NO Downstate should STAY permanently. - [Merged]

[Kylden Ar.3724]

> @"ledernierrempart.6871" said:

>

> î would even say that, thanks to no downstate, the thief or mesmer you ~~kill~~ donwed is dead instead of getting revived while made invisible by his mates.

 

FTFY.

 

By the mechanics of the game, Downed <> Dead. Dead is when you confirm the kill, so learn to safe stomp, cleave downs quickly, and PREVENT the rez.

 

If you can't stop invisible revives, you are not carrying enough cleave and AOE for a mass combat mode.

 

 

[Hannelore.8153]

> @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > > > > @"Antioche.7034" said:

> > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > > > > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > > > > > > > > Why are you all so obsessed with these things? Why don't you like fighting?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The secret is they _don't like fighting. They only like winning._

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And no downstate week allows winning with the most kitten one shot builds by sniping into zerg tails. This week is gankers dream.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No downstate week should only be permanent if you mean to kill WvW as thoroughly as they already killed the PvP ESports dream.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1. There are a TON of people in wvw this week, hate to break it too you bud.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That's far more due to the 100% Wxp buff than the event. Most non roamer WvW players I have talked to are already bored of the event, simply because it removes a ton of strategy and depth of combat. Some people care about good and fun fights with back and forth, and not just the wxp pop when something dies after the one push.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As far as actual engagements, it mostly benefits the roaming cloud getting some free kills, smaller organized groups getting some kills before dying to a far larger blob (though it is nice when you wipe the blob with half the numbers, hardly an accomplishment though with the disparity in players skill, which was present before), people grouping up even more or otherwise just hiding behind T3 objectives with tons of ACs. Big fun, yes...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you want to balance the game mode around the roamers and upper echelon of the player base, that's exactly who you are going to be left with: some roamers and a few "good" players in a dead game mode.

> > > > >

> > > > > Exactly this, people are here because of WvW booster, because almost everybody hates farming GoB for legendaries, so they can use this week to spend less time in WvW.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Then again, make a way to obtain gift of battle in PvE I dont know shove it in raids/strikes. Idc either because nothing will get me to play those modes (raids more so than strikes). Dont force people to play modes they dislike, let them play the part of the game they enjoy and if that means they dont touch the other parts then so be it... thats what player choice is all about.

> > >

> > > ^

> > >

> > > This has been an ongoing battle/debate between WvW'ers, PvP'ers and PvE'ers. I cant see Anet changing anything as they want people to try everything they made/offer and use that to lock certain elements behind.

> >

> > Yes but there are those who Loathe competitive anything and WILL NOT DO IT and there are those who loathe PvE and will not do it. They will not bend, as a company you will make more money giving the customer what they want rather than being stubborn.. As I said Ill never do raids again. Most everything in there does not exist to me, because I dont want to deal with that end of the community (Worst raiding expierence I've ever had of any game I've ever played. And I Mythic raided in WoW, which isn't actually saying anything but still. ) Point is, Id appreciate if some of those "cosmetics" such as weapons and special skins were put into reward tracks so I could obtain them while having fun and not being forced to not have fun just to obtain them. Am I upset ? No. I get why it is as it is. But gift of battle is required for legendary weps which is a different beast, put it in strikes/raids and keep us separated. Clearly the sub-communities are having issues co-existing and honestly.... its time to face the facts... a pure PvE player likely wont ever like the game mode... so stop trying to make them.

>

> Hey, If I can get GoE's NOT doing PvE then im game xD

 

Getting Gift of Exploration from completing all five WvW maps sounds reasonable. Its not as time consuming as map completing PvE, but the overall difficulty is much higher especially on maps like EoTM and Desert BL, so I think it evens out.

 

I've always been in favor of full separation of game modes, but I doubt the devs will ever do it.

[Thornwolf.9721]

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > > > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > > > > > @"Antioche.7034" said:

> > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > > > > > > > > > Why are you all so obsessed with these things? Why don't you like fighting?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The secret is they _don't like fighting. They only like winning._

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And no downstate week allows winning with the most kitten one shot builds by sniping into zerg tails. This week is gankers dream.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No downstate week should only be permanent if you mean to kill WvW as thoroughly as they already killed the PvP ESports dream.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1. There are a TON of people in wvw this week, hate to break it too you bud.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That's far more due to the 100% Wxp buff than the event. Most non roamer WvW players I have talked to are already bored of the event, simply because it removes a ton of strategy and depth of combat. Some people care about good and fun fights with back and forth, and not just the wxp pop when something dies after the one push.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As far as actual engagements, it mostly benefits the roaming cloud getting some free kills, smaller organized groups getting some kills before dying to a far larger blob (though it is nice when you wipe the blob with half the numbers, hardly an accomplishment though with the disparity in players skill, which was present before), people grouping up even more or otherwise just hiding behind T3 objectives with tons of ACs. Big fun, yes...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you want to balance the game mode around the roamers and upper echelon of the player base, that's exactly who you are going to be left with: some roamers and a few "good" players in a dead game mode.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Exactly this, people are here because of WvW booster, because almost everybody hates farming GoB for legendaries, so they can use this week to spend less time in WvW.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Then again, make a way to obtain gift of battle in PvE I dont know shove it in raids/strikes. Idc either because nothing will get me to play those modes (raids more so than strikes). Dont force people to play modes they dislike, let them play the part of the game they enjoy and if that means they dont touch the other parts then so be it... thats what player choice is all about.

> > > >

> > > > ^

> > > >

> > > > This has been an ongoing battle/debate between WvW'ers, PvP'ers and PvE'ers. I cant see Anet changing anything as they want people to try everything they made/offer and use that to lock certain elements behind.

> > >

> > > Yes but there are those who Loathe competitive anything and WILL NOT DO IT and there are those who loathe PvE and will not do it. They will not bend, as a company you will make more money giving the customer what they want rather than being stubborn.. As I said Ill never do raids again. Most everything in there does not exist to me, because I dont want to deal with that end of the community (Worst raiding expierence I've ever had of any game I've ever played. And I Mythic raided in WoW, which isn't actually saying anything but still. ) Point is, Id appreciate if some of those "cosmetics" such as weapons and special skins were put into reward tracks so I could obtain them while having fun and not being forced to not have fun just to obtain them. Am I upset ? No. I get why it is as it is. But gift of battle is required for legendary weps which is a different beast, put it in strikes/raids and keep us separated. Clearly the sub-communities are having issues co-existing and honestly.... its time to face the facts... a pure PvE player likely wont ever like the game mode... so stop trying to make them.

> >

> > Hey, If I can get GoE's NOT doing PvE then im game xD

>

> Getting Gift of Exploration from completing all five WvW maps sounds reasonable. Its not as time consuming as map completing PvE, but the overall difficulty is much higher especially on maps like EoTM and Desert BL, so I think it evens out.

>

> I've always been in favor of full separation of game modes, but I doubt the devs will ever do it.

 

I agree and think they should. Stop trying to get us to like each other; Eight years and it has yet to work I think its time to just give US what we want. I know a lot of us in WvW and PvP would be happy as a clam to have all of the games rewards available to us, without having to deal with... well those who dislike us so very much <3.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > ....would it though? So when you get someone to downed state (I assume you're talking mostly about some roaming 1v1s?), it adds a great dose of challenge to finish the fight when you're still up? That's not usually the case for me.

> Why on earth would I be talking about 1v1? I'm talking about 1v2, 1v3, 1v4, 2v5, 3v5 etc.

 

So, again: "That's great (or not, I don't know?), but that tells me nothing. What fights? How would you lose them and why did you win them? Vids? Screens? Examples?"

 

Also apparently you were better than the outnumbering you noobs and you won. Isn't that the point?

 

> And also if that's not usually the case for you... get good?

 

"Get good" at reading I guess?

You've quoted what I said and then somehow you managed to tell me to "get good" because I said it's not a problem for me to finish an opponent? How in the world did you make connection from the part of my message you've quoted to your answer?

 

> See how the argument just stuck in an endless loop?

 

No, it's not, you just got so excited to "talk back" that you didn't understand what you've answered to.

You also ""forgot"" to answer to the whole post, but instead went for some cheap personal jab attempts, are you even trying to discuss anything or your point is to cut 1/4th of the post and then answer with nothing related just so you can attempt at insulting me?

 

> And no matter what argument people make for deleting downstate, I'm not sure what the end goal is because you're either preaching to the choir or you're arguing that you will **never** meet people in the middle against people that are willing to meet you in the middle.

 

You're arguing the opposite, but somehow that makes sense...? What point are you trying to make here?

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> You're arguing the opposite, but somehow that makes sense...? What point are you trying to make here?

The opposite of what?

[Sobx.1758]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > @"Doug.4930" said:

> > > > The pro downstate crowd pretty much only have one viable argument:

> > > >

> > > > "Players who have more time to play this game shouldn't be allowed to win outnumbered fights because my 10 friends and I don't have enough time to put into this game so that we can beat the group of 5 that do."

> > > >

> > > > I mean I completely disagree with this argument but its the best you've got. Its pretty much a known fact that downstate favours the larger group, whether that's a 2v4 or a 50v60. But the argument remains that downstate affords the larger and less experienced groups of players a greater advantage of overcoming their more veteran enemies.

> > > >

> > > > I can understand that. A group of 15 is far more vulnerable to a group of 5 when downstate is not a factor, and I'd imagine the group of 15 who only play this game every other day and have about 1k hours clocked between all of them is going to get very frustrated constantly getting farmed by a group of 5 who have 6k hours of WvW playtime each. Frustrated enough to perhaps stop coming back and log off.

> > > >

> > > > I'm still very much anti downstate, but playing devils advocate I can see the above as a legitimate con to downstate being removed. Despite the pro's being a more fair and balanced game where player skill and synergy means more than simply blobbing down the enemy. And if this game could do with anything its less blobs.

> > >[badOutnumberedPremise](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/58208/down-state-handicapping-the-game-in-favor-of-the-serg-that-has-more-numbers-is-a-bad-design-game/p2).

> >

> > You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers **and** the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever.

> >

> > Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt.

> >

>

> From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group).

>

> In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there?

 

In short: defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. It pushes the balance of outnumbered fights in the wrong direction. Sure, the numbers are automatically favored because of the number of skills, targets they affect in total, overal health pool and so on, but downstate adds yet another layer of imbalance. How is this "not enough for the change"?

And yeah, it's not an issue for pvp, because you have even numbers there, which is why I don't exactly mind downstate for that mode.

 

> > People wanted mount stomp gone for a similar reason, because the outnumbering side can afford to delegate some of their players to stay mounted and still have close fights, but this time they could easaly insta-stomp multiple targets, pushing the number difference even further.

>

> I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though.

 

So... I don't see how that changes anything about my answer? Or are you just dropping your previous claim in place of a "I liked it for the lulz"?

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > You're arguing the opposite, but somehow that makes sense...? What point are you trying to make here?

> The opposite of what?

 

Literally the opposite of the quote I've answered to. Add "not" before "deleting" and that's it.

"And no matter what argument people make for deleting downstate, I'm not sure what the end goal is because....."

I don't know why you're quoting the posts you're answering to, but I usually quote them for a reason, being -you know- context.

 

And again you're dropping 80% of the previous post/s, so at least that's fairly consistent.

[Demon Puppet.6873]

Multiple options here!

1. Down State is removed entirely.. extreme but I would be okay with it.

2. Conditions transfer to Down State and the 1 second invulnerably is removed.

3. Rallying is removed from the game mode(this paired with number 2 also works)

4. Down State health and rez speed is reduced by a flat 33-50%(can also work with number 2)

[SWI.4127]

> @"ledernierrempart.6871" said:

> > @"SWI.4127" said:

> > > @"Doug.4930" said:

> > > The pro downstate crowd pretty much only have one viable argument:

> > >

> > > "Players who have more time to play this game shouldn't be allowed to win outnumbered fights because my 10 friends and I don't have enough time to put into this game so that we can beat the group of 5 that do."

> >

> > What about the argument that removal of downstate makes group fights completely one-dimensional and encourages even more pirate-shipping? It's straight up bad for group fights, which is the main focus of the game mode and the way in which the majority of its players play the game. Ruining group fights is the fastest way to kill WvW. Good thing Anet has more sense than to actually listen to this circle-kitten of "omg the ONLY reason someone would like downstate is becuz they get carried!! only GOOD players like no-downstate!".

>

> i don't get it. going in melee in a bus vs bus fight and getting downed often mean death. what is the difference? also keep in mind that if no downstate become a permanent thing revive spells will get reworked too. imagine being able to revive the dead instead of the downed?

>

 

If instantly rezzing a full dead person would become a thing, then why remove downstate in the first place? Why not just remove rally or hand-rez if you hate it that much?

 

> @"Doug.4930" said:

> > @"SWI.4127" said:

> > > @"Doug.4930" said:

> > > The pro downstate crowd pretty much only have one viable argument:

> > >

> > > "Players who have more time to play this game shouldn't be allowed to win outnumbered fights because my 10 friends and I don't have enough time to put into this game so that we can beat the group of 5 that do."

> >

> > What about the argument that removal of downstate makes group fights completely one-dimensional and encourages even more pirate-shipping? It's straight up bad for group fights, which is the main focus of the game mode and the way in which the majority of its players play the game. Ruining group fights is the fastest way to kill WvW.

>

> It adds no dimensions. It exists as a carry for less experienced players. That's it. Anyone who has any experience fighting outnumbered is aware of this. So I assume your only experience with downstate is from within your blob.

 

It's literally another aspect of the combat that's missing. Combat without downstate is missing another dimension, that is a fact. There is no pushing through a group to secure downs in the back, there are no decisions to be made on whether or not you can hand-rez, there is no satisfying moment when you can punish people going for a rez, there are no plays to be made as a support to save your downed party. It is a fact that the combat is a lot more simple without it. Throw out all the insults and opinions you want, but they don't change this fact.

 

>

> Group fights this week have been absolutely incredible. Being able to 5v15 has been nothing short of WvW heaven. Let me fix your quote for you:

>

> "Ruining group fights by making it harder for me to blob people is the fastest way to kill WvW"

>

 

If anything, no downstate makes blobbing even more easy. A blob can finish a fight in a matter of seconds just by holding W. At least they had to stop to finish the downs before. Making it easier to 5v15 is one of the few situations in which no-downstate is nice, but that doesn't mean it would be good for the game overall. I guess instead of you, I would prefer what is good for the game rather than thinking only short-term and thinking about what would benefit me directly. The sooner they kill group fights (aka guilds fighting, zergs fighting), the sooner the game dies. Then you'll be wondering where all the groups of 15 noobs are you can kill.

 

I get the point about 5v15, I really do. Despite you constantly calling me a blob player and a noob, I do fight outnumbered quite often. No downstate is not the answer though, especially if it just ruins the main draw of WvW. Nerfed downstate however I am very much in favor of. Maybe limit the amount of people who can hand-rez. Maybe make people full die after going down and rallying once. Maybe reduce downed HP. All of those are concrete solutions that wouldn't completely throw the baby out with the bathwater (as they say). Instead you have this blanket PoV that anyone who isn't for the complete removal is a noob blob player and there is literally no valid argument otherwise. It's very close-minded.

 

> >Good thing Anet has more sense than to actually listen to this circle-kitten of "omg the ONLY reason someone would like downstate is becuz they get carried!! only GOOD players like no-downstate!".

>

> Hopefully they will because that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

 

I'm so sorry you can't see outside of this very narrow point of view. I wonder if you really are here for suggestions to make the game better or to just repeatedly tell people how good you are (and everyone who agrees with you). Seems like about half the posts asking for no-downstate have been along the lines of this.

[Brujeria.7536]

Yes please make the no downstate permanent. Also remove the target cap of offensive spells. kill this stupid zerg meta

[ledernierrempart.6871]

> @"SWI.4127" said:

 

> If instantly rezzing a full dead person would become a thing, then why remove downstate in the first place? Why not just remove rally or hand-rez if you hate it that much?

>

 

killing give you points. downing someone doesn't. using a revive skill means thta you have either a build or skill for that. not just press F.

fights often becomes chaotic enough that you need all your skills. having to keep a revive skill or one to help killing a downed is already a disadvantage.

a downed can fight back. a dead player can't.

a downed can be rally bot. a dead player can't be.

a downed can be revived in battle, a dead player can't be.

 

but yes, if downed state has to stay, i want rally bot out, nerf on downed auto attack against players, nerf on % of downed hp depending on vitality stat, not be able to be revived by more than one person if in battle and eventually get rid of the auto cleanse when being downed.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > > @"Doug.4930" said:

> > > > > The pro downstate crowd pretty much only have one viable argument:

> > > > >

> > > > > "Players who have more time to play this game shouldn't be allowed to win outnumbered fights because my 10 friends and I don't have enough time to put into this game so that we can beat the group of 5 that do."

> > > > >

> > > > > I mean I completely disagree with this argument but its the best you've got. Its pretty much a known fact that downstate favours the larger group, whether that's a 2v4 or a 50v60. But the argument remains that downstate affords the larger and less experienced groups of players a greater advantage of overcoming their more veteran enemies.

> > > > >

> > > > > I can understand that. A group of 15 is far more vulnerable to a group of 5 when downstate is not a factor, and I'd imagine the group of 15 who only play this game every other day and have about 1k hours clocked between all of them is going to get very frustrated constantly getting farmed by a group of 5 who have 6k hours of WvW playtime each. Frustrated enough to perhaps stop coming back and log off.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm still very much anti downstate, but playing devils advocate I can see the above as a legitimate con to downstate being removed. Despite the pro's being a more fair and balanced game where player skill and synergy means more than simply blobbing down the enemy. And if this game could do with anything its less blobs.

> > > >[badOutnumberedPremise](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/58208/down-state-handicapping-the-game-in-favor-of-the-serg-that-has-more-numbers-is-a-bad-design-game/p2).

> > >

> > > You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers **and** the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever.

> > >

> > > Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt.

> > >

> >

> > From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group).

> >

> > In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there?

>

> In short: defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. It pushes the balance of outnumbered fights in the wrong direction. Sure, the numbers are automatically favored because of the number of skills, targets they affect in total, overal health pool and so on, but downstate adds yet another layer of imbalance. How is this "not enough for the change"?

> And yeah, it's not an issue for pvp, because you have even numbers there, which is why I don't exactly mind downstate for that mode.

>

 

Counterarguement? Uhh. How does it add on another layer if it has been there for about 8 or so years? The "layer" has been there for a while now...even so. If we set the precedent that a balance change can occur because someone somewhere has a random outnumbered situation, and they use that as the only thing necessary to sway opinions then that can open the door for changing other things we might not want. What is wrong with wanting another reason in addition to their "outnumbered" issue (still a population/team issue imo)? I only see it getting inconsistent results if we have to adjust for 14v20, 1v3, 3v7, etc.. While X v X is far easier to comprehend, and ANET already struggles with it.

 

What is the goal here? Are you trying to balance teams? Get faster fights? Get slower fights?

 

> > > People wanted mount stomp gone for a similar reason, because the outnumbering side can afford to delegate some of their players to stay mounted and still have close fights, but this time they could easaly insta-stomp multiple targets, pushing the number difference even further.

> >

> > I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though.

>

> So... I don't see how that changes anything about my answer? Or are you just dropping your previous claim in place of a "I liked it for the lulz"?

 

It can't be both?

 

D:

[Sobx.1758]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said:

> > > > > > The pro downstate crowd pretty much only have one viable argument:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > "Players who have more time to play this game shouldn't be allowed to win outnumbered fights because my 10 friends and I don't have enough time to put into this game so that we can beat the group of 5 that do."

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I mean I completely disagree with this argument but its the best you've got. Its pretty much a known fact that downstate favours the larger group, whether that's a 2v4 or a 50v60. But the argument remains that downstate affords the larger and less experienced groups of players a greater advantage of overcoming their more veteran enemies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I can understand that. A group of 15 is far more vulnerable to a group of 5 when downstate is not a factor, and I'd imagine the group of 15 who only play this game every other day and have about 1k hours clocked between all of them is going to get very frustrated constantly getting farmed by a group of 5 who have 6k hours of WvW playtime each. Frustrated enough to perhaps stop coming back and log off.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'm still very much anti downstate, but playing devils advocate I can see the above as a legitimate con to downstate being removed. Despite the pro's being a more fair and balanced game where player skill and synergy means more than simply blobbing down the enemy. And if this game could do with anything its less blobs.

> > > > >[badOutnumberedPremise](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/58208/down-state-handicapping-the-game-in-favor-of-the-serg-that-has-more-numbers-is-a-bad-design-game/p2).

> > > >

> > > > You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers **and** the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever.

> > > >

> > > > Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt.

> > > >

> > >

> > > From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group).

> > >

> > > In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there?

> >

> > In short: defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. It pushes the balance of outnumbered fights in the wrong direction. Sure, the numbers are automatically favored because of the number of skills, targets they affect in total, overal health pool and so on, but downstate adds yet another layer of imbalance. How is this "not enough for the change"?

> > And yeah, it's not an issue for pvp, because you have even numbers there, which is why I don't exactly mind downstate for that mode.

> >

>

> Counterarguement? Uhh. How does it add on another layer if it has been there for about 8 or so years? The "layer" has been there for a while now...even so. If we set the precedent that a balance change can occur because someone somewhere has a random outnumbered situation, and they use that as the only thing necessary to sway opinions then that can open the door for changing other things we might not want.

 

How is being for 8 years in the game significant here? It is another layer over your regular obvious "outnumbering = stronger" and the time it was in the game changes nothing about that fact. It's not a new addition to the game, sure, but it still adds another layer of making outnumbering stronger. What about that is hard to understand for you?

 

 

 

>What is wrong with wanting another reason in addition to their "outnumbered" issue (still a population/team issue imo)? I only see it getting inconsistent results if we have to adjust for 14v20, 1v3, 3v7, etc.. While X v X is far easier to comprehend, and ANET already struggles with it.

 

What is wrong about it? Because being on the outnumbering side has its "obviosuly inherent" advantages and there's no reason to have another mechanic that pushes that advantage even further. Pretty sure I already said that before, but you keep asking the same thing again. What about that is unclear for you?

 

> What is the goal here? Are you trying to balance teams? Get faster fights? Get slower fights?

 

The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further.

 

> > > > People wanted mount stomp gone for a similar reason, because the outnumbering side can afford to delegate some of their players to stay mounted and still have close fights, but this time they could easaly insta-stomp multiple targets, pushing the number difference even further.

> > >

> > > I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though.

> >

> > So... I don't see how that changes anything about my answer? Or are you just dropping your previous claim in place of a "I liked it for the lulz"?

>

> It can't be both?

 

Theoretically it could be, but you've dropped your previous claim and picked the "fortehlulz" route, so it doesn't seem to be both.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further.

Then lets remove support builds and boons because those provide a faaaaaaaaaaaaar bigger advantage to the outnumbering side that has people to spare for it.

 

Where exactly do we draw the line?

 

#DeleteFirebrand

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said:

> > > > > > > The pro downstate crowd pretty much only have one viable argument:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > "Players who have more time to play this game shouldn't be allowed to win outnumbered fights because my 10 friends and I don't have enough time to put into this game so that we can beat the group of 5 that do."

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I mean I completely disagree with this argument but its the best you've got. Its pretty much a known fact that downstate favours the larger group, whether that's a 2v4 or a 50v60. But the argument remains that downstate affords the larger and less experienced groups of players a greater advantage of overcoming their more veteran enemies.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I can understand that. A group of 15 is far more vulnerable to a group of 5 when downstate is not a factor, and I'd imagine the group of 15 who only play this game every other day and have about 1k hours clocked between all of them is going to get very frustrated constantly getting farmed by a group of 5 who have 6k hours of WvW playtime each. Frustrated enough to perhaps stop coming back and log off.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'm still very much anti downstate, but playing devils advocate I can see the above as a legitimate con to downstate being removed. Despite the pro's being a more fair and balanced game where player skill and synergy means more than simply blobbing down the enemy. And if this game could do with anything its less blobs.

> > > > > >[badOutnumberedPremise](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/58208/down-state-handicapping-the-game-in-favor-of-the-serg-that-has-more-numbers-is-a-bad-design-game/p2).

> > > > >

> > > > > You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers **and** the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever.

> > > > >

> > > > > Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group).

> > > >

> > > > In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there?

> > >

> > > In short: defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. It pushes the balance of outnumbered fights in the wrong direction. Sure, the numbers are automatically favored because of the number of skills, targets they affect in total, overal health pool and so on, but downstate adds yet another layer of imbalance. How is this "not enough for the change"?

> > > And yeah, it's not an issue for pvp, because you have even numbers there, which is why I don't exactly mind downstate for that mode.

> > >

> >

> > Counterarguement? Uhh. How does it add on another layer if it has been there for about 8 or so years? The "layer" has been there for a while now...even so. If we set the precedent that a balance change can occur because someone somewhere has a random outnumbered situation, and they use that as the only thing necessary to sway opinions then that can open the door for changing other things we might not want.

>

> How is being for 8 years in the game significant here? It is another layer over your regular obvious "outnumbering = stronger" and the time it was in the game changes nothing about that fact. It's not a new addition to the game, sure, but it still adds another layer of making outnumbering stronger. What about that is hard to understand for you?

>

>

>

 

Because it appeared you were using "adds yet another layer" meaning something new, but you reiterated. From what I gather you don't like that downstate is a different phase in combat. You want the only phase to be the 1st health bar, correct?

 

> >What is wrong with wanting another reason in addition to their "outnumbered" issue (still a population/team issue imo)? I only see it getting inconsistent results if we have to adjust for 14v20, 1v3, 3v7, etc.. While X v X is far easier to comprehend, and ANET already struggles with it.

>

> What is wrong about it? Because being on the outnumbering side has its "obviosuly inherent" advantages and there's no reason to have another mechanic that pushes that advantage even further. Pretty sure I already said that before, but you keep asking the same thing again. What about that is unclear for you?

>

> > What is the goal here? Are you trying to balance teams? Get faster fights? Get slower fights?

>

> The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further.

>

 

Are we using "the wrong one" like air quotes for emphasis or something I said? Probably emphasis. Reads like emphasis. Are you attempting to bring both sides to parity in some way then regardless of their population?

 

> > > > > People wanted mount stomp gone for a similar reason, because the outnumbering side can afford to delegate some of their players to stay mounted and still have close fights, but this time they could easaly insta-stomp multiple targets, pushing the number difference even further.

> > > >

> > > > I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though.

> > >

> > > So... I don't see how that changes anything about my answer? Or are you just dropping your previous claim in place of a "I liked it for the lulz"?

> >

> > It can't be both?

>

> Theoretically it could be, but you've dropped your previous claim and picked the "fortehlulz" route, so it doesn't seem to be both.

 

Assume it is both then, but feel free to latch on to it if you feel it is relevant.

 

D:

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further.

> Then lets remove support builds and boons because those provide a faaaaaaaaaaaaar bigger advantage to the outnumbering side that has people to spare for it.

>

> Where exactly do we draw the line?

>

> #DeleteFirebrand

 

Oh come now. I'm trying to figure out the goal of, as of yesterday or so, my Forum Rival. We can get into aoe spam afterward if applicable.

 

D:

[SWI.4127]

> @"ledernierrempart.6871" said:

> > @"SWI.4127" said:

>

> > If instantly rezzing a full dead person would become a thing, then why remove downstate in the first place? Why not just remove rally or hand-rez if you hate it that much?

> >

>

> killing give you points. downing someone doesn't. using a revive skill means thta you have either a build or skill for that. not just press F.

> fights often becomes chaotic enough that you need all your skills. having to keep a revive skill or one to help killing a downed is already a disadvantage.

> a downed can fight back. a dead player can't.

> a downed can be rally bot. a dead player can't be.

> a downed can be revived in battle, a dead player can't be.

>

> but yes, if downed state has to stay, i want rally bot out, nerf on downed auto attack against players, nerf on % of downed hp depending on vitality stat, not be able to be revived by more than one person if in battle and eventually get rid of the auto cleanse when being downed.

 

Yeah, I'm also in favor of nerfing downed state in some of the ways you mentioned as well. Damage was nerfed across the board for WvW but they never adjusted downed state HP accordingly. Cleaving has become even harder since that Feb patch, which makes people even more frustrated with downed state.

 

I think even people who want downstate to stay recognize that it still has its problems and needs to be properly balanced.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"SWI.4127" said:

> > @"ledernierrempart.6871" said:

> > > @"SWI.4127" said:

> >

> > > If instantly rezzing a full dead person would become a thing, then why remove downstate in the first place? Why not just remove rally or hand-rez if you hate it that much?

> > >

> >

> > killing give you points. downing someone doesn't. using a revive skill means thta you have either a build or skill for that. not just press F.

> > fights often becomes chaotic enough that you need all your skills. having to keep a revive skill or one to help killing a downed is already a disadvantage.

> > a downed can fight back. a dead player can't.

> > a downed can be rally bot. a dead player can't be.

> > a downed can be revived in battle, a dead player can't be.

> >

> > but yes, if downed state has to stay, i want rally bot out, nerf on downed auto attack against players, nerf on % of downed hp depending on vitality stat, not be able to be revived by more than one person if in battle and eventually get rid of the auto cleanse when being downed.

>

> Yeah, I'm also in favor of nerfing downed state in some of the ways you mentioned as well. Damage was nerfed across the board for WvW but they never adjusted downed state HP accordingly. Cleaving has become even harder since that Feb patch, which makes people even more frustrated with downed state.

>

> I think even people who want downstate to stay recognize that it still has its problems and needs to be properly balanced.

 

Would love to test a week of dead aka defeated can't be revived, they have to respawn. We could build and adjust from there.

[Whiteout.1975]

I have a shit idea.

 

Instead of just one downstate, as per usual. Let there be two downstates . . . Wait, no, make that at least three downstate phases. So one downstate will lead right into another and so on till . . . defeated? (Ignoring the possibility players are insta rez'd by five allies in a fight to which they already were outnumbering enemies) Since downstate, as is, adds so much extra depth to combat apparently.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"SWI.4127" said:

> > @"ledernierrempart.6871" said:

> > > @"SWI.4127" said:

> >

> > > If instantly rezzing a full dead person would become a thing, then why remove downstate in the first place? Why not just remove rally or hand-rez if you hate it that much?

> > >

> >

> > killing give you points. downing someone doesn't. using a revive skill means thta you have either a build or skill for that. not just press F.

> > fights often becomes chaotic enough that you need all your skills. having to keep a revive skill or one to help killing a downed is already a disadvantage.

> > a downed can fight back. a dead player can't.

> > a downed can be rally bot. a dead player can't be.

> > a downed can be revived in battle, a dead player can't be.

> >

> > but yes, if downed state has to stay, i want rally bot out, nerf on downed auto attack against players, nerf on % of downed hp depending on vitality stat, not be able to be revived by more than one person if in battle and eventually get rid of the auto cleanse when being downed.

>

> Yeah, I'm also in favor of nerfing downed state in some of the ways you mentioned as well. Damage was nerfed across the board for WvW but they never adjusted downed state HP accordingly. Cleaving has become even harder since that Feb patch, which makes people even more frustrated with downed state.

>

> I think even people who want downstate to stay recognize that it still has its problems and needs to be properly balanced.

Hence why I said:

 

*And no matter what argument people make for deleting downstate, I'm not sure what the end goal is because you're either preaching to the choir or you're arguing that you will never meet people in the middle against people that are willing to meet you in the middle.*

 

I am certain that a *large* majority accept changes to downstate. Its not a perfect system. Personally I even think the removal of rally - complete removal, imagine that! - is acceptable and even *emphasize* the need to res your downed allies instead of leaving them and hoping to swing the fight.

 

But none of that matters, because the *small* minority doesnt want to hear it nor ever accept it by definition of deleting downed state.

[Mauzi.5892]

> @"Antioche.7034" said:

> > @"Mauzi.5892" said:

> > > @"jpsssss.7530" said:

> > > I bet you play a cancer one-shot/nuke build. There are some builds with little to no counterplay options (*cough* thief and ranger *cough) and they always come out of the woodwork on no downstate weeks

> >

> > this is just wrong. I see ranger and thieves ALL THE TIME. It's only during no-downstate-week, that you realize how much you suck, because you can't rally off of some random scrub.

> >

> > I love the no downstate. Maybe people start playing with more caution and brain instead of going full zerk when they have no skill.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Imagine believing randomly getting oneshot by someone from stealth is being bad at the game. If that's what you call "Playing with more brain", no thanks.

 

Peh - leaaaase... WHO exactly is ONESHOTTING you from stealth?!

Whait what do you say? There are thieves in WvW? Must be new...

MAYBE dont play full glass-cannon and use some of those other gazllion attribute combinations the game offers. Like Soldiers maybe...

It's EXACTLY people like you that run around with their META bullshit build and in full zerk gear and then complain when they get outplayed by everybody and who rely on rally to be able to play. Adapt to the situation and get better at the game instead of being a sheep and complaining about change.

 

 

FACT: downed state is something that favors bad players more.

[Mauzi.5892]

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

 

> No one wants to play a game where you just die and that's it

 

What are you talking about?!

I ran around as a P/P Deadeye with no stealth access in my non-meta build and in full zerk gear. Alone. And I can count on one hand how many times I died last week.

 

 

Like I said, no-downstate-week makes a visible cut between good players and baddies.

[Mauzi.5892]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> What this (and in game discussions) boil down to is:

>

> Remove downstate: mostly people running cheese buids, playing thief, ranger, mesmer. Claim to be good because they can gank others out of stealth and without the fear of any danger at all.

>

> Keep downstate: everybody else.

>

> I am fine with removing downstate under the following conditions:

>

> Eles get +10k hp

> Thief, mesmer, ranger damage gets nerfed by 60%. Maximum stealth: 1s. No blinks.

> Holos are removed from the game.

>

> Simple stuff. Really.

 

You should repost this on April 1st.

 

l2p

[anonymous.7812]

Make any argument you can, but every time they do this event with BONUS REWARDS even -- the population on all of the maps I see plummet. I see very few queues throughout the week.

 

I mean -- WHY would Anet even begin to entertain this suggestion? Bringing players to the game mode is their goal, not alienate the masses. Sorry minority, it's just the way it has to be. The compromise of throwing it in EotM is about the closest you'll get.. but that's real doubtful.

[LucianTheAngelic.7054]

As a mostly Roamer I love downstate. The best part of downstate is other players making the dumb mistake of trying to Rez their friends. Once they’re grouped up just cc em and cleave em. Ez 1v2/3/4/5 victories. Also timing your cleave so that you go down and then a downed body immediately dies for that 50% rally heal is the best. No down state doesn’t allow that kind of gameplay and removes mechanics and strategies from the game.

 

So no thank you, don’t remove downstate. If anything just take a look at Rez healing and maybe reduce it slightly so that cleave is more effective than it is currently.