[Lonestar]

People always forget that the ONLY TWO WAYS to be stunned both involve hit checks.

There is one more, which is basically knocking back a battlefield rock onto someone. That also inflicts stun. That doesn't require hit check, just positioning. Although is very situational if you don't have things like Stone Dragon for creating the rocks + some AoE wind spell.


But I do agree with the whole "What's the point of stunning if they get whooping 50% Damage Reduction."

[Nytingale]

Stun giving DR the turn after it ends is a bug.

Someone taking 50% damage while stunned is not in a remotely favorable position, it just means they take half a free turn's worth of damage instead of a full one.

This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever read.

Your input on why is so riveting, informative, and logical that it has without a doubt made me think otherwise...

Seriously. If you have nothing of substance for either side of the topic, why put anything at all?

[Soapy]

Sorry, I didn't think you'd just skip right to the last sentence.

That seems like a good way to argue a point.

I like pancakes.

[Nytingale]

You notified what the current bug is affecting Stun.
You explained how Stun currently works.
You then claim the thread is one of the dumbest you've ever read.

And yet, you think I've "skipped to the last sentence" of your "rebuttal"...
Please. Tell me. At which point of your three short sentences was I supposed to look for details and logic in your rebuttal as to why anyone gaining a buff from a debuff; for any amount of time, makes sense. Point it out to me so I can argue correctly. Show me, senpai.

[MegaBlues]

The point was that losing your full turn is worse than gaining 50% DR, Dullahans omitted.

also, back on track plz

[Snake]

I mean, if the problem with stun is missing a turn, then just damn make it not skip your turn and cripple some other things to make it more worth like I suggested up there.

Stun the way it is, can easily be compared to giving your enemy a 5M Guard ''debuff'' that's unbreakable. #Wat?

[Lolzytripd]

give all stuns a chance to fail and be a "dazed" status

While dazed there is a x% chance to end your turn after an action.

[Nytingale]

The point was that losing your full turn is worse than gaining 50% DR, Dullahans omitted.

And my point is that it doesn't matter. Crowd Control simply does not work like that. You can't "nerf Crowd Control" because you don't like it. If that was fine, then you should be able to nerf Blind, Fear, and Hesitation because I don't like them either. Especially as an Arbalest, those things make it challenging near difficult for me to land a hit. And yet, those things are "balanced" by giving players the option to get by getting one of the Talents; they've basically received the "Knock Down" treatment as well. Like I said - Balance it like that, not just tell us what we already know.

If the problem is that an entire turn lost is "too much", then Snake's rework idea works just as well; which makes it function similar to Knock Down. Hell, you could just reduce the chances of the Stun happening with his "counter-idea" for Soldier and Black Knight Innates and make a matching Talent under the War Tab and pristo.

It's that simple.

[Autumn]

I think stun's fine where it's at, it's in the most balanced position it could be, and there's no need to change that, mechanically it works.

[Egil]

Where is the logic behind getting 50% damage reduction from being stunned? Is that just purely a matter of balance or does that somehow make sense IC'ly?

If the former, I can think of other ways of stun operating and potentially being balanced.

"You can't use teleportation skills or teleportation movement while stunned, such as Hanging, Blink, etc, lasts two rounds"

"You lose 5% of your max focus upon infliction and have -2 momentum while this debuff is up, lasts two rounds"

"Your accessories are disabled and you have -2 momentum this debuff is up, lasts three rounds"

If it's the latter, then... how does it make sense?