The reason the argument gets thrown around regularly is that is has merit. Its more usually challenged because its a key argument in favour of XP boosts not being P2W in a horizontal progression game (which many people, understandably, are not comfortable with as a point of principle). Retreating (if possible) is the sensible option, I agree - and proves the point. You came with Tool A, and the original argument went "Because you can select Tool A, it gives you an advantage over someone who can't". Yet in the situations we both describe, Tool A person gets into a situation where they're up against Anti-A. Whether they die or retreat isn't the key issue - players are not in control of the battlefield conditions, therefore being able to select Tool A from the toolbox where other players might not be able to didn't confer the automatic advantage the bigger toolbox argument implies. The bolter example does carry a clear risk if its unique - for the record, I'm not a fan of Founder-only variants and have been arguing for their exclusion, or at the minimum a defined time period for their exclusivity as unique gameplay elements - not because the "weapon of choice" element can't be addressed (if it is too well-used, or too powerful, its nothing a nerfbat won't fix), but because the perception of imbalance is just as toxic as actual imbalance. And we don't need unique gameplay elements to incentivise Founders purchases. However, I think that argument has been lost. Sadly.
Not sure why people are so hung up on pay to win, when they have already said items that are bought will be less effective than items worked for. To me that is a great idea, then someone that joins the game late can buy relatively decent gear and get out there to compete, then the longer they play the better gear they get. In the end pay to win is a bad long term business practice. You want to reward long time players who put in the time. They keep you in business long term. If everyone can just buy their way in, then they play till they feel they have gotten their value out of it and then move on to the next game. That said there is a balance to play. New players are less likely to stick it out if there is no way for them to catch up to the veteran players. It's something DAoC did well with Realm Ranks. They made veteran players more powerful than new players, but they weren't over powered. The veteran might win 9 of 10 one on one fights, but very few fights are one on one so the new player grabs a friend, gets them some decent gear, then they can compete with the vet and another player is added to the player base. Not to mention the pay for decent stuff works well for casual players who don't have as much time for the grind, but have a bit of extra cash so they can get in and compete with the grinders. Again this plays into the numbers of casual gamers climbing in order to compete. In either case building nostalgia is one of the best ways to tap into intrinsic rewards and building a loyal player base. That takes time to build up. I'm very interested to see how this model works compared to Ultima Online, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2, and DAoC.
I'm probably presenting my idea wrongly here. I don't really think anyone would be limited from anti something weapons. I'm concerned the version they have of tool A might be superior. Like in the bolter example for assaults in particular. Like if you add a bit more damage to stalker bolter and reduce the rate of fire a little bit. That would automatically make it a better sniping tool for me. Grenades in smaller quantity but with improved effect and etc. These and similar things frighten me greatly. Sadly indeed.
I agree with everything you wrote. Any of those examples would be bad for the game, as it unjustly provides an inherent bonus to combat ability for the founder. I'd much rather prefer, as noted previously, cosmetic upgrades, but it could also be xp reductions on gaining new weapons, like a founder advances 2% faster. That might cause the founder to move ahead quicker, but over the lifetime of the game, it would probably make little difference, and doesn't necessarily increase their combat effectiveness. Other possible affect-able bonuses could be something like an item that increased movement speed when out of combat. There could be the chance for problems, but it would seem harmless enough, and in reality, you wouldn't want to be "ahead" of your troops when engaging since you'd most likely die on your own, but say you log on late, you can more quickly meet up with your squad/company.
Its a risk with any variant of a 'standard' weapon version, and wouldn't be intentional. Its just particularly iniquitous if the 'great' version is only available to Founders. Inevitably any variation should be superior in certain situations, or allow a more tailored tweaking of your overall build depending on what its unique qualities are - otherwise its a purposeless variation. It just needs to have an equal downside, so that the choice between the two is a genuine trade-off. If the Stalker Bolter is even more sniper-friendly than a normal sniper friendly weapon, the reduced rate of fire is probably not a corresponding downside. So it might need something else - reduced accuracy rather than reduced rate of fire might be a better negative to apply. Getting it right won't be easy, but this is a fundamental challenge for a horizontally balanced game. Or, indeed, any game that allows a lot of deviation from a small selection of pre-built options that have been tested to death.
It would provide an inherant bonus *wherever* it appears. That may, or may not, be on a founder variant. But I don't disagree with the point you're making. On the note of XP reductions, some people would strangle you for suggesting XP gain as an alternative P2W mechanic. Others might point out that having an out of combat move speed bonus would be very useful when retreating or evading encounters with other infantry - particularly melee, who may not have the option to 'snare' you into combat when you first pop up on the view screen. Safest answer is to not have any unique gameplay elements. Ah well...
On the other hand, a very similar model by the same company was criticised as contributing a massive amount to newcomers exiting the game in Tier 4 in Warhammer Online. Because up until that point, you were reasonably well balanced against your opponents. Then suddenly the veterans, who were inevitably guilded and in organised teams of veterans, annihilated you with a socking great level, gear and Renown Rank advantage. The only way to close the gear and level gap was extensive PvE, or constantly smashing your head against a brick wall in PvP where it felt like you weren't contributing. The only way to close the renown rank gap and final layers of gear gap was PvP grinding against superior opposition. If you weren't part of a guild with veterans in it willing to support you and bring you into their groups, or very committed to the game, it was a massive hurdle. I personally think the more horizontal balancing in EC is a much better way to attract and retain newcomers than giving veterans a significant advantage in all situations because they've played the game longer.
I think there might need to be a separate discussion for the inclusion of tweaked weapons vs the inclusion of special abilities and the entirely new vehicle class. While I still find the idea of isolating any aspect of gameplay to paid founders distasteful, I can acknowledge that it probably wouldn't have that much of an effect if the changes were so small they were essentially symbolic in nature (though I still don't see how these changes would be any different from cosmetics in terms of their value to players) But the exclusion of weapons with "special" abilities, like, say, a harlequin kiss with a unique backstab or an exodus rifle that over-penetrates... that would strike me as still being extremely harmful, even if playtesting and balancing processes showed that they had a neutral or underpowered effect on KDR. Balance in cases like these would be irrelevant, the gameplay alone would be cause enough for accusations of special elite treatment and community division. Same with the co-op vehicle, but I don't think I've heard anyone try to argue for that thus far.
The only freaking problem here is the "unique" part. Having different weapons on a cash shop is bad enough, but making them "unique" and "limited" is horrible. That alone made me go from "Imma gonna buy the founder thing" to "I don't think I will play this game if they keep this shit".
