Bows and arrows - are you kidding me?
Janus
Some facts:
1. I have been attacked by PKs several times with bows and arrows but I
managed to run.
2. I was amazed by how much damage the arrows were causing, but I marked
that up to my chain armor and miner pants. I also dont fight much, so
surely, I thought, this is why I so often come close to death.
3. Occasionally I hunt Trolls and those bat things N of Britain. I did so
tonight.
4. I killed a harpy and received 50 feathers.
5. I said, "What the hell. I have the feathers...I found a bow on a
Troll...I will give archery a try.
6. I had 0 skill in archery. 0.
7. While chopping wood for shafts, a PKer snuck up on me and started
attacking me with arrows. I ran after him with my sword, but he just ran
from me, firing arrows the whole time, causing mucho damage.
8. I went deep into the woods and healed.
9. I equipped my arrows and went looking for the asshole who attacked me. If
he was going to run like a faggot, I was going to shoot him like a faggot.
10. On the way, I met two ettins. Keep in mind that I have fought probably a
ground total of 5 hours while playing UO. I spend most of my time mining. As
a warrior, my character is pathetic.
11. With a total skill of 0 in archery, I double clicked on the ettins.
12. I hit one of them and caused lots of damage (about a 10th, but for
someone who mines, that is quite a bit).
13. One of them started getting close so I ran.
14. Remarkably, I noticed that arrows shot automatically.
15. I killed 2 ettins in about 10 minutes by running in circles. I picked up
my spent arrows and kept on firing. After killing the ettins, my archery
skill was 10.
16. I was boosted to Honorable (I had also donated to beggars several times)
Are you kidding me? I have been anti-PK before, but I assumed that at least
the PKers had a least a modicum of skill. But do they? Hell no. At least for
the archers. With sudden clarity, I realized that I could start a newbie
character and go running around naked in the woods firing arrows and
actually have a chance of killing people with it.
So, even though the magical PKers could still easily kick my ass, my
impression of the archery PKers is even lower than it was before, if that is
possible. I thought PKers were supposed to have skill and enjoy the thrill
of the fight. Well no fucking wonder. All they have to do is find a poor
schmuck and run around in circles as the game automatically fires arrows for
them. The brave, bold PKers, who claim ad nauseum in newsgroups that
anti-PKers have led sheltered lives and hate a challenge, are people who run
around in circles as the computer automatically shoots for them.
For all you _skilled_ PKers out there, and there are many, I still have
grudging respect until I figure out how YOU fake skill and then boldly
proclaim on newsgroups that your game playing acumen allows you to rule the
universe. But for you arrow shooting assholes out there, you are pathetic.
I understand OSI is rebalancing the weapons now, and I now agree, it couldnt
come at a better time. Let's see who the real men are.
J (no longer believing PKing is totally the result of human nature)
--
"The most evolved beings of all live in the sun. They've been entering my
head every night now." Philip K. Dick, Confessions of a Crap Artist
Takis
>2. I was amazed by how much damage the arrows were causing, but I marked
>that up to my chain armor and miner pants.
I think OSI MUST do something about it.There is no way you can defend with
sword against a good crossbow.My strenght is 82 and sword skill 40 (ok,maybe
not high enough) and i was almost killed by a crossbowman.I couldnt even hit
him once.He was running all the time while firing arrows and i couldnt hit
him.People with bows have a definite advantage.
Jadesfyre
I have an archer...but I have found that I must stop while I shoot off an
arrow...if I'm running the arrow does no damage to the creature.
So I run a few paces....stop and let off an arrow. Repeat.
I find there is an advantage to the bow....I don't have to stand in one
place and have the monster whack at me and my armor. I can even trap them
in brambles.
What differs with archery and other weapons for me...I have to chop wood and
find feathers for my arrows and bolts. This does take time.
I have had a few bardiche and halberd weilding pks after me and one swing
had my hit points down even further then one shot from a bow or xbow would.
They hurt! Also, mages do quite a bit of damage with their various spells.
I do think they need to make the weapons all around more balanced and the
skill of the person should determine how hard they hit for. That way my
character with her mace can compete with the swordsman or any other class
for that matter.
Lady Ayla (2.4 shy of GM archer)
Takis wrote in message <6le0sc$6h3$1...@medousa.forthnet.gr>...
Bill T
I was ghosting in Covetous on Chesapeake a couple of days ago, just wanted
to observe how it was. I saw a gang of about 6 PKs come in and sweep
through, clearing everyone out. Mostly Archers. Then I observed them sparing
with each other. One Archer was firing at another in his group. The guy on
the receiving end of the arrows just kept pacing back and forth, never
stopped moving. He did not get hit once! The other guy was a Master Archer
and fired at least 10 times, with zero hits! He kept saying "WTF?", while
the other guy laughed. Then he stood still for a sec, got hit with the next
shot.
Is this a new bug, or maybe a clever way to avoid archer attacks? Maybe
someone else has seen this and could comment.
BTW, they decided to recall to the entrance to get anyone there too. They
thought they we hot crap and were commenting how they would have their
castle soon. Little did they know that out front there were about 10 anti's
saying "I wish some PK's would show up". I ran to the entrance to see the
tail end of them getting slaughtered! HeHe! At least 5 died. They broke the
cardinal rule of PKer's. Always drop off your loot after a battle!
Dennis Heffernan
Janus wrote in message <357a5...@news.rlc.net>...
|5. I said, "What the hell. I have the feathers...I found a bow on a
|Troll...I will give archery a try.
Then it's a magic bow, isn't it now?
|15. I killed 2 ettins in about 10 minutes by running in circles. I picked up
|my spent arrows and kept on firing. After killing the ettins, my archery
|skill was 10.
You were lucky -- even with a magic bow -- to get them both with only fifty
arrows.
|Are you kidding me? I have been anti-PK before, but I assumed that at least
|the PKers had a least a modicum of skill. But do they? Hell no. At least for
|the archers. With sudden clarity, I realized that I could start a newbie
|character and go running around naked in the woods firing arrows and
|actually have a chance of killing people with it.
No, because the humans won't stand still for it like the Ettins did. We're
also harder to hit. (And some of us shoot back.)
What you may not realise is that unless you are standing still when you
fire, you're wasting ammunition. Arrows fired on the move miss.
|So, even though the magical PKers could still easily kick my ass, my
|impression of the archery PKers is even lower than it was before, if that is
|possible. I thought PKers were supposed to have skill and enjoy the thrill
|of the fight.
Hell no, that's just an excuse. Every PK I've seen in the last two weeks
has
jumped me or someone else who was badly wounded and getting beat on already.
They don't want "the challenge of fighting a real opponent instead of AI", they
just want to bust people's humps.
|For all you _skilled_ PKers out there, and there are many, I still have
|grudging respect until I figure out how YOU fake skill and then boldly
|proclaim on newsgroups that your game playing acumen allows you to rule the
|universe. But for you arrow shooting assholes out there, you are pathetic.
They're pathetic, but only because those PK archers you see have all macroed
themselves to GM status with trapped monsters and exploits. Actually using
Archery is a bit harder than your limited experience suggests.
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
|sword against a good crossbow.My strenght is 82 and sword skill 40 (ok,maybe
|not high enough) and i was almost killed by a crossbowman.I couldnt even hit
|him once.He was running all the time while firing arrows and i couldnt hit
|him.People with bows have a definite advantage.
If someone has a ranged weapon, and room to maneuver, then you are simply
not
going to defeat them with a hand weapon. You'll never get a shot. That's just
a fact of life.
Doug Kramer
Three things here with archery:
1) Damn straight ARCHERS SHOULD BE POWERFUL. When someone fires and
arrow at you from 30 feet, it's gonna sting! I think what should be
looked at, if not already, is upping the protection from armor designed
to protect against arrows, ie. plate, scale.
2) Archers should NOT be powerful once you get near them with a sword
or other weapon. A great illustration is in Braveheart when the nobles
flanked the archers. They were everywhere, dropping bows, breaking
bows, tripping, losing arrows, getting gutted. So perhaps when using a
bow and then engaged in melee, you should have a chance of your bow
being busted or dropping arrows, or falling over. They are not able to
be used as a staff for anyone thinking that you have a melee weapon in a
longbow.
3) And when was the last time YOU effectively threaded a needle wearing
oven mitts. Archers should not be able to use their bow while wearing
plate or scale or anything heavier than leather gloves. Try fishing an
arrow out of your quiver wearing a hunk of five fingered tin. Uh uh.
So, I think the damage is realistic but the disadvantages and the
defenses are inadequate.
My two bits.
Signed,
Me
Mike Roop
My take on this is MORE REALISM. Bows shoulds be able to run and fire, but
not so much damage(maybe the closer the target, the more damage) As for the
crossbow, it SHOULD do that much damage and then some, but no way you can
run and reload one of those things. Should take standing time to reload. Maybe
a
forced stand like when characters mine for ore.
Confused
Takis wrote:
> >2. I was amazed by how much damage the arrows were causing, but I marked
> >that up to my chain armor and miner pants.
>
Eric Carroll
A friendly note -- Some "faggots" both read this group and play this game.
If you wouldn't use "nigger", don't use "faggot".
-eric
Janus wrote in message <357a5...@news.rlc.net>...
Gary Karnik
In article <357de1b2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tub...@ix.netcom.com (bizbee) wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Jun 1998 04:51:49 -0300, "Janus" <Janpott...@rlc.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I understand OSI is rebalancing the weapons now, and I now agree, it couldnt
>>come at a better time. Let's see who the real men are.
>
>don't really see a severe imbalance here. Try a real life situation.
>We'll give you a sword and shield, and some mediocre armor. you stand
>in your front yard. I'll be butt naked, on horseback, across the
>street, about fifty yards away with my heavy crossbow. I'll attack
>you. Who do you think will win? Do you think I'll have to pin you
>about 20 times, as in the game? Not likely, unless you're wearing
>plate. You'll be dead before you reach me to strike me. Such is the
>nature of missile weapons.
WHAT!!! You have to be kidding!
If this was real life, you will get off one shot at me. If you are lucky
enough to hit, you will probably not kill with the one shot. Then I charge you
and cut you to pieces. You can't rearm a heavy xbow very fast at all.
It takes *minutes* to re-arm these things - and not while you're running away
retreating either!
Why do you think archers are always protected in the back rows or behind
battlements of historical battles?
The Master
Takis wrote:
> I think OSI MUST do something about it.There is no way you can defend with
> sword against a good crossbow.My strenght is 82 and sword skill 40 (ok,maybe
> not high enough) and i was almost killed by a crossbowman.I couldnt even hit
> him once.He was running all the time while firing arrows and i couldnt hit
> him.People with bows have a definite advantage.
If we are to allow any hint of realism, people with bow SHOULD have an
advantage! The trouble is, there is the added advantage that the h-t-h
weapon-user has to put himself carefully in position to strike, whereas the
shooter just runs around. I think there should be a bigger penalty for shooting
while moving, and even for shooting after having recently moved. If you don't
sit and aim for a while, you don't get the best chance of hitting.
I suggested to OS that they implement a close-to-contact system with which you
could order you character to automatically charge in and maintain contact (none
of this autofollow crap that hardly ever works, but a real maneuver control
system, most of the code for which obviously already exists). This would offset
some of the archer advantage. Still, it should take one hell of a fast and
skilled and tough swordsman to beat an archer if the archer can move. They just
need to make it possible.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Remove the NOSPAM_ to reply.
The Master
bizbee wrote:
> Try a real life situation.
> We'll give you a sword and shield, and some mediocre armor. you stand
> in your front yard. I'll be butt naked, on horseback, across the
> street, about fifty yards away with my heavy crossbow. I'll attack
> you. Who do you think will win?
If you hit with your one shot, you do. Otherwise you'd better see what that
horse can do. You are NOT going to respan and load a heavy crossbow on
horseback. We're not talking about those silly things you see in archery shops
today. A heavy crossbow of anything but this century is a machine, with another
machine (windlass or cranqueline) to span it (pull the string back). The rate of
fire allowed in UO is absolutely rediculous, as is operation from horseback. One
shot every 30 seconds should tire a fit crossbowman in a few minutes, just from
all the work.
Janus
Doug Kramer wrote in message <357AE1...@cadvision.com>...
>Three things here with archery:
>
>1) Damn straight ARCHERS SHOULD BE POWERFUL. When someone fires and
>arrow at you from 30 feet, it's gonna sting! I think what should be
>looked at, if not already, is upping the protection from armor designed
>to protect against arrows, ie. plate, scale.
I agree with this. But I also think that hitting someone at 0 feet with a
sword should sting even more. My sword skill and tactics skill were in the
50's (apparent skill, not base rate), which isnt great, but it is a hell of
a lot better than 0 archery, but 0 archery with plain ole bow and plain ole
arrows did about 2:1 damage compared to sword. In the real world, what would
cause more damage....an arrow to the shoulder or a sword attack to their
shoulder? Granted, RPGs are not the real world, but most of the RPGs I have
played, and I have played legion, recognize that archery should not be more
impressive (att str) than swords or halbreds.
Good point on the armor.
J
Janus
Dennis Heffernan wrote in message <6ledhr$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>|Troll...I will give archery a try.
>
> Then it's a magic bow, isn't it now?
Nope...sorry bud...it was a plain ole bow. I clicked it to make sure. Plain
ole wooden bow that any newbie lumberjack can make.
>|15. I killed 2 ettins in about 10 minutes by running in circles. I picked
up
>|my spent arrows and kept on firing. After killing the ettins, my archery
>|skill was 10.
>
> You were lucky -- even with a magic bow -- to get them both with only
fifty
>arrows.
I think I _was_ pretty lucky, but I also picked up my arrows as I ran like a
sissy girl, so I actually made more than 50 shots.
>|Are you kidding me? I have been anti-PK before, but I assumed that at
least
>|the PKers had a least a modicum of skill. But do they? Hell no. At least
for
>|the archers. With sudden clarity, I realized that I could start a newbie
>|character and go running around naked in the woods firing arrows and
>|actually have a chance of killing people with it.
>
> No, because the humans won't stand still for it like the Ettins did.
We're
>also harder to hit. (And some of us shoot back.)
>
> What you may not realise is that unless you are standing still when you
>fire, you're wasting ammunition. Arrows fired on the move miss.
You make two good points and I didnt realize you cant hit while moving.
Thanks for the tip.
>|So, even though the magical PKers could still easily kick my ass, my
>|impression of the archery PKers is even lower than it was before, if that
is
>|possible. I thought PKers were supposed to have skill and enjoy the thrill
>|of the fight.
>
> Hell no, that's just an excuse. Every PK I've seen in the last two
weeks
>has
>jumped me or someone else who was badly wounded and getting beat on
already.
>They don't want "the challenge of fighting a real opponent instead of AI",
they
>just want to bust people's humps.
Hmmm...I cant disagree with that at all. At least from what I have seen
(though I have seen a few good PKers, thankfully busting on someone else.
>|For all you _skilled_ PKers out there, and there are many, I still have
>|grudging respect until I figure out how YOU fake skill and then boldly
>|proclaim on newsgroups that your game playing acumen allows you to rule
the
>|universe. But for you arrow shooting assholes out there, you are pathetic.
>
> They're pathetic, but only because those PK archers you see have all
macroed
>themselves to GM status with trapped monsters and exploits. Actually using
>Archery is a bit harder than your limited experience suggests.
Well, I will bow to your superior knowledge on that one. As my story says,
this was my first time ever with bow use. And yeah, I was lucky and, all
things being equal, I am still kind of pleased for killing two ettins. I am
not a warrior kind of guy and it was a nice change from busting my hump at a
mine all day. But in the future I think I will stick with the sword,
halbred, what have you, because I enjoy hand to hand better. It's basically
my style in every RPG I play. Still, using that bow again sure is tempting.
Perrin Abyara
> If someone has a ranged weapon, and room to maneuver, then you are simply
>not
>going to defeat them with a hand weapon. You'll never get a shot. That's just
>a fact of life.
>
arrow? (also have 91 skill with the axe). Think of an arrow sticking out of
you. Ouch. Now think of the Hulk bringing an axe down on you sholder. Mega
Ouch.
My point is this is a game, and has no bearing on real life. The bows should
be balanced equally with other types of weapons, and let skill decide from
their. If I wanted real life, I wouldn't play...
Perrin Abyara on Catskills
Dennis Heffernan
Perrin Abyara wrote in message <357b0...@news5.kcdata.com>...
|Then why does a guy with 98 str and an axe cause less damage than a bow and
|arrow? (also have 91 skill with the axe). Think of an arrow sticking out of
|you. Ouch. Now think of the Hulk bringing an axe down on you sholder. Mega
|Ouch.
Go to your local butcher and get a nice size pork roast. Hang it by a rope from a tree branch
in your back yard. Then take a few swings at it with a big knife or axe.
Then put a bullet in it.
Dennis Heffernan
Gary Karnik wrote in message <6letn1$8...@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>...
|WHAT!!! You have to be kidding!
He isn't.
|If this was real life, you will get off one shot at me. If you are lucky
|enough to hit, you will probably not kill with the one shot.
He may not _kill_ you, but you won't be getting up again any time soon. Given that the most
likely point of impact is somewhere in the torso, you'd be down with a punctured lung or severe
abdominal damage. The latter is particularly bad -- most people don't realise how sensitive that
area is. Any puncture is going to be incapacitating.
Heavy armor will stand up to longbows, but not crossbows, most of which can crack your car's
engine block.
|Then I charge you and cut you to pieces.
More likely, you lie down and bleed. You will certainly not be doing any "charging".
Staggering, maybe.
|You can't rearm a heavy xbow very fast at all.
|
|It takes *minutes* to re-arm these things - and not while you're running away
|retreating either!
It does not take _that_ long. He'll certainly have it reloaded long before you can stand up
again.
Really, the lethality of weapons in RPGs is _way_ understated.
Dennis Heffernan
The Master wrote in message <357AFBA8...@uswest.net>...
|shooter just runs around. I think there should be a bigger penalty for shooting
|while moving,
The current penalty for shooting while moving is "you miss", so it's going to be hard to top
that -- perhaps you think the archer should shoot himself?
|and even for shooting after having recently moved. If you don't
|sit and aim for a while, you don't get the best chance of hitting.
At the ranges we're limited to, aiming is hardly an issue.
John Wagner
Takis (x...@xxx.xx) wrote:
: >2. I was amazed by how much damage the arrows were causing, but I marked
: >that up to my chain armor and miner pants.
: sword against a good crossbow.My strenght is 82 and sword skill 40 (ok,maybe
: not high enough) and i was almost killed by a crossbowman.I couldnt even hit
: him once.He was running all the time while firing arrows and i couldnt hit
: him.People with bows have a definite advantage.
The problem is not so much teh amount of damage you do with
weapons ( which is piddiling) so much as the fact that you have to stand
next to your target for a while to hit. This is absurd in Pvp, where
archers and mages simply run a few steps away and you cant get a swing
off. It's fine for fighting NPC monsters because their AI is about
equal to or less than a heatseaking missile's. They go ahead and
stand next to you even if it kills them ;)
So the real problem is timing the hit. A while back I posted that
swings should be in cycles, i.e. 1) a cocking cycle, where the weapon
is raised, which takes 3/4 of the weapon time cycle, 2) the
trigger cycle, which takes 1/4 of weapon time cycle. Thus if you
would attack with a sword every second, 3/4 of that second, as soon as
you enter attack mode would be in 'readying' the weapon; as long
as you are in 'ready' mode you shouldnt regain stamina (as it is
wearying). As soon as you get next to your opponent the weapon 'triggers'
in this case in 1/4 of a second. Thus it's a matter of timing and
coordination, and in fact possible to hit opponents.
Not to mention my revised to-hit and damage thoughts but that
is another post...
John Wagner, Moonbat, ii, Cats, benUziel Ches
Artax
In article <6lf0tf$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Dennis Heffernan" <df...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The Master wrote in message <357AFBA8...@uswest.net>...
>|shooter just runs around. I think there should be a bigger penalty for
> shooting
>|while moving,
>
> The current penalty for shooting while moving is "you miss", so it's going
> to be hard to top
>that -- perhaps you think the archer should shoot himself?
It doesn't work exactly that way: while moving you shoot repeatedly with a
fast rate and wasting seemingly a lot of arrows, but
the instant you stop you have your shot with normal to hit probabilities.
>|and even for shooting after having recently moved. If you don't
>|sit and aim for a while, you don't get the best chance of hitting.
>
>
> At the ranges we're limited to, aiming is hardly an issue.
Quite right
The wasting of arrows is quite unrealistic and annoying and i guess it is an
unwanted feature (yes some do call that a bug).
The first attack of an archer or swordsman should be instantaneous (we do
wander with weapons ready, do we?).
Archer should have to stand still a little time (like 1-2 sec) to be able to
shoot properly in addition to the rate of fire we use actually.
Swordsmen should be able to fight while running, eventually with some
penalties for moving.
Targets of melee weapons should have a defense proportionnal to their
ability to attack (you don't outright hack your ennemy to pieces because
he could harm you and you have to take that into account, ie defend).
That is one's defense should be improved by one's skill with the melee
weapon he is using, ie sword,fencing, mace for a weapon, wrestling with none
and _nothing_ for bows, the good tactic for an archer engaged in melee is
run or drop that bow.
Anyway, the game is based upon its reality (yes a virtual one) that is not
quite a mirror of ours where anyone could be killed with a knife with one
strike and where bows can shoot much farther than one screen away
(in fact in real life, our 'screen' are unlimited... Wow that's a 3d card!).
Artax, lost in Catskills_
Artax, Catskills_
email: a r t a x @ w r i t e m e . c o m
Janus
I have no problem with not using that word anymore. Sorry if I offended
anyone.
--
"The most evolved beings of all live in the sun. They've been entering my
head every night now." Philip K. Dick, Confessions of a Crap Artist
Eric Carroll wrote in message <6let82$155$1...@news1.sirius.com>...
>A friendly note -- Some "faggots" both read this group and play this game.
>If you wouldn't use "nigger", don't use "faggot".
>
>-eric
>
>Janus wrote in message <357a5...@news.rlc.net>...
Dennis Heffernan
Steve wrote in message <6lfcmm$lrl$1...@medousa.forthnet.gr>...
|Ok, then you stop moving then fire.How about the other guy?I was still
|running and the bowman hit me.I dont know if he was standing still or
|running but he hit me.Shouldnt it be harder to hit a moving target?
Not at these ranges.
Dennis Heffernan
Artax wrote in message <6lf4ck$lf$1...@news3.Belgium.EU.net>...
|It doesn't work exactly that way: while moving you shoot repeatedly with a
|fast rate and wasting seemingly a lot of arrows, but
|the instant you stop you have your shot with normal to hit probabilities.
Well, yes. Your point?
|Archer should have to stand still a little time (like 1-2 sec) to be able to
|shoot properly in addition to the rate of fire we use actually.
Again: not at these ranges.
The Master
Janus wrote:
> I have no problem with not using that word anymore. Sorry if I offended
> anyone.
Gee, someone actually concerned with civility. And probly not a nigger OR a
faggot. <nudge> (It's a joke. LAUGH!)
Truly though, it is really strange what people choose to be offended by. So
many gays express their existance in terms of what they do with their hot rods,
and yet don't want to be called faggots (a burning stick). And blacks
(especially males) call each other nigger all the time, and got all over whitey
about that word.
I, on the other hand, am most offended when someone calls me Friend without
earning the right. It presumes they've earned my respect, instead of losing
it.
pk's probably would have a problem with psychotic.
> Eric Carroll wrote in message <6let82$155$1...@news1.sirius.com>...
> >A friendly note -- Some "faggots" both read this group and play this game.
> >If you wouldn't use "nigger", don't use "faggot".
Use Clorox II? Hey, if the Foo sh|+$, wear it! The word that describes is the
right one. What do these words describe? If someone is meaning to be
demeaning, these are words to use.
Of course, maybe that someone should go back to Sandbox 101 and try to learn to
get along.
The Master
Dennis Heffernan wrote:
> The Master wrote in message <357AFBA8...@uswest.net>...
> |shooter just runs around. I think there should be a bigger penalty for shooting
> |while moving,
I don't usually read your posts because your newsreader is not set to quote properly. The above
does not appear highlighted because the lines do not begin with the traditional >. You might want
to fix this.
> The current penalty for shooting while moving is "you miss", so it's going to be hard to top
> that -- perhaps you think the archer should shoot himself?
Not quite. I just did a test (for another reason), putting together an archer who went and picked a
fight with a great hart (a frustrating form of suicide for newbie characters). His only option was
to keep moving (great, humans outrunning such animals). While I practiced my move, stop, shoot
procedure, the shear number of shots required meant that sometimes I was moving when I shot, and on
some of those occasions I did hit. There is indeed a difference, and perhaps it is enough of one
(we see rather a small statistical sample, so it may seem you always miss, or you hit just as well).
> |and even for shooting after having recently moved. If you don't
> |sit and aim for a while, you don't get the best chance of hitting.
>
> At the ranges we're limited to, aiming is hardly an issue.
Should we just throw every consideration of realism regarding range out? No. Range should matter,
even though it's just simulating real range. And range should matter more if the target is moving,
and more still if the movement is across the shooter's field of view, instead of toward or away.
--
The Master
Artax wrote:
> Anyway, the game is based upon its reality (yes a virtual one) that is not
> quite a mirror of ours where anyone could be killed with a knife with one
> strike and where bows can shoot much farther than one screen away
> (in fact in real life, our 'screen' are unlimited... Wow that's a 3d card!).
One of the flaws in almost all games is the idea that "damage" is something which only occurs instantly.
The reason someone can kill with a pocket knife or razor blade, or any other knife for the most part, is
not because they can cause instant damage sufficient to kill, but because they can cause a form of damage
(bleeding) which continues to damage until death. Games generally ignore this, and treat all weapons as
different forms of club, and even that is not addressed well, since shock, trauma, stunning, knockback,
etc are ignored.
UO already has the poison system, where poison does its damage over a period of time. Turning this same
code into a bleeding system would give us a much more realistic combat system, in which a GL TankMage
could indeed be bled to death (better have a GHeal!), or even hamstrung (leg disabled, no walking or
casting till fixed).
Similarly, it would not take that big an effort to give such realistic things as impact, where weapons
and such can be knocked out of hands, people can be knocked back, or down, and stunning (momentary loss
of effectiveness) can take place. Mass weapons would be more effective with this. More massive critters
should be better at it.
Whether to add in diseases from being cut with dirty weapons is a question I have yet to ponder.
Hey, when we holler for realism, we're hollering for a lot. Better to fix the latest house breakin bug.
:-)
The Master
Gary Karnik wrote:
> Why do you think archers are always protected in the back rows or behind
> battlements of historical battles?
Oh, I LOVE history. Agincourt (at Azincourt, go figger). The French employed thousands of
mercenary crossbowmen, who were having a hard time dealing with the fact that their weapons
(not the great steal crossbows of later centuries) could hardly outrange the English yew
longbows, which had about 6 times the rate of fire, with almost as good an accuracy, and
better armor penetration at long range. The English archers were deployed not behind, but
in front of the main body, in several tighly formed groups. The only thing in front of
them to break the charge of the French knights was a line of stakes driven into the ground,
pointed toward the enemy. But it was enough.
The crossbowmen hardly mattered in the battle, and got pushed asside by the French knights
all trying to be in front. The stakes broke the French charge, the archers cut down most
of them, and the English nobility had a hard time getting involved before it was almost
over. In the end, the shear weight of numbers allowed the French to engage most of the
English, even the infantry, and the archers ended up killing about as many knights (off
their horses because of the stakes, and mired in the mud in their heavy armor) by sticking
daggers into their eyeslits, as with arrows.
Our modern idea of archery or artillery behind the lines is indeed modern.
Even in the battle of Gettysburg, in many places, the front line on both sides consisted of
cannon. Not all were deployed this way, but a lot were, because people just could not
accept the idea that guns shooting over your head were not a threat to you. Really. The
participants in Picket's Charge were told they would have to put up with some of this
anyway, as the Reb guns tried to suppress the Union batteries a bit, but they didn't like
it.
The Master
Steve wrote:
> >My take on this is MORE REALISM. Bows shoulds be able to run and fire, but
> >not so much damage(maybe the closer the target, the more damage)
>
> This isnt realism.Have you ever try to run and fire an arrow? (in real
> life).You couldnt hit an elephant within 20m.
In real life, yes you can, if you practice that maneuver. It's not easy. How
easy is it to throw a football while on the run, and time it to perfectly
intercept a running receiver 40 yards downfield? If you practice it (and you're
one of only 28 in the world), it works.
Shooting on the move should (how ever unfair to newbies) be easier from
horseback. Mongol horse archers conquered most of asia this way, even shooting
straight backward while galloping forward at full speed, and getting plenty of
hits against enemies stupid enough to follow.
But there needs to be two types of bow. Smaller ones which can do all these
tricks, and larger ones that range better, and hit harder, but shoot slower, and
take massive penalties for movement or shooting from horseback. We have two
types of crossbow, so why not two types of hand bow?
But then, realistically, there should be several different types of arrows.
Broadheads for quick kills against unarmored targets, bodkins for penatrating
armor, fluflu's for hunting birds, etc.
I guess this is too much realism. We need more types of sewing kits, aprons,
and boxes, chests, and crates, so let's not represent combat gear in too much
detail. <snicker>
Steve
>3) And when was the last time YOU effectively threaded a needle wearing
>oven mitts. Archers should not be able to use their bow while wearing
>plate or scale or anything heavier than leather gloves. Try fishing an
>arrow out of your quiver wearing a hunk of five fingered tin. Uh uh.
Although i havent thought of that,i must say it is the biggest issue in this
matter.Never heard of an archer wearing plate armor.Its just ridiculous.You
couldnt even move your hands to fire an arrow.
Steve
Steve
> What you may not realise is that unless you are standing still when you
>fire, you're wasting ammunition. Arrows fired on the move miss.
>
Ok, then you stop moving then fire.How about the other guy?I was still
running and the bowman hit me.I dont know if he was standing still or
running but he hit me.Shouldnt it be harder to hit a moving target?Well it
seems that this issue with bows is very tough to put under control in a
game.Too many possible combinations of hunter and victim positions,so the
best thing to do is to just lower the damage from arrows if any of the
people involved is running.
Legion
On Sun, 7 Jun 1998 12:02:28 -0400, "Dennis Heffernan"
<df...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Takis wrote in message <6le0sc$6h3$1...@medousa.forthnet.gr>...
>|I think OSI MUST do something about it.There is no way you can defend with
>|sword against a good crossbow.My strenght is 82 and sword skill 40 (ok,maybe
>|not high enough) and i was almost killed by a crossbowman.I couldnt even hit
>|him once.He was running all the time while firing arrows and i couldnt hit
>|him.People with bows have a definite advantage.
>
>
> If someone has a ranged weapon, and room to maneuver, then you are simply
>not going to defeat them with a hand weapon. You'll never get a shot. That's just
>a fact of life.
I have to agree. Archery is for distance and if the archer is smart
he will destroy the average warrior. Archery can get a little unfair
though when you can literally run in circles while firing...
Jaquar - Lake Superior
(it's a Q not a G)
Reavers Website : http://www.huneyvaughn.com/reavers
Legion
>WHAT!!! You have to be kidding!
>
>and cut you to pieces. You can't rearm a heavy xbow very fast at all.
>
>It takes *minutes* to re-arm these things - and not while you're running away
>retreating either!
>
>battlements of historical battles?
In real life, if an archer with a heavy crossbow hit you you wouldn't
be worth much afterward. If he hit you in the chest, you'd be dead.
If he hit you in the arm, the arm would be useless, If he shot you in
the leg... Well, you get the point.
A crossbow arrow moves hundreds of miles and hour... How fast can you
swing a sword?
Legion
The rate of fire is much faster. But if you want to make the rate of
fire more realistic you would also have to give the archer a chance to
kill you with one shot. Heavy Crossbow's inflict massive damage.
Dundee
>Three things here with archery:
>
>1) Damn straight ARCHERS SHOULD BE POWERFUL.
It's not really a question of realism, it's a question of game-play.
Most people, designers included, don't want a game in which *every*
character is an archer.
>2) Archers should NOT be powerful once you get near them with a sword
>or other weapon.
Ah, but they are. ;-)
>So, I think the damage is realistic but the disadvantages and the
>defenses are inadequate.
Well, that would be one way to balance-out the combat skills (armor
restrictions for archers).
I'd be a lot happier if melee weapons just did some damage.
--
Dundee of Lake Superior - Skep...@SPAMISantisocial.com
Townstone proposal and Other Stuff:
http://dundee.uong.com
Jadesfyre
Why don't all fighters that have master status post a msg telling all how
many hits it takes to kill various monsters, how many misses...etc.
This way we can find out how effective each combat skill is against each
monster.
I've been missing quite alot lately with my arrows. Also I do not hit the
target when I am in motion. An archer must be still to be effective but is
not so dumb to stay still while being whacked on. We must shoot, take a few
steps, stop and shoot again.
I kill a mountain goat in 2 or 3 shots(I make most of my gp through
tailoring). When I next play I will keep track of how many shots it takes
to kill various monsters and post a msg about it myself.
Lady Ayla (Master Archer)
Does dex really have any effect? I have 82 and it seems someone with it in
the 60's shoots just as fast. With a heavy xbow...I have to wait a count of
12 in between shots.
foamy
<snipped>
>>1) Damn straight ARCHERS SHOULD BE POWERFUL. When someone fires and
>>arrow at you from 30 feet, it's gonna sting! I think what should be
>>looked at, if not already, is upping the protection from armor designed
>>to protect against arrows, ie. plate, scale.
I would like to see 3 categories of armor offering maximum protection against
one of three categories, Archery, Magic, or Melee Weapons. Each category would
offer specific armor ranging from leather up through exceptional plate and ??.
The armor would offer protection against any weapons or magic, but would be
exceptionally good against one type of attack.
So if you were traveling through an area populated by pk archers, you simply
make sure you're wearing your Magic Plate of Archery Defense, and hope they
haven't all switched to swords. :-)
It would drive pk's nuts. :-)
Regards
Jim Clarke
foamy / napa valley
Dennis Heffernan
|I kill a mountain goat in 2 or 3 shots(I make most of my gp through
|tailoring). When I next play I will keep track of how many shots it takes
|to kill various monsters and post a msg about it myself.
This is consonant with my experience.
|Does dex really have any effect? I have 82 and it seems someone with it in
|the 60's shoots just as fast. With a heavy xbow...I have to wait a count of
|12 in between shots.
I shoot my bow at about a count of eight in my current leather armor (I'm
dungeon delving again), and about a ten in plate with DEX penalties out the wazoo.
Dennis Heffernan
Legion wrote in message <357beda4....@news.supernews.com>...
|I have to agree. Archery is for distance and if the archer is smart
|he will destroy the average warrior. Archery can get a little unfair
|though when you can literally run in circles while firing...
If you don't time your stops right, you can't. Arrows fired on the
move simply miss.
John Wagner
foamy (fo...@sprint.ca) wrote:
: <snipped>
: >>1) Damn straight ARCHERS SHOULD BE POWERFUL. When someone fires and
: >>arrow at you from 30 feet, it's gonna sting! I think what should be
: >>looked at, if not already, is upping the protection from armor designed
: >>to protect against arrows, ie. plate, scale.
: I would like to see 3 categories of armor offering maximum protection against
: one of three categories, Archery, Magic, or Melee Weapons. Each category would
: offer specific armor ranging from leather up through exceptional plate and ??.
: The armor would offer protection against any weapons or magic, but would be
: exceptionally good against one type of attack.
had an anti-PK, Moonbat, who was also a tailor,, he would go against the
PKs who at the time used 'Vas Flam' and firefield with spectacular
results. Needless to say, weapons also did some damage at that time but
were even so neutralized by reactive armor. So you would attack a PK mage
who would after a fireball figure out you had leather on then would
switch to some other offense spell. Meanwhile you would be neutralized
against a level 1 RA shield. Heh. So they 'fixed' RA but neutralized
weapon damage. In the end taking away the warrior's sting was more
harmful to warriors than removing mage's invulnerability to warriors.
Now there are few pure warriors out there who are not new to the
game. Moonbat the Master Armsman is in mothballs. His secondary skill
is -healing- :)
John Wagner, Moonbat, ii, Catskills, BenUziel Ches, xor GL
Doug
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 14:57:36 GMT, "Jadesfyre" <ne...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>Why don't all fighters that have master status post a msg telling all how
>many hits it takes to kill various monsters, how many misses...etc.
>This way we can find out how effective each combat skill is against each
>monster.
These are approximations:
Master Archer (92.6). Using surp acc crossbow of ruin (adjusted skill
to 107.5). Str - 77, Dex - 82 approx fire rate 1/10.5 sec.
Ogre - Hit everytime, usually 5 -8 shots to kill
Troll - 70% hit rate, 8 - 10 shots to kill
Gargoyle - 80% hit rate, 8 - 12 shots to kill
Ettin - 90% hit rate, 7 - 9 shots to kill
Mongbat - 1 shot, hit everytime (except the tough ones, still hit
100%, just takes 3 - 5 shots)
Gazer - 80% hit rate, 5-8 shots
Dire wolf - 75% hit rate, 8 - 12 shots
corpser - 90% hit rate, 4 - 7 shots
reaper - 80% hit rate, 5 - 8 shots
These are approximations and are based on my gut feel of the battles
I've fought. YMMV.
I have noticed, though, that as a monster approaches about 1/3 of it's
health left, it gets very difficult to hit and this is where most of
my misses occur. Anyone else notice this?
>Does dex really have any effect? I have 82 and it seems someone with it in
>the 60's shoots just as fast. With a heavy xbow...I have to wait a count of
>12 in between shots.
It is supposed to but I must confess I have not seen a diff. I went
from full plate with all dex penalties incurred to chain, bone etc
with no penalties and noticed no diff. Maybe its just me though..
A master archer, sometimes lucky, sometimes not, Sonoma
>
Fomar
Doug wrote in message <357d13df....@news.junction.net>...
<snip bow fighting stats>
>I have noticed, though, that as a monster approaches about 1/3 of it's
>health left, it gets very difficult to hit and this is where most of
>my misses occur. Anyone else notice this?
>
Yes! I thought I might be the only one noticing this. But I have had several
battles especially with the tougher monsters in which my opponent will have
less than a quarter of their hit points left and l will have over three
quarters of mine. In these instances it is not unusual for me to drop below
a quarter of my hit points before I kill it because in this time I will have
missed so much.
Interesting....very very interesting. Any comments as to why this is? If in
fact it is?
I'm glad someone else noticed this I was beginning to think the monsters had
access to some kind of "Last Hooray" potion that allowed them to rally in a
losing fight :-)
Balthantazaar, Baja
Roman Yazhbin
It would be pointless. Every PK I know including me are not only archers,
but also mages and warriors. I am absolutely positive that switching
between those ways of attack is faster and easier than changing your whole
plate. :-)
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, foamy wrote:
> <snipped>
> >>1) Damn straight ARCHERS SHOULD BE POWERFUL. When someone fires and
> >>arrow at you from 30 feet, it's gonna sting! I think what should be
> >>looked at, if not already, is upping the protection from armor designed
> >>to protect against arrows, ie. plate, scale.
>
> I would like to see 3 categories of armor offering maximum protection against
> one of three categories, Archery, Magic, or Melee Weapons. Each category would
> offer specific armor ranging from leather up through exceptional plate and ??.
> The armor would offer protection against any weapons or magic, but would be
> exceptionally good against one type of attack.
foamy
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980608...@wpi.WPI.EDU>, Roman Yazhbin <rom...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>It would be pointless. Every PK I know including me are not only archers,
>but also mages and warriors. I am absolutely positive that switching
>between those ways of attack is faster and easier than changing your whole
>plate. :-)
Well I didn't mean I would carry 3 sets , hehe. But lets say I wore my armor
giving me the best protection against archery. Your bolts wouldn't be as
effective, warrior wouldn't be a big deal to escape from, all I would really
have to worry about was magic. If I was reflected, I believe I would have the
time to easily escape. BUT, don't forget YOU are also wearing 1 type of
armor. :-) And if I happen to be good at what you are not wearing armor
to defend, YOU might be hustling your little pk butt out of there. heheh
foamy / napa valley
John Bertoglio
Doug Kramer wrote in message <357AE1...@cadvision.com>...
>Three things here with archery:
>
>arrow at you from 30 feet, it's gonna sting! I think what should be
>looked at, if not already, is upping the protection from armor designed
>to protect against arrows, ie. plate, scale.
>
>or other weapon.
<snipped example>
An implementation suggestion would make the bow useless if the target was in
an adjacent tile OR if the archer was currently engaged by any player with a
melee weapon. This would eliminate the problem of a person being hit by a
halbred, turning and firing at a player on the other side of screen.
>3) And when was the last time YOU effectively threaded a needle wearing
>oven mitts. Archers should not be able to use their bow while wearing
>plate or scale or anything heavier than leather gloves. Try fishing an
>arrow out of your quiver wearing a hunk of five fingered tin. Uh uh.
>
>So, I think the damage is realistic but the disadvantages and the
>defenses are inadequate.
>
All correct and well stated. A fourth issue:
4) Speed. (That is, rate of fire) Given the scale of UO, few archers and
no heavy x-bow folk would ever get off more than one shot while being
charged. The ROF should be adjusted so this is reflected.
>My two bits.
>
>Signed,
>Me
John Bertoglio
Russell
Of course you are all three, why wouldn't you be? You don't have to
waste time or skill points on bowcraft, mining, tailoring or whatever to
make your money as you simply mass-murder for it. : P
Roman Yazhbin wrote:
>
> It would be pointless. Every PK I know including me are not only archers,
> but also mages and warriors. I am absolutely positive that switching
> between those ways of attack is faster and easier than changing your whole
> plate. :-)
>
Mike Roop
A friendly note -- If you acknowledge the ignorant it only provokes them. I
personally have NO PROBS with ANYONE, but its usually best to ignore
the jerks...
Eric Carroll wrote:
> A friendly note -- Some "faggots" both read this group and play this game.
> If you wouldn't use "nigger", don't use "faggot".
>
> -eric
>
> Janus wrote in message <357a5...@news.rlc.net>...
> >If he was going to run like a faggot, I was going to shoot him like a
> faggot.
Mike Roop
Okay, lets imagine this. A swordsman is charging you, and you hold back til he's
close. Then you let loose into his pearly whites. Seems to me the archer has the
advantage in any situation, even though the swordsman will butcher him if he
catches him.
My 2cents
Confused-Catskills
Perrin Abyara wrote:
> > If someone has a ranged weapon, and room to maneuver, then you are simply
> >not
> >going to defeat them with a hand weapon. You'll never get a shot. That's just
> >a fact of life.
> >
> Then why does a guy with 98 str and an axe cause less damage than a bow and
> arrow? (also have 91 skill with the axe). Think of an arrow sticking out of
> you. Ouch. Now think of the Hulk bringing an axe down on you sholder. Mega
> Ouch.
>
> My point is this is a game, and has no bearing on real life. The bows should
> be balanced equally with other types of weapons, and let skill decide from
> their. If I wanted real life, I wouldn't play...
>
> Perrin Abyara on Catskills
Mike Roop
Only problem I have with the current "shoot while you move" system is
the wasting of arrows as your character shoots at the enemy even though you
are just trying to get out of range. I personally have taken on an spectre only to
waste most of my arrows while I run away. I agree archers can be too much, but
theyre not stupid enuf to keep wastin arrows while they maneuver for a shot.
Artax wrote:
> In article <6lf0tf$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Dennis Heffernan" <df...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >The Master wrote in message <357AFBA8...@uswest.net>...
> >|shooter just runs around. I think there should be a bigger penalty for
> > shooting
> >|while moving,
> >
> > The current penalty for shooting while moving is "you miss", so it's going
> > to be hard to top
> >that -- perhaps you think the archer should shoot himself?
>
> It doesn't work exactly that way: while moving you shoot repeatedly with a
> fast rate and wasting seemingly a lot of arrows, but
> the instant you stop you have your shot with normal to hit probabilities.
>
> >|and even for shooting after having recently moved. If you don't
> >|sit and aim for a while, you don't get the best chance of hitting.
> >
> >
> > At the ranges we're limited to, aiming is hardly an issue.
>
> Quite right
>
> The wasting of arrows is quite unrealistic and annoying and i guess it is an
> unwanted feature (yes some do call that a bug).
> The first attack of an archer or swordsman should be instantaneous (we do
> wander with weapons ready, do we?).
> Archer should have to stand still a little time (like 1-2 sec) to be able to
> shoot properly in addition to the rate of fire we use actually.
> Swordsmen should be able to fight while running, eventually with some
> penalties for moving.
> Targets of melee weapons should have a defense proportionnal to their
> ability to attack (you don't outright hack your ennemy to pieces because
> he could harm you and you have to take that into account, ie defend).
> That is one's defense should be improved by one's skill with the melee
> weapon he is using, ie sword,fencing, mace for a weapon, wrestling with none
> and _nothing_ for bows, the good tactic for an archer engaged in melee is
> run or drop that bow.
>
> Anyway, the game is based upon its reality (yes a virtual one) that is not
> quite a mirror of ours where anyone could be killed with a knife with one
> strike and where bows can shoot much farther than one screen away
> (in fact in real life, our 'screen' are unlimited... Wow that's a 3d card!).
>
> Artax, lost in Catskills_
>
> Artax, Catskills_
>
> email: a r t a x @ w r i t e m e . c o m
Mike Roop
You are obviously very STUPID as yes I have run and fired a bow. Any deer
hunter has done this and living in Michigan, I can say NO PROBLEM. Maybe
you should stick to high school crap that you know about, and leave the grown up
stuff to your mommy and daddy.
Mike Roop
Also thats part of the skill of this. Many people can time the running and
stop
just before the character fires. I personally cant handle this, but have seen
it used
on me many times.
Dennis Heffernan wrote:
> Steve wrote in message <6lfcmm$lrl$1...@medousa.forthnet.gr>...
> |Ok, then you stop moving then fire.How about the other guy?I was still
> |running and the bowman hit me.I dont know if he was standing still or
> |running but he hit me.Shouldnt it be harder to hit a moving target?
>
> Not at these ranges.
Perrin Abyara
In article <357CD0B3...@Net-Link.Net>, Mike Roop <Ro...@Net-Link.Net> wrote:
>Okay, lets imagine this. A swordsman is charging you, and you hold back til
> he's
>close. Then you let loose into his pearly whites. Seems to me the archer has
> the
>advantage in any situation, even though the swordsman will butcher him if he
>catches him.
>My 2cents
>Confused-Catskills
>
The point I was trying to make is it really shouldn't matter. The archer
should fire at first site of me, and attempt to be evasive (if on a one to one
type of combat). Me (the axeman) should charge, attempting to avoid arrows,
but closing distance. The problem is that when I get close and have time to
swing, I should be able to do as much damage as the archer.
Why? Because it is a game. We should not be trying to decide which weapon is
best in real life and mimic that in the game, but rather make all weapons
"equal" and let the player choose the weapon based on his style of play. If
one weapon is "better" than all the rest, then all players will choose that
weapon. What do we loose? Roleplaying. My character has choosen an axe, and
he has reasons for doing so. He should not have to replace his axe for a bow,
but if an axe never has a chance at beating a bow why pick up an axe?
I will never put down the axe because I knew how to roleplay before I played
UO. Many though, this is their first real chance to roleplay. Opening UO
they thought of some character in a book or movie and thought "that's who
i'll be." When they started their character, they set their skills to what
they thought their character would need. Then in the game the "better"
players said "you should have picked minning or lumberjacking if you want to
make money." So they change the way they wanted to play. Now they see
archers are winning most all the battles. So they drop their spears and pick
up a bow. When did they learn what real roleplaying is? The character they
wanted is now dead. They have no heart in the one they play now, no care for
what he does -- just that he can be one of the "better" players. If
you have no heart in your character, you cannot roleplay him. If they
see everyone playing the same way then they start to think this is
roleplaying. Sadly some leave the game thinking this way...
Perrin Abyara on Catskills
Lord Captain Commander, The Children of the Light
http://www.intellisys.net/~neelm/children
"May you walk in the Light"
The Master
Fomar wrote:
> Yes! I thought I might be the only one noticing this. But I have had several
> battles especially with the tougher monsters in which my opponent will have
> less than a quarter of their hit points left and l will have over three
> quarters of mine. In these instances it is not unusual for me to drop below
> a quarter of my hit points before I kill it because in this time I will have
> missed so much.
>
> Interesting....very very interesting. Any comments as to why this is? If in
> fact it is?
>
> I'm glad someone else noticed this I was beginning to think the monsters had
> access to some kind of "Last Hooray" potion that allowed them to rally in a
> losing fight :-)
I have been noticing it too. I thought it was more related to how much damage I
had take, which would make a certain sense, since a wounded fighter cannot
expect to fight as well.
Rob Illing, AKA Chris Jay
"Takis" <x...@xxx.xx> wrote:
>>2. I was amazed by how much damage the arrows were causing, but I marked
>>that up to my chain armor and miner pants.
>I think OSI MUST do something about it.There is no way you can defend with
>sword against a good crossbow.My strenght is 82 and sword skill 40 (ok,maybe
>not high enough) and i was almost killed by a crossbowman.I couldnt even hit
>him once.He was running all the time while firing arrows and i couldnt hit
>him.People with bows have a definite advantage.
You think that's bad? I have 88 STR and 100 swordsmanship, and let me
tell you, I wouldn't even think about taking on an archer without
several friends to back me up and a pack full of potions. Even then,
I would be using spells and not swords.
Even increasing weapon damage will not help, because it's impossible
to acually engage the archer in combat and keep him there long enough
to swing.
Cheers,
Rob
Fergen MacDohl - Knight of the Highlands - Catskills
Vladimir Romanov - Prince of the Dead - Catskills
Wing Chun Kung Fu|Films|Pizza|Roleplaying|UO|Tolkien|Sci Fi|Beer|Shadowfist
Remove "(nospam)" to reply to me via e-mail. Thanks
Wolfgang Artner
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 14:02:36 GMT, leg...@legion.com (Legion) wrote:
>>WHAT!!! You have to be kidding!
>>
>>If this was real life, you will get off one shot at me. If you are lucky
>>enough to hit, you will probably not kill with the one shot. Then I charge you
>>and cut you to pieces. You can't rearm a heavy xbow very fast at all.
>>
>>It takes *minutes* to re-arm these things - and not while you're running away
>>retreating either!
>>
>>Why do you think archers are always protected in the back rows or behind
>>battlements of historical battles?
>
>In real life, if an archer with a heavy crossbow hit you you wouldn't
>be worth much afterward. If he hit you in the chest, you'd be dead.
>If he hit you in the arm, the arm would be useless, If he shot you in
>the leg... Well, you get the point.
>
>A crossbow arrow moves hundreds of miles and hour... How fast can you
>swing a sword?
This is the ever repeated real life arguement.But UO is not real
life.It is a game.And nobody is interested to strike down his opponent
with one or two strikes,neither the archer nor the swordsman.Maybe
just Pk愀 ? <g>
If a weapon becomes as strong as archery is now,everbody will become
archer.Funny? I doubt.Fights will just be something like "who can
carry/drink more heal potions" contests.
And thats one of the main advantages an archer has: to be able to
drink potions while fighting without the need to free his hands.
The Great Lord Alrik,The Adventurers Circle/Catskill
ICQ 7171592
Dennis Heffernan
Perrin Abyara wrote in message <357ce...@news5.kcdata.com>...
|Why? Because it is a game. We should not be trying to decide which weapon is
|best in real life and mimic that in the game, but rather make all weapons
|"equal" and let the player choose the weapon based on his style of play.
So a dagger should be as good as a greatsword?
I don't think so.
|one weapon is "better" than all the rest, then all players will choose that
|weapon. What do we loose? Roleplaying. My character has choosen an axe, and
Unfortunately, some weapons simply are better than others. Past a certain
point it is the man and not the weapon or fighting style that matters, but that
point comes a lot sooner for some weapons, and that's not likely to change.
|he has reasons for doing so. He should not have to replace his axe for a bow,
|but if an axe never has a chance at beating a bow why pick up an axe?
Irrespective of the damage done by a particular strike of either weapon, an
axe does NOT have a chance of beating a bow, because it will never get to strike.
DEAL WITH IT. Anyone who calls himself a warrior has to know how to use his
culture's ranged weapons, because ranged weapons will beat hand weapons much more
often than not. It should be fairly obvious that it is an incredible advantage to
be able to strike the enemy without him being able to strike back.
|archers are winning most all the battles. So they drop their spears and pick
|up a bow. When did they learn what real roleplaying is? The character they
You are putting an artificial constraint on roleplaying. Roleplaying does not
require hamstringing yourself.
John Wagner
Dennis Heffernan (df...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Perrin Abyara wrote in message <357ce...@news5.kcdata.com>...
: |Why? Because it is a game. We should not be trying to decide which weapon is
: |best in real life and mimic that in the game, but rather make all weapons
: |"equal" and let the player choose the weapon based on his style of play.
:
: So a dagger should be as good as a greatsword?
:
: I don't think so.
In some situations it is. Imagine you are standing close
to your opponent for whatever reason; while greatsword guy is ponderously
lifting his greatsword, dagger guy has already put one in greatsword's
eye. A dagger in the eye to the brain is as lethal as a greatsword
cleaving through a body. Think people. But is that's too much hm?
Generation of Beavis and Butthead and Southpark, that's too much right?
Dundee
>Perrin Abyara wrote in message <357ce...@news5.kcdata.com>...
>|Why? Because it is a game. We should not be trying to decide which weapon is
>|best in real life and mimic that in the game, but rather make all weapons
>|"equal" and let the player choose the weapon based on his style of play.
>
> So a dagger should be as good as a greatsword?
>
> I don't think so.
No, but "The best Fencing weapon" should be as good as "The best
Swordsmanship weapon", which is what OSI is shooting for. Not
realistic, but better for the game as it will promote (or at least
allow) character diversity.
> Unfortunately, some weapons simply are better than others. Past a certain
>point it is the man and not the weapon or fighting style that matters, but that
>point comes a lot sooner for some weapons, and that's not likely to change.
It'll probably change with the melee patch. And if not, then sometime
later.
>DEAL WITH IT.
You tell 'em!
>often than not. It should be fairly obvious that it is an incredible advantage to
>be able to strike the enemy without him being able to strike back.
I'm hoping there'll still be some advantage to being skilled in both
archery and a melee weapon. But somehow I doubt there will be.
Perrin Abyara
> So a dagger should be as good as a greatsword?
>
> I don't think so.
>
you. He asks you where he is telling you he went through a moongate and is
now lost. You walk over to him to help him out. You never see the dagger
flash from out of his cloak until it cuts your arm. A minor scratch really,
but you begin to feel the deadly posion taking hold. Darkness creeps in as
you draw your greatsword in vain....
You see with roleplaying, a dagger is as good as a great sword, if you use it
correctly. The is even one thing in UO that is already there.
> Irrespective of the damage done by a particular strike of either weapon, an
>axe does NOT have a chance of beating a bow, because it will never get to
> strike.
>DEAL WITH IT. Anyone who calls himself a warrior has to know how to use his
>culture's ranged weapons, because ranged weapons will beat hand weapons much
> more
>often than not. It should be fairly obvious that it is an incredible advantage
> to
>be able to strike the enemy without him being able to strike back.
Lets say i charge and you miss. Your still claim that is possible right? Now
I am next to you with my axe, not of the paul-type but one designed to split
skulls through helmets. Your telling me I have no chance?
And I am not a warrior, but a simple blacksmith who is froced to defend
himself...
> You are putting an artificial constraint on roleplaying. Roleplaying does
> not
>require hamstringing yourself.
>
It is for people who have never roleplayed before. They have never thought in
character and made the decision their character would make, not the one they
would make. Having to be like everyone else is not going to help them
develope their character.
Ingot Head
Dundee wrote in message ...
>I'm hoping there'll still be some advantage to being skilled in both
>archery and a melee weapon. But somehow I doubt there will be.
Actually, I'm just hoping there will be some advantage to being
KILLED by archery and a melee weapon.
Ingot Head
Dennis Heffernan
The Master wrote in message <357B72CF...@uswest.net>...
|I don't usually read your posts because your newsreader is not set to quote
properly. The above
|does not appear highlighted because the lines do not begin with the
traditional >. You might want
|to fix this.
There is no such thing as "quoting properly". Prepends are a matter of
taste.
|Not quite. I just did a test (for another reason), putting together an
archer who went and picked a
|fight with a great hart (a frustrating form of suicide for newbie
characters). His only option was
|to keep moving (great, humans outrunning such animals). While I practiced my
move, stop, shoot
|procedure, the shear number of shots required meant that sometimes I was
moving when I shot, and on
|some of those occasions I did hit.
You were probably lagged when those shots were fired, then. Trust
me, firing on the move does nothing but waste arrows.
|Should we just throw every consideration of realism regarding range out? No.
Having thrown away the major one -- giving archers maybe a third of the
range they should have -- it's not asking a lot to get something back. Simple
fact is that at the ranges UO limits archers to any halfway decent archer
would be hard-pressed to miss a man-sized target.
Dennis Heffernan
Perrin Abyara wrote in message <357db...@news5.kcdata.com>...
|Your walking along in the forest and you see what appears to newbie calling
to
|you. He asks you where he is telling you he went through a moongate and is
|now lost. You walk over to him to help him out.
We both know that the most likely response is "Corp Por".
|You never see the dagger
|flash from out of his cloak until it cuts your arm. A minor scratch really,
|but you begin to feel the deadly posion taking hold. Darkness creeps in as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Foul. Who said anything about poison?
|You see with roleplaying, a dagger is as good as a great sword, if you use it
|correctly. The is even one thing in UO that is already there.
No it isn't, because it's harder to use. Your would-be poisoner is SOL if
the intended mark just tries to kill him.
|Lets say i charge and you miss. Your still claim that is possible right?
Now
|I am next to you with my axe, not of the paul-type but one designed to split
|skulls through helmets. Your telling me I have no chance?
No, next you're going to get shot at again.
|It is for people who have never roleplayed before. They have never thought
in
|character and made the decision their character would make, not the one they
|would make. Having to be like everyone else is not going to help them
|develope their character.
The decision their character would make would probably be to use the most
effective weapon available for the intended purpose. People don't usually
chose to use things that don't work.
Dennis Heffernan
John Wagner wrote in message <6ljd3p$j...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>...
| In some situations it is. Imagine you are standing close
|to your opponent for whatever reason; while greatsword guy is ponderously
|lifting his greatsword, dagger guy has already put one in greatsword's
|eye. A dagger in the eye to the brain is as lethal as a greatsword
|cleaving through a body. Think people. But is that's too much hm?
And look at how much work you have to do to get that close to the
guy without getting chopped up. Or consider the fact that you can
defend yourself against a knife attack with your bare hands if
necessary. (I've done it.)
|Generation of Beavis and Butthead and Southpark, that's too much right?
I don't watch either. This attitude is uncalled for.
Boesie
So basically you are saying the moment an archer starts shooting, he should be
frozen to the ground, and the minute (hmm..make that second) you are standing
next to him he can't shoot anymore? So lemme see, this means free allround
none-fizzling paralyze in favor of you, and a target that is frozen and can't
hit ya back....hmmm, right....i'm sure OSI is considering that!!!
The Proper Boesiebus, GM Warrior, KMP Guild
Catskills
Dennis Heffernan
Legion wrote in message <358f7c1d....@news.supernews.com>...
|How about flipping that idea? Make archers be a minimum distance
|away. Or have distance based on skill.
That's right back to disconnect equalling death.
J+K Design
Dennis Heffernan
> Legion wrote in message
> |away. Or have distance based on skill.
>
>
> That's right back to disconnect equalling death.
>
He's right - that wouldn't work. I really think improving sheilds vs bows
is the most important fix. That way archers will still butcher duds without
them - which is fair enough.
Joab Mordak
Adept Armsman - sonoma