On The Able Commander And This Weekend

There are enough numbers in place to judge if commanders are successful or not, even if they didn't implement any advanced monitoring. They can monitor sales numbers of every new commander on the armoury, and over time it'll draw the trends.

From there they can fairly reliably predict how large portion of the complete community buy commanders, which ones, what are the buying trends after a commander is released etc...

Just purely knowing the size of the community, the time of sale, the price, and the number of sold units for every commander are powerful tools already.

I'd love this just so that modders have a hover layer that they could use.

However, no non-cosmetic differences between coms, especially a purchasable one. Just as charity didn't make the progenitor vs able situation okay, it doesn't make P2W okay.

But that's still limited in regard to what one can infer, especially given that my concern is tied to the recommendation of doing something for the purpose of "taking a stance" that you can't actually track yet.

In the past someone likened this act to a Vote, but it's really not the same, in a Vote regardless of your opinion you're opinion is recorded, but that isn't the case here, its more so akin to a ballot with only one option, and those that don't agree don't vote, so sure, you know how popular your one option is but you can't compare that to how many people would have voted had there been more than one option.

I'm also a skeptic of how accurate one can infer things based solely on sales, especially when it's regarding something as subjective as a Cosmetic.

Yes they're powerful, but not all encompassing, what they have so far is only good to compare commanders to other commanders. Imagine if 50% of the community wasn't buying commanders because of the prices set so far, Uber would have absolutely no know of quantifying that as things are right now and that's why I take issue with being recommended to "vote with my wallet" when it won't affect Uber in any way because they won't even know if the community at large is acting upon that recommendation doing it.

Mike

What else would you compare it to? What else would you want to encompass?

There is no way to measure something that's not happening, and definitely no way to find out why it's not happening.

They can however experiment by changing pricing, doing sales and some other stuff to see how trends change.

I don't understand what you've said. But I try to say something intelligent nevertheless

Customers who want to buy a Commander will find a Commander priced in line with what they are willing to pay for. That's where segmentation of your product comes into play. And it allows you to read a lot between the lines of what has been sold, for what price threshold, and in what quantity.

Uber has already segmenting their offer. They got plenty of experience with the Early Access packages (offered on various marketplaces) and they are on a good way to do so with the Commanders that are purchasable in-game as well.

I believe they got plenty of data in that regard.

Still missing out on a lot thought. Think of it this way, lets say that so far 30% of people have made at least one purchase. Why haven't the other 70% made a purchase? How do you find that out based on the 30% that did make purchases?

Mike

I get it.

How would you?

I never insinuated that I did know, merely used it a s supporting point in regards to me taking issue with being told to buy buys things if I don't agree with them to possibly enact change despite there being zero chance for the recommended course of action to actually bring about change because Uber has no way of knowing about it.

Mike

I know some of you keep saying the charity thing isn't relevant, but it really is. Uber wanted to help out this charity but they're too busy to be able to justify making a whole new commander. They wouldn't have done it this way if they were just making a commander for profit. Doesn't it seem like someone that is willing to donate $10 to charity deserves to have recognition at least on the level of people that helped fund a video game? The outrage seems pretty selfish to me.

Come on, just because it was for charity didn't mean they HAD to pick the Progenitor, THAT is where the issue really lies, the Charity had nothing do do with it they could have selected from several other commanders bu they willingly choose the Progenitor.

Mike

That's it. There is no way to measure something not happening. That's the point. And you are only one individual, don't forget that. I wildly guess out of something of a 100.000 playerbase. You do vote with your wallet. But it only counts as 1 out of that 100.000. As it should.

Does it matter? Any one of them would have ended in the same outrage.

Edit: Edited last line as it sounded not very nice.

But the problem here is that the course of action was recommended by Uber, with the potential to bring about change, except they can't do that because they can't measure it.

Imagine if you had a sprained ankle and your doctor told you that if you rested it for a day he'd prescribe a magic pill to fix it, then the next day he claims he can't prescribe it because he wasn't present to verify that you rested it! Kinda frustrating especially given that the DOCTOR HIMSELF recommended it despite knowing that he wouldn't prescribe it unless he personally verified it to begin with.

Mike

The charity is completely irrelevant. Using it is several logical fallacies. Appeal to the emotion being an easy one. Furthermore, Uber does get a kickback in the form of a tax break, so there is financial motivation, making the charity even less relevant.

Uber had a bunch of models to use, but they chose the Progenitor which was supposed to be a "unique model."

Uber is simply not delivering on their Kickstarter promise.

We're more upset about the implications of Uber not delivering on the Kickstarter reward than some pixels.

We're happy to help charity, but we can help charity by reskinning a model that isn't supposed to be a unique model. Claiming we're selfish is insulting and completely not true. It's about the implications of Uber not following through on their Kickstarter promise. Not pixels. Not charity. It's about Uber adhering their word.

Still waiting on Uber to comment on the Kickstarter reward verbiage. The Kickstarter was very specific, and it is nor broken, and uber won't comment on it.

Lots of people are asking about it here on the forums, on other threads, and on reddit.

As a Kickstarter backer, I think I deserve to know why they aren't following through on the reward.

Let me iterate once again. I don't care about some pixels. I do care that Uber is not following through on the Kickstarter reward and doesn't seem care.

It's rather simple. The Kickstarter says "unique model" – it is no longer a unique model. That's a broken promise.

Guys.
Maybe there was a reason for choosing the progenitor.
Maybe they picked the progenitor for its name.
Think about it, the progenitors are the humans of the PA universe.

Able is also the only one that's sold for the sole reason of helping the charity.
The act of helping others in need, even though no true benefit will be provided, is very much a human nature.
Maybe it's an abstract way of showing that humanity, a way of showing that your action of donation is in and of itself a human act.

Maybe I'm looking too deep into it.
In fact, I most definitely am looking too deep into it but whatever. I already typed it out may as well post my psychotic rambling.

That reasoning doesn't change the fact that the Kickstarter rewards have been nullified.

All of those reasons are good, if the Kickstarter reward hadn't have said "unique model" or if they had used a different model, then everything would be fine and dandy.

Last I checked I still have the progenitor commander in my armory; and the able commander - while it does have remarkable resemblance to the progenitor - can be distinguished from the progenitor commander.

Nothing has been nullified.

How many changes should be done to the model to make you satisfied? I liked @stuart98 's suggestions given earlier.

...

Yes, there's nothing worse than people going for a cheap emotive angle...