@
crimedog
(Promise I'm not yelling, I just love discussing this stuff and I grabbed your name because it was recent, so hope you don't mind a text wall)
I think a cap wouldn't be horrible. That said, there was another site I ran an ongoing raffle on a few years back (which reminds me, I need to go clean up the mess I may have made when I disappeared, whoops) with prizes every time we hit a goal in the raffle.
There was no ticket limit in the raffle.
I actually loved it as a result. The players who contributed most were more likely to get prizes. Yet they weren't guaranteed to get them. Every time 1,000 tickets were sold, I would raffle off prizes. There were times when the person who sent in 600 tickets would win a prize. There were times when they wouldn't. There were times when that player who sent in 1 ticket won the best prize. Everyone had a chance, but the more you contributed, the better your chances.
It makes sense to me.
The idea of this raffle is that it is a treasure sink, while providing an option for some prizes that are supposed to be incredibly hard to get. Treasure sinks benefit the game's economy. The more an individual contributes to the treasure sink, the more likely they are to be rewarded. However, they are not guaranteed a win, and those who can only contribute a little will also have a chance.
Instead of looking at it in terms of "the poor players aren't being given a chance", I see it as a balancing feature for FR. Without the raffle, there is very little chance that players without much treasure/time will get these items. With the raffle, they are given that opportunity. Everyone can contribute what they can afford, and in the end that could mean that the players with more treasure spend more and the players with less spend less, which would help even things out a little.
Now, looking at it if there
is a ticket limit.
What I would predict is that people (or maybe it would be just me) would feel pressured to raise enough treasure to meet the ticket limit every week, rather than weighing their options and deciding what they can afford.
This would probably be less healthy.
I play several gacha games. My parallel (though not an exact parallel) is to events where you can spend your event currency on rewards. Sometimes in the shops there are items you can buy an infinite number of, while other items you have a limited amount you can buy.
What I found is that I'm much more comfortable spending responsibly when there is an infinite amount available, while when there is a limited amount I feel pressure (though this is psychological) to get all of them, regardless of my actual need/means to gather the event currency.
