[Nytingale]

So it's apparently a recent thing where anything that was Stunned for whatever reason also gained a 50% Damage Reduction for the duration the Stun. At some point, this got a bit buggy and the effect was remaining "somewhat permanent" as the target would be Stunned for the intended 1 Turn; however, their 50% Damage Reduction would persist until one did enough damage to the target to remove it.

Now, completely side-stepping the illogical idea that Stunned Enemies gain a 50% Damage Reduction (because it's honestly counter-productive to Stunning an enemy in the first place), the aforementioned bug was "resolved" by throwing on a "Stun Immunity" Effect of some sort to correct the "permanent status". Mind you, this effect seems to only prevent one from Stunning the same Target again in the next 2 Turns while also removing the actual Stun Effect after the said 2 Turns. The issue here, is that the 50% Damage Reduction actually lasts for 2 Turns instead of 1, like the actual Stun Effect does. In essence, I have spent some amount FP (24 FP for Blowback Cannon) or "gotten lucky" (proc'ing the Stun Effect from a Skullcaver) to Stun a Target for 1 Turn and give them 50% Damage Reduction for 2 Turns. It makes one question why they should bother using the Status Effect if after Stunning a Target there'd be better off focusing their attention on another Target for the next 2 Turns.

In truth, any Stunned Target should be punished and the idea of having any Damage Reduction on that Stunned Target at all is queer. You have done some means of "Crowd Control" on the Target, so why should they gain - any - benefit from that whatsoever? Isn't that the point of "Crowd Control" in the first place? To weaken them in some way and then punish them severely?

[Soapy]

In truth, any Stunned Target should be punished and the idea of having any Damage Reduction on that Stunned Target at all is queer. You have done some means of "Crowd Control" on the Target, so why should they gain - any - benefit from that whatsoever? Isn't that the point of "Crowd Control" in the first place? To weaken them in some way and then punish them severely?

I'm pretty sure having your entire turn taken away constitutes "being weakened".

[Nytingale]

Aye, but to give them 50% Damage Reduction for that turn (2 Turns with this current functionality) is where the "and then punish them severely" part comes in; or rather, where it's SUPPOSED to come in.

[MegaBlues]

Make Stun's DR work properly, and it'll be fine. Having a turn to refresh buffs, apply debuffs, reposition, while the enemy blankly stares at nothing is great.

Now, Dullahans are another story, and I'm waiting for someone who knows more than I do to lodge a complaint about why new stun is a bad idea for them.

[Nytingale]

Not everyone (like myself) wants to use Stun's Effect SOLELY for utility. With any DR on it at all, that's all it would allow anyone to do after applying it -- Utility / Miscellaneous stuff. That's the most "optimal" way to capitalize on it and it seems so weird that it's actually sub-optimal to continue attacking a weakened Target. It's as if Stuns are supposed to be nothing more than "Turn-Stallers" and can't be used as "Setups-to-finish-off-a-target". How is that fine? It's... Limiting, to say the least.

[Autumn]

Not everyone (like myself) wants to use Stun's Effect SOLELY for utility.

Not everyone wants to get stunned and get insta-gibbed either really, which was it's problem before where stun instantly won you any fight because you straight up got a free turn on somebody to wail on them.

With any DR on it at all, that's all it would allow anyone to do after applying it -- Utility / Miscellaneous stuff. That's the most "optimal" way to capitalize on it and it seems so weird that it's actually sub-optimal to continue attacking a weakened Target. It's as if Stuns are supposed to be nothing more than "Turn-Stallers" and can't be used as "Setups-to-finish-off-a-target". How is that fine? It's... Limiting, to say the least.

Have you ever heard of turn based buffs that are kinda integral to some class gameplay such as:

Wraithguard (3 rounds)
Charge Mind (1 round, 4 with innate)
Claret Call (2-4 rounds)
Overcharge (3 rounds)

And various other skills such as Oil Chain and Fortune wind, while not integral to class gameplay, are significant buffs with short duration.

Stun is good, it's good for making someone miss a turn, you can possibly benefit from stun by timing it right against certain buffs, this is how it is balanced.

[Nytingale]

Not everyone wants to get stunned and get insta-gibbed either really, which was it's problem before where stun instantly won you any fight because you straight up got a free turn on somebody to wail on them.

That is the whole point of any Crowd Control. This isn't simply a case of "what I want" versus "what they want"; it's a case of how Crowd Control works versus whatever Stun currently is. It's as if the viability of it has to be cut short simply because people don't like to be CC'd. You're not supposed to. Also, if you want viable counters to being Stunned, then it would make more sense to do something like what was done in the case Knock Down (that is, to make a suitable Trait or have some Passives in some Class that copes with it. I could see it fitting quite well with something like Black Knights' version of Kip-Up) than to "water it down" and make it so limited.

Have you ever heard of turn based buffs that are kinda integral to some class gameplay such as:

Wraithguard (3 rounds)
Charge Mind (1 round, 4 with innate)
Claret Call (2-4 rounds)
Overcharge (3 rounds)

And various other skills such as Oil Chain and Fortune wind, while not integral to class gameplay, are significant buffs with short duration.

Stun is good, it's good for making someone miss a turn, you can possibly benefit from stun by timing it right against certain buffs, this is how it is balanced.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. That Stun (or rather, Blowback Cannon) isn't integral to any class gameplay? If that's what you're saying, then you're still missing the point. This "balance" you speak of is limiting it in what it could be used for, yet, the same things you mentioned have no such limitations. Therefore, just using them once means you've already "optimized" the use of them. On the flip side, if my only use for Stunning a Target is to make their effect run out - and THAT'S how its balanced - then it's not fair to anyone else who wishes to use the effect in any other way. Like I said earlier; if you want to balance it? Treat it like Knock Down was treated, not like this.

[Snake]

Stun needs another revamp. It was broken, it got fixed, then it got ruined forever. 50% damage reduction for losing one round? What's the point of stunning then? A debuff that actually buffs the enemy? I'd rather seeing these ''head pat interactions'' being applied to Hexer stuff, which is way more frustrating than fighting an Arbalest.

Hexers literally make you feel like swallowing and choking in your old smelly socks. Stun? Just a round loss because you didn't dodge. (People always forget that the ONLY TWO WAYS to be stunned both involve hit checks. If your tank didn't dodge? Sucks to be you. Do you dislike stun? Why did you build a tank then?)

But ranting about it won't get anybody anywhere, so...

Why not make Stun have a duration of X rounds (Higher if Arbalest, obviously lower if Skullcaver)

At the start of each round, the Stun debuff would have a 50% chance of reducing your momentum equal to duration (max = 3), and 'silence' offensive skills/spells until your next round, where it will do another check, and repeat this until the stun debuff expires. And then, after a stun, you receive a 1 round immunity to it.

- Soldiers would have some innate to reduce the chance of Stun triggering by 15% (5% per rank).
- Black Knights would have an innate to reduce the duration of Stun based in your Scaled DEF (min = 2).
- Dodge people will obviously dodge and avoid the infliction of this stat by a Blowback Cannon or a Skullcaver.

No need to make stun so over-complicated or a 'buff' for the enemy as a pacifier the loss of a turn, not one bit.

[Nytingale]

Even what Snake just proposed makes more sense than what we currently have. Like he said, why should any CC buff the target? That's really not how CC works. Some people have even admitted that they get Stunned on purpose just to get the 50% DR. That's hardly balanced.

[Soapy]

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.