Time to tweak Archery proximity mechanic

Umm, casters can auto-attack too, just equip a weapon and have at it if that's what you really wanna do. There are even caster usable throwers in the game if you still want to stay at range.

Let's remind ourselves what you asked shall we?

I gave you the answer you asked for, but it was not the answer you wanted.

Good to hear.

I want it to work that way....because of my reasoning.

People arriving at conclusions based on reasoning surely cannot be entirely alien to you.

Do I "feel" it, no.
I know for a fact that prior to the patch that went live with Night of Shadows that both Mages & Necromancers were much stronger than they had any right to be, Necromancers by a very large degree, this is supported by many posters on the forums & it was quantifiable by plenty of previously shared parses.
I have also said upon multiple past occasions that Wizards needed improvements to their DPS. Directly & also indirectly through the medium of satire.

No.

Doing my best, honest.

But in return I will ask two things;

Do you want to continue to discuss something I personally would like in a game when I have already conceded is unlikely to ever happen in EQ, implying that given the game's age & how long that precedent has stood for that there would be far too much resistance to the idea for it to ever see the game changed to accommodate it?

Why? Are my thoughts that interesting/confusing or do you feel I have outsized influence?
I can assure you I have no more influence than any other poster on the forum excluding the staff of Daybreak and I have proof.

You'll have to ask all the devs about this, from 1997 onwards that is, though you should hurry as a few have died already.

Melee "spells" consume resource just as Caster "spells" do.
If you want Melee class autoattack to consume Endurance then by your logic Caster Melee should consume Mana.

Are you certain you have thought this through well enough?

I tested range and melee proximity on a TLP server with a level 60 wood elf ranger versus a Tizmak cowman NPC. Here's what I found:

The closest distance you can be to shoot arrows with a bow at an enemy in EQ is approximately 24 feet.

The furthest distance you can be to use melee on an enemy in EQ is 12 feet, yet enemies can land melee attacks on a player from 8 feet away. (PRO TIP: don't get rooted by an enemy as you can't fight back.)

I did some research on how distance affects the effectiveness of an arrow. A U.S archery champion lends some insight on Quora:

An arrow starts losing velocity/energy as soon as it leaves the string/bow. How hard it hits and how deep it goes can vary up an down along it’s course though, even as the energy goes down. Arrows that impact straight on hit harder and penetrate deeper than arrows that hit at an angle.

The answer is that the longer and arrow must travel, the less effective it becomes. If the arrow is shot up in an arc like you see in medieval and fantasy films, it can gain velocity as it it starts to fall towards the target.

Another thing to consider is that the further the target is from the archer, the less likely the arrow would hit its designated target. The converse would be true i.e. at point blank distance, it would be harder to miss such a shot.

The key thing to remember about archery is that it's a range weapon. The further the archer from the target, the less likely a melee attacker can hurt him. An archer could technically shoot an arrow at an enemy at close range but chances are he would be hacked to pieces within seconds.

In the real world, archers would never be foolish enough to attempt to shoot their enemies with bows at close range. In EverQuest, archers would absolutely use their bows in tight quarters to attack enemies.

TL;DR The distance that an archer must be from a target in EverQuest is an arbitrary restriction created by the developers. In fact the closer the archer is to a target, the more effective the damage and accuracy would be.

Do you have the numbers reversed here as they indicate that a player can attack from a further distance then an NPC yet you are suggesting you can get rooted out of range and get attacked and not be able to attack back. Also you need to remember that how close you need to be to a mob is impacted by their hit box and on some mobs you can be further away and others you have to be really close.

Why do you keep focusing on real world physics in a world of magic? With all the magic that can be added to bows and bow attacks there is no reason to expect that it will follow the physics that you know.

Of course it is and it is likely a decision based on the mechanics of archery and them wanting you to make a decision about which type of damage you wish to use.

I think a more interesting direction instead of homogenizing archery and melee is to diversify them more and make them more different. I think either they should make weaving in between ranged and melee a core part of the game or make archery and melee based gameplay styles with their own set of strengths and weaknesses. Archery does already have some small bonuses like being able to DPS without retaliation from certain types of attacks.

The first numbers I provided are for range attacks. The closest you can use ranged attacks is approximately 24 feet, anything closer you get the "You are too close to use ranged weapons..." message. I forgot to mention I was shooting arrows at a rooted target.

The second number I provided was not related to archery. I was testing the melee reach of my ranger and the NPC and figured I would publish the information anyways. It does seem strange that NPCs can hit a player but a player can't hit the NPC when they are both engaged in melee combat. Perhaps, a developer can address that inconsistency.

I'm well aware of hitboxes and how they work in video game production.

The answer is pretty obvious. The real world is the gold standard for physics and how melee and ranged weapons work. A world that has magic still has to have consistent laws of physics. EQ archery and ranged attacks are based on real world archery and ranged attacks.

Besides a flaming arrow or an arrow that does magic damage still has to follow the laws of physics, gravity and contend with air resistance and distance factors.

There are no real worlds founded on magic that can be used as reference for fantasy MMOs. There may be an author or designer that's created an entire system of magic that influences gravity and physics, but I doubt that would be practical or successful. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I personally think rangers should be as effective in ranged combat as they are in melee combat if they so choose. As I only play TLP servers, I am only acquainted with archery up to Omens of War. Beyond that, I'm not sure if rangers can specialize their talents for either melee or ranger or choose both.

Decisions that are made arbitrarily with no logic and questionable rationale are not good decisions. After doing some minimal research on archery, I have found there is no legitimate reason why EQ archers can't be in melee range to their targets. In fact, there is more risk to the archer as the target is closer and could reach the archer much faster and hack him to pieces. As in the the real world, being far away from the target, is a much safer thing for archers than being close. So there is a risk element to being close and that risk is mitigated further you get from the target.

Bottom line: the artificial minimum distance restriction for archers imposed by the developers 23 years ago makes absolutely no sense. Removing this restriction would not have any downside and would give ranged weapon users more flexibility and choice, especially in those old EQ dungeons that are narrow and cramped.

If there is a design or balance rationale for this decision, perhaps the devs can expound on that.

Imagine trying to shove real world physics as the gold standard in a fantasy game and also accept that multi ton dragons can fly in all these games. That's a good belly chuckle.

You said the furthest distance that you can use melee is 12 feet and the furthest distance the NPC can use was 8 feet which makes it impossible for a NPC to hit a player but a player to not be able to hit the same NPC. That is what I am referring as it appears you have those numbers backwards in regards to your claim.

The real world is not the standard for physics in a world of magic as you can do things such as use magic to make things perform in ways that is not possible otherwise. If you want to suggest changes to how things work you should give reasons based on the game itself and not how things work in real life. If you do that you will find melee get a lot of nerfs as it isn't possible to attack as fast as they do and for as long of a duration as they do in real life.

And letting them use range attacks in melee ranges isn't the solution to this, there are other ways that would make more sense within the framework of the game. Though there will be limits on it due to the limited risk melee combat provides compared to melee combat.

Bottom like is they have reasons for making the melee/range attack design decisions and they are not obligated to explain the reasons that they made design choices 25+ years ago when the game was made by different developers.

If you want them to consider a change you should come up with in game reasons instead of trying to relate this to the real world which would just result in nerfs for everyone.

Real bottom line: Archery works the way it does because game designers a quarter century ago decided that's how they wanted it to work. The end. No more need to discuss it. It's been working fine this entire time. You want to fundamentally change the game you're going to piss off a lot of players, most notably the good old "nostalgia chasers" you see recycling TLPs every year. Why would you want to make these people - the very ones you claim provide DPG with all their revenue - annoyed with changes and leave?

You're arguing physics of a fantasy game. New flash: If physics were actually a part of the game, dragons would never be able to fly. You couldn't run around with swords on fire without them being irreparably damaged. You couldn't teleport to places quicker than the speed of light.

And why stop at physics? Why not basic biology and/or anatomy? How can playable humanoids hold their breath for eternity? How can playable humanoids run forever without getting tired? How can humanoids not eat or drink food for hundreds of years without perishing?

You seriously going to devote this much time to archery mechanics when there are dozens of other ridiculous things that can questioned?

Fantasy is based on reality. Reality is not based on fantasy. Chuckle all you want if it makes you feel better. This is world building 101.

Real word physics and laws of gravity and such are the basis for fictional worlds. Magic systems and dragons flying are layered on top of real world physics, that's why they are called fantasy.

Acumen! isn't that a classic spell? maybe Velious?

To be fair we can't assume the physiological make up of Dragons preclude them from flying. Based on the physics of a crocodile, yes a crocodile the size of a dragon with wings to proportion wouldn't fly, but we're talking about dragons..

Same for Self combusting Fire breathing weapons and teleportation, we don't know how they work! We can't disprove it!

But unlike dragons, fire swords and teleporting we know how Bows work.

This thread amuses me Lol.

For a bit of realism. Apologies BTW.

https://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/93151-realistic-dragon-wingspans/

I like this line. "So dragons would look a little more like butterflies, where most of them are just wings with their 'little' body in the middle."

Let me first say, I've got no dog in this hunt. I saw this thread and I decided to investigate archery for myself and post my findings and opinions.

The decision by the EQ devs to create an artificial restriction no how close you can use archery against a target was not based on how archery works in the real world. In the real world, archery is just as effective at point blank range as it is at a ranged distance. In fact, the further the distance, you have a decrease in accuracy and velocity. That's a FACT.

Discussion of EverQuest is what we do on these forums. As one of the most frequent contributors to the forums, you of all people should appreciate that. You are not the arbiter of what topics are allowed here.

False. Allowing rangers/paladins/rogues/shadowknights to shoot arrows at point blank range will make very little difference to gameplay and not cause any substantive balance issues that would anger the playerbase with the exception of a few contentious forum warriors.

They won't leave. There will be no hysteria or mass cancellations. Having the humility and honesty to go back and fix past mistakes is the right thing to do. Correcting errors and fixing long-standing problems is good game design. EverQuest is a work in progress. Just because it's been tolerated for 23 years doesn't make it right.

See my explanation on fantasy versus reality in my previous post and in other previous posts. Just because you have some fantasy elements in a video game doesn't mean it's a good idea to throw out the laws of physics and the laws of gravity.

So just because MMOs don't simulate basic human biology across the board, we should excuse a flawed implementation of archery and let the devs off the hook?

Good game designers will add layers of fantasy or magic on top of a world that has consistent laws of physics. All forms of art and entertainment require some form of verisimilitude in order for the beholder to suspend their disbelief.

Fantasy MMOs are not world simulators where players can die of old age or have to sleep, eat, defecate. But combat is different, because the majority of what players do in EverQuest is combat related. Combat requires more attention to detail and care from developers. One of the big reasons most video games fail is because combat is poorly implemented. Good games have good combat. Great games have great combat.

Yep. I love challenging sacred cows of MMO design that exist for no appreciable reason, and exist to punish and frustrate, and diminish the play experience of players. I agree with you, there are dozens of ridiculous things that make no sense in EQ that should be challenged by the players. Now that the devs are finished with their yearly expansion, maybe they have some time to devote to correcting some of these long-standing problems. EQ devs are passionate, hard-working, and conscientious, I know that they will do the right thing.

Acumen does nothing for what you replied to me about...

False. The most popular and beloved fantasy IPs have a serious lack of physics. Dragons. The end. The wings needed to sustain dragon flight would require them to look ridiculous. And let's not talk about metabolism.

Stop arguing about a single element of physics where there is a plethora of stuff you just decide to blatantly ignore/accept. It's the most strawman argument possible.

+1

Physics only matter in relation to character movement and collisions.

what a weird thing to cry about after 23 years

I'm not here to argue, I'm here in good faith to constructively discuss EverQuest and how to make it better.

Dragons are mythological creatures, they are not real. Physics is real. Just because you have a magic creature in a fantasy MMO does not mean all the laws of physics are invalid or irrelevant.

Archery exists in the real world. The mechanics of archery are real and have nothing to do with magic. EverQuest's implementation of archery is based on real world archery which must conform to real world limitations and physics. The devs have layered magical attributes on some bows and some AAs. That makes sense.

Mixing magic with reality is a matter of using the right ingredients in the right proportions. Give the same ingredients to a great chef and a home cook and the resulting quality of the food will be different because the chef is highly skilled and the home cook is not.

Game design is an art form. It's all about using the right ingredients and the right proportions that players find palatable so they can suspend their disbelief and be completely immersed into the game world.

I challenge anyone to convincingly explain the logic and rationale behind the the devs putting an artificial restriction on the minimum distance that players can use bows to attack enemies.

So your excuse is because it's a fantasy creature? Convincing. Just because a creature isn't real, should it automatically be exempt from laws of physics and biomechanics? Most fantasy creatures are rooted or based off of real animals.

EQs archery isn't based on the real world because it uses magic bows that boost a person's strength, dexterity, agility, wisdom, dodge abilities, etc. What kind of bows do you know provide that? We are attacking magical creatures. The bows themselves shoot arrows that cause fire damage, but somehow don't burn. The bows need - and all weapons for that matter - need absolutely zero maintenance. They are somehow indestructible. Not a single material is indestructible and requires no upkeep.

You want to talk about absurdities? How about bards. How can they play 8 different songs at once while never holding an instrument? How can they even sing multiple songs at the same time? It would sound like a mixed up disaster.

Because a wooden bow in melee range is a risk to be irreparably damaged by enemy attacks. They weren't built to be able to deflect strikes like a sword/shield/hammer. One good hit to it and it's broken in half.