Nerfing Shooters 101

[youre_a_squib_now]

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 understand that you do have reasoning behind wanting to nerf shooters, besides just having a grudge against them, even if I firmly disagree with those reasons, but that doesn't mean you aren't biased. You even said so.

This is not based upon personal bias, for the last time. I admit that I am biased

Like, come on. This is about as contradictory as it gets.

Also, "fun", "enriching", and "interesting" are not in any way objective measures.

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.

Okay so, Splattershot is enjoyable ("there are players that have five-starred Splattershot five times"), has a low skill floor ("first weapon they learn"), and performs well at its skill ceiling ("able to compete with top tiers"). What's so unhealthy about this? These are the perfect attributes for a default, base weapon.

When I was still experimenting with weapons trying to figure out what I liked, sometimes I would get frustrated by the weapon I was using. When that happened, I would often switch to shot because it's simple and because it's good competitively, so I knew that when I lost, it was my own fault and not because I was using a terrible weapon. This doesn't mean I automatically started doing better when I used it, but it's not a problem for not all of the best weapons to be extremely complex.

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.

Yes, it has a similar ttk and paints better. But if shot was simply better than roller in every way, no one would play roller. Which is what you seem to be claiming. But roller one tricks do exist, because it has other strengths that let it thrive with a completely different playstyle, primarily its insane reliability up close. It's not ever going to be as flexible as shot is, and that's fine.

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.

If shooters were "just as strong" as they were in Splatoon 2, then we would still be seeing 4 shooters. We aren't; clearly, shooters are not as strong as they were.
Yes, shooters have never been completely out of the meta. But is it really necessary for no shooter to ever be picked in competitive play? The only reasons I've seen you give are that they're boring and easy. Boring is completely subjective, and not every meta weapon has to require complete dedication to use. Being able to flex to shot easily is a good thing.

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.

Pointing out a fundamental flaw with your approach isn't contributing?

Even if it must be, I have an impenetrable defensive line.

Oh right, it doesn't have any flaws, sorry, I won't even bother looking for them, then.
Sorry for the salt, but like, really?

If you are going to be so closed to criticism, then, sure, I won't bother. But only listening to people who already agree with you won't help you with brainstorming and refining.

 

[OnePotWonder]

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.

Again with the hyperbole. I don't want shooters to be dead, I want them to not be vital for a comp's performance. To not be the easiest top level weapons by removing them from top level. To not have weapons that can both splat faster than every other painting weapon and paint better than every other slaying weapon. To not have a class with no weaknesses altogether.

You are insane if you think one- or two-frame fire rate nerfs will kill weapons.

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.

Good for you. Don't act like nerfing them would remove any of those positives.
Shooters are built to support teammates, and they can still do that just as well with the nerfs.

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.

If all you ever do is buff weapons, you eventually end up with a game where everything is overpowered and everything is frustrating. The power level of everything can stand to be lowered at least a little. Shooters are an easy first target, as well as the best standalone target.

 

[neonscreenlight]

i think every weapon in the game should have the same stats as 52 gal

this is a joke if you can't tell

 

[SAMICOM]

yeah this is completely insane OPW.

 

[missingno]

I don't want shooters to be dead, I want them to not be vital for a comp's performance.

You said you wanted them completely out of the meta. Those were your words.

You are insane if you think one- or two-frame fire rate nerfs will kill weapons.

You proposed Pro-with-significantly-worse-range and .96-with-significantly range. You made it almost too easy for me to prove how unreasonable that is.

 

[OnePotWonder]

Oh right, it doesn't have any flaws, sorry, I won't even bother looking for them, then.
Sorry for the salt, but like, really?

If you are going to be so closed to criticism, then, sure, I won't bother. But only listening to people who already agree with you won't help you with brainstorming and refining.

I've already dealt with a lifetime of people disagreeing with me on previous forums. I feel like it's fair to ask for some peace and quiet.

If shooters were "just as strong" as they were in Splatoon 2, then we would still be seeing 4 shooters. We aren't; clearly, shooters are not as strong as they were.
Yes, shooters have never been completely out of the meta. But is it really necessary for no shooter to ever be picked in competitive play? The only reasons I've seen you give are that they're boring and easy. Boring is completely subjective, and not every meta weapon has to require complete dedication to use. Being able to flex to shot easily is a good thing.

Shooters' main weapons, the part of their kits which I am targeting, are just as strong as in Splatoon 2. The reason we don't see four shooters is because Nintendo fixed the mistakes that enabled it in Splatoon 2; Ink Armor, K.52, both Jet Squelcher kits, etc..
I think it's about time we had meta without full auto shooters, considering every other class has been exempt at one point or another.

Okay so, Splattershot is enjoyable ("there are players that have five-starred Splattershot five times"), has a low skill floor ("first weapon they learn"), and performs well at its skill ceiling ("able to compete with top tiers"). What's so unhealthy about this? These are the perfect attributes for a default, base weapon.

When I was still experimenting with weapons trying to figure out what I liked, sometimes I would get frustrated by the weapon I was using. When that happened, I would often switch to shot because it's simple and because it's good competitively, so I knew that when I lost, it was my own fault and not because I was using a terrible weapon. This doesn't mean I automatically started doing better when I used it, but it's not a problem for not all of the best weapons to be extremely complex.

What do you mean "what's so unhealthy about this"? The weapon is among the best at every point of game progression. It's extremely dominant and a pain to fight against. It has no weaknesses. It's perfect in a game where imperfection is the standard, and that fact makes it too good for its own good. Splattershot is this game's equivalent of strange matter.

Yes, it has a similar ttk and paints better. But if shot was simply better than roller in every way, no one would play roller. Which is what you seem to be claiming. But roller one tricks do exist, because it has other strengths that let it thrive with a completely different playstyle, primarily its insane reliability up close. It's not ever going to be as flexible as shot is, and that's fine.

Roller is in fact physically capable of competing with Splattershot. That doesn't mean the weapon is as good, though. As stated, it has a completely different and unique playstyle it uses to gain the upper hand. Splattershot can use the exact same playstyle, it just has less margin for error than if it were a roller, or playing its preferred playstyle which a roller cannot emulate.

Like, come on. This is about as contradictory as it gets.

It is if you cut it like that. Being biased and having good reasoning for one's actions aren't mutually exclusive.

I understand that you do have reasoning behind wanting to nerf shooters, besides just having a grudge against them, even if I firmly disagree with those reasons, but that doesn't mean you aren't biased. You even said so

Indeed I did. And I have owned it, as already demonstrated in your same comment.

 

[isaac4]

If shooters were "just as strong" as they were in Splatoon 2, then we would still be seeing 4 shooters. We aren't; clearly, shooters are not as strong as they were.

To be fair, the main weapons are still as strong as they were before which is what the thread was focused on changing.
The main reason quad shooter teams don't happen anymore is because of other factors outside of the main weapons themselves.

Edit: Just saw that Onepot already said the same thing.

 

[Catloafman]

Dude how many "Brush Threads" does this site have now lol
like I am pretty sure this is the 4th one

 

[youre_a_squib_now]

The main reason quad shooter teams don't happen anymore is because of other factors outside of the main weapons themselves.

Yes. Because those other factors caused shooters to be less strong.

To be fair, the main weapons are still as strong as they were before which is what the thread was focused on changing.

Just because the numbers are the same doesn't mean they are just as strong. Context matters.

 

[OnePotWonder]

You said you wanted them completely out of the meta. Those were your words.

If you think a weapon being out of the meta means it's dead, I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine having such a limited understanding of how game balance works. A weapon is dead if it's unplayable, which my nerfed shooters objectively are not.

You proposed Pro-with-significantly-worse-range and .96-with-significantly range. You made it almost too easy for me to prove how unreasonable that is.

No, I did not. I proposed Splattershot with a moderately slower fire rate and .52 with a moderately slower fire rate.
I am very, very tired of this false point you keep bringing up, as well as how you keep looking at the situation the exact wrong way.

Sloshing Machine was a strong main weapon with an extremely strong kit. It got a 5 frame slosh rate and kill time nerf.
Splattershot and .52 Gal are strong main weapons with extremely strong and strong kits respectively.
I was proposing a 2 frame fire rate and 4 frame kill time nerf for Shot, and I am proposing a 3 frame fire rate and kill time nerf for .52.
Unless you think the Sloshing Machine change was unreasonable, these changes are not. Because these changes are lesser.

 

[isaac4]

Just because the numbers are the same doesn't mean they are just as strong. Context matters.

This is specifically talking about the main weapon itself, not the kits or their place in the meta.
The main weapons are as strong as they were in S2 regardless of how popular they are now at top level.

 

[Catloafman]

If you think a weapon being out of the meta means it's dead, I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine having such a limited understanding of how game balance works. A weapon is dead if it's unplayable, which my nerfed shooters objectively are not.

I 2nd this there are a lot of weapons which are not competitively viable but are still playable take splatlings for instance

 

[Catloafman]

I 2nd this there are a lot of weapons which are not competitively viable but are still playable take splatlings for instance

In fact I want to add on to this Shooters being in the spot Splatlings are right now would actually be very reasonable they are niche picks not something you want everywhere

 

[youre_a_squib_now]

This is specifically talking about the main weapon itself, not the kits or their place in the meta.
The main weapons are as strong as they were in S2 regardless of how popular they are now at top level.

The entire discussion is about the meta.
Trying to assess how strong a weapon is without looking at how it's being used and why doesn't even make sense.

Like, think of a shovel. How good is that specific shovel? You'd probably answer by considering how well it moves dirt. That assumes the context. If I asked how good that shovel would be in a fight, that's an entirely different context where the shovel would be judged differently. With no context at all, the question doesn't even make sense.

In Splatoon 2, shooters were extremely dominant, to the point of having 4 on a team. If we look at how useful the same weapons are in a slightly different context, splatoon 3, we see that they are still strong, but not as overpowering as they were in Splatoon 2.

 

[isaac4]

In fact I want to add on to this Shooters being in the spot Splatlings are right now would actually be very reasonable they are niche picks not something you want everywhere

This would be an interesting approach for S4 if they're able to give the other paint support weapons a good kit to reliably fill in that role that shooters used to.

 

[isaac4]

The entire discussion is about the meta.
Trying to assess how strong a weapon is without looking at how it's being used and why doesn't even make sense.

Like, think of a shovel. How good is that specific shovel? You'd probably answer by considering how well it moves dirt. That assumes the context. If I asked how good that shovel would be in a fight, that's an entirely different context where the shovel would be judged differently. With no context at all, the question doesn't even make sense.

In Splatoon 2, shooters were extremely dominant, to the point of having 4 on a team. If we look at how useful the same weapons are in a slightly different context, splatoon 3, we see that they are still strong, but not as overpowering as they were in Splatoon 2.

I think your idea of what "strength" means is very different from mine so I should clarify more on what I mean when I say that the main weapons are "as strong as they were in S2" but the example you gave also doesn't fit this specific situation.

The beginning of the thread has already given some context for what the discussion is about and reading the previous replies should give a good idea on what is being argued here for a weapon class in a competitive team based shooter.
Had this been the start of the conversation then it would make a lot more sense but we both know at least a general idea of what we're discussing about for the strength of these weapons.

Now I'll clarify that when I say that the shooters "are as good as they were in S2" I mean specifically for how they're able to fight, move, and paint without the use of their sub or special.
Their performance in all these areas are the aspects of the weapon class that haven't been changed for most of them since S2.

 

[youre_a_squib_now]

No, I did not. I proposed Splattershot with a moderately slower fire rate and .52 with a moderately slower fire rate.
I am very, very tired of this false point you keep bringing up, as well as how you keep looking at the situation the exact wrong way.

You're right, there are other things that separate those weapons. They aren't the exact same thing.


But let's do a comparison between them. Your nerfed version of .52 gal and non-nerfed .96 gal.

.52 Gal
Fire rate decreased from 6.66 → 5 shots per second
Ink consumption per shot increased from 1.3% → 1.9%
Initial chance to shoot wide decreased from 2% → 1%
Accuracy decrease per shot decreased from 3% → 2%

Just looking at the raw data according to inkipedia, here is what nerfed .52 gal has going for it.

• 52 shots per ink tank instead of 43
• Can act after shooting 1 frame sooner
• Strafe speed of 0.06 instead of 0.04
• 3-10% less likely to shoot towards the outer reticle (depending on how long you have been firing)

That's it. These are small differences. Not completely insignificant, but still relatively small. Now let's look at what the (regular) .96 gal does better.

• 35-62 damage instead of 30-52
• 15.77 units of range instead of 11.94

Out of all of these differences, one is much, much bigger than the others. It's not close at all. If you had to choose between these two weapons, no reasonable person would ever choose nerfed .52.

Right now, according to Chara's tier list from 2 months ago, .96 deco is around top 25% of weapons, and the vanilla kit is around bottom 10%. I didn't analyze the kits, so let's go the conservative route and just compare to the deco kit, which Chara placed in A tier. It's very hard to overstate how huge of a difference 30% more range makes, so nerfed .52 would be 3 tiers lower than that, at the very least. Which puts it as worse than 50% of weapons, if not much more. Which is extremely harsh since regular .52 is near the top.

 

[missingno]

The reason we don't see four shooters is because Nintendo fixed the mistakes that enabled it in Splatoon 2

So you acknowledge the problem is already solved then?

If you think a weapon being out of the meta means it's dead, I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine having such a limited understanding of how game balance works. A weapon is dead if it's unplayable, which my nerfed shooters objectively are not.

If you want a meta with no Shooters, then that means you want Shooters to not be played. I don't care how you want to spin that, what you're asking for isn't reasonable.

Unless you think the Sloshing Machine change was unreasonable

I do. Machine got hit way too hard.

 

[SAMICOM]

So you acknowledge the problem is already solved then?

If you want a meta with no Shooters, then that means you want Shooters to not be played. I don't care how you want to spin that, what you're asking for isn't reasonable.

I do. Machine got hit way too hard.

machine isn't bad per se. its pretty good.

I just wish everything was an A tier with each weapon having something to give it a reason to be used rather than another.

 

[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.

If all you ever do is buff weapons, you eventually end up with a game where everything is overpowered and everything is frustrating. The power level of everything can stand to be lowered at least a little. Shooters are an easy first target, as well as the best standalone target.

I agree completely. If I didn't make that clear enough at the end of my post, that's on me.