Discussion on Weapon Limits in Tournament

[BestTeaMaker]

So, I know there's been some talk about banning weapons, and there's definitely been some weapons seeing prominent use in competitive play.

Very recently, in Japan, the KNT Cup is the first known tournament to have a limit on the following:

• 1 splash wall per team
• 1 kraken per team

http://ch.nicovideo.jp/rinsane526/blomaga/ar892188

Just curious, what are your thoughts on this type of rule? Is it warranted, considering how much walls and Kraken (the .96 gal deco being a prominent use of both) are used by players? Or is this probably not a good idea to use?

 

[Aweshucks]

It's certainly an interesting approach and I would be interested in seeing how that japanese tournament turns out, but I don't think it's the right way to go. I don't think that walls and kraken are nearly prominent enough to warrant limits on them, and in general I am against limiting teams' options any more than necessary

 

[Chewi]

That would be the start of a slippery slope. Unless something is absolutely gamebreaking, where would the line be drawn between allowed vs not allowed?

 

[Zero Emission]

I think a reasonable limit would be exclusive to tower control to prevent kraken spam tower pushes since they are much harder to push off than Bubblers, and that should be IT.

Walls are fine. One Kraken per team for tower sounds like a good compromise and encourage team to experiment with weapon diversity.

 

[LMG]

It's certainly an interesting approach and I would be interested in seeing how that japanese tournament turns out, but I don't think it's the right way to go. I don't think that walls and kraken are nearly prominent enough to warrant limits on them, and in general I am against limiting teams' options any more than necessary

In regards to the Splash Wall limit, I'd guess they want to avoid having an "infinite loop of Splash Walls" where several members of a team take turns putting them down with little to no downtime. If only one person is putting up walls, there's a brief moment between one wall being destroyed and the next one coming up, aside of the fact that they would have to waste some time getting enough ink for the next one unless they run Ink Saver (sub) and Ink Recovery Up

 

[Krozo]

Honestly, limiting the game this early is a terrible idea, if there is an overpowering strategy we need to take some time to try to overcome it before we immediately ban it. This pushes the meta of the game much more quickly. If we start limiting team comps it will also turn people away from joining the competitive community if all we do is limit what they can do in the game.

The only time I think banning would be a good option would be if a weapon is so good that all 8 people in a game would have to use it for it to be a close game. As of now not even 4 krakens and walls on a team is that beneficial. If a strategy can be beaten, then it doesn't need to be banned.

 

[LockeExile]

That would be the start of a slippery slope. Unless something is absolutely gamebreaking, where would the line be drawn between allowed vs not allowed?

There's a big difference between "limited" and "not allowed", and there's no slippery slope from the former to the latter. Walls and krakens aren't "gamebreaking" on their own, but when games are often determined my which team has more (anyone care to gather data on this?) then they create an arguably unhealthy meta which should be regulated (not banned).

I don't disagree that there might be a slippery slope between limiting two things and limiting all the things though. And to be extra clear, I have no data indicating how quantity of walls and krakens impacts games, and no opinion at this time on whether limiting them is a good move.

 

[Chewi]

There's a big difference between "limited" and "not allowed", and there's no slippery slope from the former to the latter. Walls and krakens aren't "gamebreaking" on their own, but when games are often determined my which team has more (anyone care to gather data on this?) then they create an arguably unhealthy meta which should be regulated (not banned).

I don't disagree that there might be a slippery slope between limiting two things and limiting all the things though. And to be extra clear, I have no data indicating how quantity of walls and krakens impacts games, and no opinion at this time on whether limiting them is a good move.

I don't know, it may be a difference of opinion, but "limiting" vs "not-allowed" is just semantics IMO. Either way, it's setting external limitations on what weapon I as a player (or we as a team) can choose. Limiting number seems even more arbitrary than restricting something altogether. How many krakens/walls are too many? 2, 3, 4?

I think there were some games in Inkstorm that heavily used walls/kraken (bSGG vs Memories on Port Mackerel TC comes to mind most readily), but I don't believe that it offered so overwhelming an advantage to be banned. Sample size is still small though.

 

[Agosta44]

Thank god Japan brought this up instead of me. If Nintendo doesn't make any changes to Kraken or Splash Wall there definitely needs to be a conversation about limits.

 

[Mateiüsthesquidwarrior]

I don't see why there should be any banned/limited weapons or specials. Though, of course, it does make sense to have a balanced team, so realistically you probably wouldn't want more than one or maybe two krakens on your team.

So really I think any limiting would happen naturally. As for banning weapons or specials, there aren't really any that come to mind. All have some sort of drawback to make up for being extremely good in some other respect.

 

[SupaTim]

Given the incoming update, I don't think this is warranted.

If Nintendo continues to do balance updates, then I think it is our responsibility as a community to push the limits as far as possible. If that means chaining krakens on tower control, then so be it.

If we didn't get balance updates though, then something should probably be done by the community. Stagnation is bad.

 

[MintChipper]

Thank god Japan brought this up instead of me. If Nintendo doesn't make any changes to Kraken or Splash Wall there definitely needs to be a conversation about limits.

Ask and you shall receive.

 

[Krozo]

Given the incoming update, I don't think this is warranted.

If Nintendo continues to do balance updates, then I think it is our responsibility as a community to push the limits as far as possible. If that means chaining krakens on tower control, then so be it.

If we didn't get balance updates though, then something should probably be done by the community. Stagnation is bad.

I agree. Stagnation is bad for sure, but we definitely need more time and countering before anything drastic happens.

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

I could get behind a limit on splash walls.

 

[[EJ]_Locke]

If there was not a patch coming on monday, I would be all for limiting splash walls. That sub weapon is so abusable, and it guarantees you will win any 1v1 confrontation given a full tank of ink. You can also get out of some incredibly tough situations by throwing it against the wall and hiding behind it. My real question is what Yugo is going to do now that .52 Gal has less use than before. Same thing for Nekura.

 

[Agosta44]

Ask and you shall receive.

Honestly, everything I've complained about before notes came out is being changed.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I would say no limits in general. There are few scenarios where having multiple weapons, subs, or specials can be perceived as broken. Dealing with multiple enemy kraken or bubbler in splatzones can immediately dismantle the other team for example. However, as other have mentioned, with both the kraken and splash walls getting nerfed soon, I don't think it will be necessary to limit them.

I do want ask, how would anyone feel about limiting snipers on Moray Towers? One amazing charger can be annoying, but manageable. Two amazing chargers can utterly wall the other team if they do not have the proper weapons to counter snipers. Like I said before, I'm not really in favor of limits, but I could see an exception like this, as chargers have a near ridiculous advantage over most other weapons on that map.

 

[[EJ]_Locke]

I do want ask, how would anyone feel about limiting snipers on Moray Towers? One amazing charger can be annoying, but manageable. Two amazing chargers can utterly wall the other team if they do not have the proper weapons to counter snipers. Like I said before, I'm not really in favor of limits, but I could see an exception like this, as chargers have a near ridiculous advantage over most other weapons on that map.

If two snipers are on the other team that means a lower chance of pushing the objective and being able to stall after for them. In neutral they could annihilate everyone. But in advantage and disadvantage states they are a liability. This applies more to rainmaker and tower control than splat zones, but the point still stands. The advantage is not ridiculous at all. Dealing with snipers on moray is a matter of not advertising yourself and making yourself an easy target.

 

[Hero of Lime]

If two snipers are on the other team that means a lower chance of pushing the objective and being able to stall after for them. In neutral they could annihilate everyone. But in advantage and disadvantage states they are a liability. This applies more to rainmaker and tower control than splat zones, but the point still stands. The advantage is not ridiculous at all. Dealing with snipers on moray is a matter of not advertising yourself and making yourself an easy target.

I've encountered enough snipers who can still push the objective just fine. On Moray towers especially, as there are many places a sniper can set up shop much closer to the objective than the other team would like. Two snipers taking up two very good positions is not hard to imagine either, I've seen it enough to know how dangerous two snipers can be on Moray Towers, even on Tower Control and Rainmaker. Assuming their other two teammates are halfway decent, of course.

Also, making the point about not making yourself an "easy target" is easier said than done when it comes to highly skilled snipers on Moray. First of all, I still have three other enemies to worry about, so if I expose myself to take out an immediate threat, the sniper can quickly get a revenge kill. Second, if you are like me, and you mainly use short and medium range weapons, my team will probably lose if I just sit there and not "advertise" myself.

edit: I will concede Moray Towers in ranked allows for more sneaky approaches, but I still feel it's not easy to make a safe approach compared to most other stages.

 

[[EJ]_Locke]

I've encountered enough snipers who can still push the objective just fine. On Moray towers especially, as there are many places a sniper can set up shop much closer to the objective than the other team would like.

if you are like me, and you mainly use short and medium range weapons, my team will probably lose if I just sit there and not "advertise" myself.

1.Care to explain their tactics/ sniper spots? It would be interesting if there was a place a 3k could camp that could overcome the hindrance of the vertical ramps. You know, since shooting at random heads popping up shooting on the overlook and high ramp won't get you any kills at all. And, also because camping in the zone/ sneak ramp will expose you to opposing snipers and close range fighters that drop from the overlook. Also, if a 3k actually could do something that wasn't pointless pressure sniping from the zone/ burst bombing the zone ramp I think you should share it with us because that could change the meta of moray towers.
2. I use all weapons, the ones listed in my signature are the ones I used to get to S+ a month ago.