BeanYak
Full Squid
Hi, Friends,
Our game is still very new, so people are still discussing and evaluating our maps, gamemodes, and weapons. We all have our preferences, and people have taken a disliking to many of the game's features, whether it be rollers, Port Mackerel, Rainmaker, etc. While that's fine, it really grinds my gears to hear people talk about imbalance in this game. Splatoon and its features are, by nature, perfectly balanced because the game plays perfectly symmetrically.
Maps: The maps in Splatoon are made to be completely symmetrical so there is no reason that maps should bring up any issues in competition. The only exception to this as of n ow, that I can think of, is Saltspray Rig, where the elevators are not synchronized and the crane's angle of motion is not reflected on the center of the map. Otherwise, the maps each present equal opportunities to all players.
With that, there is absolutely no reason that, in competition, certain maps should be banned due to balance issues. Being Nintendo fans, a good portion of us have most of our competitive experience with Smash, where map bans and counterpicks are one of the key factors in the metagame. However, this game is not a Smash game, and it's not even a fighting game, so we shouldn't be treating it as such. Maps become problems in fighting games and RTS games because the maps either play asymmetrically or favor one player's character, race, etc. This is not seen in shooters because players tend to play with a variety of equipment. Many people dedicatedly play a single race in Warcraft 3, but I've never heard of a player "maining the Desert Eagle" in CS:GO, and that's because guns in shooters are far easier to pick up and master than entire races or characters in other games. With that considered, players are not stuck to certain equipment in this game that will cause them to lose a match at the selection of the map. Depending on how rulesets turn out, players will probably choose weapons based on the chosen map, anyway. Because of this, stage selection in tournaments should not restrict a single map in the map pool, and it should be at the player's discretion to decide for or against a map. There could be a case for Saltspray Rig, but the asymmetry probably won't decide any games at this stage of the game's life.
Gamemodes: There's also a lot of discussion around here about which gamemodes should be used in competitive play. Again, all four of the current gamemodes are perfectly symmetrical in objective, so they are, by nature, perfectly balanced. Few people complain about balance in Splat Zones or Turf War, but many people don't seem to be enjoying Tower Control or Rainmaker.
As one team makes more progress towards their objective, the other team has more of a hill to climb in order to reach their objective. Games will also be decided in various situations, such as a 4 man sweep. Unfortunately, that's just the nature of the beast. Although these situations make it harder for one team to win, that doesn't make the gamemode unbalanced because symmetry only needs to exist at the start of the game. Whatever happens during the match is entirely up to the players, and if the situations are equal, the team that plays the match better will always win. Personally, I think that mechanics like these make the game more exciting, anyway.
Equipment: I think that this is the most troublesome part of the game's balance. The equipment that each team chooses at the start of the game leads to some natural asymmetry. Certain team compositions may beat other compositions, and certain loadouts may be better than others. This system is unbalanced, but it prevents the game from being dry as bread by giving players choices and allowing them to give themself as big of an edge as they can.
The only problem that I would want to see fixed is the unpredictability of the opposing team's playstyle. As of now, players cannot see any of the weapons or gear that the opposing team has chosen. This might make the game rock-paper-scissors like at the weapon selection, and games may favor one team simply because they guessed correctly at what to run. To help combat this, I would like to see draft picks on weapons, much like we see in MOBAs. For those that are unfamiliar, teams take turns picking characters, where they can see what the opposing team has in order to influence their own decisions. Most of the games that use draft picking also have phases where you can ban the enemy team from using certain characters, although I don't think that's necessary in Splatoon. However, picks would make the games feel more fun and balanced by allowing teams to react accordingly to the weapons of the enemy teams, thus preventing shutout games due to unpredictable weapon loadouts. If the meta gets as crazily developed as it's becoming, competitions could even draft pick gear before games, although many would argue that this makes competition far too clunky and slow. I won't disagree with that, but at least the weapon draft picks would bring competition far closer to balance than without.
Our game is still very new, so people are still discussing and evaluating our maps, gamemodes, and weapons. We all have our preferences, and people have taken a disliking to many of the game's features, whether it be rollers, Port Mackerel, Rainmaker, etc. While that's fine, it really grinds my gears to hear people talk about imbalance in this game. Splatoon and its features are, by nature, perfectly balanced because the game plays perfectly symmetrically.
Maps: The maps in Splatoon are made to be completely symmetrical so there is no reason that maps should bring up any issues in competition. The only exception to this as of n ow, that I can think of, is Saltspray Rig, where the elevators are not synchronized and the crane's angle of motion is not reflected on the center of the map. Otherwise, the maps each present equal opportunities to all players.
With that, there is absolutely no reason that, in competition, certain maps should be banned due to balance issues. Being Nintendo fans, a good portion of us have most of our competitive experience with Smash, where map bans and counterpicks are one of the key factors in the metagame. However, this game is not a Smash game, and it's not even a fighting game, so we shouldn't be treating it as such. Maps become problems in fighting games and RTS games because the maps either play asymmetrically or favor one player's character, race, etc. This is not seen in shooters because players tend to play with a variety of equipment. Many people dedicatedly play a single race in Warcraft 3, but I've never heard of a player "maining the Desert Eagle" in CS:GO, and that's because guns in shooters are far easier to pick up and master than entire races or characters in other games. With that considered, players are not stuck to certain equipment in this game that will cause them to lose a match at the selection of the map. Depending on how rulesets turn out, players will probably choose weapons based on the chosen map, anyway. Because of this, stage selection in tournaments should not restrict a single map in the map pool, and it should be at the player's discretion to decide for or against a map. There could be a case for Saltspray Rig, but the asymmetry probably won't decide any games at this stage of the game's life.
Gamemodes: There's also a lot of discussion around here about which gamemodes should be used in competitive play. Again, all four of the current gamemodes are perfectly symmetrical in objective, so they are, by nature, perfectly balanced. Few people complain about balance in Splat Zones or Turf War, but many people don't seem to be enjoying Tower Control or Rainmaker.
As one team makes more progress towards their objective, the other team has more of a hill to climb in order to reach their objective. Games will also be decided in various situations, such as a 4 man sweep. Unfortunately, that's just the nature of the beast. Although these situations make it harder for one team to win, that doesn't make the gamemode unbalanced because symmetry only needs to exist at the start of the game. Whatever happens during the match is entirely up to the players, and if the situations are equal, the team that plays the match better will always win. Personally, I think that mechanics like these make the game more exciting, anyway.
Equipment: I think that this is the most troublesome part of the game's balance. The equipment that each team chooses at the start of the game leads to some natural asymmetry. Certain team compositions may beat other compositions, and certain loadouts may be better than others. This system is unbalanced, but it prevents the game from being dry as bread by giving players choices and allowing them to give themself as big of an edge as they can.
The only problem that I would want to see fixed is the unpredictability of the opposing team's playstyle. As of now, players cannot see any of the weapons or gear that the opposing team has chosen. This might make the game rock-paper-scissors like at the weapon selection, and games may favor one team simply because they guessed correctly at what to run. To help combat this, I would like to see draft picks on weapons, much like we see in MOBAs. For those that are unfamiliar, teams take turns picking characters, where they can see what the opposing team has in order to influence their own decisions. Most of the games that use draft picking also have phases where you can ban the enemy team from using certain characters, although I don't think that's necessary in Splatoon. However, picks would make the games feel more fun and balanced by allowing teams to react accordingly to the weapons of the enemy teams, thus preventing shutout games due to unpredictable weapon loadouts. If the meta gets as crazily developed as it's becoming, competitions could even draft pick gear before games, although many would argue that this makes competition far too clunky and slow. I won't disagree with that, but at least the weapon draft picks would bring competition far closer to balance than without.