Solution to the Overland Map Debate

In my short time here I have very much realized the split and hotly debated view on whether the game should have an overland map. I for one fall on the side that the overland map is bad as it breaks immersion and the game feels like a series of rooms instead of a vast expansive world to explore.

However, I have a solution. (no really, I do!)

In my R13 Review post I offered the suggestion that zones that fall right next to each other should allow the user to travel from one zone into the other without ever having to go to the world map (e.g. North Ravenswood into Deep Ravenswood). With this suggestion in mind, what if "filler" zones were added in between existing zones, and using my suggestion above, would allow the player to run across the entire map in game mode without ever having to use the overland map. You could run from Braemar to Owl's Head without ever using the overland map if you wish by seamlessly (maybe a load screen here and there if needed) running between zones.

However, at the same time for "fast" or "long-distance" traveling, the player could essentially toggle between game-mode and overland map mode. So basically the game would incorporate both options and playstyles!

If I want to patrol the road for bandits from Braemar to Owl's Head and just explore in general, I can run from zone to zone without ever hitting the overland map. If I'm in a hurry and need to get to the bank in Owl's Head and I'm in Braemar, I can toggle to overland map view and proceed to my destination from this view quickly.

In this implementation everyone can potentially be happy. Now keep in mind I say "Toggle" like it's an instantaneous thing, but my idea would use restrictions, such as you can't toggle to overland map while in combat. Plus it wouldn't be an instantaneous toggle. Once you initiate the switch from game-mode to overland map mode, your character could being an animation sequence perhaps of checking his backpack, supplies, map, making notes for the trip, etc. This animation could take, say, 30 seconds (or whatever time seems reasonable) so the feature wouldn't be abused. If you come in combat at any point during the animation, the process is canceled and you will have to initiate the process again once you're out of combat.

I think this idea is really solid, mainly because of how practical it is. The functionality is already there with the random encounters feature of the game. The player can already be taken to game-mode from overland map mode by these random encounters and of course functionality already exists from going from game-mode to overland map mode by currently leaving the edge of a zone.

It's the best of both worlds!

-Lord Shaszahan

 

It is a hotly debated point, that isn't really up for debate.
The overland map is here to stay.

 

I'd like it more if it was an actual map.

 

I like the overland map, it allows for expansion.

Joining maps in the way OP suggests would prevent that expansion, as area boundaries would be set in stone.

 

I like it the way it is!

 

At first, I was fairly apprehensive about the map. My MMO world experience was mostly in EQ-like games and was hoping for something similar. After using the map for many releases now, I'm really happy they went this route. It's different from what I'm used to - I like that. I'm really digging the modifications from the last two or three releases. They are continuing to refine and add more content to it with each release. I'm looking forward to seeing more dynamic content added in the future.

Also a good point, lollie. There would be extra work involved if they choose to add a new area or spin up a new town. I didn't really think about it like that, but it would add an extra layer of complexity.

 

This has been debated ad nuseum....Lillie was right for one of the reasons it is in. It also allows the debs the ability to create a really large world in a shorter amount of time.

Also, you can't have players using the different styles to do the same thing like the op suggested. It would be impossible to balance the game in any logical way.

 

How did you not think of it that way when it was one of the reasons the debs decided to go that route and it was mentioned throughout kickstarter.

 

Also bear in mind the overland map will be getting more points of interest, such as mini quests (the encounters, which will be getting more detailed and have actual purpose in the form of things NPCs will ask us to do in those places, ie random quests), which will add greatly to the fun we can experience in this game.

I'm actually quite excited about the possibilities afforded by this style of travel from point to point.

 

Like I said, at first I was apprehensive. Believe it or not, I too have doubts on occasion.

Anyway, sometimes seeing is believing. And seeing the map grow and mature over the last few releases has put to rest any doubts in my mind about the direction the team is headed with it.

 

Yea, one of the things that sold me on the overland map is the ability to expand areas and add new content without having to restructure everything else in the game.

One of the problems in UO was that housing started to bleed out into the wilderness, until the wilderness would feel really tiny and overcrowded with houses, and in order to get more housing, someone would have to open up a new server. With dual-scale, they have two options.. One is to expand the size of the town, and if they do that, they don't have to touch anything else on the map except the town. POTs will have an upgrade option in the future. A second way is to add new towns to the map.

It also allows them to easily add new dungeons, and new scenes, without having to redesign everything, too.

It also opens up the possibility of player-made scenes that are the result of custom quests. Consider Star Trek Online, which allows you to create custom episodes through the Foundry. They let a player go to any planet that exists in the game and enter a location on that planet made by another player. Potentially, they could do the same here.. but having random spots in the wilderness that appear on your map when you accept a player quest.

There are lots of possibilities it opens up.

 

I see it from a different perspective - my understanding is that to run a contiguous map of a large world takes up a lot of computing space and storage. Not so much on the users' end, but on the game developers' end. It was one of the things which forced UO to create multiple "shards" because they quickly ran out of housing space.

The advantages of using an overland map:

- It does take up less computing space/storage, thus allowing our pledge dollars to go further;

- It allows the devs to "pop in" scenes - whether that's a random encounter, or additional villages because we've run out of housing space! (This is also how they can add player owned towns, when the time comes.)

All of the above being said - would I prefer a contiguous map? Sure, if it was feasible. But considering the two items above, I'm content to use an overland map and grateful that it doesn't take forever to get from Owl's Head to Braemar, grateful they can pop in additional towns/villages to meet the housing needs of the community, and even grateful for the occasional random encounter because it gives me an opportunity to gather some resources.

So that's my take on it.

 

I agree, it is here to stay. But since we know there will be interconnected scenes, especially for the entire underworld, this proposal for the overworld as an optional method of travel is sound and has a basis on precedent already set in-game.

You can travel from Owl's Head to Ravensmoor without using the overworld map at all: Owl's Head -> Owl's Head Sewers -> Underworld cave system -> Ravensmoor Dungeon -> Ravensmoor exterior.

It would be great that if you zoomed out even further, it transitioned into an actual map that you simply look at -- if you had it in your possession, much like town maps.

Actually, no. They'd simply insert a new scene in between two scene transitions. They've already done this in-game now, like with the underworld. Again, the precedent has already been set by the game itself. Sure, it might seem weird to all of a sudden see a new scene pop up between two scenes that used to be directly connected...but that is only affecting players who have chosen to optionally travel this way. Anyone using the overworld map to travel won't be affected by this sudden / abrupt insertion of a new scene. They'll simply see a new town marker pop up that wasn't there a minute ago

 

Well Frank here saved me from a big long response, so I definitely appreciate that. His rebuttals are spot on.

I think the point many people here are missing, as Frank points out, is this would be an optional feature. Those of you who enjoy the current play style as is would still be able to play exactly as you do now. Literally the only impact for these players would be instead of running to the edge of a zone to get to the overland map, you would simply use the toggle that takes you to the world map from your current location.

Furthermore the over-zealousness of some people to stick with the current model precisely as it stands is really short-sighted. As much as you love this current state, there's just as many on the other side who hate it. The truth is there will be people who won't pick SoTA up because of the simple lack of feeling of a vast and interconnected world. I personally have a couple of friends who have claimed this current model is a deal-breaker for them. They want to explore what they feel is a big open world, not a continuous series of instances and loading screens. So why not cater to both preferences and increase your player base? The game makes more money, and generally speaking, everyone wins.

One of the only reasonable response raised thus far was that implementing such a system would create barriers to expansion. I understand the reasoning behind this opinion, but I believe it's being highly overstated. Having filler zones can easily allow for expansion for plopping down new villages and what not. Just because the zone exists doesn't mean a new housing development, or town, or point of interest. or whatever can't be placed within it. Lore wise, you can allow for geographical events to change a zone's look, climate, monster population etc. Just make up a story in 5 minutes about how a recent earthquake revealed the entrance to a new dungeon, a drought turned a grasslands into a desert, a group of players decided to build a new settlement, a giant meteor crashed and.. oh wait we already have Grunvald Shardfall... Point being, having interconnected zones does not limit expansion capabilities. Look at ESO. The entire world of Tamriel is interconnected, and certain areas were sectioned off for future development/expansion, and new things pop up in the "static" zones all the time. So the argument that my proposal limits the ability to expand really doesn't get off the ground in my opinion.

The other thoughtful response mentioned cost-effectiveness. All I have to say to that is that in this modern day and age there is literally no reason hardware can't be purchased to accommodate this idea. Literally every other game that is not SoTA, and doesn't use an overland map, utilizes an interconnected world. So although costs are certainly always a concern, there's no reason to believe Portalarium wouldn't be able to purchase servers capable of this functionality like nearly every other game company has currently already done.

 

I've made a few recommendations in the past on how to deal with the overland map and loading times, etc etc. While I do enjoy running around on the overland map, I am not keen on the load times and having to run from instance to instance to get my materials. I proposed a loading screen for connecting hexes together rather than having to pop up to the overland map. run to the edge, load another hex/scene, only by using the 'map' selection in your UI would you go to the overland map. With this in mind you should be able to travel from hex to hex by compass only, only using the map if you get lost. Mine is a healthy compromise that is basically moot at this point, but would add a great bit of depth and would help the immersion of being in the world.

The kicker is that the overland map acts as the connector to all the hexes and one cannot access a hex unless they are accessing it from the overland. I was also told that scenes are loaded individually and cannot be mixed together due to the Unity requirements. Unity requires scenes to be used rather than one seemless scene that spreads the entire game. Imagine Owl's Head x 2000 for loading times and that would be what would happen if they made the world one giant seamless hex.

 

Count me in the leave the map group. I have officially switched sides. A lot games have this in one form or another. For example, the Secret World has a giant tree-like structure to go from instance to instance. The overland map is a million times cooler than that.

 

In order to implement this idea properly, they'd basically need a new gaming engine which means starting over from scratch.

The underworld works because it's just a giant closed off dungeon.

 

It's not open for debate because it would require the complete overhaul of the basic structure of the technology behind the game. It would also cost more, complicate, if not make Impossible the selective multiplayer, requiring that multiple shards be run instead of a single server, and vastly reduce or eliminate the flexibility they have in droping in or modifying scenes without affecting the rest of the world.

Complain all you want, but it's not going to change.

 

Making a seamless open world definitely is not going to happen. But having a series of interconnected scenes is already implemented for this game.

As I understood the OP, the request is simply to extend that for all scenes on the over world map. It is not a request to make it a seamless open world. So this request for interconnected over world scenes is very much open for discussion.

 

Who's complaining? Isn't this alpha where ideas and suggestions are supposed to be discussed in an attempt to improve the game?

But if you would, please elaborate on how there would need to be a complete overhaul? As my post mentioned, going between overland map and game-mode already exists functionally in the game. "Rewiring" in places with this functionality that already exists would have little if any effect on the selective multiplayer; again since this functionality is already here and in place.

Although in my mind seamless would be ideal, as Smack points out in the post above me, to travel between zones without using the mini-map would simply mean walking to the edge of one zone, load screen, into another zone. In certain cluster areas, such as Ravenswood, a reasonable amount of data could be loaded (e.g. each section of Ravenswood) which wouldn't require loading screen traversing the zones in this cluster, but if you move into the Valeway you would hit a loading screen for that cluster etc. So alternatively you wouldn't need a loading screen between each individual zone per say, but have the load screens where they're needed to partition game data into reasonable segments that can be handled by both client and server hardware smoothly.

Therefore you would not have to load the entire game map at once, averting that issue as someone else pointed out.

Also, please explain how flexibility to add or modify scenes is more difficult in this way? I don't believe you read the part of my post covering this point. That isn't even a real issue, but simply a rhetorical remark you've made to pseudo-support your opinion. Flexibility would not be impacted hardly at all. For example, in the mysterious swamp there is now a hut that wasn't there before in R13. Did the world nearly come to an end as developers spent countless hours contemplating and slaving away at putting this hut in the game accomplishing their task just in the nick of time? No. They just dropped it in. Like anything else, they just dropped it in. New villages, player run or npc, would be added the same way.

So I would again have to disagree in general with any of the thus far mentioned nay-saying points or any of the "this is set in stone" posts. Again, alpha is a time for improvement. Here is an example of an improvement potential that would help the game appeal to a wider player base. Why people are fighting that is beyond me.