The Beta has Outworn its Welcome (Rant-a-tat-tat)

[Kean_1]

1 hour ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

Oh, I'm firmly in the PvE camp myself.  I suppose I'm just going to have to turn into a total nob online if I want to get any satisfaction out of the game, because for the brief time I played the other day, I couldn't get within ten feet of a town without a group of spazzes pulling a "Number Six" on me and everyone else.  And all I wanted to do was go to the tailor so I didn't have to worry about getting bushwhacked out in an open field while looking through my catalog.

Yeah, you definitely can't just ride into a town where there are people.  In fact, most of us who want to avoid griefers have to be on constant guard and plan our routes, activities and destinations accordingly.  I use the phone app and it's been a life saver in this respect.  When I spawn in to a new session I usually go where most people are not.  Sometimes that's down by Tumbleweed, other times its on the opposite side of the map so I hunt along the way to make the travel worth it.

I've also become pretty good at reading other players and their intentions.  ....so much so that I will sometimes ride into towns and even pass them by without much worry if I believe they are just minding their own business.  I spend a couple minutes essentially people watching.  ....you can tell a lot about players in RDO by observing what they do on the map.

Now, when I'm with a posse of friends, it's a bit of a different story and depending on the number in my group, we can take more risk around folks (especially those playing solo). 

IMO, it's still not fun for the rest of us who constantly have to watch our backs for some idiot that wants to put a bullet in your head for absolutely no reason other than to troll or grief.  ....and I do mean no reason since there really isn't one.  The XP isn't worth it and there is no gain in currency or goods. Trolls try to provoke a response regardless of how you feel about the encounter while griefers simply want to make your life miserable any way they can.  Free Roam needs balance and I hope the upcoming changes help.

 

[BurbonChaser]

26 minutes ago, Major Dammidge said:

The conversation seems to have gotten  as in contentious. So I am going to inject some levity.

It seems as if this discussion's edginess could describe an environment in which we could shoot each other 🤣 next, I'm not such a super achiever to get into the hundred plus level crowd who is bored with the current beta version. That said I'm going to let you laugh at how really lousy I truly am. So have a laugh at my expense! Please. 

https://xboxclips.com/WehTuFat/d657fa9c-5ec9-4018-a753-addec76782b1

The Bible does say blessed are the Peacemakers [made by Colt firearms??]

Ha! I was wondering what happened to you in the mission.

[Euphoric77]

OP might state that the topic isn't about griefing, however free aim and private lobbies are basically 2 methods wanted by a majority of people only for that specific reason - To stop other people from being party poopers. I am all for these things, however I am also for some sort of measures against these party poopers in the public lobbies. It needs a change, griefers should be punished for just randomly opening fire on a player.

My major annoyance with the RDO Beta is that I truly do not see improvements to basic faults still in the game (lvl1 bonding bug since day1, the fact that if you sell or craft a lot of things the server cannot cope / animals and npc corpses that disappear in front of your nose after just being shot, the stupid camp movement / major stranger mission startup delay and the list goes on. In stead they focus on nerfing economy and adding PVP mode(s).

As Bropollo said the free roam content is really minimal, the gameworld is pretty empty and unless you really start roleplaying and e.g. start a barfight or other stuff like that, the game is at a point that there is not much incentive to keep playing with dedication. The camp is pretty useless, the clothing options get boring, why would you want to hijack a train if not for a bit of fun. As soon as a majority of players reach lvl 80+ there is really not much else to do besides getting more stuff you actually do not need. 

The beta should be there to fix things and I do not feel this is happening at all. 

[YodaMan 3D]

12 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

IMO, it's still not fun for the rest of us who constantly have to watch our backs for some idiot that wants to put a bullet in your head for absolutely no reason other than to troll or grief.  ....and I do mean no reason since there really isn't one.  The XP isn't worth it and there is no gain in currency or goods. Trolls try to provoke a response regardless of how you feel about the encounter while griefers simply want to make your life miserable any way they can.  Free Roam needs balance and I hope the upcoming changes help.

Thing is they have reasons, it's just those reasons make them look bad to say out loud.  So they get defensive.

[HuDawg]

19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Where does your griefers go once you give PvE lobby?   If you don't like my suggestions, then come up with something better.  Private lobbies don't fix everything!  Griefers will still be there, they will still be griefing.  Private servers didn't fix it.  

I don't get it..  How can griefer still grief you in 'private' lobbies?

I mean im all for R* adding friendly public lobbies.  

19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

  Players who went to private servers, have zero reason to try and comeback.  Your plan fails if you don't remove griefers and that is the hole in you plan.  You aren't wanting a fix.  You want to leave the status quo as is and fix nothing.

I don't want to remove griefers.   If R* did that..  id have no one to fight with.

19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

In your own words, "But now R* says the beta will last for a 'few' more months.       And the only thing they talked about is minor changes to help against 'griefing'..   When griefing is the least important thing."

For a large number it is an issue.  

And a large number of those people are asking for private lobbies or friendly lobbies.  Which I totally agree with.

What I don't agree with is griefing counter measures. That no matter how its implemented will ruin the game for players who like to deal with griefers the old fashion way.

 

[HuDawg]

14 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

IMO, it's still not fun for the rest of us who constantly have to watch our backs for some idiot that wants to put a bullet in your head for absolutely no reason other than to troll or grief.  ....and I do mean no reason since there really isn't one.  The XP isn't worth it and there is no gain in currency or goods. Trolls try to provoke a response regardless of how you feel about the encounter while griefers simply want to make your life miserable any way they can.  Free Roam needs balance and I hope the upcoming changes help.

 

Well theres plenty of reasons to troll or grief players.   From keeping you honor system low to earning awards   Also, some people just like being BAD and EVIL when playing.

 

This game needs BAD guys..  And griefers fill that role.

Sort of like the Hostile Gangs and Pinkertons in single player.  

 

The old Red Dead had Auto Aim lobbies.. Hardcore Free Aim lobbies and Friendly lobbies.  The worked really good..  Although people still found ways to be di*ks in friendly free roam.  Like shooting players horses.

[BropolloCreed79]

5 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

Like shooting players horses.

THAT'S your griefing "counter measure" right there.  I have yet to meet a horse I wouldn't shoot.

In the face.

With a shotgun.

[chocolatefinch]

5 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

THAT'S your griefing "counter measure" right there.  I have yet to meet a horse I wouldn't shoot.

In the face.

With a shotgun.

What about a  homeless three legged donkey?

[YodaMan 3D]

13 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

I don't get it..  How can griefer still grief you in 'private' lobbies?

I mean im all for R* adding friendly public lobbies.  

I don't want to remove griefers.   If R* did that..  id have no one to fight with.

And a large number of those people are asking for private lobbies or friendly lobbies.  Which I totally agree with.

What I don't agree with is griefing counter measures. That no matter how its implemented will ruin the game for players who like to deal with griefers the old fashion way.

Griefing isn't just a PvP thing,  you can grief in PvE as well.  Griefing won't go away if you don't do something to fix it.   Throwing out new lobbies will help, but the griefers will still be in the game.  If you think handling them the old fashion is the best way, then you and others who think that is the fix, aren't doing a very good job there.  It is still happening and will get worse at players become more and more bored with the game.  The Division, GTAO, and there are others that they did nothing to fix griefing.

Try looking at it this way.  Freeroam is PvEvP, right?  Will you agree to that?  Now if you agree, then for there to be balance each playstyle must have strengths and weaknesses.  So if PvE players are to fear Griefers, what exactly are Griefers fearing?  They fear nothing cause there is no punishment, there is no balance.  You claim that you handle griefers, but you don't or can't apparently.  At best, you help on one server at a time, meanwhile griefers are everywhere.  You claim you need griefers to play, but shouldn't you need PvP players.  PvE players don't want to have to deal with Griefers.  Griefers don't want to deal with players like you who hunt them.  There are options that could bring balance that I believe that wouldn't affect you or PvP.   

[HuDawg]

Just now, YodaMan 3D said:

  So if PvE players are to fear Griefers, what exactly are Griefers fearing?  They fear nothing cause there is no punishment, there is no balance.  You claim that you handle griefers, but you don't or can't apparently.  

  Well they can't grief if they're too busy dying..    

Im not sure what you mean by 'can't handle griefers'.   I can't be griefed if im into it.     And do you really think griefers want to get killed over and over?

I really don't understand what you want here.   Im all for invite only and friendly lobbies.  That's more than enough for someone like you, no?

 

[YodaMan 3D]

16 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

  Well they can't grief if they're too busy dying..    

Im not sure what you mean by 'can't handle griefers'.   I can't be griefed if im into it.     And do you really think griefers want to get killed over and over?

I really don't understand what you want here.   Im all for invite only and friendly lobbies.  That's more than enough for someone like you, no?

 

What I would want is in a PvEvP freeroam that Rockstar created actually allow the community to respect and allow players to play the game as intended.  The extra lobbies would help, but it doesn't remove Griefers, they are still there.  To say, "Oh, I handle the old fashion way."  Guess what, it doesn't remove them.  You haven't given them a reason not to grief.  Your actions have done NOTHING to fix the problem.   Rockstar can limit the reasons to grief.  You would still have players to PvP with.  PvE players, would still get attacked from time to time.  The griefing could be stopped.   

[HuDawg]

28 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

 What I would want is in a PvEvP freeroam that Rockstar created actually allow the community to respect and allow players to play the game as intended.  The extra lobbies would help, but it doesn't remove Griefers, they are still there.  To say, "Oh, I handle the old fashion way."  Guess what, it doesn't remove them.  You haven't given them a reason not to grief.  Your actions have done NOTHING to fix the problem.   Rockstar can limit the reasons to grief.  You would still have players to PvP with.  PvE players, would still get attacked from time to time.  The griefing could be stopped.   

So let me get this straight.  Private lobbies and friendly lobbies would give you the lobbies to play in relative peace.   Yet.. that isn't good enough for you?   

Its like you want R* to totally pussify this game, just to make it so no can be a di*k.  Players like me will have no one to fight with.  Free roam would be boring.  It would kill the ANYTHING can happen vibe of R* open world games.   Something that people have loved about R* games for over 10 years.

You can't stop griefers...  You can only deal with them or avoid them.  

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by HuDawg

[Major Dammidge]

16 hours ago, BurbonChaser said:

Ha! I was wondering what happened to you in the mission.

It was that doggone red horse you talked me into buying. She named me Klutz for good reason 😯

[YodaMan 3D]

19 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

So let me get this straight.  Private lobbies and friendly lobbies would give you the lobbies to play in relative peace.   Yet.. that isn't good enough for you?   

Its like you want R* to totally pussify this game, just to make it so no can be a di*k.  Players like me will have no one to fight with.  Free roam would be boring.  It would kill the ANYTHING can happen vibe of R* open world games.   Something that people have loved about R* games for over 10 years.

You can't stop griefers...  You can only deal with them or avoid them.  

Not it separate lobbies aren't enough, that is the plan for dealing with griefers.  The game doesn't have to be pussified and players don't have to be di*ks to play PvP.  What exactly does it kill the "anything could happen vibe".    Open world games that involve PvEvP, needs to create a balance.  I get it you don't want balance.  Do you even understand why they are trying to make it all games, PvEvP.  Less work for game manufacturers.  They claim they want balance, yet provide non. 

As far as your free for all, anything can happen.  Well, that isn't happening either.  Player A sees Player B come there direction.  1st player shoots wins.  All it is a shootout, there is no, "Oh well, I wonder what he wants?"   There is no anything can happen.   It's shoot 1st and win.   Don't assume their isn't an answer, just because you don't have the answer.

[BropolloCreed79]

1 hour ago, chocolatefinch said:

What about a  homeless three legged donkey?

Donkeys are the superior beast of burden, even on three legs.

[HuDawg]

20 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Not it separate lobbies aren't enough, that is the plan for dealing with griefers.  

 How does someone grief you in private lobbies?  You have to invite them in..

 

Friendly lobbies would still have pests.. R* would need to tweak that.  But you won't get shot in the back.

20 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

As far as your free for all, anything can happen.  Well, that isn't happening either.  Player A sees Player B come there direction.  1st player shoots wins.  All it is a shootout, there is no, "Oh well, I wonder what he wants?"   There is no anything can happen.   It's shoot 1st and win.   Don't assume their isn't an answer, just because you don't have the answer.

Most of the people I see in RD O don't shoot me or attack me.  

Also most people who shoot at me 1st don't kill me.   

Also dying isn't really a big deal in this game besides losing stuff on your horse.  Beyond that, you're just drained slightly of your cores.

It seems to me that you want to remove ALL chances of random violent  PLAYER encounters..   Which I don't agree with it all.

Split the player base up based on their playing preferences.  Just like GTA 4, RDR and GTA O.  It worked...great.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by HuDawg

[Major Dammidge]

6 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

Donkeys are the superior beast of burden, even on three legs.

In the story game, I actually jumped on ones back and rode it on a couple missions, with my horse trailing, and it was fun as hell. Stamina all day long but if you jumped off after shooting game he might just take off on you. Another occasion hitched him in town and came out of the gun shop to see him on a dead run for the hills, lol. I think I earned an as*-master badge 😁 I might even do it again on my next run through the game

[BurbonChaser]

40 minutes ago, Major Dammidge said:

It was that doggone red horse you talked me into buying. She named me Klutz for good reason 😯

Don't blame the horse. That was an epic face plant by the way.  🤣

[YodaMan 3D]

33 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

 How does someone grief you in private lobbies?  You have to invite them in..

 

Friendly lobbies would still have pests.. R* would need to tweak that.  But you won't get shot in the back.

Best example, doing story missions.  Decided to do matchmaking, part of the mission was to return the bad guy to the marshall.  1 of those players, once we got the main boss and heading back.  One player starts throwing dynamite and killing the bad guy.  Which caused to have to restart the mission.  Yep Cowboy, a player being a di*k because he wanted to and did nothing but grief us because he could.  Was it needed.  Nope not required at all.  Yep, he did it anyway.  Griefing in PvE, can you believe it.  

I would guess private or friendly lobbies would be able to do this in.  So griefers could still ruin the game.

34 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

Most of the people I see in RD O don't shoot me or attack me.  

Also most people who shoot at me 1st don't kill me.   

Also dying isn't really a big deal in this game besides losing stuff on your horse.  Beyond that, you're just drained slightly of your cores.

It seems to me that you want to remove ALL chances of random violent  PLAYER encounters..   Which I don't agree with it all.

Split the player base up based on their playing preferences.  Just like GTA 4, RDR and GTA O.  It worked...great.

 

My guess this has a lot to do with the servers you get on.  Too many pussified players in your area.  Cause seems like when I get on, I get really calm servers then I get some where players just have to jack with you for no reason.   Currently majority of the ones on my servers, do kill with just a shot or 2.  Some don't too many body shots.   As for dying it is an issue, when you been hunting and some player shoots you and your horse.  Yes you lose time and those pelts you was hunting.  To the griefer no loss for him.  He dies he loses nothing.   It would be even less likely to lose anything being in 7 man posse, that had felt they needed to attack a lone player.  

Split up the base is fine to a point where, Rockstar tries to push them back together.  GTAO, the bigger jobs forced you to play on public servers.  So those who wanted to do those updates either didn't or would be griefed by some flying ace in his fighter jet would would fly over and destroy the player and ruin the mission.  

I don't want to destroy random encounters with other players, but I'm naive enough to think that a separate lobby will get rid of griefers.  I'm not naive enough to think that Rockstar, who put a lot of time won't do things to try force all player into a public PvEvP lobby. You keep believing I want to ruin PvP, I don't.  I want griefers to not want to grief and that the price of attacking a player over and over and over , cause because a players want to be di*ks, when that player won't or can't fight back.   

See to me I don't need to be a di*k and yet I can still PvP and it not have to be personal.  I have no issues playing PvP with others that are shooting each other.  Meanwhile, some players see a player hunting and thinks, "Gee, he needs to lose all those pelts.  That is exactly what the game needs and seeing how there is nothing to stop me and I have no self control.  That is exactly what I will do.  I will attack, forcing him to lose, all those pelts, cause him to feel like he just wasted all that time.  It's his fault really.  Cause in a PvEvP enviroment, he should no that he can't hunt here or go fishing, it isn't allowed.  Even though Rockstar included it in the game. "

Have you rode through town and killed and NPC.  Then discover that you got a bounty and NPC lawmen come after you.  Why do you feel another player deserves less respect then that.  Why can't we have a situation, where instead of parley a player can stick you with a bounty where NPCs , hunt you like you hunted that player.  Does it ruin your fun, like you ruined theirs.  Probably.  

Difference is I have been on both sides of the fence, as the attacker and the defender.   At this point in my life, I feel letting players bully others right out of the game is a bad idea.  If the gaming industry feels that it's okay to sell x amount of copies of the game and then 90% leaves because we don't balance the game in some way so all players can and want to play together.  That is poor planning in my book and makes players who focus on the brand name more then the game.  That is a hit in the profits, which affects the community and our numbers.

Once again, separate lobbies would help and please many.  Experience tells me Rockstar will try to force players down each others throats and try force PvE players to play against PvP players.  Cause no one is smart enough or even willing to come up with a solution.   It fails.  They are smart enough to make the game and not smart enough to make it work?  

[HuDawg]

32 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Best example, doing story missions.  Decided to do matchmaking, part of the mission was to return the bad guy to the marshall.  1 of those players, once we got the main boss and heading back.  One player starts throwing dynamite and killing the bad guy.  Which caused to have to restart the mission.  Yep Cowboy, a player being a di*k because he wanted to and did nothing but grief us because he could.  Was it needed.  Nope not required at all.  Yep, he did it anyway.  Griefing in PvE, can you believe it.  

I would guess private or friendly lobbies would be able to do this in.  So griefers could still ruin the game.

 

Well.. If the game had invite only.  You can host your own co-op mission.  And invite who ever you wanted.  

So private lobbies and hosts would solve this.. Just like every R* game had.  And most co-op games have.

32 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

 

See to me I don't need to be a di*k and yet I can still PvP and it not have to be personal.  I have no issues playing PvP with others that are shooting each other.  Meanwhile, some players see a player hunting and thinks, "Gee, he needs to lose all those pelts.  That is exactly what the game needs and seeing how there is nothing to stop me and I have no self control.  That is exactly what I will do.  I will attack, forcing him to lose, all those pelts, cause him to feel like he just wasted all that time.  It's his fault really.  Cause in a PvEvP enviroment, he should no that he can't hunt here or go fishing, it isn't allowed.  Even though Rockstar included it in the game. "

 

Private lobbies would solve your problem.... if you want to hunt and fish in peace.

32 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

 

Once again, separate lobbies would help and please many.  Experience tells me Rockstar will try to force players down each others throats and try force PvE players to play against PvP players.  Cause no one is smart enough or even willing to come up with a solution.   It fails.  They are smart enough to make the game and not smart enough to make it work?  

Private lobbies are the solution.   It always was.  That's why it worked so well in previous R* games.

 

Obviously the current problem at the moment is R* forcing everyone to play together.  You think I wanna play with auto aim?  It drives me bananas.

Game needs exactly what every open world R* game has had in the past 10 years.  Its so simple, its hurts my brain trying to understand how its not in RD O.

Which brings me back to my 1st post. And my rant.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by HuDawg

[YodaMan 3D]

44 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

Well.. If the game had invite only.  You can host your own co-op mission.  And invite who ever you wanted.  

So private lobbies and hosts would solve this.. Just like every R* game had.  And most co-op games have.

Private lobbies would solve your problem.... if you want to hunt and fish in peace.

Private lobbies are the solution.   It always was.  That's why it worked so well in previous R* games.

Once again, you are wrong.  It doesn't solve the problem.  It is a band-aid.  Nothing more nothing less.  The griefers don't just disappear.  They are still there.  When Rockstar forces players to play on public servers for new missions.  Guess what?  That's right, Griefers never left.  Griefers are still there.   Putting something in the game that derails the mindset to attack another player unopposed that is not fighting back is your best option, not another server.  Which I am sure Rockstar really doesn't want to have to pay for anyway.  Not to mention the crying that comes from the straight up PvP players, who then get concerned about PvE players having it too easy.  Rockstar will then put restrictions to punish PvE players for playing PvE and not going into the public server.  Which is a mission for Rockstar to drive into each of us, they want everyone into one PvEvP instance.   Wait and see, by then if they haven't fixed it, the game will be the exact same crap that GTA turned out to be.  Where griefers stand unopposed and the game won't be as enjoyable as it could have been.  

You have stated you want chaos, many players want acceptable balance between PvP and PvE in a PvEvP arena.

Edited January 16, 2019 by YodaMan 3D

[BropolloCreed79]

2 hours ago, HuDawg said:

Most of the people I see in RD O don't shoot me or attack me.  

Last night was interesting.  I spawned in and immediately crouched to open my map.  Three players in three different directions made a beeline towards me but got confused when my blip disappeared.  I hid in some cactus shrubs and ambushed them like a total Delta Hotel.

And you know what?  It was fun.  Sure, I got my ass handed to me because I'm rusty for online play, but all things being equal, I certainly didn't feel griefed, even when they spawn jumped me a couple of times thereafter.  It wasn't that bad.  Eventually, I made them chase me and they got bored, and I was able to go about my business, but it took all of five or six minutes.  After that, I had a lot of casual encounters with other players where we just side-eyed each other, but otherwise, everything was fine.  

Hell, I even managed to clear out a gang hideout within eyesight of a town, and nobody bothered to come out and interfere.  Sure, one play session does not a sample size make, but my opposition to playing the beta in it's current incarnation has more to do with the fact that it's still just a beta, and they're already monetizing it without informing the player base of what the finished "gold" release will be (pun unintended).  I'm still dabbling in other games that I enjoy more online because I know what I'm getting out of them, and RDRO, by comparison, is not nearly as complete an experience.  Like you said earlier, they're focusing on all the wrong things right now.

2 hours ago, HuDawg said:

Also dying isn't really a big deal in this game besides losing stuff on your horse.  Beyond that, you're just drained slightly of your cores.

I'm starting to agree with this assessment, provided one isn't routinely harassed by a large group for an extended period of time, but those instances have been few and far between in my experience.  In fact, I look at it as an opportunity to unmute my mic and really start having fun.  Terrible dad jokes.  Puns.  Impressions.  They'll mute me, and then I'll send them a "friend request" just to be an irritation.  It's one thing to troll someone in a game by killing them, but it's another to send them system messages when they're playing other games.  Trolling in game?  Amateur hour.  Trolling across an entire online platform takes skill and talent.  In a way, I"m flattering them because I won't put the time and effort into that kind of engagement on a basic troll--you have to earn that level of effort from me.

2 hours ago, HuDawg said:

It seems to me that you want to remove ALL chances of random violent  PLAYER encounters..   Which I don't agree with it all.

Sounds like you enjoy "having to watch your back", not unlike fellow forum user @the uncucked canuck, which is fine.  I'm not as big a fan of that element, but it doesn't add or detract from my enjoyment of the game.

1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Experience tells me Rockstar will try to force players down each others throats and try force PvE players to play against PvP players. 

Of course they are.  Do you expect PvP'ers to  play with themselves?

43 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

You can host your own co-op mission.  And invite who ever you wanted.

How are you going to invite randos looking to group up if you are in a private lobby?  They'll need to open private lobbies up to matchmaking with other users, otherwise there's literally no point to having the online experience.  The whole point of playing online is to play with others.  Segregation is not the answer.  Again, if you swap it around and make the game PvE in the sandbox environment, and force folks to play PvPvE in private servers only, how well do you think that would be received?  If it's detestable, how is it supposed to be palatable to PvE'ers to be walled off from interacting with others and grouping up in posses?  If players who wanted open world PvP had to invite players into a private lobby to play the game because there was no matchmaking for the PvP free roam, how long do you suppose that would last?

Again, I'm not advocating for anything to be changed from the current iteration as it comes when discussing the current PvPvE dynamic, but I don't believe private lobbies are going to be a tenable solution because of exploits, rank/stat boosting, farming, and other aspects that R* actively looks to curtail.   Reducing rewards and XP gains effectively penalizes those players for pursuing a PvE experience, which is a form of punishment, and hardly conducive to a "separate but equal" environment.

There's no way to make private lobbies a fair, equitable solution.

Realistically, they have two options; leave the mechanic the way it is, or make PvP/PvE status a toggle as I've suggested, with a 60s cooldown once out of combat.  Everyone gets what they want, except for trolls whose sole enjoyment in life is derived from ambushing players who want no part of being bushwacked.  It takes no skill whatsoever to attack a player not actively defending themselves, so the game's community literally loses nothing by having these folks stymied.  

And the best part?  Players like yourself, who enjoy random dangerous encounters with other players, lose nothing!  These people will still attack players and you can still mop the floor with them.  

[HuDawg]

1 hour ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

 

Realistically, they have two options; leave the mechanic the way it is, or make PvP/PvE status a toggle as I've suggested, with a 60s cooldown once out of combat.  Everyone gets what they want, except for trolls whose sole enjoyment in life is derived from ambushing players who want no part of being bushwacked.  It takes no skill whatsoever to attack a player not actively defending themselves, so the game's community literally loses nothing by having these folks stymied.  

And the best part?  Players like yourself, who enjoy random dangerous encounters with other players, lose nothing!  These people will still attack players and you can still mop the floor with them.  

My issue with the toggle is players will still find away to be annoying.  And now theres no way to deal with them.   Be it blasting animals you're hunting or blowing up fishes.  Or turning on passive mode after killing players.  Or turning it off when they see and advantage to kill someone.

I would rather R* just add a pve server or invite only.  And alter the stranger missions in free roam to for pve with more NPCS that attack.. And remove the pvp stranger missions.

 

[HuDawg]

1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Once again, you are wrong.  It doesn't solve the problem.  It is a band-aid.  Nothing more nothing less.  The griefers don't just disappear.  They are still there.  

They will always be there. They are natural part of R* games food chain.  Best counter to griefing is invite only.  You control who you play with..

1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

  Not to mention the crying that comes from the straight up PvP players, who then get concerned about PvE players having it too easy.  Rockstar will then put restrictions to punish PvE players for playing PvE and not going into the public server.  

No real pvp player is concerned about pve players having it easy. Since its pvp players that level the fastest and earn the most money.

Its mostly dumb griefers that would be crying..  Because if they add pve servers or invite only.  They are now stuck with players who are more then happy to defend themselves and welcome it.  

1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

 Wait and see, by then if they haven't fixed it, the game will be the exact same crap that GTA turned out to be.  Where griefers stand unopposed and the game won't be as enjoyable as it could have been.  

Griefers never stood unopposed in GTA O.   But I can tell you this.  They used every single thing R* added to prevent griefing as a tool to grief even more.

At least in GTA O we can play invite only.  I was never a fan of R* blocking some of its business content off in invite only.  That's bullsh*t.

R* made some horrible choices with GTA O.    Im sure we can both agree on that.  

 

 

[BropolloCreed79]

16 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

My issue with the toggle is players will still find away to be annoying.

Well, that's true of any game really.  But you're not wrong.

16 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

And now theres no way to deal with them.   Be it blasting animals you're hunting or blowing up fishes.  Or turning on passive mode after killing players.  Or turning it off when they see and advantage to kill someone.

Which goes to the most critical part of my genius plan:  require a 60-second cooldown after a player is no longer in combat before the toggle can be deactivated back into passive mode (and vice versa; if you go to passive mode, you should have to wait an additional 60 seconds to reactivate PvP mode).  The blasting animals and fish thing is going to happen no matter what you do because those things are external to the PvE PvP dynamic.  Other MMO style games have systems in place for handling loot distibution, whether it's everyone having access to the same loot if they "tag" it during combat, or only giving credit to whomever does the most damage.

Stuff like that never goes away, but that's not what most people are complaining about:  a majority of the ire is directed specifically towards player-killing activities in an open environment, and I have yet to see a better argument than a cool down tied to a toggle.  There's always going to be exceptions or circumstances that alter the intended mechanics, and again, I'm not advocating that they should actually go through with a toggle system--I'm personally fine with the system the way it is.

But my point is if they insist on doing something gating PvE experiences behind a private lobby is not a fair or equitable solution, especially when literally every other online mode is dedicated to PvP.  I'd rather see no solution than that specific solution.

16 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

And remove the pvp stranger missions.

This one we agree on 1000%.

Thanks for staying engaged on this, by the way.  It's good to see there's folks out there who can have a spirited debate without resorting to name-calling and just enjoy hashing stuff out while not taking things personally.  You've raised a lot of excellent points in all of this, and a lot of the ideas have merit.

For me, it makes sense to have AA natively disabled in ALL strict PvP modes, because having it enabled is not a fair assessment of a player's true skill.  I didn't realize how dependent I had become on Dead Eye in Story mode until I tried to go online last night and got my butt handed to me.  Seriously, it was more embarrassing than Hue Jackson's record with the Browns.  But I know that I literally have to "git gud" before I can make a fair assessment, and stop relying on the crutch that is Dead Eye.  If I'm going to suck, then I'm going to suck like a man.  Auto Aim is no different, as far as I'm concerned.

[YodaMan 3D]

9 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

No real pvp player is concerned about pve players having it easy. Since its pvp players that level the fastest and earn the most money.

Griefers never stood unopposed in GTA O.   But I can tell you this.  They used every single thing R* added to prevent griefing as a tool to grief even more.

At least in GTA O we can play invite only.  I was never a fan of R* blocking some of its business content off in invite only.  That's bullsh*t.

R* made some horrible choices with GTA O.    Im sure we can both agree on that.  

Every PvEvP enviroment I have played in, PvP players get concerned about what benefits PvE players get.  Usually those same players would be Griefers.  

In GTA Griefers did go unopposed.  Back when I played, players would start a mission and Griefers would hop in their choppers or fighter jets fly over and bomb the hell out of those doing a mission, till the mission failed.  There was no policing of any kind.  For low level characters that had nothing unlocked, ground breaking and Rockstar did nothing to stop it.  Others players did nothing to stop it.  If anything Rockstar made it worse, by coming out with new crazier vehicles to grief with.  I understand that they was hoping people would by shark cards in hopes advance faster and try to catch up.  Thing is you could spend $100s of dollars and still not get caught up.  You would just not be as far behind.   

RDO, early on in the beta you could use Gold to skip the level requirements and purchase items early.  They opened the Gold Store and locked that so now you need Gold and Level Requirements.  So now you got players with everything unlocked and newer players get griefed easier and have no chance of ever gaining an edge.  They are expected to take it.

So though you have stated you and your friends oppose these griefers, you aren't on every server.  You can only help one server at a time.  More PvP players share the Griefer mentality then the PvE mentality.  They would rather see players leave the game that play PvE then try to show them how much fun it can be to PvP.   Griefers want to run players off generally, figuring if Rockstar shutsdown the servers they will find another game that lets them Grief. 

Yes, we can agree that Rockstar made mistakes with GTA.  Thing is GTAO is the model they will use for this one.   Thing is that Griefing is an issue and not that I have the best ideas on how to deal with them.  I would hate to see friends quit the game because Rockstar refuses to address the issue and forces them to make a choice to play with griefers or quit.  Which friends did with GTA and with The Division.   Biggest difference was Rockstar was non-commital, yet kept providing new toys to grief with.  Ubisoft flat out said if you don't like it, this may not be the game for you.  

I still say griefing can be handled without punishing the PvP side of it.  

[Kean_1]

14 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

RDO, early on in the beta you could use Gold to skip the level requirements and purchase items early.  They opened the Gold Store and locked that so now you need Gold and Level Requirements.  So now you got players with everything unlocked and newer players get griefed easier and have no chance of ever gaining an edge.  They are expected to take it.

As far as I remember, the weapons were still locked behind level caps.  I don't believe you could circumvent that with GBs.  I do recall horse insurance on Arabians behind locked behind GBs which I thought was unfair.  That was changed with the update that brought the store.  

I was able to shortcut the level system by buying my crossdraw holster with gold though.  ....although I thought I recall a friend being able to do that after the store update as well.

Folks who were playing the beta since the beginning got the benefit of free gold and in-game cash.  .....and after the economy was adjusted, it was easy to obtain good weapons.

Ability cards and premium ammo are locked behind level caps regardless and those are what prove to be game changers IMO (aside from practice / skill).  

[YodaMan 3D]

7 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

As far as I remember, the weapons were still locked behind level caps.  I don't believe you could circumvent that with GBs.  I do recall horse insurance on Arabians behind locked behind GBs which I thought was unfair.  That was changed with the update that brought the store.  

I was able to shortcut the level system by buying my crossdraw holster with gold though.  ....although I thought I recall a friend being able to do that after the store update as well.

Folks who were playing the beta since the beginning got the benefit of free gold and in-game cash.  .....and after the economy was adjusted, it was easy to obtain good weapons.

Ability cards and premium ammo are locked behind level caps regardless and those are what prove to be game changers IMO (aside from practice / skill).  

I know players that had most of everything just from GBs.  Now most likely they used some glitch but they had the Arabian early and guns really early.  Way before I did, just by playing.  By the time I had enough Gold, the store had opened and they blocked everything.

Edited January 16, 2019 by YodaMan 3D

[Kean_1]

Just now, YodaMan 3D said:

I know players that had most of everything just from GBs.  Now most likely they used some glitch but they had the Arabian early and guns really early.  Way before I did, just by playing.

I can't speak for what exploits people may have used but there was no other way to get the guns that I know of. As I said though, they were relatively cheap to obtain after the economy adjustments so I don't feel that is a real disadvantage.  .....especially considering griefer's weapon of choice became the varmint rifle which is one of the cheapest and easiest guns to get in the game.

I had obtained my dual Schofields, a Lancaster and pump action shotgun in a relatively short amount of time and those are still what I mostly use today (besides my rolling block rifle).

Ammo and ability cards are what give players a great advantage over others IMO, especially when they know how to use them. .....and you need to meet the level caps and have enough in-game cash to get them.

[BropolloCreed79]

4 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

I can't speak for what exploits people may have used but there was no other way to get the guns that I know of. As I said though, they were relatively cheap to obtain after the economy adjustments so I don't feel that is a real disadvantage.  .....especially considering griefer's weapon of choice became the varmint rifle which is one of the cheapest and easiest guns to get in the game.

I had obtained my dual Schofields, a Lancaster and pump action shotgun in a relatively short amount of time and those are still what I mostly use today (besides my rolling block rifle).

Ammo and ability cards are what give players a great advantage over others IMO, especially when they know how to use them. .....and you need to meet the level caps and have enough in-game cash to get them.

Hell, I'm more pissed about how ugly my character is than the imbalance in weaponry at this point.  Literally tried remaking him about four or five times, but no matter what I do, he looks like they used his face to level concrete.