I chose style one.

Longer walls, mobs would have to increase in height.

I don't see why mobs would have to increase in height. The example you have there looks perfect, and in my opinion, too big for style two. The shorter walls looks sort of unrealistically small, in my opinion.

Harder to code and no idea how mechanics would interact here. Walls are actually obj's.

How would this make it any different from the other walls? This should just be a graphical effect, and should in no way effect your code-base. If it does, I suspect you are doing something wrong.

That's what I think. ^.^

Not to influence decision, I really like style two. I hadn't given it a thought until I discovered all of my wall code stopped working (every wall is interactive in some way) when I increased the height. That's what caused me to try Style Two which in my opinion turned out looking really cool.

Mobs will only be multiples of 32 (for various reasons), so my thoughts were that taller walls wound make even elves and trolls look tiny.

Complex Robot wrote:

Then go with the shorter wall for goodness sake!
There's no sense asking us to decide for you!
^.^

True! That doesn't change the fact that I am still seeking personal opinions on the visuals. So I'm welcoming more opinions and votes even though it might not effect my decision. Even if I knew I was choosing style two, I'd still ask which one you like better just for research / feedback :D

FIREking wrote:

You can't have a two tall turf without a buntch of hacks to make it function right (turfs don't have bound_width or bound_height). This would force them to be objs. If they are objs:

1. you lose the optimizations that come along with turfs
2. objects weren't meant to be used for tiles for a reason
3. I guess I could write new wall logic fairly easily but it gets complicated because byond was mostly made to work with single tile things. Things like Enter() start to get weird when you increase size.

And thanks for the points you've raised and your opinion!

I'm not sure why having taller walls would be a problem. If you want players to be able to walk behind the walls (the part of the floor that can't be seen because the tall wall is in the way) then you just give the turf an icon that's taller than the world's icon size and the turf's density would only block you from moving inside the wall, but not behind the wall. If you want players to not be able to move behind the part of the floor that's hidden from view, just make the turfs that are hidden from view dense.

The shorter walls look better. If the walls are just there to block the player's movement, the tall ones will block movement just as well but take up more space.

Style One won the poll though. You have to go with which one won the poll.

I prefer the shorter walls; they look much better in my opinion.

EmpirezTeam wrote:

Style One won the poll though. You have to go with which one won the poll.

haha

Maximus_Alex2003 wrote:

Two Tile style is nice, but shouldn't the closer-south wall not be visible since it's not actually floating on a cloud of blackness, but in reality the void that players shouldn't see?

http://i50.tinypic.com/33auww0.png

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But the "wall_out" has opacity of 1 so you can't see past walls.

I can't think of a programatic way of making situational opacity where you'd see walls from one angle but not from another, at least efficiently in DM.

Edit: I see what you mean. And what you're describing IS how it really is in the game. Opacity was turned off for the screen shot.