Why are small minimalist overworlds deprecated?

[Bell]

Originally Posted by WanDaMan

The last time I checked you only need 100 levels to get a server online providing it were full of content for players not to get bored. You could easilly manipulate this to your favor, for example; make the overworld an island, add a forest and a snow town on a large cliff. That would probably leave you with about 60 levels left to detail and add content.

I believe my mistake is that I decided to do overworlds as a way to show my portfolio to build on my reputation and not at all taking in to consideration of the players when I first started thus resulting in my work never being released to the community. The quality of the levels is there in the levels but like a lot of you guys have said - there just isn't a point to them. The best advice I can give anyone is to just plan everything before you start developing. I learnt my lesson the hard way; here's a snapshot of VS:C' when I first started developing it : http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/a...9&d=1116097048. I had no idea what I wanted to achieve and eventually I ended up with this (SEE ATTACHED). Now whenever I'm developing I'm taking into consideration the players and what they will do!

Curious where you got the whole idea of 100 levels. I don't recall there ever being anything said with that much specificity.

[Spark910]

Originally Posted by Bell

Curious where you got the whole idea of 100 levels. I don't recall there ever being anything said with that much specificity.

I seem to remember some old rules listing specific numbers of outside levels at about the time I joined PWA, whenever that was (2003-2004?).

[scooter123]

Implement something on a server that leads players back to old areas, like Dusty's back and forth item thing. Go back and forth from new and old areas. Old areas you could not get to without certain things?

[Cubical]

Typing on my phone and quoting doesn't want to work for some reason so bear with me and just. Look back a few post.

@scooter123: That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Kind on topic, I'm working on a 12x12 overworld in my spare time attempting to apply everything I mentioned in this thread in it. I currently don't have internet once again so I can't get a copy of dustys clean pics1 and have only got the outline of all the main parts done until I can get more tiles. Ill take a picture on my phone and post it when I get a chance.

@WhiteDragon: that's kinda what I meant but kinda not.

@Dusty: I'm not implying that big overworlds are bad but I think smaller overworlds are much more logical not only from a developeras stand point but from a players.

[scooter123]

Smaller or big overworlds. It's the lack of planning for a big overworld. A small overworld is simpler because staff will not get bored, stop and can get it done in a quicker time. When it is a big overworld the staff think it will be easy, but once they get a few levels done they realize how long it will take and do not plan it out at all.

[Dnegel]

Originally Posted by scooter123

Smaller or big overworlds. It's the lack of planning for a big overworld. A small overworld is simpler because staff will not get bored, stop and can get it done in a quicker time. When it is a big overworld the staff think it will be easy, but once they get a few levels done they realize how long it will take and do not plan it out at all.

qft

Yeah, many people that make big overworlds mostly dont know how hard it is.

[fowlplay4]

Originally Posted by scooter123

It's the lack of planning

This is why any size of overworld (or any kind of development really) will fail or fall short of what it could be.