So what's the verdict with Turf Wars being part of Splatoon Tournaments?

[CM2]

Are they absent or are they still here?

 

[Fightersword]

Absent. Other than special exceptions, all the tournaments hosted 'round here run SZ, TC, and RM. In Japan it's probably mighty different mostly because they have a million dollar splatoon tournament that does turf war. But if you're looking to play Tourneys hosted here you won't be playing turf war.

 

[Deleted Member]

Turf Wars are a joke in a competitive environment.

 

[Pivi]

There have been plenty of Splatoon tournaments so far, none with Turf, but they might be getting rid of Rainmaker as well, or rework how to win that mode.

 

[Fightersword]

There have been plenty of Splatoon tournaments so far, none with Turf, but they might be getting rid of Rainmaker as well, or rework how to win that mode.

We are not. General consensus is that RM is viable even though it is less liked. the 'solutions' other than banning it have also been ludicrous.

 

[SquiliamTentacles]

Turf Wars are a joke in a competitive environment.

Why? It gives no advantage to either team, and it relies purely on skill. The greater objective of the entire map leads to deeper strategies and decisions than controlling a point.

 

[Agosta44]

Why? It gives no advantage to either team, and it relies purely on skill. The greater objective of the entire map leads to deeper strategies and decisions than controlling a point.

dynamo -> press zr

much depth. many strats. wow.

 

[Rhode]

dynamo -> press zr

much depth. many strats. wow.

any charger > hold zr > let go

dead dynamo. many strats. wow.

 

[Eclipsc70]

Im personally not one for turf war; Only time I ever play it is during splatfests, but although I do get where people who dont like turfwar are coming from, I feel as though it really is just a 'splatzones' type of mode where if one team can hold down a point then they win, however if the other team pushes through then rip. only real problem is that its more time based than the other modes but if you ask me it can be one of the most competitive modes since it demands such perfection in strategy. If all we had was turf war then we would have to train our teams to not let ANY push through no matter what. what im trying to say is basically since Turf War can shift tides in an instant, teams would base their mindset around that and make sure that does not happen.

 

[SupaTim]

The problem with Turf War is that it takes a snapshot at the end of three minutes and judges the whole match based on that. Imagine if tower control worked the same way: whoever is in control of the tower wins at the end of three minutes. It doesn't accurately reflect how the game actually played out.

If it was treated like a giant splat zones, where you get points when you have more turf covered than your opponent, then I think it would be more viable, but that's just not the case.

 

[1o2]

Why? It gives no advantage to either team, and it relies purely on skill. The greater objective of the entire map leads to deeper strategies and decisions than controlling a point.

I'd say TW is more like SZ, so I'll compare those more closely. In SZ as you know (I hope) you control the zone and you get points that put you in the lead for it. In TW, control a choke point and get zero points for it. Let's say in SZ I lose the zone with 5 points left. The opposing team has to hold the zone for at least 95 points of time in order to beat me. In TW, all the other team has to do is break my choke point hold once within the last 30 seconds, and lock my team out for 20 seconds. At the end of the 3 minutes, the game announces the opposing team as the winner, even though they held only "earned 20 points" if we put it in SZ time. You can't even argue that the opposing team who broke the chokepoint hold at the last second is better, because they only won 1 encounter. My team would've won countless of encounters before the last ~30 seconds. Basically the early game and mid-game are irrelevant, because only the last fight truly matters.

Even in RM you can't simply rely on the late game on most maps, because you need to win 2 fights in order to win. The exceptions would be Flounder Heights (iffy), Mall (also iffy) and Blackbelly Skatepark, where you need to only win one encounter. But generally you need to completely wipe the opposing team, not just a 3 man wipe. You also have to keep in mind it is significantly easier to just stop the Rainmaker in general, as you only have to kill 1 person. At any rate, you still have to earn points in RM, there are no points to earn in TW.

I'd also like to point out that if a team is dominant for 2 minutes and 30 seconds, they'd probably get a knockout in any game mode at that point, immediately ending the game. In TW, it doesn't really matter how long you are outplaying the opponent, but when you outplay the opponent.

 

[Helios42]

In serious competitions I understand how turf war is problematic, especially compared to the other modes. However, I would like to see turf war tournaments because I think that'd be fun, and its hard to get turf war matches between high level teams as is. Even with the objective being entirely time dependent, I still think itd be awesome to do (just in a low stakes setting where people play their hardest but understand that turnarounds happen)

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

Somethings never change.

 

[Helio]

Turf war should be viable for competition:

1. Most sports use a snapshot at end of a period of time. Basketball, football, baseball, take a snapshot of the score at end of game. Basketball could say first to 100 points wins, like TC, RM or SZ. A run of 20-0 in middle of basketball game doesn't have any residual effect other than its effect on the score at final buzzer.
2. Volleyball uses first to 25 with three games played to reduce a weak team having one good game, no timer. But most games only care about a snapshot of points at final buzzer. The fact that TC, RM and SZ have a skunk rule, 100 ends game before expire of timer, doesn't make TW more or less viable.
3. A series can account for variable results. Basketball and baseball use a seven game format to account for uneven results in a single game. Football does not.
4. The fact that TW has variable results shouldn't kill it. Many sports use 7 games to combat variability.
5. Each pixel inked is one point. TW adds your points and opponent points, like scoring baskets in basketball. The fact that when you ink over opponents ink a point is subtracted doesn't change that dynamic. Would it matter in basketball if you only got one point per basket but it subtracted a point from opponent too? Still be two per basket.
6. Nintendo says it is viable with $1,000,000. Teams should practice it. Strategy comes with practice in competition.
7. One fourth of Splatoon is thrown out on a worry that weak teams might sneak a game or two. When basketball and baseball with the same worry make a 7 game series. We may not ever get another mode. About 12 maps and four modes, 12 out of 48 mode/map combos are tossed out.
8. Fun, TW is fun. Any game with a last minute win is fun, there is no stalling, you've got bomb rush, ink strike, and killer wail all blasting in last 30 sec in total chaos, what's not to love?
9. The fact that TW is not in Ranked really doesnt make it more or less viable. But might give a stigma of being a lesser mode.
10. TW really shows off what makes splatoon unique. Any shooter can have TC or RM. Even SZ isn't too dissimilar to other shooters.
11. Only TW can take advantage of last 30 sec ability.
12. If Dynamo roller, or some other weapon has an advantage, there is a counter. Tm, RM, SZ all have weapons that are favored, and counter weapons.

 

[1o2]

Each pixel inked is one point. TW adds your points and opponent points, like scoring baskets in basketball. The fact that when you ink over opponents ink a point is subtracted doesn't change that dynamic. Would it matter in basketball if you only got one point per basket but it subtracted a point from opponent too? Still be two per basket.

A key difference that I'd like to point out. For people who don't want to keep scrolling down, I'll put the post in a spoiler.

Spoiler

It's extremely important to realize there is a very finite number of points to be earned in Turf Wars, unlike Basketball, Football, etc. I can only safely earn a certain amount of points until I risk overextending and losing the chokepoint. Following this point, if my team is holding a point for 2 minutes, theoritically my team should be getting points throughout that entire time, but with a finite point system, you do not. Unlike Basketball, where if my team is simply playing better than another team for one quarter, I will constantly be gaining points. The same for the second, third, and final quarter.

When using a timed final snapshot method like most sports do, the scores accurately reflect how both teams played throughout the ENTIRE match. So for example, if i score 10 baskets in the first quarter, and 30 in the third quarter, my total score is still reflected on the scoreboard. I got something for playing better than the other team at different parts of the game. In Turf Wars, I can hold 60% of the map for 2 minutes and 45 seconds, but with the finite point system, my score will remain a constant of 60 points (just for convenience). My superior play is simply not being rewarded. Let's say in the last minute, the other team forces my team down to 40%, and now they have the 60% map control. If they lock me out, their superior one minute play is more heavily rewarded than my 2 minutes of superior play. It would essentially be like playing basketball where in the last 30 seconds, every basket is worth 100 points. If the other team manages to score two, but you can only score one, you lose the game. Your extreme consistency in the beginning was irrelevant, as the other team only had to score 2 baskets compared to your 35 (for example). In other gamemodes, your end score does in fact show how you played during one part of the match, yes. Except the key difference is in those game modes knockouts exist, which reward a team for playing better than another team for extended periods of time.

Of course this doesn't become a huge problem when one team is so much better than the other that it's hopeless for one team. But it does become a massive problem when teams are around the same level (whether it be at the highest competitive level, or lowest competitive level) or with a moderate gap (someone with a power level over 9000, vs someone who only has a power level of 8500).

Just to clarify, I do think it would be cool for Turf Wars to be played competitively, however I don't think it should be. Or at the very least, not played situations where a team must play it in order to win.

 

[WydrA]

I may be in the minority here, but Turf Wars' "swing" mechanic is not its main problem. It's a perfectly viable competitive way win if you win TW. Basically this comes down to the same thing as rainmaker. yeah, the team that technically played worse on average may still win, but that doesn't mean they didn't deserve it. Most competitive games have some form of this rule or another, the possibility of always having some chance of winning is what makes the game exciting, and it's why people play.
the fact of the matter is, just as I said in the Rainmaker thread, if you held them at base for 20 minutes straight, and then they ace you and bring it back in the last 30 seconds they still deserve the win, because your team f- *ahem* messed up. both of your teams are aware that as the counter gets closer to 0, the more valuable the time is. If your team gets over-confident and lets themselves get wrecked then that's your team's problem, not the game mode's. It's very unforgiving, and a huge swing, and heck yeah it can bring on the salt, but none of those things actually make it unfair or noncompetitive.
Additionally, i find that with this complaint often comes the implication that some crappy team could end up beating an incredible team because they'll just get lucky and "abuse" these parts of the mode. That's just not true. As i said in the RM (or perhaps just implied) thread, when a team wins, they often actualy just played the mode better. We often have pre-conceived notions of which team is better, and therefore deserves to win, =and sometimes we even develop those notions in the duration of a map - but the game is impartial. It has laid down rules that don't benefit either team, and it picks the winner who managed to win within those rules. Going back to what i just said, one of those "rules" is the "snapshot".
Finally, people seem to be implying hat this feature basically makes the duration of the match useless or unimportant but in truth, its definitely worth something. It's actually worth a lot. I don't think anyone here can seriously claim that sitting in base, allowing the other team to ink free for the first 2 minutes, then trying to get the win for the lat minute is a viable strategy. Even if you play better for that minute, you still have half the amount of time to undo the inking the other team has done. The same essentially applies in a normal match. You get an advantage by keeping he other team out of play (dead), and it should take them the same amount of time to cover it.
Well, if the mode wasn't so weapon imbalanced....

Which leads me to my disclaimer:

I'm not actually saying TF should be played competitively. I'm perfectly fine with it sitting out right now. I have an issue with people using the above excuses. There are other issues the mode has that makes it much less competitive that the other imo, but the swing/snapshot isn't one of them.

 

[Nucleose]

A basketball team cannot make up for a massive deficit in points in the last 30 seconds in the game. A football team cannot make up for a massive deficit in points in the last 30 seconds of a game. In turf war, the map could be 80% good guys and can turn into 80% bad guys in the last 30 seconds of a game. Overtime in the other modes may allow a team that was seriously behind to overcome something, but there are severe restrictions and massive pressure in order to stop them from doing so, and go figure, it's only easier to do so if they didn't have a massive deficit in points. Good luck getting your tower from 100 to 4 in the last lap of a game just off of one team wipe, or holding a point for that long when the enemy team has been dominating you the whole time. The snapshot in other sports analogy does not hold up at all. The swing snapshot is absolutely one of the reasons Turf War isn't viable, especially because it's a set amount of time and you can't win by knockout, which stops stellar teams from preventing comebacks and "messing up" to begin with.

People also talk about fun but fun does not define competitive. Also, splatoon's mechanics in an of themselves greatly separate it from other shooters even if their modes resemble others, it doesn't need turf war to be unique and that's not even the big point to be discussing anyway.

 

[WydrA]

A basketball team cannot make up for a massive deficit in points in the last 30 seconds in the game. A football team cannot make up for a massive deficit in points in the last 30 seconds of a game. In turf war, the map could be 80% good guys and can turn into 80% bad guys in the last 30 seconds of a game. Overtime in the other modes may allow a team that was seriously behind to overcome something, but there are severe restrictions and massive pressure in order to stop them from doing so, and go figure, it's only easier to do so if they didn't have a massive deficit in points. Good luck getting your tower from 100 to 4 in the last lap of a game just off of one team wipe, or holding a point for that long when the enemy team has been dominating you the whole time. The snapshot in other sports analogy does not hold up at all. The swing snapshot is absolutely one of the reasons Turf War isn't viable, especially because it's a set amount of time and you can't win by knockout, which stops stellar teams from preventing comebacks and "messing up" to begin with.

People also talk about fun but fun does not define competitive. Also, splatoon's mechanics in an of themselves greatly separate it from other shooters even if their modes resemble others, it doesn't need turf war to be unique and that's not even the big point to be discussing anyway.

I'm not really sure if you're responding to Helio alone or (it kind of seems as) if you're including me (this is why we quote lol) but I'm gonna give you my opinion anyway, and you're going to like it.
Yeah but (and I'm obviously simplifying here) turf wars =/= sports. Video games in general work very differently from sports in general when it comes to rulesets. Most competitive video games don't use the goal/point system, opting for an objective instead. As you yourself admitted to, all the splatoon modes (technically) have swing potential not found in sports. there may be a variety of places where sports and competitive gaming, such as strategy, mindset, training, momentum, etc. but when it comes to objectives it often doesn't translate well. There are exceptions obviously, but that just makes the rule :P
On the note of the other modes; the fact that it's harder to make the comeback in other modes is basically meaningless. the difficulty of something has nothing to do with how competitive it is.
You sound very assertive and confident in stating that swing/snapshot is one of the reasons the mode isn't competitive, but I don't see you giving any definitive reasoning or proof as to why it is. You can't point to it giving either team an unfair advantage, or letting the team who played the mode better in that match come out on top.All you've really done is compare it to sports, and other modes and talk about the fact you can't get knockouts.

Speaking of which, teams at every level are able to get knockouts, in all modes. It's not at all indicative of being stellar. Also the fact that you can end the game preemptively doesn't intrinsically make it more competitive, and it certainly isn't the only way for a mode to be competitive. Saying that the fact you can't knock people out, which makes you more likely to mess up late game and lose is not an argument for non-competitiveness.that's like someone trying to say sprints are more indicative of who is the better runner, because longer races gives the other person a chance to catch up and maybe win. If the mode is about being incredibly consistent, and not giving your opponents so much as an opportunity to cover an equal amount of turf, then that's just what the mode as is about. you can't say the fact that some people aren't consistent enough to achieve that makes the game noncompetitive. If that's the case, they just need to -as the phrase so famously goes- "git gud", so to speak. If they can't handle that pressure, blaming the mode is a wuss' way of handling that fact.

Also I don't think Helio was implying that the game being fun actually makes it more competitive, he gave it as a reason to be played in competition. Different things.

Anyway, look, I'm a strong believer in the "innocent until proven guilty" thought process when it comes to what should and should not be banned in a game, and many around here at least claim to be of a similar mind. The evidence you've given is far from damning. As I mentioned before, competitiveness is mostly decided by a game's balance. generally, as long as both/all teams/players have an equally opportunity at winning, or even a reasonably close chance at winning, the game is competitive. This is the case with the snapshot/swing feature. At least until you can give a factual reason as to some way this provides an unfair advantage to one player/team over the other, I think it's best you stop stating it as a reason for the mode not being competitive, and simply state the truth instead: it's frustrating. remember, frustrating =/= noncompetitive

And once again, there are other arguments to be made for a lack of competitiveness, I'm just saying this isn't one of them.

 

[1o2]

f you held them at base for 20 minutes straight,

I don't have much time, so i'll make the response quick.

If you are base locking someone for 20 minutes straight and you don't get the knockout in Rainmaker, that's entirely your teams fault. In Turf wars, it takes about 30 seconds to cover up to mid and beyond on a decent amount of the maps. However what's truly relevant in turf wars isn't covering turf, it's actually holding onto the territory you've inked. As you said, I can't just wait in my base the entire time then suddenly cover back the entire map with one ace, as that's foolish. The situation I'm talking about is the 40% map control vs 60% map control lock (mall and walleye especially come to mind), where maybe people die every so often. Perhaps the leading team loses one member but the other loses 2, etc. The problem here is that controlling the map for most of the match, or playing the objective does not give you any advantage or lead over the other team. Even if the other team takes it over during the last minute and hold it until the end, they had to be less consistent than my team who had been holding it for 66% of the timer. Would you say it takes more skill to hold an area for 2 minutes, or 1 minute?

In Rainmaker, winning in the last 30 seconds or in the first 30 seconds takes the same amount of time for both teams. At the end of the day I still carried the rainmaker as far as you did. In Turf Wars, even though you are supposed to just cover all the turf, the true objective is to just hold your territory. But I suppose if you wanted to argue how long it took to cover the turf is the same for both teams, fair enough. I think turf wars would be much better if the game tracked which team had more of the map longer, and the team that did would win. If your team didn't hold the entire map for longer, but had more ink% at the end, overtime would trigger like all other gamemodes. But you would consider this frustrating, not uncompetitive.

As I said earlier, I do want to see Turf Wars competitively, but I just don't think it is worth having players suffer through it.

Edit: Accidently double posted by replying to myself instead of hitting edit, won't let me delete my other post though because it doesn't have 10 characters.

 

[1o2]

I don't have much time, so i'll make the response quick.

If you are base locking someone for 20 minutes straight and you don't get the knockout in Rainmaker, that's entirely your teams fault. In Turf wars, it takes about 30 seconds to cover up to mid and beyond on a decent amount of the maps. However what's truly relevant in turf wars isn't covering turf, it's actually holding onto the territory you've inked. As you said, I can't just wait in my base the entire time then suddenly cover back the entire map with one ace, as that's foolish. The situation I'm talking about is the 40% map control vs 60% map control lock (mall and walleye especially come to mind), where maybe people die every so often. Perhaps the leading team loses one member but the other loses 2, etc. The problem here is that controlling the map for most of the match, or playing the objective does not give you any advantage or lead over the other team. Even if the other team takes it over during the last minute and hold it until the end, they had to be less consistent than my team who had been holding it for 66% of the timer. Would you say it takes more skill to hold an area for 2 minutes, or 1 minute?

In Rainmaker, winning in the last 30 seconds or in the first 30 seconds takes the same amount of time for both teams. At the end of the day I still carried the rainmaker as far as you did. In Turf Wars, even though you are supposed to just cover all the turf, the true objective is to just hold your territory. But I suppose if you wanted to argue how long it took to cover the turf is the same for both teams, fair enough. Although this is what you would consider frustrating, not necessarily uncompetitive.

As I said earlier, I do want to see Turf Wars competitively, but I just don't think it is worth having players suffer through it.[/QUOTE]