Possible Map Additions thread

[CMCSAVAGE]

6 hours ago, CarlyRaeJepsen said:

I would like to travel to a eastern country like Japan or the phillipenes. It would be interesting to see what life was like there’s in the 1890s 

You'll have to settle for Saint Denis, there's some Chinese NPC's walking around.

[Red Lynx 23]

7 hours ago, -LN- said:

If you don't mind me asking; how do you do this? I've never had much luck with going outside the map; except for that little area south of the Sea of Coronado.

That's the only one I know of. Leave the map by the Sea of Coronado. I also had to go through Mexico to get to the area east of Sisika on foot, as I walked through the area north of New Austin, close to the map border with Tall Trees, and didn't find any wild horses. 

[Red Lynx 23]

@-LN- Here's another video, with something I didn't know about at the end. A location you can call in your own horse. 

 

 

[Daleificent]

On 6/21/2019 at 2:04 PM, Red Lynx 23 said:

@-LN- Here's another video, with something I didn't know about at the end. A location you can call in your own horse. 

 

 

So, first, major thanks for posting that @Red Lynx 23. Got to go out of the map for the first time cause of that video.

 

Mexico definitely feels like it has potential to be an added zone with relatively minimal work in the end. At least when it's compared to a few of the other areas. It has most of the meshes down though sometimes not quite where they should be. (Plants occasionally floating a foot of the ground and the like, or covering up the roads running through the area.) There were even a small handful of fishing spots outside the map in that area surprisingly. I didn't fish in them, I wanted to not abuse being outside the map as much as possible, so not sure if it was just there graphically or if fish actually could be caught.

 

Also, for others who may being experiencing the first out of map experience like me. Don't go towards the water when traveling up the San Luis. It'll suck you in like a blackhole and you get to watch helplessly as your horse drowns.... then you. Little traumatizing, but a good laugh in the end.

[Star256272]

If they ever did a map expansion which is quite unlikely a game coming from rockstar but it is possible I would definitely like either Mexico or high plains or a bit more ocean area I also wonder if R looks at these threads if the text comes out black I’m sorry about that idk how to fix it 

 

[Karen Daniels]

Nah. Map is huge as it is. So many unused areas. Let Rockstar take full advantage of the map that is already in place before even considering an expansion.

[The Dedito Gae]

I would be inclined to say that they are not adding any new areas to RDO... but Mexico is way too detailed to ignore.

[Gtaman_92]

Adding Mexico make the most sense since the area is already half way completed. 

[Red Lynx 23]

18 hours ago, Gtaman_92 said:

Adding Mexico make the most sense since the area is already half way completed. 

 

I have a theory that there could very well be a Charles Smith and Sadie Adler DLC, considering the detail already added to the map in both Canada and Mexico. Or at the very least, Mexico and Canada will be added to Red Dead Online.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Red Lynx 23

[The Dedito Gae]

Wait, Canada is in the videogame?

[Jason]

Just now, The Deadite said:

Wait, Canada is in the videogame?

No.

 

People glitched out of the map north (p sure you've done this your self lol) and some people say it's Canada.

 

It's not. It's surrounding out of bound areas in a landlocked game, it could be cut areas still left in their basic form, could just be there for scenery, could just be excess, could be anything.

 

But what it's not, is Canada, or proof that Canada is coming to RDO.

[Red Lynx 23]

3 hours ago, Jason said:

No.

 

People glitched out of the map north (p sure you've done this your self lol) and some people say it's Canada.

 

It's not. It's surrounding out of bound areas in a landlocked game, it could be cut areas still left in their basic form, could just be there for scenery, could just be excess, could be anything.

 

But what it's not, is Canada, or proof that Canada is coming to RDO.

And you're so sure there is no Canada to the north how? I believe so, after Charles Smith and Rains Fall both said The Wapiti will and did escape into Canada in Story Mode. 

 

 

[Jason]

38 minutes ago, Red Lynx 23 said:

And you're so sure there is no Canada to the north how? I believe so, after Charles Smith and Rains Fall both said The Wapiti will and did escape into Canada in Story Mode. 

Because the map borders Mexico meaning north of the map is anywhere but Canada geographically. Even then, the fact characters mentioned Canada is completely irrelevant and proof of nothing. GTA's, RDR1 and RDR2 all have mentions of other locations, it's just characters talking about stuff, not teases that we're getting something in future DLC.

 

Games that are landlocked have out of bounds areas, sometimes it's modelled, sometimes not, sometimes it's solid ground, sometimes it's not. RDR2's varies from stuff that looks like it might have been part of the game map but got cut, and stuff that just looks like fat they didn't bother trimming.

 

If we ever do get a map expansion for Online it will be added to the current map, this is probably a reason for why we never saw Liberty City in GTAO. Mexico is pretty much the only map expansion we have any reason to think might come one day, for obvious reasons.

[Red Lynx 23]

3 hours ago, Jason said:

Because the map borders Mexico meaning north of the map is anywhere but Canada geographically. Even then, the fact characters mentioned Canada is completely irrelevant and proof of nothing. GTA's, RDR1 and RDR2 all have mentions of other locations, it's just characters talking about stuff, not teases that we're getting something in future DLC.

 

Games that are landlocked have out of bounds areas, sometimes it's modelled, sometimes not, sometimes it's solid ground, sometimes it's not. RDR2's varies from stuff that looks like it might have been part of the game map but got cut, and stuff that just looks like fat they didn't bother trimming.

 

If we ever do get a map expansion for Online it will be added to the current map, this is probably a reason for why we never saw Liberty City in GTAO. Mexico is pretty much the only map expansion we have any reason to think might come one day, for obvious reasons.

 

It's all just our opinions that Canada is a place, or doesn't exist. This is my opinion about the existence of Canada. 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Red Lynx 23

[Jason]

I mean Canada exists in the world of RDR2, but it's not that. Not an opinion, it's factual. That area is an out of bounds place you're not meant to go, it's not part of the game nor is it intended to be something.

 

RDR2 isn't the first game set in a landlocked open world with out of bound areas like you're seeing in those videos, you can literally google "[insert open world game name here] out of bounds on YouTube and you'll find heaps.

 

And again, geographically speaking it makes absolutely no sense for that to be Canada anyway.

[ivarblaauw]

The region you refer to is the Northern Territory. I simply named it that way because it is one of the few out of bound areas not named in the game.

 

It is obvious this location can be added, if they decided to do so. However it still would be quite the work for it to be something more than 'filler' content. 

 

It is a lot more detailed than most of the other out of bound areas, and features open valleys, lush forests and Tempest Rim is a valley on its own with paths. 

 

North of the Northern Territory is a huge valley, which did make some of us think of Canada, but this is all low poly meshed area. Looks cool, but that's it. It will probably never come to life. The area I refered to as Northern Territory could possibly see the light of day once. 

 

It features some cool locations, my favourite being a huge meadow, where I could imagine to see some roaming buffalo. But I don't think this will be 'Canada'.

Edited July 19, 2019 by ivarblaauw

[Karen Daniels]

Funny how many are trying to use classic Skyrim logic within this game map. Because the White Gold Tower was visible in Skyrim, everyone immediately assumes that Canada is what is beyond the map boundary? Ok then... yet there is no factual proof or evidence that is what it is. I agree with @Jason. Geographically speaking (and since RDR2's fictional states are replacing some real states), there is no way that is Canada. At most it is Montana or one of the Dakota's. Plus if it were Tropical Canada, there would have been a lot of references to that within the storyline.

[Jason]

6 hours ago, ivarblaauw said:

The region you refer to is the Northern Territory.

No, it's nothing. That's the point. It's out of bounds area, it's nothing, it's not canon. OoB areas being surprisingly detailed isn't new or exclusive to RDR2 and it doesn't mean anything.

 

Speaking of Skyrim, that game actually contains most of Tamriel in it but in the end it never meant anything. Why was all that left in there? Who knows. RDR2 is the same story.

[MostlyPonies]

Seeing as how selecting an area to spawn in through the menu puts you in a new session anyway, there's no need for map expansions to exist in the same instance as the main world.

 

This is better because you wouldn't have to load the whole map, allowing the expanded area to have more world objects, NPCs, and be bigger than what the current map borders show. But to keep map transition seamless, this method would only make sense for Mexico.

[ivarblaauw]

53 minutes ago, Jason said:

No, it's nothing. That's the point. It's out of bounds area, it's nothing, it's not canon. OoB areas being surprisingly detailed isn't new or exclusive to RDR2 and it doesn't mean anything.

 

Speaking of Skyrim, that game actually contains most of Tamriel in it but in the end it never meant anything. Why was all that left in there? Who knows. RDR2 is the same story.

you really didn't read anything beyond the first sentence did you? -_-

48 minutes ago, MostlyPonies said:

Seeing as how selecting an area to spawn in through the menu puts you in a new session anyway, there's no need for map expansions to exist in the same instance as the main world.

 

This is better because you wouldn't have to load the whole map, allowing the expanded area to have more world objects, NPCs, and be bigger than what the current map borders show. But to keep map transition seamless, this method would only make sense for Mexico.

That could be the case with a Guarma for online. Could be cool!

[Jason]

20 minutes ago, ivarblaauw said:

you really didn't read anything beyond the first sentence did you? -_-

I did. The areas you keep referring to mean absolutely nothing. They're out of bounds, non-canon, pointless areas. There is nothing to deduce there that is useful to us regarding a future update. There may be some unique looking locations there but that doesn't point to anything other than them possible being part of the map in development but got cut at some point and cut content. If you're one of the "RDR2 Beta hunters" they might be interesting cause it might paint a picture of the maps development history.

 

They could very well add map expansions around the map but what's in those out of bounds regions isn't an idea of what we can expect, they'd be completely redone in order to fit what they need gameplay wise. 

 

1 hour ago, MostlyPonies said:

Seeing as how selecting an area to spawn in through the menu puts you in a new session anyway, there's no need for map expansions to exist in the same instance as the main world.

 

This is better because you wouldn't have to load the whole map, allowing the expanded area to have more world objects, NPCs, and be bigger than what the current map borders show. But to keep map transition seamless, this method would only make sense for Mexico.

Very unlikely. New areas that can only be visited via a loading screen would just carve up the playerbase, which they're on record for not wanting to do with gameplay mechanics such as free aim, PvE, private lobbies etc. New map expansions if they come will IMO almost certainly be added to the current map. Mexico being the most obvious candidate for the reasons you say.

[MostlyPonies]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

I did. The areas you keep referring to mean absolutely nothing. They're out of bounds, non-canon, pointless areas. There is nothing to deduce there that is useful to us regarding a future update. There may be some unique looking locations there but that doesn't point to anything other than them possible being part of the map in development but got cut at some point and cut content. If you're one of the "RDR2 Beta hunters" they might be interesting cause it might paint a picture of the maps development history.

 

They could very well add map expansions around the map but what's in those out of bounds regions isn't an idea of what we can expect, they'd be completely redone in order to fit what they need gameplay wise. 

 

Very unlikely. New areas that can only be visited via a loading screen would just carve up the playerbase, which they're on record for not wanting to do with gameplay mechanics such as free aim, PvE, private lobbies etc. New map expansions if they come will IMO almost certainly be added to the current map. Mexico being the most obvious candidate for the reasons you say.

I don't see it splitting the playerbase at all. Players in Mexico aren't gonna be able to interact with players elsewhere anyway because of the distance.

 

If I wanna fast travel with a friend, I just spawn in an area from the menu and invite them. No difference between that and going into a new map.

[Jason]

9 minutes ago, MostlyPonies said:

I don't see it splitting the playerbase at all. Players in Mexico aren't gonna be able to interact with players elsewhere anyway because of the distance.

 

If I wanna fast travel with a friend, I just spawn in an area from the menu and invite them. No difference between that and going into a new map.

It will split the playerbase by having a bunch of players in X map and another bunch in the RDR2 map, meaning less people in each map. This sorta thing is also the same reason why devs are always iffy about adding more playlists to niche modes in competitive games. You want the matchmaking pools to be as big as possible. Imagine if they added a new instanced map and PvE/invite lobbies, and then freeaim lobbies, it'd result in many of those lobbies being very dead long term.

[MostlyPonies]

40 minutes ago, Jason said:

It will split the playerbase by having a bunch of players in X map and another bunch in the RDR2 map, meaning less people in each map. This sorta thing is also the same reason why devs are always iffy about adding more playlists to niche modes in competitive games. You want the matchmaking pools to be as big as possible. Imagine if they added a new instanced map and PvE/invite lobbies, and then freeaim lobbies, it'd result in many of those lobbies being very dead long term.

I think the towns are often too crowded as it is so I see opening Mexico as a plus. If a new map causes a split in lobby size, that's a problem with the game not having enough players overall, which is a problem with the game itself. A split would be a sign of an already low player base, not the cause of it.

[ivarblaauw]

@Jason not true about it having no canon at all.

 

Look at the map I have made from all available ingame maps and locations named by npc's, books etc. The outlines are about 95% correctly established within the current canon. Ofcourse any area outside of that region is much more difficult to map, since it wasn't named. One of these regions is the area which I named the northern territory. Large parts were originally part of Ambarino, but were cut out, such as Tempest Rim. 

 

Much of the out of bound areas are already established within canon. Which I showed in the latest map I made.

13 minutes ago, MostlyPonies said:

I think the towns are often too crowded as it is so I see opening Mexico as a plus. If a new map causes a split in lobby size, that's a problem with the game not having enough players overall, which is a problem with the game itself. A split would be a sign of an already low player base, not the cause of it.

Agreed. If they get better servers, the game should be able to handle much more players. 

 

But well... Rockstar servers aren't known for their strenght...

[Jason]

40 minutes ago, MostlyPonies said:

I think the towns are often too crowded as it is so I see opening Mexico as a plus. If a new map causes a split in lobby size, that's a problem with the game not having enough players overall, which is a problem with the game itself. A split would be a sign of an already low player base, not the cause of it.

Yes, low player counts are problem of the game but you don't solve that by carving up the playerbase even more. Instanced maps would split the playerbase, which has no upsides, ergo you don't make an instanced map expansion.

 

30 minutes ago, ivarblaauw said:

@Jason not true about it having no canon at all.

 

Other areas in the RDR2 being canon is obviously a thing, those out of bounds areas being them or in anyway canon -  except the ones used in the story like the mountain from the intro - are not. It's the equivalent of a glitch or an exploit being canon.

[MostlyPonies]

@Jason If the number of players is so low that a split would kill the game, then the game's doomed anyway.

 

[Jason]

Depends on your definition of doomed. Lots of games can still live on with small player counts.

 

Regardless, even if the playerbase is huge you don't split them unnecessarily when the alternative (adding map additions the current map) makes much more sense anyway. And again, if they end up going the lobbies route then the split problem is going to be a issue even if the playerbase is still large.

 

On top of that personally speaking I just don't think an instanced map addition would be interesting at all. Mexico, or a new area, being added to the current map would give it all the benefits of having it placed on the current map + the experience of being able to ride to and from there. Just a whole lot better for immersion and sh*t.

[mykro_ix]

On 5/20/2019 at 1:57 PM, ivarblaauw said:

I have created a map to show what regions we know of (lore wise) and the boundaries in place. All locations featured in the map are already in the game in one way or the other. 

- The High Plains are located north of New Austin and has the same climate as the Great Plains (according to the Legendary maps in RDRII). 
- East Elizabeth (name not certain), features southern plains, and has the same climate as the Heartlands.

- Nuevo Paraiso, I added the fourth region, which is featured between East Elizabeth (again name not certain) and Diez Corona.

- New Austin, features a fourth region, based on leaks and lore wise. This would be the location of the infamous Canyon City. 

- Northern Grizzlies features well... a huge valley, Native territory and some mountainous canyons.

- Grizzlies, I have redrawn the borders, since there have been cut significant regions. As you can see Ambarino is significantly larger in the north west, while West Elizabeth gains an entire mountainous region (The Redemption Mountains). Ambarino now features the Avalanche valley and the Glaciers, cut from our exploration by a few boulders... 

 

 

For some speculation I added the locations from Red Dead Revolver to the new map:

This would mean that the High Plains and the unnamed region north of it would feature all of those regions, which fit perfectly. 

East Elizabeth features two locations, which have been mentioned, but never shown ingame.

Agreed, but we still can look at what they gave us, and what we can do with it We didn't get any map expansion in GTA Online, although Red Dead has a much higher chance due to it already being landlocked. 

Hello, ivarblaauw.

 

Any chance you could share in the same resolution the map without your additions? I'm looking for the best resolution map of RDR2 with the most minimal tampering (no treasure, no legendary animals, no vendors, etc... markings on it) and yours seems the closest one to that. As I would like to print and frame it, I would prefer it with only the official information (though I welcome all the official geographical detail even in the outside-of-map areas).

 

I realise this is a quite after the fact request a year later give or take but would really appreciate it if at all possible. Thank you very much.

[Kirk Lazarus]

I found them here awhile back ... sadly the link has expired though!