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

[Chipolte]

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.

quit yappin

 

[Power]

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.

PhD in Yapology

 

[Trent]

quit happin

 

[Setu]

Yeah bruh you yap too much

 

[Hope]

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.

quit yappin

 

[HubandLux]

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.

quit yappin

 

[Dragonuto]

Actually a Yapper bro like shush your lips.

 

[Rissa]

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.

quit yappin

 

[Funky_Eevee]

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.

professional yapper

 

[Good James Harden]

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.

this is a really in depth proposal and deep dive. thank you for the insight!

 

[Evil James Harden]

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.

damn you talk a lot