Archery possibilities

[I]

I am not much of a ranger type, but I made a ranger recently and thought of some improvements for archery and such but they could already be coded in so...

*I thought maybe if somebody was shooting at you from the east, and they hit you, then you would maybe stumble a room west maybe into a bahamets mouth off a cliff etc... And the closer you are, the higher chance of the target falling back.

*Also, if you could perhaps hit somebody by mistake, suppose this:

Room 3: You
Room 2: Bunch of people 3 or 4
Room 1: Again a bunch of people.

So, from room 3, you are shooting at Amos in room1, and maybe, your arrow or bolt hits some poor fellow in room 2 on it's way to Amos in room 2. Or, maybe it makes it through the crowded room 2 but then you miss Amos and hit his chum resting beside him. And of course, certain natural happenings could influence this, darkness (dusk or dawn) wind ( so that maybe instead of not being able to shoot, you can but just miss your mark) and sandstorms as well.

So, yeah, just some quick thoughts I had.

[The Fang Oracle]

*enters unnessary commentary*

I like the second the suggestion.  Its much more realistic.

*exits the unnessary commentary*

[keithor]

An outside room with three people isn't neccesarily "crowded" IMHO.  But an archery failure on a target that's currently fighting someone/thing else should have a chance of hitting the other non-target fighter.  Possibly if people were following the target, they might also have a chance to be hit.

Edited to add: The problem with the first suggestion is that sometimes those distances are mile or so, no arrow's going to send someone flying like that.

[Arabian Nights]

But an archery failure on a target that's currently fighting someone/thing else should have a chance of hitting the other non-target fighter.

I think this would be a cool and realistic addition to archery. I don't really have any interest in the rest though.

[Sir Diealot]

Keithor/Arabian Nights have it spot on.

But, are we sure that this doesn't happen?  I've never seen it, but I've only shot a bow once IG.

[Maybe42or54]

As a person who has been shot with arrows quite a few times by Pcs for "leading" the group.
If they aim for you, it either hits or it goes into the sand. No other way, last I checked.

[Synthesis]

I'd like to see archery changed so that there's a chance that the target will stumble to the ground, like throw does already.

I mean, come on...a wimpy little bone throwing knife will cause a bull duskhorn to stumble to the ground...why not an obsidian sheaf arrow that's speeding at least 10x as fast as that knife could ever -hope- to be thrown?

This is the same old thing I've been harping on for ages...throw is so much better (even does more damage, if you have enough strength) than archery with the -1- exception: archery has a longer range.  You don't lose your weapon (mostly), you stumble auto-flee critters to the ground, giving you time to approach and attack, and if you get attacked while wielding a throwing weapon, you're not at such a huge disadvantage, since most throwing weapons are at least decent in hand-to-hand combat and you can wield something else in your other hand (this advantage doesn't apply to shooters wielding crossbows, obviously).

Anyway.../rant.

[Tamarin]

I have to disagree with you, Synthesis.  A knife has a much higher potential for damage, on average, than an arrow does.  Look at the size of the blade: you're talking anywhere from a half-inch wide to maybe two or three inches wide.  Add to that the length of the blade, which could be anywhere from three to ten inches long or maybe even more.  That is a whole lotta knife to be colliding with your head or neck, and from such a relatively short distance (ie same room, or one room away).

Of course there are some arrows that are going to do more damage, but since you're talking about bigger distances, the arrows have a few things working against them.  As the distance increases, the accurace decreases dramatically.  So does the size of the arrow.  You're simply not going to be able to effectively fire an armor-piercing arrow over three rooms, and with reduced size and weight to accomodate range comes reduced damage.

I agree that from maybe 1 room away, arrows should be able to knock down an opponent after it has been sufficiently injured, but only if it's a heavy arrow landing a head or neck shot.  Anything other than that seems a bit unrealistic to me.

[Kennath]

I have to disagree with you, Synthesis.  A knife has a much higher potential for damage, on average, than an arrow does.  Look at the size of the blade: you're talking anywhere from a half-inch wide to maybe two or three inches wide.  Add to that the length of the blade, which could be anywhere from three to ten inches long or maybe even more.  That is a whole lotta knife to be colliding with your head or neck, and from such a relatively short distance (ie same room, or one room away).

Of course there are some arrows that are going to do more damage, but since you're talking about bigger distances, the arrows have a few things working against them.  As the distance increases, the accurace decreases dramatically.  So does the size of the arrow.  You're simply not going to be able to effectively fire an armor-piercing arrow over three rooms, and with reduced size and weight to accomodate range comes reduced damage.

I agree that from maybe 1 room away, arrows should be able to knock down an opponent after it has been sufficiently injured, but only if it's a heavy arrow landing a head or neck shot.  Anything other than that seems a bit unrealistic to me.

Tamarin, want me to get my recurve bow and shoot you with it from down the street? I garuntee you that you aren't going to walk away without yelling some curses and limping.

[Larrath]

A knife has a much higher potential for damage, on average, than an arrow does.

I don't think that's true.  Even though we're talking stone and not steel, with generally crappy bows, arrows typically strike with much more force than knives do.

I would seriously like ranged weapons to be able to hit other people in the room, particularly when someone is fighting or subduing someone.  With city or indoor rooms, arrows and throwing knives should also be able to hit any PC or NPC in the room other than the shooter and maybe people that are guarding him.  Desert rooms could be limited just for combat, or only strike random targets during very windy days.

It's just beyond lame when you're fighting a raptor and someone is 'helping' by showering both of you with arrows.  That's not helping, that's completely insane!

[Tamarin]

Tamarin, want me to get my recurve bow and shoot you with it from down the street? I garuntee you that you aren't going to walk away without yelling some curses and limping.

Bring it on, cowboy.

[Lohan]

Tamarin,
look to history for examples of what works and what doesn't. Like The English longbow, and the crossbow. They could of made knives tp throw enmass (however exspensive it would of been), but the bow was chosen. Why,because of the greater range and damage potential to a combatant. The english longbow was the machine gun of the 14th century.

Your right, T an arrow might not knock you down, but I sure as shit know I'd fall down with a two and a half foot shaft in my chest.

"The wound measured three inches long by two inches wide and six inches deep"
-E.G. Heath, The Grey Goose Wing, (Berkshire: Ospray Publishing Ltd., 1971), pp. 98-100.

Can you throw a knife upto 300FPS?
Can you throw it an average of the length of a football field?
Can you throw a knife and take down a Bear ?

Just look to history to provide answers.

However it would be cool as shit to see a whole bunch of knives at each other IG

KNIFE FIGHT! KNIFE FIGHT!
Several patrons begin to fling knives at each other with alacrity, laughing and giggling as they do so.

[Tamarin]

The English longbow was used for an entirely different purpose.  It was for large scale warfare, where two opposing armies lined up and took turns trading volleys of arrows.  That is entirely different than an assassin or ranger whipping a knife at close range, or firing an arrow at close range rather than one projectile in a cloud of hundreds.

Let me just say for the record that I -do- think heavier arrows should be able  to knock down opponents.  But you should be within the same range that a knife-thrower would have to be, and that's one room.

[Hexxaex]

Yeah, the longbow should be used less often, unless it's army against army.  The longbow is impractical for hitting just one person.  The idea of the longbow was that you could fire from a long distance into a crowd of soldiers, and you were bound to hit something.  I would like to see people with bad archery skills have the chance of accidentally hitting a person in the room between you and your target if you're going for a 2 room shot.

[RunningMountain]

I'd like to see less arrow-catching warriors.

[Lohan]

so what your saying hexxaex and Tamarin is these guys NEVER hunted or that they had two bows?

What about japanese Archery?

[Tamarin]

Yes, the common soldier probably didn't hunt.  Being a soldier was his job, if he wasn't a farmer or peasant or something like that.  Hunting was largely a luxury afforded to kings and nobility, once some minor division of labor started to happen.

From what I've studied, archers carried there bow, wore some light armor, and also had a shortsword or other sidearm to defend themselves in the case they had to enter into melee combat.

As soon as the two armies collided hand to hand, the archers got the hell out of there.

What I am saying is that in terms of armageddon, most of the players have no use for a British-style longbow, because they're built for range and not accuracy.  They just aren't good hunting bows.  For that, you'd need a medium to short range bow that is very accurate and also powerful.  These are around, of course...Go to pretty much any archery store in game and you're bound to find an appropriate bow.  Now whether or not the bow actually has a coded effect on the damage you can do to a target...I don't know.

[Hexxaex]

Sure, kyudo could be a practical method, but we don't know that Zalanthans thought that up yet.  I'm saying that the majority of hunters should or would use something more practical, like a shortbow or crossbow.  I've never done archery like the Japanese have, so I'm not exactly sure of how easy or hard it is.  Yes, kyudo now considered, it might be in use.

At least stop making your dwarves use longbows, because the bow is taller than they are.

[Sokotra]

I'd like to see less arrow-catching warriors.

I can catch arrows?  Cool.. I'll keep that in mind.

A good fail when a projectile is hurled into another room should realistically have a chance of hitting others.  The chances of this happening would be pretty low unless there were alot of people in the room... obviously the more people, the higher the chance... even moreso in city-rooms, I imagine.

As far as the thrown weapons that knock people down and stuff... I think it is fairly realistic if it hits you in the right spot.  I imagine you'd likely stumble if you were hopping along and a knife hits you in the arse.

But I think certain weapons would have more of a chance of doing that... like spears and bows that are made for power.  The 'bolo' is also a weapon that I think should be much more likely to trip people up.

Overall, I think alot of the weapons in the game should be tweaked and maybe alot of them given their own little advantages/disadvantages.  I've seen certain weapons like javelins, whips, and mancatchers and other weird stuff that either don't seem to really work right or should be given a little bit of a special 'use' option to make things more interesting.  Nothing overwhelmingly powerful or anything like that... but just something that actually allows you to use the weapon how it was meant to be used.  I think think there are some that already have this implemented.. but very few.

[Ghost]

Bows/crossbows should not be tweaked in my opinion.

If you think an arrow bolt can make someone stumble, then a hit in melee should also have a chance to knock you down.  Same arguement.  

Besides, it is not only the speed of the missile that deals the damage.  The momentum (which is mass X velocity), the shape of the arrow (the pressure on the edges as it pierces into the body), the durability (the surface tension and finally the width, or rather, cross section of the weapon are all counted for this.  So just because the arrow flies faster, so it has a better chance of knocking down does not hold much water.  A knife can have a better momentum than an arrow, and thus has a better chance of knocking someone down.

Also, archery in game, to my observation, is already powerful enough without any tweaks.  With a little buffed up skill, and a couple of arrows, you can make most people meet their mantis head, I think that is enough.  And comparing with another non-magickal mass damage skills, archery has very little delay.
I would say, it is good as it is.

[X-D]

First, I agree with Ghost, archery is plenty powerful in game.

Second, somebody said that an arrow is 10x faster then a thrown knife, this, is incorrect. Even if I'm using my 90lbs compound, the arrows only reach about 250mph, where as a thrown knife or axe reaches between 60 and 90mph.

In game, as far as I've ever seen, thrown items only knock down on a head hit, this would be consistant for a low speed object being thrown, specialy considering that the mass of just about any thrown item is 3-6 times the mass of an arrow.

[keithor]

Though I doubt I'm in the majority I'll still throw my opinion on the heap.  I would say, if anything, to remove the knock down on thrown weapons (except maybe spears).  I don't see a 3lb knife, even on a headshot, being more likely to knock someone down than a hit from a club.  I know *I* would be much more likely to fall from being bashed with a baseball bat.  I knife in the head? Likely to bounce off and give me a headache, maybe a small cut unless it gets me perfectly in the eye or something.  Thrown weapons already have the advantage of being reusable.

I'd just like to add I have a small amount of experience with throwing knives and it's EXTREMELY hard to get one to hit properly.  Maybe make newbie throwers have a 50% chance of hitting with the blunt end for less damage.

I would support having melee leg strikes have a chance of knocking someone down.

[Fragmented]

Just to clarify on something, it doesn't take a neck or a head hit with a thrown weapon to knock them down. I've hit a foreleg on a duskhorn, a claw on a tandu, all kinds of things and knocked targets down.

Secondly, I have been told by a helper, though I can't say I've actually experienced it personally, that someone with archery high enough -can- knock down something with an arrow hit.

[Arabian Nights]

Just to clarify on something, it doesn't take a neck or a head hit with a thrown weapon to knock them down. I've hit a foreleg on a duskhorn, a claw on a tandu, all kinds of things and knocked targets down.

You are correct. I had a pc that was very good with throwing weapons and knocked things down every single time he tried to throw at them and hit. It doesn't take a hit in a certain location just to knock them down.

[X-D]

Well, I stand corrected on the head shot with thrown then. Simply what I remembered...Course, I do know that strength plays a part as well as skill on
if you get knockdown or not.  

Though I doubt I'm in the majority I'll still throw my opinion on the heap. I would say, if anything, to remove the knock down on thrown weapons (except maybe spears). I don't see a 3lb knife, even on a headshot, being more likely to knock someone down than a hit from a club. I know *I* would be much more likely to fall from being bashed with a baseball bat. I knife in the head? Likely to bounce off and give me a headache, maybe a small cut unless it gets me perfectly in the eye or something. Thrown weapons already have the advantage of being reusable.

Now, this is a point when you have to remember that it is a fantesy game.

Somebody find a Mul/halfgiant/dwarf or very high skilled other race to throw a two pound hard thing at his head...in real life, at oh, lets say, 70mph.

A baseball weighs what, less then a pound I think, and if one strikes you in the head at even 50mph I'm betting it causes you to stumble some...if not knocks you down our out.

I've seen a baseball hit somebody in the head only once IRL, it was about 80mph and he was wearing a helmet and was still knocked out cold.

[Angela Christine]

I want a mul or half-giant that carries a modified siege crossbow like Detrius the troll has (see Discworld novels for more information).  It can fire a giant siege bolt capable of punching through stone walls, or a bundle of a hundred modified bolts that tend to shatter into thousands of flying fragments and spontaniously burst into flame mid-flight due to the forces involved, making it the ultimate crowd control weapon.

When  Mr. Safety Catch is off, Mr. Crossbow is not your friend.


Angela Christine

[Synthesis]

Okay, people keep comparing apples to oranges here, and think they're being clever.

1) Sure, if a baseball hits you in the head at 90mph, you're going to get knocked the fuck out.  What happens if an -arrow- hits you in the head at 200mph? It's probably going to send a nice chunk of your brain screaming out the exit wound.

2) Yes, if a mul or a half-giant throws something at you, it's going to hurt very, very badly.  The code already reflects this, as I pointed out.  However, if a mul or a half-giant shoots you with a bow and an arrow that are large enough to reflect the fact that they are incredibly strong, again, it's going to hurt much, much worse than whatever they threw at you.  (Unless it was  friggin' boulder or something that wouldn't travel very far anyway. I'm limiting the discussion to regular throwing weapons.)

3) Getting hit with an arrow doesn't make you stumble to the ground, ever.  Unless it brings you to critical condition and you -crumple- to the ground.

4) Yes, archery can do vicious damage.  But throw can do as much or more, which negates any supposed damage advantage.  I've been shot by one of the best rangers in the game from 1 room away (The Bushman, you scary son of a bitch) and it hammered me for about 60hp.  Yeah, that hurt...but I've had a throwing knife hit my fricking -leg- before for 70hp.  That arrow nailed me right in the neck.  Now imagine how much more damage that knife would've done if it had been a -good- throw -and- a strong throw.

5) Another advantage of throwing weapons that I didn't cover in my original:  the wind is -never- blowing too strongly to prevent throwing a weapon from 1 room away.  In my above throwing example, I got hit from 1 room away during a blinding sandstorm.

[Kennath]

This is what i'd like to see: while HP STA and STU all clutter your prompt, add shock. Most everything kills through shock. Thats why if you shoot someone who is insane/high he'll keep running out you like nothing unless you hit something vital. I've seen police reports on the internet about it all the time with methheads chargeing at people and takeing a few bullets. Arrows had the same factor, the caused pain and even greater blood loss. Swords could kill this way too. Why do you think people faint? Lose consciousness in torture of non-vital areas? Blunt items may knock you out, but that arrow is gonna make you bleed. And characters max shock could increase with the more insane they became Your strength sux, your dex rox, your wisdom is horrible, your endurance is lance armstrong, your insanity is above average  :twisted:

[elvenchipmunk]

To the Original Poster, I like the second idea more than the first.

But, before something like this is put in (not saying it's going to be put in, just saying) I say archery be made a little...better. Now, I know that if you get really good at it, you can do some real damage, but I also think that if an arrow is shot at you, no matter if it's going 50 mph or 100 mph, it's going to stick in you, and hurt you. I think arrows must do 2 or 3 damage when you start out at the moment, and I'd like to see this changed, even if just by a bit.

I just realized that was kind of a derail, so, to sum up, the second idea would be neat, because it would be very realistic. You never know when the people fighting might suddenly take eachother's positions, and that arrow you just shot is heading straight for yiur buddy's back!  

[Delirium]

I just realized that was kind of a derail, so, to sum up, the second idea would be neat, because it would be very realistic. You never know when the people fighting might suddenly take eachother's positions, and that arrow you just shot is heading straight for yiur buddy's back!  :P

The code already accounts for the difficulty in accurately aiming at a fighting combatant.

[Maybe42or54]

I've seen three people die from a random dart to the head.
And I've been killed once from some shooting at me and running. Took about six shots with my regen rate.

[Armaddict]

Didn't look too deeply at this thread, because I think archery is pretty good right now, but I had a couple ideas of my own.  If they were already suggested and I missed them, I apologize.

Idea 1:
If you are currently 'taking aim at your target', and they leave that room, either heading to an adjacent room that takes them out of your sight, or towards you in a charge move...can't the arrow go ahead and be released, even if at a penalty?  Just kind of a peeve of mine when I'm aiming at something and wait for the delay, then suddenly get 'that person isn't there' or whatever the message is.  And in the latter case...come on, a guy with a sword charges me, and suddenly I can't fire anymore because he's now in the same room as me, rather than in a separate one?  Unless he has mad zig-zagging skills, that should be a surefire way to get a shot.

Idea 2:
'shoot west far'  'shoot west near'

If there's a group of PC's in an area, can we just fire an arrow in that direction, with the chance of hitting any or none of them?  Just thought it'd be sweet for volleys, rather than forcing a group of archers to insta-kill a pc at a time with uber-accurate volleys.  I dunno, thought it sounded more real to at least have this option.  Useful for if you aren't sure what the hell target to go for, but you still want to be shooting at 'em.

Feel free to 'shoot these down'!  Ahahahahah!  That's a kneeslapper.

Sorry.

[Maybe42or54]

The second one has merit, but what if you are just shooting a warning arrow to tell your friend the enemy is coming?

watch west
l e
You see a shitload of ready to kill pcs.

shoot arrow west

Your friend crumples to the ground as the arrows goes through his eye!

think Fuck, now I gotta set off the trap.

[Armaddict]

Oh yeah.

I forgot there are never stray arrows.  Ever.

[Ghost]

Those saying throw is more powerful than archery:  Have you checked it recently?  Or is it from old times?  I am asking because I had a character who was (to my observation) pretty high in throw, yet I could make really little damages from time to time.  And I do not remember dropping someone to dead with a few throwing knives.
There was also another player from my time, he was pretty skilled in throw too.  And yet, never again have I seen him doing any scary damage.
By scary damage I mean 35+.  These are all recent, I mean, like 5-6 months ago from now.

But arrow, I have seen rangers doing 60+ with a single arrow.  I have seen people drop with one or two arrows.  Two arrows would mean death to almost any PC in the game.

I am thinking throw is tweaked sometime ago, maybe that is the case?  Because I think I would notice the beauty of the damage with throw with that char of mine, but I did not.

[elvenchipmunk]

I just realized that was kind of a derail, so, to sum up, the second idea would be neat, because it would be very realistic. You never know when the people fighting might suddenly take eachother's positions, and that arrow you just shot is heading straight for yiur buddy's back!  

The code already accounts for the difficulty in accurately aiming at a fighting combatant.

I didn't know that. If you mean the code makes you miss more frequently when the target is currently fighting, then that's fine. But I meant the arrow actually hitting someone other than the intended target. Maybe you actually did mean that, and if so, then that's really neat. Either way is fine, of course.

[Maybe42or54]

Those saying throw is more powerful than archery:  Have you checked it recently?  

Not recently but a few months ago, I threw a dart at someone for "Training purposes" and it knocked the dwarf out and he was at "does not look well."