@gamer1000k Okay. So, this is a Sci Fi game, and we expect we should have a nifty cool map, and we want to be as realistic as possible. So, of course, this will require satellites for GPS coordinates. Let's skip creating the rocket ship to take us off planet. Instead, let's launch a sufficient number of satellites to support mapping. How many satellites does the US GPS system have? Let's round down to 24. And, we'll definitely skip the Russian satellites. Are they called GLONASS or something similar? I'm all in favor of extending the gameplay for the sake of realism. So, we'll need 24 rockets. Then, we'll need 24 satellites. Sounds good to me.
GPS (and similars) signal does not work underwater. You would need to surface to get your position. Current underwater positioning uses sound.
And those satellites do not map, they just give you an accurate position. Mapping would require other tools and, possibly, knowledge on the protagonist part.
According to this poll I think the best solution would be a map showing structures biomes etc, only discovered places. It should also be an deactivation button or some sort.
It should also be an deactivation button or some sort.
Likely the other way-around, activation button with a spoiler warning on it. Or possibly a challenge/difficulty option selection when starting a new game.
Scanner room map improvements might do the trick. Player could browse the map in a scanner room and plan expeditions. Allowing a player to form a better picture of the game world but it wouldn't guide the player to a destination. So, it shouldn't break the immersion and great design of the game.
I'm going with "no map". This is an exploration/discovery based game first and foremost. An automap actively undermines that, by simply showing the player where stuff is they've missed.
It also takes away the environmental immersion created by "navigating via landmark" - it detracts from the gameplay experience by bringing the players thinking "up a level", away from the game world and to a more conceptual layout based on an abstract representation. That's not particularly good.
Stuff like the map room have most of the benefits of an easily accessible in game map (for those who want it) without any of the drawbacks, so that seems like it should be more than enough.
Adding an always accessible automap to this game would be like adding an aimbot to an FPS - just a complete undermining of one of the core concepts the game is built around, and a bad choice, even if some people *do* like aimbots.
I'm going with "no map". This is an exploration/discovery based game first and foremost. An automap actively undermines that, by simply showing the player where stuff is they've missed.
It also takes away the environmental immersion created by "navigating via landmark" - it detracts from the gameplay experience by bringing the players thinking "up a level", away from the game world and to a more conceptual layout based on an abstract representation. That's not particularly good.
Stuff like the map room have most of the benefits of an easily accessible in game map (for those who want it) without any of the drawbacks, so that seems like it should be more than enough.
Adding an always accessible automap to this game would be like adding an aimbot to an FPS - just a complete undermining of one of the core concepts the game is built around, and a bad choice, even if some people *do* like aimbots.
I disagree with these points.
Once a player has put a beacon down somewhere or gets a ping, they're no longer navigating by landmark. They're following a waypoint on their HUD. For veteran players like us who have been playing the game for awhile, sure we navigate by landmark at the start because we already know where the things are that we want, so we make a beeline there to place a beacon so we have an easy waypoint for the next trip. A new player won't know the landmarks and will be following pings, and will have hopefully figured out beacons so they don't get frustrated with finding this cool wreck they don't have the tools for, only to completely lose track of where it is because they didn't have a beacon to mark it.
The advantage of adding a map is more for aiding in discoverability to let the player see which parts of the world they haven't visited yet. In terms of abstract mapping skills, this game is not about learning how to navigate without a map. It's an exploration game with survival elements that has arbitrarily decided that There Will Be No Map. Then the devs went ahead and put the scanner room in anyways and gave the players beacons and a bunch of pings to all the important locations because players had trouble finding them and were getting lost. It's a bit arbitrary that the scanner room maps can't be shown on the PDA with the player's location for "reasons" when the scanner room HUD upgrade already knows the player position and heading to be able to highlight the scanner room discoveries.
Adding a map is not at all equivalent to an aimbot. Like I said above, this game is not about learning how to navigate without a map. In a FPS, aiming is part of the core gameplay and an aimbot is playing a large part of the game for you. In Subnautica, much of the story related gameplay is already follow the signals, and adding a map won't change that. What it will do is allow the player to easily see which parts of the map they haven't explored yet. The player still has to go out there and see what's there, but now they have some hints as to where there might be more interesting things to discover.
@gamer1000k Okay. So, this is a Sci Fi game, and we expect we should have a nifty cool map, and we want to be as realistic as possible. So, of course, this will require satellites for GPS coordinates. Let's skip creating the rocket ship to take us off planet. Instead, let's launch a sufficient number of satellites to support mapping. How many satellites does the US GPS system have? Let's round down to 24. And, we'll definitely skip the Russian satellites. Are they called GLONASS or something similar? I'm all in favor of extending the gameplay for the sake of realism. So, we'll need 24 rockets. Then, we'll need 24 satellites. Sounds good to me.
GPS (and similars) signal does not work underwater. You would need to surface to get your position. Current underwater positioning uses sound.
And those satellites do not map, they just give you an accurate position. Mapping would require other tools and, possibly, knowledge on the protagonist part.
Very true, modern military subs normally run just below the surface so they can maintain their satellite connection, both for GPS and their satellite communication systems.
However, in the game the beacons demonstrate that whatever technology is being employed is not affected the same way by water, and so could be used to triangulate position. As far as mapping tools, we have the seaglide, sonar, and the scanner room. It's just a matter of putting that info together which the scanner rooms already do to a large degree already with the HUD upgrade.
i think a map should be implemented with discovered biomes, and i should be allowed to make marks on that map - it should also show me my placed beacons with a ping or something.
@gamer1000k
I agree the decision to implement a map is arbitrary. However I disagree that the gameplay revolves around "follow the signals". Even by calling it gameplay story, are the Degasi survivor wrecks now signaled? Is the navigation inside the Aurora? (Honest questions, haven't pĺayed since bones updt).
To me the gameplay revolves around exploring to find new tech, which allow you to explore further. Having an automap that shows you were you've been hurts this mechanic, by making it much easier to methodically explore the map.
A compromise is certainly a fair middle ground. The lack of a map would make a popular game mode/option, probably with an achievement linked to it.
A new player won't know the landmarks and will be following pings, and will have hopefully figured out beacons so they don't get frustrated with finding this cool wreck they don't have the tools for, only to completely lose track of where it is because they didn't have a beacon to mark it.
Underwater world is a bit disorienting due to low visibility and a difficulty of keeping a track of things is a part of it. When I fist played the subnautica I did find a lot of wrecks and I didn't have the right tools and I didn't have a beacon with be. But I didn't blame the game about it. It was my own failure not to carry a beacon with. After making these mistakes a few times, I quickly learned to carry a beacon and also learned to better memorize the locations by checking the environment, where the lifepods are and sometimes I wrote notes on a paper. We didn't have distance information in the lifepod marker nor beacons back then but now we do. So, if you find a wreck then you can write it down on a paper "Cool wreck, 752m NNW". It was a bit difficult to find and re-find the wrecks during the first hours of the game-play but I felt it to be fun. It wasn't too difficult and it wasn't frustrating.
*A Shadow emerging from a spooky waters and... it's a wreck *
The advantage of adding a map is more for aiding in discoverability to let the player see which parts of the world they haven't visited yet....
.... What it will do is allow the player to easily see which parts of the map they haven't explored yet. The player still has to go out there and see what's there, but now they have some hints as to where there might be more interesting things to discover.
Scanner room map improvements would help with these issues, no need for map in the PDA.
@gamer1000k
I agree the decision to implement a map is arbitrary. However I disagree that the gameplay revolves around "follow the signals". Even by calling it gameplay story, are the Degasi survivor wrecks now signaled? Is the navigation inside the Aurora? (Honest questions, haven't pĺayed since bones updt).
To me the gameplay revolves around exploring to find new tech, which allow you to explore further. Having an automap that shows you were you've been hurts this mechanic, by making it much easier to methodically explore the map.
A compromise is certainly a fair middle ground. The lack of a map would make a popular game mode/option, probably with an achievement linked to it.
I know that the Degasi base in the DGR (the only one you strictly need to visit because of the artifact) does have a ping now. I haven't play it much myself recently, but I think there's supposed to be a message in the comm station about a blueprint for the rocket being sent to the Captain's terminal in the Aurora, and you hardly need a beacon to find the Aurora crash site.
To each their own, but I appreciate being able to easily see where I've been. Much of the seafloor looks the same, and in many cases it's difficult to tell if I've been to an area before unless I'm dropping beacons everywhere. To me, that's a time wasting mechanic since it's very easy to overlook a part of the map that happens to be hiding a wreck with the fragments you need. With the map, you can see "hey, I haven't been to that part of the map yet" and go check it out. You still get to see the entire world since you have to explore to fill out the map, but you aren't wasting undue time going over the same areas over and over again subconsciously since they all look the same (I tend to do a lot this while exploring).
With how long the game hasn't had a map and the fact that there very likely won't be one until after 1.0, a compromise is a fair choice. Players who like things the way they are can keep the map off, and players like me who enjoy the accomplishment of completely revealing the map by fully exploring the world will also be satisfied with our shiny new map.
A new player won't know the landmarks and will be following pings, and will have hopefully figured out beacons so they don't get frustrated with finding this cool wreck they don't have the tools for, only to completely lose track of where it is because they didn't have a beacon to mark it.
Underwater world is a bit disorienting due to low visibility and a difficulty of keeping a track of things is a part of it. When I fist played the subnautica I did find a lot of wrecks and I didn't have the right tools and I didn't have a beacon with be. But I didn't blame the game about it. It was my own failure not to carry a beacon with. After making these mistakes a few times, I quickly learned to carry a beacon and also learned to better memorize the locations by checking the environment, where the lifepods are and sometimes I wrote notes on a paper. We didn't have distance information in the lifepod marker nor beacons back then but now we do. So, if you find a wreck then you can write it down on a paper "Cool wreck, 752m NNW". It was a bit difficult to find and re-find the wrecks during the first hours of the game-play but I felt it to be fun. It wasn't too difficult and it wasn't frustrating.
*A Shadow emerging from a spooky waters and... it's a wreck *
The advantage of adding a map is more for aiding in discoverability to let the player see which parts of the world they haven't visited yet....
.... What it will do is allow the player to easily see which parts of the map they haven't explored yet. The player still has to go out there and see what's there, but now they have some hints as to where there might be more interesting things to discover.
Scanner room map improvements would help with these issues, no need for map in the PDA.
Like I said above, this game is not about learning how to navigate without a map.
And why is that ? It could be that after the exploration, discovery, survival and crafting parts.
I think your comments about the underwater disorientation and learning to carry beacons is what the devs were going for when they made the decision in the first place. There's some merit to it, especially in the early game. For the first little bit of the game it can be fun, but later on when you waste a significant amount of time trying to find things it gets frustrating pretty quickly.
They've also put a bunch of other mapping equipment in the game that clearly shows the advanced mapping technology available in the game universe, but then arbitrarily prevent the player from really using it. I think that part bugs me more than anything else (that and unintentionally driving in circles while exploring without even realizing it and missing large swaths of the map since I can't easily mark where I've been).
Plus I like looking at maps, and filling out maps in exploration games is something I enjoy doing, and with the fairly interesting, handcrafted world the devs have put together I would love to have a high quality in-game map to look at and see how it's all put together. Sure, someone could do it online, but it's not quite the same as starting the game with a mostly blank map showing only the lifepod and the Aurora in the middle of a featureless ocean, and then over time filling out the map with topographic info on the sea floor and points of interest.
What scanner room improvements are you referring to? The scanner room does indeed help some and has pretty decent range and can reveal nearby POIs that you might have overlooked, but it still doesn't really tell you which parts of the map haven't been covered by a scanner room, only which POIs are within range of that particular room.
I want a map like the scanner room, that also shows ping locations, availble in the PDA, and only for those areas (maybe a 10m bubble) for where you've been).
I honestly don't see the point of a map. An unpopular opinion, I know, but one I stand by. I mean, I realize they the map is big, and is nearly impossible to memorize every good place that's filled with resources, but do you really need to?
Is it really necessary to know where you are at all times, or know where every wreck is? I think that's the beauty of the game, to wander, to explore. With this approach, there will be new finds in your explorations for months to come. Finding a cool cave in the Koosh Zone, getting to a wreck you didn't even know was there in the first place, finding that one fragment you've been looking for, day after day seeing yet another beautiful vista.
Remember, not all who wander are lost.
The thing is, Having a map that only shows visited areas are there to navigate better and you can't really explore a place you have already explored.
I was going to say "No Map at All" but then I remember when I first started the game, I kept getting lost and going around in circle. Then I hand drawn a map using the debug console coordinates marking the biomes and points of interests (my base, resources, cave entrance, passages, etc.). It was a huge map (4x4 letter paper sticks together). So really I ends up having a map, just not a in game one. It was time consuming because I was travelling to all biomes boundaries to get them all mapped. I saw the argument of "No Map at All" is exploration. I think doing the hand drawn map satisfy the "exploration" argument. So if I suggest a map implemented, my personal opinion is a map that requires substantial exploration and markings, not the mini-maps you see in Age of Empires. Plus Subnautica has a 3D space and you can't use a 2D mini-map anyway. I thinking scanner room should have a big part in this, I think the map should perhaps be the collage of a network of scanner room scans (with small trig stations player can build)? The implementation of the map should focus on "how would a survivor map with Aurora technology. Otherwise, "no map at all". I don't want AOE mini-maps.
I was going to say "No Map at All" but then I remember when I first started the game, I kept getting lost and going around in circle. Then I hand drawn a map using the debug console coordinates marking the biomes and points of interests (my base, resources, cave entrance, passages, etc.). It was a huge map (4x4 letter paper sticks together). So really I ends up having a map, just not a in game one. It was time consuming because I was travelling to all biomes boundaries to get them all mapped. I saw the argument of "No Map at All" is exploration. I think doing the hand drawn map satisfy the "exploration" argument. So if I suggest a map implemented, my personal opinion is a map that requires substantial exploration and markings, not the mini-maps you see in Age of Empires. Plus Subnautica has a 3D space and you can't use a 2D mini-map anyway. I thinking scanner room should have a big part in this, I think the map should perhaps be the collage of a network of scanner room scans (with small trig stations player can build)? The implementation of the map should focus on "how would a survivor map with Aurora technology. Otherwise, "no map at all". I don't want AOE mini-maps.
But mapping is hard. Specially if you're by yourself without appropriate resources. I'm all for making your own map, but using debug resources is a huge no-no. A lot of people enjoy mapping, that doesn't mean those who don't are wrong.
It's just that; I don't think mapping is at all necessary in this game.
I finished the available content quickly, without any sort of external aid and without trying to rush to the end. Almost never used beacons too.
I don't want to play with a map, I don't think it is required to play the game, which already feels small.
I do respect those who want a map, I'm just not agreeing with their opinion on why and how it should be implemented.
But mapping is hard. Specially if you're by yourself without appropriate resources. I'm all for making your own map, but using debug resources is a huge no-no. A lot of people enjoy mapping, that doesn't mean those who don't are wrong.
It's just that; I don't think mapping is at all necessary in this game.
I finished the available content quickly, without any sort of external aid and without trying to rush to the end. Almost never used beacons too.
I don't want to play with a map, I don't think it is required to play the game, which already feels small.
I do respect those who want a map, I'm just not agreeing with their opinion on why and how it should be implemented.
Now I think about it, my debug mapping was done back in May 2015, when we didn't have any wrecks signal, points of interests signal and scanner room. The gameplay was hugely different from what we have now. I had to rely heavily on beacons, using like 7+ of them (and they were not even marked like we now do!). After signals were released, they direct you to points of interests and greatly reduced the need for mapping. And now scanner room shows the area better than my paper map (despite it is a lot smaller). Now you really don't need a map to finish the game. A map is more of an extra to make you feel more comfortable about the area. And the current strategy for a map is to build more scanner rooms. And I think this is a good motivator for having more seabases. So I understand why you feel mapping is not necessary and I agree that in part for the current game. And as I said I feel "The implementation of the map should focus on "how would a survivor map with Aurora technology. Otherwise, "no map at all". I don't want AOE mini-maps". If there isn't a good way of implementation, I think leaving it the way it is is OK.
If we really implement it, I suggest something similar this:
If one gets added it should be set that it only shows visited sections as the planet hasn't been charted by humans in the subnautica universe by the time the game takes place.
Very true, modern military subs normally run just below the surface so they can maintain their satellite connection, both for GPS and their satellite communication systems.[\quote]
As a recently retired USN submariner, and a Sonarman on top of that, I can promise you that this statement is untrue. No submarine would EVER do this as a matter of course. We do come up every so often to check the ship's position, but the primary means of navigation is via Electro-Scopic Gyro Navigation - a fancy form of pretty accurate dead reckoning. Communications is only done during PD trips, as are GPS fixes... but they certainly don't work at the depths that we normally operate at.
I voted for "Map showing Structures, Wrecks, Biomes, Caves and other points of interest (only visited)", although if this is implemented I believe it should just be a 2D map, that is a top down view, so it doesn't take more pc resources to use. Also I voted yes, because I believe the option should be there for people who want it and for people like me who prefer not to use the map in most situations because exploring is a huge part of the fun. I can choose not to use it unless I'm strapped for time and need to find something quick. The more customizable a game is, the better in my opinion.
I really do want a map, but I think it's probably better if it was built using late game technology as a mountable vehicle upgrade that can take it sonar data and display it without having to keep wasting energy on constant sonar pings. I am the kind of player who hoards a lot, and downloading the map image file from the wiki, drawing out a manual grid, and slowly striking off each grid as I finish mining it is incredibly tedious and would be far faster if I was given the option to fabricate a mapping room that I can use to plot out my mining and place navigation beacons instead of having to pack two beacons in the seamoth in slots that I could have stored resources in. It would also be used to strike off an explored wreck or mark a wreck manually on the base map room i.e. 'come back after laser cutter is complete' or 'wreck exhausted'. A map like that will have limited application, we can make it so that the map is only visible outside of the base by using the PDA so that people who don't want to use it don't have to even without fiddling with the options menu.
On a separate note, I think that the beacon should be a starter technology and made even cheaper than it is right now. Having a beacon's kind of important for a game like Subnautica. It's a marker in a game where minimap markers don't exist.
i like exploring but i also know for a fact if i am surviving i am going to be filling out a chart with where things are. its the only way to go about it.
so i would say you start with an out line of the pinnical top and then you have the option of putting in way points and marking features as you explore. something like a plotter sonar we have for boats now. i have one that gives me a nice blank map of the major topography till i pass over it with the sonar and then it fill in the map of the bottom structures.
i ca choose what features to note and with the plotter function i can set up a set of way points so i can organize the days fishing and take advantage of tides and cliff faces and rockpiles as i navigate.
sorry but subs use charts and basic navigation's and i have wondered several times why the sub and base scanner room has no navigators package. its pretty much the basics and if i can make a repulsion cannon i can sure as hell make a plotter.
A map would ruin everything (including the feeling of 2nd walkthrough) and it would reduce the durability of the game badly.
Your knowledge of the locations (the RNG of the blueprints doesn't change the PCF building location) on a second play-through already does that. My opinion: no map "reduce the durability of the game badly." In game option to turn the map on/off, done. Move on.
Well, the game starts on an unkown planet, so I guess an instant map at the beginning would be unreasonable even with on/off button (we don't even have compass at that time).
Maybe later, if the game area will be 10x bigger than now, then it could be an additional end game content (if majoroty really needs it) but in that case background dependencies should be also covered in order to be authentic (e.g. decent number of scanner rooms + upgrades)
I think easymode gaming tools like map are not realistic in that environment.
Well, the game starts on an unkown planet, so I guess an instant map at the beginning would be unreasonable even with on/off button (we don't even have compass at that time).
Maybe later, if the game area will be 10x bigger than now, then it could be an additional end game content (if majoroty really needs it) but in that case background dependencies should be also covered in order to be authentic (e.g. decent number of scanner rooms + upgrades)
I think easymode gaming tools like map are not realistic in that environment.
Who said instant map? My choice is to have a map discovered over time.
Comments
GPS (and similars) signal does not work underwater. You would need to surface to get your position. Current underwater positioning uses sound.
And those satellites do not map, they just give you an accurate position. Mapping would require other tools and, possibly, knowledge on the protagonist part.
Likely the other way-around, activation button with a spoiler warning on it. Or possibly a challenge/difficulty option selection when starting a new game.
Scanner room map improvements might do the trick. Player could browse the map in a scanner room and plan expeditions. Allowing a player to form a better picture of the game world but it wouldn't guide the player to a destination. So, it shouldn't break the immersion and great design of the game.
It also takes away the environmental immersion created by "navigating via landmark" - it detracts from the gameplay experience by bringing the players thinking "up a level", away from the game world and to a more conceptual layout based on an abstract representation. That's not particularly good.
Stuff like the map room have most of the benefits of an easily accessible in game map (for those who want it) without any of the drawbacks, so that seems like it should be more than enough.
Adding an always accessible automap to this game would be like adding an aimbot to an FPS - just a complete undermining of one of the core concepts the game is built around, and a bad choice, even if some people *do* like aimbots.
I disagree with these points.
Once a player has put a beacon down somewhere or gets a ping, they're no longer navigating by landmark. They're following a waypoint on their HUD. For veteran players like us who have been playing the game for awhile, sure we navigate by landmark at the start because we already know where the things are that we want, so we make a beeline there to place a beacon so we have an easy waypoint for the next trip. A new player won't know the landmarks and will be following pings, and will have hopefully figured out beacons so they don't get frustrated with finding this cool wreck they don't have the tools for, only to completely lose track of where it is because they didn't have a beacon to mark it.
The advantage of adding a map is more for aiding in discoverability to let the player see which parts of the world they haven't visited yet. In terms of abstract mapping skills, this game is not about learning how to navigate without a map. It's an exploration game with survival elements that has arbitrarily decided that There Will Be No Map. Then the devs went ahead and put the scanner room in anyways and gave the players beacons and a bunch of pings to all the important locations because players had trouble finding them and were getting lost. It's a bit arbitrary that the scanner room maps can't be shown on the PDA with the player's location for "reasons" when the scanner room HUD upgrade already knows the player position and heading to be able to highlight the scanner room discoveries.
Adding a map is not at all equivalent to an aimbot. Like I said above, this game is not about learning how to navigate without a map. In a FPS, aiming is part of the core gameplay and an aimbot is playing a large part of the game for you. In Subnautica, much of the story related gameplay is already follow the signals, and adding a map won't change that. What it will do is allow the player to easily see which parts of the map they haven't explored yet. The player still has to go out there and see what's there, but now they have some hints as to where there might be more interesting things to discover.
Very true, modern military subs normally run just below the surface so they can maintain their satellite connection, both for GPS and their satellite communication systems.
However, in the game the beacons demonstrate that whatever technology is being employed is not affected the same way by water, and so could be used to triangulate position. As far as mapping tools, we have the seaglide, sonar, and the scanner room. It's just a matter of putting that info together which the scanner rooms already do to a large degree already with the HUD upgrade.
Inside DARPA's Plan To Create GPS Systems For Undersea Submarines
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/inside-darpas-plan-to-create-gps-systems-for-undersea-s-1792724897
If someone posted this already, apologizes in advance. Typing this while dozing at work. Er, I didn't say that. I'm working very hard.
Amazingly, me too!
I agree the decision to implement a map is arbitrary. However I disagree that the gameplay revolves around "follow the signals". Even by calling it gameplay story, are the Degasi survivor wrecks now signaled? Is the navigation inside the Aurora? (Honest questions, haven't pĺayed since bones updt).
To me the gameplay revolves around exploring to find new tech, which allow you to explore further. Having an automap that shows you were you've been hurts this mechanic, by making it much easier to methodically explore the map.
A compromise is certainly a fair middle ground. The lack of a map would make a popular game mode/option, probably with an achievement linked to it.
Underwater world is a bit disorienting due to low visibility and a difficulty of keeping a track of things is a part of it. When I fist played the subnautica I did find a lot of wrecks and I didn't have the right tools and I didn't have a beacon with be. But I didn't blame the game about it. It was my own failure not to carry a beacon with. After making these mistakes a few times, I quickly learned to carry a beacon and also learned to better memorize the locations by checking the environment, where the lifepods are and sometimes I wrote notes on a paper. We didn't have distance information in the lifepod marker nor beacons back then but now we do. So, if you find a wreck then you can write it down on a paper "Cool wreck, 752m NNW". It was a bit difficult to find and re-find the wrecks during the first hours of the game-play but I felt it to be fun. It wasn't too difficult and it wasn't frustrating.
*A Shadow emerging from a spooky waters and... it's a wreck
Scanner room map improvements would help with these issues, no need for map in the PDA.
And why is that ? It could be that after the exploration, discovery, survival and crafting parts.
I know that the Degasi base in the DGR (the only one you strictly need to visit because of the artifact) does have a ping now. I haven't play it much myself recently, but I think there's supposed to be a message in the comm station about a blueprint for the rocket being sent to the Captain's terminal in the Aurora, and you hardly need a beacon to find the Aurora crash site.
To each their own, but I appreciate being able to easily see where I've been. Much of the seafloor looks the same, and in many cases it's difficult to tell if I've been to an area before unless I'm dropping beacons everywhere. To me, that's a time wasting mechanic since it's very easy to overlook a part of the map that happens to be hiding a wreck with the fragments you need. With the map, you can see "hey, I haven't been to that part of the map yet" and go check it out. You still get to see the entire world since you have to explore to fill out the map, but you aren't wasting undue time going over the same areas over and over again subconsciously since they all look the same (I tend to do a lot this while exploring).
With how long the game hasn't had a map and the fact that there very likely won't be one until after 1.0, a compromise is a fair choice. Players who like things the way they are can keep the map off, and players like me who enjoy the accomplishment of completely revealing the map by fully exploring the world will also be satisfied with our shiny new map.
I think your comments about the underwater disorientation and learning to carry beacons is what the devs were going for when they made the decision in the first place. There's some merit to it, especially in the early game. For the first little bit of the game it can be fun, but later on when you waste a significant amount of time trying to find things it gets frustrating pretty quickly.
They've also put a bunch of other mapping equipment in the game that clearly shows the advanced mapping technology available in the game universe, but then arbitrarily prevent the player from really using it. I think that part bugs me more than anything else (that and unintentionally driving in circles while exploring without even realizing it and missing large swaths of the map since I can't easily mark where I've been).
Plus I like looking at maps, and filling out maps in exploration games is something I enjoy doing, and with the fairly interesting, handcrafted world the devs have put together I would love to have a high quality in-game map to look at and see how it's all put together. Sure, someone could do it online, but it's not quite the same as starting the game with a mostly blank map showing only the lifepod and the Aurora in the middle of a featureless ocean, and then over time filling out the map with topographic info on the sea floor and points of interest.
What scanner room improvements are you referring to? The scanner room does indeed help some and has pretty decent range and can reveal nearby POIs that you might have overlooked, but it still doesn't really tell you which parts of the map haven't been covered by a scanner room, only which POIs are within range of that particular room.
The thing is, Having a map that only shows visited areas are there to navigate better and you can't really explore a place you have already explored.
I have to agree on this, but if a map is implemented,(hopefully) it should be able to be deactivated.
But mapping is hard. Specially if you're by yourself without appropriate resources. I'm all for making your own map, but using debug resources is a huge no-no. A lot of people enjoy mapping, that doesn't mean those who don't are wrong.
It's just that; I don't think mapping is at all necessary in this game.
I finished the available content quickly, without any sort of external aid and without trying to rush to the end. Almost never used beacons too.
I don't want to play with a map, I don't think it is required to play the game, which already feels small.
I do respect those who want a map, I'm just not agreeing with their opinion on why and how it should be implemented.
Now I think about it, my debug mapping was done back in May 2015, when we didn't have any wrecks signal, points of interests signal and scanner room. The gameplay was hugely different from what we have now. I had to rely heavily on beacons, using like 7+ of them (and they were not even marked like we now do!). After signals were released, they direct you to points of interests and greatly reduced the need for mapping. And now scanner room shows the area better than my paper map (despite it is a lot smaller). Now you really don't need a map to finish the game. A map is more of an extra to make you feel more comfortable about the area. And the current strategy for a map is to build more scanner rooms. And I think this is a good motivator for having more seabases. So I understand why you feel mapping is not necessary and I agree that in part for the current game. And as I said I feel "The implementation of the map should focus on "how would a survivor map with Aurora technology. Otherwise, "no map at all". I don't want AOE mini-maps". If there isn't a good way of implementation, I think leaving it the way it is is OK.
If we really implement it, I suggest something similar this:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/655290/Lost_in_Pacific/
Which you have to do it yourself in game with some instruments and no auto-updating.
On a separate note, I think that the beacon should be a starter technology and made even cheaper than it is right now. Having a beacon's kind of important for a game like Subnautica. It's a marker in a game where minimap markers don't exist.
Beacons are useful enough for navigating the game. When in doubt, drop beacons.
On my first excursion to the Lost River/Lava Castle I left a trail of beacons behind me to help me get my bearings. Like Hansel & Gretel, easy.
The game map is actually quite small. A Seamoth can cover it very quickly. Having even a player-explored map would make it feel even smaller.
Just add this as an option when you start the game.
In this case everyone will be happy
so i would say you start with an out line of the pinnical top and then you have the option of putting in way points and marking features as you explore. something like a plotter sonar we have for boats now. i have one that gives me a nice blank map of the major topography till i pass over it with the sonar and then it fill in the map of the bottom structures.
i ca choose what features to note and with the plotter function i can set up a set of way points so i can organize the days fishing and take advantage of tides and cliff faces and rockpiles as i navigate.
sorry but subs use charts and basic navigation's and i have wondered several times why the sub and base scanner room has no navigators package. its pretty much the basics and if i can make a repulsion cannon i can sure as hell make a plotter.
This is an EXPLORATION game!
I purchased it just because of the extra super discovery feeling!
A map would ruin everything (including the feeling of 2nd walkthrough) and it would reduce the durability of the game badly.
Your knowledge of the locations (the RNG of the blueprints doesn't change the PCF building location) on a second play-through already does that. My opinion: no map "reduce the durability of the game badly." In game option to turn the map on/off, done. Move on.
Maybe later, if the game area will be 10x bigger than now, then it could be an additional end game content (if majoroty really needs it) but in that case background dependencies should be also covered in order to be authentic (e.g. decent number of scanner rooms + upgrades)
I think easymode gaming tools like map are not realistic in that environment.
Who said instant map? My choice is to have a map discovered over time.