I should be able to expect them to listen to the most heavily-discussed concerns in regards to Overwatch.
They’ve had 14 months to address it in some way. They have failed to do so.
Considering that I’ve been in this fight for a year now, I think I know the situation Blizzard has put me in a little too well.
Except the version of Mercy that got me to stop playing in the first place had everything the current Mercy has and more.
It doesn’t take a genius to know that if I don’t like X, and X proceeds to get worse and worse, I still wouldn’t like X.
Are we going to play the credibility game?
This is irrelevant, but I’ll bite anyway.
You’re wrong. A glance at the statistics will tell you that.
Mercy this past month has a 1% pickrate in GM. When Ana had a 2% pickrate in GM during the Mercy meta, she was deemed a troll-pick.
And looking at those same GM pickrates after the patch (of which we have two days of data… we see a little spike to 1.8% on the first day, which then immediately falls back down to 1% the next day.
This buff did pretty much nothing. The stats we see immediately after a change to a hero is, without exception, an exaggeration of what that change actually does. Normally, it takes a week or two to get an accurate read on what the change did in regards to balance.
And… that exaggeration is showing us that the buff did basically nothing to help Mercy in the tiers where viability matters the most.
Simply put, the statistics disagree with you. Any Mercy player, Bronze-tier or GM, can see that.
Hardly.
We went from Valkyrie being an underwhelming ultimate, to Valkyrie being an even more underwhelming ultimate, to Valkyrie being an underwhelming ultimate.
Nothing changed. There’s nothing new to explore, unless you plan on going Battle Mercy… in which case, why are you on Mercy?
And you have expressed your disappointment in them.
Come on; you’re literally giving reasons to not do what you are telling me to do.
Because “fixing her slowly” fails to address our concerns entirely.
They’re not going to make the current build of Mercy fun without some fundamental changes to how Resurrect and Valkyrie work. A few number changes won’t do anything in that regard.
Mercy 2.x wasn’t fun when she was absurdly overpowered; what makes you think that a properly balanced version of 2.x would be any better?
You’re wrong.
The worst possible thing I could do right now is to sit down and be quiet. Because as soon as we stop complaining, Blizzard will think they’ve gotten things right.
Therefore, we will not stop complaining until Blizzard has gotten things right.
You need to read the OP.
You’d see why you’re only defeating your own points here.
We don’t want buffs. We want a rework.
Except it is impossible to fix Mercy slowly.
So by “slowly trying to fix” her, they are doing nothing to fix her.
These two clauses contradict each other.
Oh, that’s nice.
Hold on.
In your previous reply, you literally said:
So…
You gave up on Roadhog in 2017 but you kept advocating for him, but you were silent at the same time…
You complain about the Roadhog’s buff, saying it’s not what you wanted, saying it is worse than Mercy’s buff, calling it something that “barely covers it”… And then you turn around and say that it’s a good buff, it works, it’s far better, and you are very happy with it…
It’s pretty obvious that you’re just grasping at straws when you take one side and then take the polar opposite side in your next reply.
Sorry, what?
Me voicing my feedback in no way impedes Blizzard from making decisions or making progress. I don’t have that kind of power.
What you said makes no sense whatsoever.
“Making the game the way they feel is balanced”, caused 10 months of Mercy meta, I might remind you. That alone would be enough of a reason to realize that maybe they need someone to hold their hand.
I’m not inclined to sit by and say nothing while the balance team destroys the game.
Wow. There are so many things wrong with these statements.
First, there’s the problem that you yourself, as far as I can tell as of the time I am typing this out, likely have no idea what our suggestions actually are, but you’re dismissing them anyway because… I don’t know. The only reason I could think of is the same reason you very subtly hinted at in your previous post:
Hint: “Shut Up”.
For someone who supposedly is so tired of seeing our threads, you really don’t seem to know much about them… Hell, you’ve even brought up balance, which you would know to be irrelevant to the topic had you read the OP:
Second, this assertion depends upon the assumption that developers are actually reading the feedback in the first place, and considering that #1 complaint about Mercy in just about every feedback medium they have has been overlooked for a year, I’m pretty confident that they are not reading the feedback.
If they can’t be bothered to even acknowledge the existence of our concerns, I don’t think they can be bothered to read the proposals based upon those concerns.
If we were to ignore the two above problems and pretend that both you and the developers read some of the proposals, we would have another problem with those statements:
If the proposed changes (which to my knowledge, have yet to take the form of a flat buff if based upon the concerns described in the OP) truly were unreasonable, then there wouldn’t be any need to consider it. If they see a suggestion that is blatantly overpowered, then they discard it, and there is nothing more to discuss. There’s not much deliberation going into ideas that don’t work.
Well, maybe that’s not true. We had Mercy’s rework, after all.
My point is that this isn’t rocket science. According to what you are saying, the developers think it is.
They don’t need to scour the forums and find every little idea and deeply consider it. They can just find a few popular ones and play with them for a bit, until they decide upon what they will do.
Sitting on their hands because “the rework was a success” isn’t going to get us there.
Except, those threads also are not spam. They might not be as well thought-out, maybe far from perfectly-articulated, maybe just created from raw emotion, but but it’s all legitimate feedback on Mercy nonetheless.
When you see threads that are carbon copies of each other; that is spam.\
When you see threads that do nothing but cast hate on another person or group; that is spam.
When you see multiple threads on the same topic made in a very short period of time by the same person, that add no value to each other or the discussion being held; that is spam.
When you see multiple unique threads on the same topic, all from different people, but all expressing the same sentiments; that is not spam. That is feedback proportional to the dissatisfaction.
Again.
Buffs aren’t what we want.
The buffs might come… but we won’t be satisfied. Why?
We want another rework. Why bother trying to balance Mercy 2.x (which has taken over a year thus far and still hasn’t been achieved) when the complaints won’t subside until we have another rework?
You don’t apply the sandpaper and wood finish before you reach for the saw.
Because that’s not the purpose of this thread. It’s not meant to be the comprehensive guide to our concerns and proposals to address those concerns; its purpose is, as I said in reply to someone else:
Technically… Yes.
Realistically? At least, not in the context I was referring to when I brought up the 12 megathreads.
Those 12 megathreads were not created by forumers. They were created by moderators, who then enforced the megathreads. How did they enforce them, you might ask? Well, on the old forums, this constituted of locking Mercy threads that were not within the megathread (meaning that no one else is able to reply to them), and leaving a copy/pasted message that may or may not vary from day to day:
“Hi all! I’m locking this thread to keep the front page tidy but feel free to add your Mercy thoughts to this thread: [insert link to megathread here]”
Example: Overwatch Forums
On the new forums, it constituted of of locking Mercy threads and sending the OP along with all of its replies to the megathread.
Example: Mercy’s Resurrect could’ve been the Reverse McCree Deadeye - #2
But they are happy with it now, are they not?
Hence the fact that they are defending it, trying to ward off those changes to it?
But you weren’t talking about 2.0 or 3.0, were you?
Well then it’s a good thing that a lot of us are advocating for a rework, isn’t it?
First, if Mercy is alive to use Resurrect, it wasn’t a “6k”. Even quintuple kills that were countered by Resurrect were super rare. Out of 394 hours of Mercy 1.x (yes, I counted that precisely before playing Mercy 2.x), I had a grand total of 8 five-man Resurrections. That’s counting all gamemodes.
Second, do you know what else sucks?
Getting wiped because the enemy team pressed Q a bunch of times. Resurrect is no different, but only in reverse.
Just like getting wiped because the enemy team pressed Q a few times.
In which case, no action was needed to remove that playstyle, other than removing the SR exploit that led to its emergence in the first place. As it was a bad strategy, it would have faded out rather quickly when the exploit artificially propping it up disappeared.
Except Mercy literally had the lowest pickrate out of every support in GM.
Dive, featuring Lucio and… not Mercy, but Zenyatta, was the meta. Hell, Ana had a higher pickrate than Mercy in the top 3rd of players during the Dive Meta.
Why?
When buffing a hero, there is no reason that how fun that hero is to play cannot be maintained and expanded upon; buffing a hero means making them better at what they are supposed to be good at, or adding more things to their kit. In that context, there should not be a compromise of any amount of fun. The developers have done something wrong if there is.
That isn’t possible without fundamental changes to Valkyrie. Buffing Valkyrie up to 80 healing/second wouldn’t make it any more exciting.