"Bans" in shooters

[Pusha]

When bans become common place in games the meta becomes a place of "second best" options, which most of the time are are less interesting and more limited than what was originally there. In terms of abilities, movement options, techniques, weapons, etc. nothing but the absolutely undeniably game-breaking stuff should ever be banned.

That's debatable and definitely something that is different for each game. In Cod Black ops 2 for example, there are several weapons that were banned not because they are game-breaking (you won't see everyone in public matches using them, to any casual player they are just other weapons) but because they did in fact have quicker kill times then other sets of guns. The benefit? well, the skill gap was increased, since the kill times were now slightly longer, it required more bullets to kill. So you had to hit more shots, which requires more skill. It slowed the game down slightly and made it a better competitive experience, but that doesn't mean the other weapons were game breaking. It just means that by adjusting the usable weapons they were able to make a better competitive experience. Other exclusions like claymores, bouncing betties, shock charges, various killstreaks all were implemented to the same effect. Creating a more competitive experience, a higher skill gap.

I think the idea of "ban only if extremely extremely broken" is a fine rule of thumb, but not for every game. I feel like (and i may be wrong so I'm not asserting this as fact) the idea of banning only in extreme-broken-game cases stems mostly from fighting games, where seeing a character banned is a lot different then a gun in a shooter.

I'm not giving this example to say "this is how we should treat splatoon". I'm just giving this example to highlight the fact that choosing "ban only in extreme cases of game breaking elements" shouldn't always be the default standard. There shouldn't be a default standard. What should matter is making the best competitive experience for the game. If that means excluding certain features or aspects from competitive play then that's a good thing. If it means not excluding things at all then that's good too. But each game is different and rarely is there any game where competitive works exactly the same as casual play does. So with splatoon, if further down the line we start to see a competitive meta establish. We shouldn't be going in with a no ban attitude, or a ban everything attitude, or any pre-conceived attitude at all. We should just be going in with an open mind and evaluating our options to give the best competitive experience possible.

 

[Reila]

Banning stuff is the best way to completely split the community and potentially ruin a game. Truly hope the Splatoon community is smart enough to not try to force bans (unlike the Smash community, Smash competitive could be so much more if people didn't ban most of the stuff that makes the series unique).

 

[SquidBuster]

Banning stuff is the best way to completely split the community and potentially ruin a game. Truly hope the Splatoon community is smart enough to not try to force bans (unlike the Smash community, Smash competitive could be so much more if people didn't ban most of the stuff that makes the series unique).

Smash bans those things because they're anti-competitive and broken. Throwing non-character items is by far a better projectile option than anything else in the game, and the stages not used in competition are way too random for player skill to be the most important factor.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

I'm pretty sure that there won't even need to be bans.

I remember reading that the devs wanted this game to be competitive, so if there is anything the large majority of people redeem "unfair", I'm pretty sure that the devs would address it in an update at some point.