Why Do People Need An Opt Out For Stalker Mode?

[Leyvonne]

I don't want someone randomly invading my gaming session, it is that simple. I already hate rival syndicates and NPC Stalker because they only like to show up when I won't be able to defend myself at all (aka when I've just started playing and learning a new frame).

[EmberStar]

19 minutes ago, trst said:

Honestly people are overreacting to this.

I understand that "forced" PvP never sounds good but it's so disgustingly in favor of the receiving player that we could have had this system already and nobody would have noticed.

Stalker is so easily trivialized that isn't even funny. Having player controlled Stalkers would at best occasionally make a mission more interesting for someone while at worst "waste" a Revive, which if someone died to a player Stalker they'd have probably died to an AI Stalker anyways.

Again, why is "I don't want to PVP" such a massively difficult concept to grasp?

[WabanUK]

I've read thread after thread on this, and I've not seen a single rational argument as to why it needs to be opt-in.

Basically every argument is "I don't want it, and if it's put in I'll quit the game forever", but never a reason why they don't want it.

I understand that people wouldn't want a mode that allows any player to target any other player, any time they want, and just turn up and kill them (what is known as "ganking"). That is not what is suggested at all.

Stalker is a joke, he shows up and is dead 5 seconds later, that's it. If he was controlled by a player, he might take 10 seconds to kill. That's all there is, a very very slightly harder to kill stalker. There has been no suggestion so far he'd be anything else. Lot of crying over nothing, as always.

[spyroxion]

For me personally, I bet for some other people too, I don't want more forced intrusions, especially by other players. I work most of the day, I come home to play 1-2hrs pure PvE, chill and have fun. Now if someone will start invading me, especially veterans, or I guarantee trolls to waste time, it will interrupt my little daily gaming session. 
I personally love warframe because of it's PvE and that PvP has no impact on this game, I'm always pure PvE (I had to quit certain MMORPGs because of forced open world PvP) and forcing down on my throat PvP, yeah no thanks.

Thing is, this game is known for it's PvE for years, and after all this time force down PvP without a choice? I don't think it would be a smart move for good number of players and I hope DE will consider many things before releasing.

[Gabbynaru]

3 minutes ago, WabanUK said:

I've read thread after thread on this, and I've not seen a single rational argument as to why it needs to be opt-in.

Basically every argument is "I don't want it, and if it's put in I'll quit the game forever", but never a reason why they don't want it.

Because, in case you didn't notice, we're not here to entertain other players, we're here to entertain ourselves. So without my express permission, I ain't giving another player a nanosecond of my time.

[FlusteredFerret]

5 minutes ago, WabanUK said:

I've read thread after thread on this, and I've not seen a single rational argument as to why it needs to be opt-in.

Basically every argument is "I don't want it, and if it's put in I'll quit the game forever", but never a reason why they don't want it.

I understand that people wouldn't want a mode that allows any player to target any other player, any time they want, and just turn up and kill them (what is known as "ganking"). That is not what is suggested at all.

Stalker is a joke, he shows up and is dead 5 seconds later, that's it. If he was controlled by a player, he might take 10 seconds to kill. That's all there is, a very very slightly harder to kill stalker. There has been no suggestion so far he'd be anything else. Lot of crying over nothing, as always.

 

Learn to read. Or is English not your first language?

There have been plenty of perfectly rational arguments given...you've simply chosen to ignore them.

 

Your entire post reeks of a salty kid who's just upset that Mummy and Daddy won't get him a particular toy for Christmas.

Edited December 12, 2018 by FlusteredFerret

[(PSN)Shelneroth]

46 minutes ago, NeopetsMaster4432 said:

However, there are some concerns regarding game mechanics. Such as how peer to peer hosting can RIP the Stalker(even though it does the same for allied Tennos), and how weak the Stalker is right now. DE hasn't really shown any amazing ability to balance PVP instances, so it's likely that the Stalker will still continue to be no threat whatsoever, or absolutely destroy everyone~

 

26 minutes ago, FrostedMike said:

Beside the PVP issue that was already mentioned, I will give you the balancing and design issue.

First of all, there is no way we will be able to have mods as Stalker, we will have fixed stats to our weapons and "frame". The catch is that there need to be a fine balance as mods play a big part in the game and make a big difference.
Let's say you are a veteran player, you got everything in the game and know how to play good. You happen to take on a new player as Stalker, what chance does he have? You clearly move faster and know the game better. This probubly won't be fun for him to lose every time a veteran shows up as Stalker simply because he doesn't know the game as good as them. Now let's say you happen to take on another veteran, what chace do you have against him? He got mods built for PVE, this is a huge advantage for him. Will it be fun for you to lose every time you take on a veteran simply because he got better gear that you can't have for this mode?
As you can see, unbalanced.
Stalker was designed to be possible to defeat, as every other enemy is. Enemies were designed to present themselves to be a target, and a game won't be fun if you are unable to hit the enemy or if the enemy doesn't play fair. A player doesn't play like an AI, a player know to dodge bullets at the right moment and take advantage of the environment better, a player is far less predictable than an AI.

It's a tricky feature, I think this is why DE got stuck with adding it.

 

26 minutes ago, Tsardova said:

... Answered your own question there dude...

 

Player Stalker is just a nuisance to those who tolerate the mode while demotivating as heck for players who play as the stalker since it's a pretty much guaranteed loss. It's oxymoronic in nature, no 2 ways bout it.

Thank you but these just seem to be reasons not to implement the mode rather then reasons to implement it with an opt out feature.

38 minutes ago, Nation_X said:

If there is no opt-out then I am done with the game.

I understand some people feel strongly it would need an opt out. I am intrested in why you belive this.

14 minutes ago, FlusteredFerret said:

Thats a big part of the issue right there.

We don't know much about how it would actually be implemented and whether player controlled Stalkers WOULD, in fact, work just like the AI.

Thing is, if they do, then I can't imagine its going to be much fun for those playing Stalker...repeatedly getting killed & going back to...your Lander?

 

The only viable way to make it fun for them would be to allow Stalker to heal / revive in the same way as regular players...which then has the potential for them to be a massive nuisance (troll) to players just trying to get on with PvE missions.

 

And you answered your own question right there in the second highlighted section. Right now Stalker is an OCCASIONAL nuisance. Nobody wants to be having to deal with him, potentially every time they click on a mission.

 

Yes if Stalker Mode was diffrent from what I describe my assessment would have to change. However as we know so little about it I found it curious people get so adament on needing an opt out. 

13 minutes ago, Tangent-Valley said:

After a 10 hour daily work shift, I Hate people. Nobody else's fault, I've just used up my entire Social Battery for the day at work, and would rather not deal with any more social interactions afterwards.

If anything, I'll be the one to ruin other people's fun, as after they worked to get the "Stalker Tokens", and are invading another player's mission, suddenly that player Alt-F4's and crashes the connection, forcing that Stalker to wait way longer than they would to get their chance to try again elsewhere. (It's not fun for me, it's not fun for them, and everyone has that much more of a bad day)

(If it's during the Weekend, that might be another story, but my hour after getting off work......Nope.)

Doesn't this just apply to WF in general? Should you maybe be playing a true single player game? And just realised you could switch solo mode on so this doesn't apply. Posting from PS4 and can't see how to remove a quote so responded anyway. 

10 minutes ago, Flandyrll said:

There is a potentially high possibility of it becoming a drawn out frustrating roadblock than anything else. If a Stalker player were to simply run around and avoid combat but constantly use abilities to disrupt the squad when available, it just creates a pretty frustrating and pointless experience.

I'm no expert on Stalkers abilities but I personnaly don't see much room for trolling. Stalker has to avoid dieing or accidently killing a player which narrows his scope. I don't think he has much if any cc.  

4 minutes ago, Mackowidz said:

Yes. I do not want to fight another player in Warframe. I play this game to cooperate with others. When I win, others win too. With player-controlled Stalker, someone will always lose, and that's not fun. And forcing me to fight an other player, to kill them and make them waste their time, just so I can keep getting loot from Stalker is really not nice.

Thank you this expalins a lot to me and brings to light something I had missed. A fundemental benifit of co-op games is that people can play with others without anyone having to lose. This is often stated as a reason for WF having one of the better communities. Stalker mode would necessarily disrupt this dynamic. I am not sure whether this  would be reason enougth to hobble the mode with an opt out but you have helped me understand this argument. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this.

[EmberStar]

2 minutes ago, WabanUK said:

*snip*

No, you're just NOT paying attention.  I know that I've stated, repeatedly, why I don't want it.  Because it is PVP, and I do not enjoy fighting other players.  That *is* the reason.  I'm not sure what else you're expecting - some tragic "super hero origin story" about how I suffered a traumatic defeat in Fortnite or something?

[Tsardova]

16 minutes ago, GnarlsDarkley said:

There was no question in my post.

I was stating that Stalker will never have any chance if DE won't disable the Operator while the encounter. And they can't do this because of Stalkers' adaptation ability and how we were told to use the Operator to reset those resistances..

So if they implement this mode they need to address this dilemma. I always thought Stalker Mode was just for funsies while Devstreams/Tennocon until I saw the Q&A with Scott

Guess everything has to be literal these days huh..... the context of your post was of confusion/ request for explanation; ergo "question".

 

And there's another oxymoron really, ya already stated the main point of contention for those who support the idea of Stalker Player mode. With how ghetto things are as is, there's no feasible silver lining that would make Stalker mode enjoyable for both parties.

 

39 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

I don't understand why my worst case scenario (that I also suspect is highly unlikely) is a bad thing. Some might even argue it is a good thing.

So the sole reason for needing an opt out is the pure principal of not wanting to fight another player regardless if the consequences are no different from fighting an npc? Given that player controlled Stalker would be ultimately no different from improving npc Stalkers ai why is the knowledge he is player controlled important?

 

I realise there a already threads about this with numerous respones. They are cluttered with disscusions of multiple issues. I wanted to focus on why a Stalker Mode with results and consequences no different from current Stalker would be a problem. I felt a new thread was the best way to achive this focus. If you disagree and belive this to be spam I apologies.

 

There is a consequence... DE working on a mode that's already facing this much rejection = waste of time and resource; i.e. another content draught. That and while it won't be a consequence to the players who are for and tolerate the concept, it will have a consequence to the game's longevity with purely pve playerbase possibly jumping off from the game if the mode is implemented without opt in/out option.

With how multiplayer is being handled in this game (peer-to-peer), lag will be a major issue. Disconnection, lag, etc alone would already make for an annoying experience that the mode is another glorified pvp gimmick that's intrusive to those who are entirely against the concept while being an annoyance for those who tolerate it. You can argue that there's no real penalty from losing to stalker to those who are geared up enough but there are people who are still undergeared and are looking for specific Stalker bp drop.

Player controlled Stalker is bound to be craftier than an AI with a set of ifs and then protocols, people had found exploits or gimmicks/ meta and will continue to do so for Stalker's kit, before long someone'll find a griefy method that will, again, be an annoyance to those how tolerate it or straight up turn off those who are against the mode. The last part alone already jeopardizes longevity of the game with people already being vocal about quitting on the mere idea of forced pvp mode being implemented.

[trst]

1 minute ago, EmberStar said:

Again, why is "I don't want to PVP" such a massively difficult concept to grasp?

It's not. But is putting a fully grown adult into a wrestling ring against an infant still a wrestling match?

If anything it shouldn't be added because Stalker isn't comparable to the majority of our gear (even less to an operator with any built amp). Especially since DE would never unleash these players onto new players.

The mode would be dead on release because Stalker is too weak, not because of having an opt-out. And the buffing of Stalker to make the mode functional would create more arguments and backlash than the idea of it maybe getting added already is. And again if it was and they didn't buff Stalker then the overwhelming majority of players wouldn't realize it was a player, if at all, until they already killed them.

[Kaotyke]

18 minutes ago, WabanUK said:

I've read thread after thread on this, and I've not seen a single rational argument as to why it needs to be opt-in.

Basically every argument is "I don't want it, and if it's put in I'll quit the game forever", but never a reason why they don't want it.

I understand that people wouldn't want a mode that allows any player to target any other player, any time they want, and just turn up and kill them (what is known as "ganking"). That is not what is suggested at all.

Stalker is a joke, he shows up and is dead 5 seconds later, that's it. If he was controlled by a player, he might take 10 seconds to kill. That's all there is, a very very slightly harder to kill stalker. There has been no suggestion so far he'd be anything else. Lot of crying over nothing, as always.

Its not that hard to understand.

Its just a "I dont want it. Why? BECAUSE I DONT WANT IT!! I DONT CARE OF WHAT YOU WANT! I DONT WANT IT AND THATS ALL THAT MATTERRRRSSS!!"

I would ignore those people if I were you. Many have been saying they will quit the game if X is ever put in, have they ever quitted? No idea. But the game didnt feel any negative change if they did considering the number of players just kept raising.

Now, for me to not want it is a pretty simple one: P2P connection, 4 players is good enough, but if the Trials and Conclave taught me anything is: anything above that and people start to skip around.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, ant99999 said:

Probably because the majority of PvE players doesn't like the opportunity to feel themselves weaker than someone else.

Yup. 

24 minutes ago, WabanUK said:

I've read thread after thread on this, and I've not seen a single rational argument as to why it needs to be opt-in.

Basically every argument is "I don't want it, and if it's put in I'll quit the game forever", but never a reason why they don't want it.

I understand that people wouldn't want a mode that allows any player to target any other player, any time they want, and just turn up and kill them (what is known as "ganking"). That is not what is suggested at all.

Stalker is a joke, he shows up and is dead 5 seconds later, that's it. If he was controlled by a player, he might take 10 seconds to kill. That's all there is, a very very slightly harder to kill stalker. There has been no suggestion so far he'd be anything else. Lot of crying over nothing, as always.

Yup. 

[FlusteredFerret]

30 minutes ago, WabanUK said:

I've read thread after thread on this, and I've not seen a single rational argument as to why it needs to be opt-in.

Basically every argument is "I don't want it, and if it's put in I'll quit the game forever", but never a reason why they don't want it.

I understand that people wouldn't want a mode that allows any player to target any other player, any time they want, and just turn up and kill them (what is known as "ganking"). That is not what is suggested at all.

Stalker is a joke, he shows up and is dead 5 seconds later, that's it. If he was controlled by a player, he might take 10 seconds to kill. That's all there is, a very very slightly harder to kill stalker. There has been no suggestion so far he'd be anything else. Lot of crying over nothing, as always.

 

So why on earth would anyone want to play as him? Kinda undermines any reason for having the mode on the first place...

[Codesco]

1 hour ago, trst said:

Honestly people are overreacting to this.

I understand that "forced" PvP never sounds good but it's so disgustingly in favor of the receiving player that we could have had this system already and nobody would have noticed.

Stalker is so easily trivialized that isn't even funny. Having player controlled Stalkers would at best occasionally make a mission more interesting for someone while at worst "waste" a Revive, which if someone died to a player Stalker they'd have probably died to an AI Stalker anyways.

ye people are over reacting so hard lmao

[ant99999]

10 минут назад, FlusteredFerret сказал:

So why on earth would anyone want to play as him? Kinda undermines any reason for having the mode on the first place...

To my mind this can easily be balanced. DE will surely figure out how to do it. For example make Stalker's ability to nullify players' abilities also kill operators. Or give him an ability to damage through void mode.

[(PSN)Shelneroth]

To clarify, when I talked about Stalker Mode being consequence free I meant in reference to if you lose to him. Issues of balance, lag, player retention, an developer attention aren't related to an opt out. They more adress if the mode should be bothered with at all.

I'd of quouted people but it's a real pain on ps4 and just messed it up twice.

Edited December 12, 2018 by (PS4)Shelneroth

[LupisV0lk]

50 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

Again, why is "I don't want to PVP" such a massively difficult concept to grasp?

For the same reason the concept of "that not ever pvper is a baby eating monster out to ruin your day"

[LascarCapable]

The fight around that subject is getting more and more ridiculous, and I seriously dislike the petty or elitist comments being thrown around. Let me get this straight :

• If you enjoy that kind of savage PvP good for you, but don't belittle other users who don't enjoy that kind of gameplay by assuming their skill level and ridiculing them, or whatever obnoxious thing may cross your mind. We don't tolerate bullying.
• If you dislike that kind of savage PvP, don't make a fuss about it and remain constructive. You won't "save" your beloved game with comments such as "if this happens I quit" or by getting angry at people who happen to enjoy the idea of Stalker PvP.

It's safe to assume that DE will keep a very attentive eye to every single feedback threads popping out about that subject, but you won't get things going your way if you display an obnoxious behaviour with unhelpful feedback. Remember : respect each other and be constructive, it's the best way to provide feedback.

The thread stays up for now, but pay attention to what I explained above.

[MystMan]

10 minutes ago, ant99999 said:

To my mind this can easily be balanced. DE will surely figure out how to do it. For example make Stalker's ability to nullify players' abilities also kill operators. Or give him an ability to damage through void mode.

That is one hell of an "WHAT IF" speculation there.  You do realize that if they do something like you suggested, it destroys every other "stalker is easy to kill" arguments so many other people have been posting?

So, which is it?

(A) Stalker remains as he is now ->  People will complain that this game mode isn't worth playing as Stalker because of how weak and under-powered he is.
(B) Stalker gets buffed or players get nerfed -> is there a defense to justify this against all the people who made it clear they don't want this game mode?

The thing about PVP is:  player vs player.  The term itself screams "two people fighting each other with consent for whatever reason".   When one player doesn't want to fight, it is no longer pvp.  It's one person bothering somebody else. Why would that other player not want to fight?  IRRELEVANT!  Respect other people's choices. That's what being a decent human being is all about.
When somebody needs to resort to insult and name-calling to get their way, they will always be in the wrong.  I've seen plenty of apathetic people in these topics (some behave like stereotypical dumb jocks from 80's movies 🤣 ), don't bother explaining why to them, they will never get it.  Their minds aren't wired to be considerate of others.

[Lanadra]

1 hour ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

I don't understand why my worst case scenario (that I also suspect is highly unlikely) is a bad thing. Some might even argue it is a good thing.

So the sole reason for needing an opt out is the pure principal of not wanting to fight another player regardless if the consequences are no different from fighting an npc? Given that player controlled Stalker would be ultimately no different from improving npc Stalkers ai why is the knowledge he is player controlled important?

 

I realise there a already threads about this with numerous respones. They are cluttered with disscusions of multiple issues. I wanted to focus on why a Stalker Mode with results and consequences no different from current Stalker would be a problem. I felt a new thread was the best way to achive this focus. If you disagree and belive this to be spam I apologies.

I'm really tired of discussing this topic.. especially because plenty of folks, such as yourself, even in this thread, simply refuse to get it.. but, here we go again:

People have a problem with it because, and please, for god sake use your common sense.. it will not stay that way. Player Stalkers will get butchered, and like any human, they won't like constantly losing, the ones behind those Stalkers will inevitably start complaining that they don't have a fair shot at winning.

This complaining will continue until DE is forced to do something with it. The moment they do, your ''a Stalker Mode with results and consequences no different from current Stalker'' becomes completely invalid. The very moment DE capitulates to complaints about unfair odds from Player Stalkers, is the moment the very notion of ''there shouldn't be a problem because Stalker will be as easy to kill as ever, thus even to strict PvE players who hate PvP, it shouldn't be a problem'' goes out the window.

Again, it is simple human nature. Nobody likes to lose, and if that loss is also because the game is rigged against them, which an unchanged Stalker only player controlled, would be.. that will make the loser even more salty.

-Edit: And I have stated this in previous threads also, and it bears repeating here: DE themselves have gone on record to say that they believe that if they add an opt-out, the game mode will be dead on arrival. Yes, they have expressed fear of giving us the option, because they genuinely think the vast majority of us will take it. That should already tell you enough about how strongly even the devs think their community will dislike such a forced PvP function.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Lanadra

[Hypernaut1]

Clearly there are also many people that want the feature as there are those vehemently vocal against the feature. 

Most likely, if DE works it out internally, theyll realise more will like it than don't and it could become a good marketing bullet point. And no, no one is quitting over player stalker. I'll call that bluff any day. It'll be a week of reading about "forced PvP" rage then it'll die down.. because it doesn't really matter, and the game ultimately doesn't really change all that much for those that don't like it. 

The only thing DE it's probably hesitant about is lore implementation and balancing it to even make player stalker worth playing without being able to troll.

But I'm sure DE wants a (shadow) stalker that people fear again and player controlled stalker might be a step above A.I.

Or, maybe they'll come to conclusion that people will hate it and don't implement it... Who knows. I doubt there are many (outside passionate forum posters) who would care if stalker is A.i or not. You're supposed to fear him and the consequences are little.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Hypernaut1

[Vanille]

11 minutes ago, Lanadra said:

I'm really tired of discussing this topic.. especially because plenty of folks, such as yourself, even in this thread, simply refuse to get it.. but, here we go again:

People have a problem with it because, and please, for god sake use your common sense.. it will not stay that way. Player Stalkers will get butchered, and like any human, they won't like constantly losing, the ones behind those Stalkers will inevitably start complaining that they don't have a fair shot at winning.

This complaining will continue until DE is forced to do something with it. The moment they do, your ''a Stalker Mode with results and consequences no different from current Stalker'' becomes completely invalid. The very moment DE capitulates to complaints about unfair odds from Player Stalkers, is the moment the very notion of ''there shouldn't be a problem because Stalker will be as easy to kill as ever, thus even to strict PvE players who hate PvP, it shouldn't be a problem'' goes out the window.

Again, it is simple human nature. Nobody likes to lose, and if that loss is also because the game is rigged against them, which an unchanged Stalker only player controlled, would be.. that will make the loser even more salty.

This. Was about to post it. Either stalker is hopeless and a pointless mode not worth of implementing, or it becomes the enhanced forced PvP players don't want.

[FlusteredFerret]

30 minutes ago, LupisV0lk said:

For the same reason the concept of "that not ever pvper is a baby eating monster out to ruin your day"

True...but PvPers don't even need to be deliberately trolling for something like this to ruin the game for PvEers, if many of their games end up being interrupted by Stalker.

 

[kgabor]

Simple, Stalker's abilities could scale in strength, and range depending on how many players are present similarly to Vauban's passive.

If Stalker would be restricted to Stalker's weapons, the weapon stats could scale as well, like damage, fire rate and projectile flight speed for Dread and Despair, range and damage for War and Hate etc.

Stalker might also need a slight rework to its kit to balance it out.

I'm in favor of an opt in btw. with skins and cosmetics as rewards as an incentive.

[DSkycroft]

One problem I see is Player Stalkers targeting objectives instead of other players,and causing the mission to fail.