Is the big map size really bad?

[viranto]

The game is warning me because i would use the big map size. It say the ai is stupid with big map, it is unbalancedm bad performance and such things.
Is the ai really worser on bigger maps?

[Stormsong]

The warning is speaking the truth, it's up to you whether or not you feel that would impede upon your fun. You'll have to test it. If you're just looking for other opinions, I don't go larger than 275x275.

[Ender]

i play on the first bigger map size. its fun because i dont run out of materials. I feel the benefit of getting lots of prepare time when attacked is balanced because of when you are being mortared your the one thaT HAs to go out and walk that far

[Colonel Sanders Lite]

I would kind of like to know more about this too.

My suspicion is that the only real problem with the map size is when your guys decide to go and pick up a meal or something in a distant part of the map or other ridiculous things like that, which you should be able to get around with zone restrictions.

[jie]

the biggest issue with bigger Map is the more stuff it has to calculate. more tiles means more patching options. growing things. filth possibility. chunks. moving winds. shadows and all. it's more late game where it becomes an issue. all because it has to calculate alot more.

most times its system related how much you can take. with balance I didn't notice any major things beside them having a longer walk

[PIT_DEFENDER]

I am used to playing on a large map, since the game suggests to play on medium I figured ill try but so far I cant find a map that gives me OP building advantage and isnt coverd 50% with rock ;p

I think if your going to have more than one or two settlements, it doesnt really matter for perforrmance reasons anyways right ?

[Zorlond]

I play on the largest map size a lot. And the only real issue I've seen is in navigation at great distances (quarter of the map or more). The AI will pick completely inexplicable paths and directions and just waste a whole lot of time simply because it has to commit to a path long before it can calculate -every-single-option-. So it makes a "best guess" that is almost always wrong.

But other than that, it hasn't really been a problem for me.

[PIT_DEFENDER]

Originally posted by Zorlond:

I play on the largest map size a lot. And the only real issue I've seen is in navigation at great distances (quarter of the map or more). The AI will pick completely inexplicable paths and directions and just waste a whole lot of time simply because it has to commit to a path long before it can calculate -every-single-option-. So it makes a "best guess" that is almost always wrong.

But other than that, it hasn't really been a problem for me.

But that there what you said would have enromous impact on raids wouldnt it ?

[M.K.]

On the ginormous maps the computer has to work *much* harder on pathfinding.
But it is worse than merely slowing everything down. (although that happens too, 2 x the size is 4 x the floorspace is about 8 x the pathfinding work thus 8 x the slowdown)

The computer is lazy, though. Once pathfinding reaches a certain large-ish extent, it starts getting sloppy. On normal maps this sloppyness usually manifests only on edge-to-other-edge travels. Usually seen as a hunter getting lost trying to return from a distant hunt.
But on a sufficiently huge map, your people will start getting lost moving from harvest fields to storeroom, and traders could fail to find your base, starving to death on the fringes, and worse...

[viranto]

Thanks all. Then I would play on the standard size. I don't will destroy me a 50 hours game. This is why I never test a bigger map. Maybe I choose 2 colonies instead of a bigger map

[PIT_DEFENDER]

Originally posted by M.K.:

On the ginormous maps the computer has to work *much* harder on pathfinding.
But it is worse than merely slowing everything down. (although that happens too, 2 x the size is 4 x the floorspace is about 8 x the pathfinding work thus 8 x the slowdown)

The computer is lazy, though. Once pathfinding reaches a certain large-ish extent, it starts getting sloppy. On normal maps this sloppyness usually manifests only on edge-to-other-edge travels. Usually seen as a hunter getting lost trying to return from a distant hunt.
But on a sufficiently huge map, your people will start getting lost moving from harvest fields to storeroom, and traders could fail to find your base, starving to death on the fringes, and worse...

Well I never had any of the issues your mentioning here tbh ;p

[Rokko]

i played only a few times on smaller maps,rest on biggest one.

IMO the pros outweigh the cons.
on the biggest map you get more options where to start your colony,you rarely run out of resources, enemy usually needs longer time to reach you,natural disaster dont always happen on top of your head and so on.
and i have yet to see path finding problems some people talk about..

the downfall being that if you are not observant one of your pawns might wander off to collect an item on the other side of the map and Randy decides its that one pawn that gets attacked by a manhunter pack or something.once hes hit hes slower,so you need nothing short of a miracle to save him.
on a second note, if you are one of those pro players with 30,40+ pawns and still growing- colonies, then a small map size makes no sense if the map size equals your colony size.

just my 2 cents

[PIT_DEFENDER]

I wonder what are exactly the issues tynan is on about in the decription then ;p

[Astasia]

The larger map sizes are absolutely fine if you balance out the performance demands and control your map. A 350x350 flat desert map without water and with all the stone mined up doesn't perform noticeably worse than a smaller map because the pathfinding is directional and only becomes impactful when it needs to make long twisting paths around complex layouts. The only objects on the map that have a noticeable impact on performance are plants and animals, a 350x350 jungle map is definitely going to have a heavy performance cost, but is still playable if you make concessions like having a lower population colony or not keeping many animals yourself.

The AI behavior that becomes noticeable on the larger maps and people used to complain about, is for example when a colonist spends half a day walking across a map to a steel node, hits it once, then turns around and walks back to the base to play chess or something. This is more player error than AI error though. The reason I love the larger maps and never play on anything smaller than 325, is that distance actually matters and provides another means of progression.

On a larger map if something falls off in the corner, you have to really consider if it's worth allowing it or just letting it rot. If you need steel and the only deposits are around the edges you have to take extra steps to get it reasonably, especially on a snowy map, like creating temporary shelters and assigning colonists to a work area so they stay on that side of the map long enough to do their job.

Later on you get bionic and archotech legs, and areas of the map that used to be too far away to interact with become much easier to get to, especially on a mountainous map where you have spent time digging shortcut paths to reach certain areas quickly. There is a lot of extra gameplay to be had on the larger map sizes, and it is unfortunate that people miss out on it because the dev decided to put a ridiculous warning on the maps instead of letting people use common sense and control their own game performance.

[LunaticMethod]

Before 1.0, I always played with ludeonicrous (currently locked behind dev mode) map size and never had any trouble. But it might have changed.

[twan]

With a decent computer (16 gb ram), there's no big problem even on true large maps (tried up to 600x600 with the mod to increase map size - which allows up to 2000x2000 iirc, but haven't dared). But there's also no reason to use them as 325x325 is largely sufficient.

Of course lag happen once you have 30+ colonists, and are raided by 80++ ennemies, and is worse the bigger is the map, but I don't know a size where it doesn't happen at some point.

And also crashpod people are likely to die before you can rescue them, or your caravaners to take ages to join the border on huge maps. And there are some behavorial issues as character don't realise the distances (like affermentionned crossing all the map to mine one shot). But it's really minor and partly avoidable with correct use of zones.

Several colonies + big maps is where performance become a real problem. I wouldn't advise more than 325x325 if you plan to have more than 2 or 3 colonies. Lag became unbearable when I tried to developp a second base with 600x600.