Guild Wars 2

Please please please!!!! Once you realize how great this is in pvp…..

….Please please please bring it to wvsw!!!

It will make everyone happy! People will die faster! There will be less latency! Smaller groups will have more opportunities to whittle down larger zergs! Large zergs that trample their foes won’t have any survivors making it out alive (cause before they would go down and cancel any heavy aoe/traps placed on them cause of their invulnerability)!

Everyone wins!

I guess…..except if you happen to be in a lower skill bracket and rely on teammates to heal you when downed. Or alternatively you use a glass build with the intent that ur heals come from getting revived when downed.
Getting downed would punish ur teammates more, whereas before it would actually buff alot of them to ridiculous amounts. So I mean getting downed alot gives ur party alot of combat buffs presently (they cancel high damage aoe attacks as well remember)….so those buffs would be diminished.

Its kinda like: playing in a normal mmo or any game, having a party member decapitate himself on the spot randomly, and then as the blood trickles down everyone in the group getting buffed and the headless guy coming back to life 2 seconds later.

But I mean…….everyone can change how they play a bit to make it so they still win from this change. I think that qualifies it as a win-win still.

And then…hopefully if this change comes one day we’ll see rez’ing dead bodies go away too…..I mean can you picture them including rez’ing dead bodies to pvp?
I can….and it wouldn’t be as horrible as you might think. It would just play exactly like wvsw lol. Maybe then pvpers will make us see how stupid wvsw combat can be.

And maybe then we can have the stupid ooc nerfed from wvsw too (where you walk out of an aoe and you regen from 1% to 100% hp in 3 seconds). Just a crazy idea but maybe it can mimick whats ooc is like in pvp……just crazy idea i know. Just how easy and stupid it is to get ooc when you run in a large group….i cannot begin to explain to pvpers or myself why it exists in this fashion.

Downstate in general is a pretty bad mechanic outside of PVE so I support this.

roamzero.9486:

Downstate in general is a pretty bad mechanic outside of PVE so I support this.

^That sums up my feelings

Agreed. The Invuln mechanic on downed makes the thief elite that much more difficult to time.

roamzero.9486:

Downstate in general is a pretty bad mechanic outside of PVE so I support this.

I don’t mind the down state but I absolutely hate that players can get up over and over again. Players should get one down state every 2 min max. Course I hate the rez mechanic too… walk of shame if a player dies IMO.

roamzero.9486:

Downstate in general is a pretty bad mechanic outside of PVE so I support this.

Agree,i can see the point of it for pve and slightly for pvp.But not in wvw where the number of people in certain situations vary way too much to make downed state an reliable and fair mechanic.I can name dozens of situations i encountered myself where downed mode made me lose a fight i should have won, but i think most roamers especially ( the last few left.. ) already experienced this themselves dozens of times.And with the amount of ress bots in wvw it can be a frustrating experience having to lose an outmanned fight that should have been won because of downed state and ressing.

Might even see more people starting to roam around without downed state aswell since most soloers especially when seeing 2 – 4 people he would have fight,usually don’t do so because they know downed mode will prob mess it up in the end.Saving stabi,or quick stomping,cleaving isn’t always an option either.

@Straegen,also agree…Atleast make it so people just ress 2 times..instead of the 4 times they can get up before fully dying atm.

Active invulnerability are ok for down but the rng invulnerability when ppl just go down is very anoying.

PvE easy mode… most mobs you fight even in downed state you can kill one and get back up. In WvW though, you get downed, you just sit there looking like a fool, and basically provide the enemy a target where to AoE to see how many of their friends you can down while they try to rez him.

If you get downed once, no biggie, but if you go down a second time within 5-10 seconds, you should be doubled.

Although I agree the new pvp change to downstate is wonderful I just think it would bring more negatives than positives in pvp. When both sides have 5+ people downstate would be utterly useless and people may rally or be rezzed around 1% of the time. As for whether you like the concept of downstate as a whole, it is a part of the game , and I think just like condi we have to learn to play with it in the game.

In my opinion, downstate simply raises the skill floor of wvw. Sure it may be annoying when druids/engis/thieves are built as rezbots and just constantly ruin your fighting progress, but it forces you to adapt and bring reveals or launch the downed into a port stomp instead of just mindlessly cleaving. This mostly benefits organised groups which is the way it should be.

As for the non opinionated problems, finishing will be non existent in wvw which will hurt the servers with borderlands bloodlust as they won’t get as many points for stomping as they previously did. Servers that have good K/D ratios will suffer and servers that ktrain bl’s and have mindless map blobs will rise.

Also, skills and traits that are focused on downstate will become useless as well, which is a surprisingly large amount of the game. Of course I’m not talking about extra downstate damage but more so Warrior banners and every other classes rez utility for that matter, 10% reviving allies traits etc. Not to mention the rezbots i mentioned earlier would have their builds wiped out completely and lastly the third skill of downstate, well good luck trying to use it.

However, there could possibly be some ways to fix downstate while removing invulnerability. For example, perhaps doubling or even tripling downstate health while simultaneously doubling/tripling revive speed could give downstate players long enough to be rezzed in a zergfight if their team is organised while still making it that slight bit easier to cleave than before. Except this would be and issue for a solo roamer trying to 1v2, and doesn’t have enough stab to stomp and many other cases that it may cause more harm than good still.

In PvP removing downstate invulnerability is simple but in WvW there is just so many more variables to consider.

Sneaky Turban.6823:

Although I agree the new pvp change to downstate is wonderful I just think it would bring more negatives than positives in pvp. When both sides have 5+ people downstate would be utterly useless and people may rally or be rezzed around 1% of the time. As for whether you like the concept of downstate as a whole, it is a part of the game , and I think just like condi we have to learn to play with it in the game.

In my opinion, downstate simply raises the skill floor of wvw. Sure it may be annoying when druids/engis/thieves are built as rezbots and just constantly ruin your fighting progress, but it forces you to adapt and bring reveals or launch the downed into a port stomp instead of just mindlessly cleaving. This mostly benefits organised groups which is the way it should be.

As for the non opinionated problems, finishing will be non existent in wvw which will hurt the servers with borderlands bloodlust as they won’t get as many points for stomping as they previously did. Servers that have good K/D ratios will suffer and servers that ktrain bl’s and have mindless map blobs will rise.

Also, skills and traits that are focused on downstate will become useless as well, which is a surprisingly large amount of the game. Of course I’m not talking about extra downstate damage but more so Warrior banners and every other classes rez utility for that matter, 10% reviving allies traits etc. Not to mention the rezbots i mentioned earlier would have their builds wiped out completely and lastly the third skill of downstate, well good luck trying to use it.

However, there could possibly be some ways to fix downstate while removing invulnerability. For example, perhaps doubling or even tripling downstate health while simultaneously doubling/tripling revive speed could give downstate players long enough to be rezzed in a zergfight if their team is organised while still making it that slight bit easier to cleave than before. Except this would be and issue for a solo roamer trying to 1v2, and doesn’t have enough stab to stomp and many other cases that it may cause more harm than good still.

In PvP removing downstate invulnerability is simple but in WvW there is just so many more variables to consider.

Rez speed does not need any increases, that small window of invuln allowed classes such as Druid and Engie to instantly Rez people almost before it ended.

I only suggested increasing rez speed if you double/triple the downed health of players so that they wouldn’t get cleaved instantly from zergs and it wouldn’t take 7 years to rez someone because you have to climb through 50k health or something ridiculous. It would still give the same rez speed overall while making cleaving harder due to the invuln frame loss.

Sneaky Turban.6823:

In my opinion, downstate simply raises the skill floor of wvw. Sure it may be annoying when druids/engis/thieves are built as rezbots and just constantly ruin your fighting progress, but it forces you to adapt and bring reveals or launch the downed into a port stomp instead of just mindlessly cleaving. This mostly benefits organised groups which is the way it should be.

If we want the skill floor higher, no downstate and no rez would do that. What the current system encourages is numbers over skill. Having an invuln proc allows for zero counter play during that period and teams clearly build for it.

At the very least, stomp or Finishing Blow should go right through a downed state invuln.

Then there is how lopsided and unbalanced the downed state skills are. We have Rangers that can be nearly unkillable in the water and Eles that are nearly immortal next to a door.

Straegen.2938:

If we want the skill floor higher, no downstate and no rez would do that.

In what way could removing those components of the game possibly increase the skill floor? How is coordinating finishes with launches and blink stomps and revealing rez bots when they stealth downs easier than just killing the person? Hell, even stomping after killing someone requires more skill than just killing them and being done with it…

Umm no! I want my spikes! That is part of the fun in WVW keep your PvP – PvE trash out of here!

Sneaky Turban.6823:

In what way could removing those components of the game possibly increase the skill floor? How is coordinating finishes with launches and blink stomps and revealing rez bots when they stealth downs easier than just killing the person? Hell, even stomping after killing someone requires more skill than just killing them and being done with it…

It takes more skill to stay upright than get downed. The downed state allows less skilled players to essentially be carried by numbers or heavy bunkers. Also if a player enters a 2+v1, the one has virtually no advantage while 2+ have an extra health bar and bonus invuln.

Don’t even get me started on Rally (at least they made it better by limiting it).

Full resurrect limits strategy. All a zerg has to do is sustain (typically with numbers) to completely reconstitute their numbers. If dead players had to port, far more strategy could be employed particularly in out manned fights. Cutting off reinforcements would be a very important strategy.Taking an objective would give outnumbered defenders a tactical advantage that they lack today. I would not do this with current WP tag contesting system though.

Straegen.2938:

It takes more skill to stay upright than get downed. The downed state allows less skilled players to essentially be carried by numbers or heavy bunkers. Also if a player enters a 2+v1, the one has virtually no advantage while 2+ have an extra health bar and bonus invuln.

Don’t even get me started on Rally (at least they made it better by limiting it).

Full resurrect limits strategy. All a zerg has to do is sustain (typically with numbers) to completely reconstitute their numbers. If dead players had to port, far more strategy could be employed particularly in out manned fights. Cutting off reinforcements would be a very important strategy.Taking an objective would give outnumbered defenders a tactical advantage that they lack today. I would not do this with current WP tag contesting system though.

I don’t know where you are going with this but I’ll reply to this silly post nonetheless. Firstly, “2+v1, the one has virtually no advantage” well no kitten, you are trying to take on 2 or more people by yourself, were you expecting to get double your original damage and a free rally in case you go down? And saying they have a second health bar and invuln doesn’t make any sense at all. You have one too!

As for the full res strats, people have to be out of combat to do that now which you should be fully aware of. If a zerg is too stupid to realize people are hard rezzing at the back and don’t push, well it’s just simply their own fault. If you are referring to an outnumbered fight well then you can still pull them and split the group as it will take a long time for the enemy to get ooc and hard rez, there are heaps of ways around this.

Lastly, if you’re complaining about less skilled players being carried by rezbots you must be delusional. Worse players are always going to be carried by better players its just how the game works. Not to mention if we get rid of rezzing then why not get rid of healing too because its just the same thing right? Let’s solve this by removing all heal skills in the game, removing healing power and then let’s all just play thieves and have a blast.

@Sneaky Turban
I’m with Straegan and the others….I cannot follow ur logic at all. Everything you say, except the implied removal of hard rez abilities, is actually solved with the complete ‘removal’ of downed state from the mode. And even I’m not advocating for the complete removal of downed state in this OP…..I’m simply wanting a nerf to 1 component of it.

I could write some of this out, but it would mimick alot of what Straegan has already said. In which case you would just dismiss it as a “silly post”…

I’m forced to conclude that your viewpoints simply represent an opinion based on preferred playstyle.

Assuming you are correct in your deductions though there is still a defining problem:
What can a smaller force do against a large zerg if downed state is left in its current state? With server populations combined and presenting much larger scale spvp battles…..its become a real issue. The solution you stated was to divide and conquer. I have to point out though that everyone is fully aware that the only weakness of the blob is squirreling…..picking off the tail and breaking it apart a little bit at a time. It means that the solution to defeating a zerg is to prevent them from zerging…..lol. Its completely ludicrous.
Your next point would be that outnumbering ur enemy entitles you to an advantage. Take your 2vs1 scenario you spoke of with Straegan: 2vs1 without downed state would present scenarios with high skill floors where individual players are punished for poor moves. 2vs1 with downed state creates a low skill floor scenario where individual players are allowed to make poor moves without penalty. Or more precisely it presents numerous opportunities to negate any poor moves made by the larger force. Whereas the smaller force, when they make mistakes, they are not given a safey net….they are not given a redemption chance. Its really the fact that fighting outnumbered gives the larger force this advantage ontop of their already superior firepower, superior manpower, superior defense.

I mean did you not agree that limiting rally to 1 player per kill was not a good change months ago? If you did, how is this OP any different than that change? Surely this OP is a very very small nerf to downed state compared to rallying dozens of people off of 1 kill. Most of your points came from the idea that nerfing downed state ‘in any way’ would have a dramatic and horrible impact on the gamemode. Would you admit that there was/is exception to what you said?

I mean you’ve lost the debate at this point. If you agree to an exception there must be other exceptions not found or implemented yet….like the ones I’ve outlined in the OP. Meaning you CANNOT dismiss any potential nerfs to downed-state as gameplay ruiners as you originally stated.

And If you didn’t agree with that change months ago….
Well, I need only defer you to my original judgement.

GG

If you want to continue, your only option now is to claim my whole counter-argument is flawed and therefore invalid in regards to what you had originally stated. I wish you goodluck in doing so.

Cerby.1069:

@Sneaky Turban
Assuming you are correct in your deductions though there is still a defining problem:
What can a smaller force do against a large zerg if downed state is left in its current state?

He already said you have to keep pull the zerg moving and split them from their downs.

I have to point out though that everyone is fully aware that the only weakness of the blob is squirreling…..picking off the tail and breaking it apart a little bit at a time.

Ok, so you’re moving the fight and keeping the zerg from straight rolling over you with overwhelming numbers. This is pretty basic outnumbered stuff. Why clash head to head when you’ll get swarmed by goons?

It means that the solution to defeating a zerg is to prevent them from zerging…..lol. Its completely ludicrous.

If they can’t run over you all at once, you can win. That’s not ludicrous, it’s just smart play.

Your next point would be that outnumbering ur enemy entitles you to an advantage.

He didn’t say anybody was entitled to an advantage, there simply is one. You should almost never beat any competent players in a 1v2. That’s just how numbers work. 2>1.

Take your 2vs1 scenario you spoke of with Straegan: 2vs1 without downed state would present scenarios with high skill floors where individual players are punished for poor moves.

Or it just means the single is killed without a chance to come back through rallying off a guard or even downing both enemies and rallying.

2vs1 with downed state creates a low skill floor scenario where individual players are allowed to make poor moves without penalty.

If you’d properly pressure both opponents you could CC and down the rezzer when he moves to pick up his ally. If you apply no pressure and let them res each other you messed up, it’s not a problem with game mechanics, it’s a problem with your mechanics.

Or more precisely it presents numerous opportunities to negate any poor moves made by the larger force. Whereas the smaller force, when they make mistakes, they are not given a safey net….they are not given a redemption chance. Its really the fact that fighting outnumbered gives the larger force this advantage ontop of their already superior firepower, superior manpower, superior defense.

The problem with your statement is with the brief downstate invuln you DO have a “safety net” or “redemption chance”. Your allies can rez you if they are fast enough.

I mean did you not agree that limiting rally to 1 player per kill was not a good change months ago?

1 for 1 is how it should have been from the start. It encourages people using game mechanics (aka downstate and rallies) well to win outnumbered if needed.

If you did, how is this OP any different than that change? Surely this OP is a very very small nerf to downed state compared to rallying dozens of people off of 1 kill.

It’s really not. People would be cleaved out extremely fast with the much higher damage and CC in WvW without the brief invuln period. For example, Elementalists would most likely not be able to mist form without being cleaved out.

Most of your points came from the idea that nerfing downed state ‘in any way’ would have a dramatic and horrible impact on the gamemode. Would you admit that there was/is exception to what you said?

Down state is fine as it is. The reason it was nerfed in PvP was due to the particular meta that had come about with Scrapper and Reaper. If that meta duo hadn’t been so prominent it wouldn’t have been changed. But that is because in WvW the fights are almost always larger and not constrained to a point like sPvP. Not to mention stats are much higher and more fluid and balance is very different.

I mean you’ve lost the debate at this point.

No.

If you agree to an exception there must be other exceptions not found or implemented yet….like the ones I’ve outlined in the OP.

He didn’t agree to anything.

Meaning you CANNOT dismiss any potential nerfs to downed-state as gameplay ruiners as you originally stated.

This particular change would be bad for WvW, favoring the larger side who can easily rez a downed with their (in your own words) “already superior firepower, superior manpower, superior defense.”

And If you didn’t agree with that change months ago….
Well, I need only defer you to my original judgement.

The rally change is very different than removing the brief invuln.

GG

Indeed.

@Cerby
Alright well firstly it seems you really didn’t read my initial post all that well like the rest of the people replying so I’ll sum it up for you. The 3 large issues I had was: 1. Fighting Servers losing ppk due to not being able to stomp, 2. Making cleaving easier would lower the skill floor as you wouldn’t have to play around rez bots and other problems when people down and 3. Rez bots and other traits/skills would become useless and a portion of the game basically gets destroyed. These issues are the ones I want to discuss. However, since you want to focus on outnumbered fights I’ll play along.

The underlying point I want to get across is that in most outnumbered fights removing invuln hurts the smaller group more so than the larger group. The exception is that groups that don’t run support or rez bots or bunkers if you have a lot don’t make use of the invuln anyway, so why do they need it? Most of the fights that smaller groups win when outnumbered is due to having a heavy dps/condi comp and cleaving or using epi when they get a downed killing all the people trying to rez. This just simply wouldn’t work without the invlun, as the person would go from alive to full dead almost instantly. So you would be forced to try and kill larger groups 1 by 1 or land your aoe burst on the moving zerg, or perhaps a choke which still wouldn’t kill as many people because you wouldn’t get the extra downs from people that rez.

What you have been saying really just makes me think you don’t do a lot of outnumbered fighting. As for the splitting up a zerg, I don’t know what kind of godly pugs you must face but 90% of them from every server I have seen (which is a lot), love to chase more than anything. Even guild groups can’t resist splitting and chasing down a smaller group, I can’t even count the times I’ve been in a smaller group and pulled the enemies to a far away choke and only had to fight say 50% of the zerg and then just mop up the rest later.

The whole 2v1 thing is not what I want to talk about so I’ll make this quick. You are saying that people can down without a penalty because they just get insta rezzed, but this isn’t the case at all unless you are fighting a rez bot. Which, like I said earlier, can be played around with reveals but if it’s a normal person learn to use some CC or stab stomp. And it’s not like you can’t do anything in downstate, you can still kill them and rally if you get them low enough.

To answer your question about the 1 rally per kill of course I was in favour of that change. Although, these two changes are not in the slightest way similar at all. One rally per death was simple because it served one purpose and didn’t have other major effects on the game like the invuln does, again refer to the 3 points I made earlier. This change may be smaller than the one rally per death change, but it has far more impact on the game.

Lastly, you said “Most of your points came from the idea that nerfing downed state ‘in any way’ would have a dramatic and horrible impact on the gamemode. Would you admit that there was/is exception to what you said?” I don’t know where the ‘in any way’ came from since I’ve only been talking about the invuln change but since you probably didn’t read my first post I’ll just say what I said there.

Although I agree the new pvp change to downstate is wonderful I just think it would bring more negatives than positives in wvw.

Edit: I wouldn’t have written this if I saw how cinnamon put you down before I started.

I would prefer to simply solve it the other way – no ressing while invoulnerable.

The short breather you get while going down is required for WvW warfare due to numbers. PvP doesnt suffer this.

Waffle.3748:

Cerby.1069:

GG

Indeed.

Well that was just interesting to read.
The whole point of ur reply was to make me repeat myself….

Umm….okay, here ya go:

“GG”

Reread my original post… maybe upon a 2nd or 3rd read (or 1st read…im guessing u picked it apart before reading it fully a first time) you will realize you have not successfully disputed anything I wrote.
Your first point is a complaint I literally addressed in the next few sentences of my argument…..
You isolated every sentence i wrote and challenged it as a standalone thought. Normally this works to discredit some1 but not when you literally write what i addressed in the next few sentences.
Here ill give u an example anyone can understand:
I write: “The sun is really nice. But it makes me too hot. There is more sun than usual here”
You reply:
1. “the sun is really nice”
The sun is nice? what about how hot it makes you!!! this isn’t nice!!! its too hot to be nice!
2. “But it makes me too hot”
Well its not the sun’s fault! its always been like this and everyones always been fine
3. “There is more sun than usual here”
Indeed

My response is the exact same format, i get to repeat myself, i.e. there is definitely more sun here than usual (that means 2 things).

That’s not how you debate something, and its not how you win. Especially when my followup response doesnt even have to supplement my original response.

Sneaky Turban.6823:

@Cerby
Alright well firstly it seems you really didn’t read my initial post all that well like the rest of the people replying

Funny, from what I just read I was thinking the exact thing about you. Also, you can’t post multiple responses and say only ur first response can be replied to….forums dont work that way. I have nothing to add to what i wrote if you won’t even consider all the data.

If you want, go through everything in the thread again and make another reply. I’m more than happy to continue debating with you then. You can provide an insightful countering view, and we can develop a mutually beneficial dialogue on the OP.

Sneaky Turban.6823:

Edit: I wouldn’t have written this if I saw how cinnamon put you down before I started.

Cinnamon? Cinnamon…..now who that be….and why were ur and waffle’s posts both similar…..and why were they both posted near the same time….and why…..why indeed.
This is very interesting.

I think this supposed argument is over.

Cerby.1069:

Well that was just interesting to read.
The whole point of ur reply was to make me repeat myself….

I’m glad you enjoyed it. But no, that was not the point of my reply.

Cerby.1069:

Reread my original post… maybe upon a 2nd or 3rd read (or 1st read…im guessing u picked it apart before reading it fully a first time) you will realize you have not successfully disputed anything I wrote.

Except I did provide a counter-argument for every point. You, on the other hand, did not.

Your first point is a complaint I literally addressed in the next few sentences of my argument…..

You also dismissed the strategy of picking the zerg apart as ludicrous, while I told you why it was not.

You isolated every sentence i wrote and challenged it as a standalone thought. Normally this works to discredit some1 but not when you literally write what i addressed in the next few sentences.

I use this format because it allows me to use your own words, so there is no misquoting or misattribution. Everything is in it’s original context. All of the sentences and paragraphs I quoted bring up a particular point I wanted to dispute. Your example does not.

My response is the exact same format, i get to repeat myself, i.e. there is definitely more sun here than usual (that means 2 things).

I kept your thoughts cohesive and addressed them each individually. Had I quoted your example statement I would have told you that it’s a good thing you’re enjoying the scenery but if the sun is too hot, you should find some shade.

That’s not how you debate something, and its not how you win. Especially when my followup response doesnt even have to supplement my original response.

“GG” is also not how you debate someone. And it also does not supplement your original response.

Funny, from what I just read I was thinking the exact thing about you. Also, you can’t post multiple responses and say only ur first response can be replied to….forums dont work that way. I have nothing to add to what i wrote if you won’t even consider all the data.

You also complained about people not reading your original post right at the start of your reply. You can’t post multiple responses and say only your first response can be replied to…forums don’t work that way. Also you provided literally zero data. As in none. No graphs, numbers, polls, metrics, anything.

Cerby.1069:

If you want, go through everything in the thread again and make another reply. I’m more than happy to continue debating with you then. You can provide an insightful countering view, and we can develop a mutually beneficial dialogue on the OP.

Just for you, I did. You haven’t provided anything to counter a point or counterpoint I brought up. Your entire response was void of any counter-argument.

Cerby.1069:

Cinnamon? Cinnamon…..now who that be….and why were ur and waffle’s posts both similar…..and why were they both posted near the same time….and why…..why indeed.
This is very interesting.

Hi, that’s me. It is possible that more than one person can read something at the same time.
I guess you think I’m Sneaku’s alt or something.

Cerby.1069:

I think this supposed argument is over.

Again, that’s now how you debate someone. But I guess your own rules don’t apply to you.

@Cerby

By now you’re really just wasting my time. If you want to keep telling yourself you’ve won the debate go ahead I don’t care, just stop posting it in this thread.

You said I didn’t successfully debate anything you wrote, yet you didn’t give any examples where I failed to do this. Going back to the smaller group vs a larger groupas an example. I said that the smaller group needs the invuln more so than the larger group, and that everyone is not fully aware about what they are doing and constantly split off zergs therefore anwering your question about how to win when you are the smaller group.

As for the “posting multiple responses and say only ur first response can be replied to”. I just simply asked you to talk about my first post as it had more important issues in it than outnumbered fighting, yet you continue to ignore it.

I didn’t even see or know cinnamon was making a post. Not that you’ll believe me but it is quite funny to see how similar they are indeed, proving once again that we did debate you properly, and for whatever reason you’ve just gone completely off topic.
To me it almost seems like you have actually lost this debate.

Edit: Now that I posted this I see cinnamon beat me once again so the last part will be unbelievable for you which is a shame but oh well.

@Cerby, you do realize you’re arguing this with members of a guild known for their ability to fight outnumbered and win – regularly?

Sneaky Turban.6823:

Edit: Now that I posted this I see cinnamon beat me once again so the last part will be unbelievable for you which is a shame but oh well.

Well you are so much in sync one might suspect you’re a couple. Sure you’re not hearing your boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever facerolling a keyboard in the next room, lol?

Dawdler.8521:

Sneaky Turban.6823:

Edit: Now that I posted this I see cinnamon beat me once again so the last part will be unbelievable for you which is a shame but oh well.

Well you are so much in sync one might suspect you’re a couple. Sure you’re not hearing your boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever facerolling a keyboard in the next room, lol?

kitten Australians posting as I’m waking up.

Even long distance relationships works from time to time.

Dawdler.8521:

Even long distance relationships works from time to time.

Cinnamon has been cucking me hard lately. Are you free to hook me up with one of those gyros your signature may or may not suggest?

I just would like to say Cerby was the person that thought enabling Revive Orbs in WvW was a good idea.

/dropthemic

Sneaky Turban.6823:

Firstly, “2+v1, the one has virtually no advantage” well no kitten, you are trying to take on 2 or more people by yourself, were you expecting to get double your original damage and a free rally in case you go down? And saying they have a second health bar and invuln doesn’t make any sense at all. You have one too!

It is already hard enough to fight outnumbered. Why give the larger group a bigger advantage? Why should one player be able to continually down players in a fight only to see them brought right back up again? At the very least there should be a more reasonable limit on the number of times a player can be downed before they go straight dead. Four times in one minute is too difficult. 1 time in every 2 minutes at least to me is a reasonable compromise.

Sneaky Turban.6823:

As for the full res strats, people have to be out of combat to do that now which you should be fully aware of. If a zerg is too stupid to realize people are hard rezzing at the back and don’t push, well it’s just simply their own fault. If you are referring to an outnumbered fight well then you can still pull them and split the group as it will take a long time for the enemy to get ooc and hard rez, there are heaps of ways around this.

10 really good players go kitten deep into a zerg taking out 20 before they go down or retreat. In a minute or less, the zerg will completely reconstitute itself. Because of the res mechanics, there is little counter punching in this game. There is little strategic advantage to attacking a much larger force. Basically there is no way to whittle down a larger sieging army outside of showing up with comparable numbers.

If zergs couldn’t rez dead players, a small group like yours could actually defeat even the biggest of zergs by whittling them down. Skill would have a much greater advantage than it does today. Strong skirmish crews could actually wipe a full size zerg using skill and strategy. Sure that can happen today but it is far too infrequent and unnecessarily difficult.

Straegen.2938:

It is already hard enough to fight outnumbered. Why give the larger group a bigger advantage? Why should one player be able to continually down players in a fight only to see them brought right back up again? At the very least there should be a more reasonable limit on the number of times a player can be downed before they go straight dead. Four times in one minute is too difficult. 1 time in every 2 minutes at least to me is a reasonable compromise.

10 really good players go kitten deep into a zerg taking out 20 before they go down or retreat. In a minute or less, the zerg will completely reconstitute itself. Because of the res mechanics, there is little counter punching in this game. There is little strategic advantage to attacking a much larger force. Basically there is no way to whittle down a larger sieging army outside of showing up with comparable numbers.

If zergs couldn’t rez dead players, a small group like yours could actually defeat even the biggest of zergs by whittling them down. Skill would have a much greater advantage than it does today. Strong skirmish crews could actually wipe a full size zerg using skill and strategy. Sure that can happen today but it is far too infrequent and unnecessarily difficult.

As for the 2v1’s you’re not sticking to the original argument at all, which is the invuln on downed... That’s why we are here right? And even if you were spot on about the invuln in 2v1’s, why would they change such a big part of downstate just to cater for solo roamers? It doesn’t make too much sense.

As for the outnumbered fights I think it will be easier if I just link you a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNcC9YXH59A

tRex manages outnumbered fights just fine and so do many other guilds.

Sneaky Turban.6823:

As for the 2v1’s you’re not sticking to the original argument at all, which is the invuln on downed… That’s why we are here right? And even if you were spot on about the invuln in 2v1’s, why would they change such a big part of downstate just to cater for solo roamers? It doesn’t make too much sense.

Finishing Blow is already a difficult skill to time and even more so because of the Invuln on the downed mechanic. Stomps with Quickness often have the same problem. If stomps cut through the invuln, that would be a reasonable compromise to me in WvW.

Course if left it to me and the down state was required (stomping is fun I admit). I would triple the HP on the downed state then remove all the downstate skills, invuln and rally. The only way a player is coming up is from a teammate and powering them down would be difficult. I would at least like to try it for a week or two.

Sneaky Turban.6823:

tRex manages outnumbered fights just fine and so do many other guilds.

Solid guild groups do “manage” numbers and as I noted earlier sometimes wipe much larger zergs. However, fights would be far more intense and strategic if zergs had no ability to reconstitute dead players quickly. A skill group could easily grind down a zerg in short order and do it consistently. Zergs could no longer mindlessly crash into an objective and rez once the walls fell.

Oddly enough a no-rez system would make having downed skills and traits even more important. Keeping players from dying would be far more important.

Straegen.2938:

Finishing Blow is already a difficult skill to time and even more so because of the Invuln on the downed mechanic. Stomps with Quickness often have the same problem. If stomps cut through the invuln, that would be a reasonable compromise to me in WvW.

Quickness stomping was removed quite a while ago.

Straegen.2938:

Course if left it to me and the down state was required (stomping is fun I admit). I would triple the HP on the downed state then remove all the downstate skills, invuln and rally. The only way a player is coming up is from a teammate and powering them down would be difficult. I would at least like to try it for a week or two.

Solid guild groups do “manage” numbers and as I noted earlier sometimes wipe much larger zergs. However, fights would be far more intense and strategic if zergs had no ability to reconstitute dead players quickly. A skill group could easily grind down a zerg in short order and do it consistently. Zergs could no longer mindlessly crash into an objective and rez once the walls fell.

Oddly enough a no-rez system would make having downed skills and traits even more important. Keeping players from dying would be far more important.

As for the rezzing I’m really not convinced, 90% of pugs and even guild groups waypoint and run back if they die or their commander will yell at them for laying on the floor dead. Although, like I’ve said before, if they do start rezzing there are many ways to deal with this and I don’t see this as a problem if anything it hurts the zerg.

From what you’re saying it sounds like you are aware of the negative impacts of removing invuln on downstate, you just want to make modifications on it like being able to start stomping through invuln etc. So would it be fair to say that you are indeed in favour of keeping invuln on downstate as long as some modifications are made?

If so there is no real debate to be had here between us, as I have only strongly argued that invuln should be kept in wvw and haven’t really discussed any modifications to it, which I believe should be taken up in another thread.

Sneaky Turban.6823:

Quickness stomping was removed quite a while ago.

I guess so in March. Still leaves Finishing Blow and target change stomps out in the cold.

Straegen.2938:

As for the rezzing I’m really not convinced, 90% of pugs and even guild groups waypoint and run back if they die or their commander will yell at them for laying on the floor dead.

That certainly does happen in more even fights where zergs have a constant pressure. Those fights are fantastic (sans lag) in part because they cannot rez and reinforcements have to find their way back. This allows for roamers and havoc crews to cut off reinforcements, repairing breaches to cut off reinforcements, etc. A lot more strategy gets employed when a zerg cannot simply sustain an attack and reconstitute.

I really don’t understand why players want a hard rez. I can understand the downed state as a second chance mechanic, but hard rez’es suck fun out of the game mode and limit strategy. Some death penalty is a good thing as it creates a greater sense of urgency and ups the stakes even if it is mild.

Straegen.2938:

Although, like I’ve said before, if they do start rezzing there are many ways to deal with this and I don’t see this as a problem if anything it hurts the zerg.

Once a zerg is no longer under pressure, it can rez all it likes with no penalty. This happens all the time. For example, 15 players get dead’ed in a fight but the zerg wipes the other side. It then rez’es their players thus reconstituting as if nothing happened.

Lets face it, virtually every change ANet has made restricting downed and dead states has been positive. Removing Rally, getting one downed state every 2 min and forced port on dead IMO would make the system even better and open the door for more skillful play and less play by numbers.

Straegen.2938:

From what you’re saying it sounds like you are aware of the negative impacts of removing invuln on downstate, you just want to make modifications on it like being able to start stomping through invuln etc. So would it be fair to say that you are indeed in favour of keeping invuln on downstate as long as some modifications are made?

There is a difference between compromise and “in favor of”. I don’t like the mechanic but can see valid points for keeping it or something similar. My main gripe is that it makes an Elite that is already difficult to time properly even more so. I personally HATE the invuln system. I would rather a player get +3k toughness and do away with Invuln. Same for downed state.