So basically, the wait for Ranked Battle was meaningless...

[Saltystick]

I'm not saying the wait killed me, I'm saying the way Nintendo held back content killed my hype for the game and led to me buying it used. All for what? They held back content from launch, only to have their conditions be met practically at launch. They accomplished nothing but burning bridges with potential purchasers.

Wow your hype's sure easy to kill. I mean what did it change for you specifically? Nothing.
In fact wouldn't having to wait for ages to start a game kill the hype/fun more than just it straight up not being available from the start?
Oh well, guess i'm not gonna understand your point no matter how much i try.
But to me it looks like literally nitpicking on splatoon..for not good reason at all.

 

[RespawningJesus]

Honestly, I don't see why people are arguing in this thread. It should be clear that the OP will not change their mind on this matter. Leave this thread to die.

 

[Cuddlefish]

The thing is. If you aren't sold yet, why bother with it?

Do you run around a clothing store and argue with the shopkeeper about let's say a pair of jeans when you aren't convinced of it?
No, you move on and maybe find another pair you like.

I've seen people asking others to "convince them of the game". But why? If you aren't convinced, don't buy it. And if you are interested in it (which you seem to be seeing how you try to become convinced) just give it a try instead of argueing whether it's worth it or not. At the end of the day you can still resell it if you end up not liking it.

Everything else seems like pointless whining and pulling the "STOP LIKING STUFF I DON'T"-card.

You have things backwards here, this is people going "STOP DISLIKING THINGS I LIKE."

I'm not telling anyone they should hate these decisions (though I did tell some people that hated the decisions that they should actually stand up for themselves and stop just accepting every decision Nintendo makes), I'm expressing my grievance that Nintendo accomplished nothing with what they did besides annoying me and others, and convincing us to not give them our money. I'm expressing all of this, on a forum for talking about Splatoon; this is what you're supposed to do here; not everything has to be positive.

 

[Cuddlefish]

Honestly, I don't see why people are arguing in this thread. It should be clear that the OP will not change their mind on this matter. Leave this thread to die.

At least you acknowledge that it's everyone trying to change my mind and not the other way around. I just wanted to express my opinion on Splatoon, same as anyone else, and I got a bunch of fanboys defending the game from the mean evil lady saying nasty things about their beloved precious.

 

[Alus]

Thread doesn't have to die it just needs to be toned down. I feel like this was meaningless too. People are allowed to express their opinions. That is the point of a message board like this.

Wow your hype's sure easy to kill. I mean what did it change for you specifically? Nothing.
In fact wouldn't having to wait for ages to start a game kill the hype/fun more than just it straight up not being available from the start?
Oh well, guess i'm not gonna understand your point no matter how much i try.
But to me it looks like literally nitpicking on splatoon..for not good reason at all.

Whats wrong with nitpicking? Its not like it hurts the game at all.

 

[Saltystick]

I'm expressing my grievance that Nintendo accomplished nothing with what they did besides annoying me and others

I'm sure that was their goal.
No but really, what they accomplished is "ensuring" short queues for ranked battles and "a fair start for everyone" (or at least a huge part of the playerbase at the moment) How is that "not accomplishing anything" ? I don't get it.

I'm expressing all of this, on a forum for talking about Splatoon; this is what you're supposed to do here; not everything has to be positive.

Yeah and that's nice and dandy. The thing is your point and entire opinion seems as if you're overacting over a really small, irrelevant thing. Which most people don't understand since well.. it really is irrelevant. But hey if you enjoy overacting and getting annoyed by the smallest things, go on. You're entitled to your opinion no matter how "irrelevant" or "wrong" it might seem to others.
And the only reason people seem to even reply in here is not to "change your opinion" but to try to understand it.
(Well at least in my case.)

 

[Cuddlefish]

I'm sure that was their goal.
No but really, what they accomplished is "ensuring" short queues for ranked battles and "a fair start for everyone". How is that "not accomplishing anything" ? I don't get it.

I don't get how they accomplished ensuring short queues for ranked battles or a fair start for everyone anymore than they would have if they'd released the mode at launch. Yeah, I get that was intention behind holding Ranked Battles back, but I'm saying things didn't actually work out that way; level 10 is too easy to achieve to be a true indicator of a player's skill, with the addition that skills won't necessarily transfer from Turf Wars to Splat Zones, and after a mere 2 days, the crowd that has the game now is still pretty much the crowd that had the game at launch. They really didn't achieve what they intended, and I'm upset that one of the things that soured my opinion of the game turned out to be so meaningless.

And the only reason people seem to even reply in here is not to change your opinion but to try to understand it.
(Well at least in my case.)

I'd say only in your case.

 

[Alus]

I'm sure that was their goal.
No but really, what they accomplished is "ensuring" short queues for ranked battles and "a fair start for everyone". How is that "not accomplishing anything" ? I don't get it.

Yeah and that's nice and dandy. The thing is your point and entire opinion seems as if you're overacting over a really small, irrelevant thing. Which most people don't understand since well.. it really is irrelevant. But hey if you enjoy overacting and getting annoyed by the smallest things, go on.

How does a fair start affect anyone? No seriously, In a game where rank measures skill how does starting first help? You win your rank goes up. You dont get a boost from starting first. In fact, this "accomplishment" DOESNT separate good players from bad and can cause this "frustration" someone in this thread was concerned about.

Not sure if you're concerned about that though.

Honest question.

EDIT: If you really wanted a fair start, you wouldn't create a scenario where 20s would face 10s.

 

[Saltystick]

I don't get how they accomplished ensuring short queues for ranked battles or a fair start for everyone anymore than they would have if they'd released the mode at launch. Yeah, I get that was intention behind holding Ranked Battles back, but I'm saying things didn't actually work out that way; level 10 is too easy to achieve to be a true indicator of a player's skill, with the addition that skills won't necessarily transfer from Turf Wars to Splat Zones, and after a mere 2 days, the crowd that has the game now is still pretty much the crowd that had the game at launch. They really didn't achieve what they intended, and I'm upset that one of the things that soured my opinion of the game turned out to be so meaningless.

Hitting level 10 is not THAT easy. (I mean alright it's not hard nor does it take really long, but it still does take a while) and it at least somewhat ensures that the person is rather comfortable with the controls by now and perhaps already knows a few "common" tactis (even if they aren't useable in splat zone). It also means that person has at least one set of gear with unlocked sub-abilites. In most cases more than just one.

But back to your original question of how holding it back ensured short queues:
So the people who got to lvl 10 first would have had to wait longer till they could've started a game sicne the overall population of lvl 10 players was just too low in the first few days (duuuh).

Now "the majority" or at least a huge part of the playerbase is lvl 10 and above which means, more potential players = shorter queues.

Finding 7 other players out of 20 available definitely takes longer than finding 7 out of 1000. Don't you think?

Except you mean why it wasn't just available from level 1 on, in that case read the first part of my reply.
(In short, it basically makes it less likely for people to get grouped with "a complete newbie who can barely aim". Which would be unfair for the players who got grouped with him/her and no fun for the person itself either since s/he would just get stomped. = Less frustration for both sides and more fairness in general. Emphasis on "more". )

Eitherway, calm down. Raging about it is just as meaningless as holding it back seemed to you. It'll be availabe in just a few hours anyway.

How does a fair start affect anyone? No seriously, In a game where rank measures skill how does starting first help? You win your rank goes up. You dont get a boost from starting first. In fact, this "accomplishment" DOESNT separate good players bad and can cause this "frustration" someone in this thread was concerned about.

Not sure if you're concerned about that though.

Honest question.

>One of the first to hit lvl 10 > one of the first to play/win games > higher rank > has to play with lower ranks who just got to 10 since well, there aren't enough people at his rank > has more experience obviously > easier win > easier climbing > and it goes on

at the same times those who just lost to that person dropped in rank. sure they can get back up but they start off with a clear disadvantage.

 

[Cuddlefish]

Hitting level 10 is not THAT easy. (I mean alright it's not hard nor does it take really long, but it still does take a while) and it at least somewhat ensures the person is rather comfortable with the controls by now and perhaps already knows a few "common" tactis (even if they aren't useable in splat zone). It also means that person has at least one set of gear with unlocked sub-abilites. In most cases more than just one.

But back to your original question of how holding it back ensured short queues:
So the people who got to lvl 10 first would have had to wait longer till they could've started a game sicne the overall population of lvl 10 players was just too low in the first few days (duuuh).

Now "the majority" or at least a huge part of the playerbase is lvl 10 and above which means, more potential players = shorter queues.

Finding 7 other players out of 20 available definitely takes longer than finding 7 out of 1000. Don't you think?

Eitherway, calm down. Raging about it is just as meaningless as holding it back seemed to you. It'll be availabe in just a few hours anyway.

Except if they didn't lock Ranked Battles behind reaching level 10, there'd be no need to wait for others to reach level 10, and it's not like the userbase has greatly expanded since launch. They created their own problem with locking that content behind reaching a certain level. If you could just have at it, like say with Smash Bros., you wouldn't have to wait at all for someone similarly inclined to jump straight into a For Glory style battle.

And I have calmed down, because I'm not being trolled anymore. I'd like to see you be calm with multiple people critiquing every little thing you say 'cause they can't handle someone having something negative to say about Splatoon.

>One of the first to hit lvl 10 > one of the first to play/win games > higher rank > has to play with lower ranks who just got to 10 since well, there aren't enough people at his rank > has more experience obviously > easier win > easier climbing > and it goes on

at the same times those who just lost to that person dropped in rank. sure they can get back up but they start off with a clear disadvantage.

All that is needed to prevent that is proper matchmaking.

 

[Saltystick]

Except if they didn't lock Ranked Battles behind reaching level 10, there'd be no need to wait for others to reach level 10, and it's not like the userbase has greatly expanded since launch. They created their own problem with locking that content behind reaching a certain level. If you could just have at it, like say with Smash Bros., you wouldn't have to wait at all for someone similarly inclined to jump straight into a For Glory style battle.

Hitting level 10 is not THAT easy. (I mean alright it's not hard nor does it take really long, but it still does take a while) and it at least somewhat ensures that the person is rather comfortable with the controls by now and perhaps already knows a few "common" tactis (even if they aren't useable in splat zone). It also means that person has at least one set of gear with unlocked sub-abilites. In most cases more than just one.

(In short, it basically makes it less likely for people to get grouped with "a complete newbie who can barely aim". Which would be unfair for the players who got grouped with him/her and no fun for the person itself either since s/he would just get stomped. = Less frustration for both sides and more fairness in general. Emphasis on "more". )

Just gonna quote what i just said since it's basically a direct reply to your post.

All that is needed to prevent that is proper matchmaking.

>One of the first to hit lvl 10 > one of the first to play/win games > higher rank > has to play with lower ranks who just got to 10 since well, there aren't enough people at his rank > has more experience obviously > easier win > easier climbing > and it goes on

at the same times those who just lost to that person dropped in rank. sure they can get back up but they start off with a clear disadvantage.

 

[Alus]

Hitting level 10 is not THAT easy. (I mean alright it's not hard nor does it take really long, but it still does take a while) and it at least somewhat ensures the person is rather comfortable with the controls by now and perhaps already knows a few "common" tactis (even if they aren't useable in splat zone). It also means that person has at least one set of gear with unlocked sub-abilites. In most cases more than just one.

But back to your original question of how holding it back ensured short queues:
So the people who got to lvl 10 first would have had to wait longer till they could've started a game sicne the overall population of lvl 10 players was just too low in the first few days (duuuh).

Now "the majority" or at least a huge part of the playerbase is lvl 10 and above which means, more potential players = shorter queues.

Finding 7 other players out of 20 available definitely takes longer than finding 7 out of 1000. Don't you think?

Eitherway, calm down. Raging about it is just as meaningless as holding it back seemed to you. It'll be availabe in just a few hours anyway.




>One of the first to hit lvl 10 > one of the first to play/win games > higher rank > has to play with lower ranks who just got to 10 since well, there aren't enough people at his rank > has more experience obviously > easier win > easier climbing > and it goes on

at the same times those who just lost to that person dropped in rank. sure they can get back up but they start off with a clear disadvantage.

First off, being more experienced is unfair?
Second, how does this first everyone to 10 fix that? What about people who buy the game AFTER rank has come out? Is it their fault for buying the game late?

 

[fenrir vii]

I can see complaining about lack of content, although I haven't personally felt it. That said, I'm an old school TF2 player, so I'm used to cycling like 5 maps over and over...

But really, This ranked battle stuff isn't the right area to complain about it. The content of Ranked Battles was held back for very specific reasons that I can see were for the best honestly.

Complaining about the lack of maps day 1 makes sense (although it hasn't bothered me)... however I do think this is going to turn out incredibly positive long term by keeping people playing on a weekly basis.
Honestly I think we're going to look back on this as an incredible time. I don't see a reason to complain or continue this discussion without knowing how this is going to turn out. It's not like we're going to agree.

I'm personally really happy with the game and the future of it... Let's see what happens.

 

[Cuddlefish]

Just gonna quote what i just said since it's basically a direct reply to your post.

It really doesn't work though; I know too many people that have hit level 10 without getting super familiar with the controls or upgrading all their gear. If things worked as you described, it'd make sense, but in practice, Splatoon didn't actually turn out that way.

And there still doesn't need to be a rank requirement to get into Ranked Battles.

 

[Saltystick]

First off, being more experienced is unfair?
Second, how does this first everyone to 10 fix that? What about people who buy the game AFTER rank has come out? Is it their fault for buying the game late?

If you only gained that experience by being faster to lvl up. Yes.

No. Since now there are enough people who can play the mode, enough people who get up in ranks and then play against people in their rank rather than lower ones due to the lack of opponents in that certain rank. So people who buy the game later play against other people who just started playing splat zones or people with "around the same skill leve" of those who just started playing it" and not against A+ simply because there aren't enough A+ players in total so they're forced to play against lower ranks.... If that makes any sense

 

[Cuddlefish]

EDIT: If you really wanted a fair start, you wouldn't create a scenario where 20s would face 10s.

I didn't notice this at first, but this might explain part of your confusion; thanks to matchmaking, there shouldn't be any level 10s paired up with level 20s.

However, since there is matchmaking, it really doesn't matter if people go into Ranked Battles at level 10, or level 1.

 

[Saltystick]

It really doesn't work though; I know too many people that have hit level 10 without getting super familiar with the controls or upgrading all their gear. If things worked as you described, it'd make sense, but in practice, Splatoon didn't actually turn out that way.

And there still doesn't need to be a rank requirement to get into Ranked Battles.

There will always be people who don't follow the publisher's intentions. I'm sure there's a bunch of players who just let their friends/family members play alot and leveld up to 10 that way. But at the end "most" lvl 10 players (it will never be all) AT THE VERY LEAST played a few matches before trying splat zones.

And a huge part definitely is more familiar with the controls than they were at lvl 1 and that alone is a good reason not to let lvl 1 players play splat zones imho.

 

[Cuddlefish]

There will always be people who don't follow the publisher's intentions. I'm sure there's a bunch of players who just let their friends/family members play alot and leveld up to 10 that way. But at the end "most" lvl 10 players (it will never be all) AT THE VERY LEAST played a few matches before trying splat zones.

And a huge part definitely is more familiar with the controls than they were at lvl 1 and that alone is a good reason not to let lvl 1 players play splat zones imho.

Well, I simply don't agree with that, and feel the level cap does nothing for the game, and that's why I feel like the wait accomplished nothing but sour my opinion of the game.

Maybe you don't agree with it, but you at least see my reasoning, right?

 

[Astral]

Nintendo being a gaming company that specializes in its Solo modes may not have expected so much positive feedback and thought the amount of players to reach level 10 would take longer. That or they were just giving the servers one last check before officially releasing Ranked.

 

[Saltystick]

Well, I simply don't agree with that, and feel the level cap does nothing for the game, and that's why I feel like the wait accomplished nothing but sour my opinion of the game.

Maybe you don't agree with it, but you at least see my reasoning, right?

I mean, yes i do. I just don't understand how one wouldn't agree that "most" people at 10+ are more comfortable with the controls than lvl 1s... but alright.
At least i do get your point and partly agree with it. But at the end i still believe that it's "better" the way it is simply because, as i said, i believe most people at level 10+ are just better at the game than those who just played 5 turf war matches.

Personally i still wasn't comfortable with the controls even after taking part in 2 1/2 testfire sessions so i'm talking out of experience. Maybe that wasn't the case for you tho.