what??? are you even reading what you wrote??
I did lol. Do tell what’s wrong with it.
2 Likes
everything ._.
First: pickrate and winrate IS the main reason to rework characters, there are other factors too of course but they are included on the metric
second: controlling the meta is not a bad thing, meta is subject to constant change, mercy being a constant influence is not a bad thing, the bad thing is that other supports are being left out, nothing else
third: Pick rate DOES determine the succesfulness of a rework because it is the only metric that can speak about it, everything else is subjective
1 Like
An easy character like mercy should not be dominating at all levels of play. Mercy’s pickrate is so insanely high, she overshadows every other support, and when the most mechanically demanding healer is considered a throw pick at even grandmaster, that’s when I consider mercy’s rework a failure.
3 Likes
Your logic is more questionable. The reason they reworked Mercy was because her play style and Mass Resurrection as a whole was considered bad for the game’s health and made her ‘impossible’ to balance. Her rework, in the end, only made Mercy’s situation worse, thus it is a failure. You just have to think outside of the box and think about how else this rework would be a failure.
1 Like
- Well guess what, none of those reasons were stated in the developer video that told us about the Mercy rework. Weird?
I wonder why the supports are suddenly being left out after her rework. Surely, it’s because Mercy’s rework was a success…
- So say for example a hero after their rework had a 95% pickrate. Do you think that shows a successful rework? Disregarding all the other points that determine the successfulness of a rework because they are subjective is just dumb imo.
Mass Rez was Overwatch’s greatest failure
Good riddance to it.
3 Likes
Their Mercy rework was their greatest failure.
Prove me wrong.
12 Likes
It was an Ultimate. What I am suggesting is retain Valk in it’s current state and move Res to a pool charge system. Valk is still an Ultimate, res functions the same.
Valkyrie is labelled as an ultimate but is as impactful as Reaper in the current meta. Heck! People call it a glorified spectator mode.
1 Like
Just because of teams with crap coordination that can’t take proper advantage of an Ult/Dismisses it as irrelevant doesn’t mean the Ult isn’t viable.
There have been many situations where I have used Valk to either hold a point or enable my team to push onto it, then hold it with a well selected res.
Ignoring Mcree’s ULT is not a counter to it
2 Likes
Between Valkyrie and Resurrect, which do you think is more impactful?
Depends on the situation at hand. Sometimes a res on a downed tank with an ULT available is the best option, sometimes ignoring the out of place DPS yelling for res and popping Valk so the rest of your coordinated team can push current obj.
1 Like
In general, which is more impactful?
1 Like
Valk.
If your team plays well, and never actually dies or doesn’t die frequently enough to warrant deploying res every 30 seconds.
If your team is dying lots, then Res.
There is no cut in stone answer for this one
3 Likes
Laughs Hysterically
3 Likes
Sorry, but this is just wrong entirely.
The ability to bring back 5 people is wayyyyy more powerful than Valk
3 Likes
[/quote]
No.
You’re wrong.
Why does this thread even have this many views?
Seriously, you think glorified spectat- I mean, Valkyrie is stronger than mass Resurrect?