After watching the most recent episode of Jimquistion as well as some vocal Youtubers, I starting wondering about the F2P model and what would be the best way to not screw the consumer. Here is my opinion:

1. Free 2 Play transactions should primarily cosmetic first and foremost. Secondarily, they can be like expansion packs. When the freemium content is neither one of these, it will most likely break the game. The Free to Play model is designed to break your will and get you to buy the premium content. That's the way they get money. However, if the game has the best goods available at a price or worse, behind a paywall, it will please the purchasers of the content but will turn off the new customers who are unsure of the game. The same can be said if energy bars and timers are used with a quicker payment cooldown. The Pay 2 Win passage is just annoying to the consumers who don't want to spend much to game. It's why they chose to play a F2P game. Cosmetic content while doesn't add anything to gameplay, does look cool and can be easily an impulse buy. Expansion packs are also fair game as long as the game is relatively complete without it. As long as the free portion of the game has a decent amout of playtime so a consumer can be interested and want more of the game
2. Free 2 Play games should have a low to no entry price. A Free 2 Play game should start off free like the name indicates. Some games can get away with a one-time fee when purchasing the game like Guild Wars 2 if they have extensive content and regular updatesbut a F2P game is free so the consumer can invest in the game without any cost to the wallet. It could also have a subscription model as an option to the transactions for expansions. However, to entice the consumer best, its best to have the entry price as low as possible. F2P models should not be used in a game that has a full-priced entry with no expansions packed in. 
3. If the game is going to have the player buy gameplay affecting items, make sure they are balanced especially in PvP games. This means the best stuff objectively should not be able to be purchased but rather obtained through work in the game. The stuff purchased through transactions should be better than the stuff that one starts out with but not so much so that the beginners have little way to win. They also must be almost all available through the leveling system though fanservicey gear is fine to put behind paywall if it isn't good. In PvE games, there should not be free leveling unless situation would highly benefit from it(like in JRPGs when you don't use that one character but he is needed in the endgame). The best loot should also be drops only.

I agree with this 100%.

I agree with most of your post. The biggest thing I see these type of games getting wrong and this is especially true with games like league of legend and even Dota 2 is there are major balancing issues with some of the content that turned me as a gamer off really quick. They are things that are not really noticeable at first. For instance say yo buy said character for a premium price to use in matches but said character is always voted rot be one pf the off limit charecters by most people you play with. Ten you feel robbed or cheated that you even wasted money on that charecter. And the reason people say they block said charecter mostly, because the charecter has exploits that can give you the upper hand. Just my 2 cents. 

Emulate the biggest F2P financial success - League of Legends.

Not pay to win
Make the game easy to get into, hard to master
Continual pipeline of new content and renewal of older content
Respect the players and the game at all times
Make paying unlock more/different content or cosmetics, not be required to play at all.
Make all game content free at some point.

There are major balancing issues with this game. I don't like games where the charecters are tiered. 

I don't know. Most of those games suck in my opinion. I've never found a free to play game that I really liked.

The only problem with the league of legends model is that the game balance is very dependent on counterpicking, and since you have to grind or pay to unlock champions, that makes it kind of like a pay to win.

Other than that though it is a good business model, besides when they raised the prices of some of their skins, that was weird.

Just do what the Koreans do.

90% of champions are viable for solo queue up to the 99th percentile in skill, and then above that, about 40% of champions are actually viable in pro games. That's very impressive for a game with 114 characters.

All but five characters have a winrate between 45% and 55% in general play. You would never be at a skill level to see otherwise.

There are no tiers, because the flavour of the month shifts very rapidly. Any tier list some website made is false, I guarantee it. Also champions get picked up out of nowhere and "become OP", i.e. they were powerful the whole time but no one noticed. Which champions are used varies between continents as well: Zed is all the rage in NA but barely used in EU and many other cases. That implies that anyone CAN be viable, they're just not noticed or practiced with yet.

The game is actually incredibly balanced; at least as well as Starcraft II which only has 3 races and yet frequently had one race below 45% winrate. Sometimes as low as 40%.