Best posts made by Tomalak

@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.

I am a rusty player who has recently returned to the game, won a few and lost even more.

I am probably going to find another game soon - I am bored with 5x5 maps which always end the same way: with a com rush supported by lvl1. I asked in the client chat why the majority of my games were on tiny maps and was told that anyone with a rating below 500 had to put up with it and learn on these maps. The way the map cycles work, a rating below 500 means tiny map after tiny map, apparently.

I just don't find it any fun. Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander have always been at their best as strategic big picture games, not as micro management Starcraft style games. I simply can't get excited by tiny maps in which the winner is the one who com rushes better - but until I get above 500 again I am told I can't expect anything else.

I am now bored with a game I used to enjoy hugely. I am not prepared to spend hours playing the same tedious games only to get good at com rushing - a "skill" that plays no real role in the game on small, medium or large maps anyway (only on the tiny ones).

I just thought it worth explaining my dissatisfaction here. I feel like I am being punished for being rusty by being given a kind of poor man's version of the game. I can't say I got much sympathy when I raised this in the chat - although one person encapsulated my feelings perfectly when he said he just can't get excited playing on the com rush maps. Fair enough if my thoughts fall on deaf ears - I thought it worth raising them just in case.

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.

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?

If someone is running for election proposing a solution it's very bad form to say so??