Why Competitive Splatoon should use all Game Modes instead of one

[Cobbs]

The battle between being interested in focused action & combat versus being interested in calculated freeform strategy. That's all this is a difference of opinion on. Some people see Splatoon as a freeform sandbox strategic control game, while others see Splatoon as TF2 with ink and squid-swimming action.

Both are awesome, we just disagree on which is more compelling and which utilizes Splatoon's strengths to its fullest.

If some see it as a game that caters moreso to action and confrontation-based rulesets like TF2 and Halo and such, then that's cool. But there's an opposite side to that fence that has its way of seeing Splatoon, and I argue they more clearly understand Splatoon's strengths & weaknesses as a compelling & foundational competitive game.

I'd also argue that one side is thinking big while the other is thinking safe.

 

[Manta]

Frankly I think the only thing that hinders Turf Wars competitively viability is the timer. If it had a similar way of timing like Splat Zones—that the timer goes down on the team in control and if it hits 0/is lower than the opposing team's timer by the end of the set time (3 minutes in Turf War) they win—I think it would be fine competitively.

I really agree with this, Turf War would be a great mode for competitive play if it was like this.

 

[Vyvuto]

I feel like a better option would be for Turf War to be decided by a team covering a specific amount of turf (say 5000p) or having more turf than their opponent at the end of a timer.

 

[Kairo]

I feel like a better option would be for Turf War to be decided by a team covering a specific amount of turf (say 5000p)

That would require calculation as each round happens though. And depending on what maps are played, the whole battle could potentially be short or long. Also, what would happen if both teams hit the xxxx point mark in the same round?

Being someone who is from the MK competitive community where wars are won through the most points earned overall through the 12 races, I feel like a similar system would work fairly well with turf war, since the whole mode essentially revolves around covering the most turf/points.

Spoiler

In this way, even if a team loses the first x matches by a little, they still have the possibility of winning/catching up if they have a dominant match later on.
Also having it be cumulative makes it so people will play up until the very last second, instead of just quitting the current round after being pushed back to their base with no way of winning at that point. Every single bit of turf would matter. People may also attempt to guard a large portion of the match with best out of x matches, attempting to secure an easier win. Cumulative totals makes it so that that strategy is not as effective.

Having a certain criteria of points need to win seems a little...weird & not fitting.
Cumulative matches makes it so that all matches between/across all squads are consistent.

So essentially we have 4 different views on how turf war competetive should be worked:

• Best out of x matches
• Higher cummulative total after x matches
• Reaching xxxx points first
• No turf war for competitive

 

[Isen]

Isn't it the largest? o:
Pretty sure Blackbelly is the smallest.

Turf War and Ranked should honestly all be used, but have them be in different systems, since what you are trying to accomplish dfferent things in the modes. Squads could/should have different win/loss records: one for Turf War and one for ranked.

Something I'd like to suggest for competetive Turf War is to have the winner decided through the cummulative total of turf inked between the rounds instead of best out of x matches. Having it be cumulative represents the mode and fits better in my opinion. The whole point of turf war is to cover the most turf, right?

In this way, even if a team loses the first x matches by a little, they still have the possibility of winning/catching up if they have a dominant match later on.
Also having it be cumulative makes it so people will play up until the very last second, instead of just quitting the current round after being pushed back to their base with no way of winning at that point. Every single bit of turf would matter. People may also attempt to guard a large portion of the match with best out of x matches, attempting to secure an easier win. Cumulative totals makes it so that that strategy is not as effective.

Considering each match is ~3 minutes, and lobby time would probably be around ~1 minute, I'd suggest having 7 rounds in each squad battle, resulting in each battle being around half an hour.

Just an idea. :p

Sounds good. The idea of the comebacks and not giving up is a plus - even if they're at your base you could just sit in your protected base area and spray the ink the other team has covered and get points lol

 

[Kairo]

Sounds good. The idea of the comebacks and not giving up is a plus - even if they're at your base you could just sit in your protected base area and spray the ink the other team has covered and get points lol

Only a bit since the points I'm talking about are the points shown underneath the percentages on the "Good Guys" "Bad Guys" screen.

But yes, with cumulative, there is at least some sort of incentive for trying up to the last second, instead of a match being a lost cause.

 

[Floati]

It'd be great if Nintendo could add a ranked turf war mode- like have an auto-knockout at 75-80% coverage of the map.
That'd solve the "first part of the match doesn't matter" thing.
Honestly, I find turf war much more fun and interesting to watch.
The heavy emphasis on efficiency and more viable niches make the game a completely different kind of competitive play more akin to MOBA's.

 

[Floati]

As far as making Turf War competitive you could make kills a second win condition. Think of it as a pseudo-team death match. Most of the arguments I have seen so far against Turf War is the lack of win conditions other than the timer, which is a valid concern. I feel that adding kills would fix that issue and promote a more aggressive approach at the game mode where controlling the map means a lot more overall. That triple kill in the middle of the round means a lot more now, where it may not have meant much at all before considering how easy it is to recover in turf wars. Weapons that are generally weaker for spreading ink, but better at splatting, can pull their weight now also. Maybe add something like 1% to the total for each kill. Nothing major by itself, but it can still turn a game where you were clearly winning but lost in the last 30 seconds into a win. I'm not for or against Turf Wars so I honestly don't care what the community decides on. This is just something to think about before killing a mode without thinking outside the box.

Sorry for the double post- but this sort of idea should seriously be considered.
Easy to calculate after a match.

 

[missingno]

Theorycrafting your own modes sounds nice and all, but how exactly are you going to play it?

 

[Power]

I actually love the idea of cumulative points. We should definitely try it

 

[Floati]

Theorycrafting your own modes sounds nice and all, but how exactly are you going to play it?

Well, if we go off D3RK's idea of having kills add percentage to the final team percent it'd be easy. Simply find the kill differential between teams and add the "bonus" 1% (or 2% if we want more kill incentive) to the final percentage. Highest percentage still wins. The advantage of this solution is that you'd only have to play one game of turf and could easily rotate to the other modes.

 

[Cobbs]

Turf War may be 'fixed' if it tallied turf at every 1 minute mark, so that the last state of the stage isn't all that matters, but also the 2:00 minute mark and the 1:00 minute mark. But I'm sure you get other problems too. I think the nature of the mode, where making sure you don't set the other team up for a last-minute wipe, is as crucial as in other competitive games.

 

[CutestFish]

I absolutely did not read the 8 pages of the thread but I'll throw in my thoughts.

A) Turf War is just simply not as exciting as TC and SZ, especially as a spectator. This means a lot as, say during some kind of big tournament where all game modes are used, I know I would definitely be confused at the sheer difference in tempo between TW and the other two modes.

B) Turf War really just doesn't have as much depth as TC or SZ. This causes teams that are honestly wider apart in skill to appear closer together. There's a lot less in the way of overall strategy that can be used here.

C) Only the last 60 seconds matter at all. I know someone will try to refute me but it's true. I've actually goofed around and just had my team sit in spawn until 0:59 remaining then go and win easily. I've seen many YouTube videos about this very thing. This is just not competitively OK.

There are more points but that would be me getting nitpicky. I am entirely certain a very high skilled team with SZ/TC would beat a high skilled TW team in Turf War. Point B is why 3v3 in LoL never took off, depth is more important than you might think.

Should people play in TW tournaments if they like TW? Sure thing. Should they try to force every tournament to have TW? No, I think that would be rather poisonous to the scene. Let there be a divide.

 

[toadster101]

I absolutely did not read the 8 pages of the thread but I'll throw in my thoughts.

A) Turf War is just simply not as exciting as TC and SZ, especially as a spectator. This means a lot as, say during some kind of big tournament where all game modes are used, I know I would definitely be confused at the sheer difference in tempo between TW and the other two modes.

B) Turf War really just doesn't have as much depth as TC or SZ. This causes teams that are honestly wider apart in skill to appear closer together. There's a lot less in the way of overall strategy that can be used here.

C) Only the last 60 seconds matter at all. I know someone will try to refute me but it's true. I've actually goofed around and just had my team sit in spawn until 0:59 remaining then go and win easily. I've seen many YouTube videos about this very thing. This is just not competitively OK.

There are more points but that would be me getting nitpicky. I am entirely certain a very high skilled team with SZ/TC would beat a high skilled TW team in Turf War. Point B is why 3v3 in LoL never took off, depth is more important than you might think.

Should people play in TW tournaments if they like TW? Sure thing. Should they try to force every tournament to have TW? No, I think that would be rather poisonous to the scene. Let there be a divide.

Turf War has less depth than the other modes? If anything, it's the other way around. Turf War takes the skills you learn in the other modes (territory control, killing, escaping) and projects them onto a grander scale. You have to focus on the entire map as opposed to a confined space. You can't just throw around buzzwords like "depth" and pretend that they mean something. The ranked modes are arguably more exciting because player interaction happens more often. The focus is on killing rather than spreading ink; the modes are different, yes, but different isn't necessarily a bad thing. All of the modes require skillful play, and I for one like the fact that the game offers a wide variety of gameplay options to choose from with more on the way. Length is the only issue I have with Turf War... and maybe the fact that Nintendo decided to throw the mode under the bus by changing the level up system. There is no incentive to do well anymore.

I think the biggest problem with the game is the netcode. It's outrageously bad, since Nintendo doesn't care about competitive gaming and were too cheap to invest in proper servers. It's going to be a major problem, and I'm already refusing to do battle against European teams.

 

[Njok]

After watching a few matches in the ink or sink tourney, i agree that turf war is not very exciting to watch. If a TO decides to let it out for that reason it makes sense.

But from what i've seen so far the skill gap definitely shows. There were very few matches were i had the impression that the losing team could turn it around in the last 30 or even 60 seconds. And yeah, against 4 randoms sure you can crush them in a minute with a team that is used to playing together and is communicating. But if the opponent is like that too i really don't see it happening tbh.

 

[CutestFish]

Turf War has less depth than the other modes? If anything, it's the other way around. Turf War takes the skills you learn in the other modes (territory control, killing, escaping) and projects them onto a grander scale. You have to focus on the entire map as opposed to a confined space. You can't just throw around buzzwords like "depth" and pretend that they mean something. The ranked modes are arguably more exciting because player interaction happens more often. The focus is on killing rather than spreading ink; the modes are different, yes, but different isn't necessarily a bad thing. All of the modes require skillful play, and I for one like the fact that the game offers a wide variety of gameplay options to choose from with more on the way. Length is the only issue I have with Turf War... and maybe the fact that Nintendo decided to throw the mode under the bus by changing the level up system. There is no incentive to do well anymore.

I think the biggest problem with the game is the netcode. It's outrageously bad, since Nintendo doesn't care about competitive gaming and were too cheap to invest in proper servers. It's going to be a major problem, and I'm already refusing to do battle against European teams.

It's not really on a grander scale when much of the time isn't spent dealing with enemies. You don't have to focus on the entire map, don't feed me such lies. You don't even mention one of the most important skills that's absent in TW, objective control. You also neglect to mention how TW can be competitively viable when only the last 33% of the game means anything.

After watching a few matches in the ink or sink tourney, i agree that turf war is not very exciting to watch. If a TO decides to let it out for that reason it makes sense.

But from what i've seen so far the skill gap definitely shows. There were very few matches were i had the impression that the losing team could turn it around in the last 30 or even 60 seconds. And yeah, against 4 randoms sure you can crush them in a minute with a team that is used to playing together and is communicating. But if the opponent is like that too i really don't see it happening tbh.

The last 60 second thing only applies to teams that are roughly equal in skill. There was some giant skill disparity in Ink or Sink.

 

[toadster101]

It's not really on a grander scale when much of the time isn't spent dealing with enemies. You don't have to focus on the entire map, don't feed me such lies. You don't even mention one of the most important skills that's absent in TW, objective control. You also neglect to mention how TW can be competitively viable when only the last 33% of the game means anything.

That hyperbole in here is astounding. Objective control is not depth, first and foremost. Deeper games have MULTIPLE objectives. There is no denying that the last 30-60 seconds are important, but that's the nature of time based games. Go look for a squad battle against a competent team and:

1) You cannot use your weapon for the first two minutes
2) Battle 10 times in a row to ensure that there are no flukes

If only 33% of the game means anything, surely you'll adhere to these terms and conditions and win at least one of these matches.

 

[Kaliafornia]

You don't have to focus on the entire map, don't feed me such lies. .

What am I reading even... you know its TURF war right?

 

[CutestFish]

After watching a few matches in the ink or sink tourney, i agree that turf war is not very exciting to watch. If a TO decides to let it out for that reason it makes sense.

But from what i've seen so far the skill gap definitely shows. There were very few matches were i had the impression that the losing team could turn it around in the last 30 or even 60 seconds. And yeah, against 4 randoms sure you can crush them in a minute with a team that is used to playing together and is communicating. But if the opponent is like that too i really don't see it happening tbh.

What am I reading even... you know its TURF war right?

Looking down at your pad to glance at where the ink is =/= focusing on the entire map. You should be doing the same thing in the other modes if you're not actively engaging someone.

 

[Kaliafornia]

Looking down at your pad to glance at where the ink is =/= focusing on the entire map. You should be doing the same thing in the other modes if you're not actively engaging someone.

I can't tell if you are being serious or trolling. The entire map matters because the objective is covering the entire map and its how you win. Looking down at the game pad is neither here nor there as its something a smart player does but not required.