Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Joe_Barbarian

Is DE playing stalker mode ? Edit: DE is putting in an Opt-out so chill

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Corvid said:

Stalker can't show up in Assassination missions. Best you could help with would be a miniboss like the Lynx.

Normal Stalker can't.  In the last Primetime where the devs showed off Stalker Mode, Rebecca ended up in an Assassination mission against Raptor.  She was one-shotting Raptor and then trying to pick up the explosives.  (Not sure why she picked that mode, but she didn't want to grief the squad she invaded when they were already in the middle of a boss fight.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, [DE]Bear said:

Letter13 is correct. Stalker mode will be opt-in/out as described.

What will the default setting be? 

There's a reason why Facebook didnt want its services on sharing private data to be an opt-in feature on their Senate hearing. People are less likely to opt out than opt in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, (PS4)RenovaKunumaru said:

What will the default setting be? 

There's a reason why Facebook didnt want its services on sharing private data to be an opt-in feature on their Senate hearing. People are less likely to opt out than opt in.

Ballpark figures, what do you reckon? Everyone signs in after the update, gets an inbox message telling them they have to choose in or out via settings?

 

I agree that the default makes a big difference, but I’m curious what kinda percentage you might expect would choose ‘In’ if the default is out vs those who would go and select ‘Out’ if the default is in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm gonna opt out faster than I opted out of the Operator's voice clips. If I wanted to play Dark Souls, I would play Dark Souls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

Normal Stalker can't.  In the last Primetime where the devs showed off Stalker Mode, Rebecca ended up in an Assassination mission against Raptor.  She was one-shotting Raptor and then trying to pick up the explosives.  (Not sure why she picked that mode, but she didn't want to grief the squad she invaded when they were already in the middle of a boss fight.)

If it t were up to me the stalker would be able to show up *anywhere* at anytime. 50th wave of defense? Eidolons? Yup..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, (XB1)ECCHO SIERRA said:

If it t were up to me the stalker would be able to show up *anywhere* at anytime. 50th wave of defense? Eidolons? Yup..

Pretty sure that in one of the older streams where they showed off the mode, they accidentally invaded an Eidolon team.  They meant to invade a Plains mission, obviously.  Invading an Eidolon hunt was unintentional.  The person playing Stalker, possibly Rebecca again, realized what they'd done and tried to help.  The players weren't having any of it and nuked Stalker as quickly as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Ballpark figures, what do you reckon? Everyone signs in after the update, gets an inbox message telling them they have to choose in or out via settings?

 

I agree that the default makes a big difference, but I’m curious what kinda percentage you might expect would choose ‘In’ if the default is out vs those who would go and select ‘Out’ if the default is in?

Most people will stick with whatever the default setting is until it annoys them enough to change it.  It's the main reason Facebook keeps making any new settings enabled by default, and people have to expend effort to find them and turn them off.  (Apparently a *lot* of effort in some cases.  Facebook supposedly likes to hide things.)  The only way to get a "true" result would be if there's a mandatory, unskippable popup that forces you to pick one or the other and which won't go away (or set it for you) until you choose.  IE, the setting has *no* default state, and you MUST deliberately pick one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the responses here. I don't mind DE trying out something even if similar-ish things have failed before. There is a large number of people, who'd like Warframe to have some PvP content and DE seems to concur with this. The fact that some attempts were less successful than others only means it's a learning progress.

As for 'wasting' resources: I think by now we can agree that the DEs have roughly an idea on what they do and how to run a business. I don't get the impression that direly needed bug fixes or updates are delayed, because they got obsessed with PvP. They just spend some time and effort (as much as they think they can spare) on this side project. And hey... maybe one of the next attempts might end up pretty cool! Who knows?! 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a old side project from what I understand and we can opt-out of it

on one side it will allow to farm stalker faster so people can farm his drop and pigments vs his low spawn chance ,true baro sell beacon (200 ducat and 125,000 cred each) its not a option early on if you still need ducat for other things

on the other side  both the stalker and player stalker can get kill fast , lag will affect player stalker, also defense/rescue target may get harm/kill by a trollings  player

I wish that other assassin can be use as well, but Zanuka hunter and gustrag three penalty need to be remove if its a player invasion. 

edit: also I forgot to mention that the number of player mark and player willing to play as stalker will make the mode unable to be play (its rare that people play a boss node)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-02-07 at 5:04 PM, BornWithTeeth said:

Surely Magus Lockdown does not affect the Stalker. 

 

Surely not.

 

Can someone test that please.

 

Because my sides. Gentlemen, my sides will achieve orbit somewhere around Jupiter if that is the case.

Hey lads. Lads.

 

Baro brought Stalker beacons.

 

Let’s do science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, (PS4)robi191291 said:

Why not? What happen we are prescindible? And not only in the actual community, include people that star in the game but leave because miss something like this, ex-players, and people that never show interest in the game because it´s only pve. 

For me it´s fair, like +20 updates for pve and only one for pvp. 

And DE need to start to understand that raids, conclave, rails, with a little portion of the community are great for the game. It´s people playing the game, people happy that can spend money in the game. What happen when you neglected this guys for the majority that you lose this guys, you lose their money, and gonna lose the other guys, because the people say one thing and after do other. 

And like i said, DE need time to develop, then judge if it´s good. Probably one day boring, you or other play the stalker mode and maybe love it. 

 

Not trying to be rude but I don't understand what you're saying.  Prescindible isn't a word in the English language, maybe a translation error.

Those things aren't great for the game - they aren't great at all.  Raids were removed after DE suffered through trying to keep them working, constantly wasting resources.  Everybody suffered for that.  Raiders didn't have fun because of bugs, and the rest of the game suffered loss of resources because they were being dedicated to Raids that were unfixable.  

Lunaro, even by the own developers admissions, is the worst update they ever had - they lost most players than they gained because of its focus on PVP.  Not every game needs both - Warframe does not need both.   PVP has failed 4 times, it ends up dead every time - nobody plays it. 

At the end of the day though, the only problem I have with Stalker mode is that Scott said we wouldn't be able to opt out - if this game starts FORCING PVP, that IS a major problem for the 99% PVE playerbase.  IF it was just another option, like conclave, then I wouldn't have a care in the world - but when PVP starts being forced, that is not a good thing.  It needs to be a choice, not mandatory - or else you will see a very vocal side of the playerbase come out and protest against it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, InsaneLoneChimera said:

Its a old side project from what I understand and we can opt-out of it

Has this been changed?  Just 2 months ago Scott was saying it would NOT be opt out.  Perhaps I missed something, that's just the last I heard of it. 

If it is opt out then that's fine, let them have it.  It just can't be forced on us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because DE is catering to a minority doesn't mean it's a waste of resources.

I find it interesting that DE has decided to try this out. This isn't the conventional Conclave update. It's an Opt-in PvP mode that is intertwined with PvE to give players a chance to fight something that gives you feedback.

Having Stalker spawn, sitting in Void Mode, and smashing his face in with Certus Brace isn't interesting. It will be exciting to have Stalker be the first assassination target which is difficult. If you don't like it, disable it, and you can go back to using your Amp to kill him for a Molten Impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Voltage said:

It's an Opt-in PvP mode

I've already asked - but do we know this?  I'm a little out of the loop in the last month or so - but just back in Dec/Jan Scott was saying it would not be Opt-In?

Just wondering if they updated their position on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Voltage said:

Just because DE is catering to a minority doesn't mean it's a waste of resources.

I find it interesting that DE has decided to try this out. This isn't the conventional Conclave update. It's an Opt-in PvP mode that is intertwined with PvE to give players a chance to fight something that gives you feedback.

Having Stalker spawn, sitting in Void Mode, and smashing his face in with Certus Brace isn't interesting. It will be exciting to have Stalker be the first assassination target which is difficult. If you don't like it, disable it, and you can go back to using your Amp to kill him for a Molten Impact.

Actually it is exactly that, a waste of resources. Or does DE have some secret extra special dev team compared to pretty much every company out there? It is not uncommon to get the answer "no we cant do that, it would be a waste of resources to cater to wishes of the minority" when you request things in certain games. It is no different here. If they wont get more activity in Stalker mode than they have in conclave it will just be one massive waste of resources. Even if they get double the activity it will still be a fail because we'd be looking at 2% of the playerbase in that case.

And when Scott has already said that they dont want an opt-in because they dont want a DoA mode it sounds as if even he (and probably the rest of DE) is aware it isnt a wanted game mode. Still they go and decide to make it opt-in. So it will be DoA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, (PS4)lagrue said:

I've already asked - but do we know this?  I'm a little out of the loop in the last month or so - but just back in Dec/Jan Scott was saying it would not be Opt-In?

Just wondering if they updated their position on that. 

There's a dev post from DE Bear stickied at the top of every page in this thread now, confirming that it will have a toggle.  The post by itself doesn't make the default state clear, but does directly confirm that there will be a toggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it looks to me like it's the PvE players vs PvP players here, and DE is trying to convert the game to PvP. PvP is by definition a game mode whose whole purpose is conflict with other players rather than cooperation; it converts every player from default 'potential Ally' to default 'potential Enemy.' The anonymity afforded by Stalker play allows a single person at any time to come in and attempt to ruin a mission for up to four people, whether by killing players or hampering objectives. This destroys the default trust you have in your community; the whole expectation that other players are going to be on your side. It encourages the worst behavior in game play- sabotage- and will attract the most toxic people to sign up as Stalker. Worse still, players who have been recently screwed over tend to be angry; anyone who has played on open servers in Minecraft can testify that the most destructive griefers are those who've just been griefed. You will have an endless wave of angry players trying to get revenge on the server, revenge on faceless other players, and either perpetuating the rage and bad feelings for other players, or else being stomped in their own attempts at playing Stalker and getting even more upset. This is the thing rage quits are made of, the feeling of powerlessness and frustration, and what DE proposes here is an engine whose sole output will be frustration and anger forced into a vehicle that has been all about 'players versus the game.' I recognize that DE wants to provide a varied and enjoyable experience for as wide a player base as possible. But see the forest for the trees. This new tree you're looking to grow here is going to poison the soil for the rest of the forest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

There's a dev post from DE Bear stickied at the top of every page in this thread now, confirming that it will have a toggle.  The post by itself doesn't make the default state clear, but does directly confirm that there will be a toggle.

Perfect, that wasn't there before but thanks for directing me to it.  I'll withdraw any complaints/skepticism.  Since it's not mandatory, I have no reason to be upset. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Let it be, man. See how it works out.

@Letter13 @[DE]Bear I have a question for you 3. 

No body is really asking the important questions. For example: 

Like how is it decided who gets to be the stalker?

How many stalkers can there be at any give point?

What is stopping anybody from "stalker boosting"?

Also sounds like lots of host migration, because not even that is been ironed out. And still will require more time and resources in maintenance and bug fixes to keep it working. tenor.gif

I don't share the same optimism as everybody else. Because all I see is an unnecessary mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, (XB1)RDeschain82 said:

@Letter13 @[DE]Bear I have a question for you 3. 

No body is asking the important questions. Like how is it decided who gets to be the stalker? How many stalkers can there be at any give point? Also sounds like lots of host migration, because not even that is been ironed out. And will require more time and resources in maintenance and bug fixes to keep it working. tenor.gif

If you watched the 2017 TennoCon event where a player was allowed to be the stalker and invade people, the system works a lot like that. Or if you watched the Prime Time where Rebecca played as the Stalker.

Basically, a 4 man group starts a mission. They play through the mission normally, there is no "who gets to be the stalker" in matchmaking. Then, if someone else entirely, unrelated to the mission in progress and unrelated to the people in the mission, says "Hey I feel like invading some folks" they then start up matchmaking as the Stalker. The servers then look for active missions where all participants have opted in to the PvP stalker mode, and where at least 1 player in the mission is marked for death by the stalker, picks a group, and drops the player stalker in. There's no guarantee that you'll be invaded by a player stalker if you meet all the criteria either. 

As for host migrations, they will always be a thing. There is no easy way to 'iron it out' because the game is a peer-to-peer server-client system for running the game; only the matchmaking server is dedicated. Introducing Stalker mode isn't going to magically make host migrations worse or happen every time everywhere. As for maintenance? Maintenance is something that really only needs to happen on dedicated servers, the mode wouldn't add more maintenance costs or resource costs for maintaining it. It gets added in, and that's that. If a bug is found, it gets reported and it gets patched; some things might be tweaked, but in terms of time and resources it would be minuscule or negligible compared to the time and resources for other parts of the game.

DE isn't a small company anymore. They're pretty darn big now. They have the bandwidth to support a lot of small side projects like Stalker mode.

 

15 minutes ago, (XB1)RDeschain82 said:

Like how is it decided who gets to be the stalker?

Answered this above.

16 minutes ago, (XB1)RDeschain82 said:

How many stalkers can there be at any give point?

As many as there are active teams who have all opted-in to the mode and have at least 1 member marked by the Stalker, probably. But only 1 stalker present for each group, you're not going to get invaded by multiple stalkers. 

17 minutes ago, (XB1)RDeschain82 said:

What is stopping anybody from "stalker boosting"?

You mean people farming stalkers? Probably nothing. Though invading groups will probably be random and you won't be able to invade specific groups repeatedly (also probably only 1 Stalker invasion per mission run, get invaded, you have to clear the mission to get invaded again, or it clears your stalker mark and you have to go re-kill a boss). If that's not what you mean, you'll have to explain what you mean in more detail.

18 minutes ago, (XB1)RDeschain82 said:

I don't share the same optimism is everybody else. 

Then just opt to not opt-in when it goes public. You don't have to participate in it, and it's not like it's gonna somehow ruin your game through osmosis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, (PS4)lagrue said:

Not trying to be rude but I don't understand what you're saying.  Prescindible isn't a word in the English language, maybe a translation error.

Quick google search indicates that it's Spanish for "Dispensable".

Incidentally, "Prescind" is actually a word, meaning "To leave out of considerations", presumably from similar origins to the word "rescind".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, (PS4)lagrue said:

Perfect, that wasn't there before but thanks for directing me to it.  I'll withdraw any complaints/skepticism.  Since it's not mandatory, I have no reason to be upset. 

Expect the default state to be "Off" and that players will have to manually opt-in in order to be eligible for PvP invasion. DE isn't out of touch with the playerbase, and they're aware how many people dislike PvP. They're not going to force people to play PvP, so if you don't want to be invaded by a player controlled Stalker, you likely won't have to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Letter13 said:

If you watched the 2017 TennoCon event where a player was allowed to be the stalker and invade people, the system works a lot like that. Or if you watched the Prime Time where Rebecca played as the Stalker.

Basically, a 4 man group starts a mission. They play through the mission normally, there is no "who gets to be the stalker" in matchmaking. Then, if someone else entirely, unrelated to the mission in progress and unrelated to the people in the mission, says "Hey I feel like invading some folks" they then start up matchmaking as the Stalker. The servers then look for active missions where all participants have opted in to the PvP stalker mode, and where at least 1 player in the mission is marked for death by the stalker, picks a group, and drops the player stalker in. There's no guarantee that you'll be invaded by a player stalker if you meet all the criteria either. 

As for host migrations, they will always be a thing. There is no easy way to 'iron it out' because the game is a peer-to-peer server-client system for running the game; only the matchmaking server is dedicated. Introducing Stalker mode isn't going to magically make host migrations worse or happen every time everywhere. As for maintenance? Maintenance is something that really only needs to happen on dedicated servers, the mode wouldn't add more maintenance costs or resource costs for maintaining it. It gets added in, and that's that. If a bug is found, it gets reported and it gets patched; some things might be tweaked, but in terms of time and resources it would be minuscule or negligible compared to the time and resources for other parts of the game.

DE isn't a small company anymore. They're pretty darn big now. They have the bandwidth to support a lot of small side projects like Stalker mode.

 

Answered this above.

As many as there are active teams who have all opted-in to the mode and have at least 1 member marked by the Stalker, probably. But only 1 stalker present for each group, you're not going to get invaded by multiple stalkers. 

You mean people farming stalkers? Probably nothing. Though invading groups will probably be random and you won't be able to invade specific groups repeatedly (also probably only 1 Stalker invasion per mission run, get invaded, you have to clear the mission to get invaded again, or it clears your stalker mark and you have to go re-kill a boss). If that's not what you mean, you'll have to explain what you mean in more detail.

Then just opt to not opt-in when it goes public. You don't have to participate in it, and it's not like it's gonna somehow ruin your game through osmosis.

execution and implementation are two different things. That said I guess we'll see what we'll see. Because where I'm standing all I see is an unnecessary mess. And yet another waste of company time and resources no matter how minimal it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, (XB1)RDeschain82 said:

execution and implementation are two different things so I guess we'll see what we'll see. Because where I'm standing all I see is an unnecessary mess.

Well, like I said.... Just don't opt-in for it and your game experience will remain unchanged.

A lot of people are interested in the game mode, it looks genuinely fun to a lot of people. You may see it as unnecessary and unwanted, but that's just your opinion, it's a subjective view you hold. If you approach Warframe's features added over time objectively, everything that DE has ever added--prime frames, orokin void, orokin derelicts, archwing, underwater maps, new enemies, new bosses--were all unnecessary; but just because something is unnecessary or unwanted in one person's opinion doesn't mean it isn't necessary or wanted in another's. DE doesn't have to only release content that appeals to 100% of players, and in fact it would be practically impossible to do so because Warframe's community is gigantic. It's not possible to make 100% of players happy with new features.

I'm not going to even try to convince you to play or enjoy the new Stalker game-mode that's being opened up to the public. If you don't want any traces of PvP in your game, you don't have to have them. Opt out of it, more power to you. But complaining about a PvP mode when you don't even have to play it, raining on others' fun and just generally posting doomsayings about how adding it will somehow usher in the end of times for the game and all future content is just bad form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Letter13: the poster you answered to probably meant that all this is a mess waiting to happen due to all the potential problems and glitches, an unnecessary one because there are a lot more things that should have had much more priority than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...