Pay to Win?

Revoke your pledge if you don't trust Uber to do the right thing.

It's that simple people, the devs have been in here numerous times to assuage your fears, if they haven't done a good enough job yet then I suggest you leave.

Kickstarter is essentially a gamble, and you should only gamble what you can afford, and are willing to lose.
If you're not able to accept the risk this might not be the perfect game for you in every detail just wait it out til release and make your decision to buy or not then.

I have every confidence in Uber to make a game I will enjoy, if they don't I'll have done my $150, but as long as it's from no lack of trying on their part it'll merely be another of life's disappointments.

I prefer the term "investment". Though there is little difference in the end result I think "gamble" sounds a tad negative. Like Uber might end up sending an action adventure book instead "If you invade the lave planet, turn to page 76"....


...God I miss Deathtrap Dungeon.

A bit extreme? Sure, life is 100% black or 100% white. God forbid we have discussion, make suggestions or put forth our opinions.

Semantics. Stock exchanges are the biggest casinos out there with the possible exception of the bond market but I'm no economist.

The dev's line has consistently been there will be differences but they won't be OP.
They're also well aware of a vocal minority who still aren't happy with taht

So there's really nothing more to discuss, put your money in to the project, or don't.
You have the info. to make an informed choice so make it and shut up.

Edit: Majority -> Minority, way to undermine my own argument.

Fixed that. Of the almost 30k backers, there have been like 5 protesting so far...

Agreed. I'm looking forward to the unique commander personally, and it's the only reason I donated as much as I did. I like being able to show off having assisted in the development of the game.

I can understand where people are coming from. With that being said I think it's a lot of fuzz for nothing. The dev's themselves have already stated they won't be OP which frankly seems all the evidence you need.

With that being said I wouldn't mind if my Alpha commander would be merely cosmetical.
Granted a few small differences between the commanders would IMO be a cool thing to have and as long as it's balanced I have no problem with it.
Of course the differences should be minimal.

Regarding "pay 2 win", this has always sort of been the case in pc gaming. Getting better FPS, having eyefinity getting you bigger FOV or playing with a joystick so you can fly better has always been a cornerstone in pc gaming. All aforementioned give you a benefit and are things you can easily compensate against by being more skilled.

While I'm picking a cheesy example here. The point being that it's a lot of fuzz for nothing. I'm sure if any groundbreaking imbalances are found they will without a doubt be dealt with.
I wouldn't be worried until they start handing out 20% dmg increase booster packs.

Now can we start discussing the unfair balance of procedural generated battlegrounds? :lol:

Because extrapolating that to mean 5 out of 30000 makes sense.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong - were I to take a guess, I'd say wrong though - but we don't have enough data on that.

So, again, what is the problem with people discussing this? As opposed to people discussing people discussing this, which has happened for the last few pages. This is a forum, nobody is forcing you to look here. There was a nice debate going on before everyone started to post irrelevant stuff...

Stock exchanges actually trade based on something at least tangentially related to the real world though, even if it is sometimes mind bendingly contrived (wait, I bought a thing that pays me if house prices go down? You bought debts from other banks that were likely to go unpaid just so you can claim the houses? **** that, I'm buying XAU). Casinos are 100% arbitrary.

I'd prefer cosmetic only but I'm sure Uber are quite capable of not ruining the game with this one, very small p2w unit choice.

It's degraded into an argument, really. I mean, it doesn't take 19 pages just to decide whether or not the progenitor and alpha would get unique abilities or not. Some people want it, some people don't. It seems that Uber is going to do it regardless (I may be wrong, but it is implied). Hence, arguing about it isn't really providing anything useful.

Mhm, maybe so, although I thought Uber wanted cosmetic changes, someone brought up game-influencing changes, and it went from there.

Then again, I haven't fully read the thread (I think I missed a page or so somewhere around number ten), so I could easily be wrong.

Let me resume it.

Some people argue that in-game differences would make the gameplay (slightly) worse.
Some people argue that in-game differences wouldn't make the gameplay worse at all.
Nobody argue that in-game differences would make the gameplay better.
Nobody argue that in-game differences would be as much or less work than cosmetic-only.

Thank-you for pointing that out. Way to bugger up my own point!

I told myself I wouldn't do this, posting in the thread again, but here goes, since it's apparent that some people just don't understand the problem. This will not be short, and will not have a TLR.

Numbering added by me.

1) People who are ignorant of what Uber has stated about features and the development process complain rudely about the possibility of units with in-game differences being unbalanced and game-ruining. They have tried to hold their contributions as a hostage to force Uber to meet their demands. They use childish arguments, thinly veiled behind the premise of in-game balance, to wage miniature class-warfare, rallying against the idea that people who spent more to support the game may get special attention and in-game benefits.

If this game were sourced by traditional means, and everyone was contributing the same amount, then an argument of this nature might have grounds. This is not a traditionally funded game, however, but an example of pure capitalism. A person claims to be able to provide a good or service at a stated price, and that there will be greater goods and services available to people who pay more.

You claim that it would be unfair for people who spent more to get more, but it's actually unfair to people who have contributed more to have the money which was allocated to pay for the development of their content spent elsewhere. Uber has quoted $500 apiece for a custom commander, $4000 for a custom basic unit, and $5000 for having the equivalent of "shareholder" rights with direct input into the game.

It is ironic that the people who have contributed the least are demanding the same rights and weight to their opinion as the folks who have contributed more, as if the people who spent more don't care about the game and are just throwing money at Uber to piss off the plebeians.

Here's the truth, though: everyone in that top 0.17% cares a lot about this game. They don't want an easymode button that breaks gameplay. When they see people who haven't contributed as much trying to take away the rewards for having sacrificed for Planetary Annihilation, and making assumptions about their motives for contributing, it's a deep insult. When they see people complaining about things that are irrelevant, and it's causing grief with the very people with whom we have the privilege of sharing our ideas, it incenses us because it means that instead of engendering trust and faith in the community to provide mature, clear, and well formed feedback, we deafen them to all input from the community altogether.

And don't think for a moment that if you have contributed any less than $10k that you have any rights to demand of Uber anything at all. You can make suggestions all you want, but again it is a privilege that any outside the 3 who have contributed are able to make direct input at even this stage of the game development.

If you want to guide the development more, then contribute so that you can be a part of the alphas and the betas. Heck, get all the people together who are upset and rescind your low-dollar contributions, pool your money and make a single $10k contribution, and have a representative of your opinions work with Uber on a much closer basis.

If you can't do that, and there aren't enough who share your opinions to "lobby" Uber, then your input will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

And frankly with there just aren't enough margaritas in the world to offset the amount of salt needed to take the feedback given in this thread seriously.

2) People who are aware of what the stated features and development process have tried to get people to understand that game balance isn't as simple as black-and-white as group #1 has tried to portray it. They point out things like "a single unit you only get one of cannot upset the gameplay balance of armies," and "Uber has said they wouldn't make them OP", and even Uber themselves in multiple places stating, "We want to make them cool but also balanced". These people are largely ignored, because the discussion would end if people sat back and realized that there is nothing to discuss till the unique Commanders are actually in the game.

They, like others, have gleaned from the comments of Uber, and have seen pictures like this one:


So they know that there are already going to be a number of other Commanders available to even the average Joe who only has enough to support at a $15 or $20 dollar level. Which means that "balancing" the unique Commanders isn't going to be between armies, but the other "standard" Commander options that Uber is already going to be providing.

What this means is that if the "standard" Commanders get unique abilities and attributes, so will the unique Commanders, and vice versa. If it becomes difficult to balance the standard and unique Commander's different traits and features, then what makes both the standard and unique Commanders different will be scaled back. Uber has already said this is the case, and that any further information will have to wait till at least the alphas.

So the people in group #2 are the ones already most closely aligned with the information that Uber has shared outright, and also able to take the information that's been given and make reasonable synthesis. They are also able to see the plain truth represented in my earlier comment on this thread: that this game doesn't even have an alpha yet, so complaining with the veracity that folks have in this thread about specific elements of a game which doesn't even exist beyond broad strokes is not helpful or reasonable.

It is for the benefit of the entire community that the things we take most seriously are aligned with the level of development that has been achieved by Uber. I don't see anyone complaining about the menu layouts in the game, because Uber hasn't done anything other than say "this is what we think we'd like to do".

Well guess what, everything about unique Commanders, aside from the fact that they'll exist and that Uber has charged more money to people to develop them in addition to existing units, is also still "this is what we think we'd like to do", so arguing or debating on them is very pointless.

It's akin to having poured your jello in a mold and then immediately complaining that you can't cut and serve it and that it is running all over the plate and making the floor sticky. Well, just like jello, design ideas take time to set, and Uber hasn't even picked out which mold they'd like the unique Commander jello to fill. People in #2 get this.

3) Every argument for unique armies is based on the very idea that in-game differences between factions makes the game subjectively better because folks can then more easily reflect their intentions through that race. Every argument for aesthetic differences in Commanders is based on the very idea that in-game differences between the Commanders makes the game subjectively better because folks can then more easily reflect their personality through that Commander.

So yes, a lot of people are already arguing this point. Whether aesthetic or gameplay, if the argument is true for one, it's true for the other. Saying any different is a double-standard, and only revealing that the goal isn't any sort of "equality", but that folks are wanting Uber to balance the game for jealousy and envy.

Which, let's face it, it all boils down to. Nobody who has problems finding contentment in life wants to be reminded that other people who have sacrificed more are also going to see more benefit in that same arena. Whether time or money, people who invest more into anything are going to be "better", and there will always be someone "better" and someone "worse" than you. The goal isn't then to try and arbitrarily force everyone onto an equal playing field where anyone who has invested anything can win, because even a game as simple as Pong will benefit those who have played it more often than those who haven't.

It's easy to "shrug off" aesthetic differences, because of the convenient excuse of being worried about "gameplay balance" and being worried about "development time". But those arguments fall flat in the face of reality, because Uber has already budgeted for the extra effort, and that is reflected in how much more those people paid to support the game. So any complaints about the unique Commanders taking from the development of existing Commanders is again betraying a deep ignorance about the reality of game development and budgeting. If those people want to criticise Uber on their budgeting, then by all means do that...but don't try and play innocent by wrapping it up in a faked worry about them not being able to balance the game because one Commander plays different than another. Those are crocodile tears being shed, nothing else.

4) As stated in the response for groups #1 and #3, Uber has already budgeted to account for the extra time that will be required to implement the unique units. This is why nobody in group #2 bothers to make this argument, because it's plain ignorant.

Let me tell a story to demonstrate why from my own life:

My parents didn't go to college. They worked hard to save up and help me go to college. They also worked hard to save up and go on a big trip to Hawaii one year.

So, being the immature child I was in spite of my age, I started to make a big deal about the trip to Hawaii. I asked them, "How can you help me go to college and still go to Hawaii? Isn't your going to Hawaii going to get in the way of me going to college?"

And you know what the response was?

"Son, this first off isn't any of your business. You aren't entitled to anything that your mom and I have worked for, and you aren't entitled to try and criticize us on how we choose to save up and spend our money. Secondly, we have made a commitment to send you to college so long as you keep your grades up and show that you're working as hard as we are to get that degree. We've also made a commitment to enjoy ourselves, and if we decide that we can budget and save up for both, that's what we're going to do. Whether you understand that or not right now doesn't matter, but you have no right to be getting upset about how we choose to spend our money."

You see, it's childish and immature to assume that you are entitled to anything that someone else has. Especially in this case, where Uber has already gone ahead and made budget for both sending us to college, and going to Hawaii, we have no place to criticize them on the area of budgeting for their activities.

You know what would give you right to criticize them? Being the one providing the money and time invested to allow them to make the game at all in the first place. So unless you work for Uber, or are contributing significantly to the game, which starts at $10k, you are not entitled to make any criticism of how they're handling the resources at a contribution higher than yours. Even at a contribution of $5k, the only input the contributor is entitled to is the creation of their unique Commander and their unit that will be available to everyone.

And perhaps you should take note of that - units that are available to everyone have a much higher budget to implement, because they'll not just need to be balanced to a strict lineup of other units filling the same role, but they'll need to be balanced against the rest of the toolbox that everyone will have access to. In this light, it should make very clear sense that if you must balance a unit versus only 5 others, it's a lot simpler than having to balance a unit versus 20, 30, 40, or 50 others.

People in group #1 don't get that, because they probably haven't got the maturity and life experiences to be able to understand and comprehend that type of information. They're stuck with what they can understand and comprehend, which is what has made this thread so reprehensible. We've got folks who don't know what they are talking about causing problems in the community by making big deals out of stuff that is irrelevant at this stage of the game development, and for what?

To make themselves happy, because a video game is more like what they want. No consideration for whether their shrill attempts to get Uber to satisfy them impact anyone else, nor whether the consequences of their actions may cause Uber to ignore not only them, but the community at large because the extra stress and suffering is just not worth it.

Provide your feedback with the maturity and respect of the topic that is deserved. We have a special thing with Uber, where in spite of them asking for $10k to have direct influence on the game, they are still allowing these forums to serve as a sounding board to help directly influence the game. They could choose at any moment to stop, and they'd be well within their rights to do so, and you'd also be well within your rights to revoke your funding if you so desired.

Closing thoughts:
Video games are a luxury. No amount of contribution gives anyone the right to act like a petulant child, making demands about things they don't understand, criticizing things that aren't their business, and causing trouble in and for the community at large by arguing irrelevancies with a passion that should instead be directed at seeking maturity and growth and understanding so that you can not only be a valuable member of this community, but of humanity as a whole.

Denying this reality, or any other realities, doesn't make them go away, so the sooner you learn to live with it instead of in spite of it, the more you will find happiness and contentment in every walk of your life, not just in how you decide to entertain yourself in your free time.

Okay, let me illustrate for you why I'm letting them have in game differences and how it would make game play better.

Okay, let me explain this to everyone clearly.....

/thread

Except for the fact that is has been pointed out that your laser versus impact based weapon system would make a difference. I was arguing that the faster ROF always wins, but was proven wrong.

The laser does 2 damage per second or so, I guess? That'd make the ROF of the normal weapon once per 25 seconds (because it deals 50 damage, per your drawing). A bit weird, but it's only an example anyway.

So, say, there's a unit which deals 1000 damage and has 50 HP. The commander, in this example, only has 999 HP left. The burst fire commander one-shots the other unit and lives on. The laser commander, however, deals 2 damage, but is then hit by the other unit and dies.

I like your drawings though.

chronoblip, I applaud you for making such a huge post, really, my compliments... But you're missing the point I'm trying to make (that could easily be my fault; English isn't my native language).

Why aren't cosmetic changes enough? Why must some people have different options than others? Because they paid more? Why? How does paying an X amount justify having more options? And why woudn't it justify starting out with a Monkeylord and a commander? Because it's unbalanced? But then again, so can this be. Granted, only in very few situations, but the point still stands.

Indeed, it all comes down to Uber. So how exactly does that make one side right and the other one wrong? I don't think Uber has already decided to go with different commanders (not only qua cosmetics), so...

What's the arguement in favour of this, instead of the arguement against people arguing against it?

It isn't much of a problem to me - it's not like that I'll play against them in all likeliness - but I still disagree with it.

Because Awesome, that's why.

They'll probably open up the other commanders to everyone after a year or so anyway, if the gameplay difference is even slightly relevant.

Also, holy walls of text batman.

Can't argue with that.

But, really, I'd actually like it if you could customise your commander in so far that you could give him red laser beams, green plasma balls, tesla beams, or whatever else you can think of.

But all should have the exact same mechanics. So, yes, a laser beam might continuously 'hit' a unit (like your idea), but it should deal X damage every Y seconds, or whatever the standard commander would use. It shouldn't deviate from that.