Lyre
Inkster Jr.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2015
- Messages
- 23
- NNID
- Muddybob
The Project
What Phase 1 needs from the Community in Phase 1:
This project is very malleable. It has no rigid column layout. What it needs is collaboration. Unbiased opinions about everything. Or biased ones with reasoning.
What Phase 1.5 needs from the community
What Phase 2 needs from the community
Splatoon can be broken down into stats. Skills do matter, but ultimately some combinations favor one thing over the other, and two equally skilled players given different loadouts will have a clear difference. What this project aims to do is based on the community, we compile each other's expertise, opinions, and just raw values together into breaking down each weapon into numbers.
We want to have a scale(example: 1-10), and a base (example: 5). Going through these, we want to define stats that we can apply to all weapons regardless of shape or form, and use this scale to gauge a weapon's strengths or weaknesses.
Phase 1 is all about defining these stats. From you guys, I need to know what stats are "vital" to the success of a weapon. It's a broad topic, since there's so many aspects we could cover, but that's the thing, we need to cover them. Ink economy, inking efficiency, mobility, range, all of it.
Even moreso, we could break it down into weapon / subweapon / special if we want to get more specific, with the subweapons and special scores adding modifiers to each weapon. This means that we wouldn't need to directly compare things like the custom blaster and it's normal blaster, but would only keep "blaster" as a base, and have each kit add/subtract points from that base. However, this does mean we lock all the subweapons and specials into modifier points, and not how well they synergize with their respective weapon.
That is the goal of this project, to generate radar charts for each weapon, so we can quickly and visually discern which weapons have what stronger points over others. The above was just an example. A bad example honestly, but an example nontheless. The concept is there though: Each stat we define has set modifiers, quantifiable in one way or another. Other suggestions that can potentially be taken into account are Splatoon's base weapon stats, e.g mobility, range, fire rate, blast radius. However, these are more weapon-specific.
Phase one consists of the community creating quantifiable stats for the chart. Above in the example I had 3 categories, playstyle, preferred map layout, and range effectiveness. We obviously can add more like ranked mode strengths, special builds such as bomb-range up to increase range effectiveness, but the idea is to find the general pointers that are important in deciding on a weapon to use. These stats should be based on the weapon itself as a single entity, not the team. Categories like the example are also welcome, as it's quite possible to create multiple sections of a Radar chart.
We want to have a scale(example: 1-10), and a base (example: 5). Going through these, we want to define stats that we can apply to all weapons regardless of shape or form, and use this scale to gauge a weapon's strengths or weaknesses.
Phase 1 is all about defining these stats. From you guys, I need to know what stats are "vital" to the success of a weapon. It's a broad topic, since there's so many aspects we could cover, but that's the thing, we need to cover them. Ink economy, inking efficiency, mobility, range, all of it.
- Range
- What kind of map it favors
- Ink Economy
- Inking Ability
- Kill power
- Playstyle strengths
- Mode strength (Rainmaker, splat zones, tower control, etc)
Even moreso, we could break it down into weapon / subweapon / special if we want to get more specific, with the subweapons and special scores adding modifiers to each weapon. This means that we wouldn't need to directly compare things like the custom blaster and it's normal blaster, but would only keep "blaster" as a base, and have each kit add/subtract points from that base. However, this does mean we lock all the subweapons and specials into modifier points, and not how well they synergize with their respective weapon.
We can have 3 major categories. Map, Range, Playstyle.
In terms of Maps, we can generalize maps into Wide or Narrow, Cover or Open. How well does a certain weapon perform on each kind of map.
Range:
Playstyle:
So how will we use these measurements? Lets do an example with the Tentatek Splattershot/Octoshot to start:
All values will start at the base 5.
It's a basic short-mid range shooter weapon, having nice RoF, accuracy, and killing in 3 hits. So for this, +3 points to each Short and Medium Range. It has no long range inherently, so set long range to 0. Given that it at least HAS an Inkzooka, the long range isn't as bad as others, like the Splattershot Jr. So +1 at least.
Playstyle-wise. This weapon can use the special and subweapon to push into enemy turf. The 3-hit kill capability also is a plus, which means the offensive capability is quite nice, a +3. Defensive-wise, it has nice ink economy and suction bombs for suppressive fire and delaying, so +1. Supportwise, this weapon can lay down ink at a fast rate, but has nothing else other than perhaps providing Inkzooka covering fire, so no change there.
It can perform average in most maps. Capable of inking quickly and moving around, +1 for Wide maps. However, suction bombs are ink-costly, which is the only source of safe approach for corners or advancing. -1 for Narrow and Cover based maps. Open maps, it can utilize the Inkzooka well, but at the same time this is a curse as the enemy can see the Inkzooka shot from wide angles, so we leave the Open map pointage alone.
In the end the tentatek Splattershot/Octoshot looks like:
Thus, we can create a radar chart for this:
The benefit of having a radar chart, is that we can directly compare weapons based on their strengths or weaknesses. Not overall, but for specific situations. Say using the same criteria I resolved the stats of a different weapon here, like the Forge Pro (Note, random numbers, didn't really go into it that deep)
Now I have an overlapping radar chart:
In terms of Maps, we can generalize maps into Wide or Narrow, Cover or Open. How well does a certain weapon perform on each kind of map.
- Wide can classify maps that can have many different approaches granting freedom of movement and approach, such as Flounder Heights.
- Narrow maps boast key zones that are harder to break through and force the battle to a more linear approach, such as Port Mackerel.
- Cover maps are noisy, they have many different fences, boxes, corners, and cliffs, making advancing difficult without clearing out the cover first, something like Blackbelly Skatepark.
- Open maps don't have as much cover and force players to ink and skirt around areas in order to stay safe, like Moray Towers.
Range:
We can have short, medium, long range "comfort zones". However, the subweapons and the special need to be taken into account as well. How well the weapon itself synchronizes with the kit, and what role the kit + the subweapon makes. The roles themselves also are based on the attitude of the player.
Playstyle:
- Offense: How well this weapon works as an offensive role in picking off enemies and advancing the line. Playmaking.
- Defense: How well this weapon can hold the line or position.
- Support: How well this weapon can assist an allied inkling, whether it be applying debuffs, building supportive specials, laying ink trails, etc.
So how will we use these measurements? Lets do an example with the Tentatek Splattershot/Octoshot to start:
Short Range - 5
Medium Range - 5
Long Range - 5
Offensive Capability - 5
Defensive Capability - 5
Support Capability - 5
Wide Map - 5
Narrow Map - 5
Cover Map - 5
Open Map - 5
Medium Range - 5
Long Range - 5
Offensive Capability - 5
Defensive Capability - 5
Support Capability - 5
Wide Map - 5
Narrow Map - 5
Cover Map - 5
Open Map - 5
All values will start at the base 5.
It's a basic short-mid range shooter weapon, having nice RoF, accuracy, and killing in 3 hits. So for this, +3 points to each Short and Medium Range. It has no long range inherently, so set long range to 0. Given that it at least HAS an Inkzooka, the long range isn't as bad as others, like the Splattershot Jr. So +1 at least.
Playstyle-wise. This weapon can use the special and subweapon to push into enemy turf. The 3-hit kill capability also is a plus, which means the offensive capability is quite nice, a +3. Defensive-wise, it has nice ink economy and suction bombs for suppressive fire and delaying, so +1. Supportwise, this weapon can lay down ink at a fast rate, but has nothing else other than perhaps providing Inkzooka covering fire, so no change there.
It can perform average in most maps. Capable of inking quickly and moving around, +1 for Wide maps. However, suction bombs are ink-costly, which is the only source of safe approach for corners or advancing. -1 for Narrow and Cover based maps. Open maps, it can utilize the Inkzooka well, but at the same time this is a curse as the enemy can see the Inkzooka shot from wide angles, so we leave the Open map pointage alone.
In the end the tentatek Splattershot/Octoshot looks like:
Short Range - 8
Medium Range - 8
Long Range - 1
Offensive Capability - 8
Defensive Capability - 6
Support Capability - 5
Wide Map - 6
Narrow Map - 4
Cover Map - 4
Open Map - 5
Medium Range - 8
Long Range - 1
Offensive Capability - 8
Defensive Capability - 6
Support Capability - 5
Wide Map - 6
Narrow Map - 4
Cover Map - 4
Open Map - 5
Thus, we can create a radar chart for this:
The benefit of having a radar chart, is that we can directly compare weapons based on their strengths or weaknesses. Not overall, but for specific situations. Say using the same criteria I resolved the stats of a different weapon here, like the Forge Pro (Note, random numbers, didn't really go into it that deep)
Short Range - 5
Medium Range - 8
Long Range - 8
Offensive Capability - 8
Defensive Capability - 4
Support Capability - 8
Wide Map - 5
Narrow Map - 7
Cover Map - 4
Open Map - 5
Medium Range - 8
Long Range - 8
Offensive Capability - 8
Defensive Capability - 4
Support Capability - 8
Wide Map - 5
Narrow Map - 7
Cover Map - 4
Open Map - 5
Now I have an overlapping radar chart:
That is the goal of this project, to generate radar charts for each weapon, so we can quickly and visually discern which weapons have what stronger points over others. The above was just an example. A bad example honestly, but an example nontheless. The concept is there though: Each stat we define has set modifiers, quantifiable in one way or another. Other suggestions that can potentially be taken into account are Splatoon's base weapon stats, e.g mobility, range, fire rate, blast radius. However, these are more weapon-specific.
Phase one consists of the community creating quantifiable stats for the chart. Above in the example I had 3 categories, playstyle, preferred map layout, and range effectiveness. We obviously can add more like ranked mode strengths, special builds such as bomb-range up to increase range effectiveness, but the idea is to find the general pointers that are important in deciding on a weapon to use. These stats should be based on the weapon itself as a single entity, not the team. Categories like the example are also welcome, as it's quite possible to create multiple sections of a Radar chart.
What Phase 1 needs from the Community in Phase 1:
This project is very malleable. It has no rigid column layout. What it needs is collaboration. Unbiased opinions about everything. Or biased ones with reasoning.
- What stats you guys believe that are vital to determine the success of a weapon.
- Should we break it up into weapon / subweapon / specials?
- Should we have groups of stats, or mesh them all together? (e.g. do we want just range with higher stat = more range, or short range, medium range, long range scores each representing the weapon's performance in that range?)
- Is this a stupid idea and should I just let it drop?
- How long should we wait until we "close" phase 1 to enter phase 1.5 and 2? What is the cutoff point?
Obviously some of the comparisons that can be made with these radar charts are moot, like charger vs sploosh. Splatoon has a lot of weapons. Some serve different roles than others. I propose that we organize the weapons before assigning them stats, sorting them by weapon class.
Weapons will be grouped together with their own kind. Blasters, Shooters, Chargers, and Rollers.
However, this has a downside that some weapons kind of blur the line between classes, such as the Bamboozler, Splatlings, and Buckets. Normally they would fit in respectively charger, charger, and... bucket.
For this reason I ask the community for aid in a better sorting method of these weapons. If we decided on breaking out subweapons and specials from weapons it might make it slightly easier to organize. This is needed for Phase 2 when we begin the debates.
Weapons will be grouped together with their own kind. Blasters, Shooters, Chargers, and Rollers.
However, this has a downside that some weapons kind of blur the line between classes, such as the Bamboozler, Splatlings, and Buckets. Normally they would fit in respectively charger, charger, and... bucket.
For this reason I ask the community for aid in a better sorting method of these weapons. If we decided on breaking out subweapons and specials from weapons it might make it slightly easier to organize. This is needed for Phase 2 when we begin the debates.
What Phase 1.5 needs from the community
What classes of weapons should we have? And which weapons belong in which class?
Once we have defined the stats and organized the weapons. Voting begins. Ideally each class of weapon should have their own thread. This way, the simillar weapons can be ranked against each other as their stats are determined.
When we start, we can go one of two methods. The first method sets all weapons to 5 across all stats as an average. The second method utilizes the actual weapon stats from the game itself to best set what stats we can, then set the rest to 5 (e.g. The Luna blaster will have 0 Long Range, but the short range will be much higher to start)
Now, the threads themselves are going to be argument heavy, but the good thing is they should be driven by players who have much to say about that weapon category in particular. But as the arguments are resolved, points can be added or taken away from each stat after reaching enough conclusion.
The debates should hopefully go something like this:
The idea of Phase 2 would be to break down each weapon's strengths and weaknesses, and using the stats guidelines from phase 1, collaborate data to create the end result.
When we start, we can go one of two methods. The first method sets all weapons to 5 across all stats as an average. The second method utilizes the actual weapon stats from the game itself to best set what stats we can, then set the rest to 5 (e.g. The Luna blaster will have 0 Long Range, but the short range will be much higher to start)
Now, the threads themselves are going to be argument heavy, but the good thing is they should be driven by players who have much to say about that weapon category in particular. But as the arguments are resolved, points can be added or taken away from each stat after reaching enough conclusion.
The debates should hopefully go something like this:
Thread Topic: Blasters
Person A: I believe that the Luna Blaster and Luna Blaster Neo should have 1 point added to Cover-based maps due to their explosive radius.
Person B: The range makes it ideal for breaking around cover corners, I agree with A, but compared to other blasters the explosive effect is much larger, +2.
Person C: I disagree, all blasters posess that ability an extent, blasters as a whole have an easier time clearing corners. They should all get +1 except for the ranged blasters which cannot fight close range, nor clear corners as easily due to their lower radius.
Person A: That sounds fair.
Though since this is an online forums obviously we won't all be gentlesquidly, but you get the point.Person B: The range makes it ideal for breaking around cover corners, I agree with A, but compared to other blasters the explosive effect is much larger, +2.
Person C: I disagree, all blasters posess that ability an extent, blasters as a whole have an easier time clearing corners. They should all get +1 except for the ranged blasters which cannot fight close range, nor clear corners as easily due to their lower radius.
Person A: That sounds fair.
The idea of Phase 2 would be to break down each weapon's strengths and weaknesses, and using the stats guidelines from phase 1, collaborate data to create the end result.
What Phase 2 needs from the community
A good hearty debate.
We put all the graphs together. This can either be punched into a google spreadsheet to allow for sorting, or made into radar charts using random online software since I'm lazy. But the idea is to have this information available to players and teams, so that they can gauge their team composition and see what they are lacking in each stat, and how to balance it out. Obviously the end result isn't a silver bullet that the moment you follow it you are guaranteed to win, but it will serve as a good reference point.
Last edited:
