To Be Or Not To Be: The Map

That is not the point. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are yet to voice their opinion and or concerns. If you would kind sir, would you please help me keep this thread on topic? I'am not trying to be a moderator by any means, I just see the thread getting off topic and I'am trying to keep it focused.

 

I didn't derail it. One or two posts were off topic. Getting into a meta-discussion about whether I'm derailing the thread sure isn't helping the thread.

I've participated plenty in the thread, offering my opinion in several posts and have stopped nobody from participating. I really don't understand what all the anger is about.

 

I don't think anyone is mad. Just trying to keep information and thoughts moving without letting this go into a multi-paged tangent. I apologize if I came off wrong, just trying my best to get important issues solved.

 

Hi all, glad that the mods merged all the map threads into this one. At least I don't have to hunt down the topic(s) just to keep up with the discussions.

My personal take on the map is that I need one for 1) navigation 2) keep track of where my friends are 3) keep track of the danger/treasure spots my friends have spotted.

While I thoroughly enjoyed the Age of Wonders 3 (AW3) video, the map there is not the secondary tool as I described above but the primary user interface into what is an RTS game. The difference between AW3 and Starcraft is that once battle is joined between two hostile armies , AW3 expands the player view into a miniature battlefield if he/she decides on manual combat. The miniature battlefield view disappears once the the battle's outcome is decided. And so the players spends most of their time on the overhead 3D map making tactical decisions & move and this is why 3D makes a lot of sense.

SOTA lies on the opposite end of the RTS genre in that the perspective is from the first person , the RPG sector. For me, the 3D overhead map is not a necessity but if SOTA was a hybrid RTS/RPG game like Knightshift where you get to play an adventurer with a small party *and* a commander of armies then a 3D overhead interface would be a must.

At some point a map ceases to be a map if there is a lot of user functionality built into it and unless SOTA is heading towards an RTS/RPG hybrid direction (which I would welcome) and gains the additional manpower & funding to do it - I would be on the pro-cloth side of this debate.

p.s KnightShift is on Steam apparently

Knightshift gameplay below, I thought it was a good attempt at seamless RTS/RPG gamplay though some people seem to think otherwise

 

The problem I see here is that Chris stated that one of the reasons to abandon the 3D map and go for a stylistic cloth style was the scale problem the realistic map style caused. Citites were too small, the Avatar and animals too big. If they now include encounters on the cloth map with animals and monsters roaming around, then they would recreate the scale problem for the cloth map. Then the question would be: Why did they abandon the 3D map when the scaling obviously wasn't the problem?

But Ultimas 1 to 5 were not hybrid RTS/RPG games and the overland map had a lot of functionality. And according to RG the initial plan for SotA was to go for such functionality. We do not know if those plans are still in place or if they abandoned them for just a travel method to go from hex to hex without further functionality.

 

Having not really played any of the older Ultima games, I have no experience with other map systems RG has used, but this one seems odd to me. If there will be random encounters and other things that make the need for the 'peg' to take so long to move from one area to the next, then it's not too bad. From what I've read it sounds like that might be the case.

I can see the need for a map like this from a technical standpoint, if each 'zone' is completely separate it works, technically, the feel is just off for me. Sadly I don't have ideas on how to fix the feel, but the changes I've seen from the R4 to the R5 maps show progress in the right direction.

Perhaps use something like DA:O, still need to click the desination, still have travel time, but the map felt like a map to me, not a cartoon intermission between scenes.

 

Here is how the dual scale map system of the old Ultimas worked and how I thought the system would work in SotA:
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...ns-release-6-revised.10408/page-6#post-174472

 

Thanks for merging the threads. Now I only need to read one thread each day to see if there is any news, rather than scour the forums for map topics that map have been updated.

Next if we could have some dev input here and there that would be just.....well....epic !

I'm still really eager to find out the future plans and tests which are being considered.
Feature lists are one of the most important considerations in my mind.

Will we have a dual-scale game as originally planned ? Or a single scale game with a fast travel map ?
Will it be a cloth map for fast travel (with possible animations) ? Or will it have features to make it more than just a map ?

I'd like to see the map kept as a map, but remove the fast travel. Implement a cartography skill (eventually in episode 2 or 3) where you can add to your map from places you have visited. Make new maps and sell them to other players.
Plus use the overland view as the travel system, that has all the features (camping, random encounters, wandering gypsies, dragons, *exploring*, etc....).
Then you can buy a map for a location you haven't been to from another player, and have a good but rough idea where you are going.
And most importantly use the overland view to actually explore and find the location on the map you purchased.

 

Can someone explain why the map was described as a 'roosterteeth' map please?

 

The map was shown during a presentation of the Roosterteeth show:

 

What's utterly fascinating, but, in the end, not at all surprising about all this bizarre obsession with the map, in a pre-alpha version of a game which rules and functions are still very much fluid, is how hard-core, in the worse sense of the term, the discussion has turned.

It's thanks to the passion of the game creators' fans that Shroud has gone has far as it has gone. But there's something sad and a bit nasty about the negative passion that has been displayed over the map issue. There's no lightness about any of it. No sense of fun, play, hope or enjoyment. It's a tribal, territorial, hardline "Us vs. Them" series of exchanges, suffused with anger, narcissism, and paranoia.

In my naivete I was hoping that Shroud of the Avatar would be different from other MMOs where such senseless, unreasonable discussions are common. But it's the same one-mindedness, the same vitriolic attitude, in a forum dedicated to an in-development game made to entertain and to give people a safe environment where they may indulge in their love of fantasy game-play.

I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I'm going to pledge funds to support the development of Shroud of the Avatar. And although there are more and more signs that Shroud is indeed going to be a unique and special product (I've been impressed by the approach the developers have taken so far, and, as importantly, I've been impressed by the cordial rapport the same devs have established with the game's dedicated community), I cannot be but saddened and disappointed by the anger, the impatience, and the sense of entitlement that has been expressed in those numerous (now thankfully unique) map threads.
And that personal disappointment has tainted my overall impression of Shroud to the point where I'm now wondering: "Do I really want to try again and give this new MMO a chance?".

For now though, I'll keep my hopes up and keep coming back to glean more information.

 

That's not entirely accurate. I would say that animated avatar vs. sliding shield and WASD movement have been top concerns for more than a few people and I have heard nothing about that.

I'm torn. These discussions have gone on too long. They're getting ridiculous and reminiscent of the PvP vs. PvE stuff (though not nearly as hateful) with the amount of repeated arguments, but the functionality and purpose are more important than art direction for me and those are the questions that have been left hanging.

They're giving us some information, I just don't think it's the right information to put the matter to rest (by rest of course, I mean the initial flair up of angry people on one side or the other, followed by it slowly moving away from the center of attention).

 

I am a bit surprised as it seems that the much more hotly debated PvP issues don't seem to bother you so much as the map issue.
Some of us are very passionate about this topic as it means so much to us to be able to explore a living overworld. What adds to this is that we were shown one thing and without explanation get another. Then we hear things like the map being nothing more than a means to travel from hex to hex when in interviews some time ago it was said that the overland map would offer much more functionality and be more of a second gameplay layer (similar to the overland map of Ultima 4 or 5). We are left in the dark and do not know what the case is now with the overland map. It is a frustrating situation that leaves its mark on the mood of people here.

 

This is probably where I would start with a rough map if I was Portalarium. A nice old school style map that should be able to host all those old-school gameplay features that we know and love of the classic Ultima's.

Technical problems solved - including adding ships for Ep 1.

Although they still would need to add multiplayer capabilities as well and use it to tie together a bunch of other features so that the map fits into the whole game, cohesively.

 

I realize this is a really hot topic for some folks, and I've not experienced either map so maybe some here will think I have no place in this discussion. So just bear with me. I'm enjoying my morning coffee at the moment, I do have opinions on the subject, and I'm in the mood to add my thoughts to this since ultimately it's something that will affect everyone, not just those with strong feelings on one side or the other. I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way. We just don't usually bother jumping into the fray, so to speak, on subjects we're just not that invested in. I do think that all opinions should be aired, though, even if they don't necessarily fit into one of the predominant two.

I've tried to read everything I could find on the subject because I was curious how this would actually work. I watched numerous videos on youtube all day yesterday, old and new, and got a pretty good feel (I think) for what you guys are all talking about. Well, as good as you can get from a video vs actually using it, that is.

So, with all that said, I have to say that neither map really appeals to me. And yet, neither map will be a show stopper for me. I will adjust to whatever system is eventually implemented, even if it's not necessarily what I would have chosen if the choice had been solely up to me.

It's not that I don't care one way or the other & would be entirely happy with either. It's that I do care and would not be entirely happy with either. Does that make any sense? lol. It's early. Of what I saw in the videos, if I had to vote for one or the other style, and if there was no "none of the above option," I'd vote for the second, less mini-game style.

Here's why....For my own personal tastes, I have never been overly fond of playing any part of an rpg game on a map. I feel I'm removed from the world part of the time and playing another game within a game. I like maps. I like seeing where I am and where I'm trying to get to. I like orienting myself relative to my surroundings & the world in general. But I don't like spending time on it, especially fighting on it. If I'm trying to get from point A to point B, in context of my play in the "main" game, I want to just go, I don't want to be diverted into a mini-game which completely breaks my immersion. (which is why I'm a fan of recall and moongates which only briefly remove you from the world via magic, but that's another topic altogether.)

But I realize that's just me and a lot of people find that it adds to their immersion. Everyone is different, which is as it should be. Whatever way they decide to do it, it's still going to be a fun game, and this is not an issue for me that would be game breaking or show stopping. Just giving a few of my thoughts on maps in general I guess. If they do ultimately decide on a min-game style map, I would be as tickled as I can be if they would also give us recall. ***winks and flirts with the dev team*** hehe, ok, not working eh? A gal can only try.

 

What do you mean by mini game?
Do I assume right that you would prefer the cloth style we have now?

 

Hey nofare,

Let me start by saying that I appreciate your opinions but felt that some of your descriptions seemed a little harsh so I have address these comments below. Please do not take this as a personal attack but simply it is my personal opinion on your comments.

I don't see it as being a 'bizarre obsession' for people passionate about something to discuss the turn of events while it is 'still very much fluid' and before it gets set in stone. It would make less sense to me if people said nothing and waited for the final product to be implemented and then aired their opinions.

I found this to be a little contradictory in nature. You told people that they are 'a bit nasty' and 'suffused with anger', 'narcissistic' and 'paranoid'? Do you see the oxymoronic nature of this statement at all?

I don't think it is so much about 'Us vs Them' as you think. I am assuming you mean 'us' as players and 'them' being developers. Rather it is more a matter of 'us' vs time. The 'us' just want to ensure that our voices are heard before there is no turning back, whether the 'them' decide to turn back or not. Its a matter of acknowledgement. The players haven't received any yet and so continue the discussions and the airing of their opinions.

Here you are now saying that peoples opinions are 'senseless', 'unreasonable' and 'vitriolic' (had to look that one up). I'm not sure how 'sad and nasty' other peoples comments have been but I do know that this post has not really been a ray of sunshine either. Again I have to go back to my previous comment about your post being somewhat oxymoronic (for lack of a better word) in nature. Again I do not wish to be negative towards your comments but at some places I am left with little choice, however I can chalk it up to your 'naivete' as you suggest if you like.

That is of course certainly your prerogative and your constructive opinions are more than welcome in the meantime.

I couldn't agree more.

It's a shame that you feel this way. Perhaps spending a bit of time reading the reasoning behind the posts or, if you are unsure, asking a question to someone about why they feel the way they do might help you to understand their feelings better. I'm sure many of the people who made these posts feel the same way you do, 'saddened and disappointed' by what they feel to be the sudden change in direction and backward momentum that the new interface offers. I'm not sure where your 'sense of entitlement' comes in but feel free to elaborate on that if you like. I'd be interested in reading more about how you formed your opinions as well, if you care to share.

It's understandable that, if a game does not offer what you are looking for in the way of a 'sense of fun, play, hope or enjoyment', that you'd be disappointed, especially if you were expecting something else. However if you are allowing other peoples opinions to define your decision for you then you may want to take some additional time to take advantage of the 'cordial rapport' offered by the 'devs and the game's community' to glean more information before arriving at your decision. In the meantime there are several external resources available that provide a good look at the game and the game play which you may want to avail yourself of. A number of the SotA members have engaged in the selfless task of making videos, generating websites and wikis, organizing information and writing articles about the game itself based off of their own personal experiences and first hand experiences with game play. (If I missed mentioning anything I apologize to those I overlooked).

 

This guy claims to have the solution to all of Portalarium's technical problems with the overland map!

 

I'm... honestly surprised. I admittedly haven't read every post on the subject but the theme I've been picking up is disappointment with hope for the future, not vitriol. Nobody's swearing, the mods haven't had to ban or censor comments... we are all merely voicing our opinion. And the consensus I've found is not "blah blah refund" like the early pvp reactions, but more "why change something that wasn't broken"?

I've heard the "reasons" but I can't bring myself to believe them, especially since I haven't seen any dev reactions for well over a month.
"Can't get 3d working"
"Scale doesn't look right"
These don't sound like real excuses. I've actually been pleased with the majority reaction to the world map. It's not the way it looks so much as the way it feels. Right?

 

For some reason my Poll thread entitled, POLL: Mini-maps, yeay or nay? [UNOFFICIAL] was removed and merged with this one about a very different topic. The overland map and mini-maps would be two very separate things, and a mini-map would just represent the immediate area. One that could be toggled on and off with a set key command. I'm not sure why that thread was removed, but the overwhelming majority of backers here support the idea of a mini-map! Before it was closed, backers were 80% in favor of one.

I just wanted to clear this up here, in case people saw my thread title and thought I was discussing the overland map there. I was not!