Verra Map Analysis

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

ziltch

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%.

Jahlon

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.

ziltch

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.

c0ug4r

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:

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:

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?

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:

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:

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.

Lalli

You guys are too big brain for me.

Lex

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

c0ug4r

@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.

Jahlon

There is a map
It is 480 km²

That is all we know

StevenSharif

Jahlon wrote: »

There is a map
It is 480 km²

That is all we know

I thought it was 480,000 sqkm?

😂😂😂

unknownsystemerror

Lex

GMSteven wrote: »

Jahlon wrote: »

There is a map
It is 480 km²

That is all we know

I thought it was 480,000 sqkm?

😂😂😂

"Math hero" achievement unlocked!

Undead Canuck

GMSteven wrote: »

Jahlon wrote: »

There is a map
It is 480 km²

That is all we know

I thought it was 480,000 sqkm?

😂😂😂

We wish!

Child Item