Forums VoteTop reward split for ties or time stamp based ranking

[kaivalya]

Minecraft Username:

kaivalya​

What is your suggestion's title?

VoteTop reward split for ties or time stamp based ranking​

Suggestion Details:

For years now, Jartex has had VoteTop rewards for top voters and in-case of ties, the apparent ranking from VoteTop leaderboard is used to assign rewards, which if I didn't knew any better is deterministically random. What I mean by that is, say players A, B and C have 7 votes each (tied), a ranking would be randomly determined for example: #1 B #2A #3C and this ranking would also be the same if a tie was to happen between any combination of these players next month. This means the player C will always be at a severe disadvantage compared to player A and will get less reward for putting in same the same amount of voting effort. And there is nothing player C can do to beat player A if both are optimally voting, best he can do is tie.​

​

These ties used to be rare in past when a lot of voting links used to be based on 12 hrs or 24 hrs cooldown instead of being one vote per day. This meant a voter had a better chance to beat other voters if he was not wasting any time voting on those links daily. But since that is not the case anymore, everyone will be at same vote count at month end with a difference of 1-2 votes max (like in case of Jan 2025).​

​

Key Suggestion:

So I suggest Owners to split the reward amongst tied voters so that they would not be receiving rewards based on their random IGN ranking but instead purely based on their vote count.​

​

Apart from this, an even fairer ranking be implemented which will be based on "first-to-votecount". This basically means if at the month end 3 players are tied with same vote count, the player who reached the count first, will be higher on the leaderboard rankings. ​

How could this idea help improve JartexNetwork?

Fairer Reward Distribution​

Extra Information:

I can assure you that current VoteTop implementation is definitely not ranked according to who reaches a votecount first but rather randomly (or alteast by a factor which has got nothing to with voting speed). This can be verified by the example below, where the player even though was last to reach the vote count 210, later reached #1 just because he has the random priority over all other players on the same vote count.

Before (link)​

https://imgur.com/QBSmvo1

​

View: https://i.imgur.com/QBSmvo1.png​

​

​

After (link)​

https://imgur.com/HaYmugq

​

View: https://i.imgur.com/HaYmugq.png​

​

 

[Sumitxd_]

Bad down vote

 

[xRANDOM]

Clear +1
I hate ties in votes and the ties are ranked in alphabetical order, so it's so not fair. That's definitely a +1 from me

 

[kaivalya]

the ties are ranked in alphabetical order

Clarification: No, they are not, they are ranked in random order. Nevertheless, it is just as unfair.

 

[xRANDOM]

Yes sometimes randomly, which is so frustrating for the tops

 

[umprogamer]

+1

 

[Evergreen_MC]

Neutral due to following 2 reasons
What I agree with-
• First thing u said that random ranking of players with same vote, it's totally unfair and ruins the hard work of the person who gave same effort as others.
What I don't agree with you-
• Second way u told that is 'first-to-vote-count' because ppl from various regions play on jartex so different ppl have different time zone so when one will vote in morning the other may be sleeping that time, so the first gets the votetop but not the other one.
I would like to suggest that all the ppl having same vote shall be given the same reward according to the highest postion that number Of votes has this will be more fair and Worth to ppl's dedication

 

[kaivalya]

Second way u told that is 'first-to-vote-count' because ppl from various regions play on jartex so different ppl have different time zone so when one will vote in morning the other may be sleeping that time, so the first gets the votetop but not the other one.

I think this should be trivially clear, that if you are a votetop voter, timezones don't matter to you. If someone is disregarding time zones already, pretty sure he is not on votetop.

And this is a inherent problem of multiplayer games and there is nothing that can be done about it. Think of the Jartex events, there is always someone sleeping around the globe, doesn't mean the events should not be hosted.

 

[xRANDOM]

I think this should be trivially clear, that if you are a votetop voter, timezones don't matter to you. If someone is disregarding time zones already, pretty sure he is not on votetop.

And this is a inherent problem of a multiplayer games and there is nothing that can be done about it. Think of the Jartex events, there is always someone sleeping around the globe, doesn't mean the events should not be hosted.

Yes that is correct. If you have people voting earlier and still tie, it must be split!

 

[Evergreen_MC]

I think this should be trivially clear, that if you are a votetop voter, timezones don't matter to you. If someone is disregarding time zones already, pretty sure he is not on votetop.

And this is a inherent problem of multiplayer games and there is nothing that can be done about it. Think of the Jartex events, there is always someone sleeping around the globe, doesn't mean the events should not be hosted.

Well in that case I would downvote this because the leaderboard is based on last-to-vote-count so players should know this and if they vote first even they know that if anyone votes after them after a certain time gap then that person is more favorable to get above him so if anyone votes before its their fault.

 

[kaivalya]

last-to-vote-count

Why would it be last to votecount ? Am suggesting first to votecount. And as far as resets are considered, regardless of timezone, vote resets at the same time for everyone.


FYI votetop isn't last to votecount, I did have that suspicion in the past but it is random.