RED DEAD ONLINE BETA: THE ROAD AHEAD (19/3/19)

[Hunterrrr]

2 hours ago, MXVC said:

Coming soon, you too can be an Old West outlaw in the hunting sim inspired by My Little Pony and the Care Bears.

You're so right. It makes complete sense to the time period for people to run around constantly shooting each other for absolutely no reason. /sarcasm

 

Some of us just want to play the game without the hassle of constant griefing. It is beyond me how anyone could be opposed to PvEers having the option to play the game in a manner that is most enjoyable for them. 

[P.T.]

16 minutes ago, Hunterrrr said:

You're so right. It makes complete sense to the time period for people to run around constantly shooting each other for absolutely no reason. /sarcasm

 

Some of us just want to play the game without the hassle of constant griefing. It is beyond me how anyone could be opposed to PvEers having the option to play the game in a manner that is most enjoyable for them. 

You can not talk any reason with these people like this. They dont understand not everyone desires to play every game like its COD. When i want to do that, i'll go play showdown series, thats what its for actually. Funny most griefs just stick to free roam more....Maybe they should stick to the modes thats made for COD type play.... Just a thought.

 

Funny thing , i challenged these grief "kings" to step up to the challenge and switch thier aiming to free aim .... i notice that is not a challenge they want to accept. Gee i wonder why ? But they want to call others soft.... 

Edited March 20, 2019 by P.T.

[Hunterrrr]

1 minute ago, P.T. said:

You can not talk any reason with these people like this. They dont understand not everyone desires to play every game like its COD. 

 

Funny thing , i challenged these grief "kings" to step up to the challenge and switch thier aiming to free aim .... i notice that is not a challenge they want to accept. Gee i wonder why ? But they want to call others soft.... 

True. I can usually make a griefer parlay or leave the lobby, but I don't log in for those encounters. I prefer to play by myself or with a couple friends, not 45 strangers. 

[Sam Doe]

9 minutes ago, P.T. said:

You can not talk any reason with these people like this. They dont understand not everyone desires to play every game like its COD. When i want to do that, i'll go play showdown series, thats what its for actually. Funny most griefs just stick to free roam more....Maybe they should stick to the modes thats made for COD type play.... Just a thought.

 

Funny thing , i challenged these grief "kings" to step up to the challenge and switch thier aiming to free aim .... i notice that is not a challenge they want to accept. Gee i wonder why ? But they want to call others soft.... 

Same feeling here. Why should free roam be a 24/7 pvp place? Even it if turns out that GTAO is a freaking battleground in free roam it is not what I am expecting from RDRO either. 

[MXVC]

3 hours ago, Talisman_83 said:

I appreciate that you're not a fan of these upcoming changes. You're more aligned with the PVP camp, as far as I can tell.

However, until they introduce private lobbies, then we all need to exist in this world together and many of us don't want a 24/7 PVP bloodbath.

Many of us do just want to hunt and fish and there's nothing wrong with wanting to do that and not be subjected to said PVP constantly.

I don't mind a bit of PVP now and again, but for those out there who want nothing to do with it full stop, then I'm sure these changes will be welcome.

It just needs a a good balance between PvP and PvE. Honestly, it seemed balanced and entertaining the way it was rolled out. Parlay already eliminated griefing. R* rolled out a Wild West free roam game, but they morphed it into something that feels like a single player or co-op (if you have a posse) simulation of Little House on the Prairie. It's hard to believe most people are so sensititive to their character occasionally getting attacked that they'd rather the game be completely neutered. 

[netnow66]

3 minutes ago, MXVC said:

Parlay already eliminated griefing.

Another opinion: Parlay did not eliminate griefing.

[MXVC]

1 hour ago, Hunterrrr said:

You're so right. It makes complete sense to the time period for people to run around constantly shooting each other for absolutely no reason. /sarcasm

 

Some of us just want to play the game without the hassle of constant griefing. It is beyond me how anyone could be opposed to PvEers having the option to play the game in a manner that is most enjoyable for them. 

It is a game, so things have to move at a certain speed and have a fun factor. Besides that, how exactly can someone grief you when parlay is available?

[netnow66]

2 minutes ago, MXVC said:

 have a fun factor. Besides that, how exactly can someone grief you when parlay is available?

Who gets to determine what fun is? Some people consider getting shot while fishing...or while spawning in...or in the back while going to a fast travel hitch...etc., etc., griefing.

[traksta1]

Can I just butt in here and say that anyslime that headshots me whilst fishing is not anyone I would want to spend the slightest time or effort to parlay with.

Edited March 20, 2019 by traksta1

[P.T.]

1 minute ago, netnow66 said:

Who gets to determine what fun is? Some people consider getting shot while fishing...or while spawning in...or in the back while going to a fast travel hitch...etc., etc., griefing.

Clearly according to some , the only way a game can be fun is to play it COD style..... How dare someone enjoy something else.... The difference here is, those whom are not fans of griefing people all the time are not telling others , you cant or shouldnt play that way . Instead we say , play that way with other griefers who like that. Or better yet, stick to showdown matches which is more COD style which they clearly enjoy more. 

 

But they inturn would rather insult others for not wanting to play their way and claim it cant be fun also. 

[MXVC]

What it sounds like reading these forums is that "griefing" has been redefined to mean almost any free roam PvP encounters. If that's what people want then R* is wasting its time on multiplayer RDO, and they should focus on single player and co-op.

Edited March 20, 2019 by MXVC

[Volganor]

51 minutes ago, MXVC said:

It is a game, so things have to move at a certain speed and have a fun factor.

Let's be real for a second and ask "is it really for the 'fun factor' or is it just a way for certain people to fill their god complex"?

 

I ask because, as far as I am aware and in my own personal case, massacring someone who isn't looking to fight back or put too much of an opposition actually makes me feel the exact opposite of "empowered". I feel like crap and like an incapable player, and that has happened before - leading me to leave that person alone and look for someone who can stand up to me.

 

Since some are looking for opposition and conflict, I'd imagine that having only people looking for the same thing left in public sessions (while the uninterested go to invite-only or similar) would create more interesting situations for the PvP players, no? Or is it that they're looking to f*ck someone else over for reasons only to them with the least amount of opposition possible because PvE players have nowhere else to go? Why not play Showdown then, with similarly-minded players, don't they like the rules there?

 

"Those PvE players. Such wimps, am I right? I'm entitled to easy targets, this is the Wild West after all! Pff, some people, having preferences different than mine should be illegal." /sarcasm

Edited March 20, 2019 by Volganor

[Sam Doe]

5 minutes ago, MXVC said:

What it sounds like reading these forums is that "griefing" has been redefined to mean almost any free roam PvP encounters. 

Absolutely ! 

 

One main reason for that : getting forced into PVPing because someone decides to engage you will offer you two choices : 1. quit and go what you want to do elsewhere 2. Respond 

 

So whatever happens, you cannot enjoy the freem roam experience without the risk of being forced to stop what you were doing. So yes, forcing pvp on someone not wishing for it could be considered griefing to some extent and I clearly understand why.

[P.T.]

7 minutes ago, Volganor said:

Let's be real for a second and ask "is it real for the 'fun factor' or is it just a way for certain people to fill their god complex"?

 

I ask because, as far as I am aware and in my own personal case, massacring someone who isn't looking to fight back or put too much of an opposition actually makes me feel the exact opposite of "empowered". I feel like crap and like an incapable player, and that has happened before - leading me to leave that person alone and look for someone who can stand up to me.

 

Since some are looking for opposition and conflict, I'd imagine that having only people looking for the same thing left in public sessions (while the uninterested go to invite-only or similar) would create more interesting situations for the PvP players, no? Or is it that they're looking to f*ck someone else over for reasons only to them with the least amount of opposition possible because PvE players have nowhere else to go? Why not play Showdown then, with similarly-minded players, don't they like the rules there?

 

"Those PvE players. Such wimps, am I right? I'm entitled to easy targets, this is the Wild West after all! Pff, some people, having preferences different than mine should be illegal." /sarcasm

^^ Nailed it!

[Assblaster]

1 hour ago, MXVC said:

R* rolled out a Wild West free roam game, but they morphed it into something that feels like a single player or co-op (if you have a posse) simulation of Little House on the Prairie. It's hard to believe most people are so sensititive to their character occasionally getting attacked that they'd rather the game be completely neutered. 

The "Wild West" had laws and there were severe penalties for breakin' 'em. Besides, this game is set sometime after 1899. In fact, isn't it sometime around 1907 when online takes place? Yeah, it was pretty damn tame by then in fact. And much of the map isn't set in the west at all, places where it was even more tame than the setting for Little House on the Prairie. 

 

Griefers just want a war game to shoot at other players, or in this case, Cowboy GTA. Most of 'em haven't a clue or care about real history, they merely want pew pew pew. Pure brainless hostility to gratify pure brainless trollish urges. Like the idiot yesterday who took the time to join a fishing event purely to splash in the waters so fishermen couldn't get any fish. I know five-year-olds with more brains, courtesy and kindness than that. What is there to gain in griefing like that? You lose money in camp fees as time rolls on, you have nothing to gain by entering that challenge and never pulling out a fishing pole, standing in front of people and dancing in the water like an overgrown brat whose candy got taken away. Grow up and grow half a brain, if you're that kind of troublemaker.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Assblaster

[Chunkey_Monkey]

 

The "Wild West" had laws and there were severe penalties for breakin' 'em. Besides, this game is set sometime after 1899. In fact, isn't it sometime around 1907 when online takes place? Yeah, it was pretty damn tame by then in fact. And much of the map isn't set in the west at all, places where it was even more tame than the setting for Little House on the Prairie. 

 

Griefers just want a war game to shoot at other players, or in this case, Cowboy GTA. Most of 'em haven't a clue or care about real history, they merely want pew pew pew. Pure brainless hostility to gratify pure brainless trollish urges. Like the idiot yesterday who took the time to join a fishing event purely to splash in the waters so fishermen couldn't get any fish. I know five-year-olds with more brains, courtesy and kindness than that. What is there to gain in griefing like that? You lose money in camp fees as time rolls on, you have nothing to gain by entering that challenge and never pulling out a fishing pole, standing in front of people and dancing in the water like an overgrown brat whose candy got taken away. Grow up and grow half a brain, if you're that kind of troublemaker.

Story mode was 1899 online mode is a year or 2 before that 1897 to 1896

[MXVC]

 

Absolutely ! 

 

One main reason for that : getting forced into PVPing because someone decides to engage you will offer you two choices : 1. quit and go what you want to do elsewhere 2. Respond 

 

So whatever happens, you cannot enjoy the freem roam experience without the risk of being forced to stop what you were doing. So yes, forcing pvp on someone not wishing for it could be considered griefing to some extent and I clearly understand why.

In a way that is kind of the point of 'online multiplayer' to one degree or another depending on the type of game. You are forced to deal with and interact with other players, the good, the bad and the ugly. Otherwise you play co-op or single player. This is why R* simply needs to offer different lobby types.

Edited March 20, 2019 by MXVC

[Assblaster]

 

Story mode was 1899 online mode is a year or 2 before that 1897 to 1896

Okay I thought it was post-1899. Even so, the late 1890s were pretty tame. The "wild" era was decades prior. The age of outlaws, gold rush, the Native American hostilities, were all long before the late 1800s. I think it would be awesome to set a game around the 1850s.

[ghostsoap01]

 

What it sounds like reading these forums is that "griefing" has been redefined to mean almost any free roam PvP encounters.

You're not far off. The real defining characteristic is that it is unsolicited, and only enjoyed by the instigator. PvP can be fun for both parties when it is what both are looking for. The griefing comes in when it interrupts the fun someone is having engaging in PvE and has the PvP thrust upon them.

[ALifeOfMisery]

First off I'd like to reiterate, for those that aren't already sick to death of my opinions over the last couple of years in the GTAO section, I genuinely don't care what any individuals preference of play style is. Lone wolf, co-op, PvE, structured PvP, freeroam PvP etc. are all valid play style preferences.

 

After the last 3 years or so in GTAO, which, especially since the introduction of CEO crates, has been an all PvP, all the time, anything goes sh*tshow (IMO), PvE leaning players have repeatedly been told "that's the game", "it's freeroam, anything goes", "git gud", "this is what the developer wants", "make a solo lobby", "maybe this game isn't for you" etc. etc. and in the case of GTAO, as R* have continually pushed in a 24/7 PvP direction, that argument, however distasteful anyone (myself for one) might find it, has some weight to it.

 

However, R* are obviously pushing RDO in an almost entirely different direction. R* aren't going for the freeroam 24/7 PvP death match in RDO. Making less violent players less visible on the map, incurring bounties, honor penalties, having NPC bounty hunters hassle players with higher bounties, the upcoming hostility system where defending yourself isn't penalised, the upcoming offensive/defensive play styles, the upcoming restructuring of daily challenges which will, in R*s words, "eliminate hostile gameplay in freeroam".

 

If it isn't abundantly clear by now, and to be honest, it really should be, R* is blatantly and systematically pushing RDO in a direction where almost all PvP will be either structured (Showdowns etc.), implicitly consensual (freeroam Stranger missions) or attackers will incur penalties and have their unwanted PvP made as difficult as possible (defensive play style players can't be locked onto, can't be dealt critical hits etc.).

 

Maybe if the 24/7 freemode PvP players don't like the direction in which R* is taking RDO, dare I say, maybe RDO just isn't the game for you.

[ghostsoap01]

 

Story mode was 1899 online mode is a year or 2 before that 1897 to 1896

Actually to be more precise, it is somewhere in late 1898 to early 1899. The single player campaign starts in the Spring of 1899, not long after the Blackwater ferry job. We know this because of Arthur's journal and the fact that the snow melting and the storm dying down is what allows the gang to head south from The Grizzlies. Online takes place after the Blackwater ferry job as well, as we can meet Sean Macguire hiding out in Tall Trees after the ferry job went wrong.

 

Maybe if the 24/7 freemode PvP players don't like the direction in which R* is taking RDO, dare I say, maybe RDO just isn't the game for you.

 

Very well said and tactfully put. Spin their own argument on them, give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

Okay I thought it was post-1899. Even so, the late 1890s were pretty tame. The "wild" era was decades prior. The age of outlaws, gold rush, the Native American hostilities, were all long before the late 1800s. I think it would be awesome to set a game around the 1850s.

Yeah those days would have been more during the construction of the railroads heading out west, just around the time of the civil war. By the time of RDR, it seems that the whole 'manifest destiny, settle the west' is already over. Even then, what we think of in pop culture as the wild west, gunslingers etc is largely a result of 1940s-60s Hollywood fantasy.

[Boozey St John]

I don't mean to ask a stupid question but is there any chance that the theatres will be available?

 

Also can R* f*ck off with old man Jones?

[ghostsoap01]

 

I don't mean to ask a stupid question but is there any chance that the theatres will be available?

 

Let's not forget hotels, ordering food at the bar, and the gambling minigames like poker and blackjack. My guess, they might come out after the beta is over.

[ALifeOfMisery]

 

Very well said and tactfully put. Spin their own argument on them, give them a taste of their own medicine.

While that was obviously my intention, I should have added that I mean no malice by my post. 

 

It is crystal clear, at least IMO, what R* are trying to do with PvP in RDO, whether they achieve what they are attempting is a different matter entirely. RDO is going in the direction of PvP being structured, implicit or made as difficult as possible with penalties for unwanted attacks.

 

I don't like the neverending PvP of GTAO freeroam, so I play in solo lobbies or I don't play. If you don't like the idea of not being able to kill anyone you want, whenever you want, well... there's always GTAO.

[Frykill]

 

The "Wild West" had laws and there were severe penalties for breakin' 'em. Besides, this game is set sometime after 1899. In fact, isn't it sometime around 1907 when online takes place? Yeah, it was pretty damn tame by then in fact. And much of the map isn't set in the west at all, places where it was even more tame than the setting for Little House on the Prairie. 

 

Griefers just want a war game to shoot at other players, or in this case, Cowboy GTA. Most of 'em haven't a clue or care about real history, they merely want pew pew pew. Pure brainless hostility to gratify pure brainless trollish urges. Like the idiot yesterday who took the time to join a fishing event purely to splash in the waters so fishermen couldn't get any fish. I know five-year-olds with more brains, courtesy and kindness than that. What is there to gain in griefing like that? You lose money in camp fees as time rolls on, you have nothing to gain by entering that challenge and never pulling out a fishing pole, standing in front of people and dancing in the water like an overgrown brat whose candy got taken away. Grow up and grow half a brain, if you're that kind of troublemaker.

This is the best thing I have read all month.  +1 to you good sir.

[Talisman_83]

 

It just needs a a good balance between PvP and PvE. Honestly, it seemed balanced and entertaining the way it was rolled out. Parlay already eliminated griefing. R* rolled out a Wild West free roam game, but they morphed it into something that feels like a single player or co-op (if you have a posse) simulation of Little House on the Prairie. It's hard to believe most people are so sensititive to their character occasionally getting attacked that they'd rather the game be completely neutered. 

Explain to me the reason why 4 purple dots need to go after someone who is fishing?

People like that can get to f*ck.

Go play Showdown modes if you want to do that.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Talisman_83

[Chunkey_Monkey]

 

Actually to be more precise, it is somewhere in late 1898 to early 1899. The single player campaign starts in the Spring of 1899, not long after the Blackwater ferry job. We know this because of Arthur's journal and the fact that the snow melting and the storm dying down is what allows the gang to head south from The Grizzlies. Online takes place after the Blackwater ferry job as well, as we can meet Sean Macguire hiding out in Tall Trees after the ferry job went wrong.

 

Very well said and tactfully put. Spin their own argument on them, give them a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah those days would have been more during the construction of the railroads heading out west, just around the time of the civil war. By the time of RDR, it seems that the whole 'manifest destiny, settle the west' is already over. Even then, what we think of in pop culture as the wild west, gunslingers etc is largely a result of 1940s-60s Hollywood fantasy.

Yes my bad a typing error meant 1897 to 98 

 

First off I'd like to reiterate, for those that aren't already sick to death of my opinions over the last couple of years in the GTAO section, I genuinely don't care what any individuals preference of play style is. Lone wolf, co-op, PvE, structured PvP, freeroam PvP etc. are all valid play style preferences.

 

After the last 3 years or so in GTAO, which, especially since the introduction of CEO crates, has been an all PvP, all the time, anything goes sh*tshow (IMO), PvE leaning players have repeatedly been told "that's the game", "it's freeroam, anything goes", "git gud", "this is what the developer wants", "make a solo lobby", "maybe this game isn't for you" etc. etc. and in the case of GTAO, as R* have continually pushed in a 24/7 PvP direction, that argument, however distasteful anyone (myself for one) might find it, has some weight to it.

 

However, R* are obviously pushing RDO in an almost entirely different direction. R* aren't going for the freeroam 24/7 PvP death match in RDO. Making less violent players less visible on the map, incurring bounties, honor penalties, having NPC bounty hunters hassle players with higher bounties, the upcoming hostility system where defending yourself isn't penalised, the upcoming offensive/defensive play styles, the upcoming restructuring of daily challenges which will, in R*s words, "eliminate hostile gameplay in freeroam".

 

If it isn't abundantly clear by now, and to be honest, it really should be, R* is blatantly and systematically pushing RDO in a direction where almost all PvP will be either structured (Showdowns etc.), implicitly consensual (freeroam Stranger missions) or attackers will incur penalties and have their unwanted PvP made as difficult as possible (defensive play style players can't be locked onto, can't be dealt critical hits etc.).

 

Maybe if the 24/7 freemode PvP players don't like the direction in which R* is taking RDO, dare I say, maybe RDO just isn't the game for you.

very well put 

Edited March 20, 2019 by GTP_Monkey

[grandtheftbanksy]

Oh God, people really join the fishing events just to splash around in the water messing with others?  Just like the morons who won't finish a horse race, I can't wrap my head around what they get out of it.  

"Oh man I had so much fun stopping other people from having fun." 

[Bully2comingsoon]

 

I don't mean to ask a stupid question but is there any chance that the theatres will be available?

 

Hopefully, I’m looking forward to them opening as well.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Bully2comingsoon

[Talisman_83]

 

First off I'd like to reiterate, for those that aren't already sick to death of my opinions over the last couple of years in the GTAO section, I genuinely don't care what any individuals preference of play style is. Lone wolf, co-op, PvE, structured PvP, freeroam PvP etc. are all valid play style preferences.

 

After the last 3 years or so in GTAO, which, especially since the introduction of CEO crates, has been an all PvP, all the time, anything goes sh*tshow (IMO), PvE leaning players have repeatedly been told "that's the game", "it's freeroam, anything goes", "git gud", "this is what the developer wants", "make a solo lobby", "maybe this game isn't for you" etc. etc. and in the case of GTAO, as R* have continually pushed in a 24/7 PvP direction, that argument, however distasteful anyone (myself for one) might find it, has some weight to it.

 

However, R* are obviously pushing RDO in an almost entirely different direction. R* aren't going for the freeroam 24/7 PvP death match in RDO. Making less violent players less visible on the map, incurring bounties, honor penalties, having NPC bounty hunters hassle players with higher bounties, the upcoming hostility system where defending yourself isn't penalised, the upcoming offensive/defensive play styles, the upcoming restructuring of daily challenges which will, in R*s words, "eliminate hostile gameplay in freeroam".

 

If it isn't abundantly clear by now, and to be honest, it really should be, R* is blatantly and systematically pushing RDO in a direction where almost all PvP will be either structured (Showdowns etc.), implicitly consensual (freeroam Stranger missions) or attackers will incur penalties and have their unwanted PvP made as difficult as possible (defensive play style players can't be locked onto, can't be dealt critical hits etc.).

 

Maybe if the 24/7 freemode PvP players don't like the direction in which R* is taking RDO, dare I say, maybe RDO just isn't the game for you.