So let's talk Scoring

[Cloudfire.1235]

Total noob here. My entire wvw experience has been follow someone with commander tag and use defensive abilities for everyone. Hoping they break through and I get participation. I'm just trying to unlock rewards like the warclaw. I am objectively bad at pvp. I'm not sure how to balance it out exactly but I typically avoid wvw because it is usually just running around a lot especially when I die. I am easily picked off by players that roam. This just equals more running from the nearest way point.

I don't know. I'm rambling I think. Does anyone else have this experience?

[TheGrimm.5624]

44 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

The res system really needs to be looked at for wvw.

I have to wonder if the PPK shouldn't be split into two actions. Partial points to down them and then the rest once defeated. I think some of the biggest back and fourth about no downstate is that fact.

[TheGrimm.5624]

49 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

And warclaw pounce should have never been nerfed.

This could be a thread all on its own I would say.

[TheGrimm.5624]

7 minutes ago, Cloudfire.1235 said:

Total noob here. My entire wvw experience has been follow someone with commander tag and use defensive abilities for everyone. Hoping they break through and I get participation. I'm just trying to unlock rewards like the warclaw. I am objectively bad at pvp. I'm not sure how to balance it out exactly but I typically avoid wvw because it is usually just running around a lot especially when I die. I am easily picked off by players that roam. This just equals more running from the nearest way point.

I don't know. I'm rambling I think. Does anyone else have this experience?

It's a circular food chain. Zergs feed on warbands, warbands feed on havocs, havocs feed on roamers, roamers feed on the outsides of zergs. That's putting a bit simply but its the general flow. 

Edited July 6 by TheGrimm.5624
punctuation

[TheGrimm.5624]

If they are still pondering the old concept of a catchup mechanic. Move reset so that the weekend is the end of the matchup and not the start of it. 

[Forgotten Legend.9281]

2 hours ago, Cuks.8241 said:

Well first of all if there is no participation reward, afking becomes kinda pointless. Depends on how rewards would be structured but no "participation reward"  means you have to contribute and win.

except that participation rewards are fueled by player actions contributing toward victory. "AFKers" still need to capture a camp every 5 minutes or kill an enemy every 10 minutes in order to maintain "high enough" participation in order to earn pips. and killing players results in rewards... or the player loses participation and no longer gains rewards... and if AFK long enough, get kicked from the game mode and logged out... removing the individual rewards would kill the game mode like how star wars galaxies died from giving everyone jedi without earning it... AFKing in WvW still requires active participation in order to earn the rewards, and is HOW players "AFK"

3 hours ago, Cuks.8241 said:

Trolls are trolls. They will always do what they do

i suppose i'll remind you of what you just said: trolls will still be trolls either way, which means they'll still AFK,  taking up slots that may prevent others from playing to win... this would be most prominent during prime time when there are queues. trolling IS the point, and by taking away participation rewards, the AFKers have MORE incentive to troll, because then they can prevent a whole team from receiving rewards, instead of simply disrupting the team's goal of winning or losing. (under participation / pip rewards, a troll can't prevent you from earning rewards, because you can still earn participation and pips) earning rewards from the game mode ONCE a week only if your team wins? /facepalm

3 hours ago, Cuks.8241 said:

Also winning is winning, all means available. That is also a part that many players don't like when you have competitive environment. Playing for win doesn't have much with playing nice and honourable.

and it also means that i don't have to agree with your suggestion, because it sounds to me like you think that removing the current reward structure will incentivize players to play how you want them to play, while you defend the actions that you're arguing against. is trolling a legit tactic or not? after all, trolling the enemy team by actively AFKing on an alt account on that enemy team is not honorable, but you're saying that dishonorable tactics are fine, except when the enemy does it to your team? you're hating against AFKing while saying it's a legit tactic. make up your mind...

2 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Which means toxic messages, groups full of stealth gankers, small groups chasing down anyone they think they can kill, corpse siege and silly emotes, probably bunch of nasty/dumb whispers, trying to zerg out and spawn camp as much as possible, cheating and exploiting. Basically EVERY act they can imagine they'll get away with to de-motivate the opponents from even bothering to log in and play.

and these acts have persisted throughout the game mode for 12 years... and still occur today, WITHOUT the victory rewards, because there are players and guilds that actually play to win. 

back to main topic:

i personally think that we need participation rewards AND victory rewards. to encourage individual players to actively play, and to encourage teams to try to win instead of intentionally losing matches in order to avoid certain opponents / bag-farm weaker opponents. it would then be trade off if the rewards are worth playing opponents that the team doesn't want to face.

50 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

The PPK to PPT scoring isn't in a bad spot. PPK though should reward the player more for their actions and PPT should reward the server.

interesting observations leading to this conclusion. i think i agree. and based on which actions reward participation, i think Anet agrees, also: Since killing a player gives as much participation as capturing a keep.

[XenesisII.1540]

4 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I have to wonder if the PPK shouldn't be split into two actions. Partial points to down them and then the rest once defeated. I think some of the biggest back and fourth about no downstate is that fact.

Don't think I've seen ppk being brought up on the no downstate debates.

 

[CafPow.1542]

5 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

PPT is to encourage sides to hold their stuff, while also creating a point for conflict to occur. It took a lot of time to get to that 2016 point that the longer something is held the more value it should have. It also should encourage the other side that the T3 target should be a bigger target. PPT already has incentive in those terms that higher tier targets should be the main targets. In that sense PPT is in a pretty good spot overall. 

On the PPK side you don't want to reward too much score/points else you will get groups that are worried about losing fights and telling people they should just avoid the fight. Some players care about KDR, some don't. But the more score you put behind it the more people will just go with we didn't have double their numbers so skip the fight we need more. Versus fight and try it out. You also don't want people to avoiding trying to defend an objective since they lost more points then trying to power their way thru to defend against the odds.

What PPK doesn't have is incentive to go for the larger side (highest score)  versus just farm players on the smaller side. Now here there might be some room to adjust PPK.

The PPK to PPT scoring isn't in a bad spot. PPK though should reward the player more for their actions and PPT should reward the server. 

I have to agree a no scoring model would remove incentive to play, same as it not being  a week long venture.  

Good summary.

now i think like….  imagine the following scenario.

blue commander decides where to go. He knows he gets more ppk when he goes to the stronger side cause that got newly added. He checks the matchpoints and the weekly points and sees, that red is destroying green so he goes red to gain more points.

 

but do we have to increase the ppk there? Cause a commander with 2 working braincells to rub together will decide to go red when he can cause:

1) he might beat them which is better for blue score

2) better fights eventually cause green got steamrolled anyways

3) more tactical and ppt value overall

 

it just makes tactical sense.

what I’m trying to say is… do we really need more rewards for X or Y? If a player fails to understand why he should do something in wvw he should learn and not be softpowered into „clever behavior“ by rewarding him. 
that‘s why i tend to be against the babysitting and rewarding one thing over the other. I’m not pavlov‘s dog i can mostly think for myself.

 

Edited July 6 by CafPow.1542

[joneirikb.7506]

Personally I'm not sold on PPK and the higher PPT for tiered upgrades. Still not sure exactly what I think about them, they feel about as many negatives as positives to me.

If ANet wants to add a "catch-up" mechanic, like the two that Xen quoted in the original post, I think you'd get a better result just by removing the extra PPT for upgraded structures.

And PPK always had to struggle between just making larger groups chase down smaller groups, and players not bothering to fight because they're letting their team down. I really dislike that barrier that stops people from suiciding into a camp trying to save it, because there's nothing to lose. (Completely fine with points on Stomps though)

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Don't think I've seen ppk being brought up on the no downstate debates.

 

Not directly no. But a lot of players that post they like no downstate is that they scored a down and with res state out of play that turns into a defeated. In a way that could be that they disliked dropping a target but couldn't remove it from play, so there was no value in that effort. Which might be linked to PPK. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

 

1 hour ago, CafPow.1542 said:

Good summary.

now i think like….  imagine the following scenario.

blue commander decides where to go. He knows he gets more ppk when he goes to the stronger side cause that got newly added. He checks the matchpoints and the weekly points and sees, that red is destroying green so he goes red to gain more points.

 

but do we have to increase the ppk there? Cause a commander with 2 working braincells to rub together will decide to go red when he can cause:

1) he might beat them which is better for blue score

2) better fights eventually cause green got steamrolled anyways

3) more tactical and ppt value overall

 

it just makes tactical sense.

what I’m trying to say is… do we really need more rewards for X or Y? If a player fails to understand why he should do something in wvw he should learn and not be softpowered into „clever behavior“ by rewarding him. 
that‘s why i tend to be against the babysitting and rewarding one thing over the other. I’m not pavlov‘s dog i can mostly think for myself.

 

🙂 Tags make bad calls all the time. A lot will go with what feeds the mobs and how do I keep them happy. Rule#2, if in doubt, attack the side that holds SMC. The amount of ire that ones draws..... lol omg.

The issue here is when tags make calls based on the transaction versus the profile. Its easy to beat up on third place but it just means reinforcing first place. You need to manage moral, but just leaning into that leads to bad calls to not going for the longer time wins, but beat on the side that is down. Which just helps the side in the lead if you aren't on it.  So any system needs to manage that as well. 

IMO.

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Personally I'm not sold on PPK and the higher PPT for tiered upgrades. Still not sure exactly what I think about them, they feel about as many negatives as positives to me.

Will strongly disagree here as it took years to get Anet to do less ktrains and add more value in defending thru holding objectives longer. This took 4 years of back and fourths.

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

If ANet wants to add a "catch-up" mechanic, like the two that Xen quoted in the original post, I think you'd get a better result just by removing the extra PPT for upgraded structures.

Highly disagree. This is what the ktrains used, why defend a T3 when I make as much as taking a T0, call us once they leave and we will recap.

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

And PPK always had to struggle between just making larger groups chase down smaller groups, and players not bothering to fight because they're letting their team down. I really dislike that barrier that stops people from suiciding into a camp trying to save it, because there's nothing to lose. (Completely fine with points on Stomps though)

PPT needs to balance people that will fight for a reason and those that are too worried about dieing due to KDR. Removing incentives for players to hold what the own by removing PPT removes fights. Increasing PPK just encourages more people to not try to fight even while they are down. People that like to fight, want fights, removing the other side with negative incentives doesn't lead to more fights, but less. So that is more ktrains. 

[Gehenna.3625]

8 hours ago, Cloudfire.1235 said:

Total noob here. My entire wvw experience has been follow someone with commander tag and use defensive abilities for everyone. Hoping they break through and I get participation. I'm just trying to unlock rewards like the warclaw. I am objectively bad at pvp. I'm not sure how to balance it out exactly but I typically avoid wvw because it is usually just running around a lot especially when I die. I am easily picked off by players that roam. This just equals more running from the nearest way point.

I don't know. I'm rambling I think. Does anyone else have this experience?

That sounds like my starting experience in WvW lol. All I can say is that it takes a lot of time to get used to since there's a lot to learn. So yeah, get the Warclaw and also put some points into gliding (you can glide in the areas that your side controls) and use a speed buff in your build somewhere. Mobility is pretty important in WvW. Playing support is rough though. I'm not good at PvP either, so I developed my own playstyle as a scout.

I enjoyed that playstyle but recent changes have made it pretty much impossible or rather pointless. So yeah, currently the best thing to do is run along with a commander tag and just be there. As a tip: if the commander runs an open squad then join the squad. People in the squad get prioritized with buffs and heals and that means your buffs count for the squad first but also other buffs coming from the squad will come to you as well. Just stick close to the squad because buffs have a limited range. That should decrease the amount of dying for you 😉 

[joneirikb.7506]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Will strongly disagree here as it took years to get Anet to do less ktrains and add more value in defending thru holding objectives longer. This took 4 years of back and fourths.

Highly disagree. This is what the ktrains used, why defend a T3 when I make as much as taking a T0, call us once they leave and we will recap.

PPT needs to balance people that will fight for a reason and those that are too worried about dieing due to KDR. Removing incentives for players to hold what the own by removing PPT removes fights. Increasing PPK just encourages more people to not try to fight even while they are down. People that like to fight, want fights, removing the other side with negative incentives doesn't lead to more fights, but less. So that is more ktrains. 

My view-point is that most people still do the same. The amount of PPT for tiered objectives never really changed this behaviour enough to be note-worthy. Let's see this from a couple of different perspectives:

* If you're interested in rewards, you get more rewards for capturing an objective with a k-train, you don't get more rewards from keeping higher PPT. So why would you care no matter what PPT you got from an objective?
* If you're interested in PPT/winning, you'll defend that objective anyway? So what does it really matter if you get a bit more or less PPT for the tier upgrade?

Higher PPT for higher tier upgrade itself never really changed anything regarding player motivation. It's mainly just helping runaway points to run away harder, especially obvious with coverage.

----

The more I think about it, the more I question the role of PPK. There are already enough incentives for zerging, and while other play styles can make use of it, it's largely used by zergs. And I strongly dislike that it discourages players from fighting and dying as they're worried about giving away points.

People are already too afraid of fighting, there really shouldn't be more discouragements to that. And K/D rations and numbers doesn't affect anything so those doesn't really count for anything.

----

Quote

    PPT needs to balance people that will fight for a reason and those that are too worried about dieing due to KDR. Removing incentives for players to hold what the own by removing PPT removes fights. Increasing PPK just encourages more people to not try to fight even while they are down. People that like to fight, want fights, removing the other side with negative incentives doesn't lead to more fights, but less. So that is more ktrains.

Please reformat this into coherent English, so I can make sense out of it. English is only my 4th language, so I'm afraid I'm not capable of deciphering the weird dialects like Orkz-Murica.

[Mabi black.1824]

13 hours ago, Cuks.8241 said:

Say goodbye to your casual reward structure that rewards everyone almost the same based on participation.

A new scoring and recognition mechanic, done right, could reward both participation and skill. Maybe in two different ways and maybe in two different ways. But both can still exist. 

[CafPow.1542]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

🙂 Tags make bad calls all the time. A lot will go with what feeds the mobs and how do I keep them happy. Rule#2, if in doubt, attack the side that holds SMC. The amount of ire that ones draws..... lol omg.

The issue here is when tags make calls based on the transaction versus the profile. Its easy to beat up on third place but it just means reinforcing first place. You need to manage moral, but just leaning into that leads to bad calls to not going for the longer time wins, but beat on the side that is down. Which just helps the side in the lead if you aren't on it.  So any system needs to manage that as well. 

IMO.

Eh I’m not about good calls or bad calls. Everybody makes mistakes.

my point is, why i do a call. The action before the reaction.

do i something based on a certain tactic, or due to a specific reward i get because some gamedev programmed a thing that calculates something?

having this sandbox-thing (i call it that) in wvw is really it’s strength i think. I don’t think a certain aspect should give more score / reward / whatever.

 

the only thing that should be looked at is afk farming, botting cheats and exploits.

otherwise as long as you play the game you get the same stuff like everybody else.

i hope i can make a point 😄 english is not my native thingy.

[Mabi black.1824]

11 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Of course if you have a good enough incentive to motivate people to win, then there will be servers who will never win because they're not as good as others (due to skill level, cheating, organization, player numbers or whatever), which then means lots of complaints about that. I really am not sure how Anet should handle this tbh.

That's why someone took the trouble to advise Anet to double the number of servers, taking advantage of WR, contextualizing WR within the design that WVW has always had, i.e. on a server-based basis. Free yourself from all prejudice for a moment and just pretend that....... Anet launches WR only 1 time a year. ( Imagine 5 matches in EU ) 45 servers are generated with a size of about 800 players each. The mechanic matches them every 4 weeks in groups of 3 in reference to how successful I have been the previous month. The competition is annual for 45 servers, complete with a score and leaderboard, rewards and prizes. even if your annual server has been unlucky and isn't ''winning''. Each month is paired with 2 others that could be ''winners''. giving access to prizes to all teams. even the most ''unlucky'' ones. 

[Dawdler.8521]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

The mechanic matches them every 4 weeks in groups of 3 in reference to how successful I have been the previous month.

I don’t think basing an entire matchup system on how successful you are is a good idea.

[Gehenna.3625]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

That's why someone took the trouble to advise Anet to double the number of servers, taking advantage of WR, contextualizing WR within the design that WVW has always had, i.e. on a server-based basis. Free yourself from all prejudice for a moment and just pretend that....... Anet launches WR only 1 time a year. ( Imagine 5 matches in EU ) 45 servers are generated with a size of about 800 players each. The mechanic matches them every 4 weeks in groups of 3 in reference to how successful I have been the previous month. The competition is annual for 45 servers, complete with a score and leaderboard, rewards and prizes. even if your annual server has been unlucky and isn't ''winning''. Each month is paired with 2 others that could be ''winners''. giving access to prizes to all teams. even the most ''unlucky'' ones. 

I'm not convinced that this will fix things sufficiently. A month is a long time and you forget that even though you might be paired with better servers the next month, that doesn't mean that the direct opponents are weaker, so you might still end up losing. And that's 2 months in a row then. 

I think that there will be some servers that will dominate just the same, just not as much in this configuration. I think you overestimate people's patience and skill. There's just not enough going around to fill up many servers.

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

My view-point is that most people still do the same. The amount of PPT for tiered objectives never really changed this behaviour enough to be note-worthy. Let's see this from a couple of different perspectives:

There was a heavy mind set of the k-train prior to the tiered approach for objectives. Its been a long standing discussion to encourage more to defend which also creates the opportunity for the fight to occur. So will disagree here that it didn't have an impact. Enough so that I would use all the defense nerfs over the last few years as an indication to that aspect personally.

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

* If you're interested in rewards, you get more rewards for capturing an objective with a k-train, you don't get more rewards from keeping higher PPT. So why would you care no matter what PPT you got from an objective?
* If you're interested in PPT/winning, you'll defend that objective anyway? So what does it really matter if you get a bit more or less PPT for the tier upgrade?

There is also the interest in holding what you own.  I admit I am old school and even if its worthless to hold what you have its a part of the win. Even while winning has no value.

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Higher PPT for higher tier upgrade itself never really changed anything regarding player motivation. It's mainly just helping runaway points to run away harder, especially obvious with coverage.

We can disagree here as you have seen me post about defense nerfs. 

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

----

The more I think about it, the more I question the role of PPK. There are already enough incentives for zerging, and while other play styles can make use of it, it's largely used by zergs. And I strongly dislike that it discourages players from fighting and dying as they're worried about giving away points.

PPK was needed as well as PPT, but it needs to be in a fashion that doesn't make anyone think, should I try and fight that. The first thought should always be yes, fight. But if it leans into, oh no if I die we lose, then its gone to far. We already have enough people that use oh no my kdr I shouldn't try as a bit of a crutch without scoring impacting that.

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

People are already too afraid of fighting, there really shouldn't be more discouragements to that. And K/D rations and numbers doesn't affect anything so those doesn't really count for anything.

Agree and it should be limited so that more fight for the fun of fighting. Reward the player for the kill, but if you link it too much to scoring then less might be likely to try and fight.

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

----

Please reformat this into coherent English, so I can make sense out of it. English is only my 4th language, so I'm afraid I'm not capable of deciphering the weird dialects like Orkz-Murica.

Good on you for 4, and not joking. But lol, Orkz-Murica though? Let me try it again, we need multiple layers to scoring for players doing multiple activities that include; fighting, taking, and holding over time and there needs to be incentives to win versus I logged in for my daily rewards see you next week. It's a week long match which is what has keep a lot of RvR style players around. Scoring needs to reflect that.

 

[XenesisII.1540]

8 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Not directly no. But a lot of players that post they like no downstate is that they scored a down and with res state out of play that turns into a defeated. In a way that could be that they disliked dropping a target but couldn't remove it from play, so there was no value in that effort. Which might be linked to PPK. 

They like it because it bypasses res skills and quick group ressing, particularly when they are outnumbered, as that allows them to be "good" and be rewarded for that effort to even the numbers up some. That effort is gone when the fallen has like two partners that click F and have them back up in 1sec. Nothing to do with points, people don't think about points every second they're in combat.

I don't think any roamer goes around thinking they're gonna score up some extra points tonight because they stomp some people. At least not for me anyways, I just want to see my unicorn taste the rainbow if anything, not if I'm getting 1, 2, or 3 points off it. 🤷‍♂️

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, CafPow.1542 said:

Eh I’m not about good calls or bad calls. Everybody makes mistakes.

my point is, why i do a call. The action before the reaction.

do i something based on a certain tactic, or due to a specific reward i get because some gamedev programmed a thing that calculates something?

having this sandbox-thing (i call it that) in wvw is really it’s strength i think. I don’t think a certain aspect should give more score / reward / whatever.

 

the only thing that should be looked at is afk farming, botting cheats and exploits.

otherwise as long as you play the game you get the same stuff like everybody else.

i hope i can make a point 😄 english is not my native thingy.

All good, sorry wasn't quoting you to counter but to continue the point.

Where I was going is the PPT already has logic to follow. Hold what you have for as long as you can to score and it leads to a win which also means potentially more fights since you want to keep it. Versus reducing PPT means more karma trains which may lead to more takes but less fights since who cares about losing a T0 if they have more than you. 

The bad call reference was more in regards to the PPK side of the mix. Tags need to deal with morale. Which means with going for the easier calls at times to keep their side in motion. So instead of 1 being attacked by 2&3, its 1&2 going for 3. PPK just rewards in any case so that may mean, use 50 to attack 5. But we do want the 5 to try it if that is their only option and not negatively impacting them for giving it a go. 

Had a 6 v 15 today to try and hold a T1 keep that was close to a T2. Took a bit and lots of running back but it was a win in the end. We want players to try those fights versus they have more it theirs. From a PPK standpoint it was a lose, from the PPT viewpoint it was worth it to try and fight it out. 

[XenesisII.1540]

8 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Will strongly disagree here as it took years to get Anet to do less ktrains and add more value in defending thru holding objectives longer. This took 4 years of back and fourths.

Highly disagree. This is what the ktrains used, why defend a T3 when I make as much as taking a T0, call us once they leave and we will recap.

PPT needs to balance people that will fight for a reason and those that are too worried about dieing due to KDR. Removing incentives for players to hold what the own by removing PPT removes fights. Increasing PPK just encourages more people to not try to fight even while they are down. People that like to fight, want fights, removing the other side with negative incentives doesn't lead to more fights, but less. So that is more ktrains. 

I don't think points help much in deciding to defend a T3 or a T0. You're gonna defend a T3 because of it's upgrades, particularly if it's a keep with a waypoint. They also scale rewards according to the objectives level, that's an incentive they added last year to defending(too bad they then went and made a mess of defending so everything turns into a paper train zone in prime time).  

I honestly couldn't tell you how much points an objective is worth for capture or for it's ppt whether it's at t0 or t3, and I would imagine 90% of the players couldn't either without looking up the wiki for it.

[TheGrimm.5624]

14 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

They like it because it bypasses res skills and quick group ressing, particularly when they are outnumbered, as that allows them to be "good" and be rewarded for that effort to even the numbers up some. That effort is gone when the fallen has like two partners that click F and have them back up in 1sec. Nothing to do with points, people don't think about points every second they're in combat.

I don't think any roamer goes around thinking they're gonna score up some extra points tonight because they stomp some people. At least not for me anyways, I just want to see my unicorn taste the rainbow if anything, not if I'm getting 1, 2, or 3 points off it. 🤷‍♂️

I link it to it's a subconscious thought. Kind of like a dopamine hit, same as a finisher gives. But if you have bloodlust its a two-fer.

[coro.3176]

10 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Not directly no. But a lot of players that post they like no downstate is that they scored a down and with res state out of play that turns into a defeated. In a way that could be that they disliked dropping a target but couldn't remove it from play, so there was no value in that effort. Which might be linked to PPK. 

It's really frustrating being able to potentially win a 1v4 in open field against some players attacking your tower, but not actually be able to do it because of down state. I've had a lot of situations where I'll get 2 downs, but not be able to finish either because of the pressure from the other 2 players, plus the downed attacks. Sometimes I might get one, but usually they res their downs and kill me. It does feel bad to get nothing out of that, and they actually score some points (for stomping me).

I'd prefer no downstate, I think, but points for downs would be interesting.