Help Fix Bows! (That Doesn't Rhyme!)

[cnileoleman]

Your entire arguement is based on equating guns with bows, and equating bows with cannons.

One, the time during which cannons ruled the day were innacurate, and bows were once again, at that range, volley weapons.

The pikeman, formations of pikemen and riflemen replaced those of pure pikemen

No, my argument was based on equating bows with bows, and historical facts. At the time that bows were in widespread use they were a staple of battlefield combat. This is the argument I am making. It is a historically correct statement, that cannot be (successfully) argued against.  Taking what I say out of context and saying that I'm equating guns to bows does not make you any more correct. Comparing them, yes.  I'm pretty sure you are merely a troll.

While rifling was originally discovered in the 16th century, it didn't become common until the 19th century. This would make muskets volley weapons at ANY range.

You do realize that bowmen were usually deployed with pikemen in front of them to prevent a cavalry charge from destroying all of an armies ranged units? Thus, arquebus/ muskets replaced bowmen, and eventually pikemen. So, yes, in a way muskets became the bows of a more modern world. Once again, my logic is correct. You lose.

 

This part is directed at the thread:

 

The arrows our Tenno use are monstrously thick, and made of an unknown material. As the draw-weight of a bow increases, so too must the girth of the arrow increase to prevent the arrow snapping and sending its newly made point into the users forearm. We can conclude that these arrows would hit with incredible force, due to their mass and the draw of the bow in question. Realistically, our bows would carry more energy than many of the bullets our tenno fire, with mass making up for a bullet's velocity. De could buff the bows and still be well within realism. Damage would be higher. Remember that bit with the deer slug and the armor? All bows would produce a shock sufficient to either punch through or kill with the impact, regardless of armor.

 

TLDR: ^That guy is still wrong, and bows are very underpowered. Bows were, and should be, devastatingly powerful. Discussion on how to balance is welcome.

 

p.s. I'm actually in a very good mood, and apologize if I seem $&*^ish. (Not a word, so I can use it)

[Demon_Mask]

Hmmm he didn't reply to me... My comment must not fit his play style???

[cnileoleman]

Logic doesn't have a place in his arguments, so I guess so :D

[Serialkillerwhale]

The initial statement was against demon mask here, who did equate bows with guns.

 

And no, the sword was the staple of combat. Your arguement against it ignores that the sword, not the bow, is the weapon of war.

 

Once again, you forget logic and replace it with ego, while I maintain facts, bowmen  were deployed to act as support to pikemen, who would engage the enemy in combat, the bow is eventually phased out and the entire archer formation,  The Pike and shot formation used muskets not as range, but as they were at the time, innaccurate but extremely powerful anti-armor weaponry.

 

And muskets are volley weapons, so are bows, neither of which can "Snipe" an artilleryman.

 

If you've seen an knight and destrier warhorse in armor, you'd know armor of the time rendered them mostly immune to arrows, while the common infantryman lacked such expensive plate armor, his shield was more than enough, a bow might punch through a shield by say, a centimeter, but that only hits air and  the arrow is stopped, people used shields because they worked, people invented waraxes and flails just to break shield walls either by chopping the wood, or simply going around. The mere existance of such weapons show us that no, arrrows didn't work all that well against shields.

 

Back on topic, pikes and muskets were eventually both combined into bayonet rifles, hence the "Fix Bayonets and Charge" strategy. In the end, guns won because they could ignore armor while bows and swords could not. They are dierectly derived from pikemen, while archers were thrown to the wayside as sword and pike were replaced by gun. Artillery, once again, rules by sheer destructive power.

 

Your move.

 

On topic.

 

Energy equals Mass Times Velocity. given the frankly impossible hitscan nature of tenno bullets, this implies a far more deadly projectile.

[Demon_Mask]

When the hell did I do that..... :/

I said a bowman with a well placed shot could take out a gunner if skirting around. Completely possible with the right bow with the right person. Take an hunter with a bow for taking down dear or bear. Or you know....something completely fictitious like a videogame.....wow, like that'd ever happen

[cnileoleman]

The initial statement was against demon mask here, who did equate bows with guns.

 

And no, the sword was the staple of combat. Your arguement against it ignores that the sword, not the bow, is the weapon of war.

 

Once again, you forget logic and replace it with ego, while I maintain facts, bowmen  were deployed to act as support to pikemen, who would engage the enemy in combat, the bow is eventually phased out and the entire archer formation,  The Pike and shot formation used muskets not as range, but as they were at the time, innaccurate but extremely powerful anti-armor weaponry.

 

And muskets are volley weapons, so are bows, neither of which can "Snipe" an artilleryman.

 

If you've seen an knight and destrier warhorse in armor, you'd know armor of the time rendered them mostly immune to arrows, while the common infantryman lacked such expensive plate armor, his shield was more than enough, a bow might punch through a shield by say, a centimeter, but that only hits air and  the arrow is stopped, people used shields because they worked, people invented waraxes and flails just to break shield walls either by chopping the wood, or simply going around. The mere existance of such weapons show us that no, arrrows didn't work all that well against shields.

 

Back on topic, pikes and muskets were eventually both combined into bayonet rifles, hence the "Fix Bayonets and Charge" strategy. In the end, guns won because they could ignore armor while bows and swords could not. They are dierectly derived from pikemen, while archers were thrown to the wayside as sword and pike were replaced by gun. Artillery, once again, rules by sheer destructive power.

 

Your move.

 

On topic.

 

Energy equals Mass Times Velocity. given the frankly impossible hitscan nature of tenno bullets, this implies a far more deadly projectile.

 

.

 

My mistake.

 

There is no single weapon of war. All weapons used in war are weapons of war..... Bows, spears/pikes, and anything involving a horse were the staples of combat. This is a historically verified fact. Go ahead and read that again.  While a large portion of an army would be infantry, infantry would generally meet in the middle while the previously mentioned parties decided the outcome of a battle. Don't get me wrong, swords are awesome, but have been totally romanticized and portrayed as THE weapon. In the years before armies existed, yes, swords tended to be king. We aren't talking in that time frame.

 

If the pikemen were deployed in front of bowmen to prevent cavalry from pushing their *hit in, aren't the pikemen supporting the archers? Don't get me wrong, there were divisions made up completely of pikemen, but what I said is still true. The medieval age is one of my favorite subjects, and I spend a good deal of my time concerning myself with it. I am completely confident that I know more about this time period than most people. I concede that there are experts who know far more than me, but from the things you have said I can deduce that you are not one of them.

 

I mentioned in a previous post that arrows didn't do squat against a good set of armor, so you can stop wasting your time schooling me.

 

A pointy piece of metal moving at some considerable speed can split wood, an arrow has these properties. Shields are held with most of a persons arm, so one would be lucky if the arrow only hit air and missed, say, a limb that happened to be directly behind the object they were hiding behind. Depending on time frame and geographical location, shields didn't cover anywhere close to the entire body. Have fun with the volley coming your way. However, shield walls can be answered with heavy cavalry or plain infantry. Spearmen with a shield wall? Armies would literally walk up to them, past the pointy bit, and murder would ensue. Draw your sword, because they just closed past your effective range. My point is not that bowmen ruled the battlefield, they did not. They were not the most effective at countering a shield wall. They were still one of the more tactically important components of war during the time period I've been talking about. They were king at taking down the ill-equipped cannon fodder that would make up the backbone of an army.

 

Energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Force is equal to mass multiplied by acceleration, but touché!

 

P.S I just looked the wiki on medieval warfare, which quoted infantry as the most important. However, they lumped archers and pikemen along with what we considered "normal" infantry. So, either Wikipedia is being unreliable, or we are both wrong.......S#&$e. On the other hand, the source that stated this was written in the 4th century, so warfare had changed drastically before the time period I'm considering was reached.

[Starender]

bow solution:

 

double arrow flight speed

double arrow charge speed

double damage normal shot

quadruple damage charged shot

 

bow actual mod:

 

Thunderbolt buff to 80% chance of proc

Thunderbolt damage calculation based on weapon (ex: maxed at 50%), can be charged for more damage

 

bow new mod proposal:

 

Ancient Technique: gives u the ability to have 4 to 11 arrow in one hand, so you can shoot them without having to take them from quiver (2 second delay to reload), but -10% from total damage.

Seeker arrow: you use highly technologic arrows, they will automaticaly find the nearest target's head till range 15 meters (CAN'T BE USED WITH THUNDERBOLT)

Energy infused arrow: you use you own energy to empower arrows, giving them instant flight speed and at maximum +40% base damage for 4 energy (only works on charged shot)

Patience virtue: after a successfull headshot with your bow, your next first ability (1) will cost twice less and have double effectiveness (damage, duration, control...), can be stacked at maximum 4 times

Escape artist: when you shoot an arrow at your feet, it create a cloud of smoke that will blind all enemy from 10 meters around you, duration at max for 10 seconds, can only be used every 1 minute

 

just like in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KC1Os-_NE

Edited February 1, 2014 by Starender

[cnileoleman]

^ This is amazing. DE, if you see this, make it so.

[Yefrign]

A proposal for bow improvements

 

make bow have 3 draw stages

 

Stage 1: drawing stage

 

Stage 2: fully drawn stage

 

Stage 3: Over drawn stage

 

3 stage with their pros & cons

 

All bows automatically goes to stage 2 without holding the mouse button, rolling, melee rests the draw.

 

Holding mous button goes to stage 3.

 

stage 1

 pro: not much damage, quickly kills weak foes.

 cons: waste on ammo, fly slow

 

stage 2

 pro: like our current fully charged mouse hold fire, more damage than stage 1.

 cons: nothing much.

 

Stage 3 (now more like it) Using the warframe full strength potential over draws the bow beyond it limits.

 pro: Arrows flies so fast it becomes HITSCAN(No drop) ! Tears through multiple foes! More damage than stage 2!

 cons: Arrow flies so fast it creates a SONICBOOM, so loud its No longer a silent weapon.

 

What do you guys think? >^_^<

 

 

I'd say cons for stage 2 and 3 would be the time it takes to draw it to that point, and there would probably be a longer delay before being able to shoot again with  a stage 3 shot. 

[Rehero]

I feel like they should just overhaul the stealth system before changing bows too much. If anything give them a few number changes and some quality of life changes (mostly missing a single missed/not one hit kill arrow alerting the whole map). See how a stealth overhaul affects them and if they still need a rework then go from there.

[Serialkillerwhale]

.

 

My mistake.

 

There is no single weapon of war. All weapons used in war are weapons of war..... Bows, spears/pikes, and anything involving a horse were the staples of combat. This is a historically verified fact. Go ahead and read that again.  While a large portion of an army would be infantry, infantry would generally meet in the middle while the previously mentioned parties decided the outcome of a battle. Don't get me wrong, swords are awesome, but have been totally romanticized and portrayed as THE weapon. In the years before armies existed, yes, swords tended to be king. We aren't talking in that time frame.

 

If the pikemen were deployed in front of bowmen to prevent cavalry from pushing their *hit in, aren't the pikemen supporting the archers? Don't get me wrong, there were divisions made up completely of pikemen, but what I said is still true. The medieval age is one of my favorite subjects, and I spend a good deal of my time concerning myself with it. I am completely confident that I know more about this time period than most people. I concede that there are experts who know far more than me, but from the things you have said I can deduce that you are not one of them.

 

I mentioned in a previous post that arrows didn't do squat against a good set of armor, so you can stop wasting your time schooling me.

 

A pointy piece of metal moving at some considerable speed can split wood, an arrow has these properties. Shields are held with most of a persons arm, so one would be lucky if the arrow only hit air and missed, say, a limb that happened to be directly behind the object they were hiding behind. Depending on time frame and geographical location, shields didn't cover anywhere close to the entire body. Have fun with the volley coming your way. However, shield walls can be answered with heavy cavalry or plain infantry. Spearmen with a shield wall? Armies would literally walk up to them, past the pointy bit, and murder would ensue. Draw your sword, because they just closed past your effective range. My point is not that bowmen ruled the battlefield, they did not. They were not the most effective at countering a shield wall. They were still one of the more tactically important components of war during the time period I've been talking about. They were king at taking down the ill-equipped cannon fodder that would make up the backbone of an army.

 

Energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Force is equal to mass multiplied by acceleration, but touché!

 

P.S I just looked the wiki on medieval warfare, which quoted infantry as the most important. However, they lumped archers and pikemen along with what we considered "normal" infantry. So, either Wikipedia is being unreliable, or we are both wrong.......S#&$e. On the other hand, the source that stated this was written in the 4th century, so warfare had changed drastically before the time period I'm considering was reached.

A piece of metal with sufficent mass, which bows often lacked.

 

Mass requirement in question being the point of axes.

 

The shortsword, shield, and spear, were the crux of roman military strategy, which is arguably the highest level of military sophistication until gunpowder. Later on, the medieval age, archers were positioned to give supporting fire to tight pike formations that were all but impentrable to enemy attacks, as they advanced. thus were archers not supporting pikemen? Furthermore, shields in question weren't bucklers, they were  large, nearly as tall as the person heater or kite shields. these would protect from arrows quite well.

 

My entire point here being that archers were best against light infantry and as a supporting role, the original post I argued against states that bows were the weapon of the age (Which england to be honest, actually thought and used quite well, but the one battle everyone loves to reference was more a example of terrain bias than anything else.)

 

Archers were used as supporting weapons, not the meat of the battle. Foot-archers essentially were the best counters to mongol-style horse archers, since their superior training (no need to train for riding as well), numbers, stable position, and whatnot let them shred lightly armored cavalry that no one else could.

 

That's the big point I'd say, to stop light infantry and cavalry.

 

Other uses, often involving smaller weaker bows, were skirmishers, who harassed the enemy before the bigger fight.

 

Oh and about spears, look at a pike square, up to 5 pikemen in the front would all have pikes readied for combat, get past the first, and boom second pike, boom third, boom fourth, this turns them into a walk wall of pike and corpse stuck on pike

Edited February 2, 2014 by Serialkillerwhale

[Deaths.Reap3r]

Sorry for helping to derail this thread, I'm currently leveling Dread and Cernos and must agree that they fire reeeaaaaallllyyyy slowly. That's not to say that I don't love them :D Turning enemies into wall art is probably very therapeutic.

 

Serialkillerwhale: Your point has actually been hobbled quite effectively. In addition, by the time artillery came into play a large portion of an army would be composed of men with guns, (Hmmmmmm, men with ranged weapons, where have I heard that before?) plate armor was falling out of fashion, along with cavalry.

In conclusion; you are wrong from a historical standpoint, and in your stubborn belief that making bows playable is going to affect you in any way.

 

TLDR: STFU

I appreciate your argument toward serialkillerwhale, but Im thinking you didn't read the entire disclaimer.

Please remove that TL;DR

 

 

Unfortunately my point still stands.

 

Infantry was the queen of the battlefield until artillery became the king

 

and we all know what the king does to the queen.

 

 

Annd yes, infantry, that is men with a stabby, clubby or slashy weapon on the prefered footwear of the time, were the bread and butter of the battlefield.

 

Cavalry did run roughshod over infantry, but only heavy cataphract, mameluke, or knightly ones, who could only come in so many numbers while infantry were easily trained and equipped. a Shield can take quite alot of arrows to put down, especially if used properly, and yet still an infantryman is easier to train than an archer or cavalryman.

 

The vision of a bow cutting through shields is just that, a vision, shields may crack or splinter, arrows were quite ineffective against a shield wall of any kind.

Shred. Metal Auger....

 

The initial statement was against demon mask here, who did equate bows with guns.

 

And no, the sword was the staple of combat. Your arguement against it ignores that the sword, not the bow, is the weapon of war.

 

Once again, you forget logic and replace it with ego, while I maintain facts, bowmen  were deployed to act as support to pikemen, who would engage the enemy in combat, the bow is eventually phased out and the entire archer formation,  The Pike and shot formation used muskets not as range, but as they were at the time, innaccurate but extremely powerful anti-armor weaponry.

 

And muskets are volley weapons, so are bows, neither of which can "Snipe" an artilleryman.

 

If you've seen an knight and destrier warhorse in armor, you'd know armor of the time rendered them mostly immune to arrows, while the common infantryman lacked such expensive plate armor, his shield was more than enough, a bow might punch through a shield by say, a centimeter, but that only hits air and  the arrow is stopped, people used shields because they worked, people invented waraxes and flails just to break shield walls either by chopping the wood, or simply going around. The mere existance of such weapons show us that no, arrrows didn't work all that well against shields.

 

Back on topic, pikes and muskets were eventually both combined into bayonet rifles, hence the "Fix Bayonets and Charge" strategy. In the end, guns won because they could ignore armor while bows and swords could not. They are dierectly derived from pikemen, while archers were thrown to the wayside as sword and pike were replaced by gun. Artillery, once again, rules by sheer destructive power.

 

Your move.

 

On topic.

 

Energy equals Mass Times Velocity. given the frankly impossible hitscan nature of tenno bullets, this implies a far more deadly projectile.

1. Actually, when you're pulling the bow back, its mass * velocity * gravity = Elastic Potential Energy, when the arrow hits it its 1/2 mass * velocity squared which is the bulk kinetic energy..  Just some quick physics for you lol. But your point stands,

 

But anyway.... Guys, no more of this historical stuff alright? I dont see it contributing to this bow is weak in the future in tenno stuff.  Its derailing the thread, so if you guys could... I would appreciate if you guys talk about how to make bows viable.

If your bit of history lessons do have something to do with this discussion, please state clearly what it has to do with this, and what DE can do to fix it... cool? cool cool cool.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Deaths.Reap3r

[Pazgabear]

I don't think bows should get a buff to get them on par with other weapons, i'm more into making them even more fun to use, by giving them mods that alter them.

 

Think of a mod that makes the bow fire more arrows the more you hold the charge, or a mod that trade the charge system for a rapid fire bow.

[Demon_Mask]

How about an arrow with a teleporting tip. Will teleport the hit target to the location the arrow was shot from. Good for separating mobs, getting into melee. Hiding bodies ect...

Edited February 3, 2014 by Demon_Mask

[Deaths.Reap3r]

How about an arrow with a teleporting tip. Will teleport the hit target to the location the arrow was shot from. Good for separating mobs, getting into melee. Hiding bodies ect...

Thats really cool, but would be an insta kill on bosses lol.

But they can easily change that

Edited February 3, 2014 by Deaths.Reap3r

[Demon_Mask]

Yeah, not working on bosses lool.

[Demon_Mask]

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/171889-bows-why-they-desperately-need-a-buff-numbers-included/?p=2014414#entry2014414

DE REBECCA HAS CONFIRMED BOW BUFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =D

[cnileoleman]

Sorry, I get carried away sometimes :D

 

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/171889-bows-why-they-desperately-need-a-buff-numbers-included/?p=2014414#entry2014414

DE REBECCA HAS CONFIRMED BOW BUFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =D

Awesome!