Being the Stalker at Tennocon?

[TotallyLagging]

Their weapons are limited to Stalker's old toys and possibly unmodded so I'm not too worried. And assuming Dispel will have to be manually casted you'll likely get to run around with your buffs because people are forgetful.

 

Well, maybe. Assuming the requirement for playing the Stalker is the same as the Tennocon one odds are only dedicated Conclave players will be able to play him...

[Kensei]

Now I would be fine with this, it seems absolutely perfect. But the creator has forgotten the most crucial part of this game feature, which leaves it so INCREDIBLY broken that players will rage quit the mission (as if they don't do that already): Custom Messages. I want to be able to spawn in as The Stalker and say some funky stuff like "Hi, there." or if I were to feel extra weeb-like I could say "I'm sorry Sensei, I must go all out, just this once." or even hit them up with a classy "Mada Mada!" Can you imagine if The Stalker spawned in and started saying some weird lines? I would die of laughing. Also, it could be a good way of letting people know that it is a human Stalker coming after you and would let them prepare accordingly. Just sayin.

[Horaciozhao]

so dark souls' force PvP? Sorry, if this is a thing I quit, unless they give you an option to turn it off

Edited July 9, 2017 by Horaciozhao

[Serbian2G]

I would love to see this become an optional thing. Stalker as he is currently is boring tbh.. 

 

Spoiler

Honestly with Tenno mode hes a piece of cake..

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by Serbian2G

[Nurmetya]

.....

No.

This is a stupid idea.

Its so stupid it sets a new bar for stupidity.

You, me and everyone here knows that most players will use it to grief and troll.

This is Warframe. Not Dark Souls. you want this go play Dark Souls that is what it is there for.

[Diamondmatter]

I think it's interesting. No good the way it is at Tennocon, but it's interesting to think about being the Stalker - a preexisting, real character who isn't just the player's avatar to customize. Maybe such a thing could tie into Umbra; a strong implication is that Umbra is a Warframe who resisted their Operator.

As for gameplay, I doubt there's any way to make PvP against the Stalker work (at least without it being sidelined like Conclave), but perhaps something cool could be done in the future depending on how Umbra pans out.

[Energized]

If implemented with care this feature could be very interesting. I often thought the stalker should be more of a challenge to fight, alas, you can only do so much with AI and custom mechanics. Giving a player the reigns seems like an elegant solution as long as griefing is impossible and the feature itself is completely optional. 

[ShikiRen]

8 hours ago, BornWithTeeth said:

And when people using meta weapons drive you off and prevent you from sabotaging their Sortie missions, will you complain to DE and ask them to buff Stalker mode so that you are guaranteed to succeed?

Did you really miss that massive amount of sarcasm in that last sentence, or are you just here S#&$posting? Nevermind you completely ignoring everyone elses arguements. DE would do what they want, and so far they don't have a record of listening to people that are obviously trying to grief, or even crying why thing xyz isn't implemented yet. Or we'd have had Umbra for 2 years already as a minialert or sth. So, all your "but those people actually only want to grief , obviously" posts are moot. Especially since that is an assumption without facts at all. I'd love to be able to play as stalker, with all of my previously mentioned limitations implemented. I've seen quite a few others that would agree aswell. Of course there are people that want to use it to troll, but they'd only be able to do it to their friends, anyway (at least if DE doesn't F it up), or random people in possibly random missions that have a stalker's mark.

And again, even if it were true that everyone wanting this feature just wanted to ruin people's games, DE would never implement something that could do that, fix it if they'd F*** up (remember Atlas' walls? Yeah. They were fixed pretty @(*()$ quickly), and would not listen to crybabies asking for more griefing potential, so you can stop mindlessly repeating the same S#&$ over and over again.

[BornWithTeeth]

@ShikiRen I wasn't even talking to you in that post. That said, you might want to cut down on your sodium intake, get some exercise, and practice meditation, because you just blew up over a forum topic.

 

In any case, even though you like the idea, it remains critically flawed. Look at the first two pages of this thread and see how many people stated that exactly what they want to do is hunt newbies and sabotage people's missions. This entire concept cannot be meaningfully separated from community toxicity because it'll be an irresistible lure to the very people who should not be trusted with it. The only way to implement it without poisoning the community would be to gut it of those aspects for which such malicious players would value it.

 

EDIT: Please see also @Jackviator 's post on the previous page explaining how attempting to implement the system would immediately run into logistical problems. The tl;dr of it is that enough players would opt out that invaders would find themselves with a very limited pool of targets, who are mostly armed for bear and waiting to counter-grief the invaders, so that rapidly, the mode would stop being anything even close to a core system and would just become a creaky and neglected niche.

Edited July 9, 2017 by BornWithTeeth

[iMalicious]

honestly wouldn't want this in game, unless it had more limitations. Not fun if you're doing a defense, mobile defense or rescue and a stalker just joins in and kills the hostage or defense objective before you even get to it. If it's added it needs limits like mainly only be able to kill players as stalker already does.

Edited July 9, 2017 by iMalicious

[Mints]

2 hours ago, Nurmetya said:

.....

No.

This is a stupid idea.

Its so stupid it sets a new bar for stupidity.

You, me and everyone here knows that most players will use it to grief and troll.

This is Warframe. Not Dark Souls. you want this go play Dark Souls that is what it is there for.

There are few arguments more tired and dated than "Go play something else if you want X feature." I've seen it a million times on the Star Citizen forums and I'm sure I'll see it a million times more. The fact you reject the idea in its entirety instead of having a discussion on how to limit it so that it doesn't have as much grief potential. It's not as if you can even terminate the mission with this anyway since you only have to kill your target once to satisfy the invasion.

All you have to do is make it so you get penalized for killing players that aren't death marked. Simple.

[Flaezon]

10 hours ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Yes, keep making my argument for me.

Are you afraid? Well, I don't mind if DE allow to turn it off just for players like you, beside that, is not like you will fail a mission because of this, you can be revived or have the help of the other 3 players to defeat the stalker. People who don't like new content mechanics shouldn't blame DE for not having something new to add to the game . Where's the fun on that?

Edited July 10, 2017 by Venoct

[(PSN)horridhal]

6 minutes ago, Mints said:

The fact you reject the idea in its entirety instead of having a discussion on how to limit it so that it doesn't have as much grief potential.

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, the only reasonable way to accomplish this is to make it entirely optional which would inevitably, as indicated by the state of PvP in terms of population numbers, lead to the mode becoming underutilized and, thus, abandoned.

If it is forced in any way many people who hate PvP in this game, myself included, are going to be massively turned off the game.

Edited July 10, 2017 by (PS4)horridhal

[BornWithTeeth]

1 minute ago, Mints said:

There are few arguments more tired and dated than "Go play something else if you want X feature." I've seen it a million times on the Star Citizen forums and I'm sure I'll see it a million times more. The fact you reject the idea in its entirety instead of having a discussion on how to limit it so that it doesn't have as much grief potential. It's not as if you can even terminate the mission with this anyway since you only have to kill your target once to satisfy the invasion.

All you have to do is make it so you get penalized for killing players that aren't death marked. Simple.

There are a couple of genuinely solid arguments, which largely boil down to these two points:

 

1. The concept is best executed if it can be entirely stripped of griefing potential, but the problem there is that one of the main reasons people like the idea is for its griefing potential. See all of the people whose response to this video was "I wanna hunt newbies/sabotage people's Sorties/really mess people up." See also the history of this idea, where the vast majority of suggestions for PvP invasions have not been couched in terms of 'a thrilling challenge' but rather 'I wanna punish scrubs and ruin their day.'

 

2. See Jackviator's post. If the system comes with an opt out, then most people will probably just opt out, and invaders will find a relatively small pool of targets who are ready and waiting to fight back with extreme force. The system would be crippled on arrival.

[BornWithTeeth]

1 minute ago, Venoct said:

Are you afraid? Well, I don't mind if DE allow to turn it off just for players like you, beside that, is not like you will fail a mission because of this, you can be revived or have the help of the other 3 players to defeat the stalker. People who don't like new content mechanics shouldn't blame DE . Where's is the fun on that?

When your immediate response to being called out for a toxic attitude is to talk trash, it doesn't help the image of your position.

[Mints]

Just now, (PS4)horridhal said:

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, the only reasonable way to accomplish this is to make it entirely optional which would, inevitably as indicated by the state of PvP in terms of population numbers, ultimately lead to the mode becoming underutilized and, thus, abandoned.

If it is forced in any way many people who hate PvP in this game, myself included, are going to be massively turned off the game.

Or just have it work off of an existing death mark system, which is not all that unlike Dark Souls in that regard. Killing a boss has a chance to set the Stalker on you. Helping the Corpus repeatedly incurs the wrath of the Grustrag Three, helping Grineer attracts Zanuka. If you fulfill X condition then players have the capability of invading you. Whether that condition is entering a location, killing certain enemies, or interacting with various factions that's as close to voluntary as it needs to be.

In fact, here's a few thoughts: Keep the invader's power directly related to the individual they've death marked. If only one person is Death Marked the Stalker is only strong enough to snare and kill a player, while if multiple players in the cell are death marked the invader becomes much more powerful. Make it so invaders can't just face tank and they have to be smart. Penalize them for killing players who don't bear their Death Mark, or even prevent them from harming those players altogether.

[(PSN)horridhal]

Just now, Mints said:

Or just have it work off of an existing death mark system, which is not all that unlike Dark Souls in that regard. Killing a boss has a chance to set the Stalker on you. Helping the Corpus repeatedly incurs the wrath of the Grustrag Three, helping Grineer attracts Zanuka. If you fulfill X condition then players have the capability of invading you. Whether that condition is entering a location, killing certain enemies, or interacting with various factions that's as close to voluntary as it needs to be.

And if I simply don't want to play in a PvP mode?  What then?  You are effectively saying "Screw you, you are no longer able to kill bosses" to anyone who doesn't want to play PvP which is a majority of the user base across all 3 platforms.  

Spoiler

 

[Flaezon]

14 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

When your immediate response to being called out for a toxic attitude is to talk trash, it doesn't help the image of your position.

Sorry I'm not watching  my phone the 24 hours, but I'm glad for your quick response, I offered solutions instead barking. Here is another one, give to the stalker a limit time something like 1 minute to complete his objective so you have enough time to run away.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Venoct

[BornWithTeeth]

8 minutes ago, Mints said:

Or just have it work off of an existing death mark system, which is not all that unlike Dark Souls in that regard. Killing a boss has a chance to set the Stalker on you. Helping the Corpus repeatedly incurs the wrath of the Grustrag Three, helping Grineer attracts Zanuka. If you fulfill X condition then players have the capability of invading you. Whether that condition is entering a location, killing certain enemies, or interacting with various factions that's as close to voluntary as it needs to be.

In fact, here's a few thoughts: Keep the invader's power directly related to the individual they've death marked. If only one person is Death Marked the Stalker is only strong enough to snare and kill a player, while if multiple players in the cell are death marked the invader becomes much more powerful. Make it so invaders can't just face tank and they have to be smart. Penalize them for killing players who don't bear their Death Mark, or even prevent them from harming those players altogether.

You realize that what you are arguing in favour of with this approach is gating PvE content behind PvP? 

 

I see your suggestion, that there be triggers in PvE play which can then cause you to become a valid target for player invasions, but if anything that's even worse than the default suggestion of an opt-in system. It means that there are then aspects of the PvE game which are effectively a 'third rail' and that touching it results in unavoidable harassment from the more aggressive parts of the community. Recall that DE had to shut down Dark Sectors because clan PvP had basically ruined what were otherwise good PvE missions, and the associated toxicity of the clan competitions was bad for the game itself.

Edited July 10, 2017 by BornWithTeeth

[Avynire]

This can only work if DE make strict rules so that stalker will behave as the stalker should be aim its target (there is stalker's mark for a reason), assassinate the target and leave to hunt another day, not for trolling around killing hostage, destroying defense objective or trigger alarm on spy mission.

Or DE could make it as one of the conclave so 4 players as tenno 1 as stalker (we can choose from stalker family torment, misery,etc) and who deal last hit to kill the stalker become the stalker. It might give player a reason to play conclave.

At least lets DE "polish" this stalker mode if they want to include it. And hopefully the focus on PoE first instead so there is no delay and delivered on time later in 2017.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Avynire

[(XBOX)AntiCaesar]

Or at least tell everybody, "Somebody wants to invade. Allow?" Then you can vote on what you want to do and majority vote wins

[--RV--Hyenah]

Do not force people onto PVP if they don't want to go on a PVP experience. It's rather simple tbh.

-PVP stalker invations, if implemented, should be entirely optional.

-Make it so you can limit the latency range of whomever might invade you.

-Incentivize heavily fighting against the stalker if controlled by a player.

-Incentivize heavily killing the target as the stalker, not ruining the mission. And polish the whole thing in a way where you cannot grief as the stalker, nor as the player. If you cannot do this, don't implement the gamemode.

I do not have all the answers and I won't get into detail on how to do this. Because I don't know. The devs should be the ones to know, if they carry on with this.

All of this sounds like basic, run-of-the-mill stuff, but people seems to forget about if because OMG STALKER.

[Vorcov]

Aww man, I missed this while I was there. Would have loved to give it a try. After watching just the first few seconds though, I wouldn't want to be able to just bullet jump around. I'd want similar movement to what the AI currently has. And of course, if it is to be implemented one day, have the option to enable or disable player-controlled Stalkers.

[Mints]

On 10/07/2017 at 1:50 AM, PsychoNefilim said:

 

You could not possibly think that being forced against a predictable AI is comparable to being forced against another player, could you?

If the Stalker were anything other than a mild annoyance, no I wouldn't see a difference between the two. As it stands, his canned predictable AI destroys his purpose and renders him nothing but a nuisance.

[BornWithTeeth]

1 minute ago, PsychoNefilim said:

Do not force people onto PVP if they don't want to go on a PVP experience. It's rather simple tbh.

-PVP stalker invations, if implemented, should be entirely optional.

-Make it so you can limit the latency range of whomever might invade you.

-Incentivize heavily fighting against the stalker if controlled by a player.

-Incentivize heavily killing the target as the stalker, not ruining the mission. And polish the whole thing in a way where you cannot grief as the stalker, nor as the player. If you cannot do this, don't implement the gamemode.

I do not have all the answers and I won't get into detail on how to do this. Because I don't know. The devs should be the ones to know, if they carry on with this.

All of this sounds like basic, run-of-the-mill stuff, but people seems to forget about if because OMG STALKER.

I mean, if you put in place limitations strictly as follows:

- Player controlled Stalker invasions are strictly opt in via the settings menu. As Jackviator noted, it might be necessary to provide a carrot, like making the drop chances of a player-Stalker more favourable if they are defeated.

- Player controlled Stalker can absolutely not interact with anything other than Tenno. Can't destroy objectives, can't kill ordinary enemies, can't activate life support, can't enter a Spy Vault.

- No Stalking in Raids, Sorties, or Assassinations.

- Player controlled Stalker has no control over who they target. It's completely random.

- Player controlled Stalker only goes after players who are eligible to do Sortie missions.

 

How about those suggestions?