No Arrows Good thing or bad?

[Tale]

I've gone mad with power!

 

Three threads on this subject, good grief. I've merged two of them, hope it doesn't make following the discussion too hard.

[Marceror]

Couldn't we have one discussion topic and one poll? The poll displays opinions in a much more measurable way. And what's more, the link you put in the poll points to the thread that you merge out of existence.

[Sarex]

I've gone mad with power!

 

Three threads on this subject, good grief. I've merged two of them, hope it doesn't make following the discussion too hard.

 

Use your powers in the xp thread and go crazy. It has devolved in to people insulting each other.

[Ineth]

I've gone mad with power!

 

Three threads on this subject, good grief. I've merged two of them, hope it doesn't make following the discussion too hard.

 

Merging discussion threads is good, but you didn't have to close the poll after only 16 people got a chance to vote... :/

[Corivar]

I don't miss them at all. 1 less item to have to constantly micromanage.

[wanderon]

 

 

players want arrows implemented (around 70%) 

 

Based on what?

It's well known that 85.4% of statistics are made up on the spot ...

^This is supported by a 92% correlation with forum debate technique ...

 

Edit: And 9 out of 10 cats prefer Druids

 

 

Mark Twain noted there are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics! nuff said...

[ctn2003]

I want arrows....POE a this momment is worrying the heck out of me...thumbs me up if your worrried like me.. what worrys me the most is the OE team being scarred of Dragen age 3 ...WHY whould you ever care about that>? that games not even a RPG!  Did tomb raider bomb becase of Mario 64! NO!... BUT lets just hope it turn out ok

[Freshock]

Haha, well it's tactically clever to release your own game at a time when there's not any other major releases going on. And that Dragon Age isn't a RPG? If DA:I will turn out anything like the previous ones I'd say it fall under that category. I'm not going to question Obsidian, because they've had so many incredible games before PoE, and it's hard for me to believe that anything these guys release will be bad. They seem confident in a release this year and that makes me confident they will deliver a good product. As of the Mario 64 thing - seems like back then there was a overload of incredible games dropping left and right, these days they come rather rarely.

[dorkboy]

Seems like a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

Per encounter at least pretends to deal with a semi-believable world.

 

Getting rid of annoyances simply doesn't, in and of itself, add up to improved gameplay. But, hey, some people like it bland..

[Messier-31]

I want arrows....POE a this momment is worrying the heck out of me...thumbs me up if your worrried like me.. 

 

[Wintersong]

I want arrows....POE a this momment is worrying the heck out of me...thumbs me up if your worrried like me.. what worrys me the most is the OE team being scarred of Dragen age 3 ...WHY whould you ever care about that>? that games not even a RPG!  Did tomb raider bomb becase of Mario 64! NO!... BUT lets just hope it turn out ok

Because of Hype Machine? EA can afford loads more of hype. And PoE is a more niche game too. Avoiding it, no matter how much you want to pretend that DA3 is NOT an RPG, can increase the attention of potential buyers that otherwise would be "distracted".

[wanderon]

 

I want arrows....POE a this momment is worrying the heck out of me...thumbs me up if your worrried like me.. what worrys me the most is the OE team being scarred of Dragen age 3 ...WHY whould you ever care about that>? that games not even a RPG!  Did tomb raider bomb becase of Mario 64! NO!... BUT lets just hope it turn out ok

Because of Hype Machine? EA can afford loads more of hype. And PoE is a more niche game too. Avoiding it, no matter how much you want to pretend that DA3 is NOT an RPG, can increase the attention of potential buyers that otherwise would be "distracted".

 

 

Call me crazy but the idea of linking a lack of arrows in PoE to devs worrying about DA:I seems exactly like comparing eggnog to motor oil...

[Shadenuat]

Will preserve my post from other thread for future generations.

 

 

Do remember that the amount of bullets&arrows in a stack in IE was small even by realistic standards. Before BG2 there were only 20 in a stack, then 40, although real combat archer would probably carry more. I'd start with slowing every ranged weapon down and stacks of 50. It's a lot, especially if you're not shooting from a horseback or something, but then you can go even between 50 and a 100. Carrying 2 stacks of 50 should be enough for even most combat heavy adventuring day or more.

With that in mind people should concider that managing ammunition in games can often become a chore because of small stacks of it/bloated hp/redonkulous amount of mobs you need to kill. It's not the idea itself that is at fault.

 

I was quite surprised when in beta roaming through dungeons I never found a stack of 40 +1 fire arrows. Yet I did find a bunch of unlimited Fine Arquebuses with 70 dmg per shot that are even more balance/immersion/worldbuilding breaking.

At least make gunpowder a rare resource. That would bring some choice back to what you want to use as a ranged weapon.

[Wintersong]

 

 

I want arrows....POE a this momment is worrying the heck out of me...thumbs me up if your worrried like me.. what worrys me the most is the OE team being scarred of Dragen age 3 ...WHY whould you ever care about that>? that games not even a RPG!  Did tomb raider bomb becase of Mario 64! NO!... BUT lets just hope it turn out ok

Because of Hype Machine? EA can afford loads more of hype. And PoE is a more niche game too. Avoiding it, no matter how much you want to pretend that DA3 is NOT an RPG, can increase the attention of potential buyers that otherwise would be "distracted".

 

 

Call me crazy but the idea of linking a lack of arrows in PoE to devs worrying about DA:I seems exactly like comparing eggnog to motor oil...

 

?

I'm not linking them. Neither my quote (maybe I should have deleted that part of his comment to avoid confusion?). But maybe the lack of arrows is part of the "Awesome button" conspiracy theory by some people here.

[Grand_Commander13]

I wonder, how many of the people who are asking for preserving verisimilitude by keeping arrow stacks would also be in favor of archers not being able to shoot past characters (i.e. they can't shoot past the tank line)? Certainly none of them are asking for dual-wielding to be as useless in PoE as it is in real life.

 

Again, this seems to be more of a "I was promised that this would be Baldur's Gate 3" issue, when no such promise was made. They certainly made promises based on what made the old Infinity Engine games fun, but not that the mechanics would be perfectly copied; yet people cannot seem to wait to find fault with the mechanics whenever they are changed in even the smallest way from AD&D and the games based on it.

[Marceror]

 

 

Call me crazy but the idea of linking a lack of arrows in PoE to devs worrying about DA:I seems exactly like comparing eggnog to motor oil...

 

Mixing eggnog and motor oil is actually not bad. Creates a beverage that will really put some hair on your chest.

[Stun]

 

**** arrows, gimmme a codpiece mounted revolver.

 

If you miss a lot do you get a perk called "shooting blanks"?

 

Also:

 

-Can you enchant that codpiece mounted revolver?

-What will the reloading animation look like?

-Which attribute will affect its damage? Might? Resolve? Constitution?

[Volourn]

"what worrys me the most is the OE team being scarred of Dragen age 3 ...WHY whould you ever care about that>? that games not even a RPG!"

 

Why lie? Quality aide and which game is better how is DA3 any less of a RPG than PE is? It isn't. Don't make stuff up. It's embarassing. Next you gonna claim  IWD isn't a RPG or G isn't or Diablo isn't. They all are.

 

 

"I wonder, how many of the people who are asking for preserving verisimilitude by keeping arrow stacks would also be in favor of archers not being able to shoot past characters (i.e. they can't shoot past the tank line)? Certainly none of them are asking for dual-wielding to be as useless in PoE as it is in real life.'

 

I'm fine with their being a chance to hit a 'friendly' if they are in the line of fire. That's hardcore. And, how is duelweilding 'useless' in RL? That's laughable. And, how does that connect to the discussion being had, anyway?

[Mayama]

That's hardcore. And, how is duelweilding 'useless' in RL? That's laughable. And, how does that connect to the discussion being had, anyway?

Dual wielding two full size one hand swords doesnt really work in reality. He just pointed out that people here argue about that no arrows breaks immerson but at the same time their are tons of other unrealistic things in the game people accept without question.

[dorkboy]

People are allowed to cherry-pick the aspects they find the least believable. In fact, that's generally a good place to start.

 

I wouldn't mind line of fire being an issue with ranged weapons/spells, but that would probably work better in a system where positioning and firing is more controllable (ie. TB), and I do find dual-wielding axes to be somewhat .. hm.. when compared to dual-wielding, say, a sword and a sword-breaker. Dual-wielding is a case of exaggeration, though, not a case of abstraction.

Should arrows/ammo be a [per encounter?] resource, thus making it internally consistent with camping supplies, torches, spells etc.? I think so.

Making mundane arrows magical by having an infinite supply, and magical arrows mundane by having a finite supply makes little "realistic" sense to me. If anything it should be the other way around. But there is also the fun/balance aspect, ofc.

 

It's not as if bows requiring arrows is impossible due to technical limitations of the medium. I'd rather they refined the way it worked in the IE games by applying current mechanics such as per encounter, weapon/quiver sets, class talents, etc. There should be plenty of stuff to pick from to make it mechanically interesting and [sufficiently] believable...

[Mayama]

People are allowed to cherry-pick the aspects they find the least believable. In fact, that's generally a good place to start.

 

I wouldn't mind line of fire being an issue with ranged weapons/spells, but that would probably work better in a system where positioning and firing is more controllable (ie. TB), and I do find dual-wielding axes to be somewhat .. hm.. when compared to dual-wielding, say, a sword and a sword-breaker. Dual-wielding is a case of exaggeration, though, not a case of abstraction.

Should arrows/ammo be a [per encounter?] resource, thus making it internally consistent with camping supplies, torches, spells etc.? I think so.

Making mundane arrows magical by having an infinite supply, and magical arrows mundane by having a finite supply makes little "realistic" sense to me. If anything it should be the other way around. But there is also the fun/balance aspect, ofc.

 

It's not as if bows requiring arrows is impossible due to technical limitations of the medium. I'd rather they refined the way it worked in the IE games by applying current mechanics such as per encounter, weapon/quiver sets, class talents, etc. There should be plenty of stuff to pick from to make it mechanically interesting and [sufficiently] believable...

 

In my oppinion that whole discussion is rather absurd, we talk about bows that have a max range of 10 meters and need like 20 arrows to kill someone from point blank range.

[dorkboy]

 

People are allowed to cherry-pick the aspects they find the least believable. In fact, that's generally a good place to start.

 

I wouldn't mind line of fire being an issue with ranged weapons/spells, but that would probably work better in a system where positioning and firing is more controllable (ie. TB), and I do find dual-wielding axes to be somewhat .. hm.. when compared to dual-wielding, say, a sword and a sword-breaker. Dual-wielding is a case of exaggeration, though, not a case of abstraction.

Should arrows/ammo be a [per encounter?] resource, thus making it internally consistent with camping supplies, torches, spells etc.? I think so.

Making mundane arrows magical by having an infinite supply, and magical arrows mundane by having a finite supply makes little "realistic" sense to me. If anything it should be the other way around. But there is also the fun/balance aspect, ofc.

 

It's not as if bows requiring arrows is impossible due to technical limitations of the medium. I'd rather they refined the way it worked in the IE games by applying current mechanics such as per encounter, weapon/quiver sets, class talents, etc. There should be plenty of stuff to pick from to make it mechanically interesting and [sufficiently] believable...

 

In my oppinion that whole discussion is rather absurd, we talk about bows that have a max range of 10 meters and need like 20 arrows to kill someone from point blank range.

 

No, we're not talking about that. Nor is this a discussion of the relative merits of the English Longbows at Agincourt, or what exact DT value they should "realistically" have ingame.

 

We're talking about bows that do not require arrows. That's not numbers exaggerated one way or that other for the sake of gameplay/balance. That's abstraction, when torches aren't.

 

Furthermore, I think it's a missed opportunity for some potentially interesting ranged weapon/class differentiation and gameplay.

(Yes, in IE games it was pretty much impossible to run out of arrows. I know.)

 

But please, go on thinking any discussion on how less developed* aspects of gameplay might be expanded upon is absurd. (*or at least seemingly so, due to lack of consistency.)

Let's instead have a twelve billion page discussion about the quality of the character models, and the size of doorways. Or maybe it's time for another poll about selection circles?

[mudd1]

 ...Let's start with making the Elves shorter and uglier than humans"

I really don't share your concerns but about elves being shorter than humans, that's frickin' D&D canon. It always has been. I think the only exception is the Dark Sun setting which is so not representative of your standard fantasy setting. So don't be a purist about something that never was.

[Mayama]

 

 

People are allowed to cherry-pick the aspects they find the least believable. In fact, that's generally a good place to start.

 

I wouldn't mind line of fire being an issue with ranged weapons/spells, but that would probably work better in a system where positioning and firing is more controllable (ie. TB), and I do find dual-wielding axes to be somewhat .. hm.. when compared to dual-wielding, say, a sword and a sword-breaker. Dual-wielding is a case of exaggeration, though, not a case of abstraction.

Should arrows/ammo be a [per encounter?] resource, thus making it internally consistent with camping supplies, torches, spells etc.? I think so.

Making mundane arrows magical by having an infinite supply, and magical arrows mundane by having a finite supply makes little "realistic" sense to me. If anything it should be the other way around. But there is also the fun/balance aspect, ofc.

 

It's not as if bows requiring arrows is impossible due to technical limitations of the medium. I'd rather they refined the way it worked in the IE games by applying current mechanics such as per encounter, weapon/quiver sets, class talents, etc. There should be plenty of stuff to pick from to make it mechanically interesting and [sufficiently] believable...

 

In my oppinion that whole discussion is rather absurd, we talk about bows that have a max range of 10 meters and need like 20 arrows to kill someone from point blank range.

 

No, we're not talking about that. Nor is this a discussion of the relative merits of the English Longbows at Agincourt, or what exact DT value they should "realistically" have ingame.

 

We're talking about bows that do not require arrows. That's not numbers exaggerated one way or that other for the sake of gameplay/balance. That's abstraction, when torches aren't.

 

Furthermore, I think it's a missed opportunity for some potentially interesting ranged weapon/class differentiation and gameplay.

(Yes, in IE games it was pretty much impossible to run out of arrows. I know.)

 

But please, go on thinking any discussion on how less developed* aspects of gameplay might be expanded upon is absurd. (*or at least seemingly so, due to lack of consistency.)

Let's instead have a twelve billion page discussion about the quality of the character models, and the size of doorways. Or maybe it's time for another poll about selection circles?

 

Its absurd because everything in this game is an abstractum so nitpicking on one specific thing calling it "unrealistic" or "immerson breaking" just points out how biased this whole discussion is. Its also not up to you to decide what is discussed (and how) in this thread because last time I checked you are not more important than anyone else. The amount of arrows required is a number exaggeration, zero, random amount of and infinity are numbers, at least thats what my math prof told me years ago but I guess you are more experienced with numbers in general because a daper guy like you wouldnt allow himself to talk like a utter arrogant prick if he wasnt right, right?

[Wintersong]

 

 ...Let's start with making the Elves shorter and uglier than humans"

I really don't share your concerns but about elves being shorter than humans, that's frickin' D&D canon. It always has been. I think the only exception is the Dark Sun setting which is so not representative of your standard fantasy setting. So don't be a purist about something that never was.

 

Elves from Faerun are as humans.

 

Uglier? Well, 3rd edition made them a bit alien, which had it pros and cons. PoE elves don't look uglier than humans but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.