Not-So-Lucky Altars...
 

Alright long story short, the bug is that Lucky Altars simply selects a winner (yes at random) from the very beginning (first round) which makes any 'rounds' pointless. Could someone go over the scripts again to make it truly a contest of luck every single round as opposed to on the first elimination round. Even in Sudden death it's a trivial pursuit since it usually takes 3+ rounds to clear out all of the competitors.

I noticed that too. You can just stay on a platform the whole time and just win. Very annoying.

I... really don't see an issue with this. All it does is computing the winner from the start, saving a lot of CPU, instead of computing the same thing over and over again (which is pointless).

From a coding point of view, this is probably even the preferred method in general. It doesn't affect the competing individuals in either way, since them winning or not comes down to having the same amount of luck in both cases.

Yeah, I agree with Ziro here. It's the same event regardless.

I don't see what's pointless about making the event really about the altars being lucky instead of a chosen person being lucky, we already have a Raffle for that. It comes down to whoever made the event not having the time to consider what the event is about, picking an altar at random each round to save yourself from elimination, not sitting on 1 altar for the entire duration of the event because you've been chosen to win regardless of whichever altar you're situated on.

To me it seems like it would take more CPU to figure out what altar not to pick every round then just picking a random alter every round.

The only issue is that the event could end without a winner, instead of being drawn out forever until someone moves away from the preset winner's altar.

If this really is the case OP has a point. Might as well call it the Altar Raffle.

I'd imagine it just randoms a winner when the event starts at the moment, and if that player leaves during that event, it chooses another winner.

Purely speculations though, I don't have access to the code to verify it.

I don't think it works like that, it doesn't select a winner from the beginning.

Because if what u say is true then lets assume this:

Two ppl left, A & B
A has 2 life points and B has 1

Imagine that B was set to win from the beginning.
But A were to follow B wherever he went, then the game would never end if B was meant to win. This has never happened before, i think.

Though I do think that it's bs that a guy with 3 lp loses from someone that has 1 lp, it happens way to often. So something definitely is wrong.

I don't either but I'd be extremely surprised if it actually does pick a winner at the start. That's absolutely the wrong way to do it. It most certainly would not take "a lot of CPU" to do it properly.

its because no one does that, the em would get annoyed. If both people stood on the same platform, yes the game would never end.

That argument is invalid. You just said that no one does that. So it's never been tested, so your conclusion might be wrong.

I'd say test this scenario a few times and see what happens, if indeed the game won't end then we can be sure that a winner is picked from the beginning.

I've tested it... If there are two players remaining and they're sat on the same altar, there can be no winner. And if the chosen player is on 1lp and the other is on 5lp in a 1v1, the other player would lose 5 times. When larger numbers are involved, often the winner isn't allowed to be too many life points ahead of the loser(s) so they're kept around 4-10 lp's ahead. But all of this is irrelevant since the event clearly has nothing to do with the Altars being Lucky.

The scenario of having no winner if it was really Lucky Altars would be welcome as no other event has that possibility and the hosting EM could always work out a way around that such as the last remaining competitors would then share a lesser award.

Probably me as well.

In comparison I'm sure the difference would be quite big (at very small levels)! :p

What kind of logic are you thinking would be implemented? I can only imagine it being more difficult to figure out which not to call than which to call.

Not really. More like saves a bit of extra scripting work.

Also, what happens if the chosen one disconnects?