Enable pasive mode sucks! This option should be quiet!

[XJpostman]

 

 

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

This is where I'll admit ignorance. I don't know the difference between p2p and dedicated servers but what I will say is that with 30 million people (give or take) playing around the world, it wouldn't be hard to have a few servers dedicated to each set of options and have all of them full at any given time, with proper matchmaking of course.

 

Your right though, I do feel like R* wants to keep the griefers happy over people that enjoy other aspects of the game.

[MellowFellow]

 

 

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

This is where I'll admit ignorance. I don't know the difference between p2p and dedicated servers but what I will say is that with 30 million people (give or take) playing around the world, it wouldn't be hard to have a few servers dedicated to each set of options and have all of them full at any given time, with proper matchmaking of course.

Your right though, I do feel like R* wants to keep the griefers happy over people that enjoy other aspects of the game.

Ha! I'm glad im not the only one on the internet who knows nothing about the tech stuff. I think p2p is how we used to get porn and songs, dedicated servers is what we used to play everquest.

That might be wrong though.

[SMFtwstdHICK]

 

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.

 

 

 

I don't deal with 12 yr old pukes online like that. I take em out. One RPG to their little sorry ass Zen and they have gone crying off.. Some still don't. Repeat process... If it bugs me. I jet out.. I usually don't get followed.. If I do and I don't care to waste my time with it. I leave. New session. Not a big deal. There's always another session, with the same sh*t to do in it..

 

Constantly killing me doesn't happen. I get my kills in as well.

 

No, annoying people is not the only "thing" to do in this game. I just like the chaos. When I wanna make money, I do a job. rob a store, run over NPC's, etc..

 

IF I get killed in the process of doing some of those? So be it. I don't care enough to get my panties in a bunch. Making me want to hit up passive mode.

 

It has nothing to do with being simple minded. I get on this game to kill and be killed. At times. make some money. But, for the most part, to be part of the chaos. The fun.

 

I am glad most of the lobbies I get into now, on PS4 especially, are players with the same idea in mind.

[bruvs-mcfc]

Virtually never use it myself but yeah it's a good emergency option available to players and I think it should be time limited so its used to eeacape a problem or such like ,

 

Now this glitch of being able to use weapons in passive is getting completely out of hand if by some sort of miracle i get in a lobby with other people half of them are using this glitch , I mean its ridiculous what is the point of playing against other people. You may as well be in single player

Edited February 12, 2015 by bruvs-mcfc

[Furry_Monkey]

 

 

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.

 

 

No, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I want to be able to choose my state at any time - not be forced by the lobby type.

 

I like mixed lobbies - I do not want segregation of any type. Segregation would be typical of Rockstar, but the correct response would be to fix the problems.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Furry_Monkey

[SMFtwstdHICK]

I admit, i have used it..

 

For rocking a piss. and getting a refill..

 

That is the only time when I have. I am not letting any player get free kills off of me. Ya gotta earn that sh*t. LOL

[MellowFellow]

 

 

 

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.

 

No, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I want to be able to choose my state at any time - not be forced by the lobby type.

 

I like mixed lobbies - I do not want segregation of any type. Segregation would be typical of Rockstar, but the correct response would be to fix the problems.

I like mixed lobbies too, but I still think that the ones who don't want to fight at all and the ones that do constantly have no need to be together. Where I fall down is in not doing what is possible with this dedicated server stuff. So, from a simple point of view, in the last game I used to be able to choose police on or off, friendly fire on or off, what part of the map to play on, what weapons to use etc

[Fail_At_GTA]

Sometimes I just don't get what goes through the minds of some forum users. Just because somebody is in passive mode doesn't mean they should pay alone. I use passive mode in public sessions all the time because I'm typically an unaggressive player. I drive around and see what's going on, maybe do some stunts and some follow the leader with other players. Can I do that alone? No. I do that in passive because GTA Online is a shoot-on-sight type of game. People who expected it to be any different than GTA 4 are just foolish.

 

Also my favourite use of passive mode is to quickly turn it on and jump from my car if a jet shows up so they blew up my car and pay for it. In public sessions I pretty much only use my Zentorno so I don't need to worry about random people shooting me on the street. So that jet has to pay a bit over $9000 to fail to get a kill, its funny.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Fail_At_GTA

[MellowFellow]

Sorry, ipad went wrong so continuing here...

 

I could choose all these specific options and still have plenty to play with. Technical problems aside, a lobby for passive, a lobby for pvp and a lobby for both (as we are now) shouldn't be an impossibility. That would suit the passives (often me) the best of everything types (you) and the full on killers.

The only people that would lose out are the trolls on either side that go passive and act like a dick or the knob ends that want cheap kills against people who are clearly doing something else.

 

In any case, was just an opinion, worth no more than you paid for it. But it would bring me back into game, if the same is true for a decent number of people, the increased player base means we all win.

[MellowFellow]

Sometimes I just don't get what goes through the minds of some forum users. Just because somebody is in passive mode doesn't mean they should pay alone. I use passive mode in public sessions all the time because I'm typically an unaggressive player. I drive around and see what's going on, maybe do some stunts and some follow the leader with other players. Can I do that alone? No. I do that in passive because GTA Online is a shoot-on-sight type of game. People who expected it to be any different than GTA 4 are just foolish.

 

Also my favourite use of passive mode is to quickly turn it on and jump from my car if a jet shows up so they blew up my car and pay for it. In public sessions I pretty much only use my Zentorno so I don't need to worry about random people shooting me on the street. So that jet has to pay a bit over $9000 to fail to get a kill, its funny.

I agree, I don't think the passives should play alone in a private room anymore than the killers should play death matches non stop. Trouble is, there's a fundamental difference between some people as to what the game is. Either.....

 

It's a pvp game, that's why you can kill people and i want to kill all the time so if you don't like it, go private. That's what it's for.

 

Or, it's a sandbox game to mess around with your mates and randoms so if you want to kill non stop, use death match. That's what it's for.

 

While this difference in opinion is so stark, there'll always be issues. Anyway, I'm out, been rambling for ages. Cheers for the debate all

[XJpostman]

@Furry_Monkey

 

I'd be fine with them leaving passive mode in the normal lobbies and fixing it like you say, and if matchmaking worked your lobby wouldn't have any shortage of like minded people. It wouldn't change anything for your play style.

What i'm annoyed with is that they are treating 'passive mode' mixed with the pointless 'mental stat' as a replacement for friendly lobbies when they aren't even close to the same thing. I have yet to see more than 3 people (not in a crew) cooperating with each other in freeroam which was a very common occurrence in both RDR and GTA IV.

 

I feel like they are restricting the creativity of the player base/longevity of the game by mixing people that want to find creative ways to pay the game with the people that are fine with just pvping.

 

To sum up, imo, with proper matchmaking and separate sessions, everyones game experience would be improved. Friendlies wouldn't have to worry about freeroam warriors. Hardcores would have a lobby filled with chaos and destruction and normals (and griefers) could enjoy the game the way it is.

 

I honestly can't see a downside, again, as long as matchmaking is up to snuff.

[JC Hammer]

I think p2p is how we used to get porn and songs, dedicated servers is what we used to play everquest.

That might be wrong though.

 

Yes this was P2P