Numbering upgrades

The setting of "no upgrades" is not that good.Make it like the alliance setting we have. this setting is like the old no alliance button.
How about we number the upgrades.
We can them limit the upgrades into the game setting.
we can order the upgrades.
For Example: If we limit the upgrade to 3. the first 3 upgrade you pick will be the first upgrade you have in the upgrades.
you can change the order of upgrades but not after the game start.
Fair equal game.
Because if we have no upgrade. the game suck because there no upgrade like give transport 15 capacity.

I've proposed a similar idea in the past:
- Host specifies a certain level of SP, and players have to choose which upgrades they'll bring to the game, based on the SP budget.
- Players can choose any upgrades under that budget, assuming they've already purchased them previously.

If the budget is only 39,000 SP, PD and Infantry won't be so OP, will they?

Scritto da zombieyeti, 26.03.2014 at 20:54

I've proposed a similar idea in the past:
- Host specifies a certain level of SP, and players have to choose which upgrades they'll bring to the game, based on the SP budget.
- Players can choose any upgrades under that budget, assuming they've already purchased them previously.

If the budget is only 39,000 SP, PD and Infantry won't be so OP, will they?

That will make upgrades even more useless. It like for Example: China, the old one_ Communism type Economy,. So you work harder to make money,and your other co-worker don't even try hard to earn the money and what if he don't even work. Hell, you guys make the same amount of money that shit unfair. OR Obama believing the higher or wealthier-richer people should pay more taxes than poor people. SO you end up with the same amount of money. Then you stop trying to earn money, Everyody stop trying to make money, then the Company shut down because they are bankrupt. Aftermath: I wasted my time and sweat doing my job and the lazy bastard gets the same amount of money as I do. I want a raise! You realized your time wasn't worth it, you realize why this game has no more things to accomplish something so you play less and boom you forgot this game. What was the game called again? oh wait, Nvm There no new cool updates. Im gone.
Pros: YAy, we low rank have an equal advantage to these high rank.
CONs: we high rank wasted our time an effort in this game, BUt we are rewarded with a great game experience <3.

Conclusion: This make low rank happier but high rank will be bored. ONCE YOU REACH rank 10 and a half or rank 11 you realized : Congragulation you just won the game > Bye , bye


(This is before China change their economic earnings.) about the businesses.

My opinion: I don't care but if you like the idea, This might be good but, Limiting by Sp makes the game boring. And upgrade is useless than. The only way to play YOur setting is too ally fags. One I don't hate your idea If it brings in more players I will support. we need more players.

Scritto da Htin, 27.03.2014 at 15:55

Scritto da zombieyeti, 26.03.2014 at 20:54

I've proposed a similar idea in the past:
- Host specifies a certain level of SP, and players have to choose which upgrades they'll bring to the game, based on the SP budget.
- Players can choose any upgrades under that budget, assuming they've already purchased them previously.

If the budget is only 39,000 SP, PD and Infantry won't be so OP, will they?

That will make upgrades even more useless. It like for Example: China, the old one_ Communism type Economy,. So you work harder to make money,and your other co-worker don't even try hard to earn the money and what if he don't even work. Hell, you guys make the same amount of money that shit unfair. OR Obama believing the higher or wealthier-richer people should pay more taxes than poor people. SO you end up with the same amount of money. Then you stop trying to earn money, Everyody stop trying to make money, then the Company shut down because they are bankrupt. Aftermath: I wasted my time and sweat doing my job and the lazy bastard gets the same amount of money as I do. I want a raise! You realized your time wasn't worth it, you realize why this game has no more things to accomplish something so you play less and boom you forgot this game. What was the game called again? oh wait, Nvm There no new cool updates. Im gone.
Pros: YAy, we low rank have an equal advantage to these high rank.
CONs: we high rank wasted our time an effort in this game, BUt we are rewarded with a great game experience <3.

Conclusion: This make low rank happier but high rank will be bored. ONCE YOU REACH rank 10 and a half or rank 11 you realized : Congragulation you just won the game > Bye , bye


(This is before China change their economic earnings.) about the businesses.

My opinion: I don't care but if you like the idea, This might be good but, Limiting by Sp makes the game boring. And upgrade is useless than. The only way to play YOur setting is too ally fags. One I don't hate your idea If it brings in more players I will support. we need more players.

Other than the fact that my proposal limits upgrades usable in a particular game to rational choices, and your proposal makes people beholden to the past decisions they made, having no idea that their upgrade order *might matter in the future*, tell me, what is the difference between your proposal and mine, besides that yours punishes long-term players and mine promotes choice and opportunity.

The above is the question, which I don't expect you to answer.

Here's my reply:
Regarding your statement, correlating my proposal to 'communism' - that's preposterous.
- Everyone starts out a pub standard game with the same budget (3k-50k). Communism? Do you think we should get rid of the starting cash? Maybe we should carry it from game to game?

- Everyone starts out a pub standard game with the 1/n chance of picking a country. Communism? Maybe the person who plays the most games should pick first. Or the person with the most SP should pick first. Or what did you have in mind? Random assignments? That's COMMUNISM. AW picks? Communism. Maybe we should all vote on who gets what? Communism.

- Everyone starts out AW with same strategies available. Communism? etc. etc.

Since you didn't read my proposal, clearly, let me repeat: YOU CANNOT SELECT AN UPGRADE YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY EARNED.
===
Tax Policy? Of course wealthier people should pay more in absolute tax than poor people. That's why its called 'income tax'.
If you have more *income* you pay more *tax*.
There has never been a democracy with a mixed economy with an income tax where everybody pays the same amount at all times (poll tax/head tax).

That's ridiculous. A kid working at McDonalds who looks at his paystub has a PhD in tax law, compared to you.
===
Ally-fagging?
I have no idea how limiting upgrades in-game (you and I propose the same thin) in your scheme makes allying any more or less likely. I have no idea why because you are just making stuff up.

Scritto da zombieyeti, 27.03.2014 at 16:40

Scritto da Htin, 27.03.2014 at 15:55

Scritto da zombieyeti, 26.03.2014 at 20:54

I've proposed a similar idea in the past:
- Host specifies a certain level of SP, and players have to choose which upgrades they'll bring to the game, based on the SP budget.
- Players can choose any upgrades under that budget, assuming they've already purchased them previously.

If the budget is only 39,000 SP, PD and Infantry won't be so OP, will they?

That will make upgrades even more useless. It like for Example: China, the old one_ Communism type Economy,. So you work harder to make money,and your other co-worker don't even try hard to earn the money and what if he don't even work. Hell, you guys make the same amount of money that shit unfair. OR Obama believing the higher or wealthier-richer people should pay more taxes than poor people. SO you end up with the same amount of money. Then you stop trying to earn money, Everyody stop trying to make money, then the Company shut down because they are bankrupt. Aftermath: I wasted my time and sweat doing my job and the lazy bastard gets the same amount of money as I do. I want a raise! You realized your time wasn't worth it, you realize why this game has no more things to accomplish something so you play less and boom you forgot this game. What was the game called again? oh wait, Nvm There no new cool updates. Im gone.
Pros: YAy, we low rank have an equal advantage to these high rank.
CONs: we high rank wasted our time an effort in this game, BUt we are rewarded with a great game experience <3.

Conclusion: This make low rank happier but high rank will be bored. ONCE YOU REACH rank 10 and a half or rank 11 you realized : Congragulation you just won the game > Bye , bye


(This is before China change their economic earnings.) about the businesses.

My opinion: I don't care but if you like the idea, This might be good but, Limiting by Sp makes the game boring. And upgrade is useless than. The only way to play YOur setting is too ally fags. One I don't hate your idea If it brings in more players I will support. we need more players.

Other than the fact that my proposal limits upgrades usable in a particular game to rational choices, and your proposal makes people beholden to the past decisions they made, having no idea that their upgrade order *might matter in the future*, tell me, what is the difference between your proposal and mine, besides that yours punishes long-term players and mine promotes choice and opportunity.

The above is the question, which I don't expect you to answer.

Here's my reply:
Regarding your statement, correlating my proposal to 'communism' - that's preposterous.
- Everyone starts out a pub standard game with the same budget (3k-50k). Communism? Do you think we should get rid of the starting cash? Maybe we should carry it from game to game?

- Everyone starts out a pub standard game with the 1/n chance of picking a country. Communism? Maybe the person who plays the most games should pick first. Or the person with the most SP should pick first. Or what did you have in mind? Random assignments? That's COMMUNISM. AW picks? Communism. Maybe we should all vote on who gets what? Communism.

- Everyone starts out AW with same strategies available. Communism? etc. etc.

Since you didn't read my proposal, clearly, let me repeat: YOU CANNOT SELECT AN UPGRADE YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY EARNED.
===
Tax Policy? Of course wealthier people should pay more in absolute tax than poor people. That's why its called 'income tax'.
If you have more *income* you pay more *tax*.
There has never been a democracy with a mixed economy with an income tax where everybody pays the same amount at all times (poll tax/head tax).

That's ridiculous. A kid working at McDonalds who looks at his paystub has a PhD in tax law, compared to you.
===
Ally-fagging?
I have no idea how limiting upgrades in-game (you and I propose the same thin) in your scheme makes allying any more or less likely. I have no idea why because you are just making stuff up.

Since you didn't read my proposal, clearly, let me repeat: YOU CANNOT SELECT AN UPGRADE YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY EARNED.
Where is that? and why would a person with a PHd work in mcdonald.

Scritto da Htin, 27.03.2014 at 16:56

Scritto da zombieyeti, 27.03.2014 at 16:40

Scritto da Htin, 27.03.2014 at 15:55

Scritto da zombieyeti, 26.03.2014 at 20:54

I've proposed a similar idea in the past:
- Host specifies a certain level of SP, and players have to choose which upgrades they'll bring to the game, based on the SP budget.
- Players can choose any upgrades under that budget, assuming they've already purchased them previously.

If the budget is only 39,000 SP, PD and Infantry won't be so OP, will they?

That will make upgrades even more useless. It like for Example: China, the old one_ Communism type Economy,. So you work harder to make money,and your other co-worker don't even try hard to earn the money and what if he don't even work. Hell, you guys make the same amount of money that shit unfair. OR Obama believing the higher or wealthier-richer people should pay more taxes than poor people. SO you end up with the same amount of money. Then you stop trying to earn money, Everyody stop trying to make money, then the Company shut down because they are bankrupt. Aftermath: I wasted my time and sweat doing my job and the lazy bastard gets the same amount of money as I do. I want a raise! You realized your time wasn't worth it, you realize why this game has no more things to accomplish something so you play less and boom you forgot this game. What was the game called again? oh wait, Nvm There no new cool updates. Im gone.
Pros: YAy, we low rank have an equal advantage to these high rank.
CONs: we high rank wasted our time an effort in this game, BUt we are rewarded with a great game experience <3.

Conclusion: This make low rank happier but high rank will be bored. ONCE YOU REACH rank 10 and a half or rank 11 you realized : Congragulation you just won the game > Bye , bye


(This is before China change their economic earnings.) about the businesses.

My opinion: I don't care but if you like the idea, This might be good but, Limiting by Sp makes the game boring. And upgrade is useless than. The only way to play YOur setting is too ally fags. One I don't hate your idea If it brings in more players I will support. we need more players.

Other than the fact that my proposal limits upgrades usable in a particular game to rational choices, and your proposal makes people beholden to the past decisions they made, having no idea that their upgrade order *might matter in the future*, tell me, what is the difference between your proposal and mine, besides that yours punishes long-term players and mine promotes choice and opportunity.

The above is the question, which I don't expect you to answer.

Here's my reply:
Regarding your statement, correlating my proposal to 'communism' - that's preposterous.
- Everyone starts out a pub standard game with the same budget (3k-50k). Communism? Do you think we should get rid of the starting cash? Maybe we should carry it from game to game?

- Everyone starts out a pub standard game with the 1/n chance of picking a country. Communism? Maybe the person who plays the most games should pick first. Or the person with the most SP should pick first. Or what did you have in mind? Random assignments? That's COMMUNISM. AW picks? Communism. Maybe we should all vote on who gets what? Communism.

- Everyone starts out AW with same strategies available. Communism? etc. etc.

Since you didn't read my proposal, clearly, let me repeat: YOU CANNOT SELECT AN UPGRADE YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY EARNED.
===
Tax Policy? Of course wealthier people should pay more in absolute tax than poor people. That's why its called 'income tax'.
If you have more *income* you pay more *tax*.
There has never been a democracy with a mixed economy with an income tax where everybody pays the same amount at all times (poll tax/head tax).

That's ridiculous. A kid working at McDonalds who looks at his paystub has a PhD in tax law, compared to you.
===
Ally-fagging?
I have no idea how limiting upgrades in-game (you and I propose the same thin) in your scheme makes allying any more or less likely. I have no idea why because you are just making stuff up.

Since you didn't read my proposal, clearly, let me repeat: YOU CANNOT SELECT AN UPGRADE YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY EARNED.
Where is that? and why would a person with a PHd work in mcdonald.

Of course you didn't reply to my question. But that's OK.
Here's the part of my proposal you chose to conveniently ignore whilst you rant about 'communism', emphasis added.
- Players can choose any upgrades under that budget, assuming they've already purchased them previously.

I didn't say that people with PhDs worked or didn't work at McDonalds (some do, probably not as crew people).
What I did imply is that the most inexperienced worker has a clearer concept of tax policy and law in comparison to you.

I've heard nothing (not that I expect to) how your schemes on upgrades are any less 'communist' or any less likely to provoke rampant allying.

Http://prntscr.com/35ndy4