Extended Team Match Ruleset Proposition (for pickup matches and league play)

[flc]

From what I've observed thus far, the way we're approaching match structure is very much tailored toward the kinds of shorter matches that would allow a LAN tournament to run quickly and efficiently over the course of a weekend, with the added upshot of forcing teams to play as many map/gametype combinations as possible. In my opinion, this is not ideal, and it should not be considered as standard in the long run. I believe that LAN tournaments, even with LAN lobbies, are going to be far too complicated to run at all but the largest of tournaments, and we should therefore be designing a ruleset around an online environment.

My concerns are as follows:

• In BoX series that involve a map rotation, we have a concept of "neutral" stages that either do not favour either player/team or that favour both teams the least out of the maps that are played. This neutral stage can be played either first (as in Smash) or last (as in many FPS games--incidentally, I'm referring to this game as a FPS because it plays more like a FPS than a TPS). I believe that the neutral stage being played first is the lesser option for a FPS game, both from a spectator's perspective and from a player's perspective. Neutral stage being played last, on the other hand, serves as both a more appropriate tiebreaker and is more interesting from a spectator's perspective.
• Map rotations that do not allow for any kind of weapon switches mid-game tend to polarise strategies, in that you either go as safe as possible or you go for a crazy all-in strategy.
• Weapon selection is either blind pick (which guarantees that the above scenario will occur), draft (which will become a boring waste of time for the most part no matter the limitations), or picked publicly before maps are known (which forces teams to play as safely as possible). I believe @Danny had the right idea with having teams determine a map pool at the start of a set, which would make the latter option less awful, but I think it's still not good enough.
• Map and gametype selection is currently a significant problem, with nobody yet suggesting a decent way to reconcile the two. Gametype rotations are not ideal if map counterpicks are used, and single gametypes are a terrible idea this early into the game's competitive life. I believe that we should promote competence in as many modes as possible.
• Too many people are trying to treat this game as something it's not, or otherwise implying that the logic behind other shooters somehow does not apply here, and it's usually out of some misunderstanding of competitive FPS fundamentals ("other shooters are about aim but splatoon is about movement!" or "splatoon has defined roles so it's a moba!" lol). This would not be a problem, but it's leaking into and influencing competitive ruleset discussions.
• LAN tournaments are going to be a logistical nightmare even with the rumoured (or was it actually confirmed?) LAN mode. Damage to gamepads would be pretty catastrophic given the amount of money they cost and how fragile the screens are (and how angry some people can get). Gamepad signals are knocked around by wireless interference (even in my apartment with a modest ~30 wireless connections in close proximity, I sometimes have problems), and observing even a single station would require some HDMI splitting witchcraft that I'm not even sure is possible for most venues. Not to mention the ridiculous amount of bandwidth that this game uses and the gear sub-abilities meaning a great deal (mainly for 3K Scopes stacking damage up).
• Online host advantage. I don't know if it's even a thing (some people say it is, some say it isn't; I've never seen anything to lead me to believe it exists, but I've also not proved it false), but games that have a significant latency advantage for one team over another or hosts that have unstable connections may become a factor that needs addressing.

My proposal is the following:
(note: terminology is just for the sake of communication here, and is not intended to be used in a final version of these rules)

1. For pick-up games, the team that requests a match (either directly or generally) is the Challenger; the team that accepts the match is the Opponent.
2. Seven map/gametype combinations are picked by a random number generator or tournament organiser. Options include:
   • A neutral party (someone unaffiliated with either team) uses random.org to select seven unique numbers from 1 to (number of maps * number of gametypes); maps have a predetermined number assigned to them that is readily available (with a timestamped screenshot to prevent disputes)
   • The Opponent randomises four maps, and the Challenger randomises three maps (with timestamped screenshots if people feel like abusing peoples' trust)
   • A referee or tournament organiser picks the maps manually if the match is being played in a tournament setting
   • Note: this would allow for specific map/gametype combinations to be removed from competitive play on an individual basis; for example, Zones@Arowana might be deemed uncompetitive, but Tower@Arowana might be fine
3. Map/gametype combinations are drafted in the following manner:
   • Challenger bans one map.
   • Opponent bans one map.
   • Opponent picks one map. This map will be played first.
   • Challenger picks one map. This map will be played second.
   • Opponent bans one map.
   • Challenger bans one map.
   • The last remaining map will be played third.
4. Each individual game in a set is played in 3 rounds, with alternating sides if possible.
   • In other words, you would play the first map in a Bo3, the second map in a Bo3, and the final map in a Bo3 to determine the winner.
5. Weapon selection is blind and takes place between every round.
6. One player substitution is allowed in any given set, but can take place between any round.
7. The team that picked the map hosts the lobby. The Opponent hosts the tiebreaker room.

Possible modifications:
- If teams wish to play a longer set, the initial stage selection would be n*2+1 (where n is the desired set length, i.e. 3 for bo3) map/gametype combinations. Draft would continue in a 1 ban, 1 pick pattern until all maps have been decided.
- TOs may wish to enforce a map or gametype uniqueness clause (i.e. whatshisface's stupid rule). I would personally lean more toward map uniqueness. Alternatively, TOs may wish to restrict the pool to containing no more than two of the same map (so you could have zones@arowana and tower@arowana in the same pool, but not zones@arowana, tower@arowana and rainmaker@arowana all in the same pool)
- If Bo3 games are too short or too volatile, a switch to Bo5 or even Bo7 would be simple and practical.
- A veto system, wherein each team can request that one map be removed from the pool and replaced with another after the map pool has been determined.
- Restrictions on how many weapons can be changed between rounds (would be a pain in the *** to enforce).

Map/Gametype Listing would look something like:
[1] Splat Zones @ Arowana Mall
[2] Tower Control @ Arowana Mall
[3] Rainmaker @ Arowana Mall
[4] Splat Zones @ Urchin Underpass
... and so on down to
[30] Rainmaker @ Camp Triggerfish.

So say you went to random.org and rolled 27, 2, 6, 18, 9, 21, 30, you would then search for the maps that these numbers correspond to and that would be your map pool for the game. The shorthand for these would naturally be Gametype@Map or something similar.

Removing unwanted map/gametype combinations from the pool would be a simple matter of removing them from this centralised list once teams reach a consensus, but this should not be considered for at least two months after the map or mode is initially released (as a rough guideline). Likewise, adding new maps and gametypes as they're released would only require adding them to this list.

Reasoning:
The "neutral" stage is the stage that neither team picks or bans (even though the final ban is effectively "picking" the final stage out of a pool of two). As a result, the final stage in the set should be as close to neutral as possible, thus giving us a neutral stage as the final game.

The reason for the round-based system is simple: it allows teams to run a variety of strategies. It allows teams to adapt to each other over the course of a set, instead of having all-in coinflip strats taking entire games and being heavily abusable (winning the first round with a cheese strat = you get last counterpick with some systems currently in place). It also results in a more cerebral set, where teams are able to settle into a map and start working a variety of strategies instead of being forced to run the safest possible rollout on each map.

Weapon selection for the first round suffers from the same problems as usual, but teams can then shape their weapon selections in subsequent rounds around what was giving them trouble in the first round, switch up player roles as need be, regroup, and so on. This could happen with single-round games too, but maps are just as important as gametypes for FPS games, and being able to adjust weapons during a map is far too important.

Treating each map/gametype combination as unique (or at least semi-unique) removes the problem of reconciling maps and gametypes almost entirely. I suspect that many teams will want to avoid three Moray Towers maps in a pool, for example, but I also suspect that it might be one of the better ways to force teams to play maps outside their comfort zone, thus developing the map meta.

This ruleset is very similar to those used in other FPS games (mainly CS:GO). The other main stage selection method, which is basically that the organisers pick or randomise it and teams just play what they're given, requires that the metagame be sufficiently developed that only the very best maps are in the rotation. We are not at this point, and will not be at this point for about six months. Longer, if people refuse to play on certain maps because they suck in solo queue. If we as a community have not played at least 1000 full Bo3 or Bo5 games on Moray in each mode before everyone tries to ban it, I'm going to be livid. This isn't Smash, people, obvious reasons for banning stages do not exist, and even if they did (the closest thing to which being maps where chargers cannot set up without being in each others' ranges), new weapon types could flip that reasoning on its head.

Finally, this is a ruleset aimed at one-off matches that people either play in a pick-up game scenario or as part of a league/round robin or extended-duration tournament. It is not designed for a large, open-entry tournament that is to be held over a weekend. It would be possible to run this ruleset with an invite bracket (online qualifiers for top 16 then LAN the rest sort of thing), but note that matches will take anywhere from 15 to 60 minutes in this current "Bo3o3" setting.



Naturally, this is a proposition and is therefore neither final nor ideal. Feel free to share any improvements or other constructive feedback.

 

[CutestFish]

This is a good post but I think some of your suggestions/ideas are a little too complicated to be done easily. There are probably easier solutions.

 

[Agosta44]

I'm assuming that loser picks + no repeats is out of the question for rulesets at this point. RIP simplicity.

 

[Box]

If nothing else, this format heavily promotes adaptability among teams. Because of that, I would imagine it would lead to quicker development of the meta across a broad variety of stages, modes, and weapons. Ultimately the ruleset should consolidate around what is deemed to offer the best competition but as you mention, that is far away.

The main challenge is if people can accept the RNG as the ultimate decider of what maps are played. If teams decide that certain random map pools are fairer than others, then this ruleset could struggle. In pickup games, the real prize is the satisfaction of winning and the reputation that it brings. If sets on Walleye are seen as more legitimate than those on Arowana, then that's a real problem.

 

[flc]

I'm assuming that loser picks + no repeats is out of the question for rulesets at this point. RIP simplicity.

this could happen if we weren't having to deal with both modes and maps and a community that is very likely to complain about the modes they don't like

also, that system has tremendous flaws in fps games (or any other game where blind decisions can win games before they've started).

 

[Magnet-Alpha]

I like your ruleset, it allows a lot of tactics plays and diversity and I don't see much to change. However, map uniqueness (so there's not 2 times arowana in different gameplays for example) seems like a must for me, because of a point I would like to abord, it's diversity. This game has for now 10 maps and 3 more gametypes, and more are to come. I find it not optimal that your ruleset restrict all those possibility to 3 maps+gametype, even if you can change strategy, first because those can be 3 maps one team just know all places, so it may not reflect teams' global level (even more if maps have similar attributes/common strategies), but also because it can restrict gametype (so maybe gametype uniqueness also ?).

Second point would be the time. Without counting maps decision, each game would take 2 minutes at least (that's a supposition, i don't really know the time for a quick 100-0 tower), to 5 minutes for no KO, and that will be for 6 to 9 maps, so from 12 mins to 45 mins, add to this 2-3 mins between maps for weapon decision, game time and stuff, and 5-10 mins for lobby + maps random + striking. You have at least about half an hour, that's okay, to much more, sometimes too much for a game that allows quick games. So it may be okay for leagues, but I don't see it played anywhere else. Even if it may be not that long, don't forget that it's, from a base, a Bo3, 3 maps, so the lightest extent of this. (algorithm taught me a lot about complexity x) )

Anyway, for me a general ruleset, mainly for pickup match, would better be a simple Bo5 or Bo7, but with some conditions of map and gametype uniqueness. then my preference would be a randomized set of maps + gametype (I already thought of doing a special randomizer, or maybe using your random system), with no repeat as long as all maps/gametype have not already been taken (that's for gametypes to turn). this would allow much diversity and the teams would have to adapt with a strategy for each map, working or not, I think it would show more the global level of a team, while allowing quicker games. That would be another type of adaptability.

For additionnal ruling, there may be a pool of X players to alternate and changing weapon/gear between each map. In the end I like your ruleset, but it should only be applied for leagues with weekly based wars.

 

[Kbot]

Okay, I'm going to start and say that this is obviously a much thought out proposal. I have taken the time to read this, and now I'm going to throw my highly opinionated views in on the matter.
First thing is first: I come from a mostly Smash background. However, I do not go to tournaments, compete in ladders, etc. with the community, I just watch big tournaments and I understand how the ruleset works. I come from NO FPS background. So a lot of things I say will be mostly based on that.

Overall point 1: I understand that this game is going to be a disaster to run local tournaments with. Especially with people wanting their specific gear. I understand that this ruleset is based around Online, as it should. However, this does not mean that matches should be longer just because they are held online. Therefore, the possibility of playing 9 games frightens me with this setup. I would suggest a single set of Bo5 or Bo7.

Overall point 2: I believe that having a gametype (map + mode = gametype, for my post) pool is a great idea. I 100% agree with that. Here's where I get specific.


Gametype Pool creation: I feel like, no matter how you do it, there should be an even amount of maps chosen by each team. Regardless of who is the opponent/chalenger.
Match Progression: Fair enough. That's a decent way to go about it. The one thing that I believe in is the 'neutral' map in your case should be played first. It seems like a nice stating ground to get to know your opponent, not playing to their own strengths.

Now, I'll do a bit of detail-oriented things which I disagree with.

• Each individual game in a set is played in 3 rounds, with alternating sides if possible.
  • In other words, you would play the first map in a Bo3, the second map in a Bo3, and the final map in a Bo3 to determine the winner.

No thanks. The main point of this game is to "Stay Fresh." I think going back to the same exact gametype would get very stale very quickly. Even though these are online, I think that this would be way to long for a single match.

• Weapon selection is blind and takes place between every round.

Assuming you're talking about blind from eachother, Yeah, I understand that. However, I feel like the map should be locked in ahead of time as to let players choose their weapon.

• One player substitution is allowed in any given set, but can take place between any round.

I feel like, if you're going to place a restriction on this, you should at least make it 2 people. I think that's how I understand the rule (between games within the Bo3 sets, right?)

- TOs may wish to enforce a map or gametype uniqueness clause (i.e. whatshisface's stupid rule). I would personally lean more toward map uniqueness. Alternatively, TOs may wish to restrict the pool to containing no more than two of the same map (so you could have zones@arowana and tower@arowana in the same pool, but not zones@arowana, tower@arowana and rainmaker@arowana all in the same pool)

I feel like this should be in effect 100% of the time. No matter whether in a tournament or not.

- A veto system, wherein each team can request that one map be removed from the pool and replaced with another after the map pool has been determined.

Vetos would be good, but I don't know if they're quite necessary. It's something where each team should already be getting something that they want in their choice of one map.

In short, this is a very good suggestion, but it seems pretty complicated and relatively long. Just my thoughts though. Take them how you wish.

 

[River09]

So if I get this right this ruleset forces players to adapt to modes and stages and thus quickly developing the meta in these early days. Nice.

@flc Since what you are proposing is an online environment disconnects are going to be an occurrence.
I propose when this does happen the match will stop and have to be restarted. The team with the disconnect will get a number of chances (depending on the length of the set) before they have to forfeit the game if another disconnect should occur. They may not receive any more.

Thoughts?

 

[TheMH]

I propose when this does happen the match will stop and have to be restarted.

You can turn off your Wii U and provoke a disconnect at any time during a match, so matches should only be stopped if the disconnect occurs during the very beginning (maybe first 30 seconds). But still then there is a high chance that there will be situations where one team will abuse such a rule when they are losing.

Disconnects are an issue, though, as they can happen and mean practially a loss for the team which gets one (worse than in most other games). So we will need definitely regulations for them.

 

[Manta]

I could easily see this as being the basis of the final ruleset, very well done.Although I agree with @KTKres in that maps should be locked in ahead of time as to let players choose their weapon.

 

[flc]

I could easily see this as being the basis of the final ruleset, very well done.Although I agree with @KTKres in that maps should be locked in ahead of time as to let players choose their weapon.

The maps are locked in ahead of time, and teams do get to change their weapons three times per game. I was perhaps a little unclear in my communication there.

Overall point 1: I understand that this game is going to be a disaster to run local tournaments with. Especially with people wanting their specific gear. I understand that this ruleset is based around Online, as it should. However, this does not mean that matches should be longer just because they are held online. Therefore, the possibility of playing 9 games frightens me with this setup. I would suggest a single set of Bo5 or Bo7.

Gametype Pool creation: I feel like, no matter how you do it, there should be an even amount of maps chosen by each team. Regardless of who is the opponent/chalenger.
Match Progression: Fair enough. That's a decent way to go about it. The one thing that I believe in is the 'neutral' map in your case should be played first. It seems like a nice stating ground to get to know your opponent, not playing to their own strengths.

Now, I'll do a bit of detail-oriented things which I disagree with.
No thanks. The main point of this game is to "Stay Fresh." I think going back to the same exact gametype would get very stale very quickly. Even though these are online, I think that this would be way to long for a single match.Assuming you're talking about blind from eachother, Yeah, I understand that. However, I feel like the map should be locked in ahead of time as to let players choose their weapon.I feel like, if you're going to place a restriction on this, you should at least make it 2 people. I think that's how I understand the rule (between games within the Bo3 sets, right?)I feel like this should be in effect 100% of the time. No matter whether in a tournament or not.Vetos would be good, but I don't know if they're quite necessary. It's something where each team should already be getting something that they want in their choice of one map.

In short, this is a very good suggestion, but it seems pretty complicated and relatively long. Just my thoughts though. Take them how you wish.

I've said that this ruleset could be extended further, but it could also be made into Bo1 rounds for that sort of thing. My concern is that Bo1 rounds reward gimmick lineups and cheese and therefore teams have too much of a reason to stick to a super safe weapon lineup. It gives teams a reason to experiment with weapons without needing to go all-in to do so, which I believe is just as important as teams being forced to play multiple maps and modes.

The opponent/challenger picks is not ideal (it's more so that teams don't need a third party to complete a match), and I would suggest that a web app of some sort should be developed that teams can use for the stage drafting process.

Teams, unlike individual players, tend to study other teams to figure out what their tendencies are in maps, weapons, and rollouts, so I don't think that starting on a "strong" map for one team or the other is that much of a problem. If you go into the first game with the mentality that "this is their map so we might struggle" or "this is our map so we should do well", it's not anywhere near as likely to give one team a psychological edge as losing to some gimmick strategy on the "neutral" map. The neutral stage being last means that as the game progresses, teams can figure out more and more about each other and the team that is best on the day should win said neutral map.

Weapon selection is blind between rounds, as in, if the set goes the full 9 rounds, you select weapons 9 times, and the maps being locked in is literally the first thing that happens after a match is accepted. The substitution rule is to discourage teams from bringing in the A-team when they're losing (since this is a thing that will happen), while still allowing for people to swap out players that have internet problems or whatever. Two substitutions would probably be fine.

As for the "stay fresh" thing: I don't think this is a valid reason to disagree with a ruleset. People already play the same two maps for four hours at a time (which is one of the biggest problems this game has, to be fair), but playing two or three rounds with meaningful strategy progression between each is not going to make things stale. Furthermore, even if every single map is good enough for competitive play, 10 (and eventually 16) maps is not going to be fresh indefinitely. I think most people are already sick of some of the narrower (strategically-speaking, that is) maps, and playing single-round games isn't going to change that.

 

[Flying_Tortoise]

yep, that web app would help out very much. Besides that, it's really well thought out. I don't see anything that needs to be addressed. Time is a little worrisome but I can't think of an alternative way to fix that

 

[Kbot]

Sorry this is a bit overdue, I guess I should have come up with this sooner. Just looking over the Competitive board and saw this. "Oh, probably oughta go back to that :p "

As for the "stay fresh" thing: I don't think this is a valid reason to disagree with a ruleset. People already play the same two maps for four hours at a time (which is one of the biggest problems this game has, to be fair), but playing two or three rounds with meaningful strategy progression between each is not going to make things stale. Furthermore, even if every single map is good enough for competitive play, 10 (and eventually 16) maps is not going to be fresh indefinitely. I think most people are already sick of some of the narrower (strategically-speaking, that is) maps, and playing single-round games isn't going to change that.

Well, if we do want to appeal to a spectating audience (which isn't exactly 'necessary' but it sure would help), seeing the same map get played over 2-3 times in a set would get very stale very quickly. I think a wider variety will change things up, ultimately having to change a team's playstyle based on a map (as we all know all maps are very different). It will be interesting to see how a match swings based upon maps. Yes, seeing a team progress with different approaches in the same set might be neat, but I feel like only the trained eyes would appreciate that. Not so much the casual viewer who goes "Oh, look. A Splatoon tourney. Let's check it out for a bit."

Teams, unlike individual players, tend to study other teams to figure out what their tendencies are in maps, weapons, and rollouts, so I don't think that starting on a "strong" map for one team or the other is that much of a problem. If you go into the first game with the mentality that "this is their map so we might struggle" or "this is our map so we should do well", it's not anywhere near as likely to give one team a psychological edge as losing to some gimmick strategy on the "neutral" map. The neutral stage being last means that as the game progresses, teams can figure out more and more about each other and the team that is best on the day should win said neutral map.

I can understand how it may not seem to matter, but I think momentum might have a little bit to do with this game. If a team plays their first match, loose, then get discouraged, it's hard to say how they will develop. Plus, going in to the Challenger's map without fully knowing their playstyle might be an issue, only to go to a your map where now you have the upper hand of knowing their playstyle and coming to your map.

 

[Box]

I think you're forgetting, KTKres, that this ruleset is designed to facilitate the development of the metagame. Spectators and tourney considerations don't really enter into it.

After playing a few scrims and matches on squad battle, I'm more strongly in favor of multiple games on the same map. In some of these ranked modes, it's really easy to get wiped in like 90 seconds. I find that it's hard to learn from games like that, either as the winner or the loser. Multiple games on the same map gives teams a chance to adapt and learn.

 

[Kbot]

I think you're forgetting, KTKres, that this ruleset is designed to facilitate the development of the metagame. Spectators and tourney considerations don't really enter into it.

After playing a few scrims and matches on squad battle, I'm more strongly in favor of multiple games on the same map. In some of these ranked modes, it's really easy to get wiped in like 90 seconds. I find that it's hard to learn from games like that, either as the winner or the loser. Multiple games on the same map gives teams a chance to adapt and learn.

Fair enough. I just feel like a solid ruleset that we go with should take everything into consideration, and eventually we need to adopt one ruleset for everything, with only making slight modifications for clan wars/tourney play.

Yes, it is really easy to get wiped. I totally agree with that. But a team must be ready and have a strategy to prevent this from happening. Once the meta finds a way around things like snipers without 3 people going after them, I think wipes are going to be less of a problem. Just a thought.

 

[ndayadn]

I think the point is that teams won't be able to have that opportunity if the map-gametype combo is taken away from them after a single match (in something like a counterpick system). Multiple games on the same map help the strategies as well as knowledge as to why there was a loss build over the course of a set

 

[Drez]

I think you're forgetting, KTKres, that this ruleset is designed to facilitate the development of the metagame. Spectators and tourney considerations don't really enter into it.

After playing a few scrims and matches on squad battle, I'm more strongly in favor of multiple games on the same map. In some of these ranked modes, it's really easy to get wiped in like 90 seconds. I find that it's hard to learn from games like that, either as the winner or the loser. Multiple games on the same map gives teams a chance to adapt and learn.

If you build it, they will come.

 

[Box]

If you build it, they will come.

Yeah I'm working on it. I never really got around to learning Javascript so I can't just whip something up in an hour.

 

[Kosaki]

I'm fine with this ruleset proposition in the general idea.
Although, I'm against one player-swapping being allowed between rounds.
This will let people "sleep on" certain maps or modes imho.

I also think it will be really hard to impose this kind of ruleset to smaller teams.
In our team, we use a Bo7 all modes variation of the Ink or Squid tournament ruleset.
And small teams already find this ruleset too "complicated" because of the stage/mode striking and bans system, yet being the fairest competitive ruleset to date that has been put in use.
...

EDIT : Btw, I don't believe cheese strats in Splatoon are that big of a deal really since you can always see the opponents' team composition at the beginning.
Plus, if a so-called cheese strat has been proven strong, you should always expect to deal with it at some point.

 

[flc]

bumping this thread due to some rainmaker things

seems pretty clear that blitz plays with cheese comps are definitely a thing in rainmaker, especially on maps like blackbelly where you can literally run mid to goal in under 10 seconds

this being the case, I would propose that:
Under the ruleset in the OP...
Splat Zones would remain Bo3
Tower Control would remain Bo3
Rainmaker would be Bo5 instead of Bo3

So, a gametype sequence of
=> Arowana Zones
=> Mackerel Tower
=> Moray Rainmaker
would be bo3, bo3, bo5.

Rainmaker right now is probably fine, but I can guarantee that the better people get, the shorter the games will be. 100-0 blitz plays are far too effective on all but the largest of maps.