YodaMan 3D
-
Posts
1,094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by YodaMan 3D
-
-
25 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
So what if a bunch of players roll up on me.. With ONE player hiding behind his friends and starts shooting at me. I kill him and all his friends. I get punished?
How about we leave public sessions alone.. And let private sessions do its job.
Or how about players just claiming to want PvP actually participate with players who are PvPing. Quit going after those who aren't involved. Why can't players use some restraint?
Seriously, if a posse rolls up on you and one player hangs back and back does nothing. 1st, I would think he would be treated like the rest of his posse and if they become aggressors, he would be too. 2nd, I can see your concern about going after the one guy not attacking you, those are the ones I always concern myself with in PvP. Forget about the one actually killing me. Let him live, worry about the guy who takes off and hides. Obviously he's upper management.
Where I am at a loss, is your concern for those who grief and continue to let them do it unopposed. Why do you feel griefing is needed for PvP? I don't understand the need to grief in PvP or PvE, but some seem to think they can't play a game and have fun unless they ruin it for others. Simply put, your plan will help cut back on griefing in PvEvP area, but it doesn't eliminate it. It reduces the numbers so you can say it isn't an issue, so Rockstar doesn't concern themselves with coming up with a solution.
In GTA, they did private servers and then limited the kinds of jobs you could do there to make money. What then when they do that in RDO? Right now I see very few differences between this game and GTA. Same type of players, same disagreements. All I ask is for actual solutions, not a cover up and ignore.
-
10 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
You're kind of right.. Because NPCS can still ambush you, kill you and make you lose pelts and animals from your horse.
But private lobbies does solve your problem of getting killed by players. So it does make that aspect of griefing go away.
This isn't My Little Pony Adventure Land. What do you want R* to do about it?
Because R* could add passive mode.. I can still think of a few ways to 'grief' you without even having to kill you.
Have you ever been on a mission, where a teammate throws dynamite killing the NPC that you are suppose to just capture. Yeah, that is griefing. Having you ever been hunting or fishing or hunting with a posse and have a teammate decide dynamite is the best device to use. Killing everything and making it worthless. Yeah, griefing. Have you ever been on a mission and a player more concerned with looting, while you are surrounded by 20 NPCs and you have to start all over cause that knucklehead ignores you when you ask for help.
In The Division more so then in here, but have you ever been killing NPCs and have some player follow you around waiting to grab whatever loot drops. Just because they suck or too lazy to fight their own battles. Yeah, that is also griefing by PvE players.
Cause in all the things mentioned, either they know you can't hurt them, stop them, or expect you as teammate not to aid the team.
As far as what I think Rockstar should do, is treat the online like it does the campaign. You commit a crime, you get a wanted level. There are different levels crimes. Now a crime where Player A attacks Player B, who is fishing should be treated more serious and gets you seriously outnumbered by NPCs. If in the above situation Player B fires back, then consider it a legal duel. No harm no fowl. This creates a situation it's the Wild West and you want to be an outlaw. You break the laws your options are fight, die, or run. Not keep attacking someone not fighting back.
-
13 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
Historically, the last two "official" online game communities I've been a part of have devolved into cesspits of negative energy. It's one thing to have developers and people who work on the game actively engage the community, but not everyone is suited to handle communicating with "the public" or "the customer". That's where a lot of companies go wrong in that they not only allow, but encourage team members to answer on behalf of the company in an official capacity, when in reality they're irrefutably better off letting media professionals or community engagement specialists manage the process with limited, tightly controlled access to team members who actively work on a title.
That's not to say that team members unilaterally incapable of interacting with the public, but the company stands to gain very little from the exposure and risk they create by allowing employees unfiltered access to interact with the customer base. In a case like R* and RDR2, the game has such an enormous install base that there isn't really much to gain by having an official community presence. By keeping official communication isolated to select gaming journalists, news outlets, and offical press releases, R* limits their exposure to potentially damaging communications by employees who aren't trained on how to effectively communicate with the public. Branding is VERY important in the modern culture. People get attached to brands and develop loyalty as a consumer, so it's imperative that a company find an effective way to not only obtain but RETAIN customers. An official online forum for specific games creates too much exposure to liability to be an asset worth pouring time and resources into, especially at the level that R* is at, when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.
People here in the US seem to inaccurately adhere to the notion that the First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech, applies to the private sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Amendment is there to prevent the government from creating laws to restrict speech. Private companies absolutely retain the right to monitor employee activity both in and outside the workplace as a condition to employment. One of the biggest mistakes I see people make (particularly younger people) is the inability to segregate workplace and personal relationships in social media. I highly encourage everyone to maintain separate social media profiles for work and personal use, because you never know who is reading what you say/post online, and who may report what you're saying to your employer. Circling back to my original point, folks seem to forget that when they make comments in the public space (which includes online gaming communities), that their employer can be held accountable for their actions under the legal doctrine respondent superior . When employees participate in official communities of the companies they work for, it creates a very complicated situation for parties on all sides, so R* deciding to eschew an official online community (outside of the Rockstar Games Social Club) makes a lot of sense, especially from a legal and media management perspective.
TL:DR; The most likely reason R* doesn't have an official online community is to limit their exposure in the event that an employee or agent says or does something stupid. And they really don't need one give the runaway financial success of their titles overall, and consumer brand loyalty.
I feel a connection between myself and one of those cesspools that you mentioned. The only thing I missed and I may have missed in what you wrote. Because of technology, I don't think most people know how to communicate with other people in general. As I have said before some seem to think their way is the only way and then that makes them think that it becomes fact. In reality, there is always atleast one person some where that will think differently then you and the ability to discuss things open mindedly is a lost skill.
-
56 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
Guys.. Not for nothing but this topic isn't about Griefing.
Its about R* not adding the basic and bare necessities to the game. From Free Aim, to Private Lobbies.. to actual in game Options. That have been included in every GTA O game for over 10 years.
Someone simply read my comment about "Griefing being the least important thing" line when compared to what I listed, and kind of took offense to it.
Many Players are sitting here waiting for R* to simply say. "Free Aim lobbies are coming.. Private Lobbies are coming". Instead we get a post about up coming changes to the game (Some of which tackles griefing).
Griefing is the least important for R* to post about. Same with posting about how they will add NEW showdown modes.
I feel you assume that griefing all goes away if they make the separate lobbies and it doesn't. Griefing would still be an issue. I also under the impression that some feel that griefing is a PvP issue only. There are PvE griefers as well. There should be no problem with options that would drive players to not want to participate in PvP or PvE without having to grief others.
To put it simply, create different lobbies and the numbers of people unhappy with the griefers go down. It seems less important and gets swept under the rug and ignored. Next Rockstar game, includes griefing and why is that. Oh yeah, according to your plan they fixed it and it got ignored.
-
13 hours ago, pugsly04 said:
Just going out on a limb here but I already thought it was John marathons wife! I k ow this is a little far fetched but when they talk about jack it kind of makes sense!
Especially, when she corners Arthur and tells him how important it is to spend time with Jack. Usually, that is a thing a father wants to do and be a part of.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:
No they weren't griefing, they were playing the game as intended. I think having the unknown factor of what players are going to do keep it exciting and interesting.
What "unknown factor"? You see another player, you assume he or she is there to attack you. So you shoot 1st. What is really "unknown". Cause simple fact is, most players handle it in this situation. A player who doesn't shoot 1st, is the one to respawn 1st.
I am glad to see another player who likes both. I have no problems with PvP. I have problems with griefers and those who want to defend those actions.
-
2 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
Dude.. this is a WILD WEST game. If people bother you, you already have 3 choices. Out gun them, out number them OR find a new lobby.
The only thing that's missing is private lobbies. That solves everything. They could also add friendly servers.
But to try and fix something like randoms killings would be a Band- Aid. And R* has already proved with GTA O that anything they add to stop griefers gets used by griefers against players.
How is fixing griefers a Band-Aid? Making players accountable for their actions a problem to you. In the campaign, did you get to rape, pillage, and grief towns people unmolested? No. You break wind the wrong way and you had a wanted level. NPCs would hunt you till you was dead. Why do you feel that the online should be no less? If incentive for players to want to hunt griefers.
Put players in a situation where if they want to PvP that they want to do it with players who are already PvPing. Not those who aren't.
-
1 minute ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
I hope so. It's ridiculous to have an endgame build that requires multiple magazines to take down an enemy, even at point blank range.
If I had to guess, they're going to increase incoming damage and decrease the player health pool and armor values to offset the diminished "bullet sponge" mechanics. But that's just a guess. I'm staying away from spoilers myself, apart from game play trailers, but I have a Beta key for PS4, so I'm starting to get excited--ordered the Ultimate Edition because I figure I'm at the point where I only buy one or two games a year now, so I may as well splurge on the ones I do--and I loved the first one. Not following the progress is definitely the right way to go, though.
My son who rarely ever played the 1st one, wants it. As much as I liked the 1st. I still had lots of issues with how it got handled.
-
2 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:
Well, then maybe that explains why I've been giving the Division 2 some hard thought lately.
Is it true that they are looking to scale back the "bullet sponge" mechanics in the game? I know they can't dial it back too far (given the game is an RPG) but I had heard rumors that it was discussed. To be honest, I just haven't been following its progress like I did with the original during development.
The Division 2 Warning you won't find on the label.
1st.) Being made by Massive. They started making it within weeks of the release of the 1st game, cause they realized their mistakes and learned all that they could to make the sequel. For learning everything they needed to learn, they never could fix the 1st. Same idiots making the sequel who destroyed the 1st.
2nd.) Being backed and controlled by Ubisoft. The same dictators that was going to let the game die after the 1st year and was shocked that players was still playing it after the 1st year and wanted more. Ubisoft basically said there is no more, tough. Then reluctantly added more that they had pulled from the original release. Only cause they needed testing grounds for the sequel.
3rd.) Being influenced by YouTubers. That pushed for PvP and strived to push the PvE players out of the game.
According to a friend who still is on the forums and did partake in the Alpha Testing. If you liked the original, you will like the sequel. They improved somethings, but for the most part the biggest issues from the 1st game have been ignored. Mostly PvE vs PvP differences. Which if they don't resolve those, then it will be the same cluster**** that the original was.
-
8 minutes ago, Kormath said:
the big companies are like that. Some of the smaller ones have discord forums where you can actually converse with the devs. I havea few smaller games like that that i play when i'm bored with everything else that actually had some of my suggestions and complaints taken into consideration and used
How many of your issues have actually been fixed? I have been on a few forums over the years and for the most part they do it for PR, cause unless issues become large issues, they don't get addressed.
-
37 minutes ago, Kormath said:
okay you got me there
There is no official forum for RDR2, or any other Rockstar game for that matter. Rockstar doesn't back any forum at all that i can find.
And they don't cause then they have to pay people to man the stations and pay attention to what we say. Most in the industry, really don't want to hear what we have to say. Rockstar has always seemed to be, "Here we made it, you play it, if it doesn't work let us know the problem, we'll fix it. Now go away."
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
How exactly am I wrong?
This game needs BASIC game play options. Most of which would solve the griefing you complain about it.
Providing private servers will help, it doesn't remove Griefers from the game. You are making the assumption that all PvE style players would go to private servers. So as long as you think that it way, you are wrong. It puts a Band-Aid on it, it doesn't fix it. I feel you are making assumptions that all players want to sit around and attack each other, that isn't necessary true. Just because when you are fishing or hunting and some player attacks you and you fight back doesn't mean, you didn't get griefed. Especially when there might be others nearby who are actually doing PvP.
A private server separates the community, a private server doesn't have a server full of people to interact with. Now some players would like that where they are all alone and only other players are ones they invite only. For me, I personally preferred the way they did it in RDR. Where it was public, I could see other players. If I saw people attacking a hideout I could help and then leave or not partake at all. I also joined others and played PvP.
-
2 hours ago, Kormath said:
nope, not that i've found. Lots think this is an official forum though
Yes, it is official this is a forum. I don't think it is backed by Rockstar. That would require them to pay people to monitor it.
-
2
-
-
46 minutes ago, chocolatefinch said:
What has smart got to do with it? How does checking your map help? I'm standing there fishing and someone rides up, kills my horse then me. What are we supposed to do, stop fishing or hunting every time we see a player on the map near us?
I don't think they see the issue. They seem to think that if you remove the complainers all of a sudden problem fixed. Griefing will still happen, cause not all players are one side or the other, they PvEvP. IMHO, Griefers aren't what I call real PvP players. As said above if given the choice of engaging PvP players or go after the someone that appears to be preoccupied, fishing or hunting. They always choose the latter.
Most players are either PvP players or PvE players by default. Yet some do like to play both and the gaming industry seems to want to mash them together thinking, "Hey the players will work it out and we will sit back and not say a word either way. That Rockstar doesn't have to take sides. Most times players assume they have the only opinion therefore it is a "Fact" in their minds. Unfortunately, it isn't my server or yours it's ours. There is no reason that a player should keep attacking players that have no interest. It may happen from time to time, but after you attacked another player for a bit. If you never lose, if they never fire back at you, if they leave the server, these are signs that another player may not be interested in PvP. Especially if there are players that are doing PvP in the nearest town.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Samplemygravy said:
Griefers are a non issue. I agree with op. Played enough to know to check the map and proximities of folks. If you are getting griefed I’m sorry but you are just not very smart.
Then that makes you and the OP wrong.
-
17 minutes ago, Gunther said:
So just to verify & be sure, you do have your outfits saved in your wardrobe, right?
Yes. I am having to change everytime I spawn in.
-
2 minutes ago, chocolatefinch said:
When she starts growing a beard, that's when you should worry.
I am afraid that is only a matter of time in this game.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
Because private lobbies does fix griefing in the sense that, you can't be griefed in private lobbies. (Well not by randoms anyways)
Correct that it wouldn't exists in a private lobby, but it still exist. Not all players want to play solo in a private lobby. Yes, they can always invite friends, but some like Co-op play. They like to help others and move on. Just the other day I was hunting and there was others around. It was fun and everything was fine, till some tool decided he needed to come along and attack everyone. Funniest part, there was a town not that far away on the map that had a group that was fighting each other. Now in a private lobby, I won't have chance encounters where a group could work together and then part ways. Yesterday, I rode up on a gang hideout and when I got there a player popped up on my map. He was surrounded, so I shot at a couple NPCs and then they focused on me. He then finished them off. He waived and I waived back and rode off. Guess, what he still did his thing and I did mine. I can get that in the current state, but because of Griefers. 99% of the time I won't. Why because Griefers have everyone on their heels, so when they see another player, they shoot 1st and ask questions later. In PvEvP, there should be some question if a player appears, that just maybe they won't be an Asshat. Right now, it almost a given they will be.
-
I changed at the tailor and still keep getting the starting outfit. So that there is something else going on.
-
1 minute ago, HuDawg said:
Dude.. Private Lobbies means you can run around the map all day on a donkey while using a bow and arrow and NO ONE can mess with you. You would have nothing to complain about if they had private lobbies.
That also means.. If you chose to play public games, you agree to deal with public randoms.
Apparently, you want to argue. Yes, private lobbies will help the PvE players, but it isn't fixing the griefing. I understand if you are in the PvEvP lobby, you should expect stupid players to continue to be stupid. It doesn't mean someone fishing or hunting is waiting for you to come shoot them. Especially, when you can see players in town shooting each other all day long, yet a player that thinks going after the guy not involved that appears to be hunting or fishing.
Regardless of where you spawn in, there is a town full of players shooting each other. Why would a player think not to engage PvP there where it is happening?
-
2 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
No its not.. I've rarely been griefed. When im alone, I just play it smart. With friends, we steam roll through everyone in our way.
And if we had Private lobbies... Players like you who have a problem with being 'griefed'... would not be have any problems at all.
Dumbing this game down more and more to suit the taste of players who don't want to be killed. Will only ruin the experience for players who like the 'anything can happen' feel of the game.
Players can live with being killed. When a players fill a need to attack and only attack players that aren't participating in PvP is an issue. I understand seeing a player and trying to start some PvP action, but seeing a group in a town shooting everything in sight and then deciding the those players out in the middle of no where is where the PvP action is? Come on! Seriously, to say there isn't a issue because you decide there isn't one.
As you said adding those extra lobbies would actually fix the griefing, cause then players wouldn't have to partake in it if they chose not to. Having a PvEvP freeroam is tough to make cause some players are just asshats and want to force players into playing the game the way they want and say stupid crap like that's the way the way the Devs wanted it, the complain about something else that the Devs have done.
Rockstar's 1st focus should be improving the PvE side, not PvP. PvP players have options and what few options the PvE players are being ruined by the griefers who don't want to PvP and claim the PvE is way too easy for their superior skills.
-
1
-
-
So my character has a couple of outfits, yet every time I log out and back in. She'll be wearing the exact same outfit that she started with. Seems like this game keeps getting buggier and buggier as she goes.
-
Discovered a bunch on the road between Strawberry and Valentine this morning. I think you are looking for them in the wrong place, they are not on the water, but on dry land.
-
Griefing is an issue and a Major one at that. The solutions are the same as you mentioned though. It is a rarity that you can get on and not be griefed. That is getting old and sucking the life out of the game. Griefers don't want PvP showdowns, they want 7v1. Where they pretty much can't be touched and players dying before they can fulling spawn in.
-
1
-
The Beta has Outworn its Welcome (Rant-a-tat-tat)
in Red Dead Online
Posted
I am very aware of the game I am playing. I am also very aware that I can restrain myself from attacking players by using a little situational awareness and not attacking those who have no concern with PvPing with me. I am also very aware that just because you remove some of those who PvE, that the griefers will still be there looking for those to pounce. You are assuming that PvP and Griefing have to go hand and hand and not aware that a PvP player can actually PvP with others who want to PvP in a PvEvP map.
Once again your suggestion will help, but it doesn't fix it. Rockstar has the power to fix it, if they choose to.