Tournament Ruleset Ideas

[Chiiab]

yes because all those modes are extremely popular and has hundreds of tournaments using each specific game mode. And has 32+ teams in each of those tournaments for every mode



Funny how you try to be sarcastic about it, but you don't see profession CS:GO players being expected to be good at all the other modes offered on cs:go. Nor do you expect halo, BO2, AW, or GoW teams to be proficient in every single mode and play in every single mode for that tournament.

I was laughing at the fact that people want to copy other games instead of doing our own thing. If we as a community decide on something without trying things out we're just limiting our options and that's not good.

 

[Vexen]

I was laughing at the fact that people want to copy other games instead of doing our own thing. If we as a community decide on something without trying things out we're just limiting our options and that's not good.

But isn't it hypocritical to make fun of people "wanting" to copy cs:go but fine with others wanting to copy CoD/halo, which is what pusha wants

 

[Pusha]

But isn't it hypocritical to make fun of people "wanting" to copy cs:go but fine with others wanting to copy CoD, which is what pusha wants

My suggestion isn't eliminating content for the sake of eliminating content. Saying "we need only one gametype for tournaments" is just plain wrong as evidenced by all the games I listed. My point is we should be using whatever gametypes are competitive and not simply choosing 1.

 

[Vexen]

My suggestion isn't eliminating content for the sake of eliminating content. Saying "we need only one gametype for tournaments" is just plain wrong as evidenced by all the games I listed. My point is we should be using whatever gametypes are competitive and not simply choosing 1.

I don't think one person is saying to eliminating content for the sake of eliminating content, They're saying to eliminate things because they're not balanced as they are right now, like eliminating specific maps from certain game modes if they give unfair advantages or are not balanced, Is there no maps in CoD or Halo that are not restricted based on the modes? Like for me I feel that maps with only one splatzone like arrowama mall are unbalanced because not only is it harder to contest the zone but the other team has the advantage of having the high ground as well. There is a reason why in actual wars, the high ground is the most treasured

 

[Pusha]

I don't think one person is saying to eliminating content for the sake of eliminating content, They're saying to eliminate things because they're not balanced as they are right now, like eliminating specific maps from certain game modes if they give unfair advantages or are not balanced, Is there no maps in CoD or Halo that are not restricted based on the modes? Like for me I feel that maps with only one splatzone like arrowama mall are unbalanced because not only is it harder to contest the zone but the other team has the advantage of having the high ground as well. There is a reason why in actual wars, the high ground is the most treasured

Well you did in fact say that we should only have 1 gametype. I agree some map/gametype combinations won't work. (Although i wouldn't exactly call it due to balance issues, that's a miss-attribution since in fact all the maps are symmetrical and thus evenly balanced. It's more due to design issues which make the game less competitive or decrease skill gap, etc.)

So i agree that not all maps should be (and I don't think will be) used, but multiple gametypes definitely should be so long as they are competitive.

Also, single-zone maps aren't necessarily bad by default, they can still be pretty balanced, but some 2 zone maps may be a bit better. For instance, I think Saltspray Rig is a great splat zones map.

 

[Vexen]

Well you did in fact say that we should only have 1 gametype. I agree some map/gametype combinations won't work. (Although i wouldn't exactly call it due to balance issues, that's a miss-attribution since in fact all the maps are symmetrical and thus evenly balanced. It's more due to design issues which make the game less competitive or decrease skill gap, etc.)

So i agree that not all maps should be (and I don't think will be) used, but multiple gametypes definitely should be so long as they are competitive.

Also, single-zone maps aren't necessarily bad by default, they can still be pretty balanced, but some 2 zone maps may be a bit better. For instance, I think Saltspray Rig is a great splat zones map.

That's a personal opinion because I honestly dislike splatzones, an unbiased professional opinion would be to wait and see.

And saltspray is fine because its not exactly on the high ground like AM is, which is why I think WW is also fine too because there is no advantages to holding the high ground right in the middle of the zone and in fact makes you a sitting duck if you're facing any team that isn't 4 rollers. But AM gives the team behind a disadvantage as you either have to engage head on with those on the high ground or go from the side which can be camped by the enemy and is an easy choke point for killer wail.

 

[swifT]

Haven't been on the boards in a few days, and reading through all the discussion I'm just gonna go ahead and drop my own opinions that may have been drowned out by newer posts.

As the game stands I feel that all gamemodes that are competitive should be used. As it stands I feel that people are so eager to eliminate splatzones(or either of the gamemodes for that matter) because of their experiences in the solo ranked environment, but as I've been saying in past posts. Most of this is still just speculation. We cannot truly deme anything until we have a gamemode that has party play. Once custom games and party play is introduced we will start to see how that meta develops and then and only then do I think we will be able to make final decisions. Not to say anything anyone is saying here is incorrect, but it is still far to early to tell.

When we have a true competitive environment it will be much easier to test and see what should be allowed, what works, and what should be banned or limited.

For the first few months that we have access to custom/party play I feel that tournaments should operate in the first way that I suggested a while back which is that if we include a pick and ban phase for stages in our competitive format that the team that chooses the map should also choose the gamemode. There's is also the alternative idea of having the game modes rotate in a set order for the duration of the set and having the last game of a Bo7(if it reaches that) be random.

Sorry if that was a bit confusing to read. I will make it clearer to anyone confused.

 

[The Apple BOOM]

Haven't been on the boards in a few days, and reading through all the discussion I'm just gonna go ahead and drop my own opinions that may have been drowned out by newer posts.

As the game stands I feel that all gamemodes that are competitive should be used. As it stands I feel that people are so eager to eliminate splatzones(or either of the gamemodes for that matter) because of their experiences in the solo ranked environment, but as I've been saying in past posts. Most of this is still just speculation. We cannot truly deme anything until we have a gamemode that has party play. Once custom games and party play is introduced we will start to see how that meta develops and then and only then do I think we will be able to make final decisions. Not to say anything anyone is saying here is incorrect, but it is still far to early to tell.

When we have a true competitive environment it will be much easier to test and see what should be allowed, what works, and what should be banned or limited.

For the first few months that we have access to custom/party play I feel that tournaments should operate in the first way that I suggested a while back which is that if we include a pick and ban phase for stages in our competitive format that the team that chooses the map should also choose the gamemode. There's is also the alternative idea of having the game modes rotate in a set order for the duration of the set and having the last game of a Bo7(if it reaches that) be random.

Sorry if that was a bit confusing to read. I will make it clearer to anyone confused.

I still think it is an overall bad idea to have multiple game modes in one tournament.

 

[swifT]

I still think it is an overall bad idea to have multiple game modes in one tournament.

As it stands the community is very split in this yes. Only time will tell. The wait for party/custom games is going to be endless and make this debate even longer.

Personally I don't care which format is chosen though I feel using multiple game modes will make for a roe interesting competitive scene, and make competitive play more dynamic in general.

 

[Pusha]

I still think it is an overall bad idea to have multiple game modes in one tournament.

Why is that such a bad idea when many many games operate that way?

 

[Kajaarlz]

Why is that such a bad idea when many many games operate that way?

Depending on the person, they may only want to participate in only one game mode. I myself am not too keen on playing turf wars as personal preference, and I am sure that other people will that will be totally opposite. Having a tournament format where the game mode changes depending on counter pick doesn't really make sense, at least for Splatoon anyway.

Drawing comparisons with smash, it is a similar situation as swapping from a stock match to a timed match with items mid set, or in a very extreme example, swapping from melee to smash 4. You're not competing under the same rules by swapping out game modes depending on the winning team, It doesn't make sense.

Why not keep them separated as individual events with their own rules (if necessary)?

 

[Pusha]

Depending on the person, they may only want to participate in only one game mode. I myself am not too keen on playing turf wars as personal preference, and I am sure that other people will that will be totally opposite. Having a tournament format where the game mode changes depending on counter pick doesn't really make sense, at least for Splatoon anyway.

Drawing comparisons with smash, it is a similar situation as swapping from a stock match to a timed match with items mid set, or in a very extreme example, swapping from melee to smash 4. You're not competing under the same rules by swapping out game modes depending on the winning team, It doesn't make sense.

Why not keep them separated as individual events with their own rules (if necessary)?

Who said anything about striking or counter picks anyway? This game isn't smash bros, so people need to stop looking ONLY to smash bros for comparisons. There are plenty of ways to set up a match without needing striking, and certainly if we had multiple gametypes then those would definitely not be decided by striking, but rather by a set order. It seems a bit silly to have separate brackets for each gametype, especially considering that tower control and rainmaker will be releasing soon. Would there be 4 different brackets per tournament? Why not make it simple. 1 bracket, 1 system, all the competitively viable gametypes. A team should have to be good at each gametype to win a tournament, not just 1. As I've already listed above, there are plenty of games that operate with different gametypes and that seems like the best fit for splatoon.

I don't think anyone who is serious about tournaments would be deterred by there being more than one gametype.

 

[Vexen]

Who said anything about striking or counter picks anyway? This game isn't smash bros, so people need to stop looking ONLY to smash bros for comparisons. There are plenty of ways to set up a match without needing striking, and certainly if we had multiple gametypes then those would definitely not be decided by striking, but rather by a set order. It seems a bit silly to have separate brackets for each gametype, especially considering that tower control and rainmaker will be releasing soon. Would there be 4 different brackets per tournament? Why not make it simple. 1 bracket, 1 system, all the competitively viable gametypes. A team should have to be good at each gametype to win a tournament, not just 1. As I've already listed above, there are plenty of games that operate with different gametypes and that seems like the best fit for splatoon.

I don't think anyone who is serious about tournaments would be deterred by there being more than one gametype.

I don't know about counter picks but there are other games out there that "strike" maps. At the very least starcraft has players ban 2-3 maps each until 3-5 maps remain for them to play on. And honestly even with multiple game modes there are certainly maps that people would want to strike off the list to play. Also I dislike the idea of having everything decided "by a set order."

You're basically telling players before the tournament begins "we've already decided which map you will be playing on for each set and decided on the mode for you as well. we don't care if you're not good at a certain mode on a specific map, you should be good at every mode on every map."

You're kind of a hypocrite for chastising players for wanting to follow one game yet seem dead set on wanting to follow 2 games and how they're played competitively. You say you want splatoon to be played in it's own way but then you go out and say "these other games have pro's playing all these different modes in tournaments and that it seems like the best fit for splatoon."

So which is it? Do you want splatoon to stand out from other games or do you want it to copy other games? You can't have it both ways.

 

[SHUTupNrocK8]

I know I may catch crap for this because it sounds too much like CoD, but I'd love to continuously see more and more content and game modes being poured into the game such as Team Death Match, Capture the Zapfish (Flag), Splat Wars (2 v 2 v 2 v 2), and so on. Also longer matches, maybe just like 2 minutes longer for a total of 5 minutes in select lobbies. Currently, I have no problem with Turf Wars and Splat Zones, I'm having an absolute blast! But I would love to see this game kick off into the competitive scene. Of course, it will most likely never be recognized as competitive like Smash, Halo, CSGO, and so on, but look at Pokemon for example. Not many people recognize that as a competitive game, but a kiddy or fun game to play not realizing its competitive potential. Some seen this back in Gen 3, it is now a Worldwide competitive game, but usually only recognized amongst hardcore Pokemon fans and players. I can see Splatoon opening itself up like Pokemon did, only being recognized by the hardcore players, and eventually getting events hosted by Clash or other tourny holders to pave way for a small, yet competitive scene (like Pokemon VGC). And we sure as hell know there will be a Splatoon 2 on NX in the future, so it could be something to hope, and look out for :)!

 

[Pusha]

I don't know about counter picks but there are other games out there that "strike" maps. At the very least starcraft has players ban 2-3 maps each until 3-5 maps remain for them to play on. And honestly even with multiple game modes there are certainly maps that people would want to strike off the list to play. Also I dislike the idea of having everything decided "by a set order."

You're basically telling players before the tournament begins "we've already decided which map you will be playing on for each set and decided on the mode for you as well. we don't care if you're not good at a certain mode on a specific map, you should be good at every mode on every map."

You're kind of a hypocrite for chastising players for wanting to follow one game yet seem dead set on wanting to follow 2 games and how they're played competitively. You say you want splatoon to be played in it's own way but then you go out and say "these other games have pro's playing all these different modes in tournaments and that it seems like the best fit for splatoon."

So which is it? Do you want splatoon to stand out from other games or do you want it to copy other games? You can't have it both ways.

You should be good at every mode on every map. I couldn't have said it any better myself. And yeah, you are telling players that. But it's not a bad thing. It would have to be with a selected pool of maps/gametypes that the community agrees are good. I'm not saying we NEED to use this method, I'm just saying its a great system for the type of game splatoon is.

The maps that "certainly people would want to strike off the list" would probably not even be ON the list since those would most likely be maps that aren't as competitively viable. And if they are and it's just team preference then i don't see why a team should be allowed a "get out of jail free card" so to speak, being able to skip their "bad gametype" every round. Instead they should be forced to actually improve on said map and work out their kinks. Here is an example of a map rotation. I can assure you there are very few complaints of "they pick for us, wtf", but then again, halo is a long established franchise with an established meta. I'm just trying to make the community more aware of what are the most common systems in the genre. Not saying we need to follow that exactly but its definitely a good option.

Now, i have addressed 2 main points in my posts, none of which were criticizing players of wanting to borrow from other games. The first one, addressed the idea of choosing one gametype over the other. In my post I provided examples of games in the genre to emphasize the fact that there is no need for choosing one gametype just because. We should be choosing as many as are competitively viable. So I wasn't downplaying borrowing from games, just saying that 'ONLY ONE GAMETYPE FOR TOURNAMENTS JUST BECAUSE' is not the best attitude.

My other post in part addressed the fact that many people in the community seem to be relating splatoon to smash too heavily, probably because that is the main or only game (or game genre) they have experienced competitively. I think you'd be hard pressed to say anything other than that splatoon is a very very different game than smash (i mean honestly, there are very few similarities) so i think it would be better to learn from communities like halo, Cod, TF2, cs:go, GoW or any other relevant games. I'm not saying we can't learn anything from the smash community, but I am highlighting the fact that smash shouldn't be our main template, seeing as how it's in an entirely different genre.

You'll notice in my post i said "so people need to stop looking ONLY to smash bros for comparisons". I purposefully wrote "only" in caps to emphasize that comparing to smash is okay, but comparing ONLY to smash is not a great idea.

So I'd say that your accusation of alleged hypocrisy is pretty moot.

 

[Vexen]

You should be good at every mode on every map. I couldn't have said it any better myself. And yeah, you are telling players that. But it's not a bad thing. It would have to be with a selected pool of maps/gametypes that the community agrees are good. I'm not saying we NEED to use this method, I'm just saying its a great system for the type of game splatoon is.

But that's the problem, only a select few games expect pro players to be good at every map and every mode, I can probably count on one hand pros for dota2, league of legends, hearthstone, smite, cs:go each that pro players will play the other modes offered on those games. Oh yes it is a bad thing, because you can face some serious backlash if a team comes out on reddit or another popular website and says "hi we're the runners up at the first major splatoon tournament and we got screwed because all the maps and modes where preselected before we even made it to the finals."
And people will be like "what kind of morons decided it'd be a good idea to have in the rules for the modes and maps be selected before the tournament even begins?" As I have furiously argued against having matches decided by % or points, I will argue against maps and modes being set in stone with teams having no voice on the matter. For the sake of competitive integrity, you cannot force variety in maps and modes for the sake of variety, there is simply going to be maps that teams will not want to play on for a specific mode, for example; if I were on a competitive splatoon team, I would want to be able to strike/ban arowama mall from the pool of maps for splatzone
You get my point, it's not a good idea, it's a bad idea. An idea that would bring a **** storm down on this forum and ruining any credibility for this site by letting it go through.
I'll give you an example of a game, and it's a rather relevant example. Heroes of the Storm's tournament allowed teams to pick the order of the maps in which they wanted. There was no fuss about being no variety, almost every map was played an equal amount of times, hell even in the finals all 5 maps were played. It had variety without shoving variety down teams throats for the sake of variety. Tournament organizers didn't go up to teams like "hey this is the 3rd straight round your team picked this map to play on, do you mind picking one of the other maps instead?" There was variety because the game naturally offers variety, not because it was forced onto the teams by the tournament organizers.

 

[Kajaarlz]

You should be good at every mode on every map. I couldn't have said it any better myself. And yeah, you are telling players that. But it's not a bad thing. It would have to be with a selected pool of maps/gametypes that the community agrees are good. I'm not saying we NEED to use this method, I'm just saying its a great system for the type of game splatoon is.

The maps that "certainly people would want to strike off the list" would probably not even be ON the list since those would most likely be maps that aren't as competitively viable. And if they are and it's just team preference then i don't see why a team should be allowed a "get out of jail free card" so to speak, being able to skip their "bad gametype" every round. Instead they should be forced to actually improve on said map and work out their kinks. Here is an example of a map rotation. I can assure you there are very few complaints of "they pick for us, wtf", but then again, halo is a long established franchise with an established meta. I'm just trying to make the community more aware of what are the most common systems in the genre. Not saying we need to follow that exactly but its definitely a good option.

Now, i have addressed 2 main points in my posts, none of which were criticizing players of wanting to borrow from other games. The first one, addressed the idea of choosing one gametype over the other. In my post I provided examples of games in the genre to emphasize the fact that there is no need for choosing one gametype just because. We should be choosing as many as are competitively viable. So I wasn't downplaying borrowing from games, just saying that 'ONLY ONE GAMETYPE FOR TOURNAMENTS JUST BECAUSE' is not the best attitude.

My other post in part addressed the fact that many people in the community seem to be relating splatoon to smash too heavily, probably because that is the main or only game (or game genre) they have experienced competitively. I think you'd be hard pressed to say anything other than that splatoon is a very very different game than smash (i mean honestly, there are very few similarities) so i think it would be better to learn from communities like halo, Cod, TF2, cs:go, GoW or any other relevant games. I'm not saying we can't learn anything from the smash community, but I am highlighting the fact that smash shouldn't be our main template, seeing as how it's in an entirely different genre.

You'll notice in my post i said "so people need to stop looking ONLY to smash bros for comparisons". I purposefully wrote "only" in caps to emphasize that comparing to smash is okay, but comparing ONLY to smash is not a great idea.

So I'd say that your accusation of alleged hypocrisy is pretty moot.

Once again, that system does not cater towards players that have no interest in competing in other modes other than their personal favourite. By going with a system where multiple game types are played, you isolate I would argue, the vast majority of players who are only interested in playing one mode competitively or even at all.

 

[Pusha]

But that's the problem, only a select few games expect pro players to be good at every map and every mode, I can probably count on one hand pros for dota2, league of legends, hearthstone, smite, cs:go each that pro players will play the other modes offered on those games. Oh yes it is a bad thing, because you can face some serious backlash if a team comes out on reddit or another popular website and says "hi we're the runners up at the first major splatoon tournament and we got screwed because all the maps and modes where preselected before we even made it to the finals."
And people will be like "what kind of morons decided it'd be a good idea to have in the rules for the modes and maps be selected before the tournament even begins?" As I have furiously argued against having matches decided by % or points, I will argue against maps and modes being set in stone with teams having no voice on the matter. For the sake of competitive integrity, you cannot force variety in maps and modes for the sake of variety, there is simply going to be maps that teams will not want to play on for a specific mode, for example; if I were on a competitive splatoon team, I would want to be able to strike/ban arowama mall from the pool of maps for splatzone
You get my point, it's not a good idea, it's a bad idea. An idea that would bring a **** storm down on this forum and ruining any credibility for this site by letting it go through.
I'll give you an example of a game, and it's a rather relevant example. Heroes of the Storm's tournament allowed teams to pick the order of the maps in which they wanted. There was no fuss about being no variety, almost every map was played an equal amount of times, hell even in the finals all 5 maps were played. It had variety without shoving variety down teams throats for the sake of variety. Tournament organizers didn't go up to teams like "hey this is the 3rd straight round your team picked this map to play on, do you mind picking one of the other maps instead?" There was variety because the game naturally offers variety, not because it was forced onto the teams by the tournament organizers.

You still don't really get it. It's clear that you aren't familiar with those games since you didn't even know there were games that used multiple gametypes, but from someone who knows competitive smash, competitive shooters and competitive MOBAs alike, it IS a good system. The point is not to select every random combination of gametype and map and shove it into the tournament. The point is to have an established map rotation the community agrees upon and to evenly distribute it across the rounds, or weight it appropriately. There shouldn't be any case of "wow I can't believed we played that garbage map" unless it's actually just a team being bad on said map while the community generally agrees it's a good map. By the time there is a major splatoon tournament (if there is one) i think the meta would be established enough to weed out any undesirable maps. Also, the grand finals would most likely be a larger series, like Bo9 or Bo11 where all or almost all of the gametypes/maps are used. So a team can't really go out and say "we got screwed with those gametypes". Really, saying "we got screwed on those gametypes" is just saying "we aren't good at those gametypes but for some reason we still think we should've won the tournament only being good at a select few games".

Once again, I'm not saying we NEED to use a system like this but to say it's a bad system because teams can't pick is just plain wrong and ignorant, again, as evidenced by all the games I have listed. There are plenty of options to use, for instance you can establish a set order for gametypes (example for a Bo5: splat zones, tower control, turf war, splat zones, tower control) and then have teams select maps, or you can keep that template of gametypes and assign different maps by round or you can change the gametypes each round as well, or you can strike gametype/map combination from a set rotation, etc etc.

But to completely disregard a system you don't understand fully, just because you aren't familiar with it isn't really fair.

 

[Pusha]

Once again, that system does not cater towards players that have no interest in competing in other modes other than their personal favourite. By going with a system where multiple game types are played, you isolate I would argue, the vast majority of players who are only interested in playing one mode competitively or even at all.

Just because a minority of players want to only compete in a single gametype doesn't mean each tournament should be split up into 4 separate brackets. THAT is what is isolating, thinning out the community and breaking it up into sub-sections. Comparing splatoon to other shooters with multiple-gametype tournaments, I don't think I've ever heard of someone wanting to compete but being turned off by there being other gametypes than their favorite. I've never heard a halo player say "damn, if there were oddball only tournaments i would totally compete".

 

[Vexen]

There are plenty of options to use, for instance you can establish a set order for gametypes (example for a Bo5: splat zones, tower control, turf war, splat zones, tower control) and then have teams select maps, or you can keep that template of gametypes and assign different maps by round or you can change the gametypes each round as well, or you can strike gametype/map combination from a set rotation, etc etc.

Ignoring everything else you said because this is really what I was arguing for letting teams have, the modes can be locked in, just let them select the maps for which they want to play on those modes. Like for the grand finals, each team alternates between selecting the map for games 1-8/1-10 and then the last game is decided at random from remaining maps