Let's Revisit the Absurdity of "Hide and Rez"

[Reverendpaqo-1797]

And those 2 dozen or so tend to be those who agree with the OP. I’d like to see people who disagree but encourage discussion. But I don’t see that.

[Lias-11313]

And those 2 dozen or so tend to be those who agree with the OP. I’d like to see people who disagree but encourage discussion. But I don’t see that.

Isn’t that what Megadodo is literally doing?

At the very least there’s a lot of back and forth

[PuffyPony-1639]

Ahhh not really… he tends to make a bunch of claims but never back them up with relevant information. Most of the back and forth with him is basically him making “factual” statements (that are often not really relevant), then contradicting everything someone says without really explaining why. It’s basically as if I were to respond to everything you said with, “Wrong,” “I don’t agree,” “That’s not my opinion” with various facts about Mercy’s preference in pizza toppings and Gucci fashion. It’s not really advancing conversation; rather, it’s actually stone-walling it

[ItsAllMight-1371]

Well… I don’t. Okay?

[MerlinBrando-11655]

This is literally xavvy and titanium in a nutshell as well.

[Megadodo-11847]

Factually, if the devs decide to make an improvement to the current version of rez, they can and will do so

Like I said, “improving” Resurrect as an ability won’t get rid of the issues that “Hide n Res” bring as said issues become worse simply because Resurrect is an ability. I’d appreciate it if you could try to maybe understand what you read.

Factually, the statement I originally replied to was (gist, not a quote) along the lines of that an ability cant be improved without making it a ultimate.

I continue to disagree with said statement

It is the right of any forum user to remain in any discussion they wish to

It’s advice. Staying in a discussion regarding an issue that you proclaimed to not even see only makes you a nuisance to the discussion. But sure! It is your right. Though I do remember a quote from Moira that would best describe this situation.

Personally, I found the statement as stated to be more along the lines of a demand than advice

Factually, any discussion held on these forums is public, not p2p.

Like I said, you failed to make the distinction, that the opinion stated in the last paragraph of said reply was meant for everyone in the thread. Because you didn’t make any distinction, I went with what the website was telling me, that the reply was intended for me to read and reply to. Again, make yourself clear and then we won’t need to deal with such a situation.

As I said, such a distinction need not be made within the confines of a public forum.

All can read, all can (with valid login) reply

Anyone is as I understand it within their rights to bring up this or any topic as long as forum rules are followed in doing so

And anyone is within their rights to refuse to discuss an opinion. I declined to discuss your opinion and hence why, under the believe that the opinion was meant for me as it was in a reply meant for me (with you making no apparent distinction that it was meant for everyone to read and discuss about) I told you that it’s best kept to yourself.

I didnt (and still dont) feel it was best “kept to myself”

as such, i didn’t

You are entitled to your opinion

As are you. But I find it funny that you think your opinion is a fact.

This statement appears (to me) to imply that I believe that everything I state is fact

Clarification: I state facts, and I state opinions, and I am very careful to ensure that verbiage exists in each such statement to ensure that it is clear to the reader what is stated as fact and what is stated as opinion

Factually, given the public nature of these forums, no such distinction is ever necessary.

All who wish to read, can read

All who wish to reply, can (with a valid login) reply

You sure do love arguing semantics.

Factually, the statements you are replying to is not semantics - rather facts

Factually, I prefer not to discuss semantics but I find that many posters, particularly those in the anti-Mercy faction, like to bring up semantics and/or verbiage, which in turn results in replies from me (like this one) that are concerned with semantics and/or verbiage

Either way, this is still your fault.

Factually, I am unaware of any ‘fault’ in this discussion that can reasonably be attributed to me

you’re going to have to take responsibility for your own incompetence.

Factually, I am not aware of any incompetence on my part in this discussion

I do not find it misleading at all

Factually, the incentive was removed when mass rez was removed

I’d appreciate it if you’d finish reading the reply. Because of your inability to finish reading replies, you’ve skipped the explanation and have ended up just saying no again. Either read the explanation and refute that or I’ll just end up dismissing you as a severe case of denial.

Factually, I have read the entire discussion

[Natorian-1907]

Titanium,

Bravo on another well written thread.

Unlike the other thread, I read all of this one. People seem to be hung up on a vast array of old talking points which fail to recognize reality.

1. Hide and Rez was all too commonplace.

In a game where getting even two or three people to play in accordance with your request, no matter how subtle, somehow five people just fell in line and “died on the point” as prescribed by the Mercy player. The reality, people don’t listen now, and they didn’t listen then. Any video evidence of “Hide and Rez” being a major issue and run rampant in Overwatch is purely anecdotal. The statistics you listed clearly overwrite this claim.

2. Blizzard “fixed” the problem.

Except, its a problem they themselves created. Getting a 4-5 man resurrect before the January 2017 invulnerability change was only possible if you were playing against a team that was clearly not paying attention to you. At this stage in the game it was better for a Mercy player to take a 1-2 person rez for her own survivability. In the long run, as you get better at playing as Mercy, resurrect unlike every other ultimate in the game was less and less powerful. When Blizzard made Mercy invulnerable while resurrecting, it was this point where Mercy became “broken”. Invulnerability was also not requested by the Mercy player base at large. Valkyrie, and the entire rework, was an attempt for Blizzard to “fix” the problem they created by adding another unwanted change no one asked for. Blizzard always knows best, except when they don’t.

I could hit on more but most of the other points lack any substance, not that the other two have much.

At this point in the game I see a few things unfolding.

It is my opinion that the largest majority of players, those who play damage dealers, have convinced Blizzard to ruin Overwatch as Blizzard has done with all their other IP’s. It is for the exact same reason. “Only Damage Dealers are fun to play so you need to take power away from tanks and healers”. I was hoping Overwatch would somehow be immune to this philosophy, but I think I was mistaken. “Mass rez ruined my PotG 5 man kill, Blizzard fix it or my keyboard will stop working due to all these tears falling off my face”. Supports, and now with the next PTR going live soon tanks, will have lost or are losing a great amount of power from their kits. It has been happening slowly, but I think this next PTR going live will really hit hard. I had assumed that there were plenty of Damage Dealer specific shooters that exist so why would Blizzard need to be the same.

Only time will tell I suppose, but lets hope Blizzard comes to their senses. I won’t hold my breath, but for your sake I have some hope.

[sral94-2751]

Where did you get this information?

Look through the COC…

[Megadodo-11847]

And those 2 dozen or so tend to be those who agree with the OP. I’d like to see people who disagree but encourage discussion. But I don’t see that.

Factually, the statement made earlier was “Factually, if you post a thread trying to discuss Mercy you will get endless shade from people wanting you to not discuss it and will derail that discussion. This is not in the spirit of what a discussion forum is for, yet not seeing any complaints about that.”

Here, in this more recent statement, it is acknowledged that several people did complain

[Needles-11351]

It’s extremely unlikely that mass-rez would ever come back

But theres a chance… and thats all we need

[Mightypandah-2930]

Wow, this thread blew up over the course of a day.

[Rookie-21420]

It’s funny because now when you rez it’s a requirement to hide.

[Needles-11351]

Supports, and now with the next PTR going live soon tanks, will have lost or are losing a great amount of power from their kits. It has been happening slowly, but I think this next PTR going live will really hit hard. I had assumed that there were plenty of Damage Dealer specific shooters that exist so why would Blizzard need to be the same.

Agreed,
If you think about the amount a DPS buffs in the last year its insane. When GOATs dies, it will be seen how powerful DPS have become.

[Reverendpaqo-1797]

1. Hide and Rez was all too commonplace.

In a game where getting even two or three people to play in accordance with your request, no matter how subtle, somehow five people just fell in line and “died on the point” as prescribed by the Mercy player. The reality, people don’t listen now, and they didn’t listen then.

Perfect.

And yet somehow people will still cling to the delusion that somehow Mercys were able to get people to do this all of the time in every game.

[Matsy-21502]

Why revisit…hasn’t everything been discussed on this subject in MULTIPLE threads already?

[Reverendpaqo-1797]

And those 2 dozen or so tend to be those who agree with the OP. I’d like to see people who disagree but encourage discussion. But I don’t see that.

Factually, the statement made earlier was “Factually, if you post a thread trying to discuss Mercy you will get endless shade from people wanting you to not discuss it and will derail that discussion. This is not in the spirit of what a discussion forum is for, yet not seeing any complaints about that.”

Here, in this more recent statement, it is acknowledged that several people did complain

Are you going to as well then? Are you going to say people mocking, derailing, and false flagging this thread are in the wrong?

[Megadodo-11847]

It’s funny because now when you rez it’s a requirement to hide.

Factually, I have been able to successfully rez many times without hiding, sometimes even during midfight; and as such I dont see it as a requirement

[Megadodo-11847]

And those 2 dozen or so tend to be those who agree with the OP. I’d like to see people who disagree but encourage discussion. But I don’t see that.

Factually, the statement made earlier was “Factually, if you post a thread trying to discuss Mercy you will get endless shade from people wanting you to not discuss it and will derail that discussion. This is not in the spirit of what a discussion forum is for, yet not seeing any complaints about that.”

Here, in this more recent statement, it is acknowledged that several people did complain

Are you going to as well then? Are you going to say people mocking, derailing, and false flagging this thread are in the wrong?

I am not saying any of those things

I am saying instead that there was a statement earlier that (gist, not a quote) no one was complaining about x, and there was a statement later by the same person who made the original statement that (gist, not a quote) several people were in fact complaining about x in this very thread

[Jimin-21586]

Factually, the statement I originally replied to was (gist, not a quote) along the lines of that an ability cant be improved without making it a ultimate.

I continue to disagree with said statement

What I’m saying is that if “Hide n Res” is the problem they were trying to tackle, compared to ability or ultimate, it’s better of as an ultimate.

Here’s the quote ^

Sorry but I did not say: “an ability cannot be improved without making it an ultimate”. I said that Resurrect as an ability cannot be “improved” to fix the issues regarding “Hide n Res” (as Resurrect being an ability makes the three issues I’ve highlighted previously twice as bad). Because of this, I’m advocating for the second best thing (as them removing Resurrect from the game is a far-fetched dream); Resurrect as an ultimate. “Hide n Res” would still be an issue but it won’t be as annoying, rewarding and effective as “Hide n Res” with CD Res.

I continue to disagree with said statement

“Said” statement is a strawman made by you.

Personally, I found the statement as stated to be more along the lines of a demand than advice

Think again. I, as the one who said the statement, am telling you now that it was meant to be perceived as advice as that is the intention for me writing it.

Though, it is an understandable mistake.

As I said, such a distinction need not be made within the confines of a public forum.

All can read, all can (with valid login) reply

As I’ve said, if you type in an opinion that’s meant for everyone in a reply that’s specifically meant for me, you’re going to have to make it clear as to which part of the reply is for me and which part of the reply is you addressing everyone.

I didnt (and still dont) feel it was best “kept to myself”

as such, i didn’t

That’s fine. Just don’t put it in a reply that’s specifically addressed to me.

This statement appears (to me) to imply that I believe that everything I state is fact

Definitely not. One look at the context would tell you that. That and, try to read further on…

I’m referring to:

“but in fact, anyone with internet access can read this discussion, and anyone with a login can reply. As such, it is not solely a conversation confined to the maker of a statement and the person they make it to. This is a public forum. I emphasize the word public.”

Factually, the statements you are replying to is not semantics - rather facts

They’re not mutually exclusive.

Factually, I prefer not to discuss semantics but I find that many posters, particularly those in the anti-Mercy faction, like to bring up semantics and/or verbiage, which in turn results in replies from me (like this one) that are concerned with semantics and/or verbiage

Semantics is one of best forms of facts… Just saying.

Factually, I am unaware of any ‘fault’ in this discussion that can reasonably be attributed to me

For starting this pointless discussion. You, for some random reason decided to state a random opinion and that lead to a back-and-fourth argument over the rights of forum users. You are at fault here. Whether you accept it or not however is up to you. Though I’ll remind you that denying it won’t mean much to me since facts will remain facts.

Factually, I am not aware of any incompetence on my part in this discussion

Failure to make it clear which parts of a reply addressed to “Jimin” were actually intended for him and the parts which were intended for the rest of the user base viewing this thread.

Factually, I have read the entire discussion

Then refute the explanation. Here it is again:

This:

“to withhold healing and let said healer’s teammates die.”

Is still incentivised. One example would be letting your low HP teammate simply die to Res them up again. It’s quicker and more effective.

Might I ask you not to be misleading as it misinforms those who genuinely do not know the real facts.

[Jimin-21586]

Referring to Titanium’s thread supposedly being hidden due to it being flagged for “trolling”.