Idea for spending sp after rank 10, without being overpowered

I disagree. Sorry, but the game isn't about upgrades. We, as regular players, are trying to unlock all the upgrades in order to get a few in game advantages. The whole game is about playing games and have fun, upgrades are just something "extra". Don't forget that the game is about strategy, not making more SP and getting more upgrades in order to have stronger units, strategies and other stuff.
Besides, there's a reason why all those suggested upgrades are not added into the game.
Perhaps there's a reason why THIS EXACT suggestion wasn't added into the game, don't you think?

The whole activating your upgrades whenever you want thing is just a lot of work for nothing. Doesn't really make the game better nor worse. The current system is okay, why? There are enough but not too many upgrades which you unlock by playing games and gaining experience (and SP), by playing a lot of games and becoming better and better, upgrades come with it as an "extra" as mentioned above.

Besides that, why not consider the upgrades as a gift for playing a lot of games? If you think about it, it's like removing all the features that premiums have because people who aren't premium don't have them. Just like people who have premium PAID for it, people who have all the upgrades gave SP which they made by playing games for them. It's the same thing. Honestly, I don't support this in so many ways. But, whatever.

Written by Nitmaros, 11.03.2014 at 15:19

...

I agree that the game should be about strategy, not SP and upgrades. I just don't enjoy winning a game cause I used my general or had a bunch of boosts that the other player didn't have. I like it when both have equal chances.

I also agree that a cards/activatable upgrades system might take too much time. Especially if you just want to play a game quickly with no fuss. If this ever is implemented, it should be done as an option. Or at least leaving a way to start a game up as quickly as under the current system.

We have a shitload of upgrades, actually.
We should only have upgrades that affect basic units, such as inf.
Right now it's kind of complicated. Newbs don't know what are the best upgrades because there are a lot of USELESS (or at least not needed) upgrades. I did the same when I first joined and trust me, playing without at least inf upgrades is hard as fuck.

PS; when creating a game, there's an option that disables upgrades. Why not use that instead?

The problem is that if many more upgrades were added and a customisable choice systerm were to be implamented, it would still give a considerable advantage to higher ranked players. You could pick all the upgrades that suit whatever strategy you play.

Say you were SM, you could pick upgrades like lucky bombers, general bomber attack, airtransport capacity, airtransport range, cheaper transportation, general bomber attack, etc, and still become op (assuming upgrades along these lines were implemented as the new ones)

Written by EndsOfInvention, 11.03.2014 at 17:24

The problem is that if many more upgrades were added and a customisable choice systerm were to be implamented, it would still give a considerable advantage to higher ranked players. You could pick all the upgrades that suit whatever strategy you play.

Say you were SM, you could pick upgrades like lucky bombers, general bomber attack, airtransport capacity, airtransport range, cheaper transportation, general bomber attack, etc, and still become op (assuming upgrades along these lines were implemented as the new ones)

Pretty much what I said, but if u rlly want a game that everyone has equal chance to winning then why not play a game with disabled upgrades? Just makes more sense.
Btw, my phone keeps on adding dots everywhere FFS.

Limiting number of Upgrades per game.-Meaning: Get all the upgrades that fit your style of playing but with limited number of upgrades.
Have many upgrades.- I'm tired of the same old upgrade i want unique upgrade.
Can get rare/special upgrades from earning through tournament or in a game.

Written by Nitmaros, 11.03.2014 at 17:24

there's an option that disables upgrades. Why not use that instead?

I try to do it. In my experience, most players don't like to though as they like playing with their upgrades :S
It also completely eliminates stealth and disables building of militia. So much less diversity.

I'm all for no-cap on upgrades, along the lines of a marginal improvement for a maximal investment. Enormous amounts of SP for a nominal improvement is exactly what military spending is all about!

While it would require a nontrivial dev investment, if one is looking for games where skill (vs. skill and upgrades) is the measure of capability, how about a per-game setting permitting an SP budget, where each player, before the start of the game, selects the upgrades they desire based on the host's preset SP limit. To preserve individual accomplishment, only upgrades previously earned are available for selection. Some players may select one or a few high-cost enhancements, some may choose a slew of low-cost upgrades, and some hosts may set large or small budgets.

Written by Nitmaros, 11.03.2014 at 17:24

We have a shitload of upgrades, actually.
We should only have upgrades that affect basic units, such as inf.
Right now it's kind of complicated. Newbs don't know what are the best upgrades because there are a lot of USELESS (or at least not needed) upgrades. I did the same when I first joined and trust me, playing without at least inf upgrades is hard as fuck.

PS; when creating a game, there's an option that disables upgrades. Why not use that instead?

Lies I have no more new upgrades poor me. I Demand more upgrades RAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRR.
Seriously this game is getting boring. No new upgrade updates. This is a multi-player game when the no new upgrades. FOr example: WOrld of tanks/airplane strong. other strategy game like greekopolis have lots of upgrades. C'mon we want more features.

Please have patience and wait the admins are currently having their plate full converting the game over to html5 for us. When this is done, I am sure they will try their best to implement new ideas

Nice censoring Cthulhu. Do you delete all posts that disagree with your opinion without even telling the author? Way to go mate, I sometimes disagree with other mods, but they have at least the courage to argue.

Written by Guest, 20.03.2014 at 01:55

Nice censoring Cthulhu. Do you delete all posts that disagree with your opinion without even telling the author? Way to go mate, I sometimes disagree with other mods, but they have at least the courage to argue.

The first part was kinda true until you started to insult. That is not arguing.

Yea deleting that post was a poor move by cthulhu

but i lol'd at sheeple, im sensing a farm animal theme/disposition in cow.

Oh poor cow.here

Written by zombieyeti, 13.03.2014 at 01:24

...how about a per-game setting permitting an SP budget, where each player, before the start of the game, selects the upgrades they desire based on the host's preset SP limit. To preserve individual accomplishment, only upgrades previously earned are available for selection. Some players may select one or a few high-cost enhancements, some may choose a slew of low-cost upgrades, and some hosts may set large or small budgets.

Yes! There have been similar suggestions before and I think it would be great to have something like this implemented so that balanced games are possible. It would be less difficult to implement than a card-based system (complete overhaul of the upgrade system). The most important element being that this remains a game option - so as not to replace the current way games are played.

Very in favor of it.

Expensive upgrades could be merging of 2 upgrades. I.E.: Air Transport Efficiency: +1 capacity (does not stack with other upgrades), -30 cost

Support.