Banning Weapons or Maps?

[Setu]

Prove people wrong about what?

Prove people wrong about one thing being too broken to be beaten.

 

[Yaezakura]

I think gear would be the only thing that affects weapons, which would make them unbalanced possibly. some gear boosts stats if i remember correctly.....

All clothing items come with perks, so you'll go into battle with 3 perks active. These are things like "Faster movement as an Inkling", "Faster movement as a Squid", "Restore ink faster", "Use less ink with your Primary/Secondary weapon", "More Health", "More Damage", and a bunch of others we don't really know yet.

I don't really think you'll be able to stack, like, movement perks. I imagine all movement perks are on shoes, so you'd only get 1. But we'll have to see how it's set up once the game launches.

 

[Protom]

I don't think a weapon would be outright banned.
That being said, if a weapon is deemed "ban worthy", banning having more than one of it on a team I can see as being reasonable..

 

[Lizalfos]

Even if something is centralizing, it doesn't warrant a ban.

 

[Icedise]

Just taking the next jump at this topic to discuss how the banning would actually be managed? Should we as a community have some sort of guidelines where we address these possible bans and people can tell their own opinions about the issue and probably vote for or against the ban. Or should the equipment/weapon banning be completily up to the tournament organizer?

These are few possibilities that came to my mind just now. Of course the optimal is that there is no bans what so ever, but preparing for possible situations is never a bad thing. I've seen a few people flipping their ink because some discussions are talking about stuff that wont be relevant in months but most of us are pretty impatient since we are waiting for this game so much :P

 

[Captain Norris]

I am afraid that if we are already talking about banning stuff before the game actually releases, we will have pretty premature bans and metagame problems, similar to Smash.
I know that is not what you are trying to do with this thread, but we gotta let the meta develop and begin to take root before we go crazy and ban stuff for unnecessary reasons.

 

[Platypudding]

I am afraid that if we are already talking about banning stuff before the game actually releases, we will have pretty premature bans and metagame problems, similar to Smash.
I know that is not what you are trying to do with this thread, but we gotta let the meta develop and begin to take root before we go crazy and ban stuff for unnecessary reasons.

We arent trying to ban things right now, all we're discussing is things that could possibly be problematic, and and general guidelines for banning things. Nobody is saying that anything needs to be banned yet. If anything, this discussion is just preparing for the games release, and if we're prepared to talk about what might be ban worthy beforehand it could lead to a more stable meta in a quicker amount of time.

 

[Setu]

We arent trying to ban things right now, all we're discussing is things that could possibly be problematic, and and general guidelines for banning things. Nobody is saying that anything needs to be banned yet. If anything, this discussion is just preparing for the games release, and if we're prepared to talk about what might be ban worthy beforehand it could lead to a more stable meta in a quicker amount of time.

The problem with this, is the assumption that we will be able to control any factor that will be "banned". This thread already assumes that things will be banned even after the meta, which is also a problem.

 

[LunarDistortion]

I don't think we should really focus on this much until we have the game and see factors that might make it unfair competitively. It seems a bit too early in my opinion.

 

[Captain Norris]

We arent trying to ban things right now, all we're discussing is things that could possibly be problematic, and and general guidelines for banning things. Nobody is saying that anything needs to be banned yet. If anything, this discussion is just preparing for the games release, and if we're prepared to talk about what might be ban worthy beforehand it could lead to a more stable meta in a quicker amount of time.

I literally had said in that post that I know that is not what you are trying to accomplish with this thread. But all this prep has caused problems with the Smash 4 meta, and it could quite as easily happen in this meta if we are not careful.

 

[HaDeeZ]

Or should the equipment/weapon banning be completily up to the tournament organizer?

I mean ideally you want to have a standard universal ruleset, it only hinders teams when they are forced to have to practice different rulesets.

 

[Lizalfos]

We shouldn't ban anything from initial release. If there is an update that makes something really over centralizing in a way that breaks the flow of the game, we might consider baning the weapon or w/e because it shifts the meta in a negative direction.

 

[DaKid]

Sounds depressing.

 

[Astral]

Nintendo could always patch an overpowered or broken weapon if it needed to be done. Many strats/mechanics are discovered days upon a games release. While they could have fixed mechanics such as firehopping from Mario Kart 8, smash has already received numerous updates balancing characters and maps.

 

[Undr]

Yeah seriously, so long as Nintendo is releasing balancing patches, there should be no banning of anything. First of all we won't even get a consensus until after Nintendo reacts on the issue themselves. Secondly by the time the meta improves to the point of actually being able to prove dominate strategy syndrome is actually happening the game will likely be balanced out.

There will likely be a "Splat Back Room" or "Squid Senate" by the time this sort of thing comes to pass anyway.

 

[RespawningJesus]

The weapons look balanced right now, but map balance is an entirely different issue. Of course, we cannot say anything for certain until we get our hands on the game and sink some hours into it.

 

[HaDeeZ]

Yeah seriously, so long as Nintendo is releasing balancing patches, there should be no banning of anything. First of all we won't even get a consensus until after Nintendo reacts on the issue themselves.

Possibly but there are few things to consider. Firstly how long the balance patch takes, coding is by no means an easy task and fixing what seems like a minor issue and be extremely complicated and time consuming. Add to this that the studio responsible for the balance patches only has a finite number of resources (people, money, time) meaning that some things may take priority over others such as, microtransactions/DLC taking priority over balance changes. Nintendo may also decide that they want to updates to be part of the same patch, so a balance patch may be finished but they might wait until other changes are ready so they can all be packed into the same update. Its not that unlikely that a consensus is reached on something being unbalanced/ban worthy several weeks, or even longer, before any type of balance patch is available.

Next, there is no way a guarantee that what the competitive community might consider unbalanced/ban worthy is also what the developers consider to be unbalanced. Developers often have a certain vision for what they have created and things may seem unbalanced work exactly how the developers wanted it to work. Similarly there are also times when something is only unbalanced in a strictly competitive environment and might be fine in a public setting meaning that a balance patch is not only unnecessary but also basically not possible because of how it could possibly adversely effect the game for the casual players who make 95-99% of the multiplayer population. There are many examples of this in competitive Call of Duty and I have also seen a couple of people mention an example of this in TF2.

Lastly there is absolutely no rule written anywhere that something that is banned has stay banned until the end of time. Things aren't banned on a whim, they are banned for specific and well thought out reasons. So when something needs to be banned because of x, y and z, there is no reason it can't be banned up until the time the devs come along with a patch that makes x, y and z are no problem; after the patch the item in question can't be then unbanned.

 

[The N]

Baning things is the stupidest idea ever (it depends on the game, but here i think its not a good idea to ban anything). And you cant compare splatoon with smash. Because smash is a mix of casual and competetiv play. Splatoon will be only focus on the competetiv play. If a weapon or a map should be broken i am sure that the developers will fix it with a patch.

 

[WaifuRaccoonBL]

Because smash is a mix of casual and competetiv play. Splatoon will be only focus on the competetiv play.

There are tons of reasons to not compare splatoon to smash.

This isn't one of them. This game, like both Smash and Mario Kart, was designed for everyone to be able to hop right in and play it. I.E. Splatoon has a focus on casual and competitive play.

We don't know if they will absolutely cater to competitive players.


When it comes to banning things, while I will agree that banning things should be a last resort, it still needs to be at least a resort. I don't agree with the idea of not even considering the idea of bans at all. If we are forced into a meta game where things are either so centralizing that only one set is viable, weapons that make the game unplayable for the other team, etc, then it should be banned. Mind you, after a lot of testing.

Even with the existence of balance patches, we shouldn't throw it away. If a balance patch comes out in like a month, then thats a month of waiting and having to deal with whatever is broken. If something is broken,(after lots of testing), then it should be banned until the patch comes out and then more testing will be done.

 

[Reset Bomb Jigglypuff]

We shouldn't have to ban anything right away. Let the meta develop, wait a few months before banning anything.