Why Competitive Splatoon should use all Game Modes instead of one

[Hope]

No, i get that. It is just that i have seen this strategy work elsewhere. It seems just as viable here.

In a foot race, especially longer distances, it is acceptable to not push yourself until the end. In wrestling and other martial arts it is acceptable to play it safe awaiting an opening our to whittle an opponent down until the latter part of the match.

To me... in my opinion... it seems bizarre that a tried and true strategy is seen as unviable only in this game.

Those are bad analogies. The equivalent of getting spawn camped for 83% of the game would be getting lapped in a track race, except in the track race you cannot come back from that whereas in turf war you can. In martial arts it would be exerting superior technique only a sixth of the time yet still somehow winning the match, and in wrestling the equivalent would be you would already be beaten lol. I don't know much about competitive wrestling or martial arts so bear with me here. But I think I got the jist of it.

I think it is very poor form that this thread has devolved into personal attacks. Who is that going to help?

There aren't any personal attacks. The closest you would get was the seakingtheonixpected guy being very passive aggressive and the DEG team dude calling himself a prick. If you want to call out the DEG team guy for personally attacking himself then go ahead lol.

 

[veovis]

I think it is very poor form that this thread has devolved into personal attacks. Who is that going to help?

I'm not seeing any personal attacks.

Perhaps the issue here is perceiving the opposing team as incompetent and this being a mere fluke. whereas in an organized play environment with team communication were the same thing to occur it would feel like a legitimate strategy... am i close?

You're focusing on this point, but that's not what people don't like about it. Like I said, nobody thinks Turf War is "unfair". It's just boring, from a competitive standpoint.

 

[Benjamin Hellcat]

Edit: yes this was the point i was arguing, because it seems like a mass misconception. I get what you are saying also, i just don't agree.

 

[Benjamin Hellcat]

Those are bad analogies. The equivalent of getting spawn camped for 83% of the game would be getting lapped in a track race, except in the track race you cannot come back from that whereas in turf war you can. In martial arts it would be exerting superior technique only a sixth of the time yet still somehow winning the match, and in wrestling the equivalent would be you would already be beaten lol. I don't know much about competitive wrestling or martial arts so bear with me here. But I think I got the jist of it.


There aren't any personal attacks. The closest you would get was the seakingtheonixpected guy being very passive aggressive and the DEG team dude calling himself a prick. If you want to call out the DEG team guy for personally attacking himself then go ahead lol.

I edited one of my posts above with an assumption that... Perhaps... it would seem a more viable "strategy" in organized play with team communication. Perhaps, it would not seem like some fluke chance of luck.

 

[Hope]

I edited one of my posts above with an assumption that... Perhaps... it would seem a more viable "strategy" in organized play with team communication. Perhaps, it would not seem like some fluke chance of luck.

In organized competitive play the chances of that happening would go down a lot, but flukes could still determine the game. Stuff you cannot react to, ie the first shot of a zooka coming from out of your sight line. Also this would mean that competitively nothing would really happen 83% of the time because both teams would be trying to set up the best last fight possible. That makes it boring to spectate, and it's the spectators that make esports/sports big.

 

[Kaliafornia]

Your assertion about the better team always winning isn't true. It's why people play multiple games in a set, because performance on any one moment is sort of like a random variable. More games means less variance in outcome. In turf you're increasing the variance in outcome by only scoring 1 moment. If we didn't care about variance, we could just play one game of turf in a tournament and determine the better team.

The timer is a factor in all modes in the sense that that's as long as you have to get into a winning position. But it's only in turf where we only care about what's happening at the very end of the game. I don't know why you're brushing aside my analogy considering it's probably one of the best analogies on squidboards. Turf is not scored the same as ranked. This is something I'm sure you understand at this point but are not conceding for some reason.

I'm talking fundamentally the best team will win any given individual match, not how you choose to run a tournament. I agree people play multiple games as there is less variance or chance in the better team loosing overall best out of 5, etc games. However that would be true regardless if Turf was chosen as a playable mode or not. The fact people play multiple games in a tournament doesn't mean turf is a game of luck and not skill. Your logic doesn't add up there.

I really don't know where people get the "Turf only matters at the end of the game" logic. What you are doing for the entire game matters.You aren't dominating or the clear better team if the other team can make that big of a push to actually dominate you at the end of the game. The dominating and winning are not one in the same. You could dominate the whole game, throw, and end up losing. If it's a close game all match you aren't clearly dominating or the better team.

Also I never said Turf and ranked were scored the same way (even TC and SZ are scored differently) however I said all modes are fundamentally set up so if your team is truly dominating the game you will win.

HELL NO, as I've just stated, it's completely different in Ranked modes. Infinitely fairer and more finely designed.
Every moments count in TC and SZ.

Lol nice adding this way after the fact... Anyway from your own post:

We've been crushing them for 2 minutes straight, but we won't die hard spawn trap them to play it relatively safe. On the last minute, they began to pierce through our defence one by one, some of us get flanked, and on the 30 last seconds, they have their Bubbler and that's it, they comeback the situation.

If you were "crushing" for 2 minutes straight and then they admittedly break your defense, you allowed yourselves to get flanked, unable to push back bubbler, then yeah, you guys threw. You chose not to spawn trap and because of that when they overtook you they had enough ground already to comeback.

It would honestly be the same in ranked. As I've stated before if you rode tower to 1, stopped them from advancing the entire game until the last minute when they wiped your team and they were able to get it home, just because you dominated most of the game doesn't mean you were the better team if you couldn't get it home or control the last part of the game.

 

[Hope]

I'm talking fundamentally the best team will win any given individual match, not how you choose to run a tournament. I agree people play multiple games as there is less variance or chance in the better team loosing overall best out of 5, etc games. However that would be true regardless if Turf was chosen as a playable mode or not. The fact people play multiple games in a tournament doesn't mean turf is a game of luck and not skill. Your logic doesn't add up there.

I really don't know where people get the "Turf only matters at the end of the game" logic. What you are doing for the entire game matters.You aren't dominating or the clear better team if the other team can make that big of a push to actually dominate you at the end of the game. The dominating and winning are not one in the same. You could dominate the whole game, throw, and end up losing. If it's a close game all match you aren't clearly dominating or the better team.

Also I never said Turf and ranked were scored the same way (even TC and SZ are scored differently) however I said all modes are fundamentally set up so if your team is truly dominating the game you will win.

That wasn't his point dude. His point was that just like you play multiple games so that there is less variance, by the same logic turf should not be scored at one moment because of this variance. The logic is perfectly fine, I think you just misunderstood his comparison there.

 

[Benjamin Hellcat]

In organized competitive play the chances of that happening would go down a lot, but flukes could still determine the game. Stuff you cannot react to, ie the first shot of a zooka coming from out of your sight line. Also this would mean that competitively nothing would really happen 83% of the time because both teams would be trying to set up the best last fight possible. That makes it boring to spectate, and it's the spectators that make esports/sports big.

Ok, i get your point there. Still, in my opinion, i don't find it horribly boring to watch. However, I can follow that argument better than the other.

Obviously we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

 

[AnchorTea]

If people find competitive Brawl not boring, than Turf shouldn't be exiled because people find it fun.

Like I said...

 

[Inyo]

Those are bad analogies. The equivalent of getting spawn camped for 83% of the game would be getting lapped in a track race, except in the track race you cannot come back from that whereas in turf war you can. In martial arts it would be exerting superior technique only a sixth of the time yet still somehow winning the match, and in wrestling the equivalent would be you would already be beaten lol. I don't know much about competitive wrestling or martial arts so bear with me here. But I think I got the jist of it.


There aren't any personal attacks. The closest you would get was the seakingtheonixpected guy being very passive aggressive and the DEG team dude calling himself a prick. If you want to call out the DEG team guy for personally attacking himself then go ahead lol.

"Where is your argument here ?
Instead of a bunch words telling me that what I say is complete bs, I don't see any reasonning proving me that my point is wrong and that I should just shut up.

Please.
I take the time to write things because I have some respect for you guys that don't think Turf war has issues as a competitive game mode. At least have the decency to stay silent or write something worth being read.

EDIT : And hell no, if A team wins in a ranked battle, while B team was making a push in the 30 last seconds, it's because the damn A team stopped that push, and B team messed up. And there's something called extra time in Ranked that helps those kind of push.
Have you really played a single game in ranked ?

You must think you're funny, aren't you ?"

Posted by one Kosaki not one page ago. Lack of respect all around. Cooler discussion would be more helpful

 

[Kaliafornia]

That wasn't his point dude. His point was that just like you play multiple games so that there is less variance, by the same logic turf should not be scored at one moment because of this variance. The logic is perfectly fine, I think you just misunderstood his comparison there.

No I understood the comparison. I only pointed out the flawed logic in that comparison. People play multiple games to see less variance, COOL. How does that prove a single game of turf is flawed in variance when in ALL modes if the dominating team has control they win at the end of the game? You admit you wouldn't play a single game of TC or SZ. No one is saying we play a single game of Turf or anything in a tournament.

As I explained before dominating the match =/= winning the match. In any mode, if the opposing team can make a comeback then they were the better team even if your team was the dominating team for the entire match.

Playing SZ an TW in zones actually gives the losing team a handicap if they have control of the zones/tower at the end of the timer. Sure all the dominating team has to do is take it back, however there has been plenty matches where the nondominating team run out their penalty and time in SZ or ride the tower back in TC in the last minute or in OT. If the non dominating team manages to wipe you out they get a huge advantage and in many cases can secure the win.

 

[veovis]

Honestly, the easiest way to make Turf War viable would be to make it so the winner is determined by who had the most Turf covered at any time, instead of who had the most Turf when the clock runs out. This would be similar to how SZ/TC/RM work and it would encourage players to spend the entire game trying their best to spread ink. I'm guessing if Nintendo ever wanted to add Turf War to the ranked playlist, that's how they'd go about doing it.

 

[Hope]

"Where is your argument here ?
Instead of a bunch words telling me that what I say is complete bs, I don't see any reasonning proving me that my point is wrong and that I should just shut up.

Please.
I take the time to write things because I have some respect for you guys that don't think Turf war has issues as a competitive game mode. At least have the decency to stay silent or write something worth being read.

EDIT : And hell no, if A team wins in a ranked battle, while B team was making a push in the 30 last seconds, it's because the damn A team stopped that push, and B team messed up. And there's something called extra time in Ranked that helps those kind of push.
Have you really played a single game in ranked ?

You must think you're funny, aren't you ?"

Posted by one Kosaki not one page ago. Lack of respect all around. Cooler discussion would be more helpful

If you feel personally attacked by "you must think you're funny" and "have you really played a single game of ranked" AFTER he stated he respected everyone in the thread, then you need to grow a backbone. Like honestly there is **** 100x worse everywhere on the internet. If you had a problem with him you should have pmed him or something and not derailed the discussion in the thread.

No I understood the comparison. I only pointed out the flawed logic in that comparison. People play multiple games to see less variance, COOL. How does that prove a single game of turf is flawed in variance when in ALL modes if the dominating team has control they win at the end of the game? You admit you wouldn't play a single game of TC or SZ. No one is saying we play a single game of Turf or anything in a tournament.

As I explained before dominating the match =/= winning the match. In any mode, if the opposing team can make a comeback then they were the better team even if your team was the dominating team for the entire match.

Playing SZ an TW in zones actually gives the losing team a handicap if they have control of the zones/tower at the end of the timer. Sure all the dominating team has to do is take it back, however there has been plenty matches where the nondominating team run out their penalty and time in SZ or ride the tower back in TC in the last minute or in OT. If the non dominating team manages to wipe you out they get a huge advantage and in many cases can secure the win.

If you dominate sz and tc the other team gets knocked out, but my previous posts answer your second and third paragraphs, I was mainly just trying to get you to understand what Box said. It seems you still don't understand it. Turf war is scored at only one instance, whereas the other modes are scored over many. Just like playing multiple games, scoring over multiple instances reduces variance. Since you agreed that it is good to play multiple games to reduce variance, you should agree that a single game, or even a set three games of turf would not be competitively a good idea because that is determining the winner based on one or three scoring instances. If you played sz or tc for that best of three instead, then you would be determining a winner over like 100 scoring instances. Therefore, for turf to be as competitive as these modes, you would have to play 100 games turf games to equal the variance of a best of three sz or tc set. It seems like you are the one whose logic is actually contradicting itself.

 

[Inyo]

If you feel personally attacked by "you must think you're funny" and "have you really played a single game of ranked" AFTER he stated he respected everyone in the thread, then you need to grow a backbone. Like honestly there is **** 100x worse everywhere on the internet. If you had a problem with him you should have pmed him or something and not derailed the discussion in the thread.


If you dominate sz and tc the other team gets knocked out, but my previous posts answer your second and third paragraphs, I was mainly just trying to get you to understand what Box said. It seems you still don't understand it. Turf war is scored at only one instance, whereas the other modes are scored over many. Just like playing multiple games, scoring over multiple instances reduces variance. Since you agreed that it is good to play multiple games to reduce variance, you should agree that a single game, or even a set three games of turf would not be competitively a good idea because that is determining the winner based on one or three scoring instances. If you played sz or tc for that best of three instead, then you would be determining a winner over like 100 scoring instances. Therefore, for turf to be as competitive as these modes, you would have to play 100 games turf games to equal the variance of a best of three sz or tc set. It seems like you are the one whose logic is actually contradicting itself.

Is Smash Bros scored over 100 instances? Or other fighting games? Nobody is saying those aren't competitive games.

And my point about the toxicity of this thread still stands. This is a topic worth discussing without venom. (Kosaki's comment wasn't directed at me, by the way)

 

[Kaliafornia]

If you dominate sz and tc the other team gets knocked out, but my previous posts answer your second and third paragraphs, I was mainly just trying to get you to understand what Box said. It seems you still don't understand it. Turf war is scored at only one instance, whereas the other modes are scored over many. Just like playing multiple games, scoring over multiple instances reduces variance. Since you agreed that it is good to play multiple games to reduce variance, you should agree that a single game, or even a set three games of turf would not be competitively a good idea because that is determining the winner based on one or three scoring instances. If you played sz or tc for that best of three instead, then you would be determining a winner over like 100 scoring instances. Therefore, for turf to be as competitive as these modes, you would have to play 100 games turf games to equal the variance of a best of three sz or tc set. It seems like you are the one whose logic is actually contradicting itself.

The winner of turf war is based on who has inked the most at the end of the game, the instance being when time has run out. This is the exact same for ranked if the team with the lowest counter has control or no one has control when time runs out. OT only comes in if the loosing team, be it the game dominate team or not, has control. As the timers are based on 100, so is the scoring percentages for Turf based on 100%. Just because we do not see those percents until the end doesn't make it any less true.

Really what you guys are arguing for is some sort of buffer or handicap so "just in case" you happen to throw or mess up badly you could still win the game. Funny, because this is supposed to be competitive and the team with the most skill shouldn't need it as they should be able to have the best score, or complete the objective before the match ends.The only time a comeback or takeover is possible is if you are evenly matched.

If you are evenly matched then that variance is always there regardless of mode because someone has to win and lose. There isn't going to be a clear better team and statistically evenly matched teams will go back and forth for infinity as they are even, so there has to be some kind of time or instance where there is a winner. That just happens to be the game clock. Point is if you are truly the better team, you will win. If you are evenly matched well then yes, it depends on the clock, however that is true for any game mode as the handicap isn't guaranteed.

Logic on fleek, but thanks.

 

[Sitri]

The winner of turf war is based on who has inked the most at the end of the game, the instance being when time has run out. This is the exact same for ranked if the team with the lowest counter has control or no one has control when time runs out.

Ranked modes have knockouts that can stop the game if one team is in control for too long. Turf War has no such thing.
It's not the same thing, a Turf War game will always end after 3 minutes while the ranked modes can end in less than a minute if they're able to shut out the enemy team.

I don't know what's so difficult to understand about the first 66% of a Turf War game practically not mattering.

 

[Hope]

If you want to keep ignoring everything people that bring up legit points say that's fine. Just remember this thread in a few months.

 

[missingno]

LOL you do realize basketball games often come down to the tenths of a second for the final score and often a team who has a lead in the first quarters of the game does not win. Did you watch NBA finals this year? LeBron would disagree with you (Sidenote: DUB NATION!! KING CURRY!!). Regardless scoring system, doesn't matter as long as each team is given the same rules. Basketball actually is a good example of turf fundamentals working competitively as there is a lot of turnover, comebacks and close games. You better score more points in the end then...

But not because of any rubberbanding that makes the final quarter intrinsically worth more. Players have to do just as much work to come back as the other team did to establish that lead in the first place.

 

[veovis]

The winner of turf war is based on who has inked the most at the end of the game, the instance being when time has run out. This is the exact same for ranked if the team with the lowest counter has control or no one has control when time runs out.

This is incorrect. If the score at the end of a ranked game was based on the current position of the tower or who currently has control of the zones, it would be the same. However, ranked scoring is instead based on who has pushed the tower the furthest throughout the entire game, or who has held the splat zones the longest throughout the entire game. Turf War is only judged by who has the most turf when the time runs out, which is one specific moment in time and not a reflection of the entire game.

Like I said, a lot of the complaints in this thread would go away if there was a Turf War variant that judged the winner based on which team had the most turf at any given time.

 

[Kaliafornia]

Ranked modes have knockouts that can stop the game if one team is in control for too long. Turf War has no such thing.
It's not the same thing, a Turf War game will always end after 3 minutes while the ranked modes can end in less than a minute if they're able to shut out the enemy team.

I don't know what's so difficult to understand about the first 66% of a Turf War game practically not mattering.

Rank modes have that opportunity because the rank modes have different objectives based on their own separate clocks from the game clock. The objective of turf war is to cover the most turf in the given time. If you are truly able to shut out the other team then it shouldn't matter.

You guys have literally said nothing that proves the first 3/4ths of turf doesn't matter. Again if you are the better team you will win, being the dominate team most of the game doesn't mean you are the better team if you can't secure the win.

If you want to keep ignoring everything people that bring up legit points say that's fine. Just remember this thread in a few months.

I have yet to see one legit point made. Just a circle jerk of people saying the same tired points that I keep on exposing as false, but carry on. I could care less if turf is included or not, to be honest it is my least favorite mode. That doesn't mean I will blindly co-sign with someone who makes false claims about it.

But not because of any rubberbanding that makes the final quarter intrinsically worth more. Players have to do just as much work to come back as the other team did to establish that lead in the first place.

What's the rubber banding? Specials? As I've said before if you are playing turf smart there is no reason why a single special should be able to wipe an entire team. Also defense wins games in sports, it always takes more work to come back than to defend and hold. Just look at the Seattle Seahawks.

This is incorrect. If the score at the end of a ranked game was based on the current position of the tower or who currently has control of the zones, it would be the same. However, ranked scoring is instead based on who has pushed the tower the furthest throughout the entire game, or who has held the splat zones the longest throughout the entire game. Turf War is only judged by who has the most turf when the time runs out, which is one specific moment in time and not a reflection of the entire game.

Like I said, a lot of the complaints in this thread would go away if there was a Turf War variant that judged the winner based on which team had the most turf at any given time.

My point is turf IS infact a reflection of he whole game. Unless you guys are saying you could sit at spawn twiddling thumbs the whole match until the last minute, be spawned camped by the dominating team and still win considerably more times than not. That is the only way your argument can be valid and that is just not the case.