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

[el payaso]

yeah not personally a fan of the island concept ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Chuckles]

On 3/1/2022 at 2:35 PM, 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.

 

In light of this suggestion, I have made a compromise in what I believe is the most effective, realistic yet player-friendly approach to this situation.

 

San Fierro and Las Venturas exists in name only, the events, news and history of its real life counterparts can be acknowledged

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Chuckles

[Chuckles]

On 3/1/2022 at 2:35 PM, 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.

 

In light of this suggestion, I have made a compromise in what I believe is the most effective, realistic yet player-friendly approach to this situation.

 

San Fierro and Las Venturas exists in name only, its events are inspired by those of its real life counterparts

 

Liberty City and Vice City still do not exist. New York and Miami do.

 

This won't be make or break for new characters, who can be told upon acceptance or denial of their character applications that they're not acknowledged in our world.

 

How many new players do we think write stories centered around ballas, aztecaz, vagos or grove street families?

 

They soon learn and adapt.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Chuckles

[Chuckles]

Additionally, we're still looking at a middle ground for this "connection to the mainland" dilemma. Not that it should be as much as an issue as it is, but the vast majority of the server refuse to roleplay it as an island and wish for it to be a state linked to the rest of the United States.

 

I'm not against disallowing factions or players who want to roleplay mainland connections without the need for a boat or plane. This is specifically harmful to motorcycle clubs, straw men and from a legal standpoint, trucking companies who want to broaden their horizon, even if hypothetical.

 

It's nothing more than hypothesis and won't affect anyone, yet will add great depth, reach and justification to both factions and players. What needs to be understood is this "island" approach is a single player mindset.

 

The water replaces what used to be "invisible walls," I assume to stop single players from piloting their planes in to them. I assume the reason is because they've shortened the map and there's no point in having landmass that's essentially unexplorable. However, had roleplay servers been considered, this unexplorable landmass would have been the basis for this exact argument. It would have gave us connection we're advocating for.

 

Adopting single player mindsets goes against what it is to be a heavy roleplay server.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Chuckles

[Sal]

7 minutes ago, Chuckles said:

 

In light of this suggestion, I have made a compromise in what I believe is the most effective, realistic yet player-friendly approach to this situation.

 

San Fierro and Las Venturas exists in name only, the events, news and history of its real life counterparts can be acknowledged

 

 

 

 

Cool. I'm still not massively offended by anyone who mentions Vice City or Liberty City, but as with a lot of this stuff... I guess it'll be down to preference on whether anyone tries to enforce it if it's brought up in conversation. Like I personally wouldn't be like "/b Mate, VC doesn't exist call it Miami". Maybe that'll never happen anyway idk, if we're saying that many players don't use these location names much any more anyway. 

 

16 minutes ago, Chuckles said:

Additionally, we're still looking at a middle ground for this "connection to the mainland" dilemma. Not that it should be as much as an issue as it is, but the vast majority of the server refuse to roleplay it as an island and wish for it to be a state linked to the rest of the United States.

 

I'm not against disallowing factions or players who want to roleplay mainland connections without the need for a boat or plane. This is specifically harmful to motorcycle clubs, straw men and from a legal standpoint, trucking companies who want to broaden their horizon, even if hypothetical.

 

It's nothing more than hypothesis and won't affect anyone, yet will add great depth, reach and justification to both factions and players. What needs to be understood is this "island" approach is a single player mindset.

 

The water replaces what used to be "invisible walls," I assume to stop single players from piloting their planes in to them. I assume the reason is because they've shortened the map and there's no point in having landmass that's essentially unexplorable. However, had roleplay servers been considered, this unexplorable landmass would have been the basis for this exact argument. It would have gave us connection we're advocating for.

 

Adopting single player mindsets goes against what it is to be a heavy roleplay server.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah connection to the mainland is an interesting one, I agree that there should be a connection in some way, it's just how it works in practise. Like I'm mainly thinking about the (potentially very rare) times that someone might drive a boat out around to a location which, according to the lore map, should actually be a landmass. If this happens, should they be informed that they can't go there? Or should an actual physical invisible wall be placed? I'm thinking mainly here from the perspective of new players rather than folks who have read up on the continuity that's been agreed.

 

Or do you go down the other direction, which the other server took, of roleplaying a bridge and then accepting the coastline as a sort of large river running around the northern side? I wouldn't be offended by this but from what I've heard, it's not something that anyone else is keen on.

 

Or are we suggesting that everyone needs to understand these principles clearly before being allowed onto the server, so that nobody has an excuse for piloting a boat to areas which are actually land?

 

Or am I overthinking things. Maybe. 

[Chuckles]

1 hour ago, Allegra said:

Cool. I'm still not massively offended by anyone who mentions Vice City or Liberty City, but as with a lot of this stuff... I guess it'll be down to preference on whether anyone tries to enforce it if it's brought up in conversation. Like I personally wouldn't be like "/b Mate, VC doesn't exist call it Miami". Maybe that'll never happen anyway idk, if we're saying that many players don't use these location names much any more anyway. 

 

Yeah connection to the mainland is an interesting one, I agree that there should be a connection in some way, it's just how it works in practise. Like I'm mainly thinking about the (potentially very rare) times that someone might drive a boat out around to a location which, according to the lore map, should actually be a landmass. If this happens, should they be informed that they can't go there? Or should an actual physical invisible wall be placed? I'm thinking mainly here from the perspective of new players rather than folks who have read up on the continuity that's been agreed.

 

Or do you go down the other direction, which the other server took, of roleplaying a bridge and then accepting the coastline as a sort of large river running around the northern side? I wouldn't be offended by this but from what I've heard, it's not something that anyone else is keen on.

 

Or are we suggesting that everyone needs to understand these principles clearly before being allowed onto the server, so that nobody has an excuse for piloting a boat to areas which are actually land?

 

Or am I overthinking things. Maybe. 

 

Offensive, no, immersion breaking? Yes. Most people, if mentioned, will not resort to /b to correct or ridicule someone, that's, again, something that was relative to maybe pre 2015-16. What will happen though is people will acknowledge the aforementioned Liberty or Vice city as New York or Miami respectively. Like any guideline, it's not punishable by offense and any rebuttal will ordinarily be educational. 

 

I think too much effort is being focused on the wrong areas here. We'll obviously not, from a map point of view, say you can't drive here, here or here. Nothing will limit or restrict players from doing anything or going anywhere because it's such a rare occurrence that is easily ignored. It, again, misrepresents what we're trying to enforce with literalism. This is why hypothetical acknowledgements of a mainland connection can benefit both arguments.

 

It's nothing more than acknowledgement that "realistically" you can drive in from here, here and here, and drive out from here, here and here. This can only be explorable if we stop treating it as an island. 

 

None of it will be a sticking point for new players, who can learn along the way. This rule will predominately affect seasoned roleplayers who are accustomed to change, want change and have been asking for change.

 

The water won't serve as landmass, landmass is what the parts of the water should have been but wasn't and there's no going around that. It's generally agreed that the only reason there is so much water is because they replaced the invisible walls, wanted to shorten the map and wanted its fictional interpretation to be an island, cut off from the rest of the country. This is the only thing practically stopping us from roleplaying a mainland connection. When in theory it should already be there, given the perception of an evolving roleplaying community.

 

I'm not suggesting we replace anything cosmetically, implement restrictions or refuse to acknowledge the water. I suggest we simply abandon the idea of us being an island and roleplay the mainland connection, even if entirely hypothetical.

 

San Andreas should occupy the same space in the southwest corner of the US. The only time these coastal waters really come up is in police pursuits or excersises. It's not exactly hard to, other than that, imagine you're on the continental mainland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yekim]

it wouldnt even be hard to map in invisible walls and a landscape. its done all the time in video games n is more than possible in GTA 5. you can ignore the south and west coast n just put down some standard terrain with low LOD mountain scapes in the background

 

pragmatic solution but i doubt the developers would want to invest resources into something like that

 

definitely let players use their imagination and roleplay it as mainland though it just makes more sense. setting a precedent where you can only roleplay what u see is not a good road to go down

Edited March 2, 2022 by yekim

[Sal]

6 hours ago, Chuckles said:

 

Offensive, no, immersion breaking? Yes. Most people, if mentioned, will not resort to /b to correct or ridicule someone, that's, again, something that was relative to maybe pre 2015-16. What will happen though is people will acknowledge the aforementioned Liberty or Vice city as New York or Miami respectively. Like any guideline, it's not punishable by offense and any rebuttal will ordinarily be educational. 

 

I think too much effort is being focused on the wrong areas here. We'll obviously not, from a map point of view, say you can't drive here, here or here. Nothing will limit or restrict players from doing anything or going anywhere because it's such a rare occurrence that is easily ignored. It, again, misrepresents what we're trying to enforce with literalism. This is why hypothetical acknowledgements of a mainland connection can benefit both arguments.

 

It's nothing more than acknowledgement that "realistically" you can drive in from here, here and here, and drive out from here, here and here. This can only be explorable if we stop treating it as an island. 

 

None of it will be a sticking point for new players, who can learn along the way. This rule will predominately affect seasoned roleplayers who are accustomed to change, want change and have been asking for change.

 

The water won't serve as landmass, landmass is what the parts of the water should have been but wasn't and there's no going around that. It's generally agreed that the only reason there is so much water is because they replaced the invisible walls, wanted to shorten the map and wanted its fictional interpretation to be an island, cut off from the rest of the country. This is the only thing practically stopping us from roleplaying a mainland connection. When in theory it should already be there, given the perception of an evolving roleplaying community.

 

I'm not suggesting we replace anything cosmetically, implement restrictions or refuse to acknowledge the water. I suggest we simply abandon the idea of us being an island and roleplay the mainland connection, even if entirely hypothetical.

 

San Andreas should occupy the same space in the southwest corner of the US. The only time these coastal waters really come up is in police pursuits or excersises. It's not exactly hard to, other than that, imagine you're on the continental mainland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm I see where you're coming from now with the coastline thing. So it's more a case of "in theory, we are connected to the mainland, and the specifics of that are not fully important". In which case I think this could work. The more clear it is in the game, the easier or quicker it would be for players to understand that it is the case. In many ways, if the actual game could imitate the lore map then that's far more ideal. But yeah we're limited here and I do get that. 

 

With the point on the naming logic being immersion breaking, it wouldn't break my immersion but I suppose that's down to personal preference / how hardcore we're going. 

 

Don't think I've got any more major points to raise here other than what I've already mentioned. 

[Chuckles]

1 hour ago, Allegra said:

 "in theory, we are connected to the mainland, and the specifics of that are not fully important"

 

If implemented, a theoretical map can be constructed too. The OP was constructed on the back of the mass public opinion. The introduction of both southern and northern cali in itself hasn't been done across multiple platforms and multiple communities, and the fact that we're on track to becoming part of the continental mainland and not an island distanced from the rest of the coast is a huge statement on our stance as a heavy roleplaying community. I think it also shows that we're trying to broaden the horizons for all players and concepts, regardless of category.

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Chuckles

[Flemwad]

I think the biggest thing we need to remember is we can reference LA for the formation, but once we begin, we don't need to stop change because our counterpart that we emulate ourselves after hasn't.   I think this is important to have publicly made to ensure our roleplay isn't hampered with misunderstandings as to references we can use in-game. 

[largehazard]

2 hours ago, Flemwad said:

I think the biggest thing we need to remember is we can reference LA for the formation, but once we begin, we don't need to stop change because our counterpart that we emulate ourselves after hasn't.   I think this is important to have publicly made to ensure our roleplay isn't hampered with misunderstandings as to references we can use in-game. 

This is a good point yes. This is the time to set these baseline standards and make choices though. You don't want to be dealing with the headache of juggling irl information with IC history later on, which always results in a mess, as happened on SAMP and GTAW to a lesser extent.

[Sal]

9 hours ago, Flemwad said:

I think the biggest thing we need to remember is we can reference LA for the formation, but once we begin, we don't need to stop change because our counterpart that we emulate ourselves after hasn't.   I think this is important to have publicly made to ensure our roleplay isn't hampered with misunderstandings as to references we can use in-game. 

Yeah exactly, agree wholeheartedly on this point. The server is naturally going to progress in its own direction and folks shouldn't be afraid of doing that for fear of being told "this isn't happening in LA" and to some extent, "this wouldn't likely happen in LA". As largehazard said, it's good to set things up properly in the beginning, then see where the RP naturally takes us. 

[Chuckles]

9 hours ago, Flemwad said:

I think the biggest thing we need to remember is we can reference LA for the formation, but once we begin, we don't need to stop change because our counterpart that we emulate ourselves after hasn't.   I think this is important to have publicly made to ensure our roleplay isn't hampered with misunderstandings as to references we can use in-game. 

I agree. This is why we've installed a cut-off point in terms of what factions and players can use. As far as real life references goes, this just gives players the options to roleplay things that aren't actually available to them in game. Anything we already cover will be unaffected.

 

Key events that come from the likes of the government, police department, sheriff's department and anything that's got the potential to be homegrown will assume precedence.

 

For example, there is no Eric Garcetti, there is a Los Santos' equivalent. Michel Moore isn't the chief of police, our equivalent is. Anything we have control over takes precedence.

 

This will mostly target live events and news that can add substance to our roleplay, substance we don't ordinarily have access to. Sporting games, certain news and generally anything we don't have covered. I think this is why it's important to acknowledge this now.

 

 

 

 

 

[Sal]

9 minutes ago, Chuckles said:

This will mostly target live events and news that can add substance to our roleplay, substance we don't ordinarily have access to. Sporting games, certain news and generally anything we don't have covered. I think this is why it's important to acknowledge this now.

Ahhh ok right I think I understand this side a bit more now - so are you suggesting that "Anything which is not covered in the game, such as sports, can be substituted with what's going on in its real life equivalent"? 

[Chuckles]

7 minutes ago, Allegra said:

Ahhh ok right I think I understand this side a bit more now - so are you suggesting that "Anything which is not covered in the game, such as sports, can be substituted with what's going on in its real life equivalent"? 

This is exactly it, yeah. Our own universe always takes precedence no matter what it is. The LA events can be secondary, but is completely optional. 

 

The same goes with news. Anything that contradicts our own news (i.e mentions of government decisions, police decisions and otherwise) is null. This also gives SAN and in game news agencies more resources in addition to what's available to them in game. Such as sports coverage.