Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11
    Linzor's Avatar White shores, and beyond

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Country
    Posts
    4,476
    Thanked
    545
    Thanks
    1,602
    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,
    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.

  2. #12
    Bunny's Avatar woof.

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Country
    Posts
    5,033
    Thanked
    2,760
    Thanks
    1,130
    Originally Posted by Linzor View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    Fay's Avatar Whimsical

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Country
    Posts
    1,210
    Thanked
    240
    Thanks
    668
    Originally Posted by Linzor View Post
    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.

  4. #14
    Linzor's Avatar White shores, and beyond

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Country
    Posts
    4,476
    Thanked
    545
    Thanks
    1,602
    Originally Posted by Bram View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    Bipolarity's Avatar ɪɴᴄᴏɢɴɪᴛᴏ

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    Posts
    270
    Thanked
    285
    Thanks
    298
    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.
    Last edited by Bipolarity; 11-23-2019 at 11:14 PM.

  6. The following user said thank you to Bipolarity for this useful post:

    Bunny (11-23-2019)

  7. #16
    Fay's Avatar Whimsical

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Country
    Posts
    1,210
    Thanked
    240
    Thanks
    668
    Originally Posted by Linzor View Post
    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.
    Originally Posted by Bipolarity View Post
    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.

  8. #17
    Bunny's Avatar woof.

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Country
    Posts
    5,033
    Thanked
    2,760
    Thanks
    1,130
    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.
    Last edited by Bunny; 11-24-2019 at 12:32 AM.

  9. #18
    Linzor's Avatar White shores, and beyond

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Country
    Posts
    4,476
    Thanked
    545
    Thanks
    1,602
    Originally Posted by Bram View Post
    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.

  10. #19
    Bipolarity's Avatar ɪɴᴄᴏɢɴɪᴛᴏ

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    Posts
    270
    Thanked
    285
    Thanks
    298
    Originally Posted by Bram View Post
    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.

  11. #20
    Linzor's Avatar White shores, and beyond

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Country
    Posts
    4,476
    Thanked
    545
    Thanks
    1,602
    Originally Posted by Bunny View Post
    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".
    Last edited by Linzor; 11-24-2019 at 12:54 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)