I’ve looked at the polls and the follow-up suggestions some people have made, and I’ve actually considered a majority of them, while others I decided to not bother with in this post.
I was debating on making this its own topic, but all of the notes I’ve gone and compiled are pretty relevant to just this “suggestion” specifically. If you want to see other ideas (mostly awful, some improbable), or want to see how I think, read on.
These notes are very minimally adjusted for proper formatting. Most of the formatting (except headings and line breaks) is just due to how it was typed out at the time. Raw, unfiltered, Molt.
Click this text for a reply that's longer than the original post.
Don’t remove the ability to track waypoints
Originally, the post did not suggest removing the ability to track waypoints with the compass. Uncollapse this text if you wish to see some of the original ideas surrounding the compass' implementation into U4.
In U3, the compass adds a HUD element that helps the player understand the direction they are heading, and any waypoints on the player’s map also appear on the Compass’ HUD. I propose no changes to its core functionality for when it is implemented into U4.
- If the compass HUD is linear or radial, then waypoints would appear as they normally do in U3.
- If the HUD is replaced with being a physical item, then we can suspend realism and have the waypoints appear physically.
- It may be desirable to keep the number of waypoints to a minimum, as to not get confusing and distracting (especially on a physical compass item).
If the Compass no longer lets you track waypoints (e.g., because it was too confusing on a physical item), then the item could instead provide the player’s orientation while using a Chart/GPS. In comparison to U3, the player always has their orientation (indicated by the direction the player’s arrow icon points towards).
Flare guns (the post was originally planned to cover them in much more detail)
Note: figure out proper name for a flare projectile fired by a flare gun
Note 2: find out what each color means. Perhaps different colors result in different signals on the GPS?
Note 3: Idea was kinda silly.
Flares could appear on maps. It’d be stupid, but I’ve seen the flare gun posts people have made. “Nobody would use this!” and “Cool, but pretty useless.” Is it sad that I’d agree?
Not road flares, mind you, but aerial(?) flares.
- Makes no sense to
- Gives flare guns a specific use
- Still allows for flare guns to be used for other things like ??? (not super relevant to post anymore if splitting mega-post up into each individual subject matter)
Colors could play a role too. Have different signals on GPS, or maybe tooltips explain their realistic purpose.
- White = non-emergency (finishing a race, marking boating collisions…)
- red = emergency
- orange = emergency (but easier to see in daylight)
Scrap idea for in-game colors having real significance. IRL = Three colors; that’s literally it. Green flares are basically just distress flares too, but not up-to-code. Can’t find anything else, so no dice.
Retracing steps on GPS
Retracing steps on a GPS sounds stupid. It makes sense that a GPS can do that, but why? Here’s the benefits:
- Potential cool factor
- Players can attempt to rewind their steps.
Why would they need to rewind their steps within such a short-ish amount of time, and how could they reasonably do so without the steps fading away as the new five-minute intervals pass? You’d really just need to set a waypoint, but if it’s a waypoint then you have issues retracing your “exact” (within error between each of those five-minute intervals) steps unless you could also set a specific custom path for your waypoint route.
How should the GPS even generate a route for a waypoint anyways? should it be entirely up to the player to make their own route? That’d be useful in some scenarios, but otherwise quite useless. May as well just not use it at that point.
Does it feel contrived to say the GPS is better just because you can see where you stood fifteen minutes ago?
-
Note: Progression does not need to replace. Some things can still be more desirable even if the advantages are a bit underwhelming, and sometimes designing something to be a side-grade rather than a direct upgrade could net better results than “you stood there 5 minutes ago!” as a solution to a problem.
-
Note 2: Create new problems to replace the old ones. If they aren’t too stupid, they can be fair and fun…-ish. Kinda.
End-game equipment = boring :C
End-game equipment is often “boring” because stuff is designed backwards. The best items end up being designed first, and become the “standard” for others while also being the most generic while ideas are still being thrown around. By the end of development, you see a handful of awfully generic end-game items that are only useful because they receive a buff in their raw generic stats before release.
Giving the GPS something that seems overpowered on paper (distress signals) helps to keep it unique.
Weaker equipment = watered down :C
Alternatively, it may feel like weaker equipment is just a watered-down version of the “actually standard” equipment, and only has features removed from it rather than be unique(ly worse). It makes sense, but it’s unfortunate how items lose their use. For something like game balance, it’s often beneficial to retain the usefulness of crappier items as to discourage relying so heavily on the same thing. Meta-gaming isn’t always fun, but sometimes it becomes necessary. In theory, taking away from both the chart and the GPS gives them room to both be unique enough that players can prefer either one, even if one is still substantially better. The more silly players with no sense of confidence and competency (i.e., Molt) would probably just hold on to all of them if the GPS is just a “significantly better and absolutely mandatory side-grade” rather than a direct upgrade.
So, the penalties? I know that some people fancy the idea of satellites, and while I think satellites falling out of the sky is a bit too intense, electronic failure is a far more reasonable thing in itself. A proper “electricity” suggestion thread should cover this, as there’s much to consider.
Rudimentary route via GPS
How important is it to discuss the “rudimentary route” a GPS could provide to a waypoint?
Probably not much.
I mean, honestly, it’d really just end up being a direct line to it. While it’d be cool to see it follow a road network, it seems unlikely that it would (or could). At least, the “could” is limited by whether or not it should have resources dropped on that.
But maybe it’d be cool? It’d definitely be better for RP servers, and if most vehicles aren’t meant for off-road it’d be more practical, too.
That settles it then! Why not just have the option to switch between a “direct route” and a… “road-using route”. Hum.
Cave maps + complications
Cave maps? Building complex maps? One of those hardly seems remotely necessary. Although, it’s interesting to think of the implications for a story-mode or “adventure maps”, and if the “building complex maps” are just physical objects on walls or what-have-you, it’d just be a cool thing more than anything.
Cave maps would be cool too. What would make more sense…
-
allowing players to create their entirely own hand-drawn maps (which could be used by players for caves, and with vanilla charts potentially spawning with custom drawings we could see cave maps done like this too, but more pre-made by the map author).
-
separating how the Chart and GPS work so that they’re unique per map, rather than magically universal.
The latter is better. Obviously. As far as gameplay is concerned, it’s better if maps can spawn showing a limited view of the overall play space, or an entirely different map (although that shouldn’t be happening naturally), or what have you. It’s so much more flexible for modding, and allows for things like cave maps existing more easily, or paper charts that only show the surrounding area and you need to combine charts together in a makeshift booklet of sorts to get a “full idea”.
If player position isn’t being shown to players, then map accuracy isn’t important unless mods try to add that back in. They’d have to implement a special chart item in place of the normal ones, or force all charts to use accurate renders (which should be happening even if it’s separated up).
Now, that’s not to say letting players create their own hand-drawn maps is cool too, but as a way to makeshift implement cave maps it sucks. If I’m going to think up an idea for something that early on, why force it to suck?
The real limitation is how many layers of imagery we can put on one map (regardless of it being a UI element, HUD, or physical map. And for something like an entirely hand-drawn map, how do you let players reasonably add the drawings that “manufactured” paper charts could have? Do you just not?
From bottom layer to top:
- Base layer
- Drawings
- Waypoints
- Quest drawings
- Quest waypoints
Hand-drawn maps likely wouldn’t have quest markers, so what about the rest? Is it reasonable to give two different layers for drawing? Should waypoints be allowed?
How do we allow so many ways to interact with maps without it crippling servers? How do we effectively manage the file sizes of all these images, for both the client (single-player) and the server (presumably, multiplayer). Should servers even carry that burden?
It’s unfortunate to think the dead-end for this is how do we store small files effectively…? Even bigger bummer to think that drawings could end up being entirely client-side, which means that you wouldn’t be able to let other players see your drawings on maps (which could be revealing base locations, for example) and that any chart you pick up will always show the same drawing you had on the last chart.
Chart generation in U3’s Editor
[NOTE]: Charts shouldn’t be generated like they are in U3. Too limiting on creativity. One map should be allowed to have fifteen different chart designs and layouts if the map maker wanted.
Alternate formats
Could you imagine making suggestions through video format in addition to the transcripted text? That’s a better idea than pure audio recordings of me reading the walls of text.
That was pitiful to listen back to. Some ideas for innovating on the suggestion formula don’t stick that well.
Respawn points show on map?
Respawn points showed on maps? It’d be useful. It’s a far better idea than all of the following ideas that I thought of:
- a large number of waypoints
- infinite waypoints
- maps having icons for each type of building in a town/city (i.e., a marker for fire stations, a marker representing hospitals…)
- giving players the ability to place kinda-arbitrary icons (i.e., a marker seemingly for fire stations, or maybe that’s meant to represent a campfire we set up?) rather than just let them draw
- quests making permanent changes to your chart (which isn’t inherently terrible, but also still kinda sucky as an official thing for quests to do, even if I can see custom maps making it so your GPS has limited coverage until you do a certain quest, or your chart gets the NPC bases added to it after meeting them for the first time…)
Maybe that last bullet point is worth it to. Typically the changes should be removed. For significant changes to the map though, it really makes it more confusing as to how the game should be rendering the map, and then there’s when you have other charts that weren’t affected by the permanent changes from a quest, and when other players have more “updated” maps than you. At that point, you may as well just give the player the option to manually update all their maps.
What an absolutely silly-sounding thing, and completely unusable ideas. How else can we let players mark these things? Are drawings enough? What about implementing “beacons”? I know they’ve been suggested before (at least by me via a Wikia blog or to a friend?), so why not turn that idea around for U4 instead.
Real-time GPS versus Performance
You ever wonder how much performance comes into play? It’s much nicer when you don’t. For example, why can’t we let GPSes (pluralized?) be real-time and show player bases being built and such? Ignoring performance issues, this sounds both broken on paper and in implementation. What an absolutely rubbish idea, Molt.
Most people support emergency beacons. I’m curious as to whether that’s including flares or not, as that was the most weird way I had considered implementing it.
The original idea stemmed from suggestions friends and I would jokingly shoot around, such as a way to set markers on the GPS so we could keep track of bases without using an image editor all the time. Just hide a beacon in a bush and we’d be set!
I’ll try to keep it relevant in future posts, whenever there’s something that makes sense for it to have that capability.
Most people support this idea, and I think that’s great. I see some people are unsure about it too though, so I’ll cover it from my perspective in future posts. A lot of people are excited for wiring stuff, so it’ll be good to get some nice topics on that again (although there’s quite a variety already).
This poll as received the most votes, and that makes sense. It’s the easiest for people to answer, even if they’re split. I originally considered a separate poll for the compass, but figured people would reply if they were split.
Physicality does make some things more difficult. It slows gameplay down, for one, and it makes it harder to add waypoints and such. Plus, it the map could be at a bit of an angle, and thus harder to see unless you freelook.
There’s a lot of reasons I could give against physicality, but ultimately I think it’s better for reinforcing the experience people want, and I think it can be done in a cool and fun way. As long as players can still interact with the map then it’s going to remain viable to take out.
I would assume that you could still open the map as a UI if you already had it out, or manually selected it in the inventory, so that you could set waypoints in such.
I really didn’t consider removing this feature until after I had prepared most of my usable notes for the post.
- It introduced a lot of problems with a physical compass, such as being easily distracting and confusing when multiple waypoints are active.
- It didn’t make sense when player location isn’t shown on the map.
The main reason I wanted to keep it was because that’s a main reason the compass was useful. In fact, the compass really is the most useful of the three map items in U3, honestly.
So a follow-up suggestion: If players are limited to one respawn point, then the compass could have an additional indicator arrow that points towards your bed. Basically, the only use of a compass in Minecraft.
While most people obviously removing it, this poll technically has the “closest” split. I considered making it so having the compass would show your position, in addition to allowing for tracking waypoints (this would’ve fixed one issue I mention in an earlier quote–response above).
I purposefully cut stuff out to make it shorter than some of my other posts. :C I’ll do more colorful pictures or something next time, because that makes it more enjoyable for everyone (including me).
I considered this being something that all official maps would do, and then I decided that my idea was silly and scrapped it. I believe it’s in the collapsed section of text at the top of this reply? Perhaps not.
Basically, I felt it was a bit overpowered (even if false) and a bit silly. Plus, it’s quite a bit of backlog unless it’s baked into individual objects, which is wacky.
I do mention this in my collapsed text at the top of my reply here! I completely support cave maps and other types of maps such as that.
I generally tried to refrain from giving ideas on how official maps should implement the layouts and stuff shown on the map. I was more concerned with the groundwork overall.
Personally, I think charts need to be generated differently than in U3’s Editor. Maps should be able to have as many chart layouts and designs as they want.
I mention this in my original post! Here’s the quote:
I intentionally decided to leave out ideas for variants as to keep the post shorter than it was originally planned, but I’m glad you’ve posted some. I was going to borrow ideas I had for a civilian vs military flare gun, but couldn’t find my suggestions on the Unturned FANDOM/Wikia (where they were posted years ago in a big blog a ton of people contributed to).
Yeah, part of the issue with U3’s generation of satellite/chart maps is that it’s too strict and limiting. U4 needs to be able to support stuff like this. I considered making this a specific example, but instead just grouped it into “quests can modify maps”.
I was really thinking about the prospect of city maps for a bit, but decided that mentioning them specifically was a bit too much.
I was thinking about this (having it only add the coordinate grid), kinda like how it is in Antique/1.0. The main benefit was that it made all 3 primary map items useful.
Unfortunately, I also decided that the GPS would be the most useless of the 3 in that case. Also, basically every GPS comes with a third-party map to begin with, so it didn’t make sense realistically either. I wanted to keep the GPS good, compared to U3 where most people like the Chart more just because of the design of it, but I didn’t want it to be overpowered in comparison either.
Making it so the GPS allowed adding markers isn’t a bad idea, just like how I was thinking about suggesting that the Compass could do that. I realized that adding markers, even if you can’t track them, is more of a Quality-of-Life feature than anything, and didn’t want to remove that from players.
Realistically, you shouldn’t need a compass or GPS to point at a spot on a map and say “I want all of us to go that way!” It helps keep a sense of direction, and it makes everything more useful when all items have markers.
I also thought of letting the GPS have multiple markers, which was a bad idea and I know I compiled some notes on that in my collapsed text section at the top of this reply.
This is more of a suggestion for how official maps should implement it than the mechanics behind it, imo. Wasn’t the main thing I was focused on with the post.
That being said, I believe most GPS systems download the maps, and aren’t actually “real-time.” The position tracking is real-time, but not the third-party map being used.
I’m not against the idea, but realistically the map would always be present, it’d just be that if there’s no satellites (internet not required) then you wouldn’t have the position tracking. Without internet, then you just wouldn’t receive updates to your map (which would be more relevant to your idea).