Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Map systems and player known locations

245678

Comments

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    Konfess said:
    This post is all about adding an exploitable feature to the game.  Congratulations if you can traverse a game world without a map.  Some people can't.  This post is about adding a feature to give one group an advantage over another group.  There is no need to force no maps on everyone.  Those who want no map should be allowed to close the map window.  If others play style or requirements interfere with a player's immersion, that is the player's problem to live with.

    Nothing prevents a player from playing without a map.  But that is not what this post is about.  This post is about taking advantage over those who need a map, and exploiting that against them.
    This is a game, not the public education system. A game is not about trying to make sure everyone is equal, that everyone gets a participation trophy, that everyone feels like a winner. Fact is, some people are going to be better than others at things, this is a fact of life and process of learning and excelling in a game system. In a game the entire purpose is to test ourselves and this will involve winning and losing, being good at some things and worse at others.

    If people want to be catered to like they are children who think that everything should be made equal, or rather everything reduced to the lowest common denominator, then they aren't interested in a game, but rather mundane entertainment that is more about praising ones ego than actually providing a lasting game system. Those who desire such are in luck as most of the mainstream games today cater to such, so there is a large selection of these participation trophy games to choose from where people can never experience failure and always be a winner in everything they do!
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    Konfess said:

    Sinist said:
    The only way this works is if EVERYONE is forced to it. If you make it optional, there is no point. Few if any will play a game purposefully handicapped when others are not required (unless it is a server rule set). Either you require everyone, or do not bother.

    Either people are interested in playing a game, or they are interested in being "entertained". There is a distinct difference in expectations.
    "EVERYONE is forced to it."  This post is about griefing other players.  This is about taking advantage of players that are unable to maneuver a game world without a map.  They may be impaired either physically or mentally.  This can be an option for those who want it.  But this should not be forced on anyone.
    There are some people who have issues with picking the right spells and skills, should they remove the restriction of only allowing a certain number of spells up at any given time?

    There are some who have issues learning to follow directions, and have issues with reading, should they also put in bouncing balls and big flashy arrows?

    There are some that find difficult games intimidating, should the game be dumbed down to fit them because losing makes them sad?

    There are some who do not have the time to play the game, should they also implement fast leveling, PTW "level to max level" features, and various other RMT features?

    Why if you do not, you are "griefing" them and you hate them! How unfair you are in telling people they have to play the game a certain way!!!!! Woe is me! What will we do if we actually have to play a game with obstacles, learning curves, and the chance of failure? What will all the mentally handicapped players do if there is a game where "thinking" and "learning" is a part of the play? It is so discriminatory!!! So hateful!!!!

    Hmm.....

    Do no fret, there is always WoW and hundreds of other mainstream dumbed down games to attend to those "challenged" players! Rejoice!!!!

    /boggle
  • BenjolaBenjola Member UncommonPosts: 843
    Konfess said:

    Stuff..
    Just NO! to everything you typed.
    This game clearly wont be for you but that's ok, hundred of MMOs outhere.

    I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.

  • kridakkridak Member UncommonPosts: 27
    Well since you want a game....

    Map starts out fogged....

    Make a cartography skill available in game...

    Those who wish to "remember" all the maps can do so by not finding the skill.

    Those who wish to play the game can find the cartography skill and start mapping the zones they visit.

    Both are now "playing the game"  in their own way HHH

    Original eq player...i did learn zones in game via landmarks...but i am not ignorant enough to say all others should learn zones the same way.  It is not for everyone.

    And realistically...those of us who learn zones by landmarks are actually faster travelers because we are not constantly looking at a map...we are looking at a landmark on screen...Give them their maps, we have landmarks.






  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    kridak said:
    Well since you want a game....

    Map starts out fogged....

    Make a cartography skill available in game...

    Those who wish to "remember" all the maps can do so by not finding the skill.

    Those who wish to play the game can find the cartography skill and start mapping the zones they visit.

    Both are now "playing the game"  in their own way HHH

    Original eq player...i did learn zones in game via landmarks...but i am not ignorant enough to say all others should learn zones the same way.  It is not for everyone.

    And realistically...those of us who learn zones by landmarks are actually faster travelers because we are not constantly looking at a map...we are looking at a landmark on screen...Give them their maps, we have landmarks.


    Why not also give defiant armor like EQ has now and then people who don't want the easy road can just choose not to use it? Same with fast travel, just allow people to zip around anywhere they want by the click of a button and those who don't want such, can well... choose not to use it? /sarc

    The problem with such solutions is there is no point. One can play games today and handicap themselves as much as they want, so why aren't people doing this? Why aren't all these niche players flocking to the game of their choice, not wearing armor, locking their exp, refusing to use fast travel and destroying all the coin they get to make it harder? It is because this does not work, it defeats the point of the play.

    There is a sense of accomplishment in playing a game. When you achieve something, there is a piece of mind that you achieved a victory of effort, skill, challenge, etc... to which all those who are to obtain such must equally meet such requirements. Like it or not, this is an element of play, especially in a game such as this. So, telling someone to handicap themselves to achieve a victory that everyone can easily do is really kind of a waste of time due to the risk/reward balance.

     It is like running race on your knees when everyone is running on foot, yet even if you win with such handicap, nobody really cares (ie the game does not recognize your achievement and does not reward it accordingly). So unless there is a reward above others who do not do it, there is no point in doing it. There has to be a proper balance of risk/reward.


    I am not completely opposed to a skill based mapping system that over time with skill progression fleshes out the map, but it would have to be a skill system that resets itself for each zone so the player has to improve their skill per zone.

    The idea of this play is to be an obstacle to someone, a means where they have to overcome the difficulty to succeed and ones ability to overcome such is rewarded above others who do not succeed or who do not put the effort to overcome the obstacle.

    There are no winners if there are no losers. There is no success if there is no failure. There is no achievement if there is no obstacle to conquer. A game is not about "fun", fun is what people have in achieving victory over an obstacle and if people find obstacles to get in the way of their fun, then they are not seeking a game, but rather "entertainment" which directly conflicts with those seeking a game.


  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon Member RarePosts: 3,432
    edited February 2016
    Personally i loved sense heading in EQ but the OP is delusional if he thinks this system can be forced on players. I think this could all be part of the hardcore server so players have a choice of how harsh they want there experience in Pantheon to be.

    PVE-Standard Rule Set - This server has normal leveling and grouping features.

    PVE- Hard Rule Set- No maps, longer leveling curve, no grouping features.

     




  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,497
    There were intensive discussions in the Vanguard beta of whether there should be an in game map. There ended up being a map. It may have been more limited than maps in some games (which is fine by me, as I don't need a detailed one).

    Am I wrong? I just googled Vanguard UI to check, and I saw a map. 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Personally i loved sense heading in EQ but the OP is delusional if he thinks this system can be forced on players. I think this could all be part of the hardcore server so players have a choice of how harsh they want there experience in Pantheon to be.

    PVE-Standard Rule Set - This server has normal leveling and grouping features.

    PVE- Hard Rule Set- No maps, longer leveling curve, no grouping features.

     
    First off, there is no mini-map in Pantheon. Also, they may not even have maps or if they do, it is likely it would be a map where you can not see your position on it.

    This is not "forced", it is simply the element of the games play requirements. People can accept this and play it, or they can refuse to accept it and move on.

    As for the server issue, I am fine with such. In fact, I would prefer such as I have no desire to play with people who just want an entertainment simulator. A more "hard core" server with these restrictions are required. If I wanted to play yet another mainstream game (in game maps and mini-maps, fast travel, faster leveling, etc...) I would be playing the games today.


  • BenjolaBenjola Member UncommonPosts: 843
    edited February 2016
    @Amathe

    Yes, by the time Vanguard launched a lot of Brad's 'vision' was watered down based on player feedback I guess.
    The original idea of Vanguard was much more 'hardcore' then what we got at launch.
    It's a natural way of things, as a developer you must listen to feedback and make the game your comunity wants to play even if it doesn't fit your preferences.

    Of course there is always a way around that, mainly, different rule sets servers.
    That way you can make everyone happy I guess, provided that every server has enough players to support it.


    I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,497
    Sinist said:
    First off, there is no mini-map in Pantheon. 

    When was this announced as a final decision? Or are you going off of an early alpha version? 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Benjola said:
    Yes, by the time Vanguard launched a lot of Brad's 'vision' was watered down based on player feedback I guess.
    The original idea of Vanguard was much more 'hardcore' then what we got at launch.
    It's a natural way of things, as a developer you must listen to feedback and make the game your comunity wants to play even if it doesn't fit your preferences.

    I hate most player feedback as I have seen it destroy most games out there. Most people who are making suggestions are doing it from a bias of what they "want" as a reward in the game (fast travel, easier leveling, little or no death penalty, etc...) and not that of looking to make the "game" more challenging, difficult, etc...

    They aren't asking for game elements, rather perk features catering to their fun(tm). Game companies have been attending to these "suggestions" for over a decade now and it is killing "games". That is why every game is just some pointless chat room entertainment simulator, because all the suggestions are about how people want this to be easier, or this to be given to them, or that to be handed to them, etc...

    As a developer, they need to stick to their "Vision" and listen to feed back in the context of that vision. Anything that goes outside of it should be disregarded or they end up harming the cohesive structure of that original vision. That vision should define the game and its direction and those who do not agree with the vision should make a decision as to if they will play it or not.
  • BenjolaBenjola Member UncommonPosts: 843
    edited February 2016
    Sinist said:

    As a developer, they need to stick to their "Vision" and listen to feed back in the context of that vision. Anything that goes outside of it should be disregarded or they end up harming the cohesive structure of that original vision. That vision should define the game and its direction and those who do not agree with the vision should make a decision as to if they will play it or not.
    Heh, as a dev, try telling this to your investors see where it takes you.
    I know of only one MMO in the last 20 years where this approach worked and that's EVE , which it seems to be some kind of a anomaly of the MMORPG world, probably because it was an only space MMORPG for a long time.

    I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    Amathe said:
    Sinist said:
    First off, there is no mini-map in Pantheon. 

    When was this announced as a final decision? Or are you going off of an early alpha version? 
    Yes, early on this was discussed and Brad even commented on it. Now they could change, but that won't go over well for a lot of folks as the early discussions were pretty unanimous about people not wanting it, so if it changes it will be very telling as to the direction the game is taking.

    Besides, how does a mini-map and mapping system we have seen in games today serve the concept of exploration? It works against the concept.
  • KonfessKonfess Member RarePosts: 1,667
    edited February 2016
    Benjola said:
    Konfess said:

    Stuff..
    Just NO! to everything you typed.
    This game clearly wont be for you but that's ok, hundred of MMOs outhere.
    No one will make it, and the intended victims won't come play either.

    Pardon any spelling errors
    Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven
    Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
    Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
    As if it could exist, without being payed for.
    F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
    Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
    It costs money to play.  Therefore P2W.

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Benjola said:
    Sinist said:

    As a developer, they need to stick to their "Vision" and listen to feed back in the context of that vision. Anything that goes outside of it should be disregarded or they end up harming the cohesive structure of that original vision. That vision should define the game and its direction and those who do not agree with the vision should make a decision as to if they will play it or not.
    Heh, as a dev, try telling this to your investors see where it takes you.
    I know of only one MMO in the last 20 years where this approach worked and that's EVE , which it seems to be some kind of a anomaly of the MMORPG world, probably because it was an only space MMORPG for a long time.

    Many investors are only concerned about short term profits, not long term viability. They have no problems making a quick return and then sinking the game into oblivion shortly after. That is why you have to go old school with investors, gaining investors that actually believe in that vision, not some fly by night suit with big pockets who just wants to rape the product through gimmicks and unethical solutions only to dump it for the next project. You can see how detrimental that has been to the entertainment industry over the decades (music, movie, games. etc...).

    Sure, they make a great profit, but the customer loses out on it. It is why most of these industries are beginning to struggle to retain interest. When you sucker punch the consumer too many times, they it harms you in the long run, even if your target audience isn't too bright.

    VR seems to have a good handle on this so far, time will tell. They have gone through some hard times and taken routes that are less beneficial than if they were trying to make a quick buck. I think the only way Pantheon has a chance of succeeding is if they hold to their "Vision". If they don't, the game will be in the same shape as most failing MMOs today, bleeding players and slowly dying out.

    Mainstream companies don't know how to make products anyway, all they know how to do is make money and that eventually burns itself out, I mean... look at what happened to the music industry.
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,497
    Sinist said:
    Yes, early on this was discussed and Brad even commented on it. Now they could change, but that won't go over well for a lot of folks as the early discussions were pretty unanimous about people not wanting it, so if it changes it will be very telling as to the direction the game is taking.


    Can you link me where Brad said this decision has been made? 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Konfess said:
    Benjola said:
    Konfess said:

    Stuff..
    Just NO! to everything you typed.
    This game clearly wont be for you but that's ok, hundred of MMOs outhere.
    No one will make it, and the intended victims won't come play either.
    Yep, its a failure, no one will play it, the game is a loss!!!!

    You can move on now, thank you for your wonderful commentary.
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    Amathe said:
    Sinist said:
    Yes, early on this was discussed and Brad even commented on it. Now they could change, but that won't go over well for a lot of folks as the early discussions were pretty unanimous about people not wanting it, so if it changes it will be very telling as to the direction the game is taking.


    Can you link me where Brad said this decision has been made? 
    I think the main discussion where the developers talked about it is archived. That said, here is a post by Raidan_EQ from the Pantheon site commenting on it:

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1766/ordanance-survey-style-mapsttp://

    There has been a lot of discussion previously regarding maps.  And the developers have said there won't be any in-game maps and that players can use fan sites for in-game maps if they so choose.  I am opposed to player's being granted in-game maps, but there has been several discussions here on a cartography tradeskill that would be neat if it could be practically implemented.

     

    Just do a search of "cartography" in the search box on the forum here and you can find a few of the past threads discussing it.


    This is in line with what I remember reading back on the old Pantheon site and there "may" be something commented on in the old pod casts if you want to go through them.
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,497
    I will keep looking. Thanks. Guess we will see what happens. 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,497
    I just have one additional question for @Sinist. In this thread you advocate for no maps. Not even any coordinates. Yet you posted previously that in Everquest you played on the Legends server, which featured "dynamic maps." Are you having a change of heart? 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    Amathe said:
    I just have one additional question for @Sinist. In this thread you advocate for no maps. Not even any coordinates. Yet you posted previously that in Everquest you played on the Legends server, which featured "dynamic maps." Are you having a change of heart? 
    Just because I played on the legends server, does not mean that I advocated for every feature that existed. The fact is, there is no game to date that has every exact feature that I desire. Besides, by that time the auto-mapping system with downloaded maps was common regardless of the server. My main reason for playing on the legends server was scheduled raiding. I was working many hours at the time and contested raids were not on the table (nor did I ever care for it).

    Also,  keep in mind that many of my positions changed over the years as I grew to experience how such features destroyed game play. When WoW first came out, I actually advocated for instances and many other features today which I now know to be detrimental to game play, it was just that I didn't realize how much it ruined the game until I experienced what was missing over the years.
  • KilrainKilrain Member RarePosts: 1,179
    edited February 2016
    I like the mixing the ideas a bit. Starting areas should have maps that each character owns for their own starting area. Additional starting areas would have to be purchased. Then any area in the game that is colonized by an intelligent race that isn't a starting area should have premade, moderately detailed maps for purchase. Areas outside of any colonization should be map free, but able to be mapped with a cartography skill, the higher the skill, the more accurate the map. This cartography skill would require exploration while creating the map and if you failed to explore all parts of an area they wouldn't show up on your maps.

    These maps would be realistic, meaning you wouldn't be able to tell where you were on that map. You would have a sense direction skill like in EQ, so you could tell which direction you were facing to help aid the map. You could also construct or buy a compass. The maps could be heavily detailed so it was relatively easy to figure out where you were. Maps would also be editable so you could add notes, drawings, whatever.

    Also a side note, whenever you are looking at the map I think it's important that your character goes into a map reading animation so others can tell what you are doing. Details, details, details.
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    Kilrain said:
    I like the mixing the ideas a bit. Starting areas should have maps that each character owns. Then any area in the game that is colonized by an intelligent race that isn't a starting area should have premade, moderately detailed maps for purchase. Areas outside of any colonization should be map free, but able to be mapped with a cartography skill, the higher the skill, the more accurate the map. This cartography skill would require exploration while creating the map and if you failed to explore all parts of an area they wouldn't show up on your maps.

    These maps would be realistic, meaning you wouldn't be able to tell where you were on that map. You would have a sense direction skill like in EQ, so you could tell which direction you were facing to help aid the map. You could also construct or buy a compass. The maps could be heavily detailed so it was relatively easy to figure out where you were. Maps would also be editable so you could add notes, drawings, whatever.

    Also a side note, whenever you are looking at the map I think it's important that your character goes into a map reading animation so others can tell what you are doing. Details, details, details.

    If they are going to make mapping as such, I want it massively in depth. Here is an example.

    You have a base mapping skill. This skill is generally relevant. It is the basis for being able to map and it has a skill level requirement that goes up based on some use or something similar, lets say 0/250 skill.

    Then you have zone specific knowledge skills, which have sub elements which exist generally as well as through class/race specifics.

    For instance, a dwarf would have a much better eye for rocky terrain and the workmanship of a dungeon, so they would have a skill subset that would provide different detail over time than another race, call it mountain and cavern knowledge with a sub skill of maybe 0/100. A ranger or druid class may have certain zone knowledge about forest and streams, etc... which would show up in a more detailed fashion than lets say a wizard or the like.

    The point is, the map would take quite a while to fill out, based on time, and experience in the zone. So, naturally players who spent a lot of time in some parts of the world would have quite detailed maps over others. This provides another layer of game play, for players to seek to improve their maps over time and it rewards those who put effort into it over those who do not.

    The problem was never that people might eventually have a map of the zones. Heck, even in early EQ, we learned the zones by landmark, yet many of us still had notebooks filled with Muses EQ Atlas's hand drawn maps. A map skill that eventually provides a detailed map over time is fine (no seeing yourself on the map though, that is just a cheat), it falls in line with a progression based development game and if you add in class/race additions, it can even provide uniqueness between the players as well with pros/cons of selecting a given race/class as it concerns this feature.

    A map as a game is not a bad thing, it is when these systems circumvent game play and become a means for a player to avoid having to play the game to any meaningful level that they become a problem. If they have to "earn" their maps over time, that is still in the spirit of game play.
            

          
         
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,497
    I also think that cartography should be a skill, which like all skills would have to be leveled up. You could start out with only basic and localized newbie maps. Bits of detail could be added to the map over time, and the map be expanded, by discovering map fragments, which could be quest rewards or loot. [Just like in a certain movie I won't spoil but that recently set a benchmark for ticket sales .... ] There is a lot that could be done with it. 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited February 2016
    Amathe said:
    I also think that cartography should be a skill, which like all skills would have to be leveled up. You could start out with only basic and localized newbie maps. Bits of detail could be added to the map over time, and the map be expanded, by discovering map fragments, which could be quest rewards or loot. [Just like in a certain movie I won't spoil but that recently set a benchmark for ticket sales .... ] There is a lot that could be done with it. 
    I don't think there should be "newbie" maps or features in the game. The player should start out essentially blind to the areas, having to go around, explore and learn their environment (ie raising their mapping skill, etc...).

    If people can't enjoy they game without it being dumbed down at the start, it makes me question whether they will enjoy it once the training wheels are taken off, not to mention it gives false expectations as players expect that hand holding even after they finish the newbie areas. The game should represent what it is from start to finish in my opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.