Ranked is repetitive.

If a user doesn't have enough ram to play the big maps then they should read the minimum system requirements. Min requirements are 8 gigs of RAM in Titans, up from 4 in vanilla, and this is solely to justify larger maps because as someone who uses a 4 gigs of ram comp perf in Titans is the same as perf in vanilla.

Bomber speed nerf. Is the simplest bestest fix for air. Or remove carpet bombing. One bomber should not be able to kill 20 dox that have crossed a whole map in one pass.

Whichever one is fixed then remove dox aa.

On the maps and units people mention. I use most units most games. Exceptions, grenadiers and Icarus. Grenadiers I should probably use more.

I'd like to play you in a few games with an old gentleman's agreement of no air... I like big maps.

I disagree with comments about no bots though, I played a few big map games against @reptarking and dox were essential- tanks are great but they're so slow. A huge force sitting in your own base, a defeated opponent doth not make

Noo, don't remove carpet bombing. It is soo satisfying the fly a group of bombers over a ground blob that is without AA and just watch it melt away.

I suspect the issue with bigger maps is keeping performance up for as wide an audience as possible.

I think this would be the best way to introduce more diversity. Now you have to build according to where you started, and adapt it based on where your opponent started in relation to you. By far the easiest way to add more variety to ladder play.

yea that was always fun to try and guess where opponent would spawn, and then try spawn in a place to get advantage over that.

if bots shall get aa then it should be t2 ... the thing with bots will simply be their speed advantage over tanks ... and there i can see a problem ... i do not want another situation were stingers made both vehicle aa and air useless ..

agree with the cost for t2 staying as it is ... the fact that more poeple can attempt it already shows that they are more accessible than before .. even in smaller maps

no, sry i have no interest in either losing or winning in those ..

disagree with the carpet removing
yes to slight speednerf for bombers ...

what to do with the icarus though?

icarus could be maybe better used as a defensiv unit ... so keep low speed but maybe buff hp a little?

No I am quite certain I'd like large scale maps for 1v1 instead.

Just, no.

I can handle multiple large planets on my own without a problem.

For those of you you think something should be done to maps
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/a-suggestion-to-uber-on-how-to-improve-ladder-maps.70378/
I agree with most of the thinks that have been said here. I think the easiest and first step to take is to do as in the linke over...

You need to watch Matiz or Cola in action

Just had a really good fight with someone in ranked on a large map. Game took around 56 mins and felt pretty cool.

Won in end with the navel t2 hover ships a titan and some other t2 navel but it was a hard fight and they nearly had me a few times.

I enjoy large map play but I can Imagine some games may get long without asteroids or anihilazer's.

He's right though, they do tend to be this way.

That is unless you are using ubermap.

Honestly that's a good thing.

And frankly speaking, if someone can't handle a single radius 1000 map, then they're just bad.

I don't think it's fair to say someone is bad because of this. Can you perfectly manage 5 different fights at the same time across such a big map while also expanding metal, scouting perfectly, positioning perfectly, and balancing metal/energy/factories?

I think you missed his point too. It's not about skill, it's about fun. People don't find it fun being thrown into the deep end and neither you nor i can force them to spend their free time otherwise.

Especially with the current state of air, i do not think large maps should be introduced so quickly,, especially without a map veto system for people who simply do not have 8gb of ram or whatever.

We ask for large maps now, but i think we also need to be careful of what we wish for.

*As for the mods helping, that's certainly so. But can you expect every ranked player to know about these? From that guy's post, it's pretty obvious you can't.

Fair comments, I personally like large maps. I think even great players can't be expected to play perfectly in them- there's just too many variables.

That said, maybe having maps large enough to make a 'perfect' build / play style impossible is partly the point? I mean that is the major downside to small maps, there quickly develops an obvious meta for them if you research the best players. A map large enough even great players make mistakes does mitigates this.

I mean can a human really have true understanding and command of a real life conflict? I personally doubt it...

I think that is the main point to have them. Why only play small maps that can be played near perfectly? I'd rather see large maps that cause even great players to play visibly imperfect. The question is who can handle that better really.

I really think you make it sound harder than it really is. Of course it's not going to be perfect, but it shouldn't be perfect in the first place.

I know for a fact that I can easily manage 10+ armies on a single planet (I do it all the time in huge FFA games. But really there's no need to have that many armies since there's always going to be a "main" front.), but I sacrifice micro. I don't have 10 eyes that independentely rotate

It's definitely not bordering on human capability.

I'd be very surprised if a radius 1300 planet eats up 8GB of RAM (the minimum requirement).

I agree (thought that's what the rest of my post said?)