#gamecraft

It's been a quiet little while.

Busy pushing through the various 6v6 tests, mostly as a means of trimming, shaping, and developing a more permanent consensus about what is and isn't appropriate for the format.

The goings are going, but ultimately it remains my go to format-wise. The main contention right now is to find the elements of 5v5 that so many people cleave to and figuring out implementation for those elements in a 6v6 environment. There's hope here, given that a lot of 5v5 work revolves heavily around self-reliance and individual impact.

These aren't translatable qualities into 6v6? But they are more specific player-defined translations of broader design ideas that can be implemented; lack of options and railroading-- both of which are easier to build for.

Digressing...

The recent Developer Blog (here) revealed yet another 6v6 'test', this time within the competitive scene, which remains probably the last and strongest push for public appeal around the format. If it does well, there will more likely be a serious consideration for the format to be included permanently and distinctly in the game (if not an immediate switch over, which doesn't seem as likely without some major numbers being done in this future test)-

-which, I'm all for. I have not touched 5v5 since the 6v6 tests began and I can safely say, I probably won't ever do so again, so having 6v6 as an option going forward is great news, personally.

All that to say, I think we're approaching the horizon of what I've speculated on in past posts:

It is going to take time for 6v6 to come back into focus as a format, let alone a functional one, but it has to start somewhere and these tests have been a solid, if imperfect, start

I don't think 5v5 will go away (especially given Chinese servers are coming back online soon and that format was always popular in the Asian servers around the world) but I do think the impact of it will be less and less over time as the Dev team and the playerbase discover the much larger potential of 6v6 in balance and design.

Clash gone in Competitive is great. Please just shuttle that abomination into the Arcade like 2CP. It isn't working and it...won't work. Lastly, regarding the Spotlight updates? I'm not gonna speculate much about it but, there is a persistent...fear I have.

If the changes being promoted are going to revolve around some form of Talent system or MOBA-style shop system, I genuinely hope it's kept to just 5v5. It would be a drastic increase to cognitive load across all levels or-

It's been a while.

Now that the 6v6 test is slowly winding down (a month and a bit of solid testing and queue times is more than I expected to get in, honestly) and the Dev team is looking toward the next iterations (Moth Meta Classic and Min 1/Max 3, both of which are going to be less ideal versions of the format), I thought it prudent to go into another deep dive about the most recent hero release, and lemme just say-

This fuckin' guy.

There is a lot to like about Hazard; predictable mobility (A Winston jump + fair Doomfist rocket punch) , limited kit application (Bone Spurs + Not-ridiculous Dmg Reduction), space making (all of the above) and with some quirky weaknesses (Wall climb's odd slow down at the tail end is perfect for sleeps/knifes/walling). Overall, a really strong foundation with few/fixable adjustment zones.

And then there's the God. Damn. Wall.

Look, I enjoy Tank. It's been my main since jump, back when I mistakenly thought Mei's Wall was as good as a barrier and kept blocking my team off from being killed and allowingtheenemytohealbehindmywallandcontesttheobjectiveforfree-

(I was a Reinhardt main and didn't know it yet)

So it stands to reason I'm going to be a bit more harsh about my Tank critiques in design. Albeit, the recent slew of Tank releases has also been a bit concerning across the board, but that's another discussion- especially given most of Hazard's kit is very solid with plenty of potential.

But I cannot stress enough how bad it is to provide a front line presence, who is going to be spending the majority of their time not glancing back at their teammates to see what they are doing?

A totem mechanic with collision.

There is a very very very good reason why Mei is not a Tank.

Because if you thought getting walled off from shooting the enemy was bad, having your sightline artificially blocked so you can't heal, help, move, or adjust due to the same is worse. Significantly more so when it's your own teammate (even if unintentionally 99% of the time) doing it.

Where you go, I can't follow

"Drop the Wall!"

Totems are mechanics that can be deployed to produce various effects in the game. Some examples:

Baptiste's Immortality Field

Illari's Pylon

Soldier's Biotic Field (technically)

Symmetra's Teleporter/Turrets

Barriers

Most of these function quite well, with some allowing for destruction, and thus, interactivity between heroes. Totems play an important role in design, allowing for the detachment of some of a Hero's kit potential, into a separate component; an avatar representative of some of their potency, at the cost of a more simplified (and counterable) interaction or-

Totems can be destroyed, blocked, avoided, or misplaced depending heavily on player interaction and input

But when a Totem possesses collision, the stakes increase to a rather significant degree; there is no longer room for error, as the totem's very existence represents both resistance and obstacle to everyone in the match.

This isn't to say Collision Totems can't be done well?

Mei's Ice Block, for instance, is a fairly balanced and well executed example. The context here is that Mei converts herself into the Totem, removing the potential for the rest of her kit in favour of achieving a more resilient state. That transformation comes at such a significant cost, that the scenarios in which it is useful are isolated, even niche. This gives the ability Texture in a way many other mechanics in the game can't hope to achieve.

And Mei's Ice Block can still severely hamper her own teammates.

Collision Totems need to be handled carefully and the why of it all comes down to a sticky topic where Player Input (or Skill if you want the gameplay translation) is concerned: Precision.

A player's ability to be precise is a huge measure of Player Input, allowing for fantastic gameplay moments, highlights, and unmistakable expressions anyone can recognize-

-but when mechanics like Collision Totems are highly dependent on precision to achieve even nominal success?

You've gone and created a situation in which even just learning the hero, is going to frustrate players. Learning is, by nature, imprecise and the road to minimizing how detrimental your gameplay is on your teammates is going to build an unnecessary level of frustration onto the hero.

There's a reason people referred to Mei as Satan in Overwatch 1.

Broad MMR is filled with people learning; not just the hero they are playing, but heroes they are playing against, and with as well. To climb in ranks, MMR, or just Player Input, you will make a lot of mistakes.

In a game like Overwatch, with a boatload of variance at every level, that learning could take (has taken for many of us) years.

Hazard's Wall represents, not just a Collision Totem, in the same sense as Mei's own Ice Wall, but a super-amped up version of it that multiplies the frustration for all.

I really hate that Mole Hill

It isn't as big as Mei Wall. It isn't as imposing as Mei Wall. It isn't as confusing as Mei Wall (multiple pillars each with their own health pools but no distinct visual effect to represent this before being damaged)-

-but hooooo boy howdy does it do a lot more than Mei Wall ever could!

Persistant knockback on contact

Burst Damage on contact

Anti Mobility on contact (no wall climb)

Omni-placement (not land-locked)

And that's in addition to the standard blockading effects of a Mei Wall. As a Totem, Jagged Wall provides far more impact when on the battlefield against enemies, to the point it can be considered as useful and engaging as a Torb turret, which is to say-

Jagged Wall's effects are broad enough in application that it must be considered in every teamfight at the same level of detriment as powerfully automated totems like Immortality Field and Turrets

Trying to operate outside of that paradigm, makes it very difficult to navigate a teamfight (especially from a Divey Tank with mobility to boot) given it can appear very suddenly to ruin plans, engagements, and retreats.

But that...was sort of the design goal. It's frustrating playing Tank and having an inanimate object counter large portions of your kit, but we've got experience with that. It's a familiar frustration at least.

It's when the Hazard is out ahead or mixing it up with the enemy (as one does when Tanking) and you are attempting any of the following as his teammate:

Healing (him or your fellow teammates diving with him)

Supporting (discords, immo fields, suzus, life grips, etc.)

Tanking (6v6 format makes duo with him a significant gamble)

Finishing off low enemies

Sniping

Trying to navigate narrow corridors or tight confines

Free movement/Mobility in a teamfight

That "appear very suddenly to ruin plans, engagements, and retreats" becomes an unacceptable level of frustration in the design.

A Collision Totem appears, decreeing that the engagement has now changed and/or ended, not because the Hazard was purposefully trying to end it, but because the Wall appeared and blocked off LoS for any number of the possibilities listed above.

Wall takes the agency of your teammates and puts it as a secondary priority to a Tank who cannot afford to look around and take into account the dozens of ways in which his teammates might be trying to leverage their own mechanics, kits, and Roles, to achieve success.

A Hazard is more likely (and well within expectation) to Wall himself off from an enemy trying to kill him when he's low, than rely on the healing from his teammates. It just so happens to, inadvertently, interfere with many of the other possible plans his teammates might have had for engagement purposes.

And, to reiterate, this is less of a problem (but still one) the higher in 'Skill' or Rank one gets, but learning takes time and mistakes happen while you learn, which is a far far closer experience to the vast majority of the Overwatch Playerbase. The fact it's going to cost your teammates their own opportunities too is what makes it bad design.

So what can be done?

Honestly, removing the Wall entirely could yield some really positive results.

I know it's a unique mechanic for the Tank Role (even if not for the game itself), but the isolated potential wrapped up in that Totem could be repurposed towards large portions of his kit, expanding both his mobility, engagement potential, and Texture to make him an ideal Tank.

Without Wall, there's room to increase Violent Leap's versatility, both in the initial Leap as well as the Slash (both of which are separate activations). Increasing his ability to change directions or linger in the air between the two stages of the ability, could significantly refine his engagement potential, while allowing for a stronger knockback the longer he lingers between each stage (and maintaining the counter element of it) or activating Spike Guard briefly to absorb enemy CDs/Burst hits before the slash.

His Wall Climb as well, would benefit from a versatility and potency boost; losing the wall means losing the awkward use of climbing it to reach higher ground...which feels like a waste of the ability where other Tanks with similar mobility can achieve most high grounds just fine off a single CD.

Allowing him to perch on vertical surfaces, or gain further height at the cost of climbing slower, or even resetting the first stage of his Violent Leap at the apex of the climb would all be beneficial to his gameplay.

Give his Spike Guard knockback, for isolation and space-making potential. Heck, allow Spike Guard to add temporary increased Knockback for up to 2s if it damages an enemy.

Give his Ultimate a little extra root time.

Allow Bonespurs to persist on the field for upto 1-2s (this....might be too much for the engine to take, but the idea is still solid theory).

All of it is plausible and clarifies his uniqueness as a Tank-

-if you just. Get Rid. Of the Damned. Wall.

Overall, it's superfluous to the rest of his kit, with very little kit cohesion and can be removed without impacting the rest of his gameplay much at all. It's a bit of bloat that is very easily snipped off in favour of cleaner, adjustable changes that make his gameplay more unique.

The sheer volume...the utter metric magnitude...the bounty that is this game's options?

I've got short lists for characters I'd like to see in the game, but I've also played enough that a lot of the design decisions are getting clearer as well.

The game has relatively chunky mechanics that serve powerful effects with long casting times. Much of the cast seems to have this dynamic, with the more exceptionally strong/complained about, operating on instantaneous applications.

This isn't to say it is balanced? Not at all, but there's a weird...flow to a lot of what transpires that pushes many kits closer in value to Ultimates (and Ultimates aren't nearly as powerful as in other games by comparison).

Or maybe more accurately:

The Balance of the game isn't found in the numbers, but, uniquely, in the strength of individual and improbable execution mechanics

All that said, there's some interesting mechanical structures in the game-

-which has me curious about potential hero releases, of which, there could be a considerable amount per season.

Narrative design is a huge part of these sorts of games. You've got to have good concept, breakdown, and structure to the heroes if you want players to cleave to them (and by extension, their cosmetics).

Marvel is one of the most recognizable universes in the world at this point, though, so much of that area of design (alongside Immersive and Conceptualizing) is eased to a heavy degree, allowing for creative decisions and details to really shine inside of the pre-made world they are pulling from.

Just based on comic history and current mechanical executions in the games, I could easily see some design skeleton options just at a glance for the following:

Strategist

- Selene - Elixir - The Enchantress - Jean Grey - Pixie - The Leader - Rescue - Dani Moonstar - Mephisto - Wiccan

Vanguard

- Ghost Rider (Johnny Blaze) - Armor - Medusa - Invisible Woman - Colossus - Gladiator - Bishop - Luke Cage - Kingpin - The Lizard - Black Bolt - Sabretooth - Doctor Octopus

Duelist (keeping it small given there's more than enough right now)

- Daredevil - Elektra - Carnage - Ms. Marvel - Gorgon - America Chavez

It helps that a lot of the mechanics/applications have some crossover in the current cast already, the key is more in knowing how to combine all the different elements with some of the more interesting design choices in the game.

I.E - Scarlet Witch's "stun bubble" that has small lockouts, is a stun type I've yet to see many other places and, as far as applications go, is relatively weak and easy to avoid (especially with mobility), but showcases how to execute a relatively powerful mechanic with a modest and limited application.

Even if I find myself waning on the game in the future, which is a possibility, especially as the 6v6 talks and tests continue in Overwatch, Marvel Rivals still has a lot more interesting choices done in Hero/Villain design that much of other franchises have abandoned or given a flat "No" on.

There's something to be said about blowing up someone's hiding spot.

Don't get me wrong, I have reservations about Destructible Environments:

They're clunky and abrupt, interfering with both movement and player input via needless collision

Projectiles already have travel time and Third-person clipping, they don't need added impact navigation around collapsed environments

Access restriction can be a make or break effect depending on how it's handled and D.E. makes that much more of a knife's edge

But all of this also needs to be balanced out with the novel, even inventive solves for several other problems to this genre of game.

Bunkers, Snipers, Fox Holes, Corners, etc. can all be abused rather significantly by certain mechanics, to the point that a lot of players, new or veteran, can struggle without the right hero or mechanic to adapt to the scenario and even then? It requires someone to pilot that mechanic successfully.

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten into a game of Overwatch against a half-decent widow on Junkertown or Gibraltar and the entire match is decided by how players who only really have one or two heroes under their belt, struggle to deal.

Never mind the Mercy attached to her hip that makes even a Winston jump or Ball approach, difficult.

But this is where Marvel Rivals has stepped up the answer. Not as a specific hero select to counter play, nope.

But as a generalized tactic anyone can access; just take the floor/ceiling/corner/cubby out from around said problem.

No more pesky snipers hiding in top balconies killing you somewhere between the 0-50m you have to figure out how to cross just to attack them. Now you can atom bomb the balcony itself and drop the sniper into crappier LoS and easier dive possibility.

No more Tanks holding a corner and forcing you to build up a massive ult bank over a 1-2 min period just to brute force your way through. Just eliminate the corner...or create a new choke by blowing out a wall...or eliminate the choke entirely.

Arguably there are other factors involved in all this that make the tactic just that, a tactic, rather than something disruptive or collapsing of the gameplay.

Not everything is destroyable but Marvel Rivals does do a decent job of identifying and segregating what areas and components seem to be destroyable, vs. the major areas you can count on for clean engagements (though some spots do have hanging building blocks waiting to be dropped on people's heads like some Looney Toons spoof; I said decent, not perfect).

The destructible elements take a secondary priority to one of the game's more impressive options for handling snipers and entrenched positions; melee characters with lots of mobility. There's quite a few of these that make up-close-punch-in tactics against entrenched positions, a lot more manageable (as well as help alleviate some of the Tanking options that do lean a bit hard into the sustain and bunker values).

The solid balance of melee, projectile, and hitscan in the game is a massive upside to the game's design, allowing Destructible Environments to be maintained as an omni-option for any Role and most Heroes. It adds versatility to the entire cast at a foundation, rather than worrying about what each design is going to accomplish, ensuring navigation and positioning in the environment is joined by a third category; functionality.

Issues? Issues.

As I said, it isn't perfect: the constant regen. of the buildings that have been destroyed can very easily interfere with good timing and plays, while the falling debris lingers on the battlefield for a bit too long, limiting movement further for anyone without flight capabilities.

The fact most maps also come with additional environment elements (shifting walls and tiles on the Hydra map, or deployable elevators, bridges, and walls on Klyntar, etc.) makes for a bit too much overlap of interference and can hamper good team work further just by nature of the shifting map under players' feet.

If the developers were serious about how to approach the Functionality of the Environment as a gameplay step, there would be clearer indications and limitations on how the destruction happened.

I'd like to see the Regen of buildings moved to the health of the buildings themselves, rather than a return of the building to the battlefield. Make it so that high burst damage or sustained damage (and the time it takes to apply it all) is the best option for eliminating a structure, as the building will regen it's hidden health over time.

If Heavier hits/CDs are necessary to wipe out Environmental parts, both high-yield Vanguards and high-burst Duelists are much more likely to be able to destroy the Environments around an opponent's perch, while still maintaining focus fire as an option for anyone else looking to destroy defensible positions. It would trim some of the abundance of Destructible Environments while maintaining them as a strategic option that is more chosen, rather than because a wall or ledge or corner took a bit too much stray fire during a teamfight.

Overall, though, I'm surprisingly pleased at the way in which Destructible Enviornments has been implemented in the game. I thought it would be a genuinely unpleasant experience, but after years of dealing with Widowmakers in 3-5 minute holds?

Within design there is an axis: three lines intersecting at the middle, each representative of a different spectrum that design can operate on.

These are The Up/Down, the Left/Right, and the Front/Back, respectively.

Each of these is indicative of a subject within design, specifically around Gamecraft (frameworks wrapped around a game that allow for smooth delivery of ideas, concepts, and disciplines).

Each line is a field of capacity, containing as much or as little of the subject as the designers need.

The Up/Down line is for Potency

This is the line players will almost always know by heart. It is capacity for power; how strong the mechanics are, how responsive the inputs feel, how punishing/rewarding the gameplay is. TTK and KDA are found inside this capacity.

The Left/Right line, is for Versatility

This is the broad capacity around options; how varied the controls and mechanics are, how many paths there are through the level, how many types of enemies there are. Difficulty and customization are found on this line.

Then we have the Gremlin...the secret line that tucks itself away and out of sight, unless you bother to tilt the axis askew and notice it's just been hiding behind the nexus point of all three.

The hard to pin down, difficult to define, and all-together convoluted mess that is the Front/Back line, otherwise known as Texture

Texture are the limitations, angles, and, for lack of a better term, complexities that round out the design experience that is looking to make the player's run through the game, rougher, uglier, and filled with problems.

A lot of Devs will refer to things like Friction, which is what this capacity is often filled with-

-sometimes it is a casting animation for a really powerful mechanic, demanding the player take their time finding the right window of opportunity to use it; punishing them for impatience, incorrect timing, or just lack of awareness.

-sometimes it is a lack of distance on their weapon, with no other options or ammo available for longer range effects, forcing the player into navigating the environment in a way that keeps them out of danger, but closes the gap.

-sometimes it is a highly inefficient use of a well known and recognized effect that "seemed like a good idea at the time" and managed to secure a good play, even if it felt like an accident.

All of these are Texture-- the capacity for the unexpected, the inefficient, the telegraphed, and the frustrating.

A lot of players will complain about this third line, one of the reasons it hides so much. Texture is the game designer's way of inputting, not difficulty, but trouble for the player, ensuring that in the safe environment of a video game (which can always be shut off or walked away from) there are things to be solved.

When it comes to the various capacities, each is filled to a degree according to the type of game and the designers intentions. Some games have little to no capacity on one line.

A story driven, point and click adventure like 1000xResist, might have little to no gauge in it's Versatility, opting for the narrative to carry the player's attention and giving them just enough control over running long distances to keep the immersion going and get to the next cut of dialogue or cinematic delivery.

Meanwhile, a side-scrolling horror game with little more than a jump button, like Limbo, puts about as much effort into Potency as a wet noodle. Especially when faced with nightmarish creatures, all centered around a kid wandering through a shadow realm.

Then you have games that opt out of almost all Texture.

Where the friction is still streamlined for the player to know exactly what it is they need to do and how, but the mechanical, positional, and/or timing demands are incredibly/increasingly punishing. A straight-forward challenge that few might succeed at but everyone reflexively understands-

-like Tetris.

Each of these games made strict decisions to adhere to the capacities that would prove their designs, but the very interesting decisions revolved more around which capacities they starved.

It isn't to say the capacity isn't there, more that when you look inside, there's a bare amount of whatever normally fills it.

Capacities are adaptive, interactive with one another, and will blend together so well in good design that it makes it difficult to know where one of them begins and the other ends.

Some of the best design happens in the shower.

Just had a breakthrough on a TTRPG mechanical system that I abandoned more than a decade ago and now the neurodivergence(s) are operating at peak output trying to dissect all the necessary paths.

Disclaimer:

Yes, those are air quotes.

No there isn't an actual Problem with Mercy, as much as there is a problem with elements of her Kit that are used as a path to complaining about her in general/being a weird gremlin about players who enjoy her.

"...Sometimes we try out a build b/c it's the best version for the greatest good.

And sometimes we try out a build b/c Mount Olympus needs to fucking fall..."

~3AM Game Design thoughts~

There are very obvious problems embedded in many of Overwatch's cast, but few are as egregious as Mercy's.

Damage Boost is a problem.

Resurrection is a problem.

and those are alongside the smaller inconsistencies that make her Kit Cohesion/Cycling, that much less <insert term here> (responsive, interactive, dynamic; take your pick).

There's arguments to be made for why none of these have been addressed, despite well-known Mercy mains and advocates banging their heads against the wall for anyone to hear:

Changing as popular a hero as Mercy would damage her reputation and gameplay within the community

Removing core elements of her kit would make her harder for new Support players to pick up (she is one of three introductory heroes)

Her kit doesn't need changes because she is only relevant alongside a more 'problematic' Damage Hero.

There's probably other legitimate concerns with any sort of rework, but these are the three I see the most value in (and argubly, the three that can be used across both playing as/against party lines).

These can be addressed within the design, especially around the two major mechanical problems in Damage Boost and Resurrection.

Helping Me, Helping You...?

'Punishing =/= Rewarding'

Mercy's design is meant to encompass a dual-sided nature; help others, while helping yourself. A lot of her kit reflects this, but a lot of it also, doesn't have any connection between the two:

Damage Boost / Blue Beam relies on whoever she is Boosting to be hitting their shots, inflicting damage to gain the benefit, and (hopefully) secure kills.

A Good Mercy might never be enough if the DPS on her team aren't performing. Worse yet, it will often come back on the Mercy player, because the feedback for what she is doing isn't exactly obvious.

A flat damage buff that has very few qualifiers (stay within a certain range and hold a button on a target), doesn't provide much in the way of information for the Mercy or the person being Boosted.

On the other side, a Mercy who is attached to another hero who is hitting their shots? With no qualifiers?

Nightmare fuel.

Resurrection is even worse at translating between the Mercy and the Teammate she is using it on; an ability that provides no direct value or benefit to Mercy herself, that also acts as an excuse for Teammates to position poorly and not learn from their mistakes-

-all the while blaming the Mercy if she doesn't bomb into the same poor position that might have caused the eliminated Teammate, to try and go for the Rez.

The ability also acts as a hard interruption of a normally fluid movement cycle, putting her not only in a paused state for a brief window, but also lighting her up like a golden target for enemies to shoot.

Add in the long cooldown and, it is not hard to see this ability failing as often (if not more) as it succeeds.

On the other side of the coin, a Rez that does manage to succeed, brings back a hero that was accurately and successfully eliminated, with spent resources executed to do so, at full health-- effectively resetting the effort the enemy put into eliminating that target. It can feel cheap, even cheating, especially around heroes who are already difficult to nail down or punish and who Mercy expectantly tends to 'pocket' often (Pharahs, Ashes, Widows, Genjis, Junkrats, etc.).

There are a few other points of contention within the kit that do not have as much issue within the game and could be reasonably balanced:

Healing Output can't really scale in a match and will often fall away before heavier burst/AoE potential

Guardian Angel's structure depends very heavily on teammate positioning, even with super-jump/glide.

Overall, a skeleton of a hero that could use new life, to help new players adapt and not feel stuck in a permanent pocket playstyle, while giving veterans a chance to express the character to a stronger maximum.

Helping You, Helping Me

So what can be done?

There are a lot of builds that could go toward shifting what's been laid out above, but targeting the core issues would take some finesse and specificity, to ensure the Mercy player is being rewarded for participating, while also significantly downplaying the dependency on her teammates to even access that reward.

There's also a need to avoid simply eliminating the 'pocket' playstyle that is foundational to the character.

Every hero should be able to access multiple playstyles to better represent the variety of players that want to interact with that hero. More playstyles = more players playing the hero and the game.

I'm not about to go speaking for the community or even suggesting that there is a One True Build that could be implemented (even if I have my own theory on what direction to go in), but in directly tackling the above issues, there are some markers that we can follow to establish a stronger presence.

Allowing Mercy's Blue Beam to accumulate extra healing whenever her attached ally takes damage, would go a long way to expanding her healing output while attaching it to the execution of the kit.

At the same time, replacing the stark and lopsided nature of Damage Boost with a Movement Speed bonus, ramping Immunization against Status Effects, or even a Damage Transference to Mercy from the attached Ally (with appropriate Dmg reduction for the Mercy off this affect so she can absorb more), would go a long way to establishing much better decision-making and execution on the Mercy's part while eliminating a lot of the unclear measuring in her kit currently.

Resurrection, in all honesty, just needs to be replaced. It is too poorly designed to function well and the result is both unkind to enemies who work hard to secure that kill, and too kind to allies who will use it as an excuse to play poorly, knowing their is a 1UP waiting for them in the meantime.

Replace Resurrection, with something new; a summoned field that produces a small amount of healing + some additional effect (Immunization or Silencing on Status Effects, Anti-CC, Neutralizing Field for enemy placement effects like Immortality Field, Biotic Field, Inspire, etc.).

Additionally, allow Mercy to designate a spot on the map while her Staff is in hand (bound to reload) to summon a yellow life orb for Guardian Angel purposes. This gives her significantly more control over her own positioning and movement, without having to rely solely on the (often poor) positioning of her teammates.

These are, by no means, sure things or guaranteed to make the hero functional. They are builds that would need significant testing and structural adjustments, both numbers-wise and in application to ensure fair play.

But hopefully they serve as examples for what can be done about the hero, to not only move her into a more comfortable state, both as someone to play, but also?