Stalker mode ideas

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Aramil999 said:

...Everything...

It is time to just stop, really. All you do is make metacomplaints about the community behavior and blatantly disregard any opinions that do not agree with your own. The reason why meaningful discussion does not and will not exist is because you are enraptured in your own monologue. Dismissing points just because they do not agree with you is hardly a proper way of argumentation, if you cannot actually disprove the point. Your dismissal of anything which contradicts your narrative shuts down any path to meaningful discussion, because it just shows one thing - you don't want to talk, you just want to be right even when you are not. Which is futile, because in the end, it proves only that you are stubborn and arrogant.

Discussion is a dialogue and must have allowances for contradictory opinion, which is something you are unable to make. You believe, in a rather delusional manner, that you are the ultimate authority upon this subject which may utter no wrong, while everyone are blind fools with no right to opinion. I can't be bothered to rehash what others have already said to someone who does not listen.

[Refticus]

20 hours ago, Aramil999 said:

-Snip-

source of that statement? i can't seem to find it. and if it is true, then even the developer team knows that the playerbase will dislike stalker mode.

my reasons and feedback has been stated many times before but i'm going to say it again because you apparently have the attention span of a squirrel; opt out is a REQUIRED feature for stalker mode so that you don't upset a sizable chunk of the community. if it harms the gamemode and even DE can see this based on initial impressions and feedback, then maybe it's something the players don't want?

what does DE do here? there's three options;

1. scrap stalker mode. (very unlikely considering the work put in it and the promises they have made)
2. add an opt in/out system and see how it goes (the best option as players aren't forced to participate in something they hate, if the gamemode suffers then it's because very few players like it, i.e. the conclave.)
3. launch as is without any viable or good way to avoid it (worst option as you're forcing EVERYONE to participate, even if they hate the mode or concept, resulting in players quitting and/or public groups becoming rare or only occupied by new players).

for the fourth time now, solo/friends/invite queue is NOT a good solution to the problem, many players like the convenience public queuing brings as they don't want to spend hours in recruiting channel looking for a group for an obscure tile/mission.

before you try to spin this on me hating pvp, i'd like to remind you that i LIKE warframe's pvp, and that i have played a lot of pvp games; my problems with stalker mode is simply the fact that it's going to be forced onto players so that the gamemode stays alive and active.

[Aramil999]

18 hours ago, Refticus said:

source of that statement? i can't seem to find it. and if it is true, then even the developer team knows that the playerbase will dislike stalker mode.

my reasons and feedback has been stated many times before but i'm going to say it again because you apparently have the attention span of a squirrel; opt out is a REQUIRED feature for stalker mode so that you don't upset a sizable chunk of the community. if it harms the gamemode and even DE can see this based on initial impressions and feedback, then maybe it's something the players don't want?

what does DE do here? there's three options;

1. scrap stalker mode. (very unlikely considering the work put in it and the promises they have made)
2. add an opt in/out system and see how it goes (the best option as players aren't forced to participate in something they hate, if the gamemode suffers then it's because very few players like it, i.e. the conclave.)
3. launch as is without any viable or good way to avoid it (worst option as you're forcing EVERYONE to participate, even if they hate the mode or concept, resulting in players quitting and/or public groups becoming rare or only occupied by new players).

for the fourth time now, solo/friends/invite queue is NOT a good solution to the problem, many players like the convenience public queuing brings as they don't want to spend hours in recruiting channel looking for a group for an obscure tile/mission.

before you try to spin this on me hating pvp, i'd like to remind you that i LIKE warframe's pvp, and that i have played a lot of pvp games; my problems with stalker mode is simply the fact that it's going to be forced onto players so that the gamemode stays alive and active.

And THAT is meaningful feedback.

About DEScott info it is in Tactical Potato or DK interview with him ... well can't find that.

As far as i know DE is working right now on Stalker Syndicate (judging from Rebbeca saying "oh yeah Stalker Mode is almost ready, oh wait Scott wants to add syndicate for it, eee so yeah more work is needed" which was about 2 weeks ago, any good ideas here on forum that could possibly please both sides MAY be read by DE and taken into account. That is why I'm posting threads about it on General and Conclave feedback forums, alongside ideas for Stalker Syndicate rewards. This thread is more general and focused on giving ideas to possibly use by DE for Stalker Mode yet it quickly changed into hate-fest. 

Your points are valid and very similar to my from like 2 posts ago (just different opinion on opt out button and solo/inv/frinds other than that it was the same thing).

I hope some balanced way out can be achived that pleases all 4 sides (not just 2) DE, pvpers, pvers, normal casuals.

[DatDarkOne]

8 hours ago, Aramil999 said:

I hope some balanced way out can be achived that pleases all 4 sides (not just 2) DE, pvpers, pvers, normal casuals.

There is really only one of the possibly only options that would fit this.  

On ‎2019‎-‎02‎-‎03 at 3:40 PM, Refticus said:

add an opt in/out system and see how it goes (the best option as players aren't forced to participate in something they hate, if the gamemode suffers then it's because very few players like it, i.e. the conclave.) 

This just happens to be it.  

Anything else done would pretty much have to wait and see how the interactions go to see how best to adjust things.  I can already see that nerfing any PvE aspect in favor of stalker mode won't go over very well.  

Edited February 5, 2019 by DatDarkOne
correcting autocorrect

[Urlan]

@Aramil999 You don't seem to be getting the point that as DE has suggested with their tables on the subject, the conclave community is super tiny, passionate in my experience, but not representative of the larger PvE community - trials had more active players while conclave had continually got updates - this is the point of pointing out your 5% of the community is against conclave; it is false and hostile to the greater community. I brought up the large numbers of players I have interacted with, because this is not hyperbole; I have played more hours than most and been involved with many threads on the forum about this subject and PvP in general. When I say I have only seen a small number of players truly gung-ho for the Stalker mode without an Opt-In; I mean that without prejudice; it is the way it is and supported by the forums and in-game.

As has been said in other threads and by other players; opt-in is a good compromise and a reasonable one for such a mode with potential for such disruptive and sometimes hostile behavior as Conclave being transplanted into PvE. Born with Teeth has made great points in this regard, and such an Opt-In is pretty much required to allow such a mode the chance to prove its worth outside of the already ample existing results of Conclave - a mode that still exists and isn't played by the majority of players not for 'lack of skills' but for a lack of interest and reward.

[Aramil999]

@Urlan what about players who do not mind playing Stalker Mode farming every possible rewrd there and then opting out? I can imagine that whould be what most players would do, farm stuff up and forgget forever. 

To upkeep invasion system there has to be someone to invade, and in "opt out button" option you can invade only Stalker farming or uninformed new players, which is very bad deal for DE. Adress this problem.

 

 

[Atsia]

2 hours ago, Aramil999 said:

@Urlan what about players who do not mind playing Stalker Mode farming every possible rewrd there and then opting out? I can imagine that whould be what most players would do, farm stuff up and forgget forever. 

To upkeep invasion system there has to be someone to invade, and in "opt out button" option you can invade only Stalker farming or uninformed new players, which is very bad deal for DE. Adress this problem.

 

 

Well at least you see the biggest issue. If DE wants this mode to NOT be hated (anymore than it already is) it's gonna HAVE to come with a flat opt-in/opt-out. That's the only real option DE has if they don't want the majority of players rioting.

[BornWithTeeth]

10 minutes ago, Atsia said:

Well at least you see the biggest issue. If DE wants this mode to NOT be hated (anymore than it already is) it's gonna HAVE to come with a flat opt-in/opt-out. That's the only real option DE has if they don't want the majority of players rioting.

It also remains the single biggest question which apparently no-one in favour of the mode can answer:

If Stalker mode is a truly amazing idea that will be loved by a majority of players, then how would incorporating an opt out ruin the mode? If the mode would be rendered completely empty and pointless by including an opt out, what does that tell us other than that people just wouldn’t want it? 

 

The doublethink in play is truly startling.

 “Stalker mode is the best idea ever, it will revitalise the game, end the content drought, bring challenge back to gameplay, lure in more new players than any other update or open world development, hundreds of thousands of new players, it will be amazing and everyone will love it, but only if it’s mandatory, because if it’s optional then everyone will opt out.”

 

 

Take a few goddamned steps back and run that entire statement through your mind, slowly if necessary.

 

As I’ve previously stated, I think that Stalker mode would be a niche thing, but something that could stand by itself on its own merits without needing to be made mandatory. You know, with a few mechanical passes to remove the dumb glitches and unwise implementations, like. That means that I actually have more faith in the mode’s merits than all the people insisting that it be implemented as soon as possible and made mandatory.

 

 

Unless,

of course,

there is an additional,

motivation,

in play,

to which people don’t want to openly admit.

 

Could it be, perhaps, that what folks want from this mode is to very specifically invade and attack people who don’t want to play PvP? Could that be it?

 

Surely not.

[BornWithTeeth]

3 hours ago, Aramil999 said:

@Urlan what about players who do not mind playing Stalker Mode farming every possible rewrd there and then opting out? I can imagine that whould be what most players would do, farm stuff up and forgget forever. 

To upkeep invasion system there has to be someone to invade, and in "opt out button" option you can invade only Stalker farming or uninformed new players, which is very bad deal for DE. Adress this problem.

 

 

Aramil, I have to point something out about this statement of yours, and it is this:

You just admitted that you yourself do not think that people would play this mode for its own sake, and would drop it like a hot rock the moment they got the drops from it. You presented this as a ‘problem’ which people who do not like PvP should have to address, when it is in fact your problem, the flaw in your own argument.

 

You have to address that, mate.

[Urlan]

4 hours ago, Aramil999 said:

@Urlan what about players who do not mind playing Stalker Mode farming every possible rewrd there and then opting out? I can imagine that whould be what most players would do, farm stuff up and forgget forever. 

To upkeep invasion system there has to be someone to invade, and in "opt out button" option you can invade only Stalker farming or uninformed new players, which is very bad deal for DE. Adress this problem.

 

 

Yes, there does,  as your position was that Conclave players and those that like it are actually a majority, this would logically not be an issue. Conclave players wishing to see and be Stalkers attacking others during their missions would have themselves Opted in. Course that again brings us to the fact that DE themselves have shared data showing Conclave has the smallest sub-section of supporters of all modes. Opt-in however would allow a rather easy way of testing this resolve, of the rather small PvP community while not disrupting the much larger majority of players wanting to play Warframe with some Jolly Co-operation.

A problem logically with this quote above is that it shows -at least for this statement, not necessarily your greater stance - that you do not believe your own premise of PvP players being a secret majority against folk that just unfairly dislike PvP. If Conclave players wanted to fight conclave, they would push on it, and if there were enough players for that mode to matter, they would find matches. If Opt-in blocks Stalker mode supporters from finding matches, the mode would not be well represented at launch logically anyway. So we come to rewards, where it would have to have incentive worthy of the decision to check that Opt-in to allow such disruptive inclusions to Warframe proper.

[BornWithTeeth]

“Stalker mode is the best thing ever and there’s a huge population of players who are really enthusiastic for it! The number of players who wouldn’t like it is actually tiny!”

 

 “If there’s an opt out, then everyone will just opt out and not play it and the mode will die because there’s no-one to invade!”

 

Pick one, and stick with it.

[DatDarkOne]

1 hour ago, BornWithTeeth said:

It also remains the single biggest question which apparently no-one in favour of the mode can answer:

If Stalker mode is a truly amazing idea that will be loved by a majority of players, then how would incorporating an opt out ruin the mode? If the mode would be rendered completely empty and pointless by including an opt out, what does that tell us other than that people just wouldn’t want it? 

 

The doublethink in play is truly startling.

 “Stalker mode is the best idea ever, it will revitalise the game, end the content drought, bring challenge back to gameplay, lure in more new players than any other update or open world development, hundreds of thousands of new players, it will be amazing and everyone will love it, but only if it’s mandatory, because if it’s optional then everyone will opt out.”

 

 

Take a few goddamned steps back and run that entire statement through your mind, slowly if necessary.

 

As I’ve previously stated, I think that Stalker mode would be a niche thing, but something that could stand by itself on its own merits without needing to be made mandatory. You know, with a few mechanical passes to remove the dumb glitches and unwise implementations, like. That means that I actually have more faith in the mode’s merits than all the people insisting that it be implemented as soon as possible and made mandatory.

 

 

Unless,

of course,

there is an additional,

motivation,

in play,

to which people don’t want to openly admit.

 

Could it be, perhaps, that what folks want from this mode is to very specifically invade and attack people who don’t want to play PvP? Could that be it?

 

Surely not.

This is something I have pointed out in almost every stalker mode topic.  As you have noticed, it gets ignored instead of answered/addressed.  

[BornWithTeeth]

42 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

This is something I have pointed out in almost every stalker mode topic.  As you have noticed, it gets ignored instead of answered/addressed.  

Owo what’s this

On 2019-02-03 at 12:16 PM, Aramil999 said:

 

Yes, I know in many cases it is me who provoke such people but I do it to prove a point.

Most responses in both of the threads as stated by @Kontrollo: "Right now you're just proving his point." 

He had seen right through me 😉

 

 

[Kontrollo]

To be fair, he did prove a point with the responses in the other thread. You might not know because it was cleaned up after being locked.

It's seemingly impossible to have a calm discussion in these threads. We can already see it again on this page. Hint: if you can't make your point without taking pot shots at some part of the community, that just reflects badly on yourself in the end, and hurts the argument you're trying to make.

 

I really didn't want to speculate on how it's going to be or make any recommendations before it's actually out and available for us to test. But here are some opinions, I guess:

1. Given that the Stalker rarely visits us now (to the point that by popular demand they introduced ducat-purchaseable tokens), it probably wouldn't be very disruptive, anyway. At least if they more or less stick to how it works now. As a result, people wouldn't be able to play as Stalker all day, either. It'd be something special.
2. As such, adding a whole system to manage it might just be a waste of time, I think.
3. However, there's a good point to be made for adding an opt-in/opt-out feature, so people can play what they want and aren't forced into anything.
4. Having that, there's naturally also a need to offer some kind of rewards to participate in this game mode, because let's face it: most time in this game is spent working towards another push of that Skinner box lever (what Scott meant in his interview, just didn't say outright). And because even if you're someone who likes this interaction in principle, there's of course a point to be made to deactivate it to save a bit of time. Today's Stalker is a total pushover, real people probably aren't like that.
5. Naturally, now we're in feature-creep territory, and the devs would probably want to put more effort into it than originally intended. Yet another system to maintain, or slowly slide into a state of disarray through neglect, or alternatively expand on if it turns out to be liked by the wider community.

 

So... maybe they should just enable it now and restrict access to it to the devs themselves and maybe some trusted 3rd parties. Then call it a day. That'd be just another case of "this is why we can't have nice things." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited February 5, 2019 by Kontrollo
typos

[BornWithTeeth]

1 minute ago, Kontrollo said:

 

It's seemingly impossible to have a calm discussion in these threads. We can already see it again on this page. Hint: if you can't make your point without taking pot shots at some part of the community, that just reflects badly on yourself in the end, and hurts the argument you're trying to make.

Pointing out the extreme flaws in someone’s argument is not a personal attack on that poster.

 

Similarly, that poster’s last thread got closed for exactly the behaviour which you just criticised, and you yourself know that, you posted in that thread.

 

Kontrollo, I would like to see you popping in to police the behaviour of the next poster who derides anyone who does not want to take part in Stalker mode, or who insists over and over again that PvE players just ‘don’t know what they want’.

 

By now, this has become more than tiresome. Please, point out where in my most recent posts you feel that I have unfairly attacked an entire segment of the community...knowing that I do not regard ‘pointing out fallacies and mendacious reasoning’ as an attack.

 

I’m disappointed, Kontrollo.

[Kontrollo]

3 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Pointing out the extreme flaws in someone’s argument is not a personal attack on that poster.

 

Similarly, that poster’s last thread got closed for exactly the behaviour which you just criticised, and you yourself know that, you posted in that thread.

 

Kontrollo, I would like to see you popping in to police the behaviour of the next poster who derides anyone who does not want to take part in Stalker mode, or who insists over and over again that PvE players just ‘don’t know what they want’.

 

By now, this has become more than tiresome. Please, point out where in my most recent posts you feel that I have unfairly attacked an entire segment of the community...knowing that I do not regard ‘pointing out fallacies and mendacious reasoning’ as an attack.

 

I’m disappointed, Kontrollo.

That poster's last thread probably got closed because I was the one who reported the thread in one of my own "Right now you're just proving his point." responses to another guy rambling about some kind of Sushi restaurant analogy, after I pointed out that it's unnecessary to resort namecalling and attacks in the name of "PvP toxicity". I probably should've made screenshots, you can't make this stuff up.

Go over there, have a look at it: My first response is still there: "And here we go again".

My second one was about what I've written above and saying the same to Aramil as well. IIRC: "The same goes for you Aramil, you're not doing yourself any favour with all that you're writing." Then, after my third I pressed that button.

Now why do you feel all of what I've written was specifically written in response to you? I was definitely talking more generally there, no?

 

You know what you're doing here now, right? Not really addressing anything I wrote, then ending with "being disappointed" in me? What a joke.

[BornWithTeeth]

I felt it was in response to me because you came in right after one of my posts addressing Aramil’s fallacious and unhelpful arguments with the statement of ‘to be fair, he is proving his point’ and following it up by insisting that no-one does their argument any favours by taking pot shots at those who disagree with them, when you and I have already discussed the insulting behaviour of far too many posters especially those in favour of a mandatory PvP mode.

 

Now, if what you meant was that Aramil is continuing to do his own argument no favours and that it’s just stirring up more discord, then I’ve very clearly misunderstood, and I do apologise, because that misunderstanding is and remains on me. I find dealing with his arguments and his position tiresome, but that’s no reason to snap at you, who have been reasonable in past discussion, and that was unfair of me.

 

Regarding implementing a Stalker mode, no, they should definitely go ahead and implement it. I do feel that the mode can stand on its own merits with an opt in/opt out, and that that alone would provide a safety valve against potential toxic behaviour harming the game. I’ve even proposed a way to implement mixed public squads for it, with players who have opted out being unable to interact with an invader, and being unable to gain any drops or benefits.

[Kontrollo]

No, the response was not directed specifically at you, but at what I've seen on this page. Look, I've been around this subsection from when they implemented the new Conclave to ~2 years ago when I took a long break from the game. When you see people writing stuff like this:

• "I have a few players - out of the hundreds I might chat with, or be on my friend's list - that would love such an addition, if only to cause misery in new players while showing off their conclave skills."
• "Yet PvP haters converge and use arguments about Conclave failure as a good point about how Warframe community hate any form of PvP."
• "your own premise of PvP players being a secret majority against folk that just unfairly dislike PvP"
• "what folks want from this mode is to very specifically invade and attack people who don’t want to play PvP? Could that be it?"
  • Yes, turns out that actually is you here, but I hope I made it clear by now what I'm addressing. If I wanted to I'd have made a quote box for every single one of you.

 

You just know exactly what kind of conversation most of a thread is going to be. It's not news around here. And it doesn't even matter what it's about:

• Conclave is a competitive arena style 3rd person shooter (mostly, but not entirely) with a very high skill ceiling
• Lunaro is a sports game with -- not much an idea, really, haven't played it a lot. IIRC it was inspired by Rocket League and Speedball (and prompted by people who did not want to shoot at each other)
• Stalker Mode is going to be neither of the two -- and hopefully both a fun diversion and making Stalker less of a pushover (just IMHO, though)

... yet in these kinds of discussions it's mostly about PvE vs. PvP, about participation and dev resources, and generally a lot of made up stuff. If I were a dev, I would not want to wade through these to hunt for some nugget of meaningful feedback, that's for sure. And as someone who has played at least Conclave a lot in the past, I can't help but roll my eyes.

[DatDarkOne]

19 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

what folks want from this mode is to very specifically invade and attack people who don’t want to play PvP? Could that be it?"

The thing about that statement is that it is one of the logical conclusions that can be derived from all of conversations in the various Stalker mode topics.

  I have asked this very question myself previously as well as when @BornWithTeeth asked it.  It is a valid question when presented with the argument of not allowing opt-in/opt-out option.  

Kontrollo, in all honesty after having read most of the posts in all of the stalker topics yourself, can you not see that valid concern for some?  

Edited February 5, 2019 by DatDarkOne

[BornWithTeeth]

48 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

 

• "what folks want from this mode is to very specifically invade and attack people who don’t want to play PvP? Could that be it?"
  • Yes, turns out that actually is you here, but I hope I made it clear by now what I'm addressing. If I wanted to I'd have made a quote box for every single one of you.

 

 

After this, considering that it was indeed unfair for me to snap at you like that, I'm just gonna chill, maybe report the worst offenders instead of trying to argue.

 

However, the above observation is kinda related to an awkward fact about these threads, and that is that there is a hard core of mandatory-Stalker-mode advocates who very carefully refuse to acknowledge or engage with the contradiction of their position. Stalker mode is both a) an objectively amazing idea which everyone will love and will be really good for the game and also b) an incredibly fragile and precious game mode which must be made mandatory or it will be dead on arrival because no-one will play it.

 

So, either that argument/position is riven with doublethink and cognitive dissonance, or....or the real argument there is "Stalker mode will be amazing for me because I want to invade people, but it has to be made mandatory because I do in fact know that most people don't want to be invaded, and either I don't care what they want, or I actively want to avoid players who want to fight me."

 

Can you see how and why I might reach that conclusion? A conclusion which, as I'm sure you know by now, I don't actually agree with, I think enough people would opt in to make the mode viable, myself included.

 

Other than that, I kinda think much of the discussion has run its course.

 

Regarding the failure of Lunaro, eh, it's kinda weird in itself anyway, I don't know why DE expected it would be more of a hit. Like, Overwatch did Lucio-Ball, which was an absolute hoot, but they didn't make a big deal of it. I get what you're saying about how Lunaro was an attempt to do PvP for people who don't like PvP, but...that's kind of a not great idea anyway, no? It's like deciding to make biscuits for people who don't like biscuits!

 

That aside, I do think Stalker mode can work, if both the players and DE can unclench a bit and let it just be an optional niche thing, rather than making it all or nothing.

 

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by BornWithTeeth

[Kontrollo]

1 hour ago, DatDarkOne said:

The thing about that statement is that it is one of the logical conclusions that can be derived from all of conversations in the various Stalker mode topics.

  I have asked this very question myself previously as well as when @BornWithTeeth asked it.  It is a valid question when presented with the argument of not allowing opt-in/opt-out option.  

Kontrollo, in all honesty after having read most of the posts in all of the stalker topics yourself, can you not see that valid concern for some?  

I've already laid out my stance on this previously, and in this very thread.

 

59 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

However, the above observation is kinda related to an awkward fact about these threads, and that is that there is a hard core of mandatory-Stalker-mode advocates who very carefully refuse to acknowledge or engage with the contradiction of their position. Stalker mode is both a) an objectively amazing idea which everyone will love and will be really good for the game and also b) an incredibly fragile and precious game mode which must be made mandatory or it will be dead on arrival because no-one will play it.

 So, either that argument/position is riven with doublethink and cognitive dissonance, or....or the real argument there is "Stalker mode will be amazing for me because I want to invade people, but it has to be made mandatory because I do in fact know that most people don't want to be invaded, and I don't care what they want."

Sorry, I don't want to go and reread it all, but was it more than just two or three people in this thread who are adamantly against something like that, if even? 🤔

Well, I'm not sure about the "everyone will love" part. Ask three people on these forums: you'll get five opinions, and 7.5 on a full moon. I hope it'll be fun but I'd rather wait and see how it turns out. Also, other things have been quite controversial on the forums initially, e.g. the Arbitration Drones, but have since become more or less accepted. Overall, I definitely wouldn't want to paint it in black and white like this.

And about the "most people don't want to be invaded": You know, I was actually following the other thread because I was interested if someone would come up with some more data -- maybe at least in the form of some chat screenshots -- the forums are definitely not representative.

 

59 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Can you see how and why I might reach that conclusion? A conclusion which, as I'm sure you know by now, I don't actually agree with, I think enough people would opt in to make the mode viable, myself included.

Yes I get it, some people will want to use it as an outlet to troll others, same as some do now with Limbo or Loki. And some others simply don't want to have an opponent. If it turns out that's all it's going to be (or a significant amount), see my opinion about restricting it entirely. We might at least have a laugh during a stream then.

 

59 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

That aside, I do think Stalker mode can work, if both the players and DE can unclench a bit and let it just be an optional niche thing, rather than making it all or nothing.

I can totally get behind that, but I'm not going to make predictions.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Kontrollo
typo

[Urlan]

5 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

I've already laid out my stance on this previously, and in this very thread.

 

Sorry, I don't want to go and reread it all, but was it more than just two or three people in this thread who are adamantly against something like that, if even? 🤔

Well, I'm not sure about the "everyone will love" part. Ask three people on these forums: you'll get five opinions, and 7.5 on a full moon. I hope it'll be fun but I'd rather wait and see how it turns out. Also, other things have been quite controversial on the forums initially, e.g. the Arbitration Drones, but have since become more or less accepted. Overall, I definitely wouldn't want to paint it in black and white like this.

And about the "most people don't want to be invaded": You know, I was actually following the other thread because I was interested if someone would come up with some more data -- maybe at least in the form of some chat screenshots -- the forums are definitely not representative.

 

Yes I get it, some people will want to use it as an outlet to troll others, same as some do now with Limbo or Loki. And some others simply don't want to have an opponent. If it turns out that's all it's going to be (or a significant amount), see my opinion about restricting it entirely. We might at least have a laugh during a stream then.

 

I can totally get behind that, but I'm not going to make predictions.

If by 'some people' you mean folk that point out that several arguements were fallacious and that by its nature aggressive PvP will not work if forced on the normal player base, without it being optional, then yes, why I would figure those are some pretty reasonable folk. It might work better though, if you are trying to call folk out to actually use their names when you are using quotes from another thread. Perhaps linking that thread - locked due to a somewhat aggressively worded opening post as I recall - would give far more context than you seem to like? The core take-away from these threads has been Opt-in is necessary for such a mode, not that such a mode can not exist; just that its patently false by DE's data, play experience, and casual flipping through the forum and game's chats that forced PvP is not desired and that PvP happy players are a minority of the player-base. This however is not new, as its been said already.

Try this analogy: You have a school; and the registry and attendance for the sports program is under-performing. As a manner of engaging the sports team members that still want to be rewarded for some physical activity, a member of the administration suggests giving sports team members points for tackling members of the student body who are actively in classes. All they have to do is quickly tackle the student and get out while the student now floor bound needs to regain consciousness and remain attentive to the lesson without disrupting the flow of the classroom. Would you feel this hypothetical situation should be mandatory to all members of the student body or only Opt-in for those students that figure that they can take a body slam attempt with grace? I think the answer is pretty obvious, but I will repeat, potentially disruptive situations need to be taken cautiously; and if someone wants to chance such behavior, when an alternative exists but is underutilized by choice; Opting in is the only logical situation.

[Kontrollo]

3 minutes ago, Urlan said:

Spoiler

If by 'some people' you mean folk that point out that several arguements were fallacious and that by its nature aggressive PvP will not work if forced on the normal player base, without it being optional, then yes, why I would figure those are some pretty reasonable folk. It might work better though, if you are trying to call folk out to actually use their names when you are using quotes from another thread. Perhaps linking that thread - locked due to a somewhat aggressively worded opening post as I recall - would give far more context than you seem to like? The core take-away from these threads has been Opt-in is necessary for such a mode, not that such a mode can not exist; just that its patently false by DE's data, play experience, and casual flipping through the forum and game's chats that forced PvP is not desired and that PvP happy players are a minority of the player-base. This however is not new, as its been said already.

Try this analogy: You have a school; and the registry and attendance for the sports program is under-performing. As a manner of engaging the sports team members that still want to be rewarded for some physical activity, a member of the administration suggests giving sports team members points for tackling members of the student body who are actively in classes. All they have to do is quickly tackle the student and get out while the student now floor bound needs to regain consciousness and remain attentive to the lesson without disrupting the flow of the classroom. Would you feel this hypothetical situation should be mandatory to all members of the student body or only Opt-in for those students that figure that they can take a body slam attempt with grace? I think the answer is pretty obvious, but I will repeat, potentially disruptive situations need to be taken cautiously; and if someone wants to chance such behavior, when an alternative exists but is underutilized by choice; Opting in is the only logical situation.

 

No, by "some people" I meant just what I wrote there. Read again; the kind of people who get a rise out of trolling others ingame.

After that you kind you kind of drift off into a rant, and I don't feel like entertaining that. Have you read my previous posts here?

[BornWithTeeth]

47 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

No, by "some people" I meant just what I wrote there. Read again; the kind of people who get a rise out of trolling others ingame.

After that you kind you kind of drift off into a rant, and I don't feel like entertaining that. Have you read my previous posts here?

Perhaps a different version of said analogy?

 

You're at a party, having a nice chill time, hanging out with some folks. A guy comes in with a football and says "You wanna play football?" You say "Sorry man, football's not really my thing, but there are some guys in the kitchen talking about sports, they might be up for a game." Instantly the guy stops smiling and gets belligerent. "What's your problem? What's wrong with you?! It's NOT OK  to not wanna play football, you pansy!" and he physically tackles you off the couch.

 

Are you gonna think "Aww yeah, this guy knows how to party!" or are you gonna think "Jeez, what's wrong with this guy?"

[Kontrollo]

12 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Are you gonna think "Aww yeah

I'm gonna think "What is it with you people and bad analogies?" 🤨

Did I miss the memo? Is it bad analogy week or something? If so, you should probably go and call the sushi restaurant guy (or whatever that was), as well.

 

If you want to call me out on something specific I've written, then do so in a straight-forward way, alright? Otherwise I'm just going to respond with one-liners or dissecting posts by pointing out logical fallacies, and that's hardly a productive nor enjoyable pastime for anyone involved.