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

I'll second this, and I 'speak for 8' in doing so. And by 'second' I mean 'basically echo everything Dreoh said exactly'.

The first thing many players do, the first thing those many consider 'skilled', is 'figure out how best to prevent the opponent from getting to play'.

A Sleep can stop an attack or movement but at least it breaks under some circumstance. A Bind/Root can stop an advance, depending on what you allow from 'prone' even a Knockdown can happen without completely removing the opponent's options. Stuns are just an annoyingly stackable 'win button' that operate entirely by removing most interplay between characters.

Why even worry about that balance nightmare when we could just use the dozen other CC options that require adaptation to use of one of your other options instead of 'welp, guess I'll die'.

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

But the argument is that they're an unnecessary evil.

Arguing 'well other CC are troublesome too and also need to be balanced' isn't a proper argument for stuns. Games don't need stuns for basically any reason. Even if they were 'a reward for good gameplay' and had to be built up (through some means other than stacking other CCs until it was equivalent), there's just... no need for them.

What combo is there that can't be set up with a different method? Even if you brought stuns down to 'close range only, user takes longer to recover from it than the target so that it is fair in 1v1', the game isn't supposed to be balanced 1v1 anyway.

The game has already showed us what happens when something even similar to a stun is available in a group vs group combat situation, and though that wasn't balanced, it's still not an argument that 'stuns need to be in'.

I for one am tired of games making poor design decisions because 'people are used to them' or 'they always have this mechanic', so until someone justifies 'yes we need exactly this ability that fully stops everything', no matter how short you set it to, there will be people who ask 'but why did you need it to be full Stun'?

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

I said nothing to indicate that stuns are not realistic. The argument is that stuns are not fun. And when game mechanics are not fun, the games are less popular. And when MMOs are less popular, they fail.

So if one's aim is to 'win' by 'having a successful MMO that more people like without compromising the gameplay requirements, then 'full stun is bad' is a functional argument.

But by the logic presented, no one who 'doesn't instantly die from a sword swing that potentially hit their head' should be stunnable at all by practically any ability. If you could 'box ears' or 'rifle butt' then you could apply sharp edge to cranium and the fight should be over.

Which is great, but the entire reason they don't work properly in game situations is because a bunch of other things have been changed away from realism for the purpose of fun or balance. Also, other unrealistic things fully capable of replacing stuns have been added.

I'm not arguing against CC. As @Dreoh is, I'm arguing against full stun.

You did not explain why stuns are necessary. You explained that they are an effective martial tactic. This does not make them necessary for a game, it only makes them 'realistic'. If you have any goal with a Stun that is not 'make my opponent entirely unable to play', you can substitute a CC that gives them an option while still achieving your own goal.

Very well, I don't expect that trying to condense down decades of game design theory into forum posts is going to be any more convincing than it usually is, so I will just join others in hoping that between them, Intrepid's developers have the cumulative equivalent of those decades of experience. If your point is 'design inertia puts the onus on the opponent of this mechanic', then your point stands, by definition.

Answers to your point though:
1. This is handled almost perfectly by the spell 'Flash' in FFXI. basically reduce enemy accuracy to nothing, generate high threat.

2. This can be handled by any knockdown that interrupts a mechanic, or a short term 'prevent special ability'. Enemy can still move. In PvE, still as effective, not as crippling in PvP.

3. Root/Bind/Sleep, whichever of these doesn't break upon enemy receiving bleed damage. Enemy can't reach you with most attacks, can still use long range ones, healing, defense buffs. This is the particular case I feel is the more suspect one. You said 'so I can survive the fight'. If one can't survive the fight because the opponent can still act at all , then your method of winning is 'prevent my opponent from getting to do things until I have enough advantage that they die'. Common. Sometimes correct. Usually hard to balance, usually not correct either.