Ink or Sink Tournament! v.1.1b Final Version!

[Typhlosion09]

having larger squads participate skews the ranking system (not necessarily referring to the official ranking system). If entering a tournament, and you have this huge squad, and have, assuming there is an unlimited restriction on amount of squads per team, like 6 squads from a team, then ultimately, this will just persuade more and more people to have these humongous squads, which I personally believe should not happen.
I think it is possible this is where some other squads are coming from as well.

There is no ranking system involved in this tournament as this is a testfire to see if things work out. So you dont have to worry

 

[Power]

^^^^
The better team will end up winning. That is what really matters. We just gotta wait it out and see the reaction and results from the tournament. Also, we placed a restriction on the number of teams from a squad allowed to enter. (3 as of right now) If the community sees it fit to change it, we have no other choice but to comply.

 

[Captain Norris]

There is no ranking system involved in this tournament as this is a testfire to see if things work out. So you dont have to worry

Oh I know that. But since this is a base for future tournaments, this should be thought through.

 

[Typhlosion09]

Oh I know that. But since this is a base for future tournaments, this should be thought through.

Fair enough, do you have any ideas on how to fix this aside from limiting the amount of teams to a squad? (which I think is impractical)

 

[Kbot]

geez. I leave for like 5 hours and they go through a page and a half talking about a rule we don't even know about.

Guys, look. I understand that everyone wants the best tournament possible. However, I believe that we should move on from being picky about the rules.

The TOs here have obviously put a lot of thought into the rules of this tournament. I understand everyone else has their opinions on the matter, and those opinions should be voiced, but hear me out for a second.

If we don't try certain things, we won't ever know if they worked. I agree with the fact that teams will want to represent their squads. That makes sense. It's not something out of the blue.

I have some ideas turning in my own head right now. However, I'll write them down in my own notepad and look for another time to bring them up.


TL;DR I think the best way to go about our first few tournaments as a competitive Splatoon community is to make a trial-and-error approach. Let's not nitpick this tournament, and see what works and what doesn't.

 

[[EJ]_Locke]

Yeah, the U.S used the same logic when it bombed Hiroshima. "Let us not nitpick this with facts or anything of the sort, lets see what worked and what didnt."

 

[Captain Norris]

Fair enough, do you have any ideas on how to fix this aside from limiting the amount of teams to a squad? (which I think is impractical)

Give me some time to think it over, then I may come up with something. But as of now, the only way I can see is limiting not the amounts of participants per squad, but the amount of players per squad, as, obviously, everyone on a squad/team will want to be represented, like @KTKres said.

As the next sentence or two is a matter of opinion, please do not take it to hear (anyone who is reading this). In my opinion, I believe we should have at least started with smaller stuff, such as a limit to the number of teammates, and then, as the meta progresses, decide if having these huge groups (as an example, as that is not the only thing that can get bigger) would be a better choice. Instead, we are working on a downhill slope, starting with these huge teams instead of working with smaller teams first, which very much complicates things.

 

[Math]

Yeah, the U.S used the same logic when it bombed Hiroshima. "Let us not nitpick this with facts or anything of the sort, lets see what worked and what didnt."

unrelated to the tourney, that was really not cool to say, man.

 

[Burritoburger]

Yeah, the U.S used the same logic when it bombed Hiroshima. "Let us not nitpick this with facts or anything of the sort, lets see what worked and what didnt."

Let's compare video game tournaments to a tragic event wherein hundreds of thousands of lives were lost because that's a good idea
Y'know this reminds me of 9/11 a little bit. Maybe if we do a suicide bombing, the tourney will be successful

 

[Math]

Give me some time to think it over, then I may come up with something. But as of now, the only way I can see is limiting not the amounts of participants per squad, but the amount of players per squad, as, obviously, everyone on a squad/team will want to be represented, like @KTKres said.

As the next sentence or two is a matter of opinion, please do not take it to hear (anyone who is reading this). In my opinion, I believe we should have at least started with smaller stuff, such as a limit to the number of teammates, and then, as the meta progresses, decide if having these huge groups (as an example, as that is not the only thing that can get bigger) would be a better choice. Instead, we are working on a downhill slope, starting with these huge teams instead of working with smaller teams first, which very much complicates things.

we could also do a progressive percentage of entrants per squad, like, larger squads can enter a smaller percentage of their whole squad, but ultimately can still enter more people than smaller squads

just throwing ideas out there

 

[Power]

Yeah, the U.S used the same logic when it bombed Hiroshima. "Let us not nitpick this with facts or anything of the sort, lets see what worked and what didnt."

LMAO perfect comparison. Aside from that ^^^^, we shouldn't just let the meta develop blindly. Obviously we should have some input, anybody can feel free to make their own tournaments with their own rules, don't forget that. Also, what we have aren't really facts that are used to nitpick, a lot of it is just theory. Mostly logically sound theory, but it can still be proven wrong over the course of a few tourney's and such. Let us just let this tourney play out, if any rules come up that are just absolutely appalling to the community, voice your opinion.

 

[Typhlosion09]

Give me some time to think it over, then I may come up with something. But as of now, the only way I can see is limiting not the amounts of participants per squad, but the amount of players per squad, as, obviously, everyone on a squad/team will want to be represented, like @KTKres said.

As the next sentence or two is a matter of opinion, please do not take it to hear (anyone who is reading this). In my opinion, I believe we should have at least started with smaller stuff, such as a limit to the number of teammates, and then, as the meta progresses, decide if having these huge groups (as an example, as that is not the only thing that can get bigger) would be a better choice. Instead, we are working on a downhill slope, starting with these huge teams instead of working with smaller teams first, which very much complicates things.

Perhaps this should be covered when it matters, which isnt now because of the lack of a ranking system.

geez. I leave for like 5 hours and they go through a page and a half talking about a rule we don't even know about.

Guys, look. I understand that everyone wants the best tournament possible. However, I believe that we should move on from being picky about the rules.

The TOs here have obviously put a lot of thought into the rules of this tournament. I understand everyone else has their opinions on the matter, and those opinions should be voiced, but hear me out for a second.

If we don't try certain things, we won't ever know if they worked. I agree with the fact that teams will want to represent their squads. That makes sense. It's not something out of the blue.

I have some ideas turning in my own head right now. However, I'll write them down in my own notepad and look for another time to bring them up.


TL;DR I think the best way to go about our first few tournaments as a competitive Splatoon community is to make a trial-and-error approach. Let's not nitpick this tournament, and see what works and what doesn't.

I want to agree with you, but I'm afraid that this will be the foundation for all tournies to come, and if this doesn't go well we could be in trouble

we could also do a progressive percentage of entrants per squad, like, larger squads can enter a smaller percentage of their whole squad, but ultimately can still enter more people than smaller squads

just throwing ideas out there

Maybe we could take the average of the finishes? Like if a squad finishes in 4th and 6th, maybe that can count as 5th?

 

[Burritoburger]

I want to agree with you, but I'm afraid that this will be the foundation for all tournies to come, and if this doesn't go well we could be in trouble

Are you even reading the threads
This
is
a
TEST
If this doesn't go well, a new system will be created
Rules will be tweaked, modified, even outright changed
So no, we won't be in trouble because improvements will be made
To think the first splatoon tourney ever is gonna have the perfect ruleset and will decide every tourney following it is just silly

 

[Typhlosion09]

Are you even reading the threads
This
is
a
TEST
If this doesn't go well, a new system will be created
Rules will be tweaked, modified, even outright changed
So no, we won't be in trouble because improvements will be made
To think the first splatoon tourney ever is gonna have the perfect ruleset and will decide every tourney following it is just silly

If people want to host there own tournament, what will they look to for a competitive ruleset? This is all that's there. This may be a test, but its the furthest we've ever gotten to any competitive play. Things will be changed over time, but it takes a while for people to change to new things.

 

[[EJ]_Locke]

A friend of mine once said: "Not hearing other peoples opinions is bad." And those words still ring true today. Let us just sit back and not discuss anything until we decide after the tournament it stinks is a bad idea. Saying to people "Don't voice concerns about the ruleset now, let everything flow naturally." By telling people not to talk about the meta because of flow is a contradiction.

 

[Power]

I feel like this is why people shouldn't take the first few months as very official. Everyone should keep testing out different rulesets. It sounds all over the place, and will take a lot of time but we will not develop a meta overnight,

We are discussing things, and will implement and take them into the consideration of future tournaments. I do not even know why people are arguing anymore, the complaint was dealt with. This tourney could be a complete flop, or a success, who knows. It is still a learning experience either way. We cannot be perfect, it is impossible. We can try, and by doing that we have to actually test things out. We can theorize and discuss for days on end, thats a good thing. We can also test things for days on end, which is much better. This type of stuff takes time and people are simply getting impatient imo.

 

[[EJ]_Locke]

I feel like this is why people shouldn't take the first few months as very official. Everyone should keep testing out different rulesets. It sounds all over the place, and will take a lot of time but we will not develop a meta overnight,

We are discussing things, and will implement and take them into the consideration of future tournaments. I do not even know why people are arguing anymore, the complaint was dealt with. This tourney could be a complete flop, or a success, who knows. It is still a learning experience either way. We cannot be perfect, it is impossible. We can try, and by doing that we have to actually test things out. We can theorize and discuss for days on end, thats a good thing. We can also test things for days on end, which is much better. This type of stuff takes time and people are simply getting impatient imo.

I get what you are saying but some people are telling other people not to voice opinions at all.

 

[Burritoburger]

If people want to host there own tournament, what will they look to for a competitive ruleset? This is all that's there. This may be a test, but its the furthest we've ever gotten to any competitive play. Things will be changed over time, but it takes a while for people to change to new things.

Well if those people setting up tourneys can read, they'd know many of the rules are subject to change.

A friend of mine once said: "Not hearing other peoples opinions is bad." And those words still ring true today. Let us just sit back and not discuss anything until we decide after the tournament it stinks is a bad idea. Saying to people "Don't voice concerns about the ruleset now, let everything flow naturally." By telling people not to talk about the meta because of flow is a contradiction.

Except the TOs are listening. They are trying to appeal to everyone who is submitting suggestions. Unfortunately they can't appeal to everyone. Those people they aren't appealing to are complaining about it, which is why the TOs are apologizing and saying "we'll try this for now, and if it doesn't work, we'll try it out differently."

 

[[EJ]_Locke]

Well if those people setting up tourneys can read, they'd know many of the rules are subject to change.


Except the TOs are listening. They are trying to appeal to everyone who is submitting suggestions. Unfortunately they can't appeal to everyone. Those people they aren't appealing to are complaining about it, which is why the TOs are apologizing and saying "we'll try this for now, and if it doesn't work, we'll try it out differently."

First of all, the TOs listening is a good thing. Second of all, " Unfortunately they can't appeal to everyone." Dude, that is pretty much the same with anything that involves competition. Third, you still cannot say "no discussion." This is simple and logical.

 

[Aweshucks]

We are well aware that this is a test tournament. That is NOT a good argument for not criticizing the current rules. The entire point of this tournament is to try and develop a good ruleset, so why not start that process now?