Downstate supports skillful gameplay and the side that has less poeple to prevent snowball

[Anput.4620]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"Anput.4620" said:Do you genuinly think WvW is a good competitive mode as is?

What I think about downstate (or you or anyone else for that matter) has NOTHING to do with it's presence in the game or how much it impacts the competitiveness of the game mode. This game isn't about me or you or even some collection of people; downstate is there by Anet's definition of the game and you can't assume removing downstate makes WvW a good competitive mode because that's got massive bias and subjectivity attached to it. It's funny because if you really want to know what I think (and I already told you, so I don't know why you keep trying to ask me in different ways) ... is that you not being able to beat 2 people on your own is a really GOOD case for why downstate is IN game.

I think the most telling thing is that this is yet another example of you not understanding the mode. The spirit of WvW is not about hanging around and picking fights to prove how awesome you are at PVP ... these things you constantly rally against because they ruin your fights are there because of the spirit of what WvW is ... and what it isn't. If anything, the presence of these things you don't like shouldn't be an indicator the game is wrong .. it should be an indicator you don't understand it.

So you are saying that it is good to have mechanics that carry unskilled players when they already have the numbers advantage? What? Pure numbers>skill? Thats how you create a bad game. You always just spout some corporate rhetoric and then say "it doesn't have to make sense".

But thats why this mode is so popular and many other PvP games that follow the standard philosophy aren't amirite.

What makes you think WvW isn't a competitive PvP mode? It is very obvious from the start what it was supposed to be, execution just was quite terrible.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:Not sure how you circumvent the 5 person AoE cap, but k

There’s also a resurrect cap too...not really sure how many players, but only so many players can actually contribute to a Rez. Perhaps someone could clarify how many, since I don’t actually know what the cap is.

Regardless 1 player can cleave up to 5 targets, while only one person can resurrect one other person, so ya, if you have 5 people, you can cleave 25 people. If they have 5 people, they can only resurrect someone with 5 people

Even if they can only res with 5 poeple they will have more poeple leftover to fight back, also if 5 poeple sit there and eat all AoE nuke then they desere to die lol.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"Straegen.2938" said:There is a reason no downstate events in WvW are way more fun.

Sure, for some people they are. That's not really relevant to the thread though. It's certainly not a reason to get rid of it. In fact, the no-downstate events offering some variety is a good reason to keep downstate for non-event play.

In no downstate events i feel like the more skilled players can pull off more things, and they feel that too. Maybe we should have it the opposite and have downstate events instead, this way you can keep your "variety".

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Tired of getting your 1v1's blobbed down? Want a game balanced around 1vX's? Then it's time to EVOLVE! Play now while it still exists you dirty dirty monsters, and release your inner beast.

D:

[Obtena.7952]

@"Anput.4620" said:So you are saying that it is good to have mechanics that carry unskilled players when they already have the numbers advantage? What? Pure numbers>skill? Thats how you create a bad game. You always just spout some corporate rhetoric and then say "it doesn't have to make sense".

But thats why this mode is so popular and many other PvP games that follow the standard philosophy aren't amirite.

What makes you think WvW isn't a competitive PvP mode?

I can only laugh at this point ... your attempt to tell me things I haven't said isn't going to get you any farther with your arguments to have downstate removed from WvW. I'm just much smarter than to let you lead me down some argument about things I haven't said that aren't even relevant to the suggestion. So with that note, let me bring you back to your OWN topic.

Downstate isn't some frivolous implementation ... it was intended and it's supported as a feature. Until you come to terms with why it's there to begin with, you won't ever be able to reasonably suggest why it should go.

The part I like is that it's not a stretch of the imagination to think of reasons why it exists, but like most people, you think that ignoring them or pretending that all the reasons it exists are bad validates your position it should be removed. I'm more than satisfied knowing that's not how it works and downstate isn't going away but I certainly enjoy the efforts and stretches in imagination for why it should be.

Honestly, you need to get over yourself. That video shows nothing more than mistakes and luck on your part; someone already broke it down better than I could and I'm glad they did because it's massively arrogant to post videos of personal failures and complain it's a game problem.

[Doug.4930]

Downstate has and will always be a crutch to players who need numbers to win.

Don't bother debating people who honestly think its balanced both ways. The people who defend it usually do so because they spend so much of their game time in downstate, and don't want their crutch taken away.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Doug.4930 said:Downstate has and will always be a crutch to players who need numbers to win.

Don't bother debating people who honestly think its balanced both ways.

That is an assumption you are making up, but it shows clearly how much thought you have put into this issue.

There are enough reasons to be pro downstate without considering it balanced.

@Doug.4930 said:The people who defend it usually do so because they spend so much of their game time in downstate, and don't want their crutch taken away.

One can defend downstate without even being in favor of it by simple reasoning that removing downstate would cause serious issues which would cost developer resources to fix. Resources one might consider far better spent on other things.

[Doug.4930]

@Cyninja.2954 said:One can defend downstate without even being in favor of it by simple reasoning that removing downstate would cause serious issues which would cost developer resources to fix. Resources one might consider far better spent on other things.

Care to point out which part of my post said I wanted it removed?

[Shroud.2307]

Here you go.

[Klypto.1703]

Spamming is not skillful gameplay its why its referred to as spamming.

[Aspen Tie.5084]

Keep downstate and implement a party damage debuff that scales with how big the party is. Why should a larger group be able to dish out more damage; it's unfair to the outnumbered party.

[displayname.8315]

Downstate works with the map and waypoint design of the game. You could switch it out for the forward spawn camps like elder scrolls online has, or contemporary rez spells like other games.

Who really cares. Just get good. Ask for team balancing instead, in a team game that is very uneven right now.

[kratan.4619]

All I have read here is the fact that someone does not like downstate and will not adapt their own play style to take into account that the fight is not over until you finish it, getting someone into the downstate does not mean you won.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:Here you go.

Invalid. Not using enough signets.

D:

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Aspen Tie.5084 said:Keep downstate and implement a party damage debuff that scales with how big the party is. Why should a larger group be able to dish out more damage; it's unfair to the outnumbered party.

Wait what???

[Aspen Tie.5084]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Aspen Tie.5084 said:Keep downstate and implement a party damage debuff that scales with how big the party is. Why should a larger group be able to dish out more damage;

it's unfair to the outnumbered party.

Wait what???

cough sarcasm cough

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Aspen Tie.5084 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Aspen Tie.5084 said:Keep downstate and implement a party damage debuff that scales with how big the party is. Why should a larger group be able to dish out more damage;

it's unfair to the outnumbered party.

Wait what???

cough

sarcasm

cough

ouch

Well played!

?

[Cyninja.2954]

@Doug.4930 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:One can defend downstate without even being in favor of it by simple reasoning that removing downstate would cause serious issues which would cost developer resources to fix. Resources one might consider far better spent on other things.

Care to point out which part of my post said I wanted it removed?

I addressed your very one sided view on why players might be in favor of keeping downstate in the game, even mentioned some might consider it unbalanced. Not once did I mention you wanted it removed.

[Straegen.2938]

I am a no downstate fan but WvW downstate could be improved with a few tweaks.

1. Players get one downstate per two minutes. Go down twice inside that time frame and insta-dead.
2. Remove down state skills. They are unbalanced and too unimportant to spend time balancing.
3. Go down in the water, is death. We cannot stomp in the water and some classes have OP-AF underwater downstate skills.

[Sobx.1758]

@Anput.4620 said:no way downstate ever not benefits the group with more poeple and it has no place in any competitive mode in it's current iteration period. With the new balance patch we really need to rework downstate as finishing poeple with cleave will be even harder then. You can't possibly seriously defend crutch mechanics like these.

Didn't watch the linked vid, but I agree with what is being said here. I've wrote that many times before, yet there are still people that try to claim it supports the outnumbered side. It's just false, any argument those people ususally have can also be applied to the outnumbering side except it's multiplied. Literally safety net for scrubs sticking to their zerg group.

[Doug.4930]

@Cyninja.2954 said:Not once did I mention you wanted it removed.@Cyninja.2954 said:removing downstate would cause serious issues which would cost developer resources to fix.Seems to imply otherwise.

@Cyninja.2954 said:I addressed your very one sided view on why players might be in favor of keeping downstate in the game, even mentioned some might consider it unbalanced.My entire statement was to point out that people who think downstate Doesn't greatly benefit the group with the numbers is delusional. At no point did I say that we should just remove it. That was something you "implied".

Personally I think having greater numbers in a fight already gives you a clear advantage. Downstate shouldn't then further cater to the larger group. If the small group manages to down a player in the larger group, then In my opinion the larger group when it comes to reviving that downed player should be at a disadvantage. The larger group already has the upper hand because of numbers. If they then squander that advantage by having a player go down during the fight, then that group should be punished. But as it currently stands downstate is another crutch in which to aid the group with the numbers beyond more than they are already aided by numbers.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Doug.4930 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:Not once did I mention you wanted it removed.@Cyninja.2954 said:removing downstate would cause serious issues which would cost developer resources to fix.Seems to imply otherwise.

Sure, now show me where I actually stated it and we are good.

Meanwhile:

@Doug.4930 said:Don't bother debating people who honestly think its balanced both ways. The people who defend it usually do so because they spend so much of their game time in downstate, and don't want their crutch taken away.

Who is implying what about other players exactly here?

If you don't want people to imply things, maybe don't go out of your way to discredit every single opposing argument or view with some baseless assumption.

I clearly explained IN THIS THREAD, how one can be in favor of keeping the downstate even if one does not consider it balanced. The recent patch and shake up following it is a perfect example how even way smaller changes, and removing downstate would be a far bigger change than some damage adjustment on cc skills, can lead to massive reworks and game play changes.

Removing downstate would require vastly more work because it would require a redesign of the combat system, gearing system and overall combat flow. As such, reducing players opposed to removing downstate, while there has been no solid argument given to do so in this thread so far, to unskilled crutch using individuals simply shows your lack of grasping the issue.

EDIT:and since this argument keeps coming up that downstate only favors the outnumbering group (by players who obviously have not played all types of WvW content): when running as closed WvW guild group (we usually run in a size of 15-20), downstate currently allows us for a far more offensive setup on damage dealers, since even if one is caught out of position or hit by unfortunate cc against a blob the size of 40-50+, swift reactions and more organized support on our side allows us to take on bigger groups, without immediately losing players to unlucky accidents while the more offensive setup allows us to challenge bigger groups damage.

As mentioned by other in this thread, downstate favors the side which resurrects and is able to make use of it to their advantage. This is often the case for the bigger group due to simple size, but that is not universally true.

[Doug.4930]

@Cyninja.2954 said:Who is implying what about other players exactly here?Not quite the same, I was making a broad statement, which i stand by as it was specifically about downstate and its ability to further boost groups who outnumber their opponents and was not in any way directed at a particular user. Whilst you implied something specifically about me, which was false.

@Cyninja.2954 said:If you don't want people to imply things, maybe don't go out of your way to discredit every single opposing argument or view with some baseless assumption.Discredit every opposing view? Where are you pulling this from? I was only discrediting the view that downstate favors larger and smaller groups evenly. Which it does not, and to reiterate, people who believe that are delusional.

Nice straw man.

@Cyninja.2954 said:I clearly explained IN THIS THREAD, how one can be in favor of keeping the downstate even if one does not consider it balanced. The recent patch and shake up following it is a perfect example how even way smaller changes, and removing downstate would be a far bigger change than some damage adjustment on cc skills, can lead to massive reworks and game play changes.

Irrelevant, my point is that downstate favours the larger group and should be changed. Not sure what this has to do with anything.

@Cyninja.2954 said:Removing downstate would require vastly more work because it would require a redesign of the combat system, gearing system and overall combat flow. As such, reducing players opposed to removing downstate, while there has been no solid argument given to do so in this thread so far, to unskilled crutch using individuals simply shows your lack of grasping the issue.

Again with the removing downstate? I believe we've been through this earlier. I at no point said it SHOULD be removed.

@Cyninja.2954 said:and since this argument keeps coming up that downstate only favors the outnumbering group (by players who obviously have not played all types of WvW content): when running as closed WvW guild group (we usually run in a size of 15-20), downstate currently allows us for a far more offensive setup on damage dealers, since even if one is caught out of position or hit by unfortunate cc against a blob the size of 40-50+, swift reactions and more organized support on our side allows us to take on bigger groups, without immediately losing players to unlucky accidents while the more offensive setup allows us to challenge bigger groups damage.

As mentioned by other in this thread, downstate favors the side which resurrects and is able to make use of it to their advantage. This is often the case for the bigger group due to simple size, but that is not universally true.

Its only not universally true when there is a VAST skill gap. As much as I would love downstate to have never existed, I can understand that the cancer runs too deep in the game at this point to be curable. It can only be managed. You hit the nail on the head. Its easier to revive when you have the larger group. That is the basis of my entire post.

So I'd do a few things.-Prevent the use of rezzing (pressing F) for 3 seconds after a player is downed. If you want to keep downed players alive you'd need to actually use cool downs/heals on them.-After a player is revived they essentially lose the ability to be downed without being killed for the remainder of the fight. That is to say they go down again in the same fight they are double downed. I'd also add an out of combat cd too so players can't run away and reset their downed de buff.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Doug.4930 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:Who is implying what about other players exactly here?Not quite the same, I was making a broad statement, which i stand by as it was specifically about downstate and its ability to further boost groups who outnumber their opponents and was not in any way directed at a particular user. Whilst you implied something specifically about me, which was false.

I did not mention you at all. My statement was just as broad about players who are arguing in a specific way.

So again, show me where I specifically mentioned or said you personally favor removing downstate.

@Doug.4930 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:If you don't want people to imply things, maybe don't go out of your way to discredit every single opposing argument or view with some baseless assumption.Discredit every opposing view? Where are you pulling this from? I was only discrediting the view that downstate favors larger and smaller groups evenly. Which it does not, and to reiterate, people who believe that are delusional.

Nice straw man.

Everything favors the bigger group, every little thing in this game, unless used in a more skillful way by the smaller group...

@Doug.4930 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:I clearly explained IN THIS THREAD, how one can be in favor of keeping the downstate even if one does not consider it balanced. The recent patch and shake up following it is a perfect example how even way smaller changes, and removing downstate would be a far bigger change than some damage adjustment on cc skills, can lead to massive reworks and game play changes.

Irrelevant, my point is that downstate favours the larger group and should be changed. Not sure what this has to do with anything.

@Cyninja.2954 said:Removing downstate would require vastly more work because it would require a redesign of the combat system, gearing system and overall combat flow. As such, reducing players opposed to removing downstate, while there has been no solid argument given to do so in this thread so far, to unskilled crutch using individuals simply shows your lack of grasping the issue.

Again with the removing downstate? I believe we've been through this earlier. I at no point said it SHOULD be removed.

You fail to understand what I am saying. This is the direct reason, besides players being delusional which you keep repeating, why some are against what topic creator suggested.

Since you decided to discredit every one who opposes removal of downstate, and topic creator and others have been arguing in favor of removal with that having been the dominant suggestion in this thread, and you not offering an alternative in your short comments so far... do the math.

@Doug.4930 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:and since this argument keeps coming up that downstate only favors the outnumbering group (by players who obviously have not played all types of WvW content): when running as closed WvW guild group (we usually run in a size of 15-20), downstate currently allows us for a far more offensive setup on damage dealers, since even if one is caught out of position or hit by unfortunate cc against a blob the size of 40-50+, swift reactions and more organized support on our side allows us to take on bigger groups, without immediately losing players to unlucky accidents while the more offensive setup allows us to challenge bigger groups damage.

As mentioned by other in this thread, downstate favors the side which resurrects and is able to make use of it to their advantage. This is often the case for the bigger group due to simple size, but that is not universally true.

Its only not universally true when there is a VAST skill gap. As much as I would love downstate to have never existed, I can understand that the cancer runs too deep in the game at this point to be curable. It can only be managed. You hit the nail on the head. Its easier to revive when you have the larger group. That is the basis of my entire post.

Who is talking about universally true?

I already said in this response, everything favors the larger group UNLESS used more skillfully by the smaller group. That goes directly against what topic creator for example argued over the entire thread.

It also goes directly against your offensive comment that only players who need a crutch are in favor of keeping downstate. It's literally a mechanic which rewards players who make proper use of it aka skillful play.

@Doug.4930 said:So I'd do a few things.-Prevent the use of rezzing (pressing F) for 3 seconds after a player is downed. If you want to keep downed players alive you'd need to actually use cool downs/heals on them.-After a player is revived they essentially lose the ability to be downed without being killed for the remainder of the fight. That is to say they go down again in the same fight they are double downed. I'd also add an out of combat cd too so players can't run away and reset their downed de buff.

Great, and if you had lead with these ideas, instead of just making a short comment in the way that you did, one could have actually argued about how these changes would affect the game.

As to the idea:

• downstate is useful because it requires opposing players to either forsake their downed members, dedicate attention to resurrecting them or encourage kills to rally them. If you down 5 players from an opposing squad, that's often 10-15 players lost in attention on your group (5 downed, 5-10 going trying to resurrect them). This also creates excellent spike positions to punish players who do not pay attention. Removing the reason or ability for players to help downed allies would make it harder to make use of downstate in this way.
• the second idea would simply cut out the multiple downstate possible currently. That could work

Changing downstate to a less complex or integrate version would simply reduce the ability of more skilled groups to make use of it. That would be like dumbing down boons or rotations. Everything which is easily available or accessible or use-able by all players, removes the ability for good players to distinguish themselves. Given that larger numbers will ALWAYS be in favor in most/all areas to a smaller size due to numbers, this would simply remove downstate as a variable in which skilled players can distinguish themselves.

I'm not saying I disagree with the idea, I'm saying: be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

[Biermeister.4678]

Just get rid of downstate

[bigo.9037]

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

@"Anput.4620" said:

I also, think that pressing F should just "outskill" anyone without stability and a billion defenses because you should lose a fight even if you "kill" them 3 times.

A+ Design choices game of the year.

I downed them 1 time before the recording started btw, 3 times total, there is literally no way downstate ever not benefits the group with more poeple and it has no place in any competitive mode in it's current iteration period. With the new balance patch we really need to rework downstate as finishing poeple with cleave will be even harder then. You can't possibly seriously defend crutch mechanics like these.

Ehm as much as I am also not a fan of how downstate works in its current state (tldr I think it needs nerfs at least because its too tanky) you also kind of just got a bit "outplayed" after the first down, or they were just straight lucky that they happened to interrupt your Lich 3 cast which you could have opted to wait for them to start ressing to use. They also got pretty lucky on the second interrupt of your Staff 5 yet again because you were rather hasty. I can imagine the frustration was mounting at that point because you practically healed the Herald back to full health.

Downstate isn't within itself necessarily a bad mechanic...just in its current form it is just not great with how it interacts in PvP. Even if it had less health and res speed was slower you still wouldn't have won that. If downstate was gone, sure, you would have, but that would be like making the argument in Apex of "Well if they didn't have that whole downstate mechanic and revived their buddy I would have killed them all". Like yeah, sure, thats a thing but the mechanic itself isn't really the problem there. Downstate has a place, I think in PvP/WvW at least it needs to get a reduction in health and res speed should be slower (stomping should be faster too), but none of those changes would have really changed the outcome of that fight for you, despite unfortunately, for you, how lucky they were on their interrupts.

I've seen this argument before and granted I haven't played apex for more than like 4 hours total, BUT...in Apex, actually reviving an ally is a very difficult feat. You need to somehow make it to one of those revival thingies without dying by yourself cus you might be alone, and then you can revive.In GW2, all you have to do is watch your ally get low, run towards him, and press F as soon as he gets down and you have a good chance of getting the res. 1 button. Unless enemy has stab, but in that case enemy outplayed you all so hard he managed to win an outnumbered fight while keeping stab ready to stomp, so that would be a bad argument.

Again, gw2 ressing is just too darn easy for the reward.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@bigo.9037 said:

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

@"Anput.4620" said:

I also, think that pressing F should just "outskill" anyone without stability and a billion defenses because you should lose a fight even if you "kill" them 3 times.

A+ Design choices game of the year.

I downed them 1 time before the recording started btw, 3 times total, there is literally no way downstate ever not benefits the group with more poeple and it has no place in any competitive mode in it's current iteration period. With the new balance patch we really need to rework downstate as finishing poeple with cleave will be even harder then. You can't possibly seriously defend crutch mechanics like these.

Ehm as much as I am also not a fan of how downstate works in its current state (tldr I think it needs nerfs at least because its too tanky) you also kind of just got a bit "outplayed" after the first down, or they were just straight lucky that they happened to interrupt your Lich 3 cast which you could have opted to wait for them to start ressing to use. They also got pretty lucky on the second interrupt of your Staff 5 yet again because you were rather hasty. I can imagine the frustration was mounting at that point because you practically healed the Herald back to full health.

Downstate isn't within itself necessarily a bad mechanic...just in its current form it is just not great with how it interacts in PvP. Even if it had less health and res speed was slower you still wouldn't have won that. If downstate was gone, sure, you would have, but that would be like making the argument in Apex of "Well if they didn't have that whole downstate mechanic and revived their buddy I would have killed them all". Like yeah, sure, thats a thing but the mechanic itself isn't really the problem there. Downstate has a place, I think in PvP/WvW at least it needs to get a reduction in health and res speed should be slower (stomping should be faster too), but none of those changes would have really changed the outcome of that fight for you, despite unfortunately, for you, how lucky they were on their interrupts.

I've seen this argument before and granted I haven't played apex for more than like 4 hours total, BUT...in Apex, actually reviving an ally is a very difficult feat. You need to somehow make it to one of those revival thingies without dying by yourself cus you might be alone, and then you can revive.In GW2, all you have to do is watch your ally get low, run towards him, and press F as soon as he gets down and you have a good chance of getting the res. 1 button. Unless enemy has stab, but in that case enemy outplayed you all so hard he managed to win an outnumbered fight while keeping stab ready to stomp, so that would be a bad argument.

Again, gw2 ressing is just too darn easy for the reward.

There are two ways to bring your teammates back in Apex, though. First, if they get downed then you can simply pick them back up from that downed state. Hence the terminology "knocking" used frequently in BRs. This is similar to GW2 downstate, though with the very apparent key differences. Even so that is still risky if your teammate is out in the open or if you're far enough out of position that your teammate ends up getting finished completely.

Downstate, as it is right now, is not as punishing to the one who is downed assuming they have teammates around. It has a lot of health and reviving is relatively safer in comparison between these two games (fully acknowledging that they are two vastly different genre of games).

The reason I don't fully support removing downstate, even though I would prefer that in all honesty because of a variety of reasons, is because of the amount of effort that would need to be put into an endeavor like that to rework the whole of the revive mechanics. Not just effort, the time as well. Its a lesson in compromise, at least from my perspective. While I do think the pay off in the long run, and PvP health wise, doing such a thing would be worth it I also completely recognize that its a tad bit on the unrealistic side. Like I said, downstate isn't necessarily at its core a bad mechanic, just that as it functions right now its too annoyingly annoying. Its far too tanky, there is minimal risk in reviving teammates compared to games with similar mechanics, and players can do far too much while downed.

In any scenario where more than two people are involved in a fight you can see these issues shine through. Even if they have ressing capped in some respects, the number is high enough to where instant ressing still happens and that should be something that goes away and should be entirely reserved for the specific skills (Battle Standard and its like) that operate in that way. This is also what makes downed state being so tanky a problem as well. You have **three times*** your classes base health while in downed state and this is often paired with the variety of downed skills they have. While those as well aren't necessarily a bad thing, some classes just have straight up better downed skills than others; usually in the form of being able to deny stomps/cleave.

TLDR; Downed state needs a rework.

• Less health
• Ressing needs to be capped to one person. I'd settle for two as ressing just gets too fast when you tack on a third player. Or res speed needs to be slowed down.
• Downed state skills need to be "normalized", or "generalized", as there are classes that have visibly and glaringly obvious better downed skills than other classes.