Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Verra Map Analysis

LexLex Member, Phoenix Initiative, Avatar of the Phoenix, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2020 in General Discussion
verramap.png

This is based on the total world size (including water) of 480km2. The ocean size, land size and inland water sizes are calculated by counting pixels and multiplying the total by the ratio of that type.

The numbers are approximate and speculative.
fe85sq6n7wyu.png
«1

Comments

  • BCGBCG Member, Intrepid Pack
    I like it.
  • LexLex Member, Phoenix Initiative, Avatar of the Phoenix, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited January 2020
    After discussing with @Jahlon we've come up with an estimate of the grid size of the map.

    Map is 34 x 24 squares.
    If the total area is 480km2 then each square works out to be around 0.77 x 0.77km = 0.588km2.
    This is easily checked: 480 = 0.588 x 34 x 24

    Comparison with BR maps

    The original BR map is 2.5 x 2.5 = 6.25km2
    Therefore the BR map is approximately 10.63 map squares in area.
    Check: 10.63 x 0.588 = 6.25

    The new BR map is 1/5 the size of the original, so around 1.25km2
    Therefore the new BR map is approx 2.12 map squares in area.
    Check: 2.12 x 0.588 = 1.25
    fe85sq6n7wyu.png
  • sylsyl Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Looking good :smiley: ! How did you color the map? Did you do it by hand? And I'm assuming you used an application to count the green and blue pixels to calculate its surface, right?

    Anyway, back to the analysis and speculation. I'm quite liking the diversity of biomes Intrepid has put in and I'm very much intrigued by the arctic biome in the east. It's quite mysterious how that came to be there. I'm hoping to find out in the near future if there's more to it than just cosmetic purposes.
    ‎‎‏‏‎ ‎
    BoN9ZBr
    Come take a look at ashesofcreation.wiki!
  • LexLex Member, Phoenix Initiative, Avatar of the Phoenix, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    syl wrote: »
    Looking good :smiley: ! How did you color the map? Did you do it by hand? And I'm assuming you used an application to count the green and blue pixels to calculate its surface, right?

    I used photoshop to color and count the pixels.
    fe85sq6n7wyu.png
  • sylsyl Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Haha ok. I wouldn't have thought of counting pixels with Photoshop. You learn something every day.
    ‎‎‏‏‎ ‎
    BoN9ZBr
    Come take a look at ashesofcreation.wiki!
  • What about areas that lead into other areas like the tunnels into the Tulnar caverns or the dungeon paths that split into multiple areas and forks that either go underground or into caves or mountains that are not seen on the above-ground map? Are those counted in the 480km^2 too?
  • DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Whitecloak wrote: »
    What about areas that lead into other areas like the tunnels into the Tulnar caverns or the dungeon paths that split into multiple areas and forks that either go underground or into caves or mountains that are not seen on the above-ground map? Are those counted in the 480km^2 too?

    Underground is an additional 100km i believe.
    KkvMmA5.png
  • Don't forget inside buildings / freeholds, castles. Those, while not instanced, do not reflect the proportional km^2 of the size of the building seen outside / above-ground vs. inside once you enter. It is slightly skewed.
  • JahlonJahlon Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha One
    Whitecloak wrote: »
    Don't forget inside buildings / freeholds, castles. Those, while not instanced, do not reflect the proportional km^2 of the size of the building seen outside / above-ground vs. inside once you enter. It is slightly skewed.

    Actually with it not being instanced what you see is what you get.

    You can't have a non-instanced building sitting on a 500 square foot plot take up more than 500 square feet. It just doesn't work that way.
    hpsmlCJ.jpg
    Make sure to check out Ashes 101
  • What about upstairs?
  • ShazeShaze Member, Phoenix Initiative, Explorer, Alpha One
    Great Work Lex and Jahlon! Love the numbers.
  • JahlonJahlon Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha One
    Whitecloak wrote: »
    What about upstairs?

    The 480 km² doesn't take into account when you have buildings with 12 floors.

    hpsmlCJ.jpg
    Make sure to check out Ashes 101
  • What about tunnels that slope downwards?
  • Yes, yes the map is big 😅 @Whitecloak Here's something Jahlon did to put it into scale (although not 100% accurate)

    Screen_Shot_2020-01-13_at_07.27.21.png

    Each square you see here is as big as the old BR map which is shown below:

    APOC-battlegrounds-map.jpg

    signature.png
  • AzryilAzryil Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Amazing Job
    k2U15J3.png
  • nibiru97nibiru97 Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Lex wrote: »
    After discussing with @Jahlon we've come up with an estimate of the grid size of the map.

    Map is 34 x 24 squares.
    If the total area is 480km2 then each square works out to be around 0.77 x 0.77km = 0.588km2.
    This is easily checked: 480 = 0.588 x 34 x 24

    Comparison with BR maps

    The original BR map is 2.5 x 2.5 = 6.25km2
    Therefore the BR map is approximately 10.63 map squares in area.
    Check: 10.63 x 0.588 = 6.25

    The new BR map is 1/5 the size of the original, so around 1.25km2
    Therefore the new BR map is approx 2.12 map squares in area.
    Check: 2.12 x 0.588 = 1.25

    Did Steven recently say that the ocean is part of the total? Because he did say that the BR map was equal to 4.5 squares on the mmo map, and that was the most recent statement from him I've heard. Just curious because there are contradicting statements out there.
  • nibiru97 wrote: »
    Did Steven recently say that the ocean is part of the total?.

    Copied from an earlier post on the map size - Steven's quotes in references 8,9 on the wiki: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/World_map

    I read the quote to mean 'all' land and water (excluding the under realm).
  • JahlonJahlon Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha One
    Yes, he said land and water was about 480 km²

    hpsmlCJ.jpg
    Make sure to check out Ashes 101
  • nibiru97nibiru97 Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    K, I'll just disregard his other comment then.
  • CambiguousCambiguous Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    VigorousBigBumblebee-size_restricted.gif
    https://gfycat.com/@Cambiguous
    Someone you otter know.
  • ziltchziltch Member
    edited January 2020
    Calculating based on cell size being correct statement

    24 Cells - Vertically
    34 Cells - Horizontally
    24*34 = 816 cells total

    4,5 Cells = 6,25km^2

    816 (total cells) / 4,5 (Cells per 6,25km^2) = 181,33

    6,25 km^2 * 181,33 = 1133,33km^2

    soo... map size is 2,36 times bigger than estimated at 480km^2?

    Calculating based on world map being correct statement

    480km^2 / 816 = 0,588km^2 per cell
    0,588km^2 * 4,5 (apoc map size in cell count) = 2,65km^2

    So... APOC map size is 2,36 times smaller than estimated at 6,25km^2

    Well... it's almost correct? APOC map being 6,25km^2 vs it being 2,65km^2
    xD

    Calculation if both are correct

    480km^2 / 816 = 0,588km^2 per cell
    6,25km^2 (APOC size) / 0,588km^2 (per cell) = 10,63 cells per APOC map

    Which, again is 2,36 times higher than mentioned..

    Conclusion

    Somewhere, there is an error of 2,36, or 236%.
    The simplest yet hardest stat to train is Willpower.
  • JahlonJahlon Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha One
    ziltch wrote: »
    Calculating based on cell size being correct statement

    24 Cells - Vertically
    34 Cells - Horizontally
    24*34 = 816 cells total

    4,5 Cells = 6,25km^2

    816 (total cells) / 4,5 (Cells per 6,25km^2) = 181,33

    6,25 km^2 * 181,33 = 1133,33km^2

    soo... map size is 2,36 times bigger than estimated at 480km^2?

    Calculating based on world map being correct statement

    480km^2 / 816 = 0,588km^2 per cell
    0,588km^2 * 4,5 (apoc map size in cell count) = 2,65km^2

    So... APOC map size is 2,36 times smaller than estimated at 6,25km^2

    Well... it's almost correct? APOC map being 6,25km^2 vs it being 2,65km^2
    xD

    Three known facts about a map
    When used together 2 facts disprove the 3rd.

    Something is certainly off.
    hpsmlCJ.jpg
    Make sure to check out Ashes 101
  • Well, we know APOC map statement must be correct, cause at 2,65km^2 in size, it would be like 600m across, which isn't possible.

    And the likelyhood of World Map being 2,36 times what they originally planned is very unlikely too.

    So most logically, the apoc map being 10,63 cells in size seems to be the most correct.
    The simplest yet hardest stat to train is Willpower.
  • I know I'm one or two days late to the party, but It's just now I remember there was this awesome work of @Lex, @Jahlon and @ziltch I wanted to get back to.

    Back then I had the same idea as @Lex to calculate proportion between land and sea. Well, he beat me to it by some months, but as I got rid of all those deceiving trees and mountains which pretended to be land mass, here's just a little update on the numbers:

    verranumbersaljj2.png

    lqoo73wv.png

    Considering land mass has only decreased by 0.4 km² (about 2/3 of a square) in comparison to @Lex' map I'd say that's as good as it gets regarding land/sea distribution. There's surely some pixels hiding here and there, but overall they're neglectable.

    Now to the trilemma that came with the Verra map by combining it with the size and comparison statements of Apoc's first map. A quick summary of what @ziltch wrote:

    verratrilemmap2k6w.png

    Colored numbers mark where math based on two assumptions disproves the third. Leading to the conclusion that either the world map size of 480 km², the Apoc map size of 6.25 km² or their relation of Apoc being 4.5 squares on the world map is off by the factor of 2.36. Of course you could argue that none of this really matters - at the end of the day Verra is just as big as it will turn out to be. However for the time being those numbers are our only possibility to get a feeling for the size of Verra. Because most of us know Apoc's first map inside out it makes a huge difference if it fits onto Verra's land mass 36 or 84 times.


    A - The world size is not 480 km²

    Of all things it seems hard to believe they messed up a key property of Verra. Maybe by some km² but not by a factor of 2.36! The only way this could work out is by assuming some major miscommunication. How about the 480 km² was only the size of Verra's land mass?

    verraland480m3kcu.png


    Not the 1133 km² world map size needed to fit Apoc in exactly 4.5 squares, but not that far off. Then again as good as it may look at a first glance it doesn't make a lot of sense to call 4.95 squares 4.5 instead of a straight 5 and after all it's hard to ignore Steven's statement that the 480 km² would include water and land content.


    B - Apoc's first map isn't 6.25 km²

    While square measures are hard to compare directly it doesn't really get much easier by comparing 2.5 km (√6.25 km²) with 1.63 km (√2.65 km²). At least I am not able to tell if it took me one or the other to get across the Apoc map. Maybe when looking at smaller scales? Forest of Erinthia anyone? It was claimed to be about 1/5 of the original map, but considering other numbers don't add up we better check this one too. Fortunately both maps share many structures that make it easy to directly compare them. I chose seven of them and adjusted the Erinthia map to fit the structures. Sample picture for Creation's Rest = Hallowed Vale:

    verraapoc-eriotk9p.png

    verraerinthiaqdkq3.png


    Turns out I had to shrink Erinthia to exactly 40% which makes it not 1/5 but 1/6 the size of the first map. Well, even less because: 0.4 x 0.4 = 0.16 ≈ 1/6.24. Considering we could easily get rid of the first and last row and column of the Erinthia map grid without losing playable area we'd even be facing 1/7 down to 1/8. However downsizing Erinthia by a factor of 6.24 the resulting map width/height doesn't help me much neither: 1.00 km vs. 0.65 km assuming either 6.25 km² or 2.65 km² for the first map - I couldn't tell. Seems like I'm just bad at estimating distances.

    That said there's only really one thing left to determine Apoc's map size: Just measure the damn thing! Well, nothing easier than that! Grabbed a ruler (in Photoshop), went here and took some measurements. Sounds desperate? Indeed it's absolutely vague and would have been much easier and accurate if Apoc was still online. However in the end we're facing a map size difference of the factor 1.54 (√2.36) which really isn't that small. Even with a rather inaccurate approach it might hopefully be possible to lean towards one map size or the other.
    So what exactly did I do? The YT-video shows an NPC in front of a building that is present in/on both Apoc maps. First I measured the NPC whose standard height should be at 6 feet (1,8288m) as shown in many concept arts. As the bird's eye view of the maps show the building's roof I measured its width next. Setting both in relation, transferring it to the Apoc maps and ascertain how often the building fits on the map. Of course there's a lot of distorting factors (slight over head camera angle, NPC not standing directly at the wall,...) which influence the outcome in either direction. So I did a variety of measurements going from min to max and here's the average:

    verraapoc-roofkkjwt.png


    Worth mentioning Erinthia's size determination is much more reliable due to the fact that the map file has the same resolution as the original Apoc one what at the 1/6.24 map size relation leads to a much higher detail rate on the Erinthia map. That said it's definitely not a 100% confirmation, but it seems more plausible for the first Apoc map to have rather the claimed size of 6.25 km² than 2.65 km².


    C - Apoc's first Map isn't 4.5 squares on the world map

    Unfortunately this scenario seems to be the most plausible one. In my mind there's several sources of error here. The most basic and obvious being math: Although it's not rocket science, calculating Apoc's square size involves much more math and conversions than the other two size determinations and thus is just more prone to errors.
    Another source of error could be the map layout in combination with the grid itself. Maybe I'm just pedantic, but there's some things about the world map that I just don't like. Too much space at the bottom to seemingly just fit the Ashes of Creation logo, an odd grid format of 34 x 24 which results in 0.59 km² squares, yet cut off grid cells in the first and last rows and columns (hardly noticeable, but we actually have only 811.26 squares on the map, not 816) to name a few. All of that doesn't add up to anything in terms of making Apoc 4.5 squares instead of 10.63 but it gives this world map a rather makeshift feeling which isn't a good start for proper size calculations.

    No matter what may be causing the difference, if the first Apoc map would really take up 10.63 squares on the world map Verra's land mass would (only) be 36 times that much. Just to give you an idea in regards of the resulting node density: Considering we'd get 222 km² of land and another 100 km² of Underrealm to put 103 nodes on, the first Apoc map would be home to exactly 2 (103*6.25/322) nodes. Seems reasonable, but 0.85 (2/2.36) would have made Verra feel more (than twice as) vast.

  • LalliLalli Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
  • LexLex Member, Phoenix Initiative, Avatar of the Phoenix, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    c0ug4r wrote: »
    I know I'm one or two days late to the party, but It's just now I remember there was this awesome work of @Lex, @Jahlon and @ziltch I wanted to get back to.

    Back then I had the same idea as @Lex to calculate proportion between land and sea. Well, he beat me to it by some months, but as I got rid of all those deceiving trees and mountains which pretended to be land mass, here's just a little update on the numbers:

    @c0ug4r your thoughts are very much appreciated and very close to my own. @Jahlon did ask about the map discrepancies in the January livestream. This is what was said.
    We haven't exactly figured it out but when we talk about 480 square kilometers we talk about playable area. There are there areas on the edges that we really wouldn't consider to be playable but but yeah I don't know. – Jeff Bard
    I don't know the exact the exact amount that is land versus water but the water is playable area as well and it's gonna have content... – Steven Sharif
    fe85sq6n7wyu.png
  • @Lex I'd say I must've missed that, but as I watch every stream I just must have forgotten :#
    So thanks for refreshing my memory!

    Well, that leaves us with Apoc's first map being either 6.25km² or 4.5 squares. Guess we'll get a definite answer to that as soon as Alpha 1 will be charted and set into relation with the world map.
  • JahlonJahlon Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha One
    There is a map
    It is 480 km²

    That is all we know
    hpsmlCJ.jpg
    Make sure to check out Ashes 101
  • StevenSharifStevenSharif Moderator, Member, Staff, Avatar of the Phoenix, Kickstarter
    Jahlon wrote: »
    There is a map
    It is 480 km²

    That is all we know

    I thought it was 480,000 sqkm?

    😂😂😂
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    map.png
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.