Ink or Sink Testfire Tournament Feedback Thread

[Draayder]

Consistency and transparency. From what I saw in the thread the same situations were being handled differently for different groups. One set of 2 teams couldn't find a time to play, both get DQd, another set can't so they play 3v3, and so on. One team needs a sub and they get them, another is told absolutely no new subs, etc. It's frustrating to see.

This might be due to having multiple people with power all making their own calls, but you guys really need to sit down and decide beforehand. Make an internal document or something that says "if two teams can't fight for x reason do y, if a team wants a sub do x if y or z if q" and so on. Make it public when it's all hammered out and STICK TO IT.

Outside of that I mostly echo other suggestions, no turf, shorter time of play, change up the stage selection.

 

[Agosta44]

Also put a hardcap for the map striking. Taking 5+ minutes to ban 3 stages is ridiculous. It shouldn't take more than 90 seconds.

 

[GameGalaxy64]

I'm not really in the mood for another Ink or Sink. And it's not just because the TOs stumbled over every little decision and went back on almost half of their rules. It's because they felt entitled to secretly fix the bracket while lying about it.

Here's the quote from the IoS thread that got me:


You can't do this. It's not the fact that the brackets were changed. The issue I have when I read this is that Math believes he's entitled to have his tournament play out in a certain way without telling people. How can I trust any decision or random selection to be fair when I know the person making is willing to secretly do whatever they want if it makes the tournament more interesting? If the next Ink or Sink uses predetermined random map pools decided by the TOs and Arowana Mall doesn't appear in any of the finals, how will I know if that's because the maps were random or because the TOs thought it wouldn't be an interesting map to watch? I wouldn't have any reason to trust them if I suspected any rigging took place because they unapologeticly declare that they don't care that rigging took place. It's worse if some edge case on the rules happens and I can't trust the TOs to make the proper call because I know they care more about an exciting tournament than fairness and transparency.

Keep in mind Math says this right after RoyLee completely denies any bracket rigging took place "End. Of. Story." I also called them on rigging the brackets before they were even published and they still had the nerve to do it. I'm disappointed that I didn't check the brackets more thoroughly when they were posted.

I would have called this out at the time it was posted if Kat hadn't said he would ban people for continuing discussion about it. Now we have a feedback thread where it it certainly appropriate.

You can't really make that assumption. A lot of teams didn't want to play other teams from their squad Round 1, it was for the better.

Although, I see where you are coming from with the transparency. The TOs should tell us everything they are doing.

 

[GameGalaxy64]

I've been to countless AAU basketball tournaments and the thing that's different about those and this is that the teams are a lot more disciplined in basketball. They show up on time and are ready to play. (This was directed towards the teams)

TOs, you need to treat it like that, a real tournament. Stick to your rules and enforce them. Sometimes you have to be the bad guy that nobody likes, kinda like the head of a big project; you have to keep it going.

 

[ArcEmpyreus]

Yeah. You guys need a strict rule hardass with more transparency.

Turf war can GTFO

Also why that method for map/mode choices? Is there any reason why you did it the way you did? I don't feel maps should be banned by the players through the whole thing, Just Officially by the TO's like of Moray is causing issues, the TO's get together and make an official decision, that's what you're for.

As far as choosing maps/modes why don't you have the loser of the previous match choose game mode and Map.

First map/mode is at "random" With Bans (Each team bans a mode a two maps they Don't want to see for the first match. So one team get's lucky they don't get to choose the next map. Best of 5. Maps can't be chosen more than once, modes never twice in a row.

Theoretically wouldn't this prove what teams really are the better players? As they excel even in worse off situations?


For Example, Two teams (A | B)

Round 1: Random w/ Bans (Flounder Heights | Tower Control) Winner: Team A

Round 2: Team B's Choice (Camp Triggerfish | Rainmaker) Winner: Team A

Round 3: Team B's Choice (Urchin Underpass | Splat Zone) Winner: Team B

Round 4: Team A's Choice (Arowana Mall | Rainmaker) Winner Team A

Winner Team A

Just a thought. If anyone knows why tourny's are done the way they did it let me know. Seems... Odd to me since we're trying to determine who is the best and all.

 

[WydrA]

I haven't been watching the tourney closely enough to give proper feedback, but I will throw my ballot in with galaxy. Other than the transprency, i see no issue with making sure people from the same squad don't end up fighting first round. From my understanding minor fixed like that are pretty common in tournaments in sports and esports alike (although it's usually more making sure top level players don't face off instead of squads). As long as the rule is applied for every squad, I see no issue with making it so that people aren't pitted against people who are practically their team members.

 

[Agosta44]

Yeah. You guys need a strict rule hardass with more transparency.

Turf war can GTFO

Also why that method for map/mode choices? Is there any reason why you did it the way you did? I don't feel maps should be banned by the players through the whole thing, Just Officially by the TO's like of Moray is causing issues, the TO's get together and make an official decision, that's what you're for.

As far as choosing maps/modes why don't you have the loser of the previous match choose game mode and Map.

First map/mode is at "random" With Bans (Each team bans a mode a two maps they Don't want to see for the first match. So one team get's lucky they don't get to choose the next map. Best of 5. Maps can't be chosen more than once, modes never twice in a row.

Theoretically wouldn't this prove what teams really are the better players? As they excel even in worse off situations?


For Example, Two teams (A | B)

Round 1: Random w/ Bans (Flounder Heights | Tower Control) Winner: Team A

Round 2: Team B's Choice (Camp Triggerfish | Rainmaker) Winner: Team A

Round 3: Team B's Choice (Urchin Underpass | Splat Zone) Winner: Team B

Round 4: Team A's Choice (Arowana Mall | Rainmaker) Winner Team A

Winner Team A

Just a thought. If anyone knows why tourny's are done the way they did it let me know. Seems... Odd to me since we're trying to determine who is the best and all.

The closing to your post contradicts your suggestions. If we're trying to determine who is "the best", why should tournaments make a global map bans instead of letting players decide? Why let the losing team pick the map and mode with no say of the other team?

Like I had said in my previous posts, I find that alternating between modes each game is better than letting the losing team pick the mode. The strike system also works with Splatoon seeing as some maps are dominated by certain strategies (splash wall on mackerel, eliters on bluefin/moray). Some teams are fine playing those maps as they have a team comp that can counter/stalemate those strats, but others may not feel comfortable playing those maps. Instead of having bias against certain maps and outright banning them (no maps should be banned, only modes), allow the winning team of the previous map decide if they want to give the opponent certain map options. If they are "the best" they will have alternate maps and strategies to win. If you allow them to pick map/mode they will just keep going to back to their good and faithful.

 

[WydrA]

Also throwing my support in for character chosen modes and maps in some form. Creates strategy and adds another level of competitiveness o the game.

 

[GameGalaxy64]

Maybe you could rank individuals rather than teams. That'd be something new.

Edit: Whoops, wrong thread. Thought I was on Splat 25.

 

[Kbot]

Maybe you could rank individuals rather than teams. That'd be something new.

Edit: Whoops, wrong thread. Thought I was on Splat 25.

I thought that was your job. :P Also, I feel like there's not a truly good way to rank individuals. You can't do it based on K : D, cause while somewhat important, it's not essential. And we ain't playing turf anymore.

 

[GameGalaxy64]

I thought that was your job. :p Also, I feel like there's not a truly good way to rank individuals. You can't do it based on K : D, cause while somewhat important, it's not essential. And we ain't playing turf anymore.

Oh yeah... I guess it is. I should really do more sessions...

 

[Box]

I understand and empathize with your frustration. Unfortunately, the seeding of the bracket did not fall under my purview for this tournament. However, I promise that the next bracket will be completely randomized. If you want, I can record the challonge seeding randomization and upload it to my YouTube channel. That goes for anything else you think deserves transparency.

Please remember that the TOs are donating their time and effort to this tournament simply because they want to see the competitive Splatoon community thrive. We are imperfect, not malicious.

Well I get that you're not all the same person and I'm willing to believe that Math decided to play with the brackets on his own, but someone has to take responsibility. I don't care about the bracket being randomized. I actually think it's better to seed it as long as everyone understands the seeding process. The problem is having someone go off-script and start fixing things they don't like about the tournament.

Forgetting the brackets for a moment, I played on Imperious for the tournament. I don't think it's bragging to say that we were expected to do well. I wasn't paying attention to the bracket schedule that much in the tournament, but I noticed that at one point we were pretty far behind in the schedule. Several teams got DQ'd for delaying the bracket. Did we get special treatment because we were expected to do well? I don't actually know, and it's important to be able to trust the TOs to make a fair decision in these situations.

At this point, I'm kind of beating a dead horse because pretty much everyone agrees, but this is something you have to take pretty seriously. If it happens when the stakes are higher, it can take away the legitimacy of the whole tournament. Even though this situation itself isn't a big deal, I feel the need to make the case so strongly because tolerating small violations lays the groundwork for bigger problems.

 

[Nintendome]

Well I get that you're not all the same person and I'm willing to believe that Math decided to play with the brackets on his own, but someone has to take responsibility. I don't care about the bracket being randomized. I actually think it's better to seed it as long as everyone understands the seeding process. The problem is having someone go off-script and start fixing things they don't like about the tournament.

Forgetting the brackets for a moment, I played on Imperious for the tournament. I don't think it's bragging to say that we were expected to do well. I wasn't paying attention to the bracket schedule that much in the tournament, but I noticed that at one point we were pretty far behind in the schedule. Several teams got DQ'd for delaying the bracket. Did we get special treatment because we were expected to do well? I don't actually know, and it's important to be able to trust the TOs to make a fair decision in these situations.

At this point, I'm kind of beating a dead horse because pretty much everyone agrees, but this is something you have to take pretty seriously. If it happens when the stakes are higher, it can take away the legitimacy of the whole tournament. Even though this situation itself isn't a big deal, I feel the need to make the case so strongly because tolerating small violations lays the groundwork for bigger problems.

Things were handled inconsistently because different TOs handled different situations. We're going to make everything much more consistent this time around. Seeing how this was the first Splatoon tournament, no one was 'expected' to do well. That might be a legitimate concern for the next tournament now that teams like Squid Squad Spades have become fan favorites so I will personally make sure there is no favoritism among the TO staff.

 

[ArcEmpyreus]

The closing to your post contradicts your suggestions. If we're trying to determine who is "the best", why should tournaments make a global map bans instead of letting players decide?

The tournament excluding maps is a final choice to determine if the map itself is not conducive to a competitive environment. It is an extreme case and should only be done as a final resort. So No, I don't think it's contradictory, I just didn't provide enough information to complete my thought.

Like I had said in my previous posts, I find that alternating between modes each game is better than letting the losing team pick the mode. The strike system also works with Splatoon seeing as some maps are dominated by certain strategies (splash wall on mackerel, eliters on bluefin/moray). Some teams are fine playing those maps as they have a team comp that can counter/stalemate those strats, but others may not feel comfortable playing those maps. Instead of having bias against certain maps and outright banning them (no maps should be banned, only modes), allow the winning team of the previous map decide if they want to give the opponent certain map options. If they are "the best" they will have alternate maps and strategies to win. If you allow them to pick map/mode they will just keep going to back to their good and faithful.

Well here's a more concise suggestion of what I said. Best of 5, No Turf War, first is random with bans (2 for stages 1 for mode). Loser chooses Next map/mode, No map can be picked more than once, No mode twice in a row.

I feel this exemplifies the point you made here:

If they are "the best" they will have alternate maps and strategies to win. If you allow them to pick map/mode they will just keep going to back to their good and faithful.

They can't keep picking the same map, or the same mode in a row. If the winning team deserved that win, like really deserved it, then they'll win even if the losing team picked something weighed in their favor. It outweighs the random nature of other tournament styles as it allows players to pick and counter pick maps. If the team is good then they'll have strats and alternate strats for all maps/modes. It also adds the level of knowing you opponent into the tournament. I suppose I see your point though. I feel for the most fairness the Random Should be taken out entirely.I don't feel the winner should ever be given more of a leg up, if anything the playing field should remain as even as possible, which is why I suggested the loser picking.

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

2 teams per squad cap
Teams must show their whole roster to validate their teams, so they dont just change names on the fly or something stupid
4 main members and 2 subs max
Loser picks the stage they want, winner picks the mode they want
No ban out right bans on modes, only stages, which will make it illegal to play ether mode on the stage, ban(s) right after match ends
Apply daves stupid rule
plz no turd war and no rainmaker ether

 

[WydrA]

2 squad cap
4 main members and 2 subs max
Loser picks the stage they want, winner picks the mode they want
No ban out right bans on modes, only stages, which will make it illegal to play ether mode on the stage, ban(s) right after match ends
Apply daves stupid rule
plz no turd war and no rainmaker ether

wait do you mean there should be a max of two squads allowed to enter the tourney?

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

wait do you mean there should be a max of two squads allowed to enter the tourney?

From each team, yeah. Like how some teams have 20+ members on their roster. We should not give the bigger groups any advantages, over smaller groups. Like having more chances to win. They can select members of their team, to represent them. It happens in the real world, all the time. The argument that skill>numbers is irrelevant and we should encourage a more sound ruleset.

 

[WydrA]

From each team, yeah. Like how some teams have 20+ members on their roster. We should not give the bigger groups any advantages, over smaller groups. Like have more chances to win. They can select members of their team, to represent them. It happens in the real world, all the time. The argument that skill>numbers is irrelevant and we should encourage a more sound ruleset.

Think you have teams and squads mixed up? lol
Squads are big groups like SND. They're a similar idea to clans from CoD and other shooters. When a squad is really big they have to split into teams of 4-8 members. At least that's the definition we've been using for SCL. I assume it's the same for IoS.

So you're saying you think that each squad should only be allowed to enter a max of two teams, right?

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

Think you have teams and squads mixed up? lol
Squads are big groups like SND. They're a similar idea to clans from CoD and other shooters. When a squad is really big they have to split into teams of 4-8 members. At least that's the definition we've been using for SCL. I assume it's the same for IoS.

So you're saying you think that each squad should only be allowed to enter a max of two teams, right?

It was mixed up in my op
My b
And yes

 

[Agosta44]

There should indeed be a limit to squads from each team. Player hording has a massive affect on health of a community. It's one of the reasons MK8 died so quickly in comparison to MKW.