Icelady, read this concerning archery. :)
Austin
From:
Runesabre
Date:
June 18, 1999 at 08:42 am
Subject:
Thoughts on Archery
While I am happier about the current state of combat balance than I
was
months ago, I do think archery is a bit underpowered.
One thing I always try to do is give reason to have a variety of
choices.
There should be a distinct change in style between various combat
skills
like fencing, swords, archery, and macing and not simply make it all
based
on varying speeds and damage ratings. For instance, the mace changes.
I
could have simply bumped up the speed and/or damage to maces but that
seemed to make them lack diversity, hence, the stamina/armor damage
capabilities.
I am still not entirely happy with the apparent sameness between
swords
and fencing... would be nicer if fencing was relegated to fast hitting
against
lightly armored foes but have little to no effect on heavily armored
foes but
today's discussion is on Archery. :)
There are two main problems I see with Archery:
1) Its slightly underpowered compared to the other combat skills.
2) There is not enough variety and choices to be concerning what type
of
bow to use which also hurts the Bowyers of the land.
To address both issues at once while adding some distinct variety to
Archery, I have come up with some tweaks that you can discuss.
Regular Bows
===========
- Pretty much keep them as is. They are my baseline for which to
adjust the
other bow types. I would probably increase the firing rate ever so
slightly
but nothing major.
Crossbow
=========
- Shorten the range to around 10 tiles. ( just slightly more than the
current
heavy xbow range )
- Add an enhanced accuracy to the crossbow... scale such enhancement
based on the maker of the crossbow. So, a below average crossbow might
have no accuracy bonus. An average crossbow might increase archery by
+5-+15 and an exceptional crossbow could increase archery by +25-+35
depending on the skill of the bowyer.
- Adjust the speed to be slower than the regular bow but not too much
slower.
- Keep current damage rating.
Heavy Crossbow
==============
- Keep the slow firing rate but fix the excruciating rearm problem. (
This
would go for all bows )
- Keep the current damage
- Enhance the accuracy some, but less so than crossbows. Average heavy
might be +0-+5 to archery while exceptional might be around +10-+15
- Increase the range to be like the normal bow. This makes up for the
slow
firing rate.
- Make bolts ignore armor.
So what do I see with these changes? Certainly, I think each type of
bow has
a particular use.
Reg bows for quick firing and decent damage thru repeated shots but
tend to
miss.
Crossbows are great for those times when you NEED to make sure you hit
your target but aren't great for chasing people with while Heavies are
great
against heavily armored foes and a good first strike weapon.
Mind you these are all simply thoughts on possible changes to archery
and
should not be taken as changes that will ever go in but I thought it
would be
good for discussion.
Ideas are those of Runsabre. Weapon balancer of OSI
Austin of Napa
Treasure Hunter for hire. If there are hunters on other shard
that use UOAM ill share my map files with you.
Katie
> I am still not entirely happy with the apparent sameness between
> swords
> and fencing... would be nicer if fencing was relegated to fast hitting
> against
> lightly armored foes but have little to no effect on heavily armored
> foes but
> today's discussion is on Archery. :)
It should be the other way around. Fencing weapons were
created to pierce through heavy armor, whereas a
broadsword's swing would do little but knock the wind out of
a heavily armored person.
-Katie
sme...@icubed.com
>
> It should be the other way around. Fencing weapons were
> created to pierce through heavy armor, whereas a
> broadsword's swing would do little but knock the wind out of
> a heavily armored person.
Well, fencing actually isn't so much to pierce armor as to get through
weak areas around joints and between separate pieces of armor. Against
heavy armor though, maces and other weapons meant for crushing would
work better.
-Smedley, Daemon Summoner
Greywind
icelady wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:46:25 GMT, 007...@direct.ca (Austin) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > From:
> > Runesabre
> > Date:
> > June 18, 1999 at 08:42 am
> > Subject:
> > Thoughts on Archery
> Thanks for posting this.......
>
> They need to do something about the delay when you arm
> and disarm. Its too long.
>
> The Heavy X-Bow will never be used to any extent as long
> as its this slow to fire regardless of how much damage it does.
>
I'm not so sure. If a group of archers were attacking, it seems
that first strikes against the same target with heavies would
be the way to go. You almost certainly drop your first target
very quickly.
> I do not like the idea of taking away the protection of armor
> to damage from a bow. From a practical point, it does not
> even make sense. In RL, an arrow would bounce off of heavy
> armor.
Not entirely true. A crossbow bolt would blow a hole in
most armor. Same with a longbow. But trying to add real
life damage here is dumb. You have to go for balance with
the other weapons.
> I sure hope they do NOT take away the added protection of
> armor. (That would put the Bow back in the hands of the
> murderer as a choice weapon).
>
> I say KEEP all of the defense for PC's to the bow and add some,
> don't take any away.
>
> Just bring back the Bow as a good PvM weapon, and protect PC's
> from it.
> --
> IceLady
>
It's only the heavy he said they were thinking of having ignore
armor. To make up for the slow rate of fire. Personally, I
think the heavies will become the bow choice for pk archers.
You'll get about 2-3 hit one target and that target will die
in 2-3 hits.
In general I like his idea for trying to add some variety
to the weapons. I don't think I'd like fencing to go the
route of being really poor against armor. Perhaps certain
weapons, like the kryss, katana, etc.. should be really poor.
Let other weapons be better against heavily armored people.
Just the opinions of an ex-UO player looking to return
sometime.
Greywind.
ML
pks that were using it to take out their victims from range. Now, the same
pks are getting the same effect through the flavor of the day magery skill.
I say, bring back the original effectiveness of archery in order to combat
the increase in (and might I say way too powerful) mage pks. Which brings
me to another point, but I'll save that for another time.
As for fencer vs. swordsman, swordsmanship was the standard hack and
slash, "do as much damage as possible with one blow" skill of the middle
ages, while fencing used lighter weapons and relied more on speed to inflict
damage. Hence the disadvantage of a fully armored fencer. I, personally,
have always believed that speed wins out over strength any day of the week.
After all, more is better. I think UO is handling this just fine.
Austin <007...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:376b82c1...@news.direct.ca...
>
>
> From:
> Runesabre
> Date:
> June 18, 1999 at 08:42 am
> Subject:
> Thoughts on Archery
>
>
> was
> months ago, I do think archery is a bit underpowered.
>
>
> One thing I always try to do is give reason to have a variety of
> choices.
> There should be a distinct change in style between various combat
> skills
> like fencing, swords, archery, and macing and not simply make it all
> based
> on varying speeds and damage ratings. For instance, the mace changes.
> I
> could have simply bumped up the speed and/or damage to maces but that
> seemed to make them lack diversity, hence, the stamina/armor damage
> capabilities.
>
>
> swords
> and fencing... would be nicer if fencing was relegated to fast hitting
> against
> lightly armored foes but have little to no effect on heavily armored
> foes but
> today's discussion is on Archery. :)
>
>
Name withheld
>Well, it seems the toned down change to archery came about by the amount of
>pks that were using it to take out their victims from range. Now, the same
>pks are getting the same effect through the flavor of the day magery skill.
>I say, bring back the original effectiveness of archery in order to combat
>the increase in (and might I say way too powerful) mage pks. Which brings
>me to another point, but I'll save that for another time.
ROFL. Here we go again :). Used to be prob was archers being too easy to macro
up compared to mages. Eval etc has probably made it necessary for another
tweaking admittedly.
> As for fencer vs. swordsman, swordsmanship was the standard hack and
>slash, "do as much damage as possible with one blow" skill of the middle
>ages, while fencing used lighter weapons and relied more on speed to inflict
>damage. Hence the disadvantage of a fully armored fencer. I, personally,
>have always believed that speed wins out over strength any day of the week.
>After all, more is better. I think UO is handling this just fine.
Bit of both needed, as the Japanese found out the hard way with the Zero.
I think its more an issue of different weapons for different historical
periods/situations - many of which dont turn up in your average fantasy game.
Otara, Napa
WesGill
>created to pierce through heavy armor, whereas a
>broadsword's swing would do little but knock the wind out of
>a heavily armored person.
This is exactly correct. A good fencer knows where his opponent's
weak spots in his armor are.
Ce'Nedra Willow
icelady wrote in message <376e0c3a...@news.mindspring.com>...
>> Runesabre
>> Date:
>> June 18, 1999 at 08:42 am
>> Subject:
>> Thoughts on Archery
>
>They need to do something about the delay when you arm
>and disarm. Its too long.
I completely agree.. I've simulated doing it in real life and it takes
longer for my avatar to do it then it would in real life.
>Just bring back the Bow as a good PvM weapon, and protect PC's
>from it.
Chaching! This is exactly what I've said. I've been testing it lately and
it takes a good 2-4 mins and an average of 10-15 arrows per orc lord for me
at nearly 90 archery and 91 tactics. This is without moving around to keep
from getting damaged and just blocking the orc on a bush or taking all the
damage point blank. Most times that time would double. Now through in
something else like a Ettin? Could take me nearly 50 arrows and up to 15
mins to kill one.
This is rediculous. I'm not out there to kill the player, I'm out there to
survive. I have only ever used a long bow. It suits me fine. I'd like to
see it's speed pick up some.. I don't mind the damage being low.. but I do
mind spending 4 mins + to kill an orc lord.
Ce'Nedra Willow
Ce'Nedra Willow
icelady wrote in message <376d411b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>a requirement for a fencer to do any damage. You guys are just
>putting ideas in their heads. There are not enough points with the
>skill cap to add any more skill requirements to develop a character.
>
>When I see posts like this I just visualize someone on the Dev Team,
>saying "Ya, that's a good idea, lets require arms lore". Then they
>go off and do the programming and never consider the impact on
>the skill cap.
>
>They have already done that with some of the Trade skills, like
>Carpentry/Tailoring, and Carpentry/Smithing, or Smithing/Magrey.
>
>Please, do not give them more ideas. They have enough all by them
>self to mess things up. *grin*
Actually, based on what he said.. I'd say they would require ANATOMY to
better know the persons body yer stabbing. And since they already require
that.. I think dev would leave it alone.
*grins*
Ce'Nedra Willow
>>I do not like the idea of taking away the protection of armor
>>to damage from a bow. From a practical point, it does not
>>even make sense. In RL, an arrow would bounce off of heavy
>>armor.
>
>An arrow from a plain bow, yes. A longbow arrow or a heavy crossbow
>would pierce (and ruin) even the heaviest plate on a good hit and most
>likely slay or knock a foe out of action.
Agreed, I've shot crossbows before. And my cousin has what I'd say is a
'heavy xbow' and I've watched him shoot it. The weight tension on those
things would cause a pointy thing like a bolt to rip through even the
toughest plate armour like it was tin foil. So that part makes a lot of
sense. Though.. probably some really heavy well constructed layered ring
and chain would stop it by absorbing a bit of the head of the bolt.
Ce'Nedra Willow
James Dow
I personally am not too peeved by the current fire rate and what not of
bows in the game. What DOES peeve me is the retarded firing delay when you
unequip and reequip a bow. It's in the tune of 15-30 seconds. This makes it
virtually impossible to use it in PvP unless you've got it equipped at the
very start of the fight and get a "first strike" hit in. If they're going
to make the delay so long they should at least allow the usage of potions
while having the bow equipped and make the delay a "punishment" for
mage/archer chars who drop the bow to fire a spell off then try to reequip
it (like the old days). The current state of archery means that it is only
good for PvM (although it IS great for non-mages who want to take down "the
big boys" like ogre lords). It needs to be tweaked back a little to make it
once more a viable PvP option as it should be a warriors' long range combat
option against PC battlemages. In fantasy mythos like D&D, warriors should
be able to go toe to toe with mages using bows in battle (I played an elven
longbowman and I loved fighting unarmoured NPC mages with my bow)
and it should also be the case in Ultima. The bow is a powerful weapon in
RL and Fantasy and should be restored to some of it's rightful glory in UO
again. It CAN be balanced to prevent its' abuse by PKs and the like with
the right mix of drawacks/advantages but the current balance is
unacceptable IMHO.
Some recommended things for archery:
-Make the firing rate higher for lightly armoured archers while instituting
a penalty for wearing plate armours. Chain/ring would give a moderate
penalty while leather and no armour would be ideal.
-Change the firing rate scale so that is more dependent on dexterity
This would make tank mage characters or ones with low dexterity unable to
use a bow with ANY degree of effectiveness while 90-100 dex character would
get off decent firing rates
-Make characters with higher dexterity get a "to-hit" bonus to reflect
their better aim and reflexes.
-Make STR non-applicable for x-bows but beef up their base damage. They're
puely mechanical devices right? STR should not be a factor
-New skill "Sharpshooting" or "Targeting" for archers. Gives a bonus to hit
and damage depending on skill level and increased firing rate.
-Make armour more effective versus bows (but not x-bows) and give a
parrying chance against arrows/bolts for shield using characters and make
RA and/or Protection deflect some of the damage as well to offset.
-Make getting hit spoil your aim/shoot just like interrupting a spell. This
would make sense as bows are NOT melee weapons.
This would make a new archer class and would be cool I think. I love
archery and would like to see it brought back.
Bane of Yew
Catskills
Jeff Gentry
: >-Change the firing rate scale so that is more dependent on dexterity
: Already does.
Definiately - anyone who does not believe this can watch my
archer-mage with 20 dex next to one of those 100 dex types.
They literally get 3-4 shots off in the time that I get one.
: >-Make characters with higher dexterity get a "to-hit" bonus to reflect
: >their better aim and reflexes.
: As I understand it, it is supposed to already do this.
: Not sure it is working. My GM Archer with 80 Dex misses as much as
: my Tailor with 78 in Archery and 70 dex. That does not seem to be
: correct to me.
This might be true. I have a 98-ish archery, and probably only
connect about 30-40% of the time.
Drake
incredible gain in smithing in another thread should shut our mouths before
we make it harder on ourselves!
icelady <ice...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:376d411b...@news.mindspring.com...
| On 20 Jun 1999 17:35:01 GMT, wes...@aol.comNOSPAM (WesGill) wrote:
|
| >>It should be the other way around. Fencing weapons were
| >>created to pierce through heavy armor, whereas a
| >>broadsword's swing would do little but knock the wind out of
| >>a heavily armored person.
| >
| >This is exactly correct. A good fencer knows where his opponent's
| >weak spots in his armor are.
|
| PLEASE,,,,,, The next thing we know they will add "arms lore" as
| a requirement for a fencer to do any damage. You guys are just
| putting ideas in their heads. There are not enough points with the
| skill cap to add any more skill requirements to develop a character.
|
| When I see posts like this I just visualize someone on the Dev Team,
| saying "Ya, that's a good idea, lets require arms lore". Then they
| go off and do the programming and never consider the impact on
| the skill cap.
|
| They have already done that with some of the Trade skills, like
| Carpentry/Tailoring, and Carpentry/Smithing, or Smithing/Magrey.
|
| Please, do not give them more ideas. They have enough all by them
| self to mess things up. *grin*
| --
| IceLady
| --
| Before you criticise someone, walk a mile in his shoes. Then,
| when you do criticise that person, you'll be a mile away and
| have his shoes.
Jeff Gentry
: What about magery? It's being abused by PKs right now but would you see it
: castrated the same way archery was? It's a two-edged sword as with all
: things. Better archery would allow warriors to better fight mages.
Uhhh, it has been - more times than I care to count ... it has been
repeatedly nerfed. Currently, as a mage *and* as a warrior char,
I can tell you that both sides have their distinct advantages and
disadvantages. The archer, however, is screwed.
PKs use magery because PKing is about the quick strike. Magery
shines in the first 30-60 seconds of a combat. Oftentimes,
red PKs will not choose to take part in fights that are going to
last that long.
In a "real" PvP fight, however, things usually tend to play out
longer and that is where warriors are the real heroes. Mages tend
to either be used as the initial volley of big guns, hoping to
take one or two people out, or (the smart ones, IMO) save their
mana for timely heals and cures.
Jan Gustavsson
penetrate the engine.
That is if the bolt is steal tipped.
But even if it was realistic, it would not be fun to die of one bolt in UO.
Cozy
Name withheld
People often dont realise that its actually quite hard to hit individual.
targets with any bow at a combat distance - penetration comes after this. It
probably takes less bolts/arrows on average to kill someone in UO than it does
in 'real life', if you take the number of misses that happen into account.
Otara, Napa
Tim Lisk
always get a hit with your very first shot (as long as you initiated the
attack) and one direct shot from a heavy crossbow would certainly cause ME
some pain... Now just make that puppy barbed and I'm screwed! =O
- Tim
Name withheld <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote in message
news:3771944...@news.bigpond.com...
Corwin of Amber (GM, SBR/LS, WE/ATL)
>: Already does.
>
>Definiately - anyone who does not believe this can watch my
>archer-mage with 20 dex next to one of those 100 dex types.
>They literally get 3-4 shots off in the time that I get one.
According to stratics and my own testing with my 25 dex ArchMage and
my 100 dex Warrior ... a doubling in dex results in a 50% faster
firing rate. So a 100 dex archer fires a longbow every 5 seconds, and
a 25dex archer fires every 10 seconds. A 100 dex archer used to fire
every 2 seconds (i.e. faster than an ebolt) which combined with
drinking gh's without disarming made them quite tough.
It is a lot more expensive and slower to build an archer now. In the
olden days you could build up an archer quickly and for free. That's
why it was a favorite class for PKs. Hence the newbie naked archer PK
class.
Ideas I like most so far:
1) Increase the fire rate, decrease the re-arm delay;
2) Increased accuracy to offset the cost of arrows and the fact that
good mages never miss, and meleers hit so fast they hardly notice;
3) Ability to interrupt an archers fire to balance the other changes.
Main thing is when they are done an Archer should be able to damage
someone faster than they can heal with bandages.
Corwin
Alex Mars
>Date: Wed, 23 June 1999 09:20 AM EDT
>I look at it this way: most
>PKs are either GM mages/GM eval or GM warriors/fencers with poisoned or
>high-end magical weapons that can kill you in a couple hits
Ah, the legend of the PK. Total bullshit.
Dorotea started PKing at 63 magery and 75 sword. Shadowhawk (pre-stat loss)
was 90 fencing and 60 magery. Most PKs do not have GM skills (this has been a
topic of discussion on the PK boards). If you need to lie to yourself to
comfort yourself over losing, don't do it in a public forum.
-Agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Shaky
>Dorotea started PKing at 63 magery and 75 sword. Shadowhawk (pre-stat loss)
>was 90 fencing and 60 magery. Most PKs do not have GM skills (this has been a
>topic of discussion on the PK boards). If you need to lie to yourself to
>comfort yourself over losing, don't do it in a public forum.
Ahh..sorry Alex, please note that he said "most PK's" not all. Most
PK's that I know are also multi GM's in one dicipline or another.
Unless an effective means of stopping macroing are put into place,
thats the way it is, and of course, that affects ALL players, not just
the PK's.
Of course, making stat loss effective on death, ond not on res would
help, but I'm not a big fan of stat loss anyways <I beleive there are
better alternatives>.
Shaky of Baja
Alex Mars
bullshit legend.
-Agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Little WhiteDove
alex...@aol.comspamnerf (Alex Mars) wrote:
|Well, I know a lot of PKs socially and have killed a lot. The GM skill PK is a
|bullshit legend.
|
|>From: jayf...@home.com (Shaky)
|>Date: Wed, 23 June 1999 12:19 PM EDT
|>Message-id: <NO7c3.4178$Mp5....@news.rdc1.pa.home.com>
|>
|>alex...@aol.comspamnerf (Alex Mars) wrote:
|>
|>
|>
|>>Dorotea started PKing at 63 magery and 75 sword. Shadowhawk (pre-stat loss)
|>>was 90 fencing and 60 magery. Most PKs do not have GM skills (this has been
|>a
|>>topic of discussion on the PK boards). If you need to lie to yourself to
|>>comfort yourself over losing, don't do it in a public forum.
|>
|>Ahh..sorry Alex, please note that he said "most PK's" not all. Most
|>PK's that I know are also multi GM's in one dicipline or another.
|>Unless an effective means of stopping macroing are put into place,
|>thats the way it is, and of course, that affects ALL players, not just
|>the PK's.
|>
I know lots of multi-GM PKs. I'll have to let them know they are living
legends, they'll be thrilled ;)
-Little WhiteDove
Atlantic
Alex Mars
no higher than the percentage of GM characters.
-Agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Jeff Gentry
: Ahh..sorry Alex, please note that he said "most PK's" not all. Most
: PK's that I know are also multi GM's in one dicipline or another.
: Unless an effective means of stopping macroing are put into place,
: thats the way it is, and of course, that affects ALL players, not just
: the PK's.
If you're talking about the new breed of red PKs, you're dead wrong.
If you're talking about the garden variety "PK" ala the old dread lords
or the "blue PK" of the previous reputation system, than sure.
Little WhiteDove
alex...@aol.comspamnerf (Alex Mars) wrote:
|>In article <19990623130700...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
|>alex...@aol.comspamnerf (Alex Mars) wrote:
|>
|>|Well, I know a lot of PKs socially and have killed a lot. The GM skill PK
|>is a
|>|bullshit legend.
|
|>I know lots of multi-GM PKs. I'll have to let them know they are living
|>legends, they'll be thrilled ;)
|>
|>-Little WhiteDove
|>Atlantic
|>
|Of course there are GM PKs, all I'm saying is that the percentage of GM PKs is
|no higher than the percentage of GM characters.
Ok, that's MUCH better. I agree.
-Little WhiteDove
Atlantic
James Dow
<19990623115537...@ng69.aol.com>:
>>From: James Dow <jim...@nbtel.nb.ca>
>>Date: Wed, 23 June 1999 09:20 AM EDT
>
>>I look at it this way: most
>>PKs are either GM mages/GM eval or GM warriors/fencers with poisoned or
>>high-end magical weapons that can kill you in a couple hits
>
>Ah, the legend of the PK. Total bullshit.
>
>Dorotea started PKing at 63 magery and 75 sword. Shadowhawk (pre-stat
loss)
>was 90 fencing and 60 magery. Most PKs do not have GM skills (this has
been a
>topic of discussion on the PK boards). If you need to lie to yourself to
>comfort yourself over losing, don't do it in a public forum.
Buddy...you're a loser. Plain and simple. Most of the GOOD pks (most
skilled) on Catskills are (and brag/admit as much) very high-end
characters. I'm in the possession of 2 such characters myself and I tell
you sparring against my guildmates with either of them I steamroll over
them most of the time because my characters are "tailored" to fight PvP. As
for "losing" to PKs, most times I've fouht PKs one on one I won not them.
In groups of 3-5 vs me I flee as any sane person would. So you can shove
your little immature rant up your...well you figure it out.
Bane of Yew
Catskills
Name withheld
well.
One of the more pointless arguments IMO. I'd hope that people would generally
agree that people who are constantly involved in _PvP_ are more likely to have
very high skills in the appropriate areas, simply because they practise with
them.
How fast did your skills increase once you started PKing Alex?
Otara, Napa
alex...@aol.comspamnerf (Alex Mars) wrote:
>Of course there are GM PKs, all I'm saying is that the percentage of GM PKs is
>no higher than the percentage of GM characters.
>
>>From: Little WhiteDove <Dovey_A...@yahoo.com>
>>Date: Wed, 23 June 1999 02:12 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <230619991412549201%Dovey_A...@yahoo.com>
>>
>>In article <19990623130700...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
>>alex...@aol.comspamnerf (Alex Mars) wrote:
>>
>>|Well, I know a lot of PKs socially and have killed a lot. The GM skill PK
>>is a
>>|bullshit legend.
>>|
>>|>From: jayf...@home.com (Shaky)
>>|>Date: Wed, 23 June 1999 12:19 PM EDT
>>|>Message-id: <NO7c3.4178$Mp5....@news.rdc1.pa.home.com>
>>|>
>>|>alex...@aol.comspamnerf (Alex Mars) wrote:
>>|>
>>|>
>>|>
>>|>>Dorotea started PKing at 63 magery and 75 sword. Shadowhawk (pre-stat
>>loss)
>>|>>was 90 fencing and 60 magery. Most PKs do not have GM skills (this has
>>been
>>|>a
>>|>>topic of discussion on the PK boards). If you need to lie to yourself to
>>|>>comfort yourself over losing, don't do it in a public forum.
>>|>
>>|>Ahh..sorry Alex, please note that he said "most PK's" not all. Most
>>|>PK's that I know are also multi GM's in one dicipline or another.
>>|>Unless an effective means of stopping macroing are put into place,
>>|>thats the way it is, and of course, that affects ALL players, not just
>>|>the PK's.
>>|>
>>
>>I know lots of multi-GM PKs. I'll have to let them know they are living
>>legends, they'll be thrilled ;)
>>
>>-Little WhiteDove
>>Atlantic
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Alex Mars
(and some times running like hell). Fights are usually brief (both sides fear
usually non-existant reinforcements). You don't get the sheer number of
attacks that you do from the same amount of time spent fighting monsters (most
serious monsters have more HP than a character).
If you're looking for fast combat skill advancement try bone knights.
>
>How fast did your skills increase once you started PKing Alex?
>
>Otara, Napa
>
Name withheld
skills _after_ you started. Most PvPers I've known made some fairly major skill
increases once they went the PvP 'route', either by macroing, sparring, or
monster practise.
Otara, Napa
Alex Mars
Dread. My other characters who are currently PK have been pretty static since
going red except when Soulclaw practiced magery and spirit speak to qualify for
necromancy.
-Agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Cambridge
icelady <ice...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> I do not like the idea of taking away the protection of armor
> to damage from a bow. From a practical point, it does not
> even make sense. In RL, an arrow would bounce off of heavy
> armor.
Actually, steal-tipped arrows could penetrate sheet/plate metal armour quite
easily. Ring-mail armour was developed to provide protection from
projectiles such as arrows and bolts and to allow greater freedom of
movement. Perhaps if they made archery in UO based on this same concept it
would solve the problem of creating diversity.
Steve
-n-
In article <J8Sh3.1618$rj5....@typ31b.nn.bcandid.com>, som...@microsoft.com
says...
Name withheld
My understanding is that ring mail is not great value against arrows because the
rings are spread apart., and similarly chain wasnt great, because the links
spread under point attacks - both types of armour are really better against
blades and ring/chain was more poor mans/earlier armour. I'm also surprised
obsidian was so effective - considering its basically glass, I would have
expected it to shatter rather easily against hard armour.
I thought plate was generally considered to be much better against arrows, as
its inflexible surfaces could deflect arrows that werent square on.
Otara
gil
Archaeology days. I know obsidian will pierce leather (the Spanairds
found that out the hard way in Central America and thereabouts) but
hadn't heard they will also pierce metal armor. I do know obsidian
won't pierce cloth. Do you have a reference handy for where you heard
that?
Thanks
rend
gil'lomion LS
Ted Kaiser
leather/chain under plate. Also, they would have to expand the armor
selections to include other types of armor, such as brigandine.
Cambridge
instead hold fast when an arrow hits them. They catch the arrow like a net,
or deflect it rather. You only think it was poor mans armour because it's
like that in UO. Do you have any idea how much time and craftsmanship goes
into linking hundreds of tiny chain links into a sheet? Me neither, but it
wouldn't be easy. Plate is just sheets of metal, beat into the right shape
taking relatively little effort from the craftsman. If you think sheets of
armour deflect easier than chain, why don't you let an arrow fly at the
fender of your car and see how well it deflects. Try it an angle too:)
> rings are spread apart., and similarly chain wasnt great, because the
links
> spread under point attacks - both types of armour are really better
against
> blades and ring/chain was more poor mans/earlier armour. I'm also
surprised
> obsidian was so effective - considering its basically glass, I would have
> expected it to shatter rather easily against hard armour.
>
> I thought plate was generally considered to be much better against arrows,
as
> its inflexible surfaces could deflect arrows that werent square on.
>
> Otara
>
Edward Eade II
<som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Actually, it's quite the opposite. The chain links do *not* spread but
>instead hold fast when an arrow hits them. They catch the arrow like a net,
>or deflect it rather. You only think it was poor mans armour because it's
>like that in UO. Do you have any idea how much time and craftsmanship goes
>into linking hundreds of tiny chain links into a sheet? Me neither, but it
>wouldn't be easy. Plate is just sheets of metal, beat into the right shape
>taking relatively little effort from the craftsman. If you think sheets of
>armour deflect easier than chain, why don't you let an arrow fly at the
>fender of your car and see how well it deflects. Try it an angle too:)
Actually making chain isn't that hard relativly speaking. (I know
several people that can make it, as well as a couple that can make
plate) No more difficult than knitting, and definatly *ALOT* easier
than making plate.
Edward Eade II pyra...@erols.com
aka Eric MacDobhran
http://www.pyrates.com/fanclub/
RenMerc
Traviticus insanicus
Plot Plot Plot
The Wheels of the Temple, Carrier of the Heavenly Brew
Acolyte to the Goddess of Love, Gracious Pragmatist to Bared Minds and Sensitive Sipper of Life's Offerings
Nobility is not a birthright, it is defined by ones actions.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/IT/O d-(+) s+:+ a- C++$ U- P+ L E? W++ N++ o K- w+$
O--- M V? PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP- t*+ 5++ X R+ tv+ b++ DI++ D-
G e*+ h- r-- y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Name withheld
for years afterwards had forearms that looked very peculiar. And my
understanding is that you're quite wrong - chain is generally inferior to plate
in regard to arrows. They didnt progress to plate just because it looked
pretty.
I was referring to ring as the poor mans armour, and chain as the earlier period
armour.
Cars are made out of soft iron/steel and actually if you try that with a fender,
you _will_ quite likely watch it deflect if it hits at the right angle - you
have heard of the concept of sloped armour? Plate was where it started. I
think you're also confusing point blank range with a plunging arrow fired from a
hundred plus yards away.
Otara
"Cambridge" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Actually, it's quite the opposite. The chain links do *not* spread but
>instead hold fast when an arrow hits them. They catch the arrow like a net,
>or deflect it rather. You only think it was poor mans armour because it's
>like that in UO. Do you have any idea how much time and craftsmanship goes
>into linking hundreds of tiny chain links into a sheet? Me neither, but it
>wouldn't be easy. Plate is just sheets of metal, beat into the right shape
>taking relatively little effort from the craftsman. If you think sheets of
>armour deflect easier than chain, why don't you let an arrow fly at the
>fender of your car and see how well it deflects. Try it an angle too:)
>
Cambridge
*right* distances and whathaveyou. Under the right conditions, even the most
unlikely of events become possible as long as physics apply. Plate armor
may be better than ring mail, it's been a while since I studied European
history. But from what I remember chain/ring linked armor was better
protection from arrows. I would go dig through my old history books, but I
don't care that much.
Name withheld <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote in message
news:378b840...@news.bigpond.com...
Name withheld
combat situations its designed for - for instance curves rather than flat
surfaces make this much more likely. Even with modern technology, _any_ man
portable armour would have trouble withstanding pointblank archery from a
reasonable bow. As I said, its hard to believe that they upgraded to full plate
and platemail because they thought it would be worse protection - it is more
complex/expensive to make.
If you do find a quote I'd be interested.
Otara
Quaestor
> Actually making chain isn't that hard relativly speaking. (I know
> several people that can make it, as well as a couple that can make
> plate) No more difficult than knitting, and definatly *ALOT* easier
> than making plate.
Yeah, once the links are made (done by your junior apprentices), you weave it with a couple pairs of pliers on
a jig that helps to form it. You may also need a rivetting anvil and hammer if you are making the best
(revetted links are many times stronger).
Working on plate always requires a forge, anvil, dishing tool, hammer, tongs, gallons of beer, and neighbors
who do not care about the noise. It also takes a lot of skill that the mail weaver doesn't need.
Richard Cortese
> Sloped armour is about making sure its almost always at the 'right' angle
in the
> combat situations its designed for - for instance curves rather than flat
> surfaces make this much more likely. Even with modern technology, _any_
man
IIRC, mail was extremely popular vs plate, something like 1400 years of mail
usage vs 200 or so for plate. But one of the earliest ways to defeat mail
was just a dart like arrow tip.
For piercing plate, essentially the same arrow/tip was used, but with a ball
of wax or clay on the tip. What would happen in use is the clay/wax would
have a tendancy to stick to the surface of the armor an prevent the arrow
from deflecting.
Name withheld
Length of time in service doesnt really tell the whole story. I mean you can
also say that the arrow was extremely popular in comparison to the M16 :).
Its not as if they went _back_ to mail after all - what metal armour remained
in later times was usually steel plate of some sort - helms, breastplates etc.
Otara
Richard Cortese
> Hadnt heard that bit about the wax. How effective was it I wonder?
plate anyway with the invention of gun powder.
>
> Length of time in service doesnt really tell the whole story. I mean you
can
> also say that the arrow was extremely popular in comparison to the M16 :).
like the earliest warriors i.e. Greek and Roman, were using bronze plate to
start off with, then switched mail as soon as they found out how to make
metal wire. Certainly if they had the technology to make iron wire, they had
the technology to make plate mail. It is probably explained somewhere, I
just don't feel like going to the library right now.
>
> Its not as if they went _back_ to mail after all - what metal armour
remained
> in later times was usually steel plate of some sort - helms, breastplates
etc.
>
> Otara
was amor in the battles that are usually depicted with knights in plate and
everyone else in mail were really not that top heavy with quality armor.
The 'armor for the rest of us' mostly consisted of combination of padded
fabric with slats of sheet metal sewn into the linings. The examples they
showed were anything from what looked like fish scales between two layers of
cloth, to 2"x12" strips inserted in pocket type linings.
Considering the number of people that were supposed to have taken part in
some of the huge battles, 10s of thousands, the new armor distribution seems
to make a little more sense to me.
Name withheld
>Name withheld <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote in message
>news:378c7d92...@news.bigpond.com...
>> Hadnt heard that bit about the wax. How effective was it I wonder?
>Probably not to effective, but then I think it was a rather short run for
>plate anyway with the invention of gun powder.
Took a while for arrows to be beaten by GP in penetration and range - was more
about mass production and easier training etc.
>But it does make you wonder why mail was popular in the first place. Seems
>like the earliest warriors i.e. Greek and Roman, were using bronze plate to
>start off with, then switched mail as soon as they found out how to make
>metal wire. Certainly if they had the technology to make iron wire, they had
>the technology to make plate mail. It is probably explained somewhere, I
>just don't feel like going to the library right now.
All sorts of reasons I'm sure. I'm also not so sure about the iron
wire/platemail bit myself - making large sheets of thin non brittle iron wasnt
all that easy back then - long swords took a while to turn up for the same kind
of reasons.
>I just saw a History Channel special on armor. One of the things they said
>was amor in the battles that are usually depicted with knights in plate and
>everyone else in mail were really not that top heavy with quality armor.
Nope - plate was a result of artisans. Was a great show here in Melbourne
recently showing sets of armour from an old armoury that has kept all its stuff
through the last 500-600 years - the mass produced stuff and the fancy stuff.
First time I got to see Maximillian plate in RL.
>The 'armor for the rest of us' mostly consisted of combination of padded
>fabric with slats of sheet metal sewn into the linings. The examples they
>showed were anything from what looked like fish scales between two layers of
>cloth, to 2"x12" strips inserted in pocket type linings.
Yeah well, we're arguing about what was best, not what most people ended up with
:).
>Considering the number of people that were supposed to have taken part in
>some of the huge battles, 10s of thousands, the new armor distribution seems
>to make a little more sense to me.
Yup.
Otara
Nicolas Lussier
Cambridge wrote in message ...
>You are talking about particular circumstances. The *right* angles and the
>*right* distances and whathaveyou. Under the right conditions, even the
most
>unlikely of events become possible as long as physics apply. Plate armor
>may be better than ring mail, it's been a while since I studied European
>history. But from what I remember chain/ring linked armor was better
>protection from arrows. I would go dig through my old history books, but I
>don't care that much.
Let's see...
Take a look at a Maximillian Plate or also known as "Ribbed Plate", It was
the finest most technologicaly advanced form of personnal protection since
metal armor was invented and only fell to disuse as a practical warfare tool
when gunpowder weaponry started to become a viable weapon for, no armor can
stand the punch of an arquebus or musket...
Well the principle that made the suit so effective is the deflection of the
blow, making the armor so it can make blades and heads bounce from as many
angles as possible.
Of course some arrows or swords or spears CAN pierce through sometimes, it
happens. But if you look at an account of a middle age battle you'll see
that most lords and knights in plate died from blunt weapons, falling from
horseback or pointed weapons simply going between plates!
Chain mail was designed as a means to protect from blades and heads too, but
you could still die from an arrow piercing, not through, but WITH IT!
(needless to say: Ouch!)
The most important aspect that made Plate armor the lord of any battlefield
is the superior protection factor against ALL types of weapons, whereas no
other armor gave any real protection against Zweihanders, Claymores, Battle
axes, Maces, etc...
Considering a suit of Plate Armour consisted of padded armor plus chain mail
and plate on top, if chain mail really was better, why didn't they wore it
over the plates?
You only think it was poor mans armour because
>it's
>> >like that in UO. Do you have any idea how much time and craftsmanship
>goes
>> >into linking hundreds of tiny chain links into a sheet? Me neither, but
>it
>> >wouldn't be easy.
Aye
A misconception if ever there was one.
Chain mail was horrendously costly and given only to trusted regulars (ie.
Heavy Infantry units, Seargents and lieutenants)
Plate armour...well let's just say some lords couldn't afford them as they
were custom built. (should I add custom priced also!? :>)
'Tis why wars took so long preparation and high taxation rates.
In Richard CoeurDeLeon's (TheLionHeart) times, it cost as much as 150 crowns
to reasonably equip a regular infantry man, that sum is about 3 to 6 months
of a middle class merchant's income...
Look at house prices and armor prices on any old shard, hehe, and smile!
Endruald Ranger of Skara Brae, GL
Acheron Dragon (UDIC)
Nice pet you got there, Bishop!
~USMC Lt. Spunkmeyer