What would you like to see from online play in the sequel?

I like it how it is to be honest... warts and all.

Actual arches in leather armor killed knights. Their short swords didn't do crap to platemail, so they fought by stabbing at the inside of joints, under the arm and at the neck.

That type of strike is what the crits represent. Having gained an opportunity to strike in a fatal or crippling manner during active combat.

The beiber ring "unrealistic" argument is crap, because its based on appearences in a fantasy game where real is different.

The "crits are realistic" argument holds water because the combat system and its principles are based in reality (meaning real is the same in game and IRL in this instance), where crits are very real and even viable as a primary offensive strategy.

Make sense?

Animaaal wrote:

WandererReece wrote:

ublug wrote:The boss is harder with phantoms, so why not the rest of the level?

What? I hope that was a typo.

I thought bosses got a boost to defense and health and etc when you had a phantom with you. Not so sure about it now. I think that’s what ublug meant reece.

He's about half right. I don't know about def, but the bosses do get a health bonus. However, it's not enough to compensate for the extra players. Therefore, summoning phantoms makes the bosses a lot easier, even with the health and possibly defense boost.

That's why what he said isn't totally correct.

Forum Pirate wrote:Actual arches in leather armor killed knights. Their short swords didn't do crap to platemail, so they fought by stabbing at the inside of joints, under the arm and at the neck.

That type of strike is what the crits represent. Having gained an opportunity to strike in a fatal or crippling manner during active combat.

The beiber ring "unrealistic" argument is crap, because its based on appearences in a fantasy game where real is different.

The "crits are realistic" argument holds water because the combat system and its principles are based in reality (meaning real is the same in game and IRL in this instance), where crits are very real and even viable as a primary offensive strategy.

Make sense?

Thank you for at least pointing out the fact that it really only represents a critical attack. I was about to go crazy. Reading people talking of realism and of the damage a dagger does to one's kidney... while wearing the black iron armor?????? :suspect: I was going to say ok, let's make it real you do a backstab... that way when you actually figure out you have to go for my neck the blade will be bent and dull -- good luck.

If people need lagstabs that bad (keep in mind I suggested keeping the back-stab as a direct punishment to an action that would leave one open) then let's go a couple of steps further into realism. A full set of heavy armor would have very few weak spots which would be hard to access (meaning you would probably get slaughtered before you could manuvere for a meaningful attack) and only weak in terms of bypassing the armor in most cases. The black iron armor actually has a neck guard in front (so no slashing, only well placed stabs from the side or rear). So, if someone wants to have a build that relies on critical attacks only: make it so they have wait for the golden opportunity then strike at the right spot, at the right angle and with enough force -- make it a 1-shot every time... but make it realistically near impossible. The real counter to heavy armor is blunt strikes, knock the guy out or knock his helm off and then go to work. Also, if you're wearing a shirt and a skirt just about everything I land should be critical AND cause you to bleed. The arm is not really a critical spot, however I would think if it's laying on the ground because I missed you're head and you have no armor I've probably done a good bit of damage.

But, of course dark souls does not work like this... magic exists, weapons still do damage through armor and clothes have damage reduction and large, sharp swords can somehow fail to cause bleeding or severe damage even versus no armor. I still feel that light builds are NOT totally dependent on backstabs because of this and if they are -- they should not be. Anyone who does that is simply exploiting lag anytime they land a backstab that didn't follow an opening. If you think you should be able to run around me because you're faster, I disagree first of all -- all I have to do is keep turning. Second of all, this happens to me when I have fast roll myself and I've never even used fat roll (not that you should be able to do it to fat rollers, either), so I should be fairly mobile. BTW, if you want to be able to flank me like that-- no more rolling/flipping I-frames. Again, if critical attacks are real... hitting you while you roll and doing more damage would be realistic, too. I am not an expert on midieval combat, however, I feel fairly safe saying that no one was ever stabbed in the back because of lag in their internet connection.

If I lock-on to a guy, I face that guy no matter what. So, how can I ever get back-stabbed if I remain locked-on and don't do anything? I know lag will always exist and it sucks, but even if I'm greatly disadvantaged by lag I can usually put up a competitive fight if I don't get BS'ed. Even if I do something that gets me BS'ed, when I thought I had time to recover I shrug it off and adjust. But, there are guys I fight who circle for my back, try to run behind me and/or roll (or flip) around all over the place hoping to end up behind my back without my doing anything to leave myself open.

I'm honestly puzzled why people seem not to like this idea. People are talking about the need for back-stabs and realism of using them. I'm saying keep the back-stabs, but make it REALISTIC! Make them a punishment for when someone leaves themselves open only. Does anyone want to put their hand up and say 'I want to exploit lagstabs'? I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem hard to program. No one has said anything about that, though. Where's the downside? What's the real argument? Becuase I haven't really heard anything against this idea.

@WandererReece

Yep. I would definitely say the "boost" bosses get from having phantoms with you does not compensate for how easy the battle then becomes, not even a little.

@forum :pirat:

Yes, that makes sense. I dont mean to say that comparing the battle mechanics in Dark Souls to real life combat scenarios is narrow minded either. Not that you said that, I just wanted to make it clear that I appreciate the arguement to a degree.

For me, the only way I really start to relate and engage in this conversation is when it relates more to balancing the exsisting mechanics, as oppose to siting real life scenarios in order to justify and/or debunk certain aspects of Dark Souls combat.

For instance, critical strike melee for light infantry untis. While I'm sure everything you said is true, sounds good to me, It might imply that light weapons in Dark Souls should gain additional critical attack modifiers in addition to the ones they already have, simply out of the nature of those weapons. Then...

this naturally leads to the discussion about a Great Axe smacking you in face.....which in turn....

leads to wearing robes makes you walking fire wood.

I do think there are plenty of real life scenarios relevent to Dark Souls gameplay. For instance backstabs in general. Not sure if I've mentioned this before, hehe, but IRL it would be possible to "escape" a backstab. Sure you might turn around and get stabbed in the ba!!z instead, but maybe not. Since its a fantasy game and certain "tweaks" to realism will undoubtedly exsist, why not give the game a "bullet time breakout" move for backstabs?

I feel it would combine the delicate relation between realism and fantasy. It could be all "Max Payne" or "Neo" like ya know?
End shameless plug for breakout opinion

@Hugh_G_Johnson

I couldn't agree more about blunt damage. That is something that needs to be revisited in DkS2. Why it wasn't expanded upon in DkS I'll never know. At the very least, a hidden "blunt" damage modifier for certain strength weapons is an idea worth discussing.

In regards to your question about lock-on backstab immunity. I should be able to backstab you whether you are locked on to me or not. That idea invalidates the ability for a person to engage in lock off backstab tactics.

If I'm not locked on to you, and I perform a lock off running/rolling backstab it is earned. It is one of the few ways to skillfully compensate when fighting a superior build. All builds have archbuilds, this is one of the only ways to "even the odds" so to speak against a build that is designed to exploit your build's weaknesses.

Also bear in mind that they are much more difficult to pull off against skilled opponents. Imo, that is the only reason why.

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:The arm is not really a critical spot, however I would think if it's laying on the ground because I missed you're head and you have no armor I've probably done a good bit of damage.

... maybe some bleed, too? idk... wait lemme do some research...

this appears to be a real life duel between Solaire and the Iron Tarkus:






I must admit it seemed to do less damage, than I had anticipated. However, arms won the day in the end... thanks to the great knight Monty Python for footage of this great battle.

Animaaal wrote:In regards to your question about lock-on backstab immunity. I should be able to backstab you whether you are locked on to me or not.

Ok; locking on means I face you no matter what... soooo... if I'm facing you why should you be able to stab me in the back?????

You don't automatically have to even the odds... gankers suck, but 3v1 should be near impossible without magic (and very tough with) or a vastly superior combination of skill, level and build design. Better builds should beat worse builds at even skill and level, better players should beat worse ones all else being equal, etc. You're talking about using skill to lagstab; it takes even more skill to hack. Do you say hackers earn it when they win?

It seems to me like you're basically saying you want to keep lagstabs so you can exploit them when your at a disadvantage, because you always deserve to win no matter what. I don't think you really mean that, but it you words really seem to suggest that. If you're saying one should be able to get backstabbed while facing their opponent... why? AGAIN: I'm not saying after doing something to leave yourself open... I'm saying standing there with your shield up (or not) looking eye-to-eye at a guy: how and why can/should he be able to stab me in the back?

Please someone just answer that question. In fairness; you will not convince me, but at least I will know that this has become like arguing religion and can just stop... and we can all just disagree.

@ Hugh...classic 8)

I like how Tarkus performed a kick move before he lost his "ability" lol. I do think Tarkus was a hacker though or a "hackee" rather?

I am most certainly not saying lagstabs are earned, and cant figure out for the life of me why you would imply I said hackers deserve to win. Lock off backstabs are not the same thing as lagstabs...not even close.

I also never said one should be able to backstab their opponent when facing them. I dont think you understand how lock off baskstab offensive manuvers work in Dark Souls.

I have reread what I posted and stand by it completely. Once you understand that particular backstab method, I think you'll understand that I have answered your question.

Also, did you also notice the blunt attack Solaire did the the helm of Tarkus? BTW; I'm assuming this fight is why Tarkus put on the rest of the black night armor to go with the helm...

...

I don't care about whether the guy trying to BS is locked or not. It has nothing to do with anything. If someone is locked on to you... how the hell can you get behind him for a BS, unless you've exploited lag?

As for my understanding of unlocked BSing... 1) as I said, it doesn't matter; 2) I don't play unlocked very often, so I don't have much experience 3) as far as I do understand the point of playing unlocked is basically to make it tougher to get hit and easier to BS

...and since I (and many other people) believe it is way too easy to get a BS, it should be fairly obvious why I think that should be changed overall and why that tactic specifically should not be left alone. You still have not as far as can tell, explained how back-stabbing someone while they're locked onto you is not a total joke. I don't know why you think it's justified if you're not locked... you're just exploiting a game mechanic in order to exploit lag. The lock on is supposed to keep me facing you at all times unless I switch it off, you die or you get out of range... but with the lock on you should never get my back (unless I leave it open through attack or item usage)

Why should anyone be able to backstab someone while face to face with them?

edit: I wasn't saying you said hackers deserve to win. I was pointing out that just because doing something takes skill doesn't mean if you do it you deserve to win. What I do hear you saying is that it's fine to exploit a lagstab as long as it's tough to do and takes skill. A back-stab is a punishment, so it should follow an opponents mistake. The only skill it should take from you is suckering an opponent into a mistake and being ready to pounce on it. Exploiting a game mechanic may be a skill, but it is not skill in the play of the game. It would be like designing a powerful, undetectable steroid -- it takes knowledge and skill... but winning competitions using it against clean athletes is not deserved nor does it mean your athletes have superior competitive skill versus their opponent.

Thank you, Forum; that is exactly what I was saying in less understandable terms. Critical hits also aren't just a form of punishment. Feinting can't really be done in Dark Souls because stances and other minute factors don't exist in it besides that we can't make an actual feint. Feinting works by convincing the attacker's target that he or she is going to make an attack from one direction when it is actually a bluff. The target moves to respond to the feint and in doing so become unable to respond in time to the actual attack, which is going to be a critical hit. Critical hits aren't just a punishing move.
Lagstabs are another point entirely. Lag has definitely altered backstab mechanics in ways that I don't like, either. This is because of the lag, though, not from the backstab mechanic. If I have to decide on either keeping backstabs exactly the same or dropping them entirely, I prefer to keep them.
While yes, there will be some bleed, European cruciform swords often weren't that sharp. Arming swords and side swords, both one handed swords that have been represented in the Souls series thus far by straight swords, were fairly sharp. Bastard swords and greatswords, though, were intentionally made comparatively dull. The edge on such large blades wore away far too fast to make a sharp edge give any significant advantage and were in fact unnecessary; at that size and momentum, these swords cut through well with a much duller edge anyways. Hand-and-a-half and greatswords (H&1/2 swords especially) were also designed so that they could be turned around and held by the blade so that the handle and crossguard as blunt weapons that were effective at crushing through plate armor. (besides turning the entire weapon into an extremely versatile and fast tool) And users of these swords, especially in later years, made extensive use of thrusting attacks to pierce through plate armor. Still, yes, this does cause bleeding; so does blunt attacks, too, though. Maces were used on targets wearing plate armor because it sent concussive force through the armor and inside the target's body, which often ruptured organs and caused internal bleeding. If bleeding is added to straight swords as well, then it really should be added to every single weapon in the game, which is a lot of work and extra things to keep track of for players.

On the 'magic and wielding sword in one-hand' part... yes, this is fantasy and on Sliding Scale of Realism to Coolness, there is a balance point. Assuming that magic is able to simply make a person strong enough to wield that, though, Dark Souls how that magic is implemented realistic. (usually) The magic itself is exactly that-magic. What people do with it and how it is implemented can either make the setting and game realistic (even with magic) or just gimmicky. I'm really grateful that Dark Souls has made the presence of magic realistic while still keeping magic magical.

I'd like for there to be more spells targeted at healing others and not be tied to an otherwise useless covenant. Support characters still had no effective place in online roleplaying in Dark Souls. Of course, I trust FromSoft to do an amazing job at predicting the players and keep support magic fairly balanced instead of making ganking worse.

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:...Also, did you also notice the blunt attack Solaire did the the helm of Tarkus? BTW; I'm assuming this fight is why Tarkus put on the rest of the black night armor to go with the helm...

lol ya, maybe he was infected and didnt know it yet?

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:...I don't care about whether the guy trying to BS is locked or not. It has nothing to do with anything. If someone is locked on to you... how the hell can you get behind him for a BS, unless you've exploited lag?...

The following methods do not need to exploit lag in order to get behind your opponent:
1)Pivoting
2)Rolling
3)Running

By using these actions one can get behind their opponent before their opponent can react. Howver pivot backstabs are easier to do while locked on.

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:...As for my understanding of unlocked BSing... 1) as I said, it doesn't matter; 2) I don't play unlocked very often, so I don't have much experience 3) as far as I do understand the point of playing unlocked is basically to make it tougher to get hit and easier to BS...

Not true my friend. It is much harder to land backstabs while locked off as opposed to being locked on. Hence the reason that playing locked off is a slow progression from almost every Dark Souls player's standpoint. As a matter of fact playing locked off makes it easier for your opponent to backstab you in some instances.

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:...and since I (and many other people) believe it is way too easy to get a BS, it should be fairly obvious why I think that should be changed overall and why that tactic specifically should not be left alone. You still have not as far as can tell, explained how back-stabbing someone while they're locked onto you is not a total joke. I don't know why you think it's justified if you're not locked... you're just exploiting a game mechanic in order to exploit lag. The lock on is supposed to keep me facing you at all times unless I switch it off, you die or you get out of range... but with the lock on you should never get my back (unless I leave it open through attack or item usage)...

You’re right. Backstabs could use refinement. A lot of people believe this. Rookies and veterans alike agree overall. It is simply the lock on immunity to backstabs that most experienced players disagree with. Here are some considerations:
-You could stay locked on and just spam magic without having a weakness, for the most part.
-How would you deal with a turtle?
These are only a couple considerations on top of what I already explained. I’m afraid you’ll need more experience in performing lock off backstabs before you can elaborate on your argument. And again, lock off backstabs do not need to exploit lag in order to be performed.

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:... I was pointing out that just because doing something takes skill doesn't mean if you do it you deserve to win...

I’m sorry, but I completely disagree. As a matter of fact I think the exact opposite.

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:... What I do hear you saying is that it's fine to exploit a lagstab as long as it's tough to do and takes skill...

Again, I don’t know how you arrive at this conclusion. Lagstabs and lock off backstabs are not even remotely the same thing. One affects the other true, but lag affects ALL backstabs, not just lock offs.

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:... A back-stab is a punishment, so it should follow an opponents mistake...

Exactly. And being lock off backstabbed means you made a mistake. Unless of course heavy lag was involved. In which case the match needs to be tallied up as “wash”. And backstabs are not the only reason lag can dismiss certain matches resulting in an unfair fight.

And just to reiterate, ALL backstabs can be supplemented by lag. It does not mean they are cheap, only that the lag creates this illusion.

You're interpretation of what appears to be cheap is something worthy of discussion. I have the same opinion as well. Howver, my opinion revolves around how lag affects backstabs in the form of "vacuum stabs". That is my only issue with lag affecting backstabs. Other than that, I'm completely fine with the mechanics of backstabs.

I am also at ends with how lag effects phantom damage, parries, etcetcetc. However, I know the limitations of the ps3 and have chosen to be okay with it to a degree. You wont get around lag. Dedicated servers wont erase lag, the ps4 prolly wont, its just something we'll have to live with. I'm fine with that.

Nothing is going to erase lag. (there is an amount of lag between what information our eyes see and your and my brain creating an image of it) We can certainly reduce it. (a lot)

@Acarnatia

Wow. :affraid: Thats almost a full history lesson. Very informative.

I also agree that FROM will most likley do an amazing job with DkS2.

However, dedicated servers will not have the affect on lag a lot of people seem to think. Atlus is an excellent company and is very oriented around having excellent customer service. I'm sure they didnt use the cheapest servers available, I'm sure they maintained them, but unfortunately, there was exploitable lag in Demon's Souls.

Will it help? Yes, but mainly with summonings. It will help with the backstab issue a lot of people have, but not to the extent a lot of people believe.

My 2 sense.

Ok, animaaal...

If someone is spamming magic they will be open to a backstab the whole time by my method (during any attack and following for a period determined by the recovery of the attack, as well as any item usage). I'm assuming you forgot that I did say something like 'swing, cast, buff or use an item'.

Attacking turtles: shotel, magic, poison, arrows (poison arrows!), dung pies, firebombs, bait & counter (this could include BSing if they attack), provoking... I'm probably missing a few, too.

Playing unlocked: perhaps I sold myself short; I will run around using the running R1 and BS'es unlocked in pve especially versus the undead soldiers. However, it is easy to get BS'ed; that's why I hardly ever do it in pvp. But, while it's harder to find the hit-box, it's easier to get to their back -- that's what I was referring to about making BS'es easier.

So you think anything you do to win that takes skill means the win is deserved? That means cheating, as long as it's hard, is ok. That's why I was talking about hacking; I said hacking is hard to do, is a hacking victory well earned? You didn't seem to think so then, but it does take skill and if anything done skillfully means a deserved win... I think the skill should be within the rules (and in video games; the design -- for now it is what it is, but they can alter the design to make it harder to exploit lag and therefore defeat the design of the game for DkS II) of the game your playing. We will definitely have to disagree on that! BTW, combat skill is only part of the equation, anyway (build, setup, strategy and tactics also come into play -- though they all require different types of skills).

The point about unlocked back-stabs is they seem to exploit lag, they are often NOT punishment. Playing unlocked and landing legitimate unlocked back-stabs is fine. However, if I don't expose my back, I should NOT get back-stabbed because I didn't make a mistake!! Whether my opponent is locked or not. Do you really think people just stand there while you run around them? When you run around a guy who hasn't done anything to expose himself; your skill is exploiting the lag, not outplaying your opponent. You aren't that fast! The other guy couldn't do anything about it. How many people can you start out in front of, run around and get behind before the turn even 90 degrees? What's the punishment? Poor internet connection? And if you want to roll BS, then rolling shouldn't have I-frames.

btw; I just I did a roll BS and a BS where I ran right by my opponent...

The roll was to dodge an attack from my victim and avoid getting BS'ed myself by either of his two attack dogs (ganking fun in the kiln! ). I did not roll just expecting him to stand there for a BS. In fact, the BS was just a reaction to his missed R2 attack. I was mostly trying to evade the other two without giving the host an opening, but he gave me one!

The second was a duel in the kiln, where we had both buffed and were both rocking the crest shield and heavy armor. We danced, I kinda moved in and out attacking here and there mostly trying to bait an attack I can counter. I tried twice to parry and kinda 'waved' the shield at him a few times to give him something to think about. Eventually I ran in (planning to try a running R1 slash with my claymore) and saw him start an R2 attack, so kept running and back-stabbed him. That time I think he thought I was going to duck in and out and wanted to try to hit me before I backed off. But, I switched it up and punished his assumption and his over-reaching attack. I did not just run by him, get a BS and think wow I'm fast.

...just so everyone knows I'm not anti-BS, or even against roll BS'es or running by your opponent to do a BS. I use the BS, whenever possible to counter attacks or track down runners, but I never just try to BS someone hoping the get lag or thinking that I (and my character) are somehow preternaturally fast.

Animaaal wrote:

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:... I was pointing out that just because doing something takes skill doesn't mean if you do it you deserve to win...

I’m sorry, but I completely disagree. As a matter of fact I think the exact opposite...

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:...So you think anything you do to win that takes skill means the win is deserved? That means cheating, as long as it's hard, is ok...

Again, I said nothing about cheating. You did. Backstabbing is not cheating unless you’re hacking or lag switching and I NEVER said it was okay, please stop putting words in my mouth. Explaining why hacking sucks is unnecessary to almost everyone in this forum and I'm having a hard time figuring out why its so prevalent in your discussion regarding problems with backstabs.

It seems you are starting to get the hang of lock off backstabs. Once you do, you’ll also find that avoiding them is easier than you thought. However that knowledge can only be derived (imo) from learning said tactic.Once you polish your backstab tactics, you’ll come to appreciate the lock off backstab, and simultaneously learn the tactics for avoiding them.

I have a pure caster build I use in pvp. I don’t use a weapon. For me the problem with the build is quick cycling through my spells, not playing without the ability to backstab.

Good luck dude.

Animaaal wrote:

Animaaal wrote:

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:... I was pointing out that just because doing something takes skill doesn't mean if you do it you deserve to win...

I’m sorry, but I completely disagree. As a matter of fact I think the exact opposite...

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:...So you think anything you do to win that takes skill means the win is deserved? That means cheating, as long as it's hard, is ok...

Again, I said nothing about cheating. You did. Backstabbing is not cheating unless you’re hacking or lag switching and I NEVER said it was okay, please stop putting words in my mouth. Explaining why hacking sucks is unnecessary to almost everyone in this forum and I'm having a hard time figuring out why its so prevalent in your discussion regarding problems with backstabs.

It seems you are starting to get the hang of lock off backstabs. Once you do, you’ll also find that avoiding them is easier than you thought. However that knowledge can only be derived (imo) from learning said tactic.Once you polish your backstab tactics, you’ll come to appreciate the lock off backstab, and simultaneously learn the tactics for avoiding them.

I have a pure caster build I use in pvp. I don’t use a weapon. For me the problem with the build is quick cycling through my spells, not playing without the ability to backstab.

Good luck dude.

I never put words in your mouth. I asked what you meant and drew a logical conclusion from your words. If you had not used my quote about skill so far out of context there wouldn't be a misunderstanding. That quote was referring to hacking and since hacking takes skill, using a technique that takes skill to win is not always a deserved win. You used very strong and certain terms to disagree with that: "I’m sorry, but I completely disagree. As a matter of fact I think the exact opposite...", I was shocked to read this, but what other conclusion could I draw? I'm now sure you didn't mean that, but it's a misunderstanding that started with you taking a snippet of what I said out of context. I drew a perfectly logical conclusion from your words. Anywhere it seemed that I was putting words in your mouth, I was actually asking if you really meant that: "So you think anything you do to win that takes skill means the win is deserved? That means cheating, as long as it's hard, is ok. That's why I was talking about hacking; I said hacking is hard to do, is a hacking victory well earned? You didn't seem to think so then, but it does take skill and if anything done skillfully means a deserved win... " I was very careful NOT to put words in your mouth or jump to a conclusion. I even noted that you did not seem to think hacking was ok before when I said something similar. I asked two questions and explained that if you do something that's difficult it does NOT necessarily mean you've earned anything.

But, this is all semantics. The real argument is that I think it's ludicrous to expect that one should literally be able to run circles around one's opponent and stab them in the back before they can even turn (honestly, 'I think' is weak -- I KNOW this is ludicrous, because it is). Question: do you disagree with that? Forget whether the attacking party is locked or not; if the potential back-stab victim is locked onto an opponent, do you think you should be able to run all the way around him and stab him in the back before he can even get half the way to looking at you(because, we're talking about back-stabbing our victim only has to get sideways to avoid a BS)? And further... how is this a punish BS?

To anyone who may be reading this without posting; I'm very sorry. I know that's about the 20th time I've asked that in one way or another, but nobody has answered. People either had not realized I'm totally in favor of keeping the punish BS, or disagreed with support arguments and not addressed this. For the record; I've said if people want to be able to do non-punish, I'm fast/he's slow back-stabs... then I feel you ought to be able to hit and kick people while rolling(you can kick already and it would be logical and easy to kick someone rolling, but the ridiculous I-frames prevent you from attacking a helpless opponent right next to you), use parry to brush your opponent aside and even a sword hilt bash like in the monty python vid. There are defenses against this sort of BS currently, HOWEVER, if there is lag there is NOT a defense. I'd like to see it made so you can't get back-stabbed by someone your locked onto unless you do something to open yourself up. I don't think that's unreasonable or unrealistic at all. The fact is; if you're locked-on you are always facing your opponent. Thus, you should NEVER get back-stabbed in that situation -- it's a logical absurdity.

Any time you just run or roll behind you're opponent and land a BS where he didn't do anything; he had lag. If there wasn't lag you would not be able to get his back. He was looking where you were and you took advantage of that. I've said it before; there's always going to be lag and it is what it is. BUT, it would be easy to eliminate back-stabs that are the sole result of lag. Lag will still get you back-stabbed from time to time, but it's much easier to account for the lag trail and vacuum BS'es than it is front-stabs.

Regarding my unlocked play... it is what it was. I'm not getting better. As I said; I perhaps sold myself short because I only use it in pvp when the occasion arises. Playing unlocked is not going to make me think that I or anyone else should be able to back-stab someone for no reason. Your condescension is duly noted, however.

I believe I understand what Hugh is trying to say and completely agree. If two opponents are fighting and facing each other locked on, then it's just stupid that a person can just randomly circle to the back of their opponent and back-stab even if they're locked on and supposed to be facing each other. It is exploiting lag and should be addressed with a change such as decreasing the window open or such.

Think of any battle between two swordsman irl. You don't see one of the opponents suddenly starting to circle around to the back of the other and stab. It is not possible unless the other guy has serious problems, and since DaS seems to love building off a certain part of realism, then it should be addressed.

Actually, swordsmen do. A lot. In fact, attacking from the side accounts for a very high proportion of kills. This is often done by feinting (which to be implemented will require stances and a realistic depth that will require a world comparable to the Matrix) in actual combat which just isn't going to be implemented in these games.
Pivot-backstabs are the result of lag. Pivot backstabs occur when a player runs at another player locked on and starts circling at the exact right time to create a sling-like effect as s/he runs almost completely up to the other player and is quickly circles around them and backstabs them. This actually is created only by the lock-on feature, not lag, and is actually similar enough to hit-and-run attacks.
And, yes, there a number of issues created by lag. This is because of lag, though, not by the backstab mechanics.

amaro57 wrote:I believe I understand what Hugh is trying to say and completely agree. If two opponents are fighting and facing each other locked on, then it's just stupid that a person can just randomly circle to the back of their opponent and back-stab even if they're locked on and supposed to be facing each other. It is exploiting lag and should be addressed with a change such as decreasing the window open or such.

Think of any battle between two swordsman irl. You don't see one of the opponents suddenly starting to circle around to the back of the other and stab. It is not possible unless the other guy has serious problems, and since DaS seems to love building off a certain part of realism, then it should be addressed.

THANK YOU!!!

Acarnatia wrote:Actually, swordsmen do. A lot. In fact, attacking from the side accounts for a very high proportion of kills. This is often done by feinting (which to be implemented will require stances and a realistic depth that will require a world comparable to the Matrix) in actual combat which just isn't going to be implemented in these games.
Pivot-backstabs are the result of lag. Pivot backstabs occur when a player runs at another player locked on and starts circling at the exact right time to create a sling-like effect as s/he runs almost completely up to the other player and is quickly circles around them and backstabs them. This actually is created only by the lock-on feature, not lag, and is actually similar enough to hit-and-run attacks.
And, yes, there a number of issues created by lag. This is because of lag, though, not by the backstab mechanics.

Attacking from the side is not attacking from the rear and even attacking the rear is not always a critical hit (in real life or in Dark Souls). A critical back-stab should be the result of an opening; it takes time to do a special critical attack so you should have to have a clear opening. Indeed there are times where one can try for a back-stab, but only slash. If you're talking about realism, then let me critically injure or kill you with one swipe if you're not wearing heavy armor. I should be able to shield bash/fatal thrust combo you as you foolishly get too close to me trying to run right by me, or trip you and impale you, or decapitate you as you run by, etc., etc... THAT would be realistic!

As for pivot BS'es; you lost me... I'm reading something like: pivot back-stabs are the result of lag, then you describe pivot BS'es and then say that it's a result of the lock-on feature, NOT lag... you're contradicting yourself from what I can tell.

I've said and standby the fact that some of the back-stab mechanics allow for exploitation of lag. And I still insist: YOU'RE NOT THAT FAST!!!! When you just run up to and past people and back-stab them: you didn't do anything great, or fast -- you exploited lag. They were reacting to what you did, but they reacted late -- because of lag.

In any case... do you believe it's realistic in face-to-face 1v1 combat to run around your opponent all the way to their back and deliver a critical back-stab before they can turn 90 degrees?

...there's that question again, still no answer... nobody has put there hand up and say: "Yes, I'm that damn fast and good! Everything I do that works and all my wins are the result skill! Why is everyone else so slow and stupid?" or even: "No, but I don't have problems with lag, I like to win and I don't care about anyone else or fairness, so let's keep it as is." To the people who want to keep it the same for DkS II, then at least answer that question.

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:...I never put words in your mouth...

When you say, "so you're saying"...that is exactly what you're doing.

I did take your statement about "anything that takes skill" as meaning anything that doesn't include cheating. I assumed and paid for it. To reanswer I'll say, "Anything that takes skill to win, blah blah blah, except cheating". Which btw, nothing you're citing as evidence of cheating is actually cheating, with the exception of "lagstabs", which isnt really cheating either.

As for the rest, I didn't read it.

And just for the record, you're talking a lot about a game mechanic you seem to know little about. Thats not an insult, I'm just saying you might understand your own arguement, and other peoples defenses of that arguement if you'd research a little more.

Please keep in mind I also said something like, "There are problems with the current backstab system". If I didn't then I'm saying it now.

However, the problems imo have nothing to do with what you are talking about.

With practice backstabs will become more and more easy for you to avoid, and with that your critique of the backstab might change, might not. But it would seem your problems with backstabs are lag related, not mechanic related.

On topic: I want voice chat soooooooooooooooooooooo bad.

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:...In any case... do you believe it's realistic in face-to-face 1v1 combat to run around your opponent all the way to their back and deliver a critical back-stab before they can turn 90 degrees?....

No, I believe in real life I would just grapple them and then stab them somewhere more detrimental than a random place in thier back...maybe the throat.

But real life combat is almost completely unrelated to Dark Souls gameplay. While this arguement might hold water from a body physics point of view, imo, I'd say its a futile discussion.

There are too many things to critique from a realistic point of view in a fantasy game.

Animaaal wrote:

Hugh_G_Johnson wrote:...In any case... do you believe it's realistic in face-to-face 1v1 combat to run around your opponent all the way to their back and deliver a critical back-stab before they can turn 90 degrees?....

No, I believe in real life I would just grapple them and then stab them somewhere more detrimental than a random place in thier back...maybe the throat.

But real life combat is almost completely unrelated to Dark Souls gameplay. While this arguement might hold water from a body physics point of view, imo, I'd say its a futile discussion.

There are too many things to critique from a realistic point of view in a fantasy game.

It's not a futile discussion, I just don't believe you're really grasping what Hugh means with his argument, Animaaal, and it's actually a very good one that no one should really be disagreeing with.

When you "lock-on" to an opponent, you and your opponent are actively facing each other all the time. Just making that clear, I'll present some scenarios (Assume you and your opponent are locked-onto each other in all of them):

Scenario 1: You attack with an Ultra Great Sword/Are casting F. Pillar/doing something with a large amount of recovery frames. You miss and your opponent back-stabs you; there is no reason for complaint nor argument as it's clear that you did something stupid and got punished for it. Perfectly acceptable instance of a B.S.

Scenario 2: You and your opponent are facing each other. Your opponent starts strafing around you. You would expect the lock-on to do its job and you'd automatically face your opponent because such a stupid tactic shouldn't even be possible in the first place. You end up getting B.S.ed though. This can be attributed to lag as well, but the window allowing it in the first place is ridiculously broken due to the lag. This is mostly what Hugh is saying is really stupid and should be fixed in whatever way From can manage. Depending on your perspective, the use of such a mechanic and taking advantage of it gives you an unfair advantage sometimes and can be considered "cheap" or "cheating".

While we're on that topic, lock-on BSs where you run towards your opponent shouldn't really be possible anyways due to the momentum you should have, and the game does give you momentum! But the weird mechanics surrounding PvP lock-on and lag negate it for some reason.

Also, you state that real life combat is almost unrelated but I digress, the combat does mimic a near realistic experience due to attack frames. No need to critique everything, but what is present should be, since it's obvious that this game is attempting to imitate the consequences of realistic combat that punishes you for your mistakes. You can use the "this is a fantasy game" card as an excuse for a lot of arguments but this is not one of those exceptions.

I share Hugh's ideal that one of the things I'd like to see is a fixed/improved B.S. mechanic that isn't as broken as the current one.