The Overworld

DustyPorViva · #1 10-11-2009, 06:32 PM

Are you aware that the overworld is essentially a huge maze? Going from one city to another usually involves navigating tree mazes. I can't remember how many times I thought I'd be able to just walk from here to there, only to end up hitting a dead end... over and over. And after about half an hour finally finding out I can't get to that city from this city. I know it might seem like a fun exploration mechanic, but there's a reason most adventure games keep the maze down to one specific area, if that.

LordSquirt · #2 10-11-2009, 06:37 PM

That's why warp scrolls were created.

DustyPorViva · #3 10-11-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordSquirt

That's why warp scrolls were created.

Not the point.

kia345 · #4 10-11-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordSquirt

That's why warp scrolls were created.

In that case, the large overworld is a waste

MysticX2X · #5 10-11-2009, 06:58 PM

They added in the delta forest a few months ago, and it's one of the more terrible overworld additions. It received no positive feedback but UN staff still kept it up.

The_Ice_Cold · #6 10-11-2009, 07:06 PM

I think they should cut the overworld down a bit. Not a lot of it is used by ANYONE at all really.

Crono · #7 10-11-2009, 07:15 PM

Far too many useless levels but they can't really help it, Graal is just like that and has been for as long as I can remember with the exception of maybe Graal the Adventure.

Door · #8 10-17-2009, 02:56 AM

Totally agree with Dusty; a frustrating overworld is the perfect way to keep people from exploring or becoming familiar with the layout of the place. I couldn't tell you where half the towns are on the overworld map, because I only know how to get to them via warp scroll. I can barely get out of the town center area without getting lost or hitting a complete dead end. It's pretty ridiculous and basically guarantees that players will barely spread out from just a very VERY select few locations.

I guess if I had to describe it in one word, I'd call UN's overworld: unwelcoming.

Elizabeth · #9 10-17-2009, 04:15 AM

i do not like the new forest area from town center to delta

Crono · #10 10-17-2009, 06:24 AM

I think UN felt more explorable when it didn't have the gmap. This may sound "wtfrutalkingabout" but think about it, currently there are tons of poorly designed levels all over the place. Cities still have their paths, yes, but theres a lot of deceptive areas where you think it'll lead you somewhere but it doesn't. Without the gmap, you had levels that actually served a purpose. If they didn't, they wouldn't be placed on the map to begin with. UN has a lot of filler as it's overworld used to have tons of blankspots (as with most of the old maps back then).

Crono1508 · #11 10-17-2009, 06:29 AM

Think about the overworld with about 2,000 players or more. That's what its intended for, but this game will never reach that destination. So before you complain about "useless" levels, they're meant for space. 50 Players cannot cover the overworld. In another MMORPG not allowed to be discussed on the forums, there's many useless levels.

DustyPorViva · #12 10-17-2009, 06:35 AM

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.

Crono · #13 10-17-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crono1508

Think about the overworld with about 2,000 players or more. That's what its intended for

Completely false. Graal has never had a server even close to being that large and the people who created the overworld were completely aware of this.

Codein · #14 10-17-2009, 02:58 PM

Even if UN got close to 2,000 players and if it was possible, they'd end up just idling in town center anyway :/

Door · #15 10-17-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codein

Even if UN got close to 2,000 players and if it was possible, they'd end up just idling in town center anyway :/

Exactly, even irl this is the case! Look at huge populated cities and then less densely populated suburbs (although America really is the true home of suburbs, most countries just go straight from city to rural), then rural areas, then the frontiers with like, only the nutcase adventurers. All games emulate this pattern, because it's just natural. Expecting people to deviate from it is like expecting them to choose a big bowl of tofu over ice cream. It's BLASPHEMY. And unnatural. Unless you are some kind of freak with a freakish defect, like lactose intolerance or something. And even then, you still want the ice cream, but nature hates you too much to let you have it because you littered as an infant.