The map has been fixed - we hope ZOS sees this and takes inspiration

Marto · July 2022

Vylaera wrote: »

Here are a few images demonstrating issues with the map previously. Many locations, borders, rivers, and shorelines did not match up with Anthology, the canon map, as I just kept where they were from the ESO map originally.

Black Marsh and the Niben did not align with the canon shape previously.

Are you aware that the shoreline of ESO's Blackwood is a nearly 100% copy of the shoreline in TES IV? The size of hills, mountains, and the vegetation are clearly different, but the shape and location of POIs is as good as it gets.

Same with Western Skyrim. Don't believe me? Go boot up Skyrim, and use no clip to travel a hundred meters in the air. The similarities are wild.

Even then you're willing to disregard the worldbuilding that BGS/ZOS have done... and still blindly advocate for the Anthology map (and TR map, for some reason) as the "true" and "canon" versions of the game world...

That's just silly.

ZOS knows that the vanilla map is inaccurate. They are well aware of that. They just don't have the time or resources to adjust things in ways that might compromise future content.

But they learned from it. And that's why Blackwood and Western Skyrim are such faithful representations of previous game zones. If that's not enough for you, then you don't actually care about accuracy. You care about it conforming to your headcanon.

cmetzger93 · July 2022

You really can't win with some people or make them see reason. ZOS is aware of the mistakes and have admitted to it. What the addon developers are doing are correcting their mistakes. Speaking only for myself I am very appreciative of the work you two are doing and look forward to v2!

Vaoh · July 2022

cmetzger93 wrote: »

You really can't win with some people or make them see reason. ZOS is aware of the mistakes and have admitted to it. What the addon developers are doing are correcting their mistakes. Speaking only for myself I am very appreciative of the work you two are doing and look forward to v2!

I’m on console and this is amongst the few add-ons which imo are a truly huge improvement to the game.

Vylaera · July 2022

Marto wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Here are a few images demonstrating issues with the map previously. Many locations, borders, rivers, and shorelines did not match up with Anthology, the canon map, as I just kept where they were from the ESO map originally.

Black Marsh and the Niben did not align with the canon shape previously.

Are you aware that the shoreline of ESO's Blackwood is a nearly 100% copy of the shoreline in TES IV? The size of hills, mountains, and the vegetation are clearly different, but the shape and location of POIs is as good as it gets.

Same with Western Skyrim. Don't believe me? Go boot up Skyrim, and use no clip to travel a hundred meters in the air. The similarities are wild.

Even then you're willing to disregard the worldbuilding that BGS/ZOS have done... and still blindly advocate for the Anthology map (and TR map, for some reason) as the "true" and "canon" versions of the game world...

That's just silly.

ZOS knows that the vanilla map is inaccurate. They are well aware of that. They just don't have the time or resources to adjust things in ways that might compromise future content.

But they learned from it. And that's why Blackwood and Western Skyrim are such faithful representations of previous game zones. If that's not enough for you, then you don't actually care about accuracy. You care about it conforming to your headcanon.

Thank you for the very hostile comment! I appreciate it! ❤️

Pleasantries aside,

Can you find me one place where I've said Western Skyrim and The Reach and Blackwood zones aren't accurate? I can save you the trouble and tell you I haven't. The zones themselves are misplaced on the map. That's the contention and it always has been with everything post-Base Game.

Western Skyrim and The Reach align almost perfectly with TES V and the Anthology map. The only thing that throws it off is that ESO uses a smaller scale for their zones and so the worldspaces are physically smaller. But the POIs line up perfectly with TES V when scaled accordingly. In fact, the TES V map is what I used to line up the skyrim zones as it's more accurate than Anthology (even though it lines up perfectly with Anthology because TES V was what Anthology's version of Skyrim was based on). It's also what I used to draw the coastlines in the areas not currently in game.

The base game zones are the ones that aren't accurate to Anthology or TES V or any prior maps. The Rift and Eastmarch fit together like puzzle pieces in ESO (however, ironically they aren't aligned properly on the game's own map lmao) but when fitted together, they do not line up with TES V at all.

Stonefalls and Deshaan line up on the map perfectly with Anthology, actually, but the zones themselves are not accurate to prior maps (not including TR but I'll cover that next). The Thirr and Orethan rivers (the latter named by TR) are wrong in ESO. The alpha TES III map which planned out the original design for TES III shows the Thirr being much larger and more prominent, connecting Narsis with the Inner Sea. The Orethan River went upwards to meet Mournhold, which is higher and farther east than in ESO. These locations are reconfirmed with the PGE3 and Anthology maps. And the alpha TES III map was officially released so it has credibility even if it was not used.

As for TR, I have never stated that I count it as canon. Ever. The most I've ever said is that I would be more inclined to count it as canon than ESO's redesign because TR was more faithful to prior lore than ESO. But I never went the full measure to say it's canon. Because it's not, and I don't want it to be. I've only ever used TR as inspiration for names such as calling Southern Morrowind Arnesia or the area east of Stonefalls around Necrom the Sacred East, or using the TR Telvannis shape to add more detail to Morrowind, which I would absolutely change if Telvannis was added to ESO.

So again, I appreciate the very snarky and hostile comment and I wish you good health and fortune on your travels.

Marto · July 2022

Vylaera wrote: »

Thank you for the very hostile comment! I appreciate it! ❤️

Pleasantries aside,

Can you find me one place where I've said Western Skyrim and The Reach and Blackwood zones aren't accurate? I can save you the trouble and tell you I haven't. The zones themselves are misplaced on the map. That's the contention and it always has been with everything post-Base Game.

Western Skyrim and The Reach align almost perfectly with TES V and the Anthology map. The only thing that throws it off is that ESO uses a smaller scale for their zones and so the worldspaces are physically smaller. But the POIs line up perfectly with TES V when scaled accordingly. In fact, the TES V map is what I used to line up the skyrim zones as it's more accurate than Anthology (even though it lines up perfectly with Anthology because TES V was what Anthology's version of Skyrim was based on). It's also what I used to draw the coastlines in the areas not currently in game.

The base game zones are the ones that aren't accurate to Anthology or TES V or any prior maps. The Rift and Eastmarch fit together like puzzle pieces in ESO (however, ironically they aren't aligned properly on the game's own map lmao) but when fitted together, they do not line up with TES V at all.

Stonefalls and Deshaan line up on the map perfectly with Anthology, actually, but the zones themselves are not accurate to prior maps (not including TR but I'll cover that next). The Thirr and Orethan rivers (the latter named by TR) are wrong in ESO. The alpha TES III map which planned out the original design for TES III shows the Thirr being much larger and more prominent, connecting Narsis with the Inner Sea. The Orethan River went upwards to meet Mournhold, which is higher and farther east than in ESO. These locations are reconfirmed with the PGE3 and Anthology maps. And the alpha TES III map was officially released so it has credibility even if it was not used.

As for TR, I have never stated that I count it as canon. Ever. The most I've ever said is that I would be more inclined to count it as canon than ESO's redesign because TR was more faithful to prior lore than ESO. But I never went the full measure to say it's canon. Because it's not, and I don't want it to be. I've only ever used TR as inspiration for names such as calling Southern Morrowind Arnesia or the area east of Stonefalls around Necrom the Sacred East, or using the TR Telvannis shape to add more detail to Morrowind, which I would absolutely change if Telvannis was added to ESO.

So again, I appreciate the very snarky and hostile comment and I wish you good health and fortune on your travels.

I'm sorry if I sounded too hostile, it was not my intention.

The way you explained yourself on that post made me think you were saying Blackwood was not accurate, which would imply you were saying TES IV itself is not accurate. I misunderstood. I agree with your assessment that the zone is slightly misplaced.

But... I still think using the anthology map as an authorative standard is misguided.

You say you're also using pre-release prototypes and concepts from TES III development... which, again, doesn't really work. There's no reason for us to treat those as the "true" version of Morrowind any more than we would call the first draft of a novel or the pilot of a TV show the "true" version. Plans change.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't like the inaccuracies in ESO's world map, and I wish ZOS made an effort to correct them. But game design is full of compromises. And I don't get the impression that you're willing to compromise.

You are fixing mistakes. And that I appreciate. But you're also enforcing a headcanon that does not fit what BGS and ZOS have been doing for the past two decades.

TaSheen · July 2022

It's an addon. Those who find the addon's "headcanon" preferable to two decades worth of inaccuracies neither BGS nor ZOS have chosen to "fix" are happy with using the addon - like me: I've played TES since Arena released, and followed with each game ongoing as IT released. ESO is my "last gasp" as I don't expect to be able to play TESVI (if it EVER releases - I will likely be too old at that point).

So a more lore-accurate map (according to the maps I still have in my library of "hard copy") is fine with me. But this is an OPTION. Please don't slam the people who are providing an option, just because you don't agree with the premise or you prefer the current iteration from BGS/ZOS.

Vylaera · July 2022

Marto wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Thank you for the very hostile comment! I appreciate it! ❤️

Pleasantries aside,

Can you find me one place where I've said Western Skyrim and The Reach and Blackwood zones aren't accurate? I can save you the trouble and tell you I haven't. The zones themselves are misplaced on the map. That's the contention and it always has been with everything post-Base Game.

Western Skyrim and The Reach align almost perfectly with TES V and the Anthology map. The only thing that throws it off is that ESO uses a smaller scale for their zones and so the worldspaces are physically smaller. But the POIs line up perfectly with TES V when scaled accordingly. In fact, the TES V map is what I used to line up the skyrim zones as it's more accurate than Anthology (even though it lines up perfectly with Anthology because TES V was what Anthology's version of Skyrim was based on). It's also what I used to draw the coastlines in the areas not currently in game.

The base game zones are the ones that aren't accurate to Anthology or TES V or any prior maps. The Rift and Eastmarch fit together like puzzle pieces in ESO (however, ironically they aren't aligned properly on the game's own map lmao) but when fitted together, they do not line up with TES V at all.

Stonefalls and Deshaan line up on the map perfectly with Anthology, actually, but the zones themselves are not accurate to prior maps (not including TR but I'll cover that next). The Thirr and Orethan rivers (the latter named by TR) are wrong in ESO. The alpha TES III map which planned out the original design for TES III shows the Thirr being much larger and more prominent, connecting Narsis with the Inner Sea. The Orethan River went upwards to meet Mournhold, which is higher and farther east than in ESO. These locations are reconfirmed with the PGE3 and Anthology maps. And the alpha TES III map was officially released so it has credibility even if it was not used.

As for TR, I have never stated that I count it as canon. Ever. The most I've ever said is that I would be more inclined to count it as canon than ESO's redesign because TR was more faithful to prior lore than ESO. But I never went the full measure to say it's canon. Because it's not, and I don't want it to be. I've only ever used TR as inspiration for names such as calling Southern Morrowind Arnesia or the area east of Stonefalls around Necrom the Sacred East, or using the TR Telvannis shape to add more detail to Morrowind, which I would absolutely change if Telvannis was added to ESO.

So again, I appreciate the very snarky and hostile comment and I wish you good health and fortune on your travels.

I'm sorry if I sounded too hostile, it was not my intention.

The way you explained yourself on that post made me think you were saying Blackwood was not accurate, which would imply you were saying TES IV itself is not accurate. I misunderstood. I agree with your assessment that the zone is slightly misplaced.

But... I still think using the anthology map as an authorative standard is misguided.

You say you're also using pre-release prototypes and concepts from TES III development... which, again, doesn't really work. There's no reason for us to treat those as the "true" version of Morrowind any more than we would call the first draft of a novel or the pilot of a TV show the "true" version. Plans change.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't like the inaccuracies in ESO's world map, and I wish ZOS made an effort to correct them. But game design is full of compromises. And I don't get the impression that you're willing to compromise.

You are fixing mistakes. And that I appreciate. But you're also enforcing a headcanon that does not fit what BGS and ZOS have been doing for the past two decades.

Thank you for both the apology and saying you appreciate my work. And I apologize for returning the hostility in a passive aggressive manner.

As for the rest, Anthology is athuoritative, that's why I've been using it. It's a combination and refinement of Tamriel that uses the shapes, rivers, locations, etc. From TES III, IV, and V, and fills in the gaps using TES I Arena. It was released with the Elder Scrolls Anthology collection in 2013 and re-released with the Skyrim Cookbook in 2019. It's the map Bethesda has put forward as The map of Tamriel consistently over the past decade. So I use it as my guide to fix ESO's map.

And as I said in my last comment, I'm only referencing the TES III alpha map because the locations of cities on the mainland match up pretty well with what we see in modern canon maps such as PGE3 and Anthology, so I can logically infer that the rivers it had are accurate.

Also, just to put this out there, I'm replicating all of the Zones in ESO almost exactly on my map. The shapes of shorelines that ESO has changed for High Rock, Hammerfell, Elsweyr, Valenwood, Black Marsh, etc. Are changes I've welcomed and included in my maps. I've just been aligning those zones properly according to the canon shape of Tamriel. Integrating the new shapes into the proper positions. The only exceptions to this are Summerset and Morrowind. Summerset because I don't like the melted wax abomination ESO's Summerset is. It lacks any defined shape, and so I've reshaped its coastlines moderately to give it back some of the form and definition it had previously. For Morrowind, I have of course used TR Telvannis as inspiration simply because it looks cool. But if ZOS were the add Telvannis to ESO, I would scrap my TR adaptation and copy ESO's shape.

Ratzkifal · July 2022

On the topic of getting this issue known to someone with the authority to do something about it, I did mention this issue to Rich on stream once. He didn't seem to be aware of the issue and said that he would take a mental note. But honestly I wouldn't blame him if he forgot after the stream since it was sort of in the middle of it and I know he isn't working at ZOS to make the lore and world building so he probably has lots of other things on his mind.
But I'm pretty sure he would have the authority to get it fixed though assuming it can be justified - which thankfully it can, as it provides more DLC space and thus more sustainability and revenue.

So... @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_JessicaFolsom ? Can you please try to pass this on to the people who are in charge of making world building decisions? You are losing easy money if you don't... Just saying.

Ratzkifal · July 2022

Marto wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Thank you for the very hostile comment! I appreciate it! ❤️

Pleasantries aside,

Can you find me one place where I've said Western Skyrim and The Reach and Blackwood zones aren't accurate? I can save you the trouble and tell you I haven't. The zones themselves are misplaced on the map. That's the contention and it always has been with everything post-Base Game.

Western Skyrim and The Reach align almost perfectly with TES V and the Anthology map. The only thing that throws it off is that ESO uses a smaller scale for their zones and so the worldspaces are physically smaller. But the POIs line up perfectly with TES V when scaled accordingly. In fact, the TES V map is what I used to line up the skyrim zones as it's more accurate than Anthology (even though it lines up perfectly with Anthology because TES V was what Anthology's version of Skyrim was based on). It's also what I used to draw the coastlines in the areas not currently in game.

The base game zones are the ones that aren't accurate to Anthology or TES V or any prior maps. The Rift and Eastmarch fit together like puzzle pieces in ESO (however, ironically they aren't aligned properly on the game's own map lmao) but when fitted together, they do not line up with TES V at all.

Stonefalls and Deshaan line up on the map perfectly with Anthology, actually, but the zones themselves are not accurate to prior maps (not including TR but I'll cover that next). The Thirr and Orethan rivers (the latter named by TR) are wrong in ESO. The alpha TES III map which planned out the original design for TES III shows the Thirr being much larger and more prominent, connecting Narsis with the Inner Sea. The Orethan River went upwards to meet Mournhold, which is higher and farther east than in ESO. These locations are reconfirmed with the PGE3 and Anthology maps. And the alpha TES III map was officially released so it has credibility even if it was not used.

As for TR, I have never stated that I count it as canon. Ever. The most I've ever said is that I would be more inclined to count it as canon than ESO's redesign because TR was more faithful to prior lore than ESO. But I never went the full measure to say it's canon. Because it's not, and I don't want it to be. I've only ever used TR as inspiration for names such as calling Southern Morrowind Arnesia or the area east of Stonefalls around Necrom the Sacred East, or using the TR Telvannis shape to add more detail to Morrowind, which I would absolutely change if Telvannis was added to ESO.

So again, I appreciate the very snarky and hostile comment and I wish you good health and fortune on your travels.

I'm sorry if I sounded too hostile, it was not my intention.

The way you explained yourself on that post made me think you were saying Blackwood was not accurate, which would imply you were saying TES IV itself is not accurate. I misunderstood. I agree with your assessment that the zone is slightly misplaced.

But... I still think using the anthology map as an authorative standard is misguided.

You say you're also using pre-release prototypes and concepts from TES III development... which, again, doesn't really work. There's no reason for us to treat those as the "true" version of Morrowind any more than we would call the first draft of a novel or the pilot of a TV show the "true" version. Plans change.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't like the inaccuracies in ESO's world map, and I wish ZOS made an effort to correct them. But game design is full of compromises. And I don't get the impression that you're willing to compromise.

You are fixing mistakes. And that I appreciate. But you're also enforcing a headcanon that does not fit what BGS and ZOS have been doing for the past two decades.

Although I disagree with the sentiment of using the anthology map as a standard being "misguided", I do want to drop in to agree that for any area of the game that we haven't visited yet I wouldn't take the anthology map as gospel.
To elaborate on this, if ZOS adds a zone that is significantly smaller than shown in the anthology map, I prefer the anthology map, but if ZOS surpasses expectations and their version is superior to the anthology map, I would consider it a positive change and accept the retcon.
As an example, since the latest version of the addon includes a map of Pyandonea which is entirely headcanon, if ZOS ended up releasing Pyandonea with a completely different appearance that is equally appealing or superior, I would not be upset and would not insist any changes be made to ESO. But if they released an island the size of Bethnik and called it Pyandonea, even if it was the "right" shape, I would be understandably upset.
So what I am trying to say is, the anthology map is a good basis for everything we already know to be true (from previous games or other lore), but I wouldn't take it as gospel for any area we haven't been to yet so long as the results are satisfactory. I feel this should be the standard for this addon - which is why I have no feelings about the Telvanni Peninsula changing shape in ESO or this addon and why I personally think the Deshaan-Shadowfen border is alright the way it is ingame, even if a redone version of the entire area more accurate to the anthology map would be objectively superior.

Tl;dr: There is no tl;dr and my feelings on this are complex and conflicted

So even if there is some headcanon present here, still a great addon.

Vylaera · July 2022

Small Progress Update

I have gotten the zone borders and Province Borders outlined.

Dark_Lord_Kuro · July 2022

Jusey1 wrote: »

TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »

We see that Shadowfen and Deeshan are touching ingame so that is what it is, what we see ingame should take pirority over outdated lore, this huge gap on your map is an immersion killer.

Then Ask ZOS to fix it and make a new zone that goes in between Dees and Shadowfen.

Or just leave it as it is sice eso is the most recent canon lore

Thal_J · July 2022

Dark_Lord_Kuro wrote: »

Or just leave it as it is sice eso is the most recent canon lore

We now have two ZOS employees on record officially admitting that their map is wrong lore-wise and implementation wise. This logic just doesnt work anymore.

Perdums · July 2022

Vylaera wrote: »

Working on improvements for version 2 post-High Isle.

Hey, why did you moved Greyhome island to southeast on your map, wasn't it first introduced in TESO and therefore must remain where it was originally placed? Also, can you bring back text around the zone blobs on the Aurbis map, that was a nice detail on vanilla map.

Vylaera · July 2022

Perdums wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Working on improvements for version 2 post-High Isle.

Hey, why did you moved Greyhome island to southeast on your map, wasn't it first introduced in TESO and therefore must remain where it was originally placed? Also, can you bring back text around the zone blobs on the Aurbis map, that was a nice detail on vanilla map.

It was first introduced in ESO, that's correct, but due to lore scale and mile/kilometer distances, both myself and thal saw it as implausible that it was that far out.

In game, it looks like you could probably travel by boat in like 10 minutes, but when we deal with lore scale, that 10 minute journey turns into a week. It's roughly traveling the distance of the entire country of England if we go by Daggerfall scale.

It made sense to move it closer to Western Skyrim for scaling purposes.

For the Aurbis text, that is something that I can do, yes. It just wasn't a priority on my do do list for the initial release.

TX12001rwb17_ESO · July 2022

The world map is just a sailors interpretation and not meant to be accurate, they don't have satellite imagery which is why they do not match the zone maps like I am pretty sure if you looked at Nirn from space you would not see 2D pictures of sea monsters, that is clearly an in universe hand drawn map and from our own past we know a lot of old maps were very wrong.

Supreme_Atromancer · July 2022

TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »

The world map is just a sailors interpretation and not meant to be accurate, they don't have satellite imagery which is why they do not match the zone maps like I am pretty sure if you looked at Nirn from space you would not see 2D pictures of sea monsters, that is clearly an in universe hand drawn map and from our own past we know a lot of old maps were very wrong.

That's like saying that our compass should be subject to errors, or that our quest tracker should have spelling errors because people tend to be illiterate.

@Vylaera looks amazing. I particularly love that the Jehanna spot looks so believable.

Ratzkifal · July 2022

TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »

The world map is just a sailors interpretation and not meant to be accurate, they don't have satellite imagery which is why they do not match the zone maps like I am pretty sure if you looked at Nirn from space you would not see 2D pictures of sea monsters, that is clearly an in universe hand drawn map and from our own past we know a lot of old maps were very wrong.

I'm sorry but sailors need highly accurate world maps in order to not get lost or die because they ran out of supplies because they misjudged distances. There are lots of old maps that are very accurate and that modern satellite technology couldn't improve upon in any way that actually matters.
How long are you going to try and defend this clearly flawed world map? If it's not meant to be accurate, why is ZOS following this inaccurate map for their zone creation? Clearly it's meant to be accurate and meant to be taken as gospel, but because it is so poorly made things keep getting screwed up.

SimonThesis · July 2022

Lore is all made up anyway. I just want an accurate map that takes me from point A to point B. I haven't played other scrolls games so I don't really care about ancient lore maps of tamriel and what tamriel is actually supposed to look like before the game was even made. I'd prefer a map take me from point A to point B in this game, not any other.

I personally don't care if the map is wrong according to lore or not. I want an accurate way to get from one place to another in the Elder Scrolls Online game, not in any other elder scrolls game nor have it based on the imagination of a loremaster instead.

If this map more accurately gets me from point A to point B in the Elder Scrolls Online, then its worth downloading. If it changes the map to better fit lore instead of being as accurate as possible then its something to pass on.

Vylaera · July 2022

SimonThesis wrote: »

Lore is all made up anyway. I just want an accurate map that takes me from point A to point B. I haven't played other scrolls games so I don't really care about ancient lore maps of tamriel and what tamriel is actually supposed to look like before the game was even made. I'd prefer a map take me from point A to point B in this game, not any other.

I personally don't care if the map is wrong according to lore or not. I want an accurate way to get from one place to another in the Elder Scrolls Online game, not in any other elder scrolls game or have it based on the imagination of a loremaster instead.

Do you skip dialogue? Just curious.

Thal_J · July 2022

@SimonThesis I can tell you haven't read the post at all

Let me repeat it louder for those in the back: the existing map has been confirmed to be wrong both implementation and lorewise by two ZOS devs, and is confirmed they know about it.

Even if you do not care about lore, the reality is it deletes chunks of the map and several cities. It is actively preventing new DLC because it is not accurate. Land that should be there is not. Cities that should be there are gone or overriden. It is that simple, the existing map is not accurate and it is impeding usability.

Perdums · July 2022

Vylaera wrote: »

Perdums wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Working on improvements for version 2 post-High Isle.

Hey, why did you moved Greyhome island to southeast on your map, wasn't it first introduced in TESO and therefore must remain where it was originally placed? Also, can you bring back text around the zone blobs on the Aurbis map, that was a nice detail on vanilla map.

It was first introduced in ESO, that's correct, but due to lore scale and mile/kilometer distances, both myself and thal saw it as implausible that it was that far out.

In game, it looks like you could probably travel by boat in like 10 minutes, but when we deal with lore scale, that 10 minute journey turns into a week. It's roughly traveling the distance of the entire country of England if we go by Daggerfall scale.

It made sense to move it closer to Western Skyrim for scaling purposes.

For the Aurbis text, that is something that I can do, yes. It just wasn't a priority on my do do list for the initial release.

Well, it doesn't feel like a long trip either when you pick up some cra*y boat that looks more like raft in Stonefalls and travel to the other side of Tamriel to Daggerfall or Auridon.

How does your "lore scale" method work? I don't understand how it makes sense. There's no way how you can scale down shown distance by 3-4 times. Vanilla map is the only credible source about the position of this island. There are no sources that tell what's actual distance from shore to the island compared to anything else (except for the world map) or how much time it takes to travel to that island. I'm sure that you did something wrong.

Please, don't take my comment as aggressive.

SimonThesis · July 2022

Zos should just disregard the lore of the previous series entirely and make their own map however they want, its their game. The only purpose of a map is to get from one place to another as accurately as possible. If zos wants to completely change the geography of tamriel vs whats been done before they should be able to. They shouldn't be bound by archaic lore. They should make new Dlc zones and cities wherever they want on the map and not be bound by lore.

Vylaera · July 2022

Perdums wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Perdums wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Working on improvements for version 2 post-High Isle.

Hey, why did you moved Greyhome island to southeast on your map, wasn't it first introduced in TESO and therefore must remain where it was originally placed? Also, can you bring back text around the zone blobs on the Aurbis map, that was a nice detail on vanilla map.

It was first introduced in ESO, that's correct, but due to lore scale and mile/kilometer distances, both myself and thal saw it as implausible that it was that far out.

In game, it looks like you could probably travel by boat in like 10 minutes, but when we deal with lore scale, that 10 minute journey turns into a week. It's roughly traveling the distance of the entire country of England if we go by Daggerfall scale.

It made sense to move it closer to Western Skyrim for scaling purposes.

For the Aurbis text, that is something that I can do, yes. It just wasn't a priority on my do do list for the initial release.

Well, it doesn't feel like a long trip either when you pick up some cra*y boat that looks more like raft in Stonefalls and travel to the other side of Tamriel to Daggerfall or Auridon.

How does your "lore scale" method work? I don't understand how it makes sense. There's no way how you can scale down shown distance by 3-4 times. Vanilla map is the only credible source about the position of this island. There are no sources that tell what's actual distance from shore to the island compared to anything else (except for the world map) or how much time it takes to travel to that island. I'm sure that you did something wrong.

Please, don't take my comment as aggressive.

The games are a tiny version of what actually exists in lore. The real size of tamriel is larger than the continent of Europe. Sources conflict on its actual size, some saying the trip from Torval to the Valenwood border is hundreds of miles, some saying the trip from Mournhold to Red Mountain is 250 miles.

Most people within the lore community accept that the scale of Tamriel according to TES II Daggerfall is the correct scale, though it could be much much larger than that. Regardless, it is certainly not the scale shown in ESO especially, which is by far the smallest scale ES game yet created.

ZOS_FalcoYamaoka · July 2022

Greetings,
We had to close this thread as it has derailed extensively and is not offering much ground for constructive discussion. Please be sure to keep discussions on topic and constructive. If you have any questions about the actions being taken, please take a moment to review our community rules here.