lessen spits range slightly imo. I was fire TB that used circle of flame, and there was a UB that used spit. we were at max melee distance from each other. he was able to hit me with spit and my circle of flame didnt touch him. i think spit range should be that touch smaller so that circle of flame actually hits him when he is in spit range.

There are plenty of counters to spit. There's a favor item, and there's health pots, and there's shield, heal, mist, and bramble shield. If the result of this discussion is a spit nerf I will eat my hat in displeasure.

Lol beast and all other people that can stun or w.e arnt that great as a 2v2 id take my team of Reg,oak or reg.sed anyday they gotta walk threw my wall o mines to stun this GL with that and Sed is just too powerfull to kill as a beast,

In WoW, it's diminishing returns. So every subsequent CC you use will last less time than the last one.

I've never played GW. However, I'm going to guess that the chain stunning you're takling about are not AOE stuns. A good TEAM can make up for a chain-stunned teammate. Being able to chain-stun a WHOLE TEAM with AOE has no counter once it begins.

TB, Ere, and Rook all are able to stun more than 1 person in an area. That is what makes them inherently more powerful than the MMO examples given.

From 4/8/09

So the dev's point is that UB can't be hitting you while you are stunned - it makes sense.  But he can hold you for his ally to hit or line a stun up, and that's something we will see more and more of as the community progresses.

Woppin's OP is valid.  It's most easily exploited by simply rolling a team of all UB - if there are more than two they can keep an opponent locked down forever, since the cd is so low..  That's pretty cheap and probably stacked DGs will be disallowed in competition, so the way I see it working is that the best teams will have a UB to anchor their stuns and they'll practice bridging.

For those of you who think stunlocking is a measure of skill - in other games it might be.  In Demigod it was incredibly broken because it was so easy to combo (stuns replaced each other so you could keep someone locked down from the start of battle to the end - the only counter was another stun team).

Introducing immunity definitely makes top 3 best balance changes this game ever saw.  Credit to Sorian for crafting the mod GPG based this on.

If they wanted to rip the stun system out completely and implement one that required micro and had hard counters then we could re-examine it, but for now, please let this one go..

Nonsense. AoE stuns are uninteresting and so clearly unhealthy for the game that they require their own arbitrary countermechanic to keep them from being broken. Chain stunning (and defending against it) is an interesting and natural product of good players coordinating to use their skills in the most effective manner. 

Mass Charm, Boulder, and Frost are so infrequently used in comparison to Grasp, I never noticed. I saw Grasp being used in chains all the time, and never once thought "you shouldn't be able to do that," and never even dreamed that some arbitrary mechanic might limit all other stuns in the game.

What I know is that if Rook boulders me and TB frosts me right after, I should be chain stunned. This is fine because if it was a 2v1 gank, I should have been aware of their stuns and been more cautious, and if it was a team battle, then my allies should be able to save me. If they can't because they suck, we deserve to lose. But if they can't because these are all AoE stuns, which are a such a bad idea to begin with because they lead to problems like this, then theres the problem.   

To be clear, I do not care about nor take into account pug vs pug games. The only interesting part of this game, to me, is arranged team battles. Now, when you are setting up your team, if you take zero DGs that can play defense, whose fault is that? You could have taken DGs that can fight against chainstuns, but you chose not to. 

I get the feeling you are about to object that "every combination of DGs in this game should be equally viable!!!" That is silly. In Guild Wars, that would be like objecting that you can't make a team of 8 warriors that is just as effective as a team of 8 that has at least 2 monks. Too bad, take the monks or deal with the disadvantages that comes from not using them. In this case, if you refuse to take DGs that can play defense, you take the chance that you might, you know, miss that defense. Maybe you should have taken defense. Or maybe since you skipped it, your team has some other advantage that you should be using to counterbalance that weakness. 

They are choosing when to stun, they just happen to be choosing to stun back to back because that is obviously the best decision. Once a person has figured that out, an individual decision to chainstun does not require all that much thought, but then again, most things in this game share that same property anyways. 

In Guild Wars, there is a spell called Lightning Orb. It deals a lot of damage (mechanic). That damage can be mitigated by armor (countermechanic). However, what would happen if 5 people shot Lightning Orb at the same person at the same time? If they all hit, he would die. This tactic, once discovered, quickly proliferated and became known as "air spike." For some time it became the dominant pvp strategy. It was not a very interesting build to use or play against, and people brainstormed ways to "fix" it so that spiking would no longer work. Many people suggested that maybe they could institute a damage cap on the amount of damage you could take per second, that way your monks would have time to heal, and you could no longer be spiked. This would have been an arbitrary countermechanic. 

Arbitrary countermechanics are bad, chiefly because they assume that players cannot figure out ways to counter the mechanic on their own. In the case of air spike, people learned that you can dodge the Orbs if you move in a specific manner, and that if you can interrupt even a single Orb, you will probably live. Also, they tend to harm other aspects of the game that were desirable. For example, the arbitrary spike limitation would have hurt teams that spread pressure around and then converge their damage at unexpected times to try to force through a kill that they otherwise would not have gotten. 

Regarding stun immunity, it seems most people have accepted my argument that since it is possible for your teammates to save you, single target stun locking is acceptable. The problem then is that it would actually be possible to stun lock an entire team, which I agree would be stupid. It seems to me, then, that the real reason we have stun immunity (arbitrary countermechanic) is the threat of chained AoE stuns. However, the arbitrary countermechanic has also killed a desirable aspect of the game, single chain stunning. Just as I said arbitrary countermechanics tend to do. 

It always makes me smile when arguments fit together this nicely.  

First of all, any team with nothing but UBs would be horribly owned early game by generals with monk idols. Even if it did reach the late game, Heal, Shield, Bramble, Ooze, would help you survive, and if you did happen to die, well, it was 4 UBs. Some things are inevitable. 

I'm not saying that triple senda should beat Reg+UB+Sedna, but I am saying that Reg with Shrapnel Mines and Mark+Oak with shield and monk idols+Erebus with Mass Charm, monk idiols, and his bat swarm should be a viable comp, as it has all the bases covered - strong snares, good burst, some healing, an alpha strike counter, and an AoE stun.

What I do strongly disagree with you over is that you seem dead set on having Sedna or QoT in every single game (or maybe Oak at least), and I don't think that should be necessary.  Take an ice TB for example.  Hitting the entire enemy team with a 40% attack speed debuff and then following with an AoE stun (or leading with it, whatever works) and then effectively silencing one of the enemies for seven seconds is an alternative to healing or shielding your player.  

An argument in favor of removing AoE stuns is an argument in favor of  a reduction in the current number of playstyle options and an argument in favor of moving backwards in game concept development, backwards to the old games where players could not be autonomous, and you make that argument because you don't like the imposition of a mechanic which you deem to be arbitrary, when it's clearly not arbitrary at all.  The mechanic both prevents the abuse of a specific type of power and enables alternatives to direct healing and shielding when providing support to teammates.

You list one specific ability in Guild Wars and then say that a direct counter mechanic would be arbitary, and I agree with you.  However if a broader rule which stated you could not lose more than 50% of your health per second had been implemented that would not have been arbitrary (even if it would have been a terrible rule).  AoE stuns are a broader concept in this game and their treatment is consistent, not arbitrary.  If only Boulder Roll, only Mass Charm, or only Deep Freeze were affected it would be arbitary. However it's a consistent game mehanic that will dictate the function of future AoE stuns should new DGs have them, and your argument against them is rooted entirely in the fact that you don't like AoE stuns in the first place.  It really has nothing to do with an evaluation of how the mechanic actually affects the usage of said stuns as far as I can tell.

What's really ironic about your post is that Deep Freeze and Mass Charm are both extremely easily interrupted if you stop chain stunning one target at the start of the fight.  That's the worst part of this whole argument.  The discussed playstyle inhibits one's capacity to counter them.  In a sense the current implementation is perfect because people who insist on attempting to disable one dude the entire time his health drops from full to an unrecoverable point or even zero often fall prey to an AoE stun and are deprived of their kill.

Exactly, I'd prefer new content and bug fixes to a revamp of skills already quite well balanced and fully implemented. The AoE stuns work at the moment in conjunction with the stun immunity mechanic and there is no compelling reason to spend time and money changing it. 

Isn't that what makes them exactly the same as stuns? Its possible to use them incorrectly, but anyone with a little common sense could use them correctly. 

Who gets to decide where the bar for requisite well-planned-outness should be? Regardless, stun immunity does not make people plan out attacks better, it just makes them carry out the same attack with less effectiveness because of some arbitrary rule. At most it makes one of the stunners run ahead a little bit so he can execute his stun 5 seconds later. I don't see anything more desirable about that situation.