New kits by their preferred modes.

[Sorcerer]

Every Chumps weapon will aim to use chumps on zone when trying to retake. Once you're in control of the objective, the specials can be used more uniquely regarding playstyle, but the reason you're bringing the weapon in the first place is because the mode its Splat Zones and you need specials with burst paint.

That is simplistic mindset. Paint alone doesn't always solve the problem. Stringer, for instance, is much more concerned with personal safety and the elimination of other players than it does about throwing ink at the zones. Stringer is an excellent example of a weapon where you want the primary kit over the secondary for Zones. N-Zap has no need to throw excessive ink at the zones when the weapon works perfectly well at the task. So a kit with more utility is brought in instead.

All explanations as to why certain kits are justified in certain modes are presented in my guides. Tilt phone sideways for a link.
@missingno
If the kit isn't working as well as you thought it did, try using it in another mode. All kits are viable. You might think they underperformed, but I'd trust the devs, particularly in the instances of kits that have survived multiple sequels. Here, I'll bring up the lackluster v96 Gal, which is frequently overshadowed but stayed mostly the same across two sequels. Whatever your opinion is, devs aren't listening to it, even with the benefit of time. And devs will experiment.

@youre_a_squib_now
You choose the weapon you want to master, and then you take the appropriate kit for the task at hand. Two kits means two playstyles for A singular weapon, but the objective of the game mode decides which options works best at it. Any talk of "play styles" is just an underlying part of the requirements demanded by the game mode.

 

[missingno]

"The fact that the devs have continued to release lackluster kits means they were actually perfect all along"

?????

The thing about experiments is that they don't always work. If everything was always viable, why do we even have patches? Would you have told me Ink Vac was already good back in 1.0? Does that mean it's broken now?

If you want me to believe that literally everything is viable, show me literally everything being used at the highest levels of competitive play. If nClash, vBrella, cGoo, etc are just as good as Pencil, where are the tournament results to back your hypothesis up?

 

[RubberCF]

"The fact that the devs have continued to release lackluster kits means they were actually perfect all along"

?????

The thing about experiments is that they don't always work. If everything was always viable, why do we even have patches? Would you have told me Ink Vac was already good back in 1.0? Does that mean it's broken now?

If you want me to believe that literally everything is viable, show me literally everything being used at the highest levels of competitive play. If nClash, vBrella, cGoo, etc are just as good as Pencil, where are the tournament results to back your hypothesis up?

Im not gonna get involved with this debate bc i already have on a different date and also youre just doing a rlly good job already lol. Couldnt have said it better myself

 

[youre_a_squib_now]

@youre_a_squib_now
You choose the weapon you want to master, and then you take the appropriate kit for the task at hand. Two kits means two playstyles for A singular weapon, but the objective of the game mode decides which options works best at it. Any talk of "play styles" is just an underlying part of the requirements demanded by the game mode.

You are stating this as true. Do you have reasoning to back it up? Why do you think game mode is the only important factor when deciding between kits?

What about the points I brought up here that you seem to be replying to?

 

[OnePotWonder]

That is simplistic mindset. Paint alone doesn't always solve the problem. Stringer, for instance, is much more concerned with personal safety and the elimination of other players than it does about throwing ink at the zones. Stringer is an excellent example of a weapon where you want the primary kit over the secondary for Zones. N-Zap has no need to throw excessive ink at the zones when the weapon works perfectly well at the task. So a kit with more utility is brought in instead.

I'm gonna be real with you, chief, if you genuinely think that vStringer is better than iStringer in zones, you're completely out of your mind. Your argument for Zap not needing Chumps in zones is because it can paint fine with its main and sub. That argument has some merit. vStringer cannot paint zone like that. At all. Whatsoever.

This is coming from a Tri-Stringer player. You're blatantly, bald-facedly wrong here.
And if you say I'm "simple-minded" for being cognizant of the fact that a prominent weakness of my weapon is that it doesn't paint well, then you've truly lost my last shred of respect.

Stop arguing as though you're objectively correct about the game. You have zero evidence outside of some correlations.

 

[WhatTheDevin]

That is simplistic mindset. Paint alone doesn't always solve the problem. Stringer, for instance, is much more concerned with personal safety and the elimination of other players than it does about throwing ink at the zones. Stringer is an excellent example of a weapon where you want the primary kit over the secondary for Zones. N-Zap has no need to throw excessive ink at the zones when the weapon works perfectly well at the task. So a kit with more utility is brought in instead.

Dude, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but every time someone offers any kind of criticism of your precious theory, you respond by insulting not only their intelligence, but the intelligence of the entire competitive splatoon community. If you're not going to argue in good faith, don't argue at all.

 

[youre_a_squib_now]

Stop arguing as though you're objectively correct about the game. You have zero evidence outside of some correlations.

tbf you're doing the same thing. I agree with you, but you're doing this too.

edit: maybe. idk judging tone of voice from text is hard

 

[OnePotWonder]

tbf you're doing the same thing. I agree with you, but you're doing this too.

edit: maybe. idk judging tone of voice from text is hard

Well, that's the thing. I'm backing my arguments with facts, while they're backing theirs with theory.
I'm not sure if this counts as hypocrisy or not.

 

[youre_a_squib_now]

Well, that's the thing. I'm backing my arguments with facts, while they're backing theirs with theory.
I'm not sure if this counts as hypocrisy or not.

I was talking more about arguing as though you're objectively correct ("you're completely out of your mind", etc) but I definitely agree that you're backing up your arguments well.