[Down State] Handicapping the game in favor of the serg that has more numbers is a bad design game.

[Tiawal.2351]

Just one thing: being downed on the ground, laying there, it's absolutely horrible, by far the worse "feature" GW2 has. The traits and skills built around make it even worse, and don't even start with having foods encouraging you to be downed. No excuses, it's the #1 fail of game design. Maybe was fine in a PvE setting, can't say, but in WvW it's just a huge no.

But how to "fix" it now? Would require a huge redesign, with all that one-shoot options that needs nerfed badly and downed state replaced with something, like give 10% health instead downed on a 60s cooldown... And of course, we need the managers at top to agree first. Because being "proud" of having such features like downed state doesn't help. How to make them test it in WvW?

[DeadlySynz.3471]

If DS remains then do this instead: Anybody rezzing can immediately be downed in 1 hit. Give rezzers a debuff that states "the next incoming hit is a lethal blow", causing the rezzer to be downed on hit.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Israel.7056 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Hitman.5829" said:If Anet had done their homework, they would have known that Down State in WvW is a very bad game design.Yes, the fact that WvW became one of the most popular RvR modes in the genre and attracted both big and small hardcore raiding guilds is a clear indication of very bad game design. Imagine how good Red Guard could have been with no downed state instead of presumably loosing fights and ragequitting every time an enemy got ressed.

Not really much in the way of competition and obviously there are some really good design choices that make combat really satisfying downed state or no. But just because red guard suffered through downed state doesn't mean we have to suffer it forever."We" dont suffer it. Just because a few people dont like downed state doesnt mean the community is suffering from it. Polls have shown before that a majority is still in favor of having it. Zergs still one-push enemy zergs. Roamers still go 1v3 and win. Downed state is as much part of friendly gameplay as it is enemy.

@"DeadlySynz.3471" said:If DS remains then do this instead: Anybody rezzing can immediately be downed in 1 hit. Give rezzers a debuff that states "the next incoming hit is a lethal blow", causing the rezzer to be downed on hit.No offense but that is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. We

already

kill people that try to res with the insane amount of damage being thrown around in WvW due to the PoF meta. That's how many, many fights are won. Even in small scale it's a complete laugh fest whenever people try to res because most of the time they get 1 player up while 2-3 go downed.

[Hitman.5829]

@"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:The OP feels his new definition of handicap somehow supports his efforts. If we are going to be consistent I will be using the Marriam-Webster definition of handicap: a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning. Current implementation of down state is not a handicap because ALL sides have downstate. It would be a handicap with this common definition if only ONE side had it.

After explaining what handicapping is, you still have no Idea what I am talking about. For a third time, I will explain again in hope that you will finally get it. Handicapping a game is the act of making a game less cumbersome, easier to play and enjoyable for the user. Nobody is talking about horse races or contests on this forum topic. I am talking about handicapping a VIDEO GAME. I will give you a concrete example in hopes that people like you will FINALLY understand what handicapping a game means:

• Game X gives 3 initial lives for the player and 1 life every 30 minutes of game play.
• Game Y, if your character dies 10 times in 30 minutes, the difficulty of the game is changed internally by computer code and it is set to easy mode.
• Game Z, if your character health drops below zero, you don't die; instead you get in a Down State where you can continue gameplay and hopefully manage to kill the enemy to rally and continue the game play.

This is what handicapping a game means. It is making a game easy and fun to play.Now, the problem with handicapping games in competitive matches is that someone is going to have the advantage if handicapping is left unchecked.Now lets analyze the examples that I give above:

• Game X has PvE and PvP game modes:If one player has been playing the game for 1 hour and he has not died, then he has 5 lives. But another player that just logged in will only have 3 lives. As you can see, having handicap in PvE and PvP without checks and balances is a bad design game, even when both players have handicapping in their favor.
• Game Z has PvE and PvP game modes:In general an X+1 man group will have the advantage over an X man group in handicapping.

Thus my argument: "The group with more numbers on the map has the handicap advantage."Or in leyman's terms: "The groups with advantage in numbers have even more advantage with Down State handicapping."One final comment, please refrain from using "poisoning the well fallacies" to make your argument. What I say or do in other posts is irrelevant to the argument of Down State that I am presenting here on this post.

[Felipe.1807]

Downstate its a mechanic that been here since start, aint going anywhere, dont like it? just move to other game without it...besides, nobody during a zerg fight stops to rez downed people cause doing that usually means getting trapped inside a SB Winds and a bunch o AoE that will insta kill you.

[Israel.7056]

@"Dawdler.8521" said:"We" dont suffer it. Just because a few people dont like downed state doesnt mean the community is suffering from it. Polls have shown before that a majority is still in favor of having it.

By "we" I of course meant those of us who do not like downed state in the game (and in my case never have) and those of us who have suffered through it for years now (in my case since launch.) I did not know anyone from Red Guard so I do not know how any of them felt on this issue but my point was that it doesn't matter what they thought. Just because Red Guard dealt with downed state doesn't mean those of us who want it gone from the game should have to accept it as the eternal status quo. I'm not entirely sure what the various polls have shown or that these issues can or should be decided democratically but for the sake of argument let's just say that you're right about the polls and that these issues can and/or should be decided democratically.

As a quick aside, many of the polls I've seen have been worded in such a way as to alienate anyone currently for keeping downed state or those on the fence by shaming them for their preference. This no doubt satisfies those of us who want it gone right now but I do not think it does anything to win people over in the long run. You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar as the saying goes.

It seems to me entirely possible that the people who are currently against the removal of downed state simply haven't had enough time playing without it to change their minds. I have wanted downed state gone since launch so of course I was immediately sold but for others it might take time to come around to it. One week of play testing is not much time, I think that if we got a few more no downed state event weeks that a lot more people might come around to my way of thinking. The more time they get to play without downed state the more comfortable I think they will become with the idea of removing it entirely.

Again I don't necessarily think things like this can or should be decided democratically but if you do then you should be open to the possibility that people could change their minds over time with more experience.

[joneirikb.7506]

@Hitman.5829 said:

@"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:The OP feels his new definition of handicap somehow supports his efforts. If we are going to be consistent I will be using the

Marriam-Webster

definition of handicap:

a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning

.

Current implementation of down state is not a handicap because ALL sides have downstate.

It would be a handicap with this common definition if only

ONE

side had it.

After explaining what handicapping is, you still have no Idea what I am talking about. For a third time, I will explain again in hope that you will finally get it. Handicapping a game is the act of making a game less cumbersome, easier to play and enjoyable for the user. Nobody is talking about horse races or contests on this forum topic. I am talking about handicapping a VIDEO GAME. I will give you a concrete example in hopes that people like you will FINALLY understand what handicapping a game means:

• Game X gives 3 initial lives for the player and 1 life every 30 minutes of game play.
• Game Y, if your character dies 10 times in 30 minutes, the difficulty of the game is changed internally by computer code and it is set to easy mode.
• Game Z, if your character health drops below zero, you don't die; instead you get in a
  Down State
  where you can continue gameplay and hopefully manage to kill the enemy to rally and continue the game play.

This is what handicapping a game means. It is making a game easy and fun to play.Now, the problem with handicapping games in

competitive matches

is that someone is going to have the advantage if handicapping is left unchecked.Now lets analyze the examples that I give above:

• Game X has PvE and PvP game modes:
  If one player has been playing the game for 1 hour and he has not died, then he has 5 lives. But another player that just logged in will only have 3 lives. As you can see, having handicap in PvE and PvP without checks and balances is a bad design game, even when both players have handicapping in their favor.
• Game Z has PvE and PvP game modes:
  In general an X+1 man group will have the advantage over an X man group in handicapping.

Thus my argument: "The group with more numbers on the map has the handicap advantage."Or in leyman's terms: "The groups with advantage in numbers have even more advantage with Down State handicapping."One final comment, please refrain from using "

poisoning the well fallacies

" to make your argument. What I say or do in other posts is irrelevant to the argument of Down State that I am presenting here on this post.

Hmm, that sounds more like "Difficulty" settings, than "Handicapping".

Handicapping is traditionally in every game I've seen, both inside and outside of the computer screen, the act of giving one player an advantage over another player in some way. For example in the ancient board game GO you give handicap by letting the opponent start with 2-9 stones pre-placed on the board giving them a strong advantage in gaining points and territory. In fighting games I've seen some have options for increasing the damage or health for one player over the other as ways to handicap.

If the outnumbered EFFECT actually gave us anything like a buff, then it would be a Handicap system.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:Edit: Also, people nowdays still not informed that WvW was anet's answer to open world pvp, not because they wanted it to be RvR but because they know people want open world pvp but they just couldn't have it in this pve setting so they made WvW. There is a actual black & white interview about it.Uh no.

GW2 devs responsible for WvW also worked with Dark Age Of Camelot and thats pretty much why its there. Why do you think we have three sides red, green and blue... its quite literally Anets version of DAoC RvR, not any "answer to open world PvP".

“The overall design for Guild Wars 2 does not support fully open world PvP and it would take a prohibitive amount of work to even make it possible. World versus world is our version of open world PvP, and while it isn't 'true' open world PvP for more PvP purists, it does contain many of the elements that make world PvP so exciting. Hopefully it will mostly satisfy people that want open world PvP.” — Mike Ferguson

As already mentioned. Gw2 is using a shared pve environment, you not gonna be able to put open world pvp in that kind of environment, that much is obvious, it will just be chaotic.Also, DAOC isn't the first mmo that release such game design. Maybe is the first mmorpg to do so, definitely isn't the first mmo to do so.

[Dawdler.8521]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Edit: Also, people nowdays still not informed that WvW was anet's answer to open world pvp, not because they wanted it to be RvR but because they know people want open world pvp but they just couldn't have it in this pve setting so they made WvW. There is a actual black & white interview about it.Uh no.

GW2 devs responsible for WvW also worked with Dark Age Of Camelot and thats pretty much why its there. Why do you think we have three sides red, green and blue... its quite literally Anets version of DAoC RvR, not any "answer to open world PvP".

“The overall design for Guild Wars 2 does not support fully open world PvP and it would take a prohibitive amount of work to even make it possible. World versus world is our version of open world PvP, and while it isn't 'true' open world PvP for more PvP purists, it does contain many of the elements that make world PvP so exciting. Hopefully it will mostly satisfy people that want open world PvP.” — Mike Ferguson

As already mentioned. Gw2 is using a shared pve environment, you not gonna be able to put open world pvp in that kind of environment, that much is obvious, it will just be chaotic.Also, DAOC isn't the first mmo that release such game design. Maybe is the first mmorpg to do so, definitely isn't the first mmo to do so.

"Mike Ferguson and Matt Witter are our two lead designers working on the WvWvW project, from a lead design perspective. Both of them are ex-Mythic employees. Mike was heavily involved in Dark Age of Camelot back when I was at Mythic. Mat was heavily involved in Warhammer Online and so the two of them have a lot of experience with world PvP. We also have a lot of staff who give them a great deal of feedback and suggestions. We are big PvP players across the board. I played a lot of Dark Age of Camelot. Our lead designer Eric Flannum would say one of his favourite games of all time was Dark Age of Camelot. We certainly draw inspirations from those areas, but we want to take that and make it our own too." - Colin Johanson

What you quoted was just working within the limitations of the engine, not what drew inspiration to WvW and what WvW at its core is. Its quite obvious. I never said DAoC was the first (not sure why that would matter), I said Anet devs had worked on it.

[Za Shaloc.3908]

I imagine downstate is here to stay as the game is currently balanced with it as a mechanic. However, perhaps a potential change that could help make downstate more punishing is to have skill cooldown timers halt while downed?

[sostronk.8167]

Down state is handicapping for those who already have the advantage in numbers. It needs to be removed from WvW and PvP.

The only time I have seen downstate have a dramatic effect on gameplay in WvW is when small zerg busting groups (typically between 15-30) bust a map blob and they focus down states to rally their own people at the right moments. I'd argue that the biggest advantage of downstate is given to organized groups, not the largest groups. And no, I disagree that it should be removed from WvW and PvP.

[Hesacon.8735]

The vocal minority is vocal and a minority.

Downstate adds an entire dimension to the game. It would be game breaking to remove it for many reasons. For example it's baked into many skills/traits/runes/food and certain powerful classes have extremely weak downstates to compensate (mesmer, thief),

Downstate in wvw got nerfed really hard a while back by making rally a 1:1 deal for rallying. One player gets defeated, one person can rally. That change made the game better, and diminishes most arguments against downstate.

An irrelevant-to-the-discussion reason for keeping it would also be that I really like my finisher (guild shield).

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Edit: Also, people nowdays still not informed that WvW was anet's answer to open world pvp, not because they wanted it to be RvR but because they know people want open world pvp but they just couldn't have it in this pve setting so they made WvW. There is a actual black & white interview about it.Uh no.

GW2 devs responsible for WvW also worked with Dark Age Of Camelot and thats pretty much why its there. Why do you think we have three sides red, green and blue... its quite literally Anets version of DAoC RvR, not any "answer to open world PvP".

“The overall design for Guild Wars 2 does not support fully open world PvP and it would take a prohibitive amount of work to even make it possible. World versus world is our version of open world PvP, and while it isn't 'true' open world PvP for more PvP purists, it does contain many of the elements that make world PvP so exciting. Hopefully it will mostly satisfy people that want open world PvP.” — Mike Ferguson

As already mentioned. Gw2 is using a shared pve environment, you not gonna be able to put open world pvp in that kind of environment, that much is obvious, it will just be chaotic.Also, DAOC isn't the first mmo that release such game design. Maybe is the first mmorpg to do so, definitely isn't the first mmo to do so.

"Mike Ferguson and Matt Witter are our two lead designers working on the WvWvW project, from a lead design perspective. Both of them are ex-Mythic employees. Mike was heavily involved in Dark Age of Camelot back when I was at Mythic. Mat was heavily involved in Warhammer Online and so the two of them have a lot of experience with world PvP. We also have a lot of staff who give them a great deal of feedback and suggestions. We are big PvP players across the board. I played a lot of Dark Age of Camelot. Our lead designer Eric Flannum would say one of his favourite games of all time was Dark Age of Camelot. We certainly draw inspirations from those areas, but we want to take that and make it our own too."

- Colin Johanson

What you quoted was just working within the limitations of the engine, not what drew inspiration to WvW and what WvW at its core is. Its quite obvious. I never said DAoC was the first (not sure why that would matter), I said Anet devs had worked on it.

Erm...you don't seem to get it. WvW exist because of the game design (mainly because of how pve is), not the other way round. Nothing to do with devs' preferences. Btw, there isn't hundreds of pvp concepts.

[Dawdler.8521]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Edit: Also, people nowdays still not informed that WvW was anet's answer to open world pvp, not because they wanted it to be RvR but because they know people want open world pvp but they just couldn't have it in this pve setting so they made WvW. There is a actual black & white interview about it.Uh no.

GW2 devs responsible for WvW also worked with Dark Age Of Camelot and thats pretty much why its there. Why do you think we have three sides red, green and blue... its quite literally Anets version of DAoC RvR, not any "answer to open world PvP".

“The overall design for Guild Wars 2 does not support fully open world PvP and it would take a prohibitive amount of work to even make it possible. World versus world is our version of open world PvP, and while it isn't 'true' open world PvP for more PvP purists, it does contain many of the elements that make world PvP so exciting. Hopefully it will mostly satisfy people that want open world PvP.” — Mike Ferguson

As already mentioned. Gw2 is using a shared pve environment, you not gonna be able to put open world pvp in that kind of environment, that much is obvious, it will just be chaotic.Also, DAOC isn't the first mmo that release such game design. Maybe is the first mmorpg to do so, definitely isn't the first mmo to do so.

"Mike Ferguson and Matt Witter are our two lead designers working on the WvWvW project, from a lead design perspective. Both of them are ex-Mythic employees. Mike was heavily involved in Dark Age of Camelot back when I was at Mythic. Mat was heavily involved in Warhammer Online and so the two of them have a lot of experience with world PvP. We also have a lot of staff who give them a great deal of feedback and suggestions. We are big PvP players across the board. I played a lot of Dark Age of Camelot. Our lead designer Eric Flannum would say one of his favourite games of all time was Dark Age of Camelot. We certainly draw inspirations from those areas, but we want to take that and make it our own too."

- Colin Johanson

What you quoted was just working within the limitations of the engine, not what drew inspiration to WvW and what WvW at its core is. Its quite obvious. I never said DAoC was the first (not sure why that would matter), I said Anet devs had worked on it.

Erm...you don't seem to get it. WvW exist because of the game design (mainly because of how pve is), not the other way round. Nothing to do with devs' preferences. Btw, there isn't hundreds of pvp concepts.

Not sure what you are arguing anymore. You said that WvW was Anets answers to open world PvP, which I say it isnt. It's clearly Realm vs Realm inspired from games such as DaOC, not ffa open world PvP. What is it I dont get?

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Edit: Also, people nowdays still not informed that WvW was anet's answer to open world pvp, not because they wanted it to be RvR but because they know people want open world pvp but they just couldn't have it in this pve setting so they made WvW. There is a actual black & white interview about it.Uh no.

GW2 devs responsible for WvW also worked with Dark Age Of Camelot and thats pretty much why its there. Why do you think we have three sides red, green and blue... its quite literally Anets version of DAoC RvR, not any "answer to open world PvP".

“The overall design for Guild Wars 2 does not support fully open world PvP and it would take a prohibitive amount of work to even make it possible. World versus world is our version of open world PvP, and while it isn't 'true' open world PvP for more PvP purists, it does contain many of the elements that make world PvP so exciting. Hopefully it will mostly satisfy people that want open world PvP.” — Mike Ferguson

As already mentioned. Gw2 is using a shared pve environment, you not gonna be able to put open world pvp in that kind of environment, that much is obvious, it will just be chaotic.Also, DAOC isn't the first mmo that release such game design. Maybe is the first mmorpg to do so, definitely isn't the first mmo to do so.

"Mike Ferguson and Matt Witter are our two lead designers working on the WvWvW project, from a lead design perspective. Both of them are ex-Mythic employees. Mike was heavily involved in Dark Age of Camelot back when I was at Mythic. Mat was heavily involved in Warhammer Online and so the two of them have a lot of experience with world PvP. We also have a lot of staff who give them a great deal of feedback and suggestions. We are big PvP players across the board. I played a lot of Dark Age of Camelot. Our lead designer Eric Flannum would say one of his favourite games of all time was Dark Age of Camelot. We certainly draw inspirations from those areas, but we want to take that and make it our own too."

- Colin Johanson

What you quoted was just working within the limitations of the engine, not what drew inspiration to WvW and what WvW at its core is. Its quite obvious. I never said DAoC was the first (not sure why that would matter), I said Anet devs had worked on it.

Erm...you don't seem to get it. WvW exist because of the game design (mainly because of how pve is), not the other way round. Nothing to do with devs' preferences. Btw, there isn't hundreds of pvp concepts.

Not sure what you are arguing anymore. You said that WvW was Anets answers to open world PvP, which I say it isnt. It's clearly Realm vs Realm inspired from games such as DaOC, not ffa open world PvP. What is it I dont get?

It is the order of things you don't get it.

[Turk.5460]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Edit: Also, people nowdays still not informed that WvW was anet's answer to open world pvp, not because they wanted it to be RvR but because they know people want open world pvp but they just couldn't have it in this pve setting so they made WvW. There is a actual black & white interview about it.Uh no.

GW2 devs responsible for WvW also worked with Dark Age Of Camelot and thats pretty much why its there. Why do you think we have three sides red, green and blue... its quite literally Anets version of DAoC RvR, not any "answer to open world PvP".

“The overall design for Guild Wars 2 does not support fully open world PvP and it would take a prohibitive amount of work to even make it possible. World versus world is our version of open world PvP, and while it isn't 'true' open world PvP for more PvP purists, it does contain many of the elements that make world PvP so exciting. Hopefully it will mostly satisfy people that want open world PvP.” — Mike Ferguson

As already mentioned. Gw2 is using a shared pve environment, you not gonna be able to put open world pvp in that kind of environment, that much is obvious, it will just be chaotic.Also, DAOC isn't the first mmo that release such game design. Maybe is the first mmorpg to do so, definitely isn't the first mmo to do so.

"Mike Ferguson and Matt Witter are our two lead designers working on the WvWvW project, from a lead design perspective. Both of them are ex-Mythic employees. Mike was heavily involved in Dark Age of Camelot back when I was at Mythic. Mat was heavily involved in Warhammer Online and so the two of them have a lot of experience with world PvP. We also have a lot of staff who give them a great deal of feedback and suggestions. We are big PvP players across the board. I played a lot of Dark Age of Camelot. Our lead designer Eric Flannum would say one of his favourite games of all time was Dark Age of Camelot. We certainly draw inspirations from those areas, but we want to take that and make it our own too."

- Colin Johanson

What you quoted was just working within the limitations of the engine, not what drew inspiration to WvW and what WvW at its core is. Its quite obvious. I never said DAoC was the first (not sure why that would matter), I said Anet devs had worked on it.

Erm...you don't seem to get it. WvW exist because of the game design (mainly because of how pve is), not the other way round. Nothing to do with devs' preferences. Btw, there isn't hundreds of pvp concepts.

Not sure what you are arguing anymore. You said that WvW was Anets answers to open world PvP, which I say it isnt. It's clearly Realm vs Realm inspired from games such as DaOC, not ffa open world PvP. What is it I dont get?

It is the order of things you don't get it.

Wrong. WvW was based on DAoC RvR, as was mentioned plenty of times throughout the game's development. There was even an AMA from the dev's on reddit before release that focused almost completely on WvW and how it is inspired by RvR.

[Swagger.1459]

@Hitman.5829 said:

@"Naix.8156" said:I believe the original intent of the downstate mechanic was to create moments of tension in the minute-to-minute gameplay primarily. In my opinion, I'd agrue that it was generally successful at achieving the desired affect. However, as the game has evolved it really seems like the downstate mechanic has found itself being wack-a-mole'd between ridiculous or near meaningless as collateral damage from general power creep.

As far as completely removing it from pvp gamemodes, I really don'e believe that's realistic. Anet sold finishers for stomping and there are several skills and traits based on downstate (res'ing in particular) that wouldn't have an opportunity to see use if downstate was removed from competitive game modes. The most extreme example here would be that the scrapper's entire function gyro mechanic wouldn't be usable.

Whether or not it makes sense or there's a solid justification to remove the downstate entirely from competitive game modes there's just too big of a barrier with reworking existing mechanics to believe Anet would even remotely entertain this change.

Yeah, Anet made a huge mistake by introducing Down State handicapping in WvW without restriction or moderation.If Anet had done their homework, they would have known that Down State in WvW is a very bad game design.They do deserve credit for PvE Down State, it is a very useful handicapping and makes the game play smooth, but in WvW it just does not make any sense.After reading some comments, I have changed my mind about removing PvP down state because like many people have pointed out, PvP is an even match.However, WvW is a different beast.

WvW was primarily designed for zerg play and the devs aren't going to attempt some type of outnumbered benefit balance act for down state, or remove down state for that matter. Particularly when the game has extremely low ttk and there are a bunch of designs based off of having comeback mechanics…

Couple of tips...-Make more use of spvp for the "fair and balanced" fights you are looking for.

-Your party should get better at cleaving downed.

GL!

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Turk.5460 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Edit: Also, people nowdays still not informed that WvW was anet's answer to open world pvp, not because they wanted it to be RvR but because they know people want open world pvp but they just couldn't have it in this pve setting so they made WvW. There is a actual black & white interview about it.Uh no.

GW2 devs responsible for WvW also worked with Dark Age Of Camelot and thats pretty much why its there. Why do you think we have three sides red, green and blue... its quite literally Anets version of DAoC RvR, not any "answer to open world PvP".

“The overall design for Guild Wars 2 does not support fully open world PvP and it would take a prohibitive amount of work to even make it possible. World versus world is our version of open world PvP, and while it isn't 'true' open world PvP for more PvP purists, it does contain many of the elements that make world PvP so exciting. Hopefully it will mostly satisfy people that want open world PvP.” — Mike Ferguson

As already mentioned. Gw2 is using a shared pve environment, you not gonna be able to put open world pvp in that kind of environment, that much is obvious, it will just be chaotic.Also, DAOC isn't the first mmo that release such game design. Maybe is the first mmorpg to do so, definitely isn't the first mmo to do so.

"Mike Ferguson and Matt Witter are our two lead designers working on the WvWvW project, from a lead design perspective. Both of them are ex-Mythic employees. Mike was heavily involved in Dark Age of Camelot back when I was at Mythic. Mat was heavily involved in Warhammer Online and so the two of them have a lot of experience with world PvP. We also have a lot of staff who give them a great deal of feedback and suggestions. We are big PvP players across the board. I played a lot of Dark Age of Camelot. Our lead designer Eric Flannum would say one of his favourite games of all time was Dark Age of Camelot. We certainly draw inspirations from those areas, but we want to take that and make it our own too."

- Colin Johanson

What you quoted was just working within the limitations of the engine, not what drew inspiration to WvW and what WvW at its core is. Its quite obvious. I never said DAoC was the first (not sure why that would matter), I said Anet devs had worked on it.

Erm...you don't seem to get it. WvW exist because of the game design (mainly because of how pve is), not the other way round. Nothing to do with devs' preferences. Btw, there isn't hundreds of pvp concepts.

Not sure what you are arguing anymore. You said that WvW was Anets answers to open world PvP, which I say it isnt. It's clearly Realm vs Realm inspired from games such as DaOC, not ffa open world PvP. What is it I dont get?

It is the order of things you don't get it.

Wrong. WvW was based on DAoC RvR, as was mentioned plenty of times throughout the game's development. There was even an AMA from the dev's on reddit before release that focused almost completely on WvW and how it is inspired by RvR.

See, when I say order of things, people still don't get it. What come first? Egg or chicken?

Look at the original post. I said it is not because they want to make RvR but because they can't make open world pvp which is why they make RvR. This imply the entire game is not make with RvR as focus. All other components are second thoughts. Naturally, if they do decided to make RvR, they need something as reference which DAOC come into the picture but that isn't the point anyway.

Reading back, I don't even get why DAOC is bought up into conversation, I simply went along with it, lmao.

[Rysdude.3824]

@Burnfall.9573 said:

@Hitman.5829 said:Down state is handicapping for those who already have the advantage in numbers. It needs to be removed from WvW and PvP.I have never played a game in which handicapping played a major advantage for those who ALREADY have the advantage. Thus, giving them MORE advantage!

handicapping games is fantastic in PvE so you can enjoy the game; and to some extent it should also be used in competitive matches to level the playing field, but NEVER should handicapping be used in favor of those who already have the advantage.

Agree

100% agreed. Though I doubt this will happen but at the very least, can one of the borderlands be permanent No Downstate?

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:Yet another one of the arguments that failed to show up on the no DS week.

Please, go on and list out the design and balancing of DS that does not favor the larger group.

Also, the whole "cheesy just burst builds". Uhhh...no. A small skill group will not be running that, as even a clueless pug zerg would wipe them on the first push. Skill groups are going to be well comped, organized and on target, the focus and skill might make it seem like they are all one shot builds, but they are not. But hey, if those cheesy burst builds work at taking out a zerg, why don't you give it a try and report back.

except during no DS event, that was exacly what happened - blobs bunkered up and blob killers were running cheesy bursts to annoy the blobs. at least on servers I've seen during that week matchup - and everyone whom I have seen in-game during that event actually playing and saying what they think about it agreed that it was nice shake-up for once in a time thing, but would be to much of a pain in the ass if ever considered permanent change.

as for "giving it a try and reporting back" in case you failed to notice I said that they DO NOT WORK and that some seem to use that as an argument that they should.

so yeah sure I totally should go to test it out to tell you that I was right and they don't really work due to one of core game mechanics being in place....

by the way

speaking of "in favour of big groups" let me ask you this you have two squads, one is 20 people strong and other is full 50 people and difference in relevant skill between groups is minimal - who SHOULD have advantage in that scenario again?(and if your "smaller skillfull group" is unable to mop up bigger barely coordinated group of "noobs relying on DS crunch to win fights for them" then I am sorry to break this to you but your group is not as skillfull as you may think it is)

EDIT: speaking of no DS week there is a couple of funny situations our group came across during this week - alot of our players are not really hardcore players so full switch from something that works in normal situation (partially thanks to DS mechanics on account of one of scourges) to full bunker that would be required to prevent these to happen, but on quite a numerous ocasions our group was stopped on a chokepoint for quite a few minutes by....... simple cheesy trap dragonhunter. what he would be doing was laying all the traps on that chokepoint and afk close enought for traps to not despawn on proximity but far enought to not be seen or catched. so here is a chokepoint with no enemy in proximity that is fastest way to where we need to be so we go throught it..... and bams noticeable chunk of our DPS gots instawiped, whole group gets put into combat therefore can't rez defeated and dude responsible for this was not even in proximity close enought to be put into any sort of danger. and we get stalled because now we need to wait for game to graciously put us all out of combat and revive our DPS, one guy who was not even in there stalled 20+ group but pure cheese - yeah sure, very funny much skilled such pro.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Yeah. I probably shouldn't be responding considering I had hoped to be done with this, but perhaps it can be turned around to be useful.

@Hitman.5829 said:

@"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:The OP feels his new definition of handicap somehow supports his efforts. If we are going to be consistent I will be using the

Marriam-Webster

definition of handicap:

a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning

.

Current implementation of down state is not a handicap because ALL sides have downstate.

It would be a handicap with this common definition if only

ONE

side had it.

After explaining what handicapping is, you still have no Idea what I am talking about. For a third time, I will explain again in hope that you will finally get it. Handicapping a game is the act of making a game less cumbersome, easier to play and enjoyable for the user. Nobody is talking about horse races or contests on this forum topic. I am talking about handicapping a VIDEO GAME. I will give you a concrete example in hopes that people like you will FINALLY understand what handicapping a game means:

It was my intention that competitive video games could safely be defined by "contest." So first let's go with what you said that "nobody is talking about horse races or contests." If that's the case then stop misusing the word handicap, for--as you say--video games are not those two things. The alternative is to accept the common definition and only use it when an example of handicap isn't applied to everyone (Downstate is given to all players so it doesn't fit). The probable issue with your premise is the unnecessary association of Downstate with a buzzword that can have implied negative connotation (much like buzzword). In order to be constructive I will give words on what Downstate could be called: A Game Mechanic. This is the first hurdle to get over because the original post wastes many words trying to repackage Downstate in a negative light much in the ways the player polls do in their condescending answers.

The following are also Game Mechanics. Each with their own purposes and ways to delay a Fail State (which is one purpose of Downstate). People in this thread have noted it also adds strategies, and tension. Ultimately its purpose is to increase the time to kill on an individual while providing a comeback opportunity.

• Game X gives 3 initial lives for the player and 1 life every 30 minutes of game play.
• Game Y, if your character dies 10 times in 30 minutes, the difficulty of the game is changed internally by computer code and it is set to easy mode.
• Game Z, if your character health drops below zero, you don't die; instead you get in a Down State where you can continue gameplay and hopefully manage to kill the enemy to rally and continue the game play.

This is what handicapping a game means. It is making a game easy and fun to play.Now, the problem with handicapping games in competitive matches is that someone is going to have the advantage if handicapping is left unchecked.

Within WvW all players have downstate. Above, it is incorrect to say that "someone is going to have the advantage of [insert global Game Mechanic]."

Now lets analyze the examples that I give above:REMOVED FIRST TWO EXTRANEOUS EXAMPLES

• Game Z has PvE and PvP game modes:In general an X+1 man group will have the advantage over an X man group in handicapping.

In the previous post I have already mentioned that their advantage is in numbers. Yes, mathematically you are correct in that their numbers multiply their Game Mechanics. However, it would be incorrect to suggest their success is heavily influenced by Downstate. If anything their success is more influenced by the Game Mechanics out of Downstate (AoEs, Scourges, Defensive auto-procs, insert Game Mechanic). In fights you are not spending more than half the fight in Downstate, nor are you doing most of your damage/support while in Downstate. There are "clutch" moments hence why people have said it adds tension. However, in my opinion, it would be an exaggeration to claim such moments carry one side or another completely.

! X Game Mechanic vs. Y Game Mechanic, where Y>X Numbers will multiply any game mechanic. Not just downstate.

Thus my argument: "The group with more numbers on the map has the handicap advantage."

Ignoring the already addressed use of handicap. If this is truly your argument you could have saved many words in the initial statement. Furthermore, it is too broad and can be applied too easily to other Game Mechanics. Player number multiplies Game Mechanics, so trying to use XvX+Y as justification is a weak support in order to change a Game Mechanic when the real issue is the XvX+Y's population imbalance. If it was a strong justification we would be talking about a different game that is balanced around 1v3's like Mario Party Mini-games I have said before.

Onto the drama portion:

One final comment, please refrain from using "poisoning the well fallacies" to make your argument. What I say or do in other posts is irrelevant to the argument of Down State that I am presenting here on this post.

Reread that entire link, but the first part will suffice: "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience,..."

The reason I highlighted it is for relevancy of the quoted link. The narrative of this thread, was parroted in another thread within a small time frame. I would not quote you if it was an older post nor if it was justly irrelevant. However I will concede the first notion that I assumed you had confirmation bias which can be considered ad hominem (since we're going to use logical fallacies). This put you on the defensive, and thus the need to link a fallacy. I will not apologize for doing so, because if your intentions are actually to have a discussion/argument you would have not poisoned your own well. This will make sense if you read the later half of your provided link. A definition was put forth whereby it was used to denounce people's opinions because they didn't align with your premise involving "handicapping." Especially consider the potential negative connotations of your re-branded word which ultimately contributed to lack of common ground being forwarded when discussing the actual game mechanics. Lastly, do not ask me to operate in a vacuum if you are spreading this narrative into another person's unrelated topic. You can't have it both ways.

P.S. : I will make my own poll for downstate that minimizes condescending answers since that seems to be an issue. There...got some use out of this.

[Knighthonor.4061]

@xihorus.2804 said:

@Hitman.5829 said:Down state is handicapping for those who already have the advantage in numbers. It needs to be removed from WvW and PvP.I have never played a game in which handicapping played a major advantage for those who ALREADY have the advantage. Thus, giving them MORE advantage!

handicapping games is fantastic in PvE so you can enjoy the game; and to some extent it should also be used in competitive matches to level the playing field, but NEVER should handicapping be used in favor of those who already have the advantage.

I get what you are saying here, but I don't think the problem is with the down state as much as it is the rally on enemy death that creates the snowballing effect.

In PvE, the mechanic is great and allows for some fun clutch victory moments. In WvW, it allows for the side with an advantage in numbers to rely on rally mechanics to just push through the smaller group without consequence. Why bother to stop and rez allies when it is easier to keep pushing the smaller group and rally teammates from the deaths of your enemies?

I think it would be nice to keep the down state in WvW, but make it so that a player cannot rally off of another player or NPC.

WvW need dedicated Healers like every other RvR MMO has. I posted in my design thread the idea for Healing Mechs that players can jump into that have more powerful dedicated healing than the avg class. Lower population servers would get more than more populated servers to create a balance here.

[Warkind.6745]

Not really a handicap if everyone has it.

[Iozeph.5617]

You're saying having downed state makes it easier on the stronger team. No it doesn't. Because being the stronger team makes it easier all around. Take away downed state, larger blob goes after smaller blobish group. Blasts them straight to hell and off they go to release and revive at the nearest waypoint. Yes, the blob took some casualties but with the enemy released they just revive their downeds the slow way. Nothing changes -the stronger group is still the stronger group by dint of numbers alone. And if they want to work their way around lack of downed state they've the option of keeping a few back to stay out of combat and do it that way.

Sorry OP, not buying it. Downed state rarely figures as much as you say it does in today's wvw. Most of the time it's blob on blob and most of that time it's still the game of who's biggest and who pushes and lays down tons of red circles first. Those who tend to be downed by the circles aren't 'downed' or rallying. They're completely out of the fight and often enough their teammates who try to revive them are downed by the same circles because damage is still too overblown. Perhaps we propose another weekend event?

Let's have a "No AOE and no ground target AOE weekend -direct attacks only, and see how things play out. Then we might see downed state become more of a factor again because people would actually be downed for a significant enough amount of time for their teammates to actually revive them.

Or not, because of course it'll just go back to being a focus cleave train game. These sorts of games are long enough in the tooth that many of the outcomes of proposed changes are predictable. Anet needs to do more to limit players per team per map, or make more 'instanced' type battlegrounds to ensure a level playing field. Number discrepancies still have the largest impact.

The rest of the stuff it's more a matter of lagtime for the rats to outsmart the latest trap and the meta changes again.

[Arlette.9684]

@"Hitman.5829" said:Down state is handicapping for those who already have the advantage in numbers. It needs to be removed from WvW and PvP.I have never played a game in which handicapping played a major advantage for those who ALREADY have the advantage. Thus, giving them MORE advantage!

handicapping games is fantastic in PvE so you can enjoy the game; and to some extent it should also be used in competitive matches to level the playing field, but NEVER should handicapping be used in favor of those who already have the advantage.

EDIT:Reading the comments, I realize that many of you have no idea what *handicapping" a game means. Handicapping a game is the act of making a game less cumbersome and easier and enjoyable to play. For example: if you die, the game gives you another chance to continue the game play by introducing down states, extra lives, health regeneration while out of combat, etc.... so that you can continue enjoying the game.

Guild wars 2 is such a game; the problem with GW2 is that developers decided to include Down State handicapping in WvW and PvP without restriction or moderation so that groups with more numbers not only have the advantage in numbers but also the advantage in Down State handicapping.

I hope that you now understand what handicapping a game means and how PvE handicapping affects WvW.If you still don't get it, remember this:

• Down State Handicapping is a gift from the developers to make your life easier, so that you can enjoy playing the game even after you are "dead."

WvW should not have this "gift" from the developers; only PvE should have Down State Handicapping.

I believe, this is the first time we ever agreed on something.Cheers!