Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

From Software Dark Souls 3

cvv

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
18,168
Location
Kingdom of Bohemia
Codex+ Now Streaming!
Motherfucker, are you serious? It was a friendly joke

Sure it was. I guess I got trolled then :lol:

Debate you? Debate what? You haven't even played fucking Bloodborne and yet you arrogantly dismissed DragoFireheart, who actually played the fucking thing, by referencing the game's lore! The fucking lore. Of something you never fucking touched. This tells me quite clearly that there is no fucking debate to be had here.

Calm down bro. We both love the game. My argument was "the fucking lore!" allows for a Bloodborne sequel in a different world and you got angry. But if you think there can't such a thing coz it wouldn't be a real Bloodborne it's cool. And merry Christmas to you too.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,666
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Get a room, fags.

In general, I agree with Lazing Dirk et al. that DS3 feels parodical, although I really can't comment much on the actual game at this point since we spent the majority of our time being invaded constantly by estus-chugging twinks.

It's clear that the game doesn't want you to engage in cooperative play at all unless you mainly intend to PvP or if you're really bad and absolutely need help with a boss fight; bosses receive substantial buffs for each additional player, so that really only works if experienced players are "farming" boss fight co-ops with newbies (many do, but that doesn't really apply to co-oping newbies). As much as I love this series, From seems unable to branch out from a difficulty model that relies almost totally on the game being a solo melee-range dodge timing simulator.
 

cvv

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
18,168
Location
Kingdom of Bohemia
Codex+ Now Streaming!
It's clear that the game doesn't want you to engage in cooperative play at all

It's not that. It's FromSoft being unable to solve the invasion problem to the satisfaction of both the PvPer twinks and the PvE casuls (which is IMO impossible but that's for another discussion).

After every game the casuls produce massive amounts of whining and salt on the internets because of the invasion system and in DS3 From clearly wanted to make life easier for them and harder for the invaders. So they tweaked the algorithm so that if you invade there's a hugely increased chance you'll land with a host with one or more friendly summons. Only very rarely you invade in a 1 vs. 1 situation.

So it might seem From is punishing co-op but they're actually trying to appease the "average" gamers and letting them being invaded only while embered and with some help already summoned.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,666
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
I absolutely do understand it's the result of many conflicting motivations pulling From to and fro, but the end result is that people with barely an hour in the game are bombarded with twinks if they're co-oping. The solution is obvious, but gay and annoying. Shit man, I played fucking EVE Online for six years, but even in EVE (where you're ALLOWED TO SCAM PEOPLE AND STEAL ALL THEIR SHIT) it was a bannable offense to camp the newbie zones.

The actual casuls aren't PvE guys, but rather "PvPers" who prey on brand-new players and can't hack it against anyone with a similar amount of time played. If they're good at the game AND they gank newbies for fun, fine, but some of these guys were chugging estus vs. Lazing Dirk for like a minute after I'd been backstabbed and banished back to my own game.
 

cvv

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
18,168
Location
Kingdom of Bohemia
Codex+ Now Streaming!
It's also possible you've run into hackorz, apparently the PC version is swarming with them. And griefers camping starting areas was a thing in DS1 too, the low-level twinks with muled uber-weapons invading people in the Undead Parish were pretty infamous. It's not necessarily that they can't stand against stronger opponents, some people just love to troll.

Anyway I think the invasion problem is bigger than griefing of noobs. It doesn't have a solution. FromSoft can't just insert a competitive PvP element in a PvE game and expect no tears from the bulk of the players. I love the idea on paper and personally don't mind being invaded at all but it's just a fact competitive PvP should probably stay it's own thing, separated from the single-player part. There'll always be a minority of players with a lot of time, natural skill and motivation to grind and train and they will always form the bulk of invaders. And if you're just an average Joe pootling your way through the PvE content constantly being invaded by supermen you stand absolutely no chance against I understand it can be pretty shitty experience.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,666
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
I've played DS1 and DS2 and never had an issue with invasions in any area, because I wasn't playing co-op, so it wasn't ludicrously asymmetrical and constant.

Dark Souls PvP isn't good or interesting enough for me to devote time and energy to it anyway, beyond getting good enough to repel the shitter invaders.
 

cvv

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
18,168
Location
Kingdom of Bohemia
Codex+ Now Streaming!
I've played DS1 and DS2 and never had an issue with invasions in any area, because I wasn't playing co-op, so it wasn't ludicrously asymmetrical and constant.
Dark Souls PvP isn't good or interesting enough for me to devote time and energy to it anyway, beyond getting good enough to repel the shitter invaders.

In DS1 and DS2 your chance to be invaded is the same with or without a co-op summon so it's more spread out. In DS3 all the invaders are funneled into co-op worlds plus it's a newer game with much more active players so invasions happen much more often.

I actually like Dark Souls PvP and would play much more of it but without any ranking/matching system it's not fun to be constantly matched against players with more skills and training. In a real life I don't go into a ring with Mike Tyson hoping to get lucky either.
 

cvv

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
18,168
Location
Kingdom of Bohemia
Codex+ Now Streaming!
Also, this is just my personal preference, but I think BB also got it right with backstabs by not making it about just getting behind the fucker (or to his side since the fucking backstab zone is bonkers) but also necessitating a charged heavy attack to do it.

This. I've been hating the DS backstab mechanics since the first hour in DS1. It makes the combat a fucking game of circling around and fishing for a backstab. The BB system is miles better but I'd still do away without it completely, like Nioh does, and leave only parries and ripostes (or maybe replace it with some other crit system).

For people who just wanted to Co-op, they could've done the same shit Team Ninja did with Nioh and make a separate game mode. In Nioh it allows you to start the level already with a companion instead of summoning them, you can resurrect each other and some missions get harder not just by upping the stats on the bosses but also by throwing surprises your way. For example, there's one missions where you have to fight 2 bosses that you previously killed but if you play it in Co-op mode, a 3rd boss drops in on you just as you think you won.

Yeah DS co-op can be fun but the balancing is just off. I guess getting a summon is this game's equivalent of switching to Easy, problem is the difficulty drops off so drastically almost everything becomes trivial. Some additional challenge is what's sorely needed here. In DS3 I almost went mad trying to solo Sulyvahn, Twin Princes and Nameless but when I summoned a sunbro we always smashed the boss with ease, despite the HP and damage buff. The only acceptably balanced areas for co-op are the likes of Frigid Outskirts or the Gank Trio in DS2, the trade-off is they're infuriating to solo. FromSoft should really go back to the drawing board for their next game when it comes to jolly multiplayering.
 

Arnust

Savant
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
680
Location
Spain
Only DS2 had some especially scaling bosses if with summons; like all fights with summoners/minions being just scaled up (You know what's fun? Three Veldstadts at once at Elana). It can also be piled over NG+ cycles. And supposedly all the "raid"-like areas in the DLC are intended to be done in co-op.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,666
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Oh, you mean the trapdoor pits full of gank squads?

Yeah, those were great... a great big annoying pain in the ass, that is.
 

Arnust

Savant
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
680
Location
Spain
:M

Back on that, you must be really fucking bad to not be able to overpower a single dude especially if you're talking, but I think the issue with multiplayer is that it gets more and more tagged on and becomes more and more pointless. I'm not one of those fags who can't go on a second on a Souls discussion without sucking DeS dick and being a poser on how muuuuch better it is that what would come next, but the solo play DOES encourage you to either coop ir invade to get an advantage which is quite massive in gameplay. Albeit in the other hand PvP itself was aids and there were a lot of cancerous things you could do, like, why the fuck was the Scraping Spear even in the game? The Tendency system was underhwelming and unfinished, as well.

An extension of that was boiled down to rewarding Humanity/Ember status which, in 1 was useless because you had to be Human to invade and cooping didn't reward anything special and in 3 it's basically the same system except Embers drop like candy and are found everywhere but it does allow you to go out of Hollow status- which is also useless except to then lose your Embered status to an invader. 2 didn't do anything THAT special either but at least on the beginning strokes it's realy easy and nice to engage in multiplayer, it's not as fucking broken and unbalanced like the others (even just phantoms not being able to heal does MILES). Hell, DS3 fucking forgot to put a PvP boss in the game until the second DLC, and then it was literally just Old Monk again but DS3'd up!
 

Lazing Dirk

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
1,865,452
Location
Shooting up your ride
Back on that, you must be really fucking bad to not be able to overpower a single dude especially if you're talking

Three things.

Our invaders generally fell into 2 categories. The first being the naked fisting ninja with seemingly-infinite stamina and iframes. These guys would flip around all over the place, making it pretty much impossible to corner them, and almost all of our attacks would miss. One guy we actually managed to corner briefly, but despite the both of us swinging away at him, none of our blows landed whilst he rolled around constantly trying to escape (which he eventually did). He must've been sweating iframes. The second one being the heavily armoured and armed guys, who were basically invincible, with enough poise to tank our crappy swods, whilst taking off half our health with any counter attack, and had a ridiculous range and deadzone. Even if we did corner them, one swing would all but murder both of us, meanwhile all we had was our +0 starting longswords, which took off barely 10% of their health at best. The few times I actually got a backstab in, it took off a quarter of their health at best. When any of them did the same to us, it was almost guaranteed death, and we couldn't even help each other since you're apparently invincible whilst performing the animation.

They also had a significant amount of time put into the game. I checked the profiles: One had 172 hours in game (along with multiple vac bans), one had no profile set up to check, another had 183 hours, and another 3 had over 430 hours in game. This was not their first rodeo. They'd probably been in 2v1 situations many times before. They knew the map, they knew the starting classes and what equipment they had, they knew the weapon ranges, the amount of stamina we'd likely have, the backstab zones, parry timing, poise, how much it'd hurt to trade blows, etc etc. Knowledge is power, and they had it all. Meanwhile we had about 4 hours each, and half of that was just probably just going through the starting area and getting things set up.

Third, we tended to run into them after we were already injured and had used most (or all) of our (un-upgraded) estus (yeah yeah it should've been easy with both of us, shit happens). They arrived fully healed with all charges (or at least more than 1), and aside from one guy, they all gleefully used their estus, which was clearly levelled up given how much health it restored, i.e. all of it.

The fact that there was two of us was basically irrelevant. We were outmanoeuvred, outgunned, and frankly outclassed. It was like pitting 2 pomeranians against a wolf. Coupled with the fact that we're on different continents so one of us was always lagging a bit, our numerical advantage was worth nothing.

I'm not completely disregarding our skill level as a factor, but to place the blame solely on that is ignorant at best.
 

cvv

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
18,168
Location
Kingdom of Bohemia
Codex+ Now Streaming!
Yeah, the low-level griefers. Usually people who transferred their endgame gear to a new SL1 character. Sure they have the same stats as you but 1) they're doing nothing but PvP all day long and 2) your basic longsword is not much of a match against Yhorm's Machette (even unupgraded) or Friede's Scythe, especially when your opponent can parry (which they typically can).

Btw heavy armored griefers aren't that common in DS3 in my experience because unlike DS1 armor is basically a cosmetic feature in DS3 and the difference between rags and Havel's is a few dozen HP per hit at most which makes next to no difference in the grand scheme of things.
 

Hyperion

Arcane
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
2,120
DS3 has a system in place that doesn't allow invasions against players whose highest upgraded weapon massively outlevels your own. If you're TERRIFIED of being ganked by peoole, you can technically never face these types of players if you never level your weapons beyond 6 or 7. I don't know if weapon gifting bypasses this mechanic.

Heavy Armor does wonders against smaller hits, such as from an unupgraded Long Sword. It gives both Flat Damage Reduction and % Absorption, the latter of which exoeriences Diminishing Returns. The bigger the hit, the less effect you see. Havel Monsters against lowbies are exactly the pain in the ass you don't fucking need.

Either they're blatantly cheating, or gifted weapons bypass the system (which they shouldnt). Whichever it is, it fucking sucks and has always been a part of DS, ever since Darkwraith neckbeards. SM helped a little in 2, but shit the bed late game, then became useless again with the introduction of that ring from Straid.
 

cvv

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
18,168
Location
Kingdom of Bohemia
Codex+ Now Streaming!
DS3 has a system in place that doesn't allow invasions against players whose highest upgraded weapon massively outlevels your own. If you're TERRIFIED of being ganked by peoole, you can technically never face these types of players if you never level your weapons beyond 6 or 7. I don't know if weapon gifting bypasses this mechanic.

I think you can invade people with weapons up to 2 levels lower. So you can invade a noob with a basic longsword if you have +2 Yhorm's Machette and smash his face into the ground (altho you could comfortably do that even with an unupgraded Machette).

And gifting weapons (muling) is easy since you can summon anyone with a password, even a lvl 800 monster. He would get scaled to your level lol but that doesn't matter for muling.
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
Lazing Dirk yeah, that's why I not sure I need to buy and play DS3, I don't wan't to spent my time entertaining schoolboys.
I aready know how I would react on this - remove weapon in sheath, welcoming them and tank their hits with my back.
Dunno who get tired of it faster - they are or I'm.
 

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe
Lazing Dirk yeah, that's why I not sure I need to buy and play DS3, I don't wan't to spent my time entertaining schoolboys.
I aready know how I would react on this - remove weapon in sheath, welcoming them and tank their hits with my back.
Dunno who get tired of it faster - they are or I'm.
Meh, Buy Dark Souls 3. Invaders aren't bad if you're decent. You can also seed them if you get invaded a lot.
 

Kitchen Utensil

Guest
Yeah, or simply play offline.
DS3 may be the weakest of the bunch, but it's still a good game well worth playing.

Edit: Eh, slightly missed the point here, sry.
 

praetor

Arcane
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
3,069
Location
Vhoorl

you're either unlucky as fuck and encountered lots of hackers or just hilariously awful at the game :P (or both? :)). in DS3 armour is barely relevant and poise nonexistent (although i haven't tested it at low levels so it might as well make a difference as somebody else posted), and, as Hyperion already said, matchmaking also takes into consideration weapon level so if you had +0, your opponents could've had at best +3. also also, there's no agility in DS3, so they couldn't have had "iframes for days" or whatever, there's no difference between 0 and 70% eq load, and the only way they could make theirs better is with the ring that makes them take more damage, so you were either mistiming everything completely because of lag or just inexperience

Hyperion gifting doesn't bypass the system. it uses the highest weapon level in your inventory, regardless of the way you acquired it. it's in fact a "great" way to troll newbies. just drop them a shit +9 weapon, and they'll be able to be invaded by +10 twinks all day long

anyway, yeah. DS3 is by far the worst multiplayer experience of the series, both coop and PvP. the game just has crappy mechanics overall :(
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,692
DS2 had best duels. DS I best mechanic to avoid invasions. Simply stay hollowed and enjoy the ride. And if you want great blind ride without help, play offline. (Thought that fireplace in Sen's fortress is serious PITA to find.)
 

Bester

⚰️☠️⚱️
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
11,108
Location
USSR
I had a lot of fun with invaders in DS3 on the launch day. After that, the activity just isn't there anymore. Even on second day it was gone.
 

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe
DS3 is by far the worst multiplayer experience of the series, both coop and PvP
This is a bold faced lie

I had a lot of fun with invaders in DS3 on the launch day. After that, the activity just isn't there anymore. Even on second day it was gone.
I played the game heavily on launch year and there was a shit ton of activity. It's much easier to find people for PvP or Co-op in DS3 than any souls game before it.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,553
DS3 is by far the worst multiplayer experience of the series, both coop and PvP
This is a bold faced lie.

IDK, it pissed me off too.

Two handed heavy weapons were dominant, as no attacks could be parried (fine on its own), and the hyperarmor frames shit made matters worse. Adding on TOP of that was the "phantom range", which does not combine well with the previous things. That dual wield DLC sword in particular was bullshit and people were always spamming it.

Ganker scum seemed more present than ever.

Ganker scum that would disconnect their internet when they were down to 1hp with no estus and no hope left of summoning their healing mage buddies seemed heavily present.

Hornet ring + dagger + parries for instakills.

Most locations weren't that great for PvP, resulting in everyone fighting in Anor Londo after Pointiff Sullivan and often not being able to find a match elsewhere.

I never had these problems in DS2, or if something shitty did happen it was rare.
Best bet for enjoyable PvP in DS3 was to just stick to fight clubs.
 
Last edited:

Declinator

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
542
DS3 is by far the worst multiplayer experience of the series, both coop and PvP
This is a bold faced lie.
Most locations weren't that great for PvP, resulting in everyone fighting in Anor Londo after Pointiff Sullivan and often not being able to find a match elsewhere.
Almost all my PvP fights were on the Nameless King level or on the short bit before the final boss so can't agree.
Dark Souls 2 fights were also heavily centered around the bridge at the lava place so nothing new under the sun.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom