Well, the character WILL hit the spot he's aiming for, because by default, that is the spot where he places the reticule (minus gravity drop). It's just not the place the player wants to hit. That's different. A minimum of player skill should be required, and that is to be able to place the reticule properly over the intended target. This is not a "problem" any more than say, aiming a fireball at a moving NPC in oblivion today.

In situations with a target that is moving completely randomly in order to dodge the players arrows and the player for some reason cannot place the reticule properly over the target; yes, that does mirror real situations. In this system, as in real life, there will be a slight chance that the novice with the poor skill might get lucky and hit, while the expert aiming at the wrong place won't. If this is perceived as an advantage to the novice, there is actually a solution: As an expert marksman, use snap shots. This will cause increased dispersion. I wouldn't recommend it at medium or longer ranges, though.

I don't want an auto-aiming feature, for several reasons. With regards to dodging, I think it will be of limited use. Assuming the target starts moving sideways as you release the arrow, the auto-aiming will only move the reticule to match the target movement until the arrow is released. If the target keeps moving sideways, the shot will miss regardless of auto-aim. That is, unless you want the auto-aiming feature to add dynamic lead by trying to predict where the target is moving to, which would add a whole lot of new problems. I'm also concerned as to how it will affect superelevation.

I don't see it differently, I mean the very definition of having good aim is that you're able to line up a target, a weapon will always fire straight ahead no matter who's using it, the skill is aiming the weapon. So again, I disagree, the character will not hit what he's aiming for, he will hit where he's pointing the weapon at the time of release, but that was still not what he was aiming for, the skill which is supposed to be simulated with the circles are how good the character is at pointing the weapon. Take a good aim player but crappy marksman character (low skill) who centers the reticule on the target, the reticule represents the aim, but not that the character is pointing the weapon dead center at the target, the circles represent the fact that at release, the character might be pointing the weapon somewhere else limited to the inside of the circle.

If you don't have auto aim, then the circles don't represent character skill, not even if they are supposed to, they will represent and work like the accuracy of the weapon.



But you see it's not the same, because again, it's not that the novice has a chance (target inside large novice circle), it's that the expert has no chance (0% bc target outside expert small circle). In real life, there wont be such a situation, the expert will always have a higher chance of success than the novice.



That is correct, the auto aim would have take into the movement, I mean this is exactly what the npcs do when they shoot at you.

Can't figure out the multiple quote-stuff...

1) The definition of good marksmanship is being able to accurately and reliably hit what you're aiming at. It involves much more than simply pointing at ("aiming") the target - that's the easiest part, and that's the part the player does. So no, the marksman skill does NOT represent how good the player is at pointing the weapon at a target - it represents how good he is at HITTING the target. Those are 2 dramatically different things, as illustrated below.

2) A weapon does not fire exactly where it is pointed. There is ALWAYS dispersion, even when human error is eliminated. Human error INCREASES dispersion, by improper release, slight jittering etc. This is even assuming aim is 100% correct. Having a good marksmanship skill reduces that cause of dispersion, improving accuracy. The idea that improper aim is the only factor that causes a miss is incorrect - it isn't even the most important one.

3) The "novice has a bigger chance than an expert"-argument is still unconvincing. You're not grasping the concept of the skill; it reduces the human errors that cause dispersion. The player, aka you, will still have to "tell" the character where to aim. A good character will hit that spot you're telling him to hit, a poor one probably won't. THAT's accuracy. And placing the reticule on the target really isn't that difficult, I never had problems with this in oblivion.

Besides, presenting this as an "advantage" for the novice is misleading, as the odds of "lucking out" will be pretty small. The expert will have a much greater degree of success by simply launching a larger number of arrows at snap shot-rate.

4) An auto-aim calculating dynamic lead will cause more misses than hits, because dodging consists of small "jinks" in random directions. Dynamic lead requires consistent motion to work. If the target's moving to the right when you release, the target will have to keep moving in the same direction and the same speed until the time of impact in order for the arrow to hit. If he changes direction or speed, the arrow will miss, because the aim-feature calculated a continuing motion to the right. In 90% of the cases, the motion won't be continuous, so the arrow will miss. In order to hit a target that's shifting directions AFTER release, you need a guided arrow, not auto-aim.

5) Auto-aim represents a hand-holding-feature I don't want to see in TES. It will eliminate the need for effort on the players side. It's like getting "auto-block" once your block skill reaches 75, useful, but not especially entertaining.

I think auto aim is fine. it just needs to be toggle-able in the options menu. I'm thinking of the GTA series where i used auto-aim extensively while on the xbox but always tried to modify the aim location to get more headshots. When i played on PC, i used regular aim because i had greater, more precise control of my targeting. As far as using it with blows and arrows it's going to be of very limited use. It will not correct for target movement (no leading), it will not correct for gravity which will become more and more limiting as distance increases to the point that auto-aim is unusable.

As far as not using a recticle/targeting pipper with archery, I don't see any effective alternative. You could simulate onscreen the way one would actually sight a bow, by moving the viewpoint so it looks down the arrow shaft, but this will obstruct much of the screen whose real estate is a premium especially on smaller monitors/tvs. If the issue of inaccuracy that is not visually represented by the targeting recticle or UI elements (including, in this case the visuals of the bow onscreen), then perhaps a visual weapons sway should be implemented, as is now often seen when using scoped rifles in many video games. The sway of the weapon would be visible in the movement of the bow onscreen as well as the movement of the recticle. A large dispersion circle would result in a shakier weapon and erratic targeting pipper, truly excellent players playing a low-skill character would still we able to be quite effective by expertly timing their release. As character skill increased, the weapon sway would be reduced, dissipate more quickly, and be in a smoother, more predictable pattern. All of these would make it continually easier to take the shot, eventually leading to the point where a skilled character operated by a skilled player would be extremely precise in their shots.

This defeats an important purpose of the dispersion circles. The impact location within the circle is supposed to be completely random. The trajectory cannot be predicted by watching the arrow or bow. It is completely impossible for a player to "time" the release, the only thing affecting dispersion is the marksman skill.

Yes yes! Excellent idea. And i wouldn't even mind a feint replication of the circles in-game either. Maybe the circles could get visably bolder as you progress as a marksman.

Good good good ...

I think this is great. I had always wished Marksman was more like this in Oblivion. Why have skills affect damage, when they can affect other things that are just as important, but not un-immersive in the way that an experienced archer (not necessarily stronger) can deal more damage. Skills should affect our ability to control the player's character, and the limits of the player's character, not damage.

Hey man, just wanted to say that your signature quote is a little wrong. Its in their tongue he's Dovahkiin, dragonborn. not Nova King and dragonbone.

Chiming in here...

OP, fantastic idea.... fan-fricking-tastic. I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite idea for Skyrim.

Here's a thought I had, while perusing the thread, about a situation the other week that my character in Oblivion had:

(Master Markswoman, 100 Agility)
I was found out of my sniper spot in Dark Fissure the other night. I fired one arrow, and killed the enemy running head-on but moving from side-to-side as he moved between the rocks towards me. I killed him by timing him running into my line of fire. The arrow went straight, as I was motionless, but slowly moving the bow, tracking him to the perfect point of impact.
Then I was overwhelmed by three melee fighters, and, having no melee weapon, jumped off this big rock ledge to another ledge, while firing a shot in the air. I watched the arrow actually curve as I moved, and missed. When they swarmed the other side, I jumped back, shot in the air and hit, by timing the curve.

Food for thought.... I think.

A couple of points in agreement or in clarification:

Each bow should have a strength LIMIT, not a minimum. If the bow is designed to be used with 70 strength, then you won't get full power out of it at 40. If your strength is 90, you'll get the maximum that the bow can deliver, but your extra strength will not matter.

Training should decrease in effect as your skill improves, and hit a point at around 25-50 where further self-training on fixed targets just won't teach you any more about hitting a moving, blocking opponent. At that point, you learn strictly by doing, or by lessons from a paid trainer.

The game could give you an option to auto-target, so you could either just have it adjust the aim point for "center of mass" as a default, factoring in elevation and drop, or turn it off and try for better locational damage if you feel that it's worth the increased risk more of total misses.

Agreed on your first two points.

Auto-aim means the game will always tell you the proper amount of superelevation, reducing the art of archery to a mere point-and-click system in the game. No more close examination of the target to estimate range and superelevation before aiming your shot; the auto-aim will take care of that for you. All you have to do is click the mouse. I definitely oppose this.

Thanks, appreciate it

I usually play with marksman as a major skil as well, and I love those kinds of situations, nothing more satisfying than scoring an improbable kill with the bow!

For me i was picturing a auto-aim system like in GTA IV where the aim always points to center of mass but you can use the aim controls to nudge the targeting pipper around. In GTA's case, i usually nudged the pipper up to go for headshots. On the other hand, if it's an arrow that drops of with distance, I think an auto-aim will be even less effective... if it's even useful at all.

I really doubt any auto aim system would come close to giving the player the combat AI of the enemies without any input at all (and even their AI isn't that great).

@ Big Daddy: awesome story!

Yeah, the need for super-elevation will either mess up your aim (by forcing the reticule to centre of mass when you need it above target), or eliminate the need to estimate superelevation by forcing the reticule into the correct super-elevation position above the targets.

No no auto-aim. Or make it toggle-able. You're a master for a reason, right?

I don't think power/damage should be determined by the skill, it should be determined by the bow intself. You can be the most skilled archer in the world, but it's the bow that determines the true potenial of a bow. The archer has little to do with the max/minimum damage a bow can do.

If anything there should be a draw weight added to the bows in the game, but have a max and minimum on a bow. A suggestion I have is at the journeyman, master, etc. levels you gain the ability to use more powerful draw weights.

An example, a journeyman marksman can only use bows that have a 50lbs draw (low damage), whereas a master could use a 100lbs draw (high damage).

Make sense? Or did I just muddy the water?

How would you plans be different than simply linking skills to accuracy dealt? I mean, other tan the relation being graduated for something, what you've just describes is basically exactly how all TES games have been. Other than archery being governed by agility instead of strength, I think the damage calculation system in Oblivion was quite effective. the one thing that could probably improve it would be better damage mapping where you wouldn't end up with enemies running around with multiple arrows sticking out of their heads. that part was kinda silly.

Damage inflicted on a target is a function of both the speed/shape of the arrow and where it hits the target. The maximum speed at which an arrow can be fired depends on the bow, the archer's skill doesn't really affect this; however, a more skilled archer will be more likely to hit vital points on his target, so I think it actually makes sense for base damage to increase with skill level (unless damage mapping is very good, which it wasn't in Oblivion).

I think strength and marksman skill should control accuracy. If they are both very low, you should be very shaky when your bow is drawn back. Having them higher would allow you to be accurate over a longer distance.

I think there should also be bows with different weights that require a certain amount of strength for each one to be able to use them efficiently.

Agility (Interchangeable with Dexterity) plays a very important part as well, remember one must aim at their desired target which requires a great deal of control and slight movements.

Damage down by bows should be governed by where they arrow hits and the bow and arrow combination. There should be more damage for shots in important/vital organs and not as much for things such as arms or legs which are not really necesary. Bows should have a strength figure attached to them to represent drawweight. If your strength is below that figure you should still be able to use it just not get as much damage/speed/distance from the bow as you would with the correct strength. If your strength is greater than or equal to the figure then you can use the bow to its maximum effectivness with no negative effects. There should also be an overall increase in arrow damage. Now lets stop discussing damage and revert back to the topic of the post-accuracy and marksman skill, theres plenty of topics on bow damage I'd prefer it if this did not become just another one; unless of course Andrimner wants to bring up damage.

So basically there will be a default spread that can be reduced to a certain amount by standing still and carefully aiming, and the higher your skill, the lower the maximum spread and the quicker it is reduced? Sound like a pretty good idea. It would also be nice if different bows had different stats besides damage like a different flight time and maybe different aiming time and different steadiness. I'm kind of anxious to see if Bethesda decides to integrate some kind of weapon upgrade system. It turned out pretty well in New Vegas (I know gamesas didn't actually design the game, but they oversaw the whole thing) and I think it could turn out pretty well in Skyrim if they implemented it right.

I know that there's always dispersion, but how well he is at hitting the target depends on how well he can eliminate the human error, meaning how well he can make a completely straight line between the target and his weapon, so that the only dispersion will be the weapon accuracy. The problem is that if you don't have auto aim, you will have a double human error, a simulated one, and a real one.



It can't reduce the human error if a human is telling the character where to aim, when I try to hit an enemy, and miss because the enemy moved out of the reticule, the expert character that I have will perceive that as "I want you to shoot with high accuracy about 2 inches left the that raging werewolf", but that sure as hell isn't what I'm trying to tell him, I'm trying to tell him to kill the bastard.



The time between release and hit, should be pretty short, so they wont have to keep moving at constant speed and direction for a long period for it to be effective. Besides, the problems that auto aim faces, human aim faces as well, when your trying to hit a target manually, your doing what the auto aim is doing, only your doing it worse. You can't predict the opponents any better than a computer, but the computer can continuously adjust the aim to the slightest shift in movement, you cannot. I think the 90% is an overstatement, it takes an arrow about half a second to hit the target, try not moving in the same direction for half a second. If the computer would miss 90% of the cases, a human would miss more, you can't predict movement anymore accurate than a computer, and you sure as hell can't predict changes in movement, without foreseeing the future or reading minds.



Every other rpg outside TES pretty much has auto aim, and have the character skill be the end all be all or what determines a successful hit, character skill > player skill. Ideally you're skill shouldn't matter, only your characters. Auto aim will not guarantee a hit, it will guarantee that the characters skill will be the determining factor in a hit. Auto block is not the same as auto hit, auto hit is supposed to help you hit what you want to hit, auto block would be an override which would not help you block but control your block. Auto block would be the same as auto hitting. The Auto Aim I want is an assisting feature, really let's calling it aim assist instead, and it parallel in blocking would be block assist, which helps you when you wanna block, like stats governing how good of a block you performed.

1) No, human error is not eliminated by perfect aim. The error you speak of as "double human error" is how it works in real life. End dispersion is caused by the combined effects of improper aim, weapon dispersion, and dispersion caused by human error. Perfect aim doesn't help you if you don't release properly, or affect the bow in any way during the release. With regards to the tension involced, this can't be a small factor. With rifles, it is a big one. With pistols, it is MASSIVE, much more so than improper aim - which usually is pretty easy. So the suggestion does not create errors that are not already there.

2) An expert marksman is skilled at hitting targets. This does not necessarily mean he is good at predicting the movements an enemy will make to avoid being hit. Again, as it would be in real life. Even real life marksmen will miss their target if it moves at the exact same time as the marksman pulls the trigger. This factor is realistic, and needs to be included. Besides, auto-aim will only correct the movement up until the point of release, which means that any other movement AFTER release will still cause a miss. (Again, unless you want the nightmare that is automatic dynamic lead)

3) First; the time between release and impact is definitely long enough to cause a miss, except at very short distances. This is true for weapons with a MUCH higher muzzle velocity than bows, it definitely affects bows. Try timing how long it takes arrows to hit targets in Oblivion, and see how much a target can move in that time. A difference of 0,5 metres is all it takes to cause a miss, and it doesn't take targets half a second to move this distance. Besides, the claim that arrows only take half a second to impact the target is clearly wrong. At range, the flight time will be much higher. Any archer-archer duel in Oblivion will prove this; if an enemy stops a movement you had pulled lead on, the arrow will miss, even if the lead estimation was correct. If he starts to strafe immideately after release, there is also a very good chance of missing, even if the reticule was dead centre upon release.

It is quite obvious that irregular movement at medium or long ranges WILL cause misses if you calculate lead based on continuing motion. And besides, if enemy movement were to have as little impact as you claim, there wouldn't be a need for auto-aim. The changes in movement you're talking about all take place in very short time frames - shorter than a second. If those changes are enough to cause misses, the same movements will cause misses if they are performed after release, but before impact. In fact, they will probably have a greater impact than the last minute "jinxing" that seems to generate the request for auto-aim-

4) Regardless of how other games operate, Auto-aim is a babysitting feature that will eliminate the need for careful aiming. It reduces the marksman skill to a "point-and-click" feature. As mentioned above, it will completely remove the challenges we have in Oblivion (estimating range and superelevation), which would make the skill considerably less challenging and entertaining. The intent is never to completely remove the players skill from the game - that would mean that outcomes of battles would be reduced to a statistical clash between skill numbers, basically just rolling the dice. The intent is to make sure the character skill sets a realistic limit to the players skill, to make sure that the player can't use weapons above the skill level of his character, as is the case with the lockpicking skill in Oblivion.

I disagree, if I make a weapon point directly at a target, and have it cemented this way, so that there is no tremble or anything whatsoever, the only thing that is gonna effect the hit is the accuracy of the weapon and other none human elements. improper aim and dispersion caused by human error are the same thing, you don't have perfect aim if you don't release properly. I don't have a simulated skill in real life, I have one skill, which is my own.



He isn't skilled at hitting targets, he's skilled at aiming, which has the consequence of him hitting often. Of course he can't predict the moments an enemy will make to avoid being hit, nobody can, neither will auto aim, it's impossible to know the direction of a random change of direction, before the change. Aim assist only needs to take into account movement that is constant, it's impossible to do otherwise, irregardless of skill levels. Dynamic lead would mean guiding the arrow itself (as I understand it) which defies physics.



Of course they will cause a miss, the point isn't to eliminate misses, but to make sure you'll miss because your characters skill allowed it. Distance and arrow speed varies which means flight time is relative, that's why I said about half a second, not exactly have a second. I said that 90% of cases being a miss is an overstatement, not that there would be 0% misses ever.



Of course, but I haven't said otherwise, I don't claim they will not cause misses, but they will cause less misses than manual aiming, the point is to reduce miss by the players skill, so that miss is more a consequence of character skill. It's impossible to adjust a shot when it has been shot, no one is claiming otherwise.



No it doesn't, you still control when you release the arrow, who you aim after, it amplifies marksman skill by making it the defining difference between missing and hitting, it means that when your character is a master marksman, you will aim like a master marksman irregardless of player skill. Aim assist is a babysitting feature in an shooter game, where player skill is the point, TES is a roleplaying game, and the point is not to express your skills but the characters.