There's also another problem with that argument which is that the detractors have yet to prove that actually CCing something leads to an instant victory. Under which conditions is this actually true and which conditions does this become untrue?
My most recent trip through the game was solo on a mage type character. I never grouped.
In the final fight I picked off all the add-ons while Alexander and the Worm fought each other. Alex won. That left just me and Alex. He Phoenix dived next to me and one-shot me for 400+ melee in one swing.
I reloaded and took a second try. I did pretty much the same thing. I let Alex and the Worm fight each other while I killed everyone else.
Then I backed off breaking combat so then Alex and I would go at each other with full armour up.
I attacked from range with an aoe earth ball thingy. He walked out of the oil then hit me with a spell that did nothing because of my armour.
I then used all my AP on dual wand attacks taking out all his armour in that 1 turn.
He walked up beside me and then saved his remaining AP.
I cc'd him.
Then I cc'd him.
Then I cc'd him.
Then I cc'd him.
Then I cc'd him.
Then I cc'd him.
Then I cc'd him.
Then he died.
There you go. That is exactly what I am talking about. Once you take out the armour how much Vitality they have means absolutely nothing.
Currently it's a balance issue with one spell where the cooldown is the same as the CC duration, meaning you can CC lock with just 1 skill. Yet if they fix that it just means you have to alternate between 2 skills instead. And on a memory focused mage with 26 Memory like I had at the end fight, I had so many CC's to choose from it would take cooldowns so long as to make non-memory focused builds feel useless as all their skills will be on cooldown too much of the time.
Guaranteed CC after amrour is gone trivializes the game. And no, CC removal will not help that if they are all CC'd and can't cast the removal.
