YodaMan 3D
-
Posts
1,094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by YodaMan 3D
-
-
10 hours ago, Cliffs said:
I have to ask, just how is this player interaction? It is more like player inaction.
I think some of you are missing my point. What most of you keep describing as what you want for gameplay is like the solo side of the game. Online should be different than the solo gameplay IMO. Think about the NPCs in solo, most of them are ready to draw down on you if you stop or bump into them...in online, they are all friendly, so the only "bad" guys to look for in this western style game are other online players.
To stem grieving R should have a workable bounty system. Online does not have one like in the solo game. There is no ingame punishment for slaughtering everybody.
Then you must have gotten a different version of the game if the towns people don't draw on you. I have been in towns where players not in my posse come in and start shooting and next thing I know I am getting shot at by all.
As for what I want, I want is balance in a PvEvP arena. I want it so that a PvE player isn't the sole target of every PvP player in the game. Not saying to eliminate them from the PvP option. I don't believe in the PvP mindset, that if PvEvP arena that if you PvE. That you have totally ruined my PvP only game and that it is completely PvP, because I am being and ass and demand it of you, so leave.
Seeing how the gaming industry is trying to make all shooter games like this. Put all of us in a one server instance, we need to learn to share and not all be assholes. If I am in the mood to PvP, constantly attacking the lone player in Tall Trees and killing him a million times, solves nothing and only pisses him off. Especially when there is a group in Blackwater that is PvPing the crap out of that town.
To set back and say that the players will police the servers, not all players can or will defend themselves. Since I restarted, I am about level 15 or so. Against a posse of 100+ with everything unlocked. There is zero defense, little reason to stay in lobbies where these asshats feel they need to attack me, when there are places or people they could be to PvP. Currently they get zero challenge from a guy who can't hurt them. PvP matches are currently a no go, even greater disadvantage and even less chance of survival or enjoyment.
I do enjoy the PvEvP, where anything can happen. All most even though we play it don't or don't understand the concept. Just because you are a PvP doesn't mean PvP must happen all the time with each player you meet, yet there won't be PvP in here that won't shoot 1st. Zero chance of "just anything can happen" if you force PvP everytime. PvE players shouldn't assume, hey out hunting, fishing, some stranger mission, expect no one should come near them cause they want to be left alone. It is unfair in PvEvP arena that a PvE player should feel they are off limits. When your act as if they are off limits and your PvP players refuse to play PvP and intentionally only go after those not involved in there PvP.
So now we need limits set, PvP players are deadset on running PvE players out of the game and refusing to show any restraint. PvE players making demands for rules so strict PvP can't happen. Rockstar trying to force us into the same server.
Now HuDawg, personally has suggested over and over separate servers for all. Rockstart really doesn't want that. If they can't come up with other solutions. They may feel they have to.
I personally don't feel that meets their claim that they will fix the griefing issue. I also feel that according to their history, they will punish those players by blocking content, put a limit on xp, or a limit on rewards gain.
Now if Rockstar really has the vision and design plan that we all are in one server instance. As said players refuse to show no restraint, so Rockstar should now have to implement guidelines that motivates us to play in our safe zones if you will. We need balance that is fair to all. Do I believe PvE players should feel that they can't be attacked. No. Do I feel that if given the option that a PvP player should always attack a PvE player non-stop to the point of griefing and avoiding PvP all together. No. Yet we need balane.
-
6 hours ago, redscrew said:
I like the idea of playing with people from various consoles in games but a lot of the features get canceled out. Like a PS player wouldn't be able to communicate with an XB player outside of gestures with their characters.
There could and would be outside apps that could fix that.
-
19 minutes ago, Renascent said:
First off I'm not naturally into pvp. I used to be one of the pvers back in the day. I was so bad at pvp people that would get matched with me in pvp group modes would leave or kill themselves to get away from me lol. But at some point I decided to get better, and that's where my love of pvp began. It's an acquired taste for me. I expect rdr to be a wild west, keyword wild. There's no surprise element in toggle pvp when you know exactly who is gonna attack you. Then you'll have those people who will use the passive mode to get close to you then go into pvp mode and kill you.
No I am not a griefer or bully. Hell, I yell at my friends and posse members all the time about killing people who aren't doing anything to us. I like having to determine who's friendly and who's hostile. I like looking over my shoulder. I like that challenge. I do however advocate for private lobbies. It's worked in other games I've played.
I'm rank 99 now and I've gone through hell and back to get here. It feels good because I busted my ass to get this far. Also there is a way to hunt and do pve stuff with friends without being attacked. Not sure if they will ever patch it over, but for the time being it's a bandaid for everyone having trouble doing pve.
(I'm at work so I may not have touched on everything you asked for)
Can you answer me this, what element of surprise is there in RDO? You see player, you assume all players bad, and you shoot all players? Guess what, there is no surprise element. In arenas like this, we as players 99% of the time assume that everyone else is there to attack. It removes our need for PvE from the equation. It becomes a battle royale, with participates who don't want to be involved. When you bully someone into doing what you want and blame them for it being their fault for not wanting to play the game the way you want. You are more likely to push those players away from PvP. You and I shouldn't demand another player to play our way if they have not intent to. Griefers generally have every intent of pushing those players out of the game. Griefers generally have zero interests in actual PvP. Much like griefing in PvE scenerios, they for them to have fun it comes down to how much fun is ruined for others.
-
11 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:
I know there are the exceptions. My posse willing took an invite from a griefer to another server only to be faced with fighting the whole server. Nothing like spawning in to just a massive conglomerate of players. Craziness. But I loved every minute of it. We knew it was a setup but came in hot and took over the server. After they fled, we started running missions on their server. Lol.
I roll pretty deep, but I do see members of large groups starting some nonsense they can't finish. Then they run to Daddy Posse Leader to bring in the reserves. Pathetic. These losers can't take an "L". It breaks their little brains.
I like the fighting back and them running. I haven't seen super grouping happen often in RDO, but have on other games and know that a lot of clans bank on that for their PvP and it has started to happen a little more often here. They have a few go out and start sh*t and then call in the Cavalry to protect themselves. Then you hear them say that the pelts don't matter, well you taking the beatdown you deserved does.
-
4 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:
Most are garbage . You should have seen his pink dot move away from the scene of the crime. 90% of the people that grief me are not "gunslingers", they are just morons trying to catch you slipping. Which is why I don't view them as a threat. I always like it when you destroy one of these clowns and he starts calling in back up. I just clean my gun and smile.
But I wasn't the greatest starting out. I got shot a lot in the beginning. But I realized I had a choice to make. I had to either "Adapt or Perish". I am fine with that . I am not asking for an easy button.
Funny story, a guy I had played with a week or so ago invited me to his game and sent me message that he was being griefed and needed back up. So I joined.
Now according to him, he was farming and a couple of players showed up and killed him. He came back and killed one of them and the other bolted. He chased this player back to Blackwater. Where this griefer rejoined with his posse, who by the way was 14 players that was supergrouping. They unloaded on him and kept unloading on him. I sends me a message and here I come to save the day. OOPs! That ain't happening. We killed one or two here or there, but took way bigger ass-whooping then we dished out. So he gave up and we changed servers, it was a disaster.
-
2 hours ago, Savage_Reaper said:
I had a player shoot me in the back when I was trying to open a treasure map yesterday. When I re spawned, I found him (cause you know he ran of course). He parlayed me seconds later. I was feeling petty and irritated , so he parleyed me a second time than left the server. Always find it funny when a wannabe troll parleys me. It is humorous that a guy who was trying to start something now wants to throw in the towel.
That is part of the issue with the griefers. If you can't stop them, they won't stop. If you can they run and cry foul.
-
4 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
No one said you have to play solo.
Sorry dude.. I don't get it. The main interaction between players in this game is either friendly emotes or gun shots. This isn't My Little Pony Princess Adventure land.
That is it exactly. You don't get it. You apparently have never, just been out hunting or fishing and had other players near by doing their own thing and neither of you having to interrupt what each other is doing. That is player interaction. You apparently have never been riding along and seen a hideout pop up, head over and see another player being pinned down by the NPCs and decide that, "hey I think I will draw agro and ride away. Giving the other player the chance to get back on his feet and finish the hideout and grabbing their rewards. You just don't understand that being on a same server doesn't require you to intervene in their fun.
To you, it moves, I shoot it dies. You don't get that not all palyers are level 100 with everything unlocked and are at a huge advantage over a player just starting out.
You also don't get that creating private servers that Rockstar won't punish those players who use them, by docking xp or loot or blocking content. You just don't get it. All of this Rockstar has been doing for a very long time and this is the 1st time they have made a statement that they want to FIX griefing. You don't get that either.
Yeah it will change how we play PvP a little, but if done correctly. We won't notice the difference after a few hours of playing. Now a PvEvP, does get that. They understand they have the power to make a difference on who or what they shoot at.
-
2
-
-
27 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
How do you get griefed in private lobbies tho?
Nothing can be done to stop griefing. Because I can find away around it. Every single idea, I can find a way.
And if someone annoys me.. and I can't put a bullet between their eyes when they do it.. then its not good idea.
If playing solo. I can't. Then again I won't be playing the game at all. I play for the interaction with others. Now in a lobby with other players, as you stated else where. Players can grief and ruin your fishing and hunting experiences with dynamite or unloading with guns.
You really shouldn't be so closeminded, you can fix griefing just because you don't have the answer doesn't mean one isn't out there. As far as you can grief regardless of plans. Thing is you don't have to grief. It is your choice and is the reason why, if Rockstar holds true and says they want to fix the griefing, I am sure there are ways they can fix it.
So when a level 1 player gets griefed by a 7 man posse and because their cards make them immune to his bullets. I guess that player just should never of bought the game. Still a player's need to grief can and should be handled and Rockstar has the ability, if they really want to fix griefing. Suggestions have been made and any one of the ones I suggested would fix it. Sad part is that griefers would whine and probably quit the game or they would be more driven to face off with PvP players.
-
33 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
1st. It really splits the player base in one game mode. Players who want like the FFA feel of the game are now in game with passive players. Those two types of players IMO should not be in the same lobby. Because in both cases they are taking up in game slots. It would make more sense for dedicated lobbies for each option.
2nd. Passive players can still annoy other players. By shooting animals they are hunting or blowing up fishes where they are fishing for. And now theres NO real way to deal with or punish these players besides leaving the game.
Actually, it is griefing and Rockstar could just fix it and both players could continue playing the game they want to play. Separate lobbies could help but once again. It is not discouraging griefing.
-
4 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
There's a difference between marketing a game as authentically pvp, and saying there's pve gameplay, but then not providing it.
And you can disparage PvE players all you want, but the fact of the matter is, RDRO is being branded and marketed as a Western themed MMO. Not everyone who enjoys a PvE experience is "crying to water things down", as you put it. That's an elitist attitude, one born of an intentional blindness to altruism. You and many others have repeatedly disparaged those seeking a PvE experience, clamoring for things to "not be watered down". Perhaps you could provide a detailed explanation of what you desire/expect from the free roam experience. Is it nothing but chaos? The thrill of having to "watch your back"? Or is it simply that you enjoy having the opprotunity to prey upon lower level characters or team up to harass solo players? Not judging, I'd just like to have a clearer understanding of what your specific expectations and desires are for RDRO, because at the moment, R* has completely misrepresented what the experience was going to be to a large (perhaps half) of the potential player base.
The current game caters exclusively to PvP players. Every single non-Free Roam game mode is a PvP mode. Free Roam itself is a PvP mode. There are literally no dedicated PvE elements, apart from isolated group missions, in the current Free Roam experience. 95% of the online content is geared towards PvP gameplay, so demanding things not be "watered down" is arguing in favor of maintaining a strict PvP status for the entirety of the experience, aside from a few isolated missions. Or would like to be able to betray your teammates during those missions as well?
I have proposed many, many times that PvP/PvE status be a toggle for the player, subject to a 30 second cool down once out of combat. To date, nobody has provided an effective rebuttal to this proposal. Players who like the surprise element of Free Roam game play literally lose nothing. PvP players can leave their toggle active and do whatever they please to other PvP flagged players. PvE players can hunt and fish, or do missions in peace, without being shot in the back of the head exiting a cutscene before they can even orient themselves. The only "loser" in this scenario is the troll/griefer who enjoys preying upon lower level or solo characters with a pack of cohorts.
So, to summarize:
I can't say I hate this option, my concern would be I start to spawn in. Griefer kills me before I am completely in. I respawn and rinse and repeat. Would I be in PvP or PvE? Pending on how they define it, a player may never get to the chance to make the switch. Exactly when you can originally select it would be good.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 1/29/2019 at 9:15 AM, BropolloCreed79 said:
Thou shalt not disparage thine life-force sustaining refreshment. May The Dew of the Mountain flow forth freely that thine people may drink of it and have their extreme thirst be quenched. May their energy be replenished, and their vigor restored.
That has not been my experience.
Looking at The Division, skilled PvP players looking for a challenge tend to play Last Stand, the dedicated PvP mode. Trolls and griefers play in The Dark Zone, actively looking for easy prey, often hunting in packs against solo or unorganized players. Once PvE players no longer had to venture into the DZ to obtain gated loot, the PvE population in the DZ dwindled, and now, it's literally packs of Rogue Agents looking for solo players, and griping about "how much it sucks" now that there's nobody to kill.
RDRO is NOT a "PvEvP" environment. It's straight up PvP. PvEvP infers that the PvE crowd has an option or a choice, but there is NO choice, no dedicated PvE mode. The entire game is built to PvP gameplay, and that's fine, but R* should not market the game as having something for everyone to lure PvE players or folks looking for a western-themed RPG into what is essentially a reskin of GTA Online.
Edit: and you could have at least quoted me on that, since I just said it in this thread yesterday.
Yet it does have PvE, you can hunt, fish, or do story missions. It isn't much of an option, but I agree Rockstar has focused heavily on the PvP side.
On 1/29/2019 at 8:55 AM, madfretter said:That is very true. People are going to pick out the aspect of them game that they like most. Which is what makes this game awesome. R* just needs to make sure all aspects can be played without treading on the others.
As much as I defend the PvE side, I also understand that IF Rockstar wants to FIX Griefing. They really do need to be careful not to destroy the PvP and PvE players should realize that sometimes PvP will happen. It just needs to come down to what Rockstar considers a fix.
If all the stories are true, after 9 years of focusing on this game and Rockstar forcing employees to work overtime. All of this should have been done and beta shouldn't take 3 months. Then again gaming has been changing for years and how the industry deals withit and players are willing to accept.
-
2 minutes ago, madfretter said:
I think the issue is that a lot of people consider this an online shooting game, which it is not. Call of duty is an online shooting game. RDR is an immersive online adventure game that has far too many other aspects to be considered just a shooter. Hunting, gathering, fishing, eating, animal care, treasure hunts, a compendium of animals and goals to complete.. the list goes on. Call of duty is an online shooting game because that is the main focus, requiring minimal other activities to complete the game. It is impossible to complete RDR2 without doing the things I listed above. Just because RDR2 used shooting as the base to build upon does not make it a shooting game anymore than Madden 19 is a running simulator.
So, with that being said, I'll answer your question. I expect this game to be treated and developed into the open world, historical, interactive game that it was designed to be and not into yet another mindless run and gun shooter that requires nothing more than all of our available free time to memorize the spawn points and map and a ton of Mountain Dew.
Yet if players treat it like a run and gun and ignore the rest. It isn't just what the Devs envisioned, but how the players see it and treat it. All the things you mentioned, there are players, who have stated it isn't what you said and they don't treat it as that.
-
10 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:
I played Division for a good 18months(Day1 player). I just burned myself out. But I had no issues with players. I enjoyed farming, rouge hunting and their version of raids. I sometimes would have people in the Dz with me who thought they should be able to farm in peace. Their refusal to even attempt to defend themselves hurt not only just them but the team. I understand if your playstyle is PVE....but why play games that force you to PVP too? I don’t know why you would do that to yourself.
Cause it was advertised that there was PvE End Game. There wasn't. PvE End Game was going into the DZ to be Sheep. For the longest time, PvE was refused any kind of End Game Experience. Ubisoft/Massive added HVTs, LZ Bosses, and eventually WSP. Rewards for the longest time was still better in the DZ then any where else. Players liked the PvE. PvP players refused to share. Any time PvE players asked for anything, terms like snowflake, entitlement, carebears, etc..........was thrown at them. At one PvE players was able to build Skill Builds, which could hurt the PvP players in the DZ and PvP players cried for nerfs of everything. If I pay just as much for the game as you or anyone else, am I not allowed to make suggestions that can improve the game. Many times players asked for stuff and they wasn't doing it to be selfish, yet was rejected and ridiculed for it.
Now Rockstar that is different style, but in GTAO they punished the PvE players for being in different lobbies, safe lobbies if you will. PvP players who griefed those same players went unpunished. No balance was ever tried, if anything they gave more options to grief with.
Rumors and just rumors I am hearing, they are going to use the same business model for RDR2. Are you in the agreement, Rockstar should just say FU to all those players who don't like to be griefed. Maybe they shouldn't have bought the game, no refunds and a big FU to boot. How dear them think they should be able to enjoy the game. Quite simply put. Rockstar says they want to make it right and fix the griefing issue. It isn't about players putting themselves through anything. It's about Rockstar doing as they say they would and fix griefing.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
No joke, I've restarted online about five times now (the most recent being two weekends ago), and I'm not the least bit sorry. Sure, I'm probably about fifty or so levles behind where I should be, but the only thing I've lost has been some clothing. Not a big deal, imo.
But now, I'm finally happy with the end result. If my laudanum-addled, overall-clad, shirtless, alcoholic with a heart of gold could just get into Gun Rush games with more frequency, I'd be happy.
After restarting once, I would regret doing it again. Who knows how many bugs I would suffer. All I know is it would be unplayable for me. Right now I don't have options as is sometimes.
-
14 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:
To be fair, a lot of these morons will keep running at you . You have to kill them repeatedly. They are dense and can’t take a hint. But I will happily kill you as many times as you like. No need to chase you because you keep coming to me with your lemming mentality.
Much like The Divsion, people want an open world game to cater to a certain pve crowd. The DZ was a sh*t show but I loved the chaotic vibe. I bought the game knowing this and was fine with it. I wouldn’t expect a game to cater to my play style. If I don’t like it, I move on ( ie For Honor). This argument will never end because PVE only players want to hunt in peace and harmony, others want to watch the world burn and people like me learn to adapt. Best thing R* can do is stick to whatever their vision is for the game. When you start chopping and dicing core mechanics.....you end up with a waterdown product. This is the main reason I left Destiny 2. Bungie listened to the whiners, causing a watered down product.
In all fairness, a player who keeps charging at you guns a blaze. Aren't poor innocent victims. They are participating in PvP. They are openly begging for your assists to respawn. Regardless if it be you, HuDawg, or any other player, everyone is participating in PvP. Go to town. Have fun with it.
Please don't confuse catering to and balance as being the same. The DZ was chaotic, it could have been balanced as well. It never was once again Ubisoft and Massive didn't want it balanced. They wanted wolves and they wanted sheep. Yet they advertised PvEvP. They advertised it as PvE where PvP could happen. They also made it the End Game and gave players no option but to play PvP. Yet I enjoyed both, pending on my mood. Now when you have 20 PvP players standing there and doing nothing but waiting for some PvE farmers to come in and take down a landmark. There is and issue with your PvP. Though they claimed not to fear dying in the DZ, none of them wanted to take a chance and become a sheep. They all wanted to be a wolf. So they stood around bored until someone volunteered to be a sheep. By the way just incase you are one of those, "Don't touch my DZ, leave it as is!" die hard PvP players. You got a DZ that got dumbed down, not balanced, cause they kept striving to force PvE players into the DZ. Each update they kept nerfing the DZ, cause fewer and fewer PvE players was going in. The PvP players kept pushing them out, cause they refused to PvP with their peers. All I can say is being a Day 1 player, sure missed the Day 1 DZ. Back then PvP meant something. PvE never really did get any End Game and TD2 sounds like it is going to be treated exactly the same.
On the other hand, at least a PvE player does have a chance to fight back as where Ubisoft and Massive created 2 different builds either PvP and PvE. Where a PvE player couldn't hurt a well built PvP build. Ubisoft really hated PvE players. Lost 90% of their player base in just a few months and said good riddance.
-
I restarted because of bug issues with my horse, it got changed to a scrawny nag and I couldn't get it to change back. Now I have all sorts of answered bugs. Important thing, my horse is still my horse everytime. It is a bit of a coward now, where it didn't used to be.
-
2 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
I never said they killed my friend. I said they shot at him.
Now.. I will kill that player a MILLIONS and more until they leave the area. If they keep coming back they obviously are not trying to learn a lesson and just want to be a DIE HARD. I don't care if they stop firing back. Im not done till im done..
If they keep coming back and both sides are fully engaged. Then it's call PvP. All bets are off. Go to town, let it rip. If they are playing, in my opinion you have every right to play back.
If they shot at your friend, you kill them a million times and they never raised a finger to fight back, that's you just being a di*k. At some point there needs to be a line drawn. One that you don't or can't cross. Players that are not participating in PvP. Shouldn't be punished because players have personal anger management issues. You need a shrink in this case, not gaming where you kill people.
Thing is you don't ever see a difference. Between PvP or PvE, you see your way and that's it. You don't see how wrong you are, because you are in denial. PvEvP is not FFA, it is where bothsides come together and co-exists.
-
17 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
Ok...
So now if someone shoots at my friend.. ONCE. And I decided to jump in and kill that player 50 times.. I get punished?
Clearly these band aid ideas don't really work well in the long run. Again, this is a FFA game. It is what it is.
Private lobbies are the solution to public players not playing how you want. Just as the always have been in FFA games, especially R* games.
Why exactly, would you kill another player 50 times for killing your friend once? During those 50 killings, is there at some point that, that you may stop and ask yourself. You know this player hasn't stopped me yet? Just maybe he or she may have learned their lesson? At some point they may have just stopped firing back at you? Just saying, at some point it is you being a di*k. Your point was probably proven 47 killings ago.
As stated before, they quit blocking content and private lobbies could be a fix. They always block content, cause they want us all in the same servers. So your Band-aid server fixes nothing. Now what you are calling band-aids are weak ass attempts at fixes that they had no interests in fixing. Proven by them giving new and better ways to grief. If they want to fix, they need fixes. Your private lobbies where they punish players for PvE. Is super weak ass attempt at fixing. Cause they aren't fixing anything they are running away from it. They are separating their player base and then have to push players back to where they want them. PvEvP doesn't work without balance. FFA is called fortnite, or gunrush, or PvP only modes. Just remember PvP doesn't need the PvE. They can settle on some small map and be perfectly fine.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
The cops are endless in GTA O. And that doesn't stop anything.
Players kill themselves on purpose to stop cops from spawning in GTA O. And cops attack players who defend themselves. Its an endless cycle of bullsh*t.
Also.. what makes you think R* can code the game to find out whos the instigator? It could be ONE person attacking me, I kill him.. Then his friends start coming at me. So now im blasting them all left and right. Does that mean I need to let his friends shoot me 1st?
IRL, 2 people in a bar get into an argument. 1st guy gets nervous and calls his boys over. One thing leads to another, fight breaks out. Cops get called. Do thing interrogate only one side or do they hear the whole story.
It doesn't have to be who instigated it, but if you are shooting back you die. Don't give the players an easy out kill yourself. Make so the players hate griefing. If you aren't shooting at all. Then you get out of jail free card.
I believe Rockstar can code, they made this game right? Thing is they left things out, then need dealt with. All they got to do is come up a with a plan that actually fix it.
-
Been playing with randoms, trying to network. That has been a major fail.
Have added some from here. Have had good times when we can get on together. Yet RL interrupts with timing.
So it isn't like some don't try, just not all make the cut and worth the time.
-
20 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
And what if they kill all the law men?
Problem is this. Even the NPCs can be in the wrong sometimes and instigate a fight with a player, yet the player defending themselves now has to deal with the law.
Just imagine how messed up and backwards it would be in terms of pvp in free roam.
A posse of 4 decide to attack me. I kill them all.. now I have to deal with lawmen too? So now I have to kill players and NPC lawmen.. and for some reason the more I defend myself the more jail time il get?
Players who would defend themselves should have accountability if they fight back. It shouldn't be triggered by a Player killing another, it should be the repetition of one player being attacked and killed over and over.
If players fight back, then the NPCs shouldn't get involved at all. In the old west, gun fights breakout. Civvies ran for cover and usually the law didn't intervene till it was all over.
That way PvP can still happen if all parties are open to it. It's when they aren't.
-
16 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
Again.. Private lobbies is not a band aid. The game is designed to be a FFA in public free roam. Band Aids are what you want.
And you have offered nothing that would stop griefing.
Because when you talk about griefing you talk about getting killed by players. Which is pvp. So you want a band aid that prevents pvp from happening in a game where PVP is part of the game design.
Game needs private lobbies. If you want to think of private lobbies as slap in the face or ban aid, that's your choice. Most people will simply see that as a simple solution because that allows you to control who you play with.
You know it's funny. I was in a discussion that the issue with open realms like this is that PvE players are just too scared to die. So if they would just accept that dying is just part of the game. Griefing will no longer be an issue to them. Now this same player is a griefer in most games I know him from and when I asked why do you attack PvE players knowing that they either can't defend themselves or just won't? Could it be you are scared of dying in PvP? Then it only makes sense that you need to come to grips with dying and you won't be afraid to PvP with actual PvP players. Now he took offense, but it was fair statement.
You keep saying that I haven't offered any suggestions, yet I have. You just didn't like them, afraid you can't PvP if they was in place. Now not saying they are the best plans and that they couldn't be tweaked, just brainstorming that could lead to both PvP and PvE players co-existing in the same realm. You view this debate as You ( a PvP player) being attacked, like I am trying to ruin your fun. Yet have zero issues with doing that to some one else.
This type a realm isn't just FFA, it is PvEvP where both worlds exists. Which means that PvE can happen.
To define griefing, to me it isn't when I get attacked once by a player or a posse. It is the non-stop attacking a player, doing nothing but trying to ruin another players fun for the sake of your own. Now many in these situations feel that when you attack another player. Those same players feel they HAVE TO run that player out of the server and make sure that they hated it so much that they just won't play the game ever again. They don't feel they can still share the same server.
You being one that claims it is policed. I say by who? You respond with the players. I am curious, there isn't more PvP if the players are complaining to Rockstar and on here about the griefing. Shouldn't they be complaining about all of the PvP that is going on. If a player isn't participating in PvP, isn't fighting back. Then it isn't PvP. Players who participate in that isn't really playing in PvP. They are griefers and they aren't doing the game any favors by running players off.
You have also claimed it's a FFA. Really? Seriously ask yourself, when you see another player. Do you grab your gun and shoot 1st? If you always shoot 1st, then it isn't anything can happen. That is the mindset of the current player base. If we all shoot 1st, then it's just a PvP game mode. If it's just a PvP game mode, then you don't need it to be freeroam. You don't need PvE elements. No fishing, no hunting, no towns people. No fences. You just need a nice little map where players can shoot each other.
The only ones who need the whole enchilada are those who want to do it all. Those who want to PvEvP. Those who truly believe anything can happen. No griefing required. Yes some PvE players will get shot from time to time. Yet, it is no longer a shoot PvE players and run them out of my game. Those who wish to PvP can still find those who want to PvP and PvE players can fish and hunt without it interrupting each others game.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Renascent said:
I'm mainly a PC mmo person so I never really had this happen to me much. There's been a few instances that as soon as a dude realizes I'm a woman he either starts following me around harassing me by hog-tying or trying to get on my horse (I've set it to friends only now) or just straight up killing me. Or when I've killed someone and realize it then they instantly start talking smack about my lady bits or something like they even know anything. And maybe a coincidence, but almost every time a war breaks out with my posse it's cuz some person shot me while I'm standing in the middle of the group. Like, why me???
Yeah, you women gamers ruin everything.
hahahaha.
-
2 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
Funny because that's exactly what I think every time I see you going on about trying to control players actions. (Yet offer no real solutions)
Either Bring your own balance and accountability.. Or ask for Private lobbies.
The game is designed to be a FREE FOR ALL. Theres nothing you can do about it without ruining the free for all aspect of the game.
Actually, there is plenty that could be done. I have offerred plenty of suggestions to Rockstar. Whether not they do any of them, well we have to wait and see. Good news is it won't affect the PvP players and will affect those who just want to grief. Greatest part is none of the suggestions are private lobby band-aids like they used in the past.
Sad part is the rumors are sounding like they are still a go ahead on the GTA model they have been using. Which mean they will say FU to the PvE crowd and endorse the griefer crowd. Even though they keep saying that they don't want this game to turnout like GTA did with griefers.
hahahaha.
Time for a huge question to be answered.
in Red Dead Online
Posted · Edited by YodaMan 3D
I have had bad experiences, but they aren't all the time. I know I haven't had it as bad as some. I have had those situations where I have been out doing my thing and had others nearby and we not just start attack one another. We aren't jumping to conclusions that all players are bad. Yet when players in PvEvP assume that they have to have a shoot 1st mentality, they no longer can say they enjoy that anything can happen. They eliminated that when they shot 1st. The whole "Surprise element of what will they do?" Is no longer there, they die or they shoot back.
As far as griefing goes, it isn't just attacking a player once. It's the non-stop attacking till they quit playing or no reason then they aren't in PvP with you mentality. If some posse and they do this pretty regular, where they have a 4+ man posse rolls up on a lone player. Can you tell me what is going to happen? In our little "anything can happen scenerio?" They attack, he dies , they attack again, he dies, rinse and repeat. What doesn't happen is them roll up and everyone hugs and kisses and ignores each other.
In some of these scenarios, I have asked why? Those few times players actually responded. "It was because, they was big bad PvP players that doesn't allow any one to get in their way". Now prey tell, there was PvP going on in the nearby town that they road around to get to me.
I experience more toxicity from unknown others then I do surprising free gifts. That is my experiences and I don't jump to the conclusion that it is only that way for everyone. Some players don't see the same things as others. They don't have the same experiences as everyone else.
I just try to see everyone's side of the story, then to assume my experience is the only one. Therefore it is the only option and everyone else who disagrees is just wrong. Its my way or the highway. I don't want to be that person or player, that wants to eliminate options. Not everyone comes into discussions with the hopes of being open minded and come up with logical answers. They just want what they want and F everyone else.