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

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

SunScript wrote: »

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'.

Maybe it's the style of government I live under.

JamesSunderland

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Azherae

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

CROW3

Azherae wrote: »

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.

JamesSunderland

Azherae wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Azherae

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

SunScript

CROW3 wrote: »

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

wherediditrun

CROW3 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

CROW3

wherediditrun wrote: »

...

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...?

wherediditrun

CROW3 wrote: »

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.

Dygz

LMFAO
All kinds of reasons why PvP in mmoRPGs suck.

CROW3

wherediditrun wrote: »

Hah. I imagine, I can get carried away sometimes. ... Anyway I might be missing your original point. The reaction to the thread as whole is still somewhat on point I think.

All good, man. I just wanted to make sure to iron out any misunderstanding. Totally agree on your and @Azherae's points on available data that could be brought to bear in an analysis.

Dreoh

Dygz wrote: »

LMFAO
All kinds of reasons why PvP in mmoRPGs suck.

If you hate PvP so much in MMORPG's, why don't you play GW2? You can play through the entire game without needing to do any PvP

Dreoh

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

@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.

Honestly yea that would probably be better, because even though I felt I covered all the bases of the why stuns are unnecessary in the original post, people have just been cherry-picking parts of the argument and ignoring the other parts that counter it that I had already presented in the OP or in follow-up comments lol

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

SunScript wrote: »

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.

My argument has stayed the same on page 9 as it is on page 1. My logic has been sound throughout and I've only had to make one concession throughout this thread. No one has brought up any point refuting my claim that hadn't already been addressed, or couldn't be dismantled completely. And we've begun the customary recycling of arguments as new people come in and don't read through those already established arguments.

CROW3

Dreoh wrote: »

And we've begun the customary recycling of arguments as new people come in and don't read through those already established arguments.

Hehe - yep!

Dygz

Dreoh wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

LMFAO
All kinds of reasons why PvP in mmoRPGs suck.

If you hate PvP so much in MMORPG's, why don't you play GW2? You can play through the entire game without needing to do any PvP

I haven't said anything about hating PvP in MMORPGs.

JamesSunderland

Dreoh wrote: »

My argument has stayed the same on page 9 as it is on page 1. My logic has been sound throughout and I've only had to make one concession throughout this thread. No one has brought up any point refuting my claim that hadn't already been addressed, or couldn't be dismantled completely. And we've begun the customary recycling of arguments as new people come in and don't read through those already established arguments.

Come on man, Do you really consider that your original post is an argument at all? Like 60%-70% of it is just pretty much personal preference and personal opinion...

Noaani

@Dreoh

Dreoh wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

@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.

Honestly yea that would probably be better, because even though I felt I covered all the bases of the why stuns are unnecessary in the original post, people have just been cherry-picking parts of the argument and ignoring the other parts that counter it that I had already presented in the OP or in follow-up comments lol

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

SunScript wrote: »

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.

My argument has stayed the same on page 9 as it is on page 1. My logic has been sound throughout and I've only had to make one concession throughout this thread.

I'm somewhat curious.

A part of your argument essentially boils down to "stuns are frustrating", would you agree?

My answer to that is and has been that this is what they are supposed to be.

A game isnt supposed to be 100% fun. There is supposed to be hard time, bad times, frustrating times. These things make the good times even better, and so are a key aspect of any competitive situation.

When I was younger I played a specific team sport. The club I played for had a long history of success. We went actual years without losing a game, and it got to the point where winning wasnt even fun any more - it was just expected.

Then I moved to a different area, and played the same sport for a different club. That club was less successful, but still reasonable. We won about 60% of our games, but winning in that club was far more enjoyable. Even better still was winning against a club we lost against previously.

Now, the brigade of posters that like to cherry pick comments of mine and attempt to prove them inaccurate in isolation (I'm sure you know who I am talking about) will perhaps want to say something like "but you can still lose to someone and then beat them next time, so your point is moot".

You and I both know that this would be missing the point though, as the point I am making is that frustration in general is not a bad thing, but it is something that a game developer needs to manage.

So, the two specific questions for you are - do you agree that an amount of managed frustration is essential for a good game and if so, why cant stuns be a factor of that managed frustration?

Dolyem

SunScript wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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 adrenaline 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.

Apparently you missed the part where I was listing the other factors that are used to deal with stuns which make stuns viable and a great part of competitive PvP. Instead of the previous quote of just saying a stun= stunned players health vs the stunners damage output, and that being all there is to it.

All my comment was stating is there are many more variables to determine whether or not stuns can be viable in a game design and even fun, I never said anything about people being anti-CC. So yea that's my argument, there are several factors "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?" That make stuns viable and fun in organized PvP, thus they shouldn't be removed only because "They are frustrating".

Dygz

SunScript wrote: »

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.

The pro-Stun camp does not have to convince the devs to implement Stun. Ashes already has Stun.
Stun pumps more adrenaline specifically because, while you can still attack while Rooted or Silenced,
you can't attack while Stunned. For me, Stun is effectively the same as Fear or Knockdown - it's just a different flavor and adds variety to the gameplay. It's not much different than Frost damage v Fire damage.

With Stun, Fear and Knockdown...I'm going to be mashing buttons to try to dispel the effect as quickly as possible and to be ready to attack/defend as quickly as possible. The difference with Fear is that I'm also going to be desperately trying to prevent my avatar from running into more mobs or off the side of a cliff.

I don't know why MMORPGs should move on or what we have supposedly learned from other MMORPGs that indicate Stuns should not be included.
As far as I can tell, the anti-Stun camp just finds Stuns to be "boring". To me, that seems to be a personal attention span issue; not a game mechanics issue.
I doubt that will convince the devs to remove Stuns from Ashes.

If you don't like the effects of Disable attacks, build your character to have high Disable Defense.

Child Item