I posted this on the SC2 battle.net forums, but I wanted to post it here as well:
The current map size limit in the game (256x256) is a huge problem for those mapmakers who want to create an epic RPG. It's really limited as to what we can create because of this small maximum map size. Now, I noticed that this size/number can be calculated in 16bit computers, because 256x256=65536 and 2^16=65536. I also came across the number 65536 in other parts of the editor (can't remember where), which raises my question: Is the SC2 engine limited at 16bit? And if this can be changed I really encourage Blizzard to do so.
The other part you may have seen 65536 is in reals. IIRC The real data type uses the first 16 bits to represent the integer portion and the last 16 bits to represent the fraction. So reals are represented using 32 bits.
1) Memory. Any increase in the map size is scaling it exponentially in the memory requirements. More texture to render and store, More places to place stuff.
2) CPU. This is the main one. The primitive for the pathfinding is a triangle. Scaling the number up scales the possible points to path to also exponentially, and thus the path finding calculations get pretty ugly, pretty fast. This is unsolvable (in the most literal sense, it is a NP complete problem, there is no clever solution, only optimizations). Blizzard COULD make it larger, and then tell everyone the new minimum system requirements and piss a ton of people off that would find SC2 refusing to run at all.
TL:DR. Can be done, won't be done, unless Blizzard can be assured the majority of their customer base is playing on Desktops only, with at least 8+ gigs of ram and less then 3 year old, high end cpu. Which is not the case and quite possibly will not be the case for at least 5 years.
Is the SC2 engine limited at 16bit? And if this can be changed I really encourage Blizzard to do so.
Actually you can make bigger maps, just the pathing system breaks so there is some internal limit to the pathing mesh system. Most types are 32bit in the game.
Quote:
IRC The real data type uses the first 16 bits to represent the integer portion and the last 16 bits to represent the fraction. So reals are represented using 32 bits.
Incorrect? They are twos compliment signed q18.13 fixed point numbers from what I can tell.
Quote:
Can be done, won't be done, unless Blizzard can be assured the majority of their customer base is playing on Desktops only, with at least 8+ gigs of ram and less then 3 year old, high end cpu. Which is not the case and quite possibly will not be the case for at least 5 years.
The problem becomes memory bandwidth rather than memory usage. Memory is very slow compared with the CPU so you can easily run into bandwidth bottlenecks. Memory now is only slightly faster on average than memory 3 years ago.
One can design around multiple maps. Instead of a massive 512*512 map you could use 4 different 256*256 maps each representing a different part of the world. To allow anyone to start playing from any of the maps (required to be newbie friendly) you can add a non-progressive difficulty system similar to Diablo III 2.0, where everything is equally difficult but either scales with the player level or difficulty is selected through a vote.
The star party team has their terrain generated in game. They were talking about possibly releasing those tools. Would help people who want bigger maps.
The star party team has their terrain generated in game. They were talking about possibly releasing those tools. Would help people who want bigger maps.
really curious how that would work, all tests with decals (for custom textures) didn't work out in a large scale. also you cannot change the cliff level, only the height (requiring lots of vision blockers etc, again not very feasible)
I fucking sieging blizz feedback forums for years so they change/add a few things in editor functionality, that would make terrain generation as good as terrain pre-edit. But nothing has been done. The process itself is trivial, but lack of functionality make generated maps mostly unplayable cause of multiple ugly artifacts. Luckily, it's not my problem anymore, I'm happily and full-functionally terrain-generate in unity.
I posted this on the SC2 battle.net forums, but I wanted to post it here as well:
The current map size limit in the game (256x256) is a huge problem for those mapmakers who want to create an epic RPG. It's really limited as to what we can create because of this small maximum map size. Now, I noticed that this size/number can be calculated in 16bit computers, because 256x256=65536 and 2^16=65536. I also came across the number 65536 in other parts of the editor (can't remember where), which raises my question: Is the SC2 engine limited at 16bit? And if this can be changed I really encourage Blizzard to do so.
Yes, I mapmake on my Sega mega drive 2.
The other part you may have seen 65536 is in reals. IIRC The real data type uses the first 16 bits to represent the integer portion and the last 16 bits to represent the fraction. So reals are represented using 32 bits.
But what about the map size? Why would they limit it at 256x256? It's sooo small :(
@Zolden: Go
I thought I was the only one! :O
@TheLazzoro: Go
There are 2 primary reasons the map size is small
1) Memory. Any increase in the map size is scaling it exponentially in the memory requirements. More texture to render and store, More places to place stuff.
2) CPU. This is the main one. The primitive for the pathfinding is a triangle. Scaling the number up scales the possible points to path to also exponentially, and thus the path finding calculations get pretty ugly, pretty fast. This is unsolvable (in the most literal sense, it is a NP complete problem, there is no clever solution, only optimizations). Blizzard COULD make it larger, and then tell everyone the new minimum system requirements and piss a ton of people off that would find SC2 refusing to run at all.
TL:DR. Can be done, won't be done, unless Blizzard can be assured the majority of their customer base is playing on Desktops only, with at least 8+ gigs of ram and less then 3 year old, high end cpu. Which is not the case and quite possibly will not be the case for at least 5 years.
Actually you can make bigger maps, just the pathing system breaks so there is some internal limit to the pathing mesh system. Most types are 32bit in the game.
Incorrect? They are twos compliment signed q18.13 fixed point numbers from what I can tell.
The problem becomes memory bandwidth rather than memory usage. Memory is very slow compared with the CPU so you can easily run into bandwidth bottlenecks. Memory now is only slightly faster on average than memory 3 years ago.
One can design around multiple maps. Instead of a massive 512*512 map you could use 4 different 256*256 maps each representing a different part of the world. To allow anyone to start playing from any of the maps (required to be newbie friendly) you can add a non-progressive difficulty system similar to Diablo III 2.0, where everything is equally difficult but either scales with the player level or difficulty is selected through a vote.
Basicly because of you are alway calculating and loading the whole map, which is vital to RTS games.
In mmo, you can have larger map because you only need to load the things near you.
The star party team has their terrain generated in game. They were talking about possibly releasing those tools. Would help people who want bigger maps.
@ImperialGood: Go
Sry, but splitting an RPG into 4 different maps is not an option for me :/
@MaskedImposter: Go
Sounds interesting, but did they manage to increase the map size beyond 256x256?
really curious how that would work, all tests with decals (for custom textures) didn't work out in a large scale. also you cannot change the cliff level, only the height (requiring lots of vision blockers etc, again not very feasible)
@MaskedImposter: Go
I fucking sieging blizz feedback forums for years so they change/add a few things in editor functionality, that would make terrain generation as good as terrain pre-edit. But nothing has been done. The process itself is trivial, but lack of functionality make generated maps mostly unplayable cause of multiple ugly artifacts. Luckily, it's not my problem anymore, I'm happily and full-functionally terrain-generate in unity.
I just went into the Warcraft 3 World Editor, and it seems that the 256x256 map size is bigger in that game than in SC2.
the best workaround it to just scale everything down so that the relative map size increases
You have smallest footprint size, so technically you can's scale down everything you want. Of course, it could be that your map don't have buildings