She’s fine, play her when she makes sense or do it regardless and deal with it. If your enjoyment of the game is directly connected to one character, feel free to find another game. We might actually get the game we were promised instead if enough people do that.
Why dont we let heroes who have either been trash forever or never viable have a chance to get some changes?
Mercy is at the bottom of the pile right now, she has gotten the most attention out of any hero on the roster, its time to let others have a chance.
1 Like
Last I checked, Sym and torb still have their baby turrets, tele, molten core. They are still niche heroes at the core, only player base is a bit more tolerance with them, or just straight up don’t care for coherent and optimal team comp any more. 60 consistent hps that go through barrier coupling with mobility and low skill floor is not fine. If you want higher hps, go Ana and sacrifice your mobility and pray that you can actually aim
1 Like
I can sense your bias to mercy players so I will say this
I’m proposing one change for one hero regarding this aspect in this post. I have many ideas for many heroes regarding this. Torb and sym and sombra and brig are just less popular. You focused out this thread because it’s mercy. My opinion is regarding good game designand that largely relates to cohesiveness for me. Mercy is not cohesive with the new design. This applies to more than mercy.
That will be you once balance starts reflecting the new design of the game per the ptr. I will be fine.
Which was what? Overwatch is very different now than before . What do you wish returned?
Mass Rez? Lol
I already have separate threads for them. Mercy isn’t related to brig. I don’t need to post my brig ideas here nor torb nor moira nor sombra etc…
If you can’t define how torv and symm have left their niches behind, feel free to ask on another thread and I will respond. This thread is about mercy
I know that it’s in your nature to only see things as biased against Mercy mains but that’s not it, I generally dislike people who actively decide only to play a single character and demand that the game or that character should be viable in every given situation despite that not being a part of the game’s original design.
If that ever becomes a reality then the esports scene will die and along with it the game as well because at that point OW will no longer be a unique or competitive game.
I want to return to the game philosphy where some heroes were niche and that it was okay for them to be niche.
Don’t you see you are contradicting yourself right now? You told me Ana and Zen are able to do their thing, but are sub optimal in some cases and need to switch off, but somehow you want to buff/rework Mercy to the point of being universally good in every situation and never need to switch?
2 Likes
I think that as someone who hates mercy. I don’t like honey traps and so I would have been much happier if she never existed. You just single out mercy threads.
Again, Feel free to look through my thoughts on brig sombra torb Moira symm reaper junkrat …
Doubtful. See also equally viable heroes : fortnite. The ultimate meme game is pretty good at balance.
She is niche. In her output. A rook is different than a bishop but both are equally powerful. They play differently. They have a niche. But how a player uses them is what makes them good or bad.
No . Optimal is not the same as flat output.
Is is more optimal to use a bishop in some cases. But it’s never flat better than a rook in base power. Optimal, comes from the player not the piece itself
Did you really just compare it to a BR where balancing is tuned for every single weapon which everyone can get access to unlike a hero shooter where each hero has their own individual kit?
And every hero is accessible by the players.
The original metaphor was chess. But sure. Ignore that part tho
And the problem is that people actively choose not to play other heroes, thanks for proving my point. GG go next.
Every hero is accessible doesn’t mean that optimal use has to equate to the hero and not the player.
Again…rook. bishop.
Chess has niche roles too. Overwatch doesn’t have to conform to your idea of niche.
I’m sorry to break this to you, but map design also plays a very heavy part in picking a good comp. Good open field/los is heaven for snipers, lot of cliff, pit fall is designed for Lucio, hog and Orisa, high ground is ideal for Dva and Winston and doom, close corridor combat is home to junkrat, Moira, ect. You can’t compare this to a chess game where everything is on the same level and you have a top POV, and let not forget no heavy mechanical skill is required to play chess, almost as if it requires an entire skill set from a first person shooter game.
1 Like
If this was true, metas wouldn’t exist. There is nothing stopping a person from learning multipile heroes other than them simply not wanting to.
Map design is also moving away from niche. Thus eichenwald Anubis and moon changes.
The pros and cons to a hero is flat. The maps are based around the players output. Just because you can boop off of a cliff with Lucio doesn’t mean he isn’t able to use boop at all elsewhere. Maximizing value is on the player. Not the game.
Indeed. Thus why output pros and cons define the niche. Can you utilize Ana? No? Luckily you have mercy to give you another equally viable option.
Can you utilize a knight fully? No? Luckily bishops and rooks are equally viable. The player defines this. Not the game.
And they shouldn’t. Each have been balance and structurally based and shows flaws.
Yeah
That’s on them. Not hero output. If you can’t get the burst or utility needed, mercy isn’t for you and you might have to switch. This hasn’t changed in my rework of removing conditional abilities.
For no metas to exist there would have to be literal perfect balance where picking one hero over another would not be better in any way, meaning that heroes wouldn’t counter each other as well. You could pick 6 random heroes every time and given you knew how to play them neither team would have an advantage over the other, not even maps would influence that - sounds like a pretty garbage game.
Actually, it doesn’t sound like OW.
2 Likes
What did they change about Anubis? And before Goats became universally good everywhere, I m pretty sure every team switched composition after capturing eichen point A to push for point B. Moon is changed because the unbalance between attacking and defending, not because of hero’s balance.
1 Like
Why? Player output would be the defining factor. You adjust as a player to what each hero offers. Tracer isn’t flat better than sombra but maybe the number of enemy shields is too much for you. Sombra would be more optimal for you as a player. Maybe you have 100%accuracy on Ana, but the enemy Winston and tracer is harming your healing output. You have to choose. Is healing your only focus and mercy your choice? Or utility still needed so Zen or Lucio is the better choice?
Maybe you have great aim on McCree but you as a player can’t kill fast enough before you die. Do you switch to reaper or to widow? Widow is faster but just as squishy. Reaper is more sturdy but you have to play much closer. Maybe neither. Maybe soldier is a better choice for you.
The switch comes from the player. Not the requirement of “playing Mei is impossible against pharah because the game disallows it”
That seems better than dreading how it’s 2cp and the enemy has mercy and symm making kills irrelevant on attack unless in a grave etc.
Viable heroes makes switching to them a player choice.
She is still viable, why dont people understand thats theres a time and place to play certain heros, my god. Your prob the same guy that tries to run orisa on attack on hanamura
2 Likes