[North America] NEW SPLATFEST: Team Past Travel vs. Team Future Travel!

[Zombie Aladdin]

Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, it happened in the first place because the United States had missiles in Turkey and Italy pointed at Moscow, but the USSR had nothing pointed at Washington DC. Hence, the Soviets went to Cuba, their only ally close enough to the United States to reliably hit DC with ICBMs if need be. The Americans found out about them, despite the mission being as secret as possible (there were reports from Cubans fleeing to the United States about large trucks passing through their villages at night that could not turn corners without backing up--only ICBMs were that big), and after the famous tense talks between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khruschev, both countries agreed to remove all ICBMs in allied countries nearby, and in addition, the United States would never invade Cuba. To use the Splatoon example, it is the equivalent of both teams' snipers agreeing to disconnectand switch to short-range weapons. That being said, there may be more details on both sides still top secret today, but at least this much is publicly known.

But yes, it is quite dangerous to jump to a random time and location in the past, just as it'd bedangerous to jump to a random time and location in the future. Considering the Earth's rotation and orbit around the Sun, you'd have to at least be careful to not wind up in the vacuum of space.

(Also, that's the very first time I've seen someone associate dinosaurs with girls. I grew up with dinosaurs as strictly a boys' thing, though as time went on, more girls admitted their like of them too. We also got Jurassic World and The Good Dinosaur this year too.)

In any case, @Award, it sounds like you're picking Team Past. I will definitely pick Team Future. I look forward to seeing who will have less competent teammates. One of us will win this Splatfest.

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

There! Done! Edited the first post with the article. :p

tl;dr:
The future is going to be garbage, while the majority of the past is also garbage but at least we know there are points in time that aren't.
Also you can take advantage of inflation by going to the past.

 

[LupusFreak]

But yes, it is quite dangerous to jump to a random time and location in the past, just as it'd be dangerous to jump to a random time and location in the future. Considering the Earth's rotation and orbit around the Sun, you'd have to at least be careful to not wind up in the vacuum of space.

Well, if you think of it that way, then time travelling at all would end us up in space because not only is the Earth hurdling around the sun, but the sun is hurdling through the milky way, and the milky way is hurdling through the universe too.

 

[Flareth]

Oi @PrinceOfKoopas, that was a great & interesting read. Props, man!

@CM2
I'll admit, it's sad to see the Splatfests becoming rather predictable. But I kinda-sorta would rather gripe about their predictability over listening to a bunch of livid complaints about how their side "deserved" to win because they won more games.

I don't remember the 4x Splatfests well enough to say if it struck a good balance between both factors.

 

[Leronne]

So far, only the US splatfests has the shown that the unpopular teams win more often. Neither japan nor europe seem to have this problem. in fact, the popular teams there have won more often.

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

We really need to come together and figure out why North America has this problem and why Europe and Japan don't.

Don't just blame the kids. Other continents have children as well!

Thanks, @Flareth!

 

[Smashling79]

We really need to come together and figure out why North America has this problem and why Europe and Japan don't.

Don't just blame the kids. Other continents have children as well!

Thanks, @Flareth!

Maybe Europe and Japan don't consistently pit members of their own team against them. That's the only logical explanation I can really think of if the popular teams win.

 

[MissingNumbers]

We really need to come together and figure out why North America has this problem and why Europe and Japan don't.

Don't just blame the kids. Other continents have children as well!

Thanks, @Flareth!

I think the issue is that because we came to this conclusion, it just snowballed into itself each and every time, worsening the problem rather than improving it.

 

[BlackZero]

Maybe Europe and Japan don't consistently pit members of their own team against them. That's the only logical explanation I can really think of if the popular teams win.

That's something that confused me during my first Splatfest. When I started playing other people on the same team I was like "lolwut." I thought the point was to beat the other team.

I think the issue is that because we came to this conclusion, it just snowballed into itself each and every time, worsening the problem rather than improving it.

Probably. The more skilled players join the team they assume will win based on past trends. The snail farmers probably quit playing (or stop caring) after they hit max, which leaves the "just for fun" people to play the entire duration of the fest. At that point, it's a simple numbers game: which had more skilled players playing on that team throughout the event? It's most likely the team that those people who wanted max snails assumed would win.

 

[Award]

Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, it happened in the first place because the United States had missiles in Turkey and Italy pointed at Moscow, but the USSR had nothing pointed at Washington DC. Hence, the Soviets went to Cuba, their only ally close enough to the United States to reliably hit DC with ICBMs if need be. The Americans found out about them, despite the mission being as secret as possible (there were reports from Cubans fleeing to the United States about large trucks passing through their villages at night that could not turn corners without backing up--only ICBMs were that big), and after the famous tense talks between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khruschev, both countries agreed to remove all ICBMs in allied countries nearby, and in addition, the United States would never invade Cuba. To use the Splatoon example, it is the equivalent of both teams' snipers agreeing to disconnectand switch to short-range weapons. That being said, there may be more details on both sides still top secret today, but at least this much is publicly known.

But yes, it is quite dangerous to jump to a random time and location in the past, just as it'd bedangerous to jump to a random time and location in the future. Considering the Earth's rotation and orbit around the Sun, you'd have to at least be careful to not wind up in the vacuum of space.

(Also, that's the very first time I've seen someone associate dinosaurs with girls. I grew up with dinosaurs as strictly a boys' thing, though as time went on, more girls admitted their like of them too. We also got Jurassic World and The Good Dinosaur this year too.)

In any case, @Award, it sounds like you're picking Team Past. I will definitely pick Team Future. I look forward to seeing who will have less competent teammates. One of us will win this Splatfest.

OT Spoiler tag:

Spoiler

That's all true in terms of the OVERT portion of it. But the regional mid-range missiles were never the true heart of the nuclear threat. ICBMs launched from within the homelands into orbit, over the arctic, and down on the other side were the real "last resort" threat (that's what the whole Space Race was about), and then, as now, nuclear missile subs were the real core of the threat - mobile armageddon that can launch from anywhere, any time. That was the guarantee of mutual destruction - even if one side obliterates the other into a charred ruin and destroys their launch capability (unlikely since most of that is underground), the roaming subs scattered around the planet would finish the job of retaliation. The regional mid-range missiles were never much more than waving your laser across the access room to the top of Saltspray. Sure they're dangerous, but what idiot is actually going to walk in front if it (unless they're on my team...) Thus was posturing for them to say they didn't have anything that could hit DC while we had missiles Turkey. We had regional land missiles to overtly threaten them, while they didn't, but that was just public posturing to make an issue of it. Both sides had orbital ICBMs and nuclear missile subs ready to go anywhere, any time already. It's like having an eliter, a sploosh, a luna, and a range blaster on your team and complaining the other team has all the midrange guns. The ACTUAL terrors of the cold war were never in actuality nuclear. It was the proxy wars and sponsored coups in small countries as a product of it that was the real ugly side of it. The two nuclear powers were the two safe zones. The other terror was that if the USSR gained too much cultural and economic influence in the world, then collectivism/Communism would become the way of the world.. Those were the real prevailing fears. The imagery of nuclear war was more or less symbolism for the actual worries.

But, again, keeping it in perspective of how it really was versus how it looks in a book, we still have missiles pointed at Moscow in Turkey. The US did a routine test of the Trident launch systems on a sub a few months ago (and did a spectacular show of lights over CA by "accident" in the process - a show of force to Moscow of course.) Russia launched a new missile system on their new frigates a few months ago, pointing out that the rockets can be used with conventional warheads or nuclear though they "hope never to have to use them." A taunt, of course. It's a little silly to say the Cold War ended at all. It's just with reduced tensions and redefined parameters. Both countries are still capable of obliterating each other several times over, it might be down to 8 versus 20 back then (only the first one counts, and both make sure to demonstrate the continued ability. Both do so to ensure the other can't ever do anything with them. And you're not hiding under your desk convinced the Russians will nuke you, and Russians are not doing that either. :) As long as both countries are armed to the teeth and share a competing common interest of ensuring their own country's status and power, neither has to worry much about the other. If either country ever removes their own nuclear capability, THAT is when it's time to worry.

Well, I'd associate both dinosaurs and robots/spaceships with boys in general, but given the choice between the two, I could see dinosaurs being the one that would attract more girls than robots/spaceships. Not a 100% split or anything, but just a greater percentage.

LOL, YES! The inkers are going with future! :p I've been trying to get a feel for what type of player goes with what from the plaza. So far it seems 50/50 of high rank/low rank players on either side. Maybe this will be a close one. But that's what I thought about naughty/nice, too, and that was just awful :(

There! Done! Edited the first post with the article. :p

tl;dr:
The future is going to be garbage, while the majority of the past is also garbage but at least we know there are points in time that aren't.
Also you can take advantage of inflation by going to the past.

And THIS, @Zombie Aladdin , is a realist! (And an opportunist, but that's beside the point.) ;)

Oi @PrinceOfKoopas, that was a great & interesting read. Props, man!

@CM2
I'll admit, it's sad to see the Splatfests becoming rather predictable. But I kinda-sorta would rather gripe about their predictability over listening to a bunch of livid complaints about how their side "deserved" to win because they won more games.

I don't remember the 4x Splatfests well enough to say if it struck a good balance between both factors.

I think it probably makes sense that the team that plays the best wins. It's a competition tournament of sorts via the game, not really a popularity contest at the vote box (otherwise we'd just get snails for voting and not need to spend 24 hours on 3 maps at all!) But I do dislike the predictability of the US ones. It's just kind of weird that it's worked out that way here. I imagine it's because of the more interesting topics that are more likely to divide personality/play types than the completely random questions like "pineapples yes/no" and "which flavor of Brand X instant noodles do you prefer?"

 

[Award]

I think the issue is that because we came to this conclusion, it just snowballed into itself each and every time, worsening the problem rather than improving it.

The question is, what percentage of the good players that will actually play much during Splatfest follow the game enough to even be aware of the trends? I can guess I'll lose most of my rounds because I'll be overmatched with superior players as I usually am. Maybe that will help the other team.

 

[Flareth]

@Award

I'm not saying that the best-playing team shouldn't win. Far from it, I think it only makes logical sense—you do the best, you get top prize, you take the Splatfest. To me, it just sucks that the competitions aren't so close anymore. The only way a more popular team is going to win is if their side is overwhelmingly popular and the less popular team either doesn't have the wins advantage or barely has one (ie. 51%-49%). Which still doesn't make it better, because there's still gonna have to be a landslide victory in popularity. (I'm the sort of person who prefers close & hard-fought games over one-sided dominations, even before I picked up Splatoon.)

And the predictability I see isn't even "pick the less popular team," it's "pick Callie." And that seems to be the one that spans the world; consider that Marie's record is 9 wins out of 27 Splatfests total. That's the trend we should be figuring out.

 

[Award]

@Award

I'm not saying that the best-playing team shouldn't win. Far from it, I think it only makes logical sense—you do the best, you get top prize, you take the Splatfest. To me, it just sucks that the competitions aren't so close anymore. The only way a more popular team is going to win is if their side is overwhelmingly popular and the less popular team either doesn't have the wins advantage or barely has one (ie. 51%-49%). Which still doesn't make it better, because there's still gonna have to be a landslide victory in popularity. (I'm the sort of person who prefers close & hard-fought games over one-sided dominations, even before I picked up Splatoon.)

And the predictability I see isn't even "pick the less popular team," it's "pick Callie." And that seems to be the one that spans the world; consider that Marie's record is 9 wins out of 27 Splatfests total. That's the trend we should be figuring out.

I agree with you in preferring close battles to one sided wins. That's my main gripe about the ranked system, too. I'd have no problem staying in one rank, once I reach my skill cap winning and losing a somewhat even number of close battles. I thought that was supposed to be the reward for it.

I don't really know why popularity needs to factor in at all. I was surprised when I saw that it did. I imagine the argument for it would be that the more popular team has less battles they can fight and have to fight themselves more, but wouldn't the number of matches of Team A vs Team B HAVE to be the same since it is a match of team A vs Team B? So if they both compete against each other in the same number of battles, wouldn't it just be whoever wins >50% of them? The 6x multiplier really does the same thing as just deleting the popularity score unless one team gets like 10% popularity. For fans of the popularity score, it's probably frustrating, but to me it never made sense anyway. It's not like Team A gets more battles than Team B because they're more popular. Each individual of Team B gets more battles, but the whole team doesn't.

Burger v. Pizza was only 6% different in wins. . Naughty v nice at 9% was a little less impressive though. I was impressed it was "only" 9% - it felt worse, playing it.

You're right about Callie always winning though. I really don't get that one. I could even see it if Callie were the most popular all the time, I always figured she would be the most popular. But it really doesn't explain "the good players pick Callie, the other ones do not."

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

The more skilled players join the team they assume will win based on past trends. The snail farmers probably quit playing (or stop caring) after they hit max, which leaves the "just for fun" people to play the entire duration of the fest. At that point, it's a simple numbers game: which had more skilled players playing on that team throughout the event? It's most likely the team that those people who wanted max snails assumed would win.

Over time though, there would be enough people doing this that they'd become the more popular team. How long it takes, I don't know, but that's the logical outcome.

OT Spoiler tag:

Spoiler

That's all true in terms of the OVERT portion of it. But the regional mid-range missiles were never the true heart of the nuclear threat. ICBMs launched from within the homelands into orbit, over the arctic, and down on the other side were the real "last resort" threat (that's what the whole Space Race was about), and then, as now, nuclear missile subs were the real core of the threat - mobile armageddon that can launch from anywhere, any time. That was the guarantee of mutual destruction - even if one side obliterates the other into a charred ruin and destroys their launch capability (unlikely since most of that is underground), the roaming subs scattered around the planet would finish the job of retaliation. The regional mid-range missiles were never much more than waving your laser across the access room to the top of Saltspray. Sure they're dangerous, but what idiot is actually going to walk in front if it (unless they're on my team...) Thus was posturing for them to say they didn't have anything that could hit DC while we had missiles Turkey. We had regional land missiles to overtly threaten them, while they didn't, but that was just public posturing to make an issue of it. Both sides had orbital ICBMs and nuclear missile subs ready to go anywhere, any time already. It's like having an eliter, a sploosh, a luna, and a range blaster on your team and complaining the other team has all the midrange guns. The ACTUAL terrors of the cold war were never in actuality nuclear. It was the proxy wars and sponsored coups in small countries as a product of it that was the real ugly side of it. The two nuclear powers were the two safe zones. The other terror was that if the USSR gained too much cultural and economic influence in the world, then collectivism/Communism would become the way of the world.. Those were the real prevailing fears. The imagery of nuclear war was more or less symbolism for the actual worries.

But, again, keeping it in perspective of how it really was versus how it looks in a book, we still have missiles pointed at Moscow in Turkey. The US did a routine test of the Trident launch systems on a sub a few months ago (and did a spectacular show of lights over CA by "accident" in the process - a show of force to Moscow of course.) Russia launched a new missile system on their new frigates a few months ago, pointing out that the rockets can be used with conventional warheads or nuclear though they "hope never to have to use them." A taunt, of course. It's a little silly to say the Cold War ended at all. It's just with reduced tensions and redefined parameters. Both countries are still capable of obliterating each other several times over, it might be down to 8 versus 20 back then (only the first one counts, and both make sure to demonstrate the continued ability. Both do so to ensure the other can't ever do anything with them. And you're not hiding under your desk convinced the Russians will nuke you, and Russians are not doing that either. :) As long as both countries are armed to the teeth and share a competing common interest of ensuring their own country's status and power, neither has to worry much about the other. If either country ever removes their own nuclear capability, THAT is when it's time to worry.

Well, I'd associate both dinosaurs and robots/spaceships with boys in general, but given the choice between the two, I could see dinosaurs being the one that would attract more girls than robots/spaceships. Not a 100% split or anything, but just a greater percentage.

LOL, YES! The inkers are going with future! :p I've been trying to get a feel for what type of player goes with what from the plaza. So far it seems 50/50 of high rank/low rank players on either side. Maybe this will be a close one. But that's what I thought about naughty/nice, too, and that was just awful :(

I think it probably makes sense that the team that plays the best wins. It's a competition tournament of sorts via the game, not really a popularity contest at the vote box (otherwise we'd just get snails for voting and not need to spend 24 hours on 3 maps at all!) But I do dislike the predictability of the US ones. It's just kind of weird that it's worked out that way here. I imagine it's because of the more interesting topics that are more likely to divide personality/play types than the completely random questions like "pineapples yes/no" and "which flavor of Brand X instant noodles do you prefer?"

Oh yeah, I forgot about nuclear submarines. Definitely, they're still wandering the oceans.

As for the USA vs. the USSR, the USSR is definitely no more, and like most historians, I would put that as the end of the Cold War. What you're describing is a cold war. Now, I'd want to end this discussion because politics is a messy topic and we're getting into modern politics now, which is controversial no matter what you say, but I just want to say that at the very least, the United States and Russia are together in the fight against Islamic State. And pretty much every other country now. (Heck, even China, which usually prefers to mind its own business, has jumped into the fight.)

You get 3 Super Sea Snails by picking the losing side and sitting out the Splatfest entirely, by the way. The game classifies you as a (Team) Fanboy/Fangirl with 0 points. So you get at minimum 3 Super Sea Snails simply by voting.

By the way, if you're referring to the ramen Splatfest in Japan, those are pretty specific types of ramen: Tempura vs. tonkotsu, both of which have to be prepared fresh on the premises (well, you could dehydrate them, but they won't be very good or resemble normal tempura or tonkotsu in the least). Hence, that Splatfest refers not to instant noodles, but ramen prepared in restaurants. Think Ichiraku Ramen from Naruto, if you're familiar with that.

@Award

I'm not saying that the best-playing team shouldn't win. Far from it, I think it only makes logical sense—you do the best, you get top prize, you take the Splatfest. To me, it just sucks that the competitions aren't so close anymore. The only way a more popular team is going to win is if their side is overwhelmingly popular and the less popular team either doesn't have the wins advantage or barely has one (ie. 51%-49%). Which still doesn't make it better, because there's still gonna have to be a landslide victory in popularity. (I'm the sort of person who prefers close & hard-fought games over one-sided dominations, even before I picked up Splatoon.)

And the predictability I see isn't even "pick the less popular team," it's "pick Callie." And that seems to be the one that spans the world; consider that Marie's record is 9 wins out of 27 Splatfests total. That's the trend we should be figuring out.

Oh wow, is that the case? I wonder why that happens. Is it because most people in the world read from left to right, and so the option on the left is the first one they see?

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

Probably. The more skilled players join the team they assume will win based on past trends. The snail farmers probably quit playing (or stop caring) after they hit max, which leaves the "just for fun" people to play the entire duration of the fest. At that point, it's a simple numbers game: which had more skilled players playing on that team throughout the event? It's most likely the team that those people who wanted max snails assumed would win.

I will say from personal experience:

I'm not in the mindset of "I WANT THE MOST SNAILS" since I kind of am just hording them anyway and I don't care much about max-min-ing.
That said, I stop a match or two after I became a _____ King because I'm simply tired from playing Turf Wars for 4-5 hours over the course of 1-2 sittings. I AM playing just for fun. I'm just tired at that point and it's not really fun after that.

 

[Flareth]

Burger v. Pizza was only 6% different in wins. . Naughty v nice at 9% was a little less impressive though. I was impressed it was "only" 9% - it felt worse, playing it.

Funny, it was the opposite for me. I thought the Nice Squids did alright, but good Lord were the Pizza Squids the worst moth—erm, I'm-a stop there. Let's just say I was legitimately surprised that the Burgers didn't have a higher win rate.

I'm really not sure why Marie's teams have such an awful record. Karma for lucking out with the first Cats vs. Dogs Splatfest? Although that would make more sense if it was the first Splatfest in Splatoon's lifetime...

 

[SkyBlue]

I still don't know what team I want to pick ;A;
guess I'll flip a coin~

 

[Babycowland]

This Splatfest in a nutshell.

Spoiler

Credit for the image on the right goes to jasondoveillustration.blogspot.com, I'm not sure about the other one.

@SkyBlue, I hope that helps make your decision easier.

My main goal for this Splatfest is to do better than I did last Splatfest, which shouldn't be too hard considering how badly I did then, haha. I'd also like to figure out what my #2 weapon is. I've been experimenting with stuff, but I haven't really settled on anything yet.

 

[RNS]

If Team Future were to actually travel to the future, they'd see that Team Past won Splatfest.:p

 

[Award]

In your face, Marie!

Congratulations, for your successful trip to your destination, Team Future!