Why Do People Need An Opt Out For Stalker Mode?

[Sace]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Lanadra:

I have essentially opted out of: Operators, Eidolons, ESO and Conclave. Because I don't enjoy it.

And guess what. I never have to deal with most of these functions because I choose not to. Only Operators occasionally force themselves into my experience when another quest that requires their use drops, which will usually grate my nerves as I begrudgingly trudge through it while throwing out rather colorful profanities as I do.

Without a hard opt-out, you cannot just decide ''I don't want Player Stalker'' and not have to deal with him. And don't, don't even go to the ''just don't kill bosses'' nonsense, that, is not a solution to anything.

Now imagine DE would cancel every aspect at least one player dislikes in this game. What would remain I wonder...

[ThumpumGood]

Another thing you are totally missing... what if the host becomes the stalker... they already have a host migration thing. Y'all gotta start thinking.

[S.Dust]

Can I get in bullet points, what the mode includes and what is so bad about it? I mean i'm hearing that people just don't want pvp but its one death or one kill so i'm a little confused on all the hate.

Edited December 12, 2018 by S.Dust

[Sace]

 

vor 5 Minuten schrieb BornWithTeeth:

Ok, that's fair. And if you take a look at my posts on the topic you'll find that I am not in fact arguing that DE should not implement it. I've said as much several times now. What I'm saying is that implementing as a mandatory mode which has no opt out function is a bad idea, and is a tacit admission that it's a bad idea.

Everything in this game is more or less mandatory. You always have to do x to get y. That doesn't mean everything is bad.

vor 3 Minuten schrieb ThumpumGood:

Another thing you are totally missing... what if the host becomes the stalker... they already have a host migration thing. Y'all gotta start thinking.

How can that happen if the stalker always invades existing matches? Of course he can never be host and would exit the match normally if the host disappears.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Sace

[ThumpumGood]

How about what could be good?

You become the stalker and you run away playing catch me if you can

You stand there and become the Stalker freebie guy

Host migration becomes a thing and it's scrapped(good for those who dont like it before they try it)

You play the stalker and you win!


Doom and gloom needs to be replaced with *How can I mess with people and make them enjoy themselves?*

The complaint I'm seeing the most is that people dont want to be forced into a PvP situation and want to be able to opt out of the mode. It's not going to happen. It's a great idea with some flaws. I see it being either a seasonal thing or that it will cease to function within the framework of the game like Law Of Retribution did.


EDIT: I dont PvP. Too many factors that dont make things equal. PC build, ISP speed, etc etc. So Im not some one looking to put a smack down on anyone. I just think outside the box when pushed into a corner. There are a lot of things you can do to make it fun.

Edited December 12, 2018 by ThumpumGood

[BornWithTeeth]

Just now, Sace said:

 

Everything in this game is more or less mandatory. You always have to do x to get y. That doesn't mean everything is bad.

Actually, I'd nearly phrase it the other way around.

 

Everything in the game is optional once you've cleared the star chart, there's nothing actually forcing you to do anything. Sorties are optional. Conclave is optional. Eidolons are optional. Fissures are optional. Kuva floods are optional. There are things that you can only get by doing those missions, so if you want those things then you need to do those missions...but you don't actually need those things to play the game. At no point do you go to mission select and get forced into Conclave or forced into a Sortie mission.

 

But that's beside the point, which remains: if Stalker mode must be made mandatory in order to work, that just means that the majority of people would not like it.

[Lanadra]

9 minutes ago, Sace said:

Now imagine DE would cancel every aspect at least one player dislikes in this game. What would remain I wonder...

One player vs what DE Scott has already admitted is in this case likely most of their playerbase.

That's not exactly a fair comparison.. is it? Off course they shouldn't cancel something because 1 single loudmouth doesn't like something. But that is not the case here.

[Hypernaut1]

3 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Ok, that's fair. And if you take a look at my posts on the topic you'll find that I am not in fact arguing that DE should not implement it. I've said as much several times now. What I'm saying is that implementing as a mandatory mode which has no opt out function is a bad idea, and is a tacit admission that it's a bad idea.

 

If the mode has to be made mandatory in order to work, that is a direct admission that people won't like it. DE Scott already said that.

If your position on this is "Oh, screw everyone else, I want PvP and I don't care," then I'm not going to keep interacting with you on this topic.

I mean, from my perspective it's a stretch to consider a 1-2 minute rare random encounter with another player as genuine PvP especially when the stakes are so low. 

It's not the same as dark souls. I hated that and didn't participate, the stakes were too high to me.  So I kind of understand where some of you are coming from, it's just that I feel that player stalker seems like such a watered down PvP experience, it' doesn't warrant the "forced PvP" freak out. 

For me, id hate it if I was locked in a room and HAD to kill stalker or use all revives or if I could be stalked all the time or if there was no time limit to stalker and a player could just bug me an entire mission. 

[Sace]

vor 1 Minute schrieb BornWithTeeth:

Actually, I'd nearly phrase it the other way around.

 

Everything in the game is optional once you've cleared the star chart, there's nothing actually forcing you to do anything. Sorties are optional. Conclave is optional. Eidolons are optional. Fissures are optional. Kuva floods are optional. There are things that you can only get by doing those missions, so if you want those things then you need to do those missions...but you don't actually need those things to play the game. At no point do you go to mission select and get forced into Conclave or forced into a Sortie mission.

 

But that's beside the point, which remains: if Stalker mode must be made mandatory in order to work, that just means that the majority of people would not like it.

That's something else and also the reason why I am for Opt-Out if people really want it. Make some good shinies drop only with stalker-mode enabled and make that stuff available for plat.

Personally, I would look forward to that kind of a challenge and there are so many ways to make that mode awesome with a few adjustments I have mentioned earlier. It would spice up the otherwise pretty boring grind.

[LSG501]

31 minutes ago, Makunogo said:

the thing is stalker spawns on a player. so if that played theorectically had opted IN they should be allowed to have that player based stalker. or should they. my post was me questioning how a split opt out / opt in can affect pubs. since stalker spawns on a single person not the squad. and it mostly targets that player. so theoretically even if 3 people have it off. if one person has it on and possibly if the other players arent even marked. a player controlled stalker can still spawn. 

BUT is that fair? 

it can be consider fair to the person who wants that stalker if they spawn it. and it could be unfair to the one who doesn't. but the same can apply the other way around.

In your situation majority rules would apply, 3 vs 1. 

The issue with the player stalker is that if treated exactly like a stalker (and based on videos it looks like this is the case) when it arrives it will be able to attack all players so if the human controlled stalker wishes they could troll them for the entire mission (there is no timer on the stalker iirc) by just not attacking the intended target, in your above scenario that would be someone who does not want to play against a human stalker.  So that one person who does want to fight the human stalker has in essence ruined a mission for someone who does not want to fight it.   Depending on the mission type this could also drag out a mission considerably, especially if the trolling is being done by someone who actually enjoys PvP and as such has had a lot of experience.   Against a the normal AI stalker a player can choose to 'run away' if they're not the target but against a human stalker you don't have that option as they don't have code focusing you on the intended target. 

As such the safest/fairest course of action is to not have a player controlled stalker spawn in unless all 4 players have it enabled.

[BornWithTeeth]

1 minute ago, Hypernaut1 said:

I mean, from my perspective it's a stretch to consider a 1-2 minute rare random encounter with another player as genuine PvP especially when the stakes are so low. 

It's not the same as dark souls. I hated that and didn't participate, the stakes were too high to me.  So I kind of understand where some of you are coming from, it's just that I feel that player stalker seems like such a watered down PvP experience, it' doesn't warrant the "forced PvP" freak out. 

For me, id hate it if I was locked in a room and HAD to kill stalker or use all revives or if I could be stalked all the time or if there was no time limit to stalker and a player could just bug me an entire mission. 

Right, but those qualifiers you're assuming? That there will be a time limit, that you won't just be stalked all the time, that you won't be subject to lockdown, that DE will remove the trolly nonsense from the mode?

 

Those are assumptions. What DE have shown us is a Stalker mode which hides the identity of the player Stalker, on at least one occasion has shown them selecting specific targets by name, and being freely able to attack mission objectives. What DE have shown us is a griefing engine which is actively worse than Soulsborne invasions. And, for the record, I do play Dark Souls and Bloodborne, and I think their invasion systems are fine.

3 minutes ago, Sace said:

That's something else and also the reason why I am for Opt-Out if people really want it. Make some good shinies drop only with stalker-mode enabled and make that stuff available for plat.

Personally, I would look forward to that kind of a challenge and there are so many ways to make that mode awesome with a few adjustments I have mentioned earlier. It would spice up the otherwise pretty boring grind.

As noted, I myself would keep the mode active and see how it works out.

[Hypernaut1]

1 minute ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Right, but those qualifiers you're assuming? That there will be a time limit, that you won't just be stalked all the time, that you won't be subject to lockdown, that DE will remove the trolly nonsense from the mode?

 

Those are assumptions. What DE have shown us is a Stalker mode which hides the identity of the player Stalker, on at least one occasion has shown them selecting specific targets by name, and being freely able to attack mission objectives. What DE have shown us is a griefing engine which is actively worse than Soulsborne invasions. And, for the record, I do play Dark Souls and Bloodborne, and I think their invasion systems are fine.

As noted, I myself would keep the mode active and see how it works out.

I know people like to call DE incompetent, but I have faith that they'll address major issues based on feedback. 

[ThumpumGood]

5 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Right, but those qualifiers you're assuming? That there will be a time limit, that you won't just be stalked all the time, that you won't be subject to lockdown, that DE will remove the trolly nonsense from the mode?

 

Those are assumptions. What DE have shown us is a Stalker mode which hides the identity of the player Stalker, on at least one occasion has shown them selecting specific targets by name, and being freely able to attack mission objectives. What DE have shown us is a griefing engine which is actively worse than Soulsborne invasions. And, for the record, I do play Dark Souls and Bloodborne, and I think their invasion systems are fine.

As noted, I myself would keep the mode active and see how it works out.

Again... Stand there and be the FREEBIE GUY or run away. You dont HAVE to fight anyone. You go into a mission you selceted, get selected to be the stalker and what do you do? Do you PVP, Run or stand there? You still have some choices.

[BornWithTeeth]

Just now, Hypernaut1 said:

I know people like to call DE incompetent, but I have faith that they'll address major issues based on feedback. 

Designing it to work that way in the first place shows a lack of foresight which is analogous to incompetence. We shall see if the mode's implementation fixes that.

[Hypernaut1]

6 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

In your situation majority rules would apply, 3 vs 1. 

The issue with the player stalker is that if treated exactly like a stalker (and based on videos it looks like this is the case) when it arrives it will be able to attack all players so if the human controlled stalker wishes they could troll them for the entire mission (there is no timer on the stalker iirc) by just not attacking the intended target, in your above scenario that would be someone who does not want to play against a human stalker.  So that one person who does want to fight the human stalker has in essence ruined a mission for someone who does not want to fight it.   Depending on the mission type this could also drag out a mission considerably, especially if the trolling is being done by someone who actually enjoys PvP and as such has had a lot of experience.   Against a the normal AI stalker a player can choose to 'run away' if they're not the target but against a human stalker you don't have that option as they don't have code focusing you on the intended target. 

As such the safest/fairest course of action is to not have a player controlled stalker spawn in unless all 4 players have it enabled.

They could simply make other players immune to stalker damage. This would there the player stalker to hone in on intended target. 

[BornWithTeeth]

1 minute ago, ThumpumGood said:

Again... Stand there and be the FREEBIE GUY or run away. You dont HAVE to fight anyone. You go into a mission you selceted, get selected to be the stalker and what do you do? Do you PVP, Run or stand there? You still have some choices.

Ok, ThumpumGood, it occurs to me (based on your posts) that you may not be in possession of all the facts about this mode. Please go and review the videos about it, it's not a mode where it randomly selects a squad and makes one player into the Stalker for that mission. It's an invasion system more akin to Dark Souls, where the player Stalker has his own separate lobby and choose targets to attack.

 

 

[Ventura_Highway]

I don't need an opt out for stalker mode, per se. I need food I don't need this.

It is a necessity for me to keep playing this game when Stalker Mode gets implemented, that's all.

[LSG501]

4 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:

I know people like to call DE incompetent, but I have faith that they'll address major issues based on feedback. 

Well I'm still waiting on those changes/improvements to arbitrations that were supposedly coming.... not to mention 'fixes' to reworks for frames etc....

One thing I've found with DE is that generally feedback only happens quickly, if at all, when it supports their 'vision' for the game.... no matter if it's right or wrong.  So I wouldn't be holding my breath on them addressing major issues from feedback personally. 

[(XBOX)YoungGunn82]

What I want to know is say DE does implement player controlled stalker mode, who gets to be the stalker? How is that decided? How many can play the stalker at once? 

IMO its a huge waste of company resources. It was kinda neat at Tennocon. But I think that's where it should stay. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by (XB1)RDeschain82

[o0Despair0o]

People here said everything that needs to be said; but to add my opinion to the pile:

 

If we get forced into this PvP crap, I'm gonna uninstall this game and send DE an angry letter.

Like, I'm buying a new gaming PC for christmas, but if we get this pvp stuff before then, I definitely won't be installing Warframe on that PC.

[LSG501]

3 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:

They could simply make other players immune to stalker damage. This would there the player stalker to hone in on intended target. 

If other players can still attack the stalker then that makes the mode pointless as the target can just run around dodging while the immune players can attack it. 

That honestly sounds like a worse fix than just not spawning a stalker controlled by a player unless all 4 want to fight it.

 

It really seems like players are trying hard to fix a PvE game mode that doesn't really fit within warframe PvP... if it was supposed to fit into PvE it wouldn't need this much 'fixing'....

[Nacond]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb S.Dust:

Can I get in bullet points, what the mode includes and what is so bad about it? I mean i'm hearing that people just don't want pvp but its one death or one kill so i'm a little confused on all the hate.

If more people want to play as Stalker the mark might not be the only way to make the Stalker appear. I enjoy playing pve games because it's something to come down after work. I don't feel any need to measure with other people in games. There's no fun for me to do so... Haven't been, won't be... Absolutely not... 

Yeah we don't have any informations, but for me it's a mode I wouldn't want to see because it adds a mechanic I don't like. And looking at other pvp modes it might also be a mode that dies so fast de should use the resources for something else (looking at you, conclave and especially lunaro) like reworks or something else. 

only one death. Not so great in arbitration... But could also be limited to special modes. But star chart? Vets against newbie? The only way is to implement it in a good way might be a new mission type with rewards that are worth to play but people shouldn't be forced to play against other players. 

So while I would suggest everyone to calm down before we have further informations I'm somehow concerned it might be to late to say something against Stalker at the moment it is announced... 

[(XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA]

6 hours ago, EmberStar said:

Aside from what you *just typed,* the issue is that Stalker Mode is PVP.  Some people *do not like PVP.*  Please refer to the other *massive* threads on this topic.  And by that, I mean actually read any of them.

Unpopular opinion: people are making mountains out of molehills. Seriously.

[Lanadra]

1 minute ago, LSG501 said:

Well I'm still waiting on those changes/improvements to arbitrations that were supposedly coming.... not to mention 'fixes' to reworks for frames etc....

One thing I've found with DE is that generally feedback only happens quickly, if at all, when it supports their 'vision' for the game.... no matter if it's right or wrong.  So I wouldn't be holding my breath on them addressing major issues from feedback personally. 

Either a mode is a hit and they will stick by it. Like PoE, it was iterated on and we now have Orb Vallis to show for it.

Or it flops and DE usually drops it to move on to something else. It's pretty rare that they really pick something back up to make it good. Archwing is still pretty much dead beyond using it to move across the Plains/Orb Vallis. Conclave is on maintenance mode at best. Lunaro is dead. Dark Sectors are dead. Infested Salvage.. is that still played? Raids have been removed.. because they weren't just borderline dead, they were an active nuisance to development.

Stalker mode is either a very unlikely hit, or it flops and DE will eventually have to undo the mess it creates with it's implementation, assuming they do indeed choose to, for some terribly unwise reason, not to make it optional. DE operating like that is like EA closing studios.

[rand0mname]

2 минуты назад, (XB1)ECCHO SIERRA сказал:

Unpopular opinion: people are making mountains out of molehills. Seriously.

Is it not what the General Discussion is for?