Peeking Techniques & why Saltspray is unsuitable for competitive play.

[SupaTim]

But when two equally matched teams with knowledge of this exploit go head to head, the one with the ability to right-side peek will have a sizable advantage.

flc already has an example of how this is abusive:

Is it an over-reaction? I wouldn't say so. We have already seen teams abuse this, generally accidentally. Imperious 1 vs SS-C on this map heavily favoured my scope over Craft's because I had so many more options (that I abused and won us the game with).

 

[UnLucky]

I can see where your coming from -but a great team will overcome this "disadvantage" and win anyway so it doesn't make that much of a difference and any team that complains they lost cause on the wrong side are not a good team

So a great team would win on both sides, but if you can only win on the advantageous side, you're trash? What if you repeatedly play against the same team, but nobody ever wins on the "wrong" side? Which team is better?

 

[Saturn]

Given how big the map pool is getting, I think we're looking at map selection the wrong way. We should be looking at maps that are best for competitive play than which maps aren't competitive at all. In tf2, 2fort isn't "banned" from competitive play, but it's clear that it's an awful map and there are better options to be competing on.

It might be too early for that, but isn't Nintendo still making new maps? How many will it take before we stop and say "okay, we need to limit this"? We're pushing 15 total maps to be actively practicing for any given tourney, and that's really overwhelming when you're trying to form a meta and come up with strats.

 

[BarneyLTD]

So a great team would win on both sides, but if you can only win on the advantageous side, you're trash? What if you repeatedly play against the same team, but nobody ever wins on the "wrong" side? Which team is better?

The better team would be the one that wins- if I was put into that situation id adapt my play style to counter-act their offence.
That's what I meant when I said you was a bad team if you can't win on the 'disadvantaged' side - I'm not saying they are trash because they lose there. They are only trash if they blame that as the reason for losing. Does that make sense?

 

[MrL1193]

The better team would be the one that wins- if I was put into that situation id adapt my play style to counter-act their offence.
That's what I meant when I said you was a bad team if you can't win on the 'disadvantaged' side - I'm not saying they are trash because they lose there. They are only trash if they blame that as the reason for losing. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense because that difference actually can be the reason that the disadvantaged side loses. It doesn't matter if the disadvantage is small (which isn't necessarily the case here anyway); it's still a disadvantage, it's still unfair, and it still casts doubt on the legitimacy of the results.

 

[BarneyLTD]

No, it doesn't make sense because that difference actually can be the reason that the disadvantaged side loses. It doesn't matter if the disadvantage is small (which isn't necessarily the case here anyway); it's still a disadvantage, it's still unfair, and it still casts doubt on the legitimacy of the results.

So if the disadvantage team wins what does that mean? There will be a team...actually there be a ton of teams who will play this map on the disadvantage side and will win regardless of the disadvantage.

My point is that once an advantage or a disadvantage presents itself our first notion shouldn't be to ban it but come up with ways to overcome it.
If something is unfair and you win, you become a better player because of it. If you moan about it then you already lost that match

 

[MrL1193]

So if the disadvantage team wins what does that mean? There will be a team...actually there be a ton of teams who will play this map on the disadvantage side and will win regardless of the disadvantage.

A victory for the disadvantaged team doesn't cause problems. The problems arise when the disadvantaged team loses, because then you don't know for sure whether they lost because their sniper was at a disadvantage through no fault of their own or if they were truly outplayed by the other team.

My point is that once an advantage or a disadvantage presents itself our first notion shouldn't be to ban it but come up with ways to overcome it.
If something is unfair and you win, you become a better player because of it. If you moan about it then you already lost that match

That is not what tournament rules are about. You're free to use unfair situations as a means to improve when you're playing in your own time, but on the day of the tournament, the playing field needs to be level. The whole purpose of a tournament match is to show which team is already better on the day of the tournament. Tilting the playing field, however slightly, in favor of one team would cloud the results.

 

[BarneyLTD]

A victory for the disadvantaged team doesn't cause problems. The problems arise when the disadvantaged team loses, because then you don't know for sure whether they lost because their sniper was at a disadvantage through no fault of their own or if they were truly outplayed by the other team.


That is not what tournament rules are about. You're free to use unfair situations as a means to improve when you're playing in your own time, but on the day of the tournament, the playing field needs to be level. The whole purpose of a tournament match is to show which team is already better on the day of the tournament. Tilting the playing field, however slightly, in favor of one team would cloud the results.

Tournaments are designed to prove who is the best - if you improve when playing in your own time doesn't that mean you'll be better at the tournament proving your the best?
What better place to prove it when the pressure is on! :D

 

[MrL1193]

Tournaments are designed to prove who is the best - if you improve when playing in your own time doesn't that mean you'll be better at the tournament proving your the best?
What better place to prove it when the pressure is on! :D

And if you're not better by enough? What then? What are you going to do if you make better use of what you're given than the opposing team does but you still lose because the map arbitrarily put you at a disadvantage? Are you just going to lie and say, "Our opponents played better than we did," when you know full well that that's not true?

You still haven't addressed this scenario at all. So far, all you've really suggested is "Get better so you don't lose because of the disadvantage," but that doesn't eliminate the problem; it just makes it so that you encounter the problem at higher levels of play. According to flc, this imbalance has already affected the outcome of matches in the past, and it will only continue to do so in the future.

 

[Deleted Member]

I think you guys are underestimating the advantage right-side peeking has. In high-level charger fights, its a huge advantage.

 

[BarneyLTD]

I think you guys are underestimating the advantage right-side peeking has. In high-level charger fights, its a huge advantage.

You're probably right- you have a larger surface area exposed so easier to shoot...actually kill.

But regardless of that advantage that doesn't determine the victory- chargers are pretty static which means you know where they are and where to attack so a tactic can easily made to flush them out (even more so if they have that advantage) and take control of that vantage point and push that team back.

The game is still really young and if you start banning things before its matured you'll miss out on some great techs/ gameplay

 

[Damandatwin]

@BarneyLTD it isn't, and never was about "is this advantage big enough to singlehandedly win the game?" the point is that it gives one team a non-negligible advantage over the other. you don't need to wait to "see how it matures" if you can objectively prove that something is unfair (which flc did). why waste our time playing on unfair maps when we have plenty of fair ones?

 

[Flammie]

Burst bombs, Splat Bombs, Suctions Bombs...
Problem solved.

If your main weapon can't fix it, use your sub or special instead.

 

[BarneyLTD]

Burst bombs, Splat Bombs, Suctions Bombs...
Problem solved.

If your main weapon can't fix it, use your sub or special instead.

You get it- that's good lol

 

[LockeExile]

Burst bombs, Splat Bombs, Suctions Bombs...
Problem solved.

If your main weapon can't fix it, use your sub or special instead.

Given that west side can also use subs to equal effect, that fails to counteract the advantage.

 

[SupaTim]

I think you guys are underestimating the advantage right-side peeking has. In high-level charger fights, its a huge advantage.

I'm just going to quote this because it needs to be read again.

This isn't a matter of what happens in solo-queue where there will be no coordination and therefore Special Russian Subs can work. This is the competitive sub-forum, where we talk about top level competitions with coordinated teams. Right-side peeking is a sizable advantage in this instance and the situation needs to be addressed for this map. If that's a ban of the map, fine (it has other problems, like RM), or perhaps Nintendo will change the layout somewhat like they did with Urchin Underpass (but to a lesser degree). Continually implying that all one needs to do is "git gud" to fix this problem is unhelpful. When two teams are highly coordinated with high skill levels and a balanced loadout, the team whose charger can right-side peek will have a big advantage.

 

[flc]

this whole "but I know where they are!" argument is ****ing asinine holy ****

the whole point here is that the west side has more and better options. you can predict where the chargers will be on the eastern side much more easily because they only have two decent spots to go to.

also, it doesn't change the fact that you still have to somehow deal with them. you almost always will know where the elitre is on arowana, but how does that matter if you can't take them out?

think, people.

 

[Flammie]

Given that west side can also use subs to equal effect, that fails to counteract the advantage.

So if the better option is to use something that doesn't give advantage to either site, why bother with a strategy that makes you peeking from walls, if bombs can counter act against it, if you know they're gonna do it?

 

[UnLucky]

Burst bombs, Splat Bombs, Suctions Bombs...
Problem solved.

If your main weapon can't fix it, use your sub or special instead.

True.

Except for one side, they can shoot you much easier, faster, and from more locations. This makes it harder for you to use your sub weapons against them compared to doing it from the other side.

 

[Flammie]

True.

Except for one side, they can shoot you much easier, faster, and from more locations. This makes it harder for you to use your sub weapons against them compared to doing it from the other side.

That's the whole reason why i'm bombing them in the first place, i know they're doing that on purpose as i had problems with that before, if i keep them at the same place, or they're trying to shot me from somewhere else, i keep bombing them.
So if i can throw my bombs close to their corner or above it to make it go off while behind them or on top of them, why do i need to feel disadvantaged if i have something that can stop them from "peeking" ?