Defensive mode

[Leftover Pizza]

For what it's worth, Defensive Mode ain't this and shouldn't be either:

 

 

I'll take dealing with tryhards over dealing with cryhards.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Leftover Pizza

[Smokewood]

55 minutes ago, Xtf said:

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?

Immersion, role-play, ect... 

The entire map is a giant Pvp zone, yes there are PvE activities to do while in this zone, but as far as other PLAYERS are concerned it is a PvP area.

How do I know, easy, I can shot you even if you are in defensive mode.

[Xtf]

The thing is, that's your opinion. You don't have to play PvP, you can play co-op.  Just because you can shoot someone doesn't mean you have to.  I know there's no point discussing this with you, I mean how can you genuinely believe it's PvP zone when you might not even see another player for hours? It makes no sense, it would by the worst design for PvP.  The only reason to attempt PvP in freeroam, when there are actual PvP modes available, is for cheap kills.

[Leftover Pizza]

12 minutes ago, Xtf said:

The thing is, that's your opinion. You don't have to play PvP, you can play co-op.  Just because you can shoot someone doesn't mean you have to.  I know there's no point discussing this with you, I mean how can you genuinely believe it's PvP zone when you might not even see another player for hours? It makes no sense, it would by the worst design for PvP.  The only reason to attempt PvP in freeroam, when there are actual PvP modes available, is for cheap kills.

 

Not taking sides for either PvP or PvE, but what you say goes both ways. It all boils down to choice in this case. Will a player shoot you or not? He can, but will he? Another player can also choose to help you. Not that many things need help in this game, but it is pretty neat to have someone do something nice as well as doing something nice once in a while. But so is getting into a fight sometimes. The game has opportunities, the players have a choice. It's as simple as that.

Sadly, before the "it's not Beta anymore' patch, many chose to shoot others, either out of boredom or because of the novelty of the game. After Defensive Mode was launched, the griefing more or less ended. Tryhards left or found different things to do. The amount of cryhards decreased as well, though some still think Defensive Mode doesn't work. 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by Leftover Pizza

[netnow66]

1 hour ago, Xtf said:

The thing is, that's your opinion. You don't have to play PvP, you can play co-op.  Just because you can shoot someone doesn't mean you have to.  I know there's no point discussing this with you, I mean how can you genuinely believe it's PvP zone when you might not even see another player for hours? It makes no sense, it would by the worst design for PvP.  The only reason to attempt PvP in freeroam, when there are actual PvP modes available, is for cheap kills.

It's pretty simple really. Rockstar has opted to sanction a certain amount of griefing so the griefers/bullies and those who encourage them make excuses and ignorantly lap it all up.

[Lonely-Martin]

6 hours ago, Leftover Pizza said:

The amount of cryhards decreased as well, though some still think Defensive Mode doesn't work.

Firstly, you really should stop calling players with different opinions names, it undermines your points as it is flaming an already diverse topic. (You say you're anti-grief, but are acting just like one that does with all this pettiness).

 

Secondly, it doesn't work. Not properly. Players can charge at players on horseback to circumvent a penalty system in place, that's not any one being a 'cryhard' It's pointing out a flaw in the rules that people are using to exploit the game.

 

Even by Smokewood's definition, that's griefing.

[Pocket Fox]

2 players were fighting today, I waved at them both.

I then picked up the body of the one who died in the fight... apparently that knocked me out of def. mode and gave me MODERATE hostility...

 

for picking up the dead body of someone.... :s

[Chunkey_Monkey]

12 minutes ago, Pocket Fox said:

2 players were fighting today, I waved at them both.

I then picked up the body of the one who died in the fight... apparently that knocked me out of def. mode and gave me MODERATE hostility...

 

for picking up the dead body of someone.... :s

Proper R* logic that is 

[Leftover Pizza]

3 hours ago, Lonely-Martin said:

Firstly, you really should stop calling players with different opinions names, it undermines your points as it is flaming an already diverse topic. (You say you're anti-grief, but are acting just like one that does with all this pettiness).

 

Secondly, it doesn't work. Not properly. Players can charge at players on horseback to circumvent a penalty system in place, that's not any one being a 'cryhard' It's pointing out a flaw in the rules that people are using to exploit the game.

 

Even by Smokewood's definition, that's griefing.

A flaw in the rules is what I call the incident Pocketfox experienced. Being attacked is not a flaw in the rules as Defensive Mode, for the umpteenth time, is not a total immunity system. You can still be shot at, can still be killed and you have to stay aware of 'danger', because Rockstar wants us to experience that thing in the game. 

Agreed, also for the umpteenth time, it needs tweaks. How many times do I have to write that out, before some people finally get that I think it needs tweaks?

Same goes for me being anti-griefing. I am anti-grief, but also anti waving the grief card much too soon. 

 

FYI: 

Cryhard is just another gaming terminology. It's not name calling. 

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cryhard

 

I stand corrected and apologize. Apparently, I haven't read clearly and cryhard is kind of name calling. I've read the definition, not the use for it. 

Either way, that doesn't change my stance on the subject. 

Edited July 4, 2019 by Leftover Pizza

[Lonely-Martin]

1 hour ago, Leftover Pizza said:

FYI: 

Cryhard is just another gaming terminology. It's not name calling. 

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cryhard

 

I stand corrected and apologize. Apparently, I haven't read clearly and cryhard is kind of name calling. I've read the definition, not the use for it. 

Either way, that doesn't change my stance on the subject. 

All good, just with topics regarding grief tend to get feisty in the GTA:O section and just hoping this doesn't go that path, lol. ✌

 

1 hour ago, Leftover Pizza said:

A flaw in the rules is what I call the incident Pocketfox experienced. Being attacked is not a flaw in the rules as Defensive Mode, for the umpteenth time, is not a total immunity system. You can still be shot at, can still be killed and you have to stay aware of 'danger', because Rockstar wants us to experience that thing in the game. 

Agreed, also for the umpteenth time, it needs tweaks. How many times do I have to write that out, before some people finally get that I think it needs tweaks?

Same goes for me being anti-griefing. I am anti-grief, but also anti waving the grief card much too soon. 

I disagree as that's not what I mean. Attacking defensive is one thing, but attacking in a certain way to avoid the hostility/defensive changes that come from attacking passive players so they get put on that passive player they ran into instead so the original attacker can 'kill back' without fines.

 

That's playing the system to avoid the fines/consequences and deliberately to set a passive player up. 

 

That is griefing. Textbook IMHO.

 

Beyond that, we'll disagree so best to not squabble over that as, fairly so, neither is changing our opinion as we want different things. I feel the system needs more done to allow PvE players a way to play around PvP without being set up by the developer leaving unattended loopholes. 

 

But I do appreciate the chat with you guys, and others opinions too. Gives me loads to send to the feedback that me alone out there might not see. Peace out dude, same to @Smokewood too.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Lonely-Martin
Autospell fail

[Leftover Pizza]

36 minutes ago, Lonely-Martin said:

All good, just with topics regarding grief tend to get feisty in the GTA:O section and just hoping this doesn't go that path, lol. ✌

 

I disagree as that's not what I mean. Attacking defensive is one thing, but attacking in a certain way to avoid the hostility/defensive changes that come from attacking passive players so they get put on that passive player they ran into instead so the original attacker can 'kill back' without fines.

 

That's playing the system to avoid the fines/consequences and deliberately to set a passive player up. 

 

That is griefing. Textbook IMHO.

 

Beyond that, we'll disagree so best to not squabble over that as, fairly so, neither is changing our opinion as we want different things. I feel the system needs more done to allow PvE players a way to play around PvP without being set up by the developer leaving unattended loopholes. 

 

But I do appreciate the chat with you guys, and others opinions too. Gives me loads to send to the feedback that me alone out there might not see. Peace out dude, same to @Smokewood too.

 

The few times people rammed me with their horse, they turned hostile and I was able to kill them without consequences. I've never gained hostility by being rammed into. 

It rarely happens and if memory serves me well, it was about 2 or 3 times since the big update. Yeah, it's annoying for sure and disrupts my gameplay at that moment. But 99,999% of the time, I have no incidents at all. Heck, I hardly see other players near me. 

I do see red players in the list sometimes, but none of those have ever attacked me. 

Defensive Mode isn't flawless, but it works for the main purpose of it, and that shows in the huge decrease of aggressive player interaction. 

[Xtf]

I've had people try to ram me a few times but they normally muck it up.  Think even did to someone once but I was in cinematic mode and by the time I realised what had happened I thought it best just to get out of their.  I don't actually have many incidents of people trying to kill me,  sometimes people will get me once and then after I've killed them 4or5 times they go away.

 

The one that has stood out was in defensive mode and ran me over on his horse.  Kept me rolling over at just the right speed to drain my health and not allow me to get up.  Turned rdo off for half hour or so after that but I have since gained a slight admiration for the cunning bastard.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Xtf
Mistype

[CaliMeatWagon]

On 7/3/2019 at 8:58 AM, netnow66 said:

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?

I can find studies that "prove" autism is caused by vaccines and sites dedicated to providing "evidence" of Big Foot, UFO's, Loch Ness Monster, and the Earth being flat. Just because you found a single "source" that backs up what you want the information to be, doesn't mean it is accurate. 

The commonly accepted definition, which has been stated many times in here, it relies on harassment, the abuse of game mechanics, with the intent to cause you "grief". This does not include shooting at a player, or "intentionally spoils the game for others."

Let me give you a perfect example as to why your "definition" doesn't work. 
You mean and me are racing. You win. I lose. You just intentionally spoiled the game for me as I really wanted to win. And now I'm upset. You are a griefer and you just griefed me. 

And here, just for the fun of it, here are some of the real definitions of "griefing"
The Oxford Dictionary defines it as:

Quote

(in an online game or community) a person who harasses or deliberately provokes other players or members in order to spoil their enjoyment.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/griefer

Wikipedia defines it as:
 

Quote

A griefer or bad faith player is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game (trolling), using aspects of the game in unintended ways.[1] A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

The Urban Dictionary defines it as:
 

Quote

Someone, usually in an online game, who intentionally, and usually repeatedly, attempts to degrade anothers experience or torment them. 
Examples of griefing: 
1. Player vs player abuse: Singling out the same person and killing them over and over when they are defensless until hey log off. 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=griefer

Wiktionary defines it as:
 

Quote

(online gaming) One who griefs: a player who plays a game primarily to reduce other players’ enjoyment of it.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/griefer

with them defining "Griefs" as:
 

Quote

(online gaming) To deliberately harass and annoy or cause grief to other players of a game in order to interfere with their enjoyment of it; especially, to do this as one’s primary activity in the game.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grief#Verb

I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the examples and sources, but I'm sure you get my point. 
What's sad, is even if you do understand, you will still argue against it. Why? Because your entire argument relies on your definition of "griefing" to being accepted/accurate. 

Edited July 4, 2019 by CaliMeatWagon

[gtmike]

12 minutes ago, CaliMeatWagon said:

I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the examples and sources, but I'm sure you get my point. 
What's sad, is even if you do understand, you will still argue against it. Why? Because your entire argument relies on your definition of "griefing" to being accepted/accurate. 

Wow that was a lot of work to just pretty much back up his original point. Did you even read those definitions? The Wiktionary ones are basically exactly what he defined griefing as.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with him, and in my opinion you're all just derailing a thread about defensive mode, but this is getting a little ridiculous..

[Leftover Pizza]

8 minutes ago, gtmike said:

Wow that was a lot of work to just pretty much back up his original point. Did you even read those definitions? The Wiktionary ones are basically exactly what he defined griefing as.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with him, and in my opinion you're all just derailing a thread about defensive mode, but this is getting a little ridiculous..

 

Not entirely, well, somewhat. Defensive Mode is an anti-grief option and in some people's opinions isn't working, because they got shot at a few times and found they were griefed. 

Being shot at a few times isn't griefing and it is possible to be shot at while in Defensive Mode. But if someone has a misconception of being griefed, they claim Defensive Mode doesn't work. This gets us back at where the whole discussion started. 

[netnow66]

1 hour ago, CaliMeatWagon said:

I can find studies that "prove" autism is caused by vaccines and sites dedicated to providing "evidence" of Big Foot, UFO's, Loch Ness Monster, and the Earth being flat. Just because you found a single "source" that backs up what you want the information to be, doesn't mean it is accurate. 

The commonly accepted definition, which has been stated many times in here, it relies on harassment, the abuse of game mechanics, with the intent to cause you "grief". This does not include shooting at a player, or "intentionally spoils the game for others."

Let me give you a perfect example as to why your "definition" doesn't work. 
You mean and me are racing. You win. I lose. You just intentionally spoiled the game for me as I really wanted to win. And now I'm upset. You are a griefer and you just griefed me. 

And here, just for the fun of it, here are some of the real definitions of "griefing"
The Oxford Dictionary defines it as:

Wikipedia defines it as:
 

The Urban Dictionary defines it as:
 

Wiktionary defines it as:
 

with them defining "Griefs" as:
 

I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the examples and sources, but I'm sure you get my point. 
What's sad, is even if you do understand, you will still argue against it. Why? Because your entire argument relies on your definition of "griefing" to being accepted/accurate. 

Why would you assume anything about me without asking?

 

If you go back and look, you'll see that I asked which definition of griefing are we supposed to follow because we couldn't quite agree. I'll happily accept your Oxford Dictionary definition:

 

"(in an online game or community) a person who harasses or deliberately provokes other players or members in order to spoil their enjoyment".

 

That covers exactly what I consider griefing, encompassing some griefer/bully shooting me while I'm fishing, spawning in or on my way to the butcher with goods in hand/on horse.

 

It also bolsters the argument that Rockstar, since they happily allow this to take place given human nature, is basically allowing, some might say encouraging, griefing/bullying.

 

Again, as gtmike said, you made my point for me.

 

Also, please note that the Oxford Dictionary didn't specify that it had to occur more than once for it to be considered griefing. Again, my point exactly. There's no "the first one's free" rule mentioned.

Edited July 4, 2019 by netnow66

[CaliMeatWagon]

56 minutes ago, gtmike said:

Wow that was a lot of work to just pretty much back up his original point. Did you even read those definitions? The Wiktionary ones are basically exactly what he defined griefing as.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with him, and in my opinion you're all just derailing a thread about defensive mode, but this is getting a little ridiculous..

Not really on two counts. One, it wasn't a lot of "work". Less than 5 minutes of using Bing and copy and pasting. 

Also, his definition is "any somebody spoiling his entertainment". That leaves it up to him to define what is and isn't griefing based on subjective measurement. While the definitions I provided are a bit more concrete and rely on the individual performing a set behavior, i.e. harassment. 

Edited July 4, 2019 by CaliMeatWagon

[gtmike]

14 minutes ago, CaliMeatWagon said:

Not really on two counts. One, it wasn't a lot of "work". Less than 5 minutes of using Bing and copy and pasting. 

Also, his definition is "any somebody spoiling his entertainment". That leaves it up to him to define what is and isn't griefing based on subjective measurement. While the definitions I provided are a bit more concrete and rely on the individual performing a set behavior, i.e. harassment. 

Ok now you've quoted "his definition" and then straight up misquoted him, essentially changing what was said to support your very weak argument.

 

All of the definitions you provided also allow for a large amount of subjective measurement of what is and isn't griefing.

 

Take a minute, read the quote of his you have in big letters in that last post, then read the oxford definition you provided. They say the exact same thing in slightly different words.

 

[Leftover Pizza]

I think I griefed someone today, by the definitions some people use. I was at my camp with raised white flag, in Defensive Mode and they couldn't kill me. I must have spoiled their fun tremendously and severly crippled their gameplay, intentionally of course. 

To top it off, I used taunting emotes on them to provoke them, and harrassed them by shooting at the ground they were standing on. I must be a griefer now.....

[Failed Again]

1st they came for our hides at the butcher, then at campfires or  while  walking to pick herbs..

But now they have come into Fishing challenges and swim and splash the fish away. they express themselves with raucous immature laughter in your Monitor screen.

 

Then after the Award screen- you guessed the same posse that was with you fishing scoring a total of Zero- celebrates their victory with flying lead

 

 

immaturity has no limits

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Failed Again

[netnow66]

4 hours ago, Failed Again said:

1st they came for our hides at the butcher, then at campfires or  while  walking to pick herbs..

But now they have come into Fishing challenges and swim and splash the fish away. they express themselves with raucous immature laughter in your Monitor screen.

 

Then after the Award screen- you guessed the same posse that was with you fishing scoring a total of Zero- celebrates their victory with flying lead

 

 

immaturity has no limits

 

The griefers/bullies and those who support them still have control of a huge part of this game. I guess I'm really not surprised that they have found a way Into the challenges.

 

Thing is, many of the griefers/bullies and those who support them don't even recognize how immature they really are. Getting into a discussion with them usually reveals what they are though.

[Norman_Greige]

Only had one instance this weekend on Defensive mode. Someone shot one of those stupid explosive arrows near me to kill me and my horse. I hope that particular sex wee was satisfying for them. 

 

The rest of the time I was able to move around freely without harassment. I didn't try and jump in between anything, of course, but if I had I would have accepted some degree of getting kilt. 

 

Maybe griefing folks on Defensive Mode is losing its luster. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Norman_Greige

[John McCabe]

On 7/2/2019 at 12:57 AM, Van_Hellsing said:

If you are in defensive mode, you can not auto aim other players. The absence of auto aim is an advantage. Most griefers are so used to auto aim, they totally s#ck at free aiming. 

I think a change R* should make to this mechanic is that if you are shot at and/or hit while in defensive mode, they should allow you to lock on to the offending player (while still in defensive mode). In other words, retaliation should be OK with full auto-aim. This would kill the remaining griefing (this, and if they can improve their AI around players running into your horse).

[Leftover Pizza]

2 hours ago, BobDyl said:

I think a change R* should make to this mechanic is that if you are shot at and/or hit while in defensive mode, they should allow you to lock on to the offending player (while still in defensive mode). In other words, retaliation should be OK with full auto-aim. This would kill the remaining griefing (this, and if they can improve their AI around players running into your horse).

 

They should also make it so that no one can ram you off your horse. Anyone running into you at high speed should bounce off of you and fall off their horses or wagons themselves, ready for you to shoot them to hell and respawn a mile away. 

[The Dedito Gae]

Id rather have specialized servers, one for PvE, one for PvP, a hardcore one, a free aim and one for italians. That way everyone would be happy.

[Leftover Pizza]

2 hours ago, The Deadite said:

Id rather have specialized servers, one for PvE, one for PvP, a hardcore one, a free aim and one for italians. That way everyone would be happy.

 

Almost. There's an RP server missing. Many would love that too.

[Jason]

RP servers that you can dip in and out of don't work really, they've gotta be a thing you commit to like they usually are in MMO's.

[Leftover Pizza]

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

RP servers that you can dip in and out of don't work really, they've gotta be a thing you commit to like they usually are in MMO's.

 

Which would work if we could also have extra character slots dedicated to the server type, like in the usual MMO's. 

I'd surely play on those, since those are crowded by the more relaxed players, from personal experience. I'm spending my WoW time on Argent Dawn EU.

[Jason]

That is the solution but I'm not really sure RDO would benefit from having characters tied to server type, I think it'd just make a mess of the playerbase tbh.

[Leftover Pizza]

9 minutes ago, Jason said:

That is the solution but I'm not really sure RDO would benefit from having characters tied to server type, I think it'd just make a mess of the playerbase tbh.

 

Not sure it would mess up the playerbase much, but it would be far too much work to maintain servers for Rockstar. What we have now is the cheapest solution for them to host the game. Argent Dawn EU is populated by about 410K characters. I'm not expecting those numbers on RDO dedicated servers, but I think it could work. But, knowing Rockstar, it will never happen.