Perhaps it has already been thought of but I'd pay $0.99 for an à la carte Specialist. If needed, make game parameters that do and don't allow such things. It seems there is a demand already for a parameter for games that exclude the building of mines.

This would make this game "pay to win", the player who's willing to pay the most money can easily change the balance and win the match.

At the moment I believe most forum users are against "pay to win" monetization since the game will be less about strategy, diplomacy and skill. I know features like this would quickly push me away from the game.

Nevertheless all ideas can be suggested and considered!

I'd for sure be up for paying for specialist expansion packs though that I could select when creating a game. Kind of like the carcassonne app expansions.

stefan wrote:This would make this game "pay to win", the player who's willing to pay the most money can easily change the balance and win the match.

At the moment I believe most forum users are against "pay to win" monetization since the game will be less about strategy, diplomacy and skill. I know features like this would quickly push me away from the game.

Nevertheless all ideas can be suggested and considered!

Yeah, I wouldn't like this because I'm not interested in being out-paid for a victory.

Bigredsk10 wrote:I'd for sure be up for paying for specialist expansion packs though that I could select when creating a game. Kind of like the carcassonne app expansions.

That's a different thing. Specialist Expansions would be ok if they were only allowed in games were everyone has the expansion. This way it would still be balanced and players who paid money for an advantage are only playing against other players who paid for the same advantage.

The original idea of this thread is clearly pay to win. For only three dollars a player could have a pirate/nav/assassin combo after 2 days. And at the moment you clearly know what the player can hire next if you see his queen. You can take this into account when you think about your strategy. If he can just pay a dollar and can choose what specialist he would like to have he would always be able to counter your attacks.

kinc4id wrote:
That's a different thing. Specialist Expansions would be ok if they were only allowed in games were everyone has the expansion. This way it would still be balanced and players who paid money for an advantage are only playing against other players who paid for the same advantage.

The original idea of this thread is clearly pay to win. For only three dollars a player could have a pirate/nav/assassin combo after 2 days. And at the moment you clearly know what the player can hire next if you see his queen. You can take this into account when you think about your strategy. If he can just pay a dollar and can choose what specialist he would like to have he would always be able to counter your attacks.

Oh I agree completely, just chiming in that I'd be up for paying for new specialists to use, but not pay-to-win.

stefan wrote:This would make this game "pay to win", the player who's willing to pay the most money can easily change the balance and win the match.

At the moment I believe most forum users are against "pay to win" monetization since the game will be less about strategy, diplomacy and skill. I know features like this would quickly push me away from the game.

Nevertheless all ideas can be suggested and considered!

...and the point of having a parameter for creating games that would allow or disallow this feature would solve your concern.

It sounds like general opinion is against monetizing the game which is great. I for one am playing this game primarily because of the rampant monetization of other games. Specialist hires for $ would ruin the game and make me quit.