[.9] Flurry 3

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
I strongly believe that the duration of a "pause" needs to be clearly defined. As combat speeds vary widely from individual to individual, and across chapter cultures, this metric in its current form is too subjective. What constitutes a reasonable break in the cadence of the fight will never be the same between involved parties, and as a result would greatly benefit from standardization so as to ensure common implementation across all combats and between all combatants.
I think "strikes which give enough time between them for a target to call defenses" is the defined pause.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I think "strikes which give enough time between them for a target to call defenses" is the defined pause.
This is again, subjective, and will vary widely from individual to individual, and can lead to varying opinions on what is sufficient. A player traveling from a fast paced chapter where the culture is fully familiar with effects and defenses, and is accustomed to calling them rapidly, should be able to travel to a slower paced chapter where these things are not necessarily so well understood or rapidly announced, and be able to play the same game and be held to the same standards. Metrics are critical in ensuring that we are all working with the same expectations.
 

Avaran

Baron
When in combat, do not direct more than three attacks (Melee and/or Packet) against a single target without pausing your attacks against that target for 2-3 seconds before you continue attacking them.
I do not like this. It SEVERELY limits the ability of someone in melee to use feints. I often swing and purposefully hit shields/swords to open up other parts of my target's defense. Sometimes this is done with more than 3 swings; I feel that 2-3 seconds is absolute eternity and it doesn't sound fun to fight that way at all.

Should I just go play a different game? I'm being serious here. This screws up even the most basic parts of the game, one that I enjoy very much. I mean zero offense to anyone, but I feel this Flurry rule is trash and wrecks the melee side of combat, especially in 1v1 or 1v2 situations.

How do you guys see Dragons and like being played/dealt with? I mean, with these rules, you literally can't have more than 4 or 5 people fighting it...Is that just something we won't ever see again? Higher-level NPC's often require tons of extras because they often have their minions killed off first, and then outside of 4-5 people, nobody has anything to do. Are you going to cheese spawn additional waves of stuff?
 

Ruki

Scholar
I do not like this. It SEVERELY limits the ability of someone in melee to use feints. I often swing and purposefully hit shields/swords to open up other parts of my target's defense. Sometimes this is done with more than 3 swings; I feel that 2-3 seconds is absolute eternity and it doesn't sound fun to fight that way at all.

Should I just go play a different game? I'm being serious here. This screws up even the most basic parts of the game, one that I enjoy very much. I mean zero offense to anyone, but I feel this Flurry rule is trash and wrecks the melee side of combat, especially in 1v1 or 1v2 situations.

How do you guys see Dragons and like being played/dealt with? I mean, with these rules, you literally can't have more than 4 or 5 people fighting it...Is that just something we won't ever see again? Higher-level NPC's often require tons of extras because they often have their minions killed off first, and then outside of 4-5 people, nobody has anything to do. Are you going to cheese spawn additional waves of stuff?
Honest question: Have you tried the flurry 3 system yet? I don't feel like you have.

Like it's been said, it's been used in Calgary ever since I've been playing and there is no slow down or disruption of flow to combat at all. All this does is give people a brief moment to calculate damage taken and defenses popped. It's still very fast paced and action packed.
 

Avaran

Baron
Honest question: Have you tried the flurry 3 system yet? I don't feel like you have.
Hello! I appreciate your question.

I've tried this mechanic in other games. I didn't go back to those games.

The Alliance system and combat has its own particular feel, which I happen to like a lot. There is a reason I don't play other games.

Hops this answers your question. :)
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
This is again, subjective, and will vary widely from individual to individual, and can lead to varying opinions on what is sufficient. A player traveling from a fast paced chapter where the culture is fully familiar with effects and defenses, and is accustomed to calling them rapidly, should be able to travel to a slower paced chapter where these things are not necessarily so well understood or rapidly announced, and be able to play the same game and be held to the same standards. Metrics are critical in ensuring that we are all working with the same expectations.
Your right, it will be subjective to the defending player. If we go back to Cory's OP he states that it is for the defending person to call protectives. To not be overwhelmed with so much that they can't call protectives. Of course this is all moot when the one person is being atracked by 5 people all at once. Sure they can only swing 3 times and then need to pause, but the defender will now have to think of a call for 15 hits.
 

Avaran

Baron
Another question for this rule:

Do feint attacks count toward this 3-attack thing when you don't call damage? This is a tactic that I often use now, so just curious.

Example, about 1.5 seconds between attacks, but no pauses longer than that:
"25 Magic!"
"<swing with no damage call>"
"25 Magic!"
"<swing with no damage call>"
"25 Magic!"
"<swing with no damage call>"
"<swing with no damage call>"
"<swing with no damage call>"
"<swing with no damage call>"
"25 Magic!"
"25 Magic!"
"<swing with no damage call>"

Would those count toward the "reset stance and let process defenses/damage" intention?
 
The important thing with the flurry rule isn't the exact length of the pause, it's giving everyone involved the time to call defenses and make sure they've got a (more or less) accurate armor/body total in their heads during combat.

If you've got 5 people seasoned in combat against 1 person who is also seasoned in combat and everyone can do the math and rattle off defenses at breakneck speed, then 2 or 3 seconds is likely going to be more than sufficient and the pace won't drop much at all; if you've got 5 new players attacking 1 new player, that pause is going to have to be longer while they all do math and make sure they're calling the right defenses and clarify effects.

As players gain experience with this flow of combat, the pauses get shorter and less obtrusive, and as long as experienced players are willing to give new players more time to piece everything together (and help them along if needed, since adding up 5 swings of 7 and 4 swings of 9 and 3 swings of 13 can be a daunting task when they're coming at you more or less randomly), everyone tends to come away enjoying combat more.

I play a non-combat character with low armor and Body and only a few defenses available, so my math as a PC is fairly easy and I barely ever need a pause during any combat I get into; when I flipped to an NPC and got handed a card with triple-digit body and a dozen defenses to keep track of, I had to ask the PCS to give me 5 or more seconds to make sure I wasn't running over my Body total and remembering what I was immune/resistant/weak to before calling any defenses, because I didn't have the practice necessary for that to come easily to me.

ETA: Was writing as Avoran posted, so I'll just add a quick response to it here.

In the situation described, I would be fine with the no damage swings not being part of the flurry, because at 1.5 seconds or so per attack that string would take approximately 18 seconds to perform, and that's probably more than enough time for even me to add up and call defenses on the fly in a 1 on 1, though I may ask for a couple of seconds to do math if it was a 3 or more on 1.

You've said before that you swing rather rapidly, so I have no frame of reference for how quickly you can swing 12 times at max speed, and so I would say from a personal standpoint that if all of those swings took less than 5 seconds you are swinging too quickly and I would take the first three but not the last two (unless it was a 1-on-1 fight, in which case there were enough no-damage swings between the sets that I wouldn't have a problem just going.)

ETA2: I feel like I'm not being clear, probably because I'm tired, but to clarify, I would be 100% okay with the situation Avaran described not requiring a pause at all in a 1 on 1 fight, because the time difference between damage swings and no damage swings is sufficient for me to keep track of everything I would need to and call defenses while still attacking in return,and so long as I'm not taking more than 3 damage swings within about 5-7 seconds, there's no reason I can't attack, defend, and call defenses on the fly. Beyond a 1 on 1, I would ask for a few seconds to add up all the damage somewhere around the 8-9 second mark of those swings, because by that point I'm sure I'll have taken more than 6-9 hits and will need the time to ensure I'm not cheating.
 
Last edited:

Avaran

Baron
it's giving everyone involved the time to call defenses and make sure they've got a (more or less) accurate armor/body total in their heads during combat.
While I can't speak for everyone's experience, this is something I actively try to do, many players in OR and SEA do this as well, and we try to encourage this type of behavior as well; it makes the game more fun for everyone. If I know someone is knew, I'll try to avoid fighting against them and let other, newer, PC's deal with that NPC (PvP so rarely happens now these days, I feel it's a given that I'm not going to be fighting against a new(er) player as my PC unless they give me a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy good in-game reason for doing so). I just don't think we need a rule to mandate it, ya know? It should just be a cultural thing that players, ownership, and marshals all encourage and foster. I feel like the "be a good sport" rule kinda already covers this to some degree.

I also already slow stuff down for larger fights and battles, and I actively stay out of fights that have 4-5 people in them already (I mostly stand and watch to make sure everyone comes out alive/doesn't need help).

But those big bad guys, that are meant for my and my general character level (over level 40), I go all-in (add to that it's usually played by an experienced NPC/Player/Plot, or multiple people, or has a Monster Marshal).

My big concern, I suppose, is with larger field battles, with lots of Skirmishing and running around (we don't fight in lines out here in the West; we flank, we skirmish, we ambush, we run, re-group, look for our spots/moments). I feel like this punishes that play style, and certainly Rogues/Adepts since that is their primary method of fighting (if not in practice, then certainly in theory).

Look, if I'm sneaking up on a bad guy, I'm going to assume a couple of things:
1) It has a Magic Armor up.
2) It has at LEAST 1-2 defenses against what I'm going to throw at it.
3) I need to pop the Pre-Casts
---This can take 2-9 attacks, depending on the level of bad guy (you can Parry/Riposte normal attacks until you hear something you want or Magic Armor for, like Waylay)
4) Drop them as soon as I can because I'm behind enemy lines and need to use my surprise to my advantage. This means attacking quickly, not giving the enemy a chance to stop and collect themselves.
5) Then I have to "Nope!" right on out of there.

So if someone isn't ready to fight, that whole element of surprise is useless and wasted because I, out-of-game, have to make sure the NPC is ready and can react to the skills/abilities I am about to use on them, negating the whole premise of my planned combat action.

Fighting in a line just isn't fun for me. I've tried it in this game. And as a Fighter with ZERO magic items, I learned to skirmish instead. I even stopped using a shield about 9 years ago so I wouldn't be told to "stand on the line" against a bunch of casters throwing spells I have no defenses for.

Skirmishing is how I still fight, even with the acquisition of magic items. Why stand there and let some spell caster wear my defenses down and drive me backward, when I can loop around, come up from behind, and ruin their day? When I have to use a defense or skill while I'm fighting in a line, I nearly always feel like I wasted it.

Fighters without Magic Items are garbage in a line setup. I've been there and done that. All you end up being is a liability. It's a bad feeling.
 

Ruki

Scholar
I was thinking the same thing about flankers and ambushers. Those players will be hindered with this rule.
As a person who lives behind enemy lines, it really doesn't. #RogueLife
 
While I can't answer very well the specifics of it, I'm going to second tbat our skirmishers do quite well for themselves under these rules, although I am going to give @Ruki a slap on the wrist here and note that saying "It works for me" is a very incomplete answer and needs to be elaborated on. :p
 

Avaran

Baron
As a person who lives behind enemy lines, it really doesn't. #RogueLife
I think it is important to state what your overall level and experience is to really get a determination about how this plays out.

I'm higher than Level 40 Fighter, so I'm coming at this from a relatively higher-level perspective. And please note that, as things stand now, I have MORE abilities and skills (offensive and defensive) in 2.0 than I have in the current version, and that is true no matter what Class I plug my build into, so if anything, I feel this issue of lots of defensive layers COULD be exacerbated by the new system.

I was also on the Oregon chapter's plot team for 5 years, and their head of plot for 3.5 of those 5 years. We had more than 90 players per event (often breaking 100) over the course of my tenure, with an average NPC to PC ratio of 2.5:1 for our events.

Monsters that I encounter as my PC typically have anywhere from 4-10 defenses, not counting cloaks, banes, and resists (new plot/campaign incoming, so that could very likely change). The higher-end ones will have more than that. The big bad guys that I usually flank are even bigger, and it's usually just a matter of getting in, unloading my skills as quickly as I can and then trying to get out in one piece. Things that throw Oblit, swing for Shatter Spirit, and have nearly endless columns of magic, and swing for 20+. I have taken out more than a few things in this manner.

It's a lot easier to only swing a couple of times against lower-level things. But higher-level stuff just doesn't work that way, and I think it will be worse than it is now. Perhaps not at first, but as time goes it, I think it will get pretty out-of-hand because skills and abilities are MORE NUMEROUS in the new system than the current one (I spec'd out a build with 14 Slays the other day, not counting Evisc and Stun Limb, which is 5 more than I have now.)
 
Last edited:

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
As a person who lives behind enemy lines, it really doesn't. #RogueLife
Have you played any other chapter on a frequent basis?

I ask this because your experience is limited to what you have play/played. Obvously you are used to fighting with this style, while others like my self and Adam are not. To say that it works for you doesn't hold much water. Your ok with getting in 3 swings and then breaking off.

I'd also like to point out that I didn't say that they were behind enemy lines. The rogues on my team don't do that. You can hit backs and flank with out going behind enemy lines, but I think I'm getting a little off topic.
 

Muir

Fighter
On one hand, I'm a big proponent of not having giant circle-beatings be the answer to Big Bads. I fight somewhat similar to this already, and don't step into any fight that's already 3 on 1.

On the other, I see a ton of ways this is going to get frustrating really, really fast in big melees the moment an NPC starts refusing to take shots because they don't feel the PC reset sufficiently, and that kind of frustration leads to more dangerous fighting and people not having fun.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
On one hand, I'm a big proponent of not having giant circle-beatings be the answer to Big Bads. I fight somewhat similar to this already, and don't step into any fight that's already 3 on 1.


On the other, I see a ton of ways this is going to get frustrating really, really fast in big melees the moment an NPC starts refusing to take shots because they don't feel the PC reset sufficiently, and that kind of frustration leads to more dangerous fighting and people not having fun.
This doesn't prevent a circle beating.
 

Muir

Fighter
This doesn't prevent a circle beating.
It doesn't, but the 'Swarmed by' mechanic already in the playtest does, and slowing down attacks means it is a losing strategy to try and tank the swarm effects to lay enough shots in that the enemy falls.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I would not consider a non-verbal swing as a swing, as it does not impact mechanical defenses.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
It isn't a non-verbal swing, it's a non-verbal call. For example, I can heal for 200 body (or whatever the number it is) with a Necro ritual without having to call "healed" or otherwise indicate that I was healed. I call the Eviscerate, and don't call the healing part of it - and nobody would know.

Sorry if I explained that improperly or misspoke.
I'm referring to the "feint" part. I should have quoted.

I wouldn't count a swing against a shield that had no call, or any other swing that had no call, as a mechanical swing as far as flurry is concerned.
 
Top