Overworld and Adventures

Have any of you ever played Mount and Blade: Warband? I imagine the Overworld to play almost exactly like that game's campaign. That's what it sounds and looks like from how it was described to me so I try to use that as a blueprint of how I expect it to turn out...only it's pixelated lol

You walk around with your "party" (think Final Fantasy here) on the overworld map, with other players wandering the map as well. They can choose locations on the map to build their cities, forts, towns, villages, etc. and they work as sort of warps when you walk onto them. You then enter that specific map and actually walk around as your character.

What I want to know is if that party system will work like that. As in, it's only the designated "leaders" sprite on the Overworld map, with maybe a tiny number to the top right of his icon saying how many players are with him. He controls where they go, the battles they enter, the cities they visit, but can listen to suggestions from them.
Or if it will actually just be free movement where you choose to follow that guy and everyone has a separate sprite to walk around on the Overworld. I could see this method being a little clustered and unorganized, but giving a lot more freedom to the players.

Which would you prefer?

 

I, more or less, thought it would be more of a "go to the end of the map and get teleported to the next one" kind of thing. I could be wrong. Oh and I love all the FF and M&B: Warband.

 

Nah, it won't be. They said in that blog post it would have an overworld map you travel around on and enter maps in that way.

 

I think i will be you oprn a map and select a location for fast travel and what mason said.
But when you reach end you get several options of were to go.

 

Oh, I must have missed that part. :p

 

I don't want an instant map travel similar to Guild Wars or Skyrim. I'd like to actually have to walk the distance, and I'm sure you will have to do that since in that dev blog about it they said you could rob travelers. A map travel would completely destroy that.
I mean I'm pretty sure they will have an Overworld map, that's why it is called "Overworld" in the first place. Although it depends on how well it mixes. Anything is subject to change.

I for one would prefer the overworld map.

 

Defnitly the first option, I just couldn't see the 2d option working anyway. Since it's a Overworld, there will be almost surely be the warp thing you described (Like in the Tales of-franchise I assume?) If everyone would wak about freely, you could run into other sprites accidently quite easily, or your team leader would hit someone, and everyone would get sucked into it, frustrating.

I guess that when you join a server, you start in a safe map (only the first time, I suppose), and here you can set up your party, or leave alone, if you set up a party, you will be asked who does the walking in the overworld, and the others spectate. As soon as he hits a sprite, or sets up a city, the whole party goes with him.

 

Mhm. Although perhaps when you engage another player's party you are given a few options. Trade, battle, etc. all on sort of a menu screen, with a chat between the opposing parties leader and you. That way you can discuss not having to fight in exchange for their coin.

Bandits: "Hand over your coins or me and my boys 'll gut ya"
Peasants: "Please, take what we have we do not wish to fight"

Or alternatively if the peasants refuse to take the bullying and are feeling confident, then a battle will start and all players will be taken to a standard battlefield to duke it out. Although, obviously with the one life system, players will recognize the consequences of their actions a lot more. So unless those peasants felt they outnumbered and outclassed the bandits, they most likely will not choose to fight.

Then again the bandits could just be dickholes that are itching for an easy fight lol

There should be a "backout" option alongside the trade and battle selections. It could be a retreat button, but it would bring both parties back to the map and engage a chase on the overworld. If the retreating party is caught, they go into a forced battle

 

As for me, I'm rather bewildered on what you're even talking about. What will overworld look like? Of-course it's KAG isn't it? But it's going to look like...haven and hearth? Is that what you're suggesting, because before you go off into stupid little details that you act like you're in-charge of deciding, you should actually figure out what game you're suggesting for!

 

I keep on wondering how they will transfer 2D maps into a giant top down over-world map. I know this is blasphemy but will we be going the Maple Story route for this?

 

What I'm led to believe, if I interpreted MM's posts properly, is that it'll be like this: The overworld is a top-down view, where you can walk around in freely. When you walk into a certain sprite (Like a mountain, or a house, rubble, or maybe even a different person) you enter the 2d map as we know it today.

EDIT: You walk around, and when you walk into the castle above, for example, you load the castle map in 2d, so you can actually play in it.

 

Thiel and Hella have it right. That's exactly how I imagine it and that's how it's been stated it will be made. We aren't making any decisions nor are we pretending to know what it will be like, Noc, we are simply throwing around ideas of how we imagine it based off what the developers have told us.

I haven't really played Maple Story much, but isn't the whole world just 2D side scrolling? I believe the actual battles in KAG will always remain 2D like they are now, but imagine it like...Pokemon. You walk around, and when engaged by a trainer or a wild Pokemon, you are taken into a separate map where the battle will take place away from the Overworld. Final Fantasy, Mount and Blade, Pokemon, Fire Emblem, and many other games all use this overworld map system in their games.

 

I kinda see it as a map with territories and each is a map.

 

I think that when you go outside of the map, you will get to the overworld, which is covered in grids, and each square is a different map. You will also see other player's locations. You then can enter into whatever square next to your location, so traveling through the map would take time.

Different biomes, animals and possibly NPC's. There will be bots which can do guarding job in your castle, or gather resources for you.
(As there will be a down-but not-dead state, we speculated about slaves which you could get by damaging your enemy to the state before death. The player would then turn into a bot. (you could also revive your friends in this state))

That's how I understood it when Geti explained it to me.

 

That would be cool, but theres a big problem with that. If that were possible, making money would be the simplest thing in the game and everyone would be rich from some many shops and I can only see some sort of in-game purchase currency coming into play after that which would suck. I'd like it better if they made a couple classes or varieties of shops and gives you a limit to many you can own, or else it would be like... a tycoon kind of game or something.

 

I'd actually be cool with you having to sell your wares yourself. And trading with other cities. Sort of like, the farther you have to travel to sell your goods, the more money you will make. So it gives traders and merchants a reason to set out and adventure, the prospect of prosperity drives them to face the dangers in their paths. They might hire mercenaries to protect their caravans through trading, and it would just be a really cool, story driving feature to the game.

 

One thing I really wonder about, how would this work server-wise? Will it be like any other huge MMORPG, with huge servers, on which you have the same characters? Or will it be like that, but with different characters on each server? And how big will the servers be? It seems really expensive for an indie game to purchase huge quality servers that could support alot of players, but a overworld with a 50 or 100 player cap seems a bit silly aswell.

 

Since different options will be different for each server, they will hold their own characters. So it will be different characters for each server I think.

And the cool thing about this will be that not all players will be on the same map at the same time. Some will be in the overworld, some will be in their own private isntanced battles, some will be inside cities and it will all be instanced. Depending on the size of the worlds, 50-100 players can be a lot, but I would imagine better servers being able to hold many more. Maybe 500? Like the dev blog says though, 64 player battles will still lag. At least with the separation of players, you could definitely hold a lot more. But it most likely will not reach MMORPG standards with that many players. But that's fine. That many players and it starts to lose something special it has, so 100-500 people is just perfect (again, depending on the size of Overworld...which will hopefully vary and be customizable with each server)

 

i was thinking about mount and blade too, it have a good system, it will be cool to recruit people (npc) to your party and raid cities or something like that, you buy food and weapons for them, when you fight with someone it changes to a 2d view like Thield said. Also i remembered the game Zelda:the adventure of link it have a system like that