They just need to bring back covenants. Have one covenant that allows you to be invaded as a solo host with the same restrictions of typical invasions. Have a covenant that allows you to get perpetually invaded. Have covenants that are focused on specific areas and increase the amount of phantoms that can be present in those areas. Have a neutral covenant like the purple phantoms. Have your typical defend the host covenant. Then have a Co-op focused covenant like the sun bros of yore. They could literally give everyone what they want with a solid covenant system.
100% agree! Ditching covenants in ER was a mistake. They would have went a long way to making co op/pvp play more interesting and could have easily been worked into the lore of the ER setting.
This. Fromsoft already solved the entire issue many games ago directly through the covenant system (which was genius). Its truly unfortunate that From potentially didn't have the time to implement the covenant system into ER like they wanted to. (for those that don't know, ER has cut nearly fully developed covenants in the code still. i imagine the scope and size of ER as a project grew to a point where they didn't feel that they could implement covenants in a way that they were happy with and ultimately cut them instead. a sad day indeed, but cheers to the future titles having a robust covenant system beyond what we can even imagine! c:
Great idea. Especially in the context of Elden Ring it would have been great. For example maybe a pvp currency or shop that you can buy crafting supplies from. You know so you dont have to walk around the lands between picking flowers so you can use a pot build or something lmao
@@austin0_bandit05 You can already buy crafting supplies from the shop in the roundtable hold and most flowers etc have a location close by a grace for quick farming. I'd rather have a game without the crafting system entirely tbh.
I have to disagree on your preference of invading co-op only, the whole point of invasions is they should be unpredictable for both sides, as an invader I should have no idea how many players I'll have to fight or what builds they'll be using that's the fun and interesting part. In Elden Ring I know exactly what I'm gonna see every time, EVERY invasion will be a massive uphill battle against the worst cheese in the game, it sucks to fight and is so easy to just lose to, this is why I miss DS2, basically everything was viable against everything which meant massive build variety, and invasions were as random as it got, you could get a poor solo host experiencing babby's first invasion, or a stacked gank squad in full Havel's and EVERYTHING in-between, and no matter what the gank squads were using and no matter what I brought, it always felt like I actually had a chance to actually win, can't say any of that about Elden Ring. You'll also get way better at PVP faster and more organically if you're constantly going up against different stuff and you try out different stuff for fun, not 'I have to use this build so I can 1-shot the co-op phantoms using OP gear in me and roll catch the host to stop them summoning more' no build variety on either side.
I enjoyed being able to be invaded in single player throughout the souls games. Some of my most cherished memories of those games come from the absolute terrible timing some invasions had. On a side note, call me stupid, but the idea of going back to the bonfire when being invaded never came to me
I only enjoy invasions if they are no heal. Having forced duels is more enjoyable then a sweat who hides behinds enemys and heals all the dmg done to him. Especially annoying when you dont have no heals left and must now fight a sweat who has the maximum amount heals possible for an invader.
@@TuniEichyeah but at that point you die and move on with life or beast mode it. If an invader hides in the level during a solo invasion he’s probably awful or just a scum bag. Against co opers though it’s their only choice
@@TuniEich I think it's better to let both parties have the ability to heal, a la Demon's Souls, but present a means to temporarily disable the heals, a la the Lloyd's Talismans in Dark Souls 1.
I remember playing ER for the first time getting to the part in Elden Ring where you are about to fight the Magma Wyrm Boss, and thinking “wow I can’t believe I haven’t been invaded yet”. Looked up online to see if anyone else was having the same issue and got really disappointed when I found the answer. I miss the tension of being invaded and the impact they have on the solo campaign. I’ll admit, it probably wouldn’t work out as good because of the over the top anime approach they went with the weapons in this game, but it still kind of takes the magic away from what it used to be like in previous games
The problem with invasions as a mechanic is that they can never possibly be balanced, they're always going to either be massively in the host's odds or massively in the invader's odds. From the perspective of a solo PvE player that is just going through the game for the first time, an invader will kill them 99% of the time regardless of how rigged the mechanics of the game are against him, the reason being that invaders are largely interested and experienced in the PvP of the game, they know what weapons are good, they know how to dodge and maneuver around player attacks, they know all the tricks. At that point it doesnt matter if the invader has less health or if they even have no access to heals, if they know how to pvp they will beat a solo host almost every single time. From the perspective of an invader, they'll have to slog through groups of players, or a solo host that is just baiting for invaders and is experienced with pvp, who will abuse the fact that he has access to an activated great rune and double the flasks, or at the worst case scenario, a gank squad that is actively farming invaders and who will win 99.9% of the time. Its a game design nightmare, its got to be borderline impossible to balance all the different perspectives to where you can have invaders satisfied with the level of difficulty being presented and purely pve players that dont feel too inconvenienced by invasions otherwise they'll quit the game.
It’s strange to me how a lot of pvp players are like “oh they have the advantage” when on average a pvp player has a huge advantage with experience, knowledge and a pvp oriented build.
@@omegaxtrigun Hosts do have the advantage. A single fuck up as an invader can mean getting blendered by even the most incompetent group. The single biggest advantage invaders have is that 90% of co-op groups are just a couple friends bumblefucking their way through a game. Those bumblefucks are still incredibly deadly though. Preparation and game knowledge can only carry you so far. The best invaders in the community still get their cheeks clapped regularly. They usually just don't post their L's.
Well said. Should just be an opt in. If you wanna have invasions while doing pve, pick that option. That way invaders will have a pool that only has people ready and willing to engage in pvp
@@rainbowkrampusI’m talking about a good pvp player. Someone who wouldn’t get themselves in that situation. Also, if theyre facing two bumblefucks, then those guys dont have pvp made builds and they may not even have proper stats or upgrades. So you get blendered and take fuck all for damage because their build is bad.
Interesting that instead of wanting Fromsoft to improve their PvP (and really multiplayer in general) so that solo host invasions do not result in the host just running back to the bonfire but instead make it that actually defeating an invader would be a huge benefit like refilling all your estus or dropping very valuable loot, or just making it so that you cannot backtrack to the bonfire you are trying to come to terms with and convince yourself of the current system. On another note the issue with group invasions again is, that the host will most of the times not fight you 1 on 1 after you kill their phantoms. They will either run back to the bonfire as well or keep summoning phantoms so it never turns into a 1 vs 1. Thats how the oneshot meta in DS3 came to be where the goal was to instakill the host to avoid getting into this attrition situation where they just keep and keep summoning their phantoms (or my favourite just pull the plug and cut the connection so they dont lose).
The issue with this is how much faster DS3 and Elden Ring are compared to DS1 and 2, in 2 players doing this, while annoying, was nowhere near as dangerous as it is now, there was way less cheese back then and slower game speed made it easier to manage and react to multiple players.
@@DeadSpace501 Absolutely. DS2 also limited the phantoms ressources as they could no longer spam estus and had to rely on spells which were easily punished because everything was slower. But again there could be ideas and concepts implemented in future souls games or ER itself that have similar effects but seeing as they didnt even bother making covenants its quite obvious that Fromsoft does not care about PvP and I dont think they will in the future with Nightreign for example not having an PvP whatsoever. Its not anything they seem interested in anymore.
Ironic considering that they pioneered the system and with the amount of creativity and talent they seem to possess, haven't applied any of it to a system they created 17 years ago.
I think that my biggest problem with invaders is min maxed character that were specifically made to stomp player early in the game. I remember not having much fun when I started Dark Souls 3 because every single invader below level 50 had that stupid one handed axe with lightning infusion that would just 2-3 shot you. Looking back at my time in Elden Ring I think that removing invasions was the right move because it allowed for a better experience exploring a larger scale world. Invasions feel better on legacy levels.
The minmaxer problem has always been annoying. Fight them at low level and you usually get stomped and they gloat but refuse to partake in their cheesery and they cry like little babies. I have much more respect for an invader who has a fun kit to fight against and isn’t just solely looking to stomp in one sided engagements.
My experience in DS1 invasions was getting one shotted by people who didn't take damage. They were often completely inept. I backstab them for 5% of their health (or no damage at all) and then they one shot me. Add in the fun of them always, always being the laggiest nonsense you've ever seen. Just teleporting around and lag switching constantly. It was never that enjoyable. It was a waste of time. I had to redo whatever I was doing because some guy was going to kill me in some stupid way. An equivalent experience would be to just randomly say I died of a heart attack and respawn me at the bonfire. It was bearable by the time DS3 rolled around, but dogshit netcode was still a thing and it was rarely very fun, but at least *sometimes* it was enjoyable and interesting.
They took one look at gank city from DS3 and decided that all invasions had to be just like that. The Dragonslayer's Axe is small peanuts compared to all the weapons in elden ring where you can win my just pressing L2.
The best invasion I ever had was a duel in the middle of a circular room in the snowy castle area in the DS2 DLC. It was a 10-15 minute slog that ended with a very, very slim victory because the invader was around my skill level and I could actually get some hits in, even with my PvE build. It was epic.
I think my biggest problem with PvP is that as a host, it's rather meaningless. You don't get any interesting outcome from it. If you lose, you lose level progression and have to go through it again. If you win, you get some meager amount of souls and just continue. What if losing would respawn you in the same place you died with replenished flasks but with additional red phantom enemies like you would just get gravelorded in DS1? What if killing the invader would give you a chance to get one piece of armor or weapons they were using like killing red phantoms in Nioh? If I have to get interrupted by another player, let me win something cool.
That's a good point too. Could even be that the host wins the invasion but had to use all their supplies to stay alive. And now they've won but got 2 healing flasks left or barely any magic so they have to backtrack to the previous checkpoint to resupply and redo a section of the level anyway. Makes it kind of a pointless and hollow victory.
Why do you need a reward? The whole point of invasions is that it amped up the threat of the main game progression, since no AI is going to be as challenging on average as another player unless they have broken stats. Invasions being effectively random made them such a major and unpredictable threat that it added so much extra spice to the Dark Souls trilogy that simply could not be replicated in Elden Ring. This is very much a spicy food analogy. Either you love it or it's just not for you.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe For every memorable/fun invasion there's a bunch of neutral or bad ones, so a good reward or some other interesting outcome would sweeten the deal a bit.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe On the flip side, one could just as easily ask "Why do you need additional threat/challenge?" For someone who's played through the game a thousand times, it can be really easy to lose sight of the fact that the average player on their first playthrough probably already has plenty on their plate at that point, and the added challenge from invasions is extremely hard to predict or curate since, as you said, they are random. Let's not confuse "spice in foods" and "pepper spraying people in the face".
In that same note-i think i'd like covenants back in some greater more flashed out extent-because i think it adds an additional layer of rewards for invading/being invaded. I think not as many people would be opposed to say-getting invaded solo if it meant they got something from winning the encounter besides "you get to progress the level". When the novelty of invasion wears off (the fear and anxiety of being invaded and not knowing where the other player is), it can come off as an annoyance/waste of time-which i think is the greater issues with invasions as a concept.
As long as the process for the rewards isn't a pain in the ass for offline players to get Otherwise, when the game ages and the player population gets smaller and smaller, it will be a repeat of Dark Souls 3 again
This, plus the thing that enables invasions should be more deliberate. In Dark Souls you open yourself up to invasions when you use your humanity, because using your humanity also buffs you and enables you to summon allies, so the idea is that opening the option of getting help also opens you to being attacked. But iirc you need to use NPC summons to progress some of their storylines, or at least doing so certainly makes the most sense and is the most satisfying way to experience their storylines. So now, if your purpose for using humanities is to engage with the NPCs, then you're being punished by the game for doing so with some random asshole with 2000 hours of PvP experience coming to wipe your ass. Someone else in the comments here suggested something like the Sekiro Demon Bell which augments loot drops in exchange for increasing PvE difficulty, and something similar could be implemented for enabling PvP without tying it to other unrelated systems and modes of engaging with the game. But the biggest problem will always be twinking and smurfing. I really don't know how you'd go about fixing that.
Covenants WERE the reason I got so heavily invested in Dark Souls 1/2/3's pvp scenes; The idea that there was this greater reward for being an invader than just killing was so alluring that it was the only thing I could do. The Mound-Maker covenant, in particular, was where I spent the most time, because in both a player and RP sense, my purpose was to gather as much as I could for my own cause. With the lack of covenants in Elden Ring, I don't have that same incentive. For the amount of time I've played, I can do all the content solo without ever using a rune arc, so why would a rune arc alone be an incentive? The lack of covenants is my biggest problem with ER, hands down.
As long as i dont see invaders with endgame equipment coming into my game on a fresh playthrough in the beginning areas, i dont give a fuck if they come back or not
All they have to do is change the scaling on certain things and it would be fine. For the most part early gear and late game gear are equal. The best weapon in Dark souls 1 for example was the claymore, and the ugitana, both obtainable within 10 minutes.
Invasions are incredibly special when the invaders can do wacky or even helpful things for the host, like lighting the torches in the well in Dark Souls 2 or leaving prism stones leading towards secrets or traps.
Butttttt you could be a "good" summon and still do those things. Cheap exsuce to push hate away from yourself for being an invaderfag in the first place. "But I'm one of the good ones I swear!" yeah, whatever
In the next game then need to make invasions the way they were before, and add an item that, when equipped, prevents you from being invaded. That would be the most reasonable way to bring back invasions for normal people.
I enjoyed solo Invasions so much in DS3, especially in early areas like the Road of Sacrifices, it gave consequences to being embered. If you've only played Elden Ring, An Ember is basically a Rune Arc mixed with a Furlcalling Finger Remedy, basically massively buffing your HP and allowing you to summon, but even if you don't summon, you're open to invasions.
DS3 actually made me go from loving to hating invasions. Twinking was uncommon in DS1 and DS2(It did exist I am not saying it didn't), but 3 it's rampant. When it isn't a twink, I will admit it is fun.
@@Bug_BerryThe consequences of twinking in DS1 were way larger, though. You were basically invincible. In DS3 it makes much less of a difference. Going against them 1v1 was still hard, but not nearly as much, and even one phantom would even the odds.
@flavionms Idk man. I just played 3. I got invaded by a twink. I parried him 3 times. You would think that would assure victory, but I did ass for damage. The healing in DS3 is so fast and OP (both PvP and PvE.) I can beat their ass for a solid 5-10 minutes, but they get a second hit in, I die. Maybe a little further in once I can actually upgrade weapons and get a decent one it's not so bad. I won't disagree with ds1 them being practically invincible. I just rarely see it happen lol.
Hosts should be invadable IF they use a Rune Arc to power a Great Rune, by a rare weather event that also gives the host a Rune Arc as compensation, or during coop. However, players should be tracked based on what regions that they have visited and equipment should have region tags. If a host AND their summon have NEVER left Limgrave for another region, they should be unable to be invaded by players who have visited other regions or have equipment from those other regions. This will protect hosts from most Twinks via region locked equipment and keep players in the same expected "power level". Finally, Hosts should have the option to "burn" Rune Arcs at a Grace, to block all invasions for an hour per Rune used this way.
Having "region check" for equipment will just kill all the activity on lower levels. Which is not really a bad thing in my opinion, but at this point maybe just disable invasions till level 50 or so.
@ Why? Are the only people invading at low levels twinks? I invade around the beginning region with equipment easily found there and I have a blast giving new characters a fair fight.
Forcing ME to waste resources so YOU can't come into MY FUCKING GAME and be a douchebag isn't the way. Opt-in in the menu (NOT all online functionality at once, get bent) or an item in-game to use whose only purpose is to allow invasions and nothing more. No ember, humanity, rune arc, etc. Leave us alone, and go jerk off with other assholes on your own.
@@Graati I think a combo of the equipment in question combined with its upgrade level might be the best way to go about it. Some people like to get certain things early to test them out in a full playthrough, or to show off what interesting things are in future areas.
I used to invade a lot in DS1 and DS2, and there was a decent mix of solo hosts and people doing co-op, but from DS3 onwards it got tiring having to deal with a gank squad every single time, eventually I just stopped invading altogether. It was also fun being invaded randomly while exploring, it spices up the gameplay, but as someone who doesn't play co-op that just doesn't happen anymore, unless I go out of my way to use an item that opens up my world to constant solo invasions, so you either halt your progress by getting invaded every 2 minutes or you just don't get invaded at all, there is no middle ground. It's a shame to miss out on one of the most fun aspects of the original games.
I agree. Invading anywhere and facing a solo player has a much different vibe than invading a group, especially since most hosts have two summons instead of one. It also felt cool to suddenly be fighting another human anywhere on the map, especially if they were trying a cosplay build.
I liked invading DS3 ganks - it was jus challenging enough but very fun. In ER it's challenging but not in a fun way - AoW/Magic/Projectile spam is so common and so boring it put me off invading.
They should have never been taken away, solo invasions are by far the most fun invasions I've ever had and most fun I've had in my entire play time in souls games.
That’s me, I’m the host who’s confident in fighting invaders while going through the level. I had a taunter’s tongue playthrough b4 the dlc. It was a lot of fun, but your criticism of it is just too true, and it’s the reason why I haven’t done it again even after the dlc came. You just get invaded waaay too much. I swear one day I was being invaded in Raya Lucaria back to back while going through it. I was on a roll, killed 3 dudes all in the span of like 30 minutes. But man when that 4th guy came in just a few minutes later I felt so dejected. At that point it’s not even an invasion anymore.
And that's the issue of allowing people to just opt out of invasions altogether: You diminish the number of people who can be invaded and make it so individuals get invaded much more often and hence more punishing and less fun. It is effectively getting rid of invasions altogether as most people stop playing as only the most casual who play it like it’s ESO and only the most sweaty tryhards playing PVP.
My standing position is I rarely invade and never do covenant PVP, but the game is better when I don't have control over invasions on my side and have to worry that it might occur. Best case is probably something where certain areas are invader-open and others no, where you combine a cost-exchange function like turning human to open invasions but not all areas will let that function.
The PvP invasion aspect is what kept me coming back to Dark Souls long after I had finished everything in the game and the way invaders are essentially punished now is one of the main reasons why I don't bother replaying Elden Ring much. Yes, they need to bring them back (with the ability to avoid them such as staying hollowed in DkS of course).
A nice retrospective. I thought that it was a very strange choice that ER's Great Runes lacked the invasion component of DS3's embers. However, in retrospect, my experience has been that players are likely to proactively engage during invasion in ER than in previous iterations. I think you're correct that the addition of co-op as a requirement is the most significant factor contributing to that difference. These days, my only real gripe regarding invasions in ER is mostly a consequence of the interaction between the available scale of natural character progression and the password co-op system. I enjoy invading in these games and do so regularly as part of progressing a character. Over-leveled co-op phantoms have been an aspect of that experience since BB. However, in previous titles, invasions _still felt like a hunt_ when an over-leveled phantom was present. In Elden Ring, invading into a late game co-op phantom in Storm Veil, Raya Lucaria, or even Leyndell is a different experience. In ER, the advantages afforded to end game phantoms in that range aren't _insurmountable_ as an invader, but they're significant enough that, at least for me, the natural objective shifts from engaging with a threat to working around it. It's less about hunting something dangerous; more about sabotaging an escort quest. I don't remember feeling that way in previous titles. Preference for one or the other is a matter of taste (and I've had a lot of fun with both), but invasions of the latter sort have a tendency to play out the same way regardless of an invading character's level of progression. At this point in the game's life cycle, those sorts of invasions are the norm, and that's stripped a lot of the variety from invasions for me. Have you had a similar experience? If so, what are your thoughts on how future games might do better?
Something in Elden Ring makes everyone rush for the same broken builds no matter if they're focusing on pvp or pve. It's a fundamental problem of the game.
@Jediahgames that's just gaming culture in general now is the side effect of the internet. Everyone has access to a website that constantly updates what is the current meta in every video game.
Did everyone forget that it was Bloodborne that removed solo-invasions? You literally couldn't get invaded solo outside of the chalice dungeons. Everyone's so busy picking on Elden Ring they're literally just making shit up at this point
The biggest issue I faced when invaded (though it lessened over time a lot) was the sheer skill gap between me and the invader most of the time. Half the time the invader was a sweatlord with 20k hours of pvp under their belt that would counter anything I could think of trying while using a pvp focused setup vs my own pve exploration set up, often with sub-optimal builds as well. 25% of the time it was similar skill level so the fight felt fun, and the last bit was from people that really shouldn't be invading at all given their sheer lack of gameplay knowledge and practive with their chosen builds, like, fat rolling while onehanding an ultra great sword, begging to be parried/back stabbed. As I myself got better because I loved the games and have over 1k hours in most of the souls-borne games now, I find myself enjoying being invaded in DS3 while solo, choosing to not heal with flasks and letting the invader set the pace of the fight (wether it's basically a duel in a random spot or them trying to use the enemies in the level to help themselves). This experience however is something far less than half of the playerbase will have, as most players only do a single playthrough of these games and then move on, maybe doing another one years later when they already forgotten how to play the game. These things are what the devs have to deal with, on top of basic balancing. As a pvp enjoyer (though I rarely ever invade) I find the system in DS3 the best From Software has done, but with my past experience in mind I believe Elden Ring is closer to something the casual player will enjoy, though there's still issues to be had. Plenty of players would love to able to coop without ever being invaded by players without using mods, while others (me) would like a Taunter's Tongue-like item that would just make being invaded while solo possible without opening the flood gates and risking being invaded by two invaders over and over with little pause between invasions, similar to DS3's system.
I gotta say, folks retreating to safety happens just as much in invasions in Elden Ring as it did in DS3. Honestly, a lot more often, in my experience. I got more people who were willing to stand their ground and fight in DS3, while in Elden Ring people were a lot more likely to stand in place after clearing out an area, then wait to mob you. They are more likely to retreat to a grace so they can perpetually re-summon they're friend if you manage to get a kill off. Comparatively, it was a much better experience in DS3. Also as other comments point out, the 2v1 invader scenario made the game an arm race of finding the most broken tactic to deal with 2 people, which in turn just aggravates hosts who feel they're being overwhelmed by un-counterable tactics. That said, I agree with your conclusion. Just let us opt into Solo Invasions. Also, go an extra step and make it equal, and don't go like DS3 where it prioritized Co-Op worlds, just make it all equal, solo or not. Would also help if we got back an increased player limit, so even if they prioritized co-op worlds you could have the chance of having a co-invader as well. Really, it doesn't need to be an item. Just make it a setting. I don't like the idea of being able to turn off invasions, but if the choice is between letting people opt out or having it be as botched as it's gotten, I think it's time we take the former. People can already choose to play offline. If we can't have a decent system that makes both parties happy, just let them be separate. It'll at least let us fans of the old style have it back in tact, and will weed out the bonfire fighters who didn't want to be invaded in the first place.
Adding to what you said, I feel there should be a cool down timer before a host who already had summons before the invasion can summon again. Someone shouldn't be defeated in the fight then resummoned with full resources 30 seconds later. Perhaps different players' signs could still show up to encourage the original intention of finding random people willing to help others, which doesn't happen as much nowadays due to people coordinating online outside of the game itself. There should still probably be a universal summon cool down timer though, but random people would have a much shorter timer compared to the previous, defeated summons.
If you want more organic solo invasions with _casual_ players, there will need to be some changes. Give a host some sort of goodie for just engaging with an invader (or a certain number of invaders), you can even give a range of goodies depending on how much damage they do to the invader. As it is, engaging an invader is seen as a _nuisance_ by most casual players because they have potentially more to lose in the exchange. Heck, I'm sure actual practitioners of Game Theory (the science) can come up with a much better scheme, so go consult or become one by reading up on the darned thing.
Hot take(?) : the host SHOULD have an advantage in PvP. They have risk in losing the fight, whereas the invader is risking nothing. Host could have died and is trying to get their bloodstain back, etc.
Asymmetric pvp should never be balanced with just giving one side a statistical advantage - balancing should come from changing the numbers of players and unique abilities.
The invader is risking nothing? losing runes? having to go to recover them or if dying in pve, losing them? Of course in past souls games this was not so bad implemented wheter you lose it or not. But the important thing was that invader HAS ALWAYS been at disadvantage. With less flasks, less allies, etc...And both of them rewarded for killing the other.
I think it would be better if instead of using an item JUST to open yourself to regular invasions there was also a system tied to it that encouraged people to open themselves to the risk of invasion to get better rewards. Kinda like a less extreme, non-permanent (would probably need to be re-applied after dying) bonfire ascetic that increased the area's difficulty, greatly increasing souls gained, enemy item-drop rates, more upgrade materials lying around, etc... while also opening yourself to solo invasion of course. I think this would encourage even people who aren't into Co-op or PVP to get solo invaded sometimes. Make that hypotetical item re-usable instead of a limited resource and we're golden. Even outside of that item though i think having a few areas where players can get invaded regardless for lore/story reasons could be cool and designed around it, like a more meaningful version of the hunters covenant in DS1.
If this was a thing, invaders would HATE us solo players even more. I'd never let you in, I'd close the game every single time. I recognise how to get past the ToS rule of not force closing the game by pre-prepping my quit game button when I see the autosave symbol out of nowhere, and you would never see me. I'd use it farm more resources and whenever an invaders was coming I'd just quit. Trust me, you'd hate it almost as much as we hate you forcing yourself into our game.
@@BusinessSkrub Why would you intentionally engage with the risk-reward feature and pull your Internet cord to miss out on half of it? It sounds like you're refusing to actually play the game by its own rules. That doesn't sound like an issue with the game's design, but instead with individuals playing it.
@@nightscout9979 not pulling out the internet cord lmao, closing the game on you just gives me the fifteen seconds or so I need to find that player on the "recently played with" list and block them so I can't be invaded by them again, since they're probably the only idiot invading there anyway (and if not, repeat process), and carry on my merry way. You're not getting anything out of me as an invader, if your principle is to try and make other players have a bad time because you can, then mine will happily be to make invading me a waste of your time because I can. 🤷🏼
@@BusinessSkrub People invade to have fun through playing the game, it's not some scheme to actively torment others. A guy who invades you in an area could also be the guy whose summon sign is down for the boss fight. You pulling the Internet plug (literally or otherwise) doesn't even take much time, people just go right to another invasion.
@nightscout9979 funny that I get hate messages most times I do it, but hey, I'm sure they're just having fun right? No hard feelings, just a game and playing and having a good old time, yessir. Not trying to harass people and make their experience shitty at all and getting upset when they get theirs back, nosirreebob.
Personally, I love solo invasions because they allow for far more build variety and experimentation. Players can test out new things or roleplay as a Carian Knight guarding Ranni or a Perfumer defending Leyndell without facing a vicious 3 vs. 1 every time. This also gives a much greater incentive for players to test out invading in the first place. With how readily the Bloody and Recusant Fingers can be obtained, along with no downsides for alternating between helping in co-op and invading, it feels like players are meant to freely explore every multiplayer option rather than pigeonholing into one. Invasions also allow for a new type of combat throughout the amazingly designed, magnificently detailed locations From Software creates, and the battles can sprawl anywhere. I find these environments to be far more enjoyable than the arenas, especially since Elden Ring's coliseums lack the variety of even the Battle of Stoicism. The dueling spots are nice to have, but they shouldn't be the *only* dueling spots to have, and it's fun when fans can arrange their own locations in spots like the entrance to Raya Lucaria (which is gorgeous, by the way). If someone starts off invading and keeps getting 3 vs. 1 situations, it might annoy them to the point that they don't want to invade at all. Furthermore, there's the matter of encountering hyper-optimized builds, which is more likely to happen when each invasion encounters a group. If these groups have not just three people, but one or two meta builds, it could make invading quickly feel irritating rather than intriguing, as well as stale. This could also push an invader into reducing their play style to something that's likewise meta and only designed around beating three people at once, hence why things like the Stormhawk Axe became so ubiquitous. Another issue with Elden Ring's invasions is that blues get summoned far too readily to help players who already had two summons. An invader could defeat a summon only for a blue to almost immediately pop up to make it a 3 vs. 1 again. A host might even end up with two blues in quick succession if the other summon is defeated. This disincentivizes strategic, tactical battles to chip away at the host's forces and instead encourages just blitzing the host, limiting the overall viable play styles. Additionally, instead of feeling like heroes coming to the rescue, blues can just feel like pity summons for someone who blew an advantage, especially if one blue sees another pop up shortly after their own arrival. Also, something I've noticed with Elden Ring compared to the other games is that sometimes the messages that someone has just entered the host's world won't appear at all, and the sound effect won't play either. You could be a summon or an invader and suddenly there's a player who literally wasn't there before. The messages and audio give a crucial heads-up to start thinking of ways to adjust your play style and to start scouting the environment even more closely. Be they red, blue, or gold, another person popping into the session with no warning stinks, especially since it again highly disincentivizes methods that don't involve blitzing the host (or any foe) as swiftly as possible, such as utilizing poison and the Scarlet Rot. I like that Elden Ring offers early or otherwise easy invasion items thanks to Varre and Volcano Manor, but in the face of frequent 3 vs. 1 fights, the incentive to actually stick with invasions or regularly dabble in them needs to be stronger. Rune Arcs are useful for activating Great Runes, but they feel so plentiful that regularly invading to collect Rune Arcs doesn't feel like enough of a motivator. While there is some roleplaying investment via the Mohgwyn Dynasty and Volcano Manor, there could have been more in the gameplay approach to this to encourage players to keep participating, like collecting blood for Miquella's cocoon or additional rewards from Tanith. There don't have to be nine covenants like in Dark Souls 1, but something extra as a gameplay reward could be satisfying. In Demon's Souls, both the Blue Eye Stone and Black Eye Stone could be obtained extremely early on and each gave the reward of getting one's full HP bar back. There was a major incentive to test out all kinds of multiplayer features throughout a playthrough, including stat buffs to summons and invaders via gear and Character Tendency. Hosts would have to fight alongside their summons to help them, avoiding the problem of Estus chug heals from across the map that DS1 had, but invaders could also harm the enemies with friendly fire, meaning that they had to be careful. The Demon's Souls multiplayer system was great for encouraging players to explore the full breadth of online options and be engaged in the gameplay. I feel that this system is still one of the best approaches to multiplayer and future games should seek out its balance. When invasion items aren't hidden behind highly secretive quests like in Dark Souls 1, I feel there should be an extra incentive to engage in that multiplayer style. DS1 at least gave a good story weight to the Darkwraiths and their liquid Humanity reward provided a universal stat boost or could be Kindling. Also, the Darkmoons got the best weapon buff, though their ability to even invade sinners depended on enough people being Darkwraiths. Heck, even if people weren't Darkwraiths, Kaathe was the only person who sold Cracked Red Eye Orbs, so Darkmoons would need people to find him anyway for their own covenant's sake, otherwise they'd be stuck with the 10 or so cracked orbs that could be picked up per playthrough. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter, Ratatoskr! You explained yourself thoroughly and in a clear, succinct manner. I agree that the Taunter's Tongue is a step too far, at least if it's the only alternative. There should be a good middle ground between invasions only with a summon and constant invasions with no cool down. Also, didn't Bloodborne actually invent the "no invasions without a summon" mechanic? I don't think the feature debuted in Elden Ring.
invading in the dark souls trilogy was so easy to the point that it was just uninteresting. ds1 pvp was really unbalanced and easy to clobber basically anyone you invade, and ds3 has a bunch of new player hosts who just got forced into ember and don't know what they're doing and are really easy to kill alone. the only time when pvp in those 2 games was interesting is when they had a friend imo also ik people speak fondly of ds2 pvp but i dont have much experience there
Enemies should give more souls and embers/rune arcs/humanity while invaded. Invasions should reward 2 E/RA/H so that the time spent on a long invasion can catch up to that of a quick boss. Make invaders an opportunity rather than simply a punishment/balance system and they can be as loved as new game+ for spicing up a play through
I find I half agree. I think the biggest downside is that there's just not as many people avaliable to invade when you can only invade co-op. It can kinda suck bouncing around hoping to find a match. And co-op players are invaded relentlessly. And frankly being ganked is fun only if none of them are better at the game then you. Because then its just a slaughter. Not to mention it seriously hinders people getting into pvp by setting the bar so high. Some players can barely even win a single duel much less 3 people. The issue is we need it to be spontaneous and not a set up but also simultaneously not be meeting the solo player at the bonfire and kicking his teeth in. And I too miss being invaded and the taunters tongue is a piss poor substitute. I dont know what the solution is because I agree with a lot of what you have to say. But I think solo invasions have to exist if only for the sake of the pvp "economy". Maybe prioritizing invading ganks. The problem as you note is the invaded really has no incentive to engage with the hunt. And even more often no desire to either. And tbh I cant blame them. Most often their only motivation is not losing their souls or progress. They have nothing to gain. A lot of players dont know how to pvp and it can be very one-sided. As you say, not fun for either. And this is why invading ganks is often better for the soul's vet and why ganks are more likely to participate. It gives them enough of advantage to embolden them. All this to say, despite your good points I think solo invasions need to return. I think the cons outweigh the pros. HOWEVER. I think in a future entry we need a greater pvp economy. 1. Starting with bringing back covenants. There needs to be more incentive to invade and to be invaded. 2. We also need the dynamism of invasions (ie reds and blues) to create interesting and shifting encounters. 3. I think getting more players into pvp would create a more healthy economy as well. More incentives, more entry points, etc. Hell, I wonder how many people who play these games have never even tried invading. 4. A better co-op system like Remnant 2 would do wonders. Especially public matchmaking. Some people dont have friends and often times I just dont have anyone online at the time. 5. I have a lot more ideas but they would fundamentally have to change their formula. And I think the community would need convincing. Ive always felt this was an underrealized aspect of these games. So much untapped potential. Anyway, great vid as always
@@austin0_bandit05 As someone in the comments already said, they should region-lock equipment so that you can only get invaded by players who have been to the same regions as you have. That would kill most twink builds.
@@austin0_bandit05 Another idea I had for solo invasions is that players take control of weaker NPC enemies who have pre-determined load-outs that can challenge the players but are easily defeated. Kind of like the special infected from Left 4 Dead but determined by the area you invade like the Gravelord Covenent in DS1. So you can have multiple invaders without worrying about builds or overleveling.
I agree with your conclusion (solo host invasions should be opt in), but not with your premeses, for a couple reasons: 1) Making all invasions 2-on-1 raises the difficulty level of invasions, filtering out people who are trying it for the first time, leaving only dedicated invaders like yourself. I have friends who tried dabbling in invasions in Elden Ring, and quit after only a few attempts, because they found the 2-on-1 disadvantage overwhelming. This is bad not only for people interested in invading, but also for hosts, as the skill level of the average invader goes up by virtue of the skill floor going up. 2) Bonfire dueling absolutely still happens with co-op invasions. Probably 30% to 40% of my invasions in Elden Ring are hosts sitting by a bonfire with their phantom, which is often an overlevelled password phantom. They make no move to play through the level, probably because they're on voice chat with their friend, and can just shoot the breeze with them while they wait. Either that, or they're ganking on purpose.
I think the best of invasions are some of the best design dark souls games can have up there with the greatest boss fights and levels, and I hope they make a return but they defiantly, aren't perfect, and I think the reason we haven't seen them evolve or come back is because its a flawed system that can be broken very easily. That is due to fromsoftware not putting in the time to make invasion a game mechanic feel like apart of the level they are present in. if the fans like invasions and from wants to add them it needs the level design to support the system, and Elden ring didn't have it, invades couldn't even ride mounts, you could get one shot by a lvl 99 in every dark souls game etc etc. Its gonna require a actual rethinking on how these encounters are designed here are some off the top of my head. NO LOADOUT CHOOSING (1) the invader isn't allowed to choose the equipment they invade with. If from made a specific loadout for areas they enable as invasion areas, i think it solves the balancing issues while allowing for what makes invasion great to really flourish. a character specific to making traversing a poison swamp area difficult could be cool stack them with lloyd talismans and make them slightly faster than then host while being easy to cut down but respawn-able, slowing eating into the hosts supply of heals and cures, until they drop dead of poison can be a really fun gameplay encounter, if its given priority as a feature of the level. or a character with wrath of god in a particularly elevated section of the game could be hilarious. while allowing them to be avoidable and feel fair since they are more scripted encounter's between to players. And encourage the cat and mouse chase that i love so much about invasions utilizing entire sections of the world/level. ROUGE-LIKE (2) allow invaders to spawn in as low level characters, that need to explore the level to find loot only the invaders can find sorta like evolved, To grow stronger to be able to take the host on 1v1 duel style, but be able to impede their journey through the environment like locking doors or exploding barrels for a range, or trying to find easy to knock them off the map like for honor; but more rouge like like what we see in night rein. This keeps the cat and mouse dynamic while flipping it on the invader at the start, but if the host doesn't deal with them or get through the area fast enough they can become a serious threat. BOSS FIGHTS (3) allow invaders to spawn in as piloted npcs would be interesting. imagine a player with a more bare bones ds1 big guy with a sword move set, spawning them as this instead of a player npc removes a lot of the innate jank of pvp invasion in Fromsoftware games (two players with weird I frame dodges never feels that great). imagine a player piloting artorias like boss as a roaming avoidable fight, it would allow for skill expression by the invader as they can get good as being artorias (pretty badass). while since their humanoid the move sets can be actually pilotable and readable by the host. DIVISON DARK ZONE (yeah really) (4) a dark zone like area specific to pvp. the divsion by ubisoft had a unique feature of a section of the map that was pvp/pve, it had great loot that you could extract at the risk of other players killing you for that loot. I think a massive area the size of limegrave/altus, that hosts must travel through the area as if it was a firelink shrine type (the eye of the storm where you can access every other level from it) could be really fun, it could offer, shortcuts to other continent's or levels at the risk of higher danger combat with pvp, while having levels and geometry tailored for that experience, while being avoidable if you wanted to take a longer route around the "dark zone" of the map. i just imagine riding a horse through this area and seeing 2-3 dark phantoms on their mounts on a hill ahead waiting for you after you decded to take a short cut through the zone to get to a safe area with a large amount of souls, and preparing for the chase that could be really fun! I recently started demon souls for the first time and was shocked to realize the npcs fights are the same dark souls 1, ds2, ds3, bloodborne, elden ring, and shadow of the erdtree essentially with minor changes just to keep them in line with the game they are in. i think its time for some improvement and the new nightrein seems to be that. its really cool to see the seemingly bust open the conventions of the souls series with this spin off, i think its time for the souls series of games to get a healthy dose of shots from games like hades, botw, dishonored, and maybe the games i mentioned above, and we as a community need to be more open to them going baddy with the mechanics i feel, its the only way to evolve and recapture what made the old games so good. im still praying for the day from makes a western rpg dark souls with npcs ridden towns and cities, with lore that can be backed up with in game set pieces/ gameplay moments. No longer is a event like the night of the black knvies ancient history its a mission you are participating in, or something that you directly witness take place. Elden ring is almost there but its missing this for me.
You don't really seem to understand that having YOUR customizable character which plays the way YOU play is one of the main selling points of souls(and ACs for that matter); as well as understanding that invaders are usually people who love the game severely and want to engage with it more, while you're offering for invaders to just play a different game. And to be good at something, has a meaning of being consistently good at something, no matter which how much theoretical "skill expression" you put into your system almost no one will just even try to "git gud" if they can't get consistent results. So in conclusion: no one will play these schizo invasions.
@ (sekrio, the superior title in every way that if it had multiplayer would made the ds franchise enjoyers looks like plebs sitting quietly on his farm) I do understand that that’s an integral part of the souls series duh man I’m sitting here wishing for better pvp in their games and you think I don’t know about bulid crafting? Like I don’t have 12 different Elden ring characters for different builds and yadda yadda played ds1 x amount of times with my hands tied behind my yap yap ds2 is the superior title yadda….you miss my point. The solo invasion experience is a flawed concept from conception. It’s always been the weird tacked on thing that was probably (in my opinion) slapped on the boxes of the games to entice the gamers of the 7th generation. So my suggestions are not vain, because the system as it is in their most current title, SUCKS. Their’s a reason he has to make this video it’s because the situation is in dire need of a shakeup for SOLO invasions. This isn’t covering dueling. I’m well aware that building crafting and character building and skill expression are core to thst experience. Solo invasions it is not and I will stand on that. Because solo invasions were a gameplay experience/feature first before they were a recognized concept and component of these games. It barley worked half the time when it was in the early games, it was laggy as all hell and was labeled experimental and cool because it was just that, a weird nest addition that if it worked, and you got a good invader/host could have memorable experiences that elevated the games experience. What you seem to want is contrary to what SOLO INVASIONS were meant to represent. A additional threat on top of the curated content of mobs and traps that you find in the level. It was a modifier, and it’s obvious as much because this thing you claim the “hardcore players love so much!!” Has withered and died, my suggestions are there to attempt to uphold what made SOLO INVASIONS great. Because build crafting a god of men to one shot someone is most of the time what solo invaders become since the dawn of man (2009). Because each game has had a different take on solo invasions which never fixed the issues of the game before it added problems and made it a worse experience, to the point where it isn’t even recognizable in the form it exists in Elden ring. So you don’t really seem to understand the point of my comment and this video really. And with my options presented their is still clear signs for skill expression for example my favorite the poison swamp pre decided load out, it relies more on your prowess in evading the opponent than direct combat and it serves a purpose in the level that the host is in, you can use Lloyd talismans to halt the usage of items leading to the host dying of poison intake. If the theoretical game I’m thinking of with my “schzio invasions that no one will play” yeah no duh asmondgold it’s a UA-cam comment about a Japanese game companies niche gameplay feature that only the sweatiest of losers recall existing. Get slammed peace ✌️. If you have any good suggestions on how from can revive this features that’s confirmed to not be in their next title nightrein enlighten us or you can go back to duels in Elden ring cause it’s all you have in that game cause solo invasions died.
@@masterofnothing4938 I understand that I came a bit too rude. I apologize. I swear I'm not as bad in person(I'm worse). Now if get a little bit to the point there's still a community of incredible dedicated and creative people still playing invasions. You seem to state that invasions and specifically solo invasions never worked referring to the fact that in Elden Ring invasion systems make one want to his bones out. The deal is that I think(and there are number of people who with me here) that DS3 almost hit the mark with it's multiplayer, but Elden Ring is "0 steps forward, 3 steps back". Now I think if some issues of DS3 were fixed (mainly Twinks. I fucking hate Twinks) we'd get an incredible one-of-a-kind asymmetric PvPvE experience enjoyable for all parties. I myself hold my multiplayer experiences in these games very close to my heart and I want for the things I love to evolve and be improved not be scrapped and replaced with something completely different.
@ I feel you, ds3 mp was close to perfect but that was a lot to do with the hardcore community that made the mp in the game wha it was from added the fight maps which barely anyone used. Seriously tho the mp in these games is underrated aspect of them:
What if the "2nd item" you talked about isn't in your inventory, but rather something like the demon bell in sekiro? That way you can't just turn it off when it's inconvenient, you either choose to play the game with it active or not.
Idea for future souls games that eliminates the camping gank problem: Make invaders gradually grow stronger the longer they’re in your world, forcing hosts to hunt down and kill invaders. Give blue phantoms a method of tracking down invaders.
It would only bring you an invaders that hides all the time only for them to come in and destroy everyone in seconds. It would be a chore for everyone. There are much more elegant solutions like for example we could allow invaders to use something like miquealla's branch to charm a mob and then that mob will follow invader everywhere, or adding harassment tools sorta like Greatbow with Golem Arrows in ER.
@@Graati True it would lead to situations where the invader would go running away for a while but then again they'll be banished once the host crosses a fog gate so it would put pressure on both parties to engage sooner rather than later imo.
I feel like we already have a solution. The blue phantoms to help a host. Ideally one would be given to the host at the same time as an invasion. That way as a host that doesn't like to co-op but likes invasion can still get invaded and regular hosts won't run away to the bonfire at the first sign of an invader, they might be more inclined to stick with the blue and 2v1.
If they do bring back regular invasions then I'll just play in offline mode because I don't want to be forced to engage in content that I don't want to engage in. Invaders most likely have a lot of knowledge in regards to pvp and since they are allied with hostile npcs, they only have to worry about the host and their allies. Furthermore, invaders are able to fully fight alongside holstile mobs even if they invaded a solo player.
You have never been forced to engage in PvP if you didn't want to. In every game it always required you to do something to open yourself up for invasions. Going offline was never needed.
@@flavionms If you wanted your maximum health then you needed to use a humanity or ember, both of which opened you up to player invasions unless you switch to offline mode.
As someone who doesn't mind either way since I can always play offline if I want a more "chill" play session, I did like how Bloodborne had the bell-ringing women hidden in the level who could summon invaders, forcing you to explore with the chance of invasion for at least a couple levels.
I feel that there needs to be some type of opt-in for invasions (besides playing offline mode) mainly because my own personal experiences of being invaded in DS1 are almost exclusively bad. The number of times times I've been invaded by a twink at the Bell Gargoyle's or Blighttown is very high. In my experience, out of every 10 invasions against me, 9 have been against a twink. This usually means my weapons barely scratch the opponent, while I get oneshot by a high level spell or somesuch. I don't find this enjoyable. There are a lot of threads on reddit about people that invade really enjoying fair invasions and duels, and that may be the case for them, but my personal experience is not like that at all. It's almost always a bad time that makes me not want to play, that's why I don't like forced invasions.
in dark souls 1, there is no weapon matchmaking so you can be invaded by someone with a +15 weapon at level 1. this was fixed in the remaster but only somewhat, there are special weapons which can still match with low level players and deal absurd damage, also dragon form fists have a fixed 400 AR which is crazy for level 1. dark souls 3 and elden ring introduced proper weapon level matchmaking which helped a lot with this issue, but it hasn't completely gone away as people can still theorycraft crazy damage builds at low lvl. u don't straight up have access to max upgraded weapons anymore tho which is nice.
@@flavionms Sure, but if you go human you can't summon or read messages. I know a lot of people argue that being able to summon should be balanced by being able to be invaded, I don't personally share that opinion but I've heard it a lot. However, I do find it annoying that you can't read messages in offline mode, as reading them is really fun especially the first time you play. Also, if you are a newbie, the game gives no indication that going human actually makes you able to be invaded. The first time the game drops you off at Firelink it actually informs you that you can use Humanity go Human, but doesn't actually tell you what it does. The main way new players find out you can be invaded while human is when they actually get invaded, and even then it's not obvious that being human was the reason. Covenants would give way more clarity.
I honestly wish they'd just remove Invasions period tbh. Or at least make them opt in. Especially if they want to make more open world games, because it just drags the pacing of exploration by forcing you to go on a wild goose chase.
Adding another item wouldn't really be a good solution. Firstly it wouldn't change the issue of consent. Secondly Elden Ring already has 3 items which are just for host to set up their world. This is already too complex. Having only one item(or some alternative) which just allows you to put every setting you want 1 time is both logically and logistically sound imho.
It would still be an improvement, though. They could always make it so activating the Furcaller Finger's Remedy let's you be invaded even if you didn't summon yet.
It would still be an improvement. They could always just make it so activating a Furcaller Finger's Remedy opens you up to invasion, regardless of whether you summoned or not.
I’d say they can you choose the type of game mode you want for the play through. One game mode would be allowing you to be invaded whenever, regardless of you having a co-ops or not. And the other game mode would be just playing the game regularly with no invasions possible regardless of co-oping or not. For the invasion heavy mode, enemies can drop more runes, have a higher drop rate of items and have many unique specific items and even emotes only available in that mode that are acquired by either killing a certain amount of invaders or winning a certain amount of invasions. For the non invader mode, they just play regularly with friends or co-opers, and if they want to get any of those items, they have to do a NG+ cycle and then change their game mode to invasions. This will help increase the amount of people who want to do invasions and bring back some of the old school invasions of old, while also allowing the people who just want to play their friends play their games without feeling bothered by invasions. Also if you invasion game mode, if you invade a world that’s has a co-opers, you can be allowed to summon enemies or even mini bosses (scaled down so their not OP) that will disappear when other invaders join the world so that amount of invaders is equal to the amount of host and their co-opers.
I think my favorite ideas I'm seeing are as follows: Better rewards for invaders and hosts. Make it worth invading, and worth beating an invader. Covenants and "event" areas. Things like a zone where you can be solo invaded by a specific covenant, in that specific area, while it may be disabled for the rest of the game. (I still like solo invasions but this is something). Even having protectors/blues is a real help, if you're solo invaded and have the blue ring you'll likely have 2 pvp ready summons if you can just not die for the first minute or so. Tweaks to healing for invaders/summons. Full healing for invaders seems like a good idea for a system restricting invasions to groups, but would be a bad time for a solo host. Give the invader a weird different healing item that heals faster but for less, idk. Scale invasions based on phantom numbers. No it wouldn't be perfect but if a host has 2 phantoms maybe open them up to 2 invaders. If they only have 1 or none restrict them to 1 invader. I feel like different stakes of marika/checkpoints would help with some of the frustrations for invaders. I spend 10 minutes trying to invade only to get 2 people who immediately walk into the boss room and a gank squad. I like the stakes for many cases, but sometimes they felt a bit overused. Edit: random idea for covenant(s). A pair where the 2 covenants are at war and they are summoned into a neutral host's world who's job is to make it to the end boss, while the warring covenants goal is to get items from killing other faction members, while the host tries not to get caught in the middle. Host can be worth 1 reward too to encourage chaos.
Honestly I think better rewards for just hosts would be enough. The best reward for invaders are simply good invasions. Of course, better rewards would incentivize new players to give it a shot, so it's not necessarily a bad idea, but if the goal is to control the number of invaders then it is unnecessary.
Yep. This is all we need. As solo players, we recognise this gives everyone the best chance at being happy even if it's not the absolute best outcome for either side. Of course, however, invaders don't want this, because they explicitly NEED to feel superior for invading people who don't want them there. They're literally arguing that opting out shouldn't be a thing and you should just always be available for then to stuff you'd ass whenever they feel like it. Totally a fair and meaningful argument from them LOL
They had this via covenants in prior games, essentially. I tend to prefer them since they're in-universe, and in-universe explanations for game mechanics and options are neat.
The answer is yes. ER has the worst invasion system so far out of any souls game because it limits the invasion pool so much Edit: also the things you're describing with hosts exploring happens less and less as the series goes on because enemies design and placement becomes more and more bullshit. It won't ever happen in ER because of its foundationally flawed evrny moveset design. Why would a host *ever* venture out when so many enemies are so annoying to fight alone, much less with an invader.
I appreciate that you're stance boils down to 'I don't want to do it unless it's ruining somebody's day, or I get to fight God.' I've always played offline because my internet is about as consistent as a politician in a lobbying convention, so I have no horse in the race.
I don't think your reasoning about bonfire duelists makes sense, if someone wants to duel at a bonfire with a rune arc, etc, wouldn't they just choose to use the taunters toungue? The likelihood of someone bonfire dueling non tauntered toungue is massively low compared to literal millions of new pve only players elden ring brought in. Your alternate invasion item that brings back the 15 minute timer solves alot of issues, but I don't think you should be able to turn it off outside of a grace. Make it so you can use it at the start of an area and then turn it off once you have beaten the boss, aswell as an option to turn it on after defeating the boss, something along these lines. They have done similar in dark souls 2 with human effigies preventing you from being invaded for an hour. This would help players not abuse the system in some way similar to current taunters toungue users, who like to gank, use the item, then disable it once a single invader comes in. Taunters toungue should also not be able to be disabled, just like the dried finger in ds3. Ultimately what I think would happen if solo invasions came back in elden ring specificly, is you would just simply invade some poor guy who has no clue how to play. You can already see this in previous souls games, dark souls 3, dark souls 2... Dark souls 2 especially since you can invade hollowed players, meaning the amount of afk players you invade skyrockets. So many invasions are just fatrolling players with like 15 vigor. I mean already just look at some of the players you invade doing co op, mage with 10 vigor who has done nothing but sit behind their overleveled phantom for the whole game, no grasp of the idea of a reaction roll. Elden ring actively incentivises players to not learn mechanics like spacing in favour of L2 spam. I don't think it's fun to destroy some new player who just got the game. I agree invading better players is always the most fun. Thirdly, the open world should not have invasions, it just doesn't work, players can just run around endlessly, it's too big. Elden ring just has too many issues (like 4 player limit, etc) for solo invasions to be included, fromsoft need to implement a competent system before doing anything else imo.
let me guess, the answer is yes. I'm probably the complete opposite in that spectrum as I hate invasions, so the less I have to engage with that aspect of souls games the better my experience is. (therefore I always am i offline mode, or in elden ring I'm never in co-op)
I like this idea but I feel like an item would be unnecessary, instead it could just be an option in the matchmaking / network settings that’s off by default. I guess they would both do the same thing, but I feel like an item creates more situational agency than a menu option would.
Specifically with the example you said, about invading a solo host that is better than you. Invaders are almost always experienced in the game, so finding this scenario is difficult. UNLESS: The game is design to encourage PvP, it would be a lot cooler to have people trying their first invasion organically in their first playthrough because there is an incentive, and said incentive continuous to permeate for the entire game, Covenant rewards or a key feature locked to a PvP currency. Imagine the UA-cam videos that make OP builds telling you: Or "hot take": The equivalent to humanity or the Ember resource that gives bonus can't be farmed and no enemy drops it, except for some in the map. Now we have inexperienced people actually trying to invade. More people, more variety of skill and ideas. Of course this has to be designed from the ground up to make it the most organic to the progression as possible. The invasion items you suggested should also have an incentive. The "getting invaded normally but as a solo host" item can give a specific reward after every kill, the Taunters tongue equivalent that makes you get invaded in rapid succession should give another rare reward and then we get into covenant specific ways to invade or get invaded.
Most people who don't invade aren't "afraid" of invading or pvping, we're just not interested at all. I don't play competitive games, period. I play rpgs and single player games, and sometimes survival crafting games with friends. I'm not here to pvp with tryhards. I'm here to play a fucking game. Giving me a hundred level-ups and a copy of every weapon in the game to win ten invasions, I still wouldn't even participate in one. It isn't about rewards, it's about not being a tiny-cocked little loser douchebag who feels the need to insert themselves everywhere they're not wanted like some sort of office creep. No, go away and don't come back.
I think one big problem with elden ring's invasions was the furlcalling finger remedy. I think it's almost certain that the need to manually use that one item to see summon signs in the first place killed random coop for anything except bosses.
Forcing players to engage in PVP when they don't want to is a premise that is never going to work smoothly anyway. For good reason. Just give it an option to turn on normal invasions for additional rewards. Everyone is happy
@@etendudeaufraiche146 What? Its common sense that ER has the absolute worst PvP (and probably also multiplayer) out of all the souls games. Horribly balanced, no covenants and atrocious invasion system for invaders and invaded, etc.
The idea NEVER was to force anyone. The idea is to promote being invaded with rewards. Is the design, a proper and fair design. That if you use the special items to give a boost. Then you can be invaded. It was always the design that if you wanted to summom phamtoms you must use it, thus making you available for invasions. Elden Ring is the spiritual sequel of Dark souls. Souls games are NOT monster hunter. And the way Elden ring treats pvp has no future. And that is bad for everyone. Believe it or not.
invasions have been always an extra feature sadly, a good concept but not a very well executed idea, an unrefined experience with a lot of potential for a fantastic anecdote generator, but I think this would shine the most in a dedicated experience, a game specifically made for this interaction you describe as rare to be the default experience, maybe if nightreign can explore the coop posibilities for fromsoft, just maybe, they are interested in making a counterpart that explores pvp, I really hope they do, crossing fingers for dayreign
Fundamentally, I don’t think FromSoft ever properly considered the competition aspect of invasions. I think they thought of it more from an RPG perspective where players would role play more instead of there being an arms race for the best gear and ganking and so on. Thematic, thought out builds whether invader or co-op always produce the most fun and interesting fights because they’re fought within the spirit of the game we’re all playing and the state of ER is on the community as much as it is FromSoft.
The is not the vile human nature, but the fact that current systems don't really incentivize role-playing aspect. I'll just drop 2.5 wild words: Player-made covenants.
I miss them dearly. That said the system is not good for new players if it’s not fundamentally built off some kind of risk and reward. In Elden Ring the reward was multiplayer help but there was no state of humanity like in Dark Souls meaning the “on” flag was the summoning rather than a state. In dark souls 2 and 3 there was the restoring or increasing of your health etc. I do want solo invasions back but they have to come with that balance of risk and reward, otherwise you are just going to turn some players off from the game early in their journey who would have been a stalwart fan.
Here’s an idea, to solve both bonfire duelists and gank squads that kill every enemy in the zone. Why not not merge gravelording and and invasions. When you invade there will be infinitely respawning red phantom mobs that spawn in set intervals, like every 5 minutes. They patrol the whole map including bonfires, so you can escape detection if you know their patterns, but the safe zones move with or without you, if you stay in one area too long the red phantom mobs will see the host and jump in to help the invader. Or the invader can lead them into the red phantom mobs. As for it being too easy to opt out of, literally just hitting a button when it’s convenient at the end of a dungeon to eliminate risk, make it work like dark souls 1 where you make that decision AT the bonfire area bonfire, and you can’t reverse it until the area boss is dead, if it’s already dead, it spawns a red phantom boss (maybe allow boss invasions? I liked mirror knight, or spear of the church/old monk is cool too, but I won’t die on that hill) and to push the idea of making it a commitment rather than an a simple flick of a switch, maybe red phantom enemies give more souls, have increased drop rates, or maybe also drop items that aren’t in the normal mobs pool like upgrade materials, covenant items, or other rare items people wish they had more of earlier in the game, incentivizing people who embraced the bacon face in the older dark souls games to risk it for the rewards.
Personally, I hope From either removes or separates PvP (like in AC6) from the main game PvE part. I couldnt care less about it and I want From to use all their resources for an even better PvE experience. I also want perfect balancing thanks to no PvP like in Sekiro in all their future games.
Too bad Armored Core's PvP is not great either, because the meta of staggering in PvE has completely decimated the sense of skill that is supposed to be there in PvP. With staggering being the system, most high level play results in Zimmerman, heavy leg kicking, or kiting, and no in between, and one stagger can essentially result in the game being done with in seconds. I'd argue AC6 is the most egregious example of how From struggles to balance for both PvE and PvP, because more so that Souls/ER, PvP is supposed to be the life blood of Armored Core after the PvE.
How I'd do it if I had the reins: 1. non-consensual 2. the game queues up enough invaders to match the number of host/cooperators before sending them all in at once (if there simply aren't enough invaders in the queue for this, this step is skipped and the invader is sent in alone). 3. if the host is in the Way of Blue, a Blue Sentinel is also queued up alongside the invader(s) and enters the host world at the same time (if there aren't enough Blue Sentinels available, this step is skipped and the host is on their own). Way of Blue never really felt like it worked before, to me. And I think there should be a way of curbing the sudden difficulty spike if you're not a good PvP player. 4. make some kind of item that spawns in red phantom enemies near bonfires if used. You can use it as a solo player against yourself if you're crazy, or you can use it as an invader to try and push the host away from the bonfire and make the invasion less safe. 5. invaders do not get estus flasks. If they want to heal, they'd better bring miracles (and they'd still be limited by casts/FP since the ashen estus is also disabled). The intent here is to make it so the invader kind of HAS to utilize the level if they want viable odds. 6. there should be a good reward for banishing an invader, not just for winning an invasion. That way, players are less inclined to disconnect from the game. 7. Soul Memory from DS2 was on the way to a good idea, but it was held back by some incomprehensibly stupid execution. Base it on the number of souls needed to be your current level, plus the sum of the highest-upgraded equipment types you have in your inventory (most weapons count as one type, but all the various catalyst types would be in their own groups, plus maybe some other stuff). If you make weapon upgrades cost the right amount of souls, twinking should be a lot less doable. (also, stop having non-upgradeable weapons for this exact reason) Not saying it'd solve everything, but I think it's something you can base a better idea on. I love the idea of invasions, but Imma be honest and say I usually just disconnect when they happen because the execution of them is just unfathomably bad. There's no reason for me as a host to participate in them, I only stand to lose, and they're terribly balanced on top of it.
@lharsay The dried finger is so much more balanced than the taunters' tongue because you actively consented to having multiple players invade your world, making it more difficult to gank so most people actually played the level normally instead of standing next to a bonfire getting kills.
I should also consider the fact that PVP was a slow paced dance than the cracked shit we have in elden ring and also the fact that the level design was more enclosed so invaders had more choices in escaping towards safety we're there's loads of mobs.
I think the important takeaway for a lot of people is that non-consensual PVP is not fun or fair. It should be a consentable option. No one should be forced to be someone else's entertainment.
Same, which is why it should work the same way as dark souls. You opt in to all the online stuff at once by being in human form, so you can play through the game with or without the possibility of being invaded
If you play Demon Souls, after encountered someone that build specifically to destroy your weapons and armor while you have no idea what you're doing, you will simply switched to offline mode..... FOREVER.
@@LogosChaser-r5dnope. Taking away game mechanics from a player because they don't want to be invaded by some fagfuck who can't get by without pissing on other people isn't the way. Take stuff away from invaders, they're the assholes trying to ruin peoples' day. Solo players don't deserve to be punished or miss out because YOU'RE a fuckin tryhard.
My idea: invaders become vulnerable to "Black Soapstone"-equivalent banishment after a timer. So you can do a non-consensual duel somewhere in the level, but not a non-consensual Carian Study Hall. Bear in mind, Ratatoskr's ideal host can still accept that challenge, but everyone else can refuse it.
IMO the best solution is just to put a toggle at character select: do you want to be included in the invasion pool? Plenty of people like Ratatoskr really like both invading and being invaded, and it sucks for them that they have to jump through a bunch of imperfect hoops to get the experience they want. Meanwhile, plenty of other people, like me, really hate invasions as a whole, whether they're balanced or not, and don't want to deal with the system. Such players like me will still not be fun or interesting experiences for people like Ratatoskr to fight for the reasons he stated in the video: as soon as we see we got invaded, we just run back to the bonfire so that if (read: when) we die we can easily collect our souls and move on. Neither type of player is being properly serviced by the traditional all-or-nothing system; meanwhile, an opt-in system would work for both types. Pro-invasion players have traditionally countered this argument by saying "multiple players breaks Soulsborne combat design because enemies are built for one-vs-one and multiple players breaks their AI: invaders are Fromsoft's solution to their spotty AI design." IMO the first part of that is basically true. However, I don't think that the second part really works. Fromsoft's games have always had super powerful borderline-cheesy builds and strategies that near-invalidate the difficulty of their games, but none of those involve PvP. In Elden Ring you can pick up the Antspur Rapier and the Fingerprint Shield, or any greatshield with a high damage absorption and stability, and poke your way through any difficult encounter, up to and including Promised Consort Radahn. Going all the way back to pre-DLC Dark Souls 1, a GiantDad (Chaos Zweihander-wielding Giant's Armor character with high HP, Endurance, and an ultra-fast roll with high i-frames from the Dark Woodgrain Ring for those who don't remember) was the ultimate cheese strat for everything in the game, PvP against non-GiantDad's included. Trivializing Soulsborne combat has always been possible, and has often been surprisingly easy at the start of the game if you know where to go, and PvPers often use such strategies themselves to gain powerful advantages, yet these extreme advantages don't come with invasions as a balancing factor, only summoning multiple players. This is the flaw I see in the argument: if X, Y and Z all break the game equally well, but Z is punished with invasions as a balancing factor while X and Y are not, then how can invasions really serve as a balancing factor? In addition, something else that pro-invaders often say is that invasions are good because having multiple people gives the host's side substantially more resources than they would normally have, and so invasions help to drain those resources so the players have a harder time against the boss, which they might otherwise accidentally cheese with their comparatively massive resource pool. Once again there is a degree of truth to that, but I don't think it does a good job of providing a good experience for the co-op side. If the intention on the part of the co-op party is to trivialize the game then the invasion is just a hindrance, and moreover, it's a hindrance that is easily bypassed. Once the group finds the fastest and easiest way to the boss fight, they will simply do all the summoning right outside the fog gate, thus eliminating the power of invaders to hinder them during the boss. On the other hand, if the co-op party's intention is not to trivialize the boss, then invaders robbing them of resources basically means they'll have less time during the fight to learn the fight mechanics, since their healing charges will be partially (or, depending on the invaders, severely) drained and they won't have much time to stay in the fight to learn it. This basically turns playing with your friends into something more akin to a challenge run, which can be extremely demoralizing for players who are already struggling even as a group and aren't intentionally brute-forcing their way through bosses. In neither case does it provide a compelling experience, except to those players who either already know they like PvP and are looking for such an experience (whose experience wouldn't change with an opt-in system) or those who didn't known but decided they liked it (who could still opt in to the PvP system at the start of their character if it sounded like something they might find compelling). Alternatively, the opt-in could be an opt-out triggered through an NPC in the hub, which would give players a way to organically experience PvP first and then be redirected to the hub NPC after killing or dying to an invader to opt out. The solution to "multiple players breaks Soulsborne combat design" shouldn't be "we'll outsource balance to PvP," it should be "we'll change the combat design to accommodate multiple players." Whether that be "more enemies spawn at certain locations if multiple players are in the world," "bosses gain new attacks with wider reach," or something entirely different, those would be better solutions than relying on an invasion system that many players loathe, one which creates community discord through toxic players on both sides flaming each other and doing stuff like using twink gear to bully low-level players (invaders) or hiding in impossible-to-reach-without-Torrent/glitches spots to waste invaders' time (players). An opt-in system gives both types of players what they want. In the mean time, hopefully Elden Ring: Nightreign can provide some ideas for future games on how bosses can be made a reasonable challenge for multiple players, since the entire game was designed to be played with a 3-player team. If Nightreign's combat design is successful then that can serve as an example for future Fromsoft games on how to make bosses fun for groups. I'm sure it would be difficult to make two versions of each boss's move set, one for solo players and one for groups, but assuming it's a feasible solution then it would be a far better option than invasions, which aren't active during boss fights anyway.
@@ricklubbers1526 play offline isn't the solution you think it is. I don't care for invasions, and I never invade but I like player messages and getting summoned for boss fights. Playing online isn't just about invasions.
That reverse invasion situation is what I live for with solo invasions lmao. On both ends. Working through the game and having people invade, not knowing I've been doing dueling/fight club/gamefaqs/discord pvp for like 15 years. Having the entire invasion scenario flipped on them. Absolute peak. Likewise doing an invasion and the host is absolutely cracked at dealing with both you and any npcs at the same time. Unbeatable experience, if rare.
I always thought the most part of invasions(as invader and invaded) was how it added to the sheer unfairness of the world. These worlds are not fair or easy. This why i actually feel its best if the invader does not feel at a disadvantage at any moment. I didn't like Elden rings system because in most cases, if there are 2 or 3 humans it really does not matter what enemies are nearby, you are going to be back at a disadvantage. The best scenario is just restoring the way it was in the old games. If someone gets to choose whether or not they can be invaded there is no point. It's supposed to feel unfair. It also added a great drawback to things such as becoming human. Sure you could become human and try to summon for that boss, but you are also inviting invaders. It was really perfect
It needs to be better balanced. All invaders have the most tryhard builds ever. There’s no variety or fairness. PVE builds hold no chance against a PVP focused build.
probably because if they try to do any other builds that aren't sweaty they get stomped in turn by the invadees? Especially considering how spam happy ER is compared to the other games?
@@caiqueportolira they do though. PvE and PvP builds are wildly different and the latter rely much more on quick burst damage and combos/setups than PvE build which can afford to use slow ass buffs, telegraphed attacks/spells and other mechanics that just don't work in a PvP situation
People who think invasions are easy haven’t invaded much. They are pve players that are so bad at pvp that they think it’s unfair. What’s really happening is that invaders were forced to git gud or die immediately to ganks. Reds are just better. (I’m a sunbro)
Invasion would need a huge overhaul to make it more fun . Not perfect as it impossible but more organic and not meta try hard for both side. Some idea I thought of would be to: One, to level gate weapons so that you couldn’t have a late game boss weapon or spell in low level. Second, a different invasion let say statues that can allow low level, mid level and high level invasion which would de level or level scale you and your gear to that appropriate invasion. That way you don’t have to make a new character for low level invasion. Third thing is that solo host do not lose soul if they are invade. This could help push solo host from the spawn point. Also add a wall from the spawn point. Or if that not a good idea, make it so that invader will drop rare items or their covenant item. This way host can get invasion covenant stuff without invader if they want. Fourth thing is kind of controversial but it would be cool if instead of notifying the host that an invader has come. Instead don’t. Instead make it where the host can get a blue, regular helping phantom or a invader to show up. The only notification is either the world or level has signs and a sound like a horn will signal when someone enter your world. This allow a new level of mind game cause invader can now use disguise items which could work now. Last thing is to make covenants again. But it would be cool that they focus on certain play style and give res usable items that focus on said play style. Like an assassin covenant that focus on hide and dealing high dmg shot sneak attack but you take high dmg in return. Or a patches covenant that make you white phantom default when invading. host can’t hurt you at first when you have the disguise but enemies will Aggro to you. However you can attack the host but your first attack you deal 1 dmg always and your disguise is removed after the first attack. Which mean you want to do a kick or push miracle to knock them off a cliff like patches would. Enemies would still aggro to you so your first attempt is the most important. So item to trick your host is now more valuable. Just ideas to make invasion more fun.
I would really like From to rework invasions and multiplayer as a whole. They are close to a balanced experience with the "optional" toggles, but it still feels awkward trying to fit everything together without changing the base mechanics. I rather have them revamp how it works, to have them rearrange where the accessibility is and where the challenge is.
I don’t want to be punished for having friends. I’ve played all souls games n I spent more hours fending off invaders than playing. I have friends that LOVE invading/invasions and I don’t. I want to PLAY the game and not spend hours fending annoying mf off. If an invader shows up I’m ready but I don’t want that to be the entire entity
this is such an entitled statement, as if the game owes you a summon to play the level for you with absolutely zero compensation for literally making it easier. You’re not being punished by invaders, it’s called the consequences of your actions.
it drives me nuts that elden ring has a LOWER timer than ds3 for invasions(10 inutes vs 15) despite being an open world with no covenants, utter insanity.
I think a nuance to this is the tedium of resummoning your friends in these games. The punishment for losing to an invasion should be losing your progress in the level, not losing your progress in the level *and* going through an elaborate rigmarole to get your friends back in your world. Also better invasion timer systems--see "Dark Souls Dissected #20 - Invasion Cooldown Timers" by Illusory Wall.
Kevingzuman, usually those games aren't relentlessly throwing invaders at you. In Dark Souls 1, I was getting naturally 3-4 invasions per playthrough. Dark Souls 2 was more generous in this regard, but I didn't feel as if I was spammed by enemy players.
@@RailgunovyDepends when you started playing. Naturally, a newer game in the series is going to have more invasions than an older title. I played Dark Souls 1 & 2 on release and got plenty of invasions.
I think a good compromise would be to make it so that you cant get invaded until a certain point/story event has happened in the game (somewhere in the early-mid game?). This would make it feel a lot less worse for newer players and allow them time to "find their build" and have a better chance against minmaxed invaders. You could also put a lot of NPC invaders in the early game to teach non-pvp players how pvp works, and please, give the NPCs good AI for once in the series. I think this would help the first-time frustration that people get from PVP. Above all else though, they need to bring back a functioning covenant roster and allow for invaders to have teammates like in ds3. Multi group fights were so fun in that game.
I think From have strong data which made them make the changes they made in ER. I doubt very much that ER suddenly made a lot more people enjoy getting solo invaded. I don't think we'll see it return in any sense like the DS days. So the question is, how do you make invading more fun for everyone? This might sound kinda outta left field, but, get rid of bonfires. What I mean by that is, that system in the alpha for DS3 where you make a bonfire out of a corpse? That should be how you recover and refresh the area. Using them should create a checkpoint but also use up that bonfire. That is, you can quit the game there and load back in at that spot. But if you keep playing and you die, you're back at the beginning. I'm imagining a scenario where you keep the Stake of Marika so that when you're at the boss, you don't have to worry about run backs. No fixed bonfires means no suddenly running to safety if you see the invasion notification. There's nowhere to run to. You need to either press forward, stand your ground, or flee to the entrance. But if you recently used a bonfire, there are likely enemies in front and behind you. So it puts a lot of consideration on hosts. Which I think is reasonable since they're already co-oping and a ton of 3 v. 1 invasions will still end up at the bonfire. Meaning hosts barely have to think about how to proceed in an invasion as things currently are. And putting somewhat more of a burden on hosts than currently exists is hardly going to break the game. If you as the host die, you're going back to the entrance. If the invader dies, maybe the host gets a new body to use for making a bonfire? Or else they can make a more durable bonfire out of invaders? Something along those lines. It should benefit everyone in some tangible way. I dunno, I kinda always felt like they were cooking with the "build your own bonfire" thing. I think my rough pass at it here could be massaged to make the whole co-op/invasion dynamic more engaging for invaders and more beneficial for hosts so that even your average band of chucklefucks can learn to see getting invaded as a good thing.
Hosts shouldn't have to think harder because YOU can't get your jollies without taking them away from someone else. Nah, solo invasions can go away forever and I wouldn't cry, but I know it would make y'all sad pandas, so I'd vote for an opt-in that doesn't take away game mechanics for me, instead.
@rainbowkrampus currently playing bloodborne for the first time and loving it, no tryhard losers getting in my way :) Of course I'm bothered by the fact that there are content creators with tens of thousands of people watching who encourage literally being a dick to other players just because it's fun for you. Toxic, childish nonsense. Foh
@@BusinessSkrub Seems a bit unfair if you ask me. "How dare you play this game the way the developers wanted people to play it!?!" It's pretty weird. Like, if you were consistent here, you'd be boycotting these games out of principle. You realize Bloodborne has invasions too, yes? If I'm a jerk in this scenario, Miyazaki ought to be like, thirteen Mecha-Satans to you. He's the one responsible for the game being this way after all. Instead you just want to bark at me. As though me playing the game as it was designed to be played is somehow operating in a manner which goes against the way the game was designed to be played. Can you understand why you just seem completely incoherent to me? Like you're just mad and think that you're in some way going to make me feel... anything at all about you expressing your feelings when they're not backed up by anything remotely reasonable? You certainly haven't made yourself or your position sympathetic in any way here. Kinda just seems like all you're really doing is seeking some sense of catharsis. Which like, my dude, just go rub one out or something. There really are better ways of achieving this sort of thing.
@rainbowkrampus invasions weren't intended to be a noob stompfest, you must be joking LOL people invading each other under normal circumstances and doing normal pvp is what they were INTENDED for. If you think griefing the playerbase is the intent of solo invasions from the start, then why aren't they in Elden ring? Herp derp maybe because that's not the fucking point and people had been abusing it for way too long lmfao. Sorry not sorry you can't harass people anymore, go outside and play with the hose
personally, the solo invasion system would be mostly fine if I didn't have to jump through 3 separate hoops every time I wanted to be invaded. my main problem is furled finger remedies, I seriously don't understand why they're in the game in the first place. If I want to coop, I'll have to summon someone manually anyway, and the fact that they get disabled every time I so much as die, teleport, or who knows what else adds another tedious step to engaging in multiplayer whether I'm looking to be invaded solo or play coop. So every time I want to be invaded solo, (which I wanted to do in a dedicated playthrough to improve at PvP) I was constantly needing to stop, remedy, tongue, then move on with what I'm doing. But because the start of the game (most of the game really) consists of teleporting around the place picking up items and gathering runes to get my build in place, I ended up putting the whole idea down because of the sheer amount of menu navigation I was doing just to engage in the game the way I wanted to, which might've been fine once I actually got to a legacy dungeon, but those areas are honestly so few and far between, and dealt with relatively quickly on a repeat playthrough, that the whole point of getting invaded solo was lost. Basically, I just wish the taunters tongue was a simple once off toggle item, and that I didn't have to go through the process of "turning on" multiplayer every time I wanted to engage with it or after I die by using a remedy.
I say this as an avid invader, no. There is simply no way to balance true invasions without alienating most hosts or invaders. Not counting items/covenants that invite invasions, those are either ganks or duels. They need to add a new PvP system to their Souls games, its time. Colosseum sucks because it doesn't leverage what makes base game good, like map design or enemy variety. Imagine playing 3v3 capture the flag in a Leyndell chock full of knights. Imagine playing 2v2 king of the hill across Liurnia, giant shrimps sniping people. Something along those lines. Keep 1v1 duels, and add a 2v2/3v3 objective mode that take place at actual locations with NPC enemies/bosses involved. Don't split the PvP player base more, just those two options. Add a multiplayer rewards shop with rare drops (replaces farming for items), and add a ranked ladder. I think that would be really popular.
Invader here too. That is literally removing the point of invasions. Invasions are supposed to be a surprise. A random threath. Not a secondary mode of gacha games. And dark souls was balanced good around invasions. That's the beauty of it, you agree to invasions the moment you buy these games. If not, they are not for you. Souls games never should lose their essence like Elden Ring almost does it for the sake of new players. I was new player too and was killed by invaders AND NEVER cried about it because i knew what i was getting into.
The online play being so poor, or rather just more of an afterthought is the reason I’ll always have more hours on DS3 compared to Elden Ring. The co-op and invasions in DS3 during its height and even for years after led to some of the best moments I’ve had in my lifetime of gaming
I really agree with a lot of what was said here, as a person who really hates getting invaded solo. I think one "problem" with solo invasion is sort of the inverse of "bonfire duelists": solo invaders who ONLY fight alongside the enemies in a level. I understand that that is the optimal way of winning your invasions, but playing through an area for the first time, still struggling with enemy placements and move sets only to be invaded by a guy who already knows what lies ahead is really frustrating. I know being frustrating is the appeal to some people, what I don't understand is how someone draws satisfaction from watching me die to a Ringed Knight or Silver Knights in Anor Londo. Also something frustrating on the invader side is people rushing to fog gates when I finally show up 😢I think coop invasions at least mitigate both of theses issues a lot, I just wish I engaged with them more by actually summoning people that aren't standing next to the boss fog.
Completely agree! That would be an 'everybody wins' situation. Well, besides the people who hate invasions altogether. But I would say they have the wrong mindset about invasions anyways.
Could have been solved with some covenant mechanics, like covenant invading zones like the Dark Forest in DS Also the Gravelord covenant or the seeds from DS2 made invasions more fun and allowed for interesting scenarios and reversals....it's such a huge waste of potential we never got any covenants or covenant mechanics in Elden Ring.
Ratatokr's description of a good invasion for him just sounds like a giant waste of time for me as a host. No i'm not going to chase you into mobs, so I guess I'll just kill myself so I can get back to the game. Thanks, your "good" time has degraded my fun. I even ended up abandoing a full playthrough with my friend because the invasions just got so dam annoying. This has soured my opinion on invasions. I'm not a fan of someone else's fun, to be at the expense of anothers. Now I want everyone to have fun, and I have had fun with solo invasions. There needs to be a opt in/out option for both Solo and Multi play. Give the opt in option some bonus that makes the hassel worth it. Let multiplayer group presist through death, so when we do die its not a chore to re form the group.
People don’t talk enough about invasions don’t even work against non ganker co-op as it is. I’ve helped hundreds of people beat astel and i can’t remember seeing even one red phantom at the fog door.
PVP has always been trash because theres always lag due to these games using peer to peer connection. This has been a problem since Demon's Souls and they never bothered to fix it. Honestly Elden Ring made the right call by having invasions off by default until you summon help so you don't have to be interrupted by laggy non functional garbage combat while still enjoying messages and bloodstains. If I want PVP I'll just play an actual fighting game.
@@Lobsterwithinternet There's always lag even with the best possible connection. The only way to not have lag would be to hard wire 2 consoles or PCs directly together in a closed network. You comment says alot about how you don't know how p2p connections work.
@ Or shows how shit your connection is since I've almost never had that much lag at any place I've lived. Heck, I've been on hotel internet that didn't lag as badly as you're complaining about. I'm starting to think you're just angry you got beaten by someone online. 😄😄😄
Yes they absolutely should. There is an unparalleled sense of anxiety and terror as being invaded in an unfamiliar area, when you got a bunch of souls on the line. Something that made the earlier games very special imo
They just need to bring back covenants.
Have one covenant that allows you to be invaded as a solo host with the same restrictions of typical invasions.
Have a covenant that allows you to get perpetually invaded.
Have covenants that are focused on specific areas and increase the amount of phantoms that can be present in those areas.
Have a neutral covenant like the purple phantoms.
Have your typical defend the host covenant.
Then have a Co-op focused covenant like the sun bros of yore.
They could literally give everyone what they want with a solid covenant system.
YES!!! Covenants system solves so much.
100% agree! Ditching covenants in ER was a mistake. They would have went a long way to making co op/pvp play more interesting and could have easily been worked into the lore of the ER setting.
@RavensbladeDX ER lore is arguably MORE suited for covenants than Dark Souls was. Imagine joining the Redmanes.
This. Fromsoft already solved the entire issue many games ago directly through the covenant system (which was genius).
Its truly unfortunate that From potentially didn't have the time to implement the covenant system into ER like they wanted to. (for those that don't know, ER has cut nearly fully developed covenants in the code still. i imagine the scope and size of ER as a project grew to a point where they didn't feel that they could implement covenants in a way that they were happy with and ultimately cut them instead.
a sad day indeed, but cheers to the future titles having a robust covenant system beyond what we can even imagine! c:
Yes, please :>
it would be cool if there was a Sekiro-style Demon Bell where it augments loot drops, but instead of PVE getting harder, invasions are enabled.
Perfect
Great idea. Especially in the context of Elden Ring it would have been great. For example maybe a pvp currency or shop that you can buy crafting supplies from. You know so you dont have to walk around the lands between picking flowers so you can use a pot build or something lmao
Best idea I’ve heard
This would be great!
@@austin0_bandit05 You can already buy crafting supplies from the shop in the roundtable hold and most flowers etc have a location close by a grace for quick farming. I'd rather have a game without the crafting system entirely tbh.
I have to disagree on your preference of invading co-op only, the whole point of invasions is they should be unpredictable for both sides, as an invader I should have no idea how many players I'll have to fight or what builds they'll be using that's the fun and interesting part.
In Elden Ring I know exactly what I'm gonna see every time, EVERY invasion will be a massive uphill battle against the worst cheese in the game, it sucks to fight and is so easy to just lose to, this is why I miss DS2, basically everything was viable against everything which meant massive build variety, and invasions were as random as it got, you could get a poor solo host experiencing babby's first invasion, or a stacked gank squad in full Havel's and EVERYTHING in-between, and no matter what the gank squads were using and no matter what I brought, it always felt like I actually had a chance to actually win, can't say any of that about Elden Ring.
You'll also get way better at PVP faster and more organically if you're constantly going up against different stuff and you try out different stuff for fun, not 'I have to use this build so I can 1-shot the co-op phantoms using OP gear in me and roll catch the host to stop them summoning more' no build variety on either side.
DS2 PVP is goated. And it's tragic that such a large amount of the community has no idea
I enjoyed being able to be invaded in single player throughout the souls games. Some of my most cherished memories of those games come from the absolute terrible timing some invasions had. On a side note, call me stupid, but the idea of going back to the bonfire when being invaded never came to me
I only enjoy invasions if they are no heal. Having forced duels is more enjoyable then a sweat who hides behinds enemys and heals all the dmg done to him.
Especially annoying when you dont have no heals left and must now fight a sweat who has the maximum amount heals possible for an invader.
Not stupid, you’re a real one
Same here. Love invading and being invaded
@@TuniEichyeah but at that point you die and move on with life or beast mode it. If an invader hides in the level during a solo invasion he’s probably awful or just a scum bag. Against co opers though it’s their only choice
@@TuniEich I think it's better to let both parties have the ability to heal, a la Demon's Souls, but present a means to temporarily disable the heals, a la the Lloyd's Talismans in Dark Souls 1.
I remember playing ER for the first time getting to the part in Elden Ring where you are about to fight the Magma Wyrm Boss, and thinking “wow I can’t believe I haven’t been invaded yet”. Looked up online to see if anyone else was having the same issue and got really disappointed when I found the answer. I miss the tension of being invaded and the impact they have on the solo campaign. I’ll admit, it probably wouldn’t work out as good because of the over the top anime approach they went with the weapons in this game, but it still kind of takes the magic away from what it used to be like in previous games
The problem with invasions as a mechanic is that they can never possibly be balanced, they're always going to either be massively in the host's odds or massively in the invader's odds.
From the perspective of a solo PvE player that is just going through the game for the first time, an invader will kill them 99% of the time regardless of how rigged the mechanics of the game are against him, the reason being that invaders are largely interested and experienced in the PvP of the game, they know what weapons are good, they know how to dodge and maneuver around player attacks, they know all the tricks. At that point it doesnt matter if the invader has less health or if they even have no access to heals, if they know how to pvp they will beat a solo host almost every single time.
From the perspective of an invader, they'll have to slog through groups of players, or a solo host that is just baiting for invaders and is experienced with pvp, who will abuse the fact that he has access to an activated great rune and double the flasks, or at the worst case scenario, a gank squad that is actively farming invaders and who will win 99.9% of the time.
Its a game design nightmare, its got to be borderline impossible to balance all the different perspectives to where you can have invaders satisfied with the level of difficulty being presented and purely pve players that dont feel too inconvenienced by invasions otherwise they'll quit the game.
It’s strange to me how a lot of pvp players are like “oh they have the advantage” when on average a pvp player has a huge advantage with experience, knowledge and a pvp oriented build.
@@omegaxtrigun Hosts do have the advantage. A single fuck up as an invader can mean getting blendered by even the most incompetent group.
The single biggest advantage invaders have is that 90% of co-op groups are just a couple friends bumblefucking their way through a game. Those bumblefucks are still incredibly deadly though. Preparation and game knowledge can only carry you so far. The best invaders in the community still get their cheeks clapped regularly. They usually just don't post their L's.
Honestly, it's mostly the case that Fromsoft is bad at balancing more than it being hard to balance, I think.
Well said. Should just be an opt in.
If you wanna have invasions while doing pve, pick that option. That way invaders will have a pool that only has people ready and willing to engage in pvp
@@rainbowkrampusI’m talking about a good pvp player. Someone who wouldn’t get themselves in that situation.
Also, if theyre facing two bumblefucks, then those guys dont have pvp made builds and they may not even have proper stats or upgrades. So you get blendered and take fuck all for damage because their build is bad.
Interesting that instead of wanting Fromsoft to improve their PvP (and really multiplayer in general) so that solo host invasions do not result in the host just running back to the bonfire but instead make it that actually defeating an invader would be a huge benefit like refilling all your estus or dropping very valuable loot, or just making it so that you cannot backtrack to the bonfire you are trying to come to terms with and convince yourself of the current system.
On another note the issue with group invasions again is, that the host will most of the times not fight you 1 on 1 after you kill their phantoms. They will either run back to the bonfire as well or keep summoning phantoms so it never turns into a 1 vs 1. Thats how the oneshot meta in DS3 came to be where the goal was to instakill the host to avoid getting into this attrition situation where they just keep and keep summoning their phantoms (or my favourite just pull the plug and cut the connection so they dont lose).
The issue with this is how much faster DS3 and Elden Ring are compared to DS1 and 2, in 2 players doing this, while annoying, was nowhere near as dangerous as it is now, there was way less cheese back then and slower game speed made it easier to manage and react to multiple players.
@@DeadSpace501 Absolutely. DS2 also limited the phantoms ressources as they could no longer spam estus and had to rely on spells which were easily punished because everything was slower.
But again there could be ideas and concepts implemented in future souls games or ER itself that have similar effects but seeing as they didnt even bother making covenants its quite obvious that Fromsoft does not care about PvP and I dont think they will in the future with Nightreign for example not having an PvP whatsoever. Its not anything they seem interested in anymore.
Ironic considering that they pioneered the system and with the amount of creativity and talent they seem to possess, haven't applied any of it to a system they created 17 years ago.
I think that my biggest problem with invaders is min maxed character that were specifically made to stomp player early in the game. I remember not having much fun when I started Dark Souls 3 because every single invader below level 50 had that stupid one handed axe with lightning infusion that would just 2-3 shot you. Looking back at my time in Elden Ring I think that removing invasions was the right move because it allowed for a better experience exploring a larger scale world. Invasions feel better on legacy levels.
The minmaxer problem has always been annoying. Fight them at low level and you usually get stomped and they gloat but refuse to partake in their cheesery and they cry like little babies. I have much more respect for an invader who has a fun kit to fight against and isn’t just solely looking to stomp in one sided engagements.
My experience in DS1 invasions was getting one shotted by people who didn't take damage. They were often completely inept. I backstab them for 5% of their health (or no damage at all) and then they one shot me. Add in the fun of them always, always being the laggiest nonsense you've ever seen. Just teleporting around and lag switching constantly. It was never that enjoyable. It was a waste of time. I had to redo whatever I was doing because some guy was going to kill me in some stupid way. An equivalent experience would be to just randomly say I died of a heart attack and respawn me at the bonfire.
It was bearable by the time DS3 rolled around, but dogshit netcode was still a thing and it was rarely very fun, but at least *sometimes* it was enjoyable and interesting.
100% agreed.
Now you have only min maxers and gankers in Elden Ring.
Congratulations, you played yourself.
They took one look at gank city from DS3 and decided that all invasions had to be just like that. The Dragonslayer's Axe is small peanuts compared to all the weapons in elden ring where you can win my just pressing L2.
DS2 did it best. You could not heal for shit but you the level advantage as an invader so it was well balanced for the most part.
The best invasion I ever had was a duel in the middle of a circular room in the snowy castle area in the DS2 DLC. It was a 10-15 minute slog that ended with a very, very slim victory because the invader was around my skill level and I could actually get some hits in, even with my PvE build. It was epic.
I think my biggest problem with PvP is that as a host, it's rather meaningless. You don't get any interesting outcome from it. If you lose, you lose level progression and have to go through it again. If you win, you get some meager amount of souls and just continue. What if losing would respawn you in the same place you died with replenished flasks but with additional red phantom enemies like you would just get gravelorded in DS1? What if killing the invader would give you a chance to get one piece of armor or weapons they were using like killing red phantoms in Nioh?
If I have to get interrupted by another player, let me win something cool.
That's a good point too. Could even be that the host wins the invasion but had to use all their supplies to stay alive. And now they've won but got 2 healing flasks left or barely any magic so they have to backtrack to the previous checkpoint to resupply and redo a section of the level anyway. Makes it kind of a pointless and hollow victory.
In dark souls 2 killing certain invaders would give you really good upgrade materials like chunks and slabs which was cool
Why do you need a reward? The whole point of invasions is that it amped up the threat of the main game progression, since no AI is going to be as challenging on average as another player unless they have broken stats. Invasions being effectively random made them such a major and unpredictable threat that it added so much extra spice to the Dark Souls trilogy that simply could not be replicated in Elden Ring. This is very much a spicy food analogy. Either you love it or it's just not for you.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe For every memorable/fun invasion there's a bunch of neutral or bad ones, so a good reward or some other interesting outcome would sweeten the deal a bit.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe On the flip side, one could just as easily ask "Why do you need additional threat/challenge?"
For someone who's played through the game a thousand times, it can be really easy to lose sight of the fact that the average player on their first playthrough probably already has plenty on their plate at that point, and the added challenge from invasions is extremely hard to predict or curate since, as you said, they are random.
Let's not confuse "spice in foods" and "pepper spraying people in the face".
In that same note-i think i'd like covenants back in some greater more flashed out extent-because i think it adds an additional layer of rewards for invading/being invaded. I think not as many people would be opposed to say-getting invaded solo if it meant they got something from winning the encounter besides "you get to progress the level". When the novelty of invasion wears off (the fear and anxiety of being invaded and not knowing where the other player is), it can come off as an annoyance/waste of time-which i think is the greater issues with invasions as a concept.
As long as the process for the rewards isn't a pain in the ass for offline players to get
Otherwise, when the game ages and the player population gets smaller and smaller, it will be a repeat of Dark Souls 3 again
This, plus the thing that enables invasions should be more deliberate. In Dark Souls you open yourself up to invasions when you use your humanity, because using your humanity also buffs you and enables you to summon allies, so the idea is that opening the option of getting help also opens you to being attacked. But iirc you need to use NPC summons to progress some of their storylines, or at least doing so certainly makes the most sense and is the most satisfying way to experience their storylines. So now, if your purpose for using humanities is to engage with the NPCs, then you're being punished by the game for doing so with some random asshole with 2000 hours of PvP experience coming to wipe your ass. Someone else in the comments here suggested something like the Sekiro Demon Bell which augments loot drops in exchange for increasing PvE difficulty, and something similar could be implemented for enabling PvP without tying it to other unrelated systems and modes of engaging with the game.
But the biggest problem will always be twinking and smurfing. I really don't know how you'd go about fixing that.
Covenants WERE the reason I got so heavily invested in Dark Souls 1/2/3's pvp scenes; The idea that there was this greater reward for being an invader than just killing was so alluring that it was the only thing I could do. The Mound-Maker covenant, in particular, was where I spent the most time, because in both a player and RP sense, my purpose was to gather as much as I could for my own cause. With the lack of covenants in Elden Ring, I don't have that same incentive. For the amount of time I've played, I can do all the content solo without ever using a rune arc, so why would a rune arc alone be an incentive?
The lack of covenants is my biggest problem with ER, hands down.
@@AlecBGood Now if only the progress of time didn't make getting those covenant rewards a pain in the ass to get
@ For sure. Darkmoon blade farming in DS3 was BAD, but that honestly had to do with player count more than anything.
As long as i dont see invaders with endgame equipment coming into my game on a fresh playthrough in the beginning areas, i dont give a fuck if they come back or not
That sounds like fun too though
Well, those are the risks bro, you can't control what people bring to the table. Also, that's what level scaling and weapon level matchup is for
@@user-zp8kj2cl9gthose systems are trash and only let players twink harder. Didn't help dks3 at all
@@user-zp8kj2cl9gUnfortunately the matchmaking system is always heavily flawed and has many work arounds to make yourself absurdly op.
All they have to do is change the scaling on certain things and it would be fine. For the most part early gear and late game gear are equal. The best weapon in Dark souls 1 for example was the claymore, and the ugitana, both obtainable within 10 minutes.
Invasions are incredibly special when the invaders can do wacky or even helpful things for the host, like lighting the torches in the well in Dark Souls 2 or leaving prism stones leading towards secrets or traps.
Normalise being a wholesome invader
Butttttt you could be a "good" summon and still do those things. Cheap exsuce to push hate away from yourself for being an invaderfag in the first place. "But I'm one of the good ones I swear!" yeah, whatever
In the next game then need to make invasions the way they were before, and add an item that, when equipped, prevents you from being invaded. That would be the most reasonable way to bring back invasions for normal people.
If anything, the exact opposite, item that allow you to get invaded.
@Dorrovian that wouldn't be an invasion, but an invitation.
@ Good.
@@vagabundorkchaosmagick-use2898 you are thinking of effigy burning from Dark Souls 2.
Peak Souls 2 strikes yet again.
@@Dorrovian Wuss
I enjoyed solo Invasions so much in DS3, especially in early areas like the Road of Sacrifices, it gave consequences to being embered.
If you've only played Elden Ring, An Ember is basically a Rune Arc mixed with a Furlcalling Finger Remedy, basically massively buffing your HP and allowing you to summon, but even if you don't summon, you're open to invasions.
In the words of Saint Riot, "Don't do Embers, Timbo."
DS3 actually made me go from loving to hating invasions. Twinking was uncommon in DS1 and DS2(It did exist I am not saying it didn't), but 3 it's rampant. When it isn't a twink, I will admit it is fun.
@@Bug_Berry Yeah, Twinking is so lame
@@Bug_BerryThe consequences of twinking in DS1 were way larger, though. You were basically invincible.
In DS3 it makes much less of a difference. Going against them 1v1 was still hard, but not nearly as much, and even one phantom would even the odds.
@flavionms Idk man. I just played 3. I got invaded by a twink. I parried him 3 times. You would think that would assure victory, but I did ass for damage. The healing in DS3 is so fast and OP (both PvP and PvE.) I can beat their ass for a solid 5-10 minutes, but they get a second hit in, I die.
Maybe a little further in once I can actually upgrade weapons and get a decent one it's not so bad. I won't disagree with ds1 them being practically invincible. I just rarely see it happen lol.
Hosts should be invadable IF they use a Rune Arc to power a Great Rune, by a rare weather event that also gives the host a Rune Arc as compensation, or during coop.
However, players should be tracked based on what regions that they have visited and equipment should have region tags. If a host AND their summon have NEVER left Limgrave for another region, they should be unable to be invaded by players who have visited other regions or have equipment from those other regions.
This will protect hosts from most Twinks via region locked equipment and keep players in the same expected "power level".
Finally, Hosts should have the option to "burn" Rune Arcs at a Grace, to block all invasions for an hour per Rune used this way.
@@Battleguild This here, along with covenants, would solve 90% of the issues with PvP.
Having "region check" for equipment will just kill all the activity on lower levels. Which is not really a bad thing in my opinion, but at this point maybe just disable invasions till level 50 or so.
@ Why? Are the only people invading at low levels twinks?
I invade around the beginning region with equipment easily found there and I have a blast giving new characters a fair fight.
Forcing ME to waste resources so YOU can't come into MY FUCKING GAME and be a douchebag isn't the way. Opt-in in the menu (NOT all online functionality at once, get bent) or an item in-game to use whose only purpose is to allow invasions and nothing more. No ember, humanity, rune arc, etc. Leave us alone, and go jerk off with other assholes on your own.
@@Graati I think a combo of the equipment in question combined with its upgrade level might be the best way to go about it. Some people like to get certain things early to test them out in a full playthrough, or to show off what interesting things are in future areas.
I used to invade a lot in DS1 and DS2, and there was a decent mix of solo hosts and people doing co-op, but from DS3 onwards it got tiring having to deal with a gank squad every single time, eventually I just stopped invading altogether. It was also fun being invaded randomly while exploring, it spices up the gameplay, but as someone who doesn't play co-op that just doesn't happen anymore, unless I go out of my way to use an item that opens up my world to constant solo invasions, so you either halt your progress by getting invaded every 2 minutes or you just don't get invaded at all, there is no middle ground. It's a shame to miss out on one of the most fun aspects of the original games.
I agree. Invading anywhere and facing a solo player has a much different vibe than invading a group, especially since most hosts have two summons instead of one. It also felt cool to suddenly be fighting another human anywhere on the map, especially if they were trying a cosplay build.
Good, hoping they will completely remove invasions
@@matmil5 ok tourist
I liked invading DS3 ganks - it was jus challenging enough but very fun. In ER it's challenging but not in a fun way - AoW/Magic/Projectile spam is so common and so boring it put me off invading.
They should have never been taken away, solo invasions are by far the most fun invasions I've ever had and most fun I've had in my entire play time in souls games.
👍😎
That’s me, I’m the host who’s confident in fighting invaders while going through the level. I had a taunter’s tongue playthrough b4 the dlc. It was a lot of fun, but your criticism of it is just too true, and it’s the reason why I haven’t done it again even after the dlc came. You just get invaded waaay too much.
I swear one day I was being invaded in Raya Lucaria back to back while going through it. I was on a roll, killed 3 dudes all in the span of like 30 minutes. But man when that 4th guy came in just a few minutes later I felt so dejected. At that point it’s not even an invasion anymore.
And that's the issue of allowing people to just opt out of invasions altogether: You diminish the number of people who can be invaded and make it so individuals get invaded much more often and hence more punishing and less fun.
It is effectively getting rid of invasions altogether as most people stop playing as only the most casual who play it like it’s ESO and only the most sweaty tryhards playing PVP.
My standing position is I rarely invade and never do covenant PVP, but the game is better when I don't have control over invasions on my side and have to worry that it might occur.
Best case is probably something where certain areas are invader-open and others no, where you combine a cost-exchange function like turning human to open invasions but not all areas will let that function.
The PvP invasion aspect is what kept me coming back to Dark Souls long after I had finished everything in the game and the way invaders are essentially punished now is one of the main reasons why I don't bother replaying Elden Ring much. Yes, they need to bring them back (with the ability to avoid them such as staying hollowed in DkS of course).
A nice retrospective.
I thought that it was a very strange choice that ER's Great Runes lacked the invasion component of DS3's embers. However, in retrospect, my experience has been that players are likely to proactively engage during invasion in ER than in previous iterations. I think you're correct that the addition of co-op as a requirement is the most significant factor contributing to that difference.
These days, my only real gripe regarding invasions in ER is mostly a consequence of the interaction between the available scale of natural character progression and the password co-op system.
I enjoy invading in these games and do so regularly as part of progressing a character. Over-leveled co-op phantoms have been an aspect of that experience since BB. However, in previous titles, invasions _still felt like a hunt_ when an over-leveled phantom was present. In Elden Ring, invading into a late game co-op phantom in Storm Veil, Raya Lucaria, or even Leyndell is a different experience.
In ER, the advantages afforded to end game phantoms in that range aren't _insurmountable_ as an invader, but they're significant enough that, at least for me, the natural objective shifts from engaging with a threat to working around it. It's less about hunting something dangerous; more about sabotaging an escort quest. I don't remember feeling that way in previous titles.
Preference for one or the other is a matter of taste (and I've had a lot of fun with both), but invasions of the latter sort have a tendency to play out the same way regardless of an invading character's level of progression. At this point in the game's life cycle, those sorts of invasions are the norm, and that's stripped a lot of the variety from invasions for me.
Have you had a similar experience? If so, what are your thoughts on how future games might do better?
1v3 invasions made 99% of the invaders sweaty tryhards that would sell their first born to get a kill
that makes it boring for both sides
Something in Elden Ring makes everyone rush for the same broken builds no matter if they're focusing on pvp or pve. It's a fundamental problem of the game.
@@Jediahgamesi think that's more of a problem with internet guides
@Jediahgames that's just gaming culture in general now is the side effect of the internet. Everyone has access to a website that constantly updates what is the current meta in every video game.
In my experience the most "tryhardy" players are usually also the ones who are down to just goof around and do stupid stuff for lulz.
@@Graati that's literally the opposite of tryharding
Did everyone forget that it was Bloodborne that removed solo-invasions? You literally couldn't get invaded solo outside of the chalice dungeons. Everyone's so busy picking on Elden Ring they're literally just making shit up at this point
Not true. Red bell then canceling it would spawn a maiden that lures invaders in, even when solo. 😏
*reads title*
*speeds to comments*
“Yes”
*leaves*
That’s what I did lol
Optimal behavior.
The biggest issue I faced when invaded (though it lessened over time a lot) was the sheer skill gap between me and the invader most of the time.
Half the time the invader was a sweatlord with 20k hours of pvp under their belt that would counter anything I could think of trying while using a pvp focused setup vs my own pve exploration set up, often with sub-optimal builds as well. 25% of the time it was similar skill level so the fight felt fun, and the last bit was from people that really shouldn't be invading at all given their sheer lack of gameplay knowledge and practive with their chosen builds, like, fat rolling while onehanding an ultra great sword, begging to be parried/back stabbed.
As I myself got better because I loved the games and have over 1k hours in most of the souls-borne games now, I find myself enjoying being invaded in DS3 while solo, choosing to not heal with flasks and letting the invader set the pace of the fight (wether it's basically a duel in a random spot or them trying to use the enemies in the level to help themselves). This experience however is something far less than half of the playerbase will have, as most players only do a single playthrough of these games and then move on, maybe doing another one years later when they already forgotten how to play the game.
These things are what the devs have to deal with, on top of basic balancing. As a pvp enjoyer (though I rarely ever invade) I find the system in DS3 the best From Software has done, but with my past experience in mind I believe Elden Ring is closer to something the casual player will enjoy, though there's still issues to be had. Plenty of players would love to able to coop without ever being invaded by players without using mods, while others (me) would like a Taunter's Tongue-like item that would just make being invaded while solo possible without opening the flood gates and risking being invaded by two invaders over and over with little pause between invasions, similar to DS3's system.
I gotta say, folks retreating to safety happens just as much in invasions in Elden Ring as it did in DS3. Honestly, a lot more often, in my experience.
I got more people who were willing to stand their ground and fight in DS3, while in Elden Ring people were a lot more likely to stand in place after clearing out an area, then wait to mob you. They are more likely to retreat to a grace so they can perpetually re-summon they're friend if you manage to get a kill off. Comparatively, it was a much better experience in DS3.
Also as other comments point out, the 2v1 invader scenario made the game an arm race of finding the most broken tactic to deal with 2 people, which in turn just aggravates hosts who feel they're being overwhelmed by un-counterable tactics.
That said, I agree with your conclusion. Just let us opt into Solo Invasions. Also, go an extra step and make it equal, and don't go like DS3 where it prioritized Co-Op worlds, just make it all equal, solo or not. Would also help if we got back an increased player limit, so even if they prioritized co-op worlds you could have the chance of having a co-invader as well.
Really, it doesn't need to be an item. Just make it a setting. I don't like the idea of being able to turn off invasions, but if the choice is between letting people opt out or having it be as botched as it's gotten, I think it's time we take the former. People can already choose to play offline. If we can't have a decent system that makes both parties happy, just let them be separate. It'll at least let us fans of the old style have it back in tact, and will weed out the bonfire fighters who didn't want to be invaded in the first place.
Ds2 had better invading experiences. Massive game, crazy times. Bell bros and rat bros for life.
Finally, someone saying the only intelligent solution we have avilable. Just opt in or out, it's literally that fuckin simple.
Adding to what you said, I feel there should be a cool down timer before a host who already had summons before the invasion can summon again. Someone shouldn't be defeated in the fight then resummoned with full resources 30 seconds later. Perhaps different players' signs could still show up to encourage the original intention of finding random people willing to help others, which doesn't happen as much nowadays due to people coordinating online outside of the game itself. There should still probably be a universal summon cool down timer though, but random people would have a much shorter timer compared to the previous, defeated summons.
If you want more organic solo invasions with _casual_ players, there will need to be some changes. Give a host some sort of goodie for just engaging with an invader (or a certain number of invaders), you can even give a range of goodies depending on how much damage they do to the invader. As it is, engaging an invader is seen as a _nuisance_ by most casual players because they have potentially more to lose in the exchange.
Heck, I'm sure actual practitioners of Game Theory (the science) can come up with a much better scheme, so go consult or become one by reading up on the darned thing.
Hot take(?) : the host SHOULD have an advantage in PvP. They have risk in losing the fight, whereas the invader is risking nothing. Host could have died and is trying to get their bloodstain back, etc.
Asymmetric pvp should never be balanced with just giving one side a statistical advantage - balancing should come from changing the numbers of players and unique abilities.
The invader is risking nothing? losing runes? having to go to recover them or if dying in pve, losing them? Of course in past souls games this was not so bad implemented wheter you lose it or not. But the important thing was that invader HAS ALWAYS been at disadvantage. With less flasks, less allies, etc...And both of them rewarded for killing the other.
@robertoaltuve4145 well yea the invader drops their runes if defeated, but they could simply use them before invading someone.
You are just solving your own problem...
They should have invasion themed dungeons where you can get solo invaded.
I think it would be better if instead of using an item JUST to open yourself to regular invasions there was also a system tied to it that encouraged people to open themselves to the risk of invasion to get better rewards. Kinda like a less extreme, non-permanent (would probably need to be re-applied after dying) bonfire ascetic that increased the area's difficulty, greatly increasing souls gained, enemy item-drop rates, more upgrade materials lying around, etc... while also opening yourself to solo invasion of course. I think this would encourage even people who aren't into Co-op or PVP to get solo invaded sometimes. Make that hypotetical item re-usable instead of a limited resource and we're golden.
Even outside of that item though i think having a few areas where players can get invaded regardless for lore/story reasons could be cool and designed around it, like a more meaningful version of the hunters covenant in DS1.
If this was a thing, invaders would HATE us solo players even more. I'd never let you in, I'd close the game every single time. I recognise how to get past the ToS rule of not force closing the game by pre-prepping my quit game button when I see the autosave symbol out of nowhere, and you would never see me. I'd use it farm more resources and whenever an invaders was coming I'd just quit. Trust me, you'd hate it almost as much as we hate you forcing yourself into our game.
@@BusinessSkrub Why would you intentionally engage with the risk-reward feature and pull your Internet cord to miss out on half of it? It sounds like you're refusing to actually play the game by its own rules. That doesn't sound like an issue with the game's design, but instead with individuals playing it.
@@nightscout9979 not pulling out the internet cord lmao, closing the game on you just gives me the fifteen seconds or so I need to find that player on the "recently played with" list and block them so I can't be invaded by them again, since they're probably the only idiot invading there anyway (and if not, repeat process), and carry on my merry way. You're not getting anything out of me as an invader, if your principle is to try and make other players have a bad time because you can, then mine will happily be to make invading me a waste of your time because I can. 🤷🏼
@@BusinessSkrub People invade to have fun through playing the game, it's not some scheme to actively torment others. A guy who invades you in an area could also be the guy whose summon sign is down for the boss fight. You pulling the Internet plug (literally or otherwise) doesn't even take much time, people just go right to another invasion.
@nightscout9979 funny that I get hate messages most times I do it, but hey, I'm sure they're just having fun right? No hard feelings, just a game and playing and having a good old time, yessir. Not trying to harass people and make their experience shitty at all and getting upset when they get theirs back, nosirreebob.
Personally, I love solo invasions because they allow for far more build variety and experimentation. Players can test out new things or roleplay as a Carian Knight guarding Ranni or a Perfumer defending Leyndell without facing a vicious 3 vs. 1 every time. This also gives a much greater incentive for players to test out invading in the first place. With how readily the Bloody and Recusant Fingers can be obtained, along with no downsides for alternating between helping in co-op and invading, it feels like players are meant to freely explore every multiplayer option rather than pigeonholing into one.
Invasions also allow for a new type of combat throughout the amazingly designed, magnificently detailed locations From Software creates, and the battles can sprawl anywhere. I find these environments to be far more enjoyable than the arenas, especially since Elden Ring's coliseums lack the variety of even the Battle of Stoicism. The dueling spots are nice to have, but they shouldn't be the *only* dueling spots to have, and it's fun when fans can arrange their own locations in spots like the entrance to Raya Lucaria (which is gorgeous, by the way).
If someone starts off invading and keeps getting 3 vs. 1 situations, it might annoy them to the point that they don't want to invade at all. Furthermore, there's the matter of encountering hyper-optimized builds, which is more likely to happen when each invasion encounters a group. If these groups have not just three people, but one or two meta builds, it could make invading quickly feel irritating rather than intriguing, as well as stale. This could also push an invader into reducing their play style to something that's likewise meta and only designed around beating three people at once, hence why things like the Stormhawk Axe became so ubiquitous.
Another issue with Elden Ring's invasions is that blues get summoned far too readily to help players who already had two summons. An invader could defeat a summon only for a blue to almost immediately pop up to make it a 3 vs. 1 again. A host might even end up with two blues in quick succession if the other summon is defeated. This disincentivizes strategic, tactical battles to chip away at the host's forces and instead encourages just blitzing the host, limiting the overall viable play styles. Additionally, instead of feeling like heroes coming to the rescue, blues can just feel like pity summons for someone who blew an advantage, especially if one blue sees another pop up shortly after their own arrival.
Also, something I've noticed with Elden Ring compared to the other games is that sometimes the messages that someone has just entered the host's world won't appear at all, and the sound effect won't play either. You could be a summon or an invader and suddenly there's a player who literally wasn't there before. The messages and audio give a crucial heads-up to start thinking of ways to adjust your play style and to start scouting the environment even more closely. Be they red, blue, or gold, another person popping into the session with no warning stinks, especially since it again highly disincentivizes methods that don't involve blitzing the host (or any foe) as swiftly as possible, such as utilizing poison and the Scarlet Rot.
I like that Elden Ring offers early or otherwise easy invasion items thanks to Varre and Volcano Manor, but in the face of frequent 3 vs. 1 fights, the incentive to actually stick with invasions or regularly dabble in them needs to be stronger. Rune Arcs are useful for activating Great Runes, but they feel so plentiful that regularly invading to collect Rune Arcs doesn't feel like enough of a motivator. While there is some roleplaying investment via the Mohgwyn Dynasty and Volcano Manor, there could have been more in the gameplay approach to this to encourage players to keep participating, like collecting blood for Miquella's cocoon or additional rewards from Tanith. There don't have to be nine covenants like in Dark Souls 1, but something extra as a gameplay reward could be satisfying.
In Demon's Souls, both the Blue Eye Stone and Black Eye Stone could be obtained extremely early on and each gave the reward of getting one's full HP bar back. There was a major incentive to test out all kinds of multiplayer features throughout a playthrough, including stat buffs to summons and invaders via gear and Character Tendency. Hosts would have to fight alongside their summons to help them, avoiding the problem of Estus chug heals from across the map that DS1 had, but invaders could also harm the enemies with friendly fire, meaning that they had to be careful.
The Demon's Souls multiplayer system was great for encouraging players to explore the full breadth of online options and be engaged in the gameplay. I feel that this system is still one of the best approaches to multiplayer and future games should seek out its balance.
When invasion items aren't hidden behind highly secretive quests like in Dark Souls 1, I feel there should be an extra incentive to engage in that multiplayer style. DS1 at least gave a good story weight to the Darkwraiths and their liquid Humanity reward provided a universal stat boost or could be Kindling. Also, the Darkmoons got the best weapon buff, though their ability to even invade sinners depended on enough people being Darkwraiths. Heck, even if people weren't Darkwraiths, Kaathe was the only person who sold Cracked Red Eye Orbs, so Darkmoons would need people to find him anyway for their own covenant's sake, otherwise they'd be stuck with the 10 or so cracked orbs that could be picked up per playthrough.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter, Ratatoskr! You explained yourself thoroughly and in a clear, succinct manner. I agree that the Taunter's Tongue is a step too far, at least if it's the only alternative. There should be a good middle ground between invasions only with a summon and constant invasions with no cool down. Also, didn't Bloodborne actually invent the "no invasions without a summon" mechanic? I don't think the feature debuted in Elden Ring.
Love invading, but I would give up my ability to invade ever again if it meant that I could be solo host invaded again like I was in DS 1,2,3
This shouldn't even be a question. The answer has and always will be YES.
If you invaded even remotely prior to Elden ring, your answer will be a definitive yes.
well yeah, *obviously*. The question isn't whether invaders want that to come back, ofc they do. It's whether everyone else does.
invading in the dark souls trilogy was so easy to the point that it was just uninteresting. ds1 pvp was really unbalanced and easy to clobber basically anyone you invade, and ds3 has a bunch of new player hosts who just got forced into ember and don't know what they're doing and are really easy to kill alone. the only time when pvp in those 2 games was interesting is when they had a friend imo
also ik people speak fondly of ds2 pvp but i dont have much experience there
Watch the whole video
Enemies should give more souls and embers/rune arcs/humanity while invaded.
Invasions should reward 2 E/RA/H so that the time spent on a long invasion can catch up to that of a quick boss.
Make invaders an opportunity rather than simply a punishment/balance system and they can be as loved as new game+ for spicing up a play through
I find I half agree. I think the biggest downside is that there's just not as many people avaliable to invade when you can only invade co-op. It can kinda suck bouncing around hoping to find a match. And co-op players are invaded relentlessly. And frankly being ganked is fun only if none of them are better at the game then you. Because then its just a slaughter. Not to mention it seriously hinders people getting into pvp by setting the bar so high. Some players can barely even win a single duel much less 3 people.
The issue is we need it to be spontaneous and not a set up but also simultaneously not be meeting the solo player at the bonfire and kicking his teeth in. And I too miss being invaded and the taunters tongue is a piss poor substitute.
I dont know what the solution is because I agree with a lot of what you have to say. But I think solo invasions have to exist if only for the sake of the pvp "economy". Maybe prioritizing invading ganks.
The problem as you note is the invaded really has no incentive to engage with the hunt. And even more often no desire to either. And tbh I cant blame them. Most often their only motivation is not losing their souls or progress. They have nothing to gain. A lot of players dont know how to pvp and it can be very one-sided. As you say, not fun for either.
And this is why invading ganks is often better for the soul's vet and why ganks are more likely to participate. It gives them enough of advantage to embolden them.
All this to say, despite your good points I think solo invasions need to return. I think the cons outweigh the pros.
HOWEVER. I think in a future entry we need a greater pvp economy.
1. Starting with bringing back covenants. There needs to be more incentive to invade and to be invaded.
2. We also need the dynamism of invasions (ie reds and blues) to create interesting and shifting encounters.
3. I think getting more players into pvp would create a more healthy economy as well. More incentives, more entry points, etc. Hell, I wonder how many people who play these games have never even tried invading.
4. A better co-op system like Remnant 2 would do wonders. Especially public matchmaking. Some people dont have friends and often times I just dont have anyone online at the time.
5. I have a lot more ideas but they would fundamentally have to change their formula. And I think the community would need convincing. Ive always felt this was an underrealized aspect of these games. So much untapped potential.
Anyway, great vid as always
@@austin0_bandit05 As someone in the comments already said, they should region-lock equipment so that you can only get invaded by players who have been to the same regions as you have. That would kill most twink builds.
@Lobsterwithinternet Thats a great idea!
@@austin0_bandit05 Another idea I had for solo invasions is that players take control of weaker NPC enemies who have pre-determined load-outs that can challenge the players but are easily defeated. Kind of like the special infected from Left 4 Dead but determined by the area you invade like the Gravelord Covenent in DS1. So you can have multiple invaders without worrying about builds or overleveling.
I agree with your conclusion (solo host invasions should be opt in), but not with your premeses, for a couple reasons:
1) Making all invasions 2-on-1 raises the difficulty level of invasions, filtering out people who are trying it for the first time, leaving only dedicated invaders like yourself. I have friends who tried dabbling in invasions in Elden Ring, and quit after only a few attempts, because they found the 2-on-1 disadvantage overwhelming. This is bad not only for people interested in invading, but also for hosts, as the skill level of the average invader goes up by virtue of the skill floor going up.
2) Bonfire dueling absolutely still happens with co-op invasions. Probably 30% to 40% of my invasions in Elden Ring are hosts sitting by a bonfire with their phantom, which is often an overlevelled password phantom. They make no move to play through the level, probably because they're on voice chat with their friend, and can just shoot the breeze with them while they wait. Either that, or they're ganking on purpose.
I think the best of invasions are some of the best design dark souls games can have up there with the greatest boss fights and levels, and I hope they make a return but they defiantly, aren't perfect, and I think the reason we haven't seen them evolve or come back is because its a flawed system that can be broken very easily. That is due to fromsoftware not putting in the time to make invasion a game mechanic feel like apart of the level they are present in. if the fans like invasions and from wants to add them it needs the level design to support the system, and Elden ring didn't have it, invades couldn't even ride mounts, you could get one shot by a lvl 99 in every dark souls game etc etc. Its gonna require a actual rethinking on how these encounters are designed here are some off the top of my head.
NO LOADOUT CHOOSING
(1) the invader isn't allowed to choose the equipment they invade with. If from made a specific loadout for areas they enable as invasion areas, i think it solves the balancing issues while allowing for what makes invasion great to really flourish. a character specific to making traversing a poison swamp area difficult could be cool stack them with lloyd talismans and make them slightly faster than then host while being easy to cut down but respawn-able, slowing eating into the hosts supply of heals and cures, until they drop dead of poison can be a really fun gameplay encounter, if its given priority as a feature of the level.
or a character with wrath of god in a particularly elevated section of the game could be hilarious. while allowing them to be avoidable and feel fair since they are more scripted encounter's between to players. And encourage the cat and mouse chase that i love so much about invasions utilizing entire sections of the world/level.
ROUGE-LIKE
(2) allow invaders to spawn in as low level characters, that need to explore the level to find loot only the invaders can find sorta like evolved, To grow stronger to be able to take the host on 1v1 duel style, but be able to impede their journey through the environment like locking doors or exploding barrels for a range, or trying to find easy to knock them off the map like for honor; but more rouge like like what we see in night rein. This keeps the cat and mouse dynamic while flipping it on the invader at the start, but if the host doesn't deal with them or get through the area fast enough they can become a serious threat.
BOSS FIGHTS
(3) allow invaders to spawn in as piloted npcs would be interesting. imagine a player with a more bare bones ds1 big guy with a sword move set, spawning them as this instead of a player npc removes a lot of the innate jank of pvp invasion in Fromsoftware games (two players with weird I frame dodges never feels that great). imagine a player piloting artorias like boss as a roaming avoidable fight, it would allow for skill expression by the invader as they can get good as being artorias (pretty badass). while since their humanoid the move sets can be actually pilotable and readable by the host.
DIVISON DARK ZONE (yeah really)
(4) a dark zone like area specific to pvp. the divsion by ubisoft had a unique feature of a section of the map that was pvp/pve, it had great loot that you could extract at the risk of other players killing you for that loot. I think a massive area the size of limegrave/altus, that hosts must travel through the area as if it was a firelink shrine type (the eye of the storm where you can access every other level from it) could be really fun, it could offer, shortcuts to other continent's or levels at the risk of higher danger combat with pvp, while having levels and geometry tailored for that experience, while being avoidable if you wanted to take a longer route around the "dark zone" of the map. i just imagine riding a horse through this area and seeing 2-3 dark phantoms on their mounts on a hill ahead waiting for you after you decded to take a short cut through the zone to get to a safe area with a large amount of souls, and preparing for the chase that could be really fun!
I recently started demon souls for the first time and was shocked to realize the npcs fights are the same dark souls 1, ds2, ds3, bloodborne, elden ring, and shadow of the erdtree essentially with minor changes just to keep them in line with the game they are in. i think its time for some improvement and the new nightrein seems to be that. its really cool to see the seemingly bust open the conventions of the souls series with this spin off, i think its time for the souls series of games to get a healthy dose of shots from games like hades, botw, dishonored, and maybe the games i mentioned above, and we as a community need to be more open to them going baddy with the mechanics i feel, its the only way to evolve and recapture what made the old games so good. im still praying for the day from makes a western rpg dark souls with npcs ridden towns and cities, with lore that can be backed up with in game set pieces/ gameplay moments. No longer is a event like the night of the black knvies ancient history its a mission you are participating in, or something that you directly witness take place. Elden ring is almost there but its missing this for me.
You don't really seem to understand that having YOUR customizable character which plays the way YOU play is one of the main selling points of souls(and ACs for that matter); as well as understanding that invaders are usually people who love the game severely and want to engage with it more, while you're offering for invaders to just play a different game. And to be good at something, has a meaning of being consistently good at something, no matter which how much theoretical "skill expression" you put into your system almost no one will just even try to "git gud" if they can't get consistent results.
So in conclusion: no one will play these schizo invasions.
@ (sekrio, the superior title in every way that if it had multiplayer would made the ds franchise enjoyers looks like plebs sitting quietly on his farm)
I do understand that that’s an integral part of the souls series duh man I’m sitting here wishing for better pvp in their games and you think I don’t know about bulid crafting? Like I don’t have 12 different Elden ring characters for different builds and yadda yadda played ds1 x amount of times with my hands tied behind my yap yap ds2 is the superior title yadda….you miss my point. The solo invasion experience is a flawed concept from conception. It’s always been the weird tacked on thing that was probably (in my opinion) slapped on the boxes of the games to entice the gamers of the 7th generation. So my suggestions are not vain, because the system as it is in their most current title, SUCKS. Their’s a reason he has to make this video it’s because the situation is in dire need of a shakeup for SOLO invasions. This isn’t covering dueling. I’m well aware that building crafting and character building and skill expression are core to thst experience. Solo invasions it is not and I will stand on that. Because solo invasions were a gameplay experience/feature first before they were a recognized concept and component of these games. It barley worked half the time when it was in the early games, it was laggy as all hell and was labeled experimental and cool because it was just that, a weird nest addition that if it worked, and you got a good invader/host could have memorable experiences that elevated the games experience. What you seem to want is contrary to what SOLO INVASIONS were meant to represent. A additional threat on top of the curated content of mobs and traps that you find in the level. It was a modifier, and it’s obvious as much because this thing you claim the “hardcore players love so much!!” Has withered and died, my suggestions are there to attempt to uphold what made SOLO INVASIONS great. Because build crafting a god of men to one shot someone is most of the time what solo invaders become since the dawn of man (2009). Because each game has had a different take on solo invasions which never fixed the issues of the game before it added problems and made it a worse experience, to the point where it isn’t even recognizable in the form it exists in Elden ring. So you don’t really seem to understand the point of my comment and this video really. And with my options presented their is still clear signs for skill expression for example my favorite the poison swamp pre decided load out, it relies more on your prowess in evading the opponent than direct combat and it serves a purpose in the level that the host is in, you can use Lloyd talismans to halt the usage of items leading to the host dying of poison intake. If the theoretical game I’m thinking of with my “schzio invasions that no one will play” yeah no duh asmondgold it’s a UA-cam comment about a Japanese game companies niche gameplay feature that only the sweatiest of losers recall existing. Get slammed peace ✌️. If you have any good suggestions on how from can revive this features that’s confirmed to not be in their next title nightrein enlighten us or you can go back to duels in Elden ring cause it’s all you have in that game cause solo invasions died.
@@masterofnothing4938 I understand that I came a bit too rude. I apologize. I swear I'm not as bad in person(I'm worse).
Now if get a little bit to the point there's still a community of incredible dedicated and creative people still playing invasions.
You seem to state that invasions and specifically solo invasions never worked referring to the fact that in Elden Ring invasion systems make one want to his bones out.
The deal is that I think(and there are number of people who with me here) that DS3 almost hit the mark with it's multiplayer, but Elden Ring is "0 steps forward, 3 steps back". Now I think if some issues of DS3 were fixed (mainly Twinks. I fucking hate Twinks) we'd get an incredible one-of-a-kind asymmetric PvPvE experience enjoyable for all parties.
I myself hold my multiplayer experiences in these games very close to my heart and I want for the things I love to evolve and be improved not be scrapped and replaced with something completely different.
@ I feel you, ds3 mp was close to perfect but that was a lot to do with the hardcore community that made the mp in the game wha it was from added the fight maps which barely anyone used. Seriously tho the mp in these games is underrated aspect of them:
What if the "2nd item" you talked about isn't in your inventory, but rather something like the demon bell in sekiro? That way you can't just turn it off when it's inconvenient, you either choose to play the game with it active or not.
Idea for future souls games that eliminates the camping gank problem:
Make invaders gradually grow stronger the longer they’re in your world, forcing hosts to hunt down and kill invaders.
Give blue phantoms a method of tracking down invaders.
It would only bring you an invaders that hides all the time only for them to come in and destroy everyone in seconds. It would be a chore for everyone.
There are much more elegant solutions like for example we could allow invaders to use something like miquealla's branch to charm a mob and then that mob will follow invader everywhere, or adding harassment tools sorta like Greatbow with Golem Arrows in ER.
@@Graati True it would lead to situations where the invader would go running away for a while but then again they'll be banished once the host crosses a fog gate so it would put pressure on both parties to engage sooner rather than later imo.
I feel like we already have a solution. The blue phantoms to help a host. Ideally one would be given to the host at the same time as an invasion. That way as a host that doesn't like to co-op but likes invasion can still get invaded and regular hosts won't run away to the bonfire at the first sign of an invader, they might be more inclined to stick with the blue and 2v1.
If they do bring back regular invasions then I'll just play in offline mode because I don't want to be forced to engage in content that I don't want to engage in.
Invaders most likely have a lot of knowledge in regards to pvp and since they are allied with hostile npcs, they only have to worry about the host and their allies. Furthermore, invaders are able to fully fight alongside holstile mobs even if they invaded a solo player.
You have never been forced to engage in PvP if you didn't want to. In every game it always required you to do something to open yourself up for invasions. Going offline was never needed.
@@flavionms If you wanted your maximum health then you needed to use a humanity or ember, both of which opened you up to player invasions unless you switch to offline mode.
@@Sam-lf3hn Humanity did not increase maximum health. Using an ember did, yes, but you could save it for the actual fight.
As someone who doesn't mind either way since I can always play offline if I want a more "chill" play session, I did like how Bloodborne had the bell-ringing women hidden in the level who could summon invaders, forcing you to explore with the chance of invasion for at least a couple levels.
I feel that there needs to be some type of opt-in for invasions (besides playing offline mode) mainly because my own personal experiences of being invaded in DS1 are almost exclusively bad.
The number of times times I've been invaded by a twink at the Bell Gargoyle's or Blighttown is very high.
In my experience, out of every 10 invasions against me, 9 have been against a twink. This usually means my weapons barely scratch the opponent, while I get oneshot by a high level spell or somesuch. I don't find this enjoyable.
There are a lot of threads on reddit about people that invade really enjoying fair invasions and duels, and that may be the case for them, but my personal experience is not like that at all. It's almost always a bad time that makes me not want to play, that's why I don't like forced invasions.
in dark souls 1, there is no weapon matchmaking so you can be invaded by someone with a +15 weapon at level 1. this was fixed in the remaster but only somewhat, there are special weapons which can still match with low level players and deal absurd damage, also dragon form fists have a fixed 400 AR which is crazy for level 1. dark souls 3 and elden ring introduced proper weapon level matchmaking which helped a lot with this issue, but it hasn't completely gone away as people can still theorycraft crazy damage builds at low lvl. u don't straight up have access to max upgraded weapons anymore tho which is nice.
solo invasion suck. its just pvp Bros who wanted to beat down on PVE players to stroke their ego. it's thats simple.
They already were opt-in. You could only be invaded if you turned yourself human in DS1. There was never a need to play offline to avoid invasions.
@@deadcaptainjames6045 Only if you're terrible at the game. If you're somewhat competent, being invaded solo can be a lot of fun.
@@flavionms Sure, but if you go human you can't summon or read messages. I know a lot of people argue that being able to summon should be balanced by being able to be invaded, I don't personally share that opinion but I've heard it a lot. However, I do find it annoying that you can't read messages in offline mode, as reading them is really fun especially the first time you play.
Also, if you are a newbie, the game gives no indication that going human actually makes you able to be invaded. The first time the game drops you off at Firelink it actually informs you that you can use Humanity go Human, but doesn't actually tell you what it does. The main way new players find out you can be invaded while human is when they actually get invaded, and even then it's not obvious that being human was the reason. Covenants would give way more clarity.
It seems obvious to me to just make it a menu option you can toggle on and off. "Open to invasions? Yes > No" Then it can function exactly as you want
I honestly wish they'd just remove Invasions period tbh. Or at least make them opt in. Especially if they want to make more open world games, because it just drags the pacing of exploration by forcing you to go on a wild goose chase.
Adding another item wouldn't really be a good solution.
Firstly it wouldn't change the issue of consent.
Secondly Elden Ring already has 3 items which are just for host to set up their world. This is already too complex. Having only one item(or some alternative) which just allows you to put every setting you want 1 time is both logically and logistically sound imho.
It would still be an improvement, though.
They could always make it so activating the Furcaller Finger's Remedy let's you be invaded even if you didn't summon yet.
It would still be an improvement.
They could always just make it so activating a Furcaller Finger's Remedy opens you up to invasion, regardless of whether you summoned or not.
I’d say they can you choose the type of game mode you want for the play through. One game mode would be allowing you to be invaded whenever, regardless of you having a co-ops or not. And the other game mode would be just playing the game regularly with no invasions possible regardless of co-oping or not. For the invasion heavy mode, enemies can drop more runes, have a higher drop rate of items and have many unique specific items and even emotes only available in that mode that are acquired by either killing a certain amount of invaders or winning a certain amount of invasions. For the non invader mode, they just play regularly with friends or co-opers, and if they want to get any of those items, they have to do a NG+ cycle and then change their game mode to invasions.
This will help increase the amount of people who want to do invasions and bring back some of the old school invasions of old, while also allowing the people who just want to play their friends play their games without feeling bothered by invasions.
Also if you invasion game mode, if you invade a world that’s has a co-opers, you can be allowed to summon enemies or even mini bosses (scaled down so their not OP) that will disappear when other invaders join the world so that amount of invaders is equal to the amount of host and their co-opers.
I think my favorite ideas I'm seeing are as follows:
Better rewards for invaders and hosts. Make it worth invading, and worth beating an invader.
Covenants and "event" areas. Things like a zone where you can be solo invaded by a specific covenant, in that specific area, while it may be disabled for the rest of the game. (I still like solo invasions but this is something). Even having protectors/blues is a real help, if you're solo invaded and have the blue ring you'll likely have 2 pvp ready summons if you can just not die for the first minute or so.
Tweaks to healing for invaders/summons. Full healing for invaders seems like a good idea for a system restricting invasions to groups, but would be a bad time for a solo host. Give the invader a weird different healing item that heals faster but for less, idk.
Scale invasions based on phantom numbers. No it wouldn't be perfect but if a host has 2 phantoms maybe open them up to 2 invaders. If they only have 1 or none restrict them to 1 invader.
I feel like different stakes of marika/checkpoints would help with some of the frustrations for invaders. I spend 10 minutes trying to invade only to get 2 people who immediately walk into the boss room and a gank squad. I like the stakes for many cases, but sometimes they felt a bit overused.
Edit: random idea for covenant(s). A pair where the 2 covenants are at war and they are summoned into a neutral host's world who's job is to make it to the end boss, while the warring covenants goal is to get items from killing other faction members, while the host tries not to get caught in the middle. Host can be worth 1 reward too to encourage chaos.
Honestly I think better rewards for just hosts would be enough. The best reward for invaders are simply good invasions. Of course, better rewards would incentivize new players to give it a shot, so it's not necessarily a bad idea, but if the goal is to control the number of invaders then it is unnecessary.
I just need an option that says "PVP ON?" And a "Yes and No" option. That's all I ask, bro.
Yep. This is all we need. As solo players, we recognise this gives everyone the best chance at being happy even if it's not the absolute best outcome for either side.
Of course, however, invaders don't want this, because they explicitly NEED to feel superior for invading people who don't want them there. They're literally arguing that opting out shouldn't be a thing and you should just always be available for then to stuff you'd ass whenever they feel like it. Totally a fair and meaningful argument from them LOL
They had this via covenants in prior games, essentially. I tend to prefer them since they're in-universe, and in-universe explanations for game mechanics and options are neat.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe and Dark Souls 2's effigy burning
The answer is yes. ER has the worst invasion system so far out of any souls game because it limits the invasion pool so much
Edit: also the things you're describing with hosts exploring happens less and less as the series goes on because enemies design and placement becomes more and more bullshit. It won't ever happen in ER because of its foundationally flawed evrny moveset design. Why would a host *ever* venture out when so many enemies are so annoying to fight alone, much less with an invader.
I appreciate that you're stance boils down to 'I don't want to do it unless it's ruining somebody's day, or I get to fight God.' I've always played offline because my internet is about as consistent as a politician in a lobbying convention, so I have no horse in the race.
I don't think your reasoning about bonfire duelists makes sense, if someone wants to duel at a bonfire with a rune arc, etc, wouldn't they just choose to use the taunters toungue? The likelihood of someone bonfire dueling non tauntered toungue is massively low compared to literal millions of new pve only players elden ring brought in.
Your alternate invasion item that brings back the 15 minute timer solves alot of issues, but I don't think you should be able to turn it off outside of a grace. Make it so you can use it at the start of an area and then turn it off once you have beaten the boss, aswell as an option to turn it on after defeating the boss, something along these lines. They have done similar in dark souls 2 with human effigies preventing you from being invaded for an hour. This would help players not abuse the system in some way similar to current taunters toungue users, who like to gank, use the item, then disable it once a single invader comes in. Taunters toungue should also not be able to be disabled, just like the dried finger in ds3.
Ultimately what I think would happen if solo invasions came back in elden ring specificly, is you would just simply invade some poor guy who has no clue how to play. You can already see this in previous souls games, dark souls 3, dark souls 2... Dark souls 2 especially since you can invade hollowed players, meaning the amount of afk players you invade skyrockets. So many invasions are just fatrolling players with like 15 vigor. I mean already just look at some of the players you invade doing co op, mage with 10 vigor who has done nothing but sit behind their overleveled phantom for the whole game, no grasp of the idea of a reaction roll. Elden ring actively incentivises players to not learn mechanics like spacing in favour of L2 spam.
I don't think it's fun to destroy some new player who just got the game.
I agree invading better players is always the most fun.
Thirdly, the open world should not have invasions, it just doesn't work, players can just run around endlessly, it's too big.
Elden ring just has too many issues (like 4 player limit, etc) for solo invasions to be included, fromsoft need to implement a competent system before doing anything else imo.
Solo host invasions are the reason i played those games offline. The last thing i want to experience in video games is pvp
"Noooooo!! Please!!🙏 Anything! ANYTHING! But please don't make me interact with other people! 😭"
-thomaswilson
@@Graati Ah yes, "beating up other people's waifus", the purest form of social interaction.
This was something I wanted from Elden Ring from day 1. Give us the equivalent of the Sekiro Demon Bell that puts us in the invasion pool.
let me guess, the answer is yes. I'm probably the complete opposite in that spectrum as I hate invasions, so the less I have to engage with that aspect of souls games the better my experience is. (therefore I always am i offline mode, or in elden ring I'm never in co-op)
In previous games you could also not engage with them while online. They have always been opt-in for solo players.
I like this idea but I feel like an item would be unnecessary, instead it could just be an option in the matchmaking / network settings that’s off by default. I guess they would both do the same thing, but I feel like an item creates more situational agency than a menu option would.
Specifically with the example you said, about invading a solo host that is better than you. Invaders are almost always experienced in the game, so finding this scenario is difficult.
UNLESS: The game is design to encourage PvP, it would be a lot cooler to have people trying their first invasion organically in their first playthrough because there is an incentive, and said incentive continuous to permeate for the entire game, Covenant rewards or a key feature locked to a PvP currency.
Imagine the UA-cam videos that make OP builds telling you:
Or "hot take": The equivalent to humanity or the Ember resource that gives bonus can't be farmed and no enemy drops it, except for some in the map.
Now we have inexperienced people actually trying to invade. More people, more variety of skill and ideas.
Of course this has to be designed from the ground up to make it the most organic to the progression as possible.
The invasion items you suggested should also have an incentive. The "getting invaded normally but as a solo host" item can give a specific reward after every kill, the Taunters tongue equivalent that makes you get invaded in rapid succession should give another rare reward and then we get into covenant specific ways to invade or get invaded.
Most people who don't invade aren't "afraid" of invading or pvping, we're just not interested at all. I don't play competitive games, period. I play rpgs and single player games, and sometimes survival crafting games with friends. I'm not here to pvp with tryhards. I'm here to play a fucking game. Giving me a hundred level-ups and a copy of every weapon in the game to win ten invasions, I still wouldn't even participate in one. It isn't about rewards, it's about not being a tiny-cocked little loser douchebag who feels the need to insert themselves everywhere they're not wanted like some sort of office creep. No, go away and don't come back.
I think one big problem with elden ring's invasions was the furlcalling finger remedy. I think it's almost certain that the need to manually use that one item to see summon signs in the first place killed random coop for anything except bosses.
Forcing players to engage in PVP when they don't want to is a premise that is never going to work smoothly anyway. For good reason.
Just give it an option to turn on normal invasions for additional rewards. Everyone is happy
ER tried to make everyone happy. And when everyone is "happy", no one is.
@@Nobody32990 every one is happy with how invasion work in elden ring beside invaders.
@@etendudeaufraiche146That's just not true. I never invade, but DO want to be invaded as a solo player.
@@etendudeaufraiche146 What? Its common sense that ER has the absolute worst PvP (and probably also multiplayer) out of all the souls games. Horribly balanced, no covenants and atrocious invasion system for invaders and invaded, etc.
The idea NEVER was to force anyone. The idea is to promote being invaded with rewards. Is the design, a proper and fair design. That if you use the special items to give a boost. Then you can be invaded. It was always the design that if you wanted to summom phamtoms you must use it, thus making you available for invasions. Elden Ring is the spiritual sequel of Dark souls. Souls games are NOT monster hunter. And the way Elden ring treats pvp has no future. And that is bad for everyone. Believe it or not.
invasions have been always an extra feature sadly, a good concept but not a very well executed idea, an unrefined experience with a lot of potential for a fantastic anecdote generator, but I think this would shine the most in a dedicated experience, a game specifically made for this interaction you describe as rare to be the default experience, maybe if nightreign can explore the coop posibilities for fromsoft, just maybe, they are interested in making a counterpart that explores pvp, I really hope they do, crossing fingers for dayreign
I just turn off my internet to make sure I don't have a chance to get invaded.
Soft
Just don't use the item that opens you up for invasions. They've always been opt-in.
Fundamentally, I don’t think FromSoft ever properly considered the competition aspect of invasions. I think they thought of it more from an RPG perspective where players would role play more instead of there being an arms race for the best gear and ganking and so on. Thematic, thought out builds whether invader or co-op always produce the most fun and interesting fights because they’re fought within the spirit of the game we’re all playing and the state of ER is on the community as much as it is FromSoft.
It played out quite well. A lot of people became warmongers and would kill Gwynevere so that they would get invaded.
The is not the vile human nature, but the fact that current systems don't really incentivize role-playing aspect.
I'll just drop 2.5 wild words:
Player-made covenants.
@@BlueLightningSkyDarkmoon 4 life 🌚😎🤟
I miss them dearly. That said the system is not good for new players if it’s not fundamentally built off some kind of risk and reward. In Elden Ring the reward was multiplayer help but there was no state of humanity like in Dark Souls meaning the “on” flag was the summoning rather than a state. In dark souls 2 and 3 there was the restoring or increasing of your health etc. I do want solo invasions back but they have to come with that balance of risk and reward, otherwise you are just going to turn some players off from the game early in their journey who would have been a stalwart fan.
Here’s an idea, to solve both bonfire duelists and gank squads that kill every enemy in the zone.
Why not not merge gravelording and and invasions. When you invade there will be infinitely respawning red phantom mobs that spawn in set intervals, like every 5 minutes. They patrol the whole map including bonfires, so you can escape detection if you know their patterns, but the safe zones move with or without you, if you stay in one area too long the red phantom mobs will see the host and jump in to help the invader. Or the invader can lead them into the red phantom mobs.
As for it being too easy to opt out of, literally just hitting a button when it’s convenient at the end of a dungeon to eliminate risk, make it work like dark souls 1 where you make that decision AT the bonfire area bonfire, and you can’t reverse it until the area boss is dead, if it’s already dead, it spawns a red phantom boss (maybe allow boss invasions? I liked mirror knight, or spear of the church/old monk is cool too, but I won’t die on that hill) and to push the idea of making it a commitment rather than an a simple flick of a switch, maybe red phantom enemies give more souls, have increased drop rates, or maybe also drop items that aren’t in the normal mobs pool like upgrade materials, covenant items, or other rare items people wish they had more of earlier in the game, incentivizing people who embraced the bacon face in the older dark souls games to risk it for the rewards.
Solo host invasions as it was in Ds1 2 and 3, are what for me, is missing from Elden Ring, Taunters Tongue just, isn't the same :/
Yes. Next question.
Personally, I hope From either removes or separates PvP (like in AC6) from the main game PvE part. I couldnt care less about it and I want From to use all their resources for an even better PvE experience. I also want perfect balancing thanks to no PvP like in Sekiro in all their future games.
You are in luck, From is baking slop tailored specifically for you by the name of Nightraign.
Too bad Armored Core's PvP is not great either, because the meta of staggering in PvE has completely decimated the sense of skill that is supposed to be there in PvP. With staggering being the system, most high level play results in Zimmerman, heavy leg kicking, or kiting, and no in between, and one stagger can essentially result in the game being done with in seconds. I'd argue AC6 is the most egregious example of how From struggles to balance for both PvE and PvP, because more so that Souls/ER, PvP is supposed to be the life blood of Armored Core after the PvE.
How I'd do it if I had the reins:
1. non-consensual
2. the game queues up enough invaders to match the number of host/cooperators before sending them all in at once (if there simply aren't enough invaders in the queue for this, this step is skipped and the invader is sent in alone).
3. if the host is in the Way of Blue, a Blue Sentinel is also queued up alongside the invader(s) and enters the host world at the same time (if there aren't enough Blue Sentinels available, this step is skipped and the host is on their own). Way of Blue never really felt like it worked before, to me. And I think there should be a way of curbing the sudden difficulty spike if you're not a good PvP player.
4. make some kind of item that spawns in red phantom enemies near bonfires if used. You can use it as a solo player against yourself if you're crazy, or you can use it as an invader to try and push the host away from the bonfire and make the invasion less safe.
5. invaders do not get estus flasks. If they want to heal, they'd better bring miracles (and they'd still be limited by casts/FP since the ashen estus is also disabled). The intent here is to make it so the invader kind of HAS to utilize the level if they want viable odds.
6. there should be a good reward for banishing an invader, not just for winning an invasion. That way, players are less inclined to disconnect from the game.
7. Soul Memory from DS2 was on the way to a good idea, but it was held back by some incomprehensibly stupid execution. Base it on the number of souls needed to be your current level, plus the sum of the highest-upgraded equipment types you have in your inventory (most weapons count as one type, but all the various catalyst types would be in their own groups, plus maybe some other stuff). If you make weapon upgrades cost the right amount of souls, twinking should be a lot less doable. (also, stop having non-upgradeable weapons for this exact reason)
Not saying it'd solve everything, but I think it's something you can base a better idea on. I love the idea of invasions, but Imma be honest and say I usually just disconnect when they happen because the execution of them is just unfathomably bad. There's no reason for me as a host to participate in them, I only stand to lose, and they're terribly balanced on top of it.
6 Player multiplayer Invasions should 100% come back as well.
exactly my words, I loved old ds3 days when youd have a huge fight between host and invaders
6 player limit was only applied to Dried Finger users who wanted to get invaded.
@lharsay The dried finger is so much more balanced than the taunters' tongue because you actively consented to having multiple players invade your world, making it more difficult to gank so most people actually played the level normally instead of standing next to a bonfire getting kills.
@ On the other hand if you invaded a host and his two summons you never got a co-invader unless they used the dried finger.
I should also consider the fact that PVP was a slow paced dance than the cracked shit we have in elden ring and also the fact that the level design was more enclosed so invaders had more choices in escaping towards safety we're there's loads of mobs.
I miss being solo invaded as a host. Makes going through the levels more tense. Its part of what made Dark Souls memorable.
I think the important takeaway for a lot of people is that non-consensual PVP is not fun or fair. It should be a consentable option. No one should be forced to be someone else's entertainment.
There should be an item that boosts runes gained by like %10-15 while invadible and noncooperating.
I'm good on not getting invaded. PVP is unfun to me. Connection issues or facing an opponent who has a very specific and broken pvp build.
Same, which is why it should work the same way as dark souls. You opt in to all the online stuff at once by being in human form, so you can play through the game with or without the possibility of being invaded
@@LogosChaser-r5d yes. It was perfect in DaS imo.
If you play Demon Souls, after encountered someone that build specifically to destroy your weapons and armor while you have no idea what you're doing, you will simply switched to offline mode..... FOREVER.
@@LogosChaser-r5dnope. Taking away game mechanics from a player because they don't want to be invaded by some fagfuck who can't get by without pissing on other people isn't the way. Take stuff away from invaders, they're the assholes trying to ruin peoples' day. Solo players don't deserve to be punished or miss out because YOU'RE a fuckin tryhard.
My idea: invaders become vulnerable to "Black Soapstone"-equivalent banishment after a timer.
So you can do a non-consensual duel somewhere in the level, but not a non-consensual Carian Study Hall. Bear in mind, Ratatoskr's ideal host can still accept that challenge, but everyone else can refuse it.
IMO the best solution is just to put a toggle at character select: do you want to be included in the invasion pool? Plenty of people like Ratatoskr really like both invading and being invaded, and it sucks for them that they have to jump through a bunch of imperfect hoops to get the experience they want. Meanwhile, plenty of other people, like me, really hate invasions as a whole, whether they're balanced or not, and don't want to deal with the system. Such players like me will still not be fun or interesting experiences for people like Ratatoskr to fight for the reasons he stated in the video: as soon as we see we got invaded, we just run back to the bonfire so that if (read: when) we die we can easily collect our souls and move on. Neither type of player is being properly serviced by the traditional all-or-nothing system; meanwhile, an opt-in system would work for both types.
Pro-invasion players have traditionally countered this argument by saying "multiple players breaks Soulsborne combat design because enemies are built for one-vs-one and multiple players breaks their AI: invaders are Fromsoft's solution to their spotty AI design." IMO the first part of that is basically true. However, I don't think that the second part really works. Fromsoft's games have always had super powerful borderline-cheesy builds and strategies that near-invalidate the difficulty of their games, but none of those involve PvP. In Elden Ring you can pick up the Antspur Rapier and the Fingerprint Shield, or any greatshield with a high damage absorption and stability, and poke your way through any difficult encounter, up to and including Promised Consort Radahn. Going all the way back to pre-DLC Dark Souls 1, a GiantDad (Chaos Zweihander-wielding Giant's Armor character with high HP, Endurance, and an ultra-fast roll with high i-frames from the Dark Woodgrain Ring for those who don't remember) was the ultimate cheese strat for everything in the game, PvP against non-GiantDad's included. Trivializing Soulsborne combat has always been possible, and has often been surprisingly easy at the start of the game if you know where to go, and PvPers often use such strategies themselves to gain powerful advantages, yet these extreme advantages don't come with invasions as a balancing factor, only summoning multiple players. This is the flaw I see in the argument: if X, Y and Z all break the game equally well, but Z is punished with invasions as a balancing factor while X and Y are not, then how can invasions really serve as a balancing factor?
In addition, something else that pro-invaders often say is that invasions are good because having multiple people gives the host's side substantially more resources than they would normally have, and so invasions help to drain those resources so the players have a harder time against the boss, which they might otherwise accidentally cheese with their comparatively massive resource pool. Once again there is a degree of truth to that, but I don't think it does a good job of providing a good experience for the co-op side. If the intention on the part of the co-op party is to trivialize the game then the invasion is just a hindrance, and moreover, it's a hindrance that is easily bypassed. Once the group finds the fastest and easiest way to the boss fight, they will simply do all the summoning right outside the fog gate, thus eliminating the power of invaders to hinder them during the boss. On the other hand, if the co-op party's intention is not to trivialize the boss, then invaders robbing them of resources basically means they'll have less time during the fight to learn the fight mechanics, since their healing charges will be partially (or, depending on the invaders, severely) drained and they won't have much time to stay in the fight to learn it. This basically turns playing with your friends into something more akin to a challenge run, which can be extremely demoralizing for players who are already struggling even as a group and aren't intentionally brute-forcing their way through bosses. In neither case does it provide a compelling experience, except to those players who either already know they like PvP and are looking for such an experience (whose experience wouldn't change with an opt-in system) or those who didn't known but decided they liked it (who could still opt in to the PvP system at the start of their character if it sounded like something they might find compelling). Alternatively, the opt-in could be an opt-out triggered through an NPC in the hub, which would give players a way to organically experience PvP first and then be redirected to the hub NPC after killing or dying to an invader to opt out.
The solution to "multiple players breaks Soulsborne combat design" shouldn't be "we'll outsource balance to PvP," it should be "we'll change the combat design to accommodate multiple players." Whether that be "more enemies spawn at certain locations if multiple players are in the world," "bosses gain new attacks with wider reach," or something entirely different, those would be better solutions than relying on an invasion system that many players loathe, one which creates community discord through toxic players on both sides flaming each other and doing stuff like using twink gear to bully low-level players (invaders) or hiding in impossible-to-reach-without-Torrent/glitches spots to waste invaders' time (players). An opt-in system gives both types of players what they want. In the mean time, hopefully Elden Ring: Nightreign can provide some ideas for future games on how bosses can be made a reasonable challenge for multiple players, since the entire game was designed to be played with a 3-player team. If Nightreign's combat design is successful then that can serve as an example for future Fromsoft games on how to make bosses fun for groups. I'm sure it would be difficult to make two versions of each boss's move set, one for solo players and one for groups, but assuming it's a feasible solution then it would be a far better option than invasions, which aren't active during boss fights anyway.
That button already exists. its called "play offline".
@@ricklubbers1526 play offline isn't the solution you think it is. I don't care for invasions, and I never invade but I like player messages and getting summoned for boss fights. Playing online isn't just about invasions.
The guy wrote the whole essay in UA-cam comments, but got knowledge-checked on the concept of "knowledge-check" lmao
@@Graatiif you think "play offline" is a knowledge check, you're already beyond fucking retarded.
People with the least PvP experience write the longest essays. The irony is spectacular. Opt-in systems kill PvP fluidity.
That reverse invasion situation is what I live for with solo invasions lmao. On both ends.
Working through the game and having people invade, not knowing I've been doing dueling/fight club/gamefaqs/discord pvp for like 15 years. Having the entire invasion scenario flipped on them. Absolute peak.
Likewise doing an invasion and the host is absolutely cracked at dealing with both you and any npcs at the same time. Unbeatable experience, if rare.
I always thought the most part of invasions(as invader and invaded) was how it added to the sheer unfairness of the world. These worlds are not fair or easy. This why i actually feel its best if the invader does not feel at a disadvantage at any moment. I didn't like Elden rings system because in most cases, if there are 2 or 3 humans it really does not matter what enemies are nearby, you are going to be back at a disadvantage. The best scenario is just restoring the way it was in the old games. If someone gets to choose whether or not they can be invaded there is no point. It's supposed to feel unfair. It also added a great drawback to things such as becoming human. Sure you could become human and try to summon for that boss, but you are also inviting invaders. It was really perfect
It was perfect
Not a better feeling than hearing Rata explaining how he's changed his mind on something and why.
It needs to be better balanced. All invaders have the most tryhard builds ever. There’s no variety or fairness. PVE builds hold no chance against a PVP focused build.
probably because if they try to do any other builds that aren't sweaty they get stomped in turn by the invadees? Especially considering how spam happy ER is compared to the other games?
I can't believe some people think the invader has the advantage
@@caiqueportolira they do though. PvE and PvP builds are wildly different and the latter rely much more on quick burst damage and combos/setups than PvE build which can afford to use slow ass buffs, telegraphed attacks/spells and other mechanics that just don't work in a PvP situation
@@eldritchtoilets210 you are in a party against one dude. Unless you all run pure meme builds, you are at advantage always.
People who think invasions are easy haven’t invaded much. They are pve players that are so bad at pvp that they think it’s unfair. What’s really happening is that invaders were forced to git gud or die immediately to ganks. Reds are just better. (I’m a sunbro)
Invasion would need a huge overhaul to make it more fun . Not perfect as it impossible but more organic and not meta try hard for both side.
Some idea I thought of would be to:
One, to level gate weapons so that you couldn’t have a late game boss weapon or spell in low level.
Second, a different invasion let say statues that can allow low level, mid level and high level invasion which would de level or level scale you and your gear to that appropriate invasion. That way you don’t have to make a new character for low level invasion.
Third thing is that solo host do not lose soul if they are invade. This could help push solo host from the spawn point. Also add a wall from the spawn point. Or if that not a good idea, make it so that invader will drop rare items or their covenant item. This way host can get invasion covenant stuff without invader if they want.
Fourth thing is kind of controversial but it would be cool if instead of notifying the host that an invader has come. Instead don’t. Instead make it where the host can get a blue, regular helping phantom or a invader to show up. The only notification is either the world or level has signs and a sound like a horn will signal when someone enter your world. This allow a new level of mind game cause invader can now use disguise items which could work now.
Last thing is to make covenants again. But it would be cool that they focus on certain play style and give res usable items that focus on said play style. Like an assassin covenant that focus on hide and dealing high dmg shot sneak attack but you take high dmg in return. Or a patches covenant that make you white phantom default when invading. host can’t hurt you at first when you have the disguise but enemies will Aggro to you. However you can attack the host but your first attack you deal 1 dmg always and your disguise is removed after the first attack. Which mean you want to do a kick or push miracle to knock them off a cliff like patches would. Enemies would still aggro to you so your first attempt is the most important. So item to trick your host is now more valuable.
Just ideas to make invasion more fun.
"I need non consensual invasions", brother, I agree, yet we sound like rapacious banditti.
You consented the moment you bought the Souls game, invasions are a staple since Demon Souls.
Stop with this redditor rhetoric.
@Nobody32990 it isn't the same game to game. The video already covered how safe you are with taunters tongue or coop.
I like invading.
I would really like From to rework invasions and multiplayer as a whole. They are close to a balanced experience with the "optional" toggles, but it still feels awkward trying to fit everything together without changing the base mechanics. I rather have them revamp how it works, to have them rearrange where the accessibility is and where the challenge is.
I don’t want to be punished for having friends. I’ve played all souls games n I spent more hours fending off invaders than playing. I have friends that LOVE invading/invasions and I don’t. I want to PLAY the game and not spend hours fending annoying mf off. If an invader shows up I’m ready but I don’t want that to be the entire entity
this is such an entitled statement, as if the game owes you a summon to play the level for you with absolutely zero compensation for literally making it easier. You’re not being punished by invaders, it’s called the consequences of your actions.
it drives me nuts that elden ring has a LOWER timer than ds3 for invasions(10 inutes vs 15) despite being an open world with no covenants, utter insanity.
I think a nuance to this is the tedium of resummoning your friends in these games. The punishment for losing to an invasion should be losing your progress in the level, not losing your progress in the level *and* going through an elaborate rigmarole to get your friends back in your world. Also better invasion timer systems--see "Dark Souls Dissected #20 - Invasion Cooldown Timers" by Illusory Wall.
Kevingzuman, usually those games aren't relentlessly throwing invaders at you. In Dark Souls 1, I was getting naturally 3-4 invasions per playthrough. Dark Souls 2 was more generous in this regard, but I didn't feel as if I was spammed by enemy players.
@@RailgunovyDepends when you started playing.
Naturally, a newer game in the series is going to have more invasions than an older title.
I played Dark Souls 1 & 2 on release and got plenty of invasions.
I think a good compromise would be to make it so that you cant get invaded until a certain point/story event has happened in the game (somewhere in the early-mid game?). This would make it feel a lot less worse for newer players and allow them time to "find their build" and have a better chance against minmaxed invaders. You could also put a lot of NPC invaders in the early game to teach non-pvp players how pvp works, and please, give the NPCs good AI for once in the series. I think this would help the first-time frustration that people get from PVP. Above all else though, they need to bring back a functioning covenant roster and allow for invaders to have teammates like in ds3. Multi group fights were so fun in that game.
I think From have strong data which made them make the changes they made in ER. I doubt very much that ER suddenly made a lot more people enjoy getting solo invaded. I don't think we'll see it return in any sense like the DS days.
So the question is, how do you make invading more fun for everyone? This might sound kinda outta left field, but, get rid of bonfires.
What I mean by that is, that system in the alpha for DS3 where you make a bonfire out of a corpse? That should be how you recover and refresh the area. Using them should create a checkpoint but also use up that bonfire. That is, you can quit the game there and load back in at that spot. But if you keep playing and you die, you're back at the beginning. I'm imagining a scenario where you keep the Stake of Marika so that when you're at the boss, you don't have to worry about run backs.
No fixed bonfires means no suddenly running to safety if you see the invasion notification. There's nowhere to run to. You need to either press forward, stand your ground, or flee to the entrance. But if you recently used a bonfire, there are likely enemies in front and behind you. So it puts a lot of consideration on hosts. Which I think is reasonable since they're already co-oping and a ton of 3 v. 1 invasions will still end up at the bonfire. Meaning hosts barely have to think about how to proceed in an invasion as things currently are. And putting somewhat more of a burden on hosts than currently exists is hardly going to break the game.
If you as the host die, you're going back to the entrance. If the invader dies, maybe the host gets a new body to use for making a bonfire? Or else they can make a more durable bonfire out of invaders? Something along those lines. It should benefit everyone in some tangible way.
I dunno, I kinda always felt like they were cooking with the "build your own bonfire" thing. I think my rough pass at it here could be massaged to make the whole co-op/invasion dynamic more engaging for invaders and more beneficial for hosts so that even your average band of chucklefucks can learn to see getting invaded as a good thing.
Hosts shouldn't have to think harder because YOU can't get your jollies without taking them away from someone else. Nah, solo invasions can go away forever and I wouldn't cry, but I know it would make y'all sad pandas, so I'd vote for an opt-in that doesn't take away game mechanics for me, instead.
@@BusinessSkrub You seem mad. You should relax. Maybe go play some Elden Ring?
@rainbowkrampus currently playing bloodborne for the first time and loving it, no tryhard losers getting in my way :) Of course I'm bothered by the fact that there are content creators with tens of thousands of people watching who encourage literally being a dick to other players just because it's fun for you. Toxic, childish nonsense. Foh
@@BusinessSkrub Seems a bit unfair if you ask me. "How dare you play this game the way the developers wanted people to play it!?!"
It's pretty weird. Like, if you were consistent here, you'd be boycotting these games out of principle. You realize Bloodborne has invasions too, yes? If I'm a jerk in this scenario, Miyazaki ought to be like, thirteen Mecha-Satans to you. He's the one responsible for the game being this way after all.
Instead you just want to bark at me. As though me playing the game as it was designed to be played is somehow operating in a manner which goes against the way the game was designed to be played.
Can you understand why you just seem completely incoherent to me? Like you're just mad and think that you're in some way going to make me feel... anything at all about you expressing your feelings when they're not backed up by anything remotely reasonable?
You certainly haven't made yourself or your position sympathetic in any way here. Kinda just seems like all you're really doing is seeking some sense of catharsis. Which like, my dude, just go rub one out or something. There really are better ways of achieving this sort of thing.
@rainbowkrampus invasions weren't intended to be a noob stompfest, you must be joking LOL people invading each other under normal circumstances and doing normal pvp is what they were INTENDED for. If you think griefing the playerbase is the intent of solo invasions from the start, then why aren't they in Elden ring? Herp derp maybe because that's not the fucking point and people had been abusing it for way too long lmfao. Sorry not sorry you can't harass people anymore, go outside and play with the hose
personally, the solo invasion system would be mostly fine if I didn't have to jump through 3 separate hoops every time I wanted to be invaded.
my main problem is furled finger remedies, I seriously don't understand why they're in the game in the first place. If I want to coop, I'll have to summon someone manually anyway, and the fact that they get disabled every time I so much as die, teleport, or who knows what else adds another tedious step to engaging in multiplayer whether I'm looking to be invaded solo or play coop. So every time I want to be invaded solo, (which I wanted to do in a dedicated playthrough to improve at PvP) I was constantly needing to stop, remedy, tongue, then move on with what I'm doing. But because the start of the game (most of the game really) consists of teleporting around the place picking up items and gathering runes to get my build in place, I ended up putting the whole idea down because of the sheer amount of menu navigation I was doing just to engage in the game the way I wanted to, which might've been fine once I actually got to a legacy dungeon, but those areas are honestly so few and far between, and dealt with relatively quickly on a repeat playthrough, that the whole point of getting invaded solo was lost.
Basically, I just wish the taunters tongue was a simple once off toggle item, and that I didn't have to go through the process of "turning on" multiplayer every time I wanted to engage with it or after I die by using a remedy.
I say this as an avid invader, no. There is simply no way to balance true invasions without alienating most hosts or invaders. Not counting items/covenants that invite invasions, those are either ganks or duels. They need to add a new PvP system to their Souls games, its time.
Colosseum sucks because it doesn't leverage what makes base game good, like map design or enemy variety. Imagine playing 3v3 capture the flag in a Leyndell chock full of knights. Imagine playing 2v2 king of the hill across Liurnia, giant shrimps sniping people. Something along those lines.
Keep 1v1 duels, and add a 2v2/3v3 objective mode that take place at actual locations with NPC enemies/bosses involved. Don't split the PvP player base more, just those two options. Add a multiplayer rewards shop with rare drops (replaces farming for items), and add a ranked ladder. I think that would be really popular.
Invader here too. That is literally removing the point of invasions. Invasions are supposed to be a surprise. A random threath. Not a secondary mode of gacha games. And dark souls was balanced good around invasions. That's the beauty of it, you agree to invasions the moment you buy these games. If not, they are not for you. Souls games never should lose their essence like Elden Ring almost does it for the sake of new players. I was new player too and was killed by invaders AND NEVER cried about it because i knew what i was getting into.
The online play being so poor, or rather just more of an afterthought is the reason I’ll always have more hours on DS3 compared to Elden Ring. The co-op and invasions in DS3 during its height and even for years after led to some of the best moments I’ve had in my lifetime of gaming
I really agree with a lot of what was said here, as a person who really hates getting invaded solo.
I think one "problem" with solo invasion is sort of the inverse of "bonfire duelists": solo invaders who ONLY fight alongside the enemies in a level. I understand that that is the optimal way of winning your invasions, but playing through an area for the first time, still struggling with enemy placements and move sets only to be invaded by a guy who already knows what lies ahead is really frustrating.
I know being frustrating is the appeal to some people, what I don't understand is how someone draws satisfaction from watching me die to a Ringed Knight or Silver Knights in Anor Londo.
Also something frustrating on the invader side is people rushing to fog gates when I finally show up 😢I think coop invasions at least mitigate both of theses issues a lot, I just wish I engaged with them more by actually summoning people that aren't standing next to the boss fog.
Completely agree! That would be an 'everybody wins' situation. Well, besides the people who hate invasions altogether. But I would say they have the wrong mindset about invasions anyways.
Without watching the full video - YES!! They make the games so much more fun and dynamic.
Could have been solved with some covenant mechanics, like covenant invading zones like the Dark Forest in DS
Also the Gravelord covenant or the seeds from DS2 made invasions more fun and allowed for interesting scenarios and reversals....it's such a huge waste of potential we never got any covenants or covenant mechanics in Elden Ring.
Ratatokr's description of a good invasion for him just sounds like a giant waste of time for me as a host.
No i'm not going to chase you into mobs, so I guess I'll just kill myself so I can get back to the game. Thanks, your "good" time has degraded my fun.
I even ended up abandoing a full playthrough with my friend because the invasions just got so dam annoying. This has soured my opinion on invasions. I'm not a fan of someone else's fun, to be at the expense of anothers.
Now I want everyone to have fun, and I have had fun with solo invasions.
There needs to be a opt in/out option for both Solo and Multi play. Give the opt in option some bonus that makes the hassel worth it. Let multiplayer group presist through death, so when we do die its not a chore to re form the group.
Literal loser mentality.
Nah it's pretty anticlimactic to just murder lone hosts lol
No... I may be entirely biased against invasions.
People don’t talk enough about invasions don’t even work against non ganker co-op as it is.
I’ve helped hundreds of people beat astel and i can’t remember seeing even one red phantom at the fog door.
PVP has always been trash because theres always lag due to these games using peer to peer connection. This has been a problem since Demon's Souls and they never bothered to fix it. Honestly Elden Ring made the right call by having invasions off by default until you summon help so you don't have to be interrupted by laggy non functional garbage combat while still enjoying messages and bloodstains. If I want PVP I'll just play an actual fighting game.
@@5.99USD Says more about your internet connection than the game.
@@Lobsterwithinternet There's always lag even with the best possible connection. The only way to not have lag would be to hard wire 2 consoles or PCs directly together in a closed network. You comment says alot about how you don't know how p2p connections work.
@ Or shows how shit your connection is since I've almost never had that much lag at any place I've lived.
Heck, I've been on hotel internet that didn't lag as badly as you're complaining about.
I'm starting to think you're just angry you got beaten by someone online. 😄😄😄
@@Lobsterwithinternet Oh you're just a moron. Got it. I thought you were trying to have a discussion.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Okay you're just a brain damaged troll. Got it. I thought you were trying to have an actual discussion for a sec.
Yes they absolutely should. There is an unparalleled sense of anxiety and terror as being invaded in an unfamiliar area, when you got a bunch of souls on the line.
Something that made the earlier games very special imo