[Suggestion] A Designated Stunbreak Slot - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Professions

[Suggestion] A Designated Stunbreak Slot

2>

Comments

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

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Also, Necro needs better stunbreaks and Stability sources. Spectral Armor is a great candidate for stability.

    It's arguable.

    Spectral armor is already a strong skill, to add more onto it mean that you're powercreeping this skill. Technically it won't change much to the necromancer, however it will make it even harder for other skills to catch up with it.

    Also, the necromancer's defensive philosophy is to "accept" the incoming effects not to "block" or "evade" them. Trying to convince ANet's dev to make some exception to this "rule" of theirs is excessively difficult. They would rather give the necromancer a trait or effect on spectral armor that reduce incoming CC duration by 50% than give the necromancer more stability or a way to block incoming effects.

    NB.: The necromancer is not the only one that would suffer from a lack of way to deal with the CC powercreep that it would create, the necromancer is just the one that would be affected the most due to it's peculiar defensive philosophy. Not to mention how much players would end up hating on a hard CC meta, limiting stunbreak is not the way ANet should use to make disabling effects more relevant. From the very begining, ANet shouldn't have made stability similar to aegis in the way that it "block" CC, they should have made stability reduce the duration of incoming disabling effects with traits/skills/rune that add to this reduction and similarly trait/sigil/rune that increase outgoing disabling effect effectiveness. Making it possible to interrupt whether or not their is stability and having block/aegis being the only way to truly stop an interupt.

  • @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Also, Necro needs better stunbreaks and Stability sources. Spectral Armor is a great candidate for stability.

    It's arguable.

    Spectral armor is already a strong skill, to add more onto it mean that you're powercreeping this skill. Technically it won't change much to the necromancer, however it will make it even harder for other skills to catch up with it.

    Also, the necromancer's defensive philosophy is to "accept" the incoming effects not to "block" or "evade" them. Trying to convince ANet's dev to make some exception to this "rule" of theirs is excessively difficult. They would rather give the necromancer a trait or effect on spectral armor that reduce incoming CC duration by 50% than give the necromancer more stability or a way to block incoming effects.

    NB.: The necromancer is not the only one that would suffer from a lack of way to deal with the CC powercreep that it would create, the necromancer is just the one that would be affected the most due to it's peculiar defensive philosophy. Not to mention how much players would end up hating on a hard CC meta, limiting stunbreak is not the way ANet should use to make disabling effects more relevant. From the very begining, ANet shouldn't have made stability similar to aegis in the way that it "block" CC, they should have made stability reduce the duration of incoming disabling effects with traits/skills/rune that add to this reduction and similarly trait/sigil/rune that increase outgoing disabling effect effectiveness. Making it possible to interrupt whether or not their is stability and having block/aegis being the only way to truly stop an interupt.

    Spectral Armor is not the only Necro skill that could have stability, it just fits well there.

    If Anet's philosophy is for Necros to just take the damage, then Dark Defiance, or another trait that activates on disabled, needs to proc Fear.

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

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    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.

    This would end in roughly the same result (or so i think) ideally any change to stunbreaks like this would require that there is an equal change in stun lockdown in terms of number of sources that apply it and how often any given cc can be applied.
    Damage is high enough that one stun can mean death with warrior being a prime case example but not the only one, almost any successful cc into hundredblades, arc slice, etc means death or near death.
    If everyone only has one stun-break the classes with the advantage are still the ones with the most evasive/blocks or invulns in their kits so thats still warrior, ranger, mirage, thief for the most part. Everyone else gets a larger disadvantage for a questionable design change.

    Doing something like this requires massive design changes from the ground up. with the idea that no elite spec would make a profession stronger against cc or add more stun breaks than the single one or two allowed for use.

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 25, 2019

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Also, Necro needs better stunbreaks and Stability sources. Spectral Armor is a great candidate for stability.

    It's arguable.

    Spectral armor is already a strong skill, to add more onto it mean that you're powercreeping this skill. Technically it won't change much to the necromancer, however it will make it even harder for other skills to catch up with it.

    I some what agree here and i some what dont as spectral armor could use a small buff as its the only spectral skill that did not receive compensation for the removal of spectral mastery and the lesser spectral armor a while back it could use a bit of a boost by either a lowering its base cooldown or giving it a 2nd charge and keeping the high cd of 40s

    That said i think necromancer in terms of pvp would do better with having better ways to gain life force without tanking hits. skills like ghastly claws dont generate enough life force when you land them perfectly. Even if you land 2 or 3 skills that generate life force you still wont have enough to be impactful which often leads to the necromancer having to use a break stun skill just to help generate life force (this is most noticeable at the start of of a pvp match when necro is at its weakest and most vulnerable.) The other method is to depends on spectral grasp which may or may not work to your favor but this does cost whole utility slot.

    Other professions can often save their stunbreaks until they are stunned spectral armor is one of those situational skills where at times you need to use it before you are stunned otherwise you have very little life force to work with.

    The only reason i go into all this is because when it comes down to the idea of picking only 1 breakstun with the way the necromancer works there would be many situations say if you picked spectral armor it means you wont have a break stun at all because you have to pop it early to even get life force and reduce damage as you have no defensive weapon skills.

  • Sigmoid.7082Sigmoid.7082 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 25, 2019

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Also, Necro needs better stunbreaks and Stability sources. Spectral Armor is a great candidate for stability.

    It's arguable.

    Spectral armor is already a strong skill, to add more onto it mean that you're powercreeping this skill. Technically it won't change much to the necromancer, however it will make it even harder for other skills to catch up with it.

    Also, the necromancer's defensive philosophy is to "accept" the incoming effects not to "block" or "evade" them. Trying to convince ANet's dev to make some exception to this "rule" of theirs is excessively difficult. They would rather give the necromancer a trait or effect on spectral armor that reduce incoming CC duration by 50% than give the necromancer more stability or a way to block incoming effects.

    NB.: The necromancer is not the only one that would suffer from a lack of way to deal with the CC powercreep that it would create, the necromancer is just the one that would be affected the most due to it's peculiar defensive philosophy. Not to mention how much players would end up hating on a hard CC meta, limiting stunbreak is not the way ANet should use to make disabling effects more relevant. From the very begining, ANet shouldn't have made stability similar to aegis in the way that it "block" CC, they should have made stability reduce the duration of incoming disabling effects with traits/skills/rune that add to this reduction and similarly trait/sigil/rune that increase outgoing disabling effect effectiveness. Making it possible to interrupt whether or not their is stability and having block/aegis being the only way to truly stop an interupt.

    Spectral Armor is not the only Necro skill that could have stability, it just fits well there.

    If Anet's philosophy is for Necros to just take the damage, then Dark Defiance, or another trait that activates on disabled, needs to proc Fear.

    It used too? Pretty much all anti CC traits that caused CC got changed or removed.

    This update reworks all traits that react automatically to incoming control effects by applying control effects on the attacker. Traits that immediately punish players for successfully landing their skills, particularly when they are not very visible, teach the wrong things. The reworked traits are intended to encourage more active play and to provide new opportunities for the defender without outright punishing the attacker.

  • @Sigmoid.7082 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Also, Necro needs better stunbreaks and Stability sources. Spectral Armor is a great candidate for stability.

    It's arguable.

    Spectral armor is already a strong skill, to add more onto it mean that you're powercreeping this skill. Technically it won't change much to the necromancer, however it will make it even harder for other skills to catch up with it.

    Also, the necromancer's defensive philosophy is to "accept" the incoming effects not to "block" or "evade" them. Trying to convince ANet's dev to make some exception to this "rule" of theirs is excessively difficult. They would rather give the necromancer a trait or effect on spectral armor that reduce incoming CC duration by 50% than give the necromancer more stability or a way to block incoming effects.

    NB.: The necromancer is not the only one that would suffer from a lack of way to deal with the CC powercreep that it would create, the necromancer is just the one that would be affected the most due to it's peculiar defensive philosophy. Not to mention how much players would end up hating on a hard CC meta, limiting stunbreak is not the way ANet should use to make disabling effects more relevant. From the very begining, ANet shouldn't have made stability similar to aegis in the way that it "block" CC, they should have made stability reduce the duration of incoming disabling effects with traits/skills/rune that add to this reduction and similarly trait/sigil/rune that increase outgoing disabling effect effectiveness. Making it possible to interrupt whether or not their is stability and having block/aegis being the only way to truly stop an interupt.

    Spectral Armor is not the only Necro skill that could have stability, it just fits well there.

    If Anet's philosophy is for Necros to just take the damage, then Dark Defiance, or another trait that activates on disabled, needs to proc Fear.

    It used too? Pretty much all anti CC traits that caused CC got changed or removed.

    This update reworks all traits that react automatically to incoming control effects by applying control effects on the attacker. Traits that immediately punish players for successfully landing their skills, particularly when they are not very visible, teach the wrong things. The reworked traits are intended to encourage more active play and to provide new opportunities for the defender without outright punishing the attacker.

    Then perhaps that is the crux of the problem. They removed the anti CC effects.

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

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

    @Sigmoid.7082 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Also, Necro needs better stunbreaks and Stability sources. Spectral Armor is a great candidate for stability.

    It's arguable.

    Spectral armor is already a strong skill, to add more onto it mean that you're powercreeping this skill. Technically it won't change much to the necromancer, however it will make it even harder for other skills to catch up with it.

    Also, the necromancer's defensive philosophy is to "accept" the incoming effects not to "block" or "evade" them. Trying to convince ANet's dev to make some exception to this "rule" of theirs is excessively difficult. They would rather give the necromancer a trait or effect on spectral armor that reduce incoming CC duration by 50% than give the necromancer more stability or a way to block incoming effects.

    NB.: The necromancer is not the only one that would suffer from a lack of way to deal with the CC powercreep that it would create, the necromancer is just the one that would be affected the most due to it's peculiar defensive philosophy. Not to mention how much players would end up hating on a hard CC meta, limiting stunbreak is not the way ANet should use to make disabling effects more relevant. From the very begining, ANet shouldn't have made stability similar to aegis in the way that it "block" CC, they should have made stability reduce the duration of incoming disabling effects with traits/skills/rune that add to this reduction and similarly trait/sigil/rune that increase outgoing disabling effect effectiveness. Making it possible to interrupt whether or not their is stability and having block/aegis being the only way to truly stop an interupt.

    Spectral Armor is not the only Necro skill that could have stability, it just fits well there.

    If Anet's philosophy is for Necros to just take the damage, then Dark Defiance, or another trait that activates on disabled, needs to proc Fear.

    It used too? Pretty much all anti CC traits that caused CC got changed or removed.

    This update reworks all traits that react automatically to incoming control effects by applying control effects on the attacker. Traits that immediately punish players for successfully landing their skills, particularly when they are not very visible, teach the wrong things. The reworked traits are intended to encourage more active play and to provide new opportunities for the defender without outright punishing the attacker.

    Then perhaps that is the crux of the problem. They removed the anti CC effects.

    No they didn't. They removed anti cc that punished cc with cc...all if the traits retained their original effects just had the punish changed to something else. Which in necros case is arguably more useful. The fear was borderline useless.

  • ButcherofMalakir.4067ButcherofMalakir.4067 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 26, 2019

    @rng.1024 said:
    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?

    I think this takes away identity of classes. Also in some situations you dont want to take stunbreaks (dontknow ifthat is alloed in yourthought). Sometimes you want 2 skilks that do stunbreak not for the stunbreak part

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

    @rng.1024 said:
    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?

    I think this takes away identity of classes. Also in some situations you dont want to take stunbreaks (dontknow ifthat is alloed in yourthought). Sometimes you want 2 skilks that do stunbreak not for the stunbreak part

    Why though? Having no stunbreaks would be allowed, and if you enjoy 2 different stunbreaks then you could swap between them from time to time ^^

  • ButcherofMalakir.4067ButcherofMalakir.4067 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 26, 2019

    @rng.1024 said:

    @ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

    @rng.1024 said:
    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?

    I think this takes away identity of classes. Also in some situations you dont want to take stunbreaks (dontknow ifthat is alloed in yourthought). Sometimes you want 2 skilks that do stunbreak not for the stunbreak part

    Why though? Having no stunbreaks would be allowed, and if you enjoy 2 different stunbreaks then you could swap between them from time to time ^^

    2 stunbreaks at the same time? Sometimes you want 2 spells for their other effect and not their stunbreak.
    Also some classes have stunbreak in traits, that wouldnt be balanced.
    Also I think some classes shouldnt have acces to stunbreakes. Your change makes clases more similar but doesnt balance anything. It juat buffs classes without stunbreaks and nerfs classes that can use more then one. There are other ways to deal with cc. If you take away srunbreak advantave the other factors will make the diference