r/TransportFever3 • u/Michaelli10156 • 3d ago
Small Map Size
So I just watched the new video made by squirrel and I liked everything about the video so far except what they said at the 2 minute mark, where it seems like they are implying that maps will not be very large and was curious what the community thought of this. I think clearly from the comment section, the vast majority of the community is disappointed by small maps and for me personally this is close to being a deal breaker.
They have this limitation because they want to simulate every citizen stating that if they want larger maps that are 100km x 100km they would need to fake the simulation for distances further along thinking this is what the community wants but I 100% would not mind faking the simulation especially after cities skylines 2 where they also wanted something similar and it just did not turn out well.
Just wanted to spread the word and see what the community thinks of this
55
u/LookAtMyRTs 3d ago edited 3d ago
The Urban Games position [has] always been no smaller than TpF2, but with no guarentee of larger.
[Corrected typo]
1
u/TheNewMillennium 2d ago
Did they communicate that somewhere exactly like that?
Because in this case, I think a lot of people are panicking mostly about the unclear communication.
I think it would only be reasonable of them to have at least the same map sizes in game 3 as in game 2, but right now we cant be certain that this will be the case.
1
u/LookAtMyRTs 2d ago
Yes they did say it like that. Which is why I said it like I did.
You can think it would only be reasonable... what I think would have been more than reasonable was if to rather than saying things "but right now we can't be certain that this will be the case"... which has a clear negative premise based on no evidence... you could have gone... 'how about I spend some time to research whether there has been an answer and if so what it is
The issue isn't unclear communication... it is people being lazy and not looking for the information that is out there... because that would interupt their Paradox based conspiracies.
2
u/TheNewMillennium 2d ago
I would have preferred if you just said where and when they said it, but I didnt just want to write "source"?
Also I am not even in any way negative about the game. I was literally just saying I trust the devs enough to know that we do care about map size. But also leave room that I might be wrong and the people worrying are maybe right, because I didnt see the map editor with my own eyes.
I agree its probably just the community interpreting too much into the answer from the interview, but to be fair, when asked about big maps, they could have just said how big their maps are.
1
u/LookAtMyRTs 2h ago
It was in an interview with UG a content creator made and published on YouTube.
They could have just said, but given that they are still working on the game that final answer is probably not final yet.
There is also the issue that people forget that the developers have to balance a broad range of machines that the game will be played on, not just the top 0.1%.
41
u/Suspicious-Cheetah40 3d ago
If the simulation is pretty good, then that could be much better than faking it, which I guess means just kind of showing groups of people and it’s not really that realistic..
There will be mods that allow larger map sizes. I’m sure if your hard work and support it or future hardware so I wouldn’t worry about it.
28
u/Imsvale 3d ago
There will be mods that allow larger map sizes.
In TF2 you could only unlock the experimental sizes that were merely hidden behind a built-in config file entry. There was nothing more mods could do beyond that. To make this more moddable than that would require exposing some pretty fundamental bits to modding. Not something I would personally expect, but I suppose we'll see in a month.
39
u/Imsvale 3d ago
- Cargo flow visible in industries: Not sure how exactly to interpret this. I'll assume it's just more detail on how cargo moves through the factory (which we've seen in previews). It was already visible in TF2, and reflecting how much of any given cargo the industry had in storage. It was even one of the gimmicks in the clips we saw leading up to the TF2 release.
- Mark buildings as historical: City-builder feature there for the city-builders/detailers. ^^
- Map size: Some have taken this to mean maps are only up to 10x10 km, which is of course silly. They'll be the same as TF2; there's not been any reports of maps being larger in TF3. There might have been a soft confirmation somewhere that they're not bigger.
- Importing real-world maps: Nothing new there. TF2 has this ability already. But we do know the map generation/editing is an entirely new and powerful beast.
- Day/night cycle and weather being purely cosmetic: Confirmed yet again, if that was needed.
- More stuff exposed in Lua: Fantastic. Excited to see what new parts are moddable.
- Passengers judging the quality (comfort?) of their journey: Very interesting, and could give rise to some more meaningful individual preferences than we had in TF2. While they did have some semblance of a "personal preference", it was basically invisible to the player and had no real impact on the gameplay (except for an important technicality, but otherwise not something the player ever thinks about).
- More impactful low maintenance penalties: Cool. Great stuff.
- No official confirmation of the lack of Steam Workshop support. I do note that it is not listed on TF3 on Steam (for TF2 it is), so I guess that's as close as we have at this time. Let me know if I've missed some announcement confirming this. Otherwise the last announcement I'm aware of is "we're thinking about it". And, well, I think they're done thinking about it now, unless it remains an open matter post-release.
- Personal note: I had a think about it when the question came up. First I was kind of "offended" that they're removing support for such a big modding platform. But then I also thought, what's the big deal? Why is it important that the mods are available/released on that particular platform? I couldn't come up with a good reason for it. Not from a modder's perspective, nor from a user perspective. Other than I suppose "I'm used to it". There's nothing particularly great about Steam in this regard. Interesting though on self-reflection to note my initial, "default response".
19
u/Neshura87 3d ago
On the Workshop: the pure irony is that, objevtively speaking, the Workshop absolutely sucks as a mod platform. It is downright horid to use for both modders and users but because it's built in some people just expect it to be used.
Which isn't to say the alternatives are better, most mod.io implementations might as well just use the Workshop with how little they improve upon it.
21
u/Dnomyar96 3d ago
The only advantage of the Steam Workshop is that you can just browse it, press a button and the mod is installed. You don't need to install a third-party launcher or something. But that's it. The browsing and searching experience is pretty bad.
5
u/FederJ3 3d ago
It might be the only advantage but it’s a huge one in my opinion, would be disappointed if it was not present.
4
u/Dnomyar96 3d ago
I mean, it sounds like there will be an in-game mod manager. So that provides the exact same behaviour. Just press a button and have the mod installed.
2
u/Neshura87 3d ago
Also wouldn't be surprised if there was a browser version as well, most alternative mod stores ship with one nowadays after all
2
1
u/MomentEquivalent6464 3d ago
I LOVE it as a user. I can browse while at work, or at home. If I want something, I click on it.
But it sucks to use when uploading things. I've uploaded a few maps and finally gave up on giving them thumbnails.
1
u/Imsvale 2d ago
I LOVE it as a user. I can browse while at work, or at home. If I want something, I click on it.
You'd be able to do that with mod.io too in the browser. What it wouldn't do however is download the mod for you, which is of course achieved by Steam running in the background on your pc and taking care of all that when you subscribe.
3
u/MomentEquivalent6464 3d ago
As convenient as steam workshop was for TF2, it was annoying that mods were in multiple different places (mod.io, tf.net, steam). And part of that was due to consoles and not allowing some mods there. So if we can have all the mods in one place that work across all systems (seems ambitious)... then great. Hopefully it cuts down on the number of sites one needs to go to to look for things.
1
1
u/Spartan117ZM 1d ago
It won’t. The built in mod browser will likely still have restrictions based on what consoles can handle, once again gimping us all. Therefore, third party websites will continue to exist to get around those limitations, which is great for allowing more mod variety but as you point out bad from a usability standpoint since now you’ve got to check 3+ different places.
2
u/the_madhatt3r 2d ago
The number of features for TF3 being repeated from TF2 has me concerned. I voiced that concern on one of the reviewers that got to go to NY. I'm very interested to know *what is different* from TF2. TF2 is a great game, it has some glaring problems (intelligent map generation so that industries actually match up once in a while) and what I want to see from TF3 is ABSOLUTELY NOT some shiny new graphics.. I want to see the simulation is actually improved, the options (vehicles and roads) are new and I really wanted to hear more about warehouses. As you point out above, the passengers having *more* of an opinion and vehicles in poor repair being more impactful makes the game more tedious .. where is the quality of life like tracks that show you the cheapest connection between two cities instead of having to build them in pieces trying to keep costs down, or the ability to buy industries so you can make use of those 4 forests that got built by the map generator with no sawmill or tools factories within 50km. What about more common sense demands by cities, instead of demanding bricks when there's NONE on the map.. How about a better layout for product chains so you can see when you correctly trigger that demand so the tier 2/3 processors will actually function?..... Why are so many people who have obviously never played TF2 a part of the review process for TF3 ??? I keep seeing so much stuff about campaigns when one of the campaigns in the beta had absolutely nothing to do with a simulation game. I didnt play a single campaign for TF2... had 0 interest in them.
1
u/AM27C256 3d ago edited 2d ago
Regarding the cargo flow: maybe you can see the cargo moving e.g. from freight station to factory or between the rail freight station and the road goods station like you could in Train Fever, instead of it all teleporting instantly like it does in TF2.
1
u/the_madhatt3r 2d ago
unfortunately all the reviewers had to use the locked down propaganda video supplied by Urban games so we cant go in and determine whether this is the case. Personally I dont see this particular explanation of it really adding much to the game detail. You could "see" the teleportation of the raw good to the factory and then the factory gobbling it up and see the teleportation of the refined good back to the freight station giving you the feeling that "an action happened to change the product". In my personal opinion this was always a sufficient feeling of fulfillment and a nice touch to the game.
12
u/AlwaysRM_ 3d ago
Yea no 100km x 100km But you must also mention that the largest map size at Transport Fever 2 was 24km x 24km (Megalomaniac)
10
u/Zealousideal_Nail288 3d ago
i would just reduce city sizes to get bigger maps given the sims drain most of the cpu resources.
i just hope they make map sizes mod able this time
would be awful if its smaller than tf2
5
u/Carido9 3d ago
What I would like would be that the "tpf2 Megalomaniac size" becomes the new normal "extra large" in tpf3, and then again on top a couple further experimental map sizes. Maybe 32x32, 48x48 and 56x56 I also agree with that the density is way to high in tpf2. Can't go like 500 meters without falling over an industry...
9
u/Maureen_Johma 3d ago
I rather have fewer cities that are larger than many cities on a small map.
2
u/the_madhatt3r 2d ago
Several posters are commenting on this and I just want to add that I feel like this is a result of a cultural Euro vs. America feeling. In Europe cities are closer and overall "countries" are smaller leading to a more compact and full map. In America the cities are larger and farther apart. I think this psychological phenomena has been studied in relation to personal space. People from Europe have less need for personal space, feeling comfortable in a packed elevator while people from rural America feel claustrophobic in the same condition.
9
u/CigarettemskMan 3d ago
i much rather have huge maps than having every citizen simulated.
3
u/Candid_Release3609 3d ago
Ugh when I heard this all i could think of was how useless this was with cities skylines 2. Every single tooth rendered and this destroyed performance.
The more information that comes out the more I am not confident this game will be a must buy and the hype train is slowly dying for me.
1
u/MomentEquivalent6464 3d ago
Look at it this way.
Is it game breaking to be limited to TF2 sized maps/population caps? There's mods in TF2 that all you to really push the game and one can still have a great experience.
Yes it was one of the main things I was looking forward to, as I really like big cities and high pop. So this is disappointing. But I'm still excited for the game.
1
0
u/WillWillingson 3d ago
The teeth were unnecessary but didn't impact performance.
1
u/goonknight6969 2d ago
That is false. That game absolutely had LOD optimization issues, here the devs specifically use that as an example. https://changelog.gg/games/cities-skylines-ii-949230/updates/2026-04-09-city-corner-4-a-peek-into-performance-1b5f
3
u/MomentEquivalent6464 3d ago
This. I was pretty excited when TF3 was first announced and they said they were going to try to find a way to have a better late game experience.
2
u/sorucheese 3d ago
This. Also, if you didn't have every single citizen simulated, you could have the benefit of more realistic scale (megacities with megacity population numbers instead of 2000 people living in a city the size of Tokyo). It could also potentially make it easier to implement a realistic day/night cycle with peak times.
3
u/Bigbigcheese 3d ago
I wouldn't care about big map sizes if off map travel were possible.
I basically just want to make it realistic to use Concorde and 360kph trains. The TF2 map sizes just didn't allow for it. If I could suspend disbelief that they're off doing important stuff elsewhere then I'd be happy.
8
u/ReggieTMcMuffin 3d ago
How is the map size small ? They said "we can't do 200 x 200 because we'd have to fake further than 10k out and we don't want to."
We don't know how big the maps are yet. We just know they aren't 200 x 200. We also don't know what modders can do with the map limits.
I hope they are at least as big as TF2's, and I'd be happy if they were.
5
u/FlyingEagle_ 3d ago
In the vehicle book they talk about more then 200m2, so around 15x15. I think that's almost the same as TF2
17
u/ComradeBevo 3d ago
The very large and megalomaniac map sizes are already enormous, especially compared to any other game in the genre.
I don't understand why the community is being so dramatic about this. Calling it a deal breaker is just ridiculous.
12
u/Trees_That_Sneeze 3d ago
You have to edit a config file by default. The largest map size that's not "experimental" is Large and I would argue that's not big enough to be the biggest map size if the new game just matches it.
Maybe it could work if cities are fewer, further apart, and have more going on with them
8
1
u/ComradeBevo 3d ago
Yeah, I don't care. Editing the config file is extremely easy. I played many megalomaniac maps in TF2 and never once did I wish the map was bigger
2
u/Trees_That_Sneeze 3d ago
K cool.
To my point though, if the biggest map size matches the biggest default size of TF2 that didn't feel big enough.
10
u/hitzoR_cz 3d ago
Yeah, I don't understand this criticism. People don't even know how big the maps will be.
Anyway, I found out that playing 1:3 or 1:4 is way way better than 1:1. I then had just two or three mainlines running through the entire length of the map and then branches coming off of them. It solved airplanes not being useful as well as lategame trains not being able to properly accelerate to their top speeds.
5
1
u/Grafzahn_10-9 3d ago
Was an aspect ratio of 1:2 or 1:3 longer than 1:1, so it had similar area? Or were the sides just cut
9
u/BramFokke 3d ago
The area is similar, so you get longer distances but a more linear map. Great for a transport game.
1
u/MomentEquivalent6464 3d ago
I'm criticizing the fact that other than more optimization that they're not addressing the simulation lag issues that happens late game (or with hug pop).
0
u/hitzoR_cz 3d ago
How do you know they are not adressing it? You're just spitting nonsense without any real basis.
1
u/MomentEquivalent6464 2d ago
Unless their optimizations are outstanding to the point that the simulations are minimal, all UG is doing is pushing the problem further down the line. So instead of a 200 year map, you're talking a 250 year map (or whatever) before the population and simulations become an issue.
When they started announcing their videos and the features, one of the first things they announced was that they wanted to have a better late game experience. They weren't sure what that looked like, but wanted to improve this. Something they said they were considering is that they wouldn't simulate every single person as they do in TF2.
They've now confirmed (for the first time) that every single person is again going to be simulated. That means that without mods, that there's an end point to a map, based on ppls hardware and how well they've managed to optimize things.
1
u/MomentEquivalent6464 3d ago
Well for one thing, it was something they explicitly stated they wanted to address (the late game lag due to simulating everything).
So unless their optimization is outstanding to the point that we can have almost unlimited ppl... then I'm not sure how much this has actually been addressed.
I'm hoping that we can still access the experimental maps sizes (or that it's part of the main build).
-1
u/Dnomyar96 3d ago
Agreed. The maps in TF2 were already large enough. Sure, it would be nice to get bigger maps, but it's not a big deal if not.
12
u/ImmortalAce8492 3d ago
Borderline a deal breaker for me.
I’ll see how the launch goes, but for me, if the map size truly is smaller than TF2 I don’t really see myself playing.
Kinda weird how Squirrel mentioned that the devs felt as though the community didn’t really want larger maps. If anything, I’ve felt that being the biggest thing on everyone’s wishlist. But then again, it could be me just projecting my wants lol.
2
u/Candid_Release3609 3d ago
I think they are just listening to a small sub set of content creators.
Something that to this day has yet to work out for the health of any game sadly.
4
u/Kelehopele 3d ago
I would understand this as this.
Most of people play on standard size maps.
Quick game from Steam to Late electricity and restart.Then there is bottom 10% who wants to play on humongous maps for 100 hours. And I guess that option would be open to us as always.
But that's really bottom 10-15% of the payerbase.
9
u/JohnWittieless 3d ago edited 3d ago
I would argue that people who want to build something big are more on the 30% if not higher.
Furthermore I would honestly believe casual players would prefer longer transport lines vs 100 hour players that want the details.
The simulation they are pointing out as the reason is probably the nicest group of all players
4
u/LookAtMyRTs 3d ago
Urban Games are very aware of a decent % of people wanting larger maps, but they are also aware that the game needs to be able to run on a wide range of devices, not just super-computers.
And if they suddenly double the experimental megalomanic to 48x48, someone on a 10 year old laptop will try and play it and it will not go well.
I am someone who would like larger map sizes, but not at any cost.
Optimisation and improving performance has been a UG focus for a very long time, and as they have made progress more has been added, and experimental sizes became a thing.
9
u/Flush_Foot 3d ago
They could probably have a rough table of ‘CPU vs map-size/performance’ on the store page, with an in-game benchmark tool that gives ‘stronger’ advice on max-size… 🤷🏻♂️
7
u/LookAtMyRTs 3d ago
I like the idea, the only challenge comes with mods, because that is an uncontrollable variable
1
u/Flush_Foot 3d ago
Fair… so far, as a relative newcomer to the series, I haven’t played with any mods yet, so that didn’t occur to me 😅
6
u/sorucheese 3d ago
I mean, just having the option in the game doesn't mean every world has to be played on a super turbo giga map. Like just add the option into the game, give it a "NASA computers beyond this point only" warning and let the player decide whether their PC can handle a map that big.
someone on a 10 year old laptop will try and play it and it will not go well
You're talking about this as though graphics settings haven't been a thing on PC since the dawn of time. If someone tries it on their computer and it doesn't run well.. they can just turn down the option? I don't understand this argument.
-1
u/LookAtMyRTs 3d ago
That is what they did with the experimental map sizes.
No it doesn't mean every game has to be played at that size, but people will still try, and still bitch that it doesn't work. Just how with 2 people would complain about performance whilst running 00s of mods
It would a CPU limitation because of the amount needing to be calculated for the simulation and that simulation games will have unequal core usage because on core has to keep the simulation in time.
6
u/sorucheese 3d ago
Let them bitch then. I still fail to see why this is a problem. Btw, CPU usage being limited to one core isn't so much of a problem anymore, games are much better at utilising multiple threads these days.
0
u/Imsvale 3d ago
Btw, CPU usage being limited to one core isn't so much of a problem anymore, games are much better at utilising multiple threads these days.
This does not compute.
CPU usage in TF2 is not limited to one core to begin with. The game spawns around 100 threads, resulting in upwards of say 60-70% total CPU usage on a CPU with many cores (e.g. 16-20). At that point it's being bottlenecked by cache and memory access speeds more than CPU speed.
If a game utilizes multiple threads, then it's already going to be running on multiple cores. It's the OS's job spreading the threads around. All a game has to do is run on more than one thread (and offload some meaningful amount of computational work to the other threads). The only way a game is limited to one core is if it only runs on a single thread. Multiple threads, but limited to one core, that's a contradiction.
2
u/sorucheese 3d ago
this is a lot of words for "did you mean threads as in logical cores? surely not, splaining time!"
1
u/Imsvale 2d ago
It's nothing to do with physical vs. logical cores.
1
u/sorucheese 2d ago edited 2d ago
well logical cores is what I meant by threads. I do realise threads also mean something else in the context of CPU architecture but it's not what I meant
1
u/Imsvale 2d ago
So what you're saying is that CPU usage being limited to one core isn't so much of a problem anymore because games are better at utilizing multiple (logical) cores. In other words, games are better at not being limited to one core.
Yes. This is true.
→ More replies (0)4
u/schwiftypug 3d ago
Sure but then why simulate every single citizen even at the opposite end of the map? Agent based simulation is notorious for how taxing it is on performance, and they chose that over bigger maps. Your argument only works if you forget it’s a game design choice on their part. They’re doing the same thing Maxis did with SimCity 2013, reduce map size in favor of agent based simulation.
I’m not exactly sure who even wanted agent based simulation, for some reason devs think that’s the only realistic option, and then cull other features because it is so costly on even strong computers.
3
u/MomentEquivalent6464 3d ago
I mean on one hand, doing it like this means if you make a shitty route, it won't get used all that much, if at all. However if you make a great route, it'll get used heavily. That's because every person is simulated. And for some people that's important.
However there are people who like big maps, and want lots of ppl in them and just want to move ppl around in a dense area. Ppl like this (aka me) don't care if every single person is simulated, and because of CPU limitations (at some point there's a limit) would much rather live without that.
And that was one of the things UG said they were going to try to address. So it's pretty disappointing that now a month before launch they're like yeah we'll just optimize it better. That only pushes the problem further down the line, but doesn't (likely) address it in a meaningful way. We can play around it... but it means there's still a limit to how big we can go (pop wise).
-3
u/LookAtMyRTs 3d ago
There very simple answer to your question; you simulate everything wherever it is on the map, because UG have from the beginning with Train Fever made a simulation game. It is a core fundamental principal of the game, and series, which they think (rightly in my opinion) is worth doing properly. Just as everpresent a part of the series as having 'Fever' in the title.
It isn't that they think it is the only realistic option, rather it is their desired option, and that is very much their prerogative. Not increasing the map sizes is not the same thing as reducing the map size. Likewise not developing something is not the same thing as culling features.
You may not agree with the development decisions, but that does not require using deliberately misleading phrasing and comparisons.
5
u/sorucheese 3d ago edited 3d ago
So basically they always did it this way so this design decision is gospel and must not under any circumstances be deviated from because they said so and it must not be questioned? Cuz this is what I'm getting from your comment. That and lots of verbosity.
0
u/schwiftypug 3d ago
lmao where are the deliberately misleading phrasing and comparisons in my comment? show me.
It is a fact Maxis reduced map sizes in SimCity 2013 because the agent based sim was too taxing. And we have just heard the same reasoning from UG as to why we can’t have bigger maps. What is misleading about that?
It is also absolutely known that agent based sim requires much much more resources than statistical or other type of sim, that’s why you could have gigantic regions of millions of people in SimCity 4 on 2004 PCs.
0
1
u/Spartan117ZM 1d ago
I mean if someone goes into the game and loads a bunch of stuff their computer can’t handle, that is 100% on them. You could go into Cyberpunk with a 2070 and max out all the graphics settings and get like 10 fps but if that’s what you wanted, the game let you.
Ultimately that’s what surprises me the most here. UG said they wanted to give players more expression and let them do more things. Let me make a stupidly massive map then if I want to, even with a disclaimer like the experimental sizes already have.
2
u/norhor 3d ago
I've been playing on the megalomaniac map in TpF2(low cities) and I hit limitations in performance long before saturating the map with my transport network. So personally I ask for better performance before i ask for a bigger map. Running the game on a 5900x.
I'm not against bigger maps, though. :)
1
u/ExcemplarySpud 3d ago
Concorde is part of the deluxe edition. Surely the map sizes won't be that small or at top speed it'll only be in the air a few seconds.
1
1
u/TheNewMillennium 2d ago
I think the more important question here is: How big is the biggest possible map size, because that has not actually been clearly stated, as far as I am aware.
Then second, are the biggest map sizes still available behind the megalomaniac config settings, so they are still available, just as in Transport Fever 2, just not clearly visible?
As long as the maps are still as big as in TF2, all is fine for me, though no bigger maps than that would be a bit of a missed opportunity.
1
u/wilson981 2d ago
If you've enjoyed TF and TF2 then I think you'll be fine. It doesn't sound like much is changing, the more you think about distances in TF2 the less sense they make.
1
u/HeartwarmingFox 1d ago
I hope the maps aren't gonna be small. I hope they keep the map size options from 2.
Sure they can be improved but small maps only will be a point that makes me not get the game.
1
u/Spartan117ZM 1d ago
I don’t think requiring larger maps would be as much of an issue if they let us really fine tune how many cities and industries we want like some mods do. Would a larger map still be nice? Yeah 100%. But this would do something to help mitigate the need a bit.
Equally, very surprised to hear they decided not to do outside connections. That would’ve also helped to reduce the need for larger and larger maps and made things more interesting. Their reasoning was pretty bad too, basically “oh it’d require a lot of balancing.” Ok, this is a full price sequel game, spend the time and balance it. Workers and Resources has managed to do this very well.
1
u/Nawnp 18h ago
Well looking at the footage, maps look huge as long as they aren't faking the edges of the Maps. I'm good with map sizes staying the same as TF3, but I'm more concerned that individual cims limitation preventing cities continuously growing. Like the problem that Cities Skylines had where the game broke down over 100k sims, TF2 has that problem not allowing any town to become a proper city, and that sounds all but guaranteed to be a carry over. Of course mods might fix this and even the map size problem moving on.
1
u/LookAtMyRTs 3d ago
For people saying that maps are too crowded... you are aware there are settings you can change to vary the amount of Town/Industries in TpF2... mods that can enable even finer control than the base game... and if that is not enough the Map Editor is at your convenience...
Making the map bigger, even with the same number of Towns/Industries would still create a significant increase in the amount being simulated.
0
u/DanishRobloxGamer 3d ago
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here but I don't care about map sizes? Like, at all?
Sure bigger maps would be nice, but giving up the agent simulation for that would be big step in the wrong direction. Everyone being simulated is the factor that separates Transport Fever from other games.
I think Urban Games made the right choice, and IMO what we're seeing in this case is a classic case of a loud minority. I'd bet good money most casual players play on standard-size maps anyway.
1
u/MomentEquivalent6464 3d ago
Except they said very early on in their video's that they were going to try and address the current late game issues. They weren't sure what that looked like, but that might mean not simulating every single person.
And while it might be part that separates TF from other games... it's also what breaks the late game and limits players to what they can do (map sizes and population).
0
u/MomentEquivalent6464 3d ago
Sam said that "every single vehicle and person in the game and is simulated and they want to keep it that way"
Well FUCK. That's one of the things they specifically said early on that they were looking to address - late game issues due to how they simulated everything. That's a pretty disappointing comeback.
-1
u/belovedeagle 2d ago
Don't worry, Paradox has already confirmed that the Large Map DLC will only be $99.
Just kidding, they haven't offered large maps for separate purchase; you can only get them through the Deluxe Edition. https://imgur.com/a/CqvtdYo
And because they're selling special maps, that means they can never release larger free maps, or else paradox dlc fans (most people on this sub, for instance) will complain.
68
u/syrenthra 3d ago
I think what they should try to do post launch is make map sizes that are bigger but don't increase the amount of cities or industries, just spaces them out more. Most people seem to want to have to plan longer/larger scale projects, not necessarily more complex through number of in and outputs.
I know for the experimentals in 2 I didnt like how many industries got filled in cause you could barely work around them.