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

Make Arrows An Item


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 709
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Finite. Everything revolves around resources, and that should include ammo. Obviously casters should have some other way to attack also, like melee attacks, but giving infinite ammo removes and entire

There's many pros and cons to both Infinite and Finite ammo systems.    We have an idea on which path we are going go down, but this is a topic we've been discussing since the early days of Crowfall

It's amusing how "hardcore" PVPers get squishy when it's suggested that ammo is finite. Everything in Crowfall is resource limited. Your sword is going to dull and break. Your armor is going to rend a

Infinite - this would cause an imbalance; the swordsmen would absolutely destroy archers because archers wouldn't be able to do damage at a point.

If you get to the point where your out of arrows because you used them all against one knight you got bigger problems. Besides what do think arches did against knights in real life THEY RAN AWAY! A knight with armor should not be able to move as fast as a light archer problem solved.

                              large.png?1427076055

                 

                                                                               http://thetradecompany.shivtr.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get to the point where your out of arrows because you used them all against one knight you got bigger problems. Besides what do think arches did against knights in real life THEY RAN AWAY! A knight with armor should not be able to move as fast as a light archer problem solved.

 

Actually that would create a much bigger problem. As long as the archer has ammo the knight would never be able to beat the archer.....

mael4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that would create a much bigger problem. As long as the archer has ammo the knight would never be able to beat the archer.....

 

There could be a rock paper scissors mechanic in here. Archer beats Mage, Knight beats Archer, Mage beats Knight.

 

Archers arrows can outpace damage against the unarmored Mages but fail to push back the armored Knights.

 

Knights can close the gaps with Archers but can't with Mages who are more effective at bypassing armor with magic damage.

 

Of course the situation will dictate the winner because of surprise attacks, terrain, and even skill difference. Then add in numbers and team differences(Three Mages and two Knights vs two Archers a Mage and a Knight) and combat becomes anyone's guess. One person doesn't need to be able to do everything alone or even one on one.

Edited by Gideon
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be finite, if it isn't itll make no sense in a game where crafting is one of the major focuses. Every archer should be forced to learn fletching. All these comments on how it puts a "tax" or a "restriction" on a play-style and gives melee a distinct advantage indicate they don't understand what they are talking about.

Being an archer gives you a distinct advantage over melee in the sense you can kite the enemy, strike first and maintain the ability to escape situations that melee would be extremely vulnerable to, especially in a Voxel world. 

All it is going to take is a knife and an axe, both of which you will likely begin with on your starting character to make your arrows and will cost you nothing to produce.

Edit: and of course to make better arrows that deal additional damage on top of your bows initial damage is another feature archers have. these arrows should especially be limited to how well you craft or how much your trade.  

Edited by Rusery
Link to post
Share on other sites

>Now now. No need for personal attacks. It was just a figure of speech.

 
 Yeah, it wasn't a personal attack to you. It was more rage against the " it's too hard" concept that is ussually seen, and ussually adds nothing to improve anything.

Half of the argumentation in this thread is " it's gona be to hard to balance", like it is a reasonable argument to not do something because it's hard.


 

>If the personalisation of the archetype classes with subclasses is viable, it opens a lot for the balance. ( Even if they said they didn't wanted a balanced gameplay, but more roles )
>I don't see how this addresses my point? Please clarify.
 

Because, apart the crafter layer, we are talking about balance. And this game isn't suposed to be very balanced ( I guess in the sense that crafters may be no figthing gods ). So, if we add a system accesible for all, and if archetypes are modelables, the balance will be driven by the player, and not framed in the archetype limitations.
This means that, as we saw in the image we saw before in this post, knights will be able to use arrows. The suposed overpower or underpowered will be accesible for all, aka, no disavantages for anybody.
 
 
 

>You are totally transforming the concept of realism into your favor. When we talk about realism, we talk about physical realism. Unless there is a magic spell or something, arrows should not be infinite.
>I don't agree with that. My examples of realism were all directly related to the case at hand. And were further explained later in the post. Which you did not address. I am not saying that arrows shouldn't be physically in the game. As far as I know. No one does. Not just part of the inventory and crafting systems.


your example -> Besides even finite ammo often ends up being just as unrealistic as infinite.
 
<_< 
 
 
 

 
>And in that game you could use a bow with a druid? If there is only 1 class, of course it adds nothing... ( like the warlock in Wow, that had to farm i don't know waht, or necromancer in L2, who had to farm bones... )
 
>Actually, you could. It just wasn't viable. However that doesn't really matter. No matter how many classes or players that use the bow the balance is still affected. Now I am not very versed in WOW classes and consumables, however the necromancer in L2 did not have to use bones for every attack. Which makes it a whole different thing. I am not saying remove all consumables, again no one does. I am saying making a consumable that is mandatory for gameplay and that only affects some players is unbalancing, unfair and introduces unnecessary timesinks/grinding into the gameplay.

 
 
You seem to have played lineage 2.
What about prophets with bows in olympiads? What about tanks with bows for when UD? What about destroyer with frenzy and draconic bow? What about daggers with bow for when rooted?
Any melee class that did not had a long range skill, or even some support clases, had a bow and arrows in his inventory for pvp.
Bow were mastered by archers, obviously, but anybody could use a bow as a secondary or terciary resource, even without skills for it.
 
If you do it properly, it is viable.
 

 
 
 

>In games where arrows were infinite? Ofc you spamed those arrows! And more if you go onto arena pvp
You are speculating on the way and dificulty to craft arrows. We know nothing about crafting eficiency yet. That argument has no fundament.
 >Now who is assuming? No I am not talking about games where arrows were infinite. How would I know how many arrows I used then. I am actually talking from experience where I played games with finite ammo. F. ex Rangers in EQ2 used to have almost half their inventory dedicated to arrows.

 
hum, maybe 36 790 =/= infinite, but let me doubt about the shortage of arrows after a whole day shoting arrows in that game, without moving from the place.
And the point is, this game is played by caimpaigns, not static world.

 --
 
 




Anyways. The thing is. Make crafting ammo too hard and the cost of ammo becomes too high for players to buy it or invest time in it, making ranged classes more undesirable. Make it too easy and the price of ammo will plummet, but so will the crafters willing to make it.

 
I think some people in this thread are immune to sarcasm (not you in particular ), so I will say it again very clearly:
 
If too hard is bad, and too easy is bad... why don't we try to make thing between hard and easy? Not hard, not easy, just in the middle ( or " it is too hard " ? )
 
 
 
 
 
>As I mentioned. Most players in MMOs do thing on a gain vs. time basis. If they can make more money crafting swords, they will craft swords. I am not saying that is the rule, but it is very common.
 
 
If I am the crafter of my guild, and my guild needs arrows, I'll freaking do arrows until I can make the tour effeil with them.
 
This arguments is only destined to individual crafters, and, again, in a speculated world where arrows are unbalanced to craft. You don't know if the people will want to have tons of arrow to shoot, or none.
 
 

 
 

>Again speculating. In runescape there was an arrow comerce very prolific. You argument is invalid
>If the ammo commerce worked great in Runescape then that would probably be closer to the exception rather the rule. However. If it worked that great in runescape, maybe you should explain why it did? Cause I have very little experience with Runescape.

 
If you are curious; but explaining economy ( and more not being an economist ) is not something interesting from my part.


NPC vendors selled low level arrows for a normal price, and high level arrows for an expensive price. ( runescape vendor trade worked diferently, but this was the base )
So, a player could go farm materials to make arrows, craft them, and sell them to the people cheaper than the vendor, but making profit.
The top high arrows weren't selled in the vendor, so it was full profit for those who crafted them. 
 
So, to explain this very clearly:
 
Let's say there is a continuous but fluctuating number of archer that have a demand for arrows. More or less numerous, there will be always someone wanting arrows.
 
And somebody have to craft arrows.
 
1What happened when there were few arrow crafters?  The demand overpassed the supply, and the arrow price went up. 
 
2What happened when the arrow price went up? Avid people saw the oportunity, and started crafting too. The supply augmented until it stabilisated with the demand, or surpased it. 
 
3What happened when the supply surpased the demand? Price went down, archer were happy, but crafters had no gain, so most of them stoped crafting or selling. So the supply goes down again, there are few arrow crafters. go to point 1
 
Eventually the market fluctuates tending to stabilisate into a reasonable price ( dpeending on how dull are the demanders and the suppliers ).
 
 
The magic was that, for arrows like for swords, there was always a demand. ( in this game it will be durability, since arrows like swords or armours are finite ).
 


 
To resume, if there is a demand, there is a market.
 
 

Yeah, maybe using a shield or dodging, or deflecting skill... There lots of way of dealing with it, that will add to the gameplay.
 
Which was my point exactly. What I was asking is would you rather have them balance the gameplay with archetype abilities and features or with inventory management and crafting costs? Cause personally I would prefer the first, not the latter.

 
Well then that's personal preference. And form my part y prefer both. That's the point of this thread, not removing additional management of logistics.
 
 
 

Again it's about balance. Lets say f. ex that they implemented the same system for melee, as some people here have suggested, then one would need f. ex a sharpening stone for every swing of the sword. How many swings of a sword do you think a melee characters does in a day? I think in the 10s of thousands. Well then balance would be intact, but is it worth it? Sure it would create another demand that crafters could fulfill. However as I said. Creating crafting demand can be done many ways. Why does it have to be ammo? If adding ammo just to create crafter demand, then that I believe that is a very one sided design decision. Wouldn't it be better to create crafter demand with something that adds something substantial to the game, rather than adding it to something that would be there anyway?

 
>Why does it have to be ammo?
 
Why not? comodity? Is it too hard?
 
Adding finite arrow incluencies the gameplay a lot. Erasing any inconvenience is synonym of preestablished routes of behaviour. Removing strategic aspect is synonym to try to make a game were skills aren't important.
 
Adding layers of resources dependance adds a lot to the game.
 
There is no reason unless comodity, and i want to emphasize the comodity concept, to make infinite arrows. It's like saying you don't want durability in your sword or armour.
 
 

Indeed...
 
I am not sure I totally get what point your trying to make there. I believe you are implying that I am lacking the ability to think outside the box. The thing is. I am one of the people advocating for infinite ammo, not the other way around. Why should I try to come up with a solution to a problem that isn't part of the problem on my side of the argument? Yea sure, I could do that, just for the greater good. The thing is I sincerely believe that infinite ammo is for the greater good and I just haven't seen an argument that really tries to address the issues I have put forth. However, once we start addressing these issues, instead of just undermining them. Then I will throw my thinking hat on.

> Why should I try to come up with a solution to a problem that isn't part of the problem on my side of the argument?
 
This is what I was reffering to.

 

 

 

Daaamn this is long.

Edited by Homun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an archer gives you a distinct advantage over melee in the sense you can kite the enemy, strike first and maintain the ability to escape situations that melee would be extremely vulnerable to, especially in a Voxel world.

People always compare archer vs melee, but they're forgetting that a ton of people will look at archer vs any other range archetype and be like "why would I want to spend time crafting/acquiring arrows and carry thousands of them at all times when I can just pick another ranged class instead?".

 

 

All it is going to take is a knife and an axe, both of which you will likely begin with on your starting character to make your arrows and will cost you nothing to produce.

Maybe it won't cost you anything in terms of ingame currency(if there even is one), but it's still gonna take a lot of resources and time that all other classes most likely won't have to spend.

7ug90hM.png


 


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite - this would cause an imbalance; the swordsmen would absolutely destroy archers because archers wouldn't be able to do damage at a point.

 

And at that point you pull out your sidearm and fight. I don't see the imbalance. You did damage to him as he approached while you took none. Now he's right up on you where he's stronger, but he's already wounded.

 

Seems pretty balanced.

I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite - this would cause an imbalance; the swordsmen would absolutely destroy archers because archers wouldn't be able to do damage at a point.

 

 

This kind of tautology is absurd and yet is being repeated over and over verbatim.  What if you could carry 2 million arrows?  I ghighly doubt that finite amount would actually have any effect on gamplay much less "destroy archers".  I'm not endorsing a limit of that level of course(a limit of that level would be pointless), but the statement "If class A has this weakness in any degree they will be useless" is ridiculous.

 

And frankly range has enormous advantages of it's own-chiefly it's RANGE.  That is an enormous advantage in any large scale PvP scenario, as you can  deal you damage without wading into the enemy zerg(which for a sufficiently large enemy force is suicide).  The range advantage only gets larger in siege scenarios where one side is standing up on fortifications, out of each of melee for much of the battle, during which time ranged character can do their thing while melee twiddles their collective thumbs.  I highly doubt Archers having to stock up on arrows and without guild logistical support eventually run out pales by comparison to the enormous tactical advantage of range in a game like  this.

 

It's worth noting those, I don't think any limitations to ammo should be "realistic per se"-obviously a max quiver size of 30-40 arrows would create a major distrotion to balance- I don't even think a max carrying capacity is even necessarily important- what is important is that someone is paying resources for each arrow shot, so that funding a war requires resource control and effective logistics or by a few battles in the guild with a poorly planned war effort finds themselves unable to equip all their soldiers for the next battle.

 

 

And I'd like to note that making this about "melee vs ranged" is kind of insane from the start, being that just about everyone who's advocating finite AMMO is also advocating melee weapons wearing out(In fact I think it would make a ton of sense if melee weapons wore out and broke substantially faster to counterbalance Ranged character's dependence on ammo).

 

This was never really about melee vs ranged for the people argueing against it, it's about them wanting to play ranged and not have to deal with the distraction of logistical planning and communication.

Edited by bilun
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's worth noting those, I don't think any limitations to ammo should be "realistic per se"-obviously a max quiver size of 30-40 arrows would create a major distrotion to balance- I don't even think a max carrying capacity is even necessarily important- what is important is that someone is paying resources for each arrow shot, so that funding a war requires resource control and effective logistics or by a few battles in the guild with a poorly planned war effort finds themselves unable to equip all their soldiers for the next battle.

But that is already happening with infinite arrow/ammo. If guilds have to suffer from a double-whammy due to archers needing normal resources AND arrow/ammo resourrces, then a ton of guilds will just opt out of using archers because why would you waste your time with those extra resources?

 

At that point it becomes a whole mess of "well, archers have finite arrows/ammo, so we have to buff their damage output and what they bring to groups so that they aren't left behind all the other ranged classes who don't suffer from a double-whammy when it comes to resources".

7ug90hM.png


 


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This was never really about melee vs ranged for the people argueing against it, it's about them wanting to play ranged and not have to deal with the distraction of logistical planning and communication.

 

It was more about wanting to be able to play a ranged spec without being forced in to a melee subspec.

 

It was about parity between the entropy experienced by ranged and melee weapons.

 

It was about ensuring balanced economic cost by ensuring all weapons experience roughly equivalent levels of entropy over time.

 

It's about being able to use a sword until it breaks versus having a perfectly good unbroken bow you can't fire because you don't have some arbitrary extra expenditure that doesn't pay out in an associated extra utility.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more about wanting to be able to play a ranged spec without being forced in to a melee subspec.

 

It was about parity between the entropy experienced by ranged and melee weapons.

 

It was about ensuring balanced economic cost by ensuring all weapons experience roughly equivalent levels of entropy over time.

 

It's about being able to use a sword until it breaks versus having a perfectly good unbroken bow you can't fire because you don't have some arbitrary extra expenditure that doesn't pay out in an associated extra utility.

 

 

The only valable argument for me is the one about the melee subspec.

 

You have a point.

 

Still, the same way archer should be able to only fight with bows, crafters should only be able to craft?

Link to post
Share on other sites
x

Yeah, it wasn't a personal attack to you. It was more rage against the " it's too hard" concept that is ussually seen, and ussually adds nothing to improve anything.

 

Half of the argumentation in this thread is " it's gona be to hard to balance", like it is a reasonable argument to not do something because it's hard.

 

So "I hope you will never have a job with responsabilities" was not directed at me personally, but the everyone that argues for infinite ammo. I am not gonna go into the issues with that.

 

The fact that it is hard to balance make it a resource-intensive task for the developers. Now I am not saying they are icompetent, but they are a small team with limited resources and I would rather them focus their efforts elsewhere.

 

 

Because, apart the crafter layer, we are talking about balance. And this game isn't suposed to be very balanced ( I guess in the sense that crafters may be no figthing gods ). So, if we add a system accesible for all, and if archetypes are modelables, the balance will be driven by the player, and not framed in the archetype limitations.

This means that, as we saw in the image we saw before in this post, knights will be able to use arrows. The suposed overpower or underpowered will be accesible for all, aka, no disavantages for anybody.

 

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. However as to the whole knights will be able to specialize in ranged combat argument. It doesn't really matter how many players that can or will use ranged weapons. What matters is that they will be penalized for it. Which I don't think is a good design decision and will probably turn out to be unfair for some players either way.

 

 

your example -> Besides even finite ammo often ends up being just as unrealistic as infinite.

 

I had a whole paragraph dedicated to it. You even quoted it, but it seems you forgot to address it. I will repost it for your convenience.

 

- Realism.

I don't know how many of you have played archers, but in most games I have played it is conceivable that an archer will use 10-20 thousand arrows a day. This alone is highly unrealistic, but it is common in any game where combat is part of the gameplay focus. So what about weight, inventory space and resources? How many arrows is it realistic to actually be carrying in real life? I would say about 10-20 arrows. That clearly wouldn't work. How many resources would you need to craft 10-20 thousand of arrows? the equivalent of 1 sharpening stone? That wouldn't be realistic and I will get further into that argument in a bit. So which realism aspect is more important? Which is more easily explained by game concepts and lore? Well you know what I think. Whats your reasoning?

 

 

You seem to have played lineage 2.

What about prophets with bows in olympiads? What about tanks with bows for when UD? What about destroyer with frenzy and draconic bow? What about daggers with bow for when rooted?

Any melee class that did not had a long range skill, or even some support clases, had a bow and arrows in his inventory for pvp.

Bow were mastered by archers, obviously, but anybody could use a bow as a secondary or terciary resource, even without skills for it.

 

If you do it properly, it is viable.

 

Again I am not really sure what part of my argument you are trying to address. Is it the fact that I used the word viable? That was just for your example with a druid with a bow. As for your examples with Lineage 2 classes using bows in pvp even though their classes was not designed to do so. I am not sure I see the point your trying to make. All that really tells me is that the classes in Lineage 2 weren't that well balanced in pvp and that it made them equip bows to be competitive. This has more to do with actual combat balance, however that is not really the type of balance I am trying to address.

 

 

hum, maybe 36 790 =/= infinite, but let me doubt about the shortage of arrows after a whole day shoting arrows in that game, without moving from the place.

And the point is, this game is played by caimpaigns, not static world.

 

Again I don't understand exactly what your meaning. I don't see how campaigns vs. a static world has anything to do with the ammo discussion at all.

 

 

I think some people in this thread are immune to sarcasm (not you in particular ), so I will say it again very clearly:

 

If too hard is bad, and too easy is bad... why don't we try to make thing between hard and easy? Not hard, not easy, just in the middle ( or " it is too hard " ? )

 

Not sure what your sarcasm comment is supposed to mean, I don't really see where your original comment about speculation could be seen as sarcasm. However sarcasm is infamous for being very hard to discern in written form. Especially considering that it is implied with tone or voice, facial expression or stating something extremely obvious in face to face situations. So I could be mistaken.

 

As to the whole middle ground argument. The problem with that is that you have 2 potential groups involved in the actual problem. The players that specialize on crafting ammo on one side and the players that consume the ammo on the other side. It would be very hard to find a place were both camps can be happy with the compromise. And then it still is two player groups making compromises. There are three outcomes that I can see. Ranged characters could get unfairly taxed with high ammo prices, crafters specializing in ammo crafting could get unfairly low prices for their produce, or both ranged characters and ammo specialized crafters would get unfairly taxed. Yes if we reach that middle ground the unfair tax would be less, but it would still be unfair because of a design decision that, in my opinion, is mostly grounded in realistic or thematic reasons. In other words, first and foremost not based out of the design of actual game play

 

 

If I am the crafter of my guild, and my guild needs arrows, I'll freaking do arrows until I can make the tour effeil with them.

 

This arguments is only destined to individual crafters, and, again, in a speculated world where arrows are unbalanced to craft. You don't know if the people will want to have tons of arrow to shoot, or none.

 

As you yourself hint at the argument is mostly describing crafters that are part of the economy. When you are crafting for your guild your effect on the player market is subdued to a point. You would still be part of the larger economic drifts of supply and demand, however it locks out those that are not. I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say in your follow up, but we will be covering supply and demand some more soon so I will let it be with that.

 

 

To resume, if there is a demand, there is a market.

 

Yes to a point. You see the thing that I am worried about is how making finite ammo would direct the market. Forcing one playstyle to pay more than another playstyle would in effect skew the market. I have already covered this.

 

 

Well then that's personal preference. And form my part y prefer both. That's the point of this thread, not removing additional management of logistics.

 

Well that a thing too. Have you heard of the expression "have your cake and eat it too"? I am asking you which is more important. Let's say you had to choose one. Which would you choose?

 

Like I have tried to say many times. They are a small team with limited resources. They can't put all the systems conceived by man into the game. Somewhere a long the line they have to cut it off and I would like to see them focus on actual combat gameplay balance instead of an obsolete ammo system. Would you rather they focus on an ammo system than actual combat balance? Maybe you can get both, but from my standpoint creating a viable ammo system is a lot of work with very small gains.

 

 

Why not? comodity? Is it too hard?

 

Adding finite arrow incluencies the gameplay a lot. Erasing any inconvenience is synonym of preestablished routes of behaviour. Removing strategic aspect is synonym to try to make a game were skills aren't important.

 

Adding layers of resources dependance adds a lot to the game.

 

There is no reason unless comodity, and i want to emphasize the comodity concept, to make infinite arrows. It's like saying you don't want durability in your sword or armour.

 

This is exactly my biggest problem with this whole argument. You, and a lot of other people in on this discussion, assume that the ones arguing for infinite ammo just wants it easy. To make it short.

 

There are already confirmed layers of resources dependencies in the game. And it is absolutely not the same as saying I don't want durability on my sword and armor. Like I said this is already confirmed. There will be some form of decay/durability on armor and weapons. You know weapons would include swords, bows and guns. However adding a second layer of commodity dependencies for only a select few, without giving them a worthwhile advantage in return is not balance. Ranged in itself is not a worthwhile advantage unless the game is highly unbalanced towards ranged characters, which could be the case, but then we have another problem to deal with. Namely that the meta game would make the majority of players choose a ranged playstyle, something which in itself is against the variety we all want and the developers are hoping to create. 

 

 

This is what I was reffering to.

Which doesn't answer my question. You want me to play the Devil's advocate?

Edited by RabbitFly

mael4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only valable argument for me is the one about the melee subspec.

 

You have a point.

 

Still, the same way archer should be able to only fight with bows, crafters should only be able to craft?

 

Crafters should be able to only craft if they choose to spec that way, yes. Information has been pretty clear that crafting is a viable play style, and some specs are designed specifically as crafters rather than combatants.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crafters should be able to only craft if they choose to spec that way, yes. Information has been pretty clear that crafting is a viable play style, and some specs are designed specifically as crafters rather than combatants.

Actually JTodd said that crafting is a discipline, taken after you pick your archetype. So combat comes first.

I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more about wanting to be able to play a ranged spec without being forced in to a melee subspec.

 

It was about parity between the entropy experienced by ranged and melee weapons.

 

It was about ensuring balanced economic cost by ensuring all weapons experience roughly equivalent levels of entropy over time.

 

It's about being able to use a sword until it breaks versus having a perfectly good unbroken bow you can't fire because you don't have some arbitrary extra expenditure that doesn't pay out in an associated extra utility.

 

And why MUST  the costs beperfectly  balanced?  Ranged weapons represent a huge tactical advantage in most largescale PvP scenarios.  Unless they plant on make melee universally so tanky they can wade into enemy zergs without give a rat's bottom why bother with the guy that has to go into suicidal range and can't be useful while the keep walls are still up? 

 

While we're on the topic though this is a large part of why in so many games Ranged is so hard to balance against melees- Ranged players basically expect parity and equality in pretty much every measure while still keeping their ranged advantage.  They act like being able to deal their damage at a  range is just a different mindset or a personal choice between equally powerful mechanics- it's not; Range is a huge advantage, so arguing against an arbitrary disadvantage with "it has to be equal" is ludicrous, being that SOMETHING has to be inequal,and in a big way, for the game for be balanced.

 

 I'm not saying this is necessarily that thing(in fact above I advocated balancing the entropy by making melee weapons wear out and break faster)- but the whole argument "X hurts ranged more then melee and thus is unacceptable" is not a very sound argument being that ranged is going to need a big disadvantage on par with the inherent advantage of their range.  And no "at a disadvantage once the enemy closes the distance" doesn't cut it being that if the ranged guy just stays with their zerge closing the distance usually means certain death for a melee.

 

 

With all that said, again I don't think this has to be an argument about ranged vs melee.  we have a few nobs to turn to balance it(relative rate ranged weapons break vs melee, cost of making arrows).  With the right number it could mostly just mean archers need to plan ahead more and make sure their guild is on top of short term logistics before big battles.

Edited by bilun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite ammo.  Add a reload mechanic if you wish (i.e. refill your quiver with arrows), but your character should never run out of ammo to refill with.

 

Of the games I've played that used limited ammo, it was always a PITA that added nothing positive to the game.

 

Does a melee character run out of swings for their sword?  No?  Then ranged classes shouldn't run out of the ability to effectively attack in the middle of combat either, unless their weapon breaks.

I'm of the middle ground mind in both these cases. Give player infinite standard ammo to shoot from their quivers to their hearts content, but allow the option of specialized ranged ammo. Things the play must carry should they want to give themselves a leg up in battle.

I suggested something like this for another game(THAT other game). Infinite normal arrows/ammo and then you could have special arrows/ammo that would be "stat sticks" that provide small bonuses, but are subject to decay just as any other item.

 

Suddenly the arrows/ammo goes from being something tedious and annoying to being something interesting and unique.

 

There could be arrows/ammo that adds elemental DoT's, flat % elemental damage, % slows, % chance to knockback, % chance to pierce through people, lifesteal, faster flying projectiles, etc.

 

Basically think something like all the stuff from D2/D3 that you could add onto an item.

 

People that use arrows/ammo could carry all of these around and swap them in/out depending on what situation they're in and what they feel is the best.

I like this idea, and it would also free up skills for different uses instead of having a skill that shoots a poisoned arrow, you literally haul around a quiver of poisoned arrows. You run out of your poisoned arrows? Your sol, and have to go back to your infinite death via needle attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And why MUST  the costs beperfectly  balanced?  Ranged weapons represent a huge tactical advantage in most largescale PvP scenarios.  Unless they plant on make melee universally so tanky they can wade into enemy zergs without give a rat's bottom why bother with the guy that has to go into suicidal range and can't be useful while the keep walls are still up? 

 

While we're on the topic though this is a large part of why in so many games Ranged is so hard to balance against melees- Ranged players basically expect parity and equality in pretty much every measure while still keeping their ranged advantage.  They act like being able to deal their damage at a  range is just a different mindset or a personal choice between equally powerful mechanics- it's not; Range is a huge advantage, so arguing against an arbitrary disadvantage with "it has to be equal" is ludicrous, being that SOMETHING has to be inequal,and in a big way, for the game for be balanced.

 

 I'm not saying this is necessarily that thing(in fact above I advocated balancing the entropy by making melee weapons wear out and break faster)- but the whole argument "X hurts ranged more then melee and thus is unacceptable" is not a very sound argument being that ranged is going to need a big disadvantage on par with the inherent advantage of their range.  And no "at a disadvantage once the enemy closes the distance" doesn't cut it being that if the ranged guy just stays with their zerge closing the distance usually means certain death for a melee.

 

 

With all that said, again I don't think this has to be an argument about ranged vs melee.  we have a few nobs to turn to balance it(relative rate ranged weapons break vs melee, cost of making arrows).  With the right number it could mostly just mean archers need to plan ahead more and make sure their guild is on top of short term logistics before big battles.

 

Well the point I am trying to make is that I would rather see them balance in archetype and skill viability than in the economic cost of a playstyle, F. ex the normal way of balancing ranged is to make them withstand less damage. Sure this is the simplest, but also the most used example. Hopefully ArtCraft can come up with more interesting ways to balance it as well. However Balancing it on the economic side doesn't make that much sense to me. For one the penalizing doesn't actually benefit the opponent. In effect it would only make it so that the ranged player needs to spend more time grinding before an upcoming battle than the melee character. If that is the only way they balance it, then ranged characters will be too powerful and, in my opinion, not that much fun to play.

mael4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the point I am trying to make is that I would rather see them balance in archetype and skill viability than in the economic cost of a playstyle, F. ex the normal way of balancing ranged is to make them withstand less damage. Sure this is the simplest, but also the most used example. Hopefully ArtCraft can come up with more interesting ways to balance it as well. However Balancing it on the economic side doesn't make that much sense to me. For one the penalizing doesn't actually benefit the opponent. In effect it would only make it so that the ranged player needs to spend more time grinding before an upcoming battle than the melee character. If that is the only way they balance it, then ranged characters will be too powerful and, in my opinion, not that much fun to play.

 

I have said repeatedly that I'm not advocating balancing by enconomic costs.  I merely stated that there's no real reason why "everything should be equal melee versus ranged" is far from the silver bullet argument so many people seem to think it is.

 

 

Again I mentioned on multiple occasion making melee weapons wear out and break faster whereas ranged weapons need to deal with the ongoing need for ammunition.  I'm all for having parallels(though loose parallels are more interesting then making everything identical), I'm only focusing on the Ammo side of things at present because that is the specific topic of this thread.  I think all classes should find themselves worrying about being force to go into battle unprepared and ill equipped if their faction doesn't mind it's logistics.

Edited by bilun
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said repeatedly that I'm not advocating balancing by enconomic costs.  I merely stated that there's no real reason why "everything should be equal melee versus ranged" is far from the silver bullet argument so many people seem to think it is.

 

 

Again I mentioned on multiple occasion making melee weapons wear out and break faster whereas ranged weapons need to deal with the ongoing need for ammunition.  I'm all for having parallels(though loose parallels are more interesting then making everything identical), I'm only focusing on the Ammo side of things at present because that is the specific topic of this thread.  I think all classes should find themselves worrying about being force to go into battle unprepared and ill equipped if their faction doesn't mind it's logistics.

 

Sorry it wasn't my intention to rehash on that as much as it might have come through as. I just felt that your post was trying to excuse a separate cost layer just because they were ranged.

 

As for the whole making melee weapons more frail while making ranged weapons need ammo. I agree that it would be an interesting way of balancing it with, as you call it, loose parallels. Which I am all for.

 

However. How would that affect magic characters?

 

And is it really a necessary logistics system? 

 

Like you said as it stands all classes will probably find themselves in trouble if they, their guild or their faction doesn't mind it's logistics. Do we really need to focus on another way of doing what is already part of the design?

 

Basically what I am trying to ask is this. Is it worth the effort of development of loose parallels if the decay system they are already working on already creates a need for logistics?

mael4.jpg

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...