The imbalance of ranged weapons in infinity engine games

[forgottenlor]

 

 

 

I don't consider criplingly over-specalized characters a good concept to begin with.

 

If you dumped everything into archery and have nothing else, then a guy in full plate with a tower shield should wipe the floor with you. Unless you got something up your sleeve.

 

Like a tanglefoot bag - trap him, get behind him and shoot him in the back.

 

Characters that focuse on one weapon to the exclusion of everything else are something that should occasionaly bite a player in the ass.

 

Well perhaps you are correct, but that's the way it worked with melee weapons in IE games. You normally were much more effective in melee if you have 5 dots in one melee weapon, rather than being proficient (one dot) in 5 different weapons. This is also consistant with most party oriented roleplaying games I have played. Especially with a 6 member party you can normally cover a good number of available weapons. Most party based games force a character to specialize in one or two combat stlyes to be effective. Of course most single player RPGS work differently, and there your one character can do everything.

 

 

Well, IE games weren't perfect.

 

A fighter did start with being proficient in most weapons, that's why when his chosen weapon proved uneffective (like when attacking a enemy that's highly resistant to a specific damage type), he had a fallback - he could swith to a different weapon and still be effective.

 

Archer were usually built to use only arrows AND NOTHING ELSE. No fallback. No diversity.

 

Specialization is good, over-specialization isn't.

 

 

I agree with you, but I still think most other weapons were scaled better than bows. I think its good if a character maybe specializes in two types of weapons, but both should be effective over the course of the game, just in different circumstances.  Lots of good suggestions about how one could implement this has been mentioned by many of you above.

[jamoecw]

both the archer and kensai were ridiculously overpowered.

 

as far as making ranged weapons balanced, just make it so that shields offer cover bonuses vs. ranged weapons, and have them be a parry tool for melee.  so a big cumbersome shield is great against ranged opponents, but much less so against melee opponents.  so if you only had to deal with melee a 2 hander was great, but if you had to face ranged then you are at a big disadvantage and need to take cover.  as shields would make archers pretty useless at short ranges (normal IE ranges) just allow them to fire at longer ranges with penalties for range.  next reduce damage so a light sling bullet does the same damage as a short bow as your base damage amount, then scale up from there with armour penetration and greater damage and such for better ranged weapons.  so while a melee weapon does more damage on average, an archer would be hitting you well before you got in range, and so charging an archer is suicide without a shield unless you could get close via cover.  finally have parry bonuses work against ranged weapons in melee, so that archers have big accuracy penalty in melee.

 

so wolves, and rats and such at low levels would be cake with ranged weapons (so long as you have perception to see them at range), but goblins with shields would tear you apart.  in other words uncivilized beasts and such would be easier to kill via ranged weapons than melee, but civilized things with shields would be a big problem.  go into a dungeon where everything is going to be at close range?  better bring powerful ranged weapons to have moderate dps as you won't get many shots before they close into melee, if you get any.  of course as there are guns in the game, and the drawback of those is the reload time both guns and decent crossbows would be fairly viable in dungeons.

[Caerdon]

Some wishes of what I'd like to see ranged weaponry do (Long-range weaponry):

 

- 1. Friendly Fire (On Harder Difficulties) & Misfire

As noted ^only on harder difficulties but I want to take Spell's into consideration here. 5 Magic Missiles gets fired off, who is to say that one or two aren't misfired at an ally close to the target or backfires back to the Wizard? As for Friendly Fire, also on harder difficulties, but then positioning becomes way more important and clutch moments where your Archer just narrowly fires between two of your "tanks" and hits the target just when you need it becomes more frequent and possible.

 

- 2. Environmental Penalty

Is it raining? Snowing? A big forest? An overly humid swamp? What can affect the efficiency of the Archer's mind and eyes? A close-ranged warrior can swing his sword around and clash in close quarters even though they might get slightly "worn down", but an archer and/or long-ranged fighter should get more penalized. Basically, anything that affects a close-ranged quarters (in combat) for anything that has anything to do with Sight/Reaction/Weight etc. etc. should double for Archers/Bow-users (Concept: Blindness makes your Fighters see worse = Blindness makes Archers/Bow-users see x2 worse than Fighters). A simple trigger/script such as "Is the Unit holding a Bow? If yes, x2 Sword sight penalty" should suffice (but with prettier words and less concept-like ofc).

 

- 3. Aimed Shots/GUI Shots

The Player could get some sort of GUI for the Archer, get a popular "Throw grenade" (seen in many FPS games but also some in League of Legends) transparent blue line from the Archer to the enemy and be able to manipulate it somewhat and the Archer will always fire with that angle in mind. Making the angle go over your allies so that 1. (Friendly Fire) does not occur could penalize the attack speed, whilst having a straight line could fire arrows faster but at the risk of damaging your allies (Friendly Fire). 

 

 

1. Friendly fire

 

One thing that IE games lacked was simulation of terrain height differences. In reality archers would tend to pick spots where they can shoot over obstacles - but as that's not possible in this game, I think we just need to imagine that's what the archers in the game are doing. I think it'd be a mistake to implement a simple 2D collision detection based FF mechanic. FF is potentially a good idea though. I think the game should first wait for a "critical fumble" of sorts and then check if there's someone (a friend or enemy) close to the intended target or along the line of fire - not the other way around.

 

That said, I'd hate it if FF is a major concern that's used to balance otherwise overpowered archers. At least I'd like my squad to have a good enough AI that they don't shoot each other - make them prefer targets that are safe to pick and side-step when someone gets in the way.

 

2. Environmental concerns

 

While rain and foliage do make archery more difficult, they can also make actively avoiding arrows more difficult. It's hard to evade in time if it's hard to see the release of the arrow. And for obvious reasons a humid swamp would be deadly if you have no shield and you're facing an archer. (As an aside note: I hope the terrain type is a factor in this game.)

 

But I do agree that blindness would make archery mostly useless and potentially dangerous to allies.

 

3. Aimed Shots/GUI Shots

 

How much archers arch their shots depends only on the range of the enemy. That's how they aim for range. If you try to shoot an arrow at half speed you lose 75% of the kinetic energy and most of your accuracy.

[TrashMan]

Frankly, I don't think archers should be powerfull at all.

 

Out in the open, at range - IF they hit you - yes, devastating. But in-doors, in closed, confined spaces? Agaisnt opponents in plate? With shields? They should be butchered.

 

I dont' want to see over-specialized archers. I want an archer without good skills with a melee weapon to be dead.

[Gfted1]

No way. Called shots, exploding arrows, lay waste to an entire corridor of mooks at once. Booya!

[Osvir]

 

Some wishes of what I'd like to see ranged weaponry do (Long-range weaponry):

 

- 1. Friendly Fire (On Harder Difficulties) & Misfire

As noted ^only on harder difficulties but I want to take Spell's into consideration here. 5 Magic Missiles gets fired off, who is to say that one or two aren't misfired at an ally close to the target or backfires back to the Wizard? As for Friendly Fire, also on harder difficulties, but then positioning becomes way more important and clutch moments where your Archer just narrowly fires between two of your "tanks" and hits the target just when you need it becomes more frequent and possible.

 

- 2. Environmental Penalty

Is it raining? Snowing? A big forest? An overly humid swamp? What can affect the efficiency of the Archer's mind and eyes? A close-ranged warrior can swing his sword around and clash in close quarters even though they might get slightly "worn down", but an archer and/or long-ranged fighter should get more penalized. Basically, anything that affects a close-ranged quarters (in combat) for anything that has anything to do with Sight/Reaction/Weight etc. etc. should double for Archers/Bow-users (Concept: Blindness makes your Fighters see worse = Blindness makes Archers/Bow-users see x2 worse than Fighters). A simple trigger/script such as "Is the Unit holding a Bow? If yes, x2 Sword sight penalty" should suffice (but with prettier words and less concept-like ofc).

 

- 3. Aimed Shots/GUI Shots

The Player could get some sort of GUI for the Archer, get a popular "Throw grenade" (seen in many FPS games but also some in League of Legends) transparent blue line from the Archer to the enemy and be able to manipulate it somewhat and the Archer will always fire with that angle in mind. Making the angle go over your allies so that 1. (Friendly Fire) does not occur could penalize the attack speed, whilst having a straight line could fire arrows faster but at the risk of damaging your allies (Friendly Fire). 

 

 

1. Friendly fire

 

One thing that IE games lacked was simulation of terrain height differences. In reality archers would tend to pick spots where they can shoot over obstacles - but as that's not possible in this game, I think we just need to imagine that's what the archers in the game are doing. I think it'd be a mistake to implement a simple 2D collision detection based FF mechanic. FF is potentially a good idea though. I think the game should first wait for a "critical fumble" of sorts and then check if there's someone (a friend or enemy) close to the intended target or along the line of fire - not the other way around.

 

That said, I'd hate it if FF is a major concern that's used to balance otherwise overpowered archers. At least I'd like my squad to have a good enough AI that they don't shoot each other - make them prefer targets that are safe to pick and side-step when someone gets in the way.

 

2. Environmental concerns

 

While rain and foliage do make archery more difficult, they can also make actively avoiding arrows more difficult. It's hard to evade in time if it's hard to see the release of the arrow. And for obvious reasons a humid swamp would be deadly if you have no shield and you're facing an archer. (As an aside note: I hope the terrain type is a factor in this game.)

 

But I do agree that blindness would make archery mostly useless and potentially dangerous to allies.

 

3. Aimed Shots/GUI Shots

 

How much archers arch their shots depends only on the range of the enemy. That's how they aim for range. If you try to shoot an arrow at half speed you lose 75% of the kinetic energy and most of your accuracy.

My main concern, throughout my entire post, is that Archers do kind of get a powerful free "auto-attack" ability which rivals the power of glass cannons in many RPGs and action games. Archers tend to be a powerful asset. This is something I think should be balanced.

 

1. Great points! And I agree mostly and what you say makes sense. I still think Friendly Fire is a viable solution, but dice rolls is a bit of a risky stretch a la "My bow-user might shoot my Fighter in the back if I use his bow hmmm" which kind of sucks. That's why I thought that "line of fire" shots would be a great solution. But you brought up the aspect I forgot, and that's the AI. I could simply position myself so that the AI archers are shooting their own allies in the back.

 

BUT!

 

I do think close-combat in PE isn't like the IE games though, if you are engaged in a fight in close combat you won't be able to re-position yourself as easily as you can in the IE games. Coding the AI to simply shoot to get a clear shot (without hitting their allies in the back) is the only issue in that case.

 

A picture to explain what I'm thinking:

Grey dots = Player Characters

Black dots = AI

 

A = Close-combat~ there is no real reason to why the Archer dots are outside the circle but thought it'd be easier to focus in on the area like that. There is an escape route from B's clear line of fire, but that might make the enemy close-combat combatant interrupt the movement and deal a lot of damage to our own character too.

B = Enemy Archer has a clear line of fire on our Fighter.

C = Our own Archer has a wide open fire on the enemy Archer. This is the best option in this situation, our Fighter is way out of line of fire so there is no "risk" that we'll hit an ally. A clear shot to take out their Archer with our own Archer. Use all the chess pieces to deal with the battle type of deal.

 

[EDIT]Furthermore, non of the Archers are "locked" in any sort of engagement so they are "free" to move as they please without interruption. So in the case of our Fighter being able to make the move without taking damage from the AI Fighter, the enemy Archer can re-position[/EDIT]

 

If Close-Combat in PE is in any way like I think it is (like the above) and even moving your Fighter (in this case) out of the position might make their Archer deal damage to you for moving away from it, then maybe there is a possibility to code the AI to not shoot their allies in the backs, and it'd be a risky move for the Player to even try to abuse it in the first place (Engagement Circle stuff, Josh talked about it in an update some time ago). FF naturally makes Archers more of a potential hazard in corridors, and instantly they aren't as "overpowered" in closed quarters.

 

Perk idea: "Shoot over shoulder - As a masterful and accurate fancy pants Archer you can now securely aim and shoot past your friends terrified faces. Give's an X% chance to hit over your allies shoulder" = Practically it'd give a chance to shoot "through" your Allies as seen in the IE games. Who is to say that some higher level AI enemies couldn't have perks too after all?

 

2. Makes sense, great points. Didn't think about the difficulty of evading in rain and such

 

3. Aimed shots were kind of a supplement of 1, an extension or expansion to the idea in point 1. Give the Player control of how they want to shoot their arrows akin to how a Wizard shoots their spells, but with an Archer-twist to it. My wish is that Archers are kind of handled like Wizards, but perhaps in a more skill-shot kind of way, or give them a tactical "overwatch" type of utility purpose. In the IE games it feels as if Archers are shooting powerful spells every turn. Furthermore, in DA:O Leliana was weak (in my opinion, I might've built all my Archers in a bad way though), and the point I want to make is that simply making Archers "weaker" and deal less damage overall might work but it could also fail miserably.

 

To give some sort of "realism" or "authenticity", an Archer was a powerful asset on the battlefield and a skilled archer should be (imo) a threat to consider.

 

I think that Friendly Fire gives a load of tactical challenges for the Player that gives more depth to the combat system.

 

I do love the raw power of an Archer in the IE games. It's satisfying, but at the same time they pack so much advantage with very little disadvantage to them. Thus I'm thinking out of my own preference: Keep the power of them, but give them more "risk" to the Player. That's really it imo, the bows in the IE games are lovely, the only thing they are lacking is a sense of "risk". And no, again, I don't think dice-rolls is a good option for an auto-attack as I think it'd be too chaotic and way too risky (but I think a Player chosen Perk with a dice roll mechanic when you decide to take a chance and shoot through one of your allies is very viable). 

 

Additonally:

4. Others have said it, but limiting how many arrows you can carry in the "Top of the Pack" is a really nice idea too for balance sake. That sort of "resource management" is great, and it also makes you "count your bullets" in a sense. I think that arrows should be something you can collect from fallen enemies too (dice roll stuff, some arrows might break, some might be whole).

 

As a footnote I want to specifically say that these FF thoughts aren't directed towards "Casual Play" but, as I usually direct the attention, towards a Hard/Hardcore Difficulty Play.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Osvir

[Chilloutman]

I am not huge fan of ranged combat but i will put some comments here:

 

1. people here take too much realism into this. We can cast fireballs but we cant create volley of arrows? Its still game with soul based magic, even warriors will be casting spells

 

2. environment(line of sight) should be definetely taken into account (but I fear it will not as far as I am reading updates) - this was big problem in all infinity engine games

 

3. This game will have real time combat, most people dont want micro manage one character to hit one arrow, they have to be reliable

 

4. in BG1 bows were overpowered because can oneshot from beggining - well you oneshot wolf with two handed sword as well I dont see problem here

 

5. Shields should be taken more into play but this was there from BG1 where tower shield have +4 bonus against ranged attacks

 

6. Yes to friendly fire, that will force player to move archer into meaningfull positions

 

7. Size and speed of opponent should matter (this was partialy balanced by AC in IE games)

 

Overall - please dont gimp archers to something noone wants because meele weapons are superior in all situations

[Osvir]

1. people here take too much realism into this. We can cast fireballs but we cant create volley of arrows? Its still game with soul based magic, even warriors will be casting spells

 

4. in BG1 bows were overpowered because can oneshot from beggining - well you oneshot wolf with two handed sword as well I dont see problem here

I like your points, but these 2 I wanted to just discuss and go a little bit further with.

 

1. I agree. Similarly, Leliana's (Dragon Age: Origins) presentation in one of the first trailers was awesome. It was like she was casting a spell when she made the Acid Arrow or whatnot. Arrow Spells or whatnot could have a sort of "Casting Time". As if they are Chanting or Vocalizing the spell "Turn to ashes!" and then fire a fire arrow. The issue, in my opinion (now that I think about it) is that many of these "Magical Arrow" spells (such as "Volley of arrows!") is that they are instant cast, instant effect. But aah, I went off-track a bit. Just really wanted to say that I do think that the concept of "Volley of Arrows" is a nice ability, but in DA2 (specially DA2) it was an "Every battle, every time" type of ability that you could use over and over and over again.

 

Furthermore, "Arrows" is kind of an Archers "mana points". Can Arrow/Bow Spells work with an "Arrow Points" mechanic?

 

Volley of Arrows = Deals more damage the more arrows you have (Consumes 1/2 Arrows Used/Damage potential higher/lower depending on how many arrows used). Maybe the AoE gets wider/larger the more arrows are used in the ability.

Fire Arrow = Deals Arrow*2+Fire Damage (Consumes Arrow)

 

Not to forget to mention combo-spells, what happens if a Wizard and an Archer collaborates in their attacks? 1 concept that comes to mind: Wizard opens a portal in front of archer, and one portal above enemy. Archer shoots one arrow into portal, Wizard absorbs the energy and shoots a volley of magical arrow-like energy out at the enemy (or something).

 

Consumes = You won't be able to pick up any of the arrows consumed after usage.

 

Etc. etc.

 

4. The difference is range really. You can one-shot a Wolf with a two-handed sword, but there is risk involved and you might lose health (and even possibly die, I've done it several times on some of my BG games and lost my Fighter or Monk to the wolf-beasts in the starting area = Game over). There is no risk involved whatsoever with the use of a bow. I like both the risk the Fighter is put in, and I also like the safety the Archer is in. The only real issue I have is that there is almost too much safety and no risk for the Archer-type in the IE games.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Osvir

[decado]

I sorta felt like BGII had OP'd archers, but then DA:O had useless ranged combat.  There has to be a happy medium there, somewhere.

 

I think it is also important to point out that bows are very often in real life a one-hit-kill weapon.  I think they should have a high rate of damage, but also a high degree of difficulty to use properly.  That means ammunition should be limited, positioning should be exceedingly important, and the rate of fire should be as realistic as possible.  If you've ever gone bowhunting, you'll know what I mean about all three of these things.  A well-placed shot with a bow can drop a grizzly bear. The game should reflect that level of power, but also that level of sophistication. 

[Gfted1]

Isnt that exactly what weapon proficiencies and specializations did?

[J. Trudel]

I sorta felt like BGII had OP'd archers, but then DA:O had useless ranged combat.  There has to be a happy medium there, somewhere.

 

I think it is also important to point out that bows are very often in real life a one-hit-kill weapon.  I think they should have a high rate of damage, but also a high degree of difficulty to use properly.  That means ammunition should be limited, positioning should be exceedingly important, and the rate of fire should be as realistic as possible.  If you've ever gone bowhunting, you'll know what I mean about all three of these things.  A well-placed shot with a bow can drop a grizzly bear. The game should reflect that level of power, but also that level of sophistication. 

 

My experience with DA:O was somewhat different, my bowman was a really good asset against enemies mages.

 

One more important fact about real life, swords are a one-hit-kill, wait a minute here... almost any weapon is a one hit kill. Some weapons are designed to hurt or defend with non-lethal damge, but the vast majority of them are very lethal. You don't have to be a hunter of grizzly bear to know that fact. But P:E doesn't aim for realistic combat (I don't think I'm wrong with this statement). So I don't know why bows should try to mimic real life while swords are not. 

Edited September 3, 2013 by J. Trudel

[decado]

 

I sorta felt like BGII had OP'd archers, but then DA:O had useless ranged combat.  There has to be a happy medium there, somewhere.

 

I think it is also important to point out that bows are very often in real life a one-hit-kill weapon.  I think they should have a high rate of damage, but also a high degree of difficulty to use properly.  That means ammunition should be limited, positioning should be exceedingly important, and the rate of fire should be as realistic as possible.  If you've ever gone bowhunting, you'll know what I mean about all three of these things.  A well-placed shot with a bow can drop a grizzly bear. The game should reflect that level of power, but also that level of sophistication. 

 

My experience with DA:O was somewhat different, my bowman was a really good asset against enemies mages.

 

One more important fact about real life, swords are a one-hit-kill, wait a minute here... almost any weapon is a one hit kill. Some weapons are designed to hurt or defend with non-lethal damge, but the vast majority of them are very lethal. You don't have to be a hunter of grizzly bear to know that fact. But P:E doesn't aim for realistic combat (I don't think I'm wrong with this statement). So I don't know why bows should try to mimic real life while swords are not. 

 

 

If you're wearing armor, most sword strikes are not one-hit/one-kill.  There is plenty of evidence in the historical record to show that men survived multiple weapon impacts over the course of a battle, whereas an arrow in any part of the torso was pretty much guaranteed to kill you.  Barbed heads could ruin muscle tissue and cause massive internal bleeding.  The discriminating factor here would be armor, and the type of arrow being used.  But in the case of the former, arrows still fared pretty well against most armors except for the heaviest of steel plates, which would not become popular until the 14th century and still not available to most ordinary soldiers. 

Edited September 3, 2013 by decado

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

decado does have a point. In ye olde tymes, an armored fellow could easily survive several melee attacks(with certain exceptions, like claymores) because the armor made almost all of them blunt strikes. Meanwhile, an accurate **** with an arrow or bolt would hit pierce flesh, and could easily kill someone.

 

That said, PE is not and should not be a realistic setting. Part of the reason I hate the first bit if BG is because your party will get one-shoted by mooks with slings and bows(due to **** low-level D&D gameplay). Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I trust that Obsidian will be able to design a system where archery is balanced to be roughly equal to melee combat and not exceedingly powerful or weak.

 

And in DAO, archers did kind of suck. In the expansion they were OP'd though.

[decado]

I'm not saying that the arrow mechanics need to be strictly realistic, per se.  I think they should be realistic within the bounds of the universe in which they exist, and that their ratio of lethality to melee weapons should scale properly when used in our fictional setting.  In other words, it goes back to the OP and the question of balance.  Personally, I think they should be balanced more along the lines of "harder to use, but you are rewarded with more damage."  What adds to this metric is the inclusion of firearms.  The devs have said before (IIRC) that firearms are going to be unwieldy and slow, but immensely powerful in certain situations.  That changes how arrows work, in my view.

[Larkaloke]

I'd think that archery should have some of the advantages and disadvantages of firearms, although not as extreme -- and also not as easy to use. It is somewhat slower to knock and fire an arrow than it is to swing a sword, so a slower attack speed makes sense to me. Against most armors arrows are also quite likely to penetrate, and they do a lot of damage when they do. Of course, hitting a likely moving target from a distance is more difficult than hitting the same target when you're right next to them, and in-your-face melee archery really shouldn't work well at all. 

 

Another thing that often bothers me is that strength isn't taking into account with regards to archery at all. It takes more strength to use a bow than to use a sword, and that is often not reflected (strength requirements to use various bows translating into more damage would make sense to me). 

 

I believe the main problem with archery in many games is that it doesn't scale like most other weapons do. It either starts out good and gets useless, or starts out useless and at some point becomes extremely good. More different steps of bonus damage could perhaps help with that. I think ideally they would also be more useful used tactically in open spaces with range rather than in tight corridors -- a chance of hitting your party members standing in front of you if you miss the enemy could go a long way to balancing any large edge they might otherwise give in such situations. 

[khango]

To be frank the high level ranged weapon fall-off the op speaks of is something I never noticed. My ranged characters were pretty decent across ToB if they had appropriate weapons and ammo. Once the good ammo was gone, there were often problems. However, if I had to use swords +1, there'd have been problems also.

All that said, it's absolutely proper that ranged weapons outclass melee weapons. The Mongols marched across a continent on the strength of bows. The Brits brought woe to the French at Agincourt courtesy of the bow.

Ranged weapons almost always give far more utility with less training that melee weapons. And sure, you have to have proper tips for the purpose (I think Mongols had something like 20+ kinds of arrowheads for different uses), but given that, you do plenty of damage with less risk. Sure, one arrow is perhaps better than having a head or an arm cleaved off, but it's just as bad as being stabbed.

So I think it's only proper that ranged weapons generally outclass melee... I mean would you rather face a raging bear with a baseball bat, a longbow, or some sort of large caliber gun? I don't think anybody in their right mind would choose the baseball bat.

 

Hence I always thought that aspect of IE games was unusually appropriate and realistic.

Edited September 4, 2013 by khango

[Lephys]

The Mongols were also greater than 6 in number, and weren't guerilla-fighting people/creatures they happened to come upon in the woods/underground caverns. The Mongols also didn't have soul-powers.

 

I see the value in your Mongol example (I'm being partially silly, above), but I don't think we need so strict of an adherence to such things in a fantasy video game with tactical combat. You probably shouldn't be able to nail a bear square in the foot, at will, to slow/halt its charging progress. But you can, because abstraction.

 

If you want to use a bow 24/7 in a game, then great. You should definitely suffer some circumstantial shortcomings. And if you want to use melee weapons 24/7, also great, and you should suffer some different circumstantial shortcomings. All things considered, the two options should be pretty equal, in the long run.

[J. Trudel]

 

 

I sorta felt like BGII had OP'd archers, but then DA:O had useless ranged combat.  There has to be a happy medium there, somewhere.

 

I think it is also important to point out that bows are very often in real life a one-hit-kill weapon.  I think they should have a high rate of damage, but also a high degree of difficulty to use properly.  That means ammunition should be limited, positioning should be exceedingly important, and the rate of fire should be as realistic as possible.  If you've ever gone bowhunting, you'll know what I mean about all three of these things.  A well-placed shot with a bow can drop a grizzly bear. The game should reflect that level of power, but also that level of sophistication. 

 

My experience with DA:O was somewhat different, my bowman was a really good asset against enemies mages.

 

One more important fact about real life, swords are a one-hit-kill, wait a minute here... almost any weapon is a one hit kill. Some weapons are designed to hurt or defend with non-lethal damge, but the vast majority of them are very lethal. You don't have to be a hunter of grizzly bear to know that fact. But P:E doesn't aim for realistic combat (I don't think I'm wrong with this statement). So I don't know why bows should try to mimic real life while swords are not. 

 

 

If you're wearing armor, most sword strikes are not one-hit/one-kill.  There is plenty of evidence in the historical record to show that men survived multiple weapon impacts over the course of a battle, whereas an arrow in any part of the torso was pretty much guaranteed to kill you.  Barbed heads could ruin muscle tissue and cause massive internal bleeding.  The discriminating factor here would be armor, and the type of arrow being used.  But in the case of the former, arrows still fared pretty well against most armors except for the heaviest of steel plates, which would not become popular until the 14th century and still not available to most ordinary soldiers. 

 

 

Com on guys, you should be reading more historical records and give references : Lets see how arrows performed against a ''lowly'' mail 

 

There are many contemporary accounts that demonstrate the effectiveness of mail against arrows. During the Siege of Amida (359 AD), Ammianus Marcellinus described Roman archers attacking the Persians:

 

The Persian infantry found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order and since almost no kind of dart failed to find its mark, even the mail-clad horsemen were checked and gave ground¹

 

During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:

 

...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.²

 

Odo of Deuil wrote about King Louis VII in an engagement during the 2nd Crusade. After losing his bodyguard he was forced to flee the enemy by scaling a rock face:

 

The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour³ protected him from the arrows.⁴

 

So please, when you state some '' historical facts'' know what you talk about, other may end up spreading ignorance. Armour did offer protection against  many weapons, including ranged weaponry. An armour may not be ''proof'' against all, but did it offer some protection ? The answer is a most definitive yes.

 

1 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Siege of Amida, Bk 1, Ch VII. Trans. J. Rolfe (London: 1935)

2 Bahā'al-Dīn, "The Life of Saladin" (Ch. CXVII), in What Befell Sultan Yusuf, by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi

3 Berry actually uses the word cuirass in her translation but in the original latin the word is lorica which more accurately translates simply as "armour." A mail hauberk is the most likely form of armour worn by Louis, not a plate cuirass

4 Odo of Deuil, The Journey of Louis VII to the East, (Bk 6). trans. V.G. Berry, (New York: Columbia University Press. 1948)

Edited September 4, 2013 by J. Trudel

[TrashMan]

 

All that said, it's absolutely proper that ranged weapons outclass melee weapons. The Mongols marched across a continent on the strength of bows. The Brits brought woe to the French at Agincourt courtesy of the bow.

No.

 

A roman turtle formation would make bows useless.

Agincourt was won because of terrain, where french heavy knight and infantry were quite literlay stuck in the mud and were basicly trampling and suffocating eachother to death. The bow played an insignificant part.

 

 

And you are still comparing the aplication of bows in large-scale battles and bows in personal use. In orders for bows to be usefull in army warfare, you had to use them en-masse, because they were inprecise.

 

 

 

 

 

Ranged weapons almost always give far more utility with less training that melee weapons. And sure, you have to have proper tips for the purpose (I think Mongols had something like 20+ kinds of arrowheads for different uses), but given that, you do plenty of damage with less risk. Sure, one arrow is perhaps better than having a head or an arm cleaved off, but it's just as bad as being stabbed.

 

Nah...far smaller wound and less bleeding, as the blade is pulled out, the arrow remains in.

 

 

 

So I think it's only proper that ranged weapons generally outclass melee... I mean would you rather face a raging bear with a baseball bat, a longbow, or some sort of large caliber gun? I don't think anybody in their right mind would choose the baseball bat.

 

Replace baseball bad with morningstar or zweihander. Then ask the question again.

 

 

 

[J. Trudel]

@Trahsman : I approve all you said ! 

 

My personnal choice against the angry bear : large caliber gun (because of the rate of fire and the sound may scare the bear), close second zweihander, then the Morningstar. Bow would be a last choice, if you miss or don't kill the angry bear, you are screwed. 

 

 The Mongols marched across a continent on the strength of bows.

 

 

The Mongols actually marched (ride their horses) the continent because of superior mobility. 

Edited September 4, 2013 by J. Trudel

[Tamerlane]

And in the end, while history and reality are important and necessary guides, they do not trump funhaving. The inclusion of certain enemies and situations that make ranged weapons less effective can be conducive to funhaving, so long as it's not of NWN2-crit-immune-enemies proportions. Putting ranged weapons (or magic or melee or anything else, really) on some weird inverse curve is anti-funhaving.

[J. Trudel]

And in the end, while history and reality are important and necessary guides, they do not trump funhaving. The inclusion of certain enemies and situations that make ranged weapons less effective can be conducive to funhaving, so long as it's not of NWN2-crit-immune-enemies proportions. Putting ranged weapons (or magic or melee or anything else, really) on some weird inverse curve is anti-funhaving.

 

I agree ! What would be nice is a system like this :

 

Heavy weapons are at their best against Heavy Armors.

Light weapons are at their best against Light Armors.

Scaled type armor protect thier best vs Slashing damage.

Banded type Armors protect thier best vs Concusion damage.

Plate type Armors protect thier best vs Piercing damage.

AoE spells do more damage vs armored.

Direct spells do more damage vs lightly or unarmored.

Cooper armor protect more vs spells.

Other material protect better vs weaponry.

 

This simple system can give birth to a very tactical gameplay. 

[decado]

 

 

 

I sorta felt like BGII had OP'd archers, but then DA:O had useless ranged combat.  There has to be a happy medium there, somewhere.

 

I think it is also important to point out that bows are very often in real life a one-hit-kill weapon.  I think they should have a high rate of damage, but also a high degree of difficulty to use properly.  That means ammunition should be limited, positioning should be exceedingly important, and the rate of fire should be as realistic as possible.  If you've ever gone bowhunting, you'll know what I mean about all three of these things.  A well-placed shot with a bow can drop a grizzly bear. The game should reflect that level of power, but also that level of sophistication. 

 

My experience with DA:O was somewhat different, my bowman was a really good asset against enemies mages.

 

One more important fact about real life, swords are a one-hit-kill, wait a minute here... almost any weapon is a one hit kill. Some weapons are designed to hurt or defend with non-lethal damge, but the vast majority of them are very lethal. You don't have to be a hunter of grizzly bear to know that fact. But P:E doesn't aim for realistic combat (I don't think I'm wrong with this statement). So I don't know why bows should try to mimic real life while swords are not. 

 

 

If you're wearing armor, most sword strikes are not one-hit/one-kill.  There is plenty of evidence in the historical record to show that men survived multiple weapon impacts over the course of a battle, whereas an arrow in any part of the torso was pretty much guaranteed to kill you.  Barbed heads could ruin muscle tissue and cause massive internal bleeding.  The discriminating factor here would be armor, and the type of arrow being used.  But in the case of the former, arrows still fared pretty well against most armors except for the heaviest of steel plates, which would not become popular until the 14th century and still not available to most ordinary soldiers. 

 

 

Com on guys, you should be reading more historical records and give references : Lets see how arrows performed against a ''lowly'' mail 

 

There are many contemporary accounts that demonstrate the effectiveness of mail against arrows. During the Siege of Amida (359 AD), Ammianus Marcellinus described Roman archers attacking the Persians:

 

The Persian infantry found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order and since almost no kind of dart failed to find its mark, even the mail-clad horsemen were checked and gave ground¹

 

During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:

 

...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.²

 

Odo of Deuil wrote about King Louis VII in an engagement during the 2nd Crusade. After losing his bodyguard he was forced to flee the enemy by scaling a rock face:

 

The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour³ protected him from the arrows.⁴

 

So please, when you state some '' historical facts'' know what you talk about, other may end up spreading ignorance. Armour did offer protection against  many weapons, including ranged weaponry. An armour may not be ''proof'' against all, but did it offer some protection ? The answer is a most definitive yes.

 

1 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Siege of Amida, Bk 1, Ch VII. Trans. J. Rolfe (London: 1935)

2 Bahā'al-Dīn, "The Life of Saladin" (Ch. CXVII), in What Befell Sultan Yusuf, by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi

3 Berry actually uses the word cuirass in her translation but in the original latin the word is lorica which more accurately translates simply as "armour." A mail hauberk is the most likely form of armour worn by Louis, not a plate cuirass

4 Odo of Deuil, The Journey of Louis VII to the East, (Bk 6). trans. V.G. Berry, (New York: Columbia University Press. 1948)

 

 

First of all, I didn't feel like drudging up historical references, because this is a message board for talking about video games.

 

Second of all, we don't have to dig through history when we can test these things right now, in the year 2013.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJPoFL6fLw

[J. Trudel]

First of all, I didn't feel like drudging up historical references, because this is a message board for talking about video games.

 

Second of all, we don't have to dig through history when we can test these things right now, in the year 2013.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJPoFL6fLw

 

 

You are right, this is a board to discuss about games but then you state historical evidences... And I am strongly against the fact that someone try to prove his point by uncorrects facts. This video is the perfect proof that ignorance shouldn't be spread by wanna be scientits who know close to nothing about armor. When you are wrong, accept it and learn from other who may be more knowledgeable on the subject than you are.

 

The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting)³, inadequate padding was used (if employed at all), the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect—all factors that may lead to a reduction in the armour's protective capability². Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991. An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination) was proof against Mary Rose longbows¹. 

 

Ref :

 

1. O. Nielson, "Skydeforsog med Jernalderensbuer," Eksperimentel Arkaeologi, (1991) 134-46
2. Examples include the tests conducted by Saxton Pope—"A Study in Bows and Arrows", Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. (University of California, 1923)
3. Butted mail is commonly used by modern re-enactors but historically it rarely had a place on the battlefield. It offered virtually no protection against the most common threats, i.e. arrows and spears. Even the earliest mail seems to have been made of riveted links

Edited September 4, 2013 by J. Trudel

[Prometheus]

Heavy weapons are at their best against Heavy Armors.

Light weapons are at their best against Light Armors.

They are doing something similiar in PE with armor with high DT and low DT. see quote below:

 

In terms of basic mechanics, the primary trade-off between fast weapons and slower weapons is between damage per hit and damage over time.  If the target's DT is low, the low per-hit damage of a fast weapon is not particularly important because your attack rate racks up the damage quickly.  If the target's DT is high, low per-hit damage is a bigger problem and the slower attacking weapons become much more efficient.  But because DT is a value, not an absolute property associated with a type of armor, the applicability of weapons can shift as your character and his/her gear becomes more powerful.  I.e., a DT that is problematic for Capt. Dagger at low level will mathematically become less relevant as your per-hit damage increases due to character/gear advancement.

 

 

Scaled type armor protect thier best vs Slashing damage.

Banded type Armors protect thier best vs Concusion damage.

Plate type Armors protect thier best vs Piercing damage.

 

In P:E the Armor type has modifiers against some Damage types. for example Mail Armor has a slight weakness against Pierce and Shock damage and a larger against Crushing damage. For more information see here.

 

AoE spells do more damage vs armored.

Direct spells do more damage vs lightly or unarmored.

I think the armor won't modify AoE spells or direct spells, but direct spells and AoE spells will target different defenses(Psyche and Reflexes). So there are some foes that are easier to kill with AoE spells as with Direct spells or direct melee damage. For example it's easier to kill a shield warrior with damage spells as with melee damage. see quote below.

 

Level is a big factor in your total defenses, but the character's class determines the starting point of each defense stat (which can be further modified by attributes, spells, abilities, talents, and equipment).  For example, fighters start with the highest Deflection score and they maintain that advantage as they level up.  If a fighter really wants to focus on holding a line in melee over doing damage, he or she can equip a shield and gain an even larger Deflection bonus.  Unless you're higher level than the fighter, it's very unlikely that your Deflection-based attacks will come close to his or her Deflection defense, meaning you'll wind up missing a lot more than 5% of the time -- and it will probably be impossible to crit them.  If you want to hurt fighters, use attacks that target Reflexes or Psyche, which are their weakest base defenses.

 

Most classes have at least one ability or spell that shifts the defense they are targeting with standard attacks.  E.g. barbarians have a Brute Force ability that allows them to temporarily switch over to targeting Fortitude.  Against our sample fighter, that would have the two advantages of ignoring the target's high base Deflection and ignoring the bonus provided by the shield.  As another example, druids have a spell called Firebrand that creates a weapon made out of pure fire.  In addition to doing only fire damage, it targets the Reflexes defense.