Jump to content

alexalex303

Member
  • Posts

    2,718
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

alexalex303 last won the day on January 1

alexalex303 had the most liked content!

Reputation

3,662 Excellent

About alexalex303

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

10,611 profile views
  1. I'd like to bring attention to a very common misconception in this thread, which is to call anything that is inconvenient to you "unrealistic". A Detective or a Gang Officer getting you out of the car because he suspects that you might have weapons is inconvenient to you. It is not unrealistic. A Detective or a Gang Officer pulling you over for a minor traffic violation in order to try to escalate into an arrest is inconvenient to you. It is not unrealistic. In terms of getting you out of the car, it is very well established that a law enforcement officer can and will get you out of the car if he believes you to be armed, which, like everyone in this thread admitted, most gang members are. There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about that. See this: https://youtu.be/vaTPbEGNu-g?t=25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms In terms of pulling you over for small stuff in order to try to escalate it during the traffic stop, the technical term for is is a pretextual stop. It is used by law enforcement officers extensively, and it was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whren_v._United_States Therefore, I'd like to ask everyone that is trying to have a reasonable discussion, based in facts, and not feelings, to make sure that they do not let their feelings cloud their judgement. You can make the argument that it is inconvenient for you, you can make the argument that it shouldn't happen in a video game. You can make many more arguments. However, you can not state that it is unrealistic for law enforcement to use known and documented legal techniques against known gang members that are color banging in 2021. That is arguing in bad faith, and using emotions rather than facts, and at that stage, it is very hard to take your complaints seriously.
  2. Being asked to step out at a traffic stop is the opposite of NonRP, it is very realistic. I find it very peculiar that one of your complaints is that an officer would roleplay looking through your windows to look for weapons. How is law enforcement roleplaying with you an issue? The reason why multiple officers are present at a traffic stop is simple, when there isn't, people shoot them. If cops got shot at traffic stops in LA as much as they do in-game, I guarantee that the national guard would be on the streets. Cops roleplaying with you should never be an issue on a roleplaying server. Even if that roleplay ends up with you getting arrested, that shouldn't affect your feelings out-of-character. If you would like to state that it's an issue that the police force is too effective (as in you do not like that you get arrested), then please state it plainly. Calling valid actions NonRP does not make a good point, nor will create a situation where we discuss your actual issue.
  3. The issue with comparing ECRP with real-life is that we do not have access to helicopters in the same way the LAPD does. The LAPD helicopter is virtually impossible to lose, you will see people with crazy super bikes not able to shake it for hours, they literally wait for them to run out of fuel. The in-game helicopter is pitifully slow, and is limited by draw distance and angles. Something else to keep in mind is that in real-life, cops will stop pursuits because they can always charge you later. The whole thing we do here on ECRP where mask = it wasn't me, wouldn't hold up in court. If someone that generally looks like you (masked or not) evades from cops in your car, you're going to prison. There's no such thing as "many people have keys". Literally wouldn't hold up. example of a pursuit where helicopter was used, and in the end chase was called off, driver later charged based on ownership https://www.foxla.com/news/reckless-driver-evades-police-after-pursuit-through-hollywood So, the whole realism thing is out of the window already. In the context of the game, super cars are needed because player cars are very high performance versus cop cars. GTA is a game about crime, and police vehicles were purposefully under-tuned, so that they would chase you, but not be very good at catching you. It would not be a healthy roleplay server if anyone with an elegy could just evade whenever they felt like it. The elegy is already a pretty meh car and we have the actually overpowered vehicles like the Issi Sport which even the T20 struggles against. Further exacerbating these issues is the fact that some players choose to lower their graphics much more than needed, in an effort to get better performance out of their vehicles, and someone doing 60 fps in the same vehicle as someone doing 144, will have a noticeable and game-impacting advantage. Therefore, there's a lot of things to consider when it comes to a game versus real-life and talking about Dubai is pointless. Most people in LA will not evade, not even gang members, it's a serious felony and you will get caught. I'm not even going to get into laws that specifically discourage this, that we do not have, such as the three strike laws further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#:~:text=The three-strikes law significantly,other than a life sentence. tl;dr it's a game, and in the context of the game, super cars make sense. selective realism is not a good approach.
  4. Date and time (provide timezone): 19/APR/2021 1100 UTC Character name: Jason Steel Issue/bug you are reporting: Putting an LSPD vehicle on a flatbed makes it become a non-LSPD vehicle. Expected behavior: The vehicle should remain a faction vehicle. Evidence, notes worth mentioning, steps to replicate: Find an LSPD faction vehicle Place it on a flatbed Take it off the flatbed https://i.imgur.com/PlM6gD3.png Vehicle license plate number*: N/A
  5. The only bad thing about this suggestion is that there is no song to go with it. major +1
  6. I'm glad you agree. This rule is here to make sure that four gangs don't bully one gang out of existence. That is never good for the server, even if we try to justify it with "RP reasons". If such a rule was around a lot longer ago, we wouldn't need faction management to create a street gang. If such a rule was around a lot longer ago, we could still have a racing gang in Wanted and so on. Regardless of all the of the character development that occurred in order for three gangs of very different background to decide they want to hold hands, at the end of the day, it's extremely silly to have for example an Asian Syndicate team up with an African American street gang in order to directly fight an Italian Mafia. It just doesn't happen. Gangs are supposed to look after their own interests, try to make themselves #1, not share #4 spot with three other gangs. And just to be clear, I was on both sides of it too, yeah, I never said I wasn't. That was the norm back then, it's not anymore, and I'm glad it is isn't.
  7. As with all things, I would advise using common sense. If for example your gang opens up a pub every week, having other gangs show up there would be highly regular and nothing out of the ordinary, another gang attacking that and complaining wouldn't be valid since it's a known routine thing. If you however spot some potentially hostile people near your HQ, and invite your friendly gangs to "chill", and it happens more than once, that is highly questionable. End of the day there is no clear line, just like there isn't one with fear RP, or with DM. There are some examples for DM, but the list is not all encompassing. There is no clear definition for what "close range" is for fear RP, and everyone has their own idea, but no hard line. That is how roleplaying works, it's all very situational.
  8. Ruleplaying is ruleplaying, roleplaying is roleplaying. If you're actively trying to group up every time you feel like you're gonna get attacked, that's obviously ruleplaying. If you're genuinely trying to interact with other gangs occasionally, it will be fine. I do not think that anyone in the staff team is a robot and can not tell the difference. Just play it fair and trust in the staff team.
  9. Then this rule doesn't affect you. This rule is directly related to you providing backup to a shootout/hostile scenario. You can group up all day and perform all your of roleplay as your faction. This has happened in every single major war since the original council. You can literally look in the player report archive and see massive 100+ man fights at chiliad between five to seven factions, as recent as a couple of months ago in the FSO/La Fam war. I've avoided naming factions as I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone. That was okay back then, it's not anymore. No, it shouldn't come back.
  10. This rule was not introduced as a fix to a temporary problem, it was introduced as a fix to a problem as old as the (modern) server, starting with the original council. It is not healthy for the server for a small group of players to have a monopoly on gangs, and give those players the power to bully other players off the server. No matter the amount of supposed roleplay it generates, it does not create a healthy environment, and adds to OOC tensions. You stated that this rule stifles criminal diplomacy, I say that it strengthens it. Not the 120 man zerg going up Chiliad, that's dead, but actual diplomacy. Say you have gangs A, B and Z. A & B are on good terms, and for some reason gang B and Z are having a conflict, that maybe turned violent. Instead of having gangs A&B sit on a joint frequency all day and throw 100 man fights every time they see each other, gang A can provide support to gang B via soft power. That means providing weapons to help the other gang fight, provide drugs or cars to shop for the other gang to maintain influence, or even straight up cash. They can also refuse to provide any of these to the enemy faction. That is all backed up through roleplay. The only thing this rule harms is the TDM mentality, and in my opinion, it should never be removed or altered. Clarification is always welcome so long as it does not introduce loopholes (which is why I believe the current rule is vague).
  11. Hey. Welcome back! Make sure to check out the server rules and possibly this revamped roleplay guide (https://forum.eclipse-rp.net/topic/16456-eclipse-roleplay-roleplay-guide/) Quite a lot has changed in two years, and you want to make sure that you start off on the right foot. Have fun!
  12. The report was denied and the reported (criminal) was given the benefit of the doubt even though he had multiple deathmatching punishments. https://forum.eclipse-rp.net/topic/56512-carlos_rodrigueez-id-113-14-deathmatching This incident does not bode well for the narrative of special treatment in favor of law enforcement.
  13. I'd like to begin by apologizing for the delay in the resolution of this report, this was caused, in part, by the fact that deliberation with other members of staff occurred. That being said, I decided upon the following: Kevin_Slash will receive a NonRP punishment for his behavior during this RP scenario. Dara_Macfadden will receive a NonRP punishment for his behavior during this RP scenario. Stephen_Joyce will receive a NonRP punishment for his behavior during this RP scenario. I find that the players involved in the attack did in fact have a valid reason to attack the reporting party, however their plan was wholly unsatisfactory, unrealistic and was meant to cause a shootout, from beginning to end. The fact that the attacking party allegedly had access to ten people nearby, but elected to execute an attack on enemy headquarters with literally two individuals, is quite honestly baffling, and the only way it makes any sense is if the attacking party was not looking to overwhelm the party into surrender, but rather to instigate a shootout. Three individuals were involved in the attack, one of which engaged in conversation by driving into enemy headquarters and asking to place an order, then acting confused when he was turned down. This would've been acceptable if he was a distraction as part of a larger plan, but that was not the case. It seems that the attacking party were quite clearly trying to provoke a reaction from the defenders to start a shootout. When this did not occur, and the defenders chose to uphold realistic roleplay and ignore the highly questionable roleplay, not two, not three, but a single individual decided to come out of the car with a gun, and try to hold up just one out of three enemies, which were positioned at opposite angles. (48 and 239) Then, following this, one of the attackers, @CapoSlash stated in his response a "shootout happened all of a sudden", as if this wasn't a clear outcome based on the actions took by his ally. Based on what I said above, it is abundantly clear to me that the reported parties clearly wished and managed to instigate a shootout, disregarding their lives and well-being, which resulted in one of them dying, while allegedly having an overwhelming force nearby, but not participating. Report accepted.
  14. @Percival you've been here longer than me but you're views are incredibly naïve and completely disregard server history. We've had the system that you talk about, we've had very little rules and regulations for factions. The result older factions forming a monopoly and pushing every other organization off the server. Monopolies are not good, and the last thing we need is to emulate a rust official server where we have 1 mega clan dominate it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.