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

[Sal]

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. 

[largehazard]

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.

[Sal]

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. 

[Tseard1]

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

 

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 March 1, 2022 by Tseard1

[Chuckles]

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.

[Chuckles]

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."

[Sal]

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. 

[largehazard]

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.

[Biskit]

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.

 

[largehazard]

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 March 1, 2022 by largehazard

[Chuckles]

1 minute ago, largehazard said:

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.

Additionally, there is no need to replace street names or anything of that nature. Los Santos becomes the replacement. Vinewood still acts as Hollywood. Vespucci Beach still acts as Venice Beach. Nothing changes.

[Sal]

Dunno where the disconnect happened but yeah, before reading the previous thread I'd have assumed that everyone was actually still fine with having SA as the 51st State. But after reading the arguments on there, and being convinced of them, it's clear that things are different and people do want something different. I think this clear majority should be respected. 

 

I'm only approaching this from the perspective of prioritising new player integration; in other words, not making it too difficult for newbies to understand the city they're RPing in, and also from the perspective of policing how the "borders" are interacted with in the game. So long as people aren't gonna be told off for using boats where there's water "because that is actually land" then that's fine. But perhaps the solution, to make that clear, is to update the map slightly to give us a coastline as I mentioned previously. It's a compromise sure, but the best solution as far as I can see. 

 

But as ever, I can be convinced otherwise. 

[largehazard]

I assume the disconnect occurred in different rp communities. The illegal rp community has been roleplaying very California-focused for years now. I guess it just wasn't a problem before that people had different experiences.

 

Anyway this is why we needed to have this discussion

 

- incidentally, this development was also why GTAW took this type of approach. One of the few times illegal rpers were catered to actually

Edited March 1, 2022 by largehazard

[Chuckles]

Nothing on the actual map should be limited. Again, the problem with being an "island" by script limitation is that people take it at face value for what it is. They refuse to roleplay a connection to the mainland because there is no bridge. yet will gladly acknowledge San Fierro and Las Venturas as a part of San Andreas despite its absence from the actual map. I think it's somewhat contradicting. I don't think any of us advocating for this have any problem in acknowledging Las Venturas and San Fierro as parts of San Andreas, despite the non-existence of it. But those advocating against have a problem with hypothesizing this "bridge" for whatever reason. I think there's too much literalism involved and this adds to the problem.

 

Putting aside the states listed as an example, I think most of us would be satisfied with just a connection to the mainland in general. There should be ways in and out of what is realistically California, without the need for a plane or boat. It's not Hawaii.

 

Edit:

Again, to reiterate, the OP is a draft. It will be gradually updated throughout the process of this thread to accommodate the majority opinion. Whether for or against our original intention!

 

Thanks for the dialogue.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Chuckles

[MurderO]

showing my support and love for this. The idea of San Andreas being an island is really lame in my opinion.