Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
jetah

Make Arrows An Item

Recommended Posts

I am personally for finite arrows. Like many have stated it brings a bit of immersion, adds to the economy, and brings a bit more planning for sieges and what not.

 

I bet this idea already exists that there can be equivalents for melee, and magic. Melee needs to use sharpening stones to keep their damage at 100%.... a figurative number would be every 25 successful hits your weapon loses 5% damage due to sharpness. using a whetstone adds 10% damage capping at 100%.... maybe even make it 105% for those that upkeep.

 

Mages can use a rune system or written spell system as their resource.

 

Then there be special ammo like poisoned arrows, poison slime for melee, a variant for a rune. Certain whetstones give 5% crit boost, broadhead arrows give 5% armor pen...... stuff like that.


PvE is like water to my whiskey. Don't water down my whiskey.- Ronald Reagan

 

Don't be a custard gonzo.- Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestion above solves this by allowing everyone to have their basic attacks unlimited, but those who put in the effort or manage their equipment efficiently would get the additional benefits across all archetypes.

 

Ah, indeed, your suggestion was a good one, though I'd rather just tie all enchantments to the bow to simplify things, but that's just cosmetics which will have the same end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am personally for finite arrows. Like many have stated it brings a bit of immersion, adds to the economy, and brings a bit more planning for sieges and what not.

 

I bet this idea already exists that there can be equivalents for melee, and magic. Melee needs to use sharpening stones to keep their damage at 100%.... a figurative number would be every 25 successful hits your weapon loses 5% damage due to sharpness. using a whetstone adds 10% damage capping at 100%.... maybe even make it 105% for those that upkeep.

 

Mages can use a rune system or written spell system as their resource.

 

Then there be special ammo like poisoned arrows, poison slime for melee, a variant for a rune. Certain whetstones give 5% crit boost, broadhead arrows give 5% armor pen...... stuff like that.

There was the idea like this to give all classes a resource to use, but there are numerous problems that I have with it, beyond simply making balance more work on the developer's side.

 

You say immersion, so I assume you mean realism. To this I have an argument and a fun fact: Mana can solve the realism aspect, since all archetypes seem to be using it, including the Knight. The archer will just conjure up an arrow with magic, problem solved. That's fantasy. The fun fact is that real war-archers didn't tend to use quivers at all, since arrows would fall out as they moved and it was quicker to shoot with arrows in either hand.

 

The second argument I have against your idea is that you're essentially crippling all players to rely on their economic standing to be able to function in the campaigns for the sake of creating some sense of realism for a few archetypes in a fantasy game which, as I said, can just be solved with more fantasy.

 

Your idea also discounts the fact that archers, without arrows, cannot fight at all. This goes beyond a knight having to keep his sword sharp, it's far more crippling.

 

As I've said on the previous page, I'd rather not have any archetype's usability be tied so directly to the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was the idea like this to give all classes a resource to use, but there are numerous problems that I have with it, beyond simply making balance more work on the developer's side.

 

You say immersion, so I assume you mean realism. To this I have an argument and a fun fact: Mana can solve the realism aspect, since all archetypes seem to be using it, including the Knight. The archer will just conjure up an arrow with magic, problem solved. That's fantasy. The fun fact is that real war-archers didn't tend to use quivers at all, since arrows would fall out as they moved and it was quicker to shoot with arrows in either hand.

 

The second argument I have against your idea is that you're essentially crippling all players to rely on their economic standing to be able to function in the campaigns for the sake of creating some sense of realism for a few archetypes in a fantasy game which, as I said, can just be solved with more fantasy.

 

Your idea also discounts the fact that archers, without arrows, cannot fight at all. This goes beyond a knight having to keep his sword sharp, it's far more crippling.

 

As I've said on the previous page, I'd rather not have any archetype's usability be tied so directly to the economy.

 

Usually games that have similar systems make arrows really easy to get or make, so I don't think cost will be an issue here if CF does the same. As far as Rangers not being feasible after not having arrows, the Ranger will likely have a set of melee skills already built in to cover close range combat. So they won't be completely useless probably.

 

No matter what archetype you play you will have to rely on the economy a lot because you will be losing gear often either by dying or decay. This is kinda why I wouldn't be opposed to the finite arrow idea because it already fits into the game vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually games that have similar systems make arrows really easy to get or make, so I don't think cost will be an issue here if CF does the same. As far as Rangers not being feasible after not having arrows, the Ranger will likely have a set of melee skills already built in to cover close range combat. So they won't be completely useless probably.

 

No matter what archetype you play you will have to rely on the economy a lot because you will be losing gear often either by dying or decay. This is kinda why I wouldn't be opposed to the finite arrow idea because it already fits into the game vision.

True, true, though there's still the idea that then the ranger will be dealing with the loss of their bow and their arrows. Still, here's another argument I put out:

 

Why overcomplicate it? I feel like having ammo be a thing which limits a ranger's skill set isn't such a healthy idea for the game, and we already have Stamina, Mana, and normal resource management for bows/armor to worry about. If bows have durability as well, then doubly so there would be no point in limiting their ammunition than to complicate the system.

 

Skills are limited already by mana and stamina, and Confessor's use their mana itself as their ammunition. Beyond some false sense of immersion, I see no way limited ammunition can enhance the gameplay.

Edited by Dondagora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

what is considered skillful play?
killing the most?ending on top of the boards?(not a measure of skill in my book) surviving long enough to fight back?,..
 
Ofcourse there has to be equal playing field,so all archetypes would need to replenish something then if arrows for ranger are finite.
Perhaps the confessor could bath fallen allies in holy flames to rekindle her faith and inner powers,or something..
 
If rangers can make arrows on the go at camp ,there is no issue.
The one who went into battle unprepared would be the one showing the least skill.
Sometimes skill is also knowing when to fight another day 

 

 

No, magic aside its simulating war, it doesnt have to be totally equal in all regards... Melee's are in the thick of combat and will more then likely take more damage in general. Archers will benefit from range and kiting but may have to replenish arrows. Mages who knows if they will introduce reagents which is a possibility but may also have to manage mana etc. Trust me, it wasnt that hard to manage having arrows in your pack as an archer in UO. Build up a stockpile either through your guild crafters or yourself and make more on the fly.

Edited by wargasmo

"He's like Batman except without the moral compass" ~Juror during first innocent verdict 

 

Ghost's of War, PvP gaming community founded 2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

True, true, though there's still the idea that then the ranger will be dealing with the loss of their bow and their arrows. Still, here's another argument I put out:

 

Why overcomplicate it? I feel like having ammo be a thing which limits a ranger's skill set isn't such a healthy idea for the game, and we already have Stamina, Mana, and normal resource management for bows/armor to worry about. If bows have durability as well, then doubly so there would be no point in limiting their ammunition than to complicate the system.

 

Skills are limited already by mana and stamina, and Confessor's use their mana itself as their ammunition. Beyond some false sense of immersion, I see no way limited ammunition can enhance the gameplay.

 

 

 

For some players, they enjoy having a finite set of arrows because it means you have to be more careful about wasting and mangaing them. It does make playing ranged classes more complicated, but people enjoy that. 

Edited by purplestreak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some players, they enjoy having a finite set of arrows because it means you have to be more careful about wasting and mangaing them. It does make playing ranged classes more complicated, but people enjoy that. 

Some people might, and some people might not. I guess the big question isn't the enjoyability since that's subjective and there seem to be a good many supporters on either side of the argument, but whether it will fit with the game's system and balance and style in various instances, including but not limited to each archetype's ability to fill its unique role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, magic aside its simulating war, it doesnt have to be totally equal in all regards... Melee's are in the thick of combat and will more then likely take more damage in general. Archers will benefit from range and kiting but may have to replenish arrows. Mages who knows if they will introduce reagents which is a possibility but may also have to manage mana etc. Trust me, it wasnt that hard to manage having arrows in your pack as an archer in UO. Build up a stockpile either through your guild crafters or yourself and make more on the fly.

It doesn't have to be totally equal no,but all other archetypes would also need a strategic finite element of survival that comes into play during campaigns.
This would influence how players engage in combat in a positive way,as players need to make certain estimations for what their next move will be(kinda brings me back to my thoughts about the yomi discussion
 
 
With a strategic element of survival,like for example only being able to make more arrows on the fly at camp points (or other strategic points scattered over the campaign)
Players would also need to read their own signs" next to those of the opponent,need to interact with environment to make it through the day,estimate how far they'll be able to last without replenishing whatever it is each archetype would need..
Adds depth to the overall game & would also prevent players being able to "rush through content and certain difficulties"
Ammunition/arrows for rangers in this case makes sense,as survival skills are most desired to be a good skillful ranger.
Druids could harness more power by revitalising plants & stimulating growth in nature.Perhaps they could set up a vine wall this way at certain strategic point,...
Knights could have some kind of moral system.
Its also interesting that you mention the mages..I remember in one of my favorite games,Neverwinter nights 2,
Wizards needed to "study", prepare spells before they went out.Sorcerers were magically talented from birth,they knew fewer spells than wizards(learned them much slower too)..but could also use them as much as they liked.
Edited by Tipsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite supply.

 

I don't want to micromanage my inventory for arrows, ammunition or spell regeants in order to PVP.   

 

Just point me in the direction of the bad guys, and let's go fight.


The Shipwrecked Pirates

www.thesaltymaid.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to question the cost argument for a second. People keep stating that melee doesn't have a cost, in error, there is degradation and damage on death, plus looting,and before anyone assumes that it's similar to ranged, ranged is ranged, your at the immediate advantage of having more reach and being able to avoid being hit by many melee indefinitely with fortifications and terrain obstructions.

 

Being able to utilize structures and facing death less often means less equipment damage, death, and loss of equipment from looting.

 

Beside the plain fact that projectile users naturally invest less resources in armor and weapons, the reduced risk of contact means there's a resource risk disparity.

 

So, how does that work? Shall we have "bows" that fire 15 feet and teleport on every melee so ranged has a superficial difference? How about we have distinct roles with long range and ammunition to counteract the lack or risk and cost range face in general.

 

Cost and economy are not one dimensional subjects.

Edited by bahamutkaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players are so used to infinite supplies these days that they don't realize how games are just an empty shell of adventure

In another discussion somewhere else recently I saw someone ask " why is there no adventure in mmo's anymore"?(was there ever?)Well,this is 1 reason why.

With the infinite arrows/power/..,players are no more than magnets drawn to enemy targets without much thought going into getting from point a to b.No things to consider in between.

There is not much thought about the position they are in,environment/setting means little else than a change of scenery.A change of scenery now and then is often the only things players desire.

While I think it matters much more.

So for those that do want the excitement of an adventure in their game,finite sources requires a more inventive & resourceful approach.

Maybe it is a personal preference of mine that they'd put the challenges that come with adventure back into gaming,i'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to question the cost argument for a second. People keep stating that melee doesn't have a cost, in error, there is degradation and damage on death, plus looting,and before anyone assumes that it's similar to ranged, ranged is ranged, your at the immediate advantage of having more reach and being able to avoid being hit by many melee indefinitely with fortifications and terrain obstructions.

 

Being able to utilize structures and facing death less often means less equipment damage, death, and loss of equipment from looting.

 

Beside the plain fact that projectile users naturally invest less resources in armor and weapons, the reduced risk of contact means there's a resource risk disparity.

 

This whole line of reasoning seems to be based on the premise that archers tend to die significantly less frequently than melee troops. If this premise is false, the entire argument collapses.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Players are so used to infinite supplies these days that they don't realize how games are just an empty shell of adventure
In another discussion somewhere else recently I saw someone ask " why is there no adventure in mmo's anymore"?(was there ever?)Well,this is 1 reason why.
With the infinite arrows/power/..,players are no more than magnets drawn to enemy targets without much thought going into getting from point a to b.No things to consider in between.
There is not much thought about the position they are in,environment/setting means little else than a change of scenery.A change of scenery now and then is often the only things players desire.
While I think it matters much more.
So for those that do want the excitement of an adventure in their game,finite sources requires a more inventive & resourceful approach.
Maybe it is a personal preference of mine that they'd put the challenges that come with adventure back into gaming,i'll leave it at that.

 

I respect that opinion, but I feel it isn't so much of "adventure" as it is adding to the PvP aspect and balance of the game. Rangers would be managing their mana and arrows for skill-use while Confessors would, it seems, only manage their mana. By this alone, Confessor is more appealing for ranged combat.

 

To the idea of "consideration in between", this can be created in the game without finite arrows to add extra resource management (which cripples some archetypes more than others). For instance, the cost of death and health management in the long run. From what we know, it takes a good while to kill a player who's standing still, 40s ttk. We can assume from this that players will be pretty tough, good amount of health. Then there's that there is no dedicated healer, so healing in a campaign will be limited to what you can bring or scavenge. With these, good players will feel less inclined to be blindly drawn into any combat they can find, having to manage their health pool over the course of multiple encounters to avoid all the penalties of death. 

 

This is in terms of what you seem to be wanting, some risk assessment on engagements rather than a straight death-match mentality where people will just run straight at each other over and over again, instead creating some sense of survival.

 

On the other hand, what does having finite ammunition do to prevent people from running right into encounters? Nothing, really. You might run out of arrows by the end, but if they're cheap and you can get stacks of them, you might be able to win or survive the fight. You run out of arrows? Go back and get more. There is little risk in running out of arrows at the end of a fight, assuming you'll have many, except for the unique inconvenience it places that archetype under. I personally don't imagine running back and forth between your base/keep/camp and the war zone to be fun.

 

There can also be the argument that this isn't an adventure game, but an MMORPG/Strategy game, so there's that.

 

tl;dr Finite arrows will not bring back this sense of adventure you want, but the penalty of death will. In my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole line of reasoning seems to be based on the premise that archers tend to die significantly less frequently than melee troops. If this premise is false, the entire argument collapses.

Actually it doesn't, claiming the discussion boils down to a binary argument doesn't actually authenticate that it does.

 

There is a mention of typical investment in armor and equipment disparity between melee and range, this has no death circumstance involved. There is a context that points out the condition for ranged to be easy to kill, and insinuates that it would be a really lame context. And there is a matter of fact principal that melee are out ranged by ranged, and the natural stipulation that they are harder to engage, significantly so in context of structural interaction, a context known to be positive for Crowfall.

 

Stating a ultra generalized and both impractical and undesirable possibility doesn't begin to address the subjects presented Mr. J.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect that opinion, but I feel it isn't so much of "adventure" as it is adding to the PvP aspect and balance of the game. Rangers would be managing their mana and arrows for skill-use while Confessors would, it seems, only manage their mana. By this alone, Confessor is more appealing for ranged combat.

 

Like mentioned earlier,each archetype would manage something on the go.
Like the confessor would need amber to keep up their firy justice powers,..druid need to look for magical runestones scattered across the map,..
was just reading this:
And it is pretty relevant actually ,but i'm at the point i don't know where to reply first..
 
Its not about who is more appealing than who.
Its about adding another dynamic factor to combat that alters the flow of it,indeed,some risk assessment on engagement rather than a straight death-match
And yes;you might run into encounters while you're (almost) out of arrows,but that makes it all the more exciting and unforgettable being in that situation.
 
I like the idea of health being limited by what you can bring or scanvenge,but i don't want the focus to entirely be on hp again either..health mana stamina damage is all players talk about..
One thing is taking care of your health on the go.
Another thing is getting through the day with the sources you have with you & find on the way.(want it this way for each archetype in a meaningful way,ranger is not an exception although this is a topic specific for arrows and rangers)
One shouldn't always buy the arrows,sure rangers can make arrows on the go with some extra (trash)loot" they get from gathering wood for example
(maybe an interesting thought for the" meaningful loot discussion" i saw elsewere but sometimes its hard to decide where to discuss stuff when the flow of thoughts just passes by too quickly ,and then I don't know where to start anymore at all)
 
Edited by Tipsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it doesn't, claiming the discussion boils down to a binary argument doesn't actually authenticate that it does.

 

There is a mention of typical investment in armor and equipment disparity between melee and range, this has no death circumstance involved. There is a context that points out the condition for ranged to be easy to kill, and insinuates that it would be a really lame context. And there is a matter of fact principal that melee are out ranged by ranged, and the natural stipulation that they are harder to engage, significantly so in context of structural interaction, a context known to be positive for Crowfall.

 

Stating a ultra generalized and both impractical and undesirable possibility doesn't begin to address the subjects presented Mr. J.

 

Well, while there might be the safety of ranged combat due to the difference in reach [Not mentioning the Knight's grappling hook skill] and thus the requirement exchange for that defense, there also exists the fact of the matter of aiming. If your target can strafe and avoid your arrows, meaning ranged takes a lot more skill to land actual hits on your opponent, I feel that skill is what you exchange for the reward of safety.

 

Of course, as I said, melee classes will likely have gap-closers like the Knight's chain ability, meaning that ranged combat isn't likely to be all that better or safer than melee. Solo, at least. 

 

As for encounters where you're almost out of arrows, I won't say such play is bad because of balance, since this will be a naturally imbalanced game in solo encounters. The main issue is how it might all add to the gameplay. If we want weapons to decay in durability, just throw it on the bow like you might any other weapon set. For resource management that we can deprive enemies of, there's always food, since there will be a hunger system.

 

Also I feel that mana management alone can easily replace the need for arrows to limit an archetype's capabilities in an engagement. Have mana regenerate based on your hunger, perhaps, so that if you're full it regenerates fine, but if you've been deprived of food and are starving it will drastically reduce your combat readiness. This system appeals to me because it can be used against all classes, so it's easier for balance and development, I feel, than chaining each archetype to an ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> typical investment in armor and equipment disparity between melee and range, this has no death circumstance involved

 

If you propose that ranged and melee with have different investment rates in equipment even given equivalent death rates, that means you think that one suit of archer gear will inherently have a lower TCO per unit of time than one suit of melee gear. I don't see any reason to think this is the case; even if medium or light armor has a lower material requirement than heavy armor (which is not something we've been told) that could well be normalized with a correspondingly lower durability.

 

> There is a context that points out the condition for ranged to be easy to kill, and insinuates that it would be a really lame context.

 

This appears to be an argument that ranged will die less than melee. If you're making some other point, please clarify how this is relevant to ongoing logistical cost of maintaining a combat character even without differential item decay from death.

 

> And there is a matter of fact principal that melee are out ranged by ranged, and the natural stipulation that they are harder to engage

 

This appears to be an argument that ranged will die less than melee. If you're making some other point, please clarify how this is relevant to ongoing logistical cost of maintaining a combat character even without differential item decay from death.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are all circumstantial claims because we have no evidence, it only points out the natural likelihood of utilizing less expensive equipment and dieing less because of strategic advantages.

 

In a siege or battle, no matter how vulnerable you attempt to make ranged units, melee allies will obstruct melee foes, granting ranged more safety, or structures will completely separate forces into a ranged battle where melee have to contend with structures while ranged shoot at players.

 

This doesn't even factor the quality of distance or approach speed for melee, because structures will be a working part of this game and even if the reach to approach ratio is very similar, which would be lame, it's unlikely many archetypes will be able to completely circumvent structures.

 

Practically speaking, how long do you expect Knights chain pull to be in comparison to archers types arsenal of projectiles? And how likely will it contend with fortified structures?

 

While your questioning the circumstance of reach in Crowfall, you have no supporting evidence to the contrary, so your challenging declared speculation with little more than tasteless speculation.

 

The context was there initially. Are you still too binary to understand it Jihan?

 

Practically speaking, archers equipment choice and requirement would be cheaper, they could make archery just as dangerous as melee, and they could make archers equipment just as costly, but there's a fundamental shortcoming there. That would not be strategically distinct or interesting. If they want to make an action brawler, ACE is welcome to, but they advertised a strategy, so I'm expecting strategic features like real reach and strategic advantages, like, you know, finding a situation your good in and exploiting it, or, you know, your a bad player. But hey, I'm just making educated guesses.

Edited by bahamutkaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think ranged vs close combat is a topic on its own.Loose from arrows being an item or infinite.

Also ,the "skill" aiming requires depends on whether it is free aiming or tab target system & with free aiming both close and ranged can miss.

In my experience the overal repair bills as close combatant are often more expensive compared to ranged playthroughs,especially if you compare this after grouping its obviously a huge difference.

archers and knights are 2 very different archetypes.

 

For knights,the strength of their (mutual) shielding defence wall could be influenced by the state of their armor,or their moral.

We've seen games before where flags can boost moral.But maybe that should be backwards;if the knight sees the symbol of their pendant on other captured buildings,they can rally the people around and boost moral of other soldiers.Or maybe they should stop by at certain points to sharpen their blade.

I think that would be more or less the same as rangers going to look for wood to craft some quick arrows on the go with their dagger while they camp .They can apply some poisons they found ;poison of the scorpion,some toxic plant they looted along the way.As they focus on the bow more as being beastmasters,they can craft some special arrows.

If the ranger goes for beastmaster,they can manipulate the creatures they encounter in the wild,the eagles can become their eyes,pack of wolfs can be used as distraction,..

Edited by Tipsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...