Why are invaders looked down upon?

I just got GCF. Now I have a real nasty weapon to use against any obvious griefers. Imagine the surprise when I switch to my Ascended +4 glove, have 10 humanity, and they get stuck in a corner trying to escape lava. I do my best not to be a jerk, I bow and put my shield up and refuse to 2/3 on 1. I have watched hosts die at the hands of invaders rather than 2 on 1 what looks to be an innocent PvP attempt. Is that wrong? Meh, I see invasions as part of the deal. I have mangled a few who decided to try to fight both of us but I suck at BS so that doesn't happen on my end.

n0rain - I think people going in with weapons not appropriate for certain levels is unethical, both from the game design and from a moral position. When I invade, I typically use weapons that are available in a typical progression (including beating that level). So, if I invade in the Depths, I'll use weapons that can be obtained in the burg, parish, darkwood garden, and basin, even the Forest (it is easy to do a quick run to Alvina, join the covenant, get the stone armor, hornet's ring, and DWGR without engaging tough enemies or bosses).

That included potential upgrades (I'l usually using raw +5 until Sen's, then +10 at Sens, then maxed at Anor).

If I see someone is really inexperienced, I'll hold off on certain moves, such as R1 spam (R2 spam with the Shotel), counter BS (unless they are fishing a lot), etc. But, I will do things like parry, Lloyd's, Dung Pies, etc. If I see them struggling with a bunch of enemies, I'll usually let them beat the enemies, heal, then fight. I also, won't heal until Anor. And, in Anor, I'll usually only heal if the host chucks estus.

Personally, I feel that is fair and ethical. What do you think?

So it sounds like you go in with the assumption the host knows what he's doing, and has the right knowledge and skills to have the proper weapon at that place. Furthermore, even if the host has this knowledge, you assume that the host has actually gone through to do that; the large ember is available in the depths, but that much large *** shards aren't, unless you go looking through the game for them.

As an invader, yeah, it's a bum rap. You invade and are either too powerful, or underpowered, and it's hard to tell.

What I do, is when I invade, if I can, I'll look at what achievements the host has. If he has lots, then I assume game knowledge. If he doesn't, then I equip at most a +5 for the depths, +10 at Sens. You can even tell how many people you've invaded on the XBox by looking at your most recent player list.

If I can't tell, I go in with my most powerful stuff, then size them up. Try to roll aroudn to see how they attack, then choose an appropriate weapon.

I try to make it so fights are even. What even is, is extremely hard to tell, both from skill and gear. I assume from my skill level most people are less skilled than me, so I normally go conservative on my gear.

I feel that invading anyone passed the goyles is ethical. Your hypothetical situation is ethically sound in my opinion. I usually do a +5-+10 after the gargoyles since the natural progression tends to lead towards capra-depths or the forest. However I do occasionally go straight for divine and unlock kindling. Still I only do +5divine and don't do suicide runs to get the +10 ember. Dark ember is one of the last ones I get since I aleays forget to go back to the asylum. This is from a gameplay standponit but as a whole, you might defer that both blades and wraiths are unethical or "chaotic" for traditional rpers. That is what I think. I think the fundamental issue is faulty systems that lead to these heated conversations and lack of respect. DeS wasn't nearly as faulty. It had trends but faults? eh... I can't see them if there is.

A balance to powerful summons is powerful invaders. In with the idea of low level griefers, there are also low level anti-griefers. If you are human you should be summoning and expecting invaders. If you aren't human then you don't have to worry about them. I understand why people may look down on invaders but they do exist for a reason. It's part of the difficulty of the game, and if you get good at PvP an invader isn't merely death. If you are worried about an invader killing you, you should have a summon. If you don't have a summon, why are you human? Sure you turned human for a difficult boss and summoned and beat it. Gone into the next area and half way through you get invaded. Guess what, you didn't turn hollowed. You should have known that you could get invaded and will have to deal with it.

It's a game where dying is an important mechanic, it punishes you for making mistakes.

Dear Reader,

The tone here is matter of fact, just to be clear. It is also my opinion, while I would like others to adopt it, I am not telling you that your opinion is wrong, merely stating mine.

Sincirely,

Forum Pirate

The bottom line, from a gameplay perspective, is that its a risk reward system just like everything else. The game rewards you for playing human by allowing you to summon, but you risk being invaded.

Invaders can invade to get souls/humanity but risk being demolished by gank squads for hours at a time. A waste of time and generally unpleasant.

Its the same principle as swinging a weapon, you are rewarded with the potential to damage your opponent, but you risk them punnishing your attempt.

Wether or not one likes it isn't really relavant, its an intentional balancing mechanic to offset the comparative ease of coop as opposed to playing hollow.

This being said, I do make an effort to keep my gear and sl within the normal ranges for the area I am in, because being destroyed by someone I do 50 damage to with a riposte isn't fun for me, so I don't do it to others. I make an effort to keep from being overgeared or leveled, but beyond that they are accepting the risk of invasion by being human.

It might not be pleasant, but it is a balancing mechanic. It might not be fair, but life isn't fair. It might not be fun to be steamrolled by somebody in uber gear, but it is their gear and their game to do with as they wish, and I would not strip them of this even if I could.

By playing human, for whatever reason, you accept the risk of invasion, including invasion by griefers. Like it or not.

My answer to your question n0rain, is that I don't see ethics as relivant. They are what they are, as is everybody else. It is part of the game, and its a game I like, so I take the good with the bad and enjoy the experience. (by hunting the sinners down in my case)

Tolvo wrote:A balance to powerful summons is powerful invaders. In with the idea of low level griefers, there are also low level anti-griefers. If you are human you should be summoning and expecting invaders. If you aren't human then you don't have to worry about them. I understand why people may look down on invaders but they do exist for a reason. It's part of the difficulty of the game, and if you get good at PvP an invader isn't merely death. If you are worried about an invader killing you, you should have a summon. If you don't have a summon, why are you human? Sure you turned human for a difficult boss and summoned and beat it. Gone into the next area and half way through you get invaded. Guess what, you didn't turn hollowed. You should have known that you could get invaded and will have to deal with it.

It's a game where dying is an important mechanic, it punishes you for making mistakes.

I think most people understand this, I think what "I" am trying to help people understand is why Invaders have a bad reputation.

Oh yeah I understand the bad rep, especially in the Burg-Parish. Holy hell when you do low level co-op do you see some ridiculous powerful low level set ups. I remember the dragon archer I found who could deal over 1k damage with a single shot from his bow of straight fire damage. Jeez, he was around level 5.

Forum Pirate wrote:Dear Reader,

The tone here is matter of fact, just to be clear. It is also my opinion, while I would like others to adopt it, I am not telling you that your opinion is wrong, merely stating mine.

Sincirely,

Forum Pirate

The bottom line, from a gameplay perspective, is that its a risk reward system just like everything else. The game rewards you for playing human by allowing you to summon, but you risk being invaded.

Invaders can invade to get souls/humanity but risk being demolished by gank squads for hours at a time. A waste of time and generally unpleasant.

Its the same principle as swinging a weapon, you are rewarded with the potential to damage your opponent, but you risk them punnishing your attempt.

Wether or not one likes it isn't really relavant, its an intentional balancing mechanic to offset the comparative ease of coop as opposed to playing hollow.

This being said, I do make an effort to keep my gear and sl within the normal ranges for the area I am in, because being destroyed by someone I do 50 damage to with a riposte isn't fun for me, so I don't do it to others. I make an effort to keep from being overgeared or leveled, but beyond that they are accepting the risk of invasion by being human.

It might not be pleasant, but it is a balancing mechanic. It might not be fair, but life isn't fair. It might not be fun to be steamrolled by somebody in uber gear, but it is their gear and their game to do with as they wish, and I would not strip them of this even if I could.

By playing human, for whatever reason, you accept the risk of invasion, including invasion by griefers. Like it or not.

My answer to your question n0rain, is that I don't see ethics as relivant. They are what they are, as is everybody else. It is part of the game, and its a game I like, so I take the good with the bad and enjoy the experience. (by hunting the sinners down in my case)

Okay, the unserstanding of the game's systems is not in question. I think the bulk of your response is rantish and slightly off topic though I agree with you to a degree. So you're answer to the question is to avoid the question? Am I wrong?

I rant, yes, though my post isn't off topic. My post implies that griefers and people who want the reward of coop without the risk of invaders are the reason for the bad reputation.

My answer to your question was to declare the question moot. Its like asking if butchers are ethical or unethical, it ultimately serves no purpouse as no consensus can be reached.

Ethics are subjective, thus I cannot claim that anyones actions are ethical or unethical unless they define their ethics to me and their actions breach them. If pressed, I would have to say that it seems unlikely that the majority of DWs are intentionally breaching their own moral codes, so they are, be definition, being ethical, their ethics simply don't allign with others.

Forum Pirate wrote:I rant, yes, though my post isn't off topic. My post implies that griefers and people who want the reward of coop without the risk of invaders are the reason for the bad reputation.

My answer to your question was to declare the question moot. Its like asking if butchers are ethical or unethical, it ultimately serves no purpouse as no consensus can be reached.

Ethics are subjective, thus I cannot claim that anyones actions are ethical or unethical unless they define their ethics to me and their actions breach them. If pressed, I would have to say that it seems unlikely that the majority of DWs are intentionally breaching their own moral codes, so they are, be definition, being ethical, their ethics simply don't allign with others.

Wait, you are saying that someone who is smart enough to purchase products for their enjoyment thinks that there isn't risk for reward or doesn't want the risk so one complains? So, you've deduced that the majority of gamers in this game are ignorant and/or incompetant? I am niether and acknowedge risk and reward, but when there is unnecessary risk it becomes an issue. Like with gankers. Additionally we are speaking of entertainment experiences, so the most risk you should take is purchasing the product. If the game is being intentionally exploited to cause poor experiences I would expect someone to do something about it. It is not me that created the faults and I should not have to reduce/change my standards or playstyle to accomadte for them via BB glitching or otherwise.

Exactly, you avoided the question by trying to make up unnecessary information in an attempt to debunk something that isn't debunkable.

Ethics are subjective to a commonly aggreeable view point. If ethics where subjected to each individual murder would be legal. Ethics are developed through understanding of the general populations outlook on behavior which is possible to determine. You still haven't answered the question.

I get hate mail from invaders (MAJOR TROLL FACE)

Ok heres a funny story.

NG+++ my lvl 180 (i think? its been to long)

Faith/Strength Noble Knight Build. At The last flame cinder last boss place... omg i forgot what it was, ill edit it in later.

(XxD*ckWraithxX has invaded your world)

(I throw a quick TWoP and start slamming around my BKGA two handed)

(He backs off smartly, with his shield up, but runs out of stamina and gets hit a few times so he runs and heals with a Divine blessing... Typical)

(I pull out my DsGB and start shooting him, until he comes with his knifes ready to fish me.)

(DENIED! With a big ol' WotG. Then i finish him off with with Sunlight Spear)


"Dud you suck, why did u use Wrath of gods, that is cheep move."

ME: "Go **** Yourself"

"no thjx i jus do ur mom"

(i dont reply)

"dude want to hav remach, i no ur movs now"

"Pusssy?"

"i put a red soap sign on the flor"

*Im sure he wrote a billion more messages not realising he was blocked, because i killed him around 5 more times.

Wait wait wait...He got hit with a lightning spear?

A lightning spear?

If you're the invader, TWoP is bad. It's not as bad if the host uses it, as you can run away through mobs hopefully, or, worst case, the level is clear and you can just run through it (assuming you don't have a shield to absorb the withering attack you're going to face).

*sigh* I did not claim that most gamers are ignorant or incompetant, nor did I say that most people don't like invaders, because I really have no Idea what most people think.

Your view on what risks are acceptable is yours, and others may agree, but that only makes it correct for those who do. I disagree strongly, without risk then the game is boring as I need never fear failure, and so need never actually work at anything.

Ethics have nothing to do with laws, a person who believes murder is ethical, completely or under specific circumstances, may make a law against murder to preserve stability, placate his charges, placate his campaign contributers.

Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make it true, not in the least. This does not change with subjective material. I can not call rap good music, the majority of the people I know would dissagree, that does not make me wrong. My claim that rap is bad music is true, but it is true for me. The same is true with ethical debates. I would say that there isn't an inherant wrong or right. Wrong and right (or ethical and unethical) are determined by groups of like minded individuals. Their perception of right and wrong are only true for them, but if they are in the majority then they can (and probably will) institute laws to enforce their views, which others could see as wrong.

You are asking for a simple answer to an infinitely complex question which very likely cannot be provided.

If I have failed to explain this so you may understand, I will stop as further arguement would be pointless. Perhaps one of the philosephers around here can do a better job.

+1 For Awesome post that i can relate with Forum.

You've done a good job.

To make it simple: Morals are group consensus (or the majority of group consensus).
Ethics can apply to individuals, OR they can apply to a group. They are not strictly personal.

If the majority believes something is true, no it does not make it true, but it does make it morally right. Living with someone you weren't married to was immoral 100 years ago in a predominately Christian area. You can have your viewpoint differ, but the majority defines morality.

We don't know how the community as a whole thinks, because we don't have the opinion of every single person. So we don't know what is morally right/wrong. We only have our own varying viewpoints of what's right or not, and you can argue what makes a fight more entertaining, or increases the joy of the game, or that the intent is to win and lagswitch haters be damned, but everyone is going to play their own way.

The only rules are the XBox/PS3/PC terms of service. Beyond that, there are no laws. Do what you want. Just don't expect people to love you for it.

I would stipulate that the majority defines the rules governing morality (if any) rather that morality itself, but in practice these are the same thing, so the result is the same if the rules are breached, but otherwise yeah, thanks for simplifying that for me, I'm not particularly good at that.

I'd just like to add I'm not advocating to a lawless, do what you want approach to the game; I would say try to play that enables everyone to have the most amount of fun. To others, it's playing to win (which is having fun).

Some people have fun challenging themselves, some have fun cooping and roleplaying suboptimal builds. Everyone is playing the game they enjoy to play, even gankers and glitchers and hackers. The only people breaking any rule is the hackers, as they're violating the terms of service. Everyone else is just playing their version of fun.

There are plenty of times where your version of fun will run up against another persons, and that's where trouble starts. So while you're merrily playing coop with your friend roleplaying Solaire and Beatrice, and get invaded by a griefer at low level, yeah, two of you aren't going to have fun while one is going to chuckle "noobs" to themselves.

Personally, as everyone agrees the primary goal is to have fun, I try to maximize fun for everyone involved and not just think of myself. But I don't believe for a second that's how other people play, so be prepared.

I rant, yes, though my post isn't off topic. My post implies that griefers and people who want the reward of coop without the risk of invaders are the reason for the bad reputation.

Would imply 2 things.
1. The person that thinks this way does not or cannot understanmd the game's systems. This is again not in question.
2. Puts the responsibility of someone elses actions in to the person that did not take that action initially.

Your view on what risks are acceptable is yours, and others may agree, but that only makes it correct for those who do. I disagree strongly, without risk then the game is boring as I need never fear failure, and so need never actually work at anything.

I took the risk of paying 60 dollars and the reward was a fun experience. The degradation of said experience would lead to a person trying to find some way to compensate for the amount of money spent which in this case gives the exploitive players a bad reputation within their area of gameplay. In fact there are people here that think DM's are more ill-favored than DW's. I say these people are justified considering the overwhelming attitudes and exploitive playstyles that run so rampant. Gankers are a lot easier to avoid since they are more frequent the higher your Sl is, but invaders have found ways to circumvent that and cause poor experiences across a multitude of levels. This is the reason for the rep, not misunderstanding of game mechanics and philosphies.

Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make it true, not in the least

When speaking of cultures or social experiments yes, the majority decide what is ethical and unethical. That doesn't outlaw them in all situations but your law statement is mistaken. Laws were founded on ethics and principles that is developed by the majority so they are intertwined. This is why in America you can lobby for new laws that may or may not reflect the ethics of the general population. Generally speaking the ones that do reflect ethical consensus get passed. I cannot speak for all countries so I will not.

Music can't be defined from an ethical point of view unless you emphasize very specific scenarios so that is irrelevant. Then again, music being subjective is a fallacy since there are rules and codes and even equations to determine it's worthiness as a literal piece. most musicians follow these so it isn't in question but there are those whom don't and at the end of the day they go unrecognized more so than real musicians that just have to treck through all the fallacies.

The question actually refers to the possibility of a consensus and if you would just answer it then you might just receive your impoosible value of ethics in this situation.

Reim actually did a really good job of answering the question.

@Mark
No the entire dark souls community may not be confined to this forum but this forum can create it's own consensus on the subject if properly addressed. it would be the same as placing a value on skillsets which occurs.

Mark that was beautiful... almost as beautiful as

TOLVO...

n0rain wrote:@Mark
No the entire dark souls community may not be confined to this forum but this forum can create it's own consensus on the subject if properly addressed. it would be the same as placing a value on skillsets which occurs.

Sure, this forum could come to a consensus if you framed a poll correctly. If you really want to do that, my advice would be to get a consensus to what options to put on said poll, then put the poll up. We'll see how many votes we get I'm guessing not even close to the number of people on this forum, but you never know, and I don't want to be a nay-sayer.

DA FORUM Pirate Yarrrg wrote:My post implies that griefers and people who want the reward of coop without the risk of invaders are the reason for the bad reputation.

Can I offer a suggestion on how you're framing this? What I believe is that the bad reputation comes from when an Invader spoils someone's fun. Whenever that happens, people won't like it. So a possible solution, is to beat them, but just enough that they think it was close and they had a good time. You can have your win, they can have their fun.

We actually do have some general consensus.

Low Level Greifing.

Ganking.

Glitching.

Hacking.

Things like that on this forum are generally considered a bat social attribute. We do have an idea of what is generally frowned upon by most people. Those of us that have been here long enough anyway. Hell if you notice most are even wary of people asking for help on SL1-10 run throughs.

I disagree and fail to understand your logic in places. I will clarify.

for example some laws may have been founded on ethics and principals but they are not the same thing, both are possible in the absense of the other. I could create a law to prevent stealing, not because I see it as wrong, but because I don't want people stealing my stuff and I have the power to enact and enforce such a law.

Another point is that reputation is not established by the actions of people, but how others see those actions. As such, the responsibility for a reputation is in both parties hands. It is also not necessarily that they don't understand the games mechanics or principals, but that they disagree with them.

Wether or not something degrades your experience is in your mind, not anyone elses. As mark said, ideas of what is fun will always eventually conflict, thus someone having fun will inevitably screw up someone elses. I don't have fun losing, this does not mean that everyone else should lay down and die. The opinion that spending the 60 dollars is enough of a risk is also an opinion. I prefer more than that.

The majority decide what the majority believe to be ethical or unethical. These are not absolute states, willing it does not make it so. To believe that one can determine for another (who disagrees) what is right or wrong, wether backed by the majority or not, is ridiculous because they are not absolute. All that can really be determined is the punishment for going against the majority opinion.

As an easy example, by your definition treating blacks as second class citizens was moral for a very long time. I cannot buy into that, it was likely moral for the people who did so, but for me to do so, even during the time period, would be immoral because I believe it to be so.

Music was simply an example of the subjective nature of this discussion, you seem to have missed my point there.

My point as long as there is no higher being to determine right and wrong then they are concepts, defined by the individual and (sometimes) enforced by a majority opinion. What constitutes a higher power is also subjective, thus the majority opinion can define morality for you if you let it, but as I accept no earthly authority as a higher power then such athorities cannot define morality for me.

In my mind, the very concept of attempting to define morality is abhorrent, thus attempting, as you are, to do so is the just about the most unethical thing I can do. This does not make it unethical for you to do so.

As I said, I will no longer argue the point, I was just trying to clarify my view.



@mark, to hold back is to undermine their learning potential by willingly allowing potentially bad habits, damage estimations ect. to form, thus is unethical from my point of view. There is a thread on it somewhere where I'm more detailed.

n0rain wrote:I feel that invading anyone passed the goyles is ethical. Your hypothetical situation is ethically sound in my opinion. I usually do a +5-+10 after the gargoyles since the natural progression tends to lead towards capra-depths or the forest. However I do occasionally go straight for divine and unlock kindling. Still I only do +5divine and don't do suicide runs to get the +10 ember. Dark ember is one of the last ones I get since I aleays forget to go back to the asylum. This is from a gameplay standponit but as a whole, you might defer that both blades and wraiths are unethical or "chaotic" for traditional rpers. That is what I think. I think the fundamental issue is faulty systems that lead to these heated conversations and lack of respect. DeS wasn't nearly as faulty. It had trends but faults? eh... I can't see them if there is.

So, we have an accord. Invasions can be ethical.

Also, regarding invading with a powerful build (but reasonable for the SL), I have this to say. It can serve a good purpose. People, with the right mindset, can learn how powerful they can be at that level. It might help them to learn weapons and armor. I know it did for me when I got invaded.

One last point here. Darkwraiths invade up. I can be fighting someone close to my level, or 5 times my level (usually, I'm within 20 points). Last night, I beat someone with my SL 22 that was at 138. So, that further handicaps us.