??? coin raffles: After 60 seconds are up, the winner loses 999 coins at worst and earns 999 coins at best.
Sliding raffles: Each successful join adds 1 to 100 coins (depending on the starting value). The winner gets all the coins.
Everybody wins raffle: A certain number, less than the grand prize, is selected as the participation prize.

Edited 1/10/2020 22:49:50

Feel free to add raffle ideas!

This could be a nice way to get more coins, but if you want coins, you are supposed to win or buy them. Every coin Fizzer gives away is a coin he didn't sell.

The ??? coin Raffles would probably result in only alts playing, that would tranfer there price to an other account within minutes after winning.

With sliding Raffles you get awarded for getting more players to join, so once again: lots of alts.

I like the idea of a 1 coin participation prize tho....

1 coin participation prize is interesting ... but suffers the same issue as you pointed out in the other thread - alts. Why get 1 participation coin when you can get 10 with 9 alt accounts?

Would be different if there was a "certification" process of sorts for primary accounts, and without the cert, you're not eligible for any such "primary account only" benefits.

I would love for WZ to have a proper alt to main linking system.

It could prevent cheating in games / tournaments. Moderators could use it to time-out all linked accounts at once, so offenders don't just log back on with their alt's. And it would make such special Raffle's possible...

But unfortunately such a system would once again depend on the honesty of the user in charge of those accounts. Now honest users will link there alt('s) in their bio. If such an alt linking system would be put in place, the user still has to link them in all honesty....

Yep, that's the problem, the system is at odds with itself because it's meant to protect against dishonest players yet relying on their honest voluntary identification.

But I'm thinking of something else, which unfortunately would end up being either too onerous on mods or just plain unenforcable, which instead of just enforcing the limitations on identified alts, but enforcing the good on the identified primaries.

So you basically have to get someone (I'm guessing a mod) to check your account as a primary. Not all primaries will have it, and some won't care unless they're trying to do something it's required for (eg: these special raffles, etc).

But it's likely too time consuming for mods, and they have no surefire way to make a "No" call when asked to certify an account.

agreed with adamg's post! but what if the raffle participant had to lose 999 coins, but what if he didn't have 999 coins? would he go into the negatives for coins? if so, would (if he earned coins back to 0) , would it count for the coin leaderboard?

nah

The lowest point caps off at the poorest Warzone Player (c-(2c).

way too complicated, let's keep it more simple. If there was some ??? coin raffle, why not keep it between -2 and 10 or something like that?
Or a raffle where the winner takes 1 coin of each loser, muahahaha

The lowest point caps off at the poorest Warzone Player (c-(2c).

What would c be in that case?

---

agreed with adamg's post! but what if the raffle participant had to lose 999 coins, but what if he didn't have 999 coins? would he go into the negatives for coins? if so, would (if he earned coins back to 0) , would it count for the coin leaderboard?

If you cannot go negative you get into an issue where players will only join with poor alts, instead of their rich main accounts. If the alt wins the Raffle, you transfer the coins to your main account. Fizzer would also find it to time consuming to implement this I am afraid. He still has bugs to fix, and proper features to develop. New Raffle's wouldn't be on that list, since they only cost him money and don't make any . Unless he is going to include proper negatieve coin balances....

---

Yep, that's the problem, the system is at odds with itself because it's meant to protect against dishonest players yet relying on their honest voluntary identification.

But I'm thinking of something else, which unfortunately would end up being either too onerous on mods or just plain unenforcable, which instead of just enforcing the limitations on identified alts, but enforcing the good on the identified primaries.

So you basically have to get someone (I'm guessing a mod) to check your account as a primary. Not all primaries will have it, and some won't care unless they're trying to do something it's required for (eg: these special raffles, etc).

But it's likely too time consuming for mods, and they have no surefire way to make a "No" call when asked to certify an account.

How would a mod check an account? What requirements would an account need to have to become a 'primary'?
And this system would indeed put way to much load on the moderators. Once again this doesn't bring Fizzer any money, it only costs time, so he would not even attempt to do this.

c = coins of the poorest player in the raffle

way too complicated, let's keep it more simple. If there was some ??? coin raffle, why not keep it between -2 and 10 or something
like that?

Same issue with alts, and on average you still get 7 coins per Raffle

Or a raffle where the winner takes 1 coin of each loser, muahahaha

This could be an interesting concept, however properly explain what player are getting into may take way to long.

Besides all of this, the Raffle's already fulfill their purpose: keeping global chat alive

This just makes the rich and the poor gap grow wider. I hate the lose coins idea

The lowest point caps off at the poorest Warzone Player (c-(2c).
c = coins of the poorest player in the raffle

you are missing a closing ) and the parenthesis aren't needed at all...

this simple formula also would not become negative for players with 0 coins, so you once again end up with a bunch of alts

This just makes the rich and the poor gap grow wider. I hate the lose coins idea

Capitalism at it's finest

hey , maybe keep the raffles the same?

I think that is a great idea Viking

+5 to Viking's idea. Sounds pretty good and should be easy to implement!

besidies, more coins are handed out and we don't have to be scared to enter cuz we could lose coins!

May I second QiuSe' idea:
Or a raffle where the winner takes 1 coin of each loser, muahahaha


Then it would be more like a lottery.


LotteryBot: Lottery starting now. Winner takes it all, each lot 1 coin. To buy a lot, shout !lot within the next 5 minutes.



BTW, that bot would be in addition to the RaffleBot, which I would, like Viking suggests, not amend much.

Edited 1/22/2020 12:32:42

What if no-one joins? Or only 1 person joins?

Then he wins his own coin again. Winner takes it all...


And those of us who have lag in the chat, can double their chances...:

!lot
Krulle, you have successfully exchanged 1 coin for a lot. Good luck in this lottery.
!lot
Krulle, you have successfully exchanged another coin for a lot. You now have two lots in this lottery. Good luck!
!lot
Krulle, you have no coins to buy lots from. You now have two lots in this lottery. Good luck!

LotteryBot: The Lottery is over. Congrats to the RaffleBot for winninng this lottery. The next raffle will thus be increased by 2 coins.

Dang. I even lose in this imaginary lottery, even when playing against myself.


Edited to add:
Maybe we can have the RaffleBot always buy one lot, which decreases the next raffle by one coin, or increasses the next raffle by the won amount.

Edited 1/22/2020 12:42:16

Yep. I go against that idea tho. People with tons of coins could just gamble away

I think that people who are timed out , should still be able to take part in raffles

Otherwise, it will be unfair if they are great members of the community.

Edited 1/23/2020 20:00:20

The point of a time-out is to prevent chatting from those who broke rules. It's only fair that while someone is on a time-out, that that person shouldn't be able to contribute to chat (including entering raffles). This applies to anyone, regardless of status. Once a player breaks a rule, that player will be given longer and longer time-outs until the rules are no longer broken.

Edit: if entering raffles while on a time-out was a thing, then players on suspension would also request to be able to take their turns. It's absurd.

Edited 1/23/2020 20:35:47

people who are timed-out should not be able to enter the raffles cuz not entering the raffles is basically their punishement

If player gets timed-out in chat, his previous 3-day coin winnings would be detracted and added to next wafaffle. If the player lacks the funds, he will gain negative amount of coins.

wait, really @mr t?

they will lose their winnings over the past 3 days?

No, Viking, they don't.

Mr T how about accidental time-outs? Maybe taking Raffle coins isn't such a great idea, but fines could work...

A 50 coin fine for every time-out you get....