Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Bunny's Avatar woof.

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Country
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanked
    2,761
    Thanks
    1,131
    Ive been hurt by every single interpretation of this rule that the event team found convenient to use during my participations. Just yesterday by Ommadawn's first example, and a few months back by some race event where i won 3 rounds in a row with everyone dying and yet I would not receive the point. Take a guess: did the host try to keep rerounding? Obviously not. He would rather have no winners than give me the fourth point. Because its "unfair"? To who? When has skill become unfair?

    I have never supported this rule in general, and yet i do understand why some occasions require it. The generalization to all events (besides race, which is problematic) has always been strange to me, however.

    Regarding more to the topic of the post: rerounds are BY DEFINITION bonus rounds, for the simple reason that due to their existence, there are now more rounds than planned.

    https://freestylersworld.com/showthr...fix&highlight=
    From 2019
    Last edited by Bunny; 05-18-2022 at 12:26 PM.

  2. #12
    Ommadawn's Avatar Bird + Trash = ?

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Country
    Posts
    10,656
    Thanked
    2,583
    Thanks
    1,594
    Originally Posted by justRelax View Post
    Upon discussion with the team:

    Event Point Cap:

    The event point cap remains however, if a host for an event does bonus rounds or awards bonus points then that rule is void for that event. (For instance, doing more than 5 rounds on a normal event or awarding more than 1 event point for a standard event, exceptions do apply, see exceptions below).

    Event Point Cap Exceptions:

    In Kill the Staff where the Event List states the prize allocation, that standard will still be followed.

    For Lucky Dice this is the only event where the event cap is negated. (See event for details)





    Race Events:

    Due to NAT issues we will be spawning all players after NAT is established.

    In Race: We will simply spawn everyone.
    In SuperMario3: We will freeze & summon players at their base. When NAT is established we will unfreeze everyone.
    (Optional) In case we do any Skillmap we will also spawn everyone after NAT is established.

    Note: Regarding the event point cap in Race events, they are maintained. If a player has already capped & is last alive they will be slapped & it would be up to the host to redo the round or not. (Redone Rounds aren't Bonus Rounds)
    About Race:

    It does not make sense to not host a re-round while having a no-winners round. If someone maxed out and he has an opportunity to win another round because everyone else died, then it would make sense to either allow him or hosting a re-round. If the host does not want to host a re-round (which is fine by me) then the hoster should allow that user to participate after everyone died. How would it benefit you or anyone else by having a no-winners round and not hosting a re-round?

    What Legancy said is the perfect solution IMO.
    Instead of 3 EPs cap - change it to 3 rounds cap.

  3. #13
    Linzor's Avatar White shores, and beyond

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Country
    Posts
    4,476
    Thanked
    545
    Thanks
    1,601
    Instead of 3 EPs cap - change it to 3 rounds cap.
    I never thought that wasn't the case.

    "I'm gonna give 2 points this round. UHOH LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE ALREADY WON 2 POINTS THOUGH BAI BAIIII"
    ^ Never seen that happen though.

  4. #14
    León's Avatar Are you insane like me?

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Country
    Posts
    1,603
    Thanked
    30
    Thanks
    812
    Originally Posted by McSic View Post
    This makes the most sense.
    It does not, because; say you've won the first 3 rounds in a row, and on the fourth or most likely the fifth round there's a spontaneous 2 point round (that's how it usually happens)
    then what? you cannot win because you've already won three rounds? makes no sense, at all.







  5. #15
    Bunny's Avatar woof.

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Country
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanked
    2,761
    Thanks
    1,131
    Originally Posted by León View Post
    It does not, because; say you've won the first 3 rounds in a row, and on the fourth or most likely the fifth round there's a spontaneous 2 point round (that's how it usually happens)
    then what? you cannot win because you've already won three rounds? makes no sense, at all.
    Neither solutions make sense, but the one proposed makes more sense than the current state. Now you would win 3 and last round could be +2, but you still wouldnt be able to win. The change is recommended in order to avoid winning +1 in +2 rounds. It is true however that they both **** over people who this rule applies to in the first place.

    Originally Posted by Linzor View Post
    I never thought that wasn't the case.

    "I'm gonna give 2 points this round. UHOH LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE ALREADY WON 2 POINTS THOUGH BAI BAIIII"
    ^ Never seen that happen though.
    Happened just yesterday
    Last edited by Bunny; 05-18-2022 at 07:57 PM.

  6. #16
    justRelax's Avatar The name says it all.

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Country
    Posts
    1,061
    Thanked
    283
    Thanks
    496
    Originally Posted by Legancy View Post
    Simple; change the rules to 3 rounds win max. instead of 3 eps win max.
    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.




    Originally Posted by ImComming4U View Post
    I saw this rule don't apply to Vip events. This also needs to be applied to Vip event cause some nerds constantly win in certain events e.g Race etc..
    First of all, VIP events have their own limit which is capping individual users at 150 coins. We award our skillful VIPs but they also have a cap to adhere too, and that is 150 coins.




    Originally Posted by Bunny View Post
    Ive been hurt by every single interpretation of this rule that the event team found convenient to use during my participations. Just yesterday by Ommadawn's first example, and a few months back by some race event where i won 3 rounds in a row with everyone dying and yet I would not receive the point. Take a guess: did the host try to keep rerounding? Obviously not. He would rather have no winners than give me the fourth point. Because its "unfair"? To who? When has skill become unfair?

    I have never supported this rule in general, and yet i do understand why some occasions require it. The generalization to all events (besides race, which is problematic) has always been strange to me, however.

    Regarding more to the topic of the post: rerounds are BY DEFINITION bonus rounds, for the simple reason that due to their existence, there are now more rounds than planned.

    https://freestylersworld.com/showthr...fix&highlight=
    From 2019
    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.

    If you won 3 event points in Race (or 3 rounds in this case) then you capped, you are allowed to participate but you cannot win more rounds. It is up to the host if they want to reround or not, if players are not to enthusiastic to it so it would make sense if they don't. 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.

    Rerounds are not considered bonus rounds for the reason that there is no winner awarded points for the round that was redone. You can say it is by definition but are people winning more points on reround, no they are not and besides if you are capped you are capped.




    Originally Posted by Ommadawn View Post
    About Race:

    It does not make sense to not host a re-round while having a no-winners round. If someone maxed out and he has an opportunity to win another round because everyone else died, then it would make sense to either allow him or hosting a re-round. If the host does not want to host a re-round (which is fine by me) then the hoster should allow that user to participate after everyone died. How would it benefit you or anyone else by having a no-winners round and not hosting a re-round?

    What Legancy said is the perfect solution IMO.
    Instead of 3 EPs cap - change it to 3 rounds cap.
    I agree with you for everything except that 3 rounds cap doesn't make sense, and the 3 event point cap should remain.




    Originally Posted by justRelax View Post
    Upon discussion with the team:

    Event Point Cap:


    The event point cap remains however, if a host for an event does bonus rounds or awards bonus points then that rule is void for that event.
    Overall, refer to this post. The issues with Race having NAT issues has been addressed on the Event List. Regarding this thread's main topic if the host awards more points than it is listed on the event, that is considered bonus and is not capped. Overall this should resolve the original purpose of this thread. If a host decides to award 2 points rather than the normal, that is considered bonus and isn't capped.

    - (Normal Events) Players may win up to 3 event points per event (exclusions apply to extra rounds).
    By extra rounds this doesn't refer to rerounds but it refers to say hosting a 5 rounds event with 6 rounds or awarding 2 points for an event that normally awards 1, etc.


    Spoiler!


  7. #17
    Linzor's Avatar White shores, and beyond

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Country
    Posts
    4,476
    Thanked
    545
    Thanks
    1,601
    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.
    It would be incredibly easy for a host to get someone out of an event after winning 2 points. "Okay doing 2 points this round, oh Linzor you already won 2 points so you can't play this round, too bad!"

    So why don't you just make it both. If you host smaller events that normally has more than 2 points per round then you can just clarify that for that specific event you can only win 3 points. But to kick someone out of an event because you decide to change the amount of points (bonus points) for a specific round is dumb.

    i won 3 rounds in a row with everyone dying and yet I would not receive the point. Take a guess: did the host try to keep rerounding? Obviously not. He would rather have no winners than give me the fourth point. Because its "unfair"? To who? When has skill become unfair?
    If the host has already told you that you cannot win more points and then you decide to play anyways and make it first, regardless of everyone else dying or not, you shouldn't expect a point. He already told you can't win more.

  8. #18
    justRelax's Avatar The name says it all.

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Country
    Posts
    1,061
    Thanked
    283
    Thanks
    496
    Originally Posted by Linzor View Post
    It would be incredibly easy for a host to get someone out of an event after winning 2 points. "Okay doing 2 points this round, oh Linzor you already won 2 points so you can't play this round, too bad!"

    So why don't you just make it both. If you host smaller events that normally has more than 2 points per round then you can just clarify that for that specific event you can only win 3 points. But to kick someone out of an event because you decide to change the amount of points (bonus points) for a specific round is dumb.
    We never said we are kicking anyone, at most we only kick people when it is PvP events & that is if and only if they have reached the cap, but that is understandable. As for 2 point rounds as I said that is considered bonus (if they aren't in the original event description) and those cases aren't going to be affected by the cap. So, "Linzor you have 2 points, well we will be doing a 2 point round but you can still win since the extra point is a bonus from us".

    Conclusion (TLDR): Anyhow 3 event points is the cap unless it is a bonus round &/ prize.

    As mentioned in my post an hour or so back.


    Spoiler!


  9. #19
    Bunny's Avatar woof.

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Country
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanked
    2,761
    Thanks
    1,131
    Originally Posted by justRelax View Post
    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.

    Originally Posted by justRelax View Post
    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.


    Originally Posted by justRelax View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Bunny; 05-22-2022 at 02:11 PM.

  10. #20
    Sunlight's Avatar Junior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    79
    Thanked
    21
    Thanks
    8
    Originally Posted by León View Post
    Simple:
    According to the current rules, extra round(s) are excluded in the original "max out rule".
    Therefore, rounds containing more points than one should be added to that same exclusion because the base principle is the same.
    So basically you applied this, correct?
    Makes the most sense indeed.

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)