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

[Sophax]

PvP.

[Aggh]

So you want to troll people? Bad idea.

Doing something like this would add nothing but trouble. People want to do their missions. Not being attacked by some %&^ who simply attacks others.....

If you as the target could actually disable the "invade" option maybe. But I still dont see why I should want to be invaded....

They could have better drops on player controlled stalkers. For example, have there be the possbility of weapon BPs.

[Venarge]

They could have better drops on player controlled stalkers. For example, have there be the possbility of weapon BPs.

Yeah but people still would make arrangements on global chat. Stalker joins, does nothing, dies. Stalker goes into mission himself, arranged the same for the others in the global chat, repeats. This simply doesnt work. You just have to isolate the possible PVP from PVE.

[Aggh]

Yeah but people still would make arrangements on global chat. Stalker joins, does nothing, dies. Stalker goes into mission himself, arranged the same for the others in the global chat, repeats. This simply doesnt work. You just have to isolate the possible PVP from PVE.

That would only work if they had control over which missions they were sent to. They could shut players in a stalker mission out of the chat and have them be unable to see player names. Providing an even better reward for the stalker would also provide incentive for them to not try and abuse the system. They could also have the amount of damage dealt to players and vice versa affect the drop rate to prevent blatant farming.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Aggh

[King_Midas]

anyone here ever played global agenda? pretty much the same format as warframe. pick a class, go through a randomly genorated scifi place, kill robots, kill bosses, whatever. theres one gamemode called double agent that puts 4 players against a standard level with 2 enemy players in it. The goal for the 4 player team is to beat the level and kill the boss in under 10 minutes, and the goal of the 2 player team is to keep the boss alive for more than 10 minutes. Theres unlimited respawns, so that wouldnt really work in warframe. However, something like that would be a cool idea to me. Theres no being invaded aspect, everyone knows what theyre getting when the queue up for that gamemode.

I do think the invading idea sounds nice, but too many people would complain about being killed. Hell, people are already complaining about the stalker. The ability to take control of an elite enemy (ancients, grineer generals, does corpus have any? lol) would be a cool idea. No stat increases or anything, just a smarter enemy to fight.

For all the people who say "but pvp doesnt fit the lore!!", I dont understand. Are you saying the grineer wouldnt make up some scheme to pit tennos against eachother? I can picture general vor saying "Hello tenno, how would you like to make a few credits? Simply kill a few of your brethen for me and you will be rewarded." I can see the corpus paying you to be some sort of elite security force. I have no idea how the infected will play into this...offering you materials in exchange for spreading the infection? Whatever the case, it could easily fit in with the lore.

[Aggh]

anyone here ever played global agenda? pretty much the same format as warframe. pick a class, go through a randomly genorated scifi place, kill robots, kill bosses, whatever. theres one gamemode called double agent that puts 4 players against a standard level with 2 enemy players in it. The goal for the 4 player team is to beat the level and kill the boss in under 10 minutes, and the goal of the 2 player team is to keep the boss alive for more than 10 minutes. Theres unlimited respawns, so that wouldnt really work in warframe. However, something like that would be a cool idea to me. Theres no being invaded aspect, everyone knows what theyre getting when the queue up for that gamemode.

I do think the invading idea sounds nice, but too many people would complain about being killed. Hell, people are already complaining about the stalker. The ability to take control of an elite enemy (ancients, grineer generals, does corpus have any? lol) would be a cool idea. No stat increases or anything, just a smarter enemy to fight.

All they'd have to do is give people an option to opt out of player controlled stalkers.

For all the people who say "but pvp doesnt fit the lore!!", I dont understand. Are you saying the grineer wouldnt make up some scheme to pit tennos against eachother? I can picture general vor saying "Hello tenno, how would you like to make a few credits? Simply kill a few of your brethen for me and you will be rewarded." I can see the corpus paying you to be some sort of elite security force. I have no idea how the infected will play into this...offering you materials in exchange for spreading the infection? Whatever the case, it could easily fit in with the lore.

Nevermind that the devs have said that they eventually plan to do some kind of pvp.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Aggh

[MEsoJD]

It would be awesome to invade another players world like Dark Souls.

[Katakuna]

I'll say the same thing that I did on another thread about the exact same thing.

Meh, but this would require coming with an option to refuse any invasion attempts.

For those of us that came to play Warframe, not Dark Souls.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Katakuna

[Aggh]

I'll say the same thing that I did on another thread about the exact same thing.

Which in all likelihood would be the one of the easiest parts of implementing this :|

Edited March 29, 2013 by Aggh

[LordLokai]

was a reason i never connected to internet when it came to darksouls... entire invasion idea would be fine if i wanted pvp in my single player game and opted for it, the problem is making it " forced " is TERRIBLE idea... while i like the concept i think its overly a bad idea, to make forced... the thing is for as tough as the stalker is AI for him is pretty bad... at level 24 i got him to half hp mostly because he just stood there and let me shoot him. Put that power into hands of a player and you will never lose... i think just need to conceed and add an arena into the game done in a VR simulation(like the tutorial) and basicllay wash hands of it saying " we arent balancing this but you can still do it" for those that want to.

Fits the lore by being a training mission, and lets pvpers have there pvp with out forcing it or effecting pve at all.

[JerryMouse13]

This game is primarialy PvE and the skills are balanced accordingly. Attempting to inject PvP into a game that was built for PvE from the ground up is a bad idea. How would you balance ultimates? how would you balance invulrenability powers? How do you balance decoys? How do you balance a single player fighting 4 enemies? How? How? HOW?

All of our skills are meant to be used against AI foes, trying to use them against a foe with a human at the helm is quite frankly uterly impractical. PvP would require a rework of the combat system, or at the very least the powers. That is completely unreasonable and quite frankly unneeded.

Warframe doesn't need a PvP system. It dosen't add much of worth to the game, and it adds countless hours of testing, rebalance, bug fixing, and more.

Direct PvP will not be a thing in the near future, and it is arguable if it even should to be a thing.

[Aggh]

This game is primarialy PvE and the skills are balanced accordingly. Attempting to inject PvP into a game that was built for PvE from the ground up is a bad idea. How would you balance ultimates? how would you balance invulrenability powers? How do you balance decoys? How do you balance a single player fighting 4 enemies? How? How? HOW?

All of our skills are meant to be used against AI foes, trying to use them against a foe with a human at the helm is quite frankly uterly impractical. PvP would require a rework of the combat system, or at the very least the powers. That is completely unreasonable and quite frankly unneeded.

Warframe doesn't need a PvP system. It dosen't add much of worth to the game, and it adds countless hours of testing, rebalance, bug fixing, and more.

Direct PvP will not be a thing in the near future, and it is arguable if it even should to be a thing.

It's a good thing the devs aren't considering putting PvP in the game. Oh wait. That's not true at all.

The beauty of this system is that it's the same exact AI foe only this time it's controlled by a person, there would only need to be minor reworks of skills for this. They could have the decoy's show as actual player models for player controlled enemies. It's not meant to be competitive, it's just meant to provide a challenge, not just for the 4 players, but for the stalker too. Getting even a single kill should be considered a success.

was a reason i never connected to internet when it came to darksouls... entire invasion idea would be fine if i wanted pvp in my single player game and opted for it, the problem is making it " forced " is TERRIBLE idea... while i like the concept i think its overly a bad idea, to make forced... the thing is for as tough as the stalker is AI for him is pretty bad... at level 24 i got him to half hp mostly because he just stood there and let me shoot him. Put that power into hands of a player and you will never lose... i think just need to conceed and add an arena into the game done in a VR simulation(like the tutorial) and basicllay wash hands of it saying " we arent balancing this but you can still do it" for those that want to.

Fits the lore by being a training mission, and lets pvpers have there pvp with out forcing it or effecting pve at all.

Stalker is incredibly easy. Even with a poorly modded gorgon (which is extremely under powered now) you can just spray him down. With well modded pistols he's a cake walk. Having a player behind the helm would at least provide a bit of a challenge :|

And as has been said a bajillion times in this thread, they could have a setting that would allow people to opt out of player controlled stalkers.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Aggh

[JerryMouse13]

That's the beauty of this system. It's the same exact AI foe only this time it's controlled by a person. They could have the decoy's show as actually player models for player controlled enemies. The whole point of this is that it should be a challenge, not just for the 4 players, but the stalker too.

You think a stalker is going to be fooled by a loki standing stock still shooting a pistol?

You expect them to do jack all to a rhino with maxed flow and continuity?

You excpect a frost, or a mag not to simply press 4 and profit?

How do you preform match making?

How do you account for mods?

Edited March 29, 2013 by JerryMouse13

[Telzen]

>Implying that soloing is hard

And I'll repeat it again, they could give people an option in settings to opt out of having player controlled stalkers.

And probalby 90% of people would use it. Most people don't want someone coming into their mission and messing with them. If they did they would just play a pvp game in the first place.

[Aggh]

You think a stalker is going to be fooled by a loki standing stock still shooting a pistol?

You expect them to do jack all to a rhino with maxed flow and continuity?

You excpect a frost, or a mag not to simply press 4 and profit?

How do you preform match making?

How do you account for mods?

It's ironic since pistols are OP now so seeing a loki using one now wouldn't be surprising. They could add some more complex animations for the decoy.

They don't have to go after the rhino, then.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You're keeping the same balance as you would if the stalker was AI. And stalkers teleport and invisibility would be beautiful for avoiding all of those. Mag's ult can't kill stalker btw. It's not meant to be balanced or competitive, it's meant to give players a challenge.

Like has been said a million times, they could put up alerts for people that want to player stalker that would be sent to peoples' missions

And probalby 90% of people would use it. Most people don't want someone coming into their mission and messing with them. If they did they would just play a pvp game in the first place.

Not if the rewards are good enough. Not everyone playing a PvE game hates pvp.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Aggh

[JerryMouse13]

It's ironic since pistols are OP now so seeing a loki now wouldn't be surprising. They could add some more complex animations for the decoy.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You're keeping the same balance as you would if the stalker was AI. And stalkers teleport and invisibility would be beautiful for avoiding all of those. Mag's ult can't kill stalker btw. It's not meant to be balanced or competitive, it's meant to give players a challenge.

Like has been said a million times, they could put up alerts for people that want to player stalker that would be sent to peoples' missions

Unreasonable sophistication for minimal gain.

Challenge can be more easily added through tougher Bosses and enemies. The entire point of PvP is to COMPETE against other players.

You just ruined the one thing that makes stalker interesting, and have in escense implemented a PvP lobby.

[Aggh]

Unreasonable sophistication for minimal gain.

Challenge can be more easily added through tougher Bosses and enemies. The entire point of PvP is to COMPETE against other players.

You just ruined the one thing that makes stalker interesting, and have in escense implemented a PvP lobby.

The problem is that you're looking at this as only competitive PvP. It's not. It's simply a mob controlled by a player. Compare it to a DM running the enemies in a D&D session.

Stalker, interesting? He has buggy ai and is never an actual challenge at all. He ends up teleporting a couple times and then stands still and lets you spray him down.

Ikr? Taking a system that we already have and occasionally letting a player take control of what would otherwise be an AI controlled boss is obviously a PvP lobby. Except it's not. Not even close. Where the heck did you even come up with that nonsense?

Edited March 29, 2013 by Aggh

[JerryMouse13]

The problem is that you're looking at this as only competitive PvP. It's not. It's simply a mob controlled by a player. Compare it to a DM running the enemies in a D&D session.

Stalker, interesting? He has buggy ai and is never an actual challenge at all. He ends up teleporting a couple times and then stands still and lets you spray him down.

Ikr? Taking a system that we already have and occasionally letting a player take control of what would otherwise be an AI controlled boss is obviously a PvP lobby. Except it's not. Not even close. Where the heck did you even come up with that nonsense?

How does that work in an action game? Any instance in which two or more players are pitted against one another with the objective of one killing the other is competitive PvP.

I got it from you.

Like has been said a million times, they could put up alerts for people that want to player stalker that would be sent to peoples' missions

You wanted to add what is basicly a PvP que.

[Aggh]

How does that work in an action game? Any instance in which two or more players are pitted against one another with the objective of one killing the other is competitive PvP.

I got it from you.

I suggest you look up the word "competitive" in the dictionary since you clearly don't understand its meaning. A boss being player controlled is simply meant to make it more challenging. Killing every single player is not the goal and it doesn't need to be balanced or fair because of that, and thus cannot really be considered competitive. The idea is to simply add some spice to what is otherwise a very simple and boring event.

You wanted to add what is basicly a PvP que.

Except not. Since you'll have no control whatsoever over who you're playing and there would be no ranking system or anything of the like seen in actual competitive pvp.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Aggh

[JerryMouse13]

I suggest you look up the word competition in the dictionary since you clearly don't understand its meaning. An boss being player controlled is simply meant to make it more challenging. Killing every single player is not the goal. The idea is to add some spic to what would is otherwise a very simple and boring event.

Except not. Since you'll have no control over who you're playing.

1)

com·pet·i·tive

ADJECTIVE

1. involving attempt to win: involving or decided by competition

2. wanting to beat others: inclined toward wanting to achieve more than others

3. better than competition: as good as or slightly better than others because of being good value or worth more

"Involving attempt to win"

I think I understand the meaning of the word just fine.

Edit: THEN WHAT'S THE BLOODY POINT OF PUTTING A PLAYER IN CONTROL IF THEY ARE NEAR GUARANTEED TO LOSE. IT'S AN UTTER WASTE OF TIME FOR A SYSTEM THAT DOSEN'T EVEN PROVIDE GOOD PvP CONTENT.

2) You are making the choice to enter into a PvP enviroment with another individual, even if that individual is chosen at complete random you still mad the decision to seek another player for PvP. You are a player entering a que to seek confrontation with another player.

Edited March 29, 2013 by JerryMouse13

[Aggh]

1)

com·pet·i·tive

ADJECTIVE

1. involving attempt to win: involving or decided by competition

2. wanting to beat others: inclined toward wanting to achieve more than others

3. better than competition: as good as or slightly better than others because of being good value or worth more

"Involving attempt to win"

I think I understand the meaning of the word just fine.

2) You are making the choice to enter into a PvP enviroment with another individual, even if that individual is chosen at complete random you still mad the decision to seek another player for PvP. You are a player entering a que to seek confrontation with another player.

The more important definition that any sane person would apply would be: Of, relating to, or characterized by competition. More importantly though, in gaming, calling something competitive implies that there is actual balance. And even then, considering that the winning condition for the stalker would be simply killing one player, it's not unreasonable for the odds to be stacked in the players' favor.

The player controlled stalker is going to have the odds stacked up against them every time and will likely die every time, maybe killing one or two players at best, and that's actually a good thing. It maintains the level of difficulty of the encounter for the players and gives a big CHALLENGE for the stalker. True competitive PvP is balanced and provides a level playing field for all players. That is not the goal of this system and it boggles the mind that you still haven't grapsed that.

Jeebus, what do you not undertand about how people would enjoy the addition of actually challenging content? It would make the stalker event more challenging than the devs could ever hope to do with AI, it would provide PvP players something to do while waiting for the eventual introduction of actual pvp, and it would provide an opportunity for them to give better in game rewards for the increased challenge.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Aggh

[Akularael]

Well this was an interesting thread. Until everyone just started S#&$ting on each other for even suggesting something realated to pvp.

I think if they have this set up:

To randomly offer a player (single specific players in succesion till someone accepts) the chance to do it (maybe a limit of once per day/week per player)

Keep all stalker gear stock and unmoddable.

a simple to add option to disable player controlled stalkers.

possibly disallow stalker from picking up health/energy orbs. (limited to base 100 energy and no health regen/refill)

Maybe also have to lower player controlled stalker health/damage or scale to target level.

perhaps can only damage assigned target?

And keep the current conditions for a stalker to appear. (only appear to avenge boss, can't appear to lvl 5 or under frames,.... etc) (still a rare occurence)

Provided all these things happen I think this could be a great easy to add little thing.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Akularael

[JerryMouse13]

See, you don't understand it. Thank you for illustrating that. The player controlled stalker is going to have the odds stacked up against them every time, and that's actually a good thing. It maintains the level of difficulty of encounter for the players and gives a big challenge for the stralker. True competitive PvP is balanced and provides a level playing field for all players. That is not the goal of this system and it boggles the mind that you still haven't grapsed that.

You want to add a player character into an inherently unbalanced situation, to add challenge to a system that can easily be made more challenging via new bosses, new enemies, new enviromental hazzards. You want the Devs to go out of their way to develop a completely new multiplayer system from the ground up, so that this player can even be thrown into this inherently unbalanced situation. Then you want to call this utter tripe of a system PvP?

By it's very nature PvP is a competative event. It even says so right on the tin Player versus Player.

ver·sus

/ˈvɜrsəs, -səz/ Show Spelled [vur-suhs, -suhz]

preposition

1. against (used especially to indicate an action brought by one party against another in a court of law, or to denote competing teams or players in a sports contest): Smith versus Jones; Army versus Navy.

2. as compared to or as one of two choices; in contrast with: traveling by plane versus traveling by train. Abbreviation: v., vs.

The relavent portion of that definition is competing teams. The entire point of PvP is for opposing players to compete to determine a victor.

What you've been describing is an uterly convoluted, and quite frankly unneeded one. Your system of PvP serves no practical gameplay purposes for a third person shooter co-op dungeon crawler, and it adds needless complexity and additonal hours of work for the devs, hours that could be spent polishing the focus of this game, which is PvE content.

Edited March 29, 2013 by JerryMouse13

[Aggh]

You want to add a player character into an inherently unbalanced situation, to add challenge to a system that can easily be made more challenging via new bosses, new enemies, new enviromental hazzards. You want the Devs to go out of their way to develop a completely new multiplayer system from the ground up, so that this player can even be thrown into this inherently unbalanced situation. Then you want to call this utter tripe of a system PvP?

By it's very nature PvP is a competative event. It even says so right on the tin Player versus Player.

ver·sus

/ˈvɜrsəs, -səz/ Show Spelled [vur-suhs, -suhz]

preposition

1. against (used especially to indicate an action brought by one party against another in a court of law, or to denote competing teams or players in a sports contest): Smith versus Jones; Army versus Navy.

2. as compared to or as one of two choices; in contrast with: traveling by plane versus traveling by train. Abbreviation: v., vs.

The relavent portion of that definition is competing teams. The entire point of PvP is for opposing players to compete to determine a victor.

What you've been describing is an uterly convoluted, and quite frankly unneeded one. Your system of PvP serves no practical gameplay purposes for a third person shooter co-op dungeon crawler, and it adds needless complexity and additonal hours of work for the devs, hours that could be spent polishing the focus of this game, which is PvE content.

Not going to bother readressing the points you're repeating.

No AI boss will ever be able to provide the challenge that a player controlled one would provide.

The devs are already planning to eventually do PvP so this would merely be a precursor to a system that we'll be getting in the future anyways. The beauty of it is that it wouldn't require nearly as much work since they wouldn't have to be as concerned about balance.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Aggh

[Akularael]

Well I guess I'm gonna do the same as the OP and unsubscribe from this.

Thanks for ruining an interesting thread.

Enjoy your pointless argument.