I want to fight max level enemies.

[Pizzarugi]

On 2023-11-13 at 4:38 AM, MaxTunnerX said:

There isnt really any reason to do this except for your ego or whatever your reason is (so yeah I definitely prefer playing against weaker enemies so I have fun), but regardless I think it would be quite easy to add a mode that starts missions with max level enemies from the very first second, so why not, lets add it. If someone finds it fun to deal with this crap, let them have it. Extracting at 5 wont hurt any of these hardcore players anyway since theres level cap already at the start.

Pretty much this. DE has not given players any real incentive to fight enemies past the first C rotation in endless mission. The one and only exception to this rule has been the Index, but all you get is a meme decoration. Personally I wish DE would do more to encourage endurance runs rather than bailing every 5-20 minutes.

All that being said, I don't think an instant access to level cap is that big of an ask so I don't see why DE can't include it somehow.

[CrownOfShadows]

20 hours ago, 4thBro said:

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.

1) Well the Circuit doesn't really count. Any SP-ready frame can reach level cap in the circuit if they get a good squad and good decrees, I recently took my Erosion Anchor Protea there and that's a very poor survival build. I dislike that the Circuit is blurring what it means to survive. Playing at level 2000 in regular game modes verses the Circuit is a world of difference. People have tried pretty hard to get to level cap (in regular mission types) without cheesing. To my knowledge no one has ever really done it. Cheesing is the only way because everything one-shots you. You can do it by camping a corridor with high cc frames, but that's also cheese in my book. You can't actually go out and fight. (But maybe I'm just not initiated into the elite clubs idk, just based on everything I know about WF currently)

2) Well it seems like DE agrees with you. Abuse shield gate mechanics / invisibility or don't play high end content, end of story. If they want to build a whole mission type around that, fine I guess. I doubt they'll be able to convince the entire community or even the majority of veterans to roll every 5 seconds though. I'd only play it to see how far my tanks can get lmao, the exact opposite of the supposed point.

3) I actually agree with your point at the end. Getting more players into higher content would be a great way to expose the flaws enough to get them fixed, or alternatively to cause DE to pivot into other survival mechanisms & difficulty options.

-------------------

DE should delete rolling guard, full stop.

 

[Silligoose]

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Name a single objective thing that can indicate P2W.

I did a year ago in a more relevant thread.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

since you think it is only about visiting the mode itself.

Lie. That is not what I said.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Also saying others cannot stop when they wish isnt true,

Lie. That is not what I said.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

But you claimed it is objective in WF, which it isnt.

You are back-tracking on a point you agreed with and seemingly trying to change the narrative again - just more deceit.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Winning in relation to other players, which is a requirement for P2W

Fabricated parameter.

 

All you did was lie and rehash old points, which have already been addressed.

[Sambhaid]

Only thing Im wondering about this is whether DE considers level cap an essential part of the game and if the title should be balanced around it. My personal theory is that it is not really considered a part of the game but rather just a consequence of pushing "endless" missions to their limit. What if there was no cap at all and enemies scaled to infinity? What level should this high level content be then, 10 000? 1 000 000?

Basically level cap is kind of like modded enemies in Skyrim or something, not really official content that the game is balanced for

[Silligoose]

32 minutes ago, Sambhaid said:

Only thing Im wondering about this is whether DE considers level cap an essential part of the game and if the title should be balanced around it. My personal theory is that it is not really considered a part of the game but rather just a consequence of pushing "endless" missions to their limit. What if there was no cap at all and enemies scaled to infinity? What level should this high level content be then, 10 000? 1 000 000?

Basically level cap is kind of like modded enemies in Skyrim or something, not really official content that the game is balanced for

They do not consider level cap an essential part of the game. They've neglected upper limits of potential power for a very long time and simply don't seem interested in balancing that. I believe when SP was released they also stated they won't be balancing around that, although that doesn't seem to ring true anymore given the power creep we've seen since then.

I'm of the opinion that they balance the game so that the vast majority of players can accumulate enough power to trivialize encouraged content (nodes, events, objectives as found in NW, endless missions up to rot C etc), in order to incentivize sales of power.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Silligoose

[PhreazerBurn]

This is a very reasonable thing to ask for considering its something we can already do albeit after a long build-up.

Having said that, I don't enjoy it. I can make a few builds that work at max level, but options are really limited. I like the freedom of build variety I have against level 150-200 enemies...which is most frames and most weapons.

[Leqesai]

7 hours ago, PhreazerBurn said:

This is a very reasonable thing to ask for considering its something we can already do albeit after a long build-up.

Having said that, I don't enjoy it. I can make a few builds that work at max level, but options are really limited. I like the freedom of build variety I have against level 150-200 enemies...which is most frames and most weapons.

Its almost as if the upper-level of the game was designed exactly around the level range you listed and not level 9999 enemies... how crazy is that!?

Edited November 22, 2023 by Leqesai

[PhreazerBurn]

3 hours ago, Leqesai said:

Its almost as if the upper-level of the game was designed exactly around the level range you listed and not level 9999 enemies... how crazy is that!?

The game was actually designed around fairly low-level enemies. Then we got some higher level ones. Then we got steel path and steel path endless. Then we got circuit...and fighting very high level enemies there, for once, actually has a functional loot advantage. This has been the trend, and I don't expect it to change.

Warframe is a game of breakpoints. Some builds that were amazing in star chart get nowhere in steel path. Some builds that work in low-mid steel path can't do much against L1000+ enemies. The only way to find out for sure which of those builds you just made is, you have to test it. Testing against 9999 lets you know a build can work anywhere and needs not be restricted to low level content.

And like the OP said, L9999 is in the game NOW. Its just tedious to access for no real reason.

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I did a year ago in a more relevant thread.

Lie. That is not what I said.

Lie. That is not what I said.

You are back-tracking on a point you agreed with and seemingly trying to change the narrative again - just more deceit.

Fabricated parameter.

 

All you did was lie and rehash old points, which have already been addressed.

I guess it wasnt actually objective then since we couldnt agree on it.

No but it is the only thing you could have implied since the farm and relevant rewards from the mission through that farming would be gone after purchasing.

Yes you did.

Nope I dont.

No not fabricated. Part of your own linked references. Unless you mean your references fabricated that requirement, which makes me question why you used them as references.

[Silligoose]

38 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I guess it wasnt actually objective then since we couldnt agree on it.

On 2023-11-14 at 3:36 PM, Silligoose said:

we've had discussions in which you denied fairly basic math because it proved you wrong, when I showed how much more single target damage Rubico Prime can do in comparison to the 2022 meta AoE weapons. You chose to ignore objective proof I provided regarding being able to complete missions without killing, because you couldn't handle being wrong.

Whether or not you agree to something carries no weight on what is true, because you will deny irrefutable proof if it proves you wrong. There is little value in your opinion regarding anything objective, since you ignore evidence when it doesn't fit your bias.

38 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Nope I dont.

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

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.

On 2023-11-21 at 6:01 PM, SneakyErvin said:

But you claimed it is objective in WF, which it isnt. Since we all have different goals

You agreed with an example of an objective win in WF, then you say "winning" isn't objective. That is backtracking.

38 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

No but it is the only thing you could have implied since the farm and relevant rewards from the mission through that farming would be gone after purchasing.

38 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Yes you did.

No, it is just you lying. I said at the start that's one the problems I have with and you continue to do it. If you aren't lying, show me where I said it.

38 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

No not fabricated. Part of your own linked references. Unless you mean your references fabricated that requirement, which makes me question why you used them as references.

Which references that I provided say that winning in relation to other players is a requirement for P2W? If you aren't lying, show me.

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Whether or not you agree to something carries no weight on what is true, because you will deny irrefutable proof if it proves you wrong. There is little value in your opinion regarding anything objective, since you ignore evidence when it doesn't fit your bias.

That is still unrelated to this topic. So still nothing objective when it comes to advantages you can spend cash on.

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

You agreed with an example of an objective win in WF, then you say "winning" isn't objective. That is backtracking.

Those are two different meaning of the word objective. One is a task/goal, something you achieve, which is the one refered to in the quote you provided. The one regarding WF and P2W is objective as in not influenced by feelings or opinions, or in short something that could be considered concrete facts. The opposite of subjective.

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Which references that I provided say that winning in relation to other players is a requirement for P2W? If you aren't lying, show me.

All of them, including the silly one from esports.net even though it refers to lootboxes and skins. Advantage over other players etc. Things that refer to winning over someone else, which we just cannot do in WF. And advantages in WF are subjective and based on the desires, needs and goals of each individual player. In games like those I mentioned earlier it isnt subjective, since if you are behind others for some reason you will have a worse experince than others, so if someone can pay for power in those games they'll effectively have a higher chance at winning over you even in PvE. Since they will outfarm you in an area, or if PvP is involved, kill you and take over the area you farm in etc. And in some games it even goes to the extreme where solo players can hold of whole groups since they've payed while the group hasnt.

When was the last time you got driven off from an area in WF, or had someone steal your mobs and leave you loot- or xp-less? Or when was the last time another player killed you and killed your spot? Or did your Saryn suddenly fall behind because a guy bought the Inaros Prime PA while you didnt. Did that Inaros player suddenly outfarm you, outperform your Saryn? Or that guy that bought the Grendel PA and suddenly outperformed your Exodia Zaw or Kzarr/Torid/Knukor with their Masseter Prime and Zylok Prime?

 

[Silligoose]

32 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

That is still unrelated to this topic. So still nothing objective when it comes to advantages you can spend cash on.

It is related to every single topic you participate in, as it speaks to your character and the worth of your opinion on objective matters.

34 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Those are two different meaning of the word objective. One is a task/goal, something you achieve, which is the one refered to in the quote you provided. The one regarding WF and P2W is objective as in not influenced by feelings or opinions, or in short something that could be considered concrete facts. The opposite of subjective.

Just more backtracking and you proving why your proclivity for ignoring proof needs to be considered.

35 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

All of them, including the silly one from esports.net even though it refers to lootboxes and skins.

Show me where the references that I provided say that winning in relation to other players is a requirement for P2W. I don't want some nonsense story, If you aren't lying, it is simple to prove. I want you to show me where it says what you claim. While you are at it, you lied and claimed I said others (free players) cannot stop farming when they want. Prove your claim. Show you aren't a liar. Show your word has some worth.

[SneakyErvin]

2 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

It is related to every single topic you participate in, as it speaks to your character and the worth of your opinion on objective matters.

No it just means we look at different things when it comes to weapon stats. You on the paper alone, me on how they actually work in the game and considering how the game is set up. You still failed to answer me in that discussion how a mob with more health would promote using a single target weapon when the mob only came with more health and nothing else. You failed to answer what would make it a primary target with just more health, how it would suddenly be a focus like a demo or even a guardian. Not to mention your obscene stacking of only conditional mods, that would require the gun to be used versus everything else aswell just to be ready for the higher hp mob that poses no additional actual threat.

6 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Just more backtracking and you proving why your proclivity for ignoring proof needs to be considered.

Nope, not at all since we are talking about objective(s) vs objective. It is the second version you cannot provide any example of that which could result in actual P2W, since nothing we pay for results in an objective advantage over another player.

9 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Show me where the references that I provided say that winning in relation to other players is a requirement for P2W. I don't want some nonsense story, If you aren't lying, it is simple to prove. I want you to show me where it says what you claim. While you are at it, you lied and claimed I said others (free players) cannot stop farming when they want. Prove your claim. Show you aren't a liar. Show your word has some worth.

The acronym/term itself does it. And the definitions demand "advantage over" in order to fullfil the "win" paramenter of the acronym itself. We have no "advantage over", not a minor, nor a significant/major one as the references refer to. Since the advantages are subjective in all cases. Latest isnt best, skipping isnt a guaranteed gain for every player, power isnt linear, access to optimal power cannot be gained through paying, you cant buy anything progress related that is otherwise unobtainable through farming, we share goals in a group, we share loot in a group, we share xp in a group (having others kill can actually be beneficial) and so on.

Which also removes the P2W angle one of the references apply to NPCs, since we cannot buy anything otherwise unobtainable through farming that brings more power than otherwise possible. The only thing paying would do is letting you fight those mobs earlier than if you wouldnt, but it isnt an advantage over the NPC, since you are still limited by the same power ceiling of the game, so your power would be the same when you face them as if you'd farmed the item instead. So no power advantage over the NPC that wouldnt be there otherwise anyway. So Pay-to-Skip, Pay-to-Progress or Pay-for-Conveniance.

And you said those that pay can play it whenver they want and stop when they wish. Which means you imply that those that dont pay cannot do the same, since you specified that those that pay can. No reason to specify that one side can do something unless you mean the other cant. Or if you think there is a reason, what would that be?

[Silligoose]

29 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

No it just means we look at different things when it comes to weapon stats.

It means you place your bias above proof, which makes your opinion regarding objective subjects rather worthless. I don't care for your tangents.

29 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Nope, not at all since we are talking about objective(s) vs objective. It is the second version you cannot provide any example of that which could result in actual P2W, since nothing we pay for results in an objective advantage over another player.

More tangents and a point answered. Waste of time.

29 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And you said those that pay can play it whenver they want and stop when they wish. Which means you imply that those that dont pay cannot do the same, since you specified that those that pay can. No reason to specify that one side can do something unless you mean the other cant. Or if you think there is a reason, what would that be?

You fail in basic logic and again fail to comprehend and apply context. You claimed people who that bought Dagath robbed themselves from playing the new game mode. I pointed out they didn't, because they can still play just like free players can. Unlike free players, they have the advantage of not having to play the mode, or grind, beyond what they wish to and would still be able to play Dagath. That does not mean free players can't stop. With you and the comical claims you make, one does have to specify almost everything. Your assumption is absurd, illogical and false.

You also provided no proof of your claims. You are still just a liar. I said this at the start and you've proven you've stagnated and still remain the same you have for years:

On 2023-11-14 at 3:36 PM, Silligoose said:

Not only have we had this debate before with you making up all sorts of things, some of which you rehash now, we've had discussions in which you denied fairly basic math because it proved you wrong, when I showed how much more single target damage Rubico Prime can do in comparison to the 2022 meta AoE weapons. You chose to ignore objective proof I provided regarding being able to complete missions without killing, because you couldn't handle being wrong.

Your ego and emotions control you to the point where irrefutable evidence is ignored when not fitting your bias and logic is thrown out the window. Seeing as you appear interested in simply bringing up points already made and discussed, I suggest reading through our old discussions. 

Everything you've brought up regarding this p2w subject in this thread is rehashed and has been addressed. You wanted attention so you posted my personal message in this thread to try and get more. You lie and make claims, but when asked for proof, fail to provide it, instead writing paragraph upon paragraph of tangents like a child makes up stories when caught in a lie. You continue to fail in applying basic English correctly. Continue to apply context. Continue to fail in basic logic. I see no value in continuing this conversation with you.

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

You fail in basic logic and again fail to comprehend and apply context. You claimed people who that bought Dagath robbed themselves from playing the new game mode. I pointed out they didn't, because they can still play just like free players can. Unlike free players, they have the advantage of not having to play the mode, or grind, beyond what they wish to and would still be able to play Dagath. That does not mean free players can't stop. With you and the comical claims you make, one does have to specify almost everything. Your assumption is absurd, illogical and false.

You also provided no proof of your claims. You are still just a liar. I said this at the start and you've proven you've stagnated and still remain the same you have for years:

The claim I made is true, since they'd pay to have less to do (robbed doesnt positively mean lose everything). The farm is removed, meaning a major reason to run the mode is gone. Sure some might pop in to see what it is about, but that is all subjective and proves my point, that it isnt an objective advantage to pay for something in WF. "Not having to" is not an objective advantage, since those that play it to farm likely dont mind it in the first place. But your use of the word "grind" instead of "farm" for new content also makes it seem like you are at a "burned out" state when looking at WF. I would hate to pay for anything since I enjoy hunting and farming for loot, it is the whole reason I play games like WF. If I payed I would have less reasons to engage with my hobby, i.e rob myself of time otherwise spent on the hobby I love.

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Everything you've brought up regarding this p2w subject in this thread is rehashed and has been addressed. You wanted attention so you posted my personal message in this thread to try and get more. You lie and make claims, but when asked for proof, fail to provide it, instead writing paragraph upon paragraph of tangents like a child makes up stories when caught in a lie. You continue to fail in applying basic English correctly. Continue to apply context. Continue to fail in basic logic. I see no value in continuing this conversation with you.

So you refuse to see that your own references provided speak against your personal idea of P2W. You could have just said that. This while also having failed to state any actual objective advantage a player gets over another by paying. There should be plenty of them if the game was P2W.

[Silligoose]

24 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

The claim I made is true, since they'd pay to have less to do (robbed doesnt positively mean lose everything). The farm is removed, meaning a major reason to run the mode is gone. Sure some might pop in to see what it is about, but that is all subjective and proves my point, that it isnt an objective advantage to pay for something in WF. "Not having to" is not an objective advantage, since those that play it to farm likely dont mind it in the first place. But your use of the word "grind" instead of "farm" for new content also makes it seem like you are at a "burned out" state when looking at WF. I would hate to pay for anything since I enjoy hunting and farming for loot, it is the whole reason I play games like WF. If I payed I would have less reasons to engage with my hobby, i.e rob myself of time otherwise spent on the hobby I love.

So you refuse to see that your own references provided speak against your personal idea of P2W. You could have just said that. This while also having failed to state any actual objective advantage a player gets over another by paying. There should be plenty of them if the game was P2W.

More stupid assumptions, still no proof, lies, tangents and bringing up points already addressed regarding subjects like advantages.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Silligoose