Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

DLC Ideas Wishlist Topic

1,225 replies to this topic
Not Kmart
  • Not Kmart

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2017
  • United-States

#1201

Posted 5 days ago

Still want new f*cking guns. Lol like the scar H or the FN FAL..

You were SO close...
http://gta.wikia.com/wiki/Heavy_Rifle
Lol I don't understand why they won't put it in the actual game

Prenihility
  • Prenihility

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2017
  • None

#1202

Posted 5 days ago

Still want new f*cking guns. Lol like the scar H or the FN FAL..

 

You mean new weapon models... Which is what they are at the end of the day. Not knocking on the idea. I'm really not. But... it's totally, totally counter-productive at the end of the day. And not to mention childish. If this were something like Metal Gear Solid 4/5. Or Battlefield 3 in terms of gun-play. Or if the gun-play was far more detailed and designed for third-person. Then i'd be all for it. But in this game, vehicles - ESPECIALLY cars - reign supreme in terms of function and design. Weapons are a hilarious joke. And that's an understatement. What we're getting are essentially new weapon models with some different statistics. No performance/feel difference whatsoever. Just a pile of mediocrity.


D.B. Cooper
  • D.B. Cooper

    Seems like it's my turn again

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia

#1203

Posted 5 days ago

Between the fact that guns can be unique depending on how stable the gun is and how its recoil acts + the fact we still don't have a single lever gun ingame I think there's still room for more additions. Especially considering how ludicrously easy it is to add them, there's really no excuse.

  • Asian_Apache likes this

Prenihility
  • Prenihility

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2017
  • None

#1204

Posted 5 days ago

Between the fact that guns can be unique depending on how stable the gun is and how its recoil acts + the fact we still don't have a single lever gun ingame I think there's still room for more additions. Especially considering how ludicrously easy it is to add them, there's really no excuse.

 

But the fact is, guns really aren't unique. Unless they're in a different category altogether like i pointed out earlier. Recoil and stability. There are no such things. Not in the way that they actually do anything or contribute to the weapon's feel. All assault rifles basically feel the same. I really shouldn't have to point out how you can play a game in one sitting and evaluate how game mechanics are designed. Do weapons feel realistic in GTA V? No. Not at all. And i use the word "realistic" to summarize weapons because logically that's the design idea they would have to follow in order to actually give weapons a layer of polish, seriousness and legitimacy. Play Counter-Strike. Shoot some guns. Play GTA and shoot some guns. And laugh. CS from the get-go (EVEN 1.6) was designed with some legitimacy surrounding the design basis for gun-play. Makes sense considering it's a game that focuses on... well, guns/shooting people.

 

Does DRIVING feel realistic? Relatively speaking, yes. Very much so. I pointed out earlier how i almost felt as if i was playing Gran Turismo when in 1st person driving in GTAV. Especially in a high performance vehicle. The physics are a little too jumpy in terms of weight feel and weight distribution. Really apparent when crashing and hitting little curbs. But it's there. There's much progress that's been made. There's some layer of depth here. Some significance in the driving. Just doing a classic slow-in, fast-out driving into a corner with something like the new XA-21. WOW.... Feels great. And AWD vehicles really do feel like AWD vehicles now. But GUNS? Asking for new guns is asking for new weapon models. A lever action? Cool, i guess. If you want to pretend to be in Red Dead or something. A long time ago i wanted the Python from Vice City in GTAO. Guess what? We got it! But at the end of the day, i wanted it for my female character which i thought would look really cool with it. Whatever... Adds nothing to the game.

 

And i have no doubt that it's far more difficult creating a new, highly detailed vehicle than a new gun. But is it necessarily a negligible amount of time? I don't know for certain. Most likely it isn't and it does require a decent amount of time to create. And it's just time wasted giving us new gimmicks in the form of weapons no one actually uses. A musket? A joke more than anything. A novelty item you pull out with a tailcoat outfit to pretend you're a civil war era soldier. It's just a joke. Or a new weapon model that looks like a SCAR with some tweaked stats. This is really superficial at best. New "guns" add nothing to the game but just adding to the hot mess that is the weapon wheel, or the "weapon wheel or life" as i call it. And yes, we have custom loadouts... regardless, though.

 

Seriously, though. People need to have SOME level of analytical skills. It's a problem with people who play games. You don't have to be a designer like i am. But... come on. Just stop and think for a second. Take in what you're experiencing in-game. Analyze. And i don't want to bash the idea of new guns or sh*t on anyone's ambitions of new weaponry. Just pointing out that it isn't the smartest thing in this game.

 

How about a flamethrower, actually? Now that i think about it. Fire, especially in the enhanced version is well done. And fire spreading especially. Throw a molotov and it's impressive what happens, especially in an interior space.


Matadorro
  • Matadorro

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2015
  • None

#1205

Posted 5 days ago Edited by Matadorro, 5 days ago.

Seriously, though. People need to have SOME level of analytical skills. It's a problem with people who play games. You don't have to be a designer like i am. But... come on. Just stop and think for a second. Take in what you're experiencing in-game. Analyze. And i don't want to bash the idea of new guns or sh*t on anyone's ambitions of new weaponry. Just pointing out that it isn't the smartest thing in this game.

 

 

We saw your analytical skills before and they lead you to suggesting the sh*ttiest possible idea for an update to this game lmao. Why naval DLC is a terrible idea I already described. And don't you tell me how new guns in this game are a bad idea because they're already the same. First of all, like I said, there are many possible weapon mechanics and statistics that haven't been tried out yet. Pistol with uncapped RoF. An SMG with really high RoF (all we have at the moment shoot pretty slowly). The already mentioned lever action. A burst fire weapon. And EVEN if we were to get guns that are barely any different from the existing ones, why do you see that as a bad thing? Look at Battlefield 4 or nearly every modern military shooter and you'll see that in those games half of the guns in their respective categories are pretty much the god damn same with very negligible stat differences. Because at the end of the day they're mostly different looking variant of the same weapon with minor differences in recoil, RoF and damage. It wouldn't make much difference from how it is now if Battlefield 4 had only 4 assault rifles, 4 SMGs, 3 pistols, 3 shotguns, 3 sniper rifles and 2 DMRs. Sure, GTA pushed the casualism further with weapons having little to no recoil, but it doesn't mean you can't find your favourite. The reality is, people just want different stuff to choose from. To pick their favourites based not just on which gun suits their playstyle the most, but also have the one they like to look at the most. Gunporn, pal, does that term tell you something?

  • LarcenousUrsine, Criminal-Fox and D.B. Cooper like this

Criminal-Fox
  • Criminal-Fox

    "Stupid Like A Fox"

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Australia

#1206

Posted 4 days ago

We saw your analytical skills before and they lead you to suggesting the sh*ttiest possible idea for an update to this game lmao. Why naval DLC is a terrible idea I already described. And don't you tell me how new guns in this game are a bad idea because they're already the same. First of all, like I said, there are many possible weapon mechanics and statistics that haven't been tried out yet. Pistol with uncapped RoF. An SMG with really high RoF (all we have at the moment shoot pretty slowly). The already mentioned lever action. A burst fire weapon. And EVEN if we were to get guns that are barely any different from the existing ones, why do you see that as a bad thing? Look at Battlefield 4 or nearly every modern military shooter and you'll see that in those games half of the guns in their respective categories are pretty much the god damn same with very negligible stat differences. Because at the end of the day they're mostly different looking variant of the same weapon with minor differences in recoil, RoF and damage. It wouldn't make much difference from how it is now if Battlefield 4 had only 4 assault rifles, 4 SMGs, 3 pistols, 3 shotguns, 3 sniper rifles and 2 DMRs. Sure, GTA pushed the casualism further with weapons having little to no recoil, but it doesn't mean you can't find your favourite. The reality is, people just want different stuff to choose from. To pick their favourites based not just on which gun suits their playstyle the most, but also have the one they like to look at the most. Gunporn, pal, does that term tell you something?

Agreed, I don't care how sh*t anything actually is, If it looks good then I'm still gonna use it. Although interesting stats are a nice bonus...


Prenihility
  • Prenihility

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2017
  • None

#1207

Posted 4 days ago Edited by Prenihility, 4 days ago.

 

Seriously, though. People need to have SOME level of analytical skills. It's a problem with people who play games. You don't have to be a designer like i am. But... come on. Just stop and think for a second. Take in what you're experiencing in-game. Analyze. And i don't want to bash the idea of new guns or sh*t on anyone's ambitions of new weaponry. Just pointing out that it isn't the smartest thing in this game.

 

 

We saw your analytical skills before and they lead you to suggesting the sh*ttiest possible idea for an update to this game lmao. Why naval DLC is a terrible idea I already described. And don't you tell me how new guns in this game are a bad idea because they're already the same. First of all, like I said, there are many possible weapon mechanics and statistics that haven't been tried out yet. Pistol with uncapped RoF. An SMG with really high RoF (all we have at the moment shoot pretty slowly). The already mentioned lever action. A burst fire weapon. And EVEN if we were to get guns that are barely any different from the existing ones, why do you see that as a bad thing? Look at Battlefield 4 or nearly every modern military shooter and you'll see that in those games half of the guns in their respective categories are pretty much the god damn same with very negligible stat differences. Because at the end of the day they're mostly different looking variant of the same weapon with minor differences in recoil, RoF and damage. It wouldn't make much difference from how it is now if Battlefield 4 had only 4 assault rifles, 4 SMGs, 3 pistols, 3 shotguns, 3 sniper rifles and 2 DMRs. Sure, GTA pushed the casualism further with weapons having little to no recoil, but it doesn't mean you can't find your favourite. The reality is, people just want different stuff to choose from. To pick their favourites based not just on which gun suits their playstyle the most, but also have the one they like to look at the most. Gunporn, pal, does that term tell you something?

 


 

 

 

 

 

Holy sh*t... The amount of contradictions, here. Not to mention lack of logic that would probably make even Carl Sagan get brain cancer. Alright, it's not like i'm on a timer or anything, thankfully. Phew.

 

Right off the bat i'm going to take a wild guess and assume you're very, very young. You sound like a typical person who's been offended (seriously?) by your affection towards a game. In this case... err... specifically guns in a game? Ok. Then again, coming from a dude who used the word "casualism" it shouldn't come as a surprise. Apparently i came up with one of the sh*ttiest ideas for DLC in the game. That got liked by multiple people. Odd. I don't remember people saying anything bad about it either. Even had a couple posts later AND before after skimming through the thread after posting the idea, talking about a water/underwater based DLC. I don't post on IGN anymore because i simply have no reason to discuss anything with children who have a mental illness and affection towards which plastic box that sits on their table and plays their games is better. The gaming dictionary lists that one as: fanboy.

 

Yeah. You're right. There are some ideas for weapons which haven't been explored. And have great reason to be implemented. A harpoon gun is one. The ragdol physics and otherwise are excellent in the game. Pinning someone to a wall or something sounds like a good time. And those flames, as i mentioned earlier. Flamethrower, then? Why are nearly identical guns a bad thing? Errrr.... Uuummmm... Because it defeats the purpose of putting in actual NEW guns, maybe...? The point of difference would be the sole reason in putting in new guns? Or anything new in this entire game, for that matter. Why was the Smuggler's Run DLC created? Because they like releasing the same old sh*t? Or they like actually adding to the game's content so they thought: "Hey, we'll finally add an aerial-based DLC!" "Huzzah!". I think Rockstar would see their playerbase decline a while ago if all they ever released were new supercars and some "new" guns that add no gameplay whatsoever - or anything for that matter - to this game. I think the "Lack O Logic Meter" is ticking in the red right about now.

 

Wait, nevermind... It was just about halfway through in the orange. Nnnnnnow it is. Battlefield 4? Are you doing this on purpose or did you seriously not read anything i wrote earlier. You're literally using the exact same examples of other games i used to rationalize the problem and how other games which actually have polished gunplay have the opposite of GTAs problem with guns; great guns. Last time i checked, a Galil and an AK in Counter-Strike perform incredibly different. Or even a Galil and a FAMAS. Which are very, VERY close in terms of stats. And end up being in the same Buy Menu tier in the Assault Rifle category for Ts and CTs respectively. The results, gameplay feel, and everything that make the gunplay what it is and give it its pedigree are in the design, dude... What else? Even in Battlefield. And that's a game where you have exponentially more weapons to choose from.

 

So... Hold on. I'm confused. The difference in the weapons in-game are all superficial? But you quite literally admitted they were all the same and that they're basically all garbage? Ok. Makes sense. Yeah. I mean.. i also have favourites. I like the Pistol .50 on one of my characters. And i like the combat pistol on my other character. I also like the Sawed Off on one character and the regular Pump on the other. What's your point? Does it absolve the game design of how poorly it handled the guns? I mean. I can't ignore guns because they're in the game, and you have to use them in order to play the game. Naturally, i'm going to have preferences. But what does that have to do with anything here?

 


D.B. Cooper
  • D.B. Cooper

    Seems like it's my turn again

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia

#1208

Posted 4 days ago

 

Between the fact that guns can be unique depending on how stable the gun is and how its recoil acts + the fact we still don't have a single lever gun ingame I think there's still room for more additions. Especially considering how ludicrously easy it is to add them, there's really no excuse.

(a whole lot of sh*t)

Why do you give so much of a sh*t if there are or aren't new guns added though? Maybe you don't care about them but I and people like me enjoy having new weapons. You say nobody actually uses the new weapons but finally having the  vz 61 Skorpion ingame was one of the highlights of the entire Bikers update for me, as was the double-barrel in Lowriders.  The weapon wheel argument is essentially irrelevant after E&OC adding the weapons locker that lets you only keep guns you want to own. 

 

Nobody says that 'oh, the clothes don't realistically make any difference to the gameplay so stop adding clothes' so why do you insist on saying it about guns? If you don't want any more guns .... don't buy them. Nobody's forcing your hand. 

  • Criminal-Fox likes this

Matadorro
  • Matadorro

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2015
  • None

#1209

Posted 4 days ago Edited by Matadorro, 4 days ago.

 

 

Seriously, though. People need to have SOME level of analytical skills. It's a problem with people who play games. You don't have to be a designer like i am. But... come on. Just stop and think for a second. Take in what you're experiencing in-game. Analyze. And i don't want to bash the idea of new guns or sh*t on anyone's ambitions of new weaponry. Just pointing out that it isn't the smartest thing in this game.

 

 

We saw your analytical skills before and they lead you to suggesting the sh*ttiest possible idea for an update to this game lmao. Why naval DLC is a terrible idea I already described. And don't you tell me how new guns in this game are a bad idea because they're already the same. First of all, like I said, there are many possible weapon mechanics and statistics that haven't been tried out yet. Pistol with uncapped RoF. An SMG with really high RoF (all we have at the moment shoot pretty slowly). The already mentioned lever action. A burst fire weapon. And EVEN if we were to get guns that are barely any different from the existing ones, why do you see that as a bad thing? Look at Battlefield 4 or nearly every modern military shooter and you'll see that in those games half of the guns in their respective categories are pretty much the god damn same with very negligible stat differences. Because at the end of the day they're mostly different looking variant of the same weapon with minor differences in recoil, RoF and damage. It wouldn't make much difference from how it is now if Battlefield 4 had only 4 assault rifles, 4 SMGs, 3 pistols, 3 shotguns, 3 sniper rifles and 2 DMRs. Sure, GTA pushed the casualism further with weapons having little to no recoil, but it doesn't mean you can't find your favourite. The reality is, people just want different stuff to choose from. To pick their favourites based not just on which gun suits their playstyle the most, but also have the one they like to look at the most. Gunporn, pal, does that term tell you something?

 


 

 

 

 

 

Holy sh*t... The amount of contradictions, here. Not to mention lack of logic that would probably make even Carl Sagan get brain cancer. Alright, it's not like i'm on a timer or anything, thankfully. Phew.

 

Right off the bat i'm going to take a wild guess and assume you're very, very young. You sound like a typical person who's been offended (seriously?) by your affection towards a game. In this case... err... specifically guns in a game? Ok. Then again, coming from a dude who used the word "casualism" it shouldn't come as a surprise. Apparently i came up with one of the sh*ttiest ideas for DLC in the game. That got liked by multiple people. Odd. I don't remember people saying anything bad about it either. Even had a couple posts later AND before after skimming through the thread after posting the idea, talking about a water/underwater based DLC. I don't post on IGN anymore because i simply have no reason to discuss anything with children who have a mental illness and affection towards which plastic box that sits on their table and plays their games is better. The gaming dictionary lists that one as: fanboy.

 

Yeah. You're right. There are some ideas for weapons which haven't been explored. And have great reason to be implemented. A harpoon gun is one. The ragdol physics and otherwise are excellent in the game. Pinning someone to a wall or something sounds like a good time. And those flames, as i mentioned earlier. Flamethrower, then? Why are nearly identical guns a bad thing? Errrr.... Uuummmm... Because it defeats the purpose of putting in actual NEW guns, maybe...? The point of difference would be the sole reason in putting in new guns? Or anything new in this entire game, for that matter. Why was the Smuggler's Run DLC created? Because they like releasing the same old sh*t? Or they like actually adding to the game's content so they thought: "Hey, we'll finally add an aerial-based DLC!" "Huzzah!". I think Rockstar would see their playerbase decline a while ago if all they ever released were new supercars and some "new" guns that add no gameplay whatsoever - or anything for that matter - to this game. I think the "Lack O Logic Meter" is ticking in the red right about now.

 

Wait, nevermind... It was just about halfway through in the orange. Nnnnnnow it is. Battlefield 4? Are you doing this on purpose or did you seriously not read anything i wrote earlier. You're literally using the exact same examples of other games i used to rationalize the problem and how other games which actually have polished gunplay have the opposite of GTAs problem with guns; great guns. Last time i checked, a Galil and an AK in Counter-Strike perform incredibly different. Or even a Galil and a FAMAS. Which are very, VERY close in terms of stats. And end up being in the same Buy Menu tier in the Assault Rifle category for Ts and CTs respectively. The results, gameplay feel, and everything that make the gunplay what it is and give it its pedigree are in the design, dude... What else? Even in Battlefield. And that's a game where you have exponentially more weapons to choose from.

 

So... Hold on. I'm confused. The difference in the weapons in-game are all superficial? But you quite literally admitted they were all the same and that they're basically all garbage? Ok. Makes sense. Yeah. I mean.. i also have favourites. I like the Pistol .50 on one of my characters. And i like the combat pistol on my other character. I also like the Sawed Off on one character and the regular Pump on the other. What's your point? Does it absolve the game design of how poorly it handled the guns? I mean. I can't ignore guns because they're in the game, and you have to use them in order to play the game. Naturally, i'm going to have preferences. But what does that have to do with anything here?

 

 

 

 

I like the assumptions about age or personality based on one post. Look pal, I like to throw a good ol' sh*t or f*ck every now and then if it fits the context of my statement, but don't take it so personally. Especially since it really seems like you're trying to make it personal by focusing on me instead of the topic at hand. And in case you're curious, while I am young (although the term "young" isn't really defined in specific numbers anywhere, so it's kinda "everyone has their personal viewpoint" kind of thing), I can tell you I am nowhere near as young as you probably think.

22

 

Yeah, you came up with a terrible DLC idea and the fact that there were some people who liked it doesn't change it. You talk about analytical skills yet you completely ignore my points on why a naval or sports update have no chance of being remotely good. Especially since, as I also mentioned that already, it's very easy to make something sound good on paper, just look at all the hype behind Casino and Bahama Mamas. I just took my analytical skills, compared your ideas to already existing features in the game (Nuclear Waste collecting and 3x Dhingy biker business sales), figured what kind of features would have to be made from scratch for such update and tried to imagine it all in game and came to a conclusion that in reality your ideas weren't thoroughly thought through. You didn't address any of those things and instead focused on me using words you found aggressive or something (also I have absolutely 0 idea why you brought up IGN and console fanboys, do they have anything to do at all with the topic?).

 

Alright, weapons. I can tell you right now that harpoon gun is very unlikely. Too much hassle for a weapon with very little use in actual combat. Unless they added some new special enemies like armored juggernauts that can take alot more punishment, but could be vulnerable to the aforementioned harpoon gun. That could in general bring some variety to PvE combat in GTA Online, so personally I'm down for it. Althtough pinning people to walls would not happen, I can tell you that already. Flamethrower, eh, I wouldn't mind, though they would have to create a whole new set of particle effects for it + I doubt it would be very effective compared to a simple shotgun, especially considering how useless molotovs are already.

 

And there you go again with identical guns being bad. Interestingly, the primary reason why I said "NEARLY every modern military shooter" was because I remembered Counter-Strike exists. Battlefield 4 is a whole another thing though. You defend that game and it's weapon selection even though it could, by your very own logic, do just as well with half of the weapons cut. What is the difference between M416 and ARX160? Or 870 MCS and SPAS-12? Or how about FAMAS vs AEK-971? JNG-90 vs FY-JS? SCAR-H vs Bulldog? Or large majority of pistols? No, nothing? Well, EEEK, there's a contradiction. Plus you're wrong with saying that "playerbase would decline if all R* added was guns and supercars", though not in a way you may think. Yes, it would decline. But, you see, primo, they haven't added new guns since the Biker update (and I don't really count Gunrunning, since those guns are too similar to already existing ones in their looks, not only function), which was over a year ago. Secundo, NOBODY IS SAYING THAT WEAPONS SHOULD BE ROCKSTAR'S SOLE FOCUS. It's just nice to see when a new toy or two show up in a new update. And it's not even like every single update needs to include new weapons. Just have SOME consideration for the gunporn enthusiasts out there.

 

And please, for the love of God, don't be that kind of a little f*ggot that puts their words into someone else's mouth. I never said any of the guns are garbage. What I said was that I just don't see how it's a bad thing when they add more of them even if the new ones aren't very different from the already existing ones, and it's not really a good reason to get upset about for someone who doesn't need anymore guns. You said it yourself that you have your own different preferences, even though there's little difference between sawed-off and pump action. Why deny people opportunity to pick their favourites even further if they want? Besides, we have several people here wanting new guns and it's okay for you to criticize them for it, but when I criticize your DLC ideas, it's suddenly a bad thing? That's some hypocrisy my man.

 

Also I like how you started off by saying that my post is full of contradictions and the only one you "found" was criticizing things I never said.


RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Next DLC Thread Page 3000 Winner
    Best Ledby 2016
    Most Helpful 2016
    Quotable Notable Post of the Year 2016 ["sup"]
    Best Crew 2016 [The Daily Globe]
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2016
    Draw Contest Grand Prize 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Best General Topic 2015 [GTAForums Newbie Guide 2.0]
    Helpfulness Award

#1210

Posted 4 days ago

Please keep the toxic language to a minimum if you're in an argument...also, if we're veering off from wishlisting it's better you take it to PM instead of filling this thread with back and forth quotes ;)

Thanks!
  • Criminal-Fox likes this

Prenihility
  • Prenihility

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2017
  • None

#1211

Posted 4 days ago

 

 

Between the fact that guns can be unique depending on how stable the gun is and how its recoil acts + the fact we still don't have a single lever gun ingame I think there's still room for more additions. Especially considering how ludicrously easy it is to add them, there's really no excuse.

(a whole lot of sh*t)

Why do you give so much of a sh*t if there are or aren't new guns added though? Maybe you don't care about them but I and people like me enjoy having new weapons. You say nobody actually uses the new weapons but finally having the  vz 61 Skorpion ingame was one of the highlights of the entire Bikers update for me, as was the double-barrel in Lowriders.  The weapon wheel argument is essentially irrelevant after E&OC adding the weapons locker that lets you only keep guns you want to own. 

 

Nobody says that 'oh, the clothes don't realistically make any difference to the gameplay so stop adding clothes' so why do you insist on saying it about guns? If you don't want any more guns .... don't buy them. Nobody's forcing your hand. 

 

 

 

Charlie-Day-WTF.gif

 

Did i seriously just read this? Oh... man. Clothing is there because... um... you dress up your character? It's not supposed to make a difference in gameplay... ? Weapons are entirely functional... and they directly affect gameplay? If that's your thought process, then i suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise as to why you're for "new" weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, though. People need to have SOME level of analytical skills. It's a problem with people who play games. You don't have to be a designer like i am. But... come on. Just stop and think for a second. Take in what you're experiencing in-game. Analyze. And i don't want to bash the idea of new guns or sh*t on anyone's ambitions of new weaponry. Just pointing out that it isn't the smartest thing in this game.

 

 

We saw your analytical skills before and they lead you to suggesting the sh*ttiest possible idea for an update to this game lmao. Why naval DLC is a terrible idea I already described. And don't you tell me how new guns in this game are a bad idea because they're already the same. First of all, like I said, there are many possible weapon mechanics and statistics that haven't been tried out yet. Pistol with uncapped RoF. An SMG with really high RoF (all we have at the moment shoot pretty slowly). The already mentioned lever action. A burst fire weapon. And EVEN if we were to get guns that are barely any different from the existing ones, why do you see that as a bad thing? Look at Battlefield 4 or nearly every modern military shooter and you'll see that in those games half of the guns in their respective categories are pretty much the god damn same with very negligible stat differences. Because at the end of the day they're mostly different looking variant of the same weapon with minor differences in recoil, RoF and damage. It wouldn't make much difference from how it is now if Battlefield 4 had only 4 assault rifles, 4 SMGs, 3 pistols, 3 shotguns, 3 sniper rifles and 2 DMRs. Sure, GTA pushed the casualism further with weapons having little to no recoil, but it doesn't mean you can't find your favourite. The reality is, people just want different stuff to choose from. To pick their favourites based not just on which gun suits their playstyle the most, but also have the one they like to look at the most. Gunporn, pal, does that term tell you something?

 


 

 

 

 

 

Holy sh*t... The amount of contradictions, here. Not to mention lack of logic that would probably make even Carl Sagan get brain cancer. Alright, it's not like i'm on a timer or anything, thankfully. Phew.

 

Right off the bat i'm going to take a wild guess and assume you're very, very young. You sound like a typical person who's been offended (seriously?) by your affection towards a game. In this case... err... specifically guns in a game? Ok. Then again, coming from a dude who used the word "casualism" it shouldn't come as a surprise. Apparently i came up with one of the sh*ttiest ideas for DLC in the game. That got liked by multiple people. Odd. I don't remember people saying anything bad about it either. Even had a couple posts later AND before after skimming through the thread after posting the idea, talking about a water/underwater based DLC. I don't post on IGN anymore because i simply have no reason to discuss anything with children who have a mental illness and affection towards which plastic box that sits on their table and plays their games is better. The gaming dictionary lists that one as: fanboy.

 

Yeah. You're right. There are some ideas for weapons which haven't been explored. And have great reason to be implemented. A harpoon gun is one. The ragdol physics and otherwise are excellent in the game. Pinning someone to a wall or something sounds like a good time. And those flames, as i mentioned earlier. Flamethrower, then? Why are nearly identical guns a bad thing? Errrr.... Uuummmm... Because it defeats the purpose of putting in actual NEW guns, maybe...? The point of difference would be the sole reason in putting in new guns? Or anything new in this entire game, for that matter. Why was the Smuggler's Run DLC created? Because they like releasing the same old sh*t? Or they like actually adding to the game's content so they thought: "Hey, we'll finally add an aerial-based DLC!" "Huzzah!". I think Rockstar would see their playerbase decline a while ago if all they ever released were new supercars and some "new" guns that add no gameplay whatsoever - or anything for that matter - to this game. I think the "Lack O Logic Meter" is ticking in the red right about now.

 

Wait, nevermind... It was just about halfway through in the orange. Nnnnnnow it is. Battlefield 4? Are you doing this on purpose or did you seriously not read anything i wrote earlier. You're literally using the exact same examples of other games i used to rationalize the problem and how other games which actually have polished gunplay have the opposite of GTAs problem with guns; great guns. Last time i checked, a Galil and an AK in Counter-Strike perform incredibly different. Or even a Galil and a FAMAS. Which are very, VERY close in terms of stats. And end up being in the same Buy Menu tier in the Assault Rifle category for Ts and CTs respectively. The results, gameplay feel, and everything that make the gunplay what it is and give it its pedigree are in the design, dude... What else? Even in Battlefield. And that's a game where you have exponentially more weapons to choose from.

 

So... Hold on. I'm confused. The difference in the weapons in-game are all superficial? But you quite literally admitted they were all the same and that they're basically all garbage? Ok. Makes sense. Yeah. I mean.. i also have favourites. I like the Pistol .50 on one of my characters. And i like the combat pistol on my other character. I also like the Sawed Off on one character and the regular Pump on the other. What's your point? Does it absolve the game design of how poorly it handled the guns? I mean. I can't ignore guns because they're in the game, and you have to use them in order to play the game. Naturally, i'm going to have preferences. But what does that have to do with anything here?

 

 

 

 

I like the assumptions about age or personality based on one post. Look pal, I like to throw a good ol' sh*t or f*ck every now and then if it fits the context of my statement, but don't take it so personally. Especially since it really seems like you're trying to make it personal by focusing on me instead of the topic at hand. And in case you're curious, while I am young (although the term "young" isn't really defined in specific numbers anywhere, so it's kinda "everyone has their personal viewpoint" kind of thing), I can tell you I am nowhere near as young as you probably think.

22

 

Yeah, you came up with a terrible DLC idea and the fact that there were some people who liked it doesn't change it. You talk about analytical skills yet you completely ignore my points on why a naval or sports update have no chance of being remotely good. Especially since, as I also mentioned that already, it's very easy to make something sound good on paper, just look at all the hype behind Casino and Bahama Mamas. I just took my analytical skills, compared your ideas to already existing features in the game (Nuclear Waste collecting and 3x Dhingy biker business sales), figured what kind of features would have to be made from scratch for such update and tried to imagine it all in game and came to a conclusion that in reality your ideas weren't thoroughly thought through. You didn't address any of those things and instead focused on me using words you found aggressive or something (also I have absolutely 0 idea why you brought up IGN and console fanboys, do they have anything to do at all with the topic?).

 

Alright, weapons. I can tell you right now that harpoon gun is very unlikely. Too much hassle for a weapon with very little use in actual combat. Unless they added some new special enemies like armored juggernauts that can take alot more punishment, but could be vulnerable to the aforementioned harpoon gun. That could in general bring some variety to PvE combat in GTA Online, so personally I'm down for it. Althtough pinning people to walls would not happen, I can tell you that already. Flamethrower, eh, I wouldn't mind, though they would have to create a whole new set of particle effects for it + I doubt it would be very effective compared to a simple shotgun, especially considering how useless molotovs are already.

 

And there you go again with identical guns being bad. Interestingly, the primary reason why I said "NEARLY every modern military shooter" was because I remembered Counter-Strike exists. Battlefield 4 is a whole another thing though. You defend that game and it's weapon selection even though it could, by your very own logic, do just as well with half of the weapons cut. What is the difference between M416 and ARX160? Or 870 MCS and SPAS-12? Or how about FAMAS vs AEK-971? JNG-90 vs FY-JS? SCAR-H vs Bulldog? Or large majority of pistols? No, nothing? Well, EEEK, there's a contradiction. Plus you're wrong with saying that "playerbase would decline if all R* added was guns and supercars", though not in a way you may think. Yes, it would decline. But, you see, primo, they haven't added new guns since the Biker update (and I don't really count Gunrunning, since those guns are too similar to already existing ones in their looks, not only function), which was over a year ago. Secundo, NOBODY IS SAYING THAT WEAPONS SHOULD BE ROCKSTAR'S SOLE FOCUS. It's just nice to see when a new toy or two show up in a new update. And it's not even like every single update needs to include new weapons. Just have SOME consideration for the gunporn enthusiasts out there.

 

And please, for the love of God, don't be that kind of a little f*ggot that puts their words into someone else's mouth. I never said any of the guns are garbage. What I said was that I just don't see how it's a bad thing when they add more of them even if the new ones aren't very different from the already existing ones, and it's not really a good reason to get upset about for someone who doesn't need anymore guns. You said it yourself that you have your own different preferences, even though there's little difference between sawed-off and pump action. Why deny people opportunity to pick their favourites even further if they want? Besides, we have several people here wanting new guns and it's okay for you to criticize them for it, but when I criticize your DLC ideas, it's suddenly a bad thing? That's some hypocrisy my man.

 

Also I like how you started off by saying that my post is full of contradictions and the only one you "found" was criticizing things I never said.

 

 

 

I didn't take anything personally... You're the one who's showing affection for next to useless (especially at this point) additions to the game. Actually, i've been more or less 100% focused on the topic at hand. It's you who's showing blind affection for said topic at hand - more GUNZ - and totally being baseless on how the idea of new weapons is actually great after which i basically dissected/ripped out the guts of said idea and showed them to you/everyone. I completely and totally rationalized what/why i said this. In pretty great detail. Posts 1179 and again at post 1204.

 

I came up with a terrible DLC idea. Ford is so much better than Chevy. Dawt, dawt, dawt... You see how hilarious it is to make a baseless argument? Especially when it does NOTHING and NOTHING is rationalized after making a baseless statement? All it does it absolve you of ANY and ALL credibility. Oh and i didn't see your post at the time. I went back and read it. I was really hoping to see something insightful. But.. err. In the end all i read was basically "The DLC would be the sh*ttiest DLC ever because..." You literally said "it would just turn out boring". Seriously, dude? Seriously? Other than using words like "conceptualized" and pinpointing certain things such as the Nuclear Waste Disposal mission from SINGLEPLAYER - which i have NO IDEA how that fits into entirely new content which would differ greatly from said Singleplayer content - you're literally just using baseless statements. I found another great one, too. I think this one's my favourite so far. "On top of that, any watercraft would be practically useless outside of any activities from this update because right now there's no point at all in going out to sea unless you wanna visit your yacht". So any marine vehicles would be useless because so far in the game, there's no reason to go out to sea (according to you) other than the yacht which exists now. Great stuff, right there. Even if there was no yacht - or anything for that matter - what does that have to do with what they can add into the game through Downloadable Content which is created and acquired after the game has been released?

 

Oh, scratch that. This one's great, too: Wingsuits are never gonna happen, the map is too small/not vertical enough for them to work, meaning they would barely have any use. The only way it could work would be if we were to get a grappling hook as well, but then it would have gotten beyond ridiculous and would also be ripping off other games (Just cause 3 says hi).

 

So... the reason wingsuits wouldn't ever happen is the map is too small/not vertical enough? A grappling hook would be the only way to make it work... 'Because, reasons and stuff' i guess. And now you're bringing Just Cause as a comparison. Just Cause says hi? Wingsuits were conceived in the game Just Cause? You mean... real life says hi?

 

Your ideas for sports themed update seem either boring, unneeded or very far-fetched as well to be honest.

Baseless. Statement. Of the year.

 

Althtough pinning people to walls would not happen, I can tell you that already.

Hold on. Here's another.

 

judges-score-cards_pan_20134.jpg

 

Oh and the reason why i pointed out IGN was literally in the same sentence. Guess you missed that one. Oh, the Harpoon gun is unlikely, too? Ok. 

 

Aaaaand, there you go again with contradictions again. You're pulling at straws at this point. You can't actually rationalize why "new" guns are great, but you're trying. I explained in fully why "new" guns actually aren't new guns. And why they're by far one of the most - if not the most - disingenuous part of the entire game. And then you go and openly admit that "yeah, they...th.. they aren't actually any different, pretty much." Sick.

 

Sheesh, this is tiring, almost. I think i'm done.


Crokey
  • Crokey

    Builders Like Erections

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2003
  • Belize
  • Best Official Gang 2016 [Zaibatsu]
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2016
    Worst Tits 2016
    Worst Tits 2015
    Worst Tits 2014
    Best Poster [Sports] 2016
    Best Poster [Sports] 2015
    Best Poster [Sports] 2014
    Last ever poster in a public area on the old forum
    Best Llama 2016
    14K Doggo/Catto-Chop Winner 2017

#1212

Posted 4 days ago

Please keep the toxic language to a minimum if you're in an argument...also, if we're veering off from wishlisting it's better you take it to PM instead of filling this thread with back and forth quotes ;)

Thanks!

f7FdEdG.jpg

 

Please keep this to the topic at hand, and if your issues are becoming personal, then please use the PM facility to resolve your differences and don't fill up this topic with personal exchanges.

 

... I mean it makes the place look ugly and ruins Real Estate prices.

  • Criminal-Fox and 70mustangboss429 like this

Matadorro
  • Matadorro

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2015
  • None

#1213

Posted 4 days ago Edited by Matadorro, 4 days ago.

I didn't take anything personally... You're the one who's showing affection for next to useless (especially at this point) additions to the game. Actually, i've been more or less 100% focused on the topic at hand. It's you who's showing blind affection for said topic at hand - more GUNZ - and totally being baseless on how the idea of new weapons is actually great after which i basically dissected/ripped out the guts of said idea and showed them to you/everyone. I completely and totally rationalized what/why i said this. In pretty great detail. Posts 1179 and again at post 1204.

 

I came up with a terrible DLC idea. Ford is so much better than Chevy. Dawt, dawt, dawt... You see how hilarious it is to make a baseless argument? Especially when it does NOTHING and NOTHING is rationalized after making a baseless statement? All it does it absolve you of ANY and ALL credibility. Oh and i didn't see your post at the time. I went back and read it. I was really hoping to see something insightful. But.. err. In the end all i read was basically "The DLC would be the sh*ttiest DLC ever because..." You literally said "it would just turn out boring". Seriously, dude? Seriously? Other than using words like "conceptualized" and pinpointing certain things such as the Nuclear Waste Disposal mission from SINGLEPLAYER - which i have NO IDEA how that fits into entirely new content which would differ greatly from said Singleplayer content - you're literally just using baseless statements. I found another great one, too. I think this one's my favourite so far. "On top of that, any watercraft would be practically useless outside of any activities from this update because right now there's no point at all in going out to sea unless you wanna visit your yacht". So any marine vehicles would be useless because so far in the game, there's no reason to go out to sea (according to you) other than the yacht which exists now. Great stuff, right there. Even if there was no yacht - or anything for that matter - what does that have to do with what they can add into the game through Downloadable Content which is created and acquired after the game has been released?

 

Oh, scratch that. This one's great, too: Wingsuits are never gonna happen, the map is too small/not vertical enough for them to work, meaning they would barely have any use. The only way it could work would be if we were to get a grappling hook as well, but then it would have gotten beyond ridiculous and would also be ripping off other games (Just cause 3 says hi).

 

So... the reason wingsuits wouldn't ever happen is the map is too small/not vertical enough? A grappling hook would be the only way to make it work... 'Because, reasons and stuff' i guess. And now you're bringing Just Cause as a comparison. Just Cause says hi? Wingsuits were conceived in the game Just Cause? You mean... real life says hi?

 

Your ideas for sports themed update seem either boring, unneeded or very far-fetched as well to be honest.

Baseless. Statement. Of the year.

 

Althtough pinning people to walls would not happen, I can tell you that already.

Hold on. Here's another.

 

Oh and the reason why i pointed out IGN was literally in the same sentence. Guess you missed that one. Oh, the Harpoon gun is unlikely, too? Ok. 

 

Aaaaand, there you go again with contradictions again. You're pulling at straws at this point. You can't actually rationalize why "new" guns are great, but you're trying. I explained in fully why "new" guns actually aren't new guns. And why they're by far one of the most - if not the most - disingenuous part of the entire game. And then you go and openly admit that "yeah, they...th.. they aren't actually any different, pretty much." Sick.

 

Sheesh, this is tiring, almost. I think i'm done.

 

 

Taking things personally =/= showing affection for whatever kind of additions to the game. You're the one who went after me personally instead of my ideas or arguments.

This conversation clearly is going nowhere, since you ignored nearly all of my points on both the topic of your DLC ideas and the topic of weapons, pretended that your own contradictions (of which there were multiple) never existed. Buuuuuut, I clearly have too much time on my disposal, so what the hell lmao.

 

I like how you first quote my argument and a few words of your own later turn it into "because reasons" - I explained clearly why wingsuits aren't gonna be a thing - map is simply not adapted to it, needs more verticality and more spots to jump off from. Apart from very specific points on the map (Chilliad, large buildings and maybe Vinewood Hills, all of which you have to climb first), there would be no place to really take advantage of them. For a feature like this to work the map would have to be designed around it from the beginning. Plus you haven't addressed how ridiculous it would be to have people flying around like supermen in this gangster themed game - Oppressor was already pushing things. Maybe we should draw the line somewhere, else Online will lose any bits of it's originality completely and just start being a copycat of Just Cause and Saints Row - to which it's already dangerously close.

 

Yes, you came up with a terrible DLC idea. I don't hate you for it, despite the harsh words I used to criticize it, I'm just willing to point out why it's not gonna be interesting. There are plenty of ideas that sound good on paper. Yet again I bring up the neverending hype for the Casino and Bahama Mamas club. Do you see yourself visiting such places regularly if they became a thing or would you rather go experience some action or have a race instead? Same deal is with Naval and Sports DLC. GTA is just not made for such activities. Look at tennis and golf. They're trifles. Nobody plays them. How popular would a sports DLC with NEW GODDAMN BEVERAGE BRANDS (seriously, you hit the jackpot with this one lmao) really be? How exciting do you think it would be, looking at currently existing features of the same theme? Are they worth building upon? Not to me they're not, when we can have something more action packed instead. You want sports, leave it to sports games, not an over the top action game about criminals. Similar deal with naval DLC. The reason why I made the comparison to Nuclear Disposal mission and Dhingy sale was because it was the closest we could get to an idea for how your concept would look like in reality. If I saw a fanmade concept for aerial DLC before Smuggler's Run, I would have done the same thing: analyse what we have at the moment, what new things could be created, thought wheter the theme and gameplay is worth expanding upon and came up with a conclusion wheter the idea is good for not. And for an aerial DLC, I can tell you that I would sure as hell be enthusiastic - and with a good reason, considering how good Smuggler's Run turned out (at least to me). However apart from the idea itself, you gotta look at it from a developer's perspective. Smuggler's Run had an easier time - Rockstar already had a well working flight model as well as combat mechanics and AI that could both pilot aircraft and utilize it in combat, so all they had to do is add some variety to the aircraft, add some additional cool features like bombs and come up with a business that would utilize all of it. I said it already and it was one of many things that you just ignored because it was convenient for your arguments. I guess I'll repeat myself - Naval DLC would be too much of a hassle. There is no underwater combat - it would have to be made from scratch. AI can drive boats, sure, but that's about it. The only combat they can do is drive-by. So a ton of teaching AI to adapt it to contents of your update would be necessary. I compared the concept to Nuclear Disposal and Bikers Dhingy sale to show that the mechanics built around naval exploration aren't suited to action in their current state. The seas are plain boring to navigate through. Of course, everyone has their own tastes and I'm sure there are some people out there who do enjoy exploring the dephts of the sea, but these people are a very, VERY small percentage or the entire GTA Online community and making a DLC that requires so much work just for those 7 people would be, ehhhh, not really worth it if you ask me. Bikers update was much easier to create, it fitted the current structure of Online, didn't require any significant overhauls in base game mechanics and actually had a long time backing from bikers community. What you're proposing is simply too much work for something that has too little chance of working out. Of course, I may be completely wrong and we may see an insanely cool, fun and adrenaline rushing naval DLC that will blow me out of the water (hehe) in the future. But I highly doubt that will happen.

 

Weapons, that's a short one. We both agree that they're for the most part identical and any differences are mainly in terms of looks. If you don't wanna bother with defending Battlefield 4 anymore, go ahead. I think when I started comparing specific, near identical weapons in that game I exposed your "it's ok then Battlefield does it" double standards. Besides, this is GTA we're talking about. So, to put things short:

Everyone BUT YOU seems to want new weapons in GTA Online. I mean you can try to persuade us by saying that it's pointless, because they're purely cosmetic changes, but this doesn't seem to worry anyone. People don't want new weapons per se. People want old weapons with different looks. You may think it's idiotic, because it brings their role down to cosmetic "BUT WHO MAKES THE PRETTIEST NOISE?" (cookie for those who get the reference) just like clothing, and you'd be right, it very much would, in fact I'd say it already happened and everyone just wants more. Well, we all find different things idiotic. And of course it's not that we don't want weapons that work in whole new ways too, it's just that we don't mind reskinning old ones with negligible stat changes. Either way, you're in the minority here.

 

 

Please keep the toxic language to a minimum if you're in an argument...also, if we're veering off from wishlisting it's better you take it to PM instead of filling this thread with back and forth quotes ;)

Thanks!

 

You have a point, boss, but nonetheless we're discussing DLC ideas and haven't thrown anything overly "heavy", so I think so far we both have been more or less law abiding citizens. Note that I used the term "little f*ggot" in context of "don't be that type of guy" and not directly at the recipient, but if it's still not okay, I'll avoid it in the future. Thanks.


D.B. Cooper
  • D.B. Cooper

    Seems like it's my turn again

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia

#1214

Posted 3 days ago

Did i seriously just read this? Oh... man. Clothing is there because... um... you dress up your character? It's not supposed to make a difference in gameplay... ? Weapons are entirely functional... and they directly affect gameplay? If that's your thought process, then i suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise as to why you're for "new" weapons.

But we literally already established ways that guns could differ from existing ones ingame, you just ignored it because it didn't align with what you believe. Driving and shooting are literally the two pillars of the entire series. There's no real argument as to why we should just stop getting guns. No, 'GTA isn't as in depth in how weapons act as (insert game here) isn't one.


Snoopbr
  • Snoopbr

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2016
  • None

#1215

Posted 3 days ago

Hunter available!

  • Alvarez and Mistermilan07 like this

jezpar
  • jezpar

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2014
  • Denmark

#1216

Posted 3 days ago

Cops n crooks
  • Duckdude001 likes this

xXxKAMIKAZExXx
  • xXxKAMIKAZExXx

    Stunt Pilot

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2016
  • England

#1217

Posted A day ago

More aircraft and watercraft.

Vortex hovercraft, Seaking amphibious helicopter, Sparrow bug-out attack chopper, Launch weaponised patrol boat, Raindance helicopter with civilian, service and military modifications...please Rockstar :)
  • Duckdude001 likes this

Duckdude001
  • Duckdude001

    Big fanatic of trucks/offroaders and military vehicles.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2016
  • Canada
  • Next DLC Thread Page 3000 Winner

#1218

Posted A day ago

More aircraft and watercraft.

Vortex hovercraft, Seaking amphibious helicopter, Sparrow bug-out attack chopper, Launch weaponised patrol boat, Raindance helicopter with civilian, service and military modifications...please Rockstar :)

more amphibious ground, air and sea vehicles too! Oh and controllable railway vehicles (subway and train.)
  • xXxKAMIKAZExXx likes this

xXxKAMIKAZExXx
  • xXxKAMIKAZExXx

    Stunt Pilot

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2016
  • England

#1219

Posted A day ago

More aircraft and watercraft.

Vortex hovercraft, Seaking amphibious helicopter, Sparrow bug-out attack chopper, Launch weaponised patrol boat, Raindance helicopter with civilian, service and military modifications...please Rockstar :)

more amphibious ground, air and sea vehicles too! Oh and controllable railway vehicles (subway and train.)

Oh yeah! I miss freight missions and derailing trains.

HonorableMan
  • HonorableMan

    Praetor

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2017
  • United-States

#1220

Posted A day ago

50s cars, more revolvers, and something forcing CEO orgs and MCs to work with each other for mutual profit.

  • xXxKAMIKAZExXx likes this

Prenihility
  • Prenihility

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2017
  • None

#1221

Posted 22 hours ago

something forcing CEO orgs and MCs to work with each other for mutual profit.

 

There's an idea. On the right track. People can murder each other if they want to. But agreeing to work together. Even if it's the entire session, why not? 


gta111
  • gta111

    LTA Rail T/O

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2008
  • None

#1222

Posted 22 hours ago

3d era Jester, Zr350, Euros, and Club

Number6withExtraDip
  • Number6withExtraDip

    Cluckin Bell Worker of the Decade

  • New Members
  • Joined: 16 hours ago
  • Brazil

#1223

Posted 15 hours ago

Something cool i would like to see is an Gang DLC,not like Bikers or lowriders,but one that pays an homage to GTA SA.

with you having to choose between the Groove street,Ballas and Vagos.

as you`re going you could unlock some deals (Drugs,weapons and others) and some main missions depending on your gang.

other one i would like is an War game DLC,where the main focus would be on a new gamemode,WarZone.

where you would or team up with other players or battle all alone to take over the area.

and then it should add new Weapons (Like Wired Bat,some new rifles and guns,maybe an crowbar?) some new cars,war vehicles (Obvious) and certainly an Bomb-Dropping Fighter jet.


Matadorro
  • Matadorro

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2015
  • None

#1224

Posted 10 hours ago Edited by Matadorro, 10 hours ago.

Something cool i would like to see is an Gang DLC,not like Bikers or lowriders,but one that pays an homage to GTA SA.

with you having to choose between the Groove street,Ballas and Vagos.

as you`re going you could unlock some deals (Drugs,weapons and others) and some main missions depending on your gang.

other one i would like is an War game DLC,where the main focus would be on a new gamemode,WarZone.

where you would or team up with other players or battle all alone to take over the area.

and then it should add new Weapons (Like Wired Bat,some new rifles and guns,maybe an crowbar?) some new cars,war vehicles (Obvious) and certainly an Bomb-Dropping Fighter jet.

 

Gang DLC is not gonna be a thing, since story-wise GTA Online Protagonist is already tied to Families through Lamar and apart from one gang attack in freemode, all other activities - gang attacks/missions/Lowrider campaign/heists, various missions for all kinds of businesses all pit the player against The Vagos, Ballas and some others, but never Families for that very reason. (also worth noting is that GSF in GTA V is called just Families and Grove street itself is controlled by the Ballas).

War/military stuff was already explored in Gunrunning, so I doubt they'll come back to it instead of exploring new themes.

Also we already have a crowbar in the game.


Matadorro
  • Matadorro

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2015
  • None

#1225

Posted 9 hours ago

something forcing CEO orgs and MCs to work with each other for mutual profit.

 

I'm really liking this one, not sure how it could work though, they would add some extra incentive to work as an associate, otherwise that "Organisation coop" would often come down to two players running solo organisations with no associates. Nonetheless the base idea sounds really cool.


HonorableMan
  • HonorableMan

    Praetor

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2017
  • United-States

#1226

Posted 6 hours ago

How it would work is: it's exactly the same as it is now. Except MC businesses have the option, when delivering their product, to offer to sell it to a CEO in session. They make more money that way- not by too much, but enough to make it worthwhile. Also, the missions will be easier, because they will have CEO backup along with their MC. The CEO will get a message, like the Special Item crates, saying they have an opportunity available. Like special cargo, they will have to pay for it. They collect from the MC dropoffs, and bring product to cargo warehouses. From there, they can sell it as special cargo, where it is worth a great deal more. Ideally, the MC would get paid normal amounts upon delivery, with a bonus if the CEO org gets all the product back to their warehouse. This ensures they will try to help the CEO succeed.

This would make MCs slightly more profitable, and far more attractive. Right now they're okay. You've got a very low initial investment to start an MC, and supplies are free with effort. If you have an incentive for other players in the session to help keep you alive, your margins will go way up. For CEOs, it maintains the risk-reward thing they've got going on so far. You make more money, but your margins are much lower, especially at the beginning. This will be attractive for them because they have got cover now, and instead of buying crates one by one, they get a huge lump of them.

So what we would see, hopefully, is instead of people playing as both, switching back and forth, people concentrating their efforts on one type of organization. Generally low levels on MCs, graduating to CEO once they begin making real money. Then we would get opportunities to make use of all the great militarized vehicles to protect deliveries, because a lot of them require two people. You've got a lot more people involved, and a lot more riding in it for all of them. This would, hopefully, not involve delivery vehicles, instead giving the players the product and letting them use whatever they want.

To link MC back to CEO is a bit more difficult. Perhaps I/E warehouses, is what I've been thinking. You steal cars, and then an option for delivery is to offer to cooperate. Cars are taken to a neutral location, where the MC then has to protect them as they are taken to their final destination, perhaps a ship offshore. CEO is paid normal money for exporting to neutral destination, and a large bonus if they help protect. MC gets paid good money for their role as hired bodyguards.

You can extend this to gunrunning and airfreight as well, in pretty similar ways. I think it would be a good change, one that wouldn't be super hard to implement, as you still keep all prior options, and sales to NPCs are still the standard mode. Just another button, and a text message, plus some go here deliver things missions. This way, you force players to cooperate. You force them to maybe talk to each other, to not just shoot on sight, and GTA Online is best when you've got a bunch of people working together. Imagine using your Pegasus and hangar and militarized vehicles directly for delivery, with up to twelve people involved. Imagine actually using that Miljet that never gets any love to shuttle a bunch of mutually involved players from Sandy Shores to a warehouse in the city. Imagine a fleet of cargobobs taking I/E cars to the Alamo Sea, where eight guys on bikes wait to escort the vehicles to Paleto Cove. Imagine some griefer with a Lazer coming onto your tail as a CEO, when you're trying desperately to get your newly bought cocaine to your Warehouse, and then seeing the jet blasted off you by a friendly MC with anti-aircraft weapons.

It can be done.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users