Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Is 480km world size sufficient in comparison to other games
novercalis
Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
So I saw this youtube video and that kinda shocked me a bit. In comparison to many other games and their size - AoC feels kinda smallish.
It's 10x bigger than Red Dead Redemption / Far Cry 3
It's 8x bigger than PUBG
It's 6x bigger than GTA V
It's 4x bigger than Assassin Creed Odyssey
It's twice the size of WoW + Burning Crusade + Pandoria / Day-Z
It is 2.25 smaller than Just Cause 2 & just Cause 3
3x smaller than Asheron Call - an MMO
9x smaller than Guild War - nightfall
18x smaller than Lord of the Ring Online
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwXV0oLEfCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fj6RdFpDc4
So is 480km sufficient + an additional 100ish underdark area for a seamless world.
WoW content was a total 207km which did feel small when I compare it to Everquest (googlefu showed ~300km) but EQ felt
very large due to movement speed was pretty slow, thus making each zone feel so much bigger. Traversing some zone can take almost an hour w/o boosting movement speed (Jboot, SoW)
But since AoC will have mounts - 480 may end up feeling smallish. There was a difference in feeling in WoW pre-mount vs mount due to movement speed.
Will Ashes of Creation actually end up FEELING LARGE?
Let's do some quick math too:
480km world map size with ~100 nodes.
each node on average will be 4.8km and that includes dead content / space - ocean if the nodes were divided equally. But it's not, so nodes will be even smaller than 4.8km since we know it's 100nodes, most of which is in-land and a few water/island nodes (if any) - so one can assume a node size will be around 3km - or the size of Apex Legend - World's edge map.
Your thoughts
It's 10x bigger than Red Dead Redemption / Far Cry 3
It's 8x bigger than PUBG
It's 6x bigger than GTA V
It's 4x bigger than Assassin Creed Odyssey
It's twice the size of WoW + Burning Crusade + Pandoria / Day-Z
It is 2.25 smaller than Just Cause 2 & just Cause 3
3x smaller than Asheron Call - an MMO
9x smaller than Guild War - nightfall
18x smaller than Lord of the Ring Online
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwXV0oLEfCMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fj6RdFpDc4So is 480km sufficient + an additional 100ish underdark area for a seamless world.
WoW content was a total 207km which did feel small when I compare it to Everquest (googlefu showed ~300km) but EQ felt
very large due to movement speed was pretty slow, thus making each zone feel so much bigger. Traversing some zone can take almost an hour w/o boosting movement speed (Jboot, SoW)
But since AoC will have mounts - 480 may end up feeling smallish. There was a difference in feeling in WoW pre-mount vs mount due to movement speed.
Will Ashes of Creation actually end up FEELING LARGE?
Let's do some quick math too:
480km world map size with ~100 nodes.
each node on average will be 4.8km and that includes dead content / space - ocean if the nodes were divided equally. But it's not, so nodes will be even smaller than 4.8km since we know it's 100nodes, most of which is in-land and a few water/island nodes (if any) - so one can assume a node size will be around 3km - or the size of Apex Legend - World's edge map.
Your thoughts
{UPK} United Player Killer - All your loot belongs to us.
3
Comments
Also, it will feel significantly bigger than those games you mentioned for one simple reason. No flying, no fast-travel.
Size is one element but you also have vacuous space that provides nothing in certain games. I think the world is actually big, and if they can populate it with meaningful locales then that will prove more immersive than size alone.
To illustrate, Guild Wars Nightfall does not feel bigger than Azaroth - yet it is listed as many times it's size.
Then you have the inconsistencies. One of the videos above lists Fortnite as being 6.7km², while the other lists it as 5.44km².
One lists GTA 3 at 8km², while the other lists it as 9km².
One video lists Mafia as being 12km², while the other lists it as being 31km².
Yet, they both have the same size for Skyrim, and Metal Gear 5.
However, one of them has GTA San Andreas as being larger than Skyrim, the other has it as being smaller.
The point is, there is no actual standard way to measure the size of a game world.
As such, there really is no point in speculation that is based on a comparison like this.
I played LOTRO as well, but I honestly forgot how big the world felt. I only played to within a year after release though.
That aside, I have a feeling that they are currently increasing the map size from the initial plan, because the 480 km2 was a UE4 limitation that is now gone in UE5. I am fairly sure they wanted to go bigger from the start, but were held back by technology.
the question is also : time to travel.
density of content and ennemies
Density of population (we don't want to be all over other, but also not have to have to do big travels to find people)
lets say a 300km² (so 270km² of sea and other area where people really rarely go there is 200km² left + 100km² underrealm) for 15k players log in at same time : 300 000 000 m²/ 15 000 players => 1 players for 20 000m²
You will be alone in a circle around 78,8 meters of radius
Now, this calculation says that more than clearly 50% of those 470 surface are mostly empty of people...
And this doesn't include any vertical exploration : montain can lead to different cavern to explore one on top of another.
So this is a really raw and inaccurate idea of what we will have... there is chance that it will be a lower density !
Also... 15 000 co at same time ? yep, now during a siege with 300 v 300, the density on a spot will be really high. and not speaking about people afk or simply speaking/RPing in towns/taverns...
I feel that bigger map could fast feel empty of players
I also think that a problem in most games is that the low level zones/starter areas become forgotten places in most MMOs, so all that space is basically useless and can make "big maps" be actually quite small, since 80%+ of the server population never goes to those places.
At least in Ashes' case I don't think we will have this issue, because the "low level zones" will always hold some low tier resources useful even for the top tier crafters, which in turn is probably going to make every part of the map meaningful, even if only for farming low tier, but important, resources.
If I understand correctly, 480km² is the total size of the map, which is probably a big 22km by 22km square that includes the ocean but does not include the Underrealm, caves, dungeons, raids, etc, since those are inside (and under the ground, inside mountains, etc) the 22km x 22km square.
Let's ignore the ocean for now, as I'm not sure if we will be able to dive and farm resources on the ocean floor, so it'll "only" be used to fish, kill sea mobs/bosses and move goods. I think that it's safe to say that that Ashes will have at least 300km² of useful land (~580² [above ground map + Underrealm] - 280km² of seas and inaccessible land). If each server holds at most 10.000 players, that means each player "has" at least 30m² of land for themselves.
A game map shouldn't be too big so that you never need to fight for resources but it also shouldn't be too small that it takes one hour of competition to complete a "Kill 20 boars quest".
With that wall of text behind, I think the conclusion is that if the map feels too small during Alpha 2, Intrepid can decrease the server population to make the game play better. However, if the map feels too big, it might not be possible to increase the server size due to technical limitations.
I agree that the movement speed plays a big role regarding how large (or small) a game feels. If a mount moves at 22km/h, then you'd be able to go from on side of the map to the other in a straight line in one hour (if my premise of a 22km wide map is right), which kind of feels small indeed.
It's going to be absolutely massive. WoW also had mounts and that world even on launch felt huge. And this is bigger than that.
That's not exactly true either though.
All the land mass can be relevant to all players depending on which nodes are developed, but all landmass isn't relevant to everybody at a given time. High LvLs have areas where they want or don't want to be. Same with low & mid level players. Most of the map still isn't relevant for them, it merely has the potential to be if the nodes were developed differently
From user: u/jetpacksforall on Reddit, some 6 years ago:
Last year u/mysbananen timed how long it took to run from Booty Bay to Sunstrider Isle. Answer: 1 hour, 22 minutes.
Then to do it even better, u/vashtiii made the same trip RP walking. That took 4 hours 43 seconds.
But most players run everywhere, and RP walking is for escort quests. So let's say Kalimdor would also take about 1.5 hours to run. The other continents are each about 60-70% the size of Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor. So let's say they each take an hour to run. So an hour each for The Burning Crusade, WoTLK, Cataclysm, Draenor, Pandaria and Legion.
That's 9 hours total to run through all the continents.
This is pretty much in line with the 1h15 to run from top to bottom of a continent as described by Steven in the livestream.
So it should be alright if you think that WoW was big enough when on foot.
And if they do want to expand in the future, I hope they do three-dimensionally, meaning up, under, through.. not by just creating more flat land extension. (more underground caverns, caves, catacombs, more sophisticated cities etc.)
You should also keep in mind that there is going to be alot of big underground worlds and whenever they want to make additional content they can easily implement a new underground area.
"Unfortunately nobody can be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself."
I feel this applies to map size. As map size is something that you feel, by doing. All the numbers in the world, will not do, what a mere few minutes in-game will do. Does the world feel vast and varied? Space can always be added in the future, but I am glad to have a tangible defined space that Intrepid can expand and explore in upcoming Dev streams.
There is a fine development line to be tread when it comes to "filling" the world. When you log in you want to feel there's a lot to see, do, discover and engage with, but you don't want the space to feel overwhelming, cluttered, or over-engineered.
huh???
to me, hearing 75 min straight line for 1 continent seems rather smallish.
3 min in town feels rather smallish
On p99 (Everquest) - it took maybe 30-40 min from the wood elf city to the dwarven docks.
If you missed the boat, the wait time for a boat was 44 min. 22 min each way, 1 boat.
Freeport is feels about 5-6 min from 1 end to the other end (3 zones worth)
From Freeport to the entrance of Kitchikor Forest is about 15 mins w/o SoW.
then if you had to wait for daytime to dare pass Kitchikor forest (level 1 noob, no assistance). which is 4 min = 1 hr game time. so another 48 min wait. If you managed to survive High Hold Pass, the Karanas itself to Qeynos hill was easily 45 mins. To Halas City from Hill would be 20 min, or Erudite 25-1hr depending on the boat ride timing.
Excluding both continent in EQ, From Freeport to Halas could take a player without mount, without SoW, without death, perfect timing on Kitchikor forest ~3.5 hr running.
1hr distance to me, feel like running East/West/North Karanas zones only
I dont recall how long travel time was in WoW by foot - Booty Bay zone was rather large. but WoW and AoC does have mount - EQ never did mounts, so you felt the world all the time.
See that mountain? You can climb it.
Exactly.
To quote myself back, since some seem to miss it the thread:
So whilst I do agree that I'd like the world to sound bigger by the numbers and time provided, in comparison to other games, it's still quite large.
To keep in mind as well, a larger zone, with scarcer content is ultimately just as bad as a small world.
Also times they provided are in straight lines. So adding terrain to it I think it is quite huge.
I guess the most valuable caravan runs will be from continent to continent so it could easily take more than 90mins. I think that is more than plenty.
Even there it is not so good comparison.
BDO got on one side the autotravel. start at grana, click on valencia, press T, go take a shower, and prepare a coffee, come back ,your character is at its destination or close. Time spent to travel in the game = technically 0
On the other side, a pure white, or a t9 horse has a really insane speed (even more if you use the skills, and a cd cancel on one of them) allowing to travel across the map REALLY fast.
The real things for the size of maps, in my opinion is time spent to travel (but it is also impacted by mount speed, not only teleport/autotravel) and character density of wild areas.
Population density in wild areas : or we have WoW where everyone is in current expansion areas (or current patch area) if not in town. or worse, FFXIV : mostly in cities/housing areas.
Or the asian model with channels, as BDO has... a same farming spot will have different "farming road" lets say 10, and then there will be 10 people per channel for this spot, but it makes a really low density even if they hundreds people in it (spread in different channels)
With the wish of AoC to go back in "old good time" which is really impactfull on how the open world is used by players (one channel, and content being mostly in the open world) we have really no way to compare the size to any similar mmorpg currently...
I think
1. A bigger world. 33% bigger, acceleration & deceleration on players; with Archetypes like Rogues having better acceleration and deceleration and being affected by Encumberance & Equipment weight; 5 - 20% slower going up inclines depending on steepness of angle, and lower dash range.
2. This affects the sense of world size and density: Large Places and Zones that can't be 'penetrated' due to the NPC faction there being too difficult for players at any level. Factions that play an important part in the world and are simply too numerous, powerful, 'aware', and intelligent to be beat. I guess there are Rogue opportunities with that. I guess there would be some opportunity for over-tuned areas to be beaten and looted with enough people involved; then again they might just counter-attack and seige daily to take over the world.
3. Larger more muscular characters. To occupy more of the world :flex:
This term means above all terrain with no obstacles. By the time you add in terrain and bodies of water I would imagine you could add on another 15-30 minutes travel time.
To progress your node you will need to impede neighboring nodes progress, and spend time there as well.