Elden Ring PVP: Invasions and the Politics of Fairness Part 1 - Choice
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 кві 2024
- Choice is something we all have when we play this game and invasions are a meaningful part of that experience.
Part 1 of a series exploring the fairness in and around invasions in Elden Ring.
Every time I'm helping a person cross the area and I see that they invade us, I get very excited because this way I can show them my interesting build and see their reaction.
If only everyone had your spirit
If only people are like this
That's crazy talk. You're taking like this a video game and shouldn't be taking it personal. Someone lock this looney away, 😊 jk skeleton. Whoever is having the most fun is the best at the game.
🗿
Same here, I love to play coop and help people out but the most Trilling part is getting invaded by someone who knows what they're doing.
Then I tried invasion myself and got ganked 9 times out of 10 in open areas and cooperaters with end game gear...what's the fun in that?
I especially hate when people call souls invasions 'non-consensual.'
If I used some crazy hacking skill to put my Baldurs Gate 3 character in to your playthrough to try and kill you, that would be non-consensual since the game doesn't enable that by default and would not be an expected part of the user experience.
Souls invasions have functioned like they currently do with minor variations for over a decade now and are advertised as an in game mechanic. If you play online you consent to participating in online game mechanics.
I would love if Baldur's Gate 3 included invasions. Imagine having a campfire romance and sTiNk3rxBLOODEATER shows up to stab you in the butt. Glorious
As an invader I feel like I embody fairness 😂
They get a player with half flasks, the game gets a player with half flasks.
I invade at MAX level, so the most toxic level as you can easily have gank squads run full Bullgoat, Double Nags, and be a Sorcerer who can nearly two shot you on top of that. I simply do not use any of the top tier weapons because for me personally, it just makes the victory feel unearned and stale. So naturally 99 percent of my invasions are uphill battles but even then, it doesn't bother me a whole lot anymore. I basically look at it as, If I can even get close to beating these broken Gank Squads with top tier weapons, armor, and glitches while I'm using a leather whip and a dagger, then I'm definitely happy as I both and the gank squad knows that in the end, they are a joke compared to me in a 1v1 (not saying I'm a good player, but definitely better than 95 percent of the gankers I run across). If they could add a 5th slot for a second invader, and just fix those stupid glitches, I'll be beyond happy even if they don't nerf all the top tier set-ups.
I invade because it’s not fair. Hosts have their phantoms and I have my build/knowledge of the game. The arena simply isn’t an option when I want to bait a max level phantom into getting smushed by the ball at raya lucaria. 🤷🏻♂️
I've always resented the idea that the arena is somehow a substitute for invasions. I don't think anyone sincerely thinks it is, but I suspect the onslaught of people who tell me to "go to the arena. That's what it's for" are just trying to put me in jail or something. I want the chaos of the world and I want it to be imbalanced. It's more interesting that way.
@@emotionaljonxvxit’s not that their point *doesn’t* make sense, it’s a dedicated PvP place, so why wouldn’t a host who doesn’t invade but knows what the colosseums are, believe it’s much different?
The problem of course is that they don’t know the colosseums don’t even work, and that not enough people play in them, as you’ve already showcased.
A Duel and an Invasion are two very distinct things, to suggest to not know the difference between them is genuinely and astonishingly insane. It's quite obvious the few people suggesting the arena as a substitute for invasions are trying way too hard to gaslight others.
I'm not gonna pretend like this was never a problem in previous games but ain't nobody telling me that it somehow got better in Elden Ring...
Instead of improving upon anything in previous titles in regard to multiplayer they just made almost every aspect worse. No wonder the discourse around it got so assinine and i commend you greatly for trying to be a voice of reason here.
Not that it'll change a lot of minds but all we can do is try, i guess...
It's definitely an uphill boulder. I get incredibly disheartened every time I post a video and someone in the comments basically copy-pastes the exact same rhetoric from my previous video. It's also why I feel so compelled to make the videos, so I guess it all works out in a stupid sort of way.
While playing the previous games, I got invaded twice in Dark Souls and got wiped- cost me five minutes of my time, I actually managed to get a few invasions in DS2, the fight was much more relaxed despite only having one flask as an invader, DS3 was surprisingly active and my first invader was at a horrible time and I got wrecked, first time invading was a player being helped by end game friends who actually respected a duel between me and one of the summons.
Not once in elden ring have I had an invasion with overleveled phantoms that wasn't absolute hell.
I have no opinion on this. I invade, they die or I die trying to make them die. But I always welcome another Emotional Jon analysis. I take your thoughts seriously and incorporate them into my game.
Miyazaki griefing my boi Jon so hard he had to create an analytically 🔥 UA-cam channel just to deal. Legends say Jon didn’t even know what a UA-cam was before Elden ring launched.
What's a UA-cam?
I mostly agree with what you said about “honor” and the limitations it imposes on a game. There are LOW skill weapons and setups in elden ring, which tend to give skilled players a rough time. It is NOT wrong to use these, just easy. What I feel most people who complain are missing is that each one has a counter. The ashes in this game make it really easy to stop someone from doing something you don’t like. Carry storm stomp somewhere in your pocket, along with endure. You don’t need to be above the easy techniques, if it’s about honor, you’ll use them responsibly, as an anti-cheese. There isn’t an honor code, how can you blame someone for taking the path of least resistance. Whatever, I’ll just do cosplay runs until the dlc comes out
For sure. I definitely don't want to imply people shouldn't have a sense of honor or integrity about how they play games, just that they can't choose for someone else and should embrace that people have that level of autonomy. It's a tricky thing to navigate sometimes but I find any level of policing around these games to be a little misguided.
Man, these whippersnappers don't know from unfair. At worst all you lose in an "unfair" ER invasion is fake currency.
Back in my day, you traded your hard-earned weekly allowance for a meager handful of Aladdin's Castle tokens, dutifully placed one under the Street Fighter II screen and patiently waited for the one kid (demographics varied, but usually the product of a wealthy divorce) who was aces at Zangief to corkscrew pile drive you into the ground in five seconds flat: "NEXT!"
Now *that* was unfair.
*cries in Tekken 2 cabinet queue dominated by a godly King player*😢
And honestly, past souls games have had more benefits to invaders. In DS1and DS3, the criterion for multiplayer was becoming human or embered. Humanity is quite a minimal buff unless you were running a chaos build, while an ember is a better HP buff, but still nowhere near the benefit that an Entire Extra Player adds. If anything, the ER multiplayer risk that players take is the least punishing of the series.
The more i play, the more I recognize the loss aversion in the community;
I don't really consider myself good at pvp, but I've found myself looking forward to being invaded, and with some of my builds, even seeing invaders as flask pinatas.
Its hard to think of invaders as being inherently better at the game after watching some panic roll off Farum Azula because they don't know how to deal with bloodhound step Greatsword pokes😅
If you want to do an any% ban speedrun to get banned on r/eldenring you should absolutely post this video there
I should stream it
The content practically makes itself! Great video though, I love this series. Gives excellent insight into what players should expect from From Software game mechanics
The issue that elden ring has with its multiplayer are many, and as a person who invaded a lot in ds3 (especially moundmaker or aldrich) you will never catch me invading in elden ring. First it is a wider community, which comes with people just starting to play the souls games, and not knowing anything about buildmaking, stat maxing, basics of combat etc. When you invade those people its like there is no challenge to be had.
Secondly, elden ring rewards heavy dps and cheese builds on the invaders parts for the most sweaty experience ever from the hosts perspective. I did a taunters tongue run and up until rl level 40 there were only okina mask, cleanrot rapier with bhs and rot pots. Later on it was only dual spears. The occasional flaming strike spam to spice things up. To counter that i had to use endure dual straight swords.
Pvp in elden ring is not engaging due to the very low ttk, issue that appears from low level with cleanrot, dragon halberd, stormhawk axe until 125-150 where the powerstanced spears, straight swords, magic builds start to appear.
Elden Ring PVP balance definitely has a lot of issues and people tend to gravitate toward the easiest/cheesiest builds. I think what would help a lot (beyond a lot of balancing) is if they allowed for larger, more chaotic battles, where build and skill are major components but so are chaos and teamwork.
Invasions get boring sometimes because you'll never get a different dynamic. Just 1v2 and 1v3 with a non-zero chance of a helper in a battle where the opponent isn't just actively invasion-baiting instead of playing through the level.
I miss the invasion zones because they were great for activity and let chaos reign. It made it so much more interesting to fight when 3v3 was constantly on the table.
I think there's more to be said about whether a game encourages fun or unfun mechanics, rather than fair and unfair mechanics. We don't play games because they're fair, we play them to have fun. A lot of the people complaining about something being unfair are really just complaining that they're not having fun and from there you can look at balance issues, bugs, etc and judge if their complaints are valid while the moral argument kind of just gets stuck. That's why I think removing solo host invasions isn't necessarily a good thing. It might be more fair to most people, but I think it's less fun as well.
That's a good angle to consider. I really just want to highlight that fairness is completely subjective (like fun) and that there aren't any objectively correct ways to play.
A host can use a red sign to summon an invader. Why ignore or pretend that it doesn't exist as an option?
If invaders have excuses against using that, such as having to wait for someone who actually wants to be invaded to find that sign (which is reasonable, time is precious), then can't a host use taunters tongue to get invaded without having summons?
And why can't the summons leave it to the host to decide how an invader is to be treated, whether ignored and running to the boss, or fought 1v1's or ganked. I find there's nothing worse than summons who just lunge immediately without thought to the hosts goal.
If using the tongue and they end up with two invaders, then maybe, and forgive me if it's a wild notion, maybe people could have a degree of etiquette and patiently wait their turn to fight the host. Maybe a specified emote can be used to signify an agreement to 1v1 or 2v1, that way everyone is getting their enjoyment in an entirely consensual manner, however gay that sounds. As much as I can enjoy off the cuff randomness, some people don't and sometimes I don't either, my preference shouldn't outweigh theirs, so a way to quickly signal such things would be useful to retain some of that flow without imposing on another.
I feel that is all that is needed, some basic standards and etiquette, and understanding of how your preferences interact/intercept the preferences of others and finding a way to alleviate the negatives of it. Hence if it's clear, or perhaps you can reasonably assume that a host doesn't want to be invaded, only wants the co-op, then what harm is there to you as an invader in simply leaving?
The use of the argument that by summoning, a host opts in to being invaded because it's part of the game, is somewhat akin to suggesting she deserved it because of how she was dressed. Hey, it's just a mechanic of human existence that some will value their own enjoyment over that of others, and their own liberty, such that they'll spoil things for everyone else. And we correctly call them bellends.
What is an invasion at its core but an imposition of your own enjoyment on another with an ultimately flaccid justification?
Call me a bit soft, but real life is shitty enough in regard to imposition and competitiveness. Does it also need to feature in our escapism, the game is challenging enough for most people that they really don't need the kick in the teeth of their fellow tarnished invading them. It would be best to just have an option to accept or deny invasions, but I'm sure invaders will find a way to complain even about that.
I'm not against invading as a mechanic, I'm against invaders who lack the awareness or empathy to leave alone people who simply aren't interested in the PvP. What satisfaction is there in beating someone who wasn't even interested in competing in the first place?
@@djinnxx7050lol redditors can’t help but compare invasions to rape. Get real.
@emotionaljonxvx I would agree but dual nagis exist and that is the objectively correct way to play, prove me wrong.
@@djinnxx7050 You will never convince people to adopt your moral code or system of etiquette. Most people playing don't even interact with the community outside of the game. The most productive thing you can do is give feedback to developers on how systems can be improved to encourage more fun interactions. In regards to preferences, part of game design is actively ignoring player preferences, because often players will optimize the fun out of a game if left to their own devices. That's why you can't opt into an easy mode, because the game devs made a decision that difficulty settings did not fit the game. More importantly, if you don't like what the devs did, you're free to install or create whatever mods you want. You bought the game, you should be allowed to do whatever you want to it as long as you're not using the devs' online services (you own the game, not their servers/infrastructure). The existence of anticonsumer locked down platforms which don't let you do that is whole other can of beans, but ideally that's what should happen.
@@djinnxx7050Accepting and denying invasions would just make it the same as duels with more hoops to jump through.
What invasions are is literally in the name. It's an invasion, you can't deny being invaded. There's no consent involved in that dynamic.
Overall you made a lot of good and interesting points though. Thanks for taking the time to write all that up.
the invasion discourse is absolutely unsalvageable. both sides call each other names and cry foul without any self reflection. invaders call hosts/phantoms cheaters because they usually get 3v1 when the host is genuinely going through the level. hosts call invaders cheaters because they usually twink in low areas or use frame traps. invaders call hosts spoiled babies that need big daddy overleveled phantom to come cuddle them at night. but at the end of the day i usually find invaders trying to justify themselves far more hypocritical and that is what bothers me more than the actual justification. i see it nearly every post or comment saying that a host/phantom just wants to play with their friends/family/girl/boyfriend, and (what i assume to be an invader) someone will comment that invasions are there to "balance" the difficulty of co-oping and if they don't like it then they shouldn't play multiplayer (i still find significant problems with this because you're essentially saying they should not play with their friends). yet, in the same breath curse those exact same hosts/phantoms when they get blendered which is also in the game for those exact same "balancing" reasons (the exact same cherry picking you describe). there are so many examples of hypocritical lines of thinking so i won't bother listing them. hosts will think that invaders cheat for using intended game mechanics and just general good execution because they themselves are too lazy to learn or counter them, honestly this is a consequence of streamers/content creator making final judgements on things they have no right to make and made most of the community lazy and for better or worse makes the proliferation of cheese extremely common.
in ER, invasions more than any other souls game are not made to be fair. i've stated it's closer to skill based matchmaking but with number of opponents rather than rankings. i'm one of the odd ones in this game as i do a little bit of everything, but still way more arena than anything else. a host and 1 phantom is about the same pressure as a good duelist with a meta setup, while a 3v1 is nearly impossible so i find no problems with invaders using pve to put between them i do it too. the only difference is i'll actually openly challenge a 2v1 more as a challenge to myself but also give the host and the phantom some fun. the only nuance i will add to what you stated in the unfair portion is everyone has their own hypothetical line to me that is 3rd party tools full stop. chainsaw scripting, save editing, actual hacks and yes this includes CE is where i draw the line. personally, i find no fault if you cheat in a single player game as it affects no one but you, you may cheat yourself of the experience but it's your choice not thrust upon by someone else (i don't particularly agree with your view that deviating from the developers intentions should be viewed negatively especially in the confines of single player games or with like minded individuals as with your definition it also paints modding in the same light) that being said from my time invading, cooping, and arena (nearly 2000 hours) i've never encountered more actual hacking and chainsaws (that easy-anti dogshit still does not detect btw) than from invaders (do with that info what you will) i don't have full stats but the frequency of cheating in invaders is around 1 out of 100 if i include suspected CE use probably about 1 out 10. arena is around 1 out of 500 and mostly chainsaws and for hosts/phantoms is around the same as arena.
There's definitely hypocrisy on every side of the debate and I'm sure most of it boils down to personal biases. I definitely didn't mean to imply people have to play the game the way the developers intend, more that if you don't care what the developer intends you probably aren't having the intended experience. I don't think that's so much a negative as maybe a way to miss out on something.
As far as mods go, I think people should be able to mod their games as much as they like and I think a lot of mods outright improve the experience of a lot of games. Some developers rely on mod communities heavily and I think that's cool. FromSoftware aren't exactly representative of that sort of developer but that's for lots of reasons.
In any case, I'm still going to try and further the discourse, even if it is a lost cause.
I invade but remain BASED at all times. No spinning slash kiba, no broken bs. It makes the victory that much better.
Winning by your own rules is always the sweetest victory.
I feel where you're coming from, but to a degree I agree with people complaining about a lack of choice, albeit for very different reasons. Invasions were clearly slated for inclusion from the beginning, but then a problem emerged that was solved best by imbalancing the weapons, then again with different ones, then another mechanic and so on. So many times, problems in Elden Ring get solved not because you grew enough as a player, but because you "just had to explore to find the better weapon or spell."
But that's not you making a choice. That's a choice being made for you. And a lot of good options in Elden Ring are just choices made for you, because the alternative is simple, ungratifying defeat. That's why the Stormhawk Axe gets used. That's why R1-R1 BHS out gets used. That's why summon two buddies and L2 through eachother is perennial. Any invader who doesn't have the overwhelming skill advantage thereafter has a choice between getting blendered or not invading. And that's not a choice.
I hear you. Choice is a very subjective matter, to be sure. The game has a whole slew of faults, not least of which is the funnels it throws players into by only incentivizing specific behaviors. I wanted to focus on the matter of choice in that we choose to play this game and we choose so much of how we play it, even if the game does a bad job of empowering the sub-choices we make within.
I don't love using the stormhawk axe but if I want to kill a group on an elevator it's one of my best options at-level. I can choose not to use it but then I'd probably be choosing death. Then again, I could just be cheating myself out of practicing more efficient and fun tactics by taking an easier route, so I try to rely on it less and less.
In all cases, we still have choice but it's not always a good one. One of those imperfect aspects of the translation, I suppose.
So, my take on this has always been the following:
A player who is engaged in cooperation falls into one of a couple of categories
A) Someone who wants to screw around with their friends
B) Someone who finds the game too hard and wants assistance getting through it
C) Someone who mostly plays solo but is presently stuck dozens of attempts in and hoping for an out
D) Someone who wants to gank invaders
the system cares not for what reason you summon your friends, it will send invaders regardless. The question is: When is the experience improved for the player being invaded? In the case of A or D perhaps, but in the case of C getting invaded feels like being griefed. These games are hard, and most invaders are more dangerous than any enemy. So often it feels like this to players falling into categories B and C: They're struggling to make it through the game, they're willing to swallow their pride and get help, and what awaits them is an experience where maybe they just die to an invader anyway instead of succeeding at the task.
And usually if you're looking for something more interesting than the tears of newbies invasions don't often provide good gameplay for invaders, since the host(the person you are supposed to kill) is someone who isn't good enough to beat the game without assistance.
This is why the meta of putting summons at the boss exists instead of putting summons at the start of the level: people who are struggling would rather do the stage alone and then get help for the boss than try to get help with the stage and invite invaders to kick them while they're down.
On the flip side, in Dark Souls 3 on my like fourth playthrough I decided to play the entire game embered from start to finish wherever possible, and always beat the boss as the last thing I did before leaving an area. This playthrough had TONS of PVP shenanigans that I thoroughly enjoyed, because I felt comfortable enough playing the game that the added chaos of invaders ACTUALLY spiced things up and if I died no big deal because I was confident in my ability to beat the game- but this was a SOLO playthrough, I've never enjoyed invasions when trying to goof off with friends.
Ultimately, I find that tying invasions and co-op together intrinsically eliminates what is IMO the best form of PVP this series has to offer: Experienced players opening their world up to invaders and rolling with the punches because they're feeling in the mood for it.
Edit: As a note, an invasion is NEVER fair. An invasion can be HONORABLE, but that does not make it fair. The only real measure of fairness that matters is whether or not an experienced invader is "bullying" newbies, but the game mechanics do not put the power of choice in the hands of the invader. The invader has only the choice to play or not to play- one should expect that they are here to play.
This. So much this. I would never want them to outright remove invading from the game as I can understand why so many people love it. It's an incredibly unique mechanic, and if you want to enjoy it you absolutely can!
All I want is a way to be able to enjoy the game with my friends without having to deal with a mechanic I don't enjoy. I don't see why this would be such a bad thing. Sure, invaders might get less people to invade, but then again, who would they be missing out on? Me and my friends, souls vets that just don't enjoy PvP? Some guy introducing his favorite game to his friend who's not all that skilled? Who would enjoy these invasions?
If you enjoy invading to have a thrilling battle between players, you wouldn't miss anything, as anyone wanting to do that would simply play with invasions. If you enjoy invading to ruin some poor newbies game, then frankly I don't care if you're missing out any more than you care about me enjoying my time.
@@octodog5907 Right? I remember in Dark Souls 1 where humanity was hard to come by my friends and I were trying to co-op the game for fun and we would just alt + F4 the second an invader popped into the game because if the invader happens to win we lose the limited resource we need to be allowed to play the game together. And I'm sure plenty of people engage in this practice when they want to avoid pvp so invaders ALSO have to deal with being matched with people who are just going to ragequit because they didn't want to be there to begin with. Hell, on my first playthrough of Souls 1, 2, and 3 the first thing I'd do after beating a boss is jump off a cliff to take myself out of the invasion pool since I was likely to die to an invader anyway otherwise and it would be better to save myself the trouble.
So this whole thing sort of misses the mark for me and not for any egregious reasoning. Invasions are about so many things but they're never about letting people pick and choose when they're ready. They're about making people prepared at all times whenever they decide to interact with multiplayer.
I get why people don't like them and want them to be entirely optional but that's the sort of ask that really diminishes the design goals of the game. It's not any different (in my mind) than adding in a difficulty slider. It just serves to undermine the integrity of the game design and makes the games just any other RPG, which is to say makes them worse.
These games are better for not having those options. Not because people should be made to suffer but because people should be made to experience things outside of their comfort zone when playing a game designed to do so. When you give people easy outs, they'll take them for better or worse.
Giving people the option to do whatever they want in a game isn't necessarily a bad thing but it certainly undermines the ideas of balance, incentive, and choice.
I've made videos talking about all this stuff in more depth if you're interested but my tl;dr is that I think invasions are a good mechanic that require people to be incentivized to participate and anything that diminishes that incentive diminishes invasions. Elden Ring has already done a lot of damage to the system and I'd like to see them pivot toward a more invasion-centric model as it is far and away the most interesting part of the series.
@@emotionaljonxvx I don't fundamentally disagree with this, part of my point is that the goal when designing invasions should be to maximize the number of exciting encounters. So, by limiting invasions to people in co-op for example one knock on effect is that co-op almost guarantees an invasion occurs- by taking all the solo players out of the pool, you make invasions more predictable which creates the behavior I mentioned of summoning at the boss door because it's the only way to engage in co-op without the certainty of an invasion. And also means that you're automatically "prepared", because you know that solo = no invasions, co-op = constant invasions.
Then doing things like the humanity or embering system in previous souls games means that players are losing resources they might not be able to replace in pvp, so of course they're going to do things like disconnect.
My argument is that the system in Elden Ring maximizes the frustration in invasions while minimizing the opportunities for interesting encounters like the ones I had when I willingly opened myself up to pvp in souls 3(the first time in the series I decided to embrace invasions and ended up having fun even though I rarely won).
Invasions are conceptually a great idea, but in elden ring's major content zones they're either nonexistent because you're solo, disruptively frequent because the pool of invasion targets is too small, or the entire goal of play for the host. None of these create the level of chaos and unpredictability that this system should bring to the table, and that's the common ground we find.
@@Telorath I think you're making an excellent point with Elden Ring. Frankly, I think it made invasions worse across the board and really want to see it rectified. Definitely a case of too many compromises and not enough incentive. I'm just wary of any ideas that might further diminish what invasions can be, as even though they're far from at their best in Elden Ring, it seems they're much closer to being removed entirely rather than given proper attention.
Appreciate the thoughtful points and hopefully the DLC can bring us some positive improvements to the system.
the latency in some of these clips induced a deep-seated, very primal and vicarious kind of anger in me that i rarely get to experience. thank you fromsoft
Also great video
What's kinda annoying is when people keep their character low level then go a load up on every insane armor and buff in the game basically beat the game without leveling so the only invade low levels with no gear. They'll have this insane edge over you to the point where you would've killed them 4 times if they didn't have that gear but they just take you down in a single ash of war.
To that point, ashes of war are broken no matter what. You can easily kill any character that hasn't leveled vigor without any special bonus or gear using the stormhawk axe (two available form Nephili in Stormveil). That's actually why I'm using it in the video, because the character is built using just Limgrave gear and upgrades (to avoid twinking) and that axe is one of a few tools to deal with groups. It's very, very strong and I far prefer something with a little more ebb and flow but it's not always going to be an option with the way fighting multiple opponents works in this game.
There are lots of very strong options very early in game because this game just has a lot of very strong gear that doesn't exactly balance well.
It evens out when the host has a password summoned max level phantom that kills you in 2 hits :)
@@emotionaljonxvx yeah I can agree, I suppose it really just come down to not building my character for PVP at all and getting invaded by people who do when I'm playing with friends.
These videos remind of what i_am_amish used to talk about back in the DS3 days.
That's high praise. I try to make the content I miss/want the most
Imo DS2 had the best balance between invader v. host fairness, I'd say without password summons the game would be like 65%ish more balanced
Stop making me miss Dark Souls 2. I miss it too much already.
I just think that overlevelled summons need proper downscaling
I really want them to have their stats stay the same but have all their costs increased based on the disparity. Double or triple the stamina/mp cost and damage taken, along with severely reduced damage all for essentially being overly strong in a weakened state. It's basically what the system is getting at as-is the but the formula isn't all that well-tuned.
@@emotionaljonxvx Yeah that way of doing it makes sense. As a bit of a tangent I tried using my RL1 +12/+6 somber character as a password summon for one of my friends who had a lower weapon level character, and funnily enough the downscaling applied and ripped away from me the fragile balance of health and resistances I had to avoid being one shot (though that was at Greyoll who nerfs your resistances now that I think about it).
The downscaling is good up to RL80 from what I heard. I'm currently making a dex invasion build at that level.
This feels so validating. I love playing this game with my friends, but whenever an invader joins, some of them get so salty every time. I've tried explaining that if they don't like invasions, they can play the game solo, and it is arguably easier, but I always get the same emotional responses that don't respect the nature of the game... I've never been able to express the nuance this clearly though, and I appreciate all the thought you've put into it.
When you used crouch poke as an example of something that's "IN THE GAME", I wish you mentioned things like BHS, which was considered unfair and it (rightfully) got nerfed. It is an interesting point because as much as "fairness" is in the players' heads, players also shouldn't automatically accept the state of the game.
Yeah, I picked crouch poking because it has remained more or less unchanged, but there are tons of things that are very silly. Personally, I hate all sorts of OP or immersion-breaking mechanics but I wanted to point out something that, as much as I think it's dumb, has no real bearing on whether or not people should be allowed to use. I want From to heavily adjust how a lot of things work in-game but until they do, I don't really blame people for using them. Definitely worth pointing out though, just wasn't in the scope of this video.
The Vsauce of fromsoftware 😮
I’ll add a couple supplementary points.
It seems some players, mostly hosts who don’t like the “skill gap” between invaders and themselves, confuse “unfairness” with “unexpectedness”. Or, a lack of knowledge.
When a player gets invaded and dies because of a string of attacks, a specific attack, or even a specific weapon, that they’ve *never* seen before, that isn’t an “unfair” encounter. This is for the same reason fighting Margit the first few times, and attacking him when he finishes a string of attacks because you believe it’s a valid opening to do so, only to have him summon a dagger and cut your face doing unexpected chip damage, is also not “unfair”. Elden Ring is the newest, biggest game in a series of games where the whole idea about it is, you learn how difficult enemy attacks work slowly and over time.
If a player sees this in Margit, and then down the line fights Eleonara, or any other in-game player model character, and doesn’t complain about *their* attacks because they understand them to be enemies with animations that must be learned-and *then* complains about an invader’s kit being unfair or too strong or similar, I believe that player is being disingenuous. Yes, brain calculations informing an invader’s attacks are more dangerous than the AI controlling Eleonara, but when you’re a new player, there isn’t a difference between the two. The animations of in game tarnished and invaders are shared. When you learn how to fight Eleonara effectively, when you’ve never fought against enemies like yourself, that is also you magically learning how to better fight invaders. I’m serious. The way I got better at fighting real people, was by fighting the same enemy type set to “easy”. Who woulda thunk. So, when a player talks about unfairness in *this* sense-their invaders having kits they don’t *expect*-they’re saying nothing of substance other than “I haven’t thoroughly learned how fights work yet.”
The second point. As you said, there are players coming in to Elden Ring, who purely want to play the game *with their friends* as much as they possibly can. I’m also in the camp that, when a player literally opens the door to invaders, they really shouldn’t feel like they’ve been tricked or infringed upon when one does show up. So, a player does *not* have the choice to play with their friends without the added “problem” of invaders, they can’t say “no” to an unchangeable part of the game.
…except they DO have that possibility to play with their friends uninterrupted. As long as they buy the Steam version. Miyazaki himself is *pro-modding* when it comes to his games. Being able to play ER a different, personally better-fitting way, should be encouraged. They aren’t playing an “impure” version of ER. Like you said-it *is* their game. Nobody knocks Minecraft players for making their game run better on their pc by using Optifine. Nobody knocks players for playing the Convergence mods of DS3 and ER. It’s the same, here, the only difference is the seamless co-op mod involves multiplayer. But when people love it, when it literally solves their problems, when the mod itself has ways of balancing the experience so that the game itself scales with the number of players in a group-how could that be bad?
Now here’s the really controversial belief of mine. You know how I said a player can’t call Margit unfair just because they don’t know what his attacks will be like going in? How they can’t be like “oh the fight is unwinnable” *because* they haven’t figured out all the possible maneuvers they could pull off to do better? It’s shitty, but I have the same mindset when it comes to the co-op mod. As in-if you got ER on console, but only wanted to play ER with your friends, you did in fact fuck up the choice you made, you bought the wrong ER version. It’s only shitty because real money and availability are added to the equation. What if the player wants to play ER exclusively with their friends but only has a console? Sucks for them, they still made that choice.
So when I see a player complain about invaders being an irrefutable part of co-op, sorry but that’s on the player. They *did* have a choice to have the ability to use seamless, even if they didn’t know it, the same way that a player has the choice to dodge a point blank Margit fast-dagger, even if they didn’t know it. Shoulda done your research. Being less fortunate isn’t “unfair”. Just means you, as a gamer, could either wait to get a PC, or cope, and take what you can get now, without complaining.
Call it cruel, but that’s how I see it. If you want better co-op, but refuse or can’t use seamless, that’s on *you*.
It’s the same reason I don’t complain about PC invasion connections being shitty. I don’t have a console, I can’t immediately get one, I would *like* to get an ER copy on PS *because* I know it’s smoother than on my older PC. I do think if I complained about PC connections when the PS experience is *right there* , I would be being disingenuous. I made my choice for which version of ER I would play, it doesn’t matter if I, personally, only had one option available, *because* of other players who *do* have the full option. I’m not more special than them because of our real life differences.
Do I want better PC connections? Sure. My solution? “Go and get them.” Does a player want invaderless co-op? Makes sense. My solution? “Go and get it.” ER will still be waiting for us by the time we’re able to.
I do find a lot of people are quick to criticize people when the AI does the same sort of thing, as if the game wasn't designed by people trying to mess you up as much as possible. It's a complex tapestry of heated reactions and negative biases and I am trying to use my perspective machete to chop through the jungle that is Souls logic.
I noticed your comment, Jon, about not liking seamless from an activity perspective. It makes sense. I presume you mean, if everyone had access to it, invasions would happen much less often, as there would be much less valid players to invade. I personally believe if everyone had access to it, there would still be players who choose not to use it, there would still be hosts who opt-in for invasions. Would they mostly be gank squads, yes, but as we all know, when a host opens the door to invaders, and when an invader chooses to invade, both of these players cannot expect anything less than any and every possible kind of opponent. We’re already agreeing to face mostly gank squads when we attempt invading. This would also mean *no host* who doesn’t want to be invaded, will be invaded as long as they understand their own actions. So, everyone who wants to invade, wants to be invaded, and doesn’t want to be invaded, would get what they want.
Here’s my other less fortunate personal belief. If invading can only be a reliable way to PvP *because* it’s fueled by players who don’t like the mechanic… I don’t think that should be the case, *despite* the point of invasions being that they’re unexpected. It really shouldn’t be the case that a mechanic thrives when most of the people involved don’t actually like or want it.
That’s just me though, of course. I would indeed rather invade someone who understands the risk, than someone who doesn’t.
@@emotionaljonxvxyou’re doing a great job with that machete btw!
@@AppleIndianFTW For me, it comes down to wanting invasions to be a more forefront mechanic and mods that split the player base damage that potential. I think people should be able to mod their games however they want, just wish it was compatible with everyone else.
its crazy to me how after all these years.. like it started with demons souls in 2009 and so many people still can't comprehend the multiplayer in souls games...
These games are simply way ahead of its time..
DLC is gonna bring so many bad takes omg its gonna be hilarious
When I have a tough boss I have to decide do I want to deal with invasions when I consider summoning any help. I either play alone and essentially play “offline” or take the built in risk of an invasions. That mechanism is forcing anyone who wants to play cooperative play is also forcing them to play PVP. And I’m looking at arenas now; an exclusive PVP online game play option. There’s no cooperative play option that’s the same. ✌🏼 And the fog wall goes away in any open world boss fight. 😂
Yo emotional jon, whats the best level to invade? like being a legit invasion (no gank fiesta) and not having to wait for centuries ? and what wep level?
Lvl 60 = +12 +5. Lvl 80-90 = +17 + 7 lvl 80 is great for having a “fair” fight with a simple build. But if you want action and to have a wide range of “build” then I’d jump to lvl165ish with max lvl weapons obviously
Also ganks will be at every lvl but most at “meta”
It really depends on your build but if you want the most "natural" invasions I find lower level more consistent. Half your fights will still be ganks in the sense that they'll have overleveled friends but a lot of the time you can get people just going through.
In the video I'm using a new build at level 20 with +5/+2 weapons using only equipment from Limgrave to try and give people a more immersive experience. It's not nearly as reliable as a twink but it has a lot of charm so far.
I've also had luck at level 200 with max upgrades, finding people playing through NG+ and the like. It's a little less gank heavy but damage can get absurd quick.
Great video, really great points made and looking forward to that follow up. Definitely earned a sub from me!
Hey! I was the invader who grabbed you out of the Stormhawk axe ash with Inescapable Frenzy! Man, funny how the world works. I was like, "Hey, isn't this that hunter I double KOed last night?" lol. Anyway, I completely agree with you when it comes to invasions. When I invade, it's not like I'm actively trying to ruin someone else's experience. Honestly, I'm just trying to have fun lol. But between the bad latency, 3v1 ganks, and overleveled phantoms, you really need to adapt or die as an invader. Good video man! Looking forward to the DLC!
Oh man! I wished so bad I was recording when that happened. I was laughing so hard in discord
Fairness to me is From balancing their games to make it so nobody can have an advantage in a 1v1 due to their build/gear. In a perfect world, the outcome of invasions would come down to the players skill at the game.
Thanks for another one of these. For the fair/unfair imaginary line point, I wonder how much meta (another imaginary agreed upon line) plays into it? In other games, I've had the interesting experience of seeing a bunch of people who mostly run a copy-paste meta build for pvp. Then, when it turns out the meta can actually be countered by home brew inventiveness/said people are made to put in a lot of effort if they wish to stick to it, the fair/unfair arguments come out. It almost feels like there is some assumption of "I run the meta, so I must have the power" and then when this turns out to not be the case it makes folk get cranky. Claiming unfairness or that if only the other player stood still and fought with their hands tied behind their back, they would surely win.
Vise Versa, people seem to think meta means unbeatable by any other means and can have a defeatist attitude if someone is using it and they are not. When it's really just what most people decided and agreed to use due to the benefits, that do not by any mean make it the only trick in the book. Even discussing this, a lot of people love to strawman meta vs not as using the worst option vs the best (with intent to mock the idea or anyone doing it) when it's really more about creating another viable way that works for someone. Especially if enough practice is put into the homebrew oddball build and how to operate with its strengths and weaknesses in mind. Meta mindset from other games applied to Elden Ring can create a terribly confusing situation for some, as copy-pasting something works less potent in Elden Ring as elsewhere. There is no easy win recipe that gets someone from 0 to 100 without doing their homework.
Oh, and as I said before - I think if Co-op came with a clear warning that by engaging in it a person is also open for invasions it would lead to less griping. It feels almost like many do not understand that the co-op mode comes with friends and foes alike. If it stated in bold text as much and popped up an information screen the first time explaining things, the intent would be clear. There would be no room for belly-aching about it. And I do think co-op is misleading in how it doesn't state it comes with extra dangers. Most people will interpret co-op likely as "me and my friends running something together", and have not been trained by a lot of games to understand the trade-off in this. Thus, an invader suddenly showing up when people had no idea it was even possible will probably put a bad taste in some mouths.
In both these points, other games have trained people to expect something. So when it does not happen, it seems to lead to a fair bit of friction and confusion.
I do think they should have used the same sort of warning that embers did in Dark Souls 3. I don't mind people being surprised by an invasion and not having warning but all said I do think it'd be a little more sensible to put a disclaimer of any kind somewhere, if for no other reason than giving people useful info.
It cracks me up when invaders complain about the odds. I chose to invade at minimum i should assume at least 2players. Thats the way it is so the concept of overleveled phantoms is silly. The people offering their service as a co op are so far in the game they are willing to help strangers and if not they are gankers. Either way invading is choosing to fight an up hill battle i use it as you said as my excuse to use any spell or tactic that wins as viable and the concept of "honor" or adding "rules" that arent enforced mechanically seems silly to me.
I'm all for competitive play and rulesets for 1v1 duals etc.
But invaders require no such limitations as youve seen i primarily focus on the max level first step gankers because we are both looking for the cheesiest fight possible
I don't mind invading and fighting 3v1 but there are way too many trios in open fields waiting for you with over leveled cooperaters...I seldom get invasions in actual game progression.
Would you be against the devs adding an option where, instead of "online" and "offline", it's essentially "invasions" or "no invasions"? An option for people to play with their friends without the looming threat of invasions, but for players who like invasions they could simply go with the former? You could even bring back solo host invasions, since you can be sure everyone playing with invasions on enjoys them.
It's one of those things where I think if you remove any incentive to be invaded other than wanting an invasion, activity will plumet. The multiplayer was designed with invasions in mind, so removing them with the flip of a switch has two impacts.
1. It would fundamentally change a major design aspect of the game
2. It would reduce activity overall, making invasions harder to perform, in turn making less people participate
I think invasions are an acquired taste and I don't think they're a mechanic designed for joy. Not everything in games necessarily needs to be enjoyed to be valuable, it just has to be engaging. There's merit in experience things that place players outside of their comfort zone, especially in a series about adversity through challenge. Allowing players to flip a switch to remove the most dynamic point of challenge and adversity is something I consider a mistake of lesser games.
The Souls series is, in my opinion, better for giving players no difficulty option and better for designing it's multiplayer to be both cooperative and competitive. It forces players into conflict in a way that can help them grow and develop as a player. If they allowed players to pick and choose what they're willing to deal with like that, it would undermine the fundamental design that makes them so special.
Essentially, yeah. I'm against them adding options to reduce invasions because it sort of defeats the mechanic of invading.
Not because I want people to suffer but because I want them to have unique and meaningful experiences like invasions. I know they're far from perfect but they're only of the things that makes this series great and I would hate to see it devolve into just another co-op RPG.
chainsaw is the only intended PvP experience
Will you talk about duel "etiquette"? I listened to your video about the Colosseum, but you mostly discussed the confusing mess of matchmaking. You brushed over it very lightly here, and I thought this was as good a place as any. Anyhow, my two cents is this: If you're allowed to do in the game, then it's allowed.
I confess that I like to gesture before a fight, but accept that not everyone will respond in kind. If I get attacked, I typically just stand still and let them kill me. The opponent wanted to win, and I didn't want to fight them. It should be a win-win right? Once, I received a message from my opponent ranting about my behavior and they blocked me before I could respond. I was a little shocked and was seriously thinking over my actions, but I could find no fault.
Thoughts?
Dueling has no real place in invasions from my perspective because it's given a lot of facilitation in the colosseum and through the red summon sign. The idea that someone wants a 1v1 during an invasion (on either side) is completely uninteresting to me and I try to avoid it at all costs.
Invasions should be chaotic, not polite. If people want to bow and cheer and whatever else, that's all good. But if the standard becomes people expecting or demanding that they be catered to, that's essentially the point I'm getting at in the video.
You make a choice when you allow yourself to be invaded and a big part of that choice is allowing others to make their choices. Any attempt to police or control conduct is just limiting baggage in my book that prevents people from exploring the mechanics fully.
I can talk about dueling in-depth in a video if people want it but most of my opinions are going to be overwhelmingly negative as I don't think they're interesting in the slightest.
@@emotionaljonxvx Thank you for your perspective! I was referring more to the unwritten rules that the community has. This applies to both duels and invasions. You're absolutely within your rights to break the rules. The game allows it.
Like I said, I expect anything when I get invaded. I usually use the taunter's tongue as a solo host since I like that experience. If I find the invader unpleasant, I just let them kill me quickly since it gets them out of my world faster. I choose to get invaded, then I'm allowed choose to not fight back.
I completely understand your point of view though. Indulging in chaos can be fun sometimes.
Since I come from ds3 and you can get invaded there without summons and without wanting to, I got used to offer the benefit of a fair 1v1 duel no estus for the single hosts I invaded, this eventually extended to regular co op players (not dedicated gankers) bc I mostly invade to have a fun fight and I know I'm not owed that and if my opponent rather have a simple honest 1v1 I can respect that.
Just approaching and gesture if you notice it isnt a dedicated gank squad and wait to see who's willing to fight is courtesy enough in my opinion, if we tacitly agree in a 1v1 without esths thats fibe by me and I actually do enjoy killing 2 phantoms in 1v1s before enventually killing the host in a proper duel, a pure and honest show of my habilities and leave me just as satisfied than being chesed in a 3v1 and managing to kill the host or downing each phantom one after the other.
Great video. You’ve said many things i’ve thought to myself over the years, but seem generally distasteful to the community at large, so I hadn’t expressed them myself. I have some thoughts of my own that don’t entirely fit within the bounds of your points, but I would like to share them anyway.
I’d be a lot more enthusiastic about fromsoft pvp if it was actually designed as tightly as a real fighting game. As someone with a background in various fighting games in a competitive setting (blazblue, guilty gear, under night, street fighter) i LOVE a good fighting game. I love learning the matchups, reading my opponents, hell i even love labbing combos and setups. But the souls games dual nature of pve and pvp means one side of that equation necessarily receives less care and polish than the other, and it’s almost always pvp that gets the short end of the stick. Degenerate 100-to-death strategies abound, through stuff like ganks/stunlocks or simply through overturned specific attacks and weapons, though the latter does sometimes get rightfully adjusted down the line.
I think if fromsoft were to make a sort of all-stars game incorporating playable bosses from their other games, with the same moves, and some new ones but with new and refined systems specifically tailored to pvp to add depth and reduce non-interactive elements, like 100-to-death stunlocks or oneshots, I think they could potentially create an entirely new subgenre within fighting games, but such an idea doesn’t seem to be in the cards. For Honor has many issues and ive long since stopped playing, but it was the closest anyone had come to making a real fighting game out of something more similar to souls pvp, rather than similar to established fighting game trendsetters like street fighter and tekken.
I enjoy pvp from time to time regardless, but it’s unfortunately never been something I could really take seriously the way that I can for SF or UNI.
Part of me likes that it isn't as polished or reliable as a fighting game, both because I love the uncertainty and because I love the character build making. It would be a lot better if it just worked as intended though. No easily avoidable severe latency or outright busted weapons, a whole rework of system balance to give people more options with less clear-cut best/worst options.
Okay, Let's try it!
*( **_Whole server becomes infested with High Poise Dual Bleeding Pikes with Bloodhound Step and Spinning Slash._** )*
Huh, I guess social mores are actually needed to protect player agency and build diversity from optimal gameplay since Elden Ring isn't perfect. Who knew?
This is sort of the point I'm getting at. Obviously the whole game shouldn't devolve into meta spam but aversion to those tactics should come from both player choice and more specifically from the developer's balancing. FromSoftware are the ones making dual spear pokes so strong, so demanding that players not use it or be ridiculed for doing so is putting the blame in the wrong place.
I get that a lot of players play scummy and that's not a good thing. At the same time, players should be able to play the game as efficiently as they want. After all, it's a game. The fact that using very good strategies is scummy is a problem with the system at its core, as well as with the community's perspective on acceptable tactics.
I don't want to encourage people to make things terrible for everyone else, but I also want people to understand that the blame for these problems should be aimed at FromSoftware. If they don't want to fix their own game, then of course it will be abused.
And of course there will always be abuses in any game. Games are imperfect. And it's cool when a community can come together to self-govern in a meaningful and interesting way. What I find less interesting, however, is a portion of the community coming together to disparage another.
I want everyone to have fun and I think the best way to ensure that is for the developer to dedicate the necessary resources to making it fun no matter what people do. Not to say players can't or won't always be scummy, but most of the existing issues come from imbalance rather than improper tactics.
@@emotionaljonxvx Well on that we can agree. Holding grudges against other players for using the tools at their disposal when neither of you had the chance to set the terms of engagement is both ineffective and counterintuitive in shaping a play culture of mutual fun. I'm just saying that the game will most likely never achieve the level of balance to foster that culture on its own, so it's not always a bad thing for the community to hold certain tactics with restraint if it means allowing more people to play the game they want to without getting steamrolled all the time.
@@Sleepy12ftPanda Completely agree. I feel a little bad sometimes advocating for logic & reason when I know damn well people love to go a little harder than they maybe should so I try my best to invade responsibly. I know I'm being reasonable and I hope it's taken in good faith but the system is easy to abuse. It's a wild west scenario and we gotta take care of each other.
I think it's great that you bought up that morally-charged invaders are cut from the same cloth as morally-charged hosts/phantoms, in the sense they argue from a position of misunderstanding. This is why you get these newcomers in the PvP/invasion scene who legitimately seem to believe that blues are somehow bad people doing bad things (a fantastically ironic claim for a red) - somewhere down the line it stops being a joke in a game with weird balance choices and transforms into "I can now reduce you to my own idea of what x is".
I think it's easy for people to get trapped in their own misunderstandings. If you've only ever seen something some way, or maybe if you've only taken note when you saw something you recognized a certain way, you'd almost certainly develop a bias if you hadn't already.
I think it's also a result of how obscure the multiplayer is in these games. There's no form of understanding or communication in a lot of the PVP, so you're left to project whatever traits you feel appropriate onto another. I wouldn't change that aspect of the system because I love it as a whole, but I think it might contribute a bit to the skewed perspectives.
And on the point of blues being bad, I get why people feel that way because of how annoying invasions can be as-is but it is a very good concept. The execution leaves a lot to be desired and they deserve to be fleshed out more, but the idea of acting as a hunter of reds is an interesting idea and they certainly aren't evil for being willing to defend a host. Sure, some of them will join in on ganks but what're ya gonna do. That's Elden Ring for you.
@@emotionaljonxvx Your second paragraph in particular is a very good point because it's a personal recurring problem for myself. The most ironic moments in invasions are when I'm turning red (ah) from wrath against a 3v1, or even just a well decked-out low level twink host, and when I finally lose they bow and throw a prattle "thank you", which is always, 100%, one of the most jarring things I can feel in ER. That's because, like you said, we inherently and subconsciously spent the last 5min painting a picture of our adversary, and there's quite a high chance it's a very bad one.
Veritable minefield, no doubt.
I'm doing a run with taunt tongue always activated, and trust me, It's so good. Invade me 😎
As a person who likes invading, invading sucks to me in this game. Invading shouldn't be fair to the invader, but invading on here I just get ganked as hell lol. I also dont invade with top tier weapons or at max level so I guess its my fault lol. Also, a lot of the time that I invade, 90% of the people just book it to the boss room lol. I liked the invading from ds3 and bb better though.
Invading isn't at its best in Elden Ring. I'm mostly trying to get people to engage with it more sincerely to help the community and hopefully get From to pay more attention to it as a mechanic. There's still fun to be had, albeit quite a bit less with the lower player count and overall lack of incentive.
I have mixed feelings about it.
People who want to co-op with a friend, but don't want the invasions, they made a choice to risk invasions by engaging in co-op, yes, same as you risk losing all your money when you keep it in a bank and that bank gambles it away irresponsibly, yet you really have no choice but to have a bank account and thus enable that gambling with your money if you want to be legally paid for your work. Is it your fault when the economy crashes due to that gambling and the bank loses most of your money, and then gets bailed out by your taxes?
The person who invades made the choice to invade and potentially spoil someones jolly co-op playthrough. It's that simple, we can talk about the reasons why, but that doesn't change the choice they've made.
If you want to PvP, why not use the red sign so that you face others that also want to PvP, thus have a fair fight?
Most people playing co-op are, not always but more often than not, less skilled at the game and possibly even have a horribly gimped build (vigour? What's that?). The average invader, they've likely built for PvP with high vigour and upgraded weapons using only the stats to wield them, and they have a degree of experience. That is kinda unfair, like pitting a white belt against a black belt. Sure, the white belt has a chance with a degree of luck, but the other guy knows all the moves.
To invade is to pick a weaker target, with the excuse being that they have phantoms so it'll be a 2v1, yet failing to acknowledge that the phantom probably isn't geared for PvP either. Thus even outnumbered, a build specific to PvP is going to have advantages, especially the invader themselves as they've the experience of PvP. Think of status effects, you can get access to rot pretty early if you know how, and then you'll be a monster in invasions.
The solution I feel is simple etiquette though. Learn to recognise when someone doesn't want to fight, such as when they run away or hang around a grace (clearly lacking confidence in their ability to recover souls in the current area, because they're inexperienced), or the community can agree an emote that gives that message, and then leave them to their game. If the player wants to fight, then fair play to the invader to use any and all tactics they have available.
I've invaded a few times, mostly the three per playthrough for access to big bird, for reasons. And I've noticed a lot of ganks who are amusing to play with, i tend to just run up to them naked and dodge everything they spam, and then give a little tap and repeat until they get me. I've no intention to win, I'm just there for the grind, and the times I do actually win, It's because someone forgot to level vigour and doesn't respect the weapon you're using. I remember a recent one, i was using dual straight swords and as I got near a guy and his phantom, they both just ran at me and, well, I don't think they knew how wide and hard dual straight swords hit because they were melted and I was left shocked, I only pressed LB twice. Being invaded is more enjoyable, especially when it's a twink, always great to give them a Benny hill run around and waste their time, perhaps lure them into a gravity trap.
I guess it's each to their own really, there are ways to have a fair fight, and ways to have unfair ones. I enjoy watching channels like ChaseTheBro and Lost, but it annoys me when they face a host that clearly isn't up for it and just wants to play with his pals, and they slaughter them without mercy. The excuse perhaps that they attacked them, and sure, when you invaded their world to attack them. Luckily it's only a game, but I feel etiquette is still valuable, better to not be ruining other people's enjoyment regardless of what excuses you may conjure to justify it. So, when you invade, how about a polite bow and if it's returned, you fight without estus. If it isn't and you're attacked during the animation, be merciless. And if they run away, maybe leave them to it and leave their world. Am I just too soft here, is having respect for how others wish to play a bad thing? Why should your preference harm anothers enjoyment, an invader will often find willing hosts, so no harm in leaving the ones that don't want it but want to play with their freinds.
So all that's a lot but I'm gonna try to cut to the core if it. Invasions are not duels and they function very differently. A big point of the appeal of invasions is that they force interaction. If you have to wait for someone to touch your sign, you're not playing the game in the meantime. Invasions are far more immediate and that alone merits their function.
On the point of advantage or anything else, as I'll get to in this series, invasions aren't set up to be fair. Sometimes the invader will have the advantage because the host and his friend are total chumps. Sometimes the invader will get ganked. No matter what the scenario, everyone deserves to be invaded because invading is an opportunity, not a punishment.
Everyone is free to decide how they want to play the game though. If an invader want to let a noob live because they clearly can't hack it, that's cool. If not, that's cool too. It's all part of the game. I wouldn't expect people to like getting beaten down by a crazy strong invader but it's very easy to avoid that situation. If cooperation is a must-have, the game is built to accommodate that risk.
My only point on dictating how people play the game via etiquette or whatever else is that it denies players their own agency. The game allows for people to be invaded under specific circumstances and makes no claim that it will be fair or balanced or just. Only that it will be an invasion. We, as the community, can make up rules about how we want that to work but I think that only serves to weaken the system.
Fight clubs are probably my favorite example of what ruins invasions. The idea of going into an invasion and rather than getting to try and kill a host and their friends as they push through the level, you sit in a circle and wait your turn to duel. It's cute but it's boring.
Invasions should be chaotic, aggressive, and sudden. They should instill a sense of urgency and uncertainty. If the only players who ever got invaded were completely aware and inviting, they'd lose their purpose. The system is already entirely opt-in so I think it's gone about as far as it can without completely invalidating the mechanic.
Sorry for the long response and hopefully I don't come off like a tool. I'm sure you just want what's best for everyone in the game, so please trust that's what I want too. I think new players are invasion averse because they are averse to friction and defeat, but the solution (in my mind) is not to make invasions polite but to encourage those players to step up.
You play a game - - - - > find that you can fight players - - - - - - >you use said sistem to have fun - - - - - > you indeed do have fun
Thats doin things right
You play game - - - - - - > find that you can fight other players - - - - -> choose to ruin others expirience, just to cry when someone try their best to ruin it back for you - - - - - - - > you are not having fun, therefore ruinning the idea of a "game" completly
Thats doin things wrong
I think its the best way to be objective about it, it all comes Down to if you are playing the game for fun or to ruin others fun, that makes you an honorable or dishonorable person, and its Down to you to choose.
Btw, love your videos, nice seeing someone brining some sense into the Community
I agree with your thesis about this but I feel like this contradicts a previous sentiment you've shared regarding hosts who play passively or disengage; if all's fair for invaders to use any amount of twinked out meta equipment on level 20 hosts in stormveil, then all's fair for a host to just sit around and wait in a position they might actually be able to win in. If the invader wants to fight them on their turf, they can. and if the invader wants to sit and wait for 40 minutes in a PvE mob for a host that's never going to approach them, and waste their own time, that's fair too.
If a host is going to have less fun trying to break past the brick wall invader who has genetically augmented their build for optimal host-stopping power in this specific circumstance than they would just shooting the shit with their summoned friend and waiting for the invader to do something or disconnect, then I think the host is actually doing the "fair" thing by not playing the invader's game.
So, while I may not find a contradiction in the two, I think you're picking up on where I'm going with the series. Essentially, everything is and isn't fair and it's all relative. For me, both as an invader and host, I hate when people and the game do things to disincentivize interaction. In the same vein, people hate when invaders or hosts build themselves as OP as possible to trivialize a fight.
And I do think there is a difference between build aggression and fight aversion, but that's definitely going to come down to context more than anything.
There's no right or wrong way to do any of it, I just want to explore the weird biases and niches of how people do things and try to encourage people to engage with each other as sincerely as possible.
@@emotionaljonxvx i respect this take a lot, thank you for the reply :))
@@emotionaljonxvx I think I should also say that while we might not agree on the specifics of what we want out of PVP, I think you have a rock solid philosophy regarding its implementation and importance, and fundamentally I agree with much of what you say
I'm writing this comment at the start of the video to write down my ideas as they come to me and as I watch the video. Fairness is pretty difficult to define within ER I think, due to such a vast array of useful tools. I've ALMOST never enjoyed any kind of non consensual PVP in any of the souls games besides the Bell keeps in DS2, as the areas were built for PVP, and both were as far as I remember, not required. Beside that, any time I decided to summon someone to fight, most of the time it was not enjoyable. The very few times I DID enjoy that, or when I was genuinely invaded, was when the players were using "Unique" (Not the highest dps builds) weapons, spells, and armor. At least in the past 3 souls games, I've enjoyed the Cooperation/PVE aspect of multiplayer almost exclusively.
I've had very little interesting, or engaging PVP experiences, (With the bell keeps in DS2 as an exception). I have tried PVP in each game, as I thought at the time I would maybe enjoy it this time.
Unfortunately I never understood why I should engage with it again after a while, again, as most of the PVP matches were against (I don't enjoy using this word) "Try hards".
I understand I'm most likely an outlier in your community, so I understand others have a different perspective. But I don't think PVP has turned out how the developers imagined.
And I believe that's why they've slowly made it a very tertiary mechanic within the game. Do I think invasions are "Unfair"? mmmmmm.... no? I'm not totally sure, but my gut tells me no.
The game gives every player the same tools technically. The only thing I disagree with, is that I think most people who don't enjoy PVP are much more likely to enjoy the game much less if they were to use much "Better" options in weapons, or spells. And so it DOES feel unfair when most invaders invade you and use the most powerful, or most useful PVP tools, weapons, or spells. Why wouldn't it? To me, those experiences never felt like Challanges to overcome, just a chore to get through and get back to the experience I was enjoying before I got invaded.
Personally, I used to play multiplayer PVP games when I was a bit younger, and I think all of my personal energy for competition in any way is mostly gone due to enjoying much better games than League of legends, or call of duty. as a teenager, I had a much higher competitive drive than I do in my 20s. Which I think most people go through, and lose that weird drive to seem to much better than your peers. You learn that Cooperation is much more useful than competition. Not that competition has no place in the adult world, it SURELY does. but it's no longer at the forefront, and is much more of a passive idea in most peoples minds. I'm never comparing myself to my neighbor, or coworker anymore. at least not very often at all lol.
I disagree that invasions are a choice. Or at least, I don't believe that being invaded shouldn't be a choice. I think it's a big reason that the Coop mods for the game are so popular lol. Most players don't agree with either you, or the devs in the idea that invasions shouldn't be opted out of if you engage with ANY of the multiplayer.
I really don't understand people who so desperately want to PVP, and don't enjoy the PVP against the other people who WANT to PVP lol. It doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think most PVP guys want to admit it, but I think the reason it's not enjoyed as much as invading newer, or less experienced players is a kind of power fantasy, which I'm not condemning at all. I just don't get why you guys insist that it's for some nobler purpose other than feeling good about dominating other, "Lesser" players.
Why else would you want to be able to easily invade people who obviously don't want to engage in the game with you? It's not like the Bell keep in DS2, where it's an integral mechanic in the area, and part of the small story of the lore? I know they have a place for being invaded in the lore, but it certainly isn't integral to the game, otherwise the devs would have added that.
Fromsoft isn't the type of devs to let fans totally drive the direction of their games. If they thought it was important, they would have kept it in.
Again, I understand I'm an outlier in this space, so I understand if you guys don't agree with me. Just please know that at least in my eyes, most of the community doesn't want, or won't enjoy it if the game was any different in the way you'd like.
The PVP in these games is complicated and certainly a lot different from the PVP of other games. Really, all I can say broadly (not stated in this or another video) is that I agree that I want a different game than a lot of the community. I rarely find myself in agreement with the largest groups, especially concerning games or other art. I like to think it's because I'm particularly discerning about what I appreciate, but I'm willing to accept that I'm just a jerk sometimes.
I think if the majority of players in Elden Ring, especially new players, got their way, the game would only get worse. I think it's that appeal to new players that makes the game less interesting. Dark Souls never appealed to new players and it stands the test of time as a beacon of design. Elden Ring, on the other hand, will be remembered for what it didn't do. I can't say that with any certainty but it's certainly how I'll remember it. The game that almost was.
To all of those points, invasions are a mechanic that isn't designed to be fair and that's what makes it great. Fairness is entirely subjective and meaningless in the scope of how the system operates. Invasions are about imposing something on someone else and that's something worth exploring in games. If people don't want competition in their game, I'd say they shouldn't play competitive games. If people argue the game shouldn't be competitive, that's a very different and far less valid take (imo).
For me, most of the unintended friction comes from invasions being difficult to grasp for new players who are not accustomed to being attacked. Elden Ring lets players feel safe the vast majority of their playtime, so on the off chance they're faced with an invader, they dismiss it as something that shouldn't happen. A bug rather than a feature.
I just want FromSoftware to develop their games in a way that better acclimate players who don't want PVP to a PVP game, and for that PVP to be more engaging for all players. It's a big ask and an even bigger point of discussion but I want everyone to be able to enjoy these games on every level, instead of having players define themselves as PVE or PVP focused players.
Sorry if none of that really responds to your comment, it can be tough to stay on-task.
@@emotionaljonxvx No no, I appreciate the comment man. I actually agree with you about Elden ring. I'm one of the few people I know that actually doesn't enjoy the gameplay much at all. Which is weird to a lot of people. I think Fromsoft focused too much on making a Grand, and immense game, rather than what they're good at. Which is tight, seemingly complex level design, and engaging enemy placement. While these aren't totally absent in ER, they sure take a back foot to the sprawling, and beautiful expanse of the open world, and looks of the game.
You know, I have a feeling you really liked the covenants of the older games didn't you? I actually enjoyed a little bit of the pvp concerning DS1 and two. I played as the forest covenant and the bell guardians. That pvp always felt focused, and much more meaningful to me rather than just getting invaded by some random dude.
you're also right in that ER is supposed to be the most new player friendly of all of the other games they've made. And while I think that can be a good thing. I think it's maybe taken a little too far in some ways.
I'd rather PVP be an opt in/out system, but change it that it's always at first set so you can be invaded to start with, and instead of having to have a Coop partner to be invaded, you can be invaded at any time you use a rune arc.
I don't know if you like this word, but it doesn''t seem fair to the invader in a LOT of ways in this game, with much less healing, and almost always a 2v1. But like you asy in your vids, it's not exactly supposed to be fair to the invader, but it seems a little too far to me.
Just disconnected on some one today lol. I had 500,000 souls I needed to pick up in the boss fight and knowing it could be a 50/50 chance I mite win or lose to the invader I disconnected because I be damned I lose that much souls.
I just drop items, and all seems good with the world
I think they should be unfair but too a degree. It feels good winning an invasion outnumbered against impossible odds, the game mechanics for invasions aren't entirely at fault its mainly the builds and players we invade that make it unfair as it is
Huh, so being honorable isnt all that.. TIME FOR CHAOS
ER attracted a lot of normies and the increased discourse against invasions shows this.
The invasion conversation is pretty aids because both groups got a huge entitlement attitude, and from software left a big gap to allow the dumb arguments to continue as the game is broken. People who hate invaders DC when losing or just immediately because there no real penalty for doing so. I can't even get mad when they abuse it because I gotten chainsawed by an invader while attempting to kill him so I can continue to PVE with phantoms. If you got players who twink and rot newbs, gonna abuse glitches, going to make it virtually impossible to progress by hiding behind elite mobs, then cheapness for the host is authorized. Hosts gonna gank, summon overpowered phantoms, abuse glitches, camp or twink themselves in response. It a broken system where poor behavior is not punished, so both groups resort to the lowest common denominator out of fear for the worst. In the end, it just makes the game mid for everyone.
I abuse everything, absolute everything in my level 30, if a host thinks he is so smart abusing the system, then it’s gonna be a battle of skill, I’m prepared for all that low levels problems.
@@Naim11443 The issue is most hosts are complete garbage at that level lmao. There is no skill involved. They are little timmies playing with random phantoms or summoning their over leveled friends to carry them. It not a battle of "skill" it a battle of if you can rot the host or catch them with an ash or bleed damage because any decent player is using taunting tongue or is way higher level. Having done like a casual non twink invasion at that level, it really just noob hunting.
@@Naim11443 i made a twink low level after i tried invading with a normal character, with the overleveld phantoms, it virtually impossible to win, they have more resources, dmg, and defense than you, myasaki let the unscaled summons be a thing, so be it, i will not sugarcoat anyone.
I only play solo since DS1 and am grateful i can't get invaded in ER and that is just cause i suck at pvp in any game and tend to full clear the area i am in as i like to roleplay the games and when i am almost done and someone comes and kills me i have to do it all over and it is not something i could take into consideration beforehand. It doesn't matter to me what build my opponent is running (except a dark bead twink in DS1 that is just cruel) or if he uses the enemies and environment to his advantage, he can and therefore should if he wants to. But i just don't enjoy this "sozial" interaction between me and other players (i do like helping in PVE tho) therefore i play the trilogy offline but i don't mind invasions being a thing, i just don't enjoy them.
4:04-4:14 These people would lose their minds if you told them about the seamless co-op mod.
As much as I don't love the Seamless Co-Op Mod from an activity standpoint, I'm sympathetic to people who don't play on PC and can't use it. Really just wish FromSoft would have let people ride their horses and do multiplayer more, well, seamlessly in the regular game so people don't feel compelled to partition themselves.
@@emotionaljonxvx coop itself is very restrictive in ER not letting ya use it‘s new mechanics at all, not being able to enter and exit dungeons and being caged in by invisible fog walls in the open world, only to have boss fogs themselves be automatic wins once the host B-lines it, weither I play coop myself or invade, I find these restrictions annoying.
Could‘ve settled that there is a cool down to moving between areas and once there is a transition then the Invader automatically reinvades the new local.
So much interesting stuff ya could‘ve made with torrent and they just scrap him out altogether, imagine each summon having a customizable steed with covenant themes and actual mechanical depth between mounted and on-foot combat.
Also find phantom bloody fingers borderline useless compared to the playtest variant.
Even ticks me off that they still haven‘t added torrent for Elden Beast.
@@emotionaljonxvx Why don't you love Seamless Co-Op from an activity standpoint? I've heard this argument a number of times. I play seamless co-op with my friends because both
1. It's seamless. Way better than dealing with all the annoyances that come with summoning, resummoning, running areas twice or even three times etc.
2. No invasions. My friends and I all hate invasions, and we've been playing since Dark Souls 1. We just don't enjoy PvP, no matter how much we engage with it.
With this in mind, if my friends and I are using seamless co-op to escape invasions, are you complaining about the way that affects the invasion activity for you? Are you saying you want to be able to invade our game anyway, knowing full well that we're choosing seamless because invasions make our experience worse?
@@octodog5907 So I don't have a problem with people enjoying the game their way. I understand when I'm advocating for invasions it can sound like I want what's best for me and don't care who it hurts but I promise that's not the case.
I think invasions are an acquired taste. I want everyone to experience them because I think they're a net benefit for the game as a whole. I get some people just don't like them and maybe they won't no matter what.
What I dislike about seamless co-op for activity is that it makes it so players have an easy way to remove so much of the placed friction in-game, which while I clearly see the appeal and wish a lot of it could make it to the main game, isolates those players into having a very different experience from the one intended by the developers.
That's not a bad thing by any means and if people would rather either not play at all or play with the mod, then it makes no real difference which they choose for activity. I just know that if I was given that option 10+ years ago I probably wouldn't be the same sort of player I am today.
Invasions shaped so much of how I think about games, much in the same way not having a difficulty slider shaped how I feel about challenge. I think giving players options to custom-tailor their experience diminishes the effect any aspect of the game can have.
If I want to eat ice cream for every meal because I just don't enjoy other food, I suppose I could but my body would die. If I could flip a switch that allows me to survive on just ice cream, I suppose I could but then I'd never experience any other food. I'd be missing out for essentially allowing my love of something to dominate my hate of everything else.
tl;dr
Invasions helped me to learn so much about the game and about myself so I'll never want anything that let's people avoid them. I get people want to play their way and I wouldn't want to stop them. I just understand that if you give people the path of least resistance, they'll take it no matter the cost.
I'll make a video about this in the near future and hopefully I can convince you that invasions are worthwhile.
@@emotionaljonxvxIf invasions are an acquired taste, then I've definitely been playing these games long enough to have acquired it by now lol. Unfortunately, I do believe you're right and that some people will just never come to enjoy them.
I don't believe that developer intentions are infallible. If I played Elden Ring exclusively how the developers wanted, I wouldn't be 100 hours deep into a 3 person seamless co-op experience with my friends, some of the most fun we've had in a while. If developer intentions would deprive us of this fun, I think I'm okay with going against them.
I'm not sure I can follow your ice cream analogy, either. Are you saying that if you could eat ice cream exclusively with no ramifications you wouldn't still try other new foods? If so, that sounds like more of a you problem lol. Water is my favorite drink and I certainly can live without drinking anything else, and yet I'll still try new drinks just to try them.
Invasions also helped me learn something about myself: I learned I don't like invasions lol. But seriously, I believe your statement on the path of least resistance is just incorrect. I am certain that if they added an easy mode, both you and I would not play that. The very fact that people even play fromsoft games shows that they're not always going to pick the path of least resistance. Unless you're meaning path of least resistance as "path of most fun", in which case, why shouldn't they? As I touched on earlier, people are bound to still try new things. If there was an easy mode, and someone tried both the intended difficulty and easy mode and decided easy mode was more fun, why shouldn't they just play easy mode?
All in all, I don't think the devs should be forced to change their game if they don't want to, but I also think it's exclusively a good thing for players to be able to choose how they play, even if it means mods like seamless.
Edit: On second thought, I think my last statement is too much of a sweeping generalization. I think it's true when applied to the context of invasions, but I haven't thought of literally every application, so it may be too soon to say it's "exclusively a good thing".
People calling it unfair like as if dying from an invader isnt a minor inconvenience. If you really wanna avoid invasions just play offline. Pretty fair for a singleplayer game to allow online coop at the expense of giving invaders a chance to join too.
Just make dying and rejoining not take as long so if all you wanna do is play with their friend so as to reduce the inconvenience brought by dying to an invader.
It is a very funny thing to think about. I always conflate really bad PVP losses to things like OSRS where when I died I lost basically everything, but in Souls games you just get to/have to play the game a little more.
I try to think about how hard people still find these games and how adding an invader can just push it over the edge for them. Though it's not a mindset I would encourage people to embrace, I definitely understand why they get upset. The whole game is inconvenient, so any additional obstacle is just too much. In time, I suspect they'll either come around or bounce off.
@@emotionaljonxvx thats a good point, but I’d argue that just as much of an added inconvenience invaders bring, they are warranted considering you have the benefit of playing with someone else. Likely someone whos overleveled too. I can understand people who just want to play with their friends, but I think its fair to say fromsoft has to either pick and choose who they wanna cater too. If you let these people play with their buddies with no downsides, invasions are basically extinct. If you keep invasions then some PvE’rs who wanna coop might leave like you say. Its really just up to fromsoft unless they can come up with a solution to have both.
Like you mentioned in a previous video though, I like the idea and possibilities of invasions as it can lead to crazy experiences and is a one of a kind game mode. So if future fromsoft games just drop this in favor of people who hate pvp the mode literally goes extinct, which is unfair to people who like it. For people who wanna play games with their friends, theres thousands of games where you can do that. Invasions only have the souls series. And if someone wants to say a game sucks because there may be no online coop, its pretty obvious many singleplayer games can be masterpieces like sekiro (game of the year 2018). I’m pretty sure Elden ring would still be GOTY even if multiplayer was removed entirely.
TLDR: Invasions being a fromsoft exclusive game mode leads me to the side of them keeping it despite people potentially leaving with its existence. Without fromsoft no other game has invasions.
The 2 causes of this conflict is both the removal of solo invasion, and the conflicting interests of different demographics in this game.
The removal of solo invasions turns invasions in favour of the host, since the invader has to assume the worst (1vs3), said invader has to be on top of their game and min max their build to guarantee success, even if it implies using cancerous meta builds or strats that are largely perceived to be scummy honourless tactics (which more often they are), this promotes ganking as a response by the hosts, just for things to spiral out of control to an equivalent of wild west nuclear arms race, of who can destroy the other with the most ruthless and oppressive strats.
Needless to say, all of this dumb.
Tho I have a distaste for invasions in general, bringing back solo invasions would (partially) solve the moral issue.
And the other, more often than not, the people that complain about invasions are either new players that dont know how to defend themselves, or just your average Joe that wants to play with John and Jane in co op, but have no interest in PvP/invasions, just to get utterly and mercilessly slaughtered like turtles by a seasoned invader driven mad by one too many ganks.
Invasions suck but they are part of the game, conflict can make the game intresting to some extend, but nobody has to agree with it. In the end it's whatever, invasions are SUPPOSED to be antagonistic and stir crap.
Going to be devil's advocate for a moment: to the invaders that say summoning friends makes the game too easy, first summoning makes bosses (slightly) stronger, so there's a trade off and not necessarily a strictly positive outcome for the host.
And in the end, a solo player can use Spirit Summons to turn on journalist mode without suffering any penalty for it, and trivialize the game even harder than summoning friends.
So the hatred for summoning hosts is not as warranted (outside summoning overleveled phantoms)
All I want to do is be able to play the game with friends without having to deal with bleed build number 247,654,781.
There is a wrong way to play these games and in fact a whole lot of people do it. While that it is not really my problem it is still fun to talk about it anyway so the internet will have to swallow the unsolicited comments on this topic.
I'm always dubious when any portion of the conversation is cached in the "designer's intent." Because we are merely deciphering intent from our biases analyzing design.
And players can often find ways to use systems in unintended ways. For example with DS1, Miyazaki has had interviews where he said the intent was to have players role-play as challenging npcs in other people's games. But instead, it became a means to pvp matches with etiquettes around use of estus and where to fight. He stated directly that he failed in crafting that intent.
Even if the video game allows it, all games have a social dynamic. "The Magic Circle" is a fundamental factor in the philosophy of games. I think your analysis is lacking on these points.
If we take your analysis outside the concept of games without more serious social consequences -into regular social life, I think you would see the reasoning break down. You're asserting that free will is the foundation of bypassing the social/ethical dynamics of games. You are capable of doing so, thus, if you can, it is moral to do so. And that you should noy be judged for doing so. Apply Jean-Paul Sartre's notion of radical freedom. Even if a state bans theft, assault, murder, you are still capable, thus it is wrong to say those things are unethical? It is wrong to judge someone for doing so? Well... yeah, it is. Those things violate that person’s enjoyment of life, and your enjoyment of violation doesn't really take precedent.
Ultimately a game takes place within the context of regular, social life. Some actions by invaders may be fun and interesting moments for both sides. Others will be uninteresting and disruptive. To say "do not judge me for making your experience uninteresting and disruptive," creates the opportunity to levvy the same criticism against you that you make against the people decrying invaders. Mainly, "do not act like this is good/justified just because you like it." (Honestly, that subjective feeling being the basis of the anti-invader opinion is quite the straw man rhetoric here.)
So yeah, you are free to do as you please with the systems provided. But they are just as free to criticize how you use them and judge your decision to do so. You can't really treat being an invader as some kind of socially oppressed status if you are voluntarily entering into that status, if it isnt fundamental to who you are as a person.
I both invade and co-op. I've used the veil to play hide-n-seek with invaders, and just let them win if they find me. I've even co-op'd as a hunter that got drawn into a group specifically there to spectate the hunters 1v1 their invader buddy without also fighting the invader themselves. Now that was F'd, lol.
Rather, think about how you can demonstrate that invading can be fun/interesting for the invaded party. Approach invasions from a collaborative mindset rather than a disruptive one. It's not like you have to throw matches. But maybe don't run away all the way from the first steps to fort haight just to go up the ladder and use mohg's spear's weapon art to knock people off the ladder. That's tedious. Ya get me?
Yeah, I mean, it's a game. I think the social applications of how people feel about invasions are perfectly valid but I'm talking about them from the assumption that someone does not want to be invaded and asserting that because they do not want something they should not have to deal with it.
I get there's tons of real-world baggage that comes with it but the point of the video isn't to tell people they can't be upset about invasions or that invasions are good or justified. This is just me trying to get people to engage with the system rather than shy away and, for me, the best way to do that is to try to explain to people that it can be cool to be invaded.
If I just want to make videos telling people they're justified for hating invasions, then I could do that but that's already a default stance of a huge portion of the community. I'm being an extremely biased advocate of something I believe in and I don't mean to pretend or come across as someone who has only objective takes or values.
I get a lot of invasions are going to be toxic hellholes and annoy people to no end, and there's nothing wrong with hating that experience. I just think there's a very loud portion of the player base who uses those experiences to deride the invaders for not acting in an approved manor rather than demanding the developer better balance their game. I don't want people to ruin other people's time, but that includes giving players as many options as possible.
I see it all too often where players take out their frustration in my comments about how much they despise invasions and those are the people I want to reach. Those are the people I want to convince to alter their perspective, because I used to be just like them. I demanded fairness, I derided invaders, I used defense mechanisms at every turn to make sure no matter what I did, I would feel justified.
As I look back, I don't think that was a helpful mindset and I'm glad I've grown. Invasions were an essential part of that growth and I am worried we are much closer to loosing them outright rather than having them be better adjusted for all playstyles.
I'm no philosopher, but I'm a communist and I believe in community. I think invasions are completely compatible with all aspects of those beliefs not only because this is a video game where consequences are weighted differently, but because invading encourages engagement and interaction. I'm trying to convince people to embrace what the game offers instead of refuting it, particularly because I have my own serious frustrations with the system.
I want the game to be better but it will only get better if people can collectively work together to explore the systems and know what they want from the game. To be able to demand a specific experience from the developers in a meaningful and intelligent way.
I want people to want invasions, for better and worse, because they are the best mechanic in the world for me despite all the frustrations they can cause and I want to convince others tot see things my way.
I'm not necessarily right and I'm certainly not going to convince everyone but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try. I appreciate your thoughtful comment and hopefully I'm not being overbearing with this incredibly long-winded response.
@@emotionaljonxvxNo, not at all. I appreciate it in fact. I absolutely understand your intent with the video, and i'm about to watch part two. I think we can work together to work out dynamics to make invasions a more interesting/enjoyable dynamic for everyone.
I all comes down to the player mentally i for example, welcome the fight between me and a fellow invader and even if i lose I'm fine with it because i lost simply because i didn't play well and these people who cry about this topic are cry casual babies who dislike the idea of dying or being bested which is always absolutely hilarious
If they know how to read they be pretty upset.
An invasion shouldn’t be fair. ur invading someone in a ruthless game with a ruthless world. U need to do everything u can to win. However, I do think the game needs a lvl cap.
The invader should always be at a disadvantage that’s what makes it fun the host is the main character of their world they should feel more powerful then the invader however elden ring disrupted the balance by giving access to long range and fast casting spells and aows that make it far more difficult for an invader elden ring is the most build heavy souls game your build can def determine how well you will do in both pvp and pve if the next souls game is like elden ring minus the heavy magic spam I’d say pvp will be in a good place
I do wish they'd pull back on just how crazy high the powerscaling is. I like magic to be more weird and less death beam.
Fair: if my friends and I kill you :)
Unfair: if the red kills me :(
This is very much the same opinion I share on the matter. It's okay not to like Invasion but it's just stupid to suggest they have no place in a souls-like game when we had them since the start with Demon Souls and I even recall them being praised as a mechanic back in the days. One can't claim they did not know about said mechanic for the same reason, as it has not only been a well known fact for over a decade now, but he/she could've taken a few minutes to read the pop ups in this game clearly explaining and stating how the system works. Their choice is to either accept it as a core part of the multiplayer system, or, as rude as it may sound, either play off-line or choose a different game altogether, possibly one with an actual Co-Op system w/out invasions. I believe Nioh and its sequel are pretty good ones. Cheers!
5:00
Careful; Cheaterlovsky viewers are gonna come here and try and justify why they can cheat on a whim to anyone
I just don't think we can really have the discussion of whether or not an invasion is unfair when the game is so unbalanced. Like to use the weapon you use a lot in this video as an example, with a proper build the stormhawk axe can easily one shot a low level host. That's unfair. And that host might walk away thinking invasions are very unfair, but what's really unfair is the weapon they were killed by.
That's definitely a big part of why I chose it. That build is a new one that only uses upgrades and gear from Limgrave and I use that axe just to highlight how insane damage can be in the first area. No special tricks, no special buffs, just an ash of war on a readily available weapon able to easily drop 3 phantoms who haven't leveled Vigor.
I also do want to have the conversation around balance vs. fairness, as I don't think they're quite the same thing but it's an interesting concept to explore.
@@emotionaljonxvx Yeah they definitely aren't exactly the same, bc at the end of the day a very good player vs a new player is not a "fair" matchup in a vacuum. But if the whole community were to shout one thing from the mountaintops, I don't think we should be shouting "Play with honor and fairness, people!", we should be shouting "Fix the damn game, fromsoft!"
Theres nothing wrong with unfair invasions as long as the unfairness is "implied".
I.e 3 rl80 gankers with appropriate gear vs a ditto'd invader is alright. 2 rl200 phantoms and an rl80 host vs a rl80 twinked invader is shit on all sides and its either the gankers get 1 shot or the invader gets 1 shot after running around for 20 minutes.
And absolutely none of that is fun or engaging for anyone above room temp iq
The only two things I really dislike about elden ring invasions (besides the lack of covenants), are more of a problem that affects all forms of pvp and a little bit of co-op too.
The balancing is all over the place. When you're building a pve oriented build, or really any kind of build that isn't strictly pvp meta, or pvp oriented, in terms of build design(not pvp meta level range as in lvl 120, but I mean using most effective stats, gear, spells, and tactics, etc. available), there is a very significant chance that you're just gonna get smoked by the invader due to being outclassed buildwise or especially weapon/spell wise. The opposite is true if you invade with a build that's not really optimized for pvp, good luck doing that. Especially because the gankers are usually optimized for pvp and take their ganking fairly seriously.
But really, when you think about it that kind of stuff happens in all of the souls games online. I'm currently replaying DSR making some low level builds and in terms of the kinds of players I meet, I find a good mix of new players who don't know what they're doing and players who are hyper optimized sometimes broken.
I think elden ring has more sweats though, because the game is the most recent, and because there's a lot of ways you can become extremely powerful. It feels like all roads, in terms of balance and design, leads to ganker sweats in limgrave.
For example, as someone who looks forward to getting summoned to fight bosses, the "get summoned anywhere" feature is almost useless to me because most of the hosts I get just sit in limgrave and gank.
Feels like I'm really going out of my way to activate those coop pools when 90% of the time I get summoned from afar it's just a gank in limgrave. Invading, usually would get gankers in limgrave too. By gankers I don't mean just 2+ players because that's a requirement, I mean 2+ players that are usually build optimized and waiting for someone to invade.
The balance of Elden Ring is absolutely all over the place. The build in the video is a Limgrave-only invader using very basic gear, but the stormhawk axe is so powerful by virtue of a multi-hit AoE ash that it just melts people. It's not something I think makes for the most engaging fights but when you go up against other very powerful ashes or whatever it puts you in a corner.
I miss magic and weapon skills being accents rather than entire playstyles but I fear those days are long gone.
I’m not one for this debate of “fairness”but I’ve noticed hosts are likely to be less prepared the lower you go in terms of rune levels.
Hosts can always password summon an overleved friend.
The debate goes out the window right there and then.
So i finished the game without leveling and invade w 4 slots for talismans and rot pots have been crafted.
This is my logic,you don’t “challenge” yourself as an invader unless you wish so.
The higher you go the more you stack odds against yourself.
If you’re an invader you’re probably better than any host you invade.
That goes out the window right there and then also the moment you invade.
I think invasions basically come down to “expect the worst and do your worst”.
And that in theory is some kind of balance being finally met.
So yeah hosts and invaders you just have to “git gud”.
Theres no right or wrong bc this is just a game.
And you do NOT have a say in it bc all of this is possible bc fromsoft allows it.
The game is our leader, our god, and our master. Our only choice is to follow.
In every Souls game, I just toggle cheats on and instakill the invader. Could not care less what the developer's intend, nor what the invader wants.
git gud or git offline
i invade at lv 30 as the most nastier invader you can encounter, abbusing glitches, broken build (bloodflame raptor talons), and late game equipment, not to say knowledge (2000 hrs on pvp), and today i encountered dedicated gankers at lv 30, a host with 2000 hrs, overleveled phantoms with late game gear, all the pots and proyectiles in the game to hurt my pasivness and infinite blue ressumon, i fighted until he sent back his summons back for more estus and blocked them to not resummon, and he kept summoning OTHER overleveled friends to kill me and more blues... i gave up and went to hide myself to not let them make another red nightmare, i did this 3 times before they gave up killing themself and going to the host after they finally blocked me, it makes me think if i were not abusing the most broken build at lower levels they would make a living hell on a normal red, super cancer twinks like myself can make a fairgame at the low levels dedicated gankers, they make look more morally correct lmao
I always do a 1v1 host
when you choose to pvp in this game, your mindset becomes crystal clear. if you are sitting in limgrave with 2 buddies ganking, it’s because you are a loser, and you know you’re a loser. someone going to invasions to purposely put themselves at a disadvantage and become better because of it show a true growth mindset.
I've said it once and I'll say it until I die. Password summons ruined souls pvp/co-op balance.
But made playing with friends infinitely better.
"Invaders need to play fair mentality" cracks me up. Sure, if you want to send all your co-ops home and face me 1v1 with equal estus and no rune arc, I am 100% down....turns out, that's not what they mean by 'fair.' Usually 'fair' means "you need to run into our blender"
Dude only pve servers had flagging bro lol I played wow for years . Most play on pvp server and everything is wild Wild West. Way more brutal than elden lol only area you can’t get ganked is in early first 1-8 or so lvls
Yeah, I'm mostly being funny. I do think PVE servers should do that though.
@@emotionaljonxvx I remember camping and being camped those were the days lol 😂 wow was just next level brutal. Never had more fun on a game than OG wow
That shouldn’t be a discussion, honestly. It’s (almost) always ONE against THREE, and whatever the Invader do, the Host’s / their Phantom can do it too, multiplied by 3. How that looks fair?
And i’m not even talking about overleveled yellow boyfriends that a Host can have by password summoning. Most of the time, Gankers aren’t even having fun: they just turn on Taunter’s, use the most CANCEROUS and cringe stuff known to mankind (thanks to Miyazaki for poor pvp-balancing) to ruin PvP/Red Phantom’s invasion experience and boom. Here’s your “FAIRNESS”.
This game was designed for p ssies. It’s absurd how you can be so garbage at the game and, still, this will not make that much of a difference because of strategies, builds, and/or aspects of the game that are poorly designed, and can/WILL be abused by Host’s because they s ck at playing. That’s why ganking exists. Invaders can do everything that a host can do: but again, it’s always three brains against one. Of course there’s Hosts and even Phantoms that are way too unprepared PvP-wise: but most of the time, everyone in the multiplayer session knows at least ENOUGH to not play like a complete A.I, and/or play like every regular Ganker does. The game’s out for years already, bro.
Elden Ring isn’t even about fairness. It’s about who the hell’s is using the most “META” and broken sh t, because almost everything in this game’s balancing is across the ceiling.
Doesn’t matter if you’re a experienced/actually good player. You WILL be destroyed by your regular casul ganking session if they know what they’re doing. And even when they don’t, their build can simply play the game for them: they don’t even need to think, just spam stuff until you die: that’s how Mages/Spell Casting builds work. And there’s 3 of them most of the time, so have “fun”. 😂
Now say it without all the implied homophobia.
After platinum the only content left is gankers
@@penrilfake What take of his was “homophopic”
Did you know, Loosing to mean GANKS is fine. If not, maybe check your ego.
@@TheAuspiciousGoldmask better yet, what's wrong with homophobia?
The incessant whining about invasions in Elden Ring are an indicator of the souls games becoming more mainstream. No other mainline game has a mechanic that is similar. You literally have a phantom with you anytime you get invaded, and with all of the ridiculous builds in this game, self defense has never been easier against invaders.
The game pits you against a team of players with considerable advantages against you, you grit your teeth and get good and beat em; and then the lazy ass team complains about your skill level being unfair. What the fuck, people? XD
I never invaded anyone. I just don't like the idea. on the other hand I love being invaded. it gives the game a fresh opponent that i don't know the move set, location or weapons using. with that said I also hate that you have to be in co-op to be invaded and i know you can use the tongue but it makes you anticipate it and its not fun. i preferred the DS3 if you are embered method. now with these said. who gives a fuck for the few people who don't like invasions and why bother make a video trying to explain or make excuses on why using an in game core mechanic? the video should be "oh you don't like invasions ? go fuck yourself" its the same with people that wanted dificulty levels. the answer is "go fuck yourself" not everything is for everyone and if you don't like it go play elsewhere.
I hear ya, I'm just trying to be persuasive and inclusive. I do think too many people want the game to just be a different game, but I am also empathetic to that sort of reasoning. I want the game to be a lot different, mostly in that I want it to have a lot more multiplayer focused features, so I get why people have such strong aversions to what they're presented in a way.
I want to engage in real discourse with people who really feel differently from me and do my best to speak in a representative way of people who agree with me. Trying to be positive about invasions and get more people to give them a shot.
@@emotionaljonxvx do you need to be though? I 100% respect the time and effort put into this and the idea behind it but in the end people who don’t like it they will keep not liking it and probably don’t like it cause they are also bad at the game. I get that the fuck you answer might be too strong even though appropriate the answer could be just an ok “ooh so you don’t like invasions?!? Okkay”
@@CostasSavvides I certainly don't have to be, it's just my preferred method. I'm trying to find some middle ground where possible, however futile it might be.
All said, it is just a game so I don't think it's a big deal if people want to take hardline stances for or against whatever cause it's all for fun. Just trying to explore things I find interesting in an entertaining way.
The problem isn’t invasions, it’s the insane skill gap between people who play souls pvp like it’s an esport and those who play it for fun.
It’s also very bad faith that you ignore the fact that many people summoning phantoms do so simply because they need a hand.
If Michael Jordan bragged after beating an amateur player, he would look like a tool. You ultra competitive pvp players need to start testing your mettle against players of similar skill and stop playing the victim in literally every situation.
The skill gap exists on all sides but I do understand invaders (as willing PVPers) are more likely to be the higher skill player. The game has no matchmaking based on skill so it's not like people can pick and choose their targets. There isn't a ranked system that let's you only fight people with your K/D ratio and that's also not at all the point of invasions.
I'm certainly not ignoring the fact that people summon to get help, that's the whole point of the video. I love cooperating in these games and I love that people can get help. I also love that the help is weighted against being hindered. It's a fun system with a lot of merit, so whenever people claim that they're getting bullied I'm suspect they just have no interest in participating in anything not directly catered to them.
Maybe I'm wrong about that but by your framing of "you ultra competitive pvp players" tells me you haven't participated in invasions in any meaningful way and despise people who do. That's a bad faith argument if I've ever heard one and I don't appreciate condescension.
I'm open to any positive or meaningful discussion around these games because I love them and want people to enjoy them. I'm not open to people using baseless rhetoric to insist everyone they disagree with is some demon who deserves to be banished.
If players need a hand, I'm all for it. The game says players who cooperate can be invaded and I'm all for that. I'm not seeing a problem other than people who want things their way all the way and aren't willing to accept the mechanics wanting it to essentially be a different game.
@@emotionaljonxvx I’ve done invasions, but I don’t enjoy stepping on other people whilst they’re trying to enjoy themselves.
See again you’ve played the victim and virtue signaled that you’re some holier than thou pvp player who has never had an selfish thought.
I played Dark Souls 1 in its prime, before it even had Artorias dlc. I remember the army of invaders that would only target low level players and you modern souls invaders don’t, because you weren’t there.
Invasions are fine, I’m not saying anything negative about them. I’m talking about the professional souls players who treat this game like an esport whilst only fighting new players trying to learn the game.
Maybe you guys need to band together and request fromsoft to make souls games as esports titles, that way you wouldn’t get as many casual people just trying a game only to be relentlessly assaulted by professional souls players such as yourself.
Now do another victim reply, it’s really funny to read your lack of self awareness.
@@marcpolain9663 I think you're just trying to be dismissive and I guess that's fair enough. I've also played since Dark Souls 1 and been invaded way back when. I get what it's like. That's why I'm so supportive of invasions. I think they're a huge part of the game and its unique experience and I don't want any player to miss that from any angle.
You can say anyone who invades low level is a bully and new players deserve to get to take their time and learn the game at their own pace and be walked through by cooperators and no invader should be able to disrupt that, but that sort of misses the point of invasions and implies invasions should only exist at endgame or whenever a host explicitly says they're ready.
I'm plenty self-aware and I get where you're coming from, I just think it's from a place of contempt rather than understanding. I think you've made up your mind about the kind of people you don't like and that's not something I'm gonna be able to change.
Bottom line, I don't think invaders are the victim in any of this, I just want everyone to experience invasions. I think invasions have been diminished in their role since Dark Souls 3 and it's something I don't want to see go away, so when a large portion of the player base is complaining about their inclusion I feel compelled to try and give some perspective.
If you just hate my perspective and want me to kick rocks, I get it and I don't want to deny you your right to tell me all about it, but I have my limits for how much I'm willing to be taunted. Play nice, stop being smarmy, and try to learn something or I'm gonna have to ban you.
@@emotionaljonxvx you’re dismissing everything I say.
Stop virtue signalling and acting like I’m trying to remove invasions. That’s the go to argument for every souls pvp pro, you act like I’m trying remove a function from the game when all I’m doing is saying you professional esports souls players need to acknowledge your own skill.
The FGC can do this, if someone gets better at Street Fighter or Tekken, they seek out stronger opponents to help them grow.
The absolute pinnacle of souls pvp players target scrubs and players with no skill, then you play the victim in literally every invasion as if the world is out to get you.
It’s really annoying.
@@marcpolain9663 I really don't think I am. Think about what an invasion is. There's no way to tell the skill level of your opponent. You can't pick your target.
Just because a player is low level it doesn't mean they're low skill, and the same is true in reverse. I fight people of all sorts of skill levels at level 20 and level 200. I pick my invasion range based on damage values and build options, not player skill.
There's no ranking system, no recorded K/D ratio. Just an invader against 2 or 3 cooperators. It's hardly built to determine skill.
I get that you think I'm trying to act like a victim but I really don't think that's true. The only thing I think is coming after me is the idea that invasions shouldn't be allowed. You may not have that opinion but a lot of people do.
I'm speaking in genuine defense of something I find interesting, not claiming I'm being hunted to extinction. I think you're projecting an aggravation you have with people who defend invasions broadly and applying that to me in a less than applicable way.
For example, I am not good at the PVP in Elden Ring. I doubt I'm even above average as far as invaders go. There's no realm in which I want this game to become a full e-sports title.
I want this game to have more focus on multiplayer just to facilitate more chaos. I want a 100-player infinite battle across the whole of Limgrave. I want to enter, fight, die, and re-enter until the end of time.
And I want to get better at invading. I don't think it's crazy to think that you can learn something at every bracket and there's not always a great learning experience in getting stomped by meta-level ganks.
These games aren't fighting games. They aren't balanced. They aren't fair. That's what makes them interesting. If I wanted to play Street Fighter or Tekken, I would. But I want to play these games, as unfair and as imbalanced as they are because those uncertainties make them more interesting.
I'm sincerely sorry we're butting heads over this. I know I'm stubborn and have strong opinions, but I'm not trying to start fights. I want to have meaningful discussions about a game series I love and I like to talk about the more controversial aspects of the game.
I don't think I'm being dismissive of you but that's not my place to assert. If you can accept that I'm not trying to play the victim here and just want to talk about the experience, then I can accept that my experience is far from representative.
Does that sound fair to you?
Just invade at 139. Seriously. Twinking is so pathetic.
1. That build ain't no twink
2. Twinking is fun
3. 139 is cool too
4. Invade every level
5. Invade them all
@@emotionaljonxvx "2. Twinking is fun"
You may have just lost all respect from me right there. You enjoy making low leveled newbies games unfun? I can't think of anyone that would enjoy being twinked.
Lol, who cares?
I don't care what anyone says invading is fun, and the ganks cant be talking. Ive never met a cheating invader, but cheating ganks? Yes I've see many.
Is there truly some unhappiness for some.players with getting invaded when summoning help?..wtf.. Talk about a first world problem.. Just enjoy the game the way it is.. Its just a video game..NOT REAL LIFE
From got rid of 1v1 invasions, don’t over intellectualize something just because you have to justify your own behavior.
It is a great mechanic, and I wouldn’t want it to be taken away…however I think the devs weighing in on this through design decisions kinda settles the debate on invasions…
Nobody out here is justifying their pve summoning in long winded UA-cam videos, only invaders have to come up with these pseudo-philosophical arguments to justify their existence.
‘Oh it’s what Miyazaki intended! It’s a treatise on sociology and crown mentality! Therefore you can’t be mad at my scooby-doo level antics.’
It’s a game, and when invaders hide in the level…when it is obvious that these summoner just wants to beat the game…you are an active hindrance.
Just admit you want to be some predator who is preying on others, stop it.
So, people may not make videos about it but I do get a considerable amount of comments. Really, I make these videos because I think the player base's attitude toward invasions has soured with Elden Ring and the game has taken a few big backsteps with the multiplayer overall, thus I am trying to get people to engage with the system and gain some perspective.
Invaders are a hinderance, absolutely. That's the point. I want to invade people to hunt them down and fight, so it's not crazy to say that's predatory. But I don't really get the idea of not talking about it or pretending people are claiming otherwise. No invader thinks they aren't willfully attacking another player, just that it's a fun thing to do. My argument is that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to invade and people can be upset about it but they shouldn't pretend they aren't actively participating.
There's no coverup or hidden agenda. Just the idea that people should embrace invasions.
@@emotionaljonxvx It comes down to free will then I guess, the decision to help or hinder.
Like I said, don’t over intellectualize it…it’s fun to be the predator and that’s why the mechanic had persisted, even with the dev kneecaps.
For clarity, I use taunters tongue and make it a game of spy v spy…so my arcane view on this is skewed. I actively waste time when being invaded so they can’t bully people who are just trying to beat the game once.
My goals are beyond even my own understanding.
@@MercurialStatic I guess I don't think I'm giving it too much thought or over-analyzing anything, especially if you assume you might be talking to someone who hasn't thought about it beyond a gut reaction. I like to be thorough and thoughtful about anything I want to make a video on, and I always assume it will be the first time someone hears the argument. Not always true but helps me to keep a certain perspective.
@@emotionaljonxvxI’ve been playing these game for 15 years, safe to say I’ve thought about them more than those who ER is their first game. Hence, why I try to help them…because I know how grueling the game can be.
I’m not trying to dissuade you from making these videos, you make very good points. It is their choice to be invaded, but that is because they are straight garbage or just want the jolly cooperation…
DS3 fight clubs were the best PvP hands down, and area specific covenants were the best evolution of invasion mechanics.
I play the game solo, if that’s any context. I don’t want help to beat the game, but want to help those who cant do it alone.
Idk, if anything…chalk my response up to someone who has thought about this, but come to a different conclusion. Love and peace ❤
Yeah nah. Invasions are just not good. Hopefully they'll get rid of it or completely rework the system. Makes zero sense to me that the worst players that need help are also the ones open to be invaded. Horrible design. Also pvp and pve loadouts are completely different. Nothing in pve prepares adequately for a invasion. It's almost always a cheap death. It's a dumb mechanic in its current state and I highly doubt it would be missed by more than a couple percentage of the player base.
It’s there for balance, mostly. And the invader is always at a massive disadvantage regardless. It won’t be missed initially but any experienced souls fan knows it would be detrimental the overall game.
martyrsbrigade99 2.0
The words “invasions” and “fair” are incompatible, the second you make the choice to enter another’s game for the sole purpose of disruption, you forfeit any consideration. You are now at the mercy of the host and co-op partners, you will be dispatched HOWEVER THEY DECIDE. There is no 1v1 agreement, there is no exclusion of weapons or skills, there is no respect to be given, you will be expelled with extreme contempt.