Why Do People Need An Opt Out For Stalker Mode?

[Makunogo]

Just now, Chaemyerelis said:

Another one of these threads eh?

 

How about we talk about other things? Like that mesa prime booty, oh my! 😳😏

its good fuel for my post count bruh. Fighting. lol

[BornWithTeeth]

1 minute ago, Makunogo said:

i believe someone had just stated teh ability to hit mission objectives was a bug. 

and DE was the ones testing stalker so of course they can go find any player they wanted.

Ok, but that still just brings us back to the statement "DE will of course fix all the ways in which this mode is a bad idea, because they would never launch a game mode and then fail to keep up with feedback on its obvious drawbacks."

[Chaemyerelis]

1 minute ago, Makunogo said:

its good fuel for my post count bruh. Fighting. lol

Lol good point, good point 👍

[LSG501]

20 minutes ago, Makunogo said:

this implies there is a squad of incompetent players tho. most people can handle stalker alone a full group will totally manhandle it.

that is not fair to the person who wants to experience the stalker player mode tho. that is only catering to one side. so its not actually fair.

which is why an opt out option can be detrimental and probably why DE just chose  (at least in their response) to not be able to opt out. which is equally as unfair but its a lot less hassle to deal with on their part then unfortunately trying to cater to every individual (which is frankly impossible)

If they want to definitely experience it then they can always go into a group specifically made up of like minded individuals (ideally a quick link to a 'fight the stalker mission' would be made available rather than just recruit) rather than in essence forcing their desire to fight something the other's don't want to fight onto them.   Public missions should ALWAYS cater towards the 'don't want to do it' side of the argument, especially when there is recruit as an option for those that want to do something specific during a mission. 

 

I'm also an advocate of opt IN, not opt out for this very reason.  Opting in means you are choosing to do it, like every other part of the game, you opt in to doing focus, you opt in to doing syndicates, you opt in to doing a certain mission. 

[Makunogo]

1 minute ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Ok, but that still just brings us back to the statement "DE will of course fix all the ways in which this mode is a bad idea, because they would never launch a game mode and then fail to keep up with feedback on its obvious drawbacks."

honestly has anyone given good feedback lately though? that hasn't had some drawback? its extremely hard to cater to everyone.

[OniDax]

41 minutes ago, (PS4)Equinox21697 said:

Remember that game called EVOLVE where a player gets to be the monster while the rest are hunters and they play a game of cat and mouse till one faction wins? Stalker mode would be fun like that

Basically we all spawn in a decent sized map as our Operators and one person spawns on the other end as the Stalker. 

The operators goal is to make it to safety with minimal void powers (similar to TWW) while the Stalker have to stop them, doesn't have to get violent, simply catching a Operator will make them kneel similar to a mr test or something and the camera will switch over to another players view for the duration of the match.

Yes, that would be very fun, but it needs to be its own game mode, on its own node. It's kinda like a modern-era multiplayer mode. In general, Warframe's PvP might do better if it were a bit more modern and wasn't trying to mimic UT.

[(PSN)whoistimjones]

There's nothing wrong with it at all, people just dont want it, regardless of all the excuses they come up with.

.Just let them have their opt out. DE just needs to make the player controlled Stalker rewards (New rewards, not even a single old one) non tradable. You dont want to fight player Stalker, fine, but youre not getting the modes EXCLUSIVE rewards by buying from other players.

[SneakyErvin]

2 hours ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

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.

An opt-out option would simply allow DE to see metrics on how many are actually using it. With a low enough usage they could ignore the demands for nerfs to frames, weapons and operators just as they simply decided to remove Dark Sector PvP and Trials because they saw too little use to justify fixing/balance.

If Stalker was forced everyone would be part of the metric in one way or another since just playing missions have the chance to spawn him and it possibly being a player. That would make it part of the major game and not just a side activity.

But you are correct, opt-out should open up the option for them to possibly buff Stalker if needed since it would only effect those using the mode and not the core of the game like a nerf to all other things would.

[BornWithTeeth]

1 minute ago, (PS4)whoistimjones said:

There's nothing wrong with it at all, people just dont want it, regardless of all the excuses they come up with.

.Just let them have their opt out. DE just needs to make the player controlled Stalker rewards (New rewards, not even a single old one) non tradable. You dont want to fight player Stalker, fine, but youre not getting the modes EXCLUSIVE rewards by buying from other players.

And that's fine too. 

[Makunogo]

8 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

If they want to definitely experience it then they can always go into a group specifically made up of like minded individuals (ideally a quick link to a 'fight the stalker mission' would be made available rather than just recruit) rather than in essence forcing their desire to fight something the other's don't want to fight onto them.   Public missions should ALWAYS cater towards the 'don't want to do it' side of the argument, especially when there is recruit as an option for those that want to do something specific during a mission. 

 

I'm also an advocate of opt IN, not opt out for this very reason.  Opting in means you are choosing to do it, like every other part of the game, you opt in to doing focus, you opt in to doing syndicates, you opt in to doing a certain mission. 

but therein lies the problem. that is no longer public. thats private. and what about those who simple just dont care?

i have to disagree with that public should remain free reign putting restrictions on it is not a good thing.

this is similar mindset to those who want fishing/mining shut off during bounties cus people can't tolerate doing what's available in the game.

 

side note, or rather an extreme example. can we just opt out of these spawning in my public squads too? stalker entirely? and zanuka? G3? i got the stuff already so its pointless for me. but thats not exactly fair to others.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Makunogo

[ThumpumGood]

I watched a video of the stalker and rather than take a loss, the player stalker aborted mission. Make sure that option is not available. If you are going to play as the stalker then you should have to abide the same rules as he does. Kill or be killed. No wimping out.

Things I would add...
MR shift to meet the level of the boss that got the target targeted.
Looser loot Drop table.
Limited number of targets a player stalker could take per day, And not based on MR. Should be even across the board.
Timer on the stalker. You kill in X amount of time or you fail. Put some stress on the stalker player.
Seasonal. Preferably somewhere in summer so more players have the option.

Im sure there is more that could be done, But this would address a lot of the concerns I keep seeing.

And for those who think Im in it so I can PvP... look at my conclave score. I dont PvP. I tried it, didnt like it, and am not a PvPer. This is about accepting what is and trying to make the best of it with constructive ideas. Im both pro and con on the idea. I dont like the idea of the stalker suddenly being as smart as I am. But I like the idea of surprises. Im willing to wait for it to come out before I trash it or applaud it.

 

[SneakyErvin]

3 hours ago, Makunogo said:

do you mean to imply that if this was implemented if a stalker was to show up and it looked like it was player controlled players would just quit the mission cus its essentially too hard to kill an other player with limited abilities?  (stalkers arsenal is not that big)

this is a response at point 4.

and how do we opt out of being marked by the stalker? currently we cannot get rid of any mark until they spawn. so the opt out is an opt out of player controlled stalkers only then i assume?

i think it's best to wait until this is actually in game before we rush to conclusions as we still dunno what DE will do with this idea.

then we can realistically post some feedback.

Yes that is exactly what I mean in point 4. Some people are completely phobic or alergic to PvP. Even PvPers in PvP focused game or on focused servers do the old "unplug the PC" jig, it would not be different here in order to avoid getting "ganked". Sadly here in WF that leads to the rest of the group suffering the consequences aswell even if they'd happen to be up for some chin-kickin' scrap with Budget Vader. It doesnt even really matter for many plug pullers if the encounter would be lethal or not for them, they still pull the plug simply because it is PvP and they may risk having their pixels killed by other pixels.

Opt-out would very likely be just the PC part, NPC Stalker would still be a thing. Opting out will probably be along the lines of never sending out an "alert" to those that wanna play Stalker. I still have no clue nor can I imagine how it will work in a group where some players have opted in and some have opted out.

They currently have so many different problems related to this game mode idea that I doubt it will see the light anytime soon, or ever. Atleast in a shape that it is worthy to be released in.

[ThumpumGood]

1 hour ago, (PS4)FriendSharkey said:

I guess you read over the power fantasy part..running away..ruins that as well...It's a bad idea to mix PVP with PVE players...You don't want PVE players in PVP conclave..they'll just throw matches or create work around to get at gear by jumping off cliffs or helping each other throw matches...I watched PVE players form conga lines in Destiny year 1 to mess with PVP players and their game by destroying their own teammates by killing themselves in droves to just finish the match as fast as possible...

 

Don't mix the two....

I like it. THAT is thinking outside of the box. If you're forced into PvP, do something no one expects. Or if you're the stalker, mess with people's heads. Stalker shows up, everyone goes into dance mode. Who knows, maybe he joins in. I threw out a list of suggestions. Timer on the player stalker, no ability to abort mission, limited number of targets a day and not based on MR, and a few more. This IS going to happen. Rather than whine about it, help craft it.

[(XBOX)zThulsaDoomz]

4 minutes ago, (PS4)lokaspoka said:

why are almost all warframers always so post traumatic stress of  player vs  player are u scared u'll potentially lose.

the bottom line is dont deny it that u like to bully NPC and beat a game programming who cant learn from their mistakes and try to beat u differently

i for one who be like to see it as a test run by the developers to see this

Why are the people championing a forced encounter always resorting to baiting other players? 

We get it, you want stalker mode so you can feel superior and make l33t YouTube montages for the kiddies out there. 

See how your statement looks?

[LSG501]

1 minute ago, Makunogo said:

this is similar mindset to those who want fishing/mining shut off during bounties cus people can't tolerate doing what's available in the game. 

stalker leechers going to be a thing when it pops up? oh i can see it now.. 

Not really... that's completely different.  If you join a bounty, you should do the bounty, you don't let the other's do the bounty while you go off and fish/mine on a completely different part of the map. 

Stalker leechers will be a thing no matter what DE does to the mode unless they make the rewards only for the intended target at which point there will be complaints from players who help said target get their reward. 

The issue is pretty clear imo, a very LARGE portion of players do not like PvP in any way shape or form, that's been proven by the lack of interest in conclave and when we were forced into a PvP mission for a specific reward.  Player controlled stalker is literally just another PvP game mode, forced into a PvE map, and it should never be forced into a public mission when other players don't want it.  Catering for what will likely be a very small portion of the player base and is the wrong thing to do, if PvP was that important to the game they would have been working on more conclave maps etc...

The only real option to solve the issue is to just make it an always active mission type similar to arbitrations where you actively CHOOSE to fight (solo or in groups) the player controlled stalker.  But they won't do that because there will be a point where either no one will want to be hunted by a player stalker or there will be no one wanting to be the stalker... it is after all just another PvP game mode and we all know how dead conclave is.

[SneakyErvin]

6 minutes ago, (PS4)lokaspoka said:

i for one who be like to see it as a test run by the developers to see this

They've already had 4 prior PvP test programs, they've all failed to attract the audience of the game. Luckily one had only been a side project.

Do you honestly think they need more test runs to confirm that PvP is really not one of the droids we are looking for.

[Makunogo]

7 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

Not really... that's completely different.  If you join a bounty, you should do the bounty, you don't let the other's do the bounty while you go off and fish/mine on a completely different part of the map. 

Stalker leechers will be a thing no matter what DE does to the mode unless they make the rewards only for the intended target at which point there will be complaints from players who help said target get their reward. 

The issue is pretty clear imo, a very LARGE portion of players do not like PvP in any way shape or form, that's been proven by the lack of interest in conclave and when we were forced into a PvP mission for a specific reward.  Player controlled stalker is literally just another PvP game mode, forced into a PvE map, and it should never be forced into a public mission when other players don't want it.  Catering for what will likely be a very small portion of the player base and is the wrong thing to do, if PvP was that important to the game they would have been working on more conclave maps etc...

The only real option to solve the issue is to just make it an always active mission type similar to arbitrations where you actively CHOOSE to fight (solo or in groups) the player controlled stalker.  But they won't do that because there will be a point where either no one will want to be hunted by a player stalker or there will be no one wanting to be the stalker... it is after all just another PvP game mode and we all know how dead conclave is.

oh i phrased that wrong. i meant people complaining about player used stalkers being more competent then them thus hurting their fragile egos and starting a new set of hate threads.

the question i want to know is, do people find the stalker abilities so hard to deal with that a person using them suddenly makes it a problem? 

the typical answer will most likely be no. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Makunogo

[(PSN)lokaspoka]

3 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Do you honestly think they need more test runs to confirm that PvP is really not one of the droids we are looking for.

List why pvp of warfarme  is bad

*help the developers out i know they are out of ideas were to go

[DatDarkOne]

1 minute ago, Makunogo said:

the question i want to know is, do people find the stalker abilities so hard to deal with that a person using them suddenly makes it a problem?

Considering how much the player base has vocalized how much they hate Nullifiers, and that Stalker does have a very good Dispel ability, I can safely say that yes people would have a problem with it.  That AI Stalker rarely uses that ability just seems to be missed by a lot of people, but it's a really powerful one when seen in solo mode against Stalker.  

[SneakyErvin]

Just now, (PS4)lokaspoka said:

List why pvp of warfarme  is bad

*help the developers out i know they are out of ideas were to go

No need to list why it is bad when we simply arent interested in it to begin with and that has been proven by the players 4 times already. This to me is much the same as the piles of S#&$ PvE events in Overwatch. They simply dont belong, they're simply not the reason I started to play the game.

 

[Hypernaut1]

32 minutes ago, (PS4)Lowk721 said:

I barely like having to put up with AI stalker interrupting me and wasting my time. That's only mitigated some by him having a predictable attack pattern making him eaaier to shoo away. The first few time were fun. Now he's just annoying.

The last thing I want is an unpredictable competent player coming in and trying to find away to piss me off with some cheese method you just know someone is going to figure out. Like this is literally the troll loki/limbo problem that pretty much everyone hates but encouraged instead of unwanted.

This is the most reasonable response I've read as to why someone doesn't want a player stalker. You appreciate the predictably of the A.I. 

While I disagree, it makes more sense than just repeating "I just hate pvp"

Personally, I hate the predictably of the a.i. which is why I would welcome a player stalker. Not because I enjoy PvP. 

[(XBOX)zThulsaDoomz]

12 minutes ago, (PS4)lokaspoka said:

List why pvp of warfarme  is bad

*help the developers out i know they are out of ideas were to go

The real question is why it's good

We already have proof about how bad it is.  I keep seeing the same 4-5 players wanting to shove PvP down everyone's neck because they know most don't want to do so.

I think it's pretty sad when you want to force someone to do something just so you don't have to do it alone.  

Stop ice skating uphill

Edited December 12, 2018 by (XB1)Thy Divinity

[Makunogo]

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

Considering how much the player base has vocalized how much they hate Nullifiers, and that Stalker does have a very good Dispel ability, I can safely say that yes people would have a problem with it.  That AI Stalker rarely uses that ability just seems to be missed by a lot of people, but it's a really powerful one when seen in solo mode against Stalker.  

i also hate nullifiers. but i aint complaining.

there is also this vocal side of the community saying the content is too easy. herein lies the problem there is always gonna be an extreme on both sides. it's so hard to compromise lol.

doubt something like that would be spammable. also nullifiers cant stop an opticor one shotting stalker 😛 (or the handful of other weapons) 

lets be honest the moment stalker becomes vulnerable it is often killed on the spot

[rune_me]

Stalker mode is not going to happen unless they drop the rewards from killing stalker. Otherwise I could just play stalker mode, stand still and let every new member of the clan farm War, Dread, Hate, etc to their hearts content. It's way to easy to exploit a player controlled stalker.

[ThumpumGood]

4 minutes ago, rune_me said:

Stalker mode is not going to happen unless they drop the rewards from killing stalker. Otherwise I could just play stalker mode, stand still and let every new member of the clan farm War, Dread, Hate, etc to their hearts content. It's way to easy to exploit a player controlled stalker.

This! And why Im so sick of this doom and gloom.