Hacking.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Leave me alone -- Forced multiplayer elements in typical single player scenarios
- Thread starter Deft Beck
- Start date
even worse its that they are trying to avoid what is already a 2 or 3 v 1 fight in their favor (assuming since they said they wanted to play coop)
phoenix296
Member
Doesn't really conflict with your original remark. I paid my money so I should be able to play however I want.
JudgmentJay
Member
They're not on dial-up. The problem is very obviously that you live in China and are connecting to people on the opposite side of the globe. Use the region filter tool in my previous post and you won't have to deal with that and nobody will have to deal with your cheating either.
CambriaRising
Member
In other words, cheating is okay, as long as you can't get caught?
Derpcrawler
Member
Sadly seems like for DS1 only.
How about you shut the fuck up, unless you have concrete proof? I never gank people, I have nothing to gain from that, since the covenant I am using is Sunbros. It's literally just an annoyance for me, nothing more. But keep hating. If I really wanted to cheat, I would use trainer or save editing, would be faster and more convinient, but I don't.
JudgmentJay
Member
In Dark Souls 2 you can set whether to accept world-wide connections in the in-game menu...
I wold take more offense to him doing this if he went out of his way to fuck with people on purpose, but since it's done to let him play without dealing with shit that he doesn't want to deal with, I can't say i'm too bothered by it.
shinobi602
Member
Wait, Souls games have forced MP invasion elements? I only played Demon's Souls briefly last gen so I don't remember exactly...
There is a PvP Watchdog for Dark Souls 1 as well. Comprehensive anti-cheat Tool, cross checks Gear, stats, Soul Level, etc to make sure it is a legit build invading you. If not, you press F1 and poof, they get kicked out of your game.
http://www.nexusmods.com/darksouls/mods/849/?
Shinobi602 said:
Only Dark Souls 2 has forced Invasion elements. You can be invaded while Hollow or Human form in Dark 1, in Demon's and Dark 1, you could only be invaded while Human form. The entire point was for Invasions to be a counter against Co-op. If you play in Hollow form in Demon's or Dark 1, you will never be invaded.
Pseudo judo
Member
Clearly it's not simple.
Whether it's lagging players out or committing suicide the actions are a result of a gameplay element that players deeply wish to avoid. Saying on one hand that pvp it an extremely small part of the experience and then claiming if you don't like it don't play it doesn't make for sensible discussion.
I would imagine any decent game designer who sees players throwing themselves into a pit in order to avoid a small design element, would begin to question it's worth and consider other options.
They don't happen if you're in soul/hollow form except in Dark Souls 2.
Derpcrawler
Member
Because that's just a preference. If game won't find signs or "invades" on CD, it goes out of those preferences and searches in other regions. Believe me, I've set it to Asia as soon as I started playing.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
That's a dangerous argument.
If I'm playing a competitive multiplayer game, you are in the lobby, and for whatever reason I find your setup (class, weapons, etc) annoying to deal with, I'm justified using a tool to disconnect you.
As I said before, whenver you complain in the future about cheating and hacking, remember this thread and your posts.
phoenix296
Member
Honestly if From did implement a covenant that eliminated invasions but added more NPCs or changed the difficulty in some other way I would be completely okay with that. But that's not how Demon/Dark Souls works. The rules of the game are defined and breaking those rules because you don't like the way it works is cheating.
Haha what a backfire thread. I don't think you're Satan for your invader strategy OP. Personally, I hate invasions too, so I usually just rush to the nearest bonfire and jump off a cliff. Preferably as the invader watches.
Invader gets what she wants, I can continue playing alone. Of course this would be tough if playing DS1 since humanity accumulates and all and the lack of repairable life protection rings, but I'm never playing good enough to really lose much anyway and if I had that much to lose, I'd just switch to offline mode.
The lag strategy just feels like both people have shit experiences with the game for a while until you win, which is pretty much cheating. It's the internet equivalent of pulling your siblings controller cord out of the console.
Invader gets what she wants, I can continue playing alone. Of course this would be tough if playing DS1 since humanity accumulates and all and the lack of repairable life protection rings, but I'm never playing good enough to really lose much anyway and if I had that much to lose, I'd just switch to offline mode.
The lag strategy just feels like both people have shit experiences with the game for a while until you win, which is pretty much cheating. It's the internet equivalent of pulling your siblings controller cord out of the console.
We get it, the Souls games are hard breh, so you're sticking to the same AI enemies you've been fighting a thousand times together with your other over leveled coop buddies. Because God forbid you might run into someone who knew how to fight back. Be strong brother, always keep your finger on that lag switch.
Derpcrawler
Member
Dark Souls is not a competitive game, bruv. On top of that, any competitive game has dedicated servers support and not P2P lagfest shit, where people from Asia will connect with people from Middle East at 500ms+ on random.
And as with any dedicated server, you can't use lag switches. So both your arguments are invalid.
aspiegamer
Member
Yay! A thread custom-built to my interests!
Bloodborne seems to want to fix these problems to some degree by having the watchword system. Assuring you co-op and PvP with those people at the top of the queue is actually a massive game-changer in that series. We'll obviously have a GAF code, and on top of that perhaps ones for people preferring co-op or preferring PvP.
Worth noting that I'd be okay with a refusal to be invaded also meaning you'd be unable to call allies for co-op. Fair is fair. Either your own dimension is open for multiplayer or it isn't.
Bloodborne seems to want to fix these problems to some degree by having the watchword system. Assuring you co-op and PvP with those people at the top of the queue is actually a massive game-changer in that series. We'll obviously have a GAF code, and on top of that perhaps ones for people preferring co-op or preferring PvP.
Worth noting that I'd be okay with a refusal to be invaded also meaning you'd be unable to call allies for co-op. Fair is fair. Either your own dimension is open for multiplayer or it isn't.
Indeed! Under some circumstances at least. It's my only problem with the series because "git good" and "play offline" are extra steps people shouldn't have to take if they're just trying to enjoy themselves. Not sure why they changed the formula from how it worked in Demon's Souls because that was absolutely perfect. The irony in Bloodborne will be that only PS+ members will have the privilege of being invaded, so just like using the convenient autosave against the player it'll turn that (paid!) convenience feature against you as well.
bobawesome
Member
...someone playing by the rules of the game itself?
webkatt
Member
I don't play dark souls so I don't have a reference for this, however...
If this were a PC Mod [that blocked invasions altogether while still allowing co-op/friends], Derp would undoubtedly be hailed as a hero.
And the mod would be incorporated in the sequel/spiritual successor.
You know this to be true
I think the issue here is....the game is forced a "feature" (Invasion) on the player that they do not want to deal with. Sadly, its also tied to one they like (co-op).
The game does not give the player the option here so this player deals with it how they want in order to enjoy the game the way they like.
More options should be the answer here. Allow varying levels of online interaction perhaps? More options are always good.
Kind of funny seeing people get upset though. lol
Derpcrawler
Member
I am so good, that I can backstab people in the face, then they backstab me in the face across the bridge in Keep. Then I swing at air and either me or other guy dies. I don't know, seems random to me. All going on for 1-2 minutes. I assume requires much skill. That is without lagging them out, if I lag them out that shit is over in 10 seconds and I can continue with my jolly adventures.
Paracelsus
Member
People who think "git gud" is bad haven't seen its ascended form, "git gud at pvp".
JudgmentJay
Member
The passwords don't affect PvP.
shinobi602
Member
What about Bloodborne? Because I'm planning on picking it up eventually...can I just play through the entire thing by myself at my own pace?
My network blocks P2P communication so I know I won't be invaded anytime soon lol.
That I have no idea. I haven't followed Bloodborne much at all.
phoenix296
Member
No idea but there is always an offline mode in every souls game.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Plenty of competitive games on consoles are p2p, but I guess a cheater like you doesn't need to pay attention to details, just hit the switch and win.
And if you follow the conversation, that other poster wasn't talking specifically about Dark Souls.
This thread must be tough for you, you cannot lag-switch out the other posters.
I'm not going to be complaining about cheating and hacking because I don't stick around when there are cheaters or hackers. If you have more fun whining about hackers/cheaters then just leaving, then more power to you. I don't waste energy getting upset about that stuff.
Only if you go offline, which also means no shared dungeons or hints written by other players.
I don't know the specific rules for how you can be invaded in Bloodborne, but surely if you played offline you would never get invaded and you could play at your own pace.
Ignoring the fact that your comparison wasn't even valid and your incorrect accusation, how is unlocking your weapons affecting anybody else? You'll get those weapons anyway.
Telling somebody else to piss off from your game world isn't any more hurtful than the person being invaded having to start all over to get their session started up after participating in a battle they weren't even interested in. You could argue that invading is hurting the online experience of others. If you're looking for a fight you could easily go to the colliseum. But no let's go bother somebody else who isn't interested and force them to participate in for your satisfaction. Invading is basically just built in griefing. I have no qualms with invasions. But don't be surprised when there are people who aren't interested in accommodating you.
Hell, maybe seeing people try to find ways to avoid a certain aspect of a game might push the devs to looking into a way to improve their game.
Derpcrawler
Member
Friend of mine wrote pretty awesome simple script for DD-WRT/Tomato, that makes your NAT (routing) semi closed. You are able to join other people worlds for co-op (or PvP) and read world messages/see ghosts, but no one is able to join you (again, both co-op and PvP) except IP address or IP range that you desire. He tested his idea with both DS1 and DS2 on PS3, works flawlessly, he should finish it for Bloodborne when it's released.
So after that, all we do (me and my friends) is install scripts on DD-WRT/Tomato router, set correct IP range for all 3 of us and we can join and play with each other, as well as join anyone else. But no one else outside of those IP ranges will be able to join any of us.
If From won't fix it, my buddy will. More elegant than lag switch as well, but requires expensive router and minor IT proficiency, as well as (jolly) co-operation in order to get IP ranges right for each of participants.
I'd never considered that...
That's exactly what everyone who defends it falls back on - the 'rules', without questioning whether they're widely advertised to everyone playing, or the kind of behaviour that they encourage, because then they wouldn't be able to excuse their own behaviour. It's exactly why I can't stand the defending argument in this case.
My question however, is above and beyond the rules of any individual game.
People ought to think of the larger issues instead of excusing themselves on technicalities. So, again, removed from the BS technical answer of 'it's the rules', not least because my question is beyond just DS; what kind of person invades another's game just to fuck it up - and, furthermore, tries to defend it on the basis that it was 'allowed' by an authority or ruleset, rather than just admitting that they want to be a dick? There would be more dignity in the latter. Especially given that 'invasion' needn't be an antagonistic action. It's a choice. That the rules in question were implemented, does not necessitate that they were entirely correct either. A ruleset is always in isolation, and therefore is always able to be observed.
They're being negatively invaded, you know fine well the purpose of which is to victimise. I have to say, I'm in hysterics at people complaining that they're 'fucking up someone else's game', like the invader wasn't attempting to do exactly that.
I don't condone their method, but I just can't help but laugh that they found an effective solution to a social issue that is bigger than the 'rules' of any video game.
Derpcrawler
Member
Why would I? Keep the salt coming. Only 2 competitive games I played on consoles - Battlefield 4 and Titanfall both have dedicated servers. In BF4 on PS4 I have pretty much all stats in top 1% leaderboards, including KDR, W/L, Skill, Points per Minutes, etc. I don't need to prove anything, I am amazing in pretty much any game I care to play, be it WoW top 50 raiding in TBC/WoTLK or shooters. Dark Souls is not that game.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
I had no idea trolling random people was so important to people.
This sounds about right to me too. In principle I can't really argue with it, I just always stayed in offline mode so i don't have to deal with it, but I also didn't really care about coop.
It really doesn't sound like he is doing this to ruin other people's fun, it's just the unfortunate side effect. And he's putting his own enjoyment of playing the game's coop above that of others invading him, which while somewhat selfish is also understandable since most of us do that regarding personal enjoyment. After all, not even giving him the option to coop without random assholes joining in is also something I consider selfish, even if it's "intended game design".
Seems practically a requirement in multilayer games in teams/pvp these days. Another reason why I like my single player games to say single player, I have LoL and MMO pvp and lots of other options if I want to wreck or be wrecked.
I can understand people being salty about it in this particular stance since there are certain gameplay elements that require you do invade other people, but it's also kind of annoying that a significant amount of people don't seem to understand why he'd resort to lagging them out, when the ideal solution is really just to add an option to play with friends separate from PvP.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
You must have all the time in the world to keep joining and leaving lobbies.
haha yes thank you
Worth it not to play with other people. I enjoyed Demon and Dark Souls offline with no issues (for a time until I got bored anyway) so I'm sure I can enjoy Bloodborne if I got it just fine...
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Except that his entire argument is based around the idea of someone that does not want to PVP at all.
Comparing this to aimbotting or wallhacking in a competitive multiplayer shooter is entirely disingenuous, because a cheater there actively decides to go on a public server. This is a situation where someone is involuntarily pushed into PVP as a result of design decisions.
Never done what Derp has nor will I ever but I say go for it Derp.
Not sure what the hate is tor, the thread is all about hating this kinda thing and stating why, seems odd all the hate that's happening.
Granted if Derp said this in a Souls thread then I'd understand.
I personally hate all PvP but I do enjoy some Left 4 Dead and will put up with it given the design. Still I'm a firm believer in modding games of all types but fighters or multilayer shooters/ professional games with agreed upon limitations. So even if it's at my expense I still say go for it.
Not sure what the hate is tor, the thread is all about hating this kinda thing and stating why, seems odd all the hate that's happening.
Granted if Derp said this in a Souls thread then I'd understand.
I personally hate all PvP but I do enjoy some Left 4 Dead and will put up with it given the design. Still I'm a firm believer in modding games of all types but fighters or multilayer shooters/ professional games with agreed upon limitations. So even if it's at my expense I still say go for it.
do you even know the souls series? or are you just knighting based on the logic that "invasions are bad mmkay."
what if that person bows and presents an even duel based upon mutual respect, are they still a big jerk like you want them to be?
what if the "victim" has the option to play offline but refuses?