Official Kpopsource's 17th Card Raffle (1 Viewer)

[Ahsoka]

what if you randomly chose 3 entries from the entries (given there's not multiple of the same person picked) as winners

and then randomly distribute the 3 cards amongst the 3 winners similar to the roulette, and in that way, someone not winning a card they already have would be accounted for as well, and it would be fair

I think that’s what the raffle system does. If you mean do that again if someone wins a card they have it’s still unfair to those who have a legendary card already. Either way the chance of someone pulling a card they already have is very low.

 

[litc]

I think that’s what the raffle system does. If you mean do that again if someone wins a card they have it’s still unfair to those who have a legendary card already. Either way the chance of someone pulling a card they already have is very low.

if the raffle system does that already, I don't really see a problem with what you said happens and the "shifting"

the way I read your and uwu's conversation, it seemed one entry was picked for one card, then another for the next, and then another for the last, each picked for a specific card

 

[Ahsoka]

if the raffle system does that already, I don't really see a problem with what you said happens and the "shifting"

the way I read your and uwu's conversation, it seemed one entry was picked for one card, then another for the next, and then another for the last, each picked for a specific card

No, 3 users are picked as winners and we assign them the cards based on the order of the cards and the order of the winners, so it’s an arbitrary method of card assignment tbh.

 

[litc]

No, 3 users are picked as winners and we assign them the cards based on the order of the cards and the order of the winners, so it’s an arbitrary method of card assignment tbh.

ah so yeah, what I meant was randomizing the order of the cards assigned and not assigning based on winners order, with another person being assigned the card if someone already has it

 

[litc]

What if all 3 winners already have one of the cards, but none of them have the other two?

 

[Abeamus]

if the raffle system does that already, I don't really see a problem with what you said happens and the "shifting"

the way I read your and uwu's conversation, it seemed one entry was picked for one card, then another for the next, and then another for the last, each picked for a specific card

I think uwu just doesn't like the idea of simply shifting the winners around to accommodate for someone winning a card they already have. In terms of precedent though it's in line with other features since normally if you get a card you already have then it'll be rerolled into a card you don't have.

The only solution that'd be closer would be if the raffles were just blind and the new Legendaries are generated after the winners have been chosen since that would allow them to reroll a card someone already has but at the cost of the raffle becoming a bigger gamble for people with few points.

 

[Ahsoka]

ah so yeah, what I meant was randomizing the order of the cards assigned and not assigning based on winners, with another person being assigned the card if someone already has it

Essentially that’s already done though, users don’t place entries for specific cards, and it’s stated that you may receive a card you don’t want. We could randomize the winners but it’s already random, and it’s just based on the name the system spits out first.

 

[Ahsoka]

What if all 3 winners already have one of the cards, but none of them have the other two?

We’ll cross that bridge when we get there, I don’t see that happening any time soon

 

[litc]

Essentially that’s already done though, users don’t place entries for specific cards, and it’s stated that you may receive a card you don’t want. We could randomize the winners but it’s already random, and it’s just based on the name the system spits out first.

I'm confused, it seems fair to me

but I meant randomizing which card is given to which winner, and not the cards in order assigned in order of each winner chosen

 

[Ahsoka]

I think uwu just doesn't like the idea of simply shifting the winners around to accommodate for someone winning a card they already have. In terms of precedent though it's in line with other features since normally if you get a card you already have then it'll be rerolled into a card you don't have.

The only solution that'd be closer would be if the raffles were just blind and the new Legendaries are generated after the winners have been chosen since that would allow them to reroll a card someone already has but at the cost of the raffle becoming a bigger gamble for people with few points.

And it would cause delays, as the cards team would need time to make the cards which usually we can do ahead of time.

 

[litc]

I think uwu just doesn't like the idea of simply shifting the winners around to accommodate for someone winning a card they already have. In terms of precedent though it's in line with other features since normally if you get a card you already have then it'll be rerolled into a card you don't have.

The only solution that'd be closer would be if the raffles were just blind and the new Legendaries are generated after the winners have been chosen since that would allow them to reroll a card someone already has but at the cost of the raffle becoming a bigger gamble for people with few points.

yeah, it seemed kinda fair to me tbh

maybe he doesn't like the idea of being stuck with an untradeable legendary if everyone after that card who can trade for it already owns it, because someone who had won multiple times won once again. There are sets with very few people collecting

Like I see only two people collecting/have finished collecting bambam

 

[Abeamus]

yeah, it seemed kinda fair to me tbh

maybe he doesn't like the idea of being stuck with an untradeable legendary if everyone after that card who can trade for it already owns it, because someone who had won multiple times won once again. There are sets with very few people collecting

Like I see only two people collecting/have finished collecting bambam

It's fair but like Vikki said it'd put pressure on the cards team to actually create the cards which I don't see being good for them going on the 2 raffles a month schedule since I'm pretty sure Legendaries are made when necessary.

Well no one wants to be stuck with something they can't trade but what can you do I mean I've had Wooyoung and MJ for ages without anyone asking about them which I just won those. It just is what it is and Legendaries are going to be affected the most since people will prioritise their faves more than ever.

 

[litc]

It's fair but like Vikki said it'd put pressure on the cards team to actually create the cards which I don't see being good for them going on the 2 raffles a month schedule since I'm pretty sure Legendaries are made when necessary.

Well no one wants to be stuck with something they can't trade but what can you do I mean I've had Wooyoung and MJ for ages without anyone asking about them which I just won those. It just is what it is and Legendaries are going to be affected the most since people will prioritise their faves more than ever.

Ah no I meant the way it is rn being fair, not your new suggestion

True. Well I think there are people interested in them but they don't have legendaries to trade for them as it's 100% luck minus event won legendaries

 

[Yili]

WOODZ AGAIN

 

[litc]

WOODZ AGAIN

Tbh rn I only entered 5 times to get woodz and trade you for lee hi since I don’t think I can use any of these to trade for the svt legendaries

 

[LoveYooShaSha]

I think uwu just doesn't like the idea of simply shifting the winners around to accommodate for someone winning a card they already have. In terms of precedent though it's in line with other features since normally if you get a card you already have then it'll be rerolled into a card you don't have.

...

Since its a raffle with no guarantee of a card, i dont think its equivalent since the card is picked first, then the user is picked who receives it. Its a lottery right, i think the overriding feature is u cant get the same card again.

same rule as applied during Chuseok event. If a user already had all 12 cards, tat user couldnt get another Chuseok card-so tat user dint ask for a chuseok card.

Is it similar/same to wat is discussed now?[preceding part written after following part was going thru my brain]

The issue becomes that not only can the system not deal with this situation but if we did have a way of dealing with it the only option would be to give the players who have a card a smaller chance of getting any card, which would also be unequal.

I hv a glimmer of a idea but its kinda based on wat vikki alluded to in her reply to me, which is being unequal to the raffle participant who already has a card.

As in exclude the user from tat card, so card A goes to raffle winner 1, card B goes to raffle winner 2, card C goes to raffle winner 3. In a way this follows the roulette somewat if not exactly, as in roulette has a provision whereby participant cant get a card already owned, so card is returned BUT rules are clear beforehand(but maybe not in earlier roulette?), so maybe proviso shd be made in tat case a raffle participant has card A, B or C-they will be included only in card A&B, or B&C, or A&C, so they can decide whether to participate n give up points for fewer chances of winning a raffle card, similar to the roulette(different reward/risk for roulette vs raffle still).

Discuss? Disagree?

 

[Abeamus]

Since its a raffle with no guarantee of a card, i dont think its equivalent since the card is picked first, then the user is picked who receives it. Its a lottery right, i think the overriding feature is u cant get the same card again.

same rule as applied during Chuseok event. If a user already had all 12 cards, tat user couldnt get another Chuseok card-so tat user dint ask for a chuseok card.

Is it similar/same to wat is discussed now?[preceding part written after following part was going thru my brain]


I hv a glimmer of a idea but its kinda based on wat vikki alluded to in her reply to me, which is being unequal to the raffle participant who already has a card.

As in exclude the user from tat card, so card A goes to raffle winner 1, card B goes to raffle winner 2, card C goes to raffle winner 3. In a way this follows the roulette somewat if not exactly, as in roulette has a provision whereby participant cant get a card already owned, so card is returned BUT rules are clear beforehand(but maybe not in earlier roulette?), so maybe proviso shd be made in tat case a raffle participant has card A, B or C-they will be included only in card A&B, or B&C, or A&C, so they can decide whether to participate n give up points for fewer chances of winning a raffle card, similar to the roulette(different reward/risk for roulette vs raffle still).

Discuss? Disagree?

From how Vikki described it I believe that the winners of the raffle and who gets which card is a separate action since if you actually check the raffle page for the closed raffles it simply says "winners" it doesn't have each card listed specifically. Therefore no solution around the probability of the cards would work because the cards aren't a factor until after the winner has been chosen so if I won this raffle it'd just mean when distributing the cards I could only get Woodz or SinB which I'd already have been picked as a winner by that point.

They'd have to change how the raffle is done in order to incorporate a way to make it that you can only win what cards you don't have since even if you have the option of being returned the points then you need a way to redistribute the card that was left which would mean putting it in a new raffle.

 

[Yili]

Tbh rn I only entered 5 times to get woodz and trade you for lee hi since I don’t think I can use any of these to trade for the svt legendaries

Please please yes if you get Woodz hit me up

 

[Boyo]

I will keep my money for myself this time

 

[LoveYooShaSha]

The issue becomes that not only can the system not deal with this situation but if we did have a way of dealing with it the only option would be to give the players who have a card a smaller chance of getting any card, which would also be unequal.

No, 3 users are picked as winners and we assign them the cards based on the order of the cards and the order of the winners, so it’s an arbitrary method of card assignment tbh.

U already pick all the previous raffle winners based on if they hv already been picked as winner of the first card, or second card so they cant be picked as winner of 2 or more cards in a raffle, even if they hv 5 entries per raffle.

Which (i think) is different from most lotteries/raffles in tat theoretically they allow the same winner for 2 prizes if they enter more than once.(or they just remove/make ineligible all entries of earlier prize winners in tat raffle from subsequent prizes)

So u could assign any card owned by a raffle entrant as the last card, then run the process same as previously. If 2 users hv different cards, assign cards randomly as 2nd n 3rd card, run the process same as previously n hope for the best. Same again if 3 or more raffle entrants hv 3 or fewer cards tat are in the raffle entered. This way would be equally balanced to the most number/or all raffle entrants. I think.

If this cant be used for current raffle, maybe it can be discussed/considered for future raffles, with disclaimer: "ENTRY TO RAFFLE IS SUBJECT TO RULES REGARDING PROCESSING THE CARDS GOING TO THE WINNERS."

PS i drafted a way more complicated process a day ago but let it go cos ut was way too confuzzling. It included assigning the cards as 1st, 2nd n 3rd place but i think using the fact tat previous cards offered in the raffle/raffle entrants who own same card offered in current raffle puts tat card as final card for which winner is picked shd be considered/used in this/or future raffles. See previous paragraph(written by me a day ago n unposted).

Anyway, watever is decided-u guys are in charge. Ill stop here unless i hv more observations/questions-but u guys will decide as u see fit. If a decision is to stay as is, ill abide by it.