“you need evidence to post things as facts”
*insists mass rez is coming back, the only fact being “sometimes devs change their mind”.
You realize how your ENTIRE argument is based on speculation? Don’t pull facts on us if you aren’t providing any by yourself.
I could have sworn that I heard something… Oh well… Must have been the wind…
So in other words… You don’t have said “factual information”, to prove that your statement was indeed “fact.” If that is indeed the case, then with regards to your previous claim of:
You would then be just giving your opinion on what you “think” they meant, that you are assuming should be taken as fact. Is that correct? Do feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong there. I don’t want to miss any ahem… “facts” with regards to what was said, these changes, and whether they were a buff, a revert, or both… “Factually.” 
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls 
I’m just eating my lunch, looking at this thread like:
I know I’ve already said this but both of you are essentially arguing over semantics so you can use it in your naratives sooo if it means anything it’s pretty irrelevant toward which of you is right.
I have provided you with the source.
It is up to you to read it, or not read it; to accept it, or to not accept it.
I do not understand the relevance of the blush emoticon in this response or any of your previous ones
Have you? I see no link, documented evidence, or proof of what you’ve said other than “Go look it up”.
I should implore you that I have infact looked it up, since you haven’t seem to be able to provide. And the following quote that talks about the most recent patch reads:
Allow me to ask then, because maybe I am missing it, or it’s buried in invisible text somewhere. Where in this passage do you see the following quote that you claimed?
Mind you, I’ve already proven why it would be a revert, based on simple math and numbers, as well as a buff. But for what you’ve stated, I’m looking, and I don’t see such a statement being made. Hmmm… Where ever could that “Factually factual” statement be? Care to point it out? Or am I left to believe that we are just making assumptions on what we think it should mean to suit our own agendas? Do feel free to elaborate and clear up my confusion in this deducted reasoning, and I await your explanation with the most baited of breath. 
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls 
oh my god stop with this, the straws you were grasping have withered long ago and you are still trying to hold them.
The fact that the only actual discussion that didn’t end in a rebuttel,opinions and/or specualtion had in this thread (oh sorry two threads cause they got merged) is about y’know bloody semantics thats got to say something about this thread
I’m honestly quite split on the idea of a solo rez as an ult. I feel that we would be going back to square one with it being invincible, instant, etc. which would give pros yet another reason to nerf her, under their trademark “unfun to play against” premise. But that’s just my opinion on it. 
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls 
We had someone a few weeks a go do a thorough project proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Valkyrie is not popular as an ult. Pot, meet kettle.
Even though data gotten from here is very bias as players only come here who are angry about something.
Its not even a random sample of the playerbase which you could extrapolate data from.
We can’t really say anything about data gotten from here (or reddit) as its all heavily bias.
The main reason why I do not want Valk on E is because she already has THEEE best mobility of any support.
She was fine before she had GA jumping. GA jumping was a cool bug that got turned into a feature. Now she’s harder to kill, because the 2s CD starts when she GA jumps, meaning she can then GA after 1 second rather than 2.
Now that Valk exists, people want it swapped with E, so she has “independent mobility.” Of which she doesn’t need. She already has strong healing, thus she doesn’t need AoE healing on an ability with a CD.
With Valk being an E, she then becomes more slippery, and her mobility is fine currently.
If mass rez is coming back, delete Valk.
You’re never going to confirm anything as being popular or unpopular by some simple survey or whatever it is you did
The entire playerbase did not take part in your project
Yes, I provided it to you. No link required.
Factually, I was able to provide it to you, and did
Yes, thats the right piece
I do not understand your reference to invisible text.
Why would a developer make text - that is intended to convey an understanding to the reader - invisible? This I think would defeat the purpose of conveying that information to the reader
It is there
It is there
Although the above is stated as if it were a fact, I believe it to be an opinion; and I disagree with that opinion.
I don’t understand the term “factually factual”.
Since you’re quoting it, did someone else earlier in this thread (or some other thread) use that phrase?
I am unsure who the “we” and “our” is that you are referring to, and as such, I dont think I can answer the question being asked here
Aside - I still dont understand the blush and/or smirk emoticons you are using in this thread in relation to the topic being discussed
I figure I’d try to appeal to those who still want Valkyrie, by offering suggestions that still include it as an ability. But I suppose you do bring up a good point in terms of mobility.
If they do bring it back, and Valk is removed, I personally wouldn’t mind. At the same time though, I wouldn’t be surprised if that too gets some backlash. I would still like to keep her bunny hop and super jump though (which may or may not be connected to her rework).
Where is the statement “this is a buff, not a revert” anywhere in that dev note?
Once more, could you please quote where the dev makes this exact phrase as you’ve stated in the paragraph? Because otherwise, I’m pretty sure that it is factually, not there.
Going back to something that existed previously, which is by definition a revert, is “an opinion” now?
I mean you are free to disagree with it, but I assure you, that literal number changes that go back to a previous number, which is by definition a revert, are a bit more than just an “opinion”. 
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls
It is (as I understand it) human nature to be far more likely to complain about something one doesnt like than praise something one does like
As such, I dont believe anything of the sort was proven to any extent
and
this
Yeah it’s pretty crazy lmao. But I mean the needless semantics of it are important for their argument as they’re trying to tally up the number of “reverts” (such as voicelines and stuff) as some sort of indicator mass rez is coming back. For them it’s important to identify any possible “revert.”
and in this case, it isnt - it is a buff
sure man honeslty the fact that you care amazes me but after all you’ve got a narrative to fill so does xavvy
Yeah the ult charge change is a straight buff. The increase to 60hps in Valk is a buff. I personally am not trying to tally up a list of “reverts” in some attempt to allude to a return of mass rez so I’m not interested in splitting the semantic hairs of it being a “revert.” Seems pointless to me.
That said, arguing with xavvy on the semantics is definitely an exercise in futility lol.