What Makes a Weapon "Viable?"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Squid School Links:
Patreon: / squid_school
TikTok: / squid_school
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / squidschool_spl
Twitch: / squid_school
Metafy: metafy.gg/@gem
This link allows you to support me through TH-cam's Memberships program: / @squidschool
#splatoon3 #tierlist #viable
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
This is very good timing and a good topic, chess analogy is perfect. I'd say for turf war that survivability is more important then paint. If you paint well but can't stay alive you die in the last 20 seconds and lose the game anyway. Turf has always favored survivability + paint.
For the reasons the video's addressed, I like to keep a secondary "main" for every competitive game mode. Just weapons that excel at a game mode and are comfortable enough for me to get adjusted to.
Imo, turf war is way more than "just painting" painting is a secondary thing, you need to prioritize keeping the enemy team at bay and trying to push in to weaken them, deaths are extremely punishing because one less teammate will make you extremely vulnerable, way more then any other mode, turf war is very intense and very splat heavy (unless the enemy team is squid partying lol)
As a chess player, I completely disagree with the comparison to chess. The meta for chess openings absolutely changes depending on your skill level, and it's very common for chess coaches to make two tierlists: one for beginners, and one for the more adept. It's very different from Splatoon where you would still recommend a beginner to pick up a charger if they're passionate about it and willing to put in extra time and effort towards learning it and building up to the skill floor required to see good results with it (a topic Gem does mention late in the video). On the contrary, you will never see a good chess coach recommended the Najdorf Sicilian or the Ruy Lopez opening to a beginner, because those openings are so difficult to grasp that teaching them to a beginner would be a detriment to their success; but at top level, those two openings are top meta picks because the complex nature of those openings makes games much sharper and less likely to end in a draw. I understand the point Gem was trying to make which is very accurate for Splatoon, and maybe that's all that matters, but I couldn't let that chess comparison slide without commenting on it. Great video otherwise though!
@@Nintendomoon - 🤓
"Woomy Darwinism" is my new favorite Splatoon-related expression.
It’s gonna be my favorite anything related expression out of context
My brain won't let me like this comment because its at 333. Help.
@@Splatilda Do your part to get it to 666 😈
Please note that Gem is not saying "Don't use your favorite weapon if it's low tier. You need to use a top tier weapon" He's just saying that players have to acknowledge the fact that some weapons are objectively worse than others, and that's ok.
absolutely true, for example I use Dapples even though they're outclassed, I just have fun zipping around like a 9 year old on crack
As a s pro main and former aerospray main I can confirm it’s really just comfort and not just ranking that makes a weapon good for you
@@18rocksthegames78 Absolutely agree 100% as a s pro main, I will go to it if I'm on a losing streak from learning other weapons just because it's a comfort pick and it'll ease the pain.
I took such a shine to the Tri-Stringer I knew it was going to be one of my mains, even if it was gonna be evaluated as a gutter-tier weapon. I stuck it out through its learning curve because I was having a *lot* of fun. But I am not offended when people rank it low because newbies who _don't_ enjoy its learning curve should know if there's a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow or not.
@@dackattac Yeah, and experienced players realize that Tri-Stringer is actually pretty solid after they learn how to position and trap and really use the kit's synergy
As a beginner myself, whenever I hear other beginners ask "What weapon is good for beginners?" I never interpreted it as "What weapon sees results quickly vs other beginners?"
I always interpreted it as "What weapons can teach me fundamentals + can be comfy to use for a while?" In that sense I'd say that the Clash Blaster also fails as a beginner weapon.
Yes
, man I remember thinking that weapon was unbeatable until I just...stopped running away and actually fought it.
@@wolflance64 huh... never thought of that
It's not a beginner weapon because you unlock at level 22?
@@slurples149 You are still a beginner by level 22. Level really does not define how good you are. Right now I am lvl.138 on Splat 2 and lvl.50 on Splat 3 and Sheeesh I remember how bad I was at when I was level 22 on Splat 2.
Some things I need to remember when a competitive player puts out information on weapons/playstyles/all that:
--They are not rejecting you as a person.
--They are not rejecting you as a player.
--They are not teasing, mocking, or bullying you.
--They are not calling you "lesser" of anything for not being their ideal.
--They are actually trying to help you.
--They care that you win and not lose.
--They care that you learn.
--They care that you enjoy yourself and have fun.
--They care and don't mind that you might think differently.
--They also like stupid comps because MEMES
--To each their own!
Thanks again Gem for such a great video.
Just want to say, go watch splat jp tournaments and you'll see different things being played and "meme" comps. They're "way" different than our tournaments over here.
@@CyQuelin Ooooooh, maybe I will! That sounds like fun!
Knowing when to stop using a weapon instead of making excuses for it is a sign of player growth.
I mained the Dapple Dualies for 3 until I tried to get into S+ and I absolutely was getting stuffed because of my range. I found myself unable to overwhelm people with my roll-spam because I’d hit a threshold where people would start abusing my range and lack of a bomb.
Soooo I had to swap. Went Dark Tetras and now I’m X 2200
Side note: This was before the alt kit came out. I still play it for fun but Tetras just are better \:(
This video reminded me of my favorite flc quote "You don't understand, as long as you just avoid [extremely common situation], it's busted"
"Brella is good! You just have to make up for the damage, damage to objects, ink efficiency, speed, kill time, range, paint, sub weapon, special output, downtime, fighting most specials, fighting aoe, fighting charger bow and splatana, and that it doesn't work 90% of the time"
"Just don't get hit"
As a brella player (splat brella and tent) you have to admit your weapon is bad sure you could play something else that is significantly better but when you are in love with a weapon class I don't care how low tier it is I just wanna play it
This is a very good and important concept right now because the meta can change so much over the lifespan of the game. But the end undercover could be meta depending on new kits, weapon buffs and nerfs
Which is a perfectly fair reason to play a weapon. Gem here is more talking about arguments made by people who don't understand the game and whose ignorance is blinding them to the goal of progressing rank; wanting to be good at a low or mid tier weapon, knowing its weakness and accepting it, is a separate endeavor.
Dynamo Roller
Even early on in splat 1 I knew brushes were a rough pick, but with the current vanilla kit being the best its ever been I can take advantage of 7 years of exp on top of it....but it's still not a god weapon I cant do everything and just get rolled.
There really isn't a weapon quite like the Undercover Brella, even if it is pretty bad.
I don't understand why people get upset when their main get's called a low tier.
As someone who plays splattershot pro (yes vanilla), I think good matches with it are all the more satisfying.
I think of the term "Viable" not as "how good it is by its own", but as "how strong it is in many situations".
Viability measures how strong weapons are against others. The stronger the weapon against other weapons are, the better it is to use, the more viable it can be for many players. Any weapon can be "good" in the right hands, but not all weapons can be "strong" in certain situations. Some players think Clash Blaster and Bloblobber are good, but the weapons are weak against stronger weapons like the Meta weapons we know.
Hence, viability is more of finding better value than standalone strength.
Can confirm, I reached rank S with just Bloblobber
Lobber isn't meta.... except on certain maps. It's a niche type of weapon..... therfore I must learn to play it to add to my list of weapons I understand
@@quack9pm also I like your name
@@crazfamily6931 They weren't saying it's meta, they're saying it's weak
@@apersonwhomayormaynotexist9868 same answer applies
Probably another good way to explain tier lists is, if all players are as close as possible to the same skill level, higher tiers will give you the best chance to win. This is true for all tier lists for all kinds of games.
One other thing I wanted to mention is that you focused a lot on "as you get better, your opponents get better", but you didn't really mention that your teammates also get better, which also matters a lot. For example, a weapon type that I would say tends to underperform at lower ranks are support weapons, because the teammates will likely not capitalize on that support effectively. Generally speaking, when playing with poor teammates, you have to be prepared to do whatever needs to be done, because you can't assume that your teammates will be able to do their own jobs (this inherently favours generalist weapons over specialists), but with better players you can focus more on playing to your weapon's specific strengths and (usually) trust others to compensate for your weaknesses, which does make the game feel quite different.
I think the most important thing to learn about Tier Lists is that, while every tier placement _has_ to have some form of subjectivity (watch any of Gem's tier list videos and you'll hear "I don't really think..." or "I feel like..." with every placement), their evidence is _always_ objective. People don't "feel like" Crab Tank is a strong special, they have watched many tournaments and seen many players with high X scores or multiple tournament placements or even scrim wins that succeeded more often by using it!
And that, alongside that, a weapon being low tier isn't just equivalent to "the weapon is bad" and that's the end of the story. I've always found it more helpful to think of it as... "no one's found a really good use for it yet". Really think about it! If someone won a tournament _tomorrow_ with the Aerospray MG and they had this fantastic strategy and maybe used this cool mechanic that people hadn't seen before or realized existed, *we would adjust our tier lists.*
I'm not saying that that's going to happen; in fact, take note of the fact that it hasn't happened! But we didn't get to "Splash is the best weapon in the game" because it seemed pretty good compared to everything, we watched it win MULTIPLE TIMES using fantastic strategies and unique mechanics!
But lastly, I wanted to add that many times Gem has said "if your only goal is to win, you should probably pick a better weapon than [insert low tier]."
And I think that that phrasing is actually _genius._ Some of us-- hell, I'd say the vast majority of us if we really stretch the bounds of this community _aren't_ in this _JUST_ to win, and there's almost a strange reluctance to admit it despite how normal that is! A lot of us want to understand the current low tiers, or are having a lot of fun using a weapon that we'd only briefly considered a few years ago, or you're one of the people who say "that weapon might get buffed down the line, so it's an advantage if you learn it now!"... I mean, this video literally has a story of someone whose goal wasn't just to win, but to see how far an Aerospray could go. And hell, some of us really are chasing that "I'm gonna find out what makes the Undercover Brella good and I'm gonna find something that no one else has". If that's you... just go for it.
You should know a weapon's viability when you use it, not because "that means you shouldn't pick it", but because it helps you think about your goals!
You should show how much you understand the game at a top level by doing a standing backflip
I think a big part of the problem w/r/t weapons is that the maps are just kind of bad design wise. When it's just single lanes feeding into a little arena with few flanks the game starts to shake out worse weapons because smart play stops being able to save them
It all goes back to the maps doesn’t it?
This is my biggest issue right now with calling (most) weaker weapons "bad" or "not viable," because they're only weaker than (again, most) other weapons because Spoon 3 has very VERY bad map design. Take Sloshing Machine for example, it has a good kit and its a decent main weapon, sure, but why is it played? Because the maps favor long- to mid-ranged zoners, which Machine is basically the ideal form of. Same goes for craeb; it zones out 90% of the maps in the game, but its not broken when used in less "optimal" positions, because in those positions its functioning as intended, as a hard to approach but easy to kill turret.
Meanwhile the Brella class is entirely pointless at the moment and needs a full rework, and basically all of its issues stem from the weapons themselves, that point I think literally everybody agrees on.
This is why I miss Splatoon 1 maps. Don't get me wrong, I love some of the smaller/compact/more mid-centric stages in Splatoon 2 and 3 maps. I think we need maps like those to balance out the more complicated maps from Splatoon 1. But the lack of creative and complicated maps from Splatoon 1 really shows. I miss Urchin Underpass, I miss Saltspray Rig and all it's twists and turns, I miss original Hammerhead Bridge, Mahi-Mahi Resort... even some Splatoon 2 stages like Humpback Pump Track, Starfish Mainstage, Snapper Canal, New Albacore Hotel (admittedly I could just go back to Splatoon 2 but like... I have Splatoon 3 now I just want them to come back). Having tons of movement options around the map just made things more fun!
@@MintAndFriends I'm incredibly disappointed in the Splatoon devs with splatoon 3. They add two new movement mechanics, both related to making movement less slow and more dynamic, and then restrict those movement options by making the least player-friendly maps I've ever seen in a videogame. That one grate in Flounder Heights is the perfect example.
Tall, flat wall, check. Open platform overlooking the area below with a slight blindspot, check. Seems like the perfect Squid Surge spot, no?
boom, unpaintable wall.
Don't even get me started on that dumpsterfire of a map that is "Unpaintable bamboo wall springs"
@@MintAndFriends I'd love for Humpback to return unaltered. That was one of my favorite maps because there were so many angles of approach and the map itself was curved in a fun way that more mobile weapons could zip around with ease but didn't necessarily dominate. Just a good map overall.
I think the rhetoric of class viability differing between ranks largely comes from games like overwatch, where they fully believe that a high skill, high potential hero is not worth playing in lower range, this is mainly aimed at more codependent characters (supports like ana, tanks like winston, and more vulnerable DPS like Cassidy) because they usually need followup or support from their allies to really shine, and you won't get that in low ranked games, or at least that's what is typically said.
personally though, I think it just normalizes bad mentalities and selfish play, and only serves to perpetuate the issue of people never wanting to play as a team.
Yeah, I've heard that too. I think it's true to an extent, in that certain galaxy brain strategies don't work, but I don't think it affects overall character viability all that much. For instance, I can still keep my Bronze team healed as Ana, and enemy Cassidys still do a great job of killing me, especially in Deathmatch.
I'd say it happens even less in Splatoon, though it does happen with Squid Beakons if your team doesn't know how to use them. And in that case, you just need to make sure to set your Beakons in places you will personally find useful, and let others come for the ride if they want.
@@thehans255 I think that Galaxy brain strats typically have the same effectiveness throughout ranks as well, is that they may work once but likely won't work out all that often.
Typically in these games, reliability is king, and something that can get consistent results in high ranks should still get consistent results in low ranks.
"HA! But I had 68 splats with undercover bella in ranked.
Once
In C-"
Amazing synergistic timing with ProChara’s
Tierlist video
I'm not exactly a top-level player, but I like to look at less viable weapons to try and understand them. I do want to get to X rank and optimize my play, but I also enjoy learning a weapon well enough that it will clarify the advice and information I hear about it. To be honest, even though it's a slim chance for a player with only partial understanding of high-ranked play, I also really like the idea of playing a part in discovering a new meta for a weapon, even if it's something with a really high skill ceiling, like some type of "point sensor Slayer" or something like that. But I still go for more viable weapons when it comes to focusing on improvement, because those weapons will provide more opportunities to make mistakes, as my weapon will less often be the cause of disadvantages. Improving will also give me a better understanding of the game, and therefore a better understanding of a weapon.
I highly recommend trying stamper If you want to try to make a new meta.... stamper is interesting and definitely could work
"Yeah, but I got 5 kills and 11 deaths once! The Aerospray is an absolute beast of an aggressive weapon!"
"This is wrong because I won 6 times in a row and haven't been able to get close to that since with my REEF-LUX"
This is how you look if you use these arguments
You could say that tier lists… are based on Ink Theory…
*kazoo intensifies*
I like this video cause like, a weapon can be better than others but also like if you *do* enjoy a weapon you can still get results. Its just a matter of you could probably get *better* results on a better weapon.
one thing i do have to thank the aerospray for is that it helped me build confidence in the game. i often struggle to learn movement and aiming controls (especially motion controls) and felt really embarrassed joining matches with weapons that required more finesse because i would get stuck in corners or miss easy shots. the reefslider helped me move quickly instead of getting lost in the map, and the scattered spray of the weapon made it so i wasn’t constantly stressed out over precise aiming
as i grew more comfortable with the game and practised different skills in the singleplayer campaign, i was able to start using higher tier weapons in turf war while still having a good handle on the maps due to my time with the aerospray. that being said: am i gonna go back to it any time soon? maybe, probably just in between trying new weapons out if i need a break, but i’ve been having a lot of fun experimenting now that i have the confidence to do so.
One thing that I learned from the fgc is that it's also okay to be INTERESTED in competitive play but also be casual. If you like a weapon so much that you feel the need to argue for it (while knowing in your heart that the tier list is probably accurate), just have fun with it! It's okay for your goal to be getting better with a mid weapon if you're just having fun and not trying to make a career out of Splatoon. I've played Zelda in smash in every iteration she's in and Dee-Jay in every street fighter game because I was having fun, tier list be damned. I still entered tournaments, but it was for my own enjoyment, not because I had aspirations of sponsorships. And it made for cool and exciting moments when I could beat people, but I didn't have unrealistic expectations either. At the end of the day, it's a choice! But tier lists are valuable for the info they provide. When almost everyone has your weapon as bottom tier, you have a choice to make about being competitive or casual! 🗿
Do you think that claims you’re seeing warrants a video about casual vs. competitive vs. top level mindsets? Because it seems like a topic most fail to grasp when taking into account the claims made by said players
I think everything you said can be true AND some weaker weapons can also be more viable at lower levels of play. The kinds of people that are commenting about your tier lists only being relevant for top level play are probably mostly people who have no interest in competitively playing the game. They play it casually and are just there to have fun and find a play style they like. They'll never make it out of B rank, and they'll consistently be matched with players who make a lot of mistakes, and don't punish mistakes made by opposing players.
Yes, player skill is not a useful variable to consider when making a tier list, but it does affect how the game is played. It does affect the decision making by every player in the game, and therefore can affect what weapons are viable. Lower skill = more weapons are able to be played effectively.
Basically I'm trying to say that my gut feeling is that there's simply a disconnect with competitive players and the kind of language they use and casual players not understanding the point of videos like this.
For the Glooga Dualies to be more viable, what buff would you recommend? I love them so much but I feel that I'm letting down my team or forcing them to paint to cover for me. What do you think?
Maybe a painting buff?
plenty of weapons force others to paint to cover for them. it's a negative, but it's not the worse thing ever. glooga is still a good weapon!
Gem doesn’t recommend buffs for weapons, this channel’s philosophy for that is “I don’t care how the weapon is improved as long as it is improved”
They have the same kill time as the .52 gal after committing to a dodge roll, maybe a higher fire rate after rolling would help?
He made a video on why he thinks this question is flawed, check that out
Players seem to forget that you can play amazing with low tier weapons. One of my favorite weapons is a B tier the Tri-Slosher. I’m the most comfortable & play my best with it. High splat rate & high ground control rate. But it has a horrible kit & even I know there’s better weapons in the same category. I just love using it.
Something that does matter a ton is whether or not you have control over your team comp (ie, whether you're playing in a premade or not). When playing alone and having no control over your comp, weapons that are highly versatile inherently perform better than weapons that are reliant on having a specific team comp to shine. I don't think this actually affects the top tiers very much because they tend to be good at everything, including versatility, but I think it shifts some of the mid tiers around a fair bit. I don't really think it's worth making a separate SoloQ tier list, but it can account for some differences in observed performance for a few weapons.
Yeah, challenge runs/plays are only fun until you’re at the level where you realize that the only way you’re getting the clip is by getting lucky enough to be matched up against somebody who doesn’t know how to counter it or react. They’re definitely fun until you get to that level, and that’s why such videos are so fun to watch for so many people. I wouldn’t really say either side of this is good or bad - it’s a video game, and having fun IS the most important, even if said fun just constitutes being better enough than the enemy to use counterable strategies that they simply can’t counter. It feels good to feel like you’re good, whether or not you’re ACTUALLY good.
Yeah, if I could add any addendum to a video, it’s that this channel is focused on the competitive side of the game, but will naturally attract viewers from all different sides of the goals spectrum, from wanting to be actually good, to just wanting to feel good that they played well in S rank, to those who just want to have fun getting some splats and high ink numbers in turf war. Saying which weapons are viable is therefore not going to be aimed at all of these audiences - a tier list can be good information to inform your decision of which weapon to play, but in the end, literally you do you - having fun is the name of any game.
People sometimes feel attacked by a tier list as if they’re being told that they’re wrong for playing a weapon, but in the end what’s fun is fun. There’s the argument that beating better players COULD be more fun, therefore making a higher tier weapon a good recommendation, but COULD is the operative word - it’s different for everyone.
Also, when it comes to Turf War, I agree that it's not a completely different game from ranked and most of the good weapons are still really good. However, there are of course some small differences in that mode that can matter, sort of like how in Rainmaker, Object Damage is more highly valued and Tacticooler performs better as a special. Rather obviously, paint output is a fair bit more important in Turf War. Of course, all weapons paint, but how quickly you can paint is often critical. There's many situations where you might win a team fight near the time limit and how much of the map you can take in that time determines whether or not you win. I certainly wouldn't recommend picking weapons that can't fight at all and can only paint fast purely for this purpose (since this reduces the chance that you'll win that teamfight and get to this situation in the first place), but it does matter a fair bit more than it would in ranked.
I also think we have to stop talking about "the aerosprays" as though they're the same weapon. RG is a drastically different weapon from MG. Swapping out the worst special in the game for one of the best makes a big difference. If we traded out Splash-O-Matic's Crabtank for Reefslider it would instantly cease to be relevant in the meta. I feel like RG is slightly underrated in Ranked, but particularly for Turf War I feel it's hard to deny it's one of the best. This isn't just an "I get good results with it" argument, it also has an extremely high pickrate and consistently puts out very good numbers whether it's in my hands or someone else's. By comparison, MG still tends to perform quite poorly even in Turf War, which is almost undeniably its best mode.
I feel like the validity of people using weak weapons because they are fun to play is a bit undersold here.
But, this channel's target audience is ostensibly people who are trying to improve at the game and rank up. The message of this video is the message those people need to hear, no question about it.
But as a PSA to everyone else out there only watching out of curiosity, a weapon or strategy can be effective at a lower level of play, even if it is not "objectively" good (nor good at comp play). And also- f*ck playing good weapons if you're playing for fun!! Go enjoy whatever silly cheese strategy you found! Love y'all! :>
13:43 this was a necessary thing to point out in this video. i think the very most important thing when playing splatoon-and _any_ game-is that you're having fun and not tanking your mindset, so just use a weapon you're enjoying. but people watching your content are, like you said, seeking out advice from a professional splatoon coach-a part of their mindset is engaging competition and coming out ahead. to not stall _that_ kind of mindset requires open-mindedness to advice, critique, and acknowledging the expertise of others
if you're invested in a tier list, you should respect what information it tells you. if you're winning with a low-tier weapon, that's great! you can easily explore a higher tier weapon and expect to see expedient results. if you're losing to a low tier weapon, that should be a sign that you are probably faltering at your fundamentals
though, i do think that it's important to point out that tier lists for _team based_ games are significantly different enough from fighting game / 1v1 game tier lists
Me, undercover main, after a wipeout: heehoo haha my weapon sucks and I still single-handedly wiped out 3/4 of your team.
What makes a weapon or kit better is subjective. There are a lot of strategies and tactics someone could use in the game to make something successful. What a lot of people like to use or do in the game/match, even at a high level, doesnt mean other things arent capable there as well; its just the most popular way at that time with that base of players. The volume of data doesnt particularly show potential of a weapon, kit, or strategy/team-strategy.
Specials, sub weapons, abilities and stats all change how a player can play the game and how he can help his team achieve a win. I think the question about weapon viability keeps coming up is because its inconclusive. A great player can make anything work if it meets their idea of what things are useful in the game and useful to help them win matches. I think a lot of people just end up or even preferring more popular weapons as they come up.
The mechanics of splatoon and the goals of a match are unique in that there are a lot of ways to do something or help achieve even at a high level that we just might not have seen yet. I hope some of that made sense lol
i don't like how elitist people are with how dismissive they are of "low tier" weapons, sometimes even calling them unusable in a game where no weapon is unusable - splatoon 3 is incredibly well balanced for videogame standards. basically every weapon can work, and you should focus on enjoying the game more than anything :)
I think the only thing youre wrong about is people looking at tier lists in order to gain perspective on their own weapon choice and to make an informed decision on that. The majority of people actually look at tierlists to validate the opinions they already have.
i have a ton of fun with tri-stringer, and i can guarantee using hydra would bring in more wins. yet i don’t use it because i just find stringer so much more fun and don’t enjoy the slowness and stationary positioning hydra can have. so i can say i will play stringer even if it’s not the most meta pick and learn the best ways to make it kick butt :]
I really hate the way Hydra plays, the million-year charge feels awful. Heavy 4 life
Stringer actually has advantages over hydra, though, and it's definitely a weapon that could be run on top level teams if someone at top level tried and had fun with it. I wouldn't say that hydra would definitely bring in more wins, especially if you're well trained in stringer. Honestly, hydra and stringer arent even really comparable, they're two completely different kinds of weapons that do two completely different things, one is more chip damage, weird shots over cover, and the one shot threat, whereas hydra obviously is a splatling which plays much differently.
@@apersonwhomayormaynotexist9868 I was about to say the same thing haha, especially as a Tri-Stringer player myself. I think Stringer's even considered to be a little higher tier-wise than Hydra atm considering how it 2-shots Crab Tank with object shredder. And even though Tri-Stringer has much less range than Hydra and E-Liter, it can still overcome them in the right situations - such as by using its ability to shoot over cover/walls, which Hydra and Liter can't do, or its quicker charge time (if you even wanted to compare them).
They are super different though, 100% - even if they're both backlines, they play super differently (and both have their own ways of kicking butt :)
I typically tell new players to start with weapons with Splattershot in the name (maybe not Nova since it's playstyle is a bit odd) and then once they get the hang of motion controls and aiming to start trying other weapons.
Best explanation I've heard, thanks Gem!
I decided very early on that I was going to be a tri-stringer main. I used it in the pre-release fest, it was the first weapon I bought. I powered through all the people telling me that it sucks and all the "one of seven tri-stringer users lol" memes. At first I barely did anything, I consistently scored middling to low. Over time though, my thoughts turned to instinct, and enough usage, things just clicked. I could determine my arrow's ranges without thinking about it, I could chip enemies away to splat or ink their feet so my teammates could get them. And in best case scenarios, I could nail a bullseye and one shot an enemy. The more I played it, the more I began to understand its flaws, how it was terrible at inking before it was buffed, how Toxic Mist is only marginally useful on it. And no matter how much I saw wrong with it, I stood by it. Maybe out of pride, maybe out of spite, not really sure at this point. And while I don't consider myself a master of the game or even the weapon yet (Hell, I don't even think I'm that good at the game period), it is still my most beloved weapon. But throughout my time with it, I noticed a strange thing with it on the tier scene. It was all over the place, my guess was because it was one of the two new weapon types and people hadn't found a niche for it yet. Generally the main consensus was that it "did a bunch of things okay but there is always better choices". Then later, it was claimed that it was "excellent for chip damage", and later still it was claimed as "one of the best object shredders". I think what I'm trying to say is that I've been all over the place with the Tri-Stringer and you mentioning how some weapons have a higher skill floor than others made me reflect the road I've taken with my weapon of choice. When things just sort of clicked for me, my win rate increased, my rank went up and I overall have had more fun. I know I got a long way still but even if unintentional, thanks for helping me gain the reflection I needed to realize where I am and the road still ahead of me.
Thanks and all, but still gonna use my undercover through S rank to the X
Did it BTW
Good job ! I could never, though I did experiment with clash during my S-rank days and was pretty good with it.
@@j-rex229 you can do it
i understand and respect your points as a spatoon vet, the first half just has a very cocky feeling to it
In most competitive games, I've always found myself drifting toward low tier and generally unviable options because I enjoy pushing unique advantages that fundamentally change the way the game is played and change the way the opponent has to think about dealing with me, even if consistent counterplay can be devised. If I can keep finding ways to disrupt counterplay for niche options, I much more enjoy the battle than when I'm just slapping on the best gear and meta slaving the options that have the most proven consistency
But I got out of D- with the Undercover brella so it must be good!
"What makes a weapon viable? The one that inks the heavens with your soul!" -My Splatoon Motto.
I always find it funny when people change their entire play style and play things they don't like because it's the meta. I love Brush and Bucket and while they are in a good place, I'd play them if they weren't because I like them. Hell, my shooter of choice is L3 because I like burst fire weapons and am not a fan of automatic weapons. I remember seeing a couple Undercovers in turf war that were constantly kicking my ass. Play what you enjoy and work things out from there
What confuses me is why people would make arguments about why their "x" low tier weapon is actually top tier. If it's being considered low tier, that's -better- for you, because you will continue to find situations that allow that weapon to work where it ordinarily wouldn't, and you will have more time to work with that weapon without it being altered by balance changes.
That’s either because of two things; one, the weapon fits a very specific niche well, and struggles elsewhere, or two, the weapon’s potential has not been discovered, usually by people not playing how it’s supposed to be played or just disregarding it.
There's something that bugs me about this. I don't think a weapon can be objectively good or bad on its own, it's only good or bad when you compare it to not just the other weapons in its own class, not just the weapons in its own "playstyle", but how it compares against the weapons its fighting against. Time and time again we have seen weapons shoot up in teir lists just because some top level player gave the weapon a chance and then everyone picks up that weapon, ie Splatana Stamper. How can we have objectively good or bad weapons when a weapons "viability" is largely dependant on the public perception of that weapon?
Pro and Splash are very simmilar. Both have simmilar TTS, both have a chip damage sub that outranges and combos with their main and both have Crab Tank. In many ways Pro is even better than Splash such as its range and its cheaper crab and the ability for Line Marker to mark players. But when "Pro Players" say it's mediocre, not bad, mediocre, because they don't want to bother how to learn to use Line Marker/Angle Shooter, it just frustrates me. I have not seen a single video on how to skip line marker, a technique that makes it significantly easier to combo with your main weapon. Not only that but replacing Splash with Pro in a comp allows you to coordinate attacks against ELiter, another "top teir" because Line Marker can safely chip at it.
Also "there aren't any good counter picks for Splash?". Tri Stringer is super effective against crab! It does amazing object damage and it can hit crab over cover. But because it's a very "technical weapon" that's "mid teir" noone wanst to pick it up.
The problem with setting tier lists on a pedastool is that it discourages players from using "mediocre" weapons that have the potential to strongly disrupt the meta. Thats what makes a meta healthy, encouraging counterplay and looking at different ways weapons can be played to counter current top teirs. At the end of the day tier lists are still just opinions, not objective truth and to suggest as such makes you look like an egotistical ass, epecially when you talk about weopns you don't put time into. 500-1000+ hrs doesn't mean shit if all you play is 3 or 4 weapons.
How can you in the same video say that tier lists are an objective analysis of opinions and discussions by Pro Level players and then criticize other players for thinking some weapons are good because they go against your supposed "objectivity" it's extremely hypocritical, pompous, and elitist.
You dont understand bro I used to beat my little brother with Roy all the time hes really good
HE'S GOT FIRE
I used to be one of those people who thought certain weapons were "turf war meta" until I started using weapons like tetras which are good but not incredible painters and starting winning more
I always appreciate your tier lists. I have been guilty of saying "how can x be bad when I horns splats?" in the past. I slip up sometimes, and have to remind myself that just because *i'm* good with a certain weapon doesn't mean the Weapon itself is good. Sometimes it's just okay, other times it's just bad. This is why I find it very important to learn your way around the weapon you want to main though.
There's no such thing as a "beginner weapon" to me in this game. So instead, when my friends ask me, I ask them what play style they usually prefer. *Then* tell them the pros and/or cons of the weapon they're using. Short range, great paint output. Long range, not good at painting. Long range, great painting, but low damage. Etc etc.
An alternative title for this video is "listen to gem tell you why you're a dumbass passive aggressively for 16 minutes"
Pro players hate it when you go against the accepted 'meta'
No, he's incredibly understanding and trying to say this in the nicest way possible. Why do yall act like this, he isn't the problem, you are.
@@johndelanie3649 You do understand Gem isn't a pro player, correct? He's not top level, he's just smart and understands the game
@@apersonwhomayormaynotexist9868 personally I really like gem and what he does, for the community and easy access to a lot of really helpful info, same with other pro players with TH-cam channels, but the way they talk about weapons and their users just exudes so much arrogance and annoys the shit out of me so much sometimes, best example is one of gems recent uploads about Sheldon and his tips and prochara when he talks about the napples
Just because something is good/bad at high level, does not mean the same is true down at the bottom. To prove this, I will counter your chass analogy with a chess analogy: The Ruy Lopez is one of the best openings for chess grandmasters, but a huge waste of time for beginners for many reasons: 1. WAAAAAAAAAY too much to study and memorize. 2. Nobody will ever play what you study because you will be the only beginner to have studied it. 3. Even if you became a grandmaster overnight, you still haven't mastered the much more common Sicilian Defense, which has just as much theory to study. Please don't make chess analogies again. Thank you.
noob: i have 100 hrs in splatoon 3
pro: i have 3000 hrs in splatoon 1, 5000 hrs in splatoon 2 and 1000 hrs in splatoon 3
weapon tier list: i have 3000 hrs x 4 players x 16 teams x 4 regions ( Japan -1 , North America -2 , Europe -3, and a combination region covering Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Korea -4 )
Just play the way you want to play, and don't let a dumb list get you discouraged.
I find it odd watching this content as someone who doesn’t want to actively improve skill, given I have issues with emotions and that is an area that will only destroy me. I have roughly the same amount of time (or more) in 3 compared to 2, yet I actually enjoy myself and want to play more because competitive mindset destroys Splatoon for me.. and other PvP games (like how I was going to quit Fortnite Battle Royale for good until there was the ability to play 100% not only lobbies).
I still strongly believe that a player will always get better results from a less-viable weapon that feels natural to use for them, than with a more-viable weapon that actively frustrates them.
And for some people, and some weapons, no amount of learning will make a weapon *FEEL* better to use, if its just not a weapon well-suited to that player.
For example I understand that undercover brella is a low viability weapon, but I still tend to perform better with it than nearly any other kit because it just feels the most natural to me out of anything in the game.
[EDIT] Now, granted, I'm a bit of an oddity who's in kindof a halfway point between "casual" and "competitive" mindsets, but still.
By which I mean I don't want to just try and climb as high as possible and "get good" at the game, I want to try and be the best version I can of my natural playstyle. And if that ends up capping out at a certain point, then so be it.
It's important to reevaluate each weapon as well. As someone who though Tri-Strike was one of the worst specials in the game, I think it being on the Splattershot makes it significantly better. I agree that Tri-strike is under tuned, however I've come to believe Ttek is at least equivalent to the Vshot.
Ttek is the best Tri-strike weapon. The only other weapons with Tri-strike are Brella, Rapid, and VSlosher. None of those weapons can paint effectively plus the Ttek has a 190p Tri strike while the others have a 200p Tri-strike. This means the Ttek will get Tri-strike more often than any other Tri-strike weapon. That doesn't make the mechanics of the special any better, but it does improve it in a meaningful way. For example, look at the 2.0 Missile nerf. The missiles themselves haven't changed but the special isn't as good as it used to be due to having to wait for the special meter to deplete before farming for missiles again.
Comparing Tri-strike and Booyah is fair considering they do similar things, but Booyah isn't just a better Tri-strike. Tri-strike is immediate pressure, at least compared to Booyah. With booyah it takes about five seconds to shoot up, charge, aim, and throw before any pressure is applied. With Tri-strike you pop it and the torrents of ink appear in about 3 seconds. Those two seconds can make a ton of difference, especially in Zones. A good example of what I'm talking about is comparing Charger to Liter. Liter has more range than Charger, but has bad mobility for that extra range. Booyah is a more extreme therefore "better" version of tri-strike, but Tri-strike deploys faster. Sometimes you need that faster pressure.
On top of all that, the Splat bomb is significantly better for it than suction bomb. With the Splattershot wanting to be up on the front lines taking space, a bomb that's going to detonate faster is always going to be better.
In terms of practical use, the Ttek holds a minimum of 83.5 points over the Vshot in every mode. The biggest difference being 306.1 in TC. These figures are from X battle data provided by the SplatNet 3 app. I checked all these figures on Jan 6 so some of these may have changed. So as someone who used to think the Ttek wasn't going to topple the Vshot, it seems that the top players have shown otherwise.
I find that people start to feel attached to their weapons when they’ve used them for so long, but at a certain point changing weapons is a sign of your skill growing. Weapons like Bloblobber or Clash Blaster are useful for new players since they’re simple and feel powerful at those lower skill levels, but as your skills improve you can get more rewards from using weapons with a higher skill floor.
I personally still play bloblobber a lot, but that’s more because I’m a casual player who doesn’t put most of their energy into actively improving like others do. I’m still trying to branch out into other weapons too though, since I know that just playing one weapon all the time will get pretty boring fast (and I like to win during splatfests lol)
I hate this argument, "But I got x kills with x weapon so it's not that bad".
When said weapon is barely used overall, especially in the pro scene, you already know its objectively not good. Numbers don't lie, what works for you might not work for others.
Even for weapons that *are* better at turf war... You aren't making content for turf war. Your main focus is people who want to improve in ranked modes or those who may be interested in the competitive scene. Adding a bunch of footnotes and "well this weapon stinks but you might be able to get away with it in turf war" only muddies the water and makes content harder to follow.
Me saying a weapon is "good" at Turf war or low level pubstomping is basically as irrelevant as me trying to talk about a Chemistry problem to my Biology teacher: Just because they're both science subjects (or game modes), doesn't mean a given teacher is gonna be invested in all of them.
Well, as a hero shot player, I've come to accept that my weapon is Absolute Worst tier but I won't stop palying it ;)
Splattershot (Hero shot and both of it's kits) are probably some of the most well rounded kits and main weapons there is. While yes all I see in X battle is splash-o-matics, I do think that the weapon has never been a low tier throughout the past two months we've all played the game.
@@justanotherdeli I think that they refer to a tier list where both Splattershot and Hero Shot were ranked with the latter being at the bottom as a joke.
@@nimroddafny7125 That would make more sense now that I've found the one you're referring to 😂
you are unironically the most useful youtuber I have ever watched
lots of times, dismissal of tier lists and whatnot seems to come from a place of not believing that individual player skill is a factor among others, instead of THE factor that single-handedly decides matches.
most of the people who think this way would probably be less concerned about imperfectly balanced metagames being a factor if they understood, say, how much of a factor /plain dumb luck/ tends to be
2400 Power is my current goal with my dynamo. I recently broke a skill wall and got into 2200 power, I was so happy. I'm excited to see a new dynamo kit, and the one I want is Tempered, but I don't know how well it will work in 3
I've been thinking about this a lot lately in relation to competitive games, especially the common argument that "tier lists only matter at top level," which is usually used to shut down any discussion of character/weapon strength that isn't coming from a top player. I'm trying to improve at fighting games (currently Guilty Gear Strive) and I've been feeling frustrated lately with my main (Faust) because he feels weak compared to the top tiers of that game. The game starts to feel "unfair" when I compare his tools and the reward he gets in different situations to those of stronger characters. So I keep debating with myself about if I'd enjoy the game more and better achieve my goal of improving if I played a stronger character, or if he ended up getting more significant buffs. But I love the character and the way he plays, so I want to stick with him. If I bring up the fact that he's considered low tier, or try to compare his strength to that of other characters, I'm always met with "tier lists only matter at top level, any character can win," but the core feeling that I'm struggling with isn't addressed. Which is that he's weaker overall, and therefore holding me back in some way. Which forces me to choose between a character whose playstyle resonates with me, or a character who is stronger, but feels less comfortable for me. Which again starts to feel "unfair" compared to someone whose top tier main fits them like a glove. In the example of Strive, many top Faust mains from older games (where he was top tier) completely dropped Strive after deciding he wasn't worth playing and there wasn't a character in the game that resonated with them the same way. This is also why I don't play Smash Bros. Melee, even though it seems like a ton of fun, because the character balance is pretty rough and none of the competitively viable characters resonate with me.
TLDR; I guess what I'm struggling with overall is the frustration with feeling like I'm being held back if I don't play a top tier character/weapon in a competitive game, even if I'm not at a top level, and probably never will be. And I don't really have a good way of venting/discussing those frustrations with other players without getting shut down.
But i feel like the thought process behind the comments adressed in the video isnt "i know my playstyle is bad/not good enough but people tell me otherwise" and rather "i can play with that no problem so why is he saying its bad?" And gem wants to correct that and show that there Arena advantages at every Level
Although i could be missing the point of your comment so please correct me.
Turndownforwalt had a good video describing your problem. "A good Roy can beat any Fox" or something like that for the video. He breaks it down that a Roy can do well, but he just needs more neutral wins, more hits, more of everything to do what someone like Marth can do in 1 or 2 exchanges.
And I guess that's what it comes down to. Can you be fine with knowing you're not as good in as many situations as other choices can be? Do you go for comfort or practical?
In a fighting game context, tier lists definitely only refer to equally skilled high level players battling.
It is not used to shut down discussion from lower players. It just means that some tactics work very well at more novice levels (e.g. looping Riot Stomp and Honda Hands) and some characters (e.g. Zato) need work to be great.
I recommend watching the Brian_F video where he’s reacting to an anecdote of someone who just reached Gold rank in SFV. (tl;dw: you basically need to learn a “different game” and rank up past a certain point before you reach the level where you finally play the same game as the pros - comparable to say, using Clash Blaster to get carried to S before finally switch to Splash-O)
Will you enjoy Strive better using Goldie, Ram, Leo or Nago? Maybe, but you should try it in case it sticks. You might find a new side character. That said, Faust has won a Tatakai Tuesday and has top 8’d in majors so it’s not like he’s unviable or anything.
Follow-up: if you feel held back by using Faust then you should definitely drop Faust. Or try to. Sometimes you try a “better” character and learn new things you can apply to your old one. Maybe it will cause you to miss your old character and make you come back.
I am a TFH player. Paprika is trash. I already tried 4 other different characters, but I always come back to Paps. I am trying out Texas now, let’s see if that sticks.
@@lolllama The reason I commented on this video in particular is because Gem is acknowledging that weaker weapons still exhibit those weaknesses at a lower level, which I saw as a counter to the argument that "tier lists only matter at a top level, any weapon can win." So I guess I was hoping to discuss this without the notion that weapon or character strength is irrelevant unless you're a pro.
Weapon viability is just which weapons do the developers want to be good.
Machine: it's like a clash blaster but it doesn't have any of the weaknesses of clash.
Short range shooters: let's allow weapons to squidbag while firing and still have good dps. I see no issues here.
E liter: who made these maps?
Missiles: people complained about these in 2. It should be fine to bring them over unchanged.
Crab. What if we had a special that was a tank and gave you armor and shot really far and did a lot of damage and had a protection mode and has no endlag and paints well and lasts a long time. And put it on an already annoying shooter that should be fine.
Why do ppl act so dense when it comes to tier lists. Like all critical thinking flies out the window just cause “BuT i WOn WiTh bIG sWig”
I’m trying to build a gear set for splash but I don’t know where to find top level players’ builds. Where can I find them?
I do think it's also important to keep in mind that comms from tournament is also different to soloqueue where you don't have communication. Can break what weapon is good and bad.
An other thing is that obviously turfwar has very different good weapons compared to ranked and even different ranked modes having different better weapons.
So what you're getting at is that "A skilled Undercover could beat any Splash"
I think I've reached the point where I stop making excuses, like I can admit that Dapples aren't meta but I use them because they're fun
Look Gary there I am!!! I'm the Flingza in the latter half of the video! just trying to get 5 stars and grind out chunks ;o;
and huh, that video was just from this morning... you got that out fast!
I disagree.
First, you are making the assumption that the best weapons for competitive are the best weapons for solo ranked. These are two completely different meta games. You aren't running into super coordinated teams when playing ranked. You aren't running into full meta comps in ranked. Even when you do, they still aren't as coordinated as the teams who play competitive. There's not even a guarantee that they are even good at their weapons. This leads into the second point.
You are ignoring that skill level _does_ matter when it comes effective strategies. Your opponents are not always the greatest players in the game. Your opponents are people roughly around your skill level. As you know, people have different skillsets in different ranks. Using your Clash Blaster example, you are correct that it becomes less effectiveness the better the players. However, this does not change the fact that it is still effective at certain levels. The Clash Blaster would be very viable at those levels. I don't think it is entirely possible to ignore anecdotal when it comes to viability. If someone keeps winning with that weapon, you can easily argue that the weapon they are using is viable for their rank. You can argue, "Top level players aren't using that and can beat," but it doesn't mean much if those players aren't playing exclusively against top level players.
This is why I think tier lists are ultimately pointless. The data will almost never reflect what the average player will deal with. You can rank weapons as low tier, but it doesn't stop people from doing well with that weapon. For example, if you see an Undercover on the enemy team, you can't just go "Look, free win."
Dynamo is objectively worse in this game than in 2, especially without MPU and having a kit that doesn’t match very well with the weapon, but I still love playing it. It’s so fun to learn how to flick the right way in order to get someone. I really hope the gold dynamo gets booyah or another sub/special that fits better, but until then I’ll still enjoy the weapon.
Please properly normalise and compress your audio, your speech is far quieter than your intro and in general the volume of the video is very low.
you're halfway to your gladwell 10,000 hours for objective splatoon expertise!!! only 4,200 to go!!
Those numbers weren't me, I just made those up. I had over 6k in S2 and no idea what to make of my S3 numbers because they're inflated drastically with how long the game stays turned on without being played while I'm making videos.
I realized that I’m a decent player when I got sad for being overall splatter as explosher
Why people get mad when their favorite weapon is low is beyond me, like doing better with a bad weapon is a good thing.
I think the only statement in this video that I disagree with is 10:40 "People who are watching a tier list are trying to make sure their weapon choice isn't holding them back in any way" Gem if that was universally true would you need to make this video? As your audience grows, you'll see more and more people that are just here for funny squid game, and aren't necessarily intent on improving. I am glad you addressed this tho, at least so you have an answer to those dismissive comments, but those comments will always be there
I thought skill floor meant "how much value you get with no/little skill" not "how much skill you need to get value" i may be wrong.
The floor and celing are both measures of value, the floor being the minimum value regardless of skill (no matter how bad you are, you can't contribute less than this)
And the skill ceiling is the maximum amount of value you can get, regardless of skill.
So for a charger, the skill floor is scaring people with the laser pointer and painting a little bit. You will never do less than that unless you are AFK. The ceiling is a total lockdown on an area, dive resistance, good sub/special use, flicks, and a really high K/D, but you still will never be a good frontliner.
And when people say aerospray has a " low skill celing" they don't mean its easy to contribute with, they mean that the best shooter players in the world can't convert all of their skill into value because its capped.
i love the tutorial weapons i just wish they came with a little 🔰
i still definitely think the clash blaster has a few niche use cases in some maps and team comps but there are obviously better weapons for hard holding a corner because, like you said, thats the only thing it has going for it. maybe we can see a clash with wall and zip or wall and crab in the future if they really want it to be viable
Idk grizzco weapons seem pretty viable to me
I'll be honest, I didn't even watch this for the lecture, that's something I think any experienced analyst will agree to for any game. I was just fascinated watching a fellow splatter class main do their thing at high level.
okay but youre wrong because i am the most gamer ever (source pending)
The main difference in Turf War is that you have to wait 2 minutes at the start of the game before anything matters 🙃😂
This video is missing a plug of his "the problem with "get good""
I have the Problem that i am to good for A Rank but to Bad for S Rank.
yeah, i got a 29 kill game on machine on hagglefish on tower or zones in b or c rank
Someone just learning the game trying to play a charger is worse than someone at that level trying to play a clash blaster, even if the charger is higher on the tier list. So yes, there is such a thing as beginner-friendly weapons, and the tier list would look a lot different if we only based it on success in C-tier. I think when choosing a weapon for a beginner, a 2-dimensional graph should instead be drawn, with one axis as viability and the other as how hard it is/skill floor. So don't main a low-tier if you want to get good but also don't main a hard top tier if you want to get decent. Moral of the story is, play a weapon that is good and easy to play. There are plenty of them.
I agree clash is beginner friendly but not because the player themselves but because of the players they are playing against while clash is only incredibly strong to lower level players charger is strong to all players but since it’s not as beginner friendly charger players aren’t too good in lower levels
Funny enough I made it a goal to hit b rank by the time chill season came around. I managed to do it and then had to do a break cause holidays were crazy.
Overall I agree on what you say. Even with testing of my own certain weapons do work better than others. Chargers are indeed high skill. And I will be honest. I only play non meta cause I can't understand how to play the meta. So roast me in the replies....
I disagree with your analysis here that tierlists are about objective weapon viability in a vacuum, because that's impossible. Weapon viability is affected by the metagame they're used in, and that metagame is not consistent for everyone. If you play exclusively in a lobby with 7 splattershot jr mains then the weapon viability is completely different compared to when you play exclusively with 7 splatcharger mains. Likewise, weapon viability is different for people playing in B-rank competitively compared to people playing in X-rank. Recently I've often heard the term "crab tank meta" in tierlist videos, yet personally I still barely see any crab tanks in the A and S ranks. Am I playing the crab tank meta if there's no one using the crab tank? Should I still base my optimal weapon choice on what fares well against the crab tank if that's the case?
I played competitive pokemon a lot in the day, and it seemed that Japan had the most rapidly evolving metagame, followed by Europe, and America being the slowest. Teams that were winning tournaments in Japan would suddenly lose when they came to the championships in America, because they weren't prepared enough for what they considered outdated meta-threats and overprepared for a metagame that didn't exist over there yet. This makes objective ranking impossible. People still tried, but they basically had to be updated every single month due to changing meta-trends and were generally america-centric, whereas Japanese-made tierlists would sometimes have wildly different placings.
The idea that group thought is equivalent to a higher chance of being correct isn't something I can agree with. That's exactly how some really dumb bandwagons can spread and stick for a long time, with everyone new to an idea immediately taking the opinions of the most popular out of faith in their notoriety alone. Even though what you're saying is true for Splatoon 3 as a game in this point in time, that doesn't mean it has been before or will remain true in the future.
Especially coming from games like Team Fortress 2, where all it would take is the popular pro youtubers expressing their opinions on X or Y option to completely change how people view it in normal matches for a while, despite public servers being such a vastly different environment from the calculated meta game that competitive became. The Vita Saw was genuinely so overpowered in competitive that the comp community banned it, but using it was most certainly a complete waste and a detriment if you were taking it into a casual server, and not also playing that competitive meta game. But there was a specific little window of time where the casual playerbase at large became aware of how pro players feel about the weapon because of youtube videos, and they would parrot along and equip or complain about it in pubs obliviously, for no other reason than "These guys are in one of the best pro teams in the world and they said it should be banned! It must be the best option" And then that went away when people realized they weren't truly playing the same game as comp, and the reason it's so powerful for pros, is barely applicable to them.
And while the rest of these arguments aren't objectively wrong or anything, they have the same conflict to them that you would see back in the days of Smash 4, where the answer to any low or mid level player complaining that Bayonetta's insta-kill combos were too overpowered to beat, was to tell them that they should have just studied pro level SDI tech to be able to have a chance at winning. An objectively true statement, but also completely callous and mockable to anyone who isn't skilled enough to know what that SDI tech is off the top of their heads. It's not really accurate to say that just because a fighting game character has a drawback that top players can consistently exploit with their advanced knowledge of fine mechanics, that the character would be any worse of a choice to use at a local or online where you are quite unlikely to be matched against the best players in the world.
please use paragraphs, please for the love of god, make your comment readable by paragraphing it. there's a reason there's an entire English lesson on this.
@@MG-mh8xp You could try having enough basic literacy to read youtube comments typed on a cell phone without needing the formatting of a novel
@@vanilla8956 It's not about literacy, it's about making the information you presented easier to digest so that *more people get your point*. Also it's just basic common courtesy.
After all, you typed all of that on your cellphone so that people can read and learn from it, right? Make it easier for their eyes so they're more likely to give you a chance and actually listen to you.
This comment was also done on a cellphone by the way.
@@vanilla8956 he is right tho. No one wants to read a wall of text. Using paragraphs spilts the text into multiple parts and allowes to seperate different points from each other. Its easier to understand without reading for 10 minutes straight lol
@@SoulHero7 I could not care the slightest bit less what an internet grammar police officer thinks about my thoughts on video game viability, because never in my life have I ever seen anyone like that have any intention of providing anything of value to any non linguistic conversation or debate they shove themselves into.
Ok, but I'm still not going to give someone who has never held a controller before a charger. I'm going to give them a roller.
If they want to play charger, let them learn, because it'll pay off with some practice. Competitive players tend to have at least a few hundred hours in the game before they try to compete in anything; knowing that those hours are well spent on charger is more helpful than telling them how to beat up on more casual players.
Turf war = big splat zone
Got it
So the biggest question I have is: When you are making weapon tier list, or discussing a weapon's viability, do you actually test the weapon? Like do you take it to the lobby practice range, or a turf war match or something? Or is your opinions on it based solely on stats and data?
I would say that most competitive players play every weapon sufficiently to decide whether they want it to be part of their weapon pool. That experience is nowhere near as important to a tier list as looking at top level tournament results because, as discussed in the video, controlling for skill level demands that the weapons be played at the highest level, and no one can play every weapon at top level. I can confidently say I can play every weapon in the game better than a large majority of players who main those weapons, but that's not what should matter in evaluating the credibility of my tier list.
the reason why I'll never become S+ in 3 is that I play gimmicky stategies because i want to have fun. In 2, I only played k52 aand mpu so i could rank up and it simply was boring.
Thats an excuse, mostly anything is viable in S. The ranking system is extremely soft so you can rank up with a 50% win rate or even worse.
quad goo tuber?
@@skyjumper4097 don't see why not. At least you have an actual stack and no aerosprays or swigs.
@@skyjumper4097 If you are playing in a group, ranking up takes longer. It is still an excuse though.
@@123christianac I play almost always with my friends. also i can do a rankup battle rn and i got there with quad goo so you guys are right i guess
thanks for brightening up my mind
I’ve been wondering lately if tier lists are the right tool for the TH-cam audience. (Clearly viewers love them, there are tier lists for everything it seems.) Competitive players are likely all on discord. The audience on TH-cam would be slanted very heavily towards beginners and casuals, I assume. I know that TH-cam is an income source for you, but I can’t help but wonder if tier lists improve the experience of low level play or diminish it. Maybe it’s not the right tool for the job, given the audience.
Just thinking out loud here.
I disagree. It's a very concise way of communicating a lot of information not just about each weapon and how it plays but also the relative value of its strengths and weaknesses. There are some necessary assumptions of a tier list that a reader needs to understand, but having learned them, I feel like you learn more about the game faster from watching one.
@@SquidSchool Sorry, I didn't see your reply earlier... thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate that.
Tier lists certainly contain data. I won't deny that. The more I see them, though, the less I think that that data is valuable for casuals like me. However, listening to people discuss their tier list and listening to the analysis they do in building their tier list certainly teaches valuable insights into successful ways of thinking about the game. Nonetheless, I personally learned more about playing the carbon roller (I'm playing the deco) from your video on how to play each kind of roller than I did from seeing where it was placed on everyone's tier lists... and thanks for that. I'm now having a total blast with a weapon class that I wasn't able to connect with in either S1 or S2. The carbon roller gives off the most satisfying pop when I smash a crab tank over the head!
@@SquidSchool Extreme disagree, I've learned way more about the game way faster from the weapon select videos than a tier list. All tier lists say to me is "this is what pro players think is good or bad", which is not objective fact, it's as subjective as anything else. Of course certain weapons are better than others, it's a video game, it's not balanced perfectly, I don't need a tier list video to tell me that, what I do need is more videos demonstrating how to use those "low tier" weapons to the best of their ability. If you're not trying to discourage people from playing what they want, then you should be putting out more content that supports the people using those weapons, i.e. the weapon select series.
Hey now, you don't know how the horsey moves either! Noone does!