shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 What do you guys think about this? The res mechanic already heavily favors the side with more numbers. From my perspective, downstate and rallying are exactly the same. There have been plenty of winnable fights (both outnumbered and even) if the downed enemies my team or I get weren't constantly getting rallied. It also heavily enforces the notion in ranked that the side with the worst PUGs lose. If your teammates feed in every fight, there's simply nothing/very little you can do to take back control of the map if they die too quickly to regain any footing. Now, if it's possible for Anet to test a sPvP season with no downstate (as long as they remove berserker/assassin amulet and tune down stacking damage modifiers that make oneshot builds possible PRIOR to starting the season), this is something I'd be willing and interested to play in. Then, scenarios such as 2v2s where I down an enemy and they down my teammate become winnable even _after_ another enemy rotates in to rez/stomp. Furthermore, I think it might be worth preventing teammates from rezzing until combat ends as well. These changes would make fights more about who is more skilled as opposed to who has the numbers advantage. Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. Also, I feel like the combat would be a lot cleaner and easier to watch since people aren't constantly going up and down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigmoid.7082 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. A lot of people also hated the event and stopped playing during it. It promotes a very bursty style of game play which is already complained about in PvP as is. It also removes a bunch of interaction via traits and utility skills. The only thing that really need to happen to downstate imho is 1-for-1 rally instead of 1-for-all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Author Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. > > A lot of people also hated the event and stopped playing during it. It promotes a very bursty style of game play which is already complained about in PvP as is. It also removes a bunch of interaction via traits and utility skills. > > The only thing that really need to happen to downstate imho is 1-for-1 rally instead of 1-for-all. > Well WvW is pretty unbalanced stat/build-wise. I think if Anet removed berserker/assassin amulet and reduced the damage modifiers from traits that make high spike/oneshot builds possible, the combat wouldn't be as bursty as it was when they tested it out in WvW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigmoid.7082 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. > > > > A lot of people also hated the event and stopped playing during it. It promotes a very bursty style of game play which is already complained about in PvP as is. It also removes a bunch of interaction via traits and utility skills. > > > > The only thing that really need to happen to downstate imho is 1-for-1 rally instead of 1-for-all. > > > > Well WvW is pretty unbalanced stat/build-wise. > > I think if Anet removed berserker/assassin amulet and reduced the damage modifiers from traits that make high spike/oneshot builds possible, the combat wouldn't be as bursty as it was when they tested it out in WvW. If you have to remove an amulet to solve a build issue then you have a different sort of problem with your balancing. Also all one shot builds aren't only on those two amulets to begin with and you would still be able to one shot without them. The idea also removes some pretty big elements of team play which I would say are more important in sPvP than theya re in WvW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Author Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. > > > > > > A lot of people also hated the event and stopped playing during it. It promotes a very bursty style of game play which is already complained about in PvP as is. It also removes a bunch of interaction via traits and utility skills. > > > > > > The only thing that really need to happen to downstate imho is 1-for-1 rally instead of 1-for-all. > > > > > > > Well WvW is pretty unbalanced stat/build-wise. > > > > I think if Anet removed berserker/assassin amulet and reduced the damage modifiers from traits that make high spike/oneshot builds possible, the combat wouldn't be as bursty as it was when they tested it out in WvW. > > If you have to remove an amulet to solve a build issue then you have a different sort of problem with your balancing. Also all one shot builds aren't only on those two amulets to begin with and you would still be able to one shot without them. > > The idea also removes some pretty big elements of team play which I would say are more important in sPvP than theya re in WvW. > > The only builds berserker/assassins amulets are used for are oneshot/meme builds. Making damage modifiers additive instead of multiplicative would also be a step in the right direction at slowing down the pace of the game. Think about this... let's say you're in a 1v4, down 3 players, and you end up dying. Instead of the downs instantly getting to their feet again and being able to rotate as a team to push another node, they have to spend time rezzing them. This helps reduce the ability for bad teams to snowball and gives individual players the chance to have a higher impact on the direction a match is going. Your teammates also have an opportunity to rotate in and still _benefit_ from your skilled play. Right now, the slate is completely wiped clean after every fight. There's no lingering impact you have on the match because of the rally/rez mechanic and it's part of the reason why highly mobile, high damage builds are the best for carrying matches. Currently, Conquest is a team-based gamemode that you can't really play with a team outside of unranked/ATs. It lacks the stat/item scaling games like Battle Royales or MOBAs have that give players who play well, advantages to help them carry a match alone. I think these changes would make ranked a lot more fun, less snowball-y, and less reliant on your PUGs to win as long as the extremely high burst/oneshot builds are addressed prior to the season going live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZDragon.3046 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > What do you guys think about this? > > The res mechanic already heavily favors the side with more numbers. From my perspective, downstate and rallying are exactly the same. There have been plenty of winnable fights (both outnumbered and even) if the downed enemies my team or I get weren't constantly getting rallied. I dont agree with this statement because its not entirely true. The side with fewer numbers can res multiple times should the side with higher numbers have people who go down or die more easily / often so i feel like this statement is a bit subjective. > > It also heavily enforces the notion in ranked that the side with the worst PUGs lose. If your teammates feed in every fight, there's simply nothing/very little you can do to take back control of the map if they die too quickly to regain any footing. Learning is a part of the process once again though im not so sure about this statement if your team is going down cause your comp is not as good as the enemy teams it does not mean your teammates are purpose feeding some times you are just mechanically out matched and need to try a different strategy but not everyone catches onto the idea that there might be another option unless someone tells them to try something different. > > Now, if it's possible for Anet to test a sPvP season with no downstate (as long as they remove berserker/assassin amulet and tune down stacking damage modifiers that make oneshot builds possible PRIOR to starting the season), this is something I'd be willing and interested to play in. Then, scenarios such as 2v2s where I down an enemy and they down my teammate become winnable even _after_ another enemy rotates in to rez/stomp. condition builds become super meta... imagine having condis throwing on you and instead of getting a second chance with down state you just die instantly feeels bad man. imo Zerker and assassin ammy shouldn't be options in spvp in general. This also changes nothing with your previous statements techncially speaking the side with the better team or higher numbers in a fight will still heavily favor that side. > > Furthermore, I think it might be worth preventing teammates from rezzing until combat ends as well. These changes would make fights more about who is more skilled as opposed to who has the numbers advantage. It wont though it will still be the same. Dont be fooled into the idea that this changes much. > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. Also, I feel like the combat would be a lot cleaner and easier to watch since people aren't constantly going up and down. I wouldnt mind no down state events or some maps having no down state like if team death or other game modes were supported but in the standard capture and hold i dont really see the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Forestman.4758 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 I'd be for a season without the downed state. Reviving is seriously disproportionate to damage, so even a burst build can have a lot of trouble securing a kill when the enemy team has a support or two that just keeps reviving people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigmoid.7082 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. > > > > > > > > A lot of people also hated the event and stopped playing during it. It promotes a very bursty style of game play which is already complained about in PvP as is. It also removes a bunch of interaction via traits and utility skills. > > > > > > > > The only thing that really need to happen to downstate imho is 1-for-1 rally instead of 1-for-all. > > > > > > > > > > Well WvW is pretty unbalanced stat/build-wise. > > > > > > I think if Anet removed berserker/assassin amulet and reduced the damage modifiers from traits that make high spike/oneshot builds possible, the combat wouldn't be as bursty as it was when they tested it out in WvW. > > > > If you have to remove an amulet to solve a build issue then you have a different sort of problem with your balancing. Also all one shot builds aren't only on those two amulets to begin with and you would still be able to one shot without them. > > > > The idea also removes some pretty big elements of team play which I would say are more important in sPvP than theya re in WvW. > > > > > > The only builds berserker/assassins amulets are used for are oneshot/meme builds. This wasn't the case in the past and something I am hoping the patch takes us back to. I actually hope they re-introduce some of the amulets they took away. >Making damage modifiers additive instead of multiplicative would also be a step in the right direction at slowing down the pace of the game. Or maybe just less of them or lower their values? The game has so many more damage modifiers now than it did before as well as ability to just gain a bunch of raw stats. > Think about this... let's say you're in a 1v4, down 3 players, and you end up dying. Instead of the downs instantly getting to their feet again and being able to rotate as a team to push another node, they have to spend time rezzing them. A 1-1 res instead of 1-x res would do this anyways? > I think these changes would make ranked a lot more fun I wholeheartedly disagree but we likely won't see eye to eye so I am going to agree to do just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Author Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"ZDragon.3046" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > What do you guys think about this? > > > > The res mechanic already heavily favors the side with more numbers. From my perspective, downstate and rallying are exactly the same. There have been plenty of winnable fights (both outnumbered and even) if the downed enemies my team or I get weren't constantly getting rallied. > > 1. I dont agree with this statement because its not entirely true. The side with fewer numbers can res multiple times should the side with higher numbers have people who go down or die more easily / often so i feel like this statement is a bit subjective. > > > > It also heavily enforces the notion in ranked that the side with the worst PUGs lose. If your teammates feed in every fight, there's simply nothing/very little you can do to take back control of the map if they die too quickly to regain any footing. > > 2. Learning is a part of the process once again though im not so sure about this statement if your team is going down cause your comp is not as good as the enemy teams it does not mean your teammates are purpose feeding some times you are just mechanically out matched and need to try a different strategy but not everyone catches onto the idea that there might be another option unless someone tells them to try something different. > > > > > Now, if it's possible for Anet to test a sPvP season with no downstate (as long as they remove berserker/assassin amulet and tune down stacking damage modifiers that make oneshot builds possible PRIOR to starting the season), this is something I'd be willing and interested to play in. Then, scenarios such as 2v2s where I down an enemy and they down my teammate become winnable even _after_ another enemy rotates in to rez/stomp. > > 3. condition builds become super meta... imagine having condis throwing on you and instead of getting a second chance with down state you just die instantly feeels bad man. > 4. imo Zerker and assassin ammy shouldn't be options in spvp in general. This also changes nothing with your previous statements techncially speaking the side with the better team or higher numbers in a fight will still heavily favor that side. > > > > > Furthermore, I think it might be worth preventing teammates from rezzing until combat ends as well. These changes would make fights more about who is more skilled as opposed to who has the numbers advantage. > > 5. It wont though it will still be the same. Dont be fooled into the idea that this changes much. > > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. Also, I feel like the combat would be a lot cleaner and easier to watch since people aren't constantly going up and down. > > 6. I wouldnt mind no down state events or some maps having no down state like if team death or other game modes were supported but in the standard capture and hold i dont really see the point. > 1. Um... if you have to add a condition to make a statement true, it's probably because it isn't true to begin with. Rezzing _heavily_ favors the side with more numbers, period. Just because the side with less numbers _can_ potentially rez more often is irrelevant because I could counter with: the side with more numbers _can_ potentially rez more often than the side with less. If you just look at how the rez mechanic works, the side with more players will ALWAYS have an advantage. There are no exceptions to this, currently. 2. The problem is... there's no way to win a match if your PUGs are mechanically out-matched. You, as a single player, _cannot_ carry a game alone if your PUGs are completely incompetent. There are no "different strategies" you could try when Conquest revolves around winning fights/snowballing/pushing your advantage with good rotations. 3. No, condition builds wouldn't become any more meta than power builds would. In fact, you'd have more time to react and save yourself vs. burst conditions builds than you would against burst power builds. Imagine being at 7k HP and having to choose between getting hit by a Mirage's condi bomb or a Warrior's Eviscerate. Which one would you pick? In this scenario, you'd die faster from the Eviscerate. 4. Correct, they shouldn't be options in sPvP considering full bunker amulets were removed. 5. It will change a lot. Currently, it doesn't matter how many people you down, a single support Firebrand rotating in to rez means you've lost that fight. It's almost impossible to outcleave that build as a single player. Preventing them from rezzing and instead forcing them to support their allies that are still _alive_ would result in a completely different dynamic and would help reduce the impact builds like Firebrand/pre-nerf Blood Scourge have on the match. It's no wonder builds that have had the ability to _consistently_ guarantee (or almost guarantee) rezzes have been _consistently_ meta. 6. These changes would help slow down the pace of the game. It would give individual players a much easier time winning matches _if_ they play well. It would also reduce the snowball effect derived from the highly mobile + high damage meta builds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZDragon.3046 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"Aaron Forestman.4758" said: > I'd be for a season without the downed state. Reviving is seriously disproportionate to damage, so even a burst build can have a lot of trouble securing a kill when the enemy team has a support or two that just keeps reviving people. Wouldnt the better solution be to implement more skills that finish off foes in downstate though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Author Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. > > > > > > > > > > A lot of people also hated the event and stopped playing during it. It promotes a very bursty style of game play which is already complained about in PvP as is. It also removes a bunch of interaction via traits and utility skills. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing that really need to happen to downstate imho is 1-for-1 rally instead of 1-for-all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well WvW is pretty unbalanced stat/build-wise. > > > > > > > > I think if Anet removed berserker/assassin amulet and reduced the damage modifiers from traits that make high spike/oneshot builds possible, the combat wouldn't be as bursty as it was when they tested it out in WvW. > > > > > > If you have to remove an amulet to solve a build issue then you have a different sort of problem with your balancing. Also all one shot builds aren't only on those two amulets to begin with and you would still be able to one shot without them. > > > > > > The idea also removes some pretty big elements of team play which I would say are more important in sPvP than theya re in WvW. > > > > > > > > > > The only builds berserker/assassins amulets are used for are oneshot/meme builds. > 1. This wasn't the case in the past and something I am hoping the patch takes us back to. I actually hope they re-introduce some of the amulets they took away. > > >Making damage modifiers additive instead of multiplicative would also be a step in the right direction at slowing down the pace of the game. > 2. Or maybe just less of them or lower their values? The game has so many more damage modifiers now than it did before as well as ability to just gain a bunch of raw stats. > > > Think about this... let's say you're in a 1v4, down 3 players, and you end up dying. Instead of the downs instantly getting to their feet again and being able to rotate as a team to push another node, they have to spend time rezzing them. > 3. A 1-1 res instead of 1-x res would do this anyways? > > > I think these changes would make ranked a lot more fun > 4. I wholeheartedly disagree but we likely won't see eye to eye so I am going to agree to do just that. 1. Personally, I can't immediately recall any non-meme burst builds that used berserker/assassin amulets. 2. I think they should make the damage modifiers additive on top of lowering their values. 3. No it wouldn't. **If each one takes a single person a hypothetical 10 seconds to rez, in my scenario, it would take them a minimum of 17.5 seconds to rez everyone. In your scenario, the time gets cut to 7.5 seconds. 10 seconds is a LONG time in Conquest, so you can see the difference in pacing even a 1-1 rally would have on a match, compounded over time... With my proposal, a single player that can pull these feats off consistently will _actually_ be able to influence the outcome of a match without relying on their PUGs. In my opinion, this is a necessary change to make ranked healthier.** 4. We can agree to disagree if you'd like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Author Share Posted January 13, 2020 Just think about it as a solo player. Let's say you're in a 1v4 and you down 3 people. Your teammate rotates in to help but can't cleave any of the 3 people out in time. You die, the 3 enemies all rally, your teammate instantly dies, and the advantage you were attempting to create through your skill has been completely wiped clean and has no impact on the rest of the match. That sucks. Like I said above, the time difference would compound the more you pull off plays like this. My changes would make it much easier for a single player to impact the outcome of a match. This is something that's always been an issue with Conquest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZDragon.3046 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > @"ZDragon.3046" said: > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > What do you guys think about this? > > > > > > The res mechanic already heavily favors the side with more numbers. From my perspective, downstate and rallying are exactly the same. There have been plenty of winnable fights (both outnumbered and even) if the downed enemies my team or I get weren't constantly getting rallied. > > > > 1. I dont agree with this statement because its not entirely true. The side with fewer numbers can res multiple times should the side with higher numbers have people who go down or die more easily / often so i feel like this statement is a bit subjective. > > > > > > It also heavily enforces the notion in ranked that the side with the worst PUGs lose. If your teammates feed in every fight, there's simply nothing/very little you can do to take back control of the map if they die too quickly to regain any footing. > > > > 2. Learning is a part of the process once again though im not so sure about this statement if your team is going down cause your comp is not as good as the enemy teams it does not mean your teammates are purpose feeding some times you are just mechanically out matched and need to try a different strategy but not everyone catches onto the idea that there might be another option unless someone tells them to try something different. > > > > > > > > Now, if it's possible for Anet to test a sPvP season with no downstate (as long as they remove berserker/assassin amulet and tune down stacking damage modifiers that make oneshot builds possible PRIOR to starting the season), this is something I'd be willing and interested to play in. Then, scenarios such as 2v2s where I down an enemy and they down my teammate become winnable even _after_ another enemy rotates in to rez/stomp. > > > > 3. condition builds become super meta... imagine having condis throwing on you and instead of getting a second chance with down state you just die instantly feeels bad man. > > 4. imo Zerker and assassin ammy shouldn't be options in spvp in general. This also changes nothing with your previous statements techncially speaking the side with the better team or higher numbers in a fight will still heavily favor that side. > > > > > > > > Furthermore, I think it might be worth preventing teammates from rezzing until combat ends as well. These changes would make fights more about who is more skilled as opposed to who has the numbers advantage. > > > > 5. It wont though it will still be the same. Dont be fooled into the idea that this changes much. > > > > > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. Also, I feel like the combat would be a lot cleaner and easier to watch since people aren't constantly going up and down. > > > > 6. I wouldnt mind no down state events or some maps having no down state like if team death or other game modes were supported but in the standard capture and hold i dont really see the point. > > > > 1. Um... if you have to add a condition to make a statement true, it's probably because it isn't true to begin with. Rezzing _heavily_ favors the side with more numbers, period. Just because the side with less numbers _can_ potentially rez more often is irrelevant because I could counter with: the side with more numbers _can_ potentially rez more often than the side with less. If you just look at how the rez mechanic works, the side with more players will ALWAYS have an advantage. There are no exceptions to this, currently. But you added a condition to make your statement true. Thats why i said it was subjective to start with. Infact one could say that the side with the numbers advantage period (regardless if downstate is included or not) has the advantage so whats the point of even bothering to make this claim when the side with the numbers advantage has the advantage before down state would even be applied. like what.... sorry but no... you were already at the disadvantage to start with removing downstate wont change that. > 2. The problem is... there's no way to win a match if your PUGs are mechanically out-matched. You, as a single player, _cannot_ carry a game alone if your PUGs are completely incompetent. There are no "different strategies" you could try when Conquest revolves around winning fights/snowballing/pushing your advantage with good rotations. That depends if you can win smaller fights2v2 or 3v3 etc but not and 4v4 or 5v5 match ups then obviously then the obvious solution would be to try and force the enemy team to split up and take the advantage that way. Not every team comp thats good in bigger fights is just as good when you split them up into smaller fights. There are different strategies depending on the map, your team and its comp, and their team and its comp. If you only see things as one line and one line own where "well they have x and y gg cant win" then you shouldnt be in pvp to start with. Conquest and anet do not often support different strats but its up to you to take the risk on trying them. IF plan A is not working and is failing over and over again why do you keep trying plan A. Thats common sense that you try something else. > 3. No, condition builds wouldn't become any more meta than power builds would. In fact, you'd have more time to react and save yourself vs. burst conditions builds than you would against burst power builds. Imagine being at 7k HP and having to choose between getting hit by a Mirage's condi bomb or a Warrior's Eviscerate. Which one would you pick? In this scenario, you'd die faster from the Eviscerate. I dont think it matters you are not in the advatnage here if i have to chose between one of them but cant opt to avoid both then it does not matter you are still dead. Leading back to my first comment .... it dont matter cause the advantage here was already lost before we would even get to a down state. > 5. It will change a lot. Currently, it doesn't matter how many people you down, a single support Firebrand rotating in to rez means you've lost that fight. It's almost impossible to outcleave that build as a single player. Preventing them from rezzing and instead forcing them to support their allies that are still _alive_ would result in a completely different dynamic and would help reduce the impact builds like Firebrand/pre-nerf Blood Scourge have on the match. It's no wonder builds that have had the ability to _consistently_ guarantee (or almost guarantee) rezzes have been _consistently_ meta. Then that means firebrand is over-performing obviously which we all know to be true. Thats not a down state problem thats a firebrand problem. In the case of scourge (why is the scourge alive even when you know it should be the first target) if your team opted to kill other targets first thats a your team problem. IF a firebrand is with the scourge then we have already confirmed thats a firebrand problem. Do not think that its fair to say no down stat should be a thing just because a firebrand always comes alone and ruins your attempts to finish off a player. Thats directly calling out that the problem is a firebrand issue. If anything take the creative approach and ask for more skills that can directly finish off players The game imo needs more skills like this considering most people dont commit to using the "stomp" action anymore (unless mirage) and would rather just cleave a downed player to death because its faster and you can ideally ignore the interrupt from the downed player. > 6. These changes would help slow down the pace of the game. It would give individual players a much easier time winning matches _if_ they play well. It would also reduce the snowball effect derived from the highly mobile + high damage meta builds. If anything it would speed up the game players die faster, teams get more points per kill. Speeds up snowball effect via the previous 2 statements pluse the fact that people cant delay an enemy from de capping or capping a point by being in down state on that point as they die. Lastly this is a team game mode not a individual player game mode. While i would love to see other supported game modes you have to accept this as a fact. You cant always carry your team deal with it. there are 9 reasons why you cant individually decide the outcome of a match and each of them is a player in the match with you. If you want individual wins to satisfy yourself ask anet for a 1v1 mode or play 2v2 etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure The Heartless.3261 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > I think if Anet removed berserker/assassin amulet and reduced the damage modifiers from traits that make high spike/oneshot builds possible, the combat wouldn't be as bursty as it was when they tested it out in WvW. bunker meta cometh > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > What do you guys think about this? I like the rally mechanic It's woven pretty tightly into the core of the game as it affects several traits and skills. The fact that it tends to benefit the people with higher numbers doesn't necessarily mean that it __needs to be__ stacked in their favor, however. Instead of removal, I want to see more traits and skills affect downed allies with very particular conditions, as well as more skills that instantly finish downed enemies.The volatility of rally/downstate is more exciting to me then just plain dying. I think it just needs a bit more attention. > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > Just think about it as a solo player. > > Let's say you're in a 1v4 and you down 3 people. Your teammate rotates in to help but can't cleave any of the 3 people out in time. You die, the 3 enemies all rally, your teammate instantly dies, and the advantage you were attempting to create through your skill has been completely wiped clean and has no impact on the rest of the match. > > That sucks. Like I said above, the time difference would compound the more you pull off plays like this. My changes would make it much easier for a single player to impact the outcome of a match. This is something that's always been an issue with Conquest. Your teammate could have rezzed you if they had a skill that shrugs damage on themselves for a short period, or you could have tagged one of the downed for both you and s/he to focus. Other than that, that scenario should never happen/your teammate should wait for respawn and get a secondary instead of being a bleeding heart, 80% of the team is occupied with one guy. The complexity of that situation is very satisfying to me and it makes it immensely rewarding when you make a right read in a scenario like that. I'm against streamlining it for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Author Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"ZDragon.3046" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said: > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > What do you guys think about this? > > > > > > > > The res mechanic already heavily favors the side with more numbers. From my perspective, downstate and rallying are exactly the same. There have been plenty of winnable fights (both outnumbered and even) if the downed enemies my team or I get weren't constantly getting rallied. > > > > > > 1. I dont agree with this statement because its not entirely true. The side with fewer numbers can res multiple times should the side with higher numbers have people who go down or die more easily / often so i feel like this statement is a bit subjective. > > > > > > > > It also heavily enforces the notion in ranked that the side with the worst PUGs lose. If your teammates feed in every fight, there's simply nothing/very little you can do to take back control of the map if they die too quickly to regain any footing. > > > > > > 2. Learning is a part of the process once again though im not so sure about this statement if your team is going down cause your comp is not as good as the enemy teams it does not mean your teammates are purpose feeding some times you are just mechanically out matched and need to try a different strategy but not everyone catches onto the idea that there might be another option unless someone tells them to try something different. > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if it's possible for Anet to test a sPvP season with no downstate (as long as they remove berserker/assassin amulet and tune down stacking damage modifiers that make oneshot builds possible PRIOR to starting the season), this is something I'd be willing and interested to play in. Then, scenarios such as 2v2s where I down an enemy and they down my teammate become winnable even _after_ another enemy rotates in to rez/stomp. > > > > > > 3. condition builds become super meta... imagine having condis throwing on you and instead of getting a second chance with down state you just die instantly feeels bad man. > > > 4. imo Zerker and assassin ammy shouldn't be options in spvp in general. This also changes nothing with your previous statements techncially speaking the side with the better team or higher numbers in a fight will still heavily favor that side. > > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, I think it might be worth preventing teammates from rezzing until combat ends as well. These changes would make fights more about who is more skilled as opposed to who has the numbers advantage. > > > > > > 5. It wont though it will still be the same. Dont be fooled into the idea that this changes much. > > > > > > > > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. Also, I feel like the combat would be a lot cleaner and easier to watch since people aren't constantly going up and down. > > > > > > 6. I wouldnt mind no down state events or some maps having no down state like if team death or other game modes were supported but in the standard capture and hold i dont really see the point. > > > > > > > 1. Um... if you have to add a condition to make a statement true, it's probably because it isn't true to begin with. Rezzing _heavily_ favors the side with more numbers, period. Just because the side with less numbers _can_ potentially rez more often is irrelevant because I could counter with: the side with more numbers _can_ potentially rez more often than the side with less. If you just look at how the rez mechanic works, the side with more players will ALWAYS have an advantage. There are no exceptions to this, currently. > 1. But you added a condition to make your statement true. Thats why i said it was subjective to start with. > Infact one could say that the side with the numbers advantage period (regardless if downstate is included or not) has the advantage so whats the point of even bothering to make this claim when the side with the numbers advantage has the advantage before down state would even be applied. like what.... sorry but no... you were already at the disadvantage to start with removing downstate wont change that. > > > 2. The problem is... there's no way to win a match if your PUGs are mechanically out-matched. You, as a single player, _cannot_ carry a game alone if your PUGs are completely incompetent. There are no "different strategies" you could try when Conquest revolves around winning fights/snowballing/pushing your advantage with good rotations. > > 2. That depends if you can win smaller fights2v2 or 3v3 etc but not and 4v4 or 5v5 match ups then obviously then the obvious solution would be to try and force the enemy team to split up and take the advantage that way. Not every team comp thats good in bigger fights is just as good when you split them up into smaller fights. > There are different strategies depending on the map, your team and its comp, and their team and its comp. If you only see things as one line and one line own where "well they have x and y gg cant win" then you shouldnt be in pvp to start with. Conquest and anet do not often support different strats but its up to you to take the risk on trying them. IF plan A is not working and is failing over and over again why do you keep trying plan A. Thats common sense that you try something else. > > > 3. No, condition builds wouldn't become any more meta than power builds would. In fact, you'd have more time to react and save yourself vs. burst conditions builds than you would against burst power builds. Imagine being at 7k HP and having to choose between getting hit by a Mirage's condi bomb or a Warrior's Eviscerate. Which one would you pick? In this scenario, you'd die faster from the Eviscerate. > 3. I dont think it matters you are not in the advatnage here if i have to chose between one of them but cant opt to avoid both then it does not matter you are still dead. Leading back to my first comment .... it dont matter cause the advantage here was already lost before we would even get to a down state. > > > 5. It will change a lot. Currently, it doesn't matter how many people you down, a single support Firebrand rotating in to rez means you've lost that fight. It's almost impossible to outcleave that build as a single player. Preventing them from rezzing and instead forcing them to support their allies that are still _alive_ would result in a completely different dynamic and would help reduce the impact builds like Firebrand/pre-nerf Blood Scourge have on the match. It's no wonder builds that have had the ability to _consistently_ guarantee (or almost guarantee) rezzes have been _consistently_ meta. > 4. Then that means firebrand is over-performing obviously which we all know to be true. Thats not a down state problem thats a firebrand problem. > In the case of scourge (why is the scourge alive even when you know it should be the first target) if your team opted to kill other targets first thats a your team problem. > IF a firebrand is with the scourge then we have already confirmed thats a firebrand problem. > Do not think that its fair to say no down stat should be a thing just because a firebrand always comes alone and ruins your attempts to finish off a player. Thats directly calling out that the problem is a firebrand issue. > > 5. If anything take the creative approach and ask for more skills that can directly finish off players The game imo needs more skills like this considering most people dont commit to using the "stomp" action anymore (unless mirage) and would rather just cleave a downed player to death because its faster and you can ideally ignore the interrupt from the downed player. > > > 6. These changes would help slow down the pace of the game. It would give individual players a much easier time winning matches _if_ they play well. It would also reduce the snowball effect derived from the highly mobile + high damage meta builds. > > 6. If anything it would speed up the game players die faster, teams get more points per kill. Speeds up snowball effect via the previous 2 statements pluse the fact that people cant delay an enemy from de capping or capping a point by being in down state on that point as they die. > Lastly this is a team game mode not a individual player game mode. While i would love to see other supported game modes you have to accept this as a fact. You cant always carry your team deal with it. there are 9 reasons why you cant individually decide the outcome of a match and each of them is a player in the match with you. > If you want individual wins to satisfy yourself ask anet for a 1v1 mode or play 2v2 etc. 1. It is literally not subjective at all. 3 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 4 people. That's pretty objective. The only time this would ever be up for debate (thus becoming subjective), are when you start adding in conditions that effect rez speed. Even then, with 10% rez speed modifiers, you'd need 10 players to compensate for the speed you'd gain from simply having an additional person. 2. If your teammates are incompetent, you will not win the smaller fights, nor the larger ones. Again, bringing team comps into this argument makes your point regarding this, entirely subjective. 3. That's just flat out incorrect. If you want more time to survive, you'd choose to get condi bombed instead of getting hit with an Eviscerate for all of your health. _Objectively_, the power damage will kill you quicker. 4. It's a problem with any build that can prevent their teammates from fully dying, consistently. It's not just an issue with Firebrand. It was an issue with Blood Scourge (still strong, but the build as a whole got nerfed). It was an issue with SnR Druid. If staff ele was stronger, it would definitely be an issue with that build as well. So, it's not "confirmed" that it's a Firebrand problem. The two common denominators in these scenarios are builds that can consistently rez their allies under pressure, and the ability to rez in combat. 5. I fail to see how adding additional skills to the game to finish off players is any more creative than removing downstate/rallying or the ability to rez while in combat. 6. So then I'm fine to keep downstate, but remove rallying/the ability to rez in combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidrex.5649 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 @shadowsomething there are ways this could be handled. 1 make 1 rally per oponent defeated -> not ideal, rng etc etc 2 instead of full rally, all downed targets are healed ( set ammout 50% hp for example ) and plenty of other things that could be implemented, its worth trying tbh. not gonna lie its annoying to have 1 bad player constantly rally 1-3 people all the time. do the changes and see how it goes for 1 season. but it would 100% promote burst/1shot playstyle. so the major overhaul should be first to come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Author Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > I think if Anet removed berserker/assassin amulet and reduced the damage modifiers from traits that make high spike/oneshot builds possible, the combat wouldn't be as bursty as it was when they tested it out in WvW. > > bunker meta cometh > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > What do you guys think about this? > > I like the rally mechanic It's woven pretty tightly into the core of the game as it affects several traits and skills. The fact that it tends to benefit the people with higher numbers doesn't necessarily mean that it __needs to be__ stacked in their favor, however. > > Instead of removal, I want to see more traits and skills affect downed allies with very particular conditions, as well as more skills that instantly finish downed enemies.The volatility of rally/downstate is more exciting to me then just plain dying. I think it just needs a bit more attention. > Bunkers are countered by builds that can corrupt their boons and cc them off point/decap builds/burst/high sustained damage builds. For example, it would be silly for a bunker build to stand inside of a Plaguelands. It does, but it currently heavily favors the side with RNG better PUGs and whoever has more teammates in any given fight. Both are interesting. So I definitely agree with you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure The Heartless.3261 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > Bunkers are countered by builds that can corrupt their boons and cc them off point/decap builds/burst/high sustained damage builds. For example, it would be silly for a bunker build to stand inside of a Plaguelands. that's a fair point, just a warning. If we keep moving toward streamlined and lower damage, that is where we will end up. The fact that nobody can save you once your hp hits 0 will discourage people from playing builds that counter bunker in favor of being bunker themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Author Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"Leonidrex.5649" said: > @shadowsomething > there are ways this could be handled. > 1 make 1 rally per oponent defeated -> not ideal, rng etc etc > 2 instead of full rally, all downed targets are healed ( set ammout 50% hp for example ) > and plenty of other things that could be implemented, its worth trying tbh. not gonna lie its annoying to have 1 bad player constantly rally 1-3 people all the time. > do the changes and see how it goes for 1 season. > but it would 100% promote burst/1shot playstyle. so the major overhaul should be first to come 1. Well, you said you're studying engineering as well, so let's compare the math: Consider a 1v4 where you down 3 players, then die... - If each downed takes a single person a hypothetical 10 seconds to rez, in my scenario, it would take them a minimum of 17.5 seconds to rez everyone. In your scenario, the time gets cut to 7.5 seconds. 10 seconds is a LONG time in Conquest, so you can see the difference in pacing even a 1-1 rally would have on a match, compounded over time... With my proposal, a single player that can pull these feats off consistently will actually be able to influence the outcome of a match without relying on their PUGs. In my opinion, this is a necessary change to make ranked healthier. 2. Same as above. A 50% heal to all downed targets scales in effectiveness depending on how many people it effects. 3. Yeah, I agree. Extreme burst/oneshot builds need to get addressed first or simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted January 13, 2020 Author Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > Bunkers are countered by builds that can corrupt their boons and cc them off point/decap builds/burst/high sustained damage builds. For example, it would be silly for a bunker build to stand inside of a Plaguelands. > > that's a fair point, just a warning. If we keep moving toward streamlined and lower damage, that is where we will end up. The fact that nobody can save you once your hp hits 0 will discourage people from playing builds that counter bunker in favor of being bunker themselves. We can still have higher damage builds. I mean, there are definitely builds that exist, currently, that aren't really killable by builds like mantra mes. However, I think both damage and survivability could be trimmed at the extremes. So yeah, thanks for bringing that up, I agree. Also, if you read my above response to Leonidrex, you'll notice that bunker builds that _can't_ kill will be unable to guarantee time advantages. So, I think being hard to kill would be a balanced tradeoff in this scenario as it trades being able to actively force advantages through skill for being able to gain value the longer the enemy wastes time trying (and failing) to kill/decap you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aymnad.9023 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 I love the downstate. It just adds another layer to the fights. Do you take the risk to rez? Do you bait the enemy? Do you rush to kill? It can be frustrating sometimes when the enemies get 2 rez in a row but truth is it also happened to me. Even a small change I could see “give 2 /gg per match to players” is far from being necessary. I just hate that burst build can drop a downstate to death so fast. A no downstate season will be a huge source of frustration for me. Maybe for the "small off season events". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycoprophet.8107 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"Aaron Forestman.4758" said: > I'd be for a season without the downed state. Reviving is seriously disproportionate to damage, so even a burst build can have a lot of trouble securing a kill when the enemy team has a support or two that just keeps reviving people. This ^ its evolved into a way to much into a hard carry mechanics due to balance issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZDragon.3046 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > @"ZDragon.3046" said: > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said: > > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > > What do you guys think about this? > > > > > > > > > > The res mechanic already heavily favors the side with more numbers. From my perspective, downstate and rallying are exactly the same. There have been plenty of winnable fights (both outnumbered and even) if the downed enemies my team or I get weren't constantly getting rallied. > > > > > > > > 1. I dont agree with this statement because its not entirely true. The side with fewer numbers can res multiple times should the side with higher numbers have people who go down or die more easily / often so i feel like this statement is a bit subjective. > > > > > > > > > > It also heavily enforces the notion in ranked that the side with the worst PUGs lose. If your teammates feed in every fight, there's simply nothing/very little you can do to take back control of the map if they die too quickly to regain any footing. > > > > > > > > 2. Learning is a part of the process once again though im not so sure about this statement if your team is going down cause your comp is not as good as the enemy teams it does not mean your teammates are purpose feeding some times you are just mechanically out matched and need to try a different strategy but not everyone catches onto the idea that there might be another option unless someone tells them to try something different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if it's possible for Anet to test a sPvP season with no downstate (as long as they remove berserker/assassin amulet and tune down stacking damage modifiers that make oneshot builds possible PRIOR to starting the season), this is something I'd be willing and interested to play in. Then, scenarios such as 2v2s where I down an enemy and they down my teammate become winnable even _after_ another enemy rotates in to rez/stomp. > > > > > > > > 3. condition builds become super meta... imagine having condis throwing on you and instead of getting a second chance with down state you just die instantly feeels bad man. > > > > 4. imo Zerker and assassin ammy shouldn't be options in spvp in general. This also changes nothing with your previous statements techncially speaking the side with the better team or higher numbers in a fight will still heavily favor that side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, I think it might be worth preventing teammates from rezzing until combat ends as well. These changes would make fights more about who is more skilled as opposed to who has the numbers advantage. > > > > > > > > 5. It wont though it will still be the same. Dont be fooled into the idea that this changes much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyways, that's just something I was thinking about from the no downstate WvW. A lot of people loved it, I have a feeling the same would apply for sPvP. Also, I feel like the combat would be a lot cleaner and easier to watch since people aren't constantly going up and down. > > > > > > > > 6. I wouldnt mind no down state events or some maps having no down state like if team death or other game modes were supported but in the standard capture and hold i dont really see the point. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Um... if you have to add a condition to make a statement true, it's probably because it isn't true to begin with. Rezzing _heavily_ favors the side with more numbers, period. Just because the side with less numbers _can_ potentially rez more often is irrelevant because I could counter with: the side with more numbers _can_ potentially rez more often than the side with less. If you just look at how the rez mechanic works, the side with more players will ALWAYS have an advantage. There are no exceptions to this, currently. > > 1. But you added a condition to make your statement true. Thats why i said it was subjective to start with. > > Infact one could say that the side with the numbers advantage period (regardless if downstate is included or not) has the advantage so whats the point of even bothering to make this claim when the side with the numbers advantage has the advantage before down state would even be applied. like what.... sorry but no... you were already at the disadvantage to start with removing downstate wont change that. > > > > > 2. The problem is... there's no way to win a match if your PUGs are mechanically out-matched. You, as a single player, _cannot_ carry a game alone if your PUGs are completely incompetent. There are no "different strategies" you could try when Conquest revolves around winning fights/snowballing/pushing your advantage with good rotations. > > > > 2. That depends if you can win smaller fights2v2 or 3v3 etc but not and 4v4 or 5v5 match ups then obviously then the obvious solution would be to try and force the enemy team to split up and take the advantage that way. Not every team comp thats good in bigger fights is just as good when you split them up into smaller fights. > > There are different strategies depending on the map, your team and its comp, and their team and its comp. If you only see things as one line and one line own where "well they have x and y gg cant win" then you shouldnt be in pvp to start with. Conquest and anet do not often support different strats but its up to you to take the risk on trying them. IF plan A is not working and is failing over and over again why do you keep trying plan A. Thats common sense that you try something else. > > > > > 3. No, condition builds wouldn't become any more meta than power builds would. In fact, you'd have more time to react and save yourself vs. burst conditions builds than you would against burst power builds. Imagine being at 7k HP and having to choose between getting hit by a Mirage's condi bomb or a Warrior's Eviscerate. Which one would you pick? In this scenario, you'd die faster from the Eviscerate. > > 3. I dont think it matters you are not in the advatnage here if i have to chose between one of them but cant opt to avoid both then it does not matter you are still dead. Leading back to my first comment .... it dont matter cause the advantage here was already lost before we would even get to a down state. > > > > > 5. It will change a lot. Currently, it doesn't matter how many people you down, a single support Firebrand rotating in to rez means you've lost that fight. It's almost impossible to outcleave that build as a single player. Preventing them from rezzing and instead forcing them to support their allies that are still _alive_ would result in a completely different dynamic and would help reduce the impact builds like Firebrand/pre-nerf Blood Scourge have on the match. It's no wonder builds that have had the ability to _consistently_ guarantee (or almost guarantee) rezzes have been _consistently_ meta. > > 4. Then that means firebrand is over-performing obviously which we all know to be true. Thats not a down state problem thats a firebrand problem. > > In the case of scourge (why is the scourge alive even when you know it should be the first target) if your team opted to kill other targets first thats a your team problem. > > IF a firebrand is with the scourge then we have already confirmed thats a firebrand problem. > > Do not think that its fair to say no down stat should be a thing just because a firebrand always comes alone and ruins your attempts to finish off a player. Thats directly calling out that the problem is a firebrand issue. > > > > 5. If anything take the creative approach and ask for more skills that can directly finish off players The game imo needs more skills like this considering most people dont commit to using the "stomp" action anymore (unless mirage) and would rather just cleave a downed player to death because its faster and you can ideally ignore the interrupt from the downed player. > > > > > 6. These changes would help slow down the pace of the game. It would give individual players a much easier time winning matches _if_ they play well. It would also reduce the snowball effect derived from the highly mobile + high damage meta builds. > > > > 6. If anything it would speed up the game players die faster, teams get more points per kill. Speeds up snowball effect via the previous 2 statements pluse the fact that people cant delay an enemy from de capping or capping a point by being in down state on that point as they die. > > Lastly this is a team game mode not a individual player game mode. While i would love to see other supported game modes you have to accept this as a fact. You cant always carry your team deal with it. there are 9 reasons why you cant individually decide the outcome of a match and each of them is a player in the match with you. > > If you want individual wins to satisfy yourself ask anet for a 1v1 mode or play 2v2 etc. > > 1. It is literally not subjective at all. 3 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 2 people. 5 people will rez faster than 4 people. That's pretty objective. The only time this would ever be up for debate (thus becoming subjective), are when you start adding in conditions that effect rez speed. Even then, with 10% rez speed modifiers, you'd need 10 players to compensate for the speed you'd gain from simply having an additional person. The advantage was never yours to start with down sate has nothing to do with this lol if you are 2v5 your advantage is already gone regardless of down state why are you putting the illusion that down state is more of an advantage to the side with the bigger number when they already had the advantage from the start this is what i dont understand. If you are in a fight thats 2v5 or 2v4 and you lose the fight you cant sit there and go "oh down state..." no you lost cause you are outnumbered from the start shame on you for committing to that. Having the numbers advantage is the easiest advantage to win with (while it does not always work) its the most common advantage in combat that any side can have. IF for a second that you think you should automatically have the advantage going into a fight where your side is outnumbered you are wrong sir. I dont care how skilled you think you might be or actually are if you walk into a fight that outnumbers you the advantage is not yours. Lets just ignore down state for this bit because you need to realize this while players are still standing. Im not saying it shouldn't be impossible to win an outnumbered situation but dont expect it to be easy. You can take a chance on attempting to win it and if you fail you should understand that you were out numbered and accept that you made the wrong move. > 2. If your teammates are incompetent, you will not win the smaller fights, nor the larger ones. Again, bringing team comps into this argument makes your point regarding this, entirely subjective. Well i mean be careful who you call incompetent for starters everyone has to start somewhere but this does not make them incompetent, even you likely started out as someone who make a lot of mistakes. You probably still make lots of mistakes... i know i do... This whole thing is subjective so we can agree we both are being subjective which is fine. > 3. That's just flat out incorrect. If you want more time to survive, you'd choose to get condi bombed instead of getting hit with an Eviscerate for all of your health. _Objectively_, the power damage will kill you quicker. ok first off im not incorrect..... i said i would still die was because you gave me the option of one or the other not both. I technically didnt answer on which would kill me quicker so there was nothing to be incorrect about. Obviously if you want more time alive you want to take the condi bomb but i dont now what kind of mesmer condi bombs you've been hit with lately but your hp bleeds pretty quickly assuming its the standard combo which stuns you with magic bullet early on you are screwed either way.. Also the warrior is still next to you as they just missed axe burst. Any skill they can follow up with on axe at 7k hp is going to kill you. As i said it does not matter because you are going to die regardless. The advantage is not yours. instant death vs living for roughly 1.5-2.5s longer does not matter much if we are going with the idea of extending time to survive then leave down state alone as it allows that to happen. Even if this is flipped and you come along and manage to down the warrior and a firebrand shows up to the point "You just lost your advantage" its an additionally player you dont keep the advantage for being out numbered either you can kill the warrior before the firebrand saves them or you cant. This is a team game mode not an individual game mode expect this kind of stuff to happen. > 4. It's a problem with any build that can prevent their teammates from fully dying, consistently. It's not just an issue with Firebrand. It was an issue with Blood Scourge (still strong, but the build as a whole got nerfed). It was an issue with SnR Druid. If staff ele was stronger, it would definitely be an issue with that build as well. So, it's not "confirmed" that it's a Firebrand problem. The two common denominators in these scenarios are builds that can consistently rez their allies under pressure, and the ability to rez in combat. But you just said above that team comps are subjective then proceeded to list out several specific elites or builds that would be part of a team comp.... Rather support builds your issue is with support builds being too strong with supporting and saving their teammates or rather doing their jobs. Yes lets remove the need for support builds even more. People already dont commonly run these as much as we should probably see them in pug games but lets just limit them supporting standing allies too which robs part of the support feature from their kits in which they build for. Or we could look at alternate options aside form doing just that... > 5. I fail to see how adding additional skills to the game to finish off players is any more creative than removing downstate/rallying or the ability to rez while in combat. Because if more skills could instantly kill a player in down state you simply need to hit that player with that 1 skill to kill them regardless of who is attempting to rez them. Most revives are not instant (especially with the dps that flys around right now). As for which skills should be allowed to do that it depends. But i think its a more interesting take on dealing with down state than just saying remove down state, removing healing, remove rally. and calling it a day. This would be a lazy fix that a massive portion of people would not enjoy. If supports and revive speed need to be looked this is fine. I dont agree with your idea on removing unique and good features of gw2 combat just because you want more individual satisfaction in the team game mode Ive always said there needs to be more ways to finish downed players ever since they gave thief an elite that could do it and even warrior elite banner. It would be nice to see this on more common skills some utility, maybe even some weapon skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dantheman.3589 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 I personally think the rally mechanic is terrible. Downstate and rezzing is fine as it gives a purpose for actual support specs, but rally complete negates this. What we need is a higher variety of support spec and to remove instant rezzes and rally completely. These things are completely illogical is every regard and make team fights seem useless and skillless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycoprophet.8107 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 Carry mechanic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now