To Be Or Not To Be: The Map

They have mentioned that they want to "give it more love" ... add to it to make it more dynamic .. but it's still a bit of a mystery until we see it

I really hope that they make it like a "moving world" (visible in the day - limited to line of sight in the night) ... caravans, animals, etc

 

Free movement for me creates the illusion of exploring. I think we need something like that, since we cannot explore the world directly without the map.

 

If the free camera control, and avatar came back I could live with it. But what is shown in the Dom Jon video is still very far from what we currently have. I would take Dom Jon's 3D free control format over the current version any day. I also think replacing the Avatar with a "Flag Icon" is a huge mistake. I don't want to be a monopoly piece when I traverse the map, I want to see my Avatar.

 

Just because I didn't explicitly say "animated icons that accurately and stylistically reflect the player or character they represent" doesn't mean I want the god awful flags. Don't lawyer me bro. Even with the 2D styling, how cool would it be to unexpectedly happen upon a giant cyclops guarding a temple in a dense forest at night? Seeing the thing run at you in your restricted, directional line of sight before getting murdered by it. These ideas have potential in PvP too, like using hiding type should to further interact with the map and ambush players. (I'm well aware of the ways this could be exploited, but it could also be done tactfully enough to make seemingly useless skills much more without seriously breaking anything else.)

 

You will never explore a world with the new map. You move around on a map and not on a world. At least for me that is a huge difference. I would love to explore the world freely like was shown in the first videos. The 3D living world view that the overland view was just until before R4 gave the illusion of being able to explore the world but moving around on a paper map just doesn't do it for me as even with animations etc. it would still be a map and not a living, realisitc looking world I could get lost in.

 

Well, I prefer also the first style map (or Dom Jon), but anyway I also prefer the freedom of movement in the map. The problem is that currently looks very fake, but not the movement. With a better map everyone will be more happy about it.

 

You will never explore a world on the old one, either. It wasn't 1:1 representative, or even approaching that, and didn't represent something to be "explored" or "get lost in".

I get that you don't like the new style of map -- you've made dozens of posts about it -- but let's not be suggesting the old map was somehow radically different from the new map.

As far as I can see, the two maps have a lot more in common than not, in terms of their practical use, and it's largely just the art style that differentiates them.

 

The more realistic style offers the illusion of wandering around in the world, exploring it. Simply because it doesn't look like a paper map but more like a zoomed out version of the scene view. This gives the impression of still being in the world as opposed to looking at a map. The art style stays consistend just like in Ultima 4 or 5 for example. It is a substitution for exploring a "real" world.

 

I think it depends, to a large degree, on the mindset you bring to it. Can I imagine my character pulling out a paper map and consulting it? Yes I can. When I think of it that way, there's no issue to me.

 

Sure and if they want to have a map in the game instead of the zoomed out 3D world view then they should 1. say so outright and 2. make it a real map then.
As it is now the map feels very odd as it is neither a world view nor a real map view. It seems to want to be both and this doesn't work - at least for me.
The moving around of a flag on hexes is just ... odd. This is more of a board game than some map mechanics.

But having map mechanics will then take out even the last bit of illusion of being able to wander around in and "explore" the world. It would make SotA a game that would be broken up into pieces held together by a map - which I think would be a shame but if they want to have it this way then they should tell us, so that we know what to expect.

 

It was always going to be a map...the other way was just a 3d representation of map. I do not want the dragon age map you keep arguing for all the reasons I have given you many times. There is still exploration here, it just looks different. It is by no means done either.

Lets use energy to get more features added to the map instead of arguing the same things.

 

That's not a map at about minute 25:00. It is a 3D world. The scale of the objects may not be 1:1 but it is definitely not a map, otherwise every isometric game would just be a map...

 

It is a map...just prettied up. It has things happening on it, yes but at the end of the day it was a map. With places you could move to.

 

Then we have completely different opinions about this - which is ok.
At least we both want an epic full fledged single player experience which is true to the old Ultimas.

 

Well it has always been called a dual scale MAP...nothing else.

 

Which would imply that the other scale would be a map, too...

 

First: I have to disagree that one can not have any meaningful exploration using a paper hex-map. As long as you don't know what you will encounter in any given hex you have to explore it...

I think random encounters should not be skipped because they are either to dangerous or too easy and therefore meaningless.
Otherwise we end up with a world that seem to scale with the exploring character in question and thats pretty horrible... :/

 

I didn't mean to say they should be keeping random encounters out is the right answer. Those encounters, though, should be optionally and within reason skippable. The moongate system can achieve this without breaking immersion by allowing players to instantly and safely teleport between safe towns and cities. I don't see why we even need an overland map if nothing ever happens on it.

 

People tend to think they need the overland map to go from hex to hex. But I fear most don't realize that the scenes in the hexes will almost all look exactly the same due to budget and time reasons.
The only reason for me to travel across the overland map would have been to feel and see the world around me and get the illusion of exploring this world. But now that we won't be getting a realistic looking, lush overland view but instead a stylistic paper map there is no reason to "use" the overland map anymore for traveling around.
So they should change it to an overland map like in Dragon Age of Baldur's Gate where interesting locations are shown as well as harvesting areas, cities, dungeons etc. And you fast travel there by clicking on the locations. This would make much more sense imo.

 

I would have to respectfully disagree with the OP. Having restrictions on where I can travel is a little too much hand-holding for my tastes in this type of an rpg. Past Ultima's never held your hand on where you could travel. That was actually one of the greatest frustrations for me when playing old-school rpgs like Baldur's Gate. "What do you mean I can't go to that lake? It's right over there!" I enjoy being able to fully explore the world - like I'm part of the environment. I certainly hope they keep this vital aspect (IMO) of a quality role playing game.

Yes, I think there is room for improvement. Afterall, this was their first release of the map. Lum has mentioned that the bulk of their efforts for this release have been combat and that map revisions would likely not make it into this release. So seeing improvements may take time. To that end, I say keep providing constructive feedback and know that the development team is listening.