A "variant" isn't what people have a problem with. For example, if Attack Bikes in general are available in-game but you can buy a "Relic Attack Bike" or "Veteran Attack Bike" with extra bling, that's okay. Or maybe they have different patterns of bike that have different visual styles, that's okay too. The problem was that the interviews gave the impression at the time that non-founders would not have access to any form of Fast Attack Vehicle at all, and would instead have to settle for the Rhino as their "sidegrade". The problem being of course that the Rhino isn't a sidegrade to an FAV at all, it's a completely different thing. That'd be like saying "You have to buy Devastators separately, but that's okay you can play an Assault Marine instead". No, they're completely different things. The important thing is that the $40 price tag gets you a functionally complete game. It'd be like if you bought Command & Conquer 3, but then you had to pay another $5 to get Pitbulls for GDI.
Once again, we're also two months in. I'm not really ready to jump on to the boards complaining merely on impressions I gained from a passing comment.
This argument comes up a lot, and almost every time it makes me want to beat my head against the wall. Advantages from adaptability are largely negated either by variability of encounters, or lack of ability to predict a situation on the player's part. For example, if I psychically know that in the next battle it'll be an advantage to bring a devastator, then the same person with the same psychic knowledge and no devastator would be at a disadvantage compared to me. But by the time I've died, respawned my devastator, hoofed it across the battlefield and taken position, that fight is over. Now I'd be better off being an assault marine. The more unpredictable fights are (ie, the quicker situations can change, the longer downtime you have before arrival), and the larger volume of enemy players are in existence (ie, the more combinations and variations of attackers you may face), the less comparative advantage any sidegrade could potentially bring. Being able to choose from 140 different guns is not as useful as you'd think if you have to pick one, in advance, without knowing exactly what you'll face.
impression? they already asked for money and we have already pre ordered the game. So clarification about the monetization and the content of the shop and how is managed are mandatory. in fact is LATE, for this info. after two months we still have a shop full of artworks!
Shouldn't that be a good sign? That they're focusing more on the main project? This game is projected to take two more years and honestly, that's a low ball. I can almost guarantee you that everything everyone is complaining about will be vastly different within the next six months. Also, they have made it clear a lot of this is less than a pre-order and more of a crowd-funding venture for the potnential of extra content before the initial release. I really feel that everyone needs to cool it with this entitlement for a little while longer. They are a company that wants money. To get more of our money, they should be striving to impress us and keep us happy. Until these guys throw us something and say, "Okay, play it and tell us how it is." there really isn't much of a point of crying foul. This is a time for criticizing them being lore friendly and ensuring their gradually improving art direction sticks to something we want. For Throne's sake, they just hired the balancing guy last week.
the good sign is to have no idea about what we have buyed? and no on all the interview it's made clear that the founder program it's a preorder and the game is full founded. https://www.eternalcrusade.com/join-the-war http://plus10damage.com/blog/2014/8/10/eternal-crusade-an-interview-with-miguel-caron so there is no "we give money to EC because we help to make the game so we deserve something".
I'm thinking that the best way to deal with the current situation/try to deal with people's fears is to make something like a Community Questionnaire that one or more of the Devs could answer in short, simple sentences that try to answer the questions as clearly and shortly as possible with as many "facts" as possible. One problem I'm noticing a bit from the interview with Miguel is that he tends to go off tangents, and his messages tend to get muddled up due to that, leaving more people confused over the situation. Don't get me wrong I appreciate and like the fact that he and the other Devs are showing such love and dedication.
Yes, in more than one form. I understand the crux of your argument, and broadly agree with your solution, but I don't agree with all the conclusions along the way. The presence of sidegrades is not automatically advantageous, a lot depends on the general gameplay mechanics, the mechanics specifically about switching from one sidegrade to another and level design (which rarely gets a mention). Any impact they have is also lessened by unpredictability, which becomes more likely the more sidegrades there are in the game, and as the number of players at any given encounter increases. Above a certain level of unpredictability, any advantage would be smoothed out by disadvantages over a reasonable time period. To gain an advantage from a horizontally balanced spec when you're fixed in it for a period of time, you have two options. The first is to play to its situational strengths (ie, abandon trying to control the battlefield and seek situational advantage), which is arguably working as intended. If forced to move out of your area of dominance, you'll be at a disadvantage compared to other sidegrade choices. If the battle doesn't require your skills, or forces you to use ones you're not specced for, you'll perform weakly compared to others. Or won't have joined the battle at all. Balance is achieved. The other requires being able to predict which situational strengths will be needed (ie, you can actively control the battlefield, because you know the situation in play when you have to make your sidegrade choices). In this situation, a wider choice of sidegrades would confer an advantage. I don't dispute that. However, you and Sergoros seem to believe this is something that will definitely occur, and I disagree. There are many ways for developers to interfere with that, should they wish. So it's a risk, rather than a guaranteed problem. In my view.
