I didn't see any problems with the saves. Well, what can I say... Perhaps this is the best map ever created in this size for single-player by our compatriots. It's good.
Added 5 minutes ago
By the way, to make saves work better, you can lower the graphics settings. On this map, there are indeed fewer problems with saves (but there are some, especially on weaker machines) than with other similar maps, because it is relatively empty, although it is overpopulated with similar objects. In my opinion, this is already a reason why the large size is not justified. What's the point of walking around an empty land?
In my opinion, any maps that suffer from "gigantism," emptiness, etc., are not very good.
The console is full of non-critical errors and warnings.
For example, for the witch (model), you could have added a trigger for contact instead of a region (or not blocked it), which is why you can't click on the creature to approach it.
Not everyone has computer hardware that can handle huge maps.
http://hmm5.sklabs.ru/woe.html - so far, I haven't found anything better with this size.
Actually, I don't like maps that are cluttered with all sorts of objects. Whether it's elevation changes or all sorts of arena objects. It looks like the creator's primary goal was to cram all the editor's objects into the map, and as many as possible. And sometimes it just looks extremely gaudy. This is a matter of taste, of course. The size is such that it can't be completed in 90 days, to give the player a chance to get a little lost in the gameplay. And it provides a large base for further improvements. The fact that it is a bit empty is because it is closer to reality; the land is not very populated. And after some rework and cleanup, it may not be so empty at all. Regarding the console, it's a minor issue and doesn't affect the script's operation. Regarding the trigger, it probably would have been better that way. But for now, it's like this.
However, thank you for the advice and criticism; I will take some of it into account
