Change To Archery

[Is Friday]

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.

[Riev]

There is an inherent increased miss chance when backstabbing/sapping someone in combat, and you are right next to them (presumably).

Archery/sling use/crossbow should behave in a similar fashion.

[valeria]

Totally. Have it always have a chance to screw up, but the chance is increased for lower archery skill, higher wind speed, and more rooms away.

[kahuna]

I'd be okay with this at at novice/apprentice levels but once archery reaches advanced/master I have to say not in favor. These skill levels represent the pinnacle of achievement and archery is the equalizer outdoors and between melee strength based characters. This nerf would damage the balance of the game in that regard. Once someone has the highest levels achievable I think they could factor in wind and 'aim-off' which is what you do with a rifle sights that aren't zeroed. You can still hit in wind with archery as well, there are skilled archers here on earth that can do it so in a fantasy setting I'm all for suspending the imagination a bit so we don't ruin archery-based characters.

[Delirium]

From my experience, these negatives already exist.

[Is Friday]

I'd be okay with this at at novice/apprentice levels but once archery reaches advanced/master I have to say not in favor. These skill levels represent the pinnacle of achievement and archery is the equalizer outdoors and between melee strength based characters. This nerf would damage the balance of the game in that regard. Once someone has the highest levels achievable I think they could factor in wind and 'aim-off' which is what you do with a rifle sights that aren't zeroed. You can still hit in wind with archery as well, there are skilled archers here on earth that can do it so in a fantasy setting I'm all for suspending the imagination a bit so we don't ruin archery-based characters.

We're talking about moving targets who are surrounded with other moving targets. Modern bows have this accuracy but animal gut string bows? C'mon, now.

edit:
Also, accuracy should suffer tremendously against a single target who is moving/engaged because of this. Bows can hit groups of targets from a distance, sure, but one guy from far away? Seems silly.

[kahuna]

I'd be okay with this at at novice/apprentice levels but once archery reaches advanced/master I have to say not in favor. These skill levels represent the pinnacle of achievement and archery is the equalizer outdoors and between melee strength based characters. This nerf would damage the balance of the game in that regard. Once someone has the highest levels achievable I think they could factor in wind and 'aim-off' which is what you do with a rifle sights that aren't zeroed. You can still hit in wind with archery as well, there are skilled archers here on earth that can do it so in a fantasy setting I'm all for suspending the imagination a bit so we don't ruin archery-based characters.

We're talking about moving targets who are surrounded with other moving targets. Modern bows have this accuracy but animal gut string bows? C'mon, now.

I really don't like to get into a whole 'what's possible' in a fantasy world discussion so I'll just say I don't want to see it from a balance perspective. Archery is scary as well it should be. Nerfing this would make melee warrior-types far too powerful in my opinion.

[Is Friday]

It is not taking away an archer's ability to sneak up on someone and pew pew them while they are unsuspecting. This just adds friendly fire/inaccuracy to archery death squads, which imo is a good thing.

[mansa]

I feel there could be a multiplier applied based on the distance from the target if they were in combat.

Like

If in combat with people -15%
+
If one room away -10%
If two rooms away -20%
If three rooms away -30%

Plus Crit fail rolls to hit anyone in the room

[lostinspace]

I'm 50/50, lost like 1/3 of my characters to archery.
My worry is that people will just brawl each other to be arrow resistant.

"Try and punch me Runner", uh oh, Runner died to arrows aimed at me, at least the 1/3 that didn't automiss and hit th ground.

If you are having trouble with archers strong your troops, maybe set up positions to intercept archers, or train some archers of your own to fire back.

[Is Friday]

I feel there could be a multiplier applied based on the distance from the target if they were in combat.

Like

If in combat with people -15%
+
If one room away -10%
If two rooms away -20%
If three rooms away -30%

Plus Crit fail rolls to hit anyone in the room

I like it.

[Inks]

I'm 50/50, lost like 1/3 of my characters to archery.
My worry is that people will just brawl each other to be arrow resistant.

"Try and punch me Runner", uh oh, Runner died to arrows aimed at me, at least the 1/3 that didn't automiss and hit th ground.

This would not be a viable strategy, unless dying is your preferred tactic.

[kahuna]

I'm 50/50, lost like 1/3 of my characters to archery.
My worry is that people will just brawl each other to be arrow resistant.

"Try and punch me Runner", uh oh, Runner died to arrows aimed at me, at least the 1/3 that didn't automiss and hit th ground.

If you are having trouble with archers strong your troops, maybe set up positions to intercept archers, or train some archers of your own to fire back.

Nobody is going to do that.

People need to take into consideration silly things like fighting 2-3 npcs while hunting. Now all of a sudden raiders or anyone with archery gets a massive nerf because you're fighting a few scorpions?

The problem with this idea is that it is fundamentally flawed by implementing real world consequences in a game world. What's next? Making it so if you're in a room flagged with rocks you can trip on a rock and fall down during a melee? I'm cataloging this the same way, it's absurd to implement these kinds of things into a game because it ruins the game play. Melee combat characters don't have random disadvantages/advantages because of the conditions of the battle (except the group bonus which makes sense) so why should archery be singled out?

[Bogre]

I would say that it makes sense.

Have it modified by skill - if you're the master archer of the western wastes, yeah, you might be able to snipe that person out of combat. If not, expect your shots to be dangerous to your allies or more inaccurate.

Personally, I also think Arm needs some sort of group command - where you could type assess and get a sense of how injured people are. Someone firing into a group might see that arrow disperse, again, dependent on someone's archery skill.

Taking cover from arrows should also be an appropriate thing in rooms with walls/etc. Gives you a chance to avoid some shots, but hampers your ability to move.

[Dar]

Don't you already have a penalty when you're fighting someone? Maybe it should just be increased per each new person participating in the fight?

Maybe -2% per person in the room. -5% per person in the room 'attacking' the target.

[kahuna]

I'm fine with a strategic 'cover' command would make large scale battles more interesting. As I said I'm pretty much against trying to code in consequences to skills from worldly factors. If you go down that path theres just too much to consider.

[Cordon]

Possibility of making a shovel somthing you can use to dig a "hole or trench to make cover in an open area. Delay before and a huge movement lag when leaving said hole/trench.

[Dar]

Personally I think armor should be extra protective against arrows, especially long distance. Aside the whole arrow going through the helmet eye slits, bow arrows were barely a nuisance for heavily armored Knights. Partly why crossbows were so much more worriesome.

Bows 2-3 room range, but 25% damage reduction for firing at 2 leagues and 50% for 3.   While crossbows lose accuracy at 2 leagues, but are Armor piercing and deal full damage.

[kahuna]

Personally I think armor should be extra protective against arrows, especially long distance. Aside the whole arrow going through the helmet eye slits, bow arrows were barely a nuisance for heavily armored Knights. Partly why crossbows were so much more worriesome.

Bows 2-3 room range, but 25% damage reduction for firing at 2 leagues and 50% for 3.   While crossbows lose accuracy at 2 leagues, but are Armor piercing and deal full damage.

Do we really want to go down the route of comparing full steel plate armor to a fantasy game? While I am all for interesting discussions of mechanics, gameplay, how to implement skills realistically, I think this is a slippery slope to go down when talking about whether a key skill in the game should be nerfed or not.

[mansa]

Personally I think armor should be extra protective against arrows, especially long distance. Aside the whole arrow going through the helmet eye slits, bow arrows were barely a nuisance for heavily armored Knights. Partly why crossbows were so much more worriesome.

Bows 2-3 room range, but 25% damage reduction for firing at 2 leagues and 50% for 3.   While crossbows lose accuracy at 2 leagues, but are Armor piercing and deal full damage.

Do we really want to go down the route of comparing full steel plate armor to a fantasy game? While I am all for interesting discussions of mechanics, gameplay, how to implement skills realistically, I think this is a slippery slope to go down when talking about whether a key skill in the game should be nerfed or not.

Question 1:
Should hitting a target get harder the further you are away from them?  (Aka success chance)

Question 2:
Should doing damage to a target get decreased the further away from the target you are?   (Aka damage over distance)

Question 3:
Should the number of players in a single room affect the success rate of hitting that target?  (Aka hitting a templar alone vs hitting a templar in a group of Byn and half-giant soldiers, or hitting a target in a busy bar from the street or rooftop above?)

[Veselka]

I think all of these play towards a more realistic approach to an otherwise quite deadly, low-risk skill. There are +/- to most other deadly skills like this, such as backstab, sap, most magic, bash, disarm, and so on. The only seeming difficulty with Archery is a long delay, the expense of arrows, and the time needed to master the skill. Once at master, you are a pretty formidable force of death, particularly against already engaged individuals another room or two over.

I think changes like these would be good. Making it difficult to pick a target out of a melee of more than 2 people, a chance of hitting the wrong target. I don't necessarily think the further away a target is, the more difficult it should become, but I do think weather should have more of a drastic effect on the efficacy of shooting over distance. I believe that was already tweaked in recent years, and I haven't had the chance to see it myself.

[Riev]

Just to keep everyone on track:

I believe the original intention here is "If firing into a melee of people, from a distance of what seems like a few hundred feet, you get a flat miss chance".
This is already code in place for backstab and sap, two skills used when you are inches from the intended target.

[Lizzie]

Question 1:
Should hitting a target get harder the further you are away from them?  (Aka success chance)

I think this is already covered with 3-room bows vs. 2-room bows vs. 1-room bows vs. melee. A 2-room bow *cannot* hit, at all, from 3 rooms away. You can't even shoot the arrow, codedly. You get a message saying you're too far or there's no target in that direction, can't remember which.

Question 2:
Should doing damage to a target get decreased the further away from the target you are?   (Aka damage over distance)

I actually think it should be the opposite. If you're using a 3-room bow, that bow should be most efficient at 3 rooms away. If you try to use it 2 rooms away, it's efficacy should be reduced. As mentioned in #1 - if you're trying to use a 2-room bow 3 rooms away, it won't work at all so the point on that is moot.

Question 3:
Should the number of players in a single room affect the success rate of hitting that target?  (Aka hitting a templar alone vs hitting a templar in a group of Byn and half-giant soldiers, or hitting a target in a busy bar from the street or rooftop above?)

Yes, but with conditions:
If the target is NOT engaged with any combat in the room, they should be an open target, marginally affected or not affected at all by everyone else in the room.
If the target IS engaged in combat in the room, they should be harder to hit from a distance.
Also, if the target IS engaged in combat in the room, a successful hit should have a greater chance of doing more damage, since the target was obviously distracted and his ability to defend himself weakened by multiple opponents. So - less chance of a successful hit, but a successful hit having greater chance of more damage.

[Mercy]

Admittedly, I'm afraid to chime in here because I know next to nothing about how archery code actually works. I have extremely limited experience using it first hand, and have only really been a bystander in terms of watching allies be shot at. I don't want to try to push realism, because I also don't know enough about the equivalence of Arm's archery to real-world archery. And my personal knowledge of real world archery is pretty slim, but still better than what I know of Arm.

With all that preamble. I'd really like to talk purely about game balance. Since there is already a precedent for melee combat causing miss-chance for skills like backstab/sap. It doesn't seem to make sense that ranged combat doesn't have that same miss chance. From a balance perspective I don't see how it makes sense. And if you want to talk about the logic behind it. If the thought process is you can "wait for a clear shot", then shooting into melee should have an increased delay with additional checks that could result in a botched shot, similarly shouldn't the melee skills be given the same opportunity with a greater chance of succeeding at those checks?

To address the other topics that have come up in this thread. It seems........really silly to me that you can spot an archer in the distance. Have a really good/decent idea they're going to shoot you. And have essentially nothing you can do about it, unless you are skilled in shield use and have the necessary defense to go along with it. Being able to hide behind a suitably sized mount while dismounted seems like it would remove all chances of being shot. Yes your mount would take the hits instead. Additionally, hiding behind another PC should be viable as well. I don't think it should make use of the guard skill, and should prompt both players for consent or result in a contested roll. Assuming both players are consenting, the blocker's relative size and ability to defend themselves from arrows should be factors in whether either player is hit. There are also big enough shields for some people to cover either they majority or entirety of their body with. Those should be significant deterrents against arrows. It's very possible I just don't truly understand the current available options or game balance in general, but it seems odd that as best as I can tell there is no counterplay that doesn't require direct and specific skill training short of literally running away as fast as possible.

[Veselka]

Question 1:
Should hitting a target get harder the further you are away from them?  (Aka success chance)

I think this is already covered with 3-room bows vs. 2-room bows vs. 1-room bows vs. melee. A 2-room bow *cannot* hit, at all, from 3 rooms away. You can't even shoot the arrow, codedly. You get a message saying you're too far or there's no target in that direction, can't remember which.

Question 2:
Should doing damage to a target get decreased the further away from the target you are?   (Aka damage over distance)

I actually think it should be the opposite. If you're using a 3-room bow, that bow should be most efficient at 3 rooms away. If you try to use it 2 rooms away, it's efficacy should be reduced. As mentioned in #1 - if you're trying to use a 2-room bow 3 rooms away, it won't work at all so the point on that is moot.

Question 3:
Should the number of players in a single room affect the success rate of hitting that target?  (Aka hitting a templar alone vs hitting a templar in a group of Byn and half-giant soldiers, or hitting a target in a busy bar from the street or rooftop above?)

Yes, but with conditions:
If the target is NOT engaged with any combat in the room, they should be an open target, marginally affected or not affected at all by everyone else in the room.
If the target IS engaged in combat in the room, they should be harder to hit from a distance.
Also, if the target IS engaged in combat in the room, a successful hit should have a greater chance of doing more damage, since the target was obviously distracted and his ability to defend himself weakened by multiple opponents. So - less chance of a successful hit, but a successful hit having greater chance of more damage.

Just FYI, I believe most (if not all) 3 room bows are no more, with exception to half-giant and Mul strength bows. Most of them are 1-2 room bows.

[JohnMichaelHenry]

From my experience, these negatives already exist.

Before I chime in, I'd like to know if this is true.

[Hauwke]

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]

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]

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.

[Riev]

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"

[chrisdcoulombe]

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.

[Heade]

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".

[JohnMichaelHenry]

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.

[Heade]

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.

[kahuna]

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]

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.

[kahuna]

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.

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]

I would love for guard to allow protecting from arrows. It would be a perfect code addition.

[Bebop]

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]

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.

[Heade]

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.

[Brokkr]

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]

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.

[Bogre]

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.

[Bogre]

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.

[Brokkr]

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]

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  ).

[ScramblesForPurchase]

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]

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.

[kahuna]

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.

[Is Friday]

Cover exists in the wilderness. Rocks, trees, ditches, bodies, dunes, etc.

[Jihelu]

Cover exists in the wilderness. Rocks, trees, ditches, bodies, dunes, etc.

Cover also exists in: Laying the fuck down and praying the arrows don't hit you. Which is a solid gamble most of the time.

Though I don't there is a coded advantage to laying down to avoid arrows. If anything you probably get hit more.

[lostinspace]

If you have someone subdued, you should be able to hold them in front of you to stop arrows as well. Might make archers think twice if you got their buddy in front of you.

[Bogre]

Primitive material long range shooting

This seems informative, obviously anecdotal as just one guy shooting a recurve bow with primitive materials. He says, similar to Cal, 30-45 yards is kind of the expected range. And he's trying to hit things at 100 yards with a pretty high arc up - definitely doable, but I don't think you could expect pinpoint accuracy against a moving target. Time to target is fast but seems like 1-2 seconds, which would be feasible for a chance at instinctual ducking behind a shield or shifting to take a protective quarrel to the throat - considering that the reaction time is not just the flight time but the aiming, etc, if that person is visible.

We don't necessarily need to have code reflect reality perfectly, but I think modulating the ability to plunk 5 arrows pinpoint into a single PC over at long ranges over like, 12 seconds would be beneficial, especially if they are surrounded by alert, shield-bearing guards.

[Namino]

Cover exists in the wilderness. Rocks, trees, ditches, bodies, dunes, etc.

Cover also exists in: Laying the fuck down and praying the arrows don't hit you. Which is a solid gamble most of the time.

Though I don't there is a coded advantage to laying down to avoid arrows. If anything you probably get hit more.

Laying down gives you an enormous bonus to avoid ranged attacks. You've likely noticed it yourself even if it didn't register. You shoot a skeet six times and then suddenly start missing your arrows, looking north, and realize the sixth hit knocked him out.

The reason you started missing is because he is now laying down, being unconscious.

[kahuna]

Cover exists in the wilderness. Rocks, trees, ditches, bodies, dunes, etc.

This would require a 'cover' command I think and could check the room for room_flags that would provide such. I don't see there being any cover in a flat desert, salt flats, etc. many areas are flat and barren in zalanthas right? Of course the grey forest would have plenty of cover.

[kahuna]

I think my take away from this thread is the desire to have more strategic combat when dealing with large battles.

[cal]

Right...also, actual IG ranges do not matter as far as, Oh this is 100 feet and that is 1000 feet...what matters is the equivalent. It does not matter that a room away is really 600 yards...because IRL that is an impossible shot...but IG it is not and in fact you can hit your target pretty much every time, So it is the same as optimum RL range 12-30 yards...I am not sure if it is possible to make that more clear.

By Brokkr's comments you should be able to lob arrows at ranges of 3-5 rooms...after all, that is realistic during war. But since we cannot we have to revert back to what I already posted.

Also, as to the OP...I actually would be fine with that...BUT since you want that realism...Then hits need to do FAR more damage. After all, one can kill any land animal in north America with a single arrow/bolt.

Also to Bogre's video. Another reason hunters IRL generally do not like to take shots past around 30 yards is the time to impact...at say 80 yards the sound arrives almost a full second before the arrow, giving the deer LOTS of time to react and changing a fatal shot into a wound, flesh wound or miss.

[Is Friday]

OP doesn't want realism. OP wants archery to have a counter-play against it instead of the one-way street it currently rolls down.

source: I'm the OP.

[PriestlySiren]

Put someone in the center of four people, guarding them. They should be harder to hit. Twelve people, even harder. More than that, it should be super hard. My biggest complaint about the archery code is archery code twinks. If I were an archer sniping someone. I'm watching, I see people guarding them left and right? I'll switch my targets. Because ultimately where code fails, the players should be better.

If someone acts like Stinker McCrazyTwink, however, I'm not going to hesitate in using code against them.

[cal]

I have no issue with being able to defend people against archery. In fact, I think I would be pro protect dude with your body and shield.

I think it would even be rather easy to code...3 people guarding dude, highest guard skill draws the most arrows, after that to hit depends on shield skill, parry skill and defense. I am down with that.

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 am against that 100%. It is totally and completely unrealistic and shows that the person suggesting it has no clue to marksmanship be it archery or otherwise.

[Namino]

I have no issue with being able to defend people against archery. In fact, I think I would be pro protect dude with your body and shield.

I think it would even be rather easy to code...3 people guarding dude, highest guard skill draws the most arrows, after that to hit depends on shield skill, parry skill and defense. I am down with that.

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 am against that 100%. It is totally and completely unrealistic and shows that the person suggesting it has no clue to marksmanship be it archery or otherwise.

You're playing a game where people throw fireballs and kill building sized lizards with bone swordz. This isn't about realism. This is about balance.

The point of this thread is that archery, an already very strong (probably strongest) mundane skill, becomes supremely unmanageable in certain scenarios -- such as when people are firing into a melee from the next room over. People firing at range with archery without a melee are already incredibly difficult to handle, so much so that kite-archery has become the staple meta in Armageddon. When you further complicate it by locking your targets into position by conscripting them into a brawl before your archer begins to spam fire arrows from the next room, it becomes ever more unbalanced.

That being said the staff have explicitly stated balance isn't a primary objective of the current staffing group. That armageddon is not meant to be balanced. So perhaps this all is moot.

[MeTekillot]

if it's not supposed to be balanced then why do mundane extended subguilds cost 2 karma

[najdorf]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE

Nice test if you want to consider improving effects of armor vs archery. There are no metal breastplates, but also no metal arrowheads, so could be comparable.

Summary: even the best arrow shot from most powerful bow could not penetrate through this french armor.

[Hauwke]

Also, keep in mind.

Most of these armors made of shell or chitin are thicker than that thin steel plate, probably improving arrow stoppage by shear volume of material.

[cal]

Najdorf, That is against steel and not in the least bit compareable. There are plenty of videos online of arrows/bolts verses other types of armor as well. Arrows defeat nearly all of them with ease, Some of them are even modern materials and designs. And since metal, iron. steel actually do exist in game...one must assume like properties.

Namino, What I posted was about balance. I contend that Archery is NOT over powered, in fact, it is drastically UNDER powered IE balanced for current methods. If more methods of defense are added then the effectiveness of archery would need be increased.

[Riev]

3 pages, and its less about "balance" or "realism" and seems to be "I like archery don't touch it" and "Archery is stupid can we work on it".

For what its worth, I think Namino hit the nail on the head. Armageddon's current C-level officers are not interested in 'balancing' the game, or making it more realistic. It has been the current administration's goal to offer more player interaction with less direct staff involvement. They aren't likely to care that archery is imbalanced, as killing a PC is player interaction that doesn't require staff input.

The OP was strictly about "Should there be a negative to firing into a melee where 2 or more people are moving in likely erratic patterns?

[Heade]

Should there be a negative to firing into a melee where 2 or more people are moving in likely erratic patterns?

Melee combat isn't really that erratic. If it is, it's generally over quickly. If you watch 2 people fighting at that range, they generally will mirror each other's footwork in order to protect themselves and stay at an optimal range. So if 1 combatant circles left, the other also circles left as to stay on the opposite side of the "circle" to him.

This phenomena is likely why sport fencing occurs on a piste(or narrow track), as to limit side to side movement, force competitors to focus on parries rather than dodges, and keep action going since circling has a tendency to make melee combat a bit dull.

[Riev]

Should there be a negative to firing into a melee where 2 or more people are moving in likely erratic patterns?

Melee combat isn't really that erratic. If it is, it's generally over quickly. If you watch 2 people fighting at that range, they generally will mirror each other's footwork in order to protect themselves and stay at an optimal range. So if 1 combatant circles left, the other also circles left as to stay on the opposite side of the "circle" to him.

This phenomena is likely why sport fencing occurs on a piste(or narrow track), as to limit side to side movement, force competitors to focus on parries rather than dodges, and keep action going since circling has a tendency to make melee combat a bit dull.

Cool, but you are nevertheless trying to hit a target moving in a non-predictable pattern from a distance.

I'm not a marksman, but I'd think its hard to fire a pistol at someone moving (or serpentining). I don't think there's a call for "minimum 50% miss rate", but there are MELEE skills that have a miss-chance when the target is engaged in combat.

Simply wondering if there should be something similar for ranged combat as well. Not "I can shoot a dime from a mile away", this is "If two people are fighting, I can't even backstab one of them easily, so why can the sniper do it better?"

[Harmless]

Code Select Expand



mercy archery

You will now hold shots that hurt anyone but your target in a melee situation.

mercy archery

You will take a shot at your target even if it means possibly harming someone else.



Maybe a function that can set our preference for risk taking in archery. If we are being merciful about such shots then the character will aim off to the side that hopefully won't strike anyone but their target -- being conservative with what kinds of shots they aim for -- versus just going for the mark with a higher chance to hit but also a higher chance of accidentally getting someone besides the target they are in melee with.

[AdamBlue]

Softer surfaces that 'slow' projectiles tend to be more effective as armor than rigid when it comes to arrows.
For example, braided, brine-soaked cotton was so effective against arrows and swords when the Spanish came to the New World, that they adopted the design from the Aztecs. They could even stop obsidian swords from getting through by being a thick material enough that the edge couldn't reach the flesh, and the arrows would only poke oh-so-slightly into the armor, resulting in wounds so small that they were practically glancing, where they would penetrate through metal at the same distance. Check out 'Ichcahuipilli', it was even on the Deadliest Warrior.

[JohnMichaelHenry]

Maybe something as simple as a longer time delay would suffice? Taking more time to aim when the person is engaged sort of thing.

[gotdamnmiracle]

Is there currently a way to shoot a thing inside of an object?

Like

l wagon
You see a gith in the wagon.
shoot gith wagon
you fire your boxing-glove tipped arrow into the wagon!
You hit the gith in the face with your boxing-glove tipped arrow!!

I can't figure out how the syntax to shoot someone inside of an object works whereas shooting out of an object works just fine. Any help? Can we even do that?

[kahuna]

Shoot                                                         (Ranged Combat)

   This command is the one by which the archery, sling use, blowgun use, and crossbow use skills are utilized and represents taking aim and firing at a target with any of the missile weapons in Zalanthas: slings, bows, blowguns, or crossbows.

Syntax:
   shoot <target> <direction>
shoot <target> out
shoot <target> <wagon item>
shoot <distance> <direction>

Example:
   > shoot Halaster east
> shoot gith north
> shoot elf 2.wagon
> shoot kank out
> shoot far west

[gotdamnmiracle]

Shoot                                                         (Ranged Combat)

   This command is the one by which the archery, sling use, blowgun use, and crossbow use skills are utilized and represents taking aim and firing at a target with any of the missile weapons in Zalanthas: slings, bows, blowguns, or crossbows.

Syntax:
   shoot <target> <direction>
shoot <target> out
shoot <target> <wagon item>
shoot <distance> <direction>

Example:
   > shoot Halaster east
> shoot gith north
> shoot elf 2.wagon
> shoot kank out
> shoot far west

Apologies. Wagon was a bad example. Does this work for any object. Such as a stand of pymlithe trees or something? Are all these enterable objects "wagon items"?