10 Mar, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I am looking for ideas to better use arrows in my game. At one time, the missile system was updated for Rangers in our game. It turned into a ranger casting entangle on a target, fleeing out and then just blasting the mob with a barrage of arrows. We didn't like how this turned out and players were killing really big mobs at low levels so we switched it back to how it was.

I am wanting to mess with the missile system to make it useful again but not abusable. As it is right now, people just use spears to throw at mobs to 'pull' them out of the room they were in. Any suggestions on how to make it useful?

I had thought about making it to where if you shot a mob/player and they were affected by snare or entangle then it would just break the affect and the mob/player could then go after the shooter. This seems like the best approach so far, but I wanted some opinions on ranged weapons first.

What are some things that you have done to your mud to make ranged weapons useful without being abusable?
10 Mar, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Here are a few ideas I've had over the years:

- Have a chance to catch arrows/projectiles based on a stat (agi/dex?), then give certain NPCs a high level in that stat
- Extension to above idea: potential to throw the arrows/projectiles back
- Add lag to arrow/projectile firing that is proportional to range, then add configurable regen to certain NPCs, such that regeneration outpaces ranged damage per unit of time
- Add a hunt behavioral module to certain NPCs, with the victim argument autoset to ranged attackers
- Opposite idea: add a behavioral module to certain NPCs that make them run away when being attacked from range, where the goal is to increase distance from the attacker
- Damage from ranged attacks inversely proportional to distance from target
- Alertness setting for NPCs where successive ranged attacks have decreasing hit percentages

Most of these ideas (and others I have) are based on disparity in level between PCs and NPCs (whether it's an actual level number, or just some metric to differentiate their relative strengths). You would only apply one of these ideas, or some combination of them, to either select high level NPCs or dynamically to NPCs based on the difference in level from the attacker. This would still allow ranged attacks to be useful for picking off lower level victims or for use as an opening salvo or second person assist against higher level NPC victims. Also, your idea about having arrows/projectiles break entrappings is a good one.

Furthermore, ranged attacking need not necessarily be balanced from the perspective of danger (read: risk of reprisal, leading to death). The beauty of ranged attacking is the ability to stay safe - you just need a trade-off in terms of either effectiveness or cost. The effectiveness trade-off would be that defeating an NPC from range takes twice as long as a melee fighter takes to defeat the same victim. The cost trade-off could be that arrows are expendable and non-recoverable, then attach either a time commitment toward crafting new ones or a purchase price toward buying new ones. This strategy is self-balancing.

Additionally, there's always the Final Fantasy approach, wherein you have a party formation consisting of a front row and a back row. Being placed in the front row doubles damage dealt and increases focus of aggression. Being placed in the back row halves damage received, but limits weapon selection (melee weapons can't reach from back row). This provides for an interesting balance if you ensure that the characters who are most proficient with ranged weapons are also the least durable and defensive. Being in the back row would let you survive twice as long. Being in the front row would let you get the fight over with twice as fast (for the impatient types). Theoretically, you'd take the same damage either way. However, I realize this may not be in the spirit of your idea on ranged combat (room based MUD, attacks coming from another room), but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway. You could always combine this strategy with the others, thus making ranged weapons useful even up close (read: in same room). I hope some of this helps.
10 Mar, 2009, Skol wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Might also look at damage reduction. If an arrow does like 1d8, and the dragon has 8000 hp as well as Damage reduction of say 30… tink tink, arrows bounce off.
10 Mar, 2009, elanthis wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
In many ways you can think of ranged weapons the same as you think of spells (in most systems). They are ranged attacks with limited uses (ammunition) tied to a casting focus (the bow).

Some things you can draw from real-life to help balance bows:

Bows are not accurate at any kind of notable range. 99% of your shots are going to miss in a real combat. Real archers in medieval war wouldn't even bother aiming.

Nobody can fire arrows like Legolas did in LOTR. I can hit you with a sword approximately once per second (a real master could pull off maybe 1.5 to 2.5 hits per second for brief periods of time), but it takes me time to draw an arrow, knock it, draw the bow, etc.

A melee weapon is every bit as much a defensive device as it is a weapon. Either melee weapons should give some kind of defense bonus or ranged weapons should give a defense penalty (D&D takes the penalty approach, for example, as it assumes that your AC includes "active defense.") You can't block an attack with a bow; at least not more than once… bows are brittle. D&D also gives attacks of opportunity for trying a point-blank shot, which makes perfect sense – if I see you start to knock or draw your bow, I know you're going to attack, and I'll hit you during that more than ample window of time you just provided. Bows can ONLY be used safely at a distance.

The sole advantage of bows in real combat really just came down to their overwhelming power. A bow is powerful enough to punch through almost any armor even at a good range, even when the shot was just wildly shot into the air. Many games simulate this by having "piercing" damage to which most armor does not protect, although that's often pretty inaccurate (as they make rapiers and the like piercing, and plate armor most definitely eliminates the threat of a weapon like that – and while daggers WERE the most common way of killing an armored knight, they weren't actually usable until you'd grappled and pinned the knight to the ground and started digging the knife into the seams – not something you could do in active upright combat).

I have played some quite balanced games that derived from those rules. Bows were deadly but were, inaccurate, and negated most of the attackers defensive options. The game quite successfully ended up with players who chose a weapon based on what they thought was cool and not on what was most powerful, because all the weapons were balanced. Certain situations gave advantages to certain weapons of course (if your enemies are at range, attack with ranged weapons), but in general no one weapon had a clear advantage.

It's worth noting that a great number of archers at range on an open field pretty much spelled certain death for any attacking force. The ending to 300 was very accurate. In medieval war, the generals would often both agree to keep their archers out of the fight… both sides having archers was a lot like both sides having nukes. You'd kill the other guy with your nuke, but not before he got his nuke tossed your way…
10 Mar, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Inspired by Final Fantasy, we have combat rows… front row and back row. Front row is default combat. You can move the back row (only works in a group and if someone is in the front row), and while in the backrow you both take and deal about half damage from melee attacks. Whips deal regular damage from the back row and deal half damage in the front. Bows deal the same damage from the front and back row. By keeping 'ranged' combat within the same room, we avoid a lot of the issues that plague others that have ranged combat happen from one room to another.

I don't know if this helps any, but is the approach we took.
10 Mar, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Some interesting ideas. I like the FF approach. Might have to look into rows.
10 Mar, 2009, Mabus wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Inspired by Final Fantasy, we have combat rows… front row and back row. Front row is default combat. You can move the back row (only works in a group and if someone is in the front row), and while in the backrow you both take and deal about half damage from melee attacks. Whips deal regular damage from the back row and deal half damage in the front. Bows deal the same damage from the front and back row. By keeping 'ranged' combat within the same room, we avoid a lot of the issues that plague others that have ranged combat happen from one room to another.

I don't know if this helps any, but is the approach we took.

I use group-rows and same-room ranged myself, but we also have a combat range within the room (can advance/retreat while in ranged combat).
11 Mar, 2009, Kline wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
One of my older games has an arrow system done by a friend. There are different types of arrows with different damage, affects, etc: fire, poison, stun, all kinds of things. They are actual 'arrow' item type objects. If you miss your target the arrow lands in the target's room, providing them with a chance to pick it up and fire back provided they know how. Some of the arrows that hit the target are retrievable by them with a first aid skill (removing the arrow from yourself/armor) and salvaged for re-use to shoot back as well.
11 Mar, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Other than the obvious advantage of range, arrows in my mud can only be blocked by shields or magical defences, or dodged at half normal effectiveness. This makes them pretty difficult to defend against compared to most weapons - and they get additional bonuses if you take the time to aim.

However a bow requires both hands to use properly, and is terrible for defence. It's also slower than most weapons, as you have to reload it each time you fire.
11 Mar, 2009, Vassi wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
This is probably not exactly an answer either, but we're basically trying to tune our classes to the point where range is not their only option. We have the shoot-from-one-room-to-the-other mechanic as well except we really only want it to be an issue in PvP (it's faction based combat). Basically, range is only an opener that draws the enemy to you and then they have to take it out by more direct means since the mob will be on top of them at that point.

My favorite example is the Alquimista (Alchemist) who makes his own guns and ammo. Dualwielder, he has a gun in one hand and a type of hand-cannon in the other. They can open with a short snare, which flags the mob so that they can't re-snare it, and get a few hits in. Once the mob is in range they can blast at it with their hand-cannon, which is on a longer secondary timer for cooldown, while still taking shots with the gun. Because the hand-cannon is close range only, it still limits their power in range at PvP, where range is more tactical against real people once you throw in fortifications and tanks engaging\anchoring people in adjoining rooms.
11 Mar, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
elanthis said:
Nobody can fire arrows like Legolas did in LOTR.


Oh, thanks for bringing me down.
I bet the next thing you're gonna tell me is nobody can catch arrows like Jackie Chan.
;-P
11 Mar, 2009, Vassi wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
elanthis said:
Nobody can fire arrows like Legolas did in LOTR.


Oh, thanks for bringing me down.
I bet the next thing you're gonna tell me is nobody can catch arrows like Jackie Chan.
;-P


The Scorpion King can.
11 Mar, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
elanthis said:
Nobody can fire arrows like Legolas did in LOTR.


What if it's an LOTR MUD and you're playing as Legolas? Never mind the possibility of being some truly supernatural creature with agility off the charts…
11 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
elanthis said:
The sole advantage of bows in real combat really just came down to their overwhelming power.

I'm assuming you are excluding the rather considerable advantage of a line of archers being able to shoot a barrage from a distance :wink: It's true that the longbow itself was the counter to armored knights to some extent, but that doesn't mean that the concept of bows only come about due to the force of the arrow. (Well, of course you're excluding that in the above sentence, since you later compare archers to nukes when you have a lot of them. And they didn't have longbows back then…)

"Our archers are so numerous that the sky will be black with arrows!"
"Good – we'll fight in the shade!"
:mad:
11 Mar, 2009, The_Fury wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
elanthis said:
Nobody can fire arrows like Legolas did in LOTR.


Oh, thanks for bringing me down.
I bet the next thing you're gonna tell me is nobody can catch arrows like Jackie Chan.
;-P


Depending on the range, a ninja can catch an arrow, but it must be fore from a distance greater than 60 meters for this to be anything close to accurate. Mythbusters put this to the test using the latest bow technology and a real ninja.
11 Mar, 2009, Dean wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm pretty sure the Mythbusters busted that myth, not proved it. I know they busted the 'bullet swat' myth, which I was quite disappointed about. I can't be relied on to deflect oncoming bullets with my bare hands anymore, so I guess I am wearing body armor.
11 Mar, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
I'm pretty sure the Mythbusters busted that myth, not proved it.


Yes, they "busted" it: http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/04/episo...

However I'm very dubious about the method they used - they built a stationery mechanical hand with a reaction time based on that of an "expert", which closed when the arrow was fired. A human would anticipate the shot rather than wait for it, their hand (and indeed their entire body) wouldn't be stationary or have the limited range of motion of the mechanical hand, and they'd likely attempt to deflect the arrow rather than catch it.

Of course in a fantasy mud there's no reason why you can't play an elf who uses a bow like Legolas, or an acrobatic hobbit who can catch arrows between his hairy toes.

But I noticed a few people have gone for the cross-room archery approach. I did try this myself once (the code is still buried in most GW derivatives) but I found it didn't work very well. The encapsulated nature of rooms really doesn't lend itself to cross-room combat in my opinion - even 'scan' is a bit of a hack, but extending it to combat as well just ends up feeling awkward and tacked-on.

As elanthis pointed out, most muds already have magical attacks which technically should be ranged - fireballs, breath weapons, etc. Bows and throwing knives aren't really any different, so unless you want to redesign your combat system to properly handle ranged attacks, you'd be better off keeping bows consistent with the existing mechanics.
11 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Very trained and skilled martial artists can "catch swords" (that is, catch a sword that is being brought down in a swing), but the success rate is not very high at all unless they are in cooperative situation. I wouldn't be surprised if they could occasionally deflect or maybe even catch an arrow, but again I doubt the success rate would be terribly high. They'd probably be better at just getting out of the way…
11 Mar, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they could occasionally deflect or maybe even catch an arrow, but again I doubt the success rate would be terribly high.

Have you ever played paintball? Those paintballs move faster than arrows, and although I've never tried, I reckon I could probably catch or deflect them as long as I was a good distance away and could see the shooter (and they were firing one shot at a time).
11 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, there's a difference between catching an arrow in your hand, vs. catching it such that you don't get your hand pierced. I imagine it's actually not that hard to just stick your hand in the way if you practice it a lot and have good coordination/reflexes, and you can see the shooter from a distance and all that.
0.0/40