Goblinworks Blog: The Map


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I'm still scratching my head too (and getting saw-dust in my fingers). For example looking at F and C in the NW of the map, it would appear there is no major:

Stephen Cheney wrote:
Lee says there's some elevation change even between plains and regular forests, hence the Xs between those.

elevations so you mean:

1 There CAN BE some elevation changes between terrain hexes from plain->forest but not always, and where there are an "X" indicates so.

2 If so, then as per Nihimon above, is it just the contiguous hills that are affected by the local elevation change (assuming so as there's only on e "X" nearby)?

3 Pics or fly-by vid to visualize all this?

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps there is a ramp down to the second layer of the map.

Goblinworks Lead Game Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

So the white Xs.

Effectively the map has three core terrain tiers:
1. The Lowlands: Croplands (or Plains) and Swamplands. These run from the river for a ways west and most of the map south of the map from the map from the Thornkeep sourcebook. Think of these as various severities of flood plains that at some point in past centuries have flooded with some regularity (or in the case of the swamps are permanently flooded). We're treating the river much like the Mississippi in that it floods, changes course, and is really huge.
2. The Midlands: Highlands (Hills) and Woodlands (Forest). These are higher elevation in that they do not flood. There is some manner of mild cliff edge around them that is where the flood waters have reached, so you need to find places where roads have been carved out of these cliffs are passable, someplace there has been a landslide, etc. One day if we have a fully implemented climbing system there may be other ways to navigate these, but day one of EE there isn't.
3. The Mountains: Mountain and mountainous forest terrain. When traveling through mountains people use mountain passes to avoid having to travel far more dangerous, steep routes. The white Xs are those passes. Getting the mountains otherwise are too steep to pass.

We did this for several reasons.
1. Making the mountains look cool and sufficiently high to be mountains but making them all traversible was not compatible. Basically in our game we want you to go into the mountains other MMOs use as zone borders, so we need a space in them to get you past the sheer mountain faces.
2. We wanted to create some more interesting territory control aspects for settlements to deal with.
3. We wanted to create some more limitations on trade and routes as you can't drive a catapult or wagon up a cliff. This there will be areas that become more active trade routes since they are the passages between terrain tiers.

I am working on a version of the map with the terrain tiers more clearly delineated.

Goblin Squad Member

Lee Hammock wrote:
I am working on a version of the map with the terrain tiers more clearly delineated.

Perfect, thanks! I can wait :)

Goblin Squad Member

The lowlands... Does that mean that we will have sometime flood?

Goblin Squad Member

That's a solid description and explanation, thanks. I was labouring under the assumption of "no choke" points still, bar the foothills.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
You say that you've abandoned song titles, but I know better. Don't worry, I won't judge you for your taste in music.

I thought it was "The Map" a song from Treasure Planet.

Treasure Planet seems appropriate on a lot of levels....

https://play.google.com/store/music/album?id=Bjhozkortfjcu7bc7qfdwnwafim&am p;tid=song-Tt6a6orgatmqgwcf34dscm5pogy

Goblin Squad Member

Well there be an in-game or out-of-game map that updates constantly with the names and locations of player settlements, POI and other malleable spots?

Or will that be left up to the player community to create and maintain?

There's no question that it will happen, just curious to know if GW will be taking a hand in it.

Having a "secret" settlement or POI is very unlikely since anyone who comes across it can just tell everyone else, so anyone who has plans for that should just scrap that idea.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Very cool..... Those meteor strike hexes and the attempt to secure them will be a huge source of conflict, wealth and power.

Is there any chance that they will deplete over time and new ones will be created elsewhere?

The answer to this is going to be very important. If these meteor hexes can eventually *run out* of exotic resources then that changes the whole dynamic of trying to secure them long-term i.e. building your settlement right next to them. What if each runs out at different rates?

Very exciting and gets me chomping at the bit to play!

Goblin Squad Member

Harneloot wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Very cool..... Those meteor strike hexes and the attempt to secure them will be a huge source of conflict, wealth and power.

Is there any chance that they will deplete over time and new ones will be created elsewhere?

The answer to this is going to be very important. If these meteor hexes can eventually *run out* of exotic resources then that changes the whole dynamic of trying to secure them long-term i.e. building your settlement right next to them. What if each runs out at different rates?

Very exciting and gets me chomping at the bit to play!

The Devs have said in the past that resource nodes will "dry up" and respawn elsewhere, changing the political climate.

If they do not, the larger groups will monopolize these areas or as many of them as need to create a virtual incumbency of dominance.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome blog devs!
1. I use the same map making software for my maps.
2. Its seems you forgot to put a settlement hex inside a mountain range. *wink wink"

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

My take on elevation, based on Lee Hammock's comment:

Lee Hammock wrote:
1. The Lowlands: Croplands (or Plains) and Swamplands. These run from the river for a ways west and most of the map south of the map from the map from the Thornkeep sourcebook.

This would be all of the light green sections, which take most of the south-west quadrant and the small portion at the south-easternmost end of the map.

Lee Hammock wrote:
2. The Midlands: Highlands (Hills) and Woodlands (Forest). These are higher elevation in that they do not flood.

This would be the mustard yellow and dark green regions, which is more than half of the map. As far as I understand, you can freely go from yellow to dark-green and back. But yellow is higher than light-green.

Lee Hammock wrote:
3. The Mountains: Mountain and mountainous forest terrain. When travelling through mountains people use mountain passes to avoid having to travel far more dangerous, steep routes. The white Xs are those passes. Getting the mountains otherwise are too steep to pass.

These are the brown areas.

There seem to be one place, south-est of "AD", where the pass goes directly from lowlands tier to mountain tier.

Also note that, as far as I understand, sprinkled "off-color" terrain should be considered on the same tier as surrounding dominant terrain tier.

Goblin Squad Member

@Djoc, based on your reading, would P be able to travel directly into the dark-green hexes to its east? If so, then why would the nearby X be there? If not, then it seems like P would be a horrible choice for a Settlement since fully 1/3 of the neighboring POI hexes would be unreachable.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
@Djoc, based on your reading, would P be able to travel directly into the dark-green hexes to its east? If so, then why would the nearby X be there? If not, then it seems like P would be a horrible choice for a Settlement since fully 1/3 of the neighboring POI hexes would be unreachable.

Yes, that would be my reading that the two dark green hexes to the east of P would be higher tier and require to circle around to the X to access them.

If I'm right, protection offered by having a settlement's back at the bottom or the top of a cliff (reducing the number of sides other settlements can attack from - until we start seeing feather-falling or climbing special forces) will come at the price of having to reach farther to control POIs.

There's still the possibility that the cliff lines might not follow exactly the color changes as I see it, though. We'll need the updated map to be sure.

EDIT: I also want to note that I can't watch the video yet, so all of my observations come from looking at the map and reading this tread.

Goblin Squad Member

@Djoc, after reading your analysis and studying the map a bit more, I think I get what you're saying and I think you're probably right. Looking at it as one "cliff line" that runs from the northwest of the map southeast along the Hills and around the Hilly Forests in the south before turning northeast, and a second "cliff line" that surrounds each of the mountain areas, the maps and the X passes make much more sense. Thanks :)

Goblinworks Game Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think you guys are right. Lee's been working hard to make the terrain work in interesting ways for and against settlements depending on their ease of access to claimable hexes. Settlements with an unusually large number of nearby hexes not easily claimed by others also may get more nearby monster hexes to threaten them. If a cliff (or, eventually, an unswimmable river) runs right next to your settlement, cutting you off from easy access to neighboring hexes, that also means that you're more defensible (and you're often on a rise where only a few other settlements can get to you easily even from the direction that isn't walled off). If you're close to NPC hexes you can't claim, you're getting the benefit of being close to what are likely to become trade corridors.

These should hopefully make the choice of a location more interesting than just what resources are nearby and where your friends are.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Lee or Stephen

Will the sky metal hexes be permanently placed as are some of the monster hexes? Or might they deplete and respawn somewhere else, eventually?

Goblin Squad Member

Or will the resources of the sky metal hexes be like other resources, harvested from nodes, and with the hex subject to temporary depletion based on player activity?

Goblinworks Game Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
Or will the resources of the sky metal hexes be like other resources, harvested from nodes, and with the hex subject to temporary depletion based on player activity?

This.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Am I right in thinking that only empty (with no icons) hexes will be PC claimable POIs? Will passes/choke-points also be claimable POIs or are they only specially juicy PvP ambush sites?

Also, I feel like this should be on the first page but better late than never. Here's a map key I gathered from the video and this tread:

Map Key:

Map Key

Colors (dominant terrain of each hex)

  • Light Green: Plains
  • Dark Green: Forest
  • Yellow/Tan: Hills/Highlands
  • Brown: Mountainous Forest
  • Orange: Mountains
  • Light Blue: Water (only 4 hexes, found immediately south-east of settlement Z)
  • **Not on map currently** Swamp
  • Dark Grey: Meteorite impacts (some important resssources will be found only in these places, like skymetal, adamantium, meteoric-iron, etc.)

Symbols

  • Stars: Starter NPC Settlements - Thornkeep (north-east) and Fort Inevitable (south-west) ***A third, Fort Riverwatch, will be added later farter to the north-north-west of the map
  • Black lines: Major trade routes
  • Triangle: NPC hexes - NPC-patroled/controled/protected areas

  • Letters "A" to "AD": Initial settlement spots available during land rush/early enrollment (total of 30)
  • Village (one big hut and one small hut): Future settlement spots to become available later

  • Lion: Monster hexes or specific adventure spot (Emerald Spire between V and W), *likely* related to escalations
  • Castle: Home hexes, permanent home to specific group of NPCs/monsters, with permanent escalation (orc/ogre tribe XYZ, etc.)
  • Ruins: Badlands, also related to escalations, not as icky as monster hexes, may also be used later by developers to add future content

  • Big white X: Passes/choke-points - Only way to move from one "tier" of elevation to the next
    -> Low tier: Lowlands - Light Green (most of south-west quadrant and small south-easternmost portion of map) (includes settlements L, M, N, O and P) (will eventually include swamplands as well)
    -> Middle tier: Highlands and Woodlands - Yellow and Drak Green (most of map) (includes all 19 other settlements)
    -> High tier: Mountains - Brown and Orange (most of north-east quadrant and 3 other spots) (includes settlements A, B, W, AA, AC and AD)
    --> Note: To better visualize, imagine "cliff lines" where the colors meet and plateaus in between
    --> Note: Sprinkled "off-color" terrain will *likely* be on the same tier as the dominant color around them
    --> Note: You can moving freely between yellow and dark green regions as well as between brown and orange regions
    --> Note: Actual "cliff lines" might be drawn a bit differently if there are some "off-color" terrain right next to the "cliff-lines"
    --> Note: There was a hint at unswimable rivers which are not currently drawn on this map (I would guess, other small impassable terrain features are also possible) that will hinder settlements from easily accessing/controling adjacent POI hexes as much as the tier cliffs
    --> Note: Apparently, one big white X is missing, 3 hexes north-west of Thornkeep along the trade route

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

How does transition from hex to hex work? Is it a loading screen each time you cross a hex border? Can you only cross between adjacent hexes at certain points or anywhere on the border (assuming no geographic chokepoints)?


Lee Hammock wrote:

We did this for several reasons.

1. Making the mountains look cool and sufficiently high to be mountains but making them all traversible was not compatible. Basically in our game we want you to go into the mountains other MMOs use as zone borders, so we need a space in them to get you past the sheer mountain faces.
2. We wanted to create some more interesting territory control aspects for settlements to deal with.
3. We wanted to create some more limitations on trade and routes as you can't drive a catapult or wagon up a cliff. This there will be areas that become more active trade routes since they are the passages between terrain tiers.

I don't see the necessity of the binary "pass/nopass" approach with very sparse passes (allowing any transit).

It seems like alot of people see it similarly, especially for the "forested hills".

Most of the numbered concerns you give can be addressed by the actual terrain simply being slower to travel thru, with more limited routes within it... Wagons and Catapults being even more restricted in their travel makes sense, and that impacts large scale harvesting/trade and war, but I don't see why small scale character movement needs to be tied to the same restrictions. Any route that allows maximum efficiency in movement/ maximum compatability with heavy vehicles will always have inherent value vs. less efficient/more restricted routes: it doesn't need to be a binary "pass/nopass" situation, ideal transit routes will always be "magnets" for conflict.

Even for hexes that are desired to allow thru-transit (which should be differentiated for character-scale vs. mount-scale vs. heavy vehicle-scale), the issue of thru-transit is still distinct from ENTERING that hex to begin with: a "tangled wood" hex or "mountain" hex preventing THRU-transit for the mode of transit being examined could more than plausibly have glens, valleys, etc on it's edges allowing some access to that TERRAIN and associated resources, but not necessarily free access to the ENTIRE hex or THRU-transit to hexes beyond it. (I don't even see this as incompatable with the portrayed "X Pass" system, it is the realistic option if the game is not to just impose "walls" on the sharp borders between hexes)

That could even further expand game dynamics by having hexes for which "internal transit" is relatively difficult (again, distinguishing between various scales: personal/mount/vehicle?) and thus it is relatively more difficult for one group to dominate their entire hex.

If the terrain over-all is supposed to be interesting and tactically/ strategically relevant at smaller-than-full-hex-scale, then I don't see why imposing such a gross binary paradigm as the portrayed "X pass" system is needed or desirable. I understand the idea of chokepoints and differences in transit patterns, and the "X pass" system is a VERY simple expression of that concept, but it seems far from ideal, so I don't think it should be used as anything more than a "placeholder" not meant to implemented literally.

People can and do climb mountains, I don't see why characters should not be able to transit ALMOST ALL mountain hexes, even if they do so slowly and are forced into certain routes. Mounts should be able to pass thru heavy woods more easily than wagons/catapults, again, even if at lower speeds than optimal (likely giving up speed advantage vs. humanoids). It just seems like more nuanced limitations/penalties on travel thru these terrains, as well as preventing "Fast Travel" would just enrich the game alot more. I would also expect swamps (and water) to have similar movement restrictions/penalties, honestly.

CEO, Goblinworks

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nightdrifter wrote:
How does transition from hex to hex work? Is it a loading screen each time you cross a hex border? Can you only cross between adjacent hexes at certain points or anywhere on the border (assuming no geographic chokepoints)?

There's no transition. You can't even see the boundaries except for some geographical features that follow them. It's totally seamless.

CEO, Goblinworks

@Quandry: The reasons are to create interesting and meaningful choices not to simulate physics.

Goblin Squad Member

Well, the X-method does seem to create less choice for players,then what Quandary proposed.

Now everyone and everything, from a single player, to a group, to a trade caraven to a siege-party will have to cross in to a certain area through one of the X-es, no matter his goal or intentions.

While with Quandaries proposal these different parties could opt for other ways to traverse into the next area, taking into account what their goal is, and the drawbacks of not using the X-route. Drawbacks could be, slower movement rate, (much slower for carts), lots of obstacles like fens and marshes so your route will be convoluted, pathing monsters (mayabe even unkillable ones as to create a natural barrier), lots of deep crevices that could kill you due to fall damage.

I am thinking of the example of the lone harvester/explorer, who simply wants to roam the world looking for ore, or explore the landscape, and is now funneled into these X-es, which will undoubtedly be the most dangerous places on the map. That would at least seriously limit his options (and choices).

Having said this, I must admit I have been wondering myself if the world is not SO big, that players will easily be able to avoid eachother when traveling the map: which is an undesirable situation off course. Even so I was expecting POI's and roads and motherlodes to be "funnels of activity", aleniating this fact.

I think Quandaries method is also more development-intensive, so I can understand that is a drawback. Even so I hope that more "X-es" will find its way onto the map, as to create more options.


Well like I wrote: "If the terrain over-all is supposed to be interesting and tactically/ strategically relevant at smaller-than-full-hex-scale" i.e. that type of stuff would be applicable for gameplay totally outside the concerns of this "X-Pass chokepoint", so it's mostly not more development work, it's work that should be done anyways, just taking into account the specific chokepoint concerns. Linking a terrain variable to 100% prevent wagon movement but not character movement doesn't seem development intensive, again, I would hope that type of thing would be done ANYWAYS totally outside of chokepoint concerns.

I specifically wrote that I understood the goals of the chokepoint concept, and specifically wrote that concept can be pursued in a less binary manner, so a response that boils it down to a false binary just doesn't seem productive. "Physical simulation" was in fact the least of my motivation in writing that, suppleness and nuance of meaningful choices being the primary motivation.

I'm not opposed to SOME hexes being wholly impassable, more to that being the default for mountain/forestedhill perimeters. And it sounds like GW is already open to those barriers being bypassed by some means in the future (climbing, flight) so approaching it as supple high-granularity variations of travel-ability from the beginning would be MORE consistent than using clunky binary distinctions only to be radically subverted by future content.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Nightdrifter wrote:
How does transition from hex to hex work? Is it a loading screen each time you cross a hex border? Can you only cross between adjacent hexes at certain points or anywhere on the border (assuming no geographic chokepoints)?
There's no transition. You can't even see the boundaries except for some geographical features that follow them. It's totally seamless.

Thank goodness, I was dreading 'loading screen per hex' answer. That is a big feather in the cap for sure. The tech peeps are working their magic.

Stephen Cheney wrote:
These should hopefully make the choice of a location more interesting than just what resources are nearby and where your friends are.

That does improve things I think as well, creating more areas with localism of interesting and different features (trade routes or defensible hexes (siege engines and/or armies way down the line) as well as resources) per settlement hex.

Very exciting.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
These should hopefully make the choice of a location more interesting than just what resources are nearby and where your friends are.

Indeed :)

We spent a couple of hours last night talking about it amongst ourselves, and I'm sure we'll spend many more hours talking about it with our allies and partners.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

The Devs have said in the past that resource nodes will "dry up" and respawn elsewhere, changing the political climate.

If they do not, the larger groups will monopolize these areas or as many of them as need to create a virtual incumbency of dominance.

Resource nodes dry up and then respawn in the same hex, which doesn't really change the political climate; it's more about making people move around inside the hex (so that you aren't sitting in one place hitting a rock for 10 minutes a-la Darkfall) and causing those gathering kits to only provide a short-term benefit, instead of being set up one one node forever.

Goblin Squad Member

Is it still the plan that the little tools will be for "harvesting" crafting materials in small quantities and that the kits will be for the gushers to "gather" bulk building materials when you hit a "gusher"?

I have gotten a little fuzzy about that when considered against "outposts" and how they tie in to that...

Goblin Squad Member

I think Outposts are for bulk harvesting (stone, timber, food(?)). They are tied to POIs, so I think can only be used in wilderness hexes (not settlement, monster, monster home, badlands, or meteorite hexes).

Goblin Squad Member

Since there are plans to allow road-creation that will affect the Map(mentioned above), I would also suggest other implements higher on the "settlement creation and expansion" research tree. Such as the ability to affect the terrain - building a bridge, tunneling a path through to a hex, building barricades/walls, create a moat, move boulder/rocks, build a new cavern, etc.

Over time, I could even see over-resource cultivation changing a hex from one type to another (grassland -> rough/Badland). It does almost sound Minecraft-like, but I think it would certain encourage players/alliances to create, build and customize their settlement and manage the governed hexes around them (with an associated 'settlement point' upkeep cost as well).

Goblin Squad Member

Did anyone else notice the different movement speeds between plains and mountains?

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:
Did anyone else notice the different movement speeds between plains and mountains?

Is it the terrain? Or is it gear/equipment?

Goblin Squad Member

Iatronas wrote:

Since there are plans to allow road-creation that will affect the Map(mentioned above), I would also suggest other implements higher on the "settlement creation and expansion" research tree. Such as the ability to affect the terrain - building a bridge, tunneling a path through to a hex, building barricades/walls, create a moat, move boulder/rocks, build a new cavern, etc.

Over time, I could even see over-resource cultivation changing a hex from one type to another (grassland -> rough/Badland). It does almost sound Minecraft-like, but I think it would certain encourage players/alliances to create, build and customize their settlement and manage the governed hexes around them (with an associated 'settlement point' upkeep cost as well).

I know this tune: Crowdforging! Some solid ideas above: Particularly the bridge over water possibility (may even coincide with roads) Changing hexes character is a daring idea: The cascade/knock-on effects would need careful consideration. Weather is another pet favorite for me.

CEO, Goblinworks

I think the only speed change is likely because I had the run key depressed or not. As far as I know terrain does not affect your movement rate.

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Confirmed: terrain does not affect movement speed (though roads probably eventually will).

Goblinworks Lead Game Designer

So for folks who are curious, our coordinate system treats the northern most Thornkeep hex as 0.0. Using coordinates in the same fashion as most computer graphics programs, numbers down down to the left and up. I've got a new clearer map set up, but don't have a good way to post it here. I'll figure something out. So the three Thornkeep hexes are 00.00 on top of 00.01, with 01.00 being the on down and to the left. Meanwhile the mountain pass down and to the right is -01.00. Computers are weird for people like me who think in terms of graphs and geometry.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Lee Hammock wrote:
So for folks who are curious, our coordinate system treats the northern most Thornkeep hex as 0.0. Using coordinates in the same fashion as most computer graphics programs, numbers down down to the left and up. I've got a new clearer map set up, but don't have a good way to post it here. I'll figure something out. So the three Thornkeep hexes are 00.00 on top of 00.01, with 01.00 being the on down and to the left. Meanwhile the mountain pass down and to the right is -01.00. Computers are weird for people like me who think in terms of graphs and geometry.

Good, you're using a right handed coordinate system and not the unspeakable evil that is left handedness... ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just as a heads-up, this weekend I plan to get an image map started of this map linking to articles on PathfinderWiki on the contents of each hex. It's a process that will likely take a long time and also require the game to, you know, launch before there's a lot of content on the articles themselves, but this is a thing that's "in the works." As always, anyone interested in assisting in the effort is welcome to join the wiki and add their expertise (or willingness to learn).

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

What are character movement speeds? The faster we can run/walk the smaller the effective map size.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Well like I wrote: "If the terrain over-all is supposed to be interesting and tactically/ strategically relevant at smaller-than-full-hex-scale" i.e. that type of stuff would be applicable for gameplay totally outside the concerns of this "X-Pass chokepoint", so it's mostly not more development work, it's work that should be done anyways, just taking into account the specific chokepoint concerns. Linking a terrain variable to 100% prevent wagon movement but not character movement doesn't seem development intensive, again, I would hope that type of thing would be done ANYWAYS totally outside of chokepoint concerns.

I specifically wrote that I understood the goals of the chokepoint concept, and specifically wrote that concept can be pursued in a less binary manner, so a response that boils it down to a false binary just doesn't seem productive. "Physical simulation" was in fact the least of my motivation in writing that, suppleness and nuance of meaningful choices being the primary motivation.

I'm not opposed to SOME hexes being wholly impassable, more to that being the default for mountain/forestedhill perimeters. And it sounds like GW is already open to those barriers being bypassed by some means in the future (climbing, flight) so approaching it as supple high-granularity variations of travel-ability from the beginning would be MORE consistent than using clunky binary distinctions only to be radically subverted by future content.

I think we may only need to sweat the choke points in the short term. I am reading between the lines here, but I am getting a hint that in the future:

A) More passes may become open or available
B) Character skills may allow characters to traverse cliffs with the appropriate skills trained
C) There could be craftable items that assist in traveling along previously untraversable paths
D) Players and player settlements might be able to construct improvements that effect the terrain (as mentioned here regarding road improvements in and around a settlement and its holdings)

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Hardin Steele wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Well like I wrote: "If the terrain over-all is supposed to be interesting and tactically/ strategically relevant at smaller-than-full-hex-scale" i.e. that type of stuff would be applicable for gameplay totally outside the concerns of this "X-Pass chokepoint", so it's mostly not more development work, it's work that should be done anyways, just taking into account the specific chokepoint concerns. Linking a terrain variable to 100% prevent wagon movement but not character movement doesn't seem development intensive, again, I would hope that type of thing would be done ANYWAYS totally outside of chokepoint concerns.

I specifically wrote that I understood the goals of the chokepoint concept, and specifically wrote that concept can be pursued in a less binary manner, so a response that boils it down to a false binary just doesn't seem productive. "Physical simulation" was in fact the least of my motivation in writing that, suppleness and nuance of meaningful choices being the primary motivation.

I'm not opposed to SOME hexes being wholly impassable, more to that being the default for mountain/forestedhill perimeters. And it sounds like GW is already open to those barriers being bypassed by some means in the future (climbing, flight) so approaching it as supple high-granularity variations of travel-ability from the beginning would be MORE consistent than using clunky binary distinctions only to be radically subverted by future content.

I think we may only need to sweat the choke points in the short term. I am reading between the lines here, but I am getting a hint that in the future:

A) More passes may become open or available
B) Character skills may allow characters to traverse cliffs with the appropriate skills trained
C) There could be craftable items that assist in traveling along previously untraversable paths
D) Players and player settlements might be able to construct improvements that effect the terrain (as mentioned here regarding road improvements in and...

What I hope is that people will be able to create a "pass." Mostly by building some sort of bridge thing.

I don't know if what I'm thinking is correct, but how I see the elevations changing is by rather long sections of cliff. The passes are sections where those cliffs are not. As such, people would be able to build a giant sloped bridge from the lower elevation to the higher. Or dig a tunnel through the higher one. Or build an elevator thing. Or carve a series of switch-backs.

The point I am getting to is that the passes should only be the only natural, permanent method of elevation changing for wagons and such. The lone wanderer or small adventuring party should not have to use them of they do not want to, and a city can build their own "passes" through the expenditure of lots of materials. Which have to be held themselves, or they might be used against the city who built them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something I noticed that I did not see picture on the legend in a couple of hexes 00.11- 00.15 and 01.10-01.13 there is a icon of a camp fire. what does that stand for.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is one of those blogs that leaves me deeply conflicted.

On one hand it is impossible not to see the huge potential for meaningful, persistent gameplay where the players can actually create a unique and evolving virtual world.

On the other hand it gives another stark reminder of just how many core game mechanics must to be successfully implemented for this game to nothing more than an empty shell.

Please stay the course and focus on getting those core systems up and running. The polish, variety, fluff and quality of life features can wait.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Fruben I agree; there will be no rides when we enter this world(no Quest-hubs with hundreds of NPC's offering quests, leading you from story to story, from location to location, from monster to monster).

And at the start of EE there will not be much player-driven content yet either (Settlements, trading, transport, crafting, sieges, PoI-raids).

So I think an early hook will be the refreshingly new combat with keywords and synergy between equipment and skills/abilities, and off course the escalations for PvE. I think this is why escalations seem to be one of the first things being implemented, if only in a simple form.

Those escalations and combat should be the first things to occupy us, so that we are not scratching our heads in this huge world, and wonder: "what now?". ( I am hoping for some early crafting and gathering too).

After that initial phase the Magic has to be brewed, adding one core-mechanic after the other, while hoping the kettle does not blow up in our faces. :)

They have to get it just right, but it is not that it is a one-shot thing either.

Goblin Squad Member

This is one of the best dev-blogs :)

Lee Hammock wrote:

So the white Xs.

Effectively the map has three core terrain tiers:
1. The Lowlands: Croplands (or Plains) and Swamplands. These run from the river for a ways west and most of the map south of the map from the map from the Thornkeep sourcebook. Think of these as various severities of flood plains that at some point in past centuries have flooded with some regularity (or in the case of the swamps are permanently flooded). We're treating the river much like the Mississippi in that it floods, changes course, and is really huge.
2. The Midlands: Highlands (Hills) and Woodlands (Forest). These are higher elevation in that they do not flood. There is some manner of mild cliff edge around them that is where the flood waters have reached, so you need to find places where roads have been carved out of these cliffs are passable, someplace there has been a landslide, etc. One day if we have a fully implemented climbing system there may be other ways to navigate these, but day one of EE there isn't.
3. The Mountains: Mountain and mountainous forest terrain. When traveling through mountains people use mountain passes to avoid having to travel far more dangerous, steep routes. The white Xs are those passes. Getting the mountains otherwise are too steep to pass.

We did this for several reasons.
1. Making the mountains look cool and sufficiently high to be mountains but making them all traversible was not compatible. Basically in our game we want you to go into the mountains other MMOs use as zone borders, so we need a space in them to get you past the sheer mountain faces.
2. We wanted to create some more interesting territory control aspects for settlements to deal with.
3. We wanted to create some more limitations on trade and routes as you can't drive a catapult or wagon up a cliff. This there will be areas that become more active trade routes since they are the passages between terrain tiers.

I am working on a version of the map with the terrain tiers more clearly delineated.

Very good idea, X's will provide us with lot of pvp and trading/transport goods will require involvement of many people.

On the subject of using metric system, despite of being american it's not hard to recognize it will work well here.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's the status of 'Sites of Interest' from the Thornkeep book in relation to this map? For example, the blog posting mentioned that hex -05,07 is the location of the Emerald Spire and it seems like the various other dungeons and monster lairs can likely be matched up with various monster and monster home hexes. However, will small settlements like the Murdoon and Woodbristle homesteads be in the game? Or individual structures like Oreena's cottage and Alejia's crossing? By the map it looks like all of these except possibly Oreena's would be in NPC hexes. Does that mean that it will be possible to find various NPCs (possibly as quest givers?) in different NPC hexes?

Goblin Squad Member

Will we be able to build POIs in hexes that don't immediately border our Settlement Hex? If so, must we control POIs in the intervening hexes, and how is there a hard limit on how far that chain can extend?

Can the roads that extend from our Settlement to our POIs join up with the roads of friendly neighbors, creating a new trade route?

Goblin Squad Member

CBDunkerson wrote:
... Alejia's crossing...

It looks to me like Alejia's Crossing matches up with Land Rush Settlement "K".

201 to 238 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: The Map All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.