Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by NZguzzi, Sep 29, 2016.
It was turned off to make testing easier after people complained.
How is it any different now that warrants turning it on? I'm okay with it on but I don't see any reason to do it yet: you get all of the complaints from people without having anything to show for it.
The difference was that we were in an early testing while now we have a persistent world. I am certain the developers will read this and other threads and decide on how to handle terrain modifiers.
As others wrote, some like it, some don't. There's certainly ways to polish it without negating the purpose of realism and making roving encounters matters. I personally don't mind, but then I am a casual gamer and don't run with high encumberance.
We're still in early testing.
But that's the thing, "travel speed based on terrain" is a switch that they turned on knowing full well that they don't have roving encounters yet.
The game is incomplete and they're inconveniencing those who happen to bite the bullet and play a game so early in development that's already pretty much just a mindless grind. The devs have stated that we'll be getting a quest reset once the game gets officially released. If they're allowing themselves to do that, you'd think they'd flip the "travel" switch when they actually have something worthwhile to warrant it.
I want terrain to influence travel speed but considering the state of the game, t's too early for that. Persistence doesn't excuse it...
I understand your point but it could be made for every change the devs are implementing or testing. Any change in skills, weapon damage, crafting etc. currently creates outcry from some people while some don't mind and others are happy. Unless the devs are absolutely and 100% certain they will never tweak overland map travel again they will need to switch features on now and adjust it based on feedback.
Will they change it off again if enough people complain? I don't know but don't think so.
Will they adjust it with roving encounters? Probably because it changes the setting.
Could they have tested it more? I didn't check the Dev+ boards for the feedback.
Should they have waited to switch it on in conjunction with Roving Encounters? Maybe, but that's for the Devs to comment.
With this continuous development that adds features, changes some and might even remove things we have with SotA a big-bang release that switches all "final game state" features on doesn't seem feasible to me.
If you understood my point, then you wouldn't be making this argument.
If a mechanic's only redeeming feature isn't built in the game yet, don't enable said mechanic in the game until you implement said redeeming feature when it's currently only offering a penalty to players.
The only game-play purpose that travel speed has on the overworld is the ability (or lack of thereof) of maneuvering around roving encounters... which won't exist for yet another month. Why enable the feature now?
It doesn't change the fact that I'm baffled that the devs decided to flip the switch.
as ive already said. i love this. im on the yay for roving encounters and
i like this idea. getting robbed would be great fun. imagine if you wanted to move a large inventory from city to city could open up some interesting quests. maybe the bigger the load juicer a target to local "interests" if you lose they can make off with some of you assets.
Pilot video (2:50 mins in)
Click the link, that's the pilot video for the kickstarter. It shows the map. It's alive. It's one of the selling points. It's also key to content delivery.
That map has gone through several changes. Much debate followed each change. The main thing to learn from those debates is the map can not be half arsed. The more robust the better.
Slow down is debatable but it does have a purpose. As features for the map roll in that purpose makes more sense.
Yes. This is my issue with this. I built in Fortus End and now it's slow to go anywhere with this new road slowness business. There are no roads that go up to Fortus. Fortus was near enough to Brittany, now it's annoying to get there.
And if we wanted immersion and reality it should take a month to walk someplace. It's a game for a reason and shouldn't be frustrating.
Amen, sir. Amen. Apparently to some folks simply walking slow and wasting time is the "challenge" they want, whereas some of us are would prefer to actually play a game than what amounts to watching paint dry. Perhaps the developers have lost sight of the fact that it's the interaction between the player and the interactive game elements that makes this and other games entertaining,.
When ever you add a feature to the game, ask these three questions:
#1) Is it Fun?
#2) Does it offer the player a meaningful Challenge?
#3) Does it have a meaningful purpose or reason to be in the Game?
If you can't answer "yes" to any of those three questions, then ditch the feature.
Well we have an unusual situation here, and sometimes things are added into the game that affect what is here so far but in the big picture of a completed game it would make sense. And then there is yet other things that would affect what was added but are not yet completed to add in.
We are just seeing a distorted view of what the end product will look like. Yet as much as they tell us it is not yet a completed game, we still sometimes forget and cannot see more is coming that will affect what we have now.
And another thing there is no way a game in development can always foresee and predict all of what will happen when you do something to x then y happens. There is a 'lot' of factors at work here that are not always apparent so just saying That's why we are here
I hate the overland map - H A T E I T - did I mention that I hated it?
The trouble is that nothing in the plan explains why an overland map like we have in needed. A node based map where you click on your destination node and travel by red line would work just as well. Folks say that Wandering encounters will fix this and give all the tedium on the overland map meaning, but frankly I haven't seen any evidence that Port has any ideas that will make getting sucked into the same forest, plain, road or swamp encounter for the thirtieth time any more than a speed bump.
I love the overland map - LOVE IT - did I mention that I love it?
And i am looking forward to the roving encounters next release.
+ 1 to "I love the new relevance of terrain and I started using my imaginary horse (coconuts)."
I completely agree with this. By trying to be a jack of all trades they are mastering none. Multiplayer should always be on. Period. I want to see people busy working, farming, milling, smelting, fighting etc.. in multiplayer because it makes the world feel real. I despise this single player grinding mode. I play multiplayer all the time. I am relatively new (194 hours). I hang out in Harvest decorating my pad and then go to Crooked Shank to kill somethings and make about 700gp in half an hour. Then I buy some more things and repeat. The average number of people I see while I do this every day? 0. Yes, ZERO. There is no one. If there wasn't /noble chat I wouldn't even think I am playing online.
I know that this has been discussed over and over. I don't care. To the detrement of both, the single player mode harms multiplayer mode in the worst possible way
Wow great idea in number three. If the paths and roads could be fluid based on use numbers on where people are traveling. If they could make it to where roads that aren't use deteriorate, over time and paths that are used become footpaths, Trails, then possibly roads. The players with where they go would be building the overland. Roads to common areas would be paved and new people will have a path to follow to common places that are used.
Btw.... Toooo slow on overland.
Separate names with a comma.