Zone Distribution on Launch (The classic game)

Eronakis

Zone distribution refers to how many zones are accessible on launch of a game. Specifically, I'm addressing the wilderness/outside zones and not considering dungeons or raids or other various instanced content.

Total # of Outside/Wilderness Zones in Classic Game

Everquest = 30 outside zones

WoW = 40 outside zones

Guild Wars 2 = 25 outside zones

Ashes of Creation = 100+ (Or at least estimated)

Now that just tells the integer value of how many zones there are but doesn't express other variables, such as:

• Zone quantity to Zone Size | This means the scope of the Zone Size in itself. For instance, the size difference of The Barrens or Westfall in WoW?
  

• Zone quantity to diversity of Zone | Larger zones that take in the scope of a few biomes OR Medium to smaller zones that take in each biome as one Zone. For instance, WoW zones are thematic and have a unqiue biome versus Everquest, where you had thematic zones but the biome was spread out to several zones like East/West Karana's etc.
  

I would like to know what is more important to you, the Community?

• Do you prefer larger zone sizes at the cost of potentially zone diversity? (Roughly 15-25 total zones)
  
  
• Do you prefer smaller to medium zones with more diversity (Roughly 35-50 total zones)
  
  
• What number of zones do you feel like is a great number range for an mmorpg on launch?
  
  
• Does number of zones or size of zones interfere with your immersion?
  
  

Of course these questions are weighted for a development team with various variables such as core gameplay vision capital, scope, time constraints etc. For the questions above, lets not consider those for a moment and if it were completely up to the player?

To answer my own questions:

I feel like I'm in the camp of having 30-40 zones on launch that would give the appearance of a larger world. I like my zones a bit more realistic and fluidity between transitioning biomes. A fan of medium sized zones that feel big enough for adventure but not small enough to lose my sense of immersion. Of course some small and larger zones peppered in there.

olepi

I prefer variation within the zones, over a simple number of zones. For example, in Vanguard, Ryzom, DAOC, and early ESO, there are different parallel paths through the zones. Say I'm level 20, how many different level 20 zones are there? Hopefully more than one or two. In those games, you can start a new character and level to max, without ever repeating the same zone as your last character, except perhaps at the end.

Also, I like mob variation within the zones. In Ryzom for example, you can be in a level 20 zone, but there are predators that can kill you quick. In Vanguard, you might find a level 40 dungeon in a level 20 zone. 

And each zone should have multiple paths through it. I don't like small zones that are mostly linear. In FFXIV I was able to simply run though all the zones to get to the other cities, without having to take any transportation. Too small and too linear.

cameltosis

Eronakis said:

I would like to know what is more important to you, the Community?

• Do you prefer larger zone sizes at the cost of potentially zone diversity? (Roughly 15-25 total zones)
  
  
• Do you prefer smaller to medium zones with more diversity (Roughly 35-50 total zones)
  
  
• What number of zones do you feel like is a great number range for an mmorpg on launch?
  
  
• Does number of zones or size of zones interfere with your immersion?
  

I don't like the idea of "zones", I'm all about an open world environment that feels like one world. Seemless integration between "zones" is where I'm at.

The worst thing that you can do, in my opinion, is have each zone hemmed in by mountains or invisible barriers, making it feel small and linear (even if it isn't that small or linear). When I tried Wildstar, this is how each zone made me feel. I also hate the feeling of a "patchwork" world, where each zone is distinct and stitched together in seemlingly random fashion. This is how Mirkwood in LotRO felt to me.

What I care more about is biomes. Who cares if you have 50 zones if they all look and feel the same? But distinct biomes, well, thats where things get exciting. This can be hard to achieve whilst retaining a feeling of a seemless open world - how do you have a tropical beach and snow covered mountains in the same seemless landmass? - but not impossible.

Vanilla LotRO is the game I hold up as probably the best example I've seen of zone design. The whole of Eriador felt like a really well put together game world with (mostly) seemless transitions between each biome. I would have preferred more high fantasy biomes of course, but that wouldn't have fit with the LotR IP.

TheDalaiBomba

@cameltosis I think you can serve up numerous zones/areas with the same general landscape and keep it interesting- but only if one builds a world worth seeing into each of those zones.

Multiple zones of forest might very well make sense, but they will be boring unless Forest A, Forest B, and Forest C all have very different details.

For instance: maybe Forest A is dominated by a large central lake that the zones inhabitants center around.  Forest B might lie at the foot of a mountain range, with steep slopes and a transition into more sparsely vegetated areas.  Then, Forest C might be a thick rainforest where the natives all live high above the floor in trees.

All 3 of those would be fun and interesting, even in the same game.  However, they would all take some attention to detail, time, and effort most studios don't have the manpower or talent to pull off well.

Eronakis

cameltosis said:

I don't like the idea of "zones", I'm all about an open world environment that feels like one world. Seemless integration between "zones" is where I'm at.

The worst thing that you can do, in my opinion, is have each zone hemmed in by mountains or invisible barriers, making it feel small and linear (even if it isn't that small or linear). When I tried Wildstar, this is how each zone made me feel. I also hate the feeling of a "patchwork" world, where each zone is distinct and stitched together in seemlingly random fashion. This is how Mirkwood in LotRO felt to me.

What I care more about is biomes. Who cares if you have 50 zones if they all look and feel the same? But distinct biomes, well, thats where things get exciting. This can be hard to achieve whilst retaining a feeling of a seemless open world - how do you have a tropical beach and snow covered mountains in the same seemless landmass? - but not impossible.

Vanilla LotRO is the game I hold up as probably the best example I've seen of zone design. The whole of Eriador felt like a really well put together game world with (mostly) seemless transitions between each biome. I would have preferred more high fantasy biomes of course, but that wouldn't have fit with the LotR IP.

Oh I couldn't agree more. I guess I was using the term 'Zone' super loosely. I guess in the traditional sense zones are walled off areas by mountains like in EQ/WoW. I am much more in the camp of seamless world like Vanguard. I was simply referring to zones as different areas or biomes or whatever for specific level of content.

I am in the camp that classic LOTRO of Eriador has the best immersive zone designs I have ever played. It had fluidity and has a realistic but yet grand scope feel. North Downs, Eriegon, Duneland, Trollshawls all great.

I'm attempting to design a world where it much resembles the realism but also the middle fantasy of Middle Earth. It's important to me to have a seamless world that looks realistic to a certain extent, especially with transitional biomes. However, I'm still taking the zone approach but removing the mountain barriers to make it a more seamless world. Each environment will have a thematic zone theme to it but would make the player feel immersed.

Mendel

Eronakis said:

<snip>

Everquest = 30 outside zones

<snip>

I think you may be pretty far off on EQ1.  Zam has the following counts for EQ1.

Odus: 7 (1 obsolete)

Antonica: 45 (4 obsolete, 1 zone with 2 Versions, and 1 new newbie zone)
Faydwer:  14 (0 obsolete)

Planes:  2 initially, 1 added later (and all redone)

So my count of the original game was 68/69.  Not counting multi-part cities.  All non-instanced.  So, your count of 30 seems to leave out a lot.  Most everyone who ever played EQ1 has some memory of these original dungeons; I'd guess that most of the memories of EQ1 had more to do with the dungeons than the non-dungeon areas.

Here's the original dungeons/dungeon-like zones in EQ1: (Faydwer) Castle Mistmore, Crushbone, Estate of Unrest, Kedge Keep, (Antonica) Befallen, Blackburrow, Cazic-Thule, Clan Runnyeye, Erud's Crossing, Gorge of King Xorbb, High Keep, Infected Paw/Splitpaw (original name), Lower Guk, Nagafen's Lair, Najena, Qeynos Catacombs, Permafrost Keep, Solusek's Eye, Upper Guk, (Odus) Kerra Isle, Ruins of Old Paineel (The Hole) and (planes) Plane of Hate, Plane of Fear (both initially badly broken and under itemized).

Eronakis

Mendel said:

Eronakis said:

<snip>

Everquest = 30 outside zones

<snip>

I think you may be pretty far off on EQ1.  Zam has the following counts for EQ1.

Odus: 7 (1 obsolete)

Antonica: 45 (4 obsolete, 1 zone with 2 Versions, and 1 new newbie zone)
Faydwer:  14 (0 obsolete)

Planes:  2 initially, 1 added later (and all redone)

So my count of the original game was 68/69.  Not counting multi-part cities.  All non-instanced.  So, your count of 30 seems to leave out a lot.  Most everyone who ever played EQ1 has some memory of these original dungeons; I'd guess that most of the memories of EQ1 had more to do with the dungeons than the non-dungeon areas.

Here's the original dungeons/dungeon-like zones in EQ1: (Faydwer) Castle Mistmore, Crushbone, Estate of Unrest, Kedge Keep, (Antonica) Befallen, Blackburrow, Cazic-Thule, Clan Runnyeye, Erud's Crossing, Gorge of King Xorbb, High Keep, Infected Paw/Splitpaw (original name), Lower Guk, Nagafen's Lair, Najena, Qeynos Catacombs, Permafrost Keep, Solusek's Eye, Upper Guk, (Odus) Kerra Isle, Ruins of Old Paineel (The Hole) and (planes) Plane of Hate, Plane of Fear (both initially badly broken and under itemized).

I only counted "Outside" zones and did not count Dungeons as they were considered Indoor Zones. My count was close to correct. I mentioned that I was ONLY considering Outside Zones, Not Inside Zones (IE: Dungeons).

Kyleran

Thinking in this thread is far too small, give me EVE's 5600 known star systems in since launch (2600 more added later,)  as a good place to start.

Mendel

Eronakis said:

Mendel said:

Eronakis said:

<snip>

Everquest = 30 outside zones

<snip>

I think you may be pretty far off on EQ1.  Zam has the following counts for EQ1.

Odus: 7 (1 obsolete)

Antonica: 45 (4 obsolete, 1 zone with 2 Versions, and 1 new newbie zone)
Faydwer:  14 (0 obsolete)

Planes:  2 initially, 1 added later (and all redone)

So my count of the original game was 68/69.  Not counting multi-part cities.  All non-instanced.  So, your count of 30 seems to leave out a lot.  Most everyone who ever played EQ1 has some memory of these original dungeons; I'd guess that most of the memories of EQ1 had more to do with the dungeons than the non-dungeon areas.

Here's the original dungeons/dungeon-like zones in EQ1: (Faydwer) Castle Mistmore, Crushbone, Estate of Unrest, Kedge Keep, (Antonica) Befallen, Blackburrow, Cazic-Thule, Clan Runnyeye, Erud's Crossing, Gorge of King Xorbb, High Keep, Infected Paw/Splitpaw (original name), Lower Guk, Nagafen's Lair, Najena, Qeynos Catacombs, Permafrost Keep, Solusek's Eye, Upper Guk, (Odus) Kerra Isle, Ruins of Old Paineel (The Hole) and (planes) Plane of Hate, Plane of Fear (both initially badly broken and under itemized).

I only counted "Outside" zones and did not count Dungeons as they were considered Indoor Zones. My count was close to correct. I mentioned that I was ONLY considering Outside Zones, Not Inside Zones (IE: Dungeons).

The point I was making was that games are remembered for their total.  What exactly is the purpose behind only considering parts of a game, when the game itself is remembered for the experiences provided?  (And many, if not most, memories were formed in zones defined by the 'Inside' moniker).

Eronakis

The point I was making was that games are remembered for their total.  What exactly is the purpose behind only considering parts of a game, when the game itself is remembered for the experiences provided?  (And many, if not most, memories were formed in zones defined by the 'Inside' moniker).

Sure... but the intention of this thread topic is about OUTSIDE zones ONLY...If I wanted to include the total scope of all various types of zones I would have in the OT...

Mendel

Eronakis said:

The point I was making was that games are remembered for their total.  What exactly is the purpose behind only considering parts of a game, when the game itself is remembered for the experiences provided?  (And many, if not most, memories were formed in zones defined by the 'Inside' moniker).

Sure... but the intention of this thread topic is about OUTSIDE zones ONLY...If I wanted to include the total scope of all various types of zones I would have in the OT...

It's a distinction without a difference.  A game with 50 areas but only 2 of them memorable fails; the total number of 'filler' or nondescript zones doesn't matter to a game's overall success if the people are going to remember only the good zones.  Zones, inside or outside or dungeons or whatever, need to contribute something valuable to the player for them to be useful.  I don't think there is a formula for any specific number of 'crap' zones a person will accept.

Quizzical

Have you considered the possibility that what you think of as large zones are internally broken into multiple smaller zones in ways that you don't notice?

Vrika

Quizzical said:

Have you considered the possibility that what you think of as large zones are internally broken into multiple smaller zones in ways that you don't notice?

Or the other way around: The game is actually large area, and the devs create zones to name smaller areas within that large map.

Sovrath

Quizzical said:

Have you considered the possibility that what you think of as large zones are internally broken into multiple smaller zones in ways that you don't notice?

I'm sure that many games do that. The only thing that really matters is what the player experiences.

If it's a "large zone" with one hundred smaller "zones" that quickly load in and out but the player only experiences the "large zone" then that's the only thing that matters.

Unlike Vanguard that had what appeared to be large zones but you could sometimes feel the loading of the "next" section.