Being the Stalker at Tennocon?

[UrielColtan]

9 minutes ago, WrathAscending said:

Some boring people decided to support Warframe as Founders because it was marketed as a PVE-only game and have a long memory of how badly PVP content has gone in this game when it collides with PVE content. Like the whole Solar Rails debacle.

If people want to do PVP, Conclave is there for them. That is is so poorly populated speaks volumes as to how well-implemented PVP content is in Warframe and how much the general player base wants to do with it. Forcing PVP down the throats of people who do everything in their power to avoid it- and this accounts for the vast and overwhelming majority of Warframe players- is not a good idea.

Such tunnel vision. So the other parts of the game do not exist just because of the potential of a person controlling Stalker, who has been around invading almost as long as the game itself? PVE only was also never marketed, thats just esoteric ad-libbing and, "this game is subject to changes" has always been there. Don't know the full numbers for PvP conclave but from experience I don't like them because the maps suck and weapons and movement are nerfed.

Edited July 14, 2017 by UrielColtan

[WrathAscending]

34 minutes ago, UrielColtan said:

Such tunnel vision. So the other parts of the game do not exist just because of the potential of a person controlling Stalker, who has been around invading almost as long as the game itself? PVE only was also never marketed, thats just esoteric ad-libbing and, "this game is subject to changes" has always been there. Don't know the full numbers for PvP conclave but from experience I don't like them because the maps suck and weapons and movement are nerfed.

Stalker is currently PVE.

And yes, back in the day DE was quite clear that PVP was not part of their vision for the game. That changed, and I do not believe it was for the betterment of the game. Especially since it prompted several DDOS attacks that prevented many from even being able to play it.

39 minutes ago, Ksaero said:

So, you despise the very idea of possibility of one player attacking another. I don't find it reasonable enough to abandon this game mode though. Hope DE doesn't.

After the fifth Radiation sortie where a Bladestorm Ash killed the rest of the squad it got stale. Funnily enough when it comes to Sorties or Void missions what I want to do is go in, complete the mission, and get the reward, not get bogged down because someone else finds it amusing to halt the squad's progress.

I really do not enjoy first or third person PVP games. This is why I play Warframe instead of Call of Duty or Battlefield. I simply do not enjoy PVP games or content like that, and neither does the majority of the Warframe player base. They vote with their feet.

Here is the last infographic showing what players were doing. A little over one per cent of game time was spent in Conclave.

Clearly PVP is not what the majority of players want.

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by WrathAscending

[Xaero]

13 minutes ago, WrathAscending said:

Here is the last infographic showing what players were doing. A little over one per cent of game time was spent in Conclave.

Clearly PVP is not what the majority of players want.

As I said, Stalker player and Tenno players are not gonna be on the same ground. It's nothing like Conclave. This infograpgic just can't show the players' (un)willingness to invade other players' missions or to fight a much more challenging Stalker. It's a whole lot different experience.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Ksaero

[BornWithTeeth]

9 minutes ago, Ksaero said:

As I said, Stalker player and Tenno players are not gonna be on the same ground. It's nothing like Conclave. This infograpgic just can't show the players' (un)willingness to invade other players' missions or to fight a much more challenging Stalker. It's a whole lot different experience.

What I find about a lot of posts, and I'm sorry for singling you out, you're by far not the worst example of it, is that when people argue in favour of potentially toxic PvP game modes, they often seem to be arguing for a version of the mode which is perfect, rather than the mode as it is.

 

You see a lot of people who argue for the return of Solar Rails, and when you point out all the problems with the mode and how awful it often was, the response you'll get is that it will be better if DE implement it now. More balanced, more fun. Eventually, you realise that what people are advocating for is effectively their head canon version of a mode, in which all the exploits and abuses don't exist.

[WrathAscending]

PVP is PVP.

Whether it's Conclave or allowing for Stalker to attack PVE missions, that is what it comes down to.

98.93% of total play time across the entire player base is spent doing literally anything other than PVP, because the game is largely PVE and that is what most players want to do. The player base who wants and enjoys PVP is vanishingly small compared to the number of players active, but extremely vocal on these forums. Mandatory PVP, especially when TennoCon showed the opportunity would be (ab)used for targeting low-level nodes filled with new players and interfering with mission progress by tripping alarms, killing defence targets, using up life support and the like shows how bad an idea it is to implement. If the goal is to do something high-level, there are other ways to achieve that aim.

This is not about "skill ceilings" or "challenging play." It is purely about having an opportunity to meddle in the missions of other players, be it by being able to invade or because of the opportunities for griefing it offers. If I wanted to play PVP, I would either go to Conclave or play one of the many action FPS games on the market. If I want a challenge that PVE Warframe can't offer me, I can go and play a Dark Mode game of Witcher 2 with no skills activated or do the same in Witcher 3 on Death March, or play Hell or Hell mode in Devil May Cry, or do a Factory Zero run of Deus Ex, or solo ME3MP Platinum. If I want to play against other humans in a competitive environment I can go and play Gwent or Civilization VI or HoMM III. I play Warframe for other reasons.

If those reasons are taken away from me- and they will be, if mandatory PVP is added- I will simply find something else to do, and I won't be the only one. Having a style of play used 1.07% of the time dictating what the other 98.93% of play time can do shouldn't even be contemplated.

Edited July 14, 2017 by WrathAscending

[Xaero]

18 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

What I find about a lot of posts, and I'm sorry for singling you out, you're by far not the worst example of it, is that when people argue in favour of potentially toxic PvP game modes, they often seem to be arguing for a version of the mode which is perfect, rather than the mode as it is.

 

You see a lot of people who argue for the return of Solar Rails, and when you point out all the problems with the mode and how awful it often was, the response you'll get is that it will be better if DE implement it now. More balanced, more fun. Eventually, you realise that what people are advocating for is effectively their head canon version of a mode, in which all the exploits and abuses don't exist.

I'm not a fan of WF's Conclave, though new Dark Sectors, if they use PvP, will be more balanced than the old ones. Not perfect, but definitely better.

But I don't see Stalker's gameplay related to Conclave in any way.

Back in 2012 I was playing Resident Evil 6, it had a couple of PvP modes such as DM, team DM, even a boss fight where 1 player plays against 5. Besides them, there was a game mode called "Agent Hunt". It allowed you to connect to a random campaign session (you couldn't choose which one), spawn as a zombie and try to kill the player you bumped into. Kill the player - you win. Player reaches the checkpoint - you lose. Playing Agent Hunt felt nothing like other PvP modes. It was really fun for both sides: as a player you got a new difficulty level, as a zombie you got a very different game experience. Just a few months after game launch PvP lobbies were almost empty, abandoned forever, but you still could meet zombie players pretty often.

IMO if certain limitations are applied to Stalker game mode, it's gonna be a good experience.

[WrathAscending]

1 minute ago, Ksaero said:

IMO if certain limitations are applied to Stalker game mode, it's gonna be a good experience.

The kinds of limitations that would need to be applied to Stalker Invasions to make it a good experience are diametrically opposed to the way it's been used so far or how most players advocating it in this thread want to use it.

Not even having it be strictly opt-in is a major warning sign in and of itself.

[Sziklamester]

This systems looks the same what have in Evolve.

[(PSN)Pengu_Imperialus]

1 hour ago, WrathAscending said:

The kinds of limitations that would need to be applied to Stalker Invasions to make it a good experience are diametrically opposed to the way it's been used so far or how most players advocating it in this thread want to use it.

Not even having it be strictly opt-in is a major warning sign in and of itself.

The rules would need to be pretty restrictive.  Time limit so someone couldn't just bounce around wasting your time. Inability to interact with objectives in any way. Forced teleportation if they get to far away from the Target warframe. 

You would have to take out pretty much everything that would just be trolly and make it a 1 on 4 arena battle.

[WrathAscending]

Just now, (PS4)geomancer1980 said:

The rules would need to be pretty restrictive.  Time limit so someone couldn't just bounce around wasting your time. Inability to interact with objectives in any way. Forced teleportation if they get to far away from the Target warframe. 

You would have to take out pretty much everything that would just be trolly and make it a 1 on 4 arena battle.

At which point why not just make it a Conclave mode so it doesn't interfere with PVE content?

[(PSN)Yes-Man-Kablaam]

Honestly they more or less assured us it's opt in some way. And really even if it wasn't this is a lot less harmful than dks invasions ever were already because we have bleedout timers and revives. If they outright disable (Or at least hinder) stalker's interactivity with mission critical objectives (Defense pods. Not excavators cause you can keep spawning them. Only things that cause failure) then i think it'll be fine and maybe allow more stalker drops.

[WrathAscending]

There is a transcript from Prime Time on the previous page where they indicate that the current plan is to implement PVP "invasions" with no opt-in or opt-out choice.

[(PSN)Yes-Man-Kablaam]

Afaik the current plan is they'll talk about it. Rebecca said at the very least they're not slapping it in there raw.

Edited July 14, 2017 by (PS4)Yes-Man-Kablaam

[WrathAscending]

In context that appears to mean they will be considering how much a PVP Stalker can interfere with mission objectives like defence targets, not whether or not players can choose to engage with the system. Especially since they address players who don't want mandatory PVP by saying they understand it might be viewed with trepidation but will totally be worth it.

[(PSN)horridhal]

3 minutes ago, WrathAscending said:

In context that appears to mean they will be considering how much a PVP Stalker can interfere with mission objectives like defence targets,

Not really.

Quote

it would also be careless to add it without any consensus, consent to participate in a stalking-style program, so stay tuned that is what the devstream is for.

In context she is talking about an opt-in feature which has been what everyone opposed to the idea, myself included, have said it would require.  Good luck finding targets if they add such a feature, though.

[BornWithTeeth]

At this point I would like to remind DE and the rest of the thread, yet again, that the system which they are proposing is actually more hostile than Dark Souls. In Dark Souls, the model which y'all are saying would be excellent to emulate, invasions are fundamentally optional. If you are Hollowed or playing offline, you won't be bothered.

 

Consider that, please.

[WrathAscending]

They also say it would be a shame to waste the feature and that they're all excited to implement it.

As a goofy, one-off thing for TennoCon, I don't object to it that much. But as soon as that was announced as part of the program, I had a strong suspicion that it was previewing a mechanic they were going to add.

I just think it's a mistake on every level. PVE-only players by and large don't want to engage with PVP elements. PVP players aren't going to have many targets and the peer-to-peer hosting of the game is only going to serve to anger them if they feel they were defeated not because of skill but because of latency.

I can remember quite well how hostile an environment region chat, these forums, and even squad chat got during the height of Dark Sectors, and I can't imagine this going any better.

If they want to add it as a PVP node with no gameplay-changing rewards, then fine. I have no issue if players want to participate and it awards cosmetics. But the second it becomes something that can effect PVE, opt-in or not, and especially if it offers any kind of mechanical advantage, then I have a problem with the idea.

[MASON9000]

That's the craziest mode I've ever seen in my life!

[BornWithTeeth]

18 minutes ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

Not really.

In context she is talking about an opt-in feature which has been what everyone opposed to the idea, myself included, have said it would require.  Good luck finding targets if they add such a feature, though.

Yeah, but this is DE, so what she means is 'We'll run the idea past the Design Council, and then whatever they say we'll just implement it anyway. There we go, we consulted the players and got the consenting participation thing taken care of!'

[Fluff-E-Kitty]

If they do this, I want all the conclave mods usable in the rest of the game.

[Jobistober]

According to Prime Time #173, Stalker mode was only for fun for Tennocon. There is no real intention to implement this mode into the game.

[(PSN)Pengu_Imperialus]

I honestly don't mind the idea if the PVP Stalker (SPalker?)  can not interfere with the mission itself, but lets say they do open up the SPalker.  How often can players participate, will there be a limit to how many times a player can do it? Will they limit how many times you can be invaded in a day as well?

People will definitely start to avoid assassination missions as much as possible if getting marked means someone can troll you during regular play.

It could quickly and easily become far more obnoxious than entertaining.

[BornWithTeeth]

I mean, the other comment I'd make about this goes a little like this: 

If you are in favour of implementing a mode like this, but specifically without an opt-in system because if it had an opt-in system then most people would opt out and the mode would be kind of crippled and lame without forcing everyone in...

What does that therefore mean, hmmmm? What does that mean about the majority of the players? What does that mean about the kind of response you're expecting to this mode?

 

 

Right. Also, for people saying that it would be fine, that DE would implement it in a way which really works and would be totally cool, well.

- DE introduced Dark Sectors. Then, DE had to nuke Dark Sectors and still have not put them back in the game.

- How many people play Lunaro? Would you describe Lunaro as a fully fleshed out and fun game mode, or is it just kind of a failed e-sport?

- A lot of people do like Archwing, me included! Nonetheless, that game mode is hella flawed, and DE have made multiple attempts to make it better, only some of which have kind of worked.

- When it comes to stuff bigger than just individual weapons, i.e. stuff like core mechanics and game modes, DE have a habit of introducing things into the game and then kinda not fixing them. In addition to Archwing, see also literally everything to do with Focus and Operators.

 

This mode would need to be watched like a hawk, and have constant attention from the devs lest it encourage the game to become a toxic cesspit.

 

 

 

(Seriously, if what you want is a fast paced, PvP based, high mobility shooter-with-powers game, try out Overwatch, it's pretty great.

If you can only have fun by forcing your fun into other people's leisure time against their wishes, try reconsidering your outlook on life and other people vis á vis zero sum games and the social contract.)

Edited July 14, 2017 by BornWithTeeth

[Legion-Shields]

After maining Widowmaker for 200 hours in Overwatch, I wouldn't put it past some people to play as the stalker simply so they could crush people who are using PVE setups and are unprepared for pvp.

[(PSN)reddragonhrcro]

Tbh as long as there's a option to select wether to allow to be stalked by a player or not it shouldn't be a problem, just like RE6 has it.