Official standing about IC population portrayal - Thoughts?

[HeyMambo]

I'm not concerned with time, that was written in the main post. The concern is that the proper portrayal of what would realistically be a busy metropolitan city is being completely disregarded now and we're supposed to just play like we live in this bubble of whoever is online. Busy streets IRL down a main street in the comparative real life versions of Mission Row or Legion Square? No longer matters. If it's empty IC, it's empty. Why go through the trouble of establishing all this server continuity of the history of Los Santos when we're supposed to pretend no one lives here except a few hundred people? I thought this was a heavy role play server and this literally goes in the completely opposite direction. It just makes no sense to me.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Numelo

[EffPee]

18 minutes ago, ThatDutchPerson said:

Sure, I can get behind that, thats understandable. What I don’t understand is why location doesn’t matter anymore “aslong as it isnt paleto if the robber lices in Davis”. How does that not matter? This blanket statement opens up the door to robbery squads going North, East, South and West Los Santos to rob whoever they please where-ever they please; even when the place is densely populated 24/7 realisticly (like Legion Square)!

 

This is a dangerous precedent that the staff is setting and could have severe negative consequences to legal characters who were once protected by rules enforcing realism, and its a step further into going dangerously close to “cops and robbers that someone takes too seriously” territory.

 

Illegal Faction Management now basicly told every legal roleplayer to arm up, as thats the last resort we now have to play a legal character even in realisticly safe areas, which will flood the report section with DM reports.

 

This was not well thought of, and I sincerely hope the staff team will revert back the consideration of location into effect. Time of day is something I don’t mind, but criminal roleplayers should always keep the location in mind. Are there sloppy ones? Yes, but with this precedent you just opened the door for everyone to be “sloppy”.

There is a very small list of “unrealistic” locations for crime to be committed in real life. Just because every location is perceived to be safe does not mean it is, anything can happen and criminals can weigh up the risks taken when they commit crime in these more open areas. The lack of realism doesn’t lie in crime occurring in these areas, the lack of realism lies in HOW these crimes are committed in these areas. Not to mention the lack of leads that can be followed up on after a crime is committed. 
 

I can understand your perspective here, it’s just vastly uneducated and it pretty much admits that legal roleplayers were protected by rules in cases that would realistically happen. Poor portrayals of crime will always be around, this change hasn’t done anything to increase or decrease this.

 

Your point about legal roleplayers “arming up” is ridiculous too. In the same vain that not every illegal roleplayer should roleplay a cold hearted killer, I feel like legal roleplayers should be even less likely to. Superhero characters calling cops after gunning down criminals and going about their day afterwards cannot be excused.

[bartman]

16 minutes ago, EffPee said:

Superhero characters calling cops after gunning down criminals and going about their day afterwards cannot be excused.

Ccw warriors about to not think twice in gunning down a new thief who paid 8k for a switchblade

 

Ccws are abused to make random legal characters Chris Kyle and they never think about the people they kill because "the crime rate".

 

 

Side rant from the main thread but point is shitty portrayal goes both ways.

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by bartman

[Storm]

31 minutes ago, ThatDutchPerson said:

Not to be rude, but you are contradicting yourself with each post you make. Im sure you have good intentions but at this point its better if someone who actually sparked this up to release a comment on the matter; Illegal Faction Management.

 

First you say location doesnt matter anymore, in the same post you say you do, then again it doesn’t and now you say that was a mere exemple? Im confused and I hope you understand that.

Location alone doesn't matter, and that's been my point from the start even when I was mentioning the status quo of the server itself. There is no contradiction. The location isn't the problem per-se in the example but rather that a group of gang members from the South Central area have ventured up into the depths of Paleto simply to rob hunters. This is unrealistic, it is poor portrayal, but it is backed by area that they reside and the area that they have chosen to be where they initiate robberies. This is the direction we're looking to take up, by considering who's doing what instead of a blanket "you can't do this here because there'd be a lot of pedestrians that you can't see". Point being that area alone (unless it is a defined safe zone) is not enough to call off a crime from happening.

 

I've been very consistent with this point throughout each post and the insight that I have provided has remained the same from the beginning. If anything, perhaps you misunderstood what that part of the statement meant but I believe this post should give you enough clarification to understand the intent of the statement in the original post.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Dawn

[HeyMambo]

10 minutes ago, Dawn said:

Location alone doesn't matter, and that's been my point from the start even when I was mentioning the status quo of the server itself. There is no contradiction. The location isn't the problem per-se in the example but rather that a group of gang members from the South Central area have ventured up into the depths of Paleto simply to rob hunters. This is unrealistic, it is poor portrayal, but it is backed by area that they reside and the area that they have chosen to be where they initiate robberies. This is the direction we're looking to take up with considering who's doing what instead of a blanket "you can't do this here because there'd be a lot of pedestrians that you can't see". Point being that area alone (unless it is a defined safe zone) is not enough to call off a crime from happening.

So, you're saying that gang members shouldn't be allowed to commit crime outside the city because it's poor portrayal based on the fact they normally reside inside the city? But its not poor portrayal to disregard realism in the fact that we are supposed to be portraying a metropolitan city?

Edited May 16, 2021 by Numelo

[hillievonb]

It's a bad decision. I can understand the time of day justification for the sake of time zones. However, ignoring the fact that some areas should objectively be populated and allowing unrealistic criminal behavior in those areas? It's bowing down to bad criminal roleplayers. Note I didn't say criminal roleplayers.

 

Does crime happen in populated areas in RL? Sure. However, for the people excusing this by saying that criminals are sloppy and take risks, that is precisely the problem. These criminals in-game aren't taking risks proportional to what the risk would be in RL. There are no witnesses, there are no cameras that realistically would be there. They are taking advantage of OOC reality and ignoring that IC reality should be, and thereby ruining any sort of realism. That's not heavy RP. That's light cops and robbers roleplay, and completely shatters any attempt at realism and portrayal.

 

The outcome is bad portrayal for criminals, which in turn encourages bad portrayal for legal RPers. The next time someone whines about PF warriors, well... LOL?

[Storm]

1 minute ago, Numelo said:

So, you're saying that gang members who reside in the city now shouldn't be allowed commit crime outside the city because it's poor portrayal?

I think you're trying to change what is being said to fit your narrative. The situation I specifically outlined is (still) enforced widely though as it was a fairly very occurance when the hunting update was first re-introduced.

[HeyMambo]

6 minutes ago, Dawn said:

I think you're trying to change what is being said to fit your narrative. The situation I specifically outlined is (still) enforced widely though as it was a fairly very occurance when the hunting update was first re-introduced.

I'm not changing anything. I'm discussing what you said. What about Sandy Shores? Where is the line drawn for what is now considered proper portrayal for gang members who reside in the city? Why are some things cherry picked for portrayal issues (location of crime based on location of residence or gang affiliation) but not others (a city that's now effectively a ghost town with no population besides who's in-game)? It's inconsistent and won't do anything but hurt the server in the long run. The cycle will be --- crime increases. Legal RP'ers become more vigilant and guarded. Illegal RP'ers complain about PF warriors and legal RP'ers complain about being robbed in the middle of Legion Square or the Del Perro Pier because no one was around to see it IC even though it makes no sense realistically to rob someone there. This is not the way. It's short sighted. See below.

 

7 minutes ago, hillievonb said:

It's a bad decision. I can understand the time of day justification for the sake of time zones. However, ignoring the fact that some areas should objectively be populated and allowing unrealistic criminal behavior in those areas? It's bowing down to bad criminal roleplayers. Note I didn't say criminal roleplayers.

 

Does crime happen in populated areas in RL? Sure. However, for the people excusing this by saying that criminals are sloppy and take risks, that is precisely the problem. These criminals in-game aren't taking risks proportional to what the risk would be in RL. There are no witnesses, there are no cameras that realistically would be there. They are taking advantage of OOC reality and ignoring that IC reality should be, and thereby ruining any sort of realism. That's not heavy RP. That's light cops and robbers roleplay, and completely shatters any attempt at realism and portrayal.

 

The outcome is bad portrayal for criminals, which in turn encourages bad portrayal for legal RPers. The next time someone whines about PF warriors, well... LOL?

👏👏👏👏👏👏

Edited May 16, 2021 by Numelo

[EffPee]

4 minutes ago, hillievonb said:

Does crime happen in populated areas in RL? Sure. However, for the people excusing this by saying that criminals are sloppy and take risks, that is precisely the problem. These criminals in-game aren't taking risks proportional to what the risk would be in RL. There are no witnesses, there are no cameras that realistically would be there. They are taking advantage of OOC reality and ignoring that IC reality should be, and thereby ruining any sort of realism. That's not heavy RP. That's light cops and robbers roleplay, and completely shatters any attempt at realism and portrayal.

 

The outcome is bad portrayal for criminals, which in turn encourages bad portrayal for legal RPers. The next time someone whines about PF warriors, well... LOL?

The whole “criminals are sloppy” isn’t the only excuse for committing crime in populated areas. Criminals are opportunists, given the slim possibility they’ll realistically make a buck off of their actions, they’ll take any chance they get to do it. If this means they’re hungry enough to rob someone in the middle of a would-be populated area, or attacking an opposing member in a populated area; so be it. Bad criminal roleplayers will ALWAYS find a way to ruin someone’s day, this rule hasn’t changed that nor will it exacerbate the issue.

 

How are people really saying “fight bad portrayal with bad portrayal”? There’s a reason we never get anywhere with the illegal/legal divide. Either side uses the other sides downsides to excuse any poor portrayal on their behalf, we should be striving as individuals to keep our standards high; even if this means losing a situation to someone with poor portrayal. This is the only way we’ll ever get anywhere.

 

tldr: Poor portrayal is not an excuse to gun someone down and just carry on with your day. You should care about your development and character enough to not make this simple mistake.

[Storm]

Just now, Numelo said:

I'm not changing anything. I'm discussing what you said. What about Sandy Shores? Where is the line drawn for what is now considered proper portrayal for gang members who reside in the city? Why are some things cherry picked for portrayal issues (location of crime based on location of residence) but not others (a city that's now effectively a ghost town with no population besides who's in-game)?

Again, portrayal issues are subjective and have many factors that need to be considered character by character. The example that I gave is one of many which we would see as poor portrayal and just happened to be very common and relevant to what has happened on the server.