To Be Or Not To Be: The Map

@ Ravenclaw

Great post and succinctly put, I admire the SoTA crowd as no-one has referred to either WW2 or Hitler......yet.

 

Another reason for minimaps, is that they could have the added feature of using colored pinpoints for your party members. So you know if one of them ran down the wrong road.

 

I wouldnt be so worried about the map, with full implementation of features we will be ready to compare the graphics. And even then i think they could add 3D graphics to the "map" with the same features (plus rotation/free camera).

 

The 3D map also was not with the "full implementations", it keeps mostly the same since the KS.

 

Eriador, the earlier 3D map had animations, creatures (dragon), fog of war, etc.

PD: Eriador, jugaste UO en un servidor chileno de Tierras miticas ---> ZONE? xD

 

Exactly, it had animations and creatures, even when it was a basic 3D map without any development time.

PD: Puede ser que sí, he jugado a varios jugadores independientes. Aunque llevo ya mucho tiempo sin jugar al UO: :O

 

@Ravenclaw,

I've seen a lot of people say they prefer the new map; either because they just like the style, or because they like it a lot better than the Roosterteeth demo and think the 3d map would need a lot of improvement to work.

People who are upset are naturally going to be more vocal.

 

Or just some of the people are supporting the map because is what we are going to have. Anyway is not the worst fire ever here and we are not going to die because of that (except Darkmoon).

 

I dont care about the style of the map that much, i just want it to function like a real dual scale map like u4 to u6 and not just be a travel map.

There should be a interface, a chat, spells, camping, clues etc etc.

In short i dont care if they use stick figures but make it fun and functional because if the rest of the game is made of little instances it is surely going to need it.

Keeping the loving fanboys happy is irrelevant. Keeping the critics and game gurus satisfied is what will make or break this game FINANCIALLY post launch.

Sent from my GT-S5690M using Tapatalk 2

 

But wouldn't a more realistic looking map not create a completely different atmosphere? Don't you care about this atmosphere? Shouldn't the atmosphere be consistent throughout the game?

Do you think that critics will accept a stylized version in the same way they would accept a highly detailed realistic looking map with great graphics?

 

I think functionality and purpose are king. Period.

All of my comments have been directed primarily at that. Just like u4 etc.

 

Instead of upping the details in the scenes, let's scrap them for cardboard cutouts & we are all flags(waving in the breeze no less). I think not, ooo how about the overland map resemble the scenes.

 

I see people talking about a second 'game-play layer' instead of a map and I think my biggest concern is that we do not a a first (unbroken) game-play layer.

I wouldn't care what the map looked like if, while in the 3d game area, I could walk to the edge of one them and continue into the next instead of popping out to the map. Like this I'd actually have a continuous game-play layer to immerse myself in. However with the 3D layer being broken up that makes me rely on the 2D layer (map layer as it stands now). If this is not a continuous game-play layer either then I am left with no part of the game that I can play which is continuous. Just a whole lot of little parts linked together with a 2D hex map that I have to explore like I'm going into different rooms all the time.

My preference would be to fix the first layer, the 3D game layer and allow for scene changing from one hex to the next without jumping out to the map. However I understand the incredible amount of work this take and so I am hoping for an interesting second layer to tie all these rooms (hexes) together.

--=--
Now for my babble: (Feel free to completely ignore this part if you like, it's kind of off topic.)
I still think the dev team should take the time to create a "Hex Builder" where they can choose from predefined entrance and exit points for the hex and line these entrance and exit points up with the next. Image Example Here Then they could fill in the middle with whatever scenery they want. Basically draw the borders where the hexes line up and dump the scenery in the middle after the fact.

I don't care if it's 4 mountain scenes to the forest scene and then 3 forest scenes to the town, I'd still want to walk it and explore. After all, you never know when a dev might end up with time to drop something unique into one of those scenes. ;-)

If anyone remembers Daggerfall, it was a buggy 1996 game but the player could walk from town to town (Hundreds of them) if they wanted. One quote I read said, "Even shrunk down, Daggerfall boasted being roughly the size of Great Britain which still gave armchair explorers plenty of virtual real estate to walk around in." and to use the overland map "...unless you wanted to spend hours walking. Which you could. Nothing was stopping you from doing that."

Ultima Online, released in 1997, was the next game that offered something along these lines and it was much more interesting and well rounded in my opinion. The play area was much smaller and there were fewer towns to explore but they were designed better and the entire environment made for a much more interesting game. (Also it wasn't completely first person perspective which was good) I loved the fact that in this new Ultima Online game I could run around and explore the map, find hidden places, search tunnels and travel to far away places. I could meet other people on my travels, both good and bad, and interact with them while I discovered this brave new world.

Now I'm afraid I'll only meet people if I step into the same 'room' (hex) as them and there is a limited amount of 'rooms' that seem to repeat (understandable as we are still pre-alpha). Also the map does not lend itself to exploration or adventure, only travel. So my question is how do we get that feel of continuity, that sense of an ongoing adventure? If hexes are the rooms and the map is the hallway and we cannot even bump into people in the hallway but only stumble into them by picking the right room then how does this game provide an atmosphere of immersion that will feel natural?

If the development team can solve this then they will have a game that will last for years to come. If not, then the game may stumble and fall before it even starts. People have to feel immersed in the game they are playing and jumping from hex to hex does not do that. Joining the hexes in 3D game-play mode OR building an interactive map (2nd game level) does.

I hate to admit it but I may be sliding towards Lord Darkmoons camp.

(FYI - I didn't proofread this babble so if something doesn't make sense, I apologize in advance. Just ask and I'll clarify.)

 

This is what I'm having trouble with at the moment, and why I would really like to see some specific comments from the team about why they changed it last minute for R4 (if it was purely that it 'didn't look right' at that time, then why are they continuing to work on the paper one?), and where they intend to go with this new version.

I don't mind the new style - I don't love it yet (although I have said elsewhere that it has a sort of 'quirky charm'), but I can live with it. What I want to know is what is it for? If it's just a map to get from place to place, then make it that - cut out the movement of the little flag completely and just let us click on the hex we want to go to and be instantly loaded into it. I'm fine with that. I really don't see the point of having to wait to 'move' somewhere before I can enter the hex, if arriving at your destination is the only purpose of the map.

I also think that if this is the purpose, we should be able to pull up the map at any time (except when in combat) in order to move somewhere else. I struggle to understand why I should have to run to a specific place at the edge of one hex scene in order to go to a map to click on the hex next door - which I then enter at the same place in that scene regardless of the direction I approached it from. (Don't tell me it's all about exploration and immersion - if I want to explore a scene then I will (I want to find any little surprises and secrets they've hidden for us), but if the map is designed for 'fast travel' why should I need to walk to an edge if I'm in the middle of one scene and want to meet a friend in a different one?)

On the other hand, if the devs (not the players, the devs) want to include more functionality such as wandering monsters, places to camp, events that might pull you into a hex... why do they think the current art style will work for that purpose? As a 'map' the current style is fine, but as an 'overhead view' of the wider world, I'm not sure it is. We're not going to get one big seamless world, so if they want to give us the illusion of one then it probably shouldn't look like paper or cloth.

I like what is shown in those early demos, and I think that if this sort of functionality is what they want then a 'paper view' is far less suitable than the sort of 'living' world shown in those videos. If all they want is a way to get from A to B, give us the paper map and don't waste time and resources putting in functions other than 'click where you want to go and be transported there immediately'.

This is what I would really like to request the team to clarify - what do you, the developers, see as the purpose of the map, and how do you intend to achieve that?

 

@Karrolanth,

There will be PvP scenarios that use the real-time nature of the map. For example, the devs have described going after a player who has contraband, and I'm sure there will be guild wars. There will be monsters and other encounters that appear on the map. In the demos, they showed a passing gypsy caravan. And its also necessary to make travelling take some time, since all time is universal, and you don't want time passage to be instant as you move from place to place.

So the real-time travel on the map has a purpose.

The reason why you can't exit a hex at any location is likely based on the idea that you could be in a cave with maze-like passages lots of encounters, and they don't want you to be able to cheat your way out of it by hitting an 'exit' button. Obviously it makes much less sense when you're in the middle of a flat grassland with no encounters.

 

Lord Adernut,

You don't. Its selective. You'd see people on your friends list, or people the story & game decides you have a reason to encounter.

 

We've merged most of the map threads in this forum to try to keep things clean and together without having 400 of the same thread topics. Please keep further map discussion in this thread rather than starting a new one. Thank you.

 

@Ravenclaw
Come on over. We have plenty of room in our camp. Lots of mead, meat and women

But joke aside, what you and what Karrolanth say is what I try to say. There needs to be a purpose to the overland map. Things you can do on the map. And if there will be such functionality why do we need the cloth style instead of getting the illusion of walking around in a realistic looking world?

 

You need to remember that UO in not the old Ultimas.

 

Sounds like you want a game different from what was originally planned.