HuDawg
-
Posts
641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Posts posted by HuDawg
-
-
19 hours ago, Kean_1 said:
You're welcome to call them what you want but in my book, examples like mine are clear examples of people whose only interest is to harass and irritate other players. ......in other words, griefing. Hell even R* uses the term in describing these folks.
Im just sayin'.
They literally built the game around pandering to 'player killers' and then turn around and babble something about 'griefers'.Free roam missions.. all encourage players to attack the other players on missions. Theres even XP and Gold to be earned for killing players that track your progression.
Soon R* will add 'daily objectives'. Which no doubt will be something like 'Kill 20 players'.
2 hours ago, Harlock1796 said:Just randomly riding up and killing someone (especially repeatedly) is griefing - the player doing the killing gets no reward, and the person being killed has done nothing to bring it upon themself.
Actually the players gets XP and even more xp and gold depending on the progressions rewards. It also helps players keep their 'honor' low to be able to play certain missions.
-
On 2/16/2019 at 12:09 PM, Kean_1 said:
That posse last night we encountered had 2 players over level 100 IIRC and others higher than me (I was about lvl 52). What fun is that? I would have been fine with the whole encounter had they played the mission and went on their way but that wasn't about to happen. They simply wanted to spoil the mission for us and then continually cause grief.
I think we need to stop calling them griefers and call them what they really are. Player Killers..
RD O encourages it.. Rewards, mission objectives, honor system. Spoiling the mission is encouraged.. (Not sure why but it is)
Theres also a huge difference too between spring chicken player killers and experienced ones.
I know a few friends who turned to the dark side and have started killing players and ruining players missions.. Mostly because out of pure boredom.
-
16 hours ago, danjou said:
I was heading to blackwater butchers when i got attacked by 2 players on great plains i killed them with dynamite arrow. i rushed to the butcher and i got a notification saying all shops are closed to me because i damaged a players property ie horse. i hope it is not to do with these updates as it is unfair.
R* is horrible when it comes to balancing their games and understanding their own game play mechanics in public sessions. GTA O proves that..looks like RD O will have the same issues.
I mean, I kill players horses all the damn time and for good reason. Hostile player will try and stay on their horses, in order to keep wearing more hats to block head shots (Never without one). Yet I get punished for it with paying $4 for killing their horse.
Sort of like GTA O.. Where people use vehicles to attack players from because it protects them from bullets or explosions.. Yet if you blow up the vehicle to deal with those pests you have to pay insurance for it.
This is why I cringe when R* says they will add anti greifing mechanics to the game. Sure.. R*.. Sure you will...lol
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Harlock1796 said:
170+ guy was spamming the varmint rifle the whole time (and winning every match). Come on, man, get some self respect 🙄
The Varmint Rifle is pretty weak. Its really only good for killing newbies with headshots.
-
1 hour ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
That's something they need to address. I was in a group the other day that did this, where we wouldn't finish a mission and go hunting, shooting, etc.... based on the mission we were playing, and then load up on pelts/feathers for half an hour before finishing the mission for both $$ and XP.
If anything, the missions should reward speed and efficiency, and there should be diminishing returns for certain tiers of speed. Why they have it set up the way they do is beyond me.
Ya it makes no sense..
Same logic applies to co-op missions.
Co-op missions have 4 people.. all which use auto aim. Its beyond boring due to everything dying in seconds...because of the auto aim. And on top of that players are punished for breezing through missions.
R* logic seems to be.. Make the game simple with auto aim.. and then punish players for easily blowing through everything.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Voss said:
Was thinking the following would work.
Player A rides up on Player B and hangs around within X feet of Player B for X seconds. Player B can kill Player A with no consequences if they shoot Player A while they are still within some radius.
Player A shoots at Player B, but misses (they have this data because you see the bullet fly by). Player B can shoot Player A with no consequences. Player A is marked with something like Attempted Murder and turns red. No different than if Player A had just hit, but not killed Player B with initial shot.
Other scenarios that should be included or does this sound crazy to even suggest?
Maybe its just me but.
That sounds like controlled roam and not free roam.
IMO this game needs less band aids and more lobby options.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
Because you can't trust players to have decent trigger discipline.
Think about all the opportunities to grief if players can be in the posse hunting down wanted players; You get a bounty, so you hide in Valentine or Saint Denis, and now, other players are inadvertantly shooting innocents and running amok trying to apprehend you. At what point are their actions no longer justified?
Or, R* is being lazy, and couldn't figure out how to have NPC's not react to you shooting/killing/apprehending someone with a "wanted level" in the online component without getting a Wanted level yourself, so they just left it out altogether.
I'm guessing it's more the latter than the former.
I mean..
if decided to go full on evil. Ain't nothing stopping me from killing players at the butcher or while hunting.
R* could spawn a million NPCS after I killed the guy.. I could just leave while belting out a Dr Evil Laugh.
On top of that.. If you are hunting and someone keeps trying to kill you and you keep killing them instead. Now it seems like the player who defends themselves are royally screwed.
Because most of the players who do attack me for no reason.. Tend to keep coming back for more even if they never kill me once.
And that's basically it for me.. If I get punished for defending myself. Im with done RDO. And il just stick with single player.
-
Kind of meh.. This is what the hinted at a while ago. Should not take this long to add such minor changes to the game. Game needs an injection of content they are holding back for the sake of drip feeding. With free aim and and private lobbies.
NPC bounty hunters? Why?
Killing other players gets you a bounty? Ok then everyone will just keep killing myself over and over again after they kill players to avoid NPC Bounty Hunters.
Infact I can already see friends killing each other.. Just to get bounties and then just kill the NPCs that come for it.
Bounties should be put on players, by other players.... and paid to players who get the bounty.
R* really needs to get their sh*t together.. Or this game won't matter anymore once they get out of beta.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, Renascent said:
Well I noticed when I actually bother to speak they sometimes get upset cuz they realize I'm a woman or in some cases they think I'm a kid. Burns them up a bit. Their salt feeds me.
A few of the girls I play with are complete lunatic... lvl 100+ bitches.
Like.. if I decide to stand next to a cliff and enjoy the view of water fall. They always gotta push me off.
Standing there drinking a beer.. They just gotta hog tie me.
They are worse than most of the griefers I encounter in this game.
I watched them one night say hello to a passer by.. He says hello back. They throw him off his horse and than beat the crap out em.
Guy respawns and says "WTF"?
I tell em. You think that's bad.. "Trying be friends with these bitches". Only to get tackled from behind and hog tied again by one of them.. and left to squirm on the ground.
The random guys says "You shouldn't call woman bitches". So one of the girls blasts him the head with a sawed off as says. "He can call us what ever he wants".
Lol... Good times.
-
19 hours ago, Kean_1 said:
That "some" included nearly all of the CEO / VP businesses, missions and related content. A substantial chunk of the gameplay in GTAO to be honest. You have to be in public sessions to access it. As for passive mode, it's worthless in GTA IMO. I never found a use for it although griefers do.
Well to be fair R* wanted players to fight over the CEO/VIP/Biker missions. So they locked it to public session. At least some of then can be accessed in private sessions.
For example.. You can play sight seers in private/invite only lobbies.
NONE of it can be played with passive mode turned on. -
1 hour ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
I agree that we need private lobbies, I just don't believe they're a viable solution to PvE gameplay. They'd be perfect for setting up competitive leagues, private matches, or even youtube channels/machinima content.
Well they could just add pve lobbies.. Maybe with less players but more NPCS that spawn. To reduce the strain on servers.
And add pve friendly events.Like fishing or hunting challenges.. and other random events that have nothing to do with player vs player combat.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:
Separate lobbies don't work if players are punished for using them. Rockstar's track record, they will punish them.
R* only blocked 'some' content in GTA O in private lobbies. Infact you can access more of the content in private lobbies than you could in 'passive' mode in public lobbies.
There's zero reason for R* to block fishing, hunting, and exploring in private or friendly lobbies since it has nothing to do with pvp.
So im not sure what this punishment is you keep talking about.
-
17 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
You know what solves all these issues? Selectable toggles for PvE and PvP status per player that isn't identifiable.
And to flip the argument, what server has a PvP player been on that had 31 "Passive" players?
They could leave every other existing element the way it is, the blips, everything, just by adding a toggle that isn't view-able to other players. The only players this impacts are grief killers and trolls. Any griefing elements that remain are going to be persistent in both PvP and PvE servers, should they decide to separate them, so why not just make it a toggle and call it a day?
I still say Friendly Lobbies and Private lobbies are whats really needed to have a complete game.
Blips changes and Free Aim lobbies would be the cherry on top.
R* doesn't have to nerf money or xp if it has nothing to do with pvp.
Last night myself and friends just wanted to fish. We ended up getting into a brawl with another posse for over an hour. Sure passive toggle would have worked, but I would have liked a private lobby for that.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Renascent said:
But I'm a noble pvper, I will never shoot someone in the back or if they've given me no reason to.
I wouldn't call myself noble. I consider myself more of a BAD guy with a code..lol
But that's the best thing about the game being FFA.. Its its allowing players to be noble, bad, good, evil or just deranged.
Ya deranged.. LIke that one crazy fool riding around town last night filling wagons up with dead lawmen and dead players.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
I also think they need to take a hard look at level banding some of the servers. pitting someone below level 20 against players in the 80's or 90's is never going to be a fair fight, no matter how good or bad the average player is. Even the Showdown Series modes need some balancing--like deactivating a player's cards. I can't tell you how many times I've put a round in someone's head at point blank range in Gun Rush or other modes, only for them to laugh in my face as I get one-shot.
PVP needs lobby hosts with options (and private lobby options). And be able to choose what PVP game modes we want to play as the host.
Where the host can choose to toggle off dead eye, passive cards, and block items/satchel use in the options in lobby.
That's the only way PVP game modes will ever taken seriously or really enjoyed.
Its like.. I need to find the guy who's in charge of RD O and give him a proper talking to in an Dutch Voice.
At this point im starting to think the person in charge of RD O is not human. But an A.I.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
A lot of folks maintain that they love "having to watch their backs" or that they don't want R* to dilute the current experience. That logic is flawed because folks who are playing the game for it's RPG elements and leveling a character will play a Showdown Series or Gun Rush when they want to PvP--they don't actively seek out other players to indiscriminately ambush or murder. Giving PvE folks the ability to toggle off PvP status (that isn't broadcast to the rest of the players) changes nothing for anyone else on the server unless they're trying to murder that player or troll the PvE players. The "noble" PvP players who want a pure PvP experience lose nothing because those PvE players don't participate in the activity anyways. On a 32 player Free Roam server, what are the odds that a PvP player is going to be pitted against more than half a PvE population?
Its less about loving ' to watch their backs'. And just accepting it. Well that's the way I see it.
It allows players really role play.. As a good, bad or evil player. And creates many good or bad game play moments.
Griefing can really.. really be dealt a blow if R* would alter how stupidly easy it is to find and target players.
Auto aim + Always on blips is the reason that griefers do what they do.. so easily.
Also this game needs MORE butchers. Every region needs two butchers at the very least.
This ^ won't stop griefing. But it sure as hell would make it much more rare.
.
-
1
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:
You are wrong. Plain and simple.
How am I wrong?. Its FFA because that's exactly what it is..
You're literally complaining about it being FFA.
10 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:If it was just FFA. There wouldn't be any PvE in the game. You wouldn't have need for fishing, hunting, NPC interactions. All you need is a great big PvP Battle Royale.
Well.. then its not a FFA.. Its just a pvp Battle Royale game.
-
10 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:
Why exactly can't there be true balance? Why is it ok as is, as long as it is the PvE side that get shafted?
You need to stop looking at this game from both sides. Theres only ONE side. Its FFA.. and that means 'survival of the fittest'.
Or Fitness.
-
19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:
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.
Im out hunting and fishing and see other players all the time. Players tend to avoid others.. Not just because of hostile players either. Hard to hunt with another player nearby shooting at the same animals you are trying to hunt.
19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said: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.
I never go near a hide out if a player is already there. Because they obviously choose to be there. If im doing a hide out and another player comes too close I will open fire on them. Because I don't want them killing any of the bandits or looting any of the bandits I've killed.
NPC ambushes are bit different.. I will help players in that situation. And I have. I also help players against griefers. Players who ride by me and wave..i remember. If I see hostiles attack that player. Il have that players back.
This is why FFA lobbies are great. It allows for player real interactions between the good, bad and evil players.
19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:To you, it moves, I shoot it dies.
That's not my style. I don't just shoot at everything that moves. And I never even claimed I do.
19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said: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.
Well then R* can simply not punish them? I mean, you're complaining about something that doesn't even exist.
I can't see R* docking loot or xp. Just the content that's meant for ffa pvp.
-
3 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
Nice. I use a similar argument when people complain about violence in "The Punisher" and think it's gratuitous. The response is always along the lines of "He's 'The Punisher', not "The Kitten Cuddler". So your point is well taken.
That reminds me.. I need to go binge watch S2 of The Kitten Cuddler.. I mean.. Punisher.
Alls I know is. If I was in charge. There would be TWO different game modes with a balanced amount of content for both PVE and PVP players in those free roam modes.
I can think of a ton of pve content for pve free roam. Even just a few minor things and changes.
Its gonna be a long couple months ain't it..
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:
If playing solo. I can't. Then again I won't be playing the game at all. I play for the interaction with others.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Chris Arbaugh said:
I mean dang they need to go play Mario cart
I bet theres people out there that complain about Koopa Shells and Banana peels.
"I just want a clean race'!
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:
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.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
Loot tagging systems have been around forever. The simplest solution would be that if you "tag" a target by hitting it, any loot pulled from it is replicated and placed in your inventory if you're anywhere near it when it's looted. It actually would make more sense, in that a posse or group out hunting would have the benefit of not having to split loot or have everyone dismount and loot. If two groups or unallied players are chasing the same animal, whoever kills it with one shot DESERVES the loot. And locking looting behind the tagging system would prevent people from stealing someone else's loot.
As for the fish thing? No system is perfect, but do you honestly expect full posses to roll up on lone fishermen and sit there tossing dynamite into a lake or stream? Trolling is going to exist no matter what they do, but mitigating things like spawn camping when players can't even defend themselves (like coming out of a cutscene) is WAAAAAAY different than ganking someone's fish or deer. A toggle addresses that.
The argument for a separate lobby is all well and good, but I'd be wary about that because the same people accusing PvE players of "whining" are going to start whining themselves for extra XP or special status for paying in a PvP or FFA lobby instead of a PvE one; mark my words.
Well il put it like this.
You're hunting alone with passive mode. I decide im gonna follow you around and just annoy you. You try and hunt.. im gonna blast every animal I see with a carbine rifle. Stop and fish.. im gonna toss TNT in the water. At the same time, im gonna say things that get on your nerves.
This can also be done with the shoe on the other foot. Im not passive.. with pvp enabled. And you decide to follow me around and do the same thing. I can't do anything about it.
6 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:FFA players are already in the game with passive players--the passive players don't actively seek out PvP opportunities, so FFA players are simply looking to impose their will on players who want nothing to do with it. All you get now is the coercion of passive players into attempting to defend themselves (if they're even given the opportunity to do so). FFA players have no idea what a player's intentions are,
IMO You can't be passive in this game, but you can be friendly. And if you're not willing to toss hot lead into someone ass the moment they look at you wrong. Then I think people are playing the wrong game. I think the bulk of the player base prefers FFA.. Since its been how R* has designed their public free roam sessions for 10 years.
11 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:The argument for a separate lobby is all well and good, but I'd be wary about that because the same people accusing PvE players of "whining" are going to start whining themselves for extra XP or special status for paying in a PvP or FFA lobby instead of a PvE one; mark my words.
Well depends what they are talking about. Free Roam mission are mostly designed with FFA PVP in mind. IMO it makes no sense to allow those mission in PVE or private lobbies. Unless they tweak these mission to work differently in PVE session with more NPCS spawning to attack players.
But as far fishing and hunting goes.. It makes zero sense to nerf payouts as it not a pvp activity and has nothing to do with pvp.
Remove the kick option
in Red Dead Online
Posted
R* logic.
Who knows man.. Can never figure R* out.