Larger map size, is it possible?

[wbonxx]

I'm running the game on a macbook pro 2011, 8gb - old I7.
The game is really smooth, played games lasting few years without problems.

I'm wondering, would be possible to have larger maps? A grown up base accounts easily for a 25% of the map in just 2years. This makes some of the events happen not this far away from the main base and in general gives a feeling of missing space.

Just for testing would be possible to have a map double the size of the actual one?
If the problem is the number of objects, this could be compensated by canceling dropping pods, some other elements and increasing deterioration.

I have also a gaming machine, quite powerful, like many others, would be interesting to be able to use more processing power to have a better "experience".

[b0rsuk]

You can select map size during colony generation by pressing the Advanced button. Are you aware of that ?

[wbonxx]

Thanks for the hint. I'm aware of that.

Question was related to at what point on the road map developers would consider to have even larger sizes. If it was possible and if it was time to start testing the option.
I just remember sometime ago on a post was discussed that the problem was the cpu weight while using the old unity and not the implementation by itself.
Now game is optimized, running on the new unity frame and the average machine is getting better.

Problem is that a lot of the actual issues players are rising could be milder on a larger map. So if we are balancing and trying to address them now, all the work would be not necessary if at some point we want to try a larger map.

i.e.: metal - resource shortage... would be less then a problem on a  larger map.
Storages overcrowded: There would be more space to build.
Riders: Enemies would would spawn a bit more on the distance, less pressure more time to organize.

I guess we could at least try an "experimental size", double then the larger we have now and see how it plays.

[Tynan]

No larger sizes will be added, because it'll start causing the AI to break down. The AI assumes certain limits to the space and would make very poor decisions with very long routes being available.

Also, many players are likely to screw themselves by unnecessarily selecting map sizes their machines can't handle, and then they'll blame me for making a slow-performing game.

The game doesn't need more than 400x400 (in fact, that's excessive by itself) so simply adding more space is pointless.

I'm moving this to General because it doesn't really relate to internal testing. Please keep internal testing forum for just internal testing topics.

[RawCode]

please show your base, i just can't imagine base over 50*50 and can't imagine base over 400*400

[harpo99999]

in a 32 bit os with a 32 bit program I am enjoying the stability and performance with the 275x275 maps size, but also like the 300 size, but dislike the out of memory crashes that happen every few hours with the 300x300 maps(and this is in a heavily modded game, so you might be able to play a day or so in an unmoded 300x300, but I wouled expect it to out o memory on you  every few hours at that map size

[Serenity]

The largest map sizes are already problematic because of the walking distances combined with certain geographic features like mountain ranges. For example hunting and collecting drops can cause people to be out for so long that they become miserable from hunger.

[pdxsean]

i.e.: metal - resource shortage... would be less then a problem on a  larger map.
Storages overcrowded: There would be more space to build.
Riders: Enemies would would spawn a bit more on the distance, less pressure more time to organize.

I tend to play on 275x275 maps and I've never run into any of these problems. Typically when I get bored with a map, usually around 5505, I have 5000+ steel sitting in reserve, and a couple thousand plasteel. What are you using all of your metal on? I play on hilly maps, I couldn't imagine how many spare resources I would have if I were to play on a mountain map.

I've never run into storage shortages, although my base does get kind of cluttered with fifteen thousand bricks and other detritus. That isn't a result of map size tho, it's more a stack size limitation. Would you have us stack stuff outside our main base? Then you're looking at inefficiencies as people run around to grab or store things.

As for slowing down raiders, that is easily made up for with walls, sandbags, and other obstacles. To be honest, in my most recent game I deleted some of the obstacles I'd built because the raiders were taking too long to arrive.



Anyway I just wonder how people are having these issues so frequently. Maybe it's because of the demands of certain mods or something? I've just never run into these problems in vanilla.

[Grishnerf]

The largest map sizes are already problematic because of the walking distances combined with certain geographic features like mountain ranges. For example hunting and collecting drops can cause people to be out for so long that they become miserable from hunger.

you would build outdoor Posts with a medical bed, table to eat etc..
i see no Problem to have even larger travel routes. would make Managing restricted zones even better.
(building seperate communites on the same map)

i Play on the largest map and i think it is just the right size, could be even a bit more.
i experience no lag at all with uncounted mods installed. (glittertech,rimsenal many exta factions)

only time it lags is when i scroll the camera around in triplespeed/devspeed while 100's of animals moving.
but i got used to press spacebar to pause, then wasd the camera and unpause again.
no big deal.

i would love bigger maps.
but i understand from a dev standpoint that it is not really important for the base game atm.