Making ranged more viable in combat

[ApocalypsePlease]

This thread is the end result of a conversation over skype between me, Noaah, Patchouli Knowledge and xXGhostxX.

Before I get started, I've done a search and come up with 1 thread Nao made back in April, which was on the same track except the the core principals to his changes were different. Please excuse me if it was more reasonable for me to post this within that thread, instead of it's own separate one.

The Problem
Ranged combat is an on and off thing in PvP, with the main issue being that it either does a lot, or none, with no ground in between. The effectiveness of ranged combat is measured by if the opposing player has or does not have armor equipped. In engagements between 2 parties of high-end players, range has little to no purpose. Example being that a combo of a Q125 rbow and Q150 bone arrows wouldn't harm someone with armor equivalent in level which as 1500+ AC, in combination with 600+ hp.

What Can Ideally be Changed
Creating the possibility for a middle ground. A way of damage being dealt scaling between different tiers of AC, so it doesn't become a hit or miss thing. In other words, make it so it isn't some flat damage, since tweaking straight numbers doesn't scale in between different "tiers" of fighting.

The Solution
Armor Penetration.
How Armor Penetration is implemented is where it gets interesting. Going with that same model of someone using a Q125 rbow and Q150 bone arrows, full martial against someone with 1500AC, and around 600 hp.

A Quality 125 Ranger's Bow deals a base hit of 1060 damage, or 1272 at full martial.
A Quality 150 Bone Arrow adds an extra 77 damage, 92 at full martial.
Total: 1137 damage, or 1364 damage at full martial.

Possible ways to implement penetration:
There were 2 major ideas to how ranged penetration could work:
1. The damage arrows deal have full penetration, only when shot from a ranger's bow
2. There is a base penetration of all damage, combined with a high percentage of arrow penetration

In Depth
Note: All calculations are assuming max damage
1. This concept surrounds the idea that when using a ranger's bow, the damage the arrow deals has a 100% bypass of all armor class.
With the numbers above, 72 of 1137 damage would bypass (8 hits to knock out), or 92 of 1364 (7 hits to knock out)
Another important aspect of this idea is that it adds emphasis to maximizing the use for higher quality arrows, instead of the primary use being making sure they don't cap the EML

2. This concept still puts effort on the ranger's bow still mattering, giving 5% penetration to bow damage, and 80% penetration to arrow damage.
With the numbers above, 114 damage would bypass (6 hits to knock out), or 137 of 1364 (5 hits to knock out)
The thing to note here is that the damage is mostly split between the ranger's bow quality and the arrow quality.
Out of the 114 damage, 53 was from the bow, 61 from the arrow
Out of the 137 damage, 63.6 was from the bow, 73.6 from the arrow (they get rounded down to 137)

Conclusion
►Ranged combat needs importance in PvP
►It's either overly powerful or useless
►Percentage Based Armor Penetration does this
►2 possible answers, 1 based on the arrow quality, 1 balanced

What I Ask of You, The Reader
►Create a discussion: raise any questions or concerns you have with a reply! This is by no means a perfect idea, your feedback is needed.
►Keep on-topic: Nobody wants another thread derailed, think of the relevancy of your post before submitting it.
►Be civil: There is no need for aggression, especially in the Critiques & Ideas section.
►Have fun with it: If you aren't, politely excuse yourself from the discussion.

Have a nice day.

[Fortress]

I agree with this completely, it sounds like a great idea. Apoc, you and your companions have really outdone yourselves

[TeckXKnight]

I agree with this completely, it sounds like a great idea.

[Skorm]

you put it nice and interesting, but this has been suggested many times, not that i don`t like it, i do, but after so much posts of this why would it make a difference?

[MagicManICT]

Let me see if I can toss a monkey wrench into the works here:

In melee combat, you have moves, maneuvers, and attacks designed to build up or tear down the opponents defense. This can happen relatively quickly for a KO or even kill shot, or it can go fairly slowly when involving two well matched opponents. Either way, you have time to correct for mistakes if you're aware of them and don't do something really stupid that nets a 1-hit KO/kill.

In ranged combat, you have none of this. Just the accuracy of the archer's aim. That means the ONLY counter to being killed with a bow is the toughness of your armor. Well, that and being aware enough to not stand still long enough for the archer to actually build any aim up. Of course, if you're under attack in melee at the same time, this means your options for moving about are MUCH slimmer, as that then opens you up for one of those 1-hit KO/kills I just mentioned.

Now, I tried to answer this with another argument before I went to bed last night, but thought I'd put it off and maybe come up with something better. I think this is better. I'm always for improving a system, but ONLY if it will actually fix a problem. Right now, I'm not sure I see a problem. The same armor that prevents a player from being one-shot killed by an archer with an Rbow prevents you from being one-shot killed by a swordsman with a Valorous Strike/Sting. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like you can hit for about the same as the bows you describe with an equivalent quality sword. Given that, it takes a LOT of hits to wear down the guy in the turtle shell, no matter which way you fight. And from what I recall of some of the battles in w3 (from forum stories and descriptions), archers were used quite frequently just to wear down a target's armor faster.

Note: I, of course, intentionally did not figure in the ridiculous AP of Unarmed attacks. Enough punches will knock out even the most heavily armored player, even in q400 armor. It's still a factor of hitting the target in volume, though.

Historical note: longbows of any type were able to do little to nothing to a knight's armor. The design of the broadhead arrows of the day were crafted quite differently than what is used today (or what tribesmen around the world have used). The heads were large and squarish coming to a point, not flat or bladed. They could pierce armor at close range, but not penetrate clear through. It took the invention of the crossbow to make archers effective against steel plate armor. Now, you want to shoot a guy in STEEL with a BONE arrow?

[Dracolhyte]

Now, you want to shoot a guy in STEEL with a BONE arrow?

Then perhaps the issue with ranged combat is that there needs to be bronze, iron, and steel arrows hrm?

[noaah]

Let me see if I can toss a monkey wrench into the works here:

In melee combat, you have moves, maneuvers, and attacks designed to build up or tear down the opponents defense. This can happen relatively quickly for a KO or even kill shot, or it can go fairly slowly when involving two well matched opponents. Either way, you have time to correct for mistakes if you're aware of them and don't do something really stupid that nets a 1-hit KO/kill.

In ranged combat, you have none of this. Just the accuracy of the archer's aim. That means the ONLY counter to being killed with a bow is the toughness of your armor. Well, that and being aware enough to not stand still long enough for the archer to actually build any aim up. Of course, if you're under attack in melee at the same time, this means your options for moving about are MUCH slimmer, as that then opens you up for one of those 1-hit KO/kills I just mentioned.

Now, I tried to answer this with another argument before I went to bed last night, but thought I'd put it off and maybe come up with something better. I think this is better. I'm always for improving a system, but ONLY if it will actually fix a problem. Right now, I'm not sure I see a problem. The same armor that prevents a player from being one-shot killed by an archer with an Rbow prevents you from being one-shot killed by a swordsman with a Valorous Strike/Sting. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like you can hit for about the same as the bows you describe with an equivalent quality sword. Given that, it takes a LOT of hits to wear down the guy in the turtle shell, no matter which way you fight. And from what I recall of some of the battles in w3 (from forum stories and descriptions), archers were used quite frequently just to wear down a target's armor faster.

Note: I, of course, intentionally did not figure in the ridiculous AP of Unarmed attacks. Enough punches will knock out even the most heavily armored player, even in q400 armor. It's still a factor of hitting the target in volume, though.

Historical note: longbows of any type were able to do little to nothing to a knight's armor. The design of the broadhead arrows of the day were crafted quite differently than what is used today (or what tribesmen around the world have used). The heads were large and squarish coming to a point, not flat or bladed. They could pierce armor at close range, but not penetrate clear through. It took the invention of the crossbow to make archers effective against steel plate armor. Now, you want to shoot a guy in STEEL with a BONE arrow?

Sword damage is scaled rapidly compared to bow damage. An endgame character will be hitting 2,000 damage or so with there sword, while an archer will still be capped by bow Q and now even hurting anyone geared.

[ImAwesome]

bodkins?

when people started wearing armor(which mostly stops slashing weapons not piercing or thrusting weapons), arrow head designs were made to get through it. a bodkin point is a small square shape arrowhead that tapers to a point and easilly penetrates most armor types(including steel plate).

though they are easilly stopped by a jack(thick layers of cloth and leather stitched together in a quilted pattern similar to lamelar, or the in game V-thingy worn under normal armor) they still penetrate steel plate so it is an option...and I've always wondered why there were no metal arrowheads, you have a bow that is made using some metal, why not the arrows?

as for punches getting through armor, you'd break your hand long before you damage the person wearing the armor so that just seems backwards to me.

edit: can't find anything with an arrow going through steel plate, but since you're talking armors and weapons this might be a good read, it even has pics of the tests: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic ... mail+tests

[Federico]

How about some crossbows, we make them work good against armored targets, be able to fire faster but requiring that the marksman has to be closer to the target?

[ApocalypsePlease]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like you can hit for about the same as the bows you describe with an equivalent quality sword.

As noaah has said the damage of swordsmen scales up much faster than that of archers seeing as strength is also weighed in, which is usually raised anyways to palibash, housebash, strongbox bash (and hopefully brickbashing will make it's return soon).

And from what I recall of some of the battles in w3 (from forum stories and descriptions), archers were used quite frequently just to wear down a target's armor faster.

As time has passed, most things change. One of those things being the keys to winning in combat. It has shifted from static combat in which archers have use, to more dynamic combat with constant movement where archers in most situations can't get more than a few hits off if that.

Note: I, of course, intentionally did not figure in the ridiculous AP of Unarmed attacks. Enough punches will knock out even the most heavily armored player, even in q400 armor. It's still a factor of hitting the target in volume, though.

As it stands, unarmed combat is the only viable way to win combat for most people. This suggestion we made is an attempt to return some balance to ranged combat. Sword-based and Axe-based combat as it stands still has some use in combat, even though it could use it's own changes.

Historical note: stuff

Realism shouldn't be taken into account before game balance, you should know this

How about some crossbows, we make them work good against armored targets, be able to fire faster but requiring that the marksman has to be closer to the target?

That seems like an interesting fix, but that gives ranger bows little to no purpose. Slings are used for hunting, and then crossbows for PvP. The key isn't adding more items into the game, it's refining what is already in place.


Thank you everyone who has replied, your feedback helps!