Why Do People Need An Opt Out For Stalker Mode?

[Aramil999]

@DatDarkOne I see way more ways to troll/grief this poor stalker than players, 

im weekly Conclaver btw. so i know how good some bow onlys can be.

However even with 1 hit killing Dread... Operator, Atlas, AoE one shot killing weapons... normal players have so many BROKEN options to fight it... i don't see much grief potencial even if u have mad bow skills, someone will just get downed... OH NO, worst thing EVER... 

[Cuchullin]

For me it's not that I object outright to stalker mode it's the implementation that can be annoying. I don't know if there are answers to these or not but I do have some questions like will the player controlled stalker be stuck with stalker weapons only or will they be allowed to bring their own? and will they be allowed to mod the frame and weapons or not or will there be stalker specific mods that can only be used.

Beyond that I've seen it posted in this thread that the intention is for all mission nodes to be available to the stalker mode but I don't know how effective this will be especially when you take in to account newer and casual players who don't dedicate a substantial amount of time to high levels. It's why I think having stalker mode attached to nightmare missions or Derelict missions (or some new nodes that fill those spots if people prefer to keep those areas clear of the PvP aspect) would make more sense then having it available everywhere all the time would make sense lore wise as well.

For example in terms of lore Stalker would know that Tenno would go to these locations for mods and would look for a means to mess that up for Tenno by giving them means to erase being marked for death by stalker by taking on his role and taking on one of his targets in these areas. That way it's optional content that people can choose to do it. Just a thought anyway

[DatDarkOne]

4 minutes ago, Aramil999 said:

someone will just get downed... OH NO, worst thing EVER...

That can be the worst thing ever if they are downto there last revive or fighting in Arbitrations minding their own business expecting a fully PvE experience.  If you can't get that Stalker mode is nothing but a Troll/grief sim, then there isn't really need to discuss anything with you as you have already blinded yourself to the feelings of others in your own selfish wants.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by DatDarkOne

[Aldain]

1 minute ago, DatDarkOne said:

That can be the worst thing ever if they are done to there last revive or fighting in Arbitrations minding their own business expecting a fully PvE experience.  If you can't get that Stalker mode is nothing but a Troll/grief sim, then there isn't really need to discuss anything with you as you have already blinded yourself to the feelings of others in your own selfish wants.  

You might want to not bother arguing with them dark, they aren't even listening to our counterpoints as to why we think this is a bad idea, its a waste of internet bandwidth.

[DatDarkOne]

2 minutes ago, Aldain said:

You might want to not bother arguing with them dark, they aren't even listening to our counterpoints as to why we think this is a bad idea, its a waste of internet bandwidth.

Sad but true. I'm seeing this as being exactly as @BornWithTeeth summed up about the previous Stalker topic.  

[Hypernaut1]

I'm laughing at the "I'll just alt+f4" tantrums. Really? 

Is it so hard to imagine there would be clear restrictions to trolling?

1. Why do some assume that you'll be able to even choose who you invade? Wouldn't it most likely be a player taking control of a random stalker appearance? I doubt you would be able to attack a player that's not already marked for a random encounter. You probably won't see stalker any more or less than you see him now. It doesn't really warrant the "forced PvP in PvE" panic.  

2. Going "friends only" as an opt-out could remain because I don't think the majority of players would utilize that mode just for the off chance of a player stalker arriving. It's silly.  But it can remain an option to those that seem to have severe anxiety over it.

3. Stalker should feel like another player hunting you. But I'm sure the restrictions on energy, movement, skill cooldown etc, timers, etc wouldn't make him that much harder than the A.I. Either way, it'll be a brief encounter. I doubt you'll be able to mod stalker to be OP. 

4. It's ok to lose. Stalker should've never became a walk in the park. It'll be no different from stalker killing you now. He'll probably automatically disappear anyway, disallowing any sort of "tea bagging". People are too afraid to fail in Warframe. It's not even failing, it's getting downed...ONCE. in a proper scenario, you'll have teammates and can probably dispatch stalker as easily as you do now. If anything I expect stalker players to be raging more as they struggle to finally find a mark they can kill. I'm sure for the majority, playing as stalker would have a low success rate against 4 people. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Hypernaut1

[Redfeather75]

It better use death marks otherwise it'll trash the whole existing assassin system.

[Falconer777]

1 час назад, DatDarkOne сказал:

This post is funny as hell.  You want PvP in Warframe, but hate Conclave.  LMAO!  

What's so strange about that? Conclave is a simulator of jumping on steroids, in my opinion) Or am I too slow for a Conclave)
That's why I wrote that I like PvP in other games much more.

[BornWithTeeth]

2 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:

I'm laughing at the "I'll just alt+f4" tantrums. Really? 

Is it so hard to imagine there would be clear restrictions to trolling?

1. Why do some assume that you'll be able to even choose who you invade? Wouldn't it most likely be a player taking control of a random stalker appearance? I doubt you would be able to attack a player that's not already marked for a random encounter. You probably won't see stalker any more or less than you see him now. It doesn't really warrant the "forced PvP in PvE" panic.  

 

Hypernaut, you’re aware that in the mode as it was programmed and has been demonstrated, your description here is literally not true? That the mode in fact quite specifically incorporates a lobby which allows the Stalker player to search for targets by name, while maintaining the Stalker player’s anonymity? Also, that in just about every appearance of the mode that has been shown to the general playerbase, what we’ve seen is that the moment the Stalker player encounters an evasive hard target, they resort to attacking mission objectives instead? 

[(PSN)XxDarkyanxX]

il y a 20 minutes, Aramil999 a dit :

However even with 1 hit killing Dread... Operator, Atlas, AoE one shot killing weapons... normal players have so many BROKEN options to fight it... i don't see much grief potencial even if u have mad bow skills, someone will just get downed... OH NO, worst thing EVER... 

And that's pretty much exactly the problem?

The system itself is designed as a mean to mess with players this especially means that whoever is stalker isn't going to enter missions where players are bound to do exactly as you described
They'll mess with low-level prey over and over again for the sole sake of self-satisfaction.

If there's no restriction on all of those one-shot metas then stalkers won't bother fighting those kind of players at all.
Considering there's no fun in spawning and dying from 40meters wide AoE and whatsnot.

And with that I ask, why bother make it a mode then?
If they invade low level, then low level will complain about the crazy light-speed bullet jumping stalker,
If they invade high level, then stalkers will complain about being unable to fight more than 2 seconds before dying.
"Someone will just get downed" is a pretty shallow way of phrasing it , but it's exactly how the entire game mode sounds to be like.
Someone joins, someone dies, end of game mode. Not even worth 10 seconds of game-time.

At this point there seems to be exactly zero reason for that to become a thing.
It's just forced pvp for the sake of being forced pvp and if it's not forced then people still complain about not being able to hunt everyone equally.

I, like many others, are Open-minded for things that actually have a chance to work properly.
But that doesn't mean we should just accept everything because "muh open-mindedness"

Edited December 5, 2018 by (PS4)XxDarkyanxX

[DatDarkOne]

2 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:

1. Why do some assume that you'll be able to even choose who you invade? Wouldn't it most likely be a player taking control of a random stalker appearance? I doubt you would be able to attack a player that's not already marked for a random encounter. You probably won't see stalker any more or less than you see him now. It doesn't really warrant the "forced PvP in PvE" panic. 

Because in the actual videos shown of the mode, the Player Stalker could choose who they invaded.  As for the forced PvP thing, that was actually said by Scott as a way to prevent players from avoiding being invaded by using Friends/Invite only mode.  

From what I've seen of the Stalker mode, the player Stalker always knows where you are at all times regardless of frame skills unlike in Conclave. This combined with the Stalkers powers brings the modes troll potential to a very high level.  

[Aldain]

Just now, Hypernaut1 said:

I'm laughing at the "I'll just alt+f4" tantrums. Really? 

Is it so hard to imagine there would be clear restrictions to trolling?

1. Why do some assume that you'll be able to even choose who you invade? Wouldn't it most likely be a player taking control of a random stalker appearance? I doubt you would be able to attack a player that's not already marked for a random encounter. You probably won't see stalker any more or less than you see him now. It doesn't really warrant the "forced PvP in PvE" panic.  

2. Going "friends only" as an opt-out could remain because I don't think the majority of players would utilize that mode just for the off chance of a player stalker arriving. It's silly.  But it can remain an option to those that seem to have severe anxiety over it.

3. Stalker should feel like another player hunting you. But I'm sure the restrictions on energy, movement, skill cooldown etc, timers, etc wouldn't make him that much harder than the A.I. Either way, it'll be a brief encounter. I doubt you'll be able to mod stalker to be OP. 

4. It's ok to lose. Stalker should've never became a walk in the park. It'll be no different from stalker killing you now. He'll probably automatically disappear anyway, disallowing any sort of "tea bagging". 

It comes down to the fact that it would just make public matchmaking filled with nothing but people who don't know about the stalker and people trying to BE the stalker, you SEVERELY underestimate the lengths people go through to troll and how much this can hurt any online game, The Division died simply because the PvP zone was tied to gear progression and as a result you'd have people oneshotting everyone with a crazy sniper rifle and not going to take their loot.

That's the inequity of invasion and always on PvP systems, the only ones who want to BE the invader/attacker are the ones who don't benefit from it and just get their jollies from making other people waste time.

Yes, it is ok to lose, but by that logic it is also ok to NOT WANT PVP IN NON-PVP ENVIRONMENTS. Private servers being the only go-to option for not getting trolled/attacked just fragments the community and makes any source of matchmaking dead because everyone who DOESN'T want PvP doesn't bother with it.

[Aramil999]

I don't want to argue either, even through your points are not really leading anywhere. I understand that Warframe is PvE Co-Op focused game. 

However PvP is very important aspect of gameing since like ancient times and good PvP mode would be great for the game.

Stalker Mode can be made very hard to troll by simple restrictions such as timer, objective being immune, no alarm from stalker etc. 

If there it such unfoxable issue mabe DE should allow Player Stalkers only in certain high lvl locations, maybe some "Stalker hideouts"?

Why not propose something but just outright rage at it.

[Hypernaut1]

1 minute ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Hypernaut, you’re aware that in the mode as it was programmed and has been demonstrated, your description here is literally not true? That the mode in fact quite specifically incorporates a lobby which allows the Stalker player to search for targets by name, while maintaining the Stalker player’s anonymity? Also, that in just about every appearance of the mode that has been shown to the general playerbase, what we’ve seen is that the moment the Stalker player encounters an evasive hard target, they resort to attacking mission objectives instead? 

Those are easily solvable problems to me. Just make it so you can only select a player with a mark, make objectives immune. I think public implementation would have to have some adjustments. 

[DatDarkOne]

3 minutes ago, Falconer777 said:

What's so strange about that? Conclave is a simulator of jumping on steroids, in my opinion) Or am I too slow for a Conclave)
That's why I wrote that I like PvP in other games much more.

It's funny because if you add PvP to the PvE mode all you will get is the same jumping on steroids effect but without the Conclave balancing.  So in essense if you hate Conclave chances are that you wouldn't like PvP in PvE either.  

[Aldain]

1 minute ago, Aramil999 said:

I don't want to argue either, even through your points are not really leading anywhere. I understand that Warframe is PvE Co-Op focused game. 

However PvP is very important aspect of gameing since like ancient times and good PvP mode would be great for the game.

Stalker Mode can be made very hard to troll by simple restrictions such as timer, objective being immune, no alarm from stalker etc. 

If there it such unfoxable issue mabe DE should allow Player Stalkers only in certain high lvl locations, maybe some "Stalker hideouts"?

Why not propose something but just outright rage at it.

You can't just cite historical precedent for PvP being beneficial and ignore how tacked on PvP either falls flat on it's face (Conclave) or makes everyone but the PvP community stop playing or play on private servers/with friends.

You also cannot simply assume that there are "simple" fixes because if you make the invasions only be in "Stalker Hideouts" as you put it, guess what will happen? People who don't want it won't go there causing it to be dead AND THEN WE'LL BE BACK TO THE "WHY IS CONCLAVE DEAD TOPICS" its a simple cycle that will not be solved by just saying "Things will be ok, accept everything no matter how bad it could be, and to hell with consequences or problems".

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Aramil999 said:

However PvP is very important aspect of gameing since like ancient times and good PvP mode would be great for the game.

 

 

This is a note of extreme dubious nature. There are many games with no PVP component in them at all. Just look at things like say the Elder Scrolls or Witcher Series. They are purely PVE and it doesn't detract from the experience.

3 minutes ago, Aramil999 said:

Stalker Mode can be made very hard to troll by simple restrictions such as timer, objective being immune, no alarm from stalker etc. 

Griefers will grief. No matter what you do, trolls will find a way. Heck, look at those switch teleport Lokis dropping Chroma into voids so he loses his vex.

Giving potential griefers another griefing tool solves nothing, really.

5 minutes ago, Aramil999 said:

If there it such unfoxable issue mabe DE should allow Player Stalkers only in certain high lvl locations, maybe some "Stalker hideouts"?

What's the difference between this and adding a new Stalker Conclave mode?

It's the same, just repackaged.

6 minutes ago, Aramil999 said:

Why not propose something but just outright rage at it.

You are simply ignoring what people are saying. No one against it wants to fix Stalker mode or suggest how to improve it for your pleasure, because they do not agree to the existence of such a mode in the first place.

It is downright unreasonable to ask people to propose improvements or ideas to work on a system they do not even want in place.

[Aramil999]

@Aldain Why not make PvP/Stalker mods, cosmetics drop only in this "Stalker Hideouts"? All this problems can be fixed just try to think aboit some (expect skill floor being similar to Conclave).

[Falconer777]

Только что, DatDarkOne сказал:

It's funny because if you add PvP to the PvE mode all you will get is the same jumping on steroids effect but without the Conclave balancing.  So in essense if you hate Conclave chances are that you wouldn't like PvP in PvE either.  

I saw old videos about pvp mode in this game - Dark Sectors. There, IMHO, everything was in order with the movement. This is the mode I would like to see.
Or with the existing movement system - but something like Gambit.
In another case, of course, it will be the same Conclave.

[Nacond]

Let's be honest. While wf is a great game it fails at every aspect of pvp...but forcing people to pvp is a bad way and might be a reason for me to stop playing...

Special hideouts might be a way but I'm not sure if that's a game mode many people will play... 

[Aramil999]

@Datam4ss maybe try to make this what you would like? Not something you don't want... just idea

[Hypernaut1]

14 minutes ago, Aldain said:

It comes down to the fact that it would just make public matchmaking filled with nothing but people who don't know about the stalker and people trying to BE the stalker, you SEVERELY underestimate the lengths people go through to troll and how much this can hurt any online game, The Division died simply because the PvP zone was tied to gear progression and as a result you'd have people oneshotting everyone with a crazy sniper rifle and not going to take their loot.

That's the inequity of invasion and always on PvP systems, the only ones who want to BE the invader/attacker are the ones who don't benefit from it and just get their jollies from making other people waste time.

Yes, it is ok to lose, but by that logic it is also ok to NOT WANT PVP IN NON-PVP ENVIRONMENTS. Private servers being the only go-to option for not getting trolled/attacked just fragments the community and makes any source of matchmaking dead because everyone who DOESN'T 

How many times have you seen stalker in the last month? Do you think that rate would increase with pvp stalker? I personally have only seen him 2 or 3x. I don't think it would be that big of an issue. I doubt a player could attack another over and over. THAT would be a major problem, and I would hate that. 

I think if stalker invasions are regulated to being marked, it wouldn't impose that much at all. As a weaker player I died to A.I. stalker anyway. The progression would be the same. 

I honestly see Stalker players getting ganked and raging more than anything to be honest. I would imagine seeing many "buff stalker" topics in feedback.  I actually might enjoy that salt.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Hypernaut1

[Aldain]

Just now, Aramil999 said:

@Aldain Why not make PvP/Stalker mods, cosmetics drop only in this "Stalker Hideouts"? All this problems can be fixed just try to think aboit some (expect skill floor being similar to Conclave).

Simple, no matter how much you try to make something like this have benefits for the ones being invaded, most people won't bother, and you can only make unique rewards so powerful until you have straight up PvP locked power creep and that always goes over well I'm being sarcastic, this almost never goes over well with PvE games that have PvP 

Its not an easy solution and not an easy idea, I can agree that it needs to be thought about, but if the only alternatives to get people to play this mode are "Everyone but privates are invaded" or "Endgame progression is tied to this" then I don't think the idea will work at all from a business standpoint.

[BornWithTeeth]

6 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:

Those are easily solvable problems to me. Just make it so you can only select a player with a mark, make objectives immune. I think public implementation would have to have some adjustments. 

What concerns me is the godawful thought process or lack thereof which is apparently going into this.

 

Hypernaut, based on your understanding of gaming and online culture, if someone said to you “Hey, I’m adding a forced PvP mode to the game! It keeps the attacker anonymous while allowing them to search for and attack targets by name, tracking those targets for you! We considered making it optional, but then no-one would opt in because most people would just hate it, so instead there’s no option to switch the mode off, YOLO!” can you honestly say that you would not advise them to maybe have a think about exactly what the eff they’re trying to achieve here?

[Aldain]

2 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:

How many times have you seen stalker in the last month? Do you think that rate would increase with pvp stalker? I personally have only seen him 2 or 3x. I don't think it would be that big of an issue. I doubt a player could attack another over and over. THAT would be a major problem, and I would hate that. 

I think if stalker invasions are regulated to being marked, it wouldn't impose that much at all. As a weaker player I died to A.I. stalker anyway. The progression would be the same. 

I've actually seen him 2-3 times in the last week actually ( just got back into the game thanks to the switch version) and honestly he only invaded me one of those 3 times, both of the other times he was after others.

Consider the fact that marks are not tied solely to one player, imagine if you had 10 groups of four and 8 of them had at least one marked player in them, assuming that there were more than 8 PvP stalkers in this system then that would result in the interruption of not only the marked player, but the three others with them which for the non-marked players would just be a pain since "I'm not marked, why do I have to deal with a stalker?" would be the first thing to pass most players minds, I had to go OUT OF MY WAY to save 2 players from their stalkers because it was killing them and holding up the missions, imagine how much worse it would be if it were a PvP player just playing hit and run in a timed mission making people fail for reasons NOT tied to their PvE ability.

I don't imagine players would go for this like you think and it would just make new players quit as all new players WILL be marked after a certain point and eventually it would come down to hundreds of invaders with nobody to invade.