Deleted

[Nutduster]

3 hours ago, SummerFreeze said:

Yes, I'm quoting myself, but it's only to point out that two pages later the defense of bounty hunting has morphed into a defense of griefing in general. 

 

If you think that you need to re-read what I've written. My point is never that griefing is fine behavior or that toxicity isn't rampant in GTA Online. It isn't and it is, respectively. My point is just that the game design welcomes most of what is being called griefing here (mainly blowing up business goods), just as much as it welcomes bounty hunting. And if you inherently see these things as negative, you should recognize that the fault really lies with the designers who made the game that way, rather than the players playing the game exactly as intended.

 

I took a break from GTA for more than a year, primarily because of my disgust with what Rockstar did with free roam (which to me is the heart of the entire game). I only returned because because a friend on a different platform bought me a copy of the game so I'd play with him. When I first came back, I stayed out of public sessions almost entirely for several months. I've made my peace with it since then to some extent. But my point is--if you think I'm DEFENDING the sh*tshow that this game often degenerates into, you have exactly the wrong idea. I'm just trying to explain where the blame properly belongs, and in what percentages; it's not entirely (or even mostly) on the toxic losers who gravitate to a game built on toxicity. They're in the right place, unfortunately. In most other games, their antisocial assholery would not be welcomed, would be against the rules or spirit of the game, would be punished. In GTA Online, they are patted on the back--given money, ammo, RP, and your stuff.

 

As for bounty hunting: if you can't even accept getting killed when you have a literal price on your head, this game is flat out not for you. That is not necessarily a judgment on either you or the game, but you're basically saying that grinding or peacefully coexisting is all any of us should be doing and the very large side of the game constantly badgering you to kill other players shouldn't even exist. To me, that is not an indictment of player behavior but of game design. And again I say, maybe this game is not for you.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Nutduster

[Nutduster]

Here really is the crux of the whole thing. Most games regardless of their subject matter try to operate in a socially and morally acceptable realm--a kind of idealized online society where we all cooperate to some extent (at least in the enterprise of mutual entertainment), where sportsmanship and fair play in competition is enforced, and so on. GTA Online, on the other hand, has increasingly become a direct reflection of its lawless subject matter. Free roam is a world where might makes right, where the strong take from the weak, and where most people's enjoyment comes at the expense of the other guy. It's not just a game about criminality; it mirrors the way criminals operate in its very structure and gameplay.

 

Attempts to make this game behave like other games, in those socially and morally acceptable ways, are superimposed on it by only part of the player base. They are unwritten rules that only some of us care about. The rest of us play the game with some slight variation on what Rockstar obviously intended, and act like criminals: kill you, take your stuff, gang up on you, outrank you, outpower you. Might makes right. Your grief, my chuckles and good times.

 

If you find that conception of a video game to be abhorrent, so do I. But I'm not going to pretend it's not that just so I can feel morally superior to virtual thugs. They are not good people, but they're playing a game that is effectively amoral and as such condones their actions. They're where they need to be. It is the game that has failed you. 

[SummerFreeze]

11 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

If you think that you need to re-read what I've written. My point is never that griefing is fine behavior or that toxicity isn't rampant in GTA Online. It isn't and it is, respectively. My point is just that the game design welcomes most of what is being called griefing here (mainly blowing up business goods), just as much as it welcomes bounty hunting. And if you inherently see these things as negative, you should recognize that the fault really lies with the designers who made the game that way, rather than the players playing the game exactly as intended.

Yeah, like I said they are both "part of the game" and encouraged. I didn't express a value judgement on either activity. I actually think you're being consistent.

[Jenkiiii]

The fact is, GTA online attracts a certain type of asshole and we all know it.

 

Based on that knowledge, the question is, why do we keep on playing in certain environments when it bothers us so much? Maybe because GTA online is one of the best games ever made and extremely versatile, which makes us want a better environment to play in without being subject to the nastiness of others, which is the viewpoint I sympathize with from @Yellow Dog with Cone. It's not easy to put the game down, you know.

 

What I struggle with is the intensity of the argument that it's a griefer-validated environment and therefore something we have to put up with. Why? Not everyone wants to be in touch with their inner-asshole all the time or make contact with other people doing the 9 to 5 human centipede. And yet, we keep on subjecting ourselves to it and telling ourselves that it's perfectly OK because that's the nature of the GTA beast. Personally, I feel really ashamed at myself for getting wound up and moralistic in the past at the aggressiveness and bad behavior of others, instead of just brushing it off and accepting that GTA is endemic at the behest of the developers themselves, but that doesn't mean it's OK and fine to accept GTA online as a giant mashup of bitchiness. Why does it have to be? Actually, don't answer that question: it's like trying to understand the very nature of humanity, which GTA exploits to the extreme.

 

[Nutduster]

Agree with you Jenkii, but bear in mind I never argued that we need to accept it--just that we could be more productive rather than complaining about toxic gamers who have merely flocked to the game that openly encourages them to be the way they are. Those players are not going to change; you might as well complain that the ocean is too wavy and too wet.

 

Productive options, IMO, should all be aimed at getting Rockstar to fix their game: add friendly lobbies, make business content playable in friendly or invite-only lobbies, etc. And if all else fails, do the unthinkable and stop supporting their products; that, after all, is supposed to be the ultimate exercise of power a consumer has available to them.

 

Worse case scenario, nothing changes, just like it hasn't for almost eight years now. But at least you'll have the moral satisfaction of having barked up the right tree.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Nutduster

[Jenkiiii]

2 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

...you might as well complain that the ocean is too wavy and too wet.

That's a pretty neat way of putting it.

 

It's definitely Rockstar's fault for giving us the waves (the PVE element) and then suddenly changing the rules by throwing us in the sea (the PVP element when you're on a PVE cargo run).

[Ethereal_NYC_]

On 4/30/2021 at 6:31 AM, paperbagdude said:

k

I understand what you're saying, but considering the age of the game, doesn't it seem a little too late to make that change for the better? You can always try and play nice, hopefully influence other players by it, but ultimately only find yourself in frustration as your agenda of being a good person among savages, only end in your own failure?

 

the frustration part is how you handle it

 

i have had dozens upon dozens of drugs griefed yet i still sell because i have fun customizing deliveries

 

i have asked players before "please dont" in reference to destroying cargo and have had players go about face and leave me be

 

you can influence people either way

 

this game is frustratin in general in terms of the UI, loading, bugs etc

 

if i feel myself gettin aggy i shut the game off. this is not raging.

 

rage quitting is quitting when your losing and quit out of rage

 

turning the game off when steeped in too much toxicity is healthy.

 

yesterday i had a noob fail a lamar mission 30 times and since he didnt quit i rewarded him with a 85% cayo

 

thats what makes the game what it is

 

not tryhard toxic barcode opressor troll griefing jets in ghostmode textin me 1-0 lulz while they friend in a dunce hat orbitals me five times in a row

 

becoming one of those is just beyond pathetic and as an adult i expect better from other adults.

 

 

 

[Ethereal_NYC_]

On 4/30/2021 at 8:32 AM, Nutduster said:

 

Boo hoo. I mean, come on, man. If you really want to do "missions" without any chance of getting killed by another player ever, you really should not play in public free roam at all. It is fully unreasonable to expect players in a predominantly PvP environment to not engage in any PvP except when both parties mutually consent beforehand. And you should also know at basically any level that having a bounty on you makes you a target more than anything else. If that's a problem, maybe DON'T DO BUSINESS MISSIONS WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A BOUNTY. Wait that sh*t out, or go get killed before you start your mission.

 

Personally my conscience is clear by leaving people's business stuff alone. I only bother players on missions if they have a bounty (and even then I won't destroy their stuff, just them). After that I let them go about their business. And for what it's worth too, that guy was going to get griefed no matter what. I didn't set him up for anything that wasn't already going to happen; motherf*cker was in the middle of the desert in a regular-degular car with a high-level tryhard beelining right at him.

 

 

some missions HAVE TO BE DONE IN PUBLIC LOBBIES AND CANNOT BE DONE IN PRIVATE OR INVITE ONLY

 

also MOST BOUNTIES ARE PLACED BY AI FROM STEALING CARS OR BY GRIEFERS

 

i would think someone who has as much playtime as you would know this but alas griefing knows no rank

 

spare me the "its not griefing" excuse when you explicitly described how you dont trash the cargo 

 

not really gona go back and forth with this toxic disposition but you and the guy who jus flies around blowing stuff up are one in the same

 

your lobby has 11 players with barcode names or toxictryhard123 but here you are bothering some player in grapeseed doing a setup

[Ethereal_NYC_]

10 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

 

This is generally true, but there should be an acknowledgement of how poor the PvP mechanics generally are from some updates, and also how much some individuals choose to be toxic for no rational incentive to themselves.

 

Business battles for instance are an example of a mechanic I think R* got right. I don't think anyone can have a complaint about a fight over the crates. It's all evenly matched, no one goes with an unfair advantage (maybe if you're low rank and unequipped, but it's not difficult to rectify that if you put a bit of effort into the game). Bit of a digression - with the aircraft carrier one, it's probably actually optimal to leave each other alone as there'll typically be enough for everyone and you don't have enough time to carry every crate back yourself. You'll simply waste time killing each other. But oddly I seem to be the only one who ever goes out there in my sessions! Still, no one should be complaining if they get killed participating in a business battle (assuming the opponent wasn't outright cheating, such as mod menu or god mode glitch etc).

 

also some hard core trolls out there who claim "it's just the way the game is" as an unconvincing excuse for their low skill, malice motivated, cheap gameplay.

 

 

 

 

the problem here jim is that 85% of players killing me for biz battle cargo are griefing

 

if you want a crate go get one, thers plenty but its not the crate the person wants. they want to goad you into pvp

 

also a lot of this pvp ceo mc battle stuff is not even done with guns and cars

 

its done with opressors and jets

 

5 hours ago, SummerFreeze said:

Yes, I'm quoting myself, but it's only to point out that two pages later the defense of bounty hunting has morphed into a defense of griefing in general. 

 

thats because griefing and toxic  behavior are a slippery slope and plenty of players want to defend the degeneracy they claim is a play style or fun.

 

if a player knows the mechanics of the game well enough they are debating on forums defending toxic playstyles then i can only assume an inadequacy offline of some sort

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ethereal_NYC_

[Yellow Dog with Cone]

On 5/2/2021 at 11:21 AM, Nutduster said:

 

I'm not really interested in quibbling over lingo here. The only reason I bothered debating this at all is that people like you want to call everyone griefers in a way that insinuates that they are violating some unspoken code of the game. When in fact they are operating well within its code, and it just pisses you off that the code is the way it is. If you want to call them griefers but concede that essentially this game is ABOUT griefing, and that is the experience Rockstar intends for you to have, then I can agree with you. Just don't try to have it both ways at once.

Sorry for the late reply.

 

I'm not calling them griefers because they're breaking the rules (that would make them cheaters instead), I'm calling them griefers because they're causing grief on other players, that's all.

 

They could be acting within the allowed rules of the game to the chagrin of everyone, that doesn't change the fact that their actions are driven by malice rather than wanting to play an objective or for a reward, always hiding behind garbage thought terminating cliches like "the game told me to" or "it's part of the game" that are only meant to deflect responsability from their own actions. They're griefing and they damn know it.

 

I can agree that the game has an strong and blatant griefer bias, but that doesn't mean that we should accept that playstyle as, well, acceptable behavior. Just because R* thinks it's funny and profitable to turn everyone against each other doesn't mean that we should either. As I stated a few replies ago, it only takes a single player to start the vicious cycle of toxicity.

[Nutduster]

26 minutes ago, Ethereal_NYC_ said:

not really gona go back and forth with this toxic disposition but you and the guy who jus flies around blowing stuff up are one in the same

 

 

lolkay. You think bounty hunting and blowing up cargo sales are the same? You think killing a player one time vs. killing a player twenty times are the same? If so, you must also think this game is completely f*cked up in its design even more than I do, because 90% of free roam is nothing more than a bunch of incitement to smash each other. Personally I am gratified when I run into people who engage in PvP with any sense of sportsmanship. They don't owe it to you to do that; the game itself certainly doesn't insist on it.

 

1 minute ago, Yellow Dog with Cone said:

I can agree that the game has an strong and blatant griefer bias, but that doesn't mean that we should accept that playstyle as, well, acceptable behavior. Just because R* thinks it's funny and profitable to turn everyone against each other doesn't mean that we should either. As I stated a few replies ago, it only takes a single player to start the vicious cycle of toxicity.

 

I don't accept it as desirable behavior, but I also am not naive enough to think I'm ever going to get every single one of millions of players to stop doing it. The well is already poisoned. Getting Rockstar to add friendly lobbies seems a lot more possible to me, and that approach attacks the issue at its root. Then we can keep the public PvP hellscape as is for those who prefer it that way. Personally, I'd be happy to leave it behind most of the time.

[HamwithCheese]

9 hours ago, Shiloh Comes said:

They are all there to progress, learn, enjoy and are the biggest fans of the game.

In my experience, those people never stop grinding, and never step foot into freemode.

[Nutduster]

1 hour ago, Ethereal_NYC_ said:

 

some missions HAVE TO BE DONE IN PUBLIC LOBBIES AND CANNOT BE DONE IN PRIVATE OR INVITE ONLY

 

also MOST BOUNTIES ARE PLACED BY AI FROM STEALING CARS OR BY GRIEFERS

 

i would think someone who has as much playtime as you would know this

 

 

Of course I know this. It's so funny to me how two people can argue in threads like this even though in the end we are saying almost exactly the same things; we

are just drawing different conclusions, I guess. This kind of stuff is why I have such a problem with how Rockstar made their game. Large amounts of fun content locked into sessions where you can (and probably will) get attacked, where you might be outranked, overpowered, and/or outnumbered (it's all pretty much random), and where you can lose potentially hours of work in the blink of an eye, or the spray of a Hydra cannon.

 

To say it for the hundredth time, I have less of a problem with players attacking business missions (they are designed for that, even though the design is bad and unfair) than I do with Rockstar forcing you to play them in public with a bullseye on your back in the first place. I would rather complain about a very rich company that has the power at their fingertips to let you run your business in closed sessions, or even create sessions where players can't kill each other.

 

As for bounties, I feel no pity and no shame. Honestly if even that miniscule amount of PvP--one person killing you one time for less than 10 grand--is offensive to you, you should not be in public free roam, regardless of the content you are missing out on. I hunt bounties all day, and when I get one on me, I look forward to people hunting me for it. It's one of the only pure, enjoyable bits of PvP in the game--far better and less agonizing than losing hundreds of thousands on a nuked business sale. The same is true of business battles, for the most part. It is a lot more fun to fight in GTA when there is a lot less at stake, and when the fought-for objective is fleeting and transient.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Nutduster

[Black-Dragon96]

7 hours ago, Nutduster said:

 

Jeez, talking about moving the bar. I was clearly talking about someone attacking your car meet or your business mission. Not two 1v1-at-the-beach tryhards leaving you alone. PvP doesn't HAVE to infringe on you, but it very often does, as you well know. More importantly, it CAN infringe, but no other activity can. You can challenge me to a race, but you can't make me race you. But if you decide to shoot me, that's PvP, whether I wanted it or not.

 

Thing is what you describe is not PvP, its griefing.

Its litterally in the name. Player vs player. Not "Player vs motionless character that is standing at an intersection because the player behind him is currently upstairs banging his girlfriend".

And I would argue that the whole cargo thing is not PvP either since the means to defend your happy ass are pretty f*cking limited most of the time.

 

7 hours ago, Nutduster said:

I have some news for you--a whole lot of sh*t about this game makes no sense, from a design perspective (or any other). It's the genesis of the term "Rockstar logic," after all.

Sure just blame R* logic instead of coming to the logical conclusion that the game was never designed to be a PvP game in the first place.

[Big Molio]

18 minutes ago, Black-Dragon96 said:

...the player behind him is currently upstairs banging his girlfriend

 

That's a bit optimistic. Why do you think we're all playing the game in the first place ha ha.

[Nutduster]

32 minutes ago, Black-Dragon96 said:

Sure just blame R* logic instead of coming to the logical conclusion that the game was never designed to be a PvP game in the first place.

 

?  On what level was it NOT designed to be a PvP game? How is that conclusion "logical" when we have:

- Bounties, both random and player-given, that pay out when you kill the person with the bounty?

- Business battles, which--you know what, it's right there in the name?

- Notifications for the entire lobby anytime a supply run or sale is going on, with promises of unspecified rewards for taking you out?

- Activities forced into public sessions for literally no reason other than increased risk to your business or heist prep process?

- Activities (many of them, not just business stuff) that disable passive mode?

- Some activities that even disable the bad sport & insurance punishment associated with destroying personal vehicles?

- A default game setting of auto-aim, with default targeting of other players?

- Homing missiles that lock onto player-driven vehicles of all types?

- VIP jobs that are about as explicitly designed for PvP as the business battles?

 

That's not even a complete list. Damn near every activity they've added to free roam since the original launch, as well as a couple things that were there from the beginning like bounties--it's all a pile of stuff designed to get us to fight each other.

 

I'm really just baffled by your entire position here. How is it not designed to be a PvP game when about every other update for almost 8 years has just added more and more PvP bait, and funneled us more and more toward that inevitability?

[Black-Dragon96]

13 hours ago, Nutduster said:

On what level was it NOT designed to be a PvP game?

You are pretty much writing it in your comment.

 

Ceo disables the bad sport for blowing up PVs. If the game would have been a PvP game it would not need to disable it because it would not exist.

The bountys are a part of the game, not the main point of the game. Just like Racing.

The aimsetting depends on the system you are playing on. Its freeaim on PC. The other option does not priorities players, but lets you choose to exclude Friends and Crew from the autoaim.

 

All the other things are stuff that came to the game at a later point. They are not part of the original design. Thats evident by, as you said it yourself, the fact that they disable certain aspects of the original design.

Calling it a PvP game just because an Update offers options for PvP does not really make sense imo.

I mean you would not call Forza Horizon a Lego game just because it introduces Lego Cars and Tracks in an Update.

And the ability to play as Solid Snake in Smash Bros does not turn it into a Metal Gear game.

[Big Molio]

1 hour ago, Black-Dragon96 said:

Ceo disables the bad sport for blowing up PVs. If the game would have been a PvP game it would not need to disable it because it would not exist.

 

Whatever GTA Online was at its launch, it has evolved into becoming a PvP orientated experience in Freemode. 

 

When it first appeared, Freemode was almost perfectly described when it was referred to as a "lobby", because that is what it effectively was. A kind of staging area for all the other activities that were around back then. Races, Contact Missions, Deathmatches etc - they all took place away from the Freemode lobby in separate sessions that you loaded into. They still do to this day.

 

That is why getting Bad Sport points for blowing up personal vehicles in GTA Online is a very outdated anachronism that no longer makes sense. It made sense back then because the idea that you might blow up a player's vehicle in Freemode when there was little else to do but buy an Adder or a Zentorno and customise it at Los Santos Customs did probably make you a bad sport in all honesty.

 

Fast forward eight years and the game has evolved beyond all recognition of that early iteration. 95% of the activities now take place in that Freemode lobby, and the personal vehicle roster has grown and grown to include all kinds of armoured, weaponised hardware.

 

All the CEO, MC, nightclub, smuggler's run, gunrunning and various heist prep work in Freemode is PvP by design, and that is now the bulk of what GTA Online is in 2021.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Big Molio

[Cigars and chill]

I viewed it as pvp since October 2013 when passive mode meant not immune to tank rockets and 3 rhino tanks killed my level 7 character over 100 times at least trying to get through alleyways to get to my alta st garage.  If they can, they will.

[Nutduster]

1 hour ago, Black-Dragon96 said:

You are pretty much writing it in your comment.

 

 

Fine, here is a more pertinent and to-the-point answer: if it's not a PvP game, why can we shoot each other in free roam, and why does it track kills and show your "score" on screen? If it's not a PvP game, why don't we even have the OPTION to be in lobbies where we can't kill each other? Please, explain that to me.

 

I can understand not wanting it to be a PvP game and preferring the PvE (or peaceful goof-off) activities. I can understand wishing it was all about that and not about slaughtering each other. But that has been a major component of free roam since day 1. The updates only emphasized that aspect; they didn't create it. Besides, the updates are as much a part of the design NOW as the original version of the game--arguably more so. I don't see how you could play this game in 2021 and use the 2013 version as your argument for how it "should" be experienced, because it is no longer even the same thing.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Nutduster

[Nutduster]

1 hour ago, Big Molio said:

 

Whatever GTA Online was at its launch, it has evolved into becoming a PvP orientated experience in Freemode. 

 

When it first appeared, Freemode was almost perfectly described when it was referred to as a "lobby", because that is what it effectively was. A kind of staging area for all the other activities that were around back then. Races, Contact Missions, Deathmatches etc - they all took place away from the Freemode lobby in separate sessions that you loaded into. They still do to this day.

 

That is why getting Bad Sport points for blowing up personal vehicles in GTA Online is a very outdated anachronism that no longer makes sense. It made sense back then because the idea that you might blow up a player's vehicle in Freemode when there was little else to do but buy an Adder or a Zentorno and customise it at Los Santos Customs did probably make you a bad sport in all honesty.

 

Fast forward eight years and the game has evolved beyond all recognition of that early iteration. 95% of the activities now take place in that Freemode lobby, and the personal vehicle roster has grown and grown to include all kinds of armoured, weaponised hardware.

 

 

Thank you. At least someone sees it. Free roam now is very little like free roam then. In 2013 there was basically nothing to do in free roam--rob a store, drive a car around, shoot each other a little bit, then jump into a mission or race or whatever. It wasn't a focused PvP experience because it wasn't a focused anything. "Staging area" is the right way to put it. (Although even then, there were no friendly lobbies and kill score vs. every other player was tracked, so... do the math.)

 

They effectively re-designed the game once they started adding so much mission-style content to free roam. Not only did they do that (which I was in favor of, in broad strokes), they locked most of it to public sessions and explicitly made it all have a large PvP component. All the business stuff is like that, all the heist stuff is like that; even free roam events lock you out of passive if you want to participate, even though a lot of them don't require PvP to compete.

In fact, not really until they put in the last two heists and the ability to do preps in invite only did they ever indicate anything other than a clear desire for us to f*ck with each other's cash flow. Personally I think the only reason they eventually did the casino and island heists that way is that they got sick of all the players complaining. And there's enough other stuff still locked into public that there's no danger of too many players abandoning public free roam, which is really where they want us--blowing each other up and wasting each other's time and money.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Nutduster

[Jenkiiii]

The problem is that Rockstar didn't really plan updates because they had no idea that GTA online would be so prevalent and popular. None of us did.

 

So we all write our comments about the ensuing mess and how freemode has become exploited by the biggest scallywags, when it's no-one's actual fault. One of the comparisons to Minecraft above is excellent: I had my very own experience after Sunday dinner, when my son came back to find his mansion covered in lava, managing to clear it in time before the hidden TNT exploded. All you can do is show understanding and try to encourage good parenting by not reacting or trying to get revenge, but he was fuming for half an hour.

 

So we work on the basis that Rockstar didn't have a clue and tagged on updates in an ad-hoc manner, but still get angry when someone with less vision decides to bring us down to their level. It's human nature to get angry and retaliate, and the only way to not do that is to take an enforced break and get some perspective, especially as we've had eight years to find solutions and workarounds to Rockstar's missteps and shouldn't bother or get worried about some of their freemode bodge ups like Post-Op vans, which are irrelevant now.

 

Ultimately, you can't really log on and do your own thing without being interrupted by someone else. This forced manner of getting players to interact with each other feels old fashioned now, but lobbies will get bigger in the future and it won't be necessary to show all player blips to generate artificial excitement.

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Jenkiiii

[Black-Dragon96]

8 hours ago, Nutduster said:

Fine, here is a more pertinent and to-the-point answer: if it's not a PvP game, why can we shoot each other in free roam, and why does it track kills and show your "score" on screen? If it's not a PvP game, why don't we even have the OPTION to be in lobbies where we can't kill each other? Please, explain that to me.

Very well:

Starting with your first question, "if it's not a PvP game, why can we shoot each other in free roam,".

Well pretty much for the same reason that we can race eachother in freemode. Its a sandbox that allows you to do whatever you like. PvP is a part of that, just like racing, the whole car meet culture, the stunting community, the crews pretending to be paramilitary orgs or some kind of gang and so on.

There is no main playstyle or main design. Its just one big melting pot of all kinds of stuff crudely cobbled together and held in place with duct tape.

 

That brings us to your second question, "and why does it track kills and show your "score" on screen".

Well as I said PvP is a part of the big melting pot of gta online. Apparently some people care how often they killed somebody/got killed by somebody. As far as I know such a counter did not exist in gta 4 multiplayer. So maybe people complained about that and R* decided to add it.

You also have to remember that the original concept of gta online involved some kind of gangsystem. So the original concept for that tracker migh have been to keep track of how many rival gangmembers you killed to determine your position in your own gang. Later on when the gangsystem was cut it got repurosed.

 

Your third question, well seems like they did not want to bother with that stuff and instead introduced passive mode.

 

If you have any further questions let me know.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Black-Dragon96

[Nutduster]

Eh. At this point we might as well just agree to disagree and move on. I see a game that was intended as a "pick your play style" sandbox but transformed gradually into a PvP-dominant zone where if you try to play any other way, or try to engage in most of the activities without any hostility, you will probably be frustrated pretty soon because the game funnels you toward PvP as often as possible. You just see the original, idealistic vision for the game and want to leave it at that. I'm not going to convince you or vice versa. But it's probably good enough to leave it on this note, that we are obviously BOTH frustrated by our inability to have a peaceful experience in public free roam, even though our diagnosis of the problem is different.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Nutduster

[Big Molio]

8 minutes ago, Black-Dragon96 said:

Its a sandbox that allows you to do whatever you like. PvP is a part of that, just like racing, the whole car meet culture, the stunting community, the crews pretending to be paramilitary orgs or some kind of gang and so on.

 

I would argue that it is a sandbox that allows you do what you like only to a certain extent and still within the constraints of what the developers envisage is the most overriding type of gameplay, which is an adversarial type. Things like the car meets, the BMX stunters, the freeroam street racers and the other role players. They have all evolved their own niche style of play within those constraints, which are pretty restrictive still for a supposed sandbox.

 

8 minutes ago, Black-Dragon96 said:

There is no main playstyle or main design. Its just one big melting pot of all kinds of stuff crudely cobbled together and held in place with duct tape.

 

The main playstyle is adversarial. Player against player. That adversarial type of play takes quite a few forms in this game, but that is the "vision" of the developers in my opinion. The NPCs that are added to the various jobs in each mode are really nothing more than token window-dressing. They have awful AI and aren't terribly sophisticated. Rockstar bank on the other players to provide that adversarial nature to their game.

[Nutduster]

Would agree with that (obviously), and I think it becomes most problematic with activities that were clearly INTENDED as adversarial but which a lot of players don't want to be. Hence, the "let me grind in peace" mentality--the "why did you grief me??" mentality--when business missions, however unfairly, were designed as adversarial by nature.

 

It sucks that this structure is imposed on activities that also eat up a lot of time and make a lot of money. Basically, grinding and PvP are very poor bedfellows. But again, that's on the designers more so than the players. Asking players not to attack you when the game tells them to is essentially creating your own interpretation of what the game should be and giving it higher priority than what it actually is.

[Big Molio]

8 hours ago, Nutduster said:

Would agree with that (obviously), and I think it becomes most problematic with activities that were clearly INTENDED as adversarial but which a lot of players don't want to be. Hence, the "let me grind in peace" mentality--the "why did you grief me??" mentality--when business missions, however unfairly, were designed as adversarial by nature.

 

It sucks that this structure is imposed on activities that also eat up a lot of time and make a lot of money. Basically, grinding and PvP are very poor bedfellows. But again, that's on the designers more so than the players. Asking players not to attack you when the game tells them to is essentially creating your own interpretation of what the game should be and giving it higher priority than what it actually is.

 

The Cayo Perico heist feels like a concession to grinders. It is a relatively easy, and very often uninterrupted, way of making decent money as a solo player, with at least $1m available for an hour's play, which doesn't feel bad to me. It has certainly helped me to get some funds built up quickly. My 15 year old son says the same, that he and his friends now just do Cayo Perico whenever they need money. It has been a welcome addition in that respect, even if the heist itself is actually quite dull.

 

I can't say for sure because I have never grinded the businesses, so I don't know if it comparatively is the best for making money. But I don't often see players going after others in the Sparrow helicopter carrying heist prep equipment.

[Lonely-Martin]

3 hours ago, Big Molio said:

The Cayo Perico heist feels like a concession to grinders. It is a relatively easy, and very often uninterrupted, way of making decent money as a solo player, with at least $1m available for an hour's play, which doesn't feel bad to me. It has certainly helped me to get some funds built up quickly. My 15 year old son says the same, that he and his friends now just do Cayo Perico whenever they need money. It has been a welcome addition in that respect, even if the heist itself is actually quite dull.

 

I can't say for sure because I have never grinded the businesses, so I don't know if it comparatively is the best for making money. But I don't often see players going after others in the Sparrow helicopter carrying heist prep equipment.

 

Oh, for a solo player, there's no comparison really. The only way a player will earn as well as the CP heist is if they've a friend/team for the casino/CP heist. This latest heist blows the old heists and DDH away, aside say a CMM run where those bonuses make the cash per hour average rise, but thats s one time thing of course. It also blows all businesses out the water too.

 

You'd do well to make a million an hour or so on any business, maybe crates if on 2x and you get a special crate along with, but the costs of crates soon negates that. It's hard to make a million in an hour/hour and a half pretty much anywhere else.

 

This new heist makes money so casual compared to anything. I never struggled for cash nor grinded any, but if I was to go hard at it, I know I'd be so rich it's unreal. The fact I am alrwady see's me just enjoy the heist casually. I'm yet to fill the secondary loot award ($20m) by half and I've ready made a mint off this heist, lol. I like doing one a week if I can just to mix it up.

 

Though of course, if one has the more passive businesses running alongside this heist, blimey! Bunker, coke/meth and maybe cash and a nightclub topping off, that'd be a good couple hours earning. 

 

Regarding the concession part, I believe that too. More so I feel it's something added so R* can look to address solo public methods and close them off, like the recent one they stopped on Xbox (though that could just have been an accident - not fully sure as I'm PS4/5 so haven't looked too much into it). I believe if that is the aim, they can then say 'well, money-wise they don't need businesses to earn if they dislike public businesses and now have another way'.

 

That said, it could just be a way to show the game is starting to offer more solo/peaceful friendly content just before the planned re-release to draw folk back that might be datigued with public/team reliant earning, and we may even go back to regular hostilities after the new game sells. Cute marketing maybe, lol.

 

Then again, I feel on the next release they'll even possibly remove invite only altogether, but that's more a dread after RDRO launched without lobby choice. But we'll see.

[Damar Man]

Go to the strip club and then make a circle jerks with some random players

[Veleno]

you can join, help and chill with non-toxic ACTIVE crews.

 

the only reason I still play this.