while I'm all for a bigger and more spaced out world, remember your punnet squares.
if you make it 2x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 4.
if you make it 5x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 25.
if you make it 10x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 100.
if you make it 30x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 900.
if you make it 50x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 2500.
I could tolerate anything from 2-10, but there are some buildings that just fine the way they are. A peasant's shack shouldn't be 40x40 (and each square is about a 1 sq. metre. 40m x 40m is probably bigger than your house, unless your house is like 17,800 square feet).
This could also impact potential spawn points for NPCs and the like, and something too big could make even the most basic tasks mundane to the point its painful. It could only really be considered anyway, if html5 was fully integrated and on various browsers. a scaled up world would start to suck pretty quick in java. (ie: it could really only go up to x2 before it starts to get bothersome)
Something else to consider, you can't really compare rs3 to skyrim. skyrim is predominantly first person with a third person option, whereas runescape is third person exclusively (in both aesthetics and function). skyrim utilizes WASD for movement, whereas runescape has those for actions/hotkeys. Clicking to move simply wouldn't function well in first person, and WSAD doesn't make for effective pathfinding with how runescape is laid out. They probably won't give us the option of one input = monocontinuous movement either.
From classic to rs2, things were scaled up anywhere from 1.0 to 1.5, and because of that, we now have the Run option. I'm skeptical on mounts in general too.
if you make it 2x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 4.
if you make it 5x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 25.
if you make it 10x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 100.
if you make it 30x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 900.
if you make it 50x bigger in both directions, it becomes bigger by a factor of 2500.
I could tolerate anything from 2-10, but there are some buildings that just fine the way they are. A peasant's shack shouldn't be 40x40 (and each square is about a 1 sq. metre. 40m x 40m is probably bigger than your house, unless your house is like 17,800 square feet).
This could also impact potential spawn points for NPCs and the like, and something too big could make even the most basic tasks mundane to the point its painful. It could only really be considered anyway, if html5 was fully integrated and on various browsers. a scaled up world would start to suck pretty quick in java. (ie: it could really only go up to x2 before it starts to get bothersome)
Something else to consider, you can't really compare rs3 to skyrim. skyrim is predominantly first person with a third person option, whereas runescape is third person exclusively (in both aesthetics and function). skyrim utilizes WASD for movement, whereas runescape has those for actions/hotkeys. Clicking to move simply wouldn't function well in first person, and WSAD doesn't make for effective pathfinding with how runescape is laid out. They probably won't give us the option of one input = monocontinuous movement either.
From classic to rs2, things were scaled up anywhere from 1.0 to 1.5, and because of that, we now have the Run option. I'm skeptical on mounts in general too.
06-Aug-2013 16:12:45
