A few problems with ranked

[Award]

Thanks for the congrats! IMO it seemed "too easy" compared to other times. I got a good team with no incompetent players, and that just never happens. I mentioned in another thread that I've found that it's rarely the team with one great player that wins, even in TW, but the team were EVERYBODY does ok. I.E. a team with splat counts of 14/5, 2/5, 1/6, 0/2 will lose more often than a team with 2/1, 4/2, 3/4, 4/2. I got lucky with a team where everyone was positive and no one was terrible, and everyone played the objective. Maybe the difference was losing the B- players...this round was all B & B+.

First off I've got to say, good job on your new rank:D, and keep it up! I wouldn't call ranked broken cause of this, I think that a new weapon could have something to do with it. I have the problem of I'll be playing and do horribly with a weapon, so I'll switch weapons and do better, and then the next day I'll be horrible with that weapon, and switch again. It's a bad thing that I'm trying to break. In any case, I find that changing weapons often helps me, I guess cause of the different play style (I don't know if this happens to you, but it happens to me). I have started playing more aggressively too, and have had much better results in ranked. I think aggressive is the way to go in random lobbies (though this is just my opinion). Just because you didn't have the most kills doesn't mean you got carried, applying constant pressure cannot be underrated. It keeps people cautious and looking over their shoulder. I'm that way too about rank. I'm trying not to care, but I don't want to lose my rank either:p.

I suppose the new weapon could be related, but IMO while I'm moving to make it a main, I'm still new to it, and not as rounded with it as other weapons we've done worse with. I don't think I did any better than with other weapons. But it's interesting what you describe, because I'm the exact same way! The cycle of doing better with a weapon switch, then doing bad with said new weapon, then doing better on another weapon. That was the inspiration behind my "which weapon to main" thead, I end up playing ALL the weapons, and and like all the weapons, but seem horribly inconsistent with so many of them. Though it could be the matchmaking making it seem better/worse too.

It's tough trying not to care :) On one hand, I put all that effort into it and finally progressed again and never want to lose the progress I made. Enough to say the shakier random things like RM should be avoided, since that'll definitely harm my rank. And yet then all I get is a letter, and I lose part of my game. I'm that way in most gaes though. I HATE backtrackinig and grinding.

Gotta say, that ranked matchmaking does not take your new weapon into consideration, at least for me anyway. When i tried chargers for the first time, I would get Shiiiiiiiit on. This may be because i was in a rank where I assume, the game assumes we should know how to use the weapons we pick.

Other than that, congratulations on your ranks, but try not to be satisfied with a letter next to your name. it's just a letter after all.

It's hard to say. I imagine it does match that way considering the way I'm usually matched, but it has only its own pool to pick from. So down in the trenches, they'll just find all the terrible B's and put them with the weapon newbie. Up there in the S ivory tower, I doubt there's any terrible players to match with you if you try a new weapon. "New" is also relative, if it's using "turf inked" as a metric!

Yeah...it's just a letter. A letter I spent hours trying and failing to earn after being let down by terrible team after terrible team :D

 

[Holidaze]

Oh you'd be surprised how often either I let down my team with a shoddy performance that game, and vice versa in the S ranks. I can count how many times I've went 14+ kills, but i can't remember how many times i went 0/10+.

I always end up complaining about my teammates who end up going around a 2/10 kd with weapons like tentatek, or gals. And i bet people complain about me using Brushes more.

 

[Award]

Oh you'd be surprised how often either I let down my team with a shoddy performance that game, and vice versa in the S ranks. I can count how many times I've went 14+ kills, but i can't remember how many times i went 0/10+.

I always end up complaining about my teammates who end up going around a 2/10 kd with weapons like tentatek, or gals. And i bet people complain about me using Brushes more.

LOL, I can't imagine someone who can get to S 3 times, going 0/10 ever. Not a single splat even by pure accident? Impossible!

Though I do have some familiarity with going 0/10+ in matches against S rank opponents.....in TW...which is usually S rank for me :p (My Inkopolis Plaza is like an S bracket roster most of the time.... )

Brushes are brutal. Simply brutal. I can't imagine anyone complaining about the use of a killing machine like those :) I'm a huge fan of the new one. It's tons of fun to use, and it's fun getting a taste of the campy carnage you brushes always wreak upon me. But I could NEVER use that thing beyond a joy ride with the mashing of the trigger required. My sympathies to your gamepad and tendons! :p

 

[ThatsSo]

The worst thing about ranked is probably hearing people complain about ranked on the internet

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

The best thing about ranked is probably hearing people complain about ranked on the internet

Spoiler

 

[Babycowland]

The worst thing about Splatoon is probably hearing people complain about their teammates on the internet

I fixed that for you, haha. Seriously though, I could probably do with fewer complaints about people's teammates. I know that it can be super frustrating sometimes when your team doesn't perform well, especially when you think you did a good job. But worst case scenario you drop out and join a new lobby or take a little break from the game or something.

Even though random people you play with probably aren't going to ever see comments badmouthing them, I still feel like it's not really all that sporting to be keen on pointing out other people's flaws and focusing on how they cost you matches. I also think it can create an unwelcoming environment for new players something that as a noob myself I'm particularly sensitive to.

For whatever it's worth, I think ranked is alright. I like the modes a lot, especially how they require more coordination and teamwork than turf wars does. The ladder aspect of it also makes it much more appealing to me than something like For Glory/For Fun in Smash, since you can play competitively while still playing against people of relatively similar skill levels. I agree that the matchmaking could probably be improved though.

I honestly stopped caring about who I'm matched up with, or what the team has an excess of or a lack thereof, pretty much after I lost S for the 3rd time. To me, it doesn't matter what rank I am or who's playing. If they're able to play to the best ability of that weapon, and work together with someone terrible like me, it's all good. Hell, I recall games where my entire team was either full chargers,rollers or blasters, yet we'd still win our games against what someone would call "balanced."

A little ending note: So play what weapon you want without having to worry about dropping games, because if you want to get good with a weapon, chances are, you will. And don't focus on yourself, focus on your team, see if they need help, more often than not do I suddenly drop what I'm doing to cover a teammate who isn't doing so hot.

Totally. At the end of the day, Splatoon is a team game. Working on figuring out how you can help out the team will likely end up doing you more good than focusing on your own successes or failures. Granted, I think about those a lot too, especially my failures, haha.

 

[Award]

I fixed that for you, haha. Seriously though, I could probably do with fewer complaints about people's teammates. I know that it can be super frustrating sometimes when your team doesn't perform well, especially when you think you did a good job. But worst case scenario you drop out and join a new lobby or take a little break from the game or something.

Even though random people you play with probably aren't going to ever see comments badmouthing them, I still feel like it's not really all that sporting to be keen on pointing out other people's flaws and focusing on how they cost you matches. I also think it can create an unwelcoming environment for new players something that as a noob myself I'm particularly sensitive to.

For whatever it's worth, I think ranked is alright. I like the modes a lot, especially how they require more coordination and teamwork than turf wars does. The ladder aspect of it also makes it much more appealing to me than something like For Glory/For Fun in Smash, since you can play competitively while still playing against people of relatively similar skill levels. I agree that the matchmaking could probably be improved though.


Totally. At the end of the day, Splatoon is a team game. Working on figuring out how you can help out the team will likely end up doing you more good than focusing on your own successes or failures. Granted, I think about those a lot too, especially my failures, haha.

You're probably right about how it sounds. I think for a lot of us, our frustration with Nintendo might come across as frustration with our teammates. The EFFECT of the problem is our disastrously bad teammates, but they are not the cause. The problem is the groupings of people who should not have been matched together in a properly functioning ranked mode to begin with. I don't think any of us mind that our team mates aren't the best players in the game. What we mind is that we have team mates that are playing well below the rank of our opposing team's skill level as well as our own because the matchmaking and rank points system is distributing players that aren't of the same skill level as the rank indicates into the battles, and is also distributing people who should be far higher ranked into the battles, ruining the fun for everyone.

I don't know what your rank is, but I think you'll experience yourself that the less of a noob you are, and the higher you go in ranks, the more apparent the issue becomes. When you're a noob, and especially in the C ranks, you accept that players will not be great team players, you accept that you're not that good yet, so it's easy to take in stride. When you make progress and your own skill is definitely above your current rank but you keep losing points due to team mates that aren't playing the same game as the opponents, not just in one lobby but in every lobby, you just lost faith in the system.

As long as ranks are players of a common skill, everything would be fine. But due to the problems around, a given rank is not players of a common skill. When people blame their team mates, they're really blaming Nintendo for a system that allows players that are clearly not very good to progress through ranks that they are unable to compete in, which then harms other players standing.

IMO C-, C, C+ actually offer some of the most fair, balanced matches in ranked. People there are generally closer in skill believe it or not. Matches tend to be tighter, and the point system that gives you almost double the points for winning than it takes away losing makes it easier to forgive. As you go up they get more punitive (you might lose more for losing than you gain for winning, meaning you have to win 2-3 games for every 1-2 losses, and if your team keeps you from winning, you lose simply by playing. And sadly that's where you start getting massively imbalanced matches where you're all but guaranteed to lose.

I doubt most of us have any issue with players that aren't great. We just want balanced, competitive rounds to play, which is what ranked promises but all too often fails to deliver. It's not fun for me to have a team of 3 that can't help much, and it's not fun for my opponents when I kill them over and over because I'm a better player than they are, and my team is worse players than they are. They still get their win without having to do much to earn the points (meaning they'll advance into the next rank easily where they'll be the dead weight team) and I'll have to stick around the rank longer to be the annoying player that just splats everyone the whole time to more teams. No one wins. Everyone gets a lousy 5:00.

Sometimes you can't help your team, because helping them would require that they're doing something to begin with. Or if they just race out to play Team Deathmatch, but are bad at it and keep getting splatted....all you can do is join the Team Deathmatch and try to splat the dangerous enemy before they can hurt your fragile team, but that's a fast track to lose because the enemy will take the tower, or the RM with ease.

I imagine you're looking at it from the perspective of a potentially skilled player that tries to play correctly, play the objective, and strategize to win. You'll be frustrated too when your team races out to fight and no one touches the objective. And that's the frustration. A player in, say, B, has been through 4 prior ranks already. They should really have an understanding of how the game is played. If they do not, that's the fault of the design of ranked. ;)

The players causing these problems doubtfully care enough about the game and playing it well to actually bother posting in this thread ;)

 

[Babycowland]

You're probably right about how it sounds. I think for a lot of us, our frustration with Nintendo might come across as frustration with our teammates. The EFFECT of the problem is our disastrously bad teammates, but they are not the cause. The problem is the groupings of people who should not have been matched together in a properly functioning ranked mode to begin with. I don't think any of us mind that our team mates aren't the best players in the game. What we mind is that we have team mates that are playing well below the rank of our opposing team's skill level as well as our own because the matchmaking and rank points system is distributing players that aren't of the same skill level as the rank indicates into the battles, and is also distributing people who should be far higher ranked into the battles, ruining the fun for everyone.

Oh yeah, I think that makes sense. Having uneven teams in a mode that's supposed to be about matching skill levels is frustrating. And really, I wasn't directing the "complain about their teammates on the internet" comment at you in particular. I hope it didn't sound that way. I've just seen some of that talk around and I don't think it does anybody much good.

I don't know what your rank is, but I think you'll experience yourself that the less of a noob you are, and the higher you go in ranks, the more apparent the issue becomes. When you're a noob, and especially in the C ranks, you accept that players will not be great team players, you accept that you're not that good yet, so it's easy to take in stride. When you make progress and your own skill is definitely above your current rank but you keep losing points due to team mates that aren't playing the same game as the opponents, not just in one lobby but in every lobby, you just lost faith in the system.

As long as ranks are players of a common skill, everything would be fine. But due to the problems around, a given rank is not players of a common skill. When people blame their team mates, they're really blaming Nintendo for a system that allows players that are clearly not very good to progress through ranks that they are unable to compete in, which then harms other players standing.

IMO C-, C, C+ actually offer some of the most fair, balanced matches in ranked. People there are generally closer in skill believe it or not. Matches tend to be tighter, and the point system that gives you almost double the points for winning than it takes away losing makes it easier to forgive. As you go up they get more punitive (you might lose more for losing than you gain for winning, meaning you have to win 2-3 games for every 1-2 losses, and if your team keeps you from winning, you lose simply by playing. And sadly that's where you start getting massively imbalanced matches where you're all but guaranteed to lose.

I doubt most of us have any issue with players that aren't great. We just want balanced, competitive rounds to play, which is what ranked promises but all too often fails to deliver. It's not fun for me to have a team of 3 that can't help much, and it's not fun for my opponents when I kill them over and over because I'm a better player than they are, and my team is worse players than they are. They still get their win without having to do much to earn the points (meaning they'll advance into the next rank easily where they'll be the dead weight team) and I'll have to stick around the rank longer to be the annoying player that just splats everyone the whole time to more teams. No one wins. Everyone gets a lousy 5:00.

Sometimes you can't help your team, because helping them would require that they're doing something to begin with. Or if they just race out to play Team Deathmatch, but are bad at it and keep getting splatted....all you can do is join the Team Deathmatch and try to splat the dangerous enemy before they can hurt your fragile team, but that's a fast track to lose because the enemy will take the tower, or the RM with ease.

I imagine you're looking at it from the perspective of a potentially skilled player that tries to play correctly, play the objective, and strategize to win. You'll be frustrated too when your team races out to fight and no one touches the objective. And that's the frustration. A player in, say, B, has been through 4 prior ranks already. They should really have an understanding of how the game is played. If they do not, that's the fault of the design of ranked. ;)

I've definitely experienced some of the stuff you mentioned like unbalanced teams and a lack of cooperation/coordination in pursuing the objective (which I've been guilty of myself sometimes, as much as I might hate to admit that). Overall though, I'd say my experience in ranked has been a positive one. While I'm still basically a scrub, I feel like playing ranked has helped me improve a bunch, often through experiencing firsthand what doesn't work. I think my opponents and teammates generally have improved as I've ranked up too, which usually has meant more close, intense matches. Granted, I haven't played ranked as much as a lot of people here probably have, so maybe I'll encounter more of the issues you've described the more I play it. I may just have been lucky so far.

For what it's worth, I agree that the ranking system has its flaws. The letter grade next to somebody's name certainly isn't a perfect estimate of their skill level and luck without a doubt plays a role in how you do in ranked. I feel like how serious those flaws are to you probably depends on your personal experience with ranked and what you want to get out of it, so I think it makes a lot of sense for different people to have different perspectives on this.

 

[BlackZero]

I fixed that for you, haha. Seriously though, I could probably do with fewer complaints about people's teammates. I know that it can be super frustrating sometimes when your team doesn't perform well, especially when you think you did a good job. But worst case scenario you drop out and join a new lobby or take a little break from the game or something.

Even though random people you play with probably aren't going to ever see comments badmouthing them, I still feel like it's not really all that sporting to be keen on pointing out other people's flaws and focusing on how they cost you matches. I also think it can create an unwelcoming environment for new players something that as a noob myself I'm particularly sensitive to.

Complaining about teammates is our national pastime. Why don't you take away our red meat and porn while you're at it?

Seriously though, people rant to blow off steam. It's not a good idea to internalize frustration, so having dedicated threads where people can get it out of their system is great. That way, people who don't want to see it don't have, and people and blow off steam.

As for the weapons/player matching thing, the simplest solution is for the game to know what weapon each player is using and put them in a lobby that doesn't have 5 other players using that weapon.

If I were coming up with a concept for Splatoon's matchmaking, I'd incorporate an "looking for group" system. Instead of filling Inkopolis with NPCs, fill it with player looking for a match where you can see what weapon they have equipped for the next battle, and a brief profile showing their kills/deaths, the percentage of time they carry the RM or ride the tower in TC, whether they focus on kills or turf coverage, etc. Players could also set what type teammates they want: whether they want other aggressive players, defense/support players, or a balanced team. This way, players could build their own lobby.

I'd also keep the "quick match" matchmaker that the game has now, with the option to choose players you want to keep in the lobby. That way, when you get good teammates, or at least you feel are on your level, you can stay in a group with those specific players while game builds new lobby. This way, you can eventually "build your own" lobby of players and just stay in that lobby when you are happy with the matches you're getting instead of having to either stay in a lobby that bounces between good and bad, or having to enter a completely new lobby every time.

Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

 

[Holidaze]

If I were coming up with a concept for Splatoon's matchmaking, I'd incorporate an "looking for group" system. Instead of filling Inkopolis with NPCs, fill it with player looking for a match where you can see what weapon they have equipped for the next battle, and a brief profile showing their kills/deaths, the percentage of time they carry the RM or ride the tower in TC, whether they focus on kills or turf coverage, etc. Players could also set what type teammates they want: whether they want other aggressive players, defense/support players, or a balanced team. This way, players could build their own lobby.

Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

I would love to see an LFG system implemented, It being like an application really helps. But don't you think this could lead to some players being left out? Cause with the way it looks in your statement, people who tend to play more casually would have no use for this. Unless of course it would follow an MMORPG route, and allow "For fun" players to also find their kind.

 

[Award]

Oh yeah, I think that makes sense. Having uneven teams in a mode that's supposed to be about matching skill levels is frustrating. And really, I wasn't directing the "complain about their teammates on the internet" comment at you in particular. I hope it didn't sound that way. I've just seen some of that talk around and I don't think it does anybody much good.

Yeah, there's definitely people that simply blame their team without understanding why their team is the way they are. Hopefully in some of these threads where we've really broken down flaws in the actual system will help people understand what's going in (or if we're really really lucky, help lead to a fix before patching ends!) Assuming anyone reads through the text walls.... ;)

The flip side of the "team blamers" is the "I haven't had a problem, it all works for me, just learn to play better" crowd that refuse to acknowledge the problems in the system because either they haven't experienced the problems, the problems benefited them, or they're simply of superlative skill that the problems don't impede them because they outplay the field by such an overwhelming margin they can play any rank solo so they can't grasp the effects of the problem on most other players. We can toss the baseball at the milk jugs at the carnival and still enjoy playing even though we lose, but it's not inaccurate to point out that the milk jugs are filled with concrete :)

. I think my opponents and teammates generally have improved as I've ranked up too, which usually has meant more close, intense matches.

Savor that! When you get a close, intense match in ranked or even (perhaps especially) TW, it's one of the most fun experiences you can have in a video game! It's so sad that ranked so often doesn't provide that considering that's the point of it. I'll probably play some more ranked over the weekend, though I hate to risk my shiny new letter, but I hate to taint the great, crazy experience that was Splat Zones with two very competent teams! I mean they were actually games with dramatic turnarounds! We had the lead from the start, then they got it at the 83 mark and kept it down to 32, all hope looked lost, then we got it back and managed to get to 30 before the clock ran out. That NEVER happens. It's usually a knock-out in half a match or one side taking the lead and the other never making it back. That's what the game should be!

I feel like how serious those flaws are to you probably depends on your personal experience with ranked and what you want to get out of it

I think @BlackZero has likely deduced the inner workings of matchmaking. It's all theory, but I think he's nailed it and it explains why some people have terrible experiences and other's don't. The short of it is effectively you get a lobby of 8 randoms based on if they seem to be inkers or killers overall, then it sorts the 4v4 teams based on an average team value to create a 50/50 chance to win. Where it goes wrong is based on that system, a team of 4 average players seems equal to a team of 3 lousy players and one great player. In practice it's almost a guaranteed loss. Some matches will, by luck, be balanced naturally of 4v4 average players for the rank. Others will be slightly lopsided of 4 average, 2 a little above average, and 2 a little below average. Others will be massively lopsided and those are the awful ones. Really awful and really great players for the rank are most likely to be in the very lopsided matches. The average players will randomly get them sometimes, but not always. So for the average players of a rank they'll get a mix of balanced, slightly unbalanced matches with an occasional lopsided one that's in their favor (but no fun to play.) For the bad players they'll get mostly lopsided matches not in their favor (probably an ok outcome to derank them.) For the 1/8 of the room that excells in the rank, proper matchmaking would quickly promote them to the next rank for appropriate competition. But Splatoon traps them on losing teams keeping them held in rank (or even pushing them down.) Combine that with a flawed rank points system that slides people down much too easily and you end up with pools of massively superior players for their rank, who will be paired in guaranteed to lose matches, keeping them possibly multiple ranks lower than their skill, where they dominate but lose, and things get ugly.

Where it gets worse is that means that the middle-most players of a given rank will always be the most likely promoted. So majority average B- will consist of the middle most players of C+, majority average B will consist of middle most B-. Meaning the exceptional C+ will get stuck in C+ longer, but then also be an exceptional B-, which will get them stuck in B- longer, but then also be exceptional B. They get trapped in every level by the system making them the upper end of the skill curve on every rank until they hopefully find a rank where they are not the upper end of the skill curve. So those players will have a much worse experience with ranked than "average" or most players and, again, if all this theory is true, explains why some players complain about it a lot and others think "it works well enough most of the time."

I can hope with my new rank I'll get better matches. Hopefully....

 

[BlackZero]

Unless of course it would follow an MMORPG route, and allow "For fun" players to also find their kind.

That's what I had in mind. People who are casual will have an easier time finding other players that just want to have fun. People who are more competitive won't be saddled with players that are not taking the match seriously. Rank could also be a factor too. If someone wants to find people close to their skill level, they could limit the Plaza matchmaking to people in their rank. If they don't care, they could disable that filter and have the whole range of players to choose from. I think the player base is large enough that people won't have a hard time getting matches. Even if the Plaza matchmaking is slow, they would still have the option of the old matchmaking with the "buddy up" feature.

 

[Award]

As for the weapons/player matching thing, the simplest solution is for the game to know what weapon each player is using and put them in a lobby that doesn't have 5 other players using that weapon.

It would seem obvious enough, yet seems to escape them. That said I've seen a pattern where it seems it intentionally matches same weapons when you're new to a weapon for some reason. I think their obsession with random everything compromised some critical points.

However, at least in 2.4 I've noticed I do tend to get somewhat different pairings if I choose eliter versus other weapons. It's always possible "other fixes to improve game experience" an any patch is contributing subtle fixes to these types of issues. They might be fixes some of these glaring flaws without telling us.

In fact that's highly consistent for Japanese companies. The photo equipment companies are infamous for it (Canon/Nikon/Pentax), and most Japanese electronics and general companies operate that way. I forget the cultural details for it but they're effectively culturally duty bound to deny a failure, yet honor bound to remedy it. So it's very common in, say a camera, that there's a commonly known problem, say a back-focus issue when using a particular lens. Everyone's aware of it but the company (say Nikon) denies it over and over again. There is no problem, your unit must be a manufacturers defect, we'll repair it! (But it never fixes the issue.) Then a firmware comes out to support a new model of flash. Magically the back-focus problem on the lens is fixed in the new firmware, but the company denies having fixed a problem that they deny having existed. It's an infamous Japanese business thing, and it's so funny. They work hard fixing all these problems, providing great service, then insist they did no such thing. :) It always pays to retest our theories after every patch because they may have fixed things they don't intend to ever acknowledge fixing.

If I were coming up with a concept for Splatoon's matchmaking, I'd incorporate an "looking for group" system. Instead of filling Inkopolis with NPCs, fill it with player looking for a match where you can see what weapon they have equipped for the next battle, and a brief profile showing their kills/deaths, the percentage of time they carry the RM or ride the tower in TC, whether they focus on kills or turf coverage, etc. Players could also set what type teammates they want: whether they want other aggressive players, defense/support players, or a balanced team. This way, players could build their own lobby.

That's a really neat idea, and it feels like a very Nintendo idea to boot! It would feel really appropriate in the game, especially from a company with the Mii Plaza and Miitomo, that seems like that perfect matchmaking friend finding system to suit their style. Maybe they'll integrate it into Miitomo if we're lucky. That might make me download it :D

I also think being able to change weapons without leaving your lobby would remedy a lot of issues too. Many many times I'd like to change my weapon to better compliment the team since I'm equally versed in numerous weapons and styles. But I stick with the same since then I'd have a new lobby. I'm not sure why they disallow this, if not going so far as to MAKING you confirm your loadout before each match. Smash makes you choose your character between matches, why doesn't Splatoon let you choose weapons clothing? It'd be simpler than a Plaza matchmaker if the randoms in the lobby just got an equipment selection screen before the match.

The Plaza social event would be tons of fun though!

I would love to see an LFG system implemented, It being like an application really helps. But don't you think this could lead to some players being left out? Cause with the way it looks in your statement, people who tend to play more casually would have no use for this. Unless of course it would follow an MMORPG route, and allow "For fun" players to also find their kind.

I agree. I don't think it would work showing actual stats of k/d/tower etc. it's too exclusive and players would want the best players only, etc. That would backfire and isn't Nintendo's style. But I think they could show weapons preferred, maybe turf inked with each weapon, etc. Not things that show actual performance but things that show play preferences. Then it wouldn't be exclusive of good v bad players but upon what type of player you want to play with.

 

[Holidaze]

Ah, okay. Just wanted to make sure that is what you had in mind.

 

[Award]

That's what I had in mind. People who are casual will have an easier time finding other players that just want to have fun. People who are more competitive won't be saddled with players that are not taking the match seriously. Rank could also be a factor too. If someone wants to find people close to their skill level, they could limit the Plaza matchmaking to people in their rank. If they don't care, they could disable that filter and have the whole range of players to choose from. I think the player base is large enough that people won't have a hard time getting matches. Even if the Plaza matchmaking is slow, they would still have the option of the old matchmaking with the "buddy up" feature.

If ranked were fixed you wouldn't need to worry about picking similarly skilled players for ranked at all! But you'd still benefit from picking preferred weapons and playstyles.

IMO a performance-based team builder isn't something Nintendo would ever want to implement, and they probably shouldn't. Some randomness is good for randoms. Getting into social cliques and politics of who's more popular, I want the best players on my team, etc. would harm more than help. But I do still love the idea for the general non-performance attributes. I shouldn't be able to build a team based on "I don't want bad players!" but I should be able to build a team based on "I want someone to join me in pushing the objective, and thus needs an offensive weapon!" or "I want someone to support me from the rear, need a team sniper in my ranked for TC!"

Something basic to stand in for the intentional lack of voice chat but to improve team cohesion with semi-defined roles in a match by just pre-choosing roles. And it would fit in perfectly with Nintendo's generic communications concepts between Miis.

 

[BlackZero]

IMO a performance-based team builder isn't something Nintendo would ever want to implement, and they probably shouldn't. Some randomness is good for randoms. Getting into social cliques and politics of who's more popular, I want the best players on my team, etc. would harm more than help. But I do still love the idea for the general non-performance attributes. I shouldn't be able to build a team based on "I don't want bad players!" but I should be able to build a team based on "I want someone to join me in pushing the objective, and thus needs an offensive weapon!" or "I want someone to support me from the rear, need a team sniper in my ranked for TC!"

I didn't notice that problem when I played MMO's though, which is where the LFG idea comes from. People want to build a group for dungeon raids or leveling parties, so they make an announcement saying what their level is what classes their party lacks, what dungeon they'll be running, etc. Many MMOs with a lot of classes have class overlap. Theyre may be two healer type classes, usually one focused on healing and one a healer/combat hybrid. If a party was looking for a healer, it would be very easy for them to dismiss any replies from the combat/healer class and only accept the dedicated healer. Most people didn't do that in my experience. It could be problematic in shooters however.

 

[Holidaze]

I didn't notice that problem when I played MMO's though, which is where the LFG idea comes from. People want to build a group for dungeon raids or leveling parties, so they make an announcement saying what their level is what classes their party lacks, what dungeon they'll be running, etc. Many MMOs with a lot of classes have class overlap. Theyre may be two healer type classes, usually one focused on healing and one a healer/combat hybrid. If a party was looking for a healer, it would be very easy for them to dismiss any replies from the combat/healer class and only accept the dedicated healer. Most people didn't do that in my experience. It could be problematic in shooters however.

I would imagine so, since you can't really change class on a whim in most mmos, even if you can switch, you can't do so within a dungeon or raid. It wouldn't be as problematic I believe, since people can't change mid game, as it is mid dungeon in MMOs. But the only drawback I see is that people falling off, hard. Especially if people don't meet expectations. When I played FFXIV:ARR as a DPS, I would be dropped for not meeting at least half of the damage done by the top dps. And I imagine if you don't meet expectations within your group, you would be dropped for someone else.

 

[Award]

I would imagine so, since you can't really change class on a whim in most mmos, even if you can switch, you can't do so within a dungeon or raid. It wouldn't be as problematic I believe, since people can't change mid game, as it is mid dungeon in MMOs. But the only drawback I see is that people falling off, hard. Especially if people don't meet expectations. When I played FFXIV:ARR as a DPS, I would be dropped for not meeting at least half of the damage done by the top dps. And I imagine if you don't meet expectations within your group, you would be dropped for someone else.

Yeah. I can't see that working in Splatoon, or any Nintendo game. I think XBCX is probably a better viewpoint for Nintendo's answer to that system in an RPG.

For Splatoon, anonymity, randomness, and non-permanent association are cornerstones around which they built the system, so such a system would need to start from that premise. It's a team shooter that allows squads if they exist outside. As such, the Plaza matchmaker would be for building TEMPORARY matches. I'm doing a round right now and want this team for my lobby. They don't get to drop you, you can choose to leave.

Triforce Heroes is a way to look at how the team would be handled once formed, except you didn't get to pick your team, just which set of dungeons you'd run. (Though I don't like using Triforce Heroes as an example for anything. It's a fun concept that's so disastrously ruined by level design so as to stop being fun halfway through. If you haven't played it, imagine Splatoon's "great" team cohesion and inability to communicate except for c'mon and booyeah. Now imagine solving Zelda puzzles/boss battles that require perfect team cohesion and timing, while on moving platforms with traps, with the same great team cohesion and communication options. Especially fun are boss battles that require 3 silent randoms to cooperate to do a complex task that require timing and rhythm of combined actions. Then imagine getting lobbies with players that already played the whole thing know what to do when, and are essentially interested in doing speedruns only to gather the random drops at the end and are not happy waiting around for you to figure out the puzzle and may or may not rage quit. Or just throw you in the pit over and over before rage quitting. )

Edit: One difference with Triforce Heroes is that it was designed for the Japan market where it assumes 3 friends in person with a 3DS where they can personally yell at each other to their face. In that context the game would be insanely fun and hilarious. Shoehorning silent protagonist internet play in order to have a Zelda title to sell in the West for Holiday 2015 was a good try, but falls horribly short.