[Suggestion] A Designated Stunbreak Slot — Guild Wars 2 Forums

[Suggestion] A Designated Stunbreak Slot

rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited November 18, 2019 in Professions

I got hit by this thought yesterday, and would like to hear your opinions on the subject.

You know how the bottom traitline in your hero panel is reserved for an Elite Specialization? What if we did exactly that for one of our utility skills, which would be a designated stunbreak slot?

This wouldn't mean you'd have to put a skill with stunbreak in it, however it would mean every profession and build would have access to just 1 active (not counting traits) stunbreak skill.

Why is this benefical? There are several good reasons for why this might help overall balance:

  • There will no longer be builds with several active stunbreaks. Obviously this is an advantage against someone who can't get the same value from slotting that many on their own profession, for whatever reason. It would also greatly increase the importance of when you use your stunbreak in a fight.
  • It allows the devs to internally balance every stunbreak for each profession. For example, do you use a stunbreak with a big effect and a cd of 60, or one with a small effect but available every 25 seconds? Forcing this choice on players would also mean outdated stunbreak skills would need to be looked at and brought in line.
  • We keep traited stunbreaks. These require sacrifices by choice, and can still be used to differentiate professions to f.ex make warriors more cc resilient. I would however suggest no more than 1 trait that can stunbreak per profession.
  • It requires no changes to anything else, and should be fairly straight-forward to implement with the current UI. Firebrands would still be able to stunbreak with their elite and f3, keeping them present as best in slot for support. Skills that stunbreak and give stability/block/aegis or group utility would now be more rewarding, and their cooldowns would need to reflect that. (Profession mechanics that inherently stunbreak would keep their functionality of course, and skills with charges would keep those.)

The way I see it, the benefits outweigh the downsides. Alot of the meta builds today have more than 1 stunbreak, which not only promotes spammy use of them, but also makes good use of CC as a setup less rewarding. To boot, all professions already have access to atleast 4 stunbreak skills, so with some decent variance in effect and cooldown your choice would determine how you play. For now I don't think implementing this would require a look at CC-skills in general, as I feel some professions should have more access to it than others - but in turn this would make them equally vulnerable should they be counter cc'ed.

As far as I can tell, this would be the easiest way to reign in the current meta while any subsequent balancing could be done on this premise (since most builds in use today have less than 2 stunbreaks) requiring less drastical changes to individual traits/skills of specific problematic builds instead of removing their flavour of play.

Would it hamper our freedom to play what we want? Yes, but so does choosing an elite spec, what profession you play and how the meta goes. It's a small price to pay for better balance. Also most meta builds that run 2 stunbreaks are already above average, forcing them to choose would at this point only bring them in line, and not to mention (since they now need to start using a non-stunbreak utility instead) shake up the metabuilds a little bit.

What do you guys think?

<1

Comments

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 18, 2019

    This is mainly aimed at sPvP, however I genuinely believe this would be beneficial to implement also for WvW for 50v50 - here is why:

    1. This would mean positioning would matter way more than it does right now. Sticking on tag, following directions and skillfull execution will now play a dominant role in order to win.
    2. Support sacrificing self-sustain for group utility. This removes some of the tankyness of the meta, however puts both bursty and sustainy groups on a more equal footing resulting in longer fights instead of one being the obvious best choice against a certain composition - more variance accepted in public squads.
    3. Focusing targets will be more rewarding. Less spamming, smart use of CC and regrouping will keep you alive longer rather than a specific group comp.

    Feel free to add/disagree to the points on this list.

  • InsaneQR.7412InsaneQR.7412 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The idea isn't that bad but it would hamper build diversity.
    So it would be needed to be a competitive split only so PvE builds are not affected.
    I don't play in competitive modes often so I may not be the best option to judge the idea. It is to say though that CC would needed to be culled down otherwise it would result in a CC slugfest like a few years back.

    Additionally as a side nite: Revenant would need to have a stunbreak on ventari to fulfill this rule (which I am all for tbh).

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 18, 2019

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:
    The idea isn't that bad but it would hamper build diversity.
    So it would be needed to be a competitive split only so PvE builds are not affected.
    I don't play in competitive modes often so I may not be the best option to judge the idea. It is to say though that CC would needed to be culled down otherwise it would result in a CC slugfest like a few years back.

    Additionally as a side nite: Revenant would need to have a stunbreak on ventari to fulfill this rule (which I am all for tbh).

    I wholeheartedly agree on PvE being unaffected by this limitation.

    We already see it can be done by how the game handles you going to and from WvW to PvE with an Elite Spec equipped in only 1 mode.

    As for Ventari, I believe the reason for a lacking stunbreak is intentional in the sense of you getting great support at the cost of personal defense when swapping there, while at the same time encouraging you to trait for stunbreaks on legend swap in order to limit all-rounder options. Besides, since you have to choose another legend and you'll have access to that stunbreak every 10 seconds I don't necessarily feel it's an urgent issue. But I definitely get your reasoning, and I doubt it would hurt the viability of support Revenants (which I welcome in any mode!)

    When it comes to culling CC, you have to remember stability coverage is already best in slot for 99% of group scenarios, meaning stability uptime would remain unchanged and therefore you CC/Stab application remains the same - it just affects when you use your personal stunbreak and encourages careful play whenever it is on cooldown. That coupled with the direction of reduced damage on hard cc skills ought to further soften the hit of losing additional stunbreaks.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I''m not sure that I agree.

    Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

    If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dadnir.5038 said:
    I''m not sure that I agree.

    Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

    If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

    This is the result of the e-spec balance. Back in the Core days each profession had flavour, weak matchups and unique strengths.

    If we balance by giving everyone equal access to everything we all might as well all play the same profession. However this game is so much more than that, we have other ways to mitigate damage, some without even using skills.

    Let's use your example of a meta necromancer vs let's say a meta warrior:
    By reducing the warriors available stunbreaks by 50%, your f.ex fear efficacy goes up to 200% because you can now twice as effectively lock him down with it.

    The entire point of this change is to increase the impact of player skill rather than outequipping number of stunbreaks. Good players already avoid hard cc-attempts in order to save their stunbreak in case they get outnumbered later. While I get for many this will be be annoying, it will lead to more balanced matches and player ratings, and at the same time less frustrating losses.

    A warrior has at worst 4 hard cc's

    • Full Counter (can be countered by stowing)
    • Bull's Charge (can be countered by dodging)
    • Shield Bash (can be countered by about face)
    • Disrupting Stab (can be countered by soft cc, about face or dodge)

    Neither of these require a stunbreak unless you simply react to what is happening to you. This is not a good thing to implement balance around, because it punishes good players and reward bad ones, which is exactly what this change is aimed at correcting.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @rng.1024 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:
    I''m not sure that I agree.

    Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

    If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

    This is the result of the e-spec balance. Back in the Core days each profession had flavour, weak matchups and unique strengths.

    If we balance by giving everyone equal access to everything we all might as well all play the same profession. However this game is so much more than that, we have other ways to mitigate damage, some without even using skills.

    Let's use your example of a meta necromancer vs let's say a meta warrior:
    By reducing the warriors available stunbreaks by 50%, your f.ex fear efficacy goes up to 200% because you can now twice as effectively lock him down with it.

    The entire point of this change is to increase the impact of player skill rather than outequipping number of stunbreaks. Good players already avoid hard cc-attempts in order to save their stunbreak in case they get outnumbered later. While I get for many this will be be annoying, it will lead to more balanced matches and player ratings, and at the same time less frustrating losses.

    A warrior has at worst 4 hard cc's

    • Full Counter (can be countered by stowing)
    • Bull's Charge (can be countered by dodging)
    • Shield Bash (can be countered by about face)
    • Disrupting Stab (can be countered by soft cc, about face or dodge)

    Neither of these require a stunbreak unless you simply react to what is happening to you. This is not a good thing to implement balance around, because it punishes good players and reward bad ones, which is exactly what this change is aimed at correcting.

    The issue of your example is that you are looking at what is meta now and not at what would be meta after your change. Your calculations also require the highly unlikely 1v1 situation.

    The different professions just aren't equal in front of hard CC. Some profession almost only have breakstun to face hard CC while other overflow with way to deal with them. Your example which don't take into account the fact that the warrior can have a lot more CC packed into it's kit already put the necromancer into the rope.

    If you want something like that why not first change how block and stability work? Make both of those dependant on toughness.

    • For block, when toughness is equal or superior to your foe's power, then you totally block the hit. When the toughness is inferior to your foe's power you take a part of the damage that "couldn't be blocked totally" and depend on the ratio power/toughness.
    • And you do the same with stability, you just change it so that it's now a boon that reduce the time you are disabled by a %age and based on how much power is put behind the CC, you still end up interrupted if you lack the toughness to counter it.
    • And since we are at it, let's also change dodge so that you have 50% chance to take a glancing blow while dodging. A dodge under the effect of weakness would see this %age go up to 100%.

    Doesn't it make things a lot more "fair" with your change to stunbreak access? It would also allow ANet to give value to the "stun duration" stuff which exist in game, and even thread further on this path. Wouldn't it also tune down the survivability of glassy builds that can rely heavily on dodge and block? They could even revert stability to a boon that stack in duration instead of having the stacks consumed by CCs... etc.

  • ZeftheWicked.3076ZeftheWicked.3076 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Before i throw my feedback, let's get this straight:

    The idea is that one slot becomes stunbreak slot and any skill you put there will stunbreak.
    In return all utility skills that were stunbreaks lose that feature.

    Is this correct?

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 19, 2019

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @rng.1024 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:
    I''m not sure that I agree.

    Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

    If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

    This is the result of the e-spec balance. Back in the Core days each profession had flavour, weak matchups and unique strengths.

    If we balance by giving everyone equal access to everything we all might as well all play the same profession. However this game is so much more than that, we have other ways to mitigate damage, some without even using skills.

    Let's use your example of a meta necromancer vs let's say a meta warrior:
    By reducing the warriors available stunbreaks by 50%, your f.ex fear efficacy goes up to 200% because you can now twice as effectively lock him down with it.

    The entire point of this change is to increase the impact of player skill rather than outequipping number of stunbreaks. Good players already avoid hard cc-attempts in order to save their stunbreak in case they get outnumbered later. While I get for many this will be be annoying, it will lead to more balanced matches and player ratings, and at the same time less frustrating losses.

    A warrior has at worst 4 hard cc's

    • Full Counter (can be countered by stowing)
    • Bull's Charge (can be countered by dodging)
    • Shield Bash (can be countered by about face)
    • Disrupting Stab (can be countered by soft cc, about face or dodge)

    Neither of these require a stunbreak unless you simply react to what is happening to you. This is not a good thing to implement balance around, because it punishes good players and reward bad ones, which is exactly what this change is aimed at correcting.

    The issue of your example is that you are looking at what is meta now and not at what would be meta after your change. Your calculations also require the highly unlikely 1v1 situation.

    The different professions just aren't equal in front of hard CC. Some profession almost only have breakstun to face hard CC while other overflow with way to deal with them. Your example which don't take into account the fact that the warrior can have a lot more CC packed into it's kit already put the necromancer into the rope.

    If you want something like that why not first change how block and stability work? Make both of those dependant on toughness.

    • For block, when toughness is equal or superior to your foe's power, then you totally block the hit. When the toughness is inferior to your foe's power you take a part of the damage that "couldn't be blocked totally" and depend on the ratio power/toughness.
    • And you do the same with stability, you just change it so that it's now a boon that reduce the time you are disabled by a %age and based on how much power is put behind the CC, you still end up interrupted if you lack the toughness to counter it.
    • And since we are at it, let's also change dodge so that you have 50% chance to take a glancing blow while dodging. A dodge under the effect of weakness would see this %age go up to 100%.

    Doesn't it make things a lot more "fair" with your change to stunbreak access? It would also allow ANet to give value to the "stun duration" stuff which exist in game, and even thread further on this path. Wouldn't it also tune down the survivability of glassy builds that can rely heavily on dodge and block? They could even revert stability to a boon that stack in duration instead of having the stacks consumed by CCs... etc.

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @rng.1024 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:
    I''m not sure that I agree.

    Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

    If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

    This is the result of the e-spec balance. Back in the Core days each profession had flavour, weak matchups and unique strengths.

    If we balance by giving everyone equal access to everything we all might as well all play the same profession. However this game is so much more than that, we have other ways to mitigate damage, some without even using skills.

    Let's use your example of a meta necromancer vs let's say a meta warrior:
    By reducing the warriors available stunbreaks by 50%, your f.ex fear efficacy goes up to 200% because you can now twice as effectively lock him down with it.

    The entire point of this change is to increase the impact of player skill rather than outequipping number of stunbreaks. Good players already avoid hard cc-attempts in order to save their stunbreak in case they get outnumbered later. While I get for many this will be be annoying, it will lead to more balanced matches and player ratings, and at the same time less frustrating losses.

    A warrior has at worst 4 hard cc's

    • Full Counter (can be countered by stowing)
    • Bull's Charge (can be countered by dodging)
    • Shield Bash (can be countered by about face)
    • Disrupting Stab (can be countered by soft cc, about face or dodge)

    Neither of these require a stunbreak unless you simply react to what is happening to you. This is not a good thing to implement balance around, because it punishes good players and reward bad ones, which is exactly what this change is aimed at correcting.

    The issue of your example is that you are looking at what is meta now and not at what would be meta after your change. Your calculations also require the highly unlikely 1v1 situation.

    The different professions just aren't equal in front of hard CC. Some profession almost only have breakstun to face hard CC while other overflow with way to deal with them. Your example which don't take into account the fact that the warrior can have a lot more CC packed into it's kit already put the necromancer into the rope.

    If you want something like that why not first change how block and stability work? Make both of those dependant on toughness.

    • For block, when toughness is equal or superior to your foe's power, then you totally block the hit. When the toughness is inferior to your foe's power you take a part of the damage that "couldn't be blocked totally" and depend on the ratio power/toughness.
    • And you do the same with stability, you just change it so that it's now a boon that reduce the time you are disabled by a %age and based on how much power is put behind the CC, you still end up interrupted if you lack the toughness to counter it.
    • And since we are at it, let's also change dodge so that you have 50% chance to take a glancing blow while dodging. A dodge under the effect of weakness would see this %age go up to 100%.

    Doesn't it make things a lot more "fair" with your change to stunbreak access? It would also allow ANet to give value to the "stun duration" stuff which exist in game, and even thread further on this path. Wouldn't it also tune down the survivability of glassy builds that can rely heavily on dodge and block? They could even revert stability to a boon that stack in duration instead of having the stacks consumed by CCs... etc.

    The reason I use meta as an example, is because those builds are far more likely to be running multiple stunbreaks. This in turn can lead to alot of carrying by build, which would be a lot harder to do with access to only one stunbreak.

    Of course a warrior can have more cc in it's kit, after all it's by design meant to force your big cooldowns with Rampage f.ex. However I can focus on 1v1 simply because the stunbreak access reduction goes across the board - both parties lose that defence, and it becomes way more important to save it until you get 1v2'd than it currently is, especially if you run several of them. Landing a successful CC should be way more rewarding than it currently is, driving up the skill floor required to win duels instead of running something blatantly harder to counter.

    I also pick 1v1 as an example because you should get punished for running into a 1v4 no matter what - the only reason it's doable now for some is because of an overflow of ways to deal with incoming cc.

    I don't really agree with the rest of your changes I have to admit, not only because they require a big amount of work to implement (takes a long time), but mostly because you want to take more power from reactional gameplay and put it into stats which will only serve to dumb down the game and it's pace just to make life easier for those that struggle and less rewarding for those that put in the effort.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ZeftheWicked.3076 said:
    Before i throw my feedback, let's get this straight:

    The idea is that one slot becomes stunbreak slot and any skill you put there will stunbreak.
    In return all utility skills that were stunbreaks lose that feature.

    Is this correct?

    More like every skill that has stunbreak functionality today would retain it, however you could only equip them in a certain slot.

    In other words you have all the same stunbreaks you had before, but they can only be equipped in a specific slot. Those that weren't stunbreaks will remain non-stunbreaking.

  • RedShark.9548RedShark.9548 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @rng.1024 said:

    @ZeftheWicked.3076 said:
    Before i throw my feedback, let's get this straight:

    The idea is that one slot becomes stunbreak slot and any skill you put there will stunbreak.
    In return all utility skills that were stunbreaks lose that feature.

    Is this correct?

    More like every skill that has stunbreak functionality today would retain it, however you could only equip them in a certain slot.

    In other words you have all the same stunbreaks you had before, but they can only be equipped in a specific slot. Those that weren't stunbreaks will remain non-stunbreaking.

    Id prefer it to work in a way that skills that are not in that slot lose their stunbreak, so i can still equip shake it off as condi cleanse and balanced stance as stunbreak/stability for safer stomps etc.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Or you could, you know... slot a stunbreak.

    I've never understood what peoples obsession with avoiding compromise is. That's sort of how an stat, build and class based MMO work. People run around on their marauders/berserkers/vipers/whatnot in full dps builds and then when you suggest they could slot something defensive so that they dont instantly die they're foaming at the mouth and throwing meta left and right.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • reikken.4961reikken.4961 Member ✭✭✭

    would require a massive rework on CC and stability
    some builds can slot 6+ stuns long enough to warrant a stun break. And some classes have so much stability that they hardly need stun breaks. And then some classes are just ragdolls without their stun breaks.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @rng.1024 said:

    @ZeftheWicked.3076 said:
    Before i throw my feedback, let's get this straight:

    The idea is that one slot becomes stunbreak slot and any skill you put there will stunbreak.
    In return all utility skills that were stunbreaks lose that feature.

    Is this correct?

    More like every skill that has stunbreak functionality today would retain it, however you could only equip them in a certain slot.

    In other words you have all the same stunbreaks you had before, but they can only be equipped in a specific slot. Those that weren't stunbreaks will remain non-stunbreaking.

    Id prefer it to work in a way that skills that are not in that slot lose their stunbreak, so i can still equip shake it off as condi cleanse and balanced stance as stunbreak/stability for safer stomps etc.

    It's an interesting concept, however I don't know how easy it would be to implement. I'm not in favour of losing the associated predictability of skills that stunbreak, however this would diminish the impact on build variance which is always a good thing ^^

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Or you could, you know... slot a stunbreak.

    I've never understood what peoples obsession with avoiding compromise is. That's sort of how an stat, build and class based MMO work. People run around on their marauders/berserkers/vipers/whatnot in full dps builds and then when you suggest they could slot something defensive so that they dont instantly die they're foaming at the mouth and throwing meta left and right.

    Never said otherwise? I want less stunbreaks, not more per cooldown.

    Meta is meta for that exact reason, it's all about out-resourcing what you're up against. Given, like I stated earlier, most builds seem to run 1 stunbreak (and maybe 1 traited), having a discussion of a bad build with no stunbreaks against something decent is a waste of time and energy in my opinion.

    That being said, this would affect both tanky and bursty playstyles alike - of course I'm of the opinion one should slot one when playing competitively atleast.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 19, 2019

    @reikken.4961 said:
    would require a massive rework on CC and stability
    some builds can slot 6+ stuns long enough to warrant a stun break. And some classes have so much stability that they hardly need stun breaks. And then some classes are just ragdolls without their stun breaks.

    If you can show some outlier examples (in your opinion), then I'd be happy to discuss options ^^

    Also we're not removing stunbreaks, you get 1 and everyone else gets one. This game has never been balanced around how much cc vs amount of stunbreaks someone has, however we have seen better balance in the past despite that. I want us to get closer to that without gutting lower performing options, yet tone down those that overperform.

  • ZeftheWicked.3076ZeftheWicked.3076 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Well after explanation i stand against this idea. As a necro main i know what it means to get dogpiled by enemy cc. Limiting my utility stunbreakers to just one (said slot) would make this even worse, given there is no mechanic tu curb enemy cc spammage vs my necro (all 5 can go gang-ho on my rear end with their ccs).

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ZeftheWicked.3076 said:
    Well after explanation i stand against this idea. As a necro main i know what it means to get dogpiled by enemy cc. Limiting my utility stunbreakers to just one (said slot) would make this even worse, given there is no mechanic tu curb enemy cc spammage vs my necro (all 5 can go gang-ho on my rear end with their ccs).

    How many stunbreaks do you run as of right now?

    Yeah necro life is hard, however kiting, line of sight and non-teleport spots make a world of difference. It's exactly the philosophy of being able to run in 1v5 on point I want to adress, as I feel nobody should be able to do so unpunished and therefore, hopefully, play it a little bit safer in the future.

    Look at it the other way though, a clutch AoE fear or stun on point can now become much more of a game changer as you burn through all of their stunbreaks leaving them wide open for your teams cc.

  • reikken.4961reikken.4961 Member ✭✭✭

    @rng.1024 said:

    @reikken.4961 said:
    would require a massive rework on CC and stability
    some builds can slot 6+ stuns long enough to warrant a stun break. And some classes have so much stability that they hardly need stun breaks. And then some classes are just ragdolls without their stun breaks.

    If you can show some outlier examples (in your opinion), then I'd be happy to discuss options ^^

    On scourge (in pvp), I run 3 or 4 on-demand stunbreaks. because otherwise I just get destroyed, with no blocks or evades
    Warrior can run 6 long duration disables (2+ second stun/knockdown), not even counting rampage, plus another 3 shorter CCs (daze, knockback)

    Also, warrior, firebrand, holosmith, weaver, etc. can all run very high stability uptime and get by with only one stun break.

  • Sigmoid.7082Sigmoid.7082 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The other issue with this is sometimes you take the skill because of the other parts of the a unity, not the stun break. This would limit the flexibility in those choices massively.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sigmoid.7082 said:
    The other issue with this is sometimes you take the skill because of the other parts of the a unity, not the stun break. This would limit the flexibility in those choices massively.

    This!

    This is one of my major problems with Stunbreaks as a mechanic, I often times run skills that are stunbreaks because of their secondary utility..
    The most common skill in this regard is Quickening Zephyr which I mostly use for the Quickness and Superspeed.. ergo most of the time it's wasted as a stunbreak or on CD when I need to use it as such.

    This annoys me quite a lot as there are a number of stun break skills which have good uses aside from being a stun break so it forces you to either take and use the skill for those uses and waste the stunbreak or you waste the skill almost entirely and use it almost exclusively as a stun break.

    The only skills that really work in this regard are signets and defensive skills.. signets having passives to give benefits for not activating them and defensive skills being things like evades, blinks or blocks which you would only really use when your about to be hit anyway and that's where stuns are most effective in the first place.
    I'm not going to waste a lightning reflexes to break a stun if i'm not about to get hit by something right.. but I am going to use quickning zephyr constantly to increase my attack speed and mobility..

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Just make more things stunbreak on classes without a lot of stability.

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • Hannelore.8153Hannelore.8153 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 20, 2019

    No from me, the existing restricted slots (heal and elite) already break build diversity, and the game would be better without them. You can't sacrifice diversity for balance, alot of games have tried it and they tend to meet a bitter end because boredom is a death knell.

    When a game is unbalanced, people get upset, but keep playing. When a game is boring, they log off.

    Hannah | Daisuki[SUKI] Founder, Ehmry Bay | Mains Mariyuuna/Tempest(PvE), Terakura/Spellbreaker & Kitty Koume/Reaper(WvW) | ♀♥♀

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hannelore.8153 said:
    No from me, the existing restricted slots (heal and elite) already break build diversity, and the game would be better without them. You can't sacrifice diversity for balance, alot of games have tried it and they tend to meet a bitter end because boredom is a death knell.

    When a game is unbalanced, people get upset, but keep playing. When a game is boring, they log off.

    That's a fair point, and you may as well be completely right. However that leaves the illusion should they choose to keep diversity, as some skills will have to be nerfed to uselessness in competitive modes in order to have players stop using them which is still unfortunate.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Justine.6351 said:
    Just make more things stunbreak on classes without a lot of stability.

    I agree, they should take a look at available stunbreaks for each profession, and theme them as such while trying to even the access.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sigmoid.7082
    @Teratus.2859

    Aye, there's alot of very decent skills that "accidentally happen to have a stunbreak which I must agree is a bit annoying.

    The best option for these would probably be to refund some of the cooldown should you use them without being controlled, or to give an additional bonus when used to break a stun. Would require a rework of several skills though.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @reikken.4961 said:

    @rng.1024 said:

    @reikken.4961 said:
    would require a massive rework on CC and stability
    some builds can slot 6+ stuns long enough to warrant a stun break. And some classes have so much stability that they hardly need stun breaks. And then some classes are just ragdolls without their stun breaks.

    If you can show some outlier examples (in your opinion), then I'd be happy to discuss options ^^

    On scourge (in pvp), I run 3 or 4 on-demand stunbreaks. because otherwise I just get destroyed, with no blocks or evades
    Warrior can run 6 long duration disables (2+ second stun/knockdown), not even counting rampage, plus another 3 shorter CCs (daze, knockback)

    Also, warrior, firebrand, holosmith, weaver, etc. can all run very high stability uptime and get by with only one stun break.

    Yeah stability definitely needs to be looked at, and we can see in the early patchnotes they are looking to reduce it into more of a one hit tank/1 protected cast mechanic which is great imo.

    Warrior was designed to be a cc applying duelist, just like Scourge was designed for node control and team support - there's nothing pointing at those 2 having to duel it out is supposed to be a good idea - which is why there are other professions (and even necro builds) that can way more comfortable deal with them. By playing scourge you are limiting yourself when playing like a Reaper f.ex, which is why you shouldn't really encounter the warrior after the initial fight on point (unless he also thinks his role is to teamfight).

    It's supposed to be that way in order to allow warriors to come +1 you and in combination with a Firebrand not allow you to hold nodes indefinitely. While I agree this power level difference is only a result of poor initial balance when PoF came out, I don't see the devs throwing out the idea of hard profession counters in order to keep potentially overperforming elite specs in place.

  • reikken.4961reikken.4961 Member ✭✭✭

    @rng.1024 said:
    Warrior was designed to be a cc applying duelist, just like Scourge was designed for node control and team support - there's nothing pointing at those 2 having to duel it out is supposed to be a good idea

    I'm not saying those two should be dueling. I'm just listing examples of extremes that were not created with a one stunbreak system in mind. Like the CC scourge is receiving mostly comes in teamfights. from revenants, holosmiths, firebrands, rangers, etc.

  • reikken.4961reikken.4961 Member ✭✭✭

    @rng.1024 said:
    It's exactly the philosophy of being able to run in 1v5 on point I want to adress

    Then you should really be looking more at evades, blocks, stability, and invulns. If you look at builds that can survive for a bit while being pressured by 3+ people, they don't do it by breaking stuns.

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If it is in the same slots, I can slot if I want to or take it out if I do not. And if it is extra slot, it is power creep.

    It does not work either way.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @reikken.4961 said:

    @rng.1024 said:
    It's exactly the philosophy of being able to run in 1v5 on point I want to adress

    Then you should really be looking more at evades, blocks, stability, and invulns. If you look at builds that can survive for a bit while being pressured by 3+ people, they don't do it by breaking stuns.

    Yeah but the scourges role is to work great in a teamfight given it gets support - the only time you have to spend multiple high cooldowns are when you are out of position or entering an outnumbered fight you shouldn't.

    As for a one - stunbreak system, that's exactly what hard CC access is measured by on a profession basis - no profession requires more stunbreaks to win against any other, however it's supposed to be more challenging and relies on you not wasting cooldowns when facing certain cc-heavy opponents.

    We simply cannot balance the game around how one performs in a 1v5.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @otto.5684 said:
    If it is in the same slots, I can slot if I want to or take it out if I do not. And if it is extra slot, it is power creep.

    It does not work either way.

    Why not? It's no extra slot, and all it does is limit your ability to equip more than 1 stunbreak - you still have access to all the skills.

  • Sigmoid.7082Sigmoid.7082 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 21, 2019

    @rng.1024 said:

    @otto.5684 said:
    If it is in the same slots, I can slot if I want to or take it out if I do not. And if it is extra slot, it is power creep.

    It does not work either way.

    Why not? It's no extra slot, and all it does is limit your ability to equip more than 1 stunbreak - you still have access to all the skills.

    Because as I said some good skills have stunbreaks in them. There is also no point in introducing some convoluted system where if it's not in your stunbreaks slot it acts differently since a lot of skills would need to be balanced twice.

    It also overly limits diversity. E.g. you say scourge is designed to be X. If I want to be able to spec skill A,B,C to make my build more resilient or flexible in certain situations I should have absolute freedom to do so. If I want to mitigate my weak matchups , e.g. control warrior , I should again have absolute freedom to do so instead of "well guess I die then".

    The specs are more diverse than I feel you are giving credit and this pigeon holes a lot of them by heavily limiting build and skill choice.

    no profession requires more stunbreaks to win against any other

    This is false. The one extra can be the difference between a win and a loss. Regardless of skill level.

  • ParadoX.3124ParadoX.3124 Member ✭✭✭

    There are lots of stunbreaks because there are too much cc
    I would't like this change, less option is not a right decision. Take condi engi for example, would you impose removing a kit ?

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sigmoid.7082 said:

    @rng.1024 said:

    @otto.5684 said:
    If it is in the same slots, I can slot if I want to or take it out if I do not. And if it is extra slot, it is power creep.

    It does not work either way.

    Why not? It's no extra slot, and all it does is limit your ability to equip more than 1 stunbreak - you still have access to all the skills.

    Because as I said some good skills have stunbreaks in them. There is also no point in introducing some convoluted system where if it's not in your stunbreaks slot it acts differently since a lot of skills would need to be balanced twice.

    It also overly limits diversity. E.g. you say scourge is designed to be X. If I want to be able to spec skill A,B,C to make my build more resilient or flexible in certain situations I should have absolute freedom to do so. If I want to mitigate my weak matchups , e.g. control warrior , I should again have absolute freedom to do so instead of "well guess I die then".

    The specs are more diverse than I feel you are giving credit and this pigeon holes a lot of them by heavily limiting build and skill choice.

    no profession requires more stunbreaks to win against any other

    This is false. The one extra can be the difference between a win and a loss. Regardless of skill level.

    I never said we change any skills, which is why this would be easy to implenent.

    As for a build being X, you have to remember stunbreaks themselves offer different lingering effects, therefore the only diversity lost is added stunbreaks after that first one is chosen. Can they be balanced to make up for only being able to slot one? Sure, however you don't count the fact that everyone else loses out as well.

    Unfortunately absolute freedom doesn't automatically lead to good builds, and while I agree this would limit the least amount of diversity possible, it would still leave left enough room for less cc-resilient builds to thrive while mainly affect those that are only good because they can negate so much cc.

    The alternative is we nerf the skills to the ground so other options are better, but this will lessen diversity far more down the road if we don't start looking at why some builds are problematic, and introduce some consistency to balance around.

    (I've seen more stunbreaks been wasted losing a fight than I have seen them win some, however that's a personal opinion and I totally get if you've experienced otherwise)

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 22, 2019

    @ParadoX.3124 said:
    There are lots of stunbreaks because there are too much cc
    I would't like this change, less option is not a right decision. Take condi engi for example, would you impose removing a kit ?

    In this case it would be only being able to equip 1 kit in your 3 utility slots - healing and elite excluded.

    If 2-3 kits offered the best available utility - then yes I would like to see other options being viable - which is my point, in order to balance (buff some skills, nerf others) we need to limit the stronger ones to make room for more situational ones which in turn increases build diversity.

    But I suggest that instead of balancing individual skills, we make a change that automatically forces us to look at other options while at the same time keep us from getting everything - I'm not asking for a trait rework, we all saw how much that killed diversity - but I believe this is the smallest, simplest and most effective change with the least impact on amount of viable builds in order to bring overperforming ones back in line.

  • InsaneQR.7412InsaneQR.7412 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Or you could, you know... slot a stunbreak.

    I've never understood what peoples obsession with avoiding compromise is. That's sort of how an stat, build and class based MMO work. People run around on their marauders/berserkers/vipers/whatnot in full dps builds and then when you suggest they could slot something defensive so that they dont instantly die they're foaming at the mouth and throwing meta left and right.

    Its not about equipping none, its about equipping only one. A method to tone down power levels in competitive modes.
    Because many professions have superior ways to stunbreak in comparison to others.

    Thats what OP is looking for.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Or you could, you know... slot a stunbreak.

    I've never understood what peoples obsession with avoiding compromise is. That's sort of how an stat, build and class based MMO work. People run around on their marauders/berserkers/vipers/whatnot in full dps builds and then when you suggest they could slot something defensive so that they dont instantly die they're foaming at the mouth and throwing meta left and right.

    Its not about equipping none, its about equipping only one. A method to tone down power levels in competitive modes.
    Because many professions have superior ways to stunbreak in comparison to others.

    Thats what OP is looking for.

    The issue is that this punish professions that rely on stun breaks to deal with disabling effects due to a lack of other mean to do so. This is an idea that would naturally favor profession that have heavy access to block and/or stability on both their utilities and weapons.

    If we had a single profession, this idea might be worth considering, however we have 9 professions with gameplay philosophies that can be very different. And, as an example, this idea effectively make the guardian way better at dealing against disabling effects than the necromancer which is at the other end of the spectrum. It's true that it's already the case but it will make things even worse, and that's why it shouldn't be done.

    It's the issue that I have with this, the will behind is very good, even commendable, however it's just gonna make the game a bit more unfair. If the issue is the additional effects on some stunbreaks being to strong, then it's those additional effects that need to be tone down, not the ability to slot the stunbreaks.

    The gameplay experience in this game have already fallen down heavily because devs tend to use the same logic of the OP. When there is an issue you have to identify and target the issue, you don't arbitrarily make things worse for the players. Stunbreaking isn't an issue. You could give all your utility slots a stunbreak and it still wouldn't be an issue, you'd just be built to be reactive against disabling effects. If the guy in front of you is built to heavily rely on disabling effects, he would just have found it's hard counter, nothing more nothing less.

    If anything, the issue is the amount of resilience against disabling effects which is imbalanced. But the OP clearly don't want to see this point balanced, saying that it would "dumb down the game". The OP won't tune down power level with such method, he will just create more imbalance between professions and reduce build diversity because we all know that the most efficient stunbreak of each profession will be the only one to be sloted ever on this dedicated slot.

  • The argument is void by default. If you wan to slot one stun break active per class - then you should do the same about hard CC. 1 hard CC per class, Only one. How does that sound?

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ollbirtan.2915 said:
    The argument is void by default. If you wan to slot one stun break active per class - then you should do the same about hard CC. 1 hard CC per class, Only one. How does that sound?

    Currently all professions can hypothetically slot 3 stunbreaks. However do they have equal access to cc? No. By reducing the stunbreaks on both sides it becomes much more a game of saving your stunbreak until the right moment, and initial cc gets way more value.

    If we assume most players need 3 stunbreaks to get by, then slicing away 2 on both sides will yield no difference - and nobody brought up cc being imbalanced before hand. Yes I would make you 2/3 less defensive, but I would also make you 2/3 more offensive which everyone seem to forget.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Or you could, you know... slot a stunbreak.

    I've never understood what peoples obsession with avoiding compromise is. That's sort of how an stat, build and class based MMO work. People run around on their marauders/berserkers/vipers/whatnot in full dps builds and then when you suggest they could slot something defensive so that they dont instantly die they're foaming at the mouth and throwing meta left and right.

    Its not about equipping none, its about equipping only one. A method to tone down power levels in competitive modes.
    Because many professions have superior ways to stunbreak in comparison to others.

    Thats what OP is looking for.

    The issue is that this punish professions that rely on stun breaks to deal with disabling effects due to a lack of other mean to do so. This is an idea that would naturally favor profession that have heavy access to block and/or stability on both their utilities and weapons.

    If we had a single profession, this idea might be worth considering, however we have 9 professions with gameplay philosophies that can be very different. And, as an example, this idea effectively make the guardian way better at dealing against disabling effects than the necromancer which is at the other end of the spectrum. It's true that it's already the case but it will make things even worse, and that's why it shouldn't be done.

    It's the issue that I have with this, the will behind is very good, even commendable, however it's just gonna make the game a bit more unfair. If the issue is the additional effects on some stunbreaks being to strong, then it's those additional effects that need to be tone down, not the ability to slot the stunbreaks.

    The gameplay experience in this game have already fallen down heavily because devs tend to use the same logic of the OP. When there is an issue you have to identify and target the issue, you don't arbitrarily make things worse for the players. Stunbreaking isn't an issue. You could give all your utility slots a stunbreak and it still wouldn't be an issue, you'd just be built to be reactive against disabling effects. If the guy in front of you is built to heavily rely on disabling effects, he would just have found it's hard counter, nothing more nothing less.

    If anything, the issue is the amount of resilience against disabling effects which is imbalanced. But the OP clearly don't want to see this point balanced, saying that it would "dumb down the game". The OP won't tune down power level with such method, he will just create more imbalance between professions and reduce build diversity because we all know that the most efficient stunbreak of each profession will be the only one to be sloted ever on this dedicated slot.

    So you are saying you simply cannot win on your 2 stunbreak necro against a warrior if he has more than 1?

    Because that's not a stunbreak issue, it's a gameplay issue. You're not supposed to go toe to toe with every single profession out there, and the reason you can through builds is why alot of players keep doing so. Guardiand were supposed to (from the start!) better deal with cc, the Necromancer's biggest crux. I want you to go from having to use 3 stunbreaks to actually enjoy other options this game has to offer, while having a way easier time fighting every other profession since they also get less stunbreaks.

    I'm all for nerfing builds to buffing thinking players, I want it to matter when you spam that 2nd or 3rd stunbreak instead of how it is now where you press it and just keep spamming. Like I said earlier, this would require a look at inherent stunbreaks and they'd need to be balanced in order to give viable options.

  • @rng.1024 said:

    @ollbirtan.2915 said:
    The argument is void by default. If you wan to slot one stun break active per class - then you should do the same about hard CC. 1 hard CC per class, Only one. How does that sound?

    Currently all professions can hypothetically slot 3 stunbreaks. However do they have equal access to cc? No. By reducing the stunbreaks on both sides it becomes much more a game of saving your stunbreak until the right moment, and initial cc gets way more value.

    If we assume most players need 3 stunbreaks to get by, then slicing away 2 on both sides will yield no difference - and nobody brought up cc being imbalanced before hand. Yes I would make you 2/3 less defensive, but I would also make you 2/3 more offensive which everyone seem to forget.

    this didn't answer my suggestion at all ---- Balance would be by your book - 1 Hard CC slot (and yes by slott I assume this includes weapon) and 1 Stunbreak slot per profession. Are we gucci?

  • Sigmoid.7082Sigmoid.7082 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 23, 2019

    @rng.1024 said:
    nobody brought up cc being imbalanced before hand.

    People bring this up quite a lot.

    Yes I would make you 2/3 less defensive, but I would also make you 2/3 more offensive which everyone seem to forget.

    That's not how it works.

    @rng.1024 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Or you could, you know... slot a stunbreak.

    I've never understood what peoples obsession with avoiding compromise is. That's sort of how an stat, build and class based MMO work. People run around on their marauders/berserkers/vipers/whatnot in full dps builds and then when you suggest they could slot something defensive so that they dont instantly die they're foaming at the mouth and throwing meta left and right.

    Its not about equipping none, its about equipping only one. A method to tone down power levels in competitive modes.
    Because many professions have superior ways to stunbreak in comparison to others.

    Thats what OP is looking for.

    The issue is that this punish professions that rely on stun breaks to deal with disabling effects due to a lack of other mean to do so. This is an idea that would naturally favor profession that have heavy access to block and/or stability on both their utilities and weapons.

    If we had a single profession, this idea might be worth considering, however we have 9 professions with gameplay philosophies that can be very different. And, as an example, this idea effectively make the guardian way better at dealing against disabling effects than the necromancer which is at the other end of the spectrum. It's true that it's already the case but it will make things even worse, and that's why it shouldn't be done.

    It's the issue that I have with this, the will behind is very good, even commendable, however it's just gonna make the game a bit more unfair. If the issue is the additional effects on some stunbreaks being to strong, then it's those additional effects that need to be tone down, not the ability to slot the stunbreaks.

    The gameplay experience in this game have already fallen down heavily because devs tend to use the same logic of the OP. When there is an issue you have to identify and target the issue, you don't arbitrarily make things worse for the players. Stunbreaking isn't an issue. You could give all your utility slots a stunbreak and it still wouldn't be an issue, you'd just be built to be reactive against disabling effects. If the guy in front of you is built to heavily rely on disabling effects, he would just have found it's hard counter, nothing more nothing less.

    If anything, the issue is the amount of resilience against disabling effects which is imbalanced. But the OP clearly don't want to see this point balanced, saying that it would "dumb down the game". The OP won't tune down power level with such method, he will just create more imbalance between professions and reduce build diversity because we all know that the most efficient stunbreak of each profession will be the only one to be sloted ever on this dedicated slot.

    So you are saying you simply cannot win on your 2 stunbreak necro against a warrior if he has more than 1?

    Because that's not a stunbreak issue, it's a gameplay issue. You're not supposed to go toe to toe with every single profession out there, and the reason you can through builds is why alot of players keep doing so.

    Because thats the freedom the build system has which your idea removes. There are bad match-ups but you can spec to be better at them instead of instantly losing. You would make the game more binary.

    Guardiand were supposed to (from the start!) better deal with cc, the Necromancer's biggest crux. I want you to go from having to use 3 stunbreaks to actually enjoy other options this game has to offer, while having a way easier time fighting every other profession since they also get less stunbreaks.

    There is no guarantee there would be an easier time with anything nor "enjoying other options". People enjoy playing with the freedom they have, enjoying what they want to play instead of some arbitrary limit because reasons.

    I'm all for nerfing builds to buffing thinking players,.

    The problem is thinking players already account for multiple stunbreaks, bait them out, and play around them. This would dumb this aspect of the game down.

    I want it to matter when you spam that 2nd or 3rd stunbreak instead of how it is now where you press it and just keep spamming.

    Good players already don't spam them. Removing them inst going to suddenly make people better at the game. Spammy players will likely always be that.

  • Eleazar.9478Eleazar.9478 Member ✭✭✭

    While this sounds good in theory, I dont think it would work in practice, there's way too many poorly telegraphed CC in this game. (Lol mantra mesmer) With current skills you need mulitple stunbreaks. And its not fun when you get CCd to oblivion. It would be one thing classes only had a few high cd low duration CC's but take for example warrior you can juggle 5ccs between uttlity rampage and sheild. Not to mention counter/tether.

    This problem would further being an issue when fighting outnumbered, which the game already incentives way too much. Lol imagine getting ganked by interupt thives or roaming mesmers, revs and long bow rangers.

    I think they need to tone down the amount of CC first then turn down the stunbreaks.

    Now if this idea had been introduced in vanilla maybe but current hell no

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ollbirtan.2915 said:

    @rng.1024 said:

    @ollbirtan.2915 said:
    The argument is void by default. If you wan to slot one stun break active per class - then you should do the same about hard CC. 1 hard CC per class, Only one. How does that sound?

    Currently all professions can hypothetically slot 3 stunbreaks. However do they have equal access to cc? No. By reducing the stunbreaks on both sides it becomes much more a game of saving your stunbreak until the right moment, and initial cc gets way more value.

    If we assume most players need 3 stunbreaks to get by, then slicing away 2 on both sides will yield no difference - and nobody brought up cc being imbalanced before hand. Yes I would make you 2/3 less defensive, but I would also make you 2/3 more offensive which everyone seem to forget.

    this didn't answer my suggestion at all ---- Balance would be by your book - 1 Hard CC slot (and yes by slott I assume this includes weapon) and 1 Stunbreak slot per profession. Are we gucci?

    Even if you slot 5 stunbreaks today, it won't be enough to match the enemy teams cc. It does however allow you to ignore some, instead of picking your fights.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sigmoid.7082 said:

    @rng.1024 said:
    nobody brought up cc being imbalanced before hand.

    People bring this up quite a lot.

    Yes I would make you 2/3 less defensive, but I would also make you 2/3 more offensive which everyone seem to forget.

    That's not how it works.

    @rng.1024 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Or you could, you know... slot a stunbreak.

    I've never understood what peoples obsession with avoiding compromise is. That's sort of how an stat, build and class based MMO work. People run around on their marauders/berserkers/vipers/whatnot in full dps builds and then when you suggest they could slot something defensive so that they dont instantly die they're foaming at the mouth and throwing meta left and right.

    Its not about equipping none, its about equipping only one. A method to tone down power levels in competitive modes.
    Because many professions have superior ways to stunbreak in comparison to others.

    Thats what OP is looking for.

    The issue is that this punish professions that rely on stun breaks to deal with disabling effects due to a lack of other mean to do so. This is an idea that would naturally favor profession that have heavy access to block and/or stability on both their utilities and weapons.

    If we had a single profession, this idea might be worth considering, however we have 9 professions with gameplay philosophies that can be very different. And, as an example, this idea effectively make the guardian way better at dealing against disabling effects than the necromancer which is at the other end of the spectrum. It's true that it's already the case but it will make things even worse, and that's why it shouldn't be done.

    It's the issue that I have with this, the will behind is very good, even commendable, however it's just gonna make the game a bit more unfair. If the issue is the additional effects on some stunbreaks being to strong, then it's those additional effects that need to be tone down, not the ability to slot the stunbreaks.

    The gameplay experience in this game have already fallen down heavily because devs tend to use the same logic of the OP. When there is an issue you have to identify and target the issue, you don't arbitrarily make things worse for the players. Stunbreaking isn't an issue. You could give all your utility slots a stunbreak and it still wouldn't be an issue, you'd just be built to be reactive against disabling effects. If the guy in front of you is built to heavily rely on disabling effects, he would just have found it's hard counter, nothing more nothing less.

    If anything, the issue is the amount of resilience against disabling effects which is imbalanced. But the OP clearly don't want to see this point balanced, saying that it would "dumb down the game". The OP won't tune down power level with such method, he will just create more imbalance between professions and reduce build diversity because we all know that the most efficient stunbreak of each profession will be the only one to be sloted ever on this dedicated slot.

    So you are saying you simply cannot win on your 2 stunbreak necro against a warrior if he has more than 1?

    Because that's not a stunbreak issue, it's a gameplay issue. You're not supposed to go toe to toe with every single profession out there, and the reason you can through builds is why alot of players keep doing so.

    Because thats the freedom the build system has which your idea removes. There are bad match-ups but you can spec to be better at them instead of instantly losing. You would make the game more binary.

    Guardiand were supposed to (from the start!) better deal with cc, the Necromancer's biggest crux. I want you to go from having to use 3 stunbreaks to actually enjoy other options this game has to offer, while having a way easier time fighting every other profession since they also get less stunbreaks.

    There is no guarantee there would be an easier time with anything nor "enjoying other options". People enjoy playing with the freedom they have, enjoying what they want to play instead of some arbitrary limit because reasons.

    I'm all for nerfing builds to buffing thinking players,.

    The problem is thinking players already account for multiple stunbreaks, bait them out, and play around them. This would dumb this aspect of the game down.

    I want it to matter when you spam that 2nd or 3rd stunbreak instead of how it is now where you press it and just keep spamming.

    Good players already don't spam them. Removing them inst going to suddenly make people better at the game. Spammy players will likely always be that.

    What is it that's so hard to understand about when everyone go from 3 to 1 stunbreak, your cc becomes wasted 2/3 less? Yes yes not everyone runs 3 stunbreaks, but those builds still manage with the cc being flung around anyways.

    A bad matchup is only bad because of direct counters. If we remove additional stunbreaks, it will give alot more counters against the professions who previously had no window of vulnerability, across the board.

    People enjoy to win, therefore they will play what's currently overperforming (if not they would have no issue running 1 active stunbreak as most off-meta builds do) no matter how boring or locked into skills they are. By changing this all of a sudden 15/20 skills become viable even on those builds, which will be a huge boost in diversity already.

    As I've already said, this is the method I consider to have the least impact on players freedom to choose. We already know that their way of dealing with overperforming builds is to nerf it's traits and skills to PvE usage - I don't want that. Again, if we introduce a baseline binary control right now, we can much easier balance around it and avoid things like the Chronomancer and CI rework in the future for those that enjoy that.

    A small sacrifice from all of us, instead of the big from few in order to let us play the profession/spec/style we enjoy. And if you only enjoy the game running 3 stunbreaks, then you are in the minority anyways.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Eleazar.9478 said:
    While this sounds good in theory, I dont think it would work in practice, there's way too many poorly telegraphed CC in this game. (Lol mantra mesmer) With current skills you need mulitple stunbreaks. And its not fun when you get CCd to oblivion. It would be one thing classes only had a few high cd low duration CC's but take for example warrior you can juggle 5ccs between uttlity rampage and sheild. Not to mention counter/tether.

    This problem would further being an issue when fighting outnumbered, which the game already incentives way too much. Lol imagine getting ganked by interupt thives or roaming mesmers, revs and long bow rangers.

    I think they need to tone down the amount of CC first then turn down the stunbreaks.

    Now if this idea had been introduced in vanilla maybe but current hell no

    Yeah definitiely woulf work in vanilla, agreed. However as of right now side noders get their status exavtly because they can handle a +1, even staying on point, all I'd like is for them to have to pay more attention and start kiting - rewarding good rotations more.

    As someone who's been juggling alot in gold 3/Plat 1 since I started doing ranked, I can confidently say 1 stunbreak is more than enough unless I do something stupid. Averaging on 1 death per game mainly sidenoding, this isn't an unfeasable ask. My favourite matchups are warriors, because I need to stay on my toes and they have the build advantage. Good necros are still my worst enemy, because they are good players. So it's doable in the current state of the game, but requires us to play the game alot more than some of the meta builds do.

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 25, 2019

    The hard cc in this game would have to be drastically nerfed on a lot of classes or every engagements with one of these classes would be played out similar to the old ci mirage where ur just locked down continually once ur singular stunbreak is used and burst to death in seconds with no counter play which would be horrible for the pvp modes

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You idea is kind of bad because some professions can already chain cc skills together and im not talking 1 or 2 chains im talking like 3 4 and 5 or more cc skills that can be used back to back. IF only 1 skill is your breakstun it means the game becomes who has the most cc or evades first person to use their break stun loses immediately. This concept would immediately ruin professions like necromancer as they have some of the weakest and highest cooldown stun-breaks in the game. Ideally they would be unviable for any pvp setting as they are stuck with 2 base dodges, no vigor up time, no endurance restoration traits, very very limited stability, and limited mobility. Then you have something like warrior, or or ranger who both have higher evasion uptime and greater endurance restoration, blocks, greater mobility, and great strong CC effects on low- ish cds.

    Ideally doing this lowers build diversity down to a handful and while in pve it would be fine in pvp and wvw this idea is literally a hot mess.

    GW2 is not designed like Blade and Soul for example where everyone has 1or2 break stuns on roughly the same high cooldowns and roughly the same number of evasive skills or stun immunities and stun lockdowns on any given build.

    Because of this your idea can not work for gw2 pvp and wvw.

  • How about instead of a dedicated slot, there is instead an ICD on how often stunbreaks actually break stuns? This would be for anything slotted, not from traits. I.E. I use Shake it Off! and Endure Pain goes on a X second cooldown if it were not already on CD, but Defy Pain could still break stuns in that X second duration.

    As we've seen with the incoming Rampage changes, Anet is already massively toning down the damage on hard CC skills, and I expect more (my poor hammer QQ). So what if you can only break every other stun if the things that are stunning you hit like wet noodles... Break stun before the big damage skill comes and dodge it. That or bring more stability.

    Also, Necro needs better stunbreaks and Stability sources. Spectral Armor is a great candidate for stability.

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Classes that can chain hard cc skills would have to be adjusted even before the incorporated any type of cd's for stunbreak use