POLL unit cap.

nobody's forcing you or anyone else to build more than 1000 units

I think it's needed, and for ranked too.

Enemy just built 1600 doxes, and the game literally went into slow motion. The engine right now just can't handle higher unit counts.

One can only view your posts in the whole unit cap discussion as trolling. If you don't want a unit cap, don't use it.

It seems for some people the mentioning of "unit cap" triggers something. A unit cap option is not pure evil, it is just an option to give players choice.

What do you even care about it? Imagine you would be vocal about a feature and then people who had no stakes in it would just come to tell you that they don't want it because they think it is bad. No reason, nothing is at stake for them, they just have this opinion and are so obsessed that they have to deny this feature for you. One guy had a valid point when he said he didn't want uber to focus on that. Ok fine. But some people brought up this topic to raise awareness and they should be allowed to tell uber what they want.

For me a ladder was important and I argued for it even though other things were more important. For me it is important that the ladder gets improved (visible leaderboards, player profiles). But I wouldn't dare to deny other people their most important stuff, just because it is not mine, so on this topic I side with the people voting yes. Uber has to make the game enjoyable for the single player people with weak machines too (and most of them won't be vocal here because they don't need a community for skirmish matches). They will just write bad reviews on steam, impacting sales. And that is bad for everybody in the end. So take a step back this time and let the people argue for a unit cap.

That's a great point about steam sales. Not having a future like this will impact your player-base (less) as a whole.

While options are great, I think that there are more important things for Uber to work on *cough*server mod hooks*cough*

no but seriously think about it for a second. is this really damaging to developer time?

how long would you say it would take a single uber dev to ad the lobby option and hook (if said hook doesn't already exist).

I say an hour or two at worst.

"UGH! This game is so slow! We need to introduce a unit cap because these 12 planet systems with radius 950 planets are so laggy!"

The foundation of PA is massive scale no limit.

Run into lag? Play on a smaller map or get a beefier computer.

I can't see how the option to have a limit in any way changes the potential for the game or it's foundation.
Even smaller maps can hit a unit count that will cause lag. Imagine trying to play a game where you know that it might become unplayable before you finish. That's a pretty huge negative towards wanting to play the game for many people, I can imagine.

Why is it such a bad thing to allow people to ensure this doesn't happen in their own games?

As long as its Optional, I don't see the problem. But what I am against, is having that limit conflicted against me because Timmy over here doesn't have a good enough computer to handle the game, but I do.

Now, according to the poll, this is optional. As long as it stays in Single player, I think its fine. But do not.

DO NOT

Push it to multiplayer.

Thats not fair to us who want to play the game the way it was intended to just because of another player's computer.

We need a don't care option. I could go either way.. wait.. that didn't come out right

As long as it's optional and disabled by default not sure I see a big reason against it at the moment. (Legal Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my mind at any moment)

In theory it could help people that have a older computer to keep the games playable and play with people with similar needs.. Which could possibly help people with monster computers by keeping the laggers out of their games

Why not? What happens when somebody sets up a FFA and you don't like FFA? Oh right, you just ignore the lobby. So hard to do... It is really mind-boggling to see this false argument. If there is an option and people make games with limits, just ignore these games or make your own games.
Do you complain about dynamic alliances too? Or share and not share? What if there was no option for shared armies? Would you then not open a thread on the forum? Would you just play like it was intended to be? Lets assume you made a thread arguing for a shared army option. And what if I came along then arguing that you can't have a share army button because well because I feel like it would ruin my game even though I can just go on the way I want to play... This reasoning is just silly.

You completely misunderstood me. Please stop trying to invalidate my arguments with illogical comparisons because you don't agree with me. Just say you don't agree with me.

When I say "Push it to multiplayer", I mean don't enforce it on other players.

Did you ever play Total War: Shogun 2?

If someone set army size to small, and yours to extra large, it didn't matter what you wanted, you HAD to play with smaller battalion sizes because of another player.

This applied even to ranked matches, even though it was actually Game Breaking.

Certain unit types where better with small armies because despite the smaller size, their stats made them better than others, and thus their slightly smaller quantity didn't matter, because they DESTROYED everything. Because of this, some players would be cheap and abuse this feature (Because you had no idea what your opponent had his settings to until it was too late.) and you'd lose because you had a dishonorable opponent.

This is what I worry about if a feature like this is added.

I have to say the confusion was understandable there. When you say:

The implication of this statement is "being optional, in singleplayer, is fine. But it shouldn't be in multiplayer at all, optional or not.". In that light, the comparison was not illogical at all, and rather apt.

We now know you didn't mean it this way, but that's how it was taken. I haven't heard anyone advocating this feature as mandatory, multiplayer or otherwise. It's always asked for as an opt-in feature.

This really seems to be a UI issue in that game. Any setting that affects all players should be fully visible in the lobby.

Sure it can!

Just... not that well...

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding, English is not my native language and I was pretty sure you meant "don't take the option thing to Multiplayer", my fault. Guess then everything is settled. It should just be an option, everybody just argued for that. If people were asking for a real limit I wouldn't argue for it.

@theseeker2 You seem like the most die hard fan of uber's original vision of this game, whether they are good or bad and don't get me wrong i like this game and the awesome staff as much as i love TA.
Why are you so much butt hurt? Are we taking away the ulimited units concept from you? NO!.. Please burn your fanboyism.

You see, you are the most self contradicting person i've seen here on the forums. You want to see uber succeed and rule? YES?..
1.) But you DON'T want the game on steam.. which is the most profitable launch platform for pc games. I too, personally dislike steam/DRM but whats wrong in it when the base game has no DRM no matter where you buy it from.
Why are you being butthurt if others are PAYING uber through steam? Are they forcefully shoving steam up your throat?

2.) You DON'T want the game getting streamed/watched on youtube.. Are you saying that you don't like the whole e-sports thing?!! OMG you missed uber's vision to see PA as an e-sports!!
You don't want people and potential customers to view the game.. you don't want the the game to sell?

3.) You DON'T want a unit cap as an OPTION.. do you live in some wonderland where everyone has super computers and godly network speeds.
NVIDIA said on the release of the gtx 960 that most of the world's population is still on the gtx 400 and 500 series. They can't play PA unlimited. Do you know why uber planned to release on all the three OS'es? Because they wanted to please every RTS player, whether on a pc, mac or linux.
This includes people who own a laptop or othe weaker machines and 99.99% of them will prefer playable framerates any time over an 8 hour slugfest which only lasted an hour by in-game clock. They value playability more than the game engine capabilities of a million units. That's why PA is/was getting bashed.

4.) Maybe many more things which i/we don't know about yet..

That's it. Your ideologies are harmful for PA if followed. Thankfully that's not the case. #rant

Nobody's forcing you to apply the unit cap either.

it's in the vote title guys, seriously I think there's no possible excuse.

people are just trying to cover up their bad faith.

also @brianpurkiss what the hell is up with this selfishness? this is new.

think of the people with slower computers. Do you think they care about sacred PA values?

If I can do it with my God-Rig then so can you. Have a little compassion.

I think they should add the possibility so that everybody can play the game in the way they like. But before implementing it, it should be really clear in the lobby that a host has changed the rules of the game

hhHHHhhhmm ooh yeess

English is MY first language and it wasn't that clear to me that's what he meant until he explained the Shogun 2 MP issues. That's a really strange specific issue though, its not like each client would have a unit cap. It would just be that the unit cap would be a lobby setting like any other setting. I think it would go well with adding in more lobby settings in general, like disabling certain units/unit types, alternate victory conditions etc.