Being the Stalker at Tennocon?

[AuroraSonicBoom]

10 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

@EmberStar In general, I would regard having a hard opt in/out setting to be enough

There's a fine but important difference between opt-in and opt-out. IMO a feature like that should only be made available in PvE as an opt-in, because an opt-out would make players associate an active PvP component in PvE as the standard, which it should never be regarded as. Same with any sort of rewards. Cosmetics? Yeah. Drop chance increases or even uniquely statted items? No.

[EmberStar]

The problem I see is that a feature like this almost *has* to be Opt-Out (if they even permit it) and then only a "soft" opt out where a mission can still be attacked unless *everyone* has turned it off.  Because a PVP setup like this almost *requires* a target rich environment.  If it's Opt-In, most people simply won't bother to turn it on unless the rewards are amazing.  And if it's a "hard" toggle, where a mission is an invalid target if even one player says no, the vast majority of public missions would be off limits.  And the ones where the entire team *does* have it turned on will be groups of players set up to instantly annihilate anyone who does try to invade them.

Which is really the whole problem.  An asymmetrical PVP-in-PVE mode like this will *always* be not-fun for someone.  If everyone can be attacked at any time, it's not fun for the people who don't want to constantly worry about it.  If almost no one can be attacked unless they're ready for it, the invader players will spend most of *their* time getting their face melted off by teams that are completely ready for them, if they can find a mission to invade at all.

This isn't a dedicated PVP game, like Dead by Daylight, where people are only playing it in the first place *because* they want to be stalked by Micheal Meyers (or have a chance to be the monster.)  This concept is trying to smoosh that kind of game mode into a PVE game.  It's *NOT* going to work.

[BornWithTeeth]

32 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

The problem I see is that a feature like this almost *has* to be Opt-Out (if they even permit it) and then only a "soft" opt out where a mission can still be attacked unless *everyone* has turned it off.  Because a PVP setup like this almost *requires* a target rich environment.  If it's Opt-In, most people simply won't bother to turn it on unless the rewards are amazing.  And if it's a "hard" toggle, where a mission is an invalid target if even one player says no, the vast majority of public missions would be off limits.  And the ones where the entire team *does* have it turned on will be groups of players set up to instantly annihilate anyone who does try to invade them.

Which is really the whole problem.  An asymmetrical PVP-in-PVE mode like this will *always* be not-fun for someone.  If everyone can be attacked at any time, it's not fun for the people who don't want to constantly worry about it.  If almost no one can be attacked unless they're ready for it, the invader players will spend most of *their* time getting their face melted off by teams that are completely ready for them, if they can find a mission to invade at all.

This isn't a dedicated PVP game, like Dead by Daylight, where people are only playing it in the first place *because* they want to be stalked by Micheal Meyers (or have a chance to be the monster.)  This concept is trying to smoosh that kind of game mode into a PVE game.  It's *NOT* going to work.

I mean, you're not wrong. 

If there's no choice about opting in or out, then the mode becomes a form of griefing which is actively more hostile and toxic than the model which everyone keeps calling for, because in Dark Souls PvP is optional.

If there is a choice about opting in or out, then I strongly suspect that most people will just opt out, and the players who want this mode will be disappointed that the only people they can ever invade are actually ready to fight them.

[(PSN)Silverback73]

On July 9, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Troll_Logic said:

What Stalker?

In LIGHT of what was shown, people will be DYING to "Be the Zomb--, er I mean Be the Stalker" and HUNT Warframes well into the NIGHT. 

I hope this mode becomes reality.

[(PSN)Silverback73]

4 hours ago, BornWithTeeth said:

I mean, you're not wrong. 

If there's no choice about opting in or out, then the mode becomes a form of griefing which is actively more hostile and toxic than the model which everyone keeps calling for, because in Dark Souls PvP is optional.

If there is a choice about opting in or out, then I strongly suspect that most people will just opt out, and the players who want this mode will be disappointed that the only people they can ever invade are actually ready to fight them.

1.  A certain portion of the community will like the competitive aspect and welcome this mode as somewhere between PvE and PvP.  Other games have seen modes like this extend the life of the game. (Techland)

2.  As always, once DE incentives the mode with unique loot, Warfarm will be in full effect as well.

[WrathAscending]

1 minute ago, (PS4)Silverback73 said:

2.  As always, once DE incentives the mode with unique loot, Warfarm will be in full effect as well.

If the mode is to yield any kind of reward, it should not be for mechanics or items. PVP should not be mandatory for PVE advancement.

[(PSN)Silverback73]

Just now, WrathAscending said:

If the mode is to yield any kind of reward, it should not be for mechanics or items. PVP should not be mandatory for PVE advancement.

Lunaro gives us armor that PvE must plat buy if you don't participate.  This would be no different.  Cosmetics.

[Vertexer]

As an avid Souls player, I welcome this. In fact this should have implemented years ago.

[Brasten]

11 hours ago, Vertexer said:

As an avid Souls player, I welcome this. In fact this should have implemented years ago.

Then play more Souls games. It does not belong in general Warframe PvE.

Make this an independent mode the way Conclave is. A new 4 vs 1 asymmetric mode. A different way to get Conclave Standing.

[(PSN)blueflameskY]

This is a little off topic, and I haven't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if someone suggested this, but wouldn't it be cool if you can join syndicate death squads as well and invade other players with them?

Like if you're aligned with red veil, you can invade someone aligned with hexis or suda. Maybe even control one of the eximus units instead of your frame?

I know this is probably never gonna happen, but the thought of using an osprey to hunt down tenno seems hilariously fun to me.

[Drathe]

16 hours ago, (PS4)Silverback73 said:

Lunaro gives us armor that PvE must plat buy if you don't participate.  This would be no different.  Cosmetics.

Cosmetics in no way affect your progression. Weapons and Mods do. As others said, cosmetics, yes. Anything else, no.

 

16 hours ago, (PS4)Silverback73 said:

1.  A certain portion of the community will like the competitive aspect and welcome this mode as somewhere between PvE and PvP.  Other games have seen modes like this extend the life of the game. (Techland)

I'm assuming you're a fairly new player. We've seen PvP included in PvE in Warframe before, multiple times. And each and every time, DE had to shut down these additions permanently because not only did it not "extend the life of the game", it decreased it because it was so incredibly toxic and so many people quit over it.

[(PSN)Automaton_Core]

I'd like to propose an idea with both sides of the argument in mind, where those who want to play as the Stalker would have the ability to do so, whilst maintaining the barrier between PvP and PvE content. The only negative is that the Stalker mode would lose some of its 'authenticity' (not actually invading), but I feel that this may be an option where everyone benefits. If an idea similar to this was already presented, then I sincerely apologize.

If anyone is familiar with the 2010 AvP game, there was a mode in which one person was selected at random to play as the Predator and stalk his quarry until he was able to finish the match or was killed by a Marine. If killed by a Marine, the Marine who killed him would become the Predator, and this would go on until the match finished. Why not mold Stalker mode around the same concept?

Make a strictly Conclave mode in which a Stalker is selected at random, and whoever kills Stalker gets to play as him. Allow the possibility of getting Stalker drops at the end of a match (with pre-established drop tables), and not only with this incentivize players without forcing PvP play (since it would be the same drops as PvE, with the same chances), but players who choose to avoid this content would not lose out. I personally think this has the potential to work for both sides, but I could be wrong.

Just my two cents.

Edited July 16, 2017 by (PS4)ClawedOMEGA
Misspelling due to auto-correct on iPad.

[WrathAscending]

Given how difficult it is to get certain Stalker drops and how hard it is to get him to show up, that is functionally giving Conclave players a major PVE advantage. If nothing else it utterly trivialises Stalker beacons from Baro.

[(PSN)Automaton_Core]

I'm open to suggestions. Maybe lowering the drop chances to make up for the 100% frequency of Stalker spawning? Alternatively, make beacons obtainable outside of Baro and cheaper to promote mode equality, somewhere along the lines of beacon bundles (let's say 3 to 5 per bundle) as Sortie rewards?

[WrathAscending]

It doesn't matter. If you give Stalker Mode in Comclave his PVE drops all you're going to do is get dedicated farmer/booster groups running the mode because he's guaranteed to be there. Stalker Beacons aren't always available and Stalker doesn't always show up anywhere else, so if you're looking for Landing Craft parts, Dread/Hate/Despair, or War/Broken War blueprints- the majority of which tie in to PVE advancement- the place to go is not PVE content but PVP.

Now, Conclave standing and cosmetics? That's fine, but if those were enough of an incentive to endure Conclave there would be a *lot* more Conclave players to begin with just in the existing modes.

Edited July 17, 2017 by WrathAscending

[Vertexer]

7 hours ago, Brasten said:

Then play more Souls games. It does not belong in general Warframe PvE.

Make this an independent mode the way Conclave is. A new 4 vs 1 asymmetric mode. A different way to get Conclave Standing.

Your response to another person wanting something you don't want in this game is to try and command another person to play something else? Are you 12? 13 maybe? Grow up, kid.

[HUNDarkTemplar]

This could be totally okay, If there are tweaks. If Stalker cant interact with anything Then He cant rly troll. Stalkers must stay in an X range and cant interact with anything. So much for trolling. Its a 4v1 and nothing happens If Stalkers kill You, You can be fckin revived by your teammates. Stalker cant troll S#&$. People overdramatize this thing. 

[WrathAscending]

15 minutes ago, Vertexer said:

Your response to another person wanting something you don't want in this game is to try and command another person to play something else? Are you 12? 13 maybe? Grow up, kid.

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.

3 minutes ago, HUNDarkTemplar said:

This could be totally okay, If there are tweaks. If Stalker cant interact with anything Then He cant rly troll. Stalkers must stay in an X range and cant interact with anything. So much for trolling. Its a 4v1 and nothing happens If Stalkers kill You, You can be fckin revived by your teammates. Stalker cant troll S#&$. People overdramatize this thing. 

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.

Edited July 17, 2017 by WrathAscending

[HUNDarkTemplar]

Also dont think everyone who plays Stalker will be a Conclave Master, Most players who will controll Stalker will be totally PvP noobs, just like the average PvE player and Its a 4v1. Stalker isnt that super op, as We have seen the player stalker is balanced and is made weaker. He doesnt have much hp, He can be one hit by high quality equipment and as We seen He doesnt one hit you if not with Dread. 

[(PSN)Automaton_Core]

Disregard what I said then, if it doesn't matter either way. At least I tried, huh?

Guess I'll just see how this all plays out then.

 

[HUNDarkTemplar]

5 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.

Yes, Griefing was the immidiate response, but not cuz of ill will, but cuz Its funny and What happens if a person dies ONCE to Stalker? He has 4 fckin revives. I think It would be totally good FOR EVERYONE. Stalker is boring atm, This would make Stalker much more INTERESTING and SCARY, which the Stalker NEEDS TO BE. 

[(PSN)Silverback73]

5 hours ago, Drathe said:

Cosmetics in no way affect your progression. Weapons and Mods do. As others said, cosmetics, yes. Anything else, no.

 

I'm assuming you're a fairly new player. We've seen PvP included in PvE in Warframe before, multiple times. And each and every time, DE had to shut down these additions permanently because not only did it not "extend the life of the game", it decreased it because it was so incredibly toxic and so many people quit over it.

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

Since 2014.  MR 23.

Edited July 17, 2017 by (PS4)Silverback73

[HUNDarkTemplar]

7 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.

"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 "
Happens once in 100 games and one times You tilt out and become angry cuz of Stalker? Is this why this is a bad idea? Cuz sometimes some people would be screwed over by the PvP? People get screwed over everytime everywhere. Even without this. They get screwed over by RNG, They get screwed over by PvE Itself, They become angry in conclave after getting rekt. Should all of those be removed, cuz sometimes people get griefed by the system, cuz sometimes people become tilted? Cuz sometimes something doesnt go right? Yeh, You fail a mission cuz of Stalker. Oh fck, matters so much. Cuz you wouldnt faill missions without the Stalker anytime. I call total bullS#&$. 
 

[(PSN)horridhal]

3 minutes ago, HUNDarkTemplar said:

Griefing was the immidiate response, but not cuz of ill will, but cuz Its funny and What happens if a person dies ONCE to Stalker? He has 4 fckin revives. I think It would be totally good FOR EVERYONE.

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 kill other people outside Conclave!  Rawr!"

Seriously, it needs to not be a thing.

Edited July 17, 2017 by (PS4)horridhal

[WrathAscending]

5 minutes ago, HUNDarkTemplar said:

Yes, Griefing was the immidiate response, but not cuz of ill will, but cuz Its funny and What happens if a person dies ONCE to Stalker? He has 4 fckin revives. I think It would be totally good FOR EVERYONE. Stalker is boring atm, This would make Stalker much more INTERESTING and SCARY, which the Stalker NEEDS TO BE. 

If the Stalker "needs" to be more threatening they can tweak his stats and AI accordingly, not let a PVPer pilot him into PVE content.

And no, it won't be "totally good for everyone." Count the upvotes in this thread. Posts against the idea are garnering far more support than those in favour of it. It's just that people have been through the forced PVP in PVE debate many times in the past and seen the arguments before, up to and including the inevitability of comments like "well you just hate it because you don't want to try something new" and "well you just hate it because you know you're not really skilled and will totally get pwned if a PVPer comes after you!" They're tired of trying to deal with it because it always plays out the same.

All we can hope is that DE notices this thread and other, similar discussion, sees that mixing PVP and PVE is a mistake, and confines Stalker Mode to Conclave where PVP content belongs.

Edited July 17, 2017 by WrathAscending