Ammar

@Scorpyo Is it possible to add something to differentiate between /assist and /war? Some people might get confused if their gang goes turfing after assisting another gang and not figuring out why they aren't gaining progress. Could be something like this when you have /assist enabled:

I'd be down for it if sniper headshot gets removed/restricted to county turfs, otherwise it'd just be sniper wars in every turf.

It's probably SAES own anti c bug script that's causing this, the script itself is obsolete and MTA has already patched c bug I think, so there's no point in keeping it.

Congrats, hopefully you'll deliver some good stuff

1894

Tilong

good old GR times :)))

Players within the tag system's visibility range disappear when I tab out of MTA, but the tags re appear if I get far from them then come back Edit: Also health bars tend to get generally bugged when I tab out, they disappear and idk how to get them back Edit 2: nametag used to appear on a player that's far away if you aim down at him with sniper, that doesn't happen anymore https://i.imgur.com/HUP3PDh.png

Make it so theres some indicator to whether you have /assist or /war on (preferably above the progress bar or next to name of the two main parties of the war) because some people might confuse between them, like when their gang goes turfing after assisting an ally.

::: :::

In a community plagued by corruption and nepotism, one man finds the courage to stand up against the establishment. ::: :::

::: Doing a jailbreak :::

Account name: ammar1 Icon name: surko_housing_5

imagine getting banned for using a trainer

Properties, especially businesses that generate high income and owned by organizations are currently in a state where the organizations cant really benefit from them, and are there just for show. Linking the income and taxes to the organizations bank account would give those properties passive value which would make them more useful.

@Kain said in Revive Gang Robs: @Ammar said in Revive Gang Robs: @Harmy said in Revive Gang Robs: Forcing level 3+ gangs to have a gang safe that in return will only make gangs to keep below the limit money in gang if they dont want to participate kinda makes no sense. Dont include suggestions on how gangs will have to change their ways with their gang accounts, thats none of your business. If gangs see value and want to participate in GRs they will need and have a safe. If not they simply wontt have it It would be a fair trade off though. If you dont want to have a safe, then you should not be able to use the gang bank. Adding to that, it is already similar to what you described, gangs currently dont participate GRs because they choose the safe route of not having a gang safe at all because they see GR as an activity shrouded with the misbelief of report wars and such. By forcing them to have a safe, it would prevent the luxury of having tens of millions of dollars sitting in a gang bank with no threat, and consequently maybe entice them to try out GRs? Personally, I like the activity of GR, and I dislike gangs that keep the activity dead by choosing not to have a safe at all. I specifically pointed out level 3+ gangs because they spawn with sufficient weaponry to be able to defend their safe. It should be so that you can only rob gangs of the same level or above so a level 5 gang can't bully a level 2 gang in terms of numbers. I mean sure its a good idea, but most gang robberies occur when the defending gang is at disadvantage, e.g. when they have 3 players online or when most of them are AFK or trapped in jail, so I dont think level matters that much. Plus it would take away the pride of low level organization robbing a higher level organization (if people still care about such stuff nowadays), and would lower the scope of competition in GRs since there arent many gangs at lower levels nowadays.

@Harmy said in Revive Gang Robs: Forcing level 3+ gangs to have a gang safe that in return will only make gangs to keep below the limit money in gang if they dont want to participate kinda makes no sense. Dont include suggestions on how gangs will have to change their ways with their gang accounts, thats none of your business. If gangs see value and want to participate in GRs they will need and have a safe. If not they simply wontt have it It would be a fair trade off though. If you dont want to have a safe, then you should not be able to use the gang bank. Adding to that, it is already similar to what you described, gangs currently dont participate GRs because they choose the safe route of not having a gang safe at all because they see GR as an activity shrouded with the misbelief of report wars and such. By forcing them to have a safe, it would prevent the luxury of having tens of millions of dollars sitting in a gang bank with no threat, and consequently maybe entice them to try out GRs? Personally, I like the activity of GR, and I dislike gangs that keep the activity dead by choosing not to have a safe at all. I specifically pointed out level 3+ gangs because they spawn with sufficient weaponry to be able to defend their safe.

@Rzz0 said in Revive Gang Robs: There should be a minimum amount of players online from a gang so you can rob them (around 5). There already is a limitation like this, you cannot rob a gang if it has less than 3 players online, and I think its fine as it is. After cracking the safe the cracker shouldnt be allowed to use planes or boats to escape, because then its impossible to stop him from delivering the bag. I think this is the only change thats needed, there are a lot of ideas in the topic but I do not believe any of them would improve the GR system. However, most gang bases have high walls that make escaping hard or impossible, some have their bases on a cliff even. Maybe its time for GMs to start enforcing more strict rules on safe placements? One last thing Id like to add, is to force all level 3+ gangs to have safes. Of course, they would be free to choose not to participate in GRs by keeping their gang bank below the threshold of the GR, but I believe this would incentivize gangs who have never even experienced GRs to see the fun side of it, if they choose to.

https://youtu.be/oQ90FE5BfvA

@Brophy said in HS back for CLO & DE: How about changing it so it only affects the special groups that use it, so CLO can only headshot DE and vice versa. Therefore you get access back to it but it doesnt fuck over the general population. If thats the way you think, then HLS also should not be able to mess with the general player base with their current trainees with armor role by either removing their armor or removing their baton and taser.

https://github.com/saesrpg/saesrpg/issues/268

Sad to see a man who knows exactly whats wrong with SAES at the moment being virtually forced out of the door. Farewell.

@Zwolle said in HS back for CLO & DE: its not easy to hs someone but it gives more fun to play , for both sides as you can see ppl was recording video while arresting clos now we are a useless group @Kain @kenny @Brophy @Bone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u10He0KuNz0 back when taser range was still normal

If the spawn doesn't have nightstick then it fundamentally was not meant to arrest. Don't try to justify it by piling up some lame excuses.

30m, let's expedite this a bit