No Downstate poll (please read post first)

[Dawdler.8521]

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:Take it how you will, but honestly this poll still just shows the divide in this community between the more casual player and those that actually want to see significant and meaningful change in the game and its fundamentals because at this point it is sorely needed in a 7 year old MMORPG.A call for others to take it how they will yet at the same time presumptuosly dividing them into casuals or "those that actually want to see significant and meaningfull changes" based on their vote doesnt seem very honest to me.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@Whiteout.1975 said:I would like to respectfully add to this conversation , if that's alright enough <3

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

Anet has nerfed arrow carts over and over again, what are you talking about? No one is asking for buffs to ACs in this poll or anywhere in this thread.

I see the comparison went over.

In short, population imbalance shouldn't be used as justifications to affect combat balance (that includes downstate).

Unless the game was designed to be a 1:3 ratio like some Mario Party mini-games (this isn't the case for WvW).

But Population Imbalances already can affect combat balance.

Then my wording isn't accurate. I don't refer to moment to moment play of combat. For a game that is seeking 'balance' in 'balanced' scenarios we shouldn't use examples of imbalance as the sole reason to change a game mechanic for the sake of 'balance.'

The bulk of the "no downstate" motive/agenda agree's with this statement here by basically saying "larger groups should not need more saving against other groups whom are already smaller in size". The advantage here is already in the numbers... Especially since you can't depend on any 1 kind of Player skill to always be present. However one would measure that... IF "play skill" is seen as an advantage in some subjective way.

I get where you were going with the AC example. However, AC's are not something inherent (always present) to combat like downstate is. Also, you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over... And that's just for starter's. There are distinct difference's at play here to make a good comparison.

The removal of downstate evens out play, it does not favor any group, it favors skill and coordination. The larger team, as you have pointed out over and over again below, already has a huge advantage even without downstate.

Evens out the play how? It doesn't adjust player count as an example. What skills are favored? Coordination of...bombs?

Flip that around, and ask how were these were not involved with downstate unchanged?

Sure, so I believe they are referring to general "Player Skill"; not really something anyone can just easily GW2 wiki. And not something consistent.

It's not as hard as to define as you might think. To start there is reaction time or twitch skill (usually favors younger people). Communication skills (people on voice will have an advantage). Moment to moment awareness in surroundings for strategic value (usually gets dismissed if in the "open field"). The trivia knowledge of game mechanics (abilities, traits, stats, etc.). Experience/process of applying trivia knowledge (tactics of when to use skills, where to position, etc.). All of this is used to adapt to whatever situation

So what is "favored" is the greater general effort it takes to adapt to outnumbering situations. For those whom are outnumbering their opponents.For example: Both initially and again, generally... 20 players are going to have an easier time resing downs vs the 5 players they are fighting. And they have more man power to increase the effectiveness of those res's before any actual builds come into play. From ether opposing side. That may make those "res's" even easier... Like a Mercy Rune Guard for example."No downstate" would also affect those "5" players in that example as much as the "20"... But it would also take away the unnecessary multiplicative res power the larger group would have had over the 5 initially; before anything else comes into play. While those 5 feel ultimately unchanged regarding res power.

Now one could argue that it would take less skill of those "5" vs the 20 by taking away downstate. Which is true. However, it add's more player skill requirement to the side that already should have the advantage (the "20")... Because those "20" already out man those "5". Though, having to 5 vs 20 should already require enough skill based on that alone.The important question throughout all of this is why would those 20 need "downstate" to beat those "5"? If they already have the number advantage... They shouldn't.

When it comes to fight's. No downstate helps highlight the ability to do more with less (# of Players). Against bigger groups who aren't skilled and/or built effectively enough for combat. And That's why "No downstater's" love it.

Ether way anyone looks at this... Point is it will never take "skill" to outnumber your opponent. Downstate or not. In fact, it take's even less skill here with downstate functioning as it currently does.

Hopefully I reiterated my stance on trying to argue from these hypothetical (and extreme since 20 is 4x more than 5...) situations. If we are really going to do this then I can say it's more likely a 15 versus 20 would happen than 5v20. I'd then go from there by saying the act of ressing is capped at 5 people, and thus the act of pressing F is capped evenly on both sides. What is uncapped is the number of times a downed player can be affected by skills that heal/revive down. 40 people can MI one person if they so choose, but only 5 will be effective since it heals by 20% last I heard. If you wanted to cap such res skills then you can make it percent based like MI (so excessive MI use gets wasted) or even lowering any aoe caps on those without touching downstate.

This again, is an example made without

ANY

balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that

downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it

. The larger group has the advantage with

ANY

game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while

NOT

downed.

Again, the balance change

was

the removal of downstate.

Downstate favors no one.

Everyone has it

. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

It favors no individual in an even numbers fight, it does however favor more numbers, so much so that it over shadows skill, this effects all fights, not just 1vsX, it effects larger scale fight guilds and zergs as well. Why people keep on acting like this only effects roaming I have no idea, and I think is a bit disingenuous.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

He chose it because everything I have stated has been about unequal numbers, I even talked about even matches like sPvP were not a problem in my post he quoted.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

You again make my point, nothing was done to favor smaller skill groups, only the advantage of the no downstate mechanic that favors greater numbers was no longer carrying the less skilled larger group (as both no longer have access to it). As for "balance" after, you forget what you just said, that the smaller team has access to all of the same classes and skills as the larger group, nothing will change. As the larger group will still have the advantage of numbers and all of the advantages that includes, such as aoe caps etc.

This is incorrect as a technicality: the smaller might not have the same access to classes, and skills as the larger group since the smaller has less players to choose from. Downstate is global condition regardless of comp choice, but I digress. We agree the larger will have the advantage due to larger stats by player count.

You are absolutely correct @GDchiaScrub.3241. However... "Res Power" (As i stated before) is something that is initially higher by default to the larger group due to having more revive ability on hand through sheer player numbers alone; before anything else comes into play. So while Downstate is evenly dispersed "globally" the potential power to res... Is not.

• (
  All other dialogue that could be address from the original reply I felt was unnecessary to comment on... As I already made the main points here.
  )

P.S. Obviously judging by my vote I'm not here to "defend" no downstate. However, I don't have any issues giving credit where credit is due. Especially when it doesn't inconvenience me. :)

TL;DR potential res power is inconsistent with downstate when fighting higher numbers especially.

Res power isn't inconsistent. F power is capped at 5. Many of the res abilities can get wasted on uncoordinated burst healing. By all means nerf the res abilities that break these limits so the lower numbers have a chance if they coordinate their own revives better. Those examples of game mechanic changes don't involve downstate itself making it an option outside the poll. You can even add sigils (like something absurd: +25% on downed enemies)/runes (example of a counter balance as an option: +50% to downed enemies, while -20% overall damage) so players can counter downstate even more to solve their problems by build variety.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:Take it how you will, but honestly this poll still just shows the divide in this community between the more casual player and those that actually want to see significant and meaningful change in the game and its fundamentals because at this point it is

sorely

needed in a 7 year old MMORPG.A call for others to take it how they will yet at the same time presumptuosly dividing them into casuals or "those that actually want to see significant and meaningfull changes" based on their vote doesnt seem very honest to me.

Well I phrased that wrong, the "take it how you will" was more pertaining to what I was saying after rather than before. So I should have phrased it more like "Take what I'm about to say how you will, but..."

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I would like to respectfully add to this conversation , if that's alright enough <3

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

Anet has nerfed arrow carts over and over again, what are you talking about? No one is asking for buffs to ACs in this poll or anywhere in this thread.

I see the comparison went over.

In short, population imbalance shouldn't be used as justifications to affect combat balance (that includes downstate).

Unless the game was designed to be a 1:3 ratio like some Mario Party mini-games (this isn't the case for WvW).

But Population Imbalances already can affect combat balance.

Then my wording isn't accurate. I don't refer to moment to moment play of combat. For a game that is seeking 'balance' in 'balanced' scenarios we shouldn't use examples of imbalance

as the sole reason

to change a game mechanic for the sake of 'balance.'

The bulk of the "no downstate" motive/agenda agree's with this statement here by basically saying "larger groups should not need more saving against other groups whom are already smaller in size". The advantage here is already in the numbers... Especially since you can't depend on any 1 kind of Player skill to always be present. However one would measure that... IF "play skill" is seen as an advantage in some subjective way.

I get where you were going with the AC example. However, AC's are not something inherent (always present) to combat like downstate is. Also, you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over... And that's just for starter's. There are distinct difference's at play here to make a good comparison.

The removal of downstate evens out play, it does not favor any group, it favors skill and coordination. The larger team, as you have pointed out over and over again below, already has a huge advantage even without downstate.

Evens out the play how? It doesn't adjust player count as an example. What skills are favored? Coordination of...bombs?

Flip that around, and ask how were these were not involved with downstate unchanged?

Sure, so I believe they are referring to general "Player Skill"; not really something anyone can just easily GW2 wiki. And not something consistent.

It's not as hard as to define as you might think. To start there is reaction time or twitch skill (usually favors younger people). Communication skills (people on voice will have an advantage). Moment to moment awareness in surroundings for strategic value (usually gets dismissed if in the "open field"). The trivia knowledge of game mechanics (abilities, traits, stats, etc.). Experience/process of applying trivia knowledge (tactics of when to use skills, where to position, etc.). All of this is used to adapt to whatever situation

So what is "favored" is the greater general effort it takes to adapt to outnumbering situations. For those whom are outnumbering their opponents.For example: Both initially and again, generally... 20 players are going to have an easier time resing downs vs the 5 players they are fighting. And they have more man power to increase the effectiveness of those res's before any actual builds come into play. From ether opposing side. That may make those "res's" even easier... Like a Mercy Rune Guard for example."No downstate" would also affect those "5" players in that example as much as the "20"... But it would also take away the unnecessary multiplicative res power the larger group would have had over the 5 initially; before anything else comes into play. While those 5 feel ultimately unchanged regarding res power.

Now one could argue that it would take less skill of those "5" vs the 20 by taking away downstate. Which is true. However, it add's more player skill requirement to the side that already should have the advantage (the "20")... Because those "20" already out man those "5". Though, having to 5 vs 20 should already require enough skill based on that alone.The important question throughout all of this is why would those 20 need "downstate" to beat those "5"? If they already have the number advantage... They shouldn't.

When it comes to fight's. No downstate helps highlight the ability to do more with less (# of Players). Against bigger groups who aren't skilled and/or built effectively enough for combat. And That's why "No downstater's" love it.

Ether way anyone looks at this... Point is it will never take "skill" to outnumber your opponent. Downstate or not. In fact, it take's even less skill here with downstate functioning as it currently does.

Hopefully I reiterated my stance on trying to argue from these hypothetical (and extreme since 20 is 4x more than 5...) situations. If we are really going to do this then I can say it's more likely a 15 versus 20 would happen than 5v20. I'd then go from there by saying the act of ressing is capped at 5 people, and thus the act of pressing F is capped evenly on both sides. What is uncapped is the number of times a downed player can be affected by skills that heal/revive down. 40 people can MI one person if they so choose, but only 5 will be effective since it heals by 20% last I heard. If you wanted to cap such res skills then you can make it percent based like MI (so excessive MI use gets wasted) or even lowering any aoe caps on those without touching downstate.

This again, is an example made without

ANY

balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that

downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it

. The larger group has the advantage with

ANY

game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while

NOT

downed.

Again, the balance change

was

the removal of downstate.

Downstate favors no one.

Everyone has it

. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

It favors no individual in an even numbers fight, it does however favor more numbers, so much so that it over shadows skill, this effects all fights, not just 1vsX, it effects larger scale fight guilds and zergs as well. Why people keep on acting like this only effects roaming I have no idea, and I think is a bit disingenuous.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

He chose it because everything I have stated has been about unequal numbers, I even talked about even matches like sPvP were not a problem in my post he quoted.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

You again make my point, nothing was done to favor smaller skill groups, only the advantage of the no downstate mechanic that favors greater numbers was no longer carrying the less skilled larger group (as both no longer have access to it). As for "balance" after, you forget what you just said, that the smaller team has access to all of the same classes and skills as the larger group, nothing will change. As the larger group will still have the advantage of numbers and all of the advantages that includes, such as aoe caps etc.

This is incorrect as a technicality: the smaller might not have the same access to classes, and skills as the larger group since the smaller has less players to choose from. Downstate is global condition regardless of comp choice, but I digress. We agree the larger will have the advantage due to larger stats by player count.

You are absolutely correct @GDchiaScrub.3241. However... "Res Power" (As i stated before) is something that is initially higher by default to the larger group due to having more revive ability on hand through sheer player numbers alone; before anything else comes into play. So while Downstate is evenly dispersed "globally" the potential power to res... Is not.

• (
  All other dialogue that could be address from the original reply I felt was unnecessary to comment on... As I already made the main points here.
  )

P.S. Obviously judging by my vote I'm not here to "defend" no downstate. However, I don't have any issues giving credit where credit is due. Especially when it doesn't inconvenience me. :)

TL;DR potential res power is inconsistent with downstate when fighting higher numbers especially.

Res power isn't inconsistent. F power is capped at 5. Many of the res abilities can get wasted on uncoordinated burst healing. By all means nerf the res abilities that break these limits so the lower numbers have a chance if they coordinate their own revives better. Those examples of game mechanic changes don't involve downstate itself making it an option outside the poll. You can even add sigils (like something absurd: +25% on downed enemies)/runes (example of a counter balance as an option: +50% to downed enemies, while -20% overall damage) so

players can counter downstate even more to solve their problems by build variety

.

The problem here is that while yes there is a contradiction in seeking to "balance" something based on a "Balanced" scenario, but this isn't limited to just that. Even in scenarios with balanced numbers downstate still represents a problem, at least in how it functions right now. The stance remains that downstate is an unhealthy revive mechanic because there is little to no actual "sacrifice" or "risk" to rubbing someone back to life, and you can nearly do this endlessly. There are some tactics involved around counteracting this but I find them extremely shallow and more akin to "SMASH THE THING WITH ALL THE THINGS".

There are res skills that people do most of the time probably mindlessly waste on uncoordinated healing or reviving but the fact that it even works as well as it does is a problem within itself. Downstate creates this problem as we now have layers upon layers of healing as it has been more abundant than ever as it is available across multiple classes in an increased state of power as well, on top of downstate which has a few seconds of invuln on top of any other downstate skill, plus revive speed from only having 3 players minimum reviving them which is ridiculously fast, plus any res skill that players might be carrying which are just a redundancy to bring into a fight. There are so many ways to keep people from dying and to get them back into the fight right now that its just not healthy for any sort of real tactic to actually be used because why do anything more complicated than "frantic rubbing ensues" and to counter that its just "SMASH ALL THE THINGS". Like I said, its extremely shallow and there is little to no drawback to doing either of those things.

That doesn't mean nerf the revive abilities, many were changed and implemented as more instant revives, as well as having cooldowns reduced for some, that it seems like downstate res speed and its health wasn't exactly factored in. They are a redundancy that does add to the problem but they can also be an actual solution should the proper steps be taken to make reviving more healthy in WvW.

Like I said before, this poll does at least show that 50% of those who voted are displeased with downstate right now and they have valid reasons to be, while it honestly feels like the ones who do favor it grasp at literal straws to justify why it is for some reason "fine" as it is now. Personally I would like to see it removed and have Anet do a full rework on revive skills, traits, etc but I could live with them nerfing, or more accurately changing downstate so that its not such a mindlessly shallow revive mechanic with similarly mindlessly shallow counterplay

My initial suggestions for a potential rework if downstate were to be removed (and necessary changes to help it along)...

• Rework revive skills (Battle Standard, Spirit of Nature, etc) to work on "Defeated" players, full dead, but only revive 1 while also putting them onto a 5 minute or more cooldown. Reason**: This would still promote, and probably encourage, more actual coordinated revives as willfully wasting them would be a significant hindrance but would also allow for healthier counterplay against revives as the opposing group could properly play around these cooldowns. Some revive skills would need to be moved around and changed. Specifically Function Gyro on Scrapper could be made into an active use skill and function as a "Drone Defibrillator" for the Scrapper, and another would be Signet of Mercy for Guardian needing to be shifted to an elite skill, likely swapping places with Signet of Courage (with some toning down on Signet of Courage's effects).
• Change revive traits to either provide benefits for reviving another player, similar to what they already do, or make the revive itself stronger. One I considered was making it so that the Guardian's Protective Reviver work so that it still maintains a similar effect that it has, giving boons on revive, but also casting the Lesser Shield of Absorption when the ally is revived. A more complicated one, being for Necro, would be to change Ritual of Life so that instead of having it make Wells of Blood revive allies but to rather have it cast "Greater Well of Blood" when the Necro is revived, which this Greater Well of Blood would revive 1 nearby ally when the Necro is revived. Reason**: As it has been suggested these traits would need to be reworked to function with the new system, and if anything it might actually encourage their use in things beyond just zerg vs zerg without making the revive skills significantly unhealthy for gameplay. They could be used tactically, along with the reworked revive skills, to benefit you if you coordinate your revives.
• Change Finishers so that they are no longer a stomp only cosmetic. Either add them as an emote players can use and make a selection for, or more appropriately merge them into Novelties so that any player can choose to access them at any time, likely renaming them to "Boasts" or "Taunts", likely a better name could be chosen. Reason*: People have expressed that this would be the main reason why Anet would never get rid of downstate and they are probably right, but if they shift their use, their function, and have them work from the Novelties menu and keys then it would actually encourage more people to buy them. Similar to the chairs we get now on the Gem Store, these could actually be something PvE players would buy because they would actually be able to use* them and show them off.
• And last but certainly not least toning down of the actual problematic "1 shot" builds. These builds namely being Sic 'Em Soulbeasts, Malicious Backstab Deadeyes and right now Berserker. Reason*: These builds are just problems. They are very simplistic and are way over tuned and are the prime reason why people wouldn't want downstate removed, at least from what I've seen. There are even simple ways to address it. Sic 'Em no longer works when you're in Beast Mode for Soulbeast. Malicious Backstab has a visual tell and actual cast time like Death's Judgment which is necessary as it can usually hit even harder than Death's Judgment as well as putting an ICD on Silent Scope for Deadeye. For Berserker? Well Arc Divider is probably getting nerfed in a soon arriving patch as it is glaringly obvious how overtuned it is because its the only thing that actually saves Berserker from being completely irrelevant again, the Elite Spec literally has nothing else going for it. I would argue that Herald is a problem similarly as it is rather silly strong right now. It might not have perma* 25 might but they essentially have 20+ might so long as they are just in combat and it makes their damage rather crazy.

Also something I feel I need to point out that you said...

Downstate favors no one. Everyone has it.

This is true, everyone does have it...but like I said previously in this post the methods of counterplay and addressing downstate in a fight is shallow, not tactical. Its problematic because of the simplistic ways to make it beneficial and the simplistic ways in which to try and counter it. They aren't deep, they aren't complicated its just...shallow and that doesn't make for fun gameplay.

Imagine if what I suggested above actually happened, downstate removed, res traits reworked, revive skills reworked.

Imagine you are 15 vs 15, you lose 6 of your players because you didn't position well and got forced into a heavy bomb that wiped them out, yet you are still able to survive because your group knows what they are doing and start to adjust to the fight at that point. You wait it out, you re-position and find an opportunity to wipe out 7 of theirs and they immediately revive their players with a coordinated res. You now take the opportunity to revive your own downed players in a well coordinate res and push heavily onto the enemy team. With just your 9 you were able to threaten and weaken the enemy group so now you have an advantage because of your replenished numbers and the enemy was already pushed onto their heels. You wipe them out before they have their revive skills available again and win the fight.

Know how that scenario plays out right now?

15 vs 15, some of your players go down and you immediately either start frantically rubbing or your players just mash their revive skills to get them back into the fight, all the while the enemy is just mashing keys and flailing all over you and your downs trying to cleave them and keep them from getting back into the action. Maybe you get your people back up and the enemy has exhausted their cooldowns because they wanted to try and secure those downs, you now push and get some of their players down. You now exactly imitate what they did and they imitate exactly what you did. No strategy, no tactics, just frantic mashing of buttons and use of skills so as to not get wiped out because if you don't do anything while your downs are still in Downed State then you have a significant disadvantage because when they die they now have to run back to you and the best solution is just "RUUUUUUUUB RUB RUBADUBDUB" or frantic button pushing to land res skills.

I know which one I'd enjoy more.

[Whiteout.1975]

Hey, @GDchiaScrub.3241 Thanks for the reply :)

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I would like to respectfully add to this conversation , if that's alright enough <3

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

Anet has nerfed arrow carts over and over again, what are you talking about? No one is asking for buffs to ACs in this poll or anywhere in this thread.

I see the comparison went over.

In short, population imbalance shouldn't be used as justifications to affect combat balance (that includes downstate).

Unless the game was designed to be a 1:3 ratio like some Mario Party mini-games (this isn't the case for WvW).

But Population Imbalances already can affect combat balance.

Then my wording isn't accurate. I don't refer to moment to moment play of combat. For a game that is seeking 'balance' in 'balanced' scenarios we shouldn't use examples of imbalance

as the sole reason

to change a game mechanic for the sake of 'balance.'

Interesting. So if the game is "seeking" balance. Which I'd like to believe also. And there are examples of "imbalance"... How then does the game go about finding balance, if it ultimately ignores those moments of "imbalance"?

My stance... Is simply to do what is necessary "for the sake of balance". Whether or not that would involve changing a game mechanic, specifically, to some degree.

Though, whether or not you or someone else can answer that question... There is one that's just as big if not bigger...

@Whiteout.1975 said:How is downstate balanced?...Throughout all these alike post. I've personally never seen someone actually claim that downstate was "balanced" or how. Instead rather that it's not and give reasons why... OR the bulk on the other end of the spectrum basically say "I like cause feels good" or say "Balance currently relies on it because..." ....

The bulk of the "no downstate" motive/agenda agree's with this statement here by basically saying "larger groups should not need more saving against other groups whom are already smaller in size". The advantage here is already in the numbers... Especially since you can't depend on any 1 kind of Player skill to always be present. However one would measure that... IF "play skill" is seen as an advantage in some subjective way.

I get where you were going with the AC example. However, AC's are not something inherent (always present) to combat like downstate is. Also, you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over... And that's just for starter's. There are distinct difference's at play here to make a good comparison.

The removal of downstate evens out play, it does not favor any group, it favors skill and coordination. The larger team, as you have pointed out over and over again below, already has a huge advantage even without downstate.

Evens out the play how? It doesn't adjust player count as an example. What skills are favored? Coordination of...bombs?

Flip that around, and ask how were these were not involved with downstate unchanged?

Sure, so I believe they are referring to general "Player Skill"; not really something anyone can just easily GW2 wiki. And not something consistent.

It's not as hard as to define as you might think. To start there is reaction time or twitch skill (usually favors younger people). Communication skills (people on voice will have an advantage). Moment to moment awareness in surroundings for strategic value (usually gets dismissed if in the "open field"). The trivia knowledge of game mechanics (abilities, traits, stats, etc.). Experience/process of applying trivia knowledge (tactics of when to use skills, where to position, etc.). All of this is used to adapt to whatever situation

Right. So I'm not saying it's hard to define "Player Skill" using some reasonable sense of terminology. I think you did a rather good job with what you've listed here as examples at least.I'm saying that "Player Skill" in other words... Doesn't hold one kind of color so to speak. Going back to where I mention it being "not something consistent". You however, again, did a rather good job of listing the possible things that help make it inconsistent. So Thank You for doing that.

So what is "favored" is the greater general effort it takes to adapt to outnumbering situations. For those whom are outnumbering their opponents.For example: Both initially and again, generally... 20 players are going to have an easier time resing downs vs the 5 players they are fighting. And they have more man power to increase the effectiveness of those res's before any actual builds come into play. From ether opposing side. That may make those "res's" even easier... Like a Mercy Rune Guard for example."No downstate" would also affect those "5" players in that example as much as the "20"... But it would also take away the unnecessary multiplicative res power the larger group would have had over the 5 initially; before anything else comes into play. While those 5 feel ultimately unchanged regarding res power.

Now one could argue that it would take less skill of those "5" vs the 20 by taking away downstate. Which is true. However, it add's more player skill requirement to the side that already should have the advantage (the "20")... Because those "20" already out man those "5". Though, having to 5 vs 20 should already require enough skill based on that alone.The important question throughout all of this is why would those 20 need "downstate" to beat those "5"? If they already have the number advantage... They shouldn't.

When it comes to fight's. No downstate helps highlight the ability to do more with less (# of Players). Against bigger groups who aren't skilled and/or built effectively enough for combat. And That's why "No downstater's" love it.

Ether way anyone looks at this... Point is it will never take "skill" to outnumber your opponent. Downstate or not. In fact, it take's even less skill here with downstate functioning as it currently does.

Hopefully I reiterated my stance on trying to argue from these hypothetical (and extreme since 20 is 4x more than 5...) situations. If we are really going to do this then I can say it's more likely a 15 versus 20 would happen than 5v20. I'd then go from there by saying the act of ressing is capped at 5 people, and thus the act of pressing F is capped evenly on both sides. What is uncapped is the number of times a downed player can be affected by skills that heal/revive down. 40 people can MI one person if they so choose, but only 5 will be effective since it heals by 20% last I heard. If you wanted to cap such res skills then you can make it percent based like MI (so excessive MI use gets wasted) or even lowering any aoe caps on those without touching downstate.

Well, the thing here is that these aren't strictly "hypothetical" situations. As these "situations" already touched base with reality (plenty of times)... And will continue to do for a long time I'm sure. As such "No Downstater's", at least, have been able to identify at least some basic conclusions around those changes in reality while playing the game. Between "Downstate vs No Downstate"... Regarding at least what they like about it. The bulk of it being in these versus outnumbered situations.

I don't think most "No Downstater's" are taking much issue against a "15 vs 20" scenario. I think if anything it's at least going to be a 1:2 scenario in general. So in order to give justice to their main issue so to speak... I would say a 10 vs 20 is not only just as fair of a scenario to come across, but also gives more meaning to the true nature of their cause. If we can go from there at least... I think we would be doing a greater service for this entire argument from any real angle.

Right, so this goes back to when I previously listed: "you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over". Basically hinting at the 5 man res capacity.So the revive player cap is indeed "5"... But in other words when still talking vs outnumbered. The number of potential revivers is higher than whatever group is smaller in comparison. Being part of what I define as potential "Res Power".

If we go by this new 10 vs 20 scenario. Looking at it initially from this potential "Res Power". We have "10" potential reviver's against the "20" potential reviver's. Both initially before any builds come into play that would help with revives. So in other words they (the "20") initially have more ammunition so to speak, to which they can offer res's situation-ally to their downs. Not just possibly through their builds alone.Only in a 10 vs 10 they would have initially equal opportunity to resurrect there downs. Which, again, the bulk of "No Downstater's" do not take issue with regarding equal numbers.To bring this even further. In the 10 vs 20 if "1" of the 20 goes down. And 5 try to res. Those "10" still got to deal with those other 15 as any potential res traits pop off outside of their initial and inherent res power.And one could keep comparing this example back and forth between numbers of who went down vs who is active... However, the larger group still has the higher inherent potential res capabilities. On top of having more skills and rune set's etc. for their builds to help get downs in the first place.

Which all this comes back to this very basic and (what should be) understandable mentality of "They have more _____ to use effectively; Therefore are more better off there initially". Then compare that to what is and isn't available. Point is... More of will never be Less of. This would include available resurrect opportunity by having more to spare toward that cause.

If res power was so low. I don't think the bulk "No downstater's" or Downstate Nerf Enthusiast's?... Would be taking issue with it and we probably would not be having this glorious conversation among others as well.

This again, is an example made without

ANY

balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that

downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it

. The larger group has the advantage with

ANY

game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while

NOT

downed.

Again, the balance change

was

the removal of downstate.

Downstate favors no one.

Everyone has it

. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

It favors no individual in an even numbers fight, it does however favor more numbers, so much so that it over shadows skill, this effects all fights, not just 1vsX, it effects larger scale fight guilds and zergs as well. Why people keep on acting like this only effects roaming I have no idea, and I think is a bit disingenuous.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

He chose it because everything I have stated has been about unequal numbers, I even talked about even matches like sPvP were not a problem in my post he quoted.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

You again make my point, nothing was done to favor smaller skill groups, only the advantage of the no downstate mechanic that favors greater numbers was no longer carrying the less skilled larger group (as both no longer have access to it). As for "balance" after, you forget what you just said, that the smaller team has access to all of the same classes and skills as the larger group, nothing will change. As the larger group will still have the advantage of numbers and all of the advantages that includes, such as aoe caps etc.

This is incorrect as a technicality: the smaller might not have the same access to classes, and skills as the larger group since the smaller has less players to choose from. Downstate is global condition regardless of comp choice, but I digress. We agree the larger will have the advantage due to larger stats by player count.

You are absolutely correct @GDchiaScrub.3241. However... "Res Power" (As i stated before) is something that is initially higher by default to the larger group due to having more revive ability on hand through sheer player numbers alone; before anything else comes into play. So while Downstate is evenly dispersed "globally" the potential power to res... Is not.

• (
  All other dialogue that could be address from the original reply I felt was unnecessary to comment on... As I already made the main points here.
  )

P.S. Obviously judging by my vote I'm not here to "defend" no downstate. However, I don't have any issues giving credit where credit is due. Especially when it doesn't inconvenience me. :)

TL;DR potential res power is inconsistent with downstate when fighting higher numbers especially.

Res power isn't inconsistent. F power is capped at 5. Many of the res abilities can get wasted on uncoordinated burst healing. By all means nerf the res abilities that break these limits so the lower numbers have a chance if they coordinate their own revives better. Those examples of game mechanic changes don't involve downstate itself making it an option outside the poll. You can even add sigils (like something absurd: +25% on downed enemies)/runes (example of a counter balance as an option: +50% to downed enemies, while -20% overall damage) so

players can counter downstate even more to solve their problems by build variety

.

Would have to disagree going back to the previous section of the current reply. Res power is initially inconsistent when fighting higher numbers because of the value of having more potential reviver's to address downed players. Than that of a smaller group. Which again goes back to "They have more _____ to use effectively; Therefore are more better off there initially". Despite there being a cap ("5") of players whom can res per downed player. And again, that's before considering that the larger group has more skills and such generally speaking (then that of the smaller group) that can help assist in an easier time getting downs in the first place; also in comparison.

The important thing, for us at least, is it seems that nerfing downstate in someway would appear a more reasonable choice (The most reasonable IMO). Given all that has been discussed here. For example "Rally" they could get rid of that for starters... since it act's more of an inherent possible extension of downstate... With no investment. Downstate could still function without it.

The goal on the direction of downstate, for me (and other's alike) is ultimately just to get it to a point where it doesn't benefit the larger group any more than the smaller. No funny tricks... That's literally it. So any method that keeps downstate for the intended "drama" aspect while doing that... I'll be ultimately happy with <3

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@Whiteout.1975 said:Hey, @GDchiaScrub.3241 Thanks for the reply :)

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I would like to respectfully add to this conversation , if that's alright enough <3

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@"SoHeDoesntGetSpammedTinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

Anet has nerfed arrow carts over and over again, what are you talking about? No one is asking for buffs to ACs in this poll or anywhere in this thread.

I see the comparison went over.

In short, population imbalance shouldn't be used as justifications to affect combat balance (that includes downstate).

Unless the game was designed to be a 1:3 ratio like some Mario Party mini-games (this isn't the case for WvW).

But Population Imbalances already can affect combat balance.

Then my wording isn't accurate. I don't refer to moment to moment play of combat. For a game that is seeking 'balance' in 'balanced' scenarios we shouldn't use examples of imbalance

as the sole reason

to change a game mechanic for the sake of 'balance.'

Interesting. So if the game is "seeking" balance. Which I'd like to believe also. And there

are

examples of "imbalance"... How then does the game go about finding balance, if it ultimately ignores those moments of "imbalance"?

My stance... Is simply to do what is necessary "for the sake of balance". Whether or not that would involve changing a game mechanic, specifically, to some degree.

Because simply put. It is my belief those scenarios stem from a team issue (not calling/having reinforcements in time) or an actual population balance issue (enter the "fixes" for that). I don't blame downstate for those, and thus I don't think it is a good way to resolve population imbalance scenarios. With mounts the lesser group isn't even obligated to fight their greater when it comes to open field. If they do want glorious battle then they should know the risks, of course. Defending objectives is another can of worms that goes beyond this downstate thread, but you could in theory offer guild tactics/buffs to affect downstate if you wished to stay on topic. Or they ditch the objective because of miss matching timezone populations as another example.

Though, whether or not you or someone else can answer that question... There is one that's just as big if not bigger...

@Whiteout.1975 said:How is downstate balanced?...Throughout all these alike post. I've personally never seen someone actually claim that downstate was "balanced" or how. Instead rather that it's not and give reasons why... OR the bulk on the other end of the spectrum basically say "I like cause feels good" or say "Balance currently relies on it because..." ....

Surprise! I don't think downstate is balanced either. Each class was given different abilities after all (for better or worse), and that gives them pros and cons (mistform into portal anyone?). For example, the rev's downstate "slow" application was nerfed, because "slow" was nerfed as it no longer increased stomp activation. Other downstates were left unharmed since they didn't rely on "slow" in the first place. All because they wanted to remove quickness stomps in the same swath. An example of an inadvertent/unavoidable nerf due another issue. Even if we did balance downstate skills in this instance that leaves me with a few questions. Does that mean we should outright remove all of the down states? Can we sacrifice class themed abilities for parity with a standardized kit? Even practically speaking. Do you trust ANET to fix their balance afterward?

But you were wondering if I thought the state itself, the general idea, was "balanced?" At that point I don't know because we're getting into a decision made by ANET in the beginning. They wanted to add a feature to do something specific within their game. From what I can interpret that can be: a comeback mechanic, to raise tension, to incapacitate an enemy, raise time to kill, or the often humorous...for immersion in the struggle between life and death (probably that tension again). Then that opens the door to player dynamics like circumstances that can be exploited (ever have a vault spam thief bounce on you during GvGs? Fun times). If I recall, the idea was inspired by Left 4 Dead's similar mechanic, or Borderlands. This feature also made another appearance in those popular battle royale game(modes). To "balance" the feature in those other games they would adjust the downed HP or duration till death for their desired pacing in the game play. Which is a route to take that I wouldn't.

The bulk of the "no downstate" motive/agenda agree's with this statement here by basically saying "larger groups should not need more saving against other groups whom are already smaller in size". The advantage here is already in the numbers... Especially since you can't depend on any 1 kind of Player skill to always be present. However one would measure that... IF "play skill" is seen as an advantage in some subjective way.

I get where you were going with the AC example. However, AC's are not something inherent (always present) to combat like downstate is. Also, you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over... And that's just for starter's. There are distinct difference's at play here to make a good comparison.

The removal of downstate evens out play, it does not favor any group, it favors skill and coordination. The larger team, as you have pointed out over and over again below, already has a huge advantage even without downstate.

Evens out the play how? It doesn't adjust player count as an example. What skills are favored? Coordination of...bombs?

Flip that around, and ask how were these were not involved with downstate unchanged?

Sure, so I believe they are referring to general "Player Skill"; not really something anyone can just easily GW2 wiki. And not something consistent.

It's not as hard as to define as you might think. To start there is reaction time or twitch skill (usually favors younger people). Communication skills (people on voice will have an advantage). Moment to moment awareness in surroundings for strategic value (usually gets dismissed if in the "open field"). The trivia knowledge of game mechanics (abilities, traits, stats, etc.). Experience/process of applying trivia knowledge (tactics of when to use skills, where to position, etc.). All of this is used to adapt to whatever situation

Right. So I'm not saying it's hard to define "Player Skill" using some reasonable sense of terminology. I think you did a rather good job with what you've listed here as examples at least.I'm saying that "Player Skill" in other words... Doesn't hold one kind of color so to speak. Going back to where I mention it being "not something consistent". You however, again, did a rather good job of listing the possible things that help make it inconsistent. So Thank You for doing that.

So what is "favored" is the greater general effort it takes to adapt to outnumbering situations. For those whom are outnumbering their opponents.For example: Both initially and again, generally... 20 players are going to have an easier time resing downs vs the 5 players they are fighting. And they have more man power to increase the effectiveness of those res's before any actual builds come into play. From ether opposing side. That may make those "res's" even easier... Like a Mercy Rune Guard for example."No downstate" would also affect those "5" players in that example as much as the "20"... But it would also take away the unnecessary multiplicative res power the larger group would have had over the 5 initially; before anything else comes into play. While those 5 feel ultimately unchanged regarding res power.

Now one could argue that it would take less skill of those "5" vs the 20 by taking away downstate. Which is true. However, it add's more player skill requirement to the side that already should have the advantage (the "20")... Because those "20" already out man those "5". Though, having to 5 vs 20 should already require enough skill based on that alone.The important question throughout all of this is why would those 20 need "downstate" to beat those "5"? If they already have the number advantage... They shouldn't.

When it comes to fight's. No downstate helps highlight the ability to do more with less (# of Players). Against bigger groups who aren't skilled and/or built effectively enough for combat. And That's why "No downstater's" love it.

Ether way anyone looks at this... Point is it will never take "skill" to outnumber your opponent. Downstate or not. In fact, it take's even less skill here with downstate functioning as it currently does.

Hopefully I reiterated my stance on trying to argue from these hypothetical (and extreme since 20 is 4x more than 5...) situations. If we are really going to do this then I can say it's more likely a 15 versus 20 would happen than 5v20. I'd then go from there by saying the act of ressing is capped at 5 people, and thus the act of pressing F is capped evenly on both sides. What is uncapped is the number of times a downed player can be affected by skills that heal/revive down. 40 people can MI one person if they so choose, but only 5 will be effective since it heals by 20% last I heard. If you wanted to cap such res skills then you can make it percent based like MI (so excessive MI use gets wasted) or even lowering any aoe caps on those without touching downstate.

Well, the thing here is that these aren't

strictly

"hypothetical" situations. As these "situations" already touched base with reality (plenty of times)... And will continue to do for a long time I'm sure. As such "No Downstater's", at least, have been able to identify at least some basic conclusions around those changes in reality while playing the game. Between "Downstate vs No Downstate"... Regarding at least what they like about it. The bulk of it being in these versus outnumbered situations.

I don't think most "No Downstater's" are taking much issue against a "15 vs 20" scenario. I think if anything it's at least going to be a 1:2 scenario in general. So in order to give justice to their main issue so to speak... I would say a 10 vs 20 is not only just as fair of a scenario to come across, but also gives more meaning to the true nature of their cause. If we can go from there at least... I think we would be doing a greater service for this entire argument from any real angle.

Right, so this goes back to when I previously listed: "you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over". Basically hinting at the 5 man res capacity.So the revive player cap is indeed "5"... But in other words when still talking vs outnumbered. The number of potential revivers is higher than whatever group is smaller in comparison. Being

part

of what I define as potential "Res Power".

If we go by this new 10 vs 20 scenario. Looking at it initially from this potential "Res Power". We have "10" potential reviver's against the "20" potential reviver's. Both initially before any builds come into play that would help with revives. So in other words they (the "20") initially have more

ammunition

so to speak, to which they can

offer

res's situation-ally to their downs. Not just possibly through their builds alone.Only in a 10 vs 10 they would have initially equal opportunity to resurrect there downs. Which, again, the bulk of "No Downstater's" do not take issue with regarding equal numbers.To bring this even further. In the 10 vs 20 if "1" of the 20 goes down. And 5 try to res. Those "10" still got to deal with those other 15 as any potential res traits pop off outside of their initial and inherent res power.And one could keep comparing this example back and forth between numbers of who went down vs who is active... However, the larger group still has the higher inherent potential res capabilities. On top of having more skills and rune set's etc. for their builds to help get downs in the first place.

Which all this comes back to this very basic and (what should be) understandable mentality of "They have more _____ to use effectively; Therefore are more better off there initially". Then compare that to what is and isn't available. Point is... More of will never be Less of. This would include available resurrect opportunity by having more to spare toward that cause.

If res power was so low. I don't think the bulk "No downstater's" or Downstate Nerf Enthusiast's?... Would be taking issue with it and we probably would not be having this glorious conversation among others as well.

This again, is an example made without

ANY

balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that

downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it

. The larger group has the advantage with

ANY

game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while

NOT

downed.

Again, the balance change

was

the removal of downstate.

Downstate favors no one.

Everyone has it

. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

It favors no individual in an even numbers fight, it does however favor more numbers, so much so that it over shadows skill, this effects all fights, not just 1vsX, it effects larger scale fight guilds and zergs as well. Why people keep on acting like this only effects roaming I have no idea, and I think is a bit disingenuous.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

He chose it because everything I have stated has been about unequal numbers, I even talked about even matches like sPvP were not a problem in my post he quoted.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

You again make my point, nothing was done to favor smaller skill groups, only the advantage of the no downstate mechanic that favors greater numbers was no longer carrying the less skilled larger group (as both no longer have access to it). As for "balance" after, you forget what you just said, that the smaller team has access to all of the same classes and skills as the larger group, nothing will change. As the larger group will still have the advantage of numbers and all of the advantages that includes, such as aoe caps etc.

This is incorrect as a technicality: the smaller might not have the same access to classes, and skills as the larger group since the smaller has less players to choose from. Downstate is global condition regardless of comp choice, but I digress. We agree the larger will have the advantage due to larger stats by player count.

You are absolutely correct @GDchiaScrub.3241. However... "Res Power" (As i stated before) is something that is initially higher by default to the larger group due to having more revive ability on hand through sheer player numbers alone; before anything else comes into play. So while Downstate is evenly dispersed "globally" the potential power to res... Is not.

• (
  All other dialogue that could be address from the original reply I felt was unnecessary to comment on... As I already made the main points here.
  )

P.S. Obviously judging by my vote I'm not here to "defend" no downstate. However, I don't have any issues giving credit where credit is due. Especially when it doesn't inconvenience me. :)

TL;DR potential res power is inconsistent with downstate when fighting higher numbers especially.

Res power isn't inconsistent. F power is capped at 5. Many of the res abilities can get wasted on uncoordinated burst healing. By all means nerf the res abilities that break these limits so the lower numbers have a chance if they coordinate their own revives better. Those examples of game mechanic changes don't involve downstate itself making it an option outside the poll. You can even add sigils (like something absurd: +25% on downed enemies)/runes (example of a counter balance as an option: +50% to downed enemies, while -20% overall damage) so

players can counter downstate even more to solve their problems by build variety

.

Would have to disagree going back to the previous section of the current reply. Res power is initially inconsistent when fighting higher numbers because of the value of having more potential reviver's to address downed players. Than that of a smaller group. Which again goes back to "They have more _____ to use effectively; Therefore are more better off there initially". Despite there being a cap ("5") of players whom can res per downed player. And again, that's before considering that the larger group has more skills and such generally speaking (then that of the smaller group) that can help assist in an easier time getting downs in the first place; also in comparison.

The important thing, for us at least, is it seems that nerfing downstate in someway would appear a more reasonable choice (The most reasonable IMO). Given all that has been discussed here. For example "Rally" they could get rid of that for starters... since it act's more of an inherent possible extension of downstate... With no investment. Downstate could still function without it.

The goal on the direction of downstate, for me (and other's alike) is ultimately just to get it to a point where it doesn't benefit the larger group any more than the smaller. No funny tricks... That's literally it. So any method that keeps downstate for the intended "drama" aspect while doing that... I'll be ultimately happy with <3

It isn't going to do much to quibble on the word consistent/inconsistent because we were making different points by the looks of it. I felt the hard caps forced things to stay under a threshold, but it is true the large group would be able to push back to protect their fallen more easily. This would offer them more chances to res because of their size. Still, moving on.

It appears to me you are correct in that you should stick to pushing "No Rally." It is unfortunate that ANET chose to do the same special(?) event again, NoDownstate. "No Rally" could in theory cause the larger force to expend time or skills reviving their fallen instead of full steam pushing under the assumption they'd be rallied by deaths in the smaller force (or vet npcs). Alas, we won't know because ANET chose to do this without any alterations on their part.

D:

[Whiteout.1975]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:Hey, @GDchiaScrub.3241 Thanks for the reply :)

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I would like to respectfully add to this conversation , if that's alright enough <3

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@"SoHeDoesntGetSpammedTinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

Anet has nerfed arrow carts over and over again, what are you talking about? No one is asking for buffs to ACs in this poll or anywhere in this thread.

I see the comparison went over.

In short, population imbalance shouldn't be used as justifications to affect combat balance (that includes downstate).

Unless the game was designed to be a 1:3 ratio like some Mario Party mini-games (this isn't the case for WvW).

But Population Imbalances already can affect combat balance.

Then my wording isn't accurate. I don't refer to moment to moment play of combat. For a game that is seeking 'balance' in 'balanced' scenarios we shouldn't use examples of imbalance

as the sole reason

to change a game mechanic for the sake of 'balance.'

Interesting. So if the game is "seeking" balance. Which I'd like to believe also. And there

are

examples of "imbalance"... How then does the game go about finding balance, if it ultimately ignores those moments of "imbalance"?

My stance... Is simply to do what is necessary "for the sake of balance". Whether or not that would involve changing a game mechanic, specifically, to some degree.

Because simply put. It is my belief those scenarios stem from a team issue (not calling/having reinforcements in time) or an actual

population balance issue

(enter the "fixes" for that).

I don't blame downstate for those, and thus I don't think it is a good way to resolve population imbalance scenarios

. With mounts the lesser group isn't even obligated to fight their greater when it comes to open field. If they do want glorious battle then they should know the risks, of course. Defending objectives is another can of worms that goes beyond this downstate thread, but you could in theory offer guild tactics/buffs to affect downstate if you wished to stay on topic. Or they ditch the objective because of miss matching timezone populations as another example.

Though, whether or not you or someone else can answer that question... There is one that's just as big if not bigger...

@Whiteout.1975 said:How is downstate balanced?...Throughout all these alike post. I've personally never seen someone actually claim that downstate was "balanced" or how. Instead rather that it's not and give reasons why... OR the bulk on the other end of the spectrum basically say "I like cause feels good" or say "Balance currently relies on it because..." ....

Surprise!

I don't think downstate is balanced either.

Each class was given different abilities after all (for better or worse), and that gives them pros and cons (mistform into portal anyone?). For example, the rev's downstate "slow" application was nerfed, because "slow" was nerfed as it no longer increased stomp activation. Other downstates were left unharmed since they didn't rely on "slow" in the first place. All because they wanted to remove quickness stomps in the same swath. An example of an inadvertent/unavoidable nerf due another issue. Even if we did balance downstate skills in this instance that leaves me with a few questions. Does that mean we should outright remove all of the down states? Can we sacrifice class themed abilities for parity with a standardized kit? Even practically speaking. Do you trust ANET to fix their balance afterward?

But you were wondering if I thought the state itself, the general idea, was "balanced?"

At that point I don't know because we're getting into a decision made by ANET in the beginning.

They wanted to add a feature to do something specific within their game

. From what I can interpret that can be: a comeback mechanic, to raise tension, to incapacitate an enemy, raise time to kill, or the often humorous...

for immersion

in the struggle between life and death (probably that tension again). Then that opens the door to player dynamics like circumstances that can be exploited (ever have a vault spam thief bounce on you during GvGs? Fun times). If I recall, the idea was inspired by Left 4 Dead's similar mechanic, or Borderlands. This feature also made another appearance in those popular battle royale game(modes). To "balance" the feature in those other games they would adjust the downed HP or duration till death for their desired pacing in the game play. Which is a route to take that I wouldn't.

The bulk of the "no downstate" motive/agenda agree's with this statement here by basically saying "larger groups should not need more saving against other groups whom are already smaller in size". The advantage here is already in the numbers... Especially since you can't depend on any 1 kind of Player skill to always be present. However one would measure that... IF "play skill" is seen as an advantage in some subjective way.

I get where you were going with the AC example. However, AC's are not something inherent (always present) to combat like downstate is. Also, you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over... And that's just for starter's. There are distinct difference's at play here to make a good comparison.

The removal of downstate evens out play, it does not favor any group, it favors skill and coordination. The larger team, as you have pointed out over and over again below, already has a huge advantage even without downstate.

Evens out the play how? It doesn't adjust player count as an example. What skills are favored? Coordination of...bombs?

Flip that around, and ask how were these were not involved with downstate unchanged?

Sure, so I believe they are referring to general "Player Skill"; not really something anyone can just easily GW2 wiki. And not something consistent.

It's not as hard as to define as you might think. To start there is reaction time or twitch skill (usually favors younger people). Communication skills (people on voice will have an advantage). Moment to moment awareness in surroundings for strategic value (usually gets dismissed if in the "open field"). The trivia knowledge of game mechanics (abilities, traits, stats, etc.). Experience/process of applying trivia knowledge (tactics of when to use skills, where to position, etc.). All of this is used to adapt to whatever situation

Right. So I'm not saying it's hard to define "Player Skill" using some reasonable sense of terminology. I think you did a rather good job with what you've listed here as examples at least.I'm saying that "Player Skill" in other words... Doesn't hold one kind of color so to speak. Going back to where I mention it being "not something consistent". You however, again, did a rather good job of listing the possible things that help make it inconsistent. So Thank You for doing that.

So what is "favored" is the greater general effort it takes to adapt to outnumbering situations. For those whom are outnumbering their opponents.For example: Both initially and again, generally... 20 players are going to have an easier time resing downs vs the 5 players they are fighting. And they have more man power to increase the effectiveness of those res's before any actual builds come into play. From ether opposing side. That may make those "res's" even easier... Like a Mercy Rune Guard for example."No downstate" would also affect those "5" players in that example as much as the "20"... But it would also take away the unnecessary multiplicative res power the larger group would have had over the 5 initially; before anything else comes into play. While those 5 feel ultimately unchanged regarding res power.

Now one could argue that it would take less skill of those "5" vs the 20 by taking away downstate. Which is true. However, it add's more player skill requirement to the side that already should have the advantage (the "20")... Because those "20" already out man those "5". Though, having to 5 vs 20 should already require enough skill based on that alone.The important question throughout all of this is why would those 20 need "downstate" to beat those "5"? If they already have the number advantage... They shouldn't.

When it comes to fight's. No downstate helps highlight the ability to do more with less (# of Players). Against bigger groups who aren't skilled and/or built effectively enough for combat. And That's why "No downstater's" love it.

Ether way anyone looks at this... Point is it will never take "skill" to outnumber your opponent. Downstate or not. In fact, it take's even less skill here with downstate functioning as it currently does.

Hopefully I reiterated my stance on trying to argue from these hypothetical (and extreme since 20 is 4x more than 5...) situations. If we are really going to do this then I can say it's more likely a 15 versus 20 would happen than 5v20. I'd then go from there by saying the act of ressing is capped at 5 people, and thus the act of pressing F is capped evenly on both sides. What is uncapped is the number of times a downed player can be affected by skills that heal/revive down. 40 people can MI one person if they so choose, but only 5 will be effective since it heals by 20% last I heard. If you wanted to cap such res skills then you can make it percent based like MI (so excessive MI use gets wasted) or even lowering any aoe caps on those without touching downstate.

Well, the thing here is that these aren't

strictly

"hypothetical" situations. As these "situations" already touched base with reality (plenty of times)... And will continue to do for a long time I'm sure. As such "No Downstater's", at least, have been able to identify at least some basic conclusions around those changes in reality while playing the game. Between "Downstate vs No Downstate"... Regarding at least what they like about it. The bulk of it being in these versus outnumbered situations.

I don't think most "No Downstater's" are taking much issue against a "15 vs 20" scenario. I think if anything it's at least going to be a 1:2 scenario in general. So in order to give justice to their main issue so to speak... I would say a 10 vs 20 is not only just as fair of a scenario to come across, but also gives more meaning to the true nature of their cause. If we can go from there at least... I think we would be doing a greater service for this entire argument from any real angle.

Right, so this goes back to when I previously listed: "you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over". Basically hinting at the 5 man res capacity.So the revive player cap is indeed "5"... But in other words when still talking vs outnumbered. The number of potential revivers is higher than whatever group is smaller in comparison. Being

part

of what I define as potential "Res Power".

If we go by this new 10 vs 20 scenario. Looking at it initially from this potential "Res Power". We have "10" potential reviver's against the "20" potential reviver's. Both initially before any builds come into play that would help with revives. So in other words they (the "20") initially have more

ammunition

so to speak, to which they can

offer

res's situation-ally to their downs. Not just possibly through their builds alone.Only in a 10 vs 10 they would have initially equal opportunity to resurrect there downs. Which, again, the bulk of "No Downstater's" do not take issue with regarding equal numbers.To bring this even further. In the 10 vs 20 if "1" of the 20 goes down. And 5 try to res. Those "10" still got to deal with those other 15 as any potential res traits pop off outside of their initial and inherent res power.And one could keep comparing this example back and forth between numbers of who went down vs who is active... However, the larger group still has the higher inherent potential res capabilities. On top of having more skills and rune set's etc. for their builds to help get downs in the first place.

Which all this comes back to this very basic and (what should be) understandable mentality of "They have more _____ to use effectively; Therefore are more better off there initially". Then compare that to what is and isn't available. Point is... More of will never be Less of. This would include available resurrect opportunity by having more to spare toward that cause.

If res power was so low. I don't think the bulk "No downstater's" or Downstate Nerf Enthusiast's?... Would be taking issue with it and we probably would not be having this glorious conversation among others as well.

This again, is an example made without

ANY

balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that

downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it

. The larger group has the advantage with

ANY

game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while

NOT

downed.

Again, the balance change

was

the removal of downstate.

Downstate favors no one.

Everyone has it

. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

It favors no individual in an even numbers fight, it does however favor more numbers, so much so that it over shadows skill, this effects all fights, not just 1vsX, it effects larger scale fight guilds and zergs as well. Why people keep on acting like this only effects roaming I have no idea, and I think is a bit disingenuous.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

He chose it because everything I have stated has been about unequal numbers, I even talked about even matches like sPvP were not a problem in my post he quoted.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

You again make my point, nothing was done to favor smaller skill groups, only the advantage of the no downstate mechanic that favors greater numbers was no longer carrying the less skilled larger group (as both no longer have access to it). As for "balance" after, you forget what you just said, that the smaller team has access to all of the same classes and skills as the larger group, nothing will change. As the larger group will still have the advantage of numbers and all of the advantages that includes, such as aoe caps etc.

This is incorrect as a technicality: the smaller might not have the same access to classes, and skills as the larger group since the smaller has less players to choose from. Downstate is global condition regardless of comp choice, but I digress. We agree the larger will have the advantage due to larger stats by player count.

You are absolutely correct @GDchiaScrub.3241. However... "Res Power" (As i stated before) is something that is initially higher by default to the larger group due to having more revive ability on hand through sheer player numbers alone; before anything else comes into play. So while Downstate is evenly dispersed "globally" the potential power to res... Is not.

• (
  All other dialogue that could be address from the original reply I felt was unnecessary to comment on... As I already made the main points here.
  )

P.S. Obviously judging by my vote I'm not here to "defend" no downstate. However, I don't have any issues giving credit where credit is due. Especially when it doesn't inconvenience me. :)

TL;DR potential res power is inconsistent with downstate when fighting higher numbers especially.

Res power isn't inconsistent. F power is capped at 5. Many of the res abilities can get wasted on uncoordinated burst healing. By all means nerf the res abilities that break these limits so the lower numbers have a chance if they coordinate their own revives better. Those examples of game mechanic changes don't involve downstate itself making it an option outside the poll. You can even add sigils (like something absurd: +25% on downed enemies)/runes (example of a counter balance as an option: +50% to downed enemies, while -20% overall damage) so

players can counter downstate even more to solve their problems by build variety

.

Would have to disagree going back to the previous section of the current reply. Res power is initially inconsistent when fighting higher numbers because of the value of having more potential reviver's to address downed players. Than that of a smaller group. Which again goes back to "They have more _____ to use effectively; Therefore are more better off there initially". Despite there being a cap ("5") of players whom can res per downed player. And again, that's before considering that the larger group has more skills and such generally speaking (then that of the smaller group) that can help assist in an easier time getting downs in the first place; also in comparison.

The important thing, for us at least, is it seems that nerfing downstate in someway would appear a more reasonable choice (The most reasonable IMO). Given all that has been discussed here. For example "Rally" they could get rid of that for starters... since it act's more of an inherent possible extension of downstate... With no investment. Downstate could still function without it.

The goal on the direction of downstate, for me (and other's alike) is ultimately just to get it to a point where it doesn't benefit the larger group any more than the smaller. No funny tricks... That's literally it. So any method that keeps downstate for the intended "drama" aspect while doing that... I'll be ultimately happy with <3

It isn't going to do much to quibble on the word consistent/inconsistent because we were making different points by the looks of it. I felt the hard caps forced things to stay under a threshold, but it is true the large group would be able to push back to protect their fallen more easily. This would offer them more chances to res because of their size. Still, moving on.

It appears to me you are correct in that you should stick to pushing "No Rally."

It is unfortunate that ANET chose to do the same

special

(

?

) event again, NoDownstate. "No Rally" could in theory cause the larger force to expend time or skills reviving their fallen instead of full steam pushing under the assumption they'd be rallied by deaths in the smaller force (or vet npcs). Alas, we won't know because ANET chose to do this without any alterations on their part.

D:

Lol well... Cool. I got nothing more to add or ultimately disagree on here. What has basically needed to be said... Has been said. Thanks for the conversation :)

BTW, if you're interested in supporting "No Rally" test/cause at the very least. Well, this might interest you... https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/75223/can-we-have-a-no-rally-week-please#latest :+1:

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

@"SoHeDoesn'tGetSpammedDawdler.8521" said:

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:Take it how you will, but honestly this poll still just shows the divide in this community between the more casual player and those that actually want to see significant and meaningful change in the game and its fundamentals because at this point it is

sorely

needed in a 7 year old MMORPG.A call for others to take it how they will yet at the same time presumptuosly dividing them into casuals or "those that actually want to see significant and meaningfull changes" based on their vote doesnt seem very honest to me.

Well I phrased that wrong, the "take it how you will" was more pertaining to what I was saying after rather than before. So I should have phrased it more like "Take what I'm about to say how you will, but..."

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I would like to respectfully add to this conversation , if that's alright enough <3

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@"SoHeDoesn'tGetSpammedTinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

Anet has nerfed arrow carts over and over again, what are you talking about? No one is asking for buffs to ACs in this poll or anywhere in this thread.

I see the comparison went over.

In short, population imbalance shouldn't be used as justifications to affect combat balance (that includes downstate).

Unless the game was designed to be a 1:3 ratio like some Mario Party mini-games (this isn't the case for WvW).

But Population Imbalances already can affect combat balance.

Then my wording isn't accurate. I don't refer to moment to moment play of combat. For a game that is seeking 'balance' in 'balanced' scenarios we shouldn't use examples of imbalance

as the sole reason

to change a game mechanic for the sake of 'balance.'

The bulk of the "no downstate" motive/agenda agree's with this statement here by basically saying "larger groups should not need more saving against other groups whom are already smaller in size". The advantage here is already in the numbers... Especially since you can't depend on any 1 kind of Player skill to always be present. However one would measure that... IF "play skill" is seen as an advantage in some subjective way.

I get where you were going with the AC example. However, AC's are not something inherent (always present) to combat like downstate is. Also, you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over... And that's just for starter's. There are distinct difference's at play here to make a good comparison.

The removal of downstate evens out play, it does not favor any group, it favors skill and coordination. The larger team, as you have pointed out over and over again below, already has a huge advantage even without downstate.

Evens out the play how? It doesn't adjust player count as an example. What skills are favored? Coordination of...bombs?

Flip that around, and ask how were these were not involved with downstate unchanged?

Sure, so I believe they are referring to general "Player Skill"; not really something anyone can just easily GW2 wiki. And not something consistent.

It's not as hard as to define as you might think. To start there is reaction time or twitch skill (usually favors younger people). Communication skills (people on voice will have an advantage). Moment to moment awareness in surroundings for strategic value (usually gets dismissed if in the "open field"). The trivia knowledge of game mechanics (abilities, traits, stats, etc.). Experience/process of applying trivia knowledge (tactics of when to use skills, where to position, etc.). All of this is used to adapt to whatever situation

So what is "favored" is the greater general effort it takes to adapt to outnumbering situations. For those whom are outnumbering their opponents.For example: Both initially and again, generally... 20 players are going to have an easier time resing downs vs the 5 players they are fighting. And they have more man power to increase the effectiveness of those res's before any actual builds come into play. From ether opposing side. That may make those "res's" even easier... Like a Mercy Rune Guard for example."No downstate" would also affect those "5" players in that example as much as the "20"... But it would also take away the unnecessary multiplicative res power the larger group would have had over the 5 initially; before anything else comes into play. While those 5 feel ultimately unchanged regarding res power.

Now one could argue that it would take less skill of those "5" vs the 20 by taking away downstate. Which is true. However, it add's more player skill requirement to the side that already should have the advantage (the "20")... Because those "20" already out man those "5". Though, having to 5 vs 20 should already require enough skill based on that alone.The important question throughout all of this is why would those 20 need "downstate" to beat those "5"? If they already have the number advantage... They shouldn't.

When it comes to fight's. No downstate helps highlight the ability to do more with less (# of Players). Against bigger groups who aren't skilled and/or built effectively enough for combat. And That's why "No downstater's" love it.

Ether way anyone looks at this... Point is it will never take "skill" to outnumber your opponent. Downstate or not. In fact, it take's even less skill here with downstate functioning as it currently does.

Hopefully I reiterated my stance on trying to argue from these hypothetical (and extreme since 20 is 4x more than 5...) situations. If we are really going to do this then I can say it's more likely a 15 versus 20 would happen than 5v20. I'd then go from there by saying the act of ressing is capped at 5 people, and thus the act of pressing F is capped evenly on both sides. What is uncapped is the number of times a downed player can be affected by skills that heal/revive down. 40 people can MI one person if they so choose, but only 5 will be effective since it heals by 20% last I heard. If you wanted to cap such res skills then you can make it percent based like MI (so excessive MI use gets wasted) or even lowering any aoe caps on those without touching downstate.

This again, is an example made without

ANY

balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that

downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it

. The larger group has the advantage with

ANY

game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while

NOT

downed.

Again, the balance change

was

the removal of downstate.

Downstate favors no one.

Everyone has it

. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

It favors no individual in an even numbers fight, it does however favor more numbers, so much so that it over shadows skill, this effects all fights, not just 1vsX, it effects larger scale fight guilds and zergs as well. Why people keep on acting like this only effects roaming I have no idea, and I think is a bit disingenuous.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

He chose it because everything I have stated has been about unequal numbers, I even talked about even matches like sPvP were not a problem in my post he quoted.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

You again make my point, nothing was done to favor smaller skill groups, only the advantage of the no downstate mechanic that favors greater numbers was no longer carrying the less skilled larger group (as both no longer have access to it). As for "balance" after, you forget what you just said, that the smaller team has access to all of the same classes and skills as the larger group, nothing will change. As the larger group will still have the advantage of numbers and all of the advantages that includes, such as aoe caps etc.

This is incorrect as a technicality: the smaller might not have the same access to classes, and skills as the larger group since the smaller has less players to choose from. Downstate is global condition regardless of comp choice, but I digress. We agree the larger will have the advantage due to larger stats by player count.

You are absolutely correct @GDchiaScrub.3241. However... "Res Power" (As i stated before) is something that is initially higher by default to the larger group due to having more revive ability on hand through sheer player numbers alone; before anything else comes into play. So while Downstate is evenly dispersed "globally" the potential power to res... Is not.

• (
  All other dialogue that could be address from the original reply I felt was unnecessary to comment on... As I already made the main points here.
  )

P.S. Obviously judging by my vote I'm not here to "defend" no downstate. However, I don't have any issues giving credit where credit is due. Especially when it doesn't inconvenience me. :)

TL;DR potential res power is inconsistent with downstate when fighting higher numbers especially.

Res power isn't inconsistent. F power is capped at 5. Many of the res abilities can get wasted on uncoordinated burst healing. By all means nerf the res abilities that break these limits so the lower numbers have a chance if they coordinate their own revives better. Those examples of game mechanic changes don't involve downstate itself making it an option outside the poll. You can even add sigils (like something absurd: +25% on downed enemies)/runes (example of a counter balance as an option: +50% to downed enemies, while -20% overall damage) so

players can counter downstate even more to solve their problems by build variety

.

The problem here is that while yes there is a contradiction in seeking to "balance" something based on a "Balanced" scenario, but this isn't limited to just that. Even in scenarios with balanced numbers downstate still represents a problem, at least in how it functions right now. The stance remains that downstate is an unhealthy revive mechanic because there is little to no actual "sacrifice" or "risk" to rubbing someone back to life, and you can nearly do this endlessly. There are some tactics involved around counteracting this but I find them extremely shallow and more akin to "SMASH THE THING WITH ALL THE THINGS".

I understand that players can be exaggerated in their critiques of things, so I'll try my best here. This part contradicts itself within the same paragraph unintentionally. The "sacrifice" or "risk" are those tactics involving "SMASH THE THING WITH ALL THE THINGS." But your point was subjective taste as calling the strategy "extremely shallow." So what is un-shallow about the alternative? What would you call having depth? Is sacrificing a utiliy slot for a revive skill not a tactical choice? Should people not take advantage of an opportunity to land a large bomb? If I had to guess, your feelings are coming from the current meta. So, I'm sure we can agree that the current aoe spam meta isn't the greatest to watch or even participate in at times. This is all assuming you mean SMASH THE THING WITH ALL THE THINGS referred to some commanders tendencies to get over excited on a call during a zerg fights. I figure you would have a different opinion on smaller fights, but this addresses more of the hyperbolic descriptions.

There are res skills that people do most of the time probably mindlessly waste on uncoordinated healing or reviving but the fact that it even works as well as it does is a problem within itself. Downstate creates this problem as we now have layers upon layers of healing as it has been more abundant than ever as it is available across multiple classes in an increased state of power as well, on top of downstate which has a few seconds of invuln on top of any other downstate skill, plus revive speed from only having 3 players minimum reviving them which is ridiculously fast, plus any res skill that players might be carrying which are just a redundancy to bring into a fight. There are so many ways to keep people from dying and to get them back into the fight right now that its just not healthy for any sort of real tactic to actually be used because why do anything more complicated than "frantic rubbing ensues" and to counter that its just "SMASH ALL THE THINGS". Like I said, its extremely shallow and there is little to no drawback to doing either of those things.

That doesn't mean nerf the revive abilities, many were changed and implemented as more instant revives, as well as having cooldowns reduced for some, that it seems like downstate res speed and its health wasn't exactly factored in. They are a redundancy that does add to the problem but they can also be an actual solution should the proper steps be taken to make reviving more healthy in WvW.

Like I said before, this poll does at least show that 50% of those who voted are displeased with downstate right now and they have valid reasons to be, while it honestly feels like the ones who do favor it grasp at literal straws to justify why it is for some reason "fine" as it is now. Personally I would like to see it removed and have Anet do a full rework on revive skills, traits, etc but I could live with them nerfing, or more accurately changing downstate so that its not such a mindlessly shallow revive mechanic with similarly mindlessly shallow counterplay

I don't care about player polls one way or another in regards to the results, but it's still a thread for discussion. So here we are, and this serves as a break between sections.

My initial suggestions for a potential rework if downstate were to be removed (and necessary changes to help it along)...

• Rework revive skills (Battle Standard, Spirit of Nature, etc) to work on "Defeated" players, full dead, but only revive 1 while also putting them onto a 5 minute or more cooldown. Reason**: This would still promote, and probably encourage, more actual coordinated revives as willfully wasting them would be a significant hindrance but would also allow for healthier counterplay against revives as the opposing group could properly play around these cooldowns. Some revive skills would need to be moved around and changed. Specifically Function Gyro on Scrapper could be made into an active use skill and function as a "Drone Defibrillator" for the Scrapper, and another would be Signet of Mercy for Guardian needing to be shifted to an elite skill, likely swapping places with Signet of Courage (with some toning down on Signet of Courage's effects).
• Change revive traits to either provide benefits for reviving another player, similar to what they already do, or make the revive itself stronger. One I considered was making it so that the Guardian's Protective Reviver work so that it still maintains a similar effect that it has, giving boons on revive, but also casting the Lesser Shield of Absorption when the ally is revived. A more complicated one, being for Necro, would be to change Ritual of Life so that instead of having it make Wells of Blood revive allies but to rather have it cast "Greater Well of Blood" when the Necro is revived, which this Greater Well of Blood would revive 1 nearby ally when the Necro is revived. Reason**: As it has been suggested these traits would need to be reworked to function with the new system, and if anything it might actually encourage their use in things beyond just zerg vs zerg without making the revive skills significantly unhealthy for gameplay. They could be used tactically, along with the reworked revive skills, to benefit you if you coordinate your revives.
• Change Finishers so that they are no longer a stomp only cosmetic. Either add them as an emote players can use and make a selection for, or more appropriately merge them into Novelties so that any player can choose to access them at any time, likely renaming them to "Boasts" or "Taunts", likely a better name could be chosen. Reason*: People have expressed that this would be the main reason why Anet would never get rid of downstate and they are probably right, but if they shift their use, their function, and have them work from the Novelties menu and keys then it would actually encourage more people to buy them. Similar to the chairs we get now on the Gem Store, these could actually be something PvE players would buy because they would actually be able to use* them and show them off.
• And last but certainly not least toning down of the actual problematic "1 shot" builds. These builds namely being Sic 'Em Soulbeasts, Malicious Backstab Deadeyes and right now Berserker. Reason*: These builds are just problems. They are very simplistic and are way over tuned and are the prime reason why people wouldn't want downstate removed, at least from what I've seen. There are even simple ways to address it. Sic 'Em no longer works when you're in Beast Mode for Soulbeast. Malicious Backstab has a visual tell and actual cast time like Death's Judgment which is necessary as it can usually hit even harder than Death's Judgment as well as putting an ICD on Silent Scope for Deadeye. For Berserker? Well Arc Divider is probably getting nerfed in a soon arriving patch as it is glaringly obvious how overtuned it is because its the only thing that actually saves Berserker from being completely irrelevant again, the Elite Spec literally has nothing else going for it. I would argue that Herald is a problem similarly as it is rather silly strong right now. It might not have perma* 25 might but they essentially have 20+ might so long as they are just in combat and it makes their damage rather crazy.

I can't really go through these as I'm not on board with removing downstate that would necessitate these changes. You are allowed to put your faith in ANET to do that. We do at least agree "overtuned" builds exist. Current Berserker is hilarious to say the least!

Also something I feel I need to point out that you said...

Downstate favors no one. Everyone has it.

This is true, everyone does have it...but like I said previously in this post the methods of counterplay and addressing downstate in a fight is shallow, not tactical. Its problematic because of the simplistic ways to make it beneficial and the simplistic ways in which to try and counter it. They aren't deep, they aren't complicated its just...shallow and that doesn't make for fun gameplay.

We are again speaking in the subjective when using words like "shallow," "tactical," lacking "depth" when paired with no examples of mechanics. HOWEVER! I agree with you in a way. Current meta is shallow. Some abilities are literally doing to much in one button press like a scourges' Trail of Anguish (stunbreak, applies stability, boon rip, apply burn, convert boon to torment, convert boon to cripple, leaves trail, apply swiftness, uhh..feel like I am missing something). Where I fall off in agreement is putting blame on downstate for the shallow experience. So maybe it would be better to ask this. When did downstate start being an issue? 1 year ago? 2 years ago? 3 years ago? To me, the meta took a dive once Pick Teams in the GvG scene lost relevance towards the later end of HoT. A lot of nuance in decision making was lost with the absence of thieves/mesmers. Now you only worry about the main ball, and that's all.

Imagine if what I suggested above actually happened, downstate removed, res traits reworked, revive skills reworked.

Imagine you are 15 vs 15, you lose 6 of your players because you didn't position well and got forced into a heavy bomb that wiped them out, yet you are still able to survive because your group knows what they are doing and start to adjust to the fight at that point. You wait it out, you re-position and find an opportunity to wipe out 7 of theirs and they immediately revive their players with a coordinated res. You now take the opportunity to revive your own downed players in a well coordinate res and push heavily onto the enemy team. With just your 9 you were able to threaten and weaken the enemy group so now you have an advantage because of your replenished numbers and the enemy was already pushed onto their heels. You wipe them out before they have their revive skills available again and win the fight.

Know how that scenario plays out right now?

15 vs 15, some of your players go down and you immediately either start frantically rubbing or your players just mash their revive skills to get them back into the fight, all the while the enemy is just mashing keys and flailing all over you and your downs trying to cleave them and keep them from getting back into the action. Maybe you get your people back up and the enemy has exhausted their cooldowns because they wanted to try and secure those downs, you now push and get some of their players down. You now exactly imitate what they did and they imitate exactly what you did. No strategy, no tactics, just frantic mashing of buttons and use of skills so as to not get wiped out because if you don't do anything while your downs are still in Downed State then you have a significant disadvantage because when they die they now have to run back to you and the best solution is just "RUUUUUUUUB RUB RUBADUBDUB" or frantic button pushing to land res skills.

I know which one I'd enjoy more.

One of those circumstances is true. Players do panic, and for the other...I have yet to see that happen, even in a GvG setting (replaced by skrims!). Usually if that many people down they full wipe in the current meta, or the commander cowers and calls it. Ironically, the NoDownstate wouldn't help the dead/dying GvG scene. All that walking back and slower reses because of dead-dead bodies! Blegh. If it's a random 15v15 around an objective like SMC then maybe I can see that circumstance.

Also here is an anecdote of a 15 ish vs. 15 ish in the current meta that I found randomly on youtube. I don't know them, and I don't know if they're good or bad. We can assume their selective edits would favor them of course. No where do I witness 6 or 7 downing for a massive comeback, so it's hard for me to accept your comparison the way you intended. Which feels disingenuous to me especially when considered with your exaggerated bit of "RUUUUUUUUB RUB RUBADUBDUB" or frantic button pushing to land res skills. Do you want me to take your stance genuinely or not?

[RuoVian.5069]

lol, Loser

[Iozeph.5617]

How about we keep downed state and get rid of the worthless function gyro, give back access to elite belt skills, and give something to Scrappers that's actually useful and worthy of being called a profession-defining mechanic? Unless, of course, being full of fail was the intended profession mechanic all along?

[Sovereign.1093]

best improvement imo is ppl learn to take advantage of it. my team is too few to not have this. my mercy rune has purpose