please add six million dollar stretch goal to abandon dual scale map

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it matters if runes were costly or not. When the world became bigger, people wanted to teleport around rather than traveling. If runes were rare or expensive, people would have wanted a teleport system anyway.
The fact that you can make fast travel expensive doesn't mean that people will like or want to walk for hours when they can't afford the ride.

For me it's far more important that the worls is "open", in the sense that you can explore it when and as much as you want. No killing more skellies just to level up so that you can go past that hill.

 

I have never seen a gameplay video, of SOTA being instanced... never seen the overland map until I played. That is what I mean by "fooled", as it doesn't say in the description of the game, as "heavily instanced game world".

I openly admit, that is is my own fault for assuming that Shroud was an open world game. Seeing that it is 2015 and UO nearly 18 years ago was essentially open world. The point wasn't I made a $550 mistake, but that owning anything has no value, because it is not real... or even part of the gameworld. You can't climb a mountain and look down on a valley and point your house out to someone, etc.. (therefore there is no game, if there is no game world)

Again, there mere fact that EVERYONE enters a city at the same point.. it's all tunnel vision again.



Honestly, Lord British could've just bought the assets to Vanguard, revamped the combat to his liking and be done with it. I see no point in a instanced roleplaying game. All the luck to him and his crew.

 

Hello,

Star Wars Galaxies had extra large worlds with housing for every planets, technically i don't see why it would ne be possible now.

I am mitiged about 2 scales map. In the pros, it reminds me Zelda 2 and is good to use but i can't stop telling me that one unique big world like UO would be better.

 

Agreed that that info is a bit hidden if you only go by the main site. It's way doen in the FAQ and the main feature descriptions
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?page_id=19#faq_15

However in the hangout vids it has featured several times. And also the reasoning about it.
The dual scale map is what allows the three key features:
1
One server - one persistent world - for all players.
2
Selective multiplayer - use the same character in single/friends/multi player go back and forth as you wish. And trade between all the modes, forge a sword in single and put it on your vendor, now anyone in any single/friends/multi can buy it.
3
Changing world within the persistent one. One day a scene can be peaceful, the next a siege and the next burnt down.

All of those use the scene features and on a shoestring budget is the reason they can implement them.

 

If he bought in during the kickstarter it was in the main video...you saw the overland map.

It wasn't a secret at all....The overland map has been there since day one....not hidden and you just had to do a cursory look to find the info.

 

On the bright sight Garrett, housing will be the same in all instances, so any given house will always be in the same spot, regardless of what instance you're in. This will prevent the meaningless housing issue that you mentioned, and will give you some ability to point out your house (maybe not from atop a mountain though).

 

I just looked at the post count and assumed a newer player. Didn't realize he joined in 2013. Mea Culpa.

Agreed that the kick starter was full of info about the map, heck lots of bruha was about stretch goals changing the map. Back then it was easy to find.

 

None of anyone's posts (rebuttals to me), defeated the idea of Open World. Even world size & population can be controlled in other ways, within server framework.

Secondly, I wasn't concerned about playing this game for a while, but for 4~7 years. Without an open world, this game is ultra limited, and immersion turned into a video game, instead of loosing yourself into a character & world.

Different direction than I was looking. My bad.

 

No one needs to defeat ideas.

And the design of this game is meant for years and years.

Novia (the mainland) is 20 times as large as the Vale. And we're getting all of that in Episode 1. That is just one continent and supposed to be only 10% of the total world size they hope to have implemented by the end of Episode 5.

There will be a huge world.

Again, I'm a fan of seamless worlds with no load screens. However, the game has to be designed to accommodate all of the players on one server and how they handle instances to make this game design work.

It was pitched as a dual-scale map from day 1 and that was always etched in stone to make the game work.

 

You stated you had no idea...which is baffling and I stated why you should. Was never arguing why it should or shouldn't(search that info for yourself arguements for and against are already done)

I'm still at a loss that you had no idea.

 

The dual scale design isn't going to change, but the scale can...provided they get an injection of funds to build out that content.

Currently the scale is like 50:1 (random guess). Perhaps this 6M goal can get them to 1:1. BUT....

But they'll still have instancing, which is effectively a map load as far as the average user is concerned. They don't know what's going on underneath on the server end. ESO is 1:1 but has like 10,000 scene loads. Skyrim is 1:1 and had 1000+ scene loads. Worse, every NPC building in either game was a scene load. Even SotA was better in that regard as you can enter any building seamlessly and makes it hugely immersive within a scene.

How about a 1:1 scale map but the Overworld was devoid of content except roving encounters? Just endless fields of forests, deserts, mountains, hills, roads, swamps, with artificial "walled" areas (however that's represented visually) as the POIs that you enter into (the instance)?

Then over time they can build out that Overworld with interesting visual bells and whistles and whatnot, as the scene loads will always be there. Just like they are in ESO and Skyrim.

 

Part of me feels that because there is still so much to actually get working in the game, that we are currently over analysing what we can see. Hopefully the implementation of the other game elements (e.g. combat, lore, crafting, pvp, questing, game economy etc..) will be enough for those who are not keen on the world map approach to stick with the game and see past whatever elements annoy them.

All this thread proves is that everyone has different preferences on what they deem to be a core element for them to get the most enjoyment out of the game.

For people like Garrett who see an open world as essential for their own enjoyment, then it's understandable for them to be frustrated, especially if you have an affinity with the creators and their past work and want to support them.

Although I do feel that sometimes we need to be a little less selfish, and expect that occasionally we have to make the inevitable compromise. You can't please everyone after all.

 

Excellent post and welcome to the community!

 

Lot of thread here. Just wanted to say that I was initially very skeptical of the overland map, and almost didn't KS because of it. However, I have come around to it and now actually like it. It is here to stay either way, so there ya go.

 

please add six million dollar stretch goal to abandon this thread

 

I regret that I have but a single like to give this post.

 

We could all keep echoing it and allow everyone to re-like those as well. =p

 

I'm looking forward to seeing the Novia overworld map to see how expansive that feels, since it is about 10-20x larger than the Vale.

I wonder how much bigger they can make it?

 

I like to sit clandestinely up in the mountains watching the pedestrians pass below, waiting for my opportunity...

My ability to roleplay and play how I want, is inaccessible to me in a "instanced world". There is no tracking of movement by Guilds/Clans, no fringe play. Not deception. No outward look. Too modular and funneled. Not only do I think that an overland map/travel is a poor decision, but also relegates Shroud of the Avatar into a bargain bin style of game. None of anyone's house, castle keep or dwelling matters, when it really isn't there. Period. Mountains are meaningless if we can't climb them, or see the villages, keeps & castles below, from them. The forest off yonder is meaningless, if they are just art acting as an artificial zone wall.

We all know this is true.



Whether the niche, or masses are willing to give up that immersions of 3d open world, so that there is only one heavily instanced game world, remains to be seen. But I bet most people would give up some level of detail for large swaths of lands, and lessened assets in their houses, to make for an open world... & relish along with what that would bring.

So that then brings up the over-all questions and justifications of why one shard..? What is the target audience for SoTA..? Does anyone see more than half million playing..? What is the biggest physical zone SOTA can support?

Why this business model? Even EQ 16 years ago had larger zones.
I'd rather start on a single open world small Continent/island...with 5k others and two years later (threw lore) that "New Lands were discovered".. and through an expansion, add that content. With the idea of moving the game OUTWARD (not inward).

But as a Citizen of this world, it has taken me 2 years to acquire all the materials to build my house and brand. It will take me another 2 months to build/acquire a boat...

Understand? If the first starting continent is a full skill tree and learning society.. then Portalarium can use the game's interest to build out the game as expansions packs. Use the current revenues, to build out the game. But "the game" has to have a modern framework. SoTA is not modern & cannot last (within a 3 year span) due to competition of newer technology. I don't see longevity here. The game world doesn't support things. Is anyone ever going to levitate, or fly, have flying pets, etc in Shroud of the Avatar..? Now.. or in 7 years..?

That is my fear. The business model is outdated.


I think Richard chose this route for financial stability, instead of an actual true sandbox for his peers. Whom were willing to share the burden.. Not here to thread-crap, just though my over all opinion should be heard, before I bow out.

 

I disagree....and I don't think you speak for everyone. But those are your opinions.

I'm tired of arguing with you however as you just move the goal posts when you are proven wrong....