Event Points - Maxed out rule

[Bunny]

No, this doesn't make the most sense. If we change the rule from event points to rounds, first 3 winner events will not make sense. Then we have events where we have multiple hosts hunting or being hunted which awards 2 points per round (not necessarily that the host is hunting) and oftentimes these events only last 3 rounds, so it will not make sense if we limit amount of rounds when we should be doing points. To make things simple we will keep it as points and will not have to make custom global rules for every 3 winner event and/or events that can award multiple points per round per standard default hosting.

The reason that this change does indeed make sense and the reason behind the suggesting of it in the first place is because the nature of 2 point rounds is often such that the winner is determined by a measure of luck, making it much harder to consistently win those rounds. If a player was good enough to win 3 rounds in a row of +2 per round, then maybe it's just me, but I'd say kudos to them. Such a scenario has never happened to me, though. If it is events like flip the staff that you speak of, where winning 2 points per round would be 'reasonable' in comparison to do, then simply tell the players they may only flip/lunge/kill/whatever one host per round, and not both. Slap them if you want. The solution is not complicated to players nor confusing, and makes perfect sense.

3 winner events are out of the scope of this suggestion because no current rule applies to these events whatsoever and there is no reason to even mention how this change will affect them when the rule doesn't apply to them.

First of all Bunny, you want to bring history to it. Well prior to there being an official cap on the Event List, there was no cap and it was up to the interpretation of the host and some hosts didn't have this interpretation so it is understandable that people were confused. However, due to it being talked about we decided to put a cap on the amount players are allowed to win. It is fair, because we had times where people were winning events like Last Man Standing 5 rounds in a row, and yes you can attribute this to skill but this would kill the fun of players in the long run, especially at the time since events were not popular, and having this rule helped boost event participation. If the same people keep winning specific events over and over and no one having a chance to win then people will not bother to join. Having a cap at least gives these people a chance to participate.

I am not complaining on the normalization of the way event points caps is implemented. I am saying I was hurt by every interpretation because its true, and I would bring history to it, because before this rule was official for every event, the amount of times I could've won was reliant on how much the hosting event moderator liked/disliked me.
As I will mention in the next quote, people winning 5 rounds in a row has not REALLY changed. It has simply switched from being 1 winner to 2. In the spoken of dodgeball event, I am relatively certain (although, did not remain for the last round), that Ommadawn won most of the rest if not all of the remaining rounds.
How can you say events had a boost to participation, in this case then, especially if you say this based on a feeling and not on real data?

Wrong. Participation is possible regardless of whether or not there exists a cap on wins.

Do not forget that we have Weekly competitions for event points and if we allowed people to bypass the event cap by winning more rounds than this wouldn't be fair to other players who are winning events legitimately and capping. You cannot say that Race is only important to bypass the cap and forget the other events.

Do not use weekly competition as an excuse for supporting the limitation of points. The weekly competition participators can literally lose their lead because they can't win more than three points, thus allowing someone who is only 2nd best to get essentially free event points because the competition is taken out after a certain stage in events where winning consistently is easier.

Not once, nor twice, have event winners been limited on their wins, only for another common winner to take the rest of the points, leaving nothing to the players regardless of the 3 point limitation. In these scenarios, similar to the ones you described for supporting the addition of the 3 points limit, players may see a few consistent winners join a room (Literally just >1 is enough) to know their chances and motivation would be reduced considerably, for even if someone who would normally win fails, theres another to take their place. So in events with many consistent winners, the 3 point limitation is actually doing nothing for regular players and hurting players who are the best. It actually demotivates competition in a sense, because players may not want to even give the event a try until the common winner just straight up took the +3 and left, and may actually reduce the overall playercount for an event.

This doesnt infer that the 3 point rule is bad and should be enough, I am simply not praising it for the 500 invalid reasons youve provided, and how useless it actually is in most cases.