• 768 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 11878 Players Online
  • 11110 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

In Discussion My opinion on gems

Discussion in 'General Idea Discussion' started by MC_Leonidas, Mar 21, 2021.

Tags:
  1. I think the way we get gems should be changed. I think that a lot of you who are reading this have a high amount of gems, that they don't use. I think this also reduces the player count, because a lot of people play games to achieve a better kit in the game that they play a lot. And i think that you should not be able to buy the best kit in a particular game that you have never played before. I think gems should just be given for each game separately. I think that that would actually increase the player count because now people really have to play the game to achieve something. Just adding something that people can strive for would help. I will give you the example of hypixels duels. You can not only play for cooler cosmetics but you can also achieve cool prefixes like 'classic diamond' by winning and playing a lot. Adding such things will make people want to play a lot. It will give them things to strive to and that is why people keep playing and that is something mineplex could add.
    This is a opinion. So, don't get mad if you don't feel the same way.
    Feel free to give your opinion on this topic.
     
    Posted Mar 21, 2021
  2. This seems like alot of programming for our one dev


    (Note just realized this was for java)
     
    Posted Mar 21, 2021
    EpicEnderDragon1, 90k and MC_Leonidas like this.
  3. I really like this idea and what you're saying makes a lot of sense. When players have millions of gems from certain games, they use that for all games to buy the best kits which defeats the point of playing it. If this was to happen though, I feel like the kits should be quite a low price and then the other rewards (such as the prefixes, cosmetics etc) should be a lot higher in terms of how many games you have to play. Even though it could take a lot of time for devs to program, I feel adding one or two more rewards to each game could really help in keeping players interested.
     
    Posted Mar 21, 2021
    MC_Leonidas likes this.
  4. I get what you mean but I like the way things are
     
    Posted Mar 21, 2021
  5. I definitely think that individual games should have certain goals to strive for, and there is achievements, but I do think that there could be more. Gems, I feel like, are a fine currency though I do think games and general rewards that give out gems should not give as many. There should also be a way to get rid of your gems such as the gem fountain years ago, but obviously different and unique. I don’t think that each game should have their own currency as that would mean a almost whole server re-haul, but I do not think that is what mineplex is looking to do at this time.

    Thanks for making the post!
     
    Posted Mar 21, 2021
    MC_Leonidas likes this.
  6. Howdy.

    While I do think another use for gems would be nice, I don't think this way of going about it is right. I believe that gems were made with the purpose of being a global currency. If it was separated per game, people may be discouraged about working hard in that game for gems once they've unlocked all of the kits. Thanks for putting time into this idea!
     
    Posted Mar 21, 2021
  7. personally, I think ranking matches would be beneficial but due to the player count on Java I doubt that would be possible, it could work for bedrock though. Ranking matches would mean that players with more kits would be against players with the same and vice versa.
     
    Posted Mar 21, 2021
  8. I see what you mean but I unfortunately disagree. Reason being is at this point in time of Mineplex's stage, the development to convert global gems to game-specific would simply not be worth it. I do agree that for veteran players that already have all the kits, gems aren't very useful. Maybe instead I would like to see the return of upgradeable level kits that cost gems to give motivation to grind for more gems.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  9. I definitely agree that there should be an easier way to get rid of gems or more uses for gems. Most high level players run out of uses for it after purchasing all of the kits they want , and after that they just sit an accumulate in number. I don’t know how having a specific currency for each game would play out, as it seems somewhat complicated. But using gems for more than just buying kits is something I totally agree with. Overall, I agree with you for the most part. Thanks for making this post :)
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  10. I don't see how this is going to fix the problem of people having high amounts of gems that they can't use. I like the way people earn gems now, I would just agree that there needs to be more uses for it, as furthermore, I don't see a plausible way of distributing current gem counts that people have amassed easily across games
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  11. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the proposal that each game mode should have a separate currency. Gems should stay as global currency. On the other hand there is problem with players accumulating gems having nothing to spend it on after buying all kits they need and i would love to see some more use for gems besides buying kits like okRen said earlier.

     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  12. What if you were to make it so the gem to shard conversion was not Immortal exclusive. If people complain about how that's not fair for people with the rank who spent immortal points on it, just make the rate of conversion much higher for non-immortal regular players. I'd also like to know what the conversion rate is.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  13. Hey!

    @Paladise made an excellent point in saying this wouldn't solve the problem of players having a high amount of gems they don't know how to spend. Most players main a particular gamemode, usually their favourite one or whatever they're best at. Let's say a player's main is Cake Wars. If this were to be implemented, the majority of their total gems would likely go straight to their gem count for Cake Wars. That results in a. the player still having no incentive to go and earn gems for a different gamemode and b. the player still having too many gems (because the majority of their total gem count was taken up by CW, and they have nothing left to spend them on in CW). The better solution seems to be to implement other ways for gems to be used as opposed to your suggestion.

    I like your thinking, but I'm not 100%. I have to say gem to shard conversion works very well as a perk - it's one of the most eyed purchases in the Immortal loyalty points shop. If you have lots and lots of gems you can convert into shards, there's great incentive to save up enough points to buy it. That's important from an Immortal marketing standpoint. Like you said, the conversion rate can simply be lower for normal players; however, would that work? It does seem fair to allow everyone access to the perk, even if on different levels because it's not just Immortals who have an excess of gems and nothing to spend them on. But it isn't fair if players are at too much of a disadvantage with their reduced rate compared to Immortals. The information below could change your opinion.

    To answer your question, 10% of your gems become shards with the perk. This means if you chose to convert 10k gems then you would get 1k shards out. So you can see the conversion rate isn't extremely high or anything, which is why I'm slightly torn. Anything lower and players wouldn't be getting much at all.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021,
    Last edited Apr 12, 2021
  14. Another big question I have, is what are the intended ideas and purposes of gems and shards. What roles do they play and how do they stand compared to one another? Something you could do is give players something they can spend their gems on an infinite number of times, similar to treasure shards and loot chests.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  15. good idea, maybe a crate only buyable with gems with special loot
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  16. The best way to differentiate between gems and shards is to remember that gems are the currency that affect gameplay and shards are the currency that are used for cosmetic purposes only. Currently, the only thing you can do with gems is purchase kits and nothing further. Hence they have a gameplay purpose as kits alter the way you play. Treasure shards are used to purchase treasure chests, hence their purpose is purely cosmetic. Out of chests you can obtain gadgets, pets, morphs, taunts, and much more.

    In short, the intended purpose of the two currencies is to purchase kits and buy treasure chests, respectively. As for your idea, I don't really agree with it. To maintain consistency, I think it would be best to always have gems serving some sort of gameplay purpose, and shards serving a cosmetic one. I would prefer to see more ways of how gems can be used to affect gameplay instead of resorting to giving them the same function as shards. The gems to shards conversion system exists so that you can swap over and use the right currency for the right thing - shards for cosmetic items (e.g. chests). If you could buy with gems what you can buy with shards, there would be no need for it.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  17. However, therein lies the issue of people having unlocked all the kits/things bought with gems and accumulating so many with nothing to use them on.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  18. Exactly. One thing all of us on this thread can unanimously agree on is that there needs to be more ways of using gems. There are lots of considerations that go into it though; some of the ideas suggested above wouldn't work for the reasons I provided. One particular worry I would have with adding more ways for excess gems to be spent in gameplay is that experienced players will have too much of an advantage over newer players. When Skywars V2 was introduced, players were able to upgrade their kits. This didn't work out too well, eventually it was removed and all gems spent were reimbursed as far as I know. If a similar system was to be implemented on a larger scale where the upgrades are worthy of players actually spending their gems on them, then they can easily use their thousands/millions of gems to gain an immediate advantage over newer players. This could discourage them from continued playing.

    I know you didn't suggest the above, but it is something that's brought up and I wanted to address it in case anyone was thinking of it. Now, one thing I would very much be in favour of is bringing back the gem fountain. At one point, I believe this was quite topical and a good few people were advocating for its return. Back in the day, the community came together to contribute their gems to the fountain. If they met the intended target, something like double XP was activated for the weekend. It was a great opportunity for players to work together while simultaneously giving them an outlet for their excess gems. Neither can be underestimated, as community spirit is really important too and it seemed like a really healthy, constructive way to encourage that.

    Perhaps gems could also be used to unlock more community perks? There's more detail on this thread I found; credits to whoever came up with that. I really like the idea, especially where you could have the chance to unlock more games and features in a COM MPS.

    There's many more possibilities - those are just some of my thoughts combined with what I found elsewhere, such as on the thread linked above. One thing we shouldn't overlook, though, is the opportunity to add more kits. Kit prices won't affect gem-rich players at all, so of course there still needs to be more ways to use gems like the ones listed above, but technically it's still something new to put gems toward. Many of the threads in the New Kit Discussion subforum are marked as not planned, but some are still in discussion and I'm sure some have been processed without implementation yet (though obviously there's nothing GI can do about that).

    By using my own head and combing through the forums, I've gotten a much better idea of what would and what wouldn't work, etc. in terms of finding new ways to use gems. But I did find a few that would, which I've mentioned above. From my newfound understanding, there is actually lot of potential here. It would be great to finally see one of these marked as processed eventually, as many of the threads are still in discussion or just dead in the water.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  19. Actually, XP boosters sound like a pretty good idea, but I guess the only people really unaffected by something like that would be all the LV. 100 players. The community perks is also nice because it's an incentive for all players to keep playing and earning gems.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  20. Perhaps there could be other uses for gems to prevent them from accumulating in the cases of more veteran players, like the re-introduction of the collaborative gem fountain as someone else mentioned. However, I don't think the circumstance highlighted in the OP is too much to worry about;

    you should not be able to buy the best kit in a particular game that you have never played before.

    Why not? It seems to me that you're suggesting that this presents an unfair advantage over those who actually play such games. However, I don't think this really exists - if someone purchases a kit for a game they've not played before, they'll most likely be impacted by their own lack of experience, if anything they'd be at a disadvantage compared to more seasoned players. They've not played before, as you say, so how would they know the best ways to use the kit they purchased? It's also not impossible to beat someone that uses a "good kit" while using a "bad kit", I've done this in my time before. This takes experience, it may be more difficult, but it'd at least balance out the experience disparity.

    I think gems should just be given for each game separately.

    From a development perspective, this would not scale well. There'd have to be an accompanying gem system for every game, including new ones, presenting a lot of unnecessary work for the developers. Aside from that, this would present difficulties with seasonal Halloween and Christmas games, should they also feature things to purchase with gems. People would never get to actually try them unless they grind, and it wouldn't be fair to expect them to be available to do that, since they have their own lives. I also think that if this system were in place, it'd be unfairly biased to those already well-established in each game who already have all of the kits, so it'd actually accentuate what you're worried about. I quite like the ability to save gems from one game to use in another; it does bring a sense of achievement, but it also ensures that people can play the games they want to get gems rather than being forced into any specific one. That's aside from the potential balancing I briefly mentioned above.

    If this is genuinely an issue, I'd rather tie the unlocking of new kits to actual experience in-game, some class-based level system could be introduced. Get to level 5 in class X to unlock the ability to purchase class Y etc. However, I'm not fully convinced. It'd probably be worth looking into potential uses for accumulated gems though.
     
    Posted Apr 13, 2021

Share This Page