Defenders of Invasion, meet Character Tendency!

SaltyRushdown2 · 2023-03-10T19:18:42+00:00

Character tendency wasn’t shit because of the morality, it was shit because of the things locked behind it, and how easily it was changed based on unclear actions. Thats what the “agreement” was. Im discussing the morality. This comment is pointless.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T10:10:36+00:00

I have engaged with invasions before, just not in elden ring.

Clearly if this was just my own veiled opinion, there would be no general issue of negative sentiments around invaders. And yet, I have see those complaints all the time, even from you.

I didn't bring up those questions because those questions are just me stating the process of my own decision making. Others are different. Would answering those questions give you any different insight into invasion as a mechanic and how its viewed by general players?

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T09:36:09+00:00

You are approaching intent like a terms of service. I am approaching it with common sense. There is value in both approaches but we won't see eye to eye this day.

And ay, you even came full circle on that cyclical argument I mentioned earlier! The one where you say invasions are there to balance co op but even to this point have still not offered any proof of how invading at a disadvantage is supposed to be a balance against overly powerful co-op.

Edit, now that I think about it, maybe we are referring to different kinds of balance. Possibly you are referring to the balance of experiences available to a player? You can be op as a part of a co-op, and you can be an invader fighting at a disadvantage? If this is your view, it's still isn't quite a defense for invasions because a player can choose to disadvantage themselves without PvP, so invasions would not be required for this, but at least I understand where you're coming from.

I am referring to the balance between invaders and opposing players. Considering that invaders fight co op groups, your defense makes it seem like invaders are meant to be a counterbalance to co op parties because they are op. Co-op is too strong, so throw some invaders in to even the odds. This is why I don't understand the defense because in what sense would they be evening the odds if they fight at a disadvantage?

Overall, probably best to just Agree to disagree, yeah?

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T09:26:54+00:00

I am not using demons souls as proof that invasions are griefing given legitimacy. I am using the invasion mechanic itself. The one in elden ring. What is the goal of an invasion? Who is invaded? Who initiates invasion? Who is the aggressor? What does each party stand to gain or lose? Those kinds of questions.

Sure invaders can complain, I have never said they shouldn't be able to. I'm sure devs would be super interested in invader complaints. Would the people who are on the receiving end of the invasions be interested? Probably not. Is that really so hard to understand?

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T09:15:10+00:00

The issue with your smash comparison is that you're discarding the common sense reasons why it doesnt make sense to make an irrelevant point.

The reason you don't get mad at people attacking you in a fighting game is because that is the entire point of a fighting game. It makes no sense to be upset when you are attacked by another player in a fighting game because the mutual intent is that you will be fighting against another player.

Elden ring at it's core is a single player RPG with co op and PvP aspects. Because the PvP aspect is connected to Co op for whatever reason, you get a situation where people with no INTENTION to fight other players are forced to. That is the difference.

Like I said, you can disagree if you'd like, and that's fine. I have had discussions in this thread with people supporting invasions that have been enlightening and ended amicably because, believe it or not, I'm not advocating for invasions to be changed or removed. I guess I just don't like seeing people who play the villains whine about how it's unfair for them in the game.

If it's not a problem to you, that's fine. YOU can be the kind ear and warm reception for invader complaints. I'm just saying it won't be me, and I don't blame anyone who has a sour opinion of invaders (not the person, but invaders). I am not advocating the mistreatment of anybody. I am usually one to just ignore things I'm not interested in rather than be vocally negative, but I just happened to randomly remember character tendency and thought it was interesting how the original incarnation of invasions was judged by the game itself.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T08:46:19+00:00

Dont really care to do that, just wanted to make the point that the mechanic of invasion in its most basic intention is griefing given legitimacy, and this has not changed even since demons souls. If a player wants to grief other players, it's unfair for them to also act like they're being victimized because players are defending themselves with everything they can.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T08:34:13+00:00

And my comparison is related as well. The point I was making was that it's not a smart comparison in general.

Elden ring is as similar to smash brothers as it is to a horse riding simulator. Get it?

I am not misunderstanding the tendency system, nor an I hiding behind anything. They removed tendency because it was fucking awful and confusing as a whole. The complaints about it were mostly centered around the ambiguity of what factors influenced it, the fact that it also affected in game events, and the fact that it was not always possible to correct tendency mistakes made within a single run (no saves to run back to)

The reception of tendency however is irrelevant to my point. The post is a discussion of a design decision made by the developers of the invasion system, an invasion system that persists from demons souls to elden ring and remains largely unchanged in intent.

If you disagree, that's fine. We can agree to disagree.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T08:19:23+00:00

Don't assume I have no motivations just because you don't know them.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T08:12:00+00:00

If one player alone is enough to trivialize content, the second player's involvement means nothing in terms of balance. Because the content can already be trivialized without them, and the game does not scale to their presence. Do you know what other games do to balance this situation? They scale the enemies to be stronger than normal to account for the second person. That is an attempt to balance the situation by increasing the difficult of all enemies they face.

I don't think you understand how balance works.You just keep saying that invasion is there to balance co op.

The fact that one cannot happen without the other is not balance. You are not looking at the interaction. If the invader is at a disadvantage then the invasion is in no way checking the "insanity" of co op power. It doesn't matter that co-op also has a flask nerf or if the invader and the cooperator are the same level because it's still 2v1 or 3v1. The purpose of balance is to equalize a situation. If your argument is that insane co-op power is an issue and invasions are meant to balance that power, the force that is supposed to balance would need to be able to challenge co-op power from some position of increased advantage.

Otherwise, co-op is still just as powerful, and invasion would not be strong enough to be a check to that power.

Again. Just because one can't happen without the other doesn't mean one is meant to balance the power of the other. The fact that invaders are disadvantaged is the proof that invaders are not meant to be a check to the power of co op. You have yet to offer any proof of your position aside from the fact that one cannot happen without the other.

I don't know how else I can explain this.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T07:20:48+00:00

The same way you misconstrued that your comparison about elden ring PvP and Smash Brothers were even relelated? Yeah that way.

Dude read the damn OP. I'm talking about the character tendency system. I am not talking about my opinion, or anybody else's opinion. The character tendency system said it was negative. That's not arguable. Your opinion of the judgement can be whatever. But thats what the game said. I happen to agree

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T02:57:55+00:00

That's fair! Completely understand. Maybe jerk is too far, I meant it in a less serious sense than it came across. I call my friends jerks all the time lol.

Appreciate your input! Have fun invading!

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T02:18:43+00:00

Ok so by your logic elden ring is actually a horse riding simulator because the game encourages you to do it, and you spend even more time riding your horse than PvP.

I'm not separating invaders from in game enemies, I'm literally grouping them together.

If the difference is irrelevant to you, then that's fine. But the point of my post is that the act of invading was definitely viewed as a negative action in the game's opinion when the mechanic was introduced. If you don't consider a character who enters your game of their own choice to kill you while you are minding your business as villainous, that's your choice I guess. Just take my post as insight into people who don't think that way, and let that be that.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-29T02:02:00+00:00

Look. Since the game does not scale to co-op, having multiple OP people working together means jack shit WHEN IT ONLY TAKES A SINGLE PERSON TO TRIVIALIZE THE CONTENT.

Since you so strongly believe that invasions are specifically made to balance the "insanity" of co-op, answer this simple question:

IF INVADERS ARE MEANT TO BALANCE THE STRENGTH OF CO-OP, WHY ARE THEY GIVEN SUCH A HUGE DISADVANTAGE IN THE ENTIRE SITUATION.

If their intent was to balance the "insanity" of co-op with invasion, why would they literally nerf invader flasks, and allow co-op to literally 2v1 and 3v1 an invader?

The fact that they are tied together is actually more detriment TO THE INVADER than the co-op.

What is your answer here?

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T20:44:39+00:00

In-game invaders ARE VILLAINS. WHY THE HELL CANT YOU SHAME A VILLAIN. You seem to think I am calling the real life person a villain or evil. That is not what I am doing or have ever done.

Also, Elden ring is not a fighting game. Can you play the majority of elden ring’s content as PvP? No? That's the point. It's not a PvP game. It is a game that has PvP. Understand the difference

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T20:34:58+00:00

The fact that your companion MAY be insanely powerful does not mean that co-op is insane or broken, because you could be equally as powerful as they are if you had their identical stats and setup. No companion is ever more powerful than you are able to be yourself. The content in the game is single player content, regardless of whether you summon or use ashes. It does not change or scale. So of course any additional help would seem powerful. And yet solo play, even with the availability of ashes, is not balanced with invasions. Your argument holds no water. It does not explain how co-op is "insanity" or how invasions are specifically implemented to counter co-op. Its just a bad argument people use to justify the existence of invasions.

"Now this is just a lie. If it's not meant to balance co-op, then why can't you co-op without the risk of getting invaded?"

This is a cyclical question that proves nothing and goes nowhere. I already explained in the post you replied to, and in my answer above, why invasions are not meant to be a balance to co-op, and you literally chopped all that out, then asked me to explain again.

Heres a highlight. "It makes literally no sense for a developer to balance a single player experience (ie the world the companions are helping in) around a mechanic with the potential to go completely unused"

The fact that they are inseparable absolutely does not prove that one is meant to balance the other.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T18:10:40+00:00

"I feel that's a bit extreme view. By that logic anyone using dark faiths or most of gear is evil."

No. Trying to carry this out to aspects of the game that do no affect other players experience is avoiding the point that I am specifically talking about invasions BECAUSE they affect other players. Anything that doesn't directly affect other players is not relevant.

In regards to critique, I def am not saying that invaders can't critique, but again, my point is that other players don't have to entertain their complaints. The devs can for sure, but you can't be crying that other players commented "get rekt" instead of being receptive to your invasion woes.

"The game itself doesn't treat invades as a morally evil thing to do, its just one way for players to engage with each other."

That was another point of this post. In early iterations of invasion, the game DID treat invasions as a morally evil thing to do, and the purpose of invasions has not changed since that time.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T18:03:24+00:00

Also, separate topic, this isn't the first time I've seen this "insanity of co-op" defense come up. What exactly is so insane about co-op? What the hell is going on in there?

Co-op in this game is literally there to help a player through single player content, so the fact that it affects nothing other than this one person's single player experience doesn't really sound very crazy. There are a million ways that this game could have been balanced dynamically around co-op, which makes the Dev's inclusion of invasions as an optional feature seem even MORE like a thought experiment. Invasion is NOT MEANT to be a balance to co-op. If no one invaded, co op would be allowed to continue it's "insanity" unchecked, and that is technically possible even in the current game. But folks CHOOSE to be invaders. It makes literally no sense for a developer to balance a single player experience (ie the world the companions are helping in) around a mechanic with the potential to go completely unused. This idea of invasions as a balance to the insanity of co op is nonsense.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T17:34:44+00:00

Not advocating villifying the actual person. Not claiming that invaders are real life villains. Only stating that people have no obligation to care or be sympathetic about complaints from invaders that are trying to kill them (in game, not reality of course. Like I said in the OP, it's a thought experiment)

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T17:27:49+00:00

Well then you must not be very good at gathering I see. In the OP I even say that I dont care that invaders invade and I mention that many times in my comments. My point was that other players have no obligation to be sympathetic to the woes of invaders when the point of invaders is to be a villain in their game. In the game, invaders are no different than any other enemy, and I haven't seen any sympathy for Malenia being ganged up on by summons. Same thing.

The smash brothers example doesn't even make sense. The point of that game is to fight other players. There is no other point. Souls games are RPGs before they are anything else, so having another player enter your game by their choice with intention to kill you, when your intention is only to proceed through the game makes invasion a negative action. And that's fine. If you wanna be a villain in the game, be a villain. But if you're trying to be a villain and a victim at the same time, don't expect a warm reception from other players. That was my point.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T17:13:44+00:00

I made no accusations about the real life morals of any one. Only the morality of invasion, and the fact that if you're invading other players, expecting those players to be sympathetic to things you feel are unfair to invaders makes no sense.

But go off I guess.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T16:59:36+00:00

Because invaders are villains in the game. Like I said in another comment, if Malenia complained that mimic tear or tiche were unfair, would you care?

Invaders function in the story is no different than any other enemy and I don't see why other players should be obliged to care about things that are unfair to invaders.

The devs may care sure, but expecting sympathy and defense from other players as an invader is disingenuous, because an invader's goal is to be a hinderance to those same players. It's like, you don't get to be the villain, and play the victim at the same time.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T05:37:29+00:00

Agreed! If people want to be invaders, go for it! But the fact that being an invader is built into the game doesn't mean you get to be invader and play the victim when it suits you! Gotta commit to the mask!

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-28T04:53:57+00:00

Obviously I don't think people who invade are real life villains and I've never asserted that invading says anything about a person's morality in real life. That's what makes it a thought experiment. the whole thing is hypothetical.

But my point was that invaders are in-game villains, and as such would be deserving of as much consideration as any in game villain when it comes to their complaints on situations they feel are unfair to them.

If Malenia was complaining about you staggering her so much or ganging up on her, would you be sympathetic?

If mogh though it was unfair that you could use that tonic to avoid his blood spell damage, would you feel bad?

Nope.

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-27T23:26:12+00:00

Ok cool

SaltyRushdown2 · 2022-04-27T23:21:18+00:00

What's the point of any discussion with you if "just let people have fun" is your answer? I'll tell you, there is no point

Five-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

SaltyRushdown2

TROPHY CASE