Integrate the Continents!

Is there any reason not to integrate Tyria, Cantha, and Elona all into one continent like they did with EotN in Tyria for those who bought GW:EN?

Something like this
Map
or this
Map
My personal favorite
Map

It would not only be more convenient for people like me who have all 4 games, which I suspect most other people do as well, but it would really drive home the point that this is all one connected world, not three separate ones.

i saw those maps too when i was doing cartography titles.

Its cool but not sure if its practical.

Whats impractical about it?

This gets a big /signed from me, using the boat and loading into spam city's is really starting to piss me off :O

/signed from me too, it would also solve where Cantha and battle islands are exactly located in relation to Tyria/Elona once and for all

/signed
hoped it would be like this from the scratch on -.-

I think that improved mapping systems like people have previously suggested would be better because they may require less work and be less cluttered.

/Sign on the idea

Though I can see why they wouldn't want to do it. From a lore standpoint it would lock them into defining the known world and the placement of the continents, and they probably want to leave that open for some speculation in case they need to add or adjust something down the road.

Certainly would be nice.

Even if they don't have all 4 games, just make one large map that everyone can see when they zoom out.

Maybe have a couple different levels of zooming:

Local
Continent
World

that way you aren't zooming out all the way all the time which some people might find annoying.

/signed,would be very nice.

I actually suggested this on a thread that wanted to remove the need of going to LA/Kaineng/Kamadan, the thread isn't that old.

Here it is:
http://guildwarsguru.com/forum/showt...php?t=10328494

My suggestion is 2nd post. And the thread is still on the first page.

I /sign for this idea, as I brought it up, and I /sign for a merge of the two threads.

Also, Kwith has a good idea for zooming, except for one thing. How do you tell what way to go, it's left click, left click currently for zooming in and out. So will it just circle through? Since right clicking allows you to drag the map.

You mean like this:
That sounds like a LOT more work then just taking the current maps, combining them out of GW, filling in the blanks, then replacing the 4 maps with the new big one. Because with that idea (the only real suggestion about map traveling cross-continent other then map combining) would be changing the coding to include every single outpost. A LOT more work.

I guess it will require a lot of coding to join the continents.
GW2 suggests that they will be availabe in a similar manner.

If anet can do it, I'll like to have something like the third map.
The change will improve a lot of things.

/signed

Of course, since the time that showing something that already exists is less work than making something new...
Oh, wait... that would be never.

Another thing to take into account is the memory required to have the whole map shown.
If it's split into pieces, it's less to show anytime you hit M.

Impractical as far as coding -> money, when GW2 is what Anet is focusing on.

Sure it would be easier for us, the player base, but it's probably setup just like the rest of the instanced areas in the GW world.

It's easy enough, I think:

Hit M, and it shows the zoom in of where you currently are and the commands are much like they are now, click to zoom in/out etc. Now add the boat as a static icon in the lower left. When clicked, you're presented with the World Map. This World Map shows the expanded view of all 4 continents and the battle isles. Click anywhere on a continent and it loads that map as if you were there and had just pressed M. Clicking the mouse zooms in and out as usual and you're free to move around that map and click on the outpost you want to travel to.

This way we only add two more clicks, one on the boat icon and one on the destination continent. Compare this with the painful tedious task that is the current system.

I am made of win.

I think the fear of computer's being unable to deal with this change are unfounded. The battle isles used to be integrated into map before anyway, EotN is already integrated, Elona is already depicted on the map for Tyria, all that would have to be added is Cantha.

This is just not a reason. Perhaps if we were asking for something huge, but we already have the maps for all the continents. No one's asking them to start from scratch, they have all the things they need already. Elona's location on the map has already been decided, all they really need to do is find a place for Cantha.

If you're that worried still about the cost, maybe they should just pull all the people associated with balancing and events for GW1 and put them on GW2. It's impractical to keep improving a dead game right? Equally bad logic.

You see, by helping the players by doing the small (yet good) things, such as the map change, and by doing the big (and good) things, such as the HoM/Title changes, ANet garners more support and like from the GW community.

And by doing such, they raise chances of people buying GW2, which in turn will raise their income.

ok this is not a bad idea, however i'd much rather see the time taken to fix factions and prophs weapons so they are all inscribable and what not like nf and eotns, however personally i wouldn't mind if all weapons went back to the way they are in proph, but then again none of this will happen, perhaps in gw2 the maps will all be on 1, who knows
/notsigned

um?? do you really think that by changing the map system in gw that it is going to make a difference at all in the amount of people that will buy gw2, maybe the few ocd people out there who can't stand it, but hey maybe there are people out there that would hate all the maps being put together and not buy gw2 because of it

Can you take me through the labyrinth that is your logic for /notsigning? You're saying there are other things to fix before this? This thread isn't about putting thing son a list of priorities, simply changes that would be good or not, in fact that is the point of this subforum. It is the argue the merits of certain ideas, not to dictate to Anet in which order the changes should occur. Your reasoning is fault.

And who would be angry that the maps are put together? Give me one reason.