Discussion about when monetary imbalances are acceptable

[Wingflier]

Continued from here:  http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,11775.30.html

I'm just following your example on statistics. People loath LoL, but there are no objective statstics.

When did I provide a statistic about the number of people who loathe LoL?  I never even said I loathe LoL.  I said I loathe Riot and their business practices.

So most people loath having a select few people, in this case, 81 people out of tens of thousands of preorders will get an in game benefit for being able to donate what is for most people their year's worth of gaming benefits.

Okay?  You're welcome to dislike that.  I have no problem with it.  What are we arguing about here?

I don't know how you think you have to unlock everything (competitive scene of ANY game doesn't use 100% of possibilities), or how you need to unlock 100's of thousands of hours to unlock everything in LoL. The top players of the tornments use the same 30 or so champions, and I have that amount of champions despite not spending a single cent on LoL. Anyone who is "serious" about the game has unlocked everything they need. If you want to be so obsessive that you think you need 100% of everything to compete you are deluded.

Well I don't think I'm deluded, but I think you're just proving my point even more that there's really only a small percentage (of champions and runes) that are competitively viable at any given time (according to you).  To unlock all of these champions and runes, it would still take over 1,000 hours of playtime if you didn't pay any money.  Therefore, a person who has played more than you still has an advantage for several thousand hours.  In a game that claims to be competitive, this isn't acceptable in my opinion.  Compare this to DotA 2 where everybody really is on an even-footing right from the beginning, not just after thousands of hours.

10% of gamers who care about competitiveness on the meta level is based on observation. There are no objective statistics of this, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that if you ask your circle of friends what is competitive gaming, less then 10% would even know what the hell you are talking about, and an even smaller number would care about your breed of competitive gaming. If you doubt it look at the budgets for professional E-sports and professional athletic sports. Or the budgets of games that don't build themselves on E-sports to those who do. E-sports is a niche, period.

I know that many LoL tournaments have had millions of viewers.  So I don't know how this compares to their active playerbase, but regardless, when you have millions of people supporting your competitive scene, it should probably be a top priority to your that your game is balanced.

This is why I think true balance (i.e. balance that isn't based on time paid or played) is more important in LoL than it is for Planetary Annihilation or other casual games.

[chemical_art]

Whats odd that you make a thread about monetary imbalances are acceptable, but mention your disapproval of a game where you can get everything for free eventually, and everything you need to be competitive quickly, but not mentioning supporting games where you get extra options for paying with money.

[Wingflier]

Okay well first let's define quickly:

Earlier in your post you said you only needed 30 Champions (out of over 100 now is it?) to be competitive.  I'm also going to assume that you need 3 full rune pages of Tier 3 runes as well correct?  You need different rune sets for different champion roles.

Do you agree with me so far?  30 Champions and 3 full sets of Tier 3 runes.  Are we on the same page?

[chemical_art]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with your thread title.

If you want to make a thread that throws dirt and worst on LoL on the state of its metagame, do that.

If you want to make a thread where you truly want to discuss when it is not ok to spend a dime on a game but its also ok to spend a grand on another, do that as well.

[Wingflier]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with your thread title.

I'm confused, I thought this discussion had everything to do with my thread title.

Your personal form of debate tactic, called the "Gish Gallop" is continuing to change the subject and present so many straw man arguments that the person debating you can't possibly answer them all in a reasonable time frame.  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

We'll go through a list of your claims made within the past hour:
1. Only 10% of the LoL Playerbase cares about its competitive aspect.
2. Only 5% of the LoL Playerbase cares about its competitive aspect.
3. You make up statistics too so I'm justified in making up statistics.
4. I'm just basing these statistics off of my own personal experience.
5. You can unlock all the LoL content for free so that makes it okay.
6. You can unlock all the competitive LoL content QUICKLY so that makes it okay.

When I try to get you to stick with point 6, suddenly you want to change your debate tactic again and say: 

7. Claim 6 has nothing to do with this discussion.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to stick with one of your points or I can't possibly debate you.

[Volatar]

I'll note that in official LoL tournaments the unlocking system is bypassed and everything is unlocked, even the cosmetics.

[chemical_art]

Then why not post on the title:

"It's possible to unlock LoL content quickly?"

It would show your intentions and provide thread direction, which was your intention when you made a thread to begin with.

Nice job cherry picking facts as well. You continuously provide no regard to context.

1. The % was referring to players who enthusiastically care about competitive gaming, to the point they critique games based on competitiveness
2. The % was referring to players who support money giving a tangible in game benefit. Or, more specifically, a grand to get a unique in game benefit that cannot be acquired in any other way.

This was explicitly stated in my last post on the other thread, reading comprehension would help here.

3. You are just as guilty as me. Going from "hundreds of thousands of hours to get everything in LoL" to "1,000 hours to get everything". Or, as Volatar pointed out, in the competitive scene, there is no "spending money or time to get everything" which is the core of your argument.
4, You are one to talk about my opinions make fact  You have the most loose definition of casual I have ever seen, and claim it is fact. You say a game is worst because its competitive scene is not what you like, despite most people not caring.
5. Continuing to cherry pick without regard to context. It's better then being force to spend a grand to get everything. What if for Counter Strike to get a new balanced gun you had to spend a grand, or to get a new balanced ship in AI war you had to spend a grand, or to get a new balanced spell in AvWW you had to spend a grand...
6. Everything you would want or need, unless you are someone who obsesses on getting 100% for your ego needs. Remember context, its an either or statement. Either you can get everything for free or to get a new option you spend a grand. I have claimed no opinion on anything in between.

[Wingflier]

I'm not going to respond to that post because you're just changing the subject AGAIN.

The subject is:  When are monetary imbalances acceptable?

My first point was:  Small imbalances are acceptable when the game is casual and does not claim to be competitive.  Therefore, League of Legends is not acceptable because it claims to be competitive.

Your second point was:  Only 10% of the LoL Community cares about the competitive aspect.

When I contested that, you changed your argument to:

All the LoL Content is free.

When I contested that you changed your argument to:

All the content you NEED to be competitive is free.

Then I contested that point, and you said we were no longer on the same subject.

Yes, we're still on the same subject.  I'm saying these are different situations (LoL and PA), you are saying they aren't different.

It's hard to argue with someone when they have short-term memory loss, or when you have to keep re-explaining what you're talking about.  Quit being a slippery politician and pick a stance. 

[chemical_art]

I'm sorry I'm not giving you the satisfaction you want.

I don't support monetary advantages that cannot also be earned other ways. Period. So I don't care if LoL claims to be competitive.

I don't know what you were expecting. You were throwing around all sorts of differing subjects, and I responded. Keep it simple if you want simple answers.

[Wingflier]

I don't support monetary advantages that cannot also be earned other ways. Period. So I don't care if LoL claims to be competitive.

So if a person could pay for ALL the commanders at once, but you could also unlock a new commander (out of say 25) for every thousand hours of playtime, you would be okay with Planetary Annihilation's system?  I'm just looking for some consistency here.

[chemical_art]

Absolutely.

It can be hard or rare (meaning it is obtained through a ridiculous amount of skill or randomness), but if there was a slim chance to obtain it without cost I would be 100% fine with it.

[Wingflier]

Okay I guess that's our fundamental disagreement then.

I think asking a person to play 25,000 hours to unlock all the content vs. paying for it is pretty much the same thing assuming the player has any sort of life.

[chemical_art]

*shrug*

It's the same rarity as the sort of life where it is worth paying a grand for a single unit. For the few it is acceptable, for the rest it is not.

When I agreed I was not assuming you were taking the 1000 hours literally. (I'm curious about a game where you unlock a single item every 1000 hours  ) I think each one should be unlocked no more then every 15 hours if it is time based alone, but I was implying it was more along the lines of it being the mercy of accomplishments or a pure RNG

[Wingflier]

When I agreed I was not assuming you were taking the 1000 hours literally. (I'm curious about a game where you unlock a single item every 1000 hours  ) I think each one should be unlocked no more then every 15 hours if it is time based alone, but I was implying it was more along the lines of it being the mercy of accomplishments or a pure RNG

Oh okay NOW we're having a discussion over how much TIME is a reasonable amount to unlock content.

So basically, we're back to point 6.  Good lord why did this have to take so long.

[chemical_art]

We have cut out the clutter. I rejoice! 

I honestly think may disagree about 25% of things, but 90% of the arguments them are the result of shifting goalposts.

As for what is an acceptable time sink, it will vary for every person. Some might say 1 hour is too much, another migh say 100 hours is fine. For that reason, I can say the argument is whether you support having everything be unlocked eventually for playing a game you like or having only the option to pay.