Legion Map Comparison

[TheFirstOnes]

So...Legion's the third smallest...

Yet, it's the most fun for me....

...Cool.

[Orby]

I always assumed WoD was pretty huge, I mean it felt that way too.

As for Legion are we taking into account the height of content, now days especially since Cata zones scale upwards as well as across, meaning more levels, where as in Vanilla and TBC , zones were pretty flat.

Not maikng any excuses Legion does indeed feel small, but then again its the Broken Isles, the key words being 'Isles' so I al;ways expected it to be smaller. :P

Also very good post @megasus

[Marston]

I always assumed WoD was pretty huge, I mean it felt that way too.

As for Legion are we taking into account the height of content, now days especially since Cata zones scale upwards as well as across, meaning more levels, where as in Vanilla and TBC , zones were pretty flat.

That's an interesting point. Just looking at Highmountain, there are so many caves to enter into the mountain which you also traverse from the outside. It may not be much, because old zones also had caves, but not this many or often at parts where you could only enter the cave and not the area above it.

What Legion also does, it reuses many old areas for quests, especially during the Artifact and Class questline. While we had this to some degree before, there is so much content that takes place in old zones and sometimes in new areas in old zones (the cave under Tirisfal for the Shadow Priest artifact for example), all those things are missing from these raw numbers.

We also effectivly have the whole continent as a max level zone, which never happened before. I am pretty sure zones would be at least a bit bigger if Blizzard would have been forced to add specific max level only areas to all zones again, like they did in MoP and WoD.

[Utigarde]

Guess the new stuff just shows that size isn't everything. gnome master race

[Schizoide]

I don't think that map size necessarily correlates to quality of the content within, but I thank the OP for presenting these, as they were very interesting and well-done.

Yes, raw size has nothing to do with quality or density of content contained within that area. And I don't think the OP said otherwise. I read his post, nodded with "that's interesting", and then proceeded to read 5 pages of ridiculous people contesting an easily provable fact. Sigh, WoW forums.

[Jervaise]

The highlight of the entire thread so far was "I'll believe Blizzard over Photoshop".

The amount of ignorance, prejudice and incompetence in that sentence is mind boggling.

Great work OP, it is very interesting to see the comparison you provided.

A question, do you think instanced areas should also be included in these comparisons?

-In legion, a couple dungeons - such as EoA and Seat - use the non-instanced counterparts almost in a 1:1 ratio.

-On the other hand, there are dungeons/raids in all expansions that flat out add new areas to explore.
(Firelands is an example - the world map representation is non-existent for that instance.)

[FelPlague]

Updated for 7.3.
Please remember that the new calculations are based on PTR Data. The Maps will probably change a bit in future builds.

-snip-

Do you plan to do a BFA one? Also question, have you tried to make a legion one that counts the order halls? cause those could eassily make a whole zone on their own.

[keroblade]

Updated for 7.3.
Please remember that the new calculations are based on PTR Data. The Maps will probably change a bit in future builds.

Just wondering if you have done, or are planning to, make a map comparison of the BfA zones like you did for all the others? I'm curious how the size of the continents stack up, as I'm sure others are too! :P

Thanks for your time either way!