These drive by posts telling OP to play offline.. lol, did you guys even read the OP? He literally stated that he plays the game mainly for coop reason and y'all telling him to go offline. The fuck?
:Laughing emoji:
:Laughing emoji:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Dark Souls 3 invasions these days. Why should I tolerate them?
- Thread starter Coyote Starrk
- Start date
- Status
The ability to invade other players who may not be expecting it or want it is a feature you'd be removing. Perhaps people come to these games because it offers something different from what most games do? Giving the player the option to remove themselves from it (while still gaining all the benefits of online) would be removing something that makes the series unique and probably adds to the appeal for some people.
I'm struggling with your post. You may freely exchange garbage for badly designed, your "criticism" still rings hollow for you've made no point. Why is it badly designed?
For now, it appears your merely dislike how invasions work, which isn't criticism at all.
Well. I guess I'm stupid or something but I don't get it. Do I have to "earn" some basic online features like messages, ghosts and coop before I can use them. What do you loose if I can stay online opting out of a really terrible part of the game in times? People enjoy different things, that's why we get settings to use and different game modes. Especially playing PvP
Probably the same people who oppose any "easy" mode or whatever in the game because it somehow ruins the sanctity of the game even though it wont affect them the slightest. So dumb.
It's completely different. We're talking about a multiplayer component that offers two things: the advantage of coop and the risk of invasion. Why do you feel entitled to only getting the advantage if it was designed to offer risk as well?
Honestly, just keep playing the level, the way you would if there was no invader. If he comes running you're more than adequately equipped to seal with him with 2 people.
Don't run after them, at some point you'll be careless and jump off a ladder/cliff.
Always remember gravity is PK#1. ;)
Don't run after them, at some point you'll be careless and jump off a ladder/cliff.
Always remember gravity is PK#1. ;)
This. Nothing about Souls PVP is fun at all and it breaks the immersion to have to even deal with actual players. Played and beaten every Souls game multiple times just logging out of online the second I'm invaded.
If I have limited time to play, I'm not going to waste it subsidizing fun for someone else whose intent is just griefing anyway.
If that's the case Ember up outside boss door and summon help. People invading when I'm just trying to go through the environments and soak in the atmosphere is easily the worst part of soulsbourne games.
Ask FromSoft. They seem to think it's pretty important since they put it in 5 video games.
Really how are invaders different from any other crazy challenge the games throw at you, including NPC invaders? Whether your progress is stopped by Longfinger Kirk or another player you're just as dead. Outside of "those areas" in Bloodborne opening yourself up to invasions is a direct result of players attempting to swing the advantage. You could have easily enjoyed all those online features while avoiding invaders.
People want to keep it because the combat is incredible and all the various PvP possibilities give you more ways to engage with it -- at least that's my reasoning. It's not trolling since like you can't exactly choose who you invade. You have no idea if you're getting some noob, a PvP vet, or three Smoug cos-players ready to R1 spam you into oblivion before hammer-humping your grave.
Not every post is responding to the OP. Anyway, If you're being invaded while doing co-op than you're most likely near a bonfire or have the invader outnumbered. Deal with it. You're already making the game significantly easier for yourself, which is fine, have fun, but you can't blame Miyazaki for throwing a wrinkle back at you in return. This is a series who's core principle is facing & overcoming challenges after all.
Because it gives you an advantage, the designers want there to be a drawback that comes along with that advantage. Like most aspects of good game design you have to weigh the benefit versus the downsides.
Because it's how souls games work. This is like asking why you can only act in your own turn in a turn-based game. Plenty of other games offer coop without the risk, but those aren't souls games.
If PVP is so bad in Souls then why does it have such a huge and enduring PVP community, with some of its most famous and beloved memes centered around online play (giantdad etc)
There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to just posting awesome situations created by the invasion mechanic.
There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to just posting awesome situations created by the invasion mechanic.
What if I say not giving people options and force them into bad PvP is bad game design?
I get where you're coming from here, but as I said in response to that the person picked a PvP server and opted in to a certain experience. There was also an option for that person to pick a non PvP server and avoid that experience while still enjoying all the benefits of online play. This doesn't make the example comparable to vanilla WoW or to what's being discussed concerning Dark Souls.
I see your point, but if we're trying to preserve appeal for people shouldn't we also be considering the people who don't want to be invaded? It's extremely strange to me to gate basic features for a game behind letting some guy come in and ruin your run because that person specifically wants to ruin your run. They could be ruining the runs of people who opt in to having their runs ruined, and I don't see how they'd really be able to tell the difference.
This can't be true, they let you summon in offline. There are also a variety of workarounds that avoid invasions while still letting you summon for bosses.
You'll note that this feature didn't kill invading.
I'd also appreciate it if you didn't ignore the rest of my post.
The PVP risk mechanic really only works around launch / new content updates. Around now the risk is much higher as the PVP population that is invading if you're a fresh player is going to be far more incredibly skilled and geared than you.
But why is it bad? This isn't a lack of options, it's the mechanic behind the multiplayer component. It's the same reason as to why you can't turn off enemies when offline either, the game is designed to make you encounter enemies.
But that removes the Coop aspect also, which is the entire point of the thread.
More like "I don't see why you wouldn't let people turn off invasions and keep coop"
But feel free to whatever
Embering in Dark Souls 3 is opting into PvP whether you like it or not. The OP opted into PvP and is complaining about PvP. It's literally the exact same thing.
That's not the case at all, he had to ember to access basic feature of the game- in this case co-op. He wasn't opting into PvP, he was opting into co-op which has the side effect of opening him to invasions. It's much, much different from choosing a PvP server.
I play Souls for the exploration of levels and the satisfaction I get out of mastering enemies. Getting fucked by pro PvP players, especially playing the game for the first time, is nothing like that.
They don't follow any patterns and will always find ways to troll you. This is one sided fun and a terrible gaming experience.
And if it's such a core part of the game why is it executed so poorly. It must be one of the laggiest messes I ever experienced playing online
Because that's not what the multiplayer is about. It's not about only coop, it's about coop and invasions. You can't turn one aspect of the multiplayer experience off just because you refuse to see its point.
Sounds more like he opted into coop pve but got what he calls poor PvP in the deal as well.
There's no reason not to allow turning invasions off and maintain coop if people wish for it, outside arbitrarily reasons.
Options are good. It won't affect you either way and removes their frustration over something they don't enjoy but have to endure while trying to enjoy it with someone else.
Well, part of evolution is improving things. Change and fix it if it's broken for a huge part of the player base.
He is opting into online features, which includes both co-op and PvP. He knows it includes PvP.
You can't see why removing people from an already dwindling pool for invasions is a bad thing? Seems pretty selfish and short-sighted to me. PvP is a major part of the game (and a big part of the longevity of previous games in the series) even if some people don't like it.
I've kinda thought that about DS2. I haven't got PS+ so multiplayer on 2 and 3 are sort of a moot point, but with SotFS there are enough NPC invasions to kind of make up for it. Between The Forlorn and a certain NPC who you may or may not set free, I've got invasions aplenty. With 1, though, it was just tedious after a while.
I agree with you, and think that far too often people who argue for fewer options are arguing that everyone should enjoy the game exactly like they do.
So, because he wants to use co-op, he's being FORCED to PvP. That doesn't sound like opting in, and the entire OP is basically asking if it has to be that way. Why should it be that way?
All I got from this thread and reading is that OP wants some kind of "Invasion Etiquette"
You ain't getting that.
You ain't getting that.
My intent wasn't to ignore your post, just not to clog the thread up with overly long quotes, sorry. While you're right that the player can summon offline NPCs to help them there are also NPC invaders in several areas in most of the games to specifically counter this, and give the player some facsimile (albeit a very crude one) of the online experience even while playing offline. And I don't see why From needs to design their game like every other game in this respect, as others have noted giving people the option to opt out of this feature would also reduce the total player pool for invaders which would probably have a pretty negative impact on their own experience.
Beyond this I think From wants players to participate in these systems, they have designed a whole lot of intricate systems related to player interactions, summoning and invasions and they don't want people to simply be able to disengage from these systems with the flick of a switch the same way they don't want players to be able to turn on a god (or easy) mode and walk through encounters and ignore their design.
I think most of the PvP players are afraid they would actually have to play solely against people knowing what they do because they want to get invaded.
From my experience you either face gank squads waiting for you in cleared levels, or clueless noobs just playing the game.
Oh damn, I'm really sorry, I wasn't referring to you at all when I was talking about ignoring my post. Overall, I think your "unique experience" argument is probably one of the better ones.
If I'm being honest I was thinking along the same lines, but I didn't want to assume. It makes sense though that at least some PvP players would lament losing people to "pick on".
I don't know, ask FromSoft. Like I said, they're the ones who put it in 5 of their latest video games so they seem to think it's a pretty important core mechanic. If I had to guess I'd say it's because co-op trivializes the game and they don't like that.
It's not broken. In no time does this game differentiate between a coop mode and an invasion mode. In souls games, being open to summoned players means also being opened to invasions. It's working as intended.
hear me out on this because this is by no means a negative response.... but you should just deal with it.
Why?
Not all the areas have invaders, and there are TONS of shortcuts in Dark souls 3. What i'd recommend is just fighting it out with the invader or get close to your previous bonfire so that way you don't lose your big stash of souls.
I was very good at dispatching them, but i was a one hit ko sorcerer lol.
Invaders are part of the experience. Frustrating or not.
Why?
Not all the areas have invaders, and there are TONS of shortcuts in Dark souls 3. What i'd recommend is just fighting it out with the invader or get close to your previous bonfire so that way you don't lose your big stash of souls.
I was very good at dispatching them, but i was a one hit ko sorcerer lol.
Invaders are part of the experience. Frustrating or not.
Because it's an offset to OP skeezing the game with a pal.
Costs and benefits are a central aspect to game design. Forcing you to possibly have to gank an invader in DS3 is like the most painless process imaginable for this. Odds are stacked so high in OPs favor I genuinely don't understand what he's crying about. If the invader hides just ignore him and hit the boss door.
It arguably is broken, but for the exact opposite reason OP is complaining about.
Invader odds are bs in Souls 3. There's basically no reason to do it as you're always gonna be ganked.
This is the way I see it
This is the way online works with From games and it has a weird, although enjoyable metagame to it.
- When you use an ember to open "said doors" to other people, that allows people to come into your game and help you significantly. It can trivialise some bosses and sections of the game for a player, and that is fine. That is why it is there.
- But there has to be a counter to make that balanced in From's view, and that is fine too. From will open the other "door" so people can come into your game and make your experience harder than it has to be. That is what the invader's job is to do. To come in and make the hosts experience more difficult.
This is the way online works with From games and it has a weird, although enjoyable metagame to it.
But you can't do that when offline. You'll need to drop out your current game, go online, then go back and summon. And while you're waiting you can still be invaded. I can see both points, but it's the game. Take it or leave it, sadly.
I know it's working as intended so broken might be the wrong wording. It would still be a better game with the separation of online and PvP/invasions.
Because that's how Souls works, and because part of the Souls experience/feature set is offering both prey to PvP predators, and a 'hunted' experience for people playing through the game. I understand the feeling that players shouldn't have to support the PvP ecosystem as fodder if they just want to co-op, but ultimately that's not our choice. It's From's choice. From can't give co-op playes the option to avoid the PvP experience without hurting the PvP experience of their PvP players, so even if From wanted to give co-op players a more cushy experience (they don't seem to) they couldn't do it without harming the PvP identity of their game. Online play is a tradeoff, and you take the good with the bad.
Persistent gameworld with crossing universes is the entire point of the series.
Just opt out if you don't want to deal with it.
Quit app is the best way to handle invasions.
If Devs don't wanna let players disable it in an option, well, fuck them, frankly.
Not wasting my gaming time to trolls and griefers.
If Devs don't wanna let players disable it in an option, well, fuck them, frankly.
Not wasting my gaming time to trolls and griefers.
But you can summon NPCs in offline mode, or you can ember up and summon outside of a boss door, so this as an offset doesn't work. It really just prevents someone who doesn't want to PvP from truly co-oping through the levels, which in my mind is a shame, or opens up players who don't know any better to being targets for experienced players. I really don't see the benefit of not allowing an opt-out button in light of features already in the game.
Ultimately, there's no argument against invasions in souls games. Every game is designed to be an experience, and while some experiences may be more customizable than others, all of them have been designed to be played a certain way in order for the player to actually experience it. The online component in souls games have been designed to allow summoning players while being open to invasions, the game makes that clear in the descriptions of the online items and even in its manual. There's no indication of invaders having to follow an etiquette or players being allowed to disable invasions, that's simply not how the game was designed. Being against such base component of the game's design is simply not wanting to play the actual game, much how its pointless to complain that a chess piece is unable to move freely yet still wanting to play chess.
Again, very arguable. Invasions suck in Souls 3 unless you catch someone who doesn't understand the mechanics, which destroys the fun of the system.
- Status