Too many new maps?

[sorudo.9054]

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > > > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > > > > > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > > > > > the problem i see with new maps is that it adds only more problems, every single new map adds yet another currency and every new map is only made for the maxers.

> > > > > > > > it's time they added new maps to expand the map instead of adding a pet project, i want to see lover level maps so scaling is actually used for a change and it can fit somewhere anyone can go.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > IMO the biggest problem is the fact that everything is still behind portals, they don't really expand the map they just place a new instance and that's it.

> > > > > > > > if they removed some of the unnecessary portals the world would feel bigger, they need to add maps that expands instead of adding to it.

> > > > > > > > i play GW2 and feel quite choked, the better i know the map the smaller it starts to feel, the portals only enforce that feeling.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Those portals are a staple of ArenaNet design, they were in GW1 and I think most people expected them in GW2. They aren't going anywhere and they actually improve performance for a game based on CPU usage against GPU, by reducing the draw distance needed if you had maps 10x the size of current ones. When you look at the World Map it doesn't just show a tiny little world with a bunch of instances, instead it shows each individual zone that make up a region.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the draw distance can be reduced regardless of map size so that's a moot point, any map can be 20X the size and still have the same effect and load.

> > > > > > if the portals are a stamp of Anet then instance play and henchmen are too, i don't see ether.

> > > > > > then again, if the whole portal thing is the stamp of Anet then it's a horrible one, claustrophobic is the first word i can think of every time i look at each and every map.

> > > > >

> > > > > Simple question...can you see any map from end to end, by that I mean can you enter one portal and see the portal at the other end(not counting the main cities)?

> > > > nope, the game reduces the draw quality in every map so when you get on a really high place everything you see is really ugly and distorted till you get closer.

> > > >

> > >

> > > So, how do you feel claustrophobic in a map that you can't see the other end of...or even the portal the next map?

> >

> > because the better i know the map the smaller it starts to feel and i know most maps like the back of my hand, if the portals are not there then the map opens up and it feels much bigger.

> > in GW2 i always think "that's ether walk there with 2 loading screens or port there with 1 loading screen" while i want to stay immersive, so i ether break the immersion a little bit twice or break it in one go.

> > in WoW and LotRo there is no other choice, you ether get there with or without mount or you get a ride.

> > if it had portals it would break that immersion but it doesn't, it's one big world with only the underground and "extra" parts being instances (like dungeons, skirmish and raids)

> >

> > i just prefer a big open world rather then a world with small maps connected with portals, in GW1 i can understand this but GW2 has absolutely no reason for having portals.

>

> I can understand that, I know the maps too so I get that part, but there's one other reason ArenaNet does it this way...and that's allowing the game to be played on the most systems possible. In other words by not having a huge open world single map you're allowing people with not so great computers to still play the game, the same can't be said of a game with a single or just two or three huge open world maps...at least I haven't seen one yet that allows it(and I'm talking just single player games with huge open world maps).

 

elder scroll and fallout games allow it (if i only look at single player games), for MMO's WoW and LotRo is low end friendly as long as you don't expect max graphics from it and they have bigger maps then fallout games. (in WoW they are zone's)

the PC spec part is honestly not a reason, the game already prevents whole maps from loading at high detail and only parts you can normally clearly see are loaded when needed.

skyrim and fallout works exactly like GW2 does it, i can even notice it when i use a sniper and look way beyond the scope any normal player can, it's really ugly out of players reach and models are extremely low detail or not loaded at all.

you can even see it when you get in to lions arch, in allot of times (for me at least) the loading screen just finished but half the city isn't even loaded, walking against a wall is normal since it's not loaded and players just have base models if they get loaded.

this happens all the time, if a map is loaded in one go not even the best PC would be able to load the game fast enough, there would simply be way to many details for the computer to run smoothly.

 

to sum it up, GW2 only loads the essentials that are directly close to you, the rest is loaded with as less detail as possible.

so even if they remove the map portals the same would apply, whole sections of map would not even load until you get close enough but it will also unload parts of the world to save space.

this is a normal progress for any MMO, the only problem GW2 has is that none of the maps are really connected, they are just maps like a shooter map and every map is loaded that way.

so in a spec perspective there would be absolutely no reason to keep using portals, the only single problem we face is that all the maps are made on their own.

if they would ever connect them they need to take even single map and connect them in a way, this could complicate things depending on what map editor they are using (if they use such a thing)