Flurry change proposal

[Thorgrim]

I have a proposal for flurry which I believe would help fighters and preserve the intent behind the flurry rule of allowing time for people to call defenses and also make powerful blows more useful.

I propose that we apply the flurry 3 rule only to powerful blows, allowing a player to swing their powerful blow attack until it lands or 3 times before having to take a pause at the end of the flurry.

Example 1. I activate my eviscerate and swing with the eviscerate carrier twice, and the second attack hits my opponent who calls a parry. I then have to take a pause as if I completed a flurry and the eviscerate is used up.

Example 2. I activate my eviscerate and swing with the eviscerate carrier 3 times, all of the attacks are blocked. I must pause at the end of the flurry and my eviscerate is used but can be meditated back.

This will help solve the problem of people being overwhelmed in calling defenses because the vast majority of defenses called against physical attacks are in response to powerful blows rather than normal attacks, especially in the new system.

It makes powerful blows slightly more useful because you have 3 swings to try and land rather than 1.

It solves the problem of the disarm + disarm + eviscerate combo which is overpowered because it forces a pause between the disarms and the eviscerate.

Normal attacks would remain as is, and they do not require us to follow the flurry rule.

 

[Draven]

I have a proposal for flurry which I believe would help fighters and preserve the intent behind the flurry rule of allowing time for people to call defenses and also make powerful blows more useful.

I propose that we apply the flurry 3 rule only to powerful blows, allowing a player to swing their powerful blow attack until it lands or 3 times before having to take a pause at the end of the flurry.

Example 1. I activate my eviscerate and swing with the eviscerate carrier twice, and the second attack hits my opponent who calls a parry. I then have to take a pause as if I completed a flurry and the eviscerate is used up.

Example 2. I activate my eviscerate and swing with the eviscerate carrier 3 times, all of the attacks are blocked. I must pause at the end of the flurry and my eviscerate is used but can be meditated back.

This will help solve the problem of people being overwhelmed in calling defenses because the vast majority of defenses called against physical attacks are in response to powerful blows rather than normal attacks, especially in the new system.

It makes powerful blows slightly more useful because you have 3 swings to try and land rather than 1.

It solves the problem of the disarm + disarm + eviscerate combo which is overpowered because it forces a pause between the disarms and the eviscerate.

Normal attacks would remain as is, and they do not require us to follow the flurry rule.

I like this a lot.

 

[Graham Wolsey]

This proposal is certainly better than the currently suggested rules, but I worry without parity for spellcasting and that this just makes killing casters even harder, as a single dodge from a caster means the aggressor is dead.

 

[Kasuni]

I have a proposal for flurry which I believe would help fighters and preserve the intent behind the flurry rule of allowing time for people to call defenses and also make powerful blows more useful.

I propose that we apply the flurry 3 rule only to powerful blows, allowing a player to swing their powerful blow attack until it lands or 3 times before having to take a pause at the end of the flurry.

Example 1. I activate my eviscerate and swing with the eviscerate carrier twice, and the second attack hits my opponent who calls a parry. I then have to take a pause as if I completed a flurry and the eviscerate is used up.

Example 2. I activate my eviscerate and swing with the eviscerate carrier 3 times, all of the attacks are blocked. I must pause at the end of the flurry and my eviscerate is used but can be meditated back.

This will help solve the problem of people being overwhelmed in calling defenses because the vast majority of defenses called against physical attacks are in response to powerful blows rather than normal attacks, especially in the new system.

It makes powerful blows slightly more useful because you have 3 swings to try and land rather than 1.

It solves the problem of the disarm + disarm + eviscerate combo which is overpowered because it forces a pause between the disarms and the eviscerate.

Normal attacks would remain as is, and they do not require us to follow the flurry rule.

I like it better than the current Flurry proposal in place, but I still prefer Status Quo (no flurry)

 

[Muir]

I like Flurry as a concept, because I consider it the backbone of polite, sportsman like fighting to work at a speed that allows everyone involved to acknowledge damage, call defensives, and generally have fun in combat rather than a rap battle between auctioneers trying to monkey-beat each other. That said, I have to go with Kasuni in preferring the status quo, because the rest of our melee system design at current is not remotely balanced for it being forced without unduely handicapping melee fighters compared to packet attacks.

 

[Avaran]

Example 1. I activate my eviscerate and swing with the eviscerate carrier twice, and the second attack hits my opponent who calls a parry. I then have to take a pause as if I completed a flurry and the eviscerate is used up.

Example 2. I activate my eviscerate and swing with the eviscerate carrier 3 times, all of the attacks are blocked. I must pause at the end of the flurry and my eviscerate is used but can be meditated back.

All Fighter skills are currently one-and-done for this ruleset the way that Rogue skills are now (so you can't swing Eviscerate 3 times unless you have 3 Eviscerate skills); further, there is no "Prepare to Die" preamble any more. As a result, this proposal, while neat, isn't workable unless the mentioned change is reverted.

 

[Thorgrim]

All Fighter skills are currently one-and-done for this ruleset the way that Rogue skills are now (so you can't swing Eviscerate 3 times unless you have 3 Eviscerate skills); further, there is no "Prepare to Die" preamble any more. As a result, this proposal, while neat, isn't workable unless the mentioned change is reverted.

This is exactly what I am proposing. One and done is a huge nerf to fighters, this helps slightly alleviate that by giving us 3 chances to land a powerful blow rather than just 1 and the fact that it is still part of a flurry means that you can't rapidl swing multiple powerful blows back to back and gives time for defenders to call their defenses.

 

[Avaran]

This is exactly what I am proposing. One and done is a huge nerf to fighters, this helps slightly alleviate that by giving us 3 chances to land a powerful blow rather than just 1 and the fact that it is still part of a flurry means that you can't rapidl swing multiple powerful blows back to back and gives time for defenders to call their defenses.

Ah, that was not clear in your post. =)

 

[JeffL]

I think this is a pretty brilliant proposal, Thorgrim!

 

[Jesse Grabowski]

This is a great concession to 0.9, however, if I had it my way, flurry would be gone and heavy blows would go back to 1.3 instead of just one swing.

 

[Avaran]

I had it my way, flurry would be gone and heavy blows would go back to 1.3 instead of just one swing.

Agreed.

Can dream. Can dream.

 

[Kasuni]

This is a great concession to 0.9, however, if I had it my way, flurry would be gone and heavy blows would go back to 1.3 instead of just one swing.

Agreed!

 

[Renner]

So, my issue with this is that it still serverly limits a fighter.

There is no room for follow up attacks, or continuing to press the advantage. If I have to stop swinging after one powerful blow, that gives a serious advantage to a scholars or alchemists who could one defense then instant take out. Very little to no actual threat from a fighter.

As for chaining powerful blows such as disarm+disarm+eviscerate, I am completely ok with it. It gives a fighter a little bit of teeth back.

I am still very much against flurry as a rule in general and prefer the way fighting is now.

 

[Saephis]

I don't like Flurry, and watering down a proposal to say "Well, how *can* we make you like Flurry" won't sway that. With as thorough Fighters/Rogues/Etc. are being hit with the proposed 2.0/0.9/et al changes, this will still contribute to needless and in-equal "nerfs" to these classes.

Changing "Powerful Blows", aka Prepare-to-Die effects, to single-swings won't be terribly beneficial, in my mind. It won't slow down combat, and, as noted elsewhere, if your combat is so fast that individual(s) aren't able to actually vocalize a full verbal -- be it damage, an incant, and anything else that is required to fully complete before delivery per written rules, then the problem isn't the weapon damage or incant length, or prepare-to-die skills. Its people not following written, established, expected rules to say before you throw/swing.

 

[norman b]

I hate flurry rules. Or limit fighting rules (1 second between swings). But I hate being encircled and beat with so many calls that all I'm doing is making defense calls and cannot make offense calls.

I think this is the primary reason flurry was to be established. Allowing people to make their full offensive AND DEFENSIVE calls.

I don't like flurry, never have and never will, but I think it's important that we offer people a chance to call defensives as well as offensives. I just don't know of a good way to do that.

 

[mikestrauss]

The simplest way I can think of is to create a rule that allows no more than two players to attack the same player at the same time. It is highly unrealistic, but so is any solution to the "unable to reasonably call defenses" problem.

Pretty much, you will have to pick your poison. Stick with the current system that results in lots of holds, or choose some sort of limiting system that will frustrate stick jocks (and even stick JVs).

-MS

 

[Tulbor]

We just did our playtest on Saturday. 7-8 mods, every one of them had combat which ranged in difficulty levels (god damn I'm sore and tired!). Flurry didn't come into play more then, maybe, once or twice. Personally, I feel that it's not really needed. It works great for Calgary, and maybe a few other chapters, due to weather conditions and landscape and other factors, but that doesn't mean its required everywhere.

The powerful blows issue I have to agree with. It is extremely frustrating and feels like a complete waste of time to even bother using a major swing. This has basically taken a high cost skill and turned it into a weapon coating, granted with the benefit of not being just "next swing" like the weapon coating, but still completely eliminating the ability to press the target. There are plenty of ways of defending against the attack without nerfing it into a single swing.

 

[Tulbor]

The simplest way I can think of is to create a rule that allows no more than two players to attack the same player at the same time. It is highly unrealistic, but so is any solution to the "unable to reasonably call defenses" problem.

I completely disagree. The simplest solution is what San Francisco chapter (and Seattle? Not sure) have already been doing. A brief localized pause that doesn't effect other sections of the combat so you can simply respond. "Ok hang on hang on .. parry parry reposte (reposte! ok parry) weapon shield and taken taken taken reduced reduced reduced. ok ready?"

Pretty much, you will have to pick your poison. Stick with the current system that results in lots of holds, or choose some sort of limiting system that will frustrate stick jocks (and even stick JVs).

No, you really don't. What has been proposed is not a good solution, what we have currently needs an update or for people not to be jackasses and just pause for a few seconds to let the other person respond.

 

[Muir]

I still have to go with the issue being one of culture rather than rules. Player expectations as far as how polite combat should be conducted need to be firmly set, and the existing rules need to be enforced by marshals more often.

This will likely be a bit rocky, as in my experience some players do not take well to correction, but I think we're long past the point where it becomes more necessary to be concerned with the game being fun for all comers than our individual egos.

 

[Avaran]

The simplest solution is what San Francisco chapter (and Seattle? Not sure) have already been doing. A brief localized pause that doesn't effect other sections of the combat so you can simply respond.

Seattle and Oregon both do this. We call them "mini-holds" which only affect the small group of people in a combat instead of the whole field. Further, we tell everyone that if they are skirmishing around the field, that if they see group that looks like they are in a hold, they can either wait until it's over, or avoid and move on. Attacks from a skirmish typically aren't counted.