Background Image

Unique Gameplay Elements

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by DAG, May 23, 2014.

?

Do you want founders to have access to unique gameplay elements? (Read post for info!)

Poll closed Jun 6, 2014.
  1. Yes

    26.4%
  2. Ok, but be careful...

    53.8%
  3. No way

    19.8%
  1. Grigdusher Grigdusher Arch-Cardinal

    you don't get worse. you still have the other item. yiu have more choise and more tool. how can be worse have more option?
    player create loadout based on the situation. A founder with more item is more versatile and have more choise.
  2. Yes, but if there is a founder only bolter that is like in my situation then it would definitely be P2W.
  3. If the devs could assure us that the founder items would be exactly worse or better in the same amount of situations as the regular stuff it would be different. But we know that isnt the case. And so there will be unequal imbalances between founders and non founders.
  4. not if they do it right
    in your example only 1 start was reduce and another raised
    but if we reduce the accuracy and range as well then we can balance the extra firepower

    its p2w sometimes and p2l another times
  5. So you are agree that it is blatantly bad design? Also just because something can be balanced doesnt mean it will be balanced.
    Karukus likes this.
  6. Kudzu Kudzu Cipher

    The examples we have been given have been things like "lower damage, higher rate of fire" and "better vs infantry, worse vs vehicles". So yeah, it's a better and worse type of trade. A few percent difference isn't going to break the game, more than likely you'll never even know you've gone up against it.

    Keep in mind we're talking about a game where Space Marines have the only healer, Orks the only mechanic, Eldar don't get a jump-capable melee class, etc. There's not going to be perfect balance, so people need to unwad their panties about the whole idea.
    Galen likes this.
  7. Grigdusher Grigdusher Arch-Cardinal

    yes a point is: the game have asimmetrical balance, so adding more things to balance for only a small % of total player can be a waste of resource (even if the small % pay for that).

    So is not better having a only cosmetic advantage for founder? (and in the shop in general)
  8. Laanshor Laanshor Well-Known Member

    It keeps going around in circles from the issue being the 'fun factor' to it being pure P2W.

    The fun aspect I get, that's why I hope Founders is pushed publicly post-E3 to the extent it gets the attention of gamers not already on this forum. If a friend of mine chooses not to invest knowing full well the option is there they can sack/tit up and deal with it, the same as I have had to in the past with collector, premium, founder products because I sat on my ass.

    The P2W ... how do you even measure P2W in a game with no KDR (last I checked) and the only player 'score' leaderboards the devs are open to discussing is team play related. Missions accomplished, points capped, points defended etc. It's purely an RvR (FvF) venture, driven by PvP & some PvE elements. P2W for the individual ? What does that look like ? Not to mention as Nicholas wrote a few weeks back; that shiny leet pattern tank takes 4-5 players to utilize effectively. No one has ever insinuated that a non-founder can't drive/operate them, only that req'ing them will be initially restricted. So not only does it benefit the faction (if it even does), again; in RvR, but the bike in that example isn't worth moose shit without faction members to man the melta.
    Galen and Kudzu like this.
  9. Luciasar Luciasar Well-Known Member

    The conversation has shifted again to whether this is actual PtW or not, which I think is kind of missing the point. Whether the devs can balance properly or not isn't necessarily the question, it's whether this is a PtW philosophy. Do you have to pay more than usual to have the full experience? I like games where a single purchase gets me all of the gameplay, and when I decide to buy it is irrelevant. If I didn't find out about the game in time or I was too poor to buy a package in time, I shouldn't be penalized by having a less complete experience than my more fortunate allies. If you're selling appearance with cosmetics, charge however you want, but give me all the gameplay based on my merits, not my wallet.

    And for the record, I think this really is about your allies, not your enemies. Are founders going to be able to outmatch the other people on their team? Will having unique vehicles and hero gameplay turn your buddies off from the game because they can't possibly unlock what you have, and feel cheated?

    And I still don't understand how unique gameplay benefits us in any way, other than I guess making the devs richer and thus sustaining future releases? As I said way back, unique gameplay doesn't benefit you by being exclusive the way cosmetics do. If Squeenix actually is behind this, EC is going to be a AAA launch title with a massive marketing budget that has a full price tag AND a cosmetics shop tagged on AND is debatably the only option for up-to-date massive world shooter combat other than PS2 (which has crap marketing). The devs will be making money hand over fist! I think they can get their founders cash just fine with cosmetics and early access, and not need to alienate everybody with exclusive meltagun bikes.
    Google, Karukus, Laanshor and 2 others like this.
  10. no i do not agree
    its same thing with 2 non founders weapons or 2 payed weapons
    they all will be different somehow and so they will all be useful and useless in some situations
    Kudzu and Laanshor like this.

Share This Page