Why Competitive Splatoon should use all Game Modes instead of one

[flc]

in a nutshell.

biggest nutshell I ever saw

 

[Zovnig]

Just thinking outside the box here about Turf War in general. What if each Turf War match was divided into 3 points?
1 Point for the most points in the game for each team (then it makes sense to go for highscore all the way through)
1 Point for most Kills (accumulate each kill and death from each team. The best score win this point)
1 Point for Winning the map

Play 10 rounds in a match and there is 30 points to fight for.

That will make sure that Turf War is more than just "winning the last 30 seconds" and i also let it be much more nerve wrecking to watch.
"yes we won the map!"... "aah crap we didn't paint enough and the five time i got wasted made us loose.. f**k".

 

[toadster101]

continuation of my original point). As I repeatedly said, the problem is the 'one engagement' part. Whether you lose it by luck, fluke, skill, it doesn't matter; if you lose that one fight toward the end of the game, the match is over. The only things that are relevant to the final fight that occur prior to it are special meter (which is important for obvious reasons) and how much of the map is not inked (which isn't, because after winning a fight you can cover a very large amount of the map and the only thing having more turf does is make it slightly harder to regain enough turf to win). The point about flukes and luck (which aren't the same thing, and we'll get to that) was just adding to that; if this one-engagement-to-rule-them-all were entirely based on skill, then it'd still be bad, but not crippling. The problem is that it's not entirely based on skill because, like any other shooter, you can fluke a game-changing shot with just about anything, ranging from the 96 gal's 75% max range accuracy (giving you a coinflip on a two-shot kill) to an inkzooka that the enemy just happens to not be looking at the moment you pop it and anything in between.

Also, friendly reminder that winning an engagement in turf gives your entire team a second special due to how much turf you cover in that time, while the team that has to respawn needs to either SJ to a survivor (and risk getting camped) or swim to the last-second fight, meaning they have to fight with no specials.

Furthermore, 70% of the map is not as much as it might seem like once you factor in the 5-10% that people don't ink. Safe spawn locking setups on each map only give you that much of a lead on a few select maps, and spawn camping to that degree against decent teams is VERY difficult without a straight up counter-composition.
- Saltspray: Cover short exit w/ grenades, long exit with someone on the sniper steps, south and catwalk exits with whatever else. Enemy team is locked into spawn and can maybe get south if you aren't killing them with an elitre every time they go that way. Holding from here allows the enemy about 25-30% of the map, but if they break out, they can rush mid and north and abuse the high ground for very fast clearing, using grenades at catwalks and sniper nest to halt the last-second push.
- Kelp: Two and two. One on each side holds ramp, other roams/scouts. About 20% for the other team, but the catwalks provide an easy way to cover mid in a matter of seconds. Easy to lock down, but you also have a lot more ground to cover prior to the spawn lock.
- Bluefin: Spawn camping is very difficult here; first storey is easiest due to pincering but gives the other team about 35% of the map, while holding second storey is very hard but gives the other team only about 10%. Engagement win on first storey -> both mids is about 30% by itself and takes very little time. Holding at 45-40 is pretty easy if all you need to do is not die for ten seconds, especially if you have a charger or the other team doesn't.
- Walleye: Plenty of spawn camp options, but the best require the left flank to be secured (the loss of which gives the other team a lot of advantages) and anything that doesn't hold the left flank is very susceptible to leaking. Similar problem to Bluefin, on a lesser scale. Probably the hardest map to come back on due to how hard it is to build special on the defence and how little of the map you actually get (about 15%), but it takes very little time to retake mid due to the high ground you have open to you.
- Blackbelly: You either give the other team their spawn area (about 25%) or you push up on the high ground (limiting them to about 15% but making it MUCH easier for the other team to counterattack), but either way the other team need only win one fight to take their entire spawn area (which takes about three seconds), halfpipe, and tower. And, of course, from the tower you can ink about a third of the map.
- Mackerel: Such a small amount of inkable turf combined with the fact that people generally break out via the high ground (giving them about 20% of the map just from those high ground corridors alone) makes a mid retake virtually instantaneous. Spawn lock is very easy and safe on this map, but also quite fragile due to how hard it is to stop people escaping to the far side courtyard if one person goes down.
- Arowana: Other team gets their catwalks for free unless you manage to get up to their spawn in a similar way to Walleye. Very dangerous, and even then only limits the other team to about 20% if you're lucky. If you can't take those catwalks, the other team gets their lower mid very easily, and has plenty of flanking routes. Hardest spawn lock in the game in my experience, since inkzookas and even grenades struggle to hit the catwalks from the low ground.
- Underpass: Need to secure the top platform overlooking the mid hill with a wall or something; other team generally only gets about 15-20%, but they also take mid VERY quickly with all that high ground.

The key point in all this is that, yes, spawn camps are effective, and, yes, it's usually difficult to push out of a spawn lock. Yes, the winning team can do a lot to prevent themselves from being pushed back due to flukes, and yes, a lot of what the locked team does is predictable (which is why it's called a spawn lock in the first place). But these are best-case scenarios for the team that's spawn locking, and they still aren't enough to make the game anything more than a likely victory. And we aren't even beginning to look at what happens when the gap between two teams is small enough to allow spawn camps to happen.

Finally, say what you will about me or the lounge, but the fact is that there aren't that many groups of A+ players (and I never said we were "top" players) out there with both the numbers and the willingness to test these sorts of things. I don't know what kind of things you see playing with N5, but over hundreds of turf games with 8 loungers, everything points to this. I by no means imply that what I say is law (if it were, I wouldn't need to back it up with observations). What I am saying is that a collection of A+ players doing the next best thing to playing Turf in a competitive friend room is about as good an emulation of "competitive" Turf as you're going to get, and it doesn't work.

You raise valid points, but nowhere in your post did you address why the mode isn't competitive (I can bold random sentences too). Okay, you can lose to weaker teams at the last minute due to "random" Inkzooka blasts. So what? While fluke shots do happen - in all three modes, as a matter of fact - playing defensively will lessen the odds of getting hit. There are risks and rewards involved in everything you do, giving the game at least a modest degree of competitive depth. Does it vary from mode to mode? Yeah, probably. But the fact remains that the better teams are always more consistent and thus win more often, no matter which mode is being played. Dismissing the mode as being noncompetitive so prematurely before we've had an opportunity to properly test it in friend rooms sets a dangerous precedent that can permanently damage an online community. The other modes are also flawed for entirely different reasons; I'd argue that Turf War is more competitive than the other modes in some respects because the results are often determined within the last 30 seconds versus the first 30 seconds. Just because something is entirely skill based doesn't mean it's competitive, and vice versa. Comebacks happen in almost every serious competitive game I can think of. But maybe that's because I have more experience with that particular mode since I have played the game for over 200 hours and 90% of that time has been spent on Turf War. Regardless of how you feel about certain modes, the right approach is to give everything a fair chance before dismissing legitimate gameplay options based on potentially faulty observations two months into the game's lifespan. Variety is what will help the game survive. The last, and I repeat, THE LAST thing we should be doing is tearing down the other modes without testing their competitive viability in a proper team based environment. Random lobbies with friends aren't good enough. The game needs to grow organically, and I don't want everybody to stop playing Turf War because some forum dweller labeled it as noncompetitive. That doesn't mean you're wrong, nor do I necessarily believe you have malicious intentions, but these things, they take time.

Basically what I'm trying to avoid here is a situation like what happened with Mario Kart Wii, where the "official" ruleset was decided by a handful of individuals very early on and set the tone for the entire game's lifespan. Clans today (lol) still prefer to do 5 vs 5 even though 6 vs 6 is inherently more competitive because the item balance was designed with 12 players in mind. It's simply too early for anybody to be making broad declarations. While it's possible to develop a basic understanding of how the game works, branding an entire mode as "noncompetitive" so early on is a bit much. Surely you can wait until August.

 

[Nihabz]

I still don't understand why human beings continue to bicker over the viability of competitive modes for a game with a lifespan of 5-6 years that becomes a coaster once it's servers are shutdown and that lacks any if all competitive features that are standards in a competitive game of this genre. I expect to see some kind of competitive infrastructure put into place before August otherwise this community is going nowhere.

 

[missingno]

You're both wrong no offence.

The point is that ALL online modes should be used in general. I never said that they should be mixed as a rotation. How did people come up with that conclusion?!

Did you only read the first sentence of my post?

There could be separate events for each mode, but I'm not sure our scene will be big enough to sustain all four, let alone whether there'll even be that much interest in all four.

I really don't think it's going to be practical to run all four.

 

[AnchorTea]

Did you only read the first sentence of my post?

I read your entire post, the reason I replied that message is that I thought most people in this thread thought that so I decided to clear some misinformation.

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

Sometimes, you gotta let them figure it out for their selves @flc idk what to tell you LOL

 

[Jiggly]

idk how I feel. Yes, teams can get a lucky fluke at the end, and win even if they have less skill, but I feel like that is what adds to it. When it comes down to the end, you need to be aware and cautious. You need to change your playstyle and your tactics, because you know what can happen. You need to use the first 2 minutes to set up a strong defense so you can try to hold the last 45 seconds, or have a large offensive push to push the other team into their base. There are a lot of ways to take the end, and that's why I love turf wars. It's a quickly spilling scale. Very back and forth. Most people are used to modes where the stronger team has a better push, and that's still true with this mode, but it's a lot more loose. Some people are uncomfortable with that, but that's something that shouldn't be a big factor.

I still don't know how I feel about Turf Wars, but I think it should be innocent until proven Guilty :)

 

[Narayan]

Well this discussion is nonsense since every contra-tw-argument can be shut down by just saying "Well we don't have lobbies yet so you can't prove it. Lobbies would change everything".

 

[[EJ]_Locke]

Well this discussion is nonsense since every contra-tw-argument can be shut down by just saying "Well we don't have lobbies yet so you can't prove it. Lobbies would change everything".

I think they could pretty much contradict splat zones and tower control in the same way.

 

[Power]

Well this discussion is nonsense since every contra-tw-argument can be shut down by just saying "Well we don't have lobbies yet so you can't prove it. Lobbies would change everything".

Agreed, but is it even worth arguing anymore at this point? I know this is meant for discussion but things are starting to get repetitive, and we do need actual solid gameplay of organized turf to decide on its competitive viability. (We already have some of this evidence) I am just going to wait it out until custom lobbies and return to this because we seem to be at a standstill at the moment with theories being thrown left and right.

Unless we actually do some further testing with turf wars (in an organized manner ofc) nothing will really change until the update. I will say this again, what sounds good on paper may not actually be as good, testing must be done.

Overall, it is good to know that their are people getting passionate over splatoons competitive future. Brings hope for a decent competitive scene that I would like to be a part of.

My 2 cents

 

[SquiliamTentacles]

I agree OP in one point: Every game could be played competitive since playing PvP is competitive after all.
But we're not looking for cpmpetitive types, but for the MOSTE competitive type. And that's the point where TW loses against every other mode (so far).

The thing is, there does not have to be one most competitive mode. Sure, Turf Wars may not be the official competitive mode, but it still has value as a separate game mode that will not harm the meta of the others. And a player would not have to master ALL the game modes, they can just play in the one they want to. Pokemon as an example has many gamemodes, whether single or doubles or anything goes or PU, all of them have competitive value and none hurt the others.

Also, don't get why the lower value kills in general make Turf Wars less competitive. The idea in general is to spread as much ink as fast as you can ink, which can be just as intense as combat with players. Saying Splatoon should be focused around kills is like saying Mario Kart should be focused on hitting enemies with items: both actions help but dont decide games.

 

[TheRapture]

To be honest, there's no real way to determine the competitive viability of any of these gametypes until they are played in a competitive setting.

For what it's worth, when Squidboards starts up its events, we'll be giving all of the available gametypes and maps a try. Turf War especially.

 

[Agosta44]

To be honest, there's no real way to determine the competitive viability of any of these gametypes until they are played in a competitive setting.

For what it's worth, when Squidboards starts up its events, we'll be giving all of the available gametypes and maps a try. Turf War especially.

Is there a particular reason for a focus on Turf War? Or is that a response to the nay sayers.

 

[superman]

Jeez I can't believe the amount of **** flung around at each other in this thread. People will play what they enjoy and that's that.
If the majority enjoys playing mixed mode tournaments with or without TW, so be it.
If they don't and hold tournaments for each mode individually then that's fine too.

If it were me I'd like to see per mode tournaments with a pool of around 5 rotating maps per event. More than that might be too demanding to prepare for properly. Someone had the great idea to have map pool consisting of nine maps for a whole season of quake tournaments once, the amount of low quality matches was ridiculous.

I've been through all of this in the quake community the way things went down there was that team deathmatch was the most popular mode in Europe, capture the flag was most popular in NA then duel emerged and became basically the definitive mode for tournaments (mostly because it was cheaper to get a high a quality tournament with less players). Clan arena and free for all are the most popular modes for unorganized casual play (the same place I see turf war in). Some people thought that separation in multiple sub communities is what lead to quake's slow death, the way I always saw it was that people played what they enjoyed and that's fine!

Most of the things said in this thread are correct. Everything that can be played against IS competitive, that's human nature, there's just no sense flipping coins competitively. flc had brought forth valuable observations from organized turf war matches and instead of benefiting from his input he's discredited without making any arguments other than "it's something that can be played against" or "it's your own fault for dying". Why don't you guys suggest a strategy that would invalidate flc's points? To be honest ,it's sad.

 

[Power]

Most of the things said in this thread are correct. Everything that can be played against IS competitive, that's human nature, there's just no sense flipping coins competitively. flc had brought forth valuable observations from organized turf war matches and instead of benefiting from his input he's discredited without making any arguments other than "it's something that can be played against" or "it's your own fault for dying". Why don't you guys suggest a strategy that would invalidate flc's points? To be honest ,it's sad.

Good point. I once again bring up the "we have to test it more in organized turf wars" instead of just making theories. Setting up rooms more often with people in this forum would be good and provide stronger evidence to back up claims, but i dont know if we are that organized yet.

 

[Jiggly]

People can test competitive turf wars by getting 8 people in a room. It has been tested with actual decent players. All private lobbies does is effect who is on who's team. Turf Wars is the only mode we can talk about competitively honestly...

 

[Narayan]

People can test competitive turf wars by getting 8 people in a room. It has been tested with actual decent players. All private lobbies does is effect who is on who's team. Turf Wars is the only mode we can talk about competitively honestly...

there is a huge difference: the tactics and formations. 2 RGs 1 Roller 1 Jr vs 2RGs 1 Roller 1 JR is a whole different set-up than 2RGs 2 JRs vs 4 Rollers. Just for an example

 

[Power]

there is a huge difference: the tactics and formations. 2 RGs 1 Roller 1 Jr vs 2RGs 1 Roller 1 JR is a whole different set-up than 2RGs 2 JRs vs 4 Rollers. Just for an example

That is true, we can not fully investigate how competitive turf wars will go, but it is better than nothing if we want to actually disprove others findings

 

[Narayan]

Better than nothing, but according to this thread: not good enough for the majority