Nerfing Shooters 101

[SAMICOM]

Well, you’ve said your things now. Your opinions have been regarded and discarded. You can leave if you want to.

you all are horribly toxic. then again, one of you have been here for a long time, stewing in toxicity, and one f you likes stingray. to be expected I suppose.

 

[OnePotWonder]

It's a bit funny how little discussion there's been about some of the more interesting changes here such as Aerospray, Squeezer, and Nova.

I personally find it hilarious that everyone is worrying about Splattershot being over-nerfed by getting Splattershot Pro's fire rate, under the pretense that Splattershot Pro is mid, only to not care whatsoever about my nerf to Splattershot Pro itself.
They claim not to be biased, yet out of all the shooters I'm nerfing they only defend the strongest, most popular one.
You know what? I'll humor them. If they so desperately want Splattershot to fire faster, they can contend with my new nerf for it.

 

[missingno]

If you're going to post a thread like this, you better be prepared to handle people disagreeing with you.

I personally find it hilarious that everyone is worrying about Splattershot being over-nerfed by getting Splattershot Pro's fire rate, under the pretense that Splattershot Pro is mid, only to not care whatsoever about my nerf to Splattershot Pro itself.

Really what you've done here is put the top tiers so far into the dumpster that you then had to look at the low tiers and make those even worse too.

And why are we even nerfing low tiers at all? Just to cover up how far the good weapons got dropped so they don't look so bad in comparison?

The reason I'm focusing on these particular examples is because they're the easiest ones to debunk. We know that Pro and .96 aren't good, therefore weapons even worse than that can't be good either. QED.

If you really need me to talk about your changes to Pro and .96 themselves too, I can say that you made two weapons worse than Pro and two weapons worse than .96, so obviously all four are bad.

 

[Cephalobro]

And it's not biased at all to defend the new players who are just getting started, it's just common sense. The problem with taking away strengths from beginner weapons is compounded even worse by the fact that you can choose to drop your own rank without purposefully losing the matches.

If you want to be good at the game, do it by your own skill, not by extinguishing new players' potential.

 

[McSquid82]

I'm going to chime in here and say that while certain shooters like the Splattershot and the like are indeed beginner friendly and easy to use, they also have a ceiling. Depending on your team's comp, if you just have a bunch of short range weapons and shooters and run into other weapon classes that either have more range than you or can 1 shot you, there's a good chance that your team is going to get bodied. That's especially true if the enemy team has mid to long range weapons like splatlings and chargers, and doubly so if the players using them know what they're doing.

 

[OnePotWonder]

If you're going to post a thread like this, you better be prepared to handle people disagreeing with you.



The reason I'm focusing on these particular examples is because they're the easiest ones to debunk. We know that Pro and .96 aren't good, therefore weapons even worse than that can't be good either. QED.

If you really need me to talk about your changes to Pro and .96 themselves too, I can say that you made two weapons worse than Pro and two weapons worse than .96, so obviously all four are bad.

Well, that's the point of nerfing things; making them worse. I'm not going to keep sitting here and arguing that post-nerf Splattershot, Splattershot Pro, and the like will be unchanged, like these are just slaps on the wrist. They're not; the weapons will be almost completely ejected from the meta, save for a few options like Splash. And the semi-autos would be buffed to take their place. That's a good thing.

As stated in the post, shooters are simplicity in physical form, very easy to use and more prone to special spam than any other class. They should be significantly worse; all of the full autos should be at around the level of Annaki Splattershot Nova, that's roughly the power level that fits them with how simple they are.
I'm trying to make the game better for people who play actually interesting weapons by nerfing the uninteresting, paint-bot competition. Is that bad?

And it's not biased at all to defend the new players who are just getting started, it's just common sense. The problem with taking away strengths from beginner weapons is compounded even worse by the fact that you can choose to drop your own rank without purposefully losing the matches.

If you want to be good at the game, do it by your own skill, not by extinguishing new players' potential.

If you want to be good at the game, do it by your own skill, not by picking up a Splattershot and barely having to learn anything.

Look at the meta for casual play and you'll find a consistent trend: the best weapons are the easiest to use; Luna and Clash Blaster, Tri-Slosher, and virtually every short-range shooter. It doesn't matter how strong a weapon is; Clash is bottom tier garbage at higher levels of play. What matters is that a weapon is easy. I could give Splattershot .96's fire rate and it'd still be a decent option for beginners because of how simple it is. So do please hush about my nerfs ruining a top casual option.

We have matchmaking to prevent new players with Splattershots from fighting top 500 Sloshers. We don't need to give new players a tool to let them have a chance of surviving that scenario.

 

[isaac4]

And it's not biased at all to defend the new players who are just getting started, it's just common sense. The problem with taking away strengths from beginner weapons is compounded even worse by the fact that you can choose to drop your own rank without purposefully losing the matches.

If you want to be good at the game, do it by your own skill, not by extinguishing new players' potential.

The ranking system is flawed but as I've already said, that can't be answered through weapon balance.

I also don't really understand what you mean by "extinguishing new players potential". Are you trying to say that nerfing beginner weapons is a bad thing for the game because they'll potentially lead to those players losing more matches?

I'm going to chime in here and say that while certain shooters like the Splattershot and the like are indeed beginner friendly and easy to use, they also have a ceiling. Depending on your team's comp, if you just have a bunch of short range weapons and shooters and run into other weapon classes that either have more range than you or can 1 shot you, there's a good chance that your team is going to get bodied. That's especially true if the enemy team has mid to long range weapons like splatlings and chargers, and doubly so if the players using them know what they're doing.

There are some issues that come with having multiple shooters in one team but you can say that about any weapon class so I don't see why that's a point being made here.

 

[OnePotWonder]

I'm going to chime in here and say that while certain shooters like the Splattershot and the like are indeed beginner friendly and easy to use, they also have a ceiling. Depending on your team's comp, if you just have a bunch of short range weapons and shooters and run into other weapon classes that either have more range than you or can 1 shot you, there's a good chance that your team is going to get bodied. That's especially true if the enemy team has mid to long range weapons like splatlings and chargers, and doubly so if the players using them know what they're doing.

Not if you're playing Turf War. Nor if the quad shooter team has weapons like Jet Squelcher or Squeezer on it. The meta comp in Splatoon 2 was four shooters, and the main weapons have barely been changed since then, several of them have been buffed, even.

So actually, no, there really isn't a ceiling on how well quad shooter can do. Not in solo queue, anyway.

 

[missingno]

They should be significantly worse; all of the full autos should be at around the level of Annaki Splattershot Nova, that's roughly the power level that fits them with how simple they are.
I'm trying to make the game better for people who play actually interesting weapons by nerfing the uninteresting, paint-bot competition. Is that bad?

This is what I called you out for at the start. You are not attempting to balance the game, you are just trying to kill weapons you personally have a grudge against. At least you're finally being honest and admitting this isn't about balance.

I would take you more seriously if you said you were just removing Splattershot from the game because you don't like losing to it, rather than trying to pass this off as a balance patch that makes sense for anyone other than you.

If you want to be good at the game, do it by your own skill, not by picking up a Splattershot and barely having to learn anything.

This is literal ScrubQuotes talk now.

Look at the meta for casual play and you'll find a consistent trend: the best weapons are the easiest to use; Luna and Clash Blaster, Tri-Slosher, and virtually every short-range shooter. It doesn't matter how strong a weapon is; Clash is bottom tier garbage at higher levels of play.

I strongly disagree with lumping aggressive slayer weapons into the same category as weapons that don't even need to aim. Shot really isn't that dominant at low levels, certainly not in the same way. I even addressed this earlier:

But the one thing Jr. doesn't do is fight. In fact, I'd even argue it teaches players bad habits by encouraging them to play very passively, avoiding fights to just paint and throw bombs instead.

Shot exists as an onramp for beginners to learn to take a more active role and actually go for fights. And I'll add that playing this role will never be as easy or braindead as you seem to make it out to be, fighting is hard and scary for a lot of players.

I think it's very important that the game should have that kind of onramp, and it truly seems like your only real opposition to this is you just not liking Shooters. Saying Shot should be nerfed into oblivion because Jr. exists sounds like you're so fixated on your bias against the class that you're missing that these are completely different roles anyway.

 

[Cephalobro]

If you want to be good at the game, do it by your own skill, not by picking up a Splattershot and barely having to learn anything.

You completely missed my point with this, never have I said anything about not needing to learn anything new. This is about having something that the new players can effectively use to eventually play and learn the weapons unlocked at later levels once they get to said levels and not get destroyed in trying to do so when they are in their early levels.

I also don't really understand what you mean by "extinguishing new players potential". Are you trying to say that nerfing beginner weapons is a bad thing for the game because they'll potentially lead to those players losing more matches?

I am not saying nerfing beginner weapons is a bad thing, what I am saying is making them where they can't properly fight their opponents during a match at all is a bad thing. In fact, I agree that slight nerfs are needed to keep beginner weapons from being dominant, harsh nerfs are definitely not needed in this case.

 

[McSquid82]

Not if you're playing Turf War. Nor if the quad shooter team has weapons like Jet Squelcher or Squeezer on it. The meta comp in Splatoon 2 was four shooters, and the main weapons have barely been changed since then, several of them have been buffed, even.

So actually, no, there really isn't a ceiling on how well quad shooter can do. Not in solo queue, anyway.

The thing is, even in turf war there are now a bunch of weapons that paint just as well if not better than shooters that didn't exist in Splatoon 2. The Reef-lux's turf output is insane, and the Pencil is still the best painting charger by a country mile. And last but not least, the Big Swig Roller finally gives an incentive to using the rolling mode. This is just to name a few, so even in turf war if you want good paint, you're not just limited to shooters anymore.

 

[missingno]

Yeah, why are we even talking about Splatoon 2? The fact that quad Shooter isn't the meta now, and hasn't been for a very long time, means that Shooters aren't the bogeyman you make them out to be.

 

[Catloafman]

I would replace its extremely irritating larger ink tank gimmick with Splattershot Nova's lack of accuracy falloff, which suits the weapon far better.

Ok correct me if I am wrong but I just checked Inkpedia and it looks like Nova actually has accuracy falloff it just ramps up really fast

 

[OnePotWonder]

This is what I called you out for at the start. You are not attempting to balance the game, you are just trying to kill weapons you personally have a grudge against. At least you're finally being honest and admitting this isn't about balance

Equality versus equity. If you want balance, you're asking for all weapons to be viable. I only want weapons that make the game more fun and enriching to be viable, and shooters only ever make things worse. This is not based upon personal bias, for the last time. I admit that I am biased, but this thread is meant to be agreeable, and others do agree with it.

Shooters objectively make the game less interesting. That is why I am nerfing them.

I strongly disagree with lumping aggressive slayer weapons into the same category as weapons that don't even need to aim. Shot really isn't that dominant at low levels, certainly not in the same way. I even addressed this earlier:

Clash also falls into the category of "aggressive slayer weapon," so yes, I will lump them together. Shot may not be the most dominant at lower levels of play, but it is absolutely the most prominent.

You completely missed my point with this, never have I said anything about not needing to learn anything new. This is about having something that the new players can effectively use to eventually play and learn the weapons unlocked at later levels once they get to said levels and not get destroyed in trying to do so when they are in their early levels.

Why would a new player ever switch off of Splattershot if it's the first weapon they learn and it's able to compete with top tiers?
Why do you think there are players that have five-starred Splattershot five times? Why is it the most popular weapon?
Splattershot being both strong and easy kills incentive to try any other weapons for a ton of players. It's not healthy.

I am not saying nerfing beginner weapons is a bad thing, what I am saying is making them where they can't properly fight their opponents during a match at all is a bad thing. In fact, I agree that slight nerfs are needed to keep beginner weapons from being dominant, harsh nerfs are definitely not needed in this case.

Shot would still be perfectly capable of fighting with the nerfs, it just wouldn't be able to splat as fast as rollers and blasters because that is completely ridiculous. Even if you wanted to argue it should be able to match their times to splat, it still paints twice as well.

The thing is, even in turf war there are now a bunch of weapons that paint just as well if not better than shooters that didn't exist in Splatoon 2. The Reef-lux's turf output is insane, and the Pencil is still the best painting charger by a country mile. And last but not least, the Big Swig Roller finally gives an incentive to using the rolling mode. This is just to name a few, so even in turf war if you want good paint, you're not just limited to shooters anymore.

That does not change anything. Even if a REEF-LUX or Big Swig can paint better than shooters, what good are their kits?
Quad shooter will wipe the floor with any sort of REEF-LUX Swig Pencil Dread comp in Turf War.
Weapons cannot be good at both fighting and painting or else they overtake the entire role. You were all witch hunting Pencil when it filled in both the support and backline roles at the same time, yet don't care whatsoever that shooters can simultaneously fill in the support and short-range slayer roles.

Yeah, why are we even talking about Splatoon 2? The fact that quad Shooter isn't the meta now, and hasn't been for a very long time, means that Shooters aren't the bogeyman you make them out to be.

Shooters received zero main weapon nerfs between Splatoon 2 and 3, not even to .52 Gal or Jet Squelcher, the most hated weapons of endgame Splatoon 2 meta. They're all still just as strong main-weapon wise.
And I need not remind you that shooters never once left the meta. Splash, Jr., Shot, .52, and N-ZAP have remained in comp use for the game's entire lifespan.

A weapon class doesn't need to fill all four slots on a comp to be overpowered, missingno.

 

[OnePotWonder]

I would appreciate it, if you all have nothing of meaning to add to the discussion of these changes, that you go elsewhere. Nobody wants to see pages of argument over whether these changes should happen in the first place. This is supposed to be a place of brainstorming and refinement, not a battleground. Even if it must be, I have an impenetrable defensive line. You're going nowhere.

Contribute or leave, please.

 

[missingno]

and shooters only ever make things worse. This is not based upon personal bias

...
...
...

Clash also falls into the category of "aggressive slayer weapon," so yes, I will lump them together. Shot may not be the most dominant at lower levels of play, but it is absolutely the most prominent.

Clash is not aggressive. Clash just passively holds out a big hitbox and hopes people walk into it.

Why would a new player ever switch off of Splattershot if it's the first weapon they learn and it's able to compete with top tiers?

I never said anyone should have to switch. You're the one who insists nobody should play Shot, not me.

You were all witch hunting Pencil when it filled in both the support and backline roles at the same time, yet don't care whatsoever that shooters can simultaneously fill in the support and short-range slayer roles.

If you think this is comparable to Pencil, I don't think you understand what the problem with Pencil actually is. Pencil is so good at what it does that, at its peak, it became the only backline teams could run. Every other backline was invalidated by it.

That does not describe any Shooter.

I would appreciate it, if you all have nothing of meaning to add to the discussion of these changes, that you go elsewhere. Nobody wants to see pages of argument over whether these changes should happen in the first place. This is supposed to be a place of brainstorming and refinement, not a battleground. Even if it must be, I have an impenetrable defensive line. You're going nowhere.

Contribute or leave, please.

If you're going to post a thread like this, you better be prepared to handle people disagreeing with you.

 

[isaac4]

Shooters received zero main weapon nerfs between Splatoon 2 and 3, not even to .52 Gal or Jet Squelcher, the most hated weapons of endgame Splatoon 2 meta. They're all still just as strong main-weapon wise.

I should have mentioned this earlier but I still find it insane how the top meta shooters never got nerfed from the transition to S3.
You could argue that there's now stronger options competing against them but I don't think there's any other example of such an extreme meta not ending up impacting the main weapons at the top.

 

[OnePotWonder]

...
...
...

You trying to argue that shooters don't make the game worse? Do please elaborate.

Clash is not aggressive. Clash just passively holds out a big hitbox and hopes people walk into it.

I'll excuse you for not knowing how to play Clash Blaster, because that means you haven't played it.

I never said anyone should have to switch. You're the one who insists nobody should play Shot, not me.

Nor did I. I said players should have an incentive to switch. There is practically none as of now. Half of the weapons a new player would find cool and want to try out would end up being flatly worse than Shot, and none flatly better.

 

[missingno]

You trying to argue that shooters don't make the game worse? Do please elaborate.

I don't know how exactly you expect me to prove a negative. The idea that the entire weapon class is actually the worst thing ever is such a bizarre chip on your shoulder to have that I truly don't know where to begin with it.

And to deny that this is bias is... wild. At least own your bias here, don't pretend otherwise.

It's one thing to say you think the top tier shooters are slightly overtuned, and that you had much smaller nerfs to propose for those weapons only. If that was all this thread had been, I probably wouldn't still be here arguing.

But no, you're insisting that because you don't like Shooters, the entire class should die, that you never want to see anyone else play them.

I find Shooters perfectly fun and engaging to play against. I enjoy support from and supporting Shooter teammates. I do not think they make the game worse, I think that they are a vital staple that is important to the game, and we would be worse off if they were suddenly all killed off.

 

[PacManFever]

I think this thread shows why buffs in general are much better at keeping a healthy player base than nerfs. Buffing weapons tends to lead players to trying new weapons. Buffing also tends to allow for a much more diverse meta, where one thing is strong in this situation, and the other is strong in that situation. I think the problem here is people want diversity, and some people think that nerfing shooters is the solution to that problem. Other people are trying to explain that nerfing shooters would do nothing other than take them out out of the meta.
Of course we need nerfs sometimes, but I personally think we should focus on buffing weapons to make more options available, rather than have fewer options for the sake of balancing.