Being the Stalker at Tennocon?

[HUNDarkTemplar]

Just now, (PS4)horridhal said:

Again, this mindset is why I hope it never becomes a legitimate thing.  "So what?  Who cares?  Why does it matter that you've been supporting the game somewhat financially primarily because it was PvE?  I want Stalker to troll newbs!  Rawr!"

Seriously, it needs to not be a thing.

Yeh, I guess You cant read. Killing people as Stalker is not trolling or griefing. Attacking low levels? Happens. If the Stalker can only kill people and not do anything different then It cant rly grief. There could be limitations who can you attack, Like you cant attack ppl on low level planets and such btw. You guys are totally closed minded and are not open to a super great idea. Yeh its trolling bla bla. Like rng isnt trolling.

[Kinetos]

RNG isn't trolling.

[HUNDarkTemplar]

1 minute ago, Kinetos said:

RNG isn't trolling.

Well, It is, so is life. A player Stalker going after you is just RNG, You could call It not, but every action can be called RNG.

[Vertexer]

22 minutes ago, WrathAscending said:

Just a few things I'd like to point out.

1: Advocates of the idea in this thread are largely against any way to opt out. Souls has means of doing so.

2: As it stands there is no way to opt out because either the system regards everyone as a valid target or you have to kill bosses and acquire Stalker death marks in order to unlock new Warframes and weapons or just plain progress through the star map via node availability and Junction requirements.

3: When made available to players the immediate response was to use it for griefing by going after the lowest-level and most poorly equipped players available and/or attempt to interfere in mission success by targeting mission objectives, by the PVP winner of the competition and indeed the devs themselves.

4. Even if 3 is addressed, players have a strong incentive to carry their best gear at all times in case they get invaded, yet MR progression is directly tied to the acquisition and levelling of new items on a constant basis. The two are diametrically opposed and griefing potential aside shows the biggest flaw in the concept.

5. Every time- every time- PVP has been instituted in what is ordinarily PVE content in this game it has gone horribly, horribly awry, and the previous plans had a lot less griefing potential than this.

"But I want to be able to PVP people who don't want to be PVPed!" is not a good enough reason to incorporate this in the game.

And if the target is attempting difficult content- especially if they're new, or they're using new gear- one extra death can be the difference between mission success and mission failure. If I had people randomly invading my PVE games back when I started the game I would have dropped it so hard there would have been a small crater. This is not a good idea in any way, shape, or form.

It's far simpler and wiser to just segregate PVE and PVP modes completely so that people can do whatever they want without interference from others.

Yea, lists!

1) I really don't know what game you are playing, but you can play Warframe in Solo mode. The option to do so is via Triangle while in the navigation menu on the PS4. It functions thematically the same way as Souls. You don't want to be invaded, you play off-line (or dead in-game). The consequence to this is you can't summon/play co-op dead.

2) Worrying about a future implemented mode because the means to not play it are not in yet is ludicrous. You don't think they will add that function in if enough people bring it to their attention on their own forum? Or do you somehow think that adding that function is impossible for some reason?

3)  Not gonna continue to go point for point. Pretty much the concern is losing to an invading Stalker. Which is a non-issue in the end, especially if the ability to opt-out of invasions is implemented in the first place. Pretty much a whole lot of nothin' panicking.

[BornWithTeeth]

"This mode isn't about player toxicity at all!"

Then why do the players who like the idea keep hurling insults at the ones who don't?

 

EDIT: Oh, hey, look at that, a bunch of posts quietly vanished. For the benefit of folks reading the thread, this is the second time that a chunk of posts have had to be removed from the thread for containing personal taunts and insults.

Edited July 17, 2017 by BornWithTeeth

[WrathAscending]

@Vertexer:

Co-op mode is something I enjoy playing, in part to see what others are doing with loadouts and aesthetics, and in part because the loot rewards for components and XP are higher in groups. Having PVP invasions dangling over my head like the Sword of Damocles and being forced to go solo to avoid them is a major part of my objection to PVP intruding on PVP. Players who PVP should not have that kind of power over PVE players, especially not when almost all of the game's content is designed for co-op play. Dark Souls was designed with a different paradigm in mind.

Similar concerns were raised prior to the implementation of Dark Sector Conflicts. This is the problem; we've seen it happen before, and to say that Things Did Not Go Well is an understatement of extreme proportions. Dark Sectors had less potential to intrude on normal PVE play than Stalker invasions too since those were single nodes set aside for PVP play while Conflicts were in progress, so I can't imagine this going much better either.

And yes, the concern is about losing to an invading Stalker. When that happens currently, it's the result of PVE content functioning as intended. It can be frustrating to have the Stalker lock us into a tiny corridor on Eris or, as what could happen back in the day spawn in on an elevator ride we're on leading to rapid fatalities, but we know the risk of Stalker showing up and accept that as part of normal PVE play. We didn't sign up for PVP to intrude on that content, and if the Stalker comes in as a PVP invader, we then know that anything we lose, be it a single revive or mission failure due to that being our last one, being too busy dealing with the Stalker to deal with mission objectives, or potentially with the Stalker able to damage mission objectives or trip alarms and cause Rescue or Spy runs to fail, is because another player decided to come in and do that.

PVP and PVE play has never mixed well in Warframe, regardless of iteration. If DE wishes to add the ability for players to take control of the Stalker to engage in PVP play, it should be reserved for Conclave only.

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by WrathAscending

[achromos]

I don't get why people are acting so up-tight about this.  With this the stalker might actually be... gasp, a threat!  Does the stalker need to not be able to attack objectives?  Yes.  Though it would still be interesting to let him 'mess' with players.  What's the worst thing that a player stalker can do in most situations? Make you eat a revive (as long as they don't ship him with the ability to destroy objectives).  Seriously though, this is a cool idea!  I mean it's not hard to avoid the stalker either, I haven't had a stalker mark in months.  All these people complaining just don't want to face a player controlled stalker because they don't want to lose for once, lol.

 

Think of it this way...  if DE makes it so that the player stalker can only attack someone with a mark, then just don't get a mark.  Don't help the marked, you don't have to go and deal with the big scary player controlled stalker.

[(PSN)Silverback73]

2 hours ago, BornWithTeeth said:

"This mode isn't about player toxicity at all!"

Then why do the players who like the idea keep hurling insults at the ones who don't?

 

EDIT: Oh, hey, look at that, a bunch of posts quietly vanished. For the benefit of folks reading the thread, this is the second time that a chunk of posts have had to be removed from the thread for containing personal taunts and insults.

Again, make it an opt-in choice.  Choice is the strength of Warframe.  If there are or aren't enough participants to make it viable, you have your answer one way or another.

Taking all the grandstanding and emotion out of how unfair it is to give a player Stslkrr+++11111 powah!!!! to grief and smite other players, it becomes no different than any other game mode, or in this case game mode option.

[BornWithTeeth]

7 minutes ago, (PS4)Silverback73 said:

Again, make it an opt-in choice.  Choice is the strength of Warframe.  If there are or aren't enough participants to make it viable, you have your answer one way or another.

Taking all the grandstanding and emotion out of how unfair it is to give a player Stslkrr+++11111 powah!!!! to grief and smite other players, it becomes no different than any other game mode, or in this case game mode option.

And when DE introduce the mode without removing the Stalker's ability to attack objectives instead of players, and the mode launches without being an opt-in choice? You know that's exactly the kind of thing they'd do, and then gloss over any negative feedback in Devstreams for six months until they finally do what common sense dictates should have been done right from the start.

 

 

@achromos You don't get why people are uptight about this. That's ok.
                           I don't get why it is of absolute, apocalyptic importance for players who like PvP to be able to force their preferences on people who don't share them. Is it a kind of meta-PvP? "Ha ha, you don't like PvP but I do, and here I am attacking you, that means I win by default, because I have defined winning as me ruining your fun!" ?

Seriously. People who like PvP, why is it so important to you to force it on people who don't like it?

Edited July 17, 2017 by BornWithTeeth

[WrathAscending]

2 minutes ago, achromos said:

I don't get why people are acting so up-tight about this.  With this the stalker might actually be... gasp, a threat!  Does the stalker need to not be able to attack objectives?  Yes.  Though it would still be interesting to let him 'mess' with players.  What's the worst thing that a player stalker can do in most situations? Make you eat a revive (as long as they don't ship him with the ability to destroy objectives).  Seriously though, this is a cool idea!  I mean it's not hard to avoid the stalker either, I haven't had a stalker mark in months.  All these people complaining just don't want to face a player controlled stalker because they don't want to lose for once, lol.

We get Stalker marks by killing bosses. We have to kill bosses in order to acquire certain weapons (Seer), to progress through the Star Chart, complete Sorties, meet Junction requirements, and earn via F2P new Warframes and weapons (Miter, Cronus, Twin Gremlins, Twin Kohmak). If the answer to the problem is "just don't get marked" you're limiting the game area available to those who want to avoid it to the first few nodes of Mercury.

And again, if Stalker needs to be "more of a threat" then DE can accomplish that with some AI, weapon, and ability changes. They don't have to make him PVP to increase his threat level.

[achromos]

13 minutes ago, WrathAscending said:

We get Stalker marks by killing bosses. We have to kill bosses in order to acquire certain weapons (Seer), to progress through the Star Chart, complete Sorties, meet Junction requirements, and earn via F2P new Warframes and weapons (Miter, Cronus, Twin Gremlins, Twin Kohmak). If the answer to the problem is "just don't get marked" you're limiting the game area available to those who want to avoid it to the first few nodes of Mercury.

And again, if Stalker needs to be "more of a threat" then DE can accomplish that with some AI, weapon, and ability changes. They don't have to make him PVP to increase his threat level.

I am literally telling you to 'not get marked' and once you get past a certain point in the game you really have to TRY and get marked (or maybe that's just me, lol).  This has nothing to do with F2P or P2P, don't even drag it into that territory just to try and get your narrative across because it is invalid and you know it.  In the last three months of playing this game I've seen the stalker maybe twice.

 

The worst case scenario is that you get downed once, and then have to be revived.  Wooo!  Time to freak out, the all powerful tenno have to eat a revive once in a while.  Seriously I don't see the issue, we already have a opt-out system that could work.  Don't get marked, suck up the revive once in a while if you do or beat the stalker-player.  It's not like the stalker as he is can invade a player without a mark and once he does, win/lose you lose a mark.  Once you aren't a target of the stalkers just don't try and gang up on him and you don't have to worry about the big scary chance of losing lol.

Edited July 17, 2017 by achromos

[EmberStar]

3 hours ago, (PS4)Silverback73 said:

Dying Light proves otherwise.  If you opt into the mode on both sides, everything above is null.

Since 2014.  MR 23.

Dying Light and Dead By Daylight don't prove anything.  Anyone opting in to PVP in Dying Light is *choosing* to opt into PVP.  I'm reasonably sure that, like Dark Souls, you can actually turn it off.  And Dead by Daylight is a pure PVP game.  Anyone who even loads the game is fine with PVP, because there's literally no way to play the game that *isn't* PVP.  I don't think that one even has bots.

And if you *don't* opt in to PVP, all the reasons why this is a TERRIBLE idea come back into play.

[WrathAscending]

Just now, achromos said:

I am litterally telling you to 'not get marked' and once you get past a certain point in the game you really have to TRY and get marked.  This has nothing to do with F2P or P2P, don't even drag it into that territory for to try and get your narrative across because it is invalid and you know it.

Sure. As someone who is MR 24, has done all the quests and Raids, can afford to buy Prime Access or new weapons, frames, and companions and is sitting on enough Plat to get things from the market or trade if I want to avoid being Death Marked, I'm fine. Now what about the vast majority of players, who aren't at the far end of progression, who are just coming up through the ranks and need to do all the unlocking and item farming? It is an entirely valid argument. To progress in this game, be it F2P or P2P, players have to earn Stalker death marks. There is literally no other way around it.

If your response to that is to say that, well, maybe PVP Stalker can't come after you until a certain MR, or after completing a certain Quest, or unless you're on certain planets, and only if you're playing Public instead of Solo... why not just avoid the problem right from the start by making it a PVP mode right from the start?

Because right now, the only advantage I can see that your suggestion offers over that is that it allows PVP players to go and attack someone who only wants to play PVE. This, to me, is not a compelling argument.

[BornWithTeeth]

@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?

[EmberStar]

12 minutes ago, achromos said:

I am literally telling you to 'not get marked' and once you get past a certain point in the game you really have to TRY and get marked (or maybe that's just me, lol).  (snip)

What I'm seeing here is what I see from a lot of PVP fans.  "I love PVP, and I want to force PVP on everyone else.  Especially if they don't like it.  And the bigger an inconvenience it is for them to avoid it, the better it is for me, because I get my warm fuzzy feeling by forcing other people to do something they DON'T ENJOY!"

Avoiding getting marked means being forced to avoid a *massive* chunk of the game.  If you can't get marked, you can't do anything with a boss in it.  That means most sorties (the final mission is often Assassination.)  It also means that people can't farm for *warframe parts,* since several frames can only be gotten by grinding certain bosses repeatedly.  (Valkyr says hi, Excaliber is staring at you harshly.  I think, it's hard to tell on a face without eyes.)

We get it.  You're incapable of seeing anything from someone else's point of view.  You like PVP, and you want to kill people.  Good for you.  Maybe you'd be better off in a game where everyone else wants to fight you.  Oh, right, that's kind of the point with certain PVP fans.  You don't *want* a fair fight.  You want to screw with people who *don't* want to fight you.  It's no fun if the target is prepared for it, or if it's even slightly close to fair.  Even games like Dead by Daylight won't do it for this kind of PVP fan, because even though the survivors only have the option to run and hide, they're in the game to begin with because *they are okay with that.*  And that's no fun.

Whatever.  This mode is a bad idea, and if DE launches it, I'm gone.  The people who can see the problems with it already *know* why it's likely to be a disaster.  And it's clearly pointless to continue discussing it with the PVP fans, because they either don't get it, or *can't* get it.

[achromos]

16 minutes ago, WrathAscending said:

Sure. As someone who is MR 24, has done all the quests and Raids, can afford to buy Prime Access or new weapons, frames, and companions and is sitting on enough Plat to get things from the market or trade if I want to avoid being Death Marked, I'm fine. Now what about the vast majority of players, who aren't at the far end of progression, who are just coming up through the ranks and need to do all the unlocking and item farming? It is an entirely valid argument. To progress in this game, be it F2P or P2P, players have to earn Stalker death marks. There is literally no other way around it.

If your response to that is to say that, well, maybe PVP Stalker can't come after you until a certain MR, or after completing a certain Quest, or unless you're on certain planets, and only if you're playing Public instead of Solo... why not just avoid the problem right from the start by making it a PVP mode right from the start?

Because right now, the only advantage I can see that your suggestion offers over that is that it allows PVP players to go and attack someone who only wants to play PVE. This, to me, is not a compelling argument.

 

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?

Yes, you have to earn the stalker marks at least once in your play-through (and?).  I wont say that you don't, but please stop throwing p2p and f2p terms around, that stuff literally is only serving to throw around a dividing narrative and you know it and it doesn't matter to me personally, you will gain no ground with those terms with me.

Getting back to the subject at hand, yes if you are marked you have to fight the stalker when/if he spawns in on your match as is it now.  Also, as it is now, win or lose if the other players who aren't targeted and don't attack the stalker the stalker tends to leave them alone and they can revive the downed teammates from bleedout (or they 4v1 him and very likely kill the stalker).  So the issue is self solvent as long as he cannot troll objectives.

You only have to deal with it until you are unmarked and then if you absolutely don't want PvP when a stalker shows up, get out of the way/focus on the objective (because as the way the current stalker works, if they implement it similarly or make it so that he can only attack marked targets or targets that attack him... This is the issue with talking about things that aren't finalized or even in the game.) if you aren't marked as it is now you are left largely alone as long as you don't attack the stalker, or you can choose to group up with your three other squad mates.  You have all the advantages here.  Even if he downs you then you still should have more revives available to you or your team should be able to bring you back out of bleedout unless he can beat three other players at once and if you guys aren't sticking together when the stalker shows up then it is really the fault of the hallway heros or rushers who left their team to the literal wolves and not the stalker/player-stalkers fault.

People are just over reacting to the extreme on this an it's rather funny.

 

3 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

What I'm seeing here is what I see from a lot of PVP fans.  "I love PVP, and I want to force PVP on everyone else.  Especially if they don't like it.  And the bigger an inconvenience it is for them to avoid it, the better it is for me, because I get my warm fuzzy feeling by forcing other people to do something they DON'T ENJOY!"

Avoiding getting marked means being forced to avoid a *massive* chunk of the game.  If you can't get marked, you can't do anything with a boss in it.  That means most sorties (the final mission is often Assassination.)  It also means that people can't farm for *warframe parts,* since several frames can only be gotten by grinding certain bosses repeatedly.  (Valkyr says hi, Excaliber is staring at you harshly.  I think, it's hard to tell on a face without eyes.)

We get it.  You're incapable of seeing anything from someone else's point of view.  You like PVP, and you want to kill people.  Good for you.  Maybe you'd be better off in a game where everyone else wants to fight you.  Oh, right, that's kind of the point with certain PVP fans.  You don't *want* a fair fight.  You want to screw with people who *don't* want to fight you.  It's no fun if the target is prepared for it, or if it's even slightly close to fair.  Even games like Dead by Daylight won't do it for this kind of PVP fan, because even though the survivors only have the option to run and hide, they're in the game to begin with because *they are okay with that.*  And that's no fun.

Whatever.  This mode is a bad idea, and if DE launches it, I'm gone.  The people who can see the problems with it already *know* why it's likely to be a disaster.  And it's clearly pointless to continue discussing it with the PVP fans, because they either don't get it, or *can't* get it.

oh this is rich! "You people don't want a fair fight."  Do you even read what you post?  If you are playing as the stalker, then you are using a BOW for your primary, the whole general stalker loadout... lol.  Vs FOUR other people.

 

Who has the fair fight?

 

You aren't taking your loadout into these invasions lol, you are being the stalker. Try again.  You are just over reacting and not thinking things through. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by achromos

[BornWithTeeth]

Just now, achromos said:

 

Yes, you have to earn the stalker marks at least once in your play-through (and?).  I wont say that you don't, but please stop throwing p2p and f2p terms around, that stuff literally is only serving to throw around a dividing narrative and you know it and it doesn't matter to me personally, you will gain no ground with those terms with me.

Getting back to the subject at hand, yes if you are marked you have to fight the stalker when/if he spawns in on your match as is it now.  Also, as it is now, win or lose if the other players who aren't targeted and don't attack the stalker the stalker tends to leave them alone and they can revive the downed teammates from bleedout (or they 4v1 him and very likely kill the stalker).  So the issue is self solvent as long as he cannot troll objectives.

You only have to deal with it until you are unmarked and then if you absolutely don't want PvP when a stalker shows up, get out of the way/focus on the objective (because as the way the current stalker works, if they implement it similarly or make it so that he can only attack marked targets or targets that attack him... This is the issue with talking about things that aren't finalized or even in the game.) if you aren't marked as it is now you are left largely alone as long as you don't attack the stalker, or you can choose to group up with your three other squad mates.  You have all the advantages here.  Even if he downs you then you still should have more revives available to you or your team should be able to bring you back out of bleedout unless he can beat three other players at once and if you guys aren't sticking together when the stalker shows up then it is really the fault of the hallway heros or rushers who left their team to the literal wolves and not the stalker/player-stalkers fault.

People are just over reacting to the extreme on this an it's rather funny.

Yes, but you still haven't answered my question. At all. You have instead skipped it and are just focusing on "Lol why don't you like it tho, why don't you just deal with it." You are speaking as if it is already an established part of the game that PvP can intrude onto PvE missions.

 

This is my question: Why is it so important to you that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it?

[EmberStar]

Just now, BornWithTeeth said:

Yes, but you still haven't answered my question. At all. You have instead skipped it and are just focusing on "Lol why don't you like it tho, why don't you just deal with it." You are speaking as if it is already an established part of the game that PvP can intrude onto PvE missions.

 

This is my question: Why is it so important to you that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it?

Because PVP.  He's already as much as said outright that he's going to ignore any evidence or argument that doesn't support the "PVP is good, lol git gud scrub" point of view.

[achromos]

2 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Yes, but you still haven't answered my question. At all. You have instead skipped it and are just focusing on "Lol why don't you like it tho, why don't you just deal with it." You are speaking as if it is already an established part of the game that PvP can intrude onto PvE missions.

 

This is my question: Why is it so important to you that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it?

 

You aren't reading.

 

You have several options.

 

1.) Play solo

2.) Play with your team nearby and either 4v1 the stalker or if you go down get picked up from bleedout (if the others aren't marked) and shrug it off

3.) 4v1 the stalker and pound him into the ground because he has to use STALKERS GEAR and you don't?

 

Pick your poison, but please read an entire post before posting out of pure reflex.

Just now, EmberStar said:

Because PVP.  He's already as much as said outright that he's going to ignore any evidence or argument that doesn't support the "PVP is good, lol git gud scrub" point of view.

L2R?

I answered you guys several times, yet neither of you seem to have reading comprehension skills, and just post off of emotion reflex.  (Being in the over emotional mindset that equates to: "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"  does nobody any good if you can't step back and think of things logically.)

Edited July 17, 2017 by achromos

[BornWithTeeth]

Just now, achromos said:

 

You aren't reading.

 

You have several options.

 

1.) Play solo

2.) Play with your team nearby and either 4v1 the stalker or if you go down get picked up from bleedout (if the others aren't marked) and shrug it off

3.) 4v1 the stalker and pound him into the ground because he has to use STALKERS GEAR and you don't?

 

Pick your poison, but please read an entire post before posting out of pure reflex.

And you are still refusing to answer my question.

 

Why is it important to you that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it? Can you articulate a response to this that isn't just "lol deal with it"?

[achromos]

Just now, BornWithTeeth said:

And you are still refusing to answer my question.

 

Why is it important to you that players who don't like PvP should be forced to engage in it? Can you articulate a response to this that isn't just "lol deal with it"?

Why is it important to you that players shouldn't be allowed to make the stalker actually challenging.

 

You are ignoring everything I am saying when I have answered you.  I never said deal with it, I am saying use what options you have.  Don't be silly, learn to read and quit trying to shove my points aside because you know they are actually valid.  Try tackling the entire post that I have made above instead of picking out that one jenga piece you 'think' can disarm the whole thing.

 

Again, it isn't going to work.

 

Also, for your and your friends benefit.  I HATE conclave.  if you get a chance... Check my ingame profile, I literally spend maybe .1% in game pvping.  soooooo, GG?

[BornWithTeeth]

2 minutes ago, achromos said:

Why is it important to you that players shouldn't be allowed to make the stalker actually challenging.

 

You are ignoring everything I am saying when I have answered you.  I never said deal with it, I am saying use what options you have.  Don't be silly, learn to read and quit trying to shove my points aside because you know they are actually valid.  Try tackling the entire post that I have made above instead of picking out that one jenga piece you 'think' can disarm the whole thing.

 

Again, it isn't going to work.

 

Also, for your and your friends benefit.  I HATE conclave.  if you get a chance... Check my ingame profile, I literally spend maybe .1% in game pvping.  soooooo, GG?

The single most consistent bit of feedback from this thread is "Sure, but make it optional, there's a lot of people who don't like PvP."

 

Now, I am not somehow warping your points, nor am I pretending that they are something other than what they are. I am asking you a personal question, about your own personal perspective and how it relates to other people, and the question is this:

 

Why do you want other people who don't like PvP to be forced to engage in it?

 

_{I really hope DE are watching this thread. And facepalming.}

Edited July 17, 2017 by BornWithTeeth

[-YoRHa-]

5 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

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

 

10 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

What I'm seeing here is what I see from a lot of PVP fans.  "I love PVP, and I want to force PVP on everyone else.  Especially if they don't like it.  And the bigger an inconvenience it is for them to avoid it, the better it is for me, because I get my warm fuzzy feeling by forcing other people to do something they DON'T ENJOY!"

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. 

 

[Zanchak]

As I said in a diff post about the same thing, the reward at Tennocon was one thing, amusing, monitored and a one-off. The crowd very much showed how it would be used were it a "thing".

If this was implemented into the game it would be a disaster for various reasons, many being shown in the behaviour and mindset on these threads alone.

I'm sure the trolls would have a field day slaying random marked people for their own satisfaction, though in doing so they'd also be removing a mark and a chance that person has at a drop. Not that they'd care.

"Don't get marked" is pretty much the most selfish thing Ive seen in a while on here. This is a mode that could threaten peoples progression, people who just want to play Warframe, not deal with pvp type bs or the selfish mindset that comes with it.

I don't "need" Stalkers drops, but I do enjoy him in the game. As him. Not as some person with a power complex that ruins his "character" for me entirely. At least Stalker has inner conflict and depth. I have always wanted to be on his side, not be HIM.

Anything player controlled that can attack players should stay far away from PVE, AND from important characters within the game, options or not.

[achromos]

3 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

The single most consistent bit of feedback from this thread is "Sure, but make it optional, there's a lot of people who don't like PvP."

 

Now, I am not somehow warping your points, nor am I pretending that they are something other than what they are. I am asking you a personal question, about your own personal perspective and how it relates to other people, and the question is this:

 

Why do you want other people who don't like PvP to be forced to engage in it?

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 game(!) 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?

Edited July 17, 2017 by achromos