YodaMan 3D
-
Posts
1,094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by YodaMan 3D
-
-
11 hours ago, HuDawg said:
So they get killed by lawmen.. Respawn and keep griefing you.
OR they just kill the lawmen and grief you at the same time.
Back in GTA O they had bounties and cops. How good did that work? I usually gave my bounty to a friend... And sometimes I would let the cops kill me. A lot of griefers would just kill themselves to avoid dealing with cops.
Whats stopping them from just killing you a few times and leaving?
Whats stopping a posse filled with high levels running a bullet train on your ass and the lawmen while getting bounties.. then leaving the posse and killing each other for the bounty?Whats stopping players from being pests and annoying you to the point where you have to start shooting them.. And then you get a bounty and lawmen on your ass?
Separate lobbies don't remove them from the game? Well how are they supposed to kill you, if they can't target you in your game? You have literally removed them from the game.
Again.. You want the band aid. And every band and idea I've heard. Has tons of flaws in it OR flat out does NOT work.
Dude, I'm saying the suggestion doesn't need tweaks. What I am saying is some Asshat shouldn't be allowed to run players off because he is an Asshat. If this game gets the same treatment that the GTAO got, it pushes players away. I get it you in all your wisdom assume that is the greatest thing in the world when players stop playing a game. My suggestion is there are ways that Rockstar can deal with griefing without telling part of it's playerbase to FU! Your concern for the griefers who ruin the game is more important then those who want to play the game. I understand the need to protect the PvP in a PvEvP freeroam. I don't see doing it at the expense of the other half of your playerbase. Other lobbies separates your playerbase, so at some point your players leave or they refuse to game as originally designed. They don't or won't participate in PvEvP freeroam, cause the company won't address the issue. They slap a band-aid on it and ignore the problem cause not as many complain. You really need to look at what they did to GTAO. Did they do anything to bring players together? Hell to the No. They created lobby options and some point put missions in the PvEvP that PvE players just wouldn't do. So they punished part of the player base, cause they wouldn't fix the issue. They never ever did anything to fix it, if anything they endorsed it and added more griefing tools.
So as I have said before lobbies are a band-aid, they will be temporary fixes at best. The Rockstar will punish those who don't play in the PvEvP lobby. So as much as your band-aid fix will appease players, it will be for a short time. If Rockstar is true to their word and really want to fix it. They need to actually fix griefing without destroying PvP.
At this point for you and I think in these forums, we should just avoid these conversations. I want a fix. You want a great big Snoopy Band-Aid, which drives players away from the game.
Game companies can fix griefing, but they have actually try and not ignore it. Which is currently being done in all PvEvP games.
-
1 hour ago, madfretter said:
Agreed. I think that auto aim should be optional and having it on will cut all cash and xp earnings by 75% .
So if you use Auto-Aim you only get 25% xp. hahahaha. I can hear the crickets as players leave the game.
-
1 hour ago, HuDawg said:
What rules? I could slaughter everyone and ride away laughing in single player.
I can also get jumped by rival gangs in single player.. and get slaughtered. Which is the NPC version of what you consider griefing in this game.
And most of them are asking for private lobbies..or friendly lobbies. Because they know that's the actual solution to to stop getting killed by random players. Its the only solution.
Or R* can simply tailor the lobbies for co-op game play instead of pvp. It also depend on how you look at it. Is it a punishment if you get less OR is it a reward if you play in a lobby that carrys a risk of being killed by other players. Id go with the latter.
You are opting or off the risker game lobby.
Just like RDR 1 and GTA O has higher pay outs for free aim lobbies. Auto aim players complained about that too because "Why should I be punished for how I want to play?"
Instead of looking at a reward for playing in free aim.
And when you killed you got bounties, where lawmen, bounty hunters, or even rival gangs would hunt you down and massacre you. Now if they used that against griefers. Yeah maybe you get to kill a player a few times, but then they could then grief you by having a bounty put on you instead of parley where you get harrassed by NPCs till dead or you escape the region and go pay off your bounty. If they fight back, then it would automaticly removes the option to call for a bounty. There are options for stopping griefing other then run away, leave the game, or change lobbies.
As I have stated before, separate lobbies don't remove them from the game. Lobbies are just a band-aid. They don't fix the issue at hand, which is griefing.
Or they could punish players by locking some missions in the public lobby, which they did in GTAO. Now Rockstar has claimed that they know griefing is a issue and they are making plans to actually deal with it. Rumors are that they planning to do the same as GTAO. Which many didn't feel was a fix.
-
19 minutes ago, buttlint said:
Dutch raised both Arthur and John from orphans. They grew up together like brothers and Arthur watched over John like a big brother would.
I would think that Jack was attracted to Arthur like any kid would like their favorite uncle. The cool uncle that let them do stuff that their dad wouldn't allow them to do. The uncle that got them the best presents. The uncle that took them fishing. What kid doesn't push back on their old man. He's the guy that has to do all of the dirty work of raising a kid. John had no role model of his own and tried to do what he thought was the right way to raise a son. Johns idea of a good life was to have a farm and to teach the kid the value of hard work.....not sit around and daydream about knights and princes. John didn't discourage him from reading, he just wanted him to do his homework and chores first.
As far as Arthur banging on Abigail......that's a pretty chump thing to do to your brother. Arthur may have done a lot of foul things in his life but he was always loyal to his family.
Some families share everything.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
This isn't single player..
Theres nothing you can do to stop people from killing other players that won't ruin the game for people who like the anything can happen feel of the game. And like to defend themselves against players
So why ruin one aspect of the game to cater to another? When you can just add more options for game modes.
Im not being naïve.. Im being realistic. Theres no reason for players who have no interest in pvp to be playing in pvp lobbies. Even if they did add passive mode. Those passive players are taking up spots for pvp players.. OR those pvp players are taking up spots for pve players.
Split it up..
The campaign had a FFA feel. It also had rules.
Online could use those same rules and all players involved would be ok with it. They already played by those rules. So you can't really say it doesn't work or it would ruin it for me. You may not like it and I'm sure there could be adjustments that would make it better for all parties without ruining it for everyone. Currently Griefers are able to do anything and a large part of your player base isn't liking it. Some have threatened if not already left the game. Considering how they have done separate lobbies, I would be highly concerned that they would continue their old ways and punish players for playing the friendlier lobbies. I personally feel that is a slap in the face. I said it before and say it again. Rockstar doesn't want us in separate lobbies. They want us all in one, it is the standard for these type of games. Reward PvP and Griefers, punish PvE. Meanwhile Griefers continue to ruin the game overall.
-
4 minutes ago, jnaron_ngc said:
Too bad it seems R* hides in the shadowy recesses of this forum, and does not step into the light.
I don't know if they still do it, but some companies used to hire people to surf the internet and follow the forums and what not. Just so companies would know what was actually being said. I imagine that you could have computer programs do that now.
-
33 minutes ago, Netnow66 said:
This is crazy...
I logged onto my Pro. I am able to add people there.
I went back to my computer to see if the people were added and the number is now up to 56.
But I tried to block another person using PSN computer access and it would not go. I went to my Pro and was able to block the person. And it then showed up (57) on my PSN computer browser access.
It's as if the PSN computer browser access won't let me add anything over 50 but the console will. Very odd. Also odd that the Sony people weren't more familiar with this. Guess I'll be doing an online chat to get info on this too.
I plugged a USB keyboard into my Pro and it's making it easy to re-input those names that didn't go in before.
Thanks for the info on your over 50 list.
They are probably making minimum wage. You can't expect them t
27 minutes ago, madfretter said:I hope there isn't a cap like this on Xbox. After the call of duty franchise I've probably got 10,000 blocked on my Xbox. lol Not that I have any idea how to check it..
There isn't, but then again I have blocked players when I played The Division and then would see them still on later. Not sure it worked.
-
32 minutes ago, GMak81 said:
Oh wow, I kinda pick up that you're joking, but I really hope I didn't spoiler this for you. I didn't think I'd need to enter the text as a spoiler, because the title of the thread contains the word spoiler in all caps.
All of the major surprises in the game were spoilered for me, which is a real shame, I would never want to do that to someone else.
If you think it's an issue, I'll delete my post.
Let me know, and if I spoilered it, I am really genuinely very sorry.
I am joking. No you didn't spoil it for me.
Edit: Just to be funny, sometimes I do go into a thread that states SPOILER and freak out like they told everyone a big secret.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, madfretter said:
Yea, that sounds about right. And yes, they really leave us in the dark when it comes to game mechanics. A little more info would go a long way,
With the whole freeroam sadbox, they don't want to put anything down on paper and make it a solid statement. Cause what if they decide to change it or add new stuff. They don't want us to have a clue.. They want us to search and explore the whole world, and then watch 3 hours of YouTube to discover what we didn't know.
-
6 minutes ago, GMak81 said:
I had the fist fight with Micah, Micah and Dutch walked off and then Arthur passes away, laying looking at the sun over the landscape, with another vision of the deer. I was at max honour.
Spoiler Alert! Oh great, I can't un-see this now. They game is ruined. Won't be able to log in, load up, and continue online now. hehehehe
-
14 minutes ago, Dark Eco Wolf said:
I was dying waiting for RDR2 and when it finally came out I was really happy that the story was all done but the online wasn't. I hate that all these gaming companies are putting out the unfinished product just to make people happy.
With poor managing and pressure to impress shareholders. Software companies have been pushing incomplete software for a while, promising that they said out updates and make everything "OK" down the road. I have PC gaming friends who have stated this is how it has been on PC games since forever and most of them is completely ok with it and feel it is acceptable.
I have asked them if they would be willing to by a car or a house that was incomplete with a promise that it will be finished once we figure out how later on. Everytime I here "unacceptable". Why is software acceptable and any kind of hardware isn't?
-
11 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
And they're running out of time. People aren't willing to wait around while R* swims in their pile of money like Scrooge McDuck in his money bin while the online continues to be a half-baked beta.
The rumors there are that they are trying to work on "Issues" before releasing anything else. It was unclear what "Issues" are. Rockstar themselves have stated that they are working on issues, but they have also stated this "Beta could take months". Something I don't feel they really have with all of the releases coming out in that time. Good news for Rockstar is that they haven't listened to their player base and sticking to their "PvP DZ as the End Game." Supposedly, stated that there was plenty of "pve end game". Please take a note that the PvP DZ is in caps, while pve is lower cased. Just to show how much respect that Ubisoft or Massive is showing their PvE crowd by listening to them. Which they haven't or won't. So Rockstar has that in their corner if they can improve the PvE wishes, while also keeping the PvP players happy.
-
5 minutes ago, Dark Eco Wolf said:
I choose free aim but I haven't noticed if it puts you in sessions with other free aim players. I know RDR has this as an option where you could enter a free aim session. did they do they same with RDR2 but does it automatically?
No not yet, at least not to my knowledge. Rumors are circling that more lobbies are the plan, but I haven't heard that from any source that I would totally support. It's just rumors. Those rumors are sounding like we get about the same options as we had in GTAO. Again, just rumors and nothing concrete.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Dark Eco Wolf said:
Well seasoned Gunslingers on RDR2 would all love a realistic touch but just to make it fair for the rest of the world they want to give everyone a little kickstand so that the normal player stands a chance. I guarantee more then half the RDR2 community would love to get rid of being able to lock on! But then I could see a lot of people stop playing cause it would be to hard for most.
Isn't it an option to free aim vs auto aim? If you feel auto aim is a crutch, and prefer free aim then why hold yourself back?
-
1 hour ago, HuDawg said:
I agree with some of it..
But how exactly does R* control griefing? What exactly is the actual act griefing?Killing players when they don't want to be killed.. is what most people would consider griefing. Can only be solved by invite only or friendly lobbies.
R* could make it more difficult to locate players and add more butchers to the map...
Or as I suggested before, applying the rules used in single player, could be used to curtail griefing. We don't have to be naive enough to say special lobbies are the only fix.
-
46 minutes ago, HuDawg said:
This really makes no sense.
What players want is a co-op/friendly lobby..You can't play single player with co-op.
I think their point is that they can go back and play the campaign as if that was the same as online play. It's your basic "Git Gud!" response you see from Toxic PvP players. They seem to think pushing players away is always the best tac. It isn't.
25 minutes ago, Truth said:You should be able to just do it from the game. You can view everyone in the server with you, just look for their name and view their profile. From there you can report/block them (one of the last options).
Seriously? That's ****ing dumb...
I have tried and it never lets me. I have always had to go into the Xbox menu, look them up, and block them there.
-
Joined up with some randoms, that had a player who had to go to work. So they hogtied him and threw in on the horse. When I asked why, they claimed that as long as his player keeps moving his xbox wouldn't shutdown and they could pass him around from horse to horse and he would still gain xp and money for them from the missions. I couldn't fathom how that worked, but they may have it setup so they can do this succesfully.
-
4 minutes ago, Euphoric77 said:
I actually learned shooting from the hip and better headshotting by using the ladder, so that point is void. It is also perfectly legit, just boring and not profitable moneywise, hence I haven't done it that much after I took some lessons from it. You can turn off the auto aim if you want to so if you feel restricted by auto aim the solution is in the control settings. Naturally you won't because you are at a disadvantage then, but it is possible to turn off.
I hear the term griefed or being griefed pass here again. Don't think anyone is griefing anyone here. OP is shooting cops, causing disturbance in town, other online players more or less roleplay and assist in removing the disturbance. People throw the word griefing in RDO around way too easy.
Griefing is thrown around because it applies so easily to RDO. Player A is participating and one one thing and Player B comes along and decides that they have to step in and disrupt the fun of the other, cause that is the only way for Player B to have fun. It is part of the thorn in the side of PvEvP format.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Major Dammidge said:
@BurbonChaser this seems to suit our posse perfectly, yeah? Thrills kills XP and cash... Obtw, I friend requested you on Facebook 😎👍
When are you guys on? Haven't seen you around lately.
-
Tells you the time a day.
In solo play you supposedly equip it and when you go to the menu, it is suppose to be there for you to tell the time.
-
Sounds like a glitch to me, but without know all of the circumstances. It would be hard to tell. Inform Rockstar and hope they figure it out.
-
23 minutes ago, Force58 said:
I was hoping that would be the case. Lets keep our fingers crossed. Thanks for the info.
It really depends on what their end goals are.
-
26 minutes ago, Mahuk said:
I have settled to the fact this is just another bug so I mostly where the same sh*t I had when I began the game. No matter what I do to save an outfit, the next time I play my character will be wearing the same the sh*t I began with. Chalk it up to another bug that needs fixing.
Now need for vanity items if I'm not allowed to use them, but the whole disarming myself prior to be armed or my horse working against me and not with me is becoming more of an issue. What's the use of building up a level 4 bond, when I got a better response from it when it was a level 1. This weekend it was just the little issues getting worse that was bugging me. Not enough additions or fixings being done.
-
1
-
-
I had finally thought this had been fixed. Went several days where, my character kept the outfit on that I had assigned her. Then yesterday, I started a game and she went to back to putting those rags on that she started with. I noticed unless I spammed the equip button, that on the horse she keep putting her weapons away, and everytime I would dismount from the horse, it would take off as if a predator was around. The clothes thing is annoying, start hunting or do a mission or bad guys show up and you put your weapons away is really annoying, worst yet is to dismount during a mission and your stupid character unequips everything and the stupid horse runs off and you have nothing to defend yourself with except a pistol and a knife. Even my settings where I am the only one who can ride my horse has became an illusion. Doing a mission and a player hops on my horse and takes off. Leaving me at the startcause they whistle for their horse and I was stuck there. What could be a fun game, just isn't right now.
RED_DEADMAN Anti-Grief Services (Hired Gun)
in Red Dead Online
Posted
This is kind of awesome. To bad more players don't do this, he could help PvP and PvE alike.