"Bans" in shooters

[Agosta44]

This thread is only here in response of the other thread discussing banning (idk why it needed a separate thread), which is here because it's controversial and there's nothing else to discuss.

 

[obscurica]

- 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".

The maps, thus far, look pretty decent for competitive play. The only problematic one so far is Triggerfish: stage hazards and lack of walls promote defensive play, and punishes players attempting aggressive tactics. I think that would qualify it as a global ban pretty easily.

That said, I encourage stage bans anyhow, outside of Triggerfish. Team-oriented conditional bans. Like, teams will strike one stage after another until one is left that both are satisfied with. This would encourage much more in-depth team composition theory and strategies--and also meta-strategies in map selection. It also means that if there is anything like a problematic map, teams can work around them anyhow, making them a nonfactor in competitive play.

 

[<π.]

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"

Banning is an extremely powerful tool and I do discourage it's use except in the most extreme cases.

A ban is like a gun, you shouldn't shoot something because it makes you uncomfortable or because you don't like it. You do it in defense of something you treasure and cherish. Anything else is a gross misuse of that amazing power!

Banning things before you understand them and can quantify exactly what its threats are to the games life are is like shooting a kid playing with a water gun. It is mismanagement of power. THAT is what I am strongly opposed to. Not just the idea of banning things.

 

[Pusha]

Banning is an extremely powerful tool and I do discourage it's use except in the most extreme cases.

A ban is like a gun, you shouldn't shoot something because it makes you uncomfortable or because you don't like it. You do it in defense of something you treasure and cherish. Anything else is a gross misuse of that amazing power!

Banning things before you understand them and can quantify exactly what its threats are to the games life are is like shooting a kid playing with a water gun. It is mismanagement of power. THAT is what I am strongly opposed to. Not just the idea of banning things.

Banning too early is wrong for sure, no question. But to liken banning to a gun i think is a bit of a stretch and kind of reinforces my point of there being a negative connotation surrounding the word. I agree you shouldn't ban things just because you don't like them. You should ban them if they don't lend well to competitive, and as we play the game more and a meta is established it will become more obvious which maps should be removed from competitive. No one here is saying to ban things based on whether or not we like them or ban things right now. I'm just pointing out that banning, particularly in shooters is not only a good thing but almost universally necessary for competitive play. (I don't know of any shooters where all maps are used in competitive).

I agree with you on a lot of what you're saying, but banning in shooters isn't a "last resort" but more of a natural process for determining competitive standard rule sets. Just like how it is pretty obvious which stages work in sm4sh, it will become pretty obvious which work in splatoon.

 

[Agosta44]

as we play the game more and a meta is established it will become more obvious which maps should be removed from competitive.

lol

Stop.

 

[Pusha]

lol

Stop.

I'm not sure whether you're trolling or not, but assuming you aren't, please explain what's so objectionable about what I've said. There's absolutely nothing wrong with excluding a map from competitive play and I'm very confident that it will eventually happen if competitive splatoon gains traction. It's pretty normal for shooters, as I've already outlined.

 

[Agosta44]

You're expecting maps to be banned. EXPECTING. That's a horrid way to come into this. I played mario kart competitively from 08-15. 81 tracks, 113 counting mirror in MKW. Half sucked. 0 banned. There was no banning because x was simplistic or y wasn't "competitive".

It's all competitive.

 

[<π.]

Banning too early is wrong for sure, no question. But to liken banning to a gun i think is a bit of a stretch and kind of reinforces my point of there being a negative connotation surrounding the word. I agree you shouldn't ban things just because you don't like them. You should ban them if they don't lend well to competitive, and as we play the game more and a meta is established it will become more obvious which maps should be removed from competitive. No one here is saying to ban things based on whether or not we like them or ban things right now. I'm just pointing out that banning, particularly in shooters is not only a good thing but almost universally necessary for competitive play. (I don't know of any shooters where all maps are used in competitive).

I agree with you on a lot of what you're saying, but banning in shooters isn't a "last resort" but more of a natural process for determining competitive standard rule sets. Just like how it is pretty obvious which stages work in sm4sh, it will become pretty obvious which work in splatoon.

I have a lot of issues with this post but I'm starting to understand what I'm doing wrong.

1. This isn't "any shooter" this is splatoon. What works for other games even if they are similar may not (and probablly won't) work for this game. Which is even more reason to approach it without trying to fit it into a "it need to do this" mold.
2. Banning something for "not lending well to competitive" is a subjective reason for banning something. Its the same as a ban for not liking something.
3. Stage bans in smash4 (or any smash game for that matter) isn't obvious it is still something that is hotly debated and still varies from region to region. I like to point to smash 4 as an example of what happens to a community when you are too quick to enforce community wide bans. It gets split up.

But, I think this might be a situation where we have to agree to disagree for the time being.

 

[obscurica]

...might I risk saying that race maps might be under different fundamental conditions and paradigms than shooters? Definitely under different balance constraints, at the very least.

I don't see the known Splatoon maps as necessarily unbalanced as yet, given their symmetry and manageable sizes. But there are a few factors we should definitely keep an eye out before simply declaring "NO BANS." Do open-space maps (like what Blackbelly looks to be) encourage excessively campy play? Do small enclosed ones like Walleye really only allow AOE weapons--and is this necessarily a bad thing? Basically a matter of mitigating lolrandum factors so that competitive matches are entirely about showcasing relative skills.

But, again, map-striking probably does a great job of that anyhow. >_>

 

[Pusha]

You're expecting maps to be banned. EXPECTING. That's a horrid way to come into this. I played mario kart competitively from 08-15. 81 tracks, 113 counting mirror in MKW. Half sucked. 0 banned. There was no banning because x was simplistic or y wasn't "competitive".

It's all competitive.

I don't know much about competitive mario kart, but from my experience playing Mario kart casually I wouldn't expect any bans in the game because it's a very different type of game and there's nothing that I see that would require a ban. But again, I don't know much about that scene.

Mario kart is very different from a shooter. Expecting something to be banned doesn't mean I'm going to push for needless bans either. There are 24 maps in halo 3. Five are used competitively. There are 15 maps in Black ops 2, 6 are used competitively. It's normal for maps to be excluded in shooters and yes, I expect splatoon to follow suit. Banning isn't bad. If a map doesn't work well for competitive then don't use it.

 

[Pusha]

I have a lot of issues with this post but I'm starting to understand what I'm doing wrong.

1. This isn't "any shooter" this is splatoon. What works for other games even if they are similar may not (and probablly won't) work for this game. Which is even more reason to approach it without trying to fit it into a "it need to do this" mold.
2. Banning something for "not lending well to competitive" is a subjective reason for banning something. Its the same as a ban for not liking something.
3. Stage bans in smash4 (or any smash game for that matter) isn't obvious it is still something that is hotly debated and still varies from region to region. I like to point to smash 4 as an example of what happens to a community when you are too quick to enforce community wide bans. It gets split up.

But, I think this might be a situation where we have to agree to disagree for the time being.

1. Of course every shooter is different, and I've said that. But that doesn't mean splatoon won't or shouldn't see any banning. Again, I'm just reinforcing that banning is good.

2. "Not lending to competitive" isn't the reason. It's just a generalization for whatever the specific reasons that make the map not competitively viable are. As I previously said, a map's viability depends on many factors of which I've already listed. So when I say "doesn't lend well to competitive" THAT isn't the reason, it's the result of the contributing factors.
3. There may be some stages that are debated, but it is still obvious that certain stages with ridiculous stage hazards etc. should be banned. And again, I'm not an advocat of quickly banning things too early. But banning things in shooters in particular is good and often necessary.

 

[WiseSquid]

I don't really like the idea of banning all that much. Isn't the fun thing in competitive play to think outside the box? For instance: Weapons A is completely OP. Like seriously it blows weapons C through Z out of the water.
Now weapon B is absolutely rubbish. Everything beats weapon B accept for weapon A.

What I fear is this: If weapon A is at first glance so incredibly OP that we would be immediatly banning it before we could've discovered that weapon B trumps it.

Basically I' m trying to caution for swinging that hammer to quickly. Which I think is often the case.

 

[<π.]

Why should something be banned? Why should you remove a feature from a game? Why is cutting a working part of the game out healthy for it? From my point of view your answer to all of these questions has been "every other shooter I've played has done it" I don't feel like that alone is enough of an answer.
Why do other communities ban their stages? Do those reasons even apply to our game and do they align with what our community wants to do?

I haven't seen any posts really detailing what you define as "competitive". The closest I've seen is you saying:

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.

These are all subjective things until you quantify exactly what "too big" or "too small" is and why.


For the record melee went to MLG with stage hazards on a majority of the legal stages back in its golden age. It was only ten years after the game was out (after a large core chunk of the players quit the game) that this concept of the flat plat idea came into existence.

 

[flc]

alright, I don't generally like to shut down lines of inquiry but I don't want people killing this game before it's even out yet


I've already said that "non-obvious" bans are a last resort in every game, no exceptions. I'd like to retract the "non-obvious" part of this statement.

First: FPS communities never actually "ban" maps. They have map pools, which are selected so as to streamline the competitive meta around the (usually) five, seven, or nine best maps for competitive play. Expecting players and especially teams to learn more than nine maps, especially when many of these maps are community-made (see Quake, CS series, TF2), is unrealistic and weakens the overall level of play (since more time is spent focusing on learning maps than honing fundamentals). Furthermore, many of these maps are designed for anything from 1v1 to 64v64; picking maps that are not suited for the game size would also be counterproductive. These are not bans. Splatoon, meanwhile, is 4v4 only and has a five-map pool. Each map is designed for 4v4 and 4v4 only. Any map bans, even after more maps have been added in a few months' time, would need to be justified to such an extreme degree--since none of the usual reasons to exclude a map from the pool can logically apply to this game--that nobody could possibly know what this justification would entail, require, or result in until well after the game's release. Therefore, discussing map bans is utterly pointless at this stage.

Second: Weapon bans in FPS games occur, again, in the case where a game's competitive ruleset represents only a small fraction of the possible rulesets that can be followed (TF2 is almost entirely capture point, CS series is entirely demolition, CoD4 was S&D, in spite of each of these games having plenty of other modes available) and these weapons make no sense in the rulesets that are being used, and even in these cases, only TF2 has widespread bans (due to the signficant differences between comp and pub games) and CoD4 only bans equipment (because explosive equipment is designed for deathmatch with killstreaks, not S&D 5v5). Again, Splatoon is designed entirely around the game modes we'll be playing. What we are intending to play competitively represents 100% of the ways the game can be played online. And again, this removes the usual reasons to remove aspects of the game from competitive play, and leaves us with the task of testing each and every aspect of the game before we arrive at the point where we can even begin to consider banning anything. Therefore, discussing weapon bans is also utterly pointless at this stage.

Third: Gear being used or not is not a question of banning. Either you enforce default gear only, or you enforce unmodified gear only (so no additional perks on top of the ones the gear comes with), or you allow all gear. I believe the consensus is that these three options are the respective worst case, likely case, and best case scenarios. Discussing what we are going to do with gear is a matter of rulesets, not bans, and this discussion would appear to be on hold until we know more.

Most importantly: Even if discussing bans at this stage were not pointless, it would still be harmful. Discussing bans, especially on contentious issues (imagine polling the community about banning rollers after the first testfire session?), centres any future discussion on the ban itself rather than how to counter whatever it is that people want banned. By having bans on the table, we stifle discussion. By discussing bans before fully understanding how the game works, we risk leaving the game in a perpetual state of underdevelopment for no reasonable gain (when people who could be figuring out how to beat this contentious thing are preoccupied arguing about banning it with incomplete information). By banning one thing, we set a precedent for banning further things. And, lest we forget, if something really is unsuitable for competitive play, people will naturally move away from it with no need for a ban until such a ban is trivial. Discussing bans this early on is pointless, harmful, and unnecessary.

So, yes, discussing bans is categorically a terrible idea. I would be exaggerating to say that the discussion would kill the game, but it definitely has potential to harm with no benefit.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

alright, I don't generally like to shut down lines of inquiry but I don't want people killing this game before it's even out yet


I've already said that "non-obvious" bans are a last resort in every game, no exceptions. I'd like to retract the "non-obvious" part of this statement.

First: FPS communities never actually "ban" maps. They have map pools, which are selected so as to streamline the competitive meta around the (usually) five, seven, or nine best maps for competitive play. Expecting players and especially teams to learn more than nine maps, especially when many of these maps are community-made (see Quake, CS series, TF2), is unrealistic and weakens the overall level of play (since more time is spent focusing on learning maps than honing fundamentals). Furthermore, many of these maps are designed for anything from 1v1 to 64v64; picking maps that are not suited for the game size would also be counterproductive. These are not bans. Splatoon, meanwhile, is 4v4 only and has a five-map pool. Each map is designed for 4v4 and 4v4 only. Any map bans, even after more maps have been added in a few months' time, would need to be justified to such an extreme degree--since none of the usual reasons to exclude a map from the pool can logically apply to this game--that nobody could possibly know what this justification would entail, require, or result in until well after the game's release. Therefore, discussing map bans is utterly pointless at this stage.

Second: Weapon bans in FPS games occur, again, in the case where a game's competitive ruleset represents only a small fraction of the possible rulesets that can be followed (TF2 is almost entirely capture point, CS series is entirely demolition, CoD4 was S&D, in spite of each of these games having plenty of other modes available) and these weapons make no sense in the rulesets that are being used, and even in these cases, only TF2 has widespread bans (due to the signficant differences between comp and pub games) and CoD4 only bans equipment (because explosive equipment is designed for deathmatch with killstreaks, not S&D 5v5). Again, Splatoon is designed entirely around the game modes we'll be playing. What we are intending to play competitively represents 100% of the ways the game can be played online. And again, this removes the usual reasons to remove aspects of the game from competitive play, and leaves us with the task of testing each and every aspect of the game before we arrive at the point where we can even begin to consider banning anything. Therefore, discussing weapon bans is also utterly pointless at this stage.

Third: Gear being used or not is not a question of banning. Either you enforce default gear only, or you enforce unmodified gear only (so no additional perks on top of the ones the gear comes with), or you allow all gear. I believe the consensus is that these three options are the respective worst case, likely case, and best case scenarios. Discussing what we are going to do with gear is a matter of rulesets, not bans, and this discussion would appear to be on hold until we know more.

Most importantly: Even if discussing bans at this stage were not pointless, it would still be harmful. Discussing bans, especially on contentious issues (imagine polling the community about banning rollers after the first testfire session?), centres any future discussion on the ban itself rather than how to counter whatever it is that people want banned. By having bans on the table, we stifle discussion. By discussing bans before fully understanding how the game works, we risk leaving the game in a perpetual state of underdevelopment for no reasonable gain (when people who could be figuring out how to beat this contentious thing are preoccupied arguing about banning it with incomplete information). By banning one thing, we set a precedent for banning further things. And, lest we forget, if something really is unsuitable for competitive play, people will naturally move away from it with no need for a ban until such a ban is trivial. Discussing bans this early on is pointless, harmful, and unnecessary.

So, yes, discussing bans is categorically a terrible idea. I would be exaggerating to say that the discussion would kill the game, but it definitely has potential to harm with no benefit.

That was actually a really good read, good job! XD :D :P

 

[Trieste Sp]

It seems people are split according to the poll. But I feel @flc post have basically said what I wanted to say about the issue. Besides, if there is something OP in this game, I'm sure Nintendo will patch it at a later date.

 

[Hope]

Completely agree with everything @flc said. Discussing bans for a game not even released yet relies on a lot of assumptions, the biggest of which would be perfectly predicting the metagame. Which no one can do.

 

[Deleted Member]

Only scrubs want things banned. Its how they operate.

 

[Narayan]

"Hey, I don't know a lot about the endgame meta and maybe there's nothing to ban. But just in case, would you be okay with it? I mean every other FPS game did the same."

This thread in a nutshell. This board is allready filled with theroy-craftig, but this thread is just...totaly useless. There is only one scenraio where I would see a ban worth the effort: If one team get's a huge advantage, which the other team wouldn't get. My 2cents

 

[Pusha]

Why should something be banned? Why should you remove a feature from a game? Why is cutting a working part of the game out healthy for it? From my point of view your answer to all of these questions has been "every other shooter I've played has done it" I don't feel like that alone is enough of an answer.
Why do other communities ban their stages? Do those reasons even apply to our game and do they align with what our community wants to do?

I haven't seen any posts really detailing what you define as "competitive". The closest I've seen is you saying:

These are all subjective things until you quantify exactly what "too big" or "too small" is and why.


For the record melee went to MLG with stage hazards on a majority of the legal stages back in its golden age. It was only ten years after the game was out (after a large core chunk of the players quit the game) that this concept of the flat plat idea came into existence.

Why should something be banned? Why should you remove a feature from a game? Why is cutting a working part of the game out healthy for it? From my point of view your answer to all of these questions has been "every other shooter I've played has done it" I don't feel like that alone is enough of an answer.
Why do other communities ban their stages? Do those reasons even apply to our game and do they align with what our community wants to do?

I haven't seen any posts really detailing what you define as "competitive". The closest I've seen is you saying:

These are all subjective things until you quantify exactly what "too big" or "too small" is and why.


For the record melee went to MLG with stage hazards on a majority of the legal stages back in its golden age. It was only ten years after the game was out (after a large core chunk of the players quit the game) that this concept of the flat plat idea came into existence.

Something should be excluded from competitive it it has poor map design i.e. map design that does not lend well to competitive.

You are not removing a "working part of the game". You are removing what is (from a competitive standpoint) a non-working part of the game.

The fact that every other shooter has done this is not my reason for banning things. It's to support my main point (the actual reason i made this thread in the first place but i guess we've already strayed far enough from that so wtv) which was to try and spotlight the taboo around "banning" and how in shooters "banning" is very common especially among maps. That being said, there's nothing wrong with saying that i expect splatoon to follow suit.

Other communities ban stages when they determine them to be not viable for competitive for whatever reason. Those reasons are for the most part in the categories I listed. And those reasons should in general also be present factors in splatoon, since it is also a shooter. Those factors have nothing to do with game mechanics and everything to do with map design. Game mechanics can effect the meta, but those reasons are pretty much consistently relevant across any shooter and will be also in splatoon, regardless of any difference in how their weighted individually. I'm not here to say what should be banned IN splatoon. I'm here to say bans are normal in shooters and to try and remove the negative connotation.

Like flc said, its not even banning a map. It's just selecting a map pool. It's really not a bad thing.