Defensive mode

[Failed Again]

4 hours ago, Leftover Pizza said:

 

Gold is freely obtainable in the game. I haven't spent a dime on it myself, and I do have 100+ gold bars, after spending a lot of them, even.

 

As in Xbox Live Gold 

 

online needs payments

 

my attempt at subtle humor

Edited July 3, 2019 by Failed Again

[Lonely-Martin]

10 hours ago, Jason said:

Not to take a side but the traditional definition of a griefer in a video game is somebody who harasses player(s) consistently using unintended mechanics, ie by doing things outside of the games intended way of playing. Shooting someone in RDO free-roam isn't that, as simply walking up and shooting someone is very much in the games design and an intended mechanic, as is someone who say shoots you while hunting and then steals your pelts, or someone who interferes with your free roam mission.

 

That's all intended and thus by the traditional definition, not griefing. You'd be well justified in saying it's sh*tty game design, though.

 

I've said it before and it applies to both RDO and GTAO that if players are actively circumventing your game design (by glitching into public solo lobbies) then your game design is sh*tty.

 

I do believe however that defensive mode has greatly improved the design of RDO and how it's intended to be played.

Spawn killing, passive popping, EWO abuse, are all intended gameplay features, but very much synonymous with griefing too. Luckily not here, yet. But many intended gameplay features are used to grief too, and most definitions I read suggest the use of both legit and non legit means can be griefing.

 

And then there's the rise of 'developer sanctioned grief' as a thing too. Like any definition really, just takes one to come up with a definition and 'coin a term' (I think is the right phrase) and once others start buying into it, it grows. Look at Bootylicious, D'oh, and Smackdown, Brexit even, meant nothing until Beyonce, Homer, and The Rock, or politics, came along. Basically, all definitions started with one person's opinion, although general consensus see's it become the norm.

 

PvE players don't want PvP interfering, that's it.

 

Anyway, you're right. It is poor game design...

10 hours ago, Jason said:

You're not wrong however RDO and GTAO are slightly unusual cases because the game has PvE content but exists in a PvP world, thus it forces PvE players to co-exist with PvP and that just doesn't work very well without mechanics to stop griefing.

...or developer sanctioned grief, lol. PvE players are being forced into a PvP environment and it is the root cause of it all though. If they want us all playing PvEvP or whatever, they really shouldn't have added pure PvE content, lol. We know story modes sell like hot cakes, and they don't get further content either these days. It's only natural that a PvE base game that has PvE online is gonna attract PvE only players as much as anyone else. To make the playstyles clash is one sided and deliberate, R* are causing it as much as a player playing within limits. Defensive mode is literally a 'go away and find someone else' button, many don't read it like that and problems ensue.

 

It's a very simple-minded of R* to think passive players who can be killed freely would like it, lol. It's backwards TBH.

 

A PvE player that has no interest or intent being attacked and is, is a form of grief. Of course, a huge difference between being spawn killed or having a cheater/glitchers use unintended means, but it is still imposing on another against their will, and that's the basics of griefing. To impose/hamper a player to see their enjoyment lessen. Instead of reeling in that fish or picking those herbs, we have to react when its put on us, waste of my time and theirs as I'll only ever look to quit and reload as I'm here for other gameplay than my attacker. We both lose out and in a way, both grief each other. I can't play - griefed, they can't - I griefed what they wanted in return, lol.

 

Petty, absolutely. But that's the cause. R* are deliberately allowing one playstyle to negatively affect another, that's developer sanctioned grief as there is no legitimate way to stop another killing a defensive player that's showing 'no thanks' (Bit of a rushed ramble, real busy. But I hope I made some sense. I generally agree with you, but feel there's more to 'grief' and it starts with the small stuff).

[Norman_Greige]

For those who think taking a shot here and there at another player isn't "griefing", or by any other name "disruptive gameplay", it might help to consider how often a player has already had that happen to them. Every server jump, every spawn near a new player – they all make one susceptible and you're one shot might be one more in a long line of them. There's a reason R* is looking for solutions, and by gods if you can't figure out defensive mode when you can't lock on or you see the shield icon, I'm frankly amazed you managed to learn the controls.

 

Again, I'm no game designer so I don't know how to do this or even if this is possible, but if you can mute an individual player I should think you could allow individual passive mode to be active for individual griefers/posses from the "Players" menu. That way you don't  have to run around being completely inactive with the game i.e. GTAO passive mode, and those who think that a shot now and again at a player trying to grind some fishing loot is okay gets their cheap one shot thrills and the right to go on about their "not really griefing" status (still would be, but I digress). It'd still be annoying, but only until they could be selected from the menu and far less annoying than being forced to uproot my chosen gameplay area just to run with my tail between me legs. 

[Jason]

2 hours ago, Lonely-Martin said:

Spawn killing, passive popping, EWO abuse, are all intended gameplay features, but very much synonymous with griefing too. Luckily not here, yet. But many intended gameplay features are used to grief too, and most definitions I read suggest the use of both legit and non legit means can be griefing.

Those are intended gameplay features but players using them to grief are using them in unintended ways.

 

2 hours ago, Lonely-Martin said:

...or developer sanctioned grief, lol. PvE players are being forced into a PvP environment and it is the root cause of it all though. If they want us all playing PvEvP or whatever, they really shouldn't have added pure PvE content, lol. We know story modes sell like hot cakes, and they don't get further content either these days. It's only natural that a PvE base game that has PvE online is gonna attract PvE only players as much as anyone else. To make the playstyles clash is one sided and deliberate, R* are causing it as much as a player playing within limits. Defensive mode is literally a 'go away and find someone else' button, many don't read it like that and problems ensue.

 

It's a very simple-minded of R* to think passive players who can be killed freely would like it, lol. It's backwards TBH.

I wouldn't call it "developer sanctioned" either seeing as they've spent the last 8 months or whatever trying to fix it. Of course, the easy fix is to just add PvE/private lobbies, they've literally admitted as much but they've stated their reasons why they aren't doing that, yet anyway.

 

I would say that you have definitely have a point with "developer sanctioned" griefing with GTAO however, as the games mechanics require you to play for hours building up resources to sell but those resources can very easily destroyed due to the wacky tools the game has available these days. Players being so easily able to destroy another players progress is uhhhhhhhhhh. There's a reason private servers for open world games with PvP (Minecraft, Ark, Rust, etc) are often heavily loaded with things like base protection, lol. That also ties into poor design really as well, as it's clearly a mechanic to introduce challenge into the content because Rockstar have always struggled with adding challenge to the open world environment in their games.

 

10 hours ago, Leftover Pizza said:

We are owners of a license to play RDR2. We don't own the game, we bought a license to play RDR2. We didn't need to buy a license to play RDO, which is in fact a different game. It's just set in the same gameworld and has similar features.

The fact that it's free to play, but restricted to only license owners of RDR2, doesn't change the fact we can still play it without having to buy another license. A free game doesn't necessarily mean it has to be free for every Joe and his aunt.

Now you're into the whole "do we really own the games we buy?" malarkey which is completely unrelated to RDO because RDO being free is a PR move. It is the multiplayer portion of RDR2, it reuses almost all of the single player campaigns assets and mechanics, with new MP-specific ones on top with on-going support. That is no different to what a Call of Duty does (when it has a SP lol).

 

RDO and GTAO being free is a PR move by Rockstar to create artificial value to your purchase of the game. They you want to think "oh wow if I buy this game I'm getting this other game free". If a game is free it's free, I could go download it on the store right now on an account I don't own RDR2 on. I can't do that because it's not free.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Jason

[AStiffBreeze]

If there was no defensive mode I wouldn’t be playing RDO any more. 

[Smokewood]

22 hours ago, netnow66 said:

A player taking a shot at me is a griefer in my book. There are instances of posts already on this page that describe that.

 

If you shoot me when I'm spawning in, you're griefing me.

 

If you shoot me while I'm fishing, you're griefing me. 

 

If you shoot me while I'm going to the butcher, you're griefing me.

 

If you shoot me and I'm in Defensive mode, you're griefing me.

 

For me, if the combat isn't consensual, it's griefing.

 

Those griefers, Pizza, those griefers.

Nonsense - you are in a pvp zone.

If you can get R* to create PvE sessions, cool. If not, anyone is free to take a shot at anyone else by the rules of the game.

Therefore, none of what you listed is griefing.

[Smokewood]

13 hours ago, netnow66 said:

A griefer is someone who intentionally disrupts my gameplay. Period. It can't be any simpler than that.

Nonsense - you are in a pvp zone.

 

[Xtf]

11 minutes ago, Smokewood said:

Nonsense - you are in a pvp zone.

If you can get R* to create PvE sessions, cool. If not, anyone is free to take a shot at anyone else by the rules of the game.

Therefore, none of what you listed is griefing.

Actually your not in a PvP zone, it's PvPvE and there's a lot more vE than there is vP.  My main issue is you get these big worlds with all sorts of possibilities and all some people want to is shoot you in the back whilst you're doing something else as they lack the skill to get legit kills in an actual PvP match.  There are plenty of PvP options you can join at anytime but how many PvE options are there that you can just drop into part way through?  It's basically free roam.

 

Anybody who defends shooting people whilst they're fishing by saying it's part of the game are technically correct but don't you feel just a little bit embarrassed that you need to resort to shooting someone in the back whilst fishing just to get your k/d rate (that no one else cares about) that little bit higher?

Edited July 3, 2019 by Xtf
Mistypes in 1st paragraph

[Smokewood]

16 minutes ago, Xtf said:

Actually your not in a PvP zone

Yes we are.

There are only 2 options. 

Friendly fire on or off / PvE or PvP

Everyone is a target by the rules of the game.

Griefing requires cheating in some way.

[Leftover Pizza]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

RDO and GTAO being free is a PR move by Rockstar to create artificial value to your purchase of the game. They you want to think "oh wow if I buy this game I'm getting this other game free". If a game is free it's free, I could go download it on the store right now on an account I don't own RDR2 on. I can't do that because it's not free.

 

You're not getting RDO for free, you can play it for free. And we really do not have any ownership of the game itself. We have a license to use the content, like we do with any type of software/music/movies/series/literature/pictures, unless we own the intellectual rights. Neither of us do, so that's where a discussion about 'owning the game' ends.

The most we ever own of a game is the packaging of a physical copy. 

 

edit:

It's not PR malarky, but it's simply how it legally works.

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Leftover Pizza

[Leftover Pizza]

37 minutes ago, Xtf said:

Anybody who defends shooting people whilst they're fishing by saying it's part of the game are technically correct but don't you feel just a little bit embarrassed that you need to resort to shooting someone in the back whilst fishing just to get your k/d rate (that no one else cares about) that little bit higher?

 

That's a different discussion, though correct. But the fact that it can happen is what we're mostly talk about now. One knows the type of game they are playing and what one can expect. To expect the total opposite or to expect the developers to tailor it to your likings, is just ignorant. And whining about it on forums is just, well, I'd better not comment on that. 

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, Leftover Pizza said:

You're not getting RDO for free, you can play it for free. And we really do not have any ownership of the game itself. We have a license to use the content, like we do with any type of software/music/movies/series/literature/pictures, unless we own the intellectual rights. Neither of us do, so that's where a discussion about 'owning the game' ends.

The most we ever own of a game is the packaging of a physical copy. 

 

edit:

It's not PR malarky, but it's simply how it legally works.

I know what the point your trying to make is and it goes both ways. In that case, RDR2 is free, you just buy the license to use it. Every game is free, you just buy the license to use it. Are you technically wrong? Not really no, but that's not the point I'm making here.

 

RDO was advertised as free to all owners of RDR2, GTAO was too.

 

See:

 

Quote

Access to Red Dead Online is free to anyone with a copy of Red Dead Redemption 2 on either PlayStation 4 or Xbox One.

 

This is PR, they are advertising the multiplayer mode as free to all owners of the base game to make RDO seem as bonus value on top of the fee you're already paying for the single player. They're not trying to be super clever here, no developer or publisher will say something is "free" in a PR statement because that's technically in the buyers agreement or whatever you're actually only buying the license to play the game, no one does that. They say it's free because it's part of their promotional campaign.

 

Somewhat interesting they drop the "free" part in later updates, see here and here.

[Leftover Pizza]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

I know what the point your trying to make is and it goes both ways. In that case, RDR2 is free, you just buy the license to use it. Every game is free, you just buy the license to use it. Are you technically wrong? Not really no, but that's not the point I'm making here.

 

RDO was advertised as free to all owners of RDR2, GTAO was too.

 

See:

 

 

This is PR, they are advertising the multiplayer mode as free to all owners of the base game to make RDO seem as bonus value on top of the fee you're already paying for the single player. They're not trying to be super clever here, no developer or publisher will say something is "free" in a PR statement because that's technically in the buyers agreement or whatever you're actually only buying the license to play the game, no one does that. They say it's free because it's part of their promotional campaign.

 

Somewhat interesting they drop the "free" part in later updates, see here and here.

 

Even if it is PR, it is still free. They are not lying or deceiving customers. Most of the free commercial stuff you get is PR. Free options on a new car, for instance. Can anyone who didn't buy a new car claim the free options too? Nope, doesn't work that way. You can't walk in a store and claim all the free stuff that is given with any purchase you don't make. Of course, it's all PR. But that doesn't make it a bad move or even paid for in another way. It's free for certain customers and not for all. Neverwinter is a free to play game, without any additional purchases of the game. You can freely download it from the PSN store. That, in your earlier wordings, is a free game. But still, you will have to be a PS4 or PC owner to play it. 

The way Rockstar advertises the free Online counterparts of their story mode games isn't wrong. 

[Lonely-Martin]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Those are intended gameplay features but players using them to grief are using them in unintended ways.

I do disagree, the attacker is only using what the developer allows in those cases. There's nothing to say you can't kill indiscriminately over there and they keep adding features to make it easier too. (Aside cheating or glitching of course). R* made a real mess with GTA:O and so much got messed up with it. Really blurred the lines between fair/competitive gaming and grief, IMHO.

 

Very surprised they acknowledge the potential of it here and not with GTA:O though. I greatly welcome it here and it is literally the only thing that see's me continue trying to enjoy the game, but the culture built into it all with GTA:O is horrendous. So much of everything over there, lol. Anyway, we know that game is f*cked, so I'll move on. It's just so many clashes and most came through a clear playstyle issue. Just grew and grew.

 

Here though, we have rules suggesting killing defensive mode players is bad behaviour, and allowing offensive players to kill defensive is only gonna cause issue. Many know I'm screaming for lobby choice, but that's not the easy fix for me, the easy fix is to just make it so we go transparent when ran into and make bullets bounce off us causing no harm or anything. Easy to ignore but easy to interact with another still, keeps it cheap, I mean, dynamic for R* and those saying 'It's online, shouldn't play alone' happy too.

 

I really can't understand why anyone would want defensive players able to be killed though. Make it so we can't attack without coming out of defence absolutely in return, and with the 30 second on screen warning nearby players get, passive popping would all but a relic now.

 

If not session choice, make it a full passive/offensive thing with some tweaks. High hostility/low honour is no deterrent for those seeking It, the fines are all most pointless too. The players that run circles around me until they bump me off, or when I'm on foot trample me, shouldn't be given that chance. Just make 'em run through us. Anyone with good intent won't have immersion broken seeing ghost players, lol. (Sorry for the long posts, need to be clear I'm not anti-PvP but pro choice and it's lessening is a concern to me is all - Apologies for the snip too).

52 minutes ago, Smokewood said:

Nonsense - you are in a pvp zone.

Na, we're in a game of choice. Just favours PvP as expected, lol.

34 minutes ago, Smokewood said:

Griefing requires cheating in some way.

Not even close, lol.

 

R* have already acknowledged it's potential and are, slowly, looking to combat griefing.

 

Why would they add anti-griefing measures?

[Smokewood]

16 minutes ago, Lonely-Martin said:

Not even close, lol.

 

R* have already acknowledged it's potential and are, slowly, looking to combat griefing.

 

Why would they add anti-griefing measures?

To keep you playing.

Seriously - they received feedback about griefing.

So to save customers they say "Look at we did to help you" 

However, it's not griefing if you are playing by the rules.

 

That's why no one will ever get banned for killing another player, ever.

 

[Jason]

24 minutes ago, Leftover Pizza said:

Even if it is PR, it is still free.

Go create a new account on PSN/XBL and download RDO for free, if you can do that I'll concede.

 

Whether or not it's good PR, smart PR or bad PR is irrelevant to what I'm saying, cause all I'm saying is that it's not free. Saying that a F2P game isn't free because you need the hardware to play it is just getting pedantic lol.

 

27 minutes ago, Lonely-Martin said:

I do disagree, the attacker is only using what the developer allows in those cases.

Something like spawn killing is designed to protect you from being killed when you spawn in, that is the intended functionality of that feature. If people are using the feature to kill people then they are using it in an unintended way. Spawn protection being usable like that usually means the design of it is poor, or the spawn system is poor. An issue with such a feature in RDO in particular is that the map is very open so you can literally see people spawn right in front of you which reduces the effectiveness of the mechanic significantly.

 

Anyway, we basically completely agree we're just debating the semantics of a word so lets, you know, agree to agree lmao.

[Smokewood]

18 minutes ago, Jason said:

Go create a new account on PSN/XBL and download RDO for free, if you can do that I'll concede.

 

Whether or not it's good PR, smart PR or bad PR is irrelevant to what I'm saying, cause all I'm saying is that it's not free. Saying that a F2P game isn't free because you need the hardware to play it is just getting pedantic lol.

RDO is free for anyone who owns a license for RDR2.

It's not free to everyone, but it didn't cost any additional purchases.   

 

Yes, it is free.

[joel15cat]

I wish they remove the defensive mode as the passive mode of GTA Onlien, what a broken things.
I am doing a mission, I eliminate the enemies, I am looting their bodies and one comes in defensive mode and begins to loot bodies. I killed him and the bad guy its me?

[Jason]

It didn't cost any additional purchase because it comes included as standard with every single purchase of RDR2 meaning if you want RDO you have to purchase it.

[Lonely-Martin]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

Anyway, we basically completely agree we're just debating the semantics of a word so lets, you know, agree to agree lmao.

No problemo, always nice to learn a bit too. 

 

25 minutes ago, Smokewood said:

To keep you playing.

Seriously - they received feedback about griefing.

So to save customers they say "Look at we did to help you" 

However, it's not griefing if you are playing by the rules.

 

That's why no one will ever get banned for killing another player, ever.

Yeah, I do agree it was motivated at least in part because many were not having a GTA:O MKII, lol.

 

But if they were getting complaints of grief and acknowledged that so, it is grief by their definition too now and the additions since are there to help define the limits. Just a bit flawed is all, early days yet so we'll see.

 

That said, I've never eluded to players being banned for killing, just want ways for likeminded to be more around each other. PvP should be fair game and by adding passive players into the mix, gets messy for both.

 

By all means, if R* want this to be a more PvP orientated game, go for it. But adding a defensive mode that allows passive players to get killed will always be met with griefer complaints too. But also, they should stop adding PvE online as an option because with this (and GTA) as a series that is famous for its story modes, adding more PvE stories online will attract us. With some looking for exploits to do what R* have baited/teased us with, lobby choice.

 

We know they have them ready to go, and while defensive allows being attacked (or attacking), the call for them will remain I feel.

[netnow66]

13 hours ago, CaliMeatWagon said:

I got to stop you right there, this whole "I think therefore I am" BS is just that. You don't get to change the definition of words to fit what you "feel" it should be, or what it "means to you". That's not how definitions work. Griefing/Griefer has a set definition. 

No matter how much it may upset you, people playing the game as intended is not griefing. 

So...who's definition of griefing are you using...and what if I want to use another one?

noun an online game player who intentionally spoils the game for other players

 

That's the definition I found and is the one I choose to use. I didn't change anything. You mentioned a set definition. Who set it? And who determines why one gets set over the other?

 

 

13 hours ago, Leftover Pizza said:

 

You make me think of 2 people I know; my stubborn as f*ck grandpa and the whining kid next door when he can't beat his friends and blames everything for his loss. 

Why play if all you do is whine about it? You hadn't noticed any of Rockstar's plans with the online game, before you bought it? Sure, blame the developer for players firing shots at you. The game is advertised as a multiplayer online game, with PvP elements. What part did you not get?

 

Does it make you comfortable to presume that all I do is whine about it? What exactly made that impression formulate in your mind? Seems as if you're attempting to force your impressions on me for some strange reason. Did you intentionally choose to ignore what I previously mentioned I do to avoid problems while in free roam to strengthen your argument? Hey, I have no problem with the on call missions and free roam is more than playable--if you employ the tools to do it (and I don't mean Defensive mode).

As far as "Rockstar's plans with the online game," I didn't buy RDR2 to play it, I bought it only for the online mode where I could form my own character and play as I wished. Rockstar's "plans" (as quoted from their promotional material) stated:

"We also ask for your help in keeping Red Dead Online a fun and fair environment for everyone. Please use the in-game reporting tools to report any abusive behavior, cheating or exploits you see occurring during the Beta, or that you happen to see posted on external sites like YouTube" and "With the gameplay of Red Dead Redemption 2 as its foundation, Red Dead Online transforms the vast and deeply detailed landscapes, cities, towns and habitats of Red Dead Redemption 2 into a new, living online world ready to be shared by multiple players. Create and customize your character, tailor your abilities to suit your play style and head out into a new frontier full of things to experience. Explore the world solo or with friends."
 

It mentioned nothing about me being griefer/bully fodder, it mentioned "fun and fair environment," "Explore the world solo or with friends" and "tailor your abilities to suit your play style."
 

Those were Rockstar's supposed plans with the online game that I researched before I bought it. What part of that did you not get?
 

While I figured the online mayhem in the older GTA would be grandfathered in, with what is taking place with young gamers today, I was a little surprised to see griefing/bullying being promoted by Rockstar in a game being released in 2018 and, apparently, sanctioned by PSN and Xbox Live. I had no idea that Rockstar was going to renege on what their promo material stated. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by netnow66

[Leftover Pizza]

46 minutes ago, netnow66 said:

Does it make you comfortable to presume that all I do is whine about it?

 

 Does it make you feel comfortable to presume I'm no anti-griefer, for condoning normal game mechanics being used?

 

46 minutes ago, netnow66 said:

 

What exactly made that impression formulate in your mind?

 

Just about, uhm, let's say.... 90% of your comments on the subject?

 

46 minutes ago, netnow66 said:

 

Seems as if you're attempting to force your impressions on me for some strange reason. Did you intentionally choose to ignore what I previously mentioned I do to avoid problems while in free roam to strengthen your argument? Hey, I have no problem with the on call missions and free roam is more than playable--if you employ the tools to do it (and I don't mean Defensive mode).

 

"Hi, my name is Mirror. I'm your today's guide in self reflection. How are you today?" ('joke' aside: it's not my impression. It's what the game is about. The fact that you have trouble accepting that may make it look like people are forcing their impression on you. This effects stubborn people the most. Just a subtle hint. 

 

46 minutes ago, netnow66 said:

As far as "Rockstar's plans with the online game," I didn't buy RDR2 to play it, I bought it only for the online mode where I could form my own character and play as I wished.

 

Hate to break it to you, but that doesn't make RDO a different game tailored to your likings. It is what it is. Don't expect Rockstar to go: "Ooh!! is THAT why you bought the game? Okay, sit tight till we make it griefer proof for ya!!"

 

46 minutes ago, netnow66 said:

Rockstar's "plans" (as quoted from their promotional material) stated:

"We also ask for your help in keeping Red Dead Online a fun and fair environment for everyone. Please use the in-game reporting tools to report any abusive behavior, cheating or exploits you see occurring during the Beta, or that you happen to see posted on external sites like YouTube" and "With the gameplay of Red Dead Redemption 2 as its foundation, Red Dead Online transforms the vast and deeply detailed landscapes, cities, towns and habitats of Red Dead Redemption 2 into a new, living online world ready to be shared by multiple players. Create and customize your character, tailor your abilities to suit your play style and head out into a new frontier full of things to experience. Explore the world solo or with friends."
 

It mentioned nothing about me being griefer/bully fodder, it mentioned "fun and fair environment," "Explore the world solo or with friends" and "tailor your abilities to suit your play style."
 

Those were Rockstar's supposed plans with the online game that I researched before I bought it. What part of that did you not get?

 

Well, I think if you just did a liiiittle bit more research, you'd have noticed that RDO was not gonna be the game you have in mind. First of all, it's Rockstar we're talking about. Rockstar and Online games don't have the history of being a worry free adventure game, supposed to be played by many players online at the same time, gently greeting one another. What part of the theme, the fact that it's online multiplayer, outlaws and stuff did you overlook?

I don't know, maybe I missed a code of conduct in this game, where it says a player may not attack another player. Where did you get the idea you aren't supposed to be attacked in any occassion? You must be either very naïve or just don't understand online gaming these days. A liiiiiiiittle bit more research might have helped.

 

46 minutes ago, netnow66 said:

While I figured the online mayhem in the older GTA would be grandfathered in, with what is taking place with young gamers today, I was a little surprised to see griefing/bullying being promoted by Rockstar in a game being released in 2018 and, apparently, sanctioned by PSN and Xbox Live. I had no idea that Rockstar was going to renege on what their promo material stated. 

 

You figured it was grandfathered, you was surprised griefer mechanics are in the game had no idea about Rockstar plans and Rockstar is the bad guy? You figured wrong. Sanctioned by PSN and XB Live? Where did you get that idea from? 

I really don't think you can blame Rockstar for your own ignorance here, buddy. 

 

[Smokewood]

Griefing requires doing the unexpected with the direct intent of doing it just to ruin someone else's enjoyment.

 

Shooting you in the back while you are fishing does NOT meet that criteria.

First off, it IS expected behavior.

Second, I'm not doing it to ruin your enjoyment, i'm doing it "because I can and it's not against the rules".

[Leftover Pizza]

3 minutes ago, Smokewood said:

Griefing requires doing the unexpected with the direct intent of doing it just to ruin someone else's enjoyment.

 

Shooting you in the back while you are fishing does NOT meet that criteria.

First off, it IS expected behavior.

Second, I'm not doing it to ruin your enjoyment, i'm doing it "because I can and it's not against the rules".

 

Isn't it wonderful how some people can just shoot another player and not be gun blocked, if they do so wish? I think that's very fair towards them and I do think they have fun too. "Fun and Fair environment for everyone" it said. They didn't lie.

[Xtf]

43 minutes ago, Leftover Pizza said:

 

Well, I think if you just did a liiiittle bit more research, you'd have noticed that RDO was not gonna be the game you have in mind. First of all, it's Rockstar we're talking about. Rockstar and Online games don't have the history of being a worry free adventure game, supposed to be played by many players online at the same time, gently greeting one another. What part of the theme, the fact that it's online multiplayer, outlaws and stuff did you overlook?

Sooo, like Red dead Redemption 1?  Which had a friendly free mode.

 

22 minutes ago, Smokewood said:

Griefing requires doing the unexpected with the direct intent of doing it just to ruin someone else's enjoyment.

 

Shooting you in the back while you are fishing does NOT meet that criteria.

First off, it IS expected behavior.

Second, I'm not doing it to ruin your enjoyment, i'm doing it "because I can and it's not against the rules".

Griefing should not be classified as unexpected behavior, we all know that given the option some people can't resist the urge to be a prick.  what annoys me is how the go on to defend that behaviour as if everyone should be doing the same.  The best solution is to have 2 seperate free roam types, pve with all players classed as friendly and friendly fire off and another one that is a free fall and I'll bet, as has happened so many times before, the people who will complain about that solution are the players who want the cheap kills.

[Smokewood]

Just now, Xtf said:

Sooo, like Red dead Redemption 1?  Which had a friendly free mode.

 

Griefing should not be classified as unexpected behavior, we all know that given the option some people can't resist the urge to be a prick.  what annoys me is how the go on to defend that behaviour as if everyone should be doing the same.  The best solution is to have 2 seperate free roam types, pve with all players classed as friendly and friendly fire off and another one that is a free fall and I'll bet, as has happened so many times before, the people who will complain about that solution are the players who want the cheap kills.

I'm fine with seperate lobbies, however until then RDO freeroam IS a PvP zone.

Call it griefing all you want - you're just plain wrong.

There is no griefing when there are no rules.

[Xtf]

11 minutes ago, Smokewood said:

I'm fine with seperate lobbies, however until then RDO freeroam IS a PvP zone.

Call it griefing all you want - you're just plain wrong.

There is no griefing when there are no rules.

Actually is PvPvE but alot of people seem to have issues understanding that.  PvP is showdowns.  If there's no rules, why have defensive mode, press charges or parley?

[Lonely-Martin]

1 hour ago, Leftover Pizza said:

Well, I think if you just did a liiiittle bit more research, you'd have noticed that RDO was not gonna be the game you have in mind. First of all, it's Rockstar we're talking about. Rockstar and Online games don't have the history of being a worry free adventure game, supposed to be played by many players online at the same time, gently greeting one another. What part of the theme, the fact that it's online multiplayer, outlaws and stuff did you overlook?

I don't know, maybe I missed a code of conduct in this game, where it says a player may not attack another player. Where did you get the idea you aren't supposed to be attacked in any occassion? You must be either very naïve or just don't understand online gaming these days. A liiiiiiiittle bit more research might have helped.

If someone uses GTA:O or even RDR multiplayer from before to gage a R* online game, they'd see friendly fire sessions, invite only, solo, and crew session choices that would show clearly in any research too.

 

Not unreasonable to see 'fun and fair for all' and learn of lobby choices in their other online games, and think this would be similar.

 

Very easy to see many legitimately play other R* games in peace together or alone.

 

16 minutes ago, Smokewood said:

I'm fine with seperate lobbies, however until then RDO freeroam IS a PvP zone.

Call it griefing all you want - you're just plain wrong.

There is no griefing when there are no rules.

Isn't that the whole point of defensive mode, lol. It is the rules.

 

Killing defensive players gets fines and hostility/honour hits, R* call it griefing, R* call you a griefer for killing an unaware fisherman from behind, lol. Otherwise defensive wouldn't exist and you wouldn't get fined. Behaving like that is griefing and rules have been put in place. Agree or not, that's R* saying so.

 

Trouble is, as an anti-grief feature, it's flawed and the fines aren't enough when players are free to glitch consequence free, and low honour/high hostility is little more than a reward for those keen to play that way, they want yhat, lol.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Lonely-Martin
I got distracted while writing, missed other responses that ninja'd me, lol. Oops. :)

[netnow66]

1 minute ago, Lonely-Martin said:

Isn't that the whole point of defensive mode, lol. It is the rules.

 

Killing defensive players gets fines and hostility/honour hits, R* call it griefing, R* call you a griefer for killing an unaware fisherman from behind, lol. Otherwise defensive wouldn't exist and you wouldn't get fined. Behaving like that is griefing and rules have been put in place. Agree or not, that's R* saying so.

 

Trouble is, as an anti-grief feature, it's flawed and the fines aren't enough when players are free to glitch consequence free, and low honour/high hostility is little more than a reward for those keen to play that way, they want yhat, lol.

Defensive is Rockstar's way of saying, "Sure we're anti griefing" and then doing a little side wink to the griefers, as if an intelligent person can't see what's really happening.

 

1 hour ago, Leftover Pizza said:

 

Nothing really left for us to discuss. You don't disappoint, I'll give you that.

[Lonely-Martin]

4 minutes ago, netnow66 said:

Defensive is Rockstar's way of saying, "Sure we're anti griefing" and then doing a little side wink to the griefers, as if an intelligent person can't see what's really happening.

With regards to GTA:O and how RDRO started, I'd agree. But seeing R* trying and addressing the topic of griefing as a whole is a great thing that I only hopes to improve.

 

Long way to go to get it right, but I am more positive now they show willing to listen and make changes after 5 years of neglect regarding this side to GTA. Only time will tell going forward, lol. We just gotta keep highlighting the issues fairly and hope R* continue to agree with more to make things go smoother for both playstyles really. Too much of this pap is easily avoided I feel.

 

I am more hopeful, but also quite cynical too. I mean, GTA:O did make so much money and that's always a factor for papa Strauss.