What If 'players' Acted Out The Stalker Role.. Like In Dark Souls?

[Wolver]

How Bout instead of playing as the rogue tenno "stalker" you and others are playing as a special grineer team. It could serve two rolls, first either team has a goal, whether the tenno are assaulting and the grineer defending and vice versa. and two it Might eliminate the rush style, ( of course this whole thing could be a different game type so rushers can still rush.) It would make sense not to run fanatically into a grineer spec ops team geared for this kind of stuff. the game mode may expand on the stealth and strategy also.

 

Just my thoughts.

[DetodAntros]

I guess the Stalker Idea is valid, but still this pvp " assassination mission" needs to add more fun. By fun i mean adding something that really matter for who wins, and more importantly, TAKING SOMETHING FROM WHO LOOSE. Now the only thing i can imagine who can work in this aspect is the money. The player who is the "stalker" should win x% ammount of credits of who he is stalking, which ammount should be takken out from who loose.

 

In every game, pvp just matter if one part wins..... and another looses.

[Woolytop]

As far as PvP goes, you guys know two people can fight without killing each other, right? Duels to first blood used to happen all the time in medival europe. Further, the Tenno seem to be heavily based in Japanese lore and ideas, so it's entirely possible that they have rules for duels between two tenno set up.
As for the stalker/invader idea, I've come out with support on the idea before, but the more I read about it, the less I like the idea. What if you get invaded while doing a ? alert on your own that you just barely slid into under the time with no revives left? You could be out a potato at that point, and that's not cool. And if the player doesn't actually *die* or get forced out of thier mission, then what's the point? It would just be annoying.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Woolytop

[TheErebus.]

As far as PvP goes, you guys know two people can fight without killing each other, right? Duels to first blood used to happen all the time in medival europe. Further, the Tenno seem to be heavily based in Japanese lore and ideas, so it's entirely possible that they have rules for duels between two tenno set up.

As for the stalker/invader idea, I've come out with support on the idea before, but the more I read about it, the less I like the idea. What if you get invaded while doing a ? alert on your own that you just barely slid into under the time with no revives left? You could be out a potato at that point, and that's not cool. And if the player doesn't actually *die* or get forced out of thier mission, then what's the point? It would just be annoying.

That's why they are suggesting an option that toggles whether you can be invaded or you cannot.

[J-SHERIDAN]

Players should never be a Stalker. EVER.

 

Everyone who plays a Stalker would be griefing other players by default and somehow I doubt Stalker players are going to avoid picking on easy targets.

Hmm... do I randomly attack four well armed people or helplessly slaughter the people that are minding their own business in the lower levels.

 

The current Stalker is bad enough for often picking on people that are unprepared or in stacked situations - I.E Defence missions, when your on a map which reduces your shields or playing with an new / underpowered frame. Fortunatly that is mitigated by being a RNG situation and it is rather rare.

 

Throwing an actual player behind that will only result in acts of pure malicious trolling such as them not only going after the person they were sent for but everyone ELSE. Now imagine that is an alert where the Dark Sword or other super rare items / events and this single player has literally ruined other peoples game.

[Dashx]

Impossible to balance, what about invincbility/invisibility/long duration stuns? high dmg abilities and weapons? Do headshots to you deal double damage? can you get critted? what boni do you get, since you dont realy expect to be able to solo 4 full leveled and modded people? or do you plan to stalk only noobs to ruin their game?

 

I don't think that you read the part where the Stalker would have default unmodded weapons... :P nor that it would be random and you would have no option to choose who you would have to kill.

 

Players should never be a Stalker. EVER.

 

Everyone who plays a Stalker would be griefing other players by default and somehow I doubt Stalker players are going to avoid picking on easy targets.

Hmm... do I randomly attack four well armed people or helplessly slaughter the people that are minding their own business in the lower levels.

 

The current Stalker is bad enough for often picking on people that are unprepared or in stacked situations - I.E Defence missions, when your on a map which reduces your shields or playing with an new / underpowered frame. Fortunatly that is mitigated by being a RNG situation and it is rather rare.

 

Throwing an actual player behind that will only result in acts of pure malicious trolling such as them not only going after the person they were sent for but everyone ELSE. Now imagine that is an alert where the Dark Sword or other super rare items / events and this single player has literally ruined other peoples game.

 

Again.. choosing who you're going against would never be an option. I doubt every player would be as malicious as you say.

 

If you have to complain about a stalker ruining the game, then just don't let him invade lol. Does nobody read that it would be optional? '-'

[Aggh]

@J-sheridan:  Next time read the discussion before you blabber nonsense.  Every single complain you have has been discussed and can easily be mitigated.

 

Impossible to balance, what about invincbility/invisibility/long duration stuns? high dmg abilities and weapons? Do headshots to you deal double damage? can you get critted? what boni do you get, since you dont realy expect to be able to solo 4 full leveled and modded people? or do you plan to stalk only noobs to ruin their game?

 

If they imply PvP, which i hope, it should only be in a special arena or special levels.

Your idea will only lead to frustration, on both sides.

"Oh these damn noobs had 2 mags and 2 rhinos, i was dead the moment one mag pulled me into them!"

"Omg this stupid stalker just ulted with ash and we were all dead, why? We allmost finished the mission!"

"What the hell, i died in one second because of his op overcharged afuris he emptied right into my face!"

 

Its only fun for the winning side. And the stalker has nothing to lose, while the regular Tennos will probably want to finish their mission.

 

One vs many is allways difficult to balance, but in a PvE focussed game, impossible.

It's not supposed to be balanced.  It's supposed to add a challenge and a little pvp.  Lol.  Supercharged afuris can barely kill stalker now as it is.  A stalker that doesn't stand around like a retard and knows how to use his abilities won't be nearly as easy to kill.

[TheErebus.]

@J-sheridan:  Next time read the discussion before you blabber nonsense.  Every single complain you have has been discussed and can easily be mitigated.

 

It's not supposed to be balanced.  It's supposed to add a challenge and a little pvp.  Lol.  Supercharged afuris can barely kill stalker now as it is.  A stalker that doesn't stand around like a retard and knows how to use his abilities won't be nearly as easy to kill.

Actually, now I'm starting to be on the side for this topic. In the hands of a skilled player, the stalker can be a force to be reckoned with. 

[Aggh]

Actually, now I'm starting to be on the side for this topic. In the hands of a skilled player, the stalker can be a force to be reckoned with. 

It still will probably be much harder for the stalker.  It's still a 4v1.  But that's the whole point, it's supposed to add some challenge for both the players and the stalker.

[Dashx]

It still will probably be much harder for the stalker.  It's still a 4v1.  But that's the whole point, it's supposed to add some challenge for both the players and the stalker.

 

Yeah, but unfortunately it seems that many people can't see the challenge there and they just look at this like it were plain pvp :|

[Jaon]

I cant believe all the hate for this idea. Seriously??

I think its a great idea. If a player stalker could only enter a squad of 4 players, on certain systems, had a single target, and disappeared after downing that target, thats fantastic!

It inspires teamwork in the team. Let the squad of 4 know an enemy stalker player has appeared near their location, spawn that player 2 rooms away. Maybe even make the NPCs hostile to this player? Or make them despawn in the room he is in when he spawns?

None the less, 4 on 1, stalkers probably gonna lose. Itd be awesome still to feel that sense of fear knowing a player is hunting one of you. 

apart from bosses, even the highest level planets are facerolls with a squad of 4 and a shiny internet connection. I think this is a great idea. 


maybe the mechanic for actually joining one of these would be a ? for a single player at a time. IDK but I really like this idea. 

[Dashx]

It inspires teamwork in the team. Let the squad of 4 know an enemy stalker player has appeared near their location, spawn that player 2 rooms away. Maybe even make the NPCs hostile to this player? Or make them despawn in the room he is in when he spawns?

 

The NPCs already are hostile to the Stalker.

[Liminal]

PvP should only ever happen with the players consent. It's that simple.

 

If you have to complain about a stalker ruining the game, then just don't let him invade lol. Does nobody read that it would be optional? '-'

The OP doesn't mention any option.

Edited April 16, 2013 by The_Doc

[Dashx]

PvP should only ever happen with the players consent. It's that simple.

 

Isn't that the WHOLE POINT of being OPTIONAL? 

[Tsukinoki]

Two things that would make this too trollish is:1) If there are rewards for killing the stalker or the player what happens if the stalker say pulls his plug to dump out of the mission before he loses therefore denying the party the reward for killing him? Or what happens if the players do that instead?2) Since the stalker does a straight kill without chance to revive, say he joins a group of 4 utter noobs who dont know to turn the option and then decides to not kill his target and just repeatedly kill everyone else in the group until they are all out of rives.With either of those scenarios I can easily this turning to griefing/trolling.

[Vechenko]

one way to make it better would to let the target and his squad mates have a free revives if they get downed by the stalker and once the stalker is gone the misison resumes as normal, and have some pretty hefty rewards for either side to win for some incentive to agree to pvp. Also a timer could be useful to stop trolls from taking their time

[Tsukinoki]

one way to make it better would to let the target and his squad mates have a free revives if they get downed by the stalker and once the stalker is gone the misison resumes as normal, and have some pretty hefty rewards for either side to win for some incentive to agree to pvp. Also a timer could be useful to stop trolls from taking their time

 

That still doesnt prevent a stalker from going "Crap...Im losing...Im going to DC so that I deny them any rewards at all"And there will be griefers/trolls who will do that, or the other way around of "Crap, stalker came into this mission when I just dont want to deal with him and I forgot to go solo...better forfit so he doesn't get any rewards"And if the party gets free revives that makes the stalkers job even harder than it already is as he kills someone and presto they are back no issue and not even using a revive (which honestly is the only thing that makes the stalker have a consequence of losing a revive if he kills you) and can then proceed to shoot at the stalker again.

[Fujimura]

What stalker? I watched the devs talk about the clan update no mention of a stalker.

[Tsukinoki]

What stalker? I watched the devs talk about the clan update no mention of a stalker.

 

The stalker is a rare NPC spawn that happens after you kill a few bosses. He shows up as a warframe and proceeds to try to kill one member of your party using a few abilities such as Slash Dash, Smoke Bomb, and Teleport.

[Fujimura]

I see, but then why didn't the devs talk about it?

[Tsukinoki]

I see, but then why didn't the devs talk about it?

 Its been in the game for a while and they snuck it in to surprise people.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Tsukinoki

[Fujimura]

they be keeping secrets :x

[Dashx]

Two things that would make this too trollish is:

 

1) If there are rewards for killing the stalker or the player what happens if the stalker say pulls his plug to dump out of the mission before he loses therefore denying the party the reward for killing him? Or what happens if the players do that instead?

 

2) Since the stalker does a straight kill without chance to revive, say he joins a group of 4 utter noobs who dont know to turn the option and then decides to not kill his target and just repeatedly kill everyone else in the group until they are all out of rives.

 

With either of those scenarios I can easily this turning to griefing/trolling.

 

 

I think you're being a little too extreme with these. But fine. I'll try to answer.

 

1) A fine way to counter that would be that, if you quit, you don't win anything. There's nothing to "lose" if you simply die lol. As a Stalker i mean. And if he quit before dying well. I guess the game could simply consider him killed. I don't know. A way to couter this would be like on Left 4 Dead, that when a player leaves a bot takes over the character. But i'm not sure if this would be possible here.

 

2) Just make the option off by default. The player would have to manually turn it on. That would prevent many newbies from meeting a stalker earlier than they should. And also, there should have a minimum level for you to encounter it. IIRC once a stalker kill someone they can't be revived by other players, they need to spend a revive token. So perhaps they should just make it that players being killed by the Stalker can't be revived at all for the rest of the mission. It will be a simple case of kill or be killed. Besides... it's 4 vs 1 '-'..

 

So if you think it's still a really bad idea. Just leave it off.

 

one way to make it better would to let the target and his squad mates have a free revives if they get downed by the stalker and once the stalker is gone the misison resumes as normal, and have some pretty hefty rewards for either side to win for some incentive to agree to pvp. Also a timer could be useful to stop trolls from taking their time

 

Free revives. Just no. As for the timer. It could work.

 

Edited April 16, 2013 by Dashx

[Tsukinoki]

2) Just make the option off by default. The player would have to manually turn it on. That would prevent many newbies from meeting a stalker earlier than they should. And also, there should have a minimum level for you to encounter it. IIRC once a stalker kill someone they can't be revived by other players, they need to spend a revive token. So perhaps they should just make it that players being killed by the Stalker can't be revived at all for the rest of the mission. It will be a simple case of kill or be killed. Besides... it's 4 vs 1 '-'..

Im just trying to think of various potential issues that could be abused by this system and cause a lot of rage. Its part of the discussion. Also the point of griefers/trolls would be: Hop into random mission, try to kill them to use up one of their revives and get the reward but quit if they are losing so that the people they invade don't get a reward.

Anyways, considering a loss if the other person DCs should handle the first point I bring up decently enough. Though about the second thing where you say if you die dont let them revive at all. Then They shouldn't allow the stalker to appear during a boss mission, alert mission, or defense mission in that case. Otherwise that could force a forefit for the rest of the team if he hops into a defense mission and wipes out two players before leaving leaving the party unable to get to the next extraction point.

If it happens against a boss and he kills 2 or 3 of them before they make it to a boss he just made that mission a hell of a lot harder, and unnecessarily punishes players who left on the invade option when they decided to go up against a boss.

Also, what happens if one person has it disabled in a group of 3 people who left it enabled? Or vice versa?

Would you either

A) Lock it for everyone if only one person has it turned off?

or B) Turn it on for everyone if only one person has it turned on?

Edited April 16, 2013 by Tsukinoki

[Dashx]

Im just trying to think of various potential issues that could be abused by this system and cause a lot of rage. Its part of the discussion. Also the point of griefers/trolls would be: Hop into random mission, try to kill them to use up one of their revives and get the reward but quit if they are losing so that the people they invade don't get a reward.

 

Anyways, considering a loss if the other person DCs should handle the first point I bring up decently enough. Though about the second thing where you say if you die dont let them revive at all. Then They shouldn't allow the stalker to appear during a boss mission, alert mission, or defense mission in that case. Otherwise that could force a forefit for the rest of the team if he hops into a defense mission and wipes out two players before leaving leaving the party unable to get to the next extraction point.

 

If it happens against a boss and he kills 2 or 3 of them before they make it to a boss he just made that mission a hell of a lot harder, and unnecessarily punishes players who left on the invade option when they decided to go up against a boss.

 

Also, what happens if one person has it disabled in a group of 3 people who left it enabled? Or vice versa?

 

Would you either A) Lock it for everyone if only one person has it turned off? or B) Turn it on for everyone if only one person has it turned on?

 

I know this is part of the discussion. This is why this has to be a limited feature rather than an option where you can be the stalker anytime you want. If the stalker quits, i think it's the best that the game considers it as if he was killed. And then the players do get a reward. Maybe a limited one, but they'll still get something. As it's not their fault if the Stalker left.

 

What i said about not being able to be revived from others is that I think this already happens with the Stalker NPC (correct me if i'm wrong, never died to him without a group). When he kills someone, teammates don't have the chance to revive the killed player. He has to spend a revive token, or forfeit and stay dead.

 

Again.. if the players don't want the Stalkers in their mission, they should just left it off. I don't quite get what you mean about being unable to get to the extraction point. Nothing makes it impossible as far as I know. 

 

That's not punishment. It's just the game. If most people couldn't accept something like that then they just have to make it that the stalker will only appear after the boss (in case of boss missions). Wouldn't that fix this extra "difficulty"?

 

That would be up to the host. And only to the host. But what happens when the host leaves or gets DC? Well, the next host should receive a message asking if he would like to turn it on (in case the previous host had the option on and the next one doesn't).