What Makes a Weapon "Viable?" 

"Woomy Darwinism" is my new favorite Splatoon-related expression.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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! 🗿

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

I use tier list in Splatoon in the same way like tier lists in fighting games, ignore these and play the weapons I have fun with. 😁 Also tier lists works and matter when everyone has the same skills. In Splatoon the playerbase has a giant skill gap, thats why low tier weapons can win games online, but in high level games with everyone is a top player, where the skills are almost the same, the right weapon to use is important. Of course unorthodox tactics can win games in top level play, but only for a short time and then will used again.

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.

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 :]

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

"What makes a weapon viable? The one that inks the heavens with your soul!" -My Splatoon Motto.

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.

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

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

You could say that tier lists… are based on Ink Theory… *kazoo intensifies*

Best explanation I've heard, thanks Gem!

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 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.

at like 11:35 or something I REALLY like the explanation of tierlists. ive been playing smash ultimate semi competitively ish since its release and ive never heard it put that way but that makes lots more sense

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?

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 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

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.

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'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.

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 understand and respect your points as a spatoon vet, the first half just has a very cocky feeling to it

Good points! Have over 10k hours in casual chess (pretty good at club level) so I’ll be considering myself a beginner at my first Splatoon (3) for a long time. Only 300 hours still.

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 thought that was me in the turfwar and almost had a stroke lol

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'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.

yeah, i got a 29 kill game on machine on hagglefish on tower or zones in b or c rank

you are unironically the most useful youtuber I have ever watched

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.

Me, undercover main, after a wipeout: heehoo haha my weapon sucks and I still single-handedly wiped out 3/4 of your team.

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 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! :>

look ik the pro is a meh weapon but i use it cus i like it (and do not plan to go into competative touries just solo q)

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?

Just play the way you want to play, and don't let a dumb list get you discouraged.

As a dapple dualies main, i used to rush in enemy team base put down tons of beacons use tacticooler most likely die, tacticooler effect happens i jump again place a beacon regain ink and special repeat, i got into S+ with that stupid strategy then it suddenly stopped working, this is not related to the video i just realized how stupid that was (Mostly played splatzones)

5:06 run speed big swig? sounds familiar...

But I got out of D- with the Undercover brella so it must be good!

Hey now, you don't know how the horsey moves either! Noone does!

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 recently hit x rank using a sub power up dapple dulies kit (taking advantage of both quick jump beacons and quick respawn tacticooler). I know dapples are not the best weapon and get heavily outclassed by weapons like the tetras. Is it okay to stick with this but only on certain maps/modes. (For example this strategy is great on most rainmaker rotations but not good for stages like mahi mahi where you can't place beacons down safely) Ps rewatching the video I see you asking what rank is this in: Im on a low level competitive team as a substitute in case all 4 players don't show up. Every time I join they all get excited for my beacons and understand if I need to use a different strategy. I would say I've had considerable success but I might be biased.

So what you're getting at is that "A skilled Undercover could beat any Splash"

Low level play may experience a different tiering of weapon value due to the varying skill floors presented by different weapons and styles of play, but once you pass that point, things normalize very quickly, and it isn't until the absolute top that things might shift again due to skill ceilings, if players have become fully optimized. Even if there is a change at top level, it's likely quite small, meaning an accurate tierlist made for top level play will be very accurate to most competitive players, even outside the top level. In my experience, this is true of almost all competitve games.

big swig is...unforgiving, it requires you to fight like a slower carbon, without the bomb, and its special is situational. but besides jts paint output its vertical is like a cheap curling bomb for movement, and a single horizontal or 2 sets up excellent areas to shark. if it had a bomb and a better displadement special it would honestly be pretty decent

You dont understand bro I used to beat my little brother with Roy all the time hes really good

Dun know how many people I have told recently "splattershot pro is too ink hungry and doesnt paint enough for your playstyle dun do it" then they play is and surprise pikachu face when they cant get crab tank and just get rolled cuz they spent 40 secs firing at nothing

The clash blaster is a good weapon for people who use stick aiming. Stick aiming makes hitting shots difficult, but that's alleviated by the clash blaster's wide range. But if a player gets used to stick aiming because they think it's viable because they used the clash blaster, they will prevent themselves from progressing. Using the clash blaster is good if you use stick and you never plan to improve to the point where you have to start using motion controls.

This video is so good

Thanks and all, but still gonna use my undercover through S rank to the X

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.

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 ;)

This video is missing a plug of his "the problem with "get good""

you're halfway to your gladwell 10,000 hours for objective splatoon expertise!!! only 4,200 to go!!

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.

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?

1:42 comedy

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.

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

Happens in every competitive game . Beginners and intermediates like tier lists and matchup charts because they think that if something is high in the tier list, it must be good or broken.... but they do not consider at all the level at which they are playing, their skill and that of the opponents and that those tier lists really only matter in high levels of competitive play where The player is using the weapon to the best of his/her ability and so are his teammates and opposing team. Where also some weapons are not really viable because there are better options and usuallybhigh level players will know how to play against most matchups. In other words: beginners and intermediates tend to write off "skill" in the equation.

Viability has always been (to me) "How many modes maps and comps can this weapon excel in?" For weapons like Undercover Brella that number is low, it's honestly 0 in Splatoon 3 since there's less weapons, as compared to something like Splash which can excel in basically any comp on most every map in most every mode. I love Undercover to hell and back, but I'd NEVER bring it into something like TC because it gets hard countered by Blasters and Chargers. In Turf Wars, I can paint, get my special, scatter the enemy and then from there, I can usually get enough of a foothold to be annoying in the back line because it's easy to counter Short Range Shooters with Undercover, and that's what's most common in Turf. But in every other mode, it's a decently spread out type of weapons so it's almost guaranteed I'll run into something that hard counters me and Undercover has a horrible disadvantage state.

I realized that I’m a decent player when I got sad for being overall splatter as explosher

The main difference in Turf War is that you have to wait 2 minutes at the start of the game before anything matters 🙃😂

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

I enjoyed the video and love what you are saying. However, I think these points are more obvious in tier list videos in which content creators cite results data behind their analysis. Many Splatoon content creator tier lists feel more editorial than those from other games I follow. Magic the gathering deck tier lists that I see, for example, involve some creator opinions, but always include results data, often in terms of raw numbers, and also in terms of competitive level, and even event-specific or regional meta differences.

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....

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 feel like my problem is the complete opposite. Like, I'm super Meta Slave. I look at Gem's tier list, and be like "Ok there are 11 'viable' weapons in this game that I can choose from". "Which means, playing hours on any other weapon is an active waste of time and could be better used by grinding X with Splash." So yeah... there is just this constant voice in my head, telling me: "Stop playing Blue Dapples in Turf! You are wasting precious time that could be better used to practice Splash more! Go grind more X with Splash! Have you even studied all the Crab locations on every map!" "But I like my Blue Dapples in Turf! I like farming Christmas kids for fun!" "I'm reporting you for 'Intentionally Not Improving'! You will be banned from Gem's Discord in 3 days!" ...so yeah, I'm currently just coping by telling myself "playing blue dapples makes me a better tetra player!" and trying to convince myself it's not time wasted, tetra is one of the 11 viable weapons, and the weapons are similar enough that skills can transfer somewhat between them... And it's not a lost cost for dreaming to one day become a tetra main ...Then my voice be like "There are 2 viable kits in the game, Splash and Machine, pick your poison. And pick it faster because everyday you don't pick your main you are not improving at an optimal speed." ...As a result, playing Splatoon gets so stressful, I brought the season 2 battlepass for Overwatch 2 lmao :`D Yeah, the truth is, I kinda figured that even "not improving optimally" and just playing Splatoon for fun still can help you improve. Playing a lot of Turf war recently made me realize the important of the choke that allows attacking team to enter enemy spawn more. And it also helped me practice constantly checking the map to see if we leaked an enemy though the choke more. And how to be constantly aware of where my teammates are to make sure at least one person is defending our spawn choke, so the enemy Sploosh won't just enter and paint our whole base. But yeah, still haven't found a way to silence the voice. The voice is still telling me "You are not allowed to have fun until you grinded to 2000 X with Splash".

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.

I hope to God I never get to face Gem in turf war, holy shit xD

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 )