Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I am a minimaker with only one limit, the limited of the space of the EE worlds.
I am doing a really interesting concept into a 400x200 world, but the space is too small for my idea.
I need at least a 600x300 world to complete my idea.
Don´t be the guy who comment:
- I don´t see why this is needed.
- Just make your world in different worlds.
- Make it smaller!
I don´t need to do any of that ****
If you feel that you dont need bigger worlds, then keep out of this topic please.
If you are one of that commenters, shut up please, your comment are totally unneeded, 100% tedious with no argumentation at all, also I am doing a request that would improve EE for all expert minimakers and artist who need a lot of space, if you are no one of them (One of the players who need a lot of space to perform your ideas), then please keep out of this because it has nothing to do with you.
Im really excited with the idea of having bigger worlds for EE.
There are already some players and moderators with very huge worlds, and i think players would love to have a big space to perform huge great ideas.
The huge worlds could be great to make all kind of games and art that need a lot of space.
I am sure most of new players would have better feeling about playing EE if they see that the limited space for doing worlds is bigger than the actual worlds we have in EE.
Seems like EE moderators are working into a unity EE version, would not it be cool to have bigger worlds in that new EE experience?
Or better, if is possible have them in the actual EE, from the web browser.
Did you delete and post this suggestion multiple times? For some reason GergBot in IRC showed it up three times...
I think one of the main problems with this would be data storage. Right now, 300×300 worlds are pushing the limit, as a full world of that size won't be able to save. While I imagine there would be ways to fix that, an easy solution would be to simply have them be purchased with gems. After all, gems result in more income, which results in more money to spend on server storage.
Offline
Offline
We should focus on trying to fit more into worlds (better mechanisms and staff adding better blocks that do more) instead of making the worlds bigger as a shameless excuse.
Like what? We're add an awkward point where large systems are kind of bulky, yet adding more features than we already have (portals, boosts, and switches) may just complicate things.
Offline
Raphe9000 wrote:We should focus on trying to fit more into worlds (better mechanisms and staff adding better blocks that do more) instead of making the worlds bigger as a shameless excuse.
Like what? We're add an awkward point where large systems are kind of bulky, yet adding more features than we already have (portals, boosts, and switches) may just complicate things.
I doubt we have found the 100% most efficient way to create mechanisms, and nothing is too complicated if implemented right.
Offline
Not really censored, i mean, you actually not have nothing to say more than you dont like my suggestion, so feel free to post it, i dont stop you, just telling you that your comment is totally unneeded into my topic because is so déjà vu and cliche and i already posted all that comments.
you actually not have nothing to say more than you dont like my suggestion
Actually, the post gave valid reasons why this may not be such a good idea. I've seen plenty of pointless "I don't like this" posts on the forum, but that just isn't one of them.
Offline
That is the point, this idea is good, but there are not resources to do it, eventually this idea will be possible.
And be sure that there are a lot of players who want bigger worlds, i already said that if you don´t need bigger worlds then keep out of the topic because it have nothing to do with who don´t need bigger world.
I was talking about the
No thank you. I won't be censored because you don't like my opinion. If you don't want an argument, stop here.
more than his actual post.
He said what i knew already, and his solution was already suggested by me in the topic.
N1KF wrote:Raphe9000 wrote:We should focus on trying to fit more into worlds (better mechanisms and staff adding better blocks that do more) instead of making the worlds bigger as a shameless excuse.
Like what? We're add an awkward point where large systems are kind of bulky, yet adding more features than we already have (portals, boosts, and switches) may just complicate things.
I doubt we have found the 100% most efficient way to create mechanisms, and nothing is too complicated if implemented right.
I managed to fit a whole switch computer into less than half a 300x300 world ... If that can be done, I'm sure that most other switch machines will fit
Bigger worlds would be nice, but that would mean moving away from PlayerIO, which although that would probably be a good thing to do, it would take a lot of work...
Also, there is already a problem with connecting to worlds (if too many blocks are being placed) so bigger worlds would make this worse. It probably would be quite easy to fix but it would just be another thing that the limited supply of devs would have to work on.
Offline
fwiw: in general, telling the opposition to respond is probably going to elicit more response. However, ignoring the reasoning of the dissenters does not bode well for the improvement of the game (assuming this is read)
bigger worlds are interesting, and have been previously discussed elsewhere. However, we run into data limits. That's actually not a problem if the bigger worlds aren't terribly complicated. But it sounds like you want to make them complicated. In that case, you won't benefit from a larger world.
Offline
Not really censored, i mean, you actually not have nothing to say more than you dont like my suggestion, so feel free to post it, i dont stop you, just telling you that your comment is totally unneeded into my topic because is so déjà vu and cliche and i already posted all that comments.
I was talking about the
Raphe9000 wrote:No thank you. I won't be censored because you don't like my opinion. If you don't want an argument, stop here.
more than his actual post.
He said what i knew already, and his solution was already suggested by me in the topic.
Offline
Take it easy, you said very important stuff, just telling that i am not censoring you ok?
fwiw: in general, telling the opposition to respond is probably going to elicit more response. However, ignoring the reasoning of the dissenters does not bode well for the improvement of the game (assuming this is read)
bigger worlds are interesting, and have been previously discussed elsewhere. However, we run into data limits. That's actually not a problem if the bigger worlds aren't terribly complicated. But it sounds like you want to make them complicated. In that case, you won't benefit from a larger world.
How do all these unused worlds that people buy all the time work but giant worlds don't? There are like millions of 25 x 25 worlds out there. Yet we are restrited to 300 x 300 beause it takes too much data?
WM malfuntion
Offline
hummerz5 wrote:fwiw: in general, telling the opposition to respond is probably going to elicit more response. However, ignoring the reasoning of the dissenters does not bode well for the improvement of the game (assuming this is read)
bigger worlds are interesting, and have been previously discussed elsewhere. However, we run into data limits. That's actually not a problem if the bigger worlds aren't terribly complicated. But it sounds like you want to make them complicated. In that case, you won't benefit from a larger world.
How do all these unused worlds that people buy all the time work but giant worlds don't? There are like millions of 25 x 25 worlds out there. Yet we are restrited to 300 x 300 beause it takes too much data?
I would assume that most small worlds have nothing in them. If that's the case, then that world's data storage could be stored in a single bit. If that's not the way they're stored, I imagine storing them that way would help a lot.
Offline
I would assume that most small worlds have nothing in them. If that's the case, then that world's data storage could be stored in a single bit. If that's not the way they're stored, I imagine storing them that way would help a lot.
Well not one bit, but definitely very little. It would need to store the world settings etc, but as EE only saves the blocks, not empty spaces, it would only need to save the world border, which would be very few blocks.
Offline
As destroyer says. Although, as the nature of databases, there'd be some expense for simply having an object.
WMWMWMWMW, your argument is missing something else. The limit is not that of your hard drive, it's the limit of each file's size. (analogically)
Offline
Pages: 1
[ Started around 1713581979.4317 - Generated in 0.076 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.73 MiB (Peak: 1.97 MiB) ]