#alpha If the project truly wants to attract users willing to invest time and money, they shouldn't set the threshold too low and then allocate most of the rewards to internet speed and studios on a first-come, first-served basis. My suggestion is to significantly raise the threshold for the first tier, so that users who truly invest over the long term and achieve high scores can receive tangible positive feedback. For example, set the first tier at ≥260 (or 300) points, and only give a certain percentage of guaranteed rewards or quotas to users who reach this level. The second tier is 250, and the third tier is 200. While the highest tier can be allocated based on a fixed quota/proportion, the remaining tiers can be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis or through a lottery. However, it's important not to let someone with 18+ points end up receiving the same rewards as someone with 15 or 16 points.

The reasons are simple:

1. Fairness - High investment should result in higher returns, avoiding lumping long-term players with those who rush to get results quickly into the same tier;

2. Incentive Effect - A higher first-tier threshold encourages more long-term participation and quality improvement, rather than relying solely on internet speed or studio-based resources;

3. Controllability - If there are concerns about insufficient reward pools, the number of second-tier players can be reduced or the distribution ratios at each stage can be adjusted. This will naturally reduce the number of participants and make the unit rewards more substantial.

Simply put, raising the first-tier threshold and distributing it appropriately is more beneficial to ecosystem development than simply lowering it and letting everyone get the low-gross bonus. Please pass this feedback on to the team responsible for point design, and at the very least, have them evaluate the feasibility of "raising the high-tier threshold + adjusting the distribution ratios at each stage."