"Bans" in shooters

[Pusha]

So some people have already been discussing bans. I think it's great that people are interested in seeing how far this game can go competitively. I don't know if this game has the depth required for a good competitive game but I'm excited to see whether it does or not, and I'm hoping it makes it.

But i wanted to address the terminology: "bans", because i feel like it is sort of taboo, or has a negative connotation.

Let's start with maps. In shooters like halo, Cod or TF2, not all the maps are used. In smash, not all the stages are used. There's a reason why we don't see competitive games on temple in smash. It's just not competitively viable. "Banning" a stage in competitive isn't a bad thing. It's simply creating the best competitive experience possible. Based on the splatoon direct, we'll be seeing at least 14 stages in splatoon and I'm sure not all of them will be used. So I prefer to think of stage bans as "not using a stage" rather than banning it. But that's just based on the impression i get from discussion surrounding "bans".

Now weapons. In a perfect game, we'd be able to say that all the weapons will be balanced, that no weapon is better than another, that each has their own pros and cons. But most games aren't perfect. In halo or Cod, there are a bunch of weapons that aren't used in competitive. In CoD things like claymores, shock charges, C4, as well as many guns are banned. In halo as well, certain weapons are excluded from competitive, in halo 3 equipment wasn't used in competitive. The reason I'm listing these is to highlight the fact that weapon banning is not akin to banning characters in a fighting game. It's not always surrounded with as much controversy and it isn't always as hard of a decision to make (although it can certainly take time).
I'm not saying that there will be weapon bans in splatoon for sure, and it's obviously much too early to decide that, but i wouldn't say I'd be surprised if there are some down the line, and I don't think it should be viewed as a bad thing.

Idk maybe my impression is all wrong, but maybe there is a bit of a taboo, just my 2cents

 

[flc]

non-obvious bans (obvious bans here being the kind you see in CoD e.g. banning the really tiny/huge maps, banning kill streaks, banning explosives that are not designed for S&D gametypes) are a last resort. no exceptions.

seriously, the fact that people are even bringing bans up before the game's released--let alone before the metagame's developed at all--is really, really concerning.

 

[Agosta44]

- All maps shown so far for Splatoon are perfectly mirrored on each side. There is no team advantages unlike other shooters. Smash shouldn't even be in the conversation.
- Weapons have premade loadouts and given strengths and weaknesses based on your main, sub, and specials. Whether one is 'too powerful' or not will take a while to see. The game will be updated regularly so chances are even if something is found to be too strong or centralizing, chances are it will be nerfed or changed.

If something really needs to be banned, then we'll cross that road when we get to it. I'm not fond of the smogon method of "I don't like X so let's vote to ban it".

 

[<π.]

I've made a whole video just on the concept of Bans and my thoughts about it on my YouTube channel. Short version, they generally aren't necessary. I'm disappointed to hear people are already bring this up, it hadn't even crossed my mind.

In my opinion bans just water down the game and make it less interesting for the average player and the spectator. It very quickly fractures the community in to this Us versus Them kind of mindset, and that is never conducive to growth of a games community.

 

[Pusha]

- All maps shown so far for Splatoon are perfectly mirrored on each side. There is no team advantages unlike other shooters. Smash shouldn't even be in the conversation.
- Weapons have premade loadouts and given strengths and weaknesses based on your main, sub, and specials. Whether one is 'too powerful' or not will take a while to see. The game will be updated regularly so chances are even if something is found to be too strong or centralizing, chances are it will be nerfed or changed.

If something really needs to be banned, then we'll cross that road when we get to it. I'm not fond of the smogon method of "I don't like X so let's vote to ban it".

A map being symmetrical doesn't make it competitively viable.

 

[<π.]

A map being symmetrical doesn't make it competitively viable.

What does make a map viable?

 

[squidfingers]

seriously, the fact that people are even bringing bans up before the game's released--let alone before the metagame's developed at all--is really, really concerning.

Seriously. I haven't even peeked at that thread because of how silly it must be in there. Why are bans being discussed before the game is even being played competitively? Before the game is even out? A particular weapon/map/exploit needs to be demonstrably unfair in a competition before it's even considered for banning, with the exception of things like walk-offs in Smash because it's already known how bad they are before the game was released. Luckily I haven't seen anything like that in Splatoon yet.

One thing Pusha said was right in that there may be bans in the future... but so what? We're not at that junction yet, save it for later.

 

[Pusha]

What does make a map viable?

Well symmetry or near symmetry does help, and it depends on the game specifically, but in general: lines of sight, map geometry/layout, size, spawning and "flow" or movement options or wtv you want to call (basically how you can move through the map) are all contributing factors.

 

[<π.]

Seriously. I haven't even peeked at that thread because of how silly it must be in there. Why are bans being discussed before the game is even being played competitively? Before the game is even out? A particular weapon/map/exploit needs to be demonstrably unfair in a competition before it's even considered for banning, with the exception of things like walk-offs in Smash because it's already know how bad they are. Luckily I haven't seen anything like that in Splatoon yet.

One thing Pusha said was right in that there may be bans in the future... but so what? We're not at that junction yet, save it for later.

I agree with most of what you said, but I have one gripe. There shouldn't be exceptions. Everything needs to be as you put it "demonstrably unfair"; everything. And "unfair" needs to be clearly defined. What really frustrates me is people banning things because they don't like it or don't want to overcome it instead of banning something because it literally cannot be overcome.

 

[Pusha]

Seriously. I haven't even peeked at that thread because of how silly it must be in there. Why are bans being discussed before the game is even being played competitively? Before the game is even out? A particular weapon/map/exploit needs to be demonstrably unfair in a competition before it's even considered for banning, with the exception of things like walk-offs in Smash because it's already know how bad they are before the game was released. Luckily I haven't seen anything like that in Splatoon yet.

One thing Pusha said was right in that there may be bans in the future... but so what? We're not at that junction yet, save it for later.

In the case of maps specifically, you aren't always banning because it is "unfair". In splatoon, since maps are symmetrical no map is "unfair". But just because we have x number maps doesn't mean we need to use them all in competitive. A map that is too simple or boring is grounds for excluding it from competitive in shooters. A really huge map wouldn't be used not because it's unfair, but because it doesn't lend well to competitive play.

EDIT: and too an extent the same concept applies for weapons. If something reduces skill gap (i.e. does not lend well to competitive) why use it? An example would be claymores in CoD. They restrict competitive play more than they contribute to it.

 

[Agosta44]

Simplicity is now grounds for banning.

I fear for this game. I really do.

 

[squidfingers]

I agree with most of what you said, but I have one gripe. There shouldn't be exceptions. Everything needs to be as you put it "demonstrably unfair"; everything. And "unfair" needs to be clearly defined. What really frustrates me is people banning things because they don't like it or don't want to overcome it instead of banning something because it literally cannot be overcome.

Well, I guess its a special case with Smash since the predecessors are extremely similar. While Splatoon is heavily inspired by other shooters, the interplay of the weapons/maps/teamwork and on top of that the Ink mechanics makes it an unknown factor.

 

[<π.]

In the case of maps specifically, you aren't always banning because it is "unfair". In splatoon, since maps are symmetrical no map is "unfair". But just because we have x number maps doesn't mean we need to use them all in competitive. A map that is too simple or boring is grounds for excluding it from competitive in shooters. A really huge map wouldn't be used not because it's unfair, but because it doesn't lend well to competitive play.

That's my thing again... "doesn't lend well to competitive play" what exactly is competitive play? Does it need to be fast paced high action all the time to be competitive? I don't think so at all.
Many people have a habit of preconceiving what certain types of skills a certain type of game is supposed to test. A huge map isn't "non-competitive" because it is large. It just tests different skills than a small map.

What I would like the community to do is come together and say "We don't value these skills." instead of saying "This skill isn't competitive." Those are completely different messages and the former, I feel, is MUCH easier to swallow especially for people who are just entering the scene.

 

[Pusha]

That's my thing again... "doesn't lend well to competitive play" what exactly is competitive play? Does it need to be fast paced high action all the time to be competitive? I don't think so at all.
Many people have a habit of preconceiving what certain types of skills a certain type of game is supposed to test. A huge map isn't "non-competitive" because it is large. It just tests different skills than a small map.

What I would like the community to do is come together and say "We don't value these skills." instead of saying "This skill isn't competitive." Those are completely different messages and the former, I feel, is MUCH easier to swallow especially for people who are just entering the scene.

I invite you to look up maps like rat's nest or avalanche in halo 3. Both are symmetrical. But they aren't used in competitive. They are very large. A map that is too large is simply too large. It was just an example, coming from games like halo or CoD or even smash where the devs design certain maps for larger teams (teams of 4, 6, 8, etc.). I doubt we'll see maps that qualify as "too large" in splatoon seeing as how all the gametypes we've seen are 4v4, so the maps are designed for 4v4.

No, competitive play doesn't need to be fast paced necessarily. Look at mobas where games last above 30 minutes. They are very competitive still. But if a map slows down gameplay considerably due to it's size then yes, it probably shouldn't be used. And based on what we've seen so far, splatoon seems like a decently faced paced game. Again, map size was just a particular example. if a map lacks adequate lines of sight in halo, it's probably not a good competitive map. It's not about testing different skills, it's just about whether or not the maps work. In most shooters I've played, I almost never hear people complain about maps being banned because generally it becomes obvious which maps work with competitive and which don't. Each game is different. The point is that banning a map isn't a bad thing, it improves the competitive experience.

 

[squidfingers]

In the case of maps specifically, you aren't always banning because it is "unfair". In splatoon, since maps are symmetrical no map is "unfair". But just because we have x number maps doesn't mean we need to use them all in competitive. A map that is too simple or boring is grounds for excluding it from competitive in shooters. A really huge map wouldn't be used not because it's unfair, but because it doesn't lend well to competitive play.

EDIT: and too an extent the same concept applies for weapons. If something reduces skill gap (i.e. does not lend well to competitive) why use it? An example would be claymores in CoD. They restrict competitive play more than they contribute to it.

I guess I was coming at it from only one angle. I agree with the general idea you're presenting, but it's definitely a case-by-case basis. I'd have to experience somethings lack of competitive value and then determine that it shouldn't be used. But my idea of what has value might be different from someone else. It could be tough to satisfy everyone in that situation.

I think I'm done hypothetical problem solving for tonight. This will be relevant later when there's a competitive scene. And it's really "if" there's a competitive scene. Waiting for the teams/custom lobby update in August and then some months after that for proper competition. It could be more than half a year before the real competitive talks start.

 

[<π.]

I appologize I think I may have misunderstood what you meant, but I wasn't calling you out for specifically saying "large maps". It was the idea and logic behind it. playing a 4v4 match on a map designed for 8v8 will likely lead to little much much less confrontation, ESPECIALLY if a player wants to avoid it. I would do some testing to be sure, (where I quantify and measure what I clearly a clearly defined "too little confrontation") but I think it would be perfectly fair to ban a stage in a situation like that.

I was saying that we should use subjective claims like "it isn't competitive" to ban a stage or a weapon or a perk, or anything.

That said~ The very nature of splatoon FORCES confrontation because the objective isn't killing players, or even capturing so objective its covering the largest percentage of the map. it forces movement and forces confrontation as you try to claim and defend different plots of the stage. It is so simple its brilliant and I'm shocked it hasn't been implemented so well until now.

 

[Pusha]

I guess I was coming at it from only one angle. I agree with the general idea you're presenting, but it's definitely a case-by-case basis. I'd have to experience somethings lack of competitive value and then determine that it shouldn't be used. But my idea of what has value might be different from someone else. It could be tough to satisfy everyone in that situation.

I think I'm done hypothetical problem solving for tonight. This will be relevant later when there's a competitive scene. And it's really "if" there's a competitive scene. Waiting for the teams/custom lobby update in August and then some months after that for proper competition. It could be more than half a year before the real competitive talks start.

Yeah, each game is different and each map is different for sure. I've played shooters quite a bit so I have a pretty good general sense of when a map will be competitive or not, but splatoon is a new game so I'm not making any judgments just yet.

The point of this thread wasn't to say LETS BAN EVERYTHING. It was really just to address the taboo of "banning is bad"

 

[Agosta44]

Banning is bad because the game isn't even out yet and people are only discussing it because there's nothing else to talk about.

 

[ThisFungi]

I definitely agree that bans will be necessary for this game once the community plays with the weaponry and maps enough to define what should be fair to use and what isn't.

Banning is far from a bad thing, espeically if developers decide they prefer to leave maps and classes as they are. It creates a set of regulations and rules for a community to follow to have a competitive game that's fair to both teams.

 

[Pusha]

Banning is bad because the game isn't even out yet and people are only discussing it because there's nothing else to talk about.

This thread isn't about the specific things we should or shouldn't ban in splatoon, but is meant to show evidence for why banning in general isn't a bad thing.