That is completely true. Those are almost certainly the strongest specials in Splat Zones atm. I personally just feel like with party paly those things will be much easier to play around and prepare for. Regardless only time will truly tell.
Yes I'm saying that because if you win say 80% to 15% you now have to win by more than 65% to advance to the next round. And some maps make it rather difficult to win by that much like walleye and blue fin, They're so small and rather straight forward that a team can end up not playing to win but instead playing not to lose by a large amount. That leads to a toxic/un-competitive play style that makes it hard for the other team to come back from. Best of 3 avoids this problem and makes both teams play for the win instead of playing not to lose.
They don't need to score 65% or more the next round, it's gonna be more than just 2 rounds you know. You can always "counterpick" to go to the other stages though or whatever, plus you can win by a lot in any stage. Playing "not to lose" is not toxic. They shouldn't have been behind so much as they can just afford to spam ink and do stupid stuff in the first place. Besides, you can do cheap stuff in any game so this isn't really an argument
You're wrong, what you are doing is putting unequal weight on the first match for momentum, or putting significantly more weight on maps that have a higher variance. I don't see how you could possibly think percentage is a good idea. Match score in a series will always be the best indicator of skill and best format for tournaments.
These are my thoughts exactly. I don't see percentage based ever being viable over a standard BoX. Considering most people I've seen at least seem to be thinking that a best of 5 or 7 will be ideal as the standard set I feel liek both teams will have equal opportunity to prove themselves and win matches making for an exciting game to watch, and if we include both gamemodes that will be even better.
I think I said everything that needs to be said at this point so I don't feel like repeating myself. I imagine nintendo will put in some mode where after some matches this team is decided as the victor so that's what everyone will use. Enjoy losing by 0.1%, then again if you played against me it would be more like 30% #trashtalk
You clearly didn't read the full thing when talking about "playing not to lose." PLAYING NOT TO LOSE BY A LARGE PERCENTAGE is in fact rather toxic and anti-competitive and leads to questions of the integrity of the game if the rules allow and even promote the play style by the use of going off % and not by winning the map. So you're saying that its the teams fault for ultimately losing a match because they weren't able to score more points in wins than their opponents did in their wins? That's rather asinine to say, as I said in a previous comment, teams in cs:go have maps where they're really good at with like 80% win rates on and maps they're not very good at, punishing a team for scoring poorly on a map they're not as good at compared to the other team would make anyone question the integrity of the people that came up with the rule set.
I'm sorry, but what in the world are you saying. I have been understanding of your ideas for quite a bit now but I cant justify anything you're saying anymore.
This is entirely subjective, for someone this is fair and for someone else it isn't. This is not an argument
Cool, for the other team it would be heartbreaking though.
Because not every match of 4v4 has to be a tournament? Just saying. How is my opinion on what the rules should be somehow sabotaging the game's competitive side?
First off losses in a tournament will always be heartbreaking for the loser. Especially in grandfinals.
There's a difference between getting completely destroyed in grand finals and losing by .1%, you replay the scenario over and over in your head thinking that pretty much any mistake made you lose
Its not subjective at all, either way you look at it it isn't fair to the losing side because they won more maps yet lose because they didn't score a high enough percentage.
Well since wer'ei n the TOURNAMENT RULESET IDEA THREAD I would say every match of 4v4 would be in a tournament. You are clearly trolling now and it has become apparent that there is no point in responding to anything you say.
The result maybe different but it will still be very heartbreaking to lose in the finals no matter what.
Hasn't been decided but personally given the choice between the two currently available modes, I'd like it tournaments on turf wars. It may change after august when they add more maps/modes though
There currently are advocates for using both gamemodes im competitive and also those for using only one. ATM it seems very even, but it still comes down to waiting for party play so that we may see how each gamemode plays when full partys are put against one another in an environment where they can strategize, and play in a more organized manner. I personally would like to see both used.
But if both are used, how will we decide which one is used?
You do not understand what the word fair means.
While yes, this thread is called tournament ruleset ideas, this just means it's the ruleset of a tournament, meaning even casual games can use this ruleset.
Well, not if you know you're going to lose
I would say that it would be up to the tournament organizer to decide if they want just one mode used or allow teams when they pick the map they want to play on to select the mode as well.
