Israel.7056

15 condi revs and 5 condi mesmers with tons of aoe stealth. Or sub out the mesmers with spellbreakers.

100 percent yes from me. No downstate week was the best thing that's happened to this game since its release imo.

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said: Arena Net wants the game to be balanced and has already (like since there's WvW) taken steps towards curbing the advantage that numbers have in WvW.

I somehow missed this when I was taking apart the post.

I'm trying to think of what you mean by this? What steps?

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > Because I think it will have the highest impact on lower skill groups under most common play conditions. I'm sure some fights will still be completely lopsided no matter what but "outnumbered' is such a large category I don't think it's possible to talk about all possible outnumbered scenarios at the same time.

> I've demonstrated it isn't.

Only if we all accept your presuppositions which I do not.

> > > It also disadvantages groups in an already numerical disadvantage.

> Your experience applies to you.. In My experience, Seafarer's Rest went from a medium server constantly outnumbered to the unbeatable server everyone was trying to join exactly because during the first months we'd constantly win fights when outnumbered, and you can bet that it wouldn't be possible to do this without rallying.

Yeah downed state covers a lot of errors but I think if you got more chances to keep playing without downed state and you got better at the game and you stopped making as many mistakes you wouldn't need to rally to win fights and you would see that you don't really need downed state in outnumbered fights anymore. I think you probably just need more practice with it to get the hang of it. I'll admit the first couple days were really rough for me because I've learned to rely on rallying too but after I got the hang of it everything got easier and easier. You think you need the crutch but you don't.

Being on SFR might be part of the problem I think SFR was one of the first servers Vabbi faced when I transferred over and honestly it reminded me of fighting Dragonbrand on NA if you get that reference.

> Well i've explained the problem a few times...

You've kinda explained your problem but I don't think we have the same problem in this game.

> Cause i'm bored?

Fair enough but if we're going to talk about what could be I think you have to be open to the idea that Anet doesn't really know what they're doing with WvW or what's going on in the game or how it works because they don't actually play the game very much and the ones that do are terrible at it. So using them as the ultimate arbiters of what's right and what's wrong is folly because they legit don't know anything about this game mode and they certainly don't know more about it than most of the people who've been playing since launch.

> Fact: Rallying is a mechanic that equalizes fights. Already explained and demonstrated.

So stop going down. Don't plan to fail plan to succeed.

> LOL, it's **exactly** the same reason. Safety in numbers.

> As soon as the first guild realized that they could conquer stuff faster by sticking together in a group, other guilds started doing the same to be able to counter that group, and then it went from guilds to servers when people started getting commander tags.

> Same thing in the animal kingdom, as soon as the first herbivores realized that the chance of getting killed was reduced from being near others, they started bunching up, and the predators started working in packs to separate them. EXACT SAME THING!

It looks similar but the reasons behind the behavior are completely different. Humans do it in GW2 to take advantage of game mechanics, animals do it in the wild out of instinct. Change the rules of the game and it will change the way people play it.

> > > You have a group of 200 individuals, and a group of 100 individuals. In which group is it easier (effort being measured by number of individuals to be killed) to kill 10% of the population?

> >

> > Are we talking about IRL or GW2? I get the feeling "easier" isn't the word you meant to use am I right?

> Wow man... I actually defined the metric for effort... It's right there. See this is why you're no fun to debate...

Ok but killing 200 people IRL can actually be pretty easy under the right conditions so I'm trying to figure out what you're asking me here.

Killing people in GW2 without downed state it just depended a lot on how good they were. Some servers were one push pretty much every fight during no downed state some guilds were winning 20v map q so it just depended a lot on skill and organization.

> You do realize that this applies to all instances, if it's 50 to 40 it still applies, the % is different but it applies. And it applies regardless of skill.

No it definitely doesn't. Skill matters a great deal under normal circumstances and it mattered even more during no downed state week.

> Your problem is that your conclusions are based on the assumption that the larger group is always less skilled.

Because they almost always are. Especially on EU good lord. I've been amazed at how bad most EU players are compared to most NA players. It's like fighting lemmings over here.

> My conclusion is based on simple maths. It's a blind equalizer, it doesn't matter who's more skilled or not it simply evens out the field. Then people have the chance to fail or not.

Skill always matters but it matters even more without downed state though because downed state is a crutch for players who make lots of mistakes in fights and go down a lot.

> Without rally even if the smaller group is more skilled, meaning they're more likely to get rallies, that mechanic doesn't exist, and as such each loss is heavier on the smaller group than the larger one.

>

> Basically rallying allows smaller more skilled or equally skilled groups to capitalize more on each kill they take.

Being more skilled means you shouldn't need rallies because you won't go down. Don't plan to fail.

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> Ok. Then why is your solution to remove it, knowing it will have a higher impact on one group than another?

Because I think it will have the highest impact on lower skill groups under most common play conditions. I'm sure some fights will still be completely lopsided no matter what but "outnumbered' is such a large category I don't think it's possible to talk about all possible outnumbered scenarios at the same time.

> It also disadvantages groups in an already numerical disadvantage.

In my experience last week it was only an added disadvantage for me when I made a lot of mistakes and in those cases I deserved to lose.

> so a good way to balance the encounter is to equalize the margin for error in both groups, by keeping the disadvantaged group's already narrow margin for error, and narrowing the margin for error in the advantaged group.

It's definitely a way to do it but I just don't think it's necessary. I think removing downed state for everyone is enough. We may not agree on the degree to which we must go to try to fix this problem but I don't know of any way to objectively prove a value statement. We may just have to agree to disagree.

> Because, clearly you don't understand the problem.

I get the impression that you and I don't even see the same problem. I think we're probably talking past one another in that regard.

> One: you assume this is a moral conundrum, it isn't... So Moral authority is irrelevant, and yet Arena Net would have it, being the creator and owner of the game they have the moral authority to do whatever they think furthers their vision for the game.

Then why even have this discussion? Surely if they thought that this sort of change were necessary they would've done it years ago and the fact that they haven't shows that they think it's wrong and their moral authority is absolute which means we should just always accept the game the way it is. Right?

> Two: you forget that there's always space for invoking authority in a debate. Otherwise no one would reach a conclusion. When an authority is recognized generally by both parts, it's cogent to cite it as a source or an argument. If i tell you "the CDC says that not ashing hands has caused hundreds of hospital deaths" (this is not factual, dunno the actual numbers), you can't really invoke arguing from authority, since it's a valid source.

Invoking authority makes sense in a debate over facts or data. This is a debate over values not data. If we decide to defer to ANET on all matters of values about the game just because they made the game then these sorts of discussions are absolutely meaningless because any suggestion we make that in any way deviates from the current design is contradicting Anet which would be wrong and whatever Anet has already decided for the game is right and whatever Anet decides for the future is also always right.

> The problem is, it's disproportionate, but it's disproportionately **LESS** impactful to the larger group. It's group dynamics, and herd behaviour 101. That's why animals roam in herds or packs, because the larger numbers offset their losses. The larger the group the more losses you require for it to be an impact.

Ok but that's not a very meaningful analogy because that's not the main reason why GW2 zergs run around in little balled up blobs. That has to do with game mechanics.

> You have a group of 200 individuals, and a group of 100 individuals. In which group is it easier (effort being measured by number of individuals to be killed) to kill 10% of the population?

Are we talking about IRL or GW2? I get the feeling "easier" isn't the word you meant to use am I right?

> That also applies to rallying, a smaller group regains more of their effective power from rallying than a larger group.

> Going back to my previous example:

> A 4 v 2 fight.

> One player is downed on each group.

> If that player rallies on the larger group, it represents the restoration of 25% of their effective power.

> If the player on the smaller group rallies, it's 50% of their effective power.

> Being able to rally will always have a greater impact on the smaller group. It's just common sense and basic maths man...

But not all outnumbered fights are 4v2. Not all outnumbered fights are 2 to 1. Not all players are equally effective.

> @"aspirine.5839" said:

> Perhaps I misunderstood. I read in your line that you think it is not fair for the larger force. But they are already have the advantage of being larger right?

Sure but I don't see why the game needs an extra mechanic for attempting to even those fights out that goes past eliminating downed state for everyone. In my mind that one change should be more than enough. I don't feel like I need the extra advantage of having downed state when my enemy doesn't to be able to win more outnumbered fights. EDIT: It just seems like overkill to me.

Again I think we need to be more precise about what exactly we're talking about when we say "outnumbered" because being "outnumbered" exists on a spectrum and because not all outnumbered scenarios are the same.

I think we're basically talking past one another until we nail down a more specific definition.

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> It does penalize a group that outnumber their opposition, which is definitely not the same thing.

Ok well I don't think that should be a thing. I think it's enough to just remove downed state from the game.

I don't think it's right to penalize players just because they happen to outnumber their opponent. I mean that for every conceivable scale of 'outnumberedness' if that's a word.

I don't feel like I need something like that to be able to win more outnumbered fights.

> @"aspirine.5839" said:

> lol are you kidding me, the autorez machine that is the blob should have more advantages?

I don't understand how you got that from what I said.

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> I'd draw you a picture, but i doubt that would help... I mean some people cant' be helped (that's a ad hominem, yes).

Calm down. Getting upset doesn't make your arguments more convincing.

> If you remove the equalizing factor on outnumbered fights, then it simply becomes a benefit for the ones that aren't outnumbered. If you don't understand that not everything has symmetrical consequences, boy... Reality is about to hit you like a train.

Actually I'm explicitly arguing that no downstate doesn't have symmetrical consequences.

My argument is that no downstate for all reduces the margin for error for all players on the field. This disproportionately negatively impacts players who need a larger margin of error to be effective i.e bad players and disproportionately positively impacts players who don't need a large margin of error to be effective i.e good players.

> You've made your position quite plain. You don't want down state at all. But i already explained why that's a bad idea, while what the OP suggests is actually the best middle-ground between those that don't want it, and those that do. It's called compromise.

I don't find your argument compelling. I don't think compromise is necessary.

> That's not how that works... For one, Arena Net's point of view trumps **all** points of view, since it's their design. They decide, simple.

> It would be fallacious if i said something like "PC gamer disagrees with you", in this case it's a cogent argument since Arena Net has decisive vote on this matter, and is the only authority on the issue.

> Next time, read up on your philosophy before trying to throw fallacies around, yeah?

Maybe you're the one that needs to read more philosophy because that was a textbook example of an argument from authority. You are conflating executive authority (the power to change the game) with moral authority (always being right.) So your argument is that because ANET has the power to change the game that whatever they think is necessarily right and that is an argument from authority.

> > I don't see why a larger group should be penalized just for being large. **If one side has high numbers but bad players then no downstate will negatively effect them disproportionately and I think that's penalty enough**.

> Wow... You managed to claim ignorance in the matter you're trying to state your opinion on, and then on the same freaking paragraph you agree with me? That's nice, i guess?

I meant that no downstate for all will negatively effect the larger group disproportionately. No more is needed to level the playing field in my view.

> @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> HUH? You're complaining about large groups getting penalized? How about the outnumbered player? That buff is usually not a good sign and %'s of them winning fights is slim to none

Yeah I don't like the idea of the game explicitly penalizing large groups just for running as a large group.

I think downed state disproportionately benefits larger blob groups anyways and so the outright removal of it will disproportionately benefit smaller skill groups, no extra penalties necessary.

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> I find it funny that when Mag is fighting BG, all they talk about is how BG sits behind siege in their T3 structures and avoids fights. But when other servers are fighting BG, suddenly BG is a good fight server and has a high KDR because they are out farming the other servers. So I'm curious, which is it?

It's both. BG is a good fighting server when they decide to come out and fight. The frustrating thing is that they play the siege turtle game even though they don't really need to.

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> IMO mag is trying to get low player to get a link, saldy it is a valid tactic due how flawed and messy this game has comed to be.

I think you drastically overestimate the level of organization on Mag.

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> Cause Mg tend to lure players that think they can 1vs1 and end being 1 vs 5 and sometimes canons from smc, and the bad part is that ive seen players from all side facing mag, that dont know when they are being farmed like hell, that's why the 1st rule when facing MAg, is avoid SMC and u will be fine.

Ok so you're talking about something only tangentially related to the topic of server KDR and total kills/deaths.

Unless you're asserting that BG and Mag wrack up thousands of kills and relatively few deaths by luring solos into SMC one at a time?

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> Yes, but *I* want an equalizer for when *I'm* outnumbered.

Then remove down state for everyone and let organization, communication, planning and skill be the great equalizer for all groups.

>Unless, of course, you're one of those that does WvW for the farm, not for the fights. Then i understand that you don't want even fights, and as such disregard my comment, since it doesn't apply to you!

Lovely preemptive strawman. I hadn't even stated my position yet and already you decided not only what my argument was but also framed it in the most unfavorable light possible well done sir.

> Thing is, Arena Net, also disagrees with you on this, since they already have an handicap when people are outnumbered, albeit obviously insufficient, and lately a mere source of free PPT.

Appeal to authority.

> So instead of giving mostly useless bonuses to the outnumbered, maybe give real penalties to the outnumberer (is this a word? It is now!!). This would be probably the best penalty, since it doesn't really change the initial battle potential (like for example if there was a damage restriction), it just penalizes bad plays if you're already in an advantageous position. This means that if a team has high numbers but bad players it would make it slightly easier for the outnumbered to whittle down the enemy numbers, especially in a siege situation.

I don't see why a larger group should be penalized just for being large. If one side has high numbers but bad players then no downstate will negatively effect them disproportionately and I think that's penalty enough.

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> No, actually, what we're saying is that downstate helps smaller numbers but can be abused by larger numbers.

So we're going with the idea that it makes fights easier for everyone thing? If so I don't think that's quite right.

Sounds nice as a hypothetical how would it actually be implemented though?

Also at what point does it trigger? If you're outnumbered by one player, two players, five?

And if we accept for the moment that no downstate helps smaller groups why not just get rid of downstate altogether, why take half measures to accomplish a goal?

> @"JordanPaul.1439" said:

> I love how the people speaking for maguuma are the bandwagoners that have no idea how it was on maguuma. These die hard ebg people are the issue with maguuma and not who we were. "The cloud" is the issue. I have no idea how they sit in ebg all day and farm the same spot, then call themselves "fighters" and brag about KDR. It's really boring and not how the game was meant to be played.

>

> The commanders left on mag gave up because you can't get people off ebg to do anything and who wants to wait 30 minutes to an hour in que to play? Yes, you can go play on the BLs but because no one will leave ebg to anything everything is T3 and sieged to hell. Fighting under all that siege fire + a que blob is not fun.

>

> The guilds left on mag are tired of what maguuma has become and have either left the game, run tagless or rarely play.

>

> Solution: delete ebg or make 3 ebg maps.

Sounds like you're the PPT hero Mag needs right now.

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

>Despite the fact that every other thread Maguuma claims they constantly fight outnumbered in EBG?

If they're playing offprime on Maguuma you can bet they are fighting outnumbered everywhere.

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> Mag farms players and KDR by luring players to SMC, while they have always people using siege and outnumbering the target with blackup from SMC siege.

> I'am not in Mag, but they are just leeching cleverly on how to keep ppk rate high, and those who fall on their "lame yet valid" tricks are in a way the ones to be blammed, cause the game allows and it is ment for gimmick/lame tactics, also every server does that in a way or another, still BG and Mag are the servers that use most time this tactic, by really alot, but they do this when they have more players than targets.

Ah this old canard.

So what are these poor stupid people being lured into SMC with?

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> It's easy for BG and Mag to keep a high KDR when all either of you do is always drag the fights to your structures, or wait to heavily outnumber the other servers. Cookie has been tagged quite a lot this week, and he rolls any of the groups that try to fight him, I won't deny that. Either way, enjoy T3-T4 until you can get a server to carry your mediocre players up to T2.

Lol ok enjoy getting farmed by Cookie.

> @"MadBomber.3719" said:

> lets be real, mag is just dodging BG xD

They're coming to Mag this time around.

It all just comes down to offhours coverage. Tactics don't matter, strategy doesn't matter if you don't have offhours coverage. Lots of NA coverage doesn't really matter at all because everyone t2 or higher has at least enough NA to stall through NA and even if they somehow manage to fail at that they just take their stuff back in OCX/SEA and upgrade everything again so nothing accomplished during NA has any effect on the actual outcome of the match. If Mag had massive OCX/SEA the NA players could take entire weeks off and Mag would still probably be a t2+ server.

Whether you defend home bl or don't on Mag doesn't matter, you're gonna lose everything once you go to bed. Whether you try to flip t3s during NA or not doesn't matter, if you're successful they're just gonna rebuild them when you're sleeping and reset all your stuff. Makes no difference how many hours you play or how many tedious t3 long sieges you endure. All that matters is that Mag doesn't have enough OCX/SEA to compete in t3 or above. That's all that has to be said.

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> I find it strange that Mag players historically completely ignore everything but SMC and their home garri and then pop on forums talking about how they want fights.

> Then they complain that the people who took their towers/camps were "PPT" or Ktraining.

> The fights are there. Mag players have historically actively avoided them and then pointed to the KDR as if they should have won.

>

> You want fights? Go stop someone from taking Hills on your Home BL instead of avoiding battle.

Not gonna get a fight out of that.

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > Again, this is like complaining that in spvp people are sitting on points and trying to hold them to win the game, rather than fighting off points for no reason other than to kill another player.

> >

> > But in either case in PvP you're still fighting other players whereas in WvW it's possible to avoid fighting other players entirely.

> >

> > > And if Maguuma REALLY cared about that, the pugs would actually leave EBG where you get plenty of open field fights.

> >

> > Very rarely on NA in my experience. Usually you get one or two fights when you port in and hit something and if you win those the enemy just retreats behind a t3 objective and that's pretty much it.

>

> I have no idea who you are fighting, but for NA EST guilds on FA find plenty of fights outside of EBG. Some nights are better than others, but you guys act like outside of EBG, the only fights are behind T3 structures, which is just not true.

Well yeah who wouldn't want to fight FA? You guys are free bags look at the numbers. You've managed to die twice as much as BG this week to get only slightly more total kills despite having the most activity in every timezone of any paired server in the game right now. Quite a feat.

>And here's a tip, go to other BLs outside of EBG and make sure those structures don't reach T3, crazy concept, but it does work.

I don't have any control over structures being t3 when I log in. That's a coverage issue.