I want to fight max level enemies.

[Silligoose]

On 2023-11-14 at 2:30 PM, SneakyErvin said:

So since everything in WF is effectively subjective based on each player, it cannot be P2W. Pay to advance, pay to skip, pay to complete and so on yes, P2W no, since what might be a win to you might not be a win to me or someone else, it might very well be the opposite even.

On 2023-11-16 at 6:01 PM, SneakyErvin said:

And win is subjective.

I said: "They may feel they weren't able to play the game, but factually, objectively, they completed the mission, ie they won. It isn't subjective, but objective."

When a mission is completed, the ones who completed it, won. 

Your argument that winning is subjective and thus p2w is subjective, is faulty in premise and by extension, conclusion, considering winning is also objective.

On 2023-11-16 at 6:01 PM, SneakyErvin said:

The old and more geared player does not win, just as the forward, goalie, defensive player does not win over his team mates in a match, since it is a team/group effort and the goal is to win over the other team or in the case of WF complete the objective for the benefit of the group.

Your rebuttal boils down to a narrative of "old vs new" you are trying to attribute to me that you made up as I did not speak of old vs new, which I'm ignoring, and you agreeing that winning is objective by way of completing the objective. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[Silligoose]

12 hours ago, (XBOX)Tucker D Dawg said:

actually - no.... one wipes the floor for the fast loot.
and one goes to level cap either for CCCCC rotational loot, in which case skipping the <9999 waves makes no sense, or is just doing it to say they did it.

Would I like unlimited enemy level in simulacrum for build testing? sure.  Do I agree with a skip-to-level-9999 in missions? no.  
I would much rather them nerf the crap out of everything to make it so base level SP is challenging no matter your gear... the way base level normal starchart is challening (without carries) for the first 100 hours for new players.
rather than increasing sp enemy level difficulty to an arbitrary and meaningess 100 plus a touch of armor, they could have halved the efficacy of every single mod for example.  so - not a "no mod mod world, but certainly a more challenging one.  and if 1/2 isn't enough, 1/4...

any skip-to-9999 reg mission will be no different than current sp - a couple meta builds, a bunch of taxi-me-please, and thats about it.

.

I, and I'm sure many others, would much rather see the power creep be addressed and see overpowered options to players be nerfed appropriately (for me, in an optional mode so those who enjoy the OP-ness can continue to do so). Unfortunately I don't see that happening for a variety of reasons. A crappy compromise would at least be to have missions with level cap enemies, as I'd enjoy that more than current SP levels. It'll also expose the glaring imbalances to a greater extent, which could be good, but also possibly a reason for DE not to implement it.

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, 4thBro said:

I dunno if you're talking about normal rifts or greater rifts, but - for all the bad of D3 - greater rifts were one of the best things in all of video gaming. Something that I wish many games would adopt. And it would go greatly in WF.

Greater, the Nephalem rifts just dont scale far enough since they are locked to whatever torment level the game has as its max, which is peanut levels very quickly. And yeah, out of all S#&amp;&#036; that came with D3, which is practically everything, Greater Rifts really stood out as one of the few, or the only good things that came with D3.

D3 Grifts, PoE mapping and Marvel Heroes Danger Room Chip system have so far been the most enjoyable "endless" game systems in any game. Challenging but also with options to find the right spot for you at your current progression, which results in them being both fun and rewarding at nearly all times and progress levels.

[SneakyErvin]

3 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I said: "They may feel they weren't able to play the game, but factually, objectively, they completed the mission, ie they won. It isn't subjective, but objective."

When a mission is completed, the ones who completed it, won. 

Your argument that winning is subjective and thus p2w is subjective, is faulty in premise and by extension, conclusion, considering winning is also objective.

Your rebuttal boils down to a narrative of "old vs new" you are trying to attribute to me that you made up as I did not speak of old vs new, which I'm ignoring, and you agreeing that winning is objective by way of completing the objective. Thanks for agreeing with me.

But it is subjective, since P2W refers to winning in relation to other players. What you talk about here is completing a game objective i.e being successful in the game and "winning" over the game. But that has nothing to do with P2W, since the advantage is over other players and having a higher chance winning over those that do not pay. But since we all work towards the same objective, whatever is payed for benefits all 4 players in a group. Just like in sports where you win through a group effort over someone else.

And as I said, P2W is not a viable acronym to use for WF, since a new player cannot pay for power to reach the point of a veteran (paying one or not), which is something that would be an option if P2W was actually part of WF.

Also, you clearly did refer to old versus new.

On 2023-11-16 at 5:01 PM, SneakyErvin said:

If a new player joins a public lobby and a high level player within that lobby nukes the map leaving no enemies for the new player to fight and killing the boss, essentially leaving the new player to play parkour simulator and the new player completes the mission, they won. It may not be satisfying.

So yeah, new versus old, since there is no reason to point out new if you dont imply the other has been part of the game longer. So that has nothing to do with paying or not whatsoever since that is simply part of GaaS gaming. Someone will be new, someone will be old and have much more power. Especially in a game where the Devs try to make everything accessible for everyone without level bands or progression based gates for the most part. Which in itself is a benefit to the newer players because they arent left with ghost town content that they might struggle to complete in a game with level bands and linear progression.

So again, P2W isnt part of WF, since it is a group effort and everyone benefits from the stronger player in a group, since it helps everyone complete the objective or "win" as you so old-folksy call it. I honestly thought the word "win" in relation to PvE died with my 40's generation parents. "Did you and your friends win over Ragnaros tonight son?" "If you consider murder, arson and things that would make Mengele puke winning, then suuure.".

And if you somehow think P2W refers to winning over NPCs by paying, then all games are P2W the moment they release an expansion, since you can now pay for power that was otherwise unavailable to you when struggling versus a vanilla enemy, thus you just payed to win over that enemy by buying the latest expansion. But that is not how it works, since it is all about the win state and advantage over other players. 

And even in a situation where we only look at player over player power advantages, buying Reaper of Souls for D3 would be P2W in your mind since you get access to more power through spending more money than someone that is sitting on vanilla only. And in that you also pretty much kill any meaning that the acronym has, since now you can apply it to pretty much everything that involves money and gameplay options.

"I am become vague, destroyer of definitions" - Silligoose

[dragonborn0998]

On 2023-11-13 at 4:04 AM, (PSN)GEN-Son_17 said:

I'm confused. You're warframe and weapons max at level 30 or 40 in sine cases. Steel Path starts at level 100. It starts you of more than 3x your level.

you have to be going for some sort of "most consecutive bad takes" on this forum or something cuz thats literally all i ever see from you

[Silligoose]

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

What you talk about here is completing a game objective i.e being successful in the game and "winning" over the game.

You agreed with this. The rest of this paragraph is you rehashing points I addressed a year ago. Go read that thread.

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Also, you clearly did refer to old versus new.

I referred to players of different power and experience playing together in a mission, not against each other. That's why they win when completing an objective, such as a mission.

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I honestly thought the word "win" in relation to PvE died with my 40's generation parents.

This is problem with engaging with you: One can't discuss more complex matters or ideas, because you fumble understanding basic words. When one shows you what they (those words) mean, you don't want to accept it, because it proves you wrong. It is just the same as when you didn't want to accept irrefutable, verifiable proof in the form of maths and visual proof (as mentioned earlier), because it proved you wrong. The rest I've addressed in the other thread.

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

"I am become vague, destroyer of definitions" - Silligoose

The issue is you not wanting to accept what definitions are and context still eluding you, amongst other issues already mentioned.

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Silligoose

[4thBro]

5 hours ago, Silligoose said:

It'll also expose the glaring imbalances to a greater extent, which could be good, but also possibly a reason for DE not to implement it.

I wish more people said this. If we assumed the devs did what they should, then YES, having max level content would highlight imbalances, and the devs could tweak the game accordingly. (And we SHOULD assume devs will do as they should, or else what's the point in ANY discussion at all whatsoever?)

...

As for this P2W discussion, can we nip this in the bud?

Pay to win is different from pay to save time. Warframe has the latter.

Paying to win is if you can get something in the game with money that you CANNOT get otherwise. And, trust me, there ARE games that have this. Those are pay to win.

 

But Warframe has pay to win as much as retail WoW has pay to win by character boosting. Aka, it's not pay to win.

 

That being said, if you have issues with pay to save time, then just say that. It's okay, it's fine, you're allowed to have an issue with that. I don't have an issue with it myself, but I understand the perspective. However, don't call an apple an orange, and say you hate oranges.

[4thBro]

6 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

Paying to win is if you can get something in the game with money that you CANNOT get otherwise. And, trust me, there ARE games that have this. Those are pay to win.

I want to add a slight errata to this:

Some games are pay to save so much time that they ARE pay to win, in regards to... while you can get all this stuff in-game without paying, the time required to do so is too high to be feasible (maybe even literally impossible), so I accept that as pay to win as well.

This becomes a bit of a subjective definition at this point (which no true definition should be subjective), but I think "pay to win" almost has to be subjective, or else even cosmetics can be considered pay to win for multiple reasons.

 

----------

 

Thinking of another angle here, consider this for P2W's definition in WF:

When you enter a mission, you have a finite amount of things that you are bringing into it. Your Frame, your weapons, your Operator schools, your pet... whatever else I may be forgetting.

But that's it. That's all! Nothing else. And what this means is that the collective assets that you bring took no more than X amount of time to acquire and build up.

Now let's say you want to try out a different weapon. But you don't want to do the whole process normally. So you spend plat (which you bought with money) to speed up the process as much as possible. You now hop into your games with this new weapon instead of the old weapon.

 

X amount of time does not change in this formula.

 

In other words... You can sit there and spend a thousand dollars on plat and speed-boost all the weapons and Frames you want. But this is not adding to your overall power! You are merely switching out one thing in favor of a different thing. In theory, even though you put maybe thousands of dollars into the game speeding things up, you are NO STRONGER than someone who decided to use your current loadout from day 1, and whom doesn't have hundreds of unused assets sitting on the bench during this mission. Aka, your background assets are muted in Warframe. They aren't contributing to your strength.

 

In this regard, while Warframe does very much have pay to save time, it isn't even CLOSE to being in the realm that I mentioned above, where the time you save is so potent that you really are pulling ahead. Because you AREN'T pulling ahead, in Warframe. You're just changing your mind on what loadout you're using, without wanting to spend another 3 days waiting for it in the Foundry, or the Formas, or this or that... Etc.

 

Does this make sense? Can we put this discussion to rest?

Edited November 18, 2023 by 4thBro

[Silligoose]

2 hours ago, 4thBro said:

I wish more people said this. If we assumed the devs did what they should, then YES, having max level content would highlight imbalances, and the devs could tweak the game accordingly. (And we SHOULD assume devs will do as they should, or else what's the point in ANY discussion at all whatsoever?)

In all honesty I assumed far too much from the devs. These days different devs seem to do what they do for different reasons. Some seem extremely passionate about their projects placing the experience as the top prioroty and others are in it 100% to make money, with no passion and others yet lie somewhere between those points. DE seemed to lean more towards the passion side, but those days seem long gone. To me it seems money is steering them far more than passion or the player experience these days and as such what they consider they should do is probably different from what players expect.

2 hours ago, 4thBro said:

As for this P2W discussion, can we nip this in the bud?

Pay to win is different from pay to save time. Warframe has the latter.

Paying to win is if you can get something in the game with money that you CANNOT get otherwise. And, trust me, there ARE games that have this. Those are pay to win.

 

But Warframe has pay to win as much as retail WoW has pay to win by character boosting. Aka, it's not pay to win.

 

That being said, if you have issues with pay to save time, then just say that. It's okay, it's fine, you're allowed to have an issue with that. I don't have an issue with it myself, but I understand the perspective. However, don't call an apple an orange, and say you hate oranges.

P2w does not have the parameter for assets to be exclusively available via money. That is made up and the first time I heard that argument was from the devs of Dungeon Keeper Mobile around a decade ago, as they also claimed since everyone can farm everything their game is not p2w, regardless of the ridiculous timegates put in place. 

If real-world money can be used to get an advantage in the game in terms of gameplay, then it is p2w. If that is possible in WoW, it is p2w.

P2w is a simple concept that allows players to know whether money can affect the game's gameplay and by extension, can prepare them for the types of design choices typically associated with such games, such as more excessive grinds, timegates, balancing decisions, more simplistic gameplay not too dependent on (or rewarding of) skill etc. 

I don't have an issue with p2w, pay2skip, p2convenience etc in principle, but I dislike when it starts affecting a game's balance, gameplay, grinds and timegates too greatly. Warframe does p2w pretty well (it has even made the list for best p2w games once or twice), although I wasn't too impressed with how they handled the timegates and sales of Incarnon Genesis Weapons and the balancing is starting to detract from the game for me.

Below are definitions for p2w, as searched around a year ago. They were simply the results that popped up on the first page or two on Google. They weren't cherry picked, because I'm interested in applying accumulating data from different sources and finding the general consensus of the definition. Personally, I don't like that some definitions mention a "significant" advantage, as that is very subjective - 1% sounds minor to some, but it is extremely significant to others. I still included those definitions anyway even though it seems to obfuscate the definition needlessly. Don't take my word for it though - go look up various sources and find the general consensus, then adjust you view on the matter accordingly if needed.

On 2022-11-04 at 9:48 PM, Silligoose said:

PAY TO WIN (noun) definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary "in online gaming, the practice of buying in-game items that give a player a very big advantage over others".

What is Pay-to-win? (computerhope.com) "Pay-to-win, abbreviated as P2W, describes an aspect of a game where players are allowed to get an advantage with real-world currency to purchase in-game items. The pay-to-win structure is prevalent in both multiplayer online games through DLC (downloadable content) and mobile games through in-app purchases."

What Is "Pay-to-Win" in Video Games? (makeuseof.com) "In the simplest terms, "pay-to-win" describes a game where paying real money gives players a significant advantage over those who don't spend any money."

P2W | What Does P2W Mean? (cyberdefinitions.com) "P2W is used in gaming with the meaning "Pay to Win," to refer to games that allow players to purchase items or abilities (e.g., more powerful weapons, additional health points) that give them an advantage in the game, either over other players or NPCs (Non-Player Characters)."

P2W Meaning Explained - What Are P2W Games? (esports.net) "This means that you’ll actually be buying things like loot crates or even skins to gain an advantage over other players who haven’t purchased the items."

Pay to Win – Meaning, Origin, Usage (digitalcultures.net) "Pay to win is an expression for games that promote themselves as “free to play” but offer purchasable content that puts buyers into a favorable position over their fellow players who are playing the game freely."

What Are Pay-to-Win Games? The Best and Worst of 2022 (gamedesigning.org) "Users and players willing to shell out a few extra bucks to access features that are normally unlocked as the game progresses can give some serious advantage, especially in online games."

 

 

2 hours ago, 4thBro said:

I want to add a slight errata to this:

Some games are pay to save so much time that they ARE pay to win, in regards to... while you can get all this stuff in-game without paying, the time required to do so is too high to be feasible (maybe even literally impossible), so I accept that as pay to win as well.

This becomes a bit of a subjective definition at this point (which no true definition should be subjective), but I think "pay to win" almost has to be subjective, or else even cosmetics can be considered pay to win for multiple reasons.

You are correct in that adding that parameter makes it too subjective. It is likely why it isn't in the general consensus of the definition. If cosmetics do not grant an advantage, then they aren't p2w. If they do (such as camouflage), it is p2w. It is a very simple matter when the definition doesn't get muddled by people who fabricate parameters to show their game isn't p2w, or for whatever other reason people fabricate things. Sometimes it is just an honest mistake which people learn from. Happens to all of us.

2 hours ago, 4thBro said:

Thinking of another angle here, consider this for P2W's definition in WF:

When you enter a mission, you have a finite amount of things that you are bringing into it. Your Frame, your weapons, your Operator schools, your pet... whatever else I may be forgetting.

But that's it. That's all! Nothing else. And what this means is that the collective assets that you bring took no more than X amount of time to acquire and build up.

Now let's say you want to try out a different weapon. But you don't want to do the whole process normally. So you spend plat (which you bought with money) to speed up the process as much as possible. You now hop into your games with this new weapon instead of the old weapon.

 

X amount of time does not change in this formula.

 

In other words... You can sit there and spend a thousand dollars on plat and speed-boost all the weapons and Frames you want. But this is not adding to your overall power! You are merely switching out one thing in favor of a different thing. In theory, even though you put maybe thousands of dollars into the game speeding things up, you are NO STRONGER than someone who decided to use your current loadout from day 1, and whom doesn't have hundreds of unused assets sitting on the bench during this mission. Aka, your background assets are muted in Warframe. They aren't contributing to your strength.

 

In this regard, while Warframe does very much have pay to save time, it isn't even CLOSE to being in the realm that I mentioned above, where the time you save is so potent that you really are pulling ahead. Because you AREN'T pulling ahead, in Warframe. You're just changing your mind on what loadout you're using, without wanting to spend another 3 days waiting for it in the Foundry, or the Formas, or this or that... Etc.

 

Does this make sense? Can we put this discussion to rest?

I understand the point you are bringing across, but I do ont agree as you are obfuscating the definition needlessly. Can real-world money lead to an advantage for the player in the game? Well, do you consider being able to skip a timegate such as a 3-day build of a frame an advantage? Do you consider being able to skip a 60+hour minmax grind for an R5 Arcane Energize by way of money an advantage? Do you consider being able to go from early game power to lategame power by way of money an advantage? Do you consider being able to buy more power that leads to being able to complete a mission more efficiently in some way (time, effort, etc) an advantage? Do you think if someone who can't beat a mission, but can spend real-world money to gain more power, then beat the mission as a result, gained an advantage due to use of real-world money? Do you think someone that can buy everything they want will be able to complete the Star Chart in less time than someone else of equal skill who spends no money? If your answer to any of these questions is "yes", then the game is p2w. It is that simple. It doesn't matter whether all iterms can be farmed. It doesn't matter if the timegates skipped are 10 mins, or 10 days. It doesn't matter if the game is PvP or PvE. Those variables can be used to determine to what extent a game is p2w, but not whether it is p2w. None of those are parameters to what constitutes a game being p2w. I don't understand why people are so reluctant to accept the definition for what it is. So you play a p2w game. So what?

It is bad form to ask for a topic to be nipped in the bud, or laid to rest, then try to have the final word. If you don't want to debate this, you don't have to reply. If you do, citations backing your claims would be helpful.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Silligoose

[4thBro]

3 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Well, do you consider being able to skip a timegate such as a 3-day build of a frame an advantage?

Yes, if I was playing with my friends and we were all on day 1.
No, if I'm in current day, playing with anyone. A person couldn't spend any amount of money to then perform better than I can. And that's because I've simply passed the point of having all of my loadout slots filled.

 

It's an advantage, for your OWN self, compared to an alternate universe where you DON'T spend that money to speed it all up.

However, no, it's not an advantage over other players. That's how I see it.

 

5 hours ago, Silligoose said:

It is bad form to ask for a topic to be nipped in the bud, or laid to rest, then try to have the final word.

Yes, for sure, I agree with this. Maybe it was irksome of me to do that.

But I did that cuz it is off-topic, but consuming about 2.5 pages of this thread at the moment. (And I honestly thought I presented a globally-agreeable position on it.)

[Leqesai]

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I, and I'm sure many others, would much rather see the power creep be addressed and see overpowered options to players be nerfed appropriately (for me, in an optional mode so those who enjoy the OP-ness can continue to do so). Unfortunately I don't see that happening for a variety of reasons. A crappy compromise would at least be to have missions with level cap enemies, as I'd enjoy that more than current SP levels. It'll also expose the glaring imbalances to a greater extent, which could be good, but also possibly a reason for DE not to implement it.

I'm not against power creep but I would like to see AI improvements on the part of enemies. Maybe not on thr grunts but special units (eximus, Specters, allies etc) would do well to have more self preservation techniques and navigation. Hiding, healing, deployed barriers etc.

Just slapping on random auras with hitscan abilities is pretty boring. 

[Silligoose]

13 hours ago, 4thBro said:

Yes, if I was playing with my friends and we were all on day 1.
No, if I'm in current day, playing with anyone. A person couldn't spend any amount of money to then perform better than I can. And that's because I've simply passed the point of having all of my loadout slots filled.

 

It's an advantage, for your OWN self, compared to an alternate universe where you DON'T spend that money to speed it all up.

However, no, it's not an advantage over other players. That's how I see it.

 

There it is. Real-world money can grant an advantage in terms of gameplay over others and it can grant an advantage in terms of gameplay for the player, so the game is p2w. That's how simple it is. Warframe does it pretty well overall.

13 hours ago, 4thBro said:

Yes, for sure, I agree with this. Maybe it was irksome of me to do that.

But I did that cuz it is off-topic, but consuming about 2.5 pages of this thread at the moment. (And I honestly thought I presented a globally-agreeable position on it.)

Thank you for that.

I understand your point of view and I also understand posting an opinion one believes to be rooted in fact, or in this case, based on the general consensus, only to find it may not be (for me it was regarding TNW and thinking players could get out via support, but it appeared as though I was wrong, so I stated that and adjusted my opinion accordingly). I moved the conversation with both of the other people to private, but SneakyErvin decided to post a private message here and reply to it. I suppose they like an audience. Seems that mods decided it was fine. Should they reply again, the rehashed stuff I don't address and the "new" points I try to keep short, because the topic isn't that deep.

I would, however, like for to consider whether a game being p2w, especially via micro-transactions, could influence the design choices with regards to how skill-based the game is and by extension, how challenging the endgame can be. It has been my experience that a PvE game that allows for purchases that enable trivializing the highest level content available to a player during progression through a game, sets that precedent and continues with it, so as to incentivize further purchasing of assets. That is what we see in Warframe and I believe that is why the level of challenge experienced by non-paying players (or extremely light spenders) within the first few dozen hours was higher than the level of challenge experienced at endgame level and why I highly doubt this game ever will become as skill-dependent or challenging at endgame as it was in the few dozen hours for non-paying players. In PvE games it is  a little different, as p2w being too effective will drive away the majority of the player base (non-paying players) due to it feeling unfair and making it too skill based will make some whales feel as though buying power doesn't have enough value. I've gone through some data regarding game design in freemium games and p2w games and the philosophy is not to make the game too skill-based, or too challenging in terms of max player power vs max enemy power, because it would lead to player purchasing gear and still failing, causing them to no longer see value in their purchases. I can't cite the sources though, so consider anecdotal; something to chew on.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Silligoose

[Silligoose]

5 hours ago, Leqesai said:

I'm not against power creep but I would like to see AI improvements on the part of enemies. Maybe not on thr grunts but special units (eximus, Specters, allies etc) would do well to have more self preservation techniques and navigation. Hiding, healing, deployed barriers etc.

Just slapping on random auras with hitscan abilities is pretty boring. 

In principle I accept power creep is part of games with progression elements, especially live service game, but it is way out of hand in Warframe in my opinion. Improved AI would be fantastic and it feels like there is so much potential to improve the gameplay experience with it! It could even address some of the power creep. I was rather disappointed when the DE panel discussed cc a year ago and they touched on AI, but basically discarded the idea of improved AI due to how effective cc is and due to how quickly enemies die.

100% agree with your sentiment regarding random auras with hitscan abilities.

[SneakyErvin]

23 hours ago, Silligoose said:

You agreed with this. The rest of this paragraph is you rehashing points I addressed a year ago. Go read that thread.

That has nothing to do with P2W though, since we are talking about win conditions versus NPCs. If you think you can apply P2W to winning over NPCs then you just covered every game ever made since you effectively buy all games in order to win over some form of NPCs and there is nothing they can do about it in the end, this would include single player games since you just removed the "advantage over other players" from it. So this is something that only applies when it is player versus player power (no not PvP as such), and is applied to PvE when the PvE is competative, like being able to grab farm spots, or bulldoze through a quest while someone else needs to wait for their turn. We cant do any of those things in WF. So there is no objective advantage to be had over another player by paying for anything, since the advantage is very subjective as is the win for the player. I win by playing the game and enjoying it while I farm, someone else wins by getting the items by paying so he doesnt have to do the content. That is paying for conveniance, skipping or advancing and different from each player. Unlike BDO or ArchAge, where I did not enjoy the farm since I knew someone was more competative than me due to paying real cash for items. The farms or more appropriately grinds in those games were chores in order to keep up with the paying joneses, to have even the slightest chance if I wanted to farm the same areas or defend myself incase I was attacked. Thoughts that never once have crossed my mind in WF since there has been no need since whatever another player does, it doesnt affect me the slightest in a negative way. Just as they were never present in WoW either, since if I was behind it was due to me slacking, not someone else paying to get a competative power advantage over me. So if I lost a farm spot or got ganked it was a simply issue of "git gud!". Now if actual power through payment was added to WoW it would have been P2W due to the competative nature of faction based PvP on a daily basis aswell as personal loot and monster tagging even among your own faction.

23 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I referred to players of different power and experience playing together in a mission, not against each other. That's why they win when completing an objective, such as a mission.

No reason to use the word new in that case. Since the game is 10 years old, so even the power between old players can fluctuate greatly. More so due to the game not being linear and we set our own goals and priorities. And since they win, it isnt P2W, since another players is at that point not at an advantage over another, but instead help the other out no matter where he obtained that power from. P2S, P2A, PFC and so on yes, P2W no.

23 hours ago, Silligoose said:

This is problem with engaging with you: One can't discuss more complex matters or ideas, because you fumble understanding basic words. When one shows you what they (those words) mean, you don't want to accept it, because it proves you wrong. It is just the same as when you didn't want to accept irrefutable, verifiable proof in the form of maths and visual proof (as mentioned earlier), because it proved you wrong. The rest I've addressed in the other thread.

You apply the win to the wrong part of the game though, since you apply it to the individual NPCs and not between players. Between players you've acknowledged that everyone wins together, so not really sure how you can keep arguing WF is P2W when there is no advantage over other players. Hence why I use the old folks reference for "win" in games, which is not the win P2W refers to.

23 hours ago, Silligoose said:

The issue is you not wanting to accept what definitions are and context still eluding you, amongst other issues already mentioned.

The problem is that you disagree with the references/definitions you yourself linked in this thread. Advantage over players, significant, large and so on are key points of those references. You've agreed that we "win" together, so where is the advantage over another player in that case? And where are the concrete and objective advantages a paying player has over someone that doesnt pay? In order for it to be P2W it needs to be an objective advantage for everyone, but it isnt, since we all play WF the way that is advantageous to use personally, playing or skipping content as we want, meaning what might be a win to some is an effective loss to others if they pay for it, since it removes activities, it removes part of your pass time activity, hobby. Just as with wargaming. Some might see it as a massive advantage to hire another to paint their armies, but for someone else it would be an utter and total disadvantage even if they cant make the time to have it all painted and ready for a tournament, since part of the hobby is painting, converting and personalizing your army.

Edited November 19, 2023 by SneakyErvin

[CrownOfShadows]

Like here's the main issue: if there was a mission that you could just jump into and it starts at like level 1000 and then after like 15 minutes you're near level cap it would become just a loki/ash/shield-gate abuse only mission. No normal warframe would ever go there - for the same reason no normal warframe goes to level cap. You have to cheese to get there, 100%, there is no way to get there without cheesing (or if there is enlighten me).

If you put a hard check on invisibility 97% of all level-cappers would evaporate (a made up statistic, but likely very near to the truth).

While I agree we do need faster ramp-up (instead of spending 1-2 hours getting to level 1000, I should be be there at like 30 minutes I think - so just a slight buff), what we also really need is more reasons to go play high level content as regular warframes as well as a nerf to the cheeses that let people ignore all scaling.

The current difficulty is actually pretty close to being good for regular warframes and people who don't cheese. We just need things to play around the level 500-1000 range. Much beyond that and nobody can survive relying on normal tools (although there's a difference between solo and squad - squads can generally go higher if they stick together).

Another thing that would really help is asymmetrical difficulty - difficulty not tied to enemy levels. Things like more counters to warframes.

 

[Silligoose]

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That has nothing to do with P2W though, since we are talking about win conditions versus NPCs. If you think you can apply P2W to winning over NPCs then you just covered every game ever made since you effectively buy all games in order to win over some form of NPCs and there is nothing they can do about it in the end, this would include single player games since you just removed the "advantage over other players" from it. So this is something that only applies when it is player versus player power (no not PvP as such), and is applied to PvE when the PvE is competative, like being able to grab farm spots, or bulldoze through a quest while someone else needs to wait for their turn. We cant do any of those things in WF. So there is no objective advantage to be had over another player by paying for anything, since the advantage is very subjective as is the win for the player. I win by playing the game and enjoying it while I farm, someone else wins by getting the items by paying so he doesnt have to do the content. That is paying for conveniance, skipping or advancing and different from each player. Unlike BDO or ArchAge, where I did not enjoy the farm since I knew someone was more competative than me due to paying real cash for items. The farms or more appropriately grinds in those games were chores in order to keep up with the paying joneses, to have even the slightest chance if I wanted to farm the same areas or defend myself incase I was attacked. Thoughts that never once have crossed my mind in WF since there has been no need since whatever another player does, it doesnt affect me the slightest in a negative way. Just as they were never present in WoW either, since if I was behind it was due to me slacking, not someone else paying to get a competative power advantage over me. So if I lost a farm spot or got ganked it was a simply issue of "git gud!". Now if actual power through payment was added to WoW it would have been P2W due to the competative nature of faction based PvP on a daily basis aswell as personal loot and monster tagging even among your own faction.

I showed "win" can be objective. You agreed (though you apparently didn't foresee the consequence 🤣) - your premise was shown to be faulty. That's all there is to it.

I don't use your fabricated parameters for p2w - they do not fall in line with the general consensus regarding the definition.

The rest about PvE and winning being subjective is rehashed and has been addressed.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No reason to use the word new in that case. Since the game is 10 years old, so even the power between old players can fluctuate greatly. More so due to the game not being linear and we set our own goals and priorities. And since they win, it isnt P2W, since another players is at that point not at an advantage over another, but instead help the other out no matter where he obtained that power from. P2S, P2A, PFC and so on yes, P2W no.

The descriptors used painted a picture many are likely familiar with and I believe it conveyed the message. That is enough for me. The last sentence is another rehash addressed a year ago.

PS bait still not good enough 😉🤣

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You apply the win to the wrong part of the game though, since you apply it to the individual NPCs and not between players. Between players you've acknowledged that everyone wins together, so not really sure how you can keep arguing WF is P2W when there is no advantage over other players. Hence why I use the old folks reference for "win" in games, which is not the win P2W refers to.

I showed "win" can be objective. You agreed  (though you apparently didn't foresee the consequence 🤣) - your premise was shown to be faulty. That's all there is to it.

I don't use your fabricated parameters for p2w - they do not fall in line with the general consensus of the definition.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

The problem is that you disagree with the references/definitions you yourself linked in this thread. Advantage over players, significant, large and so on are key points of those references. You've agreed that we "win" together, so where is the advantage over another player in that case? And where are the concrete and objective advantages a paying player has over someone that doesnt pay? In order for it to be P2W it needs to be an objective advantage for everyone, but it isnt, since we all play WF the way that is advantageous to use personally, playing or skipping content as we want, meaning what might be a win to some is an effective loss to others if they pay for it, since it removes activities, it removes part of your pass time activity, hobby. Just as with wargaming. Some might see it as a massive advantage to hire another to paint their armies, but for someone else it would be an utter and total disadvantage even if they cant make the time to have it all painted and ready for a tournament, since part of the hobby is painting, converting and personalizing your army.

More rehashed points already addressed a year ago in a more suitable thread.

Looks like we've reached an impasse 👍

[Silligoose]

3 hours ago, CrownOfShadows said:

Like here's the main issue: if there was a mission that you could just jump into and it starts at like level 1000 and then after like 15 minutes you're near level cap it would become just a loki/ash/shield-gate abuse only mission. No normal warframe would ever go there - for the same reason no normal warframe goes to level cap. You have to cheese to get there, 100%, there is no way to get there without cheesing (or if there is enlighten me).

If you put a hard check on invisibility 97% of all level-cappers would evaporate (a made up statistic, but likely very near to the truth).

While I agree we do need faster ramp-up (instead of spending 1-2 hours getting to level 1000, I should be be there at like 30 minutes I think - so just a slight buff), what we also really need is more reasons to go play high level content as regular warframes as well as a nerf to the cheeses that let people ignore all scaling.

The current difficulty is actually pretty close to being good for regular warframes and people who don't cheese. We just need things to play around the level 500-1000 range. Much beyond that and nobody can survive relying on normal tools (although there's a difference between solo and squad - squads can generally go higher if they stick together).

Another thing that would really help is asymmetrical difficulty - difficulty not tied to enemy levels. Things like more counters to warframes.

 

Any frame can get to level cap, but would involve overpowered options such as those you mention and others like invulnerability options (Vazarin, Rolling Guard, Mesmer Skin etc). It is on the developer for setting the balance to pigeonhole like that.

I get that some would like an extra incentive to play extremely high-level content and I agree that some sort of reward for high level content completion would fit with the current precedent for the reward system, but the majority of people who currently do it probably mainly do it to see if they can. To push whatever build they have and to see if holds up. To feel like the power they've gathered gets some sort of test. They do it for the fun of the game (for the most part in my opinion).

I would love to see the overpowered options get nerfed. I'd love to see other balance changes. As mentioned by another player, I'd love to see AI improvement also be part of what makes the game a little more challenging and I believe even a little better AI can help address power creep and can tie in with what you mention regarding asymmetrical difficulty.

[Lord_Drod]

I'm going to agree with @SneakyErvin here.  Warframe just isn't pay to win.  If some guy decided to spend 50k on Warframe, would he have an advantage over me?  No.  He can buy slots, and warframes, and you can buy all the arcanes and rivens (and 100% uptime on boosters), but he still won't know how to navigate the tile, mod his frame, mod his weapons, have a maxed out operator, etc etc.  You don't have to pay any money in this game at all and you're not at a significant disadvantage if you don't.  The smart thing to do is to pay for things that aren't worth your time, but yes that is subjective.

Many veterans don't even know how to mod their gear, or use shield gating properly - this is an acquired skill apparently and subjective depending on what you do.  There's no content where optimal building or shield gating is required.  There's tons of people modding their weapons different ways.  You could even give a new player all these things and they would still be terrible at the game.  This is partly on topic because OP states you can beat any mission in this game just slapping on random things and that's a slight hyperbole, but basically true.  The idea that you need to make a purchase in this game to complete a mission is just false and it won't necessarily make it easier.

In a true pay to win game, the things you can buy with real money allow you to have a competitive advantage in the game.  Like if it was a PVP game and you could only purchase a rocket launcher with infinite ammo and high fire rate, but the rest of the game forced you to use pistols.  So you'd be at a disadvantage if you didn't buy the rocket launcher.  You're not at a disadvantage if someone has a top tier riven vs you especially if they don't even know how to mod.  Even if they do know how to mod, you're still able to complete the mission fine.  There's nothing you can only purchase that gives your frame some kind of invincibility or super power, or a prebuilt mod or companion enabling to win in an environment where you (the person who doesn't purchase this gear) can't. 

You're not in competition with someone else who prefers to waste money on top tier rivens to get through the content because they are inexperienced or not smart enough to figure out how to do it themselves, or just simply want to max out their gear as early as possible.  And if they did somehow benefit from these purchases and are in your squad, you're benefiting from that as well.  There's no competition.     

You can't purchase amps, you can't purchase the helminth system.  You can't purchase shards.  You can't purchase intrinsics.  You can't purchase "how to navigate a tile" aka movement automation.  You can only purchase the worst tier incarnons.  Many of the better weapons are locked behind mastery(although they messed up with the Kuva weapons, you still have to farm them).  There is no purchase you can make to make you good at this game.  You get good at it purely by experience, research, trial and error.  A riven is completely useless in someone's hands who knows nothing about the game, and even if they did research, they wouldn't be able to utilize it properly.  You can't even speed through open areas by purchasing standing.  You have to level everything up to get max standing.

You don't have to purchase any boosters at all, but it certainly helps, and you can easily buy them with in game currency that is very easy to obtain, even for a newer player.  I didn't put all my plat towards boosters.  It's not really needed when starting the game.  That's a luxury you can afford later in game, without making a purchase.

You have a much bigger advantage over a newer player just playing with experienced players that know exactly how to help you and do everything for you.  I could carry a beginner through the entire star chart, complete all the missions for him and that is far more useful than if that player spend 20k in the game to buy everything they could.  So if an experienced player is a lot more useful than spending tons of money, how is it pay to win?  Pay to win by default, implies that spending money gets you there.  It doesn't in this game.  The complaint with pay to win games is that you can purchase everything and be right with a guy who grinded everything and just smash the end game.  There's no end game in Warframe, and you can't purchase most of the top tier things that allow you to be OP in it.

There would have to be a mission where you have to make a purchase in order to play it or a frame you can only get from real money that is more powerful than all the others.  Even if there was a powerful weapon you could only purchase, it still wouldn't be pay to win unless it was prebuilt requiring no mods, and was the only weapon that could complete mission, basically forcing you to buy it.  Even then, you could still group with those players, so they'd have to make a solo only mission.  Players bypassing the grind doesn't put you at a disadvantage.  What if they allowed you to buy all nodes and missions completed through the entire star chart?  So what?  So you bought the game completed, and now?  What advantage do you have?  You'd actually be at a disadvantage here vs the guy who went through the star chart because he'd be learning the mechanics of the game you bypassed, for no reason, because he's still just your teammate in mission and not your competitor.

 

Onto the topic, I'm all for faster scaling missions, but people would get bored with them eventually as they would serve no purpose after you optimized all your builds to squash that content.  Without a reward or reason, you just have a meaningless "harder" mission.  I don't believe cap levels actually give you what you are looking for.  What you want is every guy an eximus unit, tons of nullys, Kuva Trokarians, sentients, acolytes etc and then different missions.  Level cap doesn't really actually make the mission hard.  It's still the same rinse and repeat boring mission.  They need major gameplay changes for there to be a challenge.  Major enemy AI changes, enemy buffs, modfiers to enemies, debuffs to you over time etc much like path of exile has for their maps and there should definitely be rewards for that.  I don't see the point of grinding missions just for the sake of it.  I am certainly in favor of spawning level cap enemies in the simulacrum, removing the level cap entirely, adding a level cap mission, or a variety of faster scaling missions. 

Another issue is proper filters though.  I am too lazy for recruit and almost every time I choose to play cascade, which is an amazing mode, its completely dead.  And if someone does happen to join, they usually aren't interested in going level cap.  Zariman has some of the best tile experience in the game, but it is so segregated from the rest of the game.

 

EDIT:  I did not realize that P2W vs Pay to Progress was such a heated topic.  I see how you can have an advantage starting off with boosters, and buying frames, and slots, but is faster progression really a win?  You won't necessarily be doing better vs the player who doesn't do this.  The player on boosters still has to dedicate the same amount of time to get good at the game and will have a bunch of things they don't know what to do with.  It's not as clear cut as having overpowered items available only for purchase.  Even an Excalibur Prime player does not have an advantage in the gameplay.  I think its pretty fair.  Pretty much every game is P2W that offers some utility, by that definition and if they just offered cosmetics, all their work would be going towards cosmetics instead of the gameplay.  If you want to have the best builds and gear, you have to grind for it. 

When you don't know what you're doing, you won't even know what to purchase, and how to maximize a booster, so it will mostly be wasted money, aside from having a bunch of gear that is powerless in an experienced players hands.  You can look up builds sure, but will get a lot of varying results and will still be in the same group as the guy who purchased nothing, he just doesn't have as much junk in his toy box.  I wouldn't recommend to any new player to just go out and buy everything and I'm pretty sure nobody plays the game this way, but it would be perfectly fine if they did.  

Edited November 20, 2023 by Lord_Drod

[L3512]

16 hours ago, Leqesai said:

I'm not against power creep but I would like to see AI improvements on the part of enemies. Maybe not on thr grunts but special units (eximus, Specters, allies etc) would do well to have more self preservation techniques and navigation. Hiding, healing, deployed barriers etc.

Just slapping on random auras with hitscan abilities is pretty boring. 

Additionally SP or level cap without the 4 player spawn but somehow smarter enemies could be cool and it might incentivize the use of single target weapons.

 

10 hours ago, Silligoose said:

There it is. Real-world money can grant an advantage in terms of gameplay over others and it can grant an advantage in terms of gameplay for the player, so the game is p2w. That's how simple it is. Warframe does it pretty well overall.

We have hashed this out in the past and I'm pretty sure you are correct here. While I'd say there really is no "winning" in WF and skipping grind is essentially paying to skip the game that does not mean that a player will not gain an advantage from forking over a heap of cash to DE. So while the win stipulation is the crux here, the definition of P2W doesn't necessarily need "win" as a condition to be true.

[Foeglas]

1 hour ago, Lord_Drod said:

almost every time I choose to play cascade, which is an amazing mode, its completely dead.  And if someone does happen to join, they usually aren't interested in going level cap. 

There's a Discord server (Cascade Club) for boosted levelcap cascade, complete with basic and advanced Google Docs guides. In fact, "a Discord server and/or Google Doc outside the game" is the answer to virtually any organized and profitable endgame activity. But cascade is nowhere as populated (or popular) as Warframe Endo or Arbitration Goons. It's common (in cascade) to not invite ingame until the squad is full (in Discord) so players can do other things while waiting (possibly 1h+).

Edited November 20, 2023 by Foeglas

[SneakyErvin]

18 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I showed "win" can be objective. You agreed (though you apparently didn't foresee the consequence 🤣) - your premise was shown to be faulty. That's all there is to it.

I don't use your fabricated parameters for p2w - they do not fall in line with the general consensus regarding the definition.

The rest about PvE and winning being subjective is rehashed and has been addressed.

The descriptors used painted a picture many are likely familiar with and I believe it conveyed the message. That is enough for me. The last sentence is another rehash addressed a year ago.

PS bait still not good enough 😉🤣

I showed "win" can be objective. You agreed  (though you apparently didn't foresee the consequence 🤣) - your premise was shown to be faulty. That's all there is to it.

I don't use your fabricated parameters for p2w - they do not fall in line with the general consensus of the definition.

More rehashed points already addressed a year ago in a more suitable thread.

Looks like we've reached an impasse 👍

I never said "win" cant be objective. It is simply in this context that "win" is subjective, since there is no objective advantage with paying for anything in WF. Just as there are other parts in life where win is subjective, where subjective win is straight up retarded and where objective win is also straight up retarded these days. That doesnt change that "win" can be both and it all depends on the context. In WF and other games of similar nature, "win" is very much subjective since in the end it comes down to player preference in a context where paying for something in the game is involved. Where win to some is as mentioned an effective loss to others. Objective significant advantage only comes in competative settings, where keeping up with the joneses is a must in order to not suffer at their hands in one way or another.

My parameters do fall inline with the general consensus, even your own provided references show that.

And to top it off. We cant even buy peak power in WF, even if we wanted, since the BiS items are locked behind content we actually must play, same as the progression for several systems that add power. As opposed to a P2W game where you can buy everything day 1 and be on equal footing or at a better state of progression than a year(s) long vet that has not payed or payed less.

edit: I also gotta ask since you say "win" is always objective. Then you agree that "second winner", "third winner", "participation winner" and so on are objectively correct terms applied within "competitions" for certain ages? And if so, why doesnt "second winner", "third winner", "participation winner" and so on exsist at real sport levels? 

Edited November 20, 2023 by SneakyErvin

[Silligoose]

On 2023-11-14 at 2:30 PM, SneakyErvin said:

So since everything in WF is effectively subjective based on each player, it cannot be P2W.

There's you premise and conclusion. Your premise that everything in Warframe is effectively subjective, is wrong and your argument hinged on that. It was fabricated parameter that didn't even ring true, so you being wrong doesn't actually even matter.

On 2023-11-14 at 2:30 PM, SneakyErvin said:

Just look at Dagath. Anyone that bought her robbed themselves from playing the new game mode, the only new playable part of the update really.

This is also wrong - people who bought Dagath can play the new game mode, so there is no robbing. Paying players can play the same content as free players, but they have the option to playing that whenever they wish and stopping when they wish, but they have the advantage of already being able to enjoy the frame without having to complete the grind for it, while free players don't get to play with the new frame if they don't complete the grind.

19 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I never said "win" cant be objective. It is simply in this context that "win" is subjective, since there is no objective advantage with paying for anything in WF. Just as there are other parts in life where win is subjective, where subjective win is straight up retarded and where objective win is also straight up retarded these days. That doesnt change that "win" can be both and it all depends on the context. In WF and other games of similar nature, "win" is very much subjective since in the end it comes down to player preference in a context where paying for something in the game is involved. Where win to some is as mentioned an effective loss to others. Objective significant advantage only comes in competative settings, where keeping up with the joneses is a must in order to not suffer at their hands in one way or another.

My parameters do fall inline with the general consensus, even your own provided references show that.

And to top it off. We cant even buy peak power in WF, even if we wanted, since the BiS items are locked behind content we actually must play, same as the progression for several systems that add power. As opposed to a P2W game where you can buy everything day 1 and be on equal footing or at a better state of progression than a year(s) long vet that has not payed or payed less.

edit: I also gotta ask since you say "win" is always objective. Then you agree that "second winner", "third winner", "participation winner" and so on are objectively correct terms applied within "competitions" for certain ages? And if so, why doesnt "second winner", "third winner", "participation winner" and so on exsist at real sport levels? 

I didn't say win is always objective and I didn't say it can't be both - you went back to your old ways of making up nonsense, creating a false narrative.

The other points have been addressed in the thread from a year ago. My rebuttals to your repeated points are there.

[4thBro]

On 2023-11-19 at 11:08 AM, CrownOfShadows said:

Like here's the main issue: if there was a mission that you could just jump into and it starts at like level 1000 and then after like 15 minutes you're near level cap it would become just a loki/ash/shield-gate abuse only mission. No normal warframe would ever go there - for the same reason no normal warframe goes to level cap. You have to cheese to get there, 100%, there is no way to get there without cheesing (or if there is enlighten me).

If you put a hard check on invisibility 97% of all level-cappers would evaporate (a made up statistic, but likely very near to the truth).

While I agree we do need faster ramp-up (instead of spending 1-2 hours getting to level 1000, I should be be there at like 30 minutes I think - so just a slight buff), what we also really need is more reasons to go play high level content as regular warframes as well as a nerf to the cheeses that let people ignore all scaling.

The current difficulty is actually pretty close to being good for regular warframes and people who don't cheese. We just need things to play around the level 500-1000 range. Much beyond that and nobody can survive relying on normal tools (although there's a difference between solo and squad - squads can generally go higher if they stick together).

Another thing that would really help is asymmetrical difficulty - difficulty not tied to enemy levels. Things like more counters to warframes.

 

If we had the content, then the entire community could freely participate and give feedback. The fact that there is not any max level content makes such content still clouded in mystery for most of the community AS WELL AS the developers.

 

For example, I have two remarks to your Loki/Ash/Gating comment:

1) While mostly true, I overall disagree. There are some Health/Armor Frames that can survive it, but it requires actually trying. (And I believe that's the disconnect; most players don't want to try, but do still want the maximum-perceived victories.) That being said, I had struggled as a Nidus with 95% Link, maybe 2k armor, and Adaptation. I was being 1-shot by Detron Crewmen around level 2000 in Duviri. Now, to be fair, I could possibly achieve higher armor (esp now with shards), Adaptation is kind of like "fake survival" cuz of ramp-up, and I could venture into something else instead, like Null Star Helminth. (Which would probably be required on most Health/Armor attempts.) But overall, our mixed points come across here. People need to try a little harder than bare minimum, but also, yes, max level is pretty absurd and tends to require "cheese".

2) I used to hate Shield Gating on principle. But I've come to let that bitterness go, and I've embraced it in order to play more Frames at higher level. I don't think it should be that way, but since it is, I think the "try harder than bare minimum" applies here as well. Pretty much any Frame can be used at max level content due to Shield Gating. It just sometimes requires some extra planning - which, IMO, build design skill is an intended skill to have in Warframe (but with the lacking content to test those skills).

But that being SAID, keep in mind, even with "Shield Gate cheese," if I'm playing someone like Mirage for example... I still have to play well. The gameplay is still engaging, because if I slip up just once, I die.

 

And ALL of that being said...

To restate my point; if max level content became easily accessible, then the game could actually start receiving the balance tweaks that it needs. And in 99% of the timelines across the multiverse, this is done in a way that has no negative affect/collateral damage on anyone whatsoever.

[Lord_Drod]

I don't think you guys will ever agree on the P2W thing.  I have always viewed P2W as a negative, but however you want to view Warframe, I don't view the ability to pay for boosters or frames as a negative.  I think most buy primed frames for the cosmetics.  Starting the game, most aren't concerned with insanely fast progression, but more the story and combat and the resource requirements are not big.  However, some things are probably slightly more or less annoying depending on how you view Nightwave.  Later on, you should be able to easily afford boosters, or to buy frames to reach whatever your goal is.  i.e You really only need a booster for affinity if you're affinity farming, not resource farming, but sure it's nice if you can upkeep all 4 all the time. 

The same applies to forma, endo etc.  You could buy 5000 forma starting off, but you won't be able to utilize them until you've spent some time in the game, at which point most of your plat will go to that.  I know I didn't start off throwing a bunch of forma on things or maxing mods out.  You just cat a weapon or two and stick with your starter frame.  I think there's a basic learning curve you have to go through before you can utilize forma, max mods, arcanes, etc.  By that point, you can easily afford your own boosters.  There are some frames that are harder to farm than others, but that can be subjective as far as whether or not the grind itself is enjoyable.

[SneakyErvin]

23 hours ago, Silligoose said:

There's you premise and conclusion. Your premise that everything in Warframe is effectively subjective, is wrong and your argument hinged on that. It was fabricated parameter that didn't even ring true, so you being wrong doesn't actually even matter.

This is also wrong - people who bought Dagath can play the new game mode, so there is no robbing. Paying players can play the same content as free players, but they have the option to playing that whenever they wish and stopping when they wish, but they have the advantage of already being able to enjoy the frame without having to complete the grind for it, while free players don't get to play with the new frame if they don't complete the grind.

I didn't say win is always objective and I didn't say it can't be both - you went back to your old ways of making up nonsense, creating a false narrative.

The other points have been addressed in the thread from a year ago. My rebuttals to your repeated points are there.

Name a single objective thing that can indicate P2W.

Which is also subjective, since you think it is only about visiting the mode itself. But it is for instance for me also about the farm, which I wouldnt do if I bought the frame etc. So you see, it is subjective since the two of us cannot agree on a simple thing like this even, where our goals and idea of "fun" already part ways. Also saying others cannot stop when they wish isnt true, since if they arent interested in the frame they can do it later on when they feel like getting it. Which is also a subjective idea available since the game isnt linear, so Dagath is not a must in order to progress further etc. I farmed her, played her, built her all because I found the activities fun, not to gain some extra power or to get further. I then swapped over to Lavos again, then to Hydroid to fix him, then over to Revenant now for PS. All subjective as someone somewhere else ran something completely different, either purchased with plat or obtained for free, whatever they personally enjoy more. Oh and I've stopped farming for Grendel Prime atm, since well I just didnt feel a need for it and it wont negatively impact me in comparison to those that bought PA, from other players or farmed him themselves in fissures. Which shows even more how P2W is not a part of WF since Grendel is one of the stronger frames but also completely neglectable if one desires.

But you claimed it is objective in WF, which it isnt. Since we all have different goals and things that appeal to us in this non-linear sandbox game. Winning in relation to other players, which is a requirement for P2W is not objective in WF since we win together as a group. Which is not a parameter in P2W since it is the opposite of what P2W results in.