No Downstate poll (please read post first)

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@zengara.8301 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@zengara.8301 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@zengara.8301 said:I voted for it to stay, but yeah. This whole poll is quiet biased af xD

How is it biased?

Give constructive input, not accusations.

I think he means the "Nerf Downstate" is biased since it goes beyond a semantic argument comparison like "Perfect" vs. "Good." In your case, "Nerf" has a negative connotation as opposed to a

middle

ground that you may have intended. While I jokingly poked fun at it with a desire to have an option for "improve," the "Nerf" means you will only weaken downstate in some form. This leaves out anything that could "Buff" downstate (not all class down skills are balanced evenly so some people might desire buffs here and there).

TLDR: There are two negative options versus one positive option. Personally, Idc because player polls don't seem to do much anyway.

D:

I stated this in the thread. As I am for removing downstate (but would be happy with just changing it), and people like to suggest that if you view something one way, you will do whatever to make it favor your idea. I wanted this not to be the case, so I used the negative for the second option, so if anything, the poll favors the option that I don't want. I am actually shocked so far, that the poll favors changing or removing downstate over those who want to keep it. Had I not, people would be claiming that the poll is biased based on the second option of "Change downstate" being misleading.

I figured that more casual players would favor keeping it, as they FAR out number roamers and fight guilds. The poll can change at any time, but so far what it says to me is that those who are more casual also don't like or want something changed about the mechanic. I expected a solid 80/20 in favor of keeping downstate, and it's not even close to that, and a number of voters also picked the wrong option, as they voted to keep down state and then posted they wanted rally etc removed.

@zengara.8301 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@zengara.8301 said:I voted for it to stay, but yeah. This whole poll is quiet biased af xD

How is it biased?

Give constructive input, not accusations.

Yeah sure, it goes under "leading questions" where it unduly favour one response rather than the other.If the sampler of this survey wanted a neutral and true response from the responses, it would be much better to simply leave the comments as "remove downstate, nerf downstate and keep downstate".Chances are that peoples thought process while reading this, was, changing downstate will either be broken by the devs in some ways, or it would take a long time to change so many builds since it requires a whole lot, as stated above, which people might not have thought of previously, if it was stated as the 3 above questions with no leading answers to any of them.

The poll might have been somewhat affected by that, and that might be why the people who already wanted it to remain the same, decided to choose "leave downstate as is" + other people whom don't want the devs to touch it. (it is currently 28% - 27% - 44% which is weird)

Accusation: I think the dude wanted something and pushed others to vote for something else xDEDIT: the accusation part was a joke , basically your comment like his made me want to......I think u get it >.<

I am not sure what you are saying. As explaining what the options are is not bias. I see to many polls that the whole thread turns into a "what if" fest because everyone takes the options to mean something else. So putting the meaning and intention of each option is needed, if you don't people get confused and vote for something they might not want. As it is, a few people already did, I am assuming they didn't read the post, as they voted to keep down state, but then posted saying they wanted rally etc etc removed from downstate, which is actually spelled out in the "nerf downstate" option.

If you are saying the two options for changing downstate are in negative terms, like the poster above, then yes. As I am for removing or changing downstate, I would rather be accused of not favoring my own preference, than favoring it.

Nah, I was just quoting what I learned in method surveys analysis, qualitative analysis, data collection.There you go:

https://stattrek.com/survey-research/survey-bias.aspx

Go under: Leading Questions

Half the battle is to create precise and simple answers, with the least amount of push/pull people to answers by using the rule-set. Not saying that because this poll is somewhat bias, that it is un-usable. You just gotta have that part in mind as well.

Yes, I am well aware, again, I even stated this already in the thread and the reasons for it.

This is also a self sampling, uncontrolled with no base line. And everyone is biased here. Anet has access to the data, they don't need a poll, the poll was for myself, as others in the forum state that "only 1-shot gankers want no downstate", ad nauseam. Anet can look at numbers, users and hours played etc for no downstate events to see who really likes what, but that is not data we are privy to. Also, forum users are pretty rare in relation to total in game population, an in game poll could have completely different results.

Oh ok, just wanted to explain why its biased, nothing more, could not see that you already knew that from your thread >.<

[Not sure if that last part was serious, otherwise ignore this part.]I don't think this poll will in anyway help -you- find out, how many of the people who want downstate to be nerfed/gone are 1-shot gankers. Based on the poll, you can create a stronger argument to yourself, that the 1-shot gankers in the forums are the once who don't want downstate, rather than others that do, since they tend to be less accepted in the forums and also in general less active in here (In other words, if "Keep downstate" got voted for less than the 2 others, you could argue that you don't know, or that the 1 shot gankers want downstate to remain). Also less than people roaming/blob in general.....But I personally think that it is a biiiiit to far fetched. Don't think it is possible to actually create that kind of argument in the first place from this poll.

What if, what if, what if.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

I think if anything this poll, despite the small sample size, at least shows that over 50% of the people who voted are unhappy with downstate as it is right now.

If you wanted to maybe do a different poll, one that might lead to less bias, you could have the options be...

• I am happy with Downstate as it functions right now.
• I am unhappy with Downstate as it functions right now.

Or just a simple "Yes" or "No" poll;

Are you happy with Downstate as it functions right now?

• Yes
• No

Then have people give feedback as to "why" they answered the way they did, and an actual discussion could continue to progress from there. It would put everyone who wants a change to downstate, either its removal or rework/nerfs/etc, into one category and everyone who wants downstate to stay exactly as it is into one category as well. Though for sure make sure you explain things similar to how you did here with what the options would mean.

Right now the poll does look slightly bias because one group essentially has an extra option to choose from, or people might want to choose two options but can't because of how Anets poll function works on their forums.

I know that would be a lot of polling and such in the aftermath of No Downstate week, but some form of actual constructive and helpful discussion needs to be consolidated into one thread where people can agree that the poll isn't bias to one side or the other.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:I know that would be a lot of polling and such in the aftermath of No Downstate week, but some form of actual constructive and helpful discussion needs to be consolidated into one thread where people can agree that the poll isn't bias to one side or the other.

I am not sure that will ever happen. Big time if their view isn't the majority vote. This is also not an anet poll, nor do I think it will have any influence on them, it was for my own curiosity, as it's come up in many threads I have read or debated in, but no one seemed to want to make one. And I have no way to do a poll in game, which I think would tell a more complete story. It would also help to have a solidified set of changes to downstate listed, as I think that could be to much of a "catch all" option if it's left fully open with no direction, it is also why I gave it a negative, if left fully open, I think it would catch other votes that are in favor of downstate.

[ChronoPinoyX.7923]

Keep Downstate but remove Rally.

Rally is what I find to be the main issue. Regardless of what happens, Rally is literally no effort rez cuz you're not getting forced into a defensive to help with reviving team members. Rally will do that for you.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:Keep Downstate but remove Rally.

Rally is what I find to be the main issue. Regardless of what happens, Rally is literally no effort rez cuz you're not getting forced into a defensive to help with reviving team members. Rally will do that for you.

This would be a "nerf downstate" vote. As no rally is listed there, and would be a nerf to downstate.

[Kovu.7560]

Add three additional tiers of downstate.We'll call the new mechanic incep-state!

~ Kovu

[Whiteout.1975]

Lol... Now why on earth is initially nerfing something strictly a bad/"negative" thing?Let me address the context of that question. I'm talking about the spirit behind the nerf. The intention it has; being to "balance"... That's why "nerfs" pretty much happen in the first place...To say not to balance, "because @Anet no good at it" or whatever... Does a disservice to every single instance behind that very same "intention" to "balance" literally anything deemed necessary at any point in time... Not just downstate alone.Also, this attitude I'm seeing gives the impression that a "nerf" is finalized. Meaning it cannot be "fixed" or worked upon... IF needed. Obviously not true.A negative infliction (a "nerf") (especially done in goodwill) does not automatically guarantee a negative outcome... It's done for the health of the game and that's what matters.If nothing is done... Then nothing changes.

How is downstate balanced?...Throughout all these alike post. I've personally never seen someone actually claim that downstate was "balanced" or how. Instead rather that it's not and give reasons why... OR the bulk on the other end of the spectrum basically say "I like cause feels good" or say "Balance currently relies on it because..." .

If push came to shove. I personally would go towards "No Downstate". Though, I don't seen the reason to just jump ship and on to that option. The safer and more reasonable approach would be to keep downstate initially and try to balance it. And see where to go from there. There's too much at stake balance-wise to just up and get rid of it IMO.

If you're going down... Then that's on you. You earned that moment of defeat by making the choice to join a game mode where death is possible.If for example: 5 people are beating say 15-20 enemies during "no downstate". Good on those 5. It literally shows that they can do more with less any way anyone looks at it. If even just 5 (maybe even 2-3 realistically) out of those 15 alone were as good as the enemy 5 alone. Then there's no good reason why that 15 shouldn't win then. That's the point "no downstate" makes.Their mistakes are what got them down in the first place. Even if the mistake was ultimately just fighting those "5".

Nerfing it is literally the middle ground. Leaves people less salty on ether end. Not why I'm totally for nerfing it... But it's a plus.

Anyways, @"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" I don't see a real bias here... So it didn't affect me at least :+1: . The poll encompasses much of what has been talked about in other posts, in a simple manner. Personally, I have not seen a post before on "buffing" downstate. So I don't see how that could compete with what has already been talked about much to the degree as the options listed already. Honestly just comes across as nitpicking, but hey... It's expected I suppose :/

Aside from all that. I'm firstly for No Rally... And then quite possibly at least a 1:1 res requirement also. Then see how far that get's us. B)

[Khaliel.3918]

It's a cool part of the game. Removing rally or reducing the ress-speed would be alright but removing the entire mechanic because bad roamers aren't able to secure kills would be just sad.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@"Alehin.3746" said:It's a cool part of the game. Removing rally or reducing the ress-speed would be alright but removing the entire mechanic because bad roamers aren't able to secure kills would be just sad.

Your vote should be "nerf downstate" if you are in support of no rally. Voting to keep downstate means to keep it as is without any changes.

Also, please do not give general vague opinions. Give specifics, how are those roamers bad? If they are having to secure a down, the other team would by default be the less skilled players, or at the very least the ones that made a mistake in the fight. Calling them "bad" because they can't finish a downed player before they are rezzed etc in an out numbered fight does not make logical sense. If the fight is even numbers it comes out to a draw and downstate itself matter little, it is also why it's not broken in sPvP as sPvP is a forced equal numbered fight. When you get into equal numbered fights (almost always the case in WvW) the mechanic favors those with greater numbers due to a number of factors such as rally, near instant rezzing thats many folds times faster than a stomp, or the large HP pool that has to be DPSed though which is impossible to do when another player is actively rezzing etc etc when they already had the advantage of numbers.

The statement also assumes only roamers would ever want no downstate, however that is not the case and people who enjoy lots of different fighting styles also want to see changes or removal of downstate.

[Khaliel.3918]

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@"Alehin.3746" said:It's a cool part of the game. Removing rally or reducing the ress-speed would be alright but removing the entire mechanic because bad roamers aren't able to secure kills would be just sad.

Your vote should be "nerf downstate" if you are in support of no rally. Voting to keep downstate means to keep it as is without any changes.I support it staying as it is, but i would be "ok" with the nerf. So i voted on what i want, but commented on what would be "alright".Also, please do not give general vague opinions. Give specifics, how are those roamers bad? If they are having to secure a down, the other team would by default be the less skilled players, or at the very least the ones that made a mistake in the fight. Calling them "bad" because they can't finish a downed player before they are rezzed etc in an out numbered fight does not make logical sense. If the fight is even numbers it comes out to a draw and downstate itself matter little, it is also why it's not broken in sPvP as sPvP is a forced equal numbered fight. When you get into equal numbered fights (almost always the case in WvW) the mechanic favors those with greater numbers due to a number of factors such as rally, near instant rezzing thats many folds times faster than a stomp, or the large HP pool that has to be DPSed though which is impossible to do when another player is actively rezzing etc etc when they already had the advantage of numbers.Roamers that complain about downstate are bad because they believe they deserve a medal if they burst someone down quick and run away. Everytime i see someone talking about this and try to understand their point, i find out they're either playing a very tanky build made for outsustaining the enemy, so they can't really cleave because they don't have enough damage, or they are playing squishy, one shot builds like longbow sic'em soulbeast, rifle DE, power chrono/mirage, so they will most likely die if they ignore the other enemies and come close to the downed target. I can agree that ressing is a bit overtuned and reducing the downed hp a bit would be "alright", but doing that because bad roamers can't 1v2 properly is not a good reason to push changes for the game at all. The game is focused on ZvZ, and downstate plays an important role in that. Whenever i play DPS on a zerg i always make sure to tag downs and cleave them, be it staff weaver, hammer rev, condi firebrand, scourge, meme shortbow venom theef, because the enemy only dies when they stop breathing.If someone is fighting (1v1, 1v2, 2v2, 50v50) and they think the fight is over just because the enemy is down -> they don't make sure they stop breathing -> get killed after their ress the downed enemy, that's on them, not the game mechanic.One of the most satisfying things in this game IMO is fighting 1v2 or 1v3, downing someone, then finshing them off with either safe-stomp (because i saved stability/invuln for that) or cleaving them down with AoEs and downing one or two more enemies. I usually have my havoc/roam builds built around that, so i'm always sure i can secure kills or at least keep the enemy that is being ressed down so my allies can finish the fight off. I really like how downstate works and aside from minor changes, i hope it stays like that.The statement also assumes only roamers would ever want no downstate, however that is not the case and people who enjoy lots of different fighting styles also want to see changes or removal of downstate.Yeah but downstate is a cool mechanic for zergs too, and working around it is not hard. If you get downs, pressure them so you can rally/ress your friends, or ress your friends so the enemy can't rally. I don't think any of the complains i've read about it are justify removing an unique cool mechanic like this from the game.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

Really, all I'm getting from this is that people don't know how to safe stomp.

[cryorion.9532]

Remove rally and remove invulnerability when getting downed. Easy. I don't see a problem with gear affecting downed state health and armor. That makes sense.Maybe allow reviving when in combat again, but make it adequatly slow.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@Alehin.3746 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Alehin.3746 said:It's a cool part of the game. Removing rally or reducing the ress-speed would be alright but removing the entire mechanic because bad roamers aren't able to secure kills would be just sad.

Your vote should be "nerf downstate" if you are in support of no rally. Voting to keep downstate means to keep it as is without any changes.I support it staying as it is, but i would be "ok" with the nerf. So i voted on what i want, but commented on what would be "alright".Also, please do not give general vague opinions. Give specifics, how are those roamers bad? If they are having to secure a down, the other team would by default be the less skilled players, or at the very least the ones that made a mistake in the fight. Calling them "bad" because they can't finish a downed player before they are rezzed etc in an out numbered fight does not make logical sense. If the fight is even numbers it comes out to a draw and downstate itself matter little, it is also why it's not broken in sPvP as sPvP is a forced equal numbered fight. When you get into equal numbered fights (almost always the case in WvW) the mechanic favors those with greater numbers due to a number of factors such as rally, near instant rezzing thats many folds times faster than a stomp, or the large HP pool that has to be DPSed though which is impossible to do when another player is actively rezzing etc etc when they already had the advantage of numbers.Roamers that complain about downstate are bad because they believe they deserve a medal if they burst someone down quick and run away. Everytime i see someone talking about this and try to understand their point, i find out they're either playing a very tanky build made for outsustaining the enemy, so they can't really cleave because they don't have enough damage, or they are playing squishy, one shot builds like longbow sic'em soulbeast, rifle DE, power chrono/mirage, so they will most likely die if they ignore the other enemies and come close to the downed target. I can agree that ressing is a bit overtuned and reducing the downed hp a bit would be "alright", but doing that because bad roamers can't 1v2 properly is not a good reason to push changes for the game at all. The game is focused on ZvZ, and downstate plays an important role in that. Whenever i play DPS on a zerg i always make sure to tag downs and cleave them, be it staff weaver, hammer rev, condi firebrand, scourge, meme shortbow venom theef, because the enemy only dies when they stop breathing.If someone is fighting (1v1, 1v2, 2v2, 50v50) and they think the fight is over just because the enemy is down -> they don't make sure they stop breathing -> get killed after their ress the downed enemy, that's on them, not the game mechanic.One of the most satisfying things in this game IMO is fighting 1v2 or 1v3, downing someone, then finshing them off with either safe-stomp (because i saved stability/invuln for that) or cleaving them down with AoEs and downing one or two more enemies. I usually have my havoc/roam builds built around that, so i'm always sure i can secure kills or at least keep the enemy that is being ressed down so my allies can finish the fight off. I really like how downstate works and aside from minor changes, i hope it stays like that.The statement also assumes only roamers would ever want no downstate, however that is not the case and people who enjoy lots of different fighting styles also want to see changes or removal of downstate.Yeah but downstate is a cool mechanic for zergs too, and working around it is not hard. If you get downs, pressure them so you can rally/ress your friends, or ress your friends so the enemy can't rally. I don't think any of the complains i've read about it are justify removing an unique cool mechanic like this from the game.

So because someone was unaware, but in a larger group, they deserve to stay alive is your point? I will say again, the over performing builds need to be reworked period, with or without downstate.

I like how you state fighting "1v1, 1v2, 2v2, 50v50", yeah, all even numbers, which as I said it's not a problem, and is why it's not a problem in sPvP, again, because of even numbers. 1vs2 isn't that hard in WvW as the skill level is VERY low, in most cases it's low enough for me to win 1vs2/3 however 1vs4/5/6 are possible with no downstate, as after you get past a given point pure numbers will win, and in most cases there are enough of them to keep you busy that you will never be able to over come that carry mechanic. As both have access to downstate the larger team with greater numbers will win, but take away downstate from both with the same players and the smaller more skilled team will win, so for some reason in your mind, the more skilled players who can win outnumbered fights are actually losing because downstate is some mystical force they just can't grasp the concept of, rather than downstate actually favors the larger team? Bit of a reach.

You also seem to talk about people being bad players, and lump everyone into a single group, and act as if a roamer can't finish a down. You don't talk about the unaware player or players that get downed when they have a numbers advantage, how does that make them any less of a bad player than the roamer? I will also state again, it is not just roamers asking for changes. We have many posting here stating as much. Believe it or not, many people like myself play all aspects, zergs, fight guilds, roaming and even lots of defending and scouting.

Downstate also favors greater numbers in zergs as well due to rally and aoe caps. Which is why I think you purposefully stated 50vs50, as you know this as well. It is also why you can do zerg busting with a smaller fight guild on no downstate events, yet is impossible any other time. This shows how powerful downstate is and how much it favors sheer numbers over skill. The fact that you can win some out numbered fights with downstate doesn't mean the mechanic does not favor larger numbers, it just means the skill gap is so large that the person is able to over come not only being outnumbered, but also the extra advantage they have with downstate in it's current form.

[Silinsar.6298]

I say nerf in favor of removing rally.

[spectrito.8513]

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:Really, all I'm getting from this is that people don't know how to safe stomp.

Try to stomp someone being rezzed by 2 people....

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Alehin.3746 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Alehin.3746 said:It's a cool part of the game. Removing rally or reducing the ress-speed would be alright but removing the entire mechanic because bad roamers aren't able to secure kills would be just sad.

Your vote should be "nerf downstate" if you are in support of no rally. Voting to keep downstate means to keep it as is without any changes.I support it staying as it is, but i would be "ok" with the nerf. So i voted on what i want, but commented on what would be "alright".Also, please do not give general vague opinions. Give specifics, how are those roamers bad? If they are having to secure a down, the other team would by default be the less skilled players, or at the very least the ones that made a mistake in the fight. Calling them "bad" because they can't finish a downed player before they are rezzed etc in an out numbered fight does not make logical sense. If the fight is even numbers it comes out to a draw and downstate itself matter little, it is also why it's not broken in sPvP as sPvP is a forced equal numbered fight. When you get into equal numbered fights (almost always the case in WvW) the mechanic favors those with greater numbers due to a number of factors such as rally, near instant rezzing thats many folds times faster than a stomp, or the large HP pool that has to be DPSed though which is impossible to do when another player is actively rezzing etc etc when they already had the advantage of numbers.Roamers that complain about downstate are bad because they believe they deserve a medal if they burst someone down quick and run away. Everytime i see someone talking about this and try to understand their point, i find out they're either playing a very tanky build made for outsustaining the enemy, so they can't really cleave because they don't have enough damage, or they are playing squishy, one shot builds like longbow sic'em soulbeast, rifle DE, power chrono/mirage, so they will most likely die if they ignore the other enemies and come close to the downed target. I can agree that ressing is a bit overtuned and reducing the downed hp a bit would be "alright", but doing that because bad roamers can't 1v2 properly is not a good reason to push changes for the game at all. The game is focused on ZvZ, and downstate plays an important role in that. Whenever i play DPS on a zerg i always make sure to tag downs and cleave them, be it staff weaver, hammer rev, condi firebrand, scourge, meme shortbow venom theef, because the enemy only dies when they stop breathing.If someone is fighting (1v1, 1v2, 2v2, 50v50) and they think the fight is over just because the enemy is down -> they don't make sure they stop breathing -> get killed after their ress the downed enemy, that's on them, not the game mechanic.One of the most satisfying things in this game IMO is fighting 1v2 or 1v3, downing someone, then finshing them off with either safe-stomp (because i saved stability/invuln for that) or cleaving them down with AoEs and downing one or two more enemies. I usually have my havoc/roam builds built around that, so i'm always sure i can secure kills or at least keep the enemy that is being ressed down so my allies can finish the fight off. I really like how downstate works and aside from minor changes, i hope it stays like that.The statement also assumes only roamers would ever want no downstate, however that is not the case and people who enjoy lots of different fighting styles also want to see changes or removal of downstate.Yeah but downstate is a cool mechanic for zergs too, and working around it is not hard. If you get downs, pressure them so you can rally/ress your friends, or ress your friends so the enemy can't rally. I don't think any of the complains i've read about it are justify removing an unique cool mechanic like this from the game.

So because someone was unaware, but in a larger group, they deserve to stay alive is your point?

I will say again, the over performing builds need to be reworked period, with or without downstate

.

This is important remember it.

I like how you state fighting "1v1, 1v2, 2v2, 50v50", yeah, all even numbers, which as I said it's not a problem, and is why it's not a problem in sPvP, again, because of even numbers.

It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

1vs2 isn't that hard in WvW as the skill level is VERY low, in most cases it's low enough for me to win 1vs2/3 however 1vs4/5/6 are possible with no downstate, as after you get past a given point pure numbers will win, and in most cases there are enough of them to keep you busy that you will never be able to over come that carry mechanic.

It seems here you forget your experience with the recent downstate, where there were NO balance changes (despite you indicating at the start here). For all we know ANET could give everyone +500 vitallity to compensate for a lack of downstate which could throw off this anecdotal example.

As both have access to downstate the larger team with greater numbers will win, but take away downstate from both with the same players and the smaller more skilled team will win, so for some reason in your mind, the more skilled players who can win outnumbered fights are actually losing because downstate is some mystical force they just can't grasp the concept of, rather than downstate actually favors the larger team? Bit of a reach.

This again, is an example made without ANY balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it. The larger group has the advantage with ANY game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while NOT downed.

You also seem to talk about people being bad players, and lump everyone into a single group, and act as if a roamer can't finish a down. You don't talk about the unaware player or players that get downed when they have a numbers advantage, how does that make them any less of a bad player than the roamer? I will also state again, it is not just roamers asking for changes. We have many posting here stating as much. Believe it or not, many people like myself play all aspects, zergs, fight guilds, roaming and even lots of defending and scouting.

It's true he/she/quaggan shouldn't be dismissing people by calling them "bad."

Downstate also favors greater numbers in zergs as well due to rally and aoe caps.

Downstate favors no one. Everyone has it. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

Which is why I think you purposefully stated 50vs50, as you know this as well.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

It is also why you can do zerg busting with a smaller fight guild on no downstate events, yet is impossible any other time.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

This shows how powerful downstate is and how much it favors sheer numbers over skill. The fact that you can win some out numbered fights with downstate doesn't mean the mechanic does not favor larger numbers, it just means the skill gap is so large that the person is able to over come not only being outnumbered, but also the extra advantage they have with downstate in it's current form.

No. Downstate favors no one, but MORE numbers are able to take advantage of MORE mechanics. Are we going to apply the same logic to Supply now? "I think zergs with more numbers should carry the same supply as roamers with less players. Because the supply mechanic in its current form favors large groups." Nobody seeing an issue here?

P.S. : If people want a faster time to kill I can at least appreciate them being upfront about it then we can work with that desire. As for this...sorry, I doubt debating uneven scenarios, and leaps in logic is going to convince ANET to balance the game in the way you think. Often they disappoint in that regard. Also. I wanted to buff Poison so it could be strengthened with an additional effect on res speed (not the heal speed, so that is left alone). This would provide counter play, and give the control to the players to comp accordingly. Sadly. That wasn't an option in this poll.

D:

[unrealman.3105]

How many of you actually played during the event? You do realise that a lot of good players / guilds basically didn't bother playing right?

If you think no downstate is a good direction for wvw you need to talktofrank.com

So funny how this forum doesnt represent the sentiment of player base even slightly.

• Unreal

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

Anet has nerfed arrow carts over and over again, what are you talking about? No one is asking for buffs to ACs in this poll or anywhere in this thread.

The removal of downstate evens out play, it does not favor any group, it favors skill and coordination. The larger team, as you have pointed out over and over again below, already has a huge advantage even without downstate.

It seems here you forget your experience with the recent downstate, where there were NO balance changes (despite you indicating at the start here). For all we know ANET could give everyone +500 vitallity to compensate for a lack of downstate which could throw off this anecdotal example.

The balance change was the removal of downstate. You are making my point, no other changes were made to the game other than it's removal, and that, in and of it self reduced the favor of the downstate mechanic to larger, less skilled and originated groups and allowed player/team skill to play a bigger role.

This again, is an example made without ANY balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it. The larger group has the advantage with ANY game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while NOT downed.

Again, the balance change was the removal of downstate.

Downstate favors no one. Everyone has it. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

It favors no individual in an even numbers fight, it does however favor more numbers, so much so that it over shadows skill, this effects all fights, not just 1vsX, it effects larger scale fight guilds and zergs as well. Why people keep on acting like this only effects roaming I have no idea, and I think is a bit disingenuous.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

He chose it because everything I have stated has been about unequal numbers, I even talked about even matches like sPvP were not a problem in my post he quoted.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

You again make my point, nothing was done to favor smaller skill groups, only the advantage of the no downstate mechanic that favors greater numbers was no longer carrying the less skilled larger group (as both no longer have access to it). As for "balance" after, you forget what you just said, that the smaller team has access to all of the same classes and skills as the larger group, nothing will change. As the larger group will still have the advantage of numbers and all of the advantages that includes, such as aoe caps etc.

And "lets be honest" here, what you are suggesting is that skill should not matter, that uncoordinated, uncomped team should win, simply because they have greater numbers. Developing skill, learning builds, learning rotations, position, and how to play in a group should not be rewarded, you should just bring more people. Guess all the people server stacking have the right idea, don't worry about skill, just blob them down.

No. Downstate favors no one, but MORE numbers are able to take advantage of MORE mechanics. Are we going to apply the same logic to Supply now? "I think zergs with more numbers should carry the same supply as roamers with less players. Because the supply mechanic in its current form favors large groups." Nobody seeing an issue here?

No, they do not. They can both take advantage of the same mechanics, the problem is that one of those mechanics favors numbers over skill to a disproportionate degree. And yet again, we have the same old "lets remove anything and everything that no one in the thread or poll is asking for to try and get a knee jerk reaction", no one has asked for supply limits, or AC buffs or any other silly thing you can come up with.

P.S. : If people want a faster time to kill I can at least appreciate them being upfront about it then we can work with that desire. As for this...sorry, I doubt debating uneven scenarios, and leaps in logic is going to convince ANET to balance the game in the way you think. Often they disappoint in that regard. Also. I wanted to buff Poison so it could be strengthened with an additional effect on res speed (not the heal speed, so that is left alone). This would provide counter play, and give the control to the players to comp accordingly. Sadly. That wasn't an option in this poll.

D:

I, nor anyone else asked for faster TTK. And one of my first posts, including the first section you quoted here is me talking about fixing over performing builds. If you want to increase TTK by double, yet remove downstate, I would be fine with that. Matter of fact make TTK whatever you want actually, but remove downstate. Again, you are arguing against something no one is asking for.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@unrealman.3105 said:How many of you actually played during the event? You do realise that a lot of good players / guilds basically didn't bother playing right?

If you think no downstate is a good direction for wvw you need to talktofrank.com

So funny how this forum doesnt represent the sentiment of player base even slightly.

• Unreal

That is literally the reason for the poll. Which so far is the only poll about it and it shows that more than half of those voting want changes or removal of downstate. I like how everyone posts in threads about removing downstate, that ONLY gankers want it removed/changed, and it's a super small set of players. Then I make a poll that isn't a sweeping win for keeping downstate and now all of a sudden it's the forums don't represent the sentiment of the player base as if you have some special insight into what everyone wants? Now that is presumptive.

[Svarty.8019]

Great poll! Debate over, Downedstate stays and if you disagree, you hate democracy. (Welcome to the Brexit debacle).

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

Anet has nerfed arrow carts over and over again, what are you talking about? No one is asking for buffs to ACs in this poll or anywhere in this thread.

I see the comparison went over. In short, population imbalance shouldn't be used as justifications to affect combat balance (that includes downstate). Unless the game was designed to be a 1:3 ratio like some Mario Party mini-games (this isn't the case for WvW).

The removal of downstate evens out play, it does not favor any group, it favors skill and coordination. The larger team, as you have pointed out over and over again below, already has a huge advantage even without downstate.

Evens out the play how? It doesn't adjust player count as an example. What skills are favored? Coordination of...bombs?

Flip that around, and ask how were these were not involved with downstate unchanged?

It seems here you forget your experience with the recent downstate, where there were

NO

balance changes (despite you indicating at the start here). For all we know ANET could give everyone +500 vitallity to compensate for a lack of downstate which could throw off this anecdotal example.

The balance change

was

the removal of downstate. You are making my point, no other changes were made to the game other than it's removal, and that, in and of it self reduced the favor of the downstate mechanic to larger, less skilled and originated groups and allowed player/team skill to play a bigger role.

And you failed to see my point, so I will put it differently: you referenced a state of the game (that didn't have the changes in this thread) as hypothetical evidence in response to the previous poster to support yourself.

This again, is an example made without

ANY

balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that

downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it

. The larger group has the advantage with

ANY

game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while

NOT

downed.

Again, the balance change

was

the removal of downstate.

Downstate favors no one.

Everyone has it

. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

It favors no individual in an even numbers fight, it does however favor more numbers, so much so that it over shadows skill, this effects all fights, not just 1vsX, it effects larger scale fight guilds and zergs as well. Why people keep on acting like this only effects roaming I have no idea, and I think is a bit disingenuous.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

He chose it because everything I have stated has been about unequal numbers, I even talked about even matches like sPvP were not a problem in my post he quoted.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

You again make my point, nothing was done to favor smaller skill groups, only the advantage of the no downstate mechanic that favors greater numbers was no longer carrying the less skilled larger group (as both no longer have access to it). As for "balance" after, you forget what you just said, that the smaller team has access to all of the same classes and skills as the larger group, nothing will change. As the larger group will still have the advantage of numbers and all of the advantages that includes, such as aoe caps etc.

This is incorrect as a technicality: the smaller might not have the same access to classes, and skills as the larger group since the smaller has less players to choose from. Downstate is global condition regardless of comp choice, but I digress. We agree the larger will have the advantage due to larger stats by player count.

And "lets be honest" here, what you are suggesting is that skill should not matter, that uncoordinated, uncomped team should win, simply because they have greater numbers. Developing skill, learning builds, learning rotations, position, and how to play in a group should not be rewarded, you should just bring more people. Guess all the people server stacking have the right idea, don't worry about skill, just blob them down.

What? That's hyperbolic in your interpretation. You seem to assume the current downstate doesn't require "learning builds, learning rotations, position, and how to play in a group" which I don't think is your intent. In my experience it means you can't blow your full wad on inc with downstate, whereas without downstate we were able to full bomb on inc ending the fight faster in my anecdotal experience even against "guild groups." Assuming that guild groups are suppose to be more experienced players. Keep in mind this is during the event with no other balance changes.

No. Downstate favors no one, but

MORE

numbers are able to take advantage of

MORE

mechanics. Are we going to apply the same logic to Supply now? "I think zergs with more numbers should carry the same supply as roamers with less players. Because the supply mechanic in its current form favors large groups." Nobody seeing an issue here?

No, they do not. They can both take advantage of the same mechanics, the problem is that one of those mechanics favors numbers over skill to a disproportionate degree. And yet again, we have the same old "lets remove anything and everything that no one in the thread or poll is asking for to try and get a knee jerk reaction", no one has asked for supply limits, or AC buffs or any other silly thing you can come up with.

I see the logical precedent was missed then. Yes, nobody here was asking about ACs and siege in my comparison of one game mechanic to another. If all it takes is the simple logic "they have more numbers" for something to change that then gets applied elsewhere even if outside the bounds of this thread. To repeat, what player "skill" is being affected by downstate or no downstate? Twitch Skill? Strategy? Timing? Random Events (luck/RNG)?

P.S. : If people want a faster time to kill I can at least appreciate them being upfront about it then we can work with that desire. As for this...sorry, I doubt debating uneven scenarios, and leaps in logic is going to convince ANET to balance the game in the way you think. Often they disappoint in that regard. Also. I wanted to buff Poison so it could be strengthened with an additional effect on res speed (not the heal speed, so that is left alone). This would provide counter play, and give the control to the players to comp accordingly. Sadly. That wasn't an option in this poll.

D:

I, nor anyone else asked for faster TTK. And one of my first posts, including the first section you quoted here is me talking about fixing over performing builds. If you want to increase TTK by double, yet remove downstate, I would be fine with that. Matter of fact make TTK whatever you want actually, but remove downstate. Again, you are arguing against something

no one

is asking for.

Considering the fights ended too soon, and less people logged in over the week...I am on the boat that faster TTK is a bad thing. I brought it up because that is a goal that doesn't start with a game mechanic change first that then tries working back to validate the change. My apologies if that was vague so by all means ignore the TTK comment.

[Khaliel.3918]

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Alehin.3746 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Alehin.3746 said:It's a cool part of the game. Removing rally or reducing the ress-speed would be alright but removing the entire mechanic because bad roamers aren't able to secure kills would be just sad.

Your vote should be "nerf downstate" if you are in support of no rally. Voting to keep downstate means to keep it as is without any changes.I support it staying as it is, but i would be "ok" with the nerf. So i voted on what i want, but commented on what would be "alright".Also, please do not give general vague opinions. Give specifics, how are those roamers bad? If they are having to secure a down, the other team would by default be the less skilled players, or at the very least the ones that made a mistake in the fight. Calling them "bad" because they can't finish a downed player before they are rezzed etc in an out numbered fight does not make logical sense. If the fight is even numbers it comes out to a draw and downstate itself matter little, it is also why it's not broken in sPvP as sPvP is a forced equal numbered fight. When you get into equal numbered fights (almost always the case in WvW) the mechanic favors those with greater numbers due to a number of factors such as rally, near instant rezzing thats many folds times faster than a stomp, or the large HP pool that has to be DPSed though which is impossible to do when another player is actively rezzing etc etc when they already had the advantage of numbers.Roamers that complain about downstate are bad because they believe they deserve a medal if they burst someone down quick and run away. Everytime i see someone talking about this and try to understand their point, i find out they're either playing a very tanky build made for outsustaining the enemy, so they can't really cleave because they don't have enough damage, or they are playing squishy, one shot builds like longbow sic'em soulbeast, rifle DE, power chrono/mirage, so they will most likely die if they ignore the other enemies and come close to the downed target. I can agree that ressing is a bit overtuned and reducing the downed hp a bit would be "alright", but doing that because bad roamers can't 1v2 properly is not a good reason to push changes for the game at all. The game is focused on ZvZ, and downstate plays an important role in that. Whenever i play DPS on a zerg i always make sure to tag downs and cleave them, be it staff weaver, hammer rev, condi firebrand, scourge, meme shortbow venom theef, because the enemy only dies when they stop breathing.If someone is fighting (1v1, 1v2, 2v2, 50v50) and they think the fight is over just because the enemy is down -> they don't make sure they stop breathing -> get killed after their ress the downed enemy, that's on them, not the game mechanic.One of the most satisfying things in this game IMO is fighting 1v2 or 1v3, downing someone, then finshing them off with either safe-stomp (because i saved stability/invuln for that) or cleaving them down with AoEs and downing one or two more enemies. I usually have my havoc/roam builds built around that, so i'm always sure i can secure kills or at least keep the enemy that is being ressed down so my allies can finish the fight off. I really like how downstate works and aside from minor changes, i hope it stays like that.The statement also assumes only roamers would ever want no downstate, however that is not the case and people who enjoy lots of different fighting styles also want to see changes or removal of downstate.Yeah but downstate is a cool mechanic for zergs too, and working around it is not hard. If you get downs, pressure them so you can rally/ress your friends, or ress your friends so the enemy can't rally. I don't think any of the complains i've read about it are justify removing an unique cool mechanic like this from the game.

So because someone was unaware, but in a larger group, they deserve to stay alive is your point? I will say again, the over performing builds need to be reworked period, with or without downstate.If someone's whole playstyle works around "killing unaware people", maybe they should change, not the game

[Whiteout.1975]

I would like to respectfully add to this conversation , if that's alright enough <3

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:It would be foolish for ANET to make balance changes that were for uneven numbers. Whether it is with siege warfare when dealing with 15 defending against 25. ANET should not use that unbalanced population as justification to improve arrow carts.

Anet has nerfed arrow carts over and over again, what are you talking about? No one is asking for buffs to ACs in this poll or anywhere in this thread.

I see the comparison went over.

In short, population imbalance shouldn't be used as justifications to affect combat balance (that includes downstate).

Unless the game was designed to be a 1:3 ratio like some Mario Party mini-games (this isn't the case for WvW).

But Population Imbalances already can affect combat balance. The bulk of the "no downstate" motive/agenda agree's with this statement here by basically saying "larger groups should not need more saving against other groups whom are already smaller in size". The advantage here is already in the numbers... Especially since you can't depend on any 1 kind of Player skill to always be present. However one would measure that... IF "play skill" is seen as an advantage in some subjective way.

I get where you were going with the AC example. However, AC's are not something inherent (always present) to combat like downstate is. Also, you can't, for example, 5 man 1 AC and therefore increase it's effectiveness 5x over... And that's just for starter's. There are distinct difference's at play here to make a good comparison.

The removal of downstate evens out play, it does not favor any group, it favors skill and coordination. The larger team, as you have pointed out over and over again below, already has a huge advantage even without downstate.

Evens out the play how? It doesn't adjust player count as an example. What skills are favored? Coordination of...bombs?

Flip that around, and ask how were these were not involved with downstate unchanged?

Sure, so I believe they are referring to general "Player Skill"; not really something anyone can just easily GW2 wiki. And not something consistent.
So what is "favored" is the greater general effort it takes to adapt to outnumbering situations. For those whom are outnumbering their opponents.For example: Both initially and again, generally... 20 players are going to have an easier time resing downs vs the 5 players they are fighting. And they have more man power to increase the effectiveness of those res's before any actual builds come into play. From ether opposing side. That may make those "res's" even easier... Like a Mercy Rune Guard for example."No downstate" would also affect those "5" players in that example as much as the "20"... But it would also take away the unnecessary multiplicative res power the larger group would have had over the 5 initially; before anything else comes into play. While those 5 feel ultimately unchanged regarding res power.

Now one could argue that it would take less skill of those "5" vs the 20 by taking away downstate. Which is true. However, it add's more player skill requirement to the side that already should have the advantage (the "20")... Because those "20" already out man those "5". Though, having to 5 vs 20 should already require enough skill based on that alone.The important question throughout all of this is why would those 20 need "downstate" to beat those "5"? If they already have the number advantage... They shouldn't.

When it comes to fight's. No downstate helps highlight the ability to do more with less (# of Players). Against bigger groups who aren't skilled and/or built effectively enough for combat. And That's why "No downstater's" love it.

Ether way anyone looks at this... Point is it will never take "skill" to outnumber your opponent. Downstate or not. In fact, it take's even less skill here with downstate functioning as it currently does.

This again, is an example made without

ANY

balance changes. We can't predict what fights would be like with newer balance changes, so at best this is hypothetical. It should be noted that

downstate doesn't favor any team if all have it

. The larger group has the advantage with

ANY

game mechanic because...they are large and have more access to it. Even so, the majority of the damage/healing done is while

NOT

downed.

Again, the balance change

was

the removal of downstate.

Downstate favors no one.

Everyone has it

. It is there to create tension, incapacitate (meaning they can't move or do extreme harm), and to partially add to the time to kill. The act of ressing is also a tactical decision that can be exploited. It is of course harder for solo player to take advantage, and even more so if they're not comped for it. WvW isn't primarily a solo experience so I doubt ANET would take these cases into consideration. But hey! I can't read their minds.

It favors no individual in an even numbers fight, it does however favor more numbers, so much so that it over shadows skill, this effects all fights, not just 1vsX, it effects larger scale fight guilds and zergs as well. Why people keep on acting like this only effects roaming I have no idea, and I think is a bit disingenuous.

Don't know why he chose it, but I'm guessing he felt WvW was designed around massive battles. It is good that he chose a balanced scenario however.

He chose it because everything I have stated has been about unequal numbers, I even talked about even matches like sPvP were not a problem in my post he quoted.

We willfully ignore that previous NoDownstate Events weren't balanced around its absence. So "zerg busting" (let's be honest, it was mostly guilds killing un-comped pug blobs) might not be possible after considering the lack of downstate.

You again make my point, nothing was done to favor smaller skill groups, only the advantage of the no downstate mechanic that favors greater numbers was no longer carrying the less skilled larger group (as both no longer have access to it). As for "balance" after, you forget what you just said, that the smaller team has access to all of the same classes and skills as the larger group, nothing will change. As the larger group will still have the advantage of numbers and all of the advantages that includes, such as aoe caps etc.

This is incorrect as a technicality: the smaller might not have the same access to classes, and skills as the larger group since the smaller has less players to choose from. Downstate is global condition regardless of comp choice, but I digress. We agree the larger will have the advantage due to larger stats by player count.

You are absolutely correct @GDchiaScrub.3241. However... "Res Power" (As i stated before) is something that is initially higher by default to the larger group due to having more revive ability on hand through sheer player numbers alone; before anything else comes into play. So while Downstate is evenly dispersed "globally" the potential power to res... Is not.

• (All other dialogue that could be address from the original reply I felt was unnecessary to comment on... As I already made the main points here.)

P.S. Obviously judging by my vote I'm not here to "defend" no downstate. However, I don't have any issues giving credit where credit is due. Especially when it doesn't inconvenience me. :)

TL;DR potential res power is inconsistent with downstate when fighting higher numbers especially.

[Sugar Min.5834]

What does the result of this poll proves?123 votes against only 41 votes that want no down state.The most vocal group in the forum DO NOT represent what majority of the players want. They are just a minority group that makes the most noise and demands. Please ANet.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@"Mil.3562" said:What does the result of this poll proves?123 votes against only 41 votes that want no down state.The most vocal group in the forum DO NOT represent what majority of the players want. They are just a minority group that makes the most noise and demands. Please ANet.

I think you've got this twisted.

While the majority of votes are for keeping downstate, the vote is still split rather evenly between those who want downstate to stay as it is and those who want something done to downstate, or to revives as a function in the game.

This still very clearly shows that at least half of those that voted, in this still relatively small sample, are displeased with downstate as it is right now.

The forums are a very small subset of the community, most people avoid these forums because it tends to get flooded with...well...people who just don't know what they are talking about most of the time. Just look at the copious amounts of complaint threads pertaining to classes and how "OP" they are and the ones who make them seem to rather specifically target the exact wrong things that need to be addressed in regards to balance to those classes.

Take it how you will, but honestly this poll still just shows the divide in this community between the more casual player and those that actually want to see significant and meaningful change in the game and its fundamentals because at this point it is sorely needed in a 7 year old MMORPG.