Granted.

ok. i also never knew there was some keys retained.
what is the goal ?

In July, when I was about to release an update, someone donated about 65 keys, which brought the total number of keys for the update to about 95. Then in August, I when I was about to release an update, someone else donated about the same number of keys, which brought the total number of keys for the update to about 130. Both donors were clearing out all the keys they had laying around. It occurred to me that this probably isn't going to happen every month. One month there could be 130 keys and the next there could be 30. Also, breaking them up into multiple updates gives people who didn't notice this update right when it was released another chance to get something they really want.

As I said, I wanted to settle into a groove before asking for suggestions as to how to improve the giveaway. I think I have now, and I'd like to hear everyone's suggestions, and what everyone thinks of said suggestions.

May i request Deathgrarden: Bloodharvest? (daggered)

Granted.

Sincerely I don't see what's the problem here...

Did we got a new big update last month? --> yes
Did we got another big update this month? --> yes
Will we have another update next month? --> as what I read, yes

With Finkle settling in we also had a great improvement in terms of time of response between the requests and the granting of it

we are talking about free donated games by the community, with a massive voluntary work behind to manage it.. so in the end nothing is due

So why questioning how the GA is managed?



from my point of view I think it's wise to split very big updates, so this way every months you have something new to play with (but that's just my 2 cents)


Finkleroy also is opened to new suggestions to improve the GA model, so let's try to build something constructive

I want to add my 2 cents too - now we have already 4.

But a I'm lazy, therefore I just repeat what Damon18 wrote; and place a special emphasis on:

we are talking about free donated games by the community, with a massive voluntary work behind to manage it.. so in the end nothing is due!

Again my sincere thanks to finkleroy, who wasn't afraid to take over this job and to zeogold who has spent so much of his precious time helping the community.

Once again:
we are talking about free donated games by the community, with a massive voluntary work behind to manage it.. so in the end nothing is due!

Not even my homework (if I had any)? Yay!

You are more than welcome!
Have fun!

I'm interested in Shutshimi, Skulls of the Shogun and Rollers of the Realm.

ok I was assuming something like that. I needed to read it to confirm it, it's an altruistic spirit.

As you said me on july about daggered and non-daggered you let the donnor a little leeway to choose where goes the game do we have the same flexibility for the retained keys ?

taboo ?
there is no problem except if you want to see one. Just information and precision for me.

No one?

I'll start first then --> remember this is just a proposal you can agree with, do not agree, and you are even allowed to insult me (don't worry I've a magic ring that gives me +3 to insults resistance).. we are here for brainstorming, so everything is valid

Seeing how things work here I alwas had this film in my mind:
talking about non-daggered games, my idea is to limit the request of games to just 1 per week, keeping the limit of 3 per month

The advantages I see are:
- reduction of 'jackals' that connects once a month to shoot ther 3 requests and disappear.
- reduction of the impact of Time Zone
- reduction of the impact of 'luck' to be just there when an update is published

and most important:
- to make happy more people as possible, instead of a restricted number of 'selfish' ones

because:
We all kwow the updates always include:
a) AAA game titles
b) AA game titles
c) A game titles
d) ... well, just titles

And that's normal because the donors kindly share what they have and can.

So let's suppose a new update that includes:
12 AAA game titles
18 AA game titles
XX of the rest of games

As it works today the first 10 people that arrive will grab all the best titles, this is a fact.

And this ALWAYS happens!
for example with big updates of June 7th, June 28th and July 22nd (and all the others... this was just to make few examples)
where in less than 2 hours all the best titles disappeared in favor of few users.
And that's "normal", because the hidden rule is: 'grab whatever you can before someone else do it'

Limiting this to 1 per week, the 'happier' people would probably be 30, which is a huge difference (imho)
Not only, but it'll limit the rush to be 'there' and I think, as i previously mentioned, partially the penality of the time zone.

How many times have we read comments or commented in our head things like:
"looks like I'm a bit late for the party?"
"Nevermind, beaten to it."
"damn, too late!"

Disavantages:
- More effort to manage the requests, keep track who and how many request he/she already done and check if he/she's eligible
But I think this can be mitigated with the help of volunteers (I put myself in first place)

That's all.. fire your guns!

I agree with the philosophy though as you note it would be harder to manage.

Just for contemplation, I don't know that it needs to be a full week though - that starts to become work not just for Management to track, but also me as a participant. When did I last make a request? Was it 5 days ago or 8?

If the primary goal is just to minimize the initial rush, I kinda think (approx 3-4) days makes a better marker. Easier to track from a mgmt POV, since it doesn't require going quite so many posts back, and for me if I were going to request games, I don't have to schedule it out in my calendar ;)

There's still going to be some weirdness around time zones, though.

I agree with all of this and the situation as it is since the 3 non-daggered games and 5 non-daggered per month and the quick grabbing of good games is maybe the reason that donors are fewer than they used to be. I have taken from this giveaway far more than I have given and I see that for some people it's easy to get carried away when you see all these great games in front of you and start asking more and more. I have suggested before that 2 non-daggered games per month is a good start to make more people happy, 2 good games is really more than enough, and if we combine this with your suggestion of 1 per week we are getting in a better position to preserve the giveaway and the good relationships inside the community.

yours can be a solution too!
when a new update is released a user can requests only 1 non-daggered game for X days (where X is a given number that can be discussed)
i like it!

It could have some 'gray areas' but we are here to talk about it:
What if someone is asking a game from the general list and not from the update?
Will it count towards the limit?
The general idea is to not make life more complicated to who manages this :)

This won't totally fix it, but it'll limit a bit the 'desease'

Reduction to 2 titles.. ok, let's talk about it too


any other ideas?
Let's collect any good suggestions