I've spent some time working from Blizzard's Quick Caves tutorial (http://rmrk.net/index.php/topic,7183.0.html) (GREAT tute!) and wondered what the best approach is to organising maps.
The tute covers a single room out of eight or nine, and that single room is in a map of its own.
Is it best to create individual maps for each remaining "room", or to put them all together on one big map, with teleport events to take the PC from one room to another? (note - this is not a question about how to create maps, or how to design them so they're easier to create - this is a question about the best way to organise them in the editor - as a single big map, or as several smaller linked maps)
I would think one big map would be best for seeing how rooms link together, but at what point does size become a problem with slowing the game down? Is it better to create them all as individual sub-maps so they're grouped together?
What approach do you take - is one way better than the other?
I'd say this is purely preference. Actually, now that I think of it, you'd need at least the huge map. The huge map would be where everything's connected.
try to draw a labirynt puzzle from a piece of paper and based on that do your caves =)
That's not really what I was asking. I know how to do caves and systems of caves. My question was - how do you organise them in the editor: If your cave system is based on a series of rooms, do you do a single map containing all the rooms, either joined together, or separated with events to transfer the player from one room to another? Or do you create each room as a separate map to keep the maps smaller, again using events to transfer from one to the other?
Basically, how big does the map have to be, to be "too big" (big enough to have a negative effect on performance)? Does it depend on size alone, or on the number of events you've got regardless of map size?
It's really just a discussion topic - what do people prefer to do when they're creating maps. It's not a "how do I do" something. Since I'm just starting out and all my maps have been for experimenting, if there's a "best practice" as far as using fewer, larger maps, or more, smaller maps, I'd prefer to know now rather than half way through my first project.
I personally prefer a few big maps that teleport to each other. It saves you map space, and adds more of a maze feel to it.
[spoiler]
Nice Cave Tutorial (http://rmrk.net/index.php/topic,15702.0.html)
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi28.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc221%2Firockman%2F1-3.jpg&hash=43019b3855a3b3fd6477ad9fe92ea05594a1d1b8)[/spoiler]
That's a nice one. It's one big map though - no need to teleport between different areas. What would you do if you wanted "rooms" that were separated from the main maze - still have them on a single map altogether?
Am I also right in saying any creatures you encountered and defeated would not be recreated anywhere in this map unless you left it and went back in?
To organizze, I usually make a blank map, title it the entire region, say Ice Cave, and then I group all the maps under that.
i.e.
>Ice Cave
>Room 1
>Room 2
>...
>Last Room
Sometimes, for countries, I make a quick overmap that the player cannot ever go on just to get the design firmly set as to distances between towns, etc... but when I do this I normally just do it very quickly, since the player will never be in the map anyway
I was considering something like that. So your main map - "Ice Cave" is never actually used? You have no design on it?
Yeah, well it depends on the map. If there is a central room, then maybe I will make that as the "Ice Cave" map, but otherwise it will generally have no design and I will just use it as a label for the group of maps that make up the Ice Cave.
Personally, I use both small and big maps.
For example my Ruins Of The Blind Swordsman have a total of 6 big maze-like maps, and 14 smaller maps.
I usually use the small maps to put obstacles like bridge switches, boulders, etc to sustain performance.
This way, lagging rarely happens.
thanks - you guys are really giving me some good stuff to think about. Please keep contributing - I'm sure there are other less-experienced game makers who will benefit from this discussion!
i like to use small connecting maps, doesnt cause any lag, and theyre easy to manage and organize.
and a tip, i use the complete tileset with all the outdoor tilesets organized together and indoor together in another one. that way you can have a lot of variety ;)
do you happen to have a link to that? I'd like the extra variety. I know I've seen a HUGE one somewhere before, but it was quite a while ago. Also, are the passability settings taken care of, or do I need to do that manually when I import the tileset?
I noticed something.
If you want one giant map, with all the teleport stuff, you would use less switches.
Why?
Because say you have an event that is to take a cat out of a room.
So it erases the event and that would be it.
Once you leave the room, however, then teh cat would reappear, so you can continue to get cats.
It is easy to fix, self switches, but, you wouldn't have to set up those self switches if you had just one map.
If you had one map however, then you would be a bit disorganized, without being able to do the organization that modern algebra was mentioning.
It is more opinionated then a fact.
I usually have one HUGE map.
Then a bunch of large sub-maps like regions
Then, sub maps again, like towns.
And finally, more submaps of the indoor buildings.
i ussualy use small map because my game will have alot of switches and variable, and if i ut it in one big map it will lag........but i use big maps for dungeons, towns and overworld map, small maps i use for a house or a small cave or a mini boss/boss room.
but if your making a map that will have alot of rooms but only some will use switches, you can use a big map for that....