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

Fairtale

Dreoh wrote: »

What? I wasn't talking about your comment at all, what are you going on about lol?

I thought you were complaining about the throws/tumbles idea. My bad xD

SirChancelot

Vhaeyne wrote: »

@Dreoh

You may or may not like what Wildstar did with stuns, but I always liked Wildstar's PvP stun mechanic because of your chief complaint. You can't play the game when you are stunned.

This short video from the Wildstar devs shows things better than I could describe them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2G_8c-u2qc

What is important is that CC was just temporally changed your gameplay objectives instead of outright removing you from the game. Being able to react well to CC was just another player skill that was rewarded with shorter CC durations.

What do you think of this?

I read the thread title and immediately thought of wild star. I thoroughly enjoyed what they did for CC. My favorite bring if you got hit with a disorient, it randomly remapped your WASD keys for a bit.

But I very much like the idea of being able to respond to a CC rather than just wait it out and take it...

CROW3

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

if you got hit with a disorient, it randomly remapped your WASD keys for a bit...

That is a very cool idea.

JamesSunderland

No stuns or CCs at all just seems like a unreasonable removal of a important mechanic/strategic part of the game.

There are plenty of ways to properly balance CC skills, you can even follow the same pattern of balancing the damage of a skill based on Range, Size of AoE(if AoE), Cooldown and Cast time.
Then just add the variant CC and Duration(from 1 to 4 sec) to it. For example:
Example 1 (Shield Bash): Short range, TT No AoE, Medium Cooldown, Fast Cast, Stun, 3 sec duration and low damage
Example 2 (Ground Slam): Short range, Medium AoE, Medium Cooldown, Fast Cast, Knockdown, 2 sec duration and medium damage.
Example 3 (Lightning Bolt): Medium range, Skill Shot, Medium Cooldown, Fast Cast, Paralyse, 1 sec duration and medium damage.

Methods to directly deal with CCs are very good such as i-frames roll/block/counter, CC immunity buffs of some types, Instant CC removal skills.

There is also the possibility of passive mechanics to deal with CC lock such as gaining immunity to a type of CC after taking the same type of cc 3 times in a short period of time for some seconds, aswell as things like gear, buffs or stats that provide Less CC duration or %chance to evade the CC altogether.

Dreoh

JamesSunderland wrote: »

No stuns or CCs at all just seems like a unreasonable removal of a important mechanic/strategic part of the game.

There are plenty of ways to properly balance CC skills, you can even follow the same pattern of balancing the damage of a skill based on Range, Size of AoE(if AoE), Cooldown and Cast time.
Then just add the variant CC and Duration(from 1 to 4 sec) to it. For example:
Example 1 (Shield Bash): Short range, TT No AoE, Medium Cooldown, Fast Cast, Stun, 3 sec duration and low damage
Example 2 (Ground Slam): Short range, Medium AoE, Medium Cooldown, Fast Cast, Knockdown, 2 sec duration and medium damage.
Example 3 (Lightning Bolt): Medium range, Skill Shot, Medium Cooldown, Fast Cast, Paralyse, 1 sec duration and medium damage.

Methods to directly deal with CCs are very good such as i-frames roll/block/counter, CC immunity buffs of some types, Instant CC removal skills.

There is also the possibility of passive mechanics to deal with CC lock such as gaining immunity to a type of CC after taking the same type of cc 3 times in a short period of time for some seconds, aswell as things like gear, buffs or stats that provide Less CC duration or %chance to evade the CC altogether.

Another person who failed to read the original post and thinks this is an anti-CC thread lmao

It's an anti-stun thread, not an anti-CC thread.

And I was very thorough in the OP and follow-up comments about why easy stuns is completely unnecessary and just lazy design.

George_Black

I dont think games are rdy to replace good old stun. Knockdown and knockback and knockout might be too hard to balance.
Stun isnt going away yet.

Dolyem

Crowd control is crowd control... and seeing that the game is focused around group play, anyone who has played competitive group pvp in MMOs knows that stuns are great, and getting stunned just requires your team to make sure you dont die while stunned. Arguing against this one specific crowd control is hypocritcal when a root is basically a stun to any melee character with nobody near them, or a silence to any caster. Crowd control is meant to control the opponents ability and movement. So stop trying to single out stuns as lazy writing or whatever, if you really are that concerned just call it knocking someone prone and they have to get back up to attack or move.

Dreoh

Dolyem wrote: »

Crowd control is crowd control... and seeing that the game is focused around group play, anyone who has played competitive group pvp in MMOs knows that stuns are great, and getting stunned just requires your team to make sure you dont die while stunned. Arguing against this one specific crowd control is hypocritcal when a root is basically a stun to any melee character with nobody near them, or a silence to any caster. Crowd control is meant to control the opponents ability and movement. So stop trying to single out stuns as lazy writing or whatever, if you really are that concerned just call it knocking someone prone and they have to get back up to attack or move.

It is not hypocritical and arguing that a root is just a stun for a melee character is disingenuous assuming you've read through this thread.

The difference has already been explained thoroughly.

If you really need me to rehash it I can just quote the previous discussions on exactly the scenario you described.

@George Black I actually disagree, I think games have been ready to get rid of stuns a long time ago. People are just suckers for nostalgia and tradition and generally dislike change even if it's for the better. Stuns "work", but that's no excuse to not improve the system. Making excuses for bad game design isn't helping anyone.

And to clarify, full CC lockdown isn't what I'm arguing against, as you can read in the first page I mention how a full "stun" could still be possible, it should just require more thought and skill than "I press Hammer of Justice and you're stunned for 1-6 seconds".
Separate the stun into it's parts, and if you want a full stun, apply all the parts. Or make it require compounding effects.

George_Black

Personally, I think that having stars circle your characters head, inplying disorientation, and a character standing still receiving hits looks bad.

But again, a shieldbash inflicting a knockdown/knockback, or a spell lifting a target and smashing them down, or anything else that looks way better than stun might be a coding and balancing challenge.

Players arent nostalgic. Perhaps developers are lazy. Improve the system, yes, but replace it only when its ready.

And when you have people requesting spear fishing, cooking minigames and the such, good luck on working for better combat features...

JamesSunderland

Dreoh wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

No stuns or CCs at all just seems like a unreasonable removal of a important mechanic/strategic part of the game.

There are plenty of ways to properly balance CC skills, you can even follow the same pattern of balancing the damage of a skill based on Range, Size of AoE(if AoE), Cooldown and Cast time.
Then just add the variant CC and Duration(from 1 to 4 sec) to it. For example:
Example 1 (Shield Bash): Short range, TT No AoE, Medium Cooldown, Fast Cast, Stun, 3 sec duration and low damage
Example 2 (Ground Slam): Short range, Medium AoE, Medium Cooldown, Fast Cast, Knockdown, 2 sec duration and medium damage.
Example 3 (Lightning Bolt): Medium range, Skill Shot, Medium Cooldown, Fast Cast, Paralyse, 1 sec duration and medium damage.

Methods to directly deal with CCs are very good such as i-frames roll/block/counter, CC immunity buffs of some types, Instant CC removal skills.

There is also the possibility of passive mechanics to deal with CC lock such as gaining immunity to a type of CC after taking the same type of cc 3 times in a short period of time for some seconds, aswell as things like gear, buffs or stats that provide Less CC duration or %chance to evade the CC altogether.

Another person who failed to read the original post and thinks this is an anti-CC thread lmao

It's an anti-stun thread, not an anti-CC thread.

And I was very thorough in the OP and follow-up comments about why easy stuns is completely unnecessary and just lazy design.

Why necessarily or specificaly "anti-stun", why not knockdowns, Knockbacks, paralyzes or Stagger? I think you mean anti-hard CC.
From reading your original post even tho it isn't a "anti-CC thread" and "being pro-soft CC" its a definitely an "Anti Hard-CC thread" and no matter how you look at it, it is far from being "lazy design" or "unnecessary" and as you stated that it's purely "your opinion" using "You're not playing the game when you don't have control of your character" neglecting things like CC removal or immunity skill.

Dreoh

@George Black I do actually agree with that.

Knockdowns and knockbacks and such are much more acceptable than stuns.

This might sound hypocritical at first (and I've been careful about talking about this particular part of the topic because I know plenty of people would use it as a "gotcha" argument without thinking it through) but from the start my entire argument is that players losing all agency and continuing to be "punished" without any agency in a situation that doesn't make much logical sense outside of "it's a game mechanic" is the issue with stuns. Knockdowns, knockbacks and anything that the player easily rationalizes as "oh, it makes sense that I can't act right now" are far more acceptable.

Now obviously that's not a blanket statement, because too much knockdown or other similar effect becomes essentially just a stun or an equivalent agency-denying mechanic. Just like how I argued sleep is slightly more acceptable than stun, for some of the same reasons knockdowns and the like are better than stuns.

Some people would counter this (and have already in this thread) with "well you can get stunned in real life so why isn't a stun an acceptable rationalization of losing agency?"
The answer is that if you get stunned in real life, you've lost the fight. The fight is over. You get punched in the face and "stunned" and then you just get pummeled while you struggle to recollect yourself.
That's not fun in real life either. It's not fun for anyone watching who wanted a decent back and forth fight. It's only satisfying to the guy who punched you, and that was my argument from comment #1.
Imagine watching UFC and you're expecting some big satisfying fight, but one of them lands a good punch early on that leaves the opponent "stunned" and just lays into him. That's hardly as satisfying as a good back and forth.

Edit: @JamesSunderland seems I answered your comment in this reply to George Black as we posted at the same time lol

And about the spearfishing and other game mechanic requests, those will never end. There is no "best time" to implement change in that scenario. Players will forever request endless extra mechanics to a game, doesn't mean you can't make the mechanics you do have as good as possible

Dolyem

Dreoh wrote: »

@George Black I do actually agree with that.

Knockdowns and knockbacks and such are much more acceptable than stuns.

This might sound hypocritical at first (and I've been careful about talking about this particular part of the topic because I know plenty of people would use it as a "gotcha" argument without thinking it through) but from the start my entire argument is that players losing all agency is the issue with stuns. Knockdowns, knockbacks and anything that the player easily rationalizes as "oh, it makes sense that I can't act right now" are far more acceptable.

Now obviously that's not a blanket statement, because too much knockdown or other similar effect becomes essentially just a stun or an equivalent agency-denying mechanic. Just like how I argued sleep is slightly more acceptable than stun, for some of the same reasons knockdowns and the like are better than stuns.

Some people would counter this (and have already in this thread) with "well you can get stunned in real life so why isn't a stun an acceptable rationalization of losing agency?"
The answer is that if you get stunned in real life, you've lost the fight. The fight is over. You get punched in the face and "stunned" and then you just get pummeled while you struggle to recollect yourself.
That's not fun in real life either. It's not fun for anyone watching who wanted a decent back and forth fight. It's only satisfying to the guy who punched you, and that was my argument from comment #1.
Imagine watching UFC and you're expecting some big satisfying fight, but one of them lands a good punch early on that leaves the opponent "stunned" and just lays into him. That's hardly as satisfying as a good back and forth.

Edit: @JamesSunderland seems I answered your comment in this reply to George Black as we posted at the same time lol

And about the spearfishing and other game mechanic requests, those will never end. There is no "best time" to implement change in that scenario. Players will forever request endless extra mechanics to a game, doesn't mean you can't make the mechanics you do have as good as possible

So from my understanding, you're not against stun. You are simply against "stuns" that arent portrayed in a visually pleasing way? I mean I can get behind that. A stun as a "knocked-down" effect is the same mechanic, just with more visuals than an effect above the head. And for the record, once you start going for too-realistic combat, the game starts to lose fluidity and for the most part becomes less of a game and more of a chore just to make an attack, which leaves gameplay feeling sluggish and bland instead of fast and flashy. And to argue more realistic effects and reactions in a game, a fantasy game with magic and whatnot, isn't focused on how fun the game can be, just how "real" it can be. Need to find a balance where it looks good enough but the mechanics arent too constrictive to cost good gameplay. The drift forward with attacks is a perfect example of, sure its more realistic but the gameplay sucks.

Dreoh

Dolyem wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

@George Black I do actually agree with that.

Knockdowns and knockbacks and such are much more acceptable than stuns.

This might sound hypocritical at first (and I've been careful about talking about this particular part of the topic because I know plenty of people would use it as a "gotcha" argument without thinking it through) but from the start my entire argument is that players losing all agency is the issue with stuns. Knockdowns, knockbacks and anything that the player easily rationalizes as "oh, it makes sense that I can't act right now" are far more acceptable.

Now obviously that's not a blanket statement, because too much knockdown or other similar effect becomes essentially just a stun or an equivalent agency-denying mechanic. Just like how I argued sleep is slightly more acceptable than stun, for some of the same reasons knockdowns and the like are better than stuns.

Some people would counter this (and have already in this thread) with "well you can get stunned in real life so why isn't a stun an acceptable rationalization of losing agency?"
The answer is that if you get stunned in real life, you've lost the fight. The fight is over. You get punched in the face and "stunned" and then you just get pummeled while you struggle to recollect yourself.
That's not fun in real life either. It's not fun for anyone watching who wanted a decent back and forth fight. It's only satisfying to the guy who punched you, and that was my argument from comment #1.
Imagine watching UFC and you're expecting some big satisfying fight, but one of them lands a good punch early on that leaves the opponent "stunned" and just lays into him. That's hardly as satisfying as a good back and forth.

Edit: @JamesSunderland seems I answered your comment in this reply to George Black as we posted at the same time lol

And about the spearfishing and other game mechanic requests, those will never end. There is no "best time" to implement change in that scenario. Players will forever request endless extra mechanics to a game, doesn't mean you can't make the mechanics you do have as good as possible

So from my understanding, you're not against stun. You are simply against "stuns" that arent portrayed in a visually pleasing way? I mean I can get behind that. A stun as a "knocked-down" effect is the same mechanic, just with more visuals than an effect above the head. And for the record, once you start going for too-realistic combat, the game starts to lose fluidity and for the most part becomes less of a game and more of a chore just to make an attack, which leaves gameplay feeling sluggish and bland instead of fast and flashy. And to argue more realistic effects and reactions in a game, a fantasy game with magic and whatnot, isn't focused on how fun the game can be, just how "real" it can be. Need to find a balance where it looks good enough but the mechanics arent too constrictive to cost good gameplay. The drift forward with attacks is a perfect example of, sure its more realistic but the gameplay sucks.

I'm against stuns that are stuns for the sake of stuns. Visually pleasing is just a small part of it and a slight mischaracterization of my argument, though I understand what you meant.

A knockdown that lasts just as long as the animation is is a stun for that duration yes, but it's a knockdown with a clear purpose and reasoning attached to it.
If the knockdown is too long and the character is just rolling on the ground struggling to get back up it's effectively just a stun. (ie: Reinhardt's ultimate in Overwatch knocks you down but then you're just lying there... stunned)
To clarify, knockdowns and knockbacks and such are rarely longer than .5 - 1.5 seconds and if they are any longer they usually become irrational/unreasonable and you enter the territory of the player thinking "why won't my character get up any faster so that I can play the game?".

If the player loses control of their character because of a typical stun, where the character just gets hit by a spell/ability and can do nothing but stand still/freeze up for a duration, that's an irrational restriction that only exists because "game mechanic".
If I was to take the previous UFC fight example, even the "stunned" or "dazed" opponent can still react somewhat. They don't lose all agency, unless people are saying video-game "stuns" are the equivalent of being "knocked out", at which case the fight should be over anyways because your character becomes a non-combatant.

That all being said, I do still think even such things as knockdowns should be limited in their implementation. While they aren't the "gameified" stuns, they are still short and easy stuns and I personally think that the more minor CC's (root/slow/push/pull/silence/disarm/etc.) should be used in their place wherever applicable as I've argued in the OP.

I don't expect stuns and stun-like mechanics to completely disappear, I just believe less loss of agency is better overall for gaming. Again, this is my personal opinion, and I know many people disagree.

Azherae

Good gameplay is subjective though.

And that's fine, it's pretty clear that around 25% of players are going to ditch this game when the gameplay is properly defined.

The big question is if the other 50-75% will be 'correct enough' about what makes a successful MMO, for the game to not just fade like so many others.

JamesSunderland

Dreoh wrote: »

Edit: @JamesSunderland seems I answered your comment in this reply to George Black as we posted at the same time lol

The first part of it atleast.

Dygz

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Why necessarily or specificaly "anti-stun", why not knockdowns, Knockbacks, paralyzes or Stagger? I think you mean anti-hard CC.

What's the difference between paralyze and stun?

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

What's the difference between paralyze and stun?

If it’s @Dreoh, the volume of my laughing. 😈

Dygz

Hmmn. When I see people stunned in boxing, they are basically momentarily knocked out while still standing.
They cannot fight. They cannot run. They might be able to stagger a bit, just barely able to refrain from being knocked down.
The real difference is that in a video game, the character is stunned while the player is not, so the player feels like they should be able to actively do something to remove the stun.
Knockdown is a bit ore visually interesting, but it's basically the same thing as a stun.
Seems like you think a Knockdown gives the player more a sense that they are doing something that can make the character stand up more quickly... as if the character won't standup on its own unless the player makes the character stand up. (I don't think in Ashes, the player can do anything to make the character stand up...the character will automatically stand up as the effect wears off).

Stun is typically a short duration.
Chain stuns are problematic.

JamesSunderland

Dygz wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Why necessarily or specificaly "anti-stun", why not knockdowns, Knockbacks, paralyzes or Stagger? I think you mean anti-hard CC.

What's the difference between paralyze and stun?

Other than possible visual effect difference, no difference at all.
Both are character action disablers, some games have them on separated debuff categories in order to make resistances or duration reductions for one to not affect the other.

Enigmatic Sage

CC is spectrum from:

Soft CC to Hard CC

slows to staggers/stuns etc

If they're going to have hard cc with AoE abilities, it's going to be grief for many players as HARD CC will be the decisive meta in large scale PvP.

Child Item