Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What is considered to big of a world?
demc
Member Posts: 292
I am reluctant to ask but I really need a little feedback on your thoughts of what is an ideal large open world. Can a terrain actually be considered to big?
There was a discussion on another board early this year as I worked through a design of a terrain. Originally it was, well, way to big. Sorry I can't post there anymore since they moved the board and I do not have email right now. We discussed the size and I did say I would reduce it so I redesigned the world and made it 32 Kilometers square instead of 132 kilometers square.
I been running around on the terrain and taking some screens and would like to get some feedback before I start laying out the foliage and trees. I also been testing an engine that is built for MMORPGs. The engine shows a lot of promise to deliver a decent product.
If you like to see the screens, use this link of my gallery.
http://www.bundysoft.com/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=31
What is, in your opinion, to big? What would you consider ideal size terrain for a MMORPG?
Thanks,
Dave
Comments
No amount of terrain is too big or too small as long as there is enough content there to keep the players busy!
In my opinion, a world is too big when:
1. Its size has a major negative impact on server performance;
2. Players have unreasonable difficulty meeting and interacting with other players;
3. The terrain is a mindless, computer automated re-rendering of the same thing over and over and over with no reason or benefit;
4. The amount of time spent on travel versus experiencing content is disproportinate; e.g., I love to travel and explore but I don't want to spend 4 hours to get to content;
5. The death penalty in that game is so severe that if you die 3 hours out of town in that huge world you now have a three hour corpse run.
Don't get me wrong, as I love big worlds. But they can pose some real problems that need work arounds.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Others nailed it right on the board, as long as theres enough content it really doesn't matter how big the world is.
Too big of a world? WWII Online. Try a realistic 1/2 scale map of Europe on for size.
Either that or Infinity: Quest for the Earth. It'll be infinite I hear. Can't remember though. Procedurally generated?
Check out the MUD I'm making!
AoCs world might be huge for example ,but actually its long tube ,so its small
Anarchy Onlines world is really nice,and then they have their ultrabad concept to ruin it.
so itsnot about the size its about how they can use the size of it,and what you can do in there.
counter strikes maps are small compared to MMOs but you can use every square of them ,every move makes chainreactions.
so those are huge,because theres so much happening.
Generation P
Infinity is using some render program to make random planets through the entire universe, so exploring should be damn fun!
Thanks for the input so far.
I believe maybe a ittle more understanding of what I am working toward may help on world size.
Content is a major factor. I don't want a guntlet from point a to point b along every path though. This game is not a combat based game as you know games of today. In fact content is the number one part of this game since...
1. - There are no levels.
You start with stats you pick based on what you feel you want to become. You never out level the world.
2. - There are no game mechanical skills to level.
Your skills are gained through doing quests. You learn about swords then you futher your training by practice and learn a new move by seeking a master. (you may actually have to defeat the master to gain the skill). The sword skill is not hardcoded into the game So you can't swing the sword at others or monsters and gain points.
3. - There are no classes.
You make your class as you progress. You will be able to learn all the arts but it will take a very long time to master all of them.
With that said, content is the prime factor to make this work. HOWEVER, I wonder if the world is to large since it will be most likely a niche game with a very low player base. I don't want to remake the world again after develovment starts so this is why ask if it would be to big. If I make it to small then it defeats the purpose of large open world but if I make it to big it will have a negative impact on the play population.
Additional considerations are:
There will be a fast travel system however there will be incentive not to fast travel.
The will not be a stiff death penatly or perma death. I decided not to implement perma death at the beginning. (I am a strong advocate of perma death but this may kill the game.) May make a special server for perma death or allow players to chose that as a trait. One will never suffer in PvP with any penatly except travel from the graveyards. There will be incentive not to die like rewards.
Gaining master status in various arts is the prime factor not getting to max level. One needs to gain status to be able to buy land, hold office or be considered part of the elite forces.
Trying to implement editable terrain so one can build on their land. This is a big one and will require a major development cycle. May not be possible until it is implemented into the engine.
Lastly: I am still in consideration mode not like I was early this year with a definate plan because a lot of things have changed in the last 8 months and most of it revolves around financial costs however feedback is good since I can grasp what kind of market the game may have.
Agreed. If it's world for the sake of world, then it's too big. If there's content filling each part of your world or actual uses for each part of the world then your world is the right size.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Completely depends on the type of game.
For a typical game, the world should be as big as the content (that is, if there's no content to fill a space, it shouldn't exist.) With this statement it's important to clarify that, just like movies, empty space can be content. But just like movies it has to have a sense of pacing
For sandbox worlds with full open PVP, I prefer excessively large worlds so that you have the option to start your settlement/guild/city way out in the middle of nowhere, as sort of a "counter" to PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A world is too big if the population is spread out to the point where it takes too long for your groupmates to get to the group. No one wants to wait 45 minutes for the tank and healer to arrive from halfway across the world.
As another poster in the dev corner stated (and this was poignant to me);
"Size can be relative to the speed of travel"
He also went on to say how the speed of travel dictates the need for detailed environments, as walking slow would suggest you have the world be very pretty, and if really fast - you don't need to pay that much attention to art assets. I really took that to mind.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Can you link that post please?
I have 'studied' MMO world sizes for a while now and would like to see this post.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Thanks for the input all. I will take these suggestions into account and adjust as needed. I will be back in a few months with the results.
I guess the actual size of the terrain is only one of the aspects that give you the feeling of playing in a large world. Another is the amount of fast travel. The actual size of the world is rather irrelevant if you move by teleporting to your desired location anyway. Another thing is the amount of borders. A world can be of any size, but if there are invisible borders and uncrossable terrain next to you at all times, it doesn't feel that way. And I guess another thing is how split up the thing is. If I see a loading screen every 5minutes it doesn't look like a coherent world either.
That's why I like FE. It got a large world in terms of size, currently no fast travel and no invisible borders or restrictions. WoW has a large world too but if you walk for a few minutes in one direction you'll hit a wall. Same with WAR. And AoC got loading screens every few steps as well. I didn't play Aion but I read that it is pretty bad there as well.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
I agree.
Try not to think of world size. I prefer to think of Player Density.
In PvP worlds you want a lower player density just to "keep 'em separated" and a empty world with occasional encounters with other players can be more exciting that a world where you are constantly surrounded.
WWIIoL was quoted by an earlier poster. That is the largest MMO world to date (if you include the barren terrain) but it is a full PvP game. Much of that world is empty 90% of the time. But, having said that, this helps to create a sense of danger when you travel and that keeps the game interesting.
The Chronicles of Spellborn is a largish PvE / PvP world with a lower population. But, in the PvP areas the current population creates suspense.
In the PvE world of DDO there is a much higher player density - but for the game design it also works.
Travel times must also be considered because these can 'shrink' your world. The shortest distance between two points is a loading screen.
Again, in a PvP world you want that separation of time and space. In PvE - maybe not so much.
You also need to consider the player type you are trying to attract.
I am a Bartle type E*** player (Explorer). I like to explore. A large world where I feel I am the only one around appeals to me.
A Bartle type S*** player (Socialiser) probably would feel the opposite?
A Bartle type K*** player (Killer) would probably prefer a smaller world (easier to find targets and group with other Killers) but a larger world stops that to some degree and also attracts the E type players who will often counter the Ks to some degree.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Vanguard had a huge world, it was one of their major selling points.
Thing was, you began to feel like the company was ripping you off. You spent hours traveling through barren, featureless terrain sparsely populated by mobs and plants. If you wanted to group with others, the distances always got in the way.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
It's far easier to make a small world bigger than to make a big world smaller.
I don't really see a problem with a world being too big, just a population too small.
EDIT: Looking back over the replies I see there was already one similar. Apologies.
Jam is sticky.
Disagree with this. A big world can be made smaller with teleporter stations and/or player cast spells. A small world takes a full development team to make it bigger.
To me, its better to start small than have a world too big (i.e. Vanguard). However, devs can "condense" the playfield a little too much (just look at AOC).
Initially devs should focus on getting only the playfields together that assist directly with progression. Once that "foundation" is in place, then devs should focus on frequent roll outs of areas to expand the map little by little in order to allow players to explore and do other things. Which sort of mimics what happens when expansions are released. In my opinion, an ever expanding map is often viewed in a better light by its playerbase than a huge one that overwhelms the players with too much space that is viewed as a needless waste of effort and resources.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
vanilla world of warcraft was a fair size
wotlk world of warcraft is too big countless and countless map empty to just to cover one big flaw of the game
if their are too many player on one map server crash
try this test
organise a world event in vanilla wow say when and where you ll go kill a dragon any will do
just say where it is when you ll down him etc
announce it a lot on wich server
then in one month try to down you dragon ,you just wont be able because server will crash
thats why blizzard makes big map to spread the amount of people away from each other
if a map is too small with too much content to do wow server would just crash
athene tried to do a lvl 1 raid they reached razor hill but the lag was so horrible they had to dismiss the idea
didnt help they were lot of lvl 80 ganking the shit out of everybody lol
server they had chosen had no lvl 80 showing up there were a bunch of lvl 80 all around them thats it
wow as gotten too big they could merge 5 server into one to make one big server but since blizzard server cant handle more then 5 player on any given map ,they just have to stay the way they are(number is an exemple)
if blizzard add dx11 and microsoft donnybrooks it will make a huge difference on number of player that can be on any given map but for now the best skeem is make the map too big to spread the server load
Disagree with this. A big world can be made smaller with teleporter stations and/or player cast spells. A small world takes a full development team to make it bigger.
And mounts. I know no one likes running forever to get some where but I definitely feel the world shrink when they ad teleports or when everyone starts to get mounts. All of a sudden this huge world isn't so big.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
A big world seems like travel is endless with very little content in between each landmark. You can have a very colossal world, but you have to fill it up with several different things to entice the player to want to play in your world.
- Know what different environments would flourish with lots of content versus which would have some sparse content. You want to do this to balance out the themes of each place as well as if a place doesn't have as much as another, maybe there is something hidden there that you need to explore.
- Have a variety of different unique environments. I know vanguard went with a realistic theme, and their world is 600 square miles. But, what is missing, is realism with a balance of fantasy with in the world. If you can find the right balance of the two, you're trekking down the right path.
- What world wonders/landmarks do you want your players to visit on their adventure? I also believe this is key because if something looks really interesting and you have no idea what it is, but it can't be visited until later on, that would absolutely entice the player to want to go there.
- Give the player choices between each environment where they want to explore. Make it a challenge to choose. If you want a big world, entice the player to make several alts. It would give motivation to even more populate the world with different characters because they haven't experienced the other areas. Yes, a higher level character can explore there, but they wouldn't have be able to experience it fully...
I am working on another version of my world map. My old one was around 875 square miles, and the new one is more like 1035 square miles or even more. But I assure you, if you enter my world, you would want to explore and adventure there. I think that should be the main focus for mmorpg worlds.
True distance in games is measured in travel time, not kilometers or miles.
Anyone who's played a fantasy MMORPG and then played EVE should understand that traveling 897,000,000km (6AU) to the next jump gate in 2 seconds is a lot shorter real distance than traveling across a 20,000km world in a typical game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's sort of odd to point this out as a "flaw".
If I used a hammer to unscrew my PC's videocard, would I complain when the tool failed to do the job well? No, I would expect a very high likelihood of something breaking.
But it's not really a "flaw" when a tool designed for one thing sucks at another.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver