Question

ID:153736
 
Mar 18 2003, 9:26 am
In a current project, we want to have the map layed out into areas so that when you go to a valid exit you get transported to the corresponding area. The decision we are trying to make is how to set this up the best. Would it be better to have multible, smaller z-levels or large ones divided up?
Mar 18 2003, 11:11 am
Multipul z-levels are annoying to play, and even more annoying to make.

Use a huge map, less z-levels, they are always the best.
Mar 18 2003, 11:31 am
Wall04 wrote:
In a current project, we want to have the map layed out into areas so that when you go to a valid exit you get transported to the corresponding area. The decision we are trying to make is how to set this up the best. Would it be better to have multible, smaller z-levels or large ones divided up?

For speed purposes it would probably be best to save your map data into a file format you can read then dynamically load/save maps as they are needed. And if you don't feel like reinventing the wheel you can check out LummoxJR's swapmap library.
Mar 18 2003, 12:15 pm
In response to Kunark
Kunark wrote:
Multipul z-levels are annoying to play, and even more annoying to make.

Use a huge map, less z-levels, they are always the best.

My preference actually tends towards the opposite: small, well-defined chunks for each map are not only far, far easier to make for me -- you don't need to fill in every single detail, and a simple random detail object can make everything look beautiful -- but they lend a sense of scale that is far greater than the area actually encompassed. For example, go play Tara'Ka or whatever Morte calls itself these days; the map seems huge when it's only a few dozen 75x75 maps linked end-to-end. Ditto for Hedgerow Hall, which takes that to the extreme: it's only a few dozen 41x41 maps.

As for the annoying-to-make comment, it depends on the talent of the person making them. Haven's system for loading "chunks" (that's the term I use to refer to every sort of coordinate system that streams individual segments) is transparent and allows for a near-infinite amount of space. Anything that doesn't already exist as defined by the online mapping tools is simply randomly generated. Someone could set sail in one direction and discover a completely new, unpopulated, randomly-generated continent.
Mar 18 2003, 12:35 pm
In response to Spuzzum
Spuzzum wrote:
...
My preference actually tends towards the opposite: small, well-defined chunks for each map are not only far, far easier to make for me -- you don't need to fill in every single detail, and a simple random detail object can make everything look beautiful -- but they lend a sense of scale that is far greater than the area actually encompassed. For example, go play Tara'Ka or whatever Morte calls itself these days; the map seems huge when it's only a few dozen 75x75 maps linked end-to-end. Ditto for Hedgerow Hall, which takes that to the extreme: it's only a few dozen 41x41 maps.

As for the annoying-to-make comment, it depends on the talent of the person making them. Haven's system for loading "chunks" (that's the term I use to refer to every sort of coordinate system that streams individual segments) is transparent and allows for a near-infinite amount of space. Anything that doesn't already exist as defined by the online mapping tools is simply randomly generated. Someone could set sail in one direction and discover a completely new, unpopulated, randomly-generated continent.


I think I may go with small chunks, with some random detail for the required areas of the map. I am looking further into SwapMaps for small areas I may only want to load when needed.

Thanks
Mar 18 2003, 1:46 pm
In response to Spuzzum
Well, you can have a system to make it easier, but with a wide open area, you don't need to at all.

But you are right, having multiple maps makes it appear alot larger than it really is, when larger maps make it appear just how it really is.