Banning Weapons or Maps?

[Teddy]

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.

Where'd you get the idea that Splatoon is purely competitive?

Banning things should be taken into consideration but only after the game has been out long enough for the meta to develop. Also we don't know how active Nintendo will be with balancing. Smash didn't have any immediately broken characters, but how long did it take for Diddy to get nerfed?

 

[Captain Norris]

If for some absurd reason a weapon is banned, the perks must be taken into account. If a weapon is "OP" because of a perk, simply do not allow those defaulted perks to be used in conjunction with the weapon.
Ideally, no weapon should ever be banned. That should be the last possible outcome. Plus, patches.

 

[Pivi]

If Nintendo themselves is controlling the release of weapons, which they are, we should be fine.

Bans are a necessity in Smash Bros because of how absurd the game can be with items and whatnot, and how stages are intentionally made to get in the way of fighting, but that isn't the case with Splatoon, where everything has been made with fair and exciting multiplayer in mind.

I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally doubt anything is gonna get banned lmao

 

[HaDeeZ]

If Nintendo themselves is controlling the release of weapons, which they are, we should be fine.

Don't just focus on weapons, its entirely possible that no weapons are banned but certain gear or perks will be banned.

Activision are in charge of weapons,perks etc. on every Call of Duty game and bans we're needed on EVERY iteration, Bungee/343 were/are in charge of weapons, loadouts etc. on Halo and bans we're need on every Halo game since Halo 2, the same for Epic Games and the Gears series. All of these game's developers and publishers having infinitely more experience developing FPS titles, especially competitive FPS titles, than Splatoon's developer or Nintendo, so please explain the logic behind "we should be fine because Nintendo is in charge of it"? As people have said, bans will be the ABSOLUTE last resort, but I really don't understand faith that some people have that Nintendo are going to make a perfect FPS that is so balanced that we shouldn't even consider bans.

 

[DaKid]

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

They won't. And I'm gald about that. This stuff is already sounding dreadful, limiting, and unfun.

 

[WaifuRaccoonBL]

They won't. And I'm gald about that. This stuff is already sounding dreadful, limiting, and unfun.

You are mistaken. It is in fact the opposite. If the devs don't care about the game, the community will have to be limiting due to things being broken staying broken. If the dev team show they care, then everything can be (hopefully) legal because they can help balance it.

 

[DaKid]

So.. how am I mistaken? You really think the devs are going to cater to the extremely small competitive side? Don't even know how competitive this game will be which I doubt will be significant at all.

 

[FlareHabanero]

Too bad a type of game like this will have to cater to competitive folks by nature.

 

[ndayadn]

Reality is that there likely will be weapons, gear, whatever that are considered good. What you guys don't realize is that the foundation for dealing with this is this forum and community.

Really. When and if it happens there will be plenty talk. Until then we can really just speculate and imagine how we would deal with it. This is definitely one of those thing you want the game in front of you for!

 

[Actilide]

Reality is that there likely will be weapons, gear, whatever that are considered good. What you guys don't realize is that the foundation for dealing with this is this forum and community.

Really. When and if it happens there will be plenty talk. Until then we can really just speculate and imagine how we would deal with it. This is definitely one of those thing you want the game in front of you for!

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[Lizalfos]

IMO, we should never ban weapons b/c the game is completely symmetrical.

 

[WaifuRaccoonBL]

IMO, we should never ban weapons b/c the game is completely symmetrical.

What do you mean by symmetrical in terms of weapons?

 

[Setu]

I agree with Lizalfos. The weapons will be accessible to everyone, even if it will take some work ranking up to unlock. However, it is not clear how loadouts will wok completely. And the maps are completely symmetrical too which helps.

 

[RespawningJesus]

I agree with Lizalfos. The weapons will be accessible to everyone, even if it will take some work ranking up to unlock. However, it is not clear how loadouts will wok completely. And the maps are completely symmetrical too which helps.

Loadouts are sold in full sets. When you buy a main weapon, you also buy the sub weapon and special weapon attached to that set. I am sure some sub weapons and special weapons will not appear with certain main weapons, and that certain main weapons could have multiple sets that they cycle through each time the shop refreshes it's inventory.

 

[Setu]

I know that you have to buy the full loadout. I meant that it is unclear whether the loadouts are always accessible to everyone or not. I assume they will with the possibility that the brand of the weapon will determine the loadout.

 

[Bottlecapn]

To the people against this:

We ban things to make the game more balanced and fair, not to make it less fun. Balance is what is needed for competitive play, which you can't have if things aren't balanced. Things have to be balanced and fair in sports, but they're still fun. However, you can't play in a competitive environment, then you don't have to.

If you're not a competitive person, then that's cool. This type of thing isn't quite your cup of tea. I just don't see why you had to come here to complain about it. Banning things is for competitive play, and if you're not playing competitively, then you'll be playing online with randoms mostly, or with friends. I don't want a rift between the casual and competitive community, but they are two different ways to play, and thus by nature the two sides will be very different and likely stay seperate. It's probably inevitable, but please understand that some people play the game differently than you and enjoy it in that way. I don't know what you want out of speaking out against it. Competitive play will happen, regardless.

 

[Flying_Tortoise]

It's a last resort that should only resort when everything has been considered.
I agree it shouldn't be off the table, but people shouldn't have the idea of banning in the back of their mind. It is then that you end up with people who complain too loud that something needs to be banned/nerfed when it doesn't.

 

[NewTouchdown]

Let's not repeat the "custom moves" mistake from SSB4 and let's make this way :"Everything is viable/not banned until proven really broken".
What about this ?

I'm anxious for Splatoon, and I'm sad I won't have the money to buy it at launch, but I'm watching this scene closely and I expect that the Smash portion of the Splatoon fan base try not repeat the mistakes we did with this early SSB4 days.

 

[thehard]

Please don't let Splatoon's competitive scene become as limiting, circlejerking, and scrubbish as TF2's competitive scene, where things are banned because "we don't like it".

 

[Trieste Sp]

Weapon banning should be used if said weapon is unbeatable. Until we find such a thing, banning is absolutely not necessary.