Why would we expect any two dreadnoughts anywhere to have the same stats? I think everything should have base stats with a range of customization (pre-deployment), and I mean EVERYTHING. That is, I want to customize base stats in addition to base loadouts. Also to clarify, I am opposed to the dreadnought with stats for cash.
First, I would like to thank everybody working on Eternal Crusade, and also the Warhammer 40,000 community . Also, I don't mean to multi-post, but I just read through and replied to 60 pages. In my opinion, to pay-to-win is to purchase an in-game advantage with real-life cash, even if it could also be earned in-game; examples include: Boosts to uncapped mechanics (e.g. drop rates or resources; not experience). Tactical superiority/flexibility (i.e. anything with stats; e.g. Rogue Trader Dreadnaught). Additional content with stats belongs in expansions, not microtransactions. Expansions to existing factions should be free, and should be equivalent across all factions; (otherwise, other players pay-to-win with expansion content). Expansions including new factions should not be free, and include content equivalent to each other faction; (other players don't pay-to-win because everyone purchases each faction). On another note, I am a Tyranid player eager for their expansion as a playable faction, as are many others I'm sure .
The choices were a bit confusing not knowing details and sorta guessing, but I chose the 2nd and last option because it should be free to play to a certain level or something, no time limit. This gets them a taste, then they get hooked... profit?????
I'm flattered you quoted my post, sort of. So, I think that paying for a Rogue Trader Dreadnought with certain perks, different pattern, doesn't seem pay to win, heres why: Dreadnoughts are tough units. Always. They have tough armor and powerful weapons. Different armaments are not going to change the methods that you use to defeat them. Remember, Space Marines are only going to be fighting Space Marines 1/3 of the time. And if I'm not mistaken, Chaos employs more specialized patterns of Dreads than the Imperium does. Having a game based around assymetric balance is huge when considering tactical flexibilty and whether or not that is pay to win. We won't have 4 'versions' of the Space Marine races fighting it out, these races each have a distinct feel to them. Basically, what Rogue Trader does for EC is give the developers increased revenue, and the players a different game experience. It does not make the customer more powerful. For every tactical advantage, there is a tactical disadvantage. For every strength, a weakness. This is not pay to win anymore than new Table Top soldiers is pay to win. But then again, you still have access to Dreadnoughts(equivalents) as well! Will it be pay to win when you gun down a Close Combat Dreadnought before he ever gets in range of you? No. Will it be pay to win when you fry a squad or Eldar? No. Because if the squad gets flanked, or doesn't have the proper means to defeat armor, then they were dead anyways!
I've been playing videogames for some 15 years, and i want to give my opinion here. Since i started playing videogames, i've seen a whole lot of different business models (from the standard Pay once and you get everything to the F2P games like LoL and the like) and there are a couple things that could be considered P2W but, in my opinion, are not: 1. Pay2save10000hoursgrinding. In these models, every player has access to the same options, but while the cash shop allows instant access, F2P players have to grind for it, sometimes for a long time. A recent example is Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft. For those that don't know it, it is a Magic: the Gathering-style card game developed by Blizzard. In it you can buy card packs for real money or in-game money. It is quite tedious to farm ingame money, but theoretically it allows a F2P player to compete with "P2W" players. In my opinion, this isn't real P2W but an intermediate step between the two models. 2. Pay4ingameitems. In some games the cash shop allows you to buy items that give an advantage in-game while allowing those items to be found by playing the game, albeit making them rare (mission rewards, random drops, etc). This model can also be considered a compromise between a complete F2P model and a P2W, forcing F2P players to spend more time playing to stay ahead, but not disallowing it. TF2 could be considered this. That said, there are games that can be considered a definite P2W (all Gameforge ones: Ogame, Metin2, Ikariam, etc... are examples of what you should avoid) and some that are most definitely F2P (LoL and DOTA 2 come to my mind). Your model is, in my opinion, what an MMO should be since -Monthly subscriptions impose an extra cost on the player and are downright unjust if you have to pay the game in addition to them (i'm looking at you, WoW). -"Premium" models like the current one in SW: TOR where you are restricted access to game features (like global chat, instant Tp to base, etc...) if you haven't bought the game, are annoying to F2P players to the extent of sometimes being unplayable. I sincerely prefer either a Pay4cosmetics model or a Pay Once (or maybe twice for some expansion packs), since they are the most just systems. Having a "demo" or a F2P faction is great for people who just want to test the game before buying it.
I disagree with your assessment. These different dreadnought loadouts provide a breadth of asymmetrical tactical advantage which is how power/progression is defined in this game. If you bought them with cash, then you paid-to-win. Also, I would like to clarify that I do not oppose this asymmetrical progression, I do oppose it's acquisition/advancement by cash instead of game-play, i.e. pay-to-win. If stats' differences are irrelevant to defeating an enemy, then what is their purpose? If it is immersion, then said difference must be noticeable. I openly challenge anybody to present an example of any stats' differences which enable immersion without enabling any possible tactical combat advantage. If stats' differences are irrelevant to defeating an enemy, then what is their purpose? If it is to balance tactical flexibility between or within factions, then it is inherently pay-to-win because tactical flexibility is a combat advantage, and you are buying this with cash! Each individual faction's power, and each faction's power relative to each other, must be balanced in ways other than cash pay. I agree that a selling a different game experience is mutually beneficial, but only so long as said experience is not pay-to-win. A good example might be a cosmetic missile explosion smoke with colors and confetti. We both agree that "asymmetrical balance is huge," which contradicts this statement because that is how power is defined in this game. Simply having an asymmetrical option bought through cash is pay-to-win. If it an option was equally or less powerful in each possible way regarding combat, only then is it not pay-to-win. Perhaps if it only gave an experience boost, maybe even only for specific killing moves; this would be cool.
Does anyone truly believe cosmetics will do the trick for an mmo i mean really going to keep the business a float? What MMO uses only cosmetics and only that yet is still alive or profitable? ....well there is that 500 dollar golden skin thing like MWO.... Its a bit of an dreamy reality truth to be told unless a helmet costs 30 dollars.
I don't think they would've listed that option on this poll if they weren't prepared to at least attempt it with probable success. However, I am unsure as well. I accept some compromises might need be made since I also want them to prosper while making a successful game. That said, it could still be possible; examples like LoL use skins, and WH40K has a very cosmetically creative player base.
There is plenty of space for cosmetics in the 40k universe. Also if the game is popular enough believe me it does the trick. Just look at LoL or DOTA (not MMO but you get my point).
