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.