Thinking outloud (again) - map size idea

[muzickmage]

Being that I would love Giants to upgrade their map size to 4x maps I keep watching with every new iteration of the game to see if we will finally get that (IMO) very needed upgrade. I didn't really expect it for FS15. But was a bit disappointed to see the same small map size for FS17. When creeping towards the web talk of FS19 I began again to get my hopes up a little. This will be the year I thought we will get such an update to the game. But again, it's not happening. So i'm thinking now.... maybe FS21. (Then it'll be.... maybe FS23.)

Despite my greed for a larger map of more options, exploration, and overall progression of player experience of a farming utopia I admit as well to being appreciative of the arguments against this upgrade. From what I have read so far (in one blog to another) the biggest argument against upgrading the map size seems to be the same argument I have for making the map bigger....... "overall player experience".

This argument of "player experience" seems to fall back onto the computers. As well as PC vs consoles. As a PC player with a mid-end gaming rig (i5/8GB RAM/2GB Video Card) I admit that when using modded maps it's common to sometimes be met with some sputtering on some 4x maps. It doesn't happen on all 4x maps, but it does happen. I resolve the sputtering problem by cutting down some of the trees and not parking too many vehicles in a cluster-like group.

Though there's a major difference between modded maps heavily modded, to those maps offered by Giants which are more conservative I can still appreciate the argument that larger maps can diminish player experience if we can't run them comfortably.

So how about a new idea? How about maybe we keep the 2x maps that we have, which people seem to be able to use confortably, and simply add more of them. Or rather... add 1 more of them separated by a load screen. For example..... think of ETS2 with a ferry activating the load screen between two maps of Europe and the UK. Or the Sims 4 notorious load screens to visit the house next door.

Maybe (again for example) Goldcrest Valley and Sosnovka can be both active maps in a single gameplay where we use a ferry to travel from one map to the other. This would allow for world expansion without map exapansion.

With the new placeable system coming with FS19 Giants (as i'm hoping) can start adding placeable DLC's to their list. Not just a DLC of new vehicles like we've been receiving but also now DLC packs of placeable buildings, factories, etc. to help fill up the FS world.

Whatever the decision moving forward I would love to see FS grow beyond the limitations of our current 2x map.

[GothicKing13]

That would be a long, tiring and expensive ferry ride. Considering Goldcrest is in the US and Sosnovka in Russia (Yes? I believe it's Russia based).

[BigC92]

Yes its a Russian map.

[muzickmage]

That would be a long, tiring and expensive ferry ride. Considering Goldcrest is in the US and Sosnovka in Russia (Yes? I believe it's Russia based).

lol yes. But those 2 maps were only used as an example. Just use 2 US maps instead, or 2 Russian maps, or 2 UK maps, etc.

[this_is_gav]

I would like the option to create a slightly larger map too, one that could be released for consoles, as the maps I want to create (based on real life) are all around 3km*3km, and obviously to get such a map into FS19 and available to console users that means I would have to scale the map down to 2km*2km. That's what BulletBill did for Lone Oak (it's about 2/3 of the scale of the real farm), but it would be far more noticeable on a European map with smaller yards and fields. Even a 2.5km*2.5km map would go a long way to help.

The reason I've read is performance, that consoles simply wouldn't be able to compute a 4x area (in fact it was said by a GIANTs dev that "it would fry them"). Perhaps in the future. The default map sizes are fine for most, but it can be quite restrictive for those trying to replicate real maps and getting them out for everyone to enjoy.

I also read about people saying a 4x map would be too big, but I think it would suit FS19 in particular. Think of The West Coast - it's a large map (in that it fills most of the 2km*2km map area), but there are six farms you can choose to be based in, and if you don't want to visit another area of the map you never have to. The replay-ability of such a map is far greater than most maps.

Don't get me wrong, if they can't do it they can't do it, but with the new placeable farms and so much attention given to the new multiplayer options it's a shame to cram up 16 teams (if that is in the final game) into a 2km*2km area. A slightly larger map would make it far more immersive.

[muzickmage]

I would like the option to create a slightly larger map too, one that could be released for consoles, as the maps I want to create (based on real life) are all around 3km*3km, and obviously to get such a map into FS19 and available to console users that means I would have to scale the map down to 2km*2km. That's what BulletBill did for Lone Oak (it's about 2/3 of the scale of the real farm), but it would be far more noticeable on a European map with smaller yards and fields. Even a 2.5km*2.5km map would go a long way to help.

The reason I've read is performance, that consoles simply wouldn't be able to compute a 4x area (in fact it was said by a GIANTs dev that "it would fry them"). Perhaps in the future. The default map sizes are fine for most, but it can be quite restrictive for those trying to replicate real maps and getting them out for everyone to enjoy.

I also read about people saying a 4x map would be too big, but I think it would suit FS19 in particular. Think of The West Coast - it's a large map (in that it fills most of the 2km*2km map area), but there are six farms you can choose to be based in, and if you don't want to visit another area of the map you never have to. The replay-ability of such a map is far greater than most maps.

Don't get me wrong, if they can't do it they can't do it, but with the new placeable farms and so much attention given to the new multiplayer options it's a shame to cram up 16 teams (if that is in the final game) into a 2km*2km area. A slightly larger map would make it far more immersive.

I think some of the frustration comes from wondering how consoles can handle the map size of ETS2 and ATS, but not much bigger than what we have with FS.

Or you look at some of the world sizes of other games like Metal Gear, Fallout, Call of Duty, etc. which seem to be ok on consoles, but a FS map larger than its current size will fry the system lol.

Just saying, it's not easy to understand why one is fine, and another isn't.

[GothicKing13]

LOL - I know you were just giving an example muzick, just... when I read that, that ferry ride immediately popped into mind. Had to have a little fun!

[this_is_gav]

I think some of the frustration comes from wondering how consoles can handle the map size of ETS2 and ATS, but not much bigger than what we have with FS.

Or you look at some of the world sizes of other games like Metal Gear, Fallout, Call of Duty, etc. which seem to be ok on consoles, but a FS map larger than its current size will fry the system lol.

Just saying, it's not easy to understand why one is fine, and another isn't.

It's not the size of the map that stops it, it's having to calculate 12 possible fruits in growth cycles covering thousands of 1 metre squares of land; any 1m could be any of 48 different stages - things that no other game has to do.

You can even see this on a powerful PC on a normal size map if you use a fast-forward mod - the map's growth cycles take far longer and you can literally see a wave of growth slowly (compared to normal time) creep down from north to south.

Just to check I've tested it out. At standard game speeds (x120) and normal growth speed it took 23.5 hours for field 25 on Golcrest Valley to go from seeded to fully grown. Using Creator Tools at x7680 speed it took the same field 110 hours (over 4 and half days) hours to grow.

Doing the same on a 4x map shows how much harder it is. I used Pleasant Valley v3 and did the same as above. The field took the same length of time (23.5 hours) to grow at x120, but at x7680 that increased to around 430 hours (around 4x slower - it wasn't expecting it to be as simple as 4 times longer for 4 times the map, but there you go).

That suggests a console even at standard x120 speeds would struggle just with the growth stages.

This is on a fairly high spec PC (i7 4790K @ 4.4GHz, GTX 970 and 16GB RAM).

[lefe1]

HAHA..... We have a lot of computer engineers in this group...HAHA

[fenixguy]

I think that's a neat idea. I've thought about having joining maps with loading screens in between (think GTA: Vice City for example). I imagine one standard size map that consists of just farm land. One that consists of woods for forestry. Then another that contains major highways, towns, and all of the sell points. And when you load the game, you pick up where you were instead of the pre-determined location. That's just a random example of what I picture in my head.

I've played this game since FS2011 and have never farmed an entire standard size map. After 200 hours, I get bored and move to a new location. I'd love to see larger maps just for the extended driving to transport goods and what not, but it's not something high on my personal wish list.

[Addictedtofs]

Oh god...not loading screens...
As someone who plays a ton of rpgs, I have had my fair share of loading screens. They are awful, intrusive, immersion killers. I can't stand them. In skyrim I had to get a mod that said funny things just to deal with them.

[redglasses]

The loading screen idea is great, i remember one time someone posted the specs of his ps4 and made it look like a pc. He asked if it could run a 4x map and everyone said it could run a 4x map. The problem is with the console OS or something. That’s why we can’t get 4x maps.

I think the loading screen is an absolutely great idea, as long as they don’t take forever. Imagine the possibility’s...

[Earnest Pea]

As an extension to the idea of loading screens between map pieces... how about being able to drive between different player's maps. You link together with one or more other players and can then drive off the edge of your map onto one of your buddies maps and back again.

[cr41g_1965]

I have yet to use an entire map yet... adding more areas through loading screens just means more unused land to me...

[Geneborg]

its not about "using all the map", its about having places to go, you don't usually have all the land next to your farm, sometimes you have to drive your equipment for a while to get where you want to.

this has also gameplay implications. right now, there is no need for a truck. its nice to have, but there really is no need. on any 2x map using a large grain cart behind a tractor will be the better option than to load it on another vehicle that can't hold much more. also, equipment size is rarly a problem as road transport is not a thing, just drive 100m over the other field and get to your destination.

on a 4x map, or, using a 16x map (for FS17), you really get the idea why you need something to go 90km/h and not only 40km/h, it becomes less about trailer size and more about speed. also, as road transport becomes a thing, some equipment is not practical on certain roads/maps.