I respectfully disagree
The higher tiers as I understand it include a different set of players with a generally better set of overall talent for playing the game
It is then natural in my opinion for certain characters to flourish there that do not flourish in lower tiers, and vice versa
That is a slippery slope to climb, though.
If Orisa and Hammond are overall harder to play than Reinhardt, then should Reinhardt not be viable at the higher echelons of play?
Not necessarily
Here’s an idea, to make adjustments to current Valkyrie.
Can you elaborate?
If you are of the opinion that characters that require more skill to play should be more viable at higher tiers, then wouldn’t a character like Reinhardt drop off in viability as you climbed in rank?
Not necessarily
Well, as I asked, can you elaborate?
I think there is also the issue of the devs not knowing what they want for ow as an e sport.
They want hero switching, but don’t make every hero viable (symm has NEVER been meta) they also don’t have the variety of heroes to encourage it ( Mercy is one of three primary healers).
They don’t discourage a playstyle on owl ( Mercy rework would never have been needed if they didn’t want her in owl). But still rework heroes to fit owl playstyle (Mercy, symm, sombra) , despite these heroes being used only occasionally anyway (sombra, Mercy) for One ability (emp, pocket) or not at all ( symm).
Wouldn’t a draft solve this instead? Why rework a hero to be clunky for normal players for the .01% to ignore anyway ?
If skill is all that matters, shouldn’t soldier, rein, and Mercy all be non existent in higher tiers and definitely owl anyway? Why does it matter?
But then you have the problem of why have Mercy or rein ever be niche when they fill one of only three possibilities for their role?
Overwatch needs to decide its direction , or make a large release if new heroes dedicated to the limited tanks and support roster.
Part of it comes down to design choice
I don’t remember who the 3 star tanks are but they’re all designed in a way that doesn’t find much use compared to the simple unique shield aspect Rein has
While something like Mercy and Ana’s difference is a basic kit compared to one that has much more utility it’s no surprise Ana is always better than Mercy
I guess another way to put it is that Rein and Orisa are the only main tanks in the game but Orisa’s disadvantage in mobility makes her be outclassed by Rein in most situations despite being better/more skillful to play
IIRC, the three-star Tanks are Hammond and Zarya. Not that the stars are accurate.
Hammond is harder to explain, but Zarya’s viability has (thus far) always depended on Reinhardt. The two of them are always viable together.
Correct.
This means that the players who practice, regardless of what hero they choose to play, should be able to climb with approximately the same effort.
But somehow, the “high skill” heroes are significantly easier to climb with than the “low skill” heroes.
That’s a clear indicator that something is wrong with balance… that, or there’s something severly wrong with the community’s perception of “skill”.
All heroes should be viable in high ranks. That currently is not the case for Mercy.
I respectfully disagree
Factually, Mercy is played at high ranks, including by the pros
If she were not viable, she would not get picked at all in these ranks by these players
Factually, Bastion is also played at high ranks.
Also factually, Bastion is flaming garbage.
Is Mercy played? Yes.
Is she viable? Factually, no, she isn’t.
There will always be a few players who play what they want because that’s who they want to play.
Just like that .07% pickrate.
A healty pickrate in GM would be upwards of 2.5%.
Mercy’s sitting at a 1% pickrate.
Factually, Mercy is underpowered.
As I see it, although the above is stated as if it were a fact, I see it as an opinion.
I respectfully disagree with the opinion
In my opinion, if a character is played in a professional match with professional-level stakes, that character is viable
Factually, Mercy is played in such matches
As I understand it, a professional player will play what he or she is told to play in exchange for professional-level compensation, regardless of whether it is the character they want to play
As I see it, tho the above is stated as fact, I see this as opinion
I respectfully disagree with the opinion
If it were a fact that Mercy was underpowered, it is my belief that she would not see any play at all at high levels, including but not limited to pro matches
Factually, she does get played in such matches
Easy. You didn’t get the change you wanted.
Sorry, but getting upset about that is entitled by definition.
Your argument is centered on “fun” which is just… terrible for a foundation.
You have a bunch of grandiose claims with nothing to back them up. Typical
So your definition of viable is
“A character that has recently been played at least once at high levels”
And underpowered is
“A character that has recently not been picked once at high levels”
Am I correct ?
How do you define an overpowered character ? I find this rather interesting.
Then perhaps you are getting too hung up on definitions.
Would changing the word help?
Factually, Mercy is underpowered.
And they typically get burned for running an underpowered hero, thus, they rarely play said heroes.
There was only one hero that was never used at all in the OWL over a several-month period. That hero was Symmetra.
Does that mean that Torbjorn, Bastion, Reaper, etc. were all balanced because they saw more than 15 seconds of playtime?
Going by this logic, there has never been and underpowered hero in the history of Overwatch. Do you think that to be the case?
Because there has never been a hero that had a 0% pickrate in both the OWL and on the ladder in GM.
I think I’ll quote two posts that sum up the lack of thought behind this statement:
We know that it’s a good enough of a foundation to get a hero reworked. Did you know that Mercy’s rework was caused in part because “Resurrect wasn’t fun to play against”?
Oh, I back them up… just not in this thread. You’ll need to go here for that:
Why I Have Yet to Not Despise Mercy's Current State
And you’ll have a lot of reading to do…
Tho the above is stated as a fact, I see it as an opinion
I disagree with the opinion
In my own experience, I do not find her to be underpowered, either before or after the recent set of buffs
In talking with other players I know, they do not find her to be underpowered before or after the recent set of buffs
I see high level players play her as mains, and I dont think they would do so if they felt she was underpowered
Pros play her in consequential pro matches, and I dont think they would do so if they felt she was underpowered
Personal experience becomes meaningless when statistics flatly contradict it.