CHANGE THE LEADERBOARDS

[Saruhh]

i say we have online leaderboards, like the chunk used to have. i really liked the way that was set up; it recognized more than just 5 players. :3

 

[Gainfullterror]

You said that people who get the most wins will get the most kills. How would a 10v10 with your friends where you kill about 2 people on average get the same amount of kills as a teaparty where you take down 3 bases by yourself?

Riddle me this:
What will get you more kills?
50 games of a 10v10 match or 4 games of 5v5 at most?
They can grind for as much as they want, and they could even spawn kill if they wanted to. They're willing to put their time into it.

How would a 10v10 with your friends get you the same amount of egg breaks (MAYBE 1) to a teaparty where you can break 5?

Simple:

All of these would likely go to the same people.

See how I said "likely"?
I didn't ever say that all of them would definitely go to the leaderboarders.

Yes the grinding mansion would end up the same for the leaderboard tops.. but the thing is if other people wanna try to compete to grind as much as them they can, they will NEVER catch up. Right now, if i wanted to grind mansion my whole life id never catch up, id need 12k wins and its impossible to get more than 100 in one night.

Well, like I said: If you put time and effort into it, it's definitely possible.
You could probably manage around 100 wins daily if you're dedicated enough & have the time to do so.

You dont have to disregard them, make a separate monthy chart fixes the problem. Your entire thread was rude and made no sense, good for you.

Rude and made no sense?
I'm pretty sure I was making perfect sense and stated primarily facts and possibilities based off of the provided information.
Are you just going to apply your own opinion & experience to everything I mentioned? 'Cause that doesn't mean my post is rude, let alone doesn't make sense.

 

[SavFun]

I literally just gave all my points and you contradicted them with the word likely. 4 games of 5v5? try 10 games of 5v5v5v5v5v5v5v5. You can get 100 wins a day, but it would still take a lifetime to catch up, its likely not even possible considering all the work the current holders are still putting into it.

Edit: 10:30 school day, will reply to more comments tomorrow.

 

[TheQueenWaddle]

This is easily the most petty way I've seen someone argue for monthly leaderboards.
I don't disagree w/ you, but maybe instead of saying that these players have lost their skill, passion, and therefore their right to occupy a spot on the ladder, maybe be a little more constructive instead of being condescending.
Just to add my two cents, I enjoyed the leaderboard format from the Chunk too, because it was online and easily accessible, but then players would have to link forums accounts to their account which is an entirely different conversation. I wouldn't mind linking my accounts, but that's just me of course.

 

[xLuiiJox]

It would make things way more competitive, if the 5 people on the leaderboards right now are as good as the boards say they are, then they can end every month on top. The greater amount of things the leader boards display will also be a factor, so they can dominate more than one category.

It's just "Addiction" <:

 

[someone1234567890]

I think that 99.99% of the people that play on cubecraft can agree that the current way the leader boards are ran is terrible. For me, majoring in the game Eggwars, I would actually like a chance to be on the top once in awhile. I've played eggwars for about 6-12 months now, and have gotten NO progression on the leader board at all. This isn't because I'm bad at playing the game, it's because the leader boards are TRAAAAAASSSSHHHHHH! The top 5 members of the leader boards at the moments are Shadoshi, Zuno, Neo, FluffyMambas (Aihu), and Miguel. The reason they're at the top isn't because individually they are good at the game, it's because they grind matches like Rome and mansion together for easy and quick wins. For the 6 months that I've been playing the game, I've racked up about 700 wins, this is because I like playing longer games with more excitement (like Teaparty). However, Shadoshi has 13,000 wins. The problem with this is I have fought Aihu, Neo, and Shadoshi several times and beat them (don't let that statement cause a problem, they beat me too ofc), but there is no way I would ever get ANY recognition for being a good Eggwars player because It would take year(s) of grinding and boring mansions to even get close to the amount of wins they have. What i propose is that the leader boards don't just motivate people to get the most wins as possible, but to have more objectives so that it's not just recognition for whoever can play more mansions in a shorter period of time. For Eggwars I would like to see Eggs Broken, Kills, Games Won, and Largest Win Streak. If I left anything out that should be on the leader board, correct me in the comments. For games like SG, SW, TD, and Minerware, I don't play enough to know what should be added, i just know that there should be more. I also believe that the leader boards should be wiped every month - 2 months because it gives newer members of cubecraft a chance to be up there if they can prove themselves. Maybe it could be implemented that those on the leader board can receive exclusive prizes after they get reset each month or so? Idk, either way this needs to be changed. Who agrees? Where is my like? But seriously, things like this I feel I shouldn't have to make a thread on, others should've already done it for me... it's been 6 months broyos.

I really like idea!! Maybe they can add a monthly/weekly top 5. I mostly like your idea of the winstreak!

 

[Luzario]

Why do you need to have recognition as a good eggwars player?

To boost his ego

 

[NiekZGV]

i agree the people who are in top play the game for like 2 years if u are new or don't play so long u dont have ay change

 

[Jackxist]

A lot of people are suggesting this and the more people suggest and agree the more likely cube will improve it. I think that the leaderboards should be top 10, not Top 5 and also should reset monthly

 

[SpankMeSanta]

It would be pretty cool if, once you enter a lobby for map (for example teaparty), in the pre match lobby you could see a some leaderboards and stats players have gained when playing in the map teaparty, and of course have this for all the maps when you join a pre match lobby.

 

[Crafter1246]

Lol I play with @Fluffy Mambas all the time!

 

[Qin Shihuangdi]

This idea is still fundamentally flawed. Farming would still be the way onto the leaderboards. The top wins would continue to farm on Rome and mansion. Top win streak would either do Rome and mansion or mid camp for virtually guranteed wins. Top eggs would farm on safari or MLG (they have similar output). And lastly, top kills would mid camp spawn kill on aztec.

Let's not forget that donators have a small advantage in that they can consistently have what they want. Something will always have a small advantage in most maps - usually op half health. But remember that the difference is quite large on maps like teaparty - normal half health is generally 10-15 minutes while getting under 25 minutes in op normal is a challenge at best

 

[SavFun]

Thanks for the feedback everyone :>

 

[Saruhh]

Thanks for the feedback everyone :>

ofc :>

 

[TheWeddingBell]

"99.9%"... Um, buddy, I think you pulled that number out of your rear. @SavFun

 

[SavFun]

"99.9%"... Um, buddy, I think you pulled that number out of your rear. @SavFun

I think that 99.99% of the people that play on cubecraft can agree that the current way the leader boards are ran is terrible.

yeah, theyll agree that the current way they are ran is in fact terrible. that other .01% (not .1%) of the people are the ones that are on the leaderboards. Not one single new person stands a chance, so where are you coming from i dont understand?

 

[TheWeddingBell]

When somebody says "I think that 99.99%" agrees with them, I sense that the argument is loosely-based. Also, I have not ever seen 99.9% of a group in Minecraft ever agree with one individual on something.