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

wherediditrun

Dygz wrote: »

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.

I don't know a single MMO game where PvP is actually well developed. Genre is stale.

Dygz wrote: »

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 wouldn't focus on "anti-stun" as a thing. More like, pro counter play / outplay / pro mechanical skill in pvp. In addition when there is lack of counter play frustration happens. High accessibility simple to deploy stuns are one of the points in design which goes directly against counter play.

Dygz wrote: »

I doubt that will convince the devs to remove Stuns from Ashes.

I don't think that removal is a feasible solution. What I offered and some people seem to like it is stuns which require set up and effort on behalf of the player trying to apply it which also allows the receiving end to play around it or counter it. Flip coin / who blinks first is not a counter mechanic. But even more rng diluting Skill dimension in encounter and promoting cheap shots / ganking.

Dygz wrote: »

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

More passive stat checks the player has no control while in PvP encounter? Reminds me of wotlk dual specs. A band aid to bad design. Also fails to address the issues at their root.

Dygz

You probably won't find an MMORPG where PvP is well-developed because it's an RPG. That has nothing to do with genre being stale. RPGs were not designed for PvP combat. PvP will be better suited for other game genres that are not RPGs.

Pro-Stun camp v anti-Stun camp.
Building your character to have high Disable Defense is a key factor of counter-play in MMORPGs.
I think every one in this thread supports counter-play and out-play.
If "mechanical play" means player twitch skills...it's action combat, so we should expect player twitch skills to be a significant factor. I'm not aware of anyone who opposes that.
I also don't know what you mean by high accessibility. I'm not aware of anyone advocating high accessibility for Stun. Rather people are supporting the dev decision to include Stun(s). As opposed to not including Stun(s).

I don't really know why Stuns should require more "set up". When a boxer rings your clock, that is typically a surprise that does not require a lot of set up. And mostly what resists that stun is going to be how you prepped before the combat - as in how you built your character to be resistant to Stuns. Resisting a Stun isn't really about player twitch skills. Avoiding Stun with player twitch skills is about not getting hit in the first place.

I don't understand how the flip coin example is intended to be relevant to this topic. Is that supposed to be referencing RNG? Because flip coin / who blinks first is not how RNG works.
I also don't understand the sentence about cheap shots and ganking.

Passive stat checks means you have control of the outcome before the PvP encounter.
The first few weeks of Alpha One, I felt the Tanks were killing my Cleric way too quickly.
Once Passive Skills were implemented, I maxed my Disable Defense, my Crtical Hit Rate, my Health, my Health Regen, my Increased Healing and my Mana. I also maxed my Healing abilities.
Which made it so that the Tanks were inconsequential...they could not kill me while I was Snared.
Sure...one difference is that I was able to do stuff while Snared... but the other significant difference is that the Passives made it so that their Snares and damage attacks had a significantly reduced effect.
That's very similar to equipping gear to reduce the effects of damage.
Just because you hit me with a weapon, doesn't mean I will take full damage. Just because you hit me with a Stun, doesn't mean you will be able to do as much damage as you'd like while I am Stunned...I might have more Health than you expected and I might recover from the Stun more quickly than you expected. Stun means you should not actively be able to undo the Stun... similar to Knockdown. Might be that someone else on your team can effectively place smelling salts under your nose.
That could be a Cleric... could be a Bard...would be fascinating if that could be a Summoner.

Seems like Stun should be similar to Knockdown, Fear and Blind...
Shouldn't require set-up or effort to execute once. They should probably be on fairly long cool-downs.
The duration of a Stun should not be so long that a reasonable person has time to be bored.
The game should have counters to Stun... everyone supporting the inclusion of Stun agrees with that.

(Don't you consent to being Stunned the moment you log into the game.)

Bot

I agree 100%, stuns really are not enjoyable in any game. It's a do everything cc and has no counterplay. It also completely removes any type of decision making or strategy in terms of who uses cc for what and when. Limiting hard cc and having built-in cc reduction/resistances is essential to avoid cc lock anti-fun gameplay.

wherediditrun

Dygz wrote: »

You probably won't find an MMORPG where PvP is well-developed because it's an RPG. That has nothing to do with genre being stale. RPGs were not designed for PvP combat. PvP will be better suited for other game genres that are not RPGs.

One of core pillars of RPG game is that your "build" matters more than the execution of said build. That's a solid point to make in theory. However I have to question how it pans out in PvP settings. Regardless of how you want to treat it in retrospect or theorycrafting. People take PvP as an instance, player vs player showdown. Not the totality of their gameplay leading to predetermined outcomes of previously made decisions. So you can be correct, right, or whatever how you want to frame it, or to be effective. The first demands removal or strict mediation on how PvP is handled though.

Dygz wrote: »

Building your character to have high Disable Defense is a key factor of counter-play in MMORPGs.

Yes, if we focus in build over execution. I would argue that we should keep such design out of pvp and just leave it to co-op pve.

Dygz wrote: »

I think every one in this thread supports counter-play and out-play.

I strongly doubt many people are familiar with what it actually entails. There are bunch of folk who think wow pvp is ok. High on "copium" I think.

Dygz wrote: »

If "mechanical play" means player twitch skills...it's action combat, so we should expect player twitch skills to be a significant factor. I'm not aware of anyone who opposes that.

Depends on how defense vs offense is balanced. Generally "tank meta" is more about for-sight, planning and execution of set predictions rather than twitch. The time windows increased survivability grants player provides enough room to think. It's funny, because a lot of MMO PvP'ers fail past their opening "rotation" which is tightly related to your mentioned "twitch muscles".

Dygz wrote: »

I also don't know what you mean by high accessibility.

Meaning that it costs offensive side very little effort to enact something which prevents any huge effort on other players side to come to fruition. Which is part of why frustration happens. You have given an advantage by a system to counter great plays with a easy point and click of a button. That's utter bs. And why people feel that the fight was unfair and "gamed" by the system. Or "stat checked" with no obvious reason why game systems favors side A over B.

Dygz wrote: »

I don't really know why Stuns should require more "set up". When a boxer rings your clock, that is typically a surprise that does not require a lot of set up. And mostly what resists that stun is going to be how you prepped before the combat - as in how you built your character to be resistant to Stuns. Resisting a Stun isn't really about player twitch skills. Avoiding Stun with player twitch skills is about not getting hit in the first place.

I'm specifically proposing mechanics to avoid any "twitch skills". Point and click stuns are a twitch skill favoring one side for no obvious reason other than specific spec has it in it's inventory. You're and many others are just arguing that that "twitch" thing should be fair to the side of the applier yet not to the one who defends against it.

I'm still trying to figure out how this is not obvious.

Dygz wrote: »

I don't understand how the flip coin example is intended to be relevant to this topic. Is that supposed to be referencing RNG? Because flip coin / who blinks first is not how RNG works.
I also don't understand the sentence about cheap shots and ganking.

It works as coin flip if one spec has point and click stun as a mechanic. And other spec has point and click mechanic as a defense vs stun. This set up heavily favors the offending side as it's pre-determined decision on the offending side to deploy, yet other guess work, jack pot machine on the defending side (grounding totem in WoW Shaman spec is a good example of such mechanic). Resulting in a coin flip type of thing.

It favors ganking, because you can always reliably set stun on someone who is not expecting it. Premediated 'set up' stuns gives enough time / space for assualted player to react to a trap. Making it more about outplay, less about surprise - coin flip / who blinks first.

Dygz wrote: »

Passive stat checks means you have control of the outcome before the PvP encounter.

Yes. Sadly they are not perceived or felt that way in PvP instance. You can be correct about this, but it's irrelevant if it's not effective in winning 'emotions' of the players with who you want to keep playing with.

Dygz wrote: »

Seems like Stun should be similar to Knockdown, Fear and Blind...
Shouldn't require set-up or effort to execute once. They should probably be on fairly long cool-downs.
The duration of a Stun should not be so long that a reasonable person has time to be bored.
The game should have counters to Stun... everyone supporting the inclusion of Stun agrees with that.

It's not about being bored. It's about being able to counter-play the actions of other human player. Like it or not, we do regard ourselves as human beings who are entitled to fair play. No amount of time sinked into the game eradicates it.

Other bs mechanic than stun, just to give an example at what I'm getting at here (not stuns to be specific, although they are expression of same problem) is not mediated / reduced to the mean crits. When one player gets 3 crits in the row out of RNG even though it has 5% chance. Other player failing all of them.

At that instance it matters not how much you've built for that chance. The instance will be perceived as unfair. And thus will taint the experience of PvP.

For any PvP focused game it's awful.

Dygz

wherediditrun wrote: »

One of core pillars of RPG game is that your "build" matters more than the execution of said build.

I have no clue what that is supposed to mean.

wherediditrun wrote: »

However I have to question how it pans out in PvP settings. Regardless of how you want to treat it in retrospect or theorycrafting. People take PvP as an instance, player vs player showdown. Not the totality of their gameplay leading to predetermined outcomes of previously made decisions. So you can be correct, right, or whatever how you want to frame it, or to be effective. The first demands removal or strict mediation on how PvP is handled though.

I'm also not sure what you're trying to convey here.
I especially don't know what you mean by "predetermined outcomes".

wherediditrun wrote: »

Yes, if we focus in build over execution. I would argue that we should keep such design out of pvp and just leave it to co-op pve.

Yu can argue that, I suppose. It's not going to happen.

wherediditrun wrote: »

There are bunch of folk who think wow pvp is ok.

*shrug*
OK

wherediditrun wrote: »

Depends on how defense vs offense is balanced. Generally "tank meta" is more about for-sight, planning and execution of set predictions rather than twitch. The time windows increased survivability grants player provides enough room to think. It's funny, because a lot of MMO PvP'ers fail past their opening "rotation" which is tightly related to your mentioned "twitch muscles".

Tank meta is still going to have to react and adjust to opponents using Action Combat.
Action Combat tends to be less predictable. And I doubt an individual Tank is going to be able to predict all the class and gear and non-class augments they might face. Rotation probably is not the same thing as twitch since rotation is on cooldown timers. Twitch skills are more about movement and dodge/roll/blink/block and, probably, Weapon combos.
And I think this thread is really about having the freedom to avoid movements and actions from being cancelled - Stun. Obviously Stun prevents action for some duration.

wherediditrun wrote: »

(High accessibility means) that it costs offensive side very little effort to enact something which prevents any huge effort on other players side to come to fruition. Which is part of why frustration happens. You have given an advantage by a system to counter great plays with a easy point and click of a button. That's utter bs. And why people feel that the fight was unfair and "gamed" by the system. Or "stat checked" with no obvious reason why game systems favors side A over B.

That's why you build your character(s) to be resistant to Stuns if you don't like being Stunned.
People can "feel" all kinds of stuff. Doesn't make it true.

wherediditrun wrote: »

I'm specifically proposing mechanics to avoid any "twitch skills". Point and click stuns are a twitch skill favoring one side for no obvious reason other than specific spec has it in it's inventory. You're and many others are just arguing that that "twitch" thing should be fair to the side of the applier yet not to the one who defends against it. I'm still trying to figure out how this is not obvious.

Again...I don't really understand anything you wrote here.
I don't agree that Stun is a twitch skill.
Stuns are fair to the defender.
Chained Stun Locks are not fair to the defender. I think the vast a majority of people here agree with that.
If you don't want to be Stunned, build your character to be highly Stun resistant. Ashes is an RPG.

wherediditrun wrote: »

It works as coin flip if one spec has point and click stun as a mechanic. And other spec has point and click mechanic as a defense vs stun. This set up heavily favors the offending side as it's pre-determined decision on the offending side to deploy, yet other guess work, jack pot machine on the defending side (grounding totem in WoW Shaman spec is a good example of such mechanic). Resulting in a coin flip type of thing.

No. Because the defender can have gear and Passive Skills and stats that put the RNG in their favor to resist Stuns. Just because the defender is hit with a Stun, does not mean the Stun will be effective.
That's not as simple as a coin flip.

wherediditrun wrote: »

It favors ganking, because you can always reliably set stun on someone who is not expecting it. Premediated 'set up' stuns gives enough time / space for assualted player to react to a trap. Making it more about outplay, less about surprise - coin flip / who blinks first.

You cannot reliably Stun a character that has been built to be highly Stun resistant. That is what the RNG is for.

wherediditrun wrote: »

Yes. Sadly they are not perceived or felt that way in PvP instance. You can be correct about this, but it's irrelevant if it's not effective in winning 'emotions' of the players with who you want to keep playing with.

It's an RPG. Don't expect an RPG to have optimal PvP.
I don't need to win emotions.
Every playstyle in Ashes will have less than optimal play conditions.
Especially since all playstyles are stuck on the same server.
Expect RPGs to have RNG. If you don't want RNG in your PvP, you should probably play some other genre.

wherediditrun wrote: »

It's not about being bored. It's about being able to counter-play the actions of other human player. Like it or not, we do regard ourselves as human beings who are entitled to fair play. No amount of time sinked into the game eradicates it.

Maezriel wrote: »

B/c stuns are very boring for those who are stunned. IMO combat shouldn't encourage someone to just twiddle their thumbs and wait

You counter-play a Stun by building your character(s) to be resistant to Stuns.
And you hope that your allies have skills that can increase your Stun resistance and/or break you out of Stun.

wherediditrun wrote: »

Other bs mechanic than stun, just to give an example at what I'm getting at here (not stuns to be specific, although they are expression of same problem) is not mediated / reduced to the mean crits. When one player gets 3 crits in the row out of RNG even though it has 5% chance. Other player failing all of them.

Sometimes shit happens. That's also part of playing an RPG.
3 Crits in a row with a 5% chance is going to be exceedingly rare. That is unfortunate, but not unfair.

wherediditrun wrote: »

At that instance it matters not how much you've built for that chance. The instance will be perceived as unfair. And thus will taint the experience of PvP.

Doesn't matter how it's perceived. What matters is what it actually is.
People can qq about anything.

wherediditrun wrote: »

For any PvP focused game it's awful.

Ashes is an RPG that is PvX. And the PvP is focused on 8-person groups.
If you want to avoid Stuns, build your character to be highly Stun resistant. And group with others who can buff your Stun resistance.

wherediditrun

Dygz wrote: »

I have no clue what that is supposed to mean.

And I'm not sure I have enough ability to convey rather complex topics in very easy to digest manner. But I'm trying.

Dygz wrote: »

I'm also not sure what you're trying to convey here.
I especially don't know what you mean by "predetermined outcomes".

That someone just wins by stats or by class when compared to winning by effort and expression of 'skill' in said build execution.

There is nothing a player who is either countered by a spec, having horizontal advantage or even more obviously countered by superior stats like due to level or better gear can do to win. So the most obvious solution is not to participate because the whole 'pvp' instance is there just to waste time of the player.

Dygz wrote: »

Yes, if we focus in build over execution. I would argue that we should keep such design out of pvp and just leave it to co-op pve.

I wouldn't be so sure. I think there is plenty of room for RPGMMO's to improve. And PvP is one of the areas where genre needs to be re-imagined. Probably by looking for inspiration in other games which did.

Dygz wrote: »

Tank meta is still going to have to react and adjust to opponents using Action Combat.
Action Combat tends to be less predictable.

In case of outcomes of who wins, yes. In case of expression skill is predictable enough to play around and try to out best your opponent. Good example would be chess. While there is a lot of freedom in player choice how to make moves, they still compete within confined space of what can be done. However for it to play out well, you need to avoid who blinks first mechanics. Like point and click stuns, to promote there and forth exchanges between players trying to best each other. Meaning, there should be always given enough time for a player to counter act the play of other player.

Dygz wrote: »

And I doubt an individual Tank is going to be able to predict all the class and gear and non-class augments they might face. Rotation probare about movement and dodge/roll/blink/block and, probably, Weapon combos.

Except that we already have games where is tons of stuff to "memorize". And players seem to do fine. But yes, that requires a bit more of a ramp up. And makes meta more difficult to solve, which I personally see as a plus.

Dygz wrote: »

Anbly is not the same thing as twitch since rotation is on cooldown timers.

Rotations are linear execution which can be done by a bot. The only thing what determines how good you are at it is if you read up a guide someone else did what buttons to press in what order and when putting it in the muscle memory against a dummy or something.

Given that rotations are generally always the same, it continues to dilute the player expression of skill even more tilting more towards what level or gear the character has. Which when in turn game needs to compensate with some other mechanics. In most MMO raids are full of gimmicks to compensate. Or game tries to implement some kind of dynamic mechanics to get rid of via resource building abilities / resource expending abilities where expenditure is a choice between few abilities depending on current situation.

Dygz wrote: »

That's why you build your character(s) to be resistant to Stuns if you don't like being Stunned.
People can "feel" all kinds of stuff. Doesn't make it true.

How people feel is what ultimately matters when it comes to games. And while people are different, they are more the same than they are different. Especially in regards to what is considered fair. There is tons of literature about game theory which was forged in tons of experiments in all sorts of fields, the easiest to start with is economic games. As well as we know multiple pvp games which tilted away from stupid disable mechanics for this very reason I try to argue.

Dygz wrote: »

Again...I don't really understand anything you wrote here.
I don't agree that Stun is a twitch skill.
Stuns are fair to the defender.

That point and click instant ability which disabled a player for extend period of time is not fair as there is no way to counter play it. The offending side just decides that now I'll disable the player. Even if you give an ability to a player to counter stun, due to the fact how quickly it's applied there is no room to deploy a defense against it. One side needs to guess. Other side can choose.

It requires extreme effort and attentiveness on the defender while still having to roll on luck. While it demands no effort on behalf of the one who puts the stun on the player.

How is this fair? What the defending player can do to not being stun? So either you give build choices which makes stun almost irrelevant when why to even have the mechanic in the game waiting for newbies to get themselves into a trap. Or even if reduced a bit it still poses the same problem.

Dygz wrote: »

No. Because the defender can have gear and Passive Skills and stats that put the RNG in their favor to resist Stuns. Just because the defender is hit with a Stun, does not mean the Stun will be effective.
That's not as simple as a coin flip.

How about offender would need to build towards disables at expense of damage? The defender is already ad disadvantage with no way to avoid it. Why to put even more on it. Points spent at x are points not spent at y. So even if you go around saying spec into anti stun, the defender is to whom the system is unfair.

Dygz wrote: »

You cannot reliably Stun a character that has been built to be highly Stun resistant. That is what the RNG is for.

Yes. Because efforts the player put into the game should be focused based on RNG. People love this system in real times games. No, they don't. It's absolutely hated. Morrowind mod which removes dice rolls from hit chance is probably most popular ones for the game for exactly this reason. Competitive pvp games reducing crit chance to a mean is also a mechanic to address RNG which makes people frustrated.

RNG is awful mechanic for player versus player interaction as it removes player agency. Damn it's even awful for PvE if not done carefully or if not specifically built around it like DnD is, where on top of that game has DM who will often normalize the streaks to keep the game engaging.

RNG is like salt it's ok in small doses to spice things up. But quickly ruins everything when not closely moderated.

Dygz wrote: »

If you don't want RNG in your PvP, you should probably play some other genre.

Exactly. I don't want to play on vacant servers where people quit due to frustration. Because in ashes PvE is gated by PvP competition. I also want PvP to be fun. Wow, a game which fun and feels meaningful to play. What a new ground breaking concept.

Dygz wrote: »

You counter-play a Stun by building your character(s) to be resistant to Stuns.
And you hope that your allies have skills that can increase your Stun resistance and/or break you out of Stun.

How about building a character to be able to apply stun at expense of something? How about stun thresholds just a compromising idea. Still crap band aid, but at least intention to move to the more fair design would be much appreciated.

Dygz wrote: »

Sometimes shit happens. That's also part of playing an RPG.
3 Crits in a row with a 5% chance is going to be exceedingly rare. That is unfortunate, but not unfair.

When that rare moment happens it will be insanely frustrating. And that what the player will remember. Not the 50 times when it did not. Reduction to the mean is the typical solution of having the crit chance mechanic while also not having these crazy streaks. Unless you specifically want the game to be coin flipping, I'm not sure what's to argue against here.

Dygz wrote: »

Doesn't matter how it's perceived. What matters is what it actually is.
People can qq about anything.

This is a game. For a game to be sustainable the players participating have to agree on shared reality / confines of the game. The games which all people participate willingly, agree with the confines, have no enforcement cost, hence the sustainability of the game is better. And you can create co-operation through competition. Because agreeing of shared set of rules and playing according to them is co-operation.

I think you can find a lot on this by Jean Piaget and emergent play.

And this is important because you want people to play with. And those people to want to play with you. If pvp is less about engagement / sportsmanship / competition and more about pwnage Q_Q go cry me a river, when game won't last. Problem is that such stun mechanics, creates and feeds into that Q_Q feeling due to being unfair.

Yes people QQ about a lot of things. Sometimes it is personal immaturity of being a sore loser. Other times it's expression of frustration which is caused by faulty imbalanced game systems. Often expressed poorly and more towards the symptoms than the causes though. Hard to solve, easier to dismiss.

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is an RPG that is PvX. And the PvP is focused on 8-person groups.
If you want to avoid Stuns, build your character to be highly Stun resistant. And group with others who can buff your Stun resistance.

Pretty much all of the PvE content can be contested through PvP. So it's pvp centric.

Dygz

Ashes is PvX. It's not PvP-centric.

PvP has no sporstmanship whatsover.

I'm not aware of stuns happening at the expensive of something, so why would that be part of the design?
When a boxer stuns their opponent, it's not at the expense of something. It's a combination of character prep, twitch skill and luck. As it will be in Ashes.

wherediditrun

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is PvX. It's not PvP-centric.

It's pve and pvp. But PvP contests PvE. Your access to pve can be limited by your ability to PvP. Not vice versa. PvP can screw your PvE. Ability to deny access to recources through player vs player competition is one of the core components of the game. So ultimately it's pvp centric. PvE exists to facilitate player vs player interaction.

Dygz wrote: »

PvP has no sporstmanship whatsover.

It's quite sad that you think that way. But I'm not surprised. As expressed before, pvp in MMO is utter crap and been that way since forever. In Lithuania we have a saying "šuo ir kariamas pripranta" meaning "a dog gets used to getting hanged". I think that's a grotesque summation of MMO player base.

Dygz wrote: »

When a boxer stuns their opponent, it's not at the expense of something. It's a combination of character prep, twitch skill and luck. As it will be in Ashes.

Yes. In boxing it's easier to defend vs a hit than perform a hit. Marely by body ergonomics. Performing a hit and placing your hand to defend against a hit is always easier and costs less effort and stamina. Generally, if offense and defense is balanced defensive play is superior to offensive play, as punishing mistakes is easier than forcing them.

Child Item