Some Candy Cup statistics, who got to the final round?

Thanks for sharing this info from your game, that is interesting to know @quekkc

Now the question I mull over is if these are players who are winning hundreds of levels and get to the top in the Candy Cup in levels under 2000 are on their first game or if they are all experienced players like myself who decided to start again to have some fun.

It is certainly true that players drop out in droves in the 14,000+ range, I wish I knew how many start over in a new game. It's not to King's liking and perhaps this is why they don't officially allow it, because it gives us "an unfair advantage" (the answer I got from QueenB). Yes it does give us an advantage, because we have experience and understand the game better than newbies, but is that unfair? Watch the Olympic Games in a few weeks time: Do those top athletes who win the races have an "unfair advantage" over the millions of amateurs who didn't qualify to take part or are they winning because they worked the hardest and practiced the most to get there? I think the "unfair advantage" argument should be reexamined. Playing levels above 15,000 in a leaderboard competition is like running a 10 km race in the Olympics with a stone strapped across our ankles. That is what King consider fair then?

The account at level 711 which I won:

Players above 11,000 were:

18th position player at 14,091

23rd position player at level 12,905

30th position player at level 13,733

32nd position player at level 11,567

43rd position player at level 13,861

(25 player were under level 2000 in this board.)

The account in my game at level 16,000+, which I gave up competing:

5th position player at level 16,451

10th position player at level 11,543

22nd position player at level 15,566

37th position player at level 14,955

(44th position myself at level 16, 804)

47th position player at level 12,518

57th position player at level 15,985

66th position player at level 11,118

(23 players were under level 2000 in this board)

I didn't expect this much interest in my post and I have gone over the notes again to make sure everything is correct, so please note @MannyFae that I have had to slightly edit my original data as I noticed some minor miscounting. I seem to have missed one player out as well.

So maybe you are onto something here by asking that question @Alienscar? It does seem somewhat leaning towards having players at the top compete with one another. I did certainly note that the leaderboard in my 16,000+ game kept having players added to it long after the game stopped adding players to my leaderboard at the level 700 game. There were 56 total players on that lower leaderboard at the end, and 69 total in the higher game. It's not exactly evenly distributed.

It's a shame you didn't join at all, or we could have added info from your leaderboard to the statistics. Maybe next time? The thought of pre-allocation had not occurred to me. I did play and started both games at exactly the same time, to check how quickly the leaderboards would fill up and if they would fill up evenly as I had assumed they would. Here are screenshots I took near the beginning, at how the leaderbaords looked the same time.

And a while later:

There were definitely 7 players on one leaderboard at the same time as there were 3 on the other @MannyFae ! So I think your assumption may be correct. I have been wondering about the explanation for this, as it did not make sense to me at the time.

So definitely not a round robin but the question that this now poses is if the pre allocation system is random? It could be.