Is the online intended to encourage griefing?

[eighthdoctor]

5 hours ago, GrungeNinja said:

This may sound rude, but its the truth, griefing alone really shouldnt have all the blame, because in the first place, a developer that creates a world of crime, it is expected that there will be confronts between the players that choose this environment.

 

So, either accept the way it is or just let it go and find your own truly fun somewhere else.

I won't accept being forced to go out of my way to avoid players only to have to deal with arseh*les coming up on me in the middle of nowhere when I have made that effort to try & put as much distance as I can from idiots like that in the first place when I shouldn't have to though.

 

5 hours ago, GrungeNinja said:

I just wish actions against modding and hacking were severe and have a proper anti-cheat, it is disgusting to see such a beatiful game plagued with the worst disease let free purposely to induce gold and shark cards selling. Other companies can make it with a more honest way, I wonder why R* won’t.

^^^ THIS. R*/Microsoft/Sony or whoever it is needs to step tf up and put a stop to those players who are still able (somehow) to do the DDOSing/getting access to player IPs/hacking/booting players out of sessions/interfere with other players' internet etc.

[StyxTx]

1 hour ago, Direwrath said:

 

 R* made it so that the PVP modes are not technically that much fun and are not at all what PVP players are actually looking for. Whether it was done that way on purpose remains to be seen.

 

 

True but using the same logic they use by telling us if we don't want to be attacked we should find something else to play, if the game is boring to them to the point they feel the need to screw with others, they should find another game. That idiotic logic works both ways. The boring excuse is no excuse.

 

Funny how even griefers will bitch about modders/hackers who also fall under the "griefer" title. People who defend griefers need to quit whining about modders. After all, modders are bored with the game and just want to play their way. If you don't want to deal with modders, find another game.

1 hour ago, Direwrath said:

 

 

The way I look at it is would I feel right doing that to someone? 

Would I feel good attacking someone in this game for the kicks if I knew that the person had just lost someone that they loved and were playing to take their mind away from the pain? It isn't just a game when you are being targeted for no reason and the play becomes stressful because of another player. 

The game is supposed to be enjoyable, and there are players that enjoy being left alone. Their joy is not to be negated because someone thinks it's funny to disrupt their peace.

 

I will always think of the fact that those are not just randomly generated characters without emotion behind them. Every character has a person behind them, a living, breathing human being. It just doesn't feel right for me to hurt someone, or aggravate someone that I do not even know, and who is not hurting anyone else in game.

But if they shoot at me or someone I am with they have shown their colors and I will retaliate in kind. 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly right but too many people, especially young people, think everything is about them and they couldn't care less about anyone else.

2 hours ago, GrungeNinja said:

Sure, understandable, all that I said is because I know him IRL, so the actions in the game does not fit his real person, so I guess most griefers are “normal” ppl.

If that's normal I'm glad me and everyone I know is well above normal then.

Edited December 20, 2020 by StyxTx

[Wylyth1992]

The intentions of players who mess up other's fun means nothing to me, if you prevent someone from completing a mission/ delivery/ whatever, you are an asshole. Don't try to justify it, you are putting your fun over others. Don't care if it is technically griefing or not, don't care if it is encouraged by Rockstar or not, you are still an asshole. This applies to RDO as well as GTAO.

[kcole4001]

I can't disagree! 

[Direwrath]

53 minutes ago, StyxTx said:

True but using the same logic they use by telling us if we don't want to be attacked we should find something else to play, if the game is boring to them to the point they feel the need to screw with others, they should find another game. That idiotic logic works both ways. The boring excuse is no excuse.

 

Funny how even griefers will bitch about modders/hackers who also fall under the "griefer" title. People who defend griefers need to quit whining about modders. After all, modders are bored with the game and just want to play their way. If you don't want to deal with modders, find another game.

I agree completely, and I'm not going to believe that this game is meant to be nothing but a free for all pvp war zone either.

 

My comment was just a dig at R* and how they are not willing to really hear the wishes of either side of their player base. If I were a person who loves to have a shoot out with other players, those showdown modes would not cut it. 

Which leads me to wonder if the lack of fun in those modes is intentional and a way for R* to push the pvp players into action in free roam?

Also, no, I don't believe that any of that is a good enough excuse for a player to "have at it" against other players in free roam.

 

As for the integrity of other players, I will never say that another person is a bad egg because of how they act in a video game. Just like with social media, there is little consequence to seeing the honest reactions of the people on the other side of the screen and this makes people act out in ways that they normally wouldn't. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IamCourtney]

If attacking people's missions makes me an asshole, I'm fine with being an asshole. I don't attack people for no reason, I don't keep attacking after the mission ends (as long as they don't keep attacking me) but if you've made the conscious choice to engage in a PvP activity, you're fair game as far as I'm concerned. FWIW I don't consider the people who go after my missions to be assholes.

Edited December 20, 2020 by IamCourtney

[StyxTx]

23 minutes ago, Direwrath said:

As for the integrity of other players, I will never say that another person is a bad egg because of how they act in a video game. Just like with social media, there is little consequence to seeing the honest reactions of the people on the other side of the screen and this makes people act out in ways that they normally wouldn't.

One thing I've learned over the years, and I've met quite a few people I initially met online. Many people are not who they try to appear to be in chat rooms, forums, etc. The reason they act or talk the way they do is because they are hidden behind a screen and no one can get to them. That's the way it's been since internet socializing came into being.

 

IRL, of all the people I met from online, roughly 75, give or take a few, only 2 were the same in person, which is a good thing since a huge majority were actually pretty nice people. A few were right out psycho. 

 

I met one guy in a forum, what an ass. I despised him on day 1. Over time we got to talking and he invited me to NYC, Amityville to be more exact, to spend a few days with him and he turned out to be really cool. We're still good friends 20 years later.

 

It becomes more personal when you can attach a face to the person. Like you were saying, that doesn't happen in a game so it's really easy to forget that character on the screen has a real human behind it. I know how I feel when someone screws with me and I don't want to make someone else feel that way.

Edited December 20, 2020 by StyxTx

[StyxTx]

50 minutes ago, IamCourtney said:

If attacking people's missions makes me an asshole, I'm fine with being an asshole. I don't attack people for no reason, I don't keep attacking after the mission ends (as long as they don't keep attacking me) but if you've made the conscious choice to engage in a PvP activity, you're fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Mission attacks are not griefing as far as I'm concerned. That's the cost of doing business I reckon. In those cases it does add a bit of suspense to what you're doing and a person should be aware of the possibility of attack. All the more reason to join a posse too.

 

I'm talking about people who just go around shooting at every player in sight for no reason at all, or the ones who like to snipe while you're fishing or even in camp, or the ones that run off to another server after attacking, or the modders who suddenly appear out of nowhere and blast you and your horse away.

 

Granted, there is no way I can figure out their INTENT because I'm a complete idiot, but still.

 

How can it be called pvp when the instigator runs to another server after attacking not even giving the other half of the pvp time to respond? How can you call it pvp when someone snipes you and disappears by the time you respawn? I would think pvp would require 2 Ps or is there an alternative called Pv?

 

Maybe my attitude about griefers is based on the fact I have never had one stick around for the fight. It's always kill me or take my horse out from under me and/or kill the horse then disappear or a modder with unlimited stamina, health and ammo, except once when a posse of 7 got me when I was relatively new to the game. That bunch stuck around for sure. The ones who take my horse out from under me tend to run as far as they can then change servers.

Edited December 20, 2020 by StyxTx

[Wylyth1992]

2 hours ago, StyxTx said:

Mission attacks are not griefing as far as I'm concerned. That's the cost of doing business I reckon. In those cases it does add a bit of suspense to what you're doing and a person should be aware of the possibility of attack. All the more reason to join a posse too.

I disagree, since roles/ businesses are a major way to make money in a short amount of time, and depending on what you do, it is a big risk and you can lose money if your product gets destroyed. And sometimes, it doesn't matter how prepared you are, and how many guards you have, all it takes is a few explosive shots to ruin your run.

I really think RDO and GTAO should have a sort of semi passive mode, you can't attack or be attacked by players, but you can still attack NPCs and use your weapons, you will just appear as a ghost to other players, and other players will appear as a ghost to you.

[zPhoenix]

Keep in mind that for it to be PvP and not griefing it has to be balanced and very intentionally - and with full consciousness - entered into by both parties.

 

In free roam;

• Anyone attacking a noob is griefing.
• Attacking someone that is in Defensive mode is griefing.
• Leaving initially Defensive players in Offensive mode after a mission ends is griefing by R*.  They really need to fix that bull.
• Using explosives as your first act against a free roam player is griefing.
• Attacking someone that is doing collecting (you can tell easily) is griefing.
• Killing a free roamer's horse as your first act is griefing.
• Attacking someone that is standing in front of a sheriff's office with a bounty is griefing.
• Hounding the cities to mess with people when they try to go to a store is griefing.
• Attacking someone who is very obviously frozen in a menu/map/inventory/etc is griefing.

 

And remember that the vast majority of players in RDO are polite, friendly people that will not mess with you when they see you.  Only one in 20-50 players I encounter are griefers.   That is because the nature of RDO attracts decent human beings who want a pleasant non-stressful time.  There is absolutely no logical / financial reason to cater to griefers or even trying to justify that griefing is how the game should be.

Edited December 20, 2020 by zPhoenix

[Direwrath]

5 hours ago, StyxTx said:

One thing I've learned over the years, and I've met quite a few people I initially met online. Many people are not who they try to appear to be in chat rooms, forums, etc. The reason they act or talk the way they do is because they are hidden behind a screen and no one can get to them. That's the way it's been since internet socializing came into being.

 

IRL, of all the people I met from online, roughly 75, give or take a few, only 2 were the same in person, which is a good thing since a huge majority were actually pretty nice people. A few were right out psycho. 

 

I met one guy in a forum, what an ass. I despised him on day 1. Over time we got to talking and he invited me to NYC, Amityville to be more exact, to spend a few days with him and he turned out to be really cool. We're still good friends 20 years later.

 

It becomes more personal when you can attach a face to the person. Like you were saying, that doesn't happen in a game so it's really easy to forget that character on the screen has a real human behind it. I know how I feel when someone screws with me and I don't want to make someone else feel that way.

In RDO I have made a few friends who greeted me with a shot to the head, lol one even chased me and my husband across the map to our camp and kept trying to blow us up while there. So I challenged him to an emote war, which I won. He ended up messaging me and saying that was not quite what he expected, but he respected my emote skills and we ended up friending each other. 

Luckily I haven't met anyone who was a psycho yet.

 

2 hours ago, WFD1992 said:

I disagree, since roles/ businesses are a major way to make money in a short amount of time, and depending on what you do, it is a big risk and you can lose money if your product gets destroyed. And sometimes, it doesn't matter how prepared you are, and how many guards you have, all it takes is a few explosive shots to ruin your run.

I really think RDO and GTAO should have a sort of semi passive mode, you can't attack or be attacked by players, but you can still attack NPCs and use your weapons, you will just appear as a ghost to other players, and other players will appear as a ghost to you.

Missions do come with risks, and I do my best to give players doing deliveries or trader sales a wide berth should I come across them. If there are more players in the area I might keep an eye out and see if any of the other players are going to attack them though, I haven't had to yet but I will come in and defend the player and their wagon if they need it.

 

For me the missions give me a reason to engage in pvp that just seems more real to the world and not a planned showdown game. So I tend to do a lot of them while I play alone.

I won't go after players doing their own missions, but I enjoy when other players try to intercept mine. 

 

54 minutes ago, zPhoenix said:

And remember that the vast majority of players in RDO are polite, friendly people that will not mess with you when they see you.  Only one in 20-50 players I encounter are griefers.   That is because the nature of RDO attracts decent human beings who want a pleasant non-stressful time.  There is absolutely no logical / financial reason to cater to griefers or even trying to justify that griefing is how the game should be.

This is absolutely true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StyxTx]

5 hours ago, WFD1992 said:

I disagree, since roles/ businesses are a major way to make money in a short amount of time, and depending on what you do, it is a big risk and you can lose money if your product gets destroyed. And sometimes, it doesn't matter how prepared you are, and how many guards you have, all it takes is a few explosive shots to ruin your run.

I really think RDO and GTAO should have a sort of semi passive mode, you can't attack or be attacked by players, but you can still attack NPCs and use your weapons, you will just appear as a ghost to other players, and other players will appear as a ghost to you.

I didn't say it was right but IRL stores get robbed every day so it's not out of the norm. I will admit that it got kinda boring to me to run moonshine deliveries or trader deliveries with 2 person lobbies. There was no sense of peril.

 

I also am in favor of invite only lobbies but probably for different reasons than most.

3 hours ago, zPhoenix said:

And remember that the vast majority of players in RDO are polite, friendly people that will not mess with you when they see you.  Only one in 20-50 players I encounter are griefers.   That is because the nature of RDO attracts decent human beings who want a pleasant non-stressful time.  There is absolutely no logical / financial reason to cater to griefers or even trying to justify that griefing is how the game should be.

That's right. Griefers are the very small minority which makes the argument given to anti-griefers that "if you don't like it find another game" that much more ridiculous. I'm sure R* would love it if all the people who oppose griefing just left. How many people would be left to play?

Edited December 20, 2020 by StyxTx

[StyxTx]

3 hours ago, Direwrath said:

In RDO I have made a few friends who greeted me with a shot to the head, lol one even chased me and my husband across the map to our camp and kept trying to blow us up while there. So I challenged him to an emote war, which I won. He ended up messaging me and saying that was not quite what he expected, but he respected my emote skills and we ended up friending each other. 

 

 

 

Speaking of emotes, and this is a reason I wish more people had mics, the other day someone accidentally ran into my horse and knocked us down. They were a rank 11. They got up and waved and I rushed to get a hat tip out and hit the middle finger instead. I felt bad cuz they took off like a bat out of hell before I could let them know through another emote that I screwed up.

Edited December 20, 2020 by StyxTx

[1898]

I can top that (meaning @StyxTx 's post above)  When this thing first started I wanted to wave to someone but instead fumbling around pulled my shotgun and killed them.

 

But speaking of what defines griefing, I think a couple of these new emotes qualify.  I never fire the first shot but if anyone  comes at me with one of these hands behind the ears type emotes I just might pull my Navies.

 

 

8 hours ago, 1898 said:

 

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by 1898

[IamCourtney]

Is it griefing to blast somebody who hasn't shown themselves to be hostile toward your mission, but who hasn't made a lack of hostility clear either? Asking for a friend...

[Gray-Hand]

4 hours ago, IamCourtney said:

Is it griefing to blast somebody who hasn't shown themselves to be hostile toward your mission, but who hasn't made a lack of hostility clear either? Asking for a friend...

Acting like that is just taking things back to how the game was when beta launched.  Don’t be like that.  Chug a tonic, load up your explosive ammo, and If they point their gun at you, take them out.

[kcole4001]

5 hours ago, IamCourtney said:

Is it griefing to blast somebody who hasn't shown themselves to be hostile toward your mission, but who hasn't made a lack of hostility clear either? Asking for a friend...

I once approached a trader sale going through a ford near Blackwater, it was a posse of 4 or 5 and they started on their mics saying 'stay away', so I right turned and went way out of my way to keep out of their way, never got shot at at all.

I had my varmint rifle out, as I used to always have it ready to pop squirrels, but put it away immediately when I saw them coming.

 

Another time I was doing a trader sale and a lower level came up from behind with no weapon out. i looked behind me to check that fact, and then pulled over to the side of the road a little to let him get by if that's what he wanted.

I got headshot instead, then I came back and returned the favour and took my wagon back, turned around and had to shoot him off his horse a couple more times.

I did consider letting him have the wagon, as he was in the low 80s and I didn't really need the money, I was only doing the sale for a daily, but I'd still need to do a distant sale for the daily regardless, so I continued on the same way all the way to StDenis.

 

Once during a shine sale a player in the last of 3 wagons, perhaps doing a resupply, decided to take a few pot shots at me as we passed. he didn't hit, and I would have wasted him for that but for possibly triggering the rest of what was clearly a posse of at least 5 or 6.

 

The point is, it's hard without either a mic or text chat to make it clear (and believable) that there's no hostile intent.

And once that first shot is fired, the responsibility what follows rests squarely on the firer's shoulders.

 

=========================================================================

 

13 hours ago, zPhoenix said:

Keep in mind that for it to be PvP and not griefing it has to be balanced and very intentionally - and with full consciousness - entered into by both parties.

 

...

• Attacking someone who is very obviously frozen in a menu/map/inventory/etc is griefing.

 

.....

I agree with the first point.

 

As far as I know people can't interact with someone in a menu until they're done.

Waiting near them with the intent to blast them as soon as they finish is griefing, of course, which I assume is probably what you meant.

Edited December 20, 2020 by kcole4001
formatting

[kcole4001]

I also once got on the wrong side of an emote: another player approached to climb one of the derricks at the oilfields for a card, so I stopped and intended to throw a wave (#2) at him to signify "go ahead, you first" but hit 'damn you' (#3) instead while fumbling through the menu.

So dude got offended and shot me and went up to get the card.

I ran back to the base of the ladder and gave the proper emote when he came down, then he left and I climbed up to get the card.

 

It could have easily devolved into a firefight over a stupid clumsy menu mistake, but I'd really rather not waste the time, and it was my fault to begin with.

I'm glad he didn't start shooting again when I came back, hopefully he realized it was a fumble and not intentional.

 

There really should be a better way to communicate than fumbling through a clumsy interface of hold these 2 things, press this thing, then press this other key just to get off a quick limited emote that could be taken the wrong way anyway.

It too easily ends up being a weapon drawn while you're fidgeting with 3 fingers on 2 hands if you let off one of the keys too soon.

It's just awkward AF.

If you could set each emote to a macro that would be much simpler and easier to get your message across.

[zPhoenix]

I used to keep the mic on.  But there were a few too many people making dumb comments in some missions where they joined.  Now that I think of it, I don't remember being with others since I finished the starter missions... I guess I can turn it back on now.

 

[Direwrath]

10 hours ago, StyxTx said:

Speaking of emotes, and this is a reason I wish more people had mics, the other day someone accidentally ran into my horse and knocked us down. They were a rank 11. They got up and waved and I rushed to get a hat tip out and hit the middle finger instead. I felt bad cuz they took off like a bat out of hell before I could let them know through another emote that I screwed up.

The controls for emotes are rough to work with, I've had that happen often too. I've also had players do the same toward me so I usually just tip the hat either way, if they meant no wrong than they know that I got what they were meaning. And if they were being jerks I'm showing them that it doesn't really bother me much.

 

9 hours ago, 1898 said:

I can top that (meaning @StyxTx 's post above)  When this thing first started I wanted to wave to someone but instead fumbling around pulled my shotgun and killed them.

My husband straight up refuses to emote other players because he is scared to shoot them instead. And that is why I won't attack another player right away, if they happen to shoot and kill me and I return and they keep returning fire than it's game on. But if they emote again I just tip my hat in return. 

 

I typically just do the tip of the hat, because one time I got myself in trouble when I used a few emotes on another player.

What happened is that I was heading into the station in Strawberry and as I was going up the stairs another player (very well dressed female character) was heading down so I politely stepped aside and tipped my hat in respect. The player stopped and waved back to which I sent that emote that has the character wink as they flick their fingers outward, you know, I was just having a bit of fun with my character and all.

Suddenly this other player with a well dressed male character runs up between us and does the challenge taunt at me so I responded with the boasting taunt. Lol, the player with the female character must have told the other one to let it be and as they rode out of town she waved and he ended up flipping me off.  It was fun and I loved the fact that I could actually roleplay with my character for once.

 

Typically I only have my mic set to the party, for one I don't want people to hear the fact that I am a girl. Which can bring about it's own problems, but also just because I tend to cuss like a storm and I don't feel like everybody needs to hear that.

 

6 hours ago, IamCourtney said:

Is it griefing to blast somebody who hasn't shown themselves to be hostile toward your mission, but who hasn't made a lack of hostility clear either? Asking for a friend...

 

I give them two shots, although if they shoot me in the back as I'm riding away than it is only one.

Two shots will tell me if the person intentionally wants to engage with me, or if they accidentally fired their gun/and or are sending me a warning shot to make me steer clear of them. Many players will shoot at the sky to warn me if they are in a mission just to tell me that they will fire at me if I get too close, and I respect that.

So it's not technically what I would call griefing. 

 

[StyxTx]

1 hour ago, Direwrath said:

 

Typically I only have my mic set to the party, for one I don't want people to hear the fact that I am a girl. Which can bring about it's own problems, but also just because I tend to cuss like a storm and I don't feel like everybody needs to hear that.

 

That is one disadvantage to the mic if you have it set to be on all the time. I use the keyboard button to activate it because I talk to myself a lot in the game and don't want someone thinking I'm cussing them out. I tend to call the horse all kinds of names when it does stuff I didn't tell it to do or doesn't do stuff I did tell it to do.  Don't think it would be hard for someone to think it was aimed at them.

Edited December 21, 2020 by StyxTx

[Gray-Hand]

The problem with the mission design (particularly deliveries) that allows interference from other players is that the attackers have nothing to lose.  Only the person attempting the delivery has anything on the line.

 

How many players who attack other people attempting sales would do so if they had to pay 50% of the value of the cargo in $RDO to launch the attack?

 

Sales and missions would actually work way better in general f they were like the new player bounties - anyone who wants to attack a delivery has to accept an invite that lights them up as a hostile to the seller.  There should also be a fee to launch an attack.

 

If that fee got paid to the seller who is able to successfully complete the sale, it would be a lot more equitable all round.

[GrungeNinja]

45 minutes ago, Gray-Hand said:

How many players who attack other people attempting sales would do so if they had to pay 50% of the value of the cargo in $RDO to launch the attack?

 

46 minutes ago, Gray-Hand said:

a fee to launch an attack.

 

If that fee got paid to the seller who is able to successfully complete the sale, it would be a lot more equitable all round.

Im sorry but this idea is ridiculous, does not fit at all an outlaw.

[Lonely-Martin]

51 minutes ago, Gray-Hand said:

The problem with the mission design (particularly deliveries) that allows interference from other players is that the attackers have nothing to lose.  Only the person attempting the delivery has anything on the line.

 

Yeah, I do agree with this and it's a complaint I/many carried over since businesses in GTA:O became a thing.

 

I feel the best way would be to make it an opt in thing for the attacker and they show up to the seller like you said, but they only get 1 life too. If they fail, they're forced to spawn far away and the sale is fully passive from that attacker.

 

That said, it'd probably encourage the use of explosive ammo more as the attackers learn they'll have to ambush sales from afar, so probably not the best solution from a strictly competitive combat POV, lol. Ideally make the sale wagons invincible to explosive ammo maybe?

[IzzyBlues]

Sometimes you have encounters like this which happened a few days ago to me. It looks like they were roleplaying as rustlers. This is the sort of thing I wouldn't have a problem with.

 

 

Seems they decided against it.

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by IzzyBlues

[Gray-Hand]

30 minutes ago, GrungeNinja said:

 

Im sorry but this idea is ridiculous, does not fit at all an outlaw.

It’s not any less immersion breaking than the magic psychic powers that the outlaws currently possess that allow them to know that a delivery is taking place.

 

If you really need an in game explanation, think of it as the outlaw paying for a tip off and a trader being paid extra combat pay by a buyer.

[Direwrath]

My only issue with missions, especially those that involve wagons, is that players can blow up the wagons and thus stop anybody from benefitting from it.

 

Take for example there was one wagon escort mission that I was doing last week that was intercepted by three lower level players.  One of them took off in the first wagon while the other two stayed and tried to get the second wagon from me, we fought it out for a bit until another posse came and joined in. So now there were four other players besides myself trying to steal this escort mission. We were tangling with one another for a good 10 minutes before another player rides up and just lobs a stick of dynamite at the wagon and blows up all of our fun. Luckily that low level posse got something from the fight because their friend successfully delivered the first wagon.

 

But what did that player gain from destroying the wagon? 

 

23 minutes ago, IzzyBlues said:

Sometimes you have encounters like this which happened a few days ago to me. It looks like they were roleplaying as rustlers. This is the sort of thing I wouldn't have a problem with.

 

 

Seems they decided against it.

 

 

I love seeing the roleplaying players!

[DentureDynamite]

14 hours ago, Direwrath said:

But what did that player gain from destroying the wagon?

Sadly, a twisted sense of reward from 'control' destroying what others were enjoying.

Edited December 21, 2020 by DentureDynamite

[Gray-Hand]

They enjoyed causing the other player grief.

[kcole4001]

On 12/20/2020 at 10:09 PM, Lonely-Martin said:

 

Yeah, I do agree with this and it's a complaint I/many carried over since businesses in GTA:O became a thing.

 

I feel the best way would be to make it an opt in thing for the attacker and they show up to the seller like you said, but they only get 1 life too. If they fail, they're forced to spawn far away and the sale is fully passive from that attacker.

 

That said, it'd probably encourage the use of explosive ammo more as the attackers learn they'll have to ambush sales from afar, so probably not the best solution from a strictly competitive combat POV, lol. Ideally make the sale wagons invincible to explosive ammo maybe?

You know, that could work.

It's purely theoretical 'cause they would never bother to do it, but the whole sale could be instanced in it's own session with explosives locked out, set amount of lives for each party scaled to the size of the party, and make the wagon indesctructible except via NPC fire. 

 

It might be possible to balance that. (though greedstar doesn't give a rat's about balance)

Sort of the opposite of Trade Route.

 

Of course, you'd likely have to sit through a timed matchmaking screen to see if anyone wanted to intervene, not sure how the best way to handle that would be.