Support NeoGAF

[Derpcrawler]

On the other hand, you are not a newbie who barely understands the game.

And you have friends with you as well, so you have numbers advantadge as well.

Yeah, but we want to chat on Skype, drink and casually fuck around in the world and with bosses. PvP invasions interrupt those, mainly the drinking part.

Personally I agree with people saying scourge of gaming. These are the types of players that ruin other peoples experiences and think its okay because the game is "wrong" or messed up anyway.

The hypocrisy overload. So people who invade others in known "non-PvP" zones, for sole intention to ruin someones game are not hurting people experience? Please, tell me more.

 

[Derpcrawler]

Double post

 

[ShockingAlberto]

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.

 

[JudgmentJay]

Cool story, I'd say last time I played DarkSouls about 50% of invasions were modders. Hoped you liked my story too, they both bring so much to the discussion.

Sorry, but unless you had a sample size of like like two invasions I don't believe you.

EDIT: Derpcrawler banned. Well, it was fun while it lasted.

 

[Booshka]

People only complain about Twink invaders, never complain about Twink Co op phantoms. Which are just as prevalent, if not more so. Ironically, they ruin the PvE aspect of Souls games far more than Invaders do. They make the game a total joke and you get a guided tour through the level and boss. It may be fun at the time, but you've been robbed of a great experience for the sake of progress. An Invader doesn't ruin your game as badly, you just die and spawn at the bonfire to try again.

The other reason a lot of Invaders use fully upgraded gear and min/max builds is because they have to deal with not only multiple players, but the aforementioned Twink phantoms, that can be just as strong, if not stronger than the Invader. And they have a Host to heal them. Invaders can also be put into sessions with much higher level players.

Ya'll need to spend some more time invading, a serious lack of perspective for the bad guys.

 

[besada]

Regardless of your opinion regarding lag switches or tossing yourself in a pit, the rules regarding telling other users to fuck off or calling people salty retards haven't been rescinded. If you folks can't have this conversation calmly, we can close the thread.

 

[Orochinagis]

Winners dont use lag switch kids.

On Topic

AC Unity have some kind of forced multiplayer to have the best gear in single player

 

[border]

AC Unity have some kind of forced multiplayer to have the best gear in single player

Yeah, but what's the point of gear in Assassin's Creed? Those games are balanced so that you can beat them pretty easily wearing rags and swinging a dull machete.

All the extra crafting/gear/XP/skilltree crap in most open world games just seems pointless to me if there's no challenges associated with having really good build or really good equipment.

 

[DoubleTake]

Yeah, but we want to chat on Skype, drink and casually fuck around in the world and with bosses.



The hypocrisy overload. So people who invade others in known "non-PvP" zones, for sole intention to ruin someones game are not hurting people experience? Please, tell me more.

WTF is a non PVP zone?? Anywhere co-op can happen, PvP can as well just like the designers intended. You realize a person can invade, not be particularly good at pvp, and do this in an area where others dont generally participate in "organized" pvp correct?

Ill pull out some Socrates for you. When Socrates was sentenced to death by the people/courts of Athens for "corrupting the youth" and speaking obtusely about the Gods, his friend Crito offered to break him out of jail. Socrates refused. You know why? Because he realized the people of Athens and the court would say, "If you didnt agree with our principles and rules, why didnt you leave the state?" Knowing this, Socrates realizes he has no right to escape and break the agreement he made which in turn would jeopardize the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of the people.

The point is Socrates had an option to leave if he didnt like the way things were going.

Just like you have an option to not play the game, or play offline, if you dont like the way online is INTENTIONALLY designed. You buy the game you adhere to the rules and design decisions, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

Yet you chose to stay and play, making your argument and decision to cheat for your own gain laughable.

EDIT: Oh. He's already dead.

 

[SoulUnison]

The hypocrisy overload. So people who invade others in known "non-PvP" zones, for sole intention to ruin someones game are not hurting people experience? Please, tell me more.

Err... If someone invades you in a "Non-PvP" zone, then they're obviously cheating somehow.
*Your* problem is that nearly *every* area is "PvP" and you think you deserve to mess with other players to make the game behave the way *you* want it to.

 

[Gator86]

It seems to me that basically everybody who wants to invade would also want to be invaded, unless the motivation for wanting to invade is literally just to ruin the fun of somebody who doesn't want a PvP match.

Yup, that's basically the gist of it. It's mostly to troll people who don't want to be bothered with the PvP nonsense. That's why I didn't really have a problem with Derp lagswitching them. If you're doing something mostly to annoy someone else and they turn the tables and troll you, I find that pretty funny.

 

[border]

That's why I didn't really have a problem with Derp lagswitching them. If you're doing something mostly to annoy someone else and they turn the tables and troll you, I find that pretty funny.

Maybe it all makes sense if you are a DS/DS2 megafan. But as a Dark Souls outsider, it was surreal to read some of the angry reactions.

"Hey man, you're ruining the game experience for all those people who are trying to ruin your game experience!"

 

[Orayn]

Maybe it all makes sense if you are a DS/DS2 megafan. But as a Dark Souls outsider, it was surreal to read some of the angry reactions.

"Hey man, you're ruining the game experience for all those people who are trying to ruin your game experience!"

There's a difference between negatively affecting someone's experience within a game's ruleset and circumventing it.

It's like your friend abusing some completely unfair cheating tool to win a Mario Kart race every time someone uses a blue shell on them.

 

[MixedBeverage]

Maybe it all makes sense if you are a DS/DS2 megafan. But as a Dark Souls outsider, it was surreal to read some of the angry reactions.

"Hey man, you're ruining the game experience for all those people who are trying to ruin your game experience!"

It's seriously weird to me. I've had nothing but negative experiences being invaded in the Souls series -- where are all these chivalrous invaders bowing before a fight and using only the most fair of builds? I've never seen one. And the concept of invasions is really cool, but the execution is so, so terrible. It's no wonder people hate being invaded.

And this idea of co-op ruining the game -- jolly co-op is also designed into the game! Some of the most fun I've had has been sunbro-ing for people after I beat a boss. In other threads, I've seen so many justifications for annoying/bad behavior as "I'll spend my money how I want" or "I'll play the game I bought however I want", but if someone wants to enjoy a Souls game using co-op, meaning they have a different experience than you did, then that's not ok?

Very interesting thread.

 

[Booshka]

Yup, that's basically the gist of it. It's mostly to troll people who don't want to be bothered with the PvP nonsense. That's why I didn't really have a problem with Derp lagswitching them. If you're doing something mostly to annoy someone else and they turn the tables and troll you, I find that pretty funny.

Maybe it all makes sense if you are a DS/DS2 megafan. But as a Dark Souls outsider, it was surreal to read some of the angry reactions.

"Hey man, you're ruining the game experience for all those people who are trying to ruin your game experience!"

Do you guys not understand the pretty simple balance that is Invaders vs Co Op Phantoms? Sure, a lot of invasions are just killing merciless Hosts, usually because they are hugging the bonfire waiting for Summon signs. But, the main reason for the mechanic is to make it harder for a Host and his Co op entourage to stroll through the level on their way to the boss. The Invader is its own mini-boss in the level. Straight up co op with no risk of invasion, makes the game pretty damn easy.

Invading is fun, the entire level is your playground, and there is infinite replayability. There are plenty of fun ways to Invade, not every Invader is an ass, some of them can make the game a lot more fun, and provide a memorable experience.

Here is a great example of a unique and fun Invader.

 

[border]

It's like your friend abusing some completely unfair cheating tool to win a Mario Kart race every time someone uses a blue shell on them.

I think a better comparison would be kicking someone out of your dungeon/raid group because they're trying to grief you by refusing to heal/rez or pulling huge packs of monsters to your party. It's someone intentionally standing in the way of your PVE progress, but also within the game's ruleset.

The wrinkle here though is that kicking someone costs them an apparently somewhat valuable reagent, and that the way you kick them is through network shenanigans rather than a "Kick Party Member" button.

 

[UncleSporky]

There's a difference between negatively affecting someone's experience within a game's ruleset and circumventing it.

It's like your friend abusing some completely unfair cheating tool to win a Mario Kart race every time someone uses a blue shell on them.

It's not, though.

It's more like if Nintendo, in their infinite wisdom, decided that players would not be allowed to choose to play battle mode or a regular grand prix, and instead every time you go online you randomly get one or the other.

If you just want to play grand prix with your friends, this is an incredibly shitty system. So you quickly exit/lag out of the battle matches in order to get back to a grand prix.

"But, but, it's the way Nintendo designed it! You are intended to be forced to randomly play battle mode or grand prix, them's the breaks!"

Come on.

 

[JudgmentJay]

I think a better comparison would be kicking someone out of your dungeon/raid group because they're trying to grief you by refusing to heal/rez or pulling huge packs of monsters to your party. It's someone intentionally standing in the way of your PVE progress, but also within the game's ruleset.

Not really at all. What you described is within the game's ruleset, but it's not an intended way to play. The MMO developer didn't design the raid around one of your party members being a jackass. If you go human in Dark Souls to summon help, it's very much intended that an invader gets summoned to counter the additional help you receive.

 

[Coxswain]

There's a difference between negatively affecting someone's experience within a game's ruleset and circumventing it.

It's like your friend abusing some completely unfair cheating tool to win a Mario Kart race every time someone uses a blue shell on them.

I think you can make a strong argument that the difference between negatively affecting someone's experience within the rules versus with cheating is basically a negligible, academic distinction in comparison to the difference between choosing to enjoy the game in a way that you know for a fact has a chance of negatively affecting someone's experience (for instance, invading) versus choosing to enjoy the game in a way that you know for a fact carries no risk of negatively affecting anybody's experience (for instance, using the designated PvP arenas).


I wouldn't call someone an asshole for choosing to get their PvP fix through invasions instead of the PvP arenas, so I can hardly call someone an asshole for electing to opt out of PvP-enabled co-op by cheating.

 

[UncleSporky]

Not really at all. What you described is within the game's ruleset, but it's not an intended way to play. The MMO developer didn't design the raid around one of your party members being a jackass. If you go human in Dark Souls to summon help, it's very much intended that an invader gets summoned to counter the additional help you receive.

Alright, so go with my hypothetical Mario Kart example above your post. It's very much intended that players should play either the battle mode or the race mode, whichever they are randomly assigned, except all your friends agree that the battle mode is shit and they just want to race.

Your answer is that everyone should stop playing the game that they love, because Nintendo was too dense to give people the choice between race or battle?

 

[Booshka]

I think you can make a strong argument that the difference between negatively affecting someone's experience within the rules versus with cheating is basically a negligible, academic distinction in comparison to the difference between choosing to enjoy the game in a way that you know for a fact has a chance of negatively affecting someone's experience (for instance, invading) versus choosing to enjoy the game in a way that you know for a fact carries no risk of negatively affecting anybody's experience (for instance, using the designated PvP arenas).


I wouldn't call someone an asshole for choosing to get their PvP fix through invasions instead of the PvP arenas, so I can hardly call someone an asshole for electing to opt out of PvP-enabled co-op by cheating.

It's definitely not a negligible distinction, you just don't understand the intended design of Invading. There are covenants, items and game mechanics around the idea of Invaders. From wants there to be Invaders just as much as they want Co-op phantoms. PvP Arenas are actually more of a response to the community setting up arranged Duels and Fight Clubs in cruder fashion in the past games. There were no Arenas, or Duel zones in Demon's Souls, Dark Souls only got an Arena with the DLC, and hardly anyone ever used it. The PvP community set up their own places to Duel and hold Fight Clubs within the actual Levels. Miyazaki and From want people to Invade, so it's no where on the level of Network Manipulation, not even close.

 

[gogosox82]

It's seriously weird to me. I've had nothing but negative experiences being invaded in the Souls series -- where are all these chivalrous invaders bowing before a fight and using only the most fair of builds? I've never seen one. And the concept of invasions is really cool, but the execution is so, so terrible. It's no wonder people hate being invaded.

And this idea of co-op ruining the game -- jolly co-op is also designed into the game! Some of the most fun I've had has been sunbro-ing for people after I beat a boss. In other threads, I've seen so many justifications for annoying/bad behavior as "I'll spend my money how I want" or "I'll play the game I bought however I want", but if someone wants to enjoy a Souls game using co-op, meaning they have a different experience than you did, then that's not ok?

Very interesting thread.

Co op goes hand in hand with invading. That's how its designed so it doesn't unbalance the game. If you just co oped through the entire game without any threat of invasion or anything that might deter you from doing co op, then the game would become laughably easy and just become another fun little game that you would forget about in 5 minutes after beating it. They also want you to invade just as much as they want you to co op. That's why their are covenants, items,and rewards for invaders. Its not someone being an asshole to you in a game, its a game mechanic that from wants the players to use to give them a better experience.

 

[JudgmentJay]

Alright, so go with my hypothetical Mario Kart example above your post. It's very much intended that players should play either the battle mode or the race mode, whichever they are randomly assigned, except all your friends agree that the battle mode is shit and they just want to race.

Your answer is that everyone should stop playing the game that they love, because Nintendo was too dense to give people the choice between race or battle?

I'm sorry, but that analogy is nothing like a Souls game's online functionality.

 

[Orayn]

Alright, so go with my hypothetical Mario Kart example above your post. It's very much intended that players should play either the battle mode or the race mode, whichever they are randomly assigned, except all your friends agree that the battle mode is shit and they just want to race.

Your answer is that everyone should stop playing the game that they love, because Nintendo was too dense to give people the choice between race or battle?

If those people really can't suck it up? Yes. Developers should have the freedom to make games with unique, obtuse designs that can't be circumvented according to player preference. I fully understand why someone would dislike the way the Souls series does things, but I still defer to From Software.

 

[emperorspride188]

Woah that guy got himself banned :|

I do feel there should be an option to turn off invasions. Its annoying when host disconnected when I invade. Its a pain for both invaders and host. Wastes a lot of time.

 

[Coxswain]

It's definitely not a negligible distinction, you just don't understand the intended design of Invading. There are covenants, items and game mechanics around the idea of Invaders. From wants there to be Invaders just as much as they want Co-op phantoms. PvP Arenas are actually more of a response to the community arranging in arranged Duels and Fight Clubs in cruder fashion in the past games. There were no Arenas, or Duel zones in Demon's Souls, Dark Souls only got an Arena with the DLC, and hardly anyone ever used it. The PvP community set up their own places to Duel and hold Fight Clubs within the actual Levels. Miyazaki and From want people to Invade, so it's no where on the level of Network Manipulation, not even close.

Why would anyone care what From wants? They're not the ones who bought the game, they're not the ones who are playing it.

 

[Beerman462]

The only time I've been truely infuriated by invasions is Demons Souls. Every invader uses a scraping spear and wrecks your gear.

Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 are alot of fun.

 

[VariantX]

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?

You have matchmaking options in Warframe. You can set it to Public, Friends can join, Invite only, and Solo. Set it to either Invite only or Solo to solve the problem of randoms joining.

 

[Booshka]

Why would anyone care what From wants? They're not the ones who bought the game, they're not the ones who are playing it.

My argument is that lagswitching is not equal to invading. In fact, pretty sure it goes against the User Agreement you agree to when you start to play the game, so it definitely matters.

 

[UncleSporky]

I'm sorry, but that analogy is nothing like a Souls game's online functionality.

How curt and dismissive.

Developers design a game such that players opting to play online will encounter one of two situations at random. One or more players love one of those situations, but hate the other. They actively enjoy the game and really want to continue playing it together, so simply not playing isn't an option. And lag/dropping/quitting is a way to get out of that other forced situation.

Seems pretty similar to me.

How about another example. Street Fighter 6 comes out. It's the best designed game of the franchise, everyone loves it, the visuals are great, the online play is flawless. Except Capcom included one new character, call him Cthulhu, who is utterly broken. Anyone can play as him, he instantly kills in one unblocked hit and takes forever to be killed. Capcom refuses to listen to fan outcry and claims that they've designed the game this way for a good reason. Cthulhu is meant to be a challenge for skilled players to overcome, and a way to level the playing field for new players. 50% of the people playing online play as this broken character because they like to be powerful and wreck someone else's shit.

A forum community somewhere online agrees that none of them will play Cthulhu, and if they're matched up with someone playing them, they're going to quit out as a matter of principle. They just want to play and be matched up with the rest of the roster, which is actually quite well balanced.

Those people are in the wrong, because they're defying the will of the game designers?

 

[JudgmentJay]

Why would anyone care what From wants? They're not the ones who bought the game, they're not the ones who are playing it.

I'll never understand this sense of entitlement. Not every game needs to cater to every person.

Developers design a game such that players opting to play online will encounter one of two situations at random. One or more players love one of those situations, but hate the other. They actively enjoy the game and really want to continue playing it together, so simply not playing isn't an option. And lag/dropping/quitting is a way to get out of that other forced situation.

Dark Souls online play is not a "one or the other" thing. Co-op and PvP go hand-in-hand. They happen simultaneously. They happen because of one another. They are a cause and effect. A risk/reward system.

How about another example. Street Fighter 6 comes out. It's the best designed game of the franchise, everyone loves it, the visuals are great, the online play is flawless. Except Capcom included one new character, call him Cthulhu, who is utterly broken. Anyone can play as him, he instantly kills in one unblocked hit and takes forever to be killed. Capcom refuses to listen to fan outcry and claims that they've designed the game this way for a good reason. Cthulhu is meant to be a challenge for skilled players to overcome, and a way to level the playing field for new players. 50% of the people playing online play as this broken character because they like to be powerful and wreck someone else's shit.

A forum community somewhere online agrees that none of them will play Cthulhu, and if they're matched up with someone playing them, they're going to quit out as a matter of principle. They just want to play and be matched up with the rest of the roster, which is actually quite well balanced.

Those people are in the wrong, because they're defying the will of the game designers?

I fail to see the similarity between this and Souls.

 

[UncleSporky]

I'll never understand this sense of entitlement. Not every game needs to cater to every person.

If someone likes everything about a game except one thing, and that thing can be changed, then why shouldn't they change it? Why deprive yourself of something you like when you can fix what's broken?

If enough people are seen to be making that change, it can be taken as a lesson for other game designers in the future. Don't design your game without options and this isn't a problem.

 

[JudgmentJay]

If someone likes everything about a game except one thing, and that thing can be changed, then why shouldn't they change it? Why deprive yourself of something you like when you can fix what's broken?

If enough people are seen to be making that change, it can be taken as a lesson for other game designers in the future. Don't design your game without options and this isn't a problem.

You're seriously condoning the use of cheating to avoid a gameplay mechanic just because they don't like it? If so, I'm done because we'll never see eye to eye. Absurd.

 

[Coxswain]

My argument is that lagswitching is not equal to invading. In fact, pretty sure it goes against the User Agreement you agree to when you start to play the game, so it definitely matters.

It's equal to invading in every way that matters, as this discussion is basically an argument about right and wrong, what people should and shouldn't do, and whether the design of the Souls games in particular warrant being an exception to the default state of a video game, which is "It is perfectly alright to play however you'd like to". The User Agreement is not something that matters. Neither is some vague guess about how the game is "supposed" to be played (which doesn't hold up to scrutiny in the first place, not that it even matters whether it does or not).

 

[UncleSporky]

Dark Souls online play is not a "one or the other" thing. Co-op and PvP go hand-in-hand. They happen simultaneously. They happen because of one another. They are a cause and effect. A risk/reward system.

Sure, and so too are the Mario Kart and Street Fighter 6 examples. Glorious risk and reward! The thrill of possibly having to play something that isn't fun! Which will it be? Roll the dice and find out!

 

[gogosox82]

If someone likes everything about a game except one thing, and that thing can be changed, then why shouldn't they change it? Why deprive yourself of something you like when you can fix what's broken?

If enough people are seen to be making that change, it can be taken as a lesson for other game designers in the future. Don't design your game without options and this isn't a problem.

Are you seriously condoning using a cheat just because you don't like a gameplay mechanic? That is just strange. If I hated a gameplay mechanic so much that I wanted to use a cheat to get by said mechanic, I probably would stop playing the game.

 

[krypt0nian]

lol i do the same

fuck if im gonna give you the sastisfaction, asshole

WTF??? How are they assholes?

 

[UncleSporky]

Are you seriously condoning using a cheat just because you don't like a gameplay mechanic? That is just strange. If I hated a gameplay mechanic so much that I wanted to use a cheat to get by said mechanic, I probably would stop playing the game.

You must not play very many PC games then, where players remove Cliff Racers from Morrowind and give themselves more sources of ammo for the Alien Blaster in Fallout 3.

Modding is pretty strongly embraced by tons of people worldwide, and not just for single player games, either. Smash Bros Melee players didn't like the way Brawl was designed, so they "cheated" too, by homebrewing their Wiis and creating Project M.

Kind of surprised that you think changing gameplay mechanics is so egregious when it's so commonly done.

 

[gogosox82]

You must not play very many PC games then, where players remove Cliff Racers from Morrowind and give themselves more sources of ammo for the Alien Blaster in Fallout 3.

I'm primarly a pc gamer. I just don't go to extreme steps(like lag switching b/c you don't like getting invaded) to get rid of game mechanics I don't like. I just stop playing the game if it bothers me that much.

And modding is not the same as lag switching. Lag switching is cheating. Modding a single player game with no mp elements isn't the same thing especially when its encouraged by the devs like it is with the Elder Scrolls games.

 

[Booshka]

It's equal to invading in every way that matters, as this discussion is basically an argument about right and wrong, what people should and shouldn't do, and whether the design of the Souls games in particular warrant being an exception to the default state of a video game, which is "It is perfectly alright to play however you'd like to". The User Agreement is not something that matters. Neither is some vague guess about how the game is "supposed" to be played (which doesn't hold up to scrutiny in the first place, not that it even matters whether it does or not).

People shouldn't cheat, there is nothing wrong with Invading, that's pretty much how I feel about it.

OP talks about wanting to be informed of Souls Hollow/Human mechanic, well there are item descriptions for that. And his own experience of getting Invaded and killed while Human, then not getting Invaded while Hollow. That's pretty much how it works.

Going outside of the game to cheat in an online game is never okay to me. You want to cheat in your own Solo experience, fine. Even modifying his router so he never has a connection to players that he doesn't agree to is a grey area, but certainly better than lagswitching players, and being indignant about it.

 

[JudgmentJay]

Sure, and so too are the Mario Kart and Street Fighter 6 examples. Glorious risk and reward! The thrill of possibly having to play something that isn't fun! Which will it be? Roll the dice and find out!

I don't think it's quite as black and white as you're making it out to be. The Mario Kart and SF6 analogies make 0 sense and a developer would never do that because it's retarded. Dark Souls co-op/PvP makes perfect sense as a risk/reward system. It's also justified by the lore. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it's equal to completely unfair and absurd designs.

You must not play very many PC games then, where players remove Cliff Racers from Morrowind and give themselves more sources of ammo for the Alien Blaster in Fallout 3.

Modding is pretty strongly embraced by tons of people worldwide, and not just for single player games, either. Smash Bros Melee players didn't like the way Brawl was designed, so they "cheated" too, by homebrewing their Wiis and creating Project M.

Kind of surprised that you think changing gameplay mechanics is so egregious when it's so commonly done.

There's a difference between modding a game and cheating to receive an unfair advantage or circumvent game mechanics in a competitive online environment.

 

[Orochinagis]

Yeah, but what's the point of gear in Assassin's Creed? Those games are balanced so that you can beat them pretty easily wearing rags and swinging a dull machete.

All the extra crafting/gear/XP/skilltree crap in most open world games just seems pointless to me if there's no challenges associated with having really good build or really good equipment.

I actually know some people that upgrades health and heavy melee stats to murder everyone while I just simply use the hidden blade and never cared about the other stats still, MP gears gives you access to more equipment space compared to normal gear and more health so yeah, its pointless but forcing you to play coop to get that gear

 

[UncleSporky]

I'm primarly a pc gamer. I just don't go to extreme steps(like lag switching b/c you don't like getting invaded) to get rid of game mechanics I don't like. I just stop playing the game if it bothers me that much.

Well, that's you. A lot of people love specific games for a variety of reasons, but hate just one thing about it (cliff racers), and I can't pronounce judgement on them for fixing that one broken thing rather than giving up on playing it.

If you love a book series but hate one specific book, then skip reading it, even though the author intended for you to read it.

Watch a Star Wars prequels fan cut! Do whatever gives you enjoyment.

 

[Deitus]

Developers design a game such that players opting to play online will encounter one of two situations at random. One or more players love one of those situations, but hate the other. They actively enjoy the game and really want to continue playing it together, so simply not playing isn't an option. And lag/dropping/quitting is a way to get out of that other forced situation.

What you are describing here is Left 4 Dead Versus mode. When you started the game, you hat a 50% chance of playing the infected or the survivors, only most people only cared about playing the infected. So it was not uncommon for the survivors to suicide at the start of the match so they could get back to playing the infected faster.

It ruined matches for people and wasted a lot of people's time. If it had been a bit more prevalent it would have destroyed the community for that game.

 

[gogosox82]

Well, that's you. A lot of people love specific games for a variety of reasons, but hate just one thing about it (cliff racers), and I can't pronounce judgement on them for fixing that one broken thing rather than giving up on playing it.

If you love a book series but hate one specific book, then skip reading it, even though the author intended for you to read it.

Watch a Star Wars prequels fan cut! Do whatever gives you enjoyment.

Not liking a mechanic and a mechanic being broken are not the same thing. And he didn't mod, he cheated. I have no issue with modding, but that's not what he did.

 

[UncleSporky]

I don't think it's quite as black and white as you're making it out to be. The Mario Kart and SF6 analogies make 0 sense and a developer would never do that would be retarded. Dark Souls co-op/PvP makes perfect sense as a risk/reward system. It's also justified by the lore. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it's equal to completely unfair and absurd designs.

You say this as if the examples I came up with can't possibly be modified to provide better risk/reward and be "justified by lore." I'll do it if you want me to, but I think we both know you're just claiming it's not analogous because you know it's closer a situation than you'd like to admit.

I also like how you say a developer would never do that, that would be retarded, and yet here we are looking directly at a game where you don't get to choose between "battle mode" or "friendly race mode."

Not liking a mechanic and a mechanic being broken are not the same thing. And he didn't mod, he cheated. I have no issue with modding, but that's not what he did.

Suppose he had modded the game such that invasions would be refused by his game client, and the people attempting to invade would simply see a brief error and be connected with someone else?

 

[Coxswain]

People shouldn't cheat, there is nothing wrong with Invading, that's pretty much how I feel about it.

That's fine if you feel that way, but it's a completely arbitrary distinction until they add a PvP On/Off toggle to co-op play. Until that happens, the nature of the game is that players who take matters into their own hands and cheat to opt out of PvP are going to be ruining the experience of people who think it's fun to invade, and players who invade are going to be ruining the experience of people who don't want to play PvP.

That's not the fault of the people who have to cheat to play the version of the game that they like (and that already exists for people who are just lucky enough to not get invaded), and that's not the fault of the people who have the most fun in the game during PvP invasions. It's the fault of the developers, for not including a simple on/off switch that would solve the problem for literally every type of player except the one who specifically wants to ruin someone else's gameplay experience.

 

[JudgmentJay]

You say this as if the examples I came up with can't possibly be modified to provide better risk/reward and be "justified by lore." I'll do it if you want me to, but I think we both know you're just claiming it's not analogous because you know it's closer a situation than you'd like to admit.

If the examples you came up with had a logical risk/reward system and made sense there would be no problem. Except for the people that liked the reward but not the risk. In which I'd say the same thing to people who like summoning help but don't like PvP in Dark Souls: suck it up.

Suppose he had modded the game such that invasions would be refused by his game client, and the people attempting to invade would simply see a brief error and be connected with someone else?

Still lame, but he's not affecting anyone else's game, so whatever.

 

[UncleSporky]

If the examples you came up with had a logical risk/reward system and made sense there would be no problem.

Who gets to decide that the risk/reward system is logical enough?

I say DS isn't logical, you say it is. The developers say it is. Who is right?

I say SF6 is logical, you say it isn't. The developers say it is. Who is right?

In other words, do we blindly trust the developers and take what is given to us in all situations, or are we ever allowed to say "no, this is just bullshit, I'm going to play this game the way I want and screw the haters?"

 

[Booshka]

That's fine if you feel that way, but it's a completely arbitrary distinction until they add a PvP On/Off toggle to co-op play. Until that happens, the nature of the game is that players who take matters into their own hands and cheat to opt out of PvP are going to be ruining the experience of people who think it's fun to invade, and players who invade are going to be ruining the experience of people who don't want to play PvP.

That's not the fault of the people who have to cheat to play the version of the game that they like (and that already exists for people who are just lucky enough to not get invaded), and that's not the fault of the people who have the most fun in the game during PvP invasions. It's the fault of the developers, for not including a simple on/off switch that would solve the problem for literally every type of player except the one who specifically wants to ruin someone else's gameplay experience.

The bolded would create an actual problem, I disagree that there is a problem with Souls online in the first place. If there was a toggle, Invasions would dry up and be almost nonexistant, outside of people farming Invaders for Souls and lulz. Co-op will be less interesting as well, as a Phantom, it's fun to fight off Invaders, the entire online Souls experience is based around strangers working together to beat a boss, the Invader is there to muck that all up. There have been NPC Invaders in Souls games as well, should they be a toggle? There are tougher versions of enemies, should those be a toggle?

The entire concept of the online, the reason it is revolutionary in the first place, would be ruined. It would be an entirely different game. It's an option that shouldn't be in the game, people can play something else if they want a traditional co op experience, that's not what Souls games are for. If people cheat to subvert that design, then they are in the wrong.

tl;dr Invaders aren't ruining the gameplay experience, they are a crucial part of it.