Considering the fact that high-level Arc owners compete against each other, sometimes quite vigorously, and every non-Arc player can build one and obtain the level needed to also compete, without prejudice,... ...monopoly of Arc... ...obtainable...
I agree with your argument, but I believe you missed or I muddled one of the presumptions of the monopoly argument.
The monopoly I speak of is a specific circumstance. I admit I am not certain if it is a reality, but based on other posts in this thread, I assume some believe the spirit of the following example is a reality.
Made up Example: My Zues levels to level 9. It is now 0/510. A high level Arc observes this and places 255 FPs on my Zues, thus locking the first place contribution reward. Due to the level of their Arc, they will get a return of 256+ FPs, ergo profit.
If that is the reality of the Arc situation, I believe that the system is imbalanced and should be looked at. I see the ability to lock in profit on a fresh GB as against the spirit of the contribution reward system meta-game and not the intended game design. In my head, the ideal balancing would have lock-in profit that occurs after 50% progress.
If Inno DID intend the above made up example, then that is that and I respect their decision. Either way, The Arc sounds necessarily if you want to raise the capital to level GBs to amazing heights in a relatively short amount of time. Does that improve the game? I think so. Does it mean the Arc is balanced? I lack sufficient data to come to a conclusion. It certainly has ruffled some feathers, so I enjoy the investigation.
Not sure what you mean by high-level Arc owners owning a monopoly. They can profitably lock in 1st and 2nd on a fresh level between ~30-70, but I think the key distinction you're missing is that those contributions HELP the Arc owner they're contributing to. That's kind of the whole point of capitalism? A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL "trade", which is exactly what that is
I see how it helps the Arc Owner, but I don't see how it fits into the game design intentions. I interpret Lemur's question as not about the individual benefits, but the overall game flow and balance of the game after the advent of the Arc. Hopefully my example, given in response to Salsuero, clears up how I am using monopoly. The key distinction you describe is irrelevant to what I am speaking to.
There is no trade in the contribution reward system. The Arc owner doesn't own the contribution reward pay-out. That's Inno's design to give incentive for other players to contribute, not an active element of play a player has control over. There is a difference between a socially arranged, mutually beneficial trade (player driven) and the mechanics the trade is based around(Inno's balance design choices). I criticize the mechanics of the trade, not the social arrangement that is built upon it.
Although, your example reminds me of why some people have issues with the Arc. Because the Arc makes the 'profit' part of the contribution rewards non-symmetrical, it creates headaches for players attempting to organize BP swaps. I don't think a 'well get an Arc' is a practical solution to their predicament. In fact, it reveals the callousness of the person who argues it.
The point of capitalism is not for ONLY two people to benefit. The point is to set up a system for the best product/service to thrive and give incentive for others to compete/innovate and continue making a better product/service. That's why monopolies are bad, it stifles innovation. But that's a digression. I enjoyed
@Big-Bendz post and merely expanded upon it by using similar terminology.
To Clarify: I'm not arguing against the Arc. I'm arguing for consistent game design. It sounds like Arc levels 30-70 are aberrant examples of the contribution reward system.
I'm not moving slowly because of the Arc. I'm moving slowly because I want to move slowly.