I heard in DS3 you don't get invaded, even in ember form, unless you summon for co-op or use the dried finger item. Anyone know if that's still accurate?
Didnt you lose Cracked Red Orbs when trying to invade in DS1 and people dc'ed?
DS1 and 3 have infinite invasion items. 2 had only cracked, but you could get infinite of them pretty easily.
e: @Deans according to the wiki. If you are in the ember/lord of cinder mode (human mode) you can be invaded, regardless of having summoned anyone else.
i really wish the developer would just *let me* coop with my friends without the threat of some pvp douchebag with a broken build killing my progress and making me loose my souls.
it shouldn't be finding some esoteric covenant or item I gotta dig around and find.
Soon as I start the game, "What is your preference online?"
-All the PVP!
-Some PVP, some Coop [this is the way Dark Souls 3 was intended]
-Only Coop, ever
-Solo only
and when I want to link up with a buddy, let me soapstone their specific character or steam name and insta-link with them, instead of finding an area and trying for 5-10minutes for his graffiti to appear in my world.
I'm tossing my hat in the ring to say that I actually enjoy being invaded (and usually lose when invaded).
I've never used a red-eye orb to invade before, although I'm guilty of being a BellBro.
Having said that, I get that some people play Dark Souls for the non-PVP aspects, in much the same way that I play Street Fighter for the stories (shut up don't judge out loud =P), as opposed to fighting at tournaments. Not really the main point of the game, but I still find it fun.
I personally look forward to waving at you all in Dark Souls III in... just over a week!
I'd probably be more apt to go into Pvp, but maybe its just my luck that I get cheaters, and when I get someone not cheating, its a broken build. No skill, just spam the death spell 50times until it connects because its only possible to perfectly dodge about 10 or so before they're out of stamina.
i really wish the developer would just *let me* coop with my friends without the threat of some pvp douchebag with a broken build killing my progress and making me loose my souls.
it shouldn't be finding some esoteric covenant or item I gotta dig around and find.
Soon as I start the game, "What is your preference online?"
-All the PVP!
-Some PVP, some Coop [this is the way Dark Souls 3 was intended]
-Only Coop, ever
-Solo only
and when I want to link up with a buddy, let me soapstone their specific character or steam name and insta-link with them, instead of finding an area and trying for 5-10minutes for his graffiti to appear in my world.
I've heard the coop with friends is improved. Some sort of password system?
i really wish the developer would just *let me* coop with my friends without the threat of some pvp douchebag with a broken build killing my progress and making me loose my souls.
it shouldn't be finding some esoteric covenant or item I gotta dig around and find.
Soon as I start the game, "What is your preference online?"
-All the PVP!
-Some PVP, some Coop [this is the way Dark Souls 3 was intended]
-Only Coop, ever
-Solo only
and when I want to link up with a buddy, let me soapstone their specific character or steam name and insta-link with them, instead of finding an area and trying for 5-10minutes for his graffiti to appear in my world.
I've heard the coop with friends is improved. Some sort of password system?
that would be nice, and not have to worry about kicking a guy who just wanted to be helpful. its great that you want to help and all, but my buddies got first dibs on slots.
I'd probably be more apt to go into Pvp, but maybe its just my luck that I get cheaters, and when I get someone not cheating, its a broken build. No skill, just spam the death spell 50times until it connects because its only possible to perfectly dodge about 10 or so before they're out of stamina.
That's sadness. =(
I like it when I'm matched against someone of roughly equal skill, and we go toe to toe and have an awesome fight as we figure out each other's weaknesses.
Unfortunately, that happens only like 1 in 10 for me, but when they happen, they become one of my memorable Dark Souls moments. Other good moments include SunBro'ing and helping hosts through tough bosses (or... in the case of the pursuer, accidentally shooting them with the ballista haha).
I feel the PvP is just as much a part of the game as the Jolly Cooperation, and the series would be less interesting without it. Much like with the rest of the game, instead of having a difficulty setting at the start you have the options. Want to be defended if you get invaded? BlueBros come to your rescue, or you can simply summon phantoms for safety in numbers. Most of the time someone invades and they run into a bunch of people they get squashed unless they are particularly good. (Or the others are particularly bad).
Being murdered in hilarious ways is an integral part of the Dark Souls experience.
Not to everyone, it isn't.
Getting constantly invaded by people geared out towards the cheapest PvP build possible, is not worth it, just to experience the occasional "fun" invasion.
They don't need to remove the PvP covenants that let you duel people, or even the very specific areas that allow invasions. But the series would be no worse off for not allowing you to invade anyone anytime they tried to do co-op (other than griefer's would complain, but screw those people). Just add a toggle so people who want to opt out can, if so many people are using it, that invaders aren't able to find anyone to grief, it will tell them something about who their consumer base actually is. If it has no noticeable effect, yet people can play the game how they want, it was still a good choice.
Being murdered in hilarious ways is an integral part of the Dark Souls experience.
Not to everyone, it isn't.
Getting constantly invaded by people geared out towards the cheapest PvP build possible, is not worth it, just to experience the occasional "fun" invasion.
They don't need to remove the PvP covenants that let you duel people, or even the very specific areas that allow invasions. But the series would be no worse off for not allowing you to invade anyone anytime they tried to do co-op (other than griefer's would complain, but screw those people).
Also, Soulsbone games' multiplayer run on a finite resource that invaders waste if it was spent in a way that the player did not intend.
Being murdered in hilarious ways is an integral part of the Dark Souls experience.
Not to everyone, it isn't.
Getting constantly invaded by people geared out towards the cheapest PvP build possible, is not worth it, just to experience the occasional "fun" invasion.
They don't need to remove the PvP covenants that let you duel people, or even the very specific areas that allow invasions. But the series would be no worse off for not allowing you to invade anyone anytime they tried to do co-op (other than griefer's would complain, but screw those people). Just add a toggle so people who want to opt out can, if so many people are using it, that invaders aren't able to find anyone to grief, it will tell them something about who their consumer base actually is. If it has no noticeable effect, yet people can play the game how they want, it was still a good choice.
The core tenant of Dark Souls, is "no get good". Is there a reason why you can't theoretically defeat the invaders? It's about fighting the odds.
I'll admit it, I'm garbage at PVP. But the resources you lose for the most part are minimal. I win about two fights out of every ten invasions. And I still love it, because those wins are EARNED. in some ways, Dark Souls is like survival horror with a random element. Just remind yourself, you WILL beat the game, and you WILL succeed if you don't give up. Losing 15 minutes isn't that big of a deal in the long run.
In Dark Souls 1, assuming you're not using one each time you die, an average playthrough will you a stock of about 30 or so. That number's even higher in Dark Souls 2. And after beating the DLC's you can't even be penalized for dying anymore by hollowing. A 30 minute farming run will get you more humanity in either game than you can use in a week.
My argument isn't that it isn't occasionally annoying, my point is it's no more frustrating than dying ten times in a row to a tough boss like O&S.
Who you're meeting various too. One time, a dragon invader, bowed, "I'm sorry" emotes and everything, and then jumped off a ledge so I could get a dragon scale. You'll never have those experiences if you aren't open to them.
Being murdered in hilarious ways is an integral part of the Dark Souls experience.
Not to everyone, it isn't.
Getting constantly invaded by people geared out towards the cheapest PvP build possible, is not worth it, just to experience the occasional "fun" invasion.
They don't need to remove the PvP covenants that let you duel people, or even the very specific areas that allow invasions. But the series would be no worse off for not allowing you to invade anyone anytime they tried to do co-op (other than griefer's would complain, but screw those people). Just add a toggle so people who want to opt out can, if so many people are using it, that invaders aren't able to find anyone to grief, it will tell them something about who their consumer base actually is. If it has no noticeable effect, yet people can play the game how they want, it was still a good choice.
The core tenant of Dark Souls, is "no get good". Is there a reason why you can't theoretically defeat the invaders? It's about fighting the odds.
I'll admit it, I'm garbage at PVP. But the resources you lose for the most part are minimal. I win about two fights out of every ten invasions. And I still love it, because those wins are EARNED. in some ways, Dark Souls is like survival horror with a random element. Just remind yourself, you WILL beat the game, and you WILL succeed if you don't give up. Losing 15 minutes isn't that big of a deal in the long run.
In Dark Souls 1, assuming you're not using one each time you die, an average playthrough will you a stock of about 30 or so. That number's even higher in Dark Souls 2. And after beating the DLC's you can't even be penalized for dying anymore by hollowing. A 30 minute farming run will get you more humanity in either game than you can use in a week.
My argument isn't that it isn't occasionally annoying, my point is it's no more frustrating than dying ten times in a row to a tough boss like O&S.
Who you're meeting various too. One time, a dragon invader, bowed, "I'm sorry" emotes and everything, and then jumped off a ledge so I could get a dragon scale. You'll never have those experiences if you aren't open to them.
When the invader has the advantage in gear/build, timing, environment, and possibly health. There is no "get gud" argument.
It's not about losing resources, its about losing time and being forced to engage in an aspect of the game you have no interest in. Some people just want to play through darksouls, and "get gud" at the PvE aspect, which they very much enjoy. They don't want to have some random griefer come in, kill them with some cheesy build, and take a half hour of their life from them. To some people, that is half their gaming time.
There is a huge difference between dying to a boss repeatedly as you try to learn how to play the game, and dying to someone whose whole goal is to ruin your experience, and has all of the cards stacked in their favor. When I am dying to O&S, they are not suddenly jumping out at me in the middle of the level. They aren't randomly showing up when I am already drained of estus flasks and half dead. They can't hide in a pack of enemies that magically ignore them, yet I am prevented from moving on (outside of entering a boss room). O&S aren't equipped with only the cheesiest of moves, that they spam repeatedly knowing you have no counter after a few seconds.
I'm glad you had a good experience, with someone giving you a random gift instead of griefing you. However I, and many others don't want to have to suffer through the countless griefers and wastes of our time, to rarely experience that. It's just not worth it.
Adding in an option to opt out of invasion pvp removes nothing positive from the game experience, and only possibly makes griefers life harder.
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
Why are you arguing about invasions when we're at the third installment of this series? It's a huge part of the game, and it's going nowhere.
The game is supposed to be punishingly difficult, including facing random players at inopportune moments.
You can also just never be invaded by staying hollowed. There are ways to avoid it, you just want those ways to take into account your personal preferences.
Why are you arguing about invasions when we're at the third installment of this series? It's a huge part of the game, and it's going nowhere.
The game is supposed to be punishingly difficult, including facing random players at inopportune moments.
You can also just never be invaded by staying hollowed. There are ways to avoid it, you just want those ways to take into account your personal preferences.
The game hasn't changed.
Ok? Just because something is one way, doesn't mean it is going to stay that way forever. They have constantly iterated on the invasion formula for all 5 entries in the series. They know it is not good enough yet.
Staying hollowed also prevents you from being able to participate in co-op and lowers your health pretty dramatically.
There is literally zero reason to argue against a toggle to opt out of invasions, other than you enjoy griefing other players.
0
Options
Sirialisof the Halite Throne.Registered Userregular
There is zero reason to have to bring someone else into your game to carry you either. BRB going to tell Ryu to stop throwing fireballs at me , it makes me sad.
There is zero reason to have to bring someone else into your game to carry you either. BRB going to tell Ryu to stop throwing fireballs at me , it makes me sad.
Oh you mean that game, where you are very specifically entering into a mode that places you against another player? Not where they randomly join in while you are already fighting CPU M.Bison, and it is suddenly two on one?
Invasions are forcing PvP on someone who doesn't necessarily want it, when you hold a large advantage over the other person, with them having no way to opt out.
That is griefing.
Being summoned via red soap stone? That is PvP.
That is not griefing. Someone is choosing to participate with you.
There is zero reason to have to bring someone else into your game to carry you either. BRB going to tell Ryu to stop throwing fireballs at me , it makes me sad.
Oh you mean that game, where you are very specifically entering into a mode that places you against another player? Not where they randomly join in while you are already fighting CPU M.Bison, and it is suddenly two on one?
Invasions are forcing PvP on someone who doesn't necessarily want it, when you hold a large advantage over the other person, with them having no way to opt out.
That is griefing.
Being summoned via red soap stone? That is PvP.
That is not griefing. Someone is choosing to participate with you.
PvP means player vs. player, consensual or not, it does not matter, still not griefing, seriously, look up the definition.
Anyway I'm done with this, I understand some people do not like this aspect and thats unfortunate, trying to twist words to fit your viewpoints just rub me the wrong way.
I'll probably start my Dark Souls 3 character focusing on Pyromancy and a big sword, hopefully faster than Zweihander.
There is zero reason to have to bring someone else into your game to carry you either. BRB going to tell Ryu to stop throwing fireballs at me , it makes me sad.
Oh you mean that game, where you are very specifically entering into a mode that places you against another player? Not where they randomly join in while you are already fighting CPU M.Bison, and it is suddenly two on one?
Yes that mode the one that has as one of its core fucking mechanics that summoning people leaves you vulnerable to invaders . Just like back in the day when you were playing at the arcade and someone puts his quarter ( or 2 ) in the machine and made you fight him.
EspantaPajaro on
+1
Options
Sirialisof the Halite Throne.Registered Userregular
I never played Dark Souls 2 Scholar of the First Sin, are there any noticeable lore changes to it, compared to the normal Dark Souls 2?
I never played Dark Souls 2 Scholar of the First Sin, are there any noticeable lore changes to it, compared to the normal Dark Souls 2?
There are additions to the lore, you meet Aldria and can use the Giant's Memory to talk with Vendrick. In addition, of course, the three DLC zones have minor substories throughout them about various heroes and kings and so on that's in the item descriptions.
Griefer;
"Someone, usually in an online game, who intentionally, and usually repeatedly, attempts to degrade anothers experience or torment them."
Invasions;
Forcing PvP upon another player, where you hold every single advantage, which the player cannot avoid without losing access to other non-PvP related elements of the game.
Invasions are griefing, as you are forcing yourself on another player, in order to do nothing but ruin their experience. You are not looking for a good fight against another skilled opponent, or you would be doing soap stones, you just want to come in and easily kill someone who can't defend themselves. You are doing nothing but trying to make another players experience worse for your presence. You are a griefer.
If you are arguing against even allowing the option to opt out of invasions, you are saying your desire to be able to kill people against their will is more important than people to be able to play the game without being griefed.
e: @EspantaPajaro Wow what fighting game was that? I don't remember any arcade game, that when another player put in a quarter to play against you. Where they just were suddenly inserted into the match already in progress. So it could be 2v1, with you starting at 25% life.
Yeah but wasnt all that added to the base game with a patch? Im fairly sure it was or maybe im just crazy? Either way SOTFS is the better version. I liked the new enemy placements.
0
Options
Sirialisof the Halite Throne.Registered Userregular
Griefer;
"Someone, usually in an online game, who intentionally, and usually repeatedly, attempts to degrade anothers experience or torment them."
Invasions;
Forcing PvP upon another player, where you hold every single advantage, which the player cannot avoid without losing access to other non-PvP related elements of the game.
Invasions are griefing, as you are forcing yourself on another player, in order to do nothing but ruin their experience. You are not looking for a good fight against another skilled opponent, or you would be doing soap stones, you just want to come in and easily kill someone who can't defend themselves. You are doing nothing but trying to make another players experience worse for your presence. You are a griefer.
If you are arguing against even allowing the option to opt out of invasions, you are saying your desire to be able to kill people against their will is more important than people to be able to play the game without being griefed.
e: @EspantaPajaro Wow what fighting game was that? I don't remember any arcade game, that when another player put in a quarter to play against you. Where they just were suddenly inserted into the match already in progress. So it could be 2v1, with you starting at 25% life.
This misses the point that Invasions are a core gameplay mechanic and by definition, isnt griefing then.
I'd say this one is more accurate too.
"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways."
Also whats this about the Invader always holding the advantage you seem to repeat? Last time I looked, the host has a fair few advantages, he can use Estus and summon help, the Invader cannot.
There is literally zero reason to argue against a toggle to opt out of invasions, other than you enjoy griefing other players.
is what Mork said. The difference between having that or not is entirely the ability to invade when people don't want it.
Regardless, Souls-griefing definitely happened in the first one. Forest-hunters chilling with hosts to gank phantoms. People locking the area and hiding. Hack-boys would try their best, too.
Despite my personal feelings about invasions, I think the Souls games would be worse without invasions.
I don't have a solution, but having the tension of both cooperation and PvP mixed together is one of those brilliant design decisions that makes the games so interesting.
Griefer;
"Someone, usually in an online game, who intentionally, and usually repeatedly, attempts to degrade anothers experience or torment them."
Invasions;
Forcing PvP upon another player, where you hold every single advantage, which the player cannot avoid without losing access to other non-PvP related elements of the game.
Invasions are griefing, as you are forcing yourself on another player, in order to do nothing but ruin their experience. You are not looking for a good fight against another skilled opponent, or you would be doing soap stones, you just want to come in and easily kill someone who can't defend themselves. You are doing nothing but trying to make another players experience worse for your presence. You are a griefer.
If you are arguing against even allowing the option to opt out of invasions, you are saying your desire to be able to kill people against their will is more important than people to be able to play the game without being griefed.
e: @EspantaPajaro Wow what fighting game was that? I don't remember any arcade game, that when another player put in a quarter to play against you. Where they just were suddenly inserted into the match already in progress. So it could be 2v1, with you starting at 25% life.
Ok now I know you dont have a clue what you are talking about. Oh well have fun being persecuted by those awful horrible people who are griefing you with a loophole and totally not intentional mechanic as they cackle maniacally because they cost you five whole minutes. Truly these people are oppressing you and not just looking for people to play online against to have fun.
Everyone is free to play the game in a way where they'll never encounter a hostile invader. The cost is simply giving up the privilege of summoning flesh and blood assistance to help carry them through the game's more challenging areas.
Posts
Pyromancy looks great
Just as much as always.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
I heard in DS3 you don't get invaded, even in ember form, unless you summon for co-op or use the dried finger item. Anyone know if that's still accurate?
DS1 and 3 have infinite invasion items. 2 had only cracked, but you could get infinite of them pretty easily.
e:
@Deans according to the wiki. If you are in the ember/lord of cinder mode (human mode) you can be invaded, regardless of having summoned anyone else.
it shouldn't be finding some esoteric covenant or item I gotta dig around and find.
Soon as I start the game, "What is your preference online?"
-All the PVP!
-Some PVP, some Coop [this is the way Dark Souls 3 was intended]
-Only Coop, ever
-Solo only
and when I want to link up with a buddy, let me soapstone their specific character or steam name and insta-link with them, instead of finding an area and trying for 5-10minutes for his graffiti to appear in my world.
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
I've never used a red-eye orb to invade before, although I'm guilty of being a BellBro.
Having said that, I get that some people play Dark Souls for the non-PVP aspects, in much the same way that I play Street Fighter for the stories (shut up don't judge out loud =P), as opposed to fighting at tournaments. Not really the main point of the game, but I still find it fun.
I personally look forward to waving at you all in Dark Souls III in... just over a week!
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
I've heard the coop with friends is improved. Some sort of password system?
that would be nice, and not have to worry about kicking a guy who just wanted to be helpful. its great that you want to help and all, but my buddies got first dibs on slots.
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
That's sadness. =(
I like it when I'm matched against someone of roughly equal skill, and we go toe to toe and have an awesome fight as we figure out each other's weaknesses.
Unfortunately, that happens only like 1 in 10 for me, but when they happen, they become one of my memorable Dark Souls moments. Other good moments include SunBro'ing and helping hosts through tough bosses (or... in the case of the pursuer, accidentally shooting them with the ballista haha).
Being murdered in hilarious ways is an integral part of the Dark Souls experience.
Not to everyone, it isn't.
Getting constantly invaded by people geared out towards the cheapest PvP build possible, is not worth it, just to experience the occasional "fun" invasion.
They don't need to remove the PvP covenants that let you duel people, or even the very specific areas that allow invasions. But the series would be no worse off for not allowing you to invade anyone anytime they tried to do co-op (other than griefer's would complain, but screw those people). Just add a toggle so people who want to opt out can, if so many people are using it, that invaders aren't able to find anyone to grief, it will tell them something about who their consumer base actually is. If it has no noticeable effect, yet people can play the game how they want, it was still a good choice.
Also, Soulsbone games' multiplayer run on a finite resource that invaders waste if it was spent in a way that the player did not intend.
The core tenant of Dark Souls, is "no get good". Is there a reason why you can't theoretically defeat the invaders? It's about fighting the odds.
I'll admit it, I'm garbage at PVP. But the resources you lose for the most part are minimal. I win about two fights out of every ten invasions. And I still love it, because those wins are EARNED. in some ways, Dark Souls is like survival horror with a random element. Just remind yourself, you WILL beat the game, and you WILL succeed if you don't give up. Losing 15 minutes isn't that big of a deal in the long run.
In Dark Souls 1, assuming you're not using one each time you die, an average playthrough will you a stock of about 30 or so. That number's even higher in Dark Souls 2. And after beating the DLC's you can't even be penalized for dying anymore by hollowing. A 30 minute farming run will get you more humanity in either game than you can use in a week.
My argument isn't that it isn't occasionally annoying, my point is it's no more frustrating than dying ten times in a row to a tough boss like O&S.
Who you're meeting various too. One time, a dragon invader, bowed, "I'm sorry" emotes and everything, and then jumped off a ledge so I could get a dragon scale. You'll never have those experiences if you aren't open to them.
Huh, seems like some of the boss-items can be obtained from other sources in NG+. So choosing them on the second run could be kind of pointless.
When the invader has the advantage in gear/build, timing, environment, and possibly health. There is no "get gud" argument.
It's not about losing resources, its about losing time and being forced to engage in an aspect of the game you have no interest in. Some people just want to play through darksouls, and "get gud" at the PvE aspect, which they very much enjoy. They don't want to have some random griefer come in, kill them with some cheesy build, and take a half hour of their life from them. To some people, that is half their gaming time.
There is a huge difference between dying to a boss repeatedly as you try to learn how to play the game, and dying to someone whose whole goal is to ruin your experience, and has all of the cards stacked in their favor. When I am dying to O&S, they are not suddenly jumping out at me in the middle of the level. They aren't randomly showing up when I am already drained of estus flasks and half dead. They can't hide in a pack of enemies that magically ignore them, yet I am prevented from moving on (outside of entering a boss room). O&S aren't equipped with only the cheesiest of moves, that they spam repeatedly knowing you have no counter after a few seconds.
I'm glad you had a good experience, with someone giving you a random gift instead of griefing you. However I, and many others don't want to have to suffer through the countless griefers and wastes of our time, to rarely experience that. It's just not worth it.
Adding in an option to opt out of invasion pvp removes nothing positive from the game experience, and only possibly makes griefers life harder.
The game is supposed to be punishingly difficult, including facing random players at inopportune moments.
You can also just never be invaded by staying hollowed. There are ways to avoid it, you just want those ways to take into account your personal preferences.
The game hasn't changed.
Ok? Just because something is one way, doesn't mean it is going to stay that way forever. They have constantly iterated on the invasion formula for all 5 entries in the series. They know it is not good enough yet.
Staying hollowed also prevents you from being able to participate in co-op and lowers your health pretty dramatically.
There is literally zero reason to argue against a toggle to opt out of invasions, other than you enjoy griefing other players.
Invasions are not griefing.
Oh you mean that game, where you are very specifically entering into a mode that places you against another player? Not where they randomly join in while you are already fighting CPU M.Bison, and it is suddenly two on one?
Invasions are forcing PvP on someone who doesn't necessarily want it, when you hold a large advantage over the other person, with them having no way to opt out.
That is griefing.
Being summoned via red soap stone? That is PvP.
That is not griefing. Someone is choosing to participate with you.
Rock Punchfist.
Dirk Gently.
Flint Ironstag.
PvP means player vs. player, consensual or not, it does not matter, still not griefing, seriously, look up the definition.
Anyway I'm done with this, I understand some people do not like this aspect and thats unfortunate, trying to twist words to fit your viewpoints just rub me the wrong way.
I'll probably start my Dark Souls 3 character focusing on Pyromancy and a big sword, hopefully faster than Zweihander.
Yes that mode the one that has as one of its core fucking mechanics that summoning people leaves you vulnerable to invaders . Just like back in the day when you were playing at the arcade and someone puts his quarter ( or 2 ) in the machine and made you fight him.
There are additions to the lore, you meet Aldria and can use the Giant's Memory to talk with Vendrick. In addition, of course, the three DLC zones have minor substories throughout them about various heroes and kings and so on that's in the item descriptions.
"Someone, usually in an online game, who intentionally, and usually repeatedly, attempts to degrade anothers experience or torment them."
Invasions;
Forcing PvP upon another player, where you hold every single advantage, which the player cannot avoid without losing access to other non-PvP related elements of the game.
Invasions are griefing, as you are forcing yourself on another player, in order to do nothing but ruin their experience. You are not looking for a good fight against another skilled opponent, or you would be doing soap stones, you just want to come in and easily kill someone who can't defend themselves. You are doing nothing but trying to make another players experience worse for your presence. You are a griefer.
If you are arguing against even allowing the option to opt out of invasions, you are saying your desire to be able to kill people against their will is more important than people to be able to play the game without being griefed.
e:
@EspantaPajaro Wow what fighting game was that? I don't remember any arcade game, that when another player put in a quarter to play against you. Where they just were suddenly inserted into the match already in progress. So it could be 2v1, with you starting at 25% life.
This misses the point that Invasions are a core gameplay mechanic and by definition, isnt griefing then.
I'd say this one is more accurate too.
"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways."
Also whats this about the Invader always holding the advantage you seem to repeat? Last time I looked, the host has a fair few advantages, he can use Estus and summon help, the Invader cannot.
is what Mork said. The difference between having that or not is entirely the ability to invade when people don't want it.
Regardless, Souls-griefing definitely happened in the first one. Forest-hunters chilling with hosts to gank phantoms. People locking the area and hiding. Hack-boys would try their best, too.
I don't have a solution, but having the tension of both cooperation and PvP mixed together is one of those brilliant design decisions that makes the games so interesting.
Ok now I know you dont have a clue what you are talking about. Oh well have fun being persecuted by those awful horrible people who are griefing you with a loophole and totally not intentional mechanic as they cackle maniacally because they cost you five whole minutes. Truly these people are oppressing you and not just looking for people to play online against to have fun.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012