NO Downstate should STAY permanently. - [Merged]

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:balancing the game around noobs isn't the best thing to do.Neither is balancing the game around the self proclaimed elite.

who would slef proclaim elite of WvW? it doesn't make any sense.

[urd.8306]

Thanks to downstate I won my 1v3 today.

[God.2708]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@"LucianTheAngelic.7054" said:As a mostly Roamer I love downstate. The best part of downstate is other players making the dumb mistake of trying to Rez their friends. Once they’re grouped up just cc em and cleave em. Ez 1v2/3/4/5 victories. Also timing your cleave so that you go down and then a downed body immediately dies for that 50% rally heal is the best. No down state doesn’t allow that kind of gameplay and removes mechanics and strategies from the game.

So no thank you, don’t remove downstate. If anything just take a look at Rez healing and maybe reduce it slightly so that cleave is more effective than it is currently.

again with this not very intelligent argument of "easy to kill while outnumbered when allies group upon the downed to help him".have you only played against noobs so far? 1v2 is hard enough and nearly impossible without very specific builds to take care of the downed. and you say it is easy?

balancing the game around noobs isn't the best thing to do.

You cannot.

Again.

CANNOT.

In any place time world dream fantasy or game.

Win an outnumbered scenario against players who are as good as you.

So yes, of COURSE he was only playing against noobs when he won a 1v2 or 1v3. If you want to win 1v2's or 1v3's the most useful thing you could ever do is demand that PvE scrubs flock into your mode to chase X, Y, or Z. It would make it happen at a level of frequency removing downstate could never achieve. In fact, removal of downstate likely works antithetical to that desire as it actively removes new players from the mode and reduces population.

[Dawdler.8521]

@God.2708 said:

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@"LucianTheAngelic.7054" said:As a mostly Roamer I love downstate. The best part of downstate is other players making the dumb mistake of trying to Rez their friends. Once they’re grouped up just cc em and cleave em. Ez 1v2/3/4/5 victories. Also timing your cleave so that you go down and then a downed body immediately dies for that 50% rally heal is the best. No down state doesn’t allow that kind of gameplay and removes mechanics and strategies from the game.

So no thank you, don’t remove downstate. If anything just take a look at Rez healing and maybe reduce it slightly so that cleave is more effective than it is currently.

again with this not very intelligent argument of "easy to kill while outnumbered when allies group upon the downed to help him".have you only played against noobs so far? 1v2 is hard enough and nearly impossible without very specific builds to take care of the downed. and you say it is easy?

balancing the game around noobs isn't the best thing to do.

You cannot.

Again.

CANNOT.

In any place time world dream fantasy or game.

Win an outnumbered scenario against players who are as good as you.Not really true, because your statement automatically assumes that "as good as you" include them running builds either on equal footing or built to counter yours. That's not how reality works. You can be a very good player and still meet someone that may match your skill, but totally outmatch your build because you're simply built for fighting another kind of player. And that's when they can win outnumbered. Hell sometimes it can just be a matter of a simple

poor tactical choice

. 2 people ending up on the wrong end of the same stun. 2 people taking a heavy hitting AoE that at least one should have avoided, but was at the wrong place at the wrong time. It's

difficult

to win 1v2 against good players and for 1v3 I would agree that you're probably stretching doable. But one cant just equate skill with "you died therefor you suck".

[God.2708]

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Not really true, because your statement automatically assumes that "as good as you" include them running builds either on equal footing or built to counter yours. That's not how reality works. You can be a very good player and still meet someone that may match your skill, but totally outmatch your build because you're simply built for fighting another kind of player. And that's when they can win outnumbered. Hell sometimes it can just be a matter of a simple poor tactical choice. 2 people ending up on the wrong end of the same stun. 2 people taking a heavy hitting AoE that at least one should have avoided, but was at the wrong place at the wrong time. It's difficult to win 1v2 against good players and for 1v3 I would agree that you're probably stretching doable. But one cant just equate skill with "you died therefor you suck".

I'm not sure I'd want to get into the anecdotal sense where those things can and do happen, and we back and forth over how legitimate they are because people make mistakes. My point was more in the sense that trying to balance or change game state for that is ultimately nonsensical because anything the one player can do, the two or three players can do 2x or 3x over. The fact that they don't is what gives the player the edge and creates the asymmetry that allows you to win against all odds in the first place.

Probably some nuances going on on how we're defining skill too. For example, I don't think there's enough strength disparity between your typical meta roaming builds that an add-on player wouldn't end the fight. If the people aren't running good builds in the first place... maybe they are just as skilled, but they've intentionally handicapped a part of that skill so there is in fact a skill disparity.

[JTGuevara.9018]

Yup! We're back to boon-ball squads who's players BARELY go down! It's a monumental task just to take ONE down. And when you do exhaust your skills to finally take tone down, that person just immediately gets rezzed back up!

See, THIS is why no downed state needs to be permanent. Regardless of your opinion about it, it is a COUNTER to zergs. Massive blobs of people that can spam boons like candy like this simply aren't good and healthy for this game, period.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@JTGuevara.9018 said:Yup! We're back to boon-ball squads...

Then fix that?

D:

[SeikeNz.3526]

what is the problem of downed state? it's like you get knocked down but you can still fight until the last breath, so unless you finish it you haven't really killed, downstate is a cool idea from the game

[misterman.1530]

Yeah. If they remove downstate they then have to rework a crap ton of skills - like the Signet of Undeath. They would have to change the signet's active power, since you couldn't use it anymore.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@misterman.1530 said:Yeah. If they remove downstate they then have to rework a kitten ton of skills - like the Signet of Undeath. They would have to change the signet's active power, since you couldn't use it anymore.

at least the rework and balance they will do after a permanent no downstate will get to effectively balance the game. because nerfing boons isn't the solution.they could add a system where boons like protection depend on armor stat, like the more the armor the more protection gives resistance. but i don't know if it will be worth it or not.the best & quickest way to balance a little bit WvW out is to take the no downstate route and then continue to balance the game out.

[babana.7521]

No thank you. use the finisher !

[LucianTheAngelic.7054]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@"LucianTheAngelic.7054" said:As a mostly Roamer I love downstate. The best part of downstate is other players making the dumb mistake of trying to Rez their friends. Once they’re grouped up just cc em and cleave em. Ez 1v2/3/4/5 victories. Also timing your cleave so that you go down and then a downed body immediately dies for that 50% rally heal is the best. No down state doesn’t allow that kind of gameplay and removes mechanics and strategies from the game.

So no thank you, don’t remove downstate. If anything just take a look at Rez healing and maybe reduce it slightly so that cleave is more effective than it is currently.

again with this not very intelligent argument of "easy to kill while outnumbered when allies group upon the downed to help him".have you only played against noobs so far? 1v2 is hard enough and nearly impossible without very specific builds to take care of the downed. and you say it is easy?

balancing the game around noobs isn't the best thing to do.

Overwhelming majority of WvW players are bad. And yes I frequently 1v2 against good players

[Sobx.1758]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further.Then lets remove support builds

Yes, lets remove classes/skills/traits/weapons, because build diversity is exactly the same as tacking in a separate mechanic that simply supports outnumbering side. As for the past few posts, you have nothing to answer to most of the posts you're """responding to""", so you cut out a single fragment and try approaching a whole thing from the other side. Then you pretend "it's just going in circles" while in reality you don't respond to anything.

Where exactly do we draw the line?

As almost any line of this type, it's subjective, which is why there are arguments given from both sides, what kind of "gotcha!" question is this supposed to be?

[Sobx.1758]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@"Doug.4930" said:The pro downstate crowd pretty much only have one viable argument:

"Players who have more time to play this game shouldn't be allowed to win outnumbered fights because my 10 friends and I don't have enough time to put into this game so that we can beat the group of 5 that do."

I mean I completely disagree with this argument but its the best you've got. Its pretty much a known fact that downstate favours the larger group, whether that's a 2v4 or a 50v60. But the argument remains that downstate affords the larger and less experienced groups of players a greater advantage of overcoming their more veteran enemies.

I can understand that. A group of 15 is far more vulnerable to a group of 5 when downstate is not a factor, and I'd imagine the group of 15 who only play this game every other day and have about 1k hours clocked between all of them is going to get very frustrated constantly getting farmed by a group of 5 who have 6k hours of WvW playtime each. Frustrated enough to perhaps stop coming back and log off.

I'm still very much anti downstate, but playing devils advocate I can see the above as a legitimate con to downstate being removed. Despite the pro's being a more fair and balanced game where player skill and synergy means more than simply blobbing down the enemy. And if this game could do with anything its less blobs.

BadOutnumberedPremise

.

You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers

and

the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever.

Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt.

From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group).

In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there?

In short: defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. It pushes the balance of outnumbered fights in the wrong direction. Sure, the numbers are automatically favored because of the number of skills, targets they affect in total, overal health pool and so on, but downstate adds yet another layer of imbalance. How is this "not enough for the change"?And yeah, it's not an issue for pvp, because you have even numbers there, which is why I don't exactly mind downstate for that mode.

Counterarguement? Uhh. How does it add on another layer if it has been there for about 8 or so years? The "layer" has been there for a while now...even so. If we set the precedent that a balance change can occur because someone somewhere has a random outnumbered situation, and they use that as the only thing necessary to sway opinions then that can open the door for changing other things we might not want.

How is being for 8 years in the game significant here? It is another layer over your regular obvious "outnumbering = stronger" and the time it was in the game changes nothing about that fact. It's not a new addition to the game, sure, but it still adds another layer of making outnumbering stronger. What about that is hard to understand for you?

Because it appeared you were using "adds yet another layer" meaning something new, but you reiterated. From what I gather you don't like that downstate is a different phase in combat. You want the only phase to be the 1st health bar, correct?

...what exactly about my post is still so unclear for you? :)

What is wrong with wanting another reason in addition to their "outnumbered" issue (still a population/team issue imo)? I only see it getting inconsistent results if we have to adjust for 14v20, 1v3, 3v7, etc.. While X v X is far easier to comprehend, and ANET already struggles with it.

What is wrong about it? Because being on the outnumbering side has its "obviosuly inherent" advantages and there's no reason to have another mechanic that pushes that advantage even further. Pretty sure I already said that before, but you keep asking the same thing again. What about that is unclear for you?

What is the goal here? Are you trying to balance teams? Get faster fights? Get slower fights?

The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further.

Are we using "the wrong one" like air quotes for emphasis or something I said? Probably emphasis. Reads like emphasis. Are you attempting to bring both sides to parity in some way then regardless of their population?

No, I'm using the wrong one, because inevitably you'd ask what it means it's wrong and why is this one wrong and not the other.

People wanted mount stomp gone for a similar reason, because the outnumbering side can afford to delegate some of their players to stay mounted and still have close fights, but this time they could easaly insta-stomp multiple targets, pushing the number difference even further.

I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though.

So... I don't see how that changes anything about my answer? Or are you just dropping your previous claim in place of a "I liked it for the lulz"?

It can't be both?

Theoretically it could be, but you've dropped your previous claim and picked the "fortehlulz" route, so it doesn't seem to be both.

Assume it is both then, but feel free to latch on to it if you feel it is relevant.

How is it both? And how am I "latching on to it" when you didn't respond with anything relevant in the first place?

[Sobx.1758]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further.Then lets remove support builds and boons because those provide a faaaaaaaaaaaaar bigger advantage to the outnumbering side that has people to spare for it.

Where exactly do we draw the line?

DeleteFirebrand

Oh come now. I'm trying to figure out the goal of, as of yesterday or so, my Forum Rival. We can get into aoe spam afterward if applicable.

I think I've explained enough, how are you still "figuring out" anything here?Also I still don't know what you mean by "forum rival". I'm not signing anything before you lay out what exact perks and responsibilities this position gives me. :(

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@"Doug.4930" said:The pro downstate crowd pretty much only have one viable argument:

"Players who have more time to play this game shouldn't be allowed to win outnumbered fights because my 10 friends and I don't have enough time to put into this game so that we can beat the group of 5 that do."

I mean I completely disagree with this argument but its the best you've got. Its pretty much a known fact that downstate favours the larger group, whether that's a 2v4 or a 50v60. But the argument remains that downstate affords the larger and less experienced groups of players a greater advantage of overcoming their more veteran enemies.

I can understand that. A group of 15 is far more vulnerable to a group of 5 when downstate is not a factor, and I'd imagine the group of 15 who only play this game every other day and have about 1k hours clocked between all of them is going to get very frustrated constantly getting farmed by a group of 5 who have 6k hours of WvW playtime each. Frustrated enough to perhaps stop coming back and log off.

I'm still very much anti downstate, but playing devils advocate I can see the above as a legitimate con to downstate being removed. Despite the pro's being a more fair and balanced game where player skill and synergy means more than simply blobbing down the enemy. And if this game could do with anything its less blobs.

BadOutnumberedPremise

.

You seem(ed?) to think that the argument there was "outnumbering side has the advantage!" and you answer to that "of course, that's because they are outnumbering!", but the actual point is that the downstate additionally helps the outnumbering side (because it does). They are stronger because of the numbers

and

the downstate adds them an even bigger safety net in case they start failing. If that somehow isn't a valid argument for you, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a valid argument for any discussion ever.

Defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt.

From what I recall skimming that past post and condensing the bickering: it was an observation of numbers multiplying the amount of available game mechanics for each team (thus the larger gets advantage on everything). So I suspect I felt it wasn't sufficient to make a combat balance change (e.g. changing downstate in that case) solely on that reason. The downstate posts of today also sometimes state being outnumbered as their primary factor (e.g. Doug provides unbalanced scenarios despite playing "Devil's Advocate" and starting out on a weird straw-man of "pro downstate crowd"). Doug brings up skill or timed playing the game, and the third or second link addresses what "skill" the different downstate settings affect. Pretty sure it would be the third link? Possibly. Ultimately he is able to make the same observation of multiplication (e.g. more game mechanics are able to be more utilized by the larger group).

In short, I wouldn't make sweeping balance changes (this means downstate too) based on that single factor of population imbalance (outnumbered being a symptom of it). Just as I wouldn't increase AC damage because someone is X v X+ Y at a Tower during some population imbalance period. The other two links were more productive by the looks of it. Perhaps you might find more detailed answers there?

In short: defending a mechanic that pushes further already mismatched fights just because "they're already mismatched!" is some weird counteargument attempt. It pushes the balance of outnumbered fights in the wrong direction. Sure, the numbers are automatically favored because of the number of skills, targets they affect in total, overal health pool and so on, but downstate adds yet another layer of imbalance. How is this "not enough for the change"?And yeah, it's not an issue for pvp, because you have even numbers there, which is why I don't exactly mind downstate for that mode.

Counterarguement? Uhh. How does it add on another layer if it has been there for about 8 or so years? The "layer" has been there for a while now...even so. If we set the precedent that a balance change can occur because someone somewhere has a random outnumbered situation, and they use that as the only thing necessary to sway opinions then that can open the door for changing other things we might not want.

How is being for 8 years in the game significant here? It is another layer over your regular obvious "outnumbering = stronger" and the time it was in the game changes nothing about that fact. It's not a new addition to the game, sure, but it still adds another layer of making outnumbering stronger. What about that is hard to understand for you?

Because it appeared you were using "adds yet another layer" meaning something new, but you reiterated. From what I gather you don't like that downstate is a different phase in combat. You want the only phase to be the 1st health bar, correct?

...what exactly about my post is still so unclear for you? :)

It isn't unclear. I wanted to make sure there weren't other intentions beyond what you laid out, because as you say, you felt my position was a "weird counterarguement attempt." Your feelings are acceptable, but it seems I will have to expend effort to explain things further. I can't read your mind, so I have to ask a little bit more than your "Downstate negatively multiplies a outnumbered situation, where the feeling of outnumbered is already sufficiently negative." Feel free to say if that paraphrase is inaccurate.

What is wrong with wanting another reason in addition to their "outnumbered" issue (still a population/team issue imo)? I only see it getting inconsistent results if we have to adjust for 14v20, 1v3, 3v7, etc.. While X v X is far easier to comprehend, and ANET already struggles with it.

What is wrong about it? Because being on the outnumbering side has its "obviosuly inherent" advantages and there's no reason to have another mechanic that pushes that advantage even further. Pretty sure I already said that before, but you keep asking the same thing again. What about that is unclear for you?

What is the goal here? Are you trying to balance teams? Get faster fights? Get slower fights?

The goal of that would be to remove additional advantage of the outnumbering side that's not needed and supports the wrong side of the side. Which one is "the wrong one"? The outnumbering one. Why is "outnumbering one" the "wrong" side? Because it already has an inherent advantage and doesn't need it to be pushed further.

Are we using "the wrong one" like air quotes for emphasis or something I said? Probably emphasis. Reads like emphasis. Are you attempting to bring both sides to parity in some way then regardless of their population?

No, I'm using the wrong one, because inevitably you'd ask what it means it's wrong and why is this one wrong and not the other.

Then the quotes around words was indeed a stylistic choice, and I'm satisfied with that usage if it's the case.

People wanted mount stomp gone for a similar reason, because the outnumbering side can afford to delegate some of their players to stay mounted and still have close fights, but this time they could easaly insta-stomp multiple targets, pushing the number difference even further.

I liked using that mount stomp by porting away to break combat then come back to stomp for the lewls. RIP. The random massive critical damage on mounts was silly though.

So... I don't see how that changes anything about my answer? Or are you just dropping your previous claim in place of a "I liked it for the lulz"?

It can't be both?

Theoretically it could be, but you've dropped your previous claim and picked the "fortehlulz" route, so it doesn't seem to be both.

Assume it is both then, but feel free to latch on to it if you feel it is relevant.

How is it both? And how am I "latching on to it" when you didn't respond with anything relevant in the first place?

Unfortunately...due to putting in effort it might mean I explain things that you may feel you already know. Equally unfortunate it might require a separate post outside this quote chain. But I suppose the benefit is it might be a more dry read, and less "fortehlulz."

[Hadi.6025]

If it's one thing that "No Downstate Week" showed me is that it really show's you who needs downstate to play the game mode; who are skilled and who abuses broken builds that get over looked for years. This is why i urge Arena Net to implement the same rules from PVP to WvW game mode; the fact that literally all power damage nerfed should show you how frustrating it is to end fights (I.E lack of cleave damage on downed players) when players go down, not to mention how overpowered Downstate skills are especially for necro being able to literally zap all your health in seconds if they're running a power build. Their traits like Spinal shivers still activates even after the player is already "Defeated" So not only do you have to fight through basically a second health bar of that same player (Not to forget it changes depending on the build so some down players have 20-30k health) you have to fight off all their damage that you can't really interrupt, it gives them too much advantage when they should have already lost. IF Anet implemented the same rules such as no invulnerability after going down it would make the fights go by much more smoothly, since cleave damage is lacking due to power coefficients nerfed.

What i would suggest to completely balance Downstate is to make EVERYONES health the same when they go down. keep the same skills fine but some of the downstate skills need their power coefficients reduced . There's no reason i should be getting hit AS hard if not HARDER by a player that is on the ground defeated, that virtually makes no sense. These same rules should apply for underwater combat as well. They tried to nerf underwater pets for Ranger but they still hit entirely too hard and can still power ress players within seconds of using the skill. It shouldn't be this frustrating and the fights need to go by faster instead of dragging on for so long due to over looked balance changes.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@"Sobx.1758"Well and anyone else really.

As you probably figured out...I have a low barrier to entry when it comes to discussion of mechanics. On the flip side, when it comes to implementation (balance changes in this case) my expectations are higher. In regards to "balance" I prefer consistency (whether or not ANET upholds this can be debatable, but I'm not here to defend them). Which means I might have to explain things that could seem outside the context of this Thread's topic. On the plus side it may help those who also wish to explain their given idea better by offering a foundation.

Action Economy

This refers to the amount of player's potential actions (move, spend resources, attack, use item, etc.) that can be done within a time frame (1 turn, 1 minute, or 1 hour etc.). The idea precedes me as it has been around in many turn based games., but applies to nearly all games (they may choose to address it heavily or barely). I'm sure the internet can elaborate on this subject more than I will here, but this rudimentary understanding is all I need in this instance.

GW2's Mechanical Phases

I'm not here to discuss emergent behavior involving player strategies as "phases," but rather what is observable by the mechanics that ANET has provided. The base game provides two phases IMO (up and down). The following isn't necessarily how ANET might define them internally, but rather my short hand for discussion.

1. Up-Phase: This is when everyone is up on their feet. They are able to use the majority of their action economy, and this is when they make the most amount of their decisions.
2. Down-Phase: This is when anyone from a group enters downstate, but all people in the group don't have to be in downstate to enter this phase.

The reasoning for separating the phases is each phase represents a potential shift in mentality, or an attempt to influence player behavior.

Taking Halo (the first one), for example, you have a shield-bar that can be taken down by damage, and a health bar that leads to death when it reaches zero. Typically a player is far more brave while their shield is up, but when it goes down it blinks red influencing the player to retreat and find cover because the shield won't recharge while still taking damage. Should the health bar also take damage the player might become more cautious, or seek out powerups to recover further (health packs were a thing in Halo: CE). In pvp, the one without shields might play more passive while their attacker goes more aggressive, whereas in the beginning they both were aggressive possibly.

Despite Halo having a slight multi-phase approach, their Action Economy isn't different when shields are up or down. For this game, the Action Economy can be greatly affected by each phase (like whoever is in downstate can't move much unless they're hacking or a select few classes). I intentionally use "They" when describing each phases as it doesn't refer solely to the individual. When one side gets someone down, they have collectively (or partially considering battles can be large in WvW) entered a "Down-Phase." Each side is influenced to behave differently. For example, Downstate's health pool is larger probably to encourage other mechanical usage beyond just dps (stomps/safe stomps, reviving, res skills, and the surprisingly few skills that also finish foes). Then of course there is emotional things like creating tension, but it isn't necessary to delve into here.

Outnumbered

I think we both have agreed that this multiplies all game mechanics. More people on one team means they have more Action Economy to potentially use, and any other mechanics involving a phase, such as downstate (downstate itself dramatically reduces Action Economy on its own). I'm guessing the great debate is figuring out how to decide when one mechanic being multiplied becomes problematic. Which is probably where we will disagree on what mechanic that is (for this topic, some here are saying its downstate itself).

"Balanced or Imbalanced?"

I'm assuming game balance is a goal to achieve for some consistency. Then one way is to follow tenets/commandments or something written to refer back to that doesn't change much. Another way is to reduce variables by operating under a controlled environment. A third could be to draw comparisons to existing features. There can be more than what I described. I can't say what ANET does do, and they may have even more methods.

Which is where the "Action Economy" gets referred to for turn based games. Damage numbers are easier to "balance" than alterations to Action Economy. For shooters they probably don't consider it as much. Guild Wars is affected by Action Economy as many skills explicitly state their casting speed, cooldowns, and resource management (then boons/conditions/ccs change it further). If I was looking at mechanics I would check its effect on Action Economy, and its effect on the game's phases. For example, Quickness/Slow used to affect stomp speed in addition to casting/attack speeds. Now they no longer change stomp speed, and this reduced their potential effect on Action Economy for the Down-Phase. ANET's intent was mainly aimed at Quickness from what I recall. I'm not here to say that change is wrong or right, but rather if it align's with ANET's intended goal.

The Mount Thing

I suppose we can now address the mount in the room. I don't think I ever asked for it (I don't feel like doing another search function check), but regardless you bring up something important.

@"Sobx.1758" said:People wanted mount stomp gone for a similar reason, because the outnumbering side can afford to delegate some of their players to stay mounted and still have close fights, but this time they could easaly insta-stomp multiple targets, pushing the number difference even further.

The average player is great at saying something feels wrong. A few are able to pinpoint the problem exactly. "People wanted the mount stomp gone for a similar reason..." is not something I'm going to refute even if no link is provided. I'm trusting what you say is true that people wanted this, because it feels plausible to me that some players did. As to why exactly ANET changed it I can't really say because the update doesn't mention their goals/intentions on the matter. By all means provide a link if they did say so.

I can assume it was over-tuned when it launched with 10 targets aoe damage, and downstate finisher causing it to over-contribute to the Up-Phase and Down-Phase in one skill activation. And it remained over-tuned even with reducing its aoe cap to 3. So, for 1 action I can see Battle-maul had a heavily skewed effect on Action Economy for what it was capable of doing. I mean, it competed with some class finishers at the time... However, I liked that the mount had an interaction with downstate that could resolve the Down-Phase quickly by forfeiting your normal Up-Phase actions to be on the mount, and I was able to "Fortelulz" when it had ludicrous aoe capabilities. It was both an Interesting idea, but terrible in execution (probably why I didn't ask for a mount in the first place...I digress).

Eventually, they chose to have it do only damage (with percent increase on downs). I might have kept it as dealing noodle (less than 20) damage with a single target finisher so it only really affects 1 Phase. Regardless, I don't use only population to justify my opinion on why I might keep/remove the stomp. I wouldn't start with something like, "We should remove the mount's Lance ability because the larger group has more chances to hit and catch the smaller. Therefore lance is giving even more advantages to the larger group, and decreasing the smaller's ability to disengage."

Conclusion (Not quite a TLDR)

Now we have come full circle. And probably where we depart. I'm protecting a precedent more than I'm protecting a mechanic when it comes to balancing combat. The first being, consistency (established by some tenets). The second, is operating under balanced situations, and this can be considered one of those tenets (and where we might differ). The third, pragmatism/practicality (the reality of ANET...). I'm okay if people don't like Guild War's Phases that I described, but downstate's removal won't solve a team/population issue. If people wanted twitch skills to shine (in the hope that the smaller can take advantage) then yes, you can reduce TTK by removing downstate or by reducing HP. It still runs into the practicality for ANET. They already don't like having a lot of skill-splits between modes, and some in this thread barely believe in ANET's ability to "balance." It's incredibly hard for me to get on board the "permanent no downstate" train which then leads to having to balance each functionality change.

Personally. I prefer solving problems with build diversity.There are about 6 classes that can have a source of Reveal, but only what...2 or 3 that have anti-down state skills (Daredevil, warrior, and scrapper I think)? How come we have Mercy runes, but not it's antithesis? Like, they could make WvW specific Runes/sigls to spend our useless currencies on... "Dodging over a downed enemy finishes them. Cooldown: XYZ's seconds" "Finishers are XYZ% faster" "XYZ% more damage to downed enemies (literally stolen idea from the battle-maul)." These suggestions add to "build diversity" to influence players decision making when comes to dealing with the Down-Phase. Or if they nerf everyone's damage why not reduce the healing rate for pressing F on downed people proportionally (something people have mentioned too)? They already showed their willingness to reduce Merciful Intervention forever ago.

TLDR: Don't read it all in one sitting I guess.

D:

[DeadlySynz.3471]

institute downstate runes with the 6th bonus enabling downstate. Aside from that, remove it as a regular mechanic from all classes. If players really want downstate, invest in the runes.

People seem to forget, WvW is built around large group play or blobbing. It's not built around small group play, one shot builds or roaming, and thus cannot be balanced or even thought of around those. Balance has been slowly stripped away because of these very things and the players that continue to voice over the game mode with those in mind. If one doesn't like being blown up by a ranger or thief, then don't roam, join your group. If you don't like large group play, go play PvP.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:institute downstate runes with the 6th bonus enabling downstate. Aside from that, remove it as a regular mechanic from all classes. If players really want downstate, invest in the runes.

People seem to forget, WvW is built around large group play or blobbing. It's not built around small group play, one shot builds or roaming, and thus cannot be balanced or even thought of around those. Balance has been slowly stripped away because of these very things and the players that continue to voice over the game mode with those in mind. If one doesn't like being blown up by a ranger or thief, then don't roam, join your group. If you don't like large group play, go play PvP.

rally bot makes zerg vs zerg unbalanced. kill one, revive another one...

[Piedplat.3597]

I change my mind. We need to remove the downsate in wvw.Downstate favorise big blob versus smaller group who use tactic to attack them, a blob can easily rez downed guys so that make blob undestructible agaiin smaller group.

Anet if you care about wvw keep the no downstate buff up.

[Shiyo.3578]

Condi thief downed state is hilarious, it's like the same DPS as a real player.

[Mokk.2397]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

rally bot makes zerg vs zerg unbalanced. kill one, revive another one...

How do you figure unbalanced . Rally applies to both sides . Same as downstate or no downstate . Whether or not it stays or goes makes absolutely no difference to the final equation because all sides are effected . Down state is NOT an issue . Population imbalance is the real issue.

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

There's already like a half dozen threads on this subject. Including all these arguments being shot down, repeatedly.

The consensus I see the most is that no downstate actually carries bad builds because it favors quickly defeating players and not having to come up with any kind of strategy for dealing with them once they're downed. It made going "all in" alot less risky because there's less chance of failure since you need to do significantly less damage and use less tactics overall.

Downstate is, among other things, part of a player's effective health and affects cooldown management.

[MedievalThings.5417]

@"Hannelore.8153" said:There's already like a half dozen threads on this subject. Including all these arguments being shot down, repeatedly.

The consensus I see the most is that no downstate actually carries bad builds because it favors quickly defeating players and not having to come up with any kind of strategy for dealing with them once they're downed. It made going "all in" alot less risky because there's less chance of failure since you need to do significantly less damage and use less tactics overall.

Downstate is, among other things, part of a player's effective health and affects cooldown management.

And yet, that isn't how it played out. The 30 constantly pushing 5-10 during normal playtimes, were clearly being carried by pure numbers. Because, during no downstate, they didn't push as deep, and when they did, died. We were able to, time and time again, slowly kill off the larger groups, because they didn't have the insta-res that they normally have. The skilled players didn't die as often, and the "we only have numbers" crowd, died, a lot. Even TC, the constantly outnumbered carebear server we are, played at, or above, 1.0 kdr all week. Where the largest server in our matchup, who normally has a 1.5 kdr or higher, stayed right at 1.0 also.