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

Azherae

veyrah wrote: »

Dreoh looks to make this into a religion.
Stuns will be in the game regardless.

If this changes... if the arguments made by Dreoh are convincing enough that they say 'ok, this is heavily supported, so no stuns', will you accept it?

Veyrah

Azherae wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

Dreoh looks to make this into a religion.
Stuns will be in the game regardless.

If this changes... if the arguments made by Dreoh are convincing enough that they say 'ok, this is heavily supported, so no stuns', will you accept it?

While highly unlikely, I would definitely start my own thread arguing the opposite. But I know the devs know what they're doing and they will put stuns in, so I see no reason to do so yet.

Dreoh

veyrah wrote: »

Dreoh looks to make this into a religion.
Stuns will be in the game regardless.

As I've said before in this thread, I will still play the game if it has stuns. I fully expect the game to have stuns.

This is just a thread about improving the quality of the game by not defaulting to stuns as a crowd control, and instead being more creative with ability design. It is a thread discussing why stuns are lazy game design and why there are better viable options.
It would be nice if some of the developers read through this thread and maybe questioned more if "X ability should really have a stun, or maybe we should add more diverse CC mechanics across abilities".

It's also just a neat game design philosophy debate.

Also, why not constantly strive for better game design? Why be content with what you have if there's improvements that could be made? That's not to say you can't accept the choices of a game developer. I'm just saying as a game designer to always try to make a game better.

veyrah wrote: »

While highly unlikely, I would definitely start my own thread arguing the opposite. But I know the devs know what they're doing and they will put stuns in, so I see no reason to do so yet.

I still can't fathom any scenario where a stun is completely necessary vs. other options. Nobody in this thread has given any examples of such.
There was only the "melee being rooted" example, but that's easily discounted by "melee should have options against ranged enemies by default, including defensive options and mobility options". I mean, that rooted argument is no different than a "Melee is at disadvantage from ranged classes that are standing on a hill out of reach". Are you going to argue that there should be no hills, or are you going to argue that melee should be able to deal with ranged classes better?

CROW3

Azherae wrote: »

If this changes... if the arguments made by Dreoh are convincing enough that they say 'ok, this is heavily supported, so no stuns', will you accept it?

The only argument is that it completely removes a player’s agency to do something for x period of time. Which is exactly a stun’s function (and personally why I like them) and why they’re part of the cc toolkit. Most of your and Dreoh’s assertions for other forms of cc are totally valid, except for the assertion that they are somehow mutually exclusive replacements for stuns.

So what it comes down to is a fundamental opinion that you do not like being stunned, speciously extrapolated toward some sort of pseudo-fact that ‘this is bad game design.’ Not a fact, still just opinion.

If that’s unacceptable then don’t accept it and move on, but no amount of mental gymnastics is going to transmute your opinions into an factual argument.

Dreoh

@CROW3 I understand your point of view and respect it. I just think at any time you have no agency while playing a video game, you are not "playing a video game" until you get your agency back. You're essentially just "watching a movie/show" for that short duration. This is entirely why I think it's bad game design. Any time a player should have agency, but doesn't/easily loses it and gets punished for their lack of agency it's bad game design in my opinion.

It's a nitpicky and extreme stance I know, which is why I'm also not expecting any actual change to come from this, but I still think it's a good thing to consider when talking about CC's in general.

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If this changes... if the arguments made by Dreoh are convincing enough that they say 'ok, this is heavily supported, so no stuns', will you accept it?

The only argument is that it completely removes a player’s agency to do something for x period of time. Which is exactly a stun’s function (and personally why I like them) and why they’re part of the cc toolkit. Most of your and Dreoh’s assertions for other forms of cc are totally valid, except for the assertion that they are somehow mutually exclusive replacements for stuns.

So what it comes down to is a fundamental opinion that you do not like being stunned, speciously extrapolated toward some sort of pseudo-fact that ‘this is bad game design.’ Not a fact, still just opinion.

If that’s unacceptable then don’t accept it and move on, but no amount of mental gymnastics is going to transmute your opinions into an factual argument.

I'm unsure what your point is here, were you actually addressing the quoted text question? Is the question itself the 'mental gymnastics' you refer to?

Veyrah

Dreoh wrote: »

@CROW3 I understand your point of view and respect it. I just think at any time you have no agency while playing a video game, you are not "playing a video game" until you get your agency back. You're essentially just "watching a movie/show" for that short duration. This is entirely why I think it's bad game design. Any time a player should have agency, but doesn't/easily loses it and gets punished for their lack of agency it's bad game design in my opinion.

It's a nitpicky and extreme stance I know, which is why I'm also not expecting any actual change to come from this, but I still think it's a good thing to consider when talking about CC's in general.

Dying makes players lose agency. Remove dying from the game.

CROW3

@Dreoh - All good. I really do hear what you're saying, we just don't agree - and that's fine. Which is why I called out the stalemate like 4 pages ago.

Azherae wrote: »

I'm unsure what your point is here, were you actually addressing the quoted text question? Is the question itself the 'mental gymnastics' you refer to?

Yes, because it assumes Dreoh's opinion is an argument. It's not, it's an opinion. Which is exactly what he responded above.

veyrah wrote: »

Dying makes players lose agency. Remove dying from the game.

Lol!

Azherae

Thank you for clarifying the definition which I should use for that word, going forward.

Dreoh

veyrah wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

@CROW3 I understand your point of view and respect it. I just think at any time you have no agency while playing a video game, you are not "playing a video game" until you get your agency back. You're essentially just "watching a movie/show" for that short duration. This is entirely why I think it's bad game design. Any time a player should have agency, but doesn't/easily loses it and gets punished for their lack of agency it's bad game design in my opinion.

It's a nitpicky and extreme stance I know, which is why I'm also not expecting any actual change to come from this, but I still think it's a good thing to consider when talking about CC's in general.

Dying makes players lose agency. Remove dying from the game.

Funny enough you aren't the first person to use this line of reasoning against me. I've had this debate with other people before.

If we want to get in to the difference here I will though.

For the same reason why watching a cutscene isn't the same as being stunned, the death state isn't the same as being stunned.

When you are stunned you are still actively in the battle, but you are not physically allowed to partake in the battle.
When you are dead you are not actively in the battle, thus it is clear to the player that they have no agency in the battle.

Though I do agree that long death timers are bad game design too (generally speaking).
There are many scenarios in which death timers make sense and have no alternative (like Counterstike having 1 life per round, or capture the flag game types), unlike stuns which do have valid alternatives in every scenario I have ever considered.

There is a distinct difference between getting stunned and getting killed. There is nuance to it, though you may disagree, which is fine as long as you try to consider the points I'm making.

Veyrah

Dreoh wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

@CROW3 I understand your point of view and respect it. I just think at any time you have no agency while playing a video game, you are not "playing a video game" until you get your agency back. You're essentially just "watching a movie/show" for that short duration. This is entirely why I think it's bad game design. Any time a player should have agency, but doesn't/easily loses it and gets punished for their lack of agency it's bad game design in my opinion.

It's a nitpicky and extreme stance I know, which is why I'm also not expecting any actual change to come from this, but I still think it's a good thing to consider when talking about CC's in general.

Dying makes players lose agency. Remove dying from the game.

Funny enough you aren't the first person to use this line of reasoning against me. I've had this debate with other people before.

If we want to get in to the difference here I will though.

For the same reason why watching a cutscene isn't the same as being stunned, the death state isn't the same as being stunned.

When you are stunned you are still actively in the battle, but you are not physically allowed to partake in the battle.
When you are dead you are not actively in the battle, thus it is clear to the player that they have no agency in the battle.

Though I do agree that long death timers are bad game design too (generally speaking).
There are many scenarios in which death timers make sense and have no alternative (like Counterstike having 1 life per round, or capture the flag game types), unlike stuns which do have valid alternatives in every scenario I have ever considered.

There is a distinct difference between getting stunned and getting killed. There is nuance to it, though you may disagree, which is fine as long as you try to consider the points I'm making.

I considered it on page 1. I'm getting tired of your supposed reasoning. To me it doesn't make sense. Your opinion seems somewhat relatable but it really isn't nearly as bad as you describe it, and not nearly enough to be valid argument against such a staple of a cc skill.

I also still don't get why it is much worse than a sleep. It takes away agency. Usually the tradeoff between stun vs sleep is duration vs wake on damage. Seems fine to me.

Dreoh

veyrah wrote: »

I considered it on page 1. I'm getting tired of your supposed reasoning. To me it doesn't make sense. Your opinion seems somewhat relatable but it really isn't nearly as bad as you describe it, and not nearly enough to be valid argument against such a staple of a cc skill.

I also still don't get why it is much worse than a sleep. It takes away agency. Usually the tradeoff between stun vs sleep is duration vs wake on damage. Seems fine to me.

My reasoning is sound and hasn't changed. I've been very clear about my reasoning from page 1. I've also said that stuns aren't the worst thing in the world, and I will play AoC even if it does have stuns. I just think it's the laziest and most unimaginative way to create CC.
I do think the arguments I've made are very valid against simple stuns.

Sleep is far better because while you lose agency, you get it back as soon as you start getting punished.

If you want to get into the extreme nuance. Stuns and losing agency does suck by itself, but the exact reason why it is bad is because being punished for not being able to act is completely insane to me.

To put it in other words, losing control of your character sucks, and if you get stunned for 5 seconds (or 2 seconds or whatever, doesn't matter) but nothing happens to you it's, "well that sucked a lot but alright".
If you get stunned for 5 seconds, and then someone starts attacking you with things you'd normally be able to react to, that's completely atrocious.

Sleep is like a halfway point between the two of those. Being sleeped also sucks, but the fact that you only get one instance of punishment and then you can react makes it infinitely better than stacking punishments while you can't react.

Edit: I will also reiterate that things being "staples/tradition" isn't a good argument in itself for it's validity.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If this changes... if the arguments made by Dreoh are convincing enough that they say 'ok, this is heavily supported, so no stuns', will you accept it?

The only argument is that it completely removes a player’s agency to do something for x period of time.

So does being killed, and when you are killed, you lose that agency for even longer.

Thus, any argument against stuns seems to me to also be applicable to an argument against players being able to kill each others characters.

Like you, I am all for stuns if done well. I am also all for players having ways they can build their character (stats, gear, builds etc) to minimize their impact.

Veyrah

Dreoh wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

I considered it on page 1. I'm getting tired of your supposed reasoning. To me it doesn't make sense. Your opinion seems somewhat relatable but it really isn't nearly as bad as you describe it, and not nearly enough to be valid argument against such a staple of a cc skill.

I also still don't get why it is much worse than a sleep. It takes away agency. Usually the tradeoff between stun vs sleep is duration vs wake on damage. Seems fine to me.

My reasoning is sound and hasn't changed. I've been very clear about my reasoning from page 1. I've also said that stuns aren't the worst thing in the world, and I will play AoC even if it does have stuns. I just think it's the laziest and most unimaginative way to create CC.
I do think the arguments I've made are very valid against simple stuns.

Sleep is far better because while you lose agency, you get it back as soon as you start getting punished.

If you want to get into the extreme nuance. Stuns and losing agency does suck by itself, but the exact reason why it is bad is because being punished for not being able to act is completely insane to me.

To put it in other words, losing control of your character sucks, and if you get stunned for 5 seconds (or 2 seconds or whatever, doesn't matter) but nothing happens to you it's, "well that sucked a lot but alright".
If you get stunned for 5 seconds, and then someone starts attacking you with things you'd normally be able to react to, that's completely atrocious.

Sleep is like a halfway point between the two of those. Being sleeped also sucks, but the fact that you only get one instance of punishment and then you can react makes it infinitely better than stacking punishments while you can't react.

Edit: I will also reiterate that things being "staples/tradition" isn't a good argument in itself for it's validity.

I know 0 games with 5 second stuns, sounds excessive. You're exaggerating for the purpose of making your argument sound more plausible. And yes a 2vs 5 sec stun is a huge difference.

Also your prime argument applies to all cc.

A staple is an argument if the statistics show that. All games with good pvp in my opinion have had stuns. Name some games you thougt had good PvP please.

Xan The Mad Aussie

Make stun breakable by most kinds of damage, so it's kind of like sleep. But some damage doesn't break stun.

That way, yes the player isn't "playing the game" but they also can't just take free damage unless it is a specific kind. This encourages strategic play and teamwork on the group doing the stun.

Veyrah

Xan The Mad Aussie wrote: »

Make stun breakable by most kinds of damage, so it's kind of like sleep. But some damage doesn't break stun.

That way, yes the player isn't "playing the game" but they also can't just take free damage unless it is a specific kind. This encourages strategic play and teamwork on the group doing the stun.

I've seen it work with a threshold, like stun ends after receiving x damage.

Dreoh

veyrah wrote: »

I know 0 games with 5 second stuns, sounds excessive. You're exaggerating for the purpose of making your argument sound more plausible. And yes a 2vs 5 sec stun is a huge difference.

Also your prime argument applies to all cc.

A staple is an argument if the statistics show that. All games with good pvp in my opinion have had stuns. Name some games you thougt had good PvP please.

Funny, I edited in the 2 second thing because I knew you would use that disingenuous take lmao.
Also, there's plenty of long stun abilities in games, in fact here's one off the top of my head

Can you explain how my prime argument applies to all CC? And what is this prime argument you're referring to?

And no, that's a false equivalency. Games can be good with stuns or without. My entire argument is any game is better with more thought out CC mechanics, not that a game with stuns is a bad game. Don't twist my argument.

In fact, it's literally a well known logical fallacy called the "Appeal to tradition".

Noaani wrote: »

So does being killed, and when you are killed, you lose that agency for even longer.

Thus, any argument against stuns seems to me to also be applicable to an argument against players being able to kill each others characters.

Like you, I am all for stuns if done well. I am also all for players having ways they can build their character (stats, gear, builds etc) to minimize their impact.

I just went into the nuance of the difference between death state and stun state like 3 comments above yours

Dreoh

Xan The Mad Aussie wrote: »

Make stun breakable by most kinds of damage, so it's kind of like sleep. But some damage doesn't break stun.

That way, yes the player isn't "playing the game" but they also can't just take free damage unless it is a specific kind. This encourages strategic play and teamwork on the group doing the stun.

Would you not agree that the better version of strategic play and teamwork is the team working together to apply a root/slow/gravitywell and a silence and/or disarm (depending on if they're a caster or weapon user), or whatever other kinds of CC may be relevant to shut them down?

Wouldn't that be more engaging than "Xan cast stun for 3 seconds on him so now everyone dogpile until he breaks free from duration or damage"

Veyrah

Dreoh wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

I know 0 games with 5 second stuns, sounds excessive. You're exaggerating for the purpose of making your argument sound more plausible. And yes a 2vs 5 sec stun is a huge difference.

Also your prime argument applies to all cc.

A staple is an argument if the statistics show that. All games with good pvp in my opinion have had stuns. Name some games you thougt had good PvP please.

Funny, I edited in the 2 second thing because I knew you would use that disingenuous take lmao.

"Lmao". If you knew, why did you type it? Did you not mean it?

Don't you think many decisions in AoC are based off tradition? Why the holy trinity of roles? Why the typical races? It is all to appeal to a certain kind of player. Stuns is part of that.

Dreoh

veyrah wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

I know 0 games with 5 second stuns, sounds excessive. You're exaggerating for the purpose of making your argument sound more plausible. And yes a 2vs 5 sec stun is a huge difference.

Also your prime argument applies to all cc.

A staple is an argument if the statistics show that. All games with good pvp in my opinion have had stuns. Name some games you thougt had good PvP please.

Funny, I edited in the 2 second thing because I knew you would use that disingenuous take lmao.

"Lmao". If you knew, why did you type it? Did you not mean it?

Don't you think many decisions in AoC are based off tradition? Why the holy trinity of roles? Why the typical races? It is all to appeal to a certain kind of player. Stuns is part of that.

Where did you get "I did not mean it" out of that lol.
The duration of the stun doesn't matter, but I knew you or others would be pedantic about the duration of it being too "unrealistic". It really is a pedantic argument to make.

Sure, tradition is useful when you are playing it safe, I never said tradition wasn't useful.
But developing an alternative to the Holy Trinity is far more complicated than splitting stuns up into it's parts.
Nearly every MMO combat system already has the "parts" implemented. All you'd have to do is implement them a little more where the stuns might be "normally".

Stuns have nothing to do with races, I don't know why you're grouping those together in a "certain kind of player" grouping.

Child Item