Approved

Let's Talk TDS.

Now that things are relatively quieter, I think it's time to visit the Technical Director ability topic.

TD abilities, specifically design abilities were advertised and released for a set value (3dp) at 200 tokens for legendary.

With the update, this is no longer so. I think it's only fair the dps gained should be buffed to reflect the original amounts we were supposed to get when they were bought. They cost an arm and a leg 😂.

I mean we/i could justify 1000 tokens for 15dps but it seems unreasonable for half or less.

Without going into much details, yes it awards 3 dp, but the attribute value isn't worth 3 dp. It's two thirds that...

It would be nice if it showed how many DTs each account has (on the manager's profile). At least to make the game fairer for everyone.

.......

One of the things I appreciate most about iGP is its transparency in gameplay—something that isn't common in other games. You can see your rivals' tools, drivers, staff, playstyle, and more. However, everything changed with the introduction of the 5 DTs. Now, you can't tell from your rivals' profiles whether they have 2 or 5 DTs, which makes it feel more like a pay-to-win feature.
I would like to see more transparency in this aspect—specifically, for the manager's profile to display how many DTs they have.
I understand that everyone has their own opinion, and I respect that, but personally, this situation bothers me a little.
Best regards.

Well, you could also say secrecy is a part of the game. Can’t see someone else’s design points left, custom engine can be hidden, multiple cd’s can be hidden, hq is not accessible for competitors, push level use is hidden, …

You’re absolutely right—secrecy is part of iGP’s design, and elements like hidden engine specs or HQ details add strategic depth. However, the difference with DTs is that they’re tied to real-world spending, which shifts the game’s balance toward pay-to-win rather than skill or strategy. Transparency here wouldn’t remove secrecy entirely—it would just ensure fairness in an area where money directly impacts competition. After all, even in games with hidden mechanics, most players agree that paid advantages should be visible to maintain integrity. 

It’s not the same as hidden design points or push level usage, as those depend on the player's strategy. Knowing how many DTs each manager has would make the game more transparent and allow everyone to compete on equal terms.

I understand that everyone has their own opinion, but I don't share it. I'm more of a fan of fair play between managers.

Let me summarise: you want to be able to see if and preferably how much money a manager has spent on igp?

I think it is the right step to increase the amount of DP the TDs give, but then I would say make it about the same as before. So either I would suggest to make the steps common +1, rare +1 or +2 and legendary +2 that way it is close to the 15 dp it gave before. If you let rare be +1 it would be slightly less than what it was before and if you make it +2 its slightly better.
(that was supposed to be a reply to José idk how replies works) 

i think a fair system for design tds that keeps their power about the same as before the update would be: 
2/3/4 for common/rare/legendary.
starting with 2 for common because the upgrade from a no ability td to a common ability td costs 100 tokens and each further upgrade costs 50 tokens and gives 1 extra dp.
so it would be 1 extra dp for each 50 tokens spent.
2/4/6 would be a pretty big buff compared to before the update.

I may be wrong but I suspect, if a race is lost, he wants to know if he lost to a paying player or not, can’t see any other reason for it.


If that’s the case, showing expenditure on the game doesn’t make it any fairer, doesn’t level the playing field, may even be in breach of gdpr, idk

Heck, showing number of Td’s doesn’t even confirm a paying player, and thinking about it, paying players keep the studio running / keep the game alive for non spending players 

it also helps people like us see if they’re cheating, or they did pay for extra development

Maybe look at it the other way: they make it possible for you to play the game. No paying players = no income = no studio = no game.