Israel.7056

> @"Miko.4158" said:

> so how many scourges are there to sb's.

> assuming wvwers choose the strongest strategy, and scourge is over represented

> which needs balance.

> if bubble counters scourge as it allows melee.....

> come on people.

> its not rocket science.

False dilemma.

Also WoD doesn't counter scourge it counters boons and boon reliant specs like firebrand.

> @"Miko.4158" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Miko.4158" said:

> > > the area denial stuff is nonsense aswell, people engage with bubbles, it helps cancel out pirate shipping.

> > > its available to everyone so there is no 'advantage' simply scourages crying 'foul' presuambly on reddit. what a joke.

> >

> > The old winds was a textbook example of area denial; total no man's land wherever a bubble was up, top priority was to gtfo the bubble asap or risk getting ccd where supports couldn't help much.

> >

> > It still serves as solid area denial it just doesn't last as long and there's now a 1s grace period to gtfo.

>

> a million red rings is area denial.

> because its not balanced in the game, multi tagging loot from afar no-risk strategy.

>

Hyperbolic but yes ranged ground targeted sustained aoes are also a form of area denial and they are what makes scourge so good for wvw. So what?

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> "We" dont suffer it. Just because a few people dont like downed state doesnt mean the community is suffering from it. Polls have shown before that a majority is still in favor of having it.

By "we" I of course meant those of us who do not like downed state in the game (and in my case never have) and those of us who have suffered through it for years now (in my case since launch.) I did not know anyone from Red Guard so I do not know how any of them felt on this issue but my point was that it doesn't matter what they thought. Just because Red Guard dealt with downed state doesn't mean those of us who want it gone from the game should have to accept it as the eternal status quo. I'm not entirely sure what the various polls have shown or that these issues can or should be decided democratically but for the sake of argument let's just say that you're right about the polls and that these issues can and/or should be decided democratically.

As a quick aside, many of the polls I've seen have been worded in such a way as to alienate anyone currently for keeping downed state or those on the fence by shaming them for their preference. This no doubt satisfies those of us who want it gone right now but I do not think it does anything to win people over in the long run. You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar as the saying goes.

It seems to me entirely possible that the people who are currently against the removal of downed state simply haven't had enough time playing without it to change their minds. I have wanted downed state gone since launch so of course I was immediately sold but for others it might take time to come around to it. One week of play testing is not much time, I think that if we got a few more no downed state event weeks that a lot more people might come around to my way of thinking. The more time they get to play without downed state the more comfortable I think they will become with the idea of removing it entirely.

Again I don't necessarily think things like this can or should be decided democratically but if you do then you should be open to the possibility that people could change their minds over time with more experience.

> @"Miko.4158" said:

> the area denial stuff is nonsense aswell, people engage with bubbles, it helps cancel out pirate shipping.

> its available to everyone so there is no 'advantage' simply scourages crying 'foul' presuambly on reddit. what a joke.

The old winds was a textbook example of area denial; total no man's land wherever a bubble was up, top priority was to gtfo the bubble asap or risk getting ccd where supports couldn't help much.

It still serves as solid area denial it just doesn't last as long and there's now a 1s grace period to gtfo.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > If Anet had done their homework, they would have known that Down State in WvW is a very bad game design.

> Yes, the fact that WvW became one of the most popular RvR modes in the genre and attracted both big and small hardcore raiding guilds is a clear indication of very bad game design. Imagine how good Red Guard could have been with no downed state instead of presumably loosing fights and ragequitting every time an enemy got ressed.

Not really much in the way of competition and obviously there are some really good design choices that make combat really satisfying downed state or no. But just because red guard suffered through downed state doesn't mean we have to suffer it forever.

> @"TheBravery.9615" said:

> > @"Irenio CalmonHuang.2048" said:

> > Winds of Disenchantment was changed significantly for WvW because it was contributing significantly to prolonged area denial.

> >

> > To dig a bit deeper - In particular, the removal of the initial pulse was done to create an opportunity for counterplay. Previously the effect for WoD hadn't even formed before it was stripping boons from people in its radius. By removing the initial pulse, if someone can react very quickly they have a chance to get out of its area of effect.

> >

> > The new duration was chosen because it is one that can be waited out without entirely halting all momentum and adjusted to while still providing a very powerful effect.

>

> When you talk about counterplay, what was the thought process behind giving deadeyes shadow meld? Revealed was intended to be a counter to stealth, why would you give a counter to a counter? How many counterplays do you intend to make?

Subject for another thread I should think.

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> However, people who makes these threads and remarks also do not see or undervalue the positives downstate brings to the game and why it is a core mechanic. It does allow Anet to balance the classes more offensively, giving leeway to what would otherwise quickly errupt into class balance discussions and game mode discussions as players are downed instantly without control over their own characters and quickly find the mode pointless to play.

This really is the crux of the disagreement in my estimation. Putting aside all the "good for the game" talk I think a lot of people are just worried about getting 100-0 more often and not being able to get a res like they usually do. It's a valid concern. Some people either play with very high ping or their reaction times are not very good due to age or how their brains work or their keybinds are not well optimized and so speeding the game up and reducing the margin for error in combat makes it very difficult for them to compete effectively. Truth be told I had a few days of No Downed State week where I had a lot of trouble adjusting because I'm used to using downed state to win a lot of fights and I played the week on EU servers where my ping is not very good compared to what I usually get on NA servers but I've always had pretty fast reaction times and my keybinds are very carefully optimized so speeding the game up, reducing the margin for error in combat was eventually a lot of fun for someone like me. It made the game harder in many ways but it also made the gameplay feel much better overall. It was in fact the best the game has ever felt for me and I was very sad to see the event end. But on the other end I can imagine someone with higher ping having a nightmare of a week, dying constantly without feeling like they had adequate time to react and just rage quitting until the week was over. What argument can be made to someone like that?

Roamers want downed state gone for the same reason someone like me wants it gone: I played no downed state week and the game was faster paced way more tense and brutal and it just felt so much better after all these years of playing with downed state. It made me want to log in and play more than I usually do.

If you didn't play no downed state week or you did but you didn't have fun with it what rational reason can anyone give you to change your mind about It?

It's like trying to convince someone who hates mayonnaise that it's actually really good if they just eat it with every meal.

> @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:

> the focus and skill might make it seem like they are all one shot builds, but they are not.

"One shot build" is hyperbolic anyways. They're usually more like "one wombo combo get a downed" type builds or "3+ players bursting on one target at the same time" type comps but "one shot build" is easier to say and has a nice ring to it.

>But hey, if those cheesy burst builds work at taking out a zerg, why don't you give it a try and report back.

They mostly just take out the fat kids or people consistently out in africa in my experience.

> @"Nightshade.2570" said:

> The issue is they would need to actually revamp whole classes, seriously everyone that plays thief, ranger and mesmer would take over. It was proven in the no down state weekend.

Would take over what?

Should just retire it imo.

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> What evidence do you have that Scourge is less threatening now?

You asking for dps meters? How does one quantify "threatening?"

Just got to play test it WoD felt a lot less oppressive seems like a pretty decent change after all.

> @"Acyk.9671" said:

> If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2).

> It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend.

> Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed.

This is a really good idea imo.

> @"Strages.2950" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > It wasn't just a boon strip and it didn't just strip 1 boon per pulse when traited at least learn how the skill worked before posting about it.

> From the wiki:

> _

> Disenchantment (1s): Incoming boons are immediately removed.

> Boons Removed: 1

> Number of Targets: 10

> Blocks Missiles

> Duration: 10s

> Interval: 1s

> Radius: 360

> Combo Field: Lightning

> Unblockable

> _

>

> It strips 1 boon per second per pulse whilst negating new boons. Traited with enchantment collapse it would cause a chain reaction (again per 1s pulse); that's not the skill, that's the trait.

> If they wanted to tone that down, they could've applied a limit to the trait; there's no reason to delay the effect so that it doesn't do anything for 1 whole second after its cast. 1 second is a long time in this game.

>

> The 1.5 second cast time + 1 second delay to initiate once casted is absurd. Make it a 2 second cast if you want, but the tell on that bubble is literally the biggest in the game (its a gigantic kitten bubble for christ sakes) for it to have an effective delay of 1 additional second after cast.

>

>

>

Yeah it's a gigantic bubble so what? It has a big tell so what? It was also the most impactful elite in the game since pof release by a large margin for medium to large scale engagements. It was completely defining the meta for all organized play because of how powerful it was it needed to be toned down drastically.

Almost everyone runs the trait so for all intents and purposes it makes no sense to talk about the skill as if it removes 1 boon per pulse. But like I said in another thread it's not just a boon strip the boon denial is what makes it ridiculously strong.

Personally I would've left the skill as it was in terms of cd and duration but completely removed both the boon denial and the projectile hate I consider this nerf to be an odd sort of compromise but that's anet for you.

I will admit that they changed it in a way that I didn't really anticipate at all but it needed a nerf.

It wasn't just a boon strip and it didn't just strip 1 boon per pulse when traited at least learn how the skill worked before posting about it.

> @"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:

> When people figure out the meta and start running 4-scourges 1-firebrand per party, I will be the first to say "I told you so"

Much prefer that tbh.

Finally. Sounds like a good change.

Can't really force people to stop blobbing unfortunately, if people want to do it they can.

Just gotta try to be the change you want to see in the game, run closed raids, 20-30 at most and get run over sometimes.

In my experience 30ish v map queue is possible with good players and the right comp, particularly against servers like the ones you're facing right now. Just gotta keep at it.

I'm tempted to quote your cynical nonsense from the arrow cart thread about trying to 'trick the enemy into letting you beat them' back at you here.

Surely any request for an attempt at honorable play must be some sort of deceptive ploy to manipulate people into doing something that's not in their interest right???

Sea time their time come take keep

> @"Klipso.8653" said:

> > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > @"Klipso.8653" said:

> > > > @"TallBarr.2184" said:

> > > > > @"LaGranse.8652" said:

> > > > > Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?

> > > > >

> > > > > A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

> > > >

> > > > But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

> > >

> > > They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

> > >

> > > Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

> >

> > Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

> >

> > If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

> >

>

> Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

>

> If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

>

> Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

Imagine a 24 hr hockey game where some teams got to have players on the ice scoring uncontested goals for hours at a time every single day putting the score completely out of reach for any team that didn't have players on to at least guard the net 24/7.

Imagine getting on the ice every day to find yourself 50 goals behind and still outnumbered and knowing that even if you can come from behind and score 25 goals they're just going to score another 50 when you go to bed.

What sense would it make to focus on scoring at that point when it's clearly a game that cannot realistically be won without insane unpaid overtime and likely burnout and maybe not even then?

Why not just focus on hitting because it's fun and it's something you can actually control and win at in the moment?

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> Skirmishes made all of this irrelevant. We can stop worrying about weighing players or timezones.

No that is entirely illusory. Skirmishes changed the game not at all except superficially on paper. In principle everything works exactly as it did before the introduction of skirmishes. Lipstick on a pig if you will.

I keep waiting to run into broken deadeyes after all these threads but almost all the ones I've fought have been free kills basically idgi.