Welcome to the Candy Crush Saga Community
Do you have a question or need help with your game? Ask the Community.
What's happening in Candy? 🍬
❄ Candy Holiday Season ❄ - More info HERE
🏆 Winter Cup - Win a year’s supply of Gold Bars (100 every month) - More info HERE
❄ Candy Holiday Season ❄ - More info HERE
🏆 Winter Cup - Win a year’s supply of Gold Bars (100 every month) - More info HERE
I think the community is broken, what I hope to learn from leaderboards
Comments
-
Hello.
I joined late for this winter cup final, about 12 hours left for ending, and got placed on a board with 68 players, where 1st place had already 6M points.
Joining late in a final is not a good idea. In the last knockout round i also joined 12 hours from ending and managed to win with about 278k points, with few playing.
I leave you some screens for your stats.
2 -
The board filled up when there were only 10 hours left on the clock, which is 13 hours after I started. This is very much alike to the very late entry effect I mentioned earlier in this thread. Being 7th to join the group was lucky for me, I could have been 85th and would have no chance. It's extremely risky.
0 -
Thank you so much for sharing this @GiggzZz ! I'm sorry this happened to you but it has given us really useful information so we can plan our strategies for the Big One!
0 -
Here is my final leaderboard:
I changed my name and stopped competing just after midnight when I reached lovely level 1000. As this was a test game I did not want to get up early to try win it as I could not utilise the prize money and it would not have been fair on the Australian who won. The winner was, as predicted, at levels 7000-8000.
I've been gathering more data, to be added later. There were no suspicious players at all in my group, which is great.
2 -
I made it with a ridiculous score of 740k. Quite literally won by accident this time. So sorry for everyone who scored over a million points but still lost.
@GiggzZz gave us very interesting info. They have joined the round before my group was full, yet they were placed in a different group. That means that there were several groups filling at the same time. They might have several groups open at any given moment, and that allows them to sort players. That adds weight to the theory that group assignments are no longer random. On the other hand, the scores and the player card @GiggzZz posted are very similar to what I saw in my group.
2 -
Well done even if by accident @MannyFae ! It still took some serious crushing. It's a matter of luck who we end up against and that will always be so. As for the theory of non random group assignment, I'm not sure now just because that would contravene what King state in their Terms and Conditions. Surely they would not be so silly to leave any loopholes for any lawsuit against them. On the other hand, in the qualifying rounds in my last two leaderboard competitions I definitely got lower scoring players in my group at the top of the game where I myself only ever play the 45 new releases, and in my 200+ levels per week test games I get tougher opposition. But in the final, I just can't image they would interfere like that. I think it's probably a computing error that boards got filled in the wrong order. They probably left the competition to run by itself with no staff overseeing proceedings during the holidays.
2 -
In addition here are some final stats:
These are the top 10 players who got the rewards. I'm not including myself though, so it is only 9 players. What I noted was the level they started the final at and the number of new levels of Candy Crush these players had passed in the previous 7 days. This would give some indication of how serious they were crushing in the earlier rounds and how many levels they had to pass to get to the final.
Level at beginning of final————Levels passed in previous 7 days before final
- 7595.———————————-403
- me
- 9282.—————————— —580
- 4182. ——————————- 412
- 1180. ———————————720
- 4583.———————————442
- 2270.——————————— 617
- 2536.———————————-547
- 14,623.——————————-323
- 4021.———————————-406
It is evident that the players who did compete at lower levels had to work unusually hard to get there.
I had one top of the map player in my finals group who apparently only played the Star Tournament. They got 30th position. There is no point analysing the main field as most players resumed their normal games after realising they were unable to compete, so the starting data is more valuable than where players finished. I had 5 players start at levels under 1000 and 15 at levels between 1000 and 2000. So the spread, again at start of final round in my leaderboard was like this:
levels 1-2000 : 24%
levels 2000-4000: 12%
levels 4000-6000: 18%
levels 6000-8000: 18%
levels 8000-10,000: 7%
levels 10,000-12,000: 10%
levels 12,000-14,000: 3%
levels 14,000-16,000: 6%
levels 16,000-end: 2%
2 -
Thank you, Christine.
I'm not sure about the non-random group assignment either, mostly because there was nothing unusual in all my groups in this tournament, except for 2nd Knockouts maybe. But I think I joined too early, my mistake.
However, King's T&C is not something I would trust. Do you remember how during All Starts we calculated the total number of players participating in the tournament? Our calculations were based on the T&C, which said there would be 50 players per leaderboard in the last round, but it turned out to be wrong. I went to check it after the last round ended, and it was already amended to say 100 per leaderboard. That was a serious error in the T&C for a major tournament that was supposedly carefully prepared and double-checked. This time we got an unlimited leaderboards round in the final, while the T&C clearly states that there should be exactly 2025 of them.
If it wasn't an unlimited leaderboards round, the only possible explanation I can think of is the situation similar to the 11th leaderboard in All Stars, which I now believe really happened.
1 -
To try to answer my questions:
Are players at certain levels at an advantage?
Judging by those who made it to the finals I would judge that the mid level ranges are at an advantage. They score more points per level. From the second knockout rounds I concluded this:
Level ranges from 1-3000 seem to score 3000-4000 per level
Level ranges from 3000-6000 score between 4000-5000 per level
Level ranges from 6000-9000 score between 6000-9000 per level
Level ranges above 9000 were variable
There was very little overlap so the picture is clear: The mid ranges have the advantage in points available per level. This is only half the answer though as players at lower levels are often helped by the game to pass more levels more quickly, in part by the events they get that drive them to keep their top win streak at all cost. Many players at lower levels do not have enough experience to read the algorithms and understand how the game works. These are likely to be the players who spend real money on offers in the belief that passing hundreds of levels will help them win the top prize. Hence the numbers of players who made it to the final does not mean as much as we cannot know how much money the players spent to get there. But players in the early levels are undoubtedly underrepresented in the final round and undoubtedly had to play a lot more levels to get there. We do not know how many of all the players are at levels below 2000 but my guess is that it must be well more than 24% of all players.
Of the five players who did manage to reach the final at levels below 1000 three ended up in the bottom 5 places on the leaderboard: They either suddenly realised they could not compete at this level or ran out money.
2
