GTA Online Petition: Allow players to play Finance & Felony in an

[HamwithCheese]

 

Is this still going on? Is it so hard to believe that more people want more PvP stuff? Is that just so wrong in this game? Is it sooo horrible to try to accommodate all play styles in this "jack of all trades" videogame?

You have it a little backwards. Most of the argument isn't about people wanting PvP stuff. The argument comes from the removal of PvP stuff, in as much as some don't see that Invite Only should come at a cost where public should get a bonus relative to the amount of people in the session outside of the organisation.

 

The long and short of it is, give us the choice of PvP or purely PvE. The sticking point is, that's a 14 month old request which shows no signs of interest from R*. I can't see it changing ever but for any hope of change a solution favorable to R* needs to be proposed.

 

 

FYI I don't want more forced PvP, I'm happy for them to shift it to invite only too, but at a cost.

Ah sh*t, I meant pve.

 

I'm tired.

Edited August 7, 2017 by HamwithCheese

[Big Molio]

. Intended core game play? ...

 

. Im sure R* put hours of thought into implementing that red blip..and pop up.

 

 

That's because for all your snarkiness, you still haven't the wit to notice that it is simply the players and their interaction who are intended to make the gameplay in free roam. The notification of a delivery is simply that.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Big Molio

[_47_]

Free-mode lobbies were inherently a bad design choice when it comes to an open sandbox game as GTAO is. There should have been a PvE player friendly fire sessions available for people who don't want to PvP but would be happy making money and killing NPCs. Forcing people to PvP is how you lose people to other games outside of Rockstar.

[.Vooodu.]

 

. Intended core game play? ...

 

. Im sure R* put hours of thought into implementing that red blip..and pop up.

 

 

That's because for all your snarkiness, you still haven't the wit to notice that it is simply the players and their interaction who are intended to make the gameplay in free roam. The notification of a delivery is simply that.

 

 

 

I only come off snarky because you ask for it. Either way..

 

Nothing you say ever really makes sense when it comes to this topic.

 

You keep spinning one angle then switch up once it gets shot down..

 

So now its... "Players and their interactions who are intended to make the gameplay in free roam"... Yet 99% of the players playing this content are lookin for 'safer' lobbies to play in and some are straight up lagging out and vote kicking players to remove so called 'intended interactions'.

 

 

Hostile player interactions is NOT 'required'. And since most players are avoiding what you consider 'core game play", That doesn't sound like core game play to me. Core game play is un-avoidable and required.

[Big Molio]

I only come off snarky because you ask for it. Either way..

 

Nothing you say ever really makes sense when it comes to this topic.

 

You keep spinning one angle then switch up once it gets shot down..

 

So now its... "Players and their interactions who are intended to make the gameplay in free roam"... Yet 99% of the players playing this content are lookin for 'safer' lobbies to play in and some are straight up lagging out and vote kicking players to remove so called 'intended interactions'.

 

 

Hostile player interactions is NOT 'required'. And since most players are avoiding what you consider 'core game play", That doesn't sound like core game play to me. Core game play is un-avoidable and required.

 

It is only avoided through unintentional circumstances, either a split session or by deliberate contrivance of such. It is not generally avoidable as part of the offering from R*. The jobs are served up in public lobbies with notifications inviting you to engage with other players who are moving product around, so that is the core game play. Hostile interaction is not a "requirement" simply an inherent feature if you take the game from R* as is.

 

Show me where I have ever said anything contrary to the above.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Big Molio

[Guest]

 

 

Is this still going on? Is it so hard to believe that more people want more PvP stuff? Is that just so wrong in this game? Is it sooo horrible to try to accommodate all play styles in this "jack of all trades" videogame?

You have it a little backwards. Most of the argument isn't about people wanting PvP stuff. The argument comes from the removal of PvP stuff, in as much as some don't see that Invite Only should come at a cost where public should get a bonus relative to the amount of people in the session outside of the organisation.

 

The long and short of it is, give us the choice of PvP or purely PvE. The sticking point is, that's a 14 month old request which shows no signs of interest from R*. I can't see it changing ever but for any hope of change a solution favorable to R* needs to be proposed.

 

 

FYI I don't want more forced PvP, I'm happy for them to shift it to invite only too, but at a cost.

 

Ah sh*t, I meant pve.

 

I'm tired.

 

I read you a little backwards and read it as "it's hard to believe" not "is it so hard to believe" anyway, so my mis-reading worked out to mean the same anyway.

[.Vooodu.]

 

I only come off snarky because you ask for it. Either way..

 

Nothing you say ever really makes sense when it comes to this topic.

 

You keep spinning one angle then switch up once it gets shot down..

 

So now its... "Players and their interactions who are intended to make the gameplay in free roam"... Yet 99% of the players playing this content are lookin for 'safer' lobbies to play in and some are straight up lagging out and vote kicking players to remove so called 'intended interactions'.

 

 

Hostile player interactions is NOT 'required'. And since most players are avoiding what you consider 'core game play", That doesn't sound like core game play to me. Core game play is un-avoidable and required.

 

It is only avoided through unintentional circumstances, either a split session or by deliberate contrivance of such.

 

False.. You can join empty sessions by by luck of the draw when joining GTA. For better or for worse.. When i want to pvp i always end up in empty sessions and have to re-join GTA O a few times before landing in a packed lobby. Its just the opposite when playing CEO/Bunker/Bike missions.

 

You can take over low populated lobbies with friends..and or other friendly players where NO hostile interactions take place. ... Which happens all the time.

 

Also.. even you yourself has said something along this line. "you won't play this content if certain circumstances arise' meaning if hostile players are around you ain't playing the content, basically 'ignoring core game play'.. Im not gonna go back and find that comment because its buried in a pile of bullsh*t that you're been dumping non stop on this topic for weeks. But its in there.

 

You basically just contradicted yourself.

 

Of course you could always add me.. and we can play the 'core game play' as you try and run free roam missions and myself and friends stalk the sh*t out of you. Sounds like fun no? What are you waiting for? CORE GAME PLAY yo!

Edited August 7, 2017 by .Vooodu.

[Guest]

Free-mode lobbies were inherently a bad design choice when it comes to an open sandbox game as GTAO is. There should have been a PvE player friendly fire sessions available for people who don't want to PvP but would be happy making money and killing NPCs. Forcing people to PvP is how you lose people to other games outside of Rockstar.

I agree - however feel it needs pointing out that it's still incredibly popular... somehow...

[Guest]

 

 

. Intended core game play? ...

 

. Im sure R* put hours of thought into implementing that red blip..and pop up.

That's because for all your snarkiness, you still haven't the wit to notice that it is simply the players and their interaction who are intended to make the gameplay in free roam. The notification of a delivery is simply that.

 

 

I only come off snarky because you ask for it. Either way..

 

Nothing you say ever really makes sense when it comes to this topic.

 

You keep spinning one angle then switch up once it gets shot down..

 

So now its... "Players and their interactions who are intended to make the gameplay in free roam"... Yet 99% of the players playing this content are lookin for 'safer' lobbies to play in and some are straight up lagging out and vote kicking players to remove so called 'intended interactions'.

 

 

Hostile player interactions is NOT 'required'. And since most players are avoiding what you consider 'core game play", That doesn't sound like core game play to me. Core game play is un-avoidable and required.

 

99% is a bit on the high side (yes I clicked the "read anyway" button).

 

There's no denying that R* wants the PvP interactions, they added them in and refuse invite only. It's not required as such because you can glitch out and do the jobs without a minimum number of players in the lobby - unlike Exec Search and PP. This may imply they don't care about solo publics, yet the refusal to make it invite only says they don't want people playing without the PvP risk.

 

Rockstar logic makes it a grey area.

 

Personally I don't think Rockstar will ever make it invite only but also never be able to stop the solo public glitch (or never want to stop it, who care's which). Push the petition, give a little and put forward a viable solution. Believe it or not, I want invite only to have it too - I'm getting fed up of players getting all funny, reporting and voting for kicking lately because I've destroyed their stuff (although that wont solve it - contracts are Invite Only but people still, stupidly do them in freeroam and get all funny when you blow their van carrying guns they just stole up).

 

There's clearly many solutions, some which nearly everyone would agree on. If you want them, push them, get the petition out there, as someone else said "make them listen".

[Black-Dragon96]

You are making this too easy.

 

You are arguing that there is a difference in risk now between "already in session" and "may potentially arrive in session" because the conversation has turned to what the payout should be.

 

However, in previous discussion you (and others) have persistently argued that the potential for people to arrive in either a low populated or solo public session and cause problems is an ever present and therefore unacceptable threat. This is why you persist in advocating for private lobbies. You don't like the people already in session, and you don't like the idea that there might be people arriving in session.

There is a diffrence. Sure both of them have a risk but the risk in solo public is significantly lower than in a already filled public lobby (thats why people like me play in solopublic). If the risk would be the same in both nobody would play in solo public right now.

 

Subsequently we now turn then to a hypothetical, simplified two-tier system of Public, or Private.

 

In Private, you would be playing risk free, because the NPC adversaries are easy and predictable. Therefore the payments would be, and should be, much lower than the regular payouts of Public.

Nope not really a two tier system. Solo public would still be a thing for some. The people who want to play with very low/no risk would move to private, but there are a few people who want some PvP but not as much as in a regular public lobby who would move to solopublic.

However the solopublic gameplay would not be much diffrent from the gameplay in private so imo there should not be a diffrence in the pay between the two.

The player in solo public has the risk of someone joining but he would get a bonus if someone joins.

 

@Demonic

All of the above should answer your questions.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Black-Dragon96

[Big Molio]

False.. You can join empty sessions by by luck of the draw when joining GTA. For better or for worse.. When i want to pvp i always end up in empty sessions and have to re-join GTA O a few times before landing in a packed lobby. Its just the opposite when playing CEO/Bunker/Bike missions.

Yeah you can, but you aren't so obtuse as to believe that the "empty public lobby" is in any way what R* intends for their public free roam sessions in GTAO? Therefore it is only by accident or by deliberate contrivance that you end up in one, and therefore "avoid" PvP play.

 

You can take over low populated lobbies with friends..and or other friendly players where NO hostile interactions take place. ... Which happens all the time.

Again, that is simply by consensus of the players in the session, it doesn't mean that it has been removed.

 

Also.. even you yourself has said something along this line. "you won't play this content if certain circumstances arise' meaning if hostile players are around you ain't playing the content, basically 'ignoring core game play'.. Im not gonna go back and find that comment because its buried in a pile of bullsh*t that you're been dumping non stop on this topic for weeks. But its in there.

 

You basically just contradicted yourself.

 

Of course you could always add me.. and we can play the 'core game play' as you try and run free roam missions and myself and friends stalk the sh*t out of you. Sounds like fun no? What are you waiting for? CORE GAME PLAY yo!

There is nothing contradictory about not doing deliveries in full sessions. That is not ignoring the core game play, because the core gameplay is still inherent. Choosing not to risk it in session does not negate that in any way.

 

Lastly, I have always been civil with you, a bit of reciprocal courtesy wouldn't go amiss.

[TankGirl]

 

 

 

 

. Intended core game play? ...

 

. Im sure R* put hours of thought into implementing that red blip..and pop up.

That's because for all your snarkiness, you still haven't the wit to notice that it is simply the players and their interaction who are intended to make the gameplay in free roam. The notification of a delivery is simply that.

 

 

I only come off snarky because you ask for it. Either way..

 

Nothing you say ever really makes sense when it comes to this topic.

 

You keep spinning one angle then switch up once it gets shot down..

 

So now its... "Players and their interactions who are intended to make the gameplay in free roam"... Yet 99% of the players playing this content are lookin for 'safer' lobbies to play in and some are straight up lagging out and vote kicking players to remove so called 'intended interactions'.

 

 

Hostile player interactions is NOT 'required'. And since most players are avoiding what you consider 'core game play", That doesn't sound like core game play to me. Core game play is un-avoidable and required.

 

99% is a bit on the high side (yes I clicked the "read anyway" button).

 

There's no denying that R* wants the PvP interactions, they added them in and refuse invite only. It's not required as such because you can glitch out and do the jobs without a minimum number of players in the lobby - unlike Exec Search and PP. This may imply they don't care about solo publics, yet the refusal to make it invite only says they don't want people playing without the PvP risk.

 

Rockstar logic makes it a grey area.

 

 

Personally I don't think Rockstar will ever make it invite only but also never be able to stop the solo public glitch (or never want to stop it, who care's which). Push the petition, give a little and put forward a viable solution. Believe it or not, I want invite only to have it too - I'm getting fed up of players getting all funny, reporting and voting for kicking lately because I've destroyed their stuff (although that wont solve it - contracts are Invite Only but people still, stupidly do them in freeroam and get all funny when you blow their van carrying guns they just stole up).

 

 

 

 

 

*It would be nice if we could have a PvE server though. Nothing wrong with making both sides of the fence happy. I get that some people want online to be more along the lines of story mode. About making money, playing missions however of course its with their character they were able to create all without having to deal with hostile players.

Edited August 7, 2017 by TankGirl

[HamwithCheese]

 

Free-mode lobbies were inherently a bad design choice when it comes to an open sandbox game as GTAO is. There should have been a PvE player friendly fire sessions available for people who don't want to PvP but would be happy making money and killing NPCs. Forcing people to PvP is how you lose people to other games outside of Rockstar.

I agree - however feel it needs pointing out that it's still incredibly popular... somehow...

Gta has no competition. R* can take the game where ever they want, they know the fans have no alternative options. If "The Benz" comes up with a game that can rival this (and manage to not get sued by T2), R* will have to adjust based on how successful that game is.

[Guest]

 

You are making this too easy.

 

You are arguing that there is a difference in risk now between "already in session" and "may potentially arrive in session" because the conversation has turned to what the payout should be.

 

However, in previous discussion you (and others) have persistently argued that the potential for people to arrive in either a low populated or solo public session and cause problems is an ever present and therefore unacceptable threat. This is why you persist in advocating for private lobbies. You don't like the people already in session, and you don't like the idea that there might be people arriving in session.

There is a diffrence. Sure both of them have a risk but the risk in solo public is significantly lower than in a already filled public lobby (thats why people like me play in solopublic). If the risk would be the same in both nobody would play in solo public right now.

 

 

Subsequently we now turn then to a hypothetical, simplified two-tier system of Public, or Private.

 

In Private, you would be playing risk free, because the NPC adversaries are easy and predictable. Therefore the payments would be, and should be, much lower than the regular payouts of Public.

Nope not really a two tier system. Solo public would still be a thing for some. The people who want to play with very low/no risk would move to private, but there are a few people who want some PvP but not as much as in a regular public lobby who would move to solopublic.

However the solopublic gameplay would not be much diffrent from the gameplay in private so imo there should not be a diffrence in the pay between the two.

The player in solo public has the risk of someone joining but he would get a bonus if someone joins.

 

@Demonic

All of the above should answer your questions.

 

OK then, another idea/suggestion (which I doubt will go down well).

 

Allow invite only sessions with a 0.75 multiplier

Allow public sessions with a 1.0 multiplier and an additional 0.01 per player outside of the organisation in the session

Do not allow sales and/or supply runs in public if there are no players outside of the organisation (like PP and Exec Search currently cannot be done without other players outside of the org.).

 

Invite Only have the security of no trolls being able to join, as such will give a lesser payout. You pay a little for the safety.

Public sessions give an increased payout depending on quantity of players.

Solo publics could not be used.

 

If all players leave the session during the sale/supply run then it's a flat 1.0 multiplier for that run, further sales/supply runs will be unavailable until more enter the session.

 

Sure, you could solo glitch it while doing the sale/supply run but it's extra effort and would put players off doing it.

 

You could go one worse and, if the session empties, all remaining undelivered goods is returned, without penalty and you only get paid for what has been delivered, at the flat 1.0 multiplier.

 

Where's the excuses for why that wouldn't be acceptable?

[HamwithCheese]

All that is pretty fair except for the "no sales in public without outside org members". I know why you'd think that's a good idea, but sometimes you gotta let things slide, letting us work with friends is good enough.

[Black-Dragon96]

OK then, another idea/suggestion (which I doubt will go down well).

 

Allow invite only sessions with a 0.75 multiplier

Allow public sessions with a 1.0 multiplier and an additional 0.01 per player outside of the organisation in the session

Do not allow sales and/or supply runs in public if there are no players outside of the organisation (like PP and Exec Search currently cannot be done without other players outside of the org.).

Nope!

Lets start with this multiplier thing. Atleast for the gunrunning vehicle missions (the missions you start inside the moc) the multiplier is 1.0 easy, 1.25 for normal, 1.5 for hard. Since the game registers these missions as contactmissions (they complete the contactmission daily objective), im pretty sure that this is the case for other missions.

Thats why i think 1.0 for invite only and solo public and a added bonus up to 1.5 (2% per player) for public.

Like I said multiple times by now, yes solo public has the risk of someone joining. The thing is IF someone joins you get the high demand bonus, if not you basicly play the same way someone in private does.

 

For the: "Do not allow sales/resupplys without in public with players outside the org". Im sorry, but are you nuts? What are the people who get booted out of a session because of sh*tty matchmaking, during a sale gonna do? Watch their merch burst into flames like the I/E cars and loose all of it? Im sorry but this idea is just stupid.

 

Invite Only have the security of no trolls being able to join, as such will give a lesser payout. You pay a little for the safety.

Public sessions give an increased payout depending on quantity of players.

Solo publics could not be used.

So the public players would not only get a bonus (a bonus they deserve) but also a bigger payout from the start! Nope, cant support this.

 

I agree that the person in public should get more in the end, but the private player should not start with less than the basepay.

Solo public would still be there since its not patchable.

 

You could go one worse and, if the session empties, all remaining undelivered goods is returned, without penalty and you only get paid for what has been delivered, at the flat 1.0 multiplier.

 

Where's the excuses for why that wouldn't be acceptable?

Simple.

You cant make the players suffer for Rockstars sh*tty matchmaking and in your example you would do that. They would get booted from the sale just because the matchmaking cant keep a 20 player lobby together.

 

All in all you are basicly trying to make the hypothetical selling in private as unattractive as possible.

[Guest]

All that is pretty fair except for the "no sales in public without outside org members". I know why you'd think that's a good idea, but sometimes you gotta let things slide, letting us work with friends is good enough.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good idea but it's an idea that would avoid the whole solo public glitch "issues".

[Guest]

 

OK then, another idea/suggestion (which I doubt will go down well).

 

Allow invite only sessions with a 0.75 multiplier

Allow public sessions with a 1.0 multiplier and an additional 0.01 per player outside of the organisation in the session

Do not allow sales and/or supply runs in public if there are no players outside of the organisation (like PP and Exec Search currently cannot be done without other players outside of the org.).

Nope!

Lets start with this multiplier thing. Atleast for the gunrunning vehicle missions (the missions you start inside the moc) the multiplier is 1.0 easy, 1.25 for normal, 1.5 for hard. Since the game registers these missions as contactmissions (they complete the contactmission daily objective), im pretty sure that this is the case for other missions.

Thats why i think 1.0 for invite only and solo public and a added bonus up to 1.5 (2% per player) for public.

Like I said multiple times by now, yes solo public has the risk of someone joining. The thing is IF someone joins you get the high demand bonus, if not you basicly play the same way someone in private does.

 

For the: "Do not allow sales/resupplys without in public with players outside the org". Im sorry, but are you nuts? What are the people who get booted out of a session because of sh*tty matchmaking, during a sale gonna do? Watch their merch burst into flames like the I/E cars and loose all of it? Im sorry but this idea is just stupid.

 

 

Invite Only have the security of no trolls being able to join, as such will give a lesser payout. You pay a little for the safety.

Public sessions give an increased payout depending on quantity of players.

Solo publics could not be used.

So the public players would not only get a bonus (a bonus they deserve) but also a bigger payout from the start! Nope, cant support this.

 

I agree that the person in public should get more in the end, but the private player should not start with less than the basepay.

Solo public would still be there since its not patchable.

 

 

You could go one worse and, if the session empties, all remaining undelivered goods is returned, without penalty and you only get paid for what has been delivered, at the flat 1.0 multiplier.

 

Where's the excuses for why that wouldn't be acceptable?

Simple.

You cant make the players suffer for Rockstars sh*tty matchmaking and in your example you would do that. They would get booted from the sale just because the matchmaking cant keep a 20 player lobby together.

 

All in all you are basicly trying to make the hypothetical selling in private as unattractive as possible.

 

I'm shocked that it didn't go down well with you.

 

Contact Missions are a 1.0/1.25/1.5 multiplier. Heists are 0.75/1.0/1.25 multiplier. I based the pay scale on heists since the payout is high and in line with heists. The difference is irrelevant, especially since public session pay is scaled based on the number of other people in the session.

 

You seem incapable of seeing the difference between solo public and invite only.

 

Internet connection issues cause players leaving sessions. Ensure a decent connection and it wont be an issue. Off topic a little but my friends and I have often talked about how online games should have internet checks built in to ensure a minimum upload/download speed and maximum ping to avoid laggy players disrupting others. Basically, if a player leaves a session often then they need to check their connection and improve it.

 

Why would I need to make invite only unattractive? It's currently non existent. Leave it the way it is, you still don't get it. I'm simply looking for an acceptable middle ground that works.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Guest

[Xiled]

Bad enough they have to already be in public lobbys only. Gonna be a sh*t storm if rockstar does this. "no sales in public without outside org members". Gonna lead more players do doing money glitches. They nerfed mission payouts and changed there entire payout structure. They patched the armored kuruma in heists. It would be a dumb move on them to alter how the game works in a major way again.

[Guest]

Yep. But if people want to have it in invite only, knowing Rockstar, they will only do it at a cost.

 

Best to leave it as is and glitch to solo public if you want a PvP free experience.

[Xiled]

joined online it put me in a public session by myself not a glitch when matchmaking makes it happen. As much of a "glitch" as the armored kuruma even though more exploited that than solo sessions. I want a balanced PvP game for both the attacker and the defender of cargo or whatever else. As long as the game remains unbalanced I am going to get put into public lobbies do to bad matchmaking. I have 70mbps upload and download and I am not "glitching" into a lobby by myself. Explain that as a "glitch" why I get put in public lobbies by myself due to the outdated matchmaking rockstar uses.

[Guest]

joined online it put me in a public session by myself not a glitch when matchmaking makes it happen. As much of a "glitch" as the armored kuruma even though more exploited that than solo sessions. I want a balanced PvP game for both the attacker and the defender of cargo or whatever else. As long as the game remains unbalanced I am going to get put into public lobbies do to bad matchmaking. I have 70mbps upload and download and I am not "glitching" into a lobby by myself. Explain that as a "glitch" why I get put in public lobbies by myself due to the outdated matchmaking rockstar uses.

You may have 70mbps internet but what's the LAN like? A lot can affect your connection.

One friend was constantly running in to issues with sessions, simply changing the LAN to powerline adapters and making a few minor changes to the router solved it - he no longer leaves a session due to the network.

 

Any number of things can cause you to have issues connecting to other players, including having friends who have crappy internet since GTA attempts to put you in their sessions when you load in to online. However, since you have said "As long as the game remains unbalanced I am going to get put into public lobbies do to bad matchmaking." one would presume you have adjusted something to exploit a weakness in the technology used for their matchmaking which is putting you in to empty lobbies.

 

Outdated or not, it works fine for a lot of people. Those it doesn't work, in my experience, have been down to issues with the LAN, hardware or ISP.

[Xiled]

Router and modem are new all the correct ports are open. My isp is very stable. Everything is fine on my end. If I find new session more than 3 times the next lobby I load into is normally a public lobby by myself. On oldgen if I used to find a new session more than 3 times in a row it used to give a network error on ps3 and would load me into singleplayer. Only times I "lag out" of the lobby is when someone with bad internet joins a lobby and makes the traffic start to teleport with there bad connection. You could have google fiber and still "lag" due to someone with a bad connection. Due to the bad matchmaking the game puts me in a session by myself sometimes. I'm glad how I can join a new session and sometimes not have to deal with unbalanced PvP. The most times I had errors in sessions was during an update back in the first few updates the ps4 version of the game was out.

 

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20150510151325/https://www.reddit.com/r/gtaonline/comments/21yqew/gta_online_servers_explained/

 

 

Internet connection issues cause players leaving sessions. Ensure a decent connection and it wont be an issue. Off topic a little but my friends and I have often talked about how online games should have internet checks built in to ensure a minimum upload/download speed and maximum ping to avoid laggy players disrupting others. Basically, if a player leaves a session often then they need to check their connection and improve it.

Would not work on peer to peer do to consoles connecting directly to each other and doesn't actually connect to a "server" like most other mmo games. They cheaped out on "servers" and wonder why people can easily manipulate the game. In there troubleshooting guide it hasn't been updated to nextgen/pc at all. It still shows the guide for ps3 and xbox 360 which they say you need minimum 3mbps download speed and recommended 1 mbps upload speed. They have no checks to see what your speeds are and can't do anything about it. That troubleshooting guide has not been update since October of 2013.

 

The following link could not be loaded do to an unknown error while playing gta online.

 

https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/en-us/articles/200525767-GTA-Online-Connection-Troubleshooting

Edited August 8, 2017 by Xiled

[Black-Dragon96]

You seem incapable of seeing the difference between solo public and invite only.

The only diffrence I see is that there is the possibility of someone joining your solo public lobby while this is not the case for private sessions.

Like I said, if you do a sale in solo public without someone joining, you do the exact same thing that the private player does so why should you get more than the private player?

Sure if someone joins you would have the risk of him attacking you, but thats what you would get the high demand bonus for.

I simply do not think that solopublic players should get a higher pay just for the potential risk of someone joining. Leave the payment system like it is now (regular pay and no bonus for any for any form of solo play, regular pay plus per player bonus for public), unlock the missions in private and make sure that the private players cant get a high demand bonus. That would be a lot easier to implement than your changes.

 

Internet connection issues cause players leaving sessions. Ensure a decent connection and it wont be an issue. Off topic a little but my friends and I have often talked about how online games should have internet checks built in to ensure a minimum upload/download speed and maximum ping to avoid laggy players disrupting others. Basically, if a player leaves a session often then they need to check their connection and improve it.

The issue is definitly not on the players side. A dew days ago i played gta online and downloaded updates for watchdogs 2 in the background. No laggs no issues for the whole 3 hours of downloading and playing (my internet is actually really slow for german standarts).

The other day i played again, this time without anything else using internet connection and i got two sessionsplits in a row with a unknown network error in the end. Its Rockstars sh*tty matchmaking that cant handle the traffic.

 

Your suggestionvwould also cut out people who have bad internet because they cant get better internet. Not everyone lives in metropolitan areas, some people live in places where the bad internet they have, is the best they can get.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Black-Dragon96

[crispy79]

Xbox One user here. I'm signing this.

 

Can't express how frustrating it is that I can't play with friends.

[Big Molio]

The only diffrence I see is that there is the possibility of someone joining your solo public lobby while this is not the case for private sessions.

Like I said, if you do a sale in solo public without someone joining, you do the exact same thing that the private player does so why should you get more than the private player?.

Because regular play in regular sessions should get regular payouts. They are the players who would be risking disruption. People who played in private should get less because they would be playing an infantilised, easy and predictable version.

[Black-Dragon96]

^You are obviously unable to read. I was talking about the diffrence between solo public and private amd not about the diffrence between private and regular public.

 

 

For the rest: Like I said multiple times by now, regular pay and no bonus for private amd solo public, regular pay plus bonus per player outside the org for playing in regular public lobbys. I honestly do not see an issue with this suggestion.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Black-Dragon96

[Guest]

I guess we will be stuck with public only sessions then if the petition remains unchanged 14 months after being started.

 

No flexibility, no compromise, nothing to make it attractive to Rockstar, why would they decide to make the change 14 months on when they have clearly shown no intention of doing so to date?

 

It's very obvious that by refusing to offer anything more than just "enable private sessions" will result in no change.

 

 

As for the "issues" with not allowing it in empty public sessions - the solution, play in invite only, it will be allowed (at lesser pay). If the lower payout is a concern perhaps improve your internet connection/LAN.

 

I'm constantly in sessions of 25+ players and never get dropped, fix your network or change your ISP for a better one. You may be given 70mbps or whatever but they may still have issues connecting to other players. I know my internet used to have issues with youtube yet is 250mbps so speed is pretty irrelevant provided it's above the minimum requirement (which is very low).

 

 

 

Alternately, if my suggestions/ideas don't sit well, think up some better ones which are more than just the same old "enable invite only" crap that's flopped for 14 months.

[Black-Dragon96]

No flexibility, no compromise, nothing to make it attractive to Rockstar, why would they decide to make the change 14 months on when they have clearly shown no intention of doing so to date?

We should not have to make it attractive for Rockstar, Rockstar should have to make it attractive for the players.

 

Why should the players make a petition for something diffrent, if simply allowing these missions in private is what they want? Suggesting something like this is just stupid.

 

If the lower payout is a concern perhaps improve your internet connection/LAN.

 

I'm constantly in sessions of 25+ players and never get dropped, fix your network or change your ISP for a better one. You may be given 70mbps or whatever but they may still have issues connecting to other players. I know my internet used to have issues with youtube yet is 250mbps so speed is pretty irrelevant provided it's above the minimum requirement (which is very low).

 

How can someone improve his internet if he already has the best internet that the network service in the area he lives in provides?

Not everyone lives in a metropolitan area with a high bandwith.

I have an average download speed of 800 kbits/s (it takes over 8 hours to download all gta online updates when i have to reinstall the game), my buddys connection is even slower. Its the best we can get because no network service in our area sells a faster/better connection. There was even a time when my buddy had to use his mobile internet to play because it was faster than the wire intermet in his area.

So shut up with this "improve you connection" bullsh*t.

[Big Molio]

^You are obviously unable to read. I was talking about the diffrence between solo public and private amd not about the diffrence between private and regular public.

For the rest: Like I said multiple times by now, regular pay and no bonus for private amd solo public, regular pay plus bonus per player outside the org for playing in regular public lobbys. I honestly do not see an issue with this suggestion.

I can read. You want to have your cake and to eat it. On the one hand, you campaign for private lobbies on the grounds that even solo public lobbies run the risk of being joined by troublemakers, and then as soon as you are faced with the notion of having the regular pay cut for what would be irregular play in easy private lobbies, you try to argue that these two play models would be the same thing.