Pay to Win?

This is directed to those with unfounded concerns with different commanders affecting the over all balance in a match, resulting in a higher percentage of wins for the player using them.

You know what the real issue is? Everyone is using the wrong terminology, this isn't about bonuses, extra _______ or Better _______, its about them being different.

Mike

More proof that a one race system would work. We want to compete with even/identical odds. And we want our commanders to be identical except for looks.

Now the guys who pay $1000 for a comander - maybe they should get an in-game perk, because of their level of support. How many times are we going to play against them?

+1 for ONE race
+1 for identical comanders (different visuals)
+1 for $1000 commanders to be whatever Uber needs to get more funding!!!!

No, that's against what I'm advocating, the only way that would work is if every commander, including the Stock, Alpha and Progenitor, had a unique perk. Then it's not about the perk being better/worse, just different.

Mike

If people are that freaked out about a lack of options making the game unbalanced, why not keep track of stats for different commanders separately? Then make it an option that can be turned on and of? Then we can have our special shines and still can compare everyone fairly.

normal win vs. alpha, alpha loses vs. alpha, special 1k wins vs stuff. etc

And the argument that people buying later will be upset that they don't have the cool toys is silly. I can complain that I couldn't buy TA when my family finally had a computer.

Uber wants to reward people who supported them early, let them, it's their game. And maybe they'll release some new commanders later afterwords for everyone. Or better yet, some awesome 1k people ask Uber to share their commanders with everyone, alas I can dream.

my problem with this discussion is the out of proportion exaggerated problem.

let's assume for the moment the customization involves abilities (as far as I read, not definitive decision was made so far)

let's assume for the sake of argument, that any of those customization would be a minor advantage (different could also mean, that in real game play it would be a disadvantage in contrast to the decision on paper)

let's assume further the number of units per player ranges in the thousands (compared to some suggested numbers here in the forum a low estimate)

my conclusion based on above assumptions would be, that the following factors would have more influence on the game balance:
- different starting positions on non-chess-like maps
- your internet connection (*)
- the performance level of your hardware (*)
- the frequency and duration of snack breaks in your gaming session
- the variation of the numerous game settings proposed here in the forum

(*) those at least can be influenced by money - classic "pay to win" options

In short, the influence of differences in the commanders abilities will probably be lost in the static noise of numerous other little imbalances (avoidable, unavoidable, accepted ...). Therefore, discussing it might be fun, but I doubt it is efficient.

this!

Really, people here, STOP WHINING, unique commanders should be there, it would be awesome. It's not like it's going to like "okay let's make these guys have the same advantages as the commander rushing iluminate from supcom two" it's going to be like "let us make this guy have a constant lazer with the same dps as the standard gun but many more damage enteties per second." I don't even think they would put a thing doing "that" big a difference, but this wouldn't really change gameplay in any other than awesome direction.

Your commander IS a liability. You only get one, but you can build thousands of the other units. Tell me how that's not a liability? Also, why does it matter? The king in chess is a liability, and nobody complains about changing chess (well, no serious chess players). It's part of the strategy. Technically, even if your commander was as strong as a krogoth, it'd be stupid to send him anywhere useful, since your opponent is immediately going to send everything he has at it.

The problem to be watching out for isn't the balance of the commanders... but the inevitable p2w accusations that come with content being restricted to non paying customers.

Those accusations slightly tarnish the reputation of the game, making it in UBER's best interest to keep everything purely cosmetic.

This is no different than people saying "X is overpowered" in ANY GAME when they have no data or any evidence whatsoever to back it up. It doesn't tarnish the game's name, it just means that people on the internet say things.

That's insanity yo...(See what I did there? )
If the commander is as strong as a Krogoth the enemy won't be able to kill it until way long into the game unless they send their commander aswell.
It was quite common to see commander duels in SupCom. Nothing wrong with commander duels in my opinion except that they could force a draw but you didn't need much extra firepower to come out ahead atleast in FA where the death explosion wasn't OMG powerful.

@OrangeKnight, you're right, I agree with you (to a point). The Stock, Alpha and Progenitor comanders should be exactly the same in game play with different visuals.

The "Money" commander is a different story. Uber is using those to attract more money. Should they have in-game effects? I would say "no" but I also wouldn't feel bad if Uber wanted them to have a perk, and thus sell more of them. Will I ever face them in battle, probably not (there are 39 of them now). Yes, they would be "unfair", but those backers helped me get a better game so it would be an honor to lose to a Money commander. And better if I beat him .

I hope all the comanders are only visually different, pride markings, if you will. And I hope that if I have access to multiple forms I can chose which to play as. I am an Alpha but I hope I can choose before each battle what to play.

I didn't mind acu duels in supcom either. I was (correctly or incorrectly) assuming maps would be much larger in PA making acu duels more or less impossible for the attacker to win. Still, you have to keep in mind that if acu duels weren't decisive, they retreated back to their base to continue the battle with there units; you didn't see much of the acu's after that.

Just for clarity I want to point out for those unfamiliar with SupCom, but the Deathblast did Full damage(3500) to units, 500 to buildings and somewhere between 1 and 10(I forget, but it's insignificant) to other ACUs.

Mike

I said "slightly" for a reason, an there is a difference. Restricted content is a much lower hanging excuse for the mad bad, because:

A)They'll never be able to test this content for themselves

B)Technically, any difference in balance between the non- and paying customers is considered "p2w" in its simplest form.

And really, all that aside, what does UBER have to gain from differentiating these backer rewards? This thread alone is proof that the p2w accusations will happen.

Keeping things cosmetic completely eliminates the petty argument, hardly upsets the paying backers, and gives UBER more time to work on things entire player base can enjoy.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, I was saying "hater's gon' hate". If we took out every feature someone had a problem with, we wouldn't even have a game. Just look at any thread on this forum.

Honestly, this is something that shouldn't even be discussed right now; we can't test it one way or the other. The fact that all these comments against unique commanders are based on wild speculation, proves that people like to complain about nothing. It's not even theory crafting since there's nothing to base a theory on.

Also notice how the naysayers are always assuming different = overpowered (there's no thought that they may be underpowered). Nobody's saying "what if no one every uses their unique commander since their useless?"

In a perfect world, where players admit there mistakes after a loss, I'd agree that there's nothing wrong with backer specific units.

Unfortunately, there's always going to be whiners. And in this case, UBER needs to realize that giving whiners the opportunity to whine isn't worth whatever self satisfaction they'll get from making these units "special"

Whiners will whine regardless so why bother trying to appease them?

It's providing one less thing to whine at.

Some random baddie's list of bad things about this game just went from "imbalanced and p2w" to "imbalanced". One less thing we have to see spewed onto the balance forums, one less thing he'll tell all his friends.

I'd gladly trade 2 "special backer units", for one less thing on the whine list.

This isn't chess, and while that design may be fine it's not exactly all that fun or interesting for an RTS.

Uber, on behalf of your contributors, I am sorry that we have accused you of not being able to balance an unfinished game because of units you haven't yet designed.