View Single Post
  #13  
Old 05-17-2010, 08:28 PM
Cubical Cubical is offline
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,348
Cubical has a brilliant futureCubical has a brilliant futureCubical has a brilliant futureCubical has a brilliant futureCubical has a brilliant futureCubical has a brilliant futureCubical has a brilliant future
Before I say anything else I'd just like to note that this is not a thread bashing larger overworlds but trying to figure out what the obsession is with them and the show the benefits of creating a smaller overworld. I see more pros than cons of creating a smaller overworld which is what compelled me to make this thread. Also I would like to figure out why no one has got a server with a small overworld to classic status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crono View Post
I agree with what you're saying, functionality over quantity is the way I look at it nowadays.

The simple answer is this: most LATs are clueless. I'm not gonna act perfect, I suck at overworlds. For a perfect example of what an overworld should be check out Atlantis (I think Crow did it).

There was a time when gmaps didn't exist and levels were actually made by hand. They weren't generated and thus less levels were filler and more served a purpose. Older servers were like this, even UN. UN's current size is due to the conversion to a gmap. This added a ton of useless filler levels that never needed to be there in the first place. This is not to say that these servers had great maps before, no, but the levels were more likely to be useful than a gmap filled for the sake of being filled.
Yes, with the level generator people create giant gmaps thinking that they have the time and patience to finish it all. the first 40 or 50 levels might be a decent or even good quality but after seeing how much more work is ahead of you it kind of starts killing any motivation you have of continuing and as your motivation dies so does the quality of your levels until you just put a halt on development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crono View Post
I think a lot of focus has always been placed on individual levels. To create a good map is very different, more difficult, and much more time consuming. That's why a lot of LATs, like me, suck at making overworlds but excel in individual/clumps of levels. The LATing community as a whole is kind of on stand still, if not going backwards. Good to see such threads.
Whenever I make a GMAP or any level for that matter, I always get a pen and paper and write down what content I want in it and then I proceed to draw out where it should be placed and how it should be presented which helps me keep from losing motivation when I find out I can't add something because I ran out of room. It also keeps me from having to make mundane filler levels. If more people were to plan what content they were putting where it would be much easier to keep mesh it together. That is just how I work, other people may have a different process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega001 View Post
But if you're trying to achieve the hosted section, I could see how a larger overworld might promote the image that your server has a great deal done and has plans for getting a great deal more done.
Having a great deal of content as well as having a great deal of pointless content isn't the same as having less pointless content and having the same amount of content. If anything, the time you spend making that pointless content you could be spending on making more content to entertain the players which in reality would mean a smaller overworld might actually have more content(playable content?) than a server that has spent more time on a bigger overworld. Not to mention a higher morale among the staff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega001 View Post
I can't say a whole lot on the issue about new players finding their way around. I exclusively play Unholy Nation and Zodiac and have for years; therefore, I know my way around those servers well enough. Any new player is going to have some trouble navigating around an overworld they're unfamiliar with. A smaller one would be easier to find one's way around, but signs could also help point people around, as can maps.
That's what a lot of developers don't get, just because the developer knows where everything is doesn't mean it's not going to take a new player weeks to figure out where/how to get to lets say Hotaru on Kingdoms. As for putting signs, it's also much harder to navigate players long distances on bigger overworlds because they have much more of a chance of taking a wrong turn or getting turned around. People who have experience playing Graal tend to retain information about where things are at because that is how it has always been. A developer just assumes we can get to where ever we are trying to go without an abundance of help. After a while of doing this players get used to thinking how the Developers think and just go the logical way. This also doesn't account for how much easier it would be to navigate players to new additions on a smaller overworld.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega001 View Post
A bit on the socialization aspect you mentioned. Yes, socialization is a big part of the Graal gaming experience. The problem you stated about large overworlds being non-conducive is ameliorated to some extent by the playerlist and PMs, as well as toguild messages, toall messages (do any servers still use these?), and chat systems that various servers have now implemented. They might not be the same as seeing what another player is doing and commenting in real time, but they do serve a big purpose in communication. Some servers have warping items to help players get around larger overworlds so that it isn't necessary to walk through so many levels (most of the time) to find someone to hang out with "in person".
Yes but half the gaming experience is actually experiencing it with other players. You may be able to chat with them from where ever you want but that just isn't the same as talking directly to the players avatar. Items to warp players may help them get back to places a bit quicker but it doesn't change the fact that all the development work that was put into levels between POINT A and POINT B have went to a total waste and players will only see them once or twice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega001 View Post
Finally, a bit on over-detailing levels. A couple times in your post you mentioned over-detailing blocking movement: "the over detailing of levels causes players to go around unnecessary obstacles" and "'...block the players everywhere'". What I believe this issue really boils down to is leveling style, which is the primary factor in all disputes about leveling. First, when I make (and "over-detail") my levels, I do not include many tiles that block player movement. Tiles that do this (hedges, fences, trees, mushrooms, small stones, rooshes, etc.) are kept off to the sides of a level or grouped together in areas throughout the level that players can easily see and navigate around. The tiles that would cause people to say my levels are over-detailed are completely passable. I also use cut bush tiles and underneath rock tiles much more often than I do the actual bush and rock (those that can be picked up) tiles.
It's true that (at least ideally) dirt paths should only exist to lead players from one area to another area (with some sort of content in both places). I personally dislike the more simple leveling styles I remember from playing Classic and prefer more interesting (less predictable) levels that I can explore or look at (especially when I and players like me idle). All the same, it is important for things in a level to be conducive to player movement and exploration, but remember that a great deal of what goes into a level is dependent upon the leveler's style.
I'm not just talking about tiles that block players, I'll use Zodiac for an example. I'm not trying to bash on Zodiacs levels in any way however it looks like someone just detailed a 10x10 square of tiles, cut it then right clicked to fill the level which causes it to look over detailed. I'm aware not all of Zodiacs levels are like that but I would prefer my levels be a little more calm than that as it's not as easy on the eyes. I attached two levels to show you what I mean. However I am aware this is personal preference I would more or less like to stick to the discussion about the size of overworlds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fowlplay4 View Post
When is the last time an overworld has been released? I wouldn't say that they're deprecated just that people really haven't been making over-worlds at all lately, and the last overworld I saw (Noct.) was pretty small.
When was the last classic server released? Overworlds are under development on UC servers all the time but I think they feel the need to have an extreme amount of levels to compensate for the size of the servers currently on the serverlist. I think there would be more UC servers that stand a chance of becoming classic if they were using a smaller overworld not just because it would take them less time to make but also because they wouldn't become burnt out as quick and they would probably have higher quality content than they would if they tried to stretch everything out over 2 or even 3 times as many levels.

edit: The levels attached is just personal preference of how I like my levels to look. I prefer the plain look to the random tile fill look.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled4.png
Views:	263
Size:	193.9 KB
ID:	51077   Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled3.png
Views:	275
Size:	127.2 KB
ID:	51078  
Reply With Quote