Jump to content
  • Sign Up

[Suggestion] A Designated Stunbreak Slot


rng.1024

Recommended Posts

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@reikken.4961 said:

@rng.1024 said:

@reikken.4961 said:would require a
massive
rework on CC and stabilitysome 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 evadesWarrior 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ParadoX.3124 said:There are lots of stunbreaks because there are too much ccI 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dadnir.5038 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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:

@"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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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:

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...