Oversized Maps (Above 256x256 Tiles)

[Christheturtle]

I also am all for the increase of maximum map sizes. It prolongs game play, allows a more tactical approach, and gives more room for map makers to create epic leet layouts.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Like Lav_Coyote, I've easily logged thousands of hours making WZ maps since '99 so let me come at this from a very practiced position.

How I can see doubling the current map limit and still make a high quality map is through the addition of water.

Let me take an actual example to illustrate the issues involved beyond the coding challenges and work.

My recent MP project "Aqua Co-op SE" is about 90% land / 10% water at the max dimensional limits in H x L x W.... if those limits were doubled I would have made the ratio more like 40% land and 60% water while still maintaining the maps overall quality, specific originality and complexity - as well the months of time it took to make.

Now here's the very practical map making issues involved here: Balancing and MP Play testing.

Maps of these dimensions and composition are not only very time consuming to make but are also IMPOSSIBLE to even come close to fully balance using any extant Skirmish A.I. - they need extensive and organized MP Beta Testing with all human players. This last does NOT exist at this time.

So from my PoV until this point is addressed in real terms then increasing the map limits and making quality maps at those increased sizes is a total waste of time - for both coders & map makers. It's like putting the cart before the horse.

I also do not believe that the old adage "make it so and they will come" applies here because they are not coming spontaneously at the current level of balance testing challenge so why would they all of a sudden materialize in droves when those very self same MP Balance play testing challenges are made exponentially more difficult. Doesn't make sense to me. However if this issue is practically addressed at the current dimensional limits then it would make sense to go forward on the coding side as well as the map making side.

- RV
.

[JDW]

unless i missed something

Exactly why I called for a sticky or a mention in a guide if there is one...

[Nick Morro]

I also am all for the increase of maximum map sizes. It prolongs game play, allows a more tactical approach, and gives more room for map makers to create epic leet layouts.

.
. Prolonging gameplay is not necessarily a good thing.

. One should observe that most current maps are well below the 250x250 limit. The flaws become apparent as one approaches this limit.

. Take Ariza, for instance - breathtakingly beautiful, but if you actually try to play, well... you'll see what I mean.

. My point here is a more terse version of Rman's point: Large maps are not fun.

.
Regards,
Nick
.

. Oh, and, Rman? Your dots truly are useful when one wishes to be concise. Perhaps you should try them again sometime.

[Rman Virgil]

I also am all for the increase of maximum map sizes. It prolongs game play, allows a more tactical approach, and gives more room for map makers to create epic leet layouts.

.

. Prolonging gameplay is not necessarily a good thing.

. One should observe that most current maps are well below the 250x250 limit. The flaws become apparent as one approaches this limit.

. Take Ariza, for instance - breathtakingly beautiful, but if you actually try to play, well... you'll see what I mean.

. My point here is a more terse version of Rman's point: Large maps are not fun.

.
Regards,
Nick
.

. Oh, and, Rman? Your dots truly are useful when one wishes to be concise. Perhaps you should try them again sometime.

. Ya know, you make some solid points there... & dots too.

. Dots shall once again serve my mantra of concision. Thank you for reminding me.

- RV
.

[Fabio_IT]

the bigger maps have got a lot of lag.
game engine have got problem to manage it.

but it is an interesting idea. I hope for the furure...

[Iluvalar]

I don't believe it would be that great at all.

The amount of research possible between the time a unit is produced and the time it can reach the enemy base is finely tuned in the game. If it was possible to reach a higher weapon and produce it by the time the first mg viper reach the base. A rushing strategy would be very weak. Quickly it would become obvious that the first player that produce units instead of investing in research would lose the game. It wouldn't be a war game anymore, but a peace game .

If you increase the distance between bases, you would hurt that balance between rush and research. The action in a game would start after a full hour a building phase instead of the actual 5-10 minutes. I believe there is my miniX3 mod for 2.3.9 somewhere on the forum. That make the whole game behave like a 1x1 is a 3x3 tile. If you try it in a map that isn't a mini-map itself, you will immediately see what I mean.

Edit :
If we where to increase the map size while keeping the "feel" of the game as it is. We'd need to scale the speed of the units by the same scale.

Then, it would become obvious that the range of the weapons muost be scaled as well if you don't want to advantage some weapons over the other.

You would complain that the units can shoot outside of your viewing range. So you'd ask for the zoom to scale with the map scale.

But then, your units would look crazy small, and you would probably ask for them to be scaled as well.

The end result would be NOTHING but maybe a small gain in the details of the cliffs side . And smaller buildings.

[NoQ]

Joining the necromancers here: since my last map is an asymmetric urban 250x250 with more or less natural terrain, just wanted to mention that it takes quite some time to paint; i was surprised, that's several days of pure work, i think, and even then you can easily see cheapness in quite a few spots.

[Emdek]

NoQ, in such cases it could help to use some kind of terrain generator (for gaps only or for initial layout for whole map), planned for long time for my map editor.
Also I see only few (though important) use cases for big maps, for example without them there is no need for naval units at all (who needs them on water bodies of size like 25 x 25?).
There could be some technologies dedicated for big maps, mostly to improve transport, like teleports. I really dislike speed scaling, the only case where it could be applied are transporters, as it could be explained that longer route gives them ability to gain more momentum.

[aubergine]

Big maps could allow for some interesting mini-campaigns, where the whole campaign is based on one map, with bit of that map becoming accessible as the story unfolds...

[Emdek]

aubergine, surely, but I guess that this discussion is more about multiplayer maps, since they are much more common (it is much easier to create such map than whole campaign, even those with only few missions).

[Iluvalar]

That's true, but I doubt you would find many players ready to play a 4-5 hour game non-stop. Without connection lost or such... For now, it would be solo multi-campaigns AFAICT. I believe you can do pretty good proofs of concept in a 256x256 map if the player is alone. With the actual scaling of the techtree that end after roughly 1 hour. I don't believe you could fill much more than 256x256 anyway .

I believe it's not the size of the map that is the stopper right now, but the scripting tools that are cryptic and the volunteers to make some prototypes.

Emdek, I understand your motivations. I will support the jump up to 4096x4096. But I'm sure that complications that you are not aware of will prevail over all your best intentions. I bet once they tried, nobody will never want to play again a map over 300x300 unless heavily modded.

[Emdek]

Iluvalar, for me the main issue is not to force map makers to create enormous maps but just to allow them to that and let them explore possibilities, get more variety.
More flexibility, in all areas, so someday someone could create something good.

[Goth Zagog-Thou]

I'll chime in here.

I have use for 510x510 maps for campaign mode, but MP maps of that size aren't really necessary imho.

Technically, the only issue that really slowed down the game engine of a map that size was the minimap redraw. There was a lot to change in the game code to get 510 to load and function (especially in the pathing routines), but that was really the only showstopper from what I could see. As soon as an HQ was built, it slowed down to a crawl.

But yes, FlaME supports up to 512x512 maps (and larger) out of the box. The only thing it'll do is tell the user that maps above 250x250 aren't supported by Warzone.

[Emdek]

Goth Zagog-Thou, for now.

Also I see only few (though important) use cases for big maps, for example without them there is no need for naval units at all (who needs them on water bodies of size like 25 x 25?).