VIP Is Live!!!

mpqr7

Well if it makes you feel better, it's a bonus that's pretty useless for the most part. I never use health packs for PVE (I rotate through my large roster and then just give up when I've run out of good characters), and when my top PVP characters die, I must use healthpacks immediately, since hops are so time-sensitive.

jobob

_RiO_ wrote:

25% faster recovery times as a 'bonus' you cannot attain in any other way in the game...
Is it just me, or is that starting to truly stink of 'pay to win' advantages?

I would pay to win. 25% faster recovery time is not pay to win. It will have almost zero effect on gameplay for those already willing to spend money. Buying a 5* roster gives you so much more of an advantage than a faster recovery rate that I don't think it can be considered PTW. Do you have any idea how long it takes a 5* to recover? Waaaaaaay longer than it takes to regenerate a health pack.

When you are in the middle of a PVP, and your team is 12 hours away from healing... bumping it to 9 isn't gong to change much of anything. You are going to use a health pack and keep fighting, ESPECIALLY if you are a "pay to win" player.

aesthetocyst

_RiO_ wrote:

25% faster recovery times as a 'bonus' you cannot attain in any other way in the game...
Is it just me, or is that starting to truly stink of 'pay to win' advantages?

If it represented some kind of advantage it might.

If you're waiting on those heal timers then you win't winning jack in this game, bub.

For something P2W, see, "shields", "40-packs", "roster slots" ... and anything else purchasable with the newest in-game currency, "Hero Points".

_RiO_

jobob wrote:

_RiO_ wrote:

25% faster recovery times as a 'bonus' you cannot attain in any other way in the game...
Is it just me, or is that starting to truly stink of 'pay to win' advantages?

I would pay to win. 25% faster recovery time is not pay to win. It will have almost zero effect on gameplay for those already willing to spend money.

It's not the actual effect of the bonus (which I agree is not at all effective) that worries me. It's the premise that there are now gameplay bonuses that are limited exclusively to purchase with cold, hard, real-world cash.

Are you not familiar with the concept of the slippery slope?

jobob

_RiO_ wrote:

Are you not familiar with the concept of the slippery slope?

I'm going to assume from context clues that the concept refers to level ground that provides excellent footholds and traction.

It's not the actual effect of the bonus (which I agree is not at all effective) that worries me. It's the premise that there are now gameplay bonuses that are limited exclusively to purchase with cold, hard, real-world cash.

I see your point, but I think that the difference between this "exclusive" advantage vs the ones that can theoretically be earned is mostly semantics.

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure anyone is shield-hopping a fully-leveled team of 5* to 5,000 points in PVP as a F2P player. Most of the top players I see in game are spending more than $10 a month already anyway. But, this is the internet, so I'm sure the next 10 posts will be people with level 550 teams telling me they never spent a dime, lol.

_RiO_

jobob wrote:

_RiO_ wrote:

Are you not familiar with the concept of the slippery slope?

I'm going to assume from context clues that the concept refers to level ground that provides excellent footholds and traction.

:: not sure if serious ::

The Bob The

_RiO_ wrote:

Are you not familiar with the concept of the slippery slope?

Why, yes I am!

Slippery Slope Fallacy
Explanation

Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
Example

(1) If you buy a Green Day album, then next you’ll be buying Buzzcocks albums, and before you know it you’ll be a punk with green hair and everything.
(2) You don’t want to become a punk.
Therefore:
(3) You shouldn’t buy a Green Day album.

This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy because it is perfectly possible to buy a Green Day album without going on to become a punk; we could buy the album and then stop there. The conclusion therefore hasn’t been proven, because the argument’s first premise is false.

From Logical Fallacies

mpqr7

I've barely spent money on the game ($5 of my money for a great special, plus $10 google survey money for VIP), yet somehow I've made it to lv 405 oml, plus 7-cover ph and some other low-covered 5*s, all 2*s and 3*s champed (well, not yet bagman, but soon, probably), and enough 4*s champed for now...

So you don't need to spend money to get to a decent level.

If you have max-champed 5*s then yeah you spent money to get there... but why?

_RiO_

The Bob The wrote:

The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.

The problem is D3P and Demiurge have a decently long track-record of not showing that restraint, making it far less of a fallacy here.

Mawtful

Well, despite speculation that VIP would be half the cost of a Logan's Loonies ($24.99 Australian Dollarydoos), it's not ($14.99).

As we say in Australia: yeah nah, tinykitty.

Dayv

_RiO_ wrote:

Are you not familiar with the concept of the slippery slope?

Relying on "slippery slope" arguments is always the first step towards losing a debate.

ClydeFrog76

Mawtful wrote:

Well, despite speculation that VIP would be half the cost of a Logan's Loonies ($24.99 Australian Dollarydoos), it's not ($14.99).

As we say in Australia: yeah nah, tinykitty.

Called it...

ClydeFrog76 wrote:

killercool wrote:

I will wait and see what $9.99 changes in to for Australian dollars first.

I reckon it'll be $15.

Mawtful

Yep. I would have paid $10.
I'd have probably put some serious consideration towards $12.50.
But $15 is no bueno; guaranteed no sale for me.

Norksman

Mawtful wrote:

Yep. I would have paid $10.
I'd have probably put some serious consideration towards $12.50.
But $15 is no bueno; guaranteed no sale for me.

Pretty much this as a fellow Aussie. Although, the option still isn't available for me to even consider.

I'll be honest I didn't even think that the price might be different, a little disappointing since they don't even mention that it'd be USD or that the price may vary in other countries.

SnowcaTT

VIP is Dead!!!

ClydeFrog76

Nice to see so many Aussies here.

Also nice to see we agree on the pricing.

Bowgentle

Bowgentle wrote:

Daiches wrote:

11AM CET. Nothing yet.

I expect this to go live either when DDQ rolls over in 40 minutes, or whenever today's data patch is.

Then they'll have to take it offline for a few days to fix the things it broke.

Called it.

However, even I didn't expect the implementation of the actual thing that would make money to be botched.

The Bob The

Mawtful wrote:

Well, despite speculation that VIP would be half the cost of a Logan's Loonies ($24.99 Australian Dollarydoos), it's not ($14.99).

As we say in Australia: yeah nah, tinykitty.

That's very weird. In the U.S., it's $9.99, which is half the cost of a Loonies ($19.99). Strange that yours isn't like $12.50.

Also, the dollarydoo is the official unit of currency in Australia, is it not?

EDIT: So I hear from the Canadians that the VIPrice up in the Frozen North is $14, half the price of a Loonies there ($28 - you'd think they'd get a countrymen's discount). Why the relative markup for our pals Down Under? Did a bunyip get into the code?

Malcrof

Official threads are up, locking this one.