Melee combat and Audio Cues

Tantarus

Tantarus

Knight
Alliance combat can be fast paced. I consider myself old hat at it, with 20+ years of nero/alliance experience. One of the issues I found during the playtest I did, and concerns in general is the lack of Audio cues in melee that signal something abnormal is happening. My two big examples of this are "Prepare to die" and "Spellstrike". When you hear either of these when in heavy and loud combat you know you took something different then standard damage.

Without these audio cues during the playtest I know there was more then once I had to clarify what hit me. Was that 15 normal (They where using 10 crit attacks) or 50 normal (a Slay)? With the "Spellstrike" verbal you know you are taking a spell in an non standard (packet) way. It is easy to miss the spell part of a "Spell Disarm" and take the effect as a PTD and try to use the wrong defense, for instance.

Removing Prepare to Die and having slays just happen with only a change in the number called I feel like will lead to people unintentionally missing the extra damage and more mini holds and clarifications. I also feel that having audio cues for Slays/assassinates/spellstrikes and such in combat is important to help people more easily track changes in attacks and take the proper effects.

That said I actually like removing PTD, but could there not be a middle ground? Like back in the day people use to call "50 silver Assassinate" or "50 magic Slay". Could this language not be attached back into the damage calls so it is very obvious you got hit with something special? It would also bring them in line with all the other rogue/ptd abilities that state their name in the swing such as Eviscerate, Disarm, Terminate, Stun Limb.

It also makes it much more clear what your getting attacked with. For instance if someone gets behind you and calls "50 normal" but you saw them and where rotating to face them so it hit you in the side of the arm not the back, do you take damage from a slay or was it a failed assassinate?

As for spellstrike I think this should be left in as a verbal as well. It still has the word Spell in it so you know the defense you need. But gives you the audio cue it is a weapon delivery. Making it much more clear what is happening when hit by it.

Another benefit is the evade change could be reverted back to it's current functionality. Reducing math you have to do in combat. I mean lets face it, the current evade is pretty clunky in practice. Combat math can be tricky enough without adding division into it.

I am curious what people think about this?
 
The 50 damage attack was an assassinate. Slays are in multiples of 20 or 30 under the new rules. Assassinates are in multiples of 25. However, your point does stand for a 100 damage attack.

I haven't had a chance to playtest, but purely on theory, I am of mixed opinion. Conceptually, I like the simplified calls, because it is much more newbie friendly, but I see the potential for confusion that you are discussing.

However, I am firmly against your evade suggestion. While evade is significantly decreased in power in this playtest (a good thing actually, it was massively overpowered before), I love that it now offers protection against slays and assassinates, potentially preventing unconsciousness.

-MS
 
mikestrauss said:
The 50 damage attack was an assassinate. Slays are in multiples of 20 or 30 under the new rules. Assassinates are in multiples of 25. However, your point does stand for a 100 damage attack.
Click to expand...

I don't think people are going to memorize the damage tables for slay and assassinate if they not even expected to know that a magic armor protects from weapon attacks to the point it has to be changed to weapon shield to make it more clear. Just saying.
 
Slays are calculated as:
Base weapon damage * 10 for first purchase.

Improved Slays add:
Base weapon damage *5 for each additional purchase

So a 50 point Slay is possible with a 2 damage weapon (base 20 damage Slay, plus 30 damage from three Improved Slays).
 
Regarding Disarm/Shatter, there's actually a completely different call for a weapon version versus a spell version, due to the effect change.

Fighter Shatter/Disarm: The verbal is Shatter. It's literally just that, because the effect is whatever you hit.

Spell Shatter/Disarm: The verbal is Spell Shatter/Disarm <item>, because the spell requires a target.

So, there's an extra cue in there for you.

Legit concern regarding Assassinate/Slay, because the victim has a right to not take an illegal attack.
 
Draven said:
Regarding Disarm/Shatter, there's actually a completely different call for a weapon version versus a spell version, due to the effect change.

Fighter Shatter/Disarm: The verbal is Shatter. It's literally just that, because the effect is whatever you hit.

Spell Shatter/Disarm: The verbal is Spell Shatter/Disarm <item>, because the spell requires a target.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I ever stated they where the same. I did say "It is easy to miss the spell part of a "Spell Disarm" and take the effect as a PTD and try to use the wrong defense, for instance. " Or confuse the two effects, especially for a newer player. As they sound similar, and are delivered in the same way, yet have totally different ways to resolve the effects and defenses used. Perhaps it was a bad example as it takes away from my main point which is:

I think "Spellstrike" more clearly indicates you are taking a spell effect from a weapon attack. A newer player maybe confused when you say spell X and swing a weapon as they think of spells as pack attacks. But the Term "Spellstrike" makes it pretty clear what is happening. It is all in the word "Spell + Strike". Easy to understand. And creates a cue for someone to realize they are getting hit with a non standard spell attack form.
 
Last edited:
I get what you're saying, but I'd need to see some pretty consistent returns that "Spell Strike [effect]" is significantly easier to pick out of a combat than "Spell [effect]". The entire intention of using the [Number][Qualifier][Effect] paradigm is that its modular nature makes it easier for new players to understand what defenses apply to what attacks.

As far as the Assassinate vs. Slay question goes... Jeez, guys, do we really think that our game is so full of rampant cheaters that we're going to have repeated problems of people doing this? I see people accidentally calling the wrong damage due to sudden changes in positioning in almost every fight, and in every case it's followed up by "Hey, don't take that last one." If someone's going to call an Assassinate when they shouldn't and then just let it go, that's cheating. They're maybe a half step removed from using skills they don't even have at that point. Is this really a problem?
 
With regards to spellstrike, It still says spell so people can understand the defense needed. It also notifies them it is a weapon based attack. And could be parried by another person for instance. It adds information to the attack. I would argue it makes the game easier for new players to understand and not harder. Or at worst is a wash. You gain a lot of info and clarity for a simple word. Also you keep the feel of the older effect.

I don't think anyone is implying that the assassinate example is focused on cheaters, I think it is more accidents happen. And it causes mini holds to clarify if you should take the damage or not. It is just an example of confusion caused by not knowing what kind of attack you are being hit with. Also IG it would be nice to know if that is a Rogue or Fighter your dealing with. Same with an archer throwing big numbers.

I do feel like a lot of flavor and some functionality is sacrificed for the strict adherence to the [Number][Qualifier][Effect] paradigm. When someone asks you what happened in a fight, it is a lot harder to describe when you just took some large number hits in the back now. Before you could easily say "A rogue got the drop on me and dropped me with assassinates!" Now you end up with something like, " A melee person got the drop on me and dropped me with either slays or assassinates, perhaps something else, I am not really sure what it was:/"
 
Last edited:
I understand the argument, I just don't share the same view of the data. Let me explain - part of the original proposal from ARC several years ago now was that ALL attacks would include the number qualifier effect model, including basic weapon blows. Every standard weapon swing would be "5 Weapon Normal!" or whatever. Several owners argued that this was unnecessary, and that the fact that a weapon was being swung made clear that the weapon qualifier was in use implicitly. This is the precise opposite position from the one you are putting forward. If I'm being hit with a weapon, I know that I'm being hit with a weapon. If I don't need a verbal cue to know that from a basic swing, I don't need one to alert me that the qualifier isn't in use anymore. The presence of another qualifier does that.
 
Also, apologies if I am coming across as short or dismissive. That is not my intent. I am having an ongoing series of problems with a six-year-old who is too clever for his own good (and my sanity) and refuses to fall asleep. If my frustration with him is bleeding in here I am sorry.​
 
Last edited:
No worries, I have an 8 year old, I understand that problem all to well.

I get the implied "weapon" in a swing and agree that it should be implied. But I think that having an different qualifier for a spellstrike is useful beyond changing the qualifier from weapon to spell. As it notes the mode change better for people. And the more that I think about it. A spellstrike is functionally different then a packet spell. For instance, you can parry a spellstrike to take the effect for another person. But you can not parry a packet spell thrown at a friend.

I guess I don't see a reason "Spellstrike" is not a qualifier. While Niche in use maybe it does help people to understand that a weapon is swinging a spell, and can account for the differences in defenses you can use in regards to such an attack.

Also it sounds cooler:p But more seriously I do think there is something to be said for Audio Cues in combat that help the flow and flavor of said combats.
 
To be honest, I agreed with you at one point. I think one of the downsides of the rules changes are that we are losing some cool flavor stuff. In the end, I have settled on the belief that consistency, all else being equal, is a better model for rules than flavor is. Doesn't mean I haven't been looking for ANY way to get Dragon's Breath back int the game in SOME way.

Point of interest: in the rules change, Parry does not work on Channeled spells anymore.
 
Yeah I actually wondered if that parry/channel was still a thing as I wrote that. That is kinda sad:/

And yes, I think the loss of Dragon's Breath is a big bummer. While I generally really like the 2.0 changes. The loss of flavor is a hard one to swallow for all the improvements though:/
 
Which version of the attack restrictions were you playtesting?

I generally find that it vastly helps to slow down the fighting using flurries and setting an expectation from both players and NPCs that they verbally acknowledge the hits they take, even if it's just with an 'Ow' or 'Got it'.
 
Tantarus said:
Yeah I actually wondered if that parry/channel was still a thing as I wrote that. That is kinda sad:/

And yes, I think the loss of Dragon's Breath is a big bummer. While I generally really like the 2.0 changes. The loss of flavor is a hard one to swallow for all the improvements though:/
Click to expand...

Invent a spell call Dragon's Breath that has reasonable mechanics and propose it to your owner. Flavor can be returned with creativity, allowing us to have our cake and eat it, too.

-MS

Example (total spitballing here): Dragon's Breath, 8th level Protection / Enhancement, 10 Minutes, Target deals +5 wand damage
 
Muir said:
Which version of the attack restrictions were you playtesting?

I generally find that it vastly helps to slow down the fighting using flurries and setting an expectation from both players and NPCs that they verbally acknowledge the hits they take, even if it's just with an 'Ow' or 'Got it'.
Click to expand...

It was maybe 2 playtests ago. I would also point out in the current version 0.8 there is no timing delays anymore. As per the newest rules

"A1.4 Per-Day weapon attacks
All per-day weapon skills (other than Critical Attack and Back Attack) now last for only one swing. This means that Disarm, Slay, Assassinate, Waylay, Shatter, Stun Limb, Eviscerate, and Terminate all last one swing only when used. Missed or blocked attempts may now be regained through the Meditate skill.

This solves the cases that both Powerful Blows and Flurry (in prior playtests) were attempting to fix, and thus those proposed solutions are removed entirely."

So I am not sure how that super matters to the context of my starting post.
 
Ah, I missed that they changed that, and am heartily disappointed given that I suspect a definite case for less raw damage to lead to more machine gunning.
 
I am sad that flurry was removed from the playtest. It would have been worth it as an anti-machine gunning rule.
 
Tantarus said:
I think "Spellstrike" more clearly indicates you are taking a spell effect from a weapon attack. A newer player maybe confused when you say spell X and swing a weapon as they think of spells as pack attacks. But the Term "Spellstrike" makes it pretty clear what is happening. It is all in the word "Spell + Strike". Easy to understand. And creates a cue for someone to realize they are getting hit with a non standard spell attack form.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't think newbies will be more confused because of this change. I can confirm that many new players (and myself, when I was one) are -already- confused by what defenses apply to a Spellstrike. I personally expect that they'll either be equally confused or less confused, as long as they hear "Spell."

If they don't hear the word "Spell," I don't think it matters if the verbal is "Spellstrike" or "Spell," confusion is basically guaranteed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top