Archery - Initiating Combat

[elvenchipmunk]

After reviewing the archery helpfile, I stumbled upon a question I'd long forgotten.

Why, O players and staff of Armageddon Mud, does shooting/throwing at someone in the same room as you initiate hand-to-hand combat? From recent debates, I've come to the conclusion that rooms are supposed to be quite large in some cases, yet for some reason you are right next to the character you shoot at after shooting.

Would it not make sense for you to be able to continue shooting, and only stop once your 'opponent' attacks at you and combat is initiated by them?

Maybe this auto-initiative on the archer's part is to represent the other guy attack them...but that don't make no sense.

The other argument I had goes along the lines of the archer actually initiating the hand-to-hand. But, if you're an archer, why would you possibly want to charge in after shooting only one arrow?

Anyways, that's what I could think of for now. I normally only idea these things, which I've already done, but I thought it would be interesting to gather any reason as to why it is this way currently.

(After writing the entire post)
I've decided to make a poll, just cuz, to compile your answers.

[EDIT]

BTW, if you think it should stay the way it is, please share (you can if you think the same as me, but I'm more interested to hear the other side)

[jcarter]

I agree. You should manually have to enter combat. I think the same thing should be applied to hostile spells as well.

[spawnloser]

I like it...and jcarter's suggestion that the same apply to certain sorts of offensive spells.

[Hymwen]

It's especially silly when you shoot at someone who is already fighting somebody else... you have to shoot, disengage, shoot, disengage. I can see a tiny hint of a reason why you engage combat after shooting at a static target, so as to not give macro-users with light-speed connections a huge advantage over others, but when the target is fighting someone else, it makes no sense at all.

[elvenchipmunk]

It's especially silly when you shoot at someone who is already fighting somebody else... you have to shoot, disengage, shoot, disengage. I can see a tiny hint of a reason why you engage combat after shooting at a static target, so as to not give macro-users with light-speed connections a huge advantage over others, but when the target is fighting someone else, it makes no sense at all.

Disclaimer - This post is not directed at you, Hymwen. Know that I agree with you, and am just arguing the point you made about why they do this because of macros.

My argument to this argument is...
Go one room away. You can do this at the exact same speed. People spamming pull quiver;shoot tek is not fixed by auto-initiating combat.

And so everyone who might be thinking this knows, pretty much the only time I would to use archery while in the same room is, like Hymwen said, when others are attacking and you're providing cover fire. If you're an archer...why would you want to fight (I think I'm reiterating myself at this point. That's my cue to leave)

[Jherlen]

I always thought shooting at somebody who's in combat should give a chance to hit the person they're fighting, anyway.

[elvenchipmunk]

Edit - I'm an asshole occasionally.

Nothing wrong with what you said, Jherlen.

[Lazloth]

Maybe. There are plenty of threads on that. Not to be a (inside joke!) penis, but stay on topic please.

You want the ability to stand in the same room with a mob, pepper it with arrows, knives or spells, and have it not react?

[spawnloser]

Actually, Lazloth, me personally, I'd like to see the mob run away.  I just think that shooting something shouldn't be an initiator of combat.

[elvenchipmunk]

Yes. Now, this argument could be split into two views. The first is whether the target is not engaged in combat, the second is if they are.

Argument 1) This one could definitely be argued. It is not realistic for you to stand close to someone, shoot at them several times and not have them react. I agree. Auto-attack is not the answer though, I think.

Argument 2) If the target is already fighting someone, why should -your- character start combat with -them-? The target is already engaged. I see no reason why an archer shouldn't be able to pepper the target with arrows without a reaction.

So along those two lines then, as pointed out by Lazloth, what are your thoughts?

[elvenchipmunk]

Maybe. There are plenty of threads on that. Not to be a (inside joke!) penis, but stay on topic please.

You want the ability to stand in the same room with a mob, pepper it with arrows, knives or spells, and have it not react?

Please keep in mind this thread is about archery as well. Not necessarily magick. That could be discussed as well I suppose, though I'd rather focus on archery (bows, crossbows and slings/slingshots).

[Lazloth]

Actually, Lazloth, me personally, I'd like to see the mob run away.  I just think that shooting something shouldn't be an initiator of combat.

I'd like to see it flee if it made sense, or attack [if it made sense] .. not stand there like a statue (as OP suggests).

Further, I'd extend that to all ranged conflict (meaning, in adjacent rooms).

[InsertCleverNameHere]

You want the ability to stand in the same room with a mob, pepper it with arrows, knives or spells, and have it not react?

I don't think (could be wrong) that's the point exactly. Like quite a few said, if what you're attacking is already attacking something else, it makes sense that if you're handy with a bow more than your fists, or knives, you'd stand back a bit and pop off arrows when you get a shot.

It does make less sense than if you're going after some NPC beasty that is standing stationary, not in combat, and just going to flint arrows. It would make sense it would either attack, or flee. But that in itself is hardly taking much more liberties than when someone stands 1 room away and pops off 20 arrows or throws 20 knives at the same ritikki, to have it never move.

So maybe the exception shouldn't be archery never initiates combat, but using archery on something already in combat doesn't.

[Hymwen]

You want the ability to stand in the same room with a mob, pepper it with arrows, knives or spells, and have it not react?

No, NPCs should either flee or attack, depending on their type. But I'd also like to see the implementation of a "3-second charge delay" for anyone attacking anyone in wilderness rooms. That's something I've often thought made sense.

[Lazloth]

Argument 2) If the target is already fighting someone, why should -your- character start combat with -them-? The target is already engaged. I see no reason why an archer shouldn't be able to pepper the target with arrows without a reaction.

Conceded.

[Eternal]

As long as the arrows have a decent chance of hitting both combatants, I'm game.

Lord Templar Hard Nose says, dodging an arrow:
"Didn't see that one coming.  Kill him."

[elvenchipmunk]

As long as the arrows have a decent chance of hitting both combatants, I'm game.

Lord Templar Hard Nose says, dodging an arrow:
"Didn't see that one coming.  Kill him."

:idea: And by a decent chance, there should be more of a chance to hit the intended target, and this chance will rise as skill is gained.

[Beldin]

Just my two cents:

First I'll address the problem I see with throwing a weapon at, or shooting at an engaged fighter.

Being somewhat of a noob yet, I just finally played my first character that used a projectile weapon.  I was actually very surprized the first time I emoted running around to the back of one of the combatants in a fight and tossed a knife into their back only to promptly find myself in hand to hand combat.  For someone in combat like that, it seems to me that they would have to disengage from their current fight and engage the second attacker.  To just allow them to immediately attack seems to go against the way the fighting system is set up.  

When a character is fighting another character they are engaged in a fight and any actions other than fighting cause them to lose some ground in the fight (ie: picking up dropped weapons, failing to flee, etc).  So, shouldn't attempting to switch to an attacker, who is obviously attacking from a distance, also bring about some kind of penalty, or even require a specific action from the character, PC or NPC, to move from one attacker to another, offering their tender parts to the initial attacker?  Also, it seems that there should be some sort of delay for them to both disengage from their first attacker and get to the second attacker, who attacked from a distance dispite being in the same room.


Now, as to the shooting/throwing at someone in the same room, which I see as a smaller problem than the above.  If you are going to shoot at someone in the same room as you, you are obviously not going to stand right next to them while doing so, you are going to stand as far away as possible in the given circumstances.  Since you are standing at a distance it seems like it should take a little time for the other person to react and make a move toward you, maybe long enough to put your bow on your back and at least start to draw a weapon, not really sure on the time it would take.  Really, I'm not entirely sure how to solve this problem other than to put in a delay time in which the person being shot cannot attack as a way to simulate their charge toward their opponent, but allow them to run without having to flee until in hand to hand combat.  I don't think this is a perfect solution though because it would have the same delay if somehow a second shot were loaded and fired durring the delay.


Sorry, kind of long.  [/code]

[jhunter]

I agree something should be done about this. I don't think combat should be started instantly unless one of those involved chooses to begin melee. As far as npcs go, I think it's possible to make it so that -some- will attack when fired upon and others will flee.

I'd also like to add that I think it's unrealistic that those who depend primarily on throwing weapons cannot throw when melee is started. I think one should be able to throw while in melee, concentrating on dodging attacks and tossing a blade when an opening presents itself. (A built-in disadvantage obviously being that you would either have to pack around several throwing weapons and/or try and retrieve fallen ones while being attacked.) Actually, with disengage working the way it does now, I believe all we'd have to do to correct this is make it so that throwing a weapon didn't initiate melee as well.

[Beldin]

To be honest, no offense, but I don't think that throwing a weapon should be avaliable while actually in melee.  I don't see how it would be possible, while defending yourself from someone with a big nasty sword or something, to mannage to find any kind of opportunity to throw a knife without leaving yourself wide open for an attack, and probably leaving your arm sticking out there for them to hack at.  I just think that it doesn't make sense that you get attacked immediately after throwing a knife, especially if the person you are throwing at is already in combat.

[jstorrie]

There are martial artists who include throwing weapons in their melee options on Earth. This isn't a simple thing to do, though, and I think there should be some harsh penalties on it, including but not limited to: provoking an 'attack of opportunity', penalties to hit with the thrown weapon, worrisome command lag, etc. If someone is ultra badass, it's not unreasonable for them to pull this off, and if someone's not it's not unreasonable for them to get their arm chopped off if they try. Best of both worlds.

[Beux(Guest)]

Just a thought, and sorry, I didn't read the entire thread.

I think it would be kinda cool if firing at an NPC in the same room, had the effect of doing one of two things, either a lag of maybe 10 seconds or so 'as the NPC runs towards the archer' then combat initiates (archer can keep firing) or the NPC turns and runs away. It would be a nice suprise I guess? But the wait would make up for the fact that an archer would be firing from at least a small distance, and it certainly wouldn't want to intitiate melee, so it would have to be the NPC initiating and time should be allowed for them needing to 'get' to the archer. I mean, isn't the whole benefit of archery the fact you can rain down arrows on your opponent before they can even touch you?

For PC's it would be entirely up to the PC on how to act, nothing would be started automatically? Can that be done?

Also, I'm sure I read somewhere that firing into other rooms gives you a 0 percent chance of hitting something? But can serve as a warning shot? Is this true,  if not I'm obviously a little confused - but it would be nice to know how it really is.

[Halaster]

I like the idea of a type of flag/setting better.  A setting that lets you decide if you auto-respond to being the target of archery/spells.

[Ghost]

I like the idea of a type of flag/setting better.  A setting that lets you decide if you auto-respond to being the target of archery/spells.

Yes.  This sounds perfect.  But then, everybody would rather prefer setting their flag to autoattack the attacker, to get themselves, since it looks like setting it off means you will not respond to archery automatically, and there is no gain from it as well.

However, if there can be a benefit/loss on both flags somehow, that would be great.

[Yokunama]

I like the idea of a type of flag/setting better.  A setting that lets you decide if you auto-respond to being the target of archery/spells.

Yes.  This sounds perfect.  But then, everybody would rather prefer setting their flag to autoattack the attacker, to get themselves, since it looks like setting it off means you will not respond to archery automatically, and there is no gain from it as well.

Ghosty beat me to it.  :?