I still think you’re glossing over the core issue, which isn’t whether these features are possible, but whether they’re actually worth doing.
Yes, a lot of these systems already exist internally, but exposing them isn’t just flipping a switch. The moment you give players control over gen speeds, item pools, player caps, and forced game flow, you have to account for edge cases, exploits, UI clarity, permissions, abuse prevention, and support tickets when something breaks or behaves unexpectedly. Internal tools used by staff are not designed to be public facing or idiot proof. That difference alone is a massive time sink, even if the mechanic itself already exists.
You also keep framing PGs as being “for non average players,” but that’s exactly why restraint matters. The more niche and power user focused a mode becomes, the harder it is to justify deep ongoing support. Content creators and event hosts are loud, but they’re still a minority, and designing systems around them often leads to features that look cool on paper but see very low sustained usage. Devs have to prioritize what benefits the ecosystem long term, not just what’s flexible.
Your chess analogy doesn’t really land either. Blitz and classical are still the same game with the same ruleset, just different pacing. What’s being proposed here isn’t pacing tweaks, it’s fundamental rule breaking. Free shops, extreme gens, and item blacklists don’t create “new formats” so much as they remove core decision making loops that define EggWars. After a few novelty sessions, there’s nothing left to master, which is why these kinds of modes historically die fast once the excitement fades.
On monetization, the problem isn’t pay to win, it’s perception and fragmentation. The moment meaningful control is locked behind a higher tier, you create first class and second class PG hosts. That leads to pressure, entitlement, and inevitable complaints about fairness, especially in community run events where not everyone can afford the same tools. Cubecraft has generally avoided that exact scenario for a reason.
The deathmatch command example actually proves the opposite of what you’re saying. Staff being able to force end games doesn’t mean it’s safe to hand out widely. Staff are accountable, trained, and operate under guidelines. Random hosts are not. The moment hosts can arbitrarily end games, you invite griefing, trolling, and arguments mid match, especially in mixed or semi public PGs. Even in private spaces, bad experiences still reflect on the game.
And this is the key point you keep sidestepping: PGs are not meant to be a sandbox. They’re meant to be EggWars without matchmaking pressure. That distinction matters. A private mode existing does not automatically mean “maximum freedom.” It means controlled consistency without randomness from strangers. If people want full rule editing, there are already custom servers and plugins that do exactly that.
So no, this isn’t about devs “not trusting players” or keeping things locked for no reason. It’s about maintaining a clear identity, minimizing long term maintenance cost, and avoiding turning a polished game mode into a bundle of half used toggles. Wanting more control is understandable, but that doesn’t automatically make it good design, and it definitely doesn’t mean the downsides are being exaggerated.
I get where you’re coming from, but I think this is exactly where the disagreement actually is — not on
facts, but on what PGs are
supposed to be.
You’re treating PGs like they’re just “EggWars without matchmaking,” full stop. A lot of us don’t see them that way anymore, because in practice they’re already used for way more than that. Events, scrims, content, custom rule nights, friend chaos, testing dumb ideas — that ship has already sailed. PGs
function like a host-controlled space, but the tools just haven’t caught up, which is why people keep pushing for them.
About the “not just flipping a switch” thing — yeah, obviously. No one is pretending UI, permissions, and edge cases don’t exist. But that’s also not a reason to freeze PGs forever. By that logic, PGs should never get
any improvements because everything has overhead. The question isn’t “does this take time,” it’s “is this the right place for flexibility,” and PGs are literally the only place where flexibility won’t affect the wider playerbase.
The “power user = niche = not worth supporting” argument is kinda backwards too. Power users are the ones who
extend a mode’s lifespan. They host events, make videos, bring in friends, and keep modes relevant between updates. You don’t design the entire game around them, sure, but giving them
tools, not content, is a very different thing. Tools scale. A single toggle can enable hundreds of different formats without devs touching it again.
And on the chess comparison — the point wasn’t that EggWars and chess are identical, it was that
options don’t erase the base game. Nobody is saying free shops should be the new default or the “true” EggWars. They’re saying “let us turn it on when we want dumb fun.” Not every experience needs mastery curves and long-term depth. Sometimes people just want variation without leaving the game entirely.
The monetization concern is fair, but you’re assuming the worst-case outcome. Customization tiers don’t have to create “first and second class” hosts if the baseline PG remains fully playable. Extra controls ≠ entitlement unless they’re framed poorly. And again, this is private content. Nobody is being disadvantaged in public play, which is where fairness actually matters most.
Now, the deathmatch command — this is honestly where the current system feels the most inconsistent. Saying “staff can do it because they’re trained” doesn’t really work when the
exact same abuse potential already exists in other ways (kicking players, ending lobbies, starting games early). Hosts already have power. The difference is that right now, they can’t fix stalled or broken games, which hurts
everyone in that lobby. One bad apple trolling is not a good reason to deny a genuinely useful tool to every normal host, especially when basic permission settings or host-only confirmations could exist.
And the “if you want sandbox, go play custom servers” argument is kinda dismissive. People are asking for
controlled customization inside EggWars, not a totally different ecosystem with plugins, different balancing, and different players. That’s a huge jump. Wanting PGs to evolve doesn’t mean people want to abandon EggWars’ identity — it means they want to stay
within it while having more agency.
At the end of the day, nobody’s asking to turn PGs into a dev playground with half-tested mechanics. They’re asking for
optional, host-controlled tools in a mode that is already private, already segmented, and already used for more than just casual queues. Calling that “overengineering” feels less like a design necessity and more like a fear of change.
Restraint is good. Stagnation isn’t. And right now, PGs feel way closer to the second than the first.
