Anyhow, for the hell of it, I'll hilariously over-analyze the hypothetical metagame of this tournament. Expect a stupidly overblown post sometime in this week or the next.
Here goes. I'll go over this shit ban by ban on a frame- or setup-based basis.
This isn't such a big deal I don't think. The only thing this really hurts are frames that rely on the bulky dual shoulder parts for their defenses.
Affected frames include Tanks, Snipers, most Quads, some HRJs, and a few heavies. There may be one or two midweight designs that rely upon dual shoulders as well. The hardest hit by this are, in my opinion, Light Quads, as almost all of their most viable frames attain their bulk and defenses through use of dual shoulders. Will that be a problem, though? I think it is hard to say. Light Quads are highly versatile, and I am sure that any determined pilot will simply find another combination of frame parts to retain their bulk.
On the far ends of the spectrum, however, Tanks and Lightweighst (including LRJs) have lost a key component in their viability (in the case of some builds, such as the most common LRJ and LW frames, and the most common Elbrus [Mod] Frame + Fat Tank Frames). Lacking access to both the Barry Bull and AD-134 arms means that Lightweight designs will need to look elsewhere for their defenses and supplemental firepower. This is extremely apparent in the cases of Lightweight Sniper builds and the dreaded Kumo LRJ, as these frames now lack the ability to equip dual subcomputers or easily hit the common minimum defense numbers.
What will this mean? Well, I suspect that this may increase the viability of some of the chubbier builds out there since their usage was restricted by their obvious F- matchups against lightweight snipers and lightweight melee builds. I will not miss this caveat though - most of the builds checked by LW ACs are still at a significant disadvantage in their respective matchups, as they are often too slow to evade even blue-locked snipers or a skilled melee-user without significant counterplay. The defense drops, in my opinion, are more significant - meaning that things like Rifles and PMGs could see a rise in usage due to LWs being forced to either bulk up significantly and lose speed, or keep speed and go with paper-thin defense spreads.
Anyhow, I suppose we should move onto the next one.
Ok, we all sorta know that most of the most viable setups in this game are based around dual wielding a pair of powerful weapons - sometimes two pair. Anyhow, I may just put this in perspective - double the firepower means double the damage output, it does not mean the weapons on their own are gonna hit any less hard, it simply means that the weapons will take longer to kill their target - or accumulate damage.
The more significant problem, in my view, will be ammo conservation. Weapons that are typically dual-wielded usually also have a rather shoddy ammunition count. You normally don't notice this when you have two weapons (because your target is dead already), but allow me to draw attention to how 65 strek rounds do not go as far as 130. Likewise, 12 K37 rounds do not go as far as 24.
I may also want to put in here now, while we're on this tangent (and while it is more applicable to the dual shoulder ban), that dual shoulder missiles don't decrease the total damage that the missiles can do, it will merely force the player to fit in more volleys to make up for the reduced output.
If there's anything that you, the reader, get out of this, it is that banning dual shoulders reduced the damage output of each volley of missiles, but not their total damage output. Similarly - yet different - the ban on dual weapon combos cuts the damage in half. There is no way around that.
Important areas to note that in is that DBR and DSR, DPG, Dual Cannon setups, Dual Melee weapons, etc, will either be split into hybrid setups or relegated to utility roles. You may see BR and SR, or SG and PG. Tanks are perhaps a little less affected. Dedicated Melee builds, however, may no longer see viability. A Pile or Murakumo will still function alright in a 1v1, but Laser Blades will take a big hit to usage (what from having only one blade permitted and only one Amp allowed). Perhaps people will tack on a single moonlight to make up for the lack of two Laser Blades?
Moving on, I suppose that I should point out how lots of shotgun, Sawa, or armor-break-based setups will not be suffering too much. Only in cases where Dual Shotgun or Dual Sawas are the crux of the set will there be cause for concern. Many typical armor-break setups do not dual wield any type of weapon, though they frequently make use of dual shoulders to increase the power of their bursts. The one issue I see there is that burst playstyles may have a problem making decisive trades with their enemies. This may be less of a big deal considering that a few common frames are no longer able to retain their defenses - ushering in the use of DPS gear for coverage reasons (or an easy win condition). I suspect that a hybrid burst / DPS build will be most common in this tournament; something which has been said by others in this conversation, I am sure. Of note, one key setup wasn't hurt much at all - only its frame was impacted...
While typically seen on a Light Quad, a build running ~
Arms: 12-shot // [Any BR]
Bays: [A Shield]* // [A Rifle or Gat]*
Shoulder: HSM (or VTF or a CE Missile)
~ will only suffer from lack of dual shoulders, but will still have good poke, good DPS, and a threatening burst. Cause for concern is truly just the Light Quad Frame, of which all common variations have lost their arm units.
Well, that's about all I'm in the mood for at the moment. Of note, the most important things to understand are that fights are going to take a little bit longer, coverage options may be forced as opposed to encouraged, and map choice will likely strongly determine how a match will play out and what builds will be used, considering the tournament is a 1v1. Further, the best of three setting is alright in my opinion, but it could really screw people over by forcing a player to play in a different way than they are comfortable with on a disadvantageous map.
Some things I may suggest would be that players can agree upon maps to play on in each match. I for one much prefer it when my opponent and I agree on where we will fight, since we typically prefer certain maps and like to play a certain way. It really doesn't feel right to me to fight a tank player on Windy City, for example. Likewise, if boundary-sama murders the shit out of the two of us indiscriminately, it is probably time to swap maps.
TL;DR Looks like we're gonna see very map-dependent combat with an emphasis on versatility as opposed to specialization, and with more drawn out or awkward fights wherein the matchup has no obvious edge and both players devolve into damage-racing or short slug-fests pocketed between long poke-wars for positioning. Melee will still be dangerous, as will Sawa Light Quads, albeit the total damage output and longevity of both builds will be hampered.
As always, if I have neglected to mention something, point it out so we can
tear each others heads off talk peaceably.