Try to limit the amount of braindead and anti-fun CC that is stuns. There are better alternatives.

We have not received permission from Dolyem to share the quoted post.

I'll tell you what's Lazy... not actually paying attention to the thread before making a post. I wonder how many times Dreoh has had to reiterate this thread isn't an anti-CC thread, but an anti-stun thread. I guess that's why people can't even form a complete argument for Stuns, when they can't even pay attention to the distinction.

I'm telling you, I keep genuinely waiting for people to actually start arguing about this properly so we can get a good back and forth like this forum and this topic deserves and all I ever see is arguments about how someone else should make the effort in the conversation because tradition or something. You're going to lose out like this, you know? Because at the end of the day, you don't have to convince us, right? You have to convince the devs and if you cannot even articulate why Stuns offer better adrenaline pumping moments and more teamplay opportunities than say a Root or a Silence and why it is that the tradition of Stuns in MMOs is so much more important than moving on with what we've learned from MMOs so far, then I don't even know what we're doing here.

We have not received permission from Tritri to share the quoted post.

And the point is that the exact frustration is not the part one is trying to remove. The lack of agency is the part requested to be removed. Which is why no one on the Anti-Stun side seems to grasp the related arguments. I like to be able to play more, I like if my opponent can play more as long as it continues to reward my skill. Why should my opponent get to play less (not do less, that's obviously fine) if it isn't necessary ?

Sleep - Wake as soon as hit once, probably the closest to Stun, but in many games has cast time that you can interrupt, moreso than a stun does. Is 'stun with a 3s cast time' acceptable? If so, that should be the new position. "Make the cast time for Stuns 2-3s with an obvious tell, player can move targeting reticle until the end". Is this the acceptable compromise?
Knockdown - Prevents offensive abilities, player can still use defensive ones, even use Dodge if cooldown permits.
Paralyze - Most implementations suck. Could use 'mobile skills become immobile', 'cooldowns lengthened', all sorts of things. Opponent still plays.
Blind - Hides ground target reticles for the blinded player (or maybe all reticle), reduce reticle stickiness if that's a thing, flat reduction in Accuracy if Tab Target.
Root - Prevents movement abilities, player can still use offensive and defensive ones
Slow - Lessens non-ability movement, player can still use abilities.
Silence - Probably just weird in Ashes, would it stop Tank abilities and Mage abilities both? What happens to Summoners?
Knockback/Draw In - Prevents movement for a moment and causes disorientation by reposition, no need to prevent abilities, offensive ones are already more likely to miss

If the whole argument is 'stuns themselves are tradition and fine and must be in the game' and Intrepid for some reason decides 'let's not bother innovating like we are trying to do everywhere else, tradition is good', then the request should be 'please give Stun a long cast time and a big tell so that when we get hit by it, we know that the player using it was very skilled'.

Sounds like both sides will be okay with that, since that balances them nicely while keeping with tradition.

And in a shoutout to the other thread, notice how none of those require any RNG? Resistances can be flat 'duration reduction', and they can all be projectile skillshots, close range melee, and ground target.

We have not received permission from Tritri to share the quoted post.

And this is easy to agree with, some people just don't like the gameplay resultant from adding Stuns to games that don't suit them.

The issue is that Ashes already has a specific baseline framework involving skillshots (which at least to me implied some speed, backed up somewhat by how Javelin works in game), Action Combat components, relatively lower ground mobility, mobility during casting, shorter cast times, and GvG balance, along with two specific aspects of HP and scaling.

I would absolutely be fine with Stuns within the framework of a different game and I'm fine with the long cast timer Stun option in Ashes. But Ashes already started from a place where quick Stuns already don't fit. When viewed through that lens, this discussion doesn't have to be 'Stuns always suck' (though I still think it could be).

Stuns don't work well in Ashes as it is presented to us now. The game that 'would suit stuns' is sort of distant from where they are, but if they make it, it will probably be pretty good too.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

But by that nature, arguing against someone who thinks that it isn't necessary is pointless too.

Dreoh said 'This thing, that this mechanic does, is bad and not fun'.

The counter, as you are presenting it, is 'This thing, that this mechanic does, exists to do exactly what it does.'

It's similar to 'having to sit or rest to heal mana'.

"Sitting to rest to heal mana is not fun, it slows down gameplay, the game can be built without this."

The equivalent response would be: "That's what it is for, to slow down gameplay, the game shouldn't be built without this."

Except that we know Intrepid's response to this. Steven's personal response, I think, assuming I don't misremember the video.

"[Jeff] explained to me how the game could work without it, so we removed it."

You're right in that the discussion is over, if the 'final say' from the conservative side is 'Working as intended'.

The others should probably move on to 'explaining how the game could work without it, so that it can be removed'.

By that reasoning, there's no need to interrupt the latter process.

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

Then let me ask this. If the argument was meaningless, and by minor implication 'lost by definition' on the Anti-Stun side.

If Dreoh made a different thread 'Suggestions for CC implementations that exclude stuns', would you simply have no reason to post in it? Would you not feel the need to 'enter the thread to try to tear down the idea that CC Implementations should exist without Stuns'? Since it would have no basis, just a fantasy from people with a personal dislike of a concept.

What if you made a different thread 'Why CC implementations should include Stuns', and somehow, magically, no one who opposed Stuns posted in that thread, everything would be fine, right? Because 'the game has stuns, and Intrepid won't remove them because of our preference'. Also, surely, the strong points brought by the second thread would counter any chance of that anyway.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

Agreed, the issue (as my post just above points out) is that the two 'camps' are at a nonproductive stalemate, but this specific thread with all it's 'baggage', let's say, attracts new readers or returning readers to just revive it with repetitions of the points that surround the stalemate.

I consider this a situation where it would be massively beneficial to make a new thread. Two, in fact. We don't have the level of 'magic' required to separate them cleanly though. To 'sort' people into 'people who want to discuss how Stun is not needed and their concepts of the gameplay' and 'people who want to discuss why Stun is needed in their concept of the gameplay'.

But we should probably try, because without at least trying, no one's going to seriously talk about gameplay.

I'll leave that to OP though, if @Dreoh considers that worth it. There's enough data in here to do it with. If a Compilation is needed, I can be summoned for that too.

Nearly every response in this thread that isn't part of the 'tug of war at the stalemate point' is a person's neatly encapsulated opinion, so a splice is easy, and a scrape-splice is easier.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

Not sure why. I have text analytic tools that I presume Dreoh doesn't, so it's faster and easier for me. If you meant 'why I would leave it up to Dreoh, I don't get that either, but I often don't understand the amusement of others, so if you are so inclined, please explain it.

Edit: Oh wait I see it now? The use of the term 'summoned' was funny?

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

I don't understand this either, so I guess I am just not keeping up in some way.

I don't expect that when an old concept is challenged, that the old guard just goes 'well I don't need to present any points, since things are already the way I want them to be'.

Maybe it's the style of government I live under.

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

Alright, seems the best option is to just make another thread. Even responding to this would just be doing the same thing again, and even if I gave gameplay related reasons, I doubt it would matter, so I'll save any discussion for any other thread that exists.

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

I'm sure if that happens, it will be a team effort perfectly executed in a GvG.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

New Title Unlocked: Statistical Djinn