Not-So-Lucky Altars...

[xXziroXx]

Originally Posted by fowlplay4

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.

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.

[StormYs]

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.

[Nuke_for_you]

Originally Posted by StormYs

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.

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.

[StormYs]

Originally Posted by Nuke_for_you

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.

[MajinDragon]

Originally Posted by StormYs

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.

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by xXziroXx

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

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.

[xXziroXx]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

I don't either but I'd be extremely surprised if it actually does pick a winner at the start.

Probably me as well.

Originally Posted by cbk1994

It most certainly would not take "a lot of CPU" to do it properly.

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

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by xXziroXx

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

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.