Why I think limitation on amount of points you can win in an event is an outrage.

Earlier today, a set was hosted where in 2 of its events, players were only allowed to win 1 point max in the whole event. What this means is, that if you won a round, you can either leave because you cant win anymore or waste your time playing the event (disregarding the fun aspect for now).

This is a worsening of a state events were in for the past ~2 years, which is that players were not allowed to win more than 3 points in a race event of any kind except deathrace. This is somewhat understandable, because getting better at racing takes exponentially more time the more you want to improve.
However, a few months ago a trend started of limiting players, supposedly randomly, from winning more than 3, in popular events like dodgeball, run from nade, etc. However, there was an obvious connection between limitation of players from winning and those players being consistent winners.

It can be explained by using the argument that other players should get a chance to win because the event is made for all players and not just a few, but there are a few reasons why i consider this statement/reason an outrage and should therefore be removed from any event that does not have an ultimatum of winners like in race (--exponentially more time for better results).

• There is a general consensus that players are overall getting better over time. I can say personally that winning consistently has become harder over time and many more players are getting to the level of winning that can be considered consistent. This means that limiting the number of winnings per player prevents players from striving to become better at a certain event because they dont have to try as hard to win if a player better than them cant win.
• Giving other players a chance to win is determined from the moment they join an event. They have a chance to win regardless of who else has a chance to win.
• There is less of a liking towards events that are determined by luck by all players except those that absolutely never win otherwise, which means that events are almost always skill based. What this means is, that it would be highly unfair to prevent a skilled player from winning a skill-based event, especially if he practiced or gained experience over the years for the event.

Ignoring these points for a second, an event moderator brought it to my attention that apparently everyone in the event team now limits winning in every event to 3, which, according to other event moderators is not true.
The community would appreciate a clearer explanation of the way event moderators decide limiting winnings per player to prevent future questions like "what is the max wins in this event?".


/discuss

i agree, but we have like 20-30 players every set, if you host race and there is one player like you we have 1% chance to win(and i am talking about skilled players), and most players would just leave cause why even try.
i suggest +3 max, and after that if you manage to win again you will get +4 and 2nd place will get +1. everyone happy :D
so you can get +5 in every event and other players can still win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Complaint

i agree, but we have like 20-30 players every set, if you host race and there is one player like you we have 1% chance to win(and i am talking about skilled players), and most players would just leave cause why even try.
i suggest +3 max, and after that if you manage to win again you will get +4 and 2nd place will get +1. everyone happy :D
so you can get +5 in every event and other players can still win.

---

I'm not talking about race though, the rule has been used on other events where there is not an ultimatum of the same people winning like in race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

I'm not talking about race though, the rule has been used on other events where there is not an ultimatum of the same people winning like in race.

---

that is why i said i agree with you ._.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Complaint

i agree, but we have like 20-30 players every set, if you host race and there is one player like you we have 1% chance to win(and i am talking about skilled players), and most players would just leave cause why even try.
i suggest +3 max, and after that if you manage to win again you will get +4 and 2nd place will get +1. everyone happy :D
so you can get +5 in every event and other players can still win.

---

Or just get good? This sounds dumb as hell, but it's the truth. Bunny has dedicated his life to fgunz it would seem, and it's the reason he wins so much, which is fully deserving for the time he's spent on the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOA

Or just get good? This sounds dumb as hell, but it's the truth. Bunny has dedicated his life to fgunz it would seem, and it's the reason he wins so much, which is fully deserving for the time he's spent on the game.

---

I didn't dedicate my life however, I've been just playing for years and have experience. I don't go out of my way in a supermario3 room and practice racing to get better (and never have). The same can be said for other events, ive been just playing them alot over the years and know the intricacies which is why i win alot. The thing is that im not the only one, so i dont think its fair to limit someone and thus prevent a healthy competition that always existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOA

Or just get good? This sounds dumb as hell, but it's the truth. Bunny has dedicated his life to fgunz it would seem, and it's the reason he wins so much, which is fully deserving for the time he's spent on the game.

---

i wasn't talking about me, i win in race events and i enjoy the competition, i was talking about the avg player.
if you had 0% winning chance would you dedicate your time and try to win it? ofc you won't.
why just troll? what i suggested will enable anyone to win +5 in any event and still leave some room for other players to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Complaint

i wasn't talking about me, i win in race events and i enjoy the competition, i was talking about the avg player.
if you had 0% winning chance would you dedicate your time and try to win it? ofc you won't.
why just troll? what i suggested will enable anyone to win +5 in any event and still leave some room for other players to win.

---

TOP 10 Greatest Arguments For Communism

I don't think it's necessary to limit the amount of points you can win in events other than the ones which always have clear winners, like Race/LOLRACE/DFD and sometimes Medstyle. These events are usually won by the same people, therefore I think the +3 max rule is justified. However, the rule should not be applied to the other events, since the winners are usually diverse. A limit of +1 should in my opinion never be applied unless there is a good reason for it.

Events should be fun for everyone. If only a select group of people win the events, it's not that fun for those who don't win as often. However, limiting the amount of points won would, like Bunny said, give those who already won no reason to further participate in the events.

All in all:

• The +3 rule should only be applied in events like Race/LOLRACE/DFD/Medstyle
• +1 limit should never be a thing unless there is a good reason in my opinion.
• I don't limit my events to have a +3 cap unless its one of the events mentioned above.

It's possible for other ET's to host with different standards, so asking them would still be a recommended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bram

I don't think it's necessary to limit the amount of points you can win in events other than the ones which always have clear winners, like Race/LOLRACE/DFD and sometimes Medstyle. These events are usually won by the same people, therefore I think the +3 max rule is justified. However, the rule should not be applied to the other events, since the winners are usually diverse. A limit of +1 should in my opinion never be applied unless there is a good reason for it.

Events should be fun for everyone. If only a select group of people win the events, it's not that fun for those who don't win as often. However, limiting the amount of points won would, like Bunny said, give those who already won no reason to further participate in the events.

All in all:

• The +3 rule should only be applied in events like Race/LOLRACE/DFD/Medstyle
• +1 limit should never be a thing unless there is a good reason in my opinion.
• I don't limit my events to have a +3 cap unless its one of the events mentioned above.

It's possible for other ET's to host with different standards, so asking them would still be a recommended.

---

I really appreciate the response, but after a discussion with another event moderator that claimed everyone thinks like you do, I would greatly appreciate responses from other event moderators stating how they would do their own events. Afterall, they decide how theyre going to host and whats best for the players which is fine (unless completely illogical), so opinions from them would give players a better understanding of how they mean to do their events.

Quote:

---

Earlier today, a set was hosted where in 2 of its events, players were only allowed to win 1 point max in the whole event.

---

What do you mean? What events?

About what Bram said,

Quote:

---

These events are usually won by the same people, therefore I think the +3 max rule is justified.

---

That's ridiculous. You going to punish skilled players from winning more event points because they're skilled? Everything about that screams no to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linzor

What do you mean? What events?

---

King of the hill, which is a new event thats basically DFD [GLAD] and W2W.
In both of these events, the max win was +1. In both of them, I won the first round, and afterwards left cause i didnt want to waste my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linzor

That's ridiculous. You going to punish skilled players from winning more event points because they're skilled? Everything about that screams no to me.

---

Everytime those events are hosted we can all guess who's gonna win most of the rounds. Most people won't even bother playing when those players participate. Having a max of +3 makes it so that the less skilled players can win in the event as well and actually have a chance to win some points. In my opinion a max of +3 isn't a punishment since you already won more than half of the obtainable points in the set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bram

Everytime those events are hosted we can all guess who's gonna win most of the rounds. Most people won't even bother playing when those players participate. Having a max of +3 makes it so that the less skilled players can win in the event as well and actually have a chance to win some points. In my opinion a max of +3 isn't a punishment since you already won more than half of the obtainable points in the set.

---

That's still a punishment no matter how you look at it. You decreasing the amount they can win, it's not fair in any sense.

The fact you say "people won't even bother playing if they can't win" is bs. It never stopped people from joining the events from when even race was created, and even when I was ET there was the same people winning those events all the time, and even since then the race event in particular has never decreased in players and I don't think you see tons of less players in it now compared to all other events, unless you perhaps compare it to the most popular events but that's not a fair comparison.

Most of the new rules/events/ideas are discussed in private with all of the Event Team and Event Team Helpers, however this was an exception.

I agree with Linzor though, it's a big no regarding not letting skilled players win more points in one event. Events should be competitive, and if some people leave events because they can 'already guess who is gonna win' then honestly it's their choice. None of the players who win most points gained their skill overnight. It takes time and focus, and even with that, it is possible that they will screw up and die.

Personally I've never limit the Race events to +3 maximum, the reason being that 99% of the times nobody won more than 3 points. There was one particular situation in Lolrace where 2 players were competing with eachother and the scoreline in points was 4-1. Regardless of that, other players still played and enjoyed the events. In Deathrace the skilled players usually get ganged so they can't win. Regular race isn't so hard, all it takes is a little practice. Lolrace is different and only a few players can complete the whole map, so limiting it to +3 max there is doing no good, since noone else will win the event. The skilled ones should be awarded with +5 if needed because it's a hard event and takes time to master.



I'm asking some of you (the players) to have a little tolerance and a more friendlier tone with the new-ish ETs (same goes to ETs who can be biased). Mistakes happen to everyone and from time to time if my fellow Event Team mates strive to improve we will all have a more quality time in events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linzor

That's still a punishment no matter how you look at it. You decreasing the amount they can win, it's not fair in any sense.

The fact you say "people won't even bother playing if they can't win" is bs. It never stopped people from joining the events from when even race was created, and even when I was ET there was the same people winning those events all the time, and even since then the race event in particular has never decreased in players and I don't think you see tons of less players in it now compared to all other events, unless you perhaps compare it to the most popular events but that's not a fair comparison.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bipolarity

Most of the new rules/events/ideas are discussed in private with all of the Event Team and Event Team Helpers, however this was an exception.

I agree with Linzor though, it's a big no regarding not letting skilled players win more points in one event. Events should be competitive, and if some people leave events because they can 'already guess who is gonna win' then honestly it's their choice. None of the players who win most points gained their skill overnight. It takes time and focus, and even with that, it is possible that they will screw up and die.

Personally I've never limit the Race events to +3 maximum, the reason being that 99% of the times nobody won more than 3 points. There was one particular situation in Lolrace where 2 players were competing with eachother and the scoreline in points was 4-1. Regardless of that, other players still played and enjoyed the events. In Deathrace the skilled players usually get ganged so they can't win. Regular race isn't so hard, all it takes is a little practice. Lolrace is different and only a few players can complete the whole map, so limiting it to +3 max there is doing no good, since noone else will win the event. The skilled ones should be awarded with +5 if needed because it's a hard event and takes time to master.



I'm asking some of you (the players) to have a little tolerance and a more friendlier tone with the new-ish ETs (same goes to ETs who can be biased). Mistakes happen to everyone and from time to time if my fellow Event Team mates strive to improve we will all have a more quality time in events.

---

I still think that letting one player win a max of +3 is justified and certainly is not a punishment, so we may differ in opinions on that matter.

Yes, events should be competitive, thats exactly why I apply the +3 cap. In events such as race there is hardly any competition at all, since the same group of people keep winning. Them taking the effort in training for the event is rewarded with more than half of the awarded points, which is more than enough. Give others a chance to win too.

I want to add something that wasn't stated in the OP;
What I also consider unfair about limiting a player from winning in an event that he has been practicing for/is especially experienced with is the fact that said player was waiting for an opportunity where he can win points and gain an edge in the weekly competition. often times the 2nd and 3rd places (or more after them) are the same players who would be 2nd 3rd or whatever in the weekly competition on the event points category, which means limiting say the first place means "rigging"? if you may, giving other players a chance to win the weekly competition even though they are not better than the winner just because others should win too.

This leads to my second point;
Limiting a player to win +3 does less than you would probably think.
What this does most of the time is just mean the 2nd best player wins, and often times, that player is a consistent winner too.
We dont have just 1 player who wins alot, we have more, and as a result, limiting one just means you give another points and not a guy who is necessarily not a frequent winner
(for example 2 players who are equally good, but one got unlucky the first 3 rounds, now he can win easily cause the other good player is out of the equation).
This is an argument that can be used for race events too, you dont see a player getting +3 then randomly 2 other players get a +1. It's always the SECOND BEST, and that second best is also good, just not as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bram

I still think that letting one player win a max of +3 is justified and certainly is not a punishment, so we may differ in opinions on that matter.

Yes, events should be competitive, thats exactly why I apply the +3 cap. In events such as race there is hardly any competition at all, since the same group of people keep winning. Them taking the effort in training for the event is rewarded with more than half of the awarded points, which is more than enough. Give others a chance to win too.

---

You literally removing the competitive aspect of not letting the competitive people participate anymore so that a noob can win instead.

You going from them winning 5+ to 3+ at max, that's punishing no matter how you look at it for the competitive players.

You got the race part completely wrong, " In events such as race there is hardly any competition at all", it is completely the opposite for everyone but those who practiced. So let's not those players play then after they win a certain amount of points, ye that's fair.

I don't think limiting wins will attract more players, especially not 3 rounds in to the event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bram

I still think that letting one player win a max of +3 is justified and certainly is not a punishment, so we may differ in opinions on that matter.

Yes, events should be competitive, thats exactly why I apply the +3 cap. In events such as race there is hardly any competition at all, since the same group of people keep winning. Them taking the effort in training for the event is rewarded with more than half of the awarded points, which is more than enough. Give others a chance to win too.

---

But nobody won more than 3 points (as far as I know) in Race in the past several months. Even with most skilled players there is a variety of winners. Small,yes (+3,+2 or +2,+2,+1) but there are different winners. Putting max +3 in Lolrace is useless too because most of them can't even pass, or would take way too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

I want to add something that wasn't stated in the OP;
What I also consider unfair about limiting a player from winning in an event that he has been practicing for/is especially experienced with is the fact that said player was waiting for an opportunity where he can win points and gain an edge in the weekly competition. often times the 2nd and 3rd places (or more after them) are the same players who would be 2nd 3rd or whatever in the weekly competition on the event points category, which means limiting say the first place means "rigging"? if you may, giving other players a chance to win the weekly competition even though they are not better than the winner just because others should win too.

This leads to my second point;
Limiting a player to win +3 does less than you would probably think.
What this does most of the time is just mean the 2nd best player wins, and often times, that player is a consistent winner too.
We dont have just 1 player who wins alot, we have more, and as a result, limiting one just means you give another points and not a guy who is necessarily not a frequent winner (for example 2 players who are equally good, but one got unlucky the first 3 rounds, now he can win easily cause the other good player is out of the equation).
This is an argument that can be used for race events too, you dont see a player getting +3 then randomly 2 other players get a +1. It's always the SECOND BEST, and that second best is also good, just not as good.

---

But what it does tho is telling the good players to fk off when they reached certain points, not letting them participate anymore. So now you can play less of that event you really enjoy because you're good at it, makes sense. "Might aswell logout earlier now".

I agree there should be no limits.

Just Get good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bipolarity

But nobody won more than 3 points (as far as I know) in Race in the past several months. Even with most skilled players there is a variety of winners. Small,yes (+3,+2 or +2,+2,+1) but there are different winners. Putting max +3 in Lolrace is useless too because most of them can't even pass, or would take way too long.

---

WRONG
if there was no limit every single race event would end in +5 or +4 +1 if the fastest player fail once

What I've learned by this logic is that; Don't bother becoming good at an event, eventually a stupid fkn rule about you not being able to play for more than 3 rounds will be added because you're too good. So if you're skilled then you'll get punished for it. So smart!

There shouldn't be a limit to winning, end of discussion.
there is NO logic at all at putting limit "oh you're too good, then you can't win. why? because fuсk you, that's why" that's how it looks like.
else why having skill related events at all? that's their point it's SKILL related, ain't nobody's fault that someone is not skilled at a certain event.

I agree that setting a limitation is pretty dumb. In fact I even disagree with the +3 thing for specific events. Should be no limits at all. If you aren't good at playing events and you think skilled event players always winning is something "unfair," IMO you were never going to gain any skill to win your own event point anyway because you lack self motivation. If you want to get better at something, you have to see your competition as motivation and have motivation within yourself, not dumb down your competition to make your win come to you easier. No matter what it is, if you're able to do it then you deserve to be fully rewarded.

Let's say even if you make that limitation thing something regular. What happens when that noob you dumbed down the competition for starts winning some points here and there, then overtime gets better at events and improves ? Now he/she goes from winning a bunch of points to facing the same fate of being limited with winning in the future.

Imagine they would put limitations on Olympic medal winners lmao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie

Let's say even if you make that limitation thing something regular. What happens when that noob you dumbed down the competition for starts winning some points here and there, then overtime gets better at events and improves ? Now he/she goes from winning a bunch of points to facing the same fate of being limited with winning in the future.

---

And thats what happens, now people who win after someone already got +3 in ANY event is not a noob anymore, just someone whos slightly less good which makes the limitation even more meaningless imo. Oh you won +3? Time to give this other good player who may have just got unlucky and lost the first 3 rounds of an event 2 free points cuz no competition..