NA Splatfest is not Nintedo's Fault

[Award]

It is there fault. Though noble your intentions they are misplaced. Nintendo could EASILY invest in dedicated servers and remove peer to peer = lag issue solved. They could easily tweak the point system to where the top two people in the losing team only receive half a deduction, this would filter newer players to the bottom and help good players not responsible or not as responsible for losing a match to stay in their bracket longer.

Those are two simple fixes. Dedicated servers aren't expensive to run and the point fix is common sense. But, they don't care.

On the surface I agree with your ideas, but keep in mind that Nintendo-run servers would have to incur a per-month fee, just as XBLA and PSN require. Also keep in mind those servers would be in Japan, which is where all nintendo datacenters are, and there'd be no value in regional servers since it's a worldwide game. That could make the situations worse.

And the issue as Dessgeega said with tracking the "top two players" is how to track them. I agree with the idea, and even considered it before, but what do you base the "top two" on? Certainly not k/d. The tower riders/rm carriers will usually have the worst k/d. I've seen many many games where the team with double digit kills and single digit deaths loses and the team with single digit kills and double digit deaths wins. The high-risk high-reward players will always have awful k/ds. Inkbrush and octobrush are two of my mains. With octobrush I rarely go positive in k/d. Inkbrush my d is generally 4x my k. It's high risk, it's about covering turf and keeping mobility up for the team, and it's about high risk death-from-above takedowns of RM carriers. But if the team inkbrush goes 3/12 and kept > 50% of the map in friendly ink and maneuverable and took out the carrier 3 times that's a very solid performance. OTOH if I go 3/12 with eliter I should just delete the game :p EXCEPT if I went 3/12 because I was riding the tower the whole time because nobody else would. That's pretty hard to track.

Meanwhile in zones we could all go 8/4, but nobody ever paints the zone while it counts down. That's a very desirable goal but one I don't know how it could be accomplished.

 

[MeTaGross]

I been trying to understand this but can't. I agree on cats vs dogs, but the art vs science was 51/49 in splatoon meaning that is a tie, you never see a 50/50 ever. So what I was saying you can't include that when looking at trends, so only marshmallows is the real exception and even that had 48% wins. (meaning small difference)

Marshmallows would have won with a x4 win multiplier.

If there is no tie in wins or popularity then the popularity is useless. You would need 57% popularity and 49% wins for popularity to win. Or 63% popularity and 48% wins. It might be possible to get the wins closer together now that matchmaking is changed, but I still don't see a team winning overall with popularity but not winning wins.

 

[Award]

Marshmallows would have won with a x4 win multiplier.

If there is no tie in wins or popularity then the popularity is useless. You would need 57% popularity and 49% wins for popularity to win. Or 63% popularity and 48% wins. It might be possible to get the wins closer together now that matchmaking is changed, but I still don't see a team winning overall with popularity but not winning wins.

Nintendo may be incapable of writing netcode or a functioning matchmaker, but they can at least do math. I'm pretty sure they know the percentages and established the 6x rule knowing the implications to the effect on popularity. They clearly want it to be a near-tie breaker and nothing else. It keeps being discussed as though they don't know this when the more appropriate question would be "for what reason do they want it to work that way?"

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

We could always go back to the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection days and outsource this online stuff!