As for the point about the math, I’m fully aware that it is not worth someone’s time to get the prize.
That’s not the point. The point is that once you smack a “prize tag” for the highest number of games on an event, you suggest players interpret the event (quite rightly) in terms of a transaction: “my time for his money”, considering that the only requirement - and limiting factor - is free time.
It’s a matter of framing. To be crystal clear: You introduce the ‘oh! it’s a transaction!’ connotation, that is the problem.
The problem with starting a game of “war of attrition” is that players will incur huge debts in the attempt to win said game. In this case, the debt is a substantial time investment.
- If you don’t mind, what was last year’s ratio of challenge completers to sign-ups?
I’m asking because you said the number of games that month was about 10k compared to the usual 3k. If that is the case, the top 8 players from that challenge alone account for about 50% of those additional 7k games.