Time limits on summons concern me

phastings wrote:unless there is an invader cov that allows another to enter the world of the host you invaded, Blue cov is going to be exploited by gankers. Also, the former would only be fair if it was limited to duel invasions of blue cov hosts for balance-purposes

The whole point behind the Blue Covenant is "*** fair play". Adding "balancing" measures of any kind to the invader (who as far as we can tell continues the proud souls tradition of losing nothing in an invasion goes badly, and thus has no stake in the fight) is kind of missing the point.

If you feel it's unfair, then leave once you see the Blue Phantom, don't whine about it.

I would like to think the possibility of dual invasions as a punishment for covenant betrayal, where a member of the betrayed covenant can invade another world that already has an invader. There could also be a Covenant that allows there to be 2 members in one host's world, but of course, they will need a bit of balancing.

Zeful wrote:

phastings wrote:unless there is an invader cov that allows another to enter the world of the host you invaded, Blue cov is going to be exploited by gankers. Also, the former would only be fair if it was limited to duel invasions of blue cov hosts for balance-purposes

The whole point behind the Blue Covenant is "*** fair play". Adding "balancing" measures of any kind to the invader (who as far as we can tell continues the proud souls tradition of losing nothing in an invasion goes badly, and thus has no stake in the fight) is kind of missing the point.

If you feel it's unfair, then leave once you see the Blue Phantom, don't whine about it.

haha are you serious? Ok, im gonna try and do this while whining, but cant promise i wont break down and cry tears of reason: 

1. players currently summon 2 phantoms and wait for invaders to ambush them which has adopted the term "ganking"

2. People do not like ganking, nor do people like to admit they have partaken (but we all know most of us have at least once, its like peeing in the pool). irrelevant, i digress  

3. Granting a player the ability to always have a summon upon being invaded means gankers need do little else than join said covenant and wait around for invaders (humans are opportunists), even summon another white when the message pops if they want..

4. (why im confused with your statement of fair play) an invader covenant to BALANCE the aforementioned was more of an idea than a whiney outcry.. how "fair" does it feel to you or anyone when you are supposed to hunt down a host, pvp 1v1, fightclub etc, only to be bombarded by three mom-havel douchebags waiting around to pummel you? 

5. if your not invading, you are either playing thru an area, or waiting to be invaded.. if the latter is the case, how many people will wait around for pvp without being in the blue covenant? might be a topic worth visiting 

-Dark souls is not supposed to be forgiving, or easy, but "fair" IS why the mechanics are programmed so well that it is on you when you fail.. 

pvp is certainly another matter, and different rules apply, but that does not mean the exception (ganking opportunities) needs to become the rule, nor should it be okay to give the griefers an edge when the PVP community has to suffer as a result.
I was trying to point out what may happen.

phastings wrote:haha are you serious? Ok, im gonna try and do this while whining, but cant promise i wont break down and cry tears of reason: 

1. players currently summon 2 phantoms and wait for invaders to ambush them which has adopted the term "ganking"

2. People do not like ganking, nor do people like to admit they have partaken, but we all know most of us have at least once, (its like peeing in the pool).  

3. Granting a player the ability to always have a summon upon being invaded means gankers need do little else than join said covenant and wait around for invaders (humans are opportunists), even summon another white when the message pops if they want..

4. (why im confused with your statement of fair play) how "fair" does it feel to you or anyone when you are supposed to hunt down a host only to be bombarded by three mom-havel douchebags? Dark souls is not supposed to be forgiving, or easy, but "fair" IS why the mechanics are programmed so well that it is on you when you fail.. pvp is certainly another matter, but that does not mean its ok to give the griefers an edge when the PVP community has to suffer from it.

1: And?
2: So?
3: Yes, and? Invading is fundamentally different from consensual PvP, the host has a right to summon help against an invader if he feels like it (if they didn't From would simply banish all of the host's summons, and lock the host's ability to summon new phantoms whenever he's invaded, not create a covenant that summons a phantom the moment they are invaded). If you don't like it, then use the red sign soapstone or join the dragon covenant (or the DkS2 equivalents).
4: Why should the host play by the invader's rules?

Zeful wrote:

phastings wrote:haha are you serious? Ok, im gonna try and do this while whining, but cant promise i wont break down and cry tears of reason: 

1. players currently summon 2 phantoms and wait for invaders to ambush them which has adopted the term "ganking"

2. People do not like ganking, nor do people like to admit they have partaken, but we all know most of us have at least once, (its like peeing in the pool).  

3. Granting a player the ability to always have a summon upon being invaded means gankers need do little else than join said covenant and wait around for invaders (humans are opportunists), even summon another white when the message pops if they want..

4. (why im confused with your statement of fair play) how "fair" does it feel to you or anyone when you are supposed to hunt down a host only to be bombarded by three mom-havel douchebags? Dark souls is not supposed to be forgiving, or easy, but "fair" IS why the mechanics are programmed so well that it is on you when you fail.. pvp is certainly another matter, but that does not mean its ok to give the griefers an edge when the PVP community has to suffer from it.

1: And?
2: So?
3: Yes, and? Invading is fundamentally different from consensual PvP, the host has a right to summon help against an invader if he feels like it (if they didn't From would simply banish all of the host's summons, and lock the host's ability to summon new phantoms whenever he's invaded, not create a covenant that summons a phantom the moment they are invaded). If you don't like it, then use the red sign soapstone or join the dragon covenant (or the DkS2 equivalents).
4: Why should the host play by the invader's rules?

great rebuttals btw, how do you want me to reply to And? and So? just curious..
invading is the first thing anyone does to engage in "consensual" pvp bc we ALL consent to unknowingly entering a 1v3 match(sarcasm).. 

Sure, anyone has a right to do anything in any videogame, that does not mean ppl will not have issues as a result of the actions taken by others in an online environment. Like I said, im stating a point, not trying to personally assault gankers

I don't think we can truly comment all that much on the "fairness" of the Blue covenant. 
Maybe they come in weakened somehow. Maybe they have a very limited time to fight.

Maybe the Invaders have a covenant that does something similar. Some sort of strong power-up when going up against more then one player. 

Who knows how they are balancing it? We can't really pick it apart, when we don't yet understand how it works.


And please, if you're trying to make a point, back it up logically, don't throw out insults, or sarcastic remarks. You could be 100% right but once you start calling names, your credibility goes down the drain.

phastings wrote:wait a sec.. giantdad, is that you?  

great rebuttals btw, how do you want me to reply to And? and So? just curious..
invading is the first thing anyone does to engage in "consensual" pvp bc we ALL consent to unknowingly entering a 1v3 match(sarcasm).. 

Sure, anyone has a right to do anything in any videogame, that does not mean ppl will not have issues as a result of the actions taken by others in an online environment. Like I said, im stating a point, not trying to personally assault gankers

Those first two aren't rebuttals, they're dismissals, I'm quite aware what ganking is: explaining ganking is not relevant to your argument, so bringing them up as two separate points of your argument is at best talking down to me.

As for invasions, there's no pop up on either side stating the rules and conditions of being invaded, or that the invader has a right to a fair fight with the host. This is placing restraints on the game from outside it.  The host has no reason and no incentive to make the invader's fight fun for someone that invaded his world to kill him. So him using every means available to him to kill an invading phantom is how the game is intended to be played. That doesn't mean ganking is particularly respectable, but it also doesn't mean that the playing field between the two parties has to be even. That's what things like the Dragon Covenant and the red-sign soapstone are for, making those things more even is something I'm all for, because there it's kind of needed.

You can dislike a host for breaking your rules all you want, but that in no way proves your rules should be mandatory.

I'm not a ganker. I started playing Dark Souls late, so much of my PvP was done as duels with people I found online and the occasional invasion that, with no reason not to, I respected because they respected me. But I'm aware that as the person being invaded, I am under no obligation to make it an easy fight for my invader, or be considerate of his fun when making decisions. I don't see the point in "balancing" the covenant of blue when they could do other interesting things like have items that change who has the advantage, like AI controlled illusionary versions of yourself, maybe an item that tethers the host to the invader and prevents him from running away, or an item that drains the invader's health slowly forcing a fight. There's no reason to assume that invading should result in a perfectly fair fight for the invader; that's just boring.

Zeful wrote:

phastings wrote:wait a sec.. giantdad, is that you?  

great rebuttals btw, how do you want me to reply to And? and So? just curious..
invading is the first thing anyone does to engage in "consensual" pvp bc we ALL consent to unknowingly entering a 1v3 match(sarcasm).. 

Sure, anyone has a right to do anything in any videogame, that does not mean ppl will not have issues as a result of the actions taken by others in an online environment. Like I said, im stating a point, not trying to personally assault gankers

Those first two aren't rebuttals, they're dismissals, I'm quite aware what ganking is: explaining ganking is not relevant to your argument, so bringing them up as two separate points of your argument is at best talking down to me.

As for invasions, there's no pop up on either side stating the rules and conditions of being invaded, or that the invader has a right to a fair fight with the host. This is placing restraints on the game from outside it.  The host has no reason and no incentive to make the invader's fight fun for someone that invaded his world to kill him. So him using every means available to him to kill an invading phantom is how the game is intended to be played. That doesn't mean ganking is particularly respectable, but it also doesn't mean that the playing field between the two parties has to be even. That's what things like the Dragon Covenant and the red-sign soapstone are for, making those things more even is something I'm all for, because there it's kind of needed.

You can dislike a host for breaking your rules all you want, but that in no way proves your rules should be mandatory.

I'm not a ganker. I started playing Dark Souls late, so much of my PvP was done as duels with people I found online and the occasional invasion that, with no reason not to, I respected because they respected me. But I'm aware that as the person being invaded, I am under no obligation to make it an easy fight for my invader, or be considerate of his fun when making decisions. I don't see the point in "balancing" the covenant of blue when they could do other interesting things like have items that change who has the advantage, like AI controlled illusionary versions of yourself, maybe an item that tethers the host to the invader and prevents him from running away, or an item that drains the invader's health slowly forcing a fight. There's no reason to assume that invading should result in a perfectly fair fight for the invader; that's just boring.

duly noted on my 2 points. sorry to condescend.

How you are arguing in your first paragraph sounds rather bias towards the one being invaded. Instead of taking a stance that it should be no-holds-barred toward the invader, consider that the entire purpose of the invasion mechanic is to challenge the host; the player struggling through a level, not the other way around. That is not to mean the invader should have an advantage, but neither should the host; cov-o-blue kinda negates the whole element of it. it certainly does when ganking is involved.

no one is asking for a fair fight, but of course like everything in life, fairness is appreciated when paid both ways, and cheap/petty tactics will merit no sympathy, which falls into PVP etiquette. If your new to Souls, you will find that this is an important topic amongst the community.

I never stressed fairness, only exploitation: The blue cov may leave much to be taken advantage of, and perhaps they have taken into consideration a balance using another. they certainly have addressed the white phantoms by implementing a time limit.

I would actually love a tether ability, bc running is laughable, but if invaders share the same time-constraint as white phantoms will in dks2, then a lifedrain wouldnt be necessary as that time limit is pressure enough. I certainly wouldnt miss those trouble-makers hiding behind my giant blacksmith.

phastings wrote:duly noted on my 2 points. sorry to condescend.

How you are arguing in your first paragraph sounds rather bias towards the one being invaded. Instead of taking a stance that it should be no-holds-barred toward the invader, consider that the entire purpose of the invasion mechanic is to challenge the host; the player struggling through a level, not the other way around. That is not to mean the invader should have an advantage, but neither should the host; cov-o-blue kinda negates the whole element of it. it certainly does when ganking is involved.

no one is asking for a fair fight, but of course like everything in life, fairness is appreciated when paid both ways, and cheap/petty tactics will merit no sympathy, which falls into PVP etiquette. If your new to Souls, you will find that this is an important topic amongst the community.

I never stressed fairness, only exploitation: The blue cov may leave much to be taken advantage of, and perhaps they have taken into consideration a balance using another. they certainly have addressed the white phantoms by implementing a time limit.

I would actually love a tether ability, bc running is laughable, but if invaders share the same time-constraint as white phantoms will in dks2, then a lifedrain wouldnt be necessary as that time limit is pressure enough. I certainly wouldnt miss those trouble-makers hiding behind my giant blacksmith.

I disagree with the point of the invasion mechanic. I feel it's less about challenging the host and more about introducing risk. If it was about the challenge, there'd have to be an algorithm or some kind of matchmaking formula like the Elo system in chess to match good (and thus successful) invaders with more skilled hosts. While risk on the other hand doesn't care who's fighting who, only that the fight occurs and that it's not what the player expects going in. Sometimes it's more risky for the invader and sometimes it's more risky for the host. This give and take requires that sometimes you're up **** creek without a paddle, other times it presents you a milk run. But the important thing is it needs to go both ways, so sometimes getting out alive is better than "winning".

Yeah, gankers will abuse the covenant of blue, and I've figured out ways to "solve" that, and ways to get around those solutions so that people can still gank, in fact, odds are it will still be more effective to gank with friends outside of the covenant because not all the Blues will be gankers, and they'll deliberately leave rather than help in a gank. To paraphrase: Gankers gonna gank. But there's nothing tactically wrong with it. Giving the players expensive and limited ways to change the rules of engagement and force the fight on their terms will do more in my opinion to limit ganking, than attempting to limit ganking through making summons more annoying to use.

I mean, if you have an item that causes the host to passively loose health until he dies or he kills you, he now has to fight on your terms, and that means it's no longer a gank. The same goes the other way around for invaders that sit around a level hazard to kill you with no effort. If he can't just sit and wait, then he has to engage you on your terms. And yeah, these items can be used to facilitate ganks, but if only the invader and the host can use them, and you're only allowed to carry 5 or so, and they're super expensive? They won't see much use. Even if there's a benefit to the player it's used on (more souls, regaining some max health if you don't have max, maybe free titanite/scales)

As for the possible invader time limit. It might, but it would do more to facilitate ganking than anything the covenant of blue does. After all the host has infinite time, it's his world.

Well personally I play the game because a friend and I just love co op so much and its too my fun to not play together. And the whole ganking thing can be fixed easily, just send more invaders. I love to kill invaders so I wouldn't mind at all :p. But I thought they were gonna fix co op, not break it. Sad day.

Seignar wrote:FAI has naturally slow cast times (WoG/Force DOES NOT COUNT), that was what I meant by a nerf. Being miracles, they should no longer have insane cast times (at least not Dark Bead).

Also, I hope Dark Bead turns into an 360 degree attack and not a full head-on shotgun.

not so, really. its that buffs/healing naturally have a slower cast time, for varying reasons (they can't miss, they last a while, they restore hp) and faith has mostly buffs/healing. Faiths buffs also tend to be stronger. Vos/gmb/dmb/replenish/great heal, all of these are passive buffs that are stronger than or have not equivelent as an int counterpart.

 glgsd and lightning spear have simiar cast times to wdb and tempest.

Kax Ace xKa wrote:Well personally I play the game because a friend and I just love co op so much and its too my fun to not play together. And the whole ganking thing can be fixed easily, just send more invaders. I love to kill invaders so I wouldn't mind at all :p. But I thought they were gonna fix co op, not break it. Sad day.

They did fix it. Just not in the way you wanted it, but rather in the way they wanted it. It now better fits the game developers' vision for the game.

Soul of Stray Demon wrote:Who knows how they are balancing it? We can't really pick it apart, when we don't yet understand how it works.

I had to give you an up-rep for making the most sensible comment of this entire thread. 

We have no idea how this is going to work.  But I do know it makes sense that the odds should be stacked against invaders on non-consensual PvP.  If you're going to drop into someone's game and snag a few thousand souls early in the game, then it should be hard.  If you invade someone, they may not be prepared for a PvP fight.  The invader is.

For all we know, a better-working PvP arena will be included, and everyone looking for 1 v 1 fights will go there.

phastings wrote:

1. players currently summon 2 phantoms and wait for invaders to ambush them which has adopted the term "ganking"

2. People do not like ganking, nor do people like to admit they have partaken (but we all know most of us have at least once, its like peeing in the pool). irrelevant, i digress  

3. Granting a player the ability to always have a summon upon being invaded means gankers need do little else than join said covenant and wait around for invaders (humans are opportunists), even summon another white when the message pops if they want..

4. (why im confused with your statement of fair play) an invader covenant to BALANCE the aforementioned was more of an idea than a whiney outcry.. how "fair" does it feel to you or anyone when you are supposed to hunt down a host, pvp 1v1, fightclub etc, only to be bombarded by three mom-havel douchebags waiting around to pummel you? 

5. if your not invading, you are either playing thru an area, or waiting to be invaded.. if the latter is the case, how many people will wait around for pvp without being in the blue covenant? might be a topic worth visiting 

-Dark souls is not supposed to be forgiving, or easy, but "fair" IS why the mechanics are programmed so well that it is on you when you fail.. 

pvp is certainly another matter, and different rules apply, but that does not mean the exception (ganking opportunities) needs to become the rule, nor should it be okay to give the griefers an edge when the PVP community has to suffer as a result.
I was trying to point out what may happen.

1) timelimits on summons
3) invaders are usually skilled players, unskilled players need the help of a skilled player to combat constant invasions.  it will in essence be 1v1 and a noob trying not to get killed before his companion does.
5) blue covenant helps a separate covenant not its own covenant.  also, I don't invade, I don't particularly like being invaded, I am usually just trying to survive the level.

Well, i'm sorry if someone else has already posted this, since I don't have time to read the other 5 pages, but here's my opinion. On the whole, the summoning changes are a good thing, especially the auto-summon if you're invaded while being in the covenant of blue. It gives players pvp skills that they wouldn't have picked up otherwise, without making things impossible for the invader, and makes the host less reliant on the summons to do their dirty work.

However, I can think of two problems. The first problem is; whats to stop an invader from hiding/turtling until the summon is gone? This could leave a less-experienced host potentially defenceless (unless invaders are also on a timer). The second, bigger problem is: what reward is the summon getting? In DkS1, you get a bunch of souls from killing the boss at the end of an area, but if the phantom's timer runs out before then (as I imagine it probably would), they get nothing except the scant few souls from killing the regular enemies. This could lead to a massive drop in potential summons.

Despite these problems, I think the changes are an overall improvement.

Today i've been summoning a Phantom in Anor Londo .

Not because i needed help -i was quite OP actually, i was using Vamos' Hammer+3- but because i wanted to Co-op .

I summoned someone, he was Ninja Flipping with a Lightning Katana, killing everything on sight so i could barely keep up .
That's not helping someone out, that's playing the Game for me !
It was no fun for me .

This made me realise that there is actually no downside to having Phantoms on a timer and having them take a penalty for killing Enemies .

I really look forward to this mechanic !

Marino. wrote:Today i've been summoning a Phantom in Anor Londo .

Not because i needed help -i was quite OP actually, i was using Vamos' Hammer+3- but because i wanted to Co-op .

I summoned someone, he was Ninja Flipping with a Lightning Katana, killing everything on sight so i could barely keep up .
That's not helping someone out, that's playing the Game for me !
It was no fun for me .

This made me realise that there is actually no downside to having Phantoms on a timer and having them take a penalty for killing Enemies .

I really look forward to this mechanic !

Now that I think about it, I completely agree. Even having phantoms on a timer is an 'easy-mode' with no downsides. It just doesn't make the whole thing easier.

Another thing: if people are really desperate for help when they're invaded, what about a spell similar to undead rapport, except making it good (i.e. rapported undead follow you rather than standing there doing nothing, lasts for more than 30 seconds etc).

I mean either way I'm gonna find a way around it. And really, Dark Souls wasn't that hard after you got used to it anyway, but Demons Souls is still reallllyyyyyyyyyyy unforgiving.

Shakie666 wrote:Now that I think about it, I completely agree. Even having phantoms on a timer is an 'easy-mode' with no downsides. It just doesn't make the whole thing easier.

Another thing: if people are really desperate for help when they're invaded, what about a spell similar to undead rapport, except making it good (i.e. rapported undead follow you rather than standing there doing nothing, lasts for more than 30 seconds etc).

what is with the undead rapport thing?  I never understood why the enemies would never attack the invader.  I'd often try to use enemies to run interference to at least give me a chance to even the odds, but it never worked.  the enemies always ignored the invader.  to me that is BS.  I have to fight off monsters and invaders at the same time? 

I know DS is not supposed to be fair, but I don't think the game should lean in favor of the invader.

If they implement some sort of a stable arena, say 2v2s, then I wont mind as much. As long as I can share the Dark Souls II experience in game with a couple of friends reliably, I'm happy.

I'm sure they will figure out a way to improve the arena.  it was a great idea, just not well implemented.  It would also be nice if they improved 'friend' co op.  for instance have a greater chance of having PSN friends on the same server or an option to make your sign only appear to friends.

Mr. Tart wrote:This in my eyes, is kind of a big problem. While I do understand the idea behind it, it would really ruin the replay value to me, because that's what kept me coming back to Dark Souls. With a limited time on coop, I may lose interest in the game quickly. I personally hope this won't be making it into the game.

Why would it ruin the replay value?

Also, hate to disappoint you but isn't everything in the beta making it into the game anyway? I thought the beta was only there to find bugs.

Why ? You haven't even tried it .
And from what i see it's better than ever since now it's actually Co-oping instead of clearing the whole level for the Host .