[Suggestions] Event Ideas

[Bunny]

Suggestion: Allow players to remain in events after reaching the cap. There is no real reason to kick such players and youre basically punishing them more than you already do by saying they cant win anymore. Now they cant even exist in the event anymore. Personally I think the 3 or whatever limit is stupid anyways and does not actually solve the issue for which it was added in the first place, and moreover causes additional issues that hadnt existed before.

[justRelax]

Suggestion: Allow players to remain in events after reaching the cap. There is no real reason to kick such players and youre basically punishing them more than you already do by saying they cant win anymore. Now they cant even exist in the event anymore. Personally I think the 3 or whatever limit is stupid anyways and does not actually solve the issue for which it was added in the first place, and moreover causes additional issues that hadnt existed before.

Personally I allow players to remain in the room after the cap except if it is a PvP event. Additionally regarding the event point cap, we will keep it because if we remove it we might just have one player monopolizing an event and that in turn would kill the event and probably the set, since people would lose interest faster.

[Bunny]

This is a suggestion regarding the rule of max wins that I have commented on before several times in the past.

Spoiler!

Suggestion: Allow players to remain in events after reaching the cap. There is no real reason to kick such players and youre basically punishing them more than you already do by saying they cant win anymore. Now they cant even exist in the event anymore. Personally I think the 3 or whatever limit is stupid anyways and does not actually solve the issue for which it was added in the first place, and moreover causes additional issues that hadnt existed before.

While the spirit this rule was written with is fair and understandable, It cannot apply to all scenarios, which means that event moderators who go "by the book" with this rule tend to miss out on the community's desires.
Such event moderators would prefer to have no winners in events where someone has won a fourth time and everyone else failed to win. Not only is this pointless as it contradicts the spirit in which the rule was written with, but it fails to remember that people who win 3 points or more are also part of the community and since the rule attempts to prevent people from leaving, which it does not, it even adds 1-2 more people to the list of those who leave after reaching the cap.
If players are incapable of winning a round even when all other players who are able to and capped out are out of the game, how can you insist on re-rounding again and again until someone wins, until eventually giving up and giving no one the point?
Regardless of the above argument(s), as i mentioned before, the rule does not serve the purpose for which it was added. It absolutely does not prevent players who see someone in the event winning the first 3 rounds in a row from being demotivated and leave. If you want to keep the rule despite this, go ahead, but there are other possibilities for adjustments to rules to allow other players to win while keeping it fair for everyone.

[Amamin]

While the spirit this rule was written with is fair and understandable, It cannot apply to all scenarios, which means that event moderators who go "by the book" with this rule tend to miss out on the community's desires.
Such event moderators would prefer to have no winners in events where someone has won a fourth time and everyone else failed to win. Not only is this pointless as it contradicts the spirit in which the rule was written with, but it fails to remember that people who win 3 points or more are also part of the community and since the rule attempts to prevent people from leaving, which it does not, it even adds 1-2 more people to the list of those who leave after reaching the cap.
If players are incapable of winning a round even when all other players who are able to and capped out are out of the game, how can you insist on re-rounding again and again until someone wins, until eventually giving up and giving no one the point?
Regardless of the above argument(s), as i mentioned before, the rule does not serve the purpose for which it was added. It absolutely does not prevent players who see someone in the event winning the first 3 rounds in a row from being demotivated and leave. If you want to keep the rule despite this, go ahead, but there are other possibilities for adjustments to rules to allow other players to win while keeping it fair for everyone.

I understand you're speaking generally and not singling out the event we just did, but I'm going to respond with what my thought process was during that said event on why I made it 4 winners instead of letting you have +4 because that's where most of what you're talking about seems to come from.

We did Race as an event and you already had +3 on round 3, maxing out the number of points you could win. Yes I didn't give you the fourth point because you already maxed out, but also because you weren't even supposed to be playing in the first place. I let you play beyond your cap because it wasn't really detrimental to the rest if you were playing and it was no skin off my teeth to let you have your fun. When you asked me how many times I would re-round before I'll give you the fourth point, I know I said 100 times but it was just a joke answer to a rhetorical question. It would be ridiculous for me to re-round 100 times for any reason. I re-rounded only 1 round to see if someone else can get the last point, but when everyone else but you, who weren't supposed to be there, died, then I just ended it there. I wasn't even going to re-round twice.

You say that the rule is out of touch with the community, but I literally, during that event, had someone tell me that when they see someone always winning and hoarding all the event points then there's no point in competing. We started with I think 7 players and ended up with just 4, and the other two weren't the original players we started with. That meant 5 players outright left in the middle of the event. If we let players have +15 every set and lock out every other newer player then people just won't play.

"Git gud" is always an answer of course but nobody will get good if they won't play events since they never win anything anyway. Having fun isn't always just about winning, but there's nothing fun about always losing either. I understand that it feels like you're being punished for being really good at the game, but that's not the case. It's just that people who can't win points will think its futile to even participate, so they don't. Even you don't like it when you don't win points, which drove you to make this suggestion. I think +3 is a good balance of keeping events as fun to as many people as possible while still making them reasonably competitive.

I think that pretty much sums up what I personally think about the 3-point max rule. Of course, I don't speak for the other ETs.

[Bunny]

You say that the rule is out of touch with the community, but I literally, during that event, had someone tell me that when they see someone always winning and hoarding all the event points then there's no point in competing. We started with I think 7 players and ended up with just 4, and the other two weren't the original players we started with. That meant 5 players outright left in the middle of the event. If we let players have +15 every set and lock out every other newer player then people just won't play.

"Git gud" is always an answer of course but nobody will get good if they won't play events since they never win anything anyway. Having fun isn't always just about winning, but there's nothing fun about always losing either. I understand that it feels like you're being punished for being really good at the game, but that's not the case. It's just that people who can't win points will think its futile to even participate, so they don't. Even you don't like it when you don't win points, which drove you to make this suggestion. I think +3 is a good balance of keeping events as fun to as many people as possible while still making them reasonably competitive.

I think that pretty much sums up what I personally think about the 3-point max rule. Of course, I don't speak for the other ETs.

All of what you said in this part is agreeing with me, but its avoiding the main problem - you consider the 3 point limit to be good, but at the same time, you have a guy whisper you that they see someone always winning, thus theres no point in competing, despite the 3 point cap. Additionally, 5 players outright left in the middle, despite the 3 point cap. This just very simply proves what i said, that the rule doesnt do what it was set out to do. Those 5 players could have probably finished the map in the remaining 2 rounds, but they left before they had a chance to. I'm not here to tell you to let people win +15 in one set, but you need to consider other options if you genuinely dont want players to feel like they have no chance to win if you dont want to tell them "Git gud".