I have the mindset of Connor from Detroit. I don’t really care about beatings because I’m a robot with an A.I brain.
It gives teams a second chance to recover after a blowout. Either team could potentially have access to that second chance if they wanted it. There’s a reason for “everyone”. And contrary to popular belief, it was not a requirement to have a Mercy on your team if the enemy team had one - because I know that’s typically the next argument people make against her. Zen/Lucio or Lucio/Ana could easily outperform a team with a Mercy. Especially if that Ana could land her sleeps. Hell, even a Sombra could make the enemy Mercy largely irrelevant once she was released, if she was good enough.
Back then, an ult-combo was not the be-all end-all of securing a point or winning/losing a match. I’m sure every single person who’s played this game has had at least one instance where one singular mistake led to a loss where they had otherwise been dominating the entire match, or vice versa - where they had been absolutely getting rolled by the enemy team but managed one lucky combo that allowed them to win. Mass Rez offered a way for the superior team to continue to earn that win even if a lesser team happened to capitalize on a single mistake or happenstance, just as it allowed an underdog team to have a fighting chance of turning the tides.
That’s one of the reasons why many people loved having Mercy on their own team - and even why they would yell at Mercy’s to hide, once that became a thing. Because they wanted to have that second wind that Mass Rez offered. It added a dynamic in which not only could a superior team could come back from one trivial misstep, but also where even the underdog could pull together in the last moment and overcome what seemed to be a hopeless situation.
Were there problems with Mass Rez that needed to be addressed? Of course there were. I haven’t seen a single post - personally, anyways - that has argued that Mass Rez was absolutely perfect and could not have used tweaking to balance it properly. But was it objectively unhealthy for the game, just because it offered the potential to resurrect multiple allies? No, and the history of Mass Rez within the first 3-ish seasons proves that.
Mass rez had never been considered fundamentally broken until the invulnerability patch removed a great amount of the counterplay available to those playing against her. She was buffed numerous times prior for the sole fact that her rez did not make her a must pick or OP, despite its design. That alone should say something about the fact that it wasn’t broken by design of just having resurrections as a game mechanic period, but that the removal of counterplay is what caused the frustration to mount that led to her rework.
And yes, I understand that arguing with context leads to so many if/then situations that it’s impossible to argue them objectively. But given that you can’t measure Mass Rez’s objective strength or weaknesses, it’s impossible to argue about it without considering the context, at least a little.
Also, I do have to say that I really do disagree with this prevailing idea that you can’t compare a DPS’s kills to a Mercy’s resurrect because the DPS is skilled and the Mercy somehow isn’t. Yes, Mercy’s resurrect was instantaneous, but she first had to earn it, and then she had to stay alive long enough to actually use it. Mercy did have to earn Resurrect through healing, damage boosting, or dealing damage - all while being the #1 priority target on a battlefield. It’s very different from the way it is now where people practically ignore you until you attempt to rez. Mercy’s back then were hunted viciously as the sole focus of enemy flankers and oftentimes the enemy DPS would go out of their way to solo ult them just to make sure they died - at least in higher ranked play, which is why she didn’t see a lot of use at Diamond+, because the skill in playing Mercy as you rose in the ranks became less about just how many rezzes she could pull off, but how well she could use her mobility to stay alive under heavy focus from an enemy team that actually knew how to exploit her weaknesses.
If it takes skill to earn a DPS player a kill or use their ult, why does it not also follow that it also takes skill to avoid being killed by that same DPS player as one of the more defenseless characters in the roster whose main “defense” is just her mobility, while also managing your team’s health, dodging ultimates, and pulling off resurrects when the opportunity arises? Mercy’s skill may not have required the same factors that applies to a DPS hero, but that didn’t mean that the use of resurrect required no skill at all.
It’s one of the reasons why Mercy’s skill ceiling has dropped with the rework - Valk offers her an easy escape at any time its up, her added slingshot/bunnyhop increases her already very good mobility, and she no longer has an ultimate that is strong enough to warrant the enemy team making her as much of a priority target as before.
You are right in that you can’t really compare a kill to a resurrection, but it’s not because one requires skill and the other doesn’t.
Mercy will never get resurrect back as an ult, that being said, there are ways they could rework res to make it more involved, and less hide and seek, one possible option would be to remove the cd, and simply give her a way to earn it (think a torb scrap system) or possibly something based around how much she has healed, kinda like a second, less powerful ult
Except that’s an advantage presented outside of game mechanics gained through abusing systems. It’s not the same as a team failing to counter something as it’s normally presented.
That’s why console life was so overwhelmingly dominated by Mercy, and also Pharah. Never played it myself, but I know people that do. This all ties into how successful given certain considerations a hide and rez approach was. I can construct a lot of scenarios, that could realistically happen, that’d make hide and rez appear OP af. I’m sure you can construct some that would give the complete opposite impressions. That’s how it goes, and it depends on things like what tier, where and when the fights taking place, the map, etc, etc, etc.
Back then people died to Dva bombs left and right, Dva mains included. Lot of stuff has changed. Arguing the team that makes good use of mass rez is t he superior team is pretty presumptuous. How good any given team is is completely relative to their tier, how many people in their team, how familiar they are with each other, etc, etc. Circumstances and considerations.
A superior team wouldn’t make a misstep. Or is that a context we’re not going to? I’m really confused where we’re drawing lines and what matters and what doesn’t…
Depends on your definition of broken. Before the invulnerability it was suicide and rez. Some people would, and did, argue that was broken.
I said nothing about the skill involved. The mechanic is entirely different. A kill operates on an enemy, a rez operates on a team mate. That alone makes it fundamentally different.
Skill is not involved in this dicussion. Neither is a lot of these hypothetical scenarios I see many of you bringing up.
1:1 vs 1:1-5.
Give me reason that doesn’t involve “I like it better” as to why 1:1-5 would be better than 1:1.
That is the goal.
EeveeA suggested this but Geoff Goodman already denied the possibility.
I didn’t say that it only came down to mass rez? I said mass rez could give teams an opportunity for a second chance. Mass rez itself wouldn’t automatically make the team who used it better win a match, it just meant that they had a second chance to turn the tides. If a team wipes another team easily, and the second team gets rezzed, does that rez automatically make the second team better than the first, or does it only give them the opportunity to try again?
I was only talking about the fact that it allows for more opportunities rather than that Mass Rez itself would be the only determining factor.
I already did, you just misunderstood my point. Not once in this entire discussion have I used “I like Mass Rez more” as a reason. I specifically stated myself that fun/unfun was entirely subjective and depends on the person, and holds no weight.
Takes 6 people to win a game, takes 1 to lose it. There will never be a sole determining factor to any fight in this game. Just not realistic.
Mass rez operated in a completely unique way with the game (interacted with dead team mates, not alive opponents) and was made (potentially) more valuable the more dead team mates you had. (let’s assume everyone has ult available, and they didn’t use it but killed 2 people on the enemy team, died on point, then got rezzed, so the moment the enemy 4 man followed up with a grav you had trans and rolled them.)
See? Circumstance goes both ways. And because of this game, it’s so complex we can go for days. Thats why I don’t really entertain that hypothetical sort of level of reasoning.
Yeah I totally agree with this.
I didn’t mean to assume you were pro mass rez, I was just responding to you as if you were. That’s presumptuous on my part and I apologize for that.
I agree with a great deal of what you say, just not the conclusions when it comes to 1:1-5 vs 1:1. Though, I can’t even say those are your conclusions. Apparently you might have no tie to mass rez, I don’t know.
I just hope I presented my position well, I appreciate your response. And unfortunately I still feel that 1:1 > 1:1-5. I still remain unconvinced that mass rez deserves a place in this game considering it’s hero and gameplay designs, community opinion, etc, etc.
Why does your team not use any of your other 4/5 ults? Especially since the enemy has used BOTH their support ults, and your team still has theirs?
Because I ran around the map and didn’t find the Mercy. So throwing ults while Mercy was alive was foolish. Then my team blames me. Maybe they throw ults after the rez but the Trans defeats it and etc etc. It goes on and on.
So many circumstances, that’s why my arguments revolved around something void of circumstance: Simply how mass rez interacted with the game as a whole.
I mean after the rez, after the grav, and after the enemy uses trans. How is it a “roll” if you still have 4/5 ults, including both support ults?
Yeah man. This group that I can’t get to group up is going to have a coordinated sequencing of ults. That makes sense.
I consider all the positions.
Again, none of this directly address 1:1 vs 1:1-5.
Also, why do you have 6 ults in the first place? You should be cycling them appropriately. Even if Mercy rezes it, she doesn’t have it for your next ult.
So, again, it comes down to a team playing poorly rather than any mechanic being flawed.
See? You just run down the rabbit hole, Alice. You just keep coming up with more and more considerations and circumstances.
That’s why I argued something void of them. Then you told me I need to consider your circumstance, apparently above others.
Why? Because it helps your narrative? I have no reason to appreciate what you’re arguing in relation to the 1:1 vs 1:1-5 argument.
1=1-5 is healthier because Blizzard clearly can’t balance 1=1 for Resurrect accordingly whereas balancing 1=1-5 is pretty straightforward.
Does that count?
My point is that it can be countered with good play. All of your examples rely on one team playing extremely poorly and Mercy’s team playing optimally, but matches usually don’t have that big of a gap in skill.
It doesn’t resolve the issue of team mate death potentially rewarding the player.
Blizzard is incapable of balancing OH SO MANY THINGS. I’m not white knighting Blizzards balancing of OW. I’m asking for a reason to believe 1:1-5 is better than 1:1 outside of person anecdotes and Blizzard’s balancing ineptitude.
Yeah and pro players have countered hacker Widows with good play. Search it up on youtube. Irrelevant.
It honestly doesn’t though. There is way more incentive to res and then heal the ally that is low on health.