Diminishing Return Stuns

[idontnoso.9850]

Hey guys, I just wanted to get thoughts on a idea I had to combat the current stun meta. It seems like PvP is just full of nonstop stuns during team fights. Its far too common to run into a team fight only to get focused on, and stuck in the same location for 10+ seconds. I had the idea of there being diminishing returns on stuns.

Here's the idea: The first 2 stuns last for the full duration and after that each stun's duration is reduced by half (maybe) if applied to the same person within 3-5 seconds? Something along those lines. The idea of the time frame should not effect stuns for 1v1 fights, but make them much less viable in team fights, especially if applied to the same target.

I just think the devs need to address this current meta, because its just not making PvP fun. Its one thing to be out played and being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but its another thing to enter a even fight only to be stuck, helplessly, in the same spot.

What are your thoughts on the idea?

[Bazsi.2734]

@idontnoso.9850 said:Hey guys, I just wanted to get thoughts on a idea I had to combat the current stun meta. It seems like PvP is just full of nonstop stuns during team fights. Its far too common to run into a team fight only to get focused on, and stuck in the same location for 10+ seconds. I had the idea of there being diminishing returns on stuns.

Here's the idea: The first 2 stuns last for the full duration and after that each stun's duration is reduced by half (maybe) if applied to the same person within 3-5 seconds? Something along those lines. The idea of the time frame should not effect stuns for 1v1 fights, but make them much less viable in team fights, especially if applied to the same target.

I just think the devs need to address this current meta, because its just not making PvP fun. Its one thing to be out played and being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but its another thing to enter a even fight only to be stuck, helplessly, in the same spot.

What are your thoughts on the idea?

Bad idea. There are many kinds of different CC-s flying around, their duration balanced around cost/cooldown and how hard it is to land them. They serve different purposes, a 1/4th second of a daze is just to interrupt someone, a 3 second stun is to lock them down and possibly kill them in one burst.Different games with different combat systems use DR on stuns, so I get why you'd suggest something like this, however if you look at how CC in GW2 works, it simply cannot be implemented well:

You either just shorten the duration of hard CC skills(stun/daze/launch etc.) in which case the interrupt still goes through, and nothing is solved. Long duration CC skills are useless in this iteration, so everyone just goes to spam short duration cheap CC-s and you still get completely disabled when focused.

Or you can go one step further, and after getting hit by too much CC you grant complete immunity for a short while. This would completely dumb down teamfights. People would actively go and look for ways to get hit by CC, after all it hardly does any damage anymore, and you get those immunity stacks. Once you have those stacks, you unload on the enemy and they can't do anything about it.WvW fights(or any teamfight above 3v3) would have everyone running aroud with max stacks, dealing damage and outhealing the enemy would be the only thing determining outcomes.

Stability is a much better way controlling CC immunity, because it's active and has counterplay. DR would be a passive mechanic which CM stated the game is trying to move away from.

If you want to solve this CC overload, you need to reduce the overall number of CC skills.

[Exedore.6320]

Diminishing returns on CC doesn't work. It creates a complex list of special rules and limits what developers can do towards making interesting abilities.

For example, does all CC share DR? That means you can't interrupt once someone is immune. What if someone uses short CCs first. Then your long CCs are penalized a ton. I can't wait to see the toxicity when a warrior's 3sec stun is halved because a thief used a couple short CCs as part of their normal play. Oh and the best one is getting immunity by walking into a line of warding continuously. What about builds which rely on CC as a defense? Now you're dead if your enemy is immune.

The proper fix is to reign in the handful of offenders. A big one currently is shocking aura, especially with aura share.

[Teb.6980]

This is an amazing idea. Particularly given that Anet wanted "meaningful" combat and also considering the fact that we only have 1-3 stunbreaks

[Abyssisis.3971]

Just have all stun breaks include 1 second of stab or cc immunity so you at least have time to do something before getting stunned again.

[Leonidrex.5649]

hell no, I played game where this was implemented and it was absolute disaster, no,nyet, nope, nevah

[Fueki.4753]

Arenanet loves their CCs, so I doubt they will do anything to diminish them.

[Kuma.1503]

Anet should dial back on the stability/stunbreak nerfs. Anet had the right idea when toning it down, but they overshot by a wide margin.

Alternatively, we can buff the class archetypes that excel at granting these precious boons to allies. We're already starting to see Core Rev rise in popularity due to the sheer usefulness Inspiring Reinforcement brings to a teamfight. It makes a world of difference when your team is able to stand on node without being knocked around like ping pong balls.

It was a common complaint at the time that Firebrand was too good at empowering it's allies. This includes giving out stability. Now that it's gone, we're definitely seeing the effects. Worse yet, the've taken to contributing to the CC themselves. Firebrand now takes the axe daze trait over Loremaster due to how severely nerfed tomes were.

[Exedore.6320]

@Kuma.1503 said:Anet should dial back on the stability/stunbreak nerfs. Anet had the right idea when toning it down, but they overshot by a wide margin.

No, ANet got it about right. Not every build should have easy access to stability. This causes trade-offs, weaknesses, and provides a niche for certain builds with stability. You can't deal a lot if damage, be tanky, dish out CC, and be unstoppable.

You even provided a great example of how ANet got it right: a rev build which gives group stability now has a role whereas it didn't when many builds brought their own stability.

Honestly, I think ANet needs to go a little further and remove some evades from movement skills.

[Kuma.1503]

@Exedore.6320 said:

@Kuma.1503 said:Anet should dial back on the stability/stunbreak nerfs. Anet had the right idea when toning it down, but they overshot by a wide margin.

No, ANet got it about right. Not every build should have easy access to stability. This causes trade-offs, weaknesses, and provides a niche for certain builds with stability. You can't deal a lot if damage, be tanky, dish out CC, and be unstoppable.

You even provided a great example of how ANet got it right: a rev build which gives group stability now has a role whereas it didn't when many builds brought their own stability.

Honestly, I think ANet needs to go a little further and remove some evades from movement skills.

Evades are much weaker now. I haven't had an issue with classes spam evading since the patch dropped. If a skill did have an evade + some other form of utility, that skill either saw a cooldown increase, damage decrease (greater than the flat -33% decrease), recharge increase, functionality decrease, or, in the case of Surge of the mists, all of the above.

Daredevil is the closest thing we have to a perma evading class, but the general consensus is that power thief is not a huge issue at the moment. Previous offenders like Weaver and Mirage were toned down significantly.

I agree with your first point. Builds shouldn't have it all in abundance. Anet should dial back on the stab nerfs, but not to the point where we return to the way things were.Stab has counterplay. You can wait it out, corrupt, remove, or use any weak throwaway CC to remove it before landing your important skills. It creates a system of checks and balances.

Skills that were nerfed to 1 second of stab can have their duration increased a tad and still be healthy.

[Zephoid.4263]

I strongly agree with this, though each cc should not be treated the same. Amplitude of the CC resistance should be based on the CC you actually take (not the theoretical maximum it could CC you).

Each person has a CC resistance. It starts at 0%, and each sec they are cc'd it increases by.. say 30%. Each sec you are not cc'd it reduces by 30%.

Lets say you got 2s cc'd. After that you got 2s cc'd. You would be cc'd for only .8s on that 2nd cc. If you then got hit with another 2s cc instantly after, you would have 84% cc resistance ((2s+0.8s)*30%). 2s

Numbers can be played around with, 30% is arbitrary, as is the decay. However, chained CC becomes less and less effective. Stun breaks stop the cc resistance, meaning this only applies to CCs you actually take.

[Vancho.8750]

@Bazsi.2734 said:

@idontnoso.9850 said:Hey guys, I just wanted to get thoughts on a idea I had to combat the current stun meta. It seems like PvP is just full of nonstop stuns during team fights. Its far too common to run into a team fight only to get focused on, and stuck in the same location for 10+ seconds. I had the idea of there being diminishing returns on stuns.

Here's the idea: The first 2 stuns last for the full duration and after that each stun's duration is reduced by half (maybe) if applied to the same person within 3-5 seconds? Something along those lines. The idea of the time frame should not effect stuns for 1v1 fights, but make them much less viable in team fights, especially if applied to the same target.

I just think the devs need to address this current meta, because its just not making PvP fun. Its one thing to be out played and being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but its another thing to enter a even fight only to be stuck, helplessly, in the same spot.

What are your thoughts on the idea?

Bad idea. There are many kinds of different CC-s flying around, their duration balanced around cost/cooldown and how hard it is to land them. They serve different purposes, a 1/4th second of a daze is just to interrupt someone, a 3 second stun is to lock them down and possibly kill them in one burst.Different games with different combat systems use DR on stuns, so I get why you'd suggest something like this, however if you look at how CC in GW2 works, it simply cannot be implemented well:

You either just shorten the duration of hard CC skills(stun/daze/launch etc.) in which case the interrupt still goes through, and nothing is solved. Long duration CC skills are useless in this iteration, so everyone just goes to spam short duration cheap CC-s and you still get completely disabled when focused.

Or you can go one step further, and after getting hit by too much CC you grant complete immunity for a short while. This would completely dumb down teamfights. People would actively go and look for ways to get hit by CC, after all it hardly does any damage anymore, and you get those immunity stacks. Once you have those stacks, you unload on the enemy and they can't do anything about it.WvW fights(or any teamfight above 3v3) would have everyone running aroud with max stacks, dealing damage and outhealing the enemy would be the only thing determining outcomes.

Stability is a much better way controlling CC immunity, because it's active and has counterplay. DR would be a passive mechanic which CM stated the game is trying to move away from.

If you want to solve this CC overload, you need to reduce the overall number of CC skills.Wish there was something like combo breakers like in fighting games. There are some counter attack skills but most of the time they are too OP or useless, or bug out way to often.