The Mercy buff is a buff

General Discussion
61

I simply ask which you thought was the strongest kit. You felt it was “Insta rez valk Mercy.” Then you end up contradicting yourself. You end up agreeing that mercy is in a much weaker state than before, which you insist was a buff. I was just going to point previous nerf set her back two steps and revert push her forward one step forward. I think you are confused with semantics and end up playing yourself. You insist that’s it’s a buff but what your detailed exact opposite.

Nope. That makes no sense. You wanted people to change your mind, then when there’s inconvenient facts you wanted to omit them to push your narrative that mercy got a buff when in reality it’s a revert or net nerf overall. You even admit there’s stronger kits but want to move the goal post and not count it now. People don’t need to “change your mind” you already know it’s not a buff but a net nerf overall. You were better off making a topic stating you opinion why you felt the current changes in your opinion was good for you or others. Then specifically mention upfront that you don’t take into account other kits Mercy had. Sure it’s an echo chamber but lot more constructive.

62

There’s a simple explanation.

It is a buff compared to the last changes that were made to her.

It is an insufficient buff in many mercys players eyes considering what problems they’ve ran into, versus what was done.

63

I think we’re a little confused on what we’re talking about. So let me list it in chronological order.

Well that’s a stupid argument that not every Mercy player uses, and it’s more ridiculous to use a blanket statement when describing a group of people you hate.

Here, I dislike your use of a blanket statement, and take your antagonistic language to mean that you hate the Mercy community. Not Mercy herself.

What makes you think I hate Mercy?

Here, you think I was talking about Mercy herself instead of the Mercy community. I then take this statement, and say:

Not talking about a false assumption that you hate a specific character.

Here, I interpreted your statement to mean that you thought I said “you hate Mercy herself.” (wow that sentence is…ugh.) I clarify with "No. I said that you used a blanket statement on the Mercy community, and I think your antagonistic language towards it leads me to believe that you hate the Mercy community.

Now when you see the full statement, you see the implied statement of “you hate mercy players and are using a blanket statement on them.”

Here, you say what I intended to say in the previous post. We both misinterpreted each other’s posts.

64

It’s a Micro vs Macro discussion>

If, for whatever reason, you want to look at just this patch and pretend the entire rest of Mercy’s history doesn’t exist, it’s a buff.

If you want to look at the bigger picture, not so much. When people are talking about Mercy’s state, they’re talking about the sum of the changes made since her rework. This has consisted of a rework that built her kit around terrible balance, followed by a waterfall of nerfs, the last nerf being partially reverted in the PTR patch. In the big picture, this ‘buff’ is basically irrelevant, since it doesn’t resolve a single one of Mercy’s problems. Valk didn’t make Mercy worth playing before and it still doesn’t make Mercy worth playing.

Mostly it’s just a response people being all facetious with the “relax guys she got a buff :)” like this pittance of a buff makes any difference at all. Ya’ll know perfectly well Blizzard stuck some Scotch tape on it and called it a bandaid. Both sides are guilty of pretending.

65

no Im sorry I wasn’t specific, when I said “what makes you think I hate mercy” I meant mercy players its why the statement after that is:

I did infact mean the community. I have nothing against mercy players, or the pro mercy community. I just think that some of the community more often than not is unreasonable.

I didn’t uses a blanket statement the argument I point out a very specific group of the mercy community:

those who call the 60 hps a revert but the 50 hps a nerf.

this was all referring to that demographic. I called them out specifically. maybe called them out isn’t the best way to say it, I refrenced them specifically?

I never said “all mercy players do this”

66

it’s a burp, a nerf and a buff.
Or possibly a burft. A nerf, buff and revert.
Or maybe just a burt, a buff and a revert.

1 Like
67

You completely missed my point.

Let’s say it like this:

Current Mercy does 50hps, both normally and in valk.
PTR Mercy does 50hps normally, but, 60hps in valk.

And there’s you, saying that it’s a nerf.
Why? Because she used to do 60hps both normally and in valk.
Key words being “used to”.

What makes you think that 60hps Mercy is the base that we should be comparing any new changes to?
That’s literally not the hero we have now. It’s the one that the devs deemed too strong.

And my point is:
If you can randomly decide that the current Mercy isn’t the base, why do you automatically assume that the 60hps one is?

Why not the super OP one that we had a year ago? Compared to that, any change now would be a nerf.

Yes, she has a lot of history behind her, but, the devs still felt that she was too strong, so they nerfed her to 50 hps.
After that they buffed her, but not as much, since she got a nerf for a reason (at least in their opinion).

Not arguing with that, but I am arguing with people calling a stat increase a nerf.

But peolpe are literally calling it a nerf.
It will make her stats better than they are now. It’s 100% a buff.

I understand that it doesn’t change what people want changed, that’s not what I’m arguing against. Only a rework would do that.
But, what we have here, is a straight up buff.

68

So we’re both just guilty and victims of the same crime: Not being clear enough. If you disagree with a specific portion of the Mercy community that just spouts nonsense like “revert instant mass rez just like it was,” then fine by me. For clarification, I’m using post-rework Mercy as a frame of reference for her state. Whether you agree or disagree with that is up to you; and that’s fine.

69

Please don’t complain about people missing your point, when you are the one who’s contradicting yourself or gate keeping to omit inconvenient facts.

70

How am I contradicting myself?
Please, tell me.

My argument is that a stat increase is a buff.

Yours is that a stat increase is a nerf because she used to have better stats.

Then, to counter that, I bring up that she used to be OP, so no matter what they do now, it will be a nerf because she used to be much stronger before.

How is that contradicting.

She’s weaker than she was when she was too strong, now she’s getting a buff because she got overnerfed.

2 Likes
71

All this talk about how she was robbed just to get partial returns, yet people are always forgetting that the nerf was because she had to be taken down a peg to be on equal footing with the rest of them.

I say this every time these bad analogies pop up, there’s a balance to it. It’s where the term got it’s name. Scales tip one way, you take weight away. If they tip the other, you put weight on, but not as much as before, otherwise you’re back at square one.

Either way, doesn’t change the fact that she got something back to make her stronger. That, in and of itself, says it’s a buff. Sure, you can call it a partial revert if you want, it can count as both, but reverting a nerf is still a buff regardless.

4 Likes
72

Can’t really change your mind because you’re factually correct. People who argue it isn’t a buff have a different definition of the word and, while understandable, it just goes against the technical definition.

The main argument for why “it’s not a buff” is essentially that it’s not enough. The Valkyrie ultimate charge gain can technically be called a fix since it was never the intention to reduce the rate of her ultimate gain in the first place.

But the increased healing during Valkyrie is indisputably intended to be a buff and as the first reply in this thread argued, at best you could also call it a partial revert. It’s both a buff and a revert.

And it’s a buff in the category as the halfway solutions: Instead of making Mercy heal 55 health a second (the point between her old and new ultimate), they put the numbers in her ultimate’s time span.

What most people on this topic don’t realize is that this is not necessarily the final change to Mercy (obviously—no change is ever labeled the final). But the point is moreover that outside of reworks, Blizzard pushes small changes at a time. They’ll tune the numbers a bit, again and again.

If the Valkyrie change doesn’t bring up Mercy’s performance in the areas they think she’s lacking, they’ll try buffing her a bit again and again. Essentially they’re just searching for the “sweet spot” where she’s at the same level as the other healers, but not the default pick that pushes out any reason to play other supports.

And Mercy is an especially difficult case because what they’re trying to achieve goes against the nature of her design: They want other supports to get picked more often, but due to Mercy’s lower mechanical entry level (esp. in terms of aim—you see this with Brigitte’s win & pick rate on lower tiers as well), Mercy’s pick rate will likely always outshine other supports whenever she’s on their level.

The only thing I wish Blizzard would do different is actually use the PTR more actively to try and experiment more. They really could try a number of concepts for her without having to push it to the live servers and see what actually works, but instead the PTR feels like it’s become “what’s coming up next” with very little impact of testing.

2 Likes
73

Id love some proof on how this change will make playing her as dps the most efficient way. Picking a support to do low dmg compared to any dps or tank hero, how is that efficient again and not just trolling/throwing?

2 Likes
74

Eh, I feel like that was just a salty/slightly triggered comment.

Noone will swap to battle Mercy now just because her ult got buffed.

75

Regardless if Soldier is or isn’t OP, those change regardless result in net nerf not a buff. Same applies to recent Mercy changes on heals. Change my mind? Better yet prove it math without omitting facts or previous changes.

Which does more damage over all or better performance?

1)Soldier with base rifle (9.5-19 damage) nerfed with -10% and a +10% rifle damage bonus on ult?

2)Soldier with no nerf on his base rifle damage (9.5-19 damage) and no damage buff to his ult with rifle?

76

I agree.
But I think your efforts are futile.

77

Buff aint much, but Mercy gotta take any buff she gets

atleast this buff stopped nerf-punching streak

78

It’s only a net nerf if you consider the first iteration of Soldier to be the “base”, which makes no sense.

It’s a nerf to what Mercy used to be in the past, but that is not relevant.
She could have stayed with 50hps in valk, but instead, valk got buffed.

Why though?

He got nerfed first, and then, in the next patch, he got buffed.
It does not matter if he’s weaker than his first version, because you’re already on his third iteration.

They wanted to nerf the 60hps Mercy. She was still too strong. So they did that, nerfed her.
That’s your Mercy now.

Then they looked at her, and thought that that nerf was too much. So, to compensate that, they are buffing her.

Mercy = 50hps normally, 50hps in valk.
PTR Mercy = 50hps normally, 60hps in valk.

That’s a straight up buff.

But, if we can just look at what heroes used to be, then let’s do that:

Very old Mercy = 50hps, mass rez with no invulnerability.
PTR Mercy = 50hps, rez on E, and a new ult where she does 60 chained hps and is harder to kill.

Damn, that’s a net buff.

2 Likes
79

The Mercy buff is dissapointing. Change my mind. :blush:

𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓜𝓮𝓻𝓬𝔂 𝓘𝓬𝓮 𝓒𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓶 𝓜𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽

:shaved_ice::chocolate_bar:
Spreading positivity and ice cream, one Mercy at a time.
80

Sure, it might be, but it’s still a buff.

1 Like