Jump to content

Fishing and Del Perro Pier


Alyssa McCarthy

Recommended Posts

Forcing people to go out to the county for fishing doesn't 'benefit' county roleplay nor does it make any sense to prevent people from fishing off the city piers with the script. If someone wants to kill time with their friend at the pier, there's no reason to prevent them from casually script fishing while interacting. If someone wants to sell fish from the pier, this can be better controlled by where you are allowed to sell fish at.

 

Allow fishing on city locations where it makes sense. They will be less profitable anyway because they're not 'hot spots' which provide more valuable fish. Everyone wins.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

The fishing update seems partly centered on giving SAPR something else to do (which is great, particularly with the addition of tugboat fishing) but to take it to the extent of prohibiting fishing in the city (coincidentally out of their jurisdiction) is a bit much, especially using words like "forbidden". Just make it less rewarding to fish in the city and stop trying to force people out in the county if they don't want to go there when there's logical, basic alternatives.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Shaderz said:

 

Create the need to move to another fishing spot if one is overly populated. This is an issue that fishers come across daily. If a fishing spot has too many people on it trying to catch the same fish, they usually try to find another less populated one to increase their odds of catching fish. I, as someone who does go fishing occasionally as a hobby, have had to do this before.

 

So, perhaps change the way the script works, so the more people are gathered (and fishing via the script, not just loitering around) in a single fishing spot, the odds of them catching fish decrease.

 

I don't know how exactly the script works in terms of timing, but for the sake of this suggestion, let's assume there's by default a 100% chance of catching fish within 5 minutes. With the changes I'm proposing, it would look something like this:

  • If 1 person is fishing on a fishing spot, there's a 100% chance to catch fish within 5 minutes.
  • If 2 people are fishing on the same fishing spot, there's now a 50% chance split between the two of them to catch fish within 5 minutes.
  • If 3 people are fishing on the same fishing spot, there's now a 33% chance split between the three of them to catch fish within 5 minutes.
  • ...

Alternatively, extend the time it takes to catch fish, but keep the odds the same, so it would look like this:

  • If 1 person is fishing on a fishing spot, there's a 100% chance of catching fish within 5 minutes.
  • If 2 people are fishing on the same fishing spot, there's now a 100% chance of catching fish for both of them within 8 minutes.
  • If 3 people are fishing on the same fishing spot, there's now a 100% chance of catching fish for the three of them within 10 minutes.
  • ...

I believe this eliminates the balance issues that you pointed out because people will feel inclined to seek other fishing opportunities elsewhere if a certain fishing spot is occupied by too many people, thus creating fishing roleplay all over the state. This is the best of both worlds, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

Very cool suggestion !

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, 99 said:

Who cares if it’s busy? The Santa Monica Pier is super busy with fishers. I’ve been there and done it myself. There’s no reason this should be limited. People in the county will fish in the county. They won’t drive to the city. It’s silly for someone who lives in the city to drive out to the county when there’s a major pier right in the city. Do your research, there’s plenty of fish species to be caught from the pier. They’ve done it to solve a problem via OOC means, that’s the only reason it’s forbidden. Makes no sense. 
 

https://pacpark.com/fishing-santa-monica-pier/

I agree. Anyway, the people who are looking to fish just so they can grind for money, they would not mind going to the county. Apart from that, fishing in Del Perro pier could also open doors to a potential social hub, where people in the city will come by and hang out together and probably fish. More the people, the livelier. The city needs atleast one spot that the people hang out at and just chill in general. As of now, social hubs are just bars and cafes, which is kind of boring.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
6 hours ago, StiffChocl8 said:

The city needs atleast one spot that the people hang out at and just chill in general.

That won't happen unless it is a crime free zone or if there are sufficient people (i.e. trendsetters) in the area that a robbery is unlikely.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Koko said:

The fishing update seems partly centered on giving SAPR something else to do (which is great, particularly with the addition of tugboat fishing) but to take it to the extent of prohibiting fishing in the city (coincidentally out of their jurisdiction) is a bit much, especially using words like "forbidden". Just make it less rewarding to fish in the city and stop trying to force people out in the county if they don't want to go there when there's logical, basic alternatives.

 

There should be no "less rewarding" if a fish is caught in the city versus if it's caught in the county. They're by and large going to be the same sorts of accessible fish. In every state in the United States, a Game Warden, or in this case a Park Ranger -these two things are not the same by the way, but we have them acting in both capacities- have jurisdiction in places where they believe that an offense that pertains to them is occurring. And that is because they're a state organization. Their scope is not the same as state police, but they more or less have no jurisdiction when operating inside their state borders. It is the state.

 

In my mind, you lift the "forbidden zone" and you allow people to fish wherever. And you allow the Park Rangers to conduct duties within their scope, where ever that people might be fishing. And they should make an internal rule that more or less says if you're found acting outside of your capacity and heading down to the hood and looking for trouble or whatever, then you're gone. It's that easy.

 

Give them their state powers in a small scope, have them have an internal addendum to their "jurisdiction" that basically says the only time they're supposed to be inside another entities operational space is when they're conducting an investigation pertaining to their specific scope, which in this case is wildlife related. And if they find their people violating that rule, fire them.

Edited by SaintBatemanofWallStreet
clarification over jurisdiction
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, SaintBatemanofWallStreet said:

 

There should be no "less rewarding" if a fish is caught in the city versus if it's caught in the county. They're by and large going to be the same sorts of accessible fish. In every state in the United States, a Game Warden, or in this case a Park Ranger -these two things are not the same by the way, but we have them acting in both capacities- have jurisdiction in places where they believe that an offense that pertains to them is occurring. And that is because they're a state organization. Their scope is not the same as state police, but they more or less have no jurisdiction when operating inside their state borders. 

 

In my mind, you lift the "forbidden zone" and you allow people to fish wherever. And you allow the Park Rangers to conduct duties within their scope, where ever that people might be fishing. And they should make an internal rule that more or less says if you're found acting outside of your capacity and heading down to the hood and looking for trouble or whatever, then you're gone. It's that easy.

 

Give them their state powers in a small scope, have them have an internal addendum to their "jurisdiction" that basically says the only time they're supposed to be inside another entities operational space is when they're conducting an investigation pertaining to their specific scope, which in this case is wildlife related. And if they find their people violating that rule, fire them.

Since there's only what, two piers in the city? Could probably make those zones a fishing area too. I can't see the need for SAPR policing a fishing pier in the city.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Kaz said:

Since there's only what, two piers in the city? Could probably make those zones a fishing area too. I can't see the need for SAPR policing a fishing pier in the city.

Game Wardens in the real world police anywhere there is fishing or any possible offense involving wildlife.

 

So given that there's only two piers in the city, what's the harm? Or alter the script where people can fish from the land on any body of water and implement the same sorts of hot spots that the boat fishermen get.

 

Implement a fishing license the same way we have a hunting license for personal and commercial instead of the current situation which is no personal fishing license and a forum license for commercial. Change it to the same format of going and buying one or both at the licensing office downtown, or hell, even make the hunting and fishing licenses at the SAPR office so the money goes directly to them, which is how that would generally work IRL. 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, SaintBatemanofWallStreet said:

Game Wardens in the real world police anywhere there is fishing or any possible offense involving wildlife.

 

So given that there's only two piers in the city, what's the harm? Or alter the script where people can fish from the land on any body of water and implement the same sorts of hot spots that the boat fishermen get.

 

Implement a fishing license the same way we have a hunting license for personal and commercial instead of the current situation which is no personal fishing license and a forum license for commercial. Change it to the same format of going and buying one or both at the licensing office downtown, or hell, even make the hunting and fishing licenses at the SAPR office so the money goes directly to them, which is how that would generally work IRL. 

@cxn@Shanks

 

Would require LFM approval also.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Koko said:

The fishing update seems partly centered on giving SAPR something else to do (which is great, particularly with the addition of tugboat fishing) but to take it to the extent of prohibiting fishing in the city (coincidentally out of their jurisdiction) is a bit much, especially using words like "forbidden". Just make it less rewarding to fish in the city and stop trying to force people out in the county if they don't want to go there when there's logical, basic alternatives.

 

1 hour ago, SaintBatemanofWallStreet said:

In my mind, you lift the "forbidden zone" and you allow people to fish wherever. And you allow the Park Rangers to conduct duties within their scope, where ever that people might be fishing. And they should make an internal rule that more or less says if you're found acting outside of your capacity and heading down to the hood and looking for trouble or whatever, then you're gone. It's that easy.

 

The waters are exempt from the magical "jurisdiction lines" we have, just an FYI. SAPR Marine Units can go to any open body of water (including rivers) in the state without limits. Obviously not including Vinewood Lake & Mirror Park Pond.

 

So to restrict fishing to the county only really makes no sense if the "goal" is to "give SAPR more RP in regards to Marine & fishing RP" since we already have full capacity to go into the city water areas to conduct marine wildlife enforcement & general marine law enforcement (if the need arises) as it is.

 

TL;DR, SAPR Marine has juri of all the open waters in the state, so restricting fishing for the purpose of giving us "more RP" makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Edited by PeopleKind
  • Applaud 1
Link to comment
  • Wuhtah locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...