The Touchy Subject of Maps

[zdoofop]

When I speak of Maps I want to make it clear I'm speaking of the maps window that the player plls p and/or the minimap on the hud, not the development of the terrain.

The reason I label this sbject as controversial is that there are gamers that prefer having no way to chart the terrain, or to do it manually. Others prefer the mainstream approach of having a full map of the area and objectives clearly marked. I'm the kind of guy that can see both sides of an argument, so I'm actually more curious to see which way you go.

I'll tell you what I don't want though: the traditional approach of a 3d terrain mapped on a 2d surface. If your objective is above or below you, it can take forever to find, and if the Devs put a marker there, then they clearly didn't intend for you to go up and down searching for a clearly marked objective.

So, I propose: If you don't want any mapping features, fine. Should you choose to add it, however, please make the maps 3d so that I can see how high or low I need to go. Wanna make it hard, fine, don't put a map in, but having 2d maps for a 3d terrain seems counter-intuitive. Even in 2d maps irl there are elements that tell you the height of a marked object/landmark.

 

[Vladplaya]

I was liked world map in FireFall, it was pretty nice looking and functional. Mini maps can add to the screen clutter, but it's nothing that can't be solved with simple toggle key.

 

[EvilKitten]

Given that we are piloting Mech's I cannot see the player not having access to a map of some sort. What I am against however is handholding. I feel that the map should be fully open to placing persistent markers as the player desires, along with the restricted ability to ping other players within a certain range of that new marker (restricted to 1 use, and range to prevent troll spamming). What I do not want to see is objective markers for targets who's exact location the player has not been given information on. For instance if you are directed to go see Person X, and that person X is on the network their location will certainly show up as a circle (or arrow if they are sufficiently above/below you). But if you are told to take out target Y and are given no other information then you will not receive any sort of map indication. You may have to do some digging to discover Target Y's general location but even then it will only show up on your map as a ? within a circular range.

TL/DR: There needs to be some sort of attention given to text/audio in the game in order to finish any quests/missions by the players in order to properly complete them.

 

[zdoofop]

Given that we are piloting Mech's I cannot see the player not having access to a map of some sort. What I am against however is handholding. I feel that the map should be fully open to placing persistent markers as the player desires, along with the restricted ability to ping other players within a certain range of that new marker (restricted to 1 use, and range to prevent troll spamming). What I do not want to see is objective markers for targets who's exact location the player has not been given information on. For instance if you are directed to go see Person X, and that person X is on the network their location will certainly show up as a circle (or arrow if they are sufficiently above/below you). But if you are told to take out target Y and are given no other information then you will not receive any sort of map indication. You may have to do some digging to discover Target Y's general location but even then it will only show up on your map as a ? within a circular range.

TL/DR: There needs to be some sort of attention given to text/audio in the game in order to finish any quests/missions by the players in order to properly complete them.

my point is that players should have access to a 3d map of the terrain rather than a 2d one for more precise markers. there is no point to a marker if we have to go up and down looking for it.

 

[EvilKitten]

my point is that players should have access to a 3d map of the terrain rather than a 2d one for more precise markers. there is no point to a marker if we have to go up and down looking for it.

Ah I did not see that specific point made in your OP, but yes I suppose I could get behind that. +1

 

[Vladplaya]

there is no point to a marker if we have to go up and down looking for it.

Unless it is part of the design to make players search for the exact location for whatever reasons. I believe most people don't like hand-holding, and games that tell you exactly where to go and what to do, usually get boring pretty quickly. It is seriously not an end of the world if you have to run around a marker that doesn't specify elevation of the locational, yeah you might have to run around a little bit, but who knows, maybe you will discover something else cool while doing so.

 

[ObsoleteVodka]

my point is that players should have access to a 3d map of the terrain rather than a 2d one for more precise markers. there is no point to a marker if we have to go up and down looking for it.

I always liked how they made the radar/minimap in the 1998 Battlezone reboot.

 

[zdoofop]

Unless it is part of the design to make players search for the exact location for whatever reasons. I believe most people don't like hand-holding, and games that tell you exactly where to go and what to do, usually get boring pretty quickly. It is seriously not an end of the world if you have to run around a marker that doesn't specify elevation of the locational, yeah you might have to run around a little bit, but who knows, maybe you will discover something else cool while doing so.

but that's what I'm saying; if you're going to hold or hands, do it in 3d, otherwise don't give us markers at all. If you want vague markers, you can also do that in 3d, but there is no reason you should be maping in 2 dimensions when we clearly use all 3.

 

[zdoofop]

I always liked how they made the radar/minimap in the 1998 Battlezone reboot.

reminds me of oolite:

 

[Omnires]

I like the 3d sphere map/radar you get in flying and space games. Because the map/radar itself is 3d it better shows your location in a 3d space.

Edit:
Things kind of like this map/radar.

 

[Vladplaya]

but that's what I'm saying; if you're going to hold or hands, do it in 3d, otherwise don't give us markers at all. If you want vague markers, you can also do that in 3d, but there is no reason you should be maping in 2 dimensions when we clearly use all 3.

Why are you so set on the fact that it absolutely has to be one way or another. There is nothing wrong with having 3D radar with vague 2D markers, as long as that serves the purpose of the design. Unless you think that makes the game more difficult, because you can't pinpoint the exact location, to which again I will say, if that is what developers want, than there is nothing wrong with that. Like they can put "2D" marker on 3D map, to show general spawn location of some enemy. You don't need to know anything more than that the area, including the elevation, around the marker is where you need to be, so why not just make it a simple 2D icon?

I just like never ever thought that a mini map or world map can be such problem for anyone. I guess as long as I got basic way to navigate around and some basic identifications for stuff, it makes no difference to me whatsoever whether it is in 3D or 2D, I will figure things out either way.

And once again, I thought FireFall world map did pretty good job at presenting needed info to the players. It didn't show the elevation, but I never had a problem with finding what I needed on it.

 

[EvilKitten]

I suppose we could compromise and put a sphere on this 3D map to indicate general area.

 

[Daynen]

What the OP is getting at is consistency. There's little point to making a 3d game where you can be above or below your current spot in sheer elevation, yet your map just has a marker saying "here" on a flat map. It feels half-assed. If the game is going to point out something's exact location, the it may as well be actually exact. Otherwise it's just annoying. If it's not going to walk you to your spot, which I would prefer it didn't always do that, then so be it. The combination of exact handholding with inexact marking creates a real feeling of half-measures. Firefall players understand this; missions told you exactly where on the map something was, but when you got there you were frustrated by finding nothing, only to later discover, completely on your own, that you actually had to find a tunnel entrance NOWHERE NEAR your location and navigate a labyrinth instead. It just creates the feeling of being given terrible directions.

In other words, he's saying do it right or don't do it at all; I can agree with that sentiment.

 

[TankHunter678]

What the OP is getting at is consistency. There's little point to making a 3d game where you can be above or below your current spot in sheer elevation, yet your map just has a marker saying "here" on a flat map. It feels half-assed. If the game is going to point out something's exact location, the it may as well be actually exact. Otherwise it's just annoying. If it's not going to walk you to your spot, which I would prefer it didn't always do that, then so be it. The combination of exact handholding with inexact marking creates a real feeling of half-measures. Firefall players understand this; missions told you exactly where on the map something was, but when you got there you were frustrated by finding nothing, only to later discover, completely on your own, that you actually had to find a tunnel entrance NOWHERE NEAR your location and navigate a labyrinth instead. It just creates the feeling of being given terrible directions.

In other words, he's saying do it right or don't do it at all; I can agree with that sentiment.

You need to remember that in Firefall at least when you got to that general location the exact location of the thing was marked visually on your screen outside of the map.

So there was no need to make the map 3d as when you got there you can literally see its location through terrain.

 

[ObsoleteVodka]

reminds me of oolite:

Yup, but with wireframe rendered terrain

 

[Earth_Soldier]

I always liked this:

 

[MattHunX]

Well, @Grummz, I think, already pointed out there won't be many interior and indoor areas. We won't be spelunking in caves as much as had to in FF. And depending the vertical size of the game-world, we might not have too much of an issue with determining the elevation objectives will be. At least, the way I imagine it, it won't be hard to guess what will be below or above you, up a cliff, down in a valley...etc.

 

[Daynen]

You need to remember that in Firefall at least when you got to that general location the exact location of the thing was marked visually on your screen outside of the map.

So there was no need to make the map 3d as when you got there you can literally see its location through terrain.

Except you really couldn't. All you got was basically X and Y coordinates. If Z was a KM down in a labyrinth with the only entrance Several KM back the other way hidden by a path you would never take without directions, you were on your own finding that.

Mind you, it's not the hunt that bothers me. Finding stuff is fun. It's when the game otherwise babies you through the whole thing, then decides to just mislead you and leave you hanging. It's a reversal, and it feels like either laziness or rudeness on the developers' part...sometimes both. In a game where they DON'T give you markers for every single thing, this is a hunt and makes sense. In a game where you're normally guided by the hand to exactly where you need to go, it's a poorly-thought out slap in the face. It's like google maps guiding you to an address but not making any move to inform you that your destination is inside an underground mall, causing you to wander around for awhile until you find someone who has a clue and points you in the right direction. It just wastes your time. (This happened to me yesterday; I was an hour late for my first day on the job. Thanks, Google!)

It's all about context and consistency.

 

[Vladplaya]

Except you really couldn't. All you got was basically X and Y coordinates. If Z was a KM down in a labyrinth with the only entrance Several KM back the other way hidden by a path you would never take without directions, you were on your own finding that.

Sounds like just a shitty marker placement by the devs. Unless they purposefully wanted it to be very hard to find, all they had to do is just put that marker at the entrance. Totally not a map issue.

 

[Daynen]

Sounds like just a shitty marker placement by the devs. Unless they purposefully wanted it to be very hard to find, all they had to do is just put that marker at the entrance. Totally not a map issue.

Right. given the usual nature of the game, I mark it down as an oversight that was just never addressed. To me, it would've made more sense for markers to be placed at better starting points for the hunt, such as at the entrance to the cave referenced in my above example, rather than on the exact horizontal spot of your goal and completely ignoring the vertical coordinates. It just made no sense at all.