Being the Stalker at Tennocon?

[BornWithTeeth]

Just now, achromos said:

It doesn't.  I am thinking about this from a LOGICAL standpoint, there is no emotional importance behind this.  When you look at it black and white pure as day you have the playable stalker that has to use the stalkers loadout (assumidly) vs four other players.  Unless players aren't playing as a team in a co-op team the stalker even controlled by a player then the stalker should go down relatively easily even against several average players because again... the stalker has to use the stalkers loadout.

Let me ask you a question:  Why are you so emotionally invested in something that is likely to be as effective as a water balloon vs four tenno who have free control over what they have equipped?

Emotionally invested? I guess, in the sense that I would find it really annoying if random gits could come into a mission I'm playing to try and sabotage it. I am concerned about the fact that the mode right now has great bit gaping holes in it which would allow for insane amounts of griefing, and while DE have said that they recognise this as an issue, they have a track record of making reassuring noises and then completely screwing things up anyway, so I could very much see them launching this mode with all of its griefing potential intact.

 

 

See? I can answer a question.

 

 

Now. 

 

Why is it important to you, you personally, that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it?

[Gamma745]

I want to ask a question before going in further: Does the "Stalker Player" have access to the invaded squad chat? As in, can he type and post messages in the squad chat shortly before, during, and after the invasion? This could mean the biggest difference between AI Stalker and Player Stalker besides their debatable "competence".

[(PSN)Dark-TailedFox]

11 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

@achromos You are continuing to dodge my question. You asked why the people who don't like the idea are so uptight about it, and I believe you've gotten an answer.

 

Now. Why is it so important to you that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it?

Because no one is even forcing you to engage in it. Unless you're trying to farm a warframe or weapon from a boss, the most marks you'll even pick up is about 17 if you include Jordas, Mutalist Alad, Lephantis, and Phorid, otherwise that's only 13 marks to advance through the star chart and then you never have to touch another boss meaning not having to pick up another mark since Stalker (player controlled or otherwise) can not attack an unmarked player.

Besides, how often do you see the AI stalker currently? There are MANY people who haven't even heard a peep of current stalker in literal months to almost a year yet have potentially 40-100+ marks, so how is it affecting you?

Either you play a game with a mark, the risk of being targeted by stalker and winning or losing against him is still there. Or you keep playing without touching another boss and only subject yourself to be hunted by G3 and Zanuka, one of which would be worth the discussion of being included as a "player controlled hunter" because of their tools vs Stalker's 1 vs 1-4 (potentially more depending on squad setup).

And again, think back to how obviously busted our weapons and warframes are when not limited via pvp rules. Excaliboy, Mirage, Valkyr, Chroma, even Mag and Limbo can demolish stalker when not limited by pvp rules, even harder to hit unless the person behind Stalker is using an aimbot (in which they'd get banned anyways) or is just extremely good with a bow because you talk as though you aren't allowed to avoid him and have to stand like a statue while fighting them. But again, I say that "Vanilla Stalker, Pre-Second Dream Stalker is a greater threat, but consequently easier to knock out than Shadow Stalker, Post-Second Dream Sentient Stalker because he does not have the advantage of Exalted Blade, Sentient Bombs, Status Damage Reduction, and health gated knockdown".

At worse Vanilla Stalker has range (Dread and Despair), potential stunlock if you're standing still or don't have an ancient healer ally/Oberon in the squad (Hate), and Absorb which everyone knows is simply "don't shoot the red bubble".

You're making something that's so easy to get around, pve or pvp sound like the worst thing since world war 1 to happen in Warframe when the worst thing that happens is you:

A: Eat a revive because Stalker leaves as soon as you go down by his hand or other. 

or B: You have to restart the mission, in which case that really doesn't matter because he can't invade 45 waves into a defense, 5 waves into an interception, or 20 minutes into a survival. At worst that affects exterminate, sabotage, and Capture. I don't even think I've had him invade during an assassination in my 3 years of playing.

And you try to throw shade at the people willing to see how the mode is but want to shut it down yourself because of the maybe 0.001% chance of running into someone who wants to sabotage (which is literally his objective anyways via killing you) your mission which they would've done otherwise by being a bad teammate you would've complained about as well?

[achromos]

2 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Emotionally invested? I guess, in the sense that I would find it really annoying if random gits could come into a mission I'm playing to try and sabotage it. I am concerned about the fact that the mode right now has great bit gaping holes in it which would allow for insane amounts of griefing, and while DE have said that they recognise this as an issue, they have a track record of making reassuring noises and then completely screwing things up anyway, so I could very much see them launching this mode with all of its griefing potential intact.

 

 

See? I can answer a question.

 

 

Now. 

 

Why is it important to you, you personally, that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it?

Again.  Please learn to read.  I will post the answer here  I will make it easy for you.

 

\/ Answer \/

It isn't, I have no emotional investment either way.  You seem to be the one who is more invested in this and trying to target me specifically in a way that is meant to disarm me, psst.  Even if I stop posting... it wont change what I have already said, nor the logic behind it.  At the end of the day it is 1 player with the stalkers gear, vs 4 other people who can choose what they want to use for said mission.

/\ Answer /\

 

 

[BornWithTeeth]

Just now, achromos said:

Again.  Please learn to read.  I will post the answer here  I will make it easy for you.

 

\/ Answer \/

It isn't, I have no emotional investment either way.  You seem to be the one who is more invested in this and trying to target me specifically in a way that is meant to disarm me, psst.  Even if I stop posting... it wont change what I have already said, nor the logic behind it.  At the end of the day it is 1 player with the stalkers gear, vs 4 other people who can choose what they want to use for said mission.

/\ Answer /\

 

 

Mate. You cannot keep saying "I'm not emotionally invested," when you very plainly like the idea and are actively arguing for it.

 

The counter-argument you are up against is "Sure, just make it optional so that players who don't like PvP are not forced to deal with it". That is not somehow an irrational statement. So, yeah. Right now, and for the past two pages, you have been arguing that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it.

 

I just want to know why.

[Gamma745]

5 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

And you try to throw shade at the people willing to see how the mode is but want to shut it down yourself because of the maybe 0.001% chance of running into someone who wants to sabotage (which is literally his objective anyways via killing you) your mission which they would've done otherwise by being a bad teammate you would've complained about as well?

Griefing and trolling teammates can be reported and potentially banned temporarily. Will Player Stalker that ignore the target also subject to the same treatment?

[BornWithTeeth]

14 minutes ago, -YoRHa- said:

 

Just observing the thread here and there, and saw this statement that I've seen many times before.

What defines being forced, when it comes to content a player doesn't like or want to do? I ask because to a lot of people, it seems that simply adding rewards that are nice in either looks or function, means they are being forced to participate in said content. It's as if it becomes physically impossible to say 'You know what? I think i'll pass on this because it's not my thing'. I don't like raids or sorties, so i simply don't do raids and skip sorties sometimes. I know some Arcanes from raids are quite good and give extra revives after a point, but i'm not compelled to obtain them, even though i want some of them. What is stopping people from doing the same without making a fuss? Enticing isn't forcing by definition. Just wondering what your views are on that.

I still believe DE won't make the Stalker invasion mode a forced thing, as in it lacking an opt-in/opt-out function. 

 

So, anyway, see the way the thread's gone? There's people popping out of the woodwork who appear to be personally offended at the idea of the mode being optional. Please recall our exchange via PM, and how every page of this thread continues proving me right.

[achromos]

Just now, BornWithTeeth said:

Mate. You cannot keep saying "I'm not emotionally invested," when you very plainly like the idea and are actively arguing for it.

 

The counter-argument you are up against is "Sure, just make it optional so that players who don't like PvP are not forced to deal with it". That is not somehow an irrational statement. So, yeah. Right now, and for the past two pages, you have been arguing that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it.

 

I just want to know why.

You don't have to be emotionally invested in something to be interested in the concept.  at the end of the day my life still goes on if they never decide to impliment this and I continue farming as per usual. I am arguing from a logical stanpoint.  You want to know why?

I will FURTHER simplify for you:

 

"Why not."

 

I am arguing from a neutral standpoint, yet people always assume that people must be invested, or must be on one side or the other.  ... I'm not.  lol.

[achromos]

1 minute ago, BornWithTeeth said:

So, anyway, see the way the thread's gone? There's people popping out of the woodwork who appear to be personally offended at the idea of the mode being optional. Please recall our exchange via PM, and how every page of this thread continues proving me right.

This thread is only going this way because you are purposefully forcing your own narrative behind it, YOU are emotionally invested lol, I see it now.  You are posting with an objective.  Hah! 

 

Enjoy your day mate, because you just showed your hand.  You talk about people being personally offended when I have about as much investment in this topic as a ant does with the internet.  You are just projecting out of an irrational fear.  Lol!

[BornWithTeeth]

Just now, achromos said:

You don't have to be emotionally invested in something to be interested in the concept.  at the end of the day my life still goes on if they never decide to impliment this and I continue farming as per usual. I am arguing from a logical stanpoint.  You want to know why?

I will FURTHER simplify for you:

 

"Why not."

 

I am arguing from a neutral standpoint, yet people always assume that people must be invested, or must be on one side or the other.  ... I'm not.  lol.

You're not arguing from a neutral viewpoint, because you are arguing against implementing the most basic way of not messing with the game: make it optional.

 

I'm fine with them implementing it, and I'll probably try it out. But, I also think that it should be optional, and not just the pseudo-optional of "Well if you don't play the game, then players can't invade you, so it's optional." I mean a genuine opt-in/opt-out system. After all, if the mode is so good, then surely enough people will opt in that it will work, right?

[WrathAscending]

6 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

Because no one is even forcing you to engage in it. Unless you're trying to farm a warframe or weapon from a boss, the most marks you'll even pick up is about 17 if you include Jordas, Mutalist Alad, Lephantis, and Phorid, otherwise that's only 13 marks to advance through the star chart and then you never have to touch another boss meaning not having to pick up another mark since Stalker (player controlled or otherwise) can not attack an unmarked player.

Ah. "Unless you're trying to play the game, you'll never have a problem."

It took me almost 200 runs of pre-rework Ruk to get Ember back in the day because her helmet (now Neuroptics) just wouldn't drop.

I'm well past 400 on Vor and Kril trying to get the Miter components, of which I have two so far since their introduction.

I don't think you realise how grindy the RNG can be in this game and how long marks can persist as a result.

6 minutes ago, achromos said:

It isn't, I have no emotional investment either way.  You seem to be the one who is more invested in this and trying to target me specifically in a way that is meant to disarm me, psst.  Even if I stop posting... it wont change what I have already said, nor the logic behind it.  At the end of the day it is 1 player with the stalkers gear, vs 4 other people who can choose what they want to use for said mission.

 

I can still remember being a single-digit MR player and watching the old Stalker rip through an entire squad in seconds. Now, sure, he's in for a real bad time if I've rolled into a mission with my nine-Forma Chroma toting a Tigris Prime with Vex buffs active and Arcane Grace out the wazoo, but players who are geared for the high end are in the minority. Have a look at the Steam population achievements some time, the majority of players are MR 12 and below and not geared to deal with normal Stalker, much less one piloted by a PVPer.

[-YoRHa-]

4 minutes ago, Gamma745 said:

I want to ask a question before going in further: Does the "Stalker Player" have access to the invaded squad chat? As in, can he type and post messages in the squad chat shortly before, during, and after the invasion? This could mean the biggest difference between AI Stalker and Player Stalker besides their debatable "competence".

I don't think the Stalker does. It's something to find out, but if the Stalker does DE can just disable it for the Stalker.

3 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

because he can't invade 45 waves into a defense, 5 waves into an interception, or 20 minutes into a survival.

Just a small nitpick, but i just wanted to point out that Stalker can't invade the following:

- Sorties.

- Syndicate missions.

- Any mission after ~5 minutes or 5(?) waves have passed.

- Assassination missions.

- Raids.

- Missions where the target's Warframe is under rank 10.

 

[Gamma745]

1 minute ago, -YoRHa- said:

I don't think the Stalker does. It's something to find out, but if the Stalker does DE can just disable it for the Stalker.

That's kinda good, because that means the Stalker Player can't taunt or badmouth the invaded squad (< Well, doing this is just asking to get reported).

So in general, the only difference between AI-controlled and Player-controlled Stalker is how they move.

[-YoRHa-]

7 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

So, anyway, see the way the thread's gone? There's people popping out of the woodwork who appear to be personally offended at the idea of the mode being optional. Please recall our exchange via PM, and how every page of this thread continues proving me right.

As I've said before, anyone expecting the mode to be a tool for abuse will not be catered to by DE. They have proven to be very anti-griefing, and the biggest evidence of that is the removal of Friendly-Fire Mode from Nightmare missions.

That aside, you didn't answer my question about the forcing part. I'm quite curious about your stance and the other guy's when it comes to the possibility of rewards being in it.

[Kinetos]

5 minutes ago, -YoRHa- said:

20 minutes ago, Gamma745 said:

I want to ask a question before going in further: Does the "Stalker Player" have access to the invaded squad chat? As in, can he type and post messages in the squad chat shortly before, during, and after the invasion? This could mean the biggest difference between AI Stalker and Player Stalker besides their debatable "competence".

I don't think the Stalker does. It's something to find out, but if the Stalker does DE can just disable it for the Stalker.

they do, prime time showed it. at least, it sounded like it. i wasn't watching closely enough to see it with my own eyes.

[(PSN)Dark-TailedFox]

Just now, Gamma745 said:

Griefing and trolling teammates can be reported and potentially banned temporarily. Will Player Stalker that ignore the target also subject to the same treatment?

The Stalker's objective is to literally encroach on your mission and sabotage your progress, aka killing you. And you have to bring into account what level he's spawning at (I'm pretty sure they won't let us spawn into a level 30 mission as a level 100 stalker like the AI variant can if you continue killing him before forcing his level reset) vs the mission level.

And you can literally counter troll/grief the Stalker player by being just as bad and making them regret to chase you from the beginning.

Want to know a way to troll a Stalker player? Hide. Be Loki like 99% of the idiot "LokiMasterRace" people do and go invisible every 20 seconds. Pick up an ancient healer specter and hide behind it. Be Nyx. Be Trinity. Be Valkyr, Atlas, Excaliboy. Use a shotgun. Use a Penta, Kulstar, Zenistar, Tonkor. Use a hammer, bring Cold damage on a weapon and slow him like hell. Dodge roll and bullet jump all over the place making yourself more trouble than you're worth to hit. Bring Nekros and kill some Arctic Eximus then hide in their mass of bubbles, even better if you bring Napalms, Bombards, or Nullifiers. 

There are an obscene amount of ways to troll and bait a Stalker player because they aren't immune to anything the players do minus direct powers like World on Fire, Avalanche, Tornado, etc. And don't even forget about warframes that can shield themselves or shapeshift (Wukong, Inaros, and Nezha). Hell, Inaros LITERALLY makes himself unkillable just by devouring some random sap enemy and holding the button even LONG after the sand has expired as long as its alive. So what's the worth of the stalker player even bothering if they're say eating a protected heavy gunner or bombard with an ancient healer nearby in the void? It'll take longer time than anyone who isn't dedicated to the cause to watch it die or you can leave the mission and then what does the stalker player do? 

So if you want to talk about "I don't want to play cause the Stalker player has a less than 1% chance to troll me in my mission", don't forget to bring up the counter argument "Hey, I found 400 ways to troll the stalker player that was chasing me. He pissed off, here's what I did."

[BornWithTeeth]

Just now, -YoRHa- said:

As I've said before, anyone expecting the mode to be a tool for abuse will not be catered to by DE. They have proven to be very anti-griefing, and the biggest evidence of that is the removal of Friendly-Fire Mode from Nightmare missions.

That aside, you didn't answer my question about the forcing part. I'm quite curious about your stance and the other guy's when it comes to the possibility of rewards being in it.

On reflection, I'm ok with the mode being implemented so long as it is truly optional.

 

Also, I had suggested making it so that Player controlled Stalker has a better drop table. Nothing that cannot be acquired elsewhere in the game, mind, but maybe replace Dread and Heavy Impact with some Rare Stance mods or the like.

[-YoRHa-]

Just now, BornWithTeeth said:

On reflection, I'm ok with the mode being implemented so long as it is truly optional.

 

Also, I had suggested making it so that Player controlled Stalker has a better drop table. Nothing that cannot be acquired elsewhere in the game, mind, but maybe replace Dread and Heavy Impact with some Rare Stance mods or the like.

I think a better drop table would be a fair boost for beating a player-controlled Stalker. I'd be willing to fight one for better odds at the Scimitar Engine BP that i'm still missing. The person controlling Stalker should probably get something as well, since they will most likely be facing off against 4 people. Not sure what that could be other than some cosmetics.

[Gamma745]

1 minute ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

The Stalker's objective is to literally encroach on your mission and sabotage your progress, aka killing you. And you have to bring into account what level he's spawning at (I'm pretty sure they won't let us spawn into a level 30 mission as a level 100 stalker like the AI variant can if you continue killing him before forcing his level reset) vs the mission level.

And you can literally counter troll/grief the Stalker player by being just as bad and making them regret to chase you from the beginning.

I have two things to say to that:

1. What happens when the target is defending a Defense target / Mob Def terminal? Move the defense target? When the target became harder to get, the Stalker Player would most likely go for another way to sabotage the mission.

2. You're countering trolling with another trolling. Toxicity and hostility thrown left and right. The Forum would be littered with more hostile thread. Not exactly good for the health of this game and this community.

If the Stalker Player have no way to interfere with the Objective in any way, then I'm kinda okay with it. Another would be the opt-in feature.

[(PSN)Dark-TailedFox]

8 minutes ago, Gamma745 said:

I have two things to say to that:

1. What happens when the target is defending a Defense target / Mob Def terminal? Move the defense target? When the target became harder to get, the Stalker Player would most likely go for another way to sabotage the mission.

2. You're countering trolling with another trolling. Toxicity and hostility thrown left and right. The Forum would be littered with more hostile thread. Not exactly good for the health of this game and this community.

If the Stalker Player have no way to interfere with the Objective in any way, then I'm kinda okay with it. Another would be the opt-in feature.

You're defending an objective. Defend the objective by killing the stalker in your advantageous 4 v 1 scenario unless you're a solo player then you should be worth 4 people by default by relying on yourself more than others.

Please tell me a time when there wasn't toxicity and hositlity thrown around in Warframe. I've had so many encounters of such but they all came from bandwagon players who run to the next broken and braindead thing. (Post-rework, pre-nerf Excalibur then into Mirage + Synoid Simulor or Tonkor for the longest time the into whatever the current one is). Further including this, you must've forgotten about the Region Channel where that's been quite a cesspool for the longest.

Then you would have to make it so that the AI variant couldn't interact with objectives, and for the last 3 years he's been able to do exactly that if a player also intended to troll by allowing said objective to die by putting it between himself and Stalker and then laughing home about it. Also, recall to Prime Time of Rebecca stating "I'm gonna try and kill your objective". She shot at it how many times and that was just to take down the shield at wave 1? I don't see it being that big an issue because it looks like the damage is already catered to make it a fruitless effort to assault objectives, but still able to 1 shot a capture target which you wouldn't do as the stalker because it helps your mark.

Edited July 17, 2017 by (PS4)Foxkid_8

[Zanchak]

18 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

The Stalker's objective is to literally encroach on your mission and sabotage your progress, aka killing you. And you have to bring into account what level he's spawning at (I'm pretty sure they won't let us spawn into a level 30 mission as a level 100 stalker like the AI variant can if you continue killing him before forcing his level reset) vs the mission level.

And you can literally counter troll/grief the Stalker player by being just as bad and making them regret to chase you from the beginning.

Want to know a way to troll a Stalker player? Hide. Be Loki like 99% of the idiot "LokiMasterRace" people do and go invisible every 20 seconds. Pick up an ancient healer specter and hide behind it. Be Nyx. Be Trinity. Be Valkyr, Atlas, Excaliboy. Use a shotgun. Use a Penta, Kulstar, Zenistar, Tonkor. Use a hammer, bring Cold damage on a weapon and slow him like hell. Dodge roll and bullet jump all over the place making yourself more trouble than you're worth to hit. Bring Nekros and kill some Arctic Eximus then hide in their mass of bubbles, even better if you bring Napalms, Bombards, or Nullifiers. 

There are an obscene amount of ways to troll and bait a Stalker player because they aren't immune to anything the players do minus direct powers like World on Fire, Avalanche, Tornado, etc. And don't even forget about warframes that can shield themselves or shapeshift (Wukong, Inaros, and Nezha). Hell, Inaros LITERALLY makes himself unkillable just by devouring some random sap enemy and holding the button even LONG after the sand has expired as long as its alive. So what's the worth of the stalker player even bothering if they're say eating a protected heavy gunner or bombard with an ancient healer nearby in the void? It'll take longer time than anyone who isn't dedicated to the cause to watch it die or you can leave the mission and then what does the stalker player do? 

So if you want to talk about "I don't want to play cause the Stalker player has a less than 1% chance to troll me in my mission", don't forget to bring up the counter argument "Hey, I found 400 ways to troll the stalker player that was chasing me. He pissed off, here's what I did."

I don't play Warframe to troll people, or be trolled.

I don't play PVP because I dislike it and if you aren't decent at it you.. get trolled.

I get hunted all the time by Stalker and have been since I could be, so percentages and chances mean pretty much nothing to me. People can preach how low the chance is all day, it won't match my experience of it.

I like the characters DE creates and I don't wish to see them sullied by the actions of people who will trash and ruin a completely fine character with their behaviour, which we already know will happen, since people can't help themselves.

Trolling isnt the answer to trolling... mind-boggles.

[Gamma745]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

You're defending an objective. Defend the objective by killing the stalker in your advantageous 4 v 1 scenario unless you're a solo player then you should be worth 4 people by default by relying on yourself more than others.

Full team or bust? Now we HAVE to go in full team in EVERY defense mission or risk getting screwed over?

 

5 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

Please tell me a time when there wasn't toxicity and hositlity thrown around in Warframe. I've had so many encounters of such but they all came from bandwagon players who run to the next broken and braindead thing. (Post-rework, pre-nerf Excalibur then into Mirage + Synoid Simulor or Tonkor for the longest time the into whatever the current one is).

And you do know what happened to those broken things, right? Get nerfed or changed to incite massive influx of threads complaining about it. How do you think they will nerf or change Stalker mode?

 

8 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

Then you would have to make it so that the AI variant couldn't interact with objectives, and for the last 3 years he's been able to do exactly that if a player also intended to troll by allowing said objective to die by putting it between himself and Stalker and then laughing home about it.

Because there's a difference between letting your objective getting caught by the crossfire of the brain-dead AI Stalker getting to you; and a malicious, hyper-agile Stalker deliberately targeting the defense objective. Again, trolling teammates can be reported. Should Stalker Players as well?

 

12 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

Also, recall to Prime Time of Rebecca stating "I'm gonna try and kill your objective". She shot at it how many times and that was just to take down the shield at wave 1? I don't see it being that big an issue because it looks like the damage is already catered to make it a fruitless effort to assault objectives, but still able to 1 shot a capture target which you wouldn't do as the stalker because it helps your mark.

Now this part I can live with, because it essentially mean the Stalker can't interfere with the objective anyway. Hitting a constant teleporting Stalker would be a hassle, but if the Stalker can't sabotage the objective anyway...

[(PSN)Dark-TailedFox]

2 minutes ago, Zanchak said:

I don't play Warframe to troll people, or be trolled.

I don't play PVP because I dislike it and if you aren't decent at it you.. get trolled.

I get hunted all the time by Stalker and have been since I could be, so percentages and chances mean pretty much nothing to me. People can preach how low the chance is all day, it won't match my experience of it.

I like the characters DE creates and I don't wish to see them sullied by the actions of people who will trash and ruin a completely fine character with their behaviour, which we already know will happen, since people can't help themselves.

Trolling isnt the answer to trolling... mind-boggles.

I don't play conclave either. I limit my pvp to friends who usually make it genuinely fun, and it at least makes you more open to ways to move around in missions as well. It can serve more purpose than ego stroking. 

If you lose to a player stalker, then you would've lost to AI stalker too. Its the same loadout and I'm pretty certain its unmodded.

Just because you "always get hunted", doesn't mean others do as well.

Stalker is sullied by being player controlled you say? If I see Stalker coming to either:

A. Kill me.

B. Sabotage my mission.

C. All of the above.

Then he's pretty much doing his job, AI or not. It's what he does to the people he despises with all of his core.

As I've already stated, I don't see what the big outcry is. Its an entity who hates our faction and sees to impede our progress every step he can manage. Lore-wise and gameplay centered.

[(PSN)Dark-TailedFox]

7 minutes ago, Gamma745 said:

Full team or bust? Now we HAVE to go in full team in EVERY defense mission or risk getting screwed over?

What makes you think you "have" to go in with a team? People go into sorties alone they can handle Stalker alone.

And you do know what happened to those broken things, right? Get nerfed or changed to incite massive influx of threads complaining about it. How do you think they will nerf or change Stalker mode?

They won't, because its purpose is to make Stalker be an actual threat again via player interaction since his AI counterpart is only "fearful" when you're leaving a full loadout or your warframe isn't a tank.

Because there's a difference between letting your objective getting caught by the crossfire of the brain-dead AI Stalker getting to you; and a malicious, hyper-agile Stalker deliberately targeting the defense objective. Again, trolling teammates can be reported. Should Stalker Players as well?

There's very little difference in the outcome. It dies because you have an ally with poor awareness or it dies because you got that less than 1% roll of an &amp;#&#33; assaulting it, yet leaving himself open to be hit by you and your allies who must also be brain dead to idly standby and let the objective die.

Now this part I can live with, because it essentially mean the Stalker can't interfere with the objective anyway. Hitting a constant teleporting Stalker would be a hassle, but if the Stalker can't sabotage the objective anyway...

 

[Gamma745]

15 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

What makes you think you "have" to go in with a team? People go into sorties alone they can handle Stalker alone.

They can handle AI Stalker. Have you seen some of the Conclave veterans that some people call "headshotting rabbits on crack"? Because I saw you say that you limit your Conclave experience among friends. This mode as is, won't have that limitation.

 

15 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

They won't, because its purpose is to make Stalker be an actual threat again via player interaction since his AI counterpart is only "fearful" when you're leaving a full loadout or your warframe isn't a tank.

Yes, Stalker could use to become a fearful figure. What makes you think Player interaction will makes him to be feared instead of just being hated?

 

15 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

There's very little difference in the outcome. It dies because you have an ally with poor awareness or it dies because you got that less than 1% roll of an &amp;#&#33; assaulting it, yet leaving himself open to be hit by you and your allies who must also be brain dead to idly standby and let the objective die.

Do you know what the Standard Stalker have in his disposal? His abilities? As I said, Player Stalker will be Hyper agile. Conclave veterans can bullet-jump and get head-shots like no tomorrow. Now add to that Stalker's abilites: Pull, Teleport, Absorb, Reckoning, Dispel, all with unlimited energy. You think you can deal with that? AI Stalker just walk or run to you. Player Stalker won't give you that luxury.

 

Also, you can edit and pick what you're quoting. instead of typing in the quote box.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Gamma745