Being the Stalker at Tennocon?

[AuroraSonicBoom]

38 minutes ago, (PS4)reddragonhrcro said:

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.

That's just half of the issue. The other half is not to punish PvE players for not playing PvP, and while I could stomach cosmetic rewards being PvP exclusive, the moment anything provides PvP players an edge in regards to stat changing rewards, including minuscule drop chance increases for existing gear, it becomes one. If you have a developer that set out to make a PvE coop game, which over years amassed a large following of fans of such gameplay, one day decide to give PvP players a drop chance bonus for gear that is usable and farmable in PvE, how do you think that would come across? It'd come across like the dev compared the time and skill it takes to farm something in PvE compared to doing the same in PvP and saying "Right, the time investment of PvE players is worth less than that of PvP players, which is why we're giving PvP players a bonus."

Now, regardless of what your opinion is about which game mode takes more effort or "skill", pulling off such a move in a heavily PvE centric game just screams disingenuity and favoritism.

I'm not just arguing this because I have a vested interest in the game. I'd say the same thing about games who started out as PvP heavy and had more and more PvE elements injected into it. If anyone can remember, Ultima Online died because of the dev wanting to make the game less toxic for new players and split up game servers into PvE and PK worlds at some point. The result was PvP worlds dying out because no one wanted to be the "prey" and a lot of players chose to move to PvE servers instead.

[Jobistober]

Guys, it's not going to happen. Don't get all worked up about it.

[AuroraSonicBoom]

15 minutes ago, Jobistober said:

Guys, it's not going to happen. Don't get all worked up about it.

Judging by your join date you've probably been around long enough to have witnessed the introduction of the dueling room in the dojo. Since the day it was announced there were always people who've said things like: "It won't affect PvE, don't worry about it."

Next was the introduction of the conclave, whose nodes were initially put on the PvE star map alongside the other nodes. That itself didn't have a direct effect, but with it's introduction also came the conclave rating system, which PvE players immediately used to gearscore team mates and kick them if they didn't reach the required number.

Next were the Dark Sectors conflicts, who we probably all remember ended up becoming little more than a glorified way for groups of clans to screw over the player base with the highest possible tax settings for the node. There were occasional "knights" fighting to break the dominance of the reigning alliances, but those were few and far between.

What did most of those PvP introductions have in common? They interacted with the PvE game world in some way and were primarily used to either directly or indirectly cause grief. Lunaro is complete separate, just as the modern version of conclave is. What this new PvP invasion system, which Rebecca has states will be something that is going to be part of Warframe in some form, is designed to interact with the PvE world and its players, and given DE's track record and the near certainty that some kind of reward will be implemented for it warrants utmost skepticism.

Trying to balance the needs of PvPers with those of PvEers is bound to come at the expense of the latter. I'll quote the descriptions of Bartle's taxonomy player types and let you find out which one seems naturally disruptive to a PvE centric game:

Spoiler

 

i) Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main goal, and all is ultimately subserviant to this. Exploration is necessary only to find new sources of treasure, or improved ways of wringing points from it. Socialising is a relaxing method of discovering what other players know about the business of accumulating points, that their knowledge can be applied to the task of gaining riches. Killing is only necessary to eliminate rivals or people who get in the way, or to gain vast amounts of points (if points are awarded for killing other players).

ii) Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and anyone with half a brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socialising can be informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in existence.

iii) Socialisers are interested in people, and what they have to say. The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to players. Inter-player relationships are important: empathising with people, sympathising, joking, entertaining, listening; even merely observing people play can be rewarding - seeing them grow as individuals, maturing over time. Some exploration may be necessary so as to understand what everyone else is talking about, and points-scoring could be required to gain access to neat communicative spells available only to higher levels (as well as to obtain a certain status in the community). Killing, however, is something only ever to be excused if it's a futile, impulsive act of revenge, perpetrated upon someone who has caused intolerable pain to a dear friend. The only ultimately fulfilling thing is not how to rise levels or kill hapless drips; it's getting to know people, to undertand them, and to form beautiful, lasting relationships.

iv) Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to kill people. Even socialising is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a recent victim, for example in finding out someone's playing habits, or discussing tactics with fellow killers. They're all just means to an end, though; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun.

 

 

[Jobistober]

3 minutes ago, AuroraSonicBoom said:

Snip

As I've already said, Reb stated in yesterday's prime time that the mode was only for fun.

[BornWithTeeth]

57 minutes ago, Jobistober said:

As I've already said, Reb stated in yesterday's prime time that the mode was only for fun.

Yeah, about that, the mode very clearly still features destroying mission objectives, and the devs themselves went right to that tactic. The mode also features a way to specify a target by their username and locate them for attack. Funny, that.

Rebecca did say that it's not coming to game for reals.....and then followed that up by saying "We're not adding it to PvE raw," and "it would be a shame to waste this feature, but it would also be careless to add it without any consensus, consent to participate in stalking, so, stay tuned, that's what the Devstream is for."

 

In other words, yeah, they are definitely adding it to the game. Not in this exact form, but they intend to add it. They intend to add some limits to the mode, but let's be honest here, it's going to launch bugged to hell and back, absolutely full of exploitable glitches and with abuses intact. Maybe they'll fix it in the next patch after it launches. Maybe not. As I've pointed out, their track record ain't exactly sterling.

Edited July 14, 2017 by BornWithTeeth

[Domesticon]

3 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Yeah, about that, the mode very clearly still features destroying mission objectives, and the devs themselves went right to that tactic. The mode also features a way to specify a target by their username and locate them for attack. Funny, that.

Rebecca did say that it's not coming to game for reals.....and then followed that up by saying "We're not adding it to PvE raw," and "wait for Devstream."

 

In other words, yeah, they are adding it to the game. Not in this exact form, but they intend to add it.

And they'll add it in a way that's fair and balanced while not horribly neutered, you need to relax and stop pissing your pants over the fear of actually losing to Stalker for once. It happens, you can literally get up four more times after it happens, because I have serious doubts that they'll let Stalkers cause missions to fail. Relax.

[BornWithTeeth]

2 minutes ago, Domesticon said:

And they'll add it in a way that's fair and balanced while not horribly neutered, you need to relax and stop pissing your pants over the fear of actually losing to Stalker for once. It happens, you can literally get up four more times after it happens, because I have serious doubts that they'll let Stalkers cause missions to fail. Relax.

Do check out my post, edited. The mode is going to launch bugged as all hell and full of exploitable holes, which DE may fix. Restrain your bloodlust and think about the proper functioning of the game. DE may as well have said "Yeah, we know this is a bad idea, but we don't care, we worked too hard on this mode not to add it."

Edited July 14, 2017 by BornWithTeeth

[WrathAscending]

Also, consider this. It is difficult enough at times to handle the Stalker due to gear you've got equipped. Confirmation bias or not, I'm sure we can all remember how Stalker came after us when we were levelling new weapons and could do little or no damage, or were levelling a Warframe and couldn't defend ourselves or survive long enough to bring him down.

Adding the ability to deliberately go after other players is directly in competition with Warframe's core advancement mechanic, which requires you to obtain and level equipment. The majority of the player base is still progressing on MR and even players at the far end still regularly ditch their preferred loadouts to get through newly-added equipment.

Yet with player-controlled Stalker, the incentive will instead be to always go in loaded for bear because you never know when they will show up and will be a far bigger threat than the Stalker currently is.

As for Revives? Sure, we get four per mission now. But losing one to PVP Stalker could still be the difference between success and failure. Again, it's frustrating enough when you get unlucky and the Stalker comes after you under AI control. Knowing it happened because of another player?

[EmberStar]

1 hour ago, Domesticon said:

And they'll add it in a way that's fair and balanced while not horribly neutered, you need to relax and stop pissing your pants over the fear of actually losing to Stalker for once. It happens, you can literally get up four more times after it happens, because I have serious doubts that they'll let Stalkers cause missions to fail. Relax.

I don't care if it's perfectly balanced.  It's PVP.  I lack the language skills to adequately describe how much I despise PVP.  The short version is that I refuse to participate in combat PVP.  Ever.  I do not play Lunaro.  I do not play Conclave.  I *do* reserve the right to be exceedingly annoyed when the devs create decent, PVE usable rewards, or even just nice cosmetics, and lock them behind either.

A "stalker" mode where there is *any* possibility of someone invading my game, ever, under any circumstances?  I'd quit first.  Maybe *you* don't care about "a little friendly PVP."  *I* care about it very much.

[EmptyDevil]

14 hours ago, UrielColtan said:

Some boring people don't like Dark Souls invasions I see. Some people need to fess up and stop using "harass new players" as a scapegoat for fear of their own egos being bruised, as if there are not already measures against repetetive invasions of the same person or opting out measures anyway, Not like a new player is going to be any better against regular AI controlled god mode Stalker either way though. So what next? Invocations of "think of the children"? We need more inflated excuses for "no fun zone"

I partially agree that some people are using "new players" as a scapegoat for their argument against this feature. There are already countermeasures against new players encountering AI Stalker, and no one knows what further tweaks DE plans to make to the mode before implementation. Hell, getting attacked by Stalker and dying only puts a person into bleedout, so friends can revive the person before they use their own revives, which they have 4 of per mission. Stalker is immediately forced out of the mission when killing the mark, so it's not like they can stay around and harass someone until all revives are gone. Stalker also can't spawn into a mission when extraction is available.

9 hours ago, Jobistober said:

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.

Wrong. They pretty much said they are putting it in the game and plan to showcase more of it in the upcoming devstream. I assume this means they will tweak the mode to make it less harmful(not that it really is, except for the trolling parts).

The self-inflicted delusions toward DE and this mode is saddening. People are twisting the words of Reb's statement on prime time, claiming they said it will be 'no consent' when implemented, or just generally stating the complete opposite of their intentions. Then you have the anti-PVP crowd ignorantly upvoting statements that clearly hold false information, just because it is anti-PVP. This kind of blind support is zealot-like behavior. Doom-and-Gloom and fearmongering is a tool for those with a weak, lazy, or selfish argument/position.

It is possible to clean up issues in the mode, so make suggestions for that. Don't cover your ears and eyes to suggestions/solutions to scream 'lalalala i can't hear you' just because you're afraid it'll have rewards or perks you might want. 

[WrathAscending]

People are not "ignorantly" upvoting posts simply because they are anti-PVP.

They are giving +1s to posts that point out, quite rightly, that PVP content should not be mixed with PVE content, and that every past iteration of content where PVP gaming was combined with PVE caused more trouble than it was worth for the far larger, if less vocal on these forums, PVE-focused player group.

[(PSN)Dark-TailedFox]

You know. I don't see what the big hurt is about whether or not a player can be Stalker or not. Considering even more that its vanilla stalker and not sentient stalker, I feel people are forgetting how fast he literally dies by abilities alone, and not even bringing in the stronger prime, prisma, and syndicate weapons that are easily modded to deal with level 100+ Grineer, while Stalker (probably spawning in at level 30-40 like normal) doesn't have the luxury of Vex Chroma amounts of armor.

If it was sentient stalker being used for the mode, I could understand considering his access to excaliblade, prism bombs, and the knockdown "Ash front" plus the War having as much potential stagger as the Hate. But when the main threat of vanilla Stalker is the Dread and teleporting into Hate sweeps (plus since we have stagger recovery mods that didn't exist before), I don't see what the big complaint is especially when the hunted Tenno have their pve power variants instead of the pvp versions.

If the "Stalker" is choosing to hunt a Valkyr, Excaliboy, potentially even Mag at this point and especially Nidus/Chroma/Inaros, they'd better be a damn good player because of what they bring to the table when they aren't limited by "PVP mode" constraints. Even more so, you're still allowed to use your gear wheel even if you are hunted.

Hell, I've gotten to the point where if Stalker comes for me on any frame that isn't Trinity, Valkyr, Mesa, or Inaros/Nidus/Wukong, I immediately set down a Loka specter and a Tenno specter before he shows up, same can be applied to anyone else in this game even with disparities of the syndicates and such.

And if you're worried about "Stalker hunting low levels", where's the outcry about AI stalker assaulting them when their warframe hits level 10 since they're immune to him until otherwise when no one is travelling with said low level player? And don't forget that he has to show before the objective is completed (save survival and defense) or else he usually doesn't show anyways.

[WrathAscending]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

And if you're worried about "Stalker hunting low levels", where's the outcry about AI stalker assaulting them when their warframe hits level 10 since they're immune to him until otherwise when no one is travelling with said low level player?

Because there is a key difference between RNG sending a bot after you and another player deliberately targeting you while you go about PVE content.

One is PVE content working as intended, if perhaps in a frustrating way. The second is PVP content intruding into PVE content.

[EmberStar]

48 minutes ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

You know. I don't see what the big hurt is about whether or not a player can be Stalker or not. (snip)

Translation:  I don't mind PVP, and this isn't a problem *for me,* therefore it can't be a problem.

If so, I'm glad (in a general sort of way) that it doesn't bother you.  The idea of getting attacked by another player, ever, bothers ME a great deal.  Enough that if this launches and doesn't have a hard toggle to permanently disable it in every mission (even a public one where someone else leaves the option turned on) then I will quite likely quit the game.  In the grand scheme of things, this means absolutely nothing, of course.  All the money I've ever spent on the game probably still isn't enough to take everyone at DE to dinner at Outback Steakhouse.

I do not like PVP.  I do not like it to an extent that I apparently do not have the language skills to accurately convey *how much* I do not enjoy it.  My normal response to PVP, however, is to never even play games where it is possible.  If I do somehow play a game where it is theoretically possible (such as Ark: Dinosaur Taming) then it will only be in singleplayer mode, offline, where there is *zero* chance of another player attempting to avail themselves of the PVP options.  For games such as Dark Souls where PVP is apparently "essential" to experiencing the game "as intended," I simply will never play the game.  (Perhaps a poor example, because there's a fairly large number of *other* reasons why I will never play Dark Souls.  But the fact that PVP is present and the game description isn't entirely up-front about whether or not it can be avoided is certainly a factor.)  A better example would probably be games such as Payday 2, Killing Floor, or Dead by Daylight.  All more or less pure PVP games, and none of which I would ever play.

However, I'm also aware that overall, I'm merely one player.  And since I am *just* a player and not an Influencer or Famous Youtube Person, my opinion about anything is worth very little.  The devs will add it, or not, but not because I have any opinion on it one way or the other.

[Kinetos]

4 hours ago, Domesticon said:

fear of actually losing to Stalker for once.

Has nothing to do with the fear of losing to Stalker. Has everything to do with it being PvP. I care approximately 0% whether you or anyone can beat me. I don't play PvP and that's all there is to it. If I had even the slightest interest in PvP, I'd have played Conclave by now. Opt-In setting, or I'll warm up the Alt-F4.

[(PSN)Dark-TailedFox]

2 hours ago, WrathAscending said:

Because there is a key difference between RNG sending a bot after you and another player deliberately targeting you while you go about PVE content.

One is PVE content working as intended, if perhaps in a frustrating way. The second is PVP content intruding into PVE content.

It didn't even show the names of who was on the nodes Rebecca went to. It just said "a squad is on this node, there are a total of x players on this planet".

She wouldn't have had to ask her 4 times "where are you? what tileset are you on right now?" if it showed names. Also, if you want to say "pvp intruding on pve", please tell me what Radiation Hazard is or Stalker's Acolytes.

1 hour ago, EmberStar said:

Translation:  I don't mind PVP, and this isn't a problem *for me,* therefore it can't be a problem.

I don't even play conclave currently, so you're assuming far too much from someone who isn't crying that the sky is falling and the planets are exploding unlike you. If Stalker as an AI is a problem for someone to handle, then it won't be any different for him to be difficult as a player controlled entity either, you would've died to him either way. Furthermore, yeah, I'm saying its not a problem and you're letting your "anti-pvp" hatred run rampant right now.

And let's not forget you can only target once per mission and only if that person is marked to begin with.

Besides, it's just Stalker. If it were his acolytes such as the one with Banshee's pvp Silence or Mania or Angst, then sure, that would be a fine discussion about it. But Stalker? The dude who was a problem for everyone at their start if they didn't have a more progressed friend backing them up or straight up stopped being a problem after you got a weapon you liked modded out nicely enough?

If it was a squad of 3 players controlling the Grustrag 3, then we could definitely talk about balancing that one out with their tools. But a 1 on 4 as Stalker vs a Valkyr you're almost certain to run into, an excaliboy who would pop excaliblade almost exclusively and eat your health, a Mirage who you know is gonna run around with a Simulor like the world hasn't changed, hell a Frost who hides in his bubble or new Oberon would give Stalker a run for his money with his "What Stalker?" arsenal. There's a WHOLE lot of things players can do that eradicate Stalker as a non-threat and you're even forgetting that you can down him in 1 shot with an explosive weapon or a shotgun as soon as he even stands up because again, it's not even Sentient Stalker who does have more health and resistance than the normal version they're using for this mode.

And even more, let's go over how Warframe isn't Dark Souls: in a squad during a mission? Oh you got knocked out, let's just spray our homegrown green mist and you're back on your feet. Alone in a mission? Okay, he killed you, revive and keep playing. Or if it bothers you to that much of an extreme to lose a little bit of affinity you hardly care about unless you're focus farming/leveling something you're gonna delete anyways, you can simply leave the mission when the screen flickers.

This current outcry is reminding me severely of the rise of players who refuse to even go above 10 minutes in a survival now when they see that 2 or 3 others want to keep going.

[WrathAscending]

It does not matter if the (current) interface shows specifically who is available for hunting or just that nodes have active squads on them. What matters is that those nodes are PVE and someone is coming to them for the sole and express purpose of PVP.

As I said before, I grew weary of the griefing potential of Radiation Hazard sorties long ago and no longer play them in Public mode. Many other players have done the same, or resorted to playing them only in groups they can trust not to turn the mission into TPK central.

The Acolytes are PVE content and have no bearing on the discussion.

The current outcry is because PVE players in this thread have seen, over and over again, every attempt to force PVP on the PVE population lead to nothing but misery. Up to and literally including DDOS attacks to ensure the outcome of this or that Rail Conflict and denying people the opportunity to even play the game. We saw how hostile it made Region chat and how venomous these forums got, until eventually DE themselves got tired of the ongoing issues and put the Dark Sectors into Armistice. And when they did so, we saw the toxicity cease since the root cause for it was removed.

At the end of the day, if people wanted to engage in PVP, they would be doing so. They have had ample opportunity to do so and it has been incentivised through Tactical Alerts. That Conclave has an infinitesimally small player base cannot simply be ascribed to latency, the usual appeal to "no-skill scrubs who can't handle actually challenging play" or the like. The larger portion of WF players simply have no interest in PVP, and the issue should not be forced.

If playing as the Stalker is actually as alluring as people want to believe, if there is actually an unserved population of Tenno out there who are eager for their opportunity to test their ability taking on an hostile squad? A Conclave mode is the place for it. A place where only those wanting to play such games will be effected. And if, as has been alluded to in this thread there won't be enough interest or a large enough player base to sustain that mode? Well, that should be your answer. If, in and of itself, the concept lacks willing volunteers then it should by no means be expanded to the unwilling.

[BornWithTeeth]

6 hours ago, EmptyDevil said:

I partially agree that some people are using "new players" as a scapegoat for their argument against this feature. There are already countermeasures against new players encountering AI Stalker, and no one knows what further tweaks DE plans to make to the mode before implementation. Hell, getting attacked by Stalker and dying only puts a person into bleedout, so friends can revive the person before they use their own revives, which they have 4 of per mission. Stalker is immediately forced out of the mission when killing the mark, so it's not like they can stay around and harass someone until all revives are gone. Stalker also can't spawn into a mission when extraction is available.

Wrong. They pretty much said they are putting it in the game and plan to showcase more of it in the upcoming devstream. I assume this means they will tweak the mode to make it less harmful(not that it really is, except for the trolling parts).

The self-inflicted delusions toward DE and this mode is saddening. People are twisting the words of Reb's statement on prime time, claiming they said it will be 'no consent' when implemented, or just generally stating the complete opposite of their intentions. Then you have the anti-PVP crowd ignorantly upvoting statements that clearly hold false information, just because it is anti-PVP. This kind of blind support is zealot-like behavior. Doom-and-Gloom and fearmongering is a tool for those with a weak, lazy, or selfish argument/position.

It is possible to clean up issues in the mode, so make suggestions for that. Don't cover your ears and eyes to suggestions/solutions to scream 'lalalala i can't hear you' just because you're afraid it'll have rewards or perks you might want. 

You're doing that thing I pointed out, where people who like the idea defend their idealised mental version of it rather than what we are actually seeing. People said that the Stalker won't be able to damage mission objectives, but that's what's in the mode and what the devs themselves use it for. People say that there will be no potential for harassment, but what we see in the mode is the function for targeting specific players by name while the Stalker player remains anonymous. It is disingenuous to insist that all of those features will be removed before they put this in. DE never put a new mode into the game without glitches and problems, and they have a real habit of listening to community feedback and then implementing something like what people have suggested but in a weird and counter intuitive way that only sort of solves the problem. DE don't like being told what to do with their own game by the players, which is totally understandable, but sometimes it causes them to act in ways which are stubborn and detrimental.

 

It is not a delusion to point out that DE really do not have a track record of launching new modes with perfect success, and neither is it a delusion to observe that DE don't tend to exhaustively track those new modes and constantly update them until they do work absolutely perfectly. I pointed out the list of game modes which have been nuked, abandoned, and left generally unfinished two pages ago.

 

I get that you like the idea, but as we see it now, it is not a good idea, and based on how they have handled things in the past, I simply do not trust DE to iron out all of the problems. They are much more likely to get it functional, put a bandaid on the faults of it, launch it, and then cheerfully gloss over any issues it causes and ignore it forever afterward.

 

The single most consistent piece of feedback in this thread is: This will be fine if it's an opt-in mode.

I assume that DE will launch the mode without an opt-in/out feature. If it becomes a serious problem, then a couple of patches down the line they might add it.

Edited July 15, 2017 by BornWithTeeth

[BornWithTeeth]

Alright, that's had a chance to sit for a couple hours, so let me admit familiarity with a potent counterpoint.

 

For people who like the idea of this mode, the real problem isn't the players who don't like PvP, it's the toxic donkey-bonnets who want to use the mode as a griefing tool. It's in the best interests of folks who want this mode to be a success that it be launched as a fair and abuse-free mode, because if it just becomes a poisonous mess then either everyone will opt out, or the backlash will spill into the forums and DE will have to disable it. That latter result would be what I refer to as the Dark Sectors effect.

 

Therefore, if DE want to avoid that happening, they'll perform due diligence, and cut out the elements of the mode which enable and encourage harassment. If they do so, I'll play with it. If they don't, well, Wolfenstein ain't gonna play itself.

[Kinetos]

8 hours ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

It didn't even show the names of who was on the nodes Rebecca went to. It just said "a squad is on this node, there are a total of x players on this planet".

They only had to do this because targeting by name was glitching on them.

8 hours ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

Radiation Hazard

Easily avoided by not playing pug or skipping a day. No content is locked out for avoiding, unlike with PvP Stalker, which for avoiding, you're locked out of new frames, weapons, mods, assuming you even can avoid it.

 

8 hours ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

Stalker's Acolytes

are controlled by AI, they are pure PvE. So what if their powers are different than usual.

 

6 hours ago, BornWithTeeth said:

I assume that DE will launch the mode without an opt-in/out feature. If it becomes a serious problem, then a couple of patches down the line they might add it.

Yes, this is the worry. Given the history of "Here's a thing!" - DE, "Cool idea, but it would only be good if this part changed" - Tenno, "Hey you might be right!" - DE, and then it goes in game unmodified, "Um, this didn't get changed and we hate it just like we knew we would." - Tenno

(one year later)

"We finally made that change! (or added the option to revert the change we made last year)" - DE

Like seriously, Archwing 6DoF. I thought it was a great idea. Liked how movement became much smoother. But there were (are) still no control settings isolated from ground combat, no dedicated roll controls, just hard to discover ones tied to other settings, and the Archwings just had too low of acceleration (leading to feeling overly sluggish and drifty (a little drift is completely realistic and fine, there's just too much in archwing 6dof)). Also some animation problems and the minimap was insufficient. In a year, what changed? the convoluted roll controls just disappeared. That's all. None of the problems got fixed. Oh, now we can revert to the old system, ok, but I like the new system better, if it would just get polished up. It's more consistent, it's easier to aim at things if they are above or below you relative to the map (seriously, 4DoF is horrible for near vertical aiming). Sure trench runs sucked, because of aforementioned excessive drift and map. But did any improvements happen? no. just a whole year of Tenno claiming motion sickness (some probably real but most probably hyperbole) and no changes. 

[EmberStar]

9 hours ago, (PS4)Foxkid_8 said:

I don't even play conclave currently, so you're assuming far too much from someone who isn't crying that the sky is falling and the planets are exploding unlike you. If Stalker as an AI is a problem for someone to handle, then it won't be any different for him to be difficult as a player controlled entity either, you would've died to him either way. Furthermore, yeah, I'm saying its not a problem and you're letting your "anti-pvp" hatred run rampant right now.

 

This isn't a "green eggs and ham" scenario.  I'm not going to try it and discover I like it.  I've tried PVP.  I already KNOW beyond any doubt that I despise it beyond my ability to describe.  (To say that I hate PVP is about like saying that a great white shark likes to nibble on things.)  All your counter examples... I DON'T CARE.  The fact that this is a mode where I could be directly targeted by another player is more than enough.  If there isn't a way to *permanently* disable this, as in opt out forever, even in public groups, then I will probably QUIT THE GAME before I would choose to participate.  It is NOTHING to do with whether I would win or lose.  That is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  It's the fact that I could be deliberately targeted by another player.  At all.  And yes, on days when Radiation Hazard is in the list of sortie conditions, I skip Sorties.

[EmberStar]

14 hours ago, EmptyDevil said:

It is possible to clean up issues in the mode, so make suggestions for that. Don't cover your ears and eyes to suggestions/solutions to scream 'lalalala i can't hear you' just because you're afraid it'll have rewards or perks you might want. 

 

The only useful suggestion I can offer to them is that I don't want a PVP mode that can intrude on PVE.  I don't want to play it, I don't want to have to play around it.  The fact that they'll probably throw exclusive rewards at it to "encourage" people to try it just makes it more aggravating.  But if the game mode itself can't be completely disabled, the rewards won't matter to me, because I'll probably quit.  It's nothing to do with "how hard" a player Stalker would be, or if I would win or get knocked down.  It's *everything* to do with the fact that another player could choose to attack me in combat.

From my point of view, the fact that this is a mode that could ever *exist* is the biggest issue that I want the devs to address.  I don't care what bugs or design flaws it might have beyond that, because I will NEVER participate in it.  If the only way I can opt out is to NOPE out of the game entirely, then that is what I'll do.

[texrei]

I want to be that Stalker, dancing pendulum narta in front of everybody's eyes. Not for a long though

[EmberStar]

On 7/9/2017 at 6:08 PM, BornWithTeeth said:

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?

No.  If I can be attacked by another player, I will do whatever is necessary to prevent that.  As in, I will *stop logging in* if that is the only way to prevent it.  It's not a question of if it is fair, it's not a question of if I will win or lose.  It's that, as noted, this kind of PVP feature tends to attract *exactly* the kind of player who should never be allowed to use it, and I want nothing to do with them.  Ever.

The only way this feature could be added to the game is with a hard toggle that completely forbids player invasions in any mission I am a part of.  Even if the other three people in a mission have opted in, someone opting OUT should have override and forbid an invasion.  After all, people who *want* to be attacked can always form custom groups for that purpose, but people who just want to do a random Rift Defense before dinner shouldn't have to make a custom group to *avoid* something that *shouldn't exist in the first place.*

This is a PVE Co-Op game.  And even then, there's already too many options that allow screwing with people and deliberately ruining their experience.  (Volt's Speed power makes me ill, and there's no way to keep from getting hit by it.  Especially since I only play public in Rift Defense and there's almost no way to get out of range of someone who insists on spamming it.  Limbo and his selection of "wait, you can do something *besides* annoy other players with these?" powers also says hi.)  Most people don't play this game for PVP.  If they want to shoot other players in the face, they play a game that's *built* for it.  Like... just about every other online game, ever.

[BornWithTeeth]

@EmberStar In general, I would regard having a hard opt in/out setting to be enough. Unless things go catastrophically wrong and the game snaps in half, you could expect to see a Player-controlled Stalker quite rarely as long as you yourself are opted out, and they wouldn't annoy you while you're playing solo or target you while you're farming Dark Sectors or Derelicts.