Archery Discussion
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
Greetings, I just wanted to throw a few opinions out there concerning on of
my biggest problems with UO.... Archery. Hopefully, we can discuss this
issue without having this thread disintegrate into the personal name-calling,
archery bashing rounds which usually develop. If we all try to put together
a solution which will work for the majority of us, then prehaps we can send
potential solutions to OSI. Now, of course there are people who are
perfectly happy with archery the way it is (GM archers mostly :)), but in my
opinion, archery in UO is almost completely unrealistic and needs to have
some changes made. I myself (in real life) am an avid archer. I have 3
bows, and a crossbow, all of which I use at least 3-4 times a week for
relaxation, so I have a real good idea of how bows work and what is possible
with them. So without further adieu.... To start with, bows and crossbows
are extraordinarily powerful killing machines. Arrows from bows and bolts
from crossbows have been used and designed for centuries as weapons with
witch to kill an opponent in one blow. The bolt from a crossbow can easily
travel in excess of 200 mph, and arrows typically fly at just under 100 mph.
Obviously, being struck by such an object, which was often adorned with a
sharpened iron head will kill an oponent if the oponent is struck in a vital
area. In fact, it was the development of powerful crossbows and guns (the
arquebis (sp?)) which eventually caused the elimination of outdated plate
armor from the ranks of the knights, for a bolt from a crossbow, even if it
was turned aside by the plate armor, could still deliver a blow strong enough
to daze a man and knock him to his feet. So, I don't really have a problem
with the lethal nature of crossbows (and to a lesser extent bows) in UO.
This is pretty accurate and adds challenge to the game. With that said
however, there are some truly ridiculas aspects to archery, which must be
corrected to bring balance back to the game. The first and foremost of these
is the ability of the archer to run and fire at the same time. My friends, I
don't know about you, but I find this absolutely beyond ludicrous...
especially in the case of the crossbow. Crossbows are typically bent by means
of some mechanical device. Common devices were The Goosearm Lever, The
Screw, a Windlass, a cord and pulley, and a belt hook. Of course there were
some crossbows that could be bent by hand, but those devices were only used
for killing rooks and pigeons and could never have penetrated plate armor,
and would have been tested even by leather. Consider that the absolute
MINIMUM draw on a crossbow was around 200 lbs, and that heavy crossbows could
have draws as high as 2000 lbs. Even at 200 lbs, the vast majority
individuals of the time had to have one of the devices listed above in order
to bend back the bow string and latch it to the stop. Now, with that in
mind, is there anyway in hell, that a person could do that on the run?
Absolutely not. It is not even conceivable. Add on top of that the fact
that the archer would have to stop and aim for at least an instant, and you
end up beginning to get a picture of how totally innaccurate archery in UO
really is. I have in fact, tried to run and fire with one of my weaker bows.
I was able to actually nock the arrow in the rest fairly easily, but without
stopping for at least a second or two, I found that I would miss the target
every time, unless I was VERY close to the target, like 10-15 yards.
One of my other problems with archery is the fact that the user's strength
provides a bouns to damage. This also is very unrealistic. In fact, it is
the draw strengh of the bow or crossbow which provides additional damage
potential. Now, the strength and skill of the archer may allow them to use
such weapons where others may not, but that is the limit of strength's damage
benefit in archery. For instance, a 50 lb bow, would barely even graze a
chainmail suit, but a 90 lb bow would probably go right through it and into
the intended target. Most everyone can use a 50 lb bow for at least a while,
fairly effectively, but very few people can use a 90 lb bow at all (it cannot
even be drawn).
To surmise, here are my suggestions:
1: Allow bows and crossbows to maintain thier damage potential, but require
that the archer stop for a period of time to reload/aim his weapon. This
will create a greater challenge for the archer (they may wish to travel in
packs) and will give other players a chance to run them down like dogs.
After all, how many battles in history were fought solely by archers, without
foot soldiers or knights to keep them from being slaughtered? There is a
good deal of freedom in how this could be implemented, but here is my
suggestion. Associate a timer with each player who has a bow equipted. Keep
a bow loaded flag associated with the bow. If the bow is not loaded, then
the timer begins to count down (or up depending on implementation) until it
reaches the point where the bow is reloaded. Everytime the user moves,
equipts/dequipts, or performs any action which may impede the loading of the
bow the timer is reset. Also create timer for firing solution with the same
idea. Each time the player's firing solution is interupted, reset the
solution timer. All of the times for loading and obtaining a firing solution
could be skill/attribute based. In other words, it should take a warrior
with a high strength/dex/int less time to load the bow, and a warrior with a
higher archery skill would require less time to obtain a firing solution.
2: If they are not already, make Range weapons such as bows and crossbows
thier own class. Provide a m_LbsDraw attribute for the weapon, and use that
attribute to determine if the archer can wield the bow, and what the damage
potential is. This actually adds more complexity to the game than OSI is
proably willing to entertain, as if this were incorporated, they would then
have to give Bowyers a way to create specific powered bows. But, in my
opinion it is worth a shot.
Here are some other points I have seen people mention over the last couple of
months. I am still mulling these over, so any opinions are very welcome:
1: When an arrow misses, it has to hit something. This is quite intriguing
and would probably be alot of fun. How hard would OSI have to work to
implement this? Any ideas?
2: There should be some minimum range.
I'm not sure about this one. If the Reload/Aim timers are used, this would
probably be too restrictive and ultimately unnecessary.
Any questions, comments or constructive critisicm is always welcomed.
Your Friend,
Sun Pin(Chesapeake)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jadesfyre
I think archery does not have to change. It is the other combat skills that
should change. I have noticed that against monsters a halberd or bardiche
does more damage than a bow. But the bow is better against PvP situations.
But then again, magery is better than the other combat skills as well during
PvP.
Couldn't a simple solution be.....that a swordman(fencer,mace) just need to
be close to the target to swing. He need not have to stop to swing. Maybe
this is not realistic..but in the game many things are not.
George
What you have to understand is, in a game like UO, especially a game that
allows PK, the weapons must be balanced. It does not matter what a weapon
may do in RL. This is not RL, it is a fantasy game. Who knows, maybe in
this land it is possible to run and load your crossbow. Just because it is
not in RL does not mean it is not in this fantasy land. So, if weapons are
not balanced what you end up with is everybody using the same weapon. That
is what has happened with archery. It used to be magic before magic was
balanced. Now it is time for archery to balanced and that is in the works.
It is the reason we are waiting a bit longer for weapons balance patch.
ssd...@my-dejanews.com<SSD...@MY-DEJANEWS.COM wrote in message
<6mqr00$5r4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com^...
^Greetings, I just wanted to throw a few opinions out there concerning on of
^my biggest problems with UO.... Archery. Hopefully, we can discuss this
^issue without having this thread disintegrate into the personal
name-calling,
^archery bashing rounds which usually develop. If we all try to put together
^a solution which will work for the majority of us, then perhaps we can send
^potential solutions to OSI. Now, of course there are people who are
^perfectly happy with archery the way it is (GM archers mostly :)), but in
my
^opinion, archery in UO is almost completely unrealistic and needs to have
^some changes made. I myself (in real life) am an avid archer. I have 3
^bows, and a crossbow, all of which I use at least 3-4 times a week for
^relaxation, so I have a real good idea of how bows work and what is
possible
^with them. So without further adieu.... To start with, bows and crossbows
^are extraordinarily powerful killing machines. Arrows from bows and bolts
^from crossbows have been used and designed for centuries as weapons with
^witch to kill an opponent in one blow. The bolt from a crossbow can easily
^travel in excess of 200 mph, and arrows typically fly at just under 100
mph.
^Obviously, being struck by such an object, which was often adorned with a
^sharpened iron head will kill an opponent if the opponent is struck in a
vital
^area. In fact, it was the development of powerful crossbows and guns (the
^arquebis (sp?)) which eventually caused the elimination of outdated plate
^armor from the ranks of the knights, for a bolt from a crossbow, even if it
^was turned aside by the plate armor, could still deliver a blow strong
enough
^to daze a man and knock him to his feet. So, I don't really have a problem
^with the lethal nature of crossbows (and to a lesser extent bows) in UO.
^This is pretty accurate and adds challenge to the game. With that said
^however, there are some truly ridicules aspects to archery, which must be
^corrected to bring balance back to the game. The first and foremost of
these
^is the ability of the archer to run and fire at the same time. My friends,
I
^don't know about you, but I find this absolutely beyond ludicrous...
^especially in the case of the crossbow. Crossbows are typically bent by
means
^of some mechanical device. Common devices were The Goosearm Lever, The
^Screw, a Windlass, a cord and pulley, and a belt hook. Of course there were
^some crossbows that could be bent by hand, but those devices were only used
^for killing rooks and pigeons and could never have penetrated plate armor,
^and would have been tested even by leather. Consider that the absolute
^MINIMUM draw on a crossbow was around 200 lbs, and that heavy crossbows
could
^have draws as high as 2000 lbs. Even at 200 lbs, the vast majority
^individuals of the time had to have one of the devices listed above in
order
^to bend back the bow string and latch it to the stop. Now, with that in
^mind, is there anyway in hell, that a person could do that on the run?
^Absolutely not. It is not even conceivable. Add on top of that the fact
^that the archer would have to stop and aim for at least an instant, and you
^end up beginning to get a picture of how totally inaccurate archery in UO
^really is. I have in fact, tried to run and fire with one of my weaker
bows.
^ I was able to actually nock the arrow in the rest fairly easily, but
without
^stopping for at least a second or two, I found that I would miss the target
^every time, unless I was VERY close to the target, like 10-15 yards.
^
^ One of my other problems with archery is the fact that the user's strength
^provides a bonus to damage. This also is very unrealistic. In fact, it is
^the draw strength of the bow or crossbow which provides additional damage
^potential. Now, the strength and skill of the archer may allow them to use
^such weapons where others may not, but that is the limit of strength's
damage
^benefit in archery. For instance, a 50 lb bow, would barely even graze a
^chainmail suit, but a 90 lb bow would probably go right through it and into
^the intended target. Most everyone can use a 50 lb bow for at least a
while,
^fairly effectively, but very few people can use a 90 lb bow at all (it
cannot
^even be drawn).
^
^To surmise, here are my suggestions:
^
^1: Allow bows and crossbows to maintain their damage potential, but require
^that the archer stop for a period of time to reload/aim his weapon. This
^will create a greater challenge for the archer (they may wish to travel in
^packs) and will give other players a chance to run them down like dogs.
^After all, how many battles in history were fought solely by archers,
without
^foot soldiers or knights to keep them from being slaughtered? There is a
^good deal of freedom in how this could be implemented, but here is my
^suggestion. Associate a timer with each player who has a bow equipped. Keep
^a bow loaded flag associated with the bow. If the bow is not loaded, then
^the timer begins to count down (or up depending on implementation) until it
^reaches the point where the bow is reloaded. Everytime the user moves,
^equips/dequipts, or performs any action which may impede the loading of the
^bow the timer is reset. Also create timer for firing solution with the same
^idea. Each time the player's firing solution is interupted, reset the
^solution timer. All of the times for loading and obtaining a firing
solution
^could be skill/attribute based. In other words, it should take a warrior
^with a high strength/dex/int less time to load the bow, and a warrior with
a
^higher archery skill would require less time to obtain a firing solution.
^
^2: If they are not already, make Range weapons such as bows and crossbows
^their own class. Provide a m_LbsDraw attribute for the weapon, and use that
^attribute to determine if the archer can wield the bow, and what the damage
^potential is. This actually adds more complexity to the game than OSI is
^probably willing to entertain, as if this were incorporated, they would
then
^have to give Bowyers a way to create specific powered bows. But, in my
^opinion it is worth a shot.
^
^Here are some other points I have seen people mention over the last couple
of
^months. I am still mulling these over, so any opinions are very welcome:
^
^
^1: When an arrow misses, it has to hit something. This is quite intriguing
^and would probably be alot of fun. How hard would OSI have to work to
^implement this? Any ideas?
^
^2: There should be some minimum range.
^ I'm not sure about this one. If the Reload/Aim timers are used, this would
^probably be too restrictive and ultimately unnecessary.
^
^Any questions, comments or constructive criticism is always welcomed.
^Your Friend,
^Sun Pin(Chesapeake)
^
^-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
^http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6mqurs$jp7$2...@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>,
"George" <mr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> What you have to understand is, in a game like UO, especially a game that
> allows PK, the weapons must be balanced. It does not matter what a weapon
> may do in RL. This is not RL, it is a fantasy game. Who knows, maybe in
> this land it is possible to run and load your crossbow. Just because it is
> not in RL does not mean it is not in this fantasy land. So, if weapons are
> not balanced what you end up with is everybody using the same weapon. That
> is what has happened with archery. It used to be magic before magic was
> balanced. Now it is time for archery to balanced and that is in the works.
> It is the reason we are waiting a bit longer for weapons balance patch.
Well, this is really right back to my point. Weapons should be balanced..
but how does one go about balancing a weapon that is in effect entirely
different in operation from every other weapon in the game? You cannot
effectively and fairly "balance" a ranged weapon with respect to it's melee
peers in any way in which OSI has done in the past. Essentially, to balance
weapons under the current system involves either reducing or increasing the
time needed to fire the weapon (the weapon speed) or the damage the weapon
does on impact. It is my opinion, that using either or both of these methods
to balance ranged weapons will not present an acceptible solution to the
problem. It is not that we disagree that some balance needs to be added to
ranged weapons, I believe (and I don't know your suggestions) we may disagree
on the manner in which to bring about this balance. I used examples taken
from real life because I believe that they would fit very well in the context
of the game,add to the overall legitimacy of the archery profession and bring
about that "balance" that we both seek to find. In essence, I believe that
requiring a load time for ranged weapons, simply and elegantly solves the
archery problem without sacrificing the power and usefullness of the bow and
crossbow. I would be interested in knowing whether you agree or disagree
with this assertion. Sincerely, J
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
In article <id7k1.5741$5d1.6...@news.rdc1.on.wave.home.com>,
"Jadesfyre" <ne...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> I think archery does not have to change. It is the other combat skills that
> should change. I have noticed that against monsters a halberd or bardiche
> does more damage than a bow. But the bow is better against PvP situations.
> But then again, magery is better than the other combat skills as well during
> PvP.
Hmmm. According to my sources, this should not be so. Can you gather data
to support these suppositions- specifically that the halberd does more damage
to monsters than a bow?
> Couldn't a simple solution be.....that a swordman(fencer,mace) just need to
> be close to the target to swing. He need not have to stop to swing. Maybe
> this is not realistic..but in the game many things are not.
>
Indeed, this could be a simple, elegant solution if you could get into that
minimum range and engage the archer in hand to hand. Many times, however the
archer can run in a direction away from you and simply stay out that minimum
range for the duratoin of the engagement. Because it may only take between
one and three shots for an archer to kill an opponent, it is still impossible
to engage the archer. Sincerely, J
PS: Cool name.
Dundee
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 12:21:20 GMT, ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>potential solutions to OSI. Now, of course there are people who are
>perfectly happy with archery the way it is (GM archers mostly :)), but in my
>opinion, archery in UO is almost completely unrealistic and needs to have
>some changes made.
I disagree. Archery and Magery seem to be well balanced now. If you
weaken archery, the mages will rule the game. The "solution" is to
leave archery pretty much alone - give melee weapons some punch and
possibly change the mechanics of melee combat itself so that swordsmen
(for example) can actually go toe-to-toe with a crossbowman and have a
chance of winning.
>To surmise, here are my suggestions:
>
[suggestions to weaken archery snipped]
If we really want a productive discussion, we need to discuss what
changes to melee combat are necessary to make warriors more effective
against archers and mages.
Having arrows not ignore shields, for example, would be a nice change.
One other thing is that you have to run up and stand next to your
oponent for a second or two (or three if you're using the only melee
weapon in the game that can actually inflict some damage - a halberd)
before you take a swing. You will *never* stand next to an archer for
more than one second (unless he's lagged out beyond belief or lost
connect).
--
Dundee of Lake Superior - Skep...@SPAMISantisocial.com
Townstone proposal and Other Stuff:
http://dundee.uong.com
Nevermind
Couldn't a simple solution be.....that a swordman(fencer,mace) just need to
be close to the target to swing. He need not have to stop to swing. Maybe
this is not realistic..but in the game many things are not.
Auctually, this is quite realistic. I can swing a 20 pound sword, 1 handed,
at a target while running. actually, running HELPS, by adding momentum. I'm
not sure -exactly- how Stones convert to Pounds, but I dont think any
non-bow, 1 handed weapon weighs more than about 20 pounds, if placed in a
real life situation. (I could be wrong. Please correct me.). Since most of
the characters are strong enough to carry about 200 stones (average), I
would assume that they could swing a sword, mace, or fencing weapon (a 1
handed weapon, since 2 hands would be harder to do running.) with sufficient
force to do normal or better damage to an enemy. Hmm, I'm liking this idea..
(I normally use a sword :-P)
How 'bout it?
Nevermind
The Proper Crow, Adept Swordsman, Sonoma Shard
Viva Lord Blackthorn!
ICQ: 2961668
"American eyes, American eyes
View the world from American eyes
Bury the past, rob us blind
And leave nothing behind. "
Rage Against the Machine, No Shelter (Godzilla Soundtrack.
Dennis Heffernan
ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6mrcsu$qo6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
|Hmmm. According to my sources, this should not be so. Can you gather data
|to support these suppositions- specifically that the halberd does more damage
|to monsters than a bow?
Depends on the target's AR. Bows and halberds do a similar amount of damage
and the halberd is faster, so if the target has low or no armor you'll hurt him
more with the halberd.
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) df...@worldnet.att.net
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
inner child and kick its little ass!" - D. Henley/G. Frey, "Get Over It"
Dennis Heffernan
ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6mrcev$q78$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
|about that "balance" that we both seek to find. In essence, I believe that
|requiring a load time for ranged weapons, simply and elegantly solves the
|archery problem without sacrificing the power and usefullness of the bow and
|crossbow. I would be interested in knowing whether you agree or disagree
|with this assertion. Sincerely, J
It would not, because a) the range is too short; you can't keep people from
closing on you when you can't start firing on them until they're only ten yards
away, and b) it would mean that a disconnected archer would be utterly defenseless.
Mages at least get Wrestling.
Joseph England
Dennis Heffernan wrote:
>
> ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6mrcsu$qo6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> |Hmmm. According to my sources, this should not be so. Can you gather data
> |to support these suppositions- specifically that the halberd does more damage
> |to monsters than a bow?
>
> Depends on the target's AR. Bows and halberds do a similar amount of damage
> and the halberd is faster, so if the target has low or no armor you'll hurt him
> more with the halberd.
This of course is true, but I think the assertion was that regardless of
rate of fire, that 1 for 1 the bows would do less damage to monsters
than halberds, and halberds would do less damage to armored players. I
cannot find anything to support this claim. If a weapon does less or
more damage I believe that the reason must be that armor absorbs some of
the damage. But this is true regardless of whether the instrument used
is a bow or a halberd... right?
J
Sting Fletch
Bravo!
On 24 Jun 1998 19:09:02 GMT, twil...@pop.ihug.co.nz (Twilight) wrote:
>..
>>
>>What you have to understand is, in a game like UO, especially a game that
>>allows PK, the weapons must be balanced. It does not matter what a weapon
>>may do in RL. This is not RL, it is a fantasy game. Who knows, maybe in
>>this land it is possible to run and load your crossbow. Just because it is
>>not in RL does not mean it is not in this fantasy land. So, if weapons are
>>not balanced what you end up with is everybody using the same weapon. That
>>is what has happened with archery. It used to be magic before magic was
>>balanced. Now it is time for archery to balanced and that is in the works.
>>It is the reason we are waiting a bit longer for weapons balance patch.
>
>
>I am not sure about this.Why does it have to be balanced? I mean certain
>weapons are always superior to others. ie a dagger vs a Sword? I mean if it is
> gonna be balanced then a dagger wielding person will be made to be equivalent
>to a sword wielding person.Sure its "balanced" but really stupid is all i can
>say.
>Currently archers have a massive advantage.So? Most archers can wield a melee
>weapon just as well.
>Yes archery is very powerful in PvP.but the first choice is usually Magery.I
>havent seen many archers stand up to a GM mage on a 1 vs 1 situation.( actually
>when i think about it.most ppl can use magic anywya so this argument is moot )
>
>Why does it hae to be balanced? ugh alot of ppl are gonna flame me for this.
>Swordsman have their place and so do archers.So why make them equal? If u truly
>wanted to be competitive in PvP then u would take up archery.If not them be
>prepared to suffer the unfair world.
>
>I mean ppl dont complain if a magery battle takes place and the superior mage
>with higher Int would eventually have a much better chance at success and will
>likely kill his opponent.
>
>I know for a fact that at most times archery is slow enough to run from.And a
>GM fencer with poison kills faster than archery.(exceptions are prepatch
>weaponry but thats another topic).
>
>the times i been killed by an archer is rather rare .Most times its Magic thats
>kills quicker and is much more painful. Now alot of ppl complain that the
>stereotype is happening as all the powergamers,Pks,Noto pks etc whatever..all
>began to switch to a certain tactic or weapon.is that bad? maybe Is that a real
>problem?Not really. Players will always use the preceived "best" in the
>game.Hence the Tank/Mage/Archer combo because they want to win.The RPGers will
>stick to their character and take their highs and lows. I really do not see the
>problem here.
>
>IF u expect that this is a fair system then i am afraid that no amount of
>patching is solve this. Alot of ppl say that they will not touch a bow for
>whatever reason.So be it. Whatever the reason then its your choice.UO is an
>unfair world.Diversity may be a cherished idea but not for the human nature to
>be unduly disadvantaged withou adapting to an evolving situation.
>
>>^To surmise, here are my suggestions:
>>^
>>^1: Allow bows and crossbows to maintain their damage potential, but require
>>^that the archer stop for a period of time to reload/aim his weapon.
>
>This is already done thus u see the run run run stop shoot run run tactics
>>^
>>^2: If they are not already, make Range weapons such as bows and crossbows
>>^their own
>>^have to give Bowyers a way to create specific powered bows. But, in my
>>^opinion it is worth a shot.
>
>I like the above however the grapjics required to tell them apart is difficult
>to implement
>
>>^1: When an arrow misses, it has to hit something. This is quite intriguing
>>^and would probably be alot of fun. How hard would OSI have to work to
>>^implement this? Any ideas?
>
>Probably very hard.after all the arrow always hits something when it
>misses..the ground :)
>
>>^
>>^2: There should be some minimum range.
>>^ I'm not sure about this one.
>
>Neither physical limitations dont allow this ( after all a min from archery
>will mean that they should be allowed to shoot from outside the screen too)
Sting Fletch, Archer (Catskills)
*************************
Time wounds all heels
El Lèmur
ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<snip some good ideas>
> 1: When an arrow misses, it has to hit something. This is quite intriguing
> and would probably be alot of fun. How hard would OSI have to work to
> implement this? Any ideas?
It would be fun...but lag would be 10 times worse as the
server would have to calculate what it hits every time an
arrow or bolt is fired.
> 2: There should be some minimum range.
> I'm not sure about this one. If the Reload/Aim timers are used, this would
> probably be too restrictive and ultimately unnecessary.
If there was an interrupt for taking damage (ala magery) a
minimum range wouldn't really be needed.
--
. . Lemur Dragon
* oo www.udic.org
* / \./\ Let's Play 'Save Those Lemurs!'
*/_()_()\ - ("Frink! Woo! P'tang!")
El Lèmur
George wrote:
>
> What you have to understand is, in a game like UO, especially a game that
> allows PK, the weapons must be balanced. It does not matter what a weapon
> may do in RL. This is not RL, it is a fantasy game. Who knows, maybe in
> this land it is possible to run and load your crossbow. Just because it is
> not in RL does not mean it is not in this fantasy land. So, if weapons are
> not balanced what you end up with is everybody using the same weapon. That
> is what has happened with archery. It used to be magic before magic was
> balanced. Now it is time for archery to balanced and that is in the works.
> It is the reason we are waiting a bit longer for weapons balance patch.
It's called suspension of disbelief. There is no magic in RL,
but there is in UO. It's not that much of a stretch in a fantasy
world. However, if there is a crossbow that is exactly the same
in real life except you can run and reload it, it makes you
think 'Damn, this is a pretty cheesy game.'
I think that these ideas WOULD balance archery, as well as
adding some much-needed realism. Gameplay comes over
realism, yes, but keeping the sense of disbelief away is
important.
El Lèmur
Dundee wrote:
<snip>
> Having arrows not ignore shields, for example, would be a nice change.
Arrows do -not- ignore shields. The problem is the way
shields work--they just add to your AR based on the type
of shield you're wearing and your parrying skill, and since
archery does all of its damage in big, slow hits, your
AR does not really come much into play because the damage
it absorbs is rather small on a per hit basis.
<snip>
Goatmanh
ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6mrcsu$qo6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <id7k1.5741$5d1.6...@news.rdc1.on.wave.home.com>,
> "Jadesfyre" <ne...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>Indeed, this could be a simple, elegant solution if you could get into
that
>minimum range and engage the archer in hand to hand. Many times, however
the
>archer can run in a direction away from you and simply stay out that
minimum
>range for the duratoin of the engagement. Because it may only take between
>one and three shots for an archer to kill an opponent, it is still
impossible
>to engage the archer. Sincerely, J
Well if the archer can MOVE AWAY then you can NEVER ingage him so no matter
how weak you make archers YOU DIE!!!
How many armies now use swords? NONE (cept bayonettes and thats more of a
spear <range over knife in hand>)
How many armies now use bolt action rifles? NONE (Fire rate too slow)
How many armies use machine guns?? ALL
How many armies use artillery?? ALL
How many armies use missles? ALL
RANGE RANGE RANGE
Ranged weapons have ALWAYS ruled the battlefield and ALWAYS will.... Can
you say ICBM?? How about Jet fighter with bombs???
And David slew that BIGASS Golioth with a sling...RANGE WINS!!!!
Ever watch boxing, and hear of "reach advantage"??
Hit without being hit....you'll win every fight.
What OSI needs to do is make armor restrictions for Archers AND Mages
(Leather and Ring) then the true warriors will be even. Period. Exclaimation
point!!!
Archery isn't too strong, it's that Archers that can wear plate make it so.
Same with magery I think... ;) (I've YET to use magic but from what Ive
seen it seems so)
I've been an archer since Oct.<on 3 shards> (in October ppl. LAUGHED at
archers ;) I wear AT MOST 18 points armor, and I use NO MAGIC, AND RARELY
USE POTIONS, and let me tell you without wearing PLATE (I could IF I wanted
to) and MAGIC it ain't as much of a picnic as you ALL seem to think...
Give me 20 men,10 good artillery pieces, 10 machine guns and lotsa ammo
and I'll kill all 100,000 swordsmen in full plate you send against me :)
Goatmaan, Master Archer, Catskills
J Aitken
Things that arent taken into account with the 'natural superiority of bows'.
Rain and its nasty effects on strings, arrows and bows; the inability to keep
bows strung all the time due to stretching; their clumsiness in close quarters
(eg in castle breaches or dungeons); and finally _ammo supply_ - whens the last
time you saw an archer with 300 or even 500 arrows on their back???
Theres more than one reason why the sword didnt disappear overnight.
Otara, Napa
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
In article
<9ED67425E4035162.78B91AD8...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, Dun...@LakeSuperior.Shard (Dundee) wrote:
>
> I disagree. Archery and Magery seem to be well balanced now. If you
> weaken archery, the mages will rule the game. The "solution" is to
> leave archery pretty much alone - give melee weapons some punch and
> possibly change the mechanics of melee combat itself so that swordsmen
> (for example) can actually go toe-to-toe with a crossbowman and have a
> chance of winning.
I agree that Archery and Magery are well balanced. But I think that by
changing melee weapons, you are avoiding the real problem. In other words,
how would you change melee weapons so that a swordsman could even get
"toe-to-toe" with an archer to engage him/her? I personally think that
messing with the melee weapons to attempt to make archery fair (which
essentially boils down to modifying the damage potential or weapon speed)
will never work so that the majority of the players on UO will think it is
acceptable. There are just too many difference in the mechanics of combat
between archery and melee. An imposed reload time (as defined in the initial
post) between shots would allow range weapons to keep thier effectiveness and
at the same time allow for other character types to try to engage the archers
without fear of being shot 3 or 4 times without even coming close to the
archer. How would you suggest melee weapons be changed?
> >
> [suggestions to weaken archery snipped]
I don't want archery weakened, I want the mechanics to be changed so that
archery fits better within the game's context.
> Having arrows not ignore shields, for example, would be a nice change.
Excellent suggestion. I was not aware of this. When you say ignore, do you
mean that the addional AR factor provided by the shield is not considered
when attacked by an arrow?
> You will *never* stand next to an archer for
> more than one second (unless he's lagged out beyond belief or lost
> connect).
Yep, that right there is the core of my point.
Thanks for your post, J
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6mrgim$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dennis Heffernan" <df...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ok Dennis, you have some good points here, but let's look at each of them...
> It would not, because a) the range is too short; you can't keep people from
> closing on you when you can't start firing on them until they're only ten yards
> away, and
Range is a very good point but consider the following. If an archer engages
in combat and thier weapon is loaded, they will automatically get a single
"free" shot at whatever target they choose. Given the fact that it is not
uncommon for skilled archers with good equiptment to score hits of 70 damage
points or more, a lot of battles will be won after only a couple of shots.
If the battle is not won after two shots, a couple of things could happen,
depending on whether the archer is alone or not. If the archer is alone, his
options are to run, hide or lose the enemy until he can reload and fire
again. This is basically what happens now, except that the archer can reload
while running at breakneck speed through the forest. By adding the reload
delay, you simultaneously allow the attacked entity a chance to potentially
engage his attacker, and provide a challenge for the archer outside of the
arena of combat. A typical encounter may go as follows: ArcherX shoots and
hits FencerY, ArcherX retreats a short way, delays, and fires, hitting
FencerY again. ArcherX runs for his life, hides, reloads, and fires on
FencerY while he is looking for him in a barrel. FencerY dies and his skull
is raped by ArcherX. :) That is the type of single archer scenario I would
generally expect to develop. There would be more need for strategy. By and
large though, I would expect to see archers travel in packs or with tradional
foot soldier companions, or learn at least to some extent a hand to hand
disipline. This would be extremely accurate portrayal of the archer class.
I know that this is not RL and someone is BOUND to point that out at this
point, but the weapons in UO are based on historical prototypes. It only
follows, since OSI has gone through great lenghts to balance weapons within
thier classes, that the use of these weapons would fall out in a more
historical fashion.
>b) it would mean that a disconnected archer would be utterly defenseless.
> Mages at least get Wrestling.
This is an excellent point, but, is that not also the way it is now? See,
the problem with this is that it is an issue that is derived from conditions
technically outside of the game (outside the UO universe). Getting
disconnected (and it happens to me all the time too) is a scenario that is
caused by the METHOD by which the game is played, therefore, it really has to
be considered seperately. In otherwords, it is a technical problem, not
necessarily a role-playing, game environment problem and as such should not
interfere with the "normal" game play. I too feel that this needs to be
addressed, but seperately. Prehaps, OSI could do a check whenever a player
is engaged in combat with an inappropriate weapon (this case a range weapon),
and for the duration of the battle allow the player to fight as if they are
wrestling.... I don't know. Just a thought. Thanks for the post, J
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6msij0$nmg$1...@cletus.bright.net>,
"Goatmanh" <Goat...@bright.net> wrote:
> What OSI needs to do is make armor restrictions for Archers AND Mages
> (Leather and Ring) then the true warriors will be even. Period. Exclaimation
> point!!!
I have to disagree with this. What good are armor restrictions when you
can't even hit the archer? In essence, I think you misunderstand my point.
I do not want archery weakend at all. I just think it's kind of unbalanced
that an archer and a footsoldier can run the road from Minoc to Yew and the
archer can attack the whole way, without the footsoldier ever even getting
close enought to strike back. YES! Range is a VERY powerful element in
warfare, and it has it's place. But, place 20 archers and 20 knight in armor
50 yards apart, then tell them to engage. The archers will cut down several
of the knights before the knights ever make it to the front line of the
archers, but then are you suggesting that an archer could run for his life
and attack at the same time? (I hope not :))
Thanks Goatmaan,J
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
In article <3591f3e...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
sp...@spam.com.au (J Aitken) wrote:
>
> Things that arent taken into account with the 'natural superiority of bows'.
>
> Rain and its nasty effects on strings, arrows and bows; the inability to keep
> bows strung all the time due to stretching; their clumsiness in close quarters
> (eg in castle breaches or dungeons); and finally _ammo supply_ - whens the last
> time you saw an archer with 300 or even 500 arrows on their back???
>
I considered these things too, but ultimately decided that there is no way
that these elements would fit well in the context of the game. I agree with
all of your points. Two of them in particular are somewhat relevant, the
exposure of the strings to water, and the mass quanties of arrows carried by
warriors. In fact there were many battles that were lost because of heavy
rains that rendered the crossbows useless. But, I think that is a little too
much detail for UO, and as far as the arrow quantites go.... I wonder if our
anscetors ever had to fight Balrogs? :) Thanks, J
Dundee
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:16:18 GMT, ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>I agree that Archery and Magery are well balanced. But I think that by
>changing melee weapons, you are avoiding the real problem. In other words,
>how would you change melee weapons so that a swordsman could even get
>"toe-to-toe" with an archer to engage him/her?
One change would be that if a certain number of seconds have past
since your last swing, you'll take a swing *as soon as you get in
range* with your melee weapon.
Currently you have to get in range (i.e. touching) and stay in range
for the entire amount of time it takes to swing. Not long for
daggers, intolerably long for a halberd.
Melee weapons could do more damage - right now they basically don't do
any - and that would help, too.
>between archery and melee. An imposed reload time (as defined in the initial
>post) between shots would allow range weapons to keep thier effectiveness and
>at the same time allow for other character types to try to engage the archers
>without fear of being shot 3 or 4 times without even coming close to the
>archer.
Still, modifying archery weapons will weaken them - for example,
versus mages. Slowing them down to fewer shots-per-second (or
whatever) might balance archery with melee weapons, but then mages
will be relatively too powerful.
>> Having arrows not ignore shields, for example, would be a nice change.
>
>Excellent suggestion. I was not aware of this. When you say ignore, do you
>mean that the addional AR factor provided by the shield is not considered
>when attacked by an arrow?
I mean it's just basically not relevant whether your opponent has a
shield or not, and it doesn't matter what their parrying skill is.
You hit them as often and do as much damage as if they were using no
shield at all.
The Master
Goatmanh wrote:
> How many armies now use bolt action rifles? NONE (Fire rate too slow)
Ours. Snipers still use .380 magnum or .458 magnum bolt-action rifles. There
are other types, too, but these are the unbeaten sniping champs.
> RANGE RANGE RANGE
>
> Ranged weapons have ALWAYS ruled the battlefield and ALWAYS will....
Not so. Until the english archer armies (beginning in 1349?), the heavy-armored
knight ruled. And their longest range was the length of a lance. Mongol horse
archers ruled, but in most circumstances through most of history, ranged weapons
were "also there."
Dennis Heffernan
The Master wrote in message <35929325...@uswest.net>...
|Not so. Until the english archer armies (beginning in 1349?), the heavy-armored
|knight ruled.
...in feudal European combat, where social conventions won out over practicality.
For a time.
|archers ruled, but in most circumstances through most of history, ranged weapons
|were "also there."
The primary weapon of a Japanese samurai was his bow. Ranged weapons were very
important to other cultures as well.
J Aitken
Maybe so, but removing them makes archery a much more dominant weapon than it
really was - so IMO it needs toning down to compensate. I dont agree that it
follows that because there are Balrons in the game that archers should
automatically have virtually unlimited ammo capacity. Doing so removes one of
the most important limitations of ranged weapons.
Otara, Napa
ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <3591f3e...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> sp...@spam.com.au (J Aitken) wrote:
>>
>> Things that arent taken into account with the 'natural superiority of bows'.
>>
>> Rain and its nasty effects on strings, arrows and bows; the inability to keep
>> bows strung all the time due to stretching; their clumsiness in close quarters
>> (eg in castle breaches or dungeons); and finally _ammo supply_ - whens the last
>> time you saw an archer with 300 or even 500 arrows on their back???
>>
>
>I considered these things too, but ultimately decided that there is no way
>that these elements would fit well in the context of the game. I agree with
>all of your points. Two of them in particular are somewhat relevant, the
>exposure of the strings to water, and the mass quanties of arrows carried by
>warriors. In fact there were many battles that were lost because of heavy
>rains that rendered the crossbows useless. But, I think that is a little too
>much detail for UO, and as far as the arrow quantites go.... I wonder if our
>anscetors ever had to fight Balrogs? :) Thanks, J
>
Drakantus
Twilight wrote in message <6mrise$f85$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>
>Why does it hae to be balanced? ugh alot of ppl are gonna flame me for
this.
>Swordsman have their place and so do archers.So why make them equal? If u
truly
>wanted to be competitive in PvP then u would take up archery.If not them be
>prepared to suffer the unfair world.
First of all, if archery is always better then the melee skills, noone
interested in killing would learn any other skills. It's kinda pointless to
have a fencing skill swordsmanship skill and mace fighting skill if noone
learns them. Heck the only advantage the melee skills have is they don't
cost as much to use, but when you consider the extra cost of healing and
armor, archery is clearly a better skill. As far as you saying a dagger
shouldn't be as good as a sword, no I don't thik a dagger should do the same
damage as a sword or anything either, but there should be at least one use
for it. In RL a single stab from a dagger can kill, as can any hit with just
about any weapon. That wouldn't make a very fun game though, because it
would just be a matter of getting in the first hit.
The way you write, it seems like you think no matter what there will always
be some 'best' weapon or skill. I don't think thats true. From what I read
at UOSS, it sounds like fencing weapons will be very fast, an thus good
weapons to use against mages, while swords will have the most random dmg,
meaning while a viking swords average could be 21.5, it could range from
1-42 and on a lucky hit with high tactics you could kill with one swing.
Mace weapons supposedly will have a much more averaged dmg, i'm thinking a
war mace might do something like 8D5(8-40), with an average of 24, but a
much smaller chance of hitting the highest or lowest damage. Obviously there
would be no 'best' weapon. Kryss would be best for killing mages, maces best
for killing things that can't heal themselves, and swords best against those
who can heal. Of course, since they decided to re-reevaluate the weapons, I
could be compleatly wrong here.
>I mean ppl dont complain if a magery battle takes place and the superior
mage
>with higher Int would eventually have a much better chance at success and
will
>likely kill his opponent.
There is a big difference here. Thats like saying 'people don't complain
when they get killed by GM archers when they are only apprentice archers'.
Of course better skills and stats should make you better, the idea is just
that a grand master fencer should be able to kill an adept archer, and
currently the archer has a huge advantage. It doesn't make sence to make the
weapon with the greatest damage potential ALSO have the advantage of range.
Magery is different.. right now i think it is actually too weak, and i don't
see why flamestrike does less damage then energy bolt. I don't really think
spell damage is low, I just think resisting spells is a messed up skill, it
makes anything less then energy bolt nearly useless. Its like magic arrow 1
dmg, harm 2 dmg, fireball 4 damage, lightning 8 damage, then all of a sudden
its 40 damage for an energy bolt. Mages SHOULD be the strongest at killing
things if they have full mana, because that mana requirement is a weakness.
It would be interesting to see what would change if casting times were
doubled, but so was damage for the lesser spells, and for the higher ones
they made harder to resist.
>I know for a fact that at most times archery is slow enough to run
from.And a
>GM fencer with poison kills faster than archery.(exceptions are prepatch
>weaponry but thats another topic).
Heh, poisoning is pretty bugged. If you are poisoned it's pretty easy to
cure yourself, then drink a lesser poison and become immune to anymore
poison attempts.
>the times i been killed by an archer is rather rare .Most times its Magic
thats
>kills quicker and is much more painful. Now alot of ppl complain that the
>stereotype is happening as all the powergamers,Pks,Noto pks etc
whatever..all
>began to switch to a certain tactic or weapon.is that bad? maybe Is that a
real
>problem?Not really. Players will always use the preceived "best" in the
>game.Hence the Tank/Mage/Archer combo because they want to win.The RPGers
will
>stick to their character and take their highs and lows. I really do not see
the
>problem here.
>IF u expect that this is a fair system then i am afraid that no amount of
>patching is solve this. Alot of ppl say that they will not touch a bow for
>whatever reason.So be it. Whatever the reason then its your choice.UO is an
>unfair world.Diversity may be a cherished idea but not for the human nature
to
>be unduly disadvantaged withou adapting to an evolving situation.
>
>>^To surmise, here are my suggestions:
>>^
>>^1: Allow bows and crossbows to maintain their damage potential, but
require
>>^that the archer stop for a period of time to reload/aim his weapon.
>
>This is already done thus u see the run run run stop shoot run run tactics
>>^
>>^2: If they are not already, make Range weapons such as bows and crossbows
>>^their own
>>^have to give Bowyers a way to create specific powered bows. But, in my
>>^opinion it is worth a shot.
>
>I like the above however the grapjics required to tell them apart is
difficult
>to implement
>
>>^1: When an arrow misses, it has to hit something. This is quite
intriguing
>>^and would probably be alot of fun. How hard would OSI have to work to
>>^implement this? Any ideas?
>
>Probably very hard.after all the arrow always hits something when it
>misses..the ground :)
>
>>^
>>^2: There should be some minimum range.
>>^ I'm not sure about this one.
>
>Neither physical limitations dont allow this ( after all a min from archery
>will mean that they should be allowed to shoot from outside the screen too)
>
>--
>I can picture in my mind a world without war , a world without hate. And I
can
>picture us attacking that world , because they'd never expect it.- Jack
Handey
>
Drakantus
Not to mention parrying is probably one of the hardest skills in the game to
raise, and most people at best gain 8 or 9 AR points wearing a shield. That
equals 4-9 less damage per hit, which doesn't have that much of an effect.
Especially since any twohanded weapon will do a lot more then 4-9 extra
damage, without requiring a new skill.. parrying generally is worthless.
El Lèmur wrote in message <3591CD...@together.net>...
>Dundee wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Having arrows not ignore shields, for example, would be a nice change.
>
Goatmanh
You missed the point...
The Master wrote in message <35929325...@uswest.net>...
>Goatmanh wrote:
>
>> How many armies now use bolt action rifles? NONE (Fire rate too slow)
>
>Ours. Snipers still use .380 magnum or .458 magnum bolt-action rifles.
There
>are other types, too, but these are the unbeaten sniping champs.
>
What does a bolt action SNIPER rifle use? RANGE!!! and a single sniper
using a bolt action is toast UNLESS HE HAS RANGE!!!!! Thats why they use 'em
it's a trade off, 1 good kill shot instead of a spray of 30 or so, and
snipers ALONE don't win wars.
Artillery IS THE KING of battle. And artillery is RANGED WEAPONS!!!!
Wether it is an M16, M60, M203 Grenade launcher, a 155 Howitzer, cruise
missles, torpedos, ICBMS, or 2000 pound bombs THEY ALL USE RANGE!!!! Hit
without being hit is the theory, doesn't always work (usually due to the
other guys <RANGE> thus equalling it out to hand to hand in weird way)
The only way to beat range is overwhelming numbers/armor, and you can bet
you're ass you'll take HEAVY losses closing the RANGE gap...
>> RANGE RANGE RANGE
>>
>> Ranged weapons have ALWAYS ruled the battlefield and ALWAYS will....
>
>Not so. Until the english archer armies (beginning in 1349?), the
heavy-armored
>knight ruled. And their longest range was the length of a lance. Mongol
horse
>archers ruled, but in most circumstances through most of history, ranged
weapons
>were "also there."
>
You know if I remember correctly those mongols tore the asses off of those
heavily armored knights in Europe and the only reason they didn't kill every
European was that they didn't feel like it (they left NO eye to weep or some
such)...granted they had great tactics, and fair armor, but the HORSES also
added to their range.Kinda like a tank v.s. a fixed artillery site.
I really like the "until the English archers" part :) If someone had
thought of it sooner (maybe they got it from the Mongols??) those knights
would have never existed!!!!
And the part about the length of lance <from horseback?> (V.S. Swords I take
it)
RANGE!!!
Ever see that (Ummn Scottish maybe??) Big honkin' sword that went up to a
guys chin? 2 handed bastard sword maybe? Damn I can't remember the name of
it...used to cut lances/pikes?? To help equal the RANGE???
Range is also the reason you DON'T bring a knife to gun fight....The knife
is (if properly used) much more deadly, but the gun ALWAYS HAS RANGE
properly used or not ;)
Goatmaan, Catskills
Goatmanh
ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6mtdru$prr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6msij0$nmg$1...@cletus.bright.net>,
> "Goatmanh" <Goat...@bright.net> wrote:
>> What OSI needs to do is make armor restrictions for Archers AND Mages
>> (Leather and Ring) then the true warriors will be even. Period.
Exclaimation
>> point!!!
>
>I have to disagree with this. What good are armor restrictions when you
>can't even hit the archer? In essence, I think you misunderstand my point.
>I do not want archery weakend at all. I just think it's kind of unbalanced
>that an archer and a footsoldier can run the road from Minoc to Yew and the
>archer can attack the whole way, without the footsoldier ever even getting
>close enought to strike back.
Well THAT would depend on conection speed wouldn't it? ;)
YES! Range is a VERY powerful element in
>warfare, and it has it's place. But, place 20 archers and 20 knight in
armor
>50 yards apart, then tell them to engage. The archers will cut down
several
>of the knights before the knights ever make it to the front line of the
>archers, but then are you suggesting that an archer could run for his life
>and attack at the same time? (I hope not :))
>
Several?? If the Archers are skilled there wont be ANY Knights left to worry
about....A guy in full plate can run 50 yds in how long?? And how long does
it take to fire an arrow if the archer is ready?? lets say each archer gets
2 shots, thats a 2 to 0 odds UNTIL the Knights get close (IF they live) and
then the archers CAN FLEE, and after running 50 yards in full armor the
surviving knights will be whipped by ASTHMA, not arrows ;)
>Thanks Goatmaan,J
Been Fun....
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6mvejo$ini$1...@cletus.bright.net>,
"Goatmanh" <Goat...@bright.net> wrote:
> Well THAT would depend on conection speed wouldn't it? ;)
the dreaded lag god! :)
> Several?? If the Archers are skilled there wont be ANY Knights left to worry
> about....A guy in full plate can run 50 yds in how long?? And how long does
> it take to fire an arrow if the archer is ready?? lets say each archer gets
> 2 shots, thats a 2 to 0 odds UNTIL the Knights get close (IF they live) and
> then the archers CAN FLEE, and after running 50 yards in full armor the
> surviving knights will be whipped by ASTHMA, not arrows ;)
I must clarify... when I used the word bows in the preceding post, it was
meant to mean crossbows. English longbows, depite their power, were
generally sorely tested by plate and generally the arrow glanced off, or only
penetrated the armor partially. With crossbows, The archer would get most
likley get only one shot unless they were both VERY strong and dexterous.
> the archers CAN FLEE
Yes, but they can't flee and reload.
>and after running 50 yards in full armor the surviving knights will be whipped by >ASTHMA, not arrows ;)
If not dead of a heart attack! :)
John Wagner
Goatmanh (Goat...@bright.net) wrote:
: And David slew that BIGASS Golioth with a sling...RANGE WINS!!!!
:
This sounds like a vote for my body area targetting scheme :)
I think the consensus on the archery vs melee question is that in
PVP melee is useless since one must stand near a stationary target to
hit. However, by having the weapons cycle I described a few months
back melee weapons have a chance in PVP. To resummarize:
1)Melee person enters combat mode. Weapon begins cocking cycle.
2)3/4 of weapon cycle time later weapon ready to be swung. The
person is shown with weapon raised. He does not regain stamina while
he is in combat mode like this, from hefting a weapon high.
4)However much later the melee combatant, weapon cocked comes in
striking range of a target. 1/4 of weapon cycle time later the weapon
strikes.
5)The melee attacker, if he is still in combat mode, begins
to raise his weapon again, 3/4 of weapon cycle time until his strike
may be triggered. If he leaves combat mode he needs to wait 3/4 cycle
all over.
Using this model a melee weapon with cycle of 2 seconds(strikes
every 2 seconds) would trigger when you stand by a target for .5 seconds,
with a total interval between swings remaining 2 seconds. Thus you can
run up to your target and soon after you contact the swing goes off. No
more standing next to your target for 2 whole seconds (wildly
unrealistic). The percentage in cycles could be tweaked also (perhaps
1/5 of cycle is trigger, 4/5 raising).
Then of course there is the body area targetting scheme...
John Wagner, Moonbat,ii, Catskills, BenUziel Ches
Justin H.
> > the archers CAN FLEE
> Yes, but they can't flee and reload.
>
Of course they can......reloading a bow or crossbow is very easily done
while running (most models...of course some dont apply). Shooting on the
other hand....... :-\ I think the least it could take to plant your
feet, coherently aim, then get off a shot is about 8 seconds for an average
person and under 4-5 seconds for a very skilled archer. This is only based
on personal experience and history (something everyone seems to know so
much about... :) )
-Justin
Dennis F. Heffernan
Justin H. wrote in message <01bda10f$ece42d00$2bbc08cf@default>...
|other hand....... :-\ I think the least it could take to plant your
|feet, coherently aim, then get off a shot is about 8 seconds for an average
|person and under 4-5 seconds for a very skilled archer. This is only based
Waaaaay too long for a 10-15 yard shot, and that's all you ever get in
this game.
If they treated archery in the strictly realistic fashion people are
arguing for -- including a fair range and the ability to screen your
archers with a defensive line the other guys can't just walk through --
you STILL wouldn't get anywhere near one without magic or archers of your
own.
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) Dennis.H...@gte.net
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6n0674$9...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>,
jwa...@paladin.cc.emory.edu (John Wagner) wrote:
> Using this model a melee weapon with cycle of 2 seconds(strikes
> every 2 seconds) would trigger when you stand by a target for .5 seconds,
> with a total interval between swings remaining 2 seconds. Thus you can
> run up to your target and soon after you contact the swing goes off. No
> more standing next to your target for 2 whole seconds (wildly
> unrealistic). The percentage in cycles could be tweaked also (perhaps
> 1/5 of cycle is trigger, 4/5 raising).
Hmmmm maybe this could work, but in many if not most of the tests I have been
doing, it is difficult to even get in striking range of the archer. Any
Ideas on getting into striking range? Thanks,J
ssd...@my-dejanews.com
In article <01bda10f$ece42d00$2bbc08cf@default>,
"Justin H." <jha...@pics.com> wrote:
> Of course they can......reloading a bow or crossbow is very easily done
> while running
Sorry Justin, I have to flat out disagree with part of this. While is is
possible to reload a bow while running (although difficult), it IS impossible
to reload a crossbow while running. And if you can do so, you will be my new
hero! :}
(most models...of course some dont apply). Shooting on the
> other hand....... :-\ I think the least it could take to plant your
> feet, coherently aim, then get off a shot is about 8 seconds for an average
> person and under 4-5 seconds for a very skilled archer. This is only based
> on personal experience and history (something everyone seems to know so
> much about... :) )
Five seconds is acually was about the norm for a reload AND a shot. The best
archers could actually fire about 12 arrows a minute. Crossbowmen could do
about 2-3.
Thanks, J
Fire of Marauder
ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6n0nbv$i50$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bda10f$ece42d00$2bbc08cf@default>,
> "Justin H." <jha...@pics.com> wrote:
> > Of course they can......reloading a bow or crossbow is very easily done
> > while running
>
> Sorry Justin, I have to flat out disagree with part of this. While is is
> possible to reload a bow while running (although difficult), it IS
impossible
> to reload a crossbow while running. And if you can do so, you will be my
new
> hero! :}
>
> (most models...of course some dont apply). Shooting on the
> > other hand....... :-\ I think the least it could take to plant your
> > feet, coherently aim, then get off a shot is about 8 seconds for an
average
> > person and under 4-5 seconds for a very skilled archer. This is only
based
> > on personal experience and history (something everyone seems to know so
> > much about... :) )
>
> Five seconds is acually was about the norm for a reload AND a shot. The
best
> archers could actually fire about 12 arrows a minute. Crossbowmen could
do
> about 2-3.
>
Though UO time is different then RL time, so a minute would be more like 25
seconds in RL.
Also I agree with your point on reloading a crossbow while running.
Fire of Marauder, Napa Valley Shard
The Master
Dennis F. Heffernan wrote:
> Justin H. wrote in message <01bda10f$ece42d00$2bbc08cf@default>...
> |other hand....... :-\ I think the least it could take to plant your
> |feet, coherently aim, then get off a shot is about 8 seconds for an average
> |person and under 4-5 seconds for a very skilled archer. This is only based
What is this? National Change Your Name To Get Past Killfiles day?
charles e jr luna
anews.com> <01bda10f$ece42d00$2bbc08cf@default>
<6n0nbv$i50$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
Distribution:
ssd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: In article <01bda10f$ece42d00$2bbc08cf@default>,
: "Justin H." <jha...@pics.com> wrote:
: > Of course they can......reloading a bow or crossbow is very easily done
: > while running
: Sorry Justin, I have to flat out disagree with part of this. While is is
: possible to reload a bow while running (although difficult), it IS impossible
: to reload a crossbow while running. And if you can do so, you will be my new
: hero! :}
Agreed. Historically, many heavies even required that you stand on a
stirrup attached to one end of the bow and turn windlass cranks...can't
really see this happening unless you have a third (useful) leg. <grins>
: (most models...of course some dont apply). Shooting on the
: > other hand....... :-\ I think the least it could take to plant your
: > feet, coherently aim, then get off a shot is about 8 seconds for an average
: > person and under 4-5 seconds for a very skilled archer. This is only based
: > on personal experience and history (something everyone seems to know so
: > much about... :) )
: Five seconds is acually was about the norm for a reload AND a shot. The best
: archers could actually fire about 12 arrows a minute. Crossbowmen could do
: about 2-3.
Haha--I would love to see someone try to accurately shoot 12 arrows a
minute while both the archer and target are running at full speed, dodging
around trees/other people/horses. This would be further complicated by
the archer trying to put an arrow into the joints and other small weak
points in the target's armour. Maybe if you got 1000 archers and fired in
mass volleys (Agincourt?) like artillery then each could get off 12 arrows
a minute. Maybe even if both archer and target were stationary you could
get off that many...with movement it seems unlikely, however.
CW-Rhennaeleus
Vesper, Pacific Shard
: Thanks, J
The Master
Goatmanh wrote:
> You missed the point...
>
> What does a bolt action SNIPER rifle use? RANGE!!! and a single sniper
You said that no armies were using bolt rifles. Now you're changing the subject
to avoid being wrong. That's two wrongs.
> using a bolt action is toast UNLESS HE HAS RANGE!!!!! Thats why they use 'em
AND YELLING MAKES THREE.
> You know if I remember correctly those mongols tore the asses off of those
> heavily armored knights in Europe
You remember? Just where in europe are you talking about? Paris? Madrid?
> I really like the "until the English archers" part :) If someone had
> thought of it sooner (maybe they got it from the Mongols??) those knights
> would have never existed!!!!
If someone had thought of bicycles sooner, ...
Dad: When I was a kid, we didn't HAVE computers!
Kid: What did you run your programs on?
And just a little study of the subject would easily acquaint you with exactly
where the English got the idea. Hint: The Black Prince. Famous story.
Wales. And a thick door.
> Ever see that (Ummn Scottish maybe??) Big honkin' sword that went up to a
> guys chin?
I own one (actually two, but the other, nodachi, is Japanese). It's called a
greatsword. This one is Scottish, called claidhememor (various spellings,
pronounced claymore). My friend's is of the Irish sort, identifiable by the
straighter quillons with the hooks on the ends.
The combat reach is about 6 feet. Because this type of weapon requires
different footwork from the one-hand swords, it's effective reach is not really
greater. But I'm sure you know that. You seem to know a great many things that
the rest of us do not, in spite of our lifetime of study.
Since you are obviously craving calling yourself Right about something, I'll
give you this: The farther you are from someone when you strike, generally the
better advantage you have, especially when they have no meaningful strike back
at that range. It's like sadass hoosein's 30-mile artilary, vs our 25-mile
stuff in the gulfwar. Our people could not compete with the range of that
stuff, so he'd carefully site his pieces beyond our range, and pop away. Then
one of our MLRS (35-mile range) would open up with a couple salvos of 12
multiple-projectile missiles, and blast them to hell.
The subject here, however, is supposed to be midieval weapons. You ever read a
Scientific American? They did a really great article on composite bows back in
(I recamember) November 1988. Cover story. Shouldn't be hard to find. Go to
it.
The Master
Drakantus wrote:
> First of all, if archery is always better then the melee skills, noone
> interested in killing would learn any other skills. It's kinda pointless to
> have a fencing skill swordsmanship skill and mace fighting skill if noone
> learns them.
Not entirely. I'm an Armsman turned Warrior, experienced in all classes of
weapons. I took mace first, to build strength fast, and progressed quickly (I
guess the fact that most people don't do mace much anymore means that the lack
of top-down skill compression makes progress relatively easy). Then, because I
kept finding all these real good fencing weapons for sale cheap (people do not
respec them), I went with that, and bow. I'm now quite handy with both, and
bringing up my sword skill, since it appears that halberd is going to continue
to rule for a while in the armored department. I'd do more hunting and fighting
with bow IF it didn't cost so much for arrows (and if you make your own you have
less time for other things). So for hunting and easy monsters, fencing or
sword. For tough critters, and PvP (when it cannot be avoided, because we STILL
don't have the switch), magic and bow.
> Heck the only advantage the melee skills have is they don't
> cost as much to use, but when you consider the extra cost of healing and
> armor, archery is clearly a better skill.
Not all that clearly. Armor costs, but the cost of arrows mounts up fast. If
all one wants to do is hunt birds, hack trees, make his arrows, and shoot,
that's fine. But all that fine maneuvering that it takes to be a successful
archer in this game can go to helena minute when you suddenly find the mother of
all spawns hitting you from all sides in a tight dungeon environment, and you'd
better be able to take a few hits while getting your magic working (teleport,
recall, RA, whatever). Otherwise you'll find that long reload time is plenty of
time for a host of uglies to pound you to dogfood.
I speak from experience! The first time my buddy (the Lord, you see)
disappeared and left me in the elemental department at Shame, I was shooting one
EE when another appeared. Then, it took me about 39 shots to bring one down, so
if I couldn't get them stuck, I had some running to do. Right into the arms of
a slime (slimes have arms?). It quickly became two (figger that out). Then
came the big rats. All of this converged on me at once. Without armor I would
have been toast. Only the fact that I had acquired and worn good enough saved
me. I failed to recall several times, but saved up enough stamina to run
through the crowd, got to a relatively safe place, and fizzed several more times
before getting a recall to work. I got home with almost no health left.
Without the armor, in that place, I was not going anywhere, ghost or otherwise,
until someone came to gate me. And without some pretty good Wrestling skill I
would not have lived long enough to escape.
There have been other such exciting stories, and you can have them all for the
amazingly low price of....
> As far as you saying a dagger shouldn't be as good as a sword, no I don't thik
> a dagger should do the same
> damage as a sword or anything either, but there should be at least one use for
> it. In RL a single stab from a dagger can kill, as can any hit with just about
> any weapon. That wouldn't make a very fun game though, because it would just
> be a matter of getting in the first hit.
We have plenty of experience with that. Every time I got pk'd it was by ambush,
where they got the first volley of hits. Enough of that.
> would be no 'best' weapon. Kryss would be best for killing mages,
Might be true of orc magi. Player magi? In AR 33 plate? :-(
Dennis F. Heffernan
The Master wrote in message <35943A06...@uswest.net>...
|What is this? National Change Your Name To Get Past Killfiles day?
If the comment is directed towards me, I gave the group due notice.
Drakantus
The Master wrote in message <35944619...@uswest.net>...
>Drakantus wrote:
>
>> First of all, if archery is always better then the melee skills, noone
>> interested in killing would learn any other skills. It's kinda pointless
to
>> have a fencing skill swordsmanship skill and mace fighting skill if noone
>> learns them.
>
>Not entirely. I'm an Armsman turned Warrior, experienced in all classes of
>weapons. I took mace first, to build strength fast, and progressed quickly
(I
>guess the fact that most people don't do mace much anymore means that the
lack
>of top-down skill compression makes progress relatively easy). Then,
because I
>kept finding all these real good fencing weapons for sale cheap (people do
not
>respec them), I went with that, and bow. I'm now quite handy with both,
and
>bringing up my sword skill, since it appears that halberd is going to
continue
>to rule for a while in the armored department. I'd do more hunting and
fighting
>with bow IF it didn't cost so much for arrows (and if you make your own you
have
>less time for other things). So for hunting and easy monsters, fencing or
>sword. For tough critters, and PvP (when it cannot be avoided, because we
STILL
>don't have the switch), magic and bow.
Still, you use both (or all 4) weapon skills. How many people only learn
swordsmanship compared to how many people only learn archery? Also, if OSI
says 'we have decided to cancel the weapon revision, and just keep bows as
the best weapons' then I bet even more will turn to bows, I think the few
people who use other weapons exclusivly do so because they except to be at
an advantage after the weapon patch. I have characters ('real' characters,
not mules) with every weapon skill. The fencer and armsman are both masters,
the swordsman and archer are adepts. Guess which ones can kill earth
elementals and which ones can't? The fencer can, but thats because he is
also an alchemist and he carriers about 10 heal potions with him at all
times, And the archer can, well because he is an archer. No magery needed.
My other two can't. I guess if all you want to do is kill deer and cows
melee weapons a little more efficient, but since the average profit on a cow
is about 50 gold worth of leather, and it takes 3 bolts to kill one.. well
even if you buy bolts for 7 gold each at those outragous vendors you still
make a profit. And most players who bother to learn fighting skills don't do
so to be able to kill goats.
>> Heck the only advantage the melee skills have is they don't
>> cost as much to use, but when you consider the extra cost of healing and
>> armor, archery is clearly a better skill.
>
Well that is an exciting story, I have had many simular experiences, mainly
in covetus level 2. But in the end magery saves you, with a little help from
wrestling, not swordsmanship. And armor, as usefull as it seems, doesn't do
much versus the rats. Unless they changed it, every time you get hit it does
at least one point of damage, and those rats only do 1 point or so normally.
>> As far as you saying a dagger shouldn't be as good as a sword, no I don't
thik
>> a dagger should do the same
>> damage as a sword or anything either, but there should be at least one
use for
>> it. In RL a single stab from a dagger can kill, as can any hit with just
about
>> any weapon. That wouldn't make a very fun game though, because it would
just
>> be a matter of getting in the first hit.
>
>We have plenty of experience with that. Every time I got pk'd it was by
ambush,
>where they got the first volley of hits. Enough of that.
>
>
>> would be no 'best' weapon. Kryss would be best for killing mages,
>
>Might be true of orc magi. Player magi? In AR 33 plate? :-(
>
Well, you would be doing one point per hit, the mage would have all his
spells fizzle.. oh I get it, you mean those mages with the big crossbows. :)
If poisoning is ever fixxed up that could also be a good use for the kryss,
right now it's extreamly easy to cure a poison and then drink a lesser
poison and make yourself immune.
-Drakantus
Grant Farrington
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:11:32 GMT, Dun...@LakeSuperior.Shard (Dundee)
wrote:
>One change would be that if a certain number of seconds have past
>since your last swing, you'll take a swing *as soon as you get in
>range* with your melee weapon.
>Currently you have to get in range (i.e. touching) and stay in range
>for the entire amount of time it takes to swing. Not long for
>daggers, intolerably long for a halberd.
I think this is whole jist of the matter. A swordsman just cannot
swing at a target unless it's standing still, and being still for a
fair while. Taking a swing the instant something is in range would be
a start. It would also be a help in finishing off monsters. How many
times have you all got something on the run, then run after it & stood
right next to it as it casually strolls past you ... & you don't even
swing at it. Finishing off monsters with a blade is a hopeless affair
& I'm sure most people switch to corp por when a monster's low or on
the run.
As for archers I don't really know. Maybe making the bow only fire
after the archer has stood still for a certain amount of time. If the
archer moves the counter is reset & starts again the moment he stands
still.
At least something like this so a swordsman has a chance to get close
enough to make a strike.
Cheers,
-
Fazza - Wide Bay Warlords Quake Clan [WBW]
http://www.cyberalink.com.au/gjf/wbw.html
I Frequent These Servers:
CTF2 on OGN 203.108.10.117:27920
FutureWeb_CTF_3.14 203.22.127.23:27910
Powerup CTF 202.139.235.201:27910
You'll also find me in Ultima Online, Sonoma Shard.
Joseph England
charles e jr luna wrote:
>
> anews.com> <01bda10f$ece42d00$2bbc08cf@default>
> <6n0nbv$i50$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
> Distribution:
>
> Haha--I would love to see someone try to accurately shoot 12 arrows a
> minute while both the archer and target are running at full speed, dodging
> around trees/other people/horses. This would be further complicated by
> the archer trying to put an arrow into the joints and other small weak
> points in the target's armour. Maybe if you got 1000 archers and fired in
> mass volleys (Agincourt?) like artillery then each could get off 12 arrows
> a minute. Maybe even if both archer and target were stationary you could
> get off that many...with movement it seems unlikely, however.
arrows could be fired while on the run. I was thinking along the lines
of engagement between armies, where archers would typically place
several arrows in the ground right before their position and withdraw
them from the ground and fire as fast as possible into the enemy force.
Firing a bow at Twelve arrows a minute is nearly impossible otherwise.
The firing rate, as it applies to UO is not really the core of the
problem though. That statistic is already accounted for with the
weapons speed. What we need to think about is a solution to address the
ability of the archer to run and attack. This allows the archer to
attack indefinately without another character type ever even getting
close enough to hit the archer. Any Ideas?
Thanks, J
Joseph England
> As for archers I don't really know. Maybe making the bow only fire
> after the archer has stood still for a certain amount of time. If the
> archer moves the counter is reset & starts again the moment he stands
> still.
guess great minds think alike! :) Check out the initial post for more
details.
Thanks,J
Goatmanh
The Master wrote in message <3594408F...@uswest.net>...
>You said that no armies were using bolt rifles. Now you're changing the
subject
>to avoid being wrong. That's two wrongs.
I wasn't clear on my point, about armies not using bolt action rifles as I
meant : as in use for the common grunt IE main footsoilder weapon.
I realise that almost all armies employ snipers/sharpshooters of some type
and that they primarally use boltactions for accurracy/range reasons.
And the subject I was talking about was range, I didn't change it.
>AND YELLING MAKES THREE.
Well I don't consider using caps as yelling, mearly the best way I have in
this meadium of stressing my point!!
Now if I was an inch away from your nose, sreaming at the top of my lungs
THEN I'D BE YELLING!!!!!!!!
I am not personally offended by BIG LETTERS, as they are just easier to
see......If it is generally considered yelling oh well, it is the only
option I have.
>If someone had thought of bicycles sooner, ...
>
>Dad: When I was a kid, we didn't HAVE computers!
>Kid: What did you run your programs on?
The point was accurate range rules, doesn't matter when you invent a new
ranged weapon, if it can beat you're opponents armor/range you win..Like the
first cannons blowing down castle walls was much better than tearing them
down by hand and getting slaughtered in the process!!
>And just a little study of the subject would easily acquaint you with
exactly
>where the English got the idea. Hint: The Black Prince. Famous story.
>Wales. And a thick door.
>
>> Ever see that (Ummn Scottish maybe??) Big honkin' sword that went up to
a
>> guys chin?
>
>I own one (actually two, but the other, nodachi, is Japanese). It's called
a
>greatsword. This one is Scottish, called claidhememor (various spellings,
>pronounced claymore). My friend's is of the Irish sort, identifiable by
the
>straighter quillons with the hooks on the ends.
Well I didn't know that but now I do...
But I'm sure you know that. You seem to know a great many things that
>the rest of us do not, in spite of our lifetime of study.
I mearly try to learn something new every day, and the effectiveness of
ranged weapons in combat is one thing I have learned.
I prefer to be a "Jack of all trades" instead of a "Master at one"
>Since you are obviously craving calling yourself Right about something,
I'll
>give you this: The farther you are from someone when you strike, generally
the
>better advantage you have, especially when they have no meaningful strike
back
>at that range. It's like sadass hoosein's 30-mile artilary, vs our 25-mile
>stuff in the gulfwar. Our people could not compete with the range of that
>stuff, so he'd carefully site his pieces beyond our range, and pop away.
Then
>one of our MLRS (35-mile range) would open up with a couple salvos of 12
>multiple-projectile missiles, and blast them to hell.
I do know something of range, as I was a Forward Observer in the Army . And
those MLRS's are one of the nastiest wepons we are allowed to use...a full
antipersonel salvo will hit every 12/24 inches on a whole grid square.
(given it's fairly flat)
Hopefully future wars will be about crippling economies instead of killing
people, because we are now so good at it, it's really scary to think about.
>The subject here, however, is supposed to be midieval weapons.
I was talking about the range of those weapons, the type of range we'll
never see in UO for archery never even close....maybe they need a special
type of AntiArcher plate :)
That and armor restictions for Archery and Magery and we'd be fine.
"Thou canst not weild that!"
"Thou canst not wear that!"
You ever read a
>Scientific American?
Not in about 10 years. You offering to give me a subscription?? ;)
Goatmaan, Catskills
The Master
Drakantus wrote:
> If poisoning is ever fixxed up that could also be a good use for the kryss,
> right now it's extreamly easy to cure a poison and then drink a lesser
> poison and make yourself immune.
BUT, while you're doing that the smart and well prepared PvP will unleash his
real haymaker on you. Twice. In everything but HXBows, it's about
combinations. Getting them right is the key. But against a HXBow of power, the
gods themselves strive in vein.
:-)
Marc Welsh
>Of course they can......reloading a bow or crossbow is very easily done
just curious, what crossbow are you talking about that can be reloaded
"easily " while running?
today's crossbows?
yes
before the turn of the century ?
no
--
"Victim is your name, and you shall fall."
Justin H. <jha...@pics.com> wrote in article
<01bda10f$ece42d00$2bbc08cf@default>...
> > > the archers CAN FLEE
> > Yes, but they can't flee and reload.
> >
>
> Of course they can......reloading a bow or crossbow is very easily done
> while running (most models...of course some dont apply). Shooting on
the
> other hand....... :-\ I think the least it could take to plant your
> feet, coherently aim, then get off a shot is about 8 seconds for an
average
> person and under 4-5 seconds for a very skilled archer. This is only
based
> on personal experience and history (something everyone seems to know so
> much about... :) )
>
> -Justin
>