• 859 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 9011 Players Online
  • 8152 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

Solving Gem Inflation

Discussion in 'Bedrock Ideas' started by Jet Starglaze, Feb 27, 2021.


Would you like to see this added?

  1. Yeah!!

  2. No (comment why)

  3. Some (state which ones you want added in your reply)

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Hey!

    Many players have over 100k redundant gems, they have bought all the kits, and their gems have no value anymore. I think we need an update to out those gems to good use.

    NOTE: this thread is aimed at bedrock! DO NOT vote no if it would'nt be a good idea for java!

    A Gem Fountain

    This is how this would work.

    There would be an "objective" to reach. e.g amped skywars.

    There would be a requirement for the amount of gems needed to reach that goal. e.g 15000 - 20000 gems.

    There would be a time limit to reach the goal e.g 1 month

    if 15k gems is donated towards the fountain, then the reward e.g amped skywars would happen. when the goal is reached, the hologram would display : Amplified skywars happening at [this date] and it would give 1 weeks notice.

    If the goal is not reached before the time limit, e.g we only reached 10k, then that number will be divided by 2 and be added to the next goal. e.g next goal is 20k , and because the last unachieved goal was 10k, 10k / 2 = 5k so 5k will be put towards the next goal.

    Note: Maybe the goals need to be increased, or add a limit such as a player can only donate a max of 7k gems per goal.

    A gifting system

    This is how this would work.

    Some players such as myself have so many redundant gems, that they would be more than happy to give some away to newer players who would like to try some kits!

    it could be a command - /gift [name] 5000gems

    Or it could be a menu interface, to open it type /gift

    This could work with shards too, for people who have all cosmetics.

    Gems To Shards

    This is how this would work.

    Some players have a lot of gems, and would like to trade them in for shards.

    But some players have like 150k+ gems, so I think we should have a 2:1 ratio. if I trade 10 gems, I get 5 shards back. This would make the trading system not too overpowered.

    If I get any more ideas, I'll update the thread!

    Suggest ideas in the comments!

    Like and vote to show support!

    Posted Feb 27, 2021
  2. For your first idea, the 'Gem Fountain' was previously a thing on the Java network a few years back. It had the same concept, if the gem fountain reached a certain threshold then an OP version of a game would be released for the weekend. While I personally enjoyed this feature, it was unpopular and ended up being removed from the network. In addition, on bedrock there is only one dedicated developer so I think it would be extra dev time to produce OP versions of the game every week. For your second point, I would be fine with a gem gifting system, however, I feel that there should be a gem limit or a cooldown in case an account gets compromised and does not want to give away their gems. For your final point, gems to shards are already an immortal feature that can be purchased in the shop in Java, so I agree with adding it to Bedrock.
    Posted Feb 27, 2021
    zapig likes this.
  3. I didn't really suggest op versions of the game, just like an amp for a random game or something.

    I don't really want it to be a paid to use feature either, most of the playerbase do not have ranks.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Feb 27, 2021
    Ryan9116, Kight and Mystic 0440 like this.
  4. I'll make my explanation quick...

    No, gem fountain since we have amplifiers...

    Yes, allowing players to gift gems to others...

    And yes, I'd love to exchange my gems to shards!
    Posted Feb 27, 2021
    yvuggu likes this.
  5. The first idea sounds a bit interesting and I’d like to see it, but I’d like to talk about the second and third ideas.

    I completely disagree with the second idea. Many high-level players have millions of unused gems and shards. This would completely destroy the value of gems and shards, because there are so many people with an overabundance of both and they’d be distributed everywhere. This would also in turn ruin the value of cosmetics, and more importantly rank bonuses.

    On the third idea, I believe the EULA forbids turning gems to shards because shards are purchasable items and gems are not (I’m not totally positive that’s why, I just know there is some problem with that).

    These are interesting ideas, but I don’t know if the 2nd and 3rd should/can be implemented.
    Posted Feb 27, 2021
    CloudyDay1234 likes this.
  6. Hey! I'm all for the idea of having a way to utilize your gems. Personally, on Java I have quite a few and although I don't currently put them toward community banks or use the Immortal gem to shard perk, it is nice knowing that I have opportunities to use my gems if I ever feel the need to. I'd love to see a similar, or newer idea, implemented toward Bedrock to where gems can be used after you have accumulated everything possible and can no longer use your gems. I'm in favor of adding a gem fountain to Bedrock, I feel as though it would be a pretty popular addition. I say this because when it was a feature on Java, not many people really had the excess amount of gems to push toward this plus the player base is significantly smaller than the average amount of players on Bedrock so the popularity of this died out fairly quickly as people slowly began to get bored of this. So, I could see this implementation being a positive addition to Bedrock, especially if there was something like amplifying a specific game for a said amount of time.

    I feel Secondly, I'm not a huge fan of the gifting system idea, as though this could be abused and just wouldn't be the best way to manage your gems. Though I do think the idea behind it helping our your friends would be a nice thought, but I think there would have to be some harsh restrictions if this were ever implemented. What I mean by that, is that there should most definitely be a cooldown like Vytas stated and they make a solid point of possible compromised accounts losing most, if not all of their gems. On top of that, if this were to be added there should be a limit as to how many gems you could send to someone, maybe each rank can have an increase as to how many you can send? But I would keep each limit relatively small if that were the case as well.

    For the gems to shard idea, I'm not entirely fond of this either. My only concern is that if this was a perk for everyone, it might decrease the value of cosmetics earned. I could see this being a perk for the highest rank, similar to how Immortal has this perk, though I feel as though this should be limited to Immortal only due to the fact that there is a point system and you have to slowly climb your way to that required amount of points. Subscription ranks aren't really plausible on the Bedrock platform, so I don't foresee something similar being added to Bedrock. Regardless, I do think there should be some way for Bedrock users to use their gems, so I'd like to hear more opinions on this, or even some more ideas that could be beneficial toward this addition to Bedrock.
    Posted Feb 28, 2021
    Jet Starglaze and CloudXYZ15 like this.
  7. For the gifting system, what about a cap of 50k a month?

    And the last idea, gems to shards, I don't actually think it's against the EULA because

    1. shards don't have an effect on gameplay
    2. java already has this
    some players have a million+ so an even more increased ratio?
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Feb 28, 2021
    Ryan9116 and Kight like this.
  8. The gem fountain is an interesting idea. I like the way you calculated it and it could really help non-ranks get some more gems/shards/xp with the amplifiers. It's such a low number of gems though that are required, any group of high-levelled friends can solo donate for a few weeks straight. However on the other hand I do understand it as a lot of the Bedrock player base is new or doesn't have so many gems, but I still think it should be higher since there are thousands of players online at any time.

    For gifting system - a 50k limit would still be enough for anyone that compromised your account. Personally I don't think this is a good idea if it was done in command fashion. Instead it should be something like the Villager morph on Java. That way it's harder, sometimes even impossible, for someone that compromised your account to give themselves gems, and would also be much cooler.

    For the gems->shards, I don't think it should be a feature to give away to everybody. On Java it is currently a subscription rank-only perk, and releasing it to everybody would heavily devalue the rank as many players have been requesting something like this. Bedrock doesn't seem to be making a lot of money as players aren't really persuaded to buy any ranks. Maybe releasing this feature to Lords or above would incline them to purchase the rank. They kind of lack any concrete bonuses so this would be a nice addition.
    Posted Feb 28, 2021
    yvuggu and Jet Starglaze like this.
  9. Yeah that could be a problem, and it's why I suggested the 7k limit.

    I have another idea for this though. @yvuggu gave some advice and it's clear that some lower leveled players won't give gems as they want to get kits. So if we make it so that if you donate above 1k gems, and the goal is actually reached, you get a +500/1k shard bonus. This would tempt players to give gems to the fountain, as they also get a benefit.

    To be clear, for someone to compromise your Bedrock account, they would need to hack your Microsoft account, and Xbox account. If they actually succeed to hack both, then I think it's unlikely that they would log into Minecraft, then mineplex, then give themselves gems, an online currency that has no relation to the real world. The comprised account argument seems a bit outlandish. And if they actually did hack your Microsoft account, the victim would have a bigger problem on their hands than a loss of gems.

    But for people who have 500k+ gems it shouldnt be a problem even in the rare case that your account does get hacked.

    For the villager morph, it has a cooldown of like 15 seconds per use. I dont know how many gems it gives per use, but i would assume its quite low. If i wanted to give a new player like 6k gems to try out all the cake wars kits, it would take litteraly forever to give that many gems.

    The problem i have but things being rank exclusive in most of my ideas, is that most of the bedrock playerbase are too young to get a rank, they would have to ask their parants and i dont know how they would react being asked to purchase something thats worth £16 on a minecraft server. It would most likely be underused. I meet newer players all the time who are not even allowed to use youtube. Its not like java where most people have a rank. But i see where you are coming from, they need more money to pay devs, and they need more of an appeal to buy those ranks. But im just not sure about being pay2use as cubecraft has pay2play and pay2use everywhere, and i think its really scummy, and mineplex dosent have a lot of that so i kinda like mineplex in that regard.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Feb 28, 2021
    Ryan9116, Kight and yvuggu like this.
  10. Yeah I understand the compromise account thing, it wouldn't be common but in the event of that happening, the command could be very easily abused. Plus, players are encouraged to grind games for the gems. If someone had a friend that just outright gave them a bunch of gems when they join, what's the point? It should be a goal to get x amount of gems for a certain kit or otherwise, if you're handed everything on a silver platter it's not very fun :/

    The villager morph has a muuuuch shorter cooldown, and you lose some gems while giving some away. It doesn't take too long to give someone 1k gems, but my main argument for bringing in the villager morph is that it's simply really cool. I feel like for the younger player base at Bedrock it would be an interesting thing that they would like.

    There are definitely much younger players on Bedrock and I'm not denying. However there are also players our age that could get a rank if they wanted to either with their own money or with cool parents but they have complained that it doesn't feel like there really is any concrete bonuses. Unless you have a bunch of friends to play with, ranks won't really be useful for you as one of the main things it offers are increased party sizes (for Duke/Duchess especially. A lot of players say it's not worth the money at all). Extra chests, increased gains and full server entry is good, but once again isn't enough of a pull factor for anyone to spend so much money just for that. That's why I feel like cool features like these should be brought out to the ranks, especially considering that's how it exists on Java and is one of the reasons why people purchase ranks or have subscribed to Immortal (alongside the other bonuses).
    Posted Feb 28, 2021
    CloudXYZ15, yvuggu and Jet Starglaze like this.
  11. At this point they don't even want to fix it. They have accepted the fact that gems are useless and reject any idea for its use.
    Posted Feb 28, 2021
    Jet Starglaze likes this.
  12. The Java server doesn’t have an agreement with Microsoft like the Bedrock server does, and I’m pretty sure that’s why the mechanic is on Java exclusively.

    Again, I might be wrong, but I recall there was some problem with converting gems to shards because of Mineplex’s partnership with Minecraft/Microsoft.
    Posted Feb 28, 2021
    CloudyDay1234 likes this.
  13. Basically all of these ideas have either been denied (gifting, gems to shards) or were implemented and failed (gem fountain) on Java, and for that alone I can't see these being successfully implemented on Bedrock.

    Mineplex's Production team has been struggling with gem inflation for quite some time now. I think the only thing they implemented to directly address the issue has been the gem fountain which failed due to a lack of interest.

    Gem inflation isn't really that big of an issue in my eyes. I'd rather players with too many gems just have to live with it than have Mineplex implement another generally poor solution only to remove it after disinterest and/or misusage.
    Posted Feb 28, 2021
    CloudXYZ15 likes this.
  14. Gem Fountain: Not a good idea. If we put it at a low gem target, then we would just get free amps and it wouldn't really solve the problem of gem inflation. If we put it at an actually reasonable amount but put a limit per player to balance it out, then it also wouldn't solve gem inflation. If it's a relatively high amount same thing.

    Gifting System: I think that we shouldn't put a limit on how many you give(this comes up with problems), rather put a daily limit on how many you can recieve. This way the economy is still balanced.

    Gems to shards: Yes except daily limits for how many you can trade. The limit would be higher for ranks I guess.

    Overall, none of these actually solve the problem of gem inflation without huge problems. Gem inflation is just not something that can really be solved. BUT these are good ideas to add to the bedrock server!
    Posted Feb 28, 2021
    Jet Starglaze likes this.
  15. Then i have another idea. (Calling it the gem foutain turned out to be a reeaaaalllly bad idea)

    I dont know how this would turn out but here goes.

    The Gem Cascade

    This is how this would work

    There would be a longer time limit/no time limit at all

    A really high objective such as 800k

    The rewards would be like 3 hours of amps on a random game + something else.

    Those who donate over 5k gems get a 1k shard bonus.

    Those who donate over 15k get a 5k shard bonus

    Those who donate over 30k get a 10k shard bonus

    The core idea here is to make a thing that players with lots of gems want to give them away to this, then they will have to regrind for gems.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Mar 1, 2021
    Kight, Ryan9116 and yvuggu like this.
  16. The base idea is good, but I'm not sure about the actual numbers(for example the objective and especially the shard bonuses) so I won't post any numbers for now.
    Posted Mar 1, 2021
    Jet Starglaze likes this.

Share This Page