Making ranged more viable in combat

[Potjeh]

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).

No it didn't. At Agincourt, one of the rare triumphs of archers vs knights, the lonbowmen mostly just killed the horses under the French, which together with the layout of the battlefield created a huge jam where unhorsed knights got stuck in waist-deep mud and trampled by their own troops.

There's a reason why knights were *the* troops until the spread of gunpowder.

[MagicManICT]

Historical note: stuff

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

No, but how do you know what game balance "should be" without looking at the history of things? Mm? I mean, if we were really trying to be historically accurate, this argument would be a moot point because very few combatants would be wearing full plate armor. The point is still valid in that maybe we should consider what historical inventions were to counter full plate armor as a possible fix to this. (If we were going historical, and looking at the link ImAwesome posted, bows would be useless against anything other than leather and a CC.)

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).

Have you done the math to what it takes to get much above the 2000 mark with sword damage? Also, if you're passing that due to quality, odds are someone else is matching that with bow and armor quality. Another point: if people are keeping up at that pace, armor HP is linear, not on inverse square root curve, meaning that armor is going to get better requiring that increase in str. This is when bows start getting left behind.

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.

Archers are one of the reasons it has. Why sit and get shot at by a half dozen archers which will definitely kill you eventually vs ducking and doding around a bit keeping the opponent off balance? /points at "The Art of War"--read it!

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.

I will completely agree that it's a whole other discussion. I made the point because I don't want to see any changes in ranged combat that are going to be as ridiculous as that was.

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).

Run the math and see what kind of strength it takes to significantly increase damage without increasing weapon quality. A 10% increase in damage takes more than a 50% increase in Str. A 25% increase in damage takes more than double the strength. It's not hard to create a nice 3D graph of comparing damage from swords to the soak of armor if you consider quality spiraling to be equal on both sides. Maybe I'll post it later.

Now, I will admit this: the bows get hurt in the quality spiral. As armor and swords get better, the bows get only marginally better due to the caps on the arrows. Troll bones will improve things, but because trolls are so rare, they can't really be counted on.

My conclusion is thus: Ranged combat isn't broken. It never was. It's the number of participants on the field of battle. Archers have little use in skirmishes where there is no well-defined line of battle. I can agree that it could use some tweaking, such as maybe not having movement effect aim quality as severely, or adding in a higher damage arrow (bronze and/or iron). I don't think AP is at all the route that should be taken.

bodkins?

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

Thanks. (Figures... always can never remember the names.) Nice link there. The test I saw as on the History Channel if I recall right. I was impressed with the fact the field tip arrows wouldn't even get through the maille and gambeson even after breaking links. Of course, as the poster said, it wasn't a historically accurate combat arrow (bodkins have a much wider, heavier head) or bow (significantly less energy). I'm sure if I searched, I could probably find something.

[ImAwesome]

bodkins?

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

Thanks. (Figures... always can never remember the names.) Nice link there. The test I saw as on the History Channel if I recall right. I was impressed with the fact the field tip arrows wouldn't even get through the maille and gambeson even after breaking links. Of course, as the poster said, it wasn't a historically accurate combat arrow (bodkins have a much wider, heavier head) or bow (significantly less energy). I'm sure if I searched, I could probably find something.

I've seen a few tests of period armors, and in each I've seen arrows pretty much make thier way through(as long as properly designed), along with spears as most armors are designed to stop slashing from weapons such as swords.

also, found a youtube link of an arrow going into steel plate but being stopped by a jack, period arrow, mechanical test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRXwk4Kdbic

since melee combat was brought up, a pickaxe would be a good tool to use to break through plate. not sure if you can actually use a pickaxe as a melee weapon in game though.

[_Gunnar]

I prefer the second option rather heavily probably, since in the first (arrow penetration only), the quality of the rbow can be rather low without affecting the damage done to a heavily armoured opponent.

(with q150 arrows EML=300, meaning rbow need only be q50 to avoid capping it, I believe. It should be worth something to produce a high q rbow).

Also with the first option normal bows will do the same damage while hitting much faster. Normal bows are still rather good even with the 2nd option.

I wonder if it would be better to just have a single flat % penetration for normal bows (say 2%?) and a slightly higher % penetration for rbows (5%?), for the total damage? I appreciate what you are trying to do is make arrow q matter more, but I'm not sure this is worth making normal bows a lot better than rbows in many situations.

I guess you could not have arrow penetration when using a normal bow, but it would be interesting to have both normal bows and rbows be viable weapons, in different situations. Would require a lot of work to balance it I suppose. Perhaps when we get horses (..) we should be able to shoot normal bows from horseback :p. But thats getting offtopic...

But this seems like a rather good suggestion in general. I don't really care about realism, as long as it doesn't get too ridiculous :p

[Sardte]

Interesting topic well put.

[ApocalypsePlease]

Have you done the math to what it takes to get much above the 2000 mark with sword damage? Also, if you're passing that due to quality, odds are someone else is matching that with bow and armor quality. Another point: if people are keeping up at that pace, armor HP is linear, not on inverse square root curve, meaning that armor is going to get better requiring that increase in str. This is when bows start getting left behind.

For the sake of comparison, a soldier's sword would be about the same quality as the rbow, so sticking with the same stats as previously in the calculations, this theoretical soldier's sword will be Q125.

Solving for STR, not showing calculations but I've laid out the formula
Damage=Peaceful/martial(base damage(sqrt(Q*Str)/10))
2000=1.2(425(sqrt(125*STR)/10))
STR=190 @ full martial
STR=393 @ neutral
STR=957 @ full peaceful
(It is in fact the holidays so please correct me if I'm a little rusty)

Most fighters would have already achieved way past palibashing strength at this stage. Here are the damage values varying from 484 strength (mid tier fighters) to 1000 strength (top tier fighters).

484 strength:
full martial = 2529
neutral = 2107
full peaceful = 1686

1000 strength:
full martial = 3032 <This is the expected damage of fighters when they sting at this stage of the game
neutral = 2527
full peaceful = 2021

Apologies, but you don't really have a point here.

Archers are one of the reasons it has. Why sit and get shot at by a half dozen archers which will definitely kill you eventually vs ducking and doding around a bit keeping the opponent off balance? /points at "The Art of War"--read it!

I wasn't trying to make a counter-argument with that statement, rather that how it was in W3 isn't applicable in the same situations as now.
(I've also never gotten around to reading Sun Tzu's writings, forgive me)

meaning rbow need only be q50 to avoid capping it, I believe.

Don't mean to be bothersome but it would need to be Q100 to avoid capping it. The aim speed of a ranger's bow is a sixth of that of a sling, but it's IEMM is 3, not 6.

Also with the first option normal bows will do the same damage while hitting much faster. Normal bows are still rather good even with the 2nd option.

I knew I forgot to mention something in the OP, and that was that in the first option, the armour penetration is only applicable to rbows

I wonder if it would be better to just have a single flat % penetration for normal bows (say 2%?) and a slightly higher % penetration for rbows (5%?), for the total damage? I appreciate what you are trying to do is make arrow q matter more, but I'm not sure this is worth making normal bows a lot better than rbows in many situations.

We actually had the exact same percentages that you've listed for bows and rbows. To make regular bows less effective in comparison to rbows, the percentage the arrows get could be reduced aswell, to as low as the 20-50% range.

But this seems like a rather good suggestion in general. I don't really care about realism, as long as it doesn't get too ridiculous :p

I appreciate your feedback, and have corrected the mistake in the OP

[_Gunnar]

meaning rbow need only be q50 to avoid capping it, I believe.

Don't mean to be bothersome but it would need to be Q100 to avoid capping it. The aim speed of a ranger's bow is a sixth of that of a sling, but it's IEMM is 3, not 6.

whoops, im a noob

[DeadlyPencil]

I like the idea of arrow penitration damage, but i dont know if 100% is the right number. people would be doing 90+ damage a hit @ max damage. lower might be better. at 100% you might be able to kill a fighter 1 on 1 in melee combat.

[ApocalypsePlease]

I like the idea of arrow penitration damage, but i dont know if 100% is the right number. people would be doing 90+ damage a hit @ max damage. lower might be better. at 100% you might be able to kill a fighter 1 on 1 in melee combat.

The numbers given were for high level fighting in which fighters are expected to have over 600 health, and it was only 100% of arrow damage, not bow damage so 1 shotting wouldn't be an issue.

[dra6o0n]

What about considering the bigger picture, like the low levels, the middle, and the highs?

EDIT: Generally the damage from the bow and arrows are already high, so why not separate it into a new skill for ranged?

PVP with more than 3-4 players per side is kind of rare, and you gotta consider the other elements when using ideas like so.

My idea is to create a new skill called 'support shot' which is low damage but high penetration, and is designed to shoot at enemies to support your allies, so you don't overstep your role as a support. It's ideal effect is to cripple the enemy's defense, not impart high damage and cripple.

Because atm, Ranged is simply 1 skill called 'shoot'.

Maybe support shot has a x% of penetration damage based on marksmanship, but the bow damage is lowered to a fixed amount (base bow damage) and don't gain marksmanship damage bonus. The additional effect is that it's arrow's penetration damage harms the armor more, and more likely to cause a status effect that makes them vulnerable to the next melee attack? Or simply taking more damage for 1 additional hit from any source?

Support shot charges 25% faster than shooting, but doesn't give the additional damage from the perception + marksmanship, but does take the 'speed' from marksmanship.

if the armor deflects most of your bow damage for a normal shot, then generally using a 'support shot' will bypass those armor to inflict damage, but the damage inflicted is quite small to a certain degree. Like a flesh wound.