Poll: Levels links
 

Right now (on Ruins), all levels are linked by custom npcs with a set area of effect (link width and height) coordinates of course, and also a black fade in/out effect.
All levels are made seperately then linked with that npc, but they all remain quite "alone", which means everytime you get warped to another level, you will have that little effect. It can get annoying, eventualy, for some of you. There's also that problem from the full screen, showing the blackness around the level (only sides) depending on your resolution.

So my question is, would you rather keep it like it is now, or would you prefer to have a real map with all levels linked everywhere (like an actual gmap) and only warping effects when you go into another level that is not on the map (insides, caves, dungeons, etc..)

Well? That's up to you! Vote now.

Option 1: Keep it how it is! fade in/out effects everywhere and cute single levels where the action takes place!

Option 2: Make a gmap and don't use the fade in/out effects outside, don't restrict the players to view one level at a time!

definitely option 2.

Option 2. Most players will have a high enough resolution to see the blackness around the levels.

Yeah but that's really the only negative thing about it, keeping levels seperated allows me and my staff to focus on what happens in each, link everything correctly and make realistic map, saving time by not detailling useless places. It's also easier to organize in the file browser, I've created multiple subfolders for levels, such as roads, dungeons, cities, caves and insides.

All levels are also by then detailled with heart, which makes them all really unique and lovely. A lot of time is spent on each of them!

Quitter's talk. You can make nice levels without having them all individual.

bahahaha

Hmm, It's up to you Soala. Do what feels right.

Seeing this post makes me realize, i wonder if it's even appropriate for graal to scale up by showing more levels instead of scaling all the gfx up.

we need an option to like post on the forums

A gmap != automatically bad. The whole idea that a gmap means you won't pay attention to the levels is... well, an insult to yourself. If you want quality levels, make quality levels. A gmap isn't going to stop you from making nice levels, only you can.

Also, transitions are nice if done right. Slow transitions that do nothing but make it annoying to go in and out are bad. Most games pull it off because there are rarely times the player goes inside(for example there were only a handful of houses in Zelda 3). However on a game like Graal where you're most likely to find plenty to towns/houses, it can be annoying. Make it quick and swift and make sure there's an option to turn off transitions.

That's plenty of nice solutions to think about, thanks!

gmap but dont make them like full overworld. different areas should have different gmaps. imo

That could be very cool, I've never seen a server do this.

I am going to use Link to the Past for this example, but imagine using transitions on that game for different locations. You enter Misery Mire's GMAP and it has a unique little transition effect, and the location name pops up on the screen. You enter Kakariko Village and there is a transition for that too.

Maybe you can use the GMAPs but have a custom M option that will bring up the whole overworld map which you can zoom to your specific location and bring up the GMAP for that location.

But I don't know how hard this stuff is to make, I just make the levels lol.

max that's pretty much what im thinking. that way you dont have to worry about overworld filler levels and just filler levels in general. all of the levels would then have a purpose and no levels would have to be made just to have something in between two cities etc

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Crono's idea.

That said, I've never been on the server. If travel by foot isn't needed, for whatever reason, then I say keep the levels the way they are. But, if the player has to frequently go from level to level, then it's a pretty bad idea, and the novelty will wear off quick.

We were doing that on Maloria. I decided to drop that idea after it just felt like you were going from zone to zone doing the same things all over again. Since then I have new found respect for big GMAPs.

Small gmaps can be expanded on http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...hp?t=134259219 .
Although it might not directly apply to this thread, it still has some relevance.

Small GMAPs is a nice idea, I really have quite a lot of places that could be linked together and making GMAPs isn't that hard after all, and my subfolders can hold such things.

Now, a question pop'd in my mind: Is there any issue with having multiple gmaps? I've looked at my map, and for the whole server that would be about 20 of them, for all islands . Anything wrong unknown to my knowledge with having that much GMAPs?

Kingdoms Debug has 89 gmaps and around 90% of them are used on Graal Kingdoms so it shouldn't be a problem having over 20.

Here's another solution, taking the example of levels grouped in gmaps, some of them would still have blackness on sides since some roads are like 1x2 or 1x3.
Thing would be to make them eventualy bigger and show replicas of levels that are supposed to be aside, but still make the players have a little transition when they warp onto the real level that is on a gmap itself.

What about it? Would you mind seeing a level when you come next to it and have a transition to be really there, or not?

Depends on the transition, I guess I need to see it. I like the idea of having lot's of smaller gmaps. The whole massive continuous squareish overworld has been overdone ever since connecting levels like that has been possible.

Not. On Armageddon it happened as a bug, and was really annoying imo.

Found a workaround for the first island, no levels will be useless and there will be no annoying transitions just to reach a point you can see before getting really there.
I've also extended the cemetery and made it a gmap, which will give more levels for players to kill stuff at, and also allows me to finaly make that cemetery entrance, opening only at night ;)

http://i53.tinypic.com/2ce2c0w.jpg

You have two gmaps. Gmap 1(area 1) and gmap 2(area 2). However, attached to each of the edges of the gmaps is an identical area of the nearby gmap. When the player touches the link it warps them to the next gmap where they were positioned in the old level and pushes them into the gmap. Otherwise these intermediary levels can not be entered and are just for transitional show. If you want I could possibly put something together possibly to show it in action.

It ends up being more work than just cropping stuff into areas, but if you desire the "Zelda effect" this is probably your best route.

I'm open to such propositions, you can come and show me what you mean on Ruins whenever you have time.

seems like that could be a bit bizarre for handling other players/NPCs

Could easily be handled by making a copy of all the players/npcs into showimgs and hiding them once the transition is finished.

seems even more yuck

if I were to try to copy the odd dimensions of Link to the Past's overworld, I would do something like show images based on the level you're in to make it unlikely you'll see past the images to the next level - IE, where the lost woods are, just have tree top images extend over where they would be if viewed from a kakariko village level

With my idea in mind it would probably be identical to how transitions occurred in LttP. I can't think of another way to scroll between gmaps.

Take a printscreen of the current level before leaving it, and display it on the new level while moving it off screen.

Badass idea.


Soala: On this I was a little confused.. If anything make it so it shows the fading effect when entering inside levels, or when you walk into different rooms of those inside levels. Don't do it for the gmap, just the inside levels.

Two problems... the only way you can take a screenshot would be with the screenshot function. How would you get rid of the player himself? Also, showimg + large image = fail when it comes to clipping.

hideplayer(0.05); before executing the screenshot function.

Would work, but personally I think I'd be annoyed by the flicker, heh. And like I said, if it's not an NPC, Graal tends to hide larger images in a more than unreliable way. I'm not sure of the specifics, but meh, hope it works if it does go that route. It certainly does simplify things.

To be precise, Graal can't display images larger than 1024x1024, but you can easily avoid that by displaying 4x showimgparts.

Well I wasn't going at the size, actually... just that larger images have sensitive clipping boxes, thus are more likely to be hidden when they shouldn't be. I had this problem when I was using blackness to cover over rooms, and I had to convert them to NPCs.