Guild Wars 2

I liked the idea, it would be even better if the number of rally was limited by 1 every 5 minutes per player.

Richy Lao.8346:

what will happen if 2 guys are down by the same skill (AOE?)? Who will rally first?

Maybe the closest downed player to the finished player should be rezzed?

I still prefer the idea of having a “Last hit” Rallier so people have to react to the game play. MUCH more interesting. Then, people also get to choose who they rally.

ronpierce.2760:

Nah what’d be REALLY cool is if the person who gets the killing blow got a “Rally” buff and it allowed them to tag-instant rally a friendly member, so then people could clobber the rally-guy to prevent him from rallying his friend. Talk about fun/interesting playing THEN!

Since this Rally Buff would be surely exploited by indestructible warriors, how about giving the person with the Rally buff some negative buffs, just like holding an Orb in Spirit Watch. But of course with the additional immunity to being immune, to be able to block and all. So basically, make that person vulnerable to anything.

In order for this Rally buff to be useful, teammates should protect that guy from being ganked by the opposite team, so that he can res other guys. Also, because killing makes you vulnerable, DPS spammers now have to kill wisely.

I can already taste the QQ tears from here #nomnom

yanchoy.9176:

ronpierce.2760:

Nah what’d be REALLY cool is if the person who gets the killing blow got a “Rally” buff and it allowed them to tag-instant rally a friendly member, so then people could clobber the rally-guy to prevent him from rallying his friend. Talk about fun/interesting playing THEN!

Since this Rally Buff would be surely exploited by indestructible warriors, how about giving the person with the Rally buff some negative buffs, just like holding an Orb in Spirit Watch. But of course with the additional immunity to being immune, to be able to block and all. So basically, make that person vulnerable to anything.

In order for this Rally buff to be useful, teammates should protect that guy from being ganked by the opposite team, so that he can res other guys. Also, because killing makes you vulnerable, DPS spammers now have to kill wisely.

I can already taste the QQ tears from here #nomnom

Well, like I said, it would go to the “last person who does damage” OR first to stomp (excluding downed players) Often times it would be the person doing the most damage getting the rally buffs, which generally aren’t very tanky. Plus, in reality, I think having a tanky-role to raise allies thoughtfully is still better play than an automatic AOE raise that happens now :T any reactive player is better than automation.

Y’know, I think an actual dodgeball minigame would work.

You could dodge the ball
Or you could use a short-duration block to catch the ball.

Sarrs.4831:

Y’know, I think an actual dodgeball minigame would work.

You could dodge the ball
Or you could use a short-duration block to catch the ball.

And 2 extra buttons , that redirect the ball to the left and the other on the right , to get <<rid of the competition>> faster :P

Or team up with 2 others on TS and use the <<2 extra bottons>> to create ping pong competition deathzone :P

Edit: And a <<kick-knockback button>> , for eeehhh…. oppss :P

I totally support this idea.

I also like the idea that only stomp should give rally, and normal dps kill doesn’t give rally.

Only stomps giving a rally is a great idea but instead I propose something quite different. Instead of a pure rally you get a 20% heal buff while remaining in the downed state yourself. You res faster but are not immediately back up on your feet. This way the overall mechanic/dynamic doesn’t need a total rework. Of course you would still need to have damaged the stomped target beforehand. Perhaps applying a higher threshold to the damage required for a rally might work as well.

Oh, seeing that new pvp game modes are being discussed how about a game that most of us should be familiar with. Smear the….erm guy with the orb.

Two teams of 5 with a ball/orb in the middle. The trick is to grab the orb and toss it not to someone on your team but to someone on the other team. A ground targeted reticule should suffice. Once you are tagged with the orb a debuff appears where you take increasing damage from other players while you possess it.

No need to carry the orb to any predesignated area. Either stay alive or pass it. Team deathmatch with a twist I suppose.

edit – oh almost forgot. You win by getting the most orb carrier kills. Also if you “ground” the orb, meaning toss it to where no one is available the orb immediately resets.

well, try to think about this scenario, a bit unreal, but good example…

5v5 fight, one team are hard dmg dealers, second team are a bit more balanced builds…

dmg dealers manage to coordinate so each of them down one of other side and because they are good and have a lot of dmg, they do it…

meanwhile, second team wants to play more focused and because they have less dmg, they focus on 1 guy and down him as well…

this happens at +- same time, so 1 player from team 1 and 5 players from team 2 are downed…

looks like the end, or? but in that moment, those 5 downed players still focus that one downed from other team and because he is glass cannon, they manage to kill him before anyone is finished and BANG! all 5 are alive…

does it seems fair to you? 5 rallies from 1 lucky kill? i think this is much worse then what would happen if it were only 1 rally from 1 finish…

I agree with your assessment but how do you determine who gets that one rally? The guy closest to the stomp or the guy who did the most damage to the “stompee”?

Best way, imho, would be to give a +20% heal buff, while in downed state, to those who have reached a certain damage threshold on the target.

its a matter of choice and implementation severity, it could be the player who is downed the longest time or the player who did most dmg to finished one (and in specific range ofc, for both)… its not that important imo, important is to make it fair so 1 finish rally 1 downed, not all…

Well we can both agree that it needs to be addressed.

Dee Jay.2460:

Myrmidian Eudoros.4671:

Dee Jay.2460:

Anyway, anything that limits the impact of downed-state is a welcome change in my book.

Naw, man. Downed state is probably the most impactful, creative, team oriented element of design in this game. It is FAR from perfect, but is absolutely necessary in a game the features one-shot kills (or very nearly one-shot) and stun locks that can 100-0 you.

I disagree, the interesting part of combat is over as soon as one person is downed. Then it’s just the same old dance over and over again (depending on which class). Stomping every Thief is the same, stomping every Mesmer is the same and so it is with every other class as well.

And additionally, downed-state is a huge snowballing mechanic.

You’re fighting 2v1? Here, have a mechanic that makes it virtually impossible for you to fail.

Your zerg is larger than the enemy’s? Here, have an additional crutch by being able to revive even faster and easier than your enemy.

Downed-state is terrible in every PvP situation.

My personal favorite is when you down a warrior, and you go downed, and then he wins because lolvengeance.

Allie Murdock.8152:

This is definitely an interesting idea. I’m not 100% convinced it’d be good for all maps, but maybe it hints at a new game mode?

I want to add that ideas like this are what we’re looking for. Things that might sound crazy to some, or are outside of the box, are the ones that tend to spark ideas on our end. Of course, we definitely appreciate all kinds of feedback, but it’s great to see new suggestions like this.

Thanks for sharing!

Cool so maybe this could come to light in 3 years. ( I joke of course… or do I )

This “1 up 1 down” rule sounds very useful in WvW as well.

MaXi.3642:

well, try to think about this scenario, a bit unreal, but good example…

5v5 fight, one team are hard dmg dealers, second team are a bit more balanced builds…

dmg dealers manage to coordinate so each of them down one of other side and because they are good and have a lot of dmg, they do it…

meanwhile, second team wants to play more focused and because they have less dmg, they focus on 1 guy and down him as well…

this happens at +- same time, so 1 player from team 1 and 5 players from team 2 are downed…

looks like the end, or? but in that moment, those 5 downed players still focus that one downed from other team and because he is glass cannon, they manage to kill him before anyone is finished and BANG! all 5 are alive…

does it seems fair to you? 5 rallies from 1 lucky kill? i think this is much worse then what would happen if it were only 1 rally from 1 finish…

This scenario shows perfectly why downstate rallying is in its actual state not healthy, especially for competitive PvP, where luck should be reduced to a minimum. In the past tournaments there were enough situations of these. Sometimes cool to watch, but not rewarding at all for. Especially when you look at how little damage you have to deal to a person to rally from it.

Sorry, I have to break the harmony in this thread. While everyone seems to agree with the idea, I have to disagree.

Conquest itsself already lacks any kind of comeback mechanic, except for the guildlord on foefire. The linear point accumulation makes the gamemode already boring as the outcome of a match is predictable. The rally mechanic allows for comebacks and swings. One right decision can turn the tide of the battle. “Volatile” battles are great for both, players and spectators.

In League of Legends you can win a match by few smart decisions. Stealing Baron Buff or acing your opponents in the lategame may completely turn the match around. Sour losers will call denounce it as unfair and volatile, but the sudden shifts in the momentum make the game so great.

FirstBlood.7359:

Sorry, I have to break the harmony in this thread. While everyone seems to agree with the idea, I have to disagree.

Conquest itsself already lacks any kind of comeback mechanic, except for the guildlord on foefire. The linear point accumulation makes the gamemode already boring as the outcome of a match is predictable. The rally mechanic allows for comebacks and swings. One right decision can turn the tide of the battle. “Volatile” battles are great for both, players and spectators.

In League of Legends you can win a match by few smart decisions. Stealing Baron Buff or acing your opponents in the lategame may completely turn the match around. Sour losers will call denounce it as unfair and volatile, but the sudden shifts in the momentum make the game so great.

The origin of the problem you describe relies in the balance and 2nd objects, not in downstate itself.

Justin ODell.9517:

I really like this idea! Just sent an email to the team about it.

So… what’d they say?

FirstBlood.7359:

Sorry, I have to break the harmony in this thread. While everyone seems to agree with the idea, I have to disagree.

Conquest itsself already lacks any kind of comeback mechanic, except for the guildlord on foefire. The linear point accumulation makes the gamemode already boring as the outcome of a match is predictable. The rally mechanic allows for comebacks and swings. One right decision can turn the tide of the battle. “Volatile” battles are great for both, players and spectators.

In League of Legends you can win a match by few smart decisions. Stealing Baron Buff or acing your opponents in the lategame may completely turn the match around. Sour losers will call denounce it as unfair and volatile, but the sudden shifts in the momentum make the game so great.

Well, when I am outnumbered it would be nice to make a comeback by killing one of the enemies, making the fight a bit more even.

And killing Baron/making an Ace requires a set up. From the whole team. Not ressing/stomping a few frames faster.

A game that is too much volatile is a random game.

You say I should be punished because I got myself into a 2v1. But I have already been, because I have to fight 2 enemies.

And comebacks in teamfight are a matter of fractions of seconds. Most of the time is about luck.
And pushes riskier gameplays out of the window, because if you can’t afford to stand still the time needed to stomp someone, you are useless.

Ad what about the abilities that just make you lose time (thief, mesmer)?

Erebos.6741:

Justin ODell.9517:

I really like this idea! Just sent an email to the team about it.

So… what’d they say?

It’s been 5 months and nothing has come of it. I think that’s pretty obvious.

Angriff.1935:

I’ve felt for a long time that team fights in sPvP have been far too volatile. Things happen too quickly and momentum shifts are extremely common.

Momentum shifts are the part of PvP that make it fun. Without those shifts one team would just dominate the whole way. Not sure why you’d want that.

Momentum shifts?

You mean momentum building? Because the first team to get a down also gets all their people rallied once they finish, maintaining their momentum.

Justin ODell.9517:

I really like this idea!

Allie Murdock.8152:

This is definitely an interesting idea.

What do you guys like about the idea?

Could it be you agree rallying is too volatile, i.e unpredictable; not intuitively traceable, and/or “stupid”, meaning it contradicts good game design?

How is it stupid? Considering games are designed for entertainment, how does it hamper fun?
Could it be because fun is the result of rewarding outcome proportional to the hardship spent? Whereby the difficulty of reviving is generally easier compared to downing players?
Or because rallying is triggered by a decisive objective? Meaning it’s basically a bonus as defeating players is already incentivized so players don’t need to go out of their way (see hardship).

Thats an really amazing idea. It would make things much fairer.