No really, in real life, Losers get Nothing and lose Something ar the same time. IF losers have nothing to lose, everyone can take RISKS, and we all know things dont work that way. If you take a loan, invest in something then fail, your fcuked. Simple at that.
The best thing HS can do for all you losers leftist is rank floor at every rank, so you can only lose stars.
No. Loan and investments are not competitions.
Please find a competition in real life where you actually lose something (other than your time and effort ofc).
Also, your last suggestion is exactly my proposal as well. I'm afraid you are a leftist too (wtf with this stupid political jargon).
I agree with losing stars but not losing ranks, as per se it would still be a valuable loss to fall back 5 games backward if you were to climb the next up. I also imagined a system where a player could earn points during matches and use those points to buy pre-matches features like “the next game won’t lose you stars in case of defeat” or “ You start first next game” and ecc ecc so if you are about to get Legend or main ranks and about to face an important or difficult match up you can insure your star for that game..
No really, in real life, Losers get Nothing and lose Something ar the same time. IF losers have nothing to lose, everyone can take RISKS, and we all know things dont work that way. If you take a loan, invest in something then fail, your fcuked. Simple at that.
The best thing HS can do for all you losers leftist is rank floor at every rank, so you can only lose stars.
No. Loan and investments are not competitions.
Please find a competition in real life where you actually lose something (other than your time and effort ofc).
Also, your last suggestion is exactly my proposal as well. I'm afraid you are a leftist too (wtf with this stupid political jargon).
I know, right?! Children just hear buzzwords on Youtube and use them without proper context
It is a ladder system and therefore essential for players to de-rank when they lose. The ladder system aims to arrange its players by ability level, not by how many hours they have put into the game. If you didn't lose anything for being beaten, you could hypothetically play 14 hours a day, win 10% of your games and still have a very high rank. Legend would be littered with dribblers who have too much spare time on their hands and there would be no sense of achievement in getting there. That's just not how it is supposed to work. In order for the game to rank you based on your performance, players with a lower win% have to drop ranks to allow for players maintaining a higher win% to surpass them. Ranked is competitive and your rank is supposed to reflect your skill. You can't just go giving out high ranks to people simply because they never learned to cope with losing.
Man, you obviously trying to make a point here in a very polite and formal way.
However, what you describe is wrong. Losing and winning is in the basis of human society. You win - you gain; you lose you gain nothing or even get punished.
This is a ladder system which demands people that lose to get punished by having them losing ranks. In this way you keep a stable progress of players.
They could make a league based system, like the ones used in real sports like football or basketball, but in this case they would have to create divisions and eventualy make 1st division, or Premier League, or Master League or whatever, be for the few and the rest strive for... well... nothing important apart from getting maybe a promotion to a higher league. And how many divisions do they had to make for thousands (if not millions) of players?
With the current ladder system we all have a chance to get to Legend rank. ALL. EVERYONE. It is a matter of time investment (which is something wrong but not to be discussed in this topic), perception, intelligence and luck. The more you play the higher you can get. You learn more things, hints, find out ways to win your way through hard cases, build your own meta decks.
And one last thing; by losing a game or two or ten you actualy earn something more important than just another star or two. You earn experience. The best way to become better is to lose from someone who is better than you. Only thing to do afterwards is to see what he did better or why his deck is better than yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Believe in potential; the multiverse blesses some beings with extraordinary traits, with the potential to do—to be—great things.
Stupid post. If you couldnt lose anything for losing, what would be point of competitive games? Also, there is "checkpoint" every 5 ranks, its like motivation to move up.
Maybe give some in change, I mean, you play a game for... 5-10, or even 30 min... you do the best, even you LOOSE. And what you get? NOTHING. The problem is not loose, else, dont get NOTHING only a waste of time.
Reality is, humans are naturally compelled to be compassionate.
I must be an extraterrestrial then, LOL. XD
I think they call it "arrested development."
LMAO, no, it is called being brave: not being afraid of showing others my real nature, something common people are terrified about, because they have no balls (sorry couldn't find a better word for it, hehe). ;)
Reality is, humans are naturally compelled to be compassionate.
I must be an extraterrestrial then, LOL. XD
I think they call it "arrested development."
LMAO, no, it is called being brave: not being afraid of showing others my real nature, something common people are terrified about, because they have no balls (sorry couldn't find a better word for it, hehe). ;)
Man please slow it down, you're cutting my monitor with that edge.
Haha, you say that, but I'm pretty sure that's just lack of pertinent exposure. It's ridiculously easy to dehumanise other people when all you see is an avatar online. If most experiences you had were of real people in the real world, specially those closer to you, you'd see how fast that changes. Are you gonna tell me that as the person in question is closer to you, your need for compassion towards that person doesn't increase? :p
Ok, I was thinking in general, but what you say is 100% true. My best friend is a woman (chan chan... :P) and I care a lot about her just because she is the closest person I have. She is very nice and smart, always open to listen to me and give me a hand when I really need it.
Nooooooooooooooooooo, I have been defeated so easily, nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! I can't believe it... It cannot be!!!! XD
Reality is, humans are naturally compelled to be compassionate.
I must be an extraterrestrial then, LOL. XD
I think they call it "arrested development."
LMAO, no, it is called being brave: not being afraid of showing others my real nature, something common people are terrified about, because they have no balls (sorry couldn't find a better word for it, hehe). ;)
Man please slow it down, you're cutting my monitor with that edge.
I love to sound edgy, I don't know why, I can't help it, LOL. XD
Ok, I was thinking in general, but what you say is 100% true. My best friend is a woman (chan chan... :P) and I care a lot about her just because she is the closest person I have. She is very nice and smart, always open to listen to me and give me a hand when I really need it.
Nooooooooooooooooooo, I have been defeated so easily, nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! I can't believe it... It cannot be!!!! XD
Haha. And I'm sure you'd extend your hand to help her instantly, which is both normal and good. Probably at some point, you'll have to do it on one knee :p.
That is how it works normally in real life: losers get NOTHING (in other words, they get the lack of reward). That is fine.
HOWEVER, in HS ladder, defeat implies PUNISHMENT (in other words, you not only get nothing, but you are also deprived of something you previously gained).
I would like to ask you, do you consider, say, a business company not attaining enough sales and going bankrupt as a loss, or as being deprived of something?
You might as well look at the Rank in Hearthstone as the company status in the Economy. If you keep failing at your business, you keep losing ranks, if you will, in the Ladder of business.
It is a matter of zooming out and identifying how loss in the real world affects you. I don't know the correct terms to use in English (not a native speaker), to explain everything regarding this exact situation in the Business world as an example. From losing investors, to degrading share value and so on, losing in real life does deprive you of many things, it is just not immediately obvious as it is with Stars in Hearthstone because the real world is slight more complex than Hearthstone.
Exactly, in the same way a company business is much more complex than a competition.
I completely agree about the "zooming out" thing. It's a matter of perception. Losing ranks should not be perceived as a loss of something gained: stars and ranks are NOT part of the gain, it's just a metre, however dynamic and unstable, like market shares.
The only gain in ladder is the monthly loot (and in that view, you are never deprived of anything).
But if we see it that way, then it does not even look like a competition: everyone gets something, and after each month there are no apparent losers or winners (except maybe the #1 Legend, but it's not rewarded proportionately and it's not perceived as the supreme winner either).
I mean, yeah, the company business works as a comparison (only if you think it as the owner and only stakeholder, NOT as workers or investors), but it's not easy to think it that way. At least, I find it hard, even if i am not completely stupid.
Competition is also based on trust. Trust that you opponent will follow the rules just like you will.
I guess it depends on what exactly you then mean with "competition". In the most extreme case rules either wouldn't exist or be only "paper proclamations" at best. As I said if a cheater doesn't get caught there will be no punishment and thus effectively no rules for him. And if you're "fanatic" enough about it you will do everything to win.
Of course that doesn't mean people just ignore the rules, but you need to put a lot of work to observe the law. And even that wouldn't guarantee it since people can always find loopholes. And why do people so desperately trying to find those? Competition - It's only about winning, no matter what. As I said, with "decency" and "civilty" you can work against that like "don't take it too seriously" basically and such. But rewarding only the winner and maybe even punishing the loser/s naturally leads to everyone trying to avoid losing at all cost, maybe even winning. And since a rule is just an idea it might just get neglected. And this has nothing to do with "trust", but everything with "nobody wants to be a loser".
If at least there wouldn't be one or multiple losers it would be less bad, but with losers you kind of force those people to either feel bad or "do something about it". And that's the point: "Do something about it" can, but doesn't have to be, something productive and good. It can also be "cheating" and if nobody cares or notices the rule was never there to begin with so to speak.
Competition is at least extremely risky because of this. Maybe we can agree on that.
I highly disagree, Competition doesn't make people less empathetic or generous. Personal values do. People can be extremely competitive yet be extremely empathetic and generous as well. They are not mutually exclusive. They just do it outside of the competition. You'll often see extremely successful people in competitive fields be far more generous than less successful and that simply comes down to values.
Well, as I already said those "personal values" has to come from somewhere and since competition is all around us I'd say competition is a big part of the problem to say the least. Or where else do you think those "values" come from? But I can agree that it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. It depends on what you experienced basically. And I'd say if you experienced a lot of competition you tend to be either extremely aggressive or extremely anxious to cope with it. Either immediately eradicate any occuring problem or be extremely cautious since everyone is "out to get you". Although those are extremes, but it's still the general tendency over long periods of time. I can only admit that some competitions are less bad than others. But competitions in general are exactly what lead to those "values". And if someone successful is generous that's no surprise of course since they won. I wonder how many competitive losers are very generous.
The reason you are less trusting is because societies have long lost their sense of values and community, and instead placed all their value in governments, entities with the power to use force and justify it. Reality is, humans are naturally compelled to be compassionate. That doesn't mean everyone is, but we tend to be. As we gave governments the power to force compassion instead of having communities themselves be compassionate voluntarily, we lost trust in people.
We don't go to our families, our friends, our neighbours, our local entities and communities for help, we go right to the government, and it should be the opposite, we should go from left to right, because that builds strong communities with good values.
I completely agree.
Of course competitions have rules. The fittest is the one that can best perform within the rules of the competition... If that is a competition to survive at all costs, then those are the rules in said competition.
I guess it realy depends on the kind of "competitions" you refer to. But as I said rules are just an idea. Like laws a lot of them are put into place because we (humans in general) didn't know how to deal with the unwanted behavior otherwise. And if you enforce them it might do good, but it doesn't have to be and if people aren't caught not obeying or they circumvent it any other way the rule is basically irrelevant.
There are always people who want to break the rules to get unfair advantages. Those people are not great people nor should you trust them or wish to form relationships with them.
Oh, and what else? Kill them? No, thanks.
You think it's better to change the system, I think the system is fine, and that we should try and improve the people, the individuals.
Well, isn't that... kind of the same? The "system" is also just an idea created by our belief in it.
In Hearthstone, I don't want the system to stop removing stars from losers, I want the losers to accept the losses and try to improve, even if that means asking for help to others more successful so that the losers can become better and do things themselves. And I also hope the winners are people with values, that will be willing to help the losers within their abilities. I think this is how it works best.
I know what you mean, but the problem here is this: One can only win if another fails. This is inherently destructive. It's true that some people try to be more understanding of others, try to help others, etc., but I'd say this is only because of our "natural" drive - against - competition, to share ideas and help others.
Jealousy has nothing to do with taking Competition seriously. If you compete and gave your best performance, but still lost, there tend to be two paths you take. One is you get jealous you lost while someone better won and want to change the system so that it best suits your needs. The other is you accept that you were not the best, and that you should improve to be the best next time. I'm going to ask you which path you think almost any competitor that has ever lost and went on to win later took.
Well, yes, but this is still part of what the competition has caused. To say it that way: We can't all be winners. And that's the problem. At least in most competitions. As I said there bad and less bad competitions, but in general it just breeds hostility to some degree.
A Jealous person tends to be that way because they weren't taught the proper values by the environment, that is correct. Usually, it starts with parents that didn't do a proper job raising the person. You wouldn't believe how incredibly important the role of parents actually is to the future of people, and how statistically relevant that has been demonstrated.
Yes, exactly. I know how important that is. And I would say you should try to raise children with as little competition as possible.
Again, Competition doesn't lead to bad things. People without proper values lead to bad things. It's the same thing as the argument of Fire Arms. Fire Arms are inanimate objects which has no free will to perform any action unless programmed for such, and which can be used for both good and evil. It is humans, without proper values, that make use of these inanimate objects to commit horrible actions. We shouldn't be looking at the Fire Arms, we should be looking at the people that have the agency and decide to commit the acts.
I'm not sure if you can compare that. As I asked earlier: Where do you think people get those values? I'd say mainly from competition.
And I think having the option to cooperate with the other group is great. And if I decide to not cooperate, and that group cooperates with another and ends up out performing me, then I will have lost and take the penalty myself, and that is how it should be.
Oh, another group. Yeah, right... No, that's not what I meant. Or to say it that way: Then it might be even better if group one, two, and three cooperate. If they all can contribute that would be amazing and if not so many need to work which is also great.
That's another big problem with competition: Waste of human and natural resources. In competitions you waste a lot more resources than if everyone would cooperate.
Yes, it's a good thing, because in a free environment, and environment where the system is not rigged to favour some people or corporations instead of the others, there will always be someone that will appear and challenge you with a better product or service.
Well, that's a nice idea. It's also quite unachievable with competitions. How can you make sure it's not "rigged to favor some people"? People almost certainly will do that in a competition. And then what? And since there will always be a "best one" they will have more power which can be used to further strengthen their position. And then what? If there would be much more cooperation and much less competition I can see it though. But not with the general premise of a "free market", that's for sure.
It is not irrational to cooperate in competition. Again, best performance is only judged by the metrics used to determine the winner. It is still a risk to cooperate, but that might be the best path to take for you to win the competition.
Not sure about which kind of "competition" you're then talking about. What would be a practical example of this?
I would advise you to check out how the philosophy of putting the Group above the Individual has turned out over the years. There is plenty of examples in the 20th Century that show you how those systems work and why they are worse.
I imagine you refer to so-called "communism" and such. The thing though is: It's not relevant to what I talked about. First of all it was kind of the same as so-called "capitalism" (like there was still money) and in those "systems" the group was not really put above the individual like I talked about it. You had basically two groups: Bottom and top. But it's like if in HS there would be only Legend and Rank 25. It's still the same and to a degree indeed worse.
A system where you poison the well to gain an unfair advantage is not a free market. And again, I'm fully in favour of make those people accountable for their acts. They should be punished for disrupting the free market.
Maybe it was bad not to ask first. What in the world do you mean with "free market" then?
I think a system that encourages people to play what others want them to play rather than what people themselves want to play is bad by design.
And why? Because you're more concerned with yourself than others? If you think that's so important, okay then.
People should not be punished for their choice if the choice is not against the rules of the game/competition.
Also, I think using subjective metrics is pointless. Toxic is a great example. Everyone will have a different perspective on what is Toxic because everyone has a different taste. All you get is a majority vote on what people should play, rather than what people themselves want to play, and I don't think having the majority dictate what minorities can do is appropriate if they are already complying with the rules.
Of course this system is in complete contradiction with competitions. I would like to at least encourage people to play the game in a way which I enjoy more. Unfortunately it would always be a punishment for someone who plays otherwise. It basically let the community create the rules of the game if you so want. I guess not everyone would like that. Fair enough. (I also admit that this would be just patchwork.)
Assuming the number of cards and such premise, what would that experience bar reward you with? Although I still don't think it's a great measure because it can be abused. It focuses on quantity rather than quality, which I personally am not a fan of.
It's seems quite obvious to me: You take the average of how long it currently takes people to win 30 games and this time is worth 100 gold (e.g. one experience meter). That way there should be no influence in their in-game economy which is probably the most important part.
No. Loan and investments are not competitions.
Please find a competition in real life where you actually lose something (other than your time and effort ofc).
Also, your last suggestion is exactly my proposal as well. I'm afraid you are a leftist too (wtf with this stupid political jargon).
I agree with losing stars but not losing ranks, as per se it would still be a valuable loss to fall back 5 games backward if you were to climb the next up. I also imagined a system where a player could earn points during matches and use those points to buy pre-matches features like “the next game won’t lose you stars in case of defeat” or “ You start first next game” and ecc ecc so if you are about to get Legend or main ranks and about to face an important or difficult match up you can insure your star for that game..
I know, right?! Children just hear buzzwords on Youtube and use them without proper context
It is a ladder system and therefore essential for players to de-rank when they lose. The ladder system aims to arrange its players by ability level, not by how many hours they have put into the game. If you didn't lose anything for being beaten, you could hypothetically play 14 hours a day, win 10% of your games and still have a very high rank. Legend would be littered with dribblers who have too much spare time on their hands and there would be no sense of achievement in getting there. That's just not how it is supposed to work. In order for the game to rank you based on your performance, players with a lower win% have to drop ranks to allow for players maintaining a higher win% to surpass them. Ranked is competitive and your rank is supposed to reflect your skill. You can't just go giving out high ranks to people simply because they never learned to cope with losing.
Man, you obviously trying to make a point here in a very polite and formal way.
However, what you describe is wrong. Losing and winning is in the basis of human society. You win - you gain; you lose you gain nothing or even get punished.
This is a ladder system which demands people that lose to get punished by having them losing ranks. In this way you keep a stable progress of players.
They could make a league based system, like the ones used in real sports like football or basketball, but in this case they would have to create divisions and eventualy make 1st division, or Premier League, or Master League or whatever, be for the few and the rest strive for... well... nothing important apart from getting maybe a promotion to a higher league. And how many divisions do they had to make for thousands (if not millions) of players?
With the current ladder system we all have a chance to get to Legend rank. ALL. EVERYONE. It is a matter of time investment (which is something wrong but not to be discussed in this topic), perception, intelligence and luck. The more you play the higher you can get. You learn more things, hints, find out ways to win your way through hard cases, build your own meta decks.
And one last thing; by losing a game or two or ten you actualy earn something more important than just another star or two. You earn experience. The best way to become better is to lose from someone who is better than you. Only thing to do afterwards is to see what he did better or why his deck is better than yours.
Believe in potential; the multiverse blesses some beings with extraordinary traits, with the potential to do—to be—great things.
Stupid post. If you couldnt lose anything for losing, what would be point of competitive games? Also, there is "checkpoint" every 5 ranks, its like motivation to move up.
Just remove OTK from the game. Problem solved
I must be an extraterrestrial then, LOL. XD
I think they call it "arrested development."
Underrated comment. I'll just say that much.
LMAO, no, it is called being brave: not being afraid of showing others my real nature, something common people are terrified about, because they have no balls (sorry couldn't find a better word for it, hehe). ;)
Losers don't get nothing, they get the lessons that lead to future victories.
If they don't feel they're learning these lessons, they need to examine themselves and the game they're playing. It may be time for a different game.
Man please slow it down, you're cutting my monitor with that edge.
Ok, I was thinking in general, but what you say is 100% true. My best friend is a woman (chan chan... :P) and I care a lot about her just because she is the closest person I have. She is very nice and smart, always open to listen to me and give me a hand when I really need it.
Nooooooooooooooooooo, I have been defeated so easily, nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! I can't believe it... It cannot be!!!! XD
I love to sound edgy, I don't know why, I can't help it, LOL. XD
Somebody free me from this torment, I don't want to be edgy any more. XD
Damn, stop, please!!! XD
Exactly, in the same way a company business is much more complex than a competition.
I completely agree about the "zooming out" thing. It's a matter of perception. Losing ranks should not be perceived as a loss of something gained: stars and ranks are NOT part of the gain, it's just a metre, however dynamic and unstable, like market shares.
The only gain in ladder is the monthly loot (and in that view, you are never deprived of anything).
But if we see it that way, then it does not even look like a competition: everyone gets something, and after each month there are no apparent losers or winners (except maybe the #1 Legend, but it's not rewarded proportionately and it's not perceived as the supreme winner either).
I mean, yeah, the company business works as a comparison (only if you think it as the owner and only stakeholder, NOT as workers or investors), but it's not easy to think it that way. At least, I find it hard, even if i am not completely stupid.
I guess it depends on what exactly you then mean with "competition". In the most extreme case rules either wouldn't exist or be only "paper proclamations" at best. As I said if a cheater doesn't get caught there will be no punishment and thus effectively no rules for him. And if you're "fanatic" enough about it you will do everything to win.
Of course that doesn't mean people just ignore the rules, but you need to put a lot of work to observe the law. And even that wouldn't guarantee it since people can always find loopholes. And why do people so desperately trying to find those? Competition - It's only about winning, no matter what. As I said, with "decency" and "civilty" you can work against that like "don't take it too seriously" basically and such. But rewarding only the winner and maybe even punishing the loser/s naturally leads to everyone trying to avoid losing at all cost, maybe even winning. And since a rule is just an idea it might just get neglected. And this has nothing to do with "trust", but everything with "nobody wants to be a loser".
If at least there wouldn't be one or multiple losers it would be less bad, but with losers you kind of force those people to either feel bad or "do something about it". And that's the point: "Do something about it" can, but doesn't have to be, something productive and good. It can also be "cheating" and if nobody cares or notices the rule was never there to begin with so to speak.
Competition is at least extremely risky because of this. Maybe we can agree on that.
Well, as I already said those "personal values" has to come from somewhere and since competition is all around us I'd say competition is a big part of the problem to say the least. Or where else do you think those "values" come from? But I can agree that it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. It depends on what you experienced basically. And I'd say if you experienced a lot of competition you tend to be either extremely aggressive or extremely anxious to cope with it. Either immediately eradicate any occuring problem or be extremely cautious since everyone is "out to get you". Although those are extremes, but it's still the general tendency over long periods of time. I can only admit that some competitions are less bad than others. But competitions in general are exactly what lead to those "values". And if someone successful is generous that's no surprise of course since they won. I wonder how many competitive losers are very generous.
I completely agree.
I guess it realy depends on the kind of "competitions" you refer to. But as I said rules are just an idea. Like laws a lot of them are put into place because we (humans in general) didn't know how to deal with the unwanted behavior otherwise. And if you enforce them it might do good, but it doesn't have to be and if people aren't caught not obeying or they circumvent it any other way the rule is basically irrelevant.
Oh, and what else? Kill them? No, thanks.
Well, isn't that... kind of the same? The "system" is also just an idea created by our belief in it.
I know what you mean, but the problem here is this: One can only win if another fails. This is inherently destructive. It's true that some people try to be more understanding of others, try to help others, etc., but I'd say this is only because of our "natural" drive - against - competition, to share ideas and help others.
Well, yes, but this is still part of what the competition has caused. To say it that way: We can't all be winners. And that's the problem. At least in most competitions. As I said there bad and less bad competitions, but in general it just breeds hostility to some degree.
Yes, exactly. I know how important that is. And I would say you should try to raise children with as little competition as possible.I'm not sure if you can compare that. As I asked earlier: Where do you think people get those values? I'd say mainly from competition.
Oh, another group. Yeah, right... No, that's not what I meant. Or to say it that way: Then it might be even better if group one, two, and three cooperate. If they all can contribute that would be amazing and if not so many need to work which is also great.
That's another big problem with competition: Waste of human and natural resources. In competitions you waste a lot more resources than if everyone would cooperate.
Well, that's a nice idea. It's also quite unachievable with competitions. How can you make sure it's not "rigged to favor some people"? People almost certainly will do that in a competition. And then what? And since there will always be a "best one" they will have more power which can be used to further strengthen their position. And then what? If there would be much more cooperation and much less competition I can see it though. But not with the general premise of a "free market", that's for sure.
Not sure about which kind of "competition" you're then talking about. What would be a practical example of this?
I imagine you refer to so-called "communism" and such. The thing though is: It's not relevant to what I talked about. First of all it was kind of the same as so-called "capitalism" (like there was still money) and in those "systems" the group was not really put above the individual like I talked about it. You had basically two groups: Bottom and top. But it's like if in HS there would be only Legend and Rank 25. It's still the same and to a degree indeed worse.
Maybe it was bad not to ask first. What in the world do you mean with "free market" then?
And why? Because you're more concerned with yourself than others? If you think that's so important, okay then.
Of course this system is in complete contradiction with competitions. I would like to at least encourage people to play the game in a way which I enjoy more. Unfortunately it would always be a punishment for someone who plays otherwise. It basically let the community create the rules of the game if you so want. I guess not everyone would like that. Fair enough. (I also admit that this would be just patchwork.)
It's seems quite obvious to me: You take the average of how long it currently takes people to win 30 games and this time is worth 100 gold (e.g. one experience meter). That way there should be no influence in their in-game economy which is probably the most important part.
You actually gain experience and even quest process when you lose. So that’s that. Want more? Then win.