You can hate something and still enjoy it. (Sometimes)

I know right? It's like going to a football game, and getting mad there's no Nascar race.

It's like going to a KFC, and getting mad they don't have pizza.

It's like going 100 in a 25, and getting mad at the cop for writing you a ticket.

It's like calling a girl fat and ugly, and getting mad when she kicks you in the nuts.

Makes no sense.

From my experience, the argument boils down to Elden Ring, as an open world game, should be playable with friends in a way that doesn't "interrupt" them by the bad red man showing up. You can exchange "interrupt" as a reason why invasions are disliked by the following terms, which are often used instead: "Invasions break my immersion", "I did not consent", "Invaders are cheaters/hackers/griefers/bullies/only want to ruin the fun of others".

Usually all of the above is just code for "I am not able to deal with invaders and can't be arsed to adapt", which, you know, is not an issue, just like any other reason to dislike invasions is completely fine.

Sadly, most of them are not upfront for some reason.

I thought people who wanted to play with a friend got forced into this Invader PvP with no way to opt out?

Opprinnelig skrevet av Draknalor:

I thought people who wanted to play with a friend got forced into this Invader PvP with no way to opt out?

it kind of depends on how you view these games
you are forced into the invasion multiplayer by summoning since that's the condition of playing multiplayer
compared to the previous titles, Elden Ring is the only one with truly opt-in invasions for singleplayer
no being invaded while solo, which is how most people play these games afaik, whereas in Dark Souls you would often get invaded solo unless you did specific things to prevent invasions, and it usually came at a penalty like less max health or less flasks

I think there is merit to not wanting to be invaded while playing with others but the way these games have multiplayer setup I think if that was allowed it'd kill invasions which is what makes the multiplayer so unique imo
elden ring/dark souls just isn't structured well for traditional multiplayer, which makes sense as they're primarily single player games with multiplayer on the side
the unique multiplayer works well in the context of singleplayer but falls apart when talking about multiplayer exclusively

repressed desires

Hey, is not like that okay? its more like someone blocking your road on purpose to annoy you to enjoy what you like, you need to learn defense yourself eventually you get good on both pvp and pve, even if i keep winning against invader, doesn't mean i like pvp.

Co-op and Multiplayer are not the same buddy. The issue is that there's no "option" like you say if you want to play with friends without engaging to PvP. I personally don't hate the PvP, but it's really not difficult to understand this concept.

To put it simply: Mutiplayer is when players play agaisnt each other. Co-op is when players work together to complete an objective.

Invasions add these two concepts, therefore you can see the discord it creates.

I agree with most of what "Lord Bob" said, but not with this statement:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Lord Bob:

"I am not able to deal with invaders and can't be arsed to adapt"

Mostly people who complain about invansions don't think this way, they just don't want to engage AGAINST other players, wether they're capable or not.

Invasions aren't the worse, if you beat them that's an extra Rune Arc for those who like to use them.
Some are even nice and just stroll around, watching you and not attacking for some reason.

There also a few twinks with rot and perfume in Limgrave/Stormveil when i make new chars, but at least they are rare.

If you don't like invaders and get invaded against your will in a closed dungeon, you have 2 choices when hosting :

• Pile on the invader with your buddies, and try to stay alive since you can always summon again while the invading will have a cooldown after the invader death.

• Progress and make it to the boss/fog door.

Stalling or hiding is the worst possible choice, for both parties involved.

when you go outside you accept there is gonna be other people you don't know around you.

you may want to spend time with your friend in a day out, but that doesn't make the old geezer with his phone volume on max listening to who knows what any less annoying.

it is something you accept, not enjoy.

in other words: using a co-op item does not mean you want to pvp, using a pvp item would be that.

That's what make these games special, as in hardcore difficulty mode for casuals who prey to cheese the game with lower casualties. Fromsoft multiplayer always been like this, if you get co-op friend or an npc summon to clear up levels, technically you are in a easy mode, you know clearing the mobs section will become a joke. Well npcs still part of single player mode, i like summoning them, i did in ds2 and ds3, felt so cherishing.

Anyway, in a fromsoft game, don't expect to cakewalk that got supplemented by your jolly co-op friend, consequences will occur in shape of necessary evil invasions. Souls games must be difficult so invasions they kept necessary if you want to breach the souls difficulty. You have numbers to beat invaders, coordinate with good items. If you lose, obviously it will be a you problem, since you didn't handle the pressure with the support you have.

Opprinnelig skrevet av Lord Bob:

From my experience, the argument boils down to Elden Ring, as an open world game, should be playable with friends in a way that doesn't "interrupt" them by the bad red man showing up. You can exchange "interrupt" as a reason why invasions are disliked by the following terms, which are often used instead: "Invasions break my immersion", "I did not consent", "Invaders are cheaters/hackers/griefers/bullies/only want to ruin the fun of others".

Usually all of the above is just code for "I am not able to deal with invaders and can't be arsed to adapt", which, you know, is not an issue, just like any other reason to dislike invasions is completely fine.

Sadly, most of them are not upfront for some reason.

thats not the game. The game is a PVP game. Deal with it. "should be playable" what, you dont make the rules the developers do lol.

Opprinnelig skrevet av On killa:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Lord Bob:

From my experience, the argument boils down to Elden Ring, as an open world game, should be playable with friends in a way that doesn't "interrupt" them by the bad red man showing up. You can exchange "interrupt" as a reason why invasions are disliked by the following terms, which are often used instead: "Invasions break my immersion", "I did not consent", "Invaders are cheaters/hackers/griefers/bullies/only want to ruin the fun of others".

Usually all of the above is just code for "I am not able to deal with invaders and can't be arsed to adapt", which, you know, is not an issue, just like any other reason to dislike invasions is completely fine.

Sadly, most of them are not upfront for some reason.

thats not the game. The game is a PVP game. Deal with it. "should be playable" what, you dont make the rules the developers do lol.

I am bewildered, puzzled and baboozled.

are you implying that everybody who hates it keeps playing it or what is the point of this post?

I hate it and I don't play it anymore. The only time I co-op is next to boss doors.