World Size Option

Suggestions
#1

I know Radiant Entertainment is still working on what the world border should be. But I think they definitely need a world size option. It would be really nice for players with beast computers like me and would like larger world. It might also be nice for players who need smaller worlds because they have a slow computer.

Kitkat_Matt has had the great idea of simply being able to expand and shrink the highlighted box in the map preview to determine exactly what size of a world want. Whether that being a very small area, or the entire seed.

3 Likes
#2

they’ve been needing this for a while now. and they do plan on adding in a world size option. at the very least i wish they’d allow us to click and drag a box to determine how large of a space we’d like in the map preview, that would solve the issue big time for me.

1 Like
#3

Agreed. Id rather be able to play the whole seed, not just a portion of it.

#4

i agree too, i hope have Small , Medium , and Large mode

#5

Or maybe use the scroll-wheel to resize the map. You’d lose the ability to do rectangles though.

#6

Rather than a size option at the start, I would like an option to open up larger areas of the map while playing. Start with a small area, and when your town reaches rank 2, you get the option to purchase additional land from neighbouring villages for gold/as reward from objectives. This would allow to expand the map based on how much your village grows and your own needs.

2 Likes
#7

Or Sandbox it, just keep going and going.

#8

there would be literally no reason to sandbox it because

A: there is a limit on how many hearthlings you can have,

B: it would become far too unmanageable to have hearthlings running miles and miles away from the safety of their home with no way of feeding them along the way, with the current AI it just wouldn’t work, they don’t carry food with them for long distance travel, they only carry materials if they are going to be building something, and ALL hearthlings available for a mining or building job will automatically run towards the mining task or building task regardless of
1: how far they are from it and
2: what they were doing at the time unless they were sleeping.

C: if it were sandboxed and they implemented multiplayer with such a system in place it would be completely unplayable with other players because the players could just end up in random locations far too far away to interact with other players potentially and even then there is no reliable way to send and receive goods from across the CURRENT size of the map giving you basically no reason to go out into the world to explore.

i wouldn’t want it sandboxed as it would just ruin this game in terms of what it’s made to be. this isn’t a Minecraft clone, even tho it has Minecraft elements to it, it isn’t a banished clone, even tho it has elements from banished, it’s not an RPG even tho there are levels for jobs that give hearthlings perks and improved skill in their profession. it’s a combination of all 3.

#9

I do agree that it should not be sandboxed, it would ruin the whole idea of the storybook border. I simply want there to be world size options so people with better computers could have a larger map for their larger towns. A smaller map would also be good for people with slow computers. Another thing is yes sandboxing it may seem cool, but an infinite world is bad in any city simulator like games, especially if you can just float around and overload ur pc by flying to far.

3 Likes
#10

What would y’all think of multiple maps, where after a certain checkpoint you can found another city with hearthlings and then be able to switch back and forth between cities to manage them. This would go rgeat with biomes so that resources that your city could trade resources that are plentiful in the biome they are in. I could see the cities trading between each other and then helping each other out in late game by sending troops to reinforce the other town when it attacked.

#11

while in concept it’s a nice idea, it’s never worked in practice. case in point SimCity. you COULD play alone and have the entire sector to yourself with 4 small cities but the problem comes when

A: do these cities always run in real time? if so how do you effectively manage multiple real time hearthling villages with their own population of unique hearthlings, unique landscape, resources, monster invasion conditions, etc.

B: if it works more like simcity where individual cities aren’t running in real-time how do you effectively manage those standing still cities while in another city with out pausing another city in turn and slowing progress across the board for everything.

C: with multiplayer on it’s way eventually how do you manage multiple cities while in an online situation? would that be allowed?

D: what’s stopping you from simply sending all your hearthlings from a newly formed village back to your original village to better that village rather than working on a new one from the ground up and dealing with all of the problems that come with that?

E: how do you manage resources on a hardware level, CPUs can only handle so much at the same time, if everything is in real time that’s going to cause every PC on earth running a game with multiple maps at the same time to explode due to stress and if it’s not real time for all cities at all times that would mean constantly caching the current state of a city you’re leaving or entering to save it’s current situation and not lose said progress.

the list goes on with complications and questions that simply would never be able to be stomped out with such a feature implemented. the games too complex on too many levels to allow multiple maps running at the same time.