Lsrcr Forum

Adding a Drone;

It would be flyable like the RC Planes.

Usage:

UAV - Able to use like a UAV and see enemy movement
Weapon - Able to shoot M4 bullets

Suspects wont be able to see the plane in the air and it would benefit SWAT. Would need to be a cooldown command on it, and only be able to use one at a time.

Kaosx234 wrote:

Tamer wrote:

[Lsrcr]Anaas wrote:

I remember making a somewhat similar suggestion for army. viewtopic.php?f=334&t=53266 It was, however, rejected by Johnson because it was believed to unbalance things between S.W.A.T. and Army. What's the guarantee that this one will get accepted?

What he said back then is still valid.

I don't see any "cons" in the link which Anaas stated, therefore the same reason of rejection cannot be here. In case you want to reject this suggestion, I want to see the reason.

Just for the information, I can give more cons for each classes, but as far ar I know, pros and cons are more-likely balanced (you have more armor - you are slower, you have advanced things - you don't have all guns, and so on)

I'll simply repeat that Tamer does not need to search why was the topic re-opened

Kaosx234 wrote:

[Lsrcr]Wolf wrote:

100% Support that idea

The idea sounds fun and even makes the S.W.A.T Team role-play even more,Plus its kinda refrences Rainbow Six Siege!

Yupp, sadly I have 4GBram and got FPS lag

$20-$30 for one more slot of 4GB RAM

Tamer wrote:

[Lsrcr]Anaas wrote:

I remember making a somewhat similar suggestion for army. viewtopic.php?f=334&t=53266 It was, however, rejected by Johnson because it was believed to unbalance things between S.W.A.T. and Army. What's the guarantee that this one will get accepted?

What he said back then is still valid.

So what you basically mean is that this suggestion will never get accepted since it's obvious how unbalanced things will be. Unless of course, Army get the classes it wanted a long time ago.

As for you Kaosx, there is no need to show any hostility. All I did was to help you by not letting you get your hopes high since a similar suggestion was already rejected before.

[Lsrcr]Anaas wrote:

Tamer wrote:

[Lsrcr]Anaas wrote:

I remember making a somewhat similar suggestion for army. viewtopic.php?f=334&t=53266 It was, however, rejected by Johnson because it was believed to unbalance things between S.W.A.T. and Army. What's the guarantee that this one will get accepted?

What he said back then is still valid.

So what you basically mean is that this suggestion will never get accepted since it's obvious how unbalanced things will be. Unless of course, Army get the classes it wanted a long time ago.

As for you Kaosx, there is no need to show any hostility. All I did was to help you by not letting you get your hopes high since a similar suggestion was already rejected before.

Once again, you threw out whole my point. Your suggestion: "Class A gets thing X and thing Z", "Class B gets thing Y and thing D". As you can see, you did not suggest any negative side of your class therefore YOUR suggestion is unbalanced.

While my suggestion is balanced because any positive side that a class get - they also get 1 or even 2 negative sides due that effect. Even some of the classes can have only pistol and tec (1 handed pistol and 1 handed tec). Can you tell me, how is this "unbalanced":

Your suggestions was no near similar to mine.

Kaosx234 wrote:

Once again, you threw out whole my point. Your suggestion: "Class A gets thing X and thing Z", "Class B gets thing Y and thing D". As you can see, you did not suggest any negative side of your class therefore YOUR suggestion is unbalanced.

While my suggestion is balanced because any positive side that a class get - they also get 1 or even 2 negative sides due that effect. Even some of the classes can have only pistol and tec (1 handed pistol and 1 handed tec). Can you tell me, how is this "unbalanced":

Your suggestions was no near similar to mine.

*facepalm* Bruh you don't get the point. It's unbalanced between S.W.A.T and the other groups. Not within S.W.A.T itself... That's the cause of rejection for army classes as well.
Ohh and not against this idea or anything. Just laying a possibility. Still +1 although I'm not allowed to vote

[Lsrcr]Anaas wrote:

Kaosx234 wrote:

Once again, you threw out whole my point. Your suggestion: "Class A gets thing X and thing Z", "Class B gets thing Y and thing D". As you can see, you did not suggest any negative side of your class therefore YOUR suggestion is unbalanced.

While my suggestion is balanced because any positive side that a class get - they also get 1 or even 2 negative sides due that effect. Even some of the classes can have only pistol and tec (1 handed pistol and 1 handed tec). Can you tell me, how is this "unbalanced":

Your suggestions was no near similar to mine.

*facepalm* Bruh you don't get the point. It's unbalanced between S.W.A.T and the other groups. Not within S.W.A.T itself... That's the cause of rejection for army classes as well.
Ohh and not against this idea or anything. Just laying a possibility. Still +1 although I'm not allowed to vote

How can something be balanced within SWAT itself but not between S.W.A.T and other groups (if the current situation is balanced)? In case it is the possibility, then the only way to solve the problem is to remove whole SWAT faction (since as you said, its balanced within S.W.A.T. itself - has ups and downs all together is 0).

I think there's a little greed going over on here, SWAT just received an update and I believe things are currently balanced. There is no need for new SWAT features at the moment. You should be able to do fine with what you are provided.

Some of these features are not even possible to do and some are too powerful even if they were implemented, these are directly overpowered towards the criminals.

Some of these features are not even possible to implement to Ls-rcr without changing a lot of stuff which are working fine on the line. It does require a lot of work.

Though the ideas are quite nice most of them are not possible because of SA-MP limitations. You must not forget that SA-MP is not a standalone game and what a server can get is limited. This is not rainbow six siege. Also additionally, the way the game feels when you are playing Rainbow six siege is way different than what you would get at SA-MP. While things are balanced at that game because the developers can adjust the features and the game to their liking we are limited to what the SA-MP engine gives us.

Tamer wrote:

I think there's a little greed going over on here, SWAT just received an update and I believe things are currently balanced. There is no need for new SWAT features at the moment. You should be able to do fine with what you are provided.

Some of these features are not even possible to do and some are too powerful even if they were implemented, these are directly overpowered towards the criminals.

Some of these features are not even possible to implement to Ls-rcr without changing a lot of stuff which are working fine on the line. It does require a lot of work.

Though the ideas are quite nice most of them are not possible because of SA-MP limitations. You must not forget that SA-MP is not a standalone game and what a server can get is limited. This is not rainbow six siege. Also additionally, the way the game feels when you are playing Rainbow six siege is way different than what you would get at SA-MP. While things are balanced at that game because the developers can adjust the features and the game to their liking we are limited to what the SA-MP engine gives us.

Are at least some classes able to script? I mean I can change their pros and cons if needed to scriptable. Though, I know we are not getting updates during next 2-3 months, but maybe in nearby future.

When we are talking about SWAT which is a faction that is about arresting players, I see no reason for us to handicap shooting-related features. This means that giving one handed colts or disabling sawnoffs. Your job is already NOT to kill and rather arrest the suspects. So these are just blank cons in my opinion, just to fill the blank space.