EDIT: after waiting hours and hours for HD transcoding, I'm making this public now. Bottom line - this is mostly good news. If there are any downsides, they are: 1. DF runs could be gone, though I doubt it. I expect there will be an item to enable invasions, even for solo hosts. 2. I think there is a missed opportunity for people who play the game solo. I think getting invaded, even if only once or twice, can enrich the gameplay. 3. The biggest downside would be for new would-be invaders. Getting the occasional solo host will help sharpen your skills and give you confidence. Invading nothing but gonkers/gankers will make it harder to learn how to invade. EDIT: Gabri made a Reddit post about this change: www.reddit.com/r/Eldenring/comments/pdv6dq/how_coop_only_invasion_is_a_great_idea_from_a/
The third issue is my main concern since I prayed for a solo host every time when I first starting invading in 2020. I think invading may become very discouraging for would-be invaders due to the difficulty. I still believe that this change is mostly a good one.
@@discapism9936 I'm not sure yet. I worry that this will severely lower the amount of invasions available. I do find invading groups to be far more fun and often the only challenge an experienced invader gets. However it would make invading to start with, as you said, discouraging.
Part of the fun with invasions thus far was having one or two coinvaders, in a rotating cast. The chaos that occasionally provided was quality gameplay, when it went well. If the formula is now restricted only to invading as a single invader against two or three people, we had better get a small mix of online play items to mix it up, or ability to summon NPC animal summons as support/distractions. Otherwise, invasions now potentially have a steeper entrance cost in terms of enjoyment vs experience.
Sorry but I disagree. I'm thinking back to the way many of us got into pvp: We were walking into undead Burg on the blind run, no idea of the danger and suddenly 'YOU HAVE BEEN INVADED!!!' I didn't even know what was going on, it was crazy and scary but also very exciting, it made my hands shake and my gf was cheering me on when I fight the invader, it was awesome. After it I immediately searched Souls pvp on youtube and find guys like Oroboro the Ninja, Peeve Peeverson, OnlyAfro, Martyr's Brigade etc. kicking ass. It was so much fun for a n00b like me, so many memories, so many memes. Now in ER, literally no new player will experience that. Not until they already get decent at the game, become more confident, and so on. Also it's not the same if you get dried finger. It's often a late game item and it's not the same if you have summon, it's not exciting anymore. I remember being invaded in DS3 as a n00b when I had a friend and blue. It wasn't even scary, it was boring and easy. Playing solo as a n00b and being scared of a invader message was one of the reasons I thought 'I want to become as good as those guys!' It made the game feel so different from all other games. I play pvp in tekken but it's not the same.. Majority of ppl play solo so the majority will never experience the first invasion like we did in Demon's or Dark Souls. Imagine how much more boring, how much less memories your very very first run would have without invasions? Also, they did something similar that they plan for Elden Ring already in Bloodborne, right? How is that games invasion's today? Outside of Mergo, is it over or under an hour waiting now? Lol. How long does it take to get 100 invasions in Bloodborne for a normal (none streamer) player in many different areas if they started now? A week? In SOTFS I experienced 50 invasions yesterday over about 2 hours in 11 different areas because I can invade anyone who's online and in my Soul Memory. Now imagine without SM... That's why I disagree that this is a positive change. I think it will kill the online as fast as Bloodborne online. Sorry about the long post.
All great points, and I totally agree with the feeling of being invaded when you're new. Unfortunately while we enjoyed it, some players find it really off-putting.
@oohanalligator I invade in 1,5 million and 1,7 million, but check the exact numbers from wiki. I find invasion all the time in Forest of Fallen Giants, Dragon Aerie, Dragon Shrine, Drangleic Castle, DLC 1, DLC 2, DLC 3, Undead Crypt, Aldia's Keep, almost anywhere really, even forest. I play SOTFS on pc so I don't know how active is on consoles.
@@iamamish true but if they allow offline mode, invasions timer (about 1h), blue sentinel help covenant, host benefits like extra hp, extra heals, giant seed, and be able to block all invaders 100% for 1h by burning a item, like human effigy in ds2, that would make it possible for those who experience pvp and don't like it to avoid 100% invasions forever if they want, but those who don't even know that pvp exists will not be cut off from it by default. E.g. I didn't even know what a dry finger was in ds1 until much later, and even then it took some time before I find it and understand what it does. It was a late game item. I just don't want Elden Ring to become like Bloodborne by summer 2022, where it's very hard and slow to find invasions.
It sounds interesting, but I'd rather be able to be invaded. I prefer to play these games solo, but I mostly invade when I'm not playing through the game. Plus I have no friends that play these games, so it would he nice to be invaded and experience PVP throughout my playthrough
although i prefer invading co op groups I gotta say removing the chance of invading a solo host completely will remove some tension as you explore the world
I agree, I think *completely* removing any chance of being invaded is a mistake, but a minor one. Ideally i'd like to see some small chances at invasions for solo players.
@@iamamish theres a great feeling whenever you manage to beat a group of people but theres whole other feeling of terror and unease when you get invaded out of nowhere and hear that sound of someone coming in when you least expect it. especially in an unfamiliar, dark or claustrophobic area like the depths for example.
I’m not a fan of the change personally, and I have a few reasons why. 1) I understand why invading solo hosts can be tiresome, but a simple co-op priority system will eliminate most of the solo host invasions for the first year at least. I’d prefer that architecture for invading solo hosts be there so when activity slows down, invasions won’t die outright. If there is anything DSR and DeSR taught this playerbase, it’s that easily finding online activity is the number one most important thing for keeping the scene alive. (The explosion of interest in DS3 invasions after the release of Wex Dust also proves this beyond a doubt.) People whined about DSR spawn ganks killing the invasion scene, but that’s not the real truth. The real truth is that activity started slowing down naturally, pushing more people to only invade Oolacile Township, which then in turn concentrated the spawn griefers there, turning every other invasion into the tiresome loading screen simulator that everyone hated. 2) The more activity there is, the less you have to wait or bonfire hop for invasions. This is a huge deal for random players and streamers especially, who have inadvertently become a metric in how alive a game’s online scene seems to be (see: the small number of streamers for DeSR led to immediate cries of Dead Game, even when you could find invasions most everywhere). And with online activity being a matter of a perception rather than numeric fact - when things slow down, even slightly, more and more people will start dismissing the game as dead, more players will be dissuaded from invading outside the hotspots, more griefers will concentrate on those hotspots, and fewer people will want to play. It can easily turn into a slippery slope. 3) With a Blue Sentinel/Darkmoon covenant equivalent in ER, giving solo hosts help vs invaders, every single solo invasion can easily turn into a multi-man fight. This is the source of at least 50% of the 2v1s/3v1s you fight in Dark Souls 3, at least below meta. Take solo invasions away, and you completely eliminate that huge chunk of potential invasions out of the pool. And here’s my final point, and it’s the most subjective one. 4) I know invading solo players is alienating - whether it’s a cancerous bonfire host or a terrified Kevin - but I do think 1v1 PvP is still worthwhile and can easily be made fun. It depends on what each player brings to the table but really it’s up to each person to make their own fun in the interaction. It’s often less about the challenge and more about experimentation, and I know that’s not what a lot of invaders want. But if there’s anything invasions teach you, is you make the best of what you got, whether you’re a host or a red. People have more responsibility over their own fun than they often want to admit. Personally I wouldn’t take the hit to activity just because 1v1s don’t get the blood flowing like 4v1s. Both kinds of fights have something to offer if you approach it with the right attitude. And as we know, every 1v1 can quickly turn into a multi man fight at the flip of a coin, so that potential is always there for more challenge. After all, the emergent, unpredictable nature of invasions is THE beating heart of the mechanic, and the reason many still play today.
I think the nature of an open world design will help keep invasions alive as theoretically all areas will be somewhat active at a variety of level ranges, making both co-op and invasions more accessable overall. As long as co-op is easily attainable, so will invasions.
I comlletely disagree with that decision on their part, I would rather have the odds stacked tremendously against imvaders rather then having limited invasion pool or any decreased matchmaking availability That is exactly the line that I think they should not cross under any circumstances I would be a slight bit disappointed, but overall okay with them leaving invasions as they were in ds3
Bad decision. 1. Plenty of solo players love getting invaded. 2. Solo players that want to avoid invasions can easily do it already. 3. Coopers and invaders are the players that whine the most about invasions. Coopers whine about getting interrupted. Invaders whine about getting ganked. 4. It would drastically hurt the variety of scenarios you encounter when invading. Invasions would become monotone and boring. 5:32 "...and anybody invading at this point..." You shouldn't make those assumptions. There are people that enjoy playing both roles in that scenario. We exist. I really hope they change their mind. I see nothing but downsides to this decision.
Here is the main issue... this wont affect veteran invaders as much since fighting groups is usually what were looking for, but for newer or less experienced players, they re gonna get turned off very quickly by how they will always have to face impossible odds and superior numbers. Especially since, as far as we know now, coop invasions dont seem to exist in ER. ...Only 2v1 and 3v1 are a bit rough for most people. This might very well discourage PvP. Also my personal issue with this is I like getting invaded while going through the game solo + this will kill activity in the long run. Bad move imo.
In terms of longevity I don't see it being different from the current playerbase *IF* the game is truly better than DS3 in terms of a fighting experience. Obviously assuming a dried finger equivalent exists, long term it's going to be a repeat of either gank squads, a bonfire duelist or a survival host like we see today. As long as people are willing to fill the roll of those three mentioned players as well as invaders then longevity is a non-problem. The benefit of more newer players who want to play at meta than there already are is a higher player pool with lower ping. Newer players at launch of DS3 had to deal with constant ganks anyway, from my experience it was rare to invade a solo host with the absolute boom of players at launch. If From truly want to go with this direction then they should compromise a little and just have an option in the settings "allow solo invasions." And set it to default. But we also don't know how the actual game will be, will our current system translate well for players in an open world setting? I'm guessing yes since they've said the decision is not set in stone and our feedback will determine their decision but it's important to think about.
Yeah I mentioned the same thing (though in a comment not the video). It's definitely going to make it more difficult to introduce new invaders to the game in 2 ways - one, their invasions will be harder. Two, they're less likely to be invaded, which is how most of us got introduced to invasions in the first place. I think the best solution would be similar to DS 3 - much less likely for solo players to be invaded, but not 0 probability.
In honesty, it already was the case in DS3, within the first year of the game %90 of the time, it was gank/gonk. Dried finger or co-op invasions not existing is definitely the bigger problem tho, hope they clarify it soon. I have a hard time believeing dried-finger not existing in this game.
Sounds abit like Bloodborne then, apart from 2 area's in that game you couldn't be invaded unless you rung the bell to summon. Strange decision, I understand they are trying to protect the casual player as usual. But it will make the invading scene abit dead, especially a few years down the line when random summons are few and far between.
I always enjoyed that in DS2 being invadable is the default state. People who want to opt out should be 'paying' for safety, whether that is with items, covenant slot or going offline. Using items to enable it always feels bad - dying not only makes you run to a bloodstain but also irreversibly uses other resources (ember/humanity). Kind of like I'm being punished for taking up a greater challenge.
tbh i don't like this idea since they could most likely play offline to avoid being invaded as a solo host if completely necessary. i was listening to amish but then saw him at 3:24 whiff punish so well that it was bad because he couldn't follow up since his opponent was in hyper armour still
Putting walls againts multiplayer is always a bad move in my opinion. Give the player a choice to put that wall themselves if they really want to but dont make it the default. Also this makes Blue Sentinels type interactions obsolete, which was source of much chaotic fun for me, both as an invader and as a host. It also provided new players with a safety net while they were learning pvp be it as a host or as a blue. Also no one is talking about it but, sprit summons are not available in multiplayer which confuses me, they are practically part of your build, and npc summons which was never that OP in any souls game. I understand only having host having access to it but removing alltogether in multiplayer doesnt make sense to me.
Until I know for sure that it can be 2vs2, or it's restricted to 1vs3 or 2, it seems that they have done away with some of the formula that made invasions fun and occasionally chaotically good. I can only hope that we are given online play items to level the playing field, like reverse seeds, or a temporary summon blocker, for example. If we can summon animals/monsters as temporary allies in coop, it may be fun and tactically sound to have that option as invaders as well.
Hosts already had overwhelming odds against invaders (especially in DS3 where hosts had more Estus heals, health, 3 player summons and no cooldowns when resummoning, Giant's seed etc. ) and now this? Some hosts need to learn a thing called playing offline (or Soul form in DeS, Hollow form in DS1, unembered state in DS3), no need to ruin game design of invasions further due to some hosts not being able to do this simple trick. Or maybe have a mechanic similar to burning human effigy at a bonfire in DS2 which allowed you to block online invasions and co-op, but it still allowed you to see npc signs and messages/bloodstains. Also, since the invasion/co-op mechanics in Elden ring will be similar to Bloodborne, it means that invasions are going to be dead much faster than other games which didn't have this system in place. I have not gotten a single invasion recently in Bloodborne's main game since there are not that many co-op players in the game to play with. I've only seen some pvp activity in the two Nightmare realms and chalice dungeons, which most people avoided in the first place.
The thing we have to remember is that as much as we enjoy the invasion mechanic, it is a mechanic designed for hosts, so they will always be front & center in any consideration of the design.
In DS1, Way of the White covenant pushed you to the bottom in the invasion que, making it practically impossible to be invaded while playing solo. I fail to see how that is not a better choice for this game compared to limiting player choice. Make that functionality very clear or default and the end result is literally the same without crippling the online playerbase.
Having to make a new character from scratch and do the gem farm did its part in killing Bloodborne pvp. You also had to pay for ps plus and not all players could justify it only for one game. Elden Ring so far looks like it might be better.
I do wish that we could be able to choose if we want to be added to the "Solo Invasion" connection pool. Ring the "Brave Bell" to allow Invasions without companions present. Such mechanic would be absolutely brilliant and fitting with the games theme of customization. I do LOVE the fear of being invaded and finding myself in unexpected encounters that spice up the gameplay. Please take notes @BANDAI NAMCO
I’ve been thinking about this and the most elegant solution would be to make solo invasions possible in legacy dungeons ONLY. This achieves two things; 1. Provides PvP hotspots for concentrated activity and 2. Allows noob hosts to TEMPORARILY opt out of solo invasions by instead opting to explore, level up and upgrade equipment via open world activities.
I think that people quoting the activity in Bloodborne need to bear in mind that the multiplayer as a whole was janky. Co-op wasn’t a calculated experience outside of passwords due to bells removing soul signs. Similarly Demon’s Souls places invasions and co-op under a soul form requirement, and the game is much less linear in a progression sense, so trying to be summoned can be unreliable. That being said, I would prefer to allow invasions for solo hosts regardless. Players who don’t want to be invaded solo can already play offline, and playing in co-op prioritises invasions. I think that the co-op should be addressed more than anything; as a former co-op player turned invader the password feature ruined random summoning, after all why summon a stranger from across the world when you can simply spawn in a max level powerhouse to cheese the game for you? It’s a bit precarious now that the community have in technicality active control over invasions. If no-one wants to co-op in the game, then no invasions will occur and thus the multiplayer dies.
My counter argument is Dark Souls 1 (not remaster!). It was super active for several years even though netcode was horrible, connections awful, it took ages for invasions to connect, but people did it anyway because it still was pretty easy to find people to invade. On pc people even programmed a mod to make connections easier to find. It was a horribly balanced glitchy, jank mess but it was fun and pretty busy until the remaster killed the original and soon both original and remaster were dead, but the original was alive for nearly 9 years despite all the problems. Sad that I can't say the same of Bloodborne.
@@telesway I would argue that DS1 was active on the basis that there wasn’t anything else at the time. Passwords weren’t a thing and the netcode wasn’t all that improved until around DS3 I believe, so we sort of accepted it as a Fromsoft quibble. My point for Bloodborne is that as mechanically sound as it was the multiplayer access was horribly unintuitive due to the bell system randomising further how much contact you have with other players. It’s not as simple as finding a sign as essentially co-op uses what is essentially an invasion system that the host consents to (not to be confused with the red soapstone - that is technically a summon).
I'm not a fan of it, I have a rule to never try to control things outside of my realm but this time I'll have to break it The online ecosystem would benefit if everyone had a chance to invade and get invaded Let's look at DS2, in that game people can still invade you AFTER you've defeated the area boss and when you're DEAD, that's good Now let's look at Demons Souls (PS5) that game is pretty much dead because there's no one invading and because there's no one to invade If they really want Elden Ring to be the culmination of all past Soulsbornekiro games, they'd know better to increase the online ecosystem by being able to invade solo hosts Edit: if you don't want to get invaded, play offline More than likely invaders will receive a penalty like less health, half healing items etc. So new players to the series will still have an advantage I can't believe we as a community haven't learnt this, Bloodborne literally only has 2 pvp areas, trying to invade outside those is close to impossible. Tie invasions to coop > the game gets old > no one coops anymore > invasions die Tying the chance of invasions to coop is just a recipe for disaster, the better move is to have them be separate things that way if coop dies, invasions won't.
💯 Also in SOFTS it's really easy to find invasions all over the game, in many areas, in many Soul Memory ranks because of what you described. The game has only 500-1000 players on a busy day, Dark Souls 3 has 5000-10000 players normally and it's still quite dead outside of forest, Pontiff & Ringed City. Bloodborne is even worse outside of the 2 pvp areas.
@@telesway exactly brother, I've been invading quite often on DS2 recently on max SM tier and still get some matches, due to invasions applying to everyone
@@Sohelanthropus how busy is the invasions in max SM? I invade in 1,5 million and 1,7 million (SOTFS on PC) and all the time run out of red orbs. Fastest was 50 invasions in about 2 hours, after 3-5h I used all 99 orbs haha
@@telesway you can get some fairly often considering its max SM, I use the blue eye stones since those will invade literally anyone no matter in what area you're in
Something a bit more concerning to me is that it looks like there won’t be co-invasions as of right now… as someone from bb who never could get into Ds3 really, it is really disappointing to hear if it ends up true
I honestly really doubt they will go through with this decision. If not just because of the resounding backlash I can imagine they will be getting form this in the coming months. In the end I imagine they are aware of how important it is for solo hosts to also get invaded, and I can only hope they will come around on it before release. In the end only time will tell, hopefully we are all wonderfully surprised once the network (hopefully) arrives and we get to see.
I think we'll get a 'dried finger' item and a Pontiffs/Woods invasion area so that we'll still be able to invade solo hosts in certain situations but we'll see I guess. Either way, I'm honestly fine with permanant ganks.
@@Dasqal Well having read the statements published so far, I just can't agree, the fact that Miyazaki himself has stated that he loves the PVP would imply they at least want that part of the game to be semi functional. Besides they can see how long a good invasions system carries the game, like DS3's is not perfect but we are still playing it, and that says something.
I’ve been thinking about this and the most elegant solution would be to make solo invasions possible in legacy dungeons ONLY. This achieves two things; 1. Provides PvP hotspots for concentrated activity and 2. Allows noob hosts to TEMPORARILY opt out of solo invasions by instead opting to explore, level up and upgrade equipment via open world activities.
Honestly i think this is the opposite of good, half of the invasions you get solo hosts have way of blue on them and this quickly turns invasions into a 1v2 to 1v3. seeing this go would be a damn shame.
Part of the thrill of being invaded on your first playthrough was that it was out of your control (and often at the worst possible time). I’m sad to see that go but will be grateful for an opt in item/setting if they include it.
Here’s a simple idea, give players an options to toggle invasions and coop to there own preference and everybody wins, you don’t need a fancy in game item or join a covenant just a button in the options menu.
I have kinda mixed feeling about a system, bb already has this matchmaking system so we can see biggest problems with it: -In bloodborne most early game areas are dead from pvp perspective because you also need 30 bl to even get invaded unless you ring the sinister bell first -it makes a clear line between invasion builds and 1v1 build(evelyn spamming being more powerfull with pve behind your back and beast roar being no longer as usefull as it normally is) -most ppl never expierience invading system or only see invaders as try-hards from frontier or mergo middle, mixed with bb terrible gem system views on most invaders for most ppl are extremely negative. That means that less ppl would bother with pvp and game playerbase would quickly shrink
Exactly, and the gems + poor matchmaking makes it awful. Last Halloween I hope to get invaded playing through New Game+4, I'm level 125, max gems for pvp, and I get invaded, finally! Invader died in 2 hits, I later find out he was level 50 or something, and story gems. How is that possible lol. That was the only invasion I experience outside of Mergo's. It's sad, and I don't want that for Elden Ring.
@@telesway As 125 you can technically be invaded only by 80 bl up, but from my own expierience even on meta level lot of ppl die to 2 hits abyssal heavy + 27.2X2 sawspear R1's, because of low vit and runes diffrent than clockwise. Thats not really problem of matchmaking, its mostly fault of gem system.
@@justanotherfool8896 oh maybe it was that then, or they didn't level Vitality or something. I had 3 x 27% gems on my Saif but usually other 125 pvp players can at least survive 2-3 hits and then heal. This poor guy just died from R1 L1.
@@telesway Thats interesting their vigor and runes had to be seriously bad, saif has 1.10 multiplier on untransformed R1 and 1.15 on untricked-tricked L1, even with the abyssal str+15 on a 50 str 25 dex build dmg isn't enough to kill anybody with at least 50 vig and rune setup. So yeah, they probadly slept on vig or had equiped unoptimized runes.
Completely agree with all of this. I always feel like people are just too comfortable to what they know and are afraid of trying what they don't know. This seems like one of them.
And just like Bloodborne and Sekiro this game will not last, invading solo hosts is the number one draw of the souls games....... Ganks are not fun unless your a youtube creator
So I can only invade if the host on a co-op. This might be a challenge but then it might test my invader skills and I might result using dirty tricks just to win the fight.
Personally I both hate and love the thrill of playing solo and seeing that invasion notification. If I had a choice I would opt in which I think is a nice middle ground.
I absolutely agree with all of your points. I'm so happy to hear someone else having this opinion! This won't stop some players from complaining about invasions existing tho.
I really think that as much as the point you bring up regarding pve Solo Hosts is true, in regards to that I'd rather not invade them but let them fight through the game and experience the challenge, I think that the best introduction to the PvP aspect IS getting invaded solo and fighting through or fighting off your attacker. If we take that away I feel like the lifeblood of new pvp players in ER will be gone faster and we'll reach the oversaturated endstate DS3 is in much faster (griefing resummoning 4-man ganks).
From everything I've heard, co-op play is going to be more prevalent in ER. I have the feeling/hoping that there will be a lot of opportunities and incentives for players to summon, even if it's NPCs. Each time that happens, it opens them up for invasions. I would like to see some very difficult areas where you would almost need a teammate to get by, until you are experienced and/or leveled up enough. If you choose to not summon ever, the game will be more difficult. Therefore you are incentivized to put yourself into an invadable state. I think it would be fun if they made several of the NPC invaders, be replicable by people actually playing. For example, instead of the same Hodrick NPC invading in undead settlement it could be an actual player. Similar to Spears of the Church. However, this player only has Hodrick's equipment available and his stats. This prevents super optimized and OP builds, like what you could do for Spears. Can't wait to see how it all works out.
There are probably going to be certain areas where you can get invaded as a solo host, or a covenant which allows something like it. No need to worry imo.
Might be a good thing, might be a bad one. It really depends on how much of an advantage the host party will have in ER. If they overdo it, invasions might just enter a "no fun allowed" mode where only the best-skill/best-build/most-sweaty players have a reason to invade. Donno if general population would really like the game more in this case.
I think From is not oblivious to the current PvP playerbase, and are scared of the possible backlash of obvious PvErs complaining on every platform out there. People are scared it'll end up like Bloodborne but bloodborne had a magnitude of reasons for PvP to die off. Edit: second read through it sounds a bit condensending to new players, I should say it'll hinder a new players experience.
Okay I gey it, not that bad of a news. It would be nice if there were a couple of areas where even solo players can still get invaded, just for flavor an adding to the tension of going through these specific areas. Another thing that would b nice is, if you are on new game plus, then you can get invaded solo.
If invasions become dependent on the availability of summon signs, the online activity will slowly die out. Better pray that From builds in Wex Dust since you will be spending even more time spamming REO and waiting for invasions.
Solo vs co-op isn't as important for me these days as actually playing the level vs just hosting a gank. This is just my opinion but post pontif is not a real invasion. It's simply a 3v3 arena battle where the home team has a stupid amount of advantages. The invader is supposed to be an obstacle to overcome in or to reach the boss. Saint riots does this thing where he starts at first bonfire of the level and pops a dried finger. He then works his way through the level killing all the pve and any invaders until he reaches the boss. He then bones back to the beginning and starts over. I love it. It's the only thing that scratches that "Holy shit I did it" itch that comes with beating those the toughest bosses.
Hopefully like in bloodborne there are still a few areas in which regular invasions can still occur. I don't mind Bloodborne's invasion system too much! As an invader you know exactly what you're getting into depending in the area you invade! But if you're gonna force me to fight ganks, don't nerf my health. It's enough of a disadvantage as it is.
i think the idea of solo's not being invadable is kind of a lazy solution though i have that based on a principle that many won't agree with, in that i feel like if you are online in a souls game.. you should feel like ur life is at risk.. even if ur just at the bonfire messing with your inventory. i like the feeling that creates for the player.. that your never safe that is. though i also enjoy invading solo players as well.. not all the time obviously.. but it's good to learn how to handle invasions (so good for new players/invaders) and now being inspired by the insanity of people like mewman c/dark phantasy/Em learning multi piece hardswaps is not something i want to do during a 3v1. my wishlist however would be : - wexdust type item - have stamina management somewhere in-between where ds2 and ds3 are (this could get tricky as it would make getting away from 4 man gank very difficult) - a covenant so u AND a friend can invade together or anything like that (an item/ring system... w.e) - if solo's cant be invaded.. maybe have zones where they can be like 20-30% of the game? - if i'm not invading a solo.. and we're not.. give me my health back... and take 1/3 instead of 1/2 my estus - add a 5-10 second animation for each summon to limit/punish chain summoning (they need to do something about this.. and since they can't figure out the cooldown let the players deal with it) - add a covenant that looks for the opposing duo invade covenant (something like dried finger) so gankers and gankspankers can play more than 1 level.. i also think this would make for really fun runs through the game - maintain ur game.. even 4-5 years from now and if it's anywhere close to being as popular then as DS3 is now... take all the glitches out.. if it dies in 2 years than so be it.. i hate how they don't patch their games. and on steam don't let the game be a family shared game and allow VAC (or something) to deal with hackers
As always, love your videos. I have to disagree though. As a regular invader, I do enjoy invading multiple players, but part of the experience of most From games is the invasion mechanic. Whether alone or with co-op, it changes the dynamic of a level. I think DS3 had it best. It prioritized co-oping hosts for invasion, but it was not exclusive. Again, my two (worthless) cents. Keep up the good content!
Yeah I'm refining my opinion a bit. I think eliminating solo host invasions totally is a mistake. I think prioritizing ganks, but still leaving solo hosts invade-able is the right call. Thanks for the feedback and the kind words.
I think it will be a covenant thing. You will get invaded if you belong to this specific covenant, or you will get invaded if you don't belong to this specific covenant in this specific place. Anyway, they are trying to make the game easier, for players who either won't play the game (casuls) or buy the game (journalists), and we, invaders, will be gonked.
I hope that they do change their mind. I disagree with leaving out solo hosts. I think that will make it much harder to get invasions on top of whatever other limitations there are. This alone is far from enough evidence, but I wonder if ER won't be a complete replacement for DS3. I wonder if both games could have a thriving playerbase.
Rehvion made a similar related point in his Twitter thread - in the early days of the game, it was next to impossible to invade a solo host who wasn't DF'd. I don't see it having much of an effect on the invasion pool, at least in the first few years. It is definitely conceivable that as the game ages, it would be harder to find invasions.
Someone who camps the bonfire alone waiting for invaders and spurs them into a 'duel' under unfair circumstances when you take into account embered health and SL advantage that hosts possess. Might resort to chugging estus when they start losing.
And perhaps a controversial opinion but I think I'd actually prefer a 4 players total cap if it means the worst gank I might possibly face is a 3v1, with perhaps the possibility of a 2v2 in certain areas / dried finger? Co-invaders are fun the have in theory but in practice they're often just "free estus" for the gank. I don't know, perhaps I'm jaded and bitter xD
@oohanalligator I’ve been thinking about this and the most elegant solution would be to make solo invasions possible in legacy dungeons ONLY. This achieves two things; 1. Provides PvP hotspots for concentrated activity and 2. Allows noob hosts to TEMPORARILY opt out of solo invasions by instead opting to explore, level up and upgrade equipment via open world activities.
I really wish they would add a better anti-cheat in Elden Ring. Today some guy invaded me and screwed up a save file with my handcrafted mid-level PVP build. All of the sudden, the opening cutscene started playing and I found myself in the cemetery at NG+. How anyone finds this fun, I don't get it. You can't even see your victim suffer, lol. Well at least the Blue Sentinel mod claims to solve this issue, so I finally installed it.
Terrible change, Bloodborne PvP in 2021 shows exactly how this will turn out, sitting there ages waiting to find a world to connect to. Hope they reconsider.
I really think people downplay how harmful this is going to be down the line for the game, its like people forget that nobody LIKED that you couldn't invade solo hosts in bloodborne. I mean to this day willing solo hosts are at least half the playerbase and I can understand how they want to make the game less frustrating for new players but time and time again we see historically that this only hurts games down the line, the games in the series with restrictive multiplayer interaction all suffer less pvp today in part because of it
Exactly bro This is how it should work Solo hosts gets invaded > he finds the need to summon ppl to make it easy > people who want to coop realize this and put their signs more often > invaders realize this and invade more often > cycle repeats I hope you can invade solo hosts
@@hobosorcerer it wont matter for the first couple of years because sales will be so high and there will be so many new players. However, down the line it will matter, it matters for bloodborne right now
@@hobosorcerer yet often I see people say they feel like playing Bloodborne pvp or random co-op but it's dead so meh let's play SOFTS or DS3 instead, or Guilty Gear, Tekken, Chivalry 2, Halo or any of the upcoming pvp games, there are so many where you just log on and start playing. I and many others have gotten bored so many times trying to find pvp/co-op in Bloodborne it's just not worth the time waste anymore to even try. It's the Fromsoft version of discord fighter lol
I have to disagree here, I love solo host invasions and the first time me being invaded was a amazing experience. Nothing beats the feeling of being on your own and someone invades you and you succeed. But Elden Ring won’t have that. But I respect your opinion
I agree with you, and I've kinda changed my opinion a bit. DS 3 has optional solo host invasions (via the ember) and I'm hoping they do something similar.
Honestly, I'm pretty happy about this: hopefully it will get rid of those solo Hosts who want to have an "honourable bonfire duel", with 30% more HP and easy access to any summons or blues. It will suck for first time invaders though, having to invade into at least a 1v2: I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I suspect there will still be a dried finger-ish item, so I doubt we'll have seen the last of bonfire duelists. At least now we'll KNOW they are looking for bonfire duels, rather than a random invasion.
@@iamamish random 1v1 invasions between n00bs were fun tho, for both sides. It's how I got into pvp as a solo player and I think many others too. Imagine Elden Ring is your first Fromsoft game and you play solo. Would you want to be invaded soon when you step in the new 'Burg' and experience the fear and excitement or only safely with summons or some special item you don't even know exists?
@@Dasqal me too lol, but it was all part of the fun, and some troll matches were funny because it wasn't too often, you got all sort of pvp: Mostly other newbies, a few veterans, a few ganks but usually normal random players. That's why I think it's a big mistake to remove random 1v1 pvp because those are great for learning. Not just combat but the "hunt" part of invasions, how to use the level and so on. Or remember being alone in Blighttown, almost dead from poison, no estus, can't sit at bonfire because you were invaded, but it's some experienced guy who gives you poison moss, some humanity, and then just goes away? I loved weird experiences like that and in Elden Ring they will be gone.
I like this. Solo host invasions are boring (atleast in ds3) and those pver who hate invasions wont have any argument against pvp (atleast no viable ones) since if they summon they want to play multiplayer.
I think it's a fine change, and goes a long way to frustration-proof the game for solo players that aren't particularly interested in playing with others. I, too, am not interested in griefing solo-PVE'rs; I'd hope a lot of invaders are of the same mind. Low activity could be an issue now and again, but quality over quantity is infinitely preferable. All in all, I'm very optimistic. I would rather a challenging (but fair!) encounter than a one-sided massacre.
What about new solo players who want to be invaded because it's scary, exciting, and fun? Or those who don't know about pvp but if they get invaded, they get excited to learn pvp? Without random invasion, they never experience that if they play alone like most ppl, or they learn about it after beating the game and then it's not the same anymore. That's how I got into pvp years ago, surprise invasion in Undead Burg very early, same with my friends, most had no idea. Now all at least like pvp or even love it.
@@telesway I’m sure there’ll be an item in the game that’ll allow you to get invaded if you’re solo. But yeah getting invaded for the first time was fun. The main issue here is twinking.
@@discapism9936 what about new invaders? Those none pvp players who just test the invasion item or just want to try what it's like, and all they get is ganks or experts? When I was a very new invader, other new players were a great way to learn, doesn't matter if I was host or invader: either fair 1v1 or cat and mouse through a level, both try to outsmart the other and so on. That's why fighting games have rankings: you can learn better against other n00bs without always being in loading screens.
@@telesway This is a valid point, and I think it’s one of the sadder things to lose. I think Bloodborne and DS3 got it right in having one or two specific areas where invasions just happened, because it’s not the end of the world to have a death in those zones. Perhaps we will see something like that, still. Co-invasions vs gankers in post-pontiff and the ringed city are one of the greatest joys the game has to offer. As a “career invader” I recognize that these changes benefit only the small portion of us that are already engaged in this, but now that I think about it, it would be sad indeed to see the pool of invaders stagnate and sputter out because the introduction and incentive may not be present.
They're so rarely an issue when you're a solo host. Plus, in DS 3 you don't get invaded as a solo host, you have to enable invasions with an ember. If you don't to be invaded, don't ember, or play offline.
@@SamuelRosadoEsq Right there is exactly the issue - you're framing the extra hp associated with being embered as an entitlement, when in reality the developers made it work exactly how they intended. In other words, you can play without the threat of invasions, or, you can use an ember which gives you some big advantages (extra 30% hp, ability to summon), but comes with the tradeoff of possibly being invaded. Unfortunately players like you have to come to view the extra 30% hp as an entitlement, when it is there to try to balance the game and be an incentive to join the online multiplayer. In other words - if the developers got rid of invasions, they'd have gotten rid of embers too. At least this way you have a choice.
@@iamamish ill concede that the 30% buff is intended to help with invasions in DS 3. I still maintain the point that for example I've been invaded in Demon's Souls by the same invader 3 times in a row. And in Demon's Souls you lose 50% of your HP which is far too great of a loss to be considered a mere buff to help with invasions. Notwithstanding, the Elden Ring change finally clears the way for those who want to enjoy the game without worrying about a try hard ruining what may have been an hours' worth of progress. All without having to sacrifice on-line connectivity.
I agree that this is a good idea, I dont think theres any reason why Fromsoft couldn't make this work when they already did in Bloodborne; other issues aside, this aspect of the invasion system was sound. Another point I immediately thought of was that this is likely the easiest way to work around issues with the Spirit Steed mechanic. Imagine steeds being active in PvP, EVERY invasion in the open world would be chasing a host on their steed forever, or dealing with a whole party on steeds. So they disabled steeds for co op, tied invasions to co op, and made steeds a non issue for invasions. If they allowed solo invasions, but no Steed, players would be kicked off as soon as they get invaded which even for a PvPer trying to finish a build could be really annoying. I'm sure it theres a DF or Sinister Bell type item that allows solo invasions, the Steed wont be usable while the item is active, hence someone camping for duels. This also encourages a totally different feel of gameplay depending on where you are. In the open map, solo play is going to be heavily encouraged because the Steed is so useful for travel. In dungeon areas, co op will have fewer consequences like totally inhibiting a mechanic that makes movement so much easier. I'm inclined to think that if the Steed is good enough, the fast travel might be much more limited to main dungeons, with very few warpable checkpoints in the open world areas. Also, while its encouraging that Fromsoft is open about considerations for PvP, most of what happens is going to be emergent gameplay anyways, they really cant predict what the player base is going to do with the mechanics they put in the game. More limitations on invasions at launch works fine, even if a DF item isn't in the game at launch, it could still be DLC content like arena was for DS3.
I have a theory about this. Look at any Souls content creator. In the vast majority of cases, a few things are true: 1. They established themselves on the basis of one of the games 2. They may have made some content for other Souls games, but not much, and it isn't what they are known for 3. When newer Souls games came out, they stuck with them briefly, but did not play a whole lot I think it is because a game has to speak to you a LOT to justify the effort in creating content. Reversion to the mean means any other game is most likely not going to appeal to you as much, and so you won't make good content for it. That's what worries me about Elden Ring.
I'm a big defender of the invasion experience, but it can be frustrating for inexperienced players. Personally I would not eliminate invasions for solo players - only reduce their frequency. That said, while I think solo hosts lose out a bit, invaders won't.
@@iamamish I look at it as an ecosystem. You need to get invaded to become an invader. I'm alright with it now because I can handle ganks but I enjoy invading noobs and dropping 99 embers on them and crystalling out or deliberately getting invaded in specific zones for role playing purposes so I'll be sad if that is gone.
Who plays with phantoms their first time through? Pvp is gonna be dead on release. Sunbros are the most annoying dark souls fans and shit like this proves it.
I don't get why you wanna invade people trying to make the game easier, like if they're not good players but they just wanna get through the game to see what the game has to offer. Like wouldn't you want to fight people who arn't bad at the game? Right now I kinda see you as someone who just likes dunking on admittedly bad players, and you don't want a real challenge just easy noobs by your own logic seems very hypocritical.
I think you are missing the point here. I specifically want to avoid ez dunks, that's why I'm a fan of avoiding solo players. Invading into multiple players is exceptionally difficult. Even new players can blender an experienced invader quickly. I'm looking for a challenge. From *wants* these players to be challenged, that's why they're using invasions as a balancing mechanism. They do not want to give you a game that is easy! When you summon, you make the game too easy, and invaders are there to restore some semblance of balance.
Is this the first video you've seen on amish? His content completely contradicts your entire comment. Creating a straw man that invaders just want to dunk on new players doesn't help the discussion at all
@@MultiDraco999 no i wasn't saying invaders I was talking about Amish, the guy who made the video. I just didn't like that he said he wanted to invade people who were co oping to make the game easier to teach them a lesson I thought i was weird and goofy and stand by that. I love invasions but only when both parties want to be there, I don't wanna invade bad players to teach them a lesson for co oping. I do like Amish i just disliked this one point he made. Have a good one.
@@throastpopoki1682 I see your point. It's not so much that I want to 'teach people a lesson', I just feel better invading knowing I'm a force for game balance, rather than crushing solo players.
![PVP Montage - [Dark Souls 3]](/img/n.gif)
EDIT: after waiting hours and hours for HD transcoding, I'm making this public now.
Bottom line - this is mostly good news. If there are any downsides, they are:
1. DF runs could be gone, though I doubt it. I expect there will be an item to enable invasions, even for solo hosts.
2. I think there is a missed opportunity for people who play the game solo. I think getting invaded, even if only once or twice, can enrich the gameplay.
3. The biggest downside would be for new would-be invaders. Getting the occasional solo host will help sharpen your skills and give you confidence. Invading nothing but gonkers/gankers will make it harder to learn how to invade.
EDIT: Gabri made a Reddit post about this change: www.reddit.com/r/Eldenring/comments/pdv6dq/how_coop_only_invasion_is_a_great_idea_from_a/
The years of unpopularity for invasions for new players is coming to a head for Fromsoft.
The third issue is my main concern since I prayed for a solo host every time when I first starting invading in 2020. I think invading may become very discouraging for would-be invaders due to the difficulty. I still believe that this change is mostly a good one.
@@discapism9936 I'm not sure yet. I worry that this will severely lower the amount of invasions available.
I do find invading groups to be far more fun and often the only challenge an experienced invader gets. However it would make invading to start with, as you said, discouraging.
Part of the fun with invasions thus far was having one or two coinvaders, in a rotating cast. The chaos that occasionally provided was quality gameplay, when it went well. If the formula is now restricted only to invading as a single invader against two or three people, we had better get a small mix of online play items to mix it up, or ability to summon NPC animal summons as support/distractions. Otherwise, invasions now potentially have a steeper entrance cost in terms of enjoyment vs experience.
@@SamMaxis That is a worry for me too but I think it’ll be fine, It’s been 5 years of ds3 and invasions are still plentiful at the right levels.
I look forward to everyone on reddit complaining how hard invasions are In elden ring and how fair and balanced invasions were in DS3.....
No more bonfire duels can only be a good thing xD
Well
@@wezerd called it!
Sorry but I disagree. I'm thinking back to the way many of us got into pvp:
We were walking into undead Burg on the blind run, no idea of the danger and suddenly 'YOU HAVE BEEN INVADED!!!'
I didn't even know what was going on, it was crazy and scary but also very exciting, it made my hands shake and my gf was cheering me on when I fight the invader, it was awesome.
After it I immediately searched Souls pvp on youtube and find guys like Oroboro the Ninja, Peeve Peeverson, OnlyAfro, Martyr's Brigade etc. kicking ass.
It was so much fun for a n00b like me, so many memories, so many memes.
Now in ER, literally no new player will experience that. Not until they already get decent at the game, become more confident, and so on.
Also it's not the same if you get dried finger. It's often a late game item and it's not the same if you have summon, it's not exciting anymore.
I remember being invaded in DS3 as a n00b when I had a friend and blue. It wasn't even scary, it was boring and easy.
Playing solo as a n00b and being scared of a invader message was one of the reasons I thought 'I want to become as good as those guys!'
It made the game feel so different from all other games. I play pvp in tekken but it's not the same..
Majority of ppl play solo so the majority will never experience the first invasion like we did in Demon's or Dark Souls.
Imagine how much more boring, how much less memories your very very first run would have without invasions?
Also, they did something similar that they plan for Elden Ring already in Bloodborne, right? How is that games invasion's today? Outside of Mergo, is it over or under an hour waiting now? Lol.
How long does it take to get 100 invasions in Bloodborne for a normal (none streamer) player in many different areas if they started now? A week?
In SOTFS I experienced 50 invasions yesterday over about 2 hours in 11 different areas because I can invade anyone who's online and in my Soul Memory. Now imagine without SM...
That's why I disagree that this is a positive change. I think it will kill the online as fast as Bloodborne online.
Sorry about the long post.
All great points, and I totally agree with the feeling of being invaded when you're new.
Unfortunately while we enjoyed it, some players find it really off-putting.
@oohanalligator I invade in 1,5 million and 1,7 million, but check the exact numbers from wiki.
I find invasion all the time in Forest of Fallen Giants, Dragon Aerie, Dragon Shrine, Drangleic Castle, DLC 1, DLC 2, DLC 3, Undead Crypt, Aldia's Keep, almost anywhere really, even forest.
I play SOTFS on pc so I don't know how active is on consoles.
@@iamamish true but if they allow offline mode, invasions timer (about 1h), blue sentinel help covenant, host benefits like extra hp, extra heals, giant seed, and be able to block all invaders 100% for 1h by burning a item, like human effigy in ds2, that would make it possible for those who experience pvp and don't like it to avoid 100% invasions forever if they want, but those who don't even know that pvp exists will not be cut off from it by default.
E.g. I didn't even know what a dry finger was in ds1 until much later, and even then it took some time before I find it and understand what it does. It was a late game item.
I just don't want Elden Ring to become like Bloodborne by summer 2022, where it's very hard and slow to find invasions.
It sounds interesting, but I'd rather be able to be invaded. I prefer to play these games solo, but I mostly invade when I'm not playing through the game. Plus I have no friends that play these games, so it would he nice to be invaded and experience PVP throughout my playthrough
there might be a dried finger item
I expect there will be a DF item, and definitely those of us who enjoy being invaded will lose out without it.
Couldn’t agree more!!
although i prefer invading co op groups I gotta say removing the chance of invading a solo host completely will remove some tension as you explore the world
I agree, I think *completely* removing any chance of being invaded is a mistake, but a minor one. Ideally i'd like to see some small chances at invasions for solo players.
@@iamamish theres a great feeling whenever you manage to beat a group of people but theres whole other feeling of terror and unease when you get invaded out of nowhere and hear that sound of someone coming in when you least expect it. especially in an unfamiliar, dark or claustrophobic area like the depths for example.
@@ergot4604 You know you could just play offline to avoid invasions?This change is completely unnecessary
I’m not a fan of the change personally, and I have a few reasons why.
1) I understand why invading solo hosts can be tiresome, but a simple co-op priority system will eliminate most of the solo host invasions for the first year at least. I’d prefer that architecture for invading solo hosts be there so when activity slows down, invasions won’t die outright.
If there is anything DSR and DeSR taught this playerbase, it’s that easily finding online activity is the number one most important thing for keeping the scene alive. (The explosion of interest in DS3 invasions after the release of Wex Dust also proves this beyond a doubt.)
People whined about DSR spawn ganks killing the invasion scene, but that’s not the real truth. The real truth is that activity started slowing down naturally, pushing more people to only invade Oolacile Township, which then in turn concentrated the spawn griefers there, turning every other invasion into the tiresome loading screen simulator that everyone hated.
2) The more activity there is, the less you have to wait or bonfire hop for invasions. This is a huge deal for random players and streamers especially, who have inadvertently become a metric in how alive a game’s online scene seems to be (see: the small number of streamers for DeSR led to immediate cries of Dead Game, even when you could find invasions most everywhere).
And with online activity being a matter of a perception rather than numeric fact - when things slow down, even slightly, more and more people will start dismissing the game as dead, more players will be dissuaded from invading outside the hotspots, more griefers will concentrate on those hotspots, and fewer people will want to play. It can easily turn into a slippery slope.
3) With a Blue Sentinel/Darkmoon covenant equivalent in ER, giving solo hosts help vs invaders, every single solo invasion can easily turn into a multi-man fight. This is the source of at least 50% of the 2v1s/3v1s you fight in Dark Souls 3, at least below meta. Take solo invasions away, and you completely eliminate that huge chunk of potential invasions out of the pool.
And here’s my final point, and it’s the most subjective one.
4) I know invading solo players is alienating - whether it’s a cancerous bonfire host or a terrified Kevin - but I do think 1v1 PvP is still worthwhile and can easily be made fun. It depends on what each player brings to the table but really it’s up to each person to make their own fun in the interaction. It’s often less about the challenge and more about experimentation, and I know that’s not what a lot of invaders want. But if there’s anything invasions teach you, is you make the best of what you got, whether you’re a host or a red.
People have more responsibility over their own fun than they often want to admit. Personally I wouldn’t take the hit to activity just because 1v1s don’t get the blood flowing like 4v1s. Both kinds of fights have something to offer if you approach it with the right attitude. And as we know, every 1v1 can quickly turn into a multi man fight at the flip of a coin, so that potential is always there for more challenge. After all, the emergent, unpredictable nature of invasions is THE beating heart of the mechanic, and the reason many still play today.
All facts mate
I think the nature of an open world design will help keep invasions alive as theoretically all areas will be somewhat active at a variety of level ranges, making both co-op and invasions more accessable overall. As long as co-op is easily attainable, so will invasions.
@@lovewilcox6874 Hopefully mate hopefully
+1
Give this man a position in fromsoftware.
I comlletely disagree with that decision on their part, I would rather have the odds stacked tremendously against imvaders rather then having limited invasion pool or any decreased matchmaking availability
That is exactly the line that I think they should not cross under any circumstances
I would be a slight bit disappointed, but overall okay with them leaving invasions as they were in ds3
Bad decision.
1. Plenty of solo players love getting invaded.
2. Solo players that want to avoid invasions can easily do it already.
3. Coopers and invaders are the players that whine the most about invasions. Coopers whine about getting interrupted. Invaders whine about getting ganked.
4. It would drastically hurt the variety of scenarios you encounter when invading. Invasions would become monotone and boring.
5:32 "...and anybody invading at this point..." You shouldn't make those assumptions. There are people that enjoy playing both roles in that scenario. We exist.
I really hope they change their mind. I see nothing but downsides to this decision.
Here is the main issue... this wont affect veteran invaders as much since fighting groups is usually what were looking for, but for newer or less experienced players, they re gonna get turned off very quickly by how they will always have to face impossible odds and superior numbers. Especially since, as far as we know now, coop invasions dont seem to exist in ER. ...Only 2v1 and 3v1 are a bit rough for most people. This might very well discourage PvP.
Also my personal issue with this is I like getting invaded while going through the game solo + this will kill activity in the long run. Bad move imo.
In terms of longevity I don't see it being different from the current playerbase *IF* the game is truly better than DS3 in terms of a fighting experience. Obviously assuming a dried finger equivalent exists, long term it's going to be a repeat of either gank squads, a bonfire duelist or a survival host like we see today.
As long as people are willing to fill the roll of those three mentioned players as well as invaders then longevity is a non-problem. The benefit of more newer players who want to play at meta than there already are is a higher player pool with lower ping. Newer players at launch of DS3 had to deal with constant ganks anyway, from my experience it was rare to invade a solo host with the absolute boom of players at launch.
If From truly want to go with this direction then they should compromise a little and just have an option in the settings "allow solo invasions." And set it to default.
But we also don't know how the actual game will be, will our current system translate well for players in an open world setting? I'm guessing yes since they've said the decision is not set in stone and our feedback will determine their decision but it's important to think about.
Yeah I mentioned the same thing (though in a comment not the video). It's definitely going to make it more difficult to introduce new invaders to the game in 2 ways - one, their invasions will be harder. Two, they're less likely to be invaded, which is how most of us got introduced to invasions in the first place.
I think the best solution would be similar to DS 3 - much less likely for solo players to be invaded, but not 0 probability.
In honesty, it already was the case in DS3, within the first year of the game %90 of the time, it was gank/gonk.
Dried finger or co-op invasions not existing is definitely the bigger problem tho, hope they clarify it soon. I have a hard time believeing dried-finger not existing in this game.
But what if I wanna give the new player embers, humanities and a kiss on the cheek?
Sounds abit like Bloodborne then, apart from 2 area's in that game you couldn't be invaded unless you rung the bell to summon.
Strange decision, I understand they are trying to protect the casual player as usual. But it will make the invading scene abit dead, especially a few years down the line when random summons are few and far between.
I wouldn't even go as far as to say 'casual'. There are lots of players who are hardcore PVE players - they just don't know PvP.
I always enjoyed that in DS2 being invadable is the default state. People who want to opt out should be 'paying' for safety, whether that is with items, covenant slot or going offline. Using items to enable it always feels bad - dying not only makes you run to a bloodstain but also irreversibly uses other resources (ember/humanity). Kind of like I'm being punished for taking up a greater challenge.
tbh i don't like this idea since they could most likely play offline to avoid being invaded as a solo host if completely necessary.
i was listening to amish but then saw him at 3:24 whiff punish so well that it was bad because he couldn't follow up since his opponent was in hyper armour still
Putting walls againts multiplayer is always a bad move in my opinion. Give the player a choice to put that wall themselves if they really want to but dont make it the default.
Also this makes Blue Sentinels type interactions obsolete, which was source of much chaotic fun for me, both as an invader and as a host. It also provided new players with a safety net while they were learning pvp be it as a host or as a blue.
Also no one is talking about it but, sprit summons are not available in multiplayer which confuses me, they are practically part of your build, and npc summons which was never that OP in any souls game. I understand only having host having access to it but removing alltogether in multiplayer doesnt make sense to me.
Until I know for sure that it can be 2vs2, or it's restricted to 1vs3 or 2, it seems that they have done away with some of the formula that made invasions fun and occasionally chaotically good. I can only hope that we are given online play items to level the playing field, like reverse seeds, or a temporary summon blocker, for example. If we can summon animals/monsters as temporary allies in coop, it may be fun and tactically sound to have that option as invaders as well.
Hosts already had overwhelming odds against invaders (especially in DS3 where hosts had more Estus heals, health, 3 player summons and no cooldowns when resummoning, Giant's seed etc. ) and now this? Some hosts need to learn a thing called playing offline (or Soul form in DeS, Hollow form in DS1, unembered state in DS3), no need to ruin game design of invasions further due to some hosts not being able to do this simple trick.
Or maybe have a mechanic similar to burning human effigy at a bonfire in DS2 which allowed you to block online invasions and co-op, but it still allowed you to see npc signs and messages/bloodstains.
Also, since the invasion/co-op mechanics in Elden ring will be similar to Bloodborne, it means that invasions are going to be dead much faster than other games which didn't have this system in place.
I have not gotten a single invasion recently in Bloodborne's main game since there are not that many co-op players in the game to play with. I've only seen some pvp activity in the two Nightmare realms and chalice dungeons, which most people avoided in the first place.
The thing we have to remember is that as much as we enjoy the invasion mechanic, it is a mechanic designed for hosts, so they will always be front & center in any consideration of the design.
In DS1, Way of the White covenant pushed you to the bottom in the invasion que, making it practically impossible to be invaded while playing solo. I fail to see how that is not a better choice for this game compared to limiting player choice. Make that functionality very clear or default and the end result is literally the same without crippling the online playerbase.
Having to make a new character from scratch and do the gem farm did its part in killing Bloodborne pvp. You also had to pay for ps plus and not all players could justify it only for one game. Elden Ring so far looks like it might be better.
I think its a bad decision. I play these games solo, because
I do wish that we could be able to choose if we want to be added to the "Solo Invasion" connection pool. Ring the "Brave Bell" to allow Invasions without companions present. Such mechanic would be absolutely brilliant and fitting with the games theme of customization. I do LOVE the fear of being invaded and finding myself in unexpected encounters that spice up the gameplay. Please take notes @BANDAI NAMCO
I’ve been thinking about this and the most elegant solution would be to make solo invasions possible in legacy dungeons ONLY. This achieves two things;
1. Provides PvP hotspots for concentrated activity and
2. Allows noob hosts to TEMPORARILY opt out of solo invasions by instead opting to explore, level up and upgrade equipment via open world activities.
I think that people quoting the activity in Bloodborne need to bear in mind that the multiplayer as a whole was janky. Co-op wasn’t a calculated experience outside of passwords due to bells removing soul signs. Similarly Demon’s Souls places invasions and co-op under a soul form requirement, and the game is much less linear in a progression sense, so trying to be summoned can be unreliable.
That being said, I would prefer to allow invasions for solo hosts regardless. Players who don’t want to be invaded solo can already play offline, and playing in co-op prioritises invasions. I think that the co-op should be addressed more than anything; as a former co-op player turned invader the password feature ruined random summoning, after all why summon a stranger from across the world when you can simply spawn in a max level powerhouse to cheese the game for you?
It’s a bit precarious now that the community have in technicality active control over invasions. If no-one wants to co-op in the game, then no invasions will occur and thus the multiplayer dies.
My counter argument is Dark Souls 1 (not remaster!).
It was super active for several years even though netcode was horrible, connections awful, it took ages for invasions to connect, but people did it anyway because it still was pretty easy to find people to invade.
On pc people even programmed a mod to make connections easier to find.
It was a horribly balanced glitchy, jank mess but it was fun and pretty busy until the remaster killed the original and soon both original and remaster were dead, but the original was alive for nearly 9 years despite all the problems.
Sad that I can't say the same of Bloodborne.
@@telesway I would argue that DS1 was active on the basis that there wasn’t anything else at the time. Passwords weren’t a thing and the netcode wasn’t all that improved until around DS3 I believe, so we sort of accepted it as a Fromsoft quibble.
My point for Bloodborne is that as mechanically sound as it was the multiplayer access was horribly unintuitive due to the bell system randomising further how much contact you have with other players. It’s not as simple as finding a sign as essentially co-op uses what is essentially an invasion system that the host consents to (not to be confused with the red soapstone - that is technically a summon).
I'm not a fan of it, I have a rule to never try to control things outside of my realm but this time I'll have to break it
The online ecosystem would benefit if everyone had a chance to invade and get invaded
Let's look at DS2, in that game people can still invade you AFTER you've defeated the area boss and when you're DEAD, that's good
Now let's look at Demons Souls (PS5) that game is pretty much dead because there's no one invading and because there's no one to invade
If they really want Elden Ring to be the culmination of all past Soulsbornekiro games, they'd know better to increase the online ecosystem by being able to invade solo hosts
Edit: if you don't want to get invaded, play offline
More than likely invaders will receive a penalty like less health, half healing items etc. So new players to the series will still have an advantage
I can't believe we as a community haven't learnt this, Bloodborne literally only has 2 pvp areas, trying to invade outside those is close to impossible. Tie invasions to coop > the game gets old > no one coops anymore > invasions die
Tying the chance of invasions to coop is just a recipe for disaster, the better move is to have them be separate things that way if coop dies, invasions won't.
💯 Also in SOFTS it's really easy to find invasions all over the game, in many areas, in many Soul Memory ranks because of what you described.
The game has only 500-1000 players on a busy day, Dark Souls 3 has 5000-10000 players normally and it's still quite dead outside of forest, Pontiff & Ringed City.
Bloodborne is even worse outside of the 2 pvp areas.
@@telesway exactly brother, I've been invading quite often on DS2 recently on max SM tier and still get some matches, due to invasions applying to everyone
@@Sohelanthropus how busy is the invasions in max SM? I invade in 1,5 million and 1,7 million (SOTFS on PC) and all the time run out of red orbs. Fastest was 50 invasions in about 2 hours, after 3-5h I used all 99 orbs haha
@@telesway you can get some fairly often considering its max SM, I use the blue eye stones since those will invade literally anyone no matter in what area you're in
@@Sohelanthropus I didn't know that, thanks for the info!👍
Something a bit more concerning to me is that it looks like there won’t be co-invasions as of right now… as someone from bb who never could get into Ds3 really, it is really disappointing to hear if it ends up true
Hey Scorched, I agree - I really love good co-invasions. when you have a good co, it is one of the best Souls experiences ever.
I honestly really doubt they will go through with this decision. If not just because of the resounding backlash I can imagine they will be getting form this in the coming months. In the end I imagine they are aware of how important it is for solo hosts to also get invaded, and I can only hope they will come around on it before release. In the end only time will tell, hopefully we are all wonderfully surprised once the network (hopefully) arrives and we get to see.
I think we'll get a 'dried finger' item and a Pontiffs/Woods invasion area so that we'll still be able to invade solo hosts in certain situations but we'll see I guess. Either way, I'm honestly fine with permanant ganks.
@@Dasqal Well having read the statements published so far, I just can't agree, the fact that Miyazaki himself has stated that he loves the PVP would imply they at least want that part of the game to be semi functional. Besides they can see how long a good invasions system carries the game, like DS3's is not perfect but we are still playing it, and that says something.
I’ve been thinking about this and the most elegant solution would be to make solo invasions possible in legacy dungeons ONLY. This achieves two things;
1. Provides PvP hotspots for concentrated activity and
2. Allows noob hosts to TEMPORARILY opt out of solo invasions by instead opting to explore, level up and upgrade equipment via open world activities.
Honestly i think this is the opposite of good, half of the invasions you get solo hosts have way of blue on them and this quickly turns invasions into a 1v2 to 1v3. seeing this go would be a damn shame.
Bedankt
Thanks Zeehond! Much appreciated!
Part of the thrill of being invaded on your first playthrough was that it was out of your control (and often at the worst possible time). I’m sad to see that go but will be grateful for an opt in item/setting if they include it.
Co-op invasions 👎 no thank you. Solo invasions are such a great feeling from both sides
I hate invading a single person anyway
Same
The hype when blue sentinels shows 5 names lol
Here’s a simple idea, give players an options to toggle invasions and coop to there own preference and everybody wins, you don’t need a fancy in game item or join a covenant just a button in the options menu.
I have kinda mixed feeling about a system, bb already has this matchmaking system so we can see biggest problems with it:
-In bloodborne most early game areas are dead from pvp perspective because you also need 30 bl to even get invaded unless you ring the sinister bell first
-it makes a clear line between invasion builds and 1v1 build(evelyn spamming being more powerfull with pve behind your back and beast roar being no longer as usefull as it normally is)
-most ppl never expierience invading system or only see invaders as try-hards from frontier or mergo middle, mixed with bb terrible gem system views on most invaders for most ppl are extremely negative. That means that less ppl would bother with pvp and game playerbase would quickly shrink
Exactly, and the gems + poor matchmaking makes it awful.
Last Halloween I hope to get invaded playing through New Game+4, I'm level 125, max gems for pvp, and I get invaded, finally!
Invader died in 2 hits, I later find out he was level 50 or something, and story gems. How is that possible lol. That was the only invasion I experience outside of Mergo's.
It's sad, and I don't want that for Elden Ring.
@@telesway As 125 you can technically be invaded only by 80 bl up, but from my own expierience even on meta level lot of ppl die to 2 hits abyssal heavy + 27.2X2 sawspear R1's, because of low vit and runes diffrent than clockwise. Thats not really problem of matchmaking, its mostly fault of gem system.
@@justanotherfool8896 oh maybe it was that then, or they didn't level Vitality or something. I had 3 x 27% gems on my Saif but usually other 125 pvp players can at least survive 2-3 hits and then heal. This poor guy just died from R1 L1.
@@telesway Thats interesting their vigor and runes had to be seriously bad, saif has 1.10 multiplier on untransformed R1 and 1.15 on untricked-tricked L1, even with the abyssal str+15 on a 50 str 25 dex build dmg isn't enough to kill anybody with at least 50 vig and rune setup. So yeah, they probadly slept on vig or had equiped unoptimized runes.
@@justanotherfool8896 that's my guess as well now. Back then I thought he was just super low level haha
Completely agree with all of this. I always feel like people are just too comfortable to what they know and are afraid of trying what they don't know. This seems like one of them.
elden ring looks like a ds3 mod, and I'm not sure if it's to the credit to modders or discredit to the devs' confidence in taking risks
And just like Bloodborne and Sekiro this game will not last, invading solo hosts is the number one draw of the souls games.......
Ganks are not fun unless your a youtube creator
Something else I was hoping for was a spot like pontiff in ds3 where you could do 3v3 fights
So I can only invade if the host on a co-op. This might be a challenge but then it might test my invader skills and I might result using dirty tricks just to win the fight.
Personally I both hate and love the thrill of playing solo and seeing that invasion notification. If I had a choice I would opt in which I think is a nice middle ground.
I wonder if having the NPC summons will count as 'coop'
Damn good question
I absolutely agree with all of your points. I'm so happy to hear someone else having this opinion!
This won't stop some players from complaining about invasions existing tho.
It would be nice to have the option to turn solo invasions on for yourself if you don't mind being invaded while soloing.
Hey! Glad to see your take on this!
I really think that as much as the point you bring up regarding pve Solo Hosts is true, in regards to that I'd rather not invade them but let them fight through the game and experience the challenge, I think that the best introduction to the PvP aspect IS getting invaded solo and fighting through or fighting off your attacker. If we take that away I feel like the lifeblood of new pvp players in ER will be gone faster and we'll reach the oversaturated endstate DS3 is in much faster (griefing resummoning 4-man ganks).
From everything I've heard, co-op play is going to be more prevalent in ER. I have the feeling/hoping that there will be a lot of opportunities and incentives for players to summon, even if it's NPCs. Each time that happens, it opens them up for invasions.
I would like to see some very difficult areas where you would almost need a teammate to get by, until you are experienced and/or leveled up enough. If you choose to not summon ever, the game will be more difficult. Therefore you are incentivized to put yourself into an invadable state.
I think it would be fun if they made several of the NPC invaders, be replicable by people actually playing. For example, instead of the same Hodrick NPC invading in undead settlement it could be an actual player. Similar to Spears of the Church. However, this player only has Hodrick's equipment available and his stats. This prevents super optimized and OP builds, like what you could do for Spears.
Can't wait to see how it all works out.
There are probably going to be certain areas where you can get invaded as a solo host, or a covenant which allows something like it. No need to worry imo.
is a really bad news i loved invasion, I don't know if I will buy it now
Oh boy, I guess we're playing ds3 for another 5 years
Might be a good thing, might be a bad one. It really depends on how much of an advantage the host party will have in ER.
If they overdo it, invasions might just enter a "no fun allowed" mode where only the best-skill/best-build/most-sweaty players have a reason to invade. Donno if general population would really like the game more in this case.
I think From is not oblivious to the current PvP playerbase, and are scared of the possible backlash of obvious PvErs complaining on every platform out there. People are scared it'll end up like Bloodborne but bloodborne had a magnitude of reasons for PvP to die off.
Edit: second read through it sounds a bit condensending to new players, I should say it'll hinder a new players experience.
Did I miss you mention co invaders? Id dont care about single host but ive always enjoyed 2v2 or 2v3
Okay I gey it, not that bad of a news. It would be nice if there were a couple of areas where even solo players can still get invaded, just for flavor an adding to the tension of going through these specific areas. Another thing that would b nice is, if you are on new game plus, then you can get invaded solo.
If invasions become dependent on the availability of summon signs, the online activity will slowly die out. Better pray that From builds in Wex Dust since you will be spending even more time spamming REO and waiting for invasions.
6 days till Sony’s event, hopefully we get to see it there. 8) And I feel they should bring back solo invasions tbh
Solo vs co-op isn't as important for me these days as actually playing the level vs just hosting a gank. This is just my opinion but post pontif is not a real invasion. It's simply a 3v3 arena battle where the home team has a stupid amount of advantages. The invader is supposed to be an obstacle to overcome in or to reach the boss. Saint riots does this thing where he starts at first bonfire of the level and pops a dried finger. He then works his way through the level killing all the pve and any invaders until he reaches the boss. He then bones back to the beginning and starts over. I love it. It's the only thing that scratches that "Holy shit I did it" itch that comes with beating those the toughest bosses.
Hopefully like in bloodborne there are still a few areas in which regular invasions can still occur. I don't mind Bloodborne's invasion system too much! As an invader you know exactly what you're getting into depending in the area you invade!
But if you're gonna force me to fight ganks, don't nerf my health. It's enough of a disadvantage as it is.
I broadly agree, Amish. I think this is a good change.
i think the idea of solo's not being invadable is kind of a lazy solution though i have that based on a principle that many won't agree with, in that i feel like if you are online in a souls game.. you should feel like ur life is at risk.. even if ur just at the bonfire messing with your inventory. i like the feeling that creates for the player.. that your never safe that is. though i also enjoy invading solo players as well.. not all the time obviously.. but it's good to learn how to handle invasions (so good for new players/invaders) and now being inspired by the insanity of people like mewman c/dark phantasy/Em learning multi piece hardswaps is not something i want to do during a 3v1.
my wishlist however would be :
- wexdust type item
- have stamina management somewhere in-between where ds2 and ds3 are (this could get tricky as it would make getting away from 4 man gank very difficult)
- a covenant so u AND a friend can invade together or anything like that (an item/ring system... w.e)
- if solo's cant be invaded.. maybe have zones where they can be like 20-30% of the game?
- if i'm not invading a solo.. and we're not.. give me my health back... and take 1/3 instead of 1/2 my estus
- add a 5-10 second animation for each summon to limit/punish chain summoning (they need to do something about this.. and since they can't figure out the cooldown let the players deal with it)
- add a covenant that looks for the opposing duo invade covenant (something like dried finger) so gankers and gankspankers can play more than 1 level.. i also think this would make for really fun runs through the game
- maintain ur game.. even 4-5 years from now and if it's anywhere close to being as popular then as DS3 is now... take all the glitches out.. if it dies in 2 years than so be it.. i hate how they don't patch their games. and on steam don't let the game be a family shared game and allow VAC (or something) to deal with hackers
As always, love your videos. I have to disagree though. As a regular invader, I do enjoy invading multiple players, but part of the experience of most From games is the invasion mechanic. Whether alone or with co-op, it changes the dynamic of a level.
I think DS3 had it best. It prioritized co-oping hosts for invasion, but it was not exclusive. Again, my two (worthless) cents. Keep up the good content!
Yeah I'm refining my opinion a bit. I think eliminating solo host invasions totally is a mistake. I think prioritizing ganks, but still leaving solo hosts invade-able is the right call. Thanks for the feedback and the kind words.
I think it will be a covenant thing. You will get invaded if you belong to this specific covenant, or you will get invaded if you don't belong to this specific covenant in this specific place.
Anyway, they are trying to make the game easier, for players who either won't play the game (casuls) or buy the game (journalists), and we, invaders, will be gonked.
i like invading BF duellists
I hope that they do change their mind. I disagree with leaving out solo hosts. I think that will make it much harder to get invasions on top of whatever other limitations there are.
This alone is far from enough evidence, but I wonder if ER won't be a complete replacement for DS3. I wonder if both games could have a thriving playerbase.
Rehvion made a similar related point in his Twitter thread - in the early days of the game, it was next to impossible to invade a solo host who wasn't DF'd. I don't see it having much of an effect on the invasion pool, at least in the first few years.
It is definitely conceivable that as the game ages, it would be harder to find invasions.
With the likelihood of dedicated solo host invasion zones, I think this worry is largely unfounded.
Would love a dried finger... I and my little brother love to play solo and get invaded b:
What tf is a bonfire duelist?
Someone who camps the bonfire alone waiting for invaders and spurs them into a 'duel' under unfair circumstances when you take into account embered health and SL advantage that hosts possess. Might resort to chugging estus when they start losing.
I'd honestly rather die to a gank than crush a clueless noob. I'm totally fine with this.
And perhaps a controversial opinion but I think I'd actually prefer a 4 players total cap if it means the worst gank I might possibly face is a 3v1, with perhaps the possibility of a 2v2 in certain areas / dried finger? Co-invaders are fun the have in theory but in practice they're often just "free estus" for the gank. I don't know, perhaps I'm jaded and bitter xD
@oohanalligator I said I'd rather die to a gank than crush a solo host. I never said anything about showing a solo host mercy.
@oohanalligator I’ve been thinking about this and the most elegant solution would be to make solo invasions possible in legacy dungeons ONLY. This achieves two things;
1. Provides PvP hotspots for concentrated activity and
2. Allows noob hosts to TEMPORARILY opt out of solo invasions by instead opting to explore, level up and upgrade equipment via open world activities.
I really wish they would add a better anti-cheat in Elden Ring. Today some guy invaded me and screwed up a save file with my handcrafted mid-level PVP build. All of the sudden, the opening cutscene started playing and I found myself in the cemetery at NG+. How anyone finds this fun, I don't get it. You can't even see your victim suffer, lol. Well at least the Blue Sentinel mod claims to solve this issue, so I finally installed it.
Yeah unfortunately Blue Sentinels is a must these days. It's so annoying that people get their kicks out of messing with somebody else's save file.
Terrible change, Bloodborne PvP in 2021 shows exactly how this will turn out, sitting there ages waiting to find a world to connect to. Hope they reconsider.
I really think people downplay how harmful this is going to be down the line for the game, its like people forget that nobody LIKED that you couldn't invade solo hosts in bloodborne. I mean to this day willing solo hosts are at least half the playerbase and I can understand how they want to make the game less frustrating for new players but time and time again we see historically that this only hurts games down the line, the games in the series with restrictive multiplayer interaction all suffer less pvp today in part because of it
You're highly over exaggerating imo-- there's no reason why having enough areas for solo invasions couldn't be an easy fix for this issue.
Exactly bro
This is how it should work
Solo hosts gets invaded > he finds the need to summon ppl to make it easy > people who want to coop realize this and put their signs more often > invaders realize this and invade more often > cycle repeats
I hope you can invade solo hosts
@@hobosorcerer it wont matter for the first couple of years because sales will be so high and there will be so many new players. However, down the line it will matter, it matters for bloodborne right now
@@hobosorcerer yet often I see people say they feel like playing Bloodborne pvp or random co-op but it's dead so meh let's play SOFTS or DS3 instead, or Guilty Gear, Tekken, Chivalry 2, Halo or any of the upcoming pvp games, there are so many where you just log on and start playing.
I and many others have gotten bored so many times trying to find pvp/co-op in Bloodborne it's just not worth the time waste anymore to even try.
It's the Fromsoft version of discord fighter lol
I have to disagree here, I love solo host invasions and the first time me being invaded was a amazing experience. Nothing beats the feeling of being on your own and someone invades you and you succeed. But Elden Ring won’t have that. But I respect your opinion
I agree with you, and I've kinda changed my opinion a bit. DS 3 has optional solo host invasions (via the ember) and I'm hoping they do something similar.
@@iamamish Thank you for being so respectful.
I play offline exclusively so this doesn’t effect me at all
My theory is that truly solo players already do as you do, so I am wondering how much this will really matter.
Honestly, I'm pretty happy about this: hopefully it will get rid of those solo Hosts who want to have an "honourable bonfire duel", with 30% more HP and easy access to any summons or blues.
It will suck for first time invaders though, having to invade into at least a 1v2: I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I suspect there will still be a dried finger-ish item, so I doubt we'll have seen the last of bonfire duelists. At least now we'll KNOW they are looking for bonfire duels, rather than a random invasion.
@@iamamish random 1v1 invasions between n00bs were fun tho, for both sides. It's how I got into pvp as a solo player and I think many others too.
Imagine Elden Ring is your first Fromsoft game and you play solo.
Would you want to be invaded soon when you step in the new 'Burg' and experience the fear and excitement or only safely with summons or some special item you don't even know exists?
@@Dasqal me too lol, but it was all part of the fun, and some troll matches were funny because it wasn't too often, you got all sort of pvp:
Mostly other newbies, a few veterans, a few ganks but usually normal random players.
That's why I think it's a big mistake to remove random 1v1 pvp because those are great for learning. Not just combat but the "hunt" part of invasions, how to use the level and so on.
Or remember being alone in Blighttown, almost dead from poison, no estus, can't sit at bonfire because you were invaded, but it's some experienced guy who gives you poison moss, some humanity, and then just goes away?
I loved weird experiences like that and in Elden Ring they will be gone.
I like this. Solo host invasions are boring (atleast in ds3) and those pver who hate invasions wont have any argument against pvp (atleast no viable ones) since if they summon they want to play multiplayer.
Can't wait for the game to die after 6 months
I think it's a fine change, and goes a long way to frustration-proof the game for solo players that aren't particularly interested in playing with others. I, too, am not interested in griefing solo-PVE'rs; I'd hope a lot of invaders are of the same mind. Low activity could be an issue now and again, but quality over quantity is infinitely preferable. All in all, I'm very optimistic. I would rather a challenging (but fair!) encounter than a one-sided massacre.
Yeah invading solo pve’rs is never fun for me, I always hope to get ganks when I invade nowadays
What about new solo players who want to be invaded because it's scary, exciting, and fun?
Or those who don't know about pvp but if they get invaded, they get excited to learn pvp?
Without random invasion, they never experience that if they play alone like most ppl, or they learn about it after beating the game and then it's not the same anymore.
That's how I got into pvp years ago, surprise invasion in Undead Burg very early, same with my friends, most had no idea. Now all at least like pvp or even love it.
@@telesway I’m sure there’ll be an item in the game that’ll allow you to get invaded if you’re solo. But yeah getting invaded for the first time was fun. The main issue here is twinking.
@@discapism9936 what about new invaders? Those none pvp players who just test the invasion item or just want to try what it's like, and all they get is ganks or experts?
When I was a very new invader, other new players were a great way to learn, doesn't matter if I was host or invader: either fair 1v1 or cat and mouse through a level, both try to outsmart the other and so on.
That's why fighting games have rankings: you can learn better against other n00bs without always being in loading screens.
@@telesway This is a valid point, and I think it’s one of the sadder things to lose. I think Bloodborne and DS3 got it right in having one or two specific areas where invasions just happened, because it’s not the end of the world to have a death in those zones. Perhaps we will see something like that, still. Co-invasions vs gankers in post-pontiff and the ringed city are one of the greatest joys the game has to offer. As a “career invader” I recognize that these changes benefit only the small portion of us that are already engaged in this, but now that I think about it, it would be sad indeed to see the pool of invaders stagnate and sputter out because the introduction and incentive may not be present.
If a host is that much of a noob. Im backing out. Unless he summons 2 more noobs. Than it gets fun.
Good riddance to solo host invasions. Invaders are complete pests when I'm trying to overcome the PvE challenge.
They're so rarely an issue when you're a solo host. Plus, in DS 3 you don't get invaded as a solo host, you have to enable invasions with an ember.
If you don't to be invaded, don't ember, or play offline.
@@iamamish so impose a nerf on myself or lose out on the passive but interesting online activity like messages, blood stains, and spectres. Got it.
@@iamamish they're so so rare I get invaded by the same asshat in Demon's Souls 3 times in a row in the same board.
@@SamuelRosadoEsq Right there is exactly the issue - you're framing the extra hp associated with being embered as an entitlement, when in reality the developers made it work exactly how they intended.
In other words, you can play without the threat of invasions, or, you can use an ember which gives you some big advantages (extra 30% hp, ability to summon), but comes with the tradeoff of possibly being invaded.
Unfortunately players like you have to come to view the extra 30% hp as an entitlement, when it is there to try to balance the game and be an incentive to join the online multiplayer.
In other words - if the developers got rid of invasions, they'd have gotten rid of embers too. At least this way you have a choice.
@@iamamish ill concede that the 30% buff is intended to help with invasions in DS 3. I still maintain the point that for example I've been invaded in Demon's Souls by the same invader 3 times in a row. And in Demon's Souls you lose 50% of your HP which is far too great of a loss to be considered a mere buff to help with invasions.
Notwithstanding, the Elden Ring change finally clears the way for those who want to enjoy the game without worrying about a try hard ruining what may have been an hours' worth of progress. All without having to sacrifice on-line connectivity.
Elden Ring Discord Server is here : discord.gg/PWCTWS8Tgd
Praise the Sun.
I agree that this is a good idea, I dont think theres any reason why Fromsoft couldn't make this work when they already did in Bloodborne; other issues aside, this aspect of the invasion system was sound.
Another point I immediately thought of was that this is likely the easiest way to work around issues with the Spirit Steed mechanic. Imagine steeds being active in PvP, EVERY invasion in the open world would be chasing a host on their steed forever, or dealing with a whole party on steeds. So they disabled steeds for co op, tied invasions to co op, and made steeds a non issue for invasions. If they allowed solo invasions, but no Steed, players would be kicked off as soon as they get invaded which even for a PvPer trying to finish a build could be really annoying.
I'm sure it theres a DF or Sinister Bell type item that allows solo invasions, the Steed wont be usable while the item is active, hence someone camping for duels.
This also encourages a totally different feel of gameplay depending on where you are. In the open map, solo play is going to be heavily encouraged because the Steed is so useful for travel. In dungeon areas, co op will have fewer consequences like totally inhibiting a mechanic that makes movement so much easier. I'm inclined to think that if the Steed is good enough, the fast travel might be much more limited to main dungeons, with very few warpable checkpoints in the open world areas.
Also, while its encouraging that Fromsoft is open about considerations for PvP, most of what happens is going to be emergent gameplay anyways, they really cant predict what the player base is going to do with the mechanics they put in the game. More limitations on invasions at launch works fine, even if a DF item isn't in the game at launch, it could still be DLC content like arena was for DS3.
People gonna be like:
Dark souls 3 was better
I have a theory about this. Look at any Souls content creator. In the vast majority of cases, a few things are true:
1. They established themselves on the basis of one of the games
2. They may have made some content for other Souls games, but not much, and it isn't what they are known for
3. When newer Souls games came out, they stuck with them briefly, but did not play a whole lot
I think it is because a game has to speak to you a LOT to justify the effort in creating content. Reversion to the mean means any other game is most likely not going to appeal to you as much, and so you won't make good content for it.
That's what worries me about Elden Ring.
Not a fan of this change, killing a good chunk of that souls experience.
I'm a big defender of the invasion experience, but it can be frustrating for inexperienced players.
Personally I would not eliminate invasions for solo players - only reduce their frequency.
That said, while I think solo hosts lose out a bit, invaders won't.
@@iamamish I look at it as an ecosystem. You need to get invaded to become an invader. I'm alright with it now because I can handle ganks but I enjoy invading noobs and dropping 99 embers on them and crystalling out or deliberately getting invaded in specific zones for role playing purposes so I'll be sad if that is gone.
Who plays with phantoms their first time through? Pvp is gonna be dead on release. Sunbros are the most annoying dark souls fans and shit like this proves it.
Omgod
I don't get why you wanna invade people trying to make the game easier, like if they're not good players but they just wanna get through the game to see what the game has to offer. Like wouldn't you want to fight people who arn't bad at the game? Right now I kinda see you as someone who just likes dunking on admittedly bad players, and you don't want a real challenge just easy noobs by your own logic seems very hypocritical.
I think you are missing the point here. I specifically want to avoid ez dunks, that's why I'm a fan of avoiding solo players.
Invading into multiple players is exceptionally difficult. Even new players can blender an experienced invader quickly. I'm looking for a challenge. From *wants* these players to be challenged, that's why they're using invasions as a balancing mechanism. They do not want to give you a game that is easy! When you summon, you make the game too easy, and invaders are there to restore some semblance of balance.
Is this the first video you've seen on amish? His content completely contradicts your entire comment. Creating a straw man that invaders just want to dunk on new players doesn't help the discussion at all
@@MultiDraco999 no i wasn't saying invaders I was talking about Amish, the guy who made the video. I just didn't like that he said he wanted to invade people who were co oping to make the game easier to teach them a lesson I thought i was weird and goofy and stand by that. I love invasions but only when both parties want to be there, I don't wanna invade bad players to teach them a lesson for co oping. I do like Amish i just disliked this one point he made. Have a good one.
@@throastpopoki1682 I see your point. It's not so much that I want to 'teach people a lesson', I just feel better invading knowing I'm a force for game balance, rather than crushing solo players.
@@iamamish Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. Love the content, keep up the good work man.