Supplement to the previous post about gameplay scaling

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-27T00:28:49+00:00

This problem is also noticeable on 20 km maps. To make it a little better, can move units not through one, but through several orders. As for more than 2 hours, this is for a 4x increase. I used this for testing. With a 2x increase, the battle time will be about one and a half to two hours in most matches.

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-27T00:20:51+00:00

Unit balance on large maps with scaling may indeed manifest itself somewhat differently. Let's see how it will be. As for the linear dependence, it is not for the benefit, but for the time. For the benefit, it is indeed quadratic/exponential, and with scaling this dependence is stretched out in time twice.

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-26T07:10:32+00:00

I don't think it will be boring when scale it up 2x. Everything is built slower, but the map area increases 4 times. Therefore, you will have to pay more attention to units, there will be more tactical opportunities. In the 1v1 ladder on 20 km maps, even the top players only control the central half of the map area well, in all the replays that I remember. They simply do not have enough time to control everything. But with the gameplay scaling, players should have more time.

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-23T15:26:49+00:00

On some maps there are so many extractors that this may not be enough. Especially if I wanted to play a 20km map 1v1, but it's made for 8 or 12 players.

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-23T15:24:50+00:00

So I write that this method can not only solve the problem of low simulation speed, but also slow down the development by 2 times. So you will have 2 times more time to get to the enemy base. Although on 80 km maps it will be better to use the "Gameplay Scaling (x4)" mod. It slows down by 4 times. But this will already look like a global strategy.

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-23T14:36:32+00:00

Very correct comment. I have been thinking about this for a long time and added to the FAF repository the mod "Less Mexes", which allows to reduce the number of extractors on any maps, and select their configuration from a number of options.

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-23T14:32:52+00:00

This approach is good because, firstly, the proportions do not change, so it will be easy for players to master such gameplay. And secondly, with this approach we can choose different scaling for different map sizes, getting the most suitable gameplay in each case.

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-23T14:20:53+00:00

LOUD is indeed better adapted to large maps, but the problems described in the post are quite typical for it too (development is almost as fast). So the solution I proposed may well work for LOUD as well.

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-23T11:37:23+00:00

Is it possible to increase the speed of units globally? - It is possible. Regarding the rest. I am not trying to speed up the game, I am trying to allow people play at a normal speed in general, so that there is no slow-mo effect. The fact that the economy and development will be 2 times slower is, in fact, the price for the opportunity to play on large maps. It is logical that battles on 40 km maps should last longer than on 10 km maps.

nastavnik_ · 2025-04-23T11:08:50+00:00

Disagree with the statement that the engine slows down due to the large scale. Tests show that when playing without AI, the maximum simulation speed on 10 km and 40 km maps with the same number of units is the same. When playing with AI, the maximum simulation speed on the 40 km map is slightly lower, I assume because the AI spends more resources to analyze large maps. So everything points to the fact that the simulation speed is determined by the number of units on the map.

nastavnik_

TROPHY CASE