Idea For Map Sizes

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

I reloaded the original ArmA: Combat Operations the other day and installed the 1.18 patch just to see how well it ran on my new computer since it did pretty bad on my old one. When I loaded the Sahrani map, I noticed something that I don't remember seeing before. It seems that Rahmadi (which was a smaller map you could choose in the editor) was added in towards the south western part of Southern Sahrani. This may have been there before and I just never noticed it, but I really don't think so. Even if it wasn't, I feel this would still work.

The idea is that instead of BI making new, individual, and small maps for every DLC, why not start one section of a map (with a much larger size as it's end goal) and then work on the second section with the next DLC, linking them together seamlessly when it's released as DLC content or patched into the game.

Basically, say a 5x5 map was released with one DLC. After 'x' amount of months and the next DLC is ready to be released, another 5x5 map comes out. Once it is downloaded, it is added to the original 5x5 map making it become a 10x10.

I think it would satisfy a lot of people by giving them larger maps in the long run, and it would also make things interesting because people could easily give input as to how they'd like to see the terrain vary. I don't see it being a problem in any campaigns or sp missions as the units are scripted/ordered to go on the present terrain and any additional terrain added wouldn't affect that.

tl;dr: BI could release different sections of map for every DLC and have them threaded together creating one large map.

Thoughts?

[Von_Lipwig 10]

I like that idea; will definitely be great in the long run! :D

[johncage 30]

depends on detail. sometimes an apartment building is good enough.

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

I like the idea, as long as the terrains aren't completely different and would look odd connected, ie: Shapur and Proving Grounds.

I would like to see this done with Utes and Chernarus, however.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

That's what I mean, the terrains are similar. Proving Grounds and Shapur would look really out of place linked together. However if BI were to work on a map of Karzeghistan (unlikely now but just sayin since that's where Shapur is located), the second part of the map would be connected to Shapur in some way.

The thing that bugged me were the roads and how they just seemed to stop..if they were to continue a map these roads wouldn't just stop anymore leading the player into the empty desert. They'd actually connect to another town/military base/refinery/etc.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Rahmadi has always been with Sahrani, but they are still two different terrains so don't count on BI having the capability of just "seamlessly linking them together." Even if they do just release updated islands, there are serious compatability problems that would arise if a whole new piece of terrain just shows up for some users...

[Steakslim 1]

I always wanted to see Zargabad and Takistan become just one conjoined map somehow. I like Zarg, but not even MP servers run it with anything interesting, and at this point I see little reason to keep them apart, even for performance reasons since it's no bigger than that of Chernogorske in Cherarus, and not much more stressful on the hardware either.

[Banderas 0]

Zargabad and Takistan maps are located tens (if not hundreds) of kms away from each other if I recall correctly (from the big Takistan map).

I don't think this "giving a new piece of land from the same area" would pay off, as DLCs have to show some kind of diversity; they have to differ in the added faction, the content, the backstory and of course the "playground" it has. There's a lot of bitching about DLCs already, and they deliver not only new map but new units, weapons, vehicles, campaigns/missions, new voices...Imagine how much of that sh*t would blow into BI's face if they'd do 9 DLCs in a row with just parts of the same area to make a (let's say) 9x9 new map...

[Nutlink 10]

Definitely an interesting idea. Start off with a 5x5, then just add to it as the DLC gets released. I don't imagine it screwing with missions too much if the area gets expanded into the no-mans land section.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Another option: Small populated area on the DLC map, but not a small absolute size. Eg: Shapur as is, but as a 10x10 map. Just elevation data, base textures, and maybe some roads. As I understand, making it 10x10 in that sense isn't much more time intensive than the small size (assuming nothing fancy on the road network.

eg if shapur were the middle, a road going out in each direction, maybe a few dirt trails branching off here and there. Possibly a dirt airstrip or something too, again simple, but does the job,, the ILS etc will be there if an airstrip is needed, and the mission maker can put some hangars etc in that case.

Then, mission makers can populate the areas for a mission. Still nowhere near as good as a fully populated 10x10 map, but at the same time nowhere near as restrictive as the current Shapur. Can put a few towns out there, bases, or anything else, still have a good distance between.

With that route though, a few other things would be needed, like adding configs for trees, boulders, etc. If not exposed, that like houses are by default, they just need to be made "public" in an editor upgrade config for mission builders, but players won't need the mods to use the missions.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

I looked into a few older maps and one that appeared to be updated, the two older versions do not show Rahmadi included in the entire map design, but the newer version does. I'm pretty sure it was added in because I used to play ArmA non-stop for the last two/three years and I have never seen it before. So it can be done.

The diversity issue could be solved pretty easily. There could be a vote, or maybe even a community contest, where a map was given and the best design of the map could be released as long as it kept flow and was believable. If not that they could cater to a lot of requests, make the overall design for the map to be a lot of varied terrain that fits together somehow (ex: gently rolling grasslands with few trees, heavily wooded areas, and maybe a few snow covered mountains with equally covered valleys).

The most logical solution in my eyes would be something that would fall into the whole Chinese back story from PMC. Instead of making the campaign 14 missions long, they could make it one large campaign that spans over a few DLC's. Each new map would chronicle different parts of the invasion, the beginning would consist of the first part of the map and when the troops first landed in-country, the second would be the second part of the map added to the first were troops have gained a foothold and are no moving inland, maybe in the third they could get pushed back and almost lose, fourth receive help from someone and try to regroup and push forward again...this would go on and on and on until the campaign finally comes to an end, all the while expanding the map size making it into something giant like Chernarus or Takistan. Not to mention that, but each DLC would almost be like a season of a television series with some kind of cliffhanger at the end, and could really allow for a lot of character development in the story too which I've seen a lot of people really wanting on here.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

This could become a new MP mission standard: BTI - Build The Island

Who models some caterpillars? :D

[andersson 285]

As long as they expand the islands so the object IDs doesnt change or the coordinates. Else it will ruin alot of missions everytime.

[noubernou 77]

Just a small gripe with the OP... two 5x5 islands would make a 10x5 island... :p

What would be nice is the ability to zone between maps for larger maps. That would go a long ways in improving the possibilities for certain styles of gameplay.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Just a small gripe with the OP... two 5x5 islands would make a 10x5 island... :p

What would be nice is the ability to zone between maps for larger maps. That would go a long ways in improving the possibilities for certain styles of gameplay.

I had a feeling that might be wrong haha, I just pulled a quick 5 + 5 = 10 in my head and it made sense...

Would be nice if the map was premade, like the area was already determined but beyond each section of released map was the same thing you find outside the borders of Takistan or Chernarus

[2nd ranger 282]

I think focussing on smaller maps might be a good idea, not with the goal of eventually joining them together, but to allow greater terrain detail. For example, with a large island like Takistan, you're never going to see nicely detailed mountain terrain because obviously it would be too draining on time and resources to make something like this.

But if the map was smaller, detailed terrain like that would be alot more viable. Proving Grounds is a good example. There is alot of dead ground, outcroppings near the crater etc, and the little ground rocks and clutter look great. On a larger map you don't get any of that - the terrain just becomes a big slope with a few large rocks dotted about.

I know having large maps is a tradition of the series, and I like being able to seamlessly traverse such large areas as much as the next guy, but smaller maps would allow for a level of immersion and visual fidelity that at the moment doesn't seem to be possible with large areas.

[jgbtl292 0]

I like that idea

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

I think focussing on smaller maps might be a good idea, not with the goal of eventually joining them together, but to allow greater terrain detail. For example, with a large island like Takistan, you're never going to see nicely detailed mountain terrain because obviously it would be too draining on time and resources to make something like this.

But if the map was smaller, detailed terrain like that would be alot more viable. Proving Grounds is a good example. There is alot of dead ground, outcroppings near the crater etc, and the little ground rocks and clutter look great. On a larger map you don't get any of that - the terrain just becomes a big slope with a few large rocks dotted about.

I know having large maps is a tradition of the series, and I like being able to seamlessly traverse such large areas as much as the next guy, but smaller maps would allow for a level of immersion and visual fidelity that at the moment doesn't seem to be possible with large areas.

You present a really good point, and it would make the large map even better if it were done. If BI worked on several highly detailed maps (like they've done with Shapur and Proving Grounds) and then linked them together like I've suggested, then you have one large and highly detailed map. Win? I think so :D

[virtualvikingx 19]

Funny, before I fell asleep last night, I were thinking about my to main computer past-times: FSX and Arma 2:CO.

As may of you probably know, FSX covers the whole globe. And lots of developers publish scenery for a specific part on earth, ie a airport and so on.

What if Arma 3 (?) just had one big map - the size of earth - and "islands" are just parts of it that has good/playable scenery. The rest is just blank like today - until somebody fills it up with scenery.

Edited December 17, 2010 by VirtualVikingX
typo

[[aps]gnat 28]

I looked into a few older maps and one that appeared to be updated, the two older versions do not show Rahmadi included in the entire map design, but the newer version does. I'm pretty sure it was added in because I used to play ArmA non-stop for the last two/three years and I have never seen it before.

Definate No.

Rahmadi was ALWAYS in the corner of Sahrani.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Really? I really must've never noticed it then. Most maps don't feature it included either, led me to believe it wasn't in the whole large map. Kind of in the way Utes wasn't apart of Chernarus...unless it was???

[Macadam Cow 1]

You present a really good point, and it would make the large map even better if it were done. If BI worked on several highly detailed maps (like they've done with Shapur and Proving Grounds) and then linked them together like I've suggested, then you have one large and highly detailed map. Win? I think so :D

Ehr...well no, you'll have a big highly detailled map and most of the people here won't be able to run it. I already experience bad performance on Proving Ground (worst than Tchernarus with higher view distance and settings) so I can't hardly imagine what it would be on 10x10 map (4 times proving ground) with the same level of detail.

Or maybe you're talking about linking them but not in "real time", I mean with a loading screen when you go from map 1A to map 1B ?

What if Arma 3 (?) just had one big map - the size of earth - and "islands" are just parts of it that has good/playable scenery. The rest is just blank like today - until somebody fills it up with scenery.

It would be awesome but I think we can forget about it. I doubt any personnal computer on earth could handle this. It's just the same problem as above, beyond a certain point there will be too much details on the map and it will be unplayable.

Just have a look at how many maps have been released for A2 and imagine them all together in the same world.

:computer:

This will probably happen but I think we will have to wait a few more year and my guess is we will see this in games like Just Cause long before ArmA.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Macadam Cow

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Yeah, I actually did think a little bit into the fact that people would be having a hard time running that. And I don't mean loading from map 1A to 1B, I feel like that wouldn't work in the editor with AI etc. Either way I am okay with getting any kind of map regardless of how detailed it is. Hell, desert is literally some hills, bushes and rock with a pipeline in the center but it happens to be one of my favorite maps as well as one of the most simple.