BropolloCreed79

Now they're pushing that new shotgun with the update..... and Uncle Bropollo LOVES his shotguns (still prefer rifled bore slugs for taking deer here than straight wall rifle rounds), so that's just another reason for me to stick with it.

The last time I tried to help someone who was clearing a hideout, I accidentally turned their head into a cloud of pink mist (they were in a canyon and I could barely see what I was shooting at).

Seconded with enthusiasm. Completely changed my approach to Free Roam and missions.

That's racist. Everything they do is calculated to protect the company from liability. I'm convinced that same logic is why they don't have official forums, to prevent employees from speaking in an official capacity. Limiting that gives less exposure from a liability standpoint.

How does the government adequately staff 1,954 miles of a border? It'd be one thing if folks were only crossing into the country at ports of entry, but they're walking through desert, wilderness, crossing rivers and natural barriers to come into the country. It's not a question of national security either, but one of health and human services as well. The United States is already under assault from uneducated folks in the "anti-vax" movement--and many of the folks coming in without being processed are not vaccinated, thus compromising herd immunity. The idea of a physical wall is gross and ugly, but I don't have a solution to offer in it's place. It's one thing to tear into the idea of a wall if there's a viable, pragmatic alternative available, but I don't see one. Accurate. Wages have not kept pace with inflation. There is another option: fewer people. Now, I'm not advocating for government mandated population control nor do I think anything needs to be done to "cull the herd", but there needs to be incentives for people to not breed recklessly. It's not 1880 anymore--families don't need large broods to help work the farm. But if the government (at least here) were to offer say, a lifetime tax break for voluntary sterilization (or tax breaks for folks who are incapable of producing offsping), or even provide government funded vasectomies (much less invasive than what is done to sterilize women), or something I haven't thought of, there'd most likely be a decline in the birth rate, which would make immigration necessary to continue driving the economy, even in the face of the loss of future jobs due to technological advances. As it is now, folks are incentivized to have MORE kids--tax deductions and handouts for nonworking folks INCREASE with more children/dependents. I understand the concept for providing financial assistance to folks in need so the children are better cared for, and I'm not advocating that those things should be taken away, but what I AM advocating for (as the parent of two kids) is that folks without children/dependents who make that decision should be encouraged to continue to do so. How is a "smart" wall any different from a physical wall if the goal is to stop illegal immigration? Not saying it's a bad idea, but I fail to see how a physical barrier is inferior to a camera system that will still require deploying assets to stop folks from illegally crossing into the country. Border agents can only be in so many places at once, so advocating for a "smart wall" is symbolic--it does little to actually curb illegal immigration. And how would a "smart wall" deter folks from tunneling, other than making it unnecessary since there'd be no barrier in the first place? I'm not advocating for a wall to begin with. What I DO want is for immigration laws that are in place to be enforced. If a person is here illegally, (insert preferred pronoun here) should be deported, and go through the same process as everyone else who does it the right way. No shortcuts. The process we have is in place to ensure safety and security--folks need to be vaccinated, vetted, and not be evading prosecution in their country of origin. There are countries with which the United States has treaties and agreements with, including agreements for extradition. Conversely, we accept folks being politically or religiously prosecuted/persecuted from other areas based on demonstrable need. Immigration reform is needed regardless of where folks stand on the concept of a wall, I think that's something we can all agree on. Could not agree more. It rankles me when folks feel compelled to turn everything into a social issue. I don't care if your skin is purple and you have six fingers. Can you do your job? Are you chill? Do you like Guinness"? If the answer to any one of these things is "yes" in the right context, then we're cool. Placebo. A wall won't do anything except slow illegal immigration. Comprehensive immigration reform is my second most important political topic in the next election cycle, after balancing the federal budget and paying down the debt. Government spending is out of control. Debatable. 5-7 billion is a drop in the bucket against the larger federal budget. Case in point, the previous administration gave a country that is a state-sponsor of terrorism 1.7 billion without batting an eye. This year, the United States is earmarking $27 billion on foreign aid: Every year, there's reports compiled by experts regarding the BILLIONS of dollars in pork barrel spending and government waste that gets earmarked to spending bills to get them passed. A Senator in Cumberland, Iowa needs $6 million to keep a regional airport open so the cows can get special feed flown in, or some rep in west Texas needs $5 million to offset tax incentives for billionaire oil tycoons. It's gross and it needs to stop. My dream is for Congress to pass an Amendment which requires the federal budget to be balanced EVERY YEAR. Get our financial house in order, THEN start tackling the other issues that need to be addressed.

I'm actually shocked at his candor.

The only thing that's small in R*'s offices is the scope of their myopia.

I know in my case, it's liquid courage.

They can call it what they want, but in my opinion, once they monetize it, it's out of beta.

Relax, bro, it's just a 'beta' 🤔 Kidding, of course. This thing is all over the place like a meth head checking their phone while driving on the freeway.

The first time I made candied bacon, it was intended for burgers. It didn't make it off the stove top. Straight into my belly.

The only thing that will take care of it is account and IP bans. But they'll never do it.

That's not something one puts into a gif. You need to savor the entire scene, if for nothing else than just marveling at the amazing Burgess Meredith:

The visual in my head right now... I suppose the easiest fix for this would be to have aim be impacted for a set period of time after diving, so people couldn't dive and pop a shot.

Ostensibly to remove griefers from a group. Especially in "ungrouped" lobbies, the potential for trolling/greifing in Showdown Series matches is very, VERY high, so having a "kick" option is there to prevent these players from ruining a lobby for others. The flip side is if there's a party in the lobby that wants to make room for friends or other players, they can leverage their voting clout to remove other players, which is what I imagine happened to you, and invite players into the lobby that they want to join them. It makes sense from a lot of perspectives, but I do think that they need to examine two things: 1. Having Showdown Series lobbies be ungrouped (i.e. no posses or preformed groups joining). They can't realistically roll this out unless they commit to separate matchmaking lists like they did for Gun Rush (solo Gun Rush, and "Gun Rush-Teams") or they roll out option #2 (which I know you, personally have been advocating for) 2. Private lobbies. Enabling private lobbies for matchmaking in premade groups or teams eliminates a lot of the bloc voting that happens when one or more large groups start kicking randoms out of Showdown Series playlists just because they want to invite someone else they know into the lobby.

That's the biggest takeaway from all this. If someone is looking to level and practice game mechanics, this is the best option via grouping for story missions. Thanks for the invite. I'll be on the lookout when I'm online, but given locales and time zones, I'm more likely to be online when folks on the US West coast are playing (UTC-8:00), even though I'm on EST (UTC-5:00, right now, -4:00 in the spring and summer). Reason being, I wait until everyone else in the house is asleep, so there's nights I don't get on until 2200 or 2300. Not that I have official confirmation, but in discussing this issue elsewhere and on these forums, but it's been speculated that this is by design: that there may have been the intent to have this act as a "soft cap" for players so they didn't just burn through missions to boost XP and power-level with good groups. And it makes sense, from R*'s perspective--having a coordinated group of players grinding out six or seven missions (or more) in an hour and maximizing XP is probably not in the best interests of player retention when you could reward playing two or three missions an hour and maximize the XP/payouts. Not saying I agree with the decision or the logic, but I can understand the intent. I have a feeling that this will be tweaked when the game "goes gold" and the beta tag is removed. They'll examine the metrics and analytics to find "the sweet spot" which will probably look more like a Bell Curve for the rewards on missions; too fast, and players won't maximize their ROI, too long, and there will be diminishing returns. They'll have to balance it to prevent exploits like folks loading up on XP/materials within the missions. One thing I hope they don't do is put proximity markers on the missions or barriers to other parts of the map, but I have a sneaking suspicion that R* is probably looking at those methods to prevent what's currently happening.

And worth every red cent.

A lot of it has to do with people not mic'ing up or communicating in PUGs. Two weeks ago I ran into two players in a mission who explained to me what they were doing, and I was more than happy to go along with the plan. It ended up being quite enjoyable--much more so than aimlessly wandering around the map trying to grind out pelts for cash. This game was designed for grouping up, there's no two-ways about it. I loathe grouping with randoms, but I got lucky and found a couple groups to float in and out of who are of a similar mindset, and clear communication does a lot to make the game more enjoyable in the absence of actual endgame content or a "passive' toggle. Now, when I'm on, I actively look to group up because the game is a completely different experience than playing solo. They probably should have told you what they were doing, or they assumed you were aware of the exploit that R* has built into missions. The intent isn't to "ruin it for others"--it's to help others maximize their time in the game. Every group I've been a part of the last two weeks has implemented this strategy to get the biggest XP and $$$ payout from the mission they're playing. Once someone explained it to me, I was more than happy to go along for the ride. It also made the game far more enjoyable as I met some fun players to talk to, and eventually group with in Free Roam. And let me tell you, riding in a group of three or four in Free Roam has been a game-changer. Duos and single players keep an eye on you from afar, but they don't dare get close. Safety in numbers is a very real thing in the FR experience. But getting back to the groups; if you want to smash out missions as quickly as possible, you're probably better off finding a group of like-minded individuals and forming a posse, or else talking to the people in your pugs about what you want to do instead of judging them for having a different (albeit legitimate) strategy for completing the mission.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Given the way the entire experience has been handled (both good and bad), I wouldn't expect much in the way of actual content until they exit beta. These are critical issues, which are compounded by the impending releases of Anthem and The Division 2 in the next four weeks. Those two titles are going to compete with RDO for players and $$$$. I know not everyone is in the same boat, but I'm not willing to go "all-in" on more than one or two "games as a service" models at the same time. Right now, I still play RDO, and fill in the gaps with The Division. If I were at what R* is trying to pass off as "endgame" for RDO, though, I'd probably walk away until a bunch of new stuff had been added to do. The Shadow knows.

I'm all about efficiency with my coffee. There's a Starbucks in the lobby of the building I work in (it's one of the largest office buildings in the state, mostly law firms, accounting firms, and some banks). Most mornings I wait until 930 or 10 to go down for a cup, but unless there's more than 10 people in line, I never see anyone getting (and I'm quoting my dad here) "COFFEE. BLACK." If I don't say it with authority and look over them a bit (I'm 6'4"), they start pushing the up charges. It's not so bad when I get it from the place at the top of my street (local independent donut shop), because they rely on volume, so they only offer black coffee. $2, versus $5-$6 for extra fat and sugar? No thanks--I want my fat to come from meat and my sugar from alcohol, thanks.

I'm only playing that if the main character is Charles.

Literally read that in Will Arnett's "Lego Batman" voice. I will admit to restarting my online character about four or five times for the right facial look, and spending some of the free gold R* provided for the "shirtless with black overalls and flat cap" look that I was going for (he looks like an 1890's meth head but with better teeth). But the only thing I ever shop for now is the occasional resupply or a new weapon. Speaking of new weapons, would it kill R* to add in some more melee weapon variety? I would love to use a shovel, myself.

I fail to see the issue. Efficiency and skill should be rewarded, not penalized. It'd be one thing if people could be induced to purchase gold to "level up" quicker in a P2W scheme to unlock weapons, but literally the only reason to buy gold is for cosmetics; either with clothing or guns, so letting folks level efficiently though missions makes far more sense than having them just tool around for 20-30 minutes to max out XP and cash in a mission. The missions, are far more entertaining than most of the content in free roam. It'd be on thing if the enemy hideouts spawned more often, but since they don't they aren't.

It's a mixed bag, to be sure. One way you can circumvent this is to select mission-based matchmaking. It will (most likely) place you into a group of goal-oriented players who are looking to do the missions for XP and cash, so the chances of encountering griefers or trolls is reduced because the amount of work required to successfully troll others in a mission is beyond the attention span and/or patience threshold of your average troll. And every once in a while, you get a group that's mic'd up. THAT is when it gets fun.