[Down State] Handicapping the game in favor of the serg that has more numbers is a bad design game.

[Hitman.5829]

> @"Iozeph.5617" said:

> You're saying having downed state makes it easier on the stronger team. No it doesn't. Because being the stronger team makes it easier all around.

 

Are you trolling or are you being serious?

You said: "Being the stronger team makes it easier all around"

Yes, and with down state handicapping it makes it MORE easy for the larger team so it is DOUBLE easy.

 

I think you are a troll.

[Iozeph.5617]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > @"Iozeph.5617" said:

> > You're saying having downed state makes it easier on the stronger team. No it doesn't. Because being the stronger team makes it easier all around.

>

> Are you trolling or are you being serious?

> You said: "Being the stronger team makes it easier all around"

> Yes, and with down state handicapping it makes it MORE easy for the larger team so it is DOUBLE easy.

>

> I think you are a troll.

 

Not a troll -I just believe you're wrong. I'm saying downed state isn't as much of a factor as you're asserting. It's a scapegoat- something distracting to point at after you've lost several times and the /Team and /Map channels have turned to an absolute hot mess of insults and recriminations because everyone's pride is hurt after having to play the whipping boy to one or more stacked realms for much of the week.

 

With the current state of elite professions and the compositions of blobs, there is no DOUBLE easy. Blob on blob fights are ground target AOE shootouts with little strategy involved. Certainly nothing that's changed in the last fifteen years since people quit playing DAoC. Both blobs meet, spiral around one another sniping at the rear of each respective group til one or the other moves wrong and then they both spam their lame red circles hoping for the best. Of late it's usually the bigger, better stacked blob who lays down the most circles quickest who wins and that's basically it.

 

Nobody wants to take and defend towers or keeps unless it somehow leads to open field, blob on blob fights as previously mentioned. They prefer to stay in EB and contest SM unless someone screams bloody murder that a blob is in their home BL. If not, calls for help fall on deaf ears because there isn't enough world experience involved to make it worth it for the blob to change maps.

 

It's purely numbers and the biggest side wins. Downed state might factor into a small fraction of those battles, but to claim it offers the larger team some sort of overwhelming advantage is just whingeing up the wrong tree.

 

The advantage comes -as it has for the last several years- from Anet allowing paid server transfers to stack round-the-clock coverage. When those are cut off, certain servers tank in order to lower their tier or to have their server status shifted from full and restricted to open transfers in order to facilitate stacking superiour round-the-clock coverage.

 

Where does downed state factor in all of this? With it removed the larger, better-stacked blob sends the other blob immediately to their revive point. Nothing changes and it still doesn't take away from the fact that the loser just couldn't equal or best the numbers of the other realm that day/fight/etc..

 

In high tier matches where three more or less equal realms are matched that week but two realms might agree to gang up on the third they limit the third's response by collectively shifting to its borderland and causing a queue which limits the strength and hope of a good defence being mounted.

 

Then they run around for a time, taking objectives to bait defenders out from Garrison or Citadel and then seal club those smaller groups til they either grow bored of it, or their current commander logs off for the day. /yawn

 

As you see, the problem isn't downed state. There's a whole host of other problems with this game mode -have been for the better part of twenty years- and that's before you even get to downed state. Alliances aren't going to change that either. But believe what you want.

[Tibicia.8315]

I think down-state needs a cool-down of at least a minute (or maybe two, or three). You get one bad mistake in battle where you can go into down-state, and then if it happens again while in cool-down then you just go full dead.

 

[Player.9621]

if a half a blob goes down to 10 people they deserve it

[Rampage.7145]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> * Down State Handicapping is a gift from the developers to make your life easier, so that you can enjoy playing the game even after you are "dead."

>

> WvW should not have this "gift" from the developers; only PvE should have Down State Handicapping.

>

 

13320575% agree, but then again arenanet only care about carebears and PVErs, they could care less about what hardcore fighting focused WvW players think, so gg, enjoy the 50 man blob zombie pushing and rezzing their players as they run over the small 20 man group, cuz that game desing makes sense.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> 13320575% agree, but then again arenanet only care about carebears and PVErs, they could care less about what hardcore fighting focused WvW players think, so gg,

I truly hope they care more about maintaining the integrity of the core GW2 gameplay than catering to self-appointed hardcore fighting focused WvW players dictating how they think WvW is supposed to play.

 

 

[Player.9621]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > 13320575% agree, but then again arenanet only care about carebears and PVErs, they could care less about what hardcore fighting focused WvW players think, so gg,

> I truly hope they care more about maintaining the integrity of the core GW2 gameplay than catering to self-appointed hardcore fighting focused WvW players dictating how they think WvW is supposed to play.

>

>

 

i truly hope the devs stop listening to casuals who only want to scab tags off 50 man blobs instead of participating in what has the potential to be a fair competitive mode

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

I see that this has degenerated into a 'If you don't think like me you're a ' thread.

 

Therefore, its time to add that the people who don't like the downed state are either one shot wonders who don't like things getting in the way of their ganking or poor field commanders who want to simplify the battle field because its beyond their ability to manage.

[Turk.5460]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > I see that this has degenerated into a 'If you don't think like me you're a ' thread.

> >

> > Therefore, its time to add that the people who don't like the downed state are either one shot wonders who don't like things getting in the way of their ganking or poor field commanders who want to simplify the battle field because its beyond their ability to manage.

>

> Oh the [false dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) fallacy never stops to amaze us in debates.

 

I killed this really awful Warrior 1v1 over and over on my off-meta, non-optimized Sword/Pistol, DA/Trickery/DE build last night. This player then seemed to cry for help from his server mates, and when I put this warrior into downstate while they outnumbered me, his friends rushed to his aid and rez'd him each time. I don't see how removing downed state would have helped that player - they seem to have needed it to compete against a single player. :3

[Turk.5460]

Dupey dupe

[Arlette.9684]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > 13320575% agree, but then again arenanet only care about carebears and PVErs, they could care less about what hardcore fighting focused WvW players think, so gg,

> I truly hope they care more about maintaining the integrity of the core GW2 gameplay than catering to self-appointed hardcore fighting focused WvW players dictating how they think WvW is supposed to play.

>

>

 

I believe they made their stance clear years ago when the Mass Exodus of the ESL players, happened.

[crazyhusky.2985]

I think the down stated is needed in WvW. It helps on both sides. Besides we all know its the 1v1'er that asking for this. They goat someone they think they get easy kills off or they roam about waiting for "weak" target or they can pick off from a zerg and get an easy kill on, a good chunk of them DON'T want to actually fight, they just want an easy kill. Hence why they don't want you fighting back at all.

 

If the down state was not around everyone that plays Thief, Ranger and Mesmer would be at automic average. DE perma shealth builds and Mirage and Soulbeast Burst builds would run rampant.

Since they could surprise you any moment and kill you. Especially if you're playing a low HP class like Guardian or Elementalist, you're just dead and have to walk back from spawn. It would disincentivise playing other classes and specs in favour of other classes/specs that can one-shot/burst kill or survive, rather than ones that can fight. Things would get old and stagnant very quickly, since most players would be Mirage, DE, Soulbeast and Necro(Either spec). There would be odd spellbreaker, Rev and Support FB, but you wouldn't see other types of guardians or Engineers. And Ele's in general would quickly become "a don't play this class in this mode, because you'd die constantly".

 

[crazyhusky.2985]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> If DS remains then do this instead: Anybody rezzing can immediately be downed in 1 hit. Give rezzers a debuff that states "the next incoming hit is a lethal blow", causing the rezzer to be downed on hit.

 

That is the most ridiculous comment here. That would allow roamers to gain multiple kills without trying. It's terrible, and rather lazy.

Down someone and wait for a friend to start rezzing, then hit the friend from range and they go down too.

Groups of Zerg's would fall a part, Big and small. It would disincentivise rezzing or helping out someone at all. Making players have to go back spawn and walk back to places and that can be long and boring to do over and over again.

 

WvW is battlefield for fighting, if you don't want to actually fight then don't go to WvW.

[Aridon.8362]

Yes YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES.

[Aridon.8362]

> @"SoV.5139" said:

> Keep downstate. It helps when the tail nippers who abuse low skill magnet builds (one-shot/burst kills from stealth) have to suffer consequences for their actions AND dont always get the kill when attacking a 50 person blob. Good GvGers do not have a hard time finishing downed players. Its the 1v1ers who keep asking for this, and they cant even ask for what they really want, instead opting to incorrectly couch their request in terms of "skillful play.".

 

It's their fault for lagging behind, not the tail nippers.

[Rysdude.3824]

Wish they could designate one map as permanent no downstate but increase the rewards.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > @"crazyhusky.2985" said:

> > > > I think the down stated is needed in WvW. It helps on both sides. Besides we all know its the 1v1'er that asking for this.

> > >

> > > Really? you think it benefits both sides? How delusional of your part and arrogant to say that it is the 1 vs 1 asking for this.

> > > Down State is so badly designed and only helps the team with the bigger numbers. Even if you manage to down an enemy on an outnumber fight, you are still penalized for trying to stomp it.

> > >

> > > Not only did you successfully down an enemy, but on top of that if you want to stomp, you have to stand still for 3 seconds while the idiotic animation plays while receiving tons of damage and blow all your stability or immunity utilities.

> > >

> > > In an outnumber fight you are fighting against numbers and the handicapping aspect of the game. That is why down state needs to go!

> >

> > The TL;DR of this is still "I want to be able to gank handicapped people without any risk because I'm better than them".

>

> These forums are filled with [straw man fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but man, your comment is just flawed. I would suggest to take philosophy 101 so you know how to engage in debates. If you are doing straw man fallacies on purpose then **be gone!**

 

I think the problem most have with your premise, is you have failed to prove how this is handicapping the Zerg.

 

By your definition, everything in the game essentially (and yes, that is a bit of hyperbole) handicaps the Zerg.

 

-AOEs benefit the Zerg

-Siege benefits the Zerg

-Target caps benefit the Zerg

-the list is long...

 

It’s not an argument to get rid of Downstate.

 

It’s an argument to find ways to break up Zergs, but not for what you are arguing.

 

[Hitman.5829]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > @"crazyhusky.2985" said:

> > > > > I think the down stated is needed in WvW. It helps on both sides. Besides we all know its the 1v1'er that asking for this.

> > > >

> > > > Really? you think it benefits both sides? How delusional of your part and arrogant to say that it is the 1 vs 1 asking for this.

> > > > Down State is so badly designed and only helps the team with the bigger numbers. Even if you manage to down an enemy on an outnumber fight, you are still penalized for trying to stomp it.

> > > >

> > > > Not only did you successfully down an enemy, but on top of that if you want to stomp, you have to stand still for 3 seconds while the idiotic animation plays while receiving tons of damage and blow all your stability or immunity utilities.

> > > >

> > > > In an outnumber fight you are fighting against numbers and the handicapping aspect of the game. That is why down state needs to go!

> > >

> > > The TL;DR of this is still "I want to be able to gank handicapped people without any risk because I'm better than them".

> >

> > These forums are filled with [straw man fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but man, your comment is just flawed. I would suggest to take philosophy 101 so you know how to engage in debates. If you are doing straw man fallacies on purpose then **be gone!**

>

> I think the problem most have with your premise, is you have failed to prove how this is handicapping the Zerg.

>

> By your definition, everything in the game essentially (and yes, that is a bit of hyperbole) handicaps the Zerg.

>

> -AOEs benefit the Zerg

> -Siege benefits the Zerg

> -Target caps benefit the Zerg

> -the list is long...

>

> It’s not an argument to get rid of Downstate.

>

> It’s an argument to find ways to break up Zergs, but not for what you are arguing.

>

 

And yet, more fallacies! This time in the form of [Red herring fallac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring). The post is about down state handicapping and not about AoE fields, siege, etc... The post specifically discusses the handicapping aspect of Down State in WvW and how the group with more numbers also gets the advantage in handicapping. Why is is so hard to understand the argument?

 

 

 

 

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > > @"crazyhusky.2985" said:

> > > > > > I think the down stated is needed in WvW. It helps on both sides. Besides we all know its the 1v1'er that asking for this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Really? you think it benefits both sides? How delusional of your part and arrogant to say that it is the 1 vs 1 asking for this.

> > > > > Down State is so badly designed and only helps the team with the bigger numbers. Even if you manage to down an enemy on an outnumber fight, you are still penalized for trying to stomp it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not only did you successfully down an enemy, but on top of that if you want to stomp, you have to stand still for 3 seconds while the idiotic animation plays while receiving tons of damage and blow all your stability or immunity utilities.

> > > > >

> > > > > In an outnumber fight you are fighting against numbers and the handicapping aspect of the game. That is why down state needs to go!

> > > >

> > > > The TL;DR of this is still "I want to be able to gank handicapped people without any risk because I'm better than them".

> > >

> > > These forums are filled with [straw man fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but man, your comment is just flawed. I would suggest to take philosophy 101 so you know how to engage in debates. If you are doing straw man fallacies on purpose then **be gone!**

> >

> > I think the problem most have with your premise, is you have failed to prove how this is handicapping the Zerg.

> >

> > By your definition, everything in the game essentially (and yes, that is a bit of hyperbole) handicaps the Zerg.

> >

> > -AOEs benefit the Zerg

> > -Siege benefits the Zerg

> > -Target caps benefit the Zerg

> > -the list is long...

> >

> > It’s not an argument to get rid of Downstate.

> >

> > It’s an argument to find ways to break up Zergs, but not for what you are arguing.

> >

>

> And yet, more fallacies! This time in the form of [Red herring fallac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring). The post is about down state handicapping and not about AoE fields, siege, etc... The post specifically discusses the handicapping aspect of Down State in WvW and how the group with more numbers also gets the advantage in handicapping. **Why is is so had to have a logical discussion on these forums?**

>

>

>

>

 

When the 'discussion' isn't arranged in a logical manner to begin with.

 

D:

 

P.S. : He was trying to explain that your 'discussion' suffers from a _fallacy of defective induction._ This means it is too broad, or general so that it could be misapplied to other game mechanics. Assuming we wish to apply fallacies to things that aren't much of an argument to begin with.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > > @"crazyhusky.2985" said:

> > > > > > I think the down stated is needed in WvW. It helps on both sides. Besides we all know its the 1v1'er that asking for this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Really? you think it benefits both sides? How delusional of your part and arrogant to say that it is the 1 vs 1 asking for this.

> > > > > Down State is so badly designed and only helps the team with the bigger numbers. Even if you manage to down an enemy on an outnumber fight, you are still penalized for trying to stomp it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not only did you successfully down an enemy, but on top of that if you want to stomp, you have to stand still for 3 seconds while the idiotic animation plays while receiving tons of damage and blow all your stability or immunity utilities.

> > > > >

> > > > > In an outnumber fight you are fighting against numbers and the handicapping aspect of the game. That is why down state needs to go!

> > > >

> > > > The TL;DR of this is still "I want to be able to gank handicapped people without any risk because I'm better than them".

> > >

> > > These forums are filled with [straw man fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but man, your comment is just flawed. I would suggest to take philosophy 101 so you know how to engage in debates. If you are doing straw man fallacies on purpose then **be gone!**

> >

> > I think the problem most have with your premise, is you have failed to prove how this is handicapping the Zerg.

> >

> > By your definition, everything in the game essentially (and yes, that is a bit of hyperbole) handicaps the Zerg.

> >

> > -AOEs benefit the Zerg

> > -Siege benefits the Zerg

> > -Target caps benefit the Zerg

> > -the list is long...

> >

> > It’s not an argument to get rid of Downstate.

> >

> > It’s an argument to find ways to break up Zergs, but not for what you are arguing.

> >

>

> And yet, more fallacies! This time in the form of [Red herring fallac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring). The post is about down state handicapping and not about AoE fields, siege, etc... The post specifically discusses the handicapping aspect of Down State in WvW and how the group with more numbers also gets the advantage in handicapping. Why is is so hard to understand the argument?

>

>

>

>

 

Again, the argument is understood. But the argument itself is a loaded premise that effectively is erroneous.

 

Wasn’t trying to bash you hit. Was simply discussing it.

 

Also, I never said the ***argument*** was about AOEs and siege.

[Hitman.5829]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > > > @"crazyhusky.2985" said:

> > > > > > > I think the down stated is needed in WvW. It helps on both sides. Besides we all know its the 1v1'er that asking for this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Really? you think it benefits both sides? How delusional of your part and arrogant to say that it is the 1 vs 1 asking for this.

> > > > > > Down State is so badly designed and only helps the team with the bigger numbers. Even if you manage to down an enemy on an outnumber fight, you are still penalized for trying to stomp it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not only did you successfully down an enemy, but on top of that if you want to stomp, you have to stand still for 3 seconds while the idiotic animation plays while receiving tons of damage and blow all your stability or immunity utilities.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In an outnumber fight you are fighting against numbers and the handicapping aspect of the game. That is why down state needs to go!

> > > > >

> > > > > The TL;DR of this is still "I want to be able to gank handicapped people without any risk because I'm better than them".

> > > >

> > > > These forums are filled with [straw man fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but man, your comment is just flawed. I would suggest to take philosophy 101 so you know how to engage in debates. If you are doing straw man fallacies on purpose then **be gone!**

> > >

> > > I think the problem most have with your premise, is you have failed to prove how this is handicapping the Zerg.

> > >

> > > By your definition, everything in the game essentially (and yes, that is a bit of hyperbole) handicaps the Zerg.

> > >

> > > -AOEs benefit the Zerg

> > > -Siege benefits the Zerg

> > > -Target caps benefit the Zerg

> > > -the list is long...

> > >

> > > It’s not an argument to get rid of Downstate.

> > >

> > > It’s an argument to find ways to break up Zergs, but not for what you are arguing.

> > >

> >

> > And yet, more fallacies! This time in the form of [Red herring fallac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring). The post is about down state handicapping and not about AoE fields, siege, etc... The post specifically discusses the handicapping aspect of Down State in WvW and how the group with more numbers also gets the advantage in handicapping. **Why is is so had to have a logical discussion on these forums?**

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> When the 'discussion' isn't arranged in a logical manner to begin with.

>

> D:

 

If you read the post, the argument is simple:

"The group with more numbers has the down state handicapping advantage and that is why down state needs to be removed from WvW." The argument is so simple and clean I don't know why some people keep missing the point.

 

perhaps people have not understood what handicapping a game means. I have explained 3 times already, so if you want you can search the internet or scroll up to see examples of handiccaping that I provided. In short, handicapping is reserved for the players that have a disadvantage in games NOT for players that have the advantage; that is why Down State needs to be removed from WvW or reworked.

 

 

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > > > > @"crazyhusky.2985" said:

> > > > > > > > I think the down stated is needed in WvW. It helps on both sides. Besides we all know its the 1v1'er that asking for this.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Really? you think it benefits both sides? How delusional of your part and arrogant to say that it is the 1 vs 1 asking for this.

> > > > > > > Down State is so badly designed and only helps the team with the bigger numbers. Even if you manage to down an enemy on an outnumber fight, you are still penalized for trying to stomp it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Not only did you successfully down an enemy, but on top of that if you want to stomp, you have to stand still for 3 seconds while the idiotic animation plays while receiving tons of damage and blow all your stability or immunity utilities.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In an outnumber fight you are fighting against numbers and the handicapping aspect of the game. That is why down state needs to go!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The TL;DR of this is still "I want to be able to gank handicapped people without any risk because I'm better than them".

> > > > >

> > > > > These forums are filled with [straw man fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but man, your comment is just flawed. I would suggest to take philosophy 101 so you know how to engage in debates. If you are doing straw man fallacies on purpose then **be gone!**

> > > >

> > > > I think the problem most have with your premise, is you have failed to prove how this is handicapping the Zerg.

> > > >

> > > > By your definition, everything in the game essentially (and yes, that is a bit of hyperbole) handicaps the Zerg.

> > > >

> > > > -AOEs benefit the Zerg

> > > > -Siege benefits the Zerg

> > > > -Target caps benefit the Zerg

> > > > -the list is long...

> > > >

> > > > It’s not an argument to get rid of Downstate.

> > > >

> > > > It’s an argument to find ways to break up Zergs, but not for what you are arguing.

> > > >

> > >

> > > And yet, more fallacies! This time in the form of [Red herring fallac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring). The post is about down state handicapping and not about AoE fields, siege, etc... The post specifically discusses the handicapping aspect of Down State in WvW and how the group with more numbers also gets the advantage in handicapping. **Why is is so had to have a logical discussion on these forums?**

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > When the 'discussion' isn't arranged in a logical manner to begin with.

> >

> > D:

>

> If you read the post, the argument is simple:

> "The group with more numbers has the down state handicapping advantage." The argument is so simple and clean I don't know why some people keep missing the point.

>

> perhaps people have not understood what handicapping a game means. I have explained 3 times already, so if you want you can search the internet or scroll up to see examples of handiccaping that I provided. In short, handicapping is reserved for the players that have a disadvantage in games NOT for players that have the advantage; that is why Down State needs to be removed from WvW or reworked.

>

>

 

And you have been told multiple times this is insufficient for a premise, hence it suffers from one or more fallacies of defective induction. **"The group with more numbers has the advantage." This is true because the numbers give the advantage**. "Down state handicapping" is some jargon being inserted hoping for a guilt by association with your new found definition (and misuse of the actual word handicapping). Even your topic title starts by insinuating "Bad game design/Bad design game" completely _poisoning the well_ with this negative tone (ironically something you brought up, and misused too).

 

TLDR: `Your premise is weak.` If I was someone that wanted no downstate I wouldn't want you representing it in an actual debate of any kind. At best the OP is an observation of bigger numbers multiplying game mechanics, and that doesn't warrant much discussion.

 

D:

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > > @"crazyhusky.2985" said:

> > > > > > I think the down stated is needed in WvW. It helps on both sides. Besides we all know its the 1v1'er that asking for this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Really? you think it benefits both sides? How delusional of your part and arrogant to say that it is the 1 vs 1 asking for this.

> > > > > Down State is so badly designed and only helps the team with the bigger numbers. Even if you manage to down an enemy on an outnumber fight, you are still penalized for trying to stomp it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not only did you successfully down an enemy, but on top of that if you want to stomp, you have to stand still for 3 seconds while the idiotic animation plays while receiving tons of damage and blow all your stability or immunity utilities.

> > > > >

> > > > > In an outnumber fight you are fighting against numbers and the handicapping aspect of the game. That is why down state needs to go!

> > > >

> > > > The TL;DR of this is still "I want to be able to gank handicapped people without any risk because I'm better than them".

> > >

> > > These forums are filled with [straw man fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but man, your comment is just flawed. I would suggest to take philosophy 101 so you know how to engage in debates. If you are doing straw man fallacies on purpose then **be gone!**

> >

> > I think the problem most have with your premise, is you have failed to prove how this is handicapping the Zerg.

> >

> > By your definition, everything in the game essentially (and yes, that is a bit of hyperbole) handicaps the Zerg.

> >

> > -AOEs benefit the Zerg

> > -Siege benefits the Zerg

> > -Target caps benefit the Zerg

> > -the list is long...

> >

> > It’s not an argument to get rid of Downstate.

> >

> > It’s an argument to find ways to break up Zergs, but not for what you are arguing.

> >

>

> And yet, more fallacies! This time in the form of [Red herring fallac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring). The post is about down state handicapping and not about AoE fields, siege, etc... The post specifically discusses the handicapping aspect of Down State in WvW and how the group with more numbers also gets the advantage in handicapping. Why is is so hard to understand the argument?

Because downstate doesnt in itself give any particular advantage - both sides have access to it.

 

It's the **numbers** that differ. And you're not going to get away from the fact that 20v40 is 20v40 no matter how you twist and turn that into a downstate argument. Those 40 will **always** have the advantage of numbers. WvW inherently cannot be balanced and that's just the way it is. Cant fix that. Whether those 40v20 win due to downstate or because it's 40v20 is a pointless argument. Either they win or they loose. If they lost that only shows us why downstate is there to begin with. What, do you think those 40 will say "oh boy that was so much fun, next time we'll be win against them with 60v20 for sure!". No. 10 people will leave because they lost. And then they dont stand a snowballs chance in hell, GG time to leave the border and/or game.

 

In a 20v20 or 40v40 of equally skilled players - or literally any situation where two forces are equal regardless of skill and size - downstate become **completely irrelevant**. Whether you res or stomp, that's skill. That's being able to either sustain your fighting force or properly follow through with kills and the amount of effort is equal on both sides.

 

*Worst case scenario* there are issues with downstate that could be addressed, true. The fact that multiple people res too fast, especially when buffed by traits/runes. Some skills are unbalanced such as eles slipping through doors or rangers being immortal under water. But saying that downstate is "handicapping the zerg" over and over is something that misleads and distracts from the issue. It's kind of ironic.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > > > > @"Hitman.5829" said:

> > > > > > > > @"crazyhusky.2985" said:

> > > > > > > > I think the down stated is needed in WvW. It helps on both sides. Besides we all know its the 1v1'er that asking for this.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Really? you think it benefits both sides? How delusional of your part and arrogant to say that it is the 1 vs 1 asking for this.

> > > > > > > Down State is so badly designed and only helps the team with the bigger numbers. Even if you manage to down an enemy on an outnumber fight, you are still penalized for trying to stomp it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Not only did you successfully down an enemy, but on top of that if you want to stomp, you have to stand still for 3 seconds while the idiotic animation plays while receiving tons of damage and blow all your stability or immunity utilities.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In an outnumber fight you are fighting against numbers and the handicapping aspect of the game. That is why down state needs to go!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The TL;DR of this is still "I want to be able to gank handicapped people without any risk because I'm better than them".

> > > > >

> > > > > These forums are filled with [straw man fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but man, your comment is just flawed. I would suggest to take philosophy 101 so you know how to engage in debates. If you are doing straw man fallacies on purpose then **be gone!**

> > > >

> > > > I think the problem most have with your premise, is you have failed to prove how this is handicapping the Zerg.

> > > >

> > > > By your definition, everything in the game essentially (and yes, that is a bit of hyperbole) handicaps the Zerg.

> > > >

> > > > -AOEs benefit the Zerg

> > > > -Siege benefits the Zerg

> > > > -Target caps benefit the Zerg

> > > > -the list is long...

> > > >

> > > > It’s not an argument to get rid of Downstate.

> > > >

> > > > It’s an argument to find ways to break up Zergs, but not for what you are arguing.

> > > >

> > >

> > > And yet, more fallacies! This time in the form of [Red herring fallac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring). The post is about down state handicapping and not about AoE fields, siege, etc... The post specifically discusses the handicapping aspect of Down State in WvW and how the group with more numbers also gets the advantage in handicapping. **Why is is so had to have a logical discussion on these forums?**

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > When the 'discussion' isn't arranged in a logical manner to begin with.

> >

> > D:

>

> If you read the post, the argument is simple:

> "The group with more numbers has the down state handicapping advantage and that is why down state needs to be removed from WvW." The argument is so simple and clean I don't know why some people keep missing the point.

>

> perhaps people have not understood what handicapping a game means. I have explained 3 times already, so if you want you can search the internet or scroll up to see examples of handiccaping that I provided. In short, handicapping is reserved for the players that have a disadvantage in games NOT for players that have the advantage; that is why Down State needs to be removed from WvW or reworked.

>

>

 

The two posters after you explained it well.

 

You came up with a flawed premise.

 

You can ‘explain’ handicapping all you like, and believe it or not, we get what handicapping means.

 

***place (someone) at a disadvantage.

"without a good set of notes you will handicap yourself when it comes to exams"***.

 

So, in effect.... the group handicapped is the low numbered group...

 

HOWEVER, in golf, your ‘handicap’ allows you to play vs a ‘better’ opponent and have your score adjusted based on your history.

 

**But in neither case, does that refer to your argument. The larger Zerg has the advantage because of numbers. And numbers alone.**

[Defias.1892]

I'd agree with alot of the previous posters. Your PREMISE is Flawed. There isn't supposed to be a balance between larger zergs and smaller groups. The downstate is a minute problem even if they were. If they wanted numbers to matter less, they would bring back OP spellbreakers, who could pretty much boon strip and destroy entire zergs with a single bubble.