GDchiaScrub.3241

^ Truth. Engi has 100% garbage downed state skills. Really bad..especially in WvW. Anet should be ashamed of themselves. SMH... Idk. I think it's a brilliant idea to pull enemies closer to get it over with. D:

why trying to argue over something you didn't even understood and wasn't for you in the first place? OP made some suggestion to balance downstate. i added mines. True. I should have quoted just that one guy. D:

well no. some tried warrior with rifle but it wasn't as effective as you would imagine. dragon hunter on the other hand... => no rally bot.=> heavily nerf downed state power/condi damage auto attack for all class. make it useless .=> only one can revive a downed player. make specific builds to revive faster shine. if not being hit, one player reviving the odwned + the downed healing himslef is fast enough.=>nerf downed state % of hp depending on vitaity stat. (or give the same health for each class depending on the class. like all necro would share the same downed hp but it would be higher than elem shared hp for example.) Where does the OP say they want permanent downstate? Why argue over something not mentioned? D:

@"Sobx.1758"Well and anyone else really. As you probably figured out...I have a low barrier to entry when it comes to discussion of mechanics. On the flip side, when it comes to implementation (balance changes in this case) my expectations are higher. In regards to "balance" I prefer consistency (whether or not ANET upholds this can be debatable, but I'm not here to defend them). Which means I might have to explain things that could seem outside the context of this Thread's topic. On the plus side it may help those who also wish to explain their given idea better by offering a foundation. Action EconomyThis refers to the amount of player's potential actions (move, spend resources, attack, use item, etc.) that can be done within a time frame (1 turn, 1 minute, or 1 hour etc.). The idea precedes me as it has been around in many turn based games., but applies to nearly all games (they may choose to address it heavily or barely). I'm sure the internet can elaborate on this subject more than I will here, but this rudimentary understanding is all I need in this instance. GW2's Mechanical PhasesI'm not here to discuss emergent behavior involving player strategies as "phases," but rather what is observable by the mechanics that ANET has provided. The base game provides two phases IMO (up and down). The following isn't necessarily how ANET might define them internally, but rather my short hand for discussion. Up-Phase: This is when everyone is up on their feet. They are able to use the majority of their action economy, and this is when they make the most amount of their decisions.Down-Phase: This is when anyone from a group enters downstate, but all people in the group don't have to be in downstate to enter this phase.The reasoning for separating the phases is each phase represents a potential shift in mentality, or an attempt to influence player behavior. Taking Halo (the first one), for example, you have a shield-bar that can be taken down by damage, and a health bar that leads to death when it reaches zero. Typically a player is far more brave while their shield is up, but when it goes down it blinks red influencing the player to retreat and find cover because the shield won't recharge while still taking damage. Should the health bar also take damage the player might become more cautious, or seek out powerups to recover further (health packs were a thing in Halo: CE). In pvp, the one without shields might play more passive while their attacker goes more aggressive, whereas in the beginning they both were aggressive possibly. Despite Halo having a slight multi-phase approach, their Action Economy isn't different when shields are up or down. For this game, the Action Economy can be greatly affected by each phase (like whoever is in downstate can't move much unless they're hacking or a select few classes). I intentionally use "They" when describing each phases as it doesn't refer solely to the individual. When one side gets someone down, they have collectively (or partially considering battles can be large in WvW) entered a "Down-Phase." Each side is influenced to behave differently. For example, Downstate's health pool is larger probably to encourage other mechanical usage beyond just dps (stomps/safe stomps, reviving, res skills, and the surprisingly few skills that also finish foes). Then of course there is emotional things like creating tension, but it isn't necessary to delve into here. OutnumberedI think we both have agreed that this multiplies all game mechanics. More people on one team means they have more Action Economy to potentially use, and any other mechanics involving a phase, such as downstate (downstate itself dramatically reduces Action Economy on its own). I'm guessing the great debate is figuring out how to decide when one mechanic being multiplied becomes problematic. Which is probably where we will disagree on what mechanic that is (for this topic, some here are saying its downstate itself). "Balanced or Imbalanced?"I'm assuming game balance is a goal to achieve for some consistency. Then one way is to follow tenets/commandments or something written to refer back to that doesn't change much. Another way is to reduce variables by operating under a controlled environment. A third could be to draw comparisons to existing features. There can be more than what I described. I can't say what ANET does do, and they may have even more methods. Which is where the "Action Economy" gets referred to for turn based games. Damage numbers are easier to "balance" than alterations to Action Economy. For shooters they probably don't consider it as much. Guild Wars is affected by Action Economy as many skills explicitly state their casting speed, cooldowns, and resource management (then boons/conditions/ccs change it further). If I was looking at mechanics I would check its effect on Action Economy, and its effect on the game's phases. For example, Quickness/Slow used to affect stomp speed in addition to casting/attack speeds. Now they no longer change stomp speed, and this reduced their potential effect on Action Economy for the Down-Phase. ANET's intent was mainly aimed at Quickness from what I recall. I'm not here to say that change is wrong or right, but rather if it align's with ANET's intended goal. The Mount ThingI suppose we can now address the mount in the room. I don't think I ever asked for it (I don't feel like doing another search function check), but regardless you bring up something important. The average player is great at saying something feels wrong. A few are able to pinpoint the problem exactly. "People wanted the mount stomp gone for a similar reason..." is not something I'm going to refute even if no link is provided. I'm trusting what you say is true that people wanted this, because it feels plausible to me that some players did. As to why exactly ANET changed it I can't really say because the update doesn't mention their goals/intentions on the matter. By all means provide a link if they did say so. I can assume it was over-tuned when it launched with 10 targets aoe damage, and downstate finisher causing it to over-contribute to the Up-Phase and Down-Phase in one skill activation. And it remained over-tuned even with reducing its aoe cap to 3. So, for 1 action I can see Battle-maul had a heavily skewed effect on Action Economy for what it was capable of doing. I mean, it competed with some class finishers at the time... However, I liked that the mount had an interaction with downstate that could resolve the Down-Phase quickly by forfeiting your normal Up-Phase actions to be on the mount, and I was able to "Fortelulz" when it had ludicrous aoe capabilities. It was both an Interesting idea, but terrible in execution (probably why I didn't ask for a mount in the first place...I digress). Eventually, they chose to have it do only damage (with percent increase on downs). I might have kept it as dealing noodle (less than 20) damage with a single target finisher so it only really affects 1 Phase. Regardless, I don't use only population to justify my opinion on why I might keep/remove the stomp. I wouldn't start with something like, "We should remove the mount's Lance ability because the larger group has more chances to hit and catch the smaller. Therefore lance is giving even more advantages to the larger group, and decreasing the smaller's ability to disengage." Conclusion (Not quite a TLDR)Now we have come full circle. And probably where we depart. I'm protecting a precedent more than I'm protecting a mechanic when it comes to balancing combat. The first being, consistency (established by some tenets). The second, is operating under balanced situations, and this can be considered one of those tenets (and where we might differ). The third, pragmatism/practicality (the reality of ANET...). I'm okay if people don't like Guild War's Phases that I described, but downstate's removal won't solve a team/population issue. If people wanted twitch skills to shine (in the hope that the smaller can take advantage) then yes, you can reduce TTK by removing downstate or by reducing HP. It still runs into the practicality for ANET. They already don't like having a lot of skill-splits between modes, and some in this thread barely believe in ANET's ability to "balance." It's incredibly hard for me to get on board the "permanent no downstate" train which then leads to having to balance each functionality change. Personally. I prefer solving problems with build diversity.There are about 6 classes that can have a source of Reveal, but only what...2 or 3 that have anti-down state skills (Daredevil, warrior, and scrapper I think)? How come we have Mercy runes, but not it's antithesis? Like, they could make WvW specific Runes/sigls to spend our useless currencies on... "Dodging over a downed enemy finishes them. Cooldown: XYZ's seconds" "Finishers are XYZ% faster" "XYZ% more damage to downed enemies (literally stolen idea from the battle-maul)." These suggestions add to "build diversity" to influence players decision making when comes to dealing with the Down-Phase. Or if they nerf everyone's damage why not reduce the healing rate for pressing F on downed people proportionally (something people have mentioned too)? They already showed their willingness to reduce Merciful Intervention forever ago. TLDR: Don't read it all in one sitting I guess. D:

You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers and the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever. Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group). In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there? In short: defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. It pushes the balance of outnumbered fights in the wrong direction. Sure, the numbers are automatically favored because of the number of skills, targets they affect in total, overal health pool and so on, but downstate adds yet another layer of imbalance. How is this "not enough for the change"?And yeah, it's not an issue for pvp, because you have even numbers there, which is why I don't exactly mind downstate for that mode. Counterarguement? Uhh. How does it add on another layer if it has been there for about 8 or so years? The "layer" has been there for a while now...even so. If we set the precedent that a balance change can occur because someone somewhere has a random outnumbered situation, and they use that as the only thing necessary to sway opinions then that can open the door for changing other things we might not want. How is being for 8 years in the game significant here? It is another layer over your regular obvious "outnumbering = stronger" and the time it was in the game changes nothing about that fact. It's not a new addition to the game, sure, but it still adds another layer of making outnumbering stronger. What about that is hard to understand for you? Because it appeared you were using "adds yet another layer" meaning something new, but you reiterated. From what I gather you don't like that downstate is a different phase in combat. You want the only phase to be the 1st health bar, correct? ...what exactly about my post is still so unclear for you? :) It isn't unclear. I wanted to make sure there weren't other intentions beyond what you laid out, because as you say, you felt my position was a "weird counterarguement attempt." Your feelings are acceptable, but it seems I will have to expend effort to explain things further. I can't read your mind, so I have to ask a little bit more than your "Downstate negatively multiplies a outnumbered situation, where the feeling of outnumbered is already sufficiently negative." Feel free to say if that paraphrase is inaccurate. What is wrong about it? Because being on the outnumbering side has its "obviosuly inherent" advantages and there's no reason to have another mechanic that pushes that advantage even further. Pretty sure I already said that before, but you keep asking the same thing again. What about that is unclear for you? The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further. Are we using "the wrong one" like air quotes for emphasis or something I said? Probably emphasis. Reads like emphasis. Are you attempting to bring both sides to parity in some way then regardless of their population? No, I'm using the wrong one, because inevitably you'd ask what it means it's wrong and why is this one wrong and not the other. Then the quotes around words was indeed a stylistic choice, and I'm satisfied with that usage if it's the case. I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though. So... I don't see how that changes anything about my answer? Or are you just dropping your previous claim in place of a "I liked it for the lulz"? It can't be both? Theoretically it could be, but you've dropped your previous claim and picked the "fortehlulz" route, so it doesn't seem to be both. Assume it is both then, but feel free to latch on to it if you feel it is relevant. How is it both? And how am I "latching on to it" when you didn't respond with anything relevant in the first place? Unfortunately...due to putting in effort it might mean I explain things that you may feel you already know. Equally unfortunate it might require a separate post outside this quote chain. But I suppose the benefit is it might be a more dry read, and less "fortehlulz."

Then fix that? D:

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D: revealed? oh u mean that thing that can simply be cleansed away?also reveal from marking isnt as useful when keeping permastealth on with 0.5 seconds before the "reveal" from marked could go in action I mean you can complain the Deadeye elite thing, sure. As for "permastealth." Do you mean for a long duration? Or that they are popping stealth on and off like flickering before Marked does it's thing? D: Shadow meld should not remove revealed in competitive modes. It's just too strong. "Oh you revealed me? Haha I remove it and go back to stealth, then attack you from stealth again because I can't take you on head to head."Sure thing son, remove stealth and revealed removal, overhaul it so for 6 seconds outgoing attacks are unblockable, can't be reflected or mitigated by barriers.Go ahead, it's only faire DE also get class mechanic denial on tap. They are already unblockable. My only counter to them is reflect. I was facing off against a DE and I tried blocking him with my static shield (supposed to stun attacker and block), but instead, I was one shot from full health. So he had basilisk venom which is the only unblockable interrupt he could pull out, which means no shadow meld elite could've been slotted, so he already had no means to remove revealed. Are you even trying to make a point here?Static shield stuns melee attacks. You said you were shot. Can I please get coherent arguing in here? Ps: Death's Judgement lost it's unblockable effect since December 2018 just for your info... My point is that he punched through my static shield from stealth, dealt enough to one shot me, and then he disappeared almost immediately after killing me. Revealed is supposed to last 4s, but he disappeared and stealthed right away. Death's Judgement applies 1 second reveal at the start of using it (e.g. it's a way around the normal amount of "Revealed" after an attack from stealth), then it fires to hit you. Canceling Death's Judgement still means they are revealed for the 1 second. Unless you meant another stealth attack, then he is able to roll back into stealth this way after the 1 second passes. D:Oh kidding it's 3 seconds. RIP. Then I have no idea how under your circumstance they did whatever. The roll for stealth is 1 second. D:

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D: revealed? oh u mean that thing that can simply be cleansed away?also reveal from marking isnt as useful when keeping permastealth on with 0.5 seconds before the "reveal" from marked could go in action I mean you can complain the Deadeye elite thing, sure. As for "permastealth." Do you mean for a long duration? Or that they are popping stealth on and off like flickering before Marked does it's thing? D: Shadow meld should not remove revealed in competitive modes. It's just too strong. "Oh you revealed me? Haha I remove it and go back to stealth, then attack you from stealth again because I can't take you on head to head."Sure thing son, remove stealth and revealed removal, overhaul it so for 6 seconds outgoing attacks are unblockable, can't be reflected or mitigated by barriers.Go ahead, it's only faire DE also get class mechanic denial on tap. They are already unblockable. My only counter to them is reflect. I was facing off against a DE and I tried blocking him with my static shield (supposed to stun attacker and block), but instead, I was one shot from full health. So he had basilisk venom which is the only unblockable interrupt he could pull out, which means no shadow meld elite could've been slotted, so he already had no means to remove revealed. Are you even trying to make a point here?Static shield stuns melee attacks. You said you were shot. Can I please get coherent arguing in here? Ps: Death's Judgement lost it's unblockable effect since December 2018 just for your info... My point is that he punched through my static shield from stealth, dealt enough to one shot me, and then he disappeared almost immediately after killing me. Revealed is supposed to last 4s, but he disappeared and stealthed right away. Death's Judgement applies 1 second reveal at the start of using it (e.g. it's a way around the normal amount of "Revealed" after an attack from stealth), then it fires to hit you. Canceling Death's Judgement still means they are revealed for the 1 second. Unless you meant another stealth attack, then he is able to roll back into stealth this way after the 1 second passes. D: Edit: Da fuq? Don't +1 helpful to this post. It's wrong.

Where exactly do we draw the line? DeleteFirebrand Oh come now. I'm trying to figure out the goal of, as of yesterday or so, my Forum Rival. We can get into aoe spam afterward if applicable. D:

You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers and the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever. Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group). In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there? In short: defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. It pushes the balance of outnumbered fights in the wrong direction. Sure, the numbers are automatically favored because of the number of skills, targets they affect in total, overal health pool and so on, but downstate adds yet another layer of imbalance. How is this "not enough for the change"?And yeah, it's not an issue for pvp, because you have even numbers there, which is why I don't exactly mind downstate for that mode. Counterarguement? Uhh. How does it add on another layer if it has been there for about 8 or so years? The "layer" has been there for a while now...even so. If we set the precedent that a balance change can occur because someone somewhere has a random outnumbered situation, and they use that as the only thing necessary to sway opinions then that can open the door for changing other things we might not want. How is being for 8 years in the game significant here? It is another layer over your regular obvious "outnumbering = stronger" and the time it was in the game changes nothing about that fact. It's not a new addition to the game, sure, but it still adds another layer of making outnumbering stronger. What about that is hard to understand for you? Because it appeared you were using "adds yet another layer" meaning something new, but you reiterated. From what I gather you don't like that downstate is a different phase in combat. You want the only phase to be the 1st health bar, correct? What is wrong about it? Because being on the outnumbering side has its "obviosuly inherent" advantages and there's no reason to have another mechanic that pushes that advantage even further. Pretty sure I already said that before, but you keep asking the same thing again. What about that is unclear for you? The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further. Are we using "the wrong one" like air quotes for emphasis or something I said? Probably emphasis. Reads like emphasis. Are you attempting to bring both sides to parity in some way then regardless of their population? I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though. So... I don't see how that changes anything about my answer? Or are you just dropping your previous claim in place of a "I liked it for the lulz"? It can't be both? Theoretically it could be, but you've dropped your previous claim and picked the "fortehlulz" route, so it doesn't seem to be both. Assume it is both then, but feel free to latch on to it if you feel it is relevant. D:

You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers and the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever. Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group). In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there? In short: defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. It pushes the balance of outnumbered fights in the wrong direction. Sure, the numbers are automatically favored because of the number of skills, targets they affect in total, overal health pool and so on, but downstate adds yet another layer of imbalance. How is this "not enough for the change"?And yeah, it's not an issue for pvp, because you have even numbers there, which is why I don't exactly mind downstate for that mode. Counterarguement? Uhh. How does it add on another layer if it has been there for about 8 or so years? The "layer" has been there for a while now...even so. If we set the precedent that a balance change can occur because someone somewhere has a random outnumbered situation, and they use that as the only thing necessary to sway opinions then that can open the door for changing other things we might not want. What is wrong with wanting another reason in addition to their "outnumbered" issue (still a population/team issue imo)? I only see it getting inconsistent results if we have to adjust for 14v20, 1v3, 3v7, etc.. While X v X is far easier to comprehend, and ANET already struggles with it. What is the goal here? Are you trying to balance teams? Get faster fights? Get slower fights? I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though. So... I don't see how that changes anything about my answer? Or are you just dropping your previous claim in place of a "I liked it for the lulz"?It can't be both? D:

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D: revealed? oh u mean that thing that can simply be cleansed away?also reveal from marking isnt as useful when keeping permastealth on with 0.5 seconds before the "reveal" from marked could go in actionI mean you can complain the Deadeye elite thing, sure. As for "permastealth." Do you mean for a long duration? Or that they are popping stealth on and off like flickering before Marked does it's thing? D:

You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers and the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever. Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group). In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there? I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though. D:

The OP's concern is mainly from poor decision making when engaging/disengaging in Outnumbered Situations. He literally starts with "Nothing more egregious, frustrating, enraging than fighing outnumbered..." then flavors it towards a game mechanic. In this instance, that game mechanic happens to be Downstate but could be replaced with Boons, heals, stealth, etc. Most of any game mechanic can be multiplied by greater numbers really. Even supply! Omg. We'll ignore that "nerf this" threads sometimes don't contain videos for better context. If your goal is to make a balance pass, then why would you start with mixed situations (AKA...X vs. Y + X)? Fluidity of numbers involved is going to happen in the wide open world of WvW compared to Spvp. If the problem is a population issue well...fiddling with downstate won't balance the players on the team but I hear there is some mysterious update that supposedly fixes population issues (probably won't QQ). Attempting to make a change for the X vs. X + Y is more than likely going to affect the X vs. X situations. As far as I can tell nothing new (in regards to arguments) has been said in this downstate thread that hasn't already been mentioned in previous ones. Let's see if the forums search function is useful. Doubtful. Found some! Omg, I was so hyperbolic back then too: BadOutnumberedPremise. CasualGameMode. GameMechanicsDiscourse. I wonder if I still hold some of those views? Now. If you wanted to homogenize all the downstate class skills that's something discus-sable (funny sounding lol). If you wanted to add more anti-downstate mechanics that's also discuses-able such as more %Damage on downs for sigils, runes, items, traits, w.e.. Too bad some people wanted mount stomp gone. D:

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D: Since some things do both (Sentries) I get confused. Target painter [&trap] just says it marks people - I thought that was supposed to be an anti-stealth device? If you don't understand basic game mechanics, go ahead and read the wiki before you try starting a discussion about them :( It isn't actually basic game mechanics considering I don't recall half of these things being present in PvE or even Spvp (though I haven't cared for that game mode since like 2018. Stop being so quick to pounce. Marked, Detected! and Revealed are three dumb steps to produce one mechanic (Anti-stealth) that simply sees little use outside of WvW. It's a weird argument to make that it's not a basic mechanic if it's not in gamemode1, but it is in gamemode2. Seems basic enough to me to call it that. But yeah, I think there are better ways to balance stealth "around itself". It's not weird. It's just semantics between what each of us considers a "basic mechanic." It'd be more accurate to say universal mechanic I guess, but it only feels like scratching the bottom of the barrel if the mechanic is present in "game mode 1" but not game mode 2 (PvE) and game mode 3 (Spvp). Then of course the sub-systems of other two game modes. Regardless, WvW has the illustrious position of being the minority and not the normal e.g. not "Basic." I mean. I don't think anyone in this forum would want to be called basic! Omg. Absolutely rude. We're in the subforum of wvw mode, so expecting basic knowledge about its basic mechanics should be expected. And they're not some kind of hidden (ayy) effects, so calling them basic seems fair enough. Forums...are meant for discussion. If people lack knowledge they can ask in particular sub-forums if it helps find the matching audience. I would only expect people keep their questions relevant to the category. For example, don't ask about Raid Bosses in the WvW forums. Why would we disallow basic questions to be asked here? Are we really going down this road? Is the basic knowledge of what forums should be used for lost here? Did I say people can't ask a question here? But that's the person that kept vouching for "op stealth deletion from the game" for... a pretty long time now. In those circumstances not knowing basic facts surrounding the gamemode and the very mechanic "you" want removed from the game becomes pretty noteworthy. And as such, if he's actually interested in carrying on with any discussion, he should start reading up on the skills and mechanics instead of just screaming "remove!" when apparently he doesn't understand how they work.And yes, forums are meant for discussion, but to have a meaningful discussion it's highly advised (needed?) to actually know the basics of what someone's talking about before going off with some radical opinions. Is this not a reasonable expectation? Cool. But just remember that it was you that complained about my choice of words, not the other way around ;) Lol. They're your forum rival? Explains the quips on the first page anyhow. /facepalm He had knowledge of stealth, but not ANET's janky Marked implementation from what I understand. Given this string I assume we divide on if "Marked" is basic knowledge. So IMO, he can comment on stealth...even if I disagree with removing stealth/invisibility. Just remember I was complaining about the pounce on your rival. The semantic dispute was a side effect. D: "Forum rival"? Just because I saw him spamming the same nonsense he apparently doesn't even understand the basics of? Interesting conclusions.I've meant exactly what I wrote. That was not a "pounce" and I've already exaplained my point of view about this above, not sure why you keep trying to spin it into your unrelated theories. But hey, you've remembered one of my posts (which I don't tbh), so -following your logic- I guess I'm your forum rival, which is also why you've so eagerly pounced at my choice of words. :(Oh. You took the forum rival thing seriously? I do forget plain text can be hard on humor sometimes if I don't provide enough hints. /facepalm I was going to make a joke about Ash and Gary next, but we won't be able to get anywhere. We can add that to my "theories" and "conclusions" as such things make me feel like a scientist (Forumtology?). What are my theories or whatever called? I'll let you do the honors of naming them. So maybe I have a lower bar for people to discuss stealth than you? That's where we are at for the TLDR. He can spam(err comment on) such threads with whatever bad ideas as he sees fit. Better to know the bad ideas than hide them. You may even be able to help by providing more information! Or links to wiki articles he should read? Something something something, sunlight and disinfectant quote here. That way the bad ideas will be less bad with guidance (probably unlikely given forum egos are on average 50% higher than the normal human). And yeah. We both read and post on different threads too. Not really sure this is shocking, but we can be rivals if you wanted. It's not like there are many faces on the forums anyway. If we went back to downstate/stealth threads a year ago you might even see 90% of the same people. Maybe they can join us in forum rivalry? TLDR: I have a low bar for people discussing stealth. I doubt it'll be removed even with intimate (non-sensual) knowledge. D:

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D: Since some things do both (Sentries) I get confused. Target painter [&trap] just says it marks people - I thought that was supposed to be an anti-stealth device? If you don't understand basic game mechanics, go ahead and read the wiki before you try starting a discussion about them :( It isn't actually basic game mechanics considering I don't recall half of these things being present in PvE or even Spvp (though I haven't cared for that game mode since like 2018. Stop being so quick to pounce. Marked, Detected! and Revealed are three dumb steps to produce one mechanic (Anti-stealth) that simply sees little use outside of WvW. It's a weird argument to make that it's not a basic mechanic if it's not in gamemode1, but it is in gamemode2. Seems basic enough to me to call it that. But yeah, I think there are better ways to balance stealth "around itself". It's not weird. It's just semantics between what each of us considers a "basic mechanic." It'd be more accurate to say universal mechanic I guess, but it only feels like scratching the bottom of the barrel if the mechanic is present in "game mode 1" but not game mode 2 (PvE) and game mode 3 (Spvp). Then of course the sub-systems of other two game modes. Regardless, WvW has the illustrious position of being the minority and not the normal e.g. not "Basic." I mean. I don't think anyone in this forum would want to be called basic! Omg. Absolutely rude. We're in the subforum of wvw mode, so expecting basic knowledge about its basic mechanics should be expected. And they're not some kind of hidden (ayy) effects, so calling them basic seems fair enough. Forums...are meant for discussion. If people lack knowledge they can ask in particular sub-forums if it helps find the matching audience. I would only expect people keep their questions relevant to the category. For example, don't ask about Raid Bosses in the WvW forums. Why would we disallow basic questions to be asked here? Are we really going down this road? Is the basic knowledge of what forums should be used for lost here? Did I say people can't ask a question here? But that's the person that kept vouching for "op stealth deletion from the game" for... a pretty long time now. In those circumstances not knowing basic facts surrounding the gamemode and the very mechanic "you" want removed from the game becomes pretty noteworthy. And as such, if he's actually interested in carrying on with any discussion, he should start reading up on the skills and mechanics instead of just screaming "remove!" when apparently he doesn't understand how they work.And yes, forums are meant for discussion, but to have a meaningful discussion it's highly advised (needed?) to actually know the basics of what someone's talking about before going off with some radical opinions. Is this not a reasonable expectation? Cool. But just remember that it was you that complained about my choice of words, not the other way around ;) Lol. They're your forum rival? Explains the quips on the first page anyhow. /facepalm He had knowledge of stealth, but not ANET's janky Marked implementation from what I understand. Given this string I assume we divide on if "Marked" is basic knowledge. So IMO, he can comment on stealth...even if I disagree with removing stealth/invisibility. Just remember I was complaining about the pounce on your rival. The semantic dispute was a side effect. D:

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D: Since some things do both (Sentries) I get confused. Target painter [&trap] just says it marks people - I thought that was supposed to be an anti-stealth device? If you don't understand basic game mechanics, go ahead and read the wiki before you try starting a discussion about them :( It isn't actually basic game mechanics considering I don't recall half of these things being present in PvE or even Spvp (though I haven't cared for that game mode since like 2018. Stop being so quick to pounce. Marked, Detected! and Revealed are three dumb steps to produce one mechanic (Anti-stealth) that simply sees little use outside of WvW. It's a weird argument to make that it's not a basic mechanic if it's not in gamemode1, but it is in gamemode2. Seems basic enough to me to call it that. But yeah, I think there are better ways to balance stealth "around itself". It's not weird. It's just semantics between what each of us considers a "basic mechanic." It'd be more accurate to say universal mechanic I guess, but it only feels like scratching the bottom of the barrel if the mechanic is present in "game mode 1" but not game mode 2 (PvE) and game mode 3 (Spvp). Then of course the sub-systems of other two game modes. Regardless, WvW has the illustrious position of being the minority and not the normal e.g. not "Basic." I mean. I don't think anyone in this forum would want to be called basic! Omg. Absolutely rude. We're in the subforum of wvw mode, so expecting basic knowledge about its basic mechanics should be expected. And they're not some kind of hidden (ayy) effects, so calling them basic seems fair enough. Forums...are meant for discussion. If people lack knowledge they can ask in particular sub-forums if it helps find the matching audience. I would only expect people keep their questions relevant to the category. For example, don't ask about Raid Bosses in the WvW forums. Why would we disallow basic questions to be asked here? Are we really going down this road? Is the basic knowledge of what forums should be used for lost here? "more accurate to say universal I guess"... I had hoped that would signify I wasn't giving a strong definitive statement when attempting another word because listing countless synonyms might not be productive. But. As I said. We're just getting into to semantics. Of course I forget that you can't read my mind, and I recall you falling into a similar situation in the past resulting in bickering over word choice. So. To simplify. You use Basic Mechanics (as you say) per game mode. Scouts, guild upgrades, siege equipment, etc. is basic to you in this sub-forum. I used Basic Mechanics for the whole game. Mechanics shared across game modes is basic to me: downstate, stealth (invisibility), classes There really isn't anything more to be said here. Semantics and context. Forums and discussion. D:

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D: Since some things do both (Sentries) I get confused. Target painter [&trap] just says it marks people - I thought that was supposed to be an anti-stealth device? If you don't understand basic game mechanics, go ahead and read the wiki before you try starting a discussion about them :( It isn't actually basic game mechanics considering I don't recall half of these things being present in PvE or even Spvp (though I haven't cared for that game mode since like 2018. Stop being so quick to pounce. Marked, Detected! and Revealed are three dumb steps to produce one mechanic (Anti-stealth) that simply sees little use outside of WvW. It's a weird argument to make that it's not a basic mechanic if it's not in gamemode1, but it is in gamemode2. Seems basic enough to me to call it that. But yeah, I think there are better ways to balance stealth "around itself".It's not weird. It's just semantics between what each of us considers a "basic mechanic." It'd be more accurate to say universal mechanic I guess, but it only feels like scratching the bottom of the barrel if the mechanic is present in "game mode 1" but not game mode 2 (PvE) and game mode 3 (Spvp). Then of course the sub-systems of other two game modes. Regardless, WvW has the illustrious position of being the minority and not the normal e.g. not "Basic." I mean. I don't think anyone in this forum would want to be called basic! Omg. Absolutely rude. D:

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D: Since some things do both (Sentries) I get confused. Target painter [&trap] just says it marks people - I thought that was supposed to be an anti-stealth device? If you don't understand basic game mechanics, go ahead and read the wiki before you try starting a discussion about them :( It isn't actually basic game mechanics considering I don't recall half of these things being present in PvE or even Spvp (though I haven't cared for that game mode since like 2018. Stop being so quick to pounce. Marked, Detected! and Revealed are three dumb steps to produce one mechanic (Anti-stealth) that simply sees little use outside of WvW.

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D: Since some things do both (Sentries) I get confused. Target painter [&trap] just says it marks people - I thought that was supposed to be an anti-stealth device?I ain't here to fix ANET's descriptions. They all contribute to being "anti-stealth," but "Marked" merely requires extra steps. Step 1: You get "Marked" by thingsStep 2: If you go into stealth, while under the effect "Marked" you then become "Detected!".Step 3: Detected! causes you to become Revealed if you are in stealth for more than 2 seconds during the Detected! effect. (I don't know if this means you get revealed instantly by trap/painter due to probably being in stealth for 2 seconds or longer anyway) Your confusion is warranted because it's sloppy, but I suspect the "Detected!" is suppose to give you warning.

I can blend in with the grass win on the green team. Easy access to stealth imo. D:

Revealed already does this. I think you are confusing it with Marked. D:

Pretty much like downstate, i guess. :) WRONG! Downstate is a partially egalitarian game mechanic given to everybody, and invisibility is not. Reeeeeeee! D:

Engie got good CC while down, but only any damage on power specs. The most dangerous downed in my experience when you have problem stomping is rev and mesmer - the amount of torment and confusion just from their autoattacks make hell seem pleasant. The "strongest" in any group or any defense situation with portals nearby is ele with vaporform. True about Thief and it's downed Stealth. I think it's one of those things like Rev's push back skill. It is situationally very good, but generally not great. The ability to move around in downed state while Stealthed is pretty strong and can make it take a lot longer to completely finish the Thief, so in that regard I put it in a similar category to Ranger. It's not about the damage, it's about how long it can prevent you from finishing it off. Still, I think Thief's downed state isn't great even if it can be very annoying under the right circumstances. And Engi, I don't know, lol. Engi is one of my most played classes and I can't find any redeeming features about it's downed state. The bomb is okay sometimes, it can hit fairly hard. The pull rarely does anything other than denying one stomp, and the auto attacks are terrible. I think the bomb should do a lot higher damage or the duration of the knockdown should be a lot longer. Thief downstate not enough dps for my purposes. Only neat thing is their shadow step can prevent fall damage if used at the last second on ground. D:

I'm looking to dominate the meta utilizing only the best class once this pesky event is over. So it's imperative we have a consensus on which class abuses this OP game mechanic. I want damage. I want heals. I want cleanses, and I want boons. The only way to top the parse is with downstate. Invisibility is a plus unless it reduces output. D: