Navigation through New Britannia

They could offer posters or even cloth versions of the 3D overland map for sale (as an additional map, not to replace the hex-version which I like the way it is as a physical cloth map). I would definitely buy one.

 

I am one of those who didn't really care one way or another. Not so much because I didn't find one more pleasing, but more because I have a LOT more faith in the development team's idea of what will work than my own opinion; that's why I paid them money to make a game. My only concern with the switch is that it will drain resources, it will extend time, and from what Chris said, it may not be workable.

I honestly fine the tone of your email rather offputting. It comes off as 'they decided, now shut up' which A) I don't think is your intent B) is 100% the opposite of what you would have said a week ago.

I sincerely hope the new approach leads to a better product for all of us.

 

I'm interested in seeing continued iterations to the map.
What I like right now is the macro-lens effect; and they way they further obscured the hex borders in R5 compared to R4. Panning and zooming could use some tweaks. Often I found I was expecting the panning movement to behave in the reverse of what it actually did.

 

I cannot disagree with you more. One, yes people can complain (it's a free country), but the idea that being a backer gives you a say is not only wrong, it's harmful. yes they ask for freedback and yes they listen, but the idea that backers have some right to demand things is out of line. And while it's certainly not the majority, a number of people are incredibly disrespectful and nasty about how they talk (e.g. 'cash grab', 'lied', etc...)

The idea that the dev team needs to be challenged? It makes it sound like they are children or students and the community needs to guide them. That mindset I actually think is harmful.

Again, comment, critique, give feedback are all fine, and sometimes welcome. But again I disagree with your perspective on the roll of a backer.

 

The written word has such limitations. Especially since most everyone reads into it not what was written, but what they'd have it say. No, that's not how it's intended at all. It's intended exactly as it was written. Which is to say that there are quite a few people coming out of the woodwork who said they have no problem either way with whatever map was chosen, but it turns out that they did indeed support the cloth map, but they didn't say that. They basically said, 'meh, whatever'. Now that it's back to the 3D map it's "Oh, I loved the cloth map." Well then you shouldn't have said 'meh, whatever', then should ya? That's what I'm talking about.

And for the record, had this come out the complete opposite and they said they were going with the cloth map model, and gave the reasons for it, I'd be saying the exact same thing as I'm saying. That's what honorable people do. They argue their points the best they can, and when an official decision is made, they then back whatever decision that has been made the best they can. Even if it's just to say, "I don't agree with this direction, but we had our say, and I'm now going to get behind the direction that was chosen after all the feedback was considered."

This issue has been talked about for what... 3-4 weeks now at least? For all those who didn't join yesterday, there has been plenty of time to pick a side on this issue and chime in.

Also, you just said that you have a lot more faith in the dev team's idea of what will work than your own opinion. They just said they are changing it back to 3D and will make it work. Are you now contradicting that and second guessing their decision? See, it goes both ways, friend.

I wanted a dev decision on this so that the community could put it behind us and get on with the development of the game.

I would have supported any decision they ultimately made. Or rather, I'd have stood behind the team once they made an official declaration like this. Is it too much to ask others to do the same?

There WILL be things I don't agree with going forward from now to Episode 5. There WILL be things that I absolutely and totally think are being done the wrong way.

But once the dev team makes a public and published decision like this, I WILL also leave behind my arguments and stand firm beside the team. That is how it is done.

 

As I said before, I'm fine with the change in decision from a functional standpoint. My concern I mentioned was that a lot of time/effort will be put into it which will draw from other things and, as he said, it may not be workable.

In addition, I think we both know there are PLENTY of topics that the dev team has said are settled that people still debate/attack them on. In fact after R4 they said they were sticking with this map style and people railed them for it.

 

From what I read they said they were, in Chris' words, giving it some time and some love to see if they could win people over to the new map style, but if not, they could always go back to the old one.

I gave it a chance from R4 to R5. Didn't like it, and was pushing for the latter option. Going back to the old style. I, and everyone else supporting the 3D style, were working within the declared perimeters. Never once did I read Chris, or any other dev, saying that this is the new style is the new permanent thing, and they absolutely would not change it back no matter what.

But, ultimately, I think going with the original vision will not only make a much better game in the long run, but give the new and old supporters, exactly what they are pledging for, based upon the video that's still up. And that can only be a good thing.

If they'd said, hey we are going with the paper model, and here's our new demo vid for it, and put it up on the front page, then I'd have conceded and got behind the new direction the best I could. That is what I am talking about here.

I'm sure we could go around and around on this, but no matter what, there will still be people who think this will detract resources from other areas that 'they' find the most important.

I feel the overland map is important, as it's the first thing people see upon exiting town. And if it doesn't 'wow', people, then we're in trouble. And no, the cloth map style decidedly does not 'wow', most of the folks I've talked to. The 3D one does.

 

I think by 'challenged they meant it not in the way of 'challenging their authority', but rather in 'challenging them to be the best they can be'.

It's a crowd funded and crowd sourced game. Of course the devs are going to be challenged. Every step of the way. That's what this is all about. And in the end, the game will be magnificent!

 

To everyone:
Blah blah blah he said she said blah blah.

To the Devs:
Thank you. Let me know if I can help in any way.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

I agree. Challenge people all the time. Steel sharpens steel. And more cats never hurts either.

 

No, thank you.

I've slung no mud. I've expressed a concern and wish to know what is being deprioritized to make room in the schedule and budget for the reprioritized 3D map and may object to the decision made by Portalarium dependent on the answer to that question. If there is some new source of funding sufficient to fully develop the 3D map without sacrificing anything else I will have no basis for objection.

This is the last reply I will make to you on this subject, and I will anticipate with eager glee your attempt to get me to reply once more.

 

Thank you for interpreting my post .... correctly.

 

Etc.. And the beat goes on. Let's have a positive day people.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Exactly! Especially since this is a very, very good day indeed

 

It's a great day.

(Edited for 'tact'.)

 

I would consider all the people who will be watching that 6 mos video on the home page, and who will sign up for SotA accounts between now and launch to quality as 'sufficient' funding to fully develop the 3D map without sacrificing anything else. After all, the game's already been funded. Anything from the $4 million mark is completely unallocated and pure butter. I bet we hit close to $6 million or more between now and launch. This game still isn't even mainstream.

The fact that I only saw this game a day before the April 7th cuttoff should tell you that not a lot of people know about this game yet. There is a massive untapped market, and plenty of Ultima fans who have no idea this game even exists.

I think the assumption that 'everyone who has not been living under a rock' knows about this game already is a severe miscalculation. Many older Ultima fans don't expect a RG game and so aren't out looking for it. They're leading their lives and taking care of their families, etc. But the moment these folks see there is one... there will be a massive influx of people. Fans of the past Ultimas have numbered in the MILLIONS at the very least. We don't even have a million supporters yet. Not even a fraction of that. But we will.

20,000 people @ $45 each for access to Episode one is $900,000. I think we'll have at least that come launch. Once we get those 3D visuals out there and the game really starts looking good, people will come home. And it'll be grand!

Would that $2 million extra between now and then suffice to fully fund the 3D map? I'll save you the reply. Yes, that would obviously be enough. You can sleep easy now. Even if they only raised $0.9 million between now and launch, it'd be enough.

I think in the end, Rufus, even you will like the results. But I don't expect you to admit it.

All the best.

 

I still don't agree with that view. It is crowd-funded, and they are crowd-sourcing some assets, but it is NOT a crowd-sourced game. No offense, but I backed the game to see Richard's, Starr's, Chris', etc... ideas, not the synthesized ideas of the public. If they want to reach out to get feedback/opinions, all the better, but the idea that they are beholden to or have to listen or anything like can be, I feel, very counter-productive.

 

I already attempted to answer this in the parts of my post which you selectively cut from your quote of me, but let me try again. A) They have a larger budget today than they had when they made that original decision to simplify it. The "faucet" of funding is still running and will only run faster in the future as they demonstrate popular features like a dynamic overland map. B) They have received the blessing from an overwhelming majority of the community to push back the release date, which they hadn't openly discussed and were seemingly trying to avoid at the time they decided to simplify the design. Provided enough funding is available to do so, this opens up the possibility of simply adding things that would previously have been seen as impossible due to time constraints. C) Ultimately, when a final release date is decided upon and the final budget is set, we're trusting them to make the tough decisions about what features are most important to spend time on. Some people think they've already wasted a lot of time working on housing. Some people think PvP is a waste of resources. You don't like that they're going to spend more time on the overland map. Congratulations, you've joined the rest of us in not being 100.00% satisfied with how every man-hour of development effort is spent.

That doesn't mean it's a bad decision to implement a feature that a clear majority want, especially when it's in keeping with RG's original vision for the game. It also doesn't make it sensible to demand today an exact accounting of what other features (if any) might be affected a year or two from now. As we've seen in the plans for the pre-alpha releases, everything is subject to change and any estimates, including the ones you're clinging so tightly to, are rough guesses at best.

 

If anyone would like to be.. oh I don't know.. actually helpful. Maybe you can give some feedback on what the devs actually need.

"...Research terrain building tools that will work at that scale. Unity’s terrain tools are made for building human scale scenes..."

Not everyone will have an answer but we have a lot of talented people here, does anybody know of or have any suggestions?

 

Thing is, the 3d map was in the kickstarter and many of us assumed it would be in the game(and rightfully so) so it's not as if people wanted something totally different then what was initially announced.

I prefered the 3d map...was ok with the 2d map as well.

I still stand by that it will operate the same way in movement...just will be 3d with more options.