Map Size

Thanks to Chris for commenting on the initial map size. I'm sure you'll put in as much content as you have time for.

I'll throw in some general comments on map size, which I hope will be considered as we go along.

Big maps build community. A feeling of a local community comes from people making a commitment to stay (for a while) in one part of the world. You get to know others in the same area, you become familiar with the unique features of that part of the world. The belief that "here" is different from "there" comes partially from not being able to go "there" at the drop of a hat.

To return to my Everquest comparisons, I'll note that in the early days (1999 era) it would take me an evening to move from one end of the world to another. The route was dangerous (for a low level character), and you risked losing your gear if you died along the way -- good luck getting back to your body in 30min if you died mid-way.
As a result, I (and others) tended to hunt in an area for a while rather than hopping around the world.

If we were able to reach any part of the world in 20-30min the game would have had quite a different feel to it. Indeed, we saw these types of changes once fast travel became more common. Zones became empty, as people could quickly move to the better spots. Previously we might have to make do with whatever was nearby -- which actually made the game more fun.

On the other side of the equation, large areas for the sake of large areas create a different problem. A large empty space (such as a desert) just serves to keep groups separated (a good thing). But these areas remain empty and unused forever, making the world seem more boring/isolated. I think it is better to have a higher density of content, so that each area feels important. The Everquest analogy would be West Karana. I would go there to hunt for pelts, but most people just ran across the zone as fast as they could. In my opinion, the zone was wasted effort.

If forced to choose between these two extremes, I would rather have the large empty spaces. And they could always be filled in later.
My wish would be for a map that took around 6-hours to cross. That is enough of a gap that cities are cut off from each other.

 

What use is there for a desert, if not to challenge the soul of adventurers who dare cross it? Deserts are by definition desolate, deserted. Oasis should rare. Fast travel was created for players who didn't want to travel through it or didn't care for it (i.e. "boring").

The overland map is making fast travel the default, without giving brave adventurers the ability to explore. Imagine this gameplay experience:

You're on the overland map and want to cross a desert area from one village to another village.
You move a couple steps from the village and walk on top of the desert area.
Drop down to an instance to "explore" it.
Exit the instance and you're pulled back to the overland map, likely at the same spot on the map.
Move another couple steps to a new hex and drop down to yet another instance to "explore".
Repeat.

While the mechanics may be like "zoning", the experience is too jarring.

Despite the doubling of the overland map, the world will always feel "small" and loses that immersion, that sense of wonder, awe, and exploration if you're constantly dropping in and out between instances and the overland map.

I would suggest that players be given the option to always travel via connected instances. For those that don't care for it, use the overland map for fast travel. They'll get from point A to point B faster if they want, and can drop to any instance whenever they want. Just don't force the more adventurous among us to travel in that fashion.

I believe the new underworld catacombs area is a great start, as it's supposedly just a series of connected instances that cover a presumably large "map". An overland map of the catacombs doesn't make much sense. I hope they do the same for the "overworld".

The cost of a single scale map can be enormous, but if they can simulate the feel of exploration via instance travel only somehow, even if it's not a true 1:1 hex to instance mapping, it would go a long way to deepen the immersion.

 

@smack,

Yes, trekking through deserts and tundras, getting lost in dense forests.

Ideally I prefer a single scale map, but there are ways to handle this in a dual scale map too; for instance, consider U5. If you were in dense forests your visibility was reduced, I think there was also a penalty in deserts if you couldn't find an oasis. Frankly, I would go back to my point about eating and sleeping and how important these things are in keeping a sense of reality in the game.

@Jonathan,

Similar point. You wouldn't have people running across the vast wilderness if people actually had to set up camp there to rest and eat and hunt and live off the land. Possibly even build a lone house in the wilderness, rather than settle in a city or town.

 

I would like to see the same thing as seen in previous ultimas, swamps requiring swamp boots or you get poisoned. Lava being too hot to travel to and clothes must be light or must travel quickly or die. Snow/ice requires things like snow boots snow cloak etc. I've yet to see this existing in any game since Ultima VII, excepting lava that burns you up, but no clothing/armor/equipment required for different climates/temperatures, I do hope they add this to the game.

 

In EQ you could swim in lava. That always bothered me.

 

You can swim in lava in WoW as well. Unfortunately, sometimes you die....

 

Chris was in the chat earlier and as I predicted in a post above, he mentioned the catacombs was being fully explorable via scenes, and you can reach every city or village that way. No "underworld map", like overland map, that pulls you away from the dungeon crawl experience between scenes. So basically a set of scene connections, like EQ zones.

Chris
April 10, 2013 - 9:42 pm
We've talked about it a bit but one of the things that came up today was that every city and village can be reached via catacombs. That means even when under siege, you can get into the cities under siege via catacombs!

Urganite
April 10, 2013 - 9:42 pm
You say that, and now I have to ask if the catacombs will have a dual-scale map or if it will be a dungeon crawl the whole way?

Chris
April 10, 2013 - 9:43 pm
@Urganite, dungeon crawl linked to dungeon crawl, linked to dungeon crawl. Stock up on torches

Can't wait to go exploring!

 

Me too. I hope the underworld/catacombs will also go *down* as far as they go side-to-side. Maybe even have some <a href="http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=DF2012:Hidden_Fun_Stuff&amp;redirect=no">hidden fun stuff</a>.