Change Challenge Event winners to % instead of hard numbers

Any plans to change event rewards to a percentage instead of a set number of winners, i.e. Top 1%, Top 10%, etc.
I am a relatively new player, but I am assuming that the reason behind the hard number of winners for the event was due to a smaller player base when they were introduced?
As it stands now:
Rare Event: ~1,000,000 entries, top 10 get mats. (0.001%)
Epic Event: ~700,000, top 10 get mats. (0.0014%)
Leg Event: ~440,000, top 100 get mats. (0.023%)

I agree, the Challenge Event winner distribution could really use a reworking, given an increasing player population, and a tendency for the same players to win or rank highly repeatedly.

This has been brought up a few times before on the forum, but I personally think this thread was one of the most productive conversations about it:


Yes please. I’ve been tracking my score in those events for a few months now and despite getting better results each time it has become increasingly harder to get a good place.

hello, anyone on top 3000 in the current event at rare difficulty ? im currently ranked 28000 with a score of 370k and i wonder how much i would need to reach top 3000 and if its worth the effort replaying some level again

not top 3k unfortunately, but I’m 5k with a 402k score

1 Like

Please stay true to the topic. I don’t mind the same 10 people being at the top of the leaderboard. If they put in the work to get the score, they are where they deserve to be. My concern is that only a thousandth of a percent of people are receiving ascension materials. Inflate rewards to correlate with player inflation, or better yet, change tiers to "top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, etc.


I totally agree with this, this system seems more fair in function of the number of players right now.


This topic gets brought up every event…devs continue not to give a crap as long as the whales are kept happy, so I don’t see the system changing anytime soon

1 Like

This makes SO much sense.

Seriously, Top 10 out of 100,000 makes sense. Top 10 out of millions? … I mean… there’s not really much point in even trying.

1 Like

Thank you @Chief1 for bringing this up, whilst honouring those who have worked to obtain their positions… & thank you @zephyr1 for the reminder. I really like this idea and think it would be a lot more fair for the ENTIRE spectrum. Going to vote for this! Good luck & thank you as always to SG! :+1::+1::+1:


I don’t mind if the top 100 players get something special, but getting even in the top 3000/1500 for rare/epic gets increasingly hard and top 300 for legendary is ridiculous compared to the price you get.
If I could design it I would do: top1,top10,top100,top 1%,top 10%


I finished 542nd with 432k and some change

@Chuck Nothing changes until we push for change. The fact that you could place in the top 1% of an event and not win non-farmable mats will hopefully be addressed. @Khaleesi-MOD Thanks for the vote! As you said, this would be a great quality of life improvement across the board, and would encourage more people to actively attempt to place in the prizes.


I enjoy doing the events and also getting the opportunity to use our 3* heros as it’s been requested many times to make more battles that use o my 3* heros including creating a rare raid.

As mentioned here I have often wondered to myself in seeing the Hugh difference in the narrow/wide gap between event reward scores and the amount of rewards each score gets thinking that it would more often than not always be the same top players that get all these great rewards.

A percentage based ranking score sounds great and does make total sense but I somehow feel this wouldn’t change much as SG would just set these percentages in favour of those same top players.

These events only come a few times a year and are hard which is great and I love the challenge but I agree the rewards could be better distributed allowing more/Better rewards for those that rank over 50000 as the gap difference between scores after that are high compared to below 50000.

This Image was provided by another member and shows the rewards.

You really have to be a top player to get anything worthwhile given how hard these are and yes better distribution of mats and not any mat but mats that are rarer/harder to get during normal game chests would be great. As I said these are only a few times a year so why couldn’t SG provide rare mats in these events.

I would agree that if percentage was used, the numbers would be small. That being said, even having prize tiers as greedy as #1, 1%, 3%, 5%, 10% would be a huge boon. In the rare event, 10,000 people would win the 2nd tier prize (out of 1 million) and 100,000 people would receive something other than the participation prize. The top would still be the top, sure, but a lot of the low/mid-level players would finally have something to shoot for…and the chance to actually get there.

1 Like

And they’d spend more items which means more game play which may mean more spending which means for next to nothing SGG gets more $$$

I agree totally about pushing for change…players have been calling for this change (the average player, maybe not the whales anyway) for many many months and SG turns a blind eye except to make the very lowest prize level slightly more accessible…:joy::joy::joy:

1 Like

Exactly. Right now, most people are in the “Don’t bother” category of the events. They will do enough to get the completion reward, then never go back.

What about fixed scores to beat, instead?
I find more challenging and compelling if I have a certain number to surpass, instead of relying on the fact the other people will score less than me.

So for exampe, prizes can be awarded on this basis:
2nd to 10th
score >= x1 and less than 10th
x2 =< score < x1
x3 =< score < x2

And so on… where x1, x2, x3 are fixed scores than can easily be calculated over the past editions results.
If I would be close to the next tier prize I think I would invest some gems in energy refills. Right now I just score what I score and then I don’t think about it anymore.


I believe that would be amazing at first, but eventually cause the required score to escalate until it was unreachable. That being said, I’d take your idea over what we currently have!

Cookie Settings