Playable map with bounds of 512?

[NourmeusXL]

Is there any way to make WE map size of 512(playable area)but still making it working properly(i mean with no problems,errors?)

 

[IcemanBo]

I think something like 480x480 is maximum

 

[deathismyfriend]

No 480 x 480 is max like iceman said.

 

[NourmeusXL]

yeah but how do i set 480,since when i open new map i can go only 256

 

[Maker]

With JNGP editor.

Note that 480x480 map is huge and very difficult and extremely time consuming to fill with quality content. I would personally never try to make that large a map.

 

[sethmachine]

With JNGP editor.

Note that 480x480 map is huge and very difficult and extremely time consuming to fill with quality content. I would personally never try to make that large a map.

Is there a way to resize a map to a larger size, e.g. to 480 x 480 without making a new map?

 

[Maker]

Yes, with JNGP editor. Extend map and camera bounds.

 

[Tal'Rarity]

How come 480x480 is the max? Just curious because I don't really know the answer 100%.

 

[Zeatherann]

What's odd is that doesn't the warcraft 3 map file only support up to 2^32 terrain points (256x256)? So why does 480x480 work?

 

[Daffa]

You can manipulate camera to simulate such things (with 480x480 size), albeit it might be a bit messy.

 

[Xonok]

Well, 480x480 does have some weak points. For instance, if you ever resize it(map must start with that size), then blight pathing will break.

 

[Tal'Rarity]

What's odd is that doesn't the warcraft 3 map file only support up to 2^32 terrain points (256x256)? So why does 480x480 work?

Do your math, 480x480 is in that equation, divide 480 by 32 and theres your quick answer however the max then really should of been 512x512. Odd they stopped at 480.

Blight breaks above 256?

 

[Xonok]

Do your math, 480x480 is in that equation, divide 480 by 32 and theres your quick answer however the max then really should of been 512x512. Odd they stopped at 480.

Blight breaks above 256?

I have not tested the problem about blight myself. What I've heard is that if you make the map 480x480 immediately and never resize, then blight will work fine.
If you happen to test this, then please tell me the results.

Blight breaking simply means that stuff like ziggurats can not be placed even on blight. The pathing map will look green, but still say "Must be placed on blight"

 

[Zeatherann]

Why divide 480 by 32 (15 btw)?

 

[Tal'Rarity]

"What's odd is that doesn't the warcraft 3 map file only support up to 2^32 terrain points (256x256)? So why does 480x480 work?"

15*32 = 480

 

[edo494]

What's odd is that doesn't the warcraft 3 map file only support up to 2^32 terrain points (256x256)? So why does 480x480 work?

that would make it 65536x65536

and the limit is most likely, because the map coords are saved in lets say 1 short(16 bits) and each bit represents 32 size, which is the size your map's size must devide(480x480 is valid while 480x470 is not, because both numbers are not dividable) and they for some reason maybe reserved 0 as 0x0, which gives you 15x32 = 480

 

[Dr Super Good]

WC3 uses single precision floats to represent positions on the map. As such error increases as you move further away from the origin. This also means that behaviour of unit movement at the edges of very large maps might become erratic and unpredictable.

Most of the 2^32 values are used to represent positions near the centre. The further away from the centre you go, the fewer values per tile.

The main problem is RTS games are not meant to have such large maps. The potential computational load increases proportional to map area, or worse due to how the game is coded. Very few (if not no) 480*480 maps have been made that fully utilized all the space and were a good player experience.

Games like RPGs such as TES Oblivion get away with such apparently large areas by only loading the areas directly around you so actually have a considerably small working set. RTS games generally do not do this as synchronization between clients becomes very difficult, if not impossible. RTS games mostly use fully parallel synchronized game states where the entire game state is present on all players in parallel during a session.

I strongly advise considering if you actually need such a large map as 480*480. Most of the time you do not and can easily shrink maps though better map development. Instead of having long sequences in unique serial areas, make them shorter and have them share areas to some extent. Instead of making the map larger so that the world seems bigger, make the units smaller so the same area appears larger. Instead of dividing a map into different areas which become obsolete as players progress (low level area -> high level area), try upgrading the areas so they are always useful (low level stuff stops spawning and high level stuff starts).

These are but some of the tips you can use to make a better map with less space. Remember that it is a lot better to have a very crowded map that has no free space than a huge map that is a ghost town with hardly anything on it.

 

[Tal'Rarity]

That doesn't work for orpgs and other map genres that need to be big.

 

[Xonok]

That doesn't work for orpgs and other map genres that need to be big.

Gaias retaliation has done quite a good job at this, so I don't know where you're coming from.

 

[Tal'Rarity]

I meant ones where it really fits the genre of its name.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I meant ones where it really fits the genre of its name.

Yes except WC3 does not support such maps. Most of the time the developers run into huge problems creating such large maps resulting in poor map quality and play experience.

 

[chobibo]

Small, dynamic maps aren't so bad.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The biggest map problem causing the need for large size maps is linear layout. This is when large areas are used by players very briefly. The other approach is to use a much smaller area for multiple purposes, with a lot of content.

A real game that used the linear layout approach was FFXIII where a lot of effort was put into areas that you only spent a few minutes at before progressing and never seeing them again.
A real game that used multi-purpose layout approach was FFXII where the number of unique areas was quite small but the amount of content in each area was huge.

 

[Cokemonkey11]

WC3 uses single precision floats to represent positions on the map. As such error increases as you move further away from the origin. This also means that behaviour of unit movement at the edges of very large maps might become erratic and unpredictable.

If unit movement behavior at the edges of the map is unpredictable, it's a programming fault, not one of computational logic. Take a look at http://www.h-schmidt.net/FloatConverter/ and notice that even for values like 65536, precision is accurate to the hundredths place (decimal). I don't think anyone can tell the different between 65536.0 and 65536.5, let alone another order of precision.

 

[edo494]

look at minecraft tho, you know the farlands?
http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Far_Lands
and if you try to go there(as this dude), upon reaching around 1,000,000 at one of the coordiantes, the precision error gets visible in a way that you start lag a bit, and if you are near farlands(around 28,000,000 either x or y, may be both) the precision error almost totally disables your movement

Those are, however some extreme values

 

[sethmachine]

Yes except WC3 does not support such maps. Most of the time the developers run into huge problems creating such large maps resulting in poor map quality and play experience.

Any problems that are not the author's fault (e.g. they just can't fill up all the space because they aren't creative or don't have enough interesting content, etc.) versus significant loss of performance for triggers/systems?

 

[Adiktuz]

well, a huge map filled with so many things will probably cause more lag than a smaller map for one...

 

[Zeatherann]

2^32 >>>> 256x256 seriously...

anyway, I think it might be restriction with the engine used or something... the default WE doesn't even let you handle > 256x256

Who said this?

 

[Adiktuz]

can't see that post anywhere... but doing math:

2^32 = 4294967296
256x256 = 65536

so 2^32 is really >>> 256x256