# Make the limits of the maps connected to the opposite rooms (Like Earth)

• Imagine if every map of Screeps would be like planet Earth but with the shape of a Square, the rooms in the limits of the map could connect with the ones in the opposite direction (limited to 1 shard).

This can connect the game map a lot reducing distances and making the game feels more realistic. This won't limit the expansion of the game map, because adding or removing zones in the limits it will only change the distances to reach the opposite zones by walking.

To make sure you undertand what I'm suggesting, take a look at the diagram:

I did this diagram with draw.io, if you need the XML to modify the image, just request it.

This idea can be modified in any way to fit better in the game, this is just a suggestion on how to do it.

I hope I explained myself well enough, thank you.

• Personally I'm not a fan.

First of all, making the game feel more realistic is of no value for me. I play screeps not for realism but as a coding challenge.

Additionally I do see trouble with expansion of the map. Using your example, imagine you're in E0S0 and you have a remote mining operation in E0S5 and E5S0. You risk losing access to these if new sectors are added. (I'm skipping the fact that the outer rooms would be highways here, but the same principle applies.)

There are some other problems as well. For example, terminals have a cost of sending resources somewhere depending on the `Game.map.getRoomLinearDistance()`. If transferring something from E0S0 to E5S0, is that distance 1 or 5? Your empire's supply chain could completely break when new sectors are added and you own rooms on both sides of a "border".

That said, shard size doesn't change often, but I still feel like this would not be an improvement.

• Imagine if every map of Screeps would be like planet Earth but with the shape of a Square, the rooms in the limits of the map could connect with the ones in the opposite direction (limited to 1 shard).

What you're proposing isn't actually like Earth. Earth is a sphere but you've proposed a torus (aka a doughnut).

• My main problem with this idea is that moving the world view from one side of the world to the other is just too painfully slow to do that on a daily basis. Although this might be an interesting option for private servers with small maps.

Interestingly enough the game market fees already wrap around the world - so I can sell stuff from E58S49 to W60S40 at a rather cheap energy cost as it has just a range of 9.

• Just a throw-in, but be aware that for terminal transfer costs, the map already behaves this way.

Perhaps relevant for @keenathar.

• Another way to do this could be portals at the end of the world.

• @duckymirror oh! That's an interesting suggestion.

I like that.

It would maintain the map as dynamic and would smooth out the advantage/disadvantage of being on the edge.

• Does such a dis/advantage need smoothing out?

• Wouldn't the game be worse if the terrain was identical? As in, the desire to control slightly better territory is surely a good driver of conflict and therefore engagement...

The edges have both disadvantages and advantages - less people in range so you're perhaps safer but have less combat targets, less people to contest power banks but less power banks in range.

If we put portals of some kind at the edge of the map, it would mean that the entire map was as connected to other parts of the map, so the terrain was less diverse.