They kind of embrace the "we like to ruin your day" stance. Plus Anal Rodeo is the best place to PvP imo.
Dark Souls II - Page 12
Forum Index > General Games |
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
They kind of embrace the "we like to ruin your day" stance. Plus Anal Rodeo is the best place to PvP imo. | ||
Sandster
United States4054 Posts
You're trying to figure out what to do, die randomly to an arrow. Move on with game, die on your own. Invasion timer over, another guy comes. You're like "a-ha it's just a bow, I can just block the arrow!" Nope. | ||
Duka08
3391 Posts
On June 19 2013 01:02 Tobberoth wrote: The thing is, there's honestly no benefit to forcing invasions. If you want the PvP experience, you can play the whole game as human, you are free to enjoy it if you seriously find that fun. If you don't find it fun, you're completely screwed though. It's basically "We either make the game fun for all players, or we make it boring for a huge group of players". EDIT: You might make the case that forcing invasions make it more fun for people who want to invade, but then you're reinforcing my earlier point: You're rewarding players for being assholes, you let them have fun with their twinks at the cost of people who just wants to enjoy the game. I may not have said it well enough, even after writing that short novel's worth of sharing my thoughts, but despite my side of the debate and enjoying almost all facets of DkS PvP I am pretty strongly against having an "always on" humanity-style system. I like that humanity is a trade-off in current DkS, which is why I think it serves its purpose (fuck hackers, but griefing is debatable, even if it is scummy). To have PvP interaction be "always on" would definitely be a bit extreme, unless they did some insane work balancing to match the invader with the defender, as well as pacing how often it could happen or where. However, given the amount of work involved there, I'm pretty much guaranteeing that the persistent PvP rumors are probably just rumors and will not make it to the game, unless it's very specific zones. | ||
Cynry
810 Posts
First paragraph. English isn't my native, so maybe I mispoke. But I think you didn't put much effort in understanding what you quoted either. Of course you can beat the game. I fucking demolished it even, and I have some pride in that. Why ? Because the game didn't go easy on me. The challenge level is quite high, and that's what I meant by fucking with the player by all mean. Second paragraph. Forced to suffer, the last thing you want is to get invaded, etc. THAT'S THE POINT. This game doesn't care about what would be conveniant for you to finish it. Griefers are only an issue if you have no choice. Guess what, you have one. And last but not least, you don't like invasion ? Then stay hollow ! I don't know where you got the idea that I want to force invasion on everyone, I said many times that constant invasion wouldn't be a good idea in the current state of the game. I admit that I'd be interested if they could make it work with some adjustments, and I recognize that is because of my own taste, and that it would probably defer some people away from the game. And it's fine, not all games should be aimed for everyone. But seeing as dark souls is one of a kind in his approach of fucking with the player by all means (I stand by my version of that sentence), I'd rather not see it being dumb down because of complaints. In fact, I'd be fine if they made it more difficult. Here, I said it. I like fucking hardcore games. I repeated myself a lot already, and it's getting tedious. | ||
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On June 19 2013 01:55 Cynry wrote: No we don't I played quite some multiplayer games where griefing were allowed. Although I don't do it, I think it can add to the game, as long a there are ways to prevent it/always a chance for the griefed. Which DS1 offered. So I'm fine with it, although it's sad if that's all PvP is about these days. And I'm also fine with a game being unfair. Especially dark souls. Probably a masochist point of view, but to each is own, right :-D Also pretty sure if you do absolutly no damage it's because of hacks, but... Yeah just look at my sig. How did DS offer a chance for people being griefed? "Go to a bonfire". Yeah, and get killed at the bonfire. Run to the boss? Get killed by the invader who is waiting for you there. You're talking about people having luck on their side being a valid defense against griefers. The only way to protect yourself from griefers was to stay hollow, which is pretty sad. Personally, I always found the best aspect of Dark Souls that is was fair, and hated the parts which were not. Any game can be difficult if it's unfair, but dark souls usually managed to pull of being challenging while always letting the responsibility rest on the player. | ||
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On June 19 2013 03:25 Sandster wrote: Yea, but how exactly do you deal with a Dragonslayer Bow invader on the ceiling of Anor Londo, or parts of Shen's Fortress? You're trying to figure out what to do, die randomly to an arrow. Move on with game, die on your own. Invasion timer over, another guy comes. You're like "a-ha it's just a bow, I can just block the arrow!" Nope. "randomly" There's that word again. You're acting like if you go human you have 50000 Darkwraiths lining up to invade your world and you'll constantly be invaded at all times without reprieve. You know as well as I do that's an extreme exaggeration. I just got done watching my friend play it on our 360 who's new to the game. He's like level 50 and going through Anal Rodeo and was human for a solid hour and was only invaded once by someone he quickly dispatched of. You guys keep saying "griefed" but I don't think you understand what that word means. A Darkwraith invading your world doesn't mean he's fucking griefing you, it means he's invading your world. If a couple of Darkwraith's invaded your world and forced you into a corner and blocked you in with shields or something that would be griefing. Someone the same level as you with roughly the same gear level coming into your world and completely destroying you because you don't have the skill level to beat them isn't them "griefing" you. If you don't want to do the multiplayer elements, don't go freaking human. If you do go human, don't whine that someone uses a legitimate multiplayer element to invade your world and kill you when you don't have the skill to fight back. | ||
Cynry
810 Posts
| ||
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On June 19 2013 03:51 Cynry wrote: I'm fucking done arguing. You guys are right. Let's make pvp a checkable option in the menu and only allow 1 on 1 with 5 second of forced immobility so we can be sure no one stabs you while you bow. I petition we also remove any "unfair" weapons like Dragonslayer Greatbow and Darkwood Grain Ring too. I don't want people to have advantages over me. | ||
Cynry
810 Posts
| ||
PJFrylar
United States350 Posts
On June 17 2013 22:48 Fruscainte wrote: I asked a friend who is more apt in DaS lore and apparently there is no more humanity in DaS2. The flame is dying out and humanity is dying, so you can't turn human. Apparently this works out in terms of gameplay that anyone can be invaded at any time, you're always at risk. I really hope this is true. I'd like to point out that this is how the whole "invasion" arguement started. For some reason along the way perspective was lost about it being not being able to prevent invasions. I agree with Simberto that it doesn't seem like everyone is even argueing about the same things anymore. | ||
Simberto
Germany11032 Posts
I, for example, am fine with the way the game currently works. I can stay hollow and don't have a problem. I suicide after kindling, and never have to deal with invasions. I'd like it if i wouldn't have to do that, but i am fine with that. You guys can PvP all you want, as long as i don't have to get involved. All my experiences with PvP in Dark Souls have been bad, so i am not really enthusiastic about it, but i really like the rest of the game. Fruscainte apparently thinks that that somehow makes me a lesser person. There were rumors of always being invadeable. I'd hate that, as it would make my playstyle impossible. Apparently that made the impression that i completely want to abandon PvP. I don't really care how you guys invade each other with twinked up characters in undead burg all day. I think it is scummy to prey on newer players who realistically won't have a chance to fight back anyways, but apparently to some people that is a fun PvP experience. I prefer my PvP to be fair, but if the PvP in the game is unfair and i don't have to participate, i have no problem with that either. I just don't want unfair PvP that forces me to take part. It would probably go against the principles of Dark Souls, but it would be really nice if they told newer players that they can avoid invasions by just being hollow, and that it doesn't really have any negative consequences anyways. Maybe one sign at some place in the tutorial area, or something like that. | ||
Cynry
810 Posts
| ||
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On June 19 2013 04:03 FireBearHero wrote: I'd like to point out that this is how the whole "invasion" arguement started. For some reason along the way perspective was lost about it being not being able to prevent invasions. I agree with Simberto that it doesn't seem like everyone is even argueing about the same things anymore. I think I've agreed along the way constant invasions would be ridiculous. There's likely going to be a way to turn it off via putting out bonfires. It would be very simple though to fix the twink issue if they accounted for things other than SL. Fruscainte apparently thinks that that somehow makes me a lesser person. Please stop turning this into a personal matter. It's not. This line was completely unnecessary. I was correcting you stating you think it's a singleplayer game and I was curious what your experiences were that made you feel it necessary to abandon half of what the game had to offer, and I was a bit cautious because you didn't even know what Gravelording is so I felt you didn't even know the first thing about what DaS PvP was or what it had to offer. Stop taking things so personally, Christ. I was just questioning your taste in video games, nothing more. It would probably go against the principles of Dark Souls, but it would be really nice if they told newer players that they can avoid invasions by just being hollow "They" don't tell new players anything beyond the basic controls of the game. That's kind of the point of the game. You explore things yourself. | ||
PJFrylar
United States350 Posts
On June 19 2013 04:10 Fruscainte wrote: I think I've agreed along the way constant invasions would be ridiculous. There's likely going to be a way to turn it off via putting out bonfires. It would be very simple though to fix the twink issue if they accounted for things other than SL. Yeah, that's why I'm not sure why the argueing has been happening. I think everyone is ok with a system like the current one where invasions can be prevented. | ||
Simberto
Germany11032 Posts
I am totally willing to let this go, but don't act like I am the guy who started this shit, because that is a blatant lie. Did you notice how easy it is to have a discussion with someone if you are not doing that if someone disagrees with you? Because we had a very nice discussion about the exact same topic just after you left, because people were actually trying to understand what the other said and not just acting smug and treating everyone else as if they are stupid. If you respect other people, you get a useful discussion. If you don't, you don't. | ||
Cynry
810 Posts
We both made our stance clear pretty fast and still some would read what they wanted and argue over that. Not saying I don't have my share of responsability. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12175 Posts
On June 19 2013 02:27 Cynry wrote: Mh ok, I see where you're coming from now. Kinda unlucky chain of events, that you played he game the right way (without spoils I mean) but at the wrong time. So much for making up behaviors... My bad. The "fair" bit is right for most of the game, but not for invasions. Even without grifers you can get invaded by multiple ghosts, they can arrive at some bad times, etc... I guess I'm a bit on the edge about all this simply because dark souls is the only franchise which takes the stance of fucking with the player by all means, which I really enjoyed in these days of hand holding and games dumbing down. In the end, it's a matter of taste, but we agree, I think, that it could be improved upon. I'm just afraid that what I loved about it might be diluted because of complaints, be they legits or not. As much as I agree that fundamentally the game is structured in a way such that memory, reactions, adaptation, and awareness remove all the randomness, there is some inherent randomness in PvP related to latency that hasn't really been touched upon. Hopefully that's a little more optimized in DS2, because lag could do some really wacky things and the agme is somewhat notorious for having poor netcode. | ||
zergnewb
United States816 Posts
| ||
Cynry
810 Posts
On June 19 2013 06:09 Excalibur_Z wrote: As much as I agree that fundamentally the game is structured in a way such that memory, reactions, adaptation, and awareness remove all the randomness, there is some inherent randomness in PvP related to latency that hasn't really been touched upon. Hopefully that's a little more optimized in DS2, because lag could do some really wacky things and the agme is somewhat notorious for having poor netcode. Uh, why are you quoting me on that excal ? I feel like we agree (pvp being the unfair/random part of the game), but the beginning of your sentence confuses me. And I hope no one will understand that I'm defending lag as being an enjoyable experience. ^^ | ||
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On June 19 2013 07:14 Cynry wrote: Uh, why are you quoting me on that excal ? I feel like we agree (pvp being the unfair/random part of the game), but the beginning of your sentence confuses me. And I hope no one will understand that I'm defending lag as being an enjoyable experience. ^^ I think it's just an inherent problem with the way the MP is structured. Some people just have shitty latencies and there's not much you can do about it. | ||
| ||