Jump to content

What ONE thing do you think will help online the most?


madfretter
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, madfretter said:

YEa, I aggree that passive mode isn't the answer. Plus it stops us from  being able to use out weapons while we are passive, so we can't  hunt.  I like private lobbies because it gives us somewhere to go when we've had  our full  of toolbags on the public servers. I'd love it if they'd link up with Nitrado and  sell private servers. Then we could set the server to our likeness and let people join. I'd gladly pay monthly for that feature.

Passive mode can still work.  It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of GTAVO.  For instance (just spitballing' here), they can change the rules for when you're able to activate it.  Perhaps they can limit the option so it can only be activated/deactivated while in camp or your own property (once those are introduced).  If you are a victim, maybe instead of a parley feature, give players the option to spawn back at their camp/property where they can then activate passive mode if they wish.  Maybe make it a one time session option where if you want to change it, you need to join a different server.  

As for not being able to hunt or engage NPC's while in passive mode, there is already a friendly fire option in Posses.  Simply make it apply to all human players if you have passive mode enabled.  Secondary explosions and such would need to be sorted though but at least it might be a way to provide relief.

I'm not sayin passive mode is a great idea but simply offering ideas on how it might still be able to work if they decide to implement it.  Personally, I still think incentives and consequences are the answer for Free Roam but nothing will completely eliminate griefing except new session options.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

I don't want to see PvE'ers forced into private sessions but on the other hand, we also don't want to be forced into a PvP environment if we don't want to be.  People can say what they will about GTAVO but I think they were right in offering solo and friends-only sessions.

 

Or they could have offered PvE and PvEvP modes, they didn't instead forced players would wanted to do certain jobs to do so in a public arena.  So players learned to glitch the system so that they could do their thing without the Trolls.  Private sessions are fine, but if given the option, I would rather encounter others in the game in a PvE mode, instead of being reduced to only the easiest of jobs and have to go into PvEvP mode for the best money.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

Passive mode can still work.  It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of GTAVO.  For instance (just spitballing' here), they can change the rules for when you're able to activate it.  Perhaps they can limit the option so it can only be activated/deactivated while in camp or your own property (once those are introduced).  If you are a victim, maybe instead of a parley feature, give players the option to spawn back at their camp/property where they can then activate passive mode if they wish.  Maybe make it a one time session option where if you want to change it, you need to join a different server.  

As for not being able to hunt or engage NPC's while in passive mode, there is already a friendly fire option in Posses.  Simply make it apply to all human players if you have passive mode enabled.  Secondary explosions and such would need to be sorted though but at least it might be a way to provide relief.

I'm not sayin passive mode is a great idea but simply offering ideas on how it might still be able to work if they decide to implement it.  Personally, I still think incentives and consequences are the answer for Free Roam but nothing will completely eliminate griefing except new session options.

Incentives and consequences. I'd be satisfied knowing that the person who headshot innocent players lost half his cash and 10 levels for each infraction (also affecting his ability to use items and abilities if he's not the appropriate level).

That would be an indication that Rockstar is taking griefing seriously and I bet it would cease then.

Edited by Netnow66
second thoughts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Or they could have offered PvE and PvEvP modes, they didn't instead forced players would wanted to do certain jobs to do so in a public arena.  So players learned to glitch the system so that they could do their thing without the Trolls.  Private sessions are fine, but if given the option, I would rather encounter others in the game in a PvE mode, instead of being reduced to only the easiest of jobs and have to go into PvEvP mode for the best money.  

I agree.....  GTAVO's system of locking the most lucrative and arguably the most fun businesses behind public sessions wasn't my favorite design either.  I was one of those players who used the MTU settings to force myself into sessions where I was mostly alone.  Sometimes you would have a few others join but what's funny is that they were usually doing the same thing for the same reason.  .....to avoid griefers.  I've actually had some good encounters with folks in those sessions.  If the session began to fill up, I would simply create a new one.  Doesn't work in RDO unfortunately. 

I'd still love to have interactions with others in RDO but without incentives to encourage cooperative gameplay or consequences to discourage random murder, I'll stick to private sessions when or if they are implemented.  .....but like you, I really don't want it exactly like GTAVO for the reasons mentioned.

Personally, I was glad to see that R* actually allowed solo players to engage in stranger missions.  They give you a warning that playing with a posse will increase your chances but at least they don't prevent you from trying alone.  That could be a good sign. 

Curious to see what "anti-griefing" measures they have in store though. 

Edited by Kean_1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Netnow66 said:

Incentives and consequences. I'd be satisfied knowing that the person who headshot innocent players lost half his cash and 10 levels for each infraction (also affecting his ability to use items and abilities if he's not the appropriate level).

That would be an indication that Rockstar is taking griefing seriously and I bet it would cease then.

They simply couldn't make it that extreme.  You would piss off PvPers and quite honestly, it wouldn't be fair to those who want to engage in skirmishes with other players.  It would literally force a PvE environment which is not what everyone wants in Free Roam.  May as well force no damage between players.

The trick is to create a balance of risk and reward.  ......incentives and consequences.  As it is, griefers are given carte blanche in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

Passive mode can still work.  It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of GTAVO.  For instance (just spitballing' here), they can change the rules for when you're able to activate it.  Perhaps they can limit the option so it can only be activated/deactivated while in camp or your own property (once those are introduced).  If you are a victim, maybe instead of a parley feature, give players the option to spawn back at their camp/property where they can then activate passive mode if they wish.  Maybe make it a one time session option where if you want to change it, you need to join a different server.  

As for not being able to hunt or engage NPC's while in passive mode, there is already a friendly fire option in Posses.  Simply make it apply to all human players if you have passive mode enabled.  Secondary explosions and such would need to be sorted though but at least it might be a way to provide relief.

I'm not sayin passive mode is a great idea but simply offering ideas on how it might still be able to work if they decide to implement it.  Personally, I still think incentives and consequences are the answer for Free Roam but nothing will completely eliminate griefing except new session options.

That would work. I really like the camp only option to turn it off or on. Problem is, as always, R* wants us to be constantly murdered so it slows down the rate we earn money and  buy gold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

I agree.....  GTAVO's system of locking the most lucrative and arguably the most fun businesses behind public sessions wasn't my favorite design either.  I was one of those players who used the MTU settings to force myself into sessions where I was mostly alone.  Sometimes you would have a few others join but what's funny is that they were usually doing the same thing for the same reason.  .....to avoid griefers.  I've actually had some good encounters with folks in those sessions.  If the session began to fill up, I would simply create a new one.  Doesn't work in RDO unfortunately. 

I'd still love to have interactions with others in RDO but without incentives to encourage cooperative gameplay or consequences to discourage random murder, I'll stick to private sessions when or if they are implemented.  .....but like you, I really don't want it exactly like GTAVO for the reasons mentioned.

Personally, I was glad to see that R* actually allowed solo players to engage in stranger missions.  They give you a warning that playing with a posse will increase your chances but at least they don't prevent you from trying alone.  That could be a good sign. 

Curious to see what "anti-griefing" measures they have in store though. 

See I am a co-op guy.  I like the interaction with others without have to necessarily join their group.  In the Division, I used to take my healer build into the DZ, a PvEvP arena, and run and heal downed players.  Most of the time I got killed for my efforts, other times I would hear them in chat ask why the heal I didn't kill them and take their loot.  I did it cause i enjoyed doing it and then I went on to do my own thing.

Unlike most griefers, my fun level doesn't and shouldn't depend on me ruining the fun of others.  If I can help, I usually do.  If I don't want to, then I will move on and that player won't be wiser.  

To me it is lazy for Devs who don't want to create new stuff, just make it player vs griefer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

They simply couldn't make it that extreme.  You would piss off PvPers and quite honestly, it wouldn't be fair to those who want to engage in skirmishes with other players.  It would literally force a PvE environment which is not what everyone wants in Free Roam.  May as well force no damage between players.

The trick is to create a balance of risk and reward.  ......incentives and consequences.  As it is, griefers are given carte blanche in the game.

That's why I said innocent players. 

If groups or players want to engage in mutual combat, so be it. 

If I'm spawning in, fishing, etc., and haven't given permission or accepted an invite for combat, I don't want to be bothered. If you bother me without consent, you need to be penalized harshly so you won't do it again. 

Mutual combat makes sense to me. Not spawnkilling or while I'm fishing. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

They simply couldn't make it that extreme.  You would piss off PvPers and quite honestly, it wouldn't be fair to those who want to engage in skirmishes with other players.  It would literally force a PvE environment which is not what everyone wants in Free Roam.  May as well force no damage between players.

The trick is to create a balance of risk and reward.  ......incentives and consequences.  As it is, griefers are given carte blanche in the game.

It shouldn't piss off any real PvPers, them attacking players that have no or zero interests in being griefed.  Now it would probably piss off the Griefers, who would be forced into playing PvP.  Which Griefers rarely want, they don't want to be sheep, when they can be wolves.   This weekend was in a posse, that was getting griefed.  Our leader extended a challenge.  The other party ignored it.  They didn't want to have a 7v7 battle royale.  

1 minute ago, madfretter said:

That would work. I really like the camp only option to turn it off or on. Problem is, as always, R* wants us to be constantly murdered so it slows down the rate we earn money and  buy gold. 

You are right, their are some who believe without PvP, players face no challenge.  What they don't get is, some players do experience a challenge in PvE.  Some players try to do missions where the run solo or fewer then recommended.  Thing is there are plenty of ways to limit players without attacking their progression rate.  Especially when your dream is to get them to PvP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Netnow66 said:

That's why I said innocent players. 

If groups or players want to engage in mutual combat, so be it. 

If I'm spawning in, fishing, etc., and haven't given permission or accepted an invite for combat, I don't want to be bothered. If you bother me without consent, you need to be penalized harshly so you won't do it again. 

Mutual combat makes sense to me. Not spawnkilling or while I'm fishing. 

The point of Free Roam is that there is the addition of risk. The possibility that that a fellow player may not be so friendly.  I know what R* is going for.  ......a more organic experience.  What they need to do is add balance, incentives and consequences IMO.  ....and then more session options for those not wishing to engage in skirmishes with others.  Public notifications of events, invites, etc. can still come across into invite-only sessions like they do in GTA. 

I'm also not against a passive mode which it sounds like you are suggesting but it all depends on how it is implemented.  

What makes me curious is what R* meant by "seamless PvE" in the code that was discovered back in October (along with news about private sessions). 

1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

It shouldn't piss off any real PvPers, them attacking players that have no or zero interests in being griefed.  Now it would probably piss off the Griefers, who would be forced into playing PvP.  Which Griefers rarely want, they don't want to be sheep, when they can be wolves.   This weekend was in a posse, that was getting griefed.  Our leader extended a challenge.  The other party ignored it.  They didn't want to have a 7v7 battle royale.  

I meant those players who actually enjoy the additional risk and potential that others players may turn against you or the freedom to engage other players who are taunting, inconsiderate, tracking, etc.  Like it or not, some folks actually enjoy the doubt and risk Free Roam provides in player interactions but simply aren't happy with the current gameplay balance.  .....e.g. lack of consequences or risk to roving aggressors. 

Personally, I've had some cool, tense encounters where I simply didn't know if a player was ready to draw on me.  With some, I was faster but in others, not so much.  Then there are those times when we're able to diffuse the situation and move on. ......or others that end up being very friendly.  They weren't all situations where either of us necessarily had ill intent but simply no established trust. 

.....btw, my reply was in response to what I thought was an over the top penalty to a random killing.  In the end, Free Roam is a PvP mode with a mix of PvE and right, wrong or indifferent, that is by design.  I just prefer Free Roam to be balanced but still retain an organic feel.  I like the tension, risk and freedom to be honest.  If Free Roam were as penalizing as what was suggested in the response I replied to, I would remain in private sessions if given the choice. 

Edited by Kean_1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone over this thread and some others and come to the realization that some (such as myself) don't want any griefing at all. 

Some others here are willing to accept varying degrees of it. That doesn't make them griefers, just griefer adjacent, I guess. 

And Free Roam does have dangers. I've been attacked by bears, cougars, wolves and marauding gang NPCs. 

And none of them were human players. 

That's good enough for me. Why does Free Roam have to have bushwhacking, spawnkilling human players? 

Also, most players don't use or have mics, right? That certainly gives even more reason for griefers to grief because I don't see a lot of deescalation under those circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Netnow66 said:

I've gone over this thread and some others and come to the realization that some (such as myself) don't want any griefing at all. 

Some others here are willing to accept varying degrees of it. That doesn't make them griefers, just griefer adjacent, I guess. 

And Free Roam does have dangers. I've been attacked by bears, cougars, wolves and marauding gang NPCs. 

And none of them were human players. 

That's good enough for me. Why does Free Roam have to have bushwhacking, spawnkilling human players? 

Also, most players don't use or have mics, right? That certainly gives even more reason for griefers to grief because I don't see a lot of deescalation under those circumstances. 

.....but what's good enough for you isn't what others are necessarily looking for, right?  That's why I advocate for more options.  

Personally, I think Free Roam can still exist as an "open engagement" environment with the right balance to satisfy those who want this kind of mode but don't necessarily like the grief-biased state it's currently in.  .....and with the implementation of private sessions, you can still have that PvE experience you're looking for.  

R* already recognizes that people are tired of the griefing and are willing to take action so that's good news in my book.   ......but like I said, in the end the mode is what it is by design.  That is R*'s vision for Free Roam and I just don't see them changing that unless something drastic happens in the community.  

.....and yeah, I rarely hear folks on mic but I do see them respond to me when I speak (e.g. showing intention, appreciation, warning, etc.).  It does make it harder to communicate which is why I likely will play most sessions in private if that ever becomes an option. 

More options mean more opportunities for players to find the kind of gameplay that better suits their particular kind of playstyle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

.....but what's good enough for you isn't what others are necessarily looking for, right?  That's why I advocate for more options.  

Personally, I think Free Roam can still exist as an "open engagement" environment with the right balance to satisfy those who want this kind of mode but don't necessarily like the grief-biased state it's currently in.  .....and with the implementation of private sessions, you can still have that PvE experience you're looking for.  

R* already recognizes that people are tired of the griefing and are willing to take action so that's good news in my book.   ......but like I said, in the end the mode is what it is by design.  That is R*'s vision for Free Roam and I just don't see them changing that unless something drastic happens in the community.  

.....and yeah, I rarely hear folks on mic but I do see them respond to me when I speak (e.g. showing intention, appreciation, warning, etc.).  It does make it harder to communicate which is why I likely will play most sessions in private if that ever becomes an option. 

More options mean more opportunities for players to find the kind of gameplay that better suits their particular kind of playstyle. 

Bottom line for me is this--I'm against any kind of or degree of griefing. Some here seem to feel that varying degrees of it are acceptable. 

Options are usually great and Rockstar is going to do whatever it wants. We'll have to deal with that but my belief is that the game will lose more players if griefing is allowed (depending on the degree, of course). Conversely, I'm not sure if the game would actually lose players if griefing wasn't allowed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding to the original question: I would love to have the ability to trade items with other players.  The same system could be used to simply give people things.  Sometimes I feel especially thankful and want to give someone a gift, such as a raw dead fish, or some ginseng.  The trade system could be limited to posse members, if that makes more sense.  Of course, it should be impossible to trade items that could not normally be owned by lower level players.

Edited by clone45
Fixing grammar error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe some people are like me but maybe some aren't but I would love to have a passive server that is more for hunting and survival. Like not so much a player vs player scenario. Like one where you want to work up on good honor and survive the hard way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removal of Ability cards.  This is an absolute necessity as it is ruining the classic feel achieved from the first RDO online where it was more down to skill rather than cards being equip.  Second would be removal of the Core system in PVP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2018 at 10:18 PM, Cliffs said:

A bounty system that hits griefers real hard

I want something to help control them. On some servers, it is just too much. It seems like they work in smaller groups and there will often be more than one group on a single server which makes it impossible to avoid them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2018 at 7:18 PM, Cliffs said:

A bounty system that hits griefers real hard

The thing that scares me about a bounty system is this: are you advocating other players going after the griefer for a reward?

Can you imagine the rush or bragging rights this guy might get if he is attacked by 20 people and manages to kill 19 before the 20th takes him down? This sounds sort of like what some of them are  actually looking for. It sounds exactly like what these guys are doing already.

I say make any punishment less dramatic and less what these guys are doing already.

I'm still advocating that after every nonconsensual killing/murder, the next time the griefer logs in, he gets a message from Rockstar saying that because of his griefing, he has lost 5 to 10 levels, along with the ability to use items that his new level no longer supports. Losing levels seems to have more consequences than anything in this game, even cash and gold. 

Whatever you decide, everyone please send your suggestions to Rockstar in their feedback. Regardless of whether or not we can agree on what should be done to griefers, we do all agree that they are a problem and that some of us need help dealing with these online bullies. I'm not one that believes that fighting back solves the problem, it just shows the griefer that he can drag you down to his level.

https://www.rockstargames.com/reddeadredemption2/online/feedback

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Netnow66 said:

The thing that scares me about a bounty system is this: are you advocating other players going after the griefer for a reward?

Can you imagine the rush or bragging rights this guy might get if he is attacked by 20 people and manages to kill 19 before the 20th takes him down? This sounds sort of like what some of them are  actually looking for. It sounds exactly like what these guys are doing already.

I say make any punishment less dramatic and less what these guys are doing already.

I'm still advocating that after every nonconsensual killing/murder, the next time the griefer logs in, he gets a message from Rockstar saying that because of his griefing, he has lost 5 to 10 levels, along with the ability to use items that his new level no longer supports. Losing levels seems to have more consequences than anything in this game, even cash and gold. 

Whatever you decide, everyone please send your suggestions to Rockstar in their feedback. Regardless of whether or not we can agree on what should be done to griefers, we do all agree that they are a problem and that some of us need help dealing with these online bullies. I'm not one that believes that fighting back solves the problem, it just shows the griefer that he can drag you down to his level.

https://www.rockstargames.com/reddeadredemption2/online/feedback

 

Problem is how hard is it for a griefer to gain those levels back.  I have played games that did this to a point and you could watch players fluctuate between levels and by the end of the night they ended right where they started or a little higher, cause it was easier to gain what you lost back in just a few hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2018 at 3:44 PM, YodaMan 3D said:

It shouldn't piss off any real PvPers, them attacking players that have no or zero interests in being griefed.  Now it would probably piss off the Griefers, who would be forced into playing PvP.  Which Griefers rarely want, they don't want to be sheep, when they can be wolves.   This weekend was in a posse, that was getting griefed.  Our leader extended a challenge.  The other party ignored it.  They didn't want to have a 7v7 battle royale.  

You are right, their are some who believe without PvP, players face no challenge.  What they don't get is, some players do experience a challenge in PvE.  Some players try to do missions where the run solo or fewer then recommended.  Thing is there are plenty of ways to limit players without attacking their progression rate.  Especially when your dream is to get them to PvP.

Exactly. They could, i dunno.... make the npcs an actual challenge...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Problem is how hard is it for a griefer to gain those levels back.  I have played games that did this to a point and you could watch players fluctuate between levels and by the end of the night they ended right where they started or a little higher, cause it was easier to gain what you lost back in just a few hours.

Two thoughts on this--I'm sure that some would actually start another character just to grief with. That kind of can't be avoided but I'm willing to accept that.

The other thought is that griefers don't just kill once. So if someone grief killed, let's say, three times, that would mean they'd lose 30 levels. They'd also lose the ability to use/or have certain weapons, clothing, etc., that there demoted level doesn't support. I think that would be enough of a deterrent to stop the majority of griefing.

As some have said, the nature of the game is the "Wild West" and some want to be outlaws.  I get that.

Along with "getting that" is the reality that the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this game. I'd be satisfied knowing that whomever headshot me when I spawned in or as I fished would be punished accordingly. Losing 10 levels per grief kill, along with the ability to use leveled weapons and clothing (and maybe even having to repurchase them)  seems about appropriate to me. 

Yes, you can be an outlaw/murderer/griefer. But there will be a price to pay. If you're willing to lose what I mentioned previously per every grief killing, then, yes, maybe you actually are the big, bad outlaw you think you are. 

Now go and level back up so you can use that/repurchase that weapon, piece of clothing, etc., that you no longer have access to, tough guy.

Edited by Netnow66
missing word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2019 at 8:06 PM, redscrew said:

Maybe some people are like me but maybe some aren't but I would love to have a passive server that is more for hunting and survival. Like not so much a player vs player scenario. Like one where you want to work up on good honor and survive the hard way. 

Wouldn't this just be like offline play then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...