Should Flurry be a national rule or a local rule?

Should Flurry exist at the standardized level or the LCO level?


  • Total voters
    92
I do not feel that flurry is well defined in the rules packet.
"three consecutive attacks" could be interpreted in multiple ways
"pausing" is not a specific amount of time
"resetting their combat stance" can be interpreted in multiple ways

I do not feel that flurry makes the game significantly safer
I do not feel that flurry makes the game more playable
I do not feel that flurry makes the game more fun
Requiring a person to pause in the middle of combat provides a significant advantage to their opponent
There are many successful stick fighting games that do not have a flurry rule. It is clearly not necessary for a successful game
I do not think this is a good rule.
It do believe this rule will discourage performance oriented fighters from attending Alliance events.
 
It is pretty easy to shift attacks between 2 adjacent targets without pausing. Stance change is not defined at all, even after repeatedly being asked for.
What constitutes a stance change?
Can I just shift my front foot?
Do I have to swap my front and back feet?
Do I have to move in a certain direction like backward?
Does strafing around a target count as a stance change?

You say "in my mind" well everyone is different. That doesn't mean much/
I think you and many others (including me at first) have misread this rule. Let me quote the key line:

"Under the Flurry rule, a player should not direct more than three consecutive attacks (weapon strikes and/or packet attacks in any combination) against a single target before pausing to let the target call defenses and, if appropriate, reset their combat stance."

You seem to be reading this that you have to reset your stance, but that isn't what it says. For ease, lets remove the subordinate clause ("if appropriate"):

"Under the Flurry rule, a player should not direct more than three consecutive attacks (weapon strikes and/or packet attacks in any combination) against a single target before pausing to let the target call defenses and reset their combat stance."

The rule pretty clearly states that the person attacking needs to pause. This pause must let the target call defense and reset their combat stance. It doesn't say you have to change your stance at all, just that you have to let your opponent get into a more comfortable / useful / safe / controlled / etc. stance before continuing your onslaught. The clause I dropped, just says that you only have to let them shift stance if they need to.

In layman's terms, after three quick, successive strikes, you need to give your opponent a chance call defenses and catch their balance (which may include a mental balance of "Am I down yet?"). You, personally, do not have to change your stance (though you may want to while you are pausing anyway).

-MS
 

Tantarus

Squire
I think you and many others (including me at first) have misread this rule.
In mine and others defense. They changed the rule after the first release of the rules v0.9 packet. So we where going off different and much shorter description. It would be great if posts where made when they updated the rules or alteast brought to peoples attention when quoting a now outdated rules with the same version number.

You, personally, do not have to change your stance
Sure. But that is not what mythic and others have been saying all along.

The old rule said This is intended as a constant change to Alliance combat in which players take no more than three consecutive attacks (weapon strikes and/or packet attacks) before pausing and resetting their combat stance.

So it did indeed say the attack had to reset their stance. This is the wording most of us that downloaded the packet before 5/4/17 have been talking about and referencing.
 
I'm certainly not giving you any flak on this one. I misread it (or maybe just bandwagoned with other people's interpretations too quickly) for a long time, too. It was only when I saw it again in this thread that my linguistics degree kicked in and I went HEEEEEEEEY.

-MS
 

Sspyndel

Newbie
I only brought it to his attention a couple hours ago. He may not have realized. I see the update was released 2 days after the original.
:) anyways,
In layman's terms, after three quick, successive strikes, you need to give your opponent a chance call defenses and catch their balance (which may include a mental balance of "Am I down yet?"). You, personally, do not have to change your stance (though you may want to while you are pausing anyway).
Yes. I like it! :) Sometimes it includes us both moving out of the mud, and other times, our pause is simply the space of a breath.. You will know, as you fight people you know, who needs less pacing, and we know, which of our people might, say, need to adjust her hearing aid / take 3 breaths because well, not all of us can "Be All We Can't Be", all of the time. So a timing definition becomes problematic, if you assign an exact time.. A deep breath, and a nod..could also become a mini hold, something happened.. might not. Realistically, people do pause, maybe not after only 3 blows, but to step back and consider their opponent again..did you get him good? Is she dropping that arm more? If we do assign an exact time, say 2 or 3 seconds, we would then use that 2 seconds to either get ready, or ask for a mini hold/ confer to get into safer play zone. or, wait, that was 25 damage, I had 10 armour and 14 body...drop
 

Avaran

Baron
I believe it was announced:
[0.9] Playtest Packet 0.9
The "update" was posted on May 4, which I vaguely remember seeing. I do remember re-downloading everything and my document still had the old "Flurry" wording. I just re-downloaded the rule packet and it's now updated. I must have gotten really unlucky or something. o_O

I like the new wording a lot better, in particular the last sentence where it spells out the intent.

Based on the new wording, I basically already follow the intent, though not necessarily in the way that the wording prior to that describes. I have no idea what "reset their combat stance" means, and I utterly and absolutely abhor rules that are subjective like this one, but aside from that, it's a lot clearer and I could actually fairly reasonably play test with the new wording.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
It is sad because it just devolves into a 2.0 "hatefest"...
Corey thank you for your post but question, what does this say about the players here? If it truly is a 2.0 hatefest shouldn't that tell you something? It speaks volumes to me.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
I'm certainly not giving you any flak on this one. I misread it (or maybe just bandwagoned with other people's interpretations too quickly) for a long time, too. It was only when I saw it again in this thread that my linguistics degree kicked in and I went HEEEEEEEEY.

-MS
Mike if you also my not have noticed it says, "a player SHOULD not". People also should not smoke, drink etc. ;-)
 
Last edited:

Ruki

Scholar
Corey thank you for your post but question, what does this say about the players here? If it truly is a 2.0 hatefest shouldn't that tell you something? It speaks volumes to me.
It says that those most vocal hate 2.0. Not everyone hates it. Far from it.
 

Saephis

Squire
It says, to me, that there are numerous issues with the 2.0 / 0.9 proposal. That there are vast differences on how people view rules, the well-being of this game, and that there are numerous, passionate voices on those topics. While there may be many players who take very strong exception to elements, I don't believe I've seen anyone say "Alliance 1.3 is perfect and nothing should change."

It does say, though, that more thorough, inclusive testing is needed, with more expansive input from the player-base-at-large. That may mean changing the restrictions around what can and can't be rewarded through play-testing, as I imagine turnouts would be much larger if something outside local chapter benefits were possible.

We're seeing vitriol from the very notion that players are talking to each other on the National forums on the topics, with numerous parties stating plainly that "This isn't helpful". Maybe that's because of the voiced format of the 2.0 forums, the absence of the majority of owners and the toe-in-the-water of just a few ARC persons, but it (again, to me) seems obvious that the "established' format isn't the correct one we should be taking.
 

mythic

Knight
Owner
Calgary Staff
Corey thank you for your post but question, what does this say about the players here? If it truly is a 2.0 hatefest shouldn't that tell you something? It speaks volumes to me.
All it tells me is the people who like 2.0 really don't want to start a war of words. So then it ONLY looks like there are complaints about 2.0. So when it speaks volumes, it only speaks more to the toxicity of the forum. It does not show anything else.
 

Saephis

Squire
That's not a very constructive view, @mythic , and frankly stating it such only feeds to that toxicity.

As stated, there are numerous people trying to make the best of this, and taking criticism or feedback as only negative isn't very becoming.

As a community, we need to work towards the best revision/update to the archaic rules we have in place.
 

mythic

Knight
Owner
Calgary Staff
@Saephis Oh I agree 100%. But when someone tries to twist my words to "prove something" that is not even close to helpful either. It goes both ways.
 

Saephis

Squire
I don't disagree, @mythic , however the whole eye-for-an-eye, land-of-the-blind adage comes to mind. You can only push positivity by not responding to negativity with negativity.

As I've said, there are numerous elements about 2.0 I like, however we need to ensure the written text is what we actually want. We have great potential to make great changes for both existing and new players.

I'm not sure what else I can say on Flurry (you know, this thread's topic :) ). I'm glad its helpful for the chapters that utilize it, but I still don't feel there there's been anything hugely beneficial stated in this thread or in testing to say that its necessary for every chapter as a National policy.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Perhaps a thread or poll about what is liked would be valuable, then? Perhaps that could alleviate some of the toxicity?

Because lately it has been mostly threads emphasizing what the vocal folks feel is negative about 2.0.
Actually, two separate polls would probably be best, one allowing people to vote multiple times for the things they Like about 2.0, and one allowing people to vote multiple times for the things they Dislike. Polls being anonymous, to encourage voting.
 

mythic

Knight
Owner
Calgary Staff
That is the only unfortunate limiter of these forums. The polls are hard to set up (there is a limit to how many options) and wording needs to be very carefully constructed to be neutral. Adding too many polls can also "tune people out" because they just get this deluge. Maybe we can get some going with @Tevas and have them stickied? Or have them just posted on the General Forum so that players do not have to sign up for the playtest forums either?

Also, remember that on July 17th, we have the Discord Q&A. So getting questions to Tevas ASAP will help that a ton.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
@Saephis Oh I agree 100%. But when someone tries to twist my words to "prove something" that is not even close to helpful either. It goes both ways.
It's sad that you think I'm trying to "twist"your words. Please don't make it seem like I'm doing something I'm not. Hard to justify saying "2.0 hatefest" and not get a response.
 
Top