Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

Why Do People Need An Opt Out For Stalker Mode?


BloodKitten
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, FlusteredFerret said:

But you're assuming Player Stalker will be the same as AI Stalker. Which would make it a rather limited mode...therefore likely not popular.

What a lot of people are afraid of is that in order to make it popular and widely played, they would have to make it game-breaking for PvE players, by allowing it to happen frequently.

 

as of now we have not much reason to assume otherwise. which is why in an earlier post i stated. that its hard to put feedback into something thats not in the game. as we dont know what they are doing with it.

in such a case i would rather see threads about railjack, u know the MEAT of the content rather then this.

Edited by Makunogo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

There are several reasons. How people connect to others is the main issue for me.

1. Ping limiter doesnt work as is, that would be even more of a nightmare with a PC Stalker mode. The reason I dont PvP at all in this game because is due to not having dedicated servers.

2. Following on #1 is the question how Stalker mode would handle all this. Since it isnt always the host being hunted. This could turn into a nightmare very often, both for stalker and players since not everyone in the group has the same ping to the host. This can result in a Stalker joining with perfect ping to his target, but since his target isnt the host he may end up with an aweful ping once he joins. It all depends what the matchmaking did when the initial group was created. Not to mention the lag that happens mostly when people join, which in the wrong situation can lead to you getting hit by that one shot in higher content.

3. Balance issues is another thing. We shouldnt run a risk having our PvE balance shifted because of some disgruntled PvP-obsessed outliers in an otherwise PvE focused game. This is what would happen if there was no opt in/out. The few PvPers that love the mode would flood the forums with salt and beg for either frame/weapon/operator nerfs or massive buffs to Mr. Talldarkandemotional. PvP and PvE should be seperate due to this or be part of the game balance from the very start.

4. Host migrations. Say the host is marked by Stalker, the guy is really alergic to PvP, he ditches the group, forcing a host migrations. What happens then? Possible loss of loot and time spent for the rest, PC Stalker stuck in limbo (no not in Limbo- limbo cos that would be nasty) or something else.

So there are several viable reasons why it should be opt-in, so people can avoid as much of the above S#&$ as possible. The game simply isnt well made with forced PvP active.

 

Thanks thoses are good points. I disagree with what you say regarding balance. If Stalker Players wanted warframes nerfed I don't see how an opt-out resolves this. Unless they were only nerfed in regards to fighting Player Stalkers. If Player Stalker got buffed then opt-outs would fix the issue.

22 minutes ago, Firetempest said:

Well this has been as constructive as every other post about player stalker past page 1.

It surpringsly has been. As OP I got some good answers to my question that have informed my opinon. Some of them are above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

I don't care either which way, I hold absolutely no bias towards this mode or people's reasons for wanting/not wanting it, but honestly this feels like one of the most carebear-esque posts I've ever read. It's a little sad, imo.

Again, to clarify I don't care at all about the mode. If it's added I'll play it because I enjoy PvP, if it isn't I won't feel put out because it's irrelevant. I can understand (although not empathise) with those who are against PvP.

But damn do some of these posts make me want to shake you and tell you to get a grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have to admit i am not a fan of pvp as i dont generally like killing players. but I honestly find this to be a neat idea. i also wanna try being the stalker since he got some pretty cool looking abilities.. honestly if i did end up being the stalker i would probably not kill anyone and actually help with the objective, now how cool would that be ?

i figure since i'll be controlling stalker i won't be obligated to(try to) kill them if i dont feel like it. and i'm able to talk to the squad i might even communicate that.

Edited by Makunogo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sace said:

 

I was thinking about weapons, warframe parts and unique mods actually. Basically stuff people would really look forward to. That ensures that as many as possible play with stalker-mode enabled.

I mean the mode has barely been shown and next to nobody experienced it but they are already crying how bad it is. I thought for a second I am in a german message board.

But give them their opt-out if they can't live without it. Just lock them out of some cool stuff as exchange.

If a game mode requires enhanced rewards to entice people to use it, it might not be a good game mode to begin with. The most notable examples (IMO) are Conclave, Nightmare Alerts, Eidolons, and Arbitrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sace said:

 

I was thinking about weapons, warframe parts and unique mods actually. Basically stuff people would really look forward to. That ensures that as many as possible play with stalker-mode enabled.

I mean the mode has barely been shown and next to nobody experienced it but they are already crying how bad it is. I thought for a second I am in a german message board.

But give them their opt-out if they can't live without it. Just lock them out of some cool stuff as exchange.

Really... coming from a founder who should know exactly how much of an 'issue' locking things away from people are...

Your idea of 'exclusive' items is in all honesty the most stupid thing they could do to this game mode.   There will be so many complaints about being forced to do a game mode that the player doesn't like or want to do it will make the 'can we have excalibur prime' threads look like a drop in the ocean. 

We've seen the game mode in streams, we know how badly PvP works in this game, it's not exactly hard to extrapolate that the game mode is not going to be enjoyable for those that do not like conclave/PvP modes.  It should be opt IN, not opt out, that way no one is forced to do a game mode they don't want to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

Really... coming from a founder who should know exactly how much of an 'issue' locking things away from people are...

Your idea of 'exclusive' items is in all honesty the most stupid thing they could do to this game mode.   There will be so many complaints about being forced to do a game mode that the player doesn't like or want to do it will make the 'can we have excalibur prime' threads look like a drop in the ocean. 

We've seen the game mode in streams, we know how badly PvP works in this game, it's not exactly hard to extrapolate that the game mode is not going to be enjoyable for those that do not like conclave/PvP modes.  It should be opt IN, not opt out, that way no one is forced to do a game mode they don't want to do. 

I think one issue with this is say if 2 people have the option off. and 2 people have it on. (or even just one person with it on) that squad can still end up with a player controlled stalker. in which case DE has to make an impossible choice of overriding either an Opt Out or an Opt in function which essentially removes choice anyway.. oh man

with that in mind i think they will be more likely to not have an Opt Out/In Function since unless everyone is squadding up (and they are not) is bound to cause annoyances

Edited by Makunogo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerade eben schrieb LSG501:

Really... coming from a founder who should know exactly how much of an 'issue' locking things away from people are...

Your idea of 'exclusive' items is in all honesty the most stupid thing they could do to this game mode.   There will be so many complaints about being forced to do a game mode that the player doesn't like or want to do it will make the 'can we have excalibur prime' threads look like a drop in the ocean. 

We've seen the game mode in streams, we know how badly PvP works in this game, it's not exactly hard to extrapolate that the game mode is not going to be enjoyable for those that do not like conclave/PvP modes.  It should be opt IN, not opt out, that way no one is forced to do a game mode they don't want to do. 

There is no issue of locking things away from people. And nobody is being forced to do the invasion with opt-out implemented. I have seen the Stalker gameplay in the stream as well and it was pretty solid for an unadjusted preview. If people do not enjoy having Stalker show up, they opt-out of it and be done with it.

DE could make the stuff buyable for some high plat price as well for all I care and everybody can play to their taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Makunogo said:

I think one issue with this is say if 2 people have the option off. and 2 people have it on. that squad can still end up with a player controlled stalker. in which case DE has to make an impossible choice of overriding either an Opt Out or an Opt in function which essentially removes choice anyway.. oh man  

with that in mind i think they will be more likely to not have an Opt Out/In Function

Not really, it's simple, make it so it needs ALL members in the squad to have opted in for a player controlled stalker to appear.  Yes it might mean it never appears in public groups but that's not a bad thing imo as it will push those that DO want to play it into specific groups for it. 

1 minute ago, Sace said:

There is no issue of locking things away from people. And nobody is being forced to do the invasion with opt-out implemented. I have seen the Stalker gameplay in the stream as well and it was pretty solid for an unadjusted preview. If people do not enjoy having Stalker show up, they opt-out of it and be done with it.

DE could make the stuff buyable for some high plat price as well for all I care and everybody can play to their taste.

Um... yes there is issues with locking stuff away, you only have to look at players complaining over poor rng, excalibur prime (and the stalker helmet if you're a founder), ignis wraith and other things. 

Yes... lets lock things behind a paywall and a 'forced' game mode, that will not go down well.... it's almost like your ideas are getting worse.

Nothing should ever be opt out, everything should be opt in if there is a choice to be made.  We opt into missions, we opt in to conclave, we opt in to sorties... we don't opt out do we. 

Edited by LSG501
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is rather flawed, in my opinion, because of the following fact:

 

To say that Stalker mode is amazing but that it would be ruined by having an opt out is to admit that Stalker mode is not an amazing idea.

 

If the game mode would fail due to most people opting out, that means that most people just wouldn't like it and wouldn't participate. To put it another way, if Stalker mode is such a great idea that will revitalise the game and the majority of people will love, why does it bother you so much that some small number of people might opt out?

 

So. Let me ask you a question.

 

Do you think that the majority of players would enjoy Stalker mode and stay opted in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Makunogo said:

I think one issue with this is say if 2 people have the option off. and 2 people have it on. that squad can still end up with a player controlled stalker. in which case DE has to make an impossible choice of overriding either an Opt Out or an Opt in function which essentially removes choice anyway.. oh man

Make people who opt out invulnerable to the Player Stalker and vice versa.

Or, use the already existing mechanic from Zenuka and have them pulled into their own instance that they then have to fight through to return to the mission. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Makunogo said:

I think one issue with this is say if 2 people have the option off. and 2 people have it on. that squad can still end up with a player controlled stalker. in which case DE has to make an impossible choice of overriding either an Opt Out or an Opt in function which essentially removes choice anyway.. oh man 

with that in mind i think they will be more likely to not have an Opt Out/In Function

I assume an opt-out would over fide an opt-in. If your out and get a Player Stalker you know your choice has been ignored. If your in and don't get a Player Stalker you have no way to tell if your choice was over ridden or you just weren't trageted this mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Makunogo:

I think one issue with this is say if 2 people have the option off. and 2 people have it on. that squad can still end up with a player controlled stalker. in which case DE has to make an impossible choice of overriding either an Opt Out or an Opt in function which essentially removes choice anyway.. oh man 

with that in mind i think they will be more likely to not have an Opt Out/In Function since unless everyone is squadding up (and they are not) is bound to cause annoyances

Make Stalker appear only to Opt-In players in the instance then. Stalker can't see the others and vice-versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LSG501 said:

Not really, it's simple, make it so it needs ALL members in the squad to have opted in for a player controlled stalker to appear.  Yes it might mean it never appears in public groups but that's not a bad thing imo as it will push those that DO want to play it into specific groups for it. 

that might make pub runs a bit of a nuisance though and considering they haven't changed much about matchmaking in 5 years i dont see this happening.

this also ruins it for the minority/majority of players in that squad who do or dont want it.

it also could force people to solo which is something DE probably doesn't really wanna be pushing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 1 Minute schrieb BornWithTeeth:

Do you think that the majority of players would enjoy Stalker mode and stay opted in?

I think the majority of players would opt-out before even trying it while stating that it is the worst. That is what most people do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Makunogo said:

I think one issue with this is say if 2 people have the option off. and 2 people have it on. (or even just one person with it on) that squad can still end up with a player controlled stalker. in which case DE has to make an impossible choice of overriding either an Opt Out or an Opt in function which essentially removes choice anyway.. oh man

with that in mind i think they will be more likely to not have an Opt Out/In Function since unless everyone is squadding up (and they are not) is bound to cause annoyances

Selection process... Player 1, 3 and 4 have opted out so 2 is selected. Player 2 and 3 opted out so player 1 or 4 get it. What.... are yuou afraid that you could actually get beat by the stalker if it's player controlled? If you consistently beat him it's highly unlikely.

My question is... what happens to the player who becomes the stalker? Do they fail if they are killed? If they win do they get a stalker reward (like the near impossible war BP)?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sace said:

I think the majority of players would opt-out before even trying it while stating that it is the worst. That is what most people do.

Cool, so make it mandatory for two weeks and then include an opt out.

 

If the mode suddenly drops dead, well, I guess we'll know what the community thought of it.

 

See, I'm never going to agree with an argument which can be summarised as "Ah, most people don't know what they want....so we should do what I want." Not accusing you personally of saying that, but damn has it cropped up in a lot of other folk's posts in the past few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Makunogo said:

that might make pub runs a bit of a nuisance though and considering they haven't changed much about matchmaking in 5 years i dont see this happening. 

this also ruins it for the minority/majority of players in that squad who do or dont want it. 

it also could force people to solo which is something DE probably doesn't really wanna be pushing. 

It's better to focus on those that DO NOT want to do something in a public group over those that do.  We've got an entire game mode that can hold a player captive, survival, if they don't want to 'carry on' and that really doesn't go down well in general. 

 

3 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Cool, so make it mandatory for two weeks and then include an opt out. 

So forcing players to play a game mode they may not want to even try....god I love how some people are really trying to force this game mode onto people when it's pretty clear from threads that a LOT of people don't want it.. more people dislike PvP in this game than like it, this is PvP and just because it's stalker isn't going to change that..

Edited by LSG501
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

The argument is rather flawed, in my opinion, because of the following fact:

 

To say that Stalker mode is amazing but that it would be ruined by having an opt out is to admit that Stalker mode is not an amazing idea.

 

If the game mode would fail due to most people opting out, that means that most people just wouldn't like it and wouldn't participate. To put it another way, if Stalker mode is such a great idea that will revitalise the game and the majority of people will love, why does it bother you so much that some small number of people might opt out?

 

So. Let me ask you a question.

 

Do you think that the majority of players would enjoy Stalker mode and stay opted in?

i dont recall anyone saying stalker mode is amazing? or otherwise. 

also i dont think anyone has said it would be ruined if an opt out was available.

the issue is that there is some of the player base that doesn't want to be fighting other players. and also that DE has slightly mentioned that there would not be an option to Opt out.

its not about weather it fails or not its about choice. the debate is more challenging if it should be something that can be opted out of. 

my stance is split. i dont like pvp. but i dont believe stalker mode will be such a hindrance that one would have to opt out of it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ThumpumGood said:

Selection process... Player 1, 3 and 4 have opted out so 2 is selected. Player 2 and 3 opted out so player 1 or 4 get it. What.... are yuou afraid that you could actually get beat by the stalker if it's player controlled? If you consistently beat him it's highly unlikely.

My question is... what happens to the player who becomes the stalker? Do they fail if they are killed? If they win do they get a stalker reward (like the near impossible war BP)?

 

The problem is Player Stalker is free to attack anyone in the squad. So out players could still be attacked even if they are not the designated target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 1 Minute schrieb BornWithTeeth:

If the mode suddenly drops dead, well, I guess we'll know what the community thought of it.

Exactly! Nobody should be forced after trying it. They can always get the mode-exclusive stuff via plat.

vor 2 Minuten schrieb BornWithTeeth:

but damn has it cropped up in a lot of other folk's posts in the past few days.

Well, actually most people's reply can be summarised as 'I don't know it so I hate it and everybody else does,too'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

It's better to focus on those that DO NOT want to do something in a public group over those that do.  We've got an entire game mode that can hold a player captive, survival, if they don't want to 'carry on' and that really doesn't go down well in general. 

When you said this I was thinking... there's always that one guy who wants to leave at 5 or 10 minutes and messing up the C rotation. I would like to see DE take the time to research who those guys are and make them be the stalker first. "You wanna leave early? BAM there ya go" =D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ThumpumGood said:

Selection process... Player 1, 3 and 4 have opted out so 2 is selected. Player 2 and 3 opted out so player 1 or 4 get it. What.... are yuou afraid that you could actually get beat by the stalker if it's player controlled? If you consistently beat him it's highly unlikely.

My question is... what happens to the player who becomes the stalker? Do they fail if they are killed? If they win do they get a stalker reward (like the near impossible war BP)?

 

you misunderstood the post.

read it again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...