
10-17-2009, 06:35 AM
|
Will work for food. Maybe
|
 |
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 9,589
|
|
I never agree with the whole, "you shouldn't have a large overworld because all the levels won't be occupied by players!" approach. That's a bit silly, no? I'm not saying fill an overworld with fluff and pointless levels, but if a level has served its purpose, even once, then I think it justifies its place on the overworld. Just because a level isn't seeing player activity every day doesn't mean it's pointless. Online worlds will always be like that -- a few levels will get the majority of player activity and the others will serve their purpose once and only once. That doesn't mean they're useless, though. If you're going to make an overworld for the sole purpose of trying to keep every level full of players, you may as well just stick with a 4x4 gmap or something.
In summary: The whole, "players much constantly occupy a level for it to be useful" perspective is completely unrealistic. Justify the size of an overworld with content and purpose, even if only for once, rather than player activity. Again, I'm not trying to justify pointless levels, but just saying. I hear this so often that an overworld needs to be kept as small as possible and cram as much content into the smallest space as possible when I think if you can fill an overworld with content, then the size is fine no matter where players sit. |
|
|