Jump to content

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


Chuckles
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Sal 

Ex-staff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by largehazard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Chuckles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything the OP has covered here. All that stuff, Vice City, Liberty City and what not, sounds nooby to me, I never ever used the name Liberty City as a replacement of New York either so I don't know where that's coming from. Due to the map in SAMP, I was used with San Fierro and Las Venturas, but now due to the GTA V environment, its much more easier to control that and I don't think its a pain for us to switch to the original names of San Fransisco or New York. Besides, we're a so called "Heavy RP Server" and using the Singe Player cities' names sounds like a set back to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally was always under the impression we were replacing California with San Andreas, although I never tried to actually envision what it would look like geographically. I'm not sure how I feel about just ignoring the water around (even though it's a game development limitation) because a lot of players can't be bothered with reading lore-related documents and there's also the factor of new players who will somehow need to become aware of how things are portrayed on LSRP.

 

There is one thing which caught my eye and is the objection to singleplayer brands such as the fast food chains, I don't see why they can't get the same treatment as being knockoffs like Anna Rex and the other clothing brands.

MAYOR TIMOTHY KNIGHT

LSGOV DISCORD

LSGOV FORUMS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretend there's a fictional river on the north ocean side of the map. Problem solved.

 

Just kidding.

 

Anyways is this really that big a debate though? Replace the state with SA and call it a day. I never referred to VC, LC, SF or LV much myself but I really don't care if it's "allowed" (no matter how much you want to, new players WILL still mention it) or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IdleStacks said:

Pretend there's a fictional river on the north ocean side of the map. Problem solved.

 

Just kidding.

 

Anyways is this really that big a debate though? Replace the state with SA and call it a day. I never referred to VC, LC, SF or LV much myself but I really don't care if it's "allowed" (no matter how much you want to, new players WILL still mention it) or not.

Some of it's a big deal, some of it is trivial (like the use of city names). This mostly stemmed from the official ruling that we were to rp San Andreas as an island, which I considered a big deal. A lot of the rest of it is inconsequential or not that important but we might as well have some general set standards on what to rp while we're having this discussion

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Maxim said:

There is one thing which caught my eye and is the objection to singleplayer brands such as the fast food chains, I don't see why they can't get the same treatment as being knockoffs like Anna Rex and the other clothing brands.

 

This is good point but again, I think having single-player based businesses would be harmful to the immersion we're trying to create here. Not only that, but players have the freedom to create any business they want, at any location they want. I think using businesses linked to single player is on the same wave length roleplaying a member of the Leone family from Liberty City. It's just relatively uncreative and taken from something make-belief. Opposite to what we're trying to achieve here. Especially considering most of them are based on Californian chains. Taco Bomb/Cluckin Bell is based on either Taco Bell or Taco John's, in addition to KFC. Up-N-Atom on In-N-Out so on so forth. I'd much rather see these.

 

Most new players won't even read the lore but for those of us that do, it'd be good to come to some sort of consensus. I'd much rather see the knockoff clothing brands than having to mention them. On the contrary, I'd much rather the mention of these singleplayer branded businesses over the actual implementation of them. 

Edited by Chuckles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, largehazard said:

 This mostly stemmed from the official ruling that we were to rp San Andreas as an island, which I considered a big deal.

 

Not gonna lie I was thinking everyone had already silently agreed to ignore that for being really stupid

 

However, now that I'm reading this with more attention, the part about weapons feels wrong to me. It unnecessarily limits weapons roleplay and makes it far blander. Why not just force you to roleplay a weapon with an appropriate caliber, which, while it does rule out a lot of exotic firearms, still gives you at least some freedom?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IdleStacks said:

Not gonna lie I was thinking everyone had already silently agreed to ignore that for being really stupid

 

However, now that I'm reading this with more attention, the part about weapons feels wrong to me. It unnecessarily limits weapons roleplay and makes it far blander. Why not just force you to roleplay a weapon with an appropriate caliber, which, while it does rule out a lot of exotic firearms, still gives you at least some freedom?

 

 

There will be a wide array of weapons, calibres and attachments available. There will no need to replicate it as something else. Prices will differ, so this is why this should be enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For emphasis:

 

"the mother charter was established in south-central Phoenix, taken from the Auslanders MC"

"the mother chapter originated in Olympia, in Seattle, Washington, Maelstrom Motorcycle Club"

 "on December 20, 2008, in Las Vegas, Mongols... Mongols Nation"

"a senior leader in the most powerful crimmnal organization functioning in the California prison system, the Mexican Mafia", The Mexican Mafia (1957)

"Our goal is to accurately depict a modern-day Sureño gang in Vespucci (based on the Venice and Oakwood neighborhoods of Los Angeles)," Vespucci 13

"The Russians go after everybody. One retired cop in New York told me," Obshak

"The White Car aims to depict a realistic, authentic and character-driven depiction of the California white street and prison gang culture." The White Car

"has never been on the same wave length as Chicago or New York's families" The Los Santos Crime Family

"Armenian Power 13 will serve as a continuation to the events of Operation Power Outage, a sting operation that was targeted at arresting and indicting members of the criminal group operating in the United States." Armenian Power 13

"Buffalo New York. A city that is as crooked as it is tall." First Communion

 

These are quotes from just a few of the faction threads I've scanned, many of which already acknowledge that San Andreas is the replacement of California. And this is without listing the street gangs actually based and named after their real life equivalents. Are we still fooling ourselves that the majority considers San Andreas a separate island or the 51st state? 

 

 

Edited by Chuckles
  • Ryder 2
  • Thumbs 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chuckles said:

There will be a wide array of weapons, calibres and attachments available. There will no need to replicate it as something else.

I'm sure many will be available.

 

But what's the actual plus of limiting roleplay this badly when going by caliber and general similarities to allow people to roleplay what they want is much simpler and beneficial to RP? What issue has there ever been with people roleplaying different firearms as long as they're similar to what's in the game?  There's no point in adding every Glock generation into the game as a different gun when you can just say so in a /do and let people roleplay having an older or newer model.

 

I believe we should be allowed to roleplay weapons as whatever we want as long as they're fairly similar. Roleplaying my AK as a vz. 58 or my SNS as a PF-9 isn't exactly going to hurt anyone.

 

Quote

Prices will differ, so this is why this should be enforced.

But the gun you have in the script won't. It will do the same damage, expend the same ammunition and be reloaded the same way. It doesn't matter if you're RPing having some piece of shit Jimenez Arms 9mm or a modern Taurus g3c. It's just RP flavor that never hurt anyone and can add to a character. Stifling roleplay like this is incredibly unnecessary for the very few gains to be had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IdleStacks said:

I believe we should be allowed to roleplay weapons as whatever we want as long as they're fairly similar. Roleplaying my AK as a vz. 58 or my SNS as a PF-9 isn't exactly going to hurt anyone.

 

But the gun you have in the script won't. It will do the same damage, expend the same ammunition and be reloaded the same way. It doesn't matter if you're RPing having some piece of shit Jimenez Arms 9mm or a modern Taurus g3c. It's just RP flavor that never hurt anyone and can add to a character. Stifling roleplay like this is incredibly unnecessary for the very few gains to be had.

but they won't. there is a huge amount of guns of different calibers, firing rates. magazine sizes and prices that will be used. they will look and function differently. while I do understand that you may wish to RP your 9mm Glock 17 as a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield, you'll be able to actually own that specific model of that specific gun.

  • CJ 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, IdleStacks said:

But the gun you have in the script won't. It will do the same damage, expend the same ammunition and be reloaded the same way. It doesn't matter if you're RPing having some piece of shit Jimenez Arms 9mm or a modern Taurus g3c. It's just RP flavor that never hurt anyone and can add to a character. Stifling roleplay like this is incredibly unnecessary for the very few gains to be had.

 

There will be differing models, bullet calibres, cartidges and attachments made available for every weapon. With different rates of fire, damage and mag size like trouble.maker has just touched on. The implementation of this was solely because of this. Not to limit anything, but roleplaying it as something else just doesn't make sense. Most, if not all, of the typical Californian-used weapons will be made available I assume. Developers have put a lot of focus on this and have established a diverse and realistic script.


This is in addition to the server-sided weapons already made available. 

Edited by Chuckles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, IdleStacks said:

I'm sure many will be available.

 

But what's the actual plus of limiting roleplay this badly when going by caliber and general similarities to allow people to roleplay what they want is much simpler and beneficial to RP? What issue has there ever been with people roleplaying different firearms as long as they're similar to what's in the game?  There's no point in adding every Glock generation into the game as a different gun when you can just say so in a /do and let people roleplay having an older or newer model.

 

I believe we should be allowed to roleplay weapons as whatever we want as long as they're fairly similar. Roleplaying my AK as a vz. 58 or my SNS as a PF-9 isn't exactly going to hurt anyone.

 

But the gun you have in the script won't. It will do the same damage, expend the same ammunition and be reloaded the same way. It doesn't matter if you're RPing having some piece of shit Jimenez Arms 9mm or a modern Taurus g3c. It's just RP flavor that never hurt anyone and can add to a character. Stifling roleplay like this is incredibly unnecessary for the very few gains to be had.

 

I might be wrong, but later down the line we'll have server-side mods for specific weapon models, however we'll still be keeping the vanilla weapons to give players the option of roleplaying custom weapons not covered by the script.

 

For example, you use the GTA V vanilla combat pistol but can roleplay it as whatever realistic 9mm pistol you want that isn't already modded onto the server.

Edited by Mac
  • Thumbs 1

GSTK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mac said:

 

I might be wrong, but later down the line we'll have server-side mods for specific weapon models, however we'll still be keeping the vanilla weapons to give players the option of roleplaying custom weapons not covered by the script.

 

For example, you use the GTA V vanilla combat pistol but can roleplay it as whatever realistic 9mm pistol you want.

That sounds very good and like the perfect solution to my problem.

 

 

  • Strong 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, La Tweaker said:

I don't know a single serious RPer who's ever roleplayed San Andreas as the 51st state and/or as an island. Am I supposed to roleplay that my faction (MS-13) formed in two different states, with the exact same gang name and history in the same time period? come on now.

This. It shouldn't be portrayed as an island. Why is this even a topic?

Edited by Salvagoon
  • Thumbs 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Chuckles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Chuckles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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. 

Sal 

Ex-staff

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.