Exclusive Pledge Uniforms Question/Suggestion

[Kaiz]

With the exclusive pledge uniforms, will only the person who pledged enough for it be able to wear it, or will the whole company in game with them be able to wear them.

My company is the 11th Mississippi company A which the uniform is exclusive for the Brigadier General pledge. The company leader has Major general so he is able to wear the uniform, but does that mean for the rest of us we can't wear it. Plus will this mean companies could be mismatch patchworks of different regiment uniforms.

With all the effort to enhance immersion and historical accuracy having mismatching uniforms seem stupid.

So if this is the case I would suggest that people could pick from the companies collective uniforms, or if you want to keep it more exclusive, the commander being able to pick from his uniforms to dress the company.

[SpectretheGreat]

I like the idea, I think it would be silly if you were the only one with the uniform in battle so I hope the devs make it that its unlocked for the company aswell.

[TrustyJam]

Pledge rewards are exclusive to the person who pledged.

- Trusty

[Kaiz]

So are we going to see companies of mismatch uniformed soldiers?

[Jamez]

Just because you are in a certain company on the forums doesn't lock you to that regiment in-game. You are still free to pick whichever regiment to play on the servers.

[TrustyJam]

So are we going to see companies of mismatch uniformed soldiers?

There's no way of doing proper rewarding rewards that makes people stand out in game (so people want to get them) while still being uniform with everyone else. We put a lot of thought into the uniforms we selected as rewards to try and hit that sweet spot between being completely over the top compared to common uniforms and not being noticeable at all.

- Trusty

[Kaiz]

True, so it will be a thing of keeping your men in line and have them all pick the same uniform, rather than being a limit in the game.

[A. P. Hill]

So are we going to see companies of mismatch uniformed soldiers?

History has shown that the confederate military could not outfit their troops in a like uniform. More confederates wore homespun, or yankee hand me downs, or whatever they could scrounge up. That's why the confederate line is so awesome to look at ... unlike the federal guys, who all wore the same thing. Rather boring I think. :)

[SpectretheGreat]

Would it be safe to assume that the weapons will be implemented the same way? Will there be any significance to the weapons as well or are they only cosmetic?

[Hinkel]

So are we going to see companies of mismatch uniformed soldiers?

The confederates will have mismatch uniforms anyway.
While some soldiers still used the "old" early war uniforms, lot of other soldiers replaced their uniform with regular shell jackets and such.
The 11th Mississippi at Antietam was mixed too.. just some old veterans used their fancy dress. It wouldn't be authentic, if all of you would use that uniform ;)

[William]

There's no way of doing proper rewarding rewards that makes people stand out in game (so people want to get them) while still being uniform with everyone else. We put a lot of thought into the uniforms we selected as rewards to try and hit that sweet spot between being completely over the top compared to common uniforms and not being noticeable at all.

- Trusty

That's just fair in my Opinion, for what did I spend the money if it wouldn´t make me special on the Battlefield xD

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

You are special William, very special ;)

but I agree with you

[Bravescot]

Wow Hinkel! On earth is that massive ass Captain tag in your thing?

[Fancy Sweetroll]

Wow Hinkel! On earth is that massive ass Captain tag in your thing?

Ssssshhhh. Nobody saw anything :p

[Jamez]

Wow Hinkel! On earth is that massive ass Captain tag in your thing?

Testing the tags maybe?

[Octavian360]

Really hope that this game doesnt turn into a cosmetic micro-transaction game... This discussion worries me.

[TrustyJam]

Really hope that this game doesnt turn into a cosmetic micro-transaction game... This discussion worries me.

What worries you exactly? That we are offering unique rewards for our backers?

- Trusty

[Bravescot]

Really hope that this game doesnt turn into a cosmetic micro-transaction game... This discussion worries me.

I hope we don't need to worry ourselves. I think and hope it's been made very clear that these uniforms will be restricted to those that pledged at X - Tier and higher.

[Octavian360]

What worries you exactly? That we are offering unique rewards for our backers?

- Trusty

This discussion makes it seem like people want to pay for specific uniforms in-game and use them in unrealistic fashion. We shouldnt see a Regular union group running around in Hardee's Hat's.

[Leifr]

This discussion makes it seem like people want to pay for specific uniforms in-game and use them in unrealistic fashion. We shouldnt see a Regular union group running around in Hardee's Hat's.

I doubt you will.
That is to say, the 'Hardee Hat' was not exclusive to members of the Iron Brigade.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

This discussion makes it seem like people want to pay for specific uniforms in-game and use them in unrealistic fashion. We shouldnt see a Regular union group running around in Hardee's Hat's.

i dont think so because i thought a you choose a regiment like in NaS. In my opinion there will be 2 possibilities: 1st you can use the regular uniform who can use everybody or you can wear (if it is available for this regiment) your exclusive uniform.

That would be the best solution

[Arkansan]

Some examples of how great the 11th Mississippi Uniform was.

Company A- University Greys
http://civilwartalk.com/attachments/1939756_1570292803207160_7999662672345540135_n-jpg.52614/ http://civilwartalk.com/attachments/10394595_1570642726505501_654182449000474554_n-jpg.52623/

Company G- Lamar Rifles
http://www.11th-miss.com/soldiers/pic1.jpg http://www.11th-miss.com/soldiers/pic3.jpg http://www.11th-miss.com/soldiers/pic4.jpg

Mississippi adopted Red as the trim color for Infantry rather than Light Blue. <--- And then I jizzed, in my pants.
I'm aware that this was all early on in the war, but I hope to a least see some of it displayed in the 11th Mississippi.

[A. P. Hill]

I doubt those boys looked like that by anywhere near the middle of the war .... and far worse towards the middle of it.

[BR4ZIL]

This Discussion right here made me feel relieved for not donating to what otherwise i found to be a great idea of a game.

I didint donated back then when i saw the exclusive weapons & uniforms because of fear that something like this would happen, figures out i was (unfortunately) right.

Wanna know why? because you just flat out said you want backers to "stand out" in-game. So you give them a couple of weapons & uniforms that no one else will ever be able to play with (including some pretty famous stuff).

As another user said, this discussion also worries me about future microtransactions for "harmless cosmetics", that destroy the feel of the game.

When your doing a game that wants to be realistic, doing silly "exclusive backer uniforms" and specially backer exclusive weapons was a mistake. Not every game needs such things, specially one that at least seems to want to be realistic.

[Josy_Wales]

The prices was fair and necessary. Even tho I donated the first time to major to show my support for the game, and raised it when I wasn't sure the kickstarter would make it, the prices really made the whole thing feel sirius and worth every peace of cash I gave. Why shouldn't the guys paying their work money/savings in the most critical phase get something in return? What is so wrong with that? You cant compare large companies game against indie games in terms of money and how they develop a game.

[TrustyJam]

This Discussion right here made me feel relieved for not donating to what otherwise i found to be a great idea of a game.

I didint donated back then when i saw the exclusive weapons & uniforms because of fear that something like this would happen, figures out i was (unfortunately) right.

Wanna know why? because you just flat out said you want backers to "stand out" in-game. So you give them a couple of weapons & uniforms that no one else will ever be able to play with (including some pretty famous stuff).

As another user said, this discussion also worries me about future microtransactions for "harmless cosmetics", that destroy the feel of the game.

When your doing a game that wants to be realistic, doing silly "exclusive backer uniforms" and specially backer exclusive weapons was a mistake. Not every game needs such things, specially one that at least seems to want to be realistic.

Each to their own opinion. I'm just glad our backers think our rewards are worth backing to get. If all were of your opinion there would be no game. Also - please tell me what's unrealistic in only some people get access to something? Realism does not equal to everyone having access to everything - far from it actually.

- Trusty

[Almanza P. Baker]

It really makes me wonder just what version of the Civil War these people are talking about. The reality of the Civil War was that there was no even distribution of weapons or uniforms. Many officers carried guns and swords that were presented to them by their states or home towns. The same goes for uniforms, yes many regiments eventually had uniforms and weapons that were standardized for their regiments but there still was often a shortage that required that some keep the ones they had or acquired what they could.

So if you are so concerned about "Realism" than you need to fully support that some people have weapons and uniforms that others do not. Lets please get away from this mentality of "Hey he's has something I don't", and accept the realism of this disparity.

[Arkansan]

Also - please tell me what's unrealistic in only some people get access to something? Realism does not equal to everyone having access to everything - far from it actually.

- Trusty

Most of these people are too used to extreme balance in big backed games..
Or don't want to part with money.

[BR4ZIL]

I very much against backer exclusive in-content, its a cheap bait to initially get more funding but you detract future sales from everyone that finds this out later, see Expeditions: Conquistador for a very good example of that. Josy_Wales, if a KS needs THAT much amount of backer baits, it says alot more about the developers than anything else.

This is not about being indie studio or not, Wasteland 2, Original Sin, Pillars of Eternity, Jagged Alliance Flashback,Tesla Effect,Pathologic,Shadowrun and many... many other games didint had to resort such large amount of bait tactics.

As a backer, i expect the whole range of physical goodies and digital in-sights and other goodies (such as artwork, OST, etc), but do i need to feel special in-game? no. Should i receive exclusive weapons that no one else will ever be able to use? no.

If it as you say and it was "necessary" then i concur with what TrustyJam implied, it is best to have no game. If your gonna do it completely wrong, then dont do it at all.


Each to their own opinion. I'm just glad our backers think our rewards are worth backing to get. If all were of your opinion there would be no game. Also - please tell me what's unrealistic in only some people get access to something? Realism does not equal to everyone having access to everything - far from it actually.

- Trusty

This just baffles me. Are you aware you just killed the possibility of every non-backer to role-play as the regiments that are backer exclusive?

You also even made the Colt Walker a backer-exclusive weapon... this makes me think this game will be very arcadey, maybe i was expecting too much from this game...

You call giving out a few weapons to a a very select few, to the point where the majority of players will never even see a colt walker in-game realism?

This game felt like novelty to me, even when i was looking this project with good eyes i knew it would probably never have a large community, a civil war game is very niche by default.

Now i am sure that it will die pretty quickly after release (just like Verdun did), if thats the kind of atitude you devs have regarding these things. Why not put some microtransactions along with it? Sell hats and all kinds of cosmetics (since those are harmless and surely dont just mess up the whole feel of the game, right? /sarcasm) if your gonna shoot yourselves in the foot, might as well go the whole way and follow in the examples of Payday 2 or Killing Floor 2.

[BR4ZIL]

Most of these people are too used to extreme balance in big backed games..
Or don't want to part with money.



Oh please, i have backed over 30 game projects on KS, i have almost 1000 games on Steam (search for General Plastro on steam).

Trust me, i have alot of disposable income to put in gaming. If i backed this, it would probably be the 50usd tier, just because i dont trust newcomer studios, but for "veteran" studios my donations usually go above that.

But this has nothing to do with Money, its about being silly and having wrong principles regarding Kickstarter (i find this idea of making content "exclusive" rather disgusting).

The developers are killing in-game options for the players, this isnt "balance" nor "extreme balance". My favorite FPS of all time is Red Orchestra, a game that is built around assymetric balance.

No, blocking people off from certain weapons is just backer bait, to me that shows the developers dont care what will be the consequences that such thing will affect the game in the long run, it is blocking a part of the game's arsenal from the get go.

I imagine that most backers here wont be playing this for more than a year (if the game survives that long), after that most players will NEVER even see the backer weapons in action. You think thats a good idea? You think having the players never even see a Colt Walker (a rather pretty damn iconic weapon) was a good idea?

Heck, i dont even defend "cosmetic exclusive stuff", but you devs took this whole KS exclusive shenanigans to a whole new level, to the point where i have to start looking at "cosmetic KS exclusive stuff" with better eyes...


It really makes me wonder just what version of the Civil War these people are talking about. The reality of the Civil War was that there was no even distribution of weapons or uniforms. Many officers carried guns and swords that were presented to them by their states or home towns. The same goes for uniforms, yes many regiments eventually had uniforms and weapons that were standardized for their regiments but there still was often a shortage that required that some keep the ones they had or acquired what they could.

So if you are so concerned about "Realism" than you need to fully support that some people have weapons and uniforms that others do not. Lets please get away from this mentality of "Hey he's has something I don't", and accept the realism of this disparity.

And who/what should determine who has or has not something in-game? The KS? bah... please. It should be determined in-game, not because you backed the game or not, might as well just bribe the devs for all the good stuff while we are at it.

But anyhow, i know i will gather zero sympathy here (for obvious reasons), so this is probably the last you guys will see of me. I will probably be watching this project once it hits Steam just to see how the developers atitude will be once the Steam community becomes aware of how much stuff is backer exclusive.

[Arkansan]

I very much against backer exclusive in-content, its a cheap bait to initially get more funding but you detract future sales from everyone that finds this out later
Genius.. Remove the incentive that made kick-starter successful in the first place.. If it were up to you, the game wouldn't exist.

[Almanza P. Baker]

Not really sure what your problem is, but if you receive a backer exclusive uniform, such as 11th Mississippi, you can only wear that when playing as the 11th Mississippi. So although I imagine the uniform will be more colorful than the other uniforms in the 11th it will still look like the rest of them. The Civil War had 100s of different weapons so not really sure how many people are going to quit the game cause they cant use 1 type of pistol. Neither the uniform or the weapons are going to make someone standout.

I also feel sorry for you that you have never cared about or wanted a game so bad that you would donate money even if you got nothing in return but the game. Right now im extremely irritated with this community and the class warfare mentality of some of the members. I am in no way a wealthy person and I freely donated my money for this game because I want to play it not because they gave me a few pixelated recreations of some things. I would have donated my money with no rewards other than the game itself. If you feel that some people receiving something you wont get, items that have no actual effect on the gameplay, and you are just going to spout off negative comments than please feel free to leave these forums.

Also Bra4zil as a person who just started your forum profile today you are an obvious troll so please take yourself back to steam and troll the Verdun forums.

[BR4ZIL]

Not really sure what your problem is, but if you receive a backer exclusive uniform, such as 11th Mississippi, you can only wear that when playing as the 11th Mississippi. So although I imagine the uniform will be more colorful than the other uniforms in the 11th it will still look like the rest of them. The Civil War had 100s of different weapons so not really sure how many people are going to quit the game cause they cant use 1 type of pistol. Neither the uniform or the weapons are going to make someone standout.

I also feel sorry for you that you have never cared about or wanted a game so bad that you would donate money even if you got nothing in return but the game. Right now im extremely irritated with this community and the class warfare mentality of some of the members. I am in no way a wealthy person and I freely donated my money for this game because I want to play it not because they gave me a few pixelated recreations of some things. I would have donated my money with no rewards other than the game itself. If you feel that some people receiving something you wont get, items that have no actual effect on the gameplay, and you are just going to spout off negative comments than please feel free to leave these forums.

Read my other posts Almanza P, i will say again that this has nothing to do with money. So it doesnt matter if your poor or rich to afford a "high end" pledge or not.

I have donated to projects i felt in love with, that i feel the studio behind it deserve it and that their practices are OK with me. So far, Project Fedora/latter Tesla Effect was my most passionate KS campaign.

This game had the first item checked off, the second item with a question mark (this is the first time i ever heard about these developers) but the third item had a big red cross on it. I am strickly against putting exclusive, game changing in-game rewards and this game has even more than one of them. (the guns specifically). I will say that having content permanently blocked off to backers indeed affects sales, as i mentioned Expeditions: Conquistadors and to a lesser extent, the Banner Saga suffered from this. The only games that seemed to get away with this were MMOs, such as Star Citizen (but manly because the players can actually earn all backer rewards in-game with enough time put into the game).

I can understand that you love this game so much to the point of not caring about all of the other stuff and thats alright, but i have been burned by Kickstarter, and game developers in general (as in, directly within my job as programmer) to develop habits and general guidelines to judging projects like these.

Maybe you can say i am very passionate and rather strongly idealist with regards of the game industry and i get even more sad/angry when i see a good idea getting a very bad execution (this game).

Belive me when i say i really loved the idea of a well made Civil War FPS, but i simply cannot endorce what the developers are doing/did with the KS campaign and that they are willing to stick to it, despite the fact that this will inevitably bite them in the ass when the game hits Steam.

[Shadow765]

Not really sure what your problem is, but if you receive a backer exclusive uniform, such as 11th Mississippi, you can only wear that when playing as the 11th Mississippi. So although I imagine the uniform will be more colorful than the other uniforms in the 11th it will still look like the rest of them. The Civil War had 100s of different weapons so not really sure how many people are going to quit the game cause they cant use 1 type of pistol. Neither the uniform or the weapons are going to make someone standout.

I also feel sorry for you that you have never cared about or wanted a game so bad that you would donate money even if you got nothing in return but the game. Right now im extremely irritated with this community and the class warfare mentality of some of the members. I am in no way a wealthy person and I freely donated my money for this game because I want to play it not because they gave me a few pixelated recreations of some things. I would have donated my money with no rewards other than the game itself. If you feel that some people receiving something you wont get, items that have no actual effect on the gameplay, and you are just going to spout off negative comments than please feel free to leave these forums.

Also Bra4zil as a person who just started your forum profile today you are an obvious troll so please take yourself back to steam and troll the Verdun forums.

Good point

[Arkansan]

Read my other posts Almanza P, i will say again that this has nothing to do with money. So it doesnt matter if your poor or rich to afford a "high end" pledge or not..

It has everything to do with funding the Kick-starter and some realism. Of course you haven't heard of these guys, its their first game. To say it will fail off kick-starter rewards alone is discourteous and uneducated of you. If you're not here to talk about a game you will be playing then why are you here? To troll?

[TrustyJam]

The colt Walker was produced in numbers around 1100. There were millions of people participating in the war so yes - it should be rare no matter how iconic it is.

- Trusty

[Josy_Wales]

Its genius to ad rare uniforms and weapons as a kickstarted special, like said before since not every soldier had the possibility of using those weapons because of cost and rarity, or portraying some few soldiers still using their early uniforms. This is the most realistic way you can make this work.

I donated for the games success, but when I tried to persuade my friends, steam friends or anyone else who had never heard of this project or knew little about the civil war, prices can really make the whole difference between not donating and donating. At least I experienced that. People love personal things, why not use that?

[Jamez]

The problem he is trying to express is that the pledge benefits will hurt the game in the long run. As more people come to the game and find out that certain parts are locked to them because they simply were too late will be very upsetting towards them. I had this problem with buying metro: last light, the highest difficulty level which makes the game is locked for people who didn't pre-order it and there is no way around it apart from buying the new version. This was very frustrating for me and made me stop playing the game all together.

There is a similar situation here with that some parts of the game will be locked to the newer players just because they were too late.

[TrustyJam]

The problem he is trying to express is that the pledge benefits will hurt the game in the long run. As more people come to the game and find out that certain parts are locked to them because they simply were too late will be very upsetting towards them. I had this problem with buying metro: last light, the highest difficulty level which makes the game is locked for people who didn't pre-order it and there is no way around it apart from buying the new version. This was very frustrating for me and made me stop playing the game all together.

There is a similar situation here with that some parts of the game will be locked to the newer players just because they were too late.

If the rewarded digital items weren't limited they wouldn't be rewards at all. People joining us late will have to make that call themselves. Some, like our gentleman above, will indeed feel left out and not buy the game, wanting to be able to get just as much as loyal backers, having supported us with hundreds of dollars at an early stage of the development. Others, and I think this will far outnumber the number of nay sayers, will be glad those early backers indeed spent as much as they did in order to get the promised digital rewards and thereby making this game a reality. These people, I think, will be just as happy wielding a Colt Navy instead of a Colt Walker or any of the dozens of other weapons which are going to be included in the game for everyone. There's not a single digital reward that is game changing as stated a bit earlier in this thread - every single one will have at least one or more available other weapons that behaves exactly like the digital reward one game mechanic wise.

- Trusty

[Josy_Wales]

These are mostly cosmetics. The uniforms are and guns like the harpers ferry rifle wasn't any better then the enfield, springfield, Mississippi and so on.. Look at how many donated for the upper pledges and don't worry more about that. In a game like this its 80% up to the team play because of the fire rate and other factors around this period. When you make a game as tight up to historical accuracy as this, you can't make everyone happy nor everything completely balanced, but these guys have done that extremely well.

If this makes people stop playing the game, they are a bunch of babies and shouldn't be playing.

[Jamez]

If the rewarded digital items weren't limited they wouldn't be rewards at all. People joining us late will have to make that call themselves. Some, like our gentleman above, will indeed feel left out and not buy the game, wanting to be able to get just as much as loyal backers, having supported us with hundreds of dollars at an early stage of the development. Others, and I think this will far outnumber the number of nay sayers, will be glad those early backers indeed spent as much as they did in order to get the promised digital rewards and thereby making this game a reality. These people, I think, will be just as happy wielding a Colt Navy instead of a Colt Walker or any of the dozens of other weapons which are going to be included in the game for everyone. There's not a single digital reward that is game changing as stated a bit earlier in this thread - every single one will have at least one or more available other weapons that behaves exactly like the digital reward one game mechanic wise.

- Trusty

I have no problem with the way you have done things and the items you have restricted. There needs to be some form of reward/recognition for the amount people have donated at this stage of development. In my opinion the digital rewards you have provided will not be game changing but other people may not agree.

[BR4ZIL]

Well, i suppose i couldnt contain myself and had to take a look again at these forums.


Its genius to ad rare uniforms and weapons as a kickstarted special, like said before since not every soldier had the possibility of using those weapons because of cost and rarity, or portraying some few soldiers still using their early uniforms. This is the most realistic way you can make this work.

I donated for the games success, but when I tried to persuade my friends, steam friends or anyone else who had never heard of this project or knew little about the civil war, prices can really make the whole difference between not donating and donating. At least I experienced that. People love personal things, why not use that?

I still find it rather absurd to make the distinction between the "have" and "have not" folks right on the kickstarter. Favoritism by the developers really doesnt look good for the majority of folks and it will look bad on Steam (we have seen this happen between Payday devs and Team$Evil. Backers donate and receive alot of cool physical rewards (and digital too), thats what i expect and got from being a backer (i also expect my voice to be heard as a backer within the game's development, but thats beside the point) on the other projects, maybe a small cosmetic and such to go alongway with it, but not nearly remotely as big as with this game.

Why do top tier backers get the Sharpshooter rifle? it doesnt mean they are or will be actual sharpshooters in-game. Right now there are around 27 people who will get that rifle, i am willing to bet less than 5 will actually use the rifle in-game and after a few months, there might not be any more players active with it. Its not realistic to give out these rewards as something that "breaks the 4th wall" outside the game. Nobody here distinguished themselves yet.

The developers (or in this case, just one dev) dont help with his atitude, i just sincerely hope he doesnt think this is "realism" by deciding who gets what even before the game is out.

A much more elegant way would be akin to Red Orchestra 2's pre-order incentive, where pre-order people would unlock guns that would take a normal player over 200h of gameplay to do so (weapon skins and such). Maybe make it even more absurd, you would need 500h+ hours to get some of the stuff the backers get for the get go.

Or just like Star Citizen did, where backers would get (from the get go) stuff that normal players would need YEARS of playing to get

My point is, dont make it forever exclusive, creating game assets that will never be used after a few months (heck, there is about 50 people that have donated enough to get the 11th missisipi reward) is an extremely bad move. Again i refer to the Colt Walker, the rarity of the gun should be made within the game, not outside of it.

Is it really too much to ask for? If you (dev) think the rewards were a major reason as to why this game got funded, then i am even more sad at your lack of self esteem.

And for the ones calling me a troll, i would have funded this project in a eye beat, if it wasnt for this horrible backer scheme.

I have created this account specifically to talk about this issue, i do this because i cared enough for the idea of this game to do so, otherwise i would have just glanced off, as i have done countless times with other projects.

While i was (and still is, to an extent) angry over this whole thing ruining what otherwise would seem like a good game, dismissing me as a troll is also very disrespectful.


These are mostly cosmetics. The uniforms are and guns like the harpers ferry rifle wasn't any better then the enfield, springfield, Mississippi and so on.. Look at how many donated for the upper pledges and don't worry more about that. In a game like this its 80% up to the team play because of the fire rate and other factors around this period. When you make a game as tight up to historical accuracy as this, you can't make everyone happy nor everything completely balanced, but these guys have done that extremely well.

If this makes people stop playing the game, they are a bunch of babies and shouldn't be playing.

Then why not make them cosmetics instead of actual new guns? I will repeat that this scheme doesnt make the game any more realistic (and in fact, makes it less realistic, since at some point most of the backers will not be playing it anymore and thus there will be no more Colt Walkers around. So a even player who has invested a crapton of time in-game will NEVER see that weapon).

Who gets what should be decided in-game, thats how you make it realistic and more accurate (by even blocking off certain weapons from certain maps too). We both know the KS rewards dont reflect that.

And please dont try to excuse the developers as this being "the only way" to do it, we both know thats not true. Realism != Backer Reward scheme.

Regarding kickstarter, i dont just judge the game's concepts and ideas, i also judge the developers and their atitudes and of course, i see alot of negatives here.

You may call that being a "baby, i call it being self conscious about what i support.

And there will also be alot of folks on steam who wont buy this game because of this.

[MrAmerican]

Well, i suppose i couldnt contain myself and had to take a look again at these forums.

I understand your concern about the sharps rifle, with it having a scope and all... with there be any other unlockable "sniper rifles" with scope?

But for the other things, the guns are pretty much just skins. The walker will function the same as a normal revolver, it will just look different, same as the different rifles. From what I understand, devs please correct me if I'm wrong, but a gun is a gun no matter how it looks. If you have the stock rifle where as if you have a kickstarter rifle, they still function as a rifle, and they still kill... so what is to worry?

[TrustyJam]

I don't know what to say to you. Let's just leave it there. You've already basically told me you don't care about my input based on my "attitude". I'm sorry you're angry at us for rewarding the guys (with no gameplay altering rewards what so ever I need to stress) who made this game happen. Your dissatisfaction has been noted, thank you for taking your time leaving it here.

- Trusty

[TrustyJam]

I understand your concern about the sharps rifle, with it having a scope and all... with there be any other unlockable "sniper rifles" with scope?

But for the other things, the guns are pretty much just skins. The walker will function the same as a normal revolver, it will just look different, same as the different rifles. From what I understand, devs please correct me if I'm wrong, but a gun is a gun no matter how it looks. If you have the stock rifle where as if you have a kickstarter rifle, they still function as a rifle, and they still kill... so what is to worry?

There will be, yes. The Whithworth is another announced one.

- Trusty

[Mississippi]

In my opinion, the Kickstarter / PayPal guns should be exclusive only. The developers are giving exclusive rewards as a thank you for donating. Lastly the rewards should be unique & not skinned.

[BR4ZIL]

I don't know what to say to you. Let's just leave it there. You've already basically told me you don't care about my input based on my "attitude". I'm sorry you're angry at us for rewarding the guys (with no gameplay altering rewards what so ever I need to stress) who made this game happen. Your dissatisfaction has been noted, thank you for taking your time leaving it here.

- Trusty

Then i shall take my leave, i just wanna point out that Pathologic, a indie game (from a russian developer) that seem to have one of the most bizarre gameplay choices (a mix of FPS with RPG in a realistic black plague enviroment where you dont actually get to shoot people) managed to raise almost 400k Dollars and still going (and yes, i did back that game).

They didint need to resort to "backer bait" schemes.

I would say "good luck with the game and farewell", but honestly i dont want this kind of thing to proliferate and i will actually be suprised if War of Rights doesnt follow Verdun's fate of fading into obscurity very quickly (save for its hardcore small fanbase, of course). With Niche games, losing sales to something silly such as this is important, Agarest 2's censorship showed us that.

Anyway, i suppose my rant is over. I wish that the backers here at least enjoy their game, but i have no sympathy for the developers from here onwards.

[GeorgeCrecy]

Then i shall take my leave, i just wanna point out that Pathologic, a indie game (from a russian developer) that seem to have one of the most bizarre gameplay choices (a mix of FPS with RPG in a realistic black plague enviroment where you dont actually get to shoot people) managed to raise almost 400k Dollars and still going (and yes, i did back that game).

They didint need to resort to "backer bait" schemes.

I would say "good luck with the game and farewell", but honestly i dont want this kind of thing to proliferate and i will actually be suprised if War of Rights doesnt follow Verdun's fate of fading into obscurity very quickly (save for its hardcore small fanbase, of course). With Niche games, losing sales to something silly such as this is important, Agarest 2's censorship showed us that.

Anyway, i suppose my rant is over. I wish that the backers here at least enjoy their game, but i have no sympathy for the developers from here onwards.

Hey there BR4ZIL,

While we do respect your having an opinion on this, and one that I can understand as well. It certainly is unfortunate that many cases in life, there are going to be those that are haves and those that are have nots. I am quite idealistic myself in the hope that such things will be ended. But whether it relates to the real world in the struggle between capitalism and socialism or for games with those that back and those that do not, it is an unfortunate truth. But consider this, in what case will people donate to something on Kickstarter? It is not a website that has many cases of projects funded based completely on the generosity of people with no expected return. There are very few cases of that on there, though more on websites that devote themselves to such charitable schemes. Even then, people do get an expected return of a rather selfish desire for making themselves feel like a better person. There will always be an expected return.
So, we developers struggled with the question of how we would implement a fair and balanced way of doing things for our campaign. Our goal was to raise money to make this a possibility, and if you take a look at the many reviews and comments of people not only on the Kickstarter website, but also the hundreds that commented on Steam, people thought this was an awesome adventure into realistic, historical combat. You have mentioned many times that this game would crash and burn once an official release is made, but I respectfully stand to differ based on the massive amount of support our friends from Steam have given us. We had a meteoric rise to our votes for Greenlight, and we had full disclosure as to our Kickstarter campaign and main website being linked and readily available.

This all being said, I again return to how we made our pledge backers feel rewarded, yet still fair and balanced to the rest. All of the in-game rewards were carefully selected based on how rare or unique they were, while still historically relevant to the 1862 campaign. All of the weapons existed and were used in the war during or prior to 1862, and had examples or had an incredibly good chance as to having been used during the campaign. The Walker revolver, which you mentioned several times, again was an incredibly rare pistol, and yes, would hardly ever have been seen. The J.F. Target rifle was also an incredibly rare weapon, and we are setting up our game in a way that you can only use certain weapons when you are a certain class and certain regiment that was known to have used it. As for the rest of the weapons, which seem to be what you have the most problem with besides the overall idea, they are also very balanced and will be no more or less deadly than the other weapons commonly available.

So, while this might not relieve your mindful burdens, please understand that we are doing our best to make a fun game for everyone, and with the humongous amount of weapons, customization, classes, cannons, and tactical opportunities on final release, I do not believe there will be any love lost for those that did not have the fortune to back us in the beginning. Best of luck to you and to all.

[MrAmerican]

I would say "good luck with the game and farewell", but honestly i dont want this kind of thing to proliferate and i will actually be suprised if War of Rights doesnt follow Verdun's fate of fading into obscurity very quickly (save for its hardcore small fanbase, of course).

If you did not wish for this game to succeed then why spend your time making an account and righting out essays on how you don't like the game.
Sounds to me like you are a very lonely man with too much time on his hands.

But we will be kind, so this community wishes you "good luck" in your life as well. ;)
Farewell, BR4ZIL

[Jamez]

If you did not wish for this game to succeed then why spend your time making an account and righting out essays on how you don't like the game.

He did explain that he wanted to see this idea to succeed and this was the reason he made his account.



I have created this account specifically to talk about this issue, i do this because i cared enough for the idea of this game to do so, otherwise i would have just glanced off, as i have done countless times with other projects.

You shouldn't be so harsh towards him. A lot of what he says is not incorrect, kickstarter campaigns do have a lot of trust behind them and there have been plenty of times where people have been offered "pledge bait" only to see the game never created.

Now I think he is wrong when it comes to this game and trust that the developers know what they are doing.

[MrAmerican]

You shouldn't be so harsh towards him.

He said :
"I would say "good luck with the game and farewell", but honestly i dont want this kind of thing to proliferate and i will actually be suprised if War of Rights doesnt follow Verdun's fate of fading into obscurity very quickly"

He may have supported the game, but he said just said that he hopes the project fails...

[William F. Randolph]

Does anyone here actually support this idea? Poll please?

[Jamez]

Does anyone here actually support this idea? Poll please?

I think most people agree with the exclusivity of the items. As explained, they put a lot of thought into which regiments/weapons to use as pledge tiers.

[William F. Randolph]

Then someone PLEASE lock this thread so we can move on.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

Then someone PLEASE lock this thread so we can move on.

tell me why? there could come any other question.

[A. P. Hill]

... A lot of what he says is not incorrect, ...

It may not be incorrect, but it does spread dissent and discord among the community and negative comments whether correct or not are not appreciated in this community. We have enough nay sayers in this community as it is Jamez. And while I, or we cannot control every nay sayer, or negative comment from members, we really don't appreciate people coming in here with a predetermined attitude about causing disruption. I'm not saying he did ... BUT, it would appear that was his intent from the start despite claiming this endeavor's success, which, btw, the way I read his writing, he later recanted.

[Arkansan]

I hate locked threads.. Its a way to force people to stop talking about things and I feel it is wrong.

I have to say I'm in full support of the devs. Not to mention its too late to change the kickstarter rules seeing it has ended and the people have already been promised these skins.

[Jamez]

It may not be incorrect, but it does spread dissent and discord among the community and negative comments whether correct or not are not appreciated in this community. We have enough nay sayers in this community as it is Jamez.

I agree that the way he expressed his opinion was not correct and he is coming from having bad experiences with past kickstarters which produced this loss of hope so quickly for the team.

There will always be that doubt in the back of peoples mind some stronger than others. There is no way to avoid tha. It is just down to the development team to show to those people that those doubts are incorrect.

Edit: I also don't see any grounds to lock this thread as of yet.

[MrAmerican]

No need to lock the thread, just link everyone to this post:

http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?1069-Drama&p=18475#post18475

[Jamez]

I see no drama on the thread. As of now people are just expressing their opinions.

[MrAmerican]

I see no drama on the thread. As of now people are just expressing their opinions.

this thread has the potential to spiral into a flame war

[Jamez]

this thread has the potential to spiral into a flame war

There are very few topics which don't have the potential to create "flame wars" but that isn't the state which the thread is in and there isn't really a reason to deviate off-topic.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

everywhere where you can find different opinions you have a potential of a flame war.

but we driving off topic

[FranciscoJuarezGarcia]

I do not want to beat a dead cat or sound like a whiny b*tch, but I personally in a way agree with Brazil and some others here.


I mean, I do see points of many others here including devs, that such weapons, uniforms etc are a form of gratitude to people who decided to land devs a hand, not to mention that here is a group of indie developers and not some kind of huge company like VALVe and I know that some people would probably feel disappointed that they backed so much and that "reward" content became available later as DLCs. I for example once bought special editions of Total War Napoleon and Shogun 2 and felt like an idiot, when special units became available as DLCs later and in a way it would turn game in micro-transaction/DLC fest like what nova days same Total War games became (not to mention that controversy with Chaos warriors pre-order DLC for Total War Warhammer). But these backer-exclusive digital rewards in my opinion are unfair method to earn much more money too and let me explain why...

While yes, it is a form of gratitude, in a way it also seems to be pretty unfair towards those who just want to have more variety of troops, weapons etc in game. I personally dont need any forum ranks, ost, collector's edition and so on (though don't get me wrong, I still DO respect and admire other rewards developers provide to backers), I am just interested in digital rewards (except soundtrack), well, mostly units to be honest, so I wouldnt mind to pledge in a way of buying some kind of special digital reward pack or something that would contain at least them (even if there wouldnt be Jackson & Hooker) for a specific price or even buy them as some kind of DLC or part of some kind of Digital Deluxe Edition, cause I doubt anyone in right mind (sorry if I insulted anyone by saying this, I really didnt want to) would like to pay around 240 bucks just to have Mississippi guys or especially 1321 $ (!!!) just to play as Jackson & Hooker. What I am trying to say is that to obtain specific units, weapons and other digital in-game stuff you are lets say forced to pledge very high ammount of money, which is kind of unfair in my opinion and looks more like a dirty move to get as much money out of people as possible than rewards, especially if you will note that devs decided to pick really interesting units and weapons you would probably really want to check out, especially if you're interested in American Civil War (like most of the people here I think). Well, okay, some of them in a way can be understandable, like Jackson & Hooker, Allen & Wheelock colt and J.F. Brown rifle, those indeed seem to be like rewards for the chosen ones, but even here I still think that such money for some pixels in game are still way too much. But I will note, that using excuses like "BUT THEY WERE ACTUALLY RARE IRL!" are... pretty pathetic to make them or especially other weapons on the list and units so incredibely pricey and/or just limited to pledgers only, no offense guys, but it's not an argument, though as I said before, in a way I can understand why some of these are such special awards. And to be honest, devs, at least Trusty, sorry if it sounds like I am trying to badmouth or accuse any of you of something, but it kinda looks like that you're trying to play in the game called "who is my favourit child/doggy?" with all these "rewards" and so on, it's like you know, you sometimes sound like there is people who support your project and fans you lets say admire more than the others.

Now about micro-transaction, DLC, pre-order stuff dilema. Yes, it's not really nice, I agree with many people here and I also hope that War of Rights wouldnt become another game filled with micro-transactions (though I wouldnt mind paying the right price for DLC if that DLC would be good and worth it), but, guys, making special digital content available only for limited time, to specific group of people, not to mention that for most of it you need to give a really high ammount of money - ain't a really good thing either. You can keep calling it special rewards for backers and so on, but it doesn't change that fact.

Another thing I would like to say is that if these units and weapons or at least some of them are part of battles that developers included in the game (in Single or Multiplayer) then it is even much more unfair from my perspective, especially if devs are trying to be historically accurate, because technically you will not have a part of actually pretty important content (unless if speaking about units, you can encounter them as bots in Single Player content you can play against or with (but not as, or maybe as, depending what devs are planning to do. And again, keep in mind, that this is just my opinion though), depending if the moments they took part are included in the game or not and if multiplayer allows you to pick anyone anywhere you want, like in that Mount & Blade mod).


So, in my opinion, at least some of these weapons and units, if not all of them, can be also sold as a part of some kind of I dont know, Digital Deluxe or Collector's Editions (in a digital way of course, if dev's dont plan to release physical copies). And yes, I know that some of you can say "BUT I PAID MONEY FOR IT! IT'S A SPECIAL REWARD I DESERVE!" or anything like that, well, while yes, it is true, it doesn't mean that nobody else now has a right to obtain these digital content or anything else in any other way. Plus as I said before, if you spent such money only on some units, weapons and other stuff in a game, it doesn't mean it's actually smart and right thing to do and that now everybody else should do it.


But keep in mind, that I am however NOT trying to force my opinions on anybody or trying to say that I am 100% right. If there is anybody who disagrees with me, I will understand, but please, guys, reply constructively and polite, without being way too over-protective over the devs and that pledge-exclusivity thing.

[TrustyJam]

Hello there,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

First you're stating that you felt like an idiot when total war preorder exclusives was sold as DLC, then you go on saying "But I will note, that using excuses like "BUT THEY WERE ACTUALLY RARE IRL!" are... pretty pathetic to make them or especially other weapons on the list and units so incredibely pricey and/or just limited to pledgers only, no offense guys, but it's not an argument, though as I said before, in a way I can understand why some of these are such special awards."

Then you go on to voice your opinion regarding you wanting us to sell the backer rewards as DLC. In other words, you want us to make all of our backers feel like idiots like you yourself did regarding the instance you mentioned above. The backer rewards are exclusive to the backers. We mentioned that from the very begning of the crowdfunding campaign and people backed us knowing it - we're not going to do a 180 after having grabbed their money just to be able to sell them at a cheaper price to a bigger audience.

I will also again state, that no, historically accurate does not mean that every single piece of content (the content offered as backer rewards will have identical non backer content as another choice also. There's no buying special weapons with certain mechanics no one else can get to use) of the game should be available to everyone. It's got absolutely nothing to do with that, I'd go as far as say that if we indeed tightened up the historical accuracy in terms of generic looking soldiers and only supported springfields and enfields that would most certainly be closer to the real numbers of "special looking soldiers" and amounts of arms distributed.

- Trusty

[FranciscoJuarezGarcia]

Hello there,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

First you're stating that you felt like an idiot when total war preorder exclusives was sold as DLC, then you go on saying "But I will note, that using excuses like "BUT THEY WERE ACTUALLY RARE IRL!" are... pretty pathetic to make them or especially other weapons on the list and units so incredibely pricey and/or just limited to pledgers only, no offense guys, but it's not an argument, though as I said before, in a way I can understand why some of these are such special awards."

Then you go on to voice your opinion regarding you wanting us to sell the backer rewards as DLC. In other words, you want us to make all of our backers feel like idiots like you yourself did regarding the instance you mentioned above. The backer rewards are exclusive to the backers. We mentioned that from the very begning of the crowdfunding campaign and people backed us knowing it - we're not going to do a 180 after having grabbed their money just to be able to sell them at a cheaper price to a bigger audience.

I will also again state, that no, historically accurate does not mean that every single piece of content (the content offered as backer rewards will have identical non backer content as another choice also. There's no buying special weapons with certain mechanics no one else can get to use) of the game should be available to everyone. It's got absolutely nothing to do with that, I'd go as far as say that if we indeed tightened up the historical accuracy in terms of generic looking soldiers and only supported springfields and enfields that would most certainly be closer to the real numbers of "special looking soldiers" and amounts of arms distributed.

- Trusty

Hello and thanks for answering!

Ooops, I guess I stated the sentence wrong. I felt like an idiot, because I bought these editions specifically for units, WITHOUT needing any other special stuff from these editions (also I was talking about special editions of retail versions, not pre-order rewards), so I guess yeah, it's more like my own fault, than the fault of Total War developers, sorry, now I feel like an idiot for using the bad example xD. I wasnt actually trying to say that selling these content later as payable DLCs are bad though and it should be exclusive to pre-orderers, owners of special/collector's editions only etc (well, unless it's something like Digital Deluxe edition that indeed provides specific rewards only in such edition), it's just that sometimes it does feel like a lets say trap of some sort.

Well, I do understand that, but as I said the thing is what if somebody doesn't care about other rewards and are interested only in digital content? Plus I think that not everyone who pledged would be able to get physical rewards, unless you indeed don't care where to send the rewards.

Alright, not gonna argue about that, though it still sounds like some kind of ripoff, no offense please. What identical non backer content as another choice btw? Just curious. Also, sorry, but what do you mean by "I'd go as far as say that if we indeed tightened up the historical accuracy in terms of generic looking soldiers and only supported springfields and enfields that would most certainly be closer to the real numbers of "special looking soldiers" and amounts of arms distributed."? Sorry, it's just English aint my first language, so sometimes it's hard for me to understand things.

[TrustyJam]

You think it's a ripoff because you fail to see beyond the rewards. It's not possible to "buy" the rewards. They are given as a thank you for backing the project at a certain tier. Their "price" is high because they are given as a thank you for supporting the project.

I simply meant your arguement about every bit of content be available to everyone "because of historically accuracy" couldn't be more wrong. There will already be a very high percentage of different weapons and uniforms in our game when you factor in player numbers compared to the real thing.

- Trusty

[Arkansan]

When you say, "no offense please", it doesn't make us less offended when you say we are "out of our minds" for backing this project. If anything, it makes me pissed that you have the 'nerve' to come on here and complain about our rewards we will receive for backing this crowdfunded project. You come onto a Civil War game forum and say that the realism excuse is pathetic?? Take your empty, outstretched hand elsewhere!

[MrAmerican]

I didn't back Captain for the revolver and the uniform. Is it a plus that I'm getting them, yes. But that isn't the only reason I dished out 60 some dollars. I was supporting the project, not buying rewards. I would have still donated the same amount without getting a revovler and uniforms. Those "pixels" are just the developers giving thanks for us supporting them.

[Bravescot]

Oy vay Arky ;)

I backed Gen of the Army because I wanted this game to pass the Kickstarter......and I really wanted that drill manual

[FranciscoJuarezGarcia]

You think it's a ripoff because you fail to see beyond the rewards. It's not possible to "buy" the rewards. They are given as a thank you for backing the project at a certain tier. Their "price" is high because they are given as a thank you for supporting the project.

I simply meant your arguement about every bit of content be available to everyone "because of historically accuracy" couldn't be more wrong. There will already be a very high percentage of different weapons and uniforms in our game when you factor in player numbers compared to the real thing.

- Trusty
I just think its unfair in a way, because it literally ties pretty interesting units and weapons that may catch attention of people (especially those who are really interested in Civil War), to a very high pledges, so at least for me, in a way it is still unfair, no matter what you call it, rewards or not. You can tell me I am a moron who doesn't see your point, but sorry, I just really can't consider that idea to be good. However, I am NOT saying that you or anybody anybody needs to 100% agree with me and do as I say, I just expressed my opinion. You disagree with me, you won't change your decision and so on - alright, I see it and understand it and I won't argue with you, because I see it is completely pointless and not gonna change anything and especially in no way I was trying to say that it makes you bad guys your game bad now or something. Also, I am not demanding answers, but you ignored a couple of my questions, though I know they are not important.


When you say, "no offense please", it doesn't make us less offended when you say we are "out of our minds" for backing this project. If anything, it makes me pissed that you have the 'nerve' to come on here and complain about our rewards we will receive for backing this crowdfunded project. You come onto a Civil War game forum and say that the realism excuse is pathetic?? Take your empty, outstretched hand elsewhere!

Seems like either my English is worse than I expected or you didnt read my comment more carefully. I wasnt saying or even trying to say that somebody is out of their minds if they decided to put money in the project, it's actually a good thing to do, I was saying that somebody in my opinion would be out of their mind if they will put shitton of money ONLY for one or few digital rewards tied to very high pledges, just to obtain these few in-game things, I thinkit would be like you know, paying a lot of money for a car, just because of the special keychain and nothing else. I even called myself an idiot in the post, because I bought collector's editions of the couple of Total War games, just for special units, and I realize it was indeed a stupid move, though I know that because of my crappy English, the sentence can be taken the wrong way. I am not complaining about rewards themselves or saying that you or anybody esle who backed doesn't deserve them, I just personally think that it's not really right to make at least some of them obtainable only for putting way way too much money in the project. Depends on what kind of realism and realism in what, if putting very very high prices on specific content in the game just because it wasnt that common in reality, then yeah, it is stupid and pathetic at least from my perspective, imagine various developers of various war games like Verdun, Battle Of Empires or same Total War series putting absolutely crazy prices on specific units and weapons, using such excuse, I doubt you or most of the people would think it would be good, right? However, I do realize that in this case it's a different thing, because digital in-game stuff aint the only things you get for indeed landing devs a hand, and there is of course people who indeed overprice in-game stuff, like VALVe with Mann Co in TF2 (I mean, they seriously charge so much for a pixel wedding ring? Though it's not the only problem). Also, no need to be so hostile, I am sorry if I offended you or anybody else in any way and I agree that I did wrote some sentences wrong, thus they can be taken a wrong way, but again, as I said, English ain't my first language and it ain't really good, so I can make dumb mistakes sometimes or formulate my words the wrong way, but I was just trying to say that I personally disagree with digital content exclusivity thing, I wasn't saying that developers are now spawns of the Devil, game sucks and I won't buy it, and that I will now find them and those who disagree with me and kill them. Also, calling me libtard just because I don't share your opinion ain't really smart thing to do either.


Also, people, again, I know that my English is crap and so on, so I can be taken wrong or something, but it doesn't mean that I am trying to insult any of you, developers or shit on the game. As I said I just personally disagree with that exclusivity thing, but I am not thinking that I am 100% right and want to force my opinions and views on any of you, and if you have opinions different from mine then you all are bad and horrible, no, I am actually completely alright with people disagreeing with me and so on. No need to take things so harsh and attacking and insulting me now, please.

[A. P. Hill]

Actually Sir, I find nothing wrong with your English. (This comment from a Scottish-American.)

However I find your point of view is rather disorienting. I fail to follow "the logic" of your point I guess.

1948

[FranciscoJuarezGarcia]

Actually Sir, I find nothing wrong with your English. (This comment from a Scottish-American.)

However I find your point of view is rather disorienting. I fail to follow "the logic" of your point I guess.

1948
Heh, thanks, I think, I really appreciate that.

Well, I do understand that, as Trusty said, each to their own, I guess.



Not really sure what your problem is, but if you receive a backer exclusive uniform, such as 11th Mississippi, you can only wear that when playing as the 11th Mississippi. So although I imagine the uniform will be more colorful than the other uniforms in the 11th it will still look like the rest of them. The Civil War had 100s of different weapons so not really sure how many people are going to quit the game cause they cant use 1 type of pistol. Neither the uniform or the weapons are going to make someone standout.

I also feel sorry for you that you have never cared about or wanted a game so bad that you would donate money even if you got nothing in return but the game. Right now im extremely irritated with this community and the class warfare mentality of some of the members. I am in no way a wealthy person and I freely donated my money for this game because I want to play it not because they gave me a few pixelated recreations of some things. I would have donated my money with no rewards other than the game itself. If you feel that some people receiving something you wont get, items that have no actual effect on the gameplay, and you are just going to spout off negative comments than please feel free to leave these forums.

Also Bra4zil as a person who just started your forum profile today you are an obvious troll so please take yourself back to steam and troll the Verdun forums.
Not saying that Verdun is a great game, but what's your problem with that and/or it's devs that you want this guy to troll them (I don't think that just starting the profile today makes the guy a troll though)? What did they or their game do to you? Just curious.

[Almanza P. Baker]

Well you obviously haven't even bothered to read all the posts in the thread. The guy bashed Verdun in his first post so I was just referring back to that. Also as a player of video games for more years than most of you have been alive I can spot a forum troll when I see one.

Once again this forum has devolved into a bunch of posts from people who are upset by the fact that some people have something they do not. If you are one of these people and can not read all the logical arguments presented here than please stop reading and posting on these forums.

[FranciscoJuarezGarcia]

Well you obviously haven't even bothered to read all the posts in the thread. The guy bashed Verdun in his first post so I was just referring back to that. Also as a player of video games for more years than most of you have been alive I can spot a forum troll when I see one.

Once again this forum has devolved into a bunch of posts from people who are upset by the fact that some people have something they do not. If you are one of these people and can not read all the logical arguments presented here than please stop reading and posting on these forums.
I know that he bashed Verdun, it just sounded kinda weird to me that you just told him to go and troll there, LOL. I dont think that he was a troll, more like one of the people who are extremely disappointed over something, though he did wrote a lot of essays here, lol. Such people just come in various variety, some are really extreme, some are just whiny, some are just disappointed and can complain and so on. But I do agree that sometimes it is hard nova days to differ normal person from a troll.

Well, unfortunately, as I said, there is things I do not really agree with, but again, it doesn't mean I am gonna force my opinions and views or anybody or being way too strict and persistent though. If people disagree with me, I am okay with that and I understand that, at least in this case.

[Octavian360]

Gather round the fire gents, have some popcorn the show has started.

[GeorgeCrecy]

Gather round the fire gents, have some popcorn the show has started.

A show which we are not prone to allow start.
Yes, the internet is one where people of disparate ideas and ideals might meet together in battle or in friendship. We at War of Rights, despite the name, prefer the latter. For Francisco, we do appreciate your voice in this matter. Again, while things might not seem fair as to those that do not have the money or timely opportunity to gain access to the few weapons or uniforms we have chosen, please keep in mind that even in 1862, uniforms and weapons of great variety were not in short supply. While you might not have access to those few benefits, the other long and short arms, and artillery will be more than enough to keep you sated.
And for those like Arkansan who have commented on our side of the friendly debate, we also welcome your staunch defense of our success and our goals. However, I must entreat you to please in future be kind and understanding to those that do not immediately share such enthusiasm. There are legitimate concerns out there, but we hope that the Dev teams' conduct and efforts will show such concerns unwarranted.
To all, please continue to discuss anything that you feel might be a problem. In turn, we must respect those who have taken such measures if they are sincere, and in so doing be respectful in our replies. Personally, I believe you all are more than up for such a task.

[Arkansan]

Thanks for the shoutout George! Its just hard for me to be kind and understanding when I'm being told my ideals are "stupid and pathetic".

[FranciscoJuarezGarcia]

I am curious though, will these 4 special units (not sure about commanders though) appear in Single Player as NPCs you fight against (like they are part of enemy faction) or with (like they're part of your faction, depends on who you will be playing as)? Like, you cant play as them in multiplayer or as them in SP (depends on how SP will work though), but they still do appear as NPCs in SP to provide more variety in game?

[Jamez]

I am curious though, will these 4 special units (not sure about commanders though) appear in Single Player as NPCs you fight against (like they are part of enemy faction) or with (like they're part of your faction, depends on who you will be playing as)? Like, you cant play as them in multiplayer or as them in SP (depends on how SP will work though), but they still do appear as NPCs in SP to provide more variety in game?

Unless I haven't read a recent update, there will be no single player aspect of the game. These unique units will only be able to be worn by the people who have donated. Everyone will be able to see that skin but will not be able to use it without the required pledge tier.

[Hinkel]

I am curious though, will these 4 special units (not sure about commanders though) appear in Single Player as NPCs you fight against (like they are part of enemy faction) or with (like they're part of your faction, depends on who you will be playing as)? Like, you cant play as them in multiplayer or as them in SP (depends on how SP will work though), but they still do appear as NPCs in SP to provide more variety in game?

There is no singleplayer in War of Rights, except the walking battlefield tour.

[A. P. Hill]

And there is no AI players either ... enemy or friendly alike.

[FranciscoJuarezGarcia]

Oh, well, it's just called Single Player Battlefield Tour in funding goals. And well... so, it's just walking around and learning info and nothing else, right?

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

yes. you will get information about the battle

[FranciscoJuarezGarcia]

Okay. Also, not that I am complaining, but there is even no abality to create game/server with bots (like in M&B)?

[Hinkel]

Okay. Also, not that I am complaining, but there is even no abality to create game/server with bots (like in M&B)?

For the moment, its nearly impossible for us to create a working AI for the game. You need an extra AI programmer for it, which might need another 100.000 Dollar to get a proper AI done.
Its not just creating "working" bots, but they need to know civil war tactics, formations usage, getting a proper pathfinding for all those huge maps and so on.
Its something we can't effort right now. Maybe in a War of Rights 2 ;)

[A. P. Hill]

Oh, well, it's just called Single Player Battlefield Tour in funding goals. And well... so, it's just walking around and learning info and nothing else, right?

It is a rather extensive environment. Over 6.25 square miles of map, (borders are 2.5 miles long on 4 sides.) That's a lot of area to see. Especially when you're in battle and only seeing what's in front of you, you're missing 90 percent of the environment ... a walking tour is a great idea. More games should do this ... but then more games are not leaning toward historical accuracy in their games.

[Landree]

Does the tour include an immersive Rav4 complete with off-the-wall questioning wife and completely rowdy and disinterested kids?

[Jeffrey Miller]

Does the tour include an immersive Rav4 complete with off-the-wall questioning wife and completely rowdy and disinterested kids?

Very Funny!

[A. P. Hill]

Does the tour include an immersive Rav4 complete with off-the-wall questioning wife and completely rowdy and disinterested kids?

No. No Rav4 .... BUT, my tour which is going to start in about an hour will include a 2014 GMC Sierra Z-71 4x4. :) Yes, I'm going to Antietam today. It's only an hour and a half's drive for me. I've been there before, but it was more or less in just passing, I expect to see a lot more today.

[Jeffrey Miller]

Most of these people are too used to extreme balance in big backed games..
Or don't want to part with money.

Here here!