Pay to Win?

as I wrote below the last part, they would make it so the laser wouldn't take more units out than the impact one, for an example the impact one might have aoe, it won't give them an advantage, and if the thing Ferd likes is lasors why shouldn't he have it when it's going to be made in a way so he doesn't have advantages?

Sure, but he wrote such an immense wall of text just to answer me, courtesy asks me to answer it. (This is said without any sarcastic intent, it can be quite hard to tell on this format.)

(Also, this is quite condescending to throw a /thread while people are still arguing, implying that their arguments are so obviously irrelevant that you shouldn't even make the effort to point it out.
If you want to end such a thread, say something like "Let's agree to disagree", that people are repeating the same arguments over and over... You know, the "mature" stuff which seems so precious to chronoblip.
Bah, not really important anyway.)

The problem is, chronoblip, that you begin with defamatory ad hominem attacks. And that's not cool. (And it won't convince anyone.)
People asking for cosmetic only are not rude, childish hypocrites. Telling why they have this opinion is not a deep insult, nor a miniature class-warfare.
Many of them (myself included) actually pledged enough to have access to the progenitor and alpha Commanders, so you can't either accuse them to be simply jealous.
I can't tell for everyone, but I wouldn't rescind my pledge over that, and I don't think most people would do it or menace to do it.
Those people, like you, want this game to be the best. That they disagree with you and explain why don't make dirty dishonest communists.

And you didn't deny that some people do argue against in-game changes.


Then, you ignore that many people repeated that it is actually not a problem of balance. Stop ignoring that. We know that they will probably end up being balanced. We know that Uber know their job.
You do point out something interesting, that there may be other Commanders for everyone, which would mitigate the problem. Though you use for that an image that was not known for much of this discussion. And you declare that they "knew" it, while it wasn't confirmed anywhere AFAIK. Even this image could be about several sketches for the main, alpha or progenitor Commander, about several skins for the main Commander, about a custom Commander... And it would mitigate the problem, not make it disappear.

You then say that balancing the Commanders would require less work than other units, which would mitigate #4. I seriously doubt it, but even if it was true, it would again mitigate, not solve the problem, as some work would still be necessary.

You then declare that people in #2 are "the ones already most closely aligned with the information that Uber has shared outright". I respectfully disagree, though, as the discussion is about the best course of option and not what Uber already decided by themselves. And Uber declared that they actually want to listen to the feedback of the community. So telling them that we think that something would be better some other way is actually what we should do. They are free to follow said feedback or not, then.
You points out yourself that they didn't make any definitive statement. That's precisely a reason to give our opinion about it, then. Trying to find out what would be the best is precisely what we should do.

But I think that we agree that some people do argue for in-game changes


Then, you try to defend that the game will actually be better with in-game changes. You're the first one I see, though. So this fact, which was true when I pointed it out, before your post, is now :
Only one person argued that in-game differences would make the gameplay better, after it was pointed out that no-one argued for it.

And your point is, if I understand correctly, that people will be able to choose a Commander more fit to their personality/game style.
But that's not an argument about exclusive in-game varied Commanders. That's an argument about varied Commanders for everyone. Same work, less complain, better average experience (as more people can profit from it).
And you said before that you believed there will be multiple Commanders for everyone, so the point is moot.

The second part I can see is, people want to see (and show) that they gave more for the game. Which is quite understandable. I sure want to. And I want to see custom commanders and think "Wow, that's badass, they gave that much!". But cosmetic only do the job fine, as skin is the most visible thing anyway.
You even point out yourself that the goal is not to give an advantage or anything like that, only to show it to people.

Then you say that Uber already budgeted the effort for it. But they probably didn't even begin serious balancing of units, so it would be easy to move this budget to something else. Like, for example, multiple Commanders for everyone. Or more balanced Commanders overall. Or more units.
And Uber don't even know how much budget they will end up with yet.
Also, you call people out for "betraying a deep ignorance about the reality of game development and budgeting". It implies that you know yourself well those realities, and Uber's detailed budgetary plans ; I would like to know those very much myself.

Oh, and again, the goal is not to criticize Uber. How did you get this idea anyway? It is about giving feedback to Uber about a feature they think about implementing. I don't see what "crocodile tears" have to do with anything, too.


So I don't see the point with this budget thing, as said budget can be moved. Cutting off such feature would free budget for something else, that's as simple as that.

And I don't see the relevance of this story. Don't get me wrong, I respect what happened to you. I was luckier than most as in my country, the studies I wanted to do are actually quite cheap even for good colleges. I'm very conscious of it, and that most people aren't that lucky. Honestly, I even think that it was unfair, I'm generally luckier than everyone but many people would deserve that far more than me.
Still, I don't see the point here. Uber aren't our parents. They are a game company who is trying to do the best possible game with their means ; we want to play this game and for it to be the best possible. They openly listen to our feedback, we want to give it.
The problem here is about a feature being done one way or another, not about a travel who may or may not endanger our later happiness.

Then you say that anyone who didn't pledge 10k or work for Uber has no right to tell them anything. Uber themselves say the opposite by asking for feedback and listening to it. If it was the case, this entire forum would have no reason to exist anyway.
Particularly as we all have the same goal than Uber : for the game to be the best possible.

And them you call me (us?) out to be mature. I try to be mature in my posts, thank you very much. I try to not be rude, to not hurt the sensibilities of people, to not be overly emotional (that's sometimes a bit hard)...
So if you want to tell me to be more mature, please begin by showing the example and not insult people. I'll take your demand more seriously then.
(Again, this is not sarcastic. And if I was immature or rude somewhere, feel free to point it out, so I can do better the next time.)


Your closing statement is basically summarising your earlier ad hominems, so I won't comment more on that.
I'll point out, though, that your last sentence is a little bit surprising from someone who refuse to get that it's not about balance we are actually complaining.


And right after all those call for the "cosmetic-only" to stop being immature, and become mature like the "in-game", we have a condescending post who is hilariously missing the point about this not being about balance. This is a little bit sad.


Closing statement :

So none of those four facts were disputed there. At the moment I wrote them, after twenty pages on the subject, we can confirm that:

Edit : added the [yet]

well I and other have already argued that it would make the gameplay better, whether you like the arguments or not it's still arguments, and taking it to a legde I have seen no actual argument so far that it in any possible way would make gameplay worse.

Oh? Sorry I missed them. Would you mind pointing the posts out, and/or summary them, please?

an argument I made.

also arguments for.

whether you like the argument or not.

also, everyone, if your not close sighted, that argues for letting uber make in game changes.... well, they're arguing for it.

the people in this thread who disagree are mostly arguing for ingame changes.

(Sometimes I hate being proven right.) Stop aggravating it, please.
Wait, unless the intent was heavily sarcastic from the beginning? My sarcasm detector definitely needs an overhaul.

Anyway,

Nope. They are arguing against cosmetic only, bur practically no-one is actually arguing for in-game changes.

And if you're referring to your picture for that, then first, it was after I gave those facts. So there are indeed no posts about in-game changes giving better gameplay before that?

Then, about the picture itself. It's condescending (and this is a bad thing).
It's flatly stating that it would be ok without giving any reasons, it's missing that lasers and guns are actually different weapons (guns are discrete, ballistic projectiles with finite speed, lasers are continuous, rectilinear beams with infinite speed, for example). High alpha damage means that you can take big units out before they can damage you. High RoF means that you can take out multiple light units. But that's beside the point (and, again, it was pointed out several times in this very thread).
The point is that it doesn't explain why having custom commanders reserved to a small group of early players makes the game actually better.
It is arguing that it wouldn't make it worse. Which is completely different.
You could fully model comet trails to have clouds of individual particles and show swarms of shooting stars when a planet with atmosphere is crossing it. It would be beautiful. It wouldn't make the game worse. But it would also be a bad idea, because it wouldn't make the game better, and ask for a lot of time and effort.
So you can't just argue that it wouldn't make the game worse. You have to show how it would make the game better. And you would have to show how this would make the game better than giving multiple commanders to everyone (in addition to cosmetic-only variations for the backers), as it would ask roughly for the same efforts.
And I wish you good luck with that.

Just wait till we announce the 10k backer commander! (What do you think the metal "planets" are...)

I kid.

Really, you're just going to have to trust us on this one that we'll ensure that owning a Progenitor, Alpha or custom commander doesn't give one an additional advantage over someone who does not.

can we trust you to put in a tutorial before the game goes downhill instead of skins

Personally, I don't see any reason not to believe that the PA development team will properly balance any alternate commander configurations and hope that the words of a vocal few won't dissuade them from their course.

May I suggest just selling the alternate commander as DLC (with a different color scheme) after some time for those who are concerned about not having the commander configuration they want? That would be a win-win for everyone.

If I've paid for an alpha commander, I should beat anyone who doesn't have one. /trolling.

Anyone who truly believes that 5000+ alpha testers and 13000+ beta testers will allow Uber to implement anything remotely resembling pay to win model should get their head checked.

End this whine thread and start it again when we hit alpha stage if necessary.

Indeed the title of this thread is incredibly inappropriate; however if you read the contents there are very few concerns about balance or Uber's ability to balance special abilities.

dead, only the cretins are claiming this model is pay to win. the "extra" awards of which you speak are part and parcel of the kickstarter economic model. i am not opposed to cosmetic-only bonuses, but if uber want to make unique commanders then i have no problem with that either.

brilliant.

I haven't read every post, but I did read quite a lot in this thread and I want to put in my opinion to the mix (hoping it might sway Uber)


Make different commanders cosmetic only, or have the special abilities available to everyone (even if they can't change their skin, let them use different loadouts)


If each of the custom commanders (44 at time of this post) and the alphas, and the beta, commanders are all unique in their stats or abilities in any way whatsoever. those players have an advantage, period.


no matter how balanced it will be, if player A has the option of using the standard ACU, the progenitor, the alpha, and your custom commander, gives you more verstatility than player B who's only option is the standard ACU.

I see no logicial argument that can argue that player B has an advantage over A.

I can see a lot of reasons why player A, however, would have an advantage over player B, no matter how well the ACU's are all balanced

okay so a lot of people seem to have some serious trouble getting this into their heads.

if it's balanced, none of two has an advantage over one another that's the whole point here.

the one with the 1000$ commander wont have any advantage, the one without it wont have any disadvantage, uber will make sure that is how it will be. the 1000$ commander will be much more awesome in every aspect but he wont have an advantage.

I think at this point you have to define balanced. By my definition you are wrong and I think it is the normal definition. "Balanced" isn't a blanket fix for all unfairness.

This worries me a bit. As in I can see that you don't want to say anything because that would annoy people now and annoy people later if the final implementation is different. I even read the disclaimer. Just the fact this is still debated and seemingly unsettled worrying.

Personally I want to be able to use my special commanders but don't want to feel that it is unfair.