I would like to remind everyone that the primary objective of a rework request for Mercy is substantially NO to valkyrie and YES to the ress in ultimate (regardless if it is single or mass). and give her the original 60 hp x sec.
but before proposing news, let’s ask two questions: is it really necessary to give an “E” to Mercy? we reflect well before giving an answer, I remind you the complete rework of Symmetra that has split half community. Let’s think about what kind of action it takes in the period before Valkyrie. Three questions:
I really need a new skill E?
why would I really need them to have fun?
I’d like to have her against me when I play other heroes?
Bringing back mass res is a popular solution, but the #ReworkMercy movement is about identifying and publicizing the problem, not any one specific solution to that problem.
I haven’t come up with any new ideas or checked in on yall for a couple of months, any interesting new builds suggested recently? I hear Aria has a spreadsheet with ideas of the think tank on it, but I haven’t seen a link to it
You could still stand with #ReworkMercy if you want to keep Valkyrie. Not all rework suggestions include removing it from Mercy’s ultimate let alone her entire kit. Most do tweak it in some way, but most suggestions I have seen that keep Valkyrie as Mercy’s ultimate leave it mostly unchanged and just increase the impact while reducing the duration.
ok, but why? to understand the point of view of the “pro-valkyrie” , then why is it worth according to you is more felt as an impact than bringing a partner back, for example?
“pro-valkyrie” is a bit strong, I hate Valkyrie and I think it’s among the worst designs in the entire game. However, Valkyrie being pile of garbage scrapped from the alpha doesn’t make the other ult better. Now, maybe mass res was better, I don’t know, I never played with it so I don’t care for it one way or the other.
One thing seems clear though: Devs don’t seem to believe mass res (in any form) has a part in their game anymore, regardless of its balance, impact or gameplay, it doesn’t seem to my interpretation that the devs believe mass res was part of the overwatch “puzzle”, the same way we don’t have blood and gore, it does’t fit.
That’s just my interpretation of their actions and words, but based on that I believe mass res (even if I cared for it) is a pipe-dream, an unobtainable goal not worth pursuing.
Tweaking Valkyrie into a skillful, actually good, fun, engaging ult? That’s something that may happen. Reworks are also expensive, while tweaking Valkyrie can be done much more cheaply.
tldr: Tweaking Valk is a realistic and reasonable goal that would accomplish the objective of making Mercy fun, engaging and impactful, plus and I don’t care for mass res one way or the other.
Yeah. I thought of a rework that addresses all of mercys problems in like…the worst way I think people need to be more specific in their requests to keep what they like about Mercy lol
I don’t care for rez either but I don’t think valk is balanceable in the chain beam form. Nor do I think rez on e is good for Mercy in her base kit. I’d rather rez be tied to her ult even if it’s a weird form of valk like I proposed in my … Be careful what you wish for Mercy rework:
Rez on her ultimate doesn’t have to mean the return of mass rez. The problem with resurrection as a concept is that it’s purely binary - either a target is dead or it isn’t, and resurrection just changes a 0 to a 1 leaving no room for numeric nerfs. No matter how far you nerf it, it still flips that switch and is much more straightforward to balance as an ultimate, which by their nature are supposed to be game-changing. Having it on E, regardless of how many limitations they put on it, necessarily means that the rest of her kit - including her ultimate - have to be inherently underpowered to make up for it.
Whether it’s mass rez, single rez with fairly low ult requirement, or single rez on q during Valkyrie with a set cooldown or charge limit is irrelevant so long as the ability returns to her ultimate in some form and is removed as a normal ability.
I ask myself a question: is there any uncertainty in a more massive rework that involves the elimination of Valkyrie on the basis of what was perceived for the total rework of Symmetra? to be clear, many accuse Sym 3.0 of being a worse solution than Sym 2.0, claiming to have always wanted a non-invasive rework.
from the words you wrote, however, I notice a note of insecurity on the validity of the rework and more a sort of “let’s get back on thereality, it will not be better than before” (I can also be wrong ). maybe we can even put aside for a moment the speech ress (although iconic as for the Sym is the farcaster, needless to say the opposite) but perhaps what you mean is a rework of the Valkyrie concept as was the molten core of Torb? Only in name but with all new mechanics?
PS: as I said in the first post, I’m not talking about mass ress or single in particular.
I’ve argued against the chain beam quite vocally, it’s arguably the most garbage part of the already garbage ult, which is so bad it’s actually… Impressive how bad it is.
I also have been quite specific about the feedback I give: Valk is poorly designed, takes too much away from the player, Valk needs to be tweaked to allow more skillful play and player expression.
Sorry. I didn’t know. I attach valk to chain beams inherently since that’s the part they kept versus pistol, rez, or mobility in valk. But alright. I get you.
For example, my meme valk eliminated chain beams too in favor of only pistol mobility Mercy being even capable
why is it worth according to you is more felt as an impact than bringing a partner back, for example?
). maybe we can even put aside for a moment the speech ress (although iconic as for the Sym is the farcaster, needless to say the opposite) but perhaps what you mean is a rework of the Valkyrie concept as was the molten core of Torb? Only in name but with all new mechanics?