Your enemies should have no downstate if you're outnumbered

[Israel.7056]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:No, actually, what we're saying is that downstate helps smaller numbers but can be abused by larger numbers.

So we're going with the idea that it makes fights easier for everyone thing? If so I don't think that's quite right.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"ReaverKane.7598" said:No, actually, what we're saying is that downstate helps smaller numbers but can be abused by larger numbers.

So we're going with the idea that it makes fights easier for everyone thing? If so I don't think that's quite right.

Yes, but you want an equalizer for when you're outnumbered. Unless, of course, you're one of those that does WvW for the farm, not for the fights. Then i understand that you don't want even fights, and as such disregard my comment, since it doesn't apply to you!

Thing is, Arena Net, also disagrees with you on this, since they already have an handicap when people are outnumbered, albeit obviously insufficient, and lately a mere source of free PPT.So instead of giving mostly useless bonuses to the outnumbered, maybe give real penalties to the outnumberer (is this a word? It is now!!). This would be probably the best penalty, since it doesn't really change the initial battle potential (like for example if there was a damage restriction), it just penalizes bad plays if you're already in an advantageous position. This means that if a team has high numbers but bad players it would make it slightly easier for the outnumbered to whittle down the enemy numbers, especially in a siege situation.

If the "outnumberers" play well they'll still avoid too many deaths and play more safely and more assertively. Also, nothing would prevent them from pushing forward, and trying for out of combat resses, just no rally.

[Aeolus.3615]

@ReaverKane.7598 , i dont think Anet agree with punishing players just because they are more... actually Anet is all about remove sacrifices and pusnishing from the game to help the casuals.

If they did this build balance would be well.. more balanced for a starter, but that is not their ideials.

[Israel.7056]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:Yes, but I want an equalizer for when I'm outnumbered.

Then remove down state for everyone and let organization, communication, planning and skill be the great equalizer for all groups.

Unless, of course, you're one of those that does WvW for the farm, not for the fights. Then i understand that you don't want even fights, and as such disregard my comment, since it doesn't apply to you!

Lovely preemptive strawman. I hadn't even stated my position yet and already you decided not only what my argument was but also framed it in the most unfavorable light possible well done sir.

Thing is, Arena Net, also disagrees with you on this, since they already have an handicap when people are outnumbered, albeit obviously insufficient, and lately a mere source of free PPT.

Appeal to authority.

So instead of giving mostly useless bonuses to the outnumbered, maybe give real penalties to the outnumberer (is this a word? It is now!!). This would be probably the best penalty, since it doesn't really change the initial battle potential (like for example if there was a damage restriction), it just penalizes bad plays if you're already in an advantageous position. This means that if a team has high numbers but bad players it would make it slightly easier for the outnumbered to whittle down the enemy numbers, especially in a siege situation.

I don't see why a larger group should be penalized just for being large. If one side has high numbers but bad players then no downstate will negatively effect them disproportionately and I think that's penalty enough.

[XenesisII.1540]

Well I only mentioned that idea as a passing thought, I didn't bother to flesh it out it's conditions like I normally would on an idea because I'm still on the fence about it.Dawdlers comments were also very inspiring after all, thanks for the kind words of support there buddy. /picardfacepalmonyou

So yeah I'm not fully on board about no down state, as I think they probably should look at either removing rally mechanics or change it so you only rally off someone you tagged or killed in downstate not someone you tagged before going down, or adjusting down state all because of one shot combo builds/skills that still exist in the game. To me downstate has always been a really weird thing for classes, the class skills make a huge difference here which I don't think there should be a difference at all in that state, like elementalist mist form, thief teleport, mesmer stealth and clone etc. Make downstate skills and health unified among all classes, give them one good damage skill and one cc that are the same.

The other thing that goes with the one shot combos/skills is some classes have to the ability to nullify it and get time to react to it, namely the engineer warrior ranger with their auto immune procs, which the reasoning by anet was, to help with the amount of aoe damage flying around there.... except they're not the only ones that have to deal with that much damage, and while every classes has different skills or traits to help deal with damage situations none are auto proccing to heavy unexpected damage like those three classes.

If they're going to pursue the idea of no down state(which I don't think they will) then they need to deal with one shot combos/skills, or the mass amount of aoe that can be spammed now. If they're not going to deal with the current damage in the game then they need to look at giving every class tools to deal with that much damage not just a couple. I would suggest a fatality trait that procs on a lethal blow(like necros that proc shroud) that either gives you a burst of low health health or a low health shield of like 2-3k(less than a regular heal) or damage immunity of 1s, you know the same immunity you get when you are first downed? have it proc before down state, not in down state, with a long cooldown of like 60s.

Anyways those are some of my thoughts on that situation, I'll leave the no downstate while outnumbered to you guys to tweak out over discussion.

[Hackuuna.4085]

The servers that don't own SMC should not have downstate. Don't like it? Then organize and take SMC = more fights for all. Or maybe make it that if you don't own SMC and don't own bloodlust then no downstate for you.

[Zaraki.5784]

@Blockhead Magee.3092 said:No, no, no, no, no.

Downstate is a great mechanic. I hope these threads about coming up with a 'new' way to work in that foolishness can come to an end soon.

Just tell us why it's foolish for you.To me, it's a great idea since it can give a chance to small squads for not being farmed by blobs.

[hunkamania.7561]

@X T D.6458 said:Much as I loved no downstate, this would never be implemented because it would just let everyone know which side is outnumbered. In the past you used to be able to see the icon on enemy players, and this was later removed. So I highly doubt this would ever be added.

Everyone can count. We all know who's outnumbered.

@Israel.7056 said:I don't see why a larger group should be penalized just for being large. If one side has high numbers but bad players then no downstate will negatively effect them disproportionately and I think that's penalty enough.

HUH? You're complaining about large groups getting penalized? How about the outnumbered player? That buff is usually not a good sign and %'s of them winning fights is slim to none

[Israel.7056]

@hunkamania.7561 said:HUH? You're complaining about large groups getting penalized? How about the outnumbered player? That buff is usually not a good sign and %'s of them winning fights is slim to none

Yeah I don't like the idea of the game explicitly penalizing large groups just for running as a large group.

I think downed state disproportionately benefits larger blob groups anyways and so the outright removal of it will disproportionately benefit smaller skill groups, no extra penalties necessary.

[X T D.6458]

@hunkamania.7561 said:

@X T D.6458 said:Much as I loved no downstate, this would never be implemented because it would just let everyone know which side is outnumbered. In the past you used to be able to see the icon on enemy players, and this was later removed. So I highly doubt this would ever be added.

Everyone can count. We all know who's outnumbered.

That's not the proper way of looking at how to implement features. If server A has a zerg and runs over 5 people from Server B, it does not mean Server B has outnumbered, so you cannot assume they are just by personal perception. With this feature it would let the other 2 servers know immediately which server is outnumbered, and like I already mentioned they removed the ability to see the icon on enemy players years ago. Now as I said, I loved the no downstate event and wish it was made permanent but making it effect only one side conditionally is not a good idea, if anything it would hurt smaller groups when trying to defend against larger groups.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"ReaverKane.7598" said:Yes, but

I

want an equalizer for when

I'm

outnumbered.

Then remove down state for everyone and let organization, communication, planning and skill be the great equalizer for all groups.I'd draw you a picture, but i doubt that would help... I mean some people cant' be helped (that's a ad hominem, yes).If you remove the equalizing factor on outnumbered fights, then it simply becomes a benefit for the ones that aren't outnumbered. If you don't understand that not everything has symmetrical consequences, boy... Reality is about to hit you like a train.

Unless, of course, you're one of those that does WvW for the farm, not for the fights. Then i understand that you don't want even fights, and as such disregard my comment, since it doesn't apply to you!

Lovely preemptive strawman. I hadn't even stated my position yet and already you decided not only what my argument was but also framed it in the most unfavorable light possible well done sir.Don't care, wasn't referring "you" as in "you specifically", but whomever reads it. Like i could write "you dear reader" but i'm not that fond of most people, let alone most people using this forum. I'll try to make it easier to understand, in the answer above i meant you specifically!

You've made your position quite plain. You don't want down state at all. But i already explained why that's a bad idea, while what the OP suggests is actually the best middle-ground between those that don't want it, and those that do. It's called compromise.

Thing is, Arena Net, also disagrees with you on this, since they already have an handicap when people are outnumbered, albeit obviously insufficient, and lately a mere source of free PPT.

Appeal to authority.That's not how that works... For one, Arena Net's point of view trumps

all

points of view, since it's their design. They decide, simple.It would be fallacious if i said something like "PC gamer disagrees with you", in this case it's a cogent argument since Arena Net has decisive vote on this matter, and is the only authority on the issue.Next time, read up on your philosophy before trying to throw fallacies around, yeah?

So instead of giving mostly useless bonuses to the outnumbered, maybe give real penalties to the outnumberer (is this a word? It is now!!). This would be probably the best penalty, since it doesn't really change the initial battle potential (like for example if there was a damage restriction), it just penalizes bad plays if you're already in an advantageous position. This means that if a team has high numbers but bad players it would make it slightly easier for the outnumbered to whittle down the enemy numbers, especially in a siege situation.

I don't see why a larger group should be penalized just for being large.

If one side has high numbers but bad players then no downstate will negatively effect them disproportionately and I think that's penalty enough

.Wow... You managed to claim ignorance in the matter you're trying to state your opinion on, and then on the same freaking paragraph you agree with me? That's nice, i guess?

@Aeolus.3615 said:@ReaverKane.7598 , i dont think Anet agree with punishing players just because they are more... actually Anet is all about remove sacrifices and pusnishing from the game to help the casuals.

If they did this build balance would be well.. more balanced for a starter, but that is not their ideials.You know there's an outnumbered debuff, and that their plans for the new randomized World placements is exactly to prevent players stacking on servers to outnumber others, right?

@Israel.7056 said:

@hunkamania.7561 said:HUH? You're complaining about large groups getting penalized? How about the outnumbered player? That buff is usually not a good sign and %'s of them winning fights is slim to none

Yeah I don't like the idea of the game explicitly penalizing large groups just for running as a large group.

I think downed state disproportionately benefits larger blob groups anyways and so the outright removal of it will disproportionately benefit smaller skill groups, no extra penalties necessary.

1) Your concept of balance needs as much refreshing as your fallacies...2) Again, not quite, because depending on the numbers gap, the combined benefit of skill + rallying can provide a larger benefit for smaller groups than it benefits larger groups.It isn't a huge benefit for larger groups, since they already have the numbers, so their odds of winning is already high. For a smaller group, the benefit of rallying a single player is higher than for larger groups.In simple terms:Imagine a 4v2 fight, with rally. The odds are basically 2 to 1 that the larger team wins.Now imagine both teams down one player, and the smaller team manages to rally their downed player by finishing the enemy downed player, now odds are 1.5 to 1. Which is much more manageable.If the reverse happens, the odds go from 2 to 1 to 4 to 1 in this case, but it was always a overwhelming chance they'd win from the start, the benefit isn't that big.

This benefit just grows the more people it involves, and it's always more meaningful for the ones that are estimated to lose.

Heck, going to the other PVP mode, how many times have PvP matches been overturned by a well timed rally?

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

@Israel.7056 said:

@hunkamania.7561 said:HUH? You're complaining about large groups getting penalized? How about the outnumbered player? That buff is usually not a good sign and %'s of them winning fights is slim to none

Yeah I don't like the idea of the game explicitly penalizing large groups just for running as a large group.

It doesn't -- or, at least, it doesn't do so in any situation where it would not already do so today.

It does penalize a group that outnumber their opposition, which is definitely not the same thing.

[aspirine.5839]

@Israel.7056 said:

@hunkamania.7561 said:HUH? You're complaining about large groups getting penalized? How about the outnumbered player? That buff is usually not a good sign and %'s of them winning fights is slim to none

Yeah I don't like the idea of the game explicitly penalizing large groups just for running as a large group.

I think downed state disproportionately benefits larger blob groups anyways and so the outright removal of it will disproportionately benefit smaller skill groups, no extra penalties necessary.

lol are you kidding me, the autorez machine that is the blob should have more advantages?

[Israel.7056]

@"ReaverKane.7598" said:I'd draw you a picture, but i doubt that would help... I mean some people cant' be helped (that's a ad hominem, yes).

Calm down. Getting upset doesn't make your arguments more convincing.

If you remove the equalizing factor on outnumbered fights, then it simply becomes a benefit for the ones that aren't outnumbered. If you don't understand that not everything has symmetrical consequences, boy... Reality is about to hit you like a train.

Actually I'm explicitly arguing that no downstate doesn't have symmetrical consequences.

My argument is that no downstate for all reduces the margin for error for all players on the field. This disproportionately negatively impacts players who need a larger margin of error to be effective i.e bad players and disproportionately positively impacts players who don't need a large margin of error to be effective i.e good players.

You've made your position quite plain. You don't want down state at all. But i already explained why that's a bad idea, while what the OP suggests is actually the best middle-ground between those that don't want it, and those that do. It's called compromise.

I don't find your argument compelling. I don't think compromise is necessary.

That's not how that works... For one, Arena Net's point of view trumps all points of view, since it's their design. They decide, simple.It would be fallacious if i said something like "PC gamer disagrees with you", in this case it's a cogent argument since Arena Net has decisive vote on this matter, and is the only authority on the issue.Next time, read up on your philosophy before trying to throw fallacies around, yeah?

Maybe you're the one that needs to read more philosophy because that was a textbook example of an argument from authority. You are conflating executive authority (the power to change the game) with moral authority (always being right.) So your argument is that because ANET has the power to change the game that whatever they think is necessarily right and that is an argument from authority.

I don't see why a larger group should be penalized just for being large.

If one side has high numbers but bad players then no downstate will negatively effect them disproportionately and I think that's penalty enough

.Wow... You managed to claim ignorance in the matter you're trying to state your opinion on, and then on the same freaking paragraph you agree with me? That's nice, i guess?

I meant that no downstate for all will negatively effect the larger group disproportionately. No more is needed to level the playing field in my view.

[Israel.7056]

@aspirine.5839 said:lol are you kidding me, the autorez machine that is the blob should have more advantages?

I don't understand how you got that from what I said.

[Israel.7056]

@SlippyCheeze.5483 said:It does penalize a group that outnumber their opposition, which is definitely not the same thing.

Ok well I don't think that should be a thing. I think it's enough to just remove downed state from the game.

I don't think it's right to penalize players just because they happen to outnumber their opponent. I mean that for every conceivable scale of 'outnumberedness' if that's a word.

I don't feel like I need something like that to be able to win more outnumbered fights.

[LetoII.3782]

@Aeolus.3615 said:@ReaverKane.7598, i can imagine some server guilds, tell all players to move to other bl cause they cant be rezed :)

They'd still have a massive numerical disadvantage to overcome.

[Israel.7056]

Again I think we need to be more precise about what exactly we're talking about when we say "outnumbered" because being "outnumbered" exists on a spectrum and because not all outnumbered scenarios are the same.

I think we're basically talking past one another until we nail down a more specific definition.

[aspirine.5839]

@Israel.7056 said:

@aspirine.5839 said:lol are you kidding me, the autorez machine that is the blob should have more advantages?

I don't understand how you got that from what I said.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I read in your line that you think it is not fair for the larger force. But they are already have the advantage of being larger right?And it could benefit the blob, but it can also benefit smaller teams like I have seen in the no downstate week. You probably have seen it to where a smaller force could outsmart the blob and take them down one by one without that annoying instarez.

[Israel.7056]

@aspirine.5839 said:Perhaps I misunderstood. I read in your line that you think it is not fair for the larger force. But they are already have the advantage of being larger right?

Sure but I don't see why the game needs an extra mechanic for attempting to even those fights out that goes past eliminating downed state for everyone. In my mind that one change should be more than enough. I don't feel like I need the extra advantage of having downed state when my enemy doesn't to be able to win more outnumbered fights. EDIT: It just seems like overkill to me.

[coro.3176]

Main reason this wouldn't happen (IMO) is that it gives information to the enemy.

Right now, you have no way of knowing for sure whether your opponents are outnumbered, so you have to be prepared for another force on the map. Are they flanking you? Are they split-capping your keep? You can guess, but ultimately, it's a skill to be able to read the map and guess what is going on.

If your opponents get an instant kill on one of your players with no downstate, now you KNOW they're outnumbered. You just steamroll right through them and on to their main keep. Similarly, the second your players start going down instead of immediately dying, you know they've suddenly got more people on the map.

[hunkamania.7561]

@coro.3176 said:Main reason this wouldn't happen (IMO) is that it gives information to the enemy.

Right now, you have no way of knowing for sure whether your opponents are outnumbered, so you have to be prepared for another force on the map. Are they flanking you? Are they split-capping your keep? You can guess, but ultimately, it's a skill to be able to read the map and guess what is going on.

If your opponents get an instant kill on one of your players with no downstate, now you KNOW they're outnumbered. You just steamroll right through them and on to their main keep. Similarly, the second your players start going down instead of immediately dying, you know they've suddenly got more people on the map.

Everyone knows all the servers weak timezones and PPT doesn't mean anything. In fights i'm sure you knew when you were blobbing someone down and k training some keeps during enemy servers weak timezones is being done right now as we speak. Irrelevant imo

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"ReaverKane.7598" said:I'd draw you a picture, but i doubt that would help... I mean some people cant' be helped (that's a ad hominem, yes).

Calm down. Getting upset doesn't make your arguments more convincing.

Who says i'm not calm?

If you remove the equalizing factor on outnumbered fights, then it simply becomes a benefit for the ones that aren't outnumbered. If you don't understand that not everything has symmetrical consequences, boy... Reality is about to hit you like a train.

Actually I'm explicitly arguing that no downstate doesn't have symmetrical consequences.

Ok. Then why is your solution to remove it, knowing it will have a higher impact on one group than another?

My argument is that no downstate for all reduces the margin for error for all players on the field. This disproportionately negatively impacts players who need a larger margin of error to be effective i.e bad players and disproportionately positively impacts players who don't need a large margin of error to be effective i.e good players.

It also disadvantages groups in an already numerical disadvantage. Because they have a even lower margin for error, so a good way to balance the encounter is to equalize the margin for error in both groups, by keeping the disadvantaged group's already narrow margin for error, and narrowing the margin for error in the advantaged group.

You've made your position quite plain. You don't want down state at all. But i already explained why that's a bad idea, while what the OP suggests is actually the best middle-ground between those that don't want it, and those that do. It's called compromise.

I don't find your argument compelling. I don't think compromise is necessary.Because, clearly you don't understand the problem.

That's not how that works... For one, Arena Net's point of view trumps

all

points of view, since it's their design. They decide, simple.It would be fallacious if i said something like "PC gamer disagrees with you", in this case it's a cogent argument since Arena Net has decisive vote on this matter, and is the only authority on the issue.Next time, read up on your philosophy before trying to throw fallacies around, yeah?

Maybe you're the one that needs to read more philosophy because that was a textbook example of an argument from authority. You are conflating executive authority (the power to change the game) with moral authority (always being right.) So your argument is that because ANET has the power to change the game that whatever they think is necessarily right and that is an argument from authority.

Two things:One: you assume this is a moral conundrum, it isn't... So Moral authority is irrelevant, and yet Arena Net would have it, being the creator and owner of the game they have the moral authority to do whatever they think furthers their vision for the game.

Two: you forget that there's always space for invoking authority in a debate. Otherwise no one would reach a conclusion. When an authority is recognized generally by both parts, it's cogent to cite it as a source or an argument. If i tell you "the CDC says that not ashing hands has caused hundreds of hospital deaths" (this is not factual, dunno the actual numbers), you can't really invoke arguing from authority, since it's a valid source.Same thing applies, Arena Net is the only valid source for what is and what isn't in GW2, being their makers.

I don't see why a larger group should be penalized just for being large.

If one side has high numbers but bad players then no downstate will negatively effect them disproportionately and I think that's penalty enough

.Wow... You managed to claim ignorance in the matter you're trying to state your opinion on, and then on the same freaking paragraph you agree with me? That's nice, i guess?

I meant that no downstate for all will negatively effect the larger group disproportionately. No more is needed to level the playing field in my view.The problem is, it's disproportionate, but it's disproportionately

LESS

impactful to the larger group. It's group dynamics, and herd behaviour 101. That's why animals roam in herds or packs, because the larger numbers offset their losses. The larger the group the more losses you require for it to be an impact.

Again, i'll give you another example:You have a group of 200 individuals, and a group of 100 individuals. In which group is it easier (effort being measured by number of individuals to be killed) to kill 10% of the population?That also applies to rallying, a smaller group regains more of their effective power from rallying than a larger group.Going back to my previous example:A 4 v 2 fight.One player is downed on each group.If that player rallies on the larger group, it represents the restoration of 25% of their effective power.If the player on the smaller group rallies, it's 50% of their effective power.

Being able to rally will always have a greater impact on the smaller group. It's just common sense and basic maths man...

[Israel.7056]

@"ReaverKane.7598" said:Ok. Then why is your solution to remove it, knowing it will have a higher impact on one group than another?

Because I think it will have the highest impact on lower skill groups under most common play conditions. I'm sure some fights will still be completely lopsided no matter what but "outnumbered' is such a large category I don't think it's possible to talk about all possible outnumbered scenarios at the same time.

It also disadvantages groups in an already numerical disadvantage.

In my experience last week it was only an added disadvantage for me when I made a lot of mistakes and in those cases I deserved to lose.

so a good way to balance the encounter is to equalize the margin for error in both groups, by keeping the disadvantaged group's already narrow margin for error, and narrowing the margin for error in the advantaged group.

It's definitely a way to do it but I just don't think it's necessary. I think removing downed state for everyone is enough. We may not agree on the degree to which we must go to try to fix this problem but I don't know of any way to objectively prove a value statement. We may just have to agree to disagree.

Because, clearly you don't understand the problem.

I get the impression that you and I don't even see the same problem. I think we're probably talking past one another in that regard.

One: you assume this is a moral conundrum, it isn't... So Moral authority is irrelevant, and yet Arena Net would have it, being the creator and owner of the game they have the moral authority to do whatever they think furthers their vision for the game.

Then why even have this discussion? Surely if they thought that this sort of change were necessary they would've done it years ago and the fact that they haven't shows that they think it's wrong and their moral authority is absolute which means we should just always accept the game the way it is. Right?

Two: you forget that there's always space for invoking authority in a debate. Otherwise no one would reach a conclusion. When an authority is recognized generally by both parts, it's cogent to cite it as a source or an argument. If i tell you "the CDC says that not ashing hands has caused hundreds of hospital deaths" (this is not factual, dunno the actual numbers), you can't really invoke arguing from authority, since it's a valid source.

Invoking authority makes sense in a debate over facts or data. This is a debate over values not data. If we decide to defer to ANET on all matters of values about the game just because they made the game then these sorts of discussions are absolutely meaningless because any suggestion we make that in any way deviates from the current design is contradicting Anet which would be wrong and whatever Anet has already decided for the game is right and whatever Anet decides for the future is also always right.

The problem is, it's disproportionate, but it's disproportionately LESS impactful to the larger group. It's group dynamics, and herd behaviour 101. That's why animals roam in herds or packs, because the larger numbers offset their losses. The larger the group the more losses you require for it to be an impact.

Ok but that's not a very meaningful analogy because that's not the main reason why GW2 zergs run around in little balled up blobs. That has to do with game mechanics.

You have a group of 200 individuals, and a group of 100 individuals. In which group is it easier (effort being measured by number of individuals to be killed) to kill 10% of the population?

Are we talking about IRL or GW2? I get the feeling "easier" isn't the word you meant to use am I right?

That also applies to rallying, a smaller group regains more of their effective power from rallying than a larger group.Going back to my previous example:A 4 v 2 fight.One player is downed on each group.If that player rallies on the larger group, it represents the restoration of 25% of their effective power.If the player on the smaller group rallies, it's 50% of their effective power.Being able to rally will always have a greater impact on the smaller group. It's just common sense and basic maths man...

But not all outnumbered fights are 4v2. Not all outnumbered fights are 2 to 1. Not all players are equally effective.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"ReaverKane.7598" said:Ok. Then why is your solution to remove it, knowing it will have a higher impact on one group than another?

Because I think it will have the highest impact on lower skill groups under most common play conditions. I'm sure some fights will still be completely lopsided no matter what but "outnumbered' is such a large category I don't think it's possible to talk about all possible outnumbered scenarios at the same time.

I've demonstrated it isn't.

It also disadvantages groups in an already numerical disadvantage.

In my experience last week it was only an added disadvantage for me when I made a lot of mistakes and in those cases I deserved to lose.Your experience applies to you.. In My experience, Seafarer's Rest went from a medium server constantly outnumbered to the unbeatable server everyone was trying to join exactly because during the first months we'd constantly win fights when outnumbered, and you can bet that it wouldn't be possible to do this without rallying.

so a good way to balance the encounter is to equalize the margin for error in both groups, by keeping the disadvantaged group's already narrow margin for error, and narrowing the margin for error in the advantaged group.

It's definitely a way to do it but I just don't think it's necessary. I think removing downed state for everyone is enough. We may not agree on the degree to which we must go to try to fix this problem but I don't know of any way to objectively prove a value statement. We may just have to agree to disagree.What you don't understand is that removing down-state

is removing the equalizer

without down-state numbers will always dictate outcome, unless it's a really small difference.

Because, clearly you don't understand the problem.

I get the impression that you and I don't even see the same problem. I think we're probably talking past one another in that regard.Well i've explained the problem a few times...

One: you assume this is a moral conundrum, it isn't... So Moral authority is irrelevant, and yet Arena Net would have it, being the creator and owner of the game they have the moral authority to do whatever they think furthers their vision for the game.

Then why even have this discussion? Surely if they thought that this sort of change were necessary they would've done it years ago and the fact that they haven't shows that they think it's wrong and their moral authority is absolute which means we should just always accept the game the way it is. Right?Cause i'm bored?

Two: you forget that there's always space for invoking authority in a debate. Otherwise no one would reach a conclusion. When an authority is recognized generally by both parts, it's cogent to cite it as a source or an argument. If i tell you "the CDC says that not ashing hands has caused hundreds of hospital deaths" (this is not factual, dunno the actual numbers), you can't really invoke arguing from authority, since it's a valid source.

Invoking authority makes sense in a debate over facts or data. This is a debate over values not data. If we decide to defer to ANET on all matters of values about the game just because they made the game then these sorts of discussions are absolutely meaningless because any suggestion we make that in any way deviates from the current design is contradicting Anet which would be wrong and whatever Anet has already decided for the game is right and whatever Anet decides for the future is also always right.Fact: Rallying is a mechanic that equalizes fights. Already explained and demonstrated.Fact: (the one i "argued from authority") Arena Net wants the game to be balanced and has already (like since there's WvW) taken steps towards curbing the advantage that numbers have in WvW.

The problem is, it's disproportionate, but it's disproportionately

LESS

impactful to the larger group. It's group dynamics, and herd behaviour 101. That's why animals roam in herds or packs, because the larger numbers offset their losses. The larger the group the more losses you require for it to be an impact.

Ok but that's not a very meaningful analogy because that's not the main reason why GW2 zergs run around in little balled up blobs. That has to do with game mechanics.

LOL, it's

exactly

the same reason. Safety in numbers.As soon as the first guild realized that they could conquer stuff faster by sticking together in a group, other guilds started doing the same to be able to counter that group, and then it went from guilds to servers when people started getting commander tags.Same thing in the animal kingdom, as soon as the first herbivores realized that the chance of getting killed was reduced from being near others, they started bunching up, and the predators started working in packs to separate them. EXACT SAME THING!

You have a group of 200 individuals, and a group of 100 individuals. In which group is it easier (effort being measured by number of individuals to be killed) to kill 10% of the population?

Are we talking about IRL or GW2? I get the feeling "easier" isn't the word you meant to use am I right?Wow man... I actually defined the metric for effort... It's right there. See this is why you're no fun to debate...

That also applies to rallying, a smaller group regains more of their effective power from rallying than a larger group.Going back to my previous example:A 4 v 2 fight.One player is downed on each group.If that player rallies on the larger group, it represents the restoration of 25% of their effective power.If the player on the smaller group rallies, it's 50% of their effective power.Being able to rally will always have a greater impact on the smaller group. It's just common sense and basic maths man...

But not all outnumbered fights are 4v2. Not all outnumbered fights are 2 to 1. Not all players are equally effective.

You do realize that this applies to all instances, if it's 50 to 40 it still applies, the % is different but it applies. And it applies regardless of skill.Your problem is that your conclusions are based on the assumption that the larger group is always less skilled.

My conclusion is based on simple maths. It's a blind equalizer, it doesn't matter who's more skilled or not it simply evens out the field. Then people have the chance to fail or not.

Without rally even if the smaller group is more skilled, meaning they're more likely to get rallies, that mechanic doesn't exist, and as such each loss is heavier on the smaller group than the larger one.

Basically rallying allows smaller more skilled or equally skilled groups to capitalize more on each kill they take.

Anyway, answer if you like... I'm getting bored again. Your arguments are just meh, and you consciously ignore information i've already given you just to try and deflect the argument. No fun. Just weak.