Is the online intended to encourage griefing?

[Direwrath]

53 minutes ago, Lonely-Martin said:

So much potential. I love the map and feel of its absorbing atmosphere so much, it's the only reason I come back and persist/try to get going out there. 

 

As a world, RDRO wins hands down, but for the freedom I enjoy, GTA:O clinches it still. I was hoping between the 2 games I'd have my own lil' Westworld type of thing going off, lol. Bounce around between the 2 virtual worlds and indulge.

 

Must add, I know I can come across as anti-PvP and be a bit flippant about it with throwaway comments, but I'm really not. I'll never be against PvP. There's more than enough room for all playstyles to thrive and GTA:O shows all too clearly, that freedom/appeal works wonders financially for R*/T2. I just don't understand, especially with the game showing issues with full lobbies anyway, why they don't just look to appeal to more with this fantastic map. 

 

It's like burger king not selling fries and drinks but burgers only, while GTA is the McDonald's just down the road with a full meal on offer. It's limiting itself so much I feel. Burger king has the better burgers, but without fries and such, it's just easier to pop down the road. (If my analogy makes sense). 

The RDR world has always been my favorite hands down. And as much as I love story mode, that is Arthur and John's world and there are restrictions because of that. Online gives me the ability to create my own story in that world and that is honestly the only reason I play it. It has nothing to do with needing to play with strangers, or seeing how good I stack up to the RDR player base.

I just want to play my own character with family and the friends that I have met through the fandom. It's why I have been playing despite my objections to the way that the game and it's players are treated by the company.

 

And I get your analogy, and although it made me hungry, I completely agree.

[jazzbone]

Burger King? I'll have a double meat whopper with cheese, hold the mayo please.

[StyxTx]

3 hours ago, Lonely-Martin said:

It's like burger king not selling fries and drinks but burgers only, while GTA is the McDonald's just down the road with a full meal on offer. It's limiting itself so much I feel. Burger king has the better burgers, but without fries and such, it's just easier to pop down the road. (If my analogy makes sense). 

Damn. I'm hungry now.

2 hours ago, Direwrath said:

The RDR world has always been my favorite hands down. And as much as I love story mode, that is Arthur and John's world and there are restrictions because of that. Online gives me the ability to create my own story in that world and that is honestly the only reason I play it. It has nothing to do with needing to play with strangers, or seeing how good I stack up to the RDR player base.

I just want to play my own character with family and the friends that I have met through the fandom. It's why I have been playing despite my objections to the way that the game and it's players are treated by the company.

 

That's what I don't get about the comment that dude from R* made about R* wanting players to intermingle, even those who prefer to stay to themselves, and doesn't want to separate the player base. There are all types of personalities out there who play the game. Some are really sociable and like to be around people. Others prefer to be alone or just with friends, and then there are those who like to be assholes and screw with other people for no reason at all. R* is trying to force a one size fits all system down the players throats and one size fits all doesn't work too well for anything in life. Shouldn't players have the ability to determine if they want to be separated from other players or not? It would be so easy for them to satisfy everyone but they just refuse to do it because of how they think players should play. I reckon they assume players are too stupid to know how they want to play and daddy R* needs to be there to teach them. I don't know how I've managed to survive this long without the guidance of R*.

Edited December 9, 2020 by StyxTx

[Direwrath]

58 minutes ago, StyxTx said:

That's what I don't get about the comment that dude from R* made about R* wanting players to intermingle, even those who prefer to stay to themselves, and doesn't want to separate the player base. There are all types of personalities out there who play the game. Some are really sociable and like to be around people. Others prefer to be alone or just with friends, and then there are those who like to be assholes and screw with other people for no reason at all. R* is trying to force a one size fits all system down the players throats and one size fits all doesn't work too well for anything in life. Shouldn't players have the ability to determine if they want to be separated from other players or not? It would be so easy for them to satisfy everyone but they just refuse to do it because of how they think players should play. I reckon they assume players are too stupid to know how they want to play and daddy R* needs to be there to teach them. I don't know how I've managed to survive this long without the guidance of R*.

Yep, and this kind of server separation doesn't seem to be hurting GTA online in any way? So why is it so important that they need to tell us Red Dead players how to play their game in the first place?

What they need to do is give us the server option, serve us up with some different things to do and buy every month or so and let us make our own stories. That is the point of a free roam game with character customization isn't it? I think they are confused and need to be schooled by other companies that actually have given us good free roam games.

[CaliMeatWagon]

On 12/8/2020 at 7:45 PM, jazzbone said:

Burger King? I'll have a double meat whopper with cheese, hold the mayo please.
 

 

Sir, this is a Wendy's...

[Do not Bogart that]

First of all, I really like the question and personally think, the topic could be used for a dissertation in Sociology or Pschology.

I mean, 'The Simpsons' and 'South Park' have already been subjects... so why not R*/RDO? (I would love to read it.)

 

"Is R* encouraging 'griefing' in RDO?"

 

From a subjective point of view, my quick response would be: "Yes, it kind of does."

 

Now, if you take a look at their (earlier) games, I'd say it's embedded into R*'s DNA (to provide somehow realistic, satirical but as well, very violent games. 'Anti-heroesque' if you want and it's not common for the protagonists to redeem themselfs...).

As many said, R* wants us to play as they intended their game to be played(!), there is little to no room for people who have a different approach... (Role-play, PvE based Solo-lobby-sessions, what-so-ever.!?)

Inside their beautiful world, R* provides game-play mechanics, tools and even emotes which - when used or combined in a certain way - can certainly give the impression of 'griefing'. I get that! 

But (I know, not the strongest argument) I'm pretty sure, R* is/will be claiming, they do everything(!) to reduce the 'possibility of griefing' step by step and "THEY don't see THEIR developed playstyle as 'griefing' or 'grief enforcing' in any way." 

This is where all of your different definitions should step in now... but finally, they still decide what action will be seen as 'griefing' from their perspective and only their logic.

(Sure, I'm getting a signal which kind of pushes me to creatively ambush, attack and finally steal s.b.'s hard days work right under their noses with a mocking emote because I already know where s.b. is headed, where the drop zone will be... still there is always the option to just earn fewer bucks and deliver it way quicker without possible interaction. Hmm...)

I won't even touch the point interfering with low-budgett Free-Roam-Missions or Player Bounties but as far as Free-Roam-Events go; oh boy... 'yup, being able to rope each other off on a train and finally watching explosion-dripping-dynamite-arrows in front of my face... that really puts my patience to an end'!

 

So, this is my conclusion:

Yes, R* heavily favors frequent player interactions and enables certain methods, tasks and even accomplishments, which can cause actions being understood as griefing (to) others because it interferes with a/their style of gaming or worse. 

But still: 'No'. I don't think R* encourages this behavior as it is the players, who choose on how they accept moral codes, certain (unspoken) rules of conduct and therefore behave accordingly.

A wise man once said: 'Some people just want to see the world burn.'  Fair enough!

 

 

[Direwrath]

56 minutes ago, Do not Bogart that said:

First of all, I really like the question and personally think, the topic could be used for a dissertation in Sociology or Pschology.

I mean, 'The Simpsons' and 'South Park' have already been subjects... so why not R*/RDO? (I would love to read it.)

 

"Is R* encouraging 'griefing' in RDO?"

 

From a subjective point of view, my quick response would be: "Yes, it kind of does."

 

Now, if you take a look at their (earlier) games, I'd say it's embedded into R*'s DNA (to provide somehow realistic, satirical but as well, very violent games. 'Anti-heroesque' if you want and it's not common for the protagonists to redeem themselfs...).

As many said, R* wants us to play as they intended their game to be played(!), there is little to no room for people who have a different approach... (Role-play, PvE based Solo-lobby-sessions, what-so-ever.!?)

Inside their beautiful world, R* provides game-play mechanics, tools and even emotes which - when used or combined in a certain way - can certainly give the impression of 'griefing'. I get that! 

But (I know, not the strongest argument) I'm pretty sure, R* is/will be claiming, they do everything(!) to reduce the 'possibility of griefing' step by step and "THEY don't see THEIR developed playstyle as 'griefing' or 'grief enforcing' in any way." 

This is where all of your different definitions should step in now... but finally, they still decide what action will be seen as 'griefing' from their perspective and only their logic.

(Sure, I'm getting a signal which kind of pushes me to creatively ambush, attack and finally steal s.b.'s hard days work right under their noses with a mocking emote because I already know where s.b. is headed, where the drop zone will be... still there is always the option to just earn fewer bucks and deliver it way quicker without possible interaction. Hmm...)

I won't even touch the point interfering with low-budgett Free-Roam-Missions or Player Bounties but as far as Free-Roam-Events go; oh boy... 'yup, being able to rope each other off on a train and finally watching explosion-dripping-dynamite-arrows in front of my face... that really puts my patience to an end'!

 

So, this is my conclusion:

Yes, R* heavily favors frequent player interactions and enables certain methods, tasks and even accomplishments, which can cause actions being understood as griefing (to) others because it interferes with a/their style of gaming or worse. 

But still: 'No'. I don't think R* encourages this behavior as it is the players, who choose on how they accept moral codes, certain (unspoken) rules of conduct and therefore behave accordingly.

A wise man once said: 'Some people just want to see the world burn.'  Fair enough!

 

 

Very well said!

[kcole4001]

3 hours ago, Do not Bogart that said:

....

(Sure, I'm getting a signal which kind of pushes me to creatively ambush, attack and finally steal s.b.'s hard days work .......

A wise man once said: 'Some people just want to see the world burn.'  Fair enough!

 

 

 

 

The notification doesn't push anybody to do anything they don't want to do, it alerts them to the possibility.

It can't make you do something.

Point is I've received all the very same notifications..."switch to offensive mode to see nearby missions".

I've never acted upon that notification.

Now, knowing the fact that for example a distant trader delivery opens the field for conflict and that there's a safe alternative option, going ahead with the offensive style mission means you accept the risk.

Is it griefing? Technically, no.

Is it decent or acceptable behaviour? Well, that's open for discussion.

 

My open world doesn't get to tell me what to do.

I got that at work all day all week for years upon years, I'm not bowing to someone else's ideas on how to spend my leisure time, I don't care who they are: game developers or other players.

"Playing as intended" is a cop out. "I was only following orders"  "my dog ate my homework"

If you're not inclined to hassle others then that notification can't affect you or make you do something you aren't predisposed to do.

Some people like to do that.

Lying about the reasons behind that means, as my father in law would say: "that sounds like a personal problem"

 

I'm comfortable with my decisions and choices, that's all that matters to me.

[Do not Bogart that]

9 hours ago, kcole4001 said:

The notification doesn't push anybody to do anything they don't want to do, it alerts them to the possibility.

 

Is it griefing? Technically, no.

Is it decent or acceptable behaviour? Well, that's open for discussion.

 

My open world doesn't get to tell me what to do.

 

"Playing as intended" is a cop out. "I was only following orders"  "my dog ate my homework"

 

Some people like to do that.

Lying about the reasons behind that means, as my father in law would say: "that sounds like a personal problem"

 

Hi. I was trying to be as neutral as possible and I think, you got my point by stating or admitting 'it's (technically) not griefing. (...)'. 

 

It wasn't my intention to reignit a already burnt-out flame, it was an attempt to answer if 'R* is (subliminally?) encouraging 'griefing' in RDO'.

 

Sorry, if you're baiting me into a discussion, I actually don't feel the urge to defend myself just yet.

 

(But please dude, don't do what that dog does... stop going down that 'only following orders' road . Wrong kontext, bad example and RDO still (just) a GAME.)

[kcole4001]

3 hours ago, Do not Bogart that said:

 

Hi. I was trying to be as neutral as possible and I think, you got my point by stating or admitting 'it's (technically) not griefing. (...)'. 

 

It wasn't my intention to reignit a already burnt-out flame, it was an attempt to answer if 'R* is (subliminally?) encouraging 'griefing' in RDO'.

 

Sorry, if you're baiting me into a discussion, I actually don't feel the urge to defend myself just yet.

 

(But please dude, don't do what that dog does... stop going down that 'only following orders' road . Wrong kontext, bad example and RDO still (just) a GAME.)

Not trying to start or inflame an argument, I get what you were aiming at.

I wasn't attacking your point, I didn't mean for it to seem antagonistic. 

 

I don't believe they are encouraging bad behaviour subliminally, it's pretty open.

They like to deny it and pretend otherwise, but it's clearly right there in every notification.

 

Another thing greedstar likes to do despite their claims to the contrary is splitting the community.

There's nothing they want more than to have people feeling antagonistic against others so they can sell that explosive ammo, dynamite arrows, OpMkIIs, etc.

[Do not Bogart that]

5 hours ago, kcole4001 said:

Not trying to start or inflame an argument, I get what you were aiming at.

I wasn't attacking your point, I didn't mean for it to seem antagonistic. 

 

I don't believe they are encouraging bad behaviour subliminally, it's pretty open.

They like to deny it and pretend otherwise, but it's clearly right there in every notification.

 

Another thing greedstar likes to do despite their claims to the contrary is splitting the community.

There's nothing they want more than to have people feeling antagonistic against others so they can sell that explosive ammo, dynamite arrows, OpMkIIs, etc.

 

Cool. I'm glad to hear that and don't get me wrong, this is/should be a place of ideas and discussions... so feel free to criticize mine if necessary. 

 

If I see the need to step in, I will.

[CaliMeatWagon]

15 hours ago, kcole4001 said:

Not trying to start or inflame an argument, I get what you were aiming at.

I wasn't attacking your point, I didn't mean for it to seem antagonistic. 

 

I don't believe they are encouraging bad behaviour subliminally, it's pretty open.

They like to deny it and pretend otherwise, but it's clearly right there in every notification.

 

Another thing greedstar likes to do despite their claims to the contrary is splitting the community.

There's nothing they want more than to have people feeling antagonistic against others so they can sell that explosive ammo, dynamite arrows, OpMkIIs, etc.

And this is why my opinion is that griefing is pretty much non-existent in the game. It is almost impossible to determine the intentions of the player (them wanting to kill you isn't enough, nor is the recipients feelings about the matter) and the game actively encourages players to kill others. Yeah, sure, some examples can be provided. But a big part of the game is running around and killing players. As others have mentioned, it's in the DNA of Red Dead/GTA. 
And Rockstar has done little to change this. Sure, we got things like defensive mode, but with all of it's faults we either have to go with the notion that Rockstar is completely incompetent and doesn't know what they are doing, or they just really don't care that much about player kills and only added in something to grease the wheel. How many months has Defensive mode bean in the game? How many opportunities have they had to fix the fire/explosive issue with it? And have they? 
Is this the case because lack of player feedback? The inability to make changes to it? Or the unwillingness/lack of desire to do so? 

Edited December 14, 2020 by CaliMeatWagon

[zPhoenix]

6 hours ago, CaliMeatWagon said:

And this is why my opinion is that griefing is pretty much non-existent in the game. It is almost impossible to determine the intentions of the player (them wanting to kill you isn't enough, nor is the recipients feelings about the matter) and the game actively encourages players to kill others. Yeah, sure, some examples can be provided. But a big part of the game is running around and killing players. As others have mentioned, it's in the DNA of Red Dead/GTA. 
And Rockstar has done little to change this. Sure, we got things like defensive mode, but with all of it's faults we either have to go with the notion that Rockstar is completely incompetent and doesn't know what they are doing, or they just really don't care that much about player kills and only added in something to grease the wheel. How many months has Defensive mode bean in the game? How many opportunities have they had to fix the fire/explosive issue with it? And have they? 
Is this the case because lack of player feedback? The inability to make changes to it? Or the unwillingness/lack of desire to do so? 

 

Probably a simple way to say it is: 

 

• From an official standpoint R* provides deficient protections (Defensive) and even encourages griefing - making it "officially non existent" - although the actions being performed meet the standard industry definition of griefing.

 

In other words, you will be griefed when you want to be left alone when doing non-PvP activities, and you have to be constantly re-enabling Defensive because of R*'s developers incompetence that made the game fail to restore you to defensive mode after an activity that requires offensive behavior *during the activity*.

 

And your only defense in these situations is to bail from the session and start a new one through the (P) menu.

Edited December 14, 2020 by zPhoenix

[AmyStone]

29 minutes ago, zPhoenix said:

 

Probably a simple way to say it is: 

 

• From an official standpoint R* provides deficient protections (Defensive) and even encourages griefing - making it "officially non existent" - although the actions being performed meet the standard industry definition of griefing.

 

In other words, you will be griefed when you want to be left alone when doing non-PvP activities, and you have to be constantly re-enabling Defensive because of R*'s developers incompetence that made the game fail to restore you to defensive mode after an activity that requires offensive behavior *during the activity*.

 

And your only defense in these situations is to bail from the session and start a new one through the (P) menu.

 

I still think you are confusing encouraging griefing to not worrying too much if it happens. If I got an alert 'Someone is fishing - how about shooting them in the back for a laugh' then that would be encouraging it. But not adding something to prevent it from happening is not encouraging it. And especially when they have made changes since the beta to make it harder to grief.

[Lonely-Martin]

7 hours ago, CaliMeatWagon said:

And this is why my opinion is...

Glad to see you finally accept this is subjective, Cali. Cheers!

[CaliMeatWagon]

13 minutes ago, Lonely-Martin said:

Glad to see you finally accept this is subjective, Cali. Cheers!

 

The only thing that is subjective is if it applies to the game, not the definition itself. 

[zPhoenix]

39 minutes ago, AmyStone said:

 

I still think you are confusing encouraging griefing to not worrying too much if it happens. If I got an alert 'Someone is fishing - how about shooting them in the back for a laugh' then that would be encouraging it. But not adding something to prevent it from happening is not encouraging it. And especially when they have made changes since the beta to make it harder to grief.

 

Nope.  That is not what I'm talking about. 

 

R* encourages griefing by broken mechanics. 

 

For example, the idea for some missions to involve hostile player action is perfectly fine, but switching you from Defensive to Offensive mode ***after*** the mission is a broken mechanic.  

 

The same thing goes for making *every* stranger mission one that switches you to offensive mode, while it might make sense for *some* stranger missions to involve hostile player action... there is absolutely no logical reason for all of them to be that way.

[4eyedcoupe]

1 minute ago, zPhoenix said:

 

 

 

The same thing goes for making *every* stranger mission one that switches you to offensive mode, while it might make sense for *some* stranger missions to involve hostile player action... there is absolutely no logical reason for all of them to be that way.

Not all of them put you in offensive mode.  For instance "On the hunt" is defensive as are several others.  Any stranger mission that will take you out of defensive will have the icon. 

[Lonely-Martin]

1 hour ago, Lonely-Martin said:

Glad to see you finally accept this is subjective, Cali. Cheers!

 

No backsies.

[kcole4001]

2 hours ago, zPhoenix said:

 

Nope.  That is not what I'm talking about. 

 

R* encourages griefing by broken mechanics. 

 

For example, the idea for some missions to involve hostile player action is perfectly fine, but switching you from Defensive to Offensive mode ***after*** the mission is a broken mechanic.  

 

The same thing goes for making *every* stranger mission one that switches you to offensive mode, while it might make sense for *some* stranger missions to involve hostile player action... there is absolutely no logical reason for all of them to be that way.

There are a fair number of stranger missions that don't place you in offensive.

Granted, I haven't done a load of them, but at least half the ones I have done left me in defensive.

Maybe I've just been lucky?

No one ever bothered me while I was doing them, but I also made sure there were no red dots in the player list or names I recognize as trouble makers.

 

Greedstar loves to have players bickering with each other, it distracts us from picking out all the things that still need fixing which they apparently have no interest in remedying.

If it doesn't directly affect potential mtx sales, they simply don't care.

[StyxTx]

11 hours ago, CaliMeatWagon said:

And this is why my opinion is that griefing is pretty much non-existent in the game. It is almost impossible to determine the intentions of the player (them wanting to kill you isn't enough, nor is the recipients feelings about the matter) and the game actively encourages players to kill others. Yeah, sure, some examples can be provided. But a big part of the game is running around and killing players. As others have mentioned, it's in the DNA of Red Dead/GTA. 
And Rockstar has done little to change this. Sure, we got things like defensive mode, but with all of it's faults we either have to go with the notion that Rockstar is completely incompetent and doesn't know what they are doing, or they just really don't care that much about player kills and only added in something to grease the wheel. How many months has Defensive mode bean in the game? How many opportunities have they had to fix the fire/explosive issue with it? And have they? 
Is this the case because lack of player feedback? The inability to make changes to it? Or the unwillingness/lack of desire to do so? 

So a posse of 7 killing someone over and over when they respawn before that person even has control of their character, apparently knowing every respawn location since one of them just happened to be at each one ..... you can't tell intent there? Not griefing? If anyone hangs around then comes after you again after respawning, intent is pretty obvious, especially if they are that nice dark red color before they even run into you. One kill and they leave, not griefing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out someone's intent many times.

Edited December 14, 2020 by StyxTx

[FuturePastNow]

To give my answer to the question in the title, Rockstar's online game design is focused on encouraging open world pvp. You're given some defenses against non-consensual pvp but those options are removed, by design, when you engage in an activity with a high monetary reward. This is because those money-making activities are designed to fail at least some of the time, hopefully leading to you purchasing in-game currency from Rockstar.

 

If you're attacked during one of those money-making activities where defensive mode is disabled and you're warned that other players may attack you, Rockstar does not consider that griefing. It's part of their game design.

[AmyStone]

5 minutes ago, FuturePastNow said:

This is because those money-making activities are designed to fail at least some of the time, hopefully leading to you purchasing in-game currency from Rockstar.

 

Also to make the game more exciting and challenging.

[zPhoenix]

36 minutes ago, StyxTx said:

So a posse of 7 killing someone over and over when they respawn before that person even has control of their character, apparently knowing every respawn location since one of them just happened to be at each one ..... you can't tell intent there? Not griefing? If anyone hangs around then comes after you again after respawning, intent is pretty obvious, especially if they are that nice dark red color before they even run into you. One kill and they leave, not griefing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out someone's intent many times.

 

My solution is to always reset to Defensive mode, and immediately hit <P> and start a new session (automatically on a different server) the moment I get attacked when I feel I should not have been.  Often they don't even get to kill me. 

 

If they want to grief someone who is doing non-PvP things, they can try to do it without their target.  Soon enough they learn to not waste their time when they see my name.

Edited December 14, 2020 by zPhoenix

[StyxTx]

1 hour ago, zPhoenix said:

 

My solution is to always reset to Defensive mode, and immediately hit <P> and start a new session (automatically on a different server) the moment I get attacked when I feel I should not have been.  Often they don't even get to kill me. 

 

If they want to grief someone who is doing non-PvP things, they can try to do it without their target.  Soon enough they learn to not waste their time when they see my name.

The first kill was all 7 of them blasting me. After that when I respawned I wasn't able to do anything, include change sessions, because the menu was unable to open since I had no control yet. All I could do eventually was turn the PC off to get out of there since the only option I was given after being killed was to respawn. Wasn't any parlay option but against a posse that only works against the one person that killed you and not the rest of the posse so it's pointless even if it was there. Would be nice if there was another option to change servers or exit game rather than be forced to respawn.

 

But I'm sure their intentions were good.

Edited December 14, 2020 by StyxTx

[zPhoenix]

22 minutes ago, StyxTx said:

The first kill was all 7 of them blasting me. After that when I respawned I wasn't able to do anything, include change sessions, because the menu was unable to open since I had no control yet. All I could do eventually was turn the PC off to get out of there since the only option I was given after being killed was to respawn. Wasn't any parlay option but against a posse that only works against the one person that killed you and not the rest of the posse so it's pointless even if it was there. Would be nice if there was another option to change servers or exit game rather than be forced to respawn.

 

But I'm sure their intentions were good.

 

In that case:

 

<Alt-Tab> or <Windows> key, right click on taskbar, select Task Manager, right click on RDO and <End Task>.   Then restart the game as usual. 

 

Never back down from a bully, if you can't punch them then give them the one finger salute and run

[roggek]

Oh, man I'm glad that I dont play RDO on a PC...

R* and PC = trouble....

StyxTx should get an console version of RDO instead...

 

Much less griefing on XBox, i have forgot when I was "griefed" last... 
The RDO XBox community wawe, flick our hats or just passing each other nicely...

Tonight  i was even clearing out a gang hideout in Millesani claim mine with another player. Then we wawed and rode separate ways.

 

So griefing isnt so common on XBox, and Im sure other XBox users can sign that statement.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by roggek

[kcole4001]

18 minutes ago, roggek said:

Oh, man I'm glad that I dont play RDO on a PC...

R* and PC = trouble....

StyxTx should get an console version of RDO instead...

 

....

 

So griefing isnt so common on XBox, and Im sure other XBox users can sign that statement.

 

 

Not all of us are comfortable using console controllers, or even own a console. (nothing against console players, personally I can't deal with a controller)

I don't know about others, but I'm not going to run out and spend several hundred dollars even on a used PS or XBox when everything else I do is on PC.

If greedstar can't, or more appropriately, won't get their sh*t together, then it's the end of the road for them.

I am no longer one of their customers. They haven't shown any improvement, quite the contrary, even given more than enough benefit of a doubt, so no more support for poor/lazy design choices, lack of bug fixing, absolutely abysmal support, and antiquated server set up.

TL/DR: buying a console isn't a viable solution for fixing one or two problems in a broken game the dev refuses to fix.

 

Griefing isn't really that common, even on PC, cheating is.

And cheating IS griefing by anyone's definition, no matter how narrow.

[StyxTx]

2 hours ago, zPhoenix said:

 

In that case:

 

<Alt-Tab> or <Windows> key, right click on taskbar, select Task Manager, right click on RDO and <End Task>.   Then restart the game as usual. 

 

 

I didn't think of that at the time. Thx for the reminder!

2 hours ago, roggek said:

Oh, man I'm glad that I dont play RDO on a PC...

R* and PC = trouble....

StyxTx should get an console version of RDO instead...

 

Much less griefing on XBox, i have forgot when I was "griefed" last... 
The RDO XBox community wawe, flick our hats or just passing each other nicely...

Tonight  i was even clearing out a gang hideout in Millesani claim mine with another player. Then we wawed and rode separate ways.

 

So griefing isnt so common on XBox, and Im sure other XBox users can sign that statement.

 

 

I have it on PS4 but I've put the PS away since I don't really use it anymore.

Edited December 14, 2020 by StyxTx

[CaliMeatWagon]

9 hours ago, roggek said:

The RDO XBox community wawe, flick our hats or just passing each other nicely...

Tonight  i was even clearing out a gang hideout in Millesani claim mine with another player. Then we wawed and rode separate ways.

 

So griefing isnt so common on XBox, and Im sure other XBox users can sign that statement.

Yep... 

They, along with the Fallout 76 community have actually restored a bit of my hope in humanity.