Time for a huge question to be answered.

[madfretter]

46 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

 

 

In story mode.. how many main story missions involve riding your horse?   Doing menial supply missions for the group? Can't progress without doing those either.  I'm not going to try and convince you the game isn't a shooter. It's set in the old west, of course it involves guns and shooting,,, but it involves alot more than just that. My point is that this game isn't just a shooter.

Edited January 29, 2019 by madfretter

[HuDawg]

20 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

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.

How do you get griefed in private lobbies tho?

Nothing can be done to stop griefing.  Because I can find away around it.  Every single idea, I can find a way.  

And if someone annoys me.. and I can't put a bullet between their eyes when they do it.. then its not good idea.

Edited January 29, 2019 by HuDawg

[Kean_1]

I like the suggestions from @BropolloCreed79 and even if they need tweaking to make them work, at least they are suggestions to help bring about some semblance of balance in Free Roam.  .....and contrary to what some will believe, balance is all some of us really want (not a totally neutered experience for those who like the PvP element). I like the fact that instead of shooting down ideas, he's at least trying to find ones that work for all.

As far as R*s vision, they have stated that RDO was a mode for all and I've quoted their marketing them time and time again.  If their descriptions are to be taken at their word, they didn't intend Free Roam to be a free for all from the outset.  Perhaps they thought player interactions would be a more organic experience than it turned out to be but if they were OK with the current indiscriminate killing/trolling, they wouldn't be working on "anti-griefing" measures.  

Speaking of which, I'm interested to see what they have planned for the posse system.  It sounded to me that they may be planning to integrate other players into the mix as lawmen when bounties are issued.  IMO, this should be something true PvP'ers would see as a challenge as they could take on the role of a real outlaw or as lawmen helping to protect other players in the session.  Personally, I would think PvP'ers would welcome the challenge while true griefers, not so much.  

[YodaMan 3D]

27 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

How do you get griefed in private lobbies tho?

Nothing can be done to stop griefing.  Because I can find away around it.  Every single idea, I can find a way.  

And if someone annoys me.. and I can't put a bullet between their eyes when they do it.. then its not good idea.

If playing solo.  I can't.  Then again I won't be playing the game at all.  I play for the interaction with others.  Now in a lobby with other players, as you stated else where.  Players can grief and ruin your fishing and hunting experiences with dynamite or unloading with guns.  

You really shouldn't be so closeminded, you can fix griefing just because you don't have the answer doesn't mean one isn't out there.  As far as you can grief regardless of plans.  Thing is you don't have to grief.  It is your choice and is the reason why, if Rockstar holds true and says they want to fix the griefing, I am sure there are ways they can fix it.  

So when a level 1 player gets griefed by a 7 man posse and because their cards make them immune to his bullets.  I guess that player just should never of bought the game.  Still a player's need to grief can and should be handled and Rockstar has the ability, if they really want to fix griefing.  Suggestions have been made and any one of the ones I suggested would fix it.  Sad part is that griefers would whine and probably quit the game or they would be more driven to face off with PvP players.

[HuDawg]

5 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

If playing solo.  I can't.  Then again I won't be playing the game at all.  I play for the interaction with others.

No one said you have to play solo.

 

Sorry dude.. I don't get it.   The main interaction between players in this game is either friendly emotes or gun shots.  This isn't My Little Pony Princess Adventure land.

 

 

[BropolloCreed79]

Just now, HuDawg said:

This isn't My Little Pony Princess Adventure land.

Nice.  I use a similar argument when people complain about violence in "The Punisher" and think it's gratuitous.  The response is always along the lines of "He's 'The Punisher', not "The Kitten Cuddler".  So your point is well taken.

But I think what @YodaMan 3D is referring to is a more collaborative gameplay experience, like being in a group or posse and tackling missions together or raiding enemy hideouts as a group activity.

I think we can all agree that the core gameplay mechanic that's available in the current beta is significantly lacking for things to do, apart from griefing, which is why I think it's so prevalent.  People are already maxed out and have hundreds of thousands of dollars saved up, and they have NOTHING better to do at this point.

The game needs the MMO equivalent of raids or gated instanced content that is immersive and takes an hour or more to complete, not a bunch of five minute missions to retrieve a boat, guard a wagon, or a quick firefight with some hobos in the woods.

Let's have a prolonged siege of the forts, or robbing an armored and well defended train.  Add a mission for 5+ players to defend one of the military forts or hold out for reinforcements in a prolonged, difficult engagement with a numerically superior enemy (not all unlike a horde mode, but with preset "win" conditions).  There's so much potential for the missions in the online mode, and what we've seen from the beta has been, largely, lazy and uninspired.  

But boy are they sure happy to take our money when we buy gold bars!  "Here's a new handkerchief, some sparkly suspenders, and a knock-kneed horse, now go out and replay the exact same content again!"

[HuDawg]

3 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

Nice.  I use a similar argument when people complain about violence in "The Punisher" and think it's gratuitous.  The response is always along the lines of "He's 'The Punisher', not "The Kitten Cuddler".  So your point is well taken.

That reminds me.. I need to go binge watch S2 of The Kitten Cuddler.. I mean.. Punisher. 

 

Alls I know is. If I was in charge.  There would be TWO different game modes with a balanced amount of content for both PVE and PVP players in those free roam modes.

I can think of a ton of pve content for pve free roam.   Even just a few minor things and changes.

Its gonna be a long couple months ain't it.. 

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by HuDawg

[YodaMan 3D]

4 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

No one said you have to play solo.

 

Sorry dude.. I don't get it.   The main interaction between players in this game is either friendly emotes or gun shots.  This isn't My Little Pony Princess Adventure land.

 

 

That is it exactly.  You don't get it.  You apparently have never, just been out hunting or fishing and had other players near by doing their own thing and neither of you having to interrupt what each other is doing.  That is player interaction.  You apparently have never been riding along and seen a hideout pop up, head over and see another player being pinned down by the NPCs and decide that, "hey I think I will draw agro and ride away.  Giving the other player the chance to get back on his feet and finish the hideout and grabbing their rewards.  You just don't understand that being on a same server doesn't require you to intervene in their fun.  

To you, it moves, I shoot it dies.  You don't get that not all palyers are level 100 with everything unlocked and are at a huge advantage over a player just starting out.    

You also don't get that creating private servers that Rockstar won't punish those players who use them, by docking xp or loot or blocking content.  You just don't get it.  All of this Rockstar has been doing for a very long time and this is the 1st time they have made a statement that they want to FIX griefing.   You don't get that either.   

Yeah it will change how we play PvP a little, but if done correctly.  We won't notice the difference after a few hours of playing.   Now a PvEvP, does get that.   They understand they have the power to make a difference on who or what they shoot at.

[madfretter]

1 hour 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.  

 I'm torn on this. one part of me wants to be able to pop into a pve mode, but part of me also sees where people will use this to grief and then  go safe themselves. But I guess it wouldn't matter if I was pvp myself.  I would only use this option when I am hunting and fishing. Other than that I'd have it on, when I'm riding around and what not. 

 

 You bring up a really good point about the passive griefing, because the shooting does scare every animal in the area away, which sucks for all players. I still think the private lobbies are the way to go, adding more xp/cash for doing the same things in pvp servers.

[Born Vigorous]

On 1/28/2019 at 10:28 AM, Born Homicidal said:

fair enough, I personally believe that if Free Aim was a choice in server preferences there would be less people who would get annoyed at people trying to PvP because as stated all anyone has to do is ride up and blast you, some people cant even escape it. just constant abuse.

if people actually had to aim then those who don't wish to fight or aren't in the mood for PvP then they can easily escape. Thats the True fix for all of these problems, hell even add the option for auto aim on Npcs for those who just want to play PvE.

not saying get rid of auto aim servers, i really don't care if people choose to play that way (wouldn't be the norm if they had introduced the game without it), but definitely need to have free aim lobbies. I don't see a  point in Private lobbies in this game however but idk I personally never wanted them so I have no real opinion on them.

 

Exactly, Red Dead 1 had Hardcore (free aim) lobbies, so why not simply keep an old model that works. It's really not a problem until they have to retroactively change something they already presented and committed to, but its not too late.

Theres obviously huge advantages to having Hardcore lobbies that goes much deeper than just skill with aiming. People are less likely to simply blast a friendly roleplayer in the face if they are afraid of having a real fight on their hands and can't hold their own. Battles/feuds will be super intense and against auto-aim, you cant juke or outrun anyone with the slightly clunky cover system. Kills would have more weight to them, roleplaying and immersion automatically increases.

If players/devs really have a problem with auto aim being too hard for players then compromise with a very light narrow aim assist on horseback only. Or light auto aim on npcs only. Personally I prefer sniping (which is already challenging) so even if I was an auto-aimer I wouldn't be able to play the way I want to play and use that to my advantage. 

[madfretter]

11 minutes ago, Born Vigorous said:

Exactly, Red Dead 1 had Hardcore (free aim) lobbies, so why not simply keep an old model that works. It's really not a problem until they have to retroactively change something they already presented and committed to, but its not too late.

Theres obviously huge advantages to having Hardcore lobbies that goes much deeper than just skill with aiming. People are less likely to simply blast a friendly roleplayer in the face if they are afraid of having a real fight on their hands and can't hold their own. Battles/feuds will be super intense and against auto-aim, you cant juke or outrun anyone with the slightly clunky cover system. Kills would have more weight to them, roleplaying and immersion automatically increases.

If players/devs really have a problem with auto aim being too hard for players then compromise with a very light narrow aim assist on horseback only. Or light auto aim on npcs only. Personally I prefer sniping (which is already challenging) so even if I was an auto-aimer I wouldn't be able to play the way I want to play and use that to my advantage. 

If R* split the servers and made half of them free aim , there would be a mass migration of trolls to the auto aim servers, leaving the rest of us in peace.  Which I would be totally ok with.

[Born Vigorous]

9 minutes ago, madfretter said:

If R* split the servers and made half of them free aim , there would be a mass migration of trolls to the auto aim servers, leaving the rest of us in peace.  Which I would be totally ok with.

Absolutely. And part of my point is that its not a new idea, and has benefits. Naming the mode “Hardcore” as before also makes it sound badass and draws players in. 

I would even go a step farther and have a reduced radar that only shows players when shooting or sprinting. (Keep the red glow) maybe on the actual map it could just have a soft red area as well

 

[Cliffs]

8 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

That is it exactly.  You don't get it.  You apparently have never, just been out hunting or fishing and had other players near by doing their own thing and neither of you having to interrupt what each other is doing.  That is player interaction. 

I have to ask, just how is this player interaction? It is more like player inaction.

I think some of you are missing my point. What most of you keep describing as what you want for gameplay is like the solo side of the game. Online should be different than the solo gameplay IMO. Think about the NPCs in solo, most of them are ready to draw down on you if you stop or bump into them...in online, they are all friendly, so the only "bad" guys to look for in this western style game are other online players.

To stem grieving R should have a workable bounty system. Online does not have one like in the solo game. There is no ingame punishment for slaughtering everybody.

[Renascent]

19 hours 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:

First off I'm not naturally into pvp. I used to be one of the pvers back in the day. I was so bad at pvp people that would get matched with me in pvp group modes would leave or kill themselves to get away from me lol. But at some point I decided to get better, and that's where my love of pvp began. It's an acquired taste for me. I expect rdr to be a wild west, keyword wild. There's no surprise element in toggle pvp when you know exactly who is gonna attack you. Then you'll have those people who will use the passive mode to get close to you then go into pvp mode and kill you. 

No I am not a griefer or bully. Hell, I yell at my friends and posse members all the time about killing people who aren't doing anything to us. I like having to determine who's friendly and who's hostile. I like looking over my shoulder. I like that challenge. I do however advocate for private lobbies. It's worked in other games I've played.

I'm rank 99 now and I've gone through hell and back to get here. It feels good because I busted my ass to get this far. Also there is a way to hunt and do pve stuff with friends without being attacked. Not sure if they will ever patch it over, but for the time being it's a bandaid for everyone having trouble doing pve.

(I'm at work so I may not have touched on everything you asked for)

[Euphoric77]

As outlined in several posts before there is a thin line between actual PVP and "griefing". To me personally getting Free aim servers is the best solution for the PVE crowd. This will indeed significantly reduce the real griefing moments like insta kill on respawn and / the cutscene pop outs. It will in most cases also diminuish the times a player gets killed when fishing / skinning as long as the fisherman/hunter has decent situational awareness. Naturally Rockstar could also implement that you will not lose any hunted pelts and carcasses to cater a bit more to the PVE playerbase.

Although I agree that there should be certain repercussions in other situations I again think some people use the term griefing too quickly and others use it not quickly enough. I see it in the posses I run as well. Escorting a coach - everyone is marked red dot. I give them the benefit of the doubt and 1 out of 5 times it costs me my life. Other posse members do not take that chance and shoot 1st. In either situation a sh*tshow follows. Now this part you could indeed fix with the toggle timer Bropollo suggested. I am however not sure this will work on servers in most situations. A possible solution might be that if player A kills player B 3 times the game makes player A go to Auto aim for 15 minutes when shooting at player B. For other encounters the auto aim applies until above situation arises again. 

Other "fixes" should be more honor related and the weightfactor it has on your gameplay. This would mean making it very expensive to gain honor and not by hunting and horsecaring for an hour. What kind of mechanics honor would involve could be open to suggestions, like single player make store prices much higher for "bad honor guys" and make it very difficult to enter populated areas without getting the law after you and restrict xp gain from that. However this will also be very , very difficult to balance as it is not per se the "griefing" and just as much the "outlaw" community that gets punished. Perhaps loss of honor by repeatedly killing the same players gets weighed more importantly.

The thing is - balancing all of the above will be not 100% airtight and will cause a lot of new complaints. Which brings me back to my first point, Free Aim Servers should be the best spot for people wanting to have the improved PVE experience. You cannot have it all I am afraid as I can only see new issues arise with most of the balancing possibilities a developer has. However I do hope that Rockstar will provide some sort of repercussion system to the players that keep on attacking everyone at sight. Just dying and respawning does not help against players with the mindset to kill.

Let's hope that Rockstar introduces free aim servers and hopefully finds ingenious ways to balance "griefing" without too much interference to the current gameplay.

[YodaMan 3D]

19 minutes ago, Renascent said:

First off I'm not naturally into pvp. I used to be one of the pvers back in the day. I was so bad at pvp people that would get matched with me in pvp group modes would leave or kill themselves to get away from me lol. But at some point I decided to get better, and that's where my love of pvp began. It's an acquired taste for me. I expect rdr to be a wild west, keyword wild. There's no surprise element in toggle pvp when you know exactly who is gonna attack you. Then you'll have those people who will use the passive mode to get close to you then go into pvp mode and kill you. 

No I am not a griefer or bully. Hell, I yell at my friends and posse members all the time about killing people who aren't doing anything to us. I like having to determine who's friendly and who's hostile. I like looking over my shoulder. I like that challenge. I do however advocate for private lobbies. It's worked in other games I've played.

I'm rank 99 now and I've gone through hell and back to get here. It feels good because I busted my ass to get this far. Also there is a way to hunt and do pve stuff with friends without being attacked. Not sure if they will ever patch it over, but for the time being it's a bandaid for everyone having trouble doing pve.

(I'm at work so I may not have touched on everything you asked for)

Can you answer me this, what element of surprise is there in RDO?  You see player, you assume all players bad, and you shoot all players?  Guess what, there is no surprise element.  In arenas like this, we as players 99% of the time assume that everyone else is there to attack.  It removes our need for PvE from the equation.  It becomes a battle royale, with participates who don't want to be involved.  When you bully someone into doing what you want and blame them for it being their fault for not wanting to play the game the way you want.  You are more likely to push those players away from PvP.  You and I shouldn't demand another player to play our way if they have not intent to.  Griefers generally have every intent of pushing those players out of the game.   Griefers generally have zero interests in actual PvP.  Much like griefing in PvE scenerios, they for them to have fun it comes down to how much fun is ruined for others.

[Renascent]

11 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Can you answer me this, what element of surprise is there in RDO?  You see player, you assume all players bad, and you shoot all players?  Guess what, there is no surprise element.  In arenas like this, we as players 99% of the time assume that everyone else is there to attack.  It removes our need for PvE from the equation.  It becomes a battle royale, with participates who don't want to be involved.  When you bully someone into doing what you want and blame them for it being their fault for not wanting to play the game the way you want.  You are more likely to push those players away from PvP.  You and I shouldn't demand another player to play our way if they have not intent to.  Griefers generally have every intent of pushing those players out of the game.   Griefers generally have zero interests in actual PvP.  Much like griefing in PvE scenerios, they for them to have fun it comes down to how much fun is ruined for others.

I'm not sure if you've just had a really terrible experience playing rdr. But no not everyone assumes everyone else is bad. I've had many instances where I've run alongside someone or by or chilled with people without immediately getting shot. I ran beside someone once, think I startled them but I didn't have my gun out and we just kept going. A bit later he found me and gave me several fish. I guess for not being a trigger happy idiot like so many are.

The "surprise" element is what will this person do? What are their intentions. I have a video of me and posse being in the middle of a mission/gun fight and some random guy comes and puts a fish on my horse. He almost got shot, but I told my people to stand down.

You and a lot of people like to jump to conclusions. Oh someone is nearby, they must be bad, someone is shooting at me, they must be a griefer. I look at it and ask myself why or I've gone into game chat and asked why lol. Some have apologized and left me alone. Others weren't so nice and I either messed them up or I just moved on. I pick my battles wisely.

[YodaMan 3D]

10 hours ago, Cliffs said:

I have to ask, just how is this player interaction? It is more like player inaction.

I think some of you are missing my point. What most of you keep describing as what you want for gameplay is like the solo side of the game. Online should be different than the solo gameplay IMO. Think about the NPCs in solo, most of them are ready to draw down on you if you stop or bump into them...in online, they are all friendly, so the only "bad" guys to look for in this western style game are other online players.

To stem grieving R should have a workable bounty system. Online does not have one like in the solo game. There is no ingame punishment for slaughtering everybody.

Then you must have gotten a different version of the game if the towns people don't draw on you.  I have been in towns where players not in my posse come in and start shooting and next thing I know I am getting shot at by all.

As for what I want, I want is balance in a PvEvP arena.  I want it so that a PvE player isn't the sole target of every PvP player in the game.  Not saying to eliminate them from the PvP option.  I don't believe in the PvP mindset, that if PvEvP arena that if you PvE.  That you have totally ruined my PvP only game and that it is completely PvP, because I am being and ass and demand it of you, so leave.

Seeing how the gaming industry is trying to make all shooter games like this.  Put all of us in a one server instance, we need to learn to share and not all be assholes.  If I am in the mood to PvP, constantly attacking the lone player in Tall Trees and killing him a million times, solves nothing and only pisses him off.  Especially when there is a group in Blackwater that is PvPing the crap out of that town.  

To set back and say that the players will police the servers, not all players can or will defend themselves.  Since I restarted, I am about level 15 or so.  Against a posse of 100+ with everything unlocked.  There is zero defense, little reason to stay in lobbies where these asshats feel they need to attack me, when there are places or people they could be to PvP.  Currently they get zero challenge from a guy who can't hurt them.  PvP matches are currently a no go, even greater disadvantage and even less chance of survival or enjoyment.  

I do enjoy the PvEvP, where anything can happen.  All most even though we play it don't or don't understand the concept.  Just because you are a PvP doesn't mean PvP must happen all the time with each player you meet, yet there won't be PvP in here that won't shoot 1st.  Zero chance of "just anything can happen" if you force PvP everytime.  PvE players shouldn't assume, hey out hunting, fishing, some stranger mission, expect no one should come near them cause they want to be left alone.  It is unfair in PvEvP arena that a PvE player should feel they are off limits.   When your act as if they are off limits and your PvP players refuse to play PvP and intentionally only go after those not involved in there PvP.

So now we need limits set, PvP players are deadset on running PvE players out of the game and refusing to show any restraint.  PvE players making demands for rules so strict PvP can't happen.  Rockstar trying to force us into the same server.  

Now HuDawg, personally has suggested over and over separate servers for all.  Rockstart really doesn't want that.  If they can't come up with other solutions.  They may feel they have to.   

I personally don't feel that meets their claim that they will fix the griefing issue.  I also feel that according to their history, they will punish those players by blocking content, put a limit on xp, or a limit on rewards gain.  

Now if Rockstar really has the vision and design plan that we all are in one server instance.  As said players refuse to show no restraint, so Rockstar should now have to implement guidelines that motivates us to play in our safe zones if you will.   We need balance that is fair to all.  Do I believe PvE players should feel that they can't be attacked.  No.  Do I feel that if given the option that a PvP player should always attack a PvE player non-stop to the point of griefing and avoiding PvP all together.  No.  Yet we need balane.

[Renascent]

You know damn well that there's never gonna be true balance. One side or the other will get upset. You are making the assumption that everyone that pvps want kill people who are minding their business. And yet that is how you view things. I have seen differently. I've even become friends with those that have killed me or that my posse and I have been at war with.

[YodaMan 3D]

45 minutes ago, Renascent said:

I'm not sure if you've just had a really terrible experience playing rdr. But no not everyone assumes everyone else is bad. I've had many instances where I've run alongside someone or by or chilled with people without immediately getting shot. I ran beside someone once, think I startled them but I didn't have my gun out and we just kept going. A bit later he found me and gave me several fish. I guess for not being a trigger happy idiot like so many are.

The "surprise" element is what will this person do? What are their intentions. I have a video of me and posse being in the middle of a mission/gun fight and some random guy comes and puts a fish on my horse. He almost got shot, but I told my people to stand down.

You and a lot of people like to jump to conclusions. Oh someone is nearby, they must be bad, someone is shooting at me, they must be a griefer. I look at it and ask myself why or I've gone into game chat and asked why lol. Some have apologized and left me alone. Others weren't so nice and I either messed them up or I just moved on. I pick my battles wisely.

I have had bad experiences, but they aren't all the time.  I know I haven't had it as bad as some.  I have had those situations where I have been out doing my thing and had others nearby and we not just start attack one another.   We aren't jumping to conclusions that all players are bad.  Yet when players in PvEvP assume that they have to have a shoot 1st mentality, they no longer can say they enjoy that anything can happen.  They eliminated that when they shot 1st.  The whole "Surprise element of what will they do?"  Is no longer there, they die or they shoot back.

As far as griefing goes, it isn't just attacking a player once.  It's the non-stop attacking till they quit playing or no reason then they aren't in PvP with you mentality.    If some posse and they do this pretty regular, where they have a 4+ man posse rolls up on a lone player.  Can you tell me what is going to happen?  In our little "anything can happen scenerio?"  They attack, he dies , they attack again, he dies, rinse and repeat.  What doesn't happen is them roll up and everyone hugs and kisses and ignores each other.  

In some of these scenarios, I have asked why?  Those few times players actually responded.  "It was because, they was big bad PvP players that doesn't allow any one to get in their way".  Now prey tell, there was PvP going on in the nearby town that they road around to get to me.  

I experience more toxicity from unknown others then I do surprising free gifts.  That is my experiences and I don't jump to the conclusion that it is only that way for everyone.  Some players don't see the same things as others.  They don't have the same experiences as everyone else.  

I just try to see everyone's side of the story, then to assume my experience is the only one.  Therefore it is the only option and everyone else who disagrees is just wrong.  Its my way or the highway.  I don't want to be that person or player, that wants to eliminate options.   Not everyone comes into discussions with the hopes of being open minded and come up with logical answers.  They just want what they want and F everyone else.

Edited January 30, 2019 by YodaMan 3D

[HuDawg]

19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

That is it exactly.  You don't get it.  You apparently have never, just been out hunting or fishing and had other players near by doing their own thing and neither of you having to interrupt what each other is doing.  That is player interaction. 

Im out hunting and fishing and see other players all the time. Players tend to avoid others..  Not just because of hostile players either.  Hard to hunt with another player nearby shooting at the same animals you are trying to hunt.

 

19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

 You apparently have never been riding along and seen a hideout pop up, head over and see another player being pinned down by the NPCs and decide that, "hey I think I will draw agro and ride away.  Giving the other player the chance to get back on his feet and finish the hideout and grabbing their rewards.  You just don't understand that being on a same server doesn't require you to intervene in their fun.  

I never go near a hide out if a player is already there.  Because they obviously choose to be there.  If im doing a hide out and another player comes too close I will open fire on them.   Because I don't want them killing any of the bandits or looting any of the bandits I've killed.

NPC ambushes are bit different.. I will help players in that situation.  And I have.    I also help players against griefers.  Players who ride by me and wave..i remember.  If I see hostiles attack that player.  Il have that players back.    

This is why FFA lobbies are great.  It allows for player real interactions between the good, bad and evil players.  

19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

To you, it moves, I shoot it dies. 

That's not my style.    I don't just shoot at everything that moves.   And I never even claimed I do.

19 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

  You also don't get that creating private servers that Rockstar won't punish those players who use them, by docking xp or loot or blocking content.  You just don't get it. 

Well then R* can simply not punish them?    I mean, you're complaining about something that doesn't even exist.

I can't see R* docking loot or xp.    Just the content that's meant for ffa pvp.

[Renascent]

24 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

I have had bad experiences, but they aren't all the time.  I know I haven't had it as bad as some.  I have had those situations where I have been out doing my thing and had others nearby and we not just start attack one another.   We aren't jumping to conclusions that all players are bad.  Yet when players in PvEvP assume that they have to have a shoot 1st mentality, they no longer can say they enjoy that anything can happen.  They eliminated that when they shot 1st.  The whole "Surprise element of what will they do?"  Is no longer there, they die or they shoot back.

As far as griefing goes, it isn't just attacking a player once.  It's the non-stop attacking till they quit playing or no reason then they aren't in PvP with you mentality.    If some posse and they do this pretty regular, where they have a 4+ man posse rolls up on a lone player.  Can you tell me what is going to happen?  In our little "anything can happen scenerio?"  They attack, he dies , they attack again, he dies, rinse and repeat.  What doesn't happen is them roll up and everyone hugs and kisses and ignores each other.  

In some of these scenarios, I have asked why?  Those few times players actually responded.  "It was because, they was big bad PvP players that doesn't allow any one to get in their way".  Now prey tell, there was PvP going on in the nearby town that they road around to get to me.  

I experience more toxicity from unknown others then I do surprising free gifts.  That is my experiences and I don't jump to the conclusion that it is only that way for everyone.  Some players don't see the same things as others.  They don't have the same experiences as everyone else.

If someone is killing you multiple times then hop sessions. You have nothing to lose from that. Or try making them work for their kill by being good at running (personally love a good chase. can't grief me if you can't catch me).

And honestly a whole posse rolling up on a loner and them not killing that person has happened more times than you think, at least in my experience. I know it's hella scary having like 4-7 people surrounding you though. Or idk if you've seen that YouTube video where like 10 swam up on a guy fishing and just casually walked out of the water.

Only thing I can really say is just take it with a grain of salt. I usually don't get upset when someone kills me and I definitely don't let them do it multiple times. I have no problem with moving.

[YodaMan 3D]

30 minutes ago, Renascent said:

You know damn well that there's never gonna be true balance. One side or the other will get upset. You are making the assumption that everyone that pvps want kill people who are minding their business. And yet that is how you view things. I have seen differently. I've even become friends with those that have killed me or that my posse and I have been at war with.

Why exactly can't there be true balance?  Why is it ok as is, as long as it is the PvE side that get shafted?  I am not making the assumption that all PvP players are bad.  I am not making the assumption that all PvP won't engage in actual PvP.  I have witnessed personally, players that will go out of their way to attack players that are hunting or fishing solo to the point those players will quit.  Why do you assume that is ok to run players out of the game?  You act as if batting an eyelash and a few kind words and all players are going to be friends skipping through the tulips.  Not every PvP player is a stand up person.  Some players are just asses, whether PvP or PvE.  

[Renascent]

2 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Why exactly can't there be true balance?  Why is it ok as is, as long as it is the PvE side that get shafted?  I am not making the assumption that all PvP players are bad.  I am not making the assumption that all PvP won't engage in actual PvP.  I have witnessed personally, players that will go out of their way to attack players that are hunting or fishing solo to the point those players will quit.  Why do you assume that is ok to run players out of the game?  You act as if batting an eyelash and a few kind words and all players are going to be friends skipping through the tulips.  Not every PvP player is a stand up person.  Some players are just asses, whether PvP or PvE.  

I'm not saying that it's okay. But I'm my time of playing pvp heavy games, there is never true balance. One side or the other is always going to be unhappy. Then when the developer tries to please it sometimes ends up ruining the essence of the game.

Yeah some players are assholes, just like in real life. Take a breath and move on and forget about it. You seem to be holding on to every toxic experience.

[HuDawg]

10 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Why exactly can't there be true balance?  Why is it ok as is, as long as it is the PvE side that get shafted?  

You need to stop looking at this game from both sides.  Theres only ONE side.  Its FFA.. and that means 'survival of the fittest'.

 

Or Fitness.

[YodaMan 3D]

7 hours ago, Renascent said:

I'm not saying that it's okay. But I'm my time of playing pvp heavy games, there is never true balance. One side or the other is always going to be unhappy. Then when the developer tries to please it sometimes ends up ruining the essence of the game.

Yeah some players are assholes, just like in real life. Take a breath and move on and forget about it. You seem to be holding on to every toxic experience.

I'm not hanging on and I not saying ignore it and it all goes away.  I'm not asking for heavy handed solutions.  I personally feel there can be a solution that could bring balance.  Not going to say everyone will be happy, but it could make the game playable for all.  I don't understand the mentality to say FU to the PvE players, just because my PvP isn't affected.  I not into blaming them for their bad experiences by things I may be doing to cause them. 

Rockstar says they want to fix griefing, some players just can't handle a fix.  They're scared their griefing will be ruined.  It should and it shouldn't affect PvP.   Pushing players away from the game is stupid on any PvP players part that supports pushing potential PvP players away.  I think we need them to want to PvP not push them away.

 

7 hours ago, HuDawg said:

You need to stop looking at this game from both sides.  Theres only ONE side.  Its FFA.. and that means 'survival of the fittest'.

 

Or Fitness.

You are wrong.  Plain and simple.  If it was just FFA.  There wouldn't be any PvE in the game.  You wouldn't have need for fishing, hunting, NPC interactions.  All you need is a great big PvP Battle Royale.  They put PvE stuff into the game, therefore PvEvP exists.  It makes to a 2 sided debate, not a closed minded one.

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by BropolloCreed79
Double Post

[HuDawg]

10 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

You are wrong.  Plain and simple.  

How am I wrong?.  Its FFA because that's exactly what it is..  

You're literally complaining about it being FFA.

10 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

  If it was just FFA.  There wouldn't be any PvE in the game.  You wouldn't have need for fishing, hunting, NPC interactions.  All you need is a great big PvP Battle Royale.  

Well.. then its not a FFA.. Its just a pvp Battle Royale game.

Edited January 30, 2019 by HuDawg

[Renascent]

10 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

You are wrong.  Plain and simple.  If it was just FFA.  There wouldn't be any PvE in the game.  You wouldn't have need for fishing, hunting, NPC interactions.  All you need is a great big PvP Battle Royale.  They put PvE stuff into the game, therefore PvEvP exists.  It makes to a 2 sided debate, not a closed minded one.

Wouldn't FFA technically include pve and not just pvp? It's everything, not just one thing.

[YodaMan 3D]

Technically, it isn't FFA if all you have in it is PvP.  It would be battle royale.  You would be playing a different type of Fortnite.  PvE elements are only there to draw in PvE players in PvEvP game.  For players who don't feel PvE players should be involved, then shouldn't require a PvE elements.  Which leaves PvP only.  

[BropolloCreed79]

3 hours ago, Renascent said:

(I'm at work so I may not have touched on everything you asked for)

Good enough for me.  And I appreciate the level of engagement and courtesy in the discussion overall; this forum has a good thing going, and it's folks like yourself who can engage in a spirited debate without making things personal that keep this place both intellectually stimulating and entertaining.

Pleasantries aside, let's delve into this a bit more:

3 hours ago, Renascent said:

There's no surprise element in toggle pvp when you know exactly who is gonna attack you.

There is if a player's "toggle" status isn't publicly available.  If the player isn't flagged at all, I would think the surprise element is intensified, rather than abated, because you will have no idea what their intentions are.  Not having the status flagged or tagged for others maintains the element of surprise, so you won't know who will or won't attack you.  But self-toggling is almost a way to troll a troll, because they can run up on your and try to attack, only to be met with futility.  In a way, it's almost a perfect system and solution, because it ostensibly maintains the current status quo unless your aim is to attack random players for no reason other than to grief.  As it stands now, literally every player is a threat, so if you're looking to mitigate the chances for a confrontation, all you have to do is avoid anyone and everyone.

Hell, that's what I do now in Free Roam--I open my map and look to where the most open sector of the map is, and then fast travel there to do Stranger Missions. When I want to PvP, I play Gun Rush.  Or rather, I try to play Gun Rush, only making it out of the lobby and into the match about one time out of every 8-10 attempts.  R* needs to fix their game, beta or not, the experience is lacking specifically due to the frequent disconnects. 

3 hours ago, Renascent said:

Then you'll have those people who will use the passive mode to get close to you then go into pvp mode and kill you. 

But only if you yourself are flagged for PvP.  Operating under the assumption that everyone is a threat, much as they potentially are today in the current compulsory PvP Free Roam mode, you constantly treat everyone as a threat.  If a player's status isn't public information, a PvP player is then forced to continue to treat everyone as a threat.  A quick toggle from PvE to PvP isn't a legitimate argument against implementing the system if the status isn't identified by the game, and only known to the individual player.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that your scenario occurs; a PvE player approaches a PvP player, toggles, and then attacks.  What sin has been committed?  If the PvP player didn't want to be attacked, they should have been flagged as PvE.  If the PvE player toggles and attacks, under the proposed model, they'd be unable to toggle back for thirty seconds once exiting combat.  30 seconds is more than enough time to respawn and attempt to avenge yourself.  Under the current map model, your killer is tagged as an aggressor and stays on your minimap as long as they're in a relative proximity to you.  Keeping that system in place allows the recently slain and respawned PvP player to seek retribution.  Tie combat status to that proximity marker for aggressor status, and a player seeking revenge has more than enough opportunity to pursue vengeance.  

A lot of folks maintain that they love "having to watch their backs" or that they don't want R* to dilute the current experience.  That logic is flawed because folks who are playing the game for it's RPG elements and leveling a character will play a Showdown Series or Gun Rush when they want to PvP--they don't actively seek out other players to indiscriminately ambush or murder.  Giving PvE folks the ability to toggle off PvP status (that isn't broadcast to the rest of the players) changes nothing for anyone else on the server unless they're trying to murder that player or troll the PvE players.  The "noble" PvP players who want a pure PvP experience lose nothing because those PvE players don't participate in the activity anyways.  On a 32 player Free Roam server, what are the odds that a PvP player is going to be pitted against more than half a PvE population? 

I suppose if you're worried about being outnumbered by PvE players on a server, there can be quotas for entry based on what you're toggled at when you last logged out, such as no more than half the slots in a server can be pre-toggled to PvE, but more than half can be PvP.  This seems reasonable in assuring the PvP experience isn't watered down, apart from trolls, while providing a PvE experience for those who need it. 

And if the servers fail to populate appropriately, it's just emblematic of the player population's desire for a more PvE than PvP overall, but I doubt that would happen.  But if it did, R* could easily change the quota.