World Map Travel

[Shadowless]

So, I have fallen off the earth information wise for quite awhile and was wondering if the type of world map travel has been set in stone, I figured I would ask after learning WL2 decided to go with a storm of zehir style world map (favorite part of that expansion in all honesty)

[JFSOCC]

I'm not sure, but I believe it was said that there would be no fast travelling. So I guess map travel will be like in Baldurs' Gate.

[WorstUsernameEver]

I can't be arsed to search for the posts, but I think JES mentioned it's BG2-like, as JFSOCC said. Personally, I too, am a fan of Storm of Zehir/Wasteland 2-style maps, or at least Fallout-style maps, but I'm not too bothered, it's still a good solution.

[Bill Gates' Son]

Like the other said, it's basically BG2 where you click and go to your destination.  I'm still hoping the devs change their mind and go the Fallout/Arcanum route for World Map Exploration.

[Messier-31]

Like the other said, it's basically BG2 where you click and go to your destination.  I'm still hoping the devs change their mind and go the Fallout/Arcanum route for World Map Exploration.

 

IMHO in case of Eternity map travel would be better as it is planned - BG style. In Fallout (through 1-2-Tactics) you had lots of wasteland all over the place, and wandering was easy. In a world of Eternity, however, there are more things making some places inaccessable. Some places maybe will be known to you only after you make progress in the story, so there is no way to bump on a location by accident, as it was possible in Fallout. So these are my assumptions.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Messier-31

[rjshae]

Wasteland 2 is adopting an overland map for world travel. Possibly that might have some influence on the developers at Obsidian?

[Lephys]

I do LOVE the "move around and bump into things on a macro level" style of map. BUT, at the same time, I don't think the "only move between known destinations" style is inherently inferior or anything, and it can be used quite well in capable hands. So, I'm hopeful that it'll be pretty exciting, and that it's more than just a purely functional thing that let's you choose which area to load. I like for the world map to at least represent some semblance of exploration/discovery, even if you can't move freely to any point you wish.

 

Maybe scripted events sprinkled in as random encounters, with (just as a basic example) some kind of survival/orienteering/tracking check that has you either failing and going back to your main path, or discovering a new route/destination (even if what's at the end is unknown). Whether it's finding an actual path/trail, or simply tracking a living thing to its den, or to some otherwise discreet location.

[AGX-17]

I always liked Fallout/2's large-scale map style where you can click on any spot as a destination and a mostly uneventful (save for random encounters,) journey takes place over an extended (albeit accelerated for gameplay purposes,) timespan. It makes the game world feel much larger.

 

In a world of Eternity, however, there are more things making some places inaccessable. Some places maybe will be known to you only after you make progress in the story, so there is no way to bump on a location by accident, as it was possible in Fallout. So these are my assumptions.

Based on what evidence? It's not like mountains in a fantasy world are impassable walls while being minor reducers of travel pace in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. If they chose to do a Fallout style map they would design it to work, they wouldn't just arbitrarily follow your worst-case-scenario ideas because they're too dumb to design travel to work with the map they use.

Edited October 31, 2013 by AGX-17

[Messier-31]

Based on what evidence? It's not like mountains in a fantasy world are impassable walls while being minor reducers of travel pace in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. If they chose to do a Fallout style map they would design it to work, they wouldn't just arbitrarily follow your worst-case-scenario ideas because they're too dumb to design travel to work with the map they use.

 

Elementary, my dear Watson:

 

1. We BELIEVE it was said, that world map travel will be in BG style. Evidence? How does one prove his beliefs? I am not a religious person, but others have the same opinion:

• http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64566-world-map-travel/?do=findComment&comment=1384565
• http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64566-world-map-travel/?do=findComment&comment=1384568
• http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64566-world-map-travel/?do=findComment&comment=1384575

2. In case you haven't noticed, games tend to have inaccesible locations for various reasons. Evidence everywhere.

 

3. Last but not least. My assumptions are just that - assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, blind guess if you will. I didn't put that word at the end of my post for no reason.

 

[forgottenlor]

I'm guessing that the Baldur's gate/Neverwinter Nights style of travel is much easier to implement than the Fallout/or Storm of Zehir type travel. Basically you have a small number of things to click and you're off to the next area. Whereas exploring a map requires alot more work to implement. While I also really liked the Fallout/SOZ type world map, I'd be satisfied with the Baldur's Gate type map if that means other areas of the game are more detailed.

[jethro]

 

2. In case you haven't noticed, games tend to have inaccesible locations for various reasons. Evidence everywhere.

 

All that AGX-17 is saying is that inaccessible locations can be created in FO style maps too (see Arcanum for examples). You can prevent access to places and portions of the map through impassable mountains or rivers, through locations that only can be found after some event, through simply putting impassable walls/stone heaps/doors in your way. 

 

Yes, this is more effort, with balancing as well as with providing appropriate NPC reactions before some event happens. But it also opens the world up tremendously.

 

I can accept that Obs thought it was outside the budget (with all the other things planned), but I would have traded this for most of the stretch goals we got.

Edited November 1, 2013 by jethro

[forgottenlor]

I can accept that Obs thought it was outside the budget (with all the other things planned), but I would have traded this for most of the stretch goals we got.

 

Going down to 4 classes and losing alot of additional content and the megadungeon? That just goes to show that people have different opinions. I'm much happier with the extra classes and game content.

[Pipyui]

The thing I don't like about click-and-travel point-to-point travel maps is the volume it tends to take out of the world.  DA:O (the goto game for cRPG criticism, it seems) is a particular offender - there were but a handful of locations to visit on the travel map.  All of the effort the devs made in trying to flesh the world out with lands, cultures, and histories was contrasted sharply by the very few settings one actually visited.  The world became a set of points including a city, a town, a sub-terrain city, a forest, a tower.  These locations were such isolated campaigns that they never, in my mind, coalesced into a whole world.  The game thus became not an adventure through Fereldan, but a series of scenes in a play (Scene I: Osmar, Scene II: some town), which never let me get my imurshun settled.

 

I would like to imagine that PE would combat this with a greater set of locations, but I don't think this perfectly solves the problem.  I'm still not exploring the land, I'm going from points A to B in a puff of smoke.  "Mountains?" *POOF* "Beach."  Yes, the dotted line is supposed to abstract my travel, but there is such a thing as too much abstraction.

 

I much prefer the macro style map that I can traverse by my own power.  Sure, the setup is effectively the same, but I have one fewer abstraction layer, which is enough to grant a boon to my imagination.  Making areas inaccessible until the time is right is easy: broken bridges, denied access to cities, caverns that cannot be traversed without a certain ability/item, etc.  It's just the macro map, so I'm willing to tolerate most anything short of invisible walls guiding my progress at this level.  Of course, the more natural the obstacles, the better.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Well put, Pipyi!

 

Like others have said: I can live with a point-n-click map, but an overhead map, when well done, is more immersive. It doesn't have to be Skyrim's "You can eat every insect that flies by", but just making it feel like an ecologically and culturally rich, large world will do nicely, and then you'll need to fill in the map as much as possible, by whatever means necessary.

[rjshae]

From a budgeting perspective, it might make sense to implement a point-and-click map on the initial release, then think about something more sophisticated for the enhancement release. That will give them an extra selling point and give us something to look forward to.

[jethro]

 

I can accept that Obs thought it was outside the budget (with all the other things planned), but I would have traded this for most of the stretch goals we got.

 

Going down to 4 classes and losing alot of additional content and the megadungeon? That just goes to show that people have different opinions. I'm much happier with the extra classes and game content.

 

 

My bad, ambiguous statement. "but I would have traded this for (almost?) anyone of the stretch goals we got."

 

I didn't look them up to make sure that there wasn't one I would value higher, but I can't think of a single one I wouldn't trade for the better map

Edited November 3, 2013 by jethro

[Osvir]

I'd like to see a sort of Fallout-esque world map traveling system, where you are just a simple "Rogue"-dot (or pixel, like in the Rogue game and in the Fallout games too). Explore the world! Every click is a destination!

In Baldur's Gate, IWD, Dragon Age, every location is a "Set", a "Level" kind of like the old Doom games did it. You go from one map to another (except in the RPG's it's a little bit non-linear but still linear). In Fallout you have the richness of going anywhere, even if it doesn't do anything or trigger a random encounter, you can still do it. I can envision it being "slightly" up-hotted, with a horse model (instead of a pixel) when traveling by horse. Or when you are traveling by boat etc. etc.

It would be awesome if we could simply gaze and traverse the world of Eternity without big pictures (like IWD & BG) and go wherever we want (within the boundaries).

Perhaps even have an On and Off switch that removes the pictures, just for appreciation of the art, lore & the world building regardless. And of course switch it on to appreciate the pictures too, of course. I guess I envision it like a Final Fantasy worldmap but Fallout freedom with some Zelda/Alundra-inspired adventure game obstacles "You must have the Desert Boots to pass through this land" kind of deal-io.

In Tales of Destiny there is an instance where you have to pass through snowy lands and it is optimal to equip scarfs (otherwise you take damage over time constantly in the area). You can still pass through the land without the Scarf item, it just gets a lil bit more difficult.

Maybe even see some encounters and mobs on the world map traveling from point A to B. Maybe you can see a trading caravan traveling as well near your location, and you chose to not engage in it, and you see some simplified version of bandits attacking it and ruining it. To add in some Ultima-esque world-traveling.

I realize I've combined like 4-5 different games in this thread of what I'd like to see in a world traveling system

[curryinahurry]

There was a post at some point about exploration being a combination of BG and IWD by one of the developers (I forget which one and had no luck in searching).  I assume that means that there will be map nodes that will serve as "hubs" with adjacent tiles for quests and exploration.  That isn't my preferences for map exploration or overland travel, as I would prefer SOZ/ Darklands style, but it could be ok if Obsidian can make these nodes feel dynamic over the course of the game.  They could do this by adding adjacent map tiles as new quests open, adding small additions/ changes to existing maps, or making areas of larger maps accessible later in the game.  As long as we get a decent sense of exploration that isn't one and done.

[Mor]

Can we please stop throwing titles names around discuss particular features? 

 

I'm guessing that the Baldur's gate/Neverwinter Nights style of travel is much easier to implement than the Fallout/or Storm of Zehir type travel.

I don't know if its easier. The difference between Fallout and BG travel map implementation is mostly about random encounters i.e. when you click on a location instead of jumping to that location, you'll might get a random encounter on the way. A possible drawback is that it allows to open location through world map exploration instead narrative only, in FO it meant you could take a shortcut which allowed you to finish the game in 15min...  

 

IMO It might be nice, but you can get the same encounters without having an exploreable world map.

 

 

The thing I don't like about click-and-travel point-to-point travel maps is the volume it tends to take out of the world.  DA:O (the goto game for cRPG criticism, it seems) is a particular offender - there were but a handful of locations to visit on the travel map.  All of the effort the devs made in trying to flesh the world out with lands, cultures, and histories was contrasted sharply by the very few settings one actually visited.  

 

I think we can all agree that the more locations/content to flesh out the world the better. Also many of RPG classics had point-to-point travel with rare exception that usually added very little to flash out the world e.g. iirc in comparison DA:O had more locations then say FO2 from previous example...

 

 

There was a post at some point about exploration being a combination of BG and IWD by one of the developers (I forget which one and had no luck in searching).  I assume that means that there will be map nodes that will serve as "hubs" with adjacent tiles for quests and exploration. 

You mean something like DA:O map? is there any more details on this?

[Messier-31]

I don't know if its easier. The difference between Fallout and BG travel map implementation is mostly about random encounters i.e. when you click on a location instead of jumping to that location, you'll might get a random encounter on the way.

 

Well actually in Baldur's Gate the travel system regarding the random encounters was more predictable. There was a random encounter, or there wasn't. And if there was, well there was totally no more random encounters between the first one (and last one at the same time) and your original destination. In Fallout, however, there could be loads of encounters while walking between two areas. Engine limitation? Dunno.

 

BALDUR'S GATE

STEP 1 - Leave the area.

STEP 1.5 - Gather your party before venturing forth.

STEP 2 - Pick your travel interest.

STEP 3 - Random encounter, YES or NO

STEP 4 - Arrive to your travel interest.

 

FALLOUT

STEP 1 - Leave the area.

STEP 2 - Pick your travel interest.

STEP 3 - Possible random encouter number 1

STEP 4 - Possible random encouter number 2

STEP 5 - Possible random encouter number 3

STEP 6 - Possible random encouter number ...

STEP n - Arrive to your travel interest.

[Lephys]

BALDUR'S GATE

STEP 1 - Leave the area.

STEP 1.5 - Gather your party before venturing forth.

STEP 2 - Pick your travel interest.

STEP 3 - Random encounter, YES or NO

STEP 4 - Arrive to your travel interest.

 

FALLOUT

STEP 1 - Leave the area.

STEP 2 - Pick your travel interest.

STEP 3 - Possible random encouter number 1

STEP 4 - Possible random encouter number 2

STEP 5 - Possible random encouter number 3

STEP 6 - Possible random encouter number ...

STEP n - Arrive to your travel interest.

I swear I've hit multiple encounters before on my way somewhere in Baldur's Gate. Because, after a random encounter, it stops you whereever you "ran into an encounter," on the map, so that you then re-choose your destination: either the same one, or a different one.

 

Maybe I'm delusional today, *shrug*. I hate my brain.

[Messier-31]

I swear I've hit multiple encounters before on my way somewhere in Baldur's Gate. Because, after a random encounter, it stops you whereever you "ran into an encounter," on the map, so that you then re-choose your destination: either the same one, or a different one.

 

Maybe I'm delusional today, *shrug*. I hate my brain.

 

In my case it has never happened to me. Sure, you choose the destination again after the encounter, but not from a main area, just some random area in the middle of nowhere. I thought that this would be a prerequisite for letting you travel further without any more obstacles in your way (if PC in RE area than during travel RE possibility = 0)... huh, maybe my unbelievabillion playthroughs was not enought to really tell, and there actually is a chance for more encounters than one? I don't think so, but who knows!

[Lephys]

^ I could very much be wrong. Anywho, even if it is somehow possible, it's gotta be the rarest thing in any game, ever. Either way, I suppose if one wanted to, one could use the BG map-travel system while still accounting for multiple potential encounters along a given travel, is all, even if BG didn't do it.

[Kissamies]

As Pipyui put it. The overland map style is much better at giving an illusion of a larger world. With BG style, I feel like I'm teleporting from setpiece to setpiece and it's making it a little harder for me to imagine a world around them. It doesn't matter if the actual number of "zoom-in" locations is the same or less. It's the illusion that counts. I also have always liked looking at the maps so maybe the overland map style just really works for me. I think it especially works well when the theme is exploration.

[curryinahurry]

 

 

There was a post at some point about exploration being a combination of BG and IWD by one of the developers (I forget which one and had no luck in searching).  I assume that means that there will be map nodes that will serve as "hubs" with adjacent tiles for quests and exploration. 

You mean something like DA:O map? is there any more details on this?

 

I'm not really sure, but my understanding was that there would be large areas that would serve as hubs from which additional / smaller areas would be accessible.  From the smaller areas, travel would be possible back to the hub area,  possibly the world map, or another specialized quest area.  But it wouldn't be map to map roaming like BG.  

 

I can't recall where I saw this however, so take it with a grain of salt.