One fix for the lottery...

Spiritual_Chaos

One thing they should do but still keep the lottery and make more people happy.
They should make it so that you first only can get ONE show, and they go through all the members and first after "as many as possible" members get one show they should open up the lottery as now.

So that as many members as possible at least gets one show. Instead of some getting 5 and others 0. But still keep the same lottery and still in the end people can luck out and get alot of show.

What would be the problems with this system?

SVRDhand13

Yes, that would seem the fair way to go. Its probably really hard to make sure this actually happens though. Seems like a lot of reviewing and it still may not be right.

kingmatt

I totally agree with this... but yeah, I can see it causing problems. For example, what if you put Seatlle or NY1 as your lock and so do 6000 other people?

I suppose this is where the priority could play in. Ensure that every member gets 1 pair based on their priority list, then go on with the rest. My guess is that this doesn't fit in to how the actual lottery was being run though.

Zod

I guess.

People going to multiple shows chose shows with low demand as their secondary preferences.

I honestly don't think the end result would be much different with one pair per person. That one pair is still like choosing your #1 pref.

I think it would be a bit smoother to have one lottery per show and randomly allocate the GA tickets to people who won (unless they opted out of GA).

At least then you don't have competition between people having their #2 as the same show as their #1, losing to people who were a bit more clever, and splitting their pref's up between shows.

Spiritual_Chaos

kingmatt wrote:

I totally agree with this... but yeah, I can see it causing problems. For example, what if you put Seatlle or NY1 as your lock and so do 6000 other people?

I suppose this is where the priority could play in. Ensure that every member gets 1 pair based on their priority list, then go on with the rest. My guess is that this doesn't fit in to how the actual lottery was being run though.

DaveA:
Boston prio 1
Texas prio 2
Gotham City prio 3

Jack:
Boston prio 1
Texas prio 2
Metropolis prio 3

Matt:
Boston prio 1
Metropolis prio 2
Gotham City prio 3

As it is now. DaveA could battle and win over Jack on Boston. And also on Texas. That would be 2 shows for Dave, and zero for Jack.

With a new system. Dave A would win his prio 1 and be put aside. So he won't fight Jack on prio 2 and Jack would get his prio 2.

Matt doesn't get Boston either, but he is happy with getting Metropolis which is his prio2.

Everyone got a show! Now, maybe some people only put Boston and would have been shut out completely. But still. Now, as many as possible have gotten a pair of tix.

Then open up and maybe Jack is shut out of his prio 3 Metropolis because they are all gone, and Matt and Dave fight for Gotham City which Matt wins. Etc.

Alfonz

I agree this is a good starting point.

And as hard as it might seem ... there are always programmers/coders who could come up with an algorithm, but I suspect the 10C couldn't be bothered. The shit that coders write for my company (I am not one of them, I just use what they do) is way more advanced than anything that a lottery could entail. The reality is that in the world of coding it would be very easy to add weighting factors for absolutely anything, including seniority, location, # of tickets already won, etc.

The easiest way (without "complicated" code) would be to run it as they have done, but once someone hits their 1st winner, then they are done. Very simple.

You could even run a 2nd lottery that only allowed people who were shut out of the 1st lottery. And so forth. But this would be too much effort for the 10C ... one lottery is enough work for them.

Spiritual_Chaos

Zod wrote:

I honestly don't think the end result would be much different with one pair per person. That one pair is still like choosing your #1 pref.

The end result would be that more people have a chance to get atleast one show. Even if it is not their prio 1. But someone already having one show can't stop their chance of getting one.

Spiritual_Chaos

Alfonz wrote:

The easiest way (without "complicated" code) would be to run it as they have done, but once someone hits their 1st winner, then they are done. Very simple.

Yes, first one run through where people getting a show is put to the side. Than run it through again after the first run through with the rest of the tickets.

BE9456

All they gotta do is if your #1 is not picked, your #2 becomes a #1. If your #1 is picked, your #2 stays a #2.

Spiritual_Chaos

BE9456 wrote:

All they gotta do is if your #1 is not picked, your #2 becomes a #1. If your #1 is picked, your #2 stays a #2.

Hmm. Yeah. Untill all members have been gone through.

F5AgainstOne

2 SIMPLE FIXES should happen...

1) Make 5 shows the max, have 5 rounds... 1 choice per round. (keeping the limit as 1 pair per show)

2) If the lottery is being done on a Monday, tell us that cut off is Monday BUT give us the results the following day - Then we are not killing our whole Monday F5-ing our ticket page.

Anybody disagree?

Spiritual_Chaos

F5AgainstOne wrote:

2 SIMPLE FIXES should happen...

1) Make 5 shows the max, have 5 rounds... 1 choice per round. (keeping the limit as 1 pair per show)

2) If the lottery is being done on a Monday, tell us that cut off is Monday BUT give us the results the following day - Then we are not killing our whole Monday F5-ing our ticket page.

Anybody disagree?

1. Why? What differs from my idea above?

2. Haha. "Sure".

Zod

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

Zod wrote:

I honestly don't think the end result would be much different with one pair per person. That one pair is still like choosing your #1 pref.

The end result would be that more people have a chance to get atleast one show. Even if it is not their prio 1. But someone already having one show can't stop their chance of getting one.

I don't think it would change very much at all.

Say the most popular shows were at the start of the tour.

1) Scenario 1: Person requested 5 shows. The chose show #1 as #1 priority and all subsequent shows lower down. They'd only get the remaining shows if demand was low enough that people who marked it as #1 didn't get it.

2) Scenario 2: Person requests 5 shows. Show #5 is selected as 1st pref, show #1 as 5th pref. They'd only get tickets to show #5 if pretty much no one else wanted them.

Limiting it to one pair makes very little difference, unless your expecting people to use their one pair on the low demand shows (that you don't want to travel too). It's a good bet people would use the pair on the show closest to home or high demand shows, making little or no difference from the preference system.

People only got multiple shows because they chose additional preferences where people didn't want to go to. They probably use the 1st pref right where you wanted to go.

I guess if you're willing to travel to the places they were you'd get those tickets, but you'd of gotten them anyways.

Spiritual_Chaos

Zod wrote:

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

Zod wrote:

I honestly don't think the end result would be much different with one pair per person. That one pair is still like choosing your #1 pref.

The end result would be that more people have a chance to get atleast one show. Even if it is not their prio 1. But someone already having one show can't stop their chance of getting one.

I don't think it would change very much at all.

Say the most popular shows were at the start of the tour.

1) Scenario 1: Person requested 5 shows. The chose show #1 as #1 priority and all subsequent shows lower down. They'd only get the remaining shows if demand was low enough that people who marked it as #1 didn't get it.

2) Scenario 2: Person requests 5 shows. Show #5 is selected as 1st pref, show #1 as 5th pref. They'd only get tickets to show #5 if pretty much no one else wanted them.

Limiting it to one pair makes very little difference, unless your expecting people to use their one pair on the low demand shows (that you don't want to travel too). It's a good bet people would use the pair on the show closest to home or high demand shows, making little or no difference from the preference system.

People only got multiple shows because they chose additional preferences where people didn't want to go to. They probably use the 1st pref right where you wanted to go.

I guess if you're willing to travel to the places they were you'd get those tickets, but you'd of gotten them anyways.

Yea, sure. I'm not talking about it being a huge difference.

But in the cases of personA having his prio1 tix and battling out for his prio2 with someone who did not get his prio1 it would be a difference. Or would it not?

Zod

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

Yea, sure. I'm not talking about it being a huge difference.

But in the cases of personA having his prio1 tix and battling out for his prio2 with someone who did not get his prio1 it would be a difference. Or would it not?

Yah I suppose it would. It just seems that the big shows like NY, Buffalo, and Seattle mostly went in the first round, so the 2nd round was moot.

People are complaining that people got tickets to 4 or 5 shows, but it's mostly because shows like philly 2, Charlotte, Charlottesville, Portland, OKC, Vancouver, Spokane, Calgary were very low in demand. Not because they were battling out a hotly contested #2 pref for a high demand market.

keepin it copeseptic

BE9456 wrote:

All they gotta do is if your #1 is not picked, your #2 becomes a #1. If your #1 is picked, your #2 stays a #2.

Problems:
1. Less likely to get a show close to you home
2. Decision has to be made which show you start with

Spiritual_Chaos

keepin it copeseptic wrote:

BE9456 wrote:

All they gotta do is if your #1 is not picked, your #2 becomes a #1. If your #1 is picked, your #2 stays a #2.

Problems:
1. Less likely to get a show close to you home
2. Decision has to be made which show you start with

Why is it less likely?
You have to decide now which one you start with also...

Spiritual_Chaos

Zod wrote:

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

Yea, sure. I'm not talking about it being a huge difference.

But in the cases of personA having his prio1 tix and battling out for his prio2 with someone who did not get his prio1 it would be a difference. Or would it not?

Yah I suppose it would. It just seems that the big shows like NY, Buffalo, and Seattle mostly went in the first round, so the 2nd round was moot.

People are complaining that people got tickets to 4 or 5 shows, but it's mostly because shows like philly 2, Charlotte, Charlottesville, Portland, OKC, Vancouver, Spokane, Calgary were very low in demand. Not because they were battling out a hotly contested #2 pref for a high demand market.

Why was Philly2 low in demand? :O I need oridnary tickets for it later on (got GA tix for night 1 and could ofc therefore not win tix to Philly 2).

And yes, the big shows will be gone in the first round. But now, you would have a bigger chance with your prio2 if all the prio1's are gone from the competion.

Hitler
Boston 1
Hartford 2

Stalin
Boston 1
Hartford 2

Today, Hitler can win both Boston and Hartford and Stalin could be out from both. With the "new" system Hitler and all getting prio1 would be gone from battling for Hartford 2.

So I mean, it would be better for Stalin. Even though this instance doesn't happen very often (but I guess it did happen on a few instances).

keepin it copeseptic

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

keepin it copeseptic wrote:

BE9456 wrote:

All they gotta do is if your #1 is not picked, your #2 becomes a #1. If your #1 is picked, your #2 stays a #2.

Problems:
1. Less likely to get a show close to you home
2. Decision has to be made which show you start with

Why is it less likely?
You have to decide now which one you start with also...

1. The 1Oth show is in my city Dallas, which is my first priority, the guy from New York has been shut out of 9 shows and now has dallas as his #1 priority also.

2. 10 shows on tour, New York guy gets 10 chances, me 1

know1

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

One thing they should do but still keep the lottery and make more people happy.
They should make it so that you first only can get ONE show, and they go through all the members and first after "as many as possible" members get one show they should open up the lottery as now.

So that as many members as possible at least gets one show. Instead of some getting 5 and others 0. But still keep the same lottery and still in the end people can luck out and get alot of show.

What would be the problems with this system?

OK - so people who live in Brooklyn would have to list all of the shows they would be willing to go to since there aren't enough tickets for just the New York area fans. If all of those areas have too many requests, then what do they do?

And we'd have to allow EVERYONE who wants a ticket - no matter where they are in the world - to get at least one show on a tour (whatever that means)? What a mess that would be.

Spiritual_Chaos

know1 wrote:

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

One thing they should do but still keep the lottery and make more people happy.
They should make it so that you first only can get ONE show, and they go through all the members and first after "as many as possible" members get one show they should open up the lottery as now.

So that as many members as possible at least gets one show. Instead of some getting 5 and others 0. But still keep the same lottery and still in the end people can luck out and get alot of show.

What would be the problems with this system?

OK - so people who live in Brooklyn would have to list all of the shows they would be willing to go to since there aren't enough tickets for just the New York area fans. If all of those areas have too many requests, then what do they do?

And we'd have to allow EVERYONE who wants a ticket - no matter where they are in the world - to get at least one show on a tour (whatever that means)? What a mess that would be.

What do you mean? If it has too many requests, it would still work like it works now?

And what do you mean allow everyone to get tickets? You doesn't have to allow anyone more than you allow them now? Or what?

It's still a chance you end up without a ticket. But it evens it out a tiny bit more.