Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
it negates a shared experience on the radahn fight, specifically. it's fine if you want to move on from that point though.
if by "easy experience with no downsides" you mean playing in co-op without the threat of griefers, then sure, I guess. games should not get to force pvp on the player as a punishment for choosing to play in pve. and before you say it, no, consent to co-op is not consent to pvp. they are two completely different things.
Opt in and Opt Out is the best choice. Just because the devs have a vision doesn't mean it isn't garbage lol.
I don't think you know what "false dichotomy" means lol
nope! here I am, agreeing to participate in co-op.
and here I am again, NOT agreeing to participate in pvp.
see how easy that is? I wonder if you also think consent to sex is consent to pregnancy 🤔
neat
exactly. just cause the devs have a vision, and I happen to like the vision overall, doesn't mean there aren't some decisions in there I think are really bad.
If you dont like it dont play it, its pretty simple. Not everything is made for you, too bad so sad.
You opt in by summoning a random player or a friend.
You opt out by remaining solo.
Shouldn't be too hard to understand but I've given some users on this forum far too much credit it seems.
As for "consent to co-op is not consent to PvP", in this instance, it is, because that is how the game has been designed. You either
1. Buy the game and accept the consequence of that (the latter of which you won't as you've admitted to modding difficulty out of these games anyway) and crack on.
2. Don't buy the game, move along as it's clearly not for you (despite you consistently trying to push the notion that it really, really, REALLY is) and hold out for the next souls-like release which may just provide the very options you're seeking.
According to someone else in this thread, Wo Long did just that, might wanna consider giving that one a go if you haven't alraedy. If I remember rightly, it has co-op and character creation.
You prove my point that most people don't want to bother with invaders, so they run to the boss to have you turn back to your world. Or they use the tree seed to hopefully finish you off without doing much.
I get people love PVP so friggin much that they rationalize it being in the game but it should be optional. Also I don't make builds centered around pvp. I don't play these types of games because I want to play pvp.
Team Ninja probably heard and saw the complaints about force invasions and that is why they added the option to turn off invasions.
Also adding invasions is not a balance issue. If I am playing with a friend and we are both fighting enemies that are equally challenging, having an invader doesn't balance anything.
There are people who sole mission in life is to play pvp. Fine. But let's not pretend that everyone loves it. If you want a pvp experience play Naraka Bladepoint.
Another thing is just say the developer did add the option to make invasions optional. Your pvp pool just got smaller. It should tell you that most people don't care for it.
So it is a force mechanic that people just have to deal with if they playing co op.
Perhaps it isn't us who should play another game, but you instead, no? You, and a few others on this forum seem to be the ones with the issue on this subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice
"don't play co-op or you'll get griefed" is not a choice. stop repeating this line that's been debunked over and over.
fair and balanced would be slightly buffing the enemies while in co-op, to compensate for the second player. forcing pvp is unacceptable.
I guarantee you that if the developer did place an option to make invasions optional, many people will choose to have it on. Then those who play pvp will complain no one is playing pvp or they are not seeing a lot of people to invade. At the moment having it in the game they can invade people who don't want to play the pvp just to feel better about themselves when they defeat someone who isn't trying to play pvp.
Your hypothetical doesn't matter as they won't add the option.
That's too bad as it's the creator's choice and that makes it perfectly acceptable.
1)No one is forcing you to buy the game
2)No one is forcing you to play online
3)No one is forcing you to summon a helper
You dont have to do anything that causes invasions, but you choose too. Maybe you should actually learn the phrases you want to use before trying to applying them.
An example of Hobson's choice would be choosing between me shooting you in the foot or me making yourself do it. Where your choice doesnt matter because the outcome is the same. THAT is illusion of choice. As above you dont have to do any of the optional things that enable invasions. Try again lol.
Once again you are debunked! You can stop repeating your "forced" and "griefing" lines they wont get you anywhere because its just a load of nonsense and jsut show you have an unhealthy and irrational mindset.
It's amusing when it's brought up that invaders want to kill people that don't want to PvP, that's uh, sort of the intention of the mechanic and always has been.
You aren't there to bow, show respect, etiquette and have a duel, you're there at your very core to kill someone who either is or isn't willing to PvP. Couldn't care less as to whether you are good or not. Hopping in your world once to clap you isn't "griefing".
This isn't some sort of "gotcha" in the way people moaning about it think it is.
The "to feel good about themselves" comment is also applicable to those who co-op. Many use it as a means to deal with the fact that they can't progress on their own, which is fine.
As for buffing AI enemies, as I've already said, AI enemies can easily be exploited as they are alas, AI. Most enemies in these games aren't designed or built around dealing with multiple players. An invading player is an outlier, an anomaly, something that cannot be easily cheesed or exploited as there's no scripting involved.
That balances co-op out, as you're already breaking (intended mechanic, so absolutely fine) the balance of the game around two people. Simple buff to health and damage numbers for enemy AI does very little in these games, especially when people like From wish to up the phantom count.
2 phantoms normally with no major risk of invasion in DS3 if I remember rightly, if you use Dried Finger, it was 3 phantoms total and more or less guaranteed invasion risk.
This argument is going to go back around in circles, over and over again. I can understand where co-op players are coming from, I simply disagree.