lingolas wrote:
why not open a poll for this thread?
Its more about uncovering advantages/disadvantages for each option; just having 10 votes for one doesn't tell me what I want to know
| Dark Legacy MUD Forum http://forums.dark-legacy.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| World map: surface area or Depth http://forums.dark-legacy.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3673 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Celeborn [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | World map: surface area or Depth |
I can use your insight on this topic. Given a world map that is 'richer' than the DL one (with enough to discover and do, like hidden dungeons/artifacts/societies, or hunting down rare resources). Assume there are enough means to avoid tedious travel, so larger area does not mean days spent at the keyboard walking to the newbie graveyard. Since i'm constrained memory wise I need to limit map size. What would be more fun as a world map, and why: * a gigantic surface area with just two mining layers (say 1000x1000x3) * a huge surface area with limited underground layers (say 500x500x12) * a moderate surface area with a large number of underground layers (say 250x250x48). |
|
| Author: | gsman [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
my vote: * a huge surface area with limited underground layers (say 500x500x12) this seems to be a happy medium. |
|
| Author: | lingolas [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
* a gigantic surface area with just two mining layers (say 1000x1000x3) I like more surface area because: 1. it makes DL bigger than it really is 2. 2 layers of mining is not much different from lets say 6. much of the layers are just tedious dirt grinding anyway. Most people who mine are after riches, no one cares about how deep or how nice the mines are. 3. More surface area means more Rivers, mountains, valleys, unique places... I suggest that you increase the limit of rune pillars that a player can add. 10 slots is very limited. Pillars from players' structures have popped up like mushrooms but yet the pillar list is still remained at 10. This is outdated and it needs to be changed. With more pillars available, players will be able to travel to distant land and interact with them more. I also suggest allowing players to summon their vehicles. I've lost my vehicle AGAIN. I have no idea where i parked it. It probably got blown away from the wind or something. The vehicle idea was a great idea but is currently not fully exploited. |
|
| Author: | lingolas [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
why not open a poll for this thread? |
|
| Author: | Celeborn [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
lingolas wrote: why not open a poll for this thread?
Its more about uncovering advantages/disadvantages for each option; just having 10 votes for one doesn't tell me what I want to know
|
|
| Author: | Herms2.0 [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
( 1000x1000x3) That's my vote for the same reasons as lingolas, but also because this way, you could discover more on one layer rather then having to min down continiously in order to find a new area. And a question, what are you going to do about the random encounters? I sugguest maybe having certian mobs within the mines "guarding" treasure, like a dragon within an underground cavern protecting her eggs/huge pile of dwarven treasure. etc. etc. |
|
| Author: | Chilliwack [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i agree also herms stop registering new accounts or i'll fry you |
|
| Author: | Herms2.0 [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would stop making new accounts if it would let me keep one without not letting me sign in a few weeks later. |
|
| Author: | Gaitika [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Unless you made specific areas for underground, any more then 2-4 layers is not really worth it imo. |
|
| Author: | ShanaArkai [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
i think maybe you should do a mix. have how about like.... 750x750x5? still kinda large, but more than just 2 layers to mine in... with 4 layers you can have all the basic stone layers... clay, shale, lime, granite... with sandstone being what you get while mining down from the top. |
|
| Author: | gsman [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
maybe... ShanaArkai is right... i agree wiht him/her |
|
| Author: | Binkly [ Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Weems show some good points with his posts. Another interesting addition could be to make it so that you need a certain type of material (one with greater strength in proportion the increasing depth) to dig through certain types of ground. And perhaps have it so you could even become more skilled at the use of tools used for crafting rather than just the craft itself. |
|
| Author: | Arzhul [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd go for a moderate surface area with a large number of underground layers, why? Because its hard to be new in a world with so many rooms and you have to search 189 to find the last one in a city,swamp.. whatever.. But with more underground or overground.. it seems easier to navigate and find the places you need to go, while still having a large world to live in.. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|