passive mode will split the community. I got a better solution.

[Dr.Rosenthal]

@RED_DEADMAN That’s a terrible idea. I’ve had enough of terminator koreans in my days. I can see what you mean but that’s just not a fun solution.

 

In my opinion it’s better to use bounties. Create gameplay for bounty hunter-type players and battle griefing all in one go. But it’d have to be made so that (unlike GTAO) you couldn’t profit off of the bounty yourself.

 

But the ideal solution in this regard would make the game a lot harder for those with high bounties, and it should, to deter from griefing. But R* apparently need griefers and forced PvP, so... I have no idea what we’ll get but if I know R* like I think I do, the griefers will get off easy while the friendly grinders will keep struggling.

[RED_DEADMAN]

I would personally hate passive towns. Sorry.  You can check the map at anytime if your worried about players in the nearest town...if they are there...dont go. Rockstar will already be making it so you can tell if a player is a hostile player just by the color of their dot getting progressively getting darker. 

[Chrismads]

Any kind of passive or pve mode would be terrible for the game imo. We just need a proper bounty system, like said by others, and people needs to stop whining because they get shot. Change session, check your map, keep away from other players.. its huge map.. and really there's no penalty for getting shot. Except maybe you losing 17 dollars worth of game. That's nothing.

 

You want passive mode, go pick your nose at a general store. 

 

Its the wild west you're suppose to get shot at.. and you're the only one to blame if you die.. its because you SUCK. Go do some showdowns and learn how to fight, instead of picking flowers at manzanita post all day

Edited January 17, 2019 by Chrismads

[Danish Crusader]

2 minutes ago, Chrismads said:

Any kind of passive or pve mode would be terrible for the game imo.

It would indeed, griefers and Series PvP Failures who use free roam as a Death Match setting would have to contend with people actually shooting back! Or even, shooting FIRST! How TERRIBLE it would be for them! 

For PvE people, it would be great. We could have nice relaxing sessions, without having to worry about xXxElitexMomHumper69xXx shooting us while fishing, or coming out of a store.

 

And your information about the Wild West clearly comes from Hollywood movies and not actual fact. You should look it up, but just be prepared to have your dreams and ideas crushed about the Wild West days.

[Chrismads]

15 minutes ago, Danish Crusader said:

It would indeed, griefers and Series PvP Failures who use free roam as a Death Match setting would have to contend with people actually shooting back! Or even, shooting FIRST! How TERRIBLE it would be for them! 

For PvE people, it would be great. We could have nice relaxing sessions, without having to worry about xXxElitexMomHumper69xXx shooting us while fishing, or coming out of a store.

 

And your information about the Wild West clearly comes from Hollywood movies and not actual fact. You should look it up, but just be prepared to have your dreams and ideas crushed about the Wild West days.

Is rdr and rdr 2 based on hollywood wild west or actual fact?

Done.

 

As i've said before, I wouldn't mind pve if it keeps pve characters on pve sessions, so we won't have flower pickers with easy acquired ability cards and equipment, come only to grief on pvp sessions.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Chrismads

[Danish Crusader]

4 minutes ago, Chrismads said:

Is the rdr and rdr 2 based on hollywood wild west or actual fact?

Done

Well if we go by that logic, RDR had Friendly Sessions, therefor, RDR2 should have them too, so that means you should not be here saying it would be terrible, because it wasn't terrible in RDR.

 

Sucks when things you say turns against you, doesn't it =P

[Chrismads]

1 minute ago, Danish Crusader said:

Well if we go by that logic, RDR had Friendly Sessions, therefor, RDR2 should have them too, so that means you should not be here saying it would be terrible, because it wasn't terrible in RDR.

 

Sucks when things you say turns against you, doesn't it =P

How did anything I said turn against me? You didn't think rdr 1 flower picking mode was terrible, so thats a fact?

[SPECTER II]

Please stop saying this is the "wild west" therefore we can shoot everyone. There's a thing called the Code of the West (not the movies) so we shouldn't have so many warzones and psychopathic serial killers based on the "it's the wild west" logic.

 

There's no harm in a PvE server or passive mode. And saying "then go play a fishing/hunting game" doesn't make sense because this is also a fishing/hunting game (and a lot of people actually like it). Saying "but people will abuse passive mode like in GTAO" also doesn't make sense because we can think of obvious solutions like only being able to toggle passive mode at camp. Saying "just change sessions" or "just fight back" are also not solutions at all. If a new lvl 10 player who likes to hunt and is on their way to the butcher, and a lvl 80 PvP player with a bolt action rifle and high velocity rounds kills them, changing sessions and getting killed would lose their pelts and carcasses either way and fighting back is meaningless when one player has more experience and advantages. These arguments are only excuses to force PvE players to face PvP players even when they do not want to. 

 

If somebody doesn't want to PvP at the moment they should have the option to not PvP at the moment. If somebody never wants to PvP then so be it. And if some people want to PvP then they can only fight other consenting players. It's logical, it doesn't intrude on other players' gameplay, it allows other activities to be played more freely, and it doesn't frustrate players. 

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Question : Is there any point for a potential Flame War?

Answer : No.

 

Moving on.

[Zoop_Leroy]

Instead of passive mode, I'd pay $1,000 for a homing pigeon that would summon Cripps to my location so he could sell my pelts.

[Faceplant8]

On 1/16/2019 at 9:15 AM, Lord-Sam said:

Passive mode is just going to split the community.

Split the community, or eliminate your "easy meat"? Why do you want to PvP someone that's just out to hunt and doesn't fire back? If anything, private lobbies will increase the level of competition by removing those lame PvEers from your fun PvP sessions.

 

On 1/16/2019 at 10:13 AM, areyouchappin said:

What do you guys think Parley is going to become... R* already said they are going to make Parley easier to trigger which means it will become the new passive mode.

Parley is NOT the same as passive mode or the same as having PvE or private lobbies. It only takes one shot from a random to ruin potentially an hour or more worth of effort. What use is parleying if I can just switch sessions if a griefer is nearby?

 

10 hours ago, Fugitive21 said:

A pure PVE server I hate to say would be meaningless. That is story mode.

 

Second If your only PVE then half the ability cards are worthless to a PVE player in all honesty so is leveling. If you plan to only hunt then why level, why the need for better weapons, why the need for all that gold and cash? Showdowns? then why not be on a PVP server.

You can't play with friends in story mode, and why do you think the only motivation for upgrading your stuff is to shoot other players? Did you not upgrade anything in story mode? Maybe your only motivation for playing the game is to shoot other players, but that's not true for all.

[Lonely-Martin]

10 hours ago, Fugitive21 said:

This topic again

 

A pure PVE server I hate to say would be meaningless. That is story mode.

 

Second If your only PVE then half the ability cards are worthless to a PVE player in all honesty so is leveling. If you plan to only hunt then why level, why the need for better weapons, why the need for all that gold and cash? Showdowns? then why not be on a PVP server.

 

I will say if a passive mode should is brought in it should be timed and limited what you can do in passive mode. The whole point of the game is PVP. Stranger missions do some and you are a target when the server announces what your doing.

Lol, it's not story mode. I can't play with friends in story.

 

Don't care about the cards, and ranking up, at present, isn't the priority either. But later they could add content that's level locked. Won't be surprised if they don't, but heists for example in GTA, we needed to be rank 12, and I think rank 81 to host a Lester or Martin mission. Of course, rank for cosmetics and weapons, though I'm good with my loadout for PvE currently too. 

 

Plenty of ways to have rank mean something in a PvE session. Course, it'd be meaningless to some, but certainly not all.  

[U Carmine]

21 minutes ago, Lonely-Martin said:

Plenty of ways to have rank mean something in a PvE session. Course, it'd be meaningless to some, but certainly not all.  

level 1000 - unlock flying pegasus unicorn . Im calling it now

[Lonely-Martin]

27 minutes ago, Ektope said:

level 1000 - unlock flying pegasus unicorn . Im calling it now

Lol. I do hope that after GTA:O, If R* intend to regularly add to the game like they did there (if the playerbase/gold purchases allow for it of course), they respect higher ranks and do offer something for those that play for a long time and hit high ranks like that.

 

IMO, nothing game changing etc. But a sweet outfit or something, maybe a cash/gold reward even.

 

Though after GTA:O, I'd certainly not be surprised if you were spot on too, lol.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Lonely-Martin

[Chrismads]

3 hours ago, Faceplant8 said:

Parley is NOT the same as passive mode or the same as having PvE or private lobbies. It only takes one shot from a random to ruin potentially an hour or more worth of effort. What use is parleying if I can just switch sessions if a griefer is nearby?

How would you lose hours or more worth of effort?

If you're talking skins, the butcher will steal those from you anyway. Medium fish and feathers goes straight in your pocket, so you won't lose those.

[areyouchappin]

4 hours ago, Faceplant8 said:

Parley is NOT the same as passive mode or the same as having PvE or private lobbies. It only takes one shot from a random to ruin potentially an hour or more worth of effort. What use is parleying if I can just switch sessions if a griefer is nearby? 

I never said that, what I said was: "what do you think Parley is going to become." R* said they were making it easier to trigger, we aren't sure what they meant by that but if they make it so players can activate it whenever they want.. it will essentially become the new passive mode.

[Ivoz]

50% payouts in private lobbes.  I Will send this suggestion to rockstar. This could work

[God-eater]

Community is already divided - if R* doesn't give us invite/friendly sessions, it'll divide into PvPers vs Players leaving RDR for other games. I'm already in the latter group. 

 

PvP should be a choice. Until it is, RDR Online has nothing I want. 

 

Played GTA:O since day one - almost exclusively invite-only. Played regularly for years. When the public-only bullsh*t started up, I left the game. When we learned how to make solo public sessions, I came back. 

 

I want to be very clear about my motivations: the reason I prefer that playstyle is because F*CK RANDOMS. 

 

While I agree that passive mode is not a solution (nor is Parley - after all, you have to get killed to trigger it, so the damage is already done), 'passive zones' is even worse. It limits gameplay; more to the point it forces a playstyle. 

 

Different session types is the only way. Let Invite-only (or, even better, Friendly Public) be a haven for PvEers, let Public devolve into the same stinking sh*tpile of griefers and tryhards that Los Santos has become. Everybody gets what they want, playerbase grows. Do not understand why R* can't see this.

[Dr.Rosenthal]

I’m divided myself, lol. I’ve enjoyed playing in cartel sessions on GTAO for a good while, so that’s essentially invite-only. And, like you say, @God-eater; public sessions in GTAO have devolved into tryhard paradises where people use Passive mode aggressively - as a tactic, along with a bunch of other sanctioned, dirty tricks (EWO, rocket spam etc). All that has essentially not hindered griefing in public sessions but rather enabled it further.

 

I agree, I’d have played GTAO a lot less if I couldn’t get solo public sessions with friends. The game would probably be dead to me if I’d had to keep trying making Post Op sales while Timmy Tryhard and his band of Oppressor henchmen would constantly be after me.

 

At the same time, though; I do like the PvP element as well, to an extent.

 

I don’t really like this being a question of ”no PvP at all” (invity only) or ”all out PvP warzone” (public). I’d be bored playing in ”safe haven” invite only just hunting with friends.

 

I strongly believe that with thoughtful changes to the gameplay we could have it so that griefing would be so difficult and turn the game into such a pain in the ass for you that no one would choose to do it - at the very least it should come at a very high price. If you kill another player for no reason, you’re a murderer, and now your life will turn into a living hell as both the law and other players will hunt you down mercilessly. And you can’t just jump session to get away with it - the mark would stick to you and make you a murderer in any session you choose to join.

 

But, like we all know, it seems R* want the griefers to get away easy, as it makes grinding for money more difficult for those who choose to grind. At this point I really see no other reason as to why R* hasn’t done more to battle griefing in GTAO, and also why I believe that the changes that I propose won’t ever come to fruition in RDO. R* want griefing to be moderately easy to get away with, because it makes it more difficult to grind the game and makes it so that players buy gold bars instead. It’s really the only reasonable explanation.

 

And I think it’s awful to let good gameplay stand aside to MTX.

 

The next best solution, if they’d implement Invite Only, is that you could grind peacefully with friends when you choose to do so and when you just want a bit of relaxed gameplay, and then you could enter a public session when you feel like wreaking havoc. Exactly how it is on GTAO for me these days.

 

But that’s far from an optimal solution. I’m convinced that they could make both PvP players and PvE players be in the same sessions if changes to the gameplay were made. Changes which would make it so that the lone, friendly wolves would be left alone while the PvP crowd would get their action, and everyone would be happy sharing sessions. But as long as that doesn’t happen, Invite Only lobbies is the next best thing. I think everyone who likes this world should be allowed to play however they want in it.

 

Edit: Really sorry about the wall of text.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Dr.Rosenthal

[Ivoz]

17 hours ago, Chrismads said:

Is rdr and rdr 2 based on hollywood wild west or actual fact?

Done.

 

As i've said before, I wouldn't mind pve if it keeps pve characters on pve sessions, so we won't have flower pickers with easy acquired ability cards and equipment, come only to grief on pvp sessions.

I believe this indeed is the best option . If you pick pve your character only stays in pve servers. 

[pro24]

There needs to be a pve and hardcore lobby. 

[anarquista_duval]

The most important thing which we don't know yet: R* need to decide what to do with this game.

 

1) Make it a PvP based game where you kill or be killed (like Fortnite) where you have to take advantage of all the weapon upgrades, special bullets, ability cards. All the public competitive events that currently take place would occur here. R* would implement a K/D, a score board and rank system for the best (competitive) players.

 

2) Make RDR2O an immersive experience of PvE where you can peacefully hunt, fish, fight against local gangs, explore this huge amazing world with friends and other players (that you couldn't do any harm). They could do public challenges like first to hunt and sell to the butcher a specific animal wins a money/gold prize.

 

If this two lobby types existed players could even jump between this lobbies accordingly to their moods.

 

What lobby would suit you the most?

 

IMHO you CAN'T mix this two experiences in one single lobby. No passive mode, parley or whatever implementation R* come up with would be playable and please both sides.

[Dr.Rosenthal]

What if friendly players who don’t bother anyone had no blip on the map, at all?

[Chrismads]

6 hours ago, God-eater said:

Different session types is the only way. Let Invite-only (or, even better, Friendly Public) be a haven for PvEers, let Public devolve into the same stinking sh*tpile of griefers and tryhards that Los Santos has become. Everybody gets what they want, playerbase grows. Do not understand why R* can't see this.

This is exactly why I wouldn't get what I want. I don't want public pvp servers turned into a griefing nightmare. I want that balance where you don't know if a player is friendly or hostile.

I might flame a little on you PvE'ers, but tbh rdo would probably be a pile of sh*t without you. 

 

In my experience there's more "friendly" players in rdo right now. Or at least players that minds their own business and won't just kill or lasso you on sight. It wouldn't be like that if pve sessions became a thing.

 

Despite of that I could live with PvE servers. However I COULD NOT live with players grinding in PvE and only coming to PvP to grief. Which would 100% certainly be the case if R* would allow transfer between game modes

[Dr.Rosenthal]

^

 

@Chrismads My sentiment exactly. I 100% agree with all of it, except the last part because I honestly wouldn't know whether I should choose PvE or PvP sessions. I sometimes want PvP but I don't want it if it'll be like 30 player public GTAO sessions. No reason to do nothing but kill people in those. Try do anything else and you're dead. And I don't want 100% PvE because that gets boring for me. So to me it would be better if I could make money and chill out in one, and go on a rampage in the other.

 

EDIT/Addition: (explanation on that last part; what I don't agree with is: even if we'd have to choose between either PvE or PvP, I don't think you could choose PvP and get a reasonable amount of PvP - if we can't have them at the same time but have to choose between them, PvP will always be a warzone... I agree with you that I think RDO is much better now than weeks before, people are sticking to themselves and I also think that it's a lot thanks to a lot of the PvE'ers out there!)

 

Which is why I think they should change the gameplay instead. Make everyone share sessions like we already do and hide friendly, non-aggressive players' blips from the map completely. Gunshots don't reveal you, nothing except hurting or killing another player will reveal you on the map. Would be a good starting point. So much that could be done, but like I've said before I don't have much faith in R* in this regard.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Dr.Rosenthal

[Non Funkable Token]

Why should the community stay together, to begin with?

[rebel-yin]

Here’s my suggestions, take them or leave them:

 

1.) Make it to where we don’t lose things that have been placed on our horse when we are killed by another player (pelts, etc.)

 

2.) Be able to parley after just ONE kill. I doubt a majority of the griefers are going to hang around and wait 10mins just to kill you again, especially if #1 is implemented. It would literally take most of the “grief” out of being killed thereby rendering most grief killing pointless. And if they do for some reason hang around for 10mins, they probably have some sort of personal vendetta against you, so just switch lobbies. 

 

3.) Make fishing completely passive. You are not bothering anyone in anyway so there’s absolutely no reason someone needs to be shooting at you, especially when you are so vulnerable in that situation.

 

4.) If they do implement a “darker blip” system, make it so that your blip only gets darker when killing other PLAYERS, not NPCs. I could be wrong but I’m almost positive my blip would get darker just by shooting it out with the police on GTAO, thereby making me indistinguishable from a griefer who kills other players.

 

P.S I welcome any criticism you may have to my suggestions, bring it on

[Faceplant8]

15 hours ago, Chrismads said:

How would you lose hours or more worth of effort?

If you're talking skins, the butcher will steal those from you anyway. Medium fish and feathers goes straight in your pocket, so you won't lose those.

I said an hour or more, not hours, and I don't know what you're saying about "the butcher will steal those from you anyway". Besides, there's not only pelts. You can also lose that 3* cougar and the other two, smaller animals that you strap to the side.

 

This brings up another griefer move that I ran into lately. Twice in the last couple of days I've had 3* animal carcasses stolen off my horse. One was right at the butcher as I was selling other stuff. Another player was at the butcher selling when I arrived, so I parked my hours a bit out of the way so I didn't crowd him too much while I sold the other stuff that I had. When I finished selling, I noticed that my carcass was now on his horse and he was selling it!

 

All I could think of to do at the time was shoot him in the head in anger, but that takes some nerve. PvP in a game is one thing, but outright theft is (IMO) another whole level of griefing.

 

The other instance was when I went into a post office to pick up supplies and my horse had been cleaned out, with a pink dot riding away.

11 minutes ago, freeluv21 said:

2.) Be able to parley after just ONE kill. I doubt a majority of the griefers are going to hang around and wait 10mins just to kill you again, especially if #1 is implemented. It would literally take most of the “grief” out of being killed thereby rendering most grief killing pointless. And if they do for some reason hang around for 10mins, they probably have some sort of personal vendetta against you, so just switch lobbies. 

 

3.) Make fishing completely passive. You are not bothering anyone in anyway so there’s absolutely no reason someone needs to be shooting at you, especially when you are so vulnerable in that situation.

I've never parlayed anyone, so please explain to me how this is any different from passive mode, other than that griefers get one shot at you before you can go into "passive mode"?

[rebel-yin]

7 minutes ago, Faceplant8 said:

I said an hour or more, not hours, and I don't know what you're saying about "the butcher will steal those from you anyway". Besides, there's not only pelts. You can also lose that 3* cougar and the other two, smaller animals that you strap to the side.

 

This brings up another griefer move that I ran into lately. Twice in the last couple of days I've had 3* animal carcasses stolen off my horse. One was right at the butcher as I was selling other stuff. Another player was at the butcher selling when I arrived, so I parked my hours a bit out of the way so I didn't crowd him too much while I sold the other stuff that I had. When I finished selling, I noticed that my carcass was now on his horse and he was selling it!

 

All I could think of to do at the time was shoot him in the head in anger, but that takes some nerve. PvP in a game is one thing, but outright theft is (IMO) another whole level of griefing.

 

The other instance was when I went into a post office to pick up supplies and my horse had been cleaned out, with a pink dot riding away.

I've never parlayed anyone, so please explain to me how this is any different from passive mode, other than that griefers get one shot at you before you can go into "passive mode"?

With parley, I’m pretty sure you can still be killed by other players. It only affects you and the player who originally killed you. Whereas passive mode makes it where no one else can kill you. Also, only the person WHO WAS KILLED in the first place can parley. Meaning the griefer can’t hurry up and choose passive as a tactic or strategy 

 

Edit: not sure why it quoted this and not your question about parley 

Edited January 18, 2019 by freeluv21

[Faceplant8]

15 minutes ago, freeluv21 said:

With parley, I’m pretty sure you can still be killed by other players. It only affects you and the player who originally killed you. Whereas passive mode makes it where no one else can kill you. Also, only the person WHO WAS KILLED in the first place can parley. Meaning the griefer can’t hurry up and choose passive as a tactic or strategy 

So, everyone gets one shot at you before you can enter your personal passive mode with that player. I still don't see a huge distinction, other than I have to get shot before I can go into parlay/passive mode. It's the first shot that matters anyways. After that I know that they're hostile, so I either take out my revenge on them, go somewhere else and avoid them, or switch sessions.

 

As for griefers using it as a tactic, the griefer is not the one being shot, so why would they enter passive mode? If you're worried about PvP players using passive mode as a tactic, just make it so you can't enter passive once you've shot a player in a session. They may be able to get one easy kill just after leaving passive mode, but that's it. It seems like that would make it a pretty weak tactic.