Please make a better way to travel.

That's a weird reason to pledge. Sorry but it is.

I can say this: loading screen times should increase when we are close to release. To judge this system based on those screen loading times is premature.

I don't know. Some people have to grow to like alcohol in real life. I guess that means alcohol is actually pretty terrible. But I guess if people aren't allowed to change their mind as they actually use the feature...

 

I am no fan of the overland map whatsoever. However, if it is a temporary feature only used as a placeholder until the world can be more integrally connected via open spaces, then so be it.

 

It's not.

 

For efficiencies sake... don't care Saves us a lot of back and forth. Regards,

 

I would like the map better if the view wasn't locked and I could, optionally, play as if I were in a zone. Everything would remain exactly as it is. Small trees, small houses, etc.. Just a different view where I can see the horizon. I would feel like I'm running through a real world... kind of.

 

I played Ultima 5 when it came out on a C-64 with disks I had to change out of two floppy drives. Loading was a FAR CRY from nearly instantaeous!

 

Thats going back in time a bit. I remember battle loading being really quick on the Amstrad I was using, even with the disks, but it was a 286. In fact, it didn't need to change disks for battle. All of that was on the 'Britannia' disk.
There was also an 'Underworld disk' and a 'Dungeon disk'.

Yours may have been 5 1/4 floppy? I had the 31/2 ver.

 

Only to the late 80's

 

I wish we could be reborn and live the 80's again, and experience those games for the first time again.

 

I stated this the very first time I played this back in R11, while I understand the pockets of immersion concept and why it came about, and the ability to plop down more pockets of immersion, overall I really feel that the world map is a very poorly thought out system at least the way it is currently implemented, I believe a much more common sense method of implementing it would be the way it works in Skyrim and other elder scroll games, once you discover a waypoint on the map you can quick travel to it, if you actually MUST use the overland map system. otherwise I would strongly advocate finding a different way to bridge the gap between the pockets full of fun completely. also I strongly recommend the pockets full of fun be made larger.

 

5 1/4 floppy... there were eight disk sides (that was just after they found out they could use the other side without screwing up the whole thing) in total

 

Well I can say I'm against a quick click and travel method. It removes the player from any threat of combat as well as totally destroying immersion(which people keep saying is important). I also don't think it is poorly thought out, but it does still need a lot of things added to it to add to the fun factor.

Such as camping, weather, day/night, wandering monsters(which they said they already plan on having) plus I'm sure others can add to this...oh and boats eventually.

 

Good grief

 

Decrease you mean.

 

I think waypoint travel or fast location-to-location travel would move this game a bit further in the direction of the dozens of MMOs that already are out there and give too much handholding, and would ruin the point of this game -- which is to be different than that. It would also go against the intention of things like control points and regional economies.

But people should remember that there will still be lunar rifts, and probably some way to fast travel, but with a cost associated with it. RG has confirmed that.

 

Yes lol.

 

I'm a fan of the over world map, or rather, the potential it represents as another layer of exploration and discovery. Right now, it's very basic, not very interesting, and has a long ways to go before it is fun to travel on. But we'll get there. Eventually. YMMV based on whatever expectations you have of over world map travel.

I'm also a fan of direct scene to scene travel. I fully support this mode of travel for the over world. It should be an option, but with it comes consequences. It will take longer to travel from point A to point B -- since the over world map is essentially traveling very fast on foot (or horse...). And you'll miss out on dynamic events if you don't see them occurring on the over world. But again, choices. So I would love to see this as an option, but I would never remove over world travel unless the design goals of it are not met and it's a not-fun experience -- just like random encounters every minute were a not-fun experience when they were first introduced.

Besides, we are all forced into direct scene to scene travel for the underworld. There is no underworld map you travel on.

In any case, even if there is no scene to scene travel on the over world, players who want that option can do so via the underworld. But I guess it's only feasibly if there are enough links between over world scenes and underworld scenes to allow this sort of travel.

 

@smack,

I also like single-scale maps. I enjoyed travelling in Skyrim immensely, and liked in LOTRO that they made you ride a horse all the way from place to place instead of doing fast travel.

I simply don't think it would work that well now that they've removed scenes per every hex. It might actually it might end up being faster than traveling the overworld map... You'd be jumping across really long distances in some cases between scenes, say from Owl's Head to Greymark Forest to Kingsport. In some cases, you'd be transported around mountain ranges, like to the north moors above Owl's Head. And it wouldn't be clear how to get to all the scenes, and what exits they'd have to make to be able to allow you to travel from each scene to every other scene. In addition to that, it would be a bit confusing for new players to be given this option when they left a scene.

From just a game design perspective, I don't think its such a simple thing to pull off and work right.

 

It depends on the scene connection map. They can gate or direct travel in any way they want. It's all dependent on the scene connection map. And no, it will never be faster than over world map travel. You can go from Owl's Head to Ravensmoor in 1.5 minutes via over world travel. It takes just slightly longer to run from one end of Owl's Head to the other.

On the flip side, we've had a lot of new players complain about the over world map because they've never played a game that had one.

Sure, they'd need to modify the scenes so there are entry/exit points in the direction of travel according to the scene connection map. So I agree, it's not free, not overnight, but not as huge an undertaking as say, making it an open seamless world

 

The overland map is reminiscent of Ultimas of old, which isn't a bad thing at all. It also allows for content to be added easily. And i think traveling on the map should be challenging depending on terrain and even weather (hopefully) with the need for proper equipment (I'm sure some of you remember the need for swamp boots an pick axes).