Weapon Viability Thread Mk. 1 (Phase 1: S Rank and A Rank discussion)

[Rellek]

.52 gal is still S. It's better than .96 deco at this point. Both Luna Blasters are still A+. Dynamo is S. Eliter is A+. It's nowhere near as dominant on all maps as it used to be.

A lot of your lower tiers are weird. I don't think anything in game can really be defined as lower than B+. Everything is viable in competitive outside of Inkbrush.

I feel like Dynamo is extremely situational. Much more so than a majority of other weapons. Like the E-Litre could easily be used anywhere with any given situation because it has the tools to hit far and defend close and perform precise functions on almost any map with relative ease. I feel that the Dynamo is a weapon that scatters, scares and creates a big mess (which, in most cases, is a good thing) but performs poorly against chargers at range, is underwhelming on certain stages, and has terrible ink efficiency.

Granted, it is still a hugely powerful weapon in many situations, but it has some very clear weaknesses which those other S rank weapons kind of don't.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

Are the divisions between A ranks really necessary? I can understand S and A, but the A ranks aren't very defined. I think everything in A deserves to at least be in A, but I wouldn't really consider any of them greater than the other.

I don't know about "necessary" but there's clear differences between weapons in A- and A+ and lumping them all together would create more confusion and would likely lead to too many weapons in S, and that's not something I'm the most fond of. So, as I said between A ranks there are weapons that are clearly better than the others, and weapons that are on par with one another. Having sub ranks allows myself and others to differentiate them all much, much easier.

 

[flc]

well I was going to leave this thread alone but after seeing this ****

to the first ever Splatoon Weapon Viability thread.

First off, thanks for stepping on my toes. Really respectful.

(not to mention the ridiculous amount of deferential capitalisation, which is just hilarious)
that's just not happening

so here goes

first, your criteria are awful. take the krak-on and the forge pro as two examples. the krak-on is only good at one thing and is an utter liability in every other area. meanwhile, the forge pro is excellent in everything except ink coverage, doesn't care at all about the defence up meta, shreds splash walls, and has no weaknesses aside from its lack of a grenade. by the criteria you have posted, krak-on would be C+ at best, and forge would be A+ at worst.

and yet, the krak-on is such a reliable and effective way to block pushes into your territory that it has a place in more team comps than the forge. the forge's job can be covered by plenty of other weapons that are slightly more specialised, and only really has team comp synergy with the regular 52 gal. as a result, the forge is actually a very niche weapon, while the krak-on is ubiquitous. if your tier list is supposed to give people an idea of how important it is to learn a weapon, then forge is the one that should be in the bottom tiers and krak-on should be up there with cjs, 3k, and dynamo.

second, you do not have a clear goal here. you say you want to provide a way for people to understand the importance of each weapon in "the metagame", but you later specify ranked. why? who cares about the ranked meta? the ranked meta is hasn't changed in months (when the chargers all switched over to elitre, with an audible clunk), and it will never change because it is a vicious cycle of people using weapons because they're popular. if you want to make a tier list on the ranked meta, you don't need community discussion, you just say "52 96deco ttek 3k rollers blasters" and you're done.

so let's just put ranked aside, then, and look at tournaments. here's where we get into the more fundamental flaws with a unified list like this: tournament team comps are all about economics, in the end. you have 4 team slots, and you need to get as much utility from them as possible. as such, ostensibly very strong shooters (such as the forge, as previously mentioned) will always be competing with some of the best weapons in the game for a position on a team. if you run a 96 deco, you can't run a forge without running too low on turf coverage and grenades. if you run an elitre, you can't run a squiffer or bamboozler because you'll never be able to push an objective. if you run a dynamo, you can drop the 3k for a splatterscope or c3k, and then run some cheese composition with a bunch of long range stuff. all of these weapons I've mentioned are, or have the potential to be (in the case of the squiffer & bamboozler) some of the best weapons in the game, but they aren't seen because you can't run them in standard team comps through no fault of the weapon itself.

finally, "baby steps"? making the entire list at once is "baby steps"? the only reasonable tier lists to make at this point would be those directed at each individual gametype. "here are the best weapons on kelp dome rainmaker", sort of thing. these are baby steps, where we examine weapons in a fixed context so that we can better understand why and when certain aspects of a weapon are preferable. making the entire list at once, from the top down, is the worst possible way of approaching this task, fundamentally flawed as it already is to make a united tier list less than a year after the game's release. it's like asking a top player for "tips on how to improve". you will never get a good answer with such a broad question.

I'm not against the idea of discussing this sort of thing, but we can do without the grandstanding and grandiosity for what is ultimately random guy's attempt at a tier list part eight hundred and seventy-three

 

[Of Moose & Men]

well I was going to leave this thread alone but after seeing this ****


(not to mention the ridiculous amount of deferential capitalisation, which is just hilarious)
that's just not happening

so here goes

first, your criteria are awful. take the krak-on and the forge pro as two examples. the krak-on is only good at one thing and is an utter liability in every other area. meanwhile, the forge pro is excellent in everything except ink coverage, doesn't care at all about the defence up meta, shreds splash walls, and has no weaknesses aside from its lack of a grenade. by the criteria you have posted, krak-on would be C+ at best, and forge would be A+ at worst.

and yet, the krak-on is such a reliable and effective way to block pushes into your territory that it has a place in more team comps than the forge. the forge's job can be covered by plenty of other weapons that are slightly more specialised, and only really has team comp synergy with the regular 52 gal. as a result, the forge is actually a very niche weapon, while the krak-on is ubiquitous. if your tier list is supposed to give people an idea of how important it is to learn a weapon, then forge is the one that should be in the bottom tiers and krak-on should be up there with cjs, 3k, and dynamo.

second, you do not have a clear goal here. you say you want to provide a way for people to understand the importance of each weapon in "the metagame", but you later specify ranked. why? who cares about the ranked meta? the ranked meta is hasn't changed in months (when the chargers all switched over to elitre, with an audible clunk), and it will never change because it is a vicious cycle of people using weapons because they're popular. if you want to make a tier list on the ranked meta, you don't need community discussion, you just say "52 96deco ttek 3k rollers blasters" and you're done.

so let's just put ranked aside, then, and look at tournaments. here's where we get into the more fundamental flaws with a unified list like this: tournament team comps are all about economics, in the end. you have 4 team slots, and you need to get as much utility from them as possible. as such, ostensibly very strong shooters (such as the forge, as previously mentioned) will always be competing with some of the best weapons in the game for a position on a team. if you run a 96 deco, you can't run a forge without running too low on turf coverage and grenades. if you run an elitre, you can't run a squiffer or bamboozler because you'll never be able to push an objective. if you run a dynamo, you can drop the 3k for a splatterscope or c3k, and then run some cheese composition with a bunch of long range stuff. all of these weapons I've mentioned are, or have the potential to be (in the case of the squiffer & bamboozler) some of the best weapons in the game, but they aren't seen because you can't run them in standard team comps through no fault of the weapon itself.

finally, "baby steps"? making the entire list at once is "baby steps"? the only reasonable tier lists to make at this point would be those directed at each individual gametype. "here are the best weapons on kelp dome rainmaker", sort of thing. these are baby steps, where we examine weapons in a fixed context so that we can better understand why and when certain aspects of a weapon are preferable. making the entire list at once, from the top down, is the worst possible way of approaching this task, fundamentally flawed as it already is to make a united tier list less than a year after the game's release. it's like asking a top player for "tips on how to improve". you will never get a good answer with such a broad question.

I'm not against the idea of discussing this sort of thing, but we can do without the grandstanding and grandiosity for what is ultimately random guy's attempt at a tier list part eight hundred and seventy-three

Oh boy. . .

I'll bite.
First, I wasn't saying it was the first ever tier list ever in the history of ever. I'd like to think there is a clear cut difference in telling everyone what the best weapon is and what weapons are the most viable, but, I suppose it goes over some peoples heads. That's fine, I'll have to elaborate. And I love how NO one seems to grasp the concept that this is not meant to be my own ranking, it is a community ranking, it is not mine, it is meant for everyone to discuss, I simply go about editing it to reflect that. Point me in the direction of someone else doing that please. Regardless, I digress.

I was mentioning ranked because that is what the majority of tours consist of, ranked game modes, considering that is where my current placements are from, that is why I stated that. I suppose context wasn't enough, I'll go ahead and elaborate more on that.

And yes, baby steps, baby steps is also seeing where everyone places these weapons, and then moving on to the bigger things. It was my intention to at some point spread out into creating some sort of ranking for each game mode, but I felt it would be semi wise to go about making a generalized list first.

Also, what Grandstanding? Who's being Grandiose? I'm not saying my opinion was any better than anyone's, I'm not shooting down anyone's opinion because I feel mine is right. So, I'm wondering where in the ever living hell this is coming from. If anyone is being Grandiose it's a certain someone else who bleeds their arrogance in every thread they touch. I'm simply trying to go about making a community based ranking to the best of my abilities. Instead, I'm just getting constant flack because my original template that I created just so that it could get changed anyways, wasn't up to everyone's standards. Instead of focusing on the weapons like I intended, everyone with an elitist stick up their *** feels the need to instead make it about me.

I may be a random guy, I'll take that, but all I'm trying to do is aid the community. Perhaps I should have gone about making separate rankings per mode, but I'm one ****ing guy, forgive me if I don't get everything correct the first time.

I love how I created this thread hoping I could get some conversation going about these weapons, but all I got was a bunch of people who think they're the second coming of Christ telling me I screwed up.

 

[Lyre]

A community ranking for viability needs criteria of what it's viable FOR. Weapons in Splatoon range from short to long, versatile to excelling at a single job. Saying one weapon is viable at all jobs is bullfangodung and you should expect to get flamed for saying that.

If the topic is ranked game modes, there are three different modes to compare them all to. Saying that "These weapons are the top tier for all ranked modes" is a terrible generalization. From what I can see if there is a good E-liter in the game, the Tentatek/Octoshot become instantly unviable simply because the moment they take a step out without an inkzooka to take out a sniper, they're toast. The 96 Deco can at least use a wall to provide a little cover, but this comes an issue where if they throw a wall in say splat zones, they have no ink remaining to cover the zone. However, a 96 gal or any other unit with a wall that supports any scoped e-liter to eliminate an opposing e-liter CAN counteract it, given the opposing e-liter doesn't have a wall supporter of their own.

What I think flc was getting at is that although some weapons are used more than others. It's the right weapon in the right hands in the right team that really counts. Just saying one weapon is superior than all rest implies that if you run a team consisting of only that weapon, it's an instant win? Likely your team is toast.

You should have made the ranking for each game mode first, not overall generalization. You can also incorporate map choice and weapon type. I hate to step into Moba terms, but it's about team composition for competitive play. How can you balance a team's offense, defense, and support.

You say this isn't a tier list. You say it's based on weapon usability and conventionality to pick up. The fact that you have rankings already disproves it. The fact that the difficulty in terms of using a weapon is completely player based renders the usability and conventionality part invalid. Just because you can't use the bamboozler correctly doesn't mean that everyone can't. I've seen a team of four bamboozlers in ranked before completely decimate the other team, walls everywhere, shots everywhere. In close range combat versus say a custom e-liter, the bamboozler will win given that it can squeeze off a pair of kill shots faster than the custom can. However in long range the bamboozler can't reach the E-liter at all.

This thread became less community and more of your own the moment you said:

If you can manage to convince me that the Bamboozler is somehow above the weapons in B+ I will be more than happy to move it.

Yes, the person asking for you to move it didn't provide facts. But no, you made that statement completely personal. "Convince me" is not a community driven thing. Once he offers advantages of that weapon it has over the other weapons in B+ it should move up immediately.

This kind of thread would be better off as a multi-thread discussion. Each thread represents roles, roles have multiple weapons. Weapons can be in multiple roles. They can debate the role of each weapon in there, and we'll end up with a radar chart for each weapon. People can then compare the charts, and from there you can safely determine which weapons are most "viable" in which mode.

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

wow
flc said something good about Krak-on????? Fam that ain't him
he has obviously he has been hacked
R.I.P FLC May 9, 2015 - ??? ?, 2015

 

[Deleted Member]

but I'm one guy

That's the problem. Creating a tier list requires the entire competitive community's effort and thorough testing, or at least a lot of the top players inputs along with statistics and trends in Solo and Squad Ranked. Not just one person who piles together a list.

Also, I agree heavily with flc. I think we're approaching this the wrong way. Instead of throwing a list together, we should assess all of the weapons:

• How well a weapon performs on each map
• How well a weapon perform on each mode
• How well a weapon performs against another weapon
• Their role and placement in team compositions
• Versatility, utility, offensive, defensive and support prowess

 

[deepseadiva]

I love how I created this thread hoping I could get some conversation going about these weapons, but all I got was a bunch of people who think they're the second coming of Christ telling me I screwed up.

You made a bad thread... but thats okay lol. No one likes to get flamed, I get it, but at least you can walk away with this info: this is a bad approach to a tier list. This is a great moment to learn instead of whining that you're being under-appreciated.

I'm also with @flc probably the best approach would be like "here are the best weapons on kelp dome rainmaker". That kind of approach that notes the importance of mode and stage would actually be worthwhile.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

I wasn't whining that I was "under appreciated", it was my first attempt at trying to organize some sort of "tier list" that was created by the community. I don't care if I went unappreciated, I wasn't doing it for me.
With that said, there were about 50 different ways to go about telling me what should be done to make an accurate thread, as opposed to being a complete prick. I agree that would be a much better way to get the weapons ranked and such, I was intending on getting there at some point, but I wanted to start with a generalized thread first. I see now that was the wrong way to go about it, I can admit that.

 

[deepseadiva]

Well it's not too late to revamp the thread if you think some of these are good suggestions.

It'll be more work, but something of this caliber was going to be real work anyway. There's been a lot of these "general tier lists". That's because they're very easy to make.

And subsequently very subjective, vague, etc. I'm glad you and me realize we can do better.

But now who wants to actually do it? Lol xD

 

[Vitezen]

Sorry if I made you feel bad about the work you're doing here bro. I don't mean to undermine your efforts, and if it seems that way, my bad. People should be a lot more proactive in working out the meta, not just waiting for an answer to fall into their lap. I disagree with your methods, but not your gusto. Props to you

 

[seakingtheonixpected]

Uhm, that's not really how it works. If anything, the Krak-On has more options, but I digress. Again, you have to take what those subs and specials are attached to. You can't just tell me, "this sub is better therefore this weapon is better". I explained that the Krak-On roller is exceptional at getting up close and personal with the opposing team thanks to beacons, decent speed, and Kraken for when things get dicey. The Splat Roller gets rid of that and forces it to play more defensively. If you're going to use a defensive Roller, The splat roller is not the first one I would recommend to anyone.

Yea, maybe on a different weapon those subs and specials would be better, but I have to strongly disagree that the splat roller should be above Krak-On. If we based everything on subs and specials alone, anything with an Inkzooka should be A+. Can't look at these weapons in a vacuum. You're going to need more than "these subs and specials are better" to convince me they should trade positions.

More options? That doesn't make any sense. The Splat Roller has 1 way to kill melee range and two ways to kill at long distances (in fact Killer Wail is the longest range killing weapon in the game!)

Krak-On has 2 ways to kill melee range and Beakon you can jump to that are effective sometimes but also lead to another death sometimes, making them at best conditionally useful.

You've made it pretty clear though that you only put the Krak-On Roller high on the list because you like it. Which defeats the purpose of a tier list at all.

I have an alt account where I got to S rank using nothing but Inkbrushes, but that wouldn't make me want to go around saying Inkbrushes are S level weapons. I was able to do the things I did because I exploited the ignorance of A+ level players. And similarly the Krak-On Roller is good at exploiting weakness is squids, not actually playing well.

Here is what a Kraken looks like against good plays

They are mostly good for defense.

Heck I might as well take this as an oppurtinity to plug my own video

at 22:26 I jump down to meet a Kraken and push it away with my Splatterscope. Krakens really aren't that hard to take advantage of.

Though to be fair at 19:30 I also plug a killer wail before they can get me with it, but they really should have known better than to put up a killer wail near a charger xD

 

[Rellek]

The best way to find a proper community fueled viability list is to have at least 5,000 participants, a poll that asks "What are the top 3 splatoon weapons?", and a point system that awards 3 to their number 1, 2 to their number 2 and 1 to their number 3.

There should be enough variation in 5,000 people to determine generally which weapons are seen as the best in the game.

 

[MrL1193]

The best way to find a proper community fueled viability list is to have at least 5,000 participants, a poll that asks "What are the top 3 splatoon weapons?", and a point system that awards 3 to their number 1, 2 to their number 2 and 1 to their number 3.

There should be enough variation in 5,000 people to determine generally which weapons are seen as the best in the game.

One of the past attempts at a tier list did something like that (though not with 5,000 people, I'm sure). It's not a practical way to make a tier list, though, because even the average of thousands of opinions won't mean much if most of those opinions are coming from random joes who lack the knowledge and experience to make informed judgments.

 

[Rellek]

One of the past attempts at a tier list did something like that (though not with 5,000 people, I'm sure). It's not a practical way to make a tier list, though, because even the average of thousands of opinions won't mean much if most of those opinions are coming from random joes who lack the knowledge and experience to make informed judgments.

But I'm talking about viability, not tier listings. The original intended purpose of this thread is to come up with a viability list right? Amount of damage it can deal divided by learning curve. That's what we want right? Average joes who don't know squat mixed in with players with skill levels of all kinds to get an average and general conclusion as to which weapons perform the absolutely best for all skill levels.

Random joes would vote for the Krak-on because "It's so easy to just run people over and the Kraken is super cool!" while the informed ones give you a list of all it's pros and cons telling you in the end that it's "S rank"

At the same time even random joes are like "Ugh the rapid blaster is kinda cool but it sucks man." and the informed ones won't even have a conversation with you about it so there are definitely some weapons that skill levels of all kinds can agree are good and bad.

 

[MrL1193]

But I'm talking about viability, not tier listings. The original intended purpose of this thread is to come up with a viability list right? Amount of damage it can deal divided by learning curve. That's what we want right? Average joes who don't know squat mixed in with players with skill levels of all kinds to get an average and general conclusion as to which weapons perform the absolutely best for all skill levels.

Random joes would vote for the Krak-on because "It's so easy to just run people over and the Kraken is super cool!" while the informed ones give you a list of all it's pros and cons telling you in the end that it's "S rank"

At the same time even random joes are like "Ugh the rapid blaster is kinda cool but it sucks man." and the informed ones won't even have a conversation with you about it so there are definitely some weapons that skill levels of all kinds can agree are good and bad.

The points where the pros and the rookies agree are not the problem. The problem arises when they disagree. Since you're just taking a random sample of thousands of players, there are going to be far more random joes than pros. Thus, the opinions of those who know less will be the ones that win out, which is pretty much the opposite of what you want to have happen.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

You've made it pretty clear though that you only put the Krak-On Roller high on the list because you like it. Which defeats the purpose of a tier list at all.

I'm only going to address this as I plan on writing this up in a different way when and if I get the chance.

That is most certainly not the reason. And considering I didn't even imply the only reason is "because I like it" I'm going to assume you didn't read my post at all. If this was based off my opinion, Dynamo would be S, Kelp Splattershot would be S, and Heavy Splatling would be A+. But it's not. I expressed the reasoning as to why Krak-On is placed as high as it is, and I'll reiterate. It is an amazing Front line weapon, that allows it to get close and personal with the opposing team, Beakons allow it to get back in the action, and Kraken let's it get away when things get too out of hand. It's both successful, and effective at what it does. It takes little effort to use. Long story short, it is simple to pick up, and be successful with. It's as simple as that. It had absolutely nothing to do with my own personal opinion, it is based on results and what I've seen done with it. I don't "like" the Krak-On, it's just effective.

Before you get your panties in a wad, read out my thoughts on the matter before you automatically assume it's just personal preference.

 

[seakingtheonixpected]

I'm only going to address this as I plan on writing this up in a different way when and if I get the chance.

That is most certainly not the reason. And considering I didn't even imply the only reason is "because I like it" I'm going to assume you didn't read my post at all. If this was based off my opinion, Dynamo would be S, Kelp Splattershot would be S, and Heavy Splatling would be A+. But it's not. I expressed the reasoning as to why Krak-On is placed as high as it is, and I'll reiterate. It is an amazing Front line weapon, that allows it to get close and personal with the opposing team, Beakons allow it to get back in the action, and Kraken let's it get away when things get too out of hand. It's both successful, and effective at what it does. It takes little effort to use. Long story short, it is simple to pick up, and be successful with. It's as simple as that. It had absolutely nothing to do with my own personal opinion, it is based on results and what I've seen done with it. I don't "like" the Krak-On, it's just effective.

Before you get your panties in a wad, read out my thoughts on the matter before you automatically assume it's just personal preference.

You're ignoring all of the weapons shortcoming in order to push forwards it's benefits. You can't simply ignore the fact that Squid Beakons and Kraken tend to get their users killed. And it's in ways you can't even protect again.

If you Kraken enemies will watch you and wait for your Kraken to end. It's so easy to just run away with a .96 Gal Deco, wait until it almost over, throw down a splash wall and excute the Kraken. Maybe a smarter Kraken wouldn't chase me, but than what good is the Kraken doing them?

Same with Squid Beakons, whatever benefit they provide it takes 6 seconds to jump to a Beakon, and it 6 seconds someone can easily round a corner and set up to gun you down as you fall in. If they are smart they will do it at a distance, and you won't be able to trade like most Roller that fall in try to do. Even the Splat Roller could take advantage of this by simply Suction Bombing the player ring and walking away.

In fact I consider Squid Beakons to basically be free kills now, I ink around them and when someone is stupid enough to jump to it I just gun them down in cold-blood.

Here is a strate for you, got a Inkstrike? Their team aced? They got a Squid Beakon up? Cool! Just Inkstrike the Beakon when they come back and you will usually get a double or triple kill as they all try to get back using it. Easiest wins in the game.

Pro players DUDE and FLC agree with me by the way, they consider the weapon weak because all of its pieces have fatal flaws that prevent them from being good at higher ranks. Literally every piece of the Krak-On kit can be taken advantage of.

I mean think about it, the Krak-On Roller can only splat you if you literally are stupid enough to walk up to enemy ink. Anything with range and any sense of awareness will shoot any place a Krak-On might be hiding before the Krak-On gets a chance.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

I'm not going to even begin to try arguing with you. FLC actually pointed out that Krak-On should still be up in the upper tiers if we're going by the description this thread originally intended. You're acting like the normal Splat roller doesn't have equally as many ways top be exploited. Love how you point out every single possible flaw Krak-On has, but refuse to see the glaring problems Splat Roller has.
Beakons can be used as decoys too. So, while you're sitting there shooting it down, someone could very well be hiding else where waiting to take you out. See, the argument can go both ways.
Again, the reason for this thread was to show the VIABILITY, not ranking of each weapon. It is leagues easier to pick up the Krak-On due to its combination of sub and special than it is to effectively use the Vanilla Splat Roller.

Regardless, arguing your point is. . . pointless, as I've decided to give up on this project due to one, a lack of support. I'll admit I went about it wrong, but people went about making it known the wrong way, crushing any form of confidence I had in writing this.
Two, crap like this will happen where people are so set on one weapon and their opinion of it and refuse to see the hole they dig for themselves. This applies to both of us.
Three, People will think they are more knowledgeable despite having nothing to back it and automatically mean that is enough for their nomination to happen.
And Four, it's time consuming. Lol

 

[1o2]

FLC agree with me by the way,

Not related at all to your argument, but FLC has actually changed his mind about his stance on the Krak On roller after seeing the Japanese players just steamroll (punz) everyone using it in Inkstorm.