YodaMan 3D
-
Posts
1,094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by YodaMan 3D
-
-
18 minutes ago, Renascent said:
Myself and another friend almost got shot down by some guy until he heard our voices (both of us women). Then he came over and started showing off and talking about how much money he has in game and irl lol.
But for real I don't even bother with in game chat unless someone looks like they trying to get my attention. I'm usually in party chat anyway so I can't hear anyone.
In RDR, I used to roll in a group that had a couple ladies in it. It was always funny how you could be playing and because we didn't use private chat. Soon as one of them speak. The whole server would be on us and everyone one of those guys getting in the way.
Another time in the TD, I was in a squad and a player heard the lady in the group speak. Poof! and one of our opponents became a changed man. Turned on his team and started killing them as soon they would get close to her. Eventually, got mad cause she wouldn't kick one of us that she played with daily out of the group and wouldn't leave the group to join up with him. So he started sniping us, would wait for us to start a mission and shoot us from behind. Never once shot her, even though he stated it was completely random. She got upset and quit playing after that.
-
8 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
The reality is RD O is mean to be a FFA game.
Those that do not want any sort of pvp interactions need to be asking for private lobbies.
Here we go again. Or they could add some sort of accountability for the asshats to bring balance, that doesn't ruin PvP in the Freeroam.
-
On 1/26/2019 at 8:56 AM, BurbonChaser said:
Instead of focusing on fixing the bugs which have persisted since launch so they can release new MEANINGFUL content, they focus on working on Gun Rush.
Well yeah! Why not? Best plan for dealing with griefers is to remove those who really want to PvP into PvP game modes. So it is just griefers and PvE players, how could they go wrong with that plan?
-
1
-
-
On 1/22/2019 at 10:58 AM, Dark Eco Wolf said:
I wonder how many people actually Join Posse Up? Who wants to join a posse with unknown people?
If I have no one on, I will join randoms. Big issue most make no attempts to communicate and they make no attempts to coordinate. They just do their thing and hope you follow along.
Down side is I am starting to run solo far too often. Not much need to join co-op if you don't get to co-op. I just hope more friends will come to the game or hope that those few I know start playing more when I am on.
-
4 minutes ago, Force58 said:
I've given Online several chances over the months and after finishing the campaign. It's just too boring to me right now. But the one thing that it reminds me of is the Dark Zone in The Division. I'd get a rush going in there to get the loot I wanted and that I knew was better than outside the Dark Zone, but was always looking over my shoulder to see who was around me. Getting my hunting and fishing goods off to be sold is the same as waiting for the chopper to come and carry out my loot from the Division. Online would be better with more things to do, more missions, etc.
This is a good comparison, but like in the Division. PvP really depended way too much on PvE farmers. PvP players standing around waiting for a PvE player to engage was always ignorant when PvP could be very easy to find.
-
On 1/25/2019 at 10:47 AM, Harlock1796 said:
Is this working for other people?
I bought the upgraded saddlebags ($80) and can still only fit 3 outfits on my horse ☹️
No. Then again I haven't unlocked the higher level ones yet.
-
On 1/26/2019 at 3:26 PM, cadashka said:
As a posse player, we usually grind the stranger missions together with hunting. In order to avoid hostile randoms, we tend to travel from one side of the map to the other during our game play. Sometimes we fast travel across the map in order to play in those quiet parts.
This worked well up until recently. What we today was kinda crazy. We traveled to lonely part of the map (Tall Trees), started a mission just to witness one hostile random spawning near by after another. When we finished the mission, we traveled to Rhodes as it was quiet. Same there. Once we stayed for a wile, we were surrounded by random players.
Any of you noticed something similar?Often times when a player spawns in, they are put into a populated area. I have noticed this, nothing like spending money to fast travel to a point to hunt or fish. Then have a player spawn in right next to you so they can shoot you.
-
On 1/27/2019 at 2:25 PM, Cliffs said:
Agree with the replies. I agree we should be able to have fun with friends and having private servers will take care of that...but open servers will never be as most of you want just due to the fact this is a shooting online game, not a hunting fishing and socializing online game.
But it is, as I have state before players can hunt, fish, shoot other. It can be a socializing online game. Just because there are many who refuse to allow it to be so. There is no reason why PvP and PvE can't co-exists, problem is if given a choice, some PvP players would rather attack a player who is not involved with PvP vs actually attacking those who are. Some players take offense to farming for hours and some player rides in for no reason then to destroy their experience. If given a choice, don't pretend that you don't have a choice and that it is someone else's fault cause one has no self control.
On 1/28/2019 at 8:23 AM, Cliffs said:I'm going to assume
Never assume...I still play the first game to this day.
To each his own style of play i guess but i know I don't approach this online game the same as single player, why, because to me that is boring as i have done most of it in single player, why would i want to go online to play the same way? I am not a griever or troll and avoid them best i can but i also don't play much online because of same.
What if the campaign allowed you to do it with friends and not just solo? Thing is that would be co-op and that isn't an option. You found the campaign as boring, but are you the only one who played it? Are others wanting to have those kind of interactions with friends? If you feel PvP is the only way online works, don't they have game modes specific for that? You don't need free roam to attack others. Riding around all the time and attacking players that I see fishing or hunting non-stop till they attack back, seems boring to me especially when I pumping my chest screaming that I am great at PvP.
-
1
-
-
On 1/27/2019 at 9:05 AM, Cliffs said:
I keep reading all these posts from players who are ticked off with griefers or whatever you want to call them. These same complainers are saying they want to hunt and fish and be left alone.
I actually expected the online part of this great game to be like most online games..player VERSUS player not AI. In the single player game i can hunt and fish until the sun sets in the East and never get shot at, so why would i want that same experience online?
Posses (or gangs) would team up against other teams and take over camps and/or areas under others control. There would be epic fights for control of Valentine or St. Deinis, etc.
Instead I keep reading that players want to ride around this huge map and do nothing of the sort.
So without attacking me the OP, just what is it you expected from an online shooting game?
I personally want PvEvP as advertised. A free roam where I can PvP or PvE pending on my desires. I want a game where there are consequences that each player has to contend with. I want a freeroam where one's fun isn't dependent on others coming over to ruin it. Or that I have to change servers to find the one that allows me to do what I want to do. I especially prefer co-op to the point that if I choose to play solo that when I see another player having issues, that I can ride in, aid them and leave. That way they can finish their business and I can continue what I am doing.
-
@shawn I know exactly what you are experiencing. I restarted because of issues that I was experiencing, since This is one of the issues. Regardless of bond, the horse is more difficult to control.
-
3 minutes ago, Syrens said:
Haha, always amusing when there's a bunch of dude's trying to impress a girl in a game. Like, it's never gonna happen
You could have heard a pin drop when the young lady asked how old I was. My statement was old enough to be able to buy the game without mommy or daddy buying it for me and most likely old enough not to be any competition in their little game of trying to impress her. She said something else and they was all back at it.
-
1
-
-
I have no issues with a healthy conversation between players, but I am feeling some players just have to talk so they can just hear their own words. 2 examples, I played with a group of randoms. A girl, 6 guys including myself. All of the players was decent and the girl was the leader and we was doing missions. I think everyone was in their 20s to 30s and I was the old guy with all of the wisdom, I guess. Anyway, the girl would say something and then the 5 guys would just star talking over each other so you couldn't really here a dam thing. After several minutes they would shut up and rinse and repeat. The guys seemed so scared that one the others would impress this young lady, that in my opinion ruined the game experience for all. None of them was really saying anything worth hearing anyway. Just speak and if another says something shut up and let them speak. Take turns and let everyone have a chance to speak. Then on top of it all, they kept screwing up so it was the female and I completing the missions. So I felt like I was carrying the whole posse and wasn't sure why.
-
Just curious about how much free Gold did you get from Rockstar this time? I'm not bitching, but I only got 5 gold bars and I try to log in and play a couple hours a day. Yet considering how generous they had be in the past. It didn't seem like much this time around. So was kind of curious if others got more or less based on time played, cause I know some are on all day while others only login for the free stuff.
-
On 1/26/2019 at 3:42 PM, cory206 said:
I try to maintain a reasonably normal sleep pattern if I'm in Arthur, either returning to camp or camping out, although I could do with more sleep cos in the morning I'm always grumpy as fhave you noticed that?
However, I don't bother online because it's such an insomniac, hypomanic, anxiety-driven world sleep doesn't even exist. This makes sense, even though it always seems to be nightime in there...
Not to mention, that stupid handyman keeps moving my stupid camp to the opposite of the map. it actually did it twice to me on Friday. Spawned in by St. Denis and he was over by Tumbleweed. St. Denis was a very busy place, so I fast traveled to Tumbleweed. Get there and get a message that the old bastard moved my camp back over to the otherside. So I fast traveled to the closest town. Get there and that stupid idiot moved the camp back. By this point I figured it out. The reason he does it is because if I catch up to him I am just going to shoot him in his stupid face.
-
5 minutes ago, Ragee503 said:
I agree I was out this morning and every town was full of kids shooting stuff up. We need to get to town once in awhile. Jeez r* get it together somewhat. You stick us in with these little shts and don't even give us a place to empty our wares.
Some of those little shits are actually grown adults. Just saying it out loud.
-
2
-
-
On 1/22/2019 at 8:16 AM, Vaderspupil said:
Yeah, once you fully upgrade your tent and maybe add fast travel to your camp, Cripps is useless.
Well, that is a load of BS. His ability to just up and move my camp to some random location while I'm off doing something and to comeback and it not be there. That is why I play the game.
For example, started in St. Denis. I look on the map and he is over by Tumbleweed. So I grab my horse and hunt all the way to Tumbleweed. Get to the marker and my camp is nowhere in sight. Look on the map and that bastard had moved it over by St. Denis. So I farm my way back and the thoughtful gent moved it back. I just quit trying after that. Moral of the story, it wouldn't have happened without him looking out for me during those trying times
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, The Coca-Cola Kid said:
While I agree with your philosophy that abusive chat can be tolerated and can easily ignored, I disagree that any individual should have to tolerate abusive chat in a public space. Unfortunately, outside of reporting the abuse, I am not sure what anyone can do about except change servers or get over it.
On xbox you can report them. Whether or not any thing gets done. Well that is up for debate. I have known say that xbox has zero tolerance policy.
-
7 hours ago, WILD VIKING said:
Yes Yodaman thats why i said options .every person likes its own style. Dutch got two ways of dying on his hips. Thats where i saw it and looks really good. So yeah man you like the current style thats cool.
I liked it with them on the hips as well. Grew up playing games where that was how you wore your guns. Just history lessons have taught me, not everything on TV or in the movies are accurate. Usually, those who wore guns on the hip didn't live to be old gunfighters. The ones who wore them slightly tilted and across the body was real gunfighters.
-
13 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
That phenomenon is actually a Hollywood trope as opposed to actual legal doctrine.
There is currently no article, subsection, or law on file with the United States Code of Federal Regulations which requires Army Rangers to identify themselves as having received special training before an engagement in either civilian or military activities.
Unless there is relevant case law (which I was unable to locate) specifically spelling out legal requirements for current or former military to self-identify and inform an opposing party in a dispute of specialized training, then it doesn't exist.
Simply put, it's movie magic, and a plot point from "Con Air":
Not doubting your story, @YodaMan 3D, but the person claiming such was full of hot air.
I know he was in the military, whether or not he was a Army Ranger. That incident was I think more bravado to push his point home and it worked. No one questioned. I was just shocked that he didn't seem to get reported for it. Then again maybe he did and nothing really happened.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, madfretter said:
If they offered a DLC for online players to replay story missions with our online characters, would you buy it? I'd be all for this.
NO! 2 reasons 1st, don't want
Spoilermy player to die setting by a rock.
2nd,
SpoilerDon't want to lose the fight to the bad guys again. Let me live and I throw them off the mountain.
We got a deal.
-
7 hours ago, WILD VIKING said:
Would love to have my holsters on my hips real cowboy style. Would like the option of changing it to the hip.
Actually, they are closer to being real cowboy style as they are now. That isn't your real argument, you want them like they do it on TV or in the movies.
-
9 hours ago, Jackthestripper said:
Tired of internet tough guys screaming in my ear about how they'd 'kick your ass' IRL and so on.
A gent I have played PvP with had players say that to him. He asked very respectfully, what they guys address was and stated that legally he had to inform everyone that he was an Army Ranger before he kicked their ass. Everyone in public chat got deathly quiet and the game just stopped and no one moved. He asked again for the guy's address. The mouthy one and his friends all left after that. No one saying a word. After that no one made any threats after that. I respected the guy a little more too.
-
35 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
Lobbies = Fix.
You want the band aid (s)
If your goal is to fix griefing. There no fix if you don't fix griefing. Feel free to take you band-aid and go home. Now if they state FU to part of their player base and say nope we won't do it. They have blatantly stated, "They will fix the griefing issue." That may mean they will slap a great big snoopy band-aid on it and create extra lobbies. Did they fix it? The answer is still no. Feel to argue till you turn blue. Lobbies = Band aid.
41 minutes ago, HuDawg said:They never tried?
In GTAO. They have wanted levels and cops. Bad Sport lobbies. Insurance.. And Passive mode.
All of that is used against players. And none of that stop griefers.
Wanted levels and cops? In the beginning this helped, except they wasn't there to stop Griefers. They was there for whenever or whoever created crimes. They then gave faster cars and flying machines that was all bullet proof. Which made them immune from any damage that the NPCs could or would do. Wow, they must have taken all of 30 secs to make and ruin that concept.
Bad Sport Lobbies? I don't ever recall anyone getting a naughty point and being put into a bad sport lobby. I know more then a few that was really bad sports on a regular basis. Once again. Really they didn't do anything here either.
Insurance? Ok, so after griefed you could get your vehicles back after the fact that someone else destroyed them. WOW! How is that not the most legendary concept of all time. Well, except it didn't recover your loss of time, xp, or money which may have been lost from a griefer. Still pretty special anti-griefing tool right there. I bet it made Griefers tremble in fear and say, "I won't ever grief ever again!" No. They actually made more super vehicles to destroy even more faster.
Passive mode? Another great plan griefer made tool, not anti-griefing. It allowed players to stay protected from being shot long enough that players during mission could do nothing and the switched by a griefer to attack and then switch back so the player could do nothing to about it.
If this is what you think are great anti-griefing tools. You missed Anti-griefing 101.
57 minutes ago, HuDawg said:Seems to me the only reason you're against private lobbies or friendly lobbies is that you're worried about R* block some content? Well, if the content is pvp related it should be blocked. Ifs it not pvp related it should be playable.
This isn't that complicated. Its far more easier to create separate lobbies than to police all forms of hostile player actions.
I am against private lobbies mostly because I am against griefing. I do consider blocking content, to force players into a griefing situation, so that they can play content that PvP isn't required.
All those missions in GTAO that got blocked from private missions, cause players got their panties twisted that a PvE player could complete it without their interruption.
So let's break down the current state of RDO, I can't think of one stranger mission that after it starts, it doesn't say that others have been alerted to what your are doing and can get involved. So not only do you encounter NPCs and PvP. Private lobby with Rockstar history. Those missions will be yanked. Why do you ask? Can players much like yourself will say those are too easy without PvP. You are right to a point, they are easy. Question is why does it require PvP? It could have more NPCs, the NPCs could be made more difficult. So all PvE will have in their lobbies, will be fishing, hunting, and six story missions to do till their nauseous. Meanwhile, PvP players get all those missions, story missions, fishing, hunting, and PvP. To top it off, they get them probably making it a lot more money and xp doing it that way. So they get to unlock everything 1st.
So wow, your right give us all lobbies and block everything and screw the PvE players. As long as you're happy. Who cares that Rockstar pissed off and told FU to. We only care about those poor misunderstood griefers that no one likes. Boy if only Rockstar had a brain cell between them and could actually fix griefing. They could save time and money and have everyone on the same server wanting to play in the same instance.
Meanwhile the only mission I can think of in the current state that requires PvP is assassination, where a bounty is placed on an unexpecting player. Now exactly happens there. Oh yeah, generally the player just runs the other from your posse and you are so far away that you won't ever catch them. Now that is real PvP right there. That should make you so happy to keep that mission.
You really should consider that I am not budging on my point of view. I know I am right. Griefing needs a fix. According to Rockstars track record, they won't if they continue to the GTAO treatment.
-
12 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
Players shouldn't be allows to run players off? I disagree.. I can think of many reasons why they should be able too.
Also most players want a private lobby or friendly lobby. The people who stop playing will mostly stop due to lack of private lobbies.. and lack of free aim.
None of your suggestion will stop griefing. And giving players private lobbies or friendly type lobbies isn't a FU. Its a solution to a problem.
No amount of band aids will stop players from 'griefing'. Except passive mode.. and passive mode is dumb, so might as well add proper lobbies for players tastes
Actually I want the fix.. You want the band aid.
Because private lobbies does fix griefing. Your band aid ideas don't.
A big snoopy band aid.. lol?
I've yet to see any idea that could stop me from killing someone over and over again. Not one single idea.
Sure they can improve the blips and add lawmen. And that would make it more enjoyable. But it doesn't stop anyone from 'griefing'.
Lobbies equal band-aids. They don't fix. Players who go to a private lobby and get locked out of missions, leave because they get punished for using private lobbies.
Rockstar has stated they want to fix the griefing issue. In the past they never wanted to fix it. They never even tried. They created more weapons for griefing. You can keep trying to argue it's ok. it simply isn't. You can keep trying to argue that private lobbies fixes everything. It hasn't.
If Rockstar wants to fix it and wants to keep everyone playing PvEvP freeroam. Then a fix needs to be applied. Griefers will be offended, but if done right then they will stop griefing and turn to PvP players for attention that the sincerely need.
For those that need the anything can happen and attack those who don't want to be griefed can still play the game. The answer shouldn't be quit playing, cause another player isn't good enough to actually PvP against other PvP players. If you want challenge, if you want to be the best. Attacking those who don't fight back makes players look like idiots. In PvEvP modes both sides of the community is suppose to co-exist. That work if you let one side run the other off from the game. That is ignorance on any who believe that it is.
Time for a huge question to be answered.
in Red Dead Online
Posted
A PvE player has just as much right to a PvEvP zone as a PvP player. No need to be toxic in the forums as one is in the game. Not really needed in either place. Yet some just can't help themselves.