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

[Kean_1]

Just now, BropolloCreed79 said:

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.  

I felt the same way until I heard about the advanced options for some of the features. I remade my character after that but luckily, that was early on. Maybe I just got lucky.

[Silas Roche]

It's easy to be critical of anything in its infancy.

Sure it'd be great to have more things to do but its an evolving product and quality takes time and testing.

As gamers our community can be brutal and unforgiving of anything half baked.

i for one love it and see some huge potential. Another thing to keep in mind as that this online game is a free

component of what is already an amazing value for money open world story offered by Rockstar. I am curious sometimes

as to the hate R* get and the mention of greed. I can only imagine the resources and manpower that is needed to develop

and maintain these games we love and so far all its cost me of the price of the original game which i rate as one of the best

ive ever played.

The game will be what we put into in the end. No one makes us bored griefers. thats a choice we make.

in the meantime id say lets be patient and this could really become something special for many years to come

[BropolloCreed79]

22 minutes ago, Silas Roche said:

Sure it'd be great to have more things to do but its an evolving product and quality takes time and testing

Not to sound glib, but it's a game that has been worked on for the better part of a decade, and the online structure is going to end up borrowing literally from the GTA framework.  A beta should not be active for 3-4 months unless it's going to be a radical departure from the GTA model.   Preaching patience is all well and good, but this is a top line studio /publisher with what amounts to unlimited resources.  Leaving this in Beta for more than 90 days is inexcusable.

Launching past mid-February is inviting disaster.  Anthem launches February 22nd, and The Division 2 in mid-March--both with fully formed online MMO capabilities that will release as "gold", not in Beta.  If RDRO isnt fully launched or out of beta by then, it's going to be d.o.a. when it finally does.  You already have a substantively smaller install base than GTAO; it's a period piece, niche genre game with a deliberately slower pace and entirely different aesthetic.  

Players won't stick around.  There aren't enough hours in the day to be devoted to multiple online communities that have the level of depth and sophistication that most online games, particularly MMOs do these days.  I've pre-ordered TD2, but I'm only going to have time to fully devote to either this or that.  If TD2 launches with full online in March, and this is still in beta, the choice will be easy.

[KRooKeD KRoW]

30 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

Not to sound glib, but it's a game that has been worked on for the better part of a decade, and the online structure is going to end up borrowing literally from the GTA framework.  A beta should not be active for 3-4 months unless it's going to be a radical departure from the GTA model.   Preaching patience is all well and good, but this is a top line studio /publisher with what amounts to unlimited resources.  Leaving this in Beta for more than 90 days is inexcusable.

Launching past mid-February is inviting disaster.  Anthem launches February 22nd, and The Division 2 in mid-March--both with fully formed online MMO capabilities that will release as "gold", not in Beta.  If RDRO isnt fully launched or out of beta by then, it's going to be d.o.a. when it finally does.  You already have a substantively smaller install base than GTAO; it's a period piece, niche genre game with a deliberately slower pace and entirely different aesthetic.  

Players won't stick around.  There aren't enough hours in the day to be devoted to multiple online communities that have the level of depth and sophistication that most online games, particularly MMOs do these days.  I've pre-ordered TD2, but I'm only going to have time to fully devote to either this or that.  If TD2 launches with full online in March, and this is still in beta, the choice will be easy.

You and a couple others keep talking about it, and despite it's flaws, I loved TD, and now I just have to preorder TD2 for PC. Switched back to PC gaming a while back for various reasons, only playing RDR2 on xbox simply cuz it's not on PC (yet) and already had an xbone. Plus, when I made said switch,  GTAO had many, many more hackers and griefers than xbox, so dont imagine RDO would be any different if they released it for PC.

Also seeing a lot of people complaining that R* released Gun Rush while many other things remain broken and whatnot. More than likely, Gun Rush was already finished and in the code when the beta launched. Pretty sure there was a leak about a battle royale mode prior to beta, and Gun Rush has those parameters that were leaked. Much easier to give access to something already completed than to rewrite the code for bug fixes, reworks and such, so they released it just so that there was something new for people to sink their teeth into.

I am a little upset about the beta going for another few months, but it is what it is.

I was throwing dynamite and molotovs trying to kill the prisoner on the back of someone's horse once, but it was because they were just riding around slowly, not going to the objective, just wasting everyone's time... another form of griefing, simply wasting a lot of people's time by dragging things out

Edited January 17, 2019 by KRooKeD KRoW

[Silas Roche]

21 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

Not to sound glib, but it's a game that has been worked on for the better part of a decade, and the online structure is going to end up borrowing literally from the GTA framework.  A beta should not be active for 3-4 months unless it's going to be a radical departure from the GTA model.   Preaching patience is all well and good, but this is a top line studio /publisher with what amounts to unlimited resources.  Leaving this in Beta for more than 90 days is inexcusable.

 

Unlimited resources? That's a bit niave.

90 days inexcuseable? really? why?

Theyre not forcing you to play it and theyre actively saying they want to improve before removing from beta.

And as for the development time taken, that online story mode is a phenomenal technical achievement. im glad they took their time and got it right.

way i see it, as gamers if we dont stop acting entitled and start showing a bit of patience we'll have not industry to make games for us in the future as it just won' be a profitable business model, but at the end of the day its our choice.

[BropolloCreed79]

1 hour ago, Silas Roche said:

Unlimited resources? That's a bit niave.

The game generated $725m in it's first three days of sales.  Toss in another $200m in holiday sales (conservatively) and they're closing in on $1b in revenue.  Even at the most garish assumptions of the total production and advertising costs, this game is already in the black.  R* is flush with cash between this and the continued success of GTAO, so please, you're only fooling yourself if you don't think that kind of liquidity creates a competitive advantage when it comes to resource allocation.

95% of the publishers and studios out there would kill to have R*'s resources.

1 hour ago, Silas Roche said:

90 days inexcuseable? really? why?

If this were a traditional beta, then 90 days would be appropriate.  Most betas in software development are closed affairs.  This one is open to MILLIONS of users generating mountains of data.  I'd be willing to wager most of this beta is designed to be little more than a stress test for the economy, build a model for anticipated player behavior "grieving", and soft testing pvp showdown variants to tweak rules.

But most of the work that traditionally goes into beta trials was done before they shipped the physical copies.  They're just using this to track the items above and get free QA testing.  They're more concerned with exploits and rank boosting than any sort of technical calamity at this point.

But moreover, 90 days puts them squarely in the release windows of 2 competitors in the online space, Anthem and TD2.  Thise dates have been set in stone for ages, and someone are R* dripped the ball on that one.

1 hour ago, Silas Roche said:

way i see it, as gamers if we dont stop acting entitled and start showing a bit of patience we'll have not industry to make games for us in the future as it just won' be a profitable business model, but at the end of the day its our choice.

See my point above, this game is already profitable.  Everyone sinking time into the beta is not only providing free bug testing and QA, but paying for the right to do so.  It has nothing to do with gamers feeling entitled, and everything to do with gaming companies taking customers for granted, not the other way around.

[Silas Roche]

2 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

The game generated $725m in it's first three days of sales.  Toss in another $200m in holiday sales (conservatively) and they're closing in on $1b in revenue.  Even at the most garish assumptions of the total production and advertising costs, this game is already in the black.  R* is flush with cash between this and the continued success of GTAO, so please, you're only fooling yourself if you don't think that kind of liquidity creates a competitive advantage when it comes to resource allocation.

95% of the publishers and studios out there would kill to have R*'s resources.

If this were a traditional beta, then 90 days would be appropriate.  Most betas in software development are closed affairs.  This one is open to MILLIONS of users generating mountains of data.  I'd be willing to wager most of this beta is designed to be little more than a stress test for the economy, build a model for anticipated player behavior "grieving", and soft testing pvp showdown variants to tweak rules.

But most of the work that traditionally goes into beta trials was done before they shipped the physical copies.  They're just using this to track the items above and get free QA testing.  They're more concerned with exploits and rank boosting than any sort of technical calamity at this point.

But moreover, 90 days puts them squarely in the release windows of 2 competitors in the online space, Anthem and TD2.  Thise dates have been set in stone for ages, and someone are R* dripped the ball on that one.

See my point above, this game is already profitable.  Everyone sinking time into the beta is not only providing free bug testing and QA, but paying for the right to do so.  It has nothing to do with gamers feeling entitled, and everything to do with gaming companies taking customers for granted, not the other way around.

Fair enough. if thats how you feel then make yourstand and dont play it i guess

[Major Dammidge]

On 1/15/2019 at 8:23 AM, HuDawg said:

I feel your pain dude.   But if R* would have added Private Lobbies and Free Aim lobbies. 

Private lobbies are moot for me because I don't have a lot of online friends; darn few in fact. So I wouldn't have anybody to invite and necessarily need public servers. 

If a griefer nails me after hunting , have Miss Scarlett head for the hills with my pelts until I respawn. She is a red chestnut Arabian mare who is skittish, anyway

To the victors go the spoils? Yes--if  I'm in a PUBG environment or mode. Everybody out there is armed and I get my yayas from a good firefight, too. If somebody wants to engage me time and again, all the better, causing me--challenging me-- to sharpen my skills to be a badder cowboy. Just don't take away the product of 2 hours game time hunting. The disconnects happened, take their share, and give me all the frustration I'm willing to bear. 

As a senior citizen, gaming at this level beats the hell out of checking the local Senior/Community Center schedule to find out when the next 1-Bucket Group Denture Soak is going to convene. RDR2 and RDO allow me to focus and concentrate, challenge my motor and hand-eye coordination skills, and keep me from being out there driving too slow in the fast lane, terrified of the unbridled  power under the hood of my new, 6-cylinder Ford PickemUp truck😎lol

 

 

[chocolatefinch]

I still don't understand why you can't just have one lobby for 'anything goes' and another lobby where you cannot kill another player or their  horse or cause any griefing  but you can fight AI cowboys or gangs, or fish and hunt, do missions together or just mess around, either on your own or with like minded players.. Surely that's the  answer?

[YodaMan 3D]

11 hours ago, Silas Roche said:

It's easy to be critical of anything in its infancy.

Sure it'd be great to have more things to do but its an evolving product and quality takes time and testing.

As gamers our community can be brutal and unforgiving of anything half baked.

i for one love it and see some huge potential. Another thing to keep in mind as that this online game is a free

component of what is already an amazing value for money open world story offered by Rockstar. I am curious sometimes

as to the hate R* get and the mention of greed. I can only imagine the resources and manpower that is needed to develop

and maintain these games we love and so far all its cost me of the price of the original game which i rate as one of the best

ive ever played.

The game will be what we put into in the end. No one makes us bored griefers. thats a choice we make.

in the meantime id say lets be patient and this could really become something special for many years to come

To a certain extent it is free.  Pending on extras supplied by Rockstar, trust me they are making a killing off of Shark Cards and I am sure they will be doing so again with Gold Bars.  Whether or not you pay for it, someone will be or we will get nothing new.  At release most companies already have the life of the game mapped out.  

We need to be patient to a point, but understand gaming companies at some point start planning exit strategies so they can focus on new games.  When they do that, if we haven't already pushed for better then they won't put it into their plans.

[Netnow66]

3 hours ago, chocolatefinch said:

I still don't understand why you can't just have one lobby for 'anything goes' and another lobby where you cannot kill another player or their  horse or cause any griefing  but you can fight AI cowboys or gangs, or fish and hunt, do missions together or just mess around, either on your own or with like minded players.. Surely that's the  answer?

I totally agree.

The lobbies as is are "anything goes." People who enjoy the game as is could just continue to play in those.

The "lobby where you cannot kill another player or their  horse or cause any griefing  but you can fight AI cowboys or gangs, or fish and hunt, do missions together or just mess around, either on your own or with like minded players" would be the new lobbies. Just as a switch is clicked and players can't shoot one another while playing on teams in some of the quick roam segments, all Rockstar would have to do is click that switch and make a server where every player is on the "same team."

It seems simple enough to me.

But we'll be tied into whatever Rockstar chooses to do with us in terms of their future updates and when they finally institute them.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Netnow66
a phrase

[HuDawg]

16 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

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.  

 Griefers did not go unopposed.   Players fought back all the time.   Players did the policing...  And what you're describing is one aspect of the game.  The bulk of GTA O content could be played in invite only and you had more control.  

 

But lets take another aspect of the game.  And that's racing.    Public racing in GTA O was always a sh*t show.  Players where constantly complaining about dirty racers and trolls.

So R* added non contact racing.

For me.. I love contact.  Ya, dirty racers and trolls would take advantage of it.  But for me, racing is about battling for position and keeping it, also contact is needed for the wild crashes.  So I love the contact ..and dealing with dirty racers is just part of the land scape.    

For non contact racers..  They prefer to just race without contact because they are sick of dirty racers.   

GTA O racing also had the option to play in private too.

So in that sense you have Full contact, Non Contact and both of which can be played in private lobbies.  Everyone was happy.  And there didn't need to be any sort of policing being done.  It didn't need ONE game mode to rule them all.

 

The same sort of logic if applied to free roam would also easily solve most peoples problems.

Its far easier to just split the player base to suit taste.  Normal Free roam, Friendly Free Roam (With friendly fire disabled against all players). Free Aim Free Lobbies  And Private Lobbies.  

Instead of trying to police the game with band aids to prevent griefers that will only end up ruining the game and make it look silly.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by HuDawg

[YodaMan 3D]

2 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

 Griefers did not go unopposed.   Players fought back all the time.   Players did the policing...  And what you describing is one aspect of the game.  The bulk of GTA O content could be played in invite only and you had more control.  

 

But lets take another aspect of the game.  And that's racing.    Public racing in GTA O was always a sh*t show.  Players where constantly complaining about dirty racers and trolls.

So R* added non contact racing.

For me.. I love contact.  Ya, dirty racers and trolls would take advantage of it.  But for me, racing is about battling for position and keeping it, also contact is needed for the wild crashes.  So I love the contact ..and dealing with dirty racers is just part of the land scape.    

For non contact racers..  They prefer to just race without contact because they are sick of dirty racers.   

GTA O racing also had the option to play in private too.

So in that sense you have Full contact, Non Contact and both of which can be played in private lobbies.  Everyone was happy.  And there didn't need to be any sport of policing being done.  It didn't need ONE game mode to rule them all.

 

The same sort of logic if applied to free roam would also easily solve most peoples problems.

Its far easier to just split the player base to suit taste.  Normal Free roam, Friendly Free Roam (With friendly fire disabled against all players). Free Aim Free Lobbies  And Private Lobbies.  

Instead of trying to police the game with band aids to prevent griefers that will only end up ruining the game and make it look silly.

I guess you got lucky and was put on special servers.  It is One Aspect, but it is the main point of the game.  Do missions, collect money, buy new gear or vehicles.  I would have loved to seen Players Policing, but servers I was on was all about griefing.  Either you griefed or got griefed.  It wasn't policed by anyone.  No one looked out for those who got bullied for the most part.  During my time in GTAO, I can only remember one time that anyone policed the server.  Talking with a friend and told him about my son and I was having trouble doing corporate missions, cause of the griefers in their fighter jets.  Him and his buddy jumped in and did exactly what others was doing to us.  Flew over them in their jets and blew the crap out of them till the server was clear.  My son and I did his mission, in the end only difference was we was part of the griefers side.  It didn't fix the griefing issue.   

Once again, we agree extra lobbies will help.  Where we disagree is that it doesn't address the griefing.   You don't want it fixed and will argue all day that it should be ignored.  I say things can be done to fix it.  You can't change my mind and I apparently can't change yours till Rockstar proves me correct.  Question is do they care enough to fix it or put your band-aid on it and create extra lobbies.  Some down the road try to force the point of making players play in the public server.   If they follow their status quo and keep using the GTAO model, then it gets sweeped under the rug and the issue gets ignored.  Griefers win cause no one stops it.  I understand your concern that a fix could be heavy handed and hurt PvP.  I really do get that, but if done right.  PvP would survive and balance could exists for both sides.  Then we could actually have a PvEvP arena.

[HuDawg]

2 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Once again, we agree extra lobbies will help.  Where we disagree is that it doesn't address the griefing.   You don't want it fixed and will argue all day that it should be ignored. 

Dude..  I don't really know what to say at this point.  

Extra lobbies don't just help.  They are the solution..    Every single thing you have complained about can be helped or fixed with separate lobbies.

Im not sure what you expect.  Do you want R* to open a gulag and form a special task force to investigate every report they get on griefing?

This game doesn't need ONE lobby to rule them all.  It needs different lobbies to suit tastes.. Basic options.

[YodaMan 3D]

10 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

Dude..  I don't really know what to say at this point.  

Extra lobbies don't just help.  They are the solution..    Every single thing you have complained about can be helped or fixed with separate lobbies.

Im not sure what you expect.  Do you want R* to open a gulag and form a special task force to investigate every report they get on griefing?

This game doesn't need ONE lobby to rule them all.  It needs different lobbies to suit tastes.. Basic options.

  They may help, but in the end separate lobbies are not THE FIX.  Right now players have told Rockstar endlessly about the griefing and Rockstar admits there is an issue.  You say slap a band-aid on it and all griefers disappear.  I say fix it.  Now can they appease with lobbies.  Yes they can, till they start forcing it and put players in a position so they have to participate in a public lobby to continue the game.

I hope they do the same things that they did for RDR.  I really do that way players can play the game when and where they are comfortable.   The market wants PvEvP arenas, if those arenas don't bring balance to some point, then the PvE gets pushed out of the game and it's just a great big battle royal.  GTAO was doing it, yeah they had stuff for PvE players, but PvP kept getting the bigger push.   It is easier and takes less work.  

As far as Rockstar trying to stop griefing, they didn't.  They kept making weapons and vehicles that supported griefing.  RDO will have those same type items.  AKA, the war wagon is coming.  

Lobbies help, but don't fix.   Who knows maybe Rockstar will make everything available regardless of server and you would be completely correct and it solves it all.  I just don't see them doing that though.  Their actions have proven that in the past with other games they have made.

[HuDawg]

5 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

  They may help, but in the end separate lobbies are not THE FIX.  Right now players have told Rockstar endlessly about the griefing and Rockstar admits there is an issue.  You say slap a band-aid on it and all griefers disappear.  I say fix it.  Now can they appease with lobbies.  Yes they can, till they start forcing it and put players in a position so they have to participate in a public lobby to continue the game.

You need to stop calling separate lobbies to suit player tastes a BAND AID.    Its the FIX.. not the BAND AID.    

 Band Aids..  Is you wanting R* to shove everyone into ONE lobby and then use whole bunch of actual band aids  to stop griefing (Which is impossible without RUINING the anything can happen feel of the game). 

Saying R* will force players to play in public games to continue the game doesn't make any sense.    Continue what game?.  Obviously the PVP Stanger Missions would not exist in friendly lobbies but everything else would still be in tact.   

 

[Renascent]

11 hours ago, Mahuk said:

Last night I was North of Saint Dennis minding my own business hunting. Two players riding Brokeback Mountain style rolled up on me at speed. Did I wait to see if they wanted to hang out? Hell no! I took them out and their horse. They were pissed! That began an epic gunfight which lasted about 20 mins. It was 2v1 so I died a lot but so did they. To me, that was great fun and exactly what makes this game entertaining. When R* introduces a bounty system for griefers that won't suit my play style at all because I'm not a griefer, but I guarantee that system will label me as one which is not good.

I say introduce the Private sessions ASAP for those that want a peaceful environment to play in, and leave public lobbies the sh*t-show they are because a bounty system won't stop griefers, it will just make it extremely difficult to defend yourself by taking preventative measures and not be labeled a griefer. 

That's exactly why if I happen to be going in the same direction as someone I make a point of keeping my distance or going around. I've gotten very good at remembering the terrain of most of the map so I can off road it fairly easily.

I'm curious and a little for the bounty system coming up. But I'm concerned about how they are gonna discern someone fighting back/defending themselves and someone legit trying to grief. Like what if someone tries to steal from you? We just let them or would we get the law on us for defending our kills?

I honestly think that if someone kills an animal that animal can't be picked up by anyone else for at least a couple minutes. I know they have it that way in traditional MMOs, could work here.

 

[YodaMan 3D]

1 hour ago, HuDawg said:

You need to stop calling separate lobbies to suit player tastes a BAND AID.    Its the FIX.. not the BAND AID.    

 Band Aids..  Is you wanting R* to shove everyone into ONE lobby and then use whole bunch of actual band aids  to stop griefing (Which is impossible without RUINING the anything can happen feel of the game). 

Saying R* will force players to play in public games to continue the game doesn't make any sense.    Continue what game?.  Obviously the PVP Stanger Missions would not exist in friendly lobbies but everything else would still be in tact.   

Separate lobbies are the Band-Aid.  That is why I call it a Band-Aid.  The gaming industry has been trying force PvEvP on players.  Rockstar is one of the few that hasn't completely relented.  If you follow the industry, you would know that PvP players don't want PvE players to have separate instances and be able to earn the same benefits.   In GTA, Rockstar created situations where players had to be in a PvEvP arena.  They was given no choice.  RDO following the same model, what makes you think they won't continue down that road.  GTAO has been around for many years, it has proven to be profitable.  In GTAO, Griefing was very pronounced and supported.   They did Zero, nothing to stop it.  They encouraged it.   

Things can be done to encourage players not to grief and still not ruin the anything can happen.   We as a community shouldn't be so short sighted that we ignore it and give up without trying.  

As far as stranger missions go, we have no idea how they would be affected in a friendly lobby.  In RDO, doing missions players can ruin the mission by blowing stuff up with dynamite.    

Explain to me that if taking from the solo game that they apply the bounty system.  So if you are griefing a player to the point, that instead of him having to parlay that he be able to have a bounty put on you.  Anything goes, which means then that instead of PvP players griefing some player that isn't interested is now being affected by the part of the game they hate most?  Anything can still happen, that is part of the game already.  Thing is I don't know if that is the best option, but to be it's better then just quit playing cause some Griefer is bored out of their minds.   I'm sure tweaking or even better ideas could happen.

What am expecting is that PvP and PvE would get treated very different at that point and oneside or the other gets shafted on a really good game.  Seriously, they did it with GTA.  Why would they change how they treat players and what they give to their customers.

 

[Kean_1]

1 hour ago, HuDawg said:

You need to stop calling separate lobbies to suit player tastes a BAND AID.    Its the FIX.. not the BAND AID.     Band Aids..  Is you wanting R* to shove everyone into ONE lobby and then use whole bunch of actual band aids  to stop griefing (Which is impossible without RUINING the anything can happen feel of the game). 

You're missing his whole point.  He's not the one trying to force a "one size fits all" solution, R* is already doing that with Free Roam.  There is no other alternative for PvE / co-op players right now and (more importantly) there is no guarantee that there will be in the form of private session alternatives.  ....if they ever happen.

As much as I hope and suspect there will be, there is simply no way to know for sure that invite-only options will materialize.

1 hour ago, HuDawg said:

Saying R* will force players to play in public games to continue the game doesn't make any sense.    Continue what game?.  Obviously the PVP Stanger Missions would not exist in friendly lobbies but everything else would still be in tact.   

They are already doing it now.  .....at least for the meantime.

Here's the key folks......  If private sessions do become a thing, it will depend entirely on how they are implemented before anyone can say they solve anything.  The problem I see is if they use the GTAVO model where most of the businesses and related missions were locked behind public sessions.  If you want participate in any of these continuing CEO/VP story missions / businesses, you have to be in a public session.  

Invite-only sessions are a kind of "band-aid" in the sense that they allow some level of separation from randoms but players in those private sessions will never be able to experience the whole game without subjecting themselves to public servers.  R* forces this on to players if they want to participate in these activities which make up a good portion of what's fun about the game. 

As it stands, no one knows for sure what we will see in RDO's future.  Given that fact, I can't blame anyone for complaining about griefers in Free Roam nor do I blame them for suggestion more balance in this mode.   ....this one mode we have. 

Just the fact that R* has acknowledged the problem and is looking at ways to "improve gameplay balance" as a result (their words, not mine) tells me that they are still interested in trying to make this PvPvE experience work for all players to enjoy.  .....and to be honest, that's all that really matters to me because in the end, convincing someone else it is, is really a moot point.

 

[HuDawg]

31 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Separate lobbies are the Band-Aid.  That is why I call it a Band-Aid.  The gaming industry has been trying force PvEvP on players.  

 

Actually Separate lobbies are the solution.   

A Band Aid is what you want.    (God this is getting annoying..)  

Silly, stupid rules to prevent griefers from attacking players is a BAND AID in a FREE FOR ALL game.    

Let me put it like this.  If they do alter the game into complete absurdity to prevent hostile players from attacking others.. Then I want a NEW LOBBY that's 100% FREE FOR ALL.

Basically I want a lobby that's Band Aid Free.. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by HuDawg

[HuDawg]

29 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

Here's the key folks......  If private sessions do become a thing, it will depend entirely on how they are implemented before anyone can say they solve anything.  The problem I see is if they use the GTAVO model where most of the businesses and related missions were locked behind public sessions.  If you want participate in any of these continuing CEO/VP story missions / businesses, you have to be in a public session.  

This isn't GTA O tho.. The people complaining about griefers in RDO just want to fish, hunt and explore in peace.    (Which friendly and private lobbies would allow)

If R* adds PVP missions.. then of course they won't allow it in Invite only or friendly lobbies.

 

The problem with GTA O  some of the game modes only playable in public sessions..   Some made sense, some didn't.    But the bulk of the game can be played in invite only.

Edited January 17, 2019 by HuDawg

[YodaMan 3D]

5 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

Actually Separate lobbies are the solution.   

A Band Aid is what you want.    (God this is getting annoying..)  

Silly, stupid rules to prevent griefers from attacking players is a BAND AID in a FREE FOR ALL game.    

Let me put it like this.  If they do alter the game into complete absurdity to prevent hostile players from attacking others.. Then I want a NEW LOBBY that's 100% FREE FOR ALL.

Basically I want a lobby that's Band Aid Free.. 

It is annoying that you won't listen.  There are already rules.   Add new rules, take rules away.  Doesn't affect your game.  Sounds to me you just enjoy the griefing others part, especially if it's against their will.  Long as you have fun.   In the example I gave as a possible solution, a PvP wouldn't take a parlay or a bounty, they would fight back.  You get PvP.  No that isn't what you want.  You want to ruin someone else's experience.  Make them hate the game, make them hate Rockstar, make them hate you.  For what?  You pumped up your epeen and feel a little more important in you own little world.  That is how Griefers think, that's what they want.  To feel special, cause to them that is important.  

To a real PvP player, they want to know.  When you and I meet, who is better.  Afterwards, go our separate ways and count the days till we can do that again.  In PvP, I don't want players to run away.  I don't want them to quit.  If I won the day, I hope to see them back so we can do it again.  If they won, I hope to get my skills up so that when and if that day happens again, we have different results.  I don't want to support Griefers.  I want PvE players to want to PvP.  I want the community to grow and that requires players to want to come out of their comfort zones and meet halfway.  

[YodaMan 3D]

5 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

This isn't GTA O tho.. The people complaining about griefers in RDO just want to fish, hunt and explore in peace.    (Which friendly and private lobbies would allow)

If R* adds PVP missions.. then of course they won't allow it in Invite only or friendly lobbies.

 

The problem with GTA O  some of the game modes only playable in public sessions..   Some made sense, some didn't.    But the bulk of the game can be played in invite only.

You are right, it isn't GTAO,  It is made by the same people, using the same model.   Why would you think they would do things different?  Maybe, they will be different.  Maybe they will have a better solution.  We don't know the plan.   I have played games where PvP players got a special mission or mode and PvE players got excluded.  PvP argued that it wouldn't work, PvE players gave examples how it would.  The game company did nothing. 

They create separate lobbies, according to their track record, they would treat them different and punish the PvE players.   

[HuDawg]

15 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

  Sounds to me you just enjoy the griefing others part, especially if it's against their will.

Yes.. I do.   I love the griefers.  I already explained that.

I DEFEND their right to shoot me in the back..  Its their choice.   

Just as its my choice to defend myself.. Kill them.  Drag their corpse back to my fire in camp.  Hack off their limbs.. Roast their dead ass on a fire and while I sing Yankee Doodle Went to Town.

Players like you should not be in lobbies like that.  You need your own lobby to play peacefully in.  That isn't band aid.  That's a solution.

 

[YodaMan 3D]

4 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

Yes.. I do.   I love the griefers.  I already explained that.

I DEFEND their right to shoot me in the back..  Its their choice.   

Just as its my choice to defend myself.. Kill them.  Drag their corpse back to my fire in camp.  Hack off their limbs.. Roast their dead ass on a fire and while I sing Yankee Doodle Went to Town.

Players like you should not be in lobbies like that.  You need your own lobby to play peacefully in.  That isn't band aid.  That's a solution.

I'm not saying that option shouldn't be available.  They attack you, you attack them.  I just saying that isn't "anything can happen", if that is the only thing that is going to happen.  I just believe if a PvP player wants to PvP, his choice of targets shouldn't always be "the Easiest Target".   In a PvEvP, it isn't just suppose to be a PvP only.   Otherwise, it would be called PvP.  A player should be able to target whoever they want upto the point.   Your fun shouldn't have to limit mine.  Not in a world where we are suppose to co-exist.  So the players your are defending, are out to ruin the game.  You support that choice.

[HuDawg]

15 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

I'm not saying that option shouldn't be available.  They attack you, you attack them.  I just saying that isn't "anything can happen", if that is the only thing that is going to happen.  I just believe if a PvP player wants to PvP, his choice of targets shouldn't always be "the Easiest Target"

Doesn't matter who the target it is.. Its not FFA if you try and control it.   

You're conflating competitive pvp with free for all pvp. They are not the same thing.

You obviously want Friendly Lobbies..   Doesn't  matter if pvp content is blocked in friendly lobbies.. Guess what?  You can always switch lobbies and play what ever you want.

 

[Kean_1]

39 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

This isn't GTA O tho.. The people complaining about griefers in RDO just want to fish, hunt and explore in peace.    (Which friendly and private lobbies would allow)

If R* adds PVP missions.. then of course they won't allow it in Invite only or friendly lobbies.  

The people complaining about griefing are folks like me too.  .....and I'll tell ya, we want to be able to do more than just hunt/fish/forage without having to interact with randoms.   

This is obviously not GTA but they could still use that game as a model for RDO in regard to private sessions which is why I bring it up.

1 hour ago, HuDawg said:

The problem with GTA O  some of the game modes only playable in public sessions..   Some made sense, some didn't.    But the bulk of the game can be played in invite only.

That is exactly the problem and if they ever do create private session options, you know they are likely going to borrow more than a couple things they learned from the GTA playbook.

....and btw, there is a big chunk locked behind public sessions in GTA.  All of the VP and CEO activities for starters which is a huge part of what makes GTAVO fun.  The issue is that you have to play in public servers with randoms to take part in any of that.  Even with many of them making you contend with NPCs, you still have randoms that can be way stronger than you ruin your hard work.  There is really no balance and that to me is absolutely no fun.  ......and private sessions do nothing to solve that problem except exclude those players from fully enjoying what the game offers.  There will never be a complete online experience in private modes if R* follows the same guidelines with RDO. 

This argument is going in circles though. 

With all due respect because I get your desire to keep Free Roam the way it is (although I don't agree), it makes no difference to me at this point to convince you of why we prefer more balance to Free Roam. What matters to me is the fact that R* has already acknowledged the griefing problem and is committed to implementing solutions that (hopefully) will help mitigate the problem of randoms who "grief and kill indiscriminately".  Again, R*s description of the problem, not mine.

It's clear to me that R* doesn't want RDO to be the crap show (as I believe you once put it) that public sessions are/were in previous titles.  With GTA still co-existing alongside RDO, I don't see why they would want it to be.  I really do think they would prefer to take a more balanced approach with RDO but no one will know for sure until this game really starts to get more content and options.

 

 

[HuDawg]

2 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

  All of the VP and CEO activities for starters which is a huge part of what makes GTAVO fun.  The issue is that you have to play in public servers with randoms to take part in any of that.  Even with many of them making you contend with NPCs, you still have randoms that can be way stronger than you ruin your hard work.  

I just want to point out.. That even if R* does follow the same VIP/CEO/BIker missions set up.

This isn't GTA O.   Its not like you will have to deliver weed across the entire map in a slow ass mini van while someone in a fighter jet targets your ass.

Also as far as GTA O goes.. It went down hill after heists.  Game has flying weaponized bikes now..   That would be like adding flying unicorns that shoot cannon balls out its ass in Red Dead O.

[YodaMan 3D]

5 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

I just want to point out.. That even if R* does follow the same VIP/CEO/BIker missions set up.

This isn't GTA O.   Its not like you will have to deliver weed across the entire map in a slow ass mini van while someone in a fighter jet targets your ass.

Also as far as GTA O goes.. It went down hill after heists.  Game has flying weaponized bikes now..   That would be like adding flying unicorns that shoot cannon balls out its ass in Red Dead O.

I hope they don't add those weapons of mass destruction, but they are coming out with a War Wagon.  Which may be nothing to concern ourselves with.  Yet then again, it could be a stepping stone upto flying Unicorns that poops bombs.  Which includes another weapon for griefing, which at that point you may have no defense or offense to combat it.   Changes are coming and we don't know how good or how bad.

[YodaMan 3D]

21 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

Doesn't matter who the target it is.. Its not FFA if you try and control it.   

You're conflating competitive pvp with free for all pvp. They are not the same thing.

You obviously want Friendly Lobbies..   Doesn't  matter if pvp content is blocked in friendly lobbies.. Guess what?  You can always switch lobbies and play what ever you want.

 

I don't mind the idea of friendly lobbies.   Your idea of run, run, run away to another lobby to me shows ignorance.  Your concern for having accountability for your actions and it removing your free for all is false.  PvEvP doesn't mean you shouldn't have accountability for your actions.  Giving a PvE player another option to deal and create separation that doesn't require them to run off to another lobby.  Is just short sighted,  In PvEvP, there really needs to be a balance of some sort.  It does need to be controlled to the point it doesn't affect PvP choices, but right now Griefers limit PvE choices, they really eliminate options for those players.