|
Fair point, if you only want to buy 6300 champs than it would definitely be a pain - hopefully they'll drop the price of some soon.
I think 20 games is enough to feel very comfortable with a champ (way more if you've never played that role though). But even after that its a long time before I'm satisfied with how to play them- just getting used to different lane match ups takes a while.
I just have honestly never felt constrained by the rate stuff unlocks, except when playing on my China account (because you can't transfer stuff and its a long way to level 30).
I was new to mobas though, so maybe ex dots/hon players feel differently.
|
On February 08 2013 07:30 NeoIllusions wrote:
You can dislike the fact that Riot encourages the grind factor for you to progress in the game. But it's certainly not pay2win. Having more champions or even tier 1 runes gives you such a negligible advantage, especially at pre level 30 games. I could teach someone to become very proficient with Annie for 450 IP and they could stomp normal games until level 30.
It's fine if you want to hate Riot's grind model. I think Valve's buy-get-all-the-heroes model is great. Riot should have that option. But if you put down RP at level 1, you get some nice skins and weak runes that don't help past level 3 in game. Hate the grind? We can agree.
Someone that pays will reach the level at which they will have access to tier 3 runes faster than someone that doesn't.
Paying gives a fucking advantage that can directly allow you to win versus someone that does not pay, that is the definition of pay to win.
If you have:
Player A and Player B
Player A buys and pays for absolutely everything you can.
Player B uses zero money.
And you have them both play the same amount of games, and we assume they win the same amount of games, just to make things easier. They play the amount of games needed for A to hit level 30, if A and B were to play versus eachother 1v1 A would have a definite advantage, you can not fucking deny this. That IS pay2win.
And yes, i really really hate the grind model, it is AWFUL for a competitive game. Because all champions aren't equally good and nerfs/buffs are given out far too often. One month the champions you have for top lane might be top tier and the next they might be shit(Exaggerated, but ya).
|
On February 08 2013 13:43 Unleashing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 07:30 NeoIllusions wrote:
You can dislike the fact that Riot encourages the grind factor for you to progress in the game. But it's certainly not pay2win. Having more champions or even tier 1 runes gives you such a negligible advantage, especially at pre level 30 games. I could teach someone to become very proficient with Annie for 450 IP and they could stomp normal games until level 30.
It's fine if you want to hate Riot's grind model. I think Valve's buy-get-all-the-heroes model is great. Riot should have that option. But if you put down RP at level 1, you get some nice skins and weak runes that don't help past level 3 in game. Hate the grind? We can agree. Someone that pays will reach the level at which they will have access to tier 3 runes faster than someone that doesn't. Paying gives a fucking advantage that can directly allow you to win versus someone that does not pay, that is the definition of pay to win. If you have: Player A and Player B Player A buys and pays for absolutely everything you can. Player B uses zero money. And you have them both play the same amount of games, and we assume they win the same amount of games, just to make things easier. They play the amount of games needed for A to hit level 30, if A and B were to play versus eachother 1v1 A would have a definite advantage, you can not fucking deny this. That IS pay2win. And yes, i really really hate the grind model, it is AWFUL for a competitive game. Because all champions aren't equally good and nerfs/buffs are given out far too often. One month the champions you have for top lane might be top tier and the next they might be shit(Exaggerated, but ya).
The skill difference between random player A and random player B can be so huge pre-30 that runes/masteries/newchamps make no difference. It'd be no different than if starcraft 3 came out tomorrow and I challenged a friend of mine who never plays RTS games to a custom game where he got 20% more income than me. I'd still guarantee victory even though I'd have never laid hands on the game.
To be able to exploit the advantage you'd have from runes over another opponent who doesn't you'd already have to have a good understanding of the lane matchup and game in general. Odds are you wont if your opponent doesn't have runes yet.
|
On February 08 2013 14:54 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 13:43 Unleashing wrote:On February 08 2013 07:30 NeoIllusions wrote:
You can dislike the fact that Riot encourages the grind factor for you to progress in the game. But it's certainly not pay2win. Having more champions or even tier 1 runes gives you such a negligible advantage, especially at pre level 30 games. I could teach someone to become very proficient with Annie for 450 IP and they could stomp normal games until level 30.
It's fine if you want to hate Riot's grind model. I think Valve's buy-get-all-the-heroes model is great. Riot should have that option. But if you put down RP at level 1, you get some nice skins and weak runes that don't help past level 3 in game. Hate the grind? We can agree. Someone that pays will reach the level at which they will have access to tier 3 runes faster than someone that doesn't. Paying gives a fucking advantage that can directly allow you to win versus someone that does not pay, that is the definition of pay to win. If you have: Player A and Player B Player A buys and pays for absolutely everything you can. Player B uses zero money. And you have them both play the same amount of games, and we assume they win the same amount of games, just to make things easier. They play the amount of games needed for A to hit level 30, if A and B were to play versus eachother 1v1 A would have a definite advantage, you can not fucking deny this. That IS pay2win. And yes, i really really hate the grind model, it is AWFUL for a competitive game. Because all champions aren't equally good and nerfs/buffs are given out far too often. One month the champions you have for top lane might be top tier and the next they might be shit(Exaggerated, but ya). The skill difference between random player A and random player B can be so huge pre-30 that runes/masteries/newchamps make no difference. It'd be no different than if starcraft 3 came out tomorrow and I challenged a friend of mine who never plays RTS games to a custom game where he got 20% more income than me. I'd still guarantee victory even though I'd have never laid hands on the game. To be able to exploit the advantage you'd have from runes over another opponent who doesn't you'd already have to have a good understanding of the lane matchup and game in general. Odds are you wont if your opponent doesn't have runes yet.
Does not matter. It is an advantage you can pay for.
I'm not saying it matters since it evens out eventually with grinding, but that does not change that it is a fucking advantage you can pay money to achieve. Your analogy is nothing like what i'm talking about, a fitting analogy would be.
It'd be no different than is SC2 came out tomorrow and you had to buy units, or play a lot to unlock them and you played against your friend who is a noob but unlocked all the units and you only had the basic units. You would probably win, but he'd still have an advantage that he paid for.
Also, we are assuming that player A and B are 100% equal in skill, obviously.
Only difference between A and B is paying vs no paying. Player A has an advantage that can win him games which was achieved from paying. Eventually player B will have the same things as A, but untill he does, A has an advantage.
I'm not sure how an advantage you can pay for isn't somehow pay2win regardless of it being eventually eliminated by grinding.
|
On February 08 2013 15:54 Unleashing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 14:54 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 08 2013 13:43 Unleashing wrote:On February 08 2013 07:30 NeoIllusions wrote:
You can dislike the fact that Riot encourages the grind factor for you to progress in the game. But it's certainly not pay2win. Having more champions or even tier 1 runes gives you such a negligible advantage, especially at pre level 30 games. I could teach someone to become very proficient with Annie for 450 IP and they could stomp normal games until level 30.
It's fine if you want to hate Riot's grind model. I think Valve's buy-get-all-the-heroes model is great. Riot should have that option. But if you put down RP at level 1, you get some nice skins and weak runes that don't help past level 3 in game. Hate the grind? We can agree. Someone that pays will reach the level at which they will have access to tier 3 runes faster than someone that doesn't. Paying gives a fucking advantage that can directly allow you to win versus someone that does not pay, that is the definition of pay to win. If you have: Player A and Player B Player A buys and pays for absolutely everything you can. Player B uses zero money. And you have them both play the same amount of games, and we assume they win the same amount of games, just to make things easier. They play the amount of games needed for A to hit level 30, if A and B were to play versus eachother 1v1 A would have a definite advantage, you can not fucking deny this. That IS pay2win. And yes, i really really hate the grind model, it is AWFUL for a competitive game. Because all champions aren't equally good and nerfs/buffs are given out far too often. One month the champions you have for top lane might be top tier and the next they might be shit(Exaggerated, but ya). The skill difference between random player A and random player B can be so huge pre-30 that runes/masteries/newchamps make no difference. It'd be no different than if starcraft 3 came out tomorrow and I challenged a friend of mine who never plays RTS games to a custom game where he got 20% more income than me. I'd still guarantee victory even though I'd have never laid hands on the game. To be able to exploit the advantage you'd have from runes over another opponent who doesn't you'd already have to have a good understanding of the lane matchup and game in general. Odds are you wont if your opponent doesn't have runes yet. Does not matter. It is an advantage you can pay for. I'm not saying it matters since it evens out eventually with grinding, but that does not change that it is a fucking advantage you can pay money to achieve. Your analogy is nothing like what i'm talking about, a fitting analogy would be. It'd be no different than is SC2 came out tomorrow and you had to buy units, or play a lot to unlock them and you played against your friend who is a noob but unlocked all the units and you only had the basic units. You would probably win, but he'd still have an advantage that he paid for. Also, we are assuming that player A and B are 100% equal in skill, obviously. Only difference between A and B is paying vs no paying. Player A has an advantage that can win him games which was achieved from paying. Eventually player B will have the same things as A, but untill he does, A has an advantage. I'm not sure how an advantage you can pay for isn't somehow pay2win regardless of it being eventually eliminated by grinding.
That's not fitting at all because 1 is a huge advantage (units) and one is a minor advantage that can only be used/exploited properly if you're actually good at the game. It's the mistake lots of ill-informed players think. Do runes provide an advantage? Sure. Is the advantage game changing? Hardly. Lower level players' advantage who have runes is even limited by the fact that they can't even use the upgraded versions.
By the time you're actually good enough to use your runes to an advantage (in most cases) that means your opponents should also have runes. Getting that extra AD/AP/Whatever on your way to 30 doesn't matter much because you're too bad to use it properly. And if by chance you are good enough to use those runes properly, you were probably good enough to beat your opponent anyway.
|
stop arguing it isnt an advantage. It is, it just doesnt matter very much because you get matched with people without runes and masteries, and by the time you get to ranked play you easily have them for no cost.
|
On February 08 2013 18:01 sob3k wrote:
stop arguing it isnt an advantage. It is, it just doesnt matter very much because you get matched with people without runes and masteries, and by the time you get to ranked play you easily have them for no cost.
I think you're vastly overselling the ease with which one can acquire a pretty sizable set of runes, and the pages to put them on. You also continue to give up the option to acquire new champs as you acquire more runes, which probably plays at least a small part(large part?) of why people suggest newer LoL players stick to a very small champ pool and master it.
It's especially bad when Riot balances runes on top of balancing champions. Those mp5 and mp5/lvl runes that were 100% standard on pretty much everyone at one point? Ya nobody uses them anymore. Crit dmg runes? Ha. Oh you didn't have AD runes when they were buffed and became standard even on a lot of AP mids? Better go grab some. No aspd runes? Well you should probably never play those junglers that are vastly superior using them(actually not sure if this still applies, if it doesn't then sucks for you, guy who bought a full page of them for a lot of s1/s2 junglers). Blah blah blah, could go on for days.
The system is pretty fucking broken as far as 'f2p' goes if you want to be more than a casual player who doesn't really pay attention to/notice all of these variables that affect them. LoL get's more expensive the older it gets, that's pretty backwards.
|
On February 08 2013 17:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 15:54 Unleashing wrote:On February 08 2013 14:54 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 08 2013 13:43 Unleashing wrote:On February 08 2013 07:30 NeoIllusions wrote:
You can dislike the fact that Riot encourages the grind factor for you to progress in the game. But it's certainly not pay2win. Having more champions or even tier 1 runes gives you such a negligible advantage, especially at pre level 30 games. I could teach someone to become very proficient with Annie for 450 IP and they could stomp normal games until level 30.
It's fine if you want to hate Riot's grind model. I think Valve's buy-get-all-the-heroes model is great. Riot should have that option. But if you put down RP at level 1, you get some nice skins and weak runes that don't help past level 3 in game. Hate the grind? We can agree. Someone that pays will reach the level at which they will have access to tier 3 runes faster than someone that doesn't. Paying gives a fucking advantage that can directly allow you to win versus someone that does not pay, that is the definition of pay to win. If you have: Player A and Player B Player A buys and pays for absolutely everything you can. Player B uses zero money. And you have them both play the same amount of games, and we assume they win the same amount of games, just to make things easier. They play the amount of games needed for A to hit level 30, if A and B were to play versus eachother 1v1 A would have a definite advantage, you can not fucking deny this. That IS pay2win. And yes, i really really hate the grind model, it is AWFUL for a competitive game. Because all champions aren't equally good and nerfs/buffs are given out far too often. One month the champions you have for top lane might be top tier and the next they might be shit(Exaggerated, but ya). The skill difference between random player A and random player B can be so huge pre-30 that runes/masteries/newchamps make no difference. It'd be no different than if starcraft 3 came out tomorrow and I challenged a friend of mine who never plays RTS games to a custom game where he got 20% more income than me. I'd still guarantee victory even though I'd have never laid hands on the game. To be able to exploit the advantage you'd have from runes over another opponent who doesn't you'd already have to have a good understanding of the lane matchup and game in general. Odds are you wont if your opponent doesn't have runes yet. Does not matter. It is an advantage you can pay for. I'm not saying it matters since it evens out eventually with grinding, but that does not change that it is a fucking advantage you can pay money to achieve. Your analogy is nothing like what i'm talking about, a fitting analogy would be. It'd be no different than is SC2 came out tomorrow and you had to buy units, or play a lot to unlock them and you played against your friend who is a noob but unlocked all the units and you only had the basic units. You would probably win, but he'd still have an advantage that he paid for. Also, we are assuming that player A and B are 100% equal in skill, obviously. Only difference between A and B is paying vs no paying. Player A has an advantage that can win him games which was achieved from paying. Eventually player B will have the same things as A, but untill he does, A has an advantage. I'm not sure how an advantage you can pay for isn't somehow pay2win regardless of it being eventually eliminated by grinding. That's not fitting at all because 1 is a huge advantage (units) and one is a minor advantage that can only be used/exploited properly if you're actually good at the game. It's the mistake lots of ill-informed players think. Do runes provide an advantage? Sure. Is the advantage game changing? Hardly. Lower level players' advantage who have runes is even limited by the fact that they can't even use the upgraded versions. By the time you're actually good enough to use your runes to an advantage (in most cases) that means your opponents should also have runes. Getting that extra AD/AP/Whatever on your way to 30 doesn't matter much because you're too bad to use it properly. And if by chance you are good enough to use those runes properly, you were probably good enough to beat your opponent anyway.
Suddenly getting an advantage isn't an advantage anymore because people are too bad to utilize it? Lol.
An advantage is an advantage, and it is an advantage you can pay for. That IS pay to fucking win untill everybody has the same runes and champions. And then instead of units, let's say you have to pay money to get upgrades for your units like +1 damage. 1/1 marines is an advantage over 0/0 marines, even if a better player will win regardless. It doesn't matter. When i was playing LoL to try it out i would've most definitely easily been able to utilize having a lot of runes and a lot of champions over having a very limited pool of champions and not a lot of runes.
Runes are an advantage that you can pay to get faster, that is an advantage and untill everybody else has grinded to catch up to you, it is indeed the mechanic behind pay to win. You pay to be infront and be better than others right off the get-go.
Let's compare two games in the same genre:
Dota2: Everybody is 100% equal at all times.
LoL: There are points at which paying can giev you an advantage and make you without a doubt stronger from the get go of the game than someone that doesn't pay.
But LoL somehow isn't pay2win untill people all have the rune pages and champions they need and want? I already accepted and stated that, eventually the grinding would catch up to the paying, but untill that point paying gives a definite advantage, and trying to argue that said advantage is minimal or wouldn't matter at low levels of play is just silly.
I simply think this is one of the worst systems possible for a competitive game, especially the unlocking of champions part. If all champions were 100% equally strong in X role, the system would be fine, but we both know that there most definitely are periods where one champion would by far outclass another in a certain scenario and counter picking can win you lanes, and in turn games.
But fine, i'll leave this discussion, but i will never stop finding it outright silly to state that paying for an advantage somehow isn't pay to win.
|
On February 08 2013 18:39 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 18:01 sob3k wrote:
stop arguing it isnt an advantage. It is, it just doesnt matter very much because you get matched with people without runes and masteries, and by the time you get to ranked play you easily have them for no cost. I think you're vastly overselling the ease with which one can acquire a pretty sizable set of runes, and the pages to put them on. You also continue to give up the option to acquire new champs as you acquire more runes, which probably plays at least a small part(large part?) of why people suggest newer LoL players stick to a very small champ pool and master it. It's especially bad when Riot balances runes on top of balancing champions. Those mp5 and mp5/lvl runes that were 100% standard on pretty much everyone at one point? Ya nobody uses them anymore. Crit dmg runes? Ha. Oh you didn't have AD runes when they were buffed and became standard even on a lot of AP mids? Better go grab some. No aspd runes? Well you should probably never play those junglers that are vastly superior using them(actually not sure if this still applies, if it doesn't then sucks for you, guy who bought a full page of them for a lot of s1/s2 junglers). Blah blah blah, could go on for days. The system is pretty fucking broken as far as 'f2p' goes if you want to be more than a casual player who doesn't really pay attention to/notice all of these variables that affect them. LoL get's more expensive the older it gets, that's pretty backwards.
You act like you have to pay for stuff, and pay for more stuff the more you play. Thats totally not true, once you do the grind to buy runes (and you dont need a lot of runes, that truly is negligible. You can play 99% of the champs in the game with an incredibly minimal runset.) Once you have that you are basically done, you can just unlock new champs whenever you feel like it and you never need to spend a cent. There is certainly nothing broken about the system.
You also have to weight the really small benefit you can accelerate through some grind with cash, with the fact that the whole game is free other than that. I mean SC2 isn't pay to win in the slightest....except you do have to pay $50 in order to win at all. Would you rather Leagues just cost $50 and had everything right there? I mean I think that would be a great option to have if they ever feel like it, but honestly between the two options I certainly wouldn't have paid $50. I would have just played the way I do now. $50 is $45 more than I have paid Riot Games to play the game for like hundreds of hours, and I only chipped in that $5 because I felt like they deserved some kind of support after all the fun I've had.
I mean between the two distribution methods we have one where you must pay to unlock content, and one where you can choose to pay to unlock content or you can earn it ingame. As long as the disparity between paying and nonpaying customers is small enough, and the amount you have to pay to be on equal footing isn't too preposterous, then I would prefer a F2P model.
|
On February 08 2013 19:36 sob3k wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 18:39 red_ wrote:On February 08 2013 18:01 sob3k wrote:
stop arguing it isnt an advantage. It is, it just doesnt matter very much because you get matched with people without runes and masteries, and by the time you get to ranked play you easily have them for no cost. I think you're vastly overselling the ease with which one can acquire a pretty sizable set of runes, and the pages to put them on. You also continue to give up the option to acquire new champs as you acquire more runes, which probably plays at least a small part(large part?) of why people suggest newer LoL players stick to a very small champ pool and master it. It's especially bad when Riot balances runes on top of balancing champions. Those mp5 and mp5/lvl runes that were 100% standard on pretty much everyone at one point? Ya nobody uses them anymore. Crit dmg runes? Ha. Oh you didn't have AD runes when they were buffed and became standard even on a lot of AP mids? Better go grab some. No aspd runes? Well you should probably never play those junglers that are vastly superior using them(actually not sure if this still applies, if it doesn't then sucks for you, guy who bought a full page of them for a lot of s1/s2 junglers). Blah blah blah, could go on for days. The system is pretty fucking broken as far as 'f2p' goes if you want to be more than a casual player who doesn't really pay attention to/notice all of these variables that affect them. LoL get's more expensive the older it gets, that's pretty backwards. You act like you have to pay for stuff, and pay for more stuff the more you play.
No? My post merely reflects that in your quoted post you brush the grind under the rug as if when any player hits 30 they will have any runes they want and a decent champion pool. It's horrible underselling how much effort it takes to build yourself up to play any other way than specializing in one role(maybe 2 if it's top/jungle which share a lot of similar champs) with the others being pushed to the side as 'if I have to' situations in ranked.
Thats totally not true, once you do the grind to buy runes (and you dont need a lot of runes, that truly is negligible. You can play 99% of the champs in the game with an incredibly minimal runset.) Once you have that you are basically done, you can just unlock new champs whenever you feel like it and you never need to spend a cent. There is certainly nothing broken about the system.
Except, as I pointed out above, there is already precedent that once you're done with the rune grind, you could have to do it again because of balance changes. Then you are back to sacrificing champion selection for runes or vice versa, assuming you are even getting IP at a rate to keep up with champion release(at least that has slowed down somewhat, the 12600/month schedule was ridiculous to keep up).
You also have to weight the really small benefit you can accelerate through some grind with cash, with the fact that the whole game is free other than that. I mean SC2 isn't pay to win in the slightest....except you do have to pay $50 in order to win at all. Would you rather Leagues just cost $50 and had everything right there? I mean I think that would be a great option to have if they ever feel like it, but honestly between the two options I certainly wouldn't have paid $50. I would have just played the way I do now. $50 is $45 more than I have paid Riot Games to play the game for like hundreds of hours, and I only chipped in that $5 because I felt like they deserved some kind of support after all the fun I've had.
Blizzard never attempted to market SC2 as a game where spending money will never gain you a competitive advantage. Could you honestly say a team starting to play LoL right now would not be attempting to climb an IMMENSE uphill battle to become competitive without spending money? Obviously they'd need to cover the burden of knowledge and learn the game, but hypothetically even if they did that they'd still be behind a glass barrier of IP grinding. Dedicated play would eventually catch them up to the current crop of people who have IP but nothing to spend it on, but most of those people have been playing for going on 3 years, and have spent SOME money(or won it when there were more smaller tourneys with RP payouts).
|
On February 08 2013 19:56 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +You also have to weight the really small benefit you can accelerate through some grind with cash, with the fact that the whole game is free other than that. I mean SC2 isn't pay to win in the slightest....except you do have to pay $50 in order to win at all. Would you rather Leagues just cost $50 and had everything right there? I mean I think that would be a great option to have if they ever feel like it, but honestly between the two options I certainly wouldn't have paid $50. I would have just played the way I do now. $50 is $45 more than I have paid Riot Games to play the game for like hundreds of hours, and I only chipped in that $5 because I felt like they deserved some kind of support after all the fun I've had.
Blizzard never attempted to market SC2 as a game where spending money will never gain you a competitive advantage. Could you honestly say a team starting to play LoL right now would not be attempting to climb an IMMENSE uphill battle to become competitive without spending money? Obviously they'd need to cover the burden of knowledge and learn the game, but hypothetically even if they did that they'd still be behind a glass barrier of IP grinding. Dedicated play would eventually catch them up to the current crop of people who have IP but nothing to spend it on, but most of those people have been playing for going on 3 years, and have spent SOME money(or won it when there were more smaller tourneys with RP payouts).
Uh yes I would say that. You could easily unlock every champion and rune you'd ever need before you even got near having the skill level to be an actual competitive team, plus have plenty left over for whatever you wanted. If you spent $50 on IP boosts like the cost of a traditional game you would be rolling in ingame currency.
|
On February 08 2013 19:23 Unleashing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 17:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 08 2013 15:54 Unleashing wrote:On February 08 2013 14:54 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 08 2013 13:43 Unleashing wrote:On February 08 2013 07:30 NeoIllusions wrote:
You can dislike the fact that Riot encourages the grind factor for you to progress in the game. But it's certainly not pay2win. Having more champions or even tier 1 runes gives you such a negligible advantage, especially at pre level 30 games. I could teach someone to become very proficient with Annie for 450 IP and they could stomp normal games until level 30.
It's fine if you want to hate Riot's grind model. I think Valve's buy-get-all-the-heroes model is great. Riot should have that option. But if you put down RP at level 1, you get some nice skins and weak runes that don't help past level 3 in game. Hate the grind? We can agree. Someone that pays will reach the level at which they will have access to tier 3 runes faster than someone that doesn't. Paying gives a fucking advantage that can directly allow you to win versus someone that does not pay, that is the definition of pay to win. If you have: Player A and Player B Player A buys and pays for absolutely everything you can. Player B uses zero money. And you have them both play the same amount of games, and we assume they win the same amount of games, just to make things easier. They play the amount of games needed for A to hit level 30, if A and B were to play versus eachother 1v1 A would have a definite advantage, you can not fucking deny this. That IS pay2win. And yes, i really really hate the grind model, it is AWFUL for a competitive game. Because all champions aren't equally good and nerfs/buffs are given out far too often. One month the champions you have for top lane might be top tier and the next they might be shit(Exaggerated, but ya). The skill difference between random player A and random player B can be so huge pre-30 that runes/masteries/newchamps make no difference. It'd be no different than if starcraft 3 came out tomorrow and I challenged a friend of mine who never plays RTS games to a custom game where he got 20% more income than me. I'd still guarantee victory even though I'd have never laid hands on the game. To be able to exploit the advantage you'd have from runes over another opponent who doesn't you'd already have to have a good understanding of the lane matchup and game in general. Odds are you wont if your opponent doesn't have runes yet. Does not matter. It is an advantage you can pay for. I'm not saying it matters since it evens out eventually with grinding, but that does not change that it is a fucking advantage you can pay money to achieve. Your analogy is nothing like what i'm talking about, a fitting analogy would be. It'd be no different than is SC2 came out tomorrow and you had to buy units, or play a lot to unlock them and you played against your friend who is a noob but unlocked all the units and you only had the basic units. You would probably win, but he'd still have an advantage that he paid for. Also, we are assuming that player A and B are 100% equal in skill, obviously. Only difference between A and B is paying vs no paying. Player A has an advantage that can win him games which was achieved from paying. Eventually player B will have the same things as A, but untill he does, A has an advantage. I'm not sure how an advantage you can pay for isn't somehow pay2win regardless of it being eventually eliminated by grinding. That's not fitting at all because 1 is a huge advantage (units) and one is a minor advantage that can only be used/exploited properly if you're actually good at the game. It's the mistake lots of ill-informed players think. Do runes provide an advantage? Sure. Is the advantage game changing? Hardly. Lower level players' advantage who have runes is even limited by the fact that they can't even use the upgraded versions. By the time you're actually good enough to use your runes to an advantage (in most cases) that means your opponents should also have runes. Getting that extra AD/AP/Whatever on your way to 30 doesn't matter much because you're too bad to use it properly. And if by chance you are good enough to use those runes properly, you were probably good enough to beat your opponent anyway. But fine, i'll leave this discussion, but i will never stop finding it outright silly to state that paying for an advantage somehow isn't pay to win.
Because it's 100% hyperbole. In essence you believe that somebody can gain a tiny advantage over their opponent in the learning stages of a game and that will translate to a noticeable win % increase for whatever team he is on. I would love to see a single shred of evidence that supports the claim.
I take issue with paying for advantages in competitive games... but if you're trying to pick on LoL for its system you're simply barking up the wrong tree as their offense would be the real world equivalent of jay walking on a empty street.
|
I thought the definition for pay-to-win was that the person who pays real money will get a distinct advantage that ONLY the person paying with real money will be able to get (say, for instance, exclusive runes in LoL or some exclusive item in an MMO).
LoL's system is not that at all. It's just money vs. time.
|
On February 08 2013 23:32 jpak wrote:
I thought the definition for pay-to-win was that the person who pays real money will get a distinct advantage that ONLY the person paying with real money will be able to get (say, for instance, exclusive runes in LoL or some exclusive item in an MMO).
LoL's system is not that at all. It's just money vs. time.
well sort of, almost all games give you the option to unlock things ingame, but in many of them it takes like 300 hours to unlock one item etc. In other words it's completely unrealistic to use the time option.
Riot keeps it pretty reasonable, champions are mostly pretty cheap. Runes are pretty expensive in time compared to money, but luckily you only need a few basic sets to play pretty much everyone just fine.
|
On February 08 2013 23:32 jpak wrote:
I thought the definition for pay-to-win was that the person who pays real money will get a distinct advantage that ONLY the person paying with real money will be able to get (say, for instance, exclusive runes in LoL or some exclusive item in an MMO).
LoL's system is not that at all. It's just money vs. time.
This exactly. I think most people would call me crazy if I started complaining about time-to-win. What makes the tiny advantage you get so much worse if you pay for it vs playing some extra time for it. Taking a possibly bad/extreme example imagine if in Dota2/LoL/whatever for each hero/champion you wanted unlocked you had to play a single game, unlock 60 heroes, play 60 games or you could pay to unlock them. Obviously that example is skewed in one direction but I don't think the unlocks in LoL are really all that unfavorable to the person spending time rather than money. As long as the advantage can be gained through a means other than money and it's not an outrageous time investment I think it's fine.
Also this:
|
On February 08 2013 23:38 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 23:32 jpak wrote:
I thought the definition for pay-to-win was that the person who pays real money will get a distinct advantage that ONLY the person paying with real money will be able to get (say, for instance, exclusive runes in LoL or some exclusive item in an MMO).
LoL's system is not that at all. It's just money vs. time. This exactly. I think most people would call me crazy if I started complaining about time-to-win. What makes the tiny advantage you get so much worse if you pay for it vs playing some extra time for it. Taking a possibly bad/extreme example imagine if in Dota2/LoL/whatever for each hero/champion you wanted unlocked you had to play a single game, unlock 60 heroes, play 60 games or you could pay to unlock them. Obviously that example is skewed in one direction but I don't think the unlocks in LoL are really all that unfavorable to the person spending time rather than money. As long as the advantage can be gained through a means other than money and it's not an outrageous time investment I think it's fine. Also this: https://twitter.com/CLGDoublelift/status/299639921809965058
The fact that HSGG is an idiot aside, it's so true that Riot has made it able for you to be absolutely broke and still play this game (gotta have Internet though!) and be equal to someone who has put a lot of money into it, at level 30. Those of you who are frugal and don't spend money indiscriminately are probably more likely to be the same way in game too, and accounting for that, if you saved IP on the grind to 30, and reached it, you'd easily have enough to fill a couple rune pages with runes. All 1350 IP and under champions can be attained in a couple hours of playing, and that's a total of 31 champions. With the exception of the hybrid mpen/arpen runes, and holiday runes, there's been no new runes coming out, therefore requiring you to replace all your old sets so once you have them, you're golden. From that point on you can play on the champions you own, or the free champions every week a you contemplate your next purchase.
|
I think it's probably fair to grant *in principle* that Riot has some pay-to-win elements. Said elements are so negligible compared to the big offenders in F2P (I'm looking at you, Zynga) that the debate amounts to quibbling over details.
|
That is true, the p2w aspects of LoL are pretty miniscule
But anyone who has played LoL for long enough, or was around, noticed newer champions outstripping old ones completely. This isn't some secret, this is a cold hard fact.
|
On February 09 2013 02:48 Shaella wrote:
That is true, the p2w aspects of LoL are pretty miniscule
But anyone who has played LoL for long enough, or was around, noticed newer champions outstripping old ones completely. This isn't some secret, this is a cold hard fact.
That is true - that the new champions have to be strong/interesting/exciting to compete with a field of 100 other champions that already exist. Those willing to pay $$$ will be able to pick up more of these, and Riot will be watching the new champs more to make sure they are at the very least playable balance-wise.
That said, there are notable cheap champions that are very strong (Ryze 450 IP, TF 1350, Amumu 1350 IP) and they occasionally rework old broken/bad champions which are often then OP afterward, e.g. Evelynn (1350 IP). So even though it's not an ideal situation from the gamer's perspective, there are good options for people who can't buy every new champion.
|
On February 09 2013 03:01 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 02:48 Shaella wrote:
That is true, the p2w aspects of LoL are pretty miniscule
But anyone who has played LoL for long enough, or was around, noticed newer champions outstripping old ones completely. This isn't some secret, this is a cold hard fact. That is true - that the new champions have to be strong/interesting/exciting to compete with a field of 100 other champions that already exist. Those willing to pay $$$ will be able to pick up more of these, and Riot will be watching the new champs more to make sure they are at the very least playable balance-wise. That said, there are notable cheap champions that are very strong (Ryze 450 IP, TF 1350, Amumu 1350 IP) and they occasionally rework old broken/bad champions which are often then OP afterward, e.g. Evelynn (1350 IP). So even though it's not an ideal situation from the gamer's perspective, there are good options for people who can't buy every new champion.
its the one falldown in their otherwise , pretty frickin brilliant, moneymaking plan
however, the falldown IS noticeable, and sometimes new champions are just basically a remake of an older champion as is, case in point would be Master Yi and Fiora (they both suck anyways because League cannot into melee carries)
Riot also sometimes non-too,subtly kinda insults their playerbase, like with karma.
Maybe Riot will actually make Karma not suck someday, you know, the last 3150 champion ever released, in what i assume had to be an insult since she has never ever been buffed to be even slightly decent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
