So many guns need a Nerf IMO.

[Setu]

It's fine to have an opinion as long as you don't throw it in people's faces. I also don't believe I'm being the rude one here.

 

[RespawningJesus]

You DO know that I pointed their weaknesses out right?

Just saying that the only weakness you provided was that it had short range for the aerospray. And the .52 gal you just said it had a slower firing rate, and you were inaccurate about the .96 gal.

I was providing counter arguments to the claims that you made in your OP (Original Post) about why these weapons are OP (Overpowered) when in reality, they are not.

 

[meleesplatter]

Aerosprays are gold for covering turf, but not for killing. Clocking in at 5 shots to kill, even with damage up perks, you really need to get the jump on someone to reliably kill someone with one. If the other person notices you first, and if they can aim, then they will beat out an aerospray. And of course, ranged weapons can easily destroy the aerospray.

.52 Gal, great at short range, due to an absurd kill time, which is great for taking out othet close ranged weapons such as the aerospray, but mid range, it can lose it's potency, due to the fire rate it has. Not only that, but you have a slower movement speed while firing, which can make you easier tl hit at times. Even then, it is still a decent weapon, since it is a 2 shot kill weapon. However, if someone runs a defense up in their set, it can make the weapon become a 3 shot kill weapon, which hurts the weapon a whole lot. If the gal user uses an Attack Up perk in their set, they can negate this, and stay as a 2 shot kill.

.96 gal, even with the damage boost it receives, it is still a 2 shot kill. What matters most for the .96 gal is the range advantage it gets. Given the weapon'a loadout, it is meant to be used more as a support weapon.

Anyways, the moral of the story is to understand each weapon's strengths and weaknesses before you go saying something is OP. Just because something is good, doesn't mean that it is OP, or that it needs a ban.

Aerosprays are not very good at defending locations too. Sure, you can spray a lot of ground from a high location which might slow people
down but you'll never get a kill this way without assistance, and ink resistance renders this tactic moot. It's also bad at dislodging defenders
unless you can flank them since any height advantage pretty much renders them impotent. Neither of their subs alleviates this either; they're
pretty reliant on their specials to make a push if they can't flank. Of course they can get those specials more quickly than most so it's not all bad,
but there will be a lot of times where you simply can't win engagements no matter what you do.

I think it says something when the majority of aerosprays I play with have poor kill/death ratios. If they have good ones, then they are good players
who also score a lot in turf since this weapon is best played constantly mobile and aggressively inking paths for even more mobility and special buildup.

They are like a hybrid of shooters and rollers; they work better when not focused on fending off attackers
in key locations but being a thorn in their side by surprising them out of position or just inking for points.

 

[Splats]

Aerosprays are gold for covering turf, but not for killing. Clocking in at 5 shots to kill, even with damage up perks, you really need to get the jump on someone to reliably kill someone with one. If the other person notices you first, and if they can aim, then they will beat out an aerospray. And of course, ranged weapons can easily destroy the aerospray.

.52 Gal, great at short range, due to an absurd kill time, which is great for taking out othet close ranged weapons such as the aerospray, but mid range, it can lose it's potency, due to the fire rate it has. Not only that, but you have a slower movement speed while firing, which can make you easier tl hit at times. Even then, it is still a decent weapon, since it is a 2 shot kill weapon. However, if someone runs a defense up in their set, it can make the weapon become a 3 shot kill weapon, which hurts the weapon a whole lot. If the gal user uses an Attack Up perk in their set, they can negate this, and stay as a 2 shot kill.

.96 gal, even with the damage boost it receives, it is still a 2 shot kill. What matters most for the .96 gal is the range advantage it gets. Given the weapon'a loadout, it is meant to be used more as a support weapon.

Anyways, the moral of the story is to understand each weapon's strengths and weaknesses before you go saying something is OP. Just because something is good, doesn't mean that it is OP, or that it needs a ban.

You DO know that I pointed their weaknesses out right?

I played the single player for thirty minutes to an hour and unlocked the Aerospray. It's worth it for the AS.

I would consider the .52 gal and Aerospray the best weapons, but still far from overpowered. Both can be consistently beaten by good movement and smart planning. This thread seems more like a flame than anything.

It:s not a flame, it's an opinion, something always considered a flame in forums.

Range is never really a issue, i can see if your using a roller or a inkbrush, then its a issue. But not with a spray gun.The aerosprays are good at more then just painting. They excel at the categories that matter. Also, why should something that nets so much points to win, also be able to kill very well, its a odd combination of pros compared to its "limited range" con.

Exactly.

I kind of wish people weren't so entitled and opinionated, but anyhow, the game hasn't even been fully released, so it is FAR TOO early to hear this kind of stuff. I respect your "OPINION", but I'm sorry to tell you there is nothing to base it on, especially with the fact that you don't know how the 52 gal and 96 gal work since the 96 kills in two hits and is longer range than the 52 gal.

I was coming to correct that, but since you had to point it out

It being your opinion doesn't mean you don't have to provide more to your argument than "imo"

Well you clearly didn't read.

Oh sorry my tablet didn't update the page so I though it wasn't posted.

 

[K7Sniper]

Wait... if almost all the guns need a nerf, wouldn't that mean that they are all around the same power all things considered, and thus, BALANCED?

 

[Terabyte]

The only thing I want is for the .52/.96 Gals to be nerfed. Not that much, just a slight range/damage nerf.

 

[K7Sniper]

Eh, I don't mind them hitting hard with the range, as long as the fire rate is low enough to justify the power.

 

[Alus]

Where was it said that all the guns need a nerf? I'm lost.

 

[Enigma]

This game is incredibly balanced. It's also been out for not even 2 weeks. Every gun has a weakness that can be exploited

 

[K7Sniper]

Where was it said that all the guns need a nerf? I'm lost.

The topic title and post complaining about most of the weapons.

 

[Setu]

The topic title and post complaining about most of the weapons.

Exactly. It makes no sense to just nerf half of the guns in the game. If anything, the others should be buffed.

 

[K7Sniper]

I've been able to narrow down the complaints to "I want the weapon I use to be the best.", "I don't want to have to worry about anything countering me." and "I don't know how to counter all the other weapons, so therefore everything else is OP and needs a nerf." All at the same time trying to veil it with "It's just my opinion, don't get butthurt" all the while getting butthurt when someone logically counters the opinions.

It's rather entertaining :) Overall the game is pretty balanced with a slight nudge here and there depending on certain situations. Mainly, the game does favor rapid fire and run and gun, but that can be countered if people hold back and think of a strategy. It's like when people complained about Little Mac in Smash, or the Pyro in TF2, or more recently... Rollers from the Beta. To the bull rush spamer who doesn't know strat, yea they can seem OP, but with a little thinking, everything can be countered for the most part.

 

[tokyodown]

It:s not a flame, it's an opinion, something always considered a flame in forums.

When the title of the thread is "so many guns need a nerf" I'll instinctually think you're flaming eveybody

 

[K7Sniper]

When the title of the thread is "so many guns need a nerf" I'll instinctually think you're flaming eveybody

And then using "It's only my opinion" as an excuse to flame while trying to put yourself into a protective bubble against any backlash.

Everyone here is posting their opinion.

 

[tokyodown]

Exactly. It makes no sense to just nerf half of the guns in the game. If anything, the others should be buffed.

I've always believed when a game is broken, try and make everything better rather than weakening first. This opinion does not apply to Splatoon or the current situation, though. (Looking at you, sm4sh)

 

[K7Sniper]

I've always believed when a game is broken, try and make everything better rather than weakening first. This opinion does not apply to Splatoon or the current situation, though. (Looking at you, sm4sh)

If the game has a relatively small weapon pool, I would agree with you. However, for a game that has a rather large weapon pool (like TF2), it's probably best to knock down the outlier than have to up the masses for balancing.

 

[Beariie]

If this game isnt about killing, then there shouldnt really be a need to having weapons kill in 2-3 shots.

-Nerf spray gun damage by about 2-3 more shots to kill. (If your gun cant reach the person, then do what rollers/inkbrushers do, move to a different area)
-Rollers should remain 1 shot kill. You can jump over these things with great timing.
-Chargers are fine the way they are. Aim is required so the result should be rewarding. Added by the fact that sniping spots arent really places you can camp in on every map. (No place to recharge or you will fall through the floor in squid form, also its easily reached by a spray gunner who squids close to you)
-InkBrush needs a range increase or a slight damage increase when it comes to it. (Running into anything besides a charger is saying "kill me now")

Game would be way more balanced this way.

 

[K7Sniper]

Killing is a part of the game too, as kills do splatter ink of your color all around, but it's not the ONLY part of the game. It's essentially one method to complete the overall objective.

That's kinda why it's so appealing. There are a few different ways to complete the overall objective. The rushers can get their kill fix, while those who don't like direct confrontation can just keep covering the ground area without really needing to get too involved.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The game is fine as is, but if I woke up in the morning to discover that killing wasn't as instantaneous as it was before for all weapons, I wouldn't complain. However, the consequences of such a change I can't entirely foresee and therefore am not sure it's entirely healthy, or an improvement to the current state. I'll give you some sympathy though, as it is now deaths can be very sudden, and it helps allow last second turn come-backs in Turf War exist because of how fragile life is; and as it stands, most confrontations between two players are less of a fight but more so someone just exploding (that's why getting the jump on someone is key, because it's a victory unless you mess up), but that's not unusual for shooters in the first place so yeah. The game isn't broken right now though, just focus on inking the map or zones, and when you are looking for a fight or a fight is coming to you, just try to get the upperhand through surprise, higher ground, cover, etc. to try and use the volatile nature of gun fights to your advantage, not theirs. Since is it's not a kill game, your preoccupation should be to carry yourself across the map with as much caution and thoroughness as you can, and those abrupt kills are basically punishes on you and your opponents for failing to do this. Perhaps think of it this way.

 

[Alus]

If this game isnt about killing, then there shouldnt really be a need to having weapons kill in 2-3 shots.

-Nerf spray gun damage by about 2-3 more shots to kill. (If your gun cant reach the person, then do what rollers/inkbrushers do, move to a different area)
-Rollers should remain 1 shot kill. You can jump over these things with great timing.
-Chargers are fine the way they are. Aim is required so the result should be rewarding. Added by the fact that sniping spots arent really places you can camp in on every map. (No place to recharge or you will fall through the floor in squid form, also its easily reached by a spray gunner who squids close to you)
-InkBrush needs a range increase or a slight damage increase when it comes to it. (Running into anything besides a charger is saying "kill me now")

Game would be way more balanced this way.

I don't exactly know what to say.

Your new argument is nerf weapon because it shouldn't kill in a game not about kills.

Then you immediately turn around and say that ink brush needs a buff because it doesn't kill In a game not about kills.

What this says is, maybe for now, the game's design is beyond us. And we should trust the developers until we find something truly gamebreaking.