Ah, I see where you are coming from now. Objectively they can make her even worse, but for you personally it wouldn’t matter if they do. Got it. Yeah… I’m pretty much in that boat too.
I feel like people like to forget this when its convenient, and I would have brought it up more in the past, but in all fairness they have been gutting HPS across the board lately. So Mercy’s been getting indirectly more powerful lately.
They seem to be nerfing every in the game lately. CC got nerfed, shields got nerfed, healing got nerfed, they just double nerfed Hanzo and are nerfing Widowmaker, they just nerfed Doomfist. Honestly I have to give props to Blizzard, they are removing a lot of the more frustrating things in the game.
2 Likes
Well if it’s on a cooldown, it would be more of a burst healing ability. Which is what Mercy players wanted, and for you who also plays Rine. Is that not what you want when playing that Role? Cause being a tank and getting healed by Mercy kinda sucks.
Well, I can’t say it wouldn’t trouble me to see devs moving in the wrong direction, but what am I to do? Her current state is a mess yet they refuse to even talk about it, all we get is “she’s fine” and colossal stupidity like “Ashe will be great for her”, so if a meta forces their hand, maybe they’ll stumble into something and realize the mess they’ve made.
2 Likes
It would definitely help Valkryie, but to be fair almost anything would help Valkryie. At this point I would be happy with almost anything Blizzard does with it.
You mean like how a few months back Jeff just said people just want Mercy to be the best? I couldn’t have facepamled more if I tried. It actually hurt to see how badly the mark was missed, its not her strength that’s the problem, its Valkryie’s core design that’s the problem.
2 Likes
60 HP/s ain’t exactly bursty.
If it is, fine, the design problems remain I’m afraid.
If duration was lowered then maybe, less is more when it comes to Valk.
1 Like
If people aren’t satisfied with her kit they can play another hero. Many of us are satisfied and don’t want resurrection as an ultimate.
Perhaps change Valkyrie, make it last shorter but heal more, but yea.
Let them pick something else.
1 Like
That would be an enormous improvement.
3 Likes
There is nothing left to pick.
The reason I initially started playing Mercy was because of her ability to sustain her team and keep them alive. Have you been watching the recent changes to almost every support? Brigitte less hps on packs and less stacking armor (PTR). Baptiste, less healing and immortality has been severely nerfed. Moira again less healing. Going back a bit further… Brigitte, Armor pack burst heal deleted in favor of some anemic 60 HPs for 2 seconds and her ability to physically impose herself between teammates and danger got reduced by a ton.
Face it… Blizzard hates defensive abilities. If one wanted to play a defensive minded hero… they have zero options.
There are nearly 30 heroes in the game.
That’s why I continue to play her.
Yea I’m a support main since season 1.
They are toning down healing. There is nothing wrong with that.
Really? Because sound barrier has been buffed since launch and so has transcendence
I don’t think that’s true. The heroes still exist.
Really really.
Torb’s Armor pack: Gone.
Symm shield generator: Gone.
Mass Resurrect: Gone.
Symm’s teleporter: No longer a defensive ultimate.
Defense Matrix: Nerfed into being a shadow of its former self.
Majority of shields: Nerfed to be significantly weaker than when they were launched.
Trans and Beat: Always had long charge times. The TWO global nerfs to ultimate charge rates hurt them the most. Also it makes the situations where they are actually useful happen significantly less often.
Also, the buffs Trans and Beat got all happened a long time ago.
Sure, the heroes still exist, but their ability to defend or sustain their team have been made significantly weaker. If that’s why you were playing them… well you now have no reason to play them.
Okay, but that doesn’t mean they hate the abilities. I would argue that most of those changes you cited are better for the game.
Armor pack, shield generator, mass resurrect, teleporter, and DM… I think the changes done to these abilities is better for the health of the game.
It’s harder, sure, but that just means it’s more of a challenge.
I do have reason to play them.
You want to hear the reason?
I like the characters and I get results with them.
yeah i’ve seen this idea multiple times
it’s just that the comunity doesn’t want mass rez back, valkyrie itself creates a lot of issues mainly simplifying the character and mass rez wasn’t a good ability it was game swingy but you’d get (near) max value out of it despite what the forums will tell you
Health of the game is a complete and total myth. Literally any mechanic can be good for a game if it serves the experience the game is trying to create and the experience the players want. Best example I can think of is any of those games in the genre of Unfair Mario or Unfair Sonic. In a game that isn’t actively trying to infuriate their players, most of the hidden traps, inconsistent platforms, and other stuff they do would not fit. But there they fit just fine because they support the intended game experience.
All of those changes have resulted in making Overwatch faster. I don’t want a fast game. I never did. If I did, I’d go play CS:Go or something. So the fact that the devs are actively trying to speed up the game has in fact killed Overwatch for me.
1 Like
You contradicted yourself. Is it a myth or do some changes make a game feel better? It can’t be both
Yea and Overwatch has an intended game experience. That is, do what is fun for most people (in theory).
Fall damage isn’t fun - axe it
Having to search for ammo isn’t fun - infinite ammo
The Bastion buff made him played literally all the time and the players are pissed about it - revert it
Sorry, but most of us don’t want to sit at choke having all damage be healed off before anything can come from it for four minutes.
I’m sorry to hear that, but I’d argue making the game faster benefits most players of the game
I want to circle back to this:
This is completely and totally wrong.
ex)
Making Reaper have 100% life-steal would, objectively, be bad for the health of the game
Ok so you basically haven’t understood what I meant by that comment. I said that no mechanic is inherently unhealthy. If the mechanic serves the game and it is built around. I’m not saying that any old random change applied to Overwatch and then not balanced around would be fine.
Did you know that there is an FPS with a single target, instant, zero cool down revive? With the number of people who claim that Resurrect doesn’t belong in any FPS games, surely that game is a raging dumpster fire, right? No. No it isn’t. Due to a variety of different things, it isn’t actually even a big deal. Would throwing that ability into Overwatch cause absolute pandemonium? Yes absolutely because Overwatch isn’t currently set up around that. Could Overwatch be set up to allow for an ability like that? Yes absolutely. Will it be? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean that that mechanic is inherently unhealthy.
1 Like
The word inherently was not in your previous post, so it wasn’t that I didn’t understand, it’s that you didn’t adequately explain your position. You literally didn’t say what you said you said, at least verbatim.
This is also untrue because a mechanic that made someone invincible whilst doing damage would be bad for the health of any PvP game I can think of
You said that the health of the game is a complete and total myth. You are contradicting this assertion when you admit that you aren’t saying any change applied to overwatch and not balanced around would be fine.
So, you are literally admitting that there can be some changes that hurt the health of the game. Therefore, the concept of “the health of the game” certainly exists.
I don’t know why you’re caught up on if mechanics are inherently unhealthy in the most general sense.
We’re talking about a specific game with a specific player-base. Within the context of this game there are certainly objectively bad changes we could make that would negatively impact the health of the game and player experience as a whole
That’s the thing though. Even your 100% life steal Reaper could theoretically be included into the game. You’d probably have to nerf his damage to like… 60 DPS or something, but in a strictly virtual space there’s no limit to what you can theoretically do.
Now that set of changes has other problems because that character arguably wouldn’t be Reaper and Loss Aversion is a thing… but… you could. You can also sidestep that messy stuff by making those changes a new hero, and… probably somebody would love that guy.
Because everything about video games is subjective. What you think is “unhealthy” for Overwatch I could easily see as “healthy”. What you think is a good change I could hate with the passion of a thousand burning suns. Why? Because there the bits and pieces of Overwatch that we value and cherish probably do not match in the slightest.
Now, since video games are so subjective… the important part of every video game and probably every piece of entertainment in existence is what effect they have on the humans that interact with it. That’s it. Now I mentioned Loss Aversion earlier, but do you know what it is? Its an interesting little psychological phenomenon humans have that makes them really really hate losing things they precieve as theirs. Like to the tune of losing $10 feels as bad as gaining $20 feels good. Because of that, Deleting stuff people loved is not and will never be OK. All these defensive abilities and play styles used to exist. Blizzard has gotten rid of a lot of them. I don’t care if it “didn’t fit their vision of the game”. Deleting it is still not OK. There are a million different potential ways to fit something into the game, if you made something in a game figure out how to keep it. Game Devs owe that to their players.
Right, so we should go utilitarian and make it as healthy as we can for as many people as we can.
I can’t agree with the conclusion that deleting stuff people loved is not and will never be OK.
Look, when Mercy was reworked and lost mass resurrection and got nerfed to oblivion I was in the revert Mercy crowd. I hated it. I claimed the hero I loved was gone and I even quit the game for half a year.
I came back, started playing Mercy, realized I still have fun with her and do not want her reverted again.
We can’t cater to outrage necessarily. People don’t think clearly when they are angry.
Something can be overall bad for the game. Sure, you’re right, you could potentially balance it to be good for the game, but if you can rework it or delete it, and doing so is easier, then you should definitely at least consider it.
You say you don’t care if it doesn’t fit their vision. I can’t get behind this. The developers are artists, to me, and the game is their piece of art.
You can’t, in my opinion, tell the artist how they have to do their art. Would you tell a painter they can’t erase something?
Sure, this analogy has its flaws, but the overall idea still holds. This is, in the end, their project. Their job. Their livelihood. They are the arbiter of what happens. They can, and perhaps should, listen to the player-base, but they don’t have to.
Just because there are a million* different ways to potentially fit something in the game doesn’t mean you should necessarily do it or even that it would have good results. It could be balanced, but it could negatively impact the player experience. Balancing the player experience is just as important if not more important than balancing the game.
Could they have balanced mass resurrection to actually be balanced? Sure, but you’d still have people arguing it is unhealthy or bad for gameplay. You can disagree with them if you want, but no matter how you balance it there will be someone who disagrees. This is why I think we need to be utilitarian and help the most people. Sure, Mercy mains got pissed after her rework and nerfs, but the game was far better for nearly everyone else as a result.
And while you are doing one of those millions of options to fit something in the game you are, nearly without fail, also deleting something from the game. A strategy, a favorable match-up, etc.
You’re telling them they have to figure out how to keep it, but, again, I can’t get on board with this. Some things need to be deleted or changed. That’s just the reality of game design.
And, last but not least, I don’t think the developers necessarily owe us in the sense that they can’t delete things.
We purchased this game with the understanding that it would change. Things being removed, balanced, or reworked falls under change.
If you want to read a long-drawn out post about what I think is the problem with Mercy that still remains today, you can see it here, though I can’t blame you if you can’t, its pretty easy to tell when someone didnt read the whole thing.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/yet-another-mercy-thread/355676