Time for a huge question to be answered.

[Renascent]

25 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

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.  

Pve elements are there to make money not just draw in the pvers. How do you think the pvpers get their guns? By magic? 

[BropolloCreed79]

1 minute ago, Renascent said:

Pve elements are there to make money not just draw in the pvers. How do you think the pvpers get their guns? By magic? 

I thought it was Belsnickel.

 

[YodaMan 3D]

14 minutes ago, Renascent said:

Pve elements are there to make money not just draw in the pvers. How do you think the pvpers get their guns? By magic? 

Participate in the PvP only game modes?  It isn't really magic perse, just programming.

[HuDawg]

19 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

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? 

Its less about loving ' to watch their backs'.  And just accepting it.  Well that's the way I see it.

 

It allows players really role play..  As a good, bad or evil player.    And creates many good or bad game play moments.

 Griefing can really.. really be dealt a blow if R* would alter how stupidly easy it is to find and target players.  

Auto aim + Always on blips is the reason that griefers do what they do.. so easily.  

Also this game needs MORE butchers.    Every region needs two butchers at the very least.

 

This ^ won't stop griefing.  But it sure as hell would make it much more rare.  

 

.

Edited January 30, 2019 by HuDawg

[YodaMan 3D]

1 minute ago, HuDawg said:

Also this game needs MORE butchers.    Every region needs two butchers at the very least.

 

This ^ won't stop griefing.  But it sure as hell would make much more rare.  

See to me this attacks griefers and yet doesn't affect PvP at all.   Yet you said you couldn't stop griefing.  You have given PvE players options and given them reasons to continue playing.  You didn't alienate them or try to push them from the game.  It didn't require a separate lobby, so Rockstar has no reason to block content to the either side.

[BropolloCreed79]

1 minute ago, HuDawg said:

Its less about loving ' to watch their backs'.  And just accepting it.  Well that's the way I see it.

 

It allows players really role play..  As a good, bad or evil player.    And creates many good or bad game play moments.

But really, Griefing can really.. really be dealt a blow if R* would alter how stupidly easy it is to find and target players.  

Auto aim + Always on blips is the reason that griefers do what they do.. so easily.  

Also this game needs MORE butchers.    Every region needs two butchers at the very least.

 

This ^ won't stop griefing.  But it sure as hell would make much more rare.  

Very, very true.  I'm not even opposed to some of the griefer tactics (imo, lying in wait to ambush players at the butcher is actually quite brilliant), but shooting unarmed players coming out of a cutscene animation and then spawn killing them before they can even reorient is, frankly road apples.  That's not a PvE versus PvP debate, that's just garbage design.

I also think they need to take a hard look at level banding some of the servers.  pitting someone below level 20 against players in the 80's or 90's is never going to be a fair fight, no matter how good or bad the average player is.  Even the Showdown Series modes need some balancing--like deactivating a player's cards.  I can't tell you how many times I've put a round in someone's head at point blank range in Gun Rush or other modes, only for them to laugh in my face as I get one-shot.  

Again, road apples.  It eliminates any semblance of delineation by ability, much like having auto-aim.  And what's worse, unskilled players with a "wide" auto aim setting and dialed up aim assist can burn you down with one hand tied behind their back.  Hell, Stevie Wonder could play the game with settings like that.

[Savage_Reaper]

20 minutes ago, Renascent said:

Pve elements are there to make money not just draw in the pvers. How do you think the pvpers get their guns? By magic? 

Exactly. I hunt to replenish big game meat . I hunt pigs for the fat for my explosive ammo. So those PVE activities for me is to re up supplies. Not like you can buy these items. I'm so tired of killing pigs for damn fat.  Some people hunt and fish for pleasure, others like me do it to re up on key supplies. 

[HuDawg]

9 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

 

I also think they need to take a hard look at level banding some of the servers.  pitting someone below level 20 against players in the 80's or 90's is never going to be a fair fight, no matter how good or bad the average player is.  Even the Showdown Series modes need some balancing--like deactivating a player's cards.  I can't tell you how many times I've put a round in someone's head at point blank range in Gun Rush or other modes, only for them to laugh in my face as I get one-shot.  

 

PVP needs lobby hosts with options (and private lobby options).  And be able to choose what PVP game modes we want to play as the host.

Where the host can choose to toggle off dead eye, passive cards, and block items/satchel use in the options in lobby.

That's the only way PVP game modes will ever taken seriously or really enjoyed.

 

Its like.. I need to find the guy who's in charge of RD O and give him a proper talking to in an Dutch Voice.

At this point im starting to think the person in charge of RD O is not human.  But an A.I.  

Edited January 30, 2019 by HuDawg

[Savage_Reaper]

8 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

See to me this attacks griefers and yet doesn't affect PvP at all.   Yet you said you couldn't stop griefing.  You have given PvE players options and given them reasons to continue playing.  You didn't alienate them or try to push them from the game.  It didn't require a separate lobby, so Rockstar has no reason to block content to the either side.

You will never stop griefing. Problem is a lot of people rather complain instead of fighting back. I do as much PVE activties (lost track how many missions I have run) as I do PVP.  But I be damned if someone is going to ride by me and shoot me in the back without me putting a bullet through his head. Standing up for yourself isn't hard, I fail to understand why people don't even try. If you can shoot a deer, why can't you shoot some barefoot clown with no shirt and overalls trying to kill you??

[BropolloCreed79]

1 minute ago, HuDawg said:

Its like.. I need to find the guy who in charge of RD O and give him a proper talking to in an Dutch Voice.

You'll probably find the person in charge on a Mango farm in Tahiti.  Be careful when you get there, though; he may convince you there is a plan, and all that is needed is "a little time" and "some faith".

Then they'll turn around and listen to the RDRO Youtubers, the community equivalent of Micah, and ruin it for everyone.

[Renascent]

35 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

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:

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. 

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.

I'd change the time it takes to switch modes to like 5 mins. It's very easy to run away and wait out that 30s. But you got a point there though.

I guess it would work for those that like to shoot people just to shoot them. But I'm a noble pvper, I will never shoot someone in the back or if they've given me no reason to. And even then if I want to fight I am 50% of the time killing my own friends for fun (not maliciously). Not every pvper is the trigger happy kind. You got the ones like me who want a fair fight. Yeah I could go to one of the pvp modes, but often I like creating my own. Like I and some friends made a capture the flag pvp thing by which group can keep the train the longest. That was hella fun for me.

On the other hand I'd suggest making the towns themselves like safe zones unless a mission is going (much like your camp doesn't protect you while you're on a mission). That would give people a little more peace of mind. I am dying to see how this bounty system will play out. Maybe some want to roleplay as an outlaw and try to evade capture/death. Others might want to take up a bounty as a mission and take out that person if they can.

[YodaMan 3D]

14 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:

You will never stop griefing. Problem is a lot of people rather complain instead of fighting back. I do as much PVE activties (lost track how many missions I have run) as I do PVP.  But I be damned if someone is going to ride by me and shoot me in the back without me putting a bullet through his head. Standing up for yourself isn't hard, I fail to understand why people don't even try. If you can shoot a deer, why can't you shoot some barefoot clown with no shirt and overalls trying to kill you??

Why is it so tough to stop griefing to you folks.  It can be done and if the idea to stop it offends you.  Then you must be griefing.  

I agree, fighting back is an option.  What if it isn't.  If a player has the right card set up that a level 10 player doesn't got the guns or the cards to be able to hurt him.  It is a waste of time.  

So then you say if you can't win, run, change servers, or quit playing the game altogether. 

There are options that I feel unexplored cause players assume it can't be done or scared it can be.  

I just think it's stupid that instead of coming up with new and fresh ideas that everyone wants to assume it can't be done.  If you are smart enough to come up with new ideas on how to grief.  You are smart enough to find ways to stop it.  Options, fighting back, running, quitting(down right stupid option), creating separate lobbies could work (if they don't punish the players for using them, which Rockstar has done in the past.  For the sake of PvP not getting the bums hurt over PvE players having other options.)

At this point I feel players are assuming I want to attack all PvP.  My target is Griefing, it isn't just in PvP enviroments alone.  It can be done in PvE modes as well.  I do point out the worst case scenarios, because that is when the griefing is a bigger issue.

Edited January 30, 2019 by YodaMan 3D

[BropolloCreed79]

1 minute ago, Renascent said:

I'd change the time it takes to switch modes to like 5 mins. It's very easy to run away and wait out that 30s. But you got a point there though.

I can see the merit in expanding the toggle cooldown time.  30 seconds was an arbitrary number, but there's definitely merit to pushing it out like that.

2 minutes ago, Renascent said:

I am dying to see how this bounty system will play out. Maybe some want to roleplay as an outlaw and try to evade capture/death. Others might want to take up a bounty as a mission and take out that person if they can.

The idea of deputizing players and allowing them to collect a bounty for capturing/killing someone with a bounty is very, VERY appealing.  R* is going to have to be careful how the implement this system, though--the potential for griefers to bait folks into getting a bounty is going to be there (thinking back to how folks in THe Division used to be able to intentionally run into your field of fire to have you slapped with "Rogue" status when you were aiming an NPCs), so I hope they place limits on it, and not make something where some delta bravo with a bunch of cash walks into a sheriff's office and puts a bounty on another player to troll them.

It has to be something that's triggered by the player's activity, like killing too many civilians, or more than two unarmed players in a five minute span.  Again, those are arbitrary values, but the point is, they need to have clearly defined rules for deploying poses/bounties that aren't able to be easily exploited by players for greifing purposes.

[HuDawg]

Just now, Renascent said:

 But I'm a noble pvper, I will never shoot someone in the back or if they've given me no reason to. 

I wouldn't call myself noble.  I consider myself more of a BAD guy with a code..lol

But that's the best thing about the game being FFA..  Its its allowing players to be noble, bad, good, evil or just deranged. 

Ya deranged..  LIke that one crazy fool riding around town last night filling wagons up with dead lawmen and dead players.

 

 

 

[Savage_Reaper]

12 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Why is it so tough to stop griefing to you folks.  It can be done and if the idea to stop it offends you.  Then you must be griefing.  

I agree, fighting back is an option.  What if it isn't.  If a player has the right card set up that a level 10 player doesn't got the guns or the cards to be able to hurt him.  It is a waste of time.  

So then you say if you can't win, run, change servers, or quit playing the game altogether. 

There are options that I feel unexplored cause players assume it can't be done or scared it can be.  

I just think it's stupid that instead of coming up with new and fresh ideas that everyone wants to assume it can't be done.  If you are smart enough to come up with new ideas on how to grief.  You are smart enough to find ways to stop it.  Options, fighting back, running, quitting(down right stupid option), creating separate lobbies could work (if they don't punish the players for using them, which Rockstar has done in the past.  For the sake of PvP not getting the bums hurt over PvE players having other options.)

At this point feel players are assuming I want to attack all PvP.  My target is Griefing, it isn't just in PvP enviroments alone.  It can be done in PvE modes as well.  I do point out the worst case scenarios, because that is when the griefing is a bigger issue.

The Level 10 player with starter cards is weak argument. Sorry. We all were Level 1 at some point. I didn't start online day 1 like a lot of people. I was a few weeks behind. Did anyone hold my hand ? No . If I couldn't take the heat, I would have left online. 

Bottom line is that everyone wants the game to be designed to suit them and their playstyle. Their own personal version of RDRO Utopia.  Do I like bitch made griefers? No . I also don't have an entitled attitude thinking R* needs to cater the game just for me. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Savage_Reaper

[Renascent]

14 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:

The Level 10 player with starter cards is weak argument. Sorry. We all were Level 1 at some point. I didn't start online day 1 like a lot of people. I was a few weeks behind. Did anyone hold my hand ? No . If I couldn't take the heat, I would have left online. 

Bottom line is that everyone wants the game to be designed to suit them and their playstyle. Their own personal version of RDRO Utopia.  Do I like bitch made griefers? No . I also don't have an entitled attitude thinking R* needs to cater the game just for me. 

To be fair I feel that players 1-10 should be matched into sessions with each other. Like kind of a training mode so they aren't completely blown away by someone rank 50+. But it could work all around. Like ranks 20-30 and so on could be matched together in a session. Kind of like a loose initial grouping.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Renascent

[YodaMan 3D]

21 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:

The Level 10 player with starter cards is weak argument. Sorry. We all were Level 1 at some point. I didn't start online day 1 like a lot of people. I was a few weeks behind. Did anyone hold my hand ? No . If I couldn't take the heat, I would have left online. 

Bottom line is that everyone wants the game to be designed to suit them and their playstyle. Their own personal version of RDRO Utopia.  Do I like bitch made griefers? No . I also don't have an entitled attitude thinking R* needs to cater the game just for me. 

That is another reason why I am against separate lobbies.  Having players taken out of PvEvP, limits PvP options.  In many cases those who leave won't come back.  I personally don't expect a personal uptopia.  I would prefer balance.  Not expecting all players to be happy, but want enough there for players to be happy enough to want to play.  Instead of quitting or running.   Just because I don't want griefing doesn't mean I don't want us to PvP.  I never said players can't attack one another.   Good for you, that you didn't let anyone keep you away and you are at a happy place in the game.  Are you everyone?  Others paid just as much for the game as you.  Don't they deserve to play the game as well.  If griefing is an issue for them and it has been noted by Rockstar, to the point that they have said they want to fix it.  Does that mean you will quit playing or adapt and continue playing.

[Savage_Reaper]

10 minutes ago, Renascent said:

To be fair I feel that players 1-10 should be matched into sessions with each other. Like kind of a training mode so they aren't completely blown away by someone rank 50+. But it could work all around. Like ranks 20-30 and so on could be matched together in a session. Kind of like a loose initial grouping.

I thought they did something over the weekend. I kept being put in lobbies with players 36 to 180. I rarely saw real low players. I would every now and than, but not often. My posse felt bad for this Level 6 player trying to solo a 3 bag mail run in Rhodes. So we posted up at the post office and shot anyone trying to steal his bags. 

[Renascent]

4 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:

I thought they did something over the weekend. I kept being put in lobbies with players 36 to 180. I rarely saw real low players. I would every now and than, but not often. My posse felt bad for this Level 6 player trying to solo a 3 bag mail run in Rhodes. So we posted up at the post office and shot anyone trying to steal his bags. 

It's what a lot of PC MMOs do. They keep the low levels on a separate map, or in this case session, so the big kids don't try to bully them and scare them away from the game. I'd advocate for ranks 1-20 at the least. 

[Kean_1]

Quote

Proximity-Based Player Blips, Parley Changes with quicker access to Feuding, Law and Bounty Improvements to discourage griefing while introducing a new Freeroam dynamic between bounty hunters and criminal rogues

I don't know how many folks may have missed this in R*s latest beta status update (I've mentioned it before) but I think it's really interesting.

This new "dynamic" sounds like a potentially great opportunity for everyone as it seems players might have a chance to take an active role in being on the side of the law or as "rogues".  There's a level of accountability to indiscriminate killing while adding a potentially new and fun aspect to the gameplay.  The only people who may not like it are some of the griefers taking advantage of easy targets but I can see how others might welcome the new challenge and chance to role play.  

If folks could just set aside for a moment trying to define what RDO is (e.g. PvE, PvP, PvPvE, FFA), take a step back and see what R* has said is coming down the pike, I think it's obvious that they don't want to eliminate the adversarial aspect of the gameplay but simply try and help mitigate some of the griefing taking place.  .....in other words, balance (which is really all that some of us have been asking for).  In the end, we could end up with new and interesting aspects to the gameplay that benefit everyone.

Let's see how it shakes out first.

[YodaMan 3D]

19 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

I don't know how many folks may have missed this in R*s latest beta status update (I've mentioned it before) but I think it's really interesting.

This new "dynamic" sounds like a potentially great opportunity for everyone as it seems players might have a chance to take an active role in being on the side of the law or as "rogues".  There's a level of accountability to indiscriminate killing while adding a potentially new and fun aspect to the gameplay.  The only people who may not like it are some of the griefers taking advantage of easy targets but I can see how others might welcome the new challenge and chance to role play.  

If folks could just set aside for a moment trying to define what RDO is (e.g. PvE, PvP, PvPvE, FFA), take a step back and see what R* has said is coming down the pike, I think it's obvious that they don't want to eliminate the adversarial aspect of the gameplay but simply try and help mitigate some of the griefing taking place.  .....in other words, balance (which is really all that some of us have been asking for).  In the end, we could end up with new and interesting aspects to the gameplay that benefit everyone.

Let's see how it shakes out first.

Sounds very much like what I was hoping to see.  Can't wait to see the execution of this.

[Renascent]

20 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Sounds very much like what I was hoping to see.  Can't wait to see the execution of this.

D-did you not know about that....?

[YodaMan 3D]

15 minutes ago, Renascent said:

D-did you not know about that....?

I know they have been speaking about coming up with a fix for griefing.   I had not heard what exactly said fixes was going to be.   It does concern me on the execution as well.  Cause if they just do bounties, expecting players to step up and everyone still wants to be bad guys.  They bounties could go unanswered or have players let their friends kill them to collect the bounty and then continue that trend to allow players abuse the system.

Edited January 30, 2019 by YodaMan 3D

[Netnow66]

34 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

I don't know how many folks may have missed this in R*s latest beta status update (I've mentioned it before) but I think it's really interesting.

This new "dynamic" sounds like a potentially great opportunity for everyone as it seems players might have a chance to take an active role in being on the side of the law or as "rogues".  There's a level of accountability to indiscriminate killing while adding a potentially new and fun aspect to the gameplay.  The only people who may not like it are some of the griefers taking advantage of easy targets but I can see how others might welcome the new challenge and chance to role play.  

If folks could just set aside for a moment trying to define what RDO is (e.g. PvE, PvP, PvPvE, FFA), take a step back and see what R* has said is coming down the pike, I think it's obvious that they don't want to eliminate the adversarial aspect of the gameplay but simply try and help mitigate some of the griefing taking place.  .....in other words, balance (which is really all that some of us have been asking for).  In the end, we could end up with new and interesting aspects to the gameplay that benefit everyone.

Let's see how it shakes out first.

What I can appreciate about another Wild West game is that they specifically stated "Our goals is improve that part (reference was to PvP), not care about PVE players. Game is not for them. they have literally nothing to do in a game and they will never will. It’ll never be a PVE game."

That's honesty that I find refreshing and it let me know that wasn't a game for me.

Rockstar should be just as honest and state what direction they want this game to take.

Again, it's beta. I get that.

But to say they are going to implement features  to "discourage griefing" seems a little confusing. Are they acknowledging that griefing is wrong but only want to stop SOME of it? How much is too much?

Why not get rid of it rather than "discourage" it if they find it wrong?

Confusing.

I bought into a game Rockstar touted as  "a fun and fair environment for everyone" where I could "Explore the world solo or with friends" and I believe some others did too.

Honesty is what is needed here. Just let gamers know what they are to expect from this game.

I can play this game in what I consider full mode if they actually do something about the griefers--hunting, fishing and exploring the full game.

If they don't do anything about the griefers, I can continue to play the partial game as I do mostly now, jumping in and out of the on call missions (which I do find enjoyable). 

Rockstar just needs to be honest about where they want this game to go. And they need to say it loudly. Hell, they could do that while the game is still in beta like that other game developer did.

We all can speculate what we think Rockstar is going to do for days. But Rockstar needs to 'fess up on what the plan is and not be so wishy-washy about their stance on griefing.

"a fun and fair environment for everyone" or not.

[Renascent]

7 minutes ago, Netnow66 said:

We all can speculate what we think Rockstar is going to do for days. But Rockstar needs to 'fess up on what the plan is and not be so wishy-washy about their stance on griefing.

"a fun and fair environment for everyone" or not.

Rockstar is like Dutch. They have a plan, it's a good one, but they'll never tell you until the last minute.

[YodaMan 3D]

7 minutes ago, Netnow66 said:

1 hour ago, Kean_1 said:

I don't know how many folks may have missed this in R*s latest beta status update (I've mentioned it before) but I think it's really interesting.

This new "dynamic" sounds like a potentially great opportunity for everyone as it seems players might have a chance to take an active role in being on the side of the law or as "rogues".  There's a level of accountability to indiscriminate killing while adding a potentially new and fun aspect to the gameplay.  The only people who may not like it are some of the griefers taking advantage of easy targets but I can see how others might welcome the new challenge and chance to role play.  

If folks could just set aside for a moment trying to define what RDO is (e.g. PvE, PvP, PvPvE, FFA), take a step back and see what R* has said is coming down the pike, I think it's obvious that they don't want to eliminate the adversarial aspect of the gameplay but simply try and help mitigate some of the griefing taking place.  .....in other words, balance (which is really all that some of us have been asking for).  In the end, we could end up with new and interesting aspects to the gameplay that benefit everyone.

Let's see how it shakes out first.

Why not get rid of it rather than "discourage" it if they find it wrong?

Confusing.

I bought into a game Rockstar touted as  "a fun and fair environment for everyone" where I could "Explore the world solo or with friends" and I believe some others did too.

To take a quote from Star Wars, "From a certain point of view."  If you are a die hard PvP player, all that still holds true.  If you are a die hard PvE player not so much.  Yet that is where the balance has to come into play at and how they execute there plans.  As some have stated in GTAO they did things to stop or prevent griefing, yet then turned around and allowed griefers to abuse it.

If their plans are anything like what we have seen before.  Then Rockstar is best to keep secrets hoping we stick around a bit and maybe spend some real money to try and keep up.

[BropolloCreed79]

16 minutes ago, Renascent said:

Rockstar is like Dutch. They have a plan, it's a good one, but they'll never tell you until the last minute. 

If you read the articles about the working conditions at R* leading up to the release, it's an even more appropriate metaphor.

R* Leadership IS Dutch; they have a plan, but don't do anything to actively further the plan, instead relying on the backbreaking work of a group of underlings to do all the heavy lifting while they sit in a separate tent/office daydreaming about Tahiti, mangoes, and listening to unsolicited advice from Dutch/Youtubers.

[Tenti]

4 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

That is another reason why I am against separate lobbies.  Having players taken out of PvEvP, limits PvP options.  In many cases those who leave won't come back.  I personally don't expect a personal uptopia.  I would prefer balance.  Not expecting all players to be happy, but want enough there for players to be happy enough to want to play.  Instead of quitting or running.   Just because I don't want griefing doesn't mean I don't want us to PvP.  I never said players can't attack one another.   Good for you, that you didn't let anyone keep you away and you are at a happy place in the game.  Are you everyone?  Others paid just as much for the game as you.  Don't they deserve to play the game as well.  If griefing is an issue for them and it has been noted by Rockstar, to the point that they have said they want to fix it.  Does that mean you will quit playing or adapt and continue playing.

Agree with Yoda here.  when I first started plying RDRO (its was on Day 2) I thought I was going to hate it because I'd hated every other PvP game I'd played and was expecting to be constantly griefed by much better/younger players who have grown up on COD, GTAO etc.  Being the wrong side of 50 my reactions aren't as good, and I have limited time.  So I was all for finding ways to stop griefing.  However, while I still find it irritating at times when you get griefed by a Posse, I find it isn't that much of a problem for several reasons:  1) The map is huge and there are only 24 players at any one time so its easy to avoid people if you want to; 2) There are loads of missions etc to do and loads of other content; 3) The vast majority of people are not griefers and allow you to play 4) Most players are not that good and revenge is always sweeeet; 5) Once you spend the time to buff up your cards you get quite hard to kill anyway so many griefers tend to leave you alone and 6) The Parley/Feud system means that someone can only kill you 4 times anyway so why not try to fight them, if they kill you 4 times take the Parley and ride off into the distance.

I don't think many of the anti-griefing steps to be introduced will help at all, especially only being able to see blips within a certain distance as you wont be able to select a quiet region.  

However, from an old, slow, newbie..just stick with it.  If needs be play at a time when its quiet, to build your levels and abilty cards.  I have been on a server with only 2 players, so I could hunt Herons etc near St Denis without even seeing another player.  Take time to increase levels and buff those cards.  Many people just don't bother with them but if you're not an excellent shooter they really help.  But mostly, just accept that some people will always grief you.  I have found that most people that are genuinely good at RDR play LSS etc rather than grief people, so take them on, it will only make you a better player.  If you want a quiet life, as soon as you spawn, check the map to see where everyone is, check the players to see what levels are around.  If you don't like the look of the area where you are, go somewhere else or do a mission that respawns you in a new location when it finishes.

Finally, Posse up.  There is safety in numbers.  But remember that most griefers are just bullies at heart and they will just try to pick on the weak.  Don't be a victim...be a badass mutha!!  Outlaws for Ever!!!

4 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

I don't know how many folks may have missed this in R*s latest beta status update (I've mentioned it before) but I think it's really interesting.

This new "dynamic" sounds like a potentially great opportunity for everyone as it seems players might have a chance to take an active role in being on the side of the law or as "rogues".  There's a level of accountability to indiscriminate killing while adding a potentially new and fun aspect to the gameplay.  The only people who may not like it are some of the griefers taking advantage of easy targets but I can see how others might welcome the new challenge and chance to role play.  

If folks could just set aside for a moment trying to define what RDO is (e.g. PvE, PvP, PvPvE, FFA), take a step back and see what R* has said is coming down the pike, I think it's obvious that they don't want to eliminate the adversarial aspect of the gameplay but simply try and help mitigate some of the griefing taking place.  .....in other words, balance (which is really all that some of us have been asking for).  In the end, we could end up with new and interesting aspects to the gameplay that benefit everyone.

Let's see how it shakes out first.

Could all be interesting, esp the Bounty / Rogue players elements.  However, I really don't like the sound of Proximity Based blips.  I have never had anyone chase across a map just to shoot me (anyway I'd see them coming), the issue as it is just people killing you because you are there.  If you cant see where people are on the map then you can't select a quiet area to avoid other players if you want.  I just can't see any benefit in this at all.

 

[Kean_1]

12 minutes ago, Tenti said:

Could all be interesting, esp the Bounty / Rogue players elements.  However, I really don't like the sound of Proximity Based blips.  I have never had anyone chase across a map just to shoot me (anyway I'd see them coming), the issue as it is just people killing you because you are there.  If you cant see where people are on the map then you can't select a quiet area to avoid other players if you want.  I just can't see any benefit in this at all.

Yeah, I'm a little iffy on the whole proximity based blips as well.  I had the same thoughts as you.  

We will really need to see how this whole proximity thing works, ranges, etc., but I can certainly see some drawbacks.  IMO, the range needs to be long enough to allow players to see potential threats but short enough to keep players "off the radar" when they want to be.  If it's too short, I can already see trolls setting up sniper positions near towns, quest points, etc. and using the lack of range to their advantage.

When folks talked about this during development, I was all for it.  .....but then I started to think of ways griefers could use it to their advantage.  Now I'm just waiting to see how it all shakes out.

[ShotgunForHire]

I grief only when I'm shot at or killed for nothing but being a real person by retards who know jack sh*t about giving respect to get it. I'm glad this game caters to my slippery bastard playstyle. If you like killing from afar then you're a coward to me. The Shotgun is King.