Permanently Deleted

  • UlyssesT
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    deleted by creator

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      It's a multiplayer game with a PvP component. That's the upside. It's always been a core part of the series. It's not a single player game and never has been. I recognize that a lot of people don't like it or find it distressing, and I would support an opt-out feature, but it would be an opt-out feature. as in opting out of a core part of the game. PvP wasn't imposed on people, it was there from the start.

      • UlyssesT
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        deleted by creator

    • Yurt_Owl
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Invasions are intended for balancing purposes. In ds1 you can opt out by always being hollowed which meant no summoning coop partners and no red phantoms with epic loot but you can still enjoy messages helping you out.

      Ds2 was... Bad in that regard as the more hollowed you were the higher chance of being invaded.

      Ds3 if you were emberred you can summon and also get a higher health pool and look rly cool.

      And bb and elden ring you can only be invaded if you are already in a coop session and in ER its usually 1 invader against 2 or 3 coop players putting the invader at a disadvantage. The idea is to balance the things that can make the game easier with a risk of it getting harder. And in ER there is a no risk alternative of summoning coop by just using the mimic spirit.

      Then most of the games with 1 on 1 invasions were when both players consented to the challenge so I'd say the invasions are fair. And offline mode always exists you just lose player messages.

      But the ER builds are hella broken atm but thats pretty normal. Nerfs will definitely happen. Its the nature of having so many different build compositions its hard to balance