ZDragon.3046

Braham can have the i win button so long as a charr gets the i win button immediately after him making us completely forget about him in an episode or two still waiting on my expanding charr content

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"Aaron Forestman.4758" said:

> > > I'd be for a season without the downed state. Reviving is seriously disproportionate to damage, so even a burst build can have a lot of trouble securing a kill when the enemy team has a support or two that just keeps reviving people.

> >

> > Wouldnt the better solution be to implement more skills that finish off foes in downstate though?

>

> Imo the finish effect and downstate should work with a hybrid Rez from gw1.

>

> Remove the Rez rubbing allie mechanic.

> Give skills to Rez players we have banners, signets, those feet perfectly for it, they can rez pkayers while downed, a finished player would take 8-10!sec to Rez and would increase skill CD by 60sec.

Maybe but those skills would need to be made to fire off alot faster because of how gw2 has evolved and plays so fast.

OR

IF we are also going that route then wouldn't this also be the idea that cleaving a downed person should be made super ineffective almost enforcing players to use the stomp action which would allow those revive skills to have time to cast on downed player.

Ideally i think meeting in the middle ground is fair and to take away the rub rez means that cleaving needs to be made super ineffective as well.

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > > > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > > > > > > What do you guys think about this?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The res mechanic already heavily favors the side with more numbers. From my perspective, downstate and rallying are exactly the same. There have been plenty of winnable fights (both outnumbered and even) if the downed enemies my team or I get weren't constantly getting rallied.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1. I dont agree with this statement because its not entirely true. The side with fewer numbers can res multiple times should the side with higher numbers have people who go down or die more easily / often so i feel like this statement is a bit subjective.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It also heavily enforces the notion in ranked that the side with the worst PUGs lose. If your teammates feed in every fight, there's simply nothing/very little you can do to take back control of the map if they die too quickly to regain any footing.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2. Learning is a part of the process once again though im not so sure about this statement if your team is going down cause your comp is not as good as the enemy teams it does not mean your teammates are purpose feeding some times you are just mechanically out matched and need to try a different strategy but not everyone catches onto the idea that there might be another option unless someone tells them to try something different.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, if it's possible for Anet to test a sPvP season with no downstate (as long as they remove berserker/assassin amulet and tune down stacking damage modifiers that make oneshot builds possible PRIOR to starting the season), this is something I'd be willing and interested to play in. Then, scenarios such as 2v2s where I down an enemy and they down my teammate become winnable even _after_ another enemy rotates in to rez/stomp.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 3. condition builds become super meta... imagine having condis throwing on you and instead of getting a second chance with down state you just die instantly feeels bad man.

> > > > > > > > 4. imo Zerker and assassin ammy shouldn't be options in spvp in general. This also changes nothing with your previous statements techncially speaking the side with the better team or higher numbers in a fight will still heavily favor that side.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Furthermore, I think it might be worth preventing teammates from rezzing until combat ends as well. These changes would make fights more about who is more skilled as opposed to who has the numbers advantage.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 5. It wont though it will still be the same. Dont be fooled into the idea that this changes much.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. Also, I feel like the combat would be a lot cleaner and easier to watch since people aren't constantly going up and down.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 6. I wouldnt mind no down state events or some maps having no down state like if team death or other game modes were supported but in the standard capture and hold i dont really see the point.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1. Um... if you have to add a condition to make a statement true, it's probably because it isn't true to begin with. Rezzing _heavily_ favors the side with more numbers, period. Just because the side with less numbers _can_ potentially rez more often is irrelevant because I could counter with: the side with more numbers _can_ potentially rez more often than the side with less. If you just look at how the rez mechanic works, the side with more players will ALWAYS have an advantage. There are no exceptions to this, currently.

> > > > > > 1. But you added a condition to make your statement true. Thats why i said it was subjective to start with.

> > > > > > Infact one could say that the side with the numbers advantage period (regardless if downstate is included or not) has the advantage so whats the point of even bothering to make this claim when the side with the numbers advantage has the advantage before down state would even be applied. like what.... sorry but no... you were already at the disadvantage to start with removing downstate wont change that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2. The problem is... there's no way to win a match if your PUGs are mechanically out-matched. You, as a single player, _cannot_ carry a game alone if your PUGs are completely incompetent. There are no "different strategies" you could try when Conquest revolves around winning fights/snowballing/pushing your advantage with good rotations.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2. That depends if you can win smaller fights2v2 or 3v3 etc but not and 4v4 or 5v5 match ups then obviously then the obvious solution would be to try and force the enemy team to split up and take the advantage that way. Not every team comp thats good in bigger fights is just as good when you split them up into smaller fights.

> > > > > > There are different strategies depending on the map, your team and its comp, and their team and its comp. If you only see things as one line and one line own where "well they have x and y gg cant win" then you shouldnt be in pvp to start with. Conquest and anet do not often support different strats but its up to you to take the risk on trying them. IF plan A is not working and is failing over and over again why do you keep trying plan A. Thats common sense that you try something else.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > 3. No, condition builds wouldn't become any more meta than power builds would. In fact, you'd have more time to react and save yourself vs. burst conditions builds than you would against burst power builds. Imagine being at 7k HP and having to choose between getting hit by a Mirage's condi bomb or a Warrior's Eviscerate. Which one would you pick? In this scenario, you'd die faster from the Eviscerate.

> > > > > > 3. I dont think it matters you are not in the advatnage here if i have to chose between one of them but cant opt to avoid both then it does not matter you are still dead. Leading back to my first comment .... it dont matter cause the advantage here was already lost before we would even get to a down state.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > 5. It will change a lot. Currently, it doesn't matter how many people you down, a single support Firebrand rotating in to rez means you've lost that fight. It's almost impossible to outcleave that build as a single player. Preventing them from rezzing and instead forcing them to support their allies that are still _alive_ would result in a completely different dynamic and would help reduce the impact builds like Firebrand/pre-nerf Blood Scourge have on the match. It's no wonder builds that have had the ability to _consistently_ guarantee (or almost guarantee) rezzes have been _consistently_ meta.

> > > > > > 4. Then that means firebrand is over-performing obviously which we all know to be true. Thats not a down state problem thats a firebrand problem.

> > > > > > In the case of scourge (why is the scourge alive even when you know it should be the first target) if your team opted to kill other targets first thats a your team problem.

> > > > > > IF a firebrand is with the scourge then we have already confirmed thats a firebrand problem.

> > > > > > Do not think that its fair to say no down stat should be a thing just because a firebrand always comes alone and ruins your attempts to finish off a player. Thats directly calling out that the problem is a firebrand issue.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 5. If anything take the creative approach and ask for more skills that can directly finish off players The game imo needs more skills like this considering most people dont commit to using the "stomp" action anymore (unless mirage) and would rather just cleave a downed player to death because its faster and you can ideally ignore the interrupt from the downed player.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > 6. These changes would help slow down the pace of the game. It would give individual players a much easier time winning matches _if_ they play well. It would also reduce the snowball effect derived from the highly mobile + high damage meta builds.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 6. If anything it would speed up the game players die faster, teams get more points per kill. Speeds up snowball effect via the previous 2 statements pluse the fact that people cant delay an enemy from de capping or capping a point by being in down state on that point as they die.

> > > > > > Lastly this is a team game mode not a individual player game mode. While i would love to see other supported game modes you have to accept this as a fact. You cant always carry your team deal with it. there are 9 reasons why you cant individually decide the outcome of a match and each of them is a player in the match with you.

> > > > > > If you want individual wins to satisfy yourself ask anet for a 1v1 mode or play 2v2 etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. It is literally not subjective at all. 3 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 4 people. That's pretty objective. The only time this would ever be up for debate (thus becoming subjective), are when you start adding in conditions that effect rez speed. Even then, with 10% rez speed modifiers, you'd need 10 players to compensate for the speed you'd gain from simply having an additional person.

> > > >

> > > > The advantage was never yours to start with down sate has nothing to do with this lol

> > > > if you are 2v5 your advantage is already gone regardless of down state why are you putting the illusion that down state is more of an advantage to the side with the bigger number when they already had the advantage from the start this is what i dont understand.

> > >

> > > Let me put it into a more understandable version.

> > >

> > > In a 2v4, the side with only 2 is straight up at a disadvantage. That's just numbers. But in a world without downstate, it's a lot more likely that if the side with 2 are very skilled and have excellent use of focus, burst, as well as kiting and positioning they can win the 2v4 if they out skill their opponents to a high degree. However, downstate makes it so that in a 2v4 regardless of kiting and positioning, skilled use of terrain, and burst, the side with 4 are unlikely to lose, because if any one of their players die they have three players to rez them up. And if two of them are rezing, unless you have 100% poison up time on the downed body and a ton of cleave you can't even safe stomp fast enough to stop their rez.

> >

> >

> > In a world of good matchmaking 2 teams should never be matched together where 2 people have such a skill gap over the 4 people that they can do that commonly. If so then well gg because that game is a wash out.

>

> I, too, wish GW2's PvP had a stable 50,000 active players or more. This is reality. And in real games there are usually strong links in a team and there are weak links in a team.

>

> You've largely completely missed the point of what I was trying to say so I'm going to try again.

>

> 1 . Downstate turns close fights into massive all or nothing blowouts.

>

> Take for example A standard opening game. I'm a side noder. I'm capping home. Home is uncontested. Four of my team faces four of the enemy team in mid. Both teams score two downstates at more or less the same time. One team manages to cleave out one of my teammates and rallies their two guys. They then cleave out the remaining guy. Now the encounter is 4v2. Even if I rotate into the fight now it'd just be 4v3 and I'm unlikely to make a difference. The 3 of us will be eaten alive, especially as the person on home will rotate in making it a 5v3, which again because of downstate it is nearly impossible for any of us to secure any kill before a rez happens no matter how well we play and how low they are on health and cooldowns.

>

> Now I have few options. I can either try to regroup with my team at home when they come off respawn, and I'll inevitably have to deal with 3-4 of the enemy team snowballing onto home all at once. Or I can go for a far push, hopefully sneakily decap their node uncontested and hope the way way the enemy team has rotated leaves them off kilter and allows my team to come back. I'm also resigning my team to die.

>

> Without downstate, when the two allies and the two enemies ran out of health they didn't just go into downstate, they died. Mid is now 2v2 instead of 4v2. The close fight remains a close fight and it has done so in a way that is overall fair. Now rather than being left with an unsalvagable blowout in mid, me and the enemy side noder rotating into mid is a lot more significant as both of us can swing the entire mid fight depending on who is more skilled between us.

>

> Heck even if the mid fight plays out in a similar way and my team scores 2 kills but all four of the fighters going mid die, that has significant ramifications on me due to the fact that the fight that just happened wasn't an all or nothing blow out. Now whatever snowball I have to deal with at home is much more manageable, if they even feel bold enough to try with only 3 teammates alive and four coming off respawn.

My only question is what about when the tables are turned and your team is the one that holds the advantage?

IF your team lost the mid fight and you cant make a difference then they lost there is nothing wrong with the situation you just played out. It certainly wouldnt be an issue for you if your team was the one who won the mid fight.

>

> The end result could be a crazy slug fest where one by one each teammates die in this team fight leaving a close exciting 1v1 as all the remaining teammates fell in battle. And this makes sense because without downstate this fight was very close the entire time. And it would be an amazing feeling to be that last player standing, the guy who survived it all and secured the node for your team. And it would still be fair.

This would be ideal for a different game mode but not standard conquest. This is not a 1v1 mode and 1v1's shouldnt always be the end result in this mode. The mode is about capturing the points and some times a side secondary objective. Kills are a part of it but should not be the main focus.

I have to say i still dont agree with the idea of trying to push something that showcases individual skill as the main aspect in a team focused mode.

I would ideally ask for a new mode that allows that as the main objective 3v3 tag style matches where the combatants fight 1v1 till all members are eventually eliminated with no down state or something.

There are better ways i think to ideally allow that individual satisfaction that people are striving for without just ripping down states so people can run into 2v4's and 1v3s expecting to just win them.

>

> 2. Downstate compresses gap.

>

> Again imagine a realistic scenario in the same game. My entire team wiped mid. I have resolved to stay home, defend it if need to, and regroup with my respawning teammates. While defending home I get rushed 2v1. I massively outskill at least one of the two players who have chosen to rush me at home. We end up in a protracted fight where I repeatedly down the weak link of this 2v1. However he is able to be easily rezed by his teammate and without cleave I cannot secure the kill even with safe stomp and the enemy that is doing the rezing is good enough to pop stability each time so I cannot just interrupt him, cleave him, and scare him away from attempting the rez.

>

> The end result; even though I outskill the opponent, aside from stalling and creating a numbers advantage elsewhere on the map, I'm still in an overall unwinnable situation. The bad player who has no business trying to engage me in a fight due to the difference in skill is cushioned from failure and death because he has a numbers advantage.

>

> Without downstate; When I engage in the 1v2 rather than the enemy being repeatedly rezed they die outright the first time. Now I'm in a potentially interesting 1v1 and if I win that I've created a very important swing due to my skill and my capacity to handle these two opponents.

>

> And you can extrapolate this up and up. If there's an extremely skilled player, downstate reduced their capacity to swing the game in his favor.

>

Thing is... if the 2 people that rushed you are both offensive players or and neither of them is a support and one starts to try and rez the other and some how you still are unable to get both well... i dont know what to say. Cause i think as high as damage is right now you most certainly be able to do it.

Its not always about just getting the interrupt depending on who is doing the rezzing. Some tims just do damage. IF you dont have enough damage to 2v1 in the current meta it means you are bunker or something and its probably a good thing you cant kill 2 players balance wise.

IF a support player is part of the 2v1 then perhaps the ideal thing would be to go for them first as the other likely wont have the power to rez them if you have the dps.

> 3. Downstate can feel extremely unfair.

>

> Let me bring you back to 1997 at my local arcade. This is a very, very small town so we still had a Street Fighter 2 cabinet as one of the most popular machines despite the game being close to 6 years old at the time. Now in Street Fighter 2 there is a hidden "Stun Meter." When this stun meter fills up due to enough damage to this stun meter, they are stunned. All attacks cause some damage to the stun meter, and some of them do a lot more damage by design. You probably know exactly what this looks like either due to playing Street Fighter 2 or through pop culture osmosis.

>

> At my arcade and I know _many others_ there was always a house rule; You don't hit the stunned opponent. Now people were fine with hit stun and combos. But there was something that felt fundamentally wrong about the actual stun / dizzy mechanic. A losing player, who is already been on the receiving end of damage, being made literally helpless felt unfair. It felt dirty. And so a lot of local places straight up decided "Sorry but we don't play that way around here."

>

> Downstate when forced into an outnumbered fight feels unfair. This enemy team already has an advantage, whether it is a roamer +1ing a fight or a weak link on your team being focused down a split second before you can focus down their weaklink. Because of the way it gives a side with the momentary advantage a BIGGER advantage than they already get just by having the bigger side, it feels fundamentally unfair to go up against. Because again like point 1 states, Downstate turns very close fights into massive All or Nothing blowouts.

An out numbered fight is suppose to feel unfair thats why its called being out numbered. All aspects of an out numbered fight are going to feel unfair regardless of down state its going to be unfair. Down state is not an excuse or the reason why its unfair... its unfair because you are outnumbered. IF they had supports and you didnt get the supports then well start over and try again.

In regards to the stun meter reference im not sure how this is relevant to games or the thought process in 2020. As of right now in street fighter every player can see their stun meter and if they think they are going to be stunned they do one of two things. They go over aggressive using offense as the best defense or they take a defensive position opting to not allow the enemy to take advantage of that high stun meter so that they can avoid being stunned. Gw2 gives you the same options you have a choice in most cases on how to take on a situation based on evaluating that situation

In gw2 if 2 people come at you you have the choice in most cases (depending on your profession) to engage that if you think you can or you can opt not to do so and take up something else.

Now i will say this maybe MAYYYYBE if anet balances the games professions, boons, conditions, etc etc very well and there is no cheese in the game without turning the game into bunker meta then maybe they can consider reducing the power downstate provides in conquest. But as of right now no way. Damage is too high some builds are out of control (some of them even lack a wide range counterplay) The game would need some massive changes before you could ever implement something like no down state or no rally in spvp (conquest).

im probably not 100% correct but 2 rangers and a warrior thats gonna be rough for losing team considering the status of ranger at the moment. I honestly think its a mix between skill and team comps that made this such a steam roll.

you dont like match manipulation / duo q during off hours / and using boosted team comps in your matches against pugs?

Seems like pvp needs more updates and not just "swiss"

> @"Virdo.1540" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > It can be good if you want to dps i guess i dont see why it cant be good considering reaper is good and brings nothing but damage any class that can just bring damage should be fine if its what you like to play and you know how to play it and have a rotation nailed down.

> >

> > Others are correct though renegade is very valuable for the 10 man alacrity which replaces the need for 2 chronos.

> > But if someone else is already playing a renegade or you have 2 chronos i dont see why you couldnt run dps herald or something you will give a bit of extra boon up time as well so its prob not gonna be too bad. Ideally anything that has the potential to do what reaper can and provide something else on top can be considered good.

> >

> > Now i dont know how the healing/invested support aspect of herald would work out you would have to ask someone more knowledgeable on that part.

> > Ideally if your group is ok with you using it then it can be considered good depending on the boss. Most groups if they dont have a renegade already though will likely want you to be a renegade.

> >

> > I guess just always have support gear for a renegade setup ready on your rev along with what ever other kind of set you want for your hearald. That way if if they are ok with you playing hearald go for it. But if they need you to go renegade you can do that too.

> >

> >

>

> not only talking here about an dps herald, cuz power renegade (just for damage) does even more damage than the herald.

>

> i guess i should go with an alacrity gear&build then

I see well even if the dps is lesser i dont doubt that it cant be good in adding some sub dps and providing extra boon uptime. Some times boons are not always on point and herald could solve a good portion of those boons. I guess it depends on the team really.

Also power renegade does more dps than power herald in raids??? who would have thought.... ive only ever thought about its condition side.

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > > > > What do you guys think about this?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The res mechanic already heavily favors the side with more numbers. From my perspective, downstate and rallying are exactly the same. There have been plenty of winnable fights (both outnumbered and even) if the downed enemies my team or I get weren't constantly getting rallied.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1. I dont agree with this statement because its not entirely true. The side with fewer numbers can res multiple times should the side with higher numbers have people who go down or die more easily / often so i feel like this statement is a bit subjective.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It also heavily enforces the notion in ranked that the side with the worst PUGs lose. If your teammates feed in every fight, there's simply nothing/very little you can do to take back control of the map if they die too quickly to regain any footing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2. Learning is a part of the process once again though im not so sure about this statement if your team is going down cause your comp is not as good as the enemy teams it does not mean your teammates are purpose feeding some times you are just mechanically out matched and need to try a different strategy but not everyone catches onto the idea that there might be another option unless someone tells them to try something different.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now, if it's possible for Anet to test a sPvP season with no downstate (as long as they remove berserker/assassin amulet and tune down stacking damage modifiers that make oneshot builds possible PRIOR to starting the season), this is something I'd be willing and interested to play in. Then, scenarios such as 2v2s where I down an enemy and they down my teammate become winnable even _after_ another enemy rotates in to rez/stomp.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 3. condition builds become super meta... imagine having condis throwing on you and instead of getting a second chance with down state you just die instantly feeels bad man.

> > > > > > 4. imo Zerker and assassin ammy shouldn't be options in spvp in general. This also changes nothing with your previous statements techncially speaking the side with the better team or higher numbers in a fight will still heavily favor that side.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Furthermore, I think it might be worth preventing teammates from rezzing until combat ends as well. These changes would make fights more about who is more skilled as opposed to who has the numbers advantage.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 5. It wont though it will still be the same. Dont be fooled into the idea that this changes much.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. Also, I feel like the combat would be a lot cleaner and easier to watch since people aren't constantly going up and down.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 6. I wouldnt mind no down state events or some maps having no down state like if team death or other game modes were supported but in the standard capture and hold i dont really see the point.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. Um... if you have to add a condition to make a statement true, it's probably because it isn't true to begin with. Rezzing _heavily_ favors the side with more numbers, period. Just because the side with less numbers _can_ potentially rez more often is irrelevant because I could counter with: the side with more numbers _can_ potentially rez more often than the side with less. If you just look at how the rez mechanic works, the side with more players will ALWAYS have an advantage. There are no exceptions to this, currently.

> > > > 1. But you added a condition to make your statement true. Thats why i said it was subjective to start with.

> > > > Infact one could say that the side with the numbers advantage period (regardless if downstate is included or not) has the advantage so whats the point of even bothering to make this claim when the side with the numbers advantage has the advantage before down state would even be applied. like what.... sorry but no... you were already at the disadvantage to start with removing downstate wont change that.

> > > >

> > > > > 2. The problem is... there's no way to win a match if your PUGs are mechanically out-matched. You, as a single player, _cannot_ carry a game alone if your PUGs are completely incompetent. There are no "different strategies" you could try when Conquest revolves around winning fights/snowballing/pushing your advantage with good rotations.

> > > >

> > > > 2. That depends if you can win smaller fights2v2 or 3v3 etc but not and 4v4 or 5v5 match ups then obviously then the obvious solution would be to try and force the enemy team to split up and take the advantage that way. Not every team comp thats good in bigger fights is just as good when you split them up into smaller fights.

> > > > There are different strategies depending on the map, your team and its comp, and their team and its comp. If you only see things as one line and one line own where "well they have x and y gg cant win" then you shouldnt be in pvp to start with. Conquest and anet do not often support different strats but its up to you to take the risk on trying them. IF plan A is not working and is failing over and over again why do you keep trying plan A. Thats common sense that you try something else.

> > > >

> > > > > 3. No, condition builds wouldn't become any more meta than power builds would. In fact, you'd have more time to react and save yourself vs. burst conditions builds than you would against burst power builds. Imagine being at 7k HP and having to choose between getting hit by a Mirage's condi bomb or a Warrior's Eviscerate. Which one would you pick? In this scenario, you'd die faster from the Eviscerate.

> > > > 3. I dont think it matters you are not in the advatnage here if i have to chose between one of them but cant opt to avoid both then it does not matter you are still dead. Leading back to my first comment .... it dont matter cause the advantage here was already lost before we would even get to a down state.

> > > >

> > > > > 5. It will change a lot. Currently, it doesn't matter how many people you down, a single support Firebrand rotating in to rez means you've lost that fight. It's almost impossible to outcleave that build as a single player. Preventing them from rezzing and instead forcing them to support their allies that are still _alive_ would result in a completely different dynamic and would help reduce the impact builds like Firebrand/pre-nerf Blood Scourge have on the match. It's no wonder builds that have had the ability to _consistently_ guarantee (or almost guarantee) rezzes have been _consistently_ meta.

> > > > 4. Then that means firebrand is over-performing obviously which we all know to be true. Thats not a down state problem thats a firebrand problem.

> > > > In the case of scourge (why is the scourge alive even when you know it should be the first target) if your team opted to kill other targets first thats a your team problem.

> > > > IF a firebrand is with the scourge then we have already confirmed thats a firebrand problem.

> > > > Do not think that its fair to say no down stat should be a thing just because a firebrand always comes alone and ruins your attempts to finish off a player. Thats directly calling out that the problem is a firebrand issue.

> > > >

> > > > 5. If anything take the creative approach and ask for more skills that can directly finish off players The game imo needs more skills like this considering most people dont commit to using the "stomp" action anymore (unless mirage) and would rather just cleave a downed player to death because its faster and you can ideally ignore the interrupt from the downed player.

> > > >

> > > > > 6. These changes would help slow down the pace of the game. It would give individual players a much easier time winning matches _if_ they play well. It would also reduce the snowball effect derived from the highly mobile + high damage meta builds.

> > > >

> > > > 6. If anything it would speed up the game players die faster, teams get more points per kill. Speeds up snowball effect via the previous 2 statements pluse the fact that people cant delay an enemy from de capping or capping a point by being in down state on that point as they die.

> > > > Lastly this is a team game mode not a individual player game mode. While i would love to see other supported game modes you have to accept this as a fact. You cant always carry your team deal with it. there are 9 reasons why you cant individually decide the outcome of a match and each of them is a player in the match with you.

> > > > If you want individual wins to satisfy yourself ask anet for a 1v1 mode or play 2v2 etc.

> > >

> > > 1. It is literally not subjective at all. 3 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 4 people. That's pretty objective. The only time this would ever be up for debate (thus becoming subjective), are when you start adding in conditions that effect rez speed. Even then, with 10% rez speed modifiers, you'd need 10 players to compensate for the speed you'd gain from simply having an additional person.

> >

> > The advantage was never yours to start with down sate has nothing to do with this lol

> > if you are 2v5 your advantage is already gone regardless of down state why are you putting the illusion that down state is more of an advantage to the side with the bigger number when they already had the advantage from the start this is what i dont understand.

>

> Let me put it into a more understandable version.

>

> In a 2v4, the side with only 2 is straight up at a disadvantage. That's just numbers. But in a world without downstate, it's a lot more likely that if the side with 2 are very skilled and have excellent use of focus, burst, as well as kiting and positioning they can win the 2v4 if they out skill their opponents to a high degree. However, downstate makes it so that in a 2v4 regardless of kiting and positioning, skilled use of terrain, and burst, the side with 4 are unlikely to lose, because if any one of their players die they have three players to rez them up. And if two of them are rezing, unless you have 100% poison up time on the downed body and a ton of cleave you can't even safe stomp fast enough to stop their rez.

In a world of good matchmaking 2 teams should never be matched together where 2 people have such a skill gap over the 4 people that they can do that commonly. If so then well gg because that game is a wash out. I do understand what you mean but realistically walking into a 2v4 one should not expect to easily win that even if the 2 people going into the 4 are highly skilled. Keep in mind that it is a team based game mode and if the team work of the 4 people is proper even if a few of them enter down status and can recover due to team work and a good team comp. then thats ok. To be real with you if the match reaches a point where 2 people are running into groups of 4 people then i would hope the 2 people already have the lead and the point advantage.

The 2 players, if they are as skilled as we are estimating, should know the point when they cannot win a 2v4 and have over extended and should retreat. Choosing not to retreat and and then dying which rally's the other players is really still on the fault of the 2 players.

If 2 of the 4 people are committed to supporting then it sounds like the duo players picked the wrong targets to burst which lead to their failure.

A squishy player with no support in their kit will rarely commit to rezzing another player because in most cases its suicide. You wont out heal the incoming damage and you will become a target dummy in the process.

If by some reason there are not 2 people commited to supporting and one or both of those two players goes down in the 2v4 before they can kill one of the 4 players it means they were not as skilled as they thought they were, over estimated themselves, or made some serious mistakes.

If this game mode was not focused on capture points first i might agree with what you are trying to say. How ever as player kills are not the main focus of conquest mode i cant agree with what you are saying. Its a team based game mode and should be treated as such. IF you choose to go in without your team and lose as a result then you will eventually learn not to make those mistakes.

If 2 people run into 4 people and fail when those 2 people had 3 others on their team who where not there for what ever reason i cant really look at it as the idea of well the 4 people got carried by downstate. I see it as 2 people making a mistake and not caring to admit they made a mistake skilled or not. You dont run into obvious disadvantaged situations then blame it on some other factor when you knew what the deal was before ever committing.

I get that people want to satisfy themselves in matches and show case their individual skill or build or whatever but thats not really the point of how conquest was designed to work. You dont carry the team on your back. Team work makes the dream work.

> Downstate takes a disadvantageous but theoretically winnable fight and turns it into an _impossible_ fight.

Again 2v4

1 person on enemy team is dead or missing

3 people on your team are doing what? Basically pick anything except for "Helping you in the 2v4 fight"

The issue is not downstate. The issue is players thinking they should run into 2v4s or 1v4s and come out on top all the time.

When it happens "Congratulations" by no means its it technically impossible to do. It should feel like a big accomplishment! But dont expect this kinda thing to happen every match. It most certainly should be a rarity if you are properly matched with players at a similar skill level to your own.

If the mode was something like death match i could totally understand the concept of not including downstate or rally.

It can be good if you want to dps i guess i dont see why it cant be good considering reaper is good and brings nothing but damage any class that can just bring damage should be fine if its what you like to play and you know how to play it and have a rotation nailed down.

Others are correct though renegade is very valuable for the 10 man alacrity which replaces the need for 2 chronos.

But if someone else is already playing a renegade or you have 2 chronos i dont see why you couldnt run dps herald or something you will give a bit of extra boon up time as well so its prob not gonna be too bad. Ideally anything that has the potential to do what reaper can and provide something else on top can be considered good.

Now i dont know how the healing/invested support aspect of herald would work out you would have to ask someone more knowledgeable on that part.

Ideally if your group is ok with you using it then it can be considered good depending on the boss. Most groups if they dont have a renegade already though will likely want you to be a renegade.

I guess just always have support gear for a renegade setup ready on your rev along with what ever other kind of set you want for your hearald. That way if if they are ok with you playing hearald go for it. But if they need you to go renegade you can do that too.

> @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > Well that's what happens when you reward losing.

> > >

> > > Winning should be emphasized. Losing should not give any silver/reward track progress to discourage bots and AFKers.

> >

> > how to remove even more players from pvp

> > earn nothing for losing

> > lets punish all players because bots and afkers instead of just fixing bots and afkers

> >

> > This would be the worst choice they can make Fix the cause dont fight symptoms and pushing real players at the same time.

> >

>

> How else besides removing their reward for doing it would they actually go about fixing the problem of bots/afkers long-term?

>

> Banning them? A bot will just make another alt, and I seriously doubt an AFK player would be punished all that harshly if at all. To compare, when people who go out of their way to match manipulate and boost accounts they get 3-month dishonor, and that takes much more intricate planning, effort, and actual money in some cases.

> It's also a whole lot more work for Arenanet in the long run too.

The thing is would it really fix the problem? Lets say they do this idea but bots and afkers continue to play anyways because obviously while it would slow down the rate of rewards its not exactly promising that there wont be any especially in the cases of bots fighting other bots. At the same time you must consider the players who actually do play the game and how it immediately effects them. This idea could produce more stressful environments which causes more frustration and more toxic attitudes in matches (for those who do care about rewards). So while it "might" solve issue of bots (with some luck) it likely makes the issue of afkers and other ill behavior worse.

The afk problem is only going to be solved with harsh lessons unfortunately because its a real person at the controls who decides to take such an action. If you don't teach people that there are punishments for their actions they will continue to do those actions and taking rewards away is not really a punishment. Its more like "oh well" kind of deal. If you should rip away a players rewards especially from players who do this afk thing the moment something does not go their way. Imagine a match and the team is behind person goes with the "oh well" thought process and would afk anyways which does not stop the behavior. As much of a nice idea that you only get rewards if you win "should be" as a motivator not all players will see it this way.

An ideal system (maybe) would be one which players on both sides can just vote to kick the afk player while at the same time baring them from matchmaking for a set time. This could be considered worse than standard disconnection dishonor and block them from matching for a considerably longer time period even on the first offense. Perhaps at a set number of offenses within say a day or a week the person is barred from match making for a set number of days. Or people with afk counts only get matched with other players that have high afk counts.

The only draw back of a system like this is people who use it abusively and attempt to kick people who might make common or a simple mistake thats not that big of a deal. Which could backfire.

Its not a perfect idea but there are other options i think anet should take first before just out right ripping rewards. I very much dislike the carpet bombing method of trying to solve issues like this where the good and the bad will be punished just because we want to get rid of the bad. Such ideas should always be the last resorts applied if all others methods have failed.

>

> Anyway, I like @"Psycoprophet.8107" 's idea. Move pips to unranked. To add to that, Unranked pips ought to be earned at the usual or even a lesser rate than what we have now and on top of that only Ranked wins, but much more could be given for Ranked wins. These two ideas could be easily combined to help aid the people who actually want to play Ranked to compete, and the people who just want rewards and nothing else.

>

> > I wouldnt touch pvp if i was told there was a chance i wont get anything for each game if i lose.

> > This will also make people more toxic as a result creating a new problem

>

> Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel like I need any added grind at all to make Ranked enjoyable. Pips feel like jingle keys and i'm no baby... ~~usually~~

> Also maybe just me, but I find the most toxic type of player in this game to be like the people the OP is showing. The one's that feel all entitled and ruin other people's days just to get what they want.

His idea is not a bad one and it would be worth anet considering for sure. While it also likely wont solve the problem its a bit better of an idea than just the carpet bomb method.

> @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > > Well that's what happens when you reward losing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Winning should be emphasized. Losing should not give any silver/reward track progress to discourage bots and AFKers.

> > > >

> > > > how to remove even more players from pvp

> > > > earn nothing for losing

> > > > lets punish all players because bots and afkers instead of just fixing bots and afkers

> > > >

> > > > This would be the worst choice they can make Fix the cause dont fight symptoms and pushing real players at the same time.

> > > >

> > > > I wouldnt touch pvp if i was told there was a chance i wont get anything for each game if i lose.

> > > > This will also make people more toxic as a result creating a new problem

> > >

> > > Sorry it's not like you get bots and AFKers on your team every game.

> > >

> > > If you REWARD losing, you're going to have people who don't care about winning because the rewards for literally AFKing are decent enough that they don't care to try.

> > >

> > 1. IF you only reward winning people who lose become easily tilted and like most people like you have been doing need a reason to make it nothing you did wrong and start pointing fingers at someone else. People who continue to play and lose become super tilted and easily toxic because not only was it a loss but 0 compensation at all for losing.

> >

> > > Other games are like this too. GW2 doesn't need to be the "UBER-OMEGA-CASUAL-CATERING-NOOBFEST!" to retain players... and thinking it has to be is silly in the first place.

> >

> > 2. Most other games are the same way you always get something for playing even if you lose. While win rewards should never be equal to lose rewards there needs to be at least some minor copensation for time played. Thats the point of play time compensation. Time is moeny even for gamers if you are willing to invest time doing something you feel like you should get something out of it even if you lose. Im sorry no your idea is not going to work or solve any problems.

> >

> > >

> > > If you wouldn't touch PvP if they decide to not reward losses, bye bye! A lot of people dislike how casual the game is. The current system rewards bots and AFKers too, so removing the rewards for losing would actually help get rid of them. In other words, it benefits you too and improves match quality. If you decide to quit, that's on you, not the game.

> >

> > 3. So once again why not just fix the AFKers and Bots fix the problems dont bandaid the symptoms. IF they wont do that then leave the rewards alone and you can deal with losing every now and again. IF you think removing reward will stop afkers and bots you are wrong. All it takes is a low enough pvp population of active players to reach a point where botters and afkers still end up making profits from games with other afkers and bots.

> >

> > 4. Im thankfully happy you are not in charge of making these kind of decisions for anet.

> >

> >

>

> 1. So what's better, someone who has a crappy attitude getting tilted or rewarding bots and AFKers so match quality goes down the drain? If you read some of my more recent posts, you'll also see that I've been advocating for Anet to increase the amount of contribution a single player has on the match. So, instead of relying on your RNG teammates to win, you can carry a match on your own if you play well.

Neither is ideal but people will always have crappy attitudes regardless thats how people are via the power of the internet especially in 2020 where people think its cool to be toxic and e bully others where they know there is no chance of self consequence. Removing rewards wont stop this from happening if anything you will make peoples attitudes worse especially if they are on a losing streak or currently behind in a match.

Single player contribution influencing the outcome in team based game mode.... how about NO! PUT THIS IN YOUR HEAD if you read others replies to your post they dont agree that a single individual should have what you are advocating. What have you have been advocating is selfish while at the same time always faulting your teammates in your examples. Even in other post you call your teammates "incompetent" by example, yet have the nerve to sit here and ask me a question about which is better crappy attitudes or rewarding afkers.... now examen yourself closely and consider who is the player with the crappy attitude. You are under the illusion that you should be able to 1v4 and have the advantage yet call your teammates incompetent if they dont clean up after your amazing suicidal play..... really...

Ive already answered that the issue with bots and afker's should be dealt with directly which solves the problem. All you want to do is make work arounds and bandaids like giving 0 rewards for the losing team and hope that the botters and afker's vanish... no thats not how this works. Think about how bad this will feel in games where scores end up as 500 to 490 for example.

> 2. Nah not really. They might give _something_ extremely minor. But to reward losing to the point where people literally don't care whether or not they AFK is stupid. In fact, it's pretty silly how you dislike AFKers and trolls but are encouraging the very mechanics that reward them for doing that in the first place.

Its pretty silly how you just dont want to fix the afker problem and botting but instead directly rob everyone else who still wants to play the game legit and think this is ok because "Well you should want to win harder" but if you dont then "you should want to win harder" blah blah blah "individual carry"

Your logic here is just so disconnected its insane.

> 3. The "everyone wins" mentality is lame. Improving your gameplay should be encouraged. Just doing whatever you want because your feelings might get hurt if you lose is such a lame mindset to bring into anything, especially in competitive settings.

Everyone wins would mean everyone gets equal rewards win or lose which is most certainly not the case.

Gameplay grants progress.

Winning grants more progress

Losing grants less progress

Im all for improving my game play but you wont do that by making the community more tilting place than it already is and a good way to do that is to remove rewards from everyone unless you win.

> 4. Okay so let's go with what you want and reward people for AFKing in matches! Wow! Very nice! /clapclap

You ? literally ? don't ? read ???

I want them to deal with the boting and AFKing system directly.

There are several ways of doing this without ripping rewards away from hard honest players who want to improve and learn regardless of win or lose.

Dont try to make it look like the AFK'ing and bot'ing issues are my fault.

?Clap that ?

> @"Axl.8924" said:

> I saw a scrapper player playing without grenade on twitch. He said(well he don't need no stinkin grenade) and he was getting wrekt by reaper.

>

> Do scrappers just get wrekt by melee and condi really hard or somethin? just curious he seemed good enough to take others on others.

>

> Also seem to have nice dmg without grenades i don't really know or understand what he was doing aoes with but it was doing a few k dmg melee range.

Depends on his build. some scrappers build really glassy when the spec is designed around the idea of being built tanky so it kind of depends. Then there is alos the lack of knowing when and when not to engage a profession such as reaper which has plenty of hard counters that even scrapper can possibly produce in its builds.

Reaper likely ran corrupt boon or something that corrupted boons and considering almost all forums of engi are boon dependent thats possibly where the conditions were coming from. Most reapers dont build condi but any form of necro will put some condis on you via skills that corrupt boons.

Scrapper is also not very popular in pvp so im not sure there is a well defined way to play it right now most people playin scrapper will die to anything that goes at them Very rarely do i see a scrapper these days that does not get killed pretty quickly by just about anything.

ele is the main profession that cele becomes too op on because of how it plays naturally other professions dont nearly make as much use of cele like ele does while i would like to see it buffed in pvp so that other professions can play with it the moment they do it ele will abuse it and people will demand its nerfs again. TBH i think they just need to do 2 versions of cele

1st version where offensive moderately stats are higher and the defensive stats are moderately lower

2nd version where defensive stats are moderately higher and the offensive stats are moderately lower.

Just so you dont get both the offensive power and defensive power at the same time

This means options are opened up for other professions and ele either has offensive power with very low healing power etc or higher healing power and will lack the offensive part.

But anet cannot buff the dead even version without it being too strong on ele.

> @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > Well that's what happens when you reward losing.

> > >

> > > Winning should be emphasized. Losing should not give any silver/reward track progress to discourage bots and AFKers.

> >

> > how to remove even more players from pvp

> > earn nothing for losing

> > lets punish all players because bots and afkers instead of just fixing bots and afkers

> >

> > This would be the worst choice they can make Fix the cause dont fight symptoms and pushing real players at the same time.

> >

> > I wouldnt touch pvp if i was told there was a chance i wont get anything for each game if i lose.

> > This will also make people more toxic as a result creating a new problem

>

> Sorry it's not like you get bots and AFKers on your team every game.

>

> If you REWARD losing, you're going to have people who don't care about winning because the rewards for literally AFKing are decent enough that they don't care to try.

>

IF you only reward winning people who lose become easily tilted and like most people like you have been doing need a reason to make it nothing you did wrong and start pointing fingers at someone else. People who continue to play and lose become super tilted and easily toxic because not only was it a loss but 0 compensation at all for losing.

> Other games are like this too. GW2 doesn't need to be the "UBER-OMEGA-CASUAL-CATERING-NOOBFEST!" to retain players... and thinking it has to be is silly in the first place.

Most other games are the same way you always get something for playing even if you lose. While win rewards should never be equal to lose rewards there needs to be at least some minor copensation for time played. Thats the point of play time compensation. Time is moeny even for gamers if you are willing to invest time doing something you feel like you should get something out of it even if you lose. Im sorry no your idea is not going to work or solve any problems.

>

> If you wouldn't touch PvP if they decide to not reward losses, bye bye! A lot of people dislike how casual the game is. The current system rewards bots and AFKers too, so removing the rewards for losing would actually help get rid of them. In other words, it benefits you too and improves match quality. If you decide to quit, that's on you, not the game.

So once again why not just fix the AFKers and Bots fix the problems dont bandaid the symptoms. IF they wont do that then leave the rewards alone and you can deal with losing every now and again. IF you think removing reward will stop afkers and bots you are wrong. All it takes is a low enough pvp population of active players to reach a point where botters and afkers still end up making profits from games with other afkers and bots.

Im thankfully happy you are not in charge of making these kind of decisions for anet.

> @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> Well that's what happens when you reward losing.

>

> Winning should be emphasized. Losing should not give any silver/reward track progress to discourage bots and AFKers.

how to remove even more players from pvp

earn nothing for losing

lets punish all players because bots and afkers instead of just fixing bots and afkers

This would be the worst choice they can make Fix the cause dont fight symptoms and pushing real players at the same time.

I wouldnt touch pvp if i was told there was a chance i wont get anything for each game if i lose.

This will also make people more toxic as a result creating a new problem

The fact that the ranking system is very misleading and needs to be reworked

Toxic people

Even more so people who think they are the best while using a mechanically superior build, like why not just be chill af.

Even more so people who get upset for losing to non meta builds then blame the loss on being the fact its not meta and get insta tilted. (insta block status imo)

The imbalance of stealth, damage, stuns, and overall burst with very little or no tell.

You can be making all the right reads and make 1 mistake and get 1 touched stunned and the fight instantly does a flip flop and you are dead despite the fact that you were hard core winning the fight 0.75 seconds ago. This is even more frustrating when an AI of some sort does it (*cough* gazelle 6k-10k 2s daze charge)

Almost any 1 shot build especially if they have stealth access

The same old capture and hold game modes being the only supported modes.

(this stuff is old and seems to be hard for them to balance around)

> @"omarxz.5837" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > So, no constructive criticism? Only complaining?

> >

> > You don't have to purchase anything from the gem store to play the game. Or, you could play the game and convert gold to gems to buy things from the gem store.

> >

> > I don't understand the point of the thread.

>

> my issue is not understanding why buy expansion while you put most of your visual progression behind cash-shop otherwise just make the game f2p same how blade and soul do the same thing but its 100% free and there is alot of legit and cool costumes from ingame content in blade and soul and not just cashshop , but compare to guild wars 2 armor of game ingame armor i mean is so bad looking and bad effort put into it compare to cash-shop one

>

> "You don't have to purchase anything from the gem store to play the game" did i mention p2w or something ?? no so i don't understand??

To be honest most people dont use a ton of things from the gem shop to make their characters look good. Depending on your race and if you have x packs or not base game armor skins can look really really good and if you want some glow you can always work your way up to owning legendaries. There are also some craftable exotics you cant get with common drops which are also nice.

Most players use like between 1 and 3 gem store items for fashion at most

Things like

Style kit (to get exotic hair styles and or eye colors / faces)

A weapon skin or two. (Which can be bought on the tp from other players for gold) just keep any eye on the ones you want as prices tend to jump up and down on different weapon skins.

Most players dont use outfits unless its just like a base brand new character or the just personally really like that outfit. Because most outfits cant be combined with base armors in the game any more you have to chose between using only the outfit or using mostly just base game armor skins.

There is a gw2 website for fashion where you can see all kinds of fashion for different races and ideas people come up with and it list the exact items and dyes they use. Some times base game armor is more impressive than you think. It might look like crap till you see someone make really good use of it. Then your mind explodes and you spend 7-8 hours of game time trying to make your own thing around one armor..... dont judge me!!!! lol

Blade and soul (being something ive played a good bit in the past) has some nice looking armor but there were very few armors i liked personally and the combat was heavily polished while the rest of the game was not. I think gw2 meets a nice overall ground of polish.

https://gw2style.com/search.php

This might help your fashion cravings a bit you can even search by armor weight or race etc. You might get some inspiration without things leaning too heavy into the gem store. Hope you can find something that works for you.

hmmmm... Gross

> @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > i included this idea i was thinking it could be a a trait or something in the shadow arts line but i dont think these kind of benefits should be a thing to other base professions that already have other methods of damage reduction or avoidance The idea was to make the benefits for thief while allowing some room for counter-play thats not guess cleaving and burning skills and utilities at random which feels extremely bad when they dont work.

> >

> > As for the no critical hit thing once again im thinking thats a thief thing only. Thief should be the profession make the most use and benefit of any kind of stealth mechanic period other professions should literally not have common or equal power to stealth styles of play.

>

> > Most people just generally agree that the current version of stealth is bad because counter-play is rng cleave guessing game and its also becomes obnoxious when people abuse it.

> > Thief players say its bad because it does not do enough and its too easy to remove by certain professions which leaves them totally exposed.

> > At the same time stealth on other professions like ranger and mesmer have become too plentiful allowing them more sustain from those tools than they should have and hides tells on big damage skills or burst which is also bad....

> >

> > Ideally we need rework to the stealth aspect that addresses all of this.

>

> Mybad, I missed that inclusion. I'm juggling a few things, but generally I agree with the above. Other classes with stealth access already have mitigation built in. If stealth gets removed entirely, though, you may want to also look at mesmers, because even though they have access to distortion they may need something to help bridge the gap on their glassier builds. I think ranger and engie will live.

>

You mean things like blocks?

A wide boon table?

Things that thief does not commonly have access to?

I think maybe Mass invis giving true stealth would be enough but like the torch skill etc should most defiantly not be a true invis and no i dont think mesmers need that much as they have alot more things like blocks and wider general boon range that thieves do not have. Opting to go glassy should be a risk *shrug*

> > The pulsing stability thing i think should be out of the question for the most part though if anything it would be an optional thief trait at best.

> > Keep in mind a lot of cc attacks require a target to hit accurately some of them you likely wont hit at all without a target and if camo prevents direct targeting most of the time (unless revealed) i dont think it will be easy to get chain cc'ed. or cc'ed period

>

> Eh. That's fair. I can do without the stab, as long as the mitigation is itself a thing. That's the major issue and that's all I really care about.

I think the mitigation needs to be there ideally things that make camo a bit unique and fun for theif without making it so they can just not engage under it. I think if they had some possible options for camo things like

1s evasion on initial camo gain

damage reduction - no crits

increased movement speed

delayed drop out after attacking etc

Ontop of not being able to be directly targeted

Im not a designer like i aid but i think a lot of this is more than enough to work as mitigation. That said the idea is that it would still require some investment. though I think anet generally reworks things by design in most cases where stuff is just given to them for free. The last thing we need is a new stealth mechanic that gives too much fore free especially to other professions that are not thief.

> @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > @"Zexanima.7851" said:

> > > @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"Zexanima.7851" said:

> > > > > I don't think your suggestion is the right solution but stealth is really too OP in this game. Think about it. Imagine playing tennis but you couldn't see the ball until the moment it hits your side of the court. In any person vs person scenario the one with the most information has a huge advantage. Stealth strips all information from the opponent and makes them rely completely on luck and divination instead of their own knowledge and skills. When you lose to this it doesn't feel good. It just feels like you got unlucky on trying to guess when they would engage on you. Stealth honestly needs a completely different redesign. Perhaps you only become 50% invisible so that way you can still be seen if people are paying attention but you can't be crit and get pulsing stab while in stealth.

> > > >

> > > > This is truth but people wont ever see it this way especially if they use the mechanic a lot in this game with explosive exploitation.

> > > > Because its fun having the power role. Stealth immediately (in most cases and in most matchups) gives that person the power role completely with minimal chances of counter-play. The few professions who can counter-play it easily being hearld rev, and engi. but even then its more of a guess in a lot of cases and should your 1 attempt fail you are SoL till they attack.

> > > >

> > > > Stealth truthfully does need a rework and the current version of stealth should be limited to thief only and with proper trade off investment (perhaps naturally in smaller amounts)

> > > >

> > > > Personally if it was up to me i would do it something like this (taken with a grain of salt of course) im not a game designer but...

> > > >

> > > > The game needs 2 types of stealth mechanical play.

> > > >

> > > > **1: Camouflaged:** has translucent silhouette of player almost as if looking at a player under stealth on your team (this is harder to see at beyond the 900 range but not impossible to see) meaning if you really look you can see them but they cant be directly targeted by skills (this voids well over 50% of all attacks in the game if it cant cleave it you cant use it against them) while under the effects.

> > > > Camo. is gained by blasting or leaping in smoke fields and by most common skills such as decoy, the prestige, hunters shot ,blinding powder, elixer toss, etc.

> > > > Camo gained by combo finishers has a slightly longer duration than the base effect we see from stealth right now.

> > > >

> > > > **2: Stealth:** This is the real deal true invisibility. ITs is gained my more rare skills and a few traits like shadows refuge, Stealth Gyro, Mass invisibility, Shadow Meld, Silent scope, Hide in Shadows, etc. This kind of stealth is more rare to other professions and mostly exclusive to thief. This works the same way as it always has just now it requires investment and is not possible to perma stack it through things like smoke combo fields. Camo will not overwrite stealth effects but stealth can overwrite the camo effect.

> > > >

> > > > **Reveal** still removes stealth but does not remove camouflage. Reveal will allow a players to directly target someone under the camouflage effect for its duration though. (think of this like seeing and being able to target the red silhouettes of the HoT mobs that are under stealth once you learn the mastery). Attacking from camo applies self reveal that prevents re-entry for a duration.

> > > >

> > > > **Shadow arts** and a few other traits get a rework to boost camouflage duration but not stealth duration and boost effects for thieves such as having a minor evade on initial camo entry, taking reduced or non critical strikes while in camouflage and or stealth, recovering health and increased movement speed while under camouflage. Possibly even gaining something like when dropping from stealth without attacking first enter camouflaged for a few seconds or Attacking from camouflaged delays its removal for a few (like 2) seconds. Of course i dont really mean all of these at the same time but these are just randomly thrown ideas.

> > > >

> > > > **Stealth attacks** are available in both methods though perhaps we see a rework to those attacks to to not make them so situational. For example backstab flipping to a different skill while under camo that does not require hitting a person in the back to gain some kind of bonus because lets face it that wont happen if you can see the silhouette of the player. This would require more work and effort but i mean it would be necessary to this concept for thief.

> > > >

> > > > The goal of this would be for true stealth to be more unique to thief while also taking a back seat as the more rare effect in the stealthy aspect of the game giving them an edge with the mechanic. Even the Camouflaged effect would provide thief with additional means of sustain while allowing some skilled level of counter-play thats not guessing blinding or hoping to get that one reveal proc from x skill.

> > > > For other professions the "Camouflaged" effect would have the base benefit such as ignoring direct targeting which cuts out a massive percentage of skills in the game while also allowing some counter play. (you dont get away with insane things with no tell) Some weapons are even entirely voided without a direct target so the applications for this lesser stealth would still great benefit and keeps them from having the same prowess as thief with the same mechanic.

> > > >

> > > > Other professions have more counter-play naturally opened up as their sustain through stealth becomes slightly lesser but not completely removed and will no longer commonly have the same effectiveness as thief all the time when it comes to sneak attacks or disengage.

> > > >

> > > > Im ready for the "bad idea" Slaughter fest gg wp :cry:

> > > >

> > >

> > > It's fine. Camo sounds fun. All I'm worried about is that I will need better access to sustain and damage mitigation. Stealth -is- annoying, but under that stealth is a thief/mes that is basically praying you don't cleave him because they don't have any damage reduction and are using that lack of visual -as- their damage mitigation.

> > > If I can just see a thief by looking really closely (or by messing with my graphics settings), and any cleave I do just goes straight to his HP pool, I don't think that's good design.

> > >

> > > If that issue is addressed, I really don't care how visible I am on thief.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > That's why I was thinking it should prevent crit damage and possibly give you 1 sec of 1 stack of stab ever one seconds. How are you going to crit on someone you can't really see? The bit stab would prevent them from just getting instantly CC locked but could get hit by chain CC's if not careful.

>

> See, now __That's__ something I can get behind.

> I'd be fine removing stealth if the rework looked something like that and didnt break pve.

i included this idea i was thinking it could be a a trait or something in the shadow arts line but i dont think these kind of benefits should be a thing to other base professions that already have other methods of damage reduction or avoidance The idea was to make the benefits for thief while allowing some room for counter-play thats not guess cleaving and burning skills and utilities at random which feels extremely bad when they dont work.

As for the no critical hit thing once again im thinking thats a thief thing only. Thief should be the profession make the most use and benefit of any kind of stealth mechanic period other professions should literally not have common or equal power to stealth styles of play.

The pulsing stability thing i think should be out of the question for the most part though if anything it would be an optional thief trait at best.

Keep in mind a lot of cc attacks require a target to hit accurately some of them you likely wont hit at all without a target and if camo prevents direct targeting most of the time (unless revealed) i dont think it will be easy to get chain cc'ed. or cc'ed period

Most people just generally agree that the current version of stealth is bad because counter-play is rng cleave guessing game and its also becomes obnoxious when people abuse it.

Thief players say its bad because it does not do enough and its too easy to remove by certain professions which leaves them totally exposed.

At the same time stealth on other professions like ranger and mesmer have become too plentiful allowing them more sustain from those tools than they should have and hides tells on big damage skills or burst which is also bad....

Ideally we need rework to the stealth aspect that addresses all of this.

> @"Zexanima.7851" said:

> I don't think your suggestion is the right solution but stealth is really too OP in this game. Think about it. Imagine playing tennis but you couldn't see the ball until the moment it hits your side of the court. In any person vs person scenario the one with the most information has a huge advantage. Stealth strips all information from the opponent and makes them rely completely on luck and divination instead of their own knowledge and skills. When you lose to this it doesn't feel good. It just feels like you got unlucky on trying to guess when they would engage on you. Stealth honestly needs a completely different redesign. Perhaps you only become 50% invisible so that way you can still be seen if people are paying attention but you can't be crit and get pulsing stab while in stealth.

This is truth but people wont ever see it this way especially if they use the mechanic a lot in this game with explosive exploitation.

Because its fun having the power role. Stealth immediately (in most cases and in most matchups) gives that person the power role completely with minimal chances of counter-play. The few professions who can counter-play it easily being hearld rev, and engi. but even then its more of a guess in a lot of cases and should your 1 attempt fail you are SoL till they attack.

Stealth truthfully does need a rework and the current version of stealth should be limited to thief only and with proper trade off investment (perhaps naturally in smaller amounts)

Personally if it was up to me i would do it something like this (taken with a grain of salt of course) im not a game designer but...

The game needs 2 types of stealth mechanical play.

**1: Camouflaged:** has translucent silhouette of player almost as if looking at a player under stealth on your team (this is harder to see at beyond the 900 range but not impossible to see) meaning if you really look you can see them but they cant be directly targeted by skills (this voids well over 50% of all attacks in the game if it cant cleave it you cant use it against them) while under the effects.

Camo. is gained by blasting or leaping in smoke fields and by most common skills such as decoy, the prestige, hunters shot ,blinding powder, elixer toss, etc.

Camo gained by combo finishers has a slightly longer duration than the base effect we see from stealth right now.

**2: Stealth:** This is the real deal true invisibility. ITs is gained my more rare skills and a few traits like shadows refuge, Stealth Gyro, Mass invisibility, Shadow Meld, Silent scope, Hide in Shadows, etc. This kind of stealth is more rare to other professions and mostly exclusive to thief. This works the same way as it always has just now it requires investment and is not possible to perma stack it through things like smoke combo fields. Camo will not overwrite stealth effects but stealth can overwrite the camo effect.

**Reveal** still removes stealth but does not remove camouflage. Reveal will allow a players to directly target someone under the camouflage effect for its duration though. (think of this like seeing and being able to target the red silhouettes of the HoT mobs that are under stealth once you learn the mastery). Attacking from camo applies self reveal that prevents re-entry for a duration.

**Shadow arts** and a few other traits get a rework to boost camouflage duration but not stealth duration and boost effects for thieves such as having a minor evade on initial camo entry, taking reduced or non critical strikes while in camouflage and or stealth, recovering health and increased movement speed while under camouflage. Possibly even gaining something like when dropping from stealth without attacking first enter camouflaged for a few seconds or Attacking from camouflaged delays its removal for a few (like 2) seconds. Of course i dont really mean all of these at the same time but these are just randomly thrown ideas.

**Stealth attacks** are available in both methods though perhaps we see a rework to those attacks to to not make them so situational. For example backstab flipping to a different skill while under camo that does not require hitting a person in the back to gain some kind of bonus because lets face it that wont happen if you can see the silhouette of the player. This would require more work and effort but i mean it would be necessary to this concept for thief.

The goal of this would be for true stealth to be more unique to thief while also taking a back seat as the more rare effect in the stealthy aspect of the game giving them an edge with the mechanic. Even the Camouflaged effect would provide thief with additional means of sustain while allowing some skilled level of counter-play thats not guessing blinding or hoping to get that one reveal proc from x skill.

For other professions the "Camouflaged" effect would have the base benefit such as ignoring direct targeting which cuts out a massive percentage of skills in the game while also allowing some counter play. (you dont get away with insane things with no tell) Some weapons are even entirely voided without a direct target so the applications for this lesser stealth would still great benefit and keeps them from having the same prowess as thief with the same mechanic.

Other professions have more counter-play naturally opened up as their sustain through stealth becomes slightly lesser but not completely removed and will no longer commonly have the same effectiveness as thief all the time when it comes to sneak attacks or disengage.

Im ready for the "bad idea" Slaughter fest gg wp :cry:

This is stupid

If you want to add a damage reduction to any thing it should be skills that make the player invulnerable for more than a half second like distortion, obsidian flesh, etc

Invulns that allow offensive pressure without skill restriction or retaliation for long periods should be the things that cause self damage reduction.

This idea is aimed completely in the wrong direction as just an outcry for something that wont change the outcome in most cases.

Once the stealth attack is complete the majority of the damage is already done you are likely still going to die even with a 33% reduction from meme builds all this will do is hurt people who dont play abusive stealth builds tbh.

Even if anet did this insane idea all it does is push more people to pistol whip spam which will be the next big target because what else do they have to use. Im not a fan of pistolwhip spam myself but i mean how can i blame people when others keep removing thiefs other options. After pistolwhip it will prob be evasive d/d and then people will cry about that too.

Edit

As far as mesmer 1 shot builds go thats a whole separate problem as to why the f1 damage ramps so high with only one clone spawned the eaiest way to fix mesmer one shot is drop the damage scaling on the f1 with 1 clone and up its scaling with 3 clones meaning 1 shot burst are simply not possible. IT really makes no sense why the f1 with one shatter can do 5k-7k crits from a single clone and the player. This would be the proper quick fix for that not this silly damage reduction on reveal.

Even if anet did this change people could just wait for stealth to time out naturally and time their burst perfectly with that to prevent the reduction form occurring this 33% reveal reduction solves nothing.

I feel like most companies and devs actively develop their games.

I also feel like a massive portion of that content we never get to see because for one reason or another it simply has issues that dont allow it to go into the live build. Their are exploits or obvious bugs or it simply is not a good time to finish or progress the features or content. That said i think they are doing what they can.

Considering gw2 is one of the few remaining modern ish mmos around right now its all we really have.

I dont think anet always makes the best choices and some times make the wrong choices in correcting mistakes (cough... charr themed charr not fitting charr issue/ gem store banner issue) BUT!

I do think they are actively working on the game they dont really have much else to actively be working on right now.

> @"Avatar.3568" said:

> > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > Just think about it as a solo player.

> >

> > Let's say you're in a 1v4 and you down 3 people. Your teammate rotates in to help but can't cleave any of the 3 people out in time. You die, the 3 enemies all rally, your teammate instantly dies, and the advantage you were attempting to create through your skill has been completely wiped clean and has no impact on the rest of the match.

> >

> > That sucks. Like I said above, the time difference would compound the more you pull off plays like this. My changes would make it much easier for a single player to impact the outcome of a match. This is something that's always been an issue with Conquest.

>

> Who is going in a 1v4?

Also what i was thinking if you are in a 1v4 with at least anyone who is not new to the game and commonly plays pvp and you down 3 of those people i would say what ever build you are using needs to be looked at. Especially if you think you are suppose to commonly win that kind of situation.

Maybe the issue is not with the supports doing their job maybe its with the build you are playing thinking it should just have the power to down 3 people and if you can commonly down 3 people in a 1v4 but not finish them off i would say that build needs to be looked into not the supports. if you have the power to down 3 people in a 1v4 commonly there is no real reason why you cant kill support build's by focusing on them.

perhaps a certain player shouldnt run in to a 1v4 then be upset when they die and those 4 players rally when it was not exactly smart to run into a 1v4 anyways.

> @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > > What do you guys think about this?

> > > > >

> > > > > The res mechanic already heavily favors the side with more numbers. From my perspective, downstate and rallying are exactly the same. There have been plenty of winnable fights (both outnumbered and even) if the downed enemies my team or I get weren't constantly getting rallied.

> > > >

> > > > 1. I dont agree with this statement because its not entirely true. The side with fewer numbers can res multiple times should the side with higher numbers have people who go down or die more easily / often so i feel like this statement is a bit subjective.

> > > > >

> > > > > It also heavily enforces the notion in ranked that the side with the worst PUGs lose. If your teammates feed in every fight, there's simply nothing/very little you can do to take back control of the map if they die too quickly to regain any footing.

> > > >

> > > > 2. Learning is a part of the process once again though im not so sure about this statement if your team is going down cause your comp is not as good as the enemy teams it does not mean your teammates are purpose feeding some times you are just mechanically out matched and need to try a different strategy but not everyone catches onto the idea that there might be another option unless someone tells them to try something different.

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, if it's possible for Anet to test a sPvP season with no downstate (as long as they remove berserker/assassin amulet and tune down stacking damage modifiers that make oneshot builds possible PRIOR to starting the season), this is something I'd be willing and interested to play in. Then, scenarios such as 2v2s where I down an enemy and they down my teammate become winnable even _after_ another enemy rotates in to rez/stomp.

> > > >

> > > > 3. condition builds become super meta... imagine having condis throwing on you and instead of getting a second chance with down state you just die instantly feeels bad man.

> > > > 4. imo Zerker and assassin ammy shouldn't be options in spvp in general. This also changes nothing with your previous statements techncially speaking the side with the better team or higher numbers in a fight will still heavily favor that side.

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Furthermore, I think it might be worth preventing teammates from rezzing until combat ends as well. These changes would make fights more about who is more skilled as opposed to who has the numbers advantage.

> > > >

> > > > 5. It wont though it will still be the same. Dont be fooled into the idea that this changes much.

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. Also, I feel like the combat would be a lot cleaner and easier to watch since people aren't constantly going up and down.

> > > >

> > > > 6. I wouldnt mind no down state events or some maps having no down state like if team death or other game modes were supported but in the standard capture and hold i dont really see the point.

> > > >

> > >

> > > 1. Um... if you have to add a condition to make a statement true, it's probably because it isn't true to begin with. Rezzing _heavily_ favors the side with more numbers, period. Just because the side with less numbers _can_ potentially rez more often is irrelevant because I could counter with: the side with more numbers _can_ potentially rez more often than the side with less. If you just look at how the rez mechanic works, the side with more players will ALWAYS have an advantage. There are no exceptions to this, currently.

> > 1. But you added a condition to make your statement true. Thats why i said it was subjective to start with.

> > Infact one could say that the side with the numbers advantage period (regardless if downstate is included or not) has the advantage so whats the point of even bothering to make this claim when the side with the numbers advantage has the advantage before down state would even be applied. like what.... sorry but no... you were already at the disadvantage to start with removing downstate wont change that.

> >

> > > 2. The problem is... there's no way to win a match if your PUGs are mechanically out-matched. You, as a single player, _cannot_ carry a game alone if your PUGs are completely incompetent. There are no "different strategies" you could try when Conquest revolves around winning fights/snowballing/pushing your advantage with good rotations.

> >

> > 2. That depends if you can win smaller fights2v2 or 3v3 etc but not and 4v4 or 5v5 match ups then obviously then the obvious solution would be to try and force the enemy team to split up and take the advantage that way. Not every team comp thats good in bigger fights is just as good when you split them up into smaller fights.

> > There are different strategies depending on the map, your team and its comp, and their team and its comp. If you only see things as one line and one line own where "well they have x and y gg cant win" then you shouldnt be in pvp to start with. Conquest and anet do not often support different strats but its up to you to take the risk on trying them. IF plan A is not working and is failing over and over again why do you keep trying plan A. Thats common sense that you try something else.

> >

> > > 3. No, condition builds wouldn't become any more meta than power builds would. In fact, you'd have more time to react and save yourself vs. burst conditions builds than you would against burst power builds. Imagine being at 7k HP and having to choose between getting hit by a Mirage's condi bomb or a Warrior's Eviscerate. Which one would you pick? In this scenario, you'd die faster from the Eviscerate.

> > 3. I dont think it matters you are not in the advatnage here if i have to chose between one of them but cant opt to avoid both then it does not matter you are still dead. Leading back to my first comment .... it dont matter cause the advantage here was already lost before we would even get to a down state.

> >

> > > 5. It will change a lot. Currently, it doesn't matter how many people you down, a single support Firebrand rotating in to rez means you've lost that fight. It's almost impossible to outcleave that build as a single player. Preventing them from rezzing and instead forcing them to support their allies that are still _alive_ would result in a completely different dynamic and would help reduce the impact builds like Firebrand/pre-nerf Blood Scourge have on the match. It's no wonder builds that have had the ability to _consistently_ guarantee (or almost guarantee) rezzes have been _consistently_ meta.

> > 4. Then that means firebrand is over-performing obviously which we all know to be true. Thats not a down state problem thats a firebrand problem.

> > In the case of scourge (why is the scourge alive even when you know it should be the first target) if your team opted to kill other targets first thats a your team problem.

> > IF a firebrand is with the scourge then we have already confirmed thats a firebrand problem.

> > Do not think that its fair to say no down stat should be a thing just because a firebrand always comes alone and ruins your attempts to finish off a player. Thats directly calling out that the problem is a firebrand issue.

> >

> > 5. If anything take the creative approach and ask for more skills that can directly finish off players The game imo needs more skills like this considering most people dont commit to using the "stomp" action anymore (unless mirage) and would rather just cleave a downed player to death because its faster and you can ideally ignore the interrupt from the downed player.

> >

> > > 6. These changes would help slow down the pace of the game. It would give individual players a much easier time winning matches _if_ they play well. It would also reduce the snowball effect derived from the highly mobile + high damage meta builds.

> >

> > 6. If anything it would speed up the game players die faster, teams get more points per kill. Speeds up snowball effect via the previous 2 statements pluse the fact that people cant delay an enemy from de capping or capping a point by being in down state on that point as they die.

> > Lastly this is a team game mode not a individual player game mode. While i would love to see other supported game modes you have to accept this as a fact. You cant always carry your team deal with it. there are 9 reasons why you cant individually decide the outcome of a match and each of them is a player in the match with you.

> > If you want individual wins to satisfy yourself ask anet for a 1v1 mode or play 2v2 etc.

>

> 1. It is literally not subjective at all. 3 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 4 people. That's pretty objective. The only time this would ever be up for debate (thus becoming subjective), are when you start adding in conditions that effect rez speed. Even then, with 10% rez speed modifiers, you'd need 10 players to compensate for the speed you'd gain from simply having an additional person.

The advantage was never yours to start with down sate has nothing to do with this lol

if you are 2v5 your advantage is already gone regardless of down state why are you putting the illusion that down state is more of an advantage to the side with the bigger number when they already had the advantage from the start this is what i dont understand.

If you are in a fight thats 2v5 or 2v4 and you lose the fight you cant sit there and go "oh down state..." no you lost cause you are outnumbered from the start shame on you for committing to that.

Having the numbers advantage is the easiest advantage to win with (while it does not always work) its the most common advantage in combat that any side can have. IF for a second that you think you should automatically have the advantage going into a fight where your side is outnumbered you are wrong sir. I dont care how skilled you think you might be or actually are if you walk into a fight that outnumbers you the advantage is not yours. Lets just ignore down state for this bit because you need to realize this while players are still standing.

Im not saying it shouldn't be impossible to win an outnumbered situation but dont expect it to be easy. You can take a chance on attempting to win it and if you fail you should understand that you were out numbered and accept that you made the wrong move.

> 2. If your teammates are incompetent, you will not win the smaller fights, nor the larger ones. Again, bringing team comps into this argument makes your point regarding this, entirely subjective.

Well i mean be careful who you call incompetent for starters everyone has to start somewhere but this does not make them incompetent, even you likely started out as someone who make a lot of mistakes. You probably still make lots of mistakes... i know i do... This whole thing is subjective so we can agree we both are being subjective which is fine.

> 3. That's just flat out incorrect. If you want more time to survive, you'd choose to get condi bombed instead of getting hit with an Eviscerate for all of your health. _Objectively_, the power damage will kill you quicker.

ok first off im not incorrect..... i said i would still die was because you gave me the option of one or the other not both. I technically didnt answer on which would kill me quicker so there was nothing to be incorrect about.

Obviously if you want more time alive you want to take the condi bomb but i dont now what kind of mesmer condi bombs you've been hit with lately but your hp bleeds pretty quickly assuming its the standard combo which stuns you with magic bullet early on you are screwed either way.. Also the warrior is still next to you as they just missed axe burst. Any skill they can follow up with on axe at 7k hp is going to kill you. As i said it does not matter because you are going to die regardless. The advantage is not yours. instant death vs living for roughly 1.5-2.5s longer does not matter much if we are going with the idea of extending time to survive then leave down state alone as it allows that to happen.

Even if this is flipped and you come along and manage to down the warrior and a firebrand shows up to the point "You just lost your advantage" its an additionally player you dont keep the advantage for being out numbered either you can kill the warrior before the firebrand saves them or you cant. This is a team game mode not an individual game mode expect this kind of stuff to happen.

> 4. It's a problem with any build that can prevent their teammates from fully dying, consistently. It's not just an issue with Firebrand. It was an issue with Blood Scourge (still strong, but the build as a whole got nerfed). It was an issue with SnR Druid. If staff ele was stronger, it would definitely be an issue with that build as well. So, it's not "confirmed" that it's a Firebrand problem. The two common denominators in these scenarios are builds that can consistently rez their allies under pressure, and the ability to rez in combat.

But you just said above that team comps are subjective then proceeded to list out several specific elites or builds that would be part of a team comp....

Rather support builds your issue is with support builds being too strong with supporting and saving their teammates or rather doing their jobs. Yes lets remove the need for support builds even more. People already dont commonly run these as much as we should probably see them in pug games but lets just limit them supporting standing allies too which robs part of the support feature from their kits in which they build for. Or we could look at alternate options aside form doing just that...

> 5. I fail to see how adding additional skills to the game to finish off players is any more creative than removing downstate/rallying or the ability to rez while in combat.

Because if more skills could instantly kill a player in down state you simply need to hit that player with that 1 skill to kill them regardless of who is attempting to rez them.

Most revives are not instant (especially with the dps that flys around right now). As for which skills should be allowed to do that it depends. But i think its a more interesting take on dealing with down state than just saying remove down state, removing healing, remove rally. and calling it a day. This would be a lazy fix that a massive portion of people would not enjoy.

If supports and revive speed need to be looked this is fine.

I dont agree with your idea on removing unique and good features of gw2 combat just because you want more individual satisfaction in the team game mode

Ive always said there needs to be more ways to finish downed players ever since they gave thief an elite that could do it and even warrior elite banner. It would be nice to see this on more common skills some utility, maybe even some weapon skills.

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"kraai.7265" said:

> > > > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > > > Eso u can restealth and aoe's take u outa stealth but going into stealth and being in stealth is a auto cleanse. Also way easier and longer stealth :)

> > >

> > > No it's not, if you are affected by a condition, each tick will reveal you, you can go back into stealth but it's useless, it doesn't cleanse, on the contrary condi damage will reveal you again and again, any sort of damage will actually, to me it's the best way to implement it in a mmo ever

> >

> > I think he is considering the aspect of your eso meets gw2 in other words in gw2 when a thief gains stealth with shadow arts and the right traits they clense conditions meaning the idea of having conditional ticks pull some one out of stealth just wouldnt work

> >

> > But you are looking from the eso perspective where its not as easy to cleanse afflictions on you especially against some builds as there is no universal poison dot for example there can be various dots on you that all deal poison damage while in gw2 poison is just a universal dot. As gw2 has a rarity of effects (which cant be cleansed) that deal dot style damage. For example Guardian GS5.

>

> Not to mention eso version of hidden killer is baked into the cloak already giving crits within 3 seconds after.

Eso sneak is kind of weird though but it easily goes both ways. Most skills that would do damage or alot of them cant be pre cast from sneak and will auto reveal you on cast While there are a few exceptions to this there are not too many overall though dots in gw2 are too generous and too fast for this version of stealth to work in gw2.

Thief would need major reworks.

For now i think the best thing anet could do would be trade risk with reward. shadow arts providing more stealth with the penalty of massively slowing the persons movement speed in the process. So if you want to be sneaking for long periods you are slower meaning its harder to do damage with no tell should anyone opt to just move away.

I would prefer a more balanced permanet solution but no thief main will ever agree with any version of lesser stealth without arguing for compensation on something else that also annoys non thief mains that they also wont agree with so i mean.... oof its in a tough spot.