ios-personmd-notifications md-help-circle

Profile

  • Guest
    medal 0
  • Posts: 21
  • Post Likes: 3765

Notifications

  • No Unread Notifications

Suggested
Engine Manufacturer

Should it be possible to stop producing an own engine?

76.92% (40)
Yes
23.08% (12)
No
angle-double-left ios-arrow-back 1 ios-arrow-forward angle-double-right
medal 5144
51 days ago Translate
I would like to stop engine manufacturing and look for a high level producer of engines. When starting developing my engine I had no reason to expect the upcoming existence of level 40 managers. So I wish I now had the possibility to stop producing my engine and look for a better one.
md-quotelink
medal 5242
50 days ago Translate

Hein
I would like to stop engine manufacturing and look for a high level producer of engines. When starting developing my engine I had no reason to expect the upcoming existence of level 40 managers. So I wish I now had the possibility to stop producing my engine and look for a better one.



It really sucks that there are 10 more levels now. I was level 25. I had only 5 more levels to go ti have a maxed out engine and finally start getting customers. Now I have 15 more levels to do, I will never be able to get a profit from my engine 
md-quotelink
medal 5078
50 days ago
Yes please let us do this or at least be able to stop using our engines yet still have to produce them for our customers if we have them
md-quotelink
medal 5078
40 days ago
Pls someone look at this
md-quotelink
medal 5076
36 days ago
This suggestion - like the point about 5% still being way too high for driver atrophy - seem like quick fixes both with the overwhelming support of players of the game. I hope that something can be done about it soon.
md-quotelink
medal 5076
33 days ago
I'm just trying to get this back to the top of suggestions threat, because I think it is a really good idea and I'd like to see it implemented. It seems based on the poll that the majority are in favour too.
md-quotelink
medal 5144
23 days ago
Personally, I think there should also be the option to remove search engine points, not necessarily to return them. For example, if I want to lower the weakness, I can remove points, which also reduces the strength.
md-quotelink
medal 5076
22 days ago
I wouldn't mind that tbf, but I'd also like the idea of just stopping manufacturing one's own engine - without any sort of refund for the 100 million it costs and, if you wish to start again, it is for 100 million and from scratch with no engine points on any race
md-quotelink
medal 5063
22 days ago
I had posted a suggestion similar to this last week. My suggestion though was to decouple the max engine pts from your level, similar to how drivers and staff have been decoupled from it. 

This way even a level  29 manager can still have level 40 engines once they are brought to that level. 
md-quotelink
medal 5104
21 days ago

Vincent
I had posted a suggestion similar to this last week. My suggestion though was to decouple the max engine pts from your level, similar to how drivers and staff have been decoupled from it. 

This way even a level  29 manager can still have level 40 engines once they are brought to that level. 



Good idea, since you cant get motor points for free, it costs a bunch of money or you need lots of patience to max out your engine. 


Maybe Jack could add motor points to the daily donuts. 
md-quotelink
medal 5242
21 days ago Translate

Vincent
I had posted a suggestion similar to this last week. My suggestion though was to decouple the max engine pts from your level, similar to how drivers and staff have been decoupled from it. 

This way even a level  29 manager can still have level 40 engines once they are brought to that level. 



This would be a welcome change. Level 40 engines are way too strong. People who rely on other people’s engines have a huge advantage over people who are still upgrading their own engine as it takes an insane amount of time to reach level 40. I’m doing daily races for over a year now and I’m still level 28.
md-quotelink
medal 5063
10 days ago
Thoughts?
md-quotelink
medal 5076
18 hours ago

Vincent
Thoughts?



My thought is that it would be nice to be able to stop manufacturing an engine and return to stock engines or get a customer supply from elsewhere
md-quotelink
medal 5156
18 hours ago
How about the customers of that engine?
md-quotelink
medal 5078
17 hours ago

Slo
How about the customers of that engine?



What about you still have to manufacture your engine for your customers?
md-quotelink
medal 5104
17 hours ago (Last edited by Stefen Edberg 16 hours ago)
Wow, it sounds like some players are craving an easy ride! 
If they want everything handed to them on a silver platter, they might as well cozy up in a bowl of jelly! Where’s the fun in that? 
It's like saying, "How old are you? Eight?" 
Overcoming challenges is what makes the game interesting, right?

This is not about engines. It is about:

  • Control vs. Commitment

  • Adaptability vs. Identity

  • Efficiency vs. Legacy


Both groups want fairness. They just define fairness differently.

Strategic Question for Developers
Should iGP Manager reward:
Early adopters?
Long-term planners?
Or high-level tactical optimizers?
The answer determines the economic model, retention curve, and competitive depth.
THE END.
md-quotelink
medal 5156
15 hours ago
Stefen
Wow, it sounds like some players are craving an easy ride! 
If they want everything handed to them on a silver platter, they might as well cozy up in a bowl of jelly! Where’s the fun in that? 
It's like saying, "How old are you? Eight?" 
Overcoming challenges is what makes the game interesting, right?

This is not about engines. It is about:

  • Control vs. Commitment

  • Adaptability vs. Identity

  • Efficiency vs. Legacy


Both groups want fairness. They just define fairness differently.

Strategic Question for Developers
Should iGP Manager reward:
Early adopters?
Long-term planners?
Or high-level tactical optimizers?
The answer determines the economic model, retention curve, and competitive depth.
THE END.


Yes and no. Yes, game should be long-term gain instead of easy grab. On the other hand, the tooltip info alone doesn’t give the full picture of how long it takes to upgrade an engine. So I can see scenario’s where people want to try it, not realising there’s absolutely no way out.

The choice should be clearer, it’s a big commitment in the game with big consequences, the development path for an engine should be crystal clear 
md-quotelink
medal 5242
15 hours ago Translate

Stefen
Wow, it sounds like some players are craving an easy ride! 
If they want everything handed to them on a silver platter, they might as well cozy up in a bowl of jelly! Where’s the fun in that? 
It's like saying, "How old are you? Eight?" 
Overcoming challenges is what makes the game interesting, right?

This is not about engines. It is about:

  • Control vs. Commitment

  • Adaptability vs. Identity

  • Efficiency vs. Legacy


Both groups want fairness. They just define fairness differently.

Strategic Question for Developers
Should iGP Manager reward:
Early adopters?
Long-term planners?
Or high-level tactical optimizers?
The answer determines the economic model, retention curve, and competitive depth.
THE END.



No one wants it to be easy but you can’t deny it’s just nonsense to have people grinding 3 years just to be able to get to level 40 and then have their engine maxed out. It would mean you have to wait 3+ years to be able to be competitive. It’s just too much.


I think removing the level cap is a fair trade to balance this feature. In exchange there might be people willing to spend money to max out their engine and immediately be competitive with their own engine.
md-quotelink
medal 5104
14 hours ago
Solution 1: Decouple & Balance
Remove the manager level cap so engines can reach level 40 regardless of your level. You'd still have to grind or pay, but there's actually a finish line. This rewards long-term investment without forcing players to be uncompetitive for 3+ years.
Solution 2: Controlled Exit
Let players shut down their own engine manufacturing and buy from someone else. No refund on the $100M investment, and you'd still have to supply any existing customers (so you don't wreck the market). Alternatively, allow a costly "respec" to fix bad builds without fully abandoning the engine.
Both try to balance fairness with keeping the strategic weight of the decision intact. 
Solution 1 fixes the broken architecture of the game.
Solution 2 provides an escape valve for past decisions (whether due to player error or changes to the game rules, such as the level cap increase).
Thoughts?

md-quotelink
angle-double-left ios-arrow-back 1 ios-arrow-forward angle-double-right

You must be logged in to post a reply.