Time for a huge question to be answered.

[BropolloCreed79]

28 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:

I understand if your playstyle is PVE....but why play games that force you to PVP too? I don’t know why you would do that to yourself. 

The larger issue with The Division was the introduction of gear sets that were specifically designed for a pigeon-holed game play experience.  Either you farmed and maxed out PvP gear, or you farmed and maxed out end-game PvE gear--there was no balance between the sets.  Players who hadn't farmed or learned the PvP mechanics and built their character around PvE endgame content (i.e. "Legendaries" or "Raids") didn't stand much of a chance against a player in the DZ who was built to melt them down.  

Think back to the imbalance issues with things like a full set of D3 armer being mulched by Striker, or any of the other trendy "DZ" builds.  Then they started nerfing skills and abilities for the DZ and gimped PvE gameplay, or they buffed enemies to the point that it took two whole mags to burn down an NPC.  Meanwhile, a Rogue could mow you down with half a mag from behind.  That's not balanced game play, and it was a major issue with the game for a LONG time.

 

Just now, HuDawg said:

 

 

Is it wrong that I think of New Jack from ECW when I see the title of this video, let alone hear the song.

Still the most impressive wrestler I've ever seen perform live.

[Savage_Reaper]

23 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

I disagree.    They should parley, leave the area or leave the game.    They crossed that imaginary line the moment they opened fire depending one how and when they shot.

Lol?

Maybe I do need a shrink.  This is my brain when I start fighting against griefers..

 

Dope song and I feel the same way. Guess we both need the same Dr.....lol. 

Meet the Monster by Five Finger Death Punch .......sums up my mood as well in RDRo when I get popped unprovoked. Lol

Edited January 28, 2019 by Savage_Reaper

[KylesDad7]

On 1/27/2019 at 10:05 AM, Cliffs said:

So without attacking me the OP, just what is it you expected from an online shooting game?

I think that's the problem right there. This isn't an online shooting game. COD is. Far Cry is. Over Watch is. I would classify RDO as more of a Western Sim. Yes, there can be and should be a "you can get shot at anytime" component, but that isn't the focus of the game. It's also something that I should be able to opt INTO. Sometimes I'm on to fish for a few hours to gain enough money to buy that new gun I want. It's hard to do and gets annoying when some random comes up and kills me. I could ALMOST see the pointif there was some type of benefit to the "griefer". I'm all for PVP, WHEN I WANT to be in PVP, not when some jerky-jerk decides I should be.

Edited January 28, 2019 by KylesDad7
Extra thought.

[Netnow66]

29 minutes ago, KylesDad7 said:

I think that's the problem right there. This isn't an online shooting game.

That says it all right there.

[jnaron_ngc]

No it is an FFA game. FreeForAll, which sucks for loners with a shitty DSL speed and tons of disconnects

[CrabApples]

I get the realistic aspect they are going for and how the game is meant to work. I don't mind getting into shootouts and what not but when I am minding my own business in the middle of the woods and I have a trio of dudes harassing me, messing with me, or killing me repetitively... It gets old fast.

[madfretter]

On 1/27/2019 at 10:05 AM, Cliffs said:

So without attacking me the OP, just what is it you expected from an online shooting game?

I think the issue is that a lot of people consider this an online shooting game, which it is not. Call of duty is an online shooting game. RDR is an immersive online adventure game  that has far too many other aspects  to be considered just a shooter. Hunting, gathering, fishing, eating, animal care,  treasure hunts,  a compendium of animals  and goals to complete.. the list goes on. Call of duty is an online shooting game because that is the main focus, requiring minimal other activities to complete the game. It is impossible to complete RDR2 without doing the things I listed above.  Just because RDR2 used shooting as the base to build upon does not make it a shooting game anymore than  Madden 19 is a running simulator.

So, with that being said, I'll answer your question. I  expect this game to be treated and developed into the open world, historical, interactive game that it was designed to be and not  into yet another mindless run and gun shooter that requires nothing more than all of our available free time to memorize the spawn points and map  and a ton of Mountain Dew.

[YodaMan 3D]

2 minutes ago, madfretter said:

I think the issue is that a lot of people consider this an online shooting game, which it is not. Call of duty is an online shooting game. RDR is an immersive online adventure game  that has far too many other aspects  to be considered just a shooter. Hunting, gathering, fishing, eating, animal care,  treasure hunts,  a compendium of animals  and goals to complete.. the list goes on. Call of duty is an online shooting game because that is the main focus, requiring minimal other activities to complete the game. It is impossible to complete RDR2 without doing the things I listed above.  Just because RDR2 used shooting as the base to build upon does not make it a shooting game anymore than  Madden 19 is a running simulator.

So, with that being said, I'll answer your question. I  expect this game to be treated and developed into the open world, historical, interactive game that it was designed to be and not  into yet another mindless run and gun shooter that requires nothing more than all of our available free time to memorize the spawn points and map  and a ton of Mountain Dew.

Yet if players treat it like a run and gun and ignore the rest.  It isn't just what the Devs envisioned, but how the players see it and treat it.  All the things you mentioned, there are players, who have stated it isn't what you said and they don't treat it as that.

[madfretter]

16 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Yet if players treat it like a run and gun and ignore the rest.  It isn't just what the Devs envisioned, but how the players see it and treat it.  All the things you mentioned, there are players, who have stated it isn't what you said and they don't treat it as that.

That is very true. People are going to pick out  the aspect of them game that they like most. Which is what makes this game awesome. R* just needs to make sure all aspects can be played without treading on the others.

[Renascent]

I played an mmo built around pvp. It ran strong for a long time, the only reason why it's in decline is due to the company being greedy and them focusing on their other games. There will always no matter what developers do, be a huge clash between pvpers and pvers. People always think that "oh once the pvers are gone what will the griefers/pvpers have left?" There's always gonna be someone to kill.

[BropolloCreed79]

1 hour ago, madfretter said:

and a ton of Mountain Dew.

Thou shalt not disparage thine life-force sustaining refreshment.  May The Dew of the Mountain flow forth freely that thine people may drink of it and have their extreme thirst be quenched.  May their energy be replenished, and their vigor restored.

23 minutes ago, Renascent said:

. People always think that "oh once the pvers are gone what will the griefers/pvpers have left?"

That has not been my experience.

Looking at The Division, skilled PvP players looking for a challenge tend to play Last Stand, the dedicated PvP mode.  Trolls and griefers play in The Dark Zone, actively looking for easy prey, often hunting in packs against solo or unorganized players.  Once PvE players no longer had to venture into the DZ to obtain gated loot, the PvE population in the DZ dwindled, and now, it's literally packs of Rogue Agents looking for solo players, and griping about "how much it sucks" now that there's nobody to kill.

RDRO is NOT a "PvEvP" environment.  It's straight up PvP.  PvEvP infers that the PvE crowd has an option or a choice, but there is NO choice, no dedicated PvE mode.  The entire game is built to PvP gameplay, and that's fine, but R* should not market the game as having something for everyone to lure PvE players or folks looking for a western-themed RPG into what is essentially a reskin of GTA Online.

Edit: and you could have at least quoted me on that, since I just said it in this thread yesterday.

[HuDawg]

6 minutes ago, madfretter said:

That is very true. People are going to pick out  the aspect of them game that they like most. Which is what makes this game awesome. R* just needs to make sure all aspects can be played without treading on the others.

That's why this game needs private sessions.     Hell it needed it on day one.  Including free aim lobbies.

But R* is too busy milking the beta.

15 hours ago, KylesDad7 said:

I think that's the problem right there. This isn't an online shooting game. COD is. Far Cry is. Over Watch is. I would classify RDO as more of a Western Sim. 

To be fair this is a shooting game.. in an open world wild west setting.      This game does have more in common with Far Cry than Over Watch.  

Still, when RD O starts.  You're a criminal in jail, who gets freed and given weapons to KILL people.    

[BropolloCreed79]

6 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

But R* is too busy milking the beta.

Word.

 

[Renascent]

4 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

Thou shalt not disparage thine life-force sustaining refreshment.  May The Dew of the Mountain flow forth freely that thine people may drink of it and have their extreme thirst be quenched.  May their energy be replenished, and their vigor restored.

That has not been my experience.

Looking at The Division, skilled PvP players looking for a challenge tend to play Last Stand, the dedicated PvP mode.  Trolls and griefers play in The Dark Zone, actively looking for easy prey, often hunting in packs against solo or unorganized players.  Once PvE players no longer had to venture into the DZ to obtain gated loot, the PvE population in the DZ dwindled, and now, it's literally packs of Rogue Agents looking for solo players, and griping about "how much it sucks" now that there's nobody to kill.

RDRO is NOT a "PvEvP" environment.  It's straight up PvP.  PvEvP infers that the PvE crowd has an option or a choice, but there is NO choice, no dedicated PvE mode.  The entire game is built to PvP gameplay, and that's fine, but R* should not market the game as having something for everyone to lure PvE players or folks looking for a western-themed RPG into what is essentially a reskin of GTA Online.

Well I'm also looking at games across PS4 and PC. I've played a lot of them and the games that are marketed for everyone but are very pvp heavy tend to hold up pretty well despite the pvers crying to water things down.

[YodaMan 3D]

On 1/29/2019 at 9:15 AM, BropolloCreed79 said:

Thou shalt not disparage thine life-force sustaining refreshment.  May The Dew of the Mountain flow forth freely that thine people may drink of it and have their extreme thirst be quenched.  May their energy be replenished, and their vigor restored.

That has not been my experience.

Looking at The Division, skilled PvP players looking for a challenge tend to play Last Stand, the dedicated PvP mode.  Trolls and griefers play in The Dark Zone, actively looking for easy prey, often hunting in packs against solo or unorganized players.  Once PvE players no longer had to venture into the DZ to obtain gated loot, the PvE population in the DZ dwindled, and now, it's literally packs of Rogue Agents looking for solo players, and griping about "how much it sucks" now that there's nobody to kill.

RDRO is NOT a "PvEvP" environment.  It's straight up PvP.  PvEvP infers that the PvE crowd has an option or a choice, but there is NO choice, no dedicated PvE mode.  The entire game is built to PvP gameplay, and that's fine, but R* should not market the game as having something for everyone to lure PvE players or folks looking for a western-themed RPG into what is essentially a reskin of GTA Online.

Edit: and you could have at least quoted me on that, since I just said it in this thread yesterday.

Yet it does have PvE, you can hunt, fish, or do story missions.   It isn't much of an option, but I agree Rockstar has focused heavily on the PvP side.

 

On 1/29/2019 at 8:55 AM, madfretter said:

That is very true. People are going to pick out  the aspect of them game that they like most. Which is what makes this game awesome. R* just needs to make sure all aspects can be played without treading on the others.

As much as I defend the PvE side, I also understand that IF Rockstar wants to FIX Griefing.  They really do need to be careful not to destroy the PvP and PvE players should realize that sometimes PvP will happen.  It just needs to come down to what Rockstar considers a fix.

If all the stories are true, after 9 years of focusing on this game and Rockstar forcing employees to work overtime.  All of this should have been done and beta shouldn't take 3 months.  Then again gaming has been changing for years and how the industry deals withit and players are willing to accept.

Edited January 30, 2019 by BropolloCreed79
Double Post

[madfretter]

40 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

That's why this game needs private sessions.     Hell it needed it on day one.  Including free aim lobbies.

But R* is too busy milking the beta.

To be fair this is a shooting game.. in an open world wild west setting.      This game does have more in common with Far Cry than Over Watch.  

Still, when RD O starts.  You're a criminal in jail, who gets freed and given weapons to KILL people.    

Yup, private lobbies are needed desperately.  They will give people a much needed break  from the PVP.  

I don't agree this is a shooting game though, it is a game that has shooting, but that's not the sole focus.

[Krisxr]

To the OP's question, I would like to do, or experience the same game that story mode provides with my friends, with out having to deal with others ruining our (myself & friends) experience. My hopes for Red Dead Online was to invite up to five friends to my story mode map, or theirs, and experience the masterpiece Rock* developers created, in a peer to peer system. Not the bare and bland experience of what it is now. I've played games since the 70's and discovered long ago co-op is way more fun than PVP. I have also played "guns" since I was a kid, and am quite frankly tiered of it.

[HuDawg]

14 minutes ago, madfretter said:

 I don't agree this is a shooting game though, it is a game that has shooting, but that's not the sole focus.

I don't think it needs to be the sole focus, but it is the games main focus in terms of game play.

 

[BropolloCreed79]

1 hour ago, Renascent said:

I've played a lot of them and the games that are marketed for everyone but are very pvp heavy tend to hold up pretty well despite the pvers crying to water things down.

There's a difference between marketing a game as authentically pvp, and saying there's pve gameplay, but then not providing it.

And you can disparage PvE players all you want, but the fact of the matter is, RDRO is being branded and marketed as a Western themed MMO.  Not everyone who enjoys a PvE experience is "crying to water things down", as you put it.  That's an elitist attitude, one born of an intentional blindness to altruism.  You and many others have repeatedly disparaged those seeking a PvE experience, clamoring for things to "not be watered down".  Perhaps you could provide a detailed explanation of what you desire/expect from the free roam experience.  Is it nothing but chaos?  The thrill of having to "watch your back"?  Or is it simply that you enjoy having the opprotunity to prey upon lower level characters or team up to harass solo players?  Not judging, I'd just like to have a clearer understanding of what your specific expectations and desires are for RDRO, because at the moment, R* has completely misrepresented what the experience was going to be to a large (perhaps half) of the potential player base.

The current game caters exclusively to PvP players.  Every single non-Free Roam game mode is a PvP mode.  Free Roam itself is a PvP mode.  There are literally no dedicated PvE elements, apart from isolated group missions, in the current Free Roam experience.  95% of the online content is geared towards PvP gameplay, so demanding things not be "watered down" is arguing in favor of maintaining a strict PvP status for the entirety of the experience, aside from a few isolated missions.  Or would like to be able to betray your teammates during those missions as well?

I have proposed many, many times that PvP/PvE status be a toggle for the player, subject to a 30 second cool down once out of combat.  To date, nobody has provided an effective rebuttal to this proposal.  Players who like the surprise element of Free Roam game play literally lose nothing.  PvP players can leave their toggle active and do whatever they please to other PvP flagged players.  PvE players can hunt and fish, or do missions in peace, without being shot in the back of the head exiting a cutscene before they can even orient themselves.  The only "loser" in this scenario is the troll/griefer who enjoys preying upon lower level or solo characters with a pack of cohorts.

So, to summarize:

[YodaMan 3D]

4 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

There's a difference between marketing a game as authentically pvp, and saying there's pve gameplay, but then not providing it.

And you can disparage PvE players all you want, but the fact of the matter is, RDRO is being branded and marketed as a Western themed MMO.  Not everyone who enjoys a PvE experience is "crying to water things down", as you put it.  That's an elitist attitude, one born of an intentional blindness to altruism.  You and many others have repeatedly disparaged those seeking a PvE experience, clamoring for things to "not be watered down".  Perhaps you could provide a detailed explanation of what you desire/expect from the free roam experience.  Is it nothing but chaos?  The thrill of having to "watch your back"?  Or is it simply that you enjoy having the opprotunity to prey upon lower level characters or team up to harass solo players?  Not judging, I'd just like to have a clearer understanding of what your specific expectations and desires are for RDRO, because at the moment, R* has completely misrepresented what the experience was going to be to a large (perhaps half) of the potential player base.

The current game caters exclusively to PvP players.  Every single non-Free Roam game mode is a PvP mode.  Free Roam itself is a PvP mode.  There are literally no dedicated PvE elements, apart from isolated group missions, in the current Free Roam experience.  95% of the online content is geared towards PvP gameplay, so demanding things not be "watered down" is arguing in favor of maintaining a strict PvP status for the entirety of the experience, aside from a few isolated missions.  Or would like to be able to betray your teammates during those missions as well?

I have proposed many, many times that PvP/PvE status be a toggle for the player, subject to a 30 second cool down once out of combat.  To date, nobody has provided an effective rebuttal to this proposal.  Players who like the surprise element of Free Roam game play literally lose nothing.  PvP players can leave their toggle active and do whatever they please to other PvP flagged players.  PvE players can hunt and fish, or do missions in peace, without being shot in the back of the head exiting a cutscene before they can even orient themselves.  The only "loser" in this scenario is the troll/griefer who enjoys preying upon lower level or solo characters with a pack of cohorts.

So, to summarize:

I can't say I hate this option, my concern would be I start to spawn in.  Griefer kills me before I am completely in.  I respawn and rinse and repeat.  Would I be in PvP or PvE?  Pending on how they define it, a player may never get to the chance to make the switch.  Exactly when you can originally select it would be good.

[HuDawg]

14 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

 

I have proposed many, many times that PvP/PvE status be a toggle for the player, subject to a 30 second cool down once out of combat.  To date, nobody has provided an effective rebuttal to this proposal.

 

1st.  It really splits the player base in one game mode. Players who want like the FFA feel of the game are now in game with passive players.  Those two types of players IMO should not be in the same lobby.  Because in both cases they are taking up in game slots.  It would make more sense for dedicated lobbies for each option.

2nd.  Passive players can still annoy other players.  By shooting animals they are hunting or blowing up fishes where they are fishing for.  And now theres NO real way to deal with or punish these players besides leaving the game.  

Edited January 29, 2019 by HuDawg

[madfretter]

18 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

I don't think it needs to be the sole focus, but it is the games main focus in terms of game play.

 

Idk... I mean, I ride my horse more than I fire my guns, depends on the player.

[Savage_Reaper]

So basically you will have to have a whole different mode. Every mission can be tampered with the exception of a few. The game actual rewards you for doing so. So players that are afraid of player interaction will either need a whole different server . As it is now, you take a money bag mission and another player takes your bag, he is a griefer (in many eyes). 

[HuDawg]

Just now, madfretter said:

Idk... I mean, I ride my horse more than I fire my guns, depends on the player.

Well IMO its not about what you do most.   

In Story mode.. How many main story missions involve shooting?  You can't progress without killing NPCS.

In Online.  Co-op mission is about shooting.   PVP game modes obviously about shooting.

Even in races people shoot

 

 

[Savage_Reaper]

4 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

Well IMO its not about what you do most.   

In Story mode.. How many main story missions involve shooting?  You can't progress without killing NPCS.

In Online.  Co-op mission is about shooting.   PVP game modes obviously about shooting.

Even in races people shoot

 

 

Exactly. Hell Ch.6 is all about killing. 

[BropolloCreed79]

23 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

I can't say I hate this option, my concern would be I start to spawn in.  Griefer kills me before I am completely in.  I respawn and rinse and repeat.  Would I be in PvP or PvE?  Pending on how they define it, a player may never get to the chance to make the switch.  Exactly when you can originally select it would be good.

Have everyone's default status set to PvE when it's rolled out.  PvE players get what they want, and PvP players get the opportunity to activate at their leisure--which provides plenty of strategic opportunities if you think about it.

19 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

1st.  It really splits the player base in one game mode. Players who want like the FFA feel of the game are now in game with passive players.  Those two types of players IMO should not be in the same lobby.  Because in both cases they are taking up in game slots.  It would make more sense for dedicated lobbies for each option.

That's not a logical argument.  FFA players are already in the game with passive players--the passive players don't actively seek out PvP opportunities, so FFA players are simply looking to impose their will on players who want nothing to do with it.  All you get now is the coercion of passive players into attempting to defend themselves (if they're even given the opportunity to do so).  FFA players have no idea what a player's intentions are, so by having them toggled PvE, literally nothing changes, except for their ability to be ganged up on or shot in the back while off hunting/fishing/etc....  As long as there's no distinguishing feature or identifiers if a player is PvE or PvP, that element of FFA remains because you'll never know what to expect.

Unless you're advocating for the ability to indiscriminately murder other players as you see fit, there's not a logical argument there.  That's an argument for straight up PvP--calling it FFA is gilding the lily; just say you want PvP in Free Roam or dedicated servers.  I'm trying to avoid having dedicated servers because once that road is traveled, there will be a push by the PvP community to have modifiers like increased XP gains, or nerfs to PvE servers because of the ability to farm or stat boost in peace.  That's a dangerous precedent, and it creates a caste system within the game.  Bigger posses that run amok on a server can rack up XP with impunity by harrying smaller or less well equipped posses/gangs.  If that's what R* wants and intends, fine, but until they make a clear, definitive statement about their intentions, I wouldn't expect separate lobbies anytime soon.

28 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

2nd.  Passive players can still annoy other players.  By shooting animals they are hunting or blowing up fishes where they are fishing for.  And now theres NO real way to deal with or punish these players besides leaving the game.

Loot tagging systems have been around forever.  The simplest solution would be that if you "tag" a target by hitting it, any loot pulled from it is replicated and placed in your inventory if you're anywhere near it when it's looted.  It actually would make more sense, in that a posse or group out hunting would have the benefit of not having to split loot or have everyone dismount and loot.  If two groups or unallied players are chasing the same animal, whoever kills it with one shot DESERVES the loot.  And locking looting behind the tagging system would prevent people from stealing someone else's loot.

As for the fish thing?  No system is perfect, but do you honestly expect full posses to roll up on lone fishermen and sit there tossing dynamite into a lake or stream? Trolling is going to exist no matter what they do, but mitigating things like spawn camping when players can't even defend themselves (like coming out of a cutscene) is WAAAAAAY different than ganking someone's fish or deer.  A toggle addresses that.  

The argument for a separate lobby is all well and good, but I'd be wary about that because the same people accusing PvE players of "whining" are going to start whining themselves for extra XP or special status for paying in a PvP or FFA lobby instead of a PvE one; mark my words.

 

[Netnow66]

44 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

I can't say I hate this option, my concern would be I start to spawn in.  Griefer kills me before I am completely in.  I respawn and rinse and repeat.  Would I be in PvP or PvE?  Pending on how they define it, a player may never get to the chance to make the switch.  Exactly when you can originally select it would be good.

Well, my request for PvE servers still stands--and gets sent to Rockstar every day with the name of the horse's rear griefer that killed me most recently.

But I think this toggle thing might work, too. I think someone mentioned WoW awhile ago. If I remember, didn't/doesn't it have something similar?

The toggle for PvE would be on naturally, correct, allowing me to spawn in without one of the griefing murdering bullies popping me in the noggin? I'm willing to try anything after the mess we have now.

Played for about five hours this morning, the first four or so just fishing and hunting--did the fast travel lobby to avoid the little griefers but they eventually started dotting up my map. Time to go...

During those first four hours of just hunting and fishing, I'm not sure of the XP gained but I managed to reach full maximum honor. Hunting and fishing. (So I guess the only safe On Call mission to do now is "Kill Them All..." if I want to keep it at maximum, right? Rats!!)

And yeah, I shot some animals but I would never marginalize or oversimplify this game by calling it a shooting game. If you read the promo material, that's not even the takeaway either. Rockstar mentioned "fun and fair environment for everyone" and "Explore the world solo or with friends." I say, let's have that. Toggle switch or separate PvE servers, I don't care.

But this game needs something done.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by Netnow66
added On Call for clarity

[YodaMan 3D]

33 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

 

1st.  It really splits the player base in one game mode. Players who want like the FFA feel of the game are now in game with passive players.  Those two types of players IMO should not be in the same lobby.  Because in both cases they are taking up in game slots.  It would make more sense for dedicated lobbies for each option.

2nd.  Passive players can still annoy other players.  By shooting animals they are hunting or blowing up fishes where they are fishing for.  And now theres NO real way to deal with or punish these players besides leaving the game.  

Actually, it is griefing and Rockstar could just fix it and both players could continue playing the game they want to play.  Separate lobbies could help but once again.  It is not discouraging griefing.

[BropolloCreed79]

44 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:

So basically you will have to have a whole different mode. Every mission can be tampered with the exception of a few. The game actual rewards you for doing so. So players that are afraid of player interaction will either need a whole different server . As it is now, you take a money bag mission and another player takes your bag, he is a griefer (in many eyes). 

I wouldn't go that far.  But it's an argument why separate servers isn't the answer.  You'd be flagged for PvP for the duration of the mission, but would revert to PvE at it's end if that is your status prior to starting it.  This also prevents you from being shot in the back of the head when you exit the cutscene  before being able to defend yourself (something that happens to me at LEAST half of the time, which is, frankly, Bravo Sierra).

10 minutes ago, Netnow66 said:

I think someone mentioned WoW awhile ago.

That was me.  My argument is, "if it works for the most successful MMO of all time, it should be good enough for this."

5 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

It is not discouraging griefing.

An important point, because the many of the same griefing activities that could be carried out in a toggle system would exist in a PvE environment as well, so the argument to separate the two into different servers is ineffective because it literally changes nothing except for gimping griefers/trolls.

[HuDawg]

2 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

 

Loot tagging systems have been around forever.  The simplest solution would be that if you "tag" a target by hitting it, any loot pulled from it is replicated and placed in your inventory if you're anywhere near it when it's looted.  It actually would make more sense, in that a posse or group out hunting would have the benefit of not having to split loot or have everyone dismount and loot.  If two groups or unallied players are chasing the same animal, whoever kills it with one shot DESERVES the loot.  And locking looting behind the tagging system would prevent people from stealing someone else's loot.

As for the fish thing?  No system is perfect, but do you honestly expect full posses to roll up on lone fishermen and sit there tossing dynamite into a lake or stream? Trolling is going to exist no matter what they do, but mitigating things like spawn camping when players can't even defend themselves (like coming out of a cutscene) is WAAAAAAY different than ganking someone's fish or deer.  A toggle addresses that.  

The argument for a separate lobby is all well and good, but I'd be wary about that because the same people accusing PvE players of "whining" are going to start whining themselves for extra XP or special status for paying in a PvP or FFA lobby instead of a PvE one; mark my words.

 

Well il put it like this.

You're hunting alone with passive mode.  I decide im gonna follow you around and just annoy you.   You try and hunt.. im gonna blast every animal I see with a carbine rifle.   Stop and fish.. im gonna toss TNT in the water.   At the same time, im gonna say things that get on your nerves.  

This can also be done with the shoe on the other foot.  Im not passive.. with pvp enabled.  And you decide to follow me around and do the same thing.  I can't do anything about it.

6 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

  FFA players are already in the game with passive players--the passive players don't actively seek out PvP opportunities, so FFA players are simply looking to impose their will on players who want nothing to do with it.  All you get now is the coercion of passive players into attempting to defend themselves (if they're even given the opportunity to do so).  FFA players have no idea what a player's intentions are, 

 

IMO You can't be passive in this game, but you can be friendly.  And if you're not willing to toss hot lead into someone ass the moment they look at you wrong. Then I think people are playing the wrong game.   I think the bulk of the player base prefers FFA..   Since its been how R* has designed their public free roam sessions for 10 years.

 

11 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

 

The argument for a separate lobby is all well and good, but I'd be wary about that because the same people accusing PvE players of "whining" are going to start whining themselves for extra XP or special status for paying in a PvP or FFA lobby instead of a PvE one; mark my words.

 

 

Well depends what they are talking about.  Free Roam mission are mostly designed with FFA PVP in mind.   IMO it makes no sense to allow those mission in PVE or private lobbies.    Unless they tweak these mission to work differently in PVE session with more NPCS spawning to attack players.

But as far fishing and hunting goes.. It makes zero sense to nerf payouts as it not a pvp activity and has nothing to do with pvp.