• 0 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 1646 Players Online
  • 1646 Players on Bedrock
  • pe.mineplex.com
Attention Internet Explorer Users
To have the best user experience on our site please consider upgrading to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

Buying Nether Stars with Emeralds

Discussion in 'Cake Wars' started by ScotchTxpe, Jun 11, 2020.


Should Nether stars be purchasable through emeralds?

  1. Yes

    13 vote(s)
  2. No

    17 vote(s)
  1. In many Cakewars games, the game is practically lost when a team controls the mid for enough time to get sharpness and protection. Teams can win games without emeralds since they get so many enchantments. I have a solution to this. If nether stars were buyable from emeralds, this could enable teams to have a (slow) income of nether stars. I thought a good price would be 12 emeralds per nether star.

    This would:
    - Balance the meta of instantly rushing mid
    - Buff the importance of emerald generators
    - Help teams who don't control middle the entire game

    Posted Jun 11, 2020
  2. I honestly really disagree that this should be implemented. It almost completely ruins middle, and some teams would have competition for it. The thing is, you could get an over powered amount of stars from just buying them for 12 emeralds. Let's say you have 2 emerald beacons. You get about 2 emeralds every 5 seconds or so. If you have a party of 4 and all of you pool emeralds, that's 8 emeralds every 5 seconds. Now that's 16 emeralds every 10 seconds. With middle, you get one nether star every 10 seconds. But now, every 10 seconds (through buying stars with emeralds), you're getting 1.33 nether stars every 10 seconds. That's better than having mid. Of course, having mid with a party of 4 is much better than 1.33 stars every 10 seconds, because you can pool stars, but when going against an opposing team that pools emeralds for stars while you obtain 4 stars every 10 seconds, it effectively cancels out. Not entirely of course, as the team with mid would have an advantage, but in regards to this it does give the team pooling emeralds a chance. This can be seen as good, but this almost completely removes the competition for mid.

    Another thing is, if you're holding mid AND you pool emeralds for stars, you're getting 5.33 stars every 10 seconds. That's resource gen in 20 seconds. The longer you go it's not as effective, but resource gen in 20 seconds is too fast. Once that team gets resource gen, it becomes 10 nether stars every 10 seconds. 24 emeralds every 10 seconds or so, and 8 nether stars every 10 seconds as well. This is all if you have mid and two side beacons. I think my point is proven by now, or at least I hope. The emerald generating time might be a bit off, but I'm fairly sure it's around 5 seconds.

    TL;DR - This would be pretty unbalanced if you had a party of 4 and pooled stars/emeralds.
    Posted Jun 11, 2020,
    Last edited Jun 11, 2020
  3. it aint that deep bro they can increase the price
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jun 11, 2020
    Red_Naxela and H2d5 like this.
  4. I don't really like this idea.
    Holding mid for long enough to dominate the game requires a lot of teamwork and commitment. You have to constantly fight off others, ensure your cake isn't eaten and that your teammates actually use stars effectively; meanwhile, capturing emerald beacons is so much easier, as well as requiring less pvp skill.
    Being able to buy stars just seems like a way out for if you are getting outplayed. Unless there is a party, control of mid is roughly evenly distributed anyway. And if there is a party able to control mid for so long in your game, you would probably lose anyway regardless of stars.

    Finally, emeralds are also more important than you assume. It would be kind of hard to rush a decent team with full obby, lots of gear and traps without pollies or diamond picks.
    Posted Jun 11, 2020
    Paladise likes this.
  5. Even if they did increase the price, it would eventually be useless. I would think a balanced amount would be around 24-30 emeralds for one star, but then that would just be pointless. My entire point by all of that is the price matters greatly. Just handing out free nether stars wouldn't be fair. Having super expensive nether stars would also be pointless, unless you're trying to buy 1 more star for resource gen.
    Posted Jun 11, 2020
  6. While I think this is a decent idea, I disagree with it. Mid can be hard enough to hold already, with 3 other teams trying to get it. Like Emuky said, there is nothing stopping players from getting both side beacons, and just stacking to get emeralds to get stars. I think this would be too OP.
    Posted Jun 11, 2020
  7. Hiii

    I am all for nether stars purchasable with emeralds, but not the other way around. With the side beacons, it is easy to hold, especially as a frosting, there are also only 2 ways to you at a side beacon which you can easily block someone from getting to you with a bow or frosting, whereas with mid, you can only block one team at a time, making mid a lot harder to control, like said above, it would just end up with teams camping side gens which like I said, are easy to control.

    There needs to be incentive to hold mid or else nobody would contest it, the value of mid makes the game that more competitive and fun. Due to the latter reasons, I am -1 on this idea.
    Posted Jun 11, 2020
  8. Hey!

    Although the general idea is pretty cool, I just don’t think it will work too well with CakeWars. As some of the players above me said, keeping steady control of mid while also defending base can be very difficult as it requires skill, communication, and teamwork. If we were able to buy nether stars it would basically ruin the point of going to mid which eliminates a massive part of competition in the game.
    Posted Jun 11, 2020
    Emuky likes this.
  9. I see your points, and they are definitely valid. The main reason I made this post is because nowadays it feels like the only gen that matters is middle. Once one team gets stacked with upgrades and just keeps mid from others, they have basically won the game. I just thought buying nether stars would be a good way to balance the importance of mid and emerald gens.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Jun 11, 2020
  10. Hey!
    I understand your idea because it can be quite annoying when players with just leather or iron armour and weapons beat you because of their enchantments however, I will be disagreeing with this idea. My reason for this is because I think this would ruin many strategies and the defensive side of Cake Wars. The middle beacon is what most teams rush to get because of the power of enchantments in the game. I feel that if you could just rely on emerald beacons it would lessen the amount of people going to the middle which isn't fun at all in my opinon. Usually when I play standard, the middle is a warzone and you are constantly battling for the enchantments which can be very fun and it's well worth it. I think that the nether stars should be earned in that sense because of their high power in the game. This could also allow teams to just get enough emeralds to convert to nether stars to buy a resource generator which would increase their chances of getting more enchantments faster then you normally would with the middle beacon it self.
    Cake Wars is a game that pretty much relies on team work, skill, and strategy that many above have said, and with this idea I feel that this would be taken away if the idea of emeralds converting into nether stars was implemented.

    -1 idea
    Posted Jun 11, 2020
    CHRlSTlAN likes this.
  11. Hey!

    I honestly don’t really like this idea. Firstly, I think it kind of defeats the point of holding the middle point, as stars will be easily purchasable with emeralds, no one will really go for middle unless to boost their start count even more. Additionally, it is a bit overpowered to have stars obtainable from emeralds and the middle point, so if this were implemented then stars shouldn’t be obtainable by holding the middle point - it would ultimately unbalance the game and make teams overpowered. For these reasons, I’ll be giving this idea a -1 but I commend you for suggesting it!
    Posted Jun 11, 2020
  12. [​IMG]
    Posted Jun 12, 2020
  13. Sorry, I feel like I may have opposed your opinion in a bit too much of a harsh way. I didn't mean to completely reject the idea, just give some insights on why I personally don't think it would be that great. It's your idea, and everyone has their own ideas. Although a majority of the community most likely would disagreewith this idea, don't let that stop you from changing it up a little bit or giving further suggestions on this idea.
    Posted Jun 12, 2020
  14. I disagree with this idea because the game would lose a part of the strategy behind it.
    Posted Jun 12, 2020

Share This Page