[Video] Do We Need Competitive Turf War for Splatoon 2?

[Fullmental]

Hi Guys!

With Splatoon 2 only days away, I noticed a lot of people were talking on Twitter about Turf Wars and competitive play. It got me thinking about why we don't have competitive Turf War matches and why we might want to reconsider. I've made a video with my thoughts on this discussion. I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on the matter, as well as suggestions for how to express our opinion to those that create the various tournaments within our competitive community. All suggestions are welcome, especially those that disagree, but I request that you explain any disagreements, rather than state it and expect others to understand.

(Also mods, is it time for a Competitive category in Splatoon 2, or should this be in the "Original Content" category instead? Please feel free to move if necessary, it was a bit confusing trying to find the best one to post this in!)

 

[Hero of Lime]

I'm glad to see someone more competitively minded also appreciates what Turf can do for practicing the basics of ranked modes. As someone who was far more competitive before I became more casual and transitioned to play a majority of Turf, I still constantly felt challenged, because for those who do not know, Turf is not super chill and casual these days in Splatoon 1. It has not been probably for almost a year at this point. Most players who are experienced with the game bring their A game to turf and will play to win instead of casually having some fun.

I don't see super competitive minded people changing their minds on the subject of competitive Turf however. I think it's a shame since anything you do in turf can still give you practice for ranked battles. Map control, combat, map awareness, and more. For example, a lot of turf matches come down to a fight for who can control the middle, which is basically Splatzones without the zone. Despite having said it's a shame, I don't think Turf needs to become competitive either. I would rather see competitive players understand its value to the game than try to make a competitive scene out of it.

 

[Lonely_Dolphin]

I'm not a tournament player or anything, but I think the main difference is that in the ranked modes if you held the objective longer than your opponent you win. This isn't necessarily the case in turf war though, since even if you had total map control for two minutes, the enemy team can take it back and end up winning even though they had the objective for less time. Just my thoughts though, great video mate!

 

[Fullmental]

I'm not a tournament player or anything, but I think the main difference is that in the ranked modes if you held the objective longer than your opponent you win. This isn't necessarily the case in turf war though, since even if you had total map control for two minutes, the enemy team can take it back and end up winning even though they had the objective for less time. Just my thoughts though, great video mate!

An interesting point, thank you for bringing it up! I would actually disagree here, a team may or may not hold an objective longer than the other, there are situations in all three modes where penalty points in splat zones, tower position in tower control, and RM position in RM can lend to a team that always grabs the objective failing to convert a push due to a poorly organized strategy. Consider two teams that get to 50 and 49 points in a splat zone match, respectively. Team a gets to 50 points at the beginning of the game with a quick push, then team b spends the next 4 minutes slowly chipping away at the timer, unable to establish a firm position in zone but able to stop the timer and instill a penalty every time they lose before the penalty time hits 0. By all accounts, if you take away the initial push then team b could easily win the match with team a getting a score in the 50s,but because the contest changed hands too quickly later in the game, they are handed the loss. In other words, the team that fought for the zone and held it for a greater period of time lost in the end. Same for tower control, if one team get a push to 50 and never gets the tower past 10 afterwards, the other team can push to 49 over and over but it won't matter. With rainmaker it's even more complicated. You could hold the rainmaker for the entire match but lose 99-100 if you never get it past mid (ie grab the RM and back up waiting for a chance to push). Is that likely? No of course not, but take more reasonable number like 70 or 60 and all of a sudden a single choke point can define the whole match. Similarly, even with nearly total map control a good sniper or shooter can still defend a lead with barely any ink, so the situation comes down to skill and luck, just like turf war. So instead of an arbitrary position defining the match, turf uses a set timer. If that makes sense.

 

[Dessgeega]

I don't see why not. There's definitely room for competition in Turf, especially with how violent splatfests get.

 

[Lonely_Dolphin]

An interesting point, thank you for bringing it up! I would actually disagree here, a team may or may not hold an objective longer than the other, there are situations in all three modes where penalty points in splat zones, tower position in tower control, and RM position in RM can lend to a team that always grabs the objective failing to convert a push due to a poorly organized strategy. Consider two teams that get to 50 and 49 points in a splat zone match, respectively. Team a gets to 50 points at the beginning of the game with a quick push, then team b spends the next 4 minutes slowly chipping away at the timer, unable to establish a firm position in zone but able to stop the timer and instill a penalty every time they lose before the penalty time hits 0. By all accounts, if you take away the initial push then team b could easily win the match with team a getting a score in the 50s,but because the contest changed hands too quickly later in the game, they are handed the loss. In other words, the team that fought for the zone and held it for a greater period of time lost in the end. Same for tower control, if one team get a push to 50 and never gets the tower past 10 afterwards, the other team can push to 49 over and over but it won't matter. With rainmaker it's even more complicated. You could hold the rainmaker for the entire match but lose 99-100 if you never get it past mid (ie grab the RM and back up waiting for a chance to push). Is that likely? No of course not, but take more reasonable number like 70 or 60 and all of a sudden a single choke point can define the whole match. Similarly, even with nearly total map control a good sniper or shooter can still defend a lead with barely any ink, so the situation comes down to skill and luck, just like turf war. So instead of an arbitrary position defining the match, turf uses a set timer. If that makes sense.

Ah this be true. Welp I'm out of reasons why it's not a competitive mode. :L