Event Lb Ties

[Champist]

Can we not have these ties sts? This is basically turning top 10 prizes into top 20+ prizes.
Edit: Sorry if i confused some people, I'm not asking for sts to change during this event but maybe for future events.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Jausa]

Can we not have these ties sts? This is basically turning top 10 prizes into top 20+ prizes.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

What would you do about the people that have the same points? Pick one of them even though they put the same amount of effort into it?

[Champist]

What would you do about the people that have the same points? Pick one of them even though they put the same amount of effort into it?

how about the first one to reach that amount of points gets the spot

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ThreadPolice]

Can we not have these ties sts? This is basically turning top 10 prizes into top 20+ prizes.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Lol.. this has been since 2013 this way, and it is a nice way to give everyone a chance! So, let’s keep it the way it is

[Sophiaaaa]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]192763[/ATTACH

11_chars

[Champist]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]192763[/ATTACH

11_chars

alright was just suggesting ty for info

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Oakmaiden]

Whoever reached the points first then in descending order....

[Geuimau]

Well try to run for top 10 lb and u find 20 other player fighting u on a placement and forcing u to pay more and more and lose more haha I think tie is good now

Sent from my JSN-L22 using Tapatalk

[picklewickles]

that's unfair those people work hard and spend a lot of gold to get that far and at the end not get the reward because they were too late? that's totally bs and i understand that there are more than 10 rewards given away however they have the exact same amount of points so they all worked just as hard so they all deserve to get the reward at the end.

edit: okay i noticed that attachment and it is true that some people do it deliberately but what if someone doesn't do it deliberately and is the last one to get the amount of points.

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk

[Sophiaaaa]

that's unfair those people work hard and spend a lot of gold to get that far and at the end not get the reward because they were too late? that's totally bs and i understand that there are more than 10 rewards given away however they have the exact same amount of points so they all worked just as hard so they all deserve to get the reward at the end.

edit: okay i noticed that attachment and it is true that some people do it deliberately but what if someone doesn't do it deliberately and is the last one to get the amount of points.

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk

I dont really understand that last part " and is the last one to get the amount of points" but as long as noone gets knocked off because of a tie being broken there really is no issue. And if you get angry because another person joins the 14+ person tie for top 10, that really speaks volumes about your character.

[championboost]

im famous o.O

[Spooked]

All i have to ask is: how does this affect you?
Regardless of the tie, 170k is a crazy amount of points and is a pain to farm.

[Futumsh]

Since we don't want to give preference based on timing, there are essentially 2 options:

* Ties get rewarded based on the highest rank of the tied range. 3 people tie for 9th-11th, they all get rewards for 9th. This is what we have now. This is susceptible to people cooperating to improve their rewards, though only if others don't pass them since they're sandbagging their scores. It's debatable whether the cooperation is a bad thing or not - personally I think people working together with a common goal is a good thing. If enough competitors disagree, they'll pass the tied people and it becomes a non-issue. This is a common method for handling ties when there is no tiebreaker mechanism.
* Ties get rewarded based on the lowest rank of the tied range. 3 people tie for 9th-11th, they all get rewards for 11th. This prevents cooperation to improve rewards, but can also shrink the reward pool. I've never seen this used anywhere.

Additionally, if we care to, we could allow ties with one of the previous options, but make it harder for ties to deliberately happen - anything that gives points gives amounts in a random range, etc.

Or we could introduce a tiebreaker mechanism of some sort, though since we don't want to bias based on time zone, it would probably have to be something like time from first point scored to last point scored, or something of the sort.

I'm happy with how it works right now, and suspect very few people aren't, since otherwise they would be outscoring the tied people and pushing them out of the ranks.

[Spheresome]

Since we don't want to give preference based on timing, there are essentially 2 options:

* Ties get rewarded based on the highest rank of the tied range. 3 people tie for 9th-11th, they all get rewards for 9th. This is what we have now. This is susceptible to people cooperating to improve their rewards, though only if others don't pass them since they're sandbagging their scores. It's debatable whether the cooperation is a bad thing or not - personally I think people working together with a common goal is a good thing. If enough competitors disagree, they'll pass the tied people and it becomes a non-issue. This is a common method for handling ties when there is no tiebreaker mechanism.
* Ties get rewarded based on the lowest rank of the tied range. 3 people tie for 9th-11th, they all get rewards for 11th. This prevents cooperation to improve rewards, but can also shrink the reward pool. I've never seen this used anywhere.

Additionally, if we care to, we could allow ties with one of the previous options, but make it harder for ties to deliberately happen - anything that gives points gives amounts in a random range, etc.

Or we could introduce a tiebreaker mechanism of some sort, though since we don't want to bias based on time zone, it would probably have to be something like time from first point scored to last point scored, or something of the sort.

I'm happy with how it works right now, and suspect very few people aren't, since otherwise they would be outscoring the tied people and pushing them out of the ranks.

Point randomization would be an excellent direction to head for the future imo

[Roycedamagnet]

personally I think people working together with a common goal is a good thing.

This is so true. Lb ties are made with so much efforts too and the fact that we have a bunch of people looking out of each other is insane. Tried playing so many other games, leaderboard is always a drama-attraction with ego clashes and other unnecessary complications. But here, the players actually help each other out.

[Bluehazee]

Since we don't want to give preference based on timing, there are essentially 2 options:

* Ties get rewarded based on the highest rank of the tied range. 3 people tie for 9th-11th, they all get rewards for 9th. This is what we have now. This is susceptible to people cooperating to improve their rewards, though only if others don't pass them since they're sandbagging their scores. It's debatable whether the cooperation is a bad thing or not - personally I think people working together with a common goal is a good thing. If enough competitors disagree, they'll pass the tied people and it becomes a non-issue. This is a common method for handling ties when there is no tiebreaker mechanism.
* Ties get rewarded based on the lowest rank of the tied range. 3 people tie for 9th-11th, they all get rewards for 11th. This prevents cooperation to improve rewards, but can also shrink the reward pool. I've never seen this used anywhere.

Additionally, if we care to, we could allow ties with one of the previous options, but make it harder for ties to deliberately happen - anything that gives points gives amounts in a random range, etc.

Or we could introduce a tiebreaker mechanism of some sort, though since we don't want to bias based on time zone, it would probably have to be something like time from first point scored to last point scored, or something of the sort.

I'm happy with how it works right now, and suspect very few people aren't, since otherwise they would be outscoring the tied people and pushing them out of the ranks.

With all respect, the tiebreaker system you have for timed maps is based on igns....maybe time to review both systems. For timed, i suggest that first team getting a record owns it, if you want record you need to do better. Ign based system is ridiculous and unfair. For events i dont know tbh, but doesn't seem ok to have 25 ppl getting reward supposed to be for 10

[Futumsh]

With all respect, the tiebreaker system you have for timed maps is based on igns....maybe time to review both systems. For timed, i suggest that first team getting a record owns it, if you want record you need to do better. Ign based system is ridiculous and unfair. For events i dont know tbh, but doesn't seem ok to have 25 ppl getting reward supposed to be for 10

... no it isn't. You can't see < 1 ms components of the time.

[Bluehazee]

... no it isn't. You can't see < 1 ms components of the time.

My bad then. We had same record on previous seasons as other team (for example 7"534) so we thought that <1ms wasn't taken into consideration since we also saw ign related stuff. Coincidence

[ranknabz]

-11111111 this thread muahahahahah..
i like just like this we share the rewards to ppl that did the same effort and respect each other to hold on the points

[Undershooting]

I don’t understand what people’s problem is, everyone has put in same amount of effort, you can’t just have someone being in top 25 just because they are a few points away, these ties are usually done because all those players grinded the event at the same pace, even if there was a tie breaker, I’m pretty sure there would be a lot of players that would have around the same score but instead, some of them won’t get the reward cuz one guy crossed them by just a few points ��