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

As the title says, stuns are a net negative in PvP. Whatever enjoyment someone can get from stunning a player is minute compared to the frustration stunned players feel at loss of agency.

Any reason for adding a stun can be countered via an alternate form of CC that doesn't completely remove player agency.

You want to give an ability a stun to stop people from kiting and running around? Use snares/roots/slows instead.
The players movement is impeded but they can still act/react and keep their agency, even if limited.

You want to give an ability a stun to stop interrupt a spell cast or stop a player from casting spells or using abilities? Implement silences/disarms/etc.
The players actions are impeded but they can still act/react by moving.

Not relying on the uninspired all-encompassing "stun" state only adds more depth to combat, meaning you have to use the right CC for the right scenario.

Stuns are just a lazy way to balance combat in my opinion, and completely invalidate the entire concept upon which playing games is built upon, which is playing games. You're not playing the game when you don't have control of your character, you're just watching your character get his shit kicked in for 5 seconds with zero agency.

You might be thinking, "Well what if both scenarios go off at the same time, isn't that effectively a stun?"
Sure, but that would (ideally) require at least two abilities. More if you delegate different effects to multiple abilities. For a full lockdown of a character, make it require a silence spell, a disarm, and a root, and whatever other creative idea you may come up with. Don't fall back on the 1-click-stop-playing effect.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I fully believe stuns are the easy way out of game balancing. (In PvP. Stunning non-players is fine, because no one loses agency)
Sure some people will probably think I just hate being stunned... and yes, that's exactly my point. Getting stunned isn't fun at all, and I believe games without stuns or at least minimal stuns are all the better for it.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

RocketFarmer

So far I am not persuaded that stuns should not be in the game other than someone doesn’t like stuns. Not sure why I or anyone else would need to supply any counter argument to subjective opinion. Pointing out other CC options does not have anything to do with why stuns should not exist in game. Does or will the game have skills to break stuns or make one temporarily immune to that effect? Would that alleviate the complaint or is it not good enough?

Azherae

RocketFarmer wrote: »

So far I am not persuaded that stuns should not be in the game other than someone doesn’t like stuns. Not sure why I or anyone else would need to supply any counter argument to subjective opinion.

A perfectly executed performative microcosm of contemporary political discourse. Bravo.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Agreed. I think that would be an intriguing thread.

So do I.

However, I see no reason to not simply repurpose this thread.

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I think there is plenty of room for debate on what CC systems from other games were fun and what CC systems could be used in Ashes to make it a better game.

For me;

Stun - character can't move or perform any action, persists through damage, maximum duration of 1.5 seconds, immunity to all CC for 4 times the actual effective time of the stun on the character once worn off. Constitution stat reduced duration.

Sleep - character can't move or perform any action, removed when damage taken, maximum duration of 4 seconds, immunity to all CC for 2 times the actual effective time of the sleep on the character once worn off. Rested buff (from player run Inn/tavern or player home) reduces duration by a set amount.

Silence - prevents the use of spells with a cast time only. Instant cast spells and all non-spell attacks can still be used. Duration of up to 4 seconds, immunity only to silence and interrupt for 2 times the actual effective time of the silence on the character once worn off. Wisdom stat reduces duration.

Blind - prevents the use of all non-spell attacks with a cast time. Instant cast non-spell attacks and all spells can still be used (spells are magic, they can find their own damn target). Duration of up to 4 seconds, immunity to only blind and interrupt for 2 times the actual effective time of the blind on the character once worn off. Will stat reduces duration.

Root - prevents all movement by character, including spells or abilities with a movement component. Duration of up to 12 seconds, but all forms of incoming damage provide a chance that the root will break - a chance that increases with a higher power stat. Root does not grant an immunity at all to CC effects (it is too easy to have an ally break a root on you).

Snare - slows movement and prevents all forms of sneaking or invisibility, and abilities that have a movement component have their range cut by 75%. Effect can persist for up to 20 seconds, but only effects players while in the area of effect of the snare. Dexterity stat allows faster movement through snare area. Snare has no immunity either, all you need to do is keep out of the patch of ground covered in big green wiggly vines (or what ever other appearance they decide to give it).

Prone - character is on the ground, all attacks against them have a higher chance to hit and to crit. Player is unable to use defensive skills. Prone isn't a CC ability by itself, but is a component of attacks such as shield back, or knockbacks, or giant boulders being magically thrown at you. The effect duration should be no more than 1 second, but it's duration is based on your health percentage - the higher your health percentage, the shorter the prone.

Interrupt - instant effect, stops casting of current spell only. Grants a flat 4 second immunity to Interrupt, blind and silence effects.

Impale - character is stuck on a stick of some sort. All actions can be attempted, but any action only has a chance of being effective (including movement). All attempts at an action that fail will damage you, a percentage of your total HP.

Mesmerize - your character is compelled to do the bidding of the caster. Effect can last for up to 8 seconds, but every time you damage an ally (which could be loosely defined as anyone on your side of a siege, war or caravan, and anyone in your group or raid) there is a chance the effect will terminate. Effected player gains immunity to all CC for 30 seconds after effect wears off. Caster takes constant damage while effect is active.

From there, I would have passives in some class that increase the immunity period gained after being CC's, as well as giving most classes a CC break for at least one of the CC effects above (classes with an increase in immune duration get one CC break, classes without it get multiple).

Abilities like Mesmerize I would keep to only one class in the entire game (Enchanter, imo), so it is a rare, but class defining ability.

Some special cases of abilities would see the duration of these effects last longer than listed. An example of this is a bubble type spell, of which I can see two types. The first is one where the character is unable to move or cast (so, effectively stunned), but is also unable to be attacked. This effect could (should) last longer than the 1.5 second stun limit from above, even though it is in effect a stun with other effects tacked on the side.

The second is an Archeage bubble, where the player is encapsulated in a bubble, and slowly rises. The player in the bubble is unable to do anything, but if attacked the bubble will pop, and the character will fall to the ground - potentially taking falling damage. This is effectively a sleep effect, but with an added elevation effect. This could also last longer than 4 seconds, though probably not much longer.

I think the above list has all the types of CC covered, even if the names are different in some games.

Vhaeyne

@Noaani

I consider most of the things you listed to be the more standard MMORPG forms of CC I have seen before. I like that you included CC immunity and some form of balance in all of your examples.

Many of yous CCs fall under the category of CC where you are temporarily taken out of the game. Which is not something I am crazy about. There are ways to do CC without taking people out of the game.

Mesmerize, could be done in a much cooler way, for example. Instead of you losing control of your character and watching it attack an ally.

The caster of mesmerize could target an enemy and temporarily swap their name and player model with that target for a short duration. The target would also appear to be an enemy, and you would appear to be an ally on the players hud.

Something like this may or may not be hard to do, but it would create natural confusion that does not take a player out of the game. I could see people falling for this sort of thing in the heat of battle all the time. Especially when people are zerging and don't have their eyes on every character on the screen.

What do you think of the CC philosophy where instead of pausing the character mid-combat, something about the players perception or capabilities are altered?

Noaani

Vhaeyne wrote: »

@Noaani

I consider most of the things you listed to be the more standard MMORPG forms of CC I have seen before. I like that you included CC immunity and some form of balance in all of your examples.

Many of yous CCs fall under the category of CC where you are temporarily taken out of the game. Which is not something I am crazy about. There are ways to do CC without taking people out of the game.

Mesmerize, could be done in a much cooler way, for example. Instead of you losing control of your character and watching it attack an ally.

The caster of mesmerize could target an enemy and temporarily swap their name and player model with that target for a short duration. The target would also appear to be an enemy, and you would appear to be an ally on the players hud.

Something like this may or may not be hard to do, but it would create natural confusion that does not take a player out of the game. I could see people falling for this sort of thing in the heat of battle all the time. Especially when people are zerging and don't have their eyes on every character on the screen.

What do you think of the CC philosophy where instead of pausing the character mid-combat, something about the players perception or capabilities are altered?

Yeah, I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel at all, mostly just a base to start a discussion from.

Like some here, I am not opposed to the idea of occasionally losing either some or all of my characters function in a game - as long as there is clear mechanics reason behind it (ie, cut scenes are out, imo).

To me, what makes this even more acceptable is if there are things I can do to lower my susceptibility to CC.

Playing a game where you can be stun-locked is shit. A game where there is nothing at all you can do about CC just isn't worth playing.

However, a game where you can gain stats to lower the duration or increase the break chance of some CC's, where every build has at least one CC break, where every CC of consequence results in an immunity afterwards and that immunity can be increased via build choices - to me this is adding player agency, not taking it away.

That said, I do like your idea of a swap. I wouldn't call is a mesmerize, but as long as the range on it is long enough, I think it could be a really great idea.

It is a CC that would be almost entirely ineffective against a raid that is well organized, communicates well and has some discipline - but in games like Ashes, it is rare that these factors exist.

Rather than just swapping the targets name with your own, I think it would be cool if you could give your target the name of someone else in your raid - whether by using a dual target system, or by placing a buff on the person you want your target to appear as.

It's more of an identity swap (or identity disguise) than anything, but I think it's a great idea. Seems like an ability for the Trickster class, imo.

Littlekenny21

My favourite solution to this was the old stability in GW2.

With the buff active you are immune to effects that take away all player agency, you could still be hit by immobilise.

With a normal party setup it was impossible to have permeant uptime but a good enough group could alway have it when they needed it.

This meant that if you lost control of your character, it was because somebody in your party made a mistake.

Vhaeyne

@Noaani

I will always prefer reactive gameplay over just pure stat systems. Ideally, both play a role.If we are not going to have the reactive CC systems I advocate for. Then having CC reduction items and talents is my second choice. It at least allows for more interesting build choices and trade-offs between raw DPS builds and PvP builds. I think it is entirely possible for a great game to have both.

Vhaeyne

Littlekenny21 wrote: »

My favourite solution to this was the old stability in GW2.

With the buff active you are immune to effects that take away all player agency, you could still be hit by immobilise.

With a normal party setup it was impossible to have permeant uptime but a good enough group could alway have it when they needed it.

This meant that if you lost control of your character, it was because somebody in your party made a mistake.

Having the proactive ability to prevent CC is something I like. As long as it is balanced well with the CCs. Rewarding players for paying attention and being able to read their opponents next action is always something I like to see.

Also, things like knock back immunity or even things like stillness/look-away in FFXIV are used in PvE to make encounters more interesting. Those things could exist in PvP too. I imagine having something like that eye telegraph in FFXIV go off as a cleric player raises his weapon in the air, and it glows white with a massive sun burst that blinds anyone looking directly at him in range. Just looking away would be that proactive CC immunity like stability from GW2, only without have to give players a skill to counter it.

There are many ways to make CC cool and interesting that it blows my mind that many games still just use "time out" mechanics like flat stuns with little or no counters.

Noaani

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Noaani

I will always prefer reactive gameplay over just pure stat systems. Ideally, both play a role.If we are not going to have the reactive CC systems I advocate for. Then having CC reduction items and talents is my second choice. It at least allows for more interesting build choices and trade-offs between raw DPS builds and PvP builds. I think it is entirely possible for a great game to have both.

My issue with most games in regards to stats is that most games either don't give you a reason to increase anything other than your classes main stat, or make it too easy to hit either a soft or hard cap, making stat increases worthless in general.

To me, this is no different to a game with a talent system where either you only have one viable path to take, or where you can get as many talents as you have places to put them.

I personally don't see a whole lot of difference between deciding which stat I want to boost and which talent I want to pick, assuming both systems are made well and players have real and actual choice.

Either system is shit if players don't have real and actual choice, however - and most MMO's don't give players any real choice in regards to stats.

Dygz

*meh*
Whether Stuns are fun is going to be subjective by person and by game design.
Stuns are not quite as fun as a knockdown or knockback, but are effectively just the same.
And, I don't find stuns to be significantly different than Blind and Fear.
Fear is still a loss of agency - the differences there are that it's more of an adrenaline rush because, not only does it provide the illusion that I might be able to break the Fear early or control the direction I'm running in, I'm also afraid I might run into another hostile mob.
Blind is also a loss of agency. I suppose you could punch your hotbar keys and hope you somehow land a hit.
For me, they are all pretty much the same loss of agency - effectively.

In Ashes, Stun doesn't last long enough to become bored.
Again, I don't see Stun as a problem. Stun-lock could be a problem, but that seems easily solved by long cooldowns.
I think a better solution to removing Stuns is to have a Passive that can mitigate Stuns for those players interested in having their characters resist Stuns. Could be the opposite of the Passive for Disable Chance that we already have.

Veyrah

I remember this game Luna Online. One of the classes had a skill with a 80% chance for a 5 second stun. The skill cooldown was lower than 5. I would often get 3 stuns off, 15 seconds, before they were able to react. This is obviously a bad example of stun implementation. If the duration is kept reasonable, as well as the cooldown, stuns are far from the evil the OP portrays it.

Azherae

veyrah wrote: »

I remember this game Luna Online. One of the classes had a skill with a 80% chance for a 5 second stun. The skill cooldown was lower than 5. I would often get 3 stuns off, 15 seconds, before they were able to react. This is obviously a bad example of stun implementation. If the duration is kept reasonable, as well as the cooldown, stuns are far from the evil the OP portrays it.

Consider what situation you'd be in if things were reversed, as with the DPS meters for example.

If Steven had said 'no, no Stuns, we'll make do with other things', would you have an argument capable of shifting this?

The argument here is that there is no cost to removing Stun. It is not necessary for any game function.

So why risk poor balance, add a mechanic that is unfun for many or can be rapidly pushed toward that, forces builds to lose variety, etc?

If the Word of Steven was 'Stuns don't add anything to Ashes, so Ashes isn't adding Stuns', what argument can you make that they need to be added?

If your answer to this is 'well that's not the situation, so we don't have to have an argument', then that's why we're arguing with you still. Or in my case, would be, if this sort of interaction fit the definition of 'argument'.

Veyrah

Azherae wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

I remember this game Luna Online. One of the classes had a skill with a 80% chance for a 5 second stun. The skill cooldown was lower than 5. I would often get 3 stuns off, 15 seconds, before they were able to react. This is obviously a bad example of stun implementation. If the duration is kept reasonable, as well as the cooldown, stuns are far from the evil the OP portrays it.

Consider what situation you'd be in if things were reversed, as with the DPS meters for example.

If Steven had said 'no, no Stuns, we'll make do with other things', would you have an argument capable of shifting this?

The argument here is that there is no cost to removing Stun. It is not necessary for any game function.

So why risk poor balance, add a mechanic that is unfun for many or can be rapidly pushed toward that, forces builds to lose variety, etc?

If the Word of Steven was 'Stuns don't add anything to Ashes, so Ashes isn't adding Stuns', what argument can you make that they need to be added?

If your answer to this is 'well that's not the situation, so we don't have to have an argument', then that's why we're arguing with you still. Or in my case, would be, if this sort of interaction fit the definition of 'argument'.

A game needs hard (cc). Many people like stuns. It is like saying let's not make a fireball skill, we can have a different damage spell. Many people would be bummed that the classical skill isn't there.

I wonder what kind of people's fun depends so much on the presence of stuns in the game. I usually don't even play classes that cc a lot, opting for damage wherever I can. When I am stuck in stun for a second, never have I thought to myself THIS IS BORING HOW LONG DOES THIS TAKE IT IS UNFUN.

Azherae

veyrah wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

I remember this game Luna Online. One of the classes had a skill with a 80% chance for a 5 second stun. The skill cooldown was lower than 5. I would often get 3 stuns off, 15 seconds, before they were able to react. This is obviously a bad example of stun implementation. If the duration is kept reasonable, as well as the cooldown, stuns are far from the evil the OP portrays it.

Consider what situation you'd be in if things were reversed, as with the DPS meters for example.

If Steven had said 'no, no Stuns, we'll make do with other things', would you have an argument capable of shifting this?

The argument here is that there is no cost to removing Stun. It is not necessary for any game function.

So why risk poor balance, add a mechanic that is unfun for many or can be rapidly pushed toward that, forces builds to lose variety, etc?

If the Word of Steven was 'Stuns don't add anything to Ashes, so Ashes isn't adding Stuns', what argument can you make that they need to be added?

If your answer to this is 'well that's not the situation, so we don't have to have an argument', then that's why we're arguing with you still. Or in my case, would be, if this sort of interaction fit the definition of 'argument'.

A game needs hard (cc). Many people like stuns. It is like saying let's not make a fireball skill, we can have a different damage spell. Many people would be bummed that the classical skill isn't there.

I wonder what kind of people's fun depends so much on the presence of stuns in the game. I usually don't even play classes that cc a lot, opting for damage wherever I can. When I am stuck in stun for a second, never have I thought to myself THIS IS BORING HOW LONG DOES THIS TAKE IT IS UNFUN.

So your argument is 'I believe games need this', 'lots of people like them', 'people would be bummed out'?

The DPS Meter arguments are stronger.

Tragnar

It is a matter of degree - when you look at some cc chains in some games then you have to understand the frustration from it.

I am definitely pro-stun, but I definitely want a counterplay to that - like that movement abilities can have "cleansing" upgrade to them that removes cc or a straight up cc reduction stat on gear - or even a special effect on extremely powerful gear - like in a rocky node you can get mats and a pattern that makes some kind of epic chest that reduces all cc by x%

Veyrah

Azherae wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

I remember this game Luna Online. One of the classes had a skill with a 80% chance for a 5 second stun. The skill cooldown was lower than 5. I would often get 3 stuns off, 15 seconds, before they were able to react. This is obviously a bad example of stun implementation. If the duration is kept reasonable, as well as the cooldown, stuns are far from the evil the OP portrays it.

Consider what situation you'd be in if things were reversed, as with the DPS meters for example.

If Steven had said 'no, no Stuns, we'll make do with other things', would you have an argument capable of shifting this?

The argument here is that there is no cost to removing Stun. It is not necessary for any game function.

So why risk poor balance, add a mechanic that is unfun for many or can be rapidly pushed toward that, forces builds to lose variety, etc?

If the Word of Steven was 'Stuns don't add anything to Ashes, so Ashes isn't adding Stuns', what argument can you make that they need to be added?

If your answer to this is 'well that's not the situation, so we don't have to have an argument', then that's why we're arguing with you still. Or in my case, would be, if this sort of interaction fit the definition of 'argument'.

A game needs hard (cc). Many people like stuns. It is like saying let's not make a fireball skill, we can have a different damage spell. Many people would be bummed that the classical skill isn't there.

I wonder what kind of people's fun depends so much on the presence of stuns in the game. I usually don't even play classes that cc a lot, opting for damage wherever I can. When I am stuck in stun for a second, never have I thought to myself THIS IS BORING HOW LONG DOES THIS TAKE IT IS UNFUN.

So your argument is 'I believe games need this', 'lots of people like them', 'people would be bummed out'?

The DPS Meter arguments are stronger.

In your opinion, we don't need the fireball then? If the thought of that leaves you with some uncertain feeling, you should be able to understand where I am coming from. I must still say none of the arguments against stuns seem compelling to me. Try again.

Veyrah

Tragnar wrote: »

It is a matter of degree - when you look at some cc chains in some games then you have to understand the frustration from it.

I am definitely pro-stun, but I definitely want a counterplay to that - like that movement abilities can have "cleansing" upgrade to them that removes cc or a straight up cc reduction stat on gear - or even a special effect on extremely powerful gear - like in a rocky node you can get mats and a pattern that makes some kind of epic chest that reduces all cc by x%

I like the idea of skill upgrades with cleansing, or maybe also just some straight cleanse spell. I do not like the idea of cc reduction. Some cc is already so short that it hardly matters, and it basically hard divides gear into PVP and PVE gear. All PVP gear would need the cc reduction stat.

Azherae

Tragnar wrote: »

It is a matter of degree - when you look at some cc chains in some games then you have to understand the frustration from it.

I am definitely pro-stun, but I definitely want a counterplay to that - like that movement abilities can have "cleansing" upgrade to them that removes cc or a straight up cc reduction stat on gear - or even a special effect on extremely powerful gear - like in a rocky node you can get mats and a pattern that makes some kind of epic chest that reduces all cc by x%

But even this isn't really counterplay, it generally goes even worse.

People don't 'stop trying their CC because their opponent might have a percentage CC resistance'. They do it anyway, and then the person with the 40% resistance chest piece gets a string of rolls like 87, 64, 44, 54, 48 and gets stunned 5 times, every attempted Stun succeeds (not talking about back to back stuns even)

Some complain that the game is broken. Some go 'it is how it is', some complain in direct proportion to how much losing the fight cost them, and some go 'wait why is Stun even in here?'

Movement abilities clearing Root/Bind is a given if we're arguing that Stuns are bad. But 'wearing a 50-50 negate or reduction' and calling it 'counterplay' is submitting yourself to RNG and setting up a balance situation where anyone who doesn't have that gear is seriously hurting (or the gear wasn't worth it).

Tragnar

Azherae wrote: »

People don't 'stop trying their CC because their opponent might have a percentage CC resistance'. They do it anyway, and then the person with the 40% resistance chest piece gets a string of rolls like 87, 64, 44, 54, 48 and gets stunned 5 times, every attempted Stun succeeds (not talking about back to back stuns even)

I didn't propose chance to resist cc, but to have reduced cc - so instead of 4s stun you get a 2s stun with 50% reduced cc - which is a big difference

Movement abilities clearing Root/Bind is a given if we're arguing that Stuns are bad. But 'wearing a 50-50 negate or reduction' and calling it 'counterplay' is submitting yourself to RNG and setting up a balance situation where anyone who doesn't have that gear is seriously hurting (or the gear wasn't worth it).

if the counterplay is either active (as a result of using an ability) or passive that gets result 100% of the time then you are not subject to rng - as i see it you are the only proposing such rng based system

Tragnar

and I definitely do not think that glass cannon pve dps gear is great for pvp (since you gear enough defensive stats only to survive unavoidable damage spikes) - so automatically you have pvp focused gear with more defensives on it

To push for gear that is good for everything is the antithesis of what ashes wants to achieve with its horizontal progression

Child Item