curious.

Post a reply

You must have Javascript enabled, and allow popups, in order to complete the CAPTCHA task.




Topic review

by EldritchImagination » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:26 am
Da hell? How did I double downvote?

Edit: I fixed it (cause I don't want to be unfair), but that is one weird glitch.


by Luxumi » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:12 am
1. Yes, invading and being invaded
2. Invading is fun, but sometimes prefer dueling
3. DkS as it was the first one I took seriously. BB was pretty fun though too, as was DkS2


by Claymorelinx » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:41 am
thflame wrote:
Claymorelinx wrote:Imma just say that Dark Souls 2 is trash, the people on here arguing that it's better aren't arguing in good faith.


That's, like, your opinion, man.


Not even sure what to say to this one, I made a claim that can be proven/disproven and you incorrectly labeled it as an opinion...

thflame wrote:
Claymorelinx wrote:First of soul memory is being swept under the nostalgic rug, when it was a quintessential part of why invasions sucked in that game.


Nobody here is defending Soul Memory, aside from the fact that it did finally prevent twinks. DS3 has a better system for that purpose.


Thank you for proving that you are being intellectually dishonest, I only went back one page and found soul memory apologetics.

thflame wrote:
Claymorelinx wrote: Not only was it easier ever to summon a gank squad (of which I ran into many)


Um, you can have like 6 people as a host in DS3. You were capped at 4 in DS2. Also, it isn't hard to summon 2-3 people in a popular PVP area. You can gank in every game.


Use your brain to contextualize please. I said that it was easier than ever [before (should be implied)]. Meaning I am not holding it up to the 6 people of Dark Souls 3...

thflame wrote:
Claymorelinx wrote: but the invader had a limited use of red eye orbs meaning that if the invader wanted to stay in a certain pvp teir, he'd have to wear the agape ring (which wasn't around for a long *** time).


Yes, and the host has a limited number of Human Effigies. If you wanted to repeatedly screw with people in DS2, you had to either win, or go farm Cracked Red Eye Orbs.


How is this not a bad thing? The players should be able to "repeatedly screw with people" if that's what they want to do. It's available in every other game.

thflame wrote:
Claymorelinx wrote: Secondly, for duels phantom range was worse than ever, armor bonuses were worse than ever, weapons were replaced by others that had the same moveset but simply did more damage.


I can't tell what game you are describing here. Phantom range has been in ALL of the souls games, but DS3 just errs on the side of a miss, rather than a hit, leading to wonky animations when you think you hit, but you actually didn't.

Your weapon critique applies most accurately to DS3. Most weapons in DS2 filled a niche. In DS3, there is usually a "best" weapon in every class that gets used, and everything else is ignored, until a patch nerfs the "best" weapon.


Umm, let's use some numbers to prove you wrong. In DkS 3 the most physical damage reduction you can have is 148. In Dark Souls 2 though the system works differently, Havel's set give you over 1000 physical defense, making some of these "viable" weapons you rail about useless (looking at you partizan, twinblade, etc.)

As far as phantom range goes, it is better by your own omission to have hits that looked like they hit miss instead of the other way around. Similar to the adage that "I'd rather have 100 criminals go free than convict one innocent man".

thflame wrote:
Claymorelinx wrote: Sure anything can be viable in any game (I got invaded in DeS by a dual-wielding spiked shield guy), so let's not use viability it's a moot point in all three games. BB had significantly less viability than the others (arcane=useless, bloodtinge=useless).


Except in DS2, there were dozens of weapons that were "best" depending on build, infusion, and playstyle. There wasn't a weapon like the Carthus Curved Sword, Dark Sword, or Estoc where it was the best weapon all around.

There was also a ton more build variety in DS2. If you don't play Quality in DS3, you are at a noticeable disadvantage. In DS2, you could run into just about anything.


This is just false. You are confusing balance with viability, and even still the dozens of weapons in DkS2 were the best weapons in their class, like you said earlier about dark souls 3, but was horribly mistaken. Mastodon G.Sword > Bastard Sword, period, it's just a better weapon making the BS obsolete...

thflame wrote:
Claymorelinx wrote: Not only that but DkS2 had as was previously stated a different "flow" than the other games, and due to this it's buggy, sluggish, and pretty much irredeemable, especially since the game didn't even try to use realistic animations.


This is purely preference. I personally like the feel of DS2. It isn't "buggy", your actions just carry more weight and are more meaningful than DS1 and DS3. In DS3, it is nothing to spam rolls to escape a combo, because rolling is cheap and makes you practically invincible. In DS2, if you spam rolls, you WILL get hit by someone who knows what their doing.


You can like it all you want, but the moves that your character makes aren't at all realistic to how these weapons were actually (or would be actually) used in combat.

thflame wrote:
Claymorelinx wrote: **** DARK SOULS 2, it's the worst souls game, or at least there are more objective facts that the game is weaker than the other games. :00020: :00020:


No, it isn't objective, it is entirely subjective.

I won't say DS2 was perfect, it had it's flaws, it's just nowhere near as bad as people like to carry on about.


There now I at least have some facts down, interested at what you have to say. :00020: :00020:

P.S. To the troll that voted me down and got my comment hidden, piss off I didn't go around hiding your comments.


by Wolfenstein » Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:43 am
1) I like it tons. I absolutely love role-playing and the PvE and story of Souls, but what really gave lifelong commitments to Souls was the PvP. However, to me, they both elevate one another. PvP, I feel, was bolstered significantly by its PvE, which provided a bulwark and a PvP experience which was as much role-play as it was gameplay. Likewise, PvE without the PvP would lose a huge chunk of role-play, storytelling and its most challenging gameplay aspect.

2) Both are terrific but I am a duelist at heart.

3) Invasions are pretty even between all games for me (now after the Dks3 patches). Dks2 in general for PvP, of course. Had the best mechanics for duels.


by SilkyGoodness » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:24 am
1)No-ish, I'd never remove invasions, but it think duels and arenas are stupid. I don't engage in PvP much at all. Especially in these games where it causes balance issues to PvE that are detrimental to it, and considering​ PvE is why the game exists in the first place I find changes that balance PvP at the cost of PvE as a huge problem.
2)invasions
3)Hard to say, the problem of Invaders hiding in groups of enemies to use one of their 99 humanity is a huge drawback that DkS1 had. Twinking, back stab fishing and what have you are not nearly as big of an issue imo. DkS3 gimped Invaders hard and DkS2 every time I got invaded I thought it was an NPC invader so I don't think I am qualified to talk here. Most of my BB playthrough I didn't have PlayStation Plus.


by psik0tik » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:03 am
1) Do you like invasions and/or pvp?
Yes

2) do you prefer invasions? or do you prefer things like fight clubs or duels?
Invasions, challenge to fight multiple players alone. fight clubs and duels are boring.

3) if you answered either 1 or 2 which game did you think did invasions best? which game did general pvp the best?
only played DS2, DS3 and bloodborne. I'd say DS3 is the best, everything is simple about the covenants and stuff.


by GodlessCrom » Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:15 pm
qeter wrote:@GodlessCrom
i looked into the high tier players you mentioned quite extensively (unfortunately there weren't many fights for skorbrand). they have an interesting outlook of the game coming from near perfection. their view of what tier a weapon belongs comes from attack options and has a near total disregard for the amount of damage a weapon does (not exactly a commonly held view). skorbrand himself was strongly of the opinion that playing the game like they did clearly broke the systems of the game and that dark souls has never been well suited to the flawless play that high level competition brings about. i'm not sure how much the concept of tiers even applies when playing perfectly a la the king AI.

they also only level to 150, i personally go to 200, and japanese player go to 250. so their views on the uchi only go so far.

Yeah, basically. I would say their opinions on balance and weapon viability are pretty much 100% correct, but only in reference to duels at 150. I only played at that level, and once you go higher, builds stop really having any meaning since you can just have enough stats to do anything really, which makes the game a bit less interesting.


by BWO_RazrSrorm » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:27 pm
thflame wrote:
BWO_RazrSrorm wrote:
What do you consider griefing? Because short of having a massive unfair advantage over a host typically the point is to make a host struggle as an invader.


This is the problem. PVE is already designed to make the host struggle. Any added complications IS an unfair advantage over the host.

But you do realize in a duel if you're consistently beating someone that's essentially ruining their fun right? No one has fun getting their booty soundly handed to them often. I guess it would be better to say you prefer fighting people who want to fight.


Losing is a part of competition. Only immature people have their fun ruined by losing a duel. It's a difference in what you signed up for.

The duelist signed up for a duel. They know they can win or lose. If they get mad that they lost, then it's their problem.

The invaded didn't sign up for an invasion, unless they are specifically running a gank squad. Some people just want to coop or need the help with the area.

And if you say, "You signed up for an invasion when you used an Ember", then I am going to counter with, "You signed up to get ganked when you decided to invade", because it is exactly the same thing. Just because you invade, doesn't mean you want to get ganked, and just because you play online with Embers doesn't mean you want to get invaded.

Again, I'll reiterate. As an invader, you ARE NOT looking for a fair fight, and you SHOULD NOT expect one in return, let alone an advantage against the host. If you want a fair fight, then go play in the arena. Otherwise, quit complaining. From Soft has had 5 games to modify this. If they wanted you to be able to murder the host easily, they would have kept the old invasion styles in Demon's Souls and DS1.


-sigh- This is honestly the last time you're getting a reply from me because you simply ignore what i'm actually stating in order to further your point which has no legs. reaperfan and I had a nice dialogue and we understood eachother perfectly. I suggest you go look to that to actually understand the situation if you truly are trying to understand. Either way i'm going to be ignoring you in all threads now post this reply.

1) It's not a problem. This is the price for online play. If you have an issue with being invaded don't play online. Or get good enough/summon friends to gank the invader. and then don't reload the area till the boss is dead. Also don't pop a dried finger. Because that turns the invasion switch back online. Also. You snipped a part that was meant for something else to shoehorn your distaste for invasions. Don't.

2) No. Losing isn't fun for anyone. No matter wether you signed up for the fight or not. That doesn't make someone immature. Also signing into online is signing up for invasions. Just as popping a dried finger even if you were doing it simply to get extra help it tells you what happens when you use it. there is no difference in signing up for a duel and signing up for an invasion. Both are active choices made by the player. And again. This was apart of something else. that you cut up. I guessed that serious would rather fight someone who wants to fight. You can see that in the part you quoted.

3) For the last time. I'm not asking for a fair fight. I never once said that. Nor hinted at that. Not in this thread nor in the other thread I told you this in. I also have zero problems with being ganked. My issue. again. For the third time. Was that the host had TOO much advantages. Which is in all fairness debatable. But speaking from a numbers perspective DS3 gives the host more than it did in DKS and DS2.

Also I'm not complaining. I never did. I listed out my issues. But I dealt with it anyway and still defended the game. I invaded regardless. But this is all moot. FROM already made changes that I like that make things a little nicer for the invader. But the game is still overly generous to hosts. So. You can keep badgering me all you want. What's done is done. Bye.


by qeter » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:21 pm
BWO_RazrSrorm wrote:
qeter wrote:@GodlessCrom
i looked into the high tier players you mentioned quite extensively (unfortunately there weren't many fights for skorbrand). they have an interesting outlook of the game coming from near perfection. their view of what tier a weapon belongs comes from attack options and has a near total disregard for the amount of damage a weapon does (not exactly a commonly held view). skorbrand himself was strongly of the opinion that playing the game like they did clearly broke the systems of the game and that dark souls has never been well suited to the flawless play that high level competition brings about. i'm not sure how much the concept of tiers even applies when playing perfectly a la the king AI.

they also only level to 150, i personally go to 200, and japanese player go to 250. so their views on the uchi only go so far.


Could you either link here or pm me their videos that have their opinions? I tried a google on both of them and couldn't come up with much. But admittingly my google foo isn't the best.

the best i could do was go through their reddit comment history. their are a couple fights of scott jund vs skorbrand on youtube and one of the best players still streams occasionally with a video or two on his log. it isn't commentated but you can get a feel for how they fight (that is to say wigginling around before intitating a running attack every couple of seconds).
https://www.twitch.tv/alothas


by BWO_RazrSrorm » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:16 pm
qeter wrote:@GodlessCrom
i looked into the high tier players you mentioned quite extensively (unfortunately there weren't many fights for skorbrand). they have an interesting outlook of the game coming from near perfection. their view of what tier a weapon belongs comes from attack options and has a near total disregard for the amount of damage a weapon does (not exactly a commonly held view). skorbrand himself was strongly of the opinion that playing the game like they did clearly broke the systems of the game and that dark souls has never been well suited to the flawless play that high level competition brings about. i'm not sure how much the concept of tiers even applies when playing perfectly a la the king AI.

they also only level to 150, i personally go to 200, and japanese player go to 250. so their views on the uchi only go so far.


Could you either link here or pm me their videos that have their opinions? I tried a google on both of them and couldn't come up with much. But admittingly my google foo isn't the best.