[POLL] Bigger Maps in Ranked Queue

I've always gotten bored of the tiny maps in the ranked queue until Meso was born.

Meso is so much more fun imo. You don't lose because of building one extra fabber, and build orders don't really even matter as much as the other systems.

Currently the maps in the queue besides Meso promote micro-management instead of macro-management which is just against all aspects of PA, the largest scale RTS game ever. They are essentially the size of SC2 maps if projected on a sphere (assume the SC2 units are the same size as PA units)

So, I'm really hoping there's some bigger maps that get included in the queue, because at this rate PA will become a click-fest just like SC2, where the only thing that matters is build order.

Not to mention that you get to build enormous armies on big maps

We could be having this like I did in an FFA! (Exaggeration)

Im not sure what else to say. The maps are just way too small. I always feel like my judgement of the current balance is super screwy because I rarely play 1v1s on larger maps anymore.

Yes, but I like the small ones too. I want to see a good mix of big and small maps to really test how well we can play over that range.

I fully agree we need a few bigger maps.
So far we have:

Berg 500,
Duat 500,
Forge 400,
Meso 700,
Pacific 450,
Styx 400, 600,

Based on my comparisions with SupCom from here: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/map-scale.67475/page-2#post-1060802 and here https://forums.uberent.com/threads/map-scale.67475/page-2#post-1060806
I'll go with saying that a radius of 400 is roughly a 5*5 map. Actually it has a bit less space than a 5*5 map in SupCom, it has a longer travel distance between bases (assuming they have a max possible distance) for tanks, but a lower one for bots. But it's an indication.

By that scale we have
Forge: 5*5
Berg & Duat: 6,25*6,25
Meso: 8,75
Pacific: 5,625 (though since ships are so slow it kinda is a special case)
Styx: 5*5 and 7,5*7,5

If somebody would suggest such tiny maps as a ranked Pool for FA he would be laughed at.

I'd say we need maybe two full 10x10, two 12,5x12,5 one full 15x15 more, radius wise that would mean 2x 800, 2x 1000 and 1x 1200

And before anyone complains: I am certain at least the 1000 planets still fit into the computer of anybody who has 8GB ram, if the 1200 is a moon with few features even that will work nicely.
For 4GB players they probably will need to close all other applications and make sure they have a decent swap, but hey we are in the year 2015, 4GB just doesn't do it anymore.

I think there should be a voting system coming in for changing the map then too. When I know that I got like 20 minutes to play a game then I don't want it to happen on a 1000 radius system.

I think in many cases you will be able to finish a game on a radius 1000 planet in 20 min by playing aggressive.
But if you only have exactly 20 minutes it will be a diceroll to start a game, even on smaller maps. I would not start a ranked unless I have at least 1 hour time in general.

... veto system maybe?

My phone ate my post to go with my other vote. Why not two queues? One for smaller/single systems and another for larger maps. Part of the reason I don't play ranked is that I am not an APM/micro god. I understand the players who are and enjoy it wanting smaller maps, and I'd like to have a chance at the fun without taking thier fun away.

i doubt it is like we wont get any bigger maps ... this is not a real question to me but just a matter of time ...

They just need to be very careful that bigger maps will still run on low-end systems. There are a lot of people with just the minimum requirements and it wouldn't really be fair if that stops them from playing ranked.

yes bigger maps please, especially with pelicans which open up great possibilities for super fast expansion

I think a map vote up/down system would better. Better nott split the queues

After closing most of my other applications and starting a 1200 moon I am at ~6GB of RAM in use. After closing the game I am at ~2GB of RAM in use. So if the OS puts those 2GB into the virtual memory it would probably even work out with 4GB with maybe a few lags. Not a nice experience, but more than 50% of the systems on the steam hardware survey (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey) have 5GB or more ram. Those systems would be fine for sure, the 4GB systems probably would be borderline, dunno. Maybe somebody with 4GB ram can give us an insight into how a 1200 planet plays for them. Considering the the PA community probably has more 8GB or more systems than the whole steam average (even my netbook is part of that) I think it is okay to put in a 1200 planet.
Yes there will be that one unlucky person who will have issues, but that one unlucky person can't really play much of PA right now as well.

If we had a "veto one map" systems that unlucky person could just veto the 1200 planet.

It gets even worse when you consider that people with integrated graphics are using their memory for both normal ram and video memory.

seriously there needs to be a lower boundary of systems you want to support.
A 4gb ram, integrated graphics, weak dual core cpu system will suck and nobody should expect to be able to play on a system with integrated graphics. Seriously wtf
Also if you have only 4gb of ram and an integrated graphics I'd classify that as "below 4gb ram". So below minimum requirements.
Yes some people do not have the money to pay for a better system, but they will need to set priorities. When SupCom came out in 2006 my 1GB Ram, 2GHZ single core, Geforce 6600GT computer also was completely overwhelmed and the bigger maps (ranked) lagged hard even in 1vs1. I spent the majority of all my money (poor scholar) for the next few years to get better stuff. Was worth it I never even considered wishing for SupCom to have smaller ranked maps. Only small maps would have sucked.

EDIT:
Oh also somewhere is a thread by @SXX about how to make coherent use a limited number of processes. That reduces the responsiveness of the UI, but frees memory. I guess it may help for borderline 4GB cases to make the game "playable" and more than "playable" on a 4gb integrated graphics system really is not to be expected.

There is a lower boundary though, which are the minimal system requirements you see in their store, i.e.:
Memory: 4 GB
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce GTS 250, AMD Radeon HD 4850, Intel HD Graphics 4000 or better (512 MB VRAM, OpenGL 3.2 or better)
( http://support.uberent.com/kb/faq.php?id=11 )
They kind of need to stick to that. Which is why 32-bit Windows is still allowed, although the regretted that.

that clearly asks for dedicated vram. Also being on the absolute minimum requirements never was much fun in any game. Can anybody with 4GB and a dedicated 512mb vram maybe share some light on how a 1200 moon behaves? Does anybody with that low amount of memory even read this thread? I am honestly wondering how the game (or rather windows with the virtual memory) deal with it.
Not to mention that having 1 out of 8 or 9 systems of the ranked pool at really questionable performance would be not exactly "unplayable" overall.

also could help to have voting for maps/veto/favorite 3 or other number of maps you would like to play on thus those with less computer hardware can still play and thus of the community that prefer certain styles of planets over others can look for those types of games on the ladder and expect them more often then not

I can't vote Yes unless:

a) A person with the minimum spec can play such maps without a significant disadvantage
or
b) A veto system is in place so that such people aren't forced to play them (and it also needs to be obvious somehow that this could be a concern for such people).

Yeah, this question really revolves around a veto system. Both for players with low-spec machines that might not be able to handle larger planets, and for time-strapped players who enjoy the game but can't always commit to 30+minute games.