Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thumbs 1
  • Strong 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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. 

Decided to dip, at least for a bit. Reasoning and shit is here.

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by Chuckles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Thumbs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Thumbs 1

Decided to dip, at least for a bit. Reasoning and shit is here.

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"? 

Decided to dip, at least for a bit. Reasoning and shit is here.

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, just to emphasize:

 

Anyone is able to propose an edit or a change under this thread. All you have to do is quote what I have proposed with your own interpretations and we'll deliberate.

 

This is nothing official, it's just a proposal and we want to have as much public input as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't get why people are so adamant about keeping Vice City, Liberty City etc when practically it makes no difference and has no benefit. To me it just sounds goofy and breaks immersion, especially if half the population is saying New York and half is saying Liberty City.

 

If people have roleplayed their characters coming from these places then just swap them to the real life counterpart as this is what we'd be roleplaying as in game anyway. Liberty City = New York, not the Liberty City you know from the games.

 

Why add this unnecessary step that only serves to break immersion?

Edited by r0yal
  • Thumbs 2
  • OK 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, r0yal said:

I really don't get why people are so adamant about keeping Vice City, Liberty City etc when practically it makes no difference and has no benefit. To me it just sounds goofy and breaks immersion, especially if half the population is saying New York and half is saying Liberty City.

 

If people have roleplayed their characters coming from these places then just swap them to the real life counterpart as this is what we'd be roleplaying as in game anyway. Liberty City = New York, not the Liberty City you know from the games.

 

Why add this unnecessary step that only serves to break immersion?

Agreed, 100%. The only thing that really makes a difference is having both, because, as you said, it’s weird and immersion breaking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2022 at 8:26 AM, Chuckles said:

 

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 

 

 

We should consider the entire area to be Los Santos County since we plan to have all of our government agencies modeled after Los Santos County. It wouldn't make sense for the LSSD and other agencies to have jurisdiction over Blaine County.
 
If anything, we could roleplay the areas above Route 68 was once considered Blaine County but then merged into Los Santos County.

Edited by vrb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, vrb said:

 

We should consider the entire area to be Los Santos County since we plan to have all of our government agencies modeled after Los Santos County. It wouldn't make sense for the LSSD and other agencies to have jurisdiction over Blaine County.
 
If anything, we could roleplay the areas above Route 68 was once considered Blaine County but then merged into Los Santos County.

This is a poor reason in my opinion. I agree that it's a tricky issue for the LSSD to get around, but I don't believe our entire geographical lore should be based around the jurisdiction of a single law enforcement faction. I disagreed with GTAW taking this stance. I believe it's much more important for us to have the possibility of Northern California-style illegal factions open (which doesn't only include Norteños but several other varieties too). Obviously we are all going to have different opinions on which of these should be sacrificed, but I believe the decision affects those illegal factions much more.

 

My suggestion for the LSSD would be to roleplay being contracted out to provide law enforcement services in Blaine County, which in turn can be roleplayed as a large county that connects the southern and northern regions of the state (as some California counties are huge). The LASD is the largest sheriff's department in the country and covers very broad and confusing jurisdictions in real life, so I believe this should be an easy thing for them to roleplay.

 

Your suggestion is plausible, but in my opinion it's much simpler this way. Then only the LSSD has to worry about roleplaying its own lore and jurisdictional mandate and the rest of us can just roleplay Blaine County existing. This is much simpler considering Blaine County exists in-game, plus everyone who plays GTA V already knows it and considers the northern part of the map as Blaine County. If we were instead to roleplay it all as Los Santos County, that's an extra layer of pretending and imagining that everyone has to do and ultimately it's always easier to go with the simplest possible option.

 

This is also the reason that when chuckles and I were discussing this stuff before the thread was posted, and the possibility was raised of adding a fictional county to cover how different the northern part of the map is, we decided to just go with making it Blaine County instead. It's far simpler, which for something as broad as this is always the preferable option.

Edited by largehazard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only closing comment is to say again that many factions (including my faction, MS-13) are meant to be portrayals of notorious California street gangs. My faction's history is very much inspired by the Mara Salvatrucha's real life history and as a result, California existing would put a massive plot hole in my faction's storyline and history and as a result, we're not going to be acknowledging California as an existing state regardless of any administrative ruling, it makes little sense in our opinions for us to be forced to roleplay the state existing as an island and that our gang (MS-13) was formed in two different states at the same time, which just wouldn't happen.

 

In real life, the Mara Salvatrucha first appeared in Koreatown, Los Angeles. On LSRP, we roleplay the MS-13 as having originated in Little Seoul, Los Santos and Los Angeles (Along with California in general) does not exist.

 

One thing I don't 100% agree with though is the thing about other GTA cities. If we're trying to tell the admins to let us roleplay California not existing, we should still be able to mention and roleplay the existence of places like Liberty City, Vice City and San Fierro (Not with GTA Lore histories, though), I for instance, am not going to be roleplaying the existence of ANY cities that have a GTA equivelent, to me, NY is LC, Miami is VC, Las Venturas is Vegas and San Fierro is Francisco.

Edited by La Tweaker
  • Strong 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For the northern cali/ southern cali differential to work, realistically we can't have one county. Initially we were going to implement a fictional county but instead opted to replace Blaine County's equivalent. This blueprint has much more pros than it has cons and it'd be a shame to abandon it because one agency has modelled their factions around one county, which doesn't even make sense to begin with.

 

Both counties already exist. One thing I will say is that the same laws and models can still exist for law enforcement agencies, they'd just have to tailor and word it around our lore. This is essentially no different than the "we're an island" mentality. I have faith the SD's leadership can figure this out. It adds more depth to their history and more jurisdiction to them.

 

We haven't added anything that wasn't already here. We've just replaced its real life equivalent to fit our thesis. As far as California existing goes, I think it's safe to say we've taken care of that and the management should see sense from this thread upon review. 

 

As far as the existence of SF/LV, I'm one of those who'd agree with using their real life names but again, this is trivial. For those of us who wish to reference it by their real life equivalent, this won't really affect us because we'll continue using our interpretations. This was more for a ease of access to stop new/unacknowledged players from being bombarded. It will be more of a consensual guideline.

 

As far as Liberty City and Vice City goes, I see no reason why these cities should even be acknowledged. It's a ball and chain.

 

 

Edited by Chuckles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of our suggestions compromise anything geographically. Blaine County has always existed, it's not something we've implemented ourselves. We haven't done anything to change that, other than the fact we're acknowledging Blaine County's real life equivalent as something else.

 

Paleto and Grapeseed are not part of Los Santos, they're in Blaine County both geographically and principally. 

 

Were the government planning on ignoring the existence of Blaine County or? Are they still adopting the "it's an island" approach?

 

 

@Maxim

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chuckles said:

None of our suggestions compromise anything geographically. Blaine County has always existed, it's not something we've implemented ourselves. We haven't done anything to change that, other than the fact we're acknowledging Blaine County's real life equivalent as something else.

 

Paleto and Grapeseed are not part of Los Santos, they're in Blaine County both geographically and principally. 

 

Were the government planning on ignoring the existence of Blaine County or? Are they still adopting the "it's an island" approach?

 

 

@Maxim

 

 

We were planning to have the whole map under the county, yes - as this whole thing wasn't really brought up at any point. I'm sure we can work something out, though.

MAYOR TIMOTHY KNIGHT

LSGOV DISCORD

LSGOV FORUMS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maxim said:

We were planning to have the whole map under the county, yes - as this whole thing wasn't really brought up at any point. I'm sure we can work something out, though.

 

I don't think it's that much of a problem. Anything applicable to LSC can be applicable to BC too, it's not really a stalemate. The laws, jurisdiction and everything else can be universal. The only thing this suggestion was brought forward for was immersion and acknowledgement. Everything else is just a workaround. 

 

Whatever you come up with we'll gladly edit it in to the thread before we forward our draft. We've reached out to the SD a few days ago for the same reason.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Key points for management to consider:

 

San Andreas replaces California as a state in the United States and Los Santos replaces Los Angeles as a city within it. Liberty and Vice City don't exist, New York and Miami do in their place. San Fierro/Las Venturas vs San Francisco/San Fierro is trivial and not too important in comparison, but the news/events of each city's real life equivalent can be acknowledged (granted that it doesn't clash with ours)

 

  • 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 can (if absolutely necessary or if unaware of lore) exist in name alone, it inhabits everything else from San Francisco
  • Las Venturas can (see above) exist 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 

 

Illegal or legal factions may use real-life events and history, using San Andreas as California's replacement, for their backgrounds up until the 2019 cut-off point. This means anything after 2019 (in your background or threads) must be fictional, unless roleplaying real-time events our own world doesn't cover.

 

Paleto Bay/Grapeseed is in northern San Andreas and is part of Blaine County. Sandy Shores is part of southern San Andreas and is part of Los Santos County

 

San Andreas occupies the same space in the southwest corner of the US. It is connected to the mainland. The only time these coastal waters really come up is in police pursuits or exercises. It's not exactly hard to, other than that, imagine you're on the continental mainland. As a result, companies, factions and players and businesses can use this information to construct routes, faction stories, character backgrounds and business modules. As can designated strawmen.

 

Anything else proposed in this thread is trivial and can be deliberated on by management. These are what I want to personally see ruled on. Again, three are not official. These are some things we hope to have influence on, and management will rule based on everything, not just this. 

 

Thanks for the debate.

 

@Kane feel free to forward this for deliberation. GOV/LSSD can forward theirs separately. This is FT's end of the proposal.

 

 

 

Edited by Chuckles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 3/1/2022 at 3:35 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.

 

+1

You put a bit of effort but it literally makes no sense because VC, LC, LV and SF should exist and replace the actual cities they're supposed to be. Lol

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...