I misattributed a quote to Rizio, but it was in fact Ruca Burankee who left the comment about how Souls games always give you the tools to invade early in the game. It's full of insights, it is the pinned comment on this video: ua-cam.com/video/H316yMu2qcY/v-deo.html&lc=UgwCEqHsV8wYzYD71FJ4AaABAg
Having graduated to invasions.. This is the most important game mechanic I have ever experienced. Going from knowing nothing and scared of invaders to knowing something and excited to face hosts and their friends has been a blast! This 1500 hours of progression have been the most rewarding thing that just keeps on giving next to having my beautiful daughters. Bless you Miyazaki !!!!
@@Kossagubben The price for co-op is the possibility of being invaded, think about it you have a complete and utter advantage with more estus flask than the invader, as well as having a friend gank with you. Not only that but with covenants such as the dark moons, and way of blue you’re almost never outnumbered. Another precaution you could take is avoiding PvP hot-spots such as, the Pontiffs backyard, Farrons, and most of the ringed city. If you still believe that you are somehow being “harassed” when invaded then perhaps Dark souls is too hard for you?
I haven't invaded much, mostly stick to helping people with PVE, but I appreciate that it's in the games and I am glad it is going to be in Elden Ring. Some of my best memories playing Souls are random invasions, especially the naked guy who killed me with dung pies in Anor Londo on my first play through. It adds a degree of drama, tension, and terror - and comedy - that helps makes these games the most engaging multiplayer experience IMHO.
My issue with multiplayer is that there's such a high cost to it - if I'm not embered I won't see friendly summon signs, or get invaded and that sucks because I don't want to waste my embers running through the game on my first playthrough, hoping to get friendlies or get invaded. The fact that I have to spend a limited resource I have no way of buying infinitely feels - not unfair - but a missed opportunity to really maximize the fun of multiplayer. They're coming up with a new system in Elden Ring that works better (Miyazaki said so in an interview) so I'm excited for that.
There is something to this - on the one hand, making death costly makes decisions more weighty. On the other, if you make it *too* costly, then people hoard resources like embers.
@@iamamish Of course it makes sense to make death a costly outcome, but does it really make sense to prevent you from being invaded when you're unembered? Instead of paying a price, now you won't get invaded at all, making the game *easier* instead of harder to navigate. It essentially incentivizes players to play on the easier mode - being unembered - because hard mode is too expensive. Which leads to them missing out on the fun of being invaded.
If you use embers EVERY time you die, then thats your own fault, and whenever you do multiplayer and actually win, then you get an ember, or just play offline, why do you need to play with other players? there are several options in the game to switch off mutliplayer. i have several characters with over 500 embers each, or the equivalent in the other games such as bloodborne and dark souls 1-2, if you want embers, go get them. Its a finite resource, and if you feel like you NEED friendly NPCs or other players to help you at your beck and call, then thats literally a "You" Problem, because in DS1 i got to O&S, used all 30 humanity, and was absolutely convinced that if i didnt have humanity for solaire, then id never progress in the game, but i grinded for ages to upgrade a different weapon, got myself some soft humanity, and i beat the shit out of them myself, i spent DAYS on them, and ever since that i was able to beat any challenge the games have thrown at me. Embrace the challenge, embrace the perseverance, embrace taking on the world by yourself, instead of having a merry jaunt through a fantasy land like 95% of all other games on the market today.
@skair The invasion mechanic is great way to get embers yourself! You're supposed to invade others whenever you have ran out of embers to get more. Invading doesnt cost anything (after you get full orb).
@@mikaj1462 That's true! I definitely agree, it helps incentivize invasions.The scarcity of embers is mostly an issue in most people's first playthrough, when they're getting the hang of the game and don't feel comfortable invading other people.
I've been invading for quite a while now. As anything one does for a while, I've gotten quite good at it. The complain I see most often is people calling me sweaty. Usually through DMs. I mainly invade in Bloodborne myself, and that game allows you to throw game balance off with blood gems. Problem is, I'm one of the few people I know that purposely uses non-optimal blood gems in order to have more balanced invasions. And yet, because I've learned how to handle essentially every situation I can be put in in that game, people think I'm a tryhard. Because I play in a way that uses adaptation. To me, a tryhard is someone who plays with the exclusive purpose of winning, and sets fun aside, as a secondary objective. I'm the guy who invades with the great wooden hammer because it's funny. I'm the guy who invaded with the Reiterpallasch because I think it's really cool. I'm not a murky warrior, but I still don't see how that devalues anything. Even those I consider tryhards are still playing for fun, most likely. I'm not an omniscient judge of character. I don't know who is behind the character I'm fighting. And I have never cared. In the game, you're either an invader, a phantom, or a host. Depending on which one you are, I will help you or fight you. That's all that matters. The game, and real life, are separate aspects. Whoever is the person controlling the character you are fighting is of no consequence. Those who go for ad hominem have already lost.
Something tells me people are calling you sweaty because of your build choice, and given how you put the wooden hammer on par with the Reiter I'm a little worried myself.
@@hobosorcerer i should probably clarify that I don't use the classic reiter/shield gunspam playstyle. Yeah, that's certainly sweaty. No, I use the Reiterpallasch untransformed and only use the transformation attack to shoot. I just think the burrito with it looks really nice and clean. I should've been more clear about that, in retrospect. I completely forgot that aspect of the Reiterpallasch myself. I pair it with the rifle spear and piercing rifle, actually.
@@hobosorcerer like, if I wanted to fight people from afar, I have a bowblade for that. I don't like using it because there's no real risk to playing like that, but the option is there.
1:48 textbook Greatsword reverse BS Great Vid btw, could enjoy vids like this everyday I think an important change that should be made in Elden Ring has to do with the reward and penalty system. While there needs to be a form of penalty for dying to not make it trivial, which the loss of souls does a good job at that. Losing the ability to play with friends/running out of embers is too much. Miyazaki acknowledges this need in one of the recent interview. Altho I would go even further. To make things enjoyable for both parties, I believe killing a human player should also grant a good reward. Whether youre a host or an invader, the best way give newer players the incentive to partake in this aspect of the game is by making it worth their time. For instance, in DS3 I always felt like getting only an ember for killing a phantom or a host was a miss. There couldve been a great opportunity to reward players with weapon upgrade material. Especially in a game like DS3, where you will find more weapons than you can try because you can only upgrade so little in one playthrough. Since the matchmaking is based on weapon upgrade, it wouldve made sense to reward players with a titanite shard of your current weapon level per enemy spirit destroyed. Slabs could also have been awarded as greater reward just like how covenant are treated/ exchange tongue for covenant reward. I also love the part where you talk about self deception. People do be delusional
Yeah giving hosts more rewards for fending off invaders would be great for the game all around. Rather than simply playing not to lose, more hosts would play to win. They'd also be less frustrated with the mechanic overall.
I played Dark Souls 1 without knowing that it had any kind of multiplayer. Somehow I didn't get invaded until Anor Londo on my second playthrough. I had no idea what was happening and of course I got obliterated, but the thrill of that was definitely when I fell in love with the game. I mostly feel sorry for the invasion haters because they don't experience it in the same way.
Great video, amish. This takes me back to many reddit discussions in 2016-2017, which I assume are the same discussions happening today. And the same discussions that will be happening in 2021, lol. Hopefully a few folks take the time to watch this.
Great to have you back Amish!! Also someone else said it before, but Fromsoft please let me hide the real PvE interrupters: messages. I don’t want every secret in Elden Ring spoiled by the placement and content of messages just because I play online for co-op and invasions. Boggles my mind that’s not an option in the settings. And personally I think Fromsoft should design better rewards for all online interactions - the soul counts for invading are pitiful nowadays, unless you get a party of overleveleds. Not to mention how trash most covenant rewards are. Gone are the DS1 and DS2 days of getting large shards and chunks from covenant invasions. You don’t even get Embers or Humanity from killing reds in DS3, for goodness sake. We’re straying further and further away from the powerful incentive design that ignited newbie interest in PvP back in the day. Hoping ER can address that while retaining the fairly balanced gameplay they refined in DS3.
Messages are still probably gonna happen I don't want to spoil the game for myself but I also wanna see the funny ones like "you must accept fatty" (close to a hallway which you couldn't get in)
Speaking as someone who loves getting invaded... I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a relatively laid back coop experience. The problem is that FromSoft has no desire to deliver this experience, and enabling this experience would get rid of an element many of us want from a FromSoft game, and FromSoft cannot please both. There are plenty of other games that provide a relatively laid back coop experience, there isn't really much else that provides an invasion mechanic.
Yeah quite right. The issue is treating reds as if they're bad people for engaging in a game mechanic. It's fine if you don't care for it, but don't make the mistake of projecting your fears of the game onto the people enjoying it.
Precisely this. If I wanted a laid back co-op experience, I'd play Journey instead. Dark souls of all places just isn't the place to complain about this.
Great quality as always dude! I'd like to share my most recent experiences with a new way of multiplayer that I discovered to be really funny and rewarding to me, which is involving those several times mentioned high wall twinks. Most of my PvP I recently get from co-op, to be more precise I play as white sign high wall mound maker and help new players defend against the twink invaders. I want to do it in a way that doesn't encourage ganking tho, that's why I use purple cov. to signal them to stay away or I can't keep them from getting hurt, also by myself. To me it's really fun to fight dark hand twinks in a starting class disguise cosplay (with a +1 longsword or claymore in knight fashion) and outplay them due to my thousands of hours of practice, even though they deal 4 times as much damage... And the hosts are often so thankful, it's a good feeling to be appreciated for your help, rather than just winning a fight. I hope in ER there's also going to be covenants to balance PvP in such a way that doesn't benefit gankers as much as blue cov. does. White sign mound maker cov. CAN BE used for that... but most certainly it's not always used like that... Therefore you will rarely get summoned for co-op as purple by anyone who is aware of the cov. mechanics...
White sign Moundmaker is my main multiplayer use in DSIII, and i don't agree, i usually play around 120, so a lot of players who know the "risk" about that summon use it anyway. But at lower level, it won't be long before i get summoned by a new player. I even get summoned by a guy at Irythill dungeon who was reading a guide, because he was often stoping for few secondes when progression was made and always go to where the progression was most optimal. It was curious to watch, really. Not unusual to see a player trying to understand what is the difference between you and a classic white spirit. Sometimes they give you a hit to see what happens. And we play the level. I hope there will be a covenant like that in Elden Ring.
@@TransparentBarriers that's good news for me, I just assumed on higher levels people would rather see you the same way as a red summon except for not having ember HP... It's nice to hear people still co-op with purples later on.
@@Lucky_B4stard It's rare to see a purple summon sign, so i'm not surprised more people use it today. And sometimes, your summon sign is the only one avaible. In Irythill dungeon, you are often the only random summon sign =) In lvl70 it don't need a long time to get someone.
I had no idea that NPCs could do plunge attacks like that until that happened. Thanks for watching! I was lurking in one of your streams recently, hope to see more soon.
@@iamamish notable plunge attackers: thralls (such as in the cathedral of the deep) & corvian knights (if you suddenly lose hidden body directly underneath or something)
Another notable thing is that players specifically lose the human/embered status on death, so that invaders can't usually make someone lose a valuable bloodstain by killing them a second time. The bloodstain mechanic is designed to give motivation to push at least as far as the player got last time, which would not work well together with the unpredictable nature of invasions. Fromsoft made sure that the main thing people can lose to invaders, is the multiplayer resource itself. I'm really curious how that separation of semi-incompatible mechanics will work in Elden Ring (which has been announced to have less of a resource demand for multiplayer). I guess there's a decent chance it won't have bloodstains/soul loss in the usual form as being pushed back to the exact spot you died in an open world could feel quite limiting.
That's an interesting point. Honestly I never thought about it, but you're right - dying to an invader naturally puts the brakes on further invasions. If you remove the embers from the game, what stops future invasions? It'll be interesting to see how From manages this - cool observation!
@@iamamish I've actually noticed that bloodborne noticeably lacks this brake. I invade in Mergo's Loft: Base often, which is one of the 3 PvP enabled areas in the game (alongside Mergo's Loft: Middle and Nightmare Frontier) and I've had to develop some standards. If someone goes afk by the lamp, no such mechanic exists to stop them from being repeatedly invaded. You can actually purposefully make an afk player lose their bloodstain within 15 or so minutes of continously invading. I try to be compassionate. If I invade an afk player, I leave their world peacefully. If I invade them again, I kill them. If I invade them once again, I kill them and destroy their bloodstain. Fourth time is where I make it interesting. Invading an afk player is no fun. Fortunately, there's no real limit to how far they can be taken. There's an elevator right next to the lamp. A few gentle nudges with your fist can easily move them into it. I call the elevator and push them in. I take them upstairs. Then I take them across the hallway to the building with the spiders on it. Then I leave them with low health. They'll be disoriented when they can back, but until they do, they're outside of my damn turf and I don't invade them anymore. Win/win, except both of those wins are mine.
@@iamamish you know it. Do the same thing for years and you eventually develop your own personal style. I notice this a lot with how you play as a Spear, you have your own responses and sequences you follow. I've noticed you only cast heals while under the effects of the divine spear fragment, and always go for the phantoms first, then pressure the host. It's things like these, personal styles, that make us unique as players, individually. Like sure, I could just equip a beasthunter saif and you could just equip a Murky Hand Scythe and fight people with minimal care, but that's not even close to what we look like in a fight. Personal style > winning, imo. Winning can be hard, winning with style is hard and rewarding.
Second hand frustration watching that parry spamming one handed gs turn and burn guy at 12:00. One of the more annoying styles to fight, especially with latency. Great vid Amish! Really looking forward to the slew of content that will be coming from you and SillyDog on Elden Ring when it releases.
Invasions are so crazy. One of mine tonight, I one-shot two of the host's phantoms with a charged Astora Greatsword R2 counter hit, one after the other. It was hilarious.
From what I remember when I was a noob back in DS1 - invasions really did feel unfair, even when disregarding the rampant grief/low level invasion issues. Due to the game design, there can be no skill-based matchmaking. Which means you might be on your first playthrough ever and run into multiple different invaders who are veterans and know literally every weapon matchup in the game. Imagine playing a game like League of Legends or Rocket League, and running into a top 100 or even a top 1000 player. It's just not even remotely a fair matchup, so much so that you're not really going to be learning much of anything.. It's like you're trying to learn how to fly a jet plane, but before you can learn how to properly take off, you are tasked with surviving a dog-fight against two air force pilots. Overall though, I'd agree with your points that people just don't want to lose, and typically hide this fact from themselves behind layers of excuses. It's a waste of time, I don't want to play like that, I'm not a competitive person. (Everyone's competitive when they're winning) This is all a guise to keep from getting down on yourself for losing constantly. However, there's tons of people who've played these games for years at this point, and the mountain you have to climb to be competent in PVP is a bit higher than it used to be back in DS1 days if you're starting from the beginning.. So I have at least a bit of patience for people's complaints, so long as they aren't trying to push for an easy mode in the game.
Yes I actually agree with you - DS 1 invasions were tremendously unfair to hosts, and I think this is where the 'red = griefer' idea started. It wasn't wrong, either. Ds 1 invasions were terribly balanced in favor of the invader.
Yeah, I think this is the main reason that many people dislike invasions. Most people hate to lose, and losing by a wide margin leads people to think that trying to improve is a waste of their time. Invasions are VERY far from a perfect system, and not even close to being balanced, a group of casual players will get steamrolled by a veteran player 9 times out of 10.
@@iamamish I'm not sure if I agree with you there. Even if we buy the premise that DS1 was somehow unfair to the host when invaded, it's curious that comparatively few people complained about the mechanic back then. Most people just accepted it for what it is. Ironically, only when From gave more and more advantages to hosts did the complaints (and DC's etc.) start to ramp up. But I personally think invasions in DS1 are not at all unfair to either side, always with the exception of twinking - which is a problem in all Souls games, not just DS1. There simply are no substantial artificial disadvantages for the invader, putting them at eye level with the host, making the outcome of a fight solely dependent on the opponents' respective skill level in a 1v1. Sure, that sucks for a new player being invaded, but a new player can practice and become an experienced player. An invader in DS2 and DS3 who has all those artificial disadvantages going against them, can practice all they want, they will always face those disadvantages. Sure, it levels the playing field against new players, but if those new players stick around, they become experienced players. And now invaders - who btw can also be new players - have to face that, but are still limited by those disadvantages. If anything, *that* seems unfair to me, at least in the long term, while the DS1 system is, if at all, unfair only in the short term.
@@Nyffenschwander well I'm probably guilty of talking out my ass to an extent here. I'm certainly no DS 1 expert. My sense is that the invasion mechanism was much more invader-friendly. Of course, nobody really complained about that because the mechanic hadn't changed too much. It's only now with the benefit of hindsight that we see how friendly it was to the invader. I think some of the advantages weren't necessarily intended, but being able to carry so many blessings around, the twinking, the difficulty of fighting PVE and an invader simultaneously, etc. contributed to a much harder host experience.
It’s a good argument to say you can’t have one without the other, if you wanna summon you have to be open to being invaded. From really fixed that aspect from DS1 because you can use an ember at anytime instead of reverse hollowing at a bonfire and making the trip from the bonfire to boss made it a lot easier to be invaded. If you want to play with the messages but not be invaded then play unembered
I retired a while ago from being a try hard pvper but recently started a co op play through with some close friends who got into souls. It’s been so crazy eye opening for me hearing there thoughts on invasions. like you said in video there attitude evolved as they began to appreciate and understand the pvp, but they were horrible r1 spammers at first it was kinda embarrassing haha. Great video as well mate 🙂
Once again, you provide a balanced, nuanced take that approaches the mechanic from both sides, and it's a delight to hear the argument put into words so clearly. Wonderful video, Amish!
I'm all for invasions, but I will absolutely be playing offline first run through. I don't want the experience ruined with interuptions. Not invaders; they're fine. I want the experience of walking off a hidden cliff without 4000 notifications alerting me to it.
Also has the added bonus of not seeing enemy ambushes. Watching my housemate on their first run through Bloodborne Charnel Lane just stopping to read about the old lady ready to push them off a cliff was a let down.
@@colbyboucher6391 From my perspective personally though, I wanted to experience the fun gameplay of others invading me and trying to overcome them. But this wasn't really very viable in DS1. And I think to Amish's point, most people who complain about invasions still want to be able to co-op the game with phantoms. Can't always get what ya want.
I started playing DS3 two months ago and as a beginner was beaten by twinks or ganked in the Woods and Pontiff's area. I hated every invader and hated the fact that I'm pathetic and miserable. A bit later I was doing better against Reds and by the time I reached the Archives realized - I want to be invaded more. Every time I saw "Dark Spirit invaded" it was thrilling and exciting. At that moment I understood why Reds do that - they feel the same emotions and are looking for a challenge. Now I invade myself and have a lot of fun. It's hard, challenging but very satisfying.
That's it exactly. This though is why twinking is so cancerous. Not only does it give reds an unfair advantage, it does so when hosts are at their most vulnerable. They're new to the game, and this is not exactly a welcoming experience.
I've enjoyed every non-PlayStation Fromsoft game to date, and as a casual player I'm glad to see that Fromsoft seems to be phasing out forced invasions slowly but surely. I will never engage in pvp; these are thoroughly single player games to me, but the potential for penalty-free co-op would be a great addition. Elden Ring is an extremely fun game that's full of adventures and things to do, and I cannot wait for the sequel that may finally have co-op and pvp become completely independent concepts. I also don't think I'm in the minority opinion. Elden Ring is a massive, massive financial success and has opened the franchise to more new players than possibly every other Fromsoft game combined. With invasions being co-op only very few people are likely to even be exposed to them and, as you say, everyone's first opinion of invasions is negative. Money talks, and with so many new people and their initial negative reaction to invasions, I can envision more and more catering to players like me. The lowered difficulty with co-op is secondary to a shared experience with friends. I care more about having a fun time (key thing being within the framework of a Fromsoft combat system/environment) than getting a sense of accomplishment by overcoming a difficult obstacle. Couldn't I just play a different game with my friends instead? Sure, and we do. But we also enjoy this style of game as well, and we would like to play this together as well (though the summoning system would need to be more robust and not limited via area boundaries). Edit: I do think that invasions as a concept shouldn't be removed entirely for people that want to willingly allow themselves to be invaded, solo or otherwise. I even think that it should be an opt-out setting so at least everyone can possibly get some initial exposure, because obviously some people DO enjoy it. However, I think Elden Ring shows the franchise is becoming more and more casual, regardless of any multiplayer concept of co-op vs invader sense of difficulty balancing. Mimic Tear +10 and Moonveil allow for easier bossfights than any summon possibly could due to the lack of increased boss HP, and that's just one example in the game.
It's like you reached into my brain and pulled out my exact thoughts on the matter, and then said them in a much more polite way. I'm definitely linking this video to anyone i see in the future that uses these dumb complaints against invasions, when there is in fact legitimate complaints to have against invasions
You say the feature to disable invasions has not existed except for playing offline, but that's not true you could play as a phantom/hollow granted that has varying downsides depending on the game. Co-op and invasions are linked thought and really good video. You should put the music tracks in the description, they sound pretty nice. Especially whatever is playing at around 3:30.
Yes there are definitely ways to avoid invasions but I meant there is not a “disable invasions” configuration, where you can just completely disable them. Thnx for the kind words on the music - I pull stuff from UA-cam Audio.
Since this is a topic that affects us all, here's my two cents (invader perspective): - "people dislike invasions generally/dislike high wall twink invasions, they should just play offline" > In all of the fromsoft games there's sort of a "cooldown" to invasions: In DS1 you can only get invaded if you're human, in DS2 I think there's a cooldown for when you're hollow, in DS3 there's the ember state. Since it's the start of the game, many people will die a lot, often witout reaching the 1st bonfire, so why does it matter what you die to? Besids the friendliness of some invaders, twink invasions can show you cool armor sets, weapons, items and if you're getting invaded by a status build you're already familiar with poison/bleed, so you can take preparations to not die to it in the poison swamp regions. All in all there's nothing to lose, except for - you already meantioned it - "status". I personally don't recommend people to play offline because they create the most hilarious moments, better than any PvE moment. For comparison my favourite Sekiro moment (besides beating bosses) was finding out that there's a headless just below the surface of one of the ashina castle ponds. My favourite DS2 moment was combining the warmth spell with the crown of the old iron king for unlimited healing, essentially cheesing the entire ivory king DLC. barely 10mins later I got destroyed by an invader. I messaged him and he helped me to kill lud&zallen. - "reds just run away" > There's not much you can do in a 3v1 or 4v1 unless the skill difference between you and the co-op party is huge. That being said I highly dislike passive play since it's not fun for the invader nor the squad. Constant range fights with greatbows/xbows while the party tries to move on is just annoying for them and doesn't require any skill from the invader. Same for 1v1s or 2v1s: The hosts goal is to kill the area boss, not the invader, so if they're staying at the bonfire, it's the invaders task to be aggressive or to black crystal, rather than to hide in the level for 20mins. If an invader can't stand his ground in a 2v1 then I'd recommend the arena as the chances of a 1v1 are much higher than in invasions. (Of course this is entirely different if you're fighting a gank quad)
in ds1 you also couldnt invade the same person twice within i think 5 mins or so, unless they dry fingered, might be so for ds3 as well but dont quote me on that.
This video is perfect Amish! Thanks for the detailed breakdown. I laughed when you were questioning what your Mom's basement has to do with being good at invading. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at PvP and I have a wife and a full-time job! lol The time we live in when "try hard" is considered an insult! I've literally seen people playing with a Min Max build say, at least I'm not a try hard when they lose. Of course when they win, they themselves are not a try hard. The worst for me are the players that have no problem fighting you as long as their phantoms are alive, yet the second they lose their phantoms they disconnect. I just hope there is some form of penalty or balance for constantly disconnecting. In the Demon's Souls remake you can disconnect and be back to the exact spot you were in legitimately under 10 seconds, minus the invader. I'd say the majority of the arguments I hear are along the lines of I want to co-op with a buddy, but not be invaded, which I've always thought, wouldn't it be more fun to try and kill the invader with your buddy, practice and actually get good at the game, rather than disconnecting every 5 minutes? Like, you said, I'd think if FromSoftware really wanted that option they'd have it after five straight games of, one phantom equals one invader!
Spot on - I really hope they add in a consequence for disconnects. You can meme all you want about them being weak for disconnecting, but at the end of the day, it does kind of take the joy away of winning the fight - at least slightly.
@@bradley2349 for me that was true, at first, but eventually I came to enjoy the DCs even more than victories. You broke somebody so much that they'd rather *forcibly shut down their game* than accept a loss. Plus, their invasion priority remains elevated, so they're gonna have to go through it again.
Hey amish, you have very good arguments about invasions. I really hope this video reaches to those people who do not like invasions and convince them to participate in Elden Ring invasions. On another note, it is very impressing that you can win Spear of the Church invasion. Wining there It is very difficult because the small arena. Usually. I don't win against four players in a spears invasion.
The problem is that without regen you're in big trouble. With it, it can make you too powerful. The covenant needs an in-between way imo. Thanks for the kind words Limits!
When I first played this game I was filled with joy when I was invaded. At the time I still couldn’t tell when it was an NPC invader or a human player, but regardless I was so excited. I always asked my friends (gotta have the three sunbros of course) to let me fight them. I went through quite a few embers this way, but to WIN... felt so much better than any boss kill, even Darkeater Midir. PVP is the greatest test in soulsborne and also the greatest joy, and I genuinely believe people who don’t feel the same lack understanding of the mechanic or are simply brats who never cared to learn how to be better at something they weren’t initially amazing at.
I think it is more subtle. Some people do not like competing against other humans. It raises the stakes and makes people edgy. Of course this is exactly why From puts it into the game. I’m glad you enjoy it so much. I do too. ;)
@@iamamish I don’t know if I would describe that as subtle. People tend to not compete if they don’t believe they’re the best or can become the best, so they choose to not compete. Or they don’t understand the competition and lack the interest. I don’t see how anyone could look down on invasions unless it was from a lack of understanding or from a place of privilege. The only other reasonable reaction to invasions is happiness or indifference for the very reasons you mentioned; invasions are a part of the soulsborne lore and gameplay by default and by design. It’s not an accident, and pretending invasions are bad for new players is self deception run amok.
@@iamamish not to imply someone can’t say “I don’t like invasions”, that’s fine, we all have opinions. But WHY they dislike invasions as a mechanic is the crucial element.
OK I get this question a lot, so before I delete my video project file, let me try to account for everything I used. It's all from the UA-cam free audio library. In order, the songs are: * Seductress * Stuck In The Air * Psychic Need * No Good Right * Mellow Hipster * Low * Liberation
I agree on all of this except for one thing, the “reds just run away thing” is of course not completely true at all. But in circumstances where I’m all alone in a play through and I get invaded by a guy that keeps running into the mobs and forces me to fight him off while he chucks bombs and arrows as well as every pve in the game. That is frustrating enough for me and I couldn’t imagine what noobs think. Of course an easy fix to that is just disconnecting but spending 2 minutes to get back into your game is a large inconvenience to me
That's why you have access to summoning phantoms. To deal with such situations. And again, if you dont want to summon phantoms nor get invaded, play offline.
In these cases you could threat running to the boss (and fight invader if they come to prevent it) Rush them with quite high risk of dying Or play it slow and steady, snipe pve slowly untill theres none left
I've been invaded thousands of times, and can count on one hand the number of times this has happened to me. It definitely does happen, but the prototypical 'reds just run away' is really false. The funny thing re: Jee's point is as reds, we're the least likely to be willing to summon help to deal with it when it does happen, due to pride. I speak from experience.
@@iamamish I'm glad that's been the case for you, but for others it's a much more common affair- especially for newer players in sl brackets that aren't full of more experienced invaders. This comes off like a "if it's not happening to me then it isn't a problem" kind of take.
@@hobosorcerer It's not that kind of a take. "Works for me" would indeed be dismissive. Given all the hours I've played at all manner of SL, I think I have a reasonable sample size that's not biased in any particular direction. I'm simply pointing out that while it is true that some reds truly do just run away to the PVE, it is very much the exception. I can't imagine somebody else having a really different experience. Plus, and I didn't address this in my video, it's completely fair play if a red chooses to do this. I understand that it may not make for the most compelling gameplay, but it is the variety of choices that everyone has that contributes to the fun gameplay. The game gives you lots of tools to deal with reds like this (summoning, WoB, seeds). Putting it another way - the frequency with which I hear the 'reds just run away' complaint vs. the frequency with which I've actually observed it happening makes me skeptical of the underlying complaint.
I was revisiting Demon's Souls on PS3 (can't afford a PS5 and my computer isn't good enough for RPCS3) and on the Archstones custom server there's only like 5 people online at a time now. It's sad to see, considering the game was still bustling a few years ago. I've never done an invasion before really, but after I accidentally fell off a cliff and felt like 8 ephemeral eyes was too little, I decided to track down one of the 4 other players online in 3-2, and luckily we were the right level because I only had to try once and we connected. It was thrilling. I've been trying to invade more people now to keep the game alive, but I haven't had any luck since that one time.
When I first picked up dark souls remastered I played the game almost exclusively hollowed. Same with ds3, my first play throughs were largely unembered, so I ran into at most a couple of invaders. When I still wanted to play through the game but needed some variety then I started to play embered and engage in invasions. Now I welcome invaders, to me its completely in the spirit of the dark souls world that there are hostile spirits from other worlds who come to engage you in battle. And the fact that to some degree you can make of invasions what you will; as a host you can manipulate events to create a duel, or a gank, or help blues farm concords, etc. Or you can completely avoid them, either by playing offline or unembered.
Well put! I played DS 3 unembered quite a bit my first time through, just to minimize invasions. But that was a trade-off - I had less HP as a result, and couldn't summon phantoms.
Hopefully invasions are as good as they sound like in Elden ring, especially with more convenient ways to get invasions since multiple player is gonna be more convenient, so hopefully every area will be viable for consistent invasions. I also hope they change how invasion chance work and to make it a flat increase all the time based on the ambit of summons instead of instead of the party being immune to invasions for a pretty long time once they kill one red phantom
This video perfectly encapsulates how a lot of people feel about the complaints of PvP but aren't able to properly verbalize or communicate it without sounding too "elitist/sweaty," which is usually the name thrown out when they want to disable invasions.
First of all, really good video. Well thought out, IMO. I mainly jolly co-op \[T]/, but recently started to get into invasions mainly as host though. I had a horrible experience with being invaded when I first started playing DS3, and it just turn me off from that aspect of the game. From twinks to glitch wizards, whole thing just disgusted me. Then I had a great experience with Dark Spirit. Invader caught me in Anor Londo and I was running him all over the location. He hits me the "Hey!" and I calm down and turn around. He puts his weapon away and I do the same. He then sets out 5 Souls of Champion for me. He steps back, I pick up the gift. He leaves a couple of more gifts.. Some embers and some siegbraus.. After I calmed down, we shared a toast. I got up and armed myself. He did the same. We had a great duel and I'll leave the winner to your imagination. 😉 After that experience, as a host, I have always welcomed the Dark Spirits when they come to visit me. You make a great case for taking that next step and start invading... Mad Phantom only, tho. 😜
I've lost more time dying to a cathedral knight with 200000 souls on me than I ever have from getting invaded. I got the souls from one of my first invasions in crucifixion woods like Sl27 +2, just invading casually during my first playthrough. I had a fire infused flamberge; I got lucky dropped off a thrall. There were 3 overleveled phantoms in the woods with ring knight weapons and vestiges killing a bunch of noobies (myself included) I kept re-invading and eventually actually killed one before getting blendered. So i ran over to where i died back in my world and picked up half a million souls like 400000+. I bought everything back in firelink but didn't want to use it to level up because it felt cheap (i would've gone from level 27 to 60+ before leaving farron in context this system is kinda broken delete overleveled's) so i was like i'll just hold onto it until i can run into someone to send to firelink like cornyx and buy from. then i died to the cathedral knights in front of deacons and couldn't get back.
One of my most precious invasion memories is my first, back in DS1 on ps3 years ago. i got the idea to invade while I was stuck in ariamis for a real life week. this guy was spamming those eye lure things to get people in his world and we were all fighting in the snowy area before the bonfire. I was using the dragons tooth and kept jumping of the short hills and plunging people it was legit the kindling that rose into my love of ds3 invasions.
Great video man! Yea I can’t wait for elden ring! I’m so ready. Great points and such, a lot of these are way too true. It’s always hilarious how people get so upset about losing to a human player , your point on that is spot on
Sekiro mechanics still work in PvP anyways. The stuff I've seen from people in the Sekiro PvP mod have been pretty dope. I honestly wish MORE games utilized the invasion mechanic. Great stuff as always, see you in the elden ring you pogchamp
Agree so much, way back when I started playing souls games I used to really dislike invasions and invaders. I finally got into invading in DS3, and now I love it. Anytime I see a red invade my own world, it makes me happy because I know I'm fighting someone who likely really enjoys the game and is just their to have fun. I highly encourage any players who really hate invaders or invasions to actually do some invasions yourself. It will give you a whole new appreciation for the mechanic and it's super fun!
Or, at least they'll realize that invading isn't just about "trolling PVErs", it's about masochistically throwing yourself against a gank because god dammit we're all playing Souls games here
Other invaders are some of the most fun fights you can have. Which isn't to say that this particular bunch is free of bad apples, but as a general rule you're in for a fun time
@@seide2829 his name is iamamish, but clearly he isn't, in fact, Amish. You know, given the fact that the Amish are opposed to using the internet, and whatnot.
I just hope that they make invasions more seamless and easier to do, IE allowing for invasions and summons even after the area boss has died. It would benefit both ganks and invaders. I have hope, though, since they said that they were going to remove some restrictions on where phantoms can go
YES! It's so stupid that I can't summon my friend and continue to explore the level, or get invaded and have a PvP experience, when the area boss is dead. Literally have no clue why they did it.
I miss when invasions weren't gated by upgrade levels, weren't prioritized to hosts with phantoms, and when there were no password phantoms or hotswappable covenants that summoned an endless stream of blues. Sure in worse cases some level 12 pyromancer with a +5 chaos dagger might invade you early on and kick your teeth in a few times, but I think what is important is that this and the other kinds of online woes were important in not only shaping the online community but keeping its longevity - because you wanted to learn to beat that invader, how to counter him, how to BE him. Eventually the hunted joined the hunters and the cycle continues. In das3's online however, you don't get that many invaders outside of the like 3 hotspots because no one wants to invade; the odds are stacked so out of favor that only a much smaller portion of players do it. You might say "well it should be that way invaders should have to work hard for their kills" but I would counter that not only have you disincentivised a core feature that is part of what defines the entire series, but you have also ironically filtered the pool of potential invaders down to the most cutthroat possible - the metamancers who know all the tricks and are optimized for deleting the host in zero seconds flat. That's what remains, cause they have to be that way, because there is little room for anything else when there's an above likely chance that every other host is accompanied by two password phantoms and a blue. It's simply too offputting for the regular player. tl;dr I hope they get rid of password summons, gear upgrade summon requirements, hotswap covenants, and instead go back to the simple system of summon levels - and maybe make sure 3/4 of their covenants aren't broken/useless but actually flavorful. ...and maybe make the zones not so damn huge.
I'm not sure I agree with everything here, but I definitely, and very strongly agree with your point about the selection effect the game's structure imposes on invaders. Only the strongest and most try-hard players are willing to invade into the current game. Fortunately it hasn't always been this way. The first 2 years or so of the game's life, you could be a very average invader and have some success. I'd hate to see a game changed too much in response to what is essentially the end of life for DS 3.
@@iamamish True, early life of the game wasn't as bad but I certainly don't believe any of these systems help the longevity going forward, nor encourages the strange but mostly good hearted schadenfreude of the first game. Thankfully as hyperbolic and pessimistic as I am I do think there are still other factors/game design choices that could alleviate these problems even if they didn't change anything I mentioned, so here's hoping for elden ring's success.
Good point. It’s funny how noobs assumes invading is easy and people just do it to grief. But I got absolutely MURDERED when I first started invading. To the point it was embarrassing. People need to realize no one starts off a pro pvp’er and we’ve all gone through the same struggle.
@@theDiReW0lf exactly. Somebody once pointed out on one of my videos that if you hate losing as a host, don't bother invading, because you will lose 100x more often than any host. Learning to invade is a process of trial and error, with more error than anything.
Totally agree. When I 1st started Dark Souls on xbox 360, I never invaded, much prefer to play alone (no phantom) but I did enjoy being invaded. Only years later have I started to invade others. And some invaders are just fun and friendly, leaving gifts, doing funny stuff. It's a core part of the multiplayer. If you want co op, you should be fine with pvp too. I love the messages and bloodstains, but for me to have them, I have to take the chance of a red wrecking ball. And if you want to improve your reflexes and gameplay, pvp will definitely make you a better player. Or just play offline, it's still really fun too. There's also npcs for bosses if you need 👍. Do miss the honorable invasions of DS1, but still love everything about Souls games
invasion is a really unique mechanic in video game, the souls series has introduced it to me and I'm enjoying it. and i also agree that some people doesn't like invasion because of the competitive mindset, but I had a friend that played dark souls 3 but he disliked the invasions because it took away his ember and he said that it's no fun because he liked the co-op mechanic, but has to lose ember when an invader kills him, so he stopped playing it. then, after I introduced him to the honest merchant mod and said that he can buy ember for 1 soul, he automatically installed it and played dark souls 3. so, I think one of the reason people hate invasion is because it uses a resource that is quite hard to farm in the game... but that is my opinion of course.
...maybe. I've heard people level this charge against invasions before too. Funny though that I've never heard anyone complain about losing to PVE costing you an ember. Lots of studies have confirmed that when we have a moral reaction to something, we have the reaction *first*, then go in search of supporting evidence for that opinion. I suspect the 'invaders cost me embers' argument is an example of this. That said, sure, it is possible that your friend is the exception. Thanks for watching and the comment!
@@iamamish I think I could agree with that, he does play a mobile MOBA game called "Mobile legends" and I could say the players there are really toxic. Just be it the team or enemies, one or two mistakes and both will call you noobs and all sort of things in the chat... scary place indeed
Great video Amish. I think people dislike invasions (besides all the reasons you showed, which are correct) is that other games allow a player to have the cake and eat it too. Most, if not all the games that allow co-op do not have a drawback to that co-op. Its funny, and ironic, that the same people that praise FS games because they are unique criticize the most unique mechanic in FS games (invasions).
The thing I always tell people is that when you talk about Dark Souls to somebody who has never played, but is vaguely familiar with the series, what do they always say about it? "Isn't that the game that is hard and has invasions?" Those are the two things the series is renown for.
Random aside - I remember playing Gears of War co-op, and I think that was one of the best co-op games ever. The interesting thing was that certain sections required you to take divided paths, so you couldn't help each other. If you lived, but your buddy died, you both had to redo it. It actually made those sections *harder* with co-op (2x the chance of death).
I usually invade in gank city, but sometimes I get invaded while making new characters. I only got one pretty bad experience w getting invaded. I was irithyll w shield of want, 7-8 +4 estus, and a +5 raw broadsword at sl 50ish at Irythill pre pontiff. I get invaded by a red w +6 weapons, bundle, +10 estus, siegs and twink rings (I did have prisoners chain equipped tho). So this guy comes in, buffs up and charges at me, as normal (I was at the bonfire right after the doggo). He gets heavily outplayed and heals, again normal, it's an invasion after all. He charges at me w various setups and keeps on losing so he retreates to the PvE, somehow I manage to kill the Knights and still keep some estus (he used 4-5 estus). Then 2 blues arrive and I just stand there without helping the blues (3v1, even w PvE is unfair, so I'm gonna send 2 noob blues against him, while he camps by the fire witches). The 2 blues die almost instantly, ofc. He charges back at me and I force him back again, at this point I have 3 estus. He starts waiting at the PvE, I charge at him w the objective to destroy the PvE first, but I get blendered and somehow survive, w 1 estus and 3/4 of my health. I unequip way of Blue and start waiting for the guy to come at me, but he doesn't, he's there, I don't have enough estus to deal w him, and he prob knows it, but doesn't attack, even as I approach the PvE again he just taunts me. I use my last estus, after retreating again and he again just stands there, I show him I'm out, and he stands there, waiting still for me to attack, something I would never do. We just keep waiting and I get kinda frustrated bc he could easily kill me just by outhealing me w his 6-7 siegs and his estuses. But he doesn't. In the end I kms w the PvE, but I didn't enjoy it one bit. This guy had better damage, better weapons, more heals, good armor and he still wouldn't approach me when I was completely without estus. Like, TF? Why are you not coming at me? But idk what got into him. That's all, sorry for this boring, badly written story.
No, that's a good story. I have had similar encounters. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes you get salty reds who enjoy lots of advantages and yet still play this way. I think they get salty about being outplayed. Personally when I meet somebody who can outplay me, I find it fun as hell and would never just want to wait around. I'd rather lose and have a great fight.
My best invasion as a host was an invader who never had a fight alone with me at ringed city. He was always retreating with PVE, and played as a hybrid mage. I like faith builds so i had the good spell at that moment (great magic barrier), so it was not that painful, but when you know how to beat the pve, it was an interresting thing to challenge. He crystaled out at the end of the big stairs, but at that reach, i used every usefull item i had, even my divine blessing, thing i always avoid using usually because i like to have them in case of, and it was a good situation to use it. I think the invasions i like the most are the guys who really use the pve, even if you play solo or just with one phantom. And that's why coop with moundmaker are so better than regular friendly spirit. You have to think twice before your action, and sometimes that's what kill you. Situations can get to perfect to hell in twice a second. Exemple : I go to attack that tough pve ennemy, but the host try to at the same time, so i retreat from his reach, but shit, the host too, so the pve give an attack, and it reach the two of us, and then the host try to circle him to get a backtab, but at this time, you can't do anything without getting the possibility to hit the host to his death. And the ennemy attack again, and kill the host".
@@iamamish same here. When I duel I prefer to lose for 2 hours against good players than to win against bad/new players. It's just much more tense and fun tbh, and to top it all off I'm learning.
I still disagree with your point that invasions are a good way to balance Co-op. Consistent mechanics should always be used for balancing purposes rather than completely random ones. You yourself have also mentioned the overwhelming advantage hosts can have against solo invaders, so I'm not sure how that feature properly balances anything. Not saying co-op shouldn't have features put in to balance it, just that invasions are a horrible way to do it.
18:12 I've literally seen more than one streamer getting GENUINELY angry at being invaded by NPC's in these games. You would be shocked at the mental gymnastics some of these people perform to justify their dislike of the invasion mechanic. It's kind of incredible how people can miss the point that hard.
God I quit invasions because of a more active life and frankly other games,and Part of it was being under the impression of the pvp being dead after so many years. God...I need to get back into it.
Ds 3 was my first souls game and I hated invasions. The reason was that I was scared of losing souls. In ng you are always close to leveling up, so it was annoying for me for that reason. Now in my ng+ 2 I do not care about souls. I use them only to buy items. Still i do not invade, however I have the Dark moon banner to help people in invasions. Although there are not many players who change to the way of the blue banner for support. Oh and I think that the invasions are great, because it is fun to help other people. I am not great in PVP, but I am trying my best.
That's a good attitude to have. It's true of course that invasions can cause you to lose souls, but so can PVE. If you die, just equip a ring of sacrifice and then go back and get them.
I’m currently playing demons souls on ps5 and I’d say at least half of my invasions quit out as soon as I invade. If someone invades my world I always fight win or lose.
great video as always, i definitely agree with everything you said here. I just wish i could have played ds3 when invasions were at its prime and it wasnt only gankers and people with save files / honest merchant mod. Hopefully invading at the start of edlen ring will be very rewarding and fun as everyone learns to play the game !
You can be invaded when not having co-op partners in Bloodborne. Just ringing the bell spawns in the Bell Lady. Also the most common form of self deception is Cognitive Dissonance.
When I was first invaded I was amazed. I Didn't know someone else connected my ps3 online and I was like "holy shit the ai is so good its even mocking me". Afterwards after some googling I was floored at the invasion mechanic, it was incredible and after my first playthrough I made a character for invading. It amazes me that people will intentionally deny themselves one of the most unique pvp experiences ever invented because they can't take a loss. I'm willing to bet that most everyone who has ever invaded thought to themselves after their first invader, "thats so cool imma do that", while scrubs just pull the plug because the game isn't an easy power fantasy anymore.
I really hate the 'what if I want to do co-op' excuse for not playing offline. These games are balanced for one player; having phantom is a massive advantage and invaders help counter that.
I was talking to a let's player recently on Twitter and they were very frustrated about them (in DS3 - Idk if the encounters were actually bad tbh). I basically told them the same type of things, but it's kind of tough to navigate through those subjects with someone if a part of the issue seems to be the frame of mind they're coming at the game with. I'm not sure how to sell the vanilla offline experience for new players if that's not their thing (and fuck - avoiding "gatekeeping(tm)" to make a point on the abrasive nature of the world/experience, to give perspective on the coop mechanic, is kind of finicky). And yeah you touched on the coop and self deception aspects pretty well, I'm just saying all of that since it's fresh.
@Jinxed Swashbuckler Oh yeah I know. It’s just that they were outright using ‘gatekeepy’ like some sort of inherently meaningful terminology, with an exaggerated gravity that I felt would transpire into any other loose uses of the word, so you kind of have to be more essential about how you bring up difficulty, adversity and such to avoid the buzzword use of it. And yeah I made sure to mention that those items/such would warn of that vulnerability, and how it ties into the world. Idk if the problem’s more about them coping with the decision, than for them to understand/respect that their preferences or wants are actually not in line with the nature of the world/vision. They might not instinctively see the actual intents and how those fit into the game before genuinely immersing themselves into the world of one title and reconsidering first impressions.
You really nailed with the beginning vs late game experience. At first pretty much nobody wants to get invaded by a player who is more knowledgeable and outranks with you experience, its rough and you're likely going to die but this is part of the souls experience, the world is a hostile place and this is even expressed with npc invasions and quests where npcs kill each other or even target you. Then there's the late game experience where you're likely now messing around being an invader and learning the ropes because it adds longevity and a whole new perspective or even using a dried finger and taking on invaders due to the random element to the otherwise predictable game world. The games are very upfront with being invaded, it's part of the game and the lore, it has its purposes in balancing the experience and those who are wholly against it and try to justify themselves are usually the kind of people who disconnect after losing phantoms, jump of ledges when things look bad or sit in 4 man ganks with a traitor red waiting to blender you, drop stalk dung pies and pointing down. Invasions are part of the game and if you don't like it don't play online. Boohoo. Go play Sekiro.
Most funny part is - there is no any "status loss" in this game. At lest for random interactions. There is no matchmaking, ranking, balance (in traditional form). So, there is nothing wrong in geting wrecked by that basement dweller with 2-5k hours playtime if you not basement dweller yourself. Or vice versa, if you not a hardcore tryhard, you'd probably can't handle fully armed ganksquard. This is like... obvious outcome, not something anyone should feel bad about... But for some reason in this franchise people can take themselves (and their victory\lose count) much more serious than in, say, dota or cs. Much more competetive and refined games there competition is main element of gameplay :)
Time to focus more on my irl career for six months so I can kind of get away with losing myself in a video game in six months. But I definitely intend to give DS3 the best send off that I can
18:26 NPCs pose like 5% of the challange a decked out pro "ive been playing DS3 non stop since release" invader does. Its not even remotly comparable, the NPC invader is basically a mob with a red tint.
Yes, but now we're getting somewhere. So what people are really objecting to isn't *invasions*, per se. They're objecting to somebody that is considerably more skilled. And that is the root of what I'm talking about - people don't want to fight somebody better than they are!
@@iamamish Yeah obviously. I dont wanna compete throwing basketballs with Michael Jordan either. And I dont feel good if I win an arm wresting contest against three 8 year olds.
@@iamamish besides that, do you remember when you said you dont participate in SL120 meta because a) cheaters but more so b) its not fun to you. Guess what if I get rofl stomped by a poroifessional invader, that played Ds3 Pvp for the last 3 years, after that happend to me 4 times today already, is not FUN. Its just not fun. Its as much fun as trying to farm farron covenant and running into people that have engame gear on and have 20 flask charges that full heal them. Like........ cool......... I port out. And if I see my invader is a professional I jump off, saves time you know. Just the feeling of having to walk back to your souls because of this also feels miserable. I have no problems getting invaded by someone with similar gear and skilllevel. The problem arises when i have to play someone thats significantly better than me. Show me one competitional sport or video-game that has a matching system like that and expects its players to be happy with that and enjoying it. its just NOT FUN getting shat on because there 3 years of experience skillgap between the players.
Invasions should be more rewarding, though. Especially for the host; at least, _lone_ hosts. If a lone host can beat an invader who specifically brought weapons for killing hosts, they should definitely be rewarded, even if it's just some covenant rewards
Calling invasions a competitive setting might be a bit of a stretch, but it was funny to remember almost identical arguments in other yt or reddit threads, wondering if you were reading off the exact thread I remembered or if that many people have almost identical takes. I guess the 2nd option should have been expected.
@@iamamish Yeah I understood what you meant, but even there I'm not sure I'd call (sub meta) invasions competing with others just because of how invasions are naturally balanced.
14:35 I disagree with you regarding this point. When people say that they don't like invasions I think the main reason why is because pvp invasions are not what they expected or signed up for when starting a FromSoft game. I think this largely ties into the way FromSoft markets their games. FromSoft has MARKETED their games as difficult pve experiences centered around fighting difficult bosses and exploring difficult areas. This is how most normies regard the Dark Souls trilogy. The idea that these games have pvp is either completely unknown to them or so unimportant compared to the pve experience that it is considered an afterthought. The reason people get upset at invasions is that to them, invasions are a deviation from the expected experience of playing the game. I genuinely think that the vast majority of people view the Dark Souls games as purely single-player experiences. Any invasion they are forced into is an annoying surprise to them. And the reason why they think that is because that is the way FromSoft has marketed their games: as a pve game. Players that don't like pvp and only play for pve content come into these games and are surprised when they are forced into pvp. That is why people feel they didn't consent to the invasions. The idea that they consented to the pvp by just starting the game and popping an ember is unclear to them because they weren't even aware of the idea that popping an ember had downsides(a new player won't understand the vague item description). The main solution should be clearer communication from FromSoft that these games have pvp and that the simple act of playing online means that you consent to it.
I agree with you cause I got into the souls games for the PvE alone and considered the PvP as just a bonus multiplayer for those who want it. From really does focus more on PvE.
@@_doop8257 I am largely talking about the general idea of what normies will be expecting when going into a fromsoft game. What content they are preparing themselves for and what experience they think they will have. They will be expecting challenging PvE content, NOT pvp and reading a terms of service will not be enough to change this outline of expectations.
PvP invaders do actually interrupt your plans for how to get through a level. I agree that part of it is about pride, but the "interupt my gameplay" crowd have a point. They're just wrong about it being a bad thing. NPC invaders always invade at the same time, in the same place, and behave the same way. PvP invaders do not. That can be legitimately annoying when you're trying to pick up your souls for the dozenth time. You've just figured out where all the enemies are, when it's safe to attack, exactly when you have to let your stamina regen before you sprint and weave in just the right serpantine to get around the "strong enemy ahead" mob's tracking... and then you get invaded and have to fight someone whos attack patterns are impossible to memorize. But of course the unpredictability is also exactly what makes invasions such unforgettable, unique experiences, every single time.
So that is absolutely true and I do not deny that invaders interrupt you. The problem is that *so does everything else in the game*. The entire game is a series of interruptions, things trying to kill you. I object to the framing - why are invaders the interruption? Why not, for example, the lothric knights?
@@iamamish Right. Well obviously people think of invasions as being different from pve, which it is. But that's not saying much. There are big difference between different pve enemies as well. Something being different and rare doesn't make it an "interruption", in the way that these people use the word. I take it that's your point with lothric knights and midir? That they're a lot smarter and tougher than most pve. Nobody complains that bosses interrupt their normal pve experience. Well, actually SaintRiot did in his most recent lordran lorethrough video a bit, but the point is that it's an uncommon complaint. An example specifically of unpredictability in pve is maybe the pus of man, or even better, mimics. Mimics, like invaders are rare. Mimics, like invaders, have an aspect of unpredictability at least the first time you encounter them (until you learn to look at the shape of the chest's chain... which most people don't ever learn). And while some people do complain about mimics, they're generally accepted as being part of the game much more readily than invasions are
Now that you mention that NPCs always invade in the same spot, it reminded me of Forlong in DS2, I think he invades randomly every where in the game. I wonder why FromSoft didn't implement that in DS3
@@fallenasleep7247 OK but I think we are getting closer to what I see as the root issue. What really differentiates invaders from PVE? Sure, they're less predictable, OK. They're also less frequent than most PVE. But I don't really think that's what is driving the frustration. I'll bet $100 that you could have tough PVE that randomly spawned and nobody would characterize it as an 'interruption'. They might get frustrated by it, or find it too difficult, or something similar. But it is this framing as an 'interruption' that I think is misguided. How does a game interrupt itself? I think it is the human element that people key into, and they just frame human interaction differently than PVE. All those other aspects of invasions vs PVE (frequency, predictability, difficulty, etc) are red herrings.
"Invaders are like tanks from left for dead 2". I'm not gay but bruh...... I fucking love you! That's one of the most euphoric things I've heard all year!
There's some truth to the invaders run away complaint, although it's situational. I've been playing a lot as a blue lately and of course they run into the level, they're now outnumbered, it's the smart play, but unlike most blues IDGAF and run into the level to chase them. My problem is when I'm invaded solo and the host is all for finding me and starting the fight, only to realize he's outmatched, get salty, and proceeds to run into the level to hold my game hostage. That's the sore loser mentality that gives the rest of us a bad name.
On the one hand that's true. on the other, I've been invaded literally thousands of times (like many other people here, I'm sure), and I can count on one hand the number of times a red has run off via a solo host. It definitely happens, but it is very rare.
@@iamamish According to my PS5 I have over 5000 hours in this game and I'd estimate it's happened to me maybe two dozen times or so. So yeah that's not a super high percentage but as far as invader complaints that's definitely the one thing that sticks out to me as far as frustration goes. Great vid by the way, looking forward to the "5 best places to invade in Elden Ring" vid next year.
I do agree with you on some points and I can understand where you're coming from, but I personally don't like invasions simply because i suck at pvp. I am sorc lvl 266 and maybe I won like one invasion and that really puts me off. i don't understand the mechanics of pvp enough to participate in a fight and it just doesn't seem very rewarding for me.
That's a reasonable perspective. I'd really advise trying out a different build or something, as the PvP can be really rewarding. Sorcerers are at a real disadvantage in a 1v1. You might also try summoning a phantom if you get invaded to help you, or wearing Way of Blue.
@@iamamish I know but I like sorcerer class so much. i used to play sorcerer in ds 1 a lot and I think it was better for sorcerers there pvp - wise. I think you're right too - pretty much every spell can be dodged and the casting time for crystal soul spear is ridiculously slow it's just not worth using at all.
@@venusdoom90 if you want to play sorcerer in a 1v1, my recommendation would be a few things. First, make sure you equip homing soul mass (not crystal HSM, as it casts too slow). Use the threat of the orbs to close in on your opponent. Try to always keep HSM up. Use a melee weapon like a SS in conjunction with HSM, and you can really pressure your opponent.
@@iamamish thabk you for the advice ill check that out. Ss you mean soul sword? Btw I started using dark sorceries as well. Are dark sorceries better in pvp or is there not much difference?
@@venusdoom90 yea uh level 266 mage? You're GOING to struggle. The meta ranges get wanky meaning you can connect to someone whose level 678 (joking but you get my point) in all honesty you should make another mage build and pick a area you want to play pvp in, like soul level 70 +7 or soul level 90 +10. You'll have a much easier time
Good video. I think my biggest problem with invasions is lack of reward for both parties involved. Invading a PvE player who was summoning NPC's and killing them in 2 hits because they didn't level vit just isn't rewarding. The same goes for host, who either has to summon people to protect them or make a mad dash to the boss fog. I feel like the natural evolution to invading has become ganking and gank spanking and this because the people who engage in it enjoy the PvP content. There is a real lack of motivation for just an average player to invade. People do it whenever a new game comes out, but just about every Souls game devolves into either ganking or duels. I would love to see From incentivize invading for casual players in hopes of drawing more people to the PvP scene of the game.
I've done a bit of invasions, have enjoyed arena pvp greatly in DS2 (haven't gotten into it in ds3 yet) and I agree with most of the points in this video. However I disagree with the comparison between invaders and hard bosses. Darkeater Midir is a huge spectacle battle, looks awesome, drops 150k souls along with a boss soul and in my opinion not at all comparable to the average invasion. It is quite reasonable to think of an invader as an interruption while simultaneously looking forward to your 30th attempt at any of Fromsoft's amazing boss battles.
OK, so yes there is definitely a framing where it can make sense to view invaders as an interruption, but not the PVE. BUT - that requires some type of explanation of your reasons! If I said, "I don't like playing DS 3 because I keep getting interrupted by boss fights - I just want to fight invaders", you'd think that a silly perspective, at least without some type of reasoning. But that perspective is just as justifiable as the perspective that the invaders are the interruption. Ultimately people privilege invasions as some type of special activity, when it is just another element of the game. What differentiates it in people's minds is that they're interacting with other humans. It *feels* different to us because of the human interaction, but we cannot admit that to ourselves, so we craft these narratives wherein invasions are an 'interruption' to avoid the cold truth - we're afraid.
@@iamamish Requiring an explanation isn't a high hurdle. "Invasions aren't as fun as boss battles". It's that simple. How many invasions end up being better crafted gameplay experiences for the average player than a boss battle from FromSoft? I'll bet it's not a high number. If people only got invaded on their way to the "bad" bosses, ie. Moonlit Butterfly and Prowling Magus, there would likely be much less complaining. Also, "I don't like playing DS 3 because I keep getting interrupted by boss fights - I just want to fight invaders" is not an equivalent perspective. You've raised the stakes, I imagine most people who complain about invasions still overall like DS 3, they're not saying they don't like playing it. Not to mention that bosses are consistently well crafted experiences. You've admitted yourself that invasions have a % chance of being a bad experience even if you like the concept (due to glitches, cheats, lagg, etc). Even if the comparison is equivalent, it's not that silly. Anecdotally I recall greatly enjoying a YT channel with a bunch of quirky builds in DS2 (ie Greatbow knocking people off ledges in Iron Keep) , which I tried to emulate. It truly was annoying to have to trudge through each boss for the n'th time as I recreated each build. Again, I do agree overall that invasions are great and offer a net positive factor to the souls experience. But I think you're unfairly discrediting a valid argument by auto-assuming 'people who frame invasions as interruptions' as "afraid of the cold truth".
@@lolzfactory there are for sure ways in which invasions can be annoying. No doubt. But the way they’re so often framed as an interruption without any attempt to justify *why* makes me suspicious. It’s fine to not like them, but saying “it is an interruption” really begs the question.
Honestly seeing high skills duels are so boring compared to invasions. To me at least, duels seem like running around trying to counter wiffs. While I get why people enjoys duels, I love the chaos and randomness invasions can have.
pontiff in coop. when ya playing with 1 or 2 friends who are not good at pvp... is not fun. and there are definitely the kind of ppl there who will try to ruin your fun over there, forest is similar, but not as bad - good thing no one plays as forestbros, right? its still bad in these areas.... you really cannot compare human invasions to npc invasions. n pal of mine with whom i played all the DS games so far, has no good reflexes and he be used to slow methodical playstyle that one is thought through out play DS games, which is one of the big reasons why ppl like it - its not necessary to have super high twitch reflexes to be decent in these games. i can guarantee you my friend can take on any npc invader and beat em, but em gets super stress out when faces human enemies - he is decent against "normal" invaders, but once we start encountering the kind of invaders who will make use of any currently known meta trick possible to get ALL the advantages, it becomes very tedious to fight these ppl, im only mildly above mediocre myself and i usually dun have the mental stamina to dance around for hours to chip away at such ppl n chase em around etc. essentially being forced into camping at more advantageous position for us as world players, grinding any kind of progress to a stand still, as its not rly feasible to progress through the lvl with such ppl present - and these people usually also wont leave your world and wait around for however long. we rly only ever consider disconnecting when encountering ppl who are abusing glitches or are blatantly using cheat engine to the point where i can tell they are... sry for double reposting... i hated how i had worded the first post...
I misattributed a quote to Rizio, but it was in fact Ruca Burankee who left the comment about how Souls games always give you the tools to invade early in the game. It's full of insights, it is the pinned comment on this video: ua-cam.com/video/H316yMu2qcY/v-deo.html&lc=UgwCEqHsV8wYzYD71FJ4AaABAg
Having graduated to invasions.. This is the most important game mechanic I have ever experienced. Going from knowing nothing and scared of invaders to knowing something and excited to face hosts and their friends has been a blast! This 1500 hours of progression have been the most rewarding thing that just keeps on giving next to having my beautiful daughters. Bless you Miyazaki !!!!
Hell yeah! Seriously, unless and until people try the mechanic, they'll never understand what really motivates those of us who enjoy invading.
;)
No
@@iamamish because you enjoy harassing people who enjoy Co-op
@@Kossagubben The price for co-op is the possibility of being invaded, think about it you have a complete and utter advantage with more estus flask than the invader, as well as having a friend gank with you. Not only that but with covenants such as the dark moons, and way of blue you’re almost never outnumbered. Another precaution you could take is avoiding PvP hot-spots such as, the Pontiffs backyard, Farrons, and most of the ringed city. If you still believe that you are somehow being “harassed” when invaded then perhaps Dark souls is too hard for you?
this was excellent man! make sure you do an invasions guide when elden ring drops since you cover all the bases properly.
Thanks Adam! I cannot wait for Elden Ring. I'm looking forward to all the unique builds I know you'll create.
I haven't invaded much, mostly stick to helping people with PVE, but I appreciate that it's in the games and I am glad it is going to be in Elden Ring. Some of my best memories playing Souls are random invasions, especially the naked guy who killed me with dung pies in Anor Londo on my first play through. It adds a degree of drama, tension, and terror - and comedy - that helps makes these games the most engaging multiplayer experience IMHO.
Exactly!
You sir are an honorable white phantom. "Goodjob, skeleton".
Completely agree bro
My issue with multiplayer is that there's such a high cost to it - if I'm not embered I won't see friendly summon signs, or get invaded and that sucks because I don't want to waste my embers running through the game on my first playthrough, hoping to get friendlies or get invaded. The fact that I have to spend a limited resource I have no way of buying infinitely feels - not unfair - but a missed opportunity to really maximize the fun of multiplayer. They're coming up with a new system in Elden Ring that works better (Miyazaki said so in an interview) so I'm excited for that.
There is something to this - on the one hand, making death costly makes decisions more weighty. On the other, if you make it *too* costly, then people hoard resources like embers.
@@iamamish Of course it makes sense to make death a costly outcome, but does it really make sense to prevent you from being invaded when you're unembered? Instead of paying a price, now you won't get invaded at all, making the game *easier* instead of harder to navigate. It essentially incentivizes players to play on the easier mode - being unembered - because hard mode is too expensive. Which leads to them missing out on the fun of being invaded.
If you use embers EVERY time you die, then thats your own fault, and whenever you do multiplayer and actually win, then you get an ember, or just play offline, why do you need to play with other players? there are several options in the game to switch off mutliplayer.
i have several characters with over 500 embers each, or the equivalent in the other games such as bloodborne and dark souls 1-2, if you want embers, go get them.
Its a finite resource, and if you feel like you NEED friendly NPCs or other players to help you at your beck and call, then thats literally a "You" Problem, because in DS1 i got to O&S, used all 30 humanity, and was absolutely convinced that if i didnt have humanity for solaire, then id never progress in the game, but i grinded for ages to upgrade a different weapon, got myself some soft humanity, and i beat the shit out of them myself, i spent DAYS on them, and ever since that i was able to beat any challenge the games have thrown at me.
Embrace the challenge, embrace the perseverance, embrace taking on the world by yourself, instead of having a merry jaunt through a fantasy land like 95% of all other games on the market today.
@skair The invasion mechanic is great way to get embers yourself! You're supposed to invade others whenever you have ran out of embers to get more. Invading doesnt cost anything (after you get full orb).
@@mikaj1462 That's true! I definitely agree, it helps incentivize invasions.The scarcity of embers is mostly an issue in most people's first playthrough, when they're getting the hang of the game and don't feel comfortable invading other people.
I've been invading for quite a while now. As anything one does for a while, I've gotten quite good at it. The complain I see most often is people calling me sweaty. Usually through DMs.
I mainly invade in Bloodborne myself, and that game allows you to throw game balance off with blood gems. Problem is, I'm one of the few people I know that purposely uses non-optimal blood gems in order to have more balanced invasions. And yet, because I've learned how to handle essentially every situation I can be put in in that game, people think I'm a tryhard. Because I play in a way that uses adaptation.
To me, a tryhard is someone who plays with the exclusive purpose of winning, and sets fun aside, as a secondary objective. I'm the guy who invades with the great wooden hammer because it's funny. I'm the guy who invaded with the Reiterpallasch because I think it's really cool. I'm not a murky warrior, but I still don't see how that devalues anything.
Even those I consider tryhards are still playing for fun, most likely. I'm not an omniscient judge of character. I don't know who is behind the character I'm fighting. And I have never cared. In the game, you're either an invader, a phantom, or a host. Depending on which one you are, I will help you or fight you. That's all that matters.
The game, and real life, are separate aspects. Whoever is the person controlling the character you are fighting is of no consequence. Those who go for ad hominem have already lost.
As others have said, these games virtually require you to play in a pretty sweaty way if you invade
Beautifully put.
Something tells me people are calling you sweaty because of your build choice, and given how you put the wooden hammer on par with the Reiter I'm a little worried myself.
@@hobosorcerer i should probably clarify that I don't use the classic reiter/shield gunspam playstyle. Yeah, that's certainly sweaty. No, I use the Reiterpallasch untransformed and only use the transformation attack to shoot. I just think the burrito with it looks really nice and clean.
I should've been more clear about that, in retrospect. I completely forgot that aspect of the Reiterpallasch myself. I pair it with the rifle spear and piercing rifle, actually.
@@hobosorcerer like, if I wanted to fight people from afar, I have a bowblade for that. I don't like using it because there's no real risk to playing like that, but the option is there.
I've been looking forward to this. Glad to see another upload from you, Amish.
thanks mate, tbh I've started & stopped probably 5 different videos since my last one.
@@iamamish save those in case you wanna revive the concepts. You never know of the epiphanies you may be storing in your backburner.
1:48 textbook Greatsword reverse BS
Great Vid btw, could enjoy vids like this everyday
I think an important change that should be made in Elden Ring has to do with the reward and penalty system. While there needs to be a form of penalty for dying to not make it trivial, which the loss of souls does a good job at that. Losing the ability to play with friends/running out of embers is too much. Miyazaki acknowledges this need in one of the recent interview.
Altho I would go even further. To make things enjoyable for both parties, I believe killing a human player should also grant a good reward. Whether youre a host or an invader, the best way give newer players the incentive to partake in this aspect of the game is by making it worth their time.
For instance, in DS3 I always felt like getting only an ember for killing a phantom or a host was a miss. There couldve been a great opportunity to reward players with weapon upgrade material. Especially in a game like DS3, where you will find more weapons than you can try because you can only upgrade so little in one playthrough. Since the matchmaking is based on weapon upgrade, it wouldve made sense to reward players with a titanite shard of your current weapon level per enemy spirit destroyed. Slabs could also have been awarded as greater reward just like how covenant are treated/ exchange tongue for covenant reward.
I also love the part where you talk about self deception. People do be delusional
Yeah giving hosts more rewards for fending off invaders would be great for the game all around. Rather than simply playing not to lose, more hosts would play to win. They'd also be less frustrated with the mechanic overall.
I played Dark Souls 1 without knowing that it had any kind of multiplayer. Somehow I didn't get invaded until Anor Londo on my second playthrough. I had no idea what was happening and of course I got obliterated, but the thrill of that was definitely when I fell in love with the game. I mostly feel sorry for the invasion haters because they don't experience it in the same way.
I got through I think my entire first DS 1 playthrough without being invaded, and I don't know that I *ever* got invaded in DS 2.
Great video, amish. This takes me back to many reddit discussions in 2016-2017, which I assume are the same discussions happening today. And the same discussions that will be happening in 2021, lol. Hopefully a few folks take the time to watch this.
Pros: still new players coming into Dark Sous
Cons: These players are reinventing the bad arguments of their predecessors
Your videos have been a great help as I've started to get into ds3 pvp recently. Happy to see another one :)
Just don't take the game seriously and please don't start invading at 125
@@_doop8257 why wouldn't they take the game seriously? Anyone can give as much importance to a game as much as they want.
Great to have you back Amish!!
Also someone else said it before, but Fromsoft please let me hide the real PvE interrupters: messages. I don’t want every secret in Elden Ring spoiled by the placement and content of messages just because I play online for co-op and invasions. Boggles my mind that’s not an option in the settings.
And personally I think Fromsoft should design better rewards for all online interactions - the soul counts for invading are pitiful nowadays, unless you get a party of overleveleds. Not to mention how trash most covenant rewards are. Gone are the DS1 and DS2 days of getting large shards and chunks from covenant invasions. You don’t even get Embers or Humanity from killing reds in DS3, for goodness sake. We’re straying further and further away from the powerful incentive design that ignited newbie interest in PvP back in the day. Hoping ER can address that while retaining the fairly balanced gameplay they refined in DS3.
Messages are still probably gonna happen
I don't want to spoil the game for myself but I also wanna see the funny ones like "you must accept fatty" (close to a hallway which you couldn't get in)
From really needs to do a better job of differentiating the OOTB messages from the player-supplied ones.
just dont read them lol
@@Finlandpro1 yeah but you want to read the developer messages. The problem is you can’t really tell the difference.
@@Finlandpro1 Seeing eight messages in front of a wall totally isn’t a spoiler for the secret illusory wall, you’re right
Speaking as someone who loves getting invaded...
I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a relatively laid back coop experience. The problem is that FromSoft has no desire to deliver this experience, and enabling this experience would get rid of an element many of us want from a FromSoft game, and FromSoft cannot please both.
There are plenty of other games that provide a relatively laid back coop experience, there isn't really much else that provides an invasion mechanic.
Yeah quite right. The issue is treating reds as if they're bad people for engaging in a game mechanic. It's fine if you don't care for it, but don't make the mistake of projecting your fears of the game onto the people enjoying it.
Precisely this. If I wanted a laid back co-op experience, I'd play Journey instead. Dark souls of all places just isn't the place to complain about this.
It doesn't ad tension, it's a feeling of "uhh, not again"
Great quality as always dude!
I'd like to share my most recent experiences with a new way of multiplayer that I discovered to be really funny and rewarding to me, which is involving those several times mentioned high wall twinks. Most of my PvP I recently get from co-op, to be more precise I play as white sign high wall mound maker and help new players defend against the twink invaders. I want to do it in a way that doesn't encourage ganking tho, that's why I use purple cov. to signal them to stay away or I can't keep them from getting hurt, also by myself. To me it's really fun to fight dark hand twinks in a starting class disguise cosplay (with a +1 longsword or claymore in knight fashion) and outplay them due to my thousands of hours of practice, even though they deal 4 times as much damage... And the hosts are often so thankful, it's a good feeling to be appreciated for your help, rather than just winning a fight. I hope in ER there's also going to be covenants to balance PvP in such a way that doesn't benefit gankers as much as blue cov. does. White sign mound maker cov. CAN BE used for that... but most certainly it's not always used like that... Therefore you will rarely get summoned for co-op as purple by anyone who is aware of the cov. mechanics...
Funny enough I did almost the same thing at HW like 6 months ago, and I had a blast. I agree.
White sign Moundmaker is my main multiplayer use in DSIII, and i don't agree, i usually play around 120, so a lot of players who know the "risk" about that summon use it anyway. But at lower level, it won't be long before i get summoned by a new player. I even get summoned by a guy at Irythill dungeon who was reading a guide, because he was often stoping for few secondes when progression was made and always go to where the progression was most optimal. It was curious to watch, really. Not unusual to see a player trying to understand what is the difference between you and a classic white spirit. Sometimes they give you a hit to see what happens. And we play the level. I hope there will be a covenant like that in Elden Ring.
@@TransparentBarriers that's good news for me, I just assumed on higher levels people would rather see you the same way as a red summon except for not having ember HP... It's nice to hear people still co-op with purples later on.
@@Lucky_B4stard It's rare to see a purple summon sign, so i'm not surprised more people use it today. And sometimes, your summon sign is the only one avaible. In Irythill dungeon, you are often the only random summon sign =) In lvl70 it don't need a long time to get someone.
good points and well spoken. also, i'm happy for the gargoyle flame hammer npc getting a plunge attack victory
I had no idea that NPCs could do plunge attacks like that until that happened. Thanks for watching! I was lurking in one of your streams recently, hope to see more soon.
@@iamamish notable plunge attackers: thralls (such as in the cathedral of the deep) & corvian knights (if you suddenly lose hidden body directly underneath or something)
Excellent vid, Amish! Very cogent explanations, with some examples to boot. Thank you for putting in the time and effort to make this.
Yo momma makes the worst lasagna
Another notable thing is that players specifically lose the human/embered status on death, so that invaders can't usually make someone lose a valuable bloodstain by killing them a second time. The bloodstain mechanic is designed to give motivation to push at least as far as the player got last time, which would not work well together with the unpredictable nature of invasions. Fromsoft made sure that the main thing people can lose to invaders, is the multiplayer resource itself.
I'm really curious how that separation of semi-incompatible mechanics will work in Elden Ring (which has been announced to have less of a resource demand for multiplayer). I guess there's a decent chance it won't have bloodstains/soul loss in the usual form as being pushed back to the exact spot you died in an open world could feel quite limiting.
That's an interesting point. Honestly I never thought about it, but you're right - dying to an invader naturally puts the brakes on further invasions.
If you remove the embers from the game, what stops future invasions?
It'll be interesting to see how From manages this - cool observation!
@@iamamish I've actually noticed that bloodborne noticeably lacks this brake. I invade in Mergo's Loft: Base often, which is one of the 3 PvP enabled areas in the game (alongside Mergo's Loft: Middle and Nightmare Frontier) and I've had to develop some standards.
If someone goes afk by the lamp, no such mechanic exists to stop them from being repeatedly invaded. You can actually purposefully make an afk player lose their bloodstain within 15 or so minutes of continously invading.
I try to be compassionate. If I invade an afk player, I leave their world peacefully. If I invade them again, I kill them. If I invade them once again, I kill them and destroy their bloodstain.
Fourth time is where I make it interesting. Invading an afk player is no fun. Fortunately, there's no real limit to how far they can be taken. There's an elevator right next to the lamp. A few gentle nudges with your fist can easily move them into it. I call the elevator and push them in. I take them upstairs. Then I take them across the hallway to the building with the spiders on it. Then I leave them with low health. They'll be disoriented when they can back, but until they do, they're outside of my damn turf and I don't invade them anymore. Win/win, except both of those wins are mine.
@@DS_DoggerX it's funny that you have an algorithm for this. I know every time I got to Mergo's Loft, I'd be invaded usually within about 30 seconds.
@@iamamish you know it. Do the same thing for years and you eventually develop your own personal style. I notice this a lot with how you play as a Spear, you have your own responses and sequences you follow. I've noticed you only cast heals while under the effects of the divine spear fragment, and always go for the phantoms first, then pressure the host. It's things like these, personal styles, that make us unique as players, individually.
Like sure, I could just equip a beasthunter saif and you could just equip a Murky Hand Scythe and fight people with minimal care, but that's not even close to what we look like in a fight.
Personal style > winning, imo. Winning can be hard, winning with style is hard and rewarding.
Second hand frustration watching that parry spamming one handed gs turn and burn guy at 12:00. One of the more annoying styles to fight, especially with latency.
Great vid Amish! Really looking forward to the slew of content that will be coming from you and SillyDog on Elden Ring when it releases.
Also let me add, idk when some of this footage was taken, but it seems like your swaps have gotten exponentially better. Very fast!
@@mewmanc6188 yes I noticed that too. I was surprised seeing amish swapping to Gundyrs
Yes!! I hope mrsillydog comes back 😭😭
Invasions are so crazy. One of mine tonight, I one-shot two of the host's phantoms with a charged Astora Greatsword R2 counter hit, one after the other. It was hilarious.
yeah they're always different. You never know what you're going to find.
From what I remember when I was a noob back in DS1 - invasions really did feel unfair, even when disregarding the rampant grief/low level invasion issues. Due to the game design, there can be no skill-based matchmaking. Which means you might be on your first playthrough ever and run into multiple different invaders who are veterans and know literally every weapon matchup in the game. Imagine playing a game like League of Legends or Rocket League, and running into a top 100 or even a top 1000 player. It's just not even remotely a fair matchup, so much so that you're not really going to be learning much of anything.. It's like you're trying to learn how to fly a jet plane, but before you can learn how to properly take off, you are tasked with surviving a dog-fight against two air force pilots.
Overall though, I'd agree with your points that people just don't want to lose, and typically hide this fact from themselves behind layers of excuses. It's a waste of time, I don't want to play like that, I'm not a competitive person. (Everyone's competitive when they're winning) This is all a guise to keep from getting down on yourself for losing constantly. However, there's tons of people who've played these games for years at this point, and the mountain you have to climb to be competent in PVP is a bit higher than it used to be back in DS1 days if you're starting from the beginning.. So I have at least a bit of patience for people's complaints, so long as they aren't trying to push for an easy mode in the game.
Yes I actually agree with you - DS 1 invasions were tremendously unfair to hosts, and I think this is where the 'red = griefer' idea started. It wasn't wrong, either. Ds 1 invasions were terribly balanced in favor of the invader.
I've never played ds1 PvP. How did the Invaders have an advantage over host in ds1 compared to ds3?
Yeah, I think this is the main reason that many people dislike invasions. Most people hate to lose, and losing by a wide margin leads people to think that trying to improve is a waste of their time. Invasions are VERY far from a perfect system, and not even close to being balanced, a group of casual players will get steamrolled by a veteran player 9 times out of 10.
@@iamamish I'm not sure if I agree with you there. Even if we buy the premise that DS1 was somehow unfair to the host when invaded, it's curious that comparatively few people complained about the mechanic back then. Most people just accepted it for what it is. Ironically, only when From gave more and more advantages to hosts did the complaints (and DC's etc.) start to ramp up.
But I personally think invasions in DS1 are not at all unfair to either side, always with the exception of twinking - which is a problem in all Souls games, not just DS1. There simply are no substantial artificial disadvantages for the invader, putting them at eye level with the host, making the outcome of a fight solely dependent on the opponents' respective skill level in a 1v1.
Sure, that sucks for a new player being invaded, but a new player can practice and become an experienced player. An invader in DS2 and DS3 who has all those artificial disadvantages going against them, can practice all they want, they will always face those disadvantages. Sure, it levels the playing field against new players, but if those new players stick around, they become experienced players. And now invaders - who btw can also be new players - have to face that, but are still limited by those disadvantages. If anything, *that* seems unfair to me, at least in the long term, while the DS1 system is, if at all, unfair only in the short term.
@@Nyffenschwander well I'm probably guilty of talking out my ass to an extent here. I'm certainly no DS 1 expert. My sense is that the invasion mechanism was much more invader-friendly.
Of course, nobody really complained about that because the mechanic hadn't changed too much. It's only now with the benefit of hindsight that we see how friendly it was to the invader.
I think some of the advantages weren't necessarily intended, but being able to carry so many blessings around, the twinking, the difficulty of fighting PVE and an invader simultaneously, etc. contributed to a much harder host experience.
It’s a good argument to say you can’t have one without the other, if you wanna summon you have to be open to being invaded. From really fixed that aspect from DS1 because you can use an ember at anytime instead of reverse hollowing at a bonfire and making the trip from the bonfire to boss made it a lot easier to be invaded. If you want to play with the messages but not be invaded then play unembered
I retired a while ago from being a try hard pvper but recently started a co op play through with some close friends who got into souls.
It’s been so crazy eye opening for me hearing there thoughts on invasions.
like you said in video there attitude evolved as they began to appreciate and understand the pvp, but they were horrible r1 spammers at first it was kinda embarrassing haha.
Great video as well mate 🙂
Once again, you provide a balanced, nuanced take that approaches the mechanic from both sides, and it's a delight to hear the argument put into words so clearly. Wonderful video, Amish!
Thanks for the kind words!
Well spoken, as always.
Thanks brother, hope to see you in another 7 months.
@@iamamish We will, January 2021 can't come soon enough.
WELCOME BACK AMISH :)
Well reasoned as always man, hopefully it changes some minds.
Thank you! I hope so too.
I'm all for invasions, but I will absolutely be playing offline first run through. I don't want the experience ruined with interuptions.
Not invaders; they're fine.
I want the experience of walking off a hidden cliff without 4000 notifications alerting me to it.
be wary of message
Hmm this is a great point, I think I'll join you.
Also has the added bonus of not seeing enemy ambushes. Watching my housemate on their first run through Bloodborne Charnel Lane just stopping to read about the old lady ready to push them off a cliff was a let down.
message ahead
@@colbyboucher6391 From my perspective personally though, I wanted to experience the fun gameplay of others invading me and trying to overcome them. But this wasn't really very viable in DS1.
And I think to Amish's point, most people who complain about invasions still want to be able to co-op the game with phantoms. Can't always get what ya want.
Great video, I've been invading more and I understand lots of the points you make, cause I used to think invasions were the worst
I started playing DS3 two months ago and as a beginner was beaten by twinks or ganked in the Woods and Pontiff's area. I hated every invader and hated the fact that I'm pathetic and miserable. A bit later I was doing better against Reds and by the time I reached the Archives realized - I want to be invaded more. Every time I saw "Dark Spirit invaded" it was thrilling and exciting. At that moment I understood why Reds do that - they feel the same emotions and are looking for a challenge. Now I invade myself and have a lot of fun. It's hard, challenging but very satisfying.
Its really nice to see this from the perspective of a new player. Keep it up!
That's it exactly. This though is why twinking is so cancerous. Not only does it give reds an unfair advantage, it does so when hosts are at their most vulnerable. They're new to the game, and this is not exactly a welcoming experience.
I've enjoyed every non-PlayStation Fromsoft game to date, and as a casual player I'm glad to see that Fromsoft seems to be phasing out forced invasions slowly but surely. I will never engage in pvp; these are thoroughly single player games to me, but the potential for penalty-free co-op would be a great addition. Elden Ring is an extremely fun game that's full of adventures and things to do, and I cannot wait for the sequel that may finally have co-op and pvp become completely independent concepts.
I also don't think I'm in the minority opinion. Elden Ring is a massive, massive financial success and has opened the franchise to more new players than possibly every other Fromsoft game combined. With invasions being co-op only very few people are likely to even be exposed to them and, as you say, everyone's first opinion of invasions is negative. Money talks, and with so many new people and their initial negative reaction to invasions, I can envision more and more catering to players like me. The lowered difficulty with co-op is secondary to a shared experience with friends. I care more about having a fun time (key thing being within the framework of a Fromsoft combat system/environment) than getting a sense of accomplishment by overcoming a difficult obstacle.
Couldn't I just play a different game with my friends instead? Sure, and we do. But we also enjoy this style of game as well, and we would like to play this together as well (though the summoning system would need to be more robust and not limited via area boundaries).
Edit: I do think that invasions as a concept shouldn't be removed entirely for people that want to willingly allow themselves to be invaded, solo or otherwise. I even think that it should be an opt-out setting so at least everyone can possibly get some initial exposure, because obviously some people DO enjoy it. However, I think Elden Ring shows the franchise is becoming more and more casual, regardless of any multiplayer concept of co-op vs invader sense of difficulty balancing. Mimic Tear +10 and Moonveil allow for easier bossfights than any summon possibly could due to the lack of increased boss HP, and that's just one example in the game.
I wish I live in my Mom's basement, shit is bigger that my flat. That was a good listen man.
Mom's basements are underrated - you also have lots of time to get good at invading. Hope to see you in the streets of Elden Ring!
It's like you reached into my brain and pulled out my exact thoughts on the matter, and then said them in a much more polite way. I'm definitely linking this video to anyone i see in the future that uses these dumb complaints against invasions, when there is in fact legitimate complaints to have against invasions
You say the feature to disable invasions has not existed except for playing offline, but that's not true you could play as a phantom/hollow granted that has varying downsides depending on the game. Co-op and invasions are linked thought and really good video. You should put the music tracks in the description, they sound pretty nice. Especially whatever is playing at around 3:30.
Yes there are definitely ways to avoid invasions but I meant there is not a “disable invasions” configuration, where you can just completely disable them.
Thnx for the kind words on the music - I pull stuff from UA-cam Audio.
I just read the Reddit post you linked in the description - that’s that dry Amish wit I love to see. And those comments were absolute GOLD.
There is a whole backstory here too related to my post being removed and my Reddit account getting locked
@@iamamish Oh my god first the Jund ban and now this. Did they seriously do that to you over a joke post??
@@Felicificity yeah and they’ve actually banned me for 3 days once another time
Since this is a topic that affects us all, here's my two cents (invader perspective):
- "people dislike invasions generally/dislike high wall twink invasions, they should just play offline"
> In all of the fromsoft games there's sort of a "cooldown" to invasions: In DS1 you can only get invaded if you're human, in DS2 I think there's a cooldown for when you're hollow, in DS3 there's the ember state. Since it's the start of the game, many people will die a lot, often witout reaching the 1st bonfire, so why does it matter what you die to? Besids the friendliness of some invaders, twink invasions can show you cool armor sets, weapons, items and if you're getting invaded by a status build you're already familiar with poison/bleed, so you can take preparations to not die to it in the poison swamp regions. All in all there's nothing to lose, except for - you already meantioned it - "status".
I personally don't recommend people to play offline because they create the most hilarious moments, better than any PvE moment. For comparison my favourite Sekiro moment (besides beating bosses) was finding out that there's a headless just below the surface of one of the ashina castle ponds. My favourite DS2 moment was combining the warmth spell with the crown of the old iron king for unlimited healing, essentially cheesing the entire ivory king DLC. barely 10mins later I got destroyed by an invader. I messaged him and he helped me to kill lud&zallen.
- "reds just run away"
> There's not much you can do in a 3v1 or 4v1 unless the skill difference between you and the co-op party is huge.
That being said I highly dislike passive play since it's not fun for the invader nor the squad. Constant range fights with greatbows/xbows while the party tries to move on is just annoying for them and doesn't require any skill from the invader. Same for 1v1s or 2v1s: The hosts goal is to kill the area boss, not the invader, so if they're staying at the bonfire, it's the invaders task to be aggressive or to black crystal, rather than to hide in the level for 20mins. If an invader can't stand his ground in a 2v1 then I'd recommend the arena as the chances of a 1v1 are much higher than in invasions.
(Of course this is entirely different if you're fighting a gank quad)
in ds1 you also couldnt invade the same person twice within i think 5 mins or so, unless they dry fingered, might be so for ds3 as well but dont quote me on that.
@@PantsuGod sounds like a reasonable mechanic so I guess they've implemented in DS3 aswell
4:16 the damage on his r1..
Also great to see a new Amish upload.
thanks mate. I rather unwisely blocked that R1 though, so that's why it did so little damage.
@iamamish Oh, now I saw. My bad. Again, great to see ya still making these type of vids.
Another quality video👍
This video is perfect Amish! Thanks for the detailed breakdown. I laughed when you were questioning what your Mom's basement has to do with being good at invading. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at PvP and I have a wife and a full-time job! lol
The time we live in when "try hard" is considered an insult! I've literally seen people playing with a Min Max build say, at least I'm not a try hard when they lose. Of course when they win, they themselves are not a try hard. The worst for me are the players that have no problem fighting you as long as their phantoms are alive, yet the second they lose their phantoms they disconnect. I just hope there is some form of penalty or balance for constantly disconnecting. In the Demon's Souls remake you can disconnect and be back to the exact spot you were in legitimately under 10 seconds, minus the invader.
I'd say the majority of the arguments I hear are along the lines of I want to co-op with a buddy, but not be invaded, which I've always thought, wouldn't it be more fun to try and kill the invader with your buddy, practice and actually get good at the game, rather than disconnecting every 5 minutes? Like, you said, I'd think if FromSoftware really wanted that option they'd have it after five straight games of, one phantom equals one invader!
Spot on - I really hope they add in a consequence for disconnects. You can meme all you want about them being weak for disconnecting, but at the end of the day, it does kind of take the joy away of winning the fight - at least slightly.
@@bradley2349 for me that was true, at first, but eventually I came to enjoy the DCs even more than victories. You broke somebody so much that they'd rather *forcibly shut down their game* than accept a loss. Plus, their invasion priority remains elevated, so they're gonna have to go through it again.
Love to see you back
Hey amish, you have very good arguments about invasions. I really hope this video reaches to those people who do not like invasions and convince them to participate in Elden Ring invasions. On another note, it is very impressing that you can win Spear of the Church invasion. Wining there It is very difficult because the small arena. Usually. I don't win against four players in a spears invasion.
The problem is that without regen you're in big trouble. With it, it can make you too powerful. The covenant needs an in-between way imo.
Thanks for the kind words Limits!
When I first played this game I was filled with joy when I was invaded. At the time I still couldn’t tell when it was an NPC invader or a human player, but regardless I was so excited. I always asked my friends (gotta have the three sunbros of course) to let me fight them. I went through quite a few embers this way, but to WIN... felt so much better than any boss kill, even Darkeater Midir.
PVP is the greatest test in soulsborne and also the greatest joy, and I genuinely believe people who don’t feel the same lack understanding of the mechanic or are simply brats who never cared to learn how to be better at something they weren’t initially amazing at.
I think it is more subtle. Some people do not like competing against other humans. It raises the stakes and makes people edgy. Of course this is exactly why From puts it into the game.
I’m glad you enjoy it so much. I do too. ;)
@@iamamish I don’t know if I would describe that as subtle. People tend to not compete if they don’t believe they’re the best or can become the best, so they choose to not compete. Or they don’t understand the competition and lack the interest. I don’t see how anyone could look down on invasions unless it was from a lack of understanding or from a place of privilege. The only other reasonable reaction to invasions is happiness or indifference for the very reasons you mentioned; invasions are a part of the soulsborne lore and gameplay by default and by design. It’s not an accident, and pretending invasions are bad for new players is self deception run amok.
@@iamamish not to imply someone can’t say “I don’t like invasions”, that’s fine, we all have opinions. But WHY they dislike invasions as a mechanic is the crucial element.
@@IAmMyVeryOwn exactly. Most people are lying to themselves about why they dislike invasions.
Yo I love invasions and all, but damn bro, can I get a track list? Music in this slaps.
OK I get this question a lot, so before I delete my video project file, let me try to account for everything I used. It's all from the UA-cam free audio library.
In order, the songs are:
* Seductress
* Stuck In The Air
* Psychic Need
* No Good Right
* Mellow Hipster
* Low
* Liberation
I agree on all of this except for one thing, the “reds just run away thing” is of course not completely true at all. But in circumstances where I’m all alone in a play through and I get invaded by a guy that keeps running into the mobs and forces me to fight him off while he chucks bombs and arrows as well as every pve in the game. That is frustrating enough for me and I couldn’t imagine what noobs think. Of course an easy fix to that is just disconnecting but spending 2 minutes to get back into your game is a large inconvenience to me
That's why you have access to summoning phantoms. To deal with such situations. And again, if you dont want to summon phantoms nor get invaded, play offline.
In these cases you could threat running to the boss (and fight invader if they come to prevent it)
Rush them with quite high risk of dying
Or play it slow and steady, snipe pve slowly untill theres none left
I've been invaded thousands of times, and can count on one hand the number of times this has happened to me. It definitely does happen, but the prototypical 'reds just run away' is really false.
The funny thing re: Jee's point is as reds, we're the least likely to be willing to summon help to deal with it when it does happen, due to pride. I speak from experience.
@@iamamish I'm glad that's been the case for you, but for others it's a much more common affair- especially for newer players in sl brackets that aren't full of more experienced invaders. This comes off like a "if it's not happening to me then it isn't a problem" kind of take.
@@hobosorcerer It's not that kind of a take. "Works for me" would indeed be dismissive.
Given all the hours I've played at all manner of SL, I think I have a reasonable sample size that's not biased in any particular direction.
I'm simply pointing out that while it is true that some reds truly do just run away to the PVE, it is very much the exception. I can't imagine somebody else having a really different experience.
Plus, and I didn't address this in my video, it's completely fair play if a red chooses to do this. I understand that it may not make for the most compelling gameplay, but it is the variety of choices that everyone has that contributes to the fun gameplay.
The game gives you lots of tools to deal with reds like this (summoning, WoB, seeds).
Putting it another way - the frequency with which I hear the 'reds just run away' complaint vs. the frequency with which I've actually observed it happening makes me skeptical of the underlying complaint.
I was revisiting Demon's Souls on PS3 (can't afford a PS5 and my computer isn't good enough for RPCS3) and on the Archstones custom server there's only like 5 people online at a time now. It's sad to see, considering the game was still bustling a few years ago. I've never done an invasion before really, but after I accidentally fell off a cliff and felt like 8 ephemeral eyes was too little, I decided to track down one of the 4 other players online in 3-2, and luckily we were the right level because I only had to try once and we connected. It was thrilling. I've been trying to invade more people now to keep the game alive, but I haven't had any luck since that one time.
YES! It really *is* thrilling, and in a way you just cannot understand until you've tried it.
When I first picked up dark souls remastered I played the game almost exclusively hollowed. Same with ds3, my first play throughs were largely unembered, so I ran into at most a couple of invaders. When I still wanted to play through the game but needed some variety then I started to play embered and engage in invasions. Now I welcome invaders, to me its completely in the spirit of the dark souls world that there are hostile spirits from other worlds who come to engage you in battle. And the fact that to some degree you can make of invasions what you will; as a host you can manipulate events to create a duel, or a gank, or help blues farm concords, etc. Or you can completely avoid them, either by playing offline or unembered.
Well put! I played DS 3 unembered quite a bit my first time through, just to minimize invasions. But that was a trade-off - I had less HP as a result, and couldn't summon phantoms.
Hopefully invasions are as good as they sound like in Elden ring, especially with more convenient ways to get invasions since multiple player is gonna be more convenient, so hopefully every area will be viable for consistent invasions.
I also hope they change how invasion chance work and to make it a flat increase all the time based on the ambit of summons instead of instead of the party being immune to invasions for a pretty long time once they kill one red phantom
Well said Amish, I really like how you compare invasions with the Tank in lfd. Looking forward to your elden ring videos when it releases.
This video perfectly encapsulates how a lot of people feel about the complaints of PvP but aren't able to properly verbalize or communicate it without sounding too "elitist/sweaty," which is usually the name thrown out when they want to disable invasions.
Great vid as always Amish. Really looking forward to your content when elden ring releases.
First of all, really good video. Well thought out, IMO.
I mainly jolly co-op \[T]/, but recently started to get into invasions mainly as host though. I had a horrible experience with being invaded when I first started playing DS3, and it just turn me off from that aspect of the game. From twinks to glitch wizards, whole thing just disgusted me.
Then I had a great experience with Dark Spirit. Invader caught me in Anor Londo and I was running him all over the location. He hits me the "Hey!" and I calm down and turn around. He puts his weapon away and I do the same. He then sets out 5 Souls of Champion for me. He steps back, I pick up the gift. He leaves a couple of more gifts.. Some embers and some siegbraus..
After I calmed down, we shared a toast. I got up and armed myself. He did the same. We had a great duel and I'll leave the winner to your imagination. 😉
After that experience, as a host, I have always welcomed the Dark Spirits when they come to visit me. You make a great case for taking that next step and start invading... Mad Phantom only, tho. 😜
I've lost more time dying to a cathedral knight with 200000 souls on me than I ever have from getting invaded.
I got the souls from one of my first invasions in crucifixion woods like Sl27 +2, just invading casually during my first playthrough. I had a fire infused flamberge; I got lucky dropped off a thrall. There were 3 overleveled phantoms in the woods with ring knight weapons and vestiges killing a bunch of noobies (myself included) I kept re-invading and eventually actually killed one before getting blendered. So i ran over to where i died back in my world and picked up half a million souls like 400000+. I bought everything back in firelink but didn't want to use it to level up because it felt cheap (i would've gone from level 27 to 60+ before leaving farron in context this system is kinda broken delete overleveled's) so i was like i'll just hold onto it until i can run into someone to send to firelink like cornyx and buy from. then i died to the cathedral knights in front of deacons and couldn't get back.
One of my most precious invasion memories is my first, back in DS1 on ps3 years ago. i got the idea to invade while I was stuck in ariamis for a real life week. this guy was spamming those eye lure things to get people in his world and we were all fighting in the snowy area before the bonfire. I was using the dragons tooth and kept jumping of the short hills and plunging people it was legit the kindling that rose into my love of ds3 invasions.
Great video man! Yea I can’t wait for elden ring! I’m so ready.
Great points and such, a lot of these are way too true.
It’s always hilarious how people get so upset about losing to a human player , your point on that is spot on
Hey Scorched - yeah it is kinda transparent when people act like they have the moral high road because you invaded them. It gets tiresome.
Sekiro mechanics still work in PvP anyways. The stuff I've seen from people in the Sekiro PvP mod have been pretty dope. I honestly wish MORE games utilized the invasion mechanic.
Great stuff as always, see you in the elden ring you pogchamp
Lupine, it's great to see you. I look forward to sharing worlds at some point.
I had no idea you had a yt channel lup lmao
@@PantsuGod I forgot I ever uploaded anything lol
Agree so much, way back when I started playing souls games I used to really dislike invasions and invaders. I finally got into invading in DS3, and now I love it. Anytime I see a red invade my own world, it makes me happy because I know I'm fighting someone who likely really enjoys the game and is just their to have fun. I highly encourage any players who really hate invaders or invasions to actually do some invasions yourself. It will give you a whole new appreciation for the mechanic and it's super fun!
Or, at least they'll realize that invading isn't just about "trolling PVErs", it's about masochistically throwing yourself against a gank because god dammit we're all playing Souls games here
Other invaders are some of the most fun fights you can have. Which isn't to say that this particular bunch is free of bad apples, but as a general rule you're in for a fun time
Im starting to think that this guy isn't actually amish
Still waiting for the q&a so that he finally has a reason to bloody explain this, it's been digging at the back of my head for years now
@@DS_DoggerX can you elaborate I don't know what you're referring to
@@seide2829 the fact that his name is iamamish when he probably isnt amish at all
@@seide2829 his name is iamamish, but clearly he isn't, in fact, Amish. You know, given the fact that the Amish are opposed to using the internet, and whatnot.
@@DS_DoggerX there is actually a somewhat funny story behind it that I keep threatening to tell - one of these days soon
I just hope that they make invasions more seamless and easier to do, IE allowing for invasions and summons even after the area boss has died. It would benefit both ganks and invaders. I have hope, though, since they said that they were going to remove some restrictions on where phantoms can go
YES! It's so stupid that I can't summon my friend and continue to explore the level, or get invaded and have a PvP experience, when the area boss is dead. Literally have no clue why they did it.
Is there a way I can opt in to be invaded as a solo player in Elden ring?
I miss when invasions weren't gated by upgrade levels, weren't prioritized to hosts with phantoms, and when there were no password phantoms or hotswappable covenants that summoned an endless stream of blues. Sure in worse cases some level 12 pyromancer with a +5 chaos dagger might invade you early on and kick your teeth in a few times, but I think what is important is that this and the other kinds of online woes were important in not only shaping the online community but keeping its longevity - because you wanted to learn to beat that invader, how to counter him, how to BE him. Eventually the hunted joined the hunters and the cycle continues. In das3's online however, you don't get that many invaders outside of the like 3 hotspots because no one wants to invade; the odds are stacked so out of favor that only a much smaller portion of players do it. You might say "well it should be that way invaders should have to work hard for their kills" but I would counter that not only have you disincentivised a core feature that is part of what defines the entire series, but you have also ironically filtered the pool of potential invaders down to the most cutthroat possible - the metamancers who know all the tricks and are optimized for deleting the host in zero seconds flat. That's what remains, cause they have to be that way, because there is little room for anything else when there's an above likely chance that every other host is accompanied by two password phantoms and a blue. It's simply too offputting for the regular player.
tl;dr I hope they get rid of password summons, gear upgrade summon requirements, hotswap covenants, and instead go back to the simple system of summon levels - and maybe make sure 3/4 of their covenants aren't broken/useless but actually flavorful. ...and maybe make the zones not so damn huge.
I'm not sure I agree with everything here, but I definitely, and very strongly agree with your point about the selection effect the game's structure imposes on invaders.
Only the strongest and most try-hard players are willing to invade into the current game.
Fortunately it hasn't always been this way. The first 2 years or so of the game's life, you could be a very average invader and have some success. I'd hate to see a game changed too much in response to what is essentially the end of life for DS 3.
@@iamamish True, early life of the game wasn't as bad but I certainly don't believe any of these systems help the longevity going forward, nor encourages the strange but mostly good hearted schadenfreude of the first game. Thankfully as hyperbolic and pessimistic as I am I do think there are still other factors/game design choices that could alleviate these problems even if they didn't change anything I mentioned, so here's hoping for elden ring's success.
Good point. It’s funny how noobs assumes invading is easy and people just do it to grief. But I got absolutely MURDERED when I first started invading. To the point it was embarrassing. People need to realize no one starts off a pro pvp’er and we’ve all gone through the same struggle.
@@theDiReW0lf exactly. Somebody once pointed out on one of my videos that if you hate losing as a host, don't bother invading, because you will lose 100x more often than any host. Learning to invade is a process of trial and error, with more error than anything.
Totally agree. When I 1st started Dark Souls on xbox 360, I never invaded, much prefer to play alone (no phantom) but I did enjoy being invaded. Only years later have I started to invade others. And some invaders are just fun and friendly, leaving gifts, doing funny stuff.
It's a core part of the multiplayer. If you want co op, you should be fine with pvp too. I love the messages and bloodstains, but for me to have them, I have to take the chance of a red wrecking ball. And if you want to improve your reflexes and gameplay, pvp will definitely make you a better player. Or just play offline, it's still really fun too. There's also npcs for bosses if you need 👍. Do miss the honorable invasions of DS1, but still love everything about Souls games
invasion is a really unique mechanic in video game, the souls series has introduced it to me and I'm enjoying it. and i also agree that some people doesn't like invasion because of the competitive mindset, but I had a friend that played dark souls 3 but he disliked the invasions because it took away his ember and he said that it's no fun because he liked the co-op mechanic, but has to lose ember when an invader kills him, so he stopped playing it. then, after I introduced him to the honest merchant mod and said that he can buy ember for 1 soul, he automatically installed it and played dark souls 3. so, I think one of the reason people hate invasion is because it uses a resource that is quite hard to farm in the game... but that is my opinion of course.
...maybe. I've heard people level this charge against invasions before too. Funny though that I've never heard anyone complain about losing to PVE costing you an ember.
Lots of studies have confirmed that when we have a moral reaction to something, we have the reaction *first*, then go in search of supporting evidence for that opinion. I suspect the 'invaders cost me embers' argument is an example of this.
That said, sure, it is possible that your friend is the exception.
Thanks for watching and the comment!
@@iamamish I think I could agree with that, he does play a mobile MOBA game called "Mobile legends" and I could say the players there are really toxic. Just be it the team or enemies, one or two mistakes and both will call you noobs and all sort of things in the chat... scary place indeed
Great video dude! I really hope people listen to this with an open mind. I would love to see more people invading in Elden Ring 😁
Great video Amish. I think people dislike invasions (besides all the reasons you showed, which are correct) is that other games allow a player to have the cake and eat it too. Most, if not all the games that allow co-op do not have a drawback to that co-op.
Its funny, and ironic, that the same people that praise FS games because they are unique criticize the most unique mechanic in FS games (invasions).
The thing I always tell people is that when you talk about Dark Souls to somebody who has never played, but is vaguely familiar with the series, what do they always say about it? "Isn't that the game that is hard and has invasions?" Those are the two things the series is renown for.
Random aside - I remember playing Gears of War co-op, and I think that was one of the best co-op games ever. The interesting thing was that certain sections required you to take divided paths, so you couldn't help each other. If you lived, but your buddy died, you both had to redo it. It actually made those sections *harder* with co-op (2x the chance of death).
@@iamamish I never played gears, but thats a fun concept!
Also considering that invasions are literally the only thing keeping ds3 alive and you can see it’s pretty silly to hate invasions
Tryhards love invasions, noobs hate invasions, nothing wrong, nothing silly, pure logic.
I think it is fine to be a bit frustrated by the mechanic, especially when you're new.
ring sinsiter bell as a solo host in bloodborne to get solo invasion ,its refered to a red bell run/sinister bell run etc
I usually invade in gank city, but sometimes I get invaded while making new characters.
I only got one pretty bad experience w getting invaded. I was irithyll w shield of want, 7-8 +4 estus, and a +5 raw broadsword at sl 50ish at Irythill pre pontiff. I get invaded by a red w +6 weapons, bundle, +10 estus, siegs and twink rings (I did have prisoners chain equipped tho). So this guy comes in, buffs up and charges at me, as normal (I was at the bonfire right after the doggo). He gets heavily outplayed and heals, again normal, it's an invasion after all. He charges at me w various setups and keeps on losing so he retreates to the PvE, somehow I manage to kill the Knights and still keep some estus (he used 4-5 estus). Then 2 blues arrive and I just stand there without helping the blues (3v1, even w PvE is unfair, so I'm gonna send 2 noob blues against him, while he camps by the fire witches). The 2 blues die almost instantly, ofc. He charges back at me and I force him back again, at this point I have 3 estus. He starts waiting at the PvE, I charge at him w the objective to destroy the PvE first, but I get blendered and somehow survive, w 1 estus and 3/4 of my health. I unequip way of Blue and start waiting for the guy to come at me, but he doesn't, he's there, I don't have enough estus to deal w him, and he prob knows it, but doesn't attack, even as I approach the PvE again he just taunts me. I use my last estus, after retreating again and he again just stands there, I show him I'm out, and he stands there, waiting still for me to attack, something I would never do. We just keep waiting and I get kinda frustrated bc he could easily kill me just by outhealing me w his 6-7 siegs and his estuses. But he doesn't. In the end I kms w the PvE, but I didn't enjoy it one bit. This guy had better damage, better weapons, more heals, good armor and he still wouldn't approach me when I was completely without estus. Like, TF? Why are you not coming at me? But idk what got into him.
That's all, sorry for this boring, badly written story.
No, that's a good story. I have had similar encounters. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes you get salty reds who enjoy lots of advantages and yet still play this way. I think they get salty about being outplayed. Personally when I meet somebody who can outplay me, I find it fun as hell and would never just want to wait around. I'd rather lose and have a great fight.
My best invasion as a host was an invader who never had a fight alone with me at ringed city. He was always retreating with PVE, and played as a hybrid mage. I like faith builds so i had the good spell at that moment (great magic barrier), so it was not that painful, but when you know how to beat the pve, it was an interresting thing to challenge. He crystaled out at the end of the big stairs, but at that reach, i used every usefull item i had, even my divine blessing, thing i always avoid using usually because i like to have them in case of, and it was a good situation to use it. I think the invasions i like the most are the guys who really use the pve, even if you play solo or just with one phantom. And that's why coop with moundmaker are so better than regular friendly spirit. You have to think twice before your action, and sometimes that's what kill you. Situations can get to perfect to hell in twice a second. Exemple : I go to attack that tough pve ennemy, but the host try to at the same time, so i retreat from his reach, but shit, the host too, so the pve give an attack, and it reach the two of us, and then the host try to circle him to get a backtab, but at this time, you can't do anything without getting the possibility to hit the host to his death. And the ennemy attack again, and kill the host".
@@iamamish same here. When I duel I prefer to lose for 2 hours against good players than to win against bad/new players. It's just much more tense and fun tbh, and to top it all off I'm learning.
I still disagree with your point that invasions are a good way to balance Co-op. Consistent mechanics should always be used for balancing purposes rather than completely random ones. You yourself have also mentioned the overwhelming advantage hosts can have against solo invaders, so I'm not sure how that feature properly balances anything. Not saying co-op shouldn't have features put in to balance it, just that invasions are a horrible way to do it.
I agree it isn't the most consistent way to do it, but it is a very interesting and unique way to do it!
18:12 I've literally seen more than one streamer getting GENUINELY angry at being invaded by NPC's in these games. You would be shocked at the mental gymnastics some of these people perform to justify their dislike of the invasion mechanic. It's kind of incredible how people can miss the point that hard.
Not too shocked - I visit Reddit.
Hey. Quick question what are your stats in the beginning footage you play in this video?
I'm not totally sure tbh. I think that's either an SL 72 or 90, and it is a strength build. Actually it is an SL 90 strength build.
God I quit invasions because of a more active life and frankly other games,and Part of it was being under the impression of the pvp being dead after so many years.
God...I need to get back into it.
It's so much fun. It's hard to stay away forever too.
@@iamamish you...have a point.
Ds 3 was my first souls game and I hated invasions. The reason was that I was scared of losing souls. In ng you are always close to leveling up, so it was annoying for me for that reason. Now in my ng+ 2 I do not care about souls. I use them only to buy items. Still i do not invade, however I have the Dark moon banner to help people in invasions. Although there are not many players who change to the way of the blue banner for support. Oh and I think that the invasions are great, because it is fun to help other people. I am not great in PVP, but I am trying my best.
That's a good attitude to have. It's true of course that invasions can cause you to lose souls, but so can PVE. If you die, just equip a ring of sacrifice and then go back and get them.
I’m currently playing demons souls on ps5 and I’d say at least half of my invasions quit out as soon as I invade. If someone invades my world I always fight win or lose.
I can’t wait for the Elden ring invasions! ❤️🔥
great video as always, i definitely agree with everything you said here. I just wish i could have played ds3 when invasions were at its prime and it wasnt only gankers and people with save files / honest merchant mod. Hopefully invading at the start of edlen ring will be very rewarding and fun as everyone learns to play the game !
You can be invaded when not having co-op partners in Bloodborne. Just ringing the bell spawns in the Bell Lady. Also the most common form of self deception is Cognitive Dissonance.
When I was first invaded I was amazed. I Didn't know someone else connected my ps3 online and I was like "holy shit the ai is so good its even mocking me". Afterwards after some googling I was floored at the invasion mechanic, it was incredible and after my first playthrough I made a character for invading. It amazes me that people will intentionally deny themselves one of the most unique pvp experiences ever invented because they can't take a loss. I'm willing to bet that most everyone who has ever invaded thought to themselves after their first invader, "thats so cool imma do that", while scrubs just pull the plug because the game isn't an easy power fantasy anymore.
100%, it’s such an amazing and unique experience
I really hate the 'what if I want to do co-op' excuse for not playing offline. These games are balanced for one player; having phantom is a massive advantage and invaders help counter that.
I always felt like Dark Souls (especially the original) resembles a survival horror. Mobs are the zombies, Invaders are Mr X.
That's a great analogy.
I was talking to a let's player recently on Twitter and they were very frustrated about them (in DS3 - Idk if the encounters were actually bad tbh). I basically told them the same type of things, but it's kind of tough to navigate through those subjects with someone if a part of the issue seems to be the frame of mind they're coming at the game with. I'm not sure how to sell the vanilla offline experience for new players if that's not their thing (and fuck - avoiding "gatekeeping(tm)" to make a point on the abrasive nature of the world/experience, to give perspective on the coop mechanic, is kind of finicky).
And yeah you touched on the coop and self deception aspects pretty well, I'm just saying all of that since it's fresh.
@Jinxed Swashbuckler 100%, well said.
@Jinxed Swashbuckler Oh yeah I know. It’s just that they were outright using ‘gatekeepy’ like some sort of inherently meaningful terminology, with an exaggerated gravity that I felt would transpire into any other loose uses of the word, so you kind of have to be more essential about how you bring up difficulty, adversity and such to avoid the buzzword use of it.
And yeah I made sure to mention that those items/such would warn of that vulnerability, and how it ties into the world.
Idk if the problem’s more about them coping with the decision, than for them to understand/respect that their preferences or wants are actually not in line with the nature of the world/vision. They might not instinctively see the actual intents and how those fit into the game before genuinely immersing themselves into the world of one title and reconsidering first impressions.
You really nailed with the beginning vs late game experience.
At first pretty much nobody wants to get invaded by a player who is more knowledgeable and outranks with you experience, its rough and you're likely going to die but this is part of the souls experience, the world is a hostile place and this is even expressed with npc invasions and quests where npcs kill each other or even target you.
Then there's the late game experience where you're likely now messing around being an invader and learning the ropes because it adds longevity and a whole new perspective or even using a dried finger and taking on invaders due to the random element to the otherwise predictable game world.
The games are very upfront with being invaded, it's part of the game and the lore, it has its purposes in balancing the experience and those who are wholly against it and try to justify themselves are usually the kind of people who disconnect after losing phantoms, jump of ledges when things look bad or sit in 4 man ganks with a traitor red waiting to blender you, drop stalk dung pies and pointing down.
Invasions are part of the game and if you don't like it don't play online. Boohoo. Go play Sekiro.
Thanks, I think that's right.
Most funny part is - there is no any "status loss" in this game. At lest for random interactions. There is no matchmaking, ranking, balance (in traditional form). So, there is nothing wrong in geting wrecked by that basement dweller with 2-5k hours playtime if you not basement dweller yourself. Or vice versa, if you not a hardcore tryhard, you'd probably can't handle fully armed ganksquard. This is like... obvious outcome, not something anyone should feel bad about...
But for some reason in this franchise people can take themselves (and their victory\lose count) much more serious than in, say, dota or cs. Much more competetive and refined games there competition is main element of gameplay :)
Time to focus more on my irl career for six months so I can kind of get away with losing myself in a video game in six months. But I definitely intend to give DS3 the best send off that I can
You can disable invasions in dark souls 2 by burning an effigy. Not that I'd want to like, great video btw man
18:26 NPCs pose like 5% of the challange a decked out pro "ive been playing DS3 non stop since release" invader does. Its not even remotly comparable, the NPC invader is basically a mob with a red tint.
Yes, but now we're getting somewhere. So what people are really objecting to isn't *invasions*, per se. They're objecting to somebody that is considerably more skilled. And that is the root of what I'm talking about - people don't want to fight somebody better than they are!
@@iamamish Yeah obviously. I dont wanna compete throwing basketballs with Michael Jordan either. And I dont feel good if I win an arm wresting contest against three 8 year olds.
@@iamamish besides that, do you remember when you said you dont participate in SL120 meta because a) cheaters but more so b) its not fun to you. Guess what if I get rofl stomped by a poroifessional invader, that played Ds3 Pvp for the last 3 years, after that happend to me 4 times today already, is not FUN. Its just not fun. Its as much fun as trying to farm farron covenant and running into people that have engame gear on and have 20 flask charges that full heal them. Like........ cool......... I port out. And if I see my invader is a professional I jump off, saves time you know. Just the feeling of having to walk back to your souls because of this also feels miserable. I have no problems getting invaded by someone with similar gear and skilllevel. The problem arises when i have to play someone thats significantly better than me. Show me one competitional sport or video-game that has a matching system like that and expects its players to be happy with that and enjoying it. its just NOT FUN getting shat on because there 3 years of experience skillgap between the players.
Invasions should be more rewarding, though. Especially for the host; at least, _lone_ hosts. If a lone host can beat an invader who specifically brought weapons for killing hosts, they should definitely be rewarded, even if it's just some covenant rewards
I agree - there should be some benefit to taking out reds for hosts, especially solo ones.
very nice and cool thank you
i love your videos
Calling invasions a competitive setting might be a bit of a stretch, but it was funny to remember almost identical arguments in other yt or reddit threads, wondering if you were reading off the exact thread I remembered or if that many people have almost identical takes. I guess the 2nd option should have been expected.
The consistency of anti-invasion takes is remarkable. If you're ever bored, read through the comments on my disconnecting video to see what I mean.
I mean only by 'competitive' that you are competing against somebody else, not that it is a top-tier fighting game.
@@iamamish Yeah I understood what you meant, but even there I'm not sure I'd call (sub meta) invasions competing with others just because of how invasions are naturally balanced.
14:35 I disagree with you regarding this point. When people say that they don't like invasions I think the main reason why is because pvp invasions are not what they expected or signed up for when starting a FromSoft game. I think this largely ties into the way FromSoft markets their games. FromSoft has MARKETED their games as difficult pve experiences centered around fighting difficult bosses and exploring difficult areas. This is how most normies regard the Dark Souls trilogy. The idea that these games have pvp is either completely unknown to them or so unimportant compared to the pve experience that it is considered an afterthought. The reason people get upset at invasions is that to them, invasions are a deviation from the expected experience of playing the game. I genuinely think that the vast majority of people view the Dark Souls games as purely single-player experiences. Any invasion they are forced into is an annoying surprise to them.
And the reason why they think that is because that is the way FromSoft has marketed their games: as a pve game. Players that don't like pvp and only play for pve content come into these games and are surprised when they are forced into pvp. That is why people feel they didn't consent to the invasions. The idea that they consented to the pvp by just starting the game and popping an ember is unclear to them because they weren't even aware of the idea that popping an ember had downsides(a new player won't understand the vague item description). The main solution should be clearer communication from FromSoft that these games have pvp and that the simple act of playing online means that you consent to it.
I mean don't you have to agree to a TOS or something?
I agree with you cause I got into the souls games for the PvE alone and considered the PvP as just a bonus multiplayer for those who want it. From really does focus more on PvE.
@@_doop8257 A what?
@@dorkmoonblade4315 Terms of Service
@@_doop8257 I am largely talking about the general idea of what normies will be expecting when going into a fromsoft game. What content they are preparing themselves for and what experience they think they will have. They will be expecting challenging PvE content, NOT pvp and reading a terms of service will not be enough to change this outline of expectations.
eyyy the napstarf cameo, love to see it.
God bless Nap
PvP invaders do actually interrupt your plans for how to get through a level.
I agree that part of it is about pride, but the "interupt my gameplay" crowd have a point. They're just wrong about it being a bad thing.
NPC invaders always invade at the same time, in the same place, and behave the same way. PvP invaders do not. That can be legitimately annoying when you're trying to pick up your souls for the dozenth time. You've just figured out where all the enemies are, when it's safe to attack, exactly when you have to let your stamina regen before you sprint and weave in just the right serpantine to get around the "strong enemy ahead" mob's tracking... and then you get invaded and have to fight someone whos attack patterns are impossible to memorize.
But of course the unpredictability is also exactly what makes invasions such unforgettable, unique experiences, every single time.
So that is absolutely true and I do not deny that invaders interrupt you. The problem is that *so does everything else in the game*. The entire game is a series of interruptions, things trying to kill you.
I object to the framing - why are invaders the interruption? Why not, for example, the lothric knights?
@@iamamish Right. Well obviously people think of invasions as being different from pve, which it is.
But that's not saying much. There are big difference between different pve enemies as well. Something being different and rare doesn't make it an "interruption", in the way that these people use the word.
I take it that's your point with lothric knights and midir? That they're a lot smarter and tougher than most pve. Nobody complains that bosses interrupt their normal pve experience. Well, actually SaintRiot did in his most recent lordran lorethrough video a bit, but the point is that it's an uncommon complaint.
An example specifically of unpredictability in pve is maybe the pus of man, or even better, mimics. Mimics, like invaders are rare. Mimics, like invaders, have an aspect of unpredictability at least the first time you encounter them (until you learn to look at the shape of the chest's chain... which most people don't ever learn).
And while some people do complain about mimics, they're generally accepted as being part of the game much more readily than invasions are
Now that you mention that NPCs always invade in the same spot, it reminded me of Forlong in DS2, I think he invades randomly every where in the game. I wonder why FromSoft didn't implement that in DS3
@@fallenasleep7247 OK but I think we are getting closer to what I see as the root issue. What really differentiates invaders from PVE? Sure, they're less predictable, OK. They're also less frequent than most PVE.
But I don't really think that's what is driving the frustration. I'll bet $100 that you could have tough PVE that randomly spawned and nobody would characterize it as an 'interruption'. They might get frustrated by it, or find it too difficult, or something similar.
But it is this framing as an 'interruption' that I think is misguided. How does a game interrupt itself?
I think it is the human element that people key into, and they just frame human interaction differently than PVE. All those other aspects of invasions vs PVE (frequency, predictability, difficulty, etc) are red herrings.
@@iamamish totally agree with that :)
"Invaders are like tanks from left for dead 2".
I'm not gay but bruh...... I fucking love you!
That's one of the most euphoric things I've heard all year!
There's some truth to the invaders run away complaint, although it's situational. I've been playing a lot as a blue lately and of course they run into the level, they're now outnumbered, it's the smart play, but unlike most blues IDGAF and run into the level to chase them. My problem is when I'm invaded solo and the host is all for finding me and starting the fight, only to realize he's outmatched, get salty, and proceeds to run into the level to hold my game hostage. That's the sore loser mentality that gives the rest of us a bad name.
On the one hand that's true. on the other, I've been invaded literally thousands of times (like many other people here, I'm sure), and I can count on one hand the number of times a red has run off via a solo host. It definitely happens, but it is very rare.
@@iamamish According to my PS5 I have over 5000 hours in this game and I'd estimate it's happened to me maybe two dozen times or so. So yeah that's not a super high percentage but as far as invader complaints that's definitely the one thing that sticks out to me as far as frustration goes. Great vid by the way, looking forward to the "5 best places to invade in Elden Ring" vid next year.
Holy fuck is that amish? Daddy o looks like a blast to hang out with
what do they think of NPC invaders?
I do agree with you on some points and I can understand where you're coming from, but I personally don't like invasions simply because i suck at pvp. I am sorc lvl 266 and maybe I won like one invasion and that really puts me off. i don't understand the mechanics of pvp enough to participate in a fight and it just doesn't seem very rewarding for me.
That's a reasonable perspective. I'd really advise trying out a different build or something, as the PvP can be really rewarding. Sorcerers are at a real disadvantage in a 1v1. You might also try summoning a phantom if you get invaded to help you, or wearing Way of Blue.
@@iamamish I know but I like sorcerer class so much. i used to play sorcerer in ds 1 a lot and I think it was better for sorcerers there pvp - wise. I think you're right too - pretty much every spell can be dodged and the casting time for crystal soul spear is ridiculously slow it's just not worth using at all.
@@venusdoom90 if you want to play sorcerer in a 1v1, my recommendation would be a few things. First, make sure you equip homing soul mass (not crystal HSM, as it casts too slow). Use the threat of the orbs to close in on your opponent.
Try to always keep HSM up. Use a melee weapon like a SS in conjunction with HSM, and you can really pressure your opponent.
@@iamamish thabk you for the advice ill check that out. Ss you mean soul sword? Btw I started using dark sorceries as well. Are dark sorceries better in pvp or is there not much difference?
@@venusdoom90 yea uh level 266 mage? You're GOING to struggle. The meta ranges get wanky meaning you can connect to someone whose level 678 (joking but you get my point) in all honesty you should make another mage build and pick a area you want to play pvp in, like soul level 70 +7 or soul level 90 +10. You'll have a much easier time
Good video.
I think my biggest problem with invasions is lack of reward for both parties involved. Invading a PvE player who was summoning NPC's and killing them in 2 hits because they didn't level vit just isn't rewarding. The same goes for host, who either has to summon people to protect them or make a mad dash to the boss fog. I feel like the natural evolution to invading has become ganking and gank spanking and this because the people who engage in it enjoy the PvP content.
There is a real lack of motivation for just an average player to invade. People do it whenever a new game comes out, but just about every Souls game devolves into either ganking or duels. I would love to see From incentivize invading for casual players in hopes of drawing more people to the PvP scene of the game.
I've done a bit of invasions, have enjoyed arena pvp greatly in DS2 (haven't gotten into it in ds3 yet) and I agree with most of the points in this video. However I disagree with the comparison between invaders and hard bosses. Darkeater Midir is a huge spectacle battle, looks awesome, drops 150k souls along with a boss soul and in my opinion not at all comparable to the average invasion. It is quite reasonable to think of an invader as an interruption while simultaneously looking forward to your 30th attempt at any of Fromsoft's amazing boss battles.
OK, so yes there is definitely a framing where it can make sense to view invaders as an interruption, but not the PVE.
BUT - that requires some type of explanation of your reasons! If I said, "I don't like playing DS 3 because I keep getting interrupted by boss fights - I just want to fight invaders", you'd think that a silly perspective, at least without some type of reasoning. But that perspective is just as justifiable as the perspective that the invaders are the interruption.
Ultimately people privilege invasions as some type of special activity, when it is just another element of the game. What differentiates it in people's minds is that they're interacting with other humans. It *feels* different to us because of the human interaction, but we cannot admit that to ourselves, so we craft these narratives wherein invasions are an 'interruption' to avoid the cold truth - we're afraid.
@@iamamish Requiring an explanation isn't a high hurdle. "Invasions aren't as fun as boss battles". It's that simple. How many invasions end up being better crafted gameplay experiences for the average player than a boss battle from FromSoft? I'll bet it's not a high number. If people only got invaded on their way to the "bad" bosses, ie. Moonlit Butterfly and Prowling Magus, there would likely be much less complaining.
Also, "I don't like playing DS 3 because I keep getting interrupted by boss fights - I just want to fight invaders" is not an equivalent perspective. You've raised the stakes, I imagine most people who complain about invasions still overall like DS 3, they're not saying they don't like playing it. Not to mention that bosses are consistently well crafted experiences. You've admitted yourself that invasions have a % chance of being a bad experience even if you like the concept (due to glitches, cheats, lagg, etc).
Even if the comparison is equivalent, it's not that silly. Anecdotally I recall greatly enjoying a YT channel with a bunch of quirky builds in DS2 (ie Greatbow knocking people off ledges in Iron Keep) , which I tried to emulate. It truly was annoying to have to trudge through each boss for the n'th time as I recreated each build.
Again, I do agree overall that invasions are great and offer a net positive factor to the souls experience. But I think you're unfairly discrediting a valid argument by auto-assuming 'people who frame invasions as interruptions' as "afraid of the cold truth".
@@lolzfactory there are for sure ways in which invasions can be annoying. No doubt. But the way they’re so often framed as an interruption without any attempt to justify *why* makes me suspicious.
It’s fine to not like them, but saying “it is an interruption” really begs the question.
Honestly seeing high skills duels are so boring compared to invasions. To me at least, duels seem like running around trying to counter wiffs. While I get why people enjoys duels, I love the chaos and randomness invasions can have.
pontiff in coop. when ya playing with 1 or 2 friends who are not good at pvp... is not fun. and there are definitely the kind of ppl there who will try to ruin your fun over there, forest is similar, but not as bad - good thing no one plays as forestbros, right? its still bad in these areas....
you really cannot compare human invasions to npc invasions. n pal of mine with whom i played all the DS games so far, has no good reflexes and he be used to slow methodical playstyle that one is thought through out play DS games, which is one of the big reasons why ppl like it - its not necessary to have super high twitch reflexes to be decent in these games.
i can guarantee you my friend can take on any npc invader and beat em, but em gets super stress out when faces human enemies - he is decent against "normal" invaders, but once we start encountering the kind of invaders who will make use of any currently known meta trick possible to get ALL the advantages, it becomes very tedious to fight these ppl, im only mildly above mediocre myself and i usually dun have the mental stamina to dance around for hours to chip away at such ppl n chase em around etc. essentially being forced into camping at more advantageous position for us as world players, grinding any kind of progress to a stand still, as its not rly feasible to progress through the lvl with such ppl present - and these people usually also wont leave your world and wait around for however long.
we rly only ever consider disconnecting when encountering ppl who are abusing glitches or are blatantly using cheat engine to the point where i can tell they are...
sry for double reposting... i hated how i had worded the first post...