Because if a group is proposing a change (or set of changes) said group should agree on what said change is
Thats fine. I guess you are not part of the reworkmercy thing, then, but advocating for a undefined (possibly defined elsewhere, sorry I dont know of these) set of changes independently?
I consider the current state of Mercy to not be broken, and also given how recent reworks have gone, consider it likely in the extreme that she will be broken following a rework.
The only thing I tried to do in the #bigmainlittlechain thread, if indeed that is what you are speaking of (you didnt confirm it, so I remain unsure) was to open discussion of the idea. There was some discussion and to a large extend, some consensus as well
For those reading this thread but are curious about that thread here is a link
Rework in this context means new powers, new animations, and the like. #bigmainlittlechain is purely numerical change, partly buff and party nerf, and as such is not a rework
Says who? Why are gamers merely given their feedback be expected to come up the fixes for issues literal professional game designers are paid to find and fix?
No, those who give feedback on Mercy give voice to suggestions, we don’t have to agree on anything and nor will we ever, nor will Symmetra mains, or Dva mains, or those who think one-tricking is bannable, or that Battle Mercy is throwing.
The point is gamers rarely agree on anything, expecting those who want Mercy improved to agree is setting up a impossible bar to reach just because you don’t want to see anything done.
I want Mercy to be reworked because I believe she has significant design issues. I don’t recall the “rework Mercy” movement to be so limited that it doesn’t include my take, nor have I signed a document saying I support everything whoever supports it says or does.
Didn’t say it was broken.
If your take is “it could be worst” then nothing will ever be fixed.
Says who? Is there a previously agreed upon Overwatch dictionary I’m not aware of?
This is generically true - if a group wants x changed, they should define what those changes are
Tho I of course do not agree, thats fine, but…
…I’d personally say that if someone told me “x has significant design issues” that I would think it a fair summary to then say that said someone things “x is broken”
My take it that she is not broken now, and I believe in not fixing that which aint broken. Further, I believe that making changes given the recent history of such changes will almost certainly result in her being broken
Your interpretation lacks, as usual. Overwatch has a whole has significant issues. Doesn’t mean it’s broken. Mercy has significant design issues, doesn’t mean she’s broken. Sym has issues, she isn’t broken either.
No, it’s called feedback, the point is to take in diverging and multiple opinions, not the opposite. We are not a political party fighting for a singular bill to pass congress, we just consumers giving our take about a product.
As you pointed out, it’s Blizzard property to do as they wish, so it’s also their job to take on the feedback and figure it out the best way forward - not ours.
And yet… Her QP play rate is 50% lower since her rework and you are almost always doomed if you have a Mercy on your team, while the other team doesn’t have her.
And engaging… I know that is more just and opinion. Still you can very comfortably say that this would make the old version of Mercy (1.x) for everyone way more engaging, because you also had more stuff to do than just her base kit 24/7.
Fair enough, Valkyrie 1.0 was a very good spot for Mercy. The increased fire-rate helped, the resurrection charge was great, instant rez was great. Valkyrie 1.0 was a great spot for Mercy.
Until the fire nation atta- wait…wrong script sorry.
A h e m
Until the devs nerfed her into slow rez, low firerate, and a plethora of groundpounding nerfs.
But to say Valkyrie as of now, is a good ultimate…is a false statement for me and many others.
Valkyrie 1.0 in my opinion, was one if not the best thing to happen to Mercy.
Mass Resurrect was niche, but Valkyrie provided a great deal of effort to the team.
You can argue that they both did, but I just prefer Valkyrie 1.0 to Mass Resurrect, but prefer both of them to Valkyrie “2.0”
Support Ultimates are designed to be some of the most powerful in the game.
Rally and Sound Barrier can push a team straight through any mostly choke point
Coalescence’s healing output is insane.
Transcendence heals 300 hp/s, enough to outheal almost every ability in the game.
Nano can turn any damage dealer into a full fledged team wiper in seconds.
Valkyrie? Well…it’s essentially… “i heal moar.”
Old Valkyrie: “I give quick rezzes, I fly, I give lots of healing and damage boosting, and let’s give you some amped up firepower and resurrections too!”