But I also want to see classes have SOME specific CC counters.
This is how Archeage did it.
Most classes had a CC break for one particular type of CC, and as players could have three classes, they could almost always take multiple types of CC breaks - though obviously at the cost of other things they then cant take.
1
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2021
I haven’t played ESO in a bit but I don’t think the CC break has a cooldown does it? Just the cost?
Personally I’m not a fan of that, but I feel like it’s necessary in ESO because there is quite a bit of CC flying around. Id rather something like WoW where you could break every 2 minutes. Where you get free pass but you have to think about what and when you need to break, but that also lines up with TTK being decent to the point where if you don’t have the break you aren’t getting globaled but it’s def gonna hurt.
A lot of the issues with how CC can feel bad from my perspective is how often you’re getting globaled in it. And comes back to a TTK issue. I think you just have to find that nice balance between hard CC duration, TTK, and just the amount of hard CC getting thrown around. I just want it to look and feel cool.
Edit: I really like the idea of CC counters. I always look at it from the point of getting out of it, and rarely the point of just preventing it in the first place (outside of LoS and the basic things).
But I also want to see classes have SOME specific CC counters.
This is how Archeage did it.
Most classes had a CC break for one particular type of CC, and as players could have three classes, they could almost always take multiple types of CC breaks - though obviously at the cost of other things they then cant take.
I kind of like this actually, allowing for more customization so it allows the player to decide what they would rather have. Would still need a balance obviously but that would come with time.
@HumblePuffin
Now I ask the people that are against hard CCs. Is this want you want? A list of CCs homogenized due to the universal counter "break free"?
Remove it entirely isn't a net loss solution. Hard CC has an illusion of mechanical depth when in fact it dilutes it and causes frustration to the player. That's quite important for heavy pvp oriented game to have pvp which is exciting to engage with. Not something you sit through 3 seconds watching your hp bar getting smaller or just "take one for the team' in group engagement.
Something like numerous soft stacking statuses / debuffs which provide both an additional mechanic to compete through as well as requiring lasting reliable effort to pull off engages more and provides more depth, room for outplay as well as reduces overall felt frustration of being unable to move your character.
However that's a bit difficult to do. So rather than having break free, just have shorter CC's with a lot more build up required to put it on the opponent which would provide windows for counter play to happen and player can feel that there was actual skill involved, rather than uh dumb what this button do, I applied stun. Xoxo. Example, you cast some sort of chain with a timer which makes your character slower by 50% if after 2 seconds your opponent haven't moved from the range of the chain it gets stunned. It requires you to pull off and think about positioning, it also allows player to have forsight and play around it. You compete on this dimension, not just dps as a result. (it's not an example of actual proposition for an ability, it's just an illustration of a concept).
In most cases hard CC is awful lazy design contributing to dps race stat dominant pvp. Either my stats are sufficient enough to prevent enough damage until character breaks out, or enemy has enough damage to kill you or put to close to death that it doesn't matter. While the counters and triggers of it are based on coin flipping / who blinks first type of deal.
In most cases hard CC is awful lazy design contributing to dps race stat dominant pvp. Either my stats are sufficient enough to prevent enough damage until character breaks out, or enemy has enough damage to kill you or put to close to death that it doesn't matter. While the counters and triggers of it are based on coin flipping / who blinks first type of deal.
This is a Lazy hypothetical not adding in more factors. "The stun, more health vs more damage THE END"
What about stat builds that can affect CC duration or effect? What about CC-breaks? What about Timing your own CC? Your teammates ability to either heal you, break you free, counter-CC, or just utilize the moment? Anyone who has seriously competed in rated large scale PvP knows that dealing with stuns and other hard CCs are the adrenline pumping moments where as a team you have to react correctly to the situation. And seeing as AoC is being designed around group play, hard CC (including stuns) sounds like a plus from my experiences.
This is a Lazy hypothetical not adding in more factors. "The stun, more health vs more damage THE END"
What about stat builds that can affect CC duration or effect? What about CC-breaks? What about Timing your own CC? Your teammates ability to either heal you, break you free, counter-CC, or just utilize the moment? Anyone who has seriously competed in rated large scale PvP knows that dealing with stuns and other hard CCs are the adrenline pumping moments where as a team you have to react correctly to the situation. And seeing as AoC is being designed around group play, hard CC (including stuns) sounds like a plus from my experiences.
I'll tell you what's Lazy... not actually paying attention to the thread before making a post. I wonder how many times Dreoh has had to reiterate this thread isn't an anti-CC thread, but an anti-stun thread. I guess that's why people can't even form a complete argument for Stuns, when they can't even pay attention to the distinction.
I'm telling you, I keep genuinely waiting for people to actually start arguing about this properly so we can get a good back and forth like this forum and this topic deserves and all I ever see is arguments about how someone else should make the effort in the conversation because tradition or something. You're going to lose out like this, you know? Because at the end of the day, you don't have to convince us, right? You have to convince the devs and if you cannot even articulate why Stuns offer better adrenaline pumping moments and more teamplay opportunities than say a Root or a Silence and why it is that the tradition of Stuns in MMOs is so much more important than moving on with what we've learned from MMOs so far, then I don't even know what we're doing here.
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
Because at the end of the day, you don't have to convince us, right? You have to convince the devs and if you cannot even articulate why Stuns offer better adrenaline pumping moments and more teamplay opportunities than say a Root or a Silence and why it is that the tradition of Stuns in MMOs is so much more important than moving on with what we've learned from MMOs so far, then I don't even know what we're doing here.
Actually, since the status quo is for stuns to be present, it is beholden on those that don't want them to convince Intrepid to remove them.
So far, the only actual argument has been "they are frustrating".
No shit, that is why they exist.
As an argument, that is about as smart as saying you don't like nukes because it is frustrating when they kill you, so get rid of nukes as they are just lazy.
The entire point of a stun in a PvP setting is to frustrate your opponent, and CLEARLY they do a good job at that.
So, since it is beholden on those wanting stuns removed to do the convincing here, please tell us all again - why?
Although I agree that it's the ones that are against the stuns that have to find argument to convince the devs to get rid of it, I don't agree with your statement about "stuns are there to frustrate players"
Stuns aren't there to frustrates player, they are there to incapacitate one or more player to either focus them down, slow them down or block them from doing some actions. Stuns / Knockdown / banishment and others are hard cc there to gain a strategic advantage.
Sure you could get the same result with a hard root + silence on the a target, but it means using two spells for the same result, which means it's just a "lower" version of the stun.
I think people need to understand that the stun doesn't frustrate in itself, it's the fact that being controlled is not seen as fun by most players. If they get rid of the stun but still create an interesting combat system, people will still get outplayed, controlled and mown down by better and more prepared player. The frustration will be the same.
Getting bursted down in less than .5 second is not fun
Getting stunned for 10 sec is not fun
Getting permanently slowed down and controlled isn't fun
Never being able to get in range of your target isn't fun
etc...
Which sumarized goes like :
"Getting bested in a PvP game, isn't fun"
Although I agree that it's the ones that are against the stuns that have to find argument to convince the devs to get rid of it, I don't agree with your statement about "stuns are there to frustrate players"
Stuns aren't there to frustrates player, they are there to incapacitate one or more player to either focus them down, slow them down or block them from doing some actions. Stuns / Knockdown / banishment and others are hard cc there to gain a strategic advantage.
Sure you could get the same result with a hard root + silence on the a target, but it means using two spells for the same result, which means it's just a "lower" version of the stun.
I think people need to understand that the stun doesn't frustrate in itself, it's the fact that being controlled is not seen as fun by most players. If they get rid of the stun but still create an interesting combat system, people will still get outplayed, controlled and mown down by better and more prepared player. The frustration will be the same.
Getting bursted down in less than .5 second is not fun
Getting stunned for 10 sec is not fun
Getting permanently slowed down and controlled isn't fun
Never being able to get in range of your target isn't fun
etc...
Which sumarized goes like :
"Getting bested in a PvP game, isn't fun"
And the point is that the exact frustration is not the part one is trying to remove. The lack of agency is the part requested to be removed. Which is why no one on the Anti-Stun side seems to grasp the related arguments. I like to be able to play more, I like if my opponent can play more as long as it continues to reward my skill. Why should my opponent get to play less (not do less, that's obviously fine) if it isn't necessary?
Sleep - Wake as soon as hit once, probably the closest to Stun, but in many games has cast time that you can interrupt, moreso than a stun does. Is 'stun with a 3s cast time' acceptable? If so, that should be the new position. "Make the cast time for Stuns 2-3s with an obvious tell, player can move targeting reticle until the end". Is this the acceptable compromise?
Knockdown - Prevents offensive abilities, player can still use defensive ones, even use Dodge if cooldown permits.
Paralyze - Most implementations suck. Could use 'mobile skills become immobile', 'cooldowns lengthened', all sorts of things. Opponent still plays.
Blind - Hides ground target reticles for the blinded player (or maybe all reticle), reduce reticle stickiness if that's a thing, flat reduction in Accuracy if Tab Target.
Root - Prevents movement abilities, player can still use offensive and defensive ones
Slow - Lessens non-ability movement, player can still use abilities.
Silence - Probably just weird in Ashes, would it stop Tank abilities and Mage abilities both? What happens to Summoners?
Knockback/Draw In - Prevents movement for a moment and causes disorientation by reposition, no need to prevent abilities, offensive ones are already more likely to miss
If the whole argument is 'stuns themselves are tradition and fine and must be in the game' and Intrepid for some reason decides 'let's not bother innovating like we are trying to do everywhere else, tradition is good', then the request should be 'please give Stun a long cast time and a big tell so that when we get hit by it, we know that the player using it was very skilled'.
Sounds like both sides will be okay with that, since that balances them nicely while keeping with tradition.
And in a shoutout to the other thread, notice how none of those require any RNG? Resistances can be flat 'duration reduction', and they can all be projectile skillshots, close range melee, and ground target.
Well the thing is, I don't think you can just say that stuns are good or bad. You need to look at the whole picture, to have the whole gameplay in your mind to understand if it works or if it doesn't.
In DAoC you had 9 melee stuns, no prerequisite, no cooldown, and the whole gameplay was still amazing. And if there were cc's that bothered the played, it wasn't much the 9 sec stun (even if it was indeed super strong), it was more the snares in this game that were horrible to deal with
Hard cc gave immunity to the corresponding cc, 1 minute for magical based cc, duration times 5 for physical stuns (so 45 sec stun immunity after eating a 9 sec stun). The snares didn't gave immunity though... so you could litteraly get snared over and over again for the whol fight sometimes.. and I'm talking 30 secondes linearly decreasing snares that starts at 99% speed reduction
So yeah, why not make magical castable stuns that you could interrupt, or just get rid of the stuns entirely or keep stuns and add more of them, it just has to work in the whole system.
Currently, as I understand it, the only way to dismount another player is to stun them... so if it stays that way, I hope every class will get numerous stuns without long cd to avoid having to run around for hours trying to get someone to dismount and actually fight
Well the thing is, I don't think you can just say that stuns are good or bad. You need to look at the whole picture, to have the whole gameplay in your mind to understand if it works or if it doesn't.
In DAoC you had 9 melee stuns, no prerequisite, no cooldown, and the whole gameplay was still amazing. And if there were cc's that bothered the played, it wasn't much the 9 sec stun (even if it was indeed super strong), it was more the snares in this game that were horrible to deal with
Hard cc gave immunity to the corresponding cc, 1 minute for magical based cc, duration times 5 for physical stuns (so 45 sec stun immunity after eating a 9 sec stun). The snares didn't gave immunity though... so you could litteraly get snared over and over again for the whol fight sometimes.. and I'm talking 30 secondes linearly decreasing snares that starts at 99% speed reduction
So yeah, why not make magical castable stuns that you could interrupt, or just get rid of the stuns entirely or keep stuns and add more of them, it just has to work in the whole system.
Currently, as I understand it, the only way to dismount another player is to stun them... so if it stays that way, I hope every class will get numerous stuns without long cd to avoid having to run around for hours trying to get someone to dismount and actually fight
And this is easy to agree with, some people just don't like the gameplay resultant from adding Stuns to games that don't suit them.
The issue is that Ashes already has a specific baseline framework involving skillshots (which at least to me implied some speed, backed up somewhat by how Javelin works in game), Action Combat components, relatively lower ground mobility, mobility during casting, shorter cast times, and GvG balance, along with two specific aspects of HP and scaling.
I would absolutely be fine with Stuns within the framework of a different game and I'm fine with the long cast timer Stun option in Ashes. But Ashes already started from a place where quick Stuns already don't fit. When viewed through that lens, this discussion doesn't have to be 'Stuns always suck' (though I still think it could be).
Stuns don't work well in Ashes as it is presented to us now. The game that 'would suit stuns' is sort of distant from where they are, but if they make it, it will probably be pretty good too.
I'm telling you, I keep genuinely waiting for people to actually start arguing about this properly...
Clearly not, otherwise you would have noticed this argument fell apart 5 pages ago. When someone has a fundamental belief about x, there is no logical argument about x, there's just venting. Hard CC exists for the very reason Dreoh hates it - it completely removes the opponent's agency. It's like arguing that ice is terrible because you hate anything frozen.
I'm telling you, I keep genuinely waiting for people to actually start arguing about this properly...
Clearly not, otherwise you would have noticed this argument fell apart 5 pages ago. When someone has a fundamental belief about x, there is no logical argument about x, there's just venting. Hard CC exists for the very reason Dreoh hates it - it completely removes the opponent's agency. It's like arguing that ice is terrible because you hate anything frozen.
But by that nature, arguing against someone who thinks that it isn't necessary is pointless too.
Dreoh said 'This thing, that this mechanic does, is bad and not fun'.
The counter, as you are presenting it, is 'This thing, that this mechanic does, exists to do exactly what it does.'
It's similar to 'having to sit or rest to heal mana'.
"Sitting to rest to heal mana is not fun, it slows down gameplay, the game can be built without this."
The equivalent response would be: "That's what it is for, to slow down gameplay, the game shouldn't be built without this."
Except that we know Intrepid's response to this. Steven's personal response, I think, assuming I don't misremember the video.
"[Jeff] explained to me how the game could work without it, so we removed it."
You're right in that the discussion is over, if the 'final say' from the conservative side is 'Working as intended'.
The others should probably move on to 'explaining how the game could work without it, so that it can be removed'.
By that reasoning, there's no need to interrupt the latter process.
I'm telling you, I keep genuinely waiting for people to actually start arguing about this properly...
Clearly not, otherwise you would have noticed this argument fell apart 5 pages ago. When someone has a fundamental belief about x, there is no logical argument about x, there's just venting. Hard CC exists for the very reason Dreoh hates it - it completely removes the opponent's agency. It's like arguing that ice is terrible because you hate anything frozen.
Yep, the argument became meaningless quite some pages ago, the people arguing against Stun and Hard CC, are doing so through a personal preference viewpoint saying what they believe it should do, be, what they like or dislike and throwing ambiguous words around like "it's bad", "lazy design", "lack of agency"(neglecting hard-CC counters) or "Frustrating"
@Azherae - Which is exactly what the thread transitioned into. But I was responding directly to SunScript's complaint that no one properly argued Dreoh's OP. We did. It ran to ground. We moved on with the cc discussion.
Now, once someone has drawn an ideological line in the sand, you can absolutely continue to bring logical arguments to the table. I'm ok just moving on and discussing other things, you know?
I'm telling you, I keep genuinely waiting for people to actually start arguing about this properly...
Clearly not, otherwise you would have noticed this argument fell apart 5 pages ago. When someone has a fundamental belief about x, there is no logical argument about x, there's just venting. Hard CC exists for the very reason Dreoh hates it - it completely removes the opponent's agency. It's like arguing that ice is terrible because you hate anything frozen.
Yep, the argument became meaningless quite some pages ago, the people arguing against Stun and Hard CC, are doing so through a personal preference viewpoint saying what they believe it should do, be, what they like or dislike and throwing ambiguous words around like "it's bad", "lazy design", "lack of agency"(neglecting hard-CC counters) or "Frustrating"
Then let me ask this. If the argument was meaningless, and by minor implication 'lost by definition' on the Anti-Stun side.
If Dreoh made a different thread 'Suggestions for CC implementations that exclude stuns', would you simply have no reason to post in it? Would you not feel the need to 'enter the thread to try to tear down the idea that CC Implementations should exist without Stuns'? Since it would have no basis, just a fantasy from people with a personal dislike of a concept.
What if you made a different thread 'Why CC implementations should include Stuns', and somehow, magically, no one who opposed Stuns posted in that thread, everything would be fine, right? Because 'the game has stuns, and Intrepid won't remove them because of our preference'. Also, surely, the strong points brought by the second thread would counter any chance of that anyway.
@Azherae - Which is exactly what the thread transitioned into. But I was responding directly to SunScript's complaint that no one properly argued Dreoh's OP. We did. It ran to ground. We moved on with the cc discussion.
Now, once someone has drawn an ideological line in the sand, you can absolutely continue to bring logical arguments to the table. I'm ok just moving on and discussing other things, you know?
Agreed, the issue (as my post just above points out) is that the two 'camps' are at a nonproductive stalemate, but this specific thread with all it's 'baggage', let's say, attracts new readers or returning readers to just revive it with repetitions of the points that surround the stalemate.
I consider this a situation where it would be massively beneficial to make a new thread. Two, in fact. We don't have the level of 'magic' required to separate them cleanly though. To 'sort' people into 'people who want to discuss how Stun is not needed and their concepts of the gameplay' and 'people who want to discuss why Stun is needed in their concept of the gameplay'.
But we should probably try, because without at least trying, no one's going to seriously talk about gameplay.
I'll leave that to OP though, if @Dreoh considers that worth it. There's enough data in here to do it with. If a Compilation is needed, I can be summoned for that too.
Nearly every response in this thread that isn't part of the 'tug of war at the stalemate point' is a person's neatly encapsulated opinion, so a splice is easy, and a scrape-splice is easier.
@Azherae - Yes, exactly. I think it was either you or I that explicitly called it a stalemate at that point, again which we moved on from (even @Dreoh was on board).
The two threads are an interesting academic idea, though I want to bet 5g on both turning into ideological stalemates.
I'll leave that to OP though, if @Dreoh considers that worth it. There's enough data in here to do it with. If a Compilation is needed, I can be summoned for that too.
I'm telling you, I keep genuinely waiting for people to actually start arguing about this properly...
Clearly not, otherwise you would have noticed this argument fell apart 5 pages ago. When someone has a fundamental belief about x, there is no logical argument about x, there's just venting. Hard CC exists for the very reason Dreoh hates it - it completely removes the opponent's agency. It's like arguing that ice is terrible because you hate anything frozen.
Yep, the argument became meaningless quite some pages ago, the people arguing against Stun and Hard CC, are doing so through a personal preference viewpoint saying what they believe it should do, be, what they like or dislike and throwing ambiguous words around like "it's bad", "lazy design", "lack of agency"(neglecting hard-CC counters) or "Frustrating"
Then let me ask this. If the argument was meaningless, and by minor implication 'lost by definition' on the Anti-Stun side.
If Dreoh made a different thread 'Suggestions for CC implementations that exclude stuns', would you simply have no reason to post in it? Would you not feel the need to 'enter the thread to try to tear down the idea that CC Implementations should exist without Stuns'? Since it would have no basis, just a fantasy from people with a personal dislike of a concept.
What if you made a different thread 'Why CC implementations should include Stuns', and somehow, magically, no one who opposed Stuns posted in that thread, everything would be fine, right? Because 'the game has stuns, and Intrepid won't remove them because of our preference'. Also, surely, the strong points brought by the second thread would counter any chance of that anyway.
"If Dreoh made a different thread 'Suggestions for CC implementations that exclude stuns', would you simply have no reason to post in it?"
This title would still require an excellent, logical and techinical non-biased reason for the exclusion of Stuns(Or Hard CC in general even tho he considers Knockdowns not as bad as stuns because of some visual reason???)
"Would you not feel the need to 'enter the thread to try to tear down the idea that CC Implementations should exist without Stuns'?"
I didn't felt any of that "need" you are saying there mate, i only tried to find the excelent reason for the Anti-Stun Ideal, sadly what i most found was personal preferences, ambiguous language and pseudo-equivalency arguments.
"What if you made a different thread 'Why CC implementations should include Stuns', and somehow, magically, no one who opposed Stuns posted in that thread, everything would be fine, right?"
Such thread wouldn't even make sense to be made in the first place, as it isn't a "appeal for change" (which requires an argument for such a change), but a reinforcement for something already well established.
@Azherae - Yes, exactly. I think it was either you or I that explicitly called it a stalemate at that point, again which we moved on from (even @Dreoh was on board).
The two threads are an interesting academic idea, though I want to bet 5g on both turning into ideological stalemates.
I'll leave that to OP though, if @Dreoh considers that worth it. There's enough data in here to do it with. If a Compilation is needed, I can be summoned for that too.
Haha! This cracked me up.
Not sure why. I have text analytic tools that I presume Dreoh doesn't, so it's faster and easier for me. If you meant 'why I would leave it up to Dreoh, I don't get that either, but I often don't understand the amusement of others, so if you are so inclined, please explain it.
Edit: Oh wait I see it now? The use of the term 'summoned' was funny?
I'm telling you, I keep genuinely waiting for people to actually start arguing about this properly...
Clearly not, otherwise you would have noticed this argument fell apart 5 pages ago. When someone has a fundamental belief about x, there is no logical argument about x, there's just venting. Hard CC exists for the very reason Dreoh hates it - it completely removes the opponent's agency. It's like arguing that ice is terrible because you hate anything frozen.
Yep, the argument became meaningless quite some pages ago, the people arguing against Stun and Hard CC, are doing so through a personal preference viewpoint saying what they believe it should do, be, what they like or dislike and throwing ambiguous words around like "it's bad", "lazy design", "lack of agency"(neglecting hard-CC counters) or "Frustrating"
Then let me ask this. If the argument was meaningless, and by minor implication 'lost by definition' on the Anti-Stun side.
If Dreoh made a different thread 'Suggestions for CC implementations that exclude stuns', would you simply have no reason to post in it? Would you not feel the need to 'enter the thread to try to tear down the idea that CC Implementations should exist without Stuns'? Since it would have no basis, just a fantasy from people with a personal dislike of a concept.
What if you made a different thread 'Why CC implementations should include Stuns', and somehow, magically, no one who opposed Stuns posted in that thread, everything would be fine, right? Because 'the game has stuns, and Intrepid won't remove them because of our preference'. Also, surely, the strong points brought by the second thread would counter any chance of that anyway.
"If Dreoh made a different thread 'Suggestions for CC implementations that exclude stuns', would you simply have no reason to post in it?"
This title would still require an excellent, logical and techinical non-biased reason for the exclusion of Stuns(Or Hard CC in general even tho he considers Knockdowns not as bad as stuns because of some visual reason???)
"Would you not feel the need to 'enter the thread to try to tear down the idea that CC Implementations should exist without Stuns'?"
I didn't felt any of that "need" you are saying there mate, i only tried to find the excelent reason for the Anti-Stun Ideal, sadly what i most found was personal preferences, ambiguous language and pseudo-equivalency arguments.
"What if you made a different thread 'Why CC implementations should include Stuns', and somehow, magically, no one who opposed Stuns posted in that thread, everything would be fine, right?"
Such thread wouldn't even make sense to be made in the first place, as it isn't a "appeal for change" (which requires an argument for such a change), but a reinforcement for something already well established.
I don't understand this either, so I guess I am just not keeping up in some way.
I don't expect that when an old concept is challenged, that the old guard just goes 'well I don't need to present any points, since things are already the way I want them to be'.
I don't understand this either, so I guess I am just not keeping up in some way.
I don't expect that when an old concept is challenged, that the old guard just goes 'well I don't need to present any points, since things are already the way I want them to be'.
Maybe it's the style of government I live under.
Would you consider it an appeal to tradition, instead of something reached through trial and error along the years?
CCs both soft and hard, gives tactical depth to MMORPGs combat and evolved with the addition of CC-Counter measures(CC chance reduction and increases for RNG-CCs, Modifiers to CC Duration, Instant CC removal skills, CC Immunity skills).
This isn't about what some one wants it to be, but what it is, and what can it be changed for.
But most importantly, why it should be changed.
I don't understand this either, so I guess I am just not keeping up in some way.
I don't expect that when an old concept is challenged, that the old guard just goes 'well I don't need to present any points, since things are already the way I want them to be'.
Maybe it's the style of government I live under.
Would you consider it an appeal to tradition, instead of something reached through trial and error along the years?
CCs both soft and hard, gives tactical depth to MMORPGs combat and evolved with the addition of CC-Counter measures(CC chance reduction and increases for RNG-CCs, Modifiers to CC Duration, Instant CC removal skills, CC Immunity skills).
This isn't about what some one wants it to be, but what it is, and what can it be changed for.
But most importantly, why it should be changed.
Alright, seems the best option is to just make another thread. Even responding to this would just be doing the same thing again, and even if I gave gameplay related reasons, I doubt it would matter, so I'll save any discussion for any other thread that exists.
Oh wait I see it now? The use of the term 'summoned' was funny?
Nailed it. The idea of us getting into a debate where data needed to be aggregated then analyzed and we rub the lamp to summon our statistical djiin was amusing.
I don't understand this either, so I guess I am just not keeping up in some way.
I don't expect that when an old concept is challenged, that the old guard just goes 'well I don't need to present any points, since things are already the way I want them to be'.
Maybe it's the style of government I live under.
Would you consider it an appeal to tradition, instead of something reached through trial and error along the years?
CCs both soft and hard, gives tactical depth to MMORPGs combat and evolved with the addition of CC-Counter measures(CC chance reduction and increases for RNG-CCs, Modifiers to CC Duration, Instant CC removal skills, CC Immunity skills).
This isn't about what some one wants it to be, but what it is, and what can it be changed for.
But most importantly, why it should be changed.
Alright, seems the best option is to just make another thread. Even responding to this would just be doing the same thing again, and even if I gave gameplay related reasons, I doubt it would matter, so I'll save any discussion for any other thread that exists.
Alright, then i will be anxiously waiting for that possible future discussion or thread, who knows, maybe you are the chosen one that will be able to break the CC concept status quo.
I don't understand this either, so I guess I am just not keeping up in some way.
I don't expect that when an old concept is challenged, that the old guard just goes 'well I don't need to present any points, since things are already the way I want them to be'.
Maybe it's the style of government I live under.
Would you consider it an appeal to tradition, instead of something reached through trial and error along the years?
CCs both soft and hard, gives tactical depth to MMORPGs combat and evolved with the addition of CC-Counter measures(CC chance reduction and increases for RNG-CCs, Modifiers to CC Duration, Instant CC removal skills, CC Immunity skills).
This isn't about what some one wants it to be, but what it is, and what can it be changed for.
But most importantly, why it should be changed.
Alright, seems the best option is to just make another thread. Even responding to this would just be doing the same thing again, and even if I gave gameplay related reasons, I doubt it would matter, so I'll save any discussion for any other thread that exists.
Alright, then i will be anxiously waiting for that possible future discussion or thread, who knows, maybe you are the chosen one that will be able to break the CC concept status quo.
I'm sure if that happens, it will be a team effort perfectly executed in a GvG.
Nailed it. The idea of us getting into a debate where data needed to be aggregated then analyzed and we rub the lamp to summon our statistical djiin was amusing.
New Title Unlocked: Statistical Djinn
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
Oh wait I see it now? The use of the term 'summoned' was funny?
Nailed it. The idea of us getting into a debate where data needed to be aggregated then analyzed and we rub the lamp to summon our statistical djiin was amusing.
The sad thing is that we do have tons of data from past decade. None of that data are found in MMO's though, at least to my knowledge. And which I believe is part why PvP in MMO's suck. No wonder, MMO's are stale as a genre and been like this for quite a while now.
A good example would be sudden collapse of competitive arena in WoW when LoL started to take popularity. Then you take LoL which takes competitive play seriously you have years upon years of developments, patches, complaints, in game footage, evolving design as well as reasons for it.
You can argue that you don't like the game or whatever. You can't argue their presence and their impact on the competitive gaming scene and the popularity it amassed. And given that it has most common ground with MMO's type pvp, namely cooldown trading and positioning based gameplay it fits as an example to draw inspiration from.
Now I could understand if someone would try to make an argument about how these type of mechanics wouldn't work or why you think the mechanics wouldn't translate to MMO genre, perhaps you believe that stats and not mechanical ability of the player should be the core determining factor like in actual RPG games. Or perhaps some other mechanical based reason.
And we could have a debate here which I think would be fun to have. But to come out and say that there is no data or evidence for gating easy to deploy hard cc abilities against other player controlled characters by mechanical skill both sides can pro-actively participate in, especially where competition is involved is just ignorant. The experiment was already done and lasted for years.
I don't know what can be said if your willingness to engage stands on the fact that you demand R studio based charts of aggregated data probably from multiple games. On the off chance that they might be dismissed by "they are not mmo's", "it's all subjective" or something like that.
The goal of people who are about curtailing the accessibility and deployment of hard CC against other players is not to "make it easier" for them. Is more about creating pvp which is fun to engage for both sides regardless of eventual outcome. And that's what you want. That's what Tom wants. That what everyone wants, people to play with. Even those who proclaim to be "hardcore full loot pvp" types. Everyone picks decently populated servers, not vacant ones.
"some game mechanic exist to frustrate the player" why? That's the point of such system. What is to be gained by frustrating the player base? How about no, we don't frustrate the players and allow multitude of dimensions through which to engage with which feel meaningful even if one loses? How about after being whacked you get inspired to become like the person who managed to pull that off instead of being frustrated at the game system which prevented you from engaging with the damn system? Isn't that desirable? How?
Yeah it's lengthy response to a beaten horse of a thread. And perhaps same question would be better served with more clearly defined proposal. "remove stuns" while understandable from frustration perspective is not well received in terms of proposing the problem and potential solutions / improvements.
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. It's hard to know when you're saying 'you' are you meaning the generic 2nd person, or me specifically... Maybe? I don't know. Can you help me understand?
I guess I shouldn't find it funny that someone states they can be 'summoned' for an analysis...?
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. It's hard to know when you're saying 'you' are you meaning the generic 2nd person, or me specifically... Maybe? I don't know. Can you help me understand?
I guess I shouldn't find it funny that someone states they can be 'summoned' for an analysis...?
Hah. I imagine, I can get carried away sometimes. More of a reaction after absorbing over dozen of responses. I think more than one person expressed an inkling that supposedly gating easy to deploy hard CC like it is lots MMO game has no real world evidence for being a better game design direction.
Reading through numerous responses led me to the last one which mentioned something about debate which requires data aggregates to supposedly continue. Perhaps I took it the wrong way or something. But I jumped in right after it trying to point that there are tons of evidence. And the debate supposedly which approach better serves pvp is over by now.
The question is can we replicate that in MMO setting with same success. But to me it seems that a lot of people are just not convinced that there are better designs how to utilize CC systems for some reason so we can't even start talking about it.
Anyway I might be missing your original point. The reaction to the thread as whole is still somewhat on point I think.
Comments
Most classes had a CC break for one particular type of CC, and as players could have three classes, they could almost always take multiple types of CC breaks - though obviously at the cost of other things they then cant take.
Personally I’m not a fan of that, but I feel like it’s necessary in ESO because there is quite a bit of CC flying around. Id rather something like WoW where you could break every 2 minutes. Where you get free pass but you have to think about what and when you need to break, but that also lines up with TTK being decent to the point where if you don’t have the break you aren’t getting globaled but it’s def gonna hurt.
A lot of the issues with how CC can feel bad from my perspective is how often you’re getting globaled in it. And comes back to a TTK issue. I think you just have to find that nice balance between hard CC duration, TTK, and just the amount of hard CC getting thrown around. I just want it to look and feel cool.
Edit: I really like the idea of CC counters. I always look at it from the point of getting out of it, and rarely the point of just preventing it in the first place (outside of LoS and the basic things).
I kind of like this actually, allowing for more customization so it allows the player to decide what they would rather have. Would still need a balance obviously but that would come with time.
Remove it entirely isn't a net loss solution. Hard CC has an illusion of mechanical depth when in fact it dilutes it and causes frustration to the player. That's quite important for heavy pvp oriented game to have pvp which is exciting to engage with. Not something you sit through 3 seconds watching your hp bar getting smaller or just "take one for the team' in group engagement.
Something like numerous soft stacking statuses / debuffs which provide both an additional mechanic to compete through as well as requiring lasting reliable effort to pull off engages more and provides more depth, room for outplay as well as reduces overall felt frustration of being unable to move your character.
However that's a bit difficult to do. So rather than having break free, just have shorter CC's with a lot more build up required to put it on the opponent which would provide windows for counter play to happen and player can feel that there was actual skill involved, rather than uh dumb what this button do, I applied stun. Xoxo. Example, you cast some sort of chain with a timer which makes your character slower by 50% if after 2 seconds your opponent haven't moved from the range of the chain it gets stunned. It requires you to pull off and think about positioning, it also allows player to have forsight and play around it. You compete on this dimension, not just dps as a result. (it's not an example of actual proposition for an ability, it's just an illustration of a concept).
In most cases hard CC is awful lazy design contributing to dps race stat dominant pvp. Either my stats are sufficient enough to prevent enough damage until character breaks out, or enemy has enough damage to kill you or put to close to death that it doesn't matter. While the counters and triggers of it are based on coin flipping / who blinks first type of deal.
This is a Lazy hypothetical not adding in more factors. "The stun, more health vs more damage THE END"
What about stat builds that can affect CC duration or effect? What about CC-breaks? What about Timing your own CC? Your teammates ability to either heal you, break you free, counter-CC, or just utilize the moment? Anyone who has seriously competed in rated large scale PvP knows that dealing with stuns and other hard CCs are the adrenline pumping moments where as a team you have to react correctly to the situation. And seeing as AoC is being designed around group play, hard CC (including stuns) sounds like a plus from my experiences.
I'll tell you what's Lazy... not actually paying attention to the thread before making a post. I wonder how many times Dreoh has had to reiterate this thread isn't an anti-CC thread, but an anti-stun thread. I guess that's why people can't even form a complete argument for Stuns, when they can't even pay attention to the distinction.
I'm telling you, I keep genuinely waiting for people to actually start arguing about this properly so we can get a good back and forth like this forum and this topic deserves and all I ever see is arguments about how someone else should make the effort in the conversation because tradition or something. You're going to lose out like this, you know? Because at the end of the day, you don't have to convince us, right? You have to convince the devs and if you cannot even articulate why Stuns offer better adrenaline pumping moments and more teamplay opportunities than say a Root or a Silence and why it is that the tradition of Stuns in MMOs is so much more important than moving on with what we've learned from MMOs so far, then I don't even know what we're doing here.
So far, the only actual argument has been "they are frustrating".
No shit, that is why they exist.
As an argument, that is about as smart as saying you don't like nukes because it is frustrating when they kill you, so get rid of nukes as they are just lazy.
The entire point of a stun in a PvP setting is to frustrate your opponent, and CLEARLY they do a good job at that.
So, since it is beholden on those wanting stuns removed to do the convincing here, please tell us all again - why?
Stuns aren't there to frustrates player, they are there to incapacitate one or more player to either focus them down, slow them down or block them from doing some actions. Stuns / Knockdown / banishment and others are hard cc there to gain a strategic advantage.
Sure you could get the same result with a hard root + silence on the a target, but it means using two spells for the same result, which means it's just a "lower" version of the stun.
I think people need to understand that the stun doesn't frustrate in itself, it's the fact that being controlled is not seen as fun by most players. If they get rid of the stun but still create an interesting combat system, people will still get outplayed, controlled and mown down by better and more prepared player. The frustration will be the same.
Getting bursted down in less than .5 second is not fun
Getting stunned for 10 sec is not fun
Getting permanently slowed down and controlled isn't fun
Never being able to get in range of your target isn't fun
etc...
Which sumarized goes like :
"Getting bested in a PvP game, isn't fun"
And the point is that the exact frustration is not the part one is trying to remove. The lack of agency is the part requested to be removed. Which is why no one on the Anti-Stun side seems to grasp the related arguments. I like to be able to play more, I like if my opponent can play more as long as it continues to reward my skill. Why should my opponent get to play less (not do less, that's obviously fine) if it isn't necessary?
Sleep - Wake as soon as hit once, probably the closest to Stun, but in many games has cast time that you can interrupt, moreso than a stun does. Is 'stun with a 3s cast time' acceptable? If so, that should be the new position. "Make the cast time for Stuns 2-3s with an obvious tell, player can move targeting reticle until the end". Is this the acceptable compromise?
Knockdown - Prevents offensive abilities, player can still use defensive ones, even use Dodge if cooldown permits.
Paralyze - Most implementations suck. Could use 'mobile skills become immobile', 'cooldowns lengthened', all sorts of things. Opponent still plays.
Blind - Hides ground target reticles for the blinded player (or maybe all reticle), reduce reticle stickiness if that's a thing, flat reduction in Accuracy if Tab Target.
Root - Prevents movement abilities, player can still use offensive and defensive ones
Slow - Lessens non-ability movement, player can still use abilities.
Silence - Probably just weird in Ashes, would it stop Tank abilities and Mage abilities both? What happens to Summoners?
Knockback/Draw In - Prevents movement for a moment and causes disorientation by reposition, no need to prevent abilities, offensive ones are already more likely to miss
If the whole argument is 'stuns themselves are tradition and fine and must be in the game' and Intrepid for some reason decides 'let's not bother innovating like we are trying to do everywhere else, tradition is good', then the request should be 'please give Stun a long cast time and a big tell so that when we get hit by it, we know that the player using it was very skilled'.
Sounds like both sides will be okay with that, since that balances them nicely while keeping with tradition.
And in a shoutout to the other thread, notice how none of those require any RNG? Resistances can be flat 'duration reduction', and they can all be projectile skillshots, close range melee, and ground target.
In DAoC you had 9 melee stuns, no prerequisite, no cooldown, and the whole gameplay was still amazing. And if there were cc's that bothered the played, it wasn't much the 9 sec stun (even if it was indeed super strong), it was more the snares in this game that were horrible to deal with
Hard cc gave immunity to the corresponding cc, 1 minute for magical based cc, duration times 5 for physical stuns (so 45 sec stun immunity after eating a 9 sec stun). The snares didn't gave immunity though... so you could litteraly get snared over and over again for the whol fight sometimes.. and I'm talking 30 secondes linearly decreasing snares that starts at 99% speed reduction
So yeah, why not make magical castable stuns that you could interrupt, or just get rid of the stuns entirely or keep stuns and add more of them, it just has to work in the whole system.
Currently, as I understand it, the only way to dismount another player is to stun them... so if it stays that way, I hope every class will get numerous stuns without long cd to avoid having to run around for hours trying to get someone to dismount and actually fight
And this is easy to agree with, some people just don't like the gameplay resultant from adding Stuns to games that don't suit them.
The issue is that Ashes already has a specific baseline framework involving skillshots (which at least to me implied some speed, backed up somewhat by how Javelin works in game), Action Combat components, relatively lower ground mobility, mobility during casting, shorter cast times, and GvG balance, along with two specific aspects of HP and scaling.
I would absolutely be fine with Stuns within the framework of a different game and I'm fine with the long cast timer Stun option in Ashes. But Ashes already started from a place where quick Stuns already don't fit. When viewed through that lens, this discussion doesn't have to be 'Stuns always suck' (though I still think it could be).
Stuns don't work well in Ashes as it is presented to us now. The game that 'would suit stuns' is sort of distant from where they are, but if they make it, it will probably be pretty good too.
Clearly not, otherwise you would have noticed this argument fell apart 5 pages ago. When someone has a fundamental belief about x, there is no logical argument about x, there's just venting. Hard CC exists for the very reason Dreoh hates it - it completely removes the opponent's agency. It's like arguing that ice is terrible because you hate anything frozen.
But by that nature, arguing against someone who thinks that it isn't necessary is pointless too.
Dreoh said 'This thing, that this mechanic does, is bad and not fun'.
The counter, as you are presenting it, is 'This thing, that this mechanic does, exists to do exactly what it does.'
It's similar to 'having to sit or rest to heal mana'.
"Sitting to rest to heal mana is not fun, it slows down gameplay, the game can be built without this."
The equivalent response would be: "That's what it is for, to slow down gameplay, the game shouldn't be built without this."
Except that we know Intrepid's response to this. Steven's personal response, I think, assuming I don't misremember the video.
"[Jeff] explained to me how the game could work without it, so we removed it."
You're right in that the discussion is over, if the 'final say' from the conservative side is 'Working as intended'.
The others should probably move on to 'explaining how the game could work without it, so that it can be removed'.
By that reasoning, there's no need to interrupt the latter process.
Yep, the argument became meaningless quite some pages ago, the people arguing against Stun and Hard CC, are doing so through a personal preference viewpoint saying what they believe it should do, be, what they like or dislike and throwing ambiguous words around like "it's bad", "lazy design", "lack of agency"(neglecting hard-CC counters) or "Frustrating"
Aren't we all sinners?
Now, once someone has drawn an ideological line in the sand, you can absolutely continue to bring logical arguments to the table. I'm ok just moving on and discussing other things, you know?
Then let me ask this. If the argument was meaningless, and by minor implication 'lost by definition' on the Anti-Stun side.
If Dreoh made a different thread 'Suggestions for CC implementations that exclude stuns', would you simply have no reason to post in it? Would you not feel the need to 'enter the thread to try to tear down the idea that CC Implementations should exist without Stuns'? Since it would have no basis, just a fantasy from people with a personal dislike of a concept.
What if you made a different thread 'Why CC implementations should include Stuns', and somehow, magically, no one who opposed Stuns posted in that thread, everything would be fine, right? Because 'the game has stuns, and Intrepid won't remove them because of our preference'. Also, surely, the strong points brought by the second thread would counter any chance of that anyway.
Agreed, the issue (as my post just above points out) is that the two 'camps' are at a nonproductive stalemate, but this specific thread with all it's 'baggage', let's say, attracts new readers or returning readers to just revive it with repetitions of the points that surround the stalemate.
I consider this a situation where it would be massively beneficial to make a new thread. Two, in fact. We don't have the level of 'magic' required to separate them cleanly though. To 'sort' people into 'people who want to discuss how Stun is not needed and their concepts of the gameplay' and 'people who want to discuss why Stun is needed in their concept of the gameplay'.
But we should probably try, because without at least trying, no one's going to seriously talk about gameplay.
I'll leave that to OP though, if @Dreoh considers that worth it. There's enough data in here to do it with. If a Compilation is needed, I can be summoned for that too.
Nearly every response in this thread that isn't part of the 'tug of war at the stalemate point' is a person's neatly encapsulated opinion, so a splice is easy, and a scrape-splice is easier.
The two threads are an interesting academic idea, though I want to bet 5g on both turning into ideological stalemates.
Haha! This cracked me up.
"If Dreoh made a different thread 'Suggestions for CC implementations that exclude stuns', would you simply have no reason to post in it?"
This title would still require an excellent, logical and techinical non-biased reason for the exclusion of Stuns(Or Hard CC in general even tho he considers Knockdowns not as bad as stuns because of some visual reason???)
"Would you not feel the need to 'enter the thread to try to tear down the idea that CC Implementations should exist without Stuns'?"
I didn't felt any of that "need" you are saying there mate, i only tried to find the excelent reason for the Anti-Stun Ideal, sadly what i most found was personal preferences, ambiguous language and pseudo-equivalency arguments.
"What if you made a different thread 'Why CC implementations should include Stuns', and somehow, magically, no one who opposed Stuns posted in that thread, everything would be fine, right?"
Such thread wouldn't even make sense to be made in the first place, as it isn't a "appeal for change" (which requires an argument for such a change), but a reinforcement for something already well established.
Aren't we all sinners?
Not sure why. I have text analytic tools that I presume Dreoh doesn't, so it's faster and easier for me. If you meant 'why I would leave it up to Dreoh, I don't get that either, but I often don't understand the amusement of others, so if you are so inclined, please explain it.
Edit: Oh wait I see it now? The use of the term 'summoned' was funny?
I don't understand this either, so I guess I am just not keeping up in some way.
I don't expect that when an old concept is challenged, that the old guard just goes 'well I don't need to present any points, since things are already the way I want them to be'.
Maybe it's the style of government I live under.
Would you consider it an appeal to tradition, instead of something reached through trial and error along the years?
CCs both soft and hard, gives tactical depth to MMORPGs combat and evolved with the addition of CC-Counter measures(CC chance reduction and increases for RNG-CCs, Modifiers to CC Duration, Instant CC removal skills, CC Immunity skills).
This isn't about what some one wants it to be, but what it is, and what can it be changed for.
But most importantly, why it should be changed.
Aren't we all sinners?
Alright, seems the best option is to just make another thread. Even responding to this would just be doing the same thing again, and even if I gave gameplay related reasons, I doubt it would matter, so I'll save any discussion for any other thread that exists.
Nailed it. The idea of us getting into a debate where data needed to be aggregated then analyzed and we rub the lamp to summon our statistical djiin was amusing.
Alright, then i will be anxiously waiting for that possible future discussion or thread, who knows, maybe you are the chosen one that will be able to break the CC concept status quo.
Aren't we all sinners?
I'm sure if that happens, it will be a team effort perfectly executed in a GvG.
New Title Unlocked: Statistical Djinn
The sad thing is that we do have tons of data from past decade. None of that data are found in MMO's though, at least to my knowledge. And which I believe is part why PvP in MMO's suck. No wonder, MMO's are stale as a genre and been like this for quite a while now.
A good example would be sudden collapse of competitive arena in WoW when LoL started to take popularity. Then you take LoL which takes competitive play seriously you have years upon years of developments, patches, complaints, in game footage, evolving design as well as reasons for it.
You can argue that you don't like the game or whatever. You can't argue their presence and their impact on the competitive gaming scene and the popularity it amassed. And given that it has most common ground with MMO's type pvp, namely cooldown trading and positioning based gameplay it fits as an example to draw inspiration from.
Now I could understand if someone would try to make an argument about how these type of mechanics wouldn't work or why you think the mechanics wouldn't translate to MMO genre, perhaps you believe that stats and not mechanical ability of the player should be the core determining factor like in actual RPG games. Or perhaps some other mechanical based reason.
And we could have a debate here which I think would be fun to have. But to come out and say that there is no data or evidence for gating easy to deploy hard cc abilities against other player controlled characters by mechanical skill both sides can pro-actively participate in, especially where competition is involved is just ignorant. The experiment was already done and lasted for years.
I don't know what can be said if your willingness to engage stands on the fact that you demand R studio based charts of aggregated data probably from multiple games. On the off chance that they might be dismissed by "they are not mmo's", "it's all subjective" or something like that.
The goal of people who are about curtailing the accessibility and deployment of hard CC against other players is not to "make it easier" for them. Is more about creating pvp which is fun to engage for both sides regardless of eventual outcome. And that's what you want. That's what Tom wants. That what everyone wants, people to play with. Even those who proclaim to be "hardcore full loot pvp" types. Everyone picks decently populated servers, not vacant ones.
"some game mechanic exist to frustrate the player" why? That's the point of such system. What is to be gained by frustrating the player base? How about no, we don't frustrate the players and allow multitude of dimensions through which to engage with which feel meaningful even if one loses? How about after being whacked you get inspired to become like the person who managed to pull that off instead of being frustrated at the game system which prevented you from engaging with the damn system? Isn't that desirable? How?
Yeah it's lengthy response to a beaten horse of a thread. And perhaps same question would be better served with more clearly defined proposal. "remove stuns" while understandable from frustration perspective is not well received in terms of proposing the problem and potential solutions / improvements.
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. It's hard to know when you're saying 'you' are you meaning the generic 2nd person, or me specifically... Maybe? I don't know. Can you help me understand?
I guess I shouldn't find it funny that someone states they can be 'summoned' for an analysis...?
Hah. I imagine, I can get carried away sometimes. More of a reaction after absorbing over dozen of responses. I think more than one person expressed an inkling that supposedly gating easy to deploy hard CC like it is lots MMO game has no real world evidence for being a better game design direction.
Reading through numerous responses led me to the last one which mentioned something about debate which requires data aggregates to supposedly continue. Perhaps I took it the wrong way or something. But I jumped in right after it trying to point that there are tons of evidence. And the debate supposedly which approach better serves pvp is over by now.
The question is can we replicate that in MMO setting with same success. But to me it seems that a lot of people are just not convinced that there are better designs how to utilize CC systems for some reason so we can't even start talking about it.
Anyway I might be missing your original point. The reaction to the thread as whole is still somewhat on point I think.