• 379 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 2958 Players Online
  • 2579 Players on Bedrock
  • us.mineplex.com
!
Attention Internet Explorer Users
To have the best user experience on our site please consider upgrading to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

Why SSM being an FFA is objectively bad.

Discussion in 'Super Smash Mobs' started by Niclaslaubscher, Dec 7, 2019.

?

SSM 1v1 mode?

  1. Yes

    16 vote(s)
    69.6%
  2. No

    4 vote(s)
    17.4%
  3. Neutral/Don't know

    3 vote(s)
    13.0%
  1. Allow me to completely dismantle (or attempt to) all known reasons for why SSM is not a 1v1 mode.

    Get a rank/MPS: Not everybody has a rank, or the appropriate rank. Saying "well most of you have a rank" isn't a valid response either. This is the most low effort argument you can give, and for that I shall give a low effort response; no.

    Stat Boosting: Stat boosting is in every game to some degree and pinning ssm 1v1 down for being easy to stat boost is unfair. Every single game has stat boosting and there is next to no logical or sensible way of somehow managing it or disallowing it completely. It will always happen. The reason I compare it to other games is because Stat Boosting isn't a gameplay aspect, not to benefit my argument. Every game is different in terms of gameplay, however every has the same form of stat boosting.

    Get Good/Deal with it [Targeting/Teaming]: Let me propose a situation: Player X has 4 lives, and has been playing very well the entire game. Player Y and Z both have 2 lives, and decide to excessively target/team on Player X. This indirectly punishes player X for managing their lives well. I'm not saying FFA games are supposed to be fair, they never will be because of teaming or excessively targeting people who are good. This is specifically why we don't want SSM to be an FFA mode .Can FFA work in some games? Of course, yes. It can amplify the amount of strategy needed to perform well. There are even ways to minimize losing in an FFA game despite being unfair. However, it just simply isn't suited for SSM as it promotes a lame, frustrating type of playstyle that due to imbalance of the game, sometimes isn't possible to counter, and also the fact that SSM's mechanics just don't compliment fighting multiple people at once, nor does the game. What do I mean by lame gameplay? I think a strategy we've all seen used in play is a skeleton, snowman, zombie, etc shooting at 2 players fighting from afar. That isn't very engaging compared to the 1v1 scenario, where this wouldn't happen because both players would have their focus on each other with no outside aid or interaction. Another strategy most commonly seen from players with a lot of wins is getting excessively targeted by multiple people. In a game like Fortnite, there are multiple strategies you can pull to beat a 2v1. The game being made an FFA, literally made with you being 2v1'ed in mind, gives you the tools to beat a 2v1, you just have to be skilled. In SSM, everybody starts by themselves with 4 lives. In Fortnite duos/squads where you start with 2/4 people, and are meant to have a team, you are supposed to have communication to minimize the chances of someone dying in your team, and if that happens, minimizing the consequences. In SSM, you don't start with a team, you start by yourself. There is no communication or team work. It's just you unfairly getting 2v1'ed.

    But other games have targeting/teaming too! Why not make 1v1 modes for them!: This point essentially contradicts itself. By saying "why not make a 1v1 mode for those games", you're implying that a 1v1 simply wouldn't work for those other games. Survival Game/Cakewars 1v1 modes probably wouldn't work because they were meant to be FFA/TeamFFA, so by the way they were made, it benefits those genres. If you don't think a 1v1 mode would be bad for those games, then I don't see what's stopping you from doing what I am right now. SSM is different from SG/Cakewars, and should not be treated as if they were the same game. It works better in 1v1's, not worse. Yes, obviously all games with 3+ people/teams have targeting. We want to remove that.

    Splits up the community: I can understand the concern with splitting up the community. Even someone who would be in favor of 1v1 mode would. I can't exactly have a response for splitting up the community. We don't know what mode would be more popular, how many people would stay in FFA/Teams or switch over to the new 1v1, etc. Is "Splitting up the community" a good argument? No. But you can't exactly defend or argue for it because neither side knows what would happen if it were to be added. My prediction for if we added a 1v1 mode? Given my experience, I'd say teams would very quick;y die out, and maybe a small to decent chunk of players would switch over to 1v1, but most likely not all. In this scenario/prediction, I'd remove teams. It has the least amount of players anyway. However, we can't say for sure without adding it first.
     
    Posted Dec 7, 2019
    Task, Jaek, Lotas and 2 others like this.
  2. I enjoy 1v1 situations far more than 1v1v1v1 and 1v1v1 are just god awful. SSM in its current state rewards passive play and isn't really designed well for a FFA.

    I think one other option though would be a rework of the regeneration system. Maybe if you do damage you are able to regen for a certain period of time. And if you are doing more damage, the regen rate increases. But if you sit and wait in a corner when you are low to go for the clean you don't regen any health you previously lost. This could potentially reward more aggressive play.
     
    Posted Dec 8, 2019
    ehappy likes this.
  3. The problem with any modification of the regen/hunger system is the fact that some kits have more range than others, so this would allow for those kits with a lot of range to simply just stall out the other person. This is a problem that would occur in 1v1 as well.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Dec 8, 2019
  4. Maybe have ranged attacks not count towards regen/hunger
     
    Posted Dec 8, 2019
  5. Currently my idea for a separate, community made version of SSM was to do just that. Every ability would have a new stat: Hunger. Based on a few factors like range, knockback, etc, Hunger would be balanced so that more ranged moves would give less hunger, and other moves would give around average hunger.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Dec 8, 2019
  6. Certain moves already give more / less hunger than melee


    That said, a 1v1 mode would be very nice. Still think SSM having 1v1 ranked would be incredibly fun and beneficial to the community as a whole. Unfortunately it'll never be a thing, despite GI's best efforts
     
    Posted Dec 8, 2019
    Fall likes this.
  7. I agree, the FFA rewards people who camp and play defensively and punish people who actually fight. The fact that the afk people survive and sometimes win is what proves this.
     
    Posted Jan 7, 2020
  8. I was banned for teaming the other day when all I did was camp on a house while one player was being targeted by the other. The report claimed that I didn't attack the targeter when in fact, I certainly did attack them in every match. So who does FFA reward in this case? Obviously, it's players with persecution complex :p
     
    Posted Jan 7, 2020
    Crash and Mitchy like this.
  9. By reward I meant that people who camp are the ones with more lives and tend to win most of the time. False reporting can happen in any game, and it is a different issue, and more a problem with the community. For that, I say false accusations should have a greater punishment.
     
    Posted Jan 8, 2020
  10. True. When you kill someone at the start of the game, you'll get targeted by your kill for the whole game. Then you'll have to deal with having another player interrupting your fight. And if you kill the interrupter, you'll now have 2 players targeting you as punishment for being good. Worst case scenario, the camper has a long range ability that they use to harass everyone. So if I want to keep as much of my stock as possible, NEVER get first kill and only engage when I have stock advantage.

    This should definitely be a thing. A few years ago, you'd get accused of camping when you actually camp. Now, you get accused of TEAMING when you camp. And since I /ignore these accusers, mods may take my silence as an admission of teaming.
     
    Posted Jan 8, 2020,
    Last edited Jan 9, 2020
  11. Camping is a strategy. There are lots of ways to fight against this strategy. One would be to target the camper or another one would just be to also camp. You need to know that you can’t camp with every kit. Chicken (which I use) is very good for camping bc of it’s high mobility but it isn’t that strong bc of it’s weak armor and the only thing that deals a lot of damage is the chicken missle. It’s smash is also very bad compared to other kits. Back to the topic, I think that a 1v1 mode wouldn’t be good as ssm is already one of the games with the fewest players in a round. I also doubt if mineplex can host all the extra servers just for an extra 1v1 game. What i like most about ssm is the chaos and the more players there are the more chaos there is, which is why i love playing ssm in events. Rather than making rounds have even less players the rounds should have more! This would also lead to less camping as the map would be more crammed.
     
    Posted Jan 8, 2020
  12. The strategy of most people (mainly skeleton and wither mains) Is to camp the whole game when 2 people fight then run when someone goes for you. But they are not the only issue. Its also people who wait until 2 people finish fighting then go for the person who wins the 1v1. Because the person who won the 1v1 was low, the person who did nothing in the fight beat them. That basically makes winning that entire 1v1 useless because you would die anyway. Also maybe they can make it so there is one server and people are put into groups where they 1v1. Or maybe a tournament like gladiators except a larger fighting area of course. FFA discourages fighting and makes people develop annoying strategies thus making the game less fun. There are some cases where all players in the game agree to let 2 people fight. But not all the time. Also fyi, if there is a skeleton in the lobby dont use chicken. Use a kit like guardian or spider and vote for a large map with less places to camp. This may help against campers, but not against 1v1 disrupters.
     
    Posted Jan 8, 2020
  13. I always use chicken, no matter what kits the opponents are. I dont always win but chickens are the only true beings
     
    Posted Jan 8, 2020
  14. So would a system like gladiators fix this issue? Where there are 4 members (at least 4, just to keep it simple) and they are split into 2 groups who 1v1 eachother and the winner of each 1v1 fights. Their health gets restored after each fight if they win and If a fight is going on others have to wait. When there is a lobby of good players, we use this system anyways. Also, as long as it has even amount of players there can still be a lot of players in a single lobby. So mineplex wont have to host too many servers.
     
    Posted Jan 8, 2020

Share This Page