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

[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.

[Linzor]

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".