Jump to content

Raederz

Members
  • Posts

    1377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Raederz

  1. I mean, the measure "more npc, less payment" ignores time value. Farming for longer time should be more rewarded.
  2. kinda dumb as long as u have to plan it in "$ per time" to make it efficient. I see what you mean, imo, theres an illusion that lotteries makes u overvalue stuff. Just let 2 or 3 of them fails and people will behave back to normal. Regarding prices of some of them, idk how it is gonna fill.
  3. I agree that stuff is getting way too overpriced lately. Just let these people who overprice af know by not taking their tickets, should discourage them doing it again and again.
  4. Nope. Price check were not allowed on forum. And this would be really dumb to compare a price check (question-answer) to a lottery (which need organisation) I cant find barter in the trade corner, it's been a while we should've renamed it selling corner.. nah ? Trade corner is meant for people who are looking for any kind of stuff. You can find stuff you are looking for in selling threads, but also in lottery threads.
  5. Which is why it contains selling, trading, and services as well
  6. Tickets are not selling well .. Special disount -50% ! Ends in 12 hours. Starts now
  7. Bump : Special rules are gone Gave a cut to the ticket amount, from 200 to 100 ! eleine who claimed the 155 now holds the 95. Awwww who claimed 106 now holds 96. Still same ticket price, and 91 remaining tickets !
  8. I think he meant that if you buy 5, you can select 2 more numbers (making it 7) but still pay for 5
  9. Here you got the point, moderators wont approve absurd submissions. Stuff can be overvalued, but in a certain measure. 2m5 for something listed 1m5 on gtl is not always absurd, maybe for differenciation reasons, from the prize itself, or even for the way of selling which is different, as long as people need less capital to invest in a lottery. This rule won't make moderators "Value Judge" but "Good-Faith Judge", I hope I'm understandable on this point. It makes the refusal pretty exceptionnal. First, thank you sharing your vision. My point here was not really to get answers, but to precise what questions we (players) want to staff to discuss about (in a private part) to lead to clear rules. I also tried to give my vision behind the rules I suggested. I keep thinking it needs to be discussed between staff-only as long as there is no right answer, being very subjective. On the last question, I obviously agree that no participant can be injutred by any changing in the lottery. They should most of the time keep the same chance, and if practical reason need it, it may be allowed to make them advantaged of the change. Out of this, I think that, for logistic and practical reasons, this may be forbidden, or at least, controlled a lot and made exceptionnal. Giving a special rule "[Some particular people] can have cheaper tickets" is not fair, because its not a special rule. But, as it's been a long discussion here page one, should we prevent hosts from giving tickets to their friend, as long as it never affects any other participant, but only reduces the hosts income ? In my opinion, it should not be forbidden, as long as giving items, pokemons, or $s to a friend is allowed. Would be another decision if giving tickets had an impact on other participants, but this is not the case. So, the rule I suggested as "Only [some kind of] special rule are allowed" could be concretized like "Any special rule must first be discussed with the moderator who will be the only judge, on approving it or not". My point is to make rules clear, targeting particular cases can help reducing future prospective problems. Just by precising you give yourself the right not to approve a lottery because of it's value, you make sure people won't cry about it the day they wanna host the lava cookie stuff. The shiny eevee exemple is because lotteries are particular in their need of comunity implication, it's rare for a lottery to only have 2 or 3 customers, and rares shinies is a market where there are a relly little amount of actors. I see no point giving limits, but as most of the rules I suggested, I feel it wiser to say that moderator CAN use it as a refusal reason. Btw, a 500 tickets shiny eevee lottery would not be judged the same as a 10 tickets one, even if the value is the same, we rarely see people taking 100 tickets from any lottery. It may look like a lot of responsibilities I add to the moderator role, but in my opinion it is important, and nothing prevents him to ask advice to the rest of the staff. Btw, in most of the lotteries, there will be no need of all these judgement, they just help covering special cases. As said above, the point is not to stop overvaluation, but absurdvaluation, if the moderator feels it can sell, then run it. Mistakes are not always avoidable. Canceling is sometimes the most fair issue, if only it's managed the right way. Mailing the moderator the refunding amount, and letting him refund all participants, before mailing back the prize to the host, sounds, to me, like a clean way to cancel a defective lottery. Theorically he is, in practice, this is harder to affirm. In practice, the theorical overpaying is not always something unwanted. Not everybody value everything the same way, for personal reasons, which is why non-absurd overpay is not, and should not be forbidden. Thanks for your answer :)
  10. If the lottery caracteristics are still the same as the day the thread were posted, there is no adjustment to make. Being held by the host, or any other player wont change anything for the ticket value and potential. Please dont keep answering to this, there are way enought ressources page one to understand this, which is not the original purpose of this topic.
  11. This is fucking cool I cant believe Im playing on my mobile rn Thank you soooo much devs and staff for your work and patience with all these complains !!
  12. Imo host assumptions is always (before it starts) that he will sell all the tickets. Making assumptions about a certain number of tickets selling will always be a mistake, if we can predict if customers are pushed to buy tickets or not (with values), nothing helps us predict in what proportion (theory -without psychology- will always say that either everything or nothing is likely to sell). Now, if you refeere to a fear from possible customers to buy tickets when they are looking for some tickets, I suggested a rule that give them security, about the lottery being held, and their ticket being as efficient as promised (or more in case of host inactivity) within a month. (See the suggestion (3), in the main post) Such a rule may, at the same time, discourage the host on making such fanciful and kinda useless strategies, AND give the customers a better confidence in lotteries, remaining their ability to value the prize as only determinant factor of their participation.
  13. Number of tickets available has always been set as soon as the lottery thread is oppened. As suggested in the main post, it should be wrote clearly in rules that any lottery caracteristic can be changed without moderator approval. If it's just about claiming unsold tickets, we're still in the situation we've been talking about. The host gets to know the tickets wont sell, well, but he already "paid" his part, since he mailed the prize to the moderator. This risk, he took it the day he started the lottery. Now, even if he choose to make less income and hold the remaining tickets, all participants are still satisfied of what they paid for. Idk if you've been talking about creating extra tickets (over the first set limit which is most of the time 100 or 200), then, I would advice to totally forbid this measure, as long as it directly affects already participating people. The "will they sell" question doesnt even need to be paused. As long as the value of the prize is equal to the sum of ticket prices, then, selling or not, ticket are worth the chance they give. We don't write it this way, but in fact, tickets represent parts of the prize, and, since the beggining of the lottery, the host owns the whole prize, and, using tickets, sell parts of it, in a divided version of it. Only point of the lottery is to give tickets a power, once they are all sold, to conclude on a winner. (not sure if my english is understandable here, did my best) This is something I talked about in the main post, suggesting rules that lower the risks of failing lottery (by failing I mean not-selling tickets) If this question can be asked here, it is also asked a lot in real life. Who really guess IRL lotteries are worth it in 2018 ? Nobody who is educated. But still, millions of people take part of it. Here we're entering psychological notions I don't have, but hopes, risk aversion, fun, and addiction will be the main subjects imo. This is kinda different in PokeMMO as long as the host pays no tax, and has no obligation to make profit. Every participant is free to judge if the ticket is worth the potential it has, and if he's willing or not to get this ticket, worth or not, for his reasons (fun, $ détachment, particular appreciation for the prize, or even profit if he finds out it's worth it, in which case he would be tempted to buy all remaining tickets (such a case happens when you look at the lottery in an investment way, and think that total ticket price > prize value)). Mathematics help us to find out if it's a scam or not, but, as you said, the biases makes mathematics unable to give any conclusion about participants comportement.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.