Support NeoGAF

[TwEE-N-Toast]

The first time I was invaded in Dark Souls I had no idea what it was and it was terrifying. And every time after that I always ended up fucked and pissed off.

But looking back, overall I'm glad for the experience and think it was pretty intense.

Forced co-op might cheese me off though, I like to take my time and do my own shit.

 

[MikeyB]

Perhaps you should actually play it and realize that its not actually as bad as you make it sound.

If I own other great games that have no risk of interrupted play (even if I am overblowing the risk, you pointed out that it does exist), why would I choose Dark Souls over them?

 

[Jito]

I actually like the growing trend of seamless drop in and drop out multiplayer in gaming these days. Just started playing Helldivers this week and the whole game is designed around players dropping in (literally) to help out mid mission and the game only gets better with more players. I also really enjoyed it in DS as it added that unpredictable element back into a level once you've sussed out where the enemies and traps are. One of my favourite memoires from Dark Souls was being constantly harassed by an invader in Anor Londo whilst I was trying to get to O&S, it ruined my day but was a great gaming memory.

 

[MauroNL]

People invading my Watch Dogs singleplayer still bothers me. I rarely play my games online and now singleplayer games are getting multiplayer crap thrown in to it, it's getting a little out of hand. I also hate the forced leaderboards crap in everything nowadays, I don't want to compare anything to others, it's not a feature!

Watch Dogs screwed me over hard when they decided it was smart to take away all your upgrades and stuff half way through the game when you decide you didn't want people invading your game, I mean come on.

 

[BabyFaceKillah]

lol killing yourself when you get invaded is some DSP level shit...

 

[Primethius]

If I own other games with have no such risk of interrupted play (even if I am overblowing the risk, you pointed out that it does exist), why would I choose Dark Souls over them?

Because Dark Souls is an amazing game?

Because dieing in Dark Souls due to invasions is an overblown issue?

Your going to die in Dark Souls plenty of times. The amount of times you'll die to invaders is not that high as you have to be HUMAN to be invaded in the first place. Which is unlikely the large majority of time.

A completely overblown issue.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

What kind of person owns a lag switch?

Dark Souls players.

 

[Harpuea]

Dude is a human who cheats to beat an invader. Invaders who lost their humanity and have no qualms to kill other humans for souls. Dude large switch to become beyond a human. Dude is human no more.

When fighting monsters, make sure you don't become a monster yourself.

How does it feel to totally be oblivious to the game's theme and hollowing yourself out just cause you don't remember why you play the game in the first place?

I bet you will become a beast to fight other beasts in Bloodborne too.

Despicable.

 

[DeaviL]

What kind of person owns a lag switch?

.

 

[Corpekata]

Watch Dogs screwed me over hard when they decided it was smart to take away all your upgrades and stuff half way through the game when you decide you didn't want people invading your game, I mean come on.

Good thing it didn't do that. It only really affected skills that were involved in multiplayer

 

[DorkyMohr]

Invasion are fucking annoying in Dark Souls, I want to co-op, but I don't want to PvP. I had to resort to UTP/TCP lag switch to lag out the invaders and kill them quickly, since it's all P2P based. And if I would just D/C them, then in future it would be harder to find people to help or get help. So I let red/gray scumbags suffer.

Makes sense that a certain percentage of anti-social players would actually be full blown sociopaths.

 

[Jito]

If I own other great games that have no risk of interrupted play (even if I am overblowing the risk, you pointed out that it does exist), why would I choose Dark Souls over them?

Because Dark Souls is a great game that is hardly effected by the multiplayer? You can play through the whole game offline if it bothers you that much. Really it sounds like you're making excuses and you just don't want to play it anyway, congrats?

 

[Derpcrawler]

What kind of person owns a lag switch?

PC breh. No need for HW lagswitch.

I endured invasions on 360 DS1 enough, they are were great at at the start, when player pool was huge. After that half of invaders would backstab you in the face, because they play from dial up half way around the globe, or were blatant cheaters on JTag with fast roll in elite knight full armor set and tower shield. At that point it's not even annoying, it just down right infuriating.

People who pretend otherwise, are delusional.

 

[RiccochetJ]

I don't mind it. I actually find it fun.

Except for Belfry Luna and Sol in Dark Souls 2. Fuck those places. I had to go offline to make any progress there.

 

[The Jutty]

Invasion are fucking annoying in Dark Souls, I want to co-op, but I don't want to PvP. I had to resort to UTP/TCP lag switch to lag out the invaders and kill them quickly, since it's all P2P based. And if I would just D/C them, then in future it would be harder to find people to help or get help. So I let red/gray scumbags suffer.

Not cool at all. No one is forcing you to play the game online. Pretty disrespectful of other people's time.

 

[Derpcrawler]

Makes sense that a certain percentage of anti-social players would actually be full blown sociopaths.

And yet, I have 2 other dudes I play with all the time who use exact same method, since none of us want to bother with shitty PvP of souls games, where you get backstabbed in the face most of the time. The pther dude I play with wrote this lag switch, he already figuring out how to fend off annoying PvP heroes in bloodbrone with DD-WRT script.

But keep going how I am ruining my game experience.

If you want to PvP join blue phantoms and do arenas. But don't force this shit on sunbros, all I and my friends want to do, is jolly cooperation, no backstabs in the face.

 

[Chaos17]

I agree with OP.
I disliked to be force to do MP in a single game.
If I wanted that, I woud've gone by myself play an mmo.

 

[The Jutty]

You are ruining other players game experience. You can try to justify it if you want but what you are doing is cheating.

 

[Orayn]

But keep going how I am ruining my game experience.

I don't give a shit if you alter/ruin/improve/tailor your game experience in SP. By cheating in MP, you are are ruining other peoples' game experiences and you can fuck right off.

 

[FourMyle]

Invasion are fucking annoying in Dark Souls, I want to co-op, but I don't want to PvP. I had to resort to UTP/TCP lag switch to lag out the invaders and kill them quickly, since it's all P2P based. And if I would just D/C them, then in future it would be harder to find people to help or get help. So I let red/gray scumbags suffer.

fucking lol

 

[Primethius]

And yet, I have 2 other dudes I play with all the time who use exact same method, since none of us want to bother with shitty online of souls games, where you get backstabbed in the face most of the time. The pther dude I play with wrote this lag switch, he already figuring out how to fend off annoying PvP heroes in bloodbrone with DD-WRT script.

But keep going how I am ruining my game experience.

Yea, well, you are. You are straight up cheating. Good of you to come up with justifications but its pretty clear that your the only one who actually believes the BS your spouting.

 

[GulAtiCa]

The pther dude I play with wrote this lag switch, he already figuring out how to fend off annoying PvP heroes in bloodbrone with DD-WRT script..

This kind of act is really chickeny... Hopefully FROM Software/Sony catches you guys in the act and bans you from online. Then you never have to worry about being invaded ever again.

 

[MikeyB]

Your going to die in Dark Souls plenty of times. The amount of times you'll die to invaders is not that high as you have to be HUMAN to be invaded in the first place. Which is unlikely the large majority of time.

Even if that's the case, there's still a chance that the hour I have to play a game on a weekend ends up with me dodging a guy rather than advancing the story. I know that it appeals to some people, but not me. It's a shame, because I really like how they implemented the co-operative aspect.

 

[Jito]

Even if that's the case, there's still a chance that the hour I have to play a game on a weekend ends up with me dodging a guy rather than advancing the story. I know that it appeals to some people, but not me. It's a shame, because I really like how they implemented the co-operative aspect.

You only get an hour a week to play anything? Yeh maybe Dark Souls isn't for you, it'd take you a year to finish it.

 

[Primethius]

Even if that's the case, there's still a chance that the hour I have to play a game on a weekend ends up with me dodging a guy rather than advancing the story. I know that it appeals to some people, but not me. It's a shame, because I really like how they implemented the co-operative aspect.

See? This is why sometimes you shouldn't talk about games you haven't played.

Your not going to lose an hour of your time to an invasion.

An invasion will last maybe 5 minutes, maximum. It'll happen infrequently. It'll only happen when your human (hint: your not going to be human a lot). I've played through Dark Souls several times on PC and 360 several times. The amount of time I got invaded in one play through is in the single digits.

 

[Derpcrawler]

Do us all a favor and stay away Bloodborne. This kind of act is really chickeny...

Nah, I wanna play it, as other dudes. They even bought PS4s for it and other guy already trying out DD-WRT based script to prevent invasions or at least D/C them on DS1 for his PS3. But keep those delicious salty tears flowing.

I mean wouldn't it be easier to just introduce PvE covenant, which already exist as Sunbros, instead of forcing shitty cookie cutter dominated face backstabs filled PvP?

 

[Rising_Hei]

I wish FROM would ban people that resorts to tactics such as DC and lag switch, seriously.
Part of what makes the series so exciting is the thrill of the invasions...

BTW, Demon's Souls wasn't p2p, and i think Bloodbourne isn't p2p either

 

[Aikidoka]

The online play in the Souls series is one of the most ingenious experiences of any game. Not only does it benefit from the amazing combat mechanics of the Souls series, the online play is just so freaking perfect, thematically. It's one of the epitomes in role-playing, where it makes you actually feel like you are playing the malicious soul hunter, avenger, protector, or ally. Putting in an option to turn it off might be great for some individuals, but it would go completely against the purpose the multiplayer serves. Hence that would be a really big mistake, imo.

I also understand people who don't want to deal with invasions and decide to lag out - it's just a game and they should experience it how they want. However, people that purposely seek out invaders and cheat to kill them are just dicks (e.g., hackers).

 

[CountAntonius]

Invading inside Sens Funhouse and hiting people of the bridges towards the top is ultimate dickwraithing.

 

[Majanew]

Cheating would be all upgraded weapons with all stats at 99+ with extremely low soul level, which on PC is more common than people who actually don't play cookie cutter PvP specs as red phantoms.

All I see salty redtards who are mad they can't gang people with their leet twinks. Dey hate us, cuz they ain't us.

What you're doing is considered cheating. You can be banned for it. And since you know how to lag people out, it wouldn't surprise me if you do that in other online games.

 

[RPGam3r]

Yea, well, you are. You are straight up cheating. Good of you to come up with justifications but its pretty clear that your the only one who actually believes the BS your spouting.

While I agree about invasions sucking I at least play within the rules of the game, and I take the death as punishment.

 

[Primethius]

Nah, I wanna play it, as other dudes. They even bought PS4s for it and other guy already trying out DD-WRT based script to prevent invasions or at least D/C them on DS1 for his PS3. But keep those delicious salty tears flowing.

I mean wouldn't it be easier to just introduce PvE covenant, which already exist as Sunbros, instead of forcing shitty cookie cutter dominated face backstabs filled PvP?

And are you planning on cheating in Bloodborne too?

 

[Derpcrawler]

What you're doing is considered cheating. You can be banned for it. And since you know how to lag people out, it wouldn't surprise me if you do that in other online games.

If I want to PvP, I PvP, in Dark Souls I won't PvP until there are dedicated servers and gear to souls level check.

And frankly, PvP games I do prefer all have dedicated servers and latency based matchmaking.

 

[Cels]

I was trying out Warframe on the PS4, going through the solo missions. But, halway through one of the missions, this random player joins my instance and proceeds to mow down the rest of the enemies up to the end. Then, when I got back to my ship, they were still in my "party". I thought this was the kind of game to have strict multiplayer and single-player divides, but I guess I was wrong.

Then, there is something like the human and hollow system in the Dark Souls series. There are benefits to being human, such as the ability to summon players for assistance, but often you may be invaded by players who have no qualms about mowing you down.

I do not mind such systems most of the time. I just want to be informed about their functions and be given the option to turn it off when possible.

What do you think?

for dark souls, just play offline if you don't want people to invade you, it's not that hard. not sure how warframe works or whether there's some way to play solo missions without having randoms join you.

 

[draetenth]

People invading my Watch Dogs singleplayer still bothers me. I rarely play my games online and now singleplayer games are getting multiplayer crap thrown in to it, it's getting a little out of hand. I also hate the forced leaderboards crap in everything nowadays, I don't want to compare anything to others, it's not a feature!...

I've been thinking of getting Watch Dogs. Is the bolded true? Does it work like the Souls game where it can be turned off or is it an always on feature? I will skip Watch Dogs if I can't turn it off (I have plenty of other games that are single player only so it doesn't matter to me if it's a minor feature or not).

 

[jetjevons]

I also understand people who don't want to deal with invasions and decide to lag out - it's just a game and they should experience it how they want.

So with that rationale how about just making it totally optional?

 

[DeaviL]

If I want to PvP, I PvP, in Dark Souls I won't PvP until there are dedicated servers and gear to souls level check.

And frankly, PvP games I do prefer all have dedicated servers and latency based matchmaking.

Go play those then.

 

[Majanew]

If I want to PvP, I PvP, in Dark Souls I won't PvP until there are dedicated servers and gear to souls level check.

And frankly, PvP games I do prefer all have dedicated servers and latency based matchmaking.

If the game you're playing is designed to have other players come into your games, you can try playing offline or, find a different game to play. No need in cheating. Sony needs to ban your account.

 

[Juke Joint Jezebel]

That's what Sunbros are supposed to be, yet they force us to PvP without even basic matchmaking checking gear levels and ping. I got people with 600ms+ latency more often than people sub 150ms.

Yup, it's ridiculous, DS1's PvP just feels like something they had planned for ages but then just slapped it on at the end of development and rushed it out the door. If you're going to punish co-operative players in a game, then at least have your damn matchmaking system check an invader or the invaded's weapon, armour, latency and stat discrepancies before pitting them against each other in a one-sided battle. Particular areas were a nightmare to run unhollowed in single player AND co-op, especially blighttown and the swamp areas.

It's not a clever idea to help immerse a player in the "atmosphere" of the game, it's just shit design.

 

[Primethius]

So with that rationale how about just making it totally optional?

There is an option for that in Dark Souls. It's called offline mode. The entire game is designed around a risk/reward system for when you summon help in human form.

And Bloodborne looks to be continuing that trend.

 

[MikeyB]

You only get an hour a week to play anything? Yeh maybe Dark Souls isn't for you, it'd take you a year to finish it.

Sometimes I have 15 hours, sometimes none. More frequently it's 2-4 hours a week. It has taken me months to beat a 20 hour campaign.

I know that I'm missing out on an amazing gameplay experience in DS invasions. But by the same token, I'm also missing out on the thrill of competitive velodrome. I'd like to try experiencing Dark Souls' world with friendly players in the same way that I like bike-riding with friends.

 

[Derpcrawler]

Go play those then.

How about no? Sorry, but your opinion means shit to me. I still will play Souls games and still play online with my friends to co-op as golden phantom. It's not like I sit in Iron Keep actively waiting to get invaded, then lag someone out and kill for lulz. As I said, until there is proper matchmaking system and dedicated servers for Souls games, they better add PvE only faction or let players find fixes to imperfections of the system.

 

[Aikidoka]

So with that rationale how about just making it totally optional?

Because that wouldn't be the way the game is meant to be experienced. Lagging yourself out and/or disconnecting is an active task that the player has to go through to change the the experience. Hence, it is really not the same at all as the game designer including an easily accessible option in the game.

Every PC game can be modded in some way, but that doesn't mean a game designer should just make every thing about their game optional/changeable.

 

[Derpcrawler]

If the game you're playing is designed to have other players come into your games, you can try playing offline or, find a different game to play. No need in cheating. Sony needs to ban your account.

Since there is offline mode, then no, it's not designed with PvP in mind, unless it's NPC invasions. So your argument is already invalid, but why would I enable offline to avoid cheaters, PvP toons and lagging backstabs in the face, but miss on playing with friends and messages in the world? Your logic is flawed.

 

[Deft Beck]

Can't you set Warframe to private? Been a while since I played, and it was on PC, but I seem to remember it.


I mean, the game is clearly designed around multiplayer anyway so I think it's a pretty terrible example either way, but fairly certain they allow you to play totally solo.

I know that it is a multiplayer centric game. I did not expect having a person hijacking a tutorial mission.

 

[Rest]

I don't connect to the internet while playing video games unless I intend to play with other people. So I haven't had this issue, but it does sound really annoying.

 

[Wasp]

I had a frustrating experience in Dead Rising 3 due to this reason. Someone joined my game, which is fair enough because I allowed online play, but the problem was when I tried to go through a gate during a mission and I got a message saying "waiting for other player" who was on the opposite side of the map and had no intention of following me. Even selecting no online joins in the game's option wouldn't kick out the other player so I had to quit to the start menu.

Also in Need for Speed: Rivals I used to quite frequently get server migrations despite playing single player, which would be fine except once the sever migrated the event I had been playing was now over and I had apparently lost. This is really frustrating if you're playing the 15 minutes long final race. The only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to disconnect your console from the internet.

 

[KePoW]

I've been thinking of getting Watch Dogs. Is the bolded true? Does it work like the Souls game where it can be turned off or is it an always on feature? I will skip Watch Dogs if I can't turn it off (I have plenty of other games that are single player only so it doesn't matter to me if it's a minor feature or not).

There's a specific option in WD to turn it off

 

[Primethius]

Since there is offline mode, then no, it's not designed with PvP in mind, unless it's NPC invasions. So your argument is already invalid, but why would I enable offline to avoid cheaters, PvP toons and lagging backstabs in the face, but miss on playing with friends and messages in the world? Your logic is flawed.

Your completely missing the point. The entire purpose of the online system in Dark Souls is a risk/reward type deal. You can only get invaded while human. When your human, you can summon people to help you. That's the risk, that's the reward.

When in offline mode, you can't do neither. So yes, it is part of the core game design.

But continue cheating.

 

[Deified Data]

When people invaded my game in Demon's Souls I would immediately jump down a pit to deprive them the pleasure of killing me (I'm terrible at the game). That'll show 'em.

I only do this if I realize I'm up against a hacker. Righty-ho and roll off a cliff. Congrats guy, stop wasting my time.

If I can hurt someone, I'll keep trying until one of us is dead.