What are you talking about? Nothing's gonna be removed or cut, except for possibly 1 or 2 stages if there's too many/they're not balanced stages.Looks like I won't be playing "competitive " then since I don't want my game gimped. Plus the "competitive " community here already seems bad like Smash.
This website was made by competitive Smash players.Looks like I won't be playing "competitive " then since I don't want my game gimped. Plus the "competitive " community here already seems bad like Smash.
Not really borrowing from smash bros. Almost all competitive shooters have a group of maps they exempt from competitive. It's normal to just select the maps that are competitively viable. No point playing a map in competitive if the community agrees its not giving a dynamic competitive experience.I only want to discuss maps, as I have a lot of experience with the concept of stages in smash bros.
No, we should not ban maps just because. As a person who has been a part of the smash community, there method of picking legal stages is terrible.
It allows for no growth, makes a lot of people ignorant, (they start making up reasons for why the stage isn't legal), and rejects a lot of people.
A stage should only be ban if the stage itself doesn't allow for true competitive play. Notice how I say the stage itself. I don't care if we have "enough" competitive stages. We should include all of the competitive ones which is looking to be almost all the revealed ones.
This is really the one major thing I don't like the idea of "borrowing" from Smash bros.
Trust me, I am all for borrowing from games if it helps metagames. No need to reinvent the wheel after all.Not really borrowing from smash bros. Almost all competitive shooters have a group of maps they exempt from competitive. It's normal to just select the maps that are competitively viable. No point playing a map in competitive if the community agrees its not giving a dynamic competitive experience.
We don't need to emulate other games exactly, but you can't help but borrow concepts from other games (in terms of competitive rule sets and systems).
EDIT: It's all about finding what the best fit is for the game
While banning should really be a very last resort option, we won't lock threads to limit discussions about banning.I'm surprised at how this thread haven't even been locked yet. It not only to early to even be considering banning anything and it also very unhealthy for you and the whole entire community. Splatoon isn't even out yet guys, we all only have about 4 hours+ of playtime under our belt. We don't even know what half of the weapons is going to be or how most of the other maps going to be like in a competitive stand point. It just too early, or in other words, counting your chickens before they hatch. Bans are only needed for the worst of worst things in terms of balance. It isn't "Ban this thing because I don't like," and/or, "I bad at the game so it should be banned." You ban because it absolutely digesting in battle and there is almost no ways to beat it with another type of weapon. Unless you want to make our competitive community complete cancer that is full of circle jerks, overall idiots, and complete chaos, just play the game and have fun for now folks.
Temporary walk-offs on stages aren't worth banning in my personal opinion, but I wouldn't say that's the reason Wuhu Island should be banned:Trust me, I am all for borrowing from games if it helps metagames. No need to reinvent the wheel after all.
I will agree that stages that just aren't competively viable.
But you see, there are Temples, and there are wuhu islands. Temple is of course, a stage that should never be legal. Wuhu island on other hand, shouldn't be banned. It is an entirely fair stage that provides a different feeling then most of the static stage used.
And thats the thing, Wuhu island still offers something to competitive play and yet it is banned. And even more so, people keep bringing up reasons that have been proven false, like walk-offs on temporary stages actually producing effective walk-off camping.
I'm almost certain you haven't read the OP or any of the subsequent messages because you entirely missed the point of this thread, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself.I'm surprised at how this thread haven't even been locked yet. It not only to early to even be considering banning anything and it also very unhealthy for you and the whole entire community. Splatoon isn't even out yet guys, we all only have about 4 hours+ of playtime under our belt. We don't even know what half of the weapons is going to be or how most of the other maps going to be like in a competitive stand point. It just too early, or in other words, counting your chickens before they hatch. Bans are only needed for the worst of worst things in terms of balance. It isn't "Ban this thing because I don't like," and/or, "I bad at the game so it should be banned." You ban because it absolutely digesting in battle and there is almost no ways to beat it with another type of weapon. Unless you want to make our competitive community complete cancer that is full of circle jerks, overall idiots, and complete chaos, just play the game and have fun for now folks.
Eh, don't really want to talk about this due to it being off topic. PM me or something if you are curious.Temporary walk-offs on stages aren't worth banning in my personal opinion, but I wouldn't say that's the reason Wuhu Island should be banned:
1) The bridge transformation has several gaps characters can fall between.
2) Boat transformation meteor smashes.
3) Volcano transformation can kill you.
4) Between transformations, random rocks can hit you and possibly kill you.
Ideally, stages that can outright damage and kill you should be avoided IMO. So while I do think, for example, Halberd is suspect because it has a number of hazards that can kill you or disrupt the flow of the game. But at the very least they are ridiculously telegraphed. So they aren't too bad. Wuhu hazards are continuous or not ridiculously telegraphed.
That's definitely true, but if the top pro team in a game says "Yeah i found the new map okay, but it wasn't lacking in this, this and this." then I'm going to trust their opinion over JoeForumPoster, you know? Not to say that people can't have opinions, but it's normal to trust someone who might know a lot more about the intricacies of a game over some random person on a forum. But in no circumstance should it ever be one person dictating bans or major decisions.Eh, don't really want to talk about this due to it being off topic. PM me or something if you are curious.
Anyway.
About the negative connotation with the word ban.
Personally, I do find it at time it is needed to ban maps/stages etc. I think the issue comes in when people don't test out the stage, or only ban a stage based on what others have said, (mob mentality).
It is very easy for maps and stages to be banned over because someone high up in the community said so, and then everyone else agreed with them despite not knowing anything about the map themselves. It is the esport aspect of it that people hate.
Well the thread was for one, to identify the fact that people seem to overreact at the sight of the word "ban". And also to emphasize that in shooters, especially regarding maps, excluding things from competitive is normal and common and healthy and beneficial for competitive.Ok, then what is this thread even for then? The OP sounds like a personally blog more than anything, what is there to "discuss" about it? How banning could be a good or bad thing? I maybe sounding like a idiot here but I don't understand what you even trying to say and your quote doesn't help.