

I would even be okay with adding extra "consolation prizes" for those who don't make the win for a Prize dragon, or for those ineligible for a Prize. It could be something rare or unique, like a CB Gold or a CB Alt Black/Vine. Something that's either hard or impossible to get in the cave. I would like that.

[Fateweaver]

Honestly as a person who has spent 8 years of her life trying to win a custom edited pet in a shop on another site that has maybe 130-150 entrants I know for a fact I won't ever win a prize just cause the RNG hates me.

 

So my honest want would just be to see the prize amount increase (without new prize types, just god no) from 60 to maybe 100? I dunno there, and to see them added to the market for severe luxury prices (talking like 10k for bronze, 15k for silver, and 20k for gold) and keeping the raffle as is with no limits (cause limiting other people just doesn't make sense to me at all).

 

But that's just me.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Fateweaver

[Fuzzbucket]

Didn't someone already say that this isn't the best thread to beg for them to be added to the market. This suggestion has little to do with that - for which there has already, in any event, been a thread already.

 

Where TJ basically said nope.

 

[DragonLady86]

actually he said at that time, no one could even afford golds yet, so we should wait until after that happened to see how it affected the market.  Which, to me, means it should be time to revisit now that we have that info.  but not in this thread, no. 

 

Limiting winners does nothing but make some people feel better.  also how would people that already have 2+ be handled?  Are people going to demand that they auto lose one and all it's offspring? 

[AislinnSi]

I think the way to offset the raffle would be to have more contests to obtain the prize dragons; no one complains about holiday dragons only being available at one time of year, so why not do raffle + yearly contest where winners get prize dragons?

 

It could even be done so no raffle the month the contest is active, and then you have both luck of the draw AND a legit work-towards way of obtaining CB prizes.

 

I see a problem with limiting because honestly, if someone is lucky enough to win two or three times than by all means, let them have their dragons! The only thing I could see doing is potentially adding the limitation of not allowing consecutive wins.

Edited March 21, 2019 by AislinnSi