Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
You're conflating a smurf or experience gap (found in many games) with the mechanical power gap seen in twinking.
It is a good idea, at least for those who enjoy PvP.
The trouble is that the execution of said idea was ass.
This is just an argument from tradition. This is Dark Souls, and Dark Souls had weapon durability. Dark Souls had infinite upwards invasions in 1 with no level bracketing. Dark Souls had no respec option.
How Dark Souls was is not how Dark Souls must be moving forwards. Hell, it doesn't even need to be one way or the other; you can give the option and have both Dark Souls with invasions and Dark Souls without them.
It is pretty palpable, isn't it?
Are they asking for the removal of invasions, or for an option to not participate in them while still doing coop? Because I think (and have personally fallen victim to this) that the two positions often become mixed up amongst both their proponents and detractors.
You should be prohibited from matchmaking in invasions if your build would create highly unfair encounters for other people, yes. This goes for twinks and for OL phantoms just as much, who need to be removed or fixed or sectioned off into coop only or something.
As for the TT? I'm simply not skilled enough at the game yet that single invaders are no longer challenging enough for me, especially when I'm not running an optimized or twinked build.
I sampled a bunch of them at low level a while back to test this, and it doesn't seem to be the case even at low levels. There's maybe what, a fourth or fifth of the twinks who were there to ♥♥♥♥ on noobs; the biggest issue were the people with twink builds who weren't rude or obviously there to be a ♥♥♥♥ (like, to the point that they would duel me) but didn't do anything to try and mitigate the fact that they were doing double my damage because of twink advantages.
Beyond this, I would really refrain from considering invaders as seal clubbers or people out to get unfair fights. They legitimately are at a mechanical disadvantage for most of the game, even accounting for build strength disparity, and there are clearly better and easier ways to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ people than invading. It's a relict of the hatred the poor state of the mechanic and a small subsection of the invading community have sowed, and not reflective of us all.
Remember that, for many players (because twinks make up the majority of low level invasions), the first and formative experiences they have with the mechanic are of players who are at a gross advantage over their group, and that this mentality can be further reinforced through bad luck or a skill disparity that can be difficult to distinguish from the earlier mechanical advantages, especially when you're probably also looking at lingering mechanical advantages from comparatively poor buildmaking as well.
Wait, so let me get this straight. If you use the intended tools of the game you are being punished because you are devaluing the intended experience of the game?
Wot?
To be fair, if the community were large enough to sustain it, a loose matchmaking system would be awesome. The habitual skill gap is absolutely an issue, it's just one that gets routinely overshadowed by all the much larger issues with invasions.
But I think they would complain less, and I especially think that the personal hatred and vilification would be subdued if the formative early encounters weren't often against someone either passively or actively being a ♥♥♥♥.
Accusations of twinking and cheating are certainly unfounded, but when I went and sampled low level invaders, about 70% of the people I found were twinks under the definition of using equipment from Altus and beyond. They are really, really prevalent.
I'd like to make the disclaimer before I write this that I don't wish to platform or legitimize you with this response. You've given up your seat at the metaphorical table here by being a vile person, and anyone who ignores or mocks you is absolutely justified. But this is a common argument and I'd like to address it, for the sake of the conversation if nothing else.
Even at very low levels, where OL phantoms are naturally conflated with twinks, about 60% of invasions in my testing and corraborated by my later experience involve one.
Beyond this, ganks have been exceptionally rare, though they do fluctuate a lot and grow to meaningful sizes in the twilight of these games or during events like winter sales, where they can more easily guaruntee a steady supply of people to grief. In a hundred low level invasions, I found iirc three legitimate ganksquads.
OL phantoms are a serious issue, especially in low level play, and ganks are absolte ♥♥♥♥ that need to be wiped from the face of existence, but the narrative that twink advantages are intended because most invasions are an OL ganksquad is hollower than might be expected.
And beyond that, honestly, to claim that twinks are intended because invasions are normally so heavily stacked against invaders that they can't meaningfully compete does not to me suggest twinks were intended. It suggests to me that invasion balance is bad, especially when we can clearly see how ramshackle invasions are in so many other respects.
No, it's your stated position:
You have to be kidding with that nonsense. You can get both Lift pieces without killing anything. Within about half an hour into the game too.
Crap like this is why real players don't take carebears seriously. Because your ideas, such as they are, are either totally arbitrary nonsense or self serving lies.
As you wish. I suppose it would be helpful to lay out the reasoning and evidence behind my assertion, as I'm making some pretty serious accusations regarding you. I will justify them using your own words below.
You espouse a love of smashing noobs:
You are out here in this thread defending the balance issues/design oversight/"developer intent" which allows one to consistently smash noobs:
You are hateful and disdainful towards people who enjoy the game in ways you do not (and ways which are neither intended to nor directly impact you), and actively seek to punish them or "correct" their behavior:
And you clearly relish making the people you face upset and unhappy, to the point that you look forwards to and, by your other comments, likely engender hatemail:
You are a gatekeeper and elitist:
And you are a hypocrite, shamelessly telling players to "git gud" through what can be nearly mechanically impossible fights while in the same breath justifying twinking with the point that high level invasions/ganks are too difficult for you:
To summarize, you embody the worst qualities of the invading community. You grief noobs with twink advantages because you enjoy it, because it lets you try and force your own myopic and narrow vision of the game onto them, and because to play in other ways or at other areas is by your own admission too difficult.
Altus is not intended to be completed by a 30 +3 character. It rewards Smithing Stones 4 and 5, which are beneficial to players only once they obtain a +9 weapon. Compared to the final boss of Limgrave, an area which does reward stones useful for getting a character to +3, a reused version of the same enemy has double the HP; the standard enemies (Godrick vs Llyndell Soldiers) drop ten times the runes.
Even if a player can complete Altus at a low level (possible for some but not all), they would naturally remove themselves from low level play in doing so because, as I note above, the soul gain from progressing in these areas is astronomical compared to what I refer to as "level appropriate" areas. This is especially true for invading, which has a more stringent lower bound.
Thus, I list them as twinks because the only way for them to complete significant portions of Altus and still invade me would be to intentionally avoid leveling up their RL (either by bypassing the vast majority of the content via running past it or by simply abstaining from leveling up with the souls acquired) and potentially (depends on where else they've gone) their weapon.
Edit: actually, does anyone here own the official strategy guide? We could clear this longstanding debate up much more simply if it has a section where it recommends levels or progression paths for the area.
I will await it eagerly. Your placeholder position does not fill me with confidence that this will be the case, but I hope to be wrong about you.
It's an intended tool yes, but the game and the AI are not designed to handle multiple players and the game becomes an actual braindead effortless game when you can abuse having at least one other person with you. As a consequence you get invaders to try and make up for the intended challenge without the assistance.
I didn't think i'd have to spell out something this obvious to you.
But they won't lol, and they never will. I really don't see how you can look at the types of people complaining and legitimately suggest they would magically stop being petty little children. It's not an issue with first impressions of the mechanic, its a fundamental issue of the players mindset and attitude towards it and the games as a whole. They want things to conform to their wants and thats it, end of. They want to play their way and ignore the fact the game is designed a different way, by other people who wanted it that way. The exact type of people who will carry on crying about everything until everything changes to suit them and screw everyone else.
There is no fix, or compromise without steering massively to their side because these people are naturally incompatible with these games and they don't want to admit it because everything else is fed to them on a silver spoon nowadays so why shouldn't this matter be too?
It doesn't matter if its a twink or a normal invader, the second they lose it's always going to start the "MuH cOoP" arguments and whining.
You have pointed out the factors why this idea is poorly executed, and that suggest that someone pointed out the reduced challenge in co-op and the devs just throw the invasions for it as a small patch, way easier than the rebalance of both the AI and enemy attributes for co-op. And they only tried to solve the issues you mention with changes in the builds, which does hardly adress the issue. In other words, they simply cut corners.
Of course this may not be true and they are doing their best for mp, but then they really need someone who knows what to do. And i don't think From really care about mp that much because, again:
From is a japanese dev, which are infamously bad at doing, and uninterested in, online multiplayer. Still look like the mp features on their games are meant to finish a checklist just so they can keep doing their thing AKA solo games.
Oh, I see. I thought you were characterizing coop as something unnatural that people were being punished for using. My apologies for misreading you.
Your characterization of coopers feels like the thing that the bottom-barrel coopers do, where they hold up one extreme end of the large and diverse community and try to define the entire group by them.
The insane and petulant are the few, on both sides. Of course they do exist, and will never stop existing, but most people are reasonable. If invasions were well balanced, well implemented, and better designed, I do believe that they would be popular enough to survive without leeching off of the desire to coop, and I also believe that the complaints would die massively down. Like, balanced PvP games exist without the insane levels of strife in the Souls community. We can do that too, if FROM invests into the mechanic and takes us to that point.
So let them play their way? Let the groups who want to walk over the game go and do that. Maybe they just like having something fun to do with friends, or they like the exploration or lore and not the combat. I don't get it, but it doesn't hurt me.
This isn't an either/or scenario; both invasion bearing and invaderless options can coexist with minimal work-as the Seamless Coop mod demonstrates. Like, yeah, it's unstable-but so is official multiplayer, and that was one person. Even just enabled/disabled invasions would be some kind of solution, and obviously miles easier.
I really do think that it's a lack of effort rather than their best falling short (or, like, incredibly basic knowledge, which itself indicates lack of effort) largely because the low hanging fruit hasn't been plucked. There still exist an enormous number of simple changes which would vastly improve invasion balance; for example, scaling flask charges and number from the host's would chop both OL phantoms and twinks off at the knees while tightening balance in general.
If they were trying their best, we should see stuff like that going and them getting hung up on the more difficult issues, but instead it's super haphazard. They're fixing the AFK spots while FDS + BFB is tearing through the community, or nerfing Endure back to reasonable levels while worse WAs and combos exist. It feels like they've just got a skeleton crew trying to patch bugs with little big picture understanding.
Well, I see I was correct. You in large part confirm what I've said; you like fighting noobs and upsetting them because it's easy, with similar affirmations mostly across the board regarding my accusations. Your response amounts to "what you have said about me is correct, but those things are not morally wrong."
At this point, uh, I can't continue this argument. I don't have the experience or knowledge of how this kind of philosophic discussion works that are required to defend base moral principals, like murder being wrong or compassion being good. I hold that trying to upset people for entertainment is wrong, that hating people based on a lack of experience is wrong, and that intentionally being cruel or unfair to others because you have the power to do so is wrong. I simply believe that these things are morally wrong; I do not suspect that you will be able to turn me around in regards to this, nor I you, so I will simply settle for hoping that among the players of this game people who share my morals outnumber those who share yours. LIke, I just can't argue with "you're right, I am evil lmao. How is that a bad thing?" I got nowhere to go with that.
The rest is just mop up, where I can respond to some of your less morally fundamental points like balance and dev intent and whatnot.
That'sANiceArgumentSenator.mp4
Fortunately, I've actually looked into this very thing in the past. As it turns out, twinks will often have the advantage against low level groups in Limgrave in terms of total potential healing-not player to player, I mean that they have more healing than the entire enemy team put together. They have superior defenses and generally better or equivalent damage compared to their opponents. Their strength remains constant instead of degrading with damage. In all other regards, the twink is also at an advantage.
And this is for a 3v1, which is the exception. By my testing, 70% of low level invasions occur against a two man group; it's more than three times as common to get a two man than a three man. Not only are you incorrect, but your argument is based on the edge case which better conforms to your assertions rather than what actually goes down on the ground.
Of course not; the point under discussion which I think you've missed is that I'm arguing it's hard to twink without being intentional, because even when players can reach items traditionally considered twink gear at low levels, they generally also have to intentionally forgo leveling out of the lower brackets while doing so.
This whole point is a response to being asked why Altus counts as twinking, and this is my answer: you can't get through Altus and get that gear without intentionally holding yourself back to still be able to go engage with multiplayer at lower levels, i.e. twinking.
It's in reference to the same point as before; I commonly have to field the point that because ER is open world and can in theory be completed in very different ways, the developer intent supports (or at least allows) twinking because it's theoretically possible for the host's team to have most of the items a twink does. The point of contention is whether the developers intended and expected players to complete the game in certain ways moreso than others, or whether any way of progressing is equally intended and thus equally valid.
This is why the book could be valuable; if it has a section where it says "we recommend that you go Limgrave -> Liurnia -> Caelid -> Altus (and so on and so forth)," it saves us having to argue about how rune amounts and enemy HP and both statistical and conceptual complexity/difficulty indicate what about when and how things were to be completed because we know the answer: in that case, the devs intended most people to take that route and thus the defense of twinking via technical accessibility is weakened (or vise versa if they say "yeah lmao just go anywhere.")
There is no way you're serious.
Not killing things is not cheating.
Habitually avoiding virtually all combat as one progresses through a zone not designed to be completed by a character of that RL and WUL (which itself seems to hold in practice) collecting items, and simultaneously avoiding the use of some equipment and items found there for the purposes of matchmaking...is also not cheating.
The point is that twinking is a conscious effort that doesn't happen via natural exploration, not that it's cheating. I have no idea why you decided to bring cheating into the picture, but it has no bearing on my argument.
Is a staple of the series.
That's why weapons have stat requirements instead of level requirements.
I don't see how weapon stat requirements are relevant to whether or not the player is expected to engage with level enemies? Can you explain a little more?
Carry on.
You aren't expected to engage. You aren't expected to level up at all even. That's why stats instead of levels. Meet the stats, wield the weapon.
I don't understand the logic. Equipment has stat requirements instead of level requirements, but meeting stat requirements for many items requires leveling up (and leveling up quite a bit, if one doesn't also want to be running a combat ineffective build). I don't see how it supports the idea that players are intended to habitually avoid combat.