This all really should have been put in the other thread. I agree with the OP but come on, there is already a topic for this – the original thread.
1 Like
No Need for death threats are you like okay
Yeah, no, that doesn’t really justify making a separate post about it. In fact, it actually defeats the purpose of this being a reply at all since you create a possibility of the OP (of the initial thread) not reading it.
Quite a regular thing I see, especially in the defence of Mercy. People make a reply to a bold statement in a separate thread as if what they are about to say is unique and deserves the attention of its own spotlight.
1 Like
Why was this made? NOBODY HAS EVER SAID MERCY PLAYERS CAUSED THE REWORK!
1 Like
Because the person xavvy was replying to literally said in the title that its mercy players fault she got a rework?
6 Likes
Actually someone has said exactly that. Edit… whoops! Someone already showed him this… oh well.
2 Likes
yes, i always had a secret feeling that there must have been an extra reason as to why she got that rework.
in all honesty i might not like rezz, but if we have to leave it in this game then mercy 2.0 isnt it.
i think the problem for ow is how the devs saw the game at the beginning as to how it is now and how it is actually applied.
that is why you see many reworks have their original ideas or design not from now but rather from the pre-ow release date.
sadly for mercy she has become the biggest victim of it, where certain aspects dont really work out. sadly taking a step back (reverting in game) might not help.
No no. It would certainly be much to long of a reply in someone else’s thread, and I didn’t want to worry myself with being seen as “derailing” the thread. I had other topics I wished to discuss, and thus, it most certainly needed to be said on it’s own. I’m not concerned with whether or not the message itself is seen by the person who holds the opposing view. The point of this thread is to post 10 reasons why I disagree with the common misconception of mercy players being blamed for the rework. Thanks for your opinion though! 
I think there is certainly a disparity between the game in the past and the game as it is now. I still think that some parts of her in her past versions could have been tweaked a bit instead of completely done from scratch. One of the issues I have seen is Mass rez not really given the amount of time and dedication as Valkyrie has had. I wonder how balanced or engaging it would have been if they spent as much time as they did with Mass rez as they have done with Valkyrie from it’s initial announcement until now.
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls 
2 Likes
Honestly, I don’t blame you for making your own thread. Replies usually aren’t as long or thorough as this one was. If I saw this response as a reply on the thread, I figure most would just skim through it. Especially if it isn’t the last reply on the thread. I agree with a lot of what you said, though! Mercy players never asked for this rework. A lot of the Mercy mains I saw and still see are much more in favor of tweaking Mass Rez to make it more fair. LoS, and a damage resistance instead of invulnerability being the two most popular ideas that I have seen.
But every time people see a Mercy main make these suggestions, they shut them down, claiming that they just want OP Mercy even though they just want their hero to be fun and viable. Since the rework, she has been fun but overpowered, or balanced (in the sense that we now have room for the other main healers) but draining to play. From my experience, Mass Rez was never overpowered. Annoying to play against once she got the invuln, sure, but she was a borderline troll pick before the invuln, and after it she was just annoying and there are plenty of ults that are annoying to play around.
8 Likes
Putting aside all the tired back and forth in this Mercy topic and all others, I just wanted to say: that was a spicy 5-man rez, xavvy. Well played!
Also, x5, but the kill feed only showed you getting four? Go figure. 
1 Like
So,because of people’s childish reaction, you have a childish reaction OP? Not exactly solid ground, is it?
Anyway, I think the point some people are trying to make is that Mercy players who used hide and rez caused the rework, which is true. In fact, I was one such person, whether you accept it or not.
That’s not to say I like current Mercy, I feel she needs the Lucio treatment (his rework was successful becuase ultimately it was about fun, not balance). But, we can’t do that if people keep crying revert Mercy, can we? Do you understand?
1 Like
Contributing to a thread by a large amount doesn’t magically become “derailing”.
Which is directly in response to the person who holds the opposing view.
This is kind of over done, don’t you think? It wasn’t funny the first time, it sure as hell isn’t constructive, and it only really works if your point is grounded in logic and rationale.
3 Likes
I think it was only a certain group of mainly Mercy mains that unintentionally caused this rework. There were many players (both Mercy and non Mercy mains) who realized that although Mercy was balanced, she had too much power in Resurrect, specifically the invincibility making it nearly uncountable. They began to suggest ideas for moving power from Mass Rez into a new ability, however , the group of Mercy Mains (I’ll call them BM (Bad Mercy) for short) would respond with "she’s fine and balanced and would essentially stifle these threads. Eventually, the BM group began to like the idea of a new ability but still rejected the idea of any sort of nerf to Rez, which would be what would allow Mercy to get a new ability without being OP.
This was fixed before the rework. It resulted in Mercy’s almost non-existent on-fire rate.
And coming into someone’s thread to post the same generic “This belongs in _____ thread” reply, as two other posts have said before you, doesn’t magically make said post, “constructive.” Yet here we are.
You do realize that people in these forums can make a thread that holds a different view from someone else right? Especially since replying with such a long post would have either been generally skimmed through or ignored anyway? No no, a thread was certainly most appropriate.
Nope!
My apologies, where did I make mention that the intention of such a response was to humor you or that the general rule of such a reply is that it needs to first prove to you that it was “grounded in your logic and rationale.” What you personally perceive of someone thanking you for your opinion is not of my concern. That sounds like a personal issue.
However, I do believe that this non-constructive discussion has gone long enough. And thus, once again I will say to you in my last reply to your posts. Thanks again for your opinion, and best wishes in your endeavors!
Hmm, not sure I agree with you there. Valkyrie existed as an idea before there were any “Mercy mains” to cause anything. Way back in pre-alpha. So all in all, blaming anyone as the cause of Valkyrie holds no real weight. Unless of course that person to blame is it’s creator.
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls
2 Likes
This comment doesn’t mean much, except that you’ve just admitted that that “derailing” nonsense was indeed nonsense.
Yes, but typically, when you are making a respond to a specific claim, you do it in the thread from which the claim originated. That’s sort of how forums work.
Honestly, should have expected this “Nuh-uh!” kind of attitude from a thread like this.
This question doesn’t end in a question mark, but, anyway, I was trying to think of a motive for such an unnecessary statement. It doesn’t add to the discussion so I assumed it was either trying to be funny or patronising - being either of which would sort of make it fall flat given the context. I guess there’s no rule in typing out something that doesn’t add to the discussion or doesn’t otherwise serve a purpose.
Come off your high horse, you aren’t fooling anyone. We can all clearly see you’re only typing it in response to people that have disagreed with you as an attempt to belittle the opinion which you sarcastically thank them for.
I agree, but yet, people always complain when the mods close the Mercy threads.
2 Likes
1 reason why mercy needed a rework: the community needed it for the health of the game.
community’s needs > mercy mains’ needs
5 Likes
mercy had res, the most broken multiplayer ability on earth, from launch, players broke her more, causing the rework
5 Likes
Mercy Mains are the most vocal hero mains, which is pretty hilarious cause other heroes are a lot worse and for a longer time, yet they aren’t as vocal.
3 Likes
Say what you wish about the why, ifs and buts. The fact remains that in no other FPS team based shooter ever have I or many others seen an ability that can bring back an entire team immediately after a team fight.
Was it unique? Was it iconic? Was it memorable? Yes to all of the above.
Was it fun to play against and did it make any sense whatsoever in relation to what the other healers brought to the table? Not at all.
I’m open to another rework which actually takes the community’s opinions in to consideration this time and makes Mercy more fun, but to disregard the majority of the community’s dislike for the mass rezz aspect is being a bit selfish.
I get many of you Mercy mains miss mass rez and think it felt more special than valc, but 99% of you completely ignore the fact that most NON-Mercy mains hate the idea of mass rezz, and a lot of you don’t seem to care about that.
Anyway, I’m open to a better rework than this, there’s a lot of good ideas floating around mostly by Mercy mains.
5 Likes
Bastion mains would disagree, just look at the mega thread.