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

[Ryusuta]

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.

[(XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA]

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..

[EmberStar]

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.

[EmberStar]

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.

[DjaAkh]

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?! 🙂

[InsaneLoneChimera]

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)

Edited February 8, 2019 by InsaneLoneChimera

[BornWithTeeth]

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.

[(PSN)N7_Dredgen]

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.  

Edited February 8, 2019 by (PS4)lagrue

[(PSN)N7_Dredgen]

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.  

Edited February 8, 2019 by (PS4)lagrue

[Voltage]

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.

[(PSN)N7_Dredgen]

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. 

[SneakyErvin]

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.

[EmberStar]

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.

[R4GD0LL]

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. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by R4GD0LL
Spelling errors

[(PSN)N7_Dredgen]

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. 

[(XBOX)YoungGunn82]

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. 

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

Edited February 8, 2019 by (XB1)RDeschain82

[Letter13]

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. 

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.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Letter13
Included answers for questions added after the fact

[Corvid]

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".

[Letter13]

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.

[(XBOX)YoungGunn82]

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.

Edited February 8, 2019 by (XB1)RDeschain82

[Letter13]

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.

[Ikusias]

@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.

[MagPrime]

1 minute ago, Ikusias said:

@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.

But there are different groups that handle different aspects of the game.  The projects that you feel should take priority aren't being slowed due to this as there is a PvP development team that probably isn't repurposed elsewhere, so this new thing isn't pulling them from other projects; they were never on them to begin with. 

Yeah, it's gonna cause bugs in the game but everything DE does causes that already. 

[EmberStar]

25 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

But there are different groups that handle different aspects of the game.  The projects that you feel should take priority aren't being slowed due to this as there is a PvP development team that probably isn't repurposed elsewhere, so this new thing isn't pulling them from other projects; they were never on them to begin with. 

Yeah, it's gonna cause bugs in the game but everything DE does causes that already. 

I used to follow the City of Heroes forums.  At one point, one of the devs (an animator) was showing off how he had made what he felt were improvements to one of the standard character animations.  Someone responded to him, complaining viciously "Why are you wasting time on this when you should all be fixing bugs?"  He replied that he *could* try to apply his knowledge of 3D animation techniques to correcting networking and coding bugs.  But that he was *pretty* sure nobody would like how it turned out.

It's not quite the same thing here - someone is spending time on programing stalker mode and setting up matchmaking (and building the syndicate and creating rewards for that and so on.)  Some of these things *could* be seen as competition for time and resources with equivalent PVE content (such as a new, non-PVP faction that also has new rewards, etc.)  It's still not cut and dried though.  If the current main projects are, let's say the Jupiter Gas-mining tileset rework and the Wolf of Saturn 5 event, there could be breaks in the schedule where one team has done everything (animation, coding, 3D modeling) and is waiting for something else to be finished.  They *could* just start flailing away at the next project (War Within, Railjack) or the one after that.  Or they could throw a few hours at something like Stalker Mode instead of sitting around for half the day or going home early.

I'm not a fan of PVP, and I definitely plan to opt-out now that we have confirmation that it will be allowed.  My original complaint/reservation/freakout about the system was from the interview where Scott mentioned that he would prefer there was no opt out because everyone would just turn it off.  We have a Dev quote now (outside of hidden super secret forums) saying that is no longer the case.  Will I be annoyed if there are weapons or cosmetics added that I can't get?  A bit.  Do I have any intention of even giving the mode a try to see how it turns out?  No.  And yeah, there'll probably be bugs.  But they clearly have people who do stuff like design the side factions, and they already have a framework set up for it.  (Simaris, the Syndicates, Ostrons, Solaris United and Vox Solaris, the Quills.) 

This looks like a project that a handful of people are making in addition to anything else going on.  Not something that's causing the entire studio to grind to a halt to get it finished.  In fact, they said they're NOT going to do the big super-secret Tennocon demo this year because it turns into *exactly* that kind of drain, to focus on continuing updates and content instead.

Personally as long as I have the option to ignore Stalke Mode, then fine, whatever.  Go nuts.

Edited February 8, 2019 by EmberStar
Expanded an acronym, since there's no reason to assume anyone knows or cares what CoH might mean.

[Ikusias]

Honestly while on paper the concept of a player-controlled Stalker seems interesting, the potential for abuse and trolling is fairly high and it feels way too similar to invasions in Dark Souls 1, balance problems included: what's in there for the players that opt-in for being harrassed? what's for the Stalker player that will probably be ganked in the first 5 seconds of engagement or covered in insults, reported fo unsportsmanlike behaviour etc.?

At the same time the proposed concept feels very barebones:

- what's the role behind playing trough the eyes of the kinslayer?

- what will be the rewards? access to some of its rarest drops?  will Stalker mk II dros be improved in view of its higher difficulty?

- personalization? why not instead let us create a patchwork frame like the Acolites ones?

- will there be actual measures to prevent stalker players being toxic brats?

- letting the Stalker being played by the community also remove part of the draw of the character downgrading it to a minigame that permits/encourages harrassing people in-game.

Conclave needs a revamp, Lunaro is dead in the water, Archwing maps are populated only during Fomorian events, Saryn is still broken as hell balancewise after her rework, Onslaught is a mess that forces players to the usual 2-3 meta frames, Arbitrations ramped the tedium instead of the challenge factor by needlessly prolonging each phase of a rotation instead of adding many more enemies and new threats...

I believe is quite clear why i'm not much enthused about this latest addition while there wasn't any announcement regarding fixing al the above messes.