User blog comment:TheTobarMethod/LoL and its future audience/state/@comment-5266525-20130610223233/@comment-5556439-20130610232811

Alright so you obviously dont understand how culture works.

 Somehow, the game is more popular than CoD and yet still has to be as popular as CoD:     Alright so you obviously dont understand how culture works.

Mainstream is subjective to what social group your dealing with but you use a % to discern smaller ones and establish an overarching "POP CULTURE". In American society fast paced FPS and action games are the most played (they hold the highest %) while strategy games are lower. In individual groups FPS and Action games have lower %'s and vice versa but the group Strategy games are associated with have less people involved than the Action crowd, hence the Action crowd being considered "Mainstream". This relates to LoL. Its incredibly popular, but not to the average American. There are multiple "Mainstreams" because its relative to a specific group, but there is one that they ALL are compared to which makes them "niche". We dont want the average american playing this if we want LoL to stay the same. (This is so simple)

 You express fear of meta changes, and then say that's not what you're talking about:     Its a reason to be afraid of the future state of the game though....Which is the purpose of this.

Theres good meta and bad meta. League of Warmogs(Bad Meta) was brought on by multiple things, the chances of these occurences increase when the average person gets their hands on LoL. And I dont think you want the game to turn sour alongside of the community do you? I think theres relevance.....

'Whose reactions? According to what metric? What survey? Don't make a statement which you then refuse to back up with data: ' Provide data to a theoretical argument? Sounds simple.

Theres no evidence or survey thats ever been done to substantiate how many people like 2009 LoL over 2013 LoL sorry if a logical conclusion cant be reached from an il-logical argument. Your thinking here isnt what is being tuched on. You cant bring "facts" into a argument that revolves around future unpreditcable events. The only factual evidence that can be given is the amount of people leaving because "after [insert here] happened I left. They shouldnt have implemented [here] to make it easier for everyone to play." I bring this (example) up because thats what its about, bad changes being made to the game influenced by the saturated playerbase.

' Quality vs Quantity about WHAT? I don't even have the faintest clue what you are talking about here: ' As the other 3 times, its about rash decisions influenced by a over-saturated player base. Riot is balancing a game with alot of fragile content. Giving BT 1 AD upsets a balance it has between so and so. That kinda thing. When you have alot more people doing stuff and making trends more noticeable that can lead to bad changes being made. because the trends that were only slightly noticeable are much easier to see. This can be argued between whether its a good or a bad change. I prefer the "lets not take the risk" side.

' This blog makes absolute zero sense and I can't see anything worthwhile in it except for a highly contradictory rant on how terrible popularity is and completely baseless doomsaday declarations. ' To you it doesnt, and this is simply a (biased) opinion. By the way, this kind of comment is really really lame in every sense of the word. If you have nothing to add to the post, dont complain about it, please.

I hope that clears up some of the confusion. If you dont get these points then sorry, I have nothing left to tell you.