Splatfest Recap: And The Winners Are...

Hey there squids and kids! Hopefully the Splatfest was inkredibly fresh for all who joined in. Callie and Marie sang their hearts out, the ink flied, and the competition was fierce. There was a lot of trash talking going on between those on either sides of the event as well but in the end only one team could be victorious. Let us lament in the losses and celebrate the winners. Here are the results!

Japan ​

Winner: Red Fox Udon

• Score: 161
• Popularity: 67%
• Wins: 47%

Loser: Green Tanuki Soba

• Score: 139
• Popularity: 33%
• Wins: 53%

Europe ​

Winner: Rock

• Score: 170
• Popularity: 64%
• Wins: 53%

Loser: Pop

• Score: 130
• Popularity: 26%
• Wins: 47%

North America ​

Winner: Dogs

• Score: 160
• Popularity: 62%
• Wins: 49%

Loser: Cats

• Score: 140
• Popularity: 38%
• Wins: 51%

Amidst the fun of the Splatfest however there have been some concerns from fans. Many players played on one sided teams where there were not even full 4v4 (with some player even suffering in 1v4 fights). At times teams were even forced to face up against players who had voted similar as well. All teams with the highest popularity won as well even despite the win rate being higher for others which has some upset.

There is sure to be much discussion going on about upcoming Splatfests both positive and negative. We hope everyone had as much fun as possible and will stay here on Squidboards to keep that discussion going strong. Until the next Splatfest be sure to stay fresh!

 

4 teams would make it awesome, and maybe a special Splatfest mode. (Not Turf War or Splatzones, something new)

Or even just a map being released on the same day to make the map selections a bit more interesting during splatfest.

 

Yeah.
But four teams would be chaotic.
Which would make it even more fun.
Splatoon is meant to be chaotic so... Yeah

 

True, but every match I played (I was stuck with noobs using chargers and shooting at the ground :/) that happened to the Dogs. But I think it's kind of ridiculous how salty everyone gets for Splatfests.
They're meant to be one thing, fun. Fun for everyone, and they really should just give the same amount of sea snails to everyone for playing because it really doesn't matter who was more popular, or who had more skill. It's meant to be fun.
Ps: Sorry this is all over the place. I'm really tired.

It is meant to be fun and I agree with you on that, but whenever there is a competition that is actually meant to mean something (in this case, sea snails, which are super important since some people want to create a competitive scene for splatoon once that's possible) the organizers must be aware that they have to make fair rules for it where people will not feel that they are unfair. For some people (like me) the fun of competitive games comes from doing your best to win and be rewarded for actually winning while knowing that if you end up losing, it was your fault and your fault only, so you can accept that and still have fun. But splatfest remove that fun for me since if you lose, you only get frustrated and if you win, you feel it wasn't fair victory.

 

Very true. I was also like hyper Noob when Splatfest happened so it was my fault too. (I like just got the game the day before Splatfest)

 

So TLDR;

If there were 4.5 million matches, Cats needed to win 6000 more matches than dogs with less teammates.

630,000 IFTFY. BTW: That's a little over half a million matches MORE we needed to win with less people, and gimped 3-2 inkling teams... Big problems with that.

 

Oh dear, this thread has turned into quite the feces-storm.

I have no complaints with Splatfest in it's current form. So popularity counts, wins count twice as much. Dogs only won because of the sheer amount of them. This isn't likely to happen again.

 

From the beginning of the Splatfest players knew that points would be decided by a combination of popularity and wins so I don't see why its a problem now. Also the wins were close for cat vs dog so its not like cats were completely better they only won 51% more. If it went down to wins only then the least popular team would always win because there are more bad or decent players than great players. Or also there are more players thatjust got the game. So you would think the popular team would have more losses since they would have more of these players. If only teams were more balanced because as team dog I would have to play against my own team team so many times and those just ended in wasted wins that didn't count.

There is absolutely NO way to measure that there would be more "great" players on the least popular side. Rock Vs Pop in Europe shows this. Unfortunately people tried to argue exactly what you're saying here, on the sub-reddit... but guess what happened? They had two math professors come on school that theory away.

 

Oh dear, this thread has turned into quite the feces-storm.

I have no complaints with Splatfest in it's current form. So popularity counts, wins count twice as much. Dogs only won because of the sheer amount of them. This isn't likely to happen again.

/the most popular team has won each splatfest held around the world. Evidence says you're wrong.

 

The main thing is the massive difference. If the popularity is super close and the battles aren't, say 70 to 30, then either could win (if they had 70)

 

The main thing is the massive difference. If the popularity is super close and the battles aren't, say 70 to 30, then either could win (if they had 70)

Thing is though, popularity rates usually have a higher difference between them than win rates. Just use the google trends website (https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=/m/0bt9lr, /m/01yrx&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+3) and you will see that no matter what two items of the same subject you choose, the popularity rate between them will be highly different. In fact, dogs vs cats was the splatfest that had the smallest difference in popularity, and that still ended up meaning that cats had to win 57% of the matches, in other splatfests the things were much more worse.

In the meanwhile, the higher the amount of matches, the higher is the amount of wins you need to have a decent win rate. if you play 10 matches, you need to win 6 of them to get a 60% win rate, if you play 100 matches you need to win 60, and if you play 1000 matches, you need to win 600, it gets more difficult to maintain a win rate the more you play, and in a event that around 400k people are playing together for 24 hours, a team winning even a small number as 55% of the matches is an incredibly difficult task.

 

Oh dear, this thread has turned into quite the feces-storm.

I have no complaints with Splatfest in it's current form. So popularity counts, wins count twice as much. Dogs only won because of the sheer amount of them. This isn't likely to happen again.

/the most popular team has won each splatfest held around the world. Evidence says you're wrong.

In this guys defense no other team has been less popular but had won more matches. This might also be because the less popular team ends up with more matches with less than 4 players though that skews win rates in their opponent's favor.