Consideration of 1v1 Solo SSM

FFA heavily promotes passive play. Instead of trying to take out other players, your best chance at winning is to stay out of fights. Just because running and cleaning are strategies doesn’t mean it’s good for gameplay and isn’t an issue. A 1v1 mode would be a great solution to stop these “scummy” strategies from happening and encourage more engaging gameplay by making passive play pointless. I would like to know why you think cleaning should remain in the game.

Not sure what your next point means. Yes, stat boosting does happen, but it doesn’t ruin the game, at least gameplay-wise. Not seeing it as big as an issue as the “scummy” strategies doesn’t invalidates one’s opinion on cleaning. The main focus of adding a 1v1 mode is to address gameplay. The issue of stat boosting is irrelevant to gameplay, but it doesn’t mean people who support 1v1 don’t care about stat boosting.

Supporting the 1v1 mode does not mean supporting “winning simply because the other person will leave”. If a less skilled player leaves and let’s the more skilled player have a free win, it is not the fault of the more skilled player and it doesn’t mean they are showing a lack of skill. However, if a player is only cleaning fights, then that can show a lack of skill.

I don’t speak for him, but I believe he means that stat boosting does not matter in terms of gameplay, but is still an issue. I mean, he did give two solutions to preventing stat boosting. So why do you think his solutions won’t work?

I think you missed his/her point; a chat filter and a system that prevents parties from entering solo games are both preventative measures to stop something from happening before it happens. Obviously, you can’t detect teaming as it’s happening, but you can have systems that prevent parties from entering solo games.

You bring up how this system would still be ineffective in an FFA mode, which is true, but steering it back in the 1v1 mode context, it would
1. Make teaming not even possible.
2. Help eliminate stat-boosting, your seemingly biggest issue with the 1v1 mode.

 

Have you? I did give valid ideas, but they all stand on more players reporting every offense they see. The first, is that once it becomes an offenses that is reported much more often, players will be less inclined to do so in fear of getting a punishment. Players don't seem to care about mutes as much as they care about bans, there are many players on the server that are Immortals, level 100, etc and they break the rules often but don't care to be muted, however definitely care to be banned (as they're spending money, have friends on the server, etcetc). The second, is increasing the severity of the rule for SSM or otherwise increasing the punishment length, as players can easily nap/binge Netflix for the 4 hours they're banned for teaming, but it's more discouraging to team and team again if the ban was a week long at the start. Once again, any Immortals especially would hate to be banned for so long as they are losing money, and if the punishment starts at a week then it's going to stack up pretty quickly on repeated offenses (I think 7 days turn to 14 which turns into a month, something like that).

You don't have to pay 20 dollars, someone else that you want to 1v1 might have a rank - also if it's scummy it's scummy but you can't prevent it. Cleaning happens in every single big game - SG, Skywars, Paintball, etc...and there's no way to properly get rid of it. Locking the players forcefully into 1v1 modes, sure, however, I never said I don't support a 1v1 mode. I just said I don't support 1v1 replacing 1v1v1v1, which is what this thread suggested.

Back when Mineplex had a much higher player count, players made similar threads, to add a 1v1 mode, and I was all up on that, thinking it's a great idea. I still do, but not if it's replacing another mode many many many players love.

 

If 1v1s would be added, they should add "ranking" purely based on all SSM gamemodes combined win count. As anything more complicated wouldn't work for such small playerbase and would require effort to create and still at best would work poorly.
Knowing Mineplex track record.

The whole point would purely be to separate firsttimers from veterans.

As long as these "rankings" are for under 1000 win count players, you won't get smurfs from God tier as they are perfectly happy laughing at 1000-4000 win count players.

Simply separate 0-100 and 100-500 500-1000 and be done with it.
Nothing more nothing else.
Because of this separation, players under 1000 wins will gain wins faster than now and "good" players will quickly get stuck at 1000 wins as they get veterans against them.
This drastically lowers the skill differences in those low win count "ranks" what should ensure happier noobs.
This will also evidently cause 1000 win count individuals be a lot worse then today's 1000 win count players, but that won't matter much as they are no longer first timers.
This should only cause 1000-2000 win players being the most inactive players as naturally many will give up after having such an easy time and suddenly being 4 stonked nearly every match.
Those that were going to play more then that were going to do that regardless of the ranking systems existence. Where as those who were quitters are more likely to play up to that 1000 point.

When the quiet hours come and someone sits in a lobby for 1min they would be put into "public matchmaking" where they can get anyone against them, and most likely will be curbstomped.
But knowing Mineplex, If they need to do anything more than a IF statement they will brake something.


I'd say that 1 out of 10 people liked the free for all game mode, so I don't know where the "lots of people who like it" are at.
But I wouldn't advocate for it's removal as where else would one get 1v3 games at.

Also thinking that splitting the community again would hurt is flawed thinking.
As it is split into smaller pieces that are more likely to be active, means less wait time for games what means less people quit playing on the "dead" server.
Anything that lowers the amount of new players quitting is beneficial to the revival of the server.


But anyway...
As Mineplex player numbers are dwindling down, there is a chance that they get desperate and officially make 1v1s a game mode.
Would be funny if they do.

 

I will make a proper reply after reading all the replies later, but I'll leave my quick 2 cents here right now.

I'd much rather see a community-run version of 1v1 SSM. There have been some in the past but they required too much work to keep up, but it can be automated if done properly. When the community runs the system, it won't be bound by the limited time of the mineplex developers & other potential hurdles.

Everyone who is for 1v1 SSM probably also wants it to be competitive -- which aligns with it being community-run.

 

See, I would just simply eliminate everyone before they even acquire the chance to team. I do like the idea of a 1v1 though since I do get rather irritated when everybody's alive and then some burnt chicken nugget is like "oH weH WAh, leMmE jUsT intErRuPt tHiS 1v1". If there are 3 people alive cool, I get it, I wouldn't wanna wait around either. However, when it comes to new players doing 1v1, I'm against it since it doesn't really give them a chance if they go up against extremely skilled people. For skilled peeps, I like the idea, for newbs, not so much. Now if there was a requirement of having a certain # of wins, I think it should be implemented.

 

1v1 does not need to be competitive. As quoted from a friend of mine, it can be casual, too. I betcha that it's not fun for those "non-competitive" players to be engaged in horrible 3v1s or whatnot.

 

Throughout my many games of ssm I have seen many casual players complain about ffa.

And the main reason teams is hated rn is because its 2v2v2 which is easily fixable.

FFA is hated because of the gamemode itself.

 

No, teaming cannot be "easily avoided" by reporting. Based on not only my own experiences, but also those of other players, I can safely say that staff rarely respond to any mentions of teaming in SSM in Staff Request. And sure, submitting video evidence or doing /report will mean that the instance of teaming may get reviewed eventually, but even in a perfect world where every report on teamers is accepted, there will always be a new batch of players who join a lobby and decide to unite their efforts in hopes of winning. It is illogical to say that teaming can simply be avoided by reporting, since reporting in-game does literally nothing in the short term.

 

Hey guys, spacebar-spamming no-skill wolf main here, I have a few things to offer about my opinion and will do my best to go into detail while still keeping it as short as I can. (Just saying now, it's not short; TL;DR is at the end). I will start with breaking down this quote by ClassyOwl as he brought up some good points that I would like to respond to.

While yes, SSM was not intended to be formatted as a 1v1/1v1 game, this does not change the fact that this 1v1/1v1 is indeed how many people play it. Sure, if you get four new players and stick them in a lobby together, they will play it in the "every man for himself" playstyle it was intended to be, hitting the nearest person to them without a worry in the world. These naïve players are solely focused on killing any person that walks in front of them, not taking time to consider why they are attacking this specific person. I will do my best to explain why this 1v1/1v1 scenario happens and other hindrances of FFA.

The Mexican Standoff: Now, let's imagine you, an intermediate-experienced player, enter a lobby with three other experienced players. Each of you four know that entering into a 1v1 with any specific player leaves you vulnerable to attack from either of the two remaining players. The most obvious vulnerability is that at the end of a fight, the victor of the fight is likely very low, making it very easy for either of those other two players to come one-tap him. Nobody likes getting one-tapped, so it is the honorable and sensible thing for those other two players to enter into a 1v1 for themselves.

"But why do they not enter into a brawl like the new players do?"

These experienced players know that entering into a full out brawl does not help to ensure their victory in any capacity. When entering combat, they look for any and every advantage/vulnerability:

• Cleaning
• Positioning
• Cooldown usage (key abilities and double-jump timing)
• Over-aggression
• Tunnel-visioning
• Unawareness
• Etc. (The list goes on)

The Gray Area: Being in a full out brawl makes it very difficult to keep track of everyone, determine an appropriate target, and avoid getting dinked off the edge by a person that you are not currently fighting. To sum it all up, while the game is set as a 1v1v1v1, a full out brawl really means that you are fighting three other people at once, technically making it a 1v3 for any person on the field at any given time. This math may not exactly make sense, but it is true. Any one of your three opponents can spontaneously choose to attack you at any point of the fight. If they all decide to hit you at the same time, killing you, and then return to fighting the nearest person to them, are they teaming or just playing the game how the game is meant to played? It may seem like they all teamed on you, but to be honest, it probably happened without the direct intention of killing specifically you, and happened due to your poor positioning in the center of the action. Maybe they thought you were low and did the smart thing to finish you off. There is nothing that can be done to stop three people that happen to hit you at the same time.

"But what is teaming then?" I personally would consider this and anything more severe to be teaming: You die in a brawl and respawn on the other side of the map, but the other three players are standing next to each other, and as soon as they see you respawn, all rush over together to kill you again, rather than fight each other. Simply getting a +2 in the kill-feed is not enough to be classified as teaming.

The smart thing to do if you find yourself in a brawl is back out of the action and just wait until a good opportunity to engage. So, when all players back out to wait for this advantage, it creates this standoff where no one wants to fight each other. The easiest solution to this stalemate is the 1v1/1v1 format that most experienced players employ. It's fairer, more honorable, and removes the main vulnerability of being cleaned. People know they can easily lose in a brawl scenario, so they avoid the brawl scenario, creating this world of 1v1/1v1s.

It is basically an unsaid rule by competitive players to employ this method because straight FFA brawl is simply unenjoyable for them. People don't want to do something they don't enjoy, and if people aren't enjoying FFA in the brawl style, they aren't going to play it that way if they don't have to.

The Appeal of 1v1 Duels: It is practiced in most societies that majority rules, while the rights and opinions of the minority are respected. Many people, myself included, would like to see SSM 1v1s and 2v2s. I would not like to see FFA completely abolished as I think it still can be a good game to relax in and not worry about winning every game. Straight duels (1v1 and 2v2) could become the competitive area where sweats hang out and people worry about their stats, whereas FFA becomes a less competitive place with more casual gameplay. People just playing without a care in the world. So many people are asking for 1v1s and complaining about FFA that it is time something is finally done.

You mentioned that because he has the Eternal rank, he can simply enter an MPS and make 1v1s himself. There are a few reasons why this does not help.

1. There are no stats in MPS. People care about their stats. I personally care little for them (as can be seen by my very few amount of wins in both SSM and SSM2), but there are people that live for stats and wins.
2. People need to actually join. Unless you are playing with friends or in a tournament setting, it is very hard to get a lot people to join an MPS looking to specifically do SSM 1v1s/2v2s, and it is equally as hard to find an MPS where people are doing SSM 1v1s/2v2s.
3. Most people don't want to duel the same person over and over again. If you get really lucky, you may find that perfect partner for practicing, but odds are you don't. You want to constantly fight different people to get a feel for the different kits and strategies out there.

I am now going to respond to some good points made by maevestarbaby concerning gameplay and stat boosting.

*[It is my understanding that "it" in this context applies to the strategies employed in SSM FFA, namely cleaning.]

Cleaning: Yes, cleaning is a strategy, but it is widely considered to be unenjoyable in gameplay. I have never met someone that enjoys being cleaned and I often don't like to clean a good fight if I don't have to, and often times, I don't have to. Sure, it would be advantageous, but it just seems dishonorable in my opinion. It comes back to the whole idea that if something is not enjoyable for people, people aren't going to want to spend their time partaking in those activities.

It is crucial to a game's success that they cater to as many players as possible, but there comes a point where a line needs to be drawn. It is impossible to make every player ever happy. One can only hope to appeal to the largest possible majority while respecting what the minority has to say and attempting to reach some form of compromise.

Stat Boosting: Stat boosting is a problem, but there are things that can be done to counteract it. A simple solution is prevent parties from joining 1v1s, or they could make it so that when a party joins 1v1s, it does not affect the stats of either player.

TL;DR Super Smash Mobs should receive a 1v1 and 2v2 duels mode as it is highly requested and has serious advantages for competitive play. FFA (1v1v1v1) can still exist for non-competitive play and as a better place for people to learn kits and learn how the game works. There can be measures in place to prevent stat boosting (see three lines up). Proper duels (1v1 and 2v2) are something that people have been asking for ages in SSM. While people claim that it will spread the player base even thinner, experienced players will enjoy duels a whole lot more, bringing more back to the game and reducing the amount of sweaty competitive play in FFA, creating a more inviting environment for newer players.

Thank you for your time,
VC

(Another thread may follow this one going into further detail about this topic if I feel compelled to take the time to write it)

 

Allow me to expand your example further with a game like say, Fortnite. Fortnite is FFA, a well respected FFA (kinda lmao, ignoring how cringy it is). Well that's because a game like Fortnite is specifically meant for an FFA format. It has mechanics that support getting 1v2'd by people, such as building walls (ok its a cringy example and i don't know exactly how fortnite works but bear with me), hiding (which is very optimal due to how large the map is), etc etc. Paintball isn't an ffa... its team v team. Nobody has problems about team v team (which is just 1v1 but bigger) since your success is entirely dependent on your teammates (which can be annoying sometimes but isn't the same problem as FFA). Skywars and SG both have mechanics to help you against 1v2s. There is a large height disparity in Skywars alongside the fact it's a very void based game, meaning you can easily knock a person off and insta kill them. Does teaming still exist yeah ofc, but there are mechanics that make it waaaaay easier to deal with in that game. In SG, the game is just meant for FFA it literally would not work in a 1v1 format, but again, it is a large map you can maneuver around, and it's way easier to take a 1v2 in SG than in SSM. In SSM, to take a 1v2 you can... run for a bit? Except that won't work because running against certain kits with high regen directly punishes you (like Creeper with its balanced .4 regen) soooooo what now. Just take it I guess? Report them because that'll work!!!! Definitely didn't already lose the game.

 

Response: aaaaaaaand if they don't? Aaaaaaaand if someone doesn't have access to someone with Legend+?

Response: Many many many lmao? Well, I think many many many more players like 1v1. Hell it's hard finding even 5 people who enjoy ffa over 1v1. Look at the poll lol, obviously this poll isn't representative of the whole community (though it might as well be, finding someone that unironically enjoys ssm ffa is similar to finding a four-leaved clover in rarity)

Response: I like how your solution is to retroactively ban them, doing nothing to solve the problem in the first place, like a good solution. People will just continually alt, and to waste your time with the hundreds of people who will do that is unreasonable. You actively want people that are not staff to waste hours of time reporting for what? For that person to just alt (Which btw, alting is completely allowed as long as you don't make any noise about your punishment). What if you can't record? /Report isn't gonna work any time soon, it never works for teaming reports. Staff Request? Last time I checked the community for Staff Request is locked, and if it isn't, there won't always be a mod around to look at your game, since this community is split across the entire network and all of it's games. Just admit it, there is no current time away to solve the teaming problem. There is however an automated way to detect stat boosting, including checks for repeatedly queueing with the same person, time per-game with that person, repeated afk killing, etc. 1v1 mode is just superior in this lol.

Interesting Statistic / Conclusion: When offered a 1v1 mode as the 3rd ssm mode, the overwhelming 90% of people said yes (about 42 - 5) (Source: GI Poll). I know you aren't arguing that 1v1 mode itself is bad, I just thought it was interesting.