Overland map

[Rune_74]

I've heard it here mentioned that some people would like a overland map ofa different scale of what is used for when in dungeons/cities/etc...

I personally love this idea, it makes a very interesting way to make the world alot larger with the least amount of actual labour to do so. Games like magic candle/hellerron(because they do this) have a neat way of actaully having areas come available as you search or come close by so even if you are 5 tiles away you won't see anything.

I think this is one area that could really improve the game, make the world alot larger and allow developement on the important areas(not saying forests and such are not important but development time could be spent instead on cities/dungeons/areas) Random encounters could also be had on the map as well.

This would also have the bonus of taking away those areas that you felt you had to laborously walk through to see the whole map.

Any thoughts?

[vid]

I like this idea, because you could always create detailed or even connected maps where you need or want them (e.g. a dark forest has to be crossed once, before you can use the overland map to reach new regions), and won´t need filler maps which seem to exists in the later southern part of the game.

[PhilosophiX]

The World Map concept is just getting old these days. Perhaps you're not old enough to have exhausted yourself on Nintendo era RPGs with that kind of fragmented gameplay? If not, go have a ball with all the (free) RPG maker games out there, or get yourself a Nintendo Emulator, and once you've gone through at least ten classic RPGs, I dare you to come back here demanding World Map Style partitioning for Book II. Because I bet you by then you'll have had enough, and will be thirsty for a little Ultima style isometric goodness.

[Rune_74]

Funny you mention ultima style since ultima did use an overland map until ultima 6. I am old enough to have played alot of the older games....my first rpg was bards tale and ultima 3...I was never a nintendo rpg player though.

I suggest you try the overland map of magic candle/hellherron/older ultimas to see how they work and not just nintendo games.

Also....Avernum 1-5 all use an overland map and it helps make the world feel really big without having to resort to maping out every inch. With an independant developer you do not have the resources to make a huge world like that. So this is an easier way of expanding.

[dak]

I hope not, I really hate world maps!

[Rune_74]

OK I think people are not understanding what I mean, I mean to still have your character walking around but the map scales to make each square actually a larger area, so in essence its still in iso format but you just move further with each step.

I do not want a map ala say....geneforge, arcanum, fllout....I just want a larger scale and for interesting areas and encounters it scales back to the level you are used to.

[PhilosophiX]

Yes, thank you, thank you, why do people trip themselves up so easily? Like you said, they had that setup until Ultima 6. You might have noticed that logical error in your argument 'up until Ultima 6' i.e. it was missing from the later Ultima games (because the technical limitations that forced that solution on the game makers were no longer present - by then they had enough memory/disc space/staff to do a continuous world.) Thus Ultima 6 - 9 presented continuous worlds, because that was the better solution.

There are more than enough retro games which do that kind of thing (World Maps/Encounters). I think Book II should build on Book I - nice and Old School. What you are suggesting is way over the top; mega-mega-retro, and risky.

[Rune_74]

So....when avernum does it.....it doesn't work? They seem to do fine with it. The part of the arguement you are ignoring is that it takes alot of resources to make a large world with maps for every inch.

Oh and for the record I did not "trip myself up so easily" for I realized the newer ones had it, however one can argue they actually suffered for it, the worlds became smaller more compact, don't believe me? look at ultima 6 and ultima 7(ignore the ones after since they wer just awful.) The worlds got smaller distances between cities became less and less. So in your belief there is no staff limitations with an indie title? News to me.

The way Geneforge handles is by making you select squares to move to on a large picture of a map, which helps with the sense of size, however it feels very unfriendly to me at least. And it still makes the world feel small.

Look at the number of areas in the first area, you want to make the game more epic and have more cities etc this will add alot of time.

I have heard no complaints about the way avernum handles world travel....and it looks noticeably worse then eschalon, now if eschalon could do it with improved graphics that would be very interesting.

[PhilosophiX]

Changing the scales of the tiles is a cheap-skate way of making something bigger. Sure you can fool a fool into thinking that a 256x256 world map is a big place... twenty tiles between cities... woo hoo...! I can't wait to quest my way across those twenty tiles. But lets face it you're not fooling anyone. A big continuous world is better than a huge segmented world map based world.

I used to love world maps, journeying across the world maps, but then you realize that it's just another layer of abstraction that keeps you from getting the most out of the underlying world.

[Rune_74]

Perhaps, but if that limits the amount of cities and interesting areas so that there can be more forrest/beach/mountain areas with not much in them I would prefer the world map with areas that you can zoom into that have things of interest. Don't get me wrong I don't want all the areas on the map to start, your spot secret skill could be used here quite effectively.

It sounds to me you have not played avernum, I suggest you give it a try to see how they handled the overland map(not solicitating the game just using it as an example) It does not have the graphics or sound of Eschalo but they are decent game that gets pretty good reviews and the overland map works.

I believe in more of the good stuff and less of the generic forrest area. You could spend the time on every area of forrest but then you are looking at a huge undertaking to get each map "interesting".

[Necromis]

actually I have to disagree on that part. Honestly all BW has to build into his map system is the ability for it to generate some random cartography that still holds to his over all map of the world. Then simply add one or two interesting items to each map section and let the system generate the rest of that map randomly for him.

To clarify this a bit, imagine the world map you find in the game. BW has an over all world map with certain cities and other features designed to fall in specific locations for the story line. He addes in other smaller places and dungeons for exploring and randomness and decides roughly where he wants these. This world map breaks down into the smaller grid maps already located in Book I. BW places his main storyline specific pieces where they need to be, along with all the set city/fortress/dungeons. He then places the smaller filler places on the maps that are left. Lastly he lets the random generator fill in the detials of the mini-map and connect the maps together. I know in some aspects this would be a lot of work. However, in the long run for an on going developing world it would be able to fill in the small parts for you.

Heck from all we know the system could do some of this already. BW just sketches out what the paths are and the generation of the rock and forrest is done by the system.

[PhilosophiX]

Perhaps, but if that limits the amount of cities and interesting areas so that there can be more forrest/beach/mountain areas with not much in them I would prefer the world map with areas that you can zoom into that have things of interest. Don't get me wrong I don't want all the areas on the map to start, your spot secret skill could be used here quite effectively.

It sounds to me you have not played avernum, I suggest you give it a try to see how they handled the overland map(not solicitating the game just using it as an example) It does not have the graphics or sound of Eschalo but they are decent game that gets pretty good reviews and the overland map works.

I believe in more of the good stuff and less of the generic forrest area. You could spend the time on every area of forrest but then you are looking at a huge undertaking to get each map "interesting".

Then if Avernum is just the way you like it, why are you here trying to turn Eschalon into your kind of game as well? Not everyone likes your kind of game. That's why it's your kind of game. In case you hadn't noticed most people are in favour of Book II being based on Book I, which means if your hoping for lots of fancy zooming in and out and up and down, (world maps/encounters etc) then you're going to be rather sadly disappointed. Very sorry.

Seriously though, this is a forum where we can talk about what features we'd like in Book II, so I'm in no way suggesting that you stop debating the point. I encourage you to do so. I am merely here representing the alternative viewpoint, the players who like to venture forth and explore these big open continuous landscapes.

We disagree, but my viewpoint has the advantage; Eschalon already does it my way. There is nothing wrong with your viewpoint, but the reality of the situation is that it's too many changes to the engine and it ain't going to happen. Plus Eschalon is already Old School but that magic might not work if you take it back too far.

Might I suggest that you consider smaller suggestions, curtail your ambition, settle for suggesting a compromise; something that you would like to see in Book II that doesn't involve redesigning the whole engine?

If it means so much to you, then take up programming lessons and make your own RPG just the way you like it. Maybe it'll be a best seller.

I keep seeing this one popping back up, whenever the thread containing the World Map / Encounters idea drops away a new one reappears. If you had stuck to the one thread, I wouldn't even be here, because I already said my piece in the last thread, but new thread = the annoying PhilosophiX with his counter argument. Remember that.

[Rune_74]

You know, condescending attitudes towards people do not make them even want listen to you. I'm offering ideas that may make it in to book 2 maybe not, but you are not the end all be all guy of ideas. Every time I post an idea you are there to say well if you don't like it leave.

I have a feeling you are used to getting things your way all the time, which is fine if you were in charge, but you are not. Its an idea, which is what this forum is about.

This is not even a radical redesign of the engine, this is a simple change of size of the tile when you are outside. So instead of one tileset you use another. All in all though its up to Basilisk and not you or Me.

Oh and for the record, this is the first thread dedicated to it...and if it annoys you...easy enough don't read it.

[Laudimir]

Also....Avernum 1-5 all use an overland map and it helps make the world feel really big without having to resort to maping out every inch. With an independant developer you do not have the resources to make a huge world like that. So this is an easier way of expanding.

Avernum 4&5 feature a continuous world, and I think it works VERY well. Avernum 5 did a most excellent job of portraying the (newer) caves as being very large. I, myself, have come to prefer the continuous world over the 'oldskool 'overhead' map.

[Rune_74]

OK my bad on 4 and 5...haven't seen 5 yet and played just a bit of 4.