Why are small minimalist overworlds deprecated?

[Cubical]

I have always liked overworlds that were simple and small and I really don't know why they aren't being taken advantage of more often. Not just that but the over detailing of levels causes players to go around unnecessary obstacles. It seems like everyone wants to have a huge overworld even through it is extremely unnecessary for a wide variety of reasons.

• Lack of social interaction
  This is one of the main problems with some of the current servers, they are just so big you have to go way out of your way to interact with someone when you could just walk a level over and do the same thing on a smaller world. In my opinion Graal is more about social interaction than anything else and having a huge gmap hinders your ability to constantly interact with the player base.
• Unnecessary development work
  Another thing that makes getting a UC server off the ground so much more difficult. Nobody wants to go and detail 1024 levels on a server that they are not even sure will get off the ground. I know a lot of people worry about running out of space for the content they want to add in the future but aving a smaller overworld doesn't mean it will keep you from adding new content. If anything it just means you can think of new and unique ways to connect it to the overworld. For example you could have a cave system that is a 25 level gmap to expand your server to include more things for a player to do. However if you did that those levels should follow the same guidelines as my next point. Your overworld should follow my next point as well.
• Pointless content
  This sort of goes hand in hand with my previous point and my next point. I personally think there should never be any content/level that has no purpose. If I wanted to walk around aimlessly all day and look at pointless content, I'd go play wow and waste 16 hours exploring random towns that have little to no point. I'd like to reiterate what I said about graal being a social game and this totally contradicts that in so many ways. Pointless content draws the players away from the other players in not only travel time but the time it takes them to find what they are looking for. There's no need to have 500 levels of water and make them walk around in circles on a cliff to get to the top just to realize 'Hey, this house on top of this mountain that I spent 20 minutes climbing has absolutely no purpose.'
• Much harder for newer players
  I would like to use Graal Kingdoms(although zodiac has same some of the same problems) as an example of how hard it is for new players to actually remember how they got somewhere. I cannot remember how many times I have had to show the same people the exact same places on Kingdoms. The overworld is huge and not to mention 98% of the levels are just grass and trees. It's extremely daunting to players when they have spent an majority of their day roaming around in the same spots only to find out that they were right next to where they needed to go the whole time. It's not like you see other players on the overworld and can be like 'Hey! Could you tell me which way bomboria is?' The most common problem with friends that I have tried to get to play graal is they are just so lost while playing it they can't have fun.

These are just a few of the reasons a smaller overworld can be better and cause not just your player base but your development staff to be more content while playing/developing.

Now on to the second part of my question and reasons why it's ridiculous, over detailing of levels. I don't know why everyone feels a need to throw random grass indentations or raise the grass in every level, make dirt paths that go absolutely nowhere, a bunch of random tiles to fill up blank areas. This sorta coincides with the point I made about Pointless Content. Sure you can't just leave the level blank but you shouldn't fill it up 5000 tiles, maybe a few things of tall grass here, a rock, a few bushes. I have the same problem when it comes to making levels but I have been trying to stray away from it. I personally think classic has an overworld that is easier on the eyes than anyone currently in existence. I think more developers should take after how classic levels were designed and ditch the whole 'lets make a level and throw cliffs and jagged paths and things to block the players everywhere.' Ok, enough about this because I'm sure this whole section has been covered multiple times by multiple people.

Now for my original question. Why are small minimalist overworlds deprecated? Could anyone explain why a 10x10 overworld with simple level detail tends to be looked down upon. I have a feeling that even if the overworld was one of the prettiest things on graal that It would be denied for classic status just for it's size and lack of level detail. What I don't think everyone understands is we don't have 1000 people on each server so why create 4000 pointless levels?

[Crono]

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.

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.

[Fulg0reSama]

Personally, The development community itself for graal is at a halt itself. I also agree with you cubical.

[dNeonb]

What can I say.. agreed!

Originally Posted by Crono

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).

Thank you for the flowers. It's been a few month and we tryed to bring Atlantis back. One of our ideas was to keep it small and simple but with lots of content and quests. If I remember right Crono and Lena worked on the overworld.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by dNeonb

If I remember right Crono and Lena worked on the overworld.

You mean Crow?

[dNeonb]

Originally Posted by Crono

You mean Crow?

Yea, of course, sorry

[DrakilorP2P]

I agree completely with everything you just said Cubical.

[Vega001]

Hi, you sent me a link to your post in a PM so I figured I would go ahead and provide some feedback. I am replying to your post as a leveler that is sure some people accuse him of overdetailing and as an experienced player that has been playing Graal for years.

I believe a major reason people might prefer a larger overworld to a smaller one is that they associate a larger overworld with more (or more capacity for) content. It's logical for people to think that a big place has more room for stuff to put in it.

Obviously, more room does mean more stuff to put in, but most people know that just because the overworld is big doesn't necessarily mean there is or will be a lot of content in it. You already mentioned ways a small overworld could be added to to introduce more content.

I think your arguments promoting a small overworld are pretty valid. Especially for an under construction server when development work is the most important aspect, and taking on developing a large overworld might not be the best move. 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.

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.

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".

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.

Hopefully you find my feedback useful in your wondering. If you have any questions about things I mentioned, feel free to contact me.

[Seeya]

I agree.

[King homer daStupid]

I couldn't agree more, I would hate to make 100 levels when I know for certain that players will only cluster around 2 or 3 of the levels.

But I do enjoy exploring big maps, so I guess large overworlds can be justified in that sense (aslong the exploration isn't meaningless!).

Perhaps it's an issue of ego, a "my sword is bigger than yours" kind of thing...

[fowlplay4]

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.

[DustyPorViva]

Meeeeh, I've argued this so many times, and it can be such a lengthy argument

edit: Okay, time to elaborate.

First off, smaller overworlds will not be a breeding ground for social interaction. People will always clump in specific levels regardless of how small the overworld is. Look at UN. People are always at Town Center. That has nothing to do with the size of the overworld. You could crop UN down to just Town Center as their whole overworld and people would still be clumped outside of OSL, thus the rest of TC is equally as 'useless' as the rest of the overworld.

However, like I said I've argued this a lot so I'm going to simplify things:

Making an overworld small is not going to magically fix the problems you mentioned. It has nothing to do with the size or content of the overworld but the attitude of the developers. The only way a large overworld would be a waste is if it was poorly planned and executed... and surprise, that's exactly what happens! UN's overworld isn't what I'd consider huge, but it's a ****ing maze to navigate through and mostly empty/unfinished. You can't just go from one town to the other, most of the time you'll end up at a dead end. Most UC servers will start with a huge overworld, simply with the intention of 'wowing' players with the size. They'll never have the manpower to fill it.

There are countless other examples that back up what you say, but I don't agree with the real problem being the size of the overworld, but the developers behind them. I'm not condoning 50x50 gmaps and such, but I'm against the idea that overworlds should be a max 10x10 because people think it will magically make the server better. Better planning and execution will make the overworlds and servers better.

[Cubical]

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.

Originally Posted by Crono

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.

Originally Posted by Crono

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.

Originally Posted by Vega001

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.

Originally Posted by Vega001

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.

Originally Posted by Vega001

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.

Originally Posted by Vega001

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.

Originally Posted by fowlplay4

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.

[Vega001]

Originally Posted by Cubical

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.

I don't think I completely understand what you're trying to say here. You seem to be directly associating large overworlds with pointless content. The fact remains that the more levels there are in an overworld the more places you can exclusively put content. Sure you could fit the same amount of content into a smaller overworld, but then you might have to put content for multiple, different things in the same place, which might not bode well for gameplay. I can't imagine any content that is designed to be pointless. I believe whenever someone develops something to add to a server, it is because he or she genuinely believes players to find it interesting and entertaining. It is up to each and every player to decide for themselves whether content is or is not pointless.

Originally Posted by Cubical

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.

A developer would not need signs to navigate around an overworld because they would (should) know where everything is. Ergo, the purpose of putting signs in an overworld would be to help players find their way around. Any decent developer would know to put signs at forks and turns in paths, so players shouldn't get lost at those places. Furthermore, it is my belief that any player that seriously wants to learn how to navigate a new overworld would try to remember how they arrived at where they are and would consult their map (that most servers have). On a server like Zodiac, where new players are constantly traveling to a dungeon, dying, and traveling there again, I don't think remembering how you got somewhere is as problematic an issue as you claim it to be.

Originally Posted by Cubical

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.

To my knowledge, most servers (and most other games) that enable warping to locations require a player to have visited those places before. The purpose of warping is to enable players to travel to a location of importance quickly. While you are right that, under normal circumstances, the levels between points A and B would be wasted because of the warping, I believe there is a significant fact you are overlooking. A lot of content is not located directly next to (or even in the same level as) a warp location. Instead, players often have to travel through other, nearby levels to get to the content. This would mean at least some of the levels that you mentioned would be wasted, would actually not be wasted. Moreover, many levels on an overworld like Unholy Nation's are host to playerhouses. The players that own these houses most likely would not consider the levels that contain them to be wasted.

Originally Posted by Cubical

However I am aware this is personal preference I would more or less like to stick to the discussion about the size of overworlds.

Your original post contained questions about the over-detailing of levels, but if you want the discussion to focus on overworld size then I'll refrain from discussing the leveling issue further. I have more to say on the issue, so if you would like to hear it, feel free to send me a PM via the message board.

[Cubical]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

First off, smaller overworlds will not be a breeding ground for social interaction. People will always clump in specific levels regardless of how small the overworld is. Look at UN. People are always at Town Center. That has nothing to do with the size of the overworld. You could crop UN down to just Town Center as their whole overworld and people would still be clumped outside of OSL, thus the rest of TC is equally as 'useless' as the rest of the overworld.

Yes, but people do tend to leave the area sometimes. If you know players will not be visiting a certain area what is the point of creating the levels? Just to cause the players be further away from other players and walk further? possibly it's just to make the developer pull out his hair. I know I log on UN and see people all over the overworld whether they are PKing new players that are trying to quest or just going having a guild vs guild pk fest. If you were to make the world smaller more guilds may be inclined to join in on the festivities or just random players.

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

However, like I said I've argued this a lot so I'm going to simplify things:

Making an overworld small is not going to magically fix the problems you mentioned. It has nothing to do with the size or content of the overworld but the attitude of the developers. The only way a large overworld would be a waste is if it was poorly planned and executed... and surprise, that's exactly what happens! UN's overworld isn't what I'd consider huge, but it's a ****ing maze to navigate through and mostly empty/unfinished. You can't just go from one town to the other, most of the time you'll end up at a dead end. Most UC servers will start with a huge overworld, simply with the intention of 'wowing' players with the size. They'll never have the manpower to fill it.

There are countless other examples that back up what you say, but I don't agree with the real problem being the size of the overworld, but the developers behind them. I'm not condoning 50x50 gmaps and such, but I'm against the idea that overworlds should be a max 10x10 because people think it will magically make the server better. Better planning and execution will make the overworlds and servers better.

I'm not saying that it will fix all the problems by itself, it would require other things to draw the players out of their idling spots. Lets use your example from the recent thread you posted about your project.

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

To close, there is a lot I just can't put into words. The amount of planning I had put into, ideas that were never brought to live(thus screenshots or videos can never show). For example, I had planned to turn the quest for Graal's into a huge interactive quest for all players to get involved. It involved exploring and finding the four hard-to-find shrines. Each would have a large Guardian that you had to defeat to claim the Graal. Each color guard(for each color Graal) had various strengths and weaknesses. The Graal's weren't clientside. Only one person could hold a Graal at a time. Eventually after all four Graal's were claimed you could return them to a large Shrine that would make an island raise out of the ocean that lead to the Golden Realm. Any player could enter it then, and it would stay raised for a few hours, or days.

I'm saying that if you give the players something to do on a smaller overworld they would be more inclined to walk over a level or two to participate than they would if they had to travel 20 levels. Lets use kingdoms for an example, I never participate in events that happen on the overworld just for the sole fact I have to walk then walk back which takes ages. Although if there is an event warp to something like lets say a spar that will put me back to where I was or close to it I always join. Don't mistake what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying you couldn't achieve the same thing with a big overworld. With that being said, walking 3 or 4 levels is alot different than walk 10-20 to participate in something. I'm also not saying that bigger overworlds don't have their place on servers but if you see players doing something close by you're more likely to join in than you would be if they were doing it like 15 levels away.

As for it being easier on the development staff, it is and it would probably cause your staff to create higher quality work because

1. They know their work will be being actively viewed by players
2. They are volunteers and do not want to spend countless hours doing unpaid work.
3. They don't want there work to just be a filler

With that being said it seems as if there are more advantages not just development wise but player wise in having a small overworld.

Originally Posted by Vega001

I don't think I completely understand what you're trying to say here. You seem to be directly associating large overworlds with pointless content. The fact remains that the more levels there are in an overworld the more places you can exclusively put content. Sure you could fit the same amount of content into a smaller overworld, but then you might have to put content for multiple, different things in the same place, which might not bode well for gameplay. I can't imagine any content that is designed to be pointless. I believe whenever someone develops something to add to a server, it is because he or she genuinely believes players to find it interesting and entertaining. It is up to each and every player to decide for themselves whether content is or is not pointless.

You aren't limited to your overworld when adding content, there are countless ways to expand the area that gameplay can take place. Take Shangra la for example if you remember it. They had multiple small overworlds which expanded gameplay and you could access them through areas on the overworld however they were sort of like how aeon is where certain place you could only use guns and such but I'm sure you get the point i'm trying to make. As for pointless content, I'm talking about filler levels that are not just a hassle for developers but players. I know when I'm playing I don't want to walk 15 levels around a mountain just to get 1 level above me.

Originally Posted by Vega001

A developer would not need signs to navigate around an overworld because they would (should) know where everything is. Ergo, the purpose of putting signs in an overworld would be to help players find their way around. Any decent developer would know to put signs at forks and turns in paths, so players shouldn't get lost at those places. Furthermore, it is my belief that any player that seriously wants to learn how to navigate a new overworld would try to remember how they arrived at where they are and would consult their map (that most servers have). On a server like Zodiac, where new players are constantly traveling to a dungeon, dying, and traveling there again, I don't think remembering how you got somewhere is as problematic an issue as you claim it to be.

It is more of a problem than you may think, trying to figure out where to go is so daunting to new players which has been what turned almost every player away from graal that I have tried to introduce. It's not only me I'm sure other people have that exact same problems when showing their friends how to play.

Originally Posted by Vega001

To my knowledge, most servers (and most other games) that enable warping to locations require a player to have visited those places before. The purpose of warping is to enable players to travel to a location of importance quickly. While you are right that, under normal circumstances, the levels between points A and B would be wasted because of the warping, I believe there is a significant fact you are overlooking. A lot of content is not located directly next to (or even in the same level as) a warp location. Instead, players often have to travel through other, nearby levels to get to the content. This would mean at least some of the levels that you mentioned would be wasted, would actually not be wasted. Moreover, many levels on an overworld like Unholy Nation's are host to playerhouses. The players that own these houses most likely would not consider the levels that contain them to be wasted.

The levels that have player houses on them are obviously not pointless because they serve a purpose. People are lazy, it's a known fact that players do not want to go far out of their way to do something and if it comes down to it they just won't do it at all. While you are right about people walking past levels but what's the point of adding 4x4 levels of just trees that players have to walk all the way around to get to something on the other side. I can understand making players go out of their way for quest but general gameplay shouldn't require people to jump through hoops to do something simple.

I sort of lost track of what I was talking about in half of those comments I just made because I'm talking to a friend on the phone before I leave but hopefully it doesn't confuse anyone. If there is any confusion please let me know.

[papajchris]

i personally enjoy large gmaps for the sole purpose of exploration. What i use to love about GK was that me and my friends could jump on a boat and go to other islands, where I have never ever been and have fun. I know small gmaps can achieve this in other ways, but it requires more work

[FaLLChiLD]

I agree for the most part, especially if you look at it from a UC standpoint (plus the lack of developers across all specialties). You can always go back and add more to an overworld needed to fit gameplay content as you go.

[Seeya]

Originally Posted by papajchris

i personally enjoy large gmaps for the sole purpose of exploration. What i use to love about GK was that me and my friends could jump on a boat and go to other islands, where I have never ever been and have fun. I know small gmaps can achieve this in other ways, but it requires more work

The spark of GK, only someone with open eyes can enjoy it

[elite_master]

I sort of scrolled to the bottom after reading a little bit of your posts. But its this simple. How many of you stick to one area on your favorite server? All of us. The only reason we leave these areas is to go to a certain spot we need to, and come back to the main location (Unstick, Bomboria, Spar, Event Lounge, etc). So yes I agree keeping a playerworld small in one area is a good. Although I dont think it really affects playercount or decides wether or not someone will play the server or not, you know what I mean?

[Bell]

Dare I say it? Size doesn't matter. Content and playability does. This is why no UC server, large or small has made it to Classic status in a long time. They have a hard enough time producing enough playable content to stay on Hosted.

I personally don't care how many levels a server has, I rarely spend the time to explore each individual level while inspecting. I want to see if a player can log on and play the game without getting annoyingly frustrated in the first 5 minutes over bugs, broken npcs and an inability to figure out what to even do.

I also don't want to see a carbon copy of another server out there. If the first server is struggling to survive what makes people think a clone will do any better.

[Spark910]

I prefer small worlds on Graal. However, I remember playing a PS2 online MMORPG and it was great to 'explore' the world. That had a lot of pointless space, but it made up for it with purposeful locations dotted around, however that worked better being 3D allowing you to see on the horizon!

But generally I would agree a smaller overworld would be my preference.

[Switch]

Having overworld sections that go together would look so much better. For example separate towns with wilderness areas, normal areas from spooky areas, and those from icy areas, from lava areas, etc. Use caves more in combination of walking through forests, etc.

[Lord Sephiroth]

I guess it depends what you're going for, really. As Graal has evolved I've noticed that a lot of developers, myself included, are aiming for realism over functionality, and hoping to fit enough content into their miniature world to make them not seem like "wasted space". At least, that's the effort I've been putting in. I never liked how you could be in one level, a grassy town, then if you go Left a level, Up a Level, then Left a level, you're in some snowy castle.

Graal back in its day was simpler and as Crono said, with the introduction of gmaps, developers have almost been forced to favor a more realsitic image.

[adam]

Disable any kind of map. And have that be ok.

[Rave_J]

I see what u mean if gmaps were small u have to pack the content like era when they first release it was small gmap but now days if u dnt have alot of content pwa will just say not enough content an have to add so people make alot of content if i was doing a over world i would make seperate gmaps of just the towns an between each town then script it to connect it all i actually have a server that was made in 99 that had 13 towns an level 6 sword my brother an his friend made it

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Lord Sephiroth

Graal back in its day was simpler and as Crono said, with the introduction of gmaps, developers have almost been forced to favor a more realsitic image.

I wouldn't say realistic, more like filler. Most gmaps contain a lot of useless filler levels that promote being lazy and creating useless levels. I personally much prefer the old style, and have yet to get around to making a proper map level by level.

[Lord Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Crono

I wouldn't say realistic, more like filler. Most gmaps contain a lot of useless filler levels that promote being lazy and creating useless levels. I personally much prefer the old style, and have yet to get around to making a proper map level by level.

What I mean by realistic is that things have to have a certain point, or rather, the filler levels are the ways of getting to different parts.

Like I said in my example, a grassy town is not gonna be right beside a snowy land castle. Not in todays Graal. Back then it could pass but if you compare level design today to 10 years ago, it doesn't even look like the same game.

The state of "realism" I'm talking about is more like, if theres snowy land, it's probably up on a mountain, or up north somewhere, and that forces people to create a bunch of empty levels to get from point A to point B. Talented LAT's are able to fill these voids, but most, myself included, often find it difficult to stay the course and find the motivation for such daunting tasks.

[Bell]

As Stefan so wisely said, "There is a point to everything." Gmap generators were made to help developers rapidly make an overworld. That does not mean that you then don't go back over those levels and personalize them for your server. A solid forest may separate two towns but you may go through and carve a small winding path to lead you to that town for example. Maybe add a few hidden nooks to sit and chat in. While there is always the central core of a server, many people prefer to find some far away spot to sit and idle now and then.

The PWA does not deny a server based on its size. The problem usually lies in the development of that area. We've had applicants try to use a completed overworld filled with blocked and empty buildings. They might add fishing or mining to fill the "play for an hour or two" requirement but whats to keep players coming back? If there are no quests, no jobs, nothing to explore, would you come back? I doubt that.

Most times when I've turned down a server I've asked the staff to do one simple thing. Reset yourself and go onto your server pretending to be a noob. You know nothing about the server other than what you can see and do. See if you actually find the server fun to be on. We don't care if its 'realistic' or not, its a game.

We cannot turn back time to what once was. We can use what we have though and make a new way of life. I could go on but I will save you the pain of a wall of text. I think you get my point.

[Crono]

Bell my point about gmaps isn't that I'm against them. It's that 3/4 of the levels are fillers which serve no purpose. They're more like unnecessary obstacles.

[fowlplay4]

Originally Posted by Crono

Bell my point about gmaps isn't that I'm against them. It's that 3/4 of the levels are fillers which serve no purpose. They're more like unnecessary obstacles.

and places to hide invisible proximity-based NPCs.

[Cubical]

A few filler levels aren't a problem, there is a problem with servers like GK where 98% of the overworld go unused by players and 90% of that 98% isn't even used for anything. Not just because all that content took ages to develop, or that all that content was developed without any plans of putting anything there but that work could have been put into creating other content that would stand a purpose and occupy some more of the players time. A lot of levels on servers with Classic status have absolutely no reason for players to visit them more than once and that's just to see what is in that house.

If kingdoms were to be made by say Dusty or just some random person, it would have never made it past hosted in the state it is currently in with the type of content it has right now. Although I'm sure Dusty would have done quite a bit better of a job with the server I was just throwing a name out there of a good developer. The only thing that kept me playing GK for thousands of hours was the allure of trading. If I had had to actually pay for my gold I would have stopped after my first 3 months ran out. GK has close to no content and everything could be downsized. I can almost guarantee the player count would rise if it were to make everything a bit closer than it is right now.

[Bell]

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for gmaps myself. My point is that we have to live with them so its up to us to figure out a way to work around the problem and utilize them to the best of our ability.

All servers that have been around since pre gmap eras seem to have the same problem. Too many years of various developers adding their own things to make it 'their' server which in the end results in a cluster..mess of broken or useless stuff. That doesn't mean that the server should just be summarily trashed though.

[Cubical]

Originally Posted by Bell

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for gmaps myself. My point is that we have to live with them so its up to us to figure out a way to work around the problem and utilize them to the best of our ability.

All servers that have been around since pre gmap eras seem to have the same problem. Too many years of various developers adding their own things to make it 'their' server which in the end results in a cluster..mess of broken or useless stuff. That doesn't mean that the server should just be summarily trashed though.

The way I look at things is, developers need to not waste their time making levels like 'Alfonso's House' which has nothing in it except for an npc that says 'Hey, my name is Alfonso and I have lived in this house for 99 graal years'. In the time it took them to create that level they could have put a part of the servers storyline into that level to draw players constantly to it. Better yet, they could turn 'Alfonso's House' into 'Alfonso's Shop' and have it sell a random weapon that is chosen each day from a list. You want to expose as much content as possible to the players even if your server has a 10x10 overworld and another server has a 30x30 with every level filled, you have more of a chance keeping players when they have a reason to go back to content more than once or twice which is a waste.You could have spent half the time you spent filling out that overworld making random stuff and put it into a few awesome pieces of content that players would enjoy over and over.

Edit: bigmap.txt also worked similar to gmaps but I guess people just couldn't figure out how to use it.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Cubical

The way I look at things is, developers need to not waste their time making levels like 'Alfonso's House' which has nothing in it except for an npc that says 'Hey, my name is Alfonso and I have lived in this house for 99 graal years'. In the time it took them to create that level they could have put a part of the servers storyline into that level to draw players constantly to it. Better yet, they could turn 'Alfonso's House' into 'Alfonso's Shop' and have it sell a random weapon that is chosen each day from a list. You want to expose as much content as possible to the players even if your server has a 10x10 overworld and another server has a 30x30 with every level filled, you have more of a chance keeping players when they have a reason to go back to content more than once or twice which is a waste.You could have spent half the time you spent filling out that overworld making random stuff and put it into a few awesome pieces of content that players would enjoy over and over.

Edit: bigmap.txt also worked similar to gmaps but I guess people just couldn't figure out how to use it.

I think developers build personal houses because its the only way they have of putting their signature on that server. I do completely agree with your logic in all this though.

I don't think that an inability to use bigmap.txt was that much of a problem. I just feel that in Stefans vision of Graal, gmaps were the next phase of the project to replace them.

[DeCeaseD]

Answer to the question in this thread: Most Graalians lack the imagination to actually create something small but useful. Instead they make huge over worlds so they don't have to worry about making things useful, so in turn they can just randomly place things and label them as they go. "Oh, an unused house? Well that's simple, make it into someones apartment!".

[Bell]

Originally Posted by DeCeaseD

Answer to the question in this thread: Most Graalians lack the imagination to actually create something small but useful. Instead they make huge over worlds so they don't have to worry about making things useful, so in turn they can just randomly place things and label them as they go. "Oh, an unused house? Well that's simple, make it into someones apartment!".

Then I expect to see a nicely tiled, finished interior, not a blocked door!

[Lord Sephiroth]

You'll have to forgive Crono every time he's given a gmap he fills in the empty levels with MASSIVE CLIFFS that just piss off the people that have to work with it. =p

[DeCeaseD]

Originally Posted by Bell

Then I expect to see a nicely tiled, finished interior, not a blocked door!

Well that would be another problem with these big bulky maps, is that they end up flooding themselves with so much useless work that they can't finish the work they put upon themselves.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by lord sephiroth

you'll have to forgive crono every time he's given a gmap he fills in the empty levels with massive cliffs that just piss off the people that have to work with it. =p

THAT WAS LIKE 4 YEARS AGO AND ONLY ON BABYLON OK? caps

[Bell]

Originally Posted by DeCeaseD

Well that would be another problem with these big bulky maps, is that they end up flooding themselves with so much useless work that they can't finish the work they put upon themselves.

Hence why I believe that if someone is going to use a level generator they should make a map that they can actually manage. Its far simpler to expand later than it is to come up with ideas as to how to fill a massive map first thing.