Jump to content

Time for a huge question to be answered.


Cliffs
 Share

Recommended Posts

57 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.

I think it will be a disaster as well. It is going to create trigger happy and paranoid players when a another player/posse suddenly appears out of no where. I think it would escalate people getting shot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

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.

I have been chased from Valentine to Lagras by a griefer. Knew he was following me to mess with me because I got off the road and ran up a mountain and across 2 large rivers and he was taking the exact same path. So I veered off to my camp (I was a lowbie at the time, so didn't have much in the way of defending myself) and when I got there he dashed up and tried to shoot me. Then tried to take my horse (had the settings set to me only) and when he couldn't take it tried to shoot it. I got on the game chat and just said "nice try retard". And he cussed me out and then rode away.

I'm sure proximity will at least be within range enough to defend yourself, not like right on top of you or within easy auto aim range.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:

I think it will be a disaster as well. It is going to create trigger happy and paranoid players when a another player/posse suddenly appears out of no where. I think it would escalate people getting shot. 

Exactly what I think, really think you should pass that onto R* feedback. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Renascent said:

I'm sure proximity will at least be within range enough to defend yourself, not like right on top of you or within easy auto aim range.

The first thing that comes to my mind is if the range is lower than the striking distance of a rifle with high velocity ammo, it won't take long for griefers to take advantage of that.

.....but I think all of these concerns are really going to depend a lot on how far exactly the range will be for blips shown on the map.  We also have to remember that while it may not be introduced along with the proximity change, R* also discussed adding a range penalty for indiscriminate kills where the player will be shown as a progressively darkening blip and will be seen further away by others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Renascent said:

I have been chased from Valentine to Lagras by a griefer. Knew he was following me to mess with me because I got off the road and ran up a mountain and across 2 large rivers and he was taking the exact same path. So I veered off to my camp (I was a lowbie at the time, so didn't have much in the way of defending myself) and when I got there he dashed up and tried to shoot me. Then tried to take my horse (had the settings set to me only) and when he couldn't take it tried to shoot it. I got on the game chat and just said "nice try retard". And he cussed me out and then rode away.

I'm sure proximity will at least be within range enough to defend yourself, not like right on top of you or within easy auto aim range.

But you say he chased you, so I guess you were near him to start with.  My point is that nobody is going to travel from New Austin to shoot somebody who is over in Lemoyne.  For me, if I just want to hunt to level up a card etc, I will go to an area where there are no posses roaming around (not worried about individuals) either riding, fast travel or by using a mission.  If I couldn't see the blips I would have to travel to an area before I knew who was there, and to be honest it takes ages to traverse the map.  I take your point, but you can't stop someone chasing you.  You should have stood right at the edge of your camp and as soon as he turned to leave take a step out, shoot him, then step back in. (I make a note of their name and wait 10 mins and track them down, they never remember who you are)

26 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

The first thing that comes to my mind is if the range is lower than the striking distance of a rifle with high velocity ammo, it won't take long for griefers to take advantage of that.

.....but I think all of these concerns are really going to depend a lot on how far exactly the range will be for blips shown on the map.  We also have to remember that while it may not be introduced along with the proximity change, R* also discussed adding a range penalty for indiscriminate kills where the player will be shown as a progressively darkening blip and will be seen further away by others.

I would just prefer to know where everybody is on the whole map, then I can plan depending on what I intend to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:

I think it will be a disaster as well. It is going to create trigger happy and paranoid players when a another player/posse suddenly appears out of no where. I think it would escalate people getting shot. 

Don't we already have trigger happy and paranoid players.  What happened to anything can happen and it's a nice surprise when PvP happens.   

I personally think this is to balance out any actions taken to nullify greifing.  Now those who grief have the element of surprise, knowing that they will have to pay for it later.  It's just like a credit card.  Do stupid things 1st and pay for it later.  

To me as much as I hate this, to me it could be better then the whole map knowing where I am.  So I only have to deal with x amount of knuckleheads, not all of the knuckleheads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.cfd20ab47c2281da0c18f2e2a64aa85e.png

@Tenti I merged your posts since we have a prohibition against double posting.  Just thought I'd toss you a "heads-up" in case you wondered what happened to the second post.

Just a reminder to everyone else; I did some thread cleanup and eliminated the double posts where I found them.  I know we're all impassioned on this subject, and we often respond as quickly as we can when things get heated.  So far everything in here is fine, content-wise, but please be mindful of double posting going forward. 

Thanks.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Don't we already have trigger happy and paranoid players.  What happened to anything can happen and it's a nice surprise when PvP happens.   

I personally think this is to balance out any actions taken to nullify greifing.  Now those who grief have the element of surprise, knowing that they will have to pay for it later.  It's just like a credit card.  Do stupid things 1st and pay for it later.  

To me as much as I hate this, to me it could be better then the whole map knowing where I am.  So I only have to deal with x amount of knuckleheads, not all of the knuckleheads.

I care less , but I can see a sea of tears coming from this. " I was just trying to hunt and this 4 man posse appeared on top of me." 

Don't think it will nullify a thing. In fact I see more griefers camping the butchers and shops because they know eventually someone will come by. I honestly think griefing will spike in all towns. People will just camp towns waiting for other players to roll through.  Every roof top will have some tool waiting.

I don't mind open world PVP but you have been quite adamant that others don't. I think this will force them into situations "they" don't want to be in. I like being able to see the whole map. It helps in mission, tracking griefers, seeing what parts of the map has high traffic,etc. The Companion App keeps a lot of players safe and aware of their surroundings as of now. Taking that from them is foolish to me.  

And what server are you on were 31 other players are after you??

 

Edited by Savage_Reaper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Netnow66 said:

But to say they re 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?

They are saying that they know they never will be able to stop all of it. Just by adding new things to do in the game they will "lessen griefing". Griefing is at a high point in this game right now because people are bored and just looking to kill time. Unfortunately that  usually turns into them killing people while they are clearly not looking to be bothered. R*needs to give people  more things to do and rewards for winning fights with people that fight back. Then, griefing will lower to a level where people won't even notice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Savage_Reaper said:

I care less , but I can see a sea of tears coming from this. " I was just trying to hunt and this 4 man posse appeared on top of me." 

Don't think it will nullify a thing. In fact I see more griefers camping the butchers and shops because they know eventually someone will come by. 

I don't mind open world PVP but you have been quite adamant that others don't. I think this will force them into situations "they" don't want to be in. I like being able to see the whole map. It helps in mission, tracking griefers, seeing what parts of the map has high traffic,etc. The Companion App keeps a lot of players safe and aware of there surrounds as of now. Taking that from them is foolish to me.  

And what server are you own were 31 other players are after you??

 

I am adamant against griefing in PvEvP.   I don't have issues with those who PvP.  I don't think I ever said I was on a server of 31.  Most players I have seen in one combat, was where a guy invited me and it was 14v2.   Which is 16 players.

The speculation of it nullifying griefers was a joke.  Cause most of the old GTA folks will remember that every time they did something to fix griefing they would add something to make it actually easier.

Edit:  Though I got called in cause he felt like he was being griefed.  When we started shooting back and we did.  It was no longer griefing, we participated in PvP, even though the odds was stacked against us.

Edited by YodaMan 3D
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Savage_Reaper said:

I care less , but I can see a sea of tears coming from this. " I was just trying to hunt and this 4 man posse appeared on top of me." 

Don't think it will nullify a thing. In fact I see more griefers camping the butchers and shops because they know eventually someone will come by. I honestly think griefing will spike in all towns. People will just camp towns waiting for other players to roll through.  Every roof top will have some tool waiting.

I don't mind open world PVP but you have been quite adamant that others don't. I think this will force them into situations "they" don't want to be in. I like being able to see the whole map. It helps in mission, tracking griefers, seeing what parts of the map has high traffic,etc. The Companion App keeps a lot of players safe and aware of their surroundings as of now. Taking that from them is foolish to me.  

And what server are you on were 31 other players are after you??

 

You know what solves all these issues?  Selectable toggles for PvE and PvP status per player that isn't identifiable.  

And to flip the argument, what server has a PvP player been on that had 31 "Passive" players?

They could leave every other existing element the way it is, the blips, everything, just by adding a toggle that isn't view-able to other players.  The only players this impacts are grief killers and trolls.  Any griefing elements that remain are going to be persistent in both PvP and PvE servers, should they decide to separate them, so why not just make it a toggle and call it a day?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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.

 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.  

 

.

Exactly. HARDCORE LOBBIES (free aim only) and perhaps just red shadowed areas on the map to show players would totally balance griefing. 

In fact if someone has to actually aim for that headshot to kill me im fine with them trying to hunt me down, toxic or not. Bring it on!

If we can figure this out great minds at R* should be able to! RD1 had hardcore lobbies as well. 

Additionally Radar should still show the red glow in direction of enemies, but Only show actual unit blips when sprinting/ firing. Thats all they need! 

This would make me and others 10x more patient for R* to take their time adding more content or until Full Release

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, madfretter said:

They are saying that they know they never will be able to stop all of it. Just by adding new things to do in the game they will "lessen griefing". Griefing is at a high point in this game right now because people are bored and just looking to kill time. Unfortunately that  usually turns into them killing people while they are clearly not looking to be bothered. R*needs to give people  more things to do and rewards for winning fights with people that fight back. Then, griefing will lower to a level where people won't even notice it.

In my main post I stated this--

"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."

I appreciate your comment, but you are speculating about what Rockstar is saying. We don't know. Which is why Rockstar needs to speak up and say one way or the other.

If (and I say if) Rockstar really wants to stop griefing, they could do more than change some blips on the map. They could also do more than give people something to do because people are "bored and just looking to kill time."

There are more efficient ways to stop griefing IF they really want to stop it and more than a few of those suggestions have even been mentioned on this forum board. 

I'm still at the point where I personally want them to put up or shut up. Why choose half steps to "lessen griefing" when full steps can be taken? IF THEY REALLY WANT TO STOP GRIEFING?

Again, to mention WoW, I have to give them credit on how they addressed their community (at least when I played). I can remember getting a pretty good understanding of what was what because they actually told us. The same can't be said about this game. Even the other Wild West game that I mentioned took a more honest approach to answering the big questions. Because Rockstar has not at this point, it leads to speculation...which shouldn't be the case since their quoted materials definitely say one thing ("a fun and fair environment for everyone" where I could "Explore the world solo or with friends") but their actions don't match that.

Yes, I realize it's still in beta. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

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.

I've been thinking a good way to do it would be to have the radar showing peoples normal blips while not sneaking or shooting. Keep the directional red glow as is. 

Then have proximity areas on the map (which we end up having to check constantly) Potentially showing multiple names in the area. Size could be the same as voice chat range. 

This would make players immerse in the environment more. As of right now it consists too much of *look at map, travel to player, auto-aim, repeat* 

Lastly keep gamertag names above players heads (but optional for your own view). Easy fix! 

Of course free-aim-only would be the only way for this to work (Hardcore lobbies) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Netnow66 said:

In my main post I stated this--

"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."

I appreciate your comment, but you are speculating about what Rockstar is saying. We don't know. Which is why Rockstar needs to speak up and say one way or the other.

If (and I say if) Rockstar really wants to stop griefing, they could do more than change some blips on the map. They could also do more than give people something to do because people are "bored and just looking to kill time."

There are more efficient ways to stop griefing IF they really want to stop it and more than a few of those suggestions have even been mentioned on this forum board. 

I'm still at the point where I personally want them to put up or shut up. Why choose half steps to "lessen griefing" when full steps can be taken? IF THEY REALLY WANT TO STOP GRIEFING?

Again, to mention WoW, I have to give them credit on how they addressed their community (at least when I played). I can remember getting a pretty good understanding of what was what because they actually told us. The same can't be said about this game. Even the other Wild West game that I mentioned took a more honest approach to answering the big questions. Because Rockstar has not at this point, it leads to speculation...which shouldn't be the case since their quoted materials definitely say one thing ("a fun and fair environment for everyone" where I could "Explore the world solo or with friends") but their actions don't match that.

Yes, I realize it's still in beta. 

It's all speculation until it's not. 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you got ideas that you think will improve the game.  Contact Rockstar.  Kean1 is constantly putting up their link.   Cause on here you have those will just disagree for the sake to disagree.  Regardless of what happens we will all adjust our playstyles and keep playing.  The thing is this isn't a Rockstar controlled forum, even if it was we wouldn't know if they would listen or not anyway.  The CMs would nod their heads, say that is a good suggestion, I will pass that up to the higher ups, and then hit the delete button.  We would never know if anyone heard it or cared to hear it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

If you got ideas that you think will improve the game.  Contact Rockstar.  Kean1 is constantly putting up their link.   Cause on here you have those will just disagree for the sake to disagree.  Regardless of what happens we will all adjust our playstyles and keep playing.  The thing is this isn't a Rockstar controlled forum, even if it was we wouldn't know if they would listen or not anyway.  The CMs would nod their heads, say that is a good suggestion, I will pass that up to the higher ups, and then hit the delete button.  We would never know if anyone heard it or cared to hear it.  

Agree 100%, I know from personal experience that they do listen and want our input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tenti said:

Agree 100%, I know from personal experience that they do listen and want our input.

I hope they do listen, but have heard others state they have contacted Rockstar and basically get FU and out the door you go.  I don't know wan't there, 2 sides to every coin.  So I don't know the whole story.  All I am saying is pass it on and hope for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

You know what solves all these issues?  Selectable toggles for PvE and PvP status per player that isn't identifiable.  

And to flip the argument, what server has a PvP player been on that had 31 "Passive" players?

They could leave every other existing element the way it is, the blips, everything, just by adding a toggle that isn't view-able to other players.  The only players this impacts are grief killers and trolls.  Any griefing elements that remain are going to be persistent in both PvP and PvE servers, should they decide to separate them, so why not just make it a toggle and call it a day?

I still say Friendly Lobbies and Private lobbies are whats really needed to have a complete game.

Blips changes and Free Aim lobbies would be the cherry on top.

R* doesn't have to nerf money or xp if it has nothing to do with pvp.

Last night myself and friends just wanted to fish. We ended up getting into a brawl with another posse for over an hour.    Sure passive toggle would have worked, but I would have liked a private lobby for that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

I still say Friendly Lobbies and Private lobbies are whats really needed to have a complete game.

I agree that we need private lobbies, I just don't believe they're a viable solution to PvE gameplay.  They'd be perfect for setting up competitive leagues, private matches, or even youtube channels/machinima content.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Separate lobbies don't work if players are punished for using them.  Rockstar's track record, they will punish them.   Maybe Rockstar will change how they handle it, but if they want us in the same server.  I just don't see them changing how they do things in the past, especially when they feel it worked.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Separate lobbies don't work if players are punished for using them.  Rockstar's track record, they will punish them.   

R* only blocked 'some' content in GTA O in private lobbies.    Infact you can access more of the content in private lobbies than you could in 'passive' mode in public lobbies.

There's zero reason for R* to block fishing, hunting, and exploring in private or friendly lobbies since it has nothing to do with pvp.

So im not sure what this punishment is you keep talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

I agree that we need private lobbies, I just don't believe they're a viable solution to PvE gameplay.  They'd be perfect for setting up competitive leagues, private matches, or even youtube channels/machinima content.

 

Well they could just add pve lobbies.. Maybe with less players but more NPCS that spawn.  To reduce the strain on servers.


And add pve friendly events.

Like fishing or hunting challenges..  and other random events that have nothing to do with player vs player combat.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HuDawg said:

Well they could just add pve lobbies.. Maybe with less players but more NPCS that spawn.  To reduce the strain on servers.


And add pve friendly events.

Like fishing or hunting challenges..  and other random events that have nothing to do with player vs player combat.

I'd go for a mild 'parkour' obstacle course race event. Myself and my friends were hopping all over St Denis the other day and I was showing them various ways to get up to things.

Or like it story mode, that npc that challenges you to a shooting contest. A shooting gallery basically. Like hitting flying targets with different gun/weapon types. Or something like in The Evil Within 2?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HuDawg said:

R* only blocked 'some' content in GTA O in private lobbies.    Infact you can access more of the content in private lobbies than you could in 'passive' mode in public lobbies.

That "some" included nearly all of the CEO / VP businesses, missions and related content.  A substantial chunk of the gameplay in GTAO to be honest.  You have to be in public sessions to access it.  As for passive mode, it's worthless in GTA IMO.  I never found a use for it although griefers do.

Luckily, I was always able to still enjoy the content locked in public sessions by using the MTU trick.  ....still do.  I would forced into session by myself and if others began to get thrown in with me at some point, they were usually there for the same reasons as me so we never bothered one another.  .....sometimes you would find people willing to help.

I still would like to see PvE sessions but as long as they lock the better part of their content in Free Roam, of course folks like me will still want to have access to it so I will still be playing in those sessions too.

As of right now, we don't even know if session options will ever be implemented or even part of R*s plans.  They haven't said anything about it but they have said that they want to add balance to Free Roam.  .....which is all some of us are asking for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Kean_1 said:

That "some" included nearly all of the CEO / VP businesses, missions and related content.  A substantial chunk of the gameplay in GTAO to be honest.  You have to be in public sessions to access it.  As for passive mode, it's worthless in GTA IMO.  I never found a use for it although griefers do.

 

Well to be fair R* wanted players to fight over the CEO/VIP/Biker missions.  So they locked it to public session.    At least some of then can be accessed in private sessions.  

For example.. You can play  sight seers in private/invite only lobbies.  


NONE of it can be played with passive mode turned on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great replies, thanks guys.

 

I have decided to play this game as I would when watching a western movie about the bad guys of the wild west.

How many times do you think Billy the Kid or John  Wesley Hardin, maybe even Wyatt Earp, went fishing? Bad men in the wild west did bad things, therefore if the grievers want to pretend they are bad men, then i play with them as the good guy. That is the direction R should go in.  have sides you can build your character out from. Want to be a sheriff, be a sheriff and act honorably and go get those bad guys.

Over time and having performed some good deeds, your character moves up in rank. If you decide at some time to go bad, then do it. Same thing do bad things get XP and move on up in that vein of playing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whichever way they decide to use the blips they need to factor in people who pay gold to correct their honor. There needs to be some sort of distinction so we know they're still a potential threat. Can't have someone grief for weeks and then they pay 3 gold to show up as harmless on my radar.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, madfretter said:

Whichever way they decide to use the blips they need to factor in people who pay gold to correct their honor. There needs to be some sort of distinction so we know they're still a potential threat. Can't have someone grief for weeks and then they pay 3 gold to show up as harmless on my radar.

YES! This is one of the most ludicrous things in the game. Like if you want to be a shitty player, other players should have a way of knowing. If I can run around and screw people over and ruin my rep and then throw a few bucks at Rockstar to clean my name, it is just a crap move. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

LATEST RDR2 NEWS CLIPS

×
×
  • Create New...