Bored with 5x5 maps - why I am considering quitting FAF
-
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Thanks for various thoughts on use of the commander. I definitely don't just have mine sit there on any map size, to be clear.
Yes, custom games are one option but as maudlin points out, that may involve waiting a long time. What I have always loved about the 1v1 is that I can click, wait while reading an article and then pretty soon a game loads. I don't think I'd get much joy out of the alternative.
FX, I know we discussed this yesterday but I ask you to believe that this is not all some result of losing a lot on 5x5 maps. As you say, I lose on other maps too. If you are just going to assume that everyone who disagrees must be a sore loser rather than have a legitimate point, obviously there is nothing I can say.
But I honestly think I would rather lose on a small, medium or large map than win on a 5x5 map all the time. The former I can learn a lot from, there is huge variety of games, every one is different. On 5x5 they're all the same, whoever wins - com rushes to middle with lvl1 and a struggle ensues in which one of them dies. If you think this is the peak of Supreme Commander, you would have the same map limits for everyone, but you don't - you clearly see a variety of map sizes as a good thing. I am simply saying I want that even as a rusty player whose rating has fallen a lot. Maybe it's a learning experience, maybe it's not but I would rather learn in a way that is fun and varied even if I learn slower rather than play endless com rush on 5x5 map games.
Your other point - that 5x5 was only 9/20 games - I have a lot more time for. Subjectively it certainly feels like even higher than 45% - maybe your sample was unusual - but either way, I think 45% of games on the smallest maps is way too high for my tastes. If one game in ten or so was on a 5x5 com rush map, I would not be raising this issue, or thinking of quitting.
-
More generally, maybe I will keep playing a bit longer. I guess I just feel like I am enjoying the game far, far less than when I played a few years back and I remember I would get a variety of games. One game would be a sea map, the next a small land map, the next maybe a 5x5 map, the next a mix of land and sea and so on.
Yeah, I am a much rustier, worse player than I once was - but now I feel like I have been confined to a huge proportion of games being identical com rush 5x5 maps as punishment. I am not enjoying it as I once did. Yeah, I guess I could get great at 5x5 maps and my rating would rise but I'm probably more likely to find another game before that happens. If you're happy with that or really think I am the only one, I have said my piece.
-
Join a custom game, alt tab out of the lobby, read your article, when the notification pops up that the game is full alt tab.
There is at least 10 different faf game modes that change faf to a completely different kind of game. Really shows that the casual game queue needs to be implemented asap to showcase the versatility of the faf mods to change up the game.
-
The issue is that most players in your rating bracket prefer 5x5's over the large 20x20's maps and if we would change the proportions we would have even more player complain and eventually leave, it's not perfect but it's as close to general player preference as it can be right now.
-
Thanks, Tagada - but I am arguing for variation, not a load of 20x20 maps. When I played a few years ago I had a lot of variation.
What % of maps for under 500 ratings are 5x5 out of interest right now?
-
@tomalak
Based on this forum, it would appear that 3/7 (~43%) of <500 ladder maps are 5x5. However, you can check which maps are in your ladder map pool (their sizes are labelled) with more certainty by clicking the maplist button in the FAF client that I circled below:
Also, btw, there are a lot of other people who don't like to play on the types of maps often put in the ladder pools. A lot of those people usually play custom games at present, so you might want to try playing more of those.
Also, fwiw, I am running for PC (an elected position in FAF) in this election with a goal of adding options to the matchmaker, including having multiple map pools that players can choose from (so they only queue for the map pool(s) that they want to play with). If/when I am elected and matchmaker options like that are implemented, you should then be able to queue for map pool(s) that have lower percentages of 5x5 maps, as well as other variations.
pfp credit to gieb
-
I never said this was because you were mad about losing. I’m saying the reason you are losing would make you lose the exact same game the exact same way for the exact same reason on 5x5, 10x10, or 20x20. Any stuff about “variety” is a lie you’re telling yourself if you cannot get through a basic hydro rush bo. The whole point of having more 5x5 at lower rating is that you need to build up these skills which are easier to see as the problem to rectify on smaller maps where there is a much larger causal relation between that failure and actually losing the game. You do not have the inherent noise of larger maps.
-
@emperor_penguin said in Bored with 5x5 maps - why I am considering quitting FAF:
Also, fwiw, I am running for PC (an elected position in FAF) in this election with a goal of adding options to the matchmaker, including having multiple map pools that players can choose from (so they only queue for the map pool(s) that they want to play with). If/when I am elected and matchmaker options like that are implemented, you should then be able to queue for map pool(s) that have lower percentages of 5x5 maps, as well as other variations.
fwiw, you’re running on the goal of degenerating ladder rating into the same garbage of global rating.
-
@ftxcommando "I never said this was because you were mad about losing."
The entirety of the rest of your post only makes sense if that is what you think! You're so obsessed with this idea that when I say I want a variety of maps I really mean "I want to lose less" that you tell me I am lying to myself and therefore to you about it. You simply can't believe I just get bored of the same 5x5 maps...
I completely get that if you screw up a build order on a larger map you still suffer, just like a 5x5 map - and that you may not realise it simply because the map size makes the defeat slower to arrive. I just don't think these correct points do anything to answer my actual point which has nothing to do with me losing on 5x5 maps and winning on others.
-
No, the entirety of my post is about how the mistakes you make will lose you a game on any map size so your rationale on a lack of variety is baseless. There is no variety in a loss at minute 3. The point of smaller maps at lower rating levels is to make it more evident these are the failures in gameplay causing game losses. As you get better less blunders exist and you add layers of additional complexity to the game so that players have more room for mistakes which in turn is what creates the real variety in gameplay as people are making proper tradeoffs between viable tactics.
-
well maybe he prefer to lose on 20x20 than on 5x5 (a bit like player that skip the tutorial, because they want to play with all the toys, even if they can't really handle them). But as Tagada said, i'm not sure that's how other rating of his range are feeling. There were some result of poll about that i think.
-
Yes, it isn’t how people at his rating range feel. I already linked the poll used to create the breakdown of the current system in aeolus when I talked with the guy there so I didn’t want to bother to bring the subjectivity of preferences up.
-
losing on 20x20's is depressing. You slowly get abused with 1% map control
-
@tomalak At least hold on until the new Player Councilor is here and has had an opportunity to tell what he is actually going to do, who knows you might get a 10x10 ladder option.
Secondly, when the game starts you can say you dislike 5x5 and ask for a draw (middle diplomacy button). Last month I have gotten and agreed to such requests 2 times. This may reduce the amount of 5x5 you need to play.
Lastly, you could try to develop a cheesy rush build for maps you dislike. I dislike Williamson's Bridge and always rush there (1 mex, 1 pgen, 1 fac). Even if the cheese gets you a 33% winrate, you dealt with the map fairly and quickly.
-
The op has played more 10x10 games on ladder than 5x5
Please don't drag the PC election into this, it is unbecoming and very bad form especially when what you thought might happen with new PC is already happing now
-
If someone is running for election proposing a solution it's very bad form to say so??
-
It's bad form to say that someone might do more 10x10s when you have done 10x10s the most
-
5x5map is kind for newplayer,10X10 need kills,20X20 map is the most hard map
-
I feel you. When I started playing ladder I also prefered the larger maps. Fortunately for me rating brackets didn't exist back then. So 500 rated players got to face each other on seton's. But low rated one who prefer large maps are a small minority. Even in the higher rated brackets many people dislike playing 20x20. Looking at you @grimplex.
Unfortunately it is impossible to curate a ladder pool everyone is happy with. Most people are always unhappy about the pool.
Just FYI 20x20 is just as retarded as 5x5. Instead of queuing up tanks you just queue up mexes. Whoever does it faster wins.
If you just play for fun I can either recommend getting better and having less 5x5 maps in the mix when playing in a higher bracket. Or just host your custom games. I'm not sure though how many people in the lower ranks you will find who want to play 1v1s on a large map. -
MAP VETO. (The obvious solution.)
Now I'm not saying that it would be best to let players veto a whole map size, though it might not be bad either, but maybe letting people veto two or three maps so they can eliminate the 5km or 20km maps that they dislike and at least see that map size a lot less frequently would lead to a better experience for everyone. I definitely do not buy the "this is as close as we can get to making everyone happy" argument, unless we are assuming a veto system is impossible. But SC2 does it, somehow...
