Give us the old Tyrande back

General Discussion
21

I am terribly sorry for not being a mind reader, and therefore being unable to confirm the difference between the things you think and the things you actually write. All I have to go on is the things you write . (I even added a ‘seem to’ to try and account for that).

I think you misunderstood what I meant by one-dimensional. (And I probably worded it badly). I didn’t really mean the Hero, mostly meant how you seem to view/treat the debate. You write as if it’s an absolute certainty that only idiots could enjoy old Tyrande, and new Tyrande is better in every conceivable way, and that just isn’t true.

Your argumentation sounds really dismissive of anyone who liked old Tyrande, as if there was no valid reason anyone could enjoy her. Your writing heavily implies the only people who played her were ‘idiots who only spam owls’ / ‘idiots who only play dps and used Tyrande to dps even when on healer’ / ‘idiots who only played her because she was meta and/or OP’.

That’s simply not true, and frankly feels insulting. Some players (myself included) legitimately enjoyed her overall playstyle. Not because of meta, but simply because it was fun to play her. Her overall kit is neat, and it’s pretty fun to play a pseudo-dps while also having some bonus heals to help allies. Heck, even Owls were fun to use once in a while.

Despite what you seem to think (And again, apologies for not being a mind reader. I don’t know what you actually think, I can only try and guess from what and how you write), there were and are valid reasons for people to like or prefer old Tyrande.

To be clear, I don’t mean to argue that old Tyrande was actually better or should be returned. Again, there’s plenty of arguments to prefer new Tyrande, and overall she’s probably healthier for the game. Just don’t pretend there aren’t also some arguments to prefer the old version.

5 Likes
22

I disagree with Xenterex’s nostalgia argument as it predicates on a fixed state that doesn’t allow for the spirit of the older version with some changes. But it also gets very messy with the many versions of Tyrande that have been changed over time. Some of which were quite balanced and didn’t ruin all game modes.

And people can enjoy whatever version of a hero they want, but I think there is merit to the stereotypes of the people who enjoyed that iteration of the hero.

I think the people who liked the version that the OP did, kind of forget the point of what a support hero is and played it for some kind of weird selfish late game goddess fantasy ranged bruiser with self sustain that had little to do with actually supporting the team.

She was just terribly designed. Either you liked her because of owls which had anti synergy with her kit, or you were hoping to aim your stuns at awkward moments regardless of kill conditions to stack damage, or just auto attacking in place because stutter stepping with shadowstalk actually reduced your attack rate, while healing basically only yourself with extra spell armor, because you were taking damage from not stutter stepping.

All of which took little skill while being a liability for your team early game because you went oom from using your abilities or were useless because you were just in the back shooting owls and contributing with terrible heals because you weren’t auto attacking. That was sort of the crux of Tyrande, to use her heals to support your allies more, you had to put yourself in more danger, but to do that you had to use heals on yourself because you couldn’t afford to heal anyone else with how low her heals were.

So it attracts either bad players or selfish players. You can enjoy that play style, but I didn’t think highly of people who enjoyed it. My personal favorite was the one that Rafaelfras talks about. That version allowed for more damage OR healing support (as choices!), but still incentivized healing others and stutter stepping that didn’t have bizarre power curves.

2 Likes
23

people can make other inferences beyond ‘just’ what is written, but it seemed to me that what your were responding toward was better demonstrated by not reading what I wrote and instead guessing about it by calling it ‘what [I] think’. (that isn’t to say i couldn’t write better, be more clear or whatever, i’m just trying to say the impression I got was based on ‘x’ so that is what i responded toward)

Your statement regarding “dueling power” I would say is ‘wrong’. Before she was a better ganker which is not the same thing as a duelist. For what I wrote, I did make distinctions between that, but since the OP wrote on ‘1v1’ – and aren’t likely to come back to post distinctions – then i am, as volun put it, referring to aspects of ‘bad design’ that essentially put the hero at odds with themselves, or rather, forced the hero to only realize part of their kit, and not all of it.

There are so many variations to how/what tyrande had done that the ‘spirit’ of realizing that is probably not going to defer much from what it actually is now, and that’s in part because she has ‘better’ potential in the 1v1 now.
– The ‘’‘’ marks i’m using are to use a particular phrasing (for reference or simplicity) but to imply I do not agree with the literal phrasing, but i’m trying to undercut spelling stuff out people largely aren’t going to read, and get offended of the length therein.

yes, when tyrande had a particular version of shadowstalk with a particular version of huntress’ fury with a particular version of two other aa attack mods, she was a “serious 1v1 potential”… when all the cooldowns were up. :confused:

some of the ‘spirit’ of those builds are attempted to be balanced around actually keeping the ‘support’ aspect of the hero without taking up every tier in her talent tree to realize that.

Yea, i’ll say nastalgia or faulty recollection don’t help, but a bigger aspect is the opportunity costs have changed and the current compromise of some of these dream builds end up currently trying to offer them at a potentially later point in the game than some would like. eg attack damage mod at 16 instead of 7.

But the comparison of early ganking to late game ‘dueling’ (1v1) are different, and there isn’t much to actually take from what the ‘op’ means. Since they don’t clarify those, they may not have much play experience in noticing the difference, which can also mean that ‘verbatim’ remakes of tyrande would be just as unsatisfying because the meta of the game has changed.

Simply put, yea, the ‘spirit’ of the idea can be attempted, but the expectations people put out can also be self-frustrating. If they don’t know the difference, it can be hard for anyone else to be a ‘mind reader’ at actually comply with the compromise.

i could say i think the ‘spirit’ of the idea could be realized – i’ve made tyrande rework suggestions before – but the usual m.o. I take from topics like these tend to filter into usual trends that are displeasing themselves regardless of what they ‘liked’ in the past on the basic merit of just ‘liking’ it :thinking:

2 Likes
24

Her new version is a boring piece of trash that can not hold a candle the old version.

Wrong.

Wrong. Alexstrasza is far from a healbot, Tyrande is has a picture of her next to he definition.

FTFY

Yet another example for a rework that should never have happened. They seem to just have no clue when reworking Healers and Supports (with Ana being the exception, the messed up the Grenade though).

1 Like
25

Her waveclear was non existence
Her talents were bad
Her healing was a joke
Draft she was never picked
Her early game wasnt there
Everyone hated to see her in their team
If you want to duel go twin blades

1 Like
26

better than owl bot lol (btw she’s not a heal bot and it doesn’t take science to look at her kit to know that)

6 Likes
27

Do I want more Tyrande in the meta? Yes. Do you want the old Tyrande back? No, because she felt lackluster and a meme hero like old Gazlowe and it felt painful to play with/against her.

This.

By your definition, but for the most players he is right. Old Tyrande pleased a small audience (you included), but most player hated to play with/against her. I remember the talks from my friends when I prepicked Tyrande they were angry to see her, because her impact were non existent and only useful to meme around with her owl shots. In fact she was considered a troll pick like Old D.Va or Tass (and Gazlowe?), but I don’t know, who performed better, but it doesn’t matter, because this heroes were considered troll picks.

Maybe we can compare the old owl Tyrande to Falstad a bit why she was so popular and missed by some players. Falstad currently is overtuned is high rewarding in destroying heroes while also being rather low risk. Old build Tyrande was comparable, you could snipe targets from save distance. :crazy_face:

4 Likes
28

If I remember from hotslogs her WR was also low

1 Like
29

This is such a bad reason to change something. It’s one thing to change something because it isn’t performing well or has bad design, it’s another to change something solely because of perception. Not only is that is going to be subjective, but it’s even more crazy if the data contradicts that perception. I’ve played a lot of Tassadar, Tyrande, and Gazlowe, to rank up, people could complain all they want, didn’t stop me from winning (and aside from Tassadar didn’t even have bad win rates). The fact that ignorant people were meta sheep wasn’t my problem and definitely shouldn’t dictate changes.

What candle would that be lol?

30

And then you wonder why this game is dying, because it attracts no players… :joy:

31

Your argument falls apart in a game with this many types of hero, taking out unique elements to appeal to a larger crowd is unnecessary. Just because some people think pineapple is a troll topping doesn’t mean your sales are going to increase by taking it off the menu and making a slightly different sized pepperoni.

32

“unique elements” = owl snipe = LOL…

It’s hard to take you serious, sorry.

33

We were talking about perception and if you’ve been following the thread, I said owl was one of the worst parts of that version of Tyrande. You feel good beating on that scarecrow?

You seem to do this a lot in your arguments. You don’t respond and then move the goal post to create another argument that has nothing to do with the original point lol. What’s bizarre is even if I didn’t think owl builds were lame, it actually was a unique element to the hero. You seem to think you’re making a clever point lol and on so many facets, it falls flat.

2 Likes
34

But why then do you ignore the arguements Xenterex did?

And still you can’t ignore that considering popularity is also important, might less, but still.

You played a lot of this heroes and were successful, but did you thought how others could think about your choices and that’s might have tilted them in a team game? I remember a discussion, where people told me that the Garrosh player, who raged about me, because I picked D.Va (he considered a troll pick, even though we needed a bruiser) was proven right and I was wrong and should have picked something else. Sure that’s my personal experience, but same thing you have a lot about other niche heroes like Nova or Tyrande for example. And when in a team game the majority of players are tilting about the very “special heroes”, does it mean they are wrong and the hero is actually fine? Shouldn’t we never rework heroes, because you know then someone will get be triggered like Sadius about Tass?

To put my message short you sound like the devs should basically never rework heroes. Sure you say you have pretty success with this heroes, but it seems to ignore that most people didn’t have success with those heroes. It’s basically the same like with Old D.Va, where few people were successful, but the majority wasn’t. And if we follow your idea we shouldn’t have reworked this heroes at all, because there were successful players. And we don’t need a Nova rework either, because there are successful Nova players too, despite the fact she is one of the most hated heroes in the game right now.

EDIT: It sounds a bit reptitive, sorry.

35

LoL, I expanded upon and clarified what I thought about Xenterex and what was problematic about that version of Tyrande. In fact he even mentions me in his subsequent post to talk about bad design.

LoL, for you to say that RIGHT after just quoting me is amazing. Your need to strawman is so strong, even when confronted with contrary statements, you can’t help yourself. Perception does not always equal reality. I didn’t care if people got tilted because on average I was going to drag them to a win whether they wanted to whine about it or not. I’m not going to compromise my/team’s success to coddle your ignorant perceptions.

People also have a perception that masks are dangerous. Changing things based on perception alone is just dumb, especially if that perception is not rooted in data.

In terms of the people who played them? That’s just wrong. Other than Tassadar, those heroes actually had positive win rates. If people didn’t want to play them, cool, there are 80+ heroes they can pick.

As for Tassadar, even though old shield Tassadar was my favorite iteration of that hero, I knew he needed a rework because of how bad his lack of talent diversity (a design problem). What he didn’t need was to have his healer play style completely removed. What he ESPECIALLY didn’t need on his second rework was to be changed into just another mage when there were already so many others.

Your example with D.Va is funny because she actually was super bad in win rates (actual data not perception). Regardless, if YOU personally were good at D.Va, I wouldn’t care because others’ perceptions don’t match YOUR reality. If you sucked at D.Va too, then that’s sort of your own problem for choosing a hero you’re bad at. D.Va also again didn’t change dramatically to her role or function.

Nova, I’ve mentioned before is a casualty of power creep. If Blizzard properly balanced heroes and didn’t keep bloating kits, the need for reworks to one up the next wouldn’t be necessary. When everyone has wave clear and self sustain, of course she’s going to be weaker. Does that mean Nova needs to be the self sustaining specialist in a rework to make her viable? It’s just stupid.

36

Where did I said that I want that heroes should be changed around perception alone? But in fact I said it should be taken into consideration, but it doesn’t mean it should be done no matter what

We can only assume that it is the case, because only Blizz has accurate data about this. But even if you’re right, does it mean only Tass were justified to be reworked?

I know there are players agrees with you, but there also a lot of players, who likes the new Tass. His popularity increased massively compared to every other hero (from the bottom to a frequent picked mage). So how can you say that it’s something he didn’t especially need? Maybe the devs didn’t knew how they could makes him more fitting and they probably thought through many ideas and decided to make him another mage. They said already they don’t like the support role, because it’s rather vague.

Fair point, but what is the reality you care then? Only master I guess? That means only heroes who have below 50% in master rank should be buffed/reworked or vice verse, when they have more than 55%?

But “bloating kits” are part of the design philosophy. Does it mean you want to limit design process for balance purpose? Shouldn’t it be the other way around, because new heroes should A) shackle the meta and B) bring new things to the meta, if they are overtuned/op, they can still be tuned down later. One example, we probably agree that Falstad is currently overtuned and should be tuned down, but still he shackeld the meta and brought fresh wind to the game with his slight rework. I would see that as + for bloating kits.

37

I remember in the thread where the Devs were calling for ideas on how to rework support Tyrande back into a full healer, they said her pick rate in Ranked was 1%! She was a meme back then in QM with the silly Owl spam, anyone who thinks she is just a “healbot” now simply doesn’t know how to play Tyrande.

7 Likes
38

I really liked old Lunar Flare and Huntress’ Mark builds, but Sentinel build can stay dead in its ditch. That was one of the dumbest and most cheesy builds in the game. I hated seeing it on the enemy team because it was annoying to play against, and I hated seeing it on my team because I knew there was a 95% chance that Tyrande would be dead weight.

6 Likes
39

I liked those builds too, but she still was hardly ever picked in ranked. If they reworked her into a support (again) it can’t just be simple changes to her talents. She has already had I think 4 (?) major reworks as a healer and 1 to become a support.

I really don’t want to see her reverted to a support, I’ll admit she might need some tweaks as she stands currently, but not much. I made a Thread about this back in January.

1 Like
40

Old Tyrande was great, but not because of the Owl build. I hate that people never learned to play her and just want her to be a worse Nidalee.

2 Likes