Originally Posted by Bunny View Post
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.