Leaderboard

Finally, been wanting a mode where everyone is playing on the same level field. Just tried one of them, in case you're wondering how to join, just startup Featured Series. Anyway, it was damn great, all my ability cards were grayed out, and the weapons were tied to the mode, so you won't have your whole selection of weapons at your disposal. Plus, my health & stamina levels were toned down to pretty much what a new player has. Also, it's free aim cause I couldn't lock into any player. Most players rushed at each other to have a close quarters combat, while I kept my distance and sniped them down while they were having their showdown battle, I know an asshat move but it felt good, just let them damage each other and take the kill

Well, mostly common sense. GTA is the biggest game out there. people think Rockstar won't ever make GTA VI because V/Online is still selling/making money. When it's the exact opposite, a new game would make more money. If it takes them roughly 5 years of full development to release a game, and RDR2 was almost 2 years ago, then we're about 3 years away from release. And Rockstar typically end up having 2 years between announcement... so an announcement next year makes sense. That said, that's only IF that analysis is true, now. We have multiple CV leaks from developers who've had GTA6 listed on it. It's only a matter of time, and it's going to happen sooner or later. Like I always say, common sense is the one thing to keep in mind. People get mad and upset when Rockstar announce something that isn't GTA VI. For example GTA V on PS5/XSX. It doesn't mean VI isn't happening. And it's incredibly naive to think they aren't working on it, at this point. just got to remain sensible, and not get too excited or carried away anytime an alleged 'leak' is posted or discovery is made.

Gabriel is one of the Casino's custom-made guests with his own identifiable car, wears a blue hawaiian shirt and big-ass glasses - and has a spiky haircut. Aside from Gab and Yung, there are also Curtis, a rolled-up-sleeves-dark-red shirt wearing African-American cowboy with a funky hat (red COWBOY Ellie) and Ushi, a chinese dude with a suit and glasses and a buzz cut (yellow USH1 Tempesta).

I don’t understand this community. Half of you cite the frequent amount of times Rockstar gouged players for in-game properties and all the ridiculous activities associated with them, all while the other half start howling and jumping with excitement. What I know is that the entire storyline with Mrs. LeClerk and Horly MUST continue. Who the hell cares about Harriet or Gus or any other character made to siphon gold and money out of players?

I think this is used for the Agatha Baker mission where you have to dispose of a vehicle with a body in the trunk. You have to avoid the viewcones of parked cop cars, and iirc this icon is used to mark them on the map.

Nothing says they can't start doing super small updates. What if they start doing monthly (or just more frequent) micro updates, essentially preparing the game for the December update in the background, while everyone is looking at the 4 cars they release or whatever. Summer Special, Fall Funtacular, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and then boom, island map expansion under the Christmas tree.

Pretty much sadly. I'm a PC gamer, but I don't play this dumpster fire game on PC - only SP. RDO is purely what I have the X1X for... and it's actually the only game I play on that system too. All because R* won't provide us with invite only lobbies and PC online is unplayable. I'm so utterly sick of seeing games with great potential wasted by corporate decisions that are designed to nickel and dime players. They spent millions to design a SANDPIT game, only to enact all these policies and restrictions that force you to play in the sandpit ONE WAY and only ONE WAY.... and you can't play that one way because error disconnected, the technology is not physically capable of supporting it and oops, you've been killed by a griefing 10 year old with a game pass subscription.

I hope that was scrapped...a man can dream

Finally getting round to this:

The new emotes seem pretty damn well animated though I'll say that, they're all pretty cool. Just frustrating that using them is such a disaster still, they really need to figure out a better way to use them, a proper emote wheel or something would be fantastic.

The lack of clothing is a let down and I couldn't give a sh*t about new emotes, but this week isn't a complete wash out. Hardcore Series is long overdue and I'm looking forward to some SoW without magic cards and the try hard tonic junkies ruining things. I'll take the free $200 too, don't need it, but why not.

The Comeback Tour only tonight in Los Santos!

I think people are limiting their thinking on what the next GTA will be as far as the map. It shouldn't be a single city. With the new console generation having SSDs with a really good SSD controller and caching tech means that the consoles have access to game environment streaming which is a process so experimental in the gaming world virtually no game has tried it. It essentially allows your gaming machine to no longer require loading an entire game world, and instead stream assets that you need in real time. SSD technology has got to the point where this is possible, and this will allow for bigger and far more detailed maps with no performance loss. There is only one game right now that takes advantage of this technology, and that is Star Citizen. The technology to stream game environments from SSDs is very apparent and makes an enormous obvious difference in gameplay. For Star Citizen, it allows players to fly down to extremely detailed full-scale planetary environments in multiple locations in a single star system seamlessly with no loading screens of any kind. There is a neat video by Digital Foundry talking about this technology and it's ramifications for gaming. This technology can, and should be used in GTA VI. It's time for Rockstar to show us what a $9 billion video game series is capable of and bring that in game map of the US to life: That's what GTA VI should be. It should be the full realization of Rockstar's version of the US. Before the current technology we have, there's no way they could have had a map like this. That's why all the GTA maps have been small islands, because they can be loaded onto traditional HDDs. Today's 64bit precision, procedural generation, and streaming realtime from storage, it is absolutely possible to pull this off.

Definitely the Oracle XS for one. And the Deluxo:

Hehe... *gets tax return. Wife: “Now you can get that $hitbox car painted.” Me: *clicks purchase on $2500 rims off Craigslist....

Not everyone

Did my best to recreate another classic with this off-road beauty. Just wish there was a way to hide the livery ads on the door. Edit: Looks better after toying with Pearlescent combos.

Don't you just hate when you spent an hour and half doing all the preps for a diamond casino heist alone, only to have the help show up at the end and demand a big cut? I hate that sh*t. Don't just show up at the end with your hand out and expect a big cut, big cuts belong to those that are deserving and you are deserving by helping the host do prep work. Its not like Doomsday where the finales can be difficult. Diamond Heists are super easy if the host did the preps they're suppose to. You're just along for the ride and easy money.

No..., No... Don't say that. This effect mod is really really cool. I really liked it, and the fact that it is in its beta stage makes me think that if in this stage these effects are this much cool, I wonder how they will look in their non-beta state. Please keep it up.

Take Two established Rockstar.

The Dukes has Imponte branded floor mats. Never noticed them before and only just saw them in the "Beater Dukes" but the original Dukes has them as well.

General: 2 Bulls skinned 3 Cooked Seasoned Prime Beef 1 Hunt the Leader completed 1 Longnose Gar caught 3 non-player enemies killed with Maxim gun 3 Players kills with Revolver in Free Roam Events 10 vaults on horseback Bounty: 3 Bounty targets brought in 3 Bounty targets hogtied with Reinforced Lasso 2 Bounty targets tagged with Tracking Arrow Trader: 1 Cripps Special Camp Stew completed 15838 Distance Delivery Wagon travelled on mission 1 Resupply completed with 5 mins left Collector: 3 Arrowheads found 3 Coins found 3 Collectibles found with a shovel Moonshiner: 2 Moonshine of preferred type sold to buyer 2 Moonshine Story Missions completed 2 played with band for 2 mins Naturalist: 3 animal samples sold to Harriet 1 Blending Tonic crafted or used 1 Legendary Animals photographed (*bear in mind this is rank 13 Naturalist role challenges*)

That is exactly what I am hoping happens in the storyline. LeClerk is forced to flee the country due to us killing all these people in her name. And what's the closest place she could flee to? Mexico, of course.

Horley always looked suspicious to me in the finale at the fort. LeClerk says 'That's one down, three to go' and Horley just...looks suspect... Maybe I've watched too much British crime drama... but I suspect he is behind it all.

1. Karin Sultan Classic - 48 2. Vapid Ellie - 51 3. Lampadati Komoda - 64 4. Vapid Retinue MK II - 65 > 5. Dinka Sugoi - 12 << 6. Ocelot Jugular - 64 7. Maibatus Manchez - 12 8. Weeny Issi Classic - 33 9. Ubermacht Sentinel Classic - 62

Oh yeah! Cosmo Mk3, Street rim, LSC Gold color will actually looks like gold in those new rims!

What confused me the most were the people who were furious at the lack of horse masks in the recent update, and then the other half hate them with a passion and think they look awful. Both opinions have intertwined in the forums and I'm left scratching my head. I guess every player here wants and expects different things.

1. Karin Sultan Classic - 48 2. Vapid Ellie - 51 (+1) 3. Lampadati Komoda - 64 4. Vapid Retinue MK II - 64 5. Dinka Sugoi - 14 6. Ocelot Jugular - 64 7. Maibatus Manchez - 12 8. Weeny Issi Classic - 33 9. Ubermacht Sentinel Classic - 62 (-2)

1. Karin Sultan Classic - 48 2. Vapid Ellie - 50 3. Lampadati Komoda - 64 4. Vapid Retinue MK II - 64 5. Dinka Sugoi - 14 6. Ocelot Jugular - 64 7. Maibatus Manchez - 12 8. Weeny Issi Classic - 33 [+1] 9. Ubermacht Sentinel Classic - 64 [-2] Back to balance

Stay tuned. public is our current build, qabeta2 is the build they are working on. Very surprised it was pretty fast. Fix soon* *It can be few hours/days. 10AM BST(London) / 11AM CEST(Paris) / 2AM PDT(Los Angeles) / 5AM EDT(New York). Maybe later, I have no release date. That's purely speculation on my part. I'm very confused about weekly reset tbh, could be on Thursday (08/20/2020).

nah. my guess they just register all kind of domains so other people can´t claim them. and the map expansion is not VC

There's still a slight aim assist, people are just rushing you whilst spamming the pump action shotgun and even though you only have a quarter of health it still takes 3 shots with the repeater to kill someone! I think i'll pass on this one and honestly I think that free aim pvp in this game just will not work unless they remove the weapon bloom, have slower movement speed, increase weapon damage and make it so that there's absolutely no aim assist. You have to join through "featured series".

Now, I'm not usually into PvP, but I can get down with Hardcore Spoils of War.

Not much of a pvp person myself, but its nice to see they are at least listening to something the community wants.

I'm doing no such thing and we both know it. My "accusations"- not that I would call them that- are entirely justified and explained in significant detail. Your claims of hypocrisy have been almost universally based on re/misinterpretation of things I've said to suit the arguments you want to make, or drawing false conclusions on my position from the fact that I'm contesting your assertions. It's not an "abuse of power" to remove posts that are, in effect, spam. Clearly the comment worked as intended though, as you at least tried to come back and offer a slightly more coherent rebuttal, albeit one that's still completely lacking any externally referenced sources of data or supporting evidence. You're chasing your tail again. The point was that I never made any claims regarding a majority, minority or any amount of recent events constituting "peaceful protest"; and I still haven't. Therefore to assert such a statement was "unevidenced and frankly idiotic" is, itself, both of those things. That peaceful assembly has occurred over the last few months is indisputable fact- you yourself have acknowledged it, unless not content with asserting without evidence that the majority of protests have been violent, you're now asserting that all of them have been? Acknowledging that peaceful assembly has occurred, and asserting that "the protests (as a whole) are peaceful" are not the same thing. To be clear, the inference- actually, "inference" is too gentle- from your arguments was that I claimed that either a majority of protests were non-violent. In actuality, I did no such thing. This has been done to death and I simply cannot understand why you continue to labour it despite it being clear as day. As we've covered above, this isn't actually what I said...not that it matters becasue you're still asserting the thing I never said or implied is "...a lie being spread by many mainstream media outlets" without any evidence to support that assertion, and in apparent ignorance of repeated requests for the evidentiary basis you are using to justify it. There's no "refusal" at all; that you misrepresented my statements in order to claim I would dismiss any and all evidence you presented is categorical fact. I have literally quoted myself word for word to illustrate this. I suspect you and I have very differing views on what constitutes "addressing" my points. How large is the sample size you've seen? Does it consist solely of the large protests in major cities or does it also comprise the smaller local protests taking place in dozens-to-hundreds of towns across the US every single day? How are you determining which "descend into violence"? I feel like we might be finally getting somewhere on the question of evidencing this assertion so please go into detail on the specifics of how you've reached this conclusion. Not only are you trying to shift the burden of proof, you're doing it to a statement where only you have access to information on the sample size and formation, methodology and supporting data. You must be able to see how utterly illogical this is? It's also worth saying that your statement here is not the same as the one made earlier- that the majority of protests have been violent. I suppose we could also go down the route of looking at it's possible for violence to occur at a protest, but the protest not be violent, but let's save that for another day. In the absence of detail on how the conclusion is reached, it's impossible to make any judgement. Not that it especially matters as I'm not "making [any] call(s)", I'm simply pointing out the failure to present evidence to support your assertions. My points are repetitive precisely because you have failed to address them. I absolutely hate being a broken record but if I repeatedly state that you have failed to address a point, then the rational thing to do would be to take the point you believe you are making in response, break it down in detail, and provide a clear and evidenced response. I'm not asserting you haven't addressed points because I think it's funny to wind you up, or because I'm arguing in bad faith, or because I'm a nefarious dickhead, I'm doing it because I legitimately believe you haven't done as you're claiming. That's not necessarily your fault, or mine; these are big ol' walls of text and we're discussing from very different physical and logical positions so our baseline assumptions are likely to be significantly different and the messaging of things may well just get lost. If you think you have then perhaps it would be helpful to rephrase, clarify, or provide additional detail and evidence? Yes, on both counts. Most of my team team of ~10 I'm directly responsible for having hired as well as several others within my wider department. I'm also responsible for both line and project management. I never said personal experience didn't have value, I said that my personal attendance or not at protests has no bearing on my point- which is and remains that your assertion that "a majority of protests are violent" is unevidenced. I feel like you're also ignoring the core reason why personal experience is given such consideration in the context of personnel recruitment and management, which is challenges in empirically evidencing performance (particularly in the case of the former). The community for people in the industry I work in is extremely close-knit (and massively over-represented by US firms). I've spent significant time working overseas including in the US over the last 10 or so years. Similarly I've spent a lot of time working with Americans on a variety of engagements, professional qualifications, training courses, conferences and other events. I have friends in the US I've made during study, travels and work who I regularly chat with- mostly professionals in their late 20s through late 30s of a variety of political persuasions, and very much not "a bunch of antifa morons". My employer is a US company and I work closely with multiple teams domicile in the US on a daily basis; that includes a geopolitical risk team part of whose job it is to actively track things like violence at political protests via all-source means. Whilst stuff like the protests doesn't sit directly within my remit (though it would have in previous employ where I was the one doing that sort of geopolitical risk analysis work), it's very much proximate to my $DayJob. This might be relevant if I had actually made assertions to the contrary but I haven't. None of it represents a counterpoint to the actual argument I've made with regard to the evidentiary basis for your claims. I don't "need" a source of information on a subject I've taken no stance on. I don't need to hold a stance on a subject in order to question the evidentiary basis of your statements. I see no reason why I should accept your assertions as correct without supporting evidence, especially given the intrinsic bias you have shown throughout our discussions. Questioning the evidentiary basis of your statements and your continued refusal to substantiate them isn't "berating". The media is far from the only source of information on the subject. Can you point to an external source of any kind that you believe has done an acceptable job of representing the protests accurately? Ostensibly at least, this sounds reasonably logical. However we still have nothing more than your word supporting the notion that CNN has in fact portrayed violent protests as peaceful, or that that misrepresentation if it were true was intentional. There's also a definitions question; looking across CNN's reporting of protests the term "largely peaceful" crops up consistently. A protest in which the overwhelming majority of activity was, and overwhelming majority of attendants, were non-violent, but did see sporadic violence from a small number of attendees, would be "largely peaceful", correct? You're assuming an editorial stance based on the false notion that I'm arguing from a position that you've now acknowledged I'm not actually arguing from. In reality, you no absolutely nothing about the publications I consume or their editorial stance, and are desperately grasping at opportunities to poison the well. A definition you arbitrarily tried to rewrite and are now apparently pleading ignorance to? Because we both know that in reality evidencing cause and effect is often an exclusionary process rather than an inclusionary one. Anthropology, criminology and related disciplines are inherently exceedingly complex and assessing cause becomes an exercise in removing or accounting for variables to draw a conclusion. To paraphrase a model you've previously used; if you have a defined number of inputs into a system and changing one in a particular way results in a particular change in output, then you have evidence of the input causing the output change. That's exactly what I'm referring to here; a change in behaviour in the same or equal circumstances resulting in a reduction of violence. The specific changes are consciously made before the outbreak of violence and concern general approaches to crowd control activities, therefore they cannot be an effect of it and must be a cause. How likely you are to catch the virus does indeed affect how likely you are to die from it. As a general rule, people who have a higher likelihood of catching the virus also have a higher likelihood of dying from it once they catch it. Immune response is a critical factor in both. I'm not sure I ever suggested it did. I never "ignored" it, in fact I specifically referenced it. The issue is without knowing the impact is that it is not possible to assert an overrepresentation of fatalities, especially in the context of other data sets provided. Tell me, if it is factually undeniable as you repeatedly assert that this overrepresentation is a necessary outcome of the methodologies used to calculate fatalities, why the multiple academic studies I've previously cited which account for both this and other factors indicate an underrepresentation? This statement is far more valid as a rebuttal for your argument than it is mine. A surplus of fatalities that cannot be explained by other factors is exactly a "factor that proves under-counting by a wide margin". You don't see the jarring contradiction between making assertions based on a data set we don't actually have, and then dismissing offhand a data set we do because it's inconvenient for you? There is far more actual empirical evidence to support an undercount than there is an overcount. We can even estimate by how much which is far more than we can say for your claims. You keep asserting this but present no evidence to suggest it is true, whilst there is a wealth of evidence I've presented including multiple academic studies that indicates it is not. This is absurd. Excess deaths is a statistically demonstrable entity and the proportion of that related to known factors can easily be accounted for- and is in the studies I've cited. What's "conjecture" is the assertion of overreporting. You never made a statement on "equality". You made a statement on applicability which contained the word "equally". It does not constitute a rebuttal to my point. By your own admission, firearm ownership in the US is a qualified right and therefore not really a right at all. Whether or not it's "more qualified" in the UK is irrelevant to that point. Which I have done. I even cited the evidence to support it. To be clear, validating the conclusions reached in accordance with the data provided does not require me to "interpret" anything. Verification and validation is not interpretation. If there are specific pieces of evidence or data you feel contradict the findings then, as I've said before, feel free to cite them and explain your reasoning. One can be "pro gun" without believing firearm ownership is a right. I would posit that it's more "pro-gun" to promote a system which enforces proper training, mandates registration and is able to intervene rapidly and effectively should an individual pose a risk to themselves or others. I have literally no idea what could have possibly lead you to conclude that I believe either of these things. I'm a great believer in proportionality; people should use requisite force in order to defend themselves but that force should be proportionate to the threat. That may include using lethal force if your life is threatened. Similarly, the police should use force- including lethal force- to ensure public safety and security, but only in a way that it proportionate with the circumstances and only as a last resort. In both instance, implementing active and passive measures designed to prevent the requirement of use of force provides a better outcome for all concerned than immediately resorting to it. The issue is that there's literally no evidence to suggest that any concerted effort to commit electoral fraud via mail-in ballots is occurring or has occurred. Postal voting has been used in the US for years without issue (and in fact comprises the majority of votes in some states); it's also extremely commonplace in other countries again without issues. Most of security concerns around postal voting equally exist for in-person voting, and those that don't are easily remedied through technical means; moreover in-person voting has a number of security concerns that aren't considerations in postal voting. In fact, most evidence suggests that physical ballots such as those created during postal voting are less prone to manipulation and interference than paperless voting systems. Trump's concerns are not shared by subject matter experts, the intelligence community, or even large portions of his own party. Combined with the lack of historic evidence of fraud, it's difficult to conclude that he speaks from a place of genuine concern for voting regularity.

The new patch will probably come when they are confident that it's not going to f*ck the game up again. If the last week has taught us (and probably R* as well) one thing and one thing only, it's that a bad patch on game breaking level is demonstrably worse than no patch at all.

Gran Turismo Omologato Gotta love that engine detail. Also I found this OG beauty parked nearby and I obviously had to take the opportunity Man, I'm so over the moon with thse new wheels!

Yes, I did enjoy this story line and would honestly like to finish it completely. For one, if we were to try and portray a lawfully legal character it would be nice to be able to clear out character's name and proclaim their innocence. The story kind of left us hanging, at one end we got our vengeance against the bigger conspirators who set us up for the gallows, but on the other end there are still loose ends that probably need to be taken care of. Who's to say that Mrs. Lansing doesn't decide to come after our characters for what they did to her husband? Maybe she catches up to Le Clerk and we are the ones to come to her rescue? I dunno, but since Mrs Le Clerk did rescue my guy from certain death I think he owes it to her to make certain that there are no repercussions for her vengeance. And I honestly like her, I want to see her story finish on a better note myself. I'm not a huge fan of the horse masks. My reason is that they are just not really that practical, they won't stop a bullet, and we don't have sharp pointy things being aimed at the animal's heads when the horses are charging. Plus, I have known quite a few performing jousters in my reenactment years (yeah I'm a weirdo) and they say that those horses are just not fond of wearing such things for too long. But I don't hate them, I see a lot of players have them equipped and for many the horse's tack fits their outfits and their characters quite nicely. They just aren't for me.

I stan a queen and nobody can change my mind. But I get what you're saying, I'd LOVE for them to continue the Land of Opportunities missions. They provided great gameplay and they have replayability It was only just getting started. Slowly killing off all of the people responsible for Mr. LeClerk's death, robbing banks, ambushes, etc. There's so much they can do with the story and it bothers me that it will probably go unfinished

I just checked and yes it has rear of faction hitbox (since hitbox is what actually makes the size of the rear wheels) from the original model from mplowrider vs rear of the faction hitbox on the model from the latest update

In my earlier comment, I said that this thing doesn't look like it belongs in this game.However, I would not want R* to change ANYTHING on this car, I love the design. The real " issue" is that because the content keeps getting better and growing, it starts to make the older stuff look really out of place.Like I love the D10, but it makes the Blackfin, and Coquette Classic look like clown cars.Like, park this next to the OG Gauntlet and it's like BRUH. TL:DR I hope the next gen version of Gta v updates all the original launch cars textures and details( add customization too)to match the current models.