ELDEN RING LAUNCH JOLLY CO-OPERATION THREAD

treefroggy

Apparently I had not rested at the capital grace at all because when I finally did, Melina peace’s out to hang at the tree

◉◉maru

Syzygy HowLongToBeat says 100 for a completionist run

This is ludicrous. Unless they mean 100h with full Wiki directions planned ahead and knowing where every Boss is located. But I am sure it’s frequent for HowLongToBeat to need a little time before enough feedback makes it reliable.

treefroggy

◉◉maru they probably mean all achievements. I had 2 friends who got every achievement in the first week. This is easier than past games because there is not separate weapon ascensions or apparently any covenant rewards to stack.

◉◉maru

treefroggy Ah! Good point. I guess this is now what most people understand as “completion”.

Syzygy

That does make sense, though definitely falls well short of completionist play in Elden Ring. I looked over literally every corner of Limgrave and in hindsight I still missed things because you need to revisit all those locations at night to find everything blind.

Speaking of, my favorite bit of PS4 message culture is the use of “research” by such like-minded weirdos: spending 20 minutes platforming out around a cliff face that no one would expect to have any kind of secret, just to finally manage it and there’s a message with 6 appraisals that says “futility ahead, but praise the research!”

treefroggy

Syzygy didn’t expect grass
(Referring to the tumbleweed that spawns in the furthest corner)

Syzygy

Further thought: I won’t say how many, but there are more, mutually exclusive endings than in previous Souls games so if they do mean platinum trophy, HLTB is implicitly admitting that save-scumming with PS+ cloud upload/download is “beating” a game, and that’s pretty funny.

thebryanjzx90

I don’t think I understand all of the no horse ahead messages, even deep in areas where you can’t ride.

Also I want to start a new file and make a big beefy STR/FTH character with big armor and weapons but I feel bad for Torrent having to carry all that.

Syzygy

thebryanjzx90
Just master gravity magic and you will never have to abandon your beloved but scrawny steed.

Herb

Syzygy I could do a better job at reading these things carefully, but when the systems are weirdly obfuscated for no real discernable reason and the explanations are generally poorly-worded I feel like the confusion is more on the developer. The multiplayer feels obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

To my credit I did read back over the password system to make that distinction. From what I recall, if you read the entirety of the password descriptions in the game and not just that bit, it’s even more confusing as to what the topmost option effects - if anything at all.

The general description of taunter’s tongue is “lures in invaders.” I don’t want invaders, so can I really be blamed for not having read past that to know of the change? If someone has to be invited into my game are they an invader at that point? Shouldn’t the item instead be called the open invitation to rude dinner guests?

I think the multiplayer components are just odd obfuscation for the sake of it. The setup adds nothing. Some check boxes and clearly worded lines of text wouldn’t take away from the experience. In comparison, look at the storage chest. It’s a magical chest that follows me around storing all my stuff, works in a similar fashion to storage mechanics from other games and as far as I’m aware no in-game explanations is offered. There’s no activation of items or tagging graffiti to make it work and I quite like that.

Syzygy

Herb
I am trying to be cautious of belaboring the point in what may be an irreconcilable difference in opinion, but can I ask how you would specifically re-write

If you set a multiplayer password, you’ll only be matched with other players using the same password for most multiplayer features.

To be more clearly worded?

Herb

Syzygy Like I was saying, the other text makes things confusing:

By reading this I can’t immediately discern what the multiplayer passsword does and doesn’t effect.

Gaagaagiins

Herb For that example specifically, I think the offending sentence is:

However, multiplayer passwords do not apply to invasion or support multiplayer.

I can make sense of it because I already know how it works. Invasion multiplayer is when a hostile player joins your game to attempt to kill you, support multiplayer is when friendly players come to your aid specifically when you are being invaded.

A little less commitment overall to some of the series’ jargon, or making note of what the unifying distinction is here would have made it more clear. Even if those are the only two things it doesn’t apply to, it would have made a lot more sense if it identified those things specifically as multiplayer interactions not being directly initiated by the player using summon signs. As in, it’s about PvP events that happen to you against your will.

If a player never tries out invasions or the Blue Cipher ring, they might not fully make the connection there, and they might interpret “support multiplayer” to mean when they request friendly co-operators of any kind. I think it would have been a good idea to incorporate quick asides to just identify what it’s talking about specifically and not rely on the player having absorbed all of the jargon, like so:

If you set a multiplayer password, you’ll only be matched with other players using the same password for most multiplayer features, such as messages and summon signs.

The multiplayer features that multiplayer passwords do not apply to are ones which you don’t choose to initiate, such as invasions (such as when using a Bloody Finger) or support multiplayer (features involving the Blue Cipher Ring and White Cipher Ring).

Syzygy

To me that seems like needless detail: this comes back to the question of what is gained by being specific. What functions are covered by multiplayer password? “Most” of them. For a player like Herb, who doesn’t want invasions¹, is there a benefit to knowing it’s necessary to opt-in to invasions? Isn’t it by default working as desired, and confusion resulting from familiarity with the series? Conversely, the player who wants open invasions is familiar with the Souls multiplayer systems, looks at the Taunter’s Tongue and understands its use. To me this is an elegant minimum.

The only person being ill-served is a total newbie who, if given a detailed explanation, would want open invasions: I’m not sure it’s possible to accomodate both these groups without compromising the simplicity of your explanation to one, and then you’ve introduced more obtuse language to be misinterpreted.

To put it another way, my edit would be deleting the “however” sentence, and if you want the point about “choose to intitiate” (which I do think a clever distinction), then:

If you set a multiplayer password, you’ll only be matched with other players using the same password for voluntary multiplayer features.

^{1 In my experience, the majority and the players Elden Ring’s multiplayer changes were meant to please.}

Gaagaagiins

Syzygy Conversely, the player who wants open invasions is familiar with the Souls multiplayer systems, looks at the Taunter’s Tongue and understands its use.

Disagree on this point, actually. I think the use of “lure in” was pretty misleading and I didn’t really make the connection that that was for opting in to invasions in general. I thought that meant the Taunter’s Tongue was more about intercepting invaders who were already invading someone who was not open to it. Sort of like, you are catching someone hoping to hunt down someone not looking to be hunted down and they’re then confronted by someone who is actually looking for a fight.

I perhaps would have preferred it to have been on this whole time, but also, I was having too much dang fun to think to try turning it on either. Maybe I’ll try it now, or next time! I suppose that’s an example of confusion resulting from familiarity with the series, I mean, also influenced by how besides messages and bloodstains it’s been a somewhat barren experience for me multiplayer wise in general, so I rarely thought about why I wasn’t ever getting invaded. I had kind of assumed that was the case for the same reason I couldn’t find summon signs even when I went looking.

If you ask me, a much more fun way to have done this would have been to have made multiplayer invasions on by default, and at the conclusion of one’s first actual invasion by a player (whether you kill or be killed), it gives you the Taunter’s Tongue, rather than from the static NPC whose invasion event is so boring, like every other invader NPC. Not to mention he also gives no indication that he drops an integral multiplayer feature activating item when killed. I mean, I figured he would drop something interesting based on his location, but that’s me.

I mean, I think even if they wanted to make sure all the new players knew they could opt out of invasions, it would be an exciting thing to not give new players a choice as to whether or not player invasions are a part of the game they experience at least once. It’s the kind of mode of play that really falls flat if it’s not happening authentically. NPC invaders are just weird non-respawning minibosses in almost every way other than their moveset, their appearance, how they’re not visible until you get close to their area, and when they appear you get a system message about it.

If you set a multiplayer password, you’ll only be matched with other players using the same password for voluntary multiplayer features.

Yes, this is more concise and therefore much better. So long as the rest of the tutorials were to standardize the distinction between voluntary and involuntary multiplayer it’d be more clear.

And with that in mind, that’s also what’s missing from the description of the Taunter’s Tongue. A very clear indication that invasions are involuntary multiplayer, but you do have to opt in to have them happen when you’re playing solo.

Gaagaagiins

Gaagaagiins A very clear indication that invasions are involuntary multiplayer, but you do have to opt in to have them happen when you’re playing solo.

Just going to respond to myself by quoting, but yes, I know that the Taunter’s Tongue says it enables invasions without Furled Finger co-operators present. But, again, that makes the most sense to someone who has already perceived and understood what a Furled Finger co-operator is, and that invasions are involuntary, and also that invasions during solo play were a normal condition within the context of the series, and aren’t now, and ideally you’ve absorbed and processed all of that once you are granted the Taunter’s Tongue, find it very easily in your inventory, and carefully review the description.

Syzygy

Gaagaagiins

I think the use of “lure in” was pretty misleading and I didn’t really make the connection [. . .]

Specifically, because a version of this item has existed since Dark Souls 1, and took on the identical function of increasing the multiplayer participant cap in Dark Souls 3 and Remastered. (Knowing this team it’s basically a given that it’s literally the same lines of code.)

If you ask me, a much more fun way to have done this would have been to have made multiplayer invasions on by default [. . .]

So, to be clear before I get into this: this part I’m not projecting on Herb or anyone else here, I’m going to speak in generalities, derived from my experience but verifiable by looking at past online discussions.

The overwhelming majority of Souls players— and people who try a game in the series and bounce off it— absolutely hate invasions and refuse to engage with the system whatsoever. This has been the case since Dark Souls 1 started gaining traction, the lead up to “Prepare to Die Edition”. If you check any forum or video gaming community, you will easily find many discussions of “if I get invaded I just disconnect, it’s my game, you cannot make me do this”, and they get broad support. Conversely now: people complaining about the Elden Ring changes and being shouted down. Those discussions get more virulent the more mainstream, less ‘Souls community’ the venue.

From a sales / marketing perspective, this has absolutely been an anchor on the series; and while much of it is attributable to gradual groundswell, I guarantee you ‘no one can come into your game and backstab you in this one’ has been a huge boon to Elden Ring’s word of mouth and its current mass popularity.

For the most part I agree with you re: invasions, but a lot of potential buyers don’t see it that way and have voted with their wallets for a decade now.

Gaagaagiins
Unless I miss something we’re in agreement here: and I think it’s well done to structure it such that the experienced Souls player read carefully and the new or casual player can skim and get what they need from phrasing like “most multiplayer” and “it’s easy to summon at pools”.

I mean, while I will admit to being an outlier, I did read the items as I picked them up and used them and got all this.

christoffing

Gaagaagiins I agree with the idea that invasions are part of the game and I want them to be enabled by default. The worst thing that can happen from them is you die, which you will probably do a lot anyway. “Invasions aren’t that much to worry about” is probably the closest to a Git Gud opinion I have, honestly.

I think the problem with having them be opt in, on the other hand, is that I’d assume most players wouldn’t opt in to a system that makes it more likely they’ll die, even if they’re generally speaking in favor of the system. I like the invaders because they’re a (rare) moment of randomness that forces you to think on your feet and lets you use the game spaces in a different way. I’m not really interested in PvP as such or in owning other players, so letting me choose when it happens kind of defeats the purpose.

It’s tricky though because I suppose an always on invasion system would simply lead to more people choosing playing offline - which in my opinion misses the point even more. No good solution to this, I think.

treefroggy

Gaagaagiins

Syzygy From a sales / marketing perspective, this has absolutely been an anchor on the series; and while much of it is attributable to gradual groundswell, I guarantee you ‘no one can come into your game and backstab you in this one’ has been a huge boon to Elden Ring’s word of mouth and its current mass popularity.

For the most part I agree with you re: invasions, but a lot of potential buyers don’t see it that way and have voted with their wallets for a decade now.

But this is just wrapping back around to the idea that the systems and how they are communicated remain a part of the issue.

Elden Ring being the one where no one can invade you if unless you opt into it, and that being the case by default, are separate matters, even if I think there is some tension between them. I personally wouldn’t know if that is somehow explicitly mentioned in the marketing or has been boosted in mainstream information streams, but I suppose I’ll assume it has been at least easily spread via word of mouth. I mean, I can easily imagine a Twitter post of the inventory screen showing the Taunter’s Tongue, and the official ELDEN RING twitter saying something like “In the Lands Between blah blah blah no invasions unless you want to,” but that is maybe a bit on the nose and not their style.

In the situation I described where the tool to opt in or out of involuntary invasions came immediately after the conclusion to one’s first involuntary invasion, sure, it might be a bit of bratty thing to do to most players who I don’t doubt for a second feel towards invasions as you describe. It might convince like, I don’t know, 5 or 6 people that invasions are actually cool, but probably not more.

I think even with a situation like this, everyone, you and I as well as the ladies, gentlemen, and friends beyond the binary from the Steam community discussions, would get what they want, as they do now. Even with this rude way of teaching, though, more clear and even I’d say a bit more in-the-moment communication will make the difference between whether or not they are running to the Steam page once the interaction is concluded.

That would be a great time for a Tutorial message to pop up about Invasions, in which it could easily explain in clear direct language that what you were just subject to was an invasion by another hostile player, who invaded your world against your will, which can happen at any time. However, using the Taunter’s Tongue item or the Multiplayer interface, you can choose whether to enable or disable this feature.

Actually, sidebar, maybe my main issue with Taunter’s Tongue is that it uses most of the word count of its description to detail in fairly clear language what I’d say are more its secondary features (intensifying invasions, changing how invasions work during co-op), and just 3 imprecise words on what I think what most people would say is its primary feature (disabling involuntary invasions during solo play). So, maybe this should just be two items, one to opt-out of invasions, and another to intensify them. I think this is part of why disregarded that function of the Taunter’s Tongue too, I thought “lure in invaders” was the esoteric part of the description, and then the following section was an explanation of what the hell they meant by “lure in invaders.” It really is not clear that this is 3 separate components of its functionality.

Anyway. Hell, let’s modify this scenario just a touch more. After giving you the item and a tutorial after the first involuntary invasion, it does what the game already does without telling you–it disables involuntary solo invasions automatically. So people who loathed the experience don’t even get a chance to alt-tab to the Steam community pages to ask how to turn it off because they didn’t read the tutorial. They get a system message saying their world can no longer be invaded when they’re alone, or whatever. And if they liked the experience, they can read the tutorial again and figure out how to turn that feature back on.

Everyone gets what they want that way, but, well, that’s not really different from how the game works now. It’s just a matter of communicating things more clearly and directly.

Maybe both new players and experienced players would benefit from a very clear rundown of their multiplayer status in the Multiplayer interface, for each distinct component of the multiplayer system in real time in plain, non-jargon language. I guess it has some of that info hidden in each separate item on the interface, but why not just have a list of current statuses on this interface as well? There is already a big empty space in most of the bottom right section of this interface.

Something like:

You are currently [online] / [offline].
You [will]/[will not] see messages and bloodstains.
You [can] / [cannot] currently see summon signs left by other Tarnished.
Tarnished from other worlds [can] / [cannot] invade you when you are alone.
If you are invaded, other Tarnished [will] / [will not] come to your aid.
You [will] / [will not] come to the aid of fellow Tarnished when they are invaded.

Along with anything else I forgot as well as further modifiers for each category if they are changed by your active passwords.

Syzygy I mean, while I will admit to being an outlier, I did read the items as I picked them up and used them and got all this.

I dunno, you might be more of an outlier here than you think. Or, maybe I am just an outlier too, but on the opposite side. If I don’t check something immediately after getting it, which is unlikely because of all of the stuff you get while in unsafe areas, it’s not unlikely I won’t check it again for a while, or I may even just forget about it entirely. I am the guy who bounced off of Dark Souls a few times because I would get stumped at the same part of the game. Turns out it had just never occurred to me to read over the keys I was picking up carefully to ensure there weren’t any I hadn’t already used, because I was just completely ignorant of the existence of Lower Undead Burg, which I had gotten the key to long ago. I was out there thinking I had to beat Sif not longer after beating the Bell Gargoyles. Getting stuck on Capra Demon? Yeah, try not even knowing that area of the game existed.

…Hm, I sure seem to talk about how my somewhat acceptable level of skill at these games enables my total disaster dumbass behaviour.

Syzygy

If we had forum “titles” maybe I’d make mine “serial outlier”

Syzygy

Gaagaagiins
Basically:

I think the existing language is clear, and I can quote every line that explained the systems to me
I think it’s a strength of the series that it rewards investing attention, and that’s been established over a decade
- You describe overlooking numerous points or coming back later; is it this not a possible cause of confusion?
- Not everyone can get what they want: I personally am irritated by the pop-up tutorials as they are!

Not sure there’s more to argue since our positions seem clear.

multiplayer status in the Multiplayer interface, for each distinct component of the multiplayer system in real time

I’d be in favor of that: I think having a separate multiplayer menu right now is redundant since only the passwords can’t be accessed in another way.

For technical reasons that probably cannot literally be real-time: there is necessary delay behind the scenes for network latency and matchmaking, which is why you get “failed to summon”, or you can get pulled into a load screen only to immediately get kicked out because the host died/won/disconnected.

all of the stuff you get while in unsafe areas

I was going to share this anecdote anyway, but I check every new item after I finish combat (and there’s a “new item” pop-up and in/out of combat music to suggest doing this) and only once, after 125 hours, has that betrayed me: in the (vague late-game area spoiler) snowy castle’s chapel there is a ghost knight who patrols a long route and will come up behind you— and that’s literally at a Site of Grace so it seems like an oversight rather than a gotcha.

« Previous Page Next Page »