Ringwraith #5 said:
Where players go is determined by the options they're given, which are determined by the game designers. I'm using all the options there are, open matchmaking, auto-invite, and literally every "invite all" option there is. And I'm playing heists, the newest and most desirable multiplayer mode in GTA Online. If the game can't find me players despite being the third most played game on Steam with 300K concurrent players, I don't see how that could be anybody's fault but R*'s.K-64 said:
Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen.Harkon Haakonson said:Literally everyone understood what you were complaining about. Doesn't change the fact that playing with people you know with a brain would not only take away the matchmaking time you deem so frustrating, as you just party up and go, it would also reduce frustration in the form of you not having to wait 15 minutes just to play with random idiots who will fail the mission terribly, but rather with people with more experience / intelligence. 2 birds with 1 stone and all.
But of course, you don't want to do that, and that's merely what I was pointing out to Wellen when he asked, to keep it short as it's frankly not worth explanations.
Seems to me you're the only here failing to think logically and relate linked concepts.
Crescent Glow said:Taleworlds GTA V Steam Group/Crew anyone?
Sushiman said:
Ringwraith #5 said:
Yes, it is. It's the game designers job to provide the incentives and disincentives to herd players into the desired activities. If the vast majority of people spend their time derping around and griefing other people, clearly stronger anti-griefing measures are required to make them stop and do something else instead. If a disproportionately large number of people spend too much of their time racing, the rewards you get for racing need to be lowered. If not enough people are playing heists, the rewards need to be increased to make more people want to play heists. You get my point.K-64 said:
No reason to be a **** about nothing, baby.Ringwraith #5 said:
Splintert said:
Eh, possibly. Though the game already has a passive mode that makes you invulnerable to other players, so griefing possibilities are already rather limited. The downside is that you can't use your weapons at all. If they tweaked it so that you could use your weapons against NPCs but not players, there would be no reason to ever go out of passive mode and therefore no griefing potential at all. Well, almost. I suppose you could follow a player around until they get out of their vehicle, then destroy the vehicle. But even that is easily solved by keeping the last occupied vehicle invulnerable to other players even when it's empty.K-64 said:
Nope. You can't make the host waste money, only time. The buy-in is a one-time payment and you can attempt the missions as many times as it takes to complete them, you don't pay for each attempt. That would be ridiculous and yes, very griefing-friendly. I imagine that's why it's not done that way.
I didn't start it, only responded in kind. Don't feel sorry for these clowns just because they were outdone at it.Wellenbrecher said:
That is true.
Ringwraith #5 said:
Outdone? I left you without any real argumentative comeback, leaving you to resort to a juvenile and frankly embarassing for yourself one liner. Yeah, that "Exhibit A" right after I destroyed your attempt at sounding smart sure outdid me... Accept the loss and get better, don't go making delusional claims kid.
There was no need for an argumentative comeback, seeing as the refutation of your points had already been made in the very post you were responding to. Well I'm not going to repeat myself for your benefit. Feel free to keep re-reading that post until it gets through. The fact that you don't even realize that yes, you have in fact been outdone is testament enough to your lack of comprehension.Harkon Haakonson said:
That would be unplayable. When I see a red tank on the map? Instant passive mode.Radalan said:Well after trying out multiplayer, I think it would be cool if there was a mode where players aren't visible on the map.
Ringwraith #5 said:There was no need for an argumentative comeback, seeing as the refutation of your points had already been made in the very post you were responding to. Well I'm not going to repeat myself for your benefit. Feel free to keep re-reading that post until it gets through. The fact that you don't even realize that yes, you have in fact been outdone is testament enough to your lack of comprehension.Harkon Haakonson said:
Nice try, but you're not fooling anyone. It's ok, we all know just how bitter you get over not being the biggest smartass in the Internet every time you get schooled in a discussion.
Pretty much, yeah.Russik said:How Ringwraith feels right now.
That would carry a lot more weight, i.e. a non-zero amount, if you could provide a single example where anyone on this forum schooled me in a discussion. I've been here what, seven years? Surely you should be able to find one, right?Harkon Haakonson said:
It's good but it's nowhere near perfect. I wouldn't recommend buying it for full price, to be honest. Unless you desperately need that open-world itch scratched, I say hold off.Slev said:
