Jump to content

Re: San Andreas and California (LSRP Lore, community poll by xander11)


Chuckles
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

As a result of this thread myself, @Mac, the Faction Team and @largehazard or Liam took these concerns seriously and devised a plan to accommodate the majority opinion that is the replacement of California with San Andreas but in addition to a "compromise" that allows for the implementation of small-parts of northern California to replace extensions of their map-equivalents. Never before has this been done and we believe it will be a monumental moment in the server's growth as a heavy roleplay server. Not only does this expansion into uncharted territory allow roleplaying freedom conjoined with realism but it recognizes San Andreas as it's supposed to be, as California, the 31st state of the United States. This is still a work in progress and open to interpretation but the foundations of (our opinion) a realism-focused server varied with certain fictitious aspects will, in the long term, attract likeminded players while also being respective of the fun of the game.

 

Before forwarding this to management we thought we would open it to public scrutiny so that those it will ultimately affect can have their voice heard in the interest of transparency. It started as a player discussion and we hope that it will end as a player discussion.

 

Collectively, this is a draft (work in progress) that with public backing, we hope to forward to management for consideration:

 

t0HfXzv.png

 

 

Los Santos, San Andreas, is a city based on Los Angeles, California. As a result of this, and LS-RP's stance on heavy-roleplay, Los Santos, San Andreas will act as a replacement for Los Angeles, California and part of its surrounding area. San Andreas will therefore replace California as the United States' 31st and second largest state. Encircled by states like Oregon to the north, Nevada and Arizona to the east, and Mexico's Baja California to the south, its coastline on the Pacific Ocean on the west acts as "the 5 borders of San Andreas." For a more immersive experience and in the interest of server continuity, we are only roleplaying on-map locations as replacements for real life locations, therefore San Francisco, Las Vegas, Miami, and New York all remain the same.

 

In addition to this, factions and players may use real events, history and backgrounds to construct both individual and faction background stories up until the cut-off point of 2019, granted that it doesn't coincide with key parts of our own server lore including key figures such as members of the government, police department, fire department and known criminals who also replace their real-life equivalents. This will apply for immersive purposes only to things like the weather, news (country-wide) and information to create a realistic character or faction background. In a nutshell, faction and character backgrounds may contain real-life history up until 2019 then everything after that must become fictitious. 

 

Despite having a SoSan (SoCal) dominant stance on SA:MP, we have decided to step into GTA V with a more neutral stance on the subject to create even more opportunities for the players. Under this circumstance, we will be tailoring our map around different parts of California. Paleto Bay and Grapeseed will replicate specific areas and the cultures inspired by Northern California or as referenced, NorCal. Players who roleplay from here may take inspiration from areas like Bakersfield and Fresno where north/south lines converge. Both coasts have dissimilar cultures and this should be taken into consideration when roleplaying in or around either one. The driving distance between LS and these areas will be anywhere between 1.5-3 hours depending on time of day and traffic, so roleplay in accordance to this estimate. Law enforcement agents who receive calls or backup requests may bypass this rule. For this reason, the designated area will serve as LSRP's northern San Andreas aka NorSan. There would be no real distinction between the two if we were to remain entirely based on Southern California so instead, we created this compromise.

 

To summarize:

  • Los Santos, SA replaces Los Angeles, CA
  • San Andreas, USA replaces California, USA
  • Paleto Bay, Blaine County no replacement, loosely based on areas north of the Bay Area (doesn't go that far North, e.g towards Oregon) because of the environment/name i.e redwood forest and "Pelato Bay" (Pelican Bay State Prison)
  • Grapeseed, Blaine County no replacement, loosely based on more 'central' northern areas like the Salinas Valley and other farming towns like this.
  • Sandy Shores, Blaine County, no replacement, loosely based on Inland Empire area to the east/southeast of LA. It remains part of SoSan.
  • San Fierro exists in name alone, it inhabits everything else from San Francisco
  • Las Venturas exists in name alone, it inhabits everything else from Las Vegas
  • Vice City does not exist
  • Liberty City does not exist
  • The Alamo Sea is the traditional north/south diving line. If you're south of it, you're in SoSan. If you're north of it, you're in NorSan. The two communities on either side (Sandy Shores and Grapeseed) can therefore be considered both 'central' and 'north/south' respectively, depending on context, as the communities around Bakersfield, Fresno etc. are irl.
  • Blaine County will represent California's Kern County (Bakersfield area). Sandy Shores, Paleto Bay and Grapeseed are all within Blaine County. Blaine County is a central area which can be considered both northern San Andreas and Southern Andreas, depending on where you are within it. E.g. Sandy Shores is considered more southern, Paleto Bay is considered northern.

  • Los Santos County will replace Los Angeles County 

 

Los Santos Police Department

The Los Santos Police Department draws heavy inspiration from the Los Angeles Police Department and will replace it in principle. In order to strike a balance between the game and real-life, the faction applies small fictional elements in some aspects of its organization in order to ensure that progression within the faction, as well as work delegation, is done properly. Nonetheless, all procedures and inner workings of the faction's role-play are drawn from the Los Angeles Police Department. The faction's manual and procedures are a direct port, that received small adjustments here and there, from the Los Angeles Police Department in order to ensure that the faction portrays its counterpart to the fullest extent. Unless an individual is specifically knowledgeable about the LAPD, they will not be able to notice the difference between the LSPD and the LAPD, which the faction aims to portray to the fullest extent. It is also worth mentioning that the faction's fleet similarly represents the LAPD, as well as the uniform standard. Our vehicles and uniforms are also restricted based on what the LAPD does. The faction furthermore enforces an age policy in order to ensure realistic character progression. In order to make this more clear to the regular player and aspiring faction members, LSPD = LAPD.

 

Sports Teams - LA = LS

Real life sports teams will be acknowledged with the replacement of LA for LS. For example, LS Rams replaces LA rams. LS Lakers replaces LA Lakers and the Los Santos Dodgers replaces the Los Angeles Dodgers. Because of this, players will have the ability to root for their native teams. Modded sportswear with the real-life equivalent names are allowed but when speaking, writing or wagering on your team, it must be substituted with its lore-friendly name. Everything from the fonts to colouring will remain the same. Additionally, you may also pluralize them as a compromise. Namely "the Rams," or "the Lakers" or "the Dodgers."

 

Clothing and Body Art

Real life clothing can be roleplayed in addition to what is made available by the script and modding team. However, if it is personal modifications, players and law enforcement personnel may describe and identify you based on what is noticeable and available to them. This applies to both clothing and body art, anything that substitutes something for something else. Additionally, the modded replacement must be listed in your character description e.g a MC-affiliated vest or "kutte" replacing a vanilla version of it. Anything that doesn't go without saying must be listed for immersive purposes.

 

Weapons, Ammunition and Attachments

Our weapon and ammunition portrayal will be dictated by script, where developers have worked tirelessly to implement a system based on San Andreas' real-life equivalent. Whatever they are named and modelled after is what they will be roleplayed as with no exceptions. Damage from weapon, ammunition and attachments will be taken into account when roleplaying injuries or declaring deaths in accordance to realism.

 

Vehicles

Vehicles remain in their original GTA V form and replace their real-life equivalents. To name a few of the more common vehicles, the Ubermacht replaces BMW, Obey replaces Audi, certain Benefactor models replace certain Mercedes models so on so fourth. An official guide will be posted in the correct section where players can draw inspiration from. Vehicles driven by players must suit their character's ambition, situation and financial circumstance and must make sense for their individual characters. For instance, if your character owns a variant of the Benefactor, it makes no sense to go on robberies or sprees in it, especially if registered to you.

 

Brands and GTA franchises

A lot of GTA's branding and franchises are modelled around real life. For example, Tim Vapid is Tom Ford, Sebastian Dix is Christian Dior, Blagueurs is Balenciaga/Vetements, Anna Rex is Calvin Klein and Sand Castle is Stone Island. As a result, these brands will be considered bootlegged versions of their real life equivalents unless there is no available substitute. If there is no available clothing to replicate their equivalent, it may be addressed via description so that players have the opportunity to examine and acknowledge it. Food chains such as Cluckin Bell, Taco Bomb and Hookies are all also considered low-end and domestic fast food chains and can be acknowledged if necessary. Factions based on single player organizations are disallowed.

 

Special thanks to:

 

largehazard aka Liam

Mac

LSPD Leadership, Benavides

Faction Team

Kane for allowing us to take this to the public domain

The public and xander11 for bringing it to attention in the first place

All contributions from the original poll

 

Again, there is room for improvement. This is still highly a work in progress and isn't official. This is a proposal on behalf of us, the public in sync with the Faction Team.

 

 

 

Edited by Chuckles
  • Bigsmoke 1
  • Thumbs 12
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is the time to bring something up if you have a strong opinion about anything here, or anything to do with lore

 

the only issue left unresolved by this is how the LSSD is going to roleplay their jurisdiction in separate counties, but that's up to them

 

and as a last note, Blaine County being so diverse and large isn't that weird. some counties in California are huge (Riverside, San Bernadino and Kern, which is the one we think it should represent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"San Fierro does not exist

Las Venturas does not exist

Vice City does not exist

Liberty City does not exist"

 

Personally I don't think this is a good idea, we see a lot, maybe even a majority, of player applications quoting that they're from these places. A lot of people want to roleplay them and coming from SAMP with a lot of returning characters, it makes sense to keep these areas in the lore, in my opinion.

 

Besides this though I think what you've come up with is great, I can see the effort put into this, well done.

  • Thumbs 1
  • Strong 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ROZE said:

"San Fierro does not exist

Las Venturas does not exist

Vice City does not exist

Liberty City does not exist"

 

Personally I don't think this is a good idea, we see a lot, maybe even a majority, of player applications quoting that they're from these places. A lot of people want to roleplay them and coming from SAMP with a lot of returning characters, it makes sense to keep these areas in the lore, in my opinion.

 

Besides this though I think what you've come up with is great, I can see the effort put into this, well done.

i'd say we should probably keep references about these places vague for now (i.e. not determining that they either exist, or do not exist) just to keep it simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the other cities from SA should stay in like San Fierro and the like, also think that the dividing line should remain Fresno but for the sake of the server I think the Alamo Sea is a good cut off point.  A good idea all together though I think its important to formally acknowledge SA is essential Cali especially for legal stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Head of Game Development

Generally, I don't agree entirely with a wholesale replacement of California with San Andreas. It leaves very little scope for us to define our own history, and the LSPD and government agencies alike have their own history and policy that isn't 100% based on their real life equivalent. To scrap that all the way up to 2019 can be damaging to the factions. 

 

The weather system is based on California but exaggerated so that more extreme weathers like fog, snow, storms, etc are more common and the weather forecast is available ingame via the weather app on the phone. 

 

Weather & Temperature

Weather App

 

Most other things look good to me, though. Bordering Oregon and Nevada doesn't sit well with me because we have a very real coastline in San Andreas. How could you explain away the east or north coasts? 

 

How could we possibly hope to enforce a "San Fierro doesn't exist" rule, or Liberty City for that matter when so many people incorporate it into their roleplay and character? I don't think it should be officially mentioned but it certainly can't be banned. 

 

San Andreas has always been roleplayed as the 51st state, a small island state in the Pacific Ocean. I see no reason to change this. We can still model from California; many places, especially police departments, use the LA model. NorSan and SoSan is also completely viable without having to completely erase California. 

  • Clap 1
  • Thumbs 1
  • OK 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you wrote here for the most part. There's a couple small changes I'd like to see though:
a) Paleto Bay should be replacing Bakersfield;
b) A list of real life events applicable to the server should be established; i.e. are we allowed to acknowledge the 1992 Rodney King LA riots as a thing that happened in LS? Are we allowed to acknowledge the Rampart scandal or North Hollywood shootout, and the corruption of Lee Baca (LASD sheriff)? This has to be touched upon in order to clarify whether those occurrences can be referrenced IC or not;
c) Does Cali caselaw apply on the server? I realize that this is something that concerns primarily legal (court and LEO) roleplayers & not the entirety of the server, but this is something quite important in my belief. As a matter fact they also apply to illegal roleplayers (for example Ashker v. California is a very important precedent when it comes to prison factions and SHU).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ImperiumXVII said:

Generally, I don't agree entirely with a wholesale replacement of California with San Andreas. It leaves very little scope for us to define our own history, and the LSPD and government agencies alike have their own history and policy that isn't 100% based on their real life equivalent. To scrap that all the way up to 2019 can be damaging to the factions. 

As a matter of the fact replacing the state gives your far more leeway in terms of craeting your own history. You get to choose which events you acknowledge (as I mentioned in my previous reply) instead of having to come up with them on your own.
 

5 minutes ago, ImperiumXVII said:

Most other things look good to me, though. Bordering Oregon and Nevada doesn't sit well with me because we have a very real coastline in San Andreas. How could you explain away the east or north coasts? 

Suspension of disbelief. I believe it's not that much of an issue and we're all able to agree that it benefits the server.
 

6 minutes ago, ImperiumXVII said:

How could we possibly hope to enforce a "San Fierro doesn't exist" rule, or Liberty City for that matter when so many people incorporate it into their roleplay and character? I don't think it should be officially mentioned but it certainly can't be banned. 

I agree. I believe we could just allow people to use those terms interchangeably and say that they can be recognized as nicknames for those real life cities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, i dont wanna od in LA said:

I agree with everything you wrote here for the most part. There's a couple small changes I'd like to see though:
a) Paleto Bay should be replacing Bakersfield;
b) A list of real life events applicable to the server should be established; i.e. are we allowed to acknowledge the 1992 Rodney King LA riots as a thing that happened in LS? Are we allowed to acknowledge the Rampart scandal or North Hollywood shootout, and the corruption of Lee Baca (LASD sheriff)? This has to be touched upon in order to clarify whether those occurrences can be referrenced IC or not;
c) Does Cali caselaw apply on the server? I realize that this is something that concerns primarily legal (court and LEO) roleplayers & not the entirety of the server, but this is something quite important in my belief. As a matter fact they also apply to illegal roleplayers (for example Ashker v. California is a very important precedent when it comes to prison factions and SHU).

The Paleto Bay area (and Grapeseed) would both be similar to Bakersfield/Fresno under this. It'd be a general representation rather than a specific one, which is messy and tons of effort for not much gain.

 

I think a list of laws which have been carried over from irl already exists somewhere.

  • Thumbs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ImperiumXVII said:

Generally, I don't agree entirely with a wholesale replacement of California with San Andreas. It leaves very little scope for us to define our own history, and the LSPD and government agencies alike have their own history and policy that isn't 100% based on their real life equivalent. To scrap that all the way up to 2019 can be damaging to the factions. 

 

Most other things look good to me, though. Bordering Oregon and Nevada doesn't sit well with me because we have a very real coastline in San Andreas. How could you explain away the east or north coasts? 

 

How could we possibly hope to enforce a "San Fierro doesn't exist" rule, or Liberty City for that matter when so many people incorporate it into their roleplay and character? I don't think it should be officially mentioned but it certainly can't be banned. 

 

San Andreas has always been roleplayed as the 51st state, a small island state in the Pacific Ocean. I see no reason to change this. We can still model from California; many places, especially police departments, use the LA model. NorSan and SoSan is also completely viable without having to completely erase California. 

 

There's evidently a lack of communication and understanding from two spectrum's of the community, and I'm not sure on how it has come about. The LSPD and LSSD are emulating their real-life counterparts whilst incorporating new ideas that accommodate the game, but the direction itself is the key part which needs to be understood.

 

What factions are going to be damaged by this stance? 

 

I understand your concern with bordering Oregan and Nevada, but to have a long-term lasting direction we will need to make short-term sacrifices for the betterment of the server and I seriously believe this is one of those things. The north and east coast can be role-played as what it is, but it's more-so aesthetically people can mention Oregan and Nevada during role-play, rather than evidently show it. 

 

I agree that we shouldn't out-right ban the topic of San Fierro or Liberty City, but we shouldn't endorse the speaking of it per se — this however, then creates an awkward divide once again. 

 

I don't know where people have gotten this mindset of us role-playing San Andreas as the 51st state, because in my entire time of being on this server, in this community and in multiple factions and different areas — we've never role-played this or even had this discussed. I've never role-played this, the Administrative team never endorsed this and the server (publicly) never pushed that mind-set, so where has this come from? 

Edited by owen
  • Clap 2
  • Thumbs 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great job with this folks, clear to see a hell of a lot of effort and thought has gone into it.

 

My personal perspective is that the overall stance should be: San Andreas does indeed replace California, because it would otherwise be far too similar to its real-life counterpart to make sense, but we need to be mindful of the fact that we don't want people to have to research California itself just to understand how to RP on the server. What I mean by this is, giving a bit more leeway to some of the lore set down by the game itself. I know not everyone would agree with this approach and that's fine, but in my opinion it's a balancing act about making it realistic, without taking away our ability to also make this a unique city. We can't copy like-for-like, but we should take heavy inspiration from LA and California where appropriate to do so.

 

With this in mind, these are the only areas that I would reconsider:

 

45 minutes ago, Chuckles said:
  • San Fierro does not exist
  • Las Venturas does not exist
  • Vice City does not exist
  • Liberty City does not exist

- I believe others have already explained some pretty good reasons for this, but again, people are more likely to know the game lore than the real life lore, and a lot of folks have based their characters from here. I say allow flexibility, and don't outright ban the use of their real-world counterparts either. It wouldn't really affect anything I don't think.

 

45 minutes ago, Chuckles said:

Brands and GTA franchises

Linked to my overall opinion on the direction of this, particularly in the case of Cluckin Bell and other actual bricks and mortar businesses, I just think we allow flexibility here. If someone wants to say they visited Cluckin' Bell then so be it - it's in the game after all so educating everyone that "this doesn't actually exist because it doesn't exist in the real world" is a bit much imho. Besides some of the businesses have great names. 

 

45 minutes ago, Chuckles said:

Sports Teams - LA = LS

Also linked to everything I've said... basically, I stand more along the lines of "if it exists in SP then it could exist in LSRP, especially if it's a business that someone's decided to name after the actual on-site location". Same goes for sports teams - if there's an in game equivalent, i'd go for that over its real life equivalent.

 

Just my two penneth and appreciate this isn't quite the same direction you guys went in with your original thinking. Not hills i'd die on either, can be convinced otherwise, just thought I'd try to find a middleground a bit more between total California replacement and San Andreas. 

 

Will say again though, great work putting in the time and effort on making this this happen and for facilitating mature debate on this topic. 

 

Edit: also just to clarify, totally on board with California not existing, and it's clear to see the vast majority of the community supported this as per the poll on this page: 

 

Edited by Allegra

Sal 

Ex-staff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the discussion so far, it's encouraging to see interest and enthusiasm on this.

 

I think one thing we can probably say from this point is that the GTA universe location names (San Fierro, Liberty City etc) should be used as alternatives for their irl counterparts. I remember that was always the general majority opinion and I can't say I ever disagreed

 

as for the point on brands and using them if they exist in the universe, I'd say I do agree but also that it gets a bit murky when you're talking about that level of interchanging and depth. GTAW's lore team ran into the problem of having to make judgements on every single little thing and it's basically a joke. I'd suggest some minor things should just be up to player discretion or preference to avoid having too many of these little lore points that everyone has to remember, and inevitably fails at doing that. I would suggest the standard of something being up to player discretion being if the subject is of no more importance than basic small talk, something that affects nothing about anyone's character. Brands are probably the best example of this

 

I think we need to come up with an official lore thread, branched off this discussion, which is simple and clear. Certain important things have a lore 'ruling' (locations, significant history, laws) and everything else (insignificant trivia) is player discretion. I believe this is the only way we will be able to come up with some coherent server lore without getting too deep into things and having everyone asking "well what about this? can I rp this? what about that?"

Edited by largehazard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ImperiumXVII said:

Generally, I don't agree entirely with a wholesale replacement of California with San Andreas. It leaves very little scope for us to define our own history, and the LSPD and government agencies alike have their own history and policy that isn't 100% based on their real life equivalent. To scrap that all the way up to 2019 can be damaging to the factions. 

 

The weather system is based on California but exaggerated so that more extreme weathers like fog, snow, storms, etc are more common and the weather forecast is available ingame via the weather app on the phone. 

 

Weather & Temperature

Weather App

 

Most other things look good to me, though. Bordering Oregon and Nevada doesn't sit well with me because we have a very real coastline in San Andreas. How could you explain away the east or north coasts? 

 

How could we possibly hope to enforce a "San Fierro doesn't exist" rule, or Liberty City for that matter when so many people incorporate it into their roleplay and character? I don't think it should be officially mentioned but it certainly can't be banned. 

 

San Andreas has always been roleplayed as the 51st state, a small island state in the Pacific Ocean. I see no reason to change this. We can still model from California; many places, especially police departments, use the LA model. NorSan and SoSan is also completely viable without having to completely erase California. 

 

If anything, the cut-off point gives factions real and authentic history to build on. This system doesn't effect those who wish to define their own history, given that there is no history to build on. The lore states that despite being based on their equivalents, the LSPD and government agencies implement their own fictitious customs, laws and rules. From what we've been told, the server is a fresh start. There is no history to scrap. All characters, factions and history is new. Nothing is being scrapped but factions are being given the freedom to build off of this history. It affects nothing once the server launches. All history will remain that, history.

 

I have never once seen people on this platform use San Fierro, Liberty City or Vice City be used as a reference point, background story or conversation. We have disallowed single player lore, I don't see why we'd allow or advocate for the acknowledgement of these fictional cities when we're pushing for the replacement of California. Acknowledging Las Vegas and San Francisco opens the door for fact-based, real-time roleplay and opens the door for limitless roleplaying possibilities. Whether it's news, flights or  general acknowledgement of events, should this be sacrificed to accommodate some mediocre background story that states "they flew in from liberty city"? 

 

San Andreas has never been roleplayed as the 51st state or an "island," for that matter. It's been universally recognized as California's replacement. I don't get the argument, on one hand "bordering Oregon doesn't make sense because 'San Andreas has its own coastline" but in the same breath it's mentioned and acknowledged as an island. Having a real connection to the mainland is much more prosperous for the players who don't want to fly in. MCs, for example, can roleplay connections to their mother charters. Straw purchases (that make up a lot of the gun market) can go through realistic channels without having to take a boat.

 

Again, despite replacing the LSPD and government respectively, everything that happens in-game is at their complete discretion. Even if modelled around real-life, its implementation and enforcement comes from their own ideologies. If we have our own weather system tailored around California then we'll edit it. We've been relatively in the dark, so anything script-related has been overlooked and will be rectified accordingly.

 

The pros outweigh the cons here. But again, this draft will be constructed by the public. And if a proposal receives overwhelming support and makes sense, it will replace this work in progress.

Edited by Chuckles
  • Thumbs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chuckles said:

Again, I'd be against using Liberty City as a replacement for New York.

 

But I wouldn't be against using their equivalent names like San Fierro and Las Venturas, granted that we don't use its GTA lore.

This is the important point about GTA universe locations, yeah. It's just a changed name. Everything else about it reflects its irl history. This is how I always rped it, and I think most people did too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chuckles said:

I have never once seen people on this platform use San Fierro, Liberty City or Vice City be used as a reference point, background story or conversation. We have disallowed single player lore, I don't see why we'd allow or advocate for the acknowledgement of these fictional cities when we're pushing for the replacement of California. Acknowledging Las Vegas and San Francisco opens the door for fact-based, real-time roleplay and opens the door for limitless roleplaying possibilities. Whether it's news, flights or  general acknowledgement of events, should this me sacrificed to accommodate some mediocre background story that states "they flew in from liberty city"? 

 

Hmm nah this is the one part that's a hard no for me, I've seen many players roleplay their backstories as being from these locations, and taking away that seems slightly oppressive to me. Completely disallowing singleplayer lore makes everything slightly less accessible to those who don't quite have the same understanding of California as others do - which would then require people to have to read up on things, which just seems over the top to me personally. Especially if I were a new player, I'd want to feel that I at least know something about the city I'm about to RP in, without having to trail through Wiki articles on it. Personal opinion here though of course, as is the rest.

 

Sorry if I've misunderstood  - I've just seen your other comment Chuckles - so you'd be okay with using the names of these locations provided they don't use the GTA lore associated with it? I'm not entirely sure of the GTA lore associated with these other cities on this generation tbf so perhaps that's fine then. I'm mainly trying to get across that some people are gonna use singleplayer names for things, and that this should be fine imo. 

Sal 

Ex-staff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Allegra said:

Hmm nah this is the one part that's a hard no for me, I've seen many players roleplay their backstories as being from these locations, and taking away that seems slightly oppressive to me. Completely disallowing singleplayer lore makes everything slightly less accessible to those who don't quite have the same understanding of California as others do - which would then require people to have to read up on things, which just seems over the top to me personally. Especially if I were a new player, I'd want to feel that I at least know something about the city I'm about to RP in, without having to trail through Wiki articles on it. Personal opinion here though of course, as is the rest.

 

Sorry if I've misunderstood  - I've just seen your other comment Chuckles - so you'd be okay with using the names of these locations provided they don't use the GTA lore associated with it? I'm not entirely sure of the GTA lore associated with these other cities on this generation tbf so perhaps that's fine then. I'm mainly trying to get across that some people are gonna use singleplayer names for things, and that this should be fine imo. 

This is basically why it's preferable to rp the GTA name but the irl history. Irl history, culture and trivia is known and can be researched and roleplayed about ig, just using the changed names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, largehazard said:

This is basically why it's preferable to rp the GTA name but the irl history. Irl history, culture and trivia is known and can be researched and roleplayed about ig, just using the changed names.

Yeah I'm on board with that, in that case! 

 

Also good chat trés good. I have another avenue of discussion for a bit later on but might as well give other people a chance to comment too. 

Sal 

Ex-staff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the server's ruling on this entire matter, since I can not find any official one that sets it in stone. 

 

I'm in agreement with everything that you posted since I do think it's the right way to go, the only problem that I have and what I find hard to ''accept'' is the picture that you posted with how it would lay in the land. 

 

Quote

t0HfXzv.png

 

While I definitely understand the current map and that we shouldn't roleplay it as an island, I find it hard to accept that the island is from a lore side. If I drive around the state, all I see is water around it and it would be weird for me to accept that I from this point of view be able to just drive off the map to whatever location in the US. 

Unless this is something that will be advertised big to new players and seen everywhere, I highly doubt that everyone who joins and plays on this server will be known with how the lore is supposed to be roleplayed and make mistakes/cause confusion. Sure, driving from one side to the other side in town within minutes is unrealistic as well but that's easier to accept then to RP being connected to the mainland. 

EDIT: Maybe if this would be accepted, perhaps it could be included in the initial application to join the server on the UCP. So once you create an account, you will see it on a homepage where it is briefly outlined (( SAN FIERRO, LAS VENTURAS, LIBERTY CITY, ETC ARE ALL NOT ROLEPLAYED, REFER TO THE IRL COUNTERPARTS ))

Edited by Tseard1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Allegra said:

 

 

Sorry if I've misunderstood  - I've just seen your other comment Chuckles - so you'd be okay with using the names of these locations provided they don't use the GTA lore associated with it? I'm not entirely sure of the GTA lore associated with these other cities on this generation tbf so perhaps that's fine then. I'm mainly trying to get across that some people are gonna use singleplayer names for things, and that this should be fine imo. 

 

Personally, there has been very little mention of the names of these locations since around 2015-2016, so it's a rare occurrence now. I think this mindset died out when the server and its players started to become a lot more realism-focused. My personal problem isn't with the names being used as a reference, it's with people using the lore of these cities to justify their presence in SA. 

 

The "Las Vegas" replaces "Las Venturas" and "San Francisco replaces San Fierro" is basically aimed at this exact problem. Generally, it's immersion breaking for the majority of the server but it wouldn't be something enforceable on a wider scale. It's more of a guideline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tseard1 said:

What was the server's ruling on this entire matter, since I can not find any official one that sets it in stone. 

 

I'm in agreement with everything that you posted since I do think it's the right way to go, the only problem that I have and what I find hard to ''accept'' is the picture that you posted with how it would lay in the land. 

 

 

As far as we know it's, "we're an island on the Pacific Ocean with no connection to the mainland."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guideline is cool then, so long as there's a degree of flexibility then I have no major issue here. 

 

Also with regard to Tseard's point on the map - I get this too. I know there's the 'suspension of disbelief' argument, but (without mentioning any specific names but I know you don't need me to) a certain other server has amalgamated the "we're an island" and the "we're replacing California" map. It looks ugly, but it is workable. I won't post it here because it'd look like we're stealing it, but I'd go down that direction rather than implying we're directly connected to the mainland via actual land. Then new players don't need to be told "you can't take your boat there because that's actually a landmass", but we can still stick with the California replacement. 

 

Unpopular opinion probs but hey, I'm full of 'em. 

Sal 

Ex-staff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thinking with the island/coasts thing is just you have to simply not think about it. The state is only an island for game design purposes, the fact that it's an island is never mentioned in GTA V because it isn't - it's a California replacement.

 

The east coast of the island has nothing important whatsoever on it anyway, if I recall, except a couple of unimportant coves maybe? The west coast of the island, which is the accurate one, is where the beachfront communities and the coastline drives are. The east coast is mostly out of view because of the mountains, which may have been Rockstar's way of addressing this very issue.

 

As for the north coast at Paleto Bay, either pretend it makes sense or roleplay that it's a bay, as the name suggests it is. You can easily have a town with water to its north if you're on a bay.

  • Thumbs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to go too in-depth on this topic because after reading everything I just don't see myself talking much about it as I barely see any debate. I'll throw in my own opinion and try to word it as best as I can just to voice myself out because I felt the need to.

First and foremost it's true that Grand Theft Auto cities were based on real cities such as Los Santos being Los Angeles, Las Venturas being Las Vegas and so on. When I look at this topic in general from a perspective of someone who stands on middle ground then I just come to the conclusion that LS-RP as server, its factions and everything else gains nothing from changing the entire landscape to fit Los Angeles more, but on the same note it doesn't decrease any value of what it has going on for itself or rather what it had going on for itself back on SA-MP.

LS-RP has pretty much allowed real life factions to exist on its server and take inspiration from the real thing and also has allowed fictional factions to be made which has proved over the years to be quite suitable to its current player base. I'm not saying that's specifically the only reason people played on LS-RP but there was clearly no problem with it which is why I see no point in this thread. I understand the idea and it could be "cool" to quite literally copy Los Angeles as best as the server can but I feel like that's just extra work for no reason.

LS-RP as a server won't gain anything by doing this nor will it lose anything, it's just extra labor depending on what needs to done, such as renaming streets to real life counterparts. I personally feel more than satisfied with the way LS-RP functioned on SA-MP and I think that same system would just work here, there was nothing wrong with it and for that reason only I'm going to say that I'm against this idea. I wouldn't mind seeing Los Angeles being recreated in Los Santos on GTA V LS-RP but I don't see the point in doing it if nobody will benefit from it, it just looks to me like an aesthetic thing.

The environment for factions (primarily illegal ones) has been set before along with standards, people role-played accordingly in gang factions by wearing sports gear, using specific slang words & more which made everything suitable. Same goes for criminal organization factions such as Italian crime families, they nine of ten times took inspiration from real life counterpart families, their slang, how they conducted themselves, accents, areas they were from and their criminal history and knowledge in illegal involvement.

To summarize everything I've said; Why change something that was working perfectly and that everyone was happy with without the server benefitting from it?

In case someone quotes me and responds to me, I'll definitely read it since I'm open minded and I'm honestly on the middle ground here like I've said. But I won't be replying to this thread again as I see no debate at hand.

 

𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biskit said:

I don't want to go too in-depth on this topic because after reading everything I just don't see myself talking much about it as I barely see any debate. I'll throw in my own opinion and try to word it as best as I can just to voice myself out because I felt the need to.

First and foremost it's true that Grand Theft Auto cities were based on real cities such as Los Santos being Los Angeles, Las Venturas being Las Vegas and so on. When I look at this topic in general from a perspective of someone who stands on middle ground then I just come to the conclusion that LS-RP as server, its factions and everything else gains nothing from changing the entire landscape to fit Los Angeles more, but on the same note it doesn't decrease any value of what it has going on for itself or rather what it had going on for itself back on SA-MP.

LS-RP has pretty much allowed real life factions to exist on its server and take inspiration from the real thing and also has allowed fictional factions to be made which has proved over the years to be quite suitable to its current player base. I'm not saying that's specifically the only reason people played on LS-RP but there was clearly no problem with it which is why I see no point in this thread. I understand the idea and it could be "cool" to quite literally copy Los Angeles as best as the server can but I feel like that's just extra work for no reason.

LS-RP as a server won't gain anything by doing this nor will it lose anything, it's just extra labor depending on what needs to done, such as renaming streets to real life counterparts. I personally feel more than satisfied with the way LS-RP functioned on SA-MP and I think that same system would just work here, there was nothing wrong with it and for that reason only I'm going to say that I'm against this idea. I wouldn't mind seeing Los Angeles being recreated in Los Santos on GTA V LS-RP but I don't see the point in doing it if nobody will benefit from it, it just looks to me like an aesthetic thing.

The environment for factions (primarily illegal ones) has been set before along with standards, people role-played accordingly in gang factions by wearing sports gear, using specific slang words & more which made everything suitable. Same goes for criminal organization factions such as Italian crime families, they nine of ten times took inspiration from real life counterpart families, their slang, how they conducted themselves, accents, areas they were from and their criminal history and knowledge in illegal involvement.

To summarize everything I've said; Why change something that was working perfectly and that everyone was happy with without the server benefitting from it?

In case someone quotes me and responds to me, I'll definitely read it since I'm open minded and I'm honestly on the middle ground here like I've said. But I won't be replying to this thread again as I see no debate at hand.

 

This is the strange disconnect that has been referred to here. A lot of us had very different experiences on LSRP. We started to roleplay San Andreas as a more-or-less exact replacement of California around 2016-2017. And we're surprised to learn people have different recollections.

Edited by largehazard
  • Thumbs 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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.