+- Las Venturas Playground (https://forum.sa-mp.nl)
+-- Forum: Main Talk (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Complaints & Reports (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-20.html)
+---- Forum: Dealt With Complaints (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-21.html)
+---- Thread: A change for 0.2 (/thread-1533.html)
Re: A change for 0.2 - tomozj - 06-11-2007
He wouldn't say such a thing.. as 2.x development has been handed over to Badeend, JUTD, Fireburn etc.
Peter only develops 3.x...
So, just accept crew statements and move on
-tj
Re: A change for 0.2 - Ben - 06-11-2007
Right ok, but ask him if you want
Im almost positive he said it would but oh well
Re: A change for 0.2 - Sander - 06-11-2007
In fact, LVP 2.6 was never meant to be developed.
2.5 was the latest planned release before LVP 3.0.
And ok, to explain it: this is/was the idea of almost a half year ago.
There will 3 gangbases, on in each large city.
Maybe also a few "town"bases, but that's not sure.
Each gangbase will have it's own benefit.
Like one may have free weapons, the other can have health generating, the other gives money.
So, if you want all the benefits, be sure that you are in control of 3 gangbases.
If you control all the gangbases you are in control of whole San Andreas. Maybe we should reward it with lower tax/getting tax of other people, or something like that.
This can be changed, maybe there are nicer things to do with the new 0.2 gangzones.
Re: A change for 0.2 - [BA]PennyWise - 06-11-2007
I remember a mention off this, but... Why not have 3 citybases, and one ultimate base, lets say for e.g .. Area51? Something like that.
Re: A change for 0.2 - Ben - 06-11-2007
(06-11-2007, 03:56 PM)PennyWise link Wrote: I remember a mention off this, but... Why not have 3 citybases, and one ultimate base, lets say for e.g .. Area51? Something like that.If you are guna make ideas PennyWise please make your own topic
Re: A change for 0.2 - [BA]PennyWise - 06-11-2007
[me=PennyWise]hides but.. It's already something to do with gangbase and if i make another topic it's overrighting this 1 meaning 1 has to get deleted and theirs no point in that so that's why i posted here[/me]
Re: A change for 0.2 - Sander - 06-11-2007
Well, the idea of 1 "uberbase" is nice, we had this idea also...
But...
Why should you attack a smaller base if you can attack the biggest base, to get in control of the complete city?
Re: A change for 0.2 - Rien - 06-11-2007
(06-11-2007, 06:45 PM)Nakebod link Wrote: Why should you attack a smaller base if you can attack the biggest base, to get in control of the complete city?
you can't take over the "uberbase" if you don't the smaller ones yet?
Re: A change for 0.2 - tomozj - 06-11-2007
But if people take over your smaller bases while you own the uberbases, what happens?
Maybe there should be no uberbases, but one big base. Some give good powerups like HP/armour, and some give you more ownership of the city.
Balance it out
-tj
Re: A change for 0.2 - Rien - 06-11-2007
(06-11-2007, 07:42 PM)tomozj link Wrote: But if people take over your smaller bases while you own the uberbases, what happens?
-tj
ehh... your gang gets about 20 minutes to retrieve lost bases, if they don't have them all back after those 20 minutes, they lose the uberbase
