Here’s 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, there’s 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 ‘needs something’, but it’s already been demonstrated that she’s “viable”. However, bad players will bemoan hard-to-play melee heroes time and time again because those are hard-to-play heroes that people don’t have the skill and patience to actually succeed with those heroes.
The ‘majority’ of the playerbase at this game is bad. Really bad. That’s 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, he’s talking about how falstad and tracer are both using their available vision (watching the minimap) to make decisions. A lot of players don’t even look at the mini map, let alone draw information from what the don’t 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 you’re running some 373 level account and want to act like you have an exceptional opinion on a hero that it doesn’t even have a single game listed for you. That doesn’t necessarily mean you’re 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
- don’t 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 don’t see to be aware of that, and you don’t seem to notice that you’re 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, you’re 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.
“wah kerrigan only got 120 shields”
and every tier of talents increases the yield of shields that she gets. That’s part of why hero power is based on the later end of the game, and less so the beginning. That much hasn’t occurred to you and you probably find the hero so ‘bad’ because you aren’t getting to her end game and you clearly don’t know how much that should influence your opinion/complaint in that regard.
And yet here you are trying to talk about how it’s some other person that ‘ruins mobas’ like some off-color analogy that you clearly didn’t think through.
“oh well all the times i see her, that team loses”
That is not only not an objective fact, you clearly haven’t 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 “viability”) of heroes aside from that player, esp if they’re 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 ‘viable’ she’d 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 she’s a hero that tends to stand out in relation to other heroes around her (supports or counters) otherwise she’ll be outright broken.
However, for a lot of players that don’t pay attention, things will swing up and down the op/up extremes without noticing because they… aren’t paying attention. Fancy that.
lvl 1 aa nets 24 shields; that’s a 20% power difference than you’re willing to consider. If everyone hero ended up 20% weaker, then they’d all be seen as ‘needs everything’ 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 ‘the same’.
That conclusion Clearly doesn’t have any flaws when coming from a poster that has ‘literally’ demonstrated that they think the posts of 2 replies represents the consensus of 10,000 people. 