your thoughts about a possible non-PvP GTAO

[HamwithCheese]

I hate the idea of restrictions. Which is the basis of this thread.

 

I like GTAO the way it is now and hope VI is more of the same.

Hey that's great. Good job, you like the game. That does not mean they should cater to you and you only. This idea doesnt even affect you, or your play style. I honestly see no reason you should oppose it.

[SHADOW OPS]

 

I hate the idea of restrictions. Which is the basis of this thread.

 

I like GTAO the way it is now and hope VI is more of the same.

Hey that's great. Good job, you like the game. That does not mean they should cater to you and you only. This idea doesnt even affect you, or your play style. I honestly see no reason you should oppose it.

 

 

It does affect those of us who prefer pvp. It splits the player base even more. This is one side wanting it all one way and one side wanting it all the other way. Where there are no guns, just a big pillow fight. With a DLC looming called gunrunning...I look forward to this...

 

 

And not this...

 

[jollythecat]

@ Shadowoperative

 

We are talking about a lobby option here, you don't have to play in friendly lobbys if you don't want to.

We don't want to remove the current pvp lobbys and make gtao friendly for all.

 

It's seems like you missed that part of the discussion.

[Nyamber]

@ Shadowoperative

 

We are talking about a lobby option here, you don't have to play in friendly lobbys if you don't want to.

We don't want to remove the current pvp lobbys and make gtao friendly for all.

 

It's seems like you missed that part of the discussion.

Ignore him, he just wants to troll. He doesn't seem to understand other people have opinions that differ from his.

[SHADOW OPS]

@ Shadowoperative

 

We are talking about a lobby option here, you don't have to play in friendly lobbys if you don't want to.

We don't want to remove the current pvp lobbys and make gtao friendly for all.

 

It's seems like you missed that part of the discussion.

 

It still splits the player base. Use my current name.

[Nyamber]

 

@ Shadowoperative

 

We are talking about a lobby option here, you don't have to play in friendly lobbys if you don't want to.

We don't want to remove the current pvp lobbys and make gtao friendly for all.

 

It's seems like you missed that part of the discussion.

 

It still splits the player base. Use my current name.

 

Boo hoo, surely you WANT to play with people who want to PvP?

 

Why would you want to play with people who don't want to play with you?

 

Splitting the player base is good in situations like this.

 

I don't go around forcing PvP players to do missions with me. Why are you so selfish you think people should only play the way YOU want?

[~Tiger~]

Calm down folks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion which is why I added the poll.

 

That said, once an opinion is stated there is no need to repeat it several times as that can lead to confrontation and other unpleasantness.

 

Thanks.

[RedDagger]

My take on it is that the playerbase is already split...people who just want PvE don't want to play with PvP, and this results in stuff like invite only lobbies, leaving lobbies until they find a peaceful one, kicking PvP players, or glitching the game to create solo public lobbies.

 

Adding an option for a PvE only lobby would simply unify those who are already manually splitting the playerbase. People who want to PvP can still PvP, the only people who "lose out" are those who want to PvP against PvE players, who are annoying and not worth thinking about.

 

PvP players can PvP without a fuss, and PvE can PvE without a fuss, and with other people. Everyone wins ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[HamwithCheese]

 

 

I hate the idea of restrictions. Which is the basis of this thread.

 

I like GTAO the way it is now and hope VI is more of the same.

Hey that's great. Good job, you like the game. That does not mean they should cater to you and you only. This idea doesnt even affect you, or your play style. I honestly see no reason you should oppose it.

 

It does affect those of us who prefer pvp. It splits the player base even more. This is one side wanting it all one way and one side wanting it all the other way. Where there are no guns, just a big pillow fight. With a DLC looming called gunrunning...I look forward to this...

 

 

And not this...

 

So, the easy targets are gone and the players that know what they're doing are in. Great, got it.

[BlackMilk]

Obviously it can be done. Changing mechanics and certain systems isn't an impossible task for Rockstar. They've just chosen not to go down the PvE path for the online game.

 

Actual playable content aside, all they would need to do to make it PvE instead of PvP is ofcourse make it so that players can't kill eachother in free mode. It's still possible to annoy others by driving/flying into them or attracting cops but I doubt many people would bother with that so a no-contact mode wouldn't be necessary by default. Let players invite eachother to in-game groups without requiring one of them to start an organisation or MC first. Allow for the leader to join activities that the groupmembers automatically follow them into.

They wouldn't have to change the rewards for things like selling special crates because they could simply focus on enhancing the AI of NPC's instead of working out PvP balance. Everyone, either individually or in groups, could have their own little GTA adventure going on in an online setting. The world stays lively with action and you can spectate other people just by being near them.

 

Personally I think they could actually still do this. Again, forget about adding more playable content like businesses the OP mentioned or (what I really want) stuff like trucking missions from GTA:SA. Just tweaking a few things and making the exact same game available as a PvE mode would work. It could just be a different type of session available to anyone wanting to go online.

I'm not great at naming stuff but they could be called Friendly or Chaotic, for example. Entirely within the realm of things that are possible, but not that are likely years after release.

 

Having friendly sessions like the type I described above would obviously shift a portion of the playerbase to these new sessions. The people who like nothing more than to "grief" other players would have less victims. I don't have the official numbers so I can't tell for sure but maybe that would cost Rockstar players on one side too much? Dunno, but considering all the complaints maybe the players with an affinity for more friendly PvE environments would make up for that.

 

I'd be all for it.

 

EDIT: Besides the splitting playerbase that is always something to discuss, here's another thought. Longevity. At some point in the future this game might not be as populated as it is now and was earlier on. I have no idea if Rockstar is going to do big things with the current GTA:O such as adding map expansions, more PvE content or allowing players to migrate to a/the new GTA:O game in the future and keeping their characters alive that way.

 

But if the only thing they're going to do is throw in some more clothes, guns, vehicles and maybe something like an CEO/MC business style thing every now and then, surely the number of active players is going to decline. And when it does (assuming the service remains available) what will be left of GTA:O, the PvP game? When the PvP (multiplayer for many games) part dies, you'll only keep people playing for PvE. Singleplayer and co-op. I'm sure that there's plenty of people who will stick around or come back occasionally to play GTA:O if there's enough stuff to do when PvP is not active/exciting enough anymore. Some people have built their vehicle collections over the years and might like to come back every now and then to have a drive around. Other people for as long as the game remains available will keep playing, inventing their own little minigames to play with friends or crews or to record/stream it for their youtube audiences.

 

Well, I think you get my point here. I wouldn't be surprised if the updates stop coming not long from now and then when Rockstar sees a steady decline in people buying shark cards, this game is simply shut down. Assuming it's not revived for the next GTA or anything of the things I said in the first part of this edit. But if that is NOT the case, then maybe they could keep people playing. And a small number of those players could still be buying sharkcards so they don't have to spend a lot of time doing heists or working on their businesses so they can quickly access all the vehicles and toys available in the game by that point, and even now already.

Edited May 7, 2017 by BlackMilk

[Quinn_flower]

Pvp avoid like the flu

[BlackMilk]

Oh and one thing I forgot. Don't make the mistake of thinking that a lot of players are into either only PvP or only PvE. Some will be, definitely, but not all.

 

If Rockstar made PvE sessions available today then I would definitely jump into one of those and collect some more crates and such.

But if you think that I would never go back to the PvP sessions, you'd be mistaken. Sometimes I just want to have the satisfaction of taking down players that bother me. It's kinda nice to drive down to a store, get shot at by some person who doesn't know what they're doing and to kill them before casually driving off. Ofcourse it wouldn't be exactly the same. With such a large change comes SOME change in players as well. As long as everyone assumes that everyone knows about the availability of PvE sessions, one can also assume that anyone joining a PvP session is intending to participate in combat or at the very least is open to being involved in it.

 

What I'm saying is that you'll probably find a lot less easy targets. Because now, in this hypothetical situation, joining a PvP session has become a choice instead of a necessity in order for them to make money. They might still go off and get their CEO business done, but they're ready for action.

 

Considering this, I'm actually surprised the resistance against this idea isn't a lot lower than posts and poll numbers show it to be.

I know that some users have confessed to getting easy kills every now and then like a little guilty pleasure. But I also know that people love to brag about how good they are and that most of their enemies are not worthy opponents. All the time (depending on the thread subject) I see posts of users claiming they're beating entire groups of enemies with little to no deaths of their own. I'm not saying I haven't shot up enough players to know that theoretically I could do the same, but it's highly unlikely to be a regular thing and would require all of them to be somewhat ignorant of all the possibilities the game has to offer in fighting other players.

 

In other words: if people really are as good as they claim to be, many of their targets present little to no challenge and would even bore them. What this change would do is make for a stronger concentration of groups of PvP'ers in the respective sessions. Instead of having a handful of "real" PvP'ers in your session amongst twenty cannon fodder calibre you would find that most players in your session are suddenly focused on it. And that makes it MUCH more likely that they'll explore their options with more effiency and provide you with the challenge you crave.

 

All in all, this only seems like a good thing to me. Hypothetically. Because like I said, I don't have the numbers. But the counter argument of splitting the playerbase also ONLY holds up if the numbers are known and they back the statement. I still think that catering to both PvE and PvP players works better in most games, that longevity can be a good thing and that there are side effects like the one mentioned above that would be good for the community.

 

Unless ofcourse, some people like PvP but don't like the idea of facing mostly players who actually practise more. Anyone brave enough to admit to that?

[Nyamber]

Unless ofcourse, some people like PvP but don't like the idea of facing mostly players who actually practise more. Anyone brave enough to admit to that?

This is the reason. People are scared they'll have to fight people better than them, instead of people just trying to do work. They're scared of losing. They want to keep their easy targets.

[BlackMilk]

 

Unless ofcourse, some people like PvP but don't like the idea of facing mostly players who actually practise more. Anyone brave enough to admit to that?

This is the reason. People are scared they'll have to fight people better than them, instead of people just trying to do work. They're scared of losing. They want to keep their easy targets.

 

Funny thing is, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't part of that group. But I'd rather have the choice between PvP or PvE sessions for making money through free mode activities like MC/CEO with the consequence of facing tougher opponents in PvP than be forced to conduct my PvE business in a no limit PvP environment like it is now.

 

Exercising caution, improving my "skills" (read: choosing which weapon to use when and making other decisions) and involving friendly players is how I would deal with the change. I'm not afraid to admit that currently I'm not very good at PvP, but this is GTA and not what I think qualifies as a so-called skill based shooter. So I go to extremes to win. Using Pegasus vehicles, outnumbering enemies and using weapons that could be seen as overkill.

 

Getting my butt handed to me by a superior player isn't something that's going to bother me when I make the CHOICE of going for PvP. It does now because at nine out of ten times (or maybe ninety-nine out of a hundred) someone bothers me when I don't want to be bothered.

 

EDIT: I'm not trying to imply I'm brave by asking who is brave enough to admit to this and then admitting to it myself. For me it's not a big deal to say so. For others, they might feel it ruins their reputation or image. Hence the question in my last post.

Edited May 7, 2017 by BlackMilk

[zoso80]

The base is already split as evidences by this thread and the poll. This is nonsensical point. The future of GTA:O is allowing people to customize their experience. Maybe you'd lose cheap kills on uninterested players? Then you should be opposed to missions, heists and whatnot that take people out of public lobbies. That's if you follow the logic you laid down as they divide players. You are by extension making an argument for big public lobby where EVERYONE must be no? Educate me, I'll have the popcorn ready. As RedDagger said, it's a win/win PVE players get operate without PVP players making a mess of things and PVP players get play with your cohorts. No sweat. The franchise is better off for it. And best part, you don't have to play it. You can traipse to the PVP lobby and be happier than a Vagos killing someone who tries to jack a pre-modded Peyote.

 

Your point is illogical on it's face. Sounds like you want COD or Battlefield in GTA. Either case, you're in the wrong franchise if you argue with a straight face that all things that splits the playbase is bad and we must be in one central lobby. That's not GTA:O. GTA:O at launch tried to have both. Only in recent years has it lost its way with The Benz gone.

 

It splits the player base even more. This is one side wanting it all one way and one side wanting it all the other way. Where there are no guns, just a big pillow fight. With a DLC looming called gunrunning...I look forward to this...

 

 

 

 

Thank you Red for bringing some sanity. The divisions are much like the game. Your point is well taken. What is really a win/win and here we have PVP players telling us its really a bad thing? I'm blown away. I'd expect something like, 'good, you PVE whiners can go somewhere and leave us alone.' Being forced into a public lobby with PVP players just re-enforces and drives PVE players away from the game and at minimum public lobbies. Thus, reducing the playerbase. The whole dividing the playerbase is really a non-argument and is just a point that doesn't make much sense other than perhaps PVP players enjoying picking on PVE players. They'd lose their prey to troll?

 

It's in the best interest of GTA:O to accommodate various playstyles not drive them off. For that, the dividing argument is a red herring. Were already there, the question is how do R* go forward? We should be able to write our own book in this game. I just happen to do it with a lagswitch to get the game to give me a choice R* hasn't. The franchise will have much longer legs and passionate playerbase if it accommodates all not forcing you into one big bloodbath lobby. I didn't buy GTA:Battlefield Hardline Online. I want to be able to enjoy the experience like Single Player if I choose without PVP types running around with erect epeens.

 

 

My take on it is that the playerbase is already split...people who just want PvE don't want to play with PvP, and this results in stuff like invite only lobbies, leaving lobbies until they find a peaceful one, kicking PvP players, or glitching the game to create solo public lobbies.

Adding an option for a PvE only lobby would simply unify those who are already manually splitting the playerbase. People who want to PvP can still PvP, the only people who "lose out" are those who want to PvP against PvE players, who are annoying and not worth thinking about.

PvP players can PvP without a fuss, and PvE can PvE without a fuss, and with other people. Everyone wins ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I do. For very clear reasons that have been demonstrated by PVP types in this thread. Cheers.

 

Pvp avoid like the flu

Edited May 7, 2017 by zoso80

[wizooord]

i play it pve for like 3 years now, contact missions, races, bikers, ceo, whatever does not require killing and being killed by players is legit for me, all the pvp bullcrap, deathmatches and free roam wars, take it, you can have it, don't miss it. if someone bothers me i just switch session

[Big Molio]

- Taxi missions for NPC (and eventually players). possibility own taxi company

- Tow missions with flatbed. possibility to own towing company. could be for mors insurance where you'd have to bring a damaged player car to mors building within a limited time. or could be police traffic regulation works. when a player vehicle is in a middle of the street for too long, you need to tow the car to your hangar. where the car owner could get it back after he has paid a fine

- CEO legal commerce. trucking (restaurants, bars, gas stations, cars seller resupplying), parachutism company, towing and taxi companies managing...

- billard, bowling, pinball

 

I wonder how many people who work for real in those industries, like taxi drivers for example, think "f*ck yeah, when I get off this shift I'm going to drive a cab all night on GTA:O because that's how I relax!!"

[BlackMilk]

 

- Taxi missions for NPC (and eventually players). possibility own taxi company

- Tow missions with flatbed. possibility to own towing company. could be for mors insurance where you'd have to bring a damaged player car to mors building within a limited time. or could be police traffic regulation works. when a player vehicle is in a middle of the street for too long, you need to tow the car to your hangar. where the car owner could get it back after he has paid a fine

- CEO legal commerce. trucking (restaurants, bars, gas stations, cars seller resupplying), parachutism company, towing and taxi companies managing...

- billard, bowling, pinball

 

I wonder how many people who work for real in those industries, like taxi drivers for example, think "f*ck yeah, when I get off this shift I'm going to drive a cab all night on GTA:O because that's how I relax!!"

 

Good question! For most players I'm guessing it's fun because it's something they won't (be able to) do in real life since the in-game activity doesn't require anything like years of education, investments, networking or whatever.

 

I thought the same thing you're wondering when I saw titles like Truck Simulator popping up on platforms like Steam.

[zoso80]

I've seen some crazy stuff how people relax. Knew a player that his idea of relaxing was going into the in-game strip club and getting lap dances or getting "serviced" in his car from the working girls online. Hell, I've been known to laugh my ass off at the Goat Simulator just because it's so stupid it's a fun way to relax. And yes, I bought Goat Simulator.

 

You know never know what floats boats.

 

Cheers.

 

 

- Taxi missions for NPC (and eventually players). possibility own taxi company

- Tow missions with flatbed. possibility to own towing company. could be for mors insurance where you'd have to bring a damaged player car to mors building within a limited time. or could be police traffic regulation works. when a player vehicle is in a middle of the street for too long, you need to tow the car to your hangar. where the car owner could get it back after he has paid a fine

- CEO legal commerce. trucking (restaurants, bars, gas stations, cars seller resupplying), parachutism company, towing and taxi companies managing...

- billard, bowling, pinball

 

I wonder how many people who work for real in those industries, like taxi drivers for example, think "f*ck yeah, when I get off this shift I'm going to drive a cab all night on GTA:O because that's how I relax!!"

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by zoso80

[PkUnzipper]

 

 

 

I hate the idea of restrictions. Which is the basis of this thread.

 

I like GTAO the way it is now and hope VI is more of the same.

Hey that's great. Good job, you like the game. That does not mean they should cater to you and you only. This idea doesnt even affect you, or your play style. I honestly see no reason you should oppose it.

 

It does affect those of us who prefer pvp. It splits the player base even more. This is one side wanting it all one way and one side wanting it all the other way. Where there are no guns, just a big pillow fight. With a DLC looming called gunrunning...I look forward to this...

 

So, the easy targets are gone and the players that know what they're doing are in. Great, got it.

 

 

Thanks for articulating that HamwithCheese. I suspect what rangedandcaged is deliberately neglecting to say, is that he wants to keep the dysfunctional PvP only setup as is--because of the easy target practice where PvE gamers are are concerned i.e. griefing/trolling and sneak K/D attacking PvE gamers who're trying to do free roam challenges and basically minding their business around the map.

 

And he especially wants to keep the status quo because he's sick to death of being put in BS lobbies. Where the real PvP murderers reside. Because it sounds like in the past, they've apparently had their way running a train up his tender ass without the courtesy of lube.....

 

@ragedandcaged: what's your (unmodded) K/D ratio in CoD?

Edited May 7, 2017 by PkUnzipper

[SHADOW OPS]

Never been in BS lobbies. I destroy players not cars. Don't want to be in there or pay for others cars. Don't play COD either. Never cared for it.

[.Vooodu.]

 

@ Shadowoperative

 

We are talking about a lobby option here, you don't have to play in friendly lobbys if you don't want to.

We don't want to remove the current pvp lobbys and make gtao friendly for all.

 

It's seems like you missed that part of the discussion.

 

It still splits the player base.

 

Splitting the player base is a great idea.. Hell, if was up to me there would tons of different free roams with different options. That would be great...

[zoso80]

Agreed.

 

Makes GTA:O stronger with players able to define the experience they want. Rather than being forced into lobbies with playstyles they don't like.

 

You get it.

 

 

 

 

@ Shadowoperative

 

We are talking about a lobby option here, you don't have to play in friendly lobbys if you don't want to.

We don't want to remove the current pvp lobbys and make gtao friendly for all.

 

It's seems like you missed that part of the discussion.

 

It still splits the player base.

 

Splitting the player base is a great idea.. Hell, if was up to me there would tons of different free roams with different options. That would be great...

 

[HamwithCheese]

Never been in BS lobbies. I destroy players not cars. Don't want to be in there or pay for others cars. Don't play COD either. Never cared for it.

Why? I thought you loved PvP.

[SHADOW OPS]

 

Never been in BS lobbies. I destroy players not cars. Don't want to be in there or pay for others cars. Don't play COD either. Never cared for it.

Why? I thought you loved PvP.

 

 

I do in GTAO. Not in COD. Not a fan of 1st person games in general.

[PkUnzipper]

Never been in BS lobbies. I destroy players not cars. Don't want to be in there or pay for others cars. Don't play COD either. Never cared for it.

 

Then why are you so dead set against--in your own vernacular-- "splitting the player base"?

 

You DO of course, realize that PvE gamers like myself DON'T care to interact with PvP players like you while in public lobbies? And if any such interaction occurs, it's because it's PvP players like you who insist on trolling/griefing players in the session?

 

Here's a perfect example why we need separate lobbies. I typically start shootouts with the cops at the sandy shores airport. I like RPing my PC being a country hick drug runner who steals drugs from the NPCs at the airport (doing the gang warfare activity). Then I make him shoot up the place to draw the cops. I usually make him do the shoot out from the hanger so I can RP his escape from the airstrip stealing a velum or whatever plane is there at that time.

 

While my PC and I are happily minding our business, here comes YOU--PvP aficionado gangsta--seeking a cheap K/D boost and getting teh trolling on hue hue. One such #yoloswag playa like you decided to up the ante and ruin my RP experience. First he went on passive and then off radar so he could position himself a distance from the hangar entrance.

 

I was at the back of the hangar holding off the cops with my heavy sniper. That's when I realized he'd come out of passive and pointing his sniper directly at me. Tried to shift my position while under cover, but couldn't due to all the SWAT and county cops swarming the entrance. And quite predictably, ended up with unwanted costs in medical/armor bills so this clown @$$hat could get a cheap k/d boost. So basically, my sandbox RP experience was ruined, because some @$$hole couldn't mind his own business PvPing other like minded players like himself.

 

That's you in a nutshell ragedandcaged. PvP players like you suck because you make a point of stalking, harassing and irritating players like myself who DO. NOT. WISH. TO. ENGAGE. YOU.

 

I typically do missions, heists, etc. that take me out of the public lobbies. Which means I'm missing out on on the sand box content and activities (CEO/export/biker missions and other racing/player challenges) which go on in free roam. And I shouldn't have to do this, simply because of the anti social mindset which PvP players like you possess. I don't care for any other gamer's play style dictating to me how I should enjoy my time while online. And I'm NOT going to degenerate to using their PvP style to achieve some peace and quiet while in public lobbies.

 

Two lobby server types would resolve the ongoing cesspool that free roam lobbies have become. You get to play destructively with your like minded PvP peeps aka burn/waste money and go broke with unnecessary armor, ammo and medical bill just for CoD e peen style bragging rights. I get to play constructively with PvE peeps aka work collaboratively to make money AND have fun while doing so. A 100% Win-Win situation.

 

Understand why we need separate lobbies now?

 

 

Never been in BS lobbies. I destroy players not cars. Don't want to be in there or pay for others cars. Don't play COD either. Never cared for it.

Why? I thought you loved PvP.

 

 

I do in GTAO. Not in COD. Not a fan of 1st person games in general.

 

 

And therein lies your problem.

 

GTAO is NOT a PvP simulator. It was NEVER designed to be the way you and other players like you have managed to devolve it into.

[SHADOW OPS]

You say devolve and I say evolve. If I kill 1 player they can easily get away. You make it sound like I am in a jet. On foot most of the time.

[zoso80]

^^^ This is why the OP's idea make so much sense and is needed. All the negative things about PVP trolls are on display in spades here.

Edited May 7, 2017 by zoso80

[HamwithCheese]

You say devolve and I say evolve. If I kill 1 player they can easily get away. You make it sound like I am in a jet. On foot most of the time.

So, instead of introducing separate lobbies, your solution is for you to kill me and me to just run away.

 

Alright, seems fair. Shut the thread down, raged here solved everything.

[zoso80]

Love the sarcasm.

 

 

 

So, instead of introducing separate lobbies, your solution is for you to kill me and me to just run away.

Alright, seems fair. Shut the thread down, raged here solved everything.