"Bans" in shooters

[Trieste Sp]

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

Well, it's the only thing we can do currently until the game comes out in a few days.

 

[Narayan]

i don't have anything to say against theory-crafting, but against over-theory-crafting. if you understand, what I mean.

 

[Pusha]

"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

The topic in a nutshell is more like: Bans in shooters (maps especially) are pretty common and not as big of a deal as you might think and it's normal to select a group of maps to play on, as evidenced by every other shooter ever.

So really I'm just trying to say that bans=good, if you don't find this thread relevant then you don't have to contribute, but i definitely see a stigma surrounding the topic so i wanted to highlight that. No theory-crafting, we're not deciding to ban stuff. I'm just saying it's a normal process to evaluate the maps once we experience the game fully and make decisions after that.

 

[Pusha]

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.

I'd like to address your first point. I agree with what you're saying, in shooters map bans aren't really bans, but map size and team size aren't the only factors that contribute to selecting the map pool, in fact that's really only one reason and it's the most obvious and the easiest to weed out: "Well obviously we aren't using the 8v8 map for competitive 4v4". But just because a map is adequately sized for 4v4 doesn't mean it is automatically built for competitive. In halo 3 for example, maps like epitaph, cold storage, high ground, ghost town, are all 4v4 sized maps but they were never used in competitive because of other reasons, their map design was well suited to competitive. So to say that splatoon maps would need to be "justified to such an extreme degree" or that "usual reasons to exclude maps from the pool don't apply" simply isn't true. "Usual reasons" aren't only map size. They include things like 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).

So i just wanted to point out that bans in splatoon shouldn't be seen as something so extreme.

Also, i agree that bans at this point is a stupid idea. No one here is discussing what to ban. I'm just saying that bans aren't bad, they're normal, as you pointed out yourself. This thread isn't discussing bans in the sense of "we need to ban things asap", so in your statement in bold i don't know if you're referencing this thread or the other ban thread, but either way, no decision are being made now. And personally i don't think the mere discussion of bans is as catastrophically detrimental as you might suggest, but that is all opinion so i'm not arguing with you on that point.

 

[TheRapture]

Bans are worth considering if there's something in the metagame that's supremely over-centralizing or over-powered.

So far, I don't think we've seen anything close to that yet.

 

[Pusha]

Bans are worth considering if there's something in the metagame that's supremely over-centralizing or over-powered.

So far, I don't think we've seen anything close to that yet.

That's definitely true for weapons or gear, and you're right we haven't seen anything close to that. But for maps it's not about "banning" but selecting the best set of maps for the best competitive experience.

 

[TheRapture]

That's definitely true for weapons or gear, and you're right we haven't seen anything close to that. But for maps it's not about "banning" but selecting the best set of maps for the best competitive experience.

Correct. That's why when I talked about banning in terms of weapons. You're right, it's not really solely "banning" stages but picking the set for an optimal competitive environment. Though, to be fair, the same could be said about weapons and gear.

Right now, I don't see any weapons being ban-worthy. And so far none of the stages seem to be either. But obviously that's based on very little gametime and an undeveloped metagame so we'll see how things unfold. As I've said before, Walleye Warehouse is the only suspect thing in the game right now.

 

[<π.]

That's definitely true for weapons or gear, and you're right we haven't seen anything close to that. But for maps it's not about "banning" but selecting the best set of maps for the best competitive experience.

I guess that's the confusion. Your title says Banning, not selecting. I've always felt that variety is a huge plus for spectators and players. It keeps the game from getting stale and a large game state helps to leave room for new discoveries and types of play.

My hope is that we won't need to ban or even "select" anything in this game, but instead we see a large variety of maps and through that play styles that will keep things interesting for years to come.

 

[Chapter Serf]

@flc made some good points, but more importantly, THE GAME ISN'T OUT.

All we have are the testfires, and showcase videos as to what's going on.

Of course, the question is, what are we referring to in the way of the word "Ban"?

Are we banning stages like we ban in Smash Bros? Where, from the preselected pool of stages that are seen as competitively viable, we choose a stage we don't want to play on? Like, as a Robin main, I ban FD and omegas every chance I get because they suck for Robin.

Or are we talking about banning stuff like people banned Meta Knight back in Brawl because he was just that OP?

Either way, I don't think it matters at this point: as has been said a dozen times, THE GAME ISN'T OUT. We have so little to truly go on, we can't be discussing it at this point. We can't be chopping up the game before it even comes out and before we even have a chance to establish a Meta-game. Should we ban the Splat-Roller based on five hours of general competitive play? Five hours spread out over two weeks, mind you, not all at once. If that's the case, we would have banned Meta Knight in Smash4 because of how OP he was in Brawl. Turns out, Nintendo beat Meta Knight with the nerf tree and now he's more-or-less balanced.

We have so little to go on, we can't be talking about this stuff now.

 

[Agosta44]

That's definitely true for weapons or gear, and you're right we haven't seen anything close to that. But for maps it's not about "banning" but selecting the best set of maps for the best competitive experience.

"Best" is subjective. Being able to play every map is skill. There are no advantages for playing a side of the map. There are no random stage hazards like smash.

 

[<π.]

"Best" is subjective. Being able to play every map is skill. There are no advantages for playing a side of the map. There are no random stage hazards like smash.

Even random learning to take advantage of random elements is a skill! (Like I mentioned before we had a strong healthy community for YEARS with random stages legal in melee.) The community just has to decide if risk management is a skill they want to test. If some form of random does come into effect in this game i hope people aren't too quick to call ban before understanding how it truly works and effect game play....

 

[Agosta44]

The only situation where I see it necessary to ban a stage is if turf war becomes standard and a stage randomly washes away ink.

 

[<π.]

The only situation where I see it necessary to ban a stage is if turf war becomes standard and a stage randomly washes away ink.

I can't like this post enough.

 

[Pusha]

I guess that's the confusion. Your title says Banning, not selecting. I've always felt that variety is a huge plus for spectators and players. It keeps the game from getting stale and a large game state helps to leave room for new discoveries and types of play.

My hope is that we won't need to ban or even "select" anything in this game, but instead we see a large variety of maps and through that play styles that will keep things interesting for years to come.

I think it's about striking a balance, too many maps and it's difficult for new players to get into the game, for new teams to learn all the maps etc. Too many maps can be bad for stream viewer ship and stuff. But obviously the same is true for having too few maps, things get stale and boring. I just think it's very unlikely that each of the 14 splatoon maps will be ideal maps designed well for competitive. Some maps might be good for certain gametypes only, or not at all. We''ll just have to see. If all 14 end up working well for competitive then that's awesome, but I'm just being realistic in saying i doubt all 14 will be viable.

 

[Pusha]

"Best" is subjective. Being able to play every map is skill. There are no advantages for playing a side of the map. There are no random stage hazards like smash.

the question isn't about being able to play all the maps. It's about do we really want to be playing a map that the competitive community agrees is poorly designed for competitive. Again, im not suggesting we start banning things right now. Im just pointing out that its a normal process for shooters.

 

[FunkyLobster]

honestly this is the first time i think a discussion on the boards is entirely premature and unhealthy to have. this isn't theorycrafting anymore.

we'll get to banning stuff when they need to get banned, right now we only have a vague idea of what's to come over the summer and we've seen all the current maps and most of the weapon sets in the game, none of them seem uncompetitive or over centralizing. day -3 is not the time to have this thread. it gives players and readers false expectations of what's to come and can actually harm the meta, once we get our hands on the game, which was @flc's point

 

[Pusha]

@flc made some good points, but more importantly, THE GAME ISN'T OUT.

All we have are the testfires, and showcase videos as to what's going on.

Of course, the question is, what are we referring to in the way of the word "Ban"?

Are we banning stages like we ban in Smash Bros? Where, from the preselected pool of stages that are seen as competitively viable, we choose a stage we don't want to play on? Like, as a Robin main, I ban FD and omegas every chance I get because they suck for Robin.

Or are we talking about banning stuff like people banned Meta Knight back in Brawl because he was just that OP?

Either way, I don't think it matters at this point: as has been said a dozen times, THE GAME ISN'T OUT. We have so little to truly go on, we can't be discussing it at this point. We can't be chopping up the game before it even comes out and before we even have a chance to establish a Meta-game. Should we ban the Splat-Roller based on five hours of general competitive play? Five hours spread out over two weeks, mind you, not all at once. If that's the case, we would have banned Meta Knight in Smash4 because of how OP he was in Brawl. Turns out, Nintendo beat Meta Knight with the nerf tree and now he's more-or-less balanced.

We have so little to go on, we can't be talking about this stuff now.

We're talking about "ban" in the sense of removing entirely from competitive play. But this thread isn't about deciding what to ban. Of course it is too early. This thread is just highlighting the fact that it's normal for shooters to not use all the maps in a game and to help remove a bit of the taboo surrounding banning things.

Just like how not all stages are used in smash, not all maps are used in shooters. Any possible weapon bans would be a lot further down the line from map set decisions and may not even happen and should ONLY happen if it truly obviously OP.

So we're not discussing what to ban, just that "banning" has a huge negative connotation within the community and is honestly a good thing when properly done and very common in shooters

 

[Mayday]

Do you think an 11 gametype rotation would be good for Splatoon?

 

[Agosta44]

the question isn't about being able to play all the maps. It's about do we really want to be playing a map that the competitive community agrees is poorly designed for competitive. Again, im not suggesting we start banning things right now. Im just pointing out that its a normal process for shooters.

This isn't a normal shooter and shouldn't be treated as one. "x game does it" is not an excuse for people to come in expecting to ban things they don't like. From what Nintendo has released so far detailing stages we're going to have less than 10 and there's no way I'll be agreeable with people wanting to ban a stage because "oh no there's water it's not competitive please send to uber".

 

[Protom]

Do you think an 11 gametype rotation would be good for Splatoon?

If I may know, what is that?