UCP Turf Map

[marbella mondays]

3 hours ago, bidi bidi bom bom said:

Because in real life several different gangs aren't currently fighting for the same turf in LA, most of those gangs are under injunctions so they operate in the shadows. Those wars happened decades ago, 2-3 decades ago and the gangs now claim turfs they have been holding for decades, 3-4 gangs in the city have held the same turf for well over a century, two being White Fence and East Side Clover. 

 

This information is mainly OOC to stop what has already been mentioned. I'm quite sure SD's OSS has a turf map for IC shit.

I feel people have gone off topic, it's not an in character turf map. A server a lot of illegal RPers here came from had an out of character turf map with a graffiti system in-game and it not only increased RP cuz breathing room was given, but it stopped a shit load of countless rulebreaks. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd it also helped factions figure out what area was free in the matter of 2 seconds.

[cracked]

Been tried. No.

[shiroq]

7 hours ago, bidi bidi bom bom said:

It’s unrealistic when countless factions claim the same area. And it spikes unrealistic amounts of mass murder that are always “IC”. 

How is this unrealistic? For one this should be a complaint to IFM about them accepting factions in existing "claimed" areas. Otherwise yeah it's completely an ic issue, factions expands and claim more and more areas. If your faction is being pushed in on by another faction that is bigger and has more means than yours, then you have to compromise and bow down. Everyone is afraid to lose or bend the knee to other factions. But if your faction does not carry the respects or the means to hold down their "turf" deal with it realistically or die trying. It's how it is. a turf map is grounds for massive metagaming. There are factions that claim a lot of areas and most people have no clue about it except the ones that really need to know.

[marbella mondays]

Just now, cracked said:

Been tried. No.

It clearly wasn't tried, and if it was, it was tried when the server wasn't in its best health. GTAW has drastically improved in the last year and a half, and will continue to improve. 

[cracked]

Just now, bidi bidi bom bom said:

It clearly wasn't tried, and if it was, it was tried when the server wasn't in its best health. GTAW has drastically improved in the last year and a half, and will continue to improve. 

It's literally been tested already??? There was a map for months if im not wrong. 

But putting OOC intervention on IC turfs isn't in the nature of the server, imo.

Turfs organically form, decay, merge, move etc during the lifetime of an organization, again, imo.

[marbella mondays]

Just now, shiroq said:

How is this unrealistic? For one this should be a complaint to IFM about them accepting factions in existing "claimed" areas. Otherwise yeah it's completely an ic issue, factions expands and claim more and more areas. If your faction is being pushed in on by another faction that is bigger and has more means than yours, then you have to compromise and bow down. Everyone is afraid to lose or bend the knee to other factions. But if your faction does not carry the respects or the means to hold down their "turf" deal with it realistically or die trying. It's how it is. a turf map is grounds for massive metagaming. There are factions that claim a lot of areas and most people have no clue about it except the ones that really need to know.

Half of what you-- infact most of what you said is invalid. How is it metagame? The most you'll get from a turf map is seeing where a faction operates which you already see on their thread, and people check the thread more often than not to also MG locations of houses, etc. I love honestly how the MG argument is brought up, but it's clearly invalid.

[Notbond]

Just now, cracked said:

It's literally been tested already??? There was a map for months if im not wrong. 

But putting OOC intervention on IC turfs isn't in the nature of the server, imo.

Turfs organically form, decay, merge, move etc during the lifetime of an organization, again, imo.

 

When was this? I'm not sure it was ever tested. 

 

7 hours ago, bidi bidi bom bom said:

Short description: Allow factions who’ve been up for sometime to apply for turf.

Detailed description: Alright, hear me out for a minute. You might say: “This limits RP”. But it actually increases it as factions have more breathing room, and less DM will happen when 2-3 or even 4 factions try claim the same area. My suggestion is that FM add a turf map and allow factions who’ve been up and running for over a month to apply for it.

Commands to add: N/A.

Items to add: N/A.

How would your suggestion improve the server? More breathing room for factions and less DM.

Additional information: N/A.

 

I feel like part of being a heavy RP server is allowing these things to be fluid, wouldn't this just add a layer of bureaucracy? 

[cracked]

Just now, Notbond said:

 

When was this? I'm not sure it was ever tested. 

 

 

I feel like part of being a heavy RP server is allowing these things to be fluid, wouldn't this just add a layer of bureaucracy? 

@Notbond Okay, management is not sure. That makes me unsure. I think we had a turf map on the UCP for a short bit. 

Maybe @Nervous knows? Or perhaps @Everett?

[marbella mondays]

Just now, Notbond said:

 

When was this? I'm not sure it was ever tested. 

 

 

I feel like part of being a heavy RP server is allowing these things to be fluid, wouldn't this just add a layer of bureaucracy? 

I'll quote a few comments to sum everything up for you.

 

  

6 hours ago, PapaDoc said:

I fully support this system for street gangs. What I don’t get is why people who aren’t even apart of the gang community even believe they have a say so in this? If you’re not planning to participate or have partaken in roleplay where territory is a major factor in it then why comment? And besides, what if there are players looking to join a gang faction but do not know where they roleplay? It’s a great help. I think we should keep the same turf rules but add a turf map. 
 

Turf maps really just shows what gang is in that area, doesn’t mean it has to be taken IC. I don’t know why half the people posting are thinking a turf map is taken IC. The turf map is clearly for OOC means. 

 

  

4 hours ago, ElDiablo said:

Ok, Turf Maps are NOT a "meta" at all. IC all gangs would have this knowledge due to the activity and graffiti displayed in such areas, and Turf Maps do exist irl made by people from those cities in Google Maps.

 

Anyone can metagame already from forum screenshots, so that's not the point AT ALL. The point of a Turf Map is to keep track of well established factions area so either Faction Management or other players don't just open up new sets in said areas. Because it's simply unrealistic that a new group pops up in a place that has lore and time active.

 

If you don't take a measure like this then you are promoting non realistic DM scenarios. With that said, maybe an internal map for Faction Management could work so they wouldn't just let new factions appear where others have been already as @Wirbelwind suggested.

 

But then you got the DM trolling cliques that just want to beef people and say "yo this my block". These cliques should have immediate punishment and an easy way to do this is adding rules about turfs and having a map (whether visible or not) that needs to exist and be updated constantly because that sort of thing can ruin immersion and roleplay of a good faction in general if they suddenly need to beef someone that irl wouldn't be there.

 

  

3 hours ago, bidi bidi bom bom said:

Because in real life several different gangs aren't currently fighting for the same turf in LA, most of those gangs are under injunctions so they operate in the shadows. Those wars happened decades ago, 2-3 decades ago and the gangs now claim turfs they have been holding for decades, 3-4 gangs in the city have held the same turf for well over a century, two being White Fence and East Side Clover. 

 

This information is mainly OOC to stop what has already been mentioned. I'm quite sure SD's OSS has a turf map for IC shit.

 

  

7 hours ago, bidi bidi bom bom said:

Yeah but factions shouldn't be setting up shop on a block already claimed. Realistically a rival gang won't set up shop in another rival gang's turf, of course friendly gangs do share territory but that isn't the point of this. Hoovers and NHC aren't going to set up shop on the same block realistically. 18st and BPS/r20s won't set up shop on the same block realistically. ESC and VNE won't set up shop on the same block realistically, it's just illogical. Do you see where I'm coming from? 

 

  

7 hours ago, IrCam said:

Y'all not looking at it from the right perspective. Yes, turf is an IC Issue, but the suggestion isn't talking about the IC aspect of it. It's literally to see on an OOC level where everyone is based so someone doesn't start a blood faction right in the middle of a crip area???

 

It is a heavy roleplay server, yes. But sometimes IFM can't control everything and factions slip through the cracks, that operate on the same block as each other. It has happened more than 3 times, and I'm sure it'll happen again in the future if some sort of regulation isn't put up for it. Realistically a gang isn't going to set up shop right on the same block as another, unless two gangs share the same turf and are friendly with each other.

 

It's not an IC issue, it's an OOC issue. MG doesn't really make sense for what most of the denying commentators here say, as MGers will just check a faction thread for their operation location and more info on their IC dealings so it's not like this can be that hurtful to be MGed. 

 

This doesn't stop RP, but infact increases it... as it gives factions breathing room which I'm sure you understand my point of view on this man, and others too. Please read through the quotes I've quoted to understand it more, as my replies under them just sum some of the stuff up.

 

[ElDiablo]

8 minutes ago, shiroq said:

How is this unrealistic? For one this should be a complaint to IFM about them accepting factions in existing "claimed" areas. Otherwise yeah it's completely an ic issue, factions expands and claim more and more areas. If your faction is being pushed in on by another faction that is bigger and has more means than yours, then you have to compromise and bow down. Everyone is afraid to lose or bend the knee to other factions. But if your faction does not carry the respects or the means to hold down their "turf" deal with it realistically or die trying. It's how it is. a turf map is grounds for massive metagaming. There are factions that claim a lot of areas and most people have no clue about it except the ones that really need to know.

I agree with what you said regarding the IFM thing about allowing two or more factions in the same exact area. They should pay a lot of attention to that indeed, and a private map could benefit.

 

Now, as @bidi bidi bom bom said, public or private is virtually the same, the MG argument is invalid as we have expressed so because this map would be for street gangs who in their threads post SS of their area, names, houses and whatever else already.

Hoping that those details are clear I will say, an IC turf expansion coming from a gang war is totally fine, as long as it was done between two validated factions. That's where the regulations and requirements regarding turfs would come in if implemented. It's similar to a Rules of Engagement thing.