I disagree. Resurrection kept fights going. Therefore, it was not only part of the team fight, it prolonged them.
Not sure what point you meant to bring with the high rank mercy wanting buffs to res. If your team consists of just 1 main healer. You were usually dead to begin with. If you had a secondary healer, and you were in your team and they couldn’t keep you alive as the main healer, that’s the fault of the healers and / or the tanks.
A team with just one main healer is simply bad team composition. And I disagree, if one of your 5 team mates is a secondary healer, you are not a “dead team”. If at that point you rezzed 5 people and they still couldn’t hold the point, you were simply outplayed.
And saying “high ranking mercies this” and “low ranking mercies that” is also irrelevant, because of your previous point, so thank you for that clarification.
Not really. Mass res is subjectively the more balanced ultimate. It had a lot less nerfs than Valkyrie, and Mercy wasn’t a must pick across the ranks while having it, like she did with Valkyrie. That’s just the facts.
I’m not referring to just a revert without tweaks either, which I have already explained in previous posts…
Incorrect. The failure or success of a change isn’t tied to “how many buffs or nerfs” a hero gets, that failure is tied to how unbalanced that hero is in terms of pick and winrates. If a hero is 100% picked all the time WITH nearly a 100% winrate, that is a failed rework. Valkyrie has had that, and needed to be nerfed a hell of a lot of times just to balance it out. That is what I would call a failure.
Mass res Mercy had no such problems. She had much low pickrates, and even lower winrates. All that was needed was to tweak her ult. No one wanted them to rework the hero into an OP goddess.
- Mass res benefits the main hero.
- A lot of people still want Mass res to return.
So… remind me how this isn’t a “main factor?”
That is subjective opinion, not backed by fact.
That is once again subjective opinion, not backed by fact. Where have I ever said “I think all rezzes are bad because Rez on E is bad?” in any of my posts?
That is your opinion. From my experience, she’s always meant to be played defensively as a healer who benefits most from keeping fights going over time, and her kit most benefits from defensive play.
The 50hps nerfed Valk is not a good initiation ult, because it doesn’t give enough sustain to secure an effective push like other initiation ultimates can (trans, soundbarrier, or even nano boost). An initiation ult should give you the ability to sustain heavy focus fire, so you actually can secure the point (or atleast make it there) through loads of damage. Mercy’s current ult with it’s lackluster sustain healing does that job horribly.
But these are both just opinions here, so we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that. Though a single target beam that gives a lot more healing in ult would be admittedly, a nice compromise to her valk healing problem.
Here’s the way I think of it.
Initiator = Needs some sort of Burst healing to outheal consistent damage through a choke point.
Sustain = Needs consistent healing to maintain heroes through inconsistent damage while defending.
Making Mercy an initiator would require her to have the tools to push her team through lots of damage. Unfortunately, her ult doesn’t do that. 50hps is not enough to get you through a team wiping ult or heavy focus fire, it just doesn’t happen, and is part of the reason why people now pick Ana over her in Platinum and above. The cons outweigh the pros when your enemies have half-decent aim in defending.
I completely disagree, supports should be able to to both. Case in point, Transcendence, Sound barrier, (and formerly) Mass resurrect.
You’re kind of oversimplifying there a bit. Yes, you are putting bodies to make up for the loss, as that is the point of resurrect, which was rewarding. There was still a chance that the rezzed allies could turn the tide if they were skilled enough, which made fights interesting.
If you are getting steamrolled and you’re initiating in Valk, you take no major role in that fight. You get to watch your team get steam rolled, and you end up back at spawn. There is a lot less engagement and the risk is much lower… since you’re high in the skybox. You are still playing passively if you want to be effective in Valk, since Mercy does not have the toolkit to secure a point with as much impact as her support counterparts.
And it was balanced out with the fact that she originally had one of the best Ultimates in the game, so the drawbacks were justified.
I’m not concerned with “selling” you anything. However, the facts are this.
Mercy in 1.0 was never an OP moth for 5 months and then nerfed 11+ times just to “achieve perfect balance”.
Mercy 1.0 didn’t have 30-40% of her playerbase leave due to the healing nerfs that made her even more unrewarding to play.
Mercy 1.0 wasn’t a must pick, causing people to hate her players for reasons outside of their control.
Mercy 1.0 didn’t have essentially a “spectator camera” as an ultimate due to how arguably unfun it was to use.
But hey, I won’t judge you. If you really love Mercy as she is right now, more power to you and continue on playing her to your hearts content. I’m unsatisfied with how Mercy’s ultimate ended up. No, I think they could have taken her back, and given her the minor tweaks that kept her balanced while maintaining her rewarding playstyle.
“This rework was a huge success.”
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.