What do backstabs really add to the game?

How is my logic faulty? I'm only suggesting that they make the game more realistic. I'm not saying backstabs have to be realistic just because everything else is.

Anyway earlier you said this "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."

Do you know of any articles I could look at? The matter interests me. I was thinking of the uncanny valley, but that only applies to stuff looking human as far as I remember.

Its realism for its own sake though. In Gran Turismo thats good, because the purpose is realism. In say, saints row, realism just for realism would get in the way, because the game isn't intended to be realistic. It would be less fun if stealing a helicopter got one immediately blasted from the sky by F-22s.

Its not unlikely uncanny valley, except that home computers and consoles don't generally have the processing power to get out yet. The tech actually does exsist, but its mostly military and highly specific and expensive (ie full sized flight simulators for fighter pilots.)

It is an interesting concept. I'll see what I can do. EDIT: keep in mind how I put it is way oversimplified.

Okay thanks, just PM me if you find or remember anything.

"Backstabs contribute nothing in PvE, except for allowing undergeared players to beat content truly by just circling their opponent until an opportunity to backstab arises. I know I got through a lot of the content on my first playthrough by backstabbing, and I know of several lets plays I've watched where the same happens. And yet, not often do I think I've seen a backstab used for a real assassination."

I actually like this. If you are an experienced player, it gets you ahead. You may call it easy and cheap, but I know that I couldn't backstab Havel to death with a longsword when I first started this game. Can't deny experience is a factor here.

Djem wrote:"Backstabs contribute nothing in PvE, except for allowing undergeared players to beat content truly by just circling their opponent until an opportunity to backstab arises. I know I got through a lot of the content on my first playthrough by backstabbing, and I know of several lets plays I've watched where the same happens. And yet, not often do I think I've seen a backstab used for a real assassination."

I actually like this. If you are an experienced player, it gets you ahead. You may call it easy and cheap, but I know that I couldn't backstab Havel to death with a longsword when I first started this game. Can't deny experience is a factor here.

Oh god, on my first playthrough I completely forgot you could back stab, until I got to the Kiln. Had to kill Havel by poking him with a spear -_-

I've been thinking about it, and I think it should be easier for smaller weapons to get backstabs. Daggers and such would keep their current hit-box, while bigger weapons like greatswords and up would have a smaller one. That way it would actually be a challenge to land one with a bigger weapon.

I'm not sure how one would go about programming that though.

Forum Pirate wrote:@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.

But you see, one does not aim for the back when the enemy you face is in front of you. Your enemy makes a mistake which opens up a window for you to get to his or her backside.
However within dark souls, players tend to actively persue someone's backside.
In combat you're not supposed to get hit, you want to get out without getting hit even once if possible. It's like that in real life, when you'd only have ONE life.

Or have you forgotten the many different ways people try to achieve a backstab?
Some of them include taking hits in order to get to someone's backside.
In a world where Dark souls was dark souls, but not quite. That may have been a situation someone would properly get into. But that Dark souls would have very different game features, and would allow for "heroic restraints" or whatever you'd like to call it, an ally sacrificing himself in order to save the rest of his companions.

Unfortunately our dark souls is not quite like that, which makes tanking damage like that stick out as a "way to win" and not a "way to play"
Even if you as your own individual allow yourself to play properly and not resort to out of place tactics, it's sole purpose to give you the win.
It doesn't change the fact that other individuals that play this game don't do that and will do anything to win. Perhaps the most extreme is hacking.


~Vorcan~

Forum Pirate wrote: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.

You forget one thing, realism doesn't necessarily mean our realism.
What does this invincibility mean within the world of dark souls?
Does it have an explanation? Why are the undead completely untouchable when they perform certain actions?

It's not about trying to achieve the same realism as in our world, but these things do undermine the realism and integrity of the world in there.
Players only add to this by playing in a certain way, backstabbing being a part of that.

~Vorcan~

If you're encased in plate and chain at close range (as you have to be close for a poise stab to work) then one could indeed walk "through" an attack with a melee weapon to get to someones back and end it there. Up close the weapons lack the leverage to penetrate plate, or even chain armor.

I'll concede that the hitbox is most probably too large, but if your argument must be realism, seeking someones back in melee combat is indeed entirely realistic. I do jujitsu, thats one of the big goals in our matches, as once behind someone their responses are extremely limited. We actively seek to get behind an opponent, and we'll take a punch to manage it.

If it happens in dark souls, its real in dark souls (probably though not necessarily excluding glitches and lag). The devs decide wether or not something is real in their fictional world. While I'm all for consistent and believe-able abilities within the rules of the relm, those rules and their exceptions are not mine or yours to dictate.

i've never liked the use of the word "realism" when describing video games, i much prefer the idea of "suspension of disbelief" in that things should make sense within the environment of the game and not strive for what might feel real.

i personally feel that backstabs in Dark Souls fits well enough within the mechanics of the game that i wouldn't call it out for feeling out of place and i wouldn't name it as something that takes me out of the experience of the game.

what doesn't make sense to me is how large the window for initiating a backstab is and how difficult it can be to defend against them. but trying to fix this could be tricky while trying to maintain a certain balance within the games mechanics. there are certainly times when i might, oh say, try to cast a spell and immediately say to myself "****, i was way to close, i'm gonna eat a…yup there it is…backstabbed" which is cool, we need to preserve this aspect of the game. other times, i will get backstabbed and be on the verge of throwing a tantrum because it just seemed so implausible at the moment it happened. this is what needs to be corrected.

during PVE and PVP, backstabs should definitely remain a valid part of anyone's strategy. i would like it if it wasn't the only strategy though. which is sometimes the case given things like the Hornet Ring and how easy it is to nail a mob or player with a backstab. backstabs should be made easier to defend against, improve the AI of the mobs so they can better defend against backstabs, and most importantly reduce the window needed to nail a backstab. if this was done, i believe that allot of the complaints would go away.

what i don't think should happen is having backstabs relegated to a strictly stealth based mechanic. that's just not the type of game Dark Souls is. while a stealth mechanic would be welcome, i don't think it should come to be a dominate feature in the game and would likely be pretty difficult to pull off in PVP anyway. backstabs need to remain as a way to punish mistakes during combat as well as a surprise hit on unaware targets.

if nothing else is done, the potential backstab damage for many of the weapons should be hit with a nerf. unless it is a dagger or rapier class weapon, the most a weapon should get is a counter attack bonus on a backstab. dagger's and rapier class weapons are meant to be used in this way, without the ability to punish on a backstab, they would lose almost all of their appeal. all the other weapons are not really meant to be used in this fashion so nerfing them in this way will help to reinforce how they are meant to be used while still maintaining the ability to punish mistakes.

for the record, i love the backstab animations, if anything i feel they should be made more brutal. some of them do look a little silly, but that could easily be fixed by altering the animation to be more appropriate to the weapon being used. like adding a trip attack to pole arms followed by a overhead chop or something instead of simply being thrust awkwardly through someones torso…you get the idea.

I don't get all the talk about a stealth mechanic. Just bring back the thief's ring and that other ring that makes you invisible at a distance. That worked wonders for stealth in Demon's Souls. Not this half-invisible crap that serves no purpose. In all honesty, unless you are really good at blending in with the back ground, the thief's ring beats the fog ring any day.

Forum Pirate wrote:If you're encased in plate and chain at close range (as you have to be close for a poise stab to work) then one could indeed walk "through" an attack with a melee weapon to get to someones back and end it there. Up close the weapons lack the leverage to penetrate plate, or even chain armor.

I'll concede that the hitbox is most probably too large, but if your argument must be realism, seeking someones back in melee combat is indeed entirely realistic. I do jujitsu, thats one of the big goals in our matches, as once behind someone their responses are extremely limited. We actively seek to get behind an opponent, and we'll take a punch to manage it.

If it happens in dark souls, its real in dark souls (probably though not necessarily excluding glitches and lag). The devs decide wether or not something is real in their fictional world. While I'm all for consistent and believe-able abilities within the rules of the relm, those rules and their exceptions are not mine or yours to dictate.

Rather convenient to be claiming these things right now don't you think?
Sure, in the end we have no power over this at all. At least, not us as individuals.
We as humanity could make a choice, but it's not likely that we will take it.
Also, I believe we don't exactly have that many "martial arts" within dark souls. Aiming for someone's back may be proper in certain situations, but please. Don't ignore the obvious observation that we as players are abusing the ability to backstab.

Unless your fighting style is completely designed for aiming at the back. (This does not mean your own style, but the style of combat within the world of dark souls)
It is unrealistic to be seeking out someone's backside as much as players do.
This is a clear and simple fact, players use out of place fighting styles. Almost completely aimed at backstabbing.

You seem to forget that we as players are rather powerful entities in the world of Dark souls. Able to do things on a whole different level.
The art of creating games hasn't reached the point yet where we are able to forcibly create an environment that dictates how people are allowed to play the game.
Since individuals seem to be unable to play properly, allowing themselves as entity who resides "outside" of the game to use knowledge about game mechanics to gain the upper hand. Which is exactly what this backstab issue is about.

Individual players tried to understand the game mechanics, because if you understand the game mechanics, you'll be at an advantage over the other player.
But you see, those characters that we create aren't supposed to know about these game mechanics, and they most certainly aren't supposed to be acting upon that knowledge. The only reason we have for letting that happen is our own selfish desire to "win the game"
Whether it be in PVE or PVP.

~Vorcan~

It is true is it not? Notice I argue for the core mechanics to remain mostly unaltered? Thats, in part, for the sake of preserving the identity of the already established world. Changing the rules now begs all kinds of continuity questions.

The idiot straffe is completely ridiculous. That wasn't my point. My point was that actively and continually back hunting is both a real and viable strategy, in both armed and unarmed combat, thus it should remain a viable tactic. (as I've mentioned, I would downsize the hitbox)

Everything has mechanics, in game and otherwise. People can know them and push their limits. Boxers can punch harder and faster than most anyone else, some monks can seem to float during their acrobatic displayes, fighter pilots have to know exactly what both their own limits and the limits of the plane are so they don't exceed them.

If those people can do those things, why is it unreasonable for a melee combatant to know an opponents back is a weak spot and actively work to get it instead of

risking a direct confrontation?

Nybbles wrote:i've never liked the use of the word "realism" when describing video games, i much prefer the idea of "suspension of disbelief" in that things should make sense within the environment of the game and not strive for what might feel real.

i personally feel that backstabs in Dark Souls fits well enough within the mechanics of the game that i wouldn't call it out for feeling out of place and i wouldn't name it as something that takes me out of the experience of the game.

what doesn't make sense to me is how large the window for initiating a backstab is and how difficult it can be to defend against them. but trying to fix this could be tricky while trying to maintain a certain balance within the games mechanics. there are certainly times when i might, oh say, try to cast a spell and immediately say to myself "****, i was way to close, i'm gonna eat a…yup there it is…backstabbed" which is cool, we need to preserve this aspect of the game. other times, i will get backstabbed and be on the verge of throwing a tantrum because it just seemed so implausible at the moment it happened. this is what needs to be corrected.

during PVE and PVP, backstabs should definitely remain a valid part of anyone's strategy. i would like it if it wasn't the only strategy though. which is sometimes the case given things like the Hornet Ring and how easy it is to nail a mob or player with a backstab. backstabs should be made easier to defend against, improve the AI of the mobs so they can better defend against backstabs, and most importantly reduce the window needed to nail a backstab. if this was done, i believe that allot of the complaints would go away.

what i don't think should happen is having backstabs relegated to a strictly stealth based mechanic. that's just not the type of game Dark Souls is. while a stealth mechanic would be welcome, i don't think it should come to be a dominate feature in the game and would likely be pretty difficult to pull off in PVP anyway. backstabs need to remain as a way to punish mistakes during combat as well as a surprise hit on unaware targets.

if nothing else is done, the potential backstab damage for many of the weapons should be hit with a nerf. unless it is a dagger or rapier class weapon, the most a weapon should get is a counter attack bonus on a backstab. dagger's and rapier class weapons are meant to be used in this way, without the ability to punish on a backstab, they would lose almost all of their appeal. all the other weapons are not really meant to be used in this fashion so nerfing them in this way will help to reinforce how they are meant to be used while still maintaining the ability to punish mistakes.

for the record, i love the backstab animations, if anything i feel they should be made more brutal. some of them do look a little silly, but that could easily be fixed by altering the animation to be more appropriate to the weapon being used. like adding a trip attack to pole arms followed by a overhead chop or something instead of simply being thrust awkwardly through someones torso…you get the idea.

I think your fondness of the backstabbing animations is deluding your judgement there..
You say it doesn't make it feel like it doesn't belong, yet you clearly ignore something that was said. (something you should also be able to observe as well)
Mainly the idea that you are "invulnerable" during a backstab animation. Is there anything within dark souls lore that explains this phenomenon? If not, then it has no place being there. It is unrealistic in the sense of that world's realism. It's an inconsistency within the world of dark souls.
And thus should not exist. At least, if you want to view the problem only from one side, being the game's fault for being what it is in it's current state.

I hope we're not that pathetic that we need to resort to nerfing and other changes in order to play properly, when we can simply do so by taking responsibility.
In any case, the problem still lies on both sides, the way the game was made and the way players choose to interact with the game.


~Vorcan~

Forum Pirate wrote:It is true is it not? Notice I argue for the core mechanics to remain mostly unaltered? Thats, in part, for the sake of preserving the identity of the already established world. Changing the rules now begs all kinds of continuity questions.

The idiot straffe is completely ridiculous. That wasn't my point. My point was that actively and continually back hunting is both a real and viable strategy, in both armed and unarmed combat, thus it should remain a viable tactic. (as I've mentioned, I would downsize the hitbox)

Everything has mechanics, in game and otherwise. People can know them and push their limits. Boxers can punch harder and faster than most anyone else, some monks can seem to float during their acrobatic displayes, fighter pilots have to know exactly what both their own limits and the limits of the plane are so they don't exceed them.

If those people can do those things, why is it unreasonable for a melee combatant to know an opponents back is a weak spot and actively work to get it instead of

If we lived in a futuristic world where something like virtual reality was an everyday thing. Perhaps.
But you see, we do not play games like that, we are outside of the game world.
We don't directly interact with that world.
I understand what you're getting at, but that way of thinking is only making things less enjoyable for ourselves.
You want something that our current technology doesn't seem to be capable of creating. Although I cannot be sure about that, seeing as how I knew cars could run on electricity quite a while ago and only now are we starting to actually make use of it.

The real world is a lot more complicated than the world of a video game, we have a much easier time figuring out the "game mechanics" than we are to figure out the mechanics of our real world experience.
We are pretty much god entities within the world of a video game, possessing knowledge that is "out of that world"
One of those being the way movement and locking on works.
And we heavily abuse the knowledge we gain, always trying to gain the upper hand. Like everything in our selfish little lives.

And it still doesn't take away the fact that this game simply doesn't have the capability to properly use the idea of backstabbing (as it has proven)
Backstabbing is a physical action, not some kind of "magical" attack that leaves you invulnerable to attack.
But that's the dilemma, the world of dark souls isn't perfect.
We can choose to properly navigate those imperfections, or choose to abuse them all to hell and back in order to gain some feeling of satisfaction.

~Vorcan~

So I really haven't looked at this thread, at all. I just have to say that the backstab does allow level 10 players the ability to kill much stronger opponents like the silver knights in Anor Londo. Just thought I should put that in there if it hasn't already been said.

GrinTwist wrote:So I really haven't looked at this thread, at all. I just have to say that the backstab does allow level 10 players the ability to kill much stronger opponents like the silver knights in Anor Londo. Just thought I should put that in there if it hasn't already been said.

I was gonna say something like that... 10 Pages and lots of text >_<

I think it would be cool if your shield would protect your back from BS while two handing a weapon. I though thats what they were gonna have in DkS since the first time I saw your shield visible on your back, because they didnt have it in Demons.

Vorcan wrote:I think your fondness of the backstabbing animations is deluding your judgement there..
You say it doesn't make it feel like it doesn't belong, yet you clearly ignore something that was said. (something you should also be able to observe as well)
Mainly the idea that you are "invulnerable" during a backstab animation. Is there anything within dark souls lore that explains this phenomenon? If not, then it has no place being there. It is unrealistic in the sense of that world's realism. It's an inconsistency within the world of dark souls.
And thus should not exist. At least, if you want to view the problem only from one side, being the game's fault for being what it is in it's current state.

I hope we're not that pathetic that we need to resort to nerfing and other changes in order to play properly, when we can simply do so by taking responsibility.
In any case, the problem still lies on both sides, the way the game was made and the way players choose to interact with the game.


~Vorcan~

i'm not entirely sure how my fondness of the backstab animations has clouded my judgement in this particular matter. there are plenty of things in the gaming world which i think are cool but are entirely unnecessary and could easily be done away with without taking anything away from the enjoyment of a game.

i don't think that the way in which backstabs has been implemented is perfect by any means, it certainly has its problems. yet what i would actually find more odd is if they didn't exist within the game at all.

in this i find myself agreeing with Forum Pirate in that Backstabbing should be a viable strategy in combat. also that it should remain within the game as backstabbing is already entrenched within the Dark Souls experience.

also, what do you think we should be taking responsibility for? i'm not sure i understand this sentiment. are we taking responsibility for exploiting something the game designers have chosen to provide for us? or are we to take responsibility for exploiting something that the game designer never intended us to use?

Nybbles wrote:

Vorcan wrote:I think your fondness of the backstabbing animations is deluding your judgement there..
You say it doesn't make it feel like it doesn't belong, yet you clearly ignore something that was said. (something you should also be able to observe as well)
Mainly the idea that you are "invulnerable" during a backstab animation. Is there anything within dark souls lore that explains this phenomenon? If not, then it has no place being there. It is unrealistic in the sense of that world's realism. It's an inconsistency within the world of dark souls.
And thus should not exist. At least, if you want to view the problem only from one side, being the game's fault for being what it is in it's current state.

I hope we're not that pathetic that we need to resort to nerfing and other changes in order to play properly, when we can simply do so by taking responsibility.
In any case, the problem still lies on both sides, the way the game was made and the way players choose to interact with the game.


~Vorcan~

i'm not entirely sure how my fondness of the backstab animations has clouded my judgement in this particular matter. there are plenty of things in the gaming world which i think are cool but are entirely unnecessary and could easily be done away with without taking anything away from the enjoyment of a game.

i don't think that the way in which backstabs has been implemented is perfect by any means, it certainly has its problems. yet what i would actually find more odd is if they didn't exist within the game at all.

in this i find myself agreeing with Forum Pirate in that Backstabbing should be a viable strategy in combat. also that it should remain within the game as backstabbing is already entrenched within the Dark Souls experience.

also, what do you think we should be taking responsibility for? i'm not sure i understand this sentiment. are we taking responsibility for exploiting something the game designers have chosen to provide for us? or are we to take responsibility for exploiting something that the game designer never intended us to use?

Perhaps you should read and react to things I actually said then. Because I already gave you the reason why you might be clouding your own judgement.
Also, leaving something "out" of a game world is not as much of a problem as you think.
Take, the legend of zelda; ocarina of time.
That game has a sword, melee combat. Yet no "backstab" as in dark souls. Does that mean it takes away from that game's world? Not at all.
It's the fact that something exists within the game world, yet makes no logical sense WITHIN that same world that makes it not work.

About responsibility.
Are you completely ignorant or unaware of your own individual?
What you as an individual are capable of?
Any action you perform in life, be it playing a game or anything else.
You have that personal individual side to those things. One question you can put there is "Why" did you choose to do one thing over another.
Let's take this backstab idea; Why do you think some people stick to your back as if they got caught in some glue and stuck to your back?
And we're not talking about those that do it right, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.
This person will not attack unless it's a backstab, the only time that he attacks and hits you normally (or misses) is when you successfully evade the backstab.

What kind of selfish feelings and thoughts go through that person's head?
Surely he/she is out for the win, and will go to almost any length to attain it. Because "They want to win" the need to win is high. This in itself is a selfish idea.(btw, I already gave you the necessary information in order to understand what I meant with "responsibility"...)
In the end, we as individual human beings, part of humanity. Are responsible for the enjoyment we gain from these creations of ours.
Yet so many individuals, as mentioned before. Are caught up on winning. So much that they would actively seek out loopholes within the game. Which is not exactly the same as "trying to understand the game mechanics"
It's actually a bit more like trying to understand the flaws within the game mechanics. And then using those to your advantage, none of these things are done for anything other than that particular individual's enjoyment in mind. (Even though he/she doesn't play alone...)
Hence, we should take some god damn responsibility, but since we seem to value our individuality a bit too much, I doubt anyone would actually take responsibility, not enough incentive to do so. That does not change things though, it just changes the way we as human beings deal with it. Right now, not so well.

~Vorcan~

To answer the topic:

In my opinion in PVP backstabs add respite in a game that should only offer it in bonfires

In PVE it makes for some repetition.

There are reasons to dislike this mechanic, but for me, whats really annoying is the "stop everything, I'm doing a backstab" aspect.
In close combat (real or not) getting behind your opponent is an advantage and the opponent should be punished for allowing so. However, consider how this happens in dark souls:
You're facing a guy with an ultra greatsword, he swings and misses by a mile, you're behind him and the inevitable happens. Problem is, you're wielding a great hammer.
Now, I don't even appreciate the immediacy of the backstab mechanic with a dagger almost like a freeze button but doing it with a huge weapon just feels incredibly silly.
Yes, we're talking about a game where you can block attacks that would shatter worlds, not to mention your character, but somehow that's a lot more believable than "backstabing" with smough's hammer.
That infested barbarian is swinging his club. I'm behind him but the swing is still gonna clip me a bit: no problem, just interrupt his attack with a backstab... he even stops his mad dash just for me. :shock:

In combat evasion is an art form but in dark souls said art is unbalanced. A guy swings his halberd in PVP while the other guy sidesteps. There is an opening for a successful attack. If there was no backstab but simply increased damage from a back attack a player would ponder: should I waste precious microseconds trying to go for extra damage or just strike with something that is sure to land.
As it stands in dark souls, that doesn't apply because an attack from the side performs as it's supposed to whereas the backstab "ignores" the rules. There is no wind up to an attack and weapons all perform alike barring critical damage. It's actually safer to go for the back because the attack is immediate.
Without this mechanic sneak attacks and back attacks would actually see a lot more action from weapons that are supposed to perform them like say a dagger, so yeah for me back attacks just detract from one of the best games I've ever played.

Just go for increased damage, poise break, knockdown, anything but that fixed animation.
Or hell, use it but make it act like a normal attack with normal windup that lands spectacularly and doesn't make you invincible.

Vorcan wrote:Are you completely ignorant or unaware of your own individual?

Careful how you phrase things. Calling someone completely ignorant is insulting. There are better ways of wording which do not foster animosity.


Now, my $0.02 (not directed at anyone in particular):


I'm an active PvPer, both organized duelling, invading, hosting, and catbro-ing. I think people WAY overanalyze things. People look into much deeper meanings, taking things to extremes sometimes. Too many subjective and ephemeral rules detracts just as much from PvP (if not more).


Sure, I get ticked off at the tactics some employ. But, there are so many different ways to play this game (re: things like multiple pvp covenants, co-op). Getting jumped? Go do some co-op, go do some invading, go questing, etc. Don't limit yourself to just one kind of playing. And, when all else fails, tell yourself - "it is what is is" and, most importantly, "its just a game".

I honestly think BS's are a broken mechanic. Like bla stated the way the BS is animated is the problem. Maybe if only daggers could BS and the animation is much much quicker, like a half a second at the most. Instead of putting your foot on the enemy and kicking him off your blade, how about immediately after you stab them you roll backward out of the way. This could be done very fast without stopping everything and the invincibility would defiantly have to go. I honestly think they should have patched that a long time ago. Also like I posted earlier, if your shield could protect you from a BS while two handing, I think that would help alot with BS's because once you see someone going for it you could just simply switch to two handed to avoid said BS.

reim0027 wrote:

Vorcan wrote:Are you completely ignorant or unaware of your own individual?

Careful how you phrase things. Calling someone completely ignorant is insulting. There are better ways of wording which do not foster animosity.


Now, my $0.02 (not directed at anyone in particular):


I'm an active PvPer, both organized duelling, invading, hosting, and catbro-ing. I think people WAY overanalyze things. People look into much deeper meanings, taking things to extremes sometimes. Too many subjective and ephemeral rules detracts just as much from PvP (if not more).


Sure, I get ticked off at the tactics some employ. But, there are so many different ways to play this game (re: things like multiple pvp covenants, co-op). Getting jumped? Go do some co-op, go do some invading, go questing, etc. Don't limit yourself to just one kind of playing. And, when all else fails, tell yourself - "it is what is is" and, most importantly, "its just a game".

I did not imply anything though.
It was an honest question.
We are individuals capable of contemplation, capable of making decisions.
Choose to do wrong, choose to do right. That was the essence of my question. (as well as my own thoughts on the way we "play" the game.)
He was ignoring the most important aspect of what I was saying, should I ignore that in turn?
If the answer to my question turned out to be "yes" then it is most likely that I would in fact be treated with hostility. Just as an older person might feel certain feelings when a younger person appears to know the world better then they do.(Unfortunately human individuals simply have such emotions.) Any person who is able to look inside themselves, do a little soul searching. Is capable of respectfully handling that question, without having to turn to any conclusion that my intent was anything bad.

It's not exactly fair to say the responsibility in a conversation lies on one end. I will do my best to choose my words carefully based on the idea that I respect the other person as they should respect me. So I see no problem if I asked that question respectfully on my end, if they choose to act on their own interpretation without considering the possibility that the truth is something else. Well I hope I don't have to go into detail on what that would mean to the situation you addressed, as well as my place in it.

As for the rest;

First off, what is Catbro-ing? xD
Suddenly the image of a sunbro with cat ears pops up in my head, but that's probably not what you meant haha.

I don't see how you connect battle tactics to "ways to play"
Seeing as those ways to play are basically the multiplayer features. Coop, invasion, etc. Not saying it's like this, but it feels as if you aren't willing to pursue an answer to the problem some of us seem to face.
I don't think you can over-analyze something you don't fully understand.
If we all knew the answers, we wouldn't be having these talks about the backstab mechanic and the way we use it. There seems to be a problem, for some. To solve any problem, you have to understand it first. Instead of throwing in the towel and claim we'll just have to live with it might be one of the reasons our world still holds some messed up ****.
I'm a bit surprised to see you didn't mention anything about the individual aspect of things, especially since you cared to address one thing I said but ignored the rest that had to do with it.

"It's just a game" is a good expression, however don't you think that would also apply to "the urge to win" I was talking about?
It is just a game, so why treat it with such selfishness?


~Vorcan~