Gaming News

Souls games are not competitively serious PvP games.

Gamingtodaynews1e - Souls games are not competitively serious PvP games.
Loading...

This applies to all games From Demon Souls to Dark Souls 3.

I'm just going to make my points "quick" because I accidentally deleted my long post.

My stance is: Souls games are not competitively serious pvp games.

So, let's start:

I think 95% of humans would agree on this: True competitive esport games have to get these things: Proportional balance of options, limit of back pedaling, strat variety and high learning curve as well as high skill ceiling.

With that said, we can proceed.

Mechanics: Things like poise, stunlock and hyperarmor are badly implemented in these games in terms of PvP balance. They are designed for their use on PvE. In PvP it's pretty evident they are broken. Not much to say about them since the evidence is pretty obvious. They make the PvP exponentially more shallow.

Game design: Back pedaling, strats and limits:

DBFZ, COD, R6S, CSGO, Street Fighter. All these games have a limit in which you can back pedal an play passive. This is important.

Souls games meta has been reduced to this: Ds1 backstabs, Ds2 fast attacks and punishes, Bloodborne Rakuyo and Evelyn spam and in Ds3 straight up unreactable attacks and punishes.

Ds1 backstab meta is broken.

Ds2 meta is speed focused, punishing and playing passively.

Ds3 is just staring each other and spacing until one of the players makes a move to be punished, or else just keep doing running attacks with a fast weapon and pray to Buda that they will hit your enemy… and let's not forget about the Phantom Range meta.

They all get reduced to this when you reach high tier PvP. Because you can back pedal all you want and play passively a you want and you won't get any back shots from this.

In shooters, you have a time limit, attacking/defending teams and the objective. If the attackers don't do anything, they lose and the defenders win, they are forced to act if they want to win. And the teams respectively change roles.

In fighting games, you have a limited 2D map, you can block all you want, but you will receive chip damage which will make you lose if the time runs out. Also grabs are a thing.

MOBA games have objectives, and a time limit.

Etc. Etc.

Strategy and skill gap:

In souls games, the meta "strats" reduce the skill gap exponentially unlike what people think. All of the meta strats don't require as much skill or learning curve as people think it does. They are reductionist strats that are meant to use gaps on the RPG aspect of the game, or holes in the disadvantages of the player.

RPGs, because of their nature, are all like this, and that's why their are generally bad for a PvP enviroment: Number's game, min-maxing… etc. Skill is barely involved, and the strats that are in-combat do not require any learning path and don't revolve around anything that's not spamming or inevitably broken or one-sided.

Balance, variety and equal starting points:

Balance in RPGs is impossible, with balance comes variety, which there is, but things like match ups, 99 and min-maxing exist in RPGs.

Equal starting points: In any dark souls, if you use an UGS and get matched against a spear… you are in a massive disadvantage. This is no equal starting point, now you have to try harder than the one with the spear because of such massive disadvantage.

UGS is slow and have less range than the spear but they have more damage.

Spears have more speed and range but less damage.

2 on1. Now, they are not practically balanced and the advantage/disadvantage ratio is not proportional.

For example: In DS3 a straight sword has 70%~ more speed than a UGS and generally have the same range, but then the UGS should have 70%~ more damage right? Wrong… UGS have only 40%~more damage. This is without counting any scaling or builds, this is a general conclusion. Poise? Yeah, DS3 poise is not meta.

It works in PvE, not PvP.

Note: In dark souls longer blade doesn't necessarily mean more range. In all dark souls there are straights swords that have more range than an ultra greatsword. This is mostly because their moveset, which are obviously unbalanced and I personally don't think it's a matter to discuss about, they are objectively unbalanced for each classes on their respective proportional balance.

Meta variety exists in actual competitive games, this is because truly competitive esport games are focused on the proportional balance of each option there is to win. You use this strat? You have respective downsides and advantages, just like every other option there is.

They are not RPGs so their balance is light years better and more manageable.

Recognition of glitches and exploits:

In the DS community, things like "techs" are sometimes considered things the game intended but hidden or whatever… Wrong.

-Ring spam is a glitch.

-Hardswaping is literally a glitch by definition.

-Phantom range is also a glitch by definition, but not exactly from the game itself.

-Animation canceling is a glitch.

Загрузка...

No, just because it's consistent, ""non exploitable"", or requires "skill" it doesn't make the game more competitive. Those are exploits of the coding and gaps in the mechanics of the game. Period.

Design:

The game is focused around pve and all the mechanics revolve around the PvE experience, which they work better in the PvE obviously.

The online is even optional to progress, all the online functions are completely optional, this is pretty evident because of the fact that the game can be played fully offline

TL;DR: Souls games are PvE games, whoever says they can be played fully competitive and are comparable to actual esport competitive games is wrong.

Another heavily biased opinion: People who play Souls games PvP sweaty competitively are generally bad at actual true competitive esport games that have a more refined balance, higher skill gaps and varied strategies that don't revolve around exploiting the un-proportional balance of a game.

No, i'm not salty because of any reason there can be assumed.

I apologize if I came very aggressively.

This is a quote from another reddit comment on the Dark Souls 3 subreddit:

"*I can think of parts of the souls game as competitively serious in controlled circumstances (vs skilled players with low lag).

However large parts of the game are a completely joke from a competitive standpoint.

To play souls competitively we need a whole bunch of arbitrary rules and throw away 80% of the weapons in the game as non viable. Any player worth their salt knows that every weapon is NOT viable when you are fighting versus a good player unless your definition of viable is: 5% win chance versus somebody of equally high skill with a superior weapon.

While I personally like playing a reactive playstyle I secretly also think that its kind of a problem how powerful reactive play is in dark souls games. Sometimes I feel that I would almost be better off if I just completely dumped the aggressive parts of my playstyle and went 100% reactive.

However that would be extremely boring and would likely result in my opponent catching on and refusing to play. If one of the optimal playstyles in a game results in both players staring at each other and praying that one of them will be polite enough to throw an attack at them then there is a problem.

The souls games rely far too much on human decency to be playable as a fighting game which makes it a ripe breeding ground for scrubs,try hards and incredibly boring strategies.*"

Note: Just because it requires a high level of skill doesn't mean it's competitive.

Another quote:" The Souls series in general never was. The PvP wasn't meant to be fair. It wasn't meant to be balanced. It never tried catering to the '1v1 bow-before you fight' honorable duels. It never tried to emulate competitive e-sports. The co-op and invasion system, as far back as Demon's Souls, was always intended to be complementary to the single-player experience. I can't stress that enough. Multiplayer was always complementary, not integral, to the Souls experience – no matter how hard the hardcore PvP community wants to ***** and moan about it

This is why I cringe whenever I hear players harp on about no poise, R1 spam, or a particular weapon being over or underpowered. I cringe not because I agree or disagree, but because I get the impression that a vocal minority seems to think that Dark Souls, as a game, is nothing but a 1v1 arena e-peen proving ground and that the game ought to cater exclusively to PvP. Newsflash, the Souls series has always been a PVE game with PVP elements, not the other way around.

The series is a PVE game. Why state the obvious? Because the vocal, myopic PvP community – in all its self-aggrandizement, seem to think that Dark Souls 3 should be a sanctioned bloodsport with esoteric, Bushido-esque codes of honor instead of what it's always been: an unforgiving world of limitless cruelty and guile that is always trying to **** you over. The PvP amplifies this. It doesn't make it.The joy and satisfaction has always been from rising above seemingly insurmountable odds. There is no honor, no security, no pretentions, it isn't meant to be a level playing field. This is Dark Souls. The PvP mob shouldn't indict a game for not doing something it never even pretended to do.

I'm not saying one can't/shouldn't enjoy PvP, criticize PvP, or play Dark Souls just for the PvP. But don't pitch a fit over a complementary aspect of the game because it didn't cater to your precise needs. Don't expect it to have e-sport levels of intricate player and weapon balance. Don't expect it to be a gentlemen's dueling simulator. I'm sure there are games like that out there and if there aren't – clamor for them to be made instead of throwing a tantrum over Dark Souls not catering to your unique demands."

Source: Original link


Loading...
© Post "Souls games are not competitively serious PvP games." for game Gaming News.


Top 10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2020

2020 will have something to satisfy classic and modern gamers alike. To be eligible for the list, the game must be confirmed for 2020, or there should be good reason to expect its release in that year. Therefore, upcoming games with a mere announcement and no discernible release date will not be included.

Top 15 NEW Games of 2020 [FIRST HALF]

2020 has a ton to look forward to...in the video gaming world. Here are fifteen games we're looking forward to in the first half of 2020.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *