Ammunition

[Suburban-Fox]

Well I disagree. For me, arrows being free and never needing to be replaced no matter what happens is far less fun than having to pull arrows out of corpses - most people go round looting the corpses after a fight anyway, so how is having one more thing to pick up going to be not fun?

 

Even if they don't do that, and simply treat them the way they were treated in Baldur's Gate, most people visit weapon shops regularly anyway. How is having to buy a few more of one item going to be not fun?

 

I don't think they should be unlimited, because if they're unlimited, they're worthless. If they're worthless, they can't be too useful, or the game will be broken. This will result in a mentality where arrows are so ridiculously poor that it's almost not worth using archers at all, because they're expected to shoot an average enemy 10-20 times before he even considers dying. In Baldur's Gate, archers could take out most kobolds, goblins, even some orcs, in only a few shots (and at early levels they could do the same to you - making enemy archers that much more dangerous). Compare that to Dragon Age, where even at level 1, archers can be more or less ignored until your health drops to about half.

 

I don't want it to be like this. I want archery to be significant, and when I see a group of enemy archers, I want to be forced to come up with a clever plan to take them out, not simply be able to rush them, shrugging off all hits, until we close to melee range. I don't want to be forced to constantly spam arrows either. I know realism isn't the goal, but there needs to be a balance between realism and fun, and too unrealistic isn't fun either - not for me, anyway.

 

I also disagree that micromanagement isn't fun. What's not fun for me is a game where the only goal is to run from one combat scene to the next, without having to bother with anything else. RPGs are supposed to be about you existing in, and interacting with, the rest of the world. Making it all about combat, and removing everything in between because it's "not fun", just makes it another action game, and there are plenty of those around. Should you have infinite healing potions too? Surely your alchemist will recover all glass vials, gather up any roots that he finds, and brew the potions while you're recovering all of your arrows (which never get damaged at all), and having to buy healing potions to keep your guys alive is "micromanagement", right? ;-)

[Ffordesoon]

Mighty slippery slope you're standing on, there.

[khalil]

Sadly enough, I highly doubt he cares.
In the south it's not uncommon to hear someone say "and after we <blank> we'll start sliding down the slippery slope!"

While it is nice for them to point out the logical fallacy in their argument for me, it still shows that it's not seen as a fallacy anymore.

[Ffordesoon]

Heh, funny. I'm from Alabama.

[khalil]

I'm so sorry.

[Ffordesoon]

'Tis not so bad a life as all that, my friend, but I thank you for your concern regardless.

[khalil]

I lived in Alabama once.
Just one year.

Never again.

[Lephys]

Might a present a comparison?

 

Imagine if you had to have something in your inventory in order to swing your sword, as a typical melee Fighter. You've decided "My character is going to be a swordsman." But, you need sword "ammo." You're just going to buy the crap out of it, right? Because, what good is the super-great micromanagement aspect of accounting for all that sword ammo if you are in a battle and run out of sword ammo and cannot swing your sword? Forget about the 30+ abilities/attacks you're going to be able to perform at some point throughout the game... you can't even make a basic attack, because your sword's out of ammo.

 

Thus, whereas in real life that's super significant, in the game, it isn't really anymore. It's the same with a bow. You can run out of arrows, sure, but then, by default, the nature of the game's design mandates that it make your ammo so readily available that it's not even feasible that you'd ever NOT buy enough to always have some ammo at your disposal. Why? Because if your character is a bow-user, first and foremost, and all your combat effectiveness revolves around a bow, then it's got to be a feasible weapon to use, at all times. Well... that could be misconstrued. Not literally every second, ever, or being put to sleep or petrified or something would warrant a problem with the bow.

 

Anywho, it pretty much just becomes a tax/meaningless ritual, buying basic arrows. Yes, any kind of special arrows whatsoever should probably be limited and managed. But the basic functioning capability of your weapon relies upon having a non-zero amount of ammunition. If you ever DO run out of arrows, you're just going to go back to town and buy some more. So, in the context of the game's design, it's rather meaningless when it comes down to it.

 

Sure, in some other game that's designed around more simulationist aspects, it could be great. In a survival game, for example, THREE basic arrows would be GOLD! And not having them wouldn't be readily remedied. But, in a game like PoE, basic ammo for your weapon is just oil in the machine. In a survival-type game, the machine still works just as well when you're OUT of ammo, because that's a significant part of the game. But in PoE, the machine just runs slower and overheats until you get more oil. The lack of function for your primary weapon positively supports nothing in the design.

[Suburban-Fox]

Might a present a comparison?

 

Imagine if you had to have something in your inventory in order to swing your sword, as a typical melee Fighter. You've decided "My character is going to be a swordsman." But, you need sword "ammo." You're just going to buy the crap out of it, right? Because, what good is the super-great micromanagement aspect of accounting for all that sword ammo if you are in a battle and run out of sword ammo and cannot swing your sword? Forget about the 30+ abilities/attacks you're going to be able to perform at some point throughout the game... you can't even make a basic attack, because your sword's out of ammo.

 

But the difference with that is: with that scenario, there is no other possible attack that you can do if you run out of "melee weapon ammo", so you're helpless. Archers can still draw a weapon and engage in melee combat if they run out of arrows, it's not like they're completely helpless without their bows.

 

In fact, I wish they'd bring back penalties for shooting into a melee - or at least make it really difficult to use a bow while in melee yourself - but I doubt that'll happen.

 

To me, things like losing weapons (due to disarming, or weapon breakages, or whatever), and the chance of running out of arrows, and having to swap weapons if the situation changes so that you can't use your best one, are just part of the game, and something you should have to prepare for.

 

But anyway, I've made my position on this clear, and I don't think continued discussion is going to change anybody's mind, so I'll stop labouring the point now. ;-)  If they give archers infinite arrows, I will be very disappointed.

 

eta: for me, infinite arrows is up there with regenerating health and quest markers, in the list of things that spoil RPGs for me.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Suburban-Fox

[Randomthom]

My favourite character to play (and always my first playthrough) is the archer. I vary it up slightly from the military archer (fighter), the huntsman (ranger) and the silent sniper (rogue) but it's almost always a variation on this theme. I also love my arcane archer (fighter/wizard).

 

Ammunition is a constant issue for pretty much all the reasons listed by the OP.

 

Another problem is the fact that you end up a very one-dimensional character. Some may like this but personally I'd love to experience a system where, in a long-ish combat I would run out of arrows and need to either spend some time opening my backpack to retrieve more or be forced to grab a melee weapon. I think it would detract from min-maxing and be an exciting adaptation.

 

Some of my ideas surrounding ammunition.

 

- Quiver of 20 arrows which, when expended must be either replenished (takes 1-2 rounds) or switch to melee & join the fray.

   - Talents/Items could extend this further or reduce the time it takes to re-stock your quiver from your backpack.

 

- For archer/casters, summonable arrows.

   - Talents/Items/Spells could improve the arrows summoned

 

- Apply poisons to a quiver

   - Talents/Items/Alchemy could make better poisons

   - Risk when applying poisons to affect yourself?

 

On a related note, I'm very much hoping sneak attacks will be do-able with ranged weapons like they are in D&D 3rd edition onwards.

[Frenzy-kun]

My favourite character to play (and always my first playthrough) is the archer. I vary it up slightly from the military archer (fighter), the huntsman (ranger) and the silent sniper (rogue) but it's almost always a variation on this theme. I also love my arcane archer (fighter/wizard).

 

Ammunition is a constant issue for pretty much all the reasons listed by the OP.

 

Another problem is the fact that you end up a very one-dimensional character. Some may like this but personally I'd love to experience a system where, in a long-ish combat I would run out of arrows and need to either spend some time opening my backpack to retrieve more or be forced to grab a melee weapon. I think it would detract from min-maxing and be an exciting adaptation.

 

Some of my ideas surrounding ammunition.

 

- Quiver of 20 arrows which, when expended must be either replenished (takes 1-2 rounds) or switch to melee & join the fray.

   - Talents/Items could extend this further or reduce the time it takes to re-stock your quiver from your backpack.

 

- For archer/casters, summonable arrows.

   - Talents/Items/Spells could improve the arrows summoned

 

- Apply poisons to a quiver

   - Talents/Items/Alchemy could make better poisons

   - Risk when applying poisons to affect yourself?

 

On a related note, I'm very much hoping sneak attacks will be do-able with ranged weapons like they are in D&D 3rd edition onwards.

That reminds me of the swordmage class in the game bravely default. It was a mix of swordsman and wizard, where you imbue the weapon of choice of magical powers, from elemental damage to draining, status effects or extra damage.

 

I think that would be cool. A class that is pretty limited in what they can do, but that as a multiclass could reinforce others. Give fire to your fighter's sword. Stun with the ranger's arrows and drain half of the damage dealt with your rogue's backstab.

[Jarrakul]

I would be totally cool with a "quiver of x arrows, once it runs out you have to take time to refill it but you never run out of refills" way of doing things. That'd be kind of neat, because then you'd have micromanagement that affects combat in a meaningful way, as opposed to micromanagement that merely takes up the player's time. I am fond of the former, but not of the later.

[600lbpanther]

Some like finite arrows.  Some like infinite arrows.

I like limited arrows myself but I see how infinite arrows benefit other people's playing style. 

They both make sense to me.

 

The Logic That I am Right

I am sure we have all been around long enough to know that when arguments reach the point where "logic" is thrown around as the defining reason I am right and you are wrong it tends to build a wall rather than a bridge.  To paraphrase Stephen Covey:  "Is it logical that 2 people can leave an argument both convinced that they are the right one?  It's not logical.  It's psych-ological."

 

Questions & Concerns:

Can a solution be implemented that allows people of both extremes to enjoy the solution being presented? (Or is it the win-loss scenario where "I win" and "you lose" with maybe a snide remark like "deal with it"?  Maybe it is...a lot of times it seems win-loss is the first and only negotiation strategy we employ.  However, sometimes lose-win is a good strategy on something that isn't really that important to the person doing the "losing".  How important IS having infinite / finite arrows to you and, especially, the game.)

 

How detrimental is it to run out of arrows while in mid-combat?  (While one can argue it adds a level of excitement to run out of arrows and have to use a sword to cut a path out of harm's danger... it isn't fun if the ranged character's sword fighting ability means they die instantly.)

 

How many arrows does one need to carry before they run out?  (Does 100 arrows last me quite a while or 15 minutes from town?)

 

Edit:

 

Jarrakul your idea of a "quiver of x arrows" that "once it runs out you have to take time to refill it but you never run out of refills" is a very neat idea to me.  It helps the infinite arrow people out while those who like finite arrows (at least I am speaking for myself here) can justify that they were refilled by their errand girl, finding them on bandits, passing through the woods, over to grandma's house, etc.

Edited March 20, 2014 by 600lbpanther

[Lephys]

But the difference with that is: with that scenario, there is no other possible attack that you can do if you run out of "melee weapon ammo", so you're helpless. Archers can still draw a weapon and engage in melee combat if they run out of arrows, it's not like they're completely helpless without their bows.

In reality, sure. In the game, you get bigger and better fictional abilities as you go, that make you more and more effective. And the minimum quota of damage (mainly damage) effectiveness goes higher and higher as you go through the game. Meaning, if you have 15 abilities for your bow, and weapon specializations and such, but you only have like 2 abilities with a sword, and no skill/training whatsoever, then you're effectively useless with that sword later on.

 

Again, it only needs abstraction because of game-ish factors.

 

For what it's worth, I'm quite fond of all these real-world/simulationist aspects. For example, I honestly think it'd be great, too, if there were penalties for firing at a cluster of melee peeps that included your own allies. That kind of thing. BUT, that's also a lot more important in terms of tactics. Managing basic arrows isn't, really.

 

It's the same reason Wizards are getting Blast with rods, wands, and scepters. So that even when they're out of spells (kinda like special arrows and such), they can still fire their magic (bow) in some baseline capacity.

 

If you run out of non-basic ammo as a Ranger specializing in bows, and you WERE doing 15 + ability modifers with those arrows, and basic arrows only do 5 damage, then you can still at least do 5+other-stuff damage and keep using what it is you built your character to do. If you have finite BASIC arrows, too, then you're either going to run out of ammo completely and have to whip out a sword and be pretty-much useless (because you're probably ALSO not built to withstand the punishment that closing to melee range entails -- didn't even think of that before), OR you're just going to ALWAYS pay your basic ammo tax (pick some up for like... .01% of your party's wealth) to make sure you never run out of arrows.

 

Again, unlike a survival-type game (just the best example I can think of... not the ONLY valid example), this kind of RPG doesn't really support making it HARD for you to hold onto ammo. Thus, making sure you always buy a bunch of arrows and carry them around just becomes a tax, because you're never going to NOT do it. No one doesn't want to run out of ammo, but also thinks it's too much trouble to just buy 200 arrows every time they're in town.

 

In general (as in "I think it'd be cool if there were a game, and your character could use a bow as his weapon, and he'd have to keep up with arrows a lot"), the stuff you're pointing out is pretty awesome. It's not just inherently dumb or pointless or anything. Its significance is only diminished by the specific context of PoE's design. That's all.

 

 

For what it's worth, this...

 

Jarrakul your idea of a "quiver of x arrows" that "once it runs out you have to take time to refill it but you never run out of refills" is a very neat idea to me.  It helps the infinite arrow people out while those who like finite arrows (at least I am speaking for myself here) can justify that they were refilled by their errand girl, finding them on bandits, passing through the woods, over to grandma's house, etc.

... is a great example of what I'm talking about. Whether or not you need to spend time reloading your quiver mid-combat remains a significant factor. Making sure you remembered to bring 500 arrows instead of only 60, so that you definitely have the quantity of arrows necessary to reload when you need to, is not so much. Keep in mind that I'm only referring to basic arrows in a system that uses lots of other/better types of arrows. You'd still either have to buy and manage the quantities of those, OR be limited in some other way (only so many per quiver re-fill, or per-encounter, etc.). The only situation I think it's prudent to avoid is "I literally have absolutely no way of using my bow now," because the game's got to make sure it's easily avoided (or focusing on ranged weapons would be inferior to using some other weapon). And if it's easily avoided, making sure it has to be manually avoided becomes rather moot, is all.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Lephys

[Jarrakul]

I seem to be getting credit for an idea which I voiced support for, but did not introduce to the thread. While I think it's a neat idea, and does to some extent offer a middle ground between two groups that are probably not totally reconcilable, forgottenlor first introduced the idea of finite-but-infinitely-refillable quivers to the thread, not me. But I'm glad to see it getting support, so, with that said, uh, carry on I suppose.

 

EDIT: Misspelled forgottenlor's name.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Jarrakul

[Lephys]

I admire your concern for credit where credit is due. I dunno about others, but I, personally, was just quoting that bit because it was the most convenient reference to the idea, regardless of the idea's creator. Just for what it's worth, 8P.

 

But still... I applaud your attention to clarity on that.

[Suburban-Fox]

Also, from the Wiki:

 

It's likely that bows can fire bodkin arrows for piercing damage and broadhead arrows for slashing damage.

 

So either there isn't a "basic arrow" as such, or there is a standard hunting arrow (or sth similar), which is cheap, but those two war arrows are better.

 

If the latter, and if the hunting arrow is infinite, can the war arrows at least be finite? ;-)  

[Jarrakul]

It sounds to me like every arrow is classified as either bodkin or broadhead. But if they are classes above the lowest level of arrows, then I have no problem with them being finite in one of the many ways discussed. As Lephys said, it isn't about always having good arrows, it's about always having the option of using your bow at all (although it might well be a bad option in many circumstances, which again is fine).

[Lephys]

Also, from the Wiki:

 

It's likely that bows can fire bodkin arrows for piercing damage and broadhead arrows for slashing damage.

 

So either there isn't a "basic arrow" as such, or there is a standard hunting arrow (or sth similar), which is cheap, but those two war arrows are better.

 

If the latter, and if the hunting arrow is infinite, can the war arrows at least be finite? ;-)

 

Yeah, it's possible there won't be a "basic arrow." I don't mean to suggest that's impossible. I was just trying to clarify the actual "why" behind the stance on maybe abstracting some basic form of ammo into infinite quantity, and emphasize that it wasn't any kind of assault on your appreciation of ammo quantity management or anything.

 

Definitely, all non-"basic" forms of arrow would be finite in that template, as the goal is just to make sure that you don't just hafta buy basic arrows to make sure you always have them, just to be able to fire ANYTHING from your bow (much less a situationally/particularly effective ammunition).

 

To make one more emphasis, a lot of problems come with the word "infinite." For example, another option that's been mentioned is simply having any and all ammunition be decided on a per-encounter basis. In this case, the quantity of arrows for your bow that you'd have would be "infinite," in that, after an encounter ended, you'd always get a refill of +25-or-however-many arrows. As long as you used arrows and ended encounters, you would continuously gain another quantity of arrows to make up for the missing ones, abstractly. Thus, the supply of arrows would be unending. However, it still wouldn't really be as simple as "your character has infinite arrows." Because, for all practical purposes, you're actually still limited to that per-encounter amount of arrows. Within a given encounter, once you've fired your 25 arrows, you are out of arrows, until such time as the encounter ends and you abstractly acquire another allowance of your infinite arrows (+25 arrows for the next encounter).

 

It's that practical aspect of the limitation that we're on about with having unlimited basic arrows. IF, for example, there are basic arrows, and they're cheap enough that you can feasibly buy 500 (and carry that many) every time you leave an area with a merchant (and enter a duration of combat-ridden gameplay that's going to use up your arrows), and you really only need about 100-200 during that stretch between town visits, then, the number of arrows available to you is already "unlimited" in practical terms, as in "you are never going to run out of arrows unless you just plain go out of your way to fire three times as many as you need to, or intentionally don't buy enough when leaving town, even though you had the means to do so."

 

That's what we're talking about.

 

If the game supports arrows being expensive, then sure. But, if they become so expensive as to rarify the usage of ammo-based weapons, then those weapons become more like secondary weapons than actual primary weapon choices. Which... isn't the end of the world in isolated game design, but it just doesn't seem to be what PoE's going for.

 

Who knows... maybe they'll come up with something super spiffy that we haven't even thought of in here, and we'll have finite arrows across the board, but it won't feel like a tiny tax/chore to just buy arrows all the time and still never run out of them.

 

We'll hafta see, I suppose.

[Randomthom]

Damn, I thought I was being original with my suggestion, apparently forgottenlor beat me to it by a page!

 

Ah well, great minds think alike & all that!

 

I think that a limited quiver adds a tactical element not present with pre-existing systems. Do I stop to refill my quiver for 5s? Do I switch to a sword and join the fray?

 

It means that if I focus solely on being an archer then I can make a tactical decision about when I refill and if I really want that faster-firing bow. It also adds value to the archer who does spend some of his character build options on other things e.g. magic or melee.

 

It enhances player choice, it allows for infinite "normal" ammo and when you click the button to refill the quiver it could show a list of all the ammo types in your bag/ammo belt as well as the mundane "infinite" option. You could also build into this menu my previous suggestions of magically conjured arrows (for the arcane archers), poison-tipped arrows (for the assassins) and perhaps special armour-piercing/barbed types for the blacksmiths!

 

I guess it would be an easy developmental step within the engine, pretty much all these functions already exist in separate places in the old IE games. I don't know though, I'm no games developer and not much of a programmer!

[JFSOCC]

<snip>

Thus, whereas in real life that's super significant, in the game, it isn't really anymore. It's the same with a bow. You can run out of arrows, sure, but then, by default, the nature of the game's design mandates that it make your ammo so readily available that it's not even feasible that you'd ever NOT buy enough to always have some ammo at your disposal. Why? Because if your character is a bow-user, first and foremost, and all your combat effectiveness revolves around a bow, then it's got to be a feasible weapon to use, at all times. Well... that could be misconstrued. Not literally every second, ever, or being put to sleep or petrified or something would warrant a problem with the bow.

 

Anywho, it pretty much just becomes a tax/meaningless ritual, buying basic arrows. Yes, any kind of special arrows whatsoever should probably be limited and managed. But the basic functioning capability of your weapon relies upon having a non-zero amount of ammunition. If you ever DO run out of arrows, you're just going to go back to town and buy some more. So, in the context of the game's design, it's rather meaningless when it comes down to it.

 

.

Perhaps problems like these can be avoided by having arrows never be meaningless. They could be limited and effective even on a basic level. meaning bows are effective at the cost of ammunition as gold-sink.

[Lephys]

Perhaps problems like these can be avoided by having arrows never be meaningless. They could be limited and effective even on a basic level. meaning bows are effective at the cost of ammunition as gold-sink.

That can be done, but, it just kind of depends on whether or not you want bows to be a "basic weapon" (i.e. "You can specialize in bows, and use bows 24/7 just like a sword or anything else") or if you want them to be a limited-use, almost secondary weapon, like D&D wands and such.

 

If the goal is to have bows (and other ammo-weapons) be go-to weapons for characters, then the abstraction of "basic" ammo makes sense. If not, though, then it doesn't.

 

Think of it like this: Wizards have spells, right? They only have so many per day, but then, they rest, and they get them back. So, they have INFINITE spells. They never won't get spells back from resting. They don't have to buy little spell crystals, and expend one for every spell they want to cast. Now, if they want to use EXTRA spells, on top of what they're limited to per day (possibly even more-powerful spells than they can currently cast), they have scrolls.

 

That's the abstraction I'm talking about with ammo. Obviously, there's a difference between spells and arrows, so that would manifest as a difference in the limitation quantities, etc. (plus, they'd probably start at per-encounter, instead of per-rest. At the very least, per-encounter arrows kind of simulates the quiver limitation of "You can't just start drawing arrows out of your backpack and nocking them... they need to be readily available, and you can only have so many readily available at once").

 

So, yeah, it depends on what the goal is. There's not just a universal best way to do it. IF the goal is to have the weapon choice of an ammo-requiring weapon be your character's main weapon (and have it balanced against any other weapon choice as a main weapon), then having to buy arrows just to use it becomes almost meaningless.