Dark Souls II Catch-All

The sad thing is that thanks to a delayed PC release (again), I will be buying the game twice (again).

Unless it's by like 2 weeks, I think I can manage 2 weeks. Oh who am I kidding?

BTW, screenshots from that article look like they could have been pulled from DS1 quality wise. I thought DS2 was supposed to look better?

The changes mentioned (dying while hollow reduces max health, invaded while hollow) are not things that encourage me. However, I don't typicaly do PvP type gameplay in any game, so if/when I pick it up, it'll be offline play for me.

It's a shame. I like the online features and stuff, but I don't want people to ever be able to invade my game. It takes away from the gameplay I want by forcing me to deal with a human antagonist.

Man, for me, the entire online component of Dark Souls is amazing, and what I want more of in connected gaming. I believe Watch Dogs has player invasions and a way to take revenge.

Tyrian wrote:

The changes mentioned (dying while hollow reduces max health, invaded while hollow) are not things that encourage me. However, I don't typicaly do PvP type gameplay in any game, so if/when I pick it up, it'll be offline play for me.

It's a shame. I like the online features and stuff, but I don't want people to ever be able to invade my game. It takes away from the gameplay I want by forcing me to deal with a human antagonist.

I understand where you're coming from, I do, but I think this might be a case of people imagining it to be much worse than it'll actually be. It's pretty typical human behaviour, just think how afraid people are to get a shot even though it's rarely that bad. I realize that's a strange comparison to make to playing a game, which is something we do for fun. However I've seen this behaviour in every game I've played where one player can intrude upon the experience of another. Some people get deathly afraid of that ever happening, so they take extreme measures to avoid it and end up ruining their own experience, or at least limiting it. If you just embrace it instead you'll most likely end up having some unique and memorable experiences.

I think there are legitimate reasons to avoid PvP in this series.

Things like the Scraping Spear in Demon's Souls, which stripped durability of your equipment, could very much deter your single player progress.

Yet the awesome online features like messages and ghosts made me want to play DeS online as much as I could. So I played mostly in spirit form, as a way to play online but not get invaded. Of course that game also had the world tendency stuff, so you had to play offline if you really wanted to work for a platinum trophy. At least they changed some of that for DkS.

Stele wrote:

I think there are legitimate reasons to avoid PvP in this series.

Things like the Scraping Spear in Demon's Souls, which stripped durability of your equipment, could very much deter your single player progress.

Yet the awesome online features like messages and ghosts made me want to play DeS online as much as I could. So I played mostly in spirit form, as a way to play online but not get invaded. Of course that game also had the world tendency stuff, so you had to play offline if you really wanted to work for a platinum trophy. At least they changed some of that for DkS.

Outside of some seriously dirty hacks I can't think of too many opportunities for PvP screwage in DkS. There are a couple spells that affect item durability, but the effectiveness of those spells are low (and you have to waste an attunement slot) and the costs to repair items were much reduced from DeS.

The big concern in DkS was usually the fact that if you needed co-op help, humanity items were a bit too few and far between (especially given the need to kindle) so a death from invasion could be a huge setback. They fixed that up in the Prepare to Die edition to a degree, though they were still pretty scarce until you could farm reliably in the Depths. Given the penalties associated to hollow form in DkS2, I'm kind of assuming they are going to make human effigies relatively plentiful. I would prefer to see them somehow plentiful in the early game, then more scarce later on - perhaps a large initial supply that is hard to replenish.

My other hunch is that while they want to open people up to invasion, I suspect the chance to get invaded will be limited in some fashion. DkS did have a timeout associated with invasions - I think you could only get invaded every 10 minutes or something like that. If they go further in that direction getting invaded might simply be an intermittent adrenaline shot rather than a frequent roadblock. Since we're looking at central servers and anyone can get invaded, I think invaders will have plenty of targets without picking on the same small pool over and over again, which is something that happens in DkS due to the crappy peer-to-peer system.

Everyone, get out your timestamps. imbiginjapan, I couldn't agree more.

/drama

*drops mic*

kyrieee wrote:

If you just embrace it instead you'll most likely end up having some unique and memorable experiences.

I hear variations of this exact same thing in every PvP game I'm ever exposed to. It all boils down to pro-PvP people just being positive that if you just try to play the game their way (the right way) you will see that you've been wrong all along.

Bullsh*t.

I enjoy playing games even though on the whole I do not consider myself a terribly good player. In most games I have the entirely realistic expectation that any PvP encounter will end with myself defeated while providing only a minimal amount of challenge for my attacker. There is absolutely nothing fun for me about being a speedbump. I end up with my (presumably enjoyable) PvE experience interrupted by an unwanted intrusion and an amount of my available playtime irrevocably lost while I recover from whatever setback has been dealt to me. This can be made even more frustrating if the attacker is a griefer who calculates their actions in such a way as to maximize potential frustration to their target.

TLDR: "Try it, you may come to like it" is at heart an incredibly arrogant statement in situations like this.

Elycion wrote:
kyrieee wrote:

If you just embrace it instead you'll most likely end up having some unique and memorable experiences.

I hear variations of this exact same thing in every PvP game I'm ever exposed to. It all boils down to pro-PvP people just being positive that if you just try to play the game their way (the right way) you will see that you've been wrong all along.

Bullsh*t.

I enjoy playing games even though on the whole I do not consider myself a terribly good player. In most games I have the entirely realistic expectation that any PvP encounter will end with myself defeated while providing only a minimal amount of challenge for my attacker. There is absolutely nothing fun for me about being a speedbump. I end up with my (presumably enjoyable) PvE experience interrupted by an unwanted intrusion and an amount of my available playtime irrevocably lost while I recover from whatever setback has been dealt to me. This can be made even more frustrating if the attacker is a griefer who calculates their actions in such a way as to maximize potential frustration to their target.

TLDR: "Try it, you may come to like it" is at heart an incredibly arrogant statement in situations like this.

This is mostly how I feel about it as well. I did get invaded in Demon's Souls (and didn't like it), and then again in Dark Souls (and didn't like it). I find that annoys me and interrupts what I was working on so that someone else can have a "challenge". Or in my case, kill me and get whatever they were after. I would much prefer a way that PvP could be disabled, or even an in-game faction that precluded me from being invaded. I might be willing to give up other faction "benefits" for the sake of not having to mess with unwanted PvP.

Elycion wrote:
kyrieee wrote:

If you just embrace it instead you'll most likely end up having some unique and memorable experiences.

I hear variations of this exact same thing in every PvP game I'm ever exposed to. It all boils down to pro-PvP people just being positive that if you just try to play the game their way (the right way) you will see that you've been wrong all along.

Bullsh*t.

I enjoy playing games even though on the whole I do not consider myself a terribly good player. In most games I have the entirely realistic expectation that any PvP encounter will end with myself defeated while providing only a minimal amount of challenge for my attacker. There is absolutely nothing fun for me about being a speedbump. I end up with my (presumably enjoyable) PvE experience interrupted by an unwanted intrusion and an amount of my available playtime irrevocably lost while I recover from whatever setback has been dealt to me. This can be made even more frustrating if the attacker is a griefer who calculates their actions in such a way as to maximize potential frustration to their target.

TLDR: "Try it, you may come to like it" is at heart an incredibly arrogant statement in situations like this.

That message is in every children's show in the world, and I can sing the lyrical version from Elmo's World if you want. If you've tried it sufficiently to know that it's not for you, cool, but it's not like people are "incredibly arrogant" or jerks for suggesting people try playing the game as it was designed to be played. I don't see anyone disparaging anyone for playing the game "wrong" or anything. This is a forum for the respectful exchange of opinions and thoughts on video games.

The only times I've enjoyed PVP in these games is when I was already in the midst of voluntary coop play, and my teammate(s) and I were able to defeat the pesky invader with a numerical advantage.

Otherwise it's just frustrating and in the way of making progress.

The NPC invaders in DkS were a nice touch. Gives you a taste of combat that you can easily win, plus nice rewards.

Elycion wrote:

TLDR: "Try it, you may come to like it" is at heart an incredibly arrogant statement in situations like this.

Well I'm sorry you think "try it" is an arrogant suggestion. I'm not saying I know better than anyone else, but I have seen time and again people go from refusing to engage with other players to enjoying it once they've been convinced to give it a try. How is that any different from suggesting that someone might like Dark Souls even though they've heard it doesn't respect your time, that the checkpoints are few and far between, that there is a death penalty etc.?

Being "pro-PVP" doesn't mean just wanting to gank people, it just means finding value in those interactions. Years ago when I first started playing Diablo 2 in Hardcore (permadeath) the thing I hated the most was PKs in public games. Someone can join your game and permanently kill a character you've put dozens of hours into. Eventually though I grew to appreciate it, how it shapes the social dynamics of the game, what it means to trust someone in the game, how people behave in groups of other people etc. It took a game where nobody paid any attention to anyone else and made it the complete opposite. I never PKed anyone and I still approve of that mechanic.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

That message is in every children's show in the world, and I can sing the lyrical version from Elmo's World if you want. If you've tried it sufficiently to know that it's not for you, cool, but it's not like people are "incredibly arrogant" or jerks for suggesting people try playing the game as it was designed to be played. I don't see anyone disparaging anyone for playing the game "wrong" or anything. This is a forum for the respectful exchange of opinions and thoughts on video games.

While I'm sorry that my choice of words got your dander up, I'll have to ask that you refrain from putting words in my mouth. At no point did I ever call someone a "jerk", or in any way actively insult a specific person or category of people.

If someone explains that they do not like something and goes so far as to explain why, responding with something equivalent to "try it you'll like it" is in fact arrogant. It shows the inability to see things beyond your own personal perspective, and the unshakable certainty that your opinion is the correct one. We're talking dictionary definitions here, not insults. Furthermore if you'll take the time to read you'll see that nobody actually used my exact quote of "Try it, you may come to like it" because I paraphrased that quote myself to be certain that I was making an example of an arrogant statement and not calling someone in particular out as an arrogant person.

Also, I don't see the relevance of platitudes used in children's shows to any of this discussion. We tell young children things like that because they generally don't have previous experience to work from and are prone to forming opinions based on purely emotional reactions. An adult with a lifetime of experience behind them is capable of making educated decisions without requiring trial and error in every circumstance. In fact, if one were particularly thin-skinned tossing an Elmo-based platitude at an adult could be considered (gasp!) insulting!

Elycion wrote:

In fact, if one were particularly thin-skinned tossing an Elmo-based platitude at an adult could be considered (gasp!) insulting!

Good thing no one in this thread is overreacting and imagining insults.

kyrieee wrote:

Being "pro-PVP" doesn't mean just wanting to gank people, it just means finding value in those interactions.

I didn't say all PvP enthustiasts were gankers or griefers. Basically I just pointed out that there are those of us out there that find little to no value in those interactions. In fact the value is often negative for some of us.

At no point in time did I ever mean to imply that you were a griefer or general all around bad person, and I'm sorry if you thought otherwise. Honestly you just ended up being quoted because you provided a particularly well written one-sentence summary of what I've seen many people repeatedly saying.

kyrieee wrote:

How is that any different from suggesting that someone might like Dark Souls even though they've heard it doesn't respect your time, that the checkpoints are few and far between, that there is a death penalty etc.?

It's different because this is a sequel and by and large the discussion about unavoidable PvP is happening between people who have played the original. Everything we know about DS2 so far indicates that the core mechanics are mostly unchanged and that the invasions and the combat that results from them will be incredibly similar to those in the first game.

The amount of changes between the Dark Souls games seem very reminiscent of those between the Left 4 Dead games. If someone hated the first L4D they're incredibly unlikely to enjoy L4D2 because from a non-enthusiast's perspective the differences between the games are negligible at best.

Not liking forced PvP either.
It isn't like it is even a fair fight.
The invader is the one choosing to PvP, the one that is likely specced and geared for it. Fighting against someone who might not be.

After a short time, the ganking types will have found every single benefit/exploit they can, and it will be even more annoying for everyone else.
Sure, not everyone are gankers, but there are plenty of them, especially as time passes, and most others have moved on.

Shadout wrote:

Not liking forced PvP either.
It isn't like it is even a fair fight.
The invader is the one choosing to PvP, the one that is likely specced and geared for it. Fighting against someone who might not be.

After a short time, the ganking types will have found every single benefit/exploit they can, and it will be even more annoying for everyone else.
Sure, not everyone are gankers, but there are plenty of them, especially as time passes, and most others have moved on.

With no intent to offend, I think the fact that invaders work that way is in keeping with the game's general gameplay philosophy. I'm not a fan of grankers and griefers, with glitched low level characters specifically geared toward invasions, but I find that, if they manage to keep glitches like the bottomless box from DkS out of the picture, this sort of thing shouldn't be so terrible. Sure, we'll still see a bunch of min/maxed invaders who take advantage of the lag and whatnot, but at least that's still within the fair confines of the game's structure. Just saying. :/

brokenclavicle wrote:

With no intent to offend, I think the fact that invaders work that way is in keeping with the game's general gameplay philosophy.

You're absolutely correct. It undoubtedly is in keeping with the designer's intentions.

What baffles me is how it appears that people suddenly become concerned with the purity of the designer's vision when someone talks about avoiding PvP yet they could care less about changing anything else.

Want higher resolution? No problem, we'll point you to a mod. Want different fonts? Sure, here you go! Want to change the textures and how health bars are displayed on screen? There's an app for that! We'll even show you how to mod this game so that you can pick a particular friend and be easily able to summon them into your game 100% of the time.

Ask to avoid PvP though, and you're suddenly not "playing the game as it was intended" and ignoring the creative vision.

Elycion wrote:

Ask to avoid PvP though, and you're suddenly not "playing the game as it was intended" and ignoring the creative vision.

Agreed. I'm not upset about always possible PvP really. If the invasion system stays true to the previous games where you can't be invaded in cleared areas I won't care too much. The game would change pretty drastically if invasion chances are the same regardless of circumstances.

Also, the Way of the White covenant was pretty effective for me in staying off the invasion list.

While we don't know the details, I'm assuming you can still play offline. In fact it'll be pretty similar to DkS in that if you want to do coop then you have to expose yourself to PvP. But now instead of binding it to the humanity resource it'll just always be there if you chose to play online. If it works the same way as DkS then you can play the same character online and offline so there's no big loss. Although they might have a distinction there to combat hackers.

Apparently there's an in-game method for avoiding invasions, it's just not going hollow.

kyrieee wrote:

Apparently there's an in-game method for avoiding invasions, it's just not going hollow.

Probably a covenant or something similar then.

I never did anything to avoid being invaded, and it was just never that big of a deal. I lost more than I won, but it didn't seriously impact my game, except that I thought the drama and the tension was amazing and unprecedented in console games.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I never did anything to avoid being invaded, and it was just never that big of a deal. I lost more than I won, but it didn't seriously impact my game, except that I thought the drama and the tension was amazing and unprecedented in console games.

My experience today once again highlights the down side to invasion in general. I am doing a no shield play through and while running through the Catacombs at around SL 50 I was invaded and dispatched in one shot by an invader with a Black Knight Sword. The issue isn't that I was defeated, but that I was defeated by an end game weapon that really outclasses anything a player normally has access to at that level. And for this character, not getting high end weaponry at low levels isn't a priority.

Anyone who's done a low level or no level play through knows it's not hard to get some seriously good stuff really fast if you know where to look.

I get the atmosphere it is supposed to create with invasions in general, it really has just gotten old for me. I'm tired of my game being hindered by someone else simply because they are out to defeat players and I'm out to defeat the game. Also, lag sucks.

At the end of the day though I'm not upset at the player that invaded me earlier. I'm just annoyed that I was delayed.

The black knight sword is obtainable as early as undead burg though, if you are a bit lucky and carry 10 humanity. Heck, getting the black knight halberd breaks the game and you can get that even faster.

Plastefuchs wrote:

The black knight sword is obtainable as early as undead burg though, if you are a bit lucky and carry 10 humanity. Heck, getting the black knight halberd breaks the game and you can get that even faster.

Yes it is, but that tends to take into account that you are purposely going for the sword on most occasions. The stat requirements for the weapon make it limited for most players to use until end game. This goes back to those that know the game well can obtain seriously good equipment very early on.

A point I was making was that this player likely built their character around using this weapon to run around at around SL 50 to invade other players knowing that other players are at a combat disadvantage if they haven't optimized their character for PvP.

The whole argument that someone playing the game for the first time without spoilers, walkthroughs, and advance planning could potentially have those weapons reminds me a lot of the infinite number of monkeys with typewriters reproducing the works of Shakespeare.

Eh, the chance is there, if damn slim. I bet a lot of people run around with the BKS or the BKH, just a few points out of the stat range just because they got that phat drop from such a hard enemy.
I for one am waiting out how the whole PvP will turn out. The assistance-covenant sounds nifty and if there is another way to stop people form butting in the moment you are about to go down on three nasty enemies, I'd be all for it.

I have to say that I'm left slightly bemused by this debate about 'always on' PvP. One of the features that I've always loved about the 'Souls' games is that they force the player to make difficult choices and to constantly balance risk and reward.

To me, it sounds a little like the anti-PvP posts are effectively asking to have all the benefits of playing a Souls game online, but without any of the costs - to have all rewards without taking the risks. If PvP isn't your thing, then - as Latrine says - the game can (probably) be played offline.

Also, when did we start referring to 'gankers' and 'griefers' in Souls games? Surely invaders are simply other players playing the game exactly as intended? Yes, of course we all come up against invaders with some hefty gear, but I struggle to understand the shock/outrage. All the Souls games have been designed to be completable at Soul Level 1 and they've all be designed to encourage multiple playthroughs, so it it's pretty much inevitable that players will sometimes be heavily outgunned by invaders. But again, that's one of the risks on the risk/rewards equation.

Personally, I'm pleased that the developers aren't resting on their laurels and are - it appears - using the invasion mechanic to increase the level of challenge. When they introduced the bonfire checkpoints in Dark Souls I thought they were going soft...