I just have the thought that some Rpg Maker Game Developers (like us), must thought of the mapping as well.

Which do you prefer, the small maps? See in small maps, you tend to do a lot of maps...

or do you prefer large (world map like) structure? It would cause a lag... (if without a script) and also a pain in the hands since you have to go here and there...

or is there any other suggestion?

Well I personally like a balance between both. Large maps for travel purposes and smaller maps for actual game play with some exceptions for large maps.

Cool...oh by the way, do you find it easier to map large ones in VX rather than XP?

For me there is no difference between both. I am an experienced mapper and i am used to both vx and xp.

Again that's another thumbs up. I like the version of XP's no limited maps but at the same time love the VX style =_= sadly you have to choose either of those to make your game.

I think it depends on how well you can design maps.
Smaller maps tend to be easier to add more detail and make them look a whole lot better.
Large maps allow more exploration, but take much longer to detail, and can be full of lag if they are large enough.
Like what you guys said before, a good mix of both along with some medium size maps make the perfect game. Small maps for the detailed confined areas, and large maps for world maps and such.

Hmm, true. One of which i find a lot heavy when I make large maps is that they lag (gladly I made something to reduce that).

I also think using the Macks Tileset is much better than the RTP

The dungeon maps in the Deadly Sin games are usually enormous and well detailed, check 'em out if you need inspiration.

Myself, I tend to do more small maps than large. Unless it's a city, big canyon or a big dungeon.

I prefer a good mix with them. Smaller maps can go to indoor mapping for example but it doesn't mean you can't have small outdoor maps. For bigger maps, I usually go with deserts, fields, towns, villages etc. It's really just random and every map can have its own size. A good mix of them can be great.

IMO 2k3 is more flexible than VX. I know how to manipulate it slightly to get the effect I want. Large maps are quite fun to explore, even though the max is 500x500, it's easy to fill the area with tiles, events and pictures.

Well, here is my take on it. Basically:

Large Maps:

I 'love' these type of maps because there are mounds of things you can do with them. See, people speak of them like that's all they are, big. I have found a way to make a massive map seem 'smaller', which allows me to add further and more precise detail to them. Like so, basically you make a large map, but you have multiple entrances and exits in it, which all connect to different, smaller, rooms. These smaller rooms serve as a light travel way to reach another side of the bigger map. Doing this, you can have multiple way of traveling the large map, while still keeping a sense of adventure, and this way, the player wont feel pressured about going through, because if they've taken one way already, they can take another, and quite possibly find/ do things they didn't in the first place.

Smaller Maps:

Well, as you all know, they are pretty nice. Gives you a better setting for detail, and are overall easier to look at. Simple and sweet.

That's my take on it. Personally, I prefer the larger mapping setting, but in my games, I do use both interchangeably.

Hi Rail, thanks for giving up a comment on this subject. I noticed someone loves large maps more than the smaller ones, all can see in smaller maps are the good details, good designs, but naturally you have to make many maps in your game if all of them are small maps...

I prefer small maps... but not exactly small small, but like... Umm, take a look. this is one of my old maps. It's big, but not big big.

Lol Felix, that's a rather beautiful map. Kinda on the larger side, can't really be considered 'small' per say, but I see what you mean. But again, lovely map it is.

Haha wow cool, am I the only one who use pictures on my map? Sometimes, if the tileset lacks the theme I wanna show on a map, i tend to use pictures to make it more beautiful...

You aren't the only one for sho. It really does add that extra bit of BAM to the maps, and makes the much more attractive. However, gotta remember not to use too many of them or you will get cooked. ~

Wow that's a pretty map made with RM2k3. I wish I can do this on VX
But anyway, I prefer medium-large maps (40*40) for mapping a town or village, but I prefer large maps (65*65) for dungeons, and small maps (20*20) for houses

TheEmeraldboy100 wrote:

Wow that's a pretty map made with RM2k3. I wish I can do this on VX
But anyway, I prefer medium-large maps (40*40) for mapping a town or village, but I prefer large maps (65*65) for dungeons, and small maps (20*20) for houses

These are some good numbers here.

I chatted with some RMXP developers before and said that mapping in XP is much harder than in VX, actually I find them both rather complicated, but I like XP because of the RMX-OS thing, though never tried to make my own MMORPG...

Yea, it 'can' be hard to map on Vx only because you are heavily limited on what you can do. However, it is extremely hard to map with XP if you are going for those overly beautiful maps. You may have more ways to map, but everything is more complicated and realistic looking.