Why Competitive Splatoon should use all Game Modes instead of one

[AnchorTea]

so he can't push quickly through enemy territory alone.

Funny part is that the RainMaker holder can push through enemy territory easily if he or she is smart.

See, fellow squids are doing the wrong thing when holding the RainMaker. Focusing on kills with the RainMaker. What they don't realize is that the objective needs to be close to the objectives location as much as possible. What you should do, is that you should get to that location, but ignore the enemy inklings. Never shoot the RainMaker to the bad guys, never waste time inking an area (only walls you should focus on), and get an advantage to the location number. Even if you get splatted, so what? It takes ten seconds for the other team to break the shield, and your team can just try to splat some of the bad guys, or use a Sprinkler, or an Inkstrike, or just shoot at the Shield and hope that the bad guys run out of ink first. There is a lot more options, but that's all I can think in my head. Even if the other team eventually gets the RainMaker. You can stealth kill the RainMaker holder easily if that holder focuses on shooting the dang statue instead of traveling with it. (This requires patience)

Turf doesn't have overtime, or is five minutes, or doesn't have a moving objective.

 

[Kaliafornia]

how about I try this again then

EVERY PERSON HERE NEEDS TO LEARN HOW TO CONCEDE POINTS IF WE ARE EVER GOING TO MAKE HEADWAY IN THIS DISCUSSION. IF YOU DON'T PLAY ACTIVELY IN THE COMPETITIVE SCENE YOU SHOULD PROBABLY JUST NOT POST HERE AT ALL, WHAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY CONTRIBUTE ANYWAY

I'd also like to add people need to actually MAKE arguments. Saying "this is wrong" without giving reasons or supporting it with facts doesn't add anything to the conversation.

 

[SupaTim]

Admittedly, I have not read the entire thread. I'm still getting used to the color scheme and layout. And, goodness, this was hard to decipher.

First, what exactly IS the argument that Turf War isn't competitive, or shouldn't be in "competitive" Splatoon? Has someone actually made an argument? All I've managed to piece together so far was 1) that Turf War is less competitive or less intense than Splat Zone (or Ranked mode of choice) and 2) it comes down to randomness at the end which determines the winner. If I've missed an argument, it is probably buried deep in the bowels of this thread so please bring it back up to the surface.

Those two "arguments" are flawed. Turf Wars is inherently competitive because, well, it's a competition. I believe this was addressed in the opening post. Turf Wars does require strategy based on maps and where the best camping spots are, when to push, when to fall back, when to use specials, etc. I realize all of these things are present in Ranked modes, and this is where the "intensity" argument comes in. "Ranked modes are more intense and therefore more competitive." Why is intensity a criteria for competitiveness? That seems arbitrary. Arguably, if both teams know what they are doing and are competent at gameplay the intensity should be fine. Even if it isn't as "intense" at the beginning, your opening strategy and how well you execute it does matter in Turf Wars. Do you all rush to the center to get the best field position and ink the base later? Do you ink the base early to charge your specials and "lock the door"? Some combination?

Randomness: I'll address the two examples that I thought most problematic. "Ink-strikes at the end win the game." Unless the teams are dead even throughout the game a last-3-second ink-strike doesn't win you the game. And if the teams are that dead even, ink-striking at the end becomes part of the tactics, not just random happenstance. Someone on the team has to charge their special, keep it, not get splatted, and use it at the right time. That, like it or not, takes some skill. Especially if we are talking about high level competition here, where people are gunning for you and in order to charge your special you have to be in the thick of it.

"A lucky party-wipe at the end means you lose." That can happen. It also can happen in Rainmaker though, so it seems that point out things that can happen isn't the greatest argument. Then the frequency of this occurrence comes into question: "it is more likely to happen in Turf Wars." Honestly, I'm not really sure this is true, or relevant. Often you are more spread out in Turf Wars and if you've bunched up and gotten TPK'd by an Inkzooka that is a tactical error, not a luck problem. If you've spread out and all gotten killed 1v1 (or some combination), well, they were the better team. Not getting splatted and the wrong time is part of the strategy and is way less luck based than people are letting on.

My closest comparison is actually Magic:The Gathering. On the pro-tour you don't only play one format. You play at least 2, if not 3 or 4: Standard, Modern, and Draft (sometimes Sealed). The players have to know the ins-and-outs of each format. They have to be good at deck-building in each format, they have to know the metagame, and they have to be able to have tight gameplay. I don't see why this couldn't be true for Splatoon. A team would have to use all four game types in some fashion to be able to win. Maybe pick three randomly so you have to be prepared for anything?

Using the same M:tG analogy: tournaments primarily use Standard not because it is the most "competitive" or "intense" it is because it is what is most accessible. Most players can pick up the newest sets so that is what tournaments use. Turf Wars could be considered in the same category. Everyone has access to it and it is easy to pick up, but that doesn't mean there isn't depth and strategy that goes into it. It would benefit the community to have competitive Turf Wars to see what the "pros" are doing tactically in those games. It would likely increase the overall quality of the game mode.

I apologize if I missed an argument somewhere or misrepresented something. Just some of my rambling thoughts on the topic.

 

[Charlight]

Randomness: I'll address the two examples that I thought most problematic. "Ink-strikes at the end win the game." Unless the teams are dead even throughout the game a last-3-second ink-strike doesn't win you the game. And if the teams are that dead even, ink-striking at the end becomes part of the tactics, not just random happenstance. Someone on the team has to charge their special, keep it, not get splatted, and use it at the right time. That, like it or not, takes some skill. Especially if we are talking about high level competition here, where people are gunning for you and in order to charge your special you have to be in the thick of it.

"A lucky party-wipe at the end means you lose." That can happen. It also can happen in Rainmaker though, so it seems that point out things that can happen isn't the greatest argument. Then the frequency of this occurrence comes into question: "it is more likely to happen in Turf Wars." Honestly, I'm not really sure this is true, or relevant. Often you are more spread out in Turf Wars and if you've bunched up and gotten TPK'd by an Inkzooka that is a tactical error, not a luck problem. If you've spread out and all gotten killed 1v1 (or some combination), well, they were the better team. Not getting splatted and the wrong time is part of the strategy and is way less luck based than people are letting on.

I assume you meant Turf war and not Splat zones in the first paragraph of the other thread. I'll just respond here because I feel as if it fits better in this thread.

I'm not saying Turf war is less competitive. It's hard to define what's 'competitive' and 'more competitive', what I meant was it was less suited for competitive play. I'm basing my view on two arguments:

1. There is a higher degree of randomness involved in determining who wins than in ranked modes - you can secure a win in the last 30 seconds almost regardless of how well you were doing the first 2 minutes. Meanwhile, other modes are more heavily based on player skill.

Basically, if you wipe out all 4 of them, or heck, even just 2 or 3 in the last 30 seconds, you're more or less guaranteed a win. This means that the first 2 minutes are significantly less important than the last few moments of the game - unlike e.g. Splat Zones, where the timer goes down, and Tower Control and Rainmaker, where the tower/rainmaker is in a different spot and your score is retained.

Yes, a quad kill can happen in Rainmaker and it does help a lot, but the enemy team has to destroy the Rainmaker's shield, the Rainmaker is (depending on your tactic) positioned closer to their base than yours and is also heavy, slowing down the holder. This gives the team killed enough time to respawn and get to the Rainmaker holder before he gets to the cone thing (placed close to the spawn). In Turf war, if one team dies the other team can simply ink away while the first team tries to respawn and get to the front lines asap, probably taking them at least about 10-20 seconds depending on the map. Overtime merely lets a team finish an attempt at getting the lead. Does this make how matches turn out less based on skill and more on luck? Maybe, but that's not what I'm talking about right now.

Ink strikes have nothing to do with randomness, setting it off right before the game ends is a fair tactic.

2. Game scores are usually very close, sometimes so much that merely one more flick of the inkbrush would've taken the win from the other team.

What competitive play comes down to is determining which team is 'better', in a way.

45.8% vs 47.2% wins/losses feel cheap for both teams in my opinion and are not an accurate representation of which team is better. While the ranked modes (excluding overtime wins) sometimes end with close scores, that happens very rarely. Each team gets several chances at a comeback, giving them several opportunities to show their skill, leaving fewer of the turnouts to close wins.

I don't have any data to back this up, but I think most can agree that close wins/losses happen a lot more commonly in Turf wars than in ranked modes. While teams are allowed to win through overtime by getting just enough points at the end, the other team had 5 minutes to hold the splat zone/get the tower/rainmaker to the enemy team's base and show that they're the better team.

Well this turned out to be longer than I thought, sorry for the rambling!

 

[Psycho_Wendigo]

I feel like I should finally jump into this thread.

The reason why I don't think Turf Wars should be ranked is because I view it as training. Covering turf is important in all rule-sets, but Turf Wars directly rewards you for it, while in other modes it's just something you're expected to do. This gets you in the habit of doing it before hitting ranked. Which is important because it's a concept unique to Splatoon that people need to get a handle on, even veterans from other shooter games

 

[SlimyQuagsire]

I feel like I should finally jump into this thread.

The reason why I don't think Turf Wars should be ranked is because I view it as training. Covering turf is important in all rule-sets, but Turf Wars directly rewards you for it, while in other modes it's just something you're expected to do. This gets you in the habit of doing it before hitting ranked. Which is important because it's a concept unique to Splatoon that people need to get a handle on, even veterans from other shooter games

This thread isn't about the ranked mode, it's about competitive/professional/esports/whatever you want to call it play.

 

[Psycho_Wendigo]

This thread isn't about the ranked mode, it's about competitive/professional/esports/whatever you want to call it play.

Yeah, when I said ranked, I should have said competitive play, which would include ranked

 

[Cobbs]

Yeah, when I said ranked, I should have said competitive play, which would include ranked

Two distinct things.

 

[Power]

Well, the results from ink or sink tourney show something. The community finds turf boring. At least I gained this insight from watching various streams of the matches during the tourney and of people's opinions in the skype leader chat. You can't change people's minds unless there is some super way to make it "competitive." If people have a problem with the majority, then oh well. This is the reality of the turf situation.

Turf's limitations come from it being a timed match, which is why many people go back to the 30 seconds argument. I agree with all of @Char 's points, so I will not rehash the same argument again.

 

[SupaTim]

I assume you meant Turf war and not Splat zones in the first paragraph of the other thread. I'll just respond here because I feel as if it fits better in this thread.

I'm not saying Turf war is less competitive. It's hard to define what's 'competitive' and 'more competitive', what I meant was it was less suited for competitive play.

This is basically the kicker. We have poorly defined what we mean by "competitive." Honestly, at this point I think it has boiled down to "what I like the most."

I'm basing my view on two arguments:

1. There is a higher degree of randomness involved in determining who wins than in ranked modes - you can secure a win in the last 30 seconds almost regardless of how well you were doing the first 2 minutes. Meanwhile, other modes are more heavily based on player skill.

Basically, if you wipe out all 4 of them, or heck, even just 2 or 3 in the last 30 seconds, you're more or less guaranteed a win. This means that the first 2 minutes are significantly less important than the last few moments of the game - unlike e.g. Splat Zones, where the timer goes down, and Tower Control and Rainmaker, where the tower/rainmaker is in a different spot and your score is retained.

How is that a higher degree of randomness? Getting splatted lessens your ability to win in every mode. And what you did in the first 2 minutes is very significant in Turf Wars. I've been on teams that constantly get splatted, don't cover a large piece of the base, or don't push when the other team is down. That affects my ability to win.

Yes, a quad kill can happen in Rainmaker and it does help a lot, but the enemy team has to destroy the Rainmaker's shield, the Rainmaker is (depending on your tactic) positioned closer to their base than yours and is also heavy, slowing down the holder. This gives the team killed enough time to respawn and get to the Rainmaker holder before he gets to the cone thing (placed close to the spawn). In Turf war, if one team dies the other team can simply ink away while the first team tries to respawn and get to the front lines asap, probably taking them at least about 10-20 seconds depending on the map. Overtime merely lets a team finish an attempt at getting the lead. Does this make how matches turn out less based on skill and more on luck? Maybe, but that's not what I'm talking about right now.

What are you talking about then? All of those things are inherent to Turf Wars and its strategy: you kill the other team so you can ink away while the other team respawn. So it sounds like you just have an issue with the inherent concept of Turf Wars more than how it plays out competitively.

Ink strikes have nothing to do with randomness, setting it off right before the game ends is a fair tactic.

Great,we agree! Unfortunately not everyone in thread agrees with this and was used as an example of how random wins can happen in Turf Wars.

2. Game scores are usually very close, sometimes so much that merely one more flick of the inkbrush would've taken the win from the other team.

What competitive play comes down to is determining which team is 'better', in a way.

45.8% vs 47.2% wins/losses feel cheap for both teams in my opinion and are not an accurate representation of which team is better. While the ranked modes (excluding overtime wins) sometimes end with close scores, that happens very rarely. Each team gets several chances at a comeback, giving them several opportunities to show their skill, leaving fewer of the turnouts to close wins.

Why is this bad? Close games are usually more exciting than lopsided victories. Think Super Bowl 48 vs Super Bowl 49. And a last second win isn't a cheap win. It usually means both teams are fairly even.

I don't have any data to back this up, but I think most can agree that close wins/losses happen a lot more commonly in Turf wars than in ranked modes. While teams are allowed to win through overtime by getting just enough points at the end, the other team had 5 minutes to hold the splat zone/get the tower/rainmaker to the enemy team's base and show that they're the better team.

Right, there is no data. I think that two competitive teams playing Turf Wars would actually be really interesting to watch. Unfortunately, all we have is speculation based on teams with wildly different skill levels and skill sets.

Well this turned out to be longer than I thought, sorry for the rambling!

No worries. Finally some discussion instead of flame-baiting in this thread.

 

[Power]

Right, there is no data. I think that two competitive teams playing Turf Wars would actually be really interesting to watch. Unfortunately, all we have is speculation based on teams with wildly different skill levels and skill sets.

We have actually seen this via the ink or sink tourney.
Also, who would not want to play the mode they like the most? Many people just downright dislike turf. (with reason) Only in limited circumstances would it make sense to play what you do not like.

 

[SupaTim]

Well, the results from ink or sink tourney show something. The community finds turf boring. At least I gained this insight from watching various streams of the matches during the tourney and of people's opinions in the skype leader chat. You can't change people's minds unless there is some super way to make it "competitive." If people have a problem with the majority, then oh well. This is the reality of the turf situation.

Turf's limitations come from it being a timed match, which is why many people go back to the 30 seconds argument. I agree with all of @Char 's points, so I will not rehash the same argument again.

I haven't been able to keep up with this tournament so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "The community finds turf boring." Where people able to create teams? Is there a link where I can see some of the things you've been seeing?

We definitely need more data like this though. Splatoon is still really new, both as a concept and a game.

"The 30 second argument" Which is what exactly? No one seems to explain why this is bad or even true?

 

[Hope]

I haven't been able to keep up with this tournament so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "The community finds turf boring." Where people able to create teams? Is there a link where I can see some of the things you've been seeing?

We definitely need more data like this though. Splatoon is still really new, both as a concept and a game.

"The 30 second argument" Which is what exactly? No one seems to explain why this is bad or even true?

Go to the tourney listings forum and the tournament is stickied. It's "ink or sink."

I don't know why you would argue for turf being competitive when you haven't even played a comp turf match or even followed the fledgeling comp community. It doesn't give you much credibility and you come in with incorrect notions such as "there isn't any data."

Basically since a team can win off of a wipe or close to one in the last 30 seconds, it means the other 2:30 barely matters. You can be pushed into spawn for 73% of the game and still win. Basically you don't have to be better than your opponents for a majority of the time to win. You can hold the objective for 5 seconds and win etc... This is basically the "last 30 seconds" argument.

 

[Power]

I haven't been able to keep up with this tournament so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "The community finds turf boring." Where people able to create teams? Is there a link where I can see some of the things you've been seeing?

We definitely need more data like this though. Splatoon is still really new, both as a concept and a game.

"The 30 second argument" Which is what exactly? No one seems to explain why this is bad or even true?

To answer your first part, people's opinions were over the streams of matches during the tourney and within the ink or sink leader chat so I do not know if I can recover that. (which would still take a lot of work if I could) I can link you to some turf war matches if that is what you want. Here is the link to the tourney. http://squidboards.com/threads/ink-or-sink-tournament-v-1-1b-final-version.3564/

I am going by what many people say (and my occasional play on turf) when they say that the 30 seconds or so of turf is the most important, exciting part of the mode.

30 second argument (from my understanding) :
Most important part of turf wars, usually disregards events during the match and is the deciding factor in who wins.This is disliked because many people view it as the opportunity for a team to get "lucky" and spam their specials, hoping for a wipe out and ink turf to victory. This can occur whether you are dominating, or getting dominated, leading to a not so clear cut picture on who is the better team.

This scenario has been concluded upon by many playing the game (extensively at that) It is not like we would be speculating, especially since private lobbies have been available for a while now.

 

[Charlight]

This is basically the kicker. We have poorly defined what we mean by "competitive." Honestly, at this point I think it has boiled down to "what I like the most."

Yeah, I'm trying to avoid saying one game mode is more competitive than another... What I personally see 'better suited for competitive play' as is a game mode that accurately shows us which one of two teams is better. Does that make sense? What I'm trying to do here is compare game modes and see which ones decide on which team is better in the clearest/fairest/most accurate way relative to each other, meaning I'm not trying to label game modes as 'suited for competitive play' but 'better suited for competitive play'. So drawing from that...

How is that a higher degree of randomness? Getting splatted lessens your ability to win in every mode. And what you did in the first 2 minutes is very significant in Turf Wars. I've been on teams that constantly get splatted, don't cover a large piece of the base, or don't push when the other team is down. That affects my ability to win.

Who wins Turf War is based on the state the map is in after exactly 3 minutes. I feel as if this gives the first 2 minutes less meaning as for example Splat Zones. If your team was doing great the first 4 minutes, you got the counter down to 6, and the enemy team captures the zone for the first time towards the end, they are still given a chance to win - but due to how well you did before, you have a major advantage. In Turf War, if you covered 75% of the map at, say, 2:30 and the opposing teams just so happens to get a few lucky kills in, it's easier for them to win than in the Splat Zones example above.

By 'higher degree of randomness' I mean that in Turf War luck plays a bigger factor than in the other modes, leading to inaccurate results on who the better team is, making it, by my definition, less suited for competitive play than the other game modes.

What are you talking about then? All of those things are inherent to Turf Wars and its strategy: you kill the other team so you can ink away while the other team respawn. So it sounds like you just have an issue with the inherent concept of Turf Wars more than how it plays out competitively.

I do have an issue with the inherent concept of Turf War and subsequently how suited it is for competitive play. It's definitely a fun game mode but it's, as stated above, not as good at determining the better team as the other modes. Killing the other team, depending on the state of the map, lets you in most cases almost immediately take the lead. This isn't present in the other game modes, as described on the example of Rainmaker in my previous post.

Why is this bad? Close games are usually more exciting than lopsided victories. Think Super Bowl 48 vs Super Bowl 49. And a last second win isn't a cheap win. It usually means both teams are fairly even.

It's the fact that most games end with a close score that feels cheap in tournaments. Both teams did practically just as good yet one of the teams was picked to be better by the game mode - almost always the team that just so happened to kill more of the other team towards the end of the match. And that's more or less random and luck based. It's not about the win being last second, it's the fact that the game mode has a harder time telling which team is better (more close wins) than the other game modes.

In your example of the Superbowl, who wins is based on how well both teams played throughout the whole game almost equally, while in Turf War it's largely bass on the performance of the teams towards the end of the match.

Of course, if the two teams played a bigger number of Turf Wars, this would eventually even out. Again, I'm talking about what's better suited for competitive play and am in no way saying that Turf War is not a competitive game mode.

Right, there is no data. I think that two competitive teams playing Turf Wars would actually be really interesting to watch. Unfortunately, all we have is speculation based on teams with wildly different skill levels and skill sets.

I played Turf War in Ink or Sink against another team from my clan. We were very closely matched but we managed to win 3-2. I honestly feel as if that win was more luck based than anything. Perhaps if we played 4 more, the score would be 4-5. As said, it would require several Turf Wars to present accurate results on the better team than in the other game modes. This is basically the core of my argument.

 

[FlareHabanero]

I don't see what's so weird about killing the opponents to gain turf. I mean the game does encourage that to some degree, since you cover a large chunk of ground and it slows down the team, the only difference is that in Turf Wars it's more of a secondary priority. It's not even luck based, if you screw up it's your fault not the game's fault, which is why you coordinate with your team in order to prevent or recover from such situations.

 

[SupaTim]

Go to the tourney listings forum and the tournament is stickied. It's "ink or sink."

I don't know why you would argue for turf being competitive when you haven't even played a comp turf match or even followed the fledgeling comp community. It doesn't give you much credibility and you come in with incorrect notions such as "there isn't any data."

Basically since a team can win off of a wipe or close to one in the last 30 seconds, it means the other 2:30 barely matters. You can be pushed into spawn for 73% of the game and still win. Basically you don't have to be better than your opponents for a majority of the time to win. You can hold the objective for 5 seconds and win etc... This is basically the "last 30 seconds" argument.

Wait, wait. I'm not trying to beat people over the head with my credentials. I haven't even approached my arguments with "you should listen to me because I'm S+" or whatever. I couldn't follow ONE tournament (I don't know, maybe because I have a job and three kids?) and you're attacking my credibility? How many tournaments have there been for me to miss?

I'm not attacking anyone here and I'm sorry if I came off that way. I'm just trying to have a discussion....how dare I, right?!

@Power and @Char
Thanks for the info. I've started to watch some of the tourney videos.

30 second argument (from my understanding) :
Most important part of turf wars, usually disregards events during the match and is the deciding factor in who wins.This is disliked because many people view it as the opportunity for a team to get "lucky" and spam their specials, hoping for a wipe out and ink turf to victory. This can occur whether you are dominating, or getting dominated, leading to a not so clear cut picture on who is the better team.

This scenario has been concluded upon by many playing the game (extensively at that) It is not like we would be speculating, especially since private lobbies have been available for a while now.

Thanks. My experience seems to differ. If one team is being dominated to the point they are stuck at spawn but manages to score a party wipe in the last 30 seconds, they don't ever come back. BUT, the plural of anecdote is not data, so if this happens more often than my experience it is my experience that is the outlier.

@Char
Great points. I think I see what you are saying now. Let me try to articulate it:
When both teams don't NEED to interact for the first 2 minutes it is hard to determine the better team. Using my previous M:tG example, Wizards often bans things based on "interaction," i.e. if something causes a deck to be "non-interactive" is is usually banned. Similarly, in Splatoon, we would want modes that encourage team interaction. I can see how Turf Wars would be the least interactive, given its inherent need to ink turf away from the team.

 

[Hope]

Wait, wait. I'm not trying to beat people over the head with my credentials. I haven't even approached my arguments with "you should listen to me because I'm S+" or whatever. I couldn't follow ONE tournament (I don't know, maybe because I have a job and three kids?) and you're attacking my credibility? How many tournaments have there been for me to miss?

I'm not attacking anyone here and I'm sorry if I came off that way. I'm just trying to have a discussion....how dare I, right?!

I know, but when you haven't experienced or even heard of the main arguments against turf it's frustrating to explain them over and over again. It's hard to use something a person has never experienced in your argument no? The tourney has plenty of twitch vods that you can watch at any time you please, and you can just read earlier in the thread for explanations on much of what you were confused about or arguing. I mean the tourney has been going on for two weeks now so.

All I'm saying is that people coming into this thread ignorant about the situation competitive turf is in, and all of the arguments surrounding it just make the thread a circlejerk of the same arguments over and over again and we never make any progress. Not trying to attack you, so you don't have to be so passive aggressive.

 

[SupaTim]

Just so we're on the same page: I sincerely apologize if I came off as passive aggressive. I have no intention of regressing the competitive scene. I'm honestly just trying to learn. You obviously know more about this than I do (as I've seen you have participated in numerous discussions on this) so I will defer to your knowledge. (I made the mistake of thinking I knew more than I did on forums long ago). Perhaps it would be good to have some sort of stickied FAQ that went over some of these things so instead of reiterating points we could just link people there?

A serious question though: how much data do we actually have on competitive Splatoon besides this two-week tournament? I can't imagine it is much. I am curious to see how the Japanese tournament goes.

I know I've heard some Twitch streams say they find Turf Wars boring, so I've definitely heard the sentiment in more places than here.

 

[Power]

Well aside from tournies, many people have run countless scrimmages against teams. I doubt they picked turf war as a ruleset, but I feel that many, (especially high ranking players) are set in the idea of turf being phased out of the competitive scene.