So you buff, rework + change heroes that dont need any changes, but you leave one of the oldest heroes - so so so so bad. Give her more shields. 20 shield on autoatack is super stupid. She is not viable in anything anymore (maybe for a long period of time). Why to pick her, when you can do more with every other hero in the game .
1 Like
Exaggeration. She is pretty good, but a bit harder to play and in a meta, where bruisers are dominant, she feels indeed a bit weird.
I donât feel she has a concrete place in the meta atm but she is definitely not a terrible pick
Valla, Stitches, Johanna, Raynor Anduin needed them for a long time.
Guess you never seen a good Kerrigan player before, because she is REALLY strong.
have you tried picking talents with her?
Cuz 20 shields is less than what she would get from attacking a hero at lvl 0 (game starts at lvl 1) and literally all her lvl 1 options provide her more ways to generate additional shields: q boost, orb passive and aoe attack â at which point sheâd get more than 20 shields provided she hit more than one target (the point of aoe)⌠which just leads me to conclude you arenât picking talents on her, using her abilities, and then acting like itâs someone elseâs fault you donât think her âviableâ.
7 Likes
Good luck convincing the forum
1 Like
Then he has to convice you too since you are part of it.
1 Like
Nah. I believe Kerrigan is weak so he doesnât need to convince me. Others heâs gonna have to convince.
Majority of the forum believe in all heroes are viable, player skill can make anything work, etc. Iâd say most people here are borderline contrarians when it comes to responding to any pessimistic posts, overly simple posts, or just whine posts
1 Like
At least based around statistics, yes. Can you provide solid data to prove your point or just your personal bias? I would take you more serious, if you could back up your opinions with evidence like lucifer did for example. He analysed the major problem with D.Va in the past and the devs listened and nerfed exactly that. Can you do the same?
Btw even about your current statement youâre wrong about the âmajorityâ, because the majority of the forum already mentioned quite a lot of time that they think Valla is still a bit overtuned, especially her Q-build (comibnation with puncturing arrow, arrow refresh and acrobat)
3 Likes
Viable ? People like you, make the game the worst moba in the genre. You are so 2010 person. Kerrigan kit is a decade old kit, that brings nothing special to the table. She is not viable, because she has more counters than she counter. Compare her to thrall, why do i pick her, when i can pick thrall. Will do more dmg, more self sustain, and bring more to fights with 2 good heroics. She is in line for the worst MA with The butcher. I watched a god Butcher on youtube, does that make him âviableâ ? Kerrigan is so easy to outplay, that even the butcher is harder to do so. Single miss of the W and you bring nothing. Bruiser + tank meta + strong cc Healer and Ranged Assassins, that have easier to land cc than her. And you are talking about KERRIGAN VIABLE ? Everytime i see her on the draft ( 1-2 games out of 50 or even more, i know we win or lose if she is on our team.)
[Attack Damage] 115 at level 1 - she gets estimate 20 shield per autoatack 
Against heroes.
Hitting an enemy Hero with Ravage grants 100 points of Assimilation Shields.
So you pick her Ravage talent and you get 120 shield for Q and Autoatack.
VIABLEEEEEEEEEEEE!
1 Like
that has nothing to do with how viable a character is, viability means there is a time and place to use a character, just because someone is countered more then they counter others, doesnât mean they arenât viable. She might be NIECHE but that still implies she is viable while playing into her nieche, unviable would be if she had no nieche, also
even the starcraft 2 general chat averages more brain power in there insults.
1 Like
Delusional as always. Nieche Why i even boder to chat with people in this game/forum. Your brain power is less than slavic bar in 6 in the morning.
1 Like
wow you literally didnt even make an argument to why its not nieche just called me a dips-, well i definitely getting dejavu from starcraft 2, if she has a mix of counters that no hero can replicate but better, she has a nieche, that is what a nieche is.
2 Likes
I got 60.1 % winrate over 1200 games as Kerri. What is your winrate and games played dude.
3 Likes
Hey!
Watch your tongue, man. Slav bars at 6am are awesome.
2 Likes
Yes! This forum is superdeeduper dumb! Itâs best you donât come back here.
6 Likes
While I donât agree that she is unviable (many pros use her as the flex pick to shore up their comps in tourneys), I think she needs some love on her less appealing talent. Right now IMO sheâs too linear and has 1 build path that is meta while builds like W and E are less consistent but does less.
She can be really broken because you stack up your shield incredibly fast when youâre not being the focus of the enemy team and you land your combos. However maybe, and I mean just maybe, at best they could either give Fury of the Swarm baseline or make Boundless Fury level locked. But they would need to make some pretty big adjustments to do that. Or lower CD on her chrysalis idk.
Personally Iâm fine with just some medium adjustments on her talent tree to make her less linear.
2 Likes
Hereâs a comparison: filtering for the reset of the 54.patch series, kerrigan at her worst is still more successful than Thrall at his best. Generalized in stormleague, for that duration, Kerrigan had the second highest winrate.
Is she popular? No
Is it easy for her to succeed? No
Has she had a history of minor changes making/breaking her winrates at certain levels of play? Yes
Is kerrigan getting pick/bans in competitive play? Yes
Do those picks depend on specific maps? yes
Is thrall getting attention in competative?
Regardless of what you actually manage to read out of anything else I post, thereâs already indications of Kerrigan seeing more play at certain modes, and seeing better success than other heroes. Sure, maybe the best of her players will stay say she âneeds somethingâ, but itâs already been demonstrated that sheâs âviableâ. However, bad players will bemoan hard-to-play melee heroes time and time again because those are hard-to-play heroes that people donât have the skill and patience to actually succeed with those heroes.
The âmajorityâ of the playerbase at this game is bad. Really bad. Thatâs part of why the devs keep trying to make changes to incentive players to understand basic elements of the game, such as xp/soaking. Orbs were added to increase visibility, and the duration of orbs was shifting to be less punishing for players missing the soak by people able to still get minor amounts of xp.
Here have a Khaldor clip on him explaining something many players do not understand about the game: https://youtu.be/PDxAP6UCoww?t=2563
To summarize, heâs talking about how falstad and tracer are both using their available vision (watching the minimap) to make decisions. A lot of players donât even look at the mini map, let alone draw information from what the donât see. What typically happens is a player pushes too far out, gets ganked, and then comes onto the forums to complain how a hero is under or overpowered depending on what actually caught their attention.
If your blizz id matches with heroes profile, then youâre running some 373 level account and want to act like you have an exceptional opinion on a hero that it doesnât even have a single game listed for you. That doesnât necessarily mean youâre not some secret master of the hero, but it does indicate the frequency of your exposure to the hero is much lower than others, which likely compliments the lack of knowledge you are demonstrating with the hero as is. And also your reluctance to have an informed opinion.
Players that lack experience and notoriety, tend to also lack:
- tactical awareness,
- map awareness,
- familiarity with hero potential,
- know meta shifts,
- experience experimenting with anti and non-meta picks
- donât have an interest in improving,
- varied responses beyond blaming/insulting other people, esp if one disagree with them openly.
The game design is balanced around lvl 20 stats, with power distributed backwards over the levels. You donât see to be aware of that, and you donât seem to notice that youâre willing to compare a fully decked hero, with one that is lacking talents, and possibly levels. You are so far down the rung on thinking that through, youâre wanting to bellyache over incorrect numbers for lvl 1 heroes, and then not even think twice about how that reflects on your opinion regarding easier, point-n-click, heroes that you are appraising based on them having talents.
âwah kerrigan only got 120 shieldsâ
and every tier of talents increases the yield of shields that she gets. Thatâs part of why hero power is based on the later end of the game, and less so the beginning. That much hasnât occurred to you and you probably find the hero so âbadâ because you arenât getting to her end game and you clearly donât know how much that should influence your opinion/complaint in that regard.
And yet here you are trying to talk about how itâs some other person that âruins mobasâ like some off-color analogy that you clearly didnât think through.
âoh well all the times i see her, that team losesâ
That is not only not an objective fact, you clearly havenât thought through the bias that people put into what they are observing, let alone the reality that anecdotal evidence does not indicate the relevant experience (or âviabilityâ) of heroes aside from that player, esp if theyâre playing in low ranked and casual gameplay.
Players that spout out constant exaggeration and effectual lies tend to do so to mask how ignorant they are of some things. People taking offense to others not agreeing with their ignorance just supports thats notion.
If kerrigan were more âviableâ sheâd probably be at a winrate that breaks the game, and sees her get nerfed⌠again. Some people may want a shift in her talent options as a side-grade to improve talent variation, but sheâs a hero that tends to stand out in relation to other heroes around her (supports or counters) otherwise sheâll be outright broken.
However, for a lot of players that donât pay attention, things will swing up and down the op/up extremes without noticing because they⌠arenât paying attention. Fancy that.
lvl 1 aa nets 24 shields; thatâs a 20% power difference than youâre willing to consider. If everyone hero ended up 20% weaker, then theyâd all be seen as âneeds everythingâ which is part of a the fun reality of why a number of heroes only see slight changes well below the expectations of the oblivious.
yes, because when people ignore the details of what people actually post, it suddenly seems like all those people are magically âthe sameâ.
That conclusion Clearly doesnât have any flaws when coming from a poster that has âliterallyâ demonstrated that they think the posts of 2 replies represents the consensus of 10,000 people. 
10 Likes
âevery time kerriganâs on my team i loseâ is a terrible point. putting it out there that thereâs no mention of win rate WITHOUT kerrigan. for all i know you might have a 25% win rate in general. whatâs your proof that itâs kerrigan thatâs the problem? correlation doesnât mean causation.
2 Likes
Usually Kerrigan is low low/mid lvl in popularity and one of the highest in winrate at the high MMR brackets. This indicates that sheâs viable.
I like her kit, so I wouldnât like it to be changed with a major Rework. I think her talents are mostly fine.
(And personally I have nice success with her.)
1 Like