Kill Frenzy! Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) You all know that some of you use this glitch that you can use weapons being in pasive mode! Unrealistic as hell! Problems I've seen using this Pasive mode! Their is a car driving around the city that Simeon wants for his collection! Fine, I go take that car, enable pasive mode! And You can't do me anything! WTF!! This sucks completely! Rockstar should delete pasive mode and besides that I see people using glitch, other day one was in pasive mode and me aswell and he killed me. Ok ROCKSTAR! Edited February 9, 2015 by KillinFr3nzy NL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misanthrope Z Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 i wish people would stop making passive mode threads that only translate to "passive mode should be deleted because i'm mad i couldnt kill one player in free roam" no, it doesn't need to be removed because of yours or R*'s incompetence. it needs to be worked on. removal of glitches is one thing, removal of an entire feature is stupid. Zorvaine, RoyalRedXIII, YaDoesntHaveToCallMeRay and 6 others 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Frenzy! Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) What I ment to say is they should fix it if not delete it! It's not fun if you are driving a car that Simeon wants and you have pasive mode on or you have a bounty and you have pasive mode on. They should do something like this while driving Simeon's car you can't turn pasive mode on or pasive mode should directly quit when u jump in the car and by bounty the same thing, u get bounty, pasive mode should directly go off! Besides that, fix the possibility using weapons being on pasive mode. I'm not mad that I can't kill you, I'm mad that I can't get money for Simeon car. Delete bounty then lol U use pasive mode while u get bounty and I can't kill you and earn the money, that's fun. Soon everyone will be in this mode. Edited February 9, 2015 by KillinFr3nzy NL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misanthrope Z Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 that's worded a bit better i can respect your suggestions, but i disagree with the bounty thing. reason being that some people place bounties on other players for absolutely no reason- so if i'm doing my own thing out in blaine county, the last thing i'd want is some idiot placing a bounty on me, auto-disabling passive and potentially forcing me to stop what i'm doing just so i have to do boring freeroam shootouts against thirsty PvPers. however, i'd have no problem with disabling passive mode when entering the High Priority Vehicle. Chao§pawN and Phantomspirit 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC Hammer Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Passive mode is and has always been used 99% of the time as a troll / griefing tool. Just like "user created content" R* trusted their players to use a feature for a perceived benefit, and they got trolled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoBo_043 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I think they should at least make it so passive mode is the same on ps3 as it is on ps4 now. I get killed, don't care but not in the mood for PvP, want to leave the area to avoid other players. As soon as I get in my car get shot again. Almost only options are to start a mission and exit a fair distance away and exit to teleport somewhere, or on foot hiding behind telephone poles so I don't get run over. I agree on the special cars thing though. It should be considered a mission. Phantomspirit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 In my experience, bounties already force you out of passive mode. At least, NPC bounties do; I'm not sure if player bounties do or not, although I assume they would. Phantomspirit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Frenzy! Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) that's worded a bit better i can respect your suggestions, but i disagree with the bounty thing. reason being that some people place bounties on other players for absolutely no reason- so if i'm doing my own thing out in blaine county, the last thing i'd want is some idiot placing a bounty on me, auto-disabling passive and potentially forcing me to stop what i'm doing just so i have to do boring freeroam shootouts against thirsty PvPers. however, i'd have no problem with disabling passive mode when entering the High Priority Vehicle. I forgot you can place bounties on players Alright let's quit that bounty thing. Edited February 9, 2015 by KillinFr3nzy NL Misanthrope Z 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redpoint Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I personally don't like passive mode but understand why people do. IMO passive mode should have its own separate lobby so you can't flip in and out of it at will and use it as an unfair advantage on its own, if you want to be passive then you should be with others who want to, same goes for normal FM XJpostman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMFtwstdHICK Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) There's no need for passive mode IMO.. There are lobbies for it now. Private session.. Obviously, someone doesn't want to get shot.. Doesn't want to worry about being killed by another player. Hit up your own Private session. Why be in a Free Roam f*cking lobby in the first place? Makes no f*cking sense. The same sh*t is in a private lobby, except for players who wont to KILL YOU.. Morons.. Yeah, yeah,, blow me with the argument.. "Well, take your killing self to a death match lobby".. No.. Because, those are set up for killings. It's a hell of a lot more fun driving around, walking, whatever, and just wondering and waiting what's gonna happen next. Is this player gonna kill me? Should I take them out first? And, when there's chaos all over the map, it's f*cking awesome.. It's this that keeps me coming back. Edited February 9, 2015 by SMFtwstdHICK JakeHorgrove and artoisformoi 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantomspirit Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) There's no need for passive mode IMO.. There are lobbies for it now. Private session.. Obviously, someone doesn't want to get shot.. Doesn't want to worry about being killed by another player. Hit up your own Private session. Why be in a Free Roam f*cking lobby in the first place? Makes no f*cking sense. The same sh*t is in a private lobby, except for players who wont to KILL YOU.. Morons.. Yeah, yeah,, blow me with the argument.. "Well, take your killing self to a death match lobby".. No.. Because, those are set up for killings. It's a hell of a lot more fun driving around, walking, whatever, and just wondering and waiting what's gonna happen next. Is this player gonna kill me? Should I take them out first? And, when there's chaos all over the map, it's f*cking awesome.. It's this that keeps me coming back. I know what your saying,but it's got to the point now ,where if anyone comes near you have to kill them,as there is no trust left due to the deeds of a few psychos who kill everything that moves.. Edited February 9, 2015 by bronzeboyxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionJackso247 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 i wish people would stop making passive mode threads that only translate to "passive mode should be deleted because i'm mad i couldnt kill one player in free roam" no, it doesn't need to be removed because of yours or R*'s incompetence. it needs to be worked on. removal of glitches is one thing, removal of an entire feature is stupid. Agree. Lots of talk about Passive mode. With anything if it can be abused, it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Logic Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 It is a good option to use when the games laggy. not like it really matters since GTAO is one big piece of sh*t surrounded by water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWEMichaelB Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 i wish people would stop making passive mode threads that only translate to "passive mode should be deleted because i'm mad i couldnt kill one player in free roam" no, it doesn't need to be removed because of yours or R*'s incompetence. it needs to be worked on. removal of glitches is one thing, removal of an entire feature is stupid. This^^^^^^^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA_dog Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 You can't go even into passive mode when you have a bounty. I love passive mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psymin Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 All I read was: Txt txt txt. Butthurt. Txtxtxtxtxtxtxtxtxtxtx Rockstar listen to me. *sigh* Amidoinitrite GTA-Biker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not A Nice Person Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 There's no need for passive mode IMO.. There are lobbies for it now. Private session.. Obviously, someone doesn't want to get shot.. Doesn't want to worry about being killed by another player. Hit up your own Private session. Why be in a Free Roam f*cking lobby in the first place? Makes no f*cking sense. The same sh*t is in a private lobby, except for players who wont to KILL YOU.. Morons.. Yeah, yeah,, blow me with the argument.. "Well, take your killing self to a death match lobby".. No.. Because, those are set up for killings. It's a hell of a lot more fun driving around, walking, whatever, and just wondering and waiting what's gonna happen next. Is this player gonna kill me? Should I take them out first? And, when there's chaos all over the map, it's f*cking awesome.. It's this that keeps me coming back. All I read was: Txt txt txt. Butthurt. Txtxtxtxtxtxtxtxtxtxtx Rockstar listen to me. *sigh* Amidoinitrite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XJpostman Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) There's no need for passive mode IMO.. There are lobbies for it now. Private session.. Obviously, someone doesn't want to get shot.. Doesn't want to worry about being killed by another player. Hit up your own Private session. Why be in a Free Roam f*cking lobby in the first place? Makes no f*cking sense. The same sh*t is in a private lobby, except for players who wont to KILL YOU.. Morons.. Yeah, yeah,, blow me with the argument.. "Well, take your killing self to a death match lobby".. No.. Because, those are set up for killings. It's a hell of a lot more fun driving around, walking, whatever, and just wondering and waiting what's gonna happen next. Is this player gonna kill me? Should I take them out first? And, when there's chaos all over the map, it's f*cking awesome.. It's this that keeps me coming back. People who use passive mode still want to interact with other players and don't want to spend hours before gaming organizing a lobby of (hopefully) friendly payers. The only difference between what you wrote that you enjoy about free roam, and what a passive player enjoys is just the pointless pvp battle. We still want to race, rob, shoot cops, stunt with other people. Just not have to worry about a free roam warrior thinking he's superior to me when I don't want to bother fighting back. Separate lobbies would be the best solution. Edited February 11, 2015 by XJpostman XlXXXlllXXXll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMFtwstdHICK Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 That works... Ain't gonna happen, but, that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XlXXXlllXXXll Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Passive Mode FOREVER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XJpostman Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) That works... Ain't gonna happen, but, that works. Ya, I agree with you there. I won't give up hope though. Edited February 11, 2015 by XJpostman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Bean Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 There's no need for passive mode IMO.. There are lobbies for it now. Private session.. Obviously, someone doesn't want to get shot.. Doesn't want to worry about being killed by another player. Hit up your own Private session. Why be in a Free Roam f*cking lobby in the first place? Makes no f*cking sense. The same sh*t is in a private lobby, except for players who wont to KILL YOU.. Morons.. Yeah, yeah,, blow me with the argument.. "Well, take your killing self to a death match lobby".. No.. Because, those are set up for killings. It's a hell of a lot more fun driving around, walking, whatever, and just wondering and waiting what's gonna happen next. Is this player gonna kill me? Should I take them out first? And, when there's chaos all over the map, it's f*cking awesome.. It's this that keeps me coming back. You act like people who use passive mode ALWAYS have it on, but that is not the case. Yes, people who always have it on should just go to a private session. The majority of people who use it don't do that though. I use it every once in a while when there's some 12 year old trying to prove his superiority by backing up to me in his zentorno, or some other annoyance arises. You're saying if someone is annoying you or constantly killing you that you should just sit there and take it simply because you're playing GTA? That's ridiculous. Someone elses actions should not be able to ruin your game experience and force you to leave. GTA is not solely made for running around annoying people. It's made the way it is so you can do whatever you want and have fun. If you find the only fun thing to do in GTA is to annoy people, then you're very simple minded. Misanthrope Z 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC Hammer Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 People who use passive mode still want to interact with other players and don't want to spend hours before gaming organizing a lobby of (hopefully) friendly payers. The only difference between what you wrote that you enjoy about free roam, and what a passive player enjoys is just the pointless pvp battle. We still want to race, rob, shoot cops, stunt with other people. Just not have to worry about a free roam warrior thinking he's superior to me when I don't want to bother fighting back. Separate lobbies would be the best solution. You making friends in real life would be the best solution. Then you wouldn't have to use GTA, Craigslist, Fwy rest stops and god knows what else to meet people It's really a little pervy how many of you are looking for new "friends" in an internet video game JakeHorgrove 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furry_Monkey Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 People who use passive mode still want to interact with other players and don't want to spend hours before gaming organizing a lobby of (hopefully) friendly payers. Separate lobbies would be the best solution. Sorry, but separate lobbies is a bad idea and would split people up too much. I have pastimes that are more suited to going in passive mode, but I like being in lobbies with friends who are doing the kill thing. We occasionally join each other and partake in what the other is doing, so being in separate lobbies would stop us doing that. I couldn't be more against separate lobbies. Fixing the problems would be the correct thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XJpostman Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 People who use passive mode still want to interact with other players and don't want to spend hours before gaming organizing a lobby of (hopefully) friendly payers. The only difference between what you wrote that you enjoy about free roam, and what a passive player enjoys is just the pointless pvp battle. We still want to race, rob, shoot cops, stunt with other people. Just not have to worry about a free roam warrior thinking he's superior to me when I don't want to bother fighting back. Separate lobbies would be the best solution. You making friends in real life would be the best solution. Then you wouldn't have to use GTA, Craigslist, Fwy rest stops and god knows what else to meet people It's really a little pervy how many of you are looking for new "friends" in an internet video game That's exactly it. I'm not looking for new friends, i'm looking to join a random lobby, meet up with some people that are racing, stunting, having fun beyond just killing each other and not worry about having anything beyond that. It happened all the time in RDR and GTA IV and made for some of my most memorable moments in those games. People who use passive mode still want to interact with other players and don't want to spend hours before gaming organizing a lobby of (hopefully) friendly payers. Separate lobbies would be the best solution. Sorry, but separate lobbies is a bad idea and would split people up too much. I have pastimes that are more suited to going in passive mode, but I like being in lobbies with friends who are doing the kill thing. We occasionally join each other and partake in what the other is doing, so being in separate lobbies would stop us doing that. I couldn't be more against separate lobbies. Fixing the problems would be the correct thing to do. I'm talking about sessions like RDR (friendly, normal, hardcore). If you wanted to keep things the way they are, you'd choose a normal lobby and nothing would change. If you wanted to have minimal HUD and focus on chaos, you'd choose hardcore. If you wanted to not worry about getting killed by a freeroam warrior but still hadn't out with randoms, choose friendly. It would actually be grouping like minded players together making all three lobby options better than the mess we have now where nobody interacts besides to spawn kill each other. As for separating the player base. I can't see it being a problem if matchmaking worked properly. If there is a session with your preferred options, you should join it. On top of that, I play almost entirely in invite only sessions because have no reason to join a public lobby the way they are now and i'm guessing i'm not the only one so the player base is being devided as it is. MellowFellow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furry_Monkey Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I'm talking about sessions like RDR (friendly, normal, hardcore). If you wanted to keep things the way they are, you'd choose a normal lobby and nothing would change. If you wanted to have minimal HUD and focus on chaos, you'd choose hardcore. If you wanted to not worry about getting killed by a freeroam warrior but still hadn't out with randoms, choose friendly. It would actually be grouping like minded players together making all three lobby options better than the mess we have now where nobody interacts besides to spawn kill each other. As for separating the player base. I can't see it being a problem if matchmaking worked properly. If there is a session with your preferred options, you should join it. On top of that, I play almost entirely in invite only sessions because have no reason to join a public lobby the way they are now and i'm guessing i'm not the only one so the player base is being devided as it is. Okay, I get what you were saying now - thanks for explaining. However, it still doesn't resolve my major issue with separate lobbies... Sorry, but separate lobbies is a bad idea and would split people up too much. I have pastimes that are more suited to going in passive mode, but I like being in lobbies with friends who are doing the kill thing. We occasionally join each other and partake in what the other is doing, so being in separate lobbies would stop us doing that. I couldn't be more against separate lobbies. Fixing the problems would be the correct thing to do. I am 100% dead against any change that means I can't do that without having to switch sessions. I understand the negative feelings some people have about the sessions as they are, but there are so many more positives, in my mind, that I can't justify even considering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MellowFellow Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Yeh I'm with postman on this. I can't think of a single valid reason why 'friendly fire off' lobbies aren't a great idea. Pvp fans want to have a fire fight, which is the one thing the other fella doesn't want to do. Saying the passives should go to private lobbies is as wrong as saying the pvp'ers should just do death matches. Both groups should be able to interact with other people, personally I have always liked joining up with some random and doing five star survivals. Sometimes I'm happy to fend off other players too, sometimes I'm not. Pretty simple really, if you want to pvp and I don't, passive mode is a sh*tty and frustrating compromise for us both - especially on old/peasant gen where I am. So lets not even have to deal with each other and we'll meet up some other time when we are both feeling up for a fight. It worked well in 4 until the buzzard came along late in the day. Sure there was the odd death by falling after some sod had blown you up 500 feet in the air with a rocket and there was the odd death by being run over by some scamp. But generally, a revenge kill was tolerated and you went back to chilling around. Rdr was the same, I liked playing with randoms and I liked shooting them too. What I liked most was everybody knowing whether I was coming to help you clear out the gang, or to blow you the f*ck away. XJpostman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MellowFellow Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I'm talking about sessions like RDR (friendly, normal, hardcore). If you wanted to keep things the way they are, you'd choose a normal lobby and nothing would change. If you wanted to have minimal HUD and focus on chaos, you'd choose hardcore. If you wanted to not worry about getting killed by a freeroam warrior but still hadn't out with randoms, choose friendly. It would actually be grouping like minded players together making all three lobby options better than the mess we have now where nobody interacts besides to spawn kill each other. As for separating the player base. I can't see it being a problem if matchmaking worked properly. If there is a session with your preferred options, you should join it. On top of that, I play almost entirely in invite only sessions because have no reason to join a public lobby the way they are now and i'm guessing i'm not the only one so the player base is being devided as it is. Okay, I get what you were saying now - thanks for explaining. However, it still doesn't resolve my major issue with separate lobbies... Sorry, but separate lobbies is a bad idea and would split people up too much. I have pastimes that are more suited to going in passive mode, but I like being in lobbies with friends who are doing the kill thing. We occasionally join each other and partake in what the other is doing, so being in separate lobbies would stop us doing that. I couldn't be more against separate lobbies. Fixing the problems would be the correct thing to do. I am 100% dead against any change that means I can't do that without having to switch sessions. I understand the negative feelings some people have about the sessions as they are, but there are so many more positives, in my mind, that I can't justify even considering it. Then you would stay in the normal lobbies with your mates. Having passive lobbies wouldn't change that,it would just remove the people that don't want to fight at all that day. It wouldn't mean that everybody left is compelled to shoot each other non stop. I'm sure that with your mates around, you could dust any zentorno driving squeaker and just get back to playing it your way no problem at all. XJpostman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC Hammer Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I can't think of a single valid reason why 'friendly fire off' lobbies aren't a great idea. Pvp fans want to have a fire fight, which is the one thing the other fella doesn't want to do. Saying the passives should go to private lobbies is as wrong as saying the pvp'ers should just do death matches. Both groups should be able to interact with other people, personally I have always liked joining up with some random and doing five star survivals. Sometimes I'm happy to fend off other players too, sometimes I'm not. Pretty simple really, if you want to pvp and I don't, passive mode is a sh*tty and frustrating compromise for us both - especially on old/peasant gen where I am. So lets not even have to deal with each other and we'll meet up some other time when we are both feeling up for a fight. It worked well in 4 until the buzzard came along late in the day. Sure there was the odd death by falling after some sod had blown you up 500 feet in the air with a rocket and there was the odd death by being run over by some scamp. But generally, a revenge kill was tolerated and you went back to chilling around. Rdr was the same, I liked playing with randoms and I liked shooting them too. What I liked most was everybody knowing whether I was coming to help you clear out the gang, or to blow you the f*ck away. They're (friendly lobbies) not a good idea because R* wants to make the majority of their players happy - and you guys are cannon fodder for those players and as has been posted a million times - RDR and GTA IV were all peer to peer games, nothing ran on R* servers GTA 5 (free roam) is now running on a dedicated set of servers and each new option adds to the permutations of server configurations..... so make friends BEFORE you connect to the internet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MellowFellow Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I can't think of a single valid reason why 'friendly fire off' lobbies aren't a great idea. Pvp fans want to have a fire fight, which is the one thing the other fella doesn't want to do. Saying the passives should go to private lobbies is as wrong as saying the pvp'ers should just do death matches. Both groups should be able to interact with other people, personally I have always liked joining up with some random and doing five star survivals. Sometimes I'm happy to fend off other players too, sometimes I'm not. Pretty simple really, if you want to pvp and I don't, passive mode is a sh*tty and frustrating compromise for us both - especially on old/peasant gen where I am. So lets not even have to deal with each other and we'll meet up some other time when we are both feeling up for a fight. It worked well in 4 until the buzzard came along late in the day. Sure there was the odd death by falling after some sod had blown you up 500 feet in the air with a rocket and there was the odd death by being run over by some scamp. But generally, a revenge kill was tolerated and you went back to chilling around. Rdr was the same, I liked playing with randoms and I liked shooting them too. What I liked most was everybody knowing whether I was coming to help you clear out the gang, or to blow you the f*ck away. They're (friendly lobbies) not a good idea because R* wants to make the majority of their players happy - and you guys are cannon fodder for those players and as has been posted a million times - RDR and GTA IV were all peer to peer games, nothing ran on R* servers GTA 5 (free roam) is now running on a dedicated set of servers and each new option adds to the permutations of server configurations..... so make friends BEFORE you connect to the internet But the new passive mode serves only to frustrate the players you say are the majority and thus being pandered to. The cannon fodder is invincible, even if the little rascal is cruising around in Simeons hpv if I recall correctly, that's just going to piss people off - especially if they're willing/wanting to have a shoot out for it. You may be right on the tech aspects, I have little interest or knowledge of such things so it may be impossible to implement, which makes it a moot point. But I still think its a good idea if it can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now