Guild Wars 2

matjazmuhic.1649:

I used to argue that down state was important and needed and all that. But now I’m just starting to think that it’s a bad excuse for letting people make stupid mistakes.

That’s exactly it, down state is not needed

Advocates will tell you it adds strategy/etc (like we didn’t already know), but seem to forget (or fail to realize) that this strategy is not unique to downed mechanics, and can be inspired by alternative means.

The problem is down state reaps fun for fun, but what if I told you you could have comparative fun without any cost?

- And you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think down state trades fun.

IceBlink.4317:

Next thing you know, people will be asking for the removal of the ability to resurrect people unless they specifically slot a skill for it.

Yep, I made up perfectly valid points of contention because I secretly want to change the game formula to replicate WoW…

Or you know, there could actually be something wrong with the mechanic – indifferent to any assumed fix/suggestion.

Soja.5918:

ANet has monetized the downed state via finisher items on the gem store.

It can be safely said that it is not going away.

I get what you mean.
Their commitment discourages the likelihood they would completely remove down-state from PvP (though not impossible ;P ).

Personally I would settle for the map option to toggle it off (even though I love the strategy involved in resurrecting/finishing players), because it rewards negative play – effectually punishing good play, lowers combat potency/influence and removes skill as a determining factor of combat: not fun.

I know balance is practically unobtainable in the genre, but down-state is a shackle to the cause.

Ronah.2869:

Down-state is GW2 unique feature.

It is really innovative feature.

Conceptually similar to preexisting game mechanics – undeserving of this praise.
Also originality isn’t justifiably inherently praiseworthy.

Ronah.2869:

It won’t go away.

And there are space ponies on Mars.
Neither of our claims have any truthful credibility.

Ronah.2869:

And it gives a heroic feeling when you succeed and rally up.

Not everyone feels this way, and this success is mostly determined by allying players.

Ronah.2869:

If you don’t want to use it, just let yourself get killed, but let others fight for their survival if they prefer.

Down-state is a fixed passive effect. The choice to use it or not has never been an option.

Wanderer.3248:

Downed state is fine. You have to learn how to use it.

Arrogant much?

Azraelle.1683:

I hate it. kittened mechanic for casuals. Death is already very forgiving in this game.

Casual =/= bad.
Casual employees aren’t necessarily less qualified/productive than full-time workers, they simply prioritize their time elsewhere

Erebos.6741:

Daffern.4213:

Remove the need for a target when casting smoke screen.

To clarify, turret overcharges such as Smoke Screen don’t require a target for skill activation, rather the effect activation requires a target due to the way overcharges work.

Overcharges enhance/replace the turret’s regular bolts, meaning the effect won’t activate until the time the turret fires.

(This explains why Cleansing Burst differs in that it works without an enemy target, because Healing Turret targets you and your allies.)

This lack of effect activation control makes overcharge skills unreliable (including Cleansing Burst), so don’t be so quick to detonate/pick up!

A simple yet effective solution is to allow overcharge skills to reset turret rate of fire upon skill activation.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/engineer/Flame-turret-Smoke-screen/first

Addressing your suggestion Daffern, removing Smoke Screen target requirements for effect activation is a fine idea, as it’s effect isn’t target dependent.

So what are the ramifications to removing this dependency?

Well when you consider scenarios where this would be advantageous, the dissociating factor is of offensive cause, meaning the only times where target-independent-Smoke Screen becomes useful is when using the ability for aggressive means.
E.g. Combo finisher > Stealth: Surprise attacks.

Stealth is the exception to this rule, as characters in stealth can not be targeted; inventing unique defensive strategy!

Whether this change is warranted?

There are too many elements of profession design for me to consider in order to derive a conclusion (it would be easier to practically test and judge by feeling), but I have a feeling it wouldn’t hurt/further imbalance profession individuality

To clarify, turret overcharges such as Smoke Screen don’t require a target for skill activation, rather the effect activation requires a target due to the way overcharges work.

Overcharges enhance/replace the turret’s regular bolts, meaning the effect won’t activate until the time the turret fires.

(This explains why Cleansing Burst differs in that it works without an enemy target, because Healing Turret targets you and your allies.)

This lack of effect activation control makes overcharge skills unreliable (including Cleansing Burst), so don’t be so quick to detonate/pick up!

A simple yet effective solution is to allow overcharge skills to reset turret rate of fire upon skill activation; installing control; eliminating frustration!

For those of you who don’t know, after an Engineer places a turret the utility skill is then replaced by an “overcharge” ability which enhances the turret’s fire for a limited duration.

My problem however is that the enhancements trigger from the turret’s regular bolts, meaning the skills won’t activate until the time the turret fires.

This makes overcharge skills very unreliable as the rate of fire intervals extended periods of time.

This has probably been suggested before, but I think it would increase the overall enjoyment of these skills and credit their use if activating them reset the rate of fire; triggering the effect instantly or after a short animation time.

Also I understand the rate of fire is bugged for all turrets – not adhering to the tooltips, as highlighted in Anymras’ post:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/engineer/BUG-Turret-Bugs-compilation

Thank you for reading and feel free to discuss!

Aside from Healing Turret I completely agree with you!

I don’t see any reason why picking them up needs a cool down!

Edit: I forgot to account for damage. I see now that the cool downs are warranted thanks to Milo.

[+1] – Atherakhia & Tatsuo!

Bil.6354:

Edit: Neural’s name did not show up for the quote.

I’m not sure if this was the problem, but you have to enter a new line before the quote for it to register their name.

That goes for most things too. If it didn’t work, enter an empty line above

Zacchary.6183:

I see alot of people complaining that there is a major lack of balance in this game. The story usually turns out as the original poster recently getting outplayed by something, perhaps multiple times in a row, which irritates them enough to make the player log onto the forums and post their complaints. Bandwagoners and anyone else with a small personal vendetta jumps in to support the poster as well.

The term that’s almost guaranteed to be used in this kind of thread is “overpowered”. To reinforce their point, they will use “lack of balance” that “doesn’t reward skill” in “1v1”.

I just wanted to check before jumping to conclusions, but are you implying people who cite this terminology in reference to anything GW2 are deluded in opinion?

Because I strongly object to that notion, in-fact I’m taking it as a personal insult!

Just wanted to clarify before further posting ^^

Age is not a determining factor of good/fun design.

A grasp of what constitutes fun and the knowledge of limitations (e.g. programming, math, etc), combined with meticulous thought make up the sole requirements for good game design.

And all this talk about Ultima Online I feel the need to advertise:

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/

A new game in development by the creator and some co-developers of the Ultima series, with accepting and ongoing contributions from the community.

Forums are developed as a way to help pass information – extending to criticism.

Are you implying that because ArenaNet has done a-lot of things right with the game that we should overlook the bad?
Because that’s condescending in attitude and doesn’t serve to better the game.

Compliments are important to reinforce good, but they don’t hold correctional value if the subject matter isn’t wavering. So while not expressing gratitude may be rude, it doesn’t necessarily go to demote anything (it’s hard, but sometimes saying nothing at all is the biggest compliment of all!).

But for the record:

Thank you ArenaNet for the love and devotion you guys and girls dedicated your time towards. Making and sharing this simply stunning game – which I personally find enjoyable on so many levels!
I can’t even begin to imagine the wealth of time, effort and passion that went into this masterpiece of an interactive experience!

It is because of this commitment that they open themselves to the slings and arrows that come with criticism, because they truly care, even if it doesn’t always seem that way.

Chorazin [+1] – (Would plus again )

Excellent example!
I understand why you exclusively hate the rally mechanic; because it punishes good play outside of your control.

Maintaining control is definitely a virtue of competency, but even though your team is able to subside the biased nature of reviving, the comparative ease can still counterbalance the reward of effort it takes to down players.

I also see how your team may take advantage of reviving to help overcome stacked odds; promoting the weight of skillful players to overcome disadvantage, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that reviving doesn’t always trade equal risk to warrant the reward.

Note that I’m not suggesting to remove anything, but when you expense players you put their enjoyment on the line.

Do you agree reviving is poorly designed in this regard?

Nova Stiker.8396:

Erebos.6741:

Nova Stiker.8396:

ArenaNet

compliment and expand the range of abilities and tactics available to each profession.

ArenaNet wants to add various play styles to the game.

I just wanted to highlight “indirect means” of effectively buffing under-powered play styles; you can buff things through nerfing other things.

Not saying the OP didn’t get this, only not everyone might consider it when evaluating their opinion.

-_-

1. This thread has nothing to do with balance.
2. Evaluating their opinion on what?
3. You cannot buff or nerf a play style, last time I checked, you cannot buff/nerf thumbs. You can change it’s effectiveness with damage/range/control etc. But that is not what this thread is about.
There is a difference between build diversity and play style diversity.

Oh really? Wow OK.

Than I want my Engineers play style to be that of a leading damage, support type, control inducing, high mobility and durable style. You know, like The Terminator.

But never-mind balance, everyone can just flock to Engineers because they like the play style.

Nova Stiker.8396:

3. You cannot buff or nerf a play style, last time I checked, you cannot buff/nerf thumbs. You can change it’s effectiveness with damage/range/control etc. But that is not what this thread is about.

“Changing effectiveness” is buffing/nerfing…
I didn’t think that was such a hard concept to grasp.

Nova Stiker.8396:

2. Evaluating their opinion on what?

Uh, how about elements in designing their play style?

Nova Stiker.8396:

There is a difference between build diversity and play style diversity.

Build diversity (traits and utilities) defines play diversity. Not all play styles are equal, and this is where balance dictates.

I was trying to buy you a /bump, but you’ve undone the gratitude.

You can continue fighting the logic all you want, but don’t expect any more replies from me.

Nova Stiker.8396:

ArenaNet

compliment and expand the range of abilities and tactics available to each profession.

ArenaNet wants to add various play styles to the game.

I just wanted to highlight “indirect means” of effectively buffing under-powered play styles; you can buff things through nerfing other things.

Not saying the OP didn’t get this, only not everyone might consider it when evaluating their opinion.

Gehenna.3625:

My view has always been that the downed state and dodge mechanic are too powerful in combat in comparison to the skills you have.

Hello Gehenna and thanks for your feedback
You are right in that the power of abilities is relative to the ease at which they can be countered (basically balance in a nutshell).

Dodging for example has a degree of difficulty in proper execution.
Its quality is that of proactive defense, which is the most skill affording (and therefore should be the most rewarding) defensive type.

When analyzing the contrast of effectiveness you also have to consider the cost/risk of execution, and so the question arises whether the cost of dodging is comparative to the cost of the attacks it counters.

tl;dr: Risk : Reward

I could write a large essay on the merit of GW2 abilities, but my focus for this thread is only directed at mechanics which encompass down-state; some other time maybe

Gehenna.3625:

When it comes to the downed state, I at some point realised it was an integral part of combat and it was an expected part of it. To me, however, getting downed doesn’t feel heroic if it happens a lot. It should not be an expectation but an exception in my view. And this is were I felt it was not a good mechanic.

To me, being downed should be a warning that you are not playing your class right or are undergeared for your level, not a part of your tactics. And as it’s expected people often will just assume the problem is not themselves. I am really not against people having to learn something and the way downed works, gives me the feeling it gives people an excuse not to learn.

Cause of course if you are completely down, it’s the other players’ fault for not ressing you on time…

Counter-objective to combat, down-state rewards the failing side with resurrection capabilities – poor design.

DJSkittles.7196:

If they decide to remove it from tpvp, than they might as well just add some more pets and passive effects so that there will be absolutely no difference in skill level between a rank 1 and a top tpvper.

my 2 cents.

That’s cute considering down-state is a passive effect and further serves to close the skill gap between players as it both lowers combat potency and rewards inferior play (rally/revive)!

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

Dendail.4896:

My main two arguments is I feel it is very annoying chasing around the downed players that you have already ""beaten"" just to finish them off.

down but certainly not defeated, yet.

Everyone knows down-state isn’t the end combat…
The point is that Dendail feels it redundant to continue fighting handicapped players as they’re practically already beaten!

Also aiding to down-state not being the end of combat, means skill isn’t a determining factor of combat! Because it can’t afford equal viability for the downed player!
This belittles combat and undermines fun and fair play from both player perspectives.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

if you cannot finish what you started, perhaps it is better that you do not start at all?

[sarcasm]

Great advice!
If the difficulty in defeating players is set too high due to a bias in the ratio between survivability and damage to net this result, run away and regroup and/or focus on other objectives ^^

[/sarcasm]

(FYI I know you meant not to play at all… terrible and arrogant opinion, in my opinion.)

Oh and before telling me things I already know (such as “he/she could still somehow rally/revive” – which I already addressed a negate for), how about you acknowledge differing points for a change!
You can start by replying to my thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Down-state-Evaluation/first

Also Dendail, this thread has a wealth of opinions regarding down-state which I think you might be interested in ^^

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

Erebos.6741:

How do I get you to see to reason?

it is the other way round.

You haven’t even presented reasoning for your claims!

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

Erebos.6741:

I’m happy to argue this case. Please present an argument or counter to my premise.

there is no reason to in the first place. there is no need to fix what is not broken.

“No reason”? Are you kittening kidding me?
I’ve provided abundant reason!

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

Erebos.6741:

I am hugely competitive and play to have fun. Down-state prevents this for me; it’s not my intention

down state is part of the game and if you cannot handle it. perhaps it is not meant to be. maybe you need accept that fact.

You’re right! I can’t handle the game (PvP) if down-state isn’t amended, as it undermines my values of fun and fair play to keep interest.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

team work.
strength in numbers.
covering each other.

there is no glory in solo death.

These accusations don’t even warrant an exchange of opinion because you failed to provide any premise to legitimize their validity!
Nevertheless I’ll show you the courtesy:

• Team work doesn’t rest on the intricacies of down-state mechanics… So what’s your point?
• Strength in numbers... It’s vague, but I guess the point you’re trying to make is that down-state is good because it promotes (or rather enforces) potency through number of players (scaling bias towards numbers).
  How that’s a good thing I do not know.
  How it’s a bad thing however, is because it unfairly disproportions individual combat potentiality, which discriminates against fair play and promotes zerging, which makes for hard to follow combat which is less appealing for both players and viewers alike which is bad for business.
• Covering each other is good team play. That goes without saying. But I guess I already countered your potential premise of team work to reject the need for down-state.
• “There is no glory in solo death”. Even though I don’t see how this lends credibility to down-state, I disagree with it anyway! Because there is dignity to be had in both winning and losing against fair challenges, and based on my premise that down-state is unfair, I guess you have a point!

How arguments work:

The onus was foremost on me to provide logical evidence for my claims as to prove down-state is of poor design, and therefore necessitates change!

The burden is now on the contrary to either critically counter my premise (points of reason), or concede to my argument.

Tips for discounting my premises are to either logically disprove/exploit falsehood and/or explain why it is of meek value or interest.

Daishi.6027:

IMO rangers regen wayyyy to much, and sword/dagger has access to to much doge.

Huh… I never saw many sword wielding Rangers at the end of my time. I felt special in this regard ^^
Even had an Elementalist ask me for my build once hehe.

Tobbygnome.6793:

PS: I am from Adelaide too o/ it is quite cold and rainy atm isn’t it :P i love rain tho.

Heck-yeah it is!

I prefer the cold though because I grew up without air-conditioning ; it was easier to warm-up through layers of insulation in the winter than it was to cool-down by whatever means available in the summer ;P

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

Erebos.6741:

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

GW2 is not the right game for you if you think that class-skill is important. It’s more about rotation and movement.

What is combat without “class-skill” as you so put it?

Watch all the necros rerolled, because A-Net failed at balancing this class and see how effective they are. The player itself has not even have to be good. Why? Because GW2 supports the idea of spamming skillz rather than using them for the right situation. Why? Because there is no energy-management behind it.

Oh I see what you mean now

Yeah I kind-of agree with you to an extent.
While I’m not sure what the core of the problem is, I understand your argument to mean the risk : reward ratio of some Necro-centric abilities, in that correlating with the network of other Necromancer skills, they are perceived to be overpowered as compared to other professions.

Am I right in my assumption?

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

GW2 is not the right game for you if you think that class-skill is important. It’s more about rotation and movement.

What is combat without “class-skill” as you so put it?

Bil.6354:

Great thread

On behalf of everyone involved, thank you!
Personally it inspires me to continue about my message :’)

Bil.6354:

My major concerns about downed are:

- downed and stomping skills are not balanced at all
- rally often feels pretty random (its doesn’t even account how low you got in downed state) and is pretty overpowered (you can go on bashing/using skills the moment you got up, there is no penalty for being downed at all)
- it massively favors the bigger group (this is mainly a wvw concern)
- being in downed state is outright boring for some classes, without the ability to show any skill

I think some more defensive options are needed as well, imo gw2 puts way too much emphasis on (burst) damage, with downed giving the illusion of longer fights.

I gave your concerns considerable thought as I do all contentions (to lower my bias), but the only logic I can at best question is:

Bil.6354:

- it massively favors the bigger group (this is mainly a wvw concern)

While true, are you implying it’s not a prioritizing issue in SPvP?
Because I believe it also plays a forcible influence in this setting.

and:

Bil.6354:

- being in downed state is outright boring for some classes, without the ability to show any skill

Just “some” classes [/lol]?
I get that you don’t literally mean “any skill”, but down-state capability is trifling in comparison to any professions before-state ;P

Thank you for your contributing to the thread!

p.s. So much for lowering my bias xD

Shar.3402:

Grackleflint.4956:

Because you don’t balance the game around the 1%, that’s why.

You actually balance a game based on classes used at their full potential by people with opposible thumbs.
Otherwise, warrior’s bull’s charge+frenzy+100b would have been removed from the game like 10 months ago with all the people whining. (just as an example.)

I think you mean “should” here, as ArenaNets actions haven’t afforded them the philosophy to balance for fun (this affects players of all skill competencies), netting them this trust.
/Burn!

This is also important for the spectators, as even though they may not have the wealth of ability the competitors do, they help provide the money which helps promote the competition.

On an aside-note, this is another reason why it’s important to maximize depth vs complexity: so inexperienced people can still follow and appreciate the extended ability of the professionals

I got your back Grackleflint

Oh and FYI, I don’t think that’s a good example, but I’m still using it to purpose my point :P

Velron.3729:

edit : re-reading the post I see that was your point as well. Good stuff.

Thank you!

You can add Revive, Rally and Stomp mechanics to the list; basically the whole Down-state.

Lordrosicky.5813:

Being able to res yourself is just broken.

It does lend itself to being overpowered, doesn’t it? ^^

EoNxBoNx.9213:

Shadow Refuge is a great skill to be used for reviving it really is, But it is not an instant revive, say Illusion of Life, or Signet of Undeath or Warbanner. The thief or teammates still have to actually revive that downed player, and that is the difference.

Yes those are more potent skills, aren’t they?

Phantaram.1265:

Resurrection is effectually stronger than any of your other disagreements! As the ease at which players can revive is conditionally more rewarding than alternative strategies at the given times.

jmatb.6307:

I think eliminating passive crap from PvP will instantly make the game more polarized between good and bad players, which favors people who actually earn their production.

[+1] – I worship this opinion

I just also wanted to point out:

Down-state triggers passively...

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

Erebos.6741:

How would it affect your enjoyment of GW2 PvP if they quadrupled the base HP of all professions?

if overall damage of all professions is quadrupled as well then i dun see any problem.

But damage isn’t quadrupled in my example.
So you admit quadrupling HP would be a problem:

How is it problematic?

CrossedHorse.4261:

I think the downed state is interesting in PvP precisely because it is unbalancing in its very nature.

More precisely I think down-state is interesting because the strategy involved in managing a side-objective (downed player) can be very fun depending on the skill involved in successfully coming out on top.

While the fun aspect of down-state rests on a crippled player – influencing new strategy and counter-strategy, it doesn’t have to unfairly punish said player.

So I think you’re both right and wrong. Take from my that what you will.

CrossedHorse.4261:

The competition is now not simply about that overly strong team or that one very skilled player (though both are completely capable of triumphing and most likely will, but it will give them more of a challenge which can’t be a bad thing, surely?).

Are you implying combat potency is demoted to the point as to accelerate other means of winning the match? Because I feel the demotion isn’t warranted/needed.

I ask because this follows the logical consensus adhering to lessened “skilled player” value in regard to down-state aka combat, but not overwhelmingly so to supersede their worth.

CrossedHorse.4261:

There are elements of risk/reward and wild card revives thrown into the mix, which means you can’t just look at the team list and go “oh, no point playing” etc. There’s always the chance you could pull off a victory because of the downed state, and I like that.

I think the risk unfairly licenses the reward, degrading skill as a determining factor of combat.
What do you think?

CrossedHorse.4261:

I can see why it seems like this could be putting skilled players at a disadvantage, but think of it as just one more skill to learn and to improve upon – how to effectively manage the downed state.

I don’t think it lowers their vantage at all, as all players are subject to the same system, but I do think it robs individuals of their combat potential.

CrossedHorse.4261:

That said, I do think it would make it better if a suicide option were available to those in the downed state. This goes for PvE as well – there have been many times when I know there’s no hope of me getting up (like soloing a champion for instance – no one to help and he’s still got 3/4 of his health bar full) and I just think it would be better if I could just get back to a WP now.

I think down-state imbalances combat at the mechanical level, and thus revamping should supersede in preference.

Sorry for my harshness, I’m just stern in my opinion – supported by the weight of my argument.

I can’t stress enough how much I value your assessment!
Please don’t let it deter you

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

Erebos.6741:

How would it affect your enjoyment of GW2 PvP if they quadrupled the base HP of all professions?

if overall damage of all professions is quadrupled as well then i dun see any problem.

How do I get you to see to reason?

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

anyway, downed stated, reviving from downed, reviving from defeated, stomping, etc are all important features of this game.

I’m happy to argue this case. Please present an argument or counter to my premise.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

those people who keep on asking for their removal, should stop.
just play the game the way it is meant to be played.

Have you no sympathy?
I am hugely competitive and play to have fun. Down-state prevents this for me; it’s not my intention

Tater.3506:

The downed State is one of many reasons I quit playing this game.
ArenaNet can “Love” The downed state all they want, Its not going to make me Hate it any less, Downed state is Unbalanced and Game breaking to me and Unless it is either changed in a way that makes the game more balanced or removed I will not be coming back, There are plenty of other games I can enjoy instead of wasting time “just rolling with it” and Im sure there are plenty of other people just like me, so If ArenaNet doesn’t mind losing that chunk of its players then by all means, keep on loving it all you want.
Just my take on it.

I feel exactly the same way as Tater.

LHound.8964:

The down state mechanic imho is very good mechanic badly applied!

Judging by the rest of your post I assume you only mean reviving.

Down-state is basically passive defense because it triggers without player input and serves to mitigate damage.
- The rally, reviving and stomp mechanics are all technically child objects of this parent.

So referring to down-state can also mean any of these mechanics, as they rely on down-state to coexist

LHound.8964:

What do you think?

I agree with Bil in that I find it interesting.

To reiterate your suggestion, the idea to double abilities as modifiers to combine effectiveness sounds like a cool design concept!

My problems however are the awkwardness of pressing the key combinations – but this can be mitigated through macros, and ArenaNet would have to redesign their entire combat structure around it :P

This is also kinda similar to the system in Magika, where they eliminate the awkwardness through queuing of elements – so I can’t accredit you total ingenuity

LHound.8964:

As a final remark, i honestly like the Downed State mechanic. However the easiness of the players to revive the others is really depressing! Sometimes it required hard work to kill a player and to be revived with no cost… Rage….

So true

And don’t forget self-rehabilitation through rallying! Player skill has never before been so well rewarded - hehe

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

team work.
no solo glory here.
strength in numbers!

Take to the following extreme as an example:

How would it affect your enjoyment of GW2 PvP if they quadrupled the base HP of all professions?
- I’m guessing negatively. But why?

It’s hard to define the feeling, but this is due to the low damage ratio which affects combat potency; belittling your effective measure

The point is to accredit player volume.

Torqueblue.1945:

the risk that is involved to res someone or me is not worth it,

The risk is plenty warranted over other strategy when able, and players are more than capable of reviving.
If conditions excel beyond that capability, than it would be wise not to undertake in the task.

Torqueblue.1945:

ESPECIALLY ressing me.

It’s disheartening knowing the shortcomings of others, especially when they were trying to help/do right, and worse still when you were partly accountable.

I think we can all relate to the frustrating loss of independence that comes with the mechanic.

Cymric.7368:

When you are down, you can still affect the fight some what and contribute instead of just staying there dead and hope someone cast a resurrect on you.
Which do you prefer? Able to do something or able to do nothing?

Able to do something – of-course! ^^

The relating problem however is the degree to which you can affect the fight - it’s akin to being stunned or immobilized; disabled effectiveness.

Do you agree this is a problem?

Cymric.7368:

Yes, down state make it more difficult to win a 1v2 but when you are able to pull it off, the victory is even sweeter. If you are not able to finish, you don’t deserve the kill.

You couldn’t be more right!
I hope you’re not suggesting I implied otherwise

Cymric.7368:

Yes, reviving is very powerful however, it also put the reviver at a HUGE risk to himself. You are basically a sitting duck in that few seconds and if you can’t absorb that much damage, you are downed as well. Risk vs reward, I can’t count the number of times I am downed while trying to revive.

This is somewhat true, however because you can easily overcome the risk this nowhere near justifies the reward. This isn’t always the case however, and the degree of difficulty fluctuates depending on precursors.
Fixing this will also correct why reviving unjustly counter-objectifies the reward of outplaying/downing players

I’m happy to provide simple examples if you so wish

Cymric.7368:

Down state rewards teamwork, knocking off an opponent who is about to stomp an ally and then quickly reviving that ally is a very satisfying experience.

It seems you beat me to it!

Cymric.7368:

There are flaws in the down state though, such as different class have down states of different effectiveness, some are just not too good. The revival speed could also be slow down some, making reviving more of a risk.

I can’t stop agreeing with you!

All-in-all I mostly agree with your post, and for that I award you a like

Viking Jorun.5413:

Reviving downed allies is too much a part of team play and solo play. A tactic with one of my builds involvs casting a healing AoE right before I go down, teleporting out and getting back in the fight. It adds dynamic to an otherwise stale battlefield. When an enemy goes down, you make it your priority to make them stay down, and some classes like warrior excel at “res punishing”, or dealing heavy DPS to those attempting to revive allies to bring them down as well. I don’t know what this game would be without the downed state.

You raise a good point, and I recognize depth and strategy as added values.

I’m holding off on suggestions until my gripe is either invalidated or distinguished among the community, but I depict the changes would have to influence the underlying mechanics due to the reasons I present.

It is within the realm of possibility to adjust a fix with similar traits, and the possibilities for added depth and strategy are near-infinite!

Tigirius, while I agree standardizing downed skills would go a ways to increase balance, I also think the down-state places bias; imbalances combat at the mechanical level, and thus revamping down-state should supersede in preference.

I have a few questions intent on perplexing your opinion:

Erebos.6741:

Conan.8046:

Making it the same for all classes would probably be fair, how easy is it to stomp an engineer compared to a mesmer for example.

I agree with your logic, but do you also think it’s fair to reward negative play with reviving capability?

Doesn’t this go to counter-objectify the reward in outplaying/downing enemy players?

Isn’t this penalizing higher play by subjecting players to pain through inequity at no fault of their own?

And I’ll add – do you think down-state capability is as comparatively potent as non downed combat?

Edit: I just wanted to point out that while standardizing down-state would increase balance, I’m not sure I like that idea because I see diversity as a virtue to game combat.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

Erebos.6741:

(Kill stealing kittens hogging all the glory )

hmmm what kill stealing?

It was a joke to iterate my post about player merit

Great post Ratty! You communicated your points logically and clearly

To hopefully address most of these concerns, I’m going to reference a former response of mine targetting the same issues:

Erebos.6741:

Gandarel.5091:

Downed state is ESSENTIAL FOR PVP. Since we have no healers, if you get spiked, you can get downed in a blink of an eye. With downed state, your teammates can pick you up, thus surviving the spike.

Gandarel, are you asserting that it is too difficult (e.g. not well telegraphed) or beyond player capability to counter spike damage either or for sustained intervals?

Edit (to save you a reply):

If yes, than the core of the problem lies in the lack of player capability and/or failure in design to cater for human debility.

If no, than you got outplayed, which normally inflicts a penalty (death) to advantage the player towards winning the match, promote skillful play, and give meaning to/reward combat!

[rant]

Instead GW2 implemented down-state, which degrades the capability of the afflicted, which means the fight is biased; not appointing to skill! Or a corrupt loss due to unfair vantage set up by the downed player; also not pertaining to skill!

This demotes skillful play which in-turn degrades combat and befouls the fairness of competition.

[/rant]

Ratty.5176:

Without downed state, I feel that maps would also have to be far more spread out. To make up for the speed a team could clear a node and move to the next one.

You’re exactly right with your idea to counter map control! And I don’t know if you considered this but map size and objective times are also proportional to respawn time!

That is to say small maps where players are able to navigate objectives quickly are countered via larger maps or shorter respawn times! And larger maps like those in League of Legends warrant longer times to press the advantage.

I am genuinely impressed you noted such a correlation.

Edit: I’d be interested to hear if this complicated your favour for down-state

Hello again Deimos Tel Arin!

Firstly thank you for the feedback! I’m always appreciative of sharing opinions

So about my quiz. I focused on the restricted ability to defeating enemy players as the key motive for my hatred towards the state – a disability it attributes, and how the effectual satisfaction of the amount of players is relative to the difficultly.

The point I was trying to make is that I feel combat potency is lacking in regard to PvP – undoubtedly hindered by down-state.

I think this is because the difficulty in finishing combat is set too high to help distinguish and accredit the weight of players, a trait which would be further appreciated by the viewers.

(Kill stealing kittens hogging all the glory )

emikochan.8504:

And ofcourse “long battles are better” is subjective, just like “downed state is bad” is subjective.

It seems I got my wording or definitions mixed up hehe.
Sorry! And thank you for correcting me

What I meant to say is that “longer” battles don’t necessarily make them better, as value in this context is not directly proportional to longevity.

Edit: I forgot to mention. Regarding our conflict about the pace of play I reached a conclusion after pondering the question: Is slower pace a bad thing? And the answer is simply no; it’s subject to what the developers want, and only they can validate such a question.

- I was going to go over everything in my original post to show how my opinions developed over time, but yeah I hit the character cap pretty soon ;P
In hindsight it would have been nice if I reserved a followup post

p.s. I like your art

Vayne:

I guess the question is, are we talking about PvE or PvP. I wouldn’t care if the downed state was removed from PvP (it won’t be anyway), but in PvE, I think it would be a big, big mistake. If nothing else it adds drama.

Hi Vayne and thanks for the reply!

My grudge with down-state only extends to PvP, as it’s perfectly fine to imbalance players over NPCs with regard to combat.

Curiously, why do you think down-state won’t be removed from PvP?
Also, while I know you don’t really care, do you think down-state should be removed and do you think I’m warranted in my opinion?

Conan.8046:

Making it the same for all classes would probably be fair, how easy is it to stomp an engineer compared to a mesmer for example.

I agree with your logic, but do you also think it’s fair to reward negative play with reviving capability?

Doesn’t this go to counter-objectify the reward in outplaying/downing enemy players?

Isn’t this penalizing higher play by subjecting players to pain through inequity at no fault of their own?

Hi Elabas!

I’m sure I’m not alone in saying I agree with your suggestion for seasonal tournaments! But you probably haven’t received any feedback up until now because this suggestion is already somewhat recognized among the community.

I particularly really like your idea to implement statues of players in recognition of their accomplishments! As this is something affected players will likely remember for the rest of their lives! A nice and easy-to-implement reward if you ask me

Hello Dommmmmmmmmm,

I apologize for my suggestions as they weren’t well thought out at the time (I’m thinking of editing them out).
However, while I’m naively confident I could think of better alternatives, I’m currently more interested in sharing the idea that down-state is venomous to the game.

Dommmmmmmmmm.6984:

The only problem I really have with the down state is that some classes have HUGE advantages in the downed state compared to others, advantages such as Ranger, Mesmer and Warrior. God have mercy if you go downed the same time against one of them.

While I understand your concern, I believe that even if down-state was standardized in effectiveness across professions, if it still wrongly punishes play and reduces player capability it will continue to hinder balance/fair play.

Tater [+1]
Thank you and I couldn’t agree more!

I have also refined my argument to:

Down-state places vantage that can’t be overcome through the expediency of player tools and abilities (skill) and therefore impedes balance and fair play at the mechanical level.

This ultimately punishes players – making for less interesting play.

Terrahero.9358:

Balance it, or standardize the downed state giving everyone the same abilities.

Question!
- Do you think balancing down-state will by merit balance its influence over combat? And why?

Hint: This assumes down-states authority over combat somehow creates imbalance/bias.