Time to tweak Archery proximity mechanic

No reason to have the minimum distance mechanic to mobs when using a bow anymore. It should only be distance away that matters. If Casters can fire off spells point blank and Rogues can work their backstab from the front with AAs, do the same for bows. Either make it ok to use point blank or at least throw in some AAs we can work to shorten the minimum distance needed to be away from mobs to use a bow.

Anyone old school know why this was even a thing? was it to balance out PvP maybe back when PvP was more in demand?

you know rangers have two types of dps. Melee and ranged. So if you would make ranged work in melee distance then they would need to block all the melee stuff so it would not work with the ranged stuff. You cannot have double dps just because you stay in melee range and try to shoot. Casters have minor dps from melee attacks.

No. Let’s not change the archery mechanic.

Makes no sense, I could maybe get behind the bow being given some 2hb stats that allow a Bow to function as a blunt weapon at melee range while blocking the use of regular melee weapons, but archery at melee range is stupid as hell.

I also happen to think spellcasting at melee range is stupid as hell but I know I am never going to win that battle because point-blank spells have existed from the inception of EQ, but point-blank archery, nope, actually full-blown hate the idea.

Melee Range should be melee action zone, you want to do throwing crap, bowing crap or spellcasting crap it should be outside of that, inside it you should only be swinging a weapon of some form.

I mean if we are going to get that specific with spells, why not also do so with weapons. Indoors with a low ceiling? Narrow hallways? Cant use two handed weapons, sorry. Does this sound dumb? Sure does, but now you know how I felt reading in your post about how spells shouldn't work up close.

Id love to know your reasoning as to why spell casting shouldn't work under a certain range. At least not using huge weapons in a limited space makes sense. What is the reasoning behind you wanting spells not to work at melee range?

This is highly dependent upon how you think spellcasting works.

If it is a spoken invocation or a finger-waggling exercise or the combination of the two which is required in order to work a spell or command magic then a melee combatant can use a weapon to stab you in the neck, or with their free hand reach out & smash you in the mouth, crush your jaw or squeeze your windpipe/throat or crush your fingers to interrupt your casting of such a spell. I always thought of spellcasting as an act that requires a few seconds to complete an exercise of spoken words or signs made in the air with the caster's hands.

If you think spellcasting is simply an act of thought or will, that requires no actions to be done by voice or limb...well then spells should all be seen as instant cast.

Then there are "pre-prepared spells" which infuse a spell into an object that can be used to trigger it, but then you'd only have so many of those in your arsenal, something like the Magician orbs, or the Shaman's crafted vials that explode, poison gas, slime/snare etc. are examples of that.

EQ has all three kinds of spells which complicates my rather literal interpretation, hence why I say I would lose that argument anyway., purely based on existing precedence.

Put yourself in the shoes of a front-line melee NPC (who can think strategically), who are you going to reach out & kill first?
The guy that is like a walking tank head to toe in plate armour that can kill one of you at a time or the squishy robe wearer that can slaughter a dozen of you at once.

If the caster got close enough for you to destroy them before they can unleash whatever nasty fireball / ice-ball / death-ray / Lightning spell they memorised the answer is obvious.
In a more modern context it's a choice of do you kill the guy with a musket or the one with a howitzer?

Many 2 handed weapons in narrow spaces can be very effectively wielded, there are already 2-handed spears, and 2-handed swords can be thrusted like spears to a certain degree, hammers can be used that way the only 2-handed weapon that really suffers from being made ineffective in smaller spaces is the axe, though that can be brought down in an overhead arc directly in front of you it would leave the wielder far more vulnerable while doing so than the other 2 handers.

I've always thought melee swings should drain stamina. How immersive is it to watch a Monk or tank swing a weapon over and over at perfect cadence with no change in pace or strength? Would make balancing Combat discs a little more interesting.

And showers and rest rooms! no one takes a break in Norrath!

Stamina was removed, replaced by Endurance which combat abilities drain, having Auto-attack drain endurance or not boils down to game-balance & mechanics, you could do that but then you have to have a conversation about how the raids & group events take it into account.
When you have raids/events/missions designed around a certain combat system changing the combat system necessitates changes to the design of those, with TLP also being a factor that means changing all past content to account for the changes too.

I would pay very good money for a video of you taking on a grizzly with a bow while the bear is within grappling range of you.

Good thing reality doesn't play into this as you could say the same thing about melee weapons in that situation.

Yes, Endurance is the correct name for the resource in discussion.

I see it as in addition to all the things on weapons, there's also an "endurance cost" like a spell has mana costs. Maybe a 2hander costs 4 endurance per swing but this leet 1 handers costs .25 endurance so you can swing it for ever or at least longer. Yeah it would maybe prompt a tank let me switch to this lighter weapon to conserve endurance during disc or vice versa for a dps.

Right, lol.

Also, let’s not pretend most of melee swings are actually making contact and not way outside the weapon range.

If we’re being realistic with ranges, melee max distance would be <1m for a dagger and <2.5m for a large 2H weapon. Bow distance would acceptable at 3m.

Better start making endurance regen abilities if you want swings requiring endurance in the early game. Warriors worth their salt are basically low on endurance 24/7 already

I never said I was looking for realism, EQ is not a combat simulation or we wouldn't have magic at all. But a consistent internal logic makes sense and firing bows at melee distance makes no sense in EQ, never has.

Giving Rangers the ability to fire bows at melee distance would maybe make sense if you removed their ability to use melee weapons which are supposed to be what the class swaps to using at that distance, but then you just removed Rangers & replaced them with Archers.

Not sure if this is relevant to this discussion but archery could use an overhaul. It's still quite primitive in its implementation.

Another outstanding issue is quite often when I use my bow there is no delay whatsoever in the time the arrow is released and the time it hits the mob. It's very weird and unsettling when this happens.

At the very least their should be an optimum distance (sweet spot) between the archer and the enemy that provides the maximum damage. Too far away, your DPS would be lessened and too close your DPS would also be lessened.

I'm sure the servers will handle arrow physics quite well. They aren't under enough stress as is /s

Arrows travel very fast. Not as fast as gunfire, but they are certainly the fastest ranged weapon in this game. There is a delay to hit, and it's proportional to distance travelled. To test this, simply go to the tutorial zone and take aim at the goblins in the mines. They're all busy swinging picks at the walls with their backs to you, and there will be several targets in a wide range of distances from whichever firing point you choose. The hit is recorded at the moment when they get aggro and turn to face you. The significant delay is how long it will then take them to reach you before melee.

EQ's combat mechanics are built around the limitations of a 25-year-old game engine. It's never going to be the same level of "realism" as CoD. They're not going to completely re-design the game because a few forum posters are nitpicking those mechanics, people need to get a clue here.

All that text...and you still didn't answer my question. I understand your reasoning as to why it should work a certain way. I am still confused about why you want it to work in that manner. Do you feel spell casters are over powered? Are you chasing a level of realism that isn't achievable in a video game? Help me understand.

I think for balance purposes alone, that each melee round should consume a small amount of endurance. Melee characters can auto-attack for an infinite amount of time and produce damage without being limited by a resource while mana users (especially Wizards) are limited to the amount of time their mana bar holds up. Is there a reason why only special melee abilities should consume a resource? Why or why not?

Would it be fair to give spellcasters a spell that consumes zero mana, like a wand or something that can auto-attack for an infinite amount of time and only use mana for specifically casted spells?