Choosing leader-boards per-game (New Leader-boards Discussion)

[Danny]

Hey, Danny here, I'm going to tell you a feature that MIGHT work.

Solo Idea:
You can basically switch different stats between different games. What I mean by this is if you.. Say you have 2 leader-boards, the old leader-boards and the new fresh leader-boards. you could switch which leader-board you want to play for

Example: Say 'Person A' is in a game on Valleyside University, he wants this game to count towards the 'new leader-boards' , Person A could do /leaderboards new. Say 'Person B' was playing on Holiday Resort, he's not the best on this map, so he wanted this game to count towards the 'old leader-boards' He could simply do /leaderboards old.

Lobby idea:
Each game would have 2 voting menus, one for which map, and one for which leaderboards this game would count towards. (Refreshes)

Example: Say 'Lobby A' would have a voting menu /leaderboards vote. It would have 2 choices, 1 for the new leader-boards and 2 for the old-leaderboards.

Split lobbies idea:

With this idea taken from the 'FFA Servers'. MCSG could split the games in half, 100 games for the new leaderboards, 100 games for the old leaderboards.

Example: Say servers 1-100, the games would be counted towards the 'new leader-boards' side. Servers 101-200 would be counted towards the 'old leader-boards side'

Thanks for reading
-Danny
​

 

[Reclaimer_HD]

I liked ur solo idea but the others not so much

 

[Danny]

I liked ur solo idea but the others not so much

Better than nothing

 

[Reclaimer_HD]

Better than nothing

Yessss dude thanks for the suggestion

 

[Danny]

Yessss dude thanks for the suggestion

No problem :3

 

[Joel/MadDawg]

Each leaderboard requires it's own database. Since all of these ideas would require two separate leaderboards, that would mean mcsg would have to pay twice as much to host the leaderboards. I can't recall where this was said, but I believe Col or Devin said that mcsg is not willing to pay for two separate leaderboards. I will agree with you though that this is in theory a good solution to all the controversy going on.

 

[Giolightning]

Each leaderboard requires it's own database. Since all of these ideas would require two separate leaderboards, that would mean mcsg would have to pay twice as much to host the leaderboards. I can't recall where this was said, but I believe Col or Devin said that mcsg is not willing to pay for two separate leaderboards. I will agree with you though that this is in theory a good solution to all the controversy going on.

lol no

 

[Danny]

Each leaderboard requires it's own database. Since all of these ideas would require two separate leaderboards, that would mean mcsg would have to pay twice as much to host the leaderboards. I can't recall where this was said, but I believe Col or Devin said that mcsg is not willing to pay for two separate leaderboards. I will agree with you though that this is in theory a good solution to all the controversy going on.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll wait for a developer to second this though

 

[FadingPixels]

A good suggestion! It may get implemented.

 

[Col_StaR]

Each leaderboard requires it's own database. Since all of these ideas would require two separate leaderboards, that would mean mcsg would have to pay twice as much to host the leaderboards. I can't recall where this was said, but I believe Col or Devin said that mcsg is not willing to pay for two separate leaderboards. I will agree with you though that this is in theory a good solution to all the controversy going on.

The full clarification was posted here:

Why not create a Lifetime Leaderboards, or two sets of separate dynamic Leaderboards? Something other than Legacy Leaderboards?

• As stated in this Front-Page Announcement, number-crunching and statistics tracking on a scale that we have requires a lot of server power and resources. In order to accommodate for two different leaderboards systems, we would need to double the cost of the statistics server expenses. In turn, we would need to increase the price of the items on our webstore, which we do not believe would be a worthwhile move. As such, we would prefer to stick with only one statistics system and run with that.

So this could work, but only if you folks would be willing to pay extra money for the extra servers that track the extra leaderboards you guys demand so badly. And so far, people are nearly unanimously opposed to the praise raise; suddenly the leaderboards reset poll doesn't seem so bad.