No, like everyone else they’re playing the heroes they like.
That’s so not ture lol, this stats change every patch.
You just need to get use to some heroes being a lot better in low rank because they are nothing in high rank. And that’s a really fair way to balance the game.
Just imagen if they wanted reaper, sym, torb etc to have more then 0.20% win rate, this how this will destroy low ranks, and then again, why must some heroes just suck at high rank? I mean people get in there and they just can’t use them because at that point they have obviuse counter play, that wasnt the care with gaots or any of the heroes in goats but brigitte.
I am sure that statistics are bad. Are you claiming that the nerf to armour had no effect on tanks based on the idea that the stats are the same? We clearly observe a change in game, but because people haven’t instantly dropped their favourite heroes there’s no problem?
Of course not. It is still odd that Orisa didn’t suffer from it, isn’t it?
Also, i already debunked the “favorite hero” argument by showing that people infact left their favorite heroes after the patches.
So out of any tank with armor, Orisa suffered the least, almost not at all.
Amazing that what you “showed” is invisible in the forum and didn’t happen in-game.
Look above, you will find the changes in pick rates calculated for you and you might realize that you post on a thread whose OTP is concerned that everybody abandoned their favorite heroes, which is, statistically speaking, not true.
Anything else?
Yeah, just one thing. Mercy has a 1% pick rate in GM, does that mean you admit that she’s underpowered and needs a buff? Actually Doomfist only has a 0.4% pick rate, better buff him too. Ooh, and Orisa has a 1% pick rate, she needs a buff. Bastion, a HUGE buff is needed. Symmetra too, and Reaper! Lets be sure to buff them all up, right?
No, I didn’t think so. Weird how the buffs have zero effect on the stats, too, almost like the stats mean nothing.
No, because she requires less skill than other, more effective healers. Statistics and hero design do correlate here.
But what does the requirement of buffs and nerfs have to do with the pick- and winrate-changes after the patches?
she requires less skill
Oh ok, you’re one of those people; the “skill” people. Look, there are more skills in this game than pointing your mouse at something, if you want a game like that there are hundreds on the market.
But what does the requirement of buffs and nerfs have to do with the pick- and winrate-changes after the patches?
The patches have no effect on the pick/winrates, so by your logic that means that changes to the game have no effect on the game… which obviously makes no sense, right? Obviously the statistics are an invalid metric for judging game balance, right?
She requires less skill both mechanically and cognitively. If she should be buffed, then she needs to be more challenging in a mechanical or strategic way. Right now, her skill curve isn’t steep enough to enable a higher skill ceiling. But let’s not get into that topic because it would derail the thread.
-a mercy main
What are you talking about? I never said that statistics prove that changes have no impact on the game. I even showed the opposite by proving how tanks lost over 1% of their pick rates.
What the statistics show, though, is how much the patches had an impact, hitting Winston, Reinhardt, and D.Va the most and Roadhog, Zarya, and Orisa the least.
Where is the inconsistency? Where do statistics contradict actual facts?
She requires less skill both mechanically and cognitively.
No that simply isn’t correct, but I won’t address this further since it’s nonsense with no discursive value.
-a mercy main
Being a Mercy main and not realising that Mercy is broken isn’t something to be proud of though…
Where do statistics contradict actual facts?
Only in the game, which your above statements suggest you haven’t played in at least 2 years.
So your personal experience contradicts over a million personal experiences?
No, my personal experience contradicts your claims about the nature of the statistics gathered from “over a million personal experiences”.
If you’re going to try and tell me that my own eyes are wrong, and that the sky is green, you’d better have a more solid case to make than “Nah see look, this photo has a green sky in it, so the sky must be green.”
Question: when flipping a coin, do you have a chance of 50% to get heads?
No, because each side of the coin weighs a different amount and there’s a minute chance of landing on the edge.
Let me rephrase my question: With a b
Bernoulli coin, a perfect coin that is weighted evenly and no chance of landing on the edge, do you have a chance of 50% to get heads?
Yes (and the 17 other characters needed to make a post.)
So if you toss it a million times, around 50% of these coins land on heads, correct? (Law of averages)
Sure, and also some more text.
Now someone is tossing it 10 times and has bad luck. 2 out of 10 coins landed on heads. They claim that the probability is 20% but the million other tosses show that it’s 50%.
Who is right? The guy tossing 10 times or the test tossing 1 million times?