Why 50000?

posted on February 4th, 2010, 6:37 pm

Why can't maps larger than 50k be playable? Is there some coding problem that prohibits such large maps? Can this eventually be removed? Or is it deeply embedded in the exe? Because I remember how Armada 1 could handle 100k maps no prob. Sure a longer load time. But still. I as well as a few others would like to have an "Extra Large" map for long games now and then. I see no reason why we can't have such large maps. Because a larger map just means a longer game (a.k.a. more fun!).

I'm sure all are aware of my attempt to break that limit. Every time I play it it crashes, but not when I edit it. It makes no sense at all! The mapping engine can handle better than the playing engine? I'd like to know where the map size cap is so that I can really give it a piece of my mind!

After all, if we have larger maps, then that can allow room for very large stations (in one mod I'm trying to pull off a properly scaled Space dock). And even larger map objects! We could have Supernovas in maps (that actually have a corona). And we could then have larger resource asteroids, huge nebulae that would otherwise hog up the map space. And maybe even moving asteroid belts!

All I'm asking is to lift the cap off a bit. Maybe set it to 100k? Or 200k? Anyway, I would like larger maps as much as a Ferengi would want latinum.

posted on February 4th, 2010, 6:40 pm

the larger a map, the more game entities there will will be. A cap makes sense, and i believe 50k is more then enough

posted on February 4th, 2010, 6:46 pm

Hahah ooooh Gamer


  Dude think about it.  By the time your first pack of Interceptors reaches your opponent's base on the other side of a 100k x 100k map they will already have Negh'Vars and V-13's waiting. 


  Fact:  The larger a map is, the more efficient it is to skip the small vessels and straight tech up.


  This is true in -any- RTS because travel time means the threat of attack is reduced until later.  Also it means that reaction time to any problem is reduced to a point where actually reacting is near impossible.  If your ally gets attacked, you've likely got no chance at all of being able to help them because they are too far away.


  Only a very carefully laid-out map could effectively make use of this size, but even then it's just going to be a tech-rush to see who can field the biggest victory fleet the fastest.

posted on February 4th, 2010, 6:50 pm

Putting aside the game aspects, I think many players just want that Trek feeling... that the galaxy is huge. 

posted on February 4th, 2010, 6:52 pm

You'd need to put Warp back in just to expand...

posted on February 4th, 2010, 7:03 pm

You'd need to put Warp back in just to expand...

No, just put in more expansion points.

posted on February 4th, 2010, 7:09 pm

Gamers motto(s): (we should start a list)

theres never enough weapons,

theres no such thing as a map that is too big, just a map with not enough moons

[quaddmgtech]

posted on February 4th, 2010, 7:11 pm

Last edited by quaddmgtech on February 4th, 2010, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I can see it now... a 100K map where every square inch is covered in workholes. It would be like a giant intergalactic version of Whack-A-Mole.

Edit workholes?  I meant wormholes....

posted on February 4th, 2010, 7:12 pm

Putting aside the game aspects, I think many players just want that Trek feeling... that the galaxy is huge. 

 
Well to be quite honest, I've always wanted that too since A1 .

I think if there were more "intractable" things in maps there were be a better way to have large maps.  Right now, there's really not much more use for moons once you've got 3 pairs.  I mean sure you can just keep building bigger and bigger fleets, but that kind of ruins that "Trek" feeling we were going for in the first place .

 If there were more resources or things better to acquire in the map that NECESSITATED an expansion and holding of other areas ... then we might see something.

posted on February 4th, 2010, 7:15 pm

he's taken up tyler's mantra of never enuff dakka

but seriously, gamer is better at modding than me and provokes discussion and puts in more effort than my laziness will allow, people with his dedication keep mods going. keep up the good work

EDIT: double ninja-ed

posted on February 4th, 2010, 8:26 pm

i will take a look if we can increase the size of maps with a future redo

posted on February 4th, 2010, 11:38 pm

While maps 100k in size seem a little ridiculous for multiplayer, I can't deny it would be fun to have a week long game against a group of AI on a map that size.

posted on February 4th, 2010, 11:50 pm

If Planets could still be named, then a map that big could make an entire sector of space.

posted on February 5th, 2010, 2:10 am

While maps 100k in size seem a little ridiculous for multiplayer, I can't deny it would be fun to have a week long game against a group of AI on a map that size.

It would actually be awesome if there was a campaign aspect. Because then you could have a dynamic battlefield and have to take certain objectives and other would be taken by the enemy but you would have to plan well because it would take you a long time to reach wherever you were going on the map.

posted on February 22nd, 2010, 7:37 am

I think that well built and balanced maps could be palyable. For example if you get colonization back, remove moons from the bases and crew won't be infinite any more, then you have a base somewhere, but you also have to build smaller outpost to protect your mining colonies and planets. If the map is big enough, you'll always need some patrol fleets for monitoring your enemy, because your sensor platforms simply not strong enough to cover the whole map.
It would give a new element tot he game. Tactical genius would be more important than ever: finding the holes on the enemy defense, attack unprotected colonies, setting traps with fleets hiding in nebulae. These things doesn't have too much importance on the current maps...