There's literally only a handful of people who go for Legends Runs. Most often, it's the same people, and they know what they're getting into. It's a choice to go for it. Not mandatory.
Yes, they know what they are getting into, and yes it is their choice, but it shouldn’t be a choice for a player to be on for 24hour with no breaks etc.
Why shouldnt it be a choice? Who are you to regulate choices?
Sorry but we cant and shouldnt regulate everything. Personal responsibility needs to exist
I’m not someone to regulate choices, it should be regulated.
Clearly 24 Hours of staring at a screen with minimal to no breaks is known fact to not be healthy or good for you. That’s fact, yeah there is personal responsibility, but look at the news daily, majority don’t know what that is.
Yes but doing that once every 3 months isn’t unhealthy especially if you live a healthy lifestyle outside of that day
There's literally only a handful of people who go for Legends Runs. Most often, it's the same people, and they know what they're getting into. It's a choice to go for it. Not mandatory.
Yes, they know what they are getting into, and yes it is their choice, but it shouldn’t be a choice for a player to be on for 24hour with no breaks etc.
That's the challenge. Legends Runs are Time Trials.
I think it's OK for 6.2 to be as difficult as it is. After all they are designing content intended to challenge endgame players and create challenges that many will need to work towards to complete. The legend program is a separate, optional competition designed at recognizing those with highest commitment/skill/rosters.
The issue I see is that the length required for 100% exploration deters so many players that fewer than 100 players actually compete. From the top 100 6.1 legends, there were far fewer than 100 players who actually sat down and tried to do it as fast as they could in one sitting. Many players "accidentally" achieved a top 100 mark without explicitly attempting for a mark, finishing the content over a few days. Seeing as there aren't any huge rewards/recognition given to differentiate between rank 1 and rank 100 (besides the top 20 for the 6.1 special champ), the final results are far less interesting.
The legend program would be much more interesting if it was designed in a way to remove some of these barriers to competing and allow more players who don't necessarily have a large contiguous window of time to compete. After all, this is a MOBILE game.
One fix that I could see is to separate the times for each quest and adding them up at the end. Seeing as this content requires much more time than a monthly event, I think that's a rather fair compromise and doing so would hopefully encourage more players to try for one. There's a lot of missed opportunity here, discussing with other players the fastest options for certain challenges is actually a very engaging part of the game.
There's literally only a handful of people who go for Legends Runs. Most often, it's the same people, and they know what they're getting into. It's a choice to go for it. Not mandatory.
Yes, they know what they are getting into, and yes it is their choice, but it shouldn’t be a choice for a player to be on for 24hour with no breaks etc.
Why shouldnt it be a choice? Who are you to regulate choices?
Sorry but we cant and shouldnt regulate everything. Personal responsibility needs to exist
I’m not someone to regulate choices, it should be regulated.
Clearly 24 Hours of staring at a screen with minimal to no breaks is known fact to not be healthy or good for you. That’s fact, yeah there is personal responsibility, but look at the news daily, majority don’t know what that is.
Statistically speaking, hang gliding is far more dangerous than spending twenty four hours straight playing a video game. You can't justify stopping people from playing video games for twenty four hours in a world that allows hang gliding, eating cheeseburgers, and driving motorcycles.
We allow people to scuba dive. Scuba diving is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than playing video games for any length of time however long. If it is unethical to have a legends program, it should be straight up criminal to be a manufacturer of scuba tanks.
I think you really need to reconsider the legends program. People are completing this in the range of 18-25 hours. This is completely unhealthy to be glued to your phone that long. How as a company can you justify making players essentially stay up a whole day just for a chance at a new 6* champ?
It's called accountability, something foreign to most ppl.
There's literally only a handful of people who go for Legends Runs. Most often, it's the same people, and they know what they're getting into. It's a choice to go for it. Not mandatory.
I agree with the sentiment that OP is trying to express. At bottom is the idea of corporate responsibility. We may not think it now, but I think as the world progresses, gaming companies will be expected to step more and more steps to safeguard the welfare of its players. Gaming disorder has already been recognised by the World Health Organisation as a "disease" (google it). It is not inconceivable to expect that over time, there may be political or social pressure for gaming companies to play a role in mitigating this "disease".
Of course the idea of a company having to take responsibility for the health of its customers/players may strike some as infringing on free choice/personal responsibility, but there is always that balance. There is a reason countries have seat-belt laws, or minimum age to purchase certain products. In the final analysis, it is always a cost-benefit analysis that has to be undertaken. For myself, I don't see much cost in re-jigging the legends run system to achieve the best of both worlds, namely, a system which does not require players to be unhealthily glued to their phones for 12-20 hours in a row. One suggestion which has been mooted is to log time based on actual time with the quest/game open. That seems entirely workable to me as long as there is a window within which the quest must be completed, say 3 days or 5 days - that would allow a player to spread out several windows of hardcore gaming, say 2 hours per session, over the few days.
There's literally only a handful of people who go for Legends Runs. Most often, it's the same people, and they know what they're getting into. It's a choice to go for it. Not mandatory.
Yes, they know what they are getting into, and yes it is their choice, but it shouldn’t be a choice for a player to be on for 24hour with no breaks etc.
Why shouldnt it be a choice? Who are you to regulate choices?
Sorry but we cant and shouldnt regulate everything. Personal responsibility needs to exist
I’m not someone to regulate choices, it should be regulated.
Clearly 24 Hours of staring at a screen with minimal to no breaks is known fact to not be healthy or good for you. That’s fact, yeah there is personal responsibility, but look at the news daily, majority don’t know what that is.
Yes and you are one of those people. People should have the freedom to do what one chooses but the knowledge it is bad for them
Lmao the players are the ones creating those times... no different than anything else. People went huge on namor grind and cutoff was 80 mil. People could have done less and the cutoff would be less. People wanna go hard for a day? Mind your own business busy body. People drink too much, don’t eat well, don’t exercise enough, hint endangered species... take your crusade to real issues... This is a pointless thread. This is unique also.. legend runs are almost always 3 hrs. One day isn’t going to harm people.... go to college campuses... people are pulling all nighters. Use some sense.
There's literally only a handful of people who go for Legends Runs. Most often, it's the same people, and they know what they're getting into. It's a choice to go for it. Not mandatory.
Yes, they know what they are getting into, and yes it is their choice, but it shouldn’t be a choice for a player to be on for 24hour with no breaks etc.
Why shouldnt it be a choice? Who are you to regulate choices?
Sorry but we cant and shouldnt regulate everything. Personal responsibility needs to exist
I’m not someone to regulate choices, it should be regulated.
Clearly 24 Hours of staring at a screen with minimal to no breaks is known fact to not be healthy or good for you. That’s fact, yeah there is personal responsibility, but look at the news daily, majority don’t know what that is.
And? If people die because they are being dumb that's a benefit to society. Surplus population needs to be cut somehow and over regulation is bypassing natural selection.
There's literally only a handful of people who go for Legends Runs. Most often, it's the same people, and they know what they're getting into. It's a choice to go for it. Not mandatory.
Yes, they know what they are getting into, and yes it is their choice, but it shouldn’t be a choice for a player to be on for 24hour with no breaks etc.
Why shouldnt it be a choice? Who are you to regulate choices?
Sorry but we cant and shouldnt regulate everything. Personal responsibility needs to exist
I’m not someone to regulate choices, it should be regulated.
Clearly 24 Hours of staring at a screen with minimal to no breaks is known fact to not be healthy or good for you. That’s fact, yeah there is personal responsibility, but look at the news daily, majority don’t know what that is.
And? If people die because they are being dumb that's a benefit to society. Surplus population needs to be cut somehow and over regulation is bypassing natural selection.
There's literally only a handful of people who go for Legends Runs. Most often, it's the same people, and they know what they're getting into. It's a choice to go for it. Not mandatory.
Yes, they know what they are getting into, and yes it is their choice, but it shouldn’t be a choice for a player to be on for 24hour with no breaks etc.
Why shouldnt it be a choice? Who are you to regulate choices?
Sorry but we cant and shouldnt regulate everything. Personal responsibility needs to exist
I’m not someone to regulate choices, it should be regulated.
Clearly 24 Hours of staring at a screen with minimal to no breaks is known fact to not be healthy or good for you. That’s fact, yeah there is personal responsibility, but look at the news daily, majority don’t know what that is.
And? If people die because they are being dumb that's a benefit to society. Surplus population needs to be cut somehow and over regulation is bypassing natural selection.
I think you really need to reconsider the legends program. People are completing this in the range of 18-25 hours. This is completely unhealthy to be glued to your phone that long. How as a company can you justify making players essentially stay up a whole day just for a chance at a new 6* champ?
It's called accountability, something foreign to most ppl.
Yes but last year Kabam came out and started they wanted to focus on players quality of life. Then they do this.
I agree with the sentiment that OP is trying to express. At bottom is the idea of corporate responsibility. We may not think it now, but I think as the world progresses, gaming companies will be expected to step more and more steps to safeguard the welfare of its players. Gaming disorder has already been recognised by the World Health Organisation as a "disease" (google it). It is not inconceivable to expect that over time, there may be political or social pressure for gaming companies to play a role in mitigating this "disease".
Diabetes is also a disease, but we don't dictate diet to people.
Of course the idea of a company having to take responsibility for the health of its customers/players may strike some as infringing on free choice/personal responsibility, but there is always that balance. There is a reason countries have seat-belt laws, or minimum age to purchase certain products. In the final analysis, it is always a cost-benefit analysis that has to be undertaken.
That's true, but the cost-benefit analysis in a free society is not between the cost and the benefit for the individual in most cases, but rather the cost-benefit trade off for society as a whole. In the case of seat belt laws, for example, when challenged in court the legal justification for those laws has typically been that the state (which includes the federal government and the states) has a constitutional duty to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, and that duty both encompasses the hazards of drivers to themselves but also and perhaps more importantly the hazards drivers can be to others around them, and the cost to society when they are injured. These duties combined and taken as a whole are what are presented to legally justify the restrictions and penalties of seat belt laws.
The cost-benefit analysis would almost certainly lose in this case. Legends runs can only be attempted once a month, more or less. There are also lots of other ways this game and other games can be played for extended periods of time. There's arena grinding in this game, and other games have trivial ways for players themselves to construct extended time duration challenges. All of these factors would make it difficult if not impossible to make the claim that Legends runs were somehow corporate irresponsibility.
Completely setting aside the legal issues, the question of whether it is ethical for a game to encourage extended duration play has to be extended to all other forms of entertainment and physical challenge or it unreasonably singles out video games. So the question becomes whether ultra marathons are ethical, whether climbing Everest and other high mountains are ethical. Is the Federal government itself being unethical when it allows people to free climb dangerous cliffs in national parks?
A consistent set of ethics would have to reject them all simultaneously, or justify singling out one activity above all others, when it isn't even the most dangerous or deleterious one. I have not seen an argument that even attempts to make this justification.
One fix that I could see is to separate the times for each quest and adding them up at the end. Seeing as this content requires much more time than a monthly event, I think that's a rather fair compromise and doing so would hopefully encourage more players to try for one. There's a lot of missed opportunity here, discussing with other players the fastest options for certain challenges is actually a very engaging part of the game.
This is a great idea. If they separate the times for each quest then we could have breaks and people wouldn’t be having to sacrifice their health!
I think the point of it is that it is a challenge and a choice. You even said you've done the challenge and got the title so you already made the choice once. Some people enjoy spending their day on a game grinding for a huge reward and others are better at spacing time out. If I was able to I'd make the run, but I'm nowhere near close to that plus don't have the time. Except for my sick day today. Separating the timers would be a good idea though, just have to get kabam to be convinced.
Comments
The issue I see is that the length required for 100% exploration deters so many players that fewer than 100 players actually compete. From the top 100 6.1 legends, there were far fewer than 100 players who actually sat down and tried to do it as fast as they could in one sitting. Many players "accidentally" achieved a top 100 mark without explicitly attempting for a mark, finishing the content over a few days. Seeing as there aren't any huge rewards/recognition given to differentiate between rank 1 and rank 100 (besides the top 20 for the 6.1 special champ), the final results are far less interesting.
The legend program would be much more interesting if it was designed in a way to remove some of these barriers to competing and allow more players who don't necessarily have a large contiguous window of time to compete. After all, this is a MOBILE game.
One fix that I could see is to separate the times for each quest and adding them up at the end. Seeing as this content requires much more time than a monthly event, I think that's a rather fair compromise and doing so would hopefully encourage more players to try for one. There's a lot of missed opportunity here, discussing with other players the fastest options for certain challenges is actually a very engaging part of the game.
We allow people to scuba dive. Scuba diving is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than playing video games for any length of time however long. If it is unethical to have a legends program, it should be straight up criminal to be a manufacturer of scuba tanks.
It’s no different than those car giveaways where the person who is the last to be touching the car wins it. Or a marathon race.
Risk it for the biscuit.
https://www.destructoid.com/final-fantasy-xi-boss-causes-vomiting-takes-18-hours-to-beat-99391.phtml
Some go on for over 20 hours, it's the players choice.
Of course the idea of a company having to take responsibility for the health of its customers/players may strike some as infringing on free choice/personal responsibility, but there is always that balance. There is a reason countries have seat-belt laws, or minimum age to purchase certain products. In the final analysis, it is always a cost-benefit analysis that has to be undertaken. For myself, I don't see much cost in re-jigging the legends run system to achieve the best of both worlds, namely, a system which does not require players to be unhealthily glued to their phones for 12-20 hours in a row. One suggestion which has been mooted is to log time based on actual time with the quest/game open. That seems entirely workable to me as long as there is a window within which the quest must be completed, say 3 days or 5 days - that would allow a player to spread out several windows of hardcore gaming, say 2 hours per session, over the few days.
The cost-benefit analysis would almost certainly lose in this case. Legends runs can only be attempted once a month, more or less. There are also lots of other ways this game and other games can be played for extended periods of time. There's arena grinding in this game, and other games have trivial ways for players themselves to construct extended time duration challenges. All of these factors would make it difficult if not impossible to make the claim that Legends runs were somehow corporate irresponsibility.
Completely setting aside the legal issues, the question of whether it is ethical for a game to encourage extended duration play has to be extended to all other forms of entertainment and physical challenge or it unreasonably singles out video games. So the question becomes whether ultra marathons are ethical, whether climbing Everest and other high mountains are ethical. Is the Federal government itself being unethical when it allows people to free climb dangerous cliffs in national parks?
A consistent set of ethics would have to reject them all simultaneously, or justify singling out one activity above all others, when it isn't even the most dangerous or deleterious one. I have not seen an argument that even attempts to make this justification.