Try to limit the amount of braindead and anti-fun CC that is stuns. There are better alternatives.

Dreoh wrote: »

Menda Goodbody wrote: »

I'm pro stun. I'm pro any combat moves in pvp. Why limit us?

Many others and I have provided many strong arguments why they should be limited. Please read more than just the title lmao.

@Dygz Both blind and fear are better than Stuns yes. You can still move while blinded. It's absolutely no different than the silence/disarm example from my original post. Of course extremes are never good, but arguing from the extreme is never a good argument anyways. Minute long blinds are worse than 2 second stuns as @Aerlana said.
I agree fear is not really fun but it's still better than outright stuns since you run away from the attacker and usually exit fear after taking damage.

@Tyranthraxus Nobody here is arguing against CC. This post is against stuns. If anything, this is an argument for more and more varied CC.

@veyrah None of what you said can't be done through other CC options, which was the entire purpose of my post.

@CROW3 So lets add broken limbs and concussions and your character becoming paraplegic. Realism only goes so far towards good game design. Stuns are not good game design in pvp. If you don't understand why, read the original post.

As for me overgeneralizing stuns? No, I absolutely am not. My entire argument is that stuns remove all player agency, which is against the core principle of playing a game. I recognize it could be an extreme opinion, but it's also very true that any scenario you give me where a stun would be needed could be replaced by other viable CC's that don't take away player agency.

Stuns are absolutely never necessary. Necessary means there's no other option. There are plenty of other options.

Also, Tradition is never solely a good argument for something.

Tl;Dr: People not reading the original post, and thinking this is an argument against all CC, or people having the opinion that stuns are necessary for some reason.

This person is just here to argue, not have an interesting discussion.

I offered a pretty good compromise I think. Make stuns depend on pre-apploed status effects. If a mage stun requires a burning status effect to work, the receiving player can prepare for it by either pulling back into his party, casting some cc shield (if he has one) or preemptively buffing defense or healing.

Azherae

RocketFarmer wrote: »

Biggest issue with these games is just how much size and scale matters.

A larger human combatant will have a more than distinct advantage in melee with all other things considered.

Introduce monsters and dragons and that size and scale leads to an even greater mismatch. A dragon would wipe whole parties with just a swing of its tail. Not even getting to its thermonuclear warfare breath weapon. The only possible advantage might be they don’t fight like humans/humanoids or have a limited attention span or ability to handle multiple opponents.

You could argue that despite their size and power dragons tend to “turtle” into a more defensive position, making them less optimal than they are when they are out flying around hunting or strafing cattle (or villages). But then maybe that dragon was bullied as a dragonling and you can’t really expect them all to behave the same way. Plenty of room for personality to determine how a creature might fight or when and why they might do so. Makes it interesting.

Yeah but depending on your game, this is just 'what actually happens' and the players are given more tools, skills, or agency to avoid it.

To use another FFXI example, Spike Flail (only need to follow the link if you doubt my explanation).

It's literally 'if you pull hate from behind the dragon it immediately does an attack that will probably kill nearly everyone behind it'.

Or from the Monster Hunter side, 'thermonuclear warfare breath weapon' is so relatively common that you just get used to 'making sure it either doesn't do it, or that you are well out of range/hiding behind something when it does'.

So I wouldn't say that the 'only' possible advantage is that they don't fight like humans. It's that the players don't fight quite like humans either (in that we can do massive healing spells, resist 50% of fire damage, or just 'not die when a 40 ton Wyrm swings its claw at your head, due to incredible armor')

veyrah wrote: »

Make stuns depend on pre-apploed status effects. If a mage stun requires a burning status effect to work, the receiving player can prepare for it by either pulling back into his party, casting some cc shield (if he has one) or preemptively buffing defense or healing.

Yeah - good idea. This reminds me of the environmental factors that can help with cc in Divinity: OS. For instannce, if there is water under the mob, and I cast a lightning bolt it causes shocking dmg and stuns the mob. Cool if we could do that in an MMO.

Dygz

Maezriel wrote: »

(S)tuns are very boring for those who are stunned. IMO combat shouldn't encourage someone to just twiddle their thumbs and wait

I think stuns should not be lasting so long that they are boring.
The stuns currently in the Alpha One should be fine.

Dreoh wrote: »

Oh I didn't know WoW had blinds, they weren't in when I played. I was going off what almost every other game calls blinds (accuracy reduced to 0).

Yeah. Rogue's had blind as far back as I can remember (I don't remember if it was vanilla, but it definitely goes back to TBC). Based on your experience, totally understandable that you don't see this as a stun (and I don't think WOW is any kind of gold standard with cc, I just think it will be part of the convention you're challenging).

Dreoh wrote: »

WoW's definition of a blind is is what I consider a sleep. I also think sleep is better than stun, but only slightly, because as soon as you get attacked you get your agency back. Fear also breaks on damage, so it's in that same boat. Neither is much better, but still slightly better than an outright stun.
If you could direct your fear, even minimally, that'd actually be million times better.

I hear what you're saying, and I think this is where it would help with a pretty specific table to begin detailing the attributes of each cc (e.g. cast time, duration, what breaks it, does it cause damage, mob can move?, etc etc)

Dreoh wrote: »

Stuns remove all player agency. That's an absolute fact. It's the entire point of my argument. You have yet to provide any example of when a stun is necessary. Necessary meaning, "can't be done by anything else".

That's easy. Stuns are necessary when I want to absolutely remove all of your agency to inflict my will upon you.

Dreoh wrote: »

If I were to play devil's advocate, the only argument for stuns is "they are simple". But I think that's a weak and lazy argument to make in game design.

I'd go further - in any turn-based game it's called 'you lose a turn,' and it's meant to disproportionately advantage the other player. It's a pretty basic convention in board and card games. So, I'm guessing you would not want to play Uno with me.

veyrah wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

Menda Goodbody wrote: »

I'm pro stun. I'm pro any combat moves in pvp. Why limit us?

Many others and I have provided many strong arguments why they should be limited. Please read more than just the title lmao.

@Dygz Both blind and fear are better than Stuns yes. You can still move while blinded. It's absolutely no different than the silence/disarm example from my original post. Of course extremes are never good, but arguing from the extreme is never a good argument anyways. Minute long blinds are worse than 2 second stuns as @Aerlana said.
I agree fear is not really fun but it's still better than outright stuns since you run away from the attacker and usually exit fear after taking damage.

@Tyranthraxus Nobody here is arguing against CC. This post is against stuns. If anything, this is an argument for more and more varied CC.

@veyrah None of what you said can't be done through other CC options, which was the entire purpose of my post.

@CROW3 So lets add broken limbs and concussions and your character becoming paraplegic. Realism only goes so far towards good game design. Stuns are not good game design in pvp. If you don't understand why, read the original post.

As for me overgeneralizing stuns? No, I absolutely am not. My entire argument is that stuns remove all player agency, which is against the core principle of playing a game. I recognize it could be an extreme opinion, but it's also very true that any scenario you give me where a stun would be needed could be replaced by other viable CC's that don't take away player agency.

Stuns are absolutely never necessary. Necessary means there's no other option. There are plenty of other options.

Also, Tradition is never solely a good argument for something.

Tl;Dr: People not reading the original post, and thinking this is an argument against all CC, or people having the opinion that stuns are necessary for some reason.

This person is just here to argue, not have an interesting discussion.

I offered a pretty good compromise I think. Make stuns depend on pre-apploed status effects. If a mage stun requires a burning status effect to work, the receiving player can prepare for it by either pulling back into his party, casting some cc shield (if he has one) or preemptively buffing defense or healing.

Ok, I don't know where you got the "I'm just here to argue" bit from but that's pretty disingenuous.

You made the claim that stuns are necessary, but you don't explain why they are necessary.
I however, explained how they are not necessary.

I stand by what I said. I don't see how your compromise can't be solved through other CC options. Your idea is nice "compromise", but why is a compromise needed? Why do you believe stuns are an absolute necessity? I'm honestly looking for your answer here.

Combo effects are neat, I agree, but why can't the combo effect be burn -> root or burn -> silence. Why does it need to be burn -> stun?

Dygz

Dreoh wrote: »

Both blind and fear are better than Stuns yes. You can still move while blinded. It's absolutely no different than the silence/disarm example from my original post. Of course extremes are never good, but arguing from the extreme is never a good argument anyways. Minute long blinds are worse than 2 second stuns as @Aerlana said.
I agree fear is not really fun but it's still better than outright stuns since you run away from the attacker and usually exit fear after taking damage.

Thanks for the reply!!!

Noaani

veyrah wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

Menda Goodbody wrote: »

I'm pro stun. I'm pro any combat moves in pvp. Why limit us?

Many others and I have provided many strong arguments why they should be limited. Please read more than just the title lmao.

@Dygz Both blind and fear are better than Stuns yes. You can still move while blinded. It's absolutely no different than the silence/disarm example from my original post. Of course extremes are never good, but arguing from the extreme is never a good argument anyways. Minute long blinds are worse than 2 second stuns as @Aerlana said.
I agree fear is not really fun but it's still better than outright stuns since you run away from the attacker and usually exit fear after taking damage.

@Tyranthraxus Nobody here is arguing against CC. This post is against stuns. If anything, this is an argument for more and more varied CC.

@veyrah None of what you said can't be done through other CC options, which was the entire purpose of my post.

@CROW3 So lets add broken limbs and concussions and your character becoming paraplegic. Realism only goes so far towards good game design. Stuns are not good game design in pvp. If you don't understand why, read the original post.

As for me overgeneralizing stuns? No, I absolutely am not. My entire argument is that stuns remove all player agency, which is against the core principle of playing a game. I recognize it could be an extreme opinion, but it's also very true that any scenario you give me where a stun would be needed could be replaced by other viable CC's that don't take away player agency.

Stuns are absolutely never necessary. Necessary means there's no other option. There are plenty of other options.

Also, Tradition is never solely a good argument for something.

Tl;Dr: People not reading the original post, and thinking this is an argument against all CC, or people having the opinion that stuns are necessary for some reason.

This person is just here to argue, not have an interesting discussion.

I offered a pretty good compromise I think. Make stuns depend on pre-apploed status effects. If a mage stun requires a burning status effect to work, the receiving player can prepare for it by either pulling back into his party, casting some cc shield (if he has one) or preemptively buffing defense or healing.

Yeah, this works for me.

It also makes it easy for environmental factors to be significant in the game.

Using the example from above, if you are out in the rain, or fighting in a river, you could have the "soaked" status effect, which in turn could give lightning attacks a chance to stun, and be a prerequisite for some other forms of CC.

Its potentially the easiest way I have seen to make environment a real factor in an MMO.

@CROW3 Ok, so it seems our difference of opinion lies in the "A one button agency removal is far too harsh of a gameplay mechanic to exist"

You think it's not that bad and players should just deal with it, whereas I think it completely invalidates the concept of playing a game

What do you feel about the argument I made that if you want to completely remove player agency, you should have to use more than a 1-button-stun. As in, needing to use an ability that roots, along with an ability that disarms or silences. That is effectively a stun, but requires more thought than, "I'll just stun them".

I personally also think "You lose a turn stuff" in those games is lazy game design too.

Dreoh wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

Menda Goodbody wrote: »

I'm pro stun. I'm pro any combat moves in pvp. Why limit us?

Many others and I have provided many strong arguments why they should be limited. Please read more than just the title lmao.

@Dygz Both blind and fear are better than Stuns yes. You can still move while blinded. It's absolutely no different than the silence/disarm example from my original post. Of course extremes are never good, but arguing from the extreme is never a good argument anyways. Minute long blinds are worse than 2 second stuns as @Aerlana said.
I agree fear is not really fun but it's still better than outright stuns since you run away from the attacker and usually exit fear after taking damage.

@Tyranthraxus Nobody here is arguing against CC. This post is against stuns. If anything, this is an argument for more and more varied CC.

@veyrah None of what you said can't be done through other CC options, which was the entire purpose of my post.

@CROW3 So lets add broken limbs and concussions and your character becoming paraplegic. Realism only goes so far towards good game design. Stuns are not good game design in pvp. If you don't understand why, read the original post.

As for me overgeneralizing stuns? No, I absolutely am not. My entire argument is that stuns remove all player agency, which is against the core principle of playing a game. I recognize it could be an extreme opinion, but it's also very true that any scenario you give me where a stun would be needed could be replaced by other viable CC's that don't take away player agency.

Stuns are absolutely never necessary. Necessary means there's no other option. There are plenty of other options.

Also, Tradition is never solely a good argument for something.

Tl;Dr: People not reading the original post, and thinking this is an argument against all CC, or people having the opinion that stuns are necessary for some reason.

This person is just here to argue, not have an interesting discussion.

I offered a pretty good compromise I think. Make stuns depend on pre-apploed status effects. If a mage stun requires a burning status effect to work, the receiving player can prepare for it by either pulling back into his party, casting some cc shield (if he has one) or preemptively buffing defense or healing.

Ok, I don't know where you got the "I'm just here to argue" bit from but that's pretty disingenuous.

You made the claim that stuns are necessary, but you don't explain why they are necessary.
I however, explained how they are not necessary.

I stand by what I said. I don't see how your compromise can't be solved through other CC options. Your idea is nice "compromise", but why is a compromise needed? Why do you believe stuns are an absolute necessity? I'm honestly looking for your answer here.

Combo effects are neat, I agree, but why can't the combo effect be burn -> root or burn -> silence. Why does it need to be burn -> stun?

In a pvp game you need hard cc. Roots never appealed to me, it seems unfair treatment of melee characters. Ranged characters can still retaliate whilst rooted as it is only movement restriction. Melees would be stuck away from the damage source unable to fight back. At least a stun levels the playing field.

@Dreoh - Stuns are clearly the most powerful form of cc, but I'm not diametrically opposed to them - I would want to ensure their implemented with care. Yes on I think it's part of the game and we should take it as such.

Dreoh wrote: »

What do you feel about the argument I made that if you want to completely remove player agency, you should have to use more than a 1-button-stun. As in, needing to use an ability that roots, along with an ability that disarms or silences. That is effectively a stun, but requires more thought than, "I'll just stun them"..

I think it's a good idea, but doesn't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive to a '1-button stun.' This could greatly depend on how these two forms of cc could be calibrated and what their outcome would be. For instance, the 1-button stun could have a 1 min cd with a 1.5s effect. The environmental 'stacking' stun (e.g. lighting + water) could have a more complicated setup, but result in a longer stun say 4s. I'm being loose with the numbers here, but you get my point.

Thoughts?

veyrah wrote: »

In a pvp game you need hard cc. Roots never appealed to me, it seems unfair treatment of melee characters. Ranged characters can still retaliate whilst rooted as it is only movement restriction. Melees would be stuck away from the damage source unable to fight back. At least a stun levels the playing field.

What is your definition of "hard CC"?
Because mine is, roots are hard CC. Silence is hard CC. Disarm is hard CC.
Slows/chills/knockbacks/miss chance are examples of soft CC.

Does your melee-rooting logic also apply to silencing casters?

So your answer to melee being countered by a melee-specific counter ability is to make it to implement the ability to make it so that they can't do anything?
You realize even with stuns melee is going to get kited. The problem there isn't the root or stun, it's how mobile melee classes are.

Dygz

I dunno. I mean, when Muhammad Ali bops someone in the brain - they are stunned with one punch.
Stun happens sometimes. So does a knockdown. Doesn't have to last forever.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Stuns are clearly the most powerful form of cc

I disagree.

I think mesmerize is.

It takes complete control away from you, and turns your character in to a pet for the caster for the duration.

Only seen it in one game though.

CROW3 wrote: »

@Dreoh - Stuns are clearly the most powerful form of cc, but I'm not diametrically opposed to them - I would want to ensure their implemented with care. Yes on I think it's part of the game and we should take it as such.

Dreoh wrote: »

What do you feel about the argument I made that if you want to completely remove player agency, you should have to use more than a 1-button-stun. As in, needing to use an ability that roots, along with an ability that disarms or silences. That is effectively a stun, but requires more thought than, "I'll just stun them"..

I think it's a good idea, but doesn't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive to a '1-button stun.' This could greatly depend on how these two forms of cc could be calibrated and what their outcome would be. For instance, the 1-button stun could have a 1 min cd with a 1.5s effect. The environmental 'stacking' stun (e.g. lighting + water) could have a more complicated setup, but result in a longer stun say 4s. I'm being loose with the numbers here, but you get my point.

Thoughts?

I guess an argument could be made in your favor here that the spell combo you described requiring 2 spells is no different than doing 2 non-stun CC spells, a root spell and a silence spell at the same time, which is effectively a stun. So I guess I'll have to concede that a multi-step stun system would be viable

Noaani wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Stuns are clearly the most powerful form of cc

I disagree.

I think mesmerize is.

It takes complete control away from you, and turns your character in to a pet for the caster for the duration.

Only seen it in one game though.

oh yea lol, that's definitely a step even further, no agency as you watch your character kill your allies

Dreoh wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

In a pvp game you need hard cc. Roots never appealed to me, it seems unfair treatment of melee characters. Ranged characters can still retaliate whilst rooted as it is only movement restriction. Melees would be stuck away from the damage source unable to fight back. At least a stun levels the playing field.

What is your definition of "hard CC"?
Because mine is, roots are hard CC. Silence is hard CC. Disarm is hard CC.
Slows/chills/knockbacks/miss chance are examples of soft CC.

Does your melee-rooting logic also apply to silencing casters?

So your answer to melee being countered by a melee-specific counter ability is to make it to implement the ability to make it so that they can't do anything?
You realize even with stuns melee is going to get kited. The problem there isn't the root or stun, it's how mobile melee classes are.

Obviously i think roots are hard cc. Read my post again, i go on to say i dont like roots as hard cc compared to stuns. A rooted melee is like a stunned ranged character. Silenced mages can at least still move around.

We also have very little info on melee mobility as of now. We shall see about the specifics, but I stand by what I said from a general point of view.

Noaani wrote: »

I think mesmerize is.

Fair point. Mind control does suck. I think MC breaks in wow (my main reference point for MC) when you take dmg (this might be irrelevant when you're flung from a mountain). I imagine this varies significantly between games. With a stun, I can blow cds and lay into a target without them breaking cc.

What game has the mez you're referencing?

veyrah wrote: »

Obviously i think roots are hard cc. Read my post again, i go on to say i dont like roots as hard cc compared to stuns. A rooted melee is like a stunned ranged character. Silenced mages can at least still move around.

We also have very little info on melee mobility as of now. We shall see about the specifics, but I stand by what I said from a general point of view.

Sorry, it was ambiguous if you were wording it so that roots were hard cc or not. Fair enough lol.

I would argue melee classes should have more than just melee abilities to be able to deal with such things. Even if a game has stuns, it also most likely still has roots too, so how would you argue they deal with those roots?
I think the argument to be made in our discussion here is not "stuns should exist because roots do" and it's that "melee classes just need more utility/mobility". Even in the current alpha, tanks have the pull and a charge. That's good enough to deal with roots. Get rooted? Pull them to you.
Give melee's a ranged silence or disarm to allow more counterplay to the counterplay against them.

Dreoh wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

Obviously i think roots are hard cc. Read my post again, i go on to say i dont like roots as hard cc compared to stuns. A rooted melee is like a stunned ranged character. Silenced mages can at least still move around.

We also have very little info on melee mobility as of now. We shall see about the specifics, but I stand by what I said from a general point of view.

Sorry, it was ambiguous if you were wording it so that roots were hard cc or not. Fair enough lol.

I would argue melee classes should have more than just melee abilities to be able to deal with such things. Even if a game has stuns, it also most likely still has roots too, so how would you argue they deal with those roots?
I think the argument to be made in our discussion here is not "stuns should exist because roots do" and it's that "melee classes just need more utility/mobility". Even in the current alpha, tanks have the pull and a charge. That's good enough to deal with roots. Get rooted? Pull them to you.
Give melee's a ranged silence or disarm to allow more counterplay to the counterplay against them.

I am not against roots. My argument was basically, if you're going to allow roots, you should also allow stuns. They are basically the same thing to melee characters, save for the odd ranged spell some builds have.