Will Experimental Map Sizes...

[BasileusMaximos]

...Ever not be experimental? Will they ever be made stable? Will we ever get even bigger maps?

I'd like to play on ludicrous map sizes and have, but in my last game which was my most successful yet the UI started to glitch out on my, disappearing unless I scrolled to specific parts of the map. I chocked it up to a memory overflow due to the map size and all my mods, and started a game on a map that is simply large.

I miss my ludicrous map

[Canute]

It wouldn't made sense to allow bigger map before Rimworld didn't fully ported to 64bit and multithreading.
Or you would run out of memory and lagging like the hell.

[XeoNovaDan]

What Canute said. Also, this is what Tynan said about the matter.

[Canute]

Tynan's example's arn't reason ! :-)
It just made the handling of larger map's more difficult. Player need to think about logistic.
And ofcouse Rimworld pawn's NEED to use road/path's and don't walk like they want.
But overall it would be better to use Set-up camp  mod and create mining/farming temp. map, then to use very large map's.

[BasileusMaximos]

What Canute said. Also, this is what Tynan said about the matter.

Can't say I've ever really had much of an issue with big maps in the ways Tynan is talking about. Its just the performance really.

[Syrchalis]

It's funny, performance wise it all depends heavily on biome for me. I have a mountainous boreal forest map with lots of rock, few plants and basically no animals which runs smoothly even at x3 speed at all times (map size is 400x400), sometimes even at x4 (dev mode). And I have a flat jungle map with tons of animals and plants - note there was toxic fallout and everything died - but still it never runs smoothly at x3 speed and sometimes even bad at x2.

So yeah, I think animals and plants in the jungle really really draw performance and it's kinda sad that the basic AI of them or whatever it is is making my relatively good PC unable to run the game at the higher speeds.

[MisterVertigo]

I don't think I've ever played on anything OTHER than the largest map size. I've not had too much trouble. Hunting is kind of a pain at times because the herds spawn at the edge of the map and my hunters have a long way to get to them, but it's manageable.

I have a pretty decent computer and I don't lag too bad. Every now and then I'll get a pause for a second or so right before a raid or manhunter pack come in, but I can deal with that. I also don't use a TON of mods. I have maybe a couple dozen of them, but most of them are QoL mods and things. I'm sure if I used a ton more mods I'd have more performance issues.

Just my two silver...

[sick puppy]

almighty tynan really hits the nail on its head. bigger isnt better. i started on the normal map size and continuously went to smaller and smaller maps. the first time i played on the smallest size i never went back.
honestly, why would people choose to play on larger maps? just to have more a few more berries to harvest when winter begins? just for those few more animals? just for those few more rocks/mountains or resource pockets underground? i can assure you, the smallest map doesnt lack anything whatsoever, heck, i would rather ask tynan to make more smaller maps available. all year growing jungle map on the tiniest size possible, maybe 100x100, dunno, but i really wanna try it! i wanna see what happens when a dry thunderstorm combines with a normal ass thunderstorm there. i wanna see if i am forced to do simple or even nutrient paste meals for my late game colony because i couldnt afford the meat anymore without chickens laying eggs. heck, maybe i wont even have enough space for growing all the hay for all the chickens that i'd need to keep my egg production up for fine meals.
i wanna see how early i will need to start and plant trees so that i have enough mid-game.

all these things (plus tynan's points) make small maps for me way more interesting than larger ones. it also takes away some of the power of mortars, tiny maps probably even more. man, maybe if i play on small enough maps, my all-assault rifle army wont even be that good anymore because i cant use their range to their fullest extent, so finally charge rifles show their true strengths in the end, maybe even all-infantry armies will become more viable. maybe you'll be able to build all over the map and still use it effectively.

_{ok sorry imma stop my spam now}

[Canute]

But smaller map's got some negatives too.
A tornado will hit you most of the time.

If you colony grows up, it is so big that raid's prolly can attack any location. And you need to have multiple defence positions.

[sick puppy]

But smaller map's got some negatives too.
A tornado will hit you most of the time.

If you colony grows up, it is so big that raid's prolly can attack any location. And you need to have multiple defence positions.

indeed. that's exactly what i aim for. i dont want an easier game. i want to scrounge for resources.

and tornados suck in my opinion anyway, no matter the map size. i either deactivate them or play on a17.

[Canute]

If you believe it or not, i never got hit by a tornade so far.
But i place my base allways at the map border and not at the middle.

[Shurp]

I prefer larger maps because it means I have more time to react when raids show up, and more resources to dig up before I switch to deep mining.  Also soil is hard to find on a desert biome (my latest preference) so I have to dot farms all over the place.

But I don't have much issues with the largest map size either -- but I play with few mods and rarely more than a dozen pawns.