Talk:Vi/@comment-3238314-20121214132612/@comment-50.53.139.17-20121214215856

Rapacious--

I am the poster who you are arguing against. And I want to say that I am very impressed with your response. It appears that you are capable of rational discussion without resorting to name calling. I imagine my criticism of how you present yourself, as someone needlessly aggressive and extremely abusive, was taken into consideration because this post was surprisingly thoughtful.

I was being entirely honest when I labeled your posts as "toxic" and "unhelpful" because I have taken the time to look over your posts and most often they are nothing more than just flat insulting. Let me be clear that I have read many other registered users' posts on here and even in the face of childish anons and their insulting posts those users often respond with grace and civility. Yours almost never do and only add to the vitriol on here.

Many will disagree with me because they like seeing mean overpowering responses, especially when they happen to agree with it. Whether or not I've ever agreed with you, I would never support the caustic way you tend to post in. It's often offensive and definitely insulting. More often than not you attack the person rather than the argument. You will hopefully notice this post is intended not to insult but to clarify how I view your contributions to this Wiki.

In any case, to respond to the argument at hand:

Effectively you're stating that the industry patrols itself because it's "taboo" to do things unethical. I don't buy this in the least and numerous interviews and presentations with actual game designers and producers, of which there are many that can be found anywhere with a bit of searching, contradict what you're saying. In fact, there was an entire presentation on how Facebook has actually taught game companies how to best exploit the point/reward scheme for the most profit and is being implemented as far as possible (I wish I could find it but I can't remember who presented it or where). In any case, to imagine that Riot isn't even involved in trying to maximize profits in ways that adversely affect game design is just insane to me. Riot does not live in a magical bubble. They are part of the global economy like anyone else is.

You say it's a "bad business decision" to release OP champs. I don't agree. You're relying too much on the established users rather than the new users. Again, there are many instances that contradict this. World of Warcraft is a prime example. That game has been repeatedly watered down to cater to as many people as possible. That is the current model for gaming (and various other forms of media, which should be obvious given the cut-and-paste movies routinely coming out). The model works very simply - release OP champ, newer players buy OP champ, nerf OP champ to make older gamers satisfied. That's not a hard model to follow, it generates more income AND it doesn't alienate the majority of players (older players feel exonerated by the nerf and newer players feel empowered).

Overall, I believe you place too much stock in the gamer having power over the company. The gamer has power to a point, I agree with that. But money is made by the most amount of people (and to a smaller extent the quality of the ones they have). So like I said before: Riot IS a good company overall. I DO like League of Legends. I DO think it's a good game. But do I think there's some pressure to find ways to exploit the gamers to generate more money. It's just reality.

P.S. These calls to ban those who speak outside of what's accepted is disgusting and antithetical to reasoned debate. Anyone who believes that should be ashamed. That is no different than silencing those you happen to disagree with.