Doom slaughtermap with a billion/trillion or even octillion enemies?

[Pegleg]

11 hours ago, reflex17 said:

You could ask S.E.T.I or NASA for a bit of their power to run the Doom level, for science (read: bragging rights read: octillionaire(

 

What would the map look like? Box or maze? You can't put doomguy in a maze with octillion imps. Could you? It would have to be a box or large connected arenas. How to configure such a thing? Any map is easier with the BFG. Where is it placed, if it is at all? So many choices really. 

 

You could connect and make something like a Planisphere 2 fractal, and while someone is spending the time, why not add some additional gameplay elements, that would be nice (if possible). Needs new textures as well I would think, who doesn't know that map off the back of their hand lol.

 

Keep climbing that mountains, Everest of Doom is out there somewhere...

 

 

1 hour ago, scifista42 said:

As for map/file format, each thing in a map takes 10 bytes in the THINGS lump, and the wad file format doesn't allow lumps to have greater size than 2^32 bytes or greater offset from the beginning of the file than 2^32 bytes, so even a wad with minimal size of other lumps couldn't contain more than about 429 million things in all maps in total. If a pk3/pk7 was used instead of a wad, see limitations of the zip/7z file formats respectively.

 

As for engine structures, that depends on how particular ports handle wad/map loading and representation of the thing list, but I'd be surprised if any port today could load a map with more than 2^32 things even from a pk3/pk7 and on a computer with enough memory.

Let's just say you put 1,000,000 enemies in a map. Where would you put them? What would the size of the rooms be?

 

Here are the radii of each of the enemies that I would think you would want to populate such a map:

 

Imp: 40

Demon: 60

Chaingunner: 40

Cacodemon: 62

Baron of Hell: 48

Arachnotron: 128

Revenant: 40

Mancubus: 96

Archvile: 40

 

Let's say you just line up the monsters next to each other as close as you can get. So, you just end up with a rectangular array of 1,000 monsters x 1,000 monsters. Let's say you have equal numbers of each type of monster, which would give an average size of 62 units. Add a 2 unit border all around and you end up with each monster taking up 64 units. Therefore, for every 1,000,000 monsters, you would need a minimum of 64,000 x 64,000 units to house them. Add in room for weapons, ammo, megaspheres, armor, health, etc. and your level just expands in size. If you take out Arachnotrons, it gets a little better (average size + plus = 56 units), but that's still a HUGE level.

 

Even if you split the monsters up into smaller chunks and put 10,000 in a room, you're still dealing with 6,400 x 6,400 units of area taken up by monsters, which is more manageable, but still a rather large room.

 

The ultimate point is, there's no way to avoid this becoming a gigantic, sprawling level filled with shoulder-to-shoulder monsters that may or may not be fighting amongst each other, with the level possibly slowing to a crawl with everything going on. Add on to that that it would probably be a pain to texture such a massive level in such a way that it actually looked somewhat intriguing.

 

And that's just for a 1,000,000 monsters. Not 100,000,000 or more.

[Pegleg]

4 hours ago, Scotty said:

Will a million do ya?

 

 

You asked for it

 

FDA's welcome :)

 

3 hours ago, RjY said:

Also we must consider the size of each monster and how many could fit into the coordinate grid which is a 65536-sided square (range ±32768). A monster of radius r occupies a square of side 2r so the maximum number of monsters that could fit would be (floor(65536/2r))². So you have a maximum 2683044 imps of radius 20. Sorry, I meant 2683043, you also need space for the player.

I started writing my response and got distracted with other things and by the time I'd finished, these had both been submitted.

 

Admittedly, I didn't think about 1,000,000 lost souls.

 

But, based on RjY's comment, the 1,000,000 monsters in a 64,000 unit-wide area would work, barely.

[Endless]

My comput would melt itself, and the freaking TV would explode, and my eyes would burn. In small world, something like that is pure hell.

 

No computer could handle that (Maybe some NASA crap) but a Extreme-end pc? Naah, is just to much information, to much things to load. Try nuts if you want to get something close. 

[Misty]

Why the heck we would need one billion monsters in the first place? It sounds quite illogical for me. I can't imagine map which could support that count of monsters.

[nxGangrel]

18 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

quantity doesn't equal difficulty

Tell that to the rest of Doomworld for fuck sake.

[reflex17]

That's why it's so important what the map layout would be like, when one tries to wonder what sort of "gameplay" might exist in a map with so many monsters. With a simple box, which it would have to be, a billion monsters very quickly make a billion projectiles, or would they be hitscanners? A mix? it's not so much a question of the amount of projectiles but calculating the trajectories, bullet puff animations etc. Any extra level geometry would take away from the theoretical limit of possible things in the map, I suppose. I'm not a programmer so the finer details are lost to me. Line of sight is a way to lessen the amount of projectiles and stuff going on, but again that calls into question the idea of pillars/walls etc.

 

It's an interesting idea just for the thought of it, like a Chaingunner that shoots Chaingunners lol. Even in the largest Slaughter maps you try to break down the packs into manageable pieces by way of B.F.G or other weapons, and an octillion monster map would be the same more or less... In practice surely a map would be literally impossible to complete, even if you had the help of some ENIAC type absolute zero quantum state computer as an apartment building next door to run it. Meta-fractal hypercube sentient geometry construct made entirely of pinky demons. "Feels good to be the center of attention" - Doomguy. Theoretical math calculations completed using a Doom wad as an abacus, that's the world we want to live in.

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by reflex17

[Edward850]

8 minutes ago, nxGangGirl said:

Tell that to the rest of Doomworld for fuck sake.

You mind explaining this one? I'm unsure how Doomworld relates to game difficulty by quantity.

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 hour ago, Pegleg said:

Let's just say you put 1,000,000 enemies in a map. Where would you put them? What would the size of the rooms be?

In theory, you can put them all in the same spot and just "stack" them. This would work fine for PrBoom+, for example. Basically you can build "living walls" like that, or think of it as "destructible terrain".

[reflex17]

The monsters would probably have to be stacked, depending on the size of the grid limit, if there even is one. How would the walls be segmented or are they only single linedefs? I remember a thread that showed a circle drawn over Planisphere 2, demonstrating how it went beyond "engine limits". That map obviously has a lot of walls and such, so wouldn't it come down to maximum grid size or something like that?

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by reflex17

[Da Werecat]

5 hours ago, 40oz said:

I'm not sure why anyone should like this post because the first part discourages optimization and the second part answers a question that wasn't asked.

Probably should've waited for some kind of pre-existing disagreement. These gotchas don't really work unless people are already antagonized.

[leodoom85]

Do you guys want to melt everyone's PC's by putting a stupid amount of monsters? :D

[reflex17]

It's an interesting idea just from the technical side of the engine.

 

When my friends and I got the Wolf3d mapedit, we did like most people do the first time they make a level, dropped in about 50 Hans Grosse and a mess of medkits, 1-ups and chainguns. No walls that's crazy stuff are you kidding me?. Athletes set records for a reason. I like to think we invented the slaughter style of map lol j/k. Any level is worth a look if you really enjoy the game, then you find the ones you like.

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by reflex17

[BigDickBzzrak]

Weather forecast for this thread:

Why are slaughtermaps looked down upon, PART II

[reflex17]

Revenant does an angular bony-ass dab directed straight on the haters. He knows it's is kinda played out at this point but he doesn't care, he's a Revenant from Doom 2. Do his rockets need other frames/angles of animation? Hell no.

 

He's got a gift so special he made it heat seeking!!!! THanks, Skelebro, for replacing the tetherball with an exploding pumpkin.

Edited October 11, 2017 by reflex17

[NuMetalManiak]

What does this thread remind me of?

 

edit: to clarify, a notorious Doom mapper tried putting loads of monsters in a small area and called it a map. That's what this thread reminds me of.

Edited October 12, 2017 by NuMetalManiak
you obviously needed clarification

[Major Arlene]

Making it? Probably easy, would just take a while. Personally, I'd be impressed if you could get it to run. My computer can barely handle a map with 500 monsters... it would melt if you did a billion or even just a million.

[Edward850]

15 minutes ago, Major Arlene said:

My computer can barely handle a map with 500 monsters

Either ZDoom's not-so-optimizations have actually gotten somehow worse and you really need to switch ports, or this is outright hyperbole.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Edward850

[Nine Inch Heels]

23 minutes ago, Major Arlene said:

Making it? Probably easy, would just take a while

1: Copy

2: Paste

3: ???

4: done ;-)

 

23 minutes ago, Major Arlene said:

My computer can barely handle a map with 500 monsters... it would melt if you did a billion or even just a million.

You need to consider that different source ports have a different overhead when it comes to how they check things. (G)ZDoom does more checks than PrBoom+, for example (even when set to "strict boom-compat"), that's why high monster counts become more of a problem in ZDoom based ports. Plus, GZDoom has the additional "weight" of higher res textures and whatnot.

EDIT: No wonder you hate slaughtermaps. If you can't run them properly I'm not surprised at all...

Edited October 12, 2017 by Nine Inch Heels

[nxGangrel]

4 hours ago, Edward850 said:

You mind explaining this one? I'm unsure how Doomworld relates to game difficulty by quantity.

There's a lot of people who think that more monsters is harder, and if you couldn't beat, or didn't like a wad/level because it had to many monsters they would bullshit you with "was it too hard for you?". ^{cough cough like a certain smart ass a ways above me}

[Da Werecat]

Wait. If you couldn't beat something, it's typically because it was too hard, no?

[Memfis]

18 hours ago, Zanieon said:

Why a map for that in the first place? All you need is this lil mod:

Oh my fucking god. :D

[Pegleg]

16 hours ago, bzzrak said:

Weather forecast for this thread:

Why are slaughtermaps looked down upon, PART II

Because that's exactly what this forum needs...

[Pegleg]

12 hours ago, nxGangGirl said:

There's a lot of people who think that more monsters is harder, and if you couldn't beat, or didn't like a wad/level because it had to many monsters they would bullshit you with "was it too hard for you?". ^{cough cough like a certain smart ass a ways above me}

And someone, somewhere, is considering starting one of the following threads:

1. Does a higher monster count mean a more difficult map? Discuss.

2. If you don't like a map because of the high monster count, does that mean you have other perfectly reasonable tastes or that you just suck at Doom? Discuss.

[nxGangrel]

9 hours ago, Da Werecat said:

Wait. If you couldn't beat something, it's typically because it was too hard, no?

Implying a map needs hundreds of monsters to be hard, no?

[Benjogami]

34 minutes ago, nxGangGirl said:

Implying a map needs hundreds of monsters to be hard, no?

No. That's not how implying works.

[Pegleg]

55 minutes ago, nxGangGirl said:

Implying a map needs hundreds of monsters to be hard, no?

20,000 imps in a map with two dozen BFGs, not too hard.

 

4 arch-viles in a 256 x 256 room with a shotgun, I think that would be quite hard.

[nxGangrel]

3 hours ago, Benjogami said:

No. That's not how implying works.

You've missed out on previous comments

[Da Werecat]

So who exactly implied that "a map needs hundreds of monsters to be hard"?

[Benjogami]

21 minutes ago, nxGangGirl said:

You've missed out on previous comments

No, I read them.

[nxGangrel]

2 hours ago, Da Werecat said:

So who exactly implied that "a map needs hundreds of monsters to be hard"?

 

I've been under the impression that you (and a few others) thought I disliked slaughter maps because "they're too hard", specifically because of the monster count since they're slaughtermaps.

 

2 hours ago, Benjogami said:

No, I read them.

Even from different posts in different threads?

Edited October 13, 2017 by nxGangGirl