So ANet will fix downstate next?

[TheGrimm.5624]

If dead zergling, sorry you need to run all the way back. Either get your ally back up while they are down or they are out. If your not careful with your zerglings they will be running back across the map to you.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Nah. We need to change downstate to a chance mini-game.

Like, whenever your HP is 0 hit points, you must make a special saving throw, called a death saving throw, to determine whether you creep closer to death or hang onto life. You are in the hands of fate now, aided only by spells and features that improve your chances of succeeding on a saving throw.

Roll a d20. If the roll is 10 or higher, you succeed. Otherwise, you fail. A success or failure has no effect by itself. On your third success, you become stable (see below). On your third failure, you die. The successes and failures don't need to be consecutive; keep track of both until you collect three of a kind. The number of both is reset to zero when you regain any hit points or become stable.

Rolling 1 or 20. When you make a death saving throw and roll a 1 on the d20, it counts as two failures. If you roll a 20 on the d20, you regain 1 hit point.

D:

[cryorion.9532]

I see no issue with removing rally completely in WvW/PvP. Some professions/builds can rally much more frequently which obviously creates unfair environment (basically, spamming aoes gives higher chance to rally when downed). If someone gets downed, they should be penalized for it and not insta rally because some random enemy they tagged just died. We should be glad to even have this downed state where one has still chance to get ressed and continue; in other games when your hp reaches 0, you die and bye.Also nerf res speed in combat in pvp/wvw to give finishing/ressing utility/elite skills more weight.

[anduriell.6280]

Just remove the revive action while in combat, same as for defeated players.If a player wants to revive other player while in combat the reviving skills\traits should be used. It even bring some variety to wvw as we can see some uses for signets and banner same as pvp.

[Dawdler.8521]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:Nah. We need to change downstate to a chance mini-game.

Like, whenever your HP is 0 hit points, you must make a special saving throw, called a death saving throw, to determine whether you creep closer to death or hang onto life. You are in the hands of fate now, aided only by spells and features that improve your chances of succeeding on a saving throw.

Roll a d20. If the roll is 10 or higher, you succeed. Otherwise, you fail. A success or failure has no effect by itself. On your third success, you become stable (see below). On your third failure, you die. The successes and failures don't need to be consecutive; keep track of both until you collect three of a kind. The number of both is reset to zero when you regain any hit points or become stable.

Rolling 1 or 20. When you make a death saving throw and roll a 1 on the d20, it counts as two failures. If you roll a 20 on the d20, you regain 1 hit point.

D:You're just describing a warrior.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:Nah. We need to change downstate to a chance mini-game.

Like, whenever your HP is 0 hit points, you must make a special saving throw, called a death saving throw, to determine whether you creep closer to death or hang onto life. You are in the hands of fate now, aided only by spells and features that improve your chances of succeeding on a saving throw.

Roll a d20. If the roll is 10 or higher, you succeed. Otherwise, you fail. A success or failure has no effect by itself. On your third success, you become stable (see below). On your third failure, you die. The successes and failures don't need to be consecutive; keep track of both until you collect three of a kind. The number of both is reset to zero when you regain any hit points or become stable.

Rolling 1 or 20. When you make a death saving throw and roll a 1 on the d20, it counts as two failures. If you roll a 20 on the d20, you regain 1 hit point.

D:

And that would STILL make more sense than a downstate that gives you damage reduction and more HP than you had when you went down.

(Nice D&D 5th reference, by the way)

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:Nah. We need to change downstate to a chance mini-game.

Like, whenever your HP is 0 hit points, you must make a special saving throw, called a death saving throw, to determine whether you creep closer to death or hang onto life. You are in the hands of fate now, aided only by spells and features that improve your chances of succeeding on a saving throw.

Roll a d20. If the roll is 10 or higher, you succeed. Otherwise, you fail. A success or failure has no effect by itself. On your third success, you become stable (see below). On your third failure, you die. The successes and failures don't need to be consecutive; keep track of both until you collect three of a kind. The number of both is reset to zero when you regain any hit points or become stable.

Rolling 1 or 20. When you make a death saving throw and roll a 1 on the d20, it counts as two failures. If you roll a 20 on the d20, you regain 1 hit point.

D:You're just describing a warrior.

No. I'm describing a highly esoteric and original idea. You just don't understand me, mom!

D:

[avey.4201]

sucks any vs any, especially 1v2, but also 2v2-5v5 when you down someone, and no amount of cc/cleave stops them from ressing the down, even worse with meme warrior banners, packs of warriors with banners to instant finish a down/rally alliesdownstate could use 50%/25%/insta dead nerf

[Virdo.1540]

Rally needs to be removed in WvW.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:If dead zergling, sorry you need to run all the way back. Either get your ally back up while they are down or they are out. If your not careful with your zerglings they will be running back across the map to you.

Thats a sure fire way to get more people into wvw. Its not like we have a diminishing population or anything.

It seems to me that a lot of people who want the downstate removed are looking for crutch because they don't want to (or can't) plan out an entire fight as well as accounting for the downstate.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Blockhead Magee.3092 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:If dead zergling, sorry you need to run all the way back. Either get your ally back up while they are down or they are out. If your not careful with your zerglings they will be running back across the map to you.

Thats a sure fire way to get more people into wvw. Its not like we have a diminishing population or anything.

It seems to me that a lot of people who want the downstate removed are looking for crutch because they don't want to (or can't) plan out an entire fight as well as accounting for the downstate.

That's why they added the mount. And your right if people can't get the downed up before they are defeated they didn't plan out their fight and people need to have a bit of run back. Just like the defeated side will have to do. Zergs shouldn't win just because they had more bodies.

[Clownmug.8357]

Making pubstomping and ganking easier doesn't "fix" anything.

[Lonami.2987]

So wait a minute, the same people who wanted warclaw stomp gone, now want downstate gone?

In my opinion, warclaw stomp should have stayed, and warclaw should be changed so crowd control dismounts and knocks back players.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@"Clownmug.8357" said:Making pubstomping and ganking easier doesn't "fix" anything.

I can't speak to others. I am not talking about waiting at someone's spawn. This about rebalancing the tactical advantage that downstate affords a larger group, that normally by definition would already have other advantages in the fight before they are even downed. So giving them additional benefits while down doesn't make sense. Its ok that they had more people and will hit harder, but why should they also benefit while downed. Again not speaking for others, but if you want to encourage fights and you want people to take a stab at the zerg, they need to have a chance. The fact that you have more health when down then when you were up and about, that only makes sense in zerg v zerg, and odds there are people will not stop to mass rez anyway, so it just translates to when its a smaller group attacking a bigger one and the bigger one will have free bodies to getting the downed up whereas the other won't. So in the least get rid of the extra health even if not doing more. Again I side on the harsher end, if the defeated from the losing side have to run back, so should the attackers else the attackers need to take time while fight not to have their people defeated. Forcing a team into rez tactics should be a strategical move, instead it's just a matter of having more since you can just get everyone up after the fight. And I say this from a havoc perspective that would be even more punished when losing people in a fight. Defeated (winners and losers) should carry some price more than to just not earning free xp by tagging a target and running along.

[ArchonWing.9480]

I think there are benefits to getting rid/nerfing rally as opposed to downstate. And it's not about whose thingy is bigger. That kind of nonsense is shortsighted and also related to the terrible state of balance changes (delete this, delete that so nothing can counter me)

The main thing is that it's a source of toxicity. It is possible for someone to be a negative contribution to a group if one just yolos in and causes the enemy to rally. While there are certain other ways of doing this, such as ruining stealth, this is by and far the most egregious. It is easy to tell people to get off mounts before stealth. It is much harder to tell people how to avoid dying. This isn't pve where you can coach people in a few minutes. A lot of people won't play with people percieved as rallybots or if they simply don't trust them.

If rally did not exist, poor players would still overextend and get killed, but at least their sacrifice may not be in vain because at least they served as a meat shield. I mean, look, Gw2, is the epitome of a participation ribbon game. You just have to accept that.

If you think about it, a lot of the people that cry about getting ganked in the age of mounts suffer more from this, because not only do they look down on roamers as a whole because small scale is apparently the wrong way to play the game, it also causes said allied roamers to not help them since they're most likely rallybots in small fights, thus making them even more vulnerable. As if the game wasn't nonsensical enough. Yes, elitism and toxicity would remain, but at the moment, there are very practical reasons to do such.

End of the day, downstate is not going anywhere. This is ultimately a casual game and that will always be their priority. Btw, as for the edgy chest thumping folks, running casuals as well other people with different preferences out an already dying game is.... well I think you can figure that out on your own.

[Jeran.6850]

Downstate is in the game since release, the mount since march? 2019.Why should the removal of the mount-stomp be followed up by removal of the downstate, when there is no correlation at all?

Giving a mount the ability to stomp while the player is not contributing in the fight at all (well... aside mesmers, and very likely, thiefs - who can down someone in the middle of a pack, ooc, mount up, then mount stomp, ooc-ing again...) was the epitome of nonsense in a gamemode that is about player interaction (not about semi-afk-ing, then pressing one button on downs).

And about "downstate is a pve mechanic": that is obviously not true. Otherwise, it would not be in pvp - and im pretty sure it was in pvp even when it was considered an "E-Sport".

This is just another attempt to remove an integral part of player interaction

• which is within the vision of the developer and the vast majority of players i am sure, one of the reasons why wvw even exists (and the game overall) -to turn the game in favor of a handfull of ...well...let me call them "roamer" for now... -knowingly risking the end of any fun for everyone else.

How many threads had there been about this topic? Must have been a dozen... with all the times the same (8?) people wanting the downstate to be removed - but seen about/over everything, the majority of people want it to stay in the game.In this old threads, i know about 1(!) person thats not a "roamer" wanting the downstate to be removed (lets keep in mind, that these days most people think of them as a roamer, while running with 4 friends).

I can only hope Arenanet do have the numbers of players during the two "no downstate"-events, especially the decline of players as the days go by...

Personally, i logged off at the third day of the first event, and havent logged in for the hole week during the second. And i know quite a lot of people that behaved similar - at least more people, than the few people that want it to be removed in this forum. I dont know of ANY person in my 60 people wvw-guild, that want the downstate to be removed.

I want to keep the downstate, but the downstate skills to be equalized.But what i really want to be removed is the rally mechanic - and im am saying this as an elementalist main.

Sorry for the wall of text, sorry for making mistakes in a language im not used to wright in.

[Clownmug.8357]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@"Clownmug.8357" said:Making pubstomping and ganking easier doesn't "fix" anything.

I can't speak to others. I am not talking about waiting at someone's spawn. This about rebalancing the tactical advantage that downstate affords a larger group, that normally by definition would already have other advantages in the fight before they are even downed. So giving them additional benefits while down doesn't make sense. Its ok that they had more people and will hit harder, but why should they also benefit while downed. Again not speaking for others, but if you want to encourage fights and you want people to take a stab at the zerg, they need to have a chance. The fact that you have more health when down then when you were up and about, that only makes sense in zerg v zerg, and odds there are people will not stop to mass rez anyway, so it just translates to when its a smaller group attacking a bigger one and the bigger one will have free bodies to getting the downed up whereas the other won't. So in the least get rid of the extra health even if not doing more. Again I side on the harsher end, if the defeated from the losing side have to run back, so should the attackers else the attackers need to take time while fight not to have their people defeated. Forcing a team into rez tactics should be a strategical move, instead it's just a matter of having more since you can just get everyone up after the fight. And I say this from a havoc perspective that would be even more punished when losing people in a fight. Defeated (winners and losers) should carry some price more than to just not earning free xp by tagging a target and running along.

I'm not talking about spawncamping either. There's also the tactical advantage of a few players in voice comms calling targets and focusing them with CC and burst one after another until the whole enemy zerg disintegrates. In a world without downstate the only counter to this is having the same level of communication and organization. It wouldn't be healthy for a game mode comprised mostly of casual players to have them be expected to come together using uncoordinated builds and competently fight back.

[Kosmo.3468]

@Melian.5368 said:How does it make sense that a dying person trying to cling to life on the ground has more life than when he was up and well?

That's called plot armor.

[bluberblasen.9684]

stay with down state but

• remove rally
• rework downstate skills ( maybe give every cass the same skills )
• reduce health in downstate
• rework rezz traits and rezz skills for strong rezzing with the sacrifice of utility skills

[Zero.3871]

anet plz fix downstate, its disgusting how easy it is to revive someone while being invul, or being able to cast all skills like firebrand mantras to spam aegis while reviving: you cant contest downstate if you are outnumbered. this stupid mechanic always only favored the already greater party.just...

• give downstate 50% life of current state
• while reviving no skill activations are possible
• reduce revive speed

this broken mechanic needs to be fixed!

[subversiontwo.7501]

Ugh, this topic for the millionth time.

Like other have surely already said: Downstate is fine (it improves complexity of gameplay, provides fun roles/tactics and can help a smaller group just as well as a larger one). Rally can go, it tends to favour the wrong people in the wrong situation.

[Doug.4930]

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:

Like other have surely already said: Downstate is fine (it improves complexity of gameplay, provides fun roles/tactics and can help a smaller group just as well as a larger one). Rally can go, it tends to favour the wrong people in the wrong situation.

Actually every time this thread comes up in either a poll or a discussion the consensus among most players is that it certainly isn't fine. In most polls only around 30% ish think its fine, with the remaining 70% being in agreement to the contrary, usually a mix of "remove it" and "nerf it".

It most certainly doesn't favor the smaller group equally to the large one. The most obvious example of this is the simplest: Two players against one. If the one goes down its gg. If one of the two goes down they are more than likely going to get back up due to how warped the scales are tilted towards the revivers over the stompers/finishers. People have been articulating this point for years with numerous examples on how the larger force, whether thats 1v2 or 5v3 etc is given an even greater edge via downstate on top of the already considerable advantage that having more players in any given fight provides. Its past the point of being a debate its simply a fact.

Threads like this will continue until something is done about downstate. As they should.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Doug.4930 said:

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:

Like other have surely already said:

Downstate is fine

(it improves complexity of gameplay, provides fun roles/tactics and can help a smaller group just as well as a larger one).

Rally can go,

it tends to favour the wrong people in the wrong situation.

Actually every time this thread comes up in either a poll or a discussion the consensus among most players is that it certainly isn't fine. In most polls only around 30% ish think its fine, with the remaining 70% being in agreement to the contrary, usually a mix of "remove it" and "nerf it".

It most certainly doesn't favor the smaller group equally to the large one. The most obvious example of this is the simplest: Two players against one. If the one goes down its gg. If one of the two goes down they are more than likely going to get back up due to how warped the scales are tilted towards the revivers over the stompers/finishers. People have been articulating this point for years with numerous examples on how the larger force, whether thats 1v2 or 5v3 etc is given an even greater edge via downstate on top of the already considerable advantage that having more players in any given fight provides. Its past the point of being a debate its simply a fact.

Threads like this will continue until something is done about downstate. As they should.You got that completely kitten backwards.

Most polls have shown that around 70% are in favor of keeping it or nerfing it while a minority want to remove it. The "problem" is that you dont see threads with downedstate is ok or I was ressed today and I liked it. No, this is a forum. You mostly see complaints. So that minority... its literally the vocal minority.

Also the vocal minority is incidently absolutely terrible at creating unbiased polls that doesnt end up with a leading scenario where you have to vote what they want you to vote or you yourself say you're an idiot, a bad player, or something to that effect.

[Doug.4930]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Doug.4930 said:

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:

Like other have surely already said:

Downstate is fine

(it improves complexity of gameplay, provides fun roles/tactics and can help a smaller group just as well as a larger one).

Rally can go,

it tends to favour the wrong people in the wrong situation.

Actually every time this thread comes up in either a poll or a discussion the consensus among most players is that it certainly isn't fine. In most polls only around 30% ish think its fine, with the remaining 70% being in agreement to the contrary, usually a mix of "remove it" and "nerf it".

It most certainly doesn't favor the smaller group equally to the large one. The most obvious example of this is the simplest: Two players against one. If the one goes down its gg. If one of the two goes down they are more than likely going to get back up due to how warped the scales are tilted towards the revivers over the stompers/finishers. People have been articulating this point for years with numerous examples on how the larger force, whether thats 1v2 or 5v3 etc is given an even greater edge via downstate on top of the already considerable advantage that having more players in any given fight provides. Its past the point of being a debate its simply a fact.

Threads like this will continue until something is done about downstate. As they should.You got that completely kitten backwards.

Most polls have shown that around 70% are in favor of

keeping it or nerfing it

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/95569/poll-your-thoughts-on-downstate/p1

No I had it right, the majority of people are not happy with the current balance of downstate as it stands most recently. Only 30% were in favour of keeping it unchanged. The remaining 70% were a mix of people who all wanted it to be nerfed in some way. From people wanting it deleted, to people who just wanted rallying removed, more no downstate weeks, no double downed rezing etc etc.

But only 30% were happy with it as it is now. Which is what my reply stated.

I'm afraid you're the one who has it kitten backwards. Unless you can show me a more recent collection of data that contradicts this one? In which case I'd be delighted to change my views.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Doug.4930 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Doug.4930 said:

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:

Like other have surely already said:

Downstate is fine

(it improves complexity of gameplay, provides fun roles/tactics and can help a smaller group just as well as a larger one).

Rally can go,

it tends to favour the wrong people in the wrong situation.

Actually every time this thread comes up in either a poll or a discussion the consensus among most players is that it certainly isn't fine. In most polls only around 30% ish think its fine, with the remaining 70% being in agreement to the contrary, usually a mix of "remove it" and "nerf it".

It most certainly doesn't favor the smaller group equally to the large one. The most obvious example of this is the simplest: Two players against one. If the one goes down its gg. If one of the two goes down they are more than likely going to get back up due to how warped the scales are tilted towards the revivers over the stompers/finishers. People have been articulating this point for years with numerous examples on how the larger force, whether thats 1v2 or 5v3 etc is given an even greater edge via downstate on top of the already considerable advantage that having more players in any given fight provides. Its past the point of being a debate its simply a fact.

Threads like this will continue until something is done about downstate. As they should.You got that completely kitten backwards.

Most polls have shown that around 70% are in favor of

keeping it or nerfing it

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/95569/poll-your-thoughts-on-downstate/p1

No I had it right, the majority of people are not happy with the current balance of downstate as it stands most recently. Only 30% were in favour of keeping it unchanged. The remaining 70% were a mix of people who all wanted it to be nerfed in some way. From people wanting it deleted, to people who just wanted rallying removed, more no downstate weeks, no double downed rezing etc etc.

But only 30% were happy with it as it is now. Which is what my reply stated.

I'm afraid you're the one who has it kitten backwards. Unless you can show me a more recent collection of data that contradicts this one? In which case I'd be delighted to change my views.Yeah and thats one of the stupid polls. A tiny amount voted because it was that stupid with far too many options. Even then 70% want to keep and/or see it nerfed (easy math there).

This poll: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/75626/no-downstate-poll-please-read-post-first/p1

Is somewhat better layed out, but still not many voters.