I wish there was a good way to classify a “f2p… but reasonably balanced “ game.
I actually think something similar to the Gartner hype cycle applies [1]. Any shovelware became profitable during the Zynga/King heydays, but quality declined and the ecosystem become more competitive. We are now hitting a point where some quality is needed to distinguish ones self.
To me, a bad pattern -- usually done by F2P games, but I don't think it's mandatory for them to use it -- is both the mindless grind ("am I having fun with this, or just clicking stuff?") and the pay-to-skip aspect. To me the latter is the worst, an admission by the game developers that their game is boring and the only way to get to the "good parts" is to spend money to fast-forward them. Usually there aren't even any good parts, it's all skippable.
Skill is the majority component in the game (given that top players can take a level 1 account all the way to legendary level) and it is so generous handing out in game currency to level up cards you can happily never spend a penny on the game.
So surprising given it comes from the same people as Clash of Clans.
I suspect a lot of devs and etc are just trying to find a revenue source and not committed to dark patterns or etc.
Minor plug for UnCiv being FOSS