Map node system or giant sandbox map?

[Gabriel77Dan]

I don't remember reading anything about it, has it been confirmed what form of map will be used?

A map node system ala Fallout'ish where you have nodes you enter for pre-made detailed places whereas the world map is lower detail (basically just a map) and has randomized encounter maps.

Or a sandbox map? (GTA, Just Cause, Fallout 3/New Vegas, Elder Scrolls)

Or a map node system like Dead island and Dekaron where you never enter a world map but travel between zones directly?

No idea what is gonna be used but I'd prefer a map node system with individual nodes and a world map with encounter chance when traveling.

Has anything been confirmed? And if not, what would be best for Wasteland?

[oldmanpaco]

Not sure but I hope they go the W1/FO route.

[owenmp]

Related to the original post is the types of maps for the gameworld and each location.

World Map: Square grid, hex grid or any direction possible as in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2?

Location Maps: Square grid or hex grid?

[Oesophagus]

Definitely do not want huge playground F3/FNV had. It was just ridiculous how you couldn't walk five meters in any direction without encountering something. In a supposedly desolate wasteland.

F1/2 style map would work much better

[Gabriel77Dan]

Related to the original post is the types of maps for the gameworld and each location.

World Map: Square grid, hex grid or any direction possible as in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2?

Location Maps: Square grid or hex grid?

Well the world map in Fallout 1 and 2 was in a square grid, each square had their own list of encounters that could be met.
While the maps in the nodes had a hex grid.

I don't know if I'd like either hex or square grid, what about an octagon grid? (Cause it looks stupid when going directly north in fallout 1/2 and the character zig-zagged with each step.
And a square grid simply looks ugly to me.
Totally personal issues though, but I'd prefer a hex or octa grid.

[alexlovesinxile]

octa grid.

As far as I know, octagons don't form a perfect grid.

[Gabriel77Dan]

octa grid.

As far as I know, octagons don't form a perfect grid.

Ayeah.
...
Crud..
Then hex for me, square simply looks ugly.

[KrystianGalaj]

http://www.gamezone.com/editorials/excl ... asteland-2 :

One of the things that saves us money is not doing cut-scenes. Those are incredibly expensive and time consuming and frankly, the hardcore crowd doesn't care that much about them, so that saves us a tremendous amount of time. Really it comes down to having a template for having the perfect map, and then we send that out to six or seven designer, and they will all jump on creating their areas and then we collate it, bring it together, and then we'll be feeding this stuff out to the beta testers throughout to make sure the sensibilities that we promised, were hitting all those right notes.

Of course, this may be a preliminary idea, or a manner of speaking.

[Postapo]

In the wider poll I'd be a minority, but I actually opt for the (gridless, why do you need a grid these days?) node system. But it'd have to be worked on, maybe added a bit of eyecandy and definitely some strategic side to it.

Like a more developed system of path setting from Arcanum, where you'd determine beforehand what are the more risky and the more proffitable areas to cross through. Ravines, hilltops, ruins etc.

What might be the problem is that the instanced, now much more complex and large enviroments' generator might take inappropriate amounts of effort to design. In that case i'd preffer a seamless world

Man, I can imagine the spastics, than never venture out of the Avoid and Include subforums going hysterical over this, demanding W2 to be more like Oblivion or the like.

[undecaf]

Even though the way they did an open world in Arcanum would likely fit in with WL2, I do prefer worldmap and nodes. Sandboxmaps always require certain amount of downscaling, the openness in Arcanum was (imo) quite redundant for a large part (so much emptiness with no use). The Bethesda way of sandboxing, I'd say, is completely out of the question.

So yeah, focused and well established nodes for me please.

[GL1zdA]

I like the node system. This way, the important locations can be done very detailed and you don't have to worry about populating the desert. But a largo pool of random encounters (not only funny ones), which stay on the map after visiting them would make every play-through more unique.

[Makrillo]

What about a regular damn map with key locations and then some random encounters depending on the areas you are travelling in.
I see the map as being kinda realistic-looking and whenever you do something that isnt usually on a map then there should be added scribblings as if you made them with a pen. Low tech!

Personally prefer less areas, but filled with more love than huge areas that are mostly randomly generated.

[talkingcrows]

Heres a map idea I wouldn't mind seeing.I kind of hope for a Apocalypstic world where the world looks different....California cracked off into the ocean sort of thing.If you could wander around mapping the world for yourself, you could literally discover the world for yourself...So when yer talking with yer friends..
HEY man you been playing Wasteland?
YEAH,AWESOME right?
Where have you been....?I been heading east..Oh man ,mutants everywhere.Arizona is a radiation hotbed.Beware the ( ?)
HOLY SHIT.You aint been west.California is gone,its a bunch of islands..
That is,if you go with a world view map.I mean they are Rangers..they should be exploring or something right?

[Gabriel77Dan]

Heres a map idea I wouldn't mind seeing.I kind of hope for a Apocalypstic world where the world looks different....California cracked off into the ocean sort of thing.If you could wander around mapping the world for yourself, you could literally discover the world for yourself...So when yer talking with yer friends..
HEY man you been playing Wasteland?
YEAH,AWESOME right?
Where have you been....?I been heading east..Oh man ,mutants everywhere.Arizona is a radiation hotbed.Beware the ( ?)
HOLY SHIT.You aint been west.California is gone,its a bunch of islands..
That is,if you go with a world view map.I mean they are Rangers..they should be exploring or something right?

So fog of war map?
Fallout 1/2 had that, I'd very much like a fog of war map, would give me a reason to explore every nook and cranny for more locations. (That is if there "are" locations, Fallout 1 and 2 became a bore once you realized that there were only a dozen and two dozen nodes, respectively)

[Lucius]

I think they could go either way really. I'd like a sandbox map like Wasteland, but only if it can be populated properly and of course random encounters. This really adds to exploration. Well if they go the Fallout route, I'd hope it's more fluid and less square zones, again with random encounters. In my opinion, this route isn't as fun to explore. It's just a means of connecting one location to another.

[undecaf]

So fog of war map?
Fallout 1/2 had that, I'd very much like a fog of war map, would give me a reason to explore every nook and cranny for more locations. (That is if there "are" locations, Fallout 1 and 2 became a bore once you realized that there were only a dozen and two dozen nodes, respectively)

I felt the amount of locations was quite adequate for the purpose of those games. The wasteland never felt overpopulated with filler stuff, and the setting actually supported the scarciness of life.

That said, though, as the Wasteland setting appears (or so I recall it feeling, it's been quite a while since I last played Wasteland) a bit more... inhabited, there probably should be a few more settlements. Although, not too much and preferably places with a reason of existing instead of some random filler locales.

[Gabriel77Dan]

So fog of war map?
Fallout 1/2 had that, I'd very much like a fog of war map, would give me a reason to explore every nook and cranny for more locations. (That is if there "are" locations, Fallout 1 and 2 became a bore once you realized that there were only a dozen and two dozen nodes, respectively)

I felt the amount of locations was quite adequate for the purpose of those games. The wasteland never felt overpopulated with filler stuff, and the setting actually supported the scarciness of life.

I just don't think it's that good for an exploration point of view to have fog of war when there is barely anything to be found.
And I don't mean having tons of more places where people live.
It'd just be interesting to find places like Toxic Caves or Golgotha which can only be found by going out of your way to explore the fog of war.
You might just find a place like Amusement Park in FOnline: 2238, you might just find a cannibal tribe.
Just having a lot of those smaller things would give you more of an incentive and reward for uncovering the fog of war.
That's the problem I have with the older Fallouts, there is a fuckload of fog of war and barely anything to find in it, making it a waste of time to try and uncover it.
I tried it once in Fallout 2, prior to knowing all of the nodes there was to know I tried to uncover it all, ended up being a huge waste of time and not rewarding in the slightest.
But in FOnline: 2238 it was somewhat fun again, cause I found small things of interest.
Though it was never about having more "life" in it, it was simply about having "something" in the vast pitch black darkness.

[undecaf]

I can agree with that. Although, I never viewed the fog of war being there for random exploration but just depicting my characters lack of knowledge of the areas. I also found it, initially, more rewarding that the few locations there were, were locations of at least some substance -- as opposed to there being, like I said, a ton filler ones. But then, I never approached those games too much with random exploring in mind to begin with - I mean, I did it, but never to the extent of getting disappointed/frustrated over not finding something.

[hiptanaka]

I wouldn't want a giant, seamless sandbox map, simply because it will never be giant enough to feel like a realistic world with realistic distances. And if it is, most of the content will be pointless, generated terrain, anyway.

A differently scaled map with "entrances" like Fallout (or Wasteland for that matter) is probably better. But I'd like to see a bit more interaction/complexity on the map screen than there was in Fallout. Perhaps something like skill-based scouting for new locations, for example.

[Gabriel77Dan]

I can agree with that. Although, I never viewed the fog of war being there for random exploration but just depicting my characters lack of knowledge of the areas. I also found it, initially, more rewarding that the few locations there were, were locations of at least some substance -- as opposed to there being, like I said, a ton filler ones. But then, I never approached those games too much with random exploring in mind to begin with - I mean, I did it, but never to the extent of getting disappointed/frustrated over not finding something.

Oh I didn't play it for random exploration, nor do I think that random exploration is what Fallout should be about, I just don't like the fog of war and the lack of content in it.

No idea what would fix it, I'd rather not it become too emphasized on exploration, I'd rather not have a ton of filler content and I'd rather not have nothing but the important nodes.

But I want "something".

Maybe have more quests that take you to places outside of the city? Like Stables and Toxic Caves and Ghost Farm?

Anyway, it might seem offtopic but this brings me back to the point in Wasteland 2, if using a map node system with a world map and if it's gonna have fog of war I don't want the fog of war to be a waste of time nor do I want it to be cramped with places.

Having major nodes be visible first and then have smaller nodes for quests would work great.