by Animaaal Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:06 pm^Then how would you punish a caster?
+22
Jansports
LunarFog
Sentiel
Animaaal
TheMeInTeam
BrotherBob
O1va_
Shakie666
goober0331
Soul of Stray Demon
Hugh_G_Johnson
Rynn
phastings
shadowzninjaz
Cynic
samster628
buzzgud
mr_no_face
StiffNipples
passivefamiliar
Dibsville
Derpwraith
26 posters
Critical Hit Restrictions?
Animaaal- Compulsory Poster
- Posts : 3419
Reputation : 175
Join date : 2013-01-17
Serious_Much- Moderator Trainee
- Posts : 14641
Reputation : 287
Join date : 2012-01-17
Age : 31
Location : The Dark Side of the Moon
You could also ask why is there a need for BS to punish a the caster?
Hugh_G_Johnson- Caffeinated
- Posts : 775
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : World of the Guilty
Animaaal wrote:^Then how would you punish a caster?
If you could also punish a caster (and perhaps whiffs with certain weapons) would you be ok with it in that case?
LunarFog- Hollowed
- Posts : 1856
Reputation : 109
Join date : 2012-12-05
Age : 28
Location : Darkroot Basin
I might have already stated it in this thread but seriously. Backstabs could be fixed with a single sentence of logic that was added into the game.
Cannot backstab someone if they are locked onto you unless they are in some sort of activity animation.
That fixes the bs fishing problem, yet leaves the ability to punish people for sloppy gameplay.
Cannot backstab someone if they are locked onto you unless they are in some sort of activity animation.
That fixes the bs fishing problem, yet leaves the ability to punish people for sloppy gameplay.
Sentiel- Compulsory Poster
- Posts : 3181
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2012-11-26
Age : 36
Location : Mushroom Kingdom
I'd also like to add that shrinking the hitboxes for landing a backstab could also help, as people would have more problems doing stuff like roll bs to faster moves. It's ridiculous that everything you do, even fast moves like a katana swing, can be roll backstabbed with a little prediction skill. As such, people tend to rely on this technique for both offence and defence and don't bother with anything else.LunarFog wrote:Cannot backstab someone if they are locked onto you unless they are in some sort of activity animation.
Another thing that popped in my mind was to force roll speed depending on the armor equipped and not only on Equip Burden.
Meaning that anyone who would equip one piece of a heavy, Stamina recovery hampering armor, like Havel's, Giant,s etc, would be forced to Medium Roll. If there would be two, or more pieces a Fat Roll would be forced upon the wielder.
This, in my opinion, should eliminate most of the Fast Rolling high Poise, Hornet builds and further help reducing all manner of roll bs, poise bs and such. It could also promote usage of tank builds and Medium Rolling, because Fast Rolling would now require to have little to no Poise.
However, this may also require the removal of Wolf Ring and DWGR. I'm not sure on this part, but I believe this would make all roll speeds and builds equally viable.
O1va_- Regular
- Posts : 78
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-03-26
LunarFog wrote:I might have already stated it in this thread but seriously. Backstabs could be fixed with a single sentence of logic that was added into the game.
Cannot backstab someone if they are locked onto you unless they are in some sort of activity animation.
That fixes the bs fishing problem, yet leaves the ability to punish people for sloppy gameplay.
All BS fishing gankers in the dark souls universe agree with you.
TheMeInTeam- Insomniac
- Posts : 1010
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2012-11-05
Age : 40
Location : 1337 Accuracy Way
However, this may also require the removal of Wolf Ring and DWGR. I'm not sure on this part, but I believe this would make all roll speeds and builds equally viable.
Probably the wolf but not the DWGR. Wolf ring wins in poise vs roll speed optimization over havel's for every common endurance stat I've seen (Havel's lets you get more defense though). Wolf ring is why, if you're using a light weapon, you can have 76 poise and fast roll or ninja flip while only giving up physical defense, which is probably too weak of a factor in PvP.
I was under the impression that attempting a roll BS when someone doesn't attack could get you counter-stabbed...is that not true?
I don't see how backstabs will be nearly the same issue with servers. One of the only major problems with them is that they're unique in "updating" client side detection/location --> look at all the situations where you physically hit someone on your screen but they "dodged" it for no damage even while the attack shows electricity on them/etc. In backstabs, that doesn't happen; they get warped back to take the hit on their screen instead of rolling away for 0 damage. This differential in treatment gives backstabs an advantage over other tactics they don't have by in-game design, but rather by connection. I assert that this more than anything is why they seem "cheap" to so many people; they are literally treated differently by the connection than virtually anything else.
IMO we should have a hard look at just how differently servers makes them play out. Servers + slightly smaller cone would nerf them down very hard already. It might be enough.
Soul of Stray Demon- Revived
- Posts : 2424
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2013-06-11
Age : 28
Location : Sitting next to Encore... "watching television"
Having roll speed depend on type of armor would reduce the importance of equip weight then. Even if equip weight would still affect run speed and such, the roll is much more important in combat. No one would ever have a reason, no matter what to go past 40 end.
And defense can play a big part at times in pvp, the difference between dying in two backstabs and three backstabs can make or break a fight.
And defense can play a big part at times in pvp, the difference between dying in two backstabs and three backstabs can make or break a fight.
Forum Pirate- Chosen Undead
- Posts : 6625
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2012-01-30
Age : 33
Location : International waters
phastings wrote:Forum Pirate wrote:Way to read the thread and see the explinations as to how that would simply make a different tactic the defualt tactic for the masses, not to mention creating a whole mess of balance issues.
I did read the thread, and given the fact that non of us have experienced DkS pvp with said mechanic, i feel that it shouldnt be dismissed based solely off of conjecture or opinion that "the vacuum will just end up filled, so why change it" argument..
It would be a defensive measure.. Not an offensive tactic, which is currently in place, most often OHKO that trumps all other moves. As stated, it physically makes sense whereas currently it kinda defies physics (yes I know, it's a videogame). It could be balanced so that consequently wearing the shield on back lowers poise, or slows roll; any number of take-aways so not everyone will want to 2h w/ shield on back without considering the risks.
Just don't jump to dismiss it bc it was "explained previously" and somehow that is the definitive end of discussion; its one of the points of concern from the OP...
1. of course its conjecture, using things as they are now combined with what little is known about 2. One cannot debate in a vaccume. Based on what is known, its a terrible idea. If new information is introduced, I'd be inclined to change my opinion.
2. Opinion, and I dissagree. The point of jujitsu, as a real world example, is to land a "back stab." Idealy, to get behind your opponent and end the fight in a single choke or hold, and it works quite well as an offensive tool.
3.The animation is symbolic. There are hundreds of potential "critical" attacks for any given weapon, attacks that strike viulnerable areas and cannot be seen by the character recieving them and so cannot be responded to appropriately, and few of them involve stabbing. A dagger would have little trouble going around your shield, for example, and the larger weapon users could simply cave in your skull, or trip you to fall backwards, and then drop their massive weapon directly onto your chest.
4. If you simply post a blanket opinion, without attempting to engage in the debate and counter any points that have been made, I'm going to dismiss you, because you've contributed nothing of worth, theoretical or otherwise.
@animaal. I'm glad you think so. I do try to be helpful, and its frustrating to deal with people offended by my efforts to do so.
LunarFog- Hollowed
- Posts : 1856
Reputation : 109
Join date : 2012-12-05
Age : 28
Location : Darkroot Basin
O1va_ wrote:LunarFog wrote:I might have already stated it in this thread but seriously. Backstabs could be fixed with a single sentence of logic that was added into the game.
Cannot backstab someone if they are locked onto you unless they are in some sort of activity animation.
That fixes the bs fishing problem, yet leaves the ability to punish people for sloppy gameplay.
All BS fishing gankers in the dark souls universe agree with you.
As opposed to what alternative? I'm talking about fixing backstabs. Not fixing ganking, although there's ways to deal with that too.
phastings- Addicted
- Posts : 284
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2013-04-23
Age : 41
Location : Tower of Latria: 25 to life
@forum pirate: I don't feel I'm required to explain or defend my opinion to you when I was simply agreeing with the OP, unless of course I were in disagreement with him, or quoting a post by you in effort to dismantle or undermine your arguments. I mean this with due respect.
With that being said, it wouldn't have hurt for me to elaborate.
1. I was simply illustrating that your argument "backstab negating shield on back would make that the new default exploitable tactic for the masses" is like saying "why change a broken system; as it will ultimately be replaced by another." For one, we know for a fact the devs have acknowledged the problems with backstabs, as they have retooled the animations and i-frames. They have even programmed enemy AI to counter them; ie the turtle knight, so there is plausibility to consider other features that might be in the works, such as the topic at hand.
2. I never stated I disagree with the idea or philosophy of a backstab or think it should be removed from the game, I simply said a shield worn across someone's back logically should block an attack as the animation is currently performed. At the least mitigate some damage.
And Why not? This would net us all another level of depth to combat tactics. We would have to rethink our approach when facing an opponent whose back-covered, and having an extra weapon/talisman slot would certainly increase the adaptability. It's not as though it would be impenetrable. Imagine if as a result, it reduced poise or disabled a quick-roll.
3. Good point. I understand there are different weapon animations, which Im glad they acknowledged. However, I cannot justify the logic behind the physics of working a weapon around the shield to exploit a soft spot in the armor when Im faced with these teleporting BS fishers.. Seems to tear the argument to peices. But I understand that is latency issues with online play and not intended, however it can't be ignored, as it is present and prevalent.
4. I'm new to forums, so I beg your pardon, but if I come across a comment that I personally do not see as insightful, in agreement with my thoughts, or elaborated to defend a stance against my own despite not being the OP, I do not take it upon myself to call them out; I disregard it and move on. (if your an mod or something: apologies)
I will also point out that the devs have rendered backstabs as less effective in DaS2 from what we have seen; they can be rolled out with proper timing. This would in turn render BS negating worn-shields proportionally less effective, and would consequently not be "the default new exploitable move for the masses."
p.s. shield-on-back/back-covered... so is there another way of saying that or term for it that im missing? I feel like a dumbass every time i make the reference..
With that being said, it wouldn't have hurt for me to elaborate.
1. I was simply illustrating that your argument "backstab negating shield on back would make that the new default exploitable tactic for the masses" is like saying "why change a broken system; as it will ultimately be replaced by another." For one, we know for a fact the devs have acknowledged the problems with backstabs, as they have retooled the animations and i-frames. They have even programmed enemy AI to counter them; ie the turtle knight, so there is plausibility to consider other features that might be in the works, such as the topic at hand.
2. I never stated I disagree with the idea or philosophy of a backstab or think it should be removed from the game, I simply said a shield worn across someone's back logically should block an attack as the animation is currently performed. At the least mitigate some damage.
And Why not? This would net us all another level of depth to combat tactics. We would have to rethink our approach when facing an opponent whose back-covered, and having an extra weapon/talisman slot would certainly increase the adaptability. It's not as though it would be impenetrable. Imagine if as a result, it reduced poise or disabled a quick-roll.
3. Good point. I understand there are different weapon animations, which Im glad they acknowledged. However, I cannot justify the logic behind the physics of working a weapon around the shield to exploit a soft spot in the armor when Im faced with these teleporting BS fishers.. Seems to tear the argument to peices. But I understand that is latency issues with online play and not intended, however it can't be ignored, as it is present and prevalent.
4. I'm new to forums, so I beg your pardon, but if I come across a comment that I personally do not see as insightful, in agreement with my thoughts, or elaborated to defend a stance against my own despite not being the OP, I do not take it upon myself to call them out; I disregard it and move on. (if your an mod or something: apologies)
I will also point out that the devs have rendered backstabs as less effective in DaS2 from what we have seen; they can be rolled out with proper timing. This would in turn render BS negating worn-shields proportionally less effective, and would consequently not be "the default new exploitable move for the masses."
p.s. shield-on-back/back-covered... so is there another way of saying that or term for it that im missing? I feel like a dumbass every time i make the reference..
O1va_- Regular
- Posts : 78
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-03-26
LunarFog wrote:O1va_ wrote:LunarFog wrote:I might have already stated it in this thread but seriously. Backstabs could be fixed with a single sentence of logic that was added into the game.
Cannot backstab someone if they are locked onto you unless they are in some sort of activity animation.
That fixes the bs fishing problem, yet leaves the ability to punish people for sloppy gameplay.
All BS fishing gankers in the dark souls universe agree with you.
As opposed to what alternative? I'm talking about fixing backstabs. Not fixing ganking, although there's ways to deal with that too.
IMO you're fixing something that isn't that broken, and totally breaking another part of the game in the process (which isn't broken either at the moment). Sure they could make the BS angle smaller, I think it would be great, but something that situational as no BS if locked on doesn't even make sence. Do you really get BSd that often while not in some sort of activity animation? If you do get BSd like that its your own fault most of the time, and the time its not your fault its about lag and thats not a BS issue.
Forum Pirate- Chosen Undead
- Posts : 6625
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2012-01-30
Age : 33
Location : International waters
1. I don't agree it is a broken system. Lag simply has a more noticable (though not any stronger) effect on it so it gets more heat than anything else. Look at how parries work. You can't parry unless you hit the button before the attack animation starts with most weapons.
2. And why would it do either of those things? unless its a greatshield or something, suddenly you put your heater on your back and now you mid roll or get staggered more easily? how does that make sense, even in a fantasy context?
It would not be adding. We already have numerous methods for quickly and easily shutting down bs attempts, and these must all be considered in the context of any bs attempt. To go any farther than the escape (which, for the record, I'm not happy about. Servers would likely have been enough to stop a good deal of the tele stabbs without nerfing them further.) is to risk putting them on the far side of useless.
3.one cannot and should not design around lag. Thats the "fake lag" type crap that makes phantom range such an issue in many games, dks included. It creates a fake disadvantage for the host, often worse than the disadvantage the client would have suffered in the first place.
The lag stab is simply an extension of the phantom range concept.
The design should essentially be done in a vaccume, assuming ideal conditions, and then the developers should strive to provide conditions as close to ideal as often as possible.
My arguement stands.
4. Forums are, in large part, for those reading. The majority of the readers are unlikely to be members, thus in any topic not specifically created for simply chatting (which go in off topic) If one is not contributing, there is little point in posting.
Your opinion is worthless in a public forum unless you back it, as is everyone elses. Its not a contribution if you don't, its an empty statement. It does not add to the information or perspective present.
You may as well say, "i like pie" in a discussion about lord of the rings.
In addition, such empty statements can either be made informed, in which case you should be providing information/perspective as to why you agree so that others may benifit, or uninformed, in which case you should be dismissed for not contributing.
I assume the latter, and act accordingly, because I cannot provide counter points for the former, not having access to the insight you failed to provide.
2. And why would it do either of those things? unless its a greatshield or something, suddenly you put your heater on your back and now you mid roll or get staggered more easily? how does that make sense, even in a fantasy context?
It would not be adding. We already have numerous methods for quickly and easily shutting down bs attempts, and these must all be considered in the context of any bs attempt. To go any farther than the escape (which, for the record, I'm not happy about. Servers would likely have been enough to stop a good deal of the tele stabbs without nerfing them further.) is to risk putting them on the far side of useless.
3.one cannot and should not design around lag. Thats the "fake lag" type crap that makes phantom range such an issue in many games, dks included. It creates a fake disadvantage for the host, often worse than the disadvantage the client would have suffered in the first place.
The lag stab is simply an extension of the phantom range concept.
The design should essentially be done in a vaccume, assuming ideal conditions, and then the developers should strive to provide conditions as close to ideal as often as possible.
My arguement stands.
4. Forums are, in large part, for those reading. The majority of the readers are unlikely to be members, thus in any topic not specifically created for simply chatting (which go in off topic) If one is not contributing, there is little point in posting.
Your opinion is worthless in a public forum unless you back it, as is everyone elses. Its not a contribution if you don't, its an empty statement. It does not add to the information or perspective present.
You may as well say, "i like pie" in a discussion about lord of the rings.
In addition, such empty statements can either be made informed, in which case you should be providing information/perspective as to why you agree so that others may benifit, or uninformed, in which case you should be dismissed for not contributing.
I assume the latter, and act accordingly, because I cannot provide counter points for the former, not having access to the insight you failed to provide.
phastings- Addicted
- Posts : 284
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2013-04-23
Age : 41
Location : Tower of Latria: 25 to life
- it shouldn't be about adapting to Backstab pvp, it should be about balance so one move is not the dominant, easy to pull off, combat mechanic negating default tactic to fall back on when skill is not on your side.
^this was my point. Plain and simple. Didnt need any indepth explanation that BS is the main source of exploitation and counter-measures should be in place to force those who rely on their manipulation to alternative playstyles, thus leveling the playing field.
But you make a good point, ill watch how I post in the future so as not to leave a loose ended blanket statement. Moving on.
^this was my point. Plain and simple. Didnt need any indepth explanation that BS is the main source of exploitation and counter-measures should be in place to force those who rely on their manipulation to alternative playstyles, thus leveling the playing field.
But you make a good point, ill watch how I post in the future so as not to leave a loose ended blanket statement. Moving on.
BrotherBob- Obsessed
- Posts : 437
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2012-10-03
I think I'll just bring up something I haven't seen discussed yet. A lot of people think that making the BS cone smaller will be a solid step towards "fixing" backstabs. My problem is that gankers will have a field day. As it stands, from what I see anyway, easy and effective strategies against gankers often involve pulling off BS's, often roll BS's. Making the cone smaller will cause a bunch of failed BS attempts and ultimately make dealing with them a whole lot harder. Now, I understand that some players have strategies that don't involve BS's much and some players will be able to refine their BS attempts to adapt to the smaller cone. It might even make killing gankers a skillful sport. However, I think that I would be right in saying that these players would be only the best of us. With the current BS cone, any decent player (with a bit of luck) can ruin a ganking session; it keeps gankers on their toes at least. With a smaller BS cone, gankers would have to fear far fewer players, and the only players who would have to "prepare to die" would be invaders. To wrap up, smaller BS cone = much easier ganking. Is it worth the trade-off?
phastings- Addicted
- Posts : 284
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2013-04-23
Age : 41
Location : Tower of Latria: 25 to life
Bob, even if the hitbox isn't narrowed, the biggest problem concerning that is i-frame removal from the animation. Those who played the demo at E3 said when engaged in a backstab animation, mobs would still inflict damage on them during it, which would render BS completely useless against gankers no matter how easy they are to land.
Animaaal- Compulsory Poster
- Posts : 3419
Reputation : 175
Join date : 2013-01-17
I say yes.
I think that although a fix for backstabs could inadvertently affect the ganking scenario you've very nicely laid out, they should not be considered together when formulating a solution for one.
I think there are separate ideas that could limit the effectiveness of ganking outside of backstabs entirely.
For example an "agro emote" exclusive to invaders. Invaders could stand to control the AI a little better in their hosts world imo. That could even the odds. I really hope we see something like this or ideas of a similar nature.
However, nice point brotherbob and well put.
@Phastings
That's a good point too.
I think that although a fix for backstabs could inadvertently affect the ganking scenario you've very nicely laid out, they should not be considered together when formulating a solution for one.
I think there are separate ideas that could limit the effectiveness of ganking outside of backstabs entirely.
For example an "agro emote" exclusive to invaders. Invaders could stand to control the AI a little better in their hosts world imo. That could even the odds. I really hope we see something like this or ideas of a similar nature.
However, nice point brotherbob and well put.
@Phastings
That's a good point too.
LunarFog- Hollowed
- Posts : 1856
Reputation : 109
Join date : 2012-12-05
Age : 28
Location : Darkroot Basin
O1va_ wrote:
IMO you're fixing something that isn't that broken, and totally breaking another part of the game in the process (which isn't broken either at the moment). Sure they could make the BS angle smaller, I think it would be great, but something that situational as no BS if locked on doesn't even make sence. Do you really get BSd that often while not in some sort of activity animation? If you do get BSd like that its your own fault most of the time, and the time its not your fault its about lag and thats not a BS issue.
You're wrong if you think that the BS mechanic isn't broken. Backstabs are COMPLETELY situational in concept and it should be the same in gameplay too. They're supposed to be for people to have an advantage if they catch their opponent unaware, and to punish sloppy gameplay. They aren't supposed to be the main core of combat. And I HOPE you aren't going to try to argue that backstabs purpose is to have Dark Souls PvP revolve around it.
Last edited by Emergence on Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:45 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Unimpressive attempts at belittling)
Animaaal- Compulsory Poster
- Posts : 3419
Reputation : 175
Join date : 2013-01-17
Damn that's %$#@ing harsh.
I'd hate to see backstabs removed, I mean...it kinda does make it souls ya know?!?!?
But ya they are kinda broke. Doesn't break the game imo.
I'd hate to see backstabs removed, I mean...it kinda does make it souls ya know?!?!?
But ya they are kinda broke. Doesn't break the game imo.
LunarFog- Hollowed
- Posts : 1856
Reputation : 109
Join date : 2012-12-05
Age : 28
Location : Darkroot Basin
Yea, it'd be terrible if they were removed completely. But like it was said several times before, they're really broken as they are now. To the point where I can't even take real PvP seriously. Making the windows is definitely a good start to fixing the problem, but I'm not sure if that'll be enough by itself.
Animaaal- Compulsory Poster
- Posts : 3419
Reputation : 175
Join date : 2013-01-17
You make a great point, a couple actually.
But the problem can and, imo, will be fixed. If you look at the progression in FROM's intent behind the development and design of Demon's Souls to Dark Souls, you could easily ascertain that DkS 2 will be equally progressive.
I would like to see a patch for Dark Souls actually.
The hackers and mules are %$#@ing everything up, and I think they should fix it before marketing DkS2. I'm still gonna buy it, but most casuals won't if they think FROM makes brokea$$ games.
I hate to talk that way about FROM, but I think it warrants mentioning.
And you're right lunar, the backstab mechanic shouldn't make the combat so linear.
But the problem can and, imo, will be fixed. If you look at the progression in FROM's intent behind the development and design of Demon's Souls to Dark Souls, you could easily ascertain that DkS 2 will be equally progressive.
I would like to see a patch for Dark Souls actually.
The hackers and mules are %$#@ing everything up, and I think they should fix it before marketing DkS2. I'm still gonna buy it, but most casuals won't if they think FROM makes brokea$$ games.
I hate to talk that way about FROM, but I think it warrants mentioning.
And you're right lunar, the backstab mechanic shouldn't make the combat so linear.
TheMeInTeam- Insomniac
- Posts : 1010
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2012-11-05
Age : 40
Location : 1337 Accuracy Way
You're an ignorant little niggler if you think that the BS mechanic isn't broken
Completely uncalled for, and you took that assertion out of context. They would be a LOT less threatening without the lag compensation. Servers alone would make BS significantly more difficult to accomplish, but even now decent spacing helps enormously. As of right now, they are *slightly* too easy to execute, maybe, but that might be entirely related to lag. It is certainly possible to 100% avoid being backstabbed if you don't want to be backstabbed, simply by locking on and backing away in the opposite direction of their horizontal approach. BS on that is completely impossible, and only the slowest attacks can be BS'd if spaced near the edge of their swing.
Servers + smaller window could easily be enough to nerf them back into "occasional use" levels.
BrotherBob- Obsessed
- Posts : 437
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2012-10-03
phastings wrote:Bob, even if the hitbox isn't narrowed, the biggest problem concerning that is i-frame removal from the animation. Those who played the demo at E3 said when engaged in a backstab animation, mobs would still inflict damage on them during it, which would render BS completely useless against gankers no matter how easy they are to land.
I actually haven't seen any of the gameplay footage other than the IGN clip. If what you say is true, I agree that that is way worse than a narrow BS cone. It makes backstabs utterly useless, and to think of the ganking that will take place...
Out of curiosity, is there any information on i-frames for ripostes?
TheMeInTeam- Insomniac
- Posts : 1010
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2012-11-05
Age : 40
Location : 1337 Accuracy Way
Without BS anti-ganking will fall even more in the direction of "knockback spells in precarious places" or "big AoE spells", for example things like TWoP ---> Dark Bead or Fire Tempest (TWoP Tempest is one of the most accessible things out there, thanks to pyro scaling on only soul investment and TWoP being available to Quality, STR, and Faith builds).
That would be unfortunate, as it would cut down on the number of builds with which it would be practical to invade. I guess the big sweeping weapons like the Zwei would still catch/kill lower-end gankers.
That would be unfortunate, as it would cut down on the number of builds with which it would be practical to invade. I guess the big sweeping weapons like the Zwei would still catch/kill lower-end gankers.
phastings- Addicted
- Posts : 284
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2013-04-23
Age : 41
Location : Tower of Latria: 25 to life
@brotherbob: Well, there hasn't been any official word on it i dont think, just what has been experienced and relayed, but with ripostes, they say that when you swat away an incomming attack, it knocks them down? ill have to find out exactly where journalists have mentioned it. just found the article from examiner.com:
2nd paragraph explains the new parry/riposte
http://www.examiner.com/article/e3-2013-hands-on-with-dark-souls-ii-part-1-improvements
Back-stabs and Parries have been re-worked:
"One very significant change for PvP-oriented players is that back-stabbing and parry mechanics have been re-worked. Rather than being a context-sensitive animation that players can initiate when standing behind their opponents, back-stabs are strikes in Dark Souls II. It is a physical blow that, when successful, will trigger a unique back-stab animation. Success hinges on whether the initial blow connects. This means that a backstab can be evaded, and that backstabs can actually miss. If a player evades that initial blow, the backstab will fail.
This is true for parrying as well. A successful parry serves as a blow that knocks the opponent down, leaving them open to a riposte. There is a greater delay between a successful parry and how soon a player can riposte. As a result, it is much more dangerous to riposte when other enemies are around. Players can no longer run into a crowd of enemies and parry-riposte them all to death. These moves are much less "safe" - they are tools like any other attack, with their own strengths and weaknesses.
It is clear that Dark Souls II encourages the methodical approach that the original was known for. Players cannot rush - they must pay attention and be aware of their surroundings at all times. In fact, Dark Souls II will be worse in this respect, as the improved enemy AI can much more easily ambush and overcome an unprepared player."
-----
- They could have just made parrying drain a significant amount of stamina so it couldn't be spammed. im going to miss that epic sound right as you successfully parry
2nd paragraph explains the new parry/riposte
http://www.examiner.com/article/e3-2013-hands-on-with-dark-souls-ii-part-1-improvements
Back-stabs and Parries have been re-worked:
"One very significant change for PvP-oriented players is that back-stabbing and parry mechanics have been re-worked. Rather than being a context-sensitive animation that players can initiate when standing behind their opponents, back-stabs are strikes in Dark Souls II. It is a physical blow that, when successful, will trigger a unique back-stab animation. Success hinges on whether the initial blow connects. This means that a backstab can be evaded, and that backstabs can actually miss. If a player evades that initial blow, the backstab will fail.
This is true for parrying as well. A successful parry serves as a blow that knocks the opponent down, leaving them open to a riposte. There is a greater delay between a successful parry and how soon a player can riposte. As a result, it is much more dangerous to riposte when other enemies are around. Players can no longer run into a crowd of enemies and parry-riposte them all to death. These moves are much less "safe" - they are tools like any other attack, with their own strengths and weaknesses.
It is clear that Dark Souls II encourages the methodical approach that the original was known for. Players cannot rush - they must pay attention and be aware of their surroundings at all times. In fact, Dark Souls II will be worse in this respect, as the improved enemy AI can much more easily ambush and overcome an unprepared player."
-----
- They could have just made parrying drain a significant amount of stamina so it couldn't be spammed. im going to miss that epic sound right as you successfully parry
|
|
|
