Why are small minimalist overworlds deprecated?

[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.