What do backstabs really add to the game?

I misunderstood the beginning of your post. The video details how and why bs techniques work, so you'll be able to spot and avoid attempts.

No problem Forum. tis' all good.

For me what it adds to the game is a 1 punch knock out. It adds tension and lethality to the PVP game. A fight can be ended quickly by one mistake.

I think it would be reasonable to add an item, like a ring, that could negate the full backstab. I personally would not use this ring, but it could serve as protection for players that really can't deal with the BS.

Forum Pirate wrote:So? Its not fun for me to get demolished by spears, should spears not be in game either? Or should I work to overcome my deficiency so that I may have fun. Its pvp, if you don't work for your fun you won't get any. Thats an almost universal rule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsp6k4830a0 hope that helps.

You're missing the point.
When you think of the combat within dark souls. Aside from magic, it is similar to what we would have done in real life. Would we fight each other with melee weapons. A spear and shield, and the combat style that comes with it is something you'd see in a fight.
Backstabbing is not.
Backstabbing is something viable in cases of you outnumbering your enemy and he shows his back to you, or in cases of "assasination style" battle openings.
After which one would have to rely on other battle tactics depending on the weapon and fighting style.

Using backstabs as a viable fighting method only exists within dark souls because we're allowed and able to do it, but it is realistically speaking not a viable method of attack.
Blame the creators of the game, blame the players. It won't matter because the game is made in such a way that we're able to make backstabbing viable method of attack, side that with our urge to win. And the fact that we don't think twice about things like this...

There is responsibility to be taken, and it's not in the way you describe it. Where one has their own responsibility to learn "how to counter"
Because if we all took the responsibility to play the game in a more meaningful way, we wouldn't have these annoyed feelings about certain aspects of a game we all clearly love a lot.

I can say Dark souls is easily one of the more impressive games I've seen next gen. But like many of our creations, we don't appreciate and respect them as much as we should.


~Vorcan~

I only read the first post, but I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree. I'd rather a hit to the back just do more slightly more damage but without having a silly lock-down animation where a character who was just fighting suddenly looks confused and just stands there to receive a stab to the back.

Do you know what backstabs and parrys add to the game in PvE? The feeling of being a badass.

You get this whole cool animation and you do a ton of damage. It feels really awesome. That is why they are in the game.

While parries are fine, backstabs need to be much, much harder to do or do much, much less damage.

Oh and to the guy talking about spears, they really need to be able to be parried from any distance. That would make them balanced.

Considering how easy it can be to pull off, Back-stabs should do half it's current damage,

dark6765 wrote:Considering how easy it can be to pull off, Back-stabs should do half it's current damage,

or they should be made more difficult to do…either way would work really

@Vorcan Not so. It may not necessarily jive with the actual bs animations, but successfully getting behind ones opponent in melee combat is an excellent way to end the fight with a single, well placed strike (Ie shoving ones sword through the enemies back, tripping them and slamming ones axe into them when they land, a triangle choke, slitting their throat ect.) in real combat, especially 1v1 combat where grappling can be done without fear of a second opponent attacking you.

You brought uo an intresting point, in 1v1 you don't have to worry about a second opponent attacking you. However not all fights in dark souls 1v1, and yet the attack still can't interrupted. I think they should make the player vulnerable to attack during backstabs. It makes no sense for me to be able to take an arrow while I'm backstabbing someone and take no damage.

They are vulnerable to being immediately bs'd when the animation ends though, and being chain bsd or eating wakeup hits after that.

Over focus on realism in unrealistic games probably isn't good. There's a term for it, but what it boils down to is that focusing to much on realism in games can actually undermine the attempt at realism. Like the collision damage in fallout getting people killed due by steaks caught in explosions.

I'm saying you should be able to stun them if they don't have enough poise to take a hit, the whole being immune during the animation thing really breaks the flow of combat.

I definitely wouldn't like it if I could get Bs'd while I'm Bs'ing someone else though. Then the forest would just be filled with Bs trains

What would be the purpose?

That just gives hosts another advantage on top of phantoms and healing and ambushes and being able to run for the boss, while severely hampering arguably the best way to deal with multiple opponents.

Forum Pirate wrote:What would be the purpose?

That just gives hosts another advantage on top of phantoms and healing and ambushes and being able to run for the boss, while severely hampering arguably the best way to deal with multiple opponents.

It is the best way to deal with multiple opponents, which is why PVE is a joke. Just ru around and backstab everything in sight while taking advantage of the fact that your invincible.

Invaders would have the advantage if there wern't any phantoms because then NPC's could bail them out of a backstab. If you get ganked then you get ganked, dying is a part of the game.

The host still has quick cheap healing and the ability to set up ambushes near spawnpoints, and the ability to run for the boss and to summon a never ending stream of phantoms if the invader keeps killing them.

As for PvE, reduce the hitbox for bsing (just like has been suggested for pvp), problem solved. Bsfishing, unless one was a stealther, didn't work for crap in demons. Presumably, reducing the hitbox to what it was in demons would fix that.

I really do hope those hitboxes become smaller, surely the developers must know that the BS mechanic has been abused to hell and back.


And I don't think my Idea would be practical at all, but it would be far more realistic than having the player be invulnerable through out the entire animation.

As would the removal of magic and having any 2 or 3 hits kill everybody, and removing the giant monsters.

But aside from the "2 or 3 hits" thing those things are a part of the setting, not gameplay mechanics.

Aside from the fact that there's a health meter, the majority of weapon combat in Dark Souls is fairly realistic. Backstabs are an exception from that realism.

So? They would be more realistic. If thats what you want, there it is.

My point is that the game isn't designed for realism, thus realism for its own sake is a ridiculous reason to modify things.

More importants factors like the intended experience and balance should take presidence. Reducing the hitbox likely serves both purposes, realism serves neither.

In that case I want to be able twirl my scythe and throw swords like boomerangs, some lasers would be nice too.

If realism wasn't important to the series, then this would just be another Devil May Cry/God of War clone.

A 3v1 fight shouldn't be balanced, it should be completely unfair.

Wrong, as that isn't the intended experience.

Its supposed to be weighty, viceral and exact, which shotgun boomerangs and 37 hit combos would detract from.

Forum Pirate wrote:Wrong, as that isn't the intended experience.

Its supposed to be weighty, viceral and exact, which shotgun boomerangs and 37 hit combos would detract from.

We already have Boomerang shields...

Anyway, I merely made a suggestion. You didn't agree with it, and you gave you're reasons why. That's fine, now quit trying to convince me to abandon my idea.

I'm not, I'm explaining why your logic is fualty.

If you presented sound logic, I would be happy to leave you with your opinion, even should it differ from my own. This is turning personal though, so I will not continue it here.

Come now guys, it's starting to sound a little hostile...