Plains of Eidolon

[Arniox]

49 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Subnautica is roughly 4km x 4km, but Subnautica is also 2 km deep, due to being a game about underwater exploration.

 

Skyrim is something like 7 km x 5 km, so, think of Plains as being around, maybe, one sixth the size of Skyrim.

Idk. That's seems kinda small, but then again I never played the entire skyrim game. Only a tiny bit of it

[PoisonHD]

1 hour ago, Arniox said:

I'm hoping there's gonna be more than just extra lighting. If you've ever played mad max, you'll know of a couple of towns that are under ground. I would love that in warframe. You come into a cave really deep under and you see a small grinder outpost there 

There's the art pass as well, which means it is more then extra lighting. An art pass can contain loads of details.

[Trommald]

At 9:12 in the devstream, steve said this month

[(XBOX)ShadowBlood89]

They had land an sky then added in underground so had to shrink the data an coding down to make better use of the added depth.
Yes they changed the size but its the first open world map they need to have actual pratice with it an learn so might later on the plains might get upgraded in size.

Don't knit pick about losing size of the map cause the new thing there trying is gonna need work an better understanding what will happen after some time of user constant use.

You want it to come sooner an complain that there issues or have them get the plains up an running so there it's playable an ready for people to test teh limits of it. Or you just looking to complain at something as your just that bored.

[OniDax]

6 hours ago, BornWithTeeth said:

That's still enormous. The entire area of Subnautica is only a little larger than that. Well, Subnautica takes advantage of verticality, as the playable zone of Subnautica is a square several kilometres across and two kilometres deep, due to being underwater.

5km² is not enormous.

[RX-3DR]

Compared to a world like Skyrim or Fallout, Skyrim and Fallout are restricted on the open-world because a lot of it has to be part of the story. You get some additional medium-sized areas loosely connected to the game through DLCs but you won't get much of drastic change.

The advantage Warframe does have over that is that the Plains is not the only location within the story. We might eventually see more open-world areas as the game progresses, definitely not anytime soon, but possibly within the unpredictable future. Locations like Europa's icy landscape and Mars' deserts hold that potential beyond Earth.

[Lonnehart]

Darnit!  I was hoping it would be 60,000 km x 60,000 km.  Oh, well... I can dream...

[Lady_Xenomorph]

I don't have problems with the lower sizes if that means more used and have enough thing to do. Also these landscapes can be expanded in time if they feel the game mode will be enough attractive for players. a 100*100km map would be likely for me because I like the exploration but it would be huge in this early phase of the new type of maps so enough currently if they can handle this PoE landscape.

My question is what will happening after the old type of maps because I like them and still they could make new rooms and variations to make the regular missions interesting. I oubt players would likely to go back to the old missions once they taste the new map. The only what I think is obvious but who knows is the old rescources can be available in the old missions / maps. Otherwise everyone would go for the new place so they could not make an all in all map because that mean the solar system with old maps can be easily obsolete so I guess on plains you can get only the new materials so the usage will be kept on a balance.

Personally I would like if DE doingthe both, making new open world like maps and expanding the old types too maybe some also expanded to be a larger type. Also I wish they will readd the taken maps because I remember some maps which are not in the game anymore no matter where to go and try to find them. I hope they won't remove stuffs.

[OmegaShadowcry]

15 hours ago, YatoNeko said:

DE headquarters

''OK OK may i have your attention please ? the hypetrain started, ENGAGE the precept LOCKDOWN MODE''

 

jokes aside, i hope they get the time they need to bring this update without any major malfunction

dont overhype and dont overact, just wait patiently and kill the anxiety

"Aye aye, sir!"

I'm trying to reign in my hype, though, I haven't been able to be excited about an update for a while now. Kinda burnt myself out on The Wait Within, to be honest. It's good to feel a bit of hype again. So, back to Soon™Frame.

[(PSN)watt4hem]

Technicaly, they could just not tell us and we wouldn't even know if it's 2.5 and not 3 km^. I dunno, i don't really feel like this's something to be hummed out about.

[BornWithTeeth]

7 hours ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

5km² is not enormous.

Fair, I miscalculated. It's still pretty big, mind, and if it turns into a thing where there's Plains, and also a Mars habitat, and maybe a terraforming hab in the outer planets, all supplemented by the procedurally generated offworld missions, that would be great.

 

That's all down the line, though.

[Fallen_Echo]

14 hours ago, Nurmetya said:

More interested in the caves part though will we get flashlights that are actually useful? Or are we gonna be crafting torches as we go?

"Well this was my last torch and i still not found where the hissing comes, ah doesnt matter i can get out safely in the dark."

Unknown minecrafter 2016

[Jobistober]

I don't care about numbers. I just want PoE to be good.

[Tachibana_Hibiki]

9 hours ago, Trommald said:

At 9:12 in the devstream, steve said this month

I see that as bad news for the update, seeing how new version they showed had placeholders all over the place. 

Call me a partypooper, but I suspect ppl's hype train is bound to drown in the underbaked update.

Sure, big map is to be delivered. And I guess many players will be happy with that alone.

But the rest of what update is to bring risks to be just as unfinished and skin deep as Archwing was. If it suffers the same fate of being abandoned for years in that state, I will not be surprised,  knowing how excited DE are about adding new stuff and how reluctant they are to work on what is already there.

Don't misread this as "all is woe, update will be horrible". I'm just worried cause I care

 

[Tachibana_Hibiki]

7 hours ago, Lonnehart said:

Darnit!  I was hoping it would be 60,000 km x 60,000 km.  Oh, well... I can dream...

Damn, I hoped they will make a whole planet with billions of handcrafted npcs with unique nonlinear voiced dialogues and a unique questline for each.

Was that too much to ask, DE? sadface 

[Tachibana_Hibiki]

58 minutes ago, (PS4)watt4hem said:

Technicaly, they could just not tell us and we wouldn't even know if it's 2.5 and not 3 km^. I dunno, i don't really feel like this's something to be hummed out about.

True, especially since large portion of registered users can't tell which is bigger - 3x3 km or 9km^2.

just like [DE]Steve 

[OniDax]

3 hours ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Fair, I miscalculated. It's still pretty big, mind, and if it turns into a thing where there's Plains, and also a Mars habitat, and maybe a terraforming hab in the outer planets, all supplemented by the procedurally generated offworld missions, that would be great.

 

That's all down the line, though.

My only concern is that the terrain won't be that diverse, that it'll be a completely semi-arid environment with little change in vegetation and elevation. Hopefully 5km² is enough space for that.

17 hours ago, Tesseract7777 said:

The 3x3 is the size still if you include the caves. That's what Steve is saying. The OP misinterpreted Steve's tweet and won't own up to it. 

That's not actually correct. Steve is not saying that it's 9km² with the caves included. He's saying that it's 5km²+ with caves included. He literally said it's smaller than he said it was. With the "plus caves under" part, all he's saying is that it's a little more than 2.25km x 2.25km when you include the caves. That's not a confirmation that it's 3km x 3km with the caves included. In fact, if it was, he never would've said it's actually 2.25km x 2.25km, because well, 3km x 3km would've been accurate. OP did not misinterpret Steve's tweet.

Edited September 19, 2017 by A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n

[pingusmonkey]

1 hour ago, Tachibana_Hibiki said:

I see that as bad news for the update, seeing how new version they showed had placeholders all over the place. 

Call me a partypooper, but I suspect ppl's hype train is bound to drown in the underbaked update.

Sure, big map is to be delivered. And I guess many players will be happy with that alone.

But the rest of what update is to bring risks to be just as unfinished and skin deep as Archwing was. If it suffers the same fate of being abandoned for years in that state, I will not be surprised,  knowing how excited DE are about adding new stuff and how reluctant they are to work on what is already there.

Don't misread this as "all is woe, update will be horrible". I'm just worried cause I care

 

4

While there were a good bit of placeholders most of them seemed to be in loot or written dialog both of which can be done quickly assuming balance has been decided on loot. Hopefully, with the whole team working on it they can get that done easily. I'm more concerned with mining balance at the moment the ore nodes where super plentiful but their generation system os spawning in a certain texture seems a bit hard to balance for above vs below ground.

[TheBrightKing]

3 hours ago, Tachibana_Hibiki said:

I see that as bad news for the update, seeing how new version they showed had placeholders all over the place. 

Call me a partypooper, but I suspect ppl's hype train is bound to drown in the underbaked update.

Sure, big map is to be delivered. And I guess many players will be happy with that alone.

But the rest of what update is to bring risks to be just as unfinished and skin deep as Archwing was. If it suffers the same fate of being abandoned for years in that state, I will not be surprised,  knowing how excited DE are about adding new stuff and how reluctant they are to work on what is already there.

Don't misread this as "all is woe, update will be horrible". I'm just worried cause I care

 

same feeling here, i dont want it to be half baked and left to die; this has too much potential.

[Tesseract7777]

2 hours ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

My only concern is that the terrain won't be that diverse, that it'll be a completely semi-arid environment with little change in vegetation and elevation. Hopefully 5km² is enough space for that.

That's not actually correct. Steve is not saying that it's 9km² with the caves included. He's saying that it's 5km²+ with caves included. He literally said it's smaller than he said it was. With the "plus caves under" part, all he's saying is that it's a little more than 2.25km x 2.25km when you include the caves. That's not a confirmation that it's 3km x 3km with the caves included. In fact, if it was, he never would've said it's actually 2.25km x 2.25km, because well, 3km x 3km would've been accurate. OP did not misinterpret Steve's tweet.

Actually you are wrong. 

Steve said the 2.25 * 2.25 + sprawling caves under, not "including the sprawling caves under". 

He did not say what you think he said. Read it again. 

You are trying to way over-interpret something, and getting a totally wrong answer, because you are trying to find something negative. It's called confirmation bias. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Tesseract7777

[OniDax]

5 minutes ago, Tesseract7777 said:

Actually you are wrong. 

Steve said the 2.25 * 2.25 + sprawling caves under, not "including the sprawling caves under". 

He did not say what you think he said. Read it again. 

You are trying to way over-interpret something, and getting a totally wrong answer, because you are trying to find something negative. It's called confirmation bias. 

No, I'm not. I said that it was a little more than 2.25km x 2.25km with the caves included. But, the specific use of the term "under" suggests even more that it's 5km² and not 5km²+, since the caves are "under". Meaning the square area isn't really changing much at all. I'm not over-interpreting anything. I'm taking Steve at his word, that PoE is smaller than 9km², that it is actually a little more than 5km² (5.0625km², to be exact). Why are you so insistent on PoE being 3km x 3km?

To help you out again, let's look at Steve's message again:

"Plains is smaller than I said it was"

"not 3x3 more like 2.25 x 2.25"

"plus sprawling caves under"

Plains. Is. SMALLER. Than. I. Said. It. Was.

NOT 3x3. More. Like. 2.25 x 2.25

Plus. Sprawling. Caves. UNDER.

 

Does that make it clear, now?! It. Is. NOT. 3km x 3km. It's not. It is smaller than that. Saying that is NOT confirmation bias. Saying that is not trying to find something negative. You are so damn obsessed with countering anything that is even slightly negative about DE that you are in denial about the very words Steve has said himself. You want to know what's confirmation bias? When someone says something, and you immediately try to discredit that someone even though that person is correct. Think about that the next time you accuse someone of being wrong, or negative, or biased.

[NightBlitz]

10 minutes ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

No, I'm not. I said that it was a little more than 2.25km x 2.25km with the caves included. But, the specific use of the term "under" suggests even more that it's 5km² and not 5km²+, since the caves are "under". Meaning the square area isn't really changing much at all. I'm not over-interpreting anything. I'm taking Steve at his word, that PoE is smaller than 9km², that it is actually a little more than 5km² (5.0625km², to be exact). Why are you so insistent on PoE being 3km x 3km?

To help you out again, let's look at Steve's message again:

"Plains is smaller than I said it was"

"not 3x3 more like 2.25 x 2.25"

"plus sprawling caves under"

Plains. Is. SMALLER. Than. I. Said. It. Was.

NOT 3x3. More. Like. 2.25 x 2.25

Plus. Sprawling. Caves. UNDER.

 

Does that make it clear, now?! It. Is. NOT. 3km x 3km. It's not. It is smaller than that. Saying that is NOT confirmation bias. Saying that is not trying to find something negative. You are so damn obsessed with countering anything that is even slightly negative about DE that you are in denial about the very words Steve has said himself. You want to know what's confirmation bias? When someone says something, and you immediately try to discredit that someone even though that person is correct. Think about that the next time you accuse someone of being wrong, or negative, or biased.

plus in this context means in addition to, not including,

[Kaotyke]

Instead of throwing out speculations why not ask straight from the horse's mouth?

Ask for a very specific answer, remember Steve go confused with the difference between the 9km² and 9² km.

PS: he got confused in the devstream too if you pay attention.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Kaotyke

[Tesseract7777]

19 minutes ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

-snip-

You could just go ahead and ask Steve. 

We could argue pararaphs back and forth about the semantics of his sentence and what it means. 

IMO the sentence is very clear. In your opinion it clearly means something very different. 

[OniDax]

34 minutes ago, Tesseract7777 said:

You could just go ahead and ask Steve. 

We could argue pararaphs back and forth about the semantics of his sentence and what it means. 

IMO the sentence is very clear. In your opinion it clearly means something very different. 

Why would I ask him to repeat what he's already said?

Did he say that Plains of Eidolon was smaller than what he originally said? Yes.

Did he say that Plains of Eidolon is not 3 x 3? Yes.

Did he say it was more like 2.25 x 2.25? Yes.

Did he say that it was more like 2.25 x 2.25 plus sprawling caves under? Yes.

Did he say that it was 3 x 3 including sprawling caves under (what you assert)? No.

There is no need for me to ask him anything more about this. He was pretty clear in his statements to Rebecca.

And just to be clear: I understand why you think it's 3km x 3km including the caves, but him saying "plains is smaller than I said it was" and "not 3x3" is the indication that Plains is not 3x3 including the caves. If that were the case, it would've just been a clarification that 3x3 includes, not excludes, the caves, instead of a correction that it is not 3x3", but "more like 2.25 x 2.25", with the parenthetical "plus sprawling caves under" being linked to the "2.25 x 2.25" and not the "3x3".

Edited September 19, 2017 by A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n