Author Topic: Change To Archery  (Read 2180 times)

JohnMichaelHenry

  • Posts: 194
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2019, 05:14:23 PM »
From my experience, these negatives already exist.

Before I chime in, I'd like to know if this is true.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
― Michael Scott, The Warlock

Hauwke

  • Posts: 1973
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2019, 05:34:28 PM »
I think there are small negatives to being at full range than there is to being at just 1 room. Firing into a crowd has absolutely no negatives and they cannot do anything, even their 4 half-giants, to stop you hitting the Templar in the middle.

roughneck

  • Posts: 848
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2019, 05:26:48 AM »
I think there are small negatives to being at full range than there is to being at just 1 room. Firing into a crowd has absolutely no negatives and they cannot do anything, even their 4 half-giants, to stop you hitting the Templar in the middle.

If guard + shield use/parry is high, there are negatives.

JohnMichaelHenry

  • Posts: 194
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2019, 07:41:08 AM »
I know that I have seen arrows get blocked by shields, even a sword once. I cannot swear I've seen 'jumps in front of Amos, protecting him!'.
Is that a thing? If guard and shield use/parry is high enough, can you protect someone from arrows? If this is true, awesome.

In general, distance should definitely affect hit chance, but I've seen archers without a scope hit a six inch target at about 200 feet. If you take into account that Zalanthans are 'super humans' so to speak, master archery should be pretty bad ass.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
― Michael Scott, The Warlock

Riev

  • Posts: 5609
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2019, 11:37:03 AM »
And yet, the main point is still "if people are fighting a distance away from you, a missile weapon should have an increased miss chance due to them being unpredictable in melee combat"
Masks are the Armageddon equivalent of Ed Hardy shirts.

chrisdcoulombe

  • Posts: 1295
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2019, 01:26:40 PM »
And a small percentage of chance to hit an ally.  I agree with this.  If there is a group fighting archers can't just be loosing arrows into the crowd without a chance of an ally being struck.  I like it.
Quote from MeTekillot
Samos the salter never goes to jail! Hahaha!

Heade

  • Posts: 837
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2019, 01:52:19 PM »
I've withheld comment on this thread for awhile now, because, while I think a small percentage miss chance is appropriate when firing at someone who is engaged in combat, and thus is moving around quickly, I am not at all in favor of a huge nerf bat taken to archery in general. And, it seems like that is what this idea has developed into with the multiple comments regarding range and such. I wouldn't want to see some crazy 50% miss chance on master archers because additive penalties make shots ridiculously difficult. I also don't want to see "master" archery be necessary just to make the skill useful, as penalties applied evenly would disproportionately affect characters with lower skill levels.

That said, I don't think something to the effect of a 5% difficulty modifier applying to targets engaged in combat to be a major problem.

I just don't know if such a small modifier would be worth the work from the devs, as I doubt it will really please anyone. A small penalty likely won't really satisfy the people calling for a penalty, and any penalty at all won't really satisfy the people who don't want to see one. So it all seems like a bunch of work for staff to do, just so no one will really be happy with it, for the sake of "realism".
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 01:54:23 PM by Heade »
I used to have a funny signature, but I felt like no one took me seriously, so it's time to put on my serious face.

JohnMichaelHenry

  • Posts: 194
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2019, 02:12:14 PM »
So, if I'm a melee combatant that works with an archer, why can't I have them 'go over there' while I use my master melee footwork to put them on the side that makes it easier to hit them. Good melee combatants can easily guide a person to the spot they want them etc., so how would your penalty account for that?

Sorry, this one seems too complicated to make more real. If something better than 'they are fighting so you might hit the other guy' isn't introduced, I'm gonna have to give a thumbs down to this one.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
― Michael Scott, The Warlock

Heade

  • Posts: 837
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2019, 02:23:37 PM »
So, if I'm a melee combatant that works with an archer, why can't I have them 'go over there' while I use my master melee footwork to put them on the side that makes it easier to hit them. Good melee combatants can easily guide a person to the spot they want them etc., so how would your penalty account for that?

Sorry, this one seems too complicated to make more real. If something better than 'they are fighting so you might hit the other guy' isn't introduced, I'm gonna have to give a thumbs down to this one.

I'm not in favor of introducing chances to hit the other guy at all, but a small miss chance would be ok simply due to the significant difference between shooting at someone who is relaxing enjoying a drink and someone who is quickly moving around defending themself. That said, I still defer to my prior answer, and don't necessarily think the effect would be or SHOULD be big enough to warrant the work from staff, considering the minimal impact such a small change would make on both gameplay and player perception. In order to really please anyone, it would require a larger impact change, which will inevitably displease others greatly, and may cause significant balance issues.
I used to have a funny signature, but I felt like no one took me seriously, so it's time to put on my serious face.

kahuna

  • Posts: 201
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2019, 02:40:50 PM »
I just don't know if such a small modifier would be worth the work from the devs, as I doubt it will really please anyone. A small penalty likely won't really satisfy the people calling for a penalty, and any penalty at all won't really satisfy the people who don't want to see one. So it all seems like a bunch of work for staff to do, just so no one will really be happy with it, for the sake of "realism".
It has nothing to do with realism and everything to do with players that have lost PCs to archery. While we're at it any melee combatant should have a random chance to strike another melee person in a large battle. Large battles are chaos, not to mention people would be slipping and sliding all over the desert sands trying to fight. I don't see people making an issue of that though. If we're going to code in chances into skills why don't we do it for others besides archery? Make the case for every skill and I will agree to it but singling out archery just reeks of people who lost to it and want the code changed to benefit their PCs in the future.

Hauwke

  • Posts: 1973
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2019, 04:49:34 PM »
I know that I have seen arrows get blocked by shields, even a sword once. I cannot swear I've seen 'jumps in front of Amos, protecting him!'.
Is that a thing? If guard and shield use/parry is high enough, can you protect someone from arrows? If this is true, awesome.

In general, distance should definitely affect hit chance, but I've seen archers without a scope hit a six inch target at about 200 feet. If you take into account that Zalanthans are 'super humans' so to speak, master archery should be pretty bad ass.

It is not true. Blocking and parrying arrows is possible, but leaping in front of one is not.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 04:52:22 PM by Hauwke »

kahuna

  • Posts: 201
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2019, 07:29:34 PM »
I know that I have seen arrows get blocked by shields, even a sword once. I cannot swear I've seen 'jumps in front of Amos, protecting him!'.
Is that a thing? If guard and shield use/parry is high enough, can you protect someone from arrows? If this is true, awesome.

In general, distance should definitely affect hit chance, but I've seen archers without a scope hit a six inch target at about 200 feet. If you take into account that Zalanthans are 'super humans' so to speak, master archery should be pretty bad ass.

It is not true. Blocking and parrying arrows is possible, but leaping in front of one is not.

I would completely support 'guard' being expanded to "meat shield" status for archery. I think the guard skill is actually fairly weak and rarely succeeds anyways so unless you are master guard you'll probably fail but hey we can throw some love to the guard skill and it won't damage the balance of combat skills I don't think.

Quote
The tall, buzz-cut man leaps in front of the fancy noble, protecting them!
A flint-tipped arrow flies in from the west and strikes the tall, buzz-cut man's neck.
 

Hauwke

  • Posts: 1973
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2019, 08:55:50 PM »
I would love for guard to allow protecting from arrows. It would be a perfect code addition.

Bebop

  • Posts: 4057
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2019, 11:46:22 PM »
Proposal: Shooting at an NPC or PC who is engaged in melee should give a 50/50 chance to hit the other person they're engaged with, or the ground. Maybe 33% target, 33% opponent, 33% ground. PCs who are able to leave the coded room and arrow spam people engaged in melee isn't a fun feature.

Discuss.

I don't know about the percentages but I like this idea.  And I find it kind of hilarious.

cal

  • Posts: 116
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #39 on: September 06, 2019, 12:05:32 AM »
I am mostly against the idea.

I am with the person that said for lower skills only.

As to the arguments against it only being for low skill...Isfriday and others, You have not spent any time researching what it means to be master or even advanced in archery. A master RL archer can shoot an aspirin out of the air at 10 yards with a bow made from a branch and gut. A normal RL human. On horseback while moving verses a moving target and more.

The idea that an archer, at advanced or better would miss, or even worse hit something they did not intend Even at long range for the bow is rather silly.

Also...You all are thinking of the ranges rather oddly. What they really are is, Near (same room) Like say 15 yards or less IRL. Optimum, (one room away) Like 16-30 yards IRL. And far, (2 rooms) Or like 31-60 yards IRL.


A staff member sends:
     "My pc thought he was a love sick dookiehead with bad taste in women."

Heade

  • Posts: 837
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #40 on: September 06, 2019, 01:02:05 AM »
I would completely support 'guard' being expanded to "meat shield" status for archery.

I would be ok with this, as long as it didn't function if the guard couldn't see the person shooting. So, if someone took a throw or arrow shot from invisibility or hiding, unless the guard's scan was sufficiently high enough to spot the shooter, they wouldn't be able to react in time to block the arrow, but on subsequent shots, so long as the shooter can be seen, guard could work and they could jump in front of their charge to take the arrow for them.

If this was implemented, it should probably be done in such a way that allows guards to set a flag on themselves determining whether they're willing to straight take an arrow to the neck for their charge, though. I imagine some PC guards may "forget" to set that flag.

Speaking of PC vs NPC guards...that is really the only thing that makes me hesitant about this whole thing. PCs who have crews of NPC lackeys are already fairly powerful and often difficult to kill due to all of the circumstances surrounding them. If they are allowed to set their X number of lackeys to "guard me", and that suddenly blocks ranged fire, they might end up sort of invincible.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 09:46:04 PM by Heade »
I used to have a funny signature, but I felt like no one took me seriously, so it's time to put on my serious face.

Brokkr

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 897
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #41 on: September 06, 2019, 01:13:28 AM »
Also...You all are thinking of the ranges rather oddly. What they really are is, Near (same room) Like say 15 yards or less IRL. Optimum, (one room away) Like 16-30 yards IRL. And far, (2 rooms) Or like 31-60 yards IRL.

Shortbow range = 1 room but not 2 rooms.  RL shortbows might go 180 yards or so tops, although often much shorter depending on the bow.
Longbow range = 2 room but not 3 rooms.  RL longbows might bow 345-375 yeards or so, tops.  Although typically more like 200ish yards.

Not to say those are "actual" Zalanthan distances, but to point our your assumptions don't seem to hold true to cursory examination.

cal

  • Posts: 116
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #42 on: September 06, 2019, 01:58:56 AM »
Brokkr um..man, And this is a serious question, Are you purposely obtuse on replies?

I never once said anything about how far you can launch an arrow, what kind of records there are.

I made no point of assumption. I made point of fact.

Those ranges are RL ranges for RL bow assuming your intention is to actually hit and kill what you are aiming for with any regularity.

How far it might travel is moot at BEST. a .22LR might travel a mile...but no sane person considers it the range of a .22lr The accurate range of a .22lr ruger 10/22 or marlin model 60 is sub 200 yards and they are likely two of the best on the market. (for semi-automatic.


So, take your RL example...say a bow able to launch an arrow 180 yards, To do so means you must lob it in. But go ahead, see if you can hit a man sized target inside your first 50 shots.
Secondly, I did not say which bow, I know full well that IG shortbows are 1 room and some massive bows are 3, but a VAST majority of bows in use IN game are 2 room bows and the middle of the road. So it is all I bothered with.
A staff member sends:
     "My pc thought he was a love sick dookiehead with bad taste in women."

Bogre

  • Posts: 3313
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #43 on: September 06, 2019, 05:28:21 AM »

Also...You all are thinking of the ranges rather oddly. What they really are is, Near (same room) Like say 15 yards or less IRL. Optimum, (one room away) Like 16-30 yards IRL. And far, (2 rooms) Or like 31-60 yards IRL.


The outdoors rooms are vast swathes of desert. 2-3 rooms away is very far away.


(To put it in perspective - If a desert room is 15 yards, then Tuluk is only something like 6 football fields away from Allanak, and Meleth's Circle would be a third the size of a high school running track.)


So I think what you're saying is that RL bows have optimal ranges that are pretty short. So if you're lobbing arrows at a target 2 rooms away, I think some inaccuracy or problems hitting a target, especially one moving unpredictably, would be easily imaginable even for the most accurate of Zalanthan sharpshooters.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 05:43:27 AM by Bogre »
I tripped and Fale down my stairs. Drink milk and you'll grow Uaptal. I know this guy from the state of Tenneshi. This house will go up Borsail tomorrow. I gave my book to him Nenyuk it back again. I hired this guy golfing to Kadius around for a while.

Bogre

  • Posts: 3313
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #44 on: September 06, 2019, 06:12:19 AM »

I would be ok with this, as long as it didn't function if the guard couldn't see the person shooting. So, if someone took a throw or arrow shot from invisibility or hiding, unless the guard's scan was sufficiently high enough to spot the shooter, they wouldn't be able to react in time to block the arrow, but on subsequent shots, so long as the shooter can be seen, guard could work and they could jump in front of their charge to take the arrow for them.

If this was implemented, it should probably be done in such a way that allows guards to set a flag on themselves determining whether they're willing to straight take an arrow to the neck for their charge, though. I imagine some PC guards may "forget" to set that flag.

Speaking of PC vs NPC guards...that is really the only thing that makes me hesitant about this whole thing. PCs who have crews of NPC lackeys are already fairly powerful and often difficult to kill due to all of the circumstances surrounding them. If they are allowed to set their X number of lackeys to "guard me", and that suddenly blocks ranged fire, they might end up sort of invincible.

This is a great thought - that guards at pretty high levels of skill have a small chance to literally take arrows for someone. (obviously, not everyone will want to, but imagine the possibilities like zealot guards taking wounds for their noble charge or a vigilant tribal hunter dying to protect their mate.!). Also, guards at moderate skill levels might be able to get their shield up for their charge but not dive in front of arrows. Having them need to see the person (or have a good watch skill) also really expands the utility benefits and gives love to guard/scan/watch, which is totally what you'd want in someone watching your back.

I would also assign just a percentage chance to getting hit by an arrow if you are guarding something, since you're standing in front of someone. Them's the breaks. Have stealth skills/visibility effects get around that, so if you're hidden or shooting from a sandstorm that you can see through and they can't you've a better chance of hitting your aimed target.

So:
High Guard skill - chance to use parry/block to stop arrow like normal, failing that, small chance to body block it
Medium skill - Higher chance for opportunity to parry/block arrow.
Low/no skill - Still a chance to literally just take an arrow because you happen to be standing in front of someone. Good job meatshield. Hope you have a shield / armor. 

I actually think that PCs being able to utilize guards this way might actually decrease the impetus to use nonmundane or crazy hijinks to avoid getting instagibbed. PCs are generally limited in the number of NPC lackeys they can use, which will hopefully temper PCs trying to make themselves invincible by just surrounding themselves with NPCs.
I tripped and Fale down my stairs. Drink milk and you'll grow Uaptal. I know this guy from the state of Tenneshi. This house will go up Borsail tomorrow. I gave my book to him Nenyuk it back again. I hired this guy golfing to Kadius around for a while.

Brokkr

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 897
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #45 on: September 06, 2019, 11:52:59 AM »
Brokkr um..man, And this is a serious question, Are you purposely obtuse on replies?

I never once said anything about how far you can launch an arrow, what kind of records there are.

I made no point of assumption. I made point of fact.

Those ranges are RL ranges for RL bow assuming your intention is to actually hit and kill what you are aiming for with any regularity.

How far it might travel is moot at BEST. a .22LR might travel a mile...but no sane person considers it the range of a .22lr The accurate range of a .22lr ruger 10/22 or marlin model 60 is sub 200 yards and they are likely two of the best on the market. (for semi-automatic.


So, take your RL example...say a bow able to launch an arrow 180 yards, To do so means you must lob it in. But go ahead, see if you can hit a man sized target inside your first 50 shots.
Secondly, I did not say which bow, I know full well that IG shortbows are 1 room and some massive bows are 3, but a VAST majority of bows in use IN game are 2 room bows and the middle of the road. So it is all I bothered with.

So, actual warfare was done typically by lobbing the arrows, not by aimed shots.  But that is beside the point, which is something I think you missed.  I wasn't talking about accuracy, I was saying that the maximum range of bows RL would translate into different minimum ranges that "rooms" must be away, if we are trying to equate the two.

Shortbows can shoot 1 room away.  Maximum.  Lobbed arrow.  They cannot codedly shoot 2 rooms away, lobbed or not.  ERGO, 2 rooms away is further than 180 yards.  3 rooms must be further than 375 yards.  There are no 3 room bows, so irrelevant.

Given blowguns, 2 rooms would be over 40 yards or so away.

rinthrat

  • Posts: 124
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #46 on: September 06, 2019, 12:16:18 PM »
One room is always close enough for any aggressive critter to charge at you in a matter of moments, though. So they can't be that large (or size changes depending on what is in the next room  ;D).

Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #47 on: September 06, 2019, 01:31:01 PM »
I will probably get jumped on for this but okay. Have to offer my opinion.

One: Ranged attacks are like one of the only equalizing combat skills for race/classes with low strength and it has inherent vulnerabilities.

If you are being shot at you already have the option to:
- Move sideways out of range
- Flank the archers
- Charge the archers
- Hide
- Shoot back
- Throw a variety of magick stuff in that direction

If you are standing there eating arrows to the face... I am sorry but it is not the fault of the shield holding guys. You are obviously a target you shouldn't be standing there, just being that. That is silly.

Two: Arrows are fast. If people holding shields around you are going to have a hope in hell of blocking one, they are going to be really close to you, like personal space close.. and you are going to be hindered in melee I would suspect. No one is sprinting ten feet to leap up and catch a projectile moving 200 feet-per-second.

I would not want to see PC A with five guys holding shields on follow, walking up on archers and whipping out a glaive and attacking through the shield shell... because that would be twinky weird to me.

Closing thought: MAYBE it would make sense if people on guard had a chance to get shot by accident. Blocking not so much. If someone gets to stand there while under arrow fire as an obvious target and you want to protect them this much.. you should probably expect to die for their hubris. IMHO.


racurtne

  • Posts: 1877
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #48 on: September 06, 2019, 02:13:43 PM »


Without guard and block being taken into account, how will I ever protect m'lady?

This is sarcasm, bit I am pro being able to somehow have gaurding have a chance to make the arrow target the guard rather than their ward, as if it were shot at the guard to begin with, so it does all normal skill checks, even if that chance is pretty low.
Alea iacta est

kahuna

  • Posts: 201
Re: Change To Archery
« Reply #49 on: September 06, 2019, 03:32:01 PM »
I will probably get jumped on for this but okay. Have to offer my opinion.

One: Ranged attacks are like one of the only equalizing combat skills for race/classes with low strength and it has inherent vulnerabilities.

If you are being shot at you already have the option to:
- Move sideways out of range
- Flank the archers
- Charge the archers
- Hide
- Shoot back
- Throw a variety of magick stuff in that direction

If you are standing there eating arrows to the face... I am sorry but it is not the fault of the shield holding guys. You are obviously a target you shouldn't be standing there, just being that. That is silly.

Two: Arrows are fast. If people holding shields around you are going to have a hope in hell of blocking one, they are going to be really close to you, like personal space close.. and you are going to be hindered in melee I would suspect. No one is sprinting ten feet to leap up and catch a projectile moving 200 feet-per-second.

I would not want to see PC A with five guys holding shields on follow, walking up on archers and whipping out a glaive and attacking through the shield shell... because that would be twinky weird to me.

Closing thought: MAYBE it would make sense if people on guard had a chance to get shot by accident. Blocking not so much. If someone gets to stand there while under arrow fire as an obvious target and you want to protect them this much.. you should probably expect to die for their hubris. IMHO.

I understand where you're coming from. I think a good compromise might be found in room_flags? If a room is flagged city or indoors you can guard against archery (after all you're in a city with limited angle of attack). Outside rooms flagged as wilderness, desert, etc. it just wouldn't work. Too many angles of attack and too much open space.