"Bans" in shooters

[Pusha]

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".

There will be at least 14 stages in splatoon, as shown in the splatoon direct. Having water on a stage is not grounds for banning it, i agree. And just because splatoon has some new mechanics doesn't mean we can't draw parallels between other shooters and take from other games competitive set ups. You're clearly very against banning of any kind and i don't quite understand why. No one is suggesting to ban something we don't like, or ban things right and left without a second thought. Once again, i think selecting a rotation of maps that are viable to competitive is very beneficial to a competitive game as evidenced by every other competitive shooter and even games like smash bros. If all 14 maps in splatoon end up being great for competitive then that's awesome. But i find that unlikely, and it's not a bad thing to be excluding certain maps.

 

[Pusha]

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

I think some sort of gametype rotation would be good for splatoon, whether or not that's exactly 11 or not will depend on a lot of factors and we'll only know a while after the games release. But definitely a rotation would be good, imo more ideal than a smash style stage-striking system.

For those who don't know what Mayday was referring too, basically you take x number of maps and y gametypes and you have a select list of gametype-map combinations that the community would deem good competitive experiences.

An example from halo 3:

King of the hill on Construct
Oddball on Guardian
Capture the flag on The Pit
Team slayer on The Pit
etc...

those would be the games you would see played in tournaments, competitive settings etc. Often in tournaments the exact order of the games is pre-determined by round such that round 1 sets are always this for game 1, then that for game 2 etc. then round 2 might be different. There is also often orders for gametypes, like for a best of 5 set you could hypothetically see: Splat zones for games 1 and 5, tower control for games 2 and 4 and then turf war for game 3. Those are common setups you might see used in various shooters

 

[Mayday]

I think some sort of gametype rotation would be good for splatoon, whether or not that's exactly 11 or not will depend on a lot of factors and we'll only know a while after the games release. But definitely a rotation would be good, imo more ideal than a smash style stage-striking system.

For those who don't know what Mayday was referring too, basically you take x number of maps and y gametypes and you have a select list of gametype-map combinations that the community would deem good competitive experiences.

An example from halo 3:

King of the hill on Construct
Oddball on Guardian
Capture the flag on The Pit
Team slayer on The Pit
etc...

those would be the games you would see played in tournaments, competitive settings etc. Often in tournaments the exact order of the games is pre-determined by round such that round 1 sets are always this for game 1, then that for game 2 etc. then round 2 might be different. There is also often orders for gametypes, like for a best of 5 set you could hypothetically see: Splat zones for games 1 and 5, tower control for games 2 and 4 and then turf war for game 3. Those are common setups you might see used in various shooters

It obviously has to be at least 7, but I agree that the total is completely up in the air as of now. I would love to see a rotational system over the stage striking/counterpick system. Creates much more of a variety.

 

[Pusha]

It obviously has to be at least 7, but I agree that the total is completely up in the air as of now. I would love to see a rotational system over the stage striking/counterpick system. Creates much more of a variety.

Yeah, it won't be tough find 7, so i expect more than that. I think the system used for picking maps/gametypes is going to be determined once we really get to play all the gametypes and maps. I don't know if I'm a huge fan of striking in shooters because it allows you to always avoid certain stages. But I'm not against the idea, and i think it'll depend on how many combinations we end up with.

 

[toadster101]

Why are people advocating for bans in a GAME THAT ISN'T EVEN OUT YET? This is what divides communities, and division leads to people leaving. Stop.

 

[Agosta44]

There will be at least 14 stages in splatoon, as shown in the splatoon direct. Having water on a stage is not grounds for banning it, i agree. And just because splatoon has some new mechanics doesn't mean we can't draw parallels between other shooters and take from other games competitive set ups. You're clearly very against banning of any kind and i don't quite understand why. No one is suggesting to ban something we don't like, or ban things right and left without a second thought. Once again, i think selecting a rotation of maps that are viable to competitive is very beneficial to a competitive game as evidenced by every other competitive shooter and even games like smash bros. If all 14 maps in splatoon end up being great for competitive then that's awesome. But i find that unlikely, and it's not a bad thing to be excluding certain maps.

Like I've said before, I'm very against banning things unless we absolutely have to. There is no reason for making a map rotation unless there is a stage that is either 1) broken or 2) a joke map by the developers ie: random events, other nonsense.

 

[Pusha]

Why are people advocating for bans in a GAME THAT ISN'T EVEN OUT YET? This is what divides communities, and division leads to people leaving. Stop.

Why do people keep saying this? No one here is saying "ban this, ban that, ban, ban, ban". Im trying to highlight the fact that the word "ban" has a heavy negative connotation and that in reality, "bans" in shooters are common and beneficial. No one wants to ban things before the game is out

 

[Pusha]

Like I've said before, I'm very against banning things unless we absolutely have to. There is no reason for making a map rotation unless there is a stage that is either 1) broken or 2) a joke map by the developers ie: random events, other nonsense.

The reason for making a map rotation is to create the best competitive settings for any given game. A lot of games work like that and if you aren't used to it then thats fine, its your opinion, but don't just entirely dismiss it as "wow i can't believe you're thinking of banning stuff". If a map isn't ideal for competitive, then we shouldn't play it competitively. Simple as that. I don't see how you can object to that. I'm not talking about banning things left and right or banning because i don't like things or banning too quickly. I'm just saying that banning in shooters is common and beneficial and we shouldn't be so defensive about banning down the line when those discussion arise. We should be openly discussing to find the optimal experience.

 

[OmegaDivider]

Why do people keep saying this? No one here is saying "ban this, ban that, ban, ban, ban". Im trying to highlight the fact that the word "ban" has a heavy negative connotation and that in reality, "bans" in shooters are common and beneficial. No one wants to ban things before the game is out

I can't see anything really "beneficial" coming from this discussion on bans. Too many people don't want to even think about banning things right now and the only thing positive that came from this was @flc's post. All this thread is doing is making people go at each others throats.

This is like arguing whether or not a cake in the oven will be tasty or not. Its pointless, just wait to eat the cake.

 

[Pusha]

I can't see anything really "beneficial" coming from this discussion on bans. Too many people don't want to even think about banning things right now and the only thing positive that came from this was @flc's post. All this thread is doing is making people go at each others throats.

This is like arguing whether or not a cake in the oven will be tasty or not. Its pointless, just wait to eat the cake.

maybe you're right, i can't even say the word "ban" without people saying WHOA IT'S WAY TOO EARLY DOOD

...i know it is.... im not trying to ban stuff right now... read the OP :(

EDIT: at least this thread has confirmed my impression of their being a taboo surrounding bans, and that theres still a decent amount of people that view bans as something good (based on the poll data anyway)

 

[Hi_C]

Why is banning things a concern before the game is ever released? It is just as bad as the people who labeled the Splat Charger "bad", the people who said the Roller is OP, and the people who think Splat Dashing is going to define the meta. Play the game before making bold statement like that. Making assumptions off of literally 4 one hour test fires is so silly. Speculation is fine, but stating opinions like they are facts is not.

 

[Hi_C]

maybe you're right, i can't even say the word "ban" without people saying WHOA IT'S WAY TOO EARLY DOOD

...i know it is.... im not trying to ban stuff right now... read the OP :(

EDIT: at least this thread has confirmed my impression of their being a taboo surrounding bans, and that theres still a decent amount of people that view bans as something good (based on the poll data anyway)

Ban is a buzzword. It is like saying toxic or cancerous. People will get angry about it just at the mention of it.

 

[Lyn]

I already made a thread on this. [link]

 

[Hi_C]

I already made a thread on this. [link]

He is making a follow up to that thread I believe.

 

[Pusha]

I already made a thread on this. [link]

this is a different topic... doesn't anybody read?

 

[Pusha]

Ban is a buzzword. It is like saying toxic or cancerous. People will get angry about it just at the mention of it.

Yeah, thats exactly why i made this thread, because people overreact all the time when they hear the word ban and because theres such a negative connotation to the word, when in reality bans are normal and beneficial to a game's competitive scene.

 

[Bottlecapn]

To the people who keep saying "Why are we banning things and the games not even out yet?": STOP.

To the people advocating bans: STOP.

To the people who are still posting in this practically pointless thread: STOP.

EDIT: I just noticed the hypocrisy of this statement...

 

[flc]

a taboo surrounding bans

a taboo implies that the discussion is avoided "just because". I've already pointed out why discussing bans at this stage is a bad idea, but since we're also bringing map selection into the discussion, let's go over that too.

map selection at this stage is out of five maps. yes, the game will eventually have 12+. yes, we can expect people to want to refine these maps down to a smaller selection. yes, we will have this discussion at some point. but these maps won't even be out for months. removing one out of the five maps at this early stage is patently ridiculous.

people are adamant because there's absolutely no reason to even bring bans (or even map selections) into the discussion. with no benefit and the risks as I've already stated (mainly concerned about the "just ban it" mentality that these discussions breed), it's not a taboo, it's justified.

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.

these maps would be removed from the map pool after extensive post-release analysis, which is the point I was making. in splatoon's case, the fact that there are only five maps (for now) means that the only way a map gets removed from the map pool is if it's so incredibly awful that it must be removed. symmetrical maps tend not to have this problem.

and while I don't remember the other three maps, cold storage was removed from the map pool for being a small FFA/1v1 map that was obviously not going to work with the competitive gametypes.

 

[Pusha]

a taboo implies that the discussion is avoided "just because". I've already pointed out why discussing bans at this stage is a bad idea, but since we're also bringing map selection into the discussion, let's go over that too.

map selection at this stage is out of five maps. yes, the game will eventually have 12+. yes, we can expect people to want to refine these maps down to a smaller selection. yes, we will have this discussion at some point. but these maps won't even be out for months. removing one out of the five maps at this early stage is patently ridiculous.

people are adamant because there's absolutely no reason to even bring bans (or even map selections) into the discussion. with no benefit and the risks as I've already stated (mainly concerned about the "just ban it" mentality that these discussions breed), it's not a taboo, it's justified.



these maps would be removed from the map pool after extensive post-release analysis, which is the point I was making. in splatoon's case, the fact that there are only five maps (for now) means that the only way a map gets removed from the map pool is if it's so incredibly awful that it must be removed. symmetrical maps tend not to have this problem.

and while I don't remember the other three maps, cold storage was removed from the map pool for being a small FFA/1v1 map that was obviously not going to work with the competitive gametypes.

I agree with almost all that you're saying. Here's the thing. I didn't read a single post in this thread from me or anyone else saying "we need to select maps right away, we need to ban right away, what do we ban, etc.". OF COURSE this will happen down the line. NO ONE is suggesting otherwise. From the looks of it it seems like 90% of the people posting in this thread only read the title and that's it. In my OP i even stated there would 14 maps at least in splatoon and that it's unlikely to use them all. I never stated to start the map selection process immediately with the 5 initial maps. Competitive won't even be established for a while.

This thread was to discuss the negative connotation surrounding the word "ban" and to point out that map selection is a normal process for competitive shooters and that it is not a bad thing.
Based on all the replies I've gotten completely ignoring the topic and simply saying how we shouldn't be talking about bans, how it's too early to start banning etc., I think that my original suspicions were entirely and completely justified.

You've outlined why you think early discussions surrounding bans are bad, and that's your opinion and i think is for the most part a fair one. But that's only true of when people are seriously discussing to ban somehting. I haven't really seen anyone on these forums seriously discuss banning things. Even in the "Banning Weapons or Maps?" thread, most of the discussion is "yeah, we'll have to see when the game comes out". Even when people give reasons as to why they think maybe something might get banned, they still say "but it's too early at this point and we'll have to see" So the way i see it, there is one group of people having very preliminary harmless discussions about how banning might be used and how we'll need to wait for the game to really explore it all, and then another group of people who are just saying "WHOA DUDE?! Why are talking about bans! It's wayyyyy too early, pls stop it will destroy the game and the community".

I think EVERYONE can agree that bans any time soon aren't good and i don't think ANYONE is suggesting that. No one is destroying the game here.

Edit: "Taboo" is defined as "proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable" so I've used it correctly here.

 

[Bottlecapn]

a taboo implies that the discussion is avoided "just because". I've already pointed out why discussing bans at this stage is a bad idea, but since we're also bringing map selection into the discussion, let's go over that too.

map selection at this stage is out of five maps. yes, the game will eventually have 12+. yes, we can expect people to want to refine these maps down to a smaller selection. yes, we will have this discussion at some point. but these maps won't even be out for months. removing one out of the five maps at this early stage is patently ridiculous.

1. There's gonna be a new map every week.

2. Will you people stop ignoring what @Pusha is saying? 5, 6, 7 times over he's explicitly stated that this thread wasn't about discussing bans at this time. Don't you think it would be titled 'Banning Weapons or Maps' (*COUGH* there's a thread for that) instead? Stop filling it with 'it's way too early' or 'discussing bans at this time? you'll ruin the game' posts. Please.