Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
People need to stop using the game as justification for people making decisions. If invaders are truly so honorable, they would only put down red summon signs so they would only be summoned by those who want them. This is not debatable.
So I can perfectly understand if someone just wants to co-op with friends or NPC phantoms but doesn't want to PvP. In that case, invaders have no moral high ground. If they ask others to play hollow for their sake, they cannot refuse to use red summon signs as a solution to getting disconnected.
Both parties have options. But DCs would never happen if invasions did not exist, and invaders are the only ones who make those possible.
People use the game as justification because invasions are one of the core parts of the game. It's a multiplayer game, and it's not exclusively a co-op game. Invaders aren't even meant to be honorable. They're meant to be another enemy to overcome. Some like to be honorable, but they aren't needed to. Disconnecting from an invader just means they refuse to interact with a chunk of the game or learn how to play it. That's mostly what annoys me.
No, it was not. Dark Souls 3 was always harder than Dark Souls 1. Each installment in the series is harder than the previous entry, bar Demon's Souls. You are confusing level design and worldbuilding with gameplay complexity. Elden Ring is even MORE complex in terms of gameplay and enemy design, let alone boss design. People find Dark Souls 3 easier because they usually played Demon's and Dark Souls 1/2 first.
Going forward is always easier than going backwards because of small QOL changes.
The system you are referring made its debut in Bloodborne, which was 10 years ago. This is nothing new to Elden Ring.
From Software will never allow you to play co-op seamlessly without getting invaded by default, and they will certainly not allow you to quit the game while online session is in progress. The only one who is delusional is you.
People don't invade for the reward, they invade for the experience. The reward is just a bonus.
Qutting, Cheating, Exploiting or using anything that was NOT intended by the developers outside of the game itself ruins the fun for every party involved that wants to play and interact with others, same as with any other Multiplayer game where quitting a match gives you a penalty and cheating results in a ban. Just because the game doesn't have any protection doesn't mean you SHOULD exploit it. Everything else in game, be it glitches or twinking is fair game as it was intended by the developers (High Level Gear, Low Levels) or Glitches that are a byproduct of the game code that isn't altered by outside means.
If you don't want to play by the rules AKA Being Human/Co-Op without Invasions, use "Painted Worlds" mod to play with friends in a separate server outside of Steam.
It's precisely that, a seamless Co-Op experience without Invaders.
There is literally zero reason for people to waste time for Invaders if they don't want to get invaded or experience the game as it was meant to be experienced.
In conclusion, there is zero reason to ever use Alt+F4, no matter what is happening because you have a ton of options to counter that problem.
And being a ♥♥♥♥ to other people isn't one of them.
If Invaders put Red Summon Signs, they would be called duelists, not invaders.
There is a clear distinction between them, both gameplay wise and code wise.
Invaders don't invade to duel, but to use the whole level as their sandbox.
You can do whatever you want, heal, attack, ambush, summon friends, go to the fog gate, etc. The only rule is that there are no rules.
People who duel usually stay in their small area, never use healing and stay on the Meta Level. That's counter-productive for invaders who want to use all weapons on all levels, on all maps against multiple random people.
I can't understand if someone wants to co-op with friends, but willingly participates with the game mechanics that were laid down by the developers, trying to go AGAINST them.
We ask people to stay hollow/play offline if they do not wish to interact with the online portion. And if that is not possible, we kindly ask them to not abuse OS functions while in-game, that includes ALT+F4 which is a Windows/Linux Function to Kill the current Process. Because you waste your time and ours at the same time.
And if you can't abide by ANY of those rules, then you can simply download a mod, remove the Invaders out of the equation and play seamless Co-Op with your friends.
So why again, would you ruin our online experience on purpose when you have so many options present?
1. Play online and accept the risk of being invaded
2. Play offline and not worry about invasions.
If you want the best of both worlds, you're being entitled and neither the game nor community has to accommodate your shenanigans.
morally, you'd be cheating. context informs us that this is not a thing we are intended to do and offers an advantage you're not meant to have -- indicated by them graying out the quit out choice.
now, ethically, it's even less justifiable, because in any of these situations, you are effectively signing up to have to deal with invaders and are reneging on that. you are blaming others for a situation you brought onto yourself.
sure we do. all we're doing is participating in a game system as offered. it's not our fault you decided to go online and decided to go human. shark attacks can't happen without sharks, but they also can't happen without people ignoring the 'DO NOT SWIM SHARKS EVERYWHERE' signs every ten feet.
there are plenty of games you could play instead that allow you to swim with dolphins in peace. you need to play something other than shark souls.
my bad; you don't need to die to induce the timer. you're right.
what i don't know is when the timer starts. it might be when you get invaded, or it might be at the resolution of the invasion.
But if you really have to aply morality here... the sole thought of invading someone is immoral. Unles you do it to entertain the invaded and make em happy.
then where are all these posts coming from?
it's a video game. nobody actually gets hurt, and nobody has to experience anything they haven't signed up for, unless someone else decides to operate outside of the stated rules. beating someone in this is as amoral as beating someone in mario kart 64.
That's like saying that buying out other players in Monopoly is immoral.
As you just said, it's not a real interaction with real people, everyone is just playing a game.
the interaction is heavily restricted to fit within the rules of the game, so you don't get to hear the other person or see them, but it's still a real live human being on the other end of it. this has no bearing on the morality of the situation, however, because all of the very real people in this situation tacitly agree to the game rules by even participating. end user license agreement, and all that.
Saying that they aren't real interactions or real people who invade/are being invaded is simply not true. Otherwise invasions were not as heavily discussed as they have been for the better part of a decade by now, including the reactions they entail.
Me saying "invasions aren't real", was more in response to Lil'PP Energy trying to have it both ways.
You are in the wrong again, and you will continue to be in the wrong as long as you post stuff like this. So far you didn't write anything that would, or could be considered a fact, much less add to the discussion of this thread and how to tackle the problem.
Video Games are a business for corporations, and a hobby for the consumer.
Clearly both the corporations and consumers care about the so called "morality" or rather, should be call them rules? Because in the end, they are rules and not moral claims.
Developers and Corporations will punish you if you go against those rules, and people who are playing the same game will condemn you.
Online interactions are very much real interactions with people, just through a proxy.
You are interacting with people the same way you would by talking, or writing a letter.
On the other side is a human being.
When buying a game, and playing the game you agree to the rules the publisher and developer lays out for you, and if you go against those rules you will be punished by the system that is laid out or present.
If you really want to add morality here, no one really cares what you do by yourself in your free time, as long as you don't harm others. That means even if you go against the developers wishes.
However by going online and interacting with other people, everyone cares.
Online interactions are often random, and you can't control what kind of people you will get on the other side. So your own moral claims can clash with theirs.
Despite that, there are clear outlined rules which every single game imposes.
If no one really cared as you said, you wouldn't get banned, timed out, kicked, or otherwise marked by video games and/or accounts such as Steam by doing immoral acts that are against the rules.
Invading was clearly intended by developers, and quitting was not, as one has a dedicated Item for invasions, and actually connects you to another player with the clear objective to kill the said player. While the Quit Button in this case is greyed out for both the Host and Invader.
If you think i am wrong, you can download CS:2 for free and use outside means to alter the game (Cheat), and see what happens. See if no one cares. See if other players don't care, and see if Valve doesn't care. Just test it out, what is the worst that can happen.
I don't really mind invaders rage quiting when I'm about to finish them off though, because that's funnier when they do.