in pro play the strategy was used and it was one of the only times mass rez mercy was used in pro play and successfully used at that.
I dont know enough about how titaniums proposed rework could effect the game overall, id happily look at it and think about it though. I wouldnt mind trying out pacify without thinking about it if they simply removed rez
I disagree. Mercy was only ever used to synergize with Pharah. Mercy’s in pro play would only ever use Resurrect to res the Pharah.
Res can stay. ![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d74zh8edaijub.cloudfront.net/en/overwatch/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=5" ":stuck_out_tongue:")
Rez can stay, just enjoy an unfun basically unviable character because she will never get reverted as long as rez stays.
they have used hide n seek before to rez their team. It wasnt uncommon for when mercy was used and they had rez to force resources out of the enemy on an already lost fight, then rez the entire team, win from the resource war.
She will never get reverted if res can’t stay though??
she can get all of her nerfs not involving rez reverted. healing, movement, ptr nerfs after rework, etc.
Personally mercy will not be getting reverted to mass rez, it was not balanced, blizzard is too prideful, and blizzard will not go back to a whole different bundle of problems.
They literally didn’t have to.
I find it hard to believe that pros out of all people can be forced to use resources in a fight they are already winning as you’ve so put it.
That’s not a revert.
doesnt matter if they didnt have to, they did it and it was used successfully
pros are not perfect, literally in the owl finals the best dps player in owl used a genji blade on a fortified orisa being healed
revert = changing back any buff/nerf/rework done to a character. for example, meis rmb drop off, that was a revert. the mercy hps, that was a revert
They didn’t and if they did, it was going to most likely be unsuccessful. Besides, I’ve yet to see a clip of “Hide n Res” being used in pro play. Do link it when you have the chance.
Pros are indeed not perfect. That being said, pros are not players that are easily going to get forced into using resources in a fight they are already winning. If they are winning the fight, they don’t need to expend any resources unless to counter the opposing team’s resources that are being used. If anything, this further proves the point I’m trying to convey. “Hide n Res” is only ever going to work on players who are playing bad. That being said, it could just be that these players only played bad once. That doesn’t change a thing. “Hide n Res” counters bad gameplay.
That’s individual reverts. We’re talking about her kit as a whole. If Resurrect is removed but everything else is brought back, it isn’t a revert.
??? it is a revert if they revert the nerfs that dont involve rez to her. That is still a revert, doesnt matter if rez is removed before they do it, its still a revert.
Hide n Rez was still popular and successful across all ranks and in pro play, didnt work all the time but it wasnt ‘useless’ or ‘a meme’. It was like goats, popular, successful, doesnt work all the time.
sadly any links to pre owl vids would be a needle in a haystack and i dont even know if they still exist. Due to this you can always argue that i dont have proof so im wrong, but whatever, i dont really care. Im continuing this discussion to entertain us both.
because in reality we both know blizzard will never revert mercy back to pre valkyrie in terms of ult/rez. deep down or just clear as day.
It literally isn’t.
It was popular. Definitely not successful and when compared to GOATs, it doesn’t hold a candle to it in terms of successfulness.
You could’ve just ended the conversation earlier. Right now, you’re not entertaining me at all. You’re arguments where regurgitated a couple of times in this thread alone by multiple others.
I disagree.
re·vert
verb
verb: revert; 3rd person present: reverts; past tense: reverted; past participle: reverted; gerund or present participle: reverting
rəˈvərt/
1.
return to (a previous state, practice, topic, etc.).
This is the definition and that is exactly what im saying. Buffing back all the non rez things that were nerfed, would be reverting the nerfs.
how was it not successful when theres tons of proof of it working across every rank and even you acknowledge it was successful in comments above. i agree with it being compared to goats tho.
then im entertaining myself.
and frankly i say we just say agree to disagree, it is clear neither of us will budge on this when both of us can back up what we are saying(for the most part on my end)
Most ultimates create a threat that has to be dealt with in that moment, like dodging Hanzo’s Dragon or finding cover from a DVa bomb. These threats are momentary, and avoidable. Mass Rez Mercy? She operated differently. Her ult gives her back up to 5 player controlled allies, until they die again. That’s the distinction I want to focus on, because there is infinitely more value in essentially summoning 5 bodyguards who can think for themselves, compared to say Tracer who throws a single tiny sticky bomb. Nothing compares.
Your original assertion was talking about Mercy as a whole. Not her nerfs. Though, I’m this case, yes, it would be reverting her nerfs.
Because there’s written evidence of it being a bad strategy and this time, it can be applied to everyone.
That’s you, my friend. ![:slight_smile:](https://d74zh8edaijub.cloudfront.net/en/overwatch/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=5" ":slight_smile:")
ah, i wasnt talking about mercy as a whole with my revert, but i understand the confusion.
successful strategy, doesnt mean it isnt a bad one. bad and not successful are two different things.
You clarified afterwards. Before that, I was correct. 
That being said, atleast we got this out of the way.
Bad strategy in the sense that it’s bad for the game and is bad in terms of successfulness.
yea, if thats what i meant, you were 100% correct. Sorry for the uh, loss in translation i think the term is lol.
its bad for the game yea because it was easily the most unfun thing to deal with back then, i cant name anything even remotely close to as annoying as hide n seek mercy back then.
and it was definitely not bad in terms of successfulness, bad in successfulness is torb, sym, etc. It was average to above average.
either way, thanks for the nice convo, i think we covered our bases and theres not much else to discuss without being repetitive(more repetitive than i was already)
What ultimate, when pulled of successfully isn’t unfun to play against?
You forgot to put “Hide n Res” in your list.
K
uh, i dont find it that unfun to fight against a lucio/zen ultimate, or any non cc/instakill ults.
How unfun said ultimates are is not relevant because that wasn’t specified by the devs when changing Mercy. Also, I don’t find mass Resurrect unfun to play against. What now? Appeal to me or the person disagreeing with me?
And so is trying to push a Zenyatta who is using Transcendence away from his team, but you conveniently ignored that.
Zenyatta can move in any horizontal direction he wants at 11 m/s using his basic movement. There is no cooldown on it.
GA has a cooldown of 1.5 seconds and moves in a linear and therefore predictable trajectory at a rate of 20 m/s.
I would much rather try to keep a vulnerable target with predictable mobility on a cooldown away from their team than an invulnerable with unpredictable mobility and no cooldowns.
And Zenyatta has the liberty if being literally invulnerable while casting his ultimate.
That isn’t even an answer to the question.
You said that it takes more ultimates to kill a team post-Resurrect than it does to kill a team pre-Resurrect.
Now replace Mercy in that situation with Zenyatta.
That ult combo proceeds to kill no one.
Again, it’s the same result.
You literally suggested losing a fight in which you have the ultimate advantage, the positioning advantage, and the first shot, so uh…
If there’s a risk of losing in that situation, there is certainly a risk is losing in a more difficult situation.
Where’s the benefit of bringing five people back if they all get wiped a second time?
Not if they are too busy trying not to die.
But you can rely on Ana to hit that Biotic Grenade on a team that never gave her that window in the first place during Transcendence?
It’s easier to land abilities against a team that is:
Than it is to land those same abilities against a team that for which none of the above can be said.
No, he wouldn’t. His barrier still wouldn’t come up fast enough.
Then clearly tossing a Biotic Grenade into Transcendence is even more flimsy, no?
And you’re not doing a good job of explaining how this side argument is even relevant to the main branch anymore.
If you toss a Biotic Grenade into a Transcendence, the enemy team becomes much more killable.
If you toss a Biotic Grenade into a Resurrection, the enemy team becomes much more killable.
It’s the same result. I’m not seeing how the two scenarios are different because they net the same costs and rewards for each team.
The four kills got lots of “value”, but resulted in no actual benefit (or real value) because they were countered by Resurrect.
Likewise,the four-man Resurrect got lots of “value”, but resulted in no actual benefit (or real value) because it was countered by another set of kills.
Keyword: Countered.
If you can counter kills with Resurrect, you can counter Resurrect with kills.
The ultimate (no pun intended) goal of both of these abilities is to keep the team alive through enemy offensive ultimates so that the team using Resurrect/Transcendence can win the fight. That’s the reason they exist.
If that chance of winning the fight it shut down when one of these two ultimates is used, or when any ultimate is used for that matter, then that ultimate was countered.
For example, the enemy Genji uses Dragonblade. In one scenario, Zenyatta replies with Transcendence. In the other, Mercy flies in and uses Resurrect.
Was Genji’s ultimate “countered” by one but not the other? His ability to deal damage to his enemies was not impeded in either scenario, but it still resulted in no gain for him or his team.
There’s a typo there. That’s supposed to say "If Mercy’s teammates deaths are scattered in space and/or time, Resurrect has no value, or potentially negative value.
And in actuality, no other support ultimate can have negative value. Zero value, meaning that the ultimate was totally wasted? Sure. But no other ultimate in the game can force teammates back into a fight that has already been lost, only feeding the enemy ultimate charge and resetting respawn timers.
But what isn’t true about every ultimate is that Resurrect is typically the last ultimate to be used in the first engagement. There is ample opportunity to eliminate the Mercy in contrast to other ultimates.
And lost an extra ult out of it.
Possibly. Depends on the skill level of each team. If they’re of equal skill, they’ll have the same number of ultimates going into the next fight.
You know what isn’t value?
Granting the enemy team the opportunity to stagger your team’s deaths again. Resetting respawn timers. Feeding the enemy ultimate charge.
This is correct.
That is not my argument. I never said that Resurrect was a bad ultimate. It was good enough to pull a hero who’s only real contribution to the team was 60 health/second out of F-tier and into D-tier.
I am arguing against the assertion that Resurrect was bad because it always won the fight, so as I understand it.
Meanwhile, in reality…
Hint: That’s not my position.
You even acknowledge this here:
You act as though this isn’t a double-edged sword. Mercy’s team is also taking the risk of Mercy being killed in the first fight or of being wiped again after the Resurrection. If their Mercy doesn’t find the balance between too close and a lack of participation, they’re screwed.
Quite a lot, actually. If we suppose that two ultimates are doing half of the work, that’s still 1500 or so ultimate charge, excluding the healing dealt by the healers from any scattered damage dealt by the enemy. That’s at least one ultimate’s worth in ultimate charge.
And I dismantled your answer, thus leaving my assertion valid. The argument still stands.
Why are you dumping ultimates unnecessarily, and why aren’t you exercising any target prioritization?
I’ve been consistently saying that Team 1 (the team playing against Mercy) has the advantage. The part you quoted is consistent with that.
Not all of the killing is done with ultimates.
That is, assuming you didn’t blow four ultimates in each fight, which would be A) impressive, and B) pathetic.
A statistic is information.
If you have one piece of information on a story, your perception of that story is going to be very skewed. If you have enough pieces of information, however, your knowledge and perception of that story widens. You get the full picture with enough pieces of information.
So yes, statistics without context can provide context to statistics without context. It allows for comparing and contrasting and grants background information, which is context.