And that’s precisely why Ana was chosen more pre-valkyrie. Because mechanical skill is not an issue for the pros and Ana has higher output if played correctly. That’s exactly the point - you can’t have a low skill hero have the same output as a high skill hero - there wouldn’t be a reason for the high skilled hero to picked because it would be less consistent. Hence the Mercy nerfs.
Never played TF2 so your entire argument is pointless. Low skill heroes shouldn’t have the same output as high skill heroes - I shouldn’t need to explain this.
Fun is subjective and shouldn’t be brought up when talking about balance. Mercy is balanced after the latest nerf. I’m not a “Non-Mercies” Believe it or not I also play Mercy and she is fine and fun to play, more challenging than before. Actually it doesn’t matter at all what the number of proponents and opponents are - what matters is if it’s something is balanced or not. And it either is or it isn’t. This is objectively observable by numbers and statistics. But even if I go by your own logic again, the overwhelming majority disliked mass rez and Blizzard seems to be in accord with this because as we both know mass rez is gone.
The player base is not some homogeneous group. The overwhelming majority disliked Mercy for a number of legitimate reasons. The #Revert Mercy cult is a small group of loud minority that makes the same threads every day and they don’t even speak for every Mercy main let alone for the whole community or player base. When there’s consensus and overwhelming evidence, changes are made. Like in this particular case.
Funny. When people claimed “Mercy is unfun to play against” it was considered very valid, yet when the opposite point of view is presented, it suddenly “shouldn’t be brought up when talking about balance”
well, anna wasnt OP 2 weeks ago, mercy was.
heals isnt the only metric we look at healers in.
if we get to a point where its play anna or lose, i will support change due to that as well.
it all boils down to the effect they each have on the game.
No practical use? Heals per minute went down to 3000 from 3600, and depending on how long the match is it could potentially be as much as 10k healing less during a match. It makes the difference in potential healing output between her and Ana/Moira much bigger, difference being that Mercy has insane mobility compared to those two. The changes have made her significantly weaker in tank-heavy comps, Ana is actually somewhat viable now instead of the Mercy+Zen meta.
No, you just don’t know what I’m talking about and can’t relate, that’s discernably different. TF2 is the source of Mercy’s kit so you can look to it for ideas on how to balance her.
That’s exactly the point - you can’t have a low skill hero have the same output as a high skill hero - there wouldn’t be a reason for the high skilled hero to picked because it would be less consistent.
The upside to Ana is hitting allies with heals, even bust heals, from safe distance. Another is CC. Another is her blend of heal and DPS (in that order), the opposite of zen (dps and some heal). To balance those abilities and utilities out, to learn each of them, you need skill.
That’s the reason you might pick Ana over Mercy, she has a wider kit. But a generalist who’s better at a task (healing) than a specialist centered around said task (healing) makes little sense and should not happen, regardless of your bias.
But where, outside of your own ideas about what ought to be, is it written that a generalist hero like Ana must be better at every one of their skills than specialists like Mercy? You’re just repeating yourself with changed word order and thinking a new argument has been made.
When there’s consensus and overwhelming evidence, changes are made.
Among pro compers, not players. Blizzard’s balancing feedback loop was said to be 1/3 of dev ideas, match data and feedback. I don’t believe regular players are listened to all that much.
Or you can agree with what the “loud minority”, as a boi above’s called me, in that such a situation can be postponed or avoided if heroes were to be balanced more sensibly.
Mercy is more consistent, has res, can damage boost people without having to commit to using an ult and has extremely high mobility. She isn’t solely there to heal people, the damage boost can make a big difference when combined with many abilities or ults and breaking barriers.
Some examples:
For Rein, damage boost is the difference between requiring 2 hits and a firestrike to kill people with 200hp, or 1 hit and a firestrike.
Damage boost is the difference between 1-shot or 1-shot+melee against Tracer with Pharah, Hanzo, Junkrat.
Damage boosting Rocket Barrage allows Pharah to deal 800 damage more than she otherwise would with her ult.
Unfun to play against shouldn’t be considered valid. Fun is subjective, and sure it should be taken into consideration, but it’s not something that carries much weight as it’s purely subjective by nature.
Unfun to play against isn’t the only reason for the Mercy rework, or any rework. There are multiple factors to everything tbh, and by generalizing and oversimplifying that reason all you do is confuse and muddy the discussion. Clarity can’t be achieved through willful ignorance.
So? If the rework was pushed forward on the intent of moving away from Mass Rez, or a 1 button press = 1-5 rezzed, type mechanic to a 1 button press = 1 rez mechanic, then how would have the feedback of some Mercy players stopped that?
The vast majority of feedback from Mercy players that took the time to come to the forum and voice their opinion was that losing the 1 button press = 1-5 would be horrible for her and make her worse than she is. That was HORRIBLY wrong. It made her so much better than she was it’s not even funny.
We all quickly realized that. Since then, people have just held on to mass rez, and modified their arguments as time goes in some way that makes Mass Rez a compelling or healthy choice, ignoring what doesn’t support their conclusion.
Now we have the latest wave of why we should go back to 1 button press = 1-5 rezzed. The main reasoning is rez on CD will always make her a must pick. We’ll see if that still stays true.
one of major issues for sure…mercy minas knew it should never of been off ult.
but valk also is bad for her. it forces balancedh ealing to become too much over a match duration (hence why she beat moria and ana as valk is giving a pocket mercy to 5 people so shes doing 5x the total healing)
Yeah I can’t agree with that assessment. The vast majority was that without mass rez she’d just be straight bad, and that DPS ults would just dictate every fight and wipe everyone uncontested in a sense. There were few that argued “she’s going to be OP af” with the changes. It was mostly from a “she will be weak” perspective that people argued against the change at that time.
Iunno I don’t really agree with that. I’m sure you have reasons why you believe that though.
Zen is a single target healer. He also has an AOE 300hps over time ult that makes him invulnerable and unable to output any damage.
Valk falls in line with what we see from other main healers. Moira and Ana both do not have the life saving defensive ults that Lucio and Zen have. Brigitte is also an overtime, hers is weird.
Just because Valk takes 1 beam and makes it chain doesn’t mean it’s something completely unprecedented, or contradicts her core hero design.
Arguably, mass rez contradicts her core hero design more than Valk ever could.
Believe it or not I also play Mercy and she is fine and fun to play, more challenging than before. Actually it doesn’t matter at all what the number of proponents and opponents are - what matters is if it’s something is balanced or not. And it either is or it isn’t. This is objectively observable by numbers and statistics. But even if I go by your own logic again, the overwhelming majority disliked mass rez and Blizzard seems to be in accord with this because as we both know mass rez is gone.