Um, incorrect. You don’t know what code was used, or if the code was replaced with older code. So saying that “this is not what occurred” is speaking on something you don’t have information about.
I’m pretty sure that “factually”, you are giving your opinion there. 
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls 
Respectfully - no, I am stating fact here
I will add that I am unsure what the blush and smirk emoticons are for in the context of this discussion
Apologies, but I believe that that isn’t fact, however.
If you want to give a fact, you need data and sources. Do you have evidence that they have used “completely new code” when they gave Mercy her latest “buff”, to confirm that it “wasn’t also a revert?”
Otherwise, looking at the numbers alone, of her having 60hps in the past, and also having it now, one can conclude with that data, that it is not only a buff, but also a revert, until proven otherwise.
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls
They’re getting hot and sweaty. That’s why they’re flushed all the time.
factually the fact that ethier of you think that and aguring about it if it’s a buff and/or revert is not productive it comes down to semantics and trying use it to fit both of your naratives and it’s pretty stupid conversation to say the least
Sorry, but that is unfortunately untrue. I use it, because I simply like using it.
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls
I dunno…I kinda like the sweaty reason better.
This is covered in the dev notes for this particular change
Factually, this last set of two changes was a buff, not a revert
I still dont understand the relevance of the blush or smirk emoticons in relation to the topic being discussed
Well… It can’t be helped I suppose. Apologies.
The dev notes specifically state that this is a “buff and not also revert?” Oh? Do feel free to give me the link to these notes? I’d love to see it where they state those exact words you’ve just given. Since we’re talking about “facts” here.
~Sincerely Yours xoxo,
a Lover of True, Fair, and Fun Balance.
xavvypls
I leave it to you to read those notes and find the relevant bits.
I do not understand the meaning of the blush emoticon in relation to this discussion or to your specific reply
“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.