Pay to Win?

Not good. It should not be up to the developers to decide which players are allowed to play with which models. That's a bad attitude.

It should be fine as long as you have to upgrade your commander to use the ability. However I still don't like the idea of unique abilities unavailable to everyone.

Look out we got a badass here.

They should make the alpha commanders open to everybody then. It is only fair right?

I think the idea is more like "Commander X's D-gun has 10% more RoF for a suitable tradeoff in damage" or something.

If I play chess I don't mind if the opponent brings his own king model, made of ebony with a gold crown. As long as he moves like mine. I don't mind if my opponent pays 100$ for a beautiful figure. But now imagine the goldsmith who designed the king decides that his special king has the special ability to castle twice per game. To compensate for this he decides that his special king is allowed to capture only pawns.

This king is not necessarily superior to the normal king, and it might be fun to play with it. But why should the goldsmith be allowed to bind game rules to the purchase of his figures?

But rcix, that still is unfair and imbalanced.

Even though the damage per minute or so might be the same, a faster ROF with less damage per shot means this commander is better at taking out swarms of units with low health than a normal commander. In fact, this commander is better at dealing damage period, because he'll waste less damage (as in, say a unit has 10 HP left, and a normal commander does 20 damage every 2 seconds, but a 'special' commander does 10 damage every 1 second - that's more effective and thus better than the normal commander).

Really, there is no thing (that I can think of) that isn't unfair. Please, don't alter statistics, only models.

In fact, why not make those models client side, or give everyone the abbility to not use these custom models? I doubt it has much effect on what people'll pay...?

since the game rules aren't set in stone yet, the comparison to chess doesn't really fit.
A game developer has the freedom to choose whatever financing model they like, if it's successful in the end is an other matter.
Besides it isn't a real new concept, item shop anyone?

So you wouldn't like it, but I don't know how you get the idea that they wouldn't be allowed to do it that way.

PS: <looks at his clock> still too early to tell if any commander's custom abilities would influence balance at all.

Even he is different, he will be balanced. When he see further, he will have other negatives, (e.g. range attack is lower than other commander). This one unit won't surely decide a match. To be honest, I think normal players should have no problem with it.

I ask myself what people do, with the 34 people, who spent 1k for their own commander, god I really envy them. I think so often about donating so much lol.

Your analysis is bad and you should feel bad. Equal DPS with higher rate of fire and lower damage per shot is not clearly better. Highly front loaded damage means you can one- or two-shot tough enemies, which removes them earlier than a low damage high rate of fire weapon would and so reduces incoming damage more rapidly. If you're shooting at low health units you want high rate low damage to minimise overkill, if you're fighting tough units you want low rate high damage to kill the tough units as soon as you fire to minimise their ability to shoot back. In FA terms, Percivals beat Bricks but it takes a far larger horde of t2 units to kill Bricks than Percivals. This is a beautiful example of difference that is entirely situational. Please note; I'm not advocating pay to win, I just hate blatantly wrong claims.

Really?

But... Huh. I want to believe you, I just don't get it.

A faster ROF with lower damage, but with an X damage per 10 seconds, beats a slower ROF with higher damage (but still with the same damage per 10 seconds) always, right?

Well, apparently not, but... I don't get it.

Say a unit has 90 HP.

Commander 1 deals 10 damage with a ROF of once per second. So 100 damage in 10 seconds.

Commander 2 deals 20 damage with a ROF of one per 2 seconds. So, again 100 damage in 10 seconds.

Commander 1 kills said unit in 9 seconds (9x10). Commander 2 takes 10 seconds, with 10 damage wasted. So the higher ROF wins.

Why would it matter how much HP a unit has? At best, commander 1 and commander 2 take an equally long time. But most of the time, commander 1 wins... Right? No? Why not then?

It will be only for less than 50 player.
With such conditions, I really don't care.

edit: except perhaps for tournament.

@nlspeed911. Example.

Unit A: 100 damage, reload time 10s, 40 HP.
Unit B: 10 damage, reload time 1s, 40 HP.
Unit X: 20 damage, reload time 1s, 100 HP.

According to your theory unit B is better than or equal to unit A. Compare A vs X and B vs X.

Fight A vs X
A and X fire at the same time, X instantly dies to the 100 attack damage of A. A survives the battle with 20HP.

Fight B vs X
B and X fire at the same time, X goes to 90HP and B goes to 20HP. 1 second later both units fire again, X goes to 80HP and B is killed. X survives with 80HP.


Anyway it doesn't matter who's analysis is wrong. Any mechanical difference is imbalanced.

Ah, thank you for that. Of course, we're talking about a commander here, and I doubt units would be capable of killing a commander that fast, but ok.

And yeah, you're right in that, but still, thank you for your explanation.

jesus christ. is it really too hard for people to grasp the notion that different rates of fire are more/less efficient depending on the nature of the target?

different /= imbalanced. this is a kickstarter game. it makes sense to offer incentives to those willing to risk their own cash at the beginning. as long as the commanders are balanced then it shouldn't matter. and i trust uber to balance them.

whining bitches should've donated more of their parents' money to get the unique commanders.

As somebody who is due to get the Progenitor commander, I would ask for no difference in abilities whatsoever. I didn't make my pledge with any intention of getting different treatment (in fact I didn't even realise I'd get a copy of the game, but that's another story), and I think that anything other than cosmetic changes would have a high likelihood of causing I'll-feeling in the community.

If the viable options available to player A are a strict superset of those available to player B then A has an advantage.

except if player A's ability to make decisions is reciprocally proportional to the number of possible options.

... player B gains the ultimate implicit ability: confuse your enemy!

Ok, that was funny.

But yes, the problem isn't just imbalance. In free-to-play models, one player having more choice by paying more can be fine, if balanced correctly. (And often by including the possibility to "pay in game time", unlocking such choices by playing the game longer.)
But here, it's explicitly not a free-to-play model, and the second player can't even pay to get said choice anymore.

So, please, cosmetic changes only.

I will rescind my pledge if some players get something gameplay related that other don't get. It's a ******* retarded idea in a strategy game.

I'm glad there are still people left in this world who can act normal. As in, polite and civil.

That aside, I'd say anything that has an impact on gameplay, and that is unavailable to some, is imbalanced. As has already been demonstrated.

At the very least, it should be a toggleable option (whether to use 'pay to win content' or not, for lack of a better name).