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

[Bunny]

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

[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
so you can get +5 in every event and other players can still win.

[Bunny]

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
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.

[Complaint]

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 ._.

[ParisRS]

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
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.

[Bunny]

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.

[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".

[Complaint]

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.

[Amers]

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