The Gastraphetes

[PineReseen]

Vintage Story currently has only two (technically three) forms of ranged weapon, that being the Malefactor-exclusive sling, bows, and sometimes spears. I do not find this to be enough, as in real life, there were also fire grenades, firearms, but perhaps most importantly for the game's setting, crossbows.

Although the recognizable steel and iron crossbows used in medieval Europe only kicked off at around the 12th century, crossbows are much, much older than that.

The Chinese made use of crossbows as early as the 6th century BCE, and the Greeks had a crossbow design dated at around somewhere before 420 BCE. I would like to focus on the latter for this suggestion.

Gastraphetes

The Gastraphetes (sometiems belly-bow or belly-shooter) is an early crossbow design made to be charged and fired using the belly, thus not exerting the user too much. It also allows the charge to be stored, much like a normal crossbow.

 

The wooden rod is latched onto the string via the metal mechanism, and then pushed against the ground to pull it back. The mechanism also has two small rods that latch onto the teeth to stop the string from moving back. To fire, the metal latch is freed, thus allowing the string to pull back.

Tod's Workshop has made a nice video about this weapon!

Why?

I believe that adding standard crossbows (like arbalests) is also a good idea, but I do not think the crossbow should be exclusively a late-game item, considering their history. The hunter can make bows right at the start of the game, why couldn't there be a pre-iron crossbow?

How?

Alright, now for the implementation.

If we are considering adding normal, iron and steel crossbows too, then I would consider making the gastraphetes a clockmaker-exclusive item. This weapon is pretty ancient, and as far as I know, was never used in medieval times. This being some tinkerer's creation would fit the medieval setting of the game more in my eyes, and give the clockmaker a "crude crossbow," in the same vein as the hunter's crude bow.
However, the composite bow part of the weapon could suit the hunter more, but I worry that the hunter already has enough ranged weapons.
It could always just be a weapon accessible for all though.

The weapon could be crafted using a dry long bowstave, some sort of meat, bones and flax twine for the composite bow, resin or lard, boards, and finally bronze nails and strips. (Alternatively, it could be a longbow combined with boards, resin, and nails and strips.)

The gastraphetes would have a unique reload mechanism, where you are stationary for a second to push the slider, and then be slowed while you load the weapon. After that the gastraphetes would have an arrow ready to fire. It would be more accurate than bows when stationary, and deal slightly more damage than a longbow (Y'know, cause it's composite). The reload speed would be a tradeoff, meaning this weapon could be useful in cases where you are defending and can hide behind cover or are ambushing something, but in the open a bow would be preferable.

This weapon would fire arrows like a normal bow instead of bolts, and you would not be able to have one loaded in the inventory (although you could have it charged).

That's all for now! I hope this suggestion will be considered!

[Zaph42nd]

2 hours ago, PineReseen said:

Why?

I believe that adding standard crossbows (like arbalests) is also a good idea, but I do not think the crossbow should be exclusively a late-game item, considering their history. The hunter can make bows right at the start of the game, why couldn't there be a pre-iron crossbow?

Yep, I think crossbows fit in nicely with the world established, an early game equivalent would definitely add more variety to ranged combat which currently really only has two options (slings/stones and crude bows). I'd also be interested in seeing more advanced/high damage options being linked to Jonas-tech or as a late-game reward for story-content completion. 

2 hours ago, PineReseen said:

If we are considering adding normal, iron and steel crossbows too, then I would consider making the gastraphetes a clockmaker-exclusive item. This weapon is pretty ancient, and as far as I know, was never used in medieval times. This being some tinkerer's creation would fit the medieval setting of the game more in my eyes, and give the clockmaker a "crude crossbow," in the same vein as the hunter's crude bow.

I agree in some ways, but gastraphetes feels a little weird as a clockmaker exclusive item, in my mind I'd think clockmaker would have some kind of cocking device they could make to increase crossbow reload speeds (perhaps behaving akin to hunter's recurve bow, clockmaker could have a reasonably fast firing, accurate ranged weapon). As a hunter exclusive item would feel a little too excessive given the crude bow/crude arrows option exists already. Classless could be nice since earliest classless ranged weapon you can get aside from throwing stones is a basic bow (provided you can get the flax setup going and have enough twine), that means ranged combat for non-hunter players is usually off the table till you have settled in somewhere and began to farm. As a classless item it'd give hunter some benefits as the stand-in for a "ranger" class but still afford a ranged weapon option (albeit not the most consistent or fast) to all other classes. 

[MKMoose]

I have some doubts about the proposed gastraphetes.

• It feels to me a bit too much like a middle-ground between the bow and the crossbow with nothing that makes it particularly stand out - I would be interested to have the two extremes first of all, and then the gastraphetes seems potentially redundant.
• Regular wooden crossbows could be made pre-iron just fine, so I don't see the need for a special variant there.
• Mechanically, I don't see the need to keep the gastraphetes significantly different from crossbows.
  • The reload mechanism, while somewhat unique in reality, would easily end up the same as many other crossbows in gameplay.
  • Using arrows instead of bolts is kind of interesting, but ultimately changes almost nothing and risks being more confusing for newer players.
  • Being unable to store a loaded crossbow in the inventory is a given as I see it, so I don't quite see any difference from regular crossbows here - some difference could be added, sure, but it doesn't seem to me that there is anythign inherent to the gastraphetes that makes it different from crossbows in this regard.

While I'm certainly not opposed to it, it doesn't seem to me that it is distinct enough to warrant significant gameplay differences - it could work just fine as a "heavy wooden crossbow".

 

4 hours ago, PineReseen said:

If we are considering adding normal, iron and steel crossbows too, then I would consider making the gastraphetes a clockmaker-exclusive item. This weapon is pretty ancient, and as far as I know, was never used in medieval times. This being some tinkerer's creation would fit the medieval setting of the game more in my eyes, and give the clockmaker a "crude crossbow," in the same vein as the hunter's crude bow.
However, the composite bow part of the weapon could suit the hunter more, but I worry that the hunter already has enough ranged weapons.
It could always just be a weapon accessible for all though.

The clockmaker would probably be better served by a self-cocking crossbow, or a firearm, or otherwise something more technologically advanced, while the hunter should arguably remain mostly focused on bows to keep them more unique instead of devolving to "the ranged class".

 

4 hours ago, PineReseen said:

The gastraphetes would have a unique reload mechanism, where you are stationary for a second to push the slider, and then be slowed while you load the weapon. After that the gastraphetes would have an arrow ready to fire. It would be more accurate than bows when stationary, and deal slightly more damage than a longbow (Y'know, cause it's composite). The reload speed would be a tradeoff, meaning this weapon could be useful in cases where you are defending and can hide behind cover or are ambushing something, but in the open a bow would be preferable.

In terms of combat mechanics, I would find it interesting if the primary difference between them was skill. While I would be careful to avoid gamifiying it too much, it is undeniable that one of the biggest advantages of the crossbow is that it's easy to use compared to a bow, so it could be interesting to reflect that difference in the game in some way. That aside, this seems like a very well thought-out set of distinctions relative to the bow.

 

Broadly, I would frankly prefer to see the bow and sling brought up to a better standard before any new weapons are added, or concurrently - the present mechanics are extremely simple and arguably just unfitting for a game which seemingly makes an attempt at immersion or realism.

Either way, given that we are getting a combat-focused update with 1.23 and we've heard promises for various improvements to combat and for new weapon types, I would expect that some work should be done on ranged weapons as well - crossbows perhaps among them.

Edited Tuesday at 04:32 PM by MKMoose

[PineReseen]

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

I have some doubts about the proposed gastraphetes.

• It feels to me a bit too much like a middle-ground between the bow and the crossbow with nothing that makes it particularly stand out - I would be interested to have the two extremes first of all, and then the gastraphetes seems potentially redundant.
• Regular wooden crossbows could be made pre-iron just fine, so I don't see the need for a special variant there.
• Mechanically, I don't see the need to keep the gastraphetes significantly different from crossbows.
  • The reload mechanism, while somewhat unique in reality, would easily end up the same as many other crossbows in gameplay.
  • Using arrows instead of bolts is kind of interesting, but ultimately changes almost nothing and risks being more confusing for newer players.
  • Being unable to store a loaded crossbow in the inventory is a given as I see it, so I don't quite see any difference from regular crossbows here - some difference could be added, sure, but it doesn't seem to me that there is anythign inherent to the gastraphetes that makes it different from crossbows in this regard.

While I'm certainly not opposed to it, it doesn't seem to me that it is distinct enough to warrant significant gameplay differences - it could work just fine as a "heavy wooden crossbow".

[...]

I mean, I kind of was thinking of it as a wooden crossbow (like with the crude bow being a rope version of the simple bow), since it is essentially that. It could just be treated as the wooden crossbow but with some extra steps. Though, the main thing that separates it from other crossbows is the fact that you don't drag the string up, but instead push the whole thing down, which I could see as a faster (and less exerting, if stamina or a debuff regarding that ever gets added) method. To further expand on the reload, perhaps the sliding motion could be significantly faster than other crossbows, thus making it have a short stationary time compared to other crossbows if they get added.

Also, yeah, the loaded crossbow in inventory thing is kind of a given for me in general, that could be overpowered and also not particularly realistic.

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

The clockmaker would probably be better served by a self-cocking crossbow, or a firearm, or otherwise something more technologically advanced, while the hunter should arguably remain mostly focused on bows to keep them more unique instead of devolving to "the ranged class".

This was kind of a dilemma for me. I have no idea if the devs consider composite bows too advanced for classes other than the hunter to make, or if they think crossbows should be predominantly an iron/steel tier thing, so I was torn between the hunter, clockmaker and just abandoning that and making it all-class.

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

In terms of combat mechanics, I would find it interesting if the primary difference between them was skill. While I would be careful to avoid gamifiying it too much, it is undeniable that one of the biggest advantages of the crossbow is that it's easy to use compared to a bow, so it could be interesting to reflect that difference in the game in some way. That aside, this seems like a very well thought-out set of distinctions relative to the bow.

I've also thought about this, but I dunno how this would be implemented. Archers were typically raised their whole life, but making bows inaccessible to tailors because they "don't hunt" seems to be taking it a bit far. Making it into a game mechanic like you said could be interesting, but how would that be done? Maybe an exhaustion system where holding the bow too long makes your shots weaker, so good timing will be rewarded? Maybe if there's a "true aim reticle" that shows where the arrow will go, but it deviates slightly all the time, and moves off the mark harder when walking/running, so the player can wait until their shot will align where they want it to go?

And perhaps these things would be changed for crossbows so it's easier to get optimum crossbow efficiency than it is getting optimum bow efficiency (although the bow one would be higher)?

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

Broadly, I would frankly prefer to see the bow and sling brought up to a better standard before any new weapons are added, or concurrently - the present mechanics are extremely simple and arguably just unfitting for a game which seemingly makes an attempt at immersion or realism.

Either way, given that we are getting a combat-focused update with 1.23 and we've heard promises for various improvements to combat and for new weapon types, I would expect that some work should be done on ranged weapons as well - crossbows perhaps among them.

Yeah, I believe that the bows and slings are a bit too simple right now, you can hold a bow extended all day long, and after hitting an enemy the arrow just falls off and nothing else happens (I'd like to see some sort of bleeding or an impairment of movement when hunting animals, for example), it just lacks punch.

If there will be new weapons, I'd like to see crossbows and gladiuses (I mean, there's a model of a fully fixed one in the game right now!).

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, PineReseen said:

This was kind of a dilemma for me. I have no idea if the devs consider composite bows too advanced for classes other than the hunter to make, or if they think crossbows should be predominantly an iron/steel tier thing, so I was torn between the hunter, clockmaker and just abandoning that and making it all-class.

Personally, I don't think a class restriction for crossbows makes much sense, unless classes in general get more special items to play with. While it does make sense for a clockmaker to have the smarts to make more mechanically intricate devices like a crossbow, they're also quite clearly not a class that's meant for combat, outside of dealing with mechanical creatures specifically.

As for balancing, leaving it as a simple wooden crossbow that is a early game version of the better iron/steel varieties that come better is fine. The damage for an individual shot could be about the same as the regular bow, though the crossbow will have a lower DPS rating due to the slow rate of fire. The crossbow's main strengths ought to be that it can be pre-loaded, and that it lacks projectile drift(that is, the arrow will always go exactly where the crosshair is aiming). The latter isn't super realistic, however, I do think it's a good translation of the "easy to learn and use" nature of crossbows. The regular bow will still be the best option for doing damage primarily at range, and the spear will be a close second, but the crossbow would be a decent option for easier hunting or snapping off a more powerful shot to soften up a target before engaging it in melee.

[MKMoose]

3 hours ago, PineReseen said:

I mean, I kind of was thinking of it as a wooden crossbow (like with the crude bow being a rope version of the simple bow), since it is essentially that. It could just be treated as the wooden crossbow but with some extra steps.

I think ultimately a good way to go about it would be to do it roughly the same way that the Crossbows mod did it, where each crossbow tier corresponds to a different crossbow type and may be in some ways distinct - and one of those could well be a gastraphetes with some unique selling point of its own. If each next tier is just better, that's boring, whereas if each next tier has some unique purpose, that can provide a lot more gameplay variety.

3 hours ago, PineReseen said:

This was kind of a dilemma for me. I have no idea if the devs consider composite bows too advanced for classes other than the hunter to make, or if they think crossbows should be predominantly an iron/steel tier thing, so I was torn between the hunter, clockmaker and just abandoning that and making it all-class.

I don't know what the devs' stance might be, but with the things that every class can do, among them forging especially, most class restrictions are pretty difficult to properly justify with anything besides gameplay purposes anyways.

 

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

Personally, I don't think a class restriction for crossbows makes much sense, unless classes in general get more special items to play with. While it does make sense for a clockmaker to have the smarts to make more mechanically intricate devices like a crossbow, they're also quite clearly not a class that's meant for combat, outside of dealing with mechanical creatures specifically.

I find that a class restriction makes the most sense for an advanced and unique but not strictly superior variant of an item, not unlike the tuning spear, hence the idea for a mechanical crossbow which can pull back the string automatically, albeit slowly. It could be lighter than most crossbows, possibly even one-handed (because most other bows and crossbows should be made two-handed), and it would be pretty much the epitome of a convenient and easy-to-use ranged weapon.

Especially if we were to lean into the "dealing with mechanical creatures" part, I would be also interested in (admittedly pretty far-fetched) sticky bolts with some kind of small improvised stunning device attached. A more utility-focused crossbow bolt would pair beautifully with a self-drawing crossbow, and it could be very effective against bells. Would probably need to be careful not to give too many things to the clockmaker, though - they could still really use clocks at some point.

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

The crossbow's main strengths ought to be that it can be pre-loaded, and that it lacks projectile drift(that is, the arrow will always go exactly where the crosshair is aiming). The latter isn't super realistic, however, I do think it's a good translation of the "easy to learn and use" nature of crossbows.

I find that this would actually be a great thing to implement both for bows and for crossbows, alongside some manner of crosshair motion (primarily while the player is moving to throw off the aim, because we don't want perfect aim while moving). Frankly, it is difficult to really think up any proper means of distinguishing bows and crossbows mechanically, because apart from relatively obvious differences like fire rate it can be very difficult to figure out distinctions which make sense and also reinforce a desired gameplay niche. For example, it is easy to make an argument for @PineReseen's suggestion to make the crossbow more suited for defensive or ambushing gameplay - but then the hunter class, which should probably favor a bow, would get the weapon which is more suitable for open combat than for hunting?

I would propose that an arguably more practical method of distinguishing bows and crossbows could lie in range and bleeding.

• Bows could be tailored better to combat at long range, and by extension also better at hitting animals before they detect the player. The skill-based nature of the weapon could be influenced by crosshair drift, which requires much more careful aiming than the crossbow's more stable crosshair, but is rewarded with greater range. For the sake of hunting, I would argue that the bow should also have lower direct damage but apply a stronger bleeding effect, if that is ever added.
• Crossbows could be more practical at shorter ranges, especially in direct combat, in part because of low projectile speed which is often corollary with short range. Having high direct hit damage with low bleeding would be especially useful for quickly dispatching high-risk enemies. The low-skill nature could be emphasized with actually higher projectile drift, further directing the player to use the crossbow at relatively short ranges. The gastraphetes specifically as originally described would naturally become a hybrid which has the relatively low range of a crossbow, but higher fire rate and less damage in favor of stronger bleeding.

While at it, some thoughts on other weapons:

• Spears, to me, should have their damage and charge time significantly increased. The core idea of throwing a spear is that it should be a commitment, in two ways. First, lose your weapon, gain a benefit - this one's pretty obvious. Second, charging up the throw should be a risky move which exposes the player to attacks, and for that it needs to be much slower and ideally also reduce movement speed while charging - as it stands, you can just charge a spear in the middle of melee combat pretty much risk-free.
• Firearms to crossbows are kind of what crossbows are to bows - even higher damage, even longer reload time, lower accuracy. In the extreme implementation, they could be essentially an expensive get-out-of-jail-free card, and care would need to be taken to prevent this from going too far - the player shouldn't be incentivized to carry multiple guns and delete bosses in a matter of seconds. Reducing direct damage but adding high bleeding could ensure that high-tier enemies are not killed instantly on the spot, and making that bleeding only partially stackable would ensure that multiple rapid shots don't melt bosses excessively fast.
• Slings are a pretty odd weapon, because it kind of feels like they should be even more skill-based than bows, though their skill is much more so a matter of timing. They have a very distinct flavor, so it's not really possible to place them in a clear spot in the overall balance - they are kind of just different, and they can also be very flexible with different sling types and different projectiles. The best thing that I think could happen to them besides a general revision of how they work at a more technical level is the addition of ceramic (stunning) and leaden (high-damage) sling-bullets.

Edited Tuesday at 09:41 PM by MKMoose

[LadyWYT]

6 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

• Bows could be tailored better to combat at long range, and by extension also better at hitting animals before they detect the player. The skill-based nature of the weapon could be influenced by crosshair drift, which requires much more careful aiming than the crossbow's more stable crosshair, but is rewarded with greater range. For the sake of hunting, I would argue that the bow should also have lower direct damage but apply a stronger bleeding effect, if that is ever added.
• Crossbows could be more practical at shorter ranges, especially in direct combat, in part because of low projectile speed which is often corollary with short range. Having high direct hit damage with low bleeding would be especially useful for quickly dispatching high-risk enemies. The low-skill nature could be emphasized with actually higher projectile drift, further directing the player to use the crossbow at relatively short ranges.

I can kinda see what you're going for here regarding projectile drift, but it feels backwards to me. The bow's projectile drift makes more sense to me because, well, it's difficult to aim one and requires a lot of practice to use one well. It's not so much a weapon that you can just sit there and line up the perfect shot before firing, but it can output quite a lot of damage...provided the player takes the time necessary to learn to use it effectively.

In contrast, the crossbow allows the player to take as much time as they like to line up a shot, which is part of what makes it easier to use. However, one of the main drawbacks of using it is the slow rate of fire, so it's not going to be outputting the same overall damage as other ranged weapons. Coupling that slow fire rate with a lot of projectile drift is likely to render the weapon more frustrating than fun to use, especially if shortening the range in addition to that. You could boost the damage significantly to try to even it out, I suppose, but that runs into the issue of players carrying multiple crossbows to dispatch tough enemies, getting frustrated because the shots feel too unreliable even at close range, or otherwise turning exclusively to the crossbow because the damage is just that good and it's easy to land shots consistently at close range.

Incidentally, I say projectile drift for a reason: crosshair drift is just not something I want to see in the game. Combat Overhaul has that feature, as I recall, and that feature is one of the major reasons I've never cared to try that mod out. Projectile drift I can deal with, as it's fairly realistic and not terribly hard to work around. But sitting there watching a crosshair float around my screen, hoping that it hovers over what I'm actually wanting to shoot at, sounds like an awful thing to deal with.

[MKMoose]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

Incidentally, I say projectile drift for a reason: crosshair drift is just not something I want to see in the game. Combat Overhaul has that feature, as I recall, and that feature is one of the major reasons I've never cared to try that mod out. Projectile drift I can deal with, as it's fairly realistic and not terribly hard to work around. But sitting there watching a crosshair float around my screen, hoping that it hovers over what I'm actually wanting to shoot at, sounds like an awful thing to deal with.

Feels like a matter of preference. I've enjoyed more methodical shooting mechanics, for example as found in hunting games like theHunter, and camera or crosshair drift tends to be fundamental to the experience in those cases. Besides accessibility (which we've discussed already, by the way), I don't personally see much reason to avoid mechanics which, as I see it, are pretty much just better - more immersive, more actionable and learnable, more difficult to blame for the player's own failure, more realistic in large capacity.

I'm also thinking that "crosshair drift" may not be the ideal term for a few reasons, but frankly I have no idea if there's any better name for a moving aiming point (the crosshair may stay in the center of the screen, and the camera doesn't move).

While I can understand not wanting crosshair drift active at all times, do keep in mind that both bows and crossbows need to have some manner of inaccuracy in certain situations or at certain stages of the process. In those cases, I personally think that at least a small amount of crosshair or camera drift mixed in is almost always preferable over simple projectile drift:

• possibly when raising or drawing the weapon - pulling the crosshair up over roughly the first half of the drawing animation instead of it immediately being there is mostly just a neat optional detail,
• when starting to aim - both crosshair drift and projectile drift are fine here, as the primary job here is for the crosshair icon to communicate the optimal timing to release,
• while moving - the crosshair bobbing up and down with each step is fantastic feedback to the player which for the most part can't be communicated adequately with a projectile drift indicator alone,
• while holding the draw for too long (at least for the bow) - crosshair or camera drift, especially downwards drift in some capacity, just makes more intuitive sense than the weapon's accuracy becoming arbitrarily lower,
• possibly while turning the camera - both crosshair drift and projectile drift as well as several other similar solutions could be used here.

 

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

In contrast, the crossbow allows the player to take as much time as they like to line up a shot, which is part of what makes it easier to use. However, one of the main drawbacks of using it is the slow rate of fire, so it's not going to be outputting the same overall damage as other ranged weapons. Coupling that slow fire rate with a lot of projectile drift is likely to render the weapon more frustrating than fun to use, especially if shortening the range in addition to that. You could boost the damage significantly to try to even it out, I suppose, but that runs into the issue of players carrying multiple crossbows to dispatch tough enemies, getting frustrated because the shots feel too unreliable even at close range, or otherwise turning exclusively to the crossbow because the damage is just that good and it's easy to land shots consistently at close range.

I don't know what you might be imagining when I say that the crossbows could have projectile drift, but I don't mean anything significantly worse than the bows as they are currently in the game. Maybe a bit worse for the most unwieldy crossbows, but not by much. It is intended to prevent reliable long-range sniping, not make crossbows "unreliable even at close range".

The thought process is simply as follows:

1. Bows should to be skill-based => bows need to have crosshair or camera drift, which is the standard somewhat skill-based aiming mechanic and requires careful shot placement. This doesn't mean that the bow can't have projectile drift, but it should be low enough to avoid interfering with the bow's long range and already-difficult aiming.
2. Realistically, a crossbow is more accurate than a bow, and it is obviously easy to aim => crossbow should have little to no crosshair drift.
3. A crossbow shouldn't be able to outrange the bow as a result of pinpoint accuracy => add some projectile drift to the crossbow, just enough to make it unreliable at long distances. This can be largely done with lower projectile speed, but low projectile speed can also be accounted for with some practice, especially against stationary targets which are very common in hunting. Projectile drift, on the other hand, generally cannot be meaningfully counteracted with skill.

Edited Tuesday at 11:01 PM by MKMoose

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, MKMoose said:

Feels like a matter of preference. I've enjoyed more methodical shooting mechanics, for example as found in hunting games like theHunter, and camera or crosshair drift tends to be fundamental to the experience in those cases. Besides accessibility (which we've discussed already, by the way), I don't personally see much reason to avoid mechanics which, as I see it, are pretty much just better - more immersive, more actionable and learnable, more difficult to blame for the player's own failure, more realistic in large capacity.

Well like you said--it's a matter of preference. If you enjoy this kind of gameplay, then yeah, you're not gonna see any reason to avoid such mechanics. But if you're like me, and don't enjoy mechanics like this, then such a mechanic just is not going to come across as "better", "more immersive", or anything of the other things that you stated, and is rather something to be avoided.

The mechanic makes sense for a game like The Hunter or other similar hunting games, where the core gameplay is based upon finding a target, stalking said target, and taking your time to set up the perfect kill shot. And in fairness, that would probably make hunting more immersive in Vintage Story as well. However, Vintage Story isn't solely about hunting. There are plenty of times where you absolutely will not have a chance to set up a killing shot(if one shot is even enough for the target), and will need to make several rapid shots with decent accuracy in order to dish out significant damage before you have to either retreat or engage in melee. I don't see how a moving crosshair/target reticle makes for a good experience at all in this case, whereas the current system allows the player to easily fire off several shots in quick succession with a rather reasonable accuracy. Likewise, I think it's also fair to note that it's not ideal to set up the player expectation of dropping most targets with a single shot, since that is a problem that Skyrim is notorious for with the "stealth archer" build. It's very fun to play, sure, but it's also so strong to the point that it easily overshadows all the other options.

In any case, to me this kind of mechanic, in terms of Vintage Story, seems more likely to be an incredibly annoying minigame rather than something fun to partake in regularly. If it became the vanilla standard, I'd at least give it a fair shot to see how it plays, but ultimately I see myself stripping out as much of that system as possible with mods.

2 hours ago, MKMoose said:

I don't know what you might be imagining when I say that the crossbows could have projectile drift, but I don't mean anything significantly worse than the bows as they are currently in the game. Maybe a bit worse for the most unwieldy crossbows, but not by much. It is intended to prevent reliable long-range sniping, not make crossbows "unreliable even at close range".

The thought process is simply as follows:

1. Bows should to be skill-based => bows need to have crosshair or camera drift, which is the standard somewhat skill-based aiming mechanic and requires careful shot placement. This doesn't mean that the bow can't have projectile drift, but it should be low enough to avoid interfering with the bow's long range and already-difficult aiming.
2. Realistically, a crossbow is more accurate than a bow, and it is obviously easy to aim => crossbow should have little to no crosshair drift.
3. A crossbow shouldn't be able to outrange the bow as a result of pinpoint accuracy => add some projectile drift to the crossbow, just enough to make it unreliable at long distances. This can be largely done with lower projectile speed, but low projectile speed can also be accounted for with some practice, especially against stationary targets which are very common in hunting. Projectile drift, on the other hand, generally cannot be meaningfully counteracted with skill.

Gotcha. This mostly makes sense to me, and was generally what I was thinking of, save for the camera/crosshair/reticle/whatever-you-want-to-call-it drift on standard bows. In my opinion, that's not needed, since the current projectile spread is balance enough, and in my experience, does take a fair measure of skill to properly account for that spread. At close range, it's mostly negligible, but at long distances the player needs to be a lot more aware of their shot timing and how far the average spread on their shots is, so they can adjust their aim as needed. For me, a lot of my shots tend to stray to the right, so I tend to aim slightly to the left of a target, and I hit what I'm shooting at more often than not even at long distances.

Regarding the crossbow specifically, I don't think the projectile drift is the right answer here to make it a poor choice for long distance shooting. Rather, I think the shots should fly a shorter distance instead(or perhaps just lower the damage significantly after a certain distance), with the crossbow itself having very little, if any, projectile drift at all. That should make it a tool that players can use for "easy mode" hunting at medium-short ranges, with the true distance shooting or rapid-fire strategies being reserved for the standard bow. Or to put it another way, the crossbow ought to shoot the projectile exactly where the player is aiming the crosshairs, but be much slower to reload and not be able to shoot as far as the standard bow.

[MKMoose]

8 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

The mechanic makes sense for a game like The Hunter or other similar hunting games, where the core gameplay is based upon finding a target, stalking said target, and taking your time to set up the perfect kill shot. And in fairness, that would probably make hunting more immersive in Vintage Story as well. However, Vintage Story isn't solely about hunting.

It seems to me that the "Vintage Story isn't solely about hunting" idea can be readily used to actually justify adding crosshair drift to bows and making hunting more immersive. Because if the player doesn't like it, they could always try a different ranged weapon for the same or similar purpose (crossbow, sling, spear, ideally balanced in such a way that different ranged weapons are most suitable for different animals) or a different meat source altogether (trapping, fishing, animal husbandry). I would argue that the variety could be very beneficial for the game in the long run, letting new activities feel much more fresh, unique and individually engaging.

 

8 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

There are plenty of times where you absolutely will not have a chance to set up a killing shot(if one shot is even enough for the target), and will need to make several rapid shots with decent accuracy in order to dish out significant damage before you have to either retreat or engage in melee. I don't see how a moving crosshair/target reticle makes for a good experience at all in this case, whereas the current system allows the player to easily fire off several shots in quick succession with a rather reasonable accuracy.

I don't see how crosshair drift would ever be an issue with making several rapid shots. Frankly, I feel like you're again assuming it would be much worse than what I had in mind.

Even glossing over the fact that rapid shots are usually only required at short range where neither projectile drift nor crosshair drift matters particularly much, what you're saying feels kind of like you're comparing a bow with crosshair drift to a perfectly accurate bow, which inevitably produces a skewed result. If you instead compare a bow with crosshair drift to a bow with roughly equivalent projectile drift, then I think you ought to find that the bow with crosshair drift is better, or at least isn't worse - if only because pure randomness can't really be counteracted given constant conditions, whereas crosshair drift can be accounted for. Projectile drift can be very unsatisfying at a quite fundamental level because the player can't do anything about it besides getting closer to the target, which is largely intentional for my idea of crossbow balancing but is the opposite of what you'd want for the bow.

Crosshair drift in the extreme of rapid shooting is almost the same as projectile drift, but still allows you to be more accurate with some care and practice including at long range when you're not rushing every shot. You could even say that keeping calm and not rushing is an integral part of the more skill-based nature of the weapon.

Keep the crosshair drift at a reasonably low level, and it will be just fine. It is primarily intended as a way to introduce a skill factor to shooting at medium range and beyond, and if it somehow makes shooting unpleasant or unsatisfying then that's something to fix, not an inevitable side effect.

 

8 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Likewise, I think it's also fair to note that it's not ideal to set up the player expectation of dropping most targets with a single shot, since that is a problem that Skyrim is notorious for with the "stealth archer" build. It's very fun to play, sure, but it's also so strong to the point that it easily overshadows all the other options.

I don't see much of a problem with setting up the expectation that it's possible to kill many animals with a single shot, as long as the player is given the means to do so reasonably reliably without an excess of randomness or whatnot. It's a pretty neutral design decision, so it has some advantages and it has some potential issues which can and should be accounted for. "Skyrim had a problem with it" is a pretty weak argument, so I'm gonna need you to elaborate on why that problem is relevant to VS.

If we're talking rust monsters, then that's a different kind of balance which has to be considered largely separately from hunting, and I wouldn't really push for any one-shots here. The fantastical nature of drifters makes it possible to reduce the effectiveness of bleeding on them and to adjust their health or damage resistances somewhat arbitrarily, which can be extremely useful for balance.

If we're talking about realistic hunting, though, "dropping most targets with a single shot" is generally almost a given, though also an oversimplification. Small animals like hares and foxes, sure, you may be able to kill those on the spot if you use a powerful enough weapon. Something larger like goats, pigs or deer would pretty much always need tracking after the first shot, possibly a second finishing shot as well or more if you're using a relatively weak weapon or if you aren't hitting the lungs. Larger animals like moose, bears or (hopefully added at some point) bovinae should require multiple hits from all weapons besides maybe specialized late-game firearms.

The damage type should probably matter greatly as well. Slings with blunt projectiles may deal high direct damage but apply little to no bleeding, making them particularly suited for killing small targets on the spot. Bows would focus much more on bleeding, with very high potential damage per shot applied over an extended period of time, making them particularly useful for medium game which can't be reliably killed on the spot, but can be killed or greatly weakened through blood loss from a single arrow. Crossbows and spears would lilkely land somewhere in-between and could be balanced in such a way as to make them the preferred choice for large game (in part because large game isn't necessarily as skittish and as such can be approached more easily and hit from close-by, reducing the need for the bow's superior range).

 

8 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Regarding the crossbow specifically, I don't think the projectile drift is the right answer here to make it a poor choice for long distance shooting. Rather, I think the shots should fly a shorter distance instead(or perhaps just lower the damage significantly after a certain distance), with the crossbow itself having very little, if any, projectile drift at all.

Shorter range and more pronounced projectile drop is essentially the same as low projectile speed (assuming gravity remains constant), which as I mentioned is entirely possible to counteract, especially on stationary targets which are very common in hunting.

Damage falloff has the problem that it doesn't really communicate anything to the player, especially in a game with no damage number indicators. A successful hit is clearly successful, so reduced damage often feels somewhat artificial. If the goal is discouraging long-range shooting, then I would argue it would be much better done with intuitive unreliability, not with forced ineffectiveness. That said, some minor damage falloff would be entirely acceptable or even desirable as an additional incentive, just as long as it's not excessive.

Edited yesterday at 10:37 AM by MKMoose

[DarkGold]

8 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

There are plenty of times where you absolutely will not have a chance to set up a killing shot(if one shot is even enough for the target), and will need to make several rapid shots with decent accuracy in order to dish out significant damage before you have to either retreat or engage in melee.

In regards to getting off multiple rapid shots, I think a lot of games solve this by having projectile drift (or significant crosshair drift) immediately after drawing the bow, that decreases with time. This allows you to take the shot before your aim completely stabilizes in order to fire faster, but without pinpoint accuracy. Given this technique, I see no reason a weapon can't be made to support both use cases (rapid and not perfectly precise, slow and very precise), though whether you want a weapon to support both is a different question.

 

39 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

If we're talking about realistic hunting, though, "dropping most targets with a single shot" is generally almost a given, though also an oversimplification. Small animals like hares and foxes, sure, you may be able to kill those on the spot if you use a powerful enough weapon. Something larger like goats, pigs or deer would pretty much always need tracking after the first shot, possibly a second finishing shot as well or more if you're using a relatively weak weapon or if you aren't hitting the lungs. Larger animals like moose, bears or (hopefully added at some point) bovinae should require multiple hits from all weapons besides maybe specialized late-game firearms.

8 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I think it's also fair to note that it's not ideal to set up the player expectation of dropping most targets with a single shot, since that is a problem that Skyrim is notorious for with the "stealth archer" build. It's very fun to play, sure, but it's also so strong to the point that it easily overshadows all the other options.

Something not mentioned here that I'd like to bring up is how it might feel to the player to make an instant kill shot vs hunt a suffering animal. In hunting, the concept of a "clean kill" is something you might have heard of. It is part of the hunting fantasy and it is something a lot of people who aren't interested in hunting might still identify with; not causing excess suffering. Forcing players to follow a blood trail and hit an animal multiple times before it dies makes sense as punishment for a poor shot, in my opinion, rather than the only option. Instantly killing an animal because you placed the perfect shot, or having the animal run away if you miss (and therefore requiring you to track down and line up another perfect shot), is a more satisfying execution of the hunting fantasy to me, than whittling a creature's HP down, because it is impossible to kill it in one shot.

Edited 23 hours ago by DarkGold
Correcting typos

[LadyWYT]

4 hours ago, MKMoose said:

I don't see much of a problem with setting up the expectation that it's possible to kill many animals with a single shot, as long as the player is given the means to do so reasonably reliably without an excess of randomness or whatnot. It's a pretty neutral design decision, so it has some advantages and it has some potential issues which can and should be accounted for. "Skyrim had a problem with it" is a pretty weak argument, so I'm gonna need you to elaborate on why that problem is relevant to VS.

 

4 hours ago, DarkGold said:

Something not mentioned here that I'd like to bring up is how it might feel to the player to make an instant kill shot vs hunt a suffering animal. In hunting, the concept of a "clean kill" is something you might have heard of. It is part of the hunting fantasy and it is something a lot of people who aren't interested in hunting might still identify with; not causing excess suffering. Forcing players to follow a blood trail and hit an animal multiple times before it dies makes sense as punishment for a poor shot, in my opinion, rather than the only option. Instantly killing an animal because you placed the perfect shot, or having the animal run away if you miss (and therefore requiring you to track down and line up another perfect shot), is a more satisfying execution of the hunting fantasy to me, than whittling a creature's HP down, because it is impossible to kill it in one shot.

For hunting exclusively, single killshots would be fine for most animals for the reasons DarkGold mentioned, though larger, more dangerous animals like bears, moose, and the like shouldn't be dropped in a single shot because those are very tough creatures and should pose a serious threat to the player. If I'm not mistaken, this is also why killing a creature like a bear in the pre-firearm era was quite the feat of strength.

That being said, for killshots to work without unbalancing the game entirely, I think you'd need to alter animal AI and make them much harder to sneak up on. This is why I throw the "Skyrim stealth archer" bit out. We can exclude monsters from the killshot pool, and solve part of the issue, yes. But the problem still remains that with the current AI state, it will be extremely easy for the player to quickly acquire and store a lot of food, without needing to invest in livestock or devote much time at all to hunting. Not that hunting is particularly difficult now, but needing to track down wounded animals burns up time, and sometimes the animal can escape, so hunting isn't really something you can wait until the last minute on to get a meal or otherwise spend a day getting everything you need for the winter.

5 hours ago, MKMoose said:

It seems to me that the "Vintage Story isn't solely about hunting" idea can be readily used to actually justify adding crosshair drift to bows and making hunting more immersive. Because if the player doesn't like it, they could always try a different ranged weapon for the same or similar purpose (crossbow, sling, spear, ideally balanced in such a way that different ranged weapons are most suitable for different animals) or a different meat source altogether (trapping, fishing, animal husbandry). I would argue that the variety could be very beneficial for the game in the long run, letting new activities feel much more fresh, unique and individually engaging.

Sure, but I don't think telling players "just use another ranged weapon" or "just skip hunting and use another meat source" is a very good answer if the aiming system of one is absolutely insufferable. Especially for a common weapon like a bow. And I'm sorry, but I've yet to see someone present "crosshair drift" in a way that doesn't sound like a massive irritation to play with in Vintage Story, so I'm not inclined to accept this as a suitable answer for that reason as well. 

 

4 hours ago, DarkGold said:

In regards to getting off multiple rapid shots, I think a lot of games solve this by having projectile drift (or significant crosshair drift) immediately after drawing the bow, that decreases with time. This allows you to take the shot before your aim completely stabilizes in order to fire faster, but without pinpoint accuracy. Given this technique, I see no reason a weapon can't be made to support both use cases (rapid and not perfectly precise, slow and very precise), though whether you want a weapon to support both is a different question.

I really like the way Mount & Blade: Warband handled it, where the projectile drift would decrease as your character's skill with that weapon increased. You could tell how bad the drift was going to be by how far away the outer part of the target reticle was from the crosshairs--the shot would always be somewhere in that area. It's been a while since I played, but as I recall, the bow's reticle worked the same as VS, where there was a certain "sweet spot" for firing. The crossbow didn't have that nuance, simply being a "point-and-shoot" weapon that gave you a good idea of where your shot would go. The drawbacks to the crossbow were that it had a slow rate-of-fire, and most versions couldn't be used while mounted. 

Personally, I still think the vanilla aiming system is fine. It's possible to be fairly accurate with some practice, but you will need to practice and you're not going to be Legolas/Robin Hood and nail every single shot. There's a method to the timing on drawing, aiming, and firing in one clean motion to get the shot to go where you want, which is my opinion is very enjoyable, and it's easy to use for both hunting and combat.

Having a crosshair that floats around showing exactly where the shot is going to go doesn't feel like it takes any skill, as much as it does feel like a system where you just sit there and wait for the crosshair to be over what you want to shoot. And that's not a system that feels very useful at all for snapping off several shots with accuracy, since it intuitively sets the expectation that you're supposed to sit there and wait for the shot to line up. Missing a shot in this system is also going to feel a lot worse simply for the fact that there's little excuse for missing a shot--you knew exactly where it was going to go. 

Overall, if it has to change, I'd rather the system be tweaked to be more akin to Warband, with perhaps some archery gadgets or NPC training that the player can utilize to increase their accuracy, since character skills don't seem to be on the table for VS design. Failing that, maybe some kind of "stance" that the player can take a few moments to enter in exchange for having greatly increased accuracy and some extra damage with whatever ranged weapon they're using, provided that they don't move or switch weapons. It could be further balanced(if needed) by restricting the player's field of aim to a frontal cone, requiring them to move if they wish to cover a different area. In this case, the player has a useful option for hunting, as well as the option of playing a sniper role, but will also need to be careful about how and when they use that ability since it leaves them vulnerable to ambush. 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

Idk I can one-shot rabbits and chickens with a crude bow and crude arrows.

This doesn't really seem like a tool I'd use. Spears already satisfy the "heavier hitting ranged weapon" category for me so if this was added, I'd just skip it and use another spear.... unless this could launch spears like they were arrows... then I'd reconsider. cross hair drift annoys me in video games especially since trained snipers can negate that almost entirely by resting their weapons on a ledge or other support.

There's a reason the traditional bow is still used in hunting today because it's something that takes skill, so if you can't hunt with a bow, then you lack skill. As they say, "a bad workman blames his tools".

[Zaph42nd]

17 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Overall, if it has to change, I'd rather the system be tweaked to be more akin to Warband, with perhaps some archery gadgets or NPC training that the player can utilize to increase their accuracy, since character skills don't seem to be on the table for VS design. Failing that, maybe some kind of "stance" that the player can take a few moments to enter in exchange for having greatly increased accuracy and some extra damage with whatever ranged weapon they're using, provided that they don't move or switch weapons. It could be further balanced(if needed) by restricting the player's field of aim to a frontal cone, requiring them to move if they wish to cover a different area. In this case, the player has a useful option for hunting, as well as the option of playing a sniper role, but will also need to be careful about how and when they use that ability since it leaves them vulnerable to ambush. 

Not against this either, would also be good as an addition to further specialize classes out based on particular strengths without necessarily introducing traits/skills. Far as sway goes, I'd actually argue a system similar to that in DX1 would maybe feel good, higher tiered bows/crossbows are more accurate/have shorter focusing times when aiming but you still need to aim, shooting rapidly won't necessarily be the most effective option unless you devote time into an archery-type gadget or upgrade your gear (for example, faster reloading could come at adding a winder mechanism in later tiers, more accuracy by increasing stock-length but at the expense of reloads, etc...). Far as trade-offs go, crossbows could deal slightly more base-damage in exchange for their longer load-time to bows (at higher tiers potentially one-shooting wildlife), making them a more nasty first-hit option, it'd be just enough to distinguish from bows which currently serve as fast-ranged weapons with average damage. Again, all speculative, I'm almost certain a ranged combat rework is possible as part of wider combat tweaks (though I'd argue melee matters more in terms of reworks)

[Teh Pizza Lady]

On 9/22/2026 at 11:30 AM, MKMoose said:

It feels to me a bit too much like a middle-ground between the bow and the crossbow with nothing that makes it particularly stand out - I would be interested to have the two extremes first of all, and then the gastraphetes seems potentially redundant.

It's a bow for someone who can't handle the draw-weight. Crossbow just puts a bow in the hands of an unskilled archer. A real archer can still out-perform a crossbow in a myriad of situations.

[Hanril]

I like a crossbow as a class specific/endgame/Jonas weapon. The problem is that it kinda just excels at strength and not much else. You also shouldn't be able to carry it in inventory loaded, as it would be too easy to cheese. So maybe a mounted option for base defense? Also mandatory misfire chance during rainfall.

[LadyWYT]

5 hours ago, Hanril said:

So maybe a mounted option for base defense?

That's a ballista, which is similar, but still a different kind of weapon.

 

5 hours ago, Hanril said:

Also mandatory misfire chance during rainfall.

If it applies to crossbows, it should apply to bows as well, since both require bowstrings and those don't function very well when wet.

 

5 hours ago, Hanril said:

You also shouldn't be able to carry it in inventory loaded, as it would be too easy to cheese.

Not necessarily. Crossbows would be more expensive than regular bows, so cost could be a factor. Likewise, inventory space is prime real estate, and in order to use a crossbow it also needs to be on the hotbar. There's only so many hotbar slots, and juggling crossbows is going to very awkward in combat. The best "cheese" scenario I can think of is if the crossbow is hitting hard enough to make it worth investing the resources and inventory space into, such as killing/nearly killing a boss with a hotbar's worth of crossbows, or being able to snipe the highest tier drifters.shivers with a couple of crossbows.

Plus I mean...one of the main features of a crossbow is that it can be carried around loaded. It would be very strange to add them to the game but not allow the player to use a core feature of the weapon.

6 hours ago, Hanril said:

The problem is that it kinda just excels at strength and not much else.

It depends entirely on how a game implements it. Realistically, I'm not sure crossbows are really any stronger than standard bows. Their main strength is being much easier to learn how to use effectively, as well as their ability to be carried around loaded, with their main drawback being a slow reload time. However, it's not uncommon for videogames to give them more power per shot and/or better armor-piercing in order to balance them against the standard bow options.