1) Yes, if it is cemented that way, only weapon dispersion comes into play. If, however, the weapon is being held by a gunner/archer, dispersion caused by human dispersion comes into play, and it is a major factor.

And no, dispersion and improper aim are not the same thing. This, like gravity, is not a disagree/agree kind of thing. The act of aiming consists of lining up the sights properly with eachother, and with the target. Even with this being done perfectly, the gunner will still cause dispersion by smaller or larger errors. The classical error is improper trigger pull. This will cause deviation which will NOT be visible to the gunner via the sights. Therefore, the most natural implementation is dispersion. The idea that all you have to do is line up the sights perfectly in order to hit is false and misleading. Most human gunners (IRL) manages to aim the gun just fine, the reason they miss targets is because of other errors that cause dispersion.

Besides, you're talking about misses caused by sudden movement of the target. This really isn't a result of improper aim, it is a result of not being able to predict target movement. Therefore, arguments about "proper aim" really aren't applicable.

2) Again, aiming and dispersion aren't the same thing. Success is measured in the accuracy of impacts, and proper aim is one of many factors that affects the human side of this.

Dynamic lead does not mean guiding the arrow, it means predicting the targets movement based on the movement at the time of release.

3) The reduced dispersion circles WILL lead to a reduction of misses. Auto-aim isn't necessary to accomplish this.

Thus, marksman skill WILL be the defining factor to determine hit or miss. Accuracy will simply be too poor for a novice. Again, Auto-aim isn't necessary.

And obviously, TES isn't about eliminating player skill altogether. If that was the case, we'd be reduced to rolling dices to determine outcomes. Taking away the need to estimate range before shooting your bow eliminates a quite important part of archery, both realistically and role-playing-wise.
Having a high marksman skill will give you the tool you need to be effective in combat with a bow. It shouldn't eliminate the need for independent thought. That would be like proposing easier riddles for player characters with a high intelligence skill, since those characters would have an easier time figuring out riddles altogether. That isn't the purpose.

In Morrowind, archery required both a character with decent Marksman skill, and good estimation of target elevation and movement by the player. Elevation was a serious problem for taller races such as Orcs, Nords, Imperials, and Altmer. If the target was at a higher elevation than the shooter, you had to aim above the target, and the arrow path suddenly bent downward in mid-flight. If the target was lower, it was even stranger when the arrow's flight path suddenly diverted UP. Bosmer and the beast races didn't suffer from it, so you could simply place the crosshair on a stationary target and hit, if the character had sufficient Marksman skill. I don't remember if it affected Redguards or Bretons, though, because I don't think I played an archer with those races.

I recall very fondly a shot made by my one Imperial character in a Daedric shrine, where a Winged Twilight was pacing back and forth on a high platform, appearing momentarily in an opening between two stone blocks. I had to guess at arrow drop at that steep angle, over a long distance, and time it so the arrow would arrive just as the Daedra passed the opening. My first shot from ambush was a direct hit, knocking it down momentarily, and two more plain iron arrows from the enchanted Bonemold bow took the creature down. Afterward, I discovered a handful of Ebony or Daedric arrows on those high ledges, some stuck into one of the columns, along with the remains of the last unfortunate archer who had apparently missed his shot.

These kinds of stories is why I don't want an auto-aim-feature. Where would the satisfaction be if the hit was merely a product of an auto-aim-system, telling you where to aim? This is the fun of archery!

Been a long time since I played MW, and I can't really remember the part about arrows "diverting up". Firing downhill or uphill will reduce the need for superelevation, tho...

I for one would like a Markman overhaul. I never really liked it in Morrowind at all and in Oblivion once you got high enough skill it trivialized the entire game. If you paired Marksman with sneak you could kill and entire room without them noticing you even if your first hit doesn't kill them they still wouldn't notice you and you could keep shooting them for multidamage.

Then it is the same thing, if the gunner causes dispersion, the aim is no longer lined up properly, and is no longer perfect aim, and is therefore improper aim. I've always talked about aim at release, not before release.



Yes, improper trigger pull, results in dispersion, which results in improper aim. Human Dispersion = improper aim at release.



An expert would be fast enough to adjust.



Minimizing human dispersion is part of lining up the target well, at release.

Okay, then I have nothing against Dynamic lead.



It will lead to reduction in misses but only up to the point of the players skill, it will not negate player skill misses, and so will not represent the characters true skill, because the character depends on the skill of the player.



If I'm playing a master marksman, why do I need to estimate range when it's my character who is the master?



Having aim assist does not eliminate independent thought, it does not help you with who to shoot first or what strategy to use. It will not be like proposing easier riddles, first thing is that riddles are more about knowledge than intelligence. Secondly, if I was arguing for easier enemies or slower enemies based on marksmanship, it would be the same as proposing easier riddles, but I am not. It would rather be like highlighting right answers to hard riddles, or unlock dialog choices which would skip them.

1) Once again, improper aim is the inproper alignment of the sights, either in regard to each other or in regard to the target. This is the thing you are talking about.
Dispersion is caused even with perfect alignment. This is NOT affected by aiming, and is NOT visible trough the sights. It has nothing to do with the way the gunner uses the sights, and thus has nothing to do with aiming. Therefore, it cannot be improved by "better aiming", and the resulting deviation cannot be explained by "inproper aiming". This is the kind of dispersion the dispersion circles are dealing with. You have to get your head around the fundamental difference of not being able to put the reticule on target, and of not being able to release properly. Believe me, I've had this same basic discussion a million times with new soldiers during my 10 years of service (which includes service as a gunnery instructor). Usually, inproper aim doesn't cause random dispersion, it causes a consistent deviation, because gunners have a tendency to do the same aiming errors every time. This does not apply to the other errors, which cause a more random dispersion.

2) "An expert would be fast enough"? Just one post ago you were saying no one would be able to predict target movement, and that is what you're talking about here. Besides, there is no guarantee an expert would be "fast enough". Even the best marksman might be offset by a sudden target movement. Great markmanship doesn't necessarily mean god-like reflexes. If the enemy is quick enough to dodge, good for him.

3) Dynamic lead would be a nightmare. Again, it requires continuous movement all the way up to impact, or it will cause a miss. Since most targets that are aware of you do not move in a continuous fashion, dynamic lead will lead to misses in almost every case.

4) Yes, player skill will be a factor, as it should. Do you want your character to auto-block with the shield when an enemy strikes you? Do you want him to auto-strike with melee weapons, because he knows best when to strike? Do you want him to auto-solve riddles, because he has an intelligence of 90? This is the result of eliminating player skill and relying solely on character skill.

The consequence of your school of thought is that by master level, there will no longer be any fun in marksmanship. Basically, all you do is pick a target, and click the mouse. The computer takes care of the rest - no more need for thought. (Neither target selection nor strategy changes any of this - target selection doesn't require much thought, and "strategy" is too loose a term to give any meaning in this sense.) This is definitely NOT how I want the game to handle archery. Range and super-elevation estimates, and making difficult shots are what makes that skill fun.

This does not make sense to me, at all, it is logically impossible, what am I removing when I cement a gun in place, I am removing human trembles from breathing/muscle tension/ and everything else, resulting in dispersion only being effected by the characteristics of the weapon, when the trigger is pulled, there is no tremors or anything, resulting in perfect alignment with the target, true?

If I have perfect aim, and have perfect aim when the bullet leaves the gun, meaning I have perfect alignment with the target, however realistically impossible that is, the principle is the same, if I tremble or anything else, this will result in displacement of the alignment I'm trying to make, meaning my aim could be off even when I'm not knowing it, small trembles on the gun, results in larger shift of the impact area, which you say yourself, minimizing these trembles or other human elements through whatever, means your aim approach the aim of a gun cemented in place.



One cannot predict sudden changes in movement, I'm not talking about sudden changes in movement, I'm talking about a constant movement. this is really hard when I don't know what you're specifically arguing against. An expert will be faster at adjusting for the new movement, after it has changed, that is what I'm talking about when I say an expert would be faster.



It will, but you underestimate how consistent people are in their movements, the NPCs in Oblivion uses dynamic lead, and they sure as hell can hit you, and they can hit you a lot easier than a human opponent ever would, they also don't have dispersion whatsoever, so they basically act like master marksmans.



No I've already addressed why it isn't the same, auto strike and auto block aren't the same as eliminating player skill, it's the same as eliminating player control, there's a huge difference.



Strategy and deciding which target to engage first is entirely more thought provoking than adjusting shots, when I play shooters or Oblivion and adjust for a moving target I don't even think, I just do it, it's a gut feeling, an extension of where he will be, a reaction more than a thought.

1) If the weapon is securely fastened in a heavy mount, most/all dispersion is removed except for weapon dispersion. In those cases, human error can be disregarded. (Unless the mount itself is controlled)

However, we are not talking about "cementing" a bow in place, or fixing it to a mount. In real life, the majority of dispersion will be caused by dispersion the gunner is not able to identify through the sights. That is because the error generally only occurs at the time of trigger pull - AFTER aiming. It is NOT the result of improper sight alignment/aiming, trembling prior to triffer pull is NOT necessary for this to occur, and it is NOT possible to see this in your sights because the errors doesn't occur to trigger pull/release. It is NOT improper aiming, and it cannot be improved through "better" aiming. This is the reason instructors tell you to squeeze the trigger of a rifle, not pull it. It can make as little sense to you as you would like, it is still a fact which I (and anyone else who has ever used a ranged weapon) have observed through my years of practice with this. Did you think the years of practice it takes to become a good marksman consists of recognizing when the crosshair is located in the centre of the target...?

The point is that there are 2 sources of errors - first, you have to align the sights properly with eachother, and then with the target. This is the aiming part. Since TES uses a single reticule, this part is ridiculously simple, and is determined by the player skill.
The second source is the characters ability to properly maintain control of his weapon throughout the release. This will be governed by the marksman skill.

Since there are TWO sources of error in real life, and we have identified TWO sources of error in this system, there isn't any "double error" to speak of. Instead, it mirrors real life - as was the intention.

2) I'm arguing against an auto-aim system of any kind. You as a player should place the reticule at the proper place. If you're talking about a target that's moving continuously, auto-aim might mess up your aim. If auto-aim doesn't calculate lead for you, it will pull the reticule back to centre of mass, "dumping" the manual lead you need to add to hit the target. Result: Miss
If the auto-aim system calculates dynamic lead, the target will have to continue movement in the same direction and speed until the point of impact. Any change will result in a miss.

Not that this is important to me, I'm against auto-aim because I don't want the computer to hold my hand through the game.

3) The NPCs in Oblivion do use dynamic lead, you are right about that. As a result, their shots are incredibly easy to dodge. I can usually make it through an archery duel unhit due to this. Obviously, the AI will need to be completely braindead in order for this to work the other way.

4) I really can't see the difference between auto-blocking and auto-aiming. The main feature of the block skill is blocking enemy strikes. The main feature of the marksman skill is to hit targets. The "auto"-functions will accomplish both of these actions for you. You seem to think that the purpose of this was to eliminate the player skill completely from the game, I, on the other hand can't imagine why you would want to do that.

Implementing auto-aim will eliminate every need for thought that is related to the marksman skill. It reduces the practice of archery to a click of the mouse. I honestly can't imagine how you can call selecting one target over another "thought provoking" in a TES-game, and I can't see the strategic implications you're talking about. Note that both of the in-game stories posted on this thread is about succeeding with very difficult/seemingly impossible shots. Overcoming the challenges of such difficult shots and actually hitting is obviously a great source of satisfaction. With auto-aim, archery will become immensly boring incredibly fast, as there will no longer be any reasonable feeling of satisfaction when you make a difficult shots - because there will be none about to be taken. Every shot will be a simple, braindead "point-click"-affair.

wow it wall-o- text followed by wall-o-text ... o.O

didnt read everything

Obviously I believe it needs to be changed from Oblivion. it felt as though it was way to easy in Oblivion. Your SKILL (im talking about the guy with the mouse/remote here) determined if you hit or not, and the character skill mostly determined the damage. Funny enough, i think if you hit a guy 100 feet away with an arrow, damage is going to be pretty much the same if the same bow and arrow is used because it needs a minimum velocity to GET there, and id think AIMING would require the most skill, not pulling back the arrow a little, or a lot. But then I know next to nothing in actual archery so...

This is what I mean by aim at release, will you not say that the one who can minimize the difference between aim before trigger and after trigger, is the greater marksman?



Of course not, I'm saying the years of practice is about minimizing the difference between aim before release and at release.



This is not the two errors I recognize as being separate, in real life, how good you are at managing those two errors, make up your entire skill of marksmanship, in the game managing both of those errors are also governed by the characters marksmanship. They both go under the characters marksmanship, and then we have the players skill, expert marksmanship only minimizes one. the two errors you list in real life, are both something which the marksmanship should govern, at least if marksmanship ingame is supposed to be a simulation of real life marksmanship.



I understand what you're after, but how could you adjust any better than dynamic lead? I'm trying to see how Dynamic lead could possible mess up your shot worse than you yourself would have messed up.



They are easy to dodge because they don't hold there shots, the minute you see him pull the bow, you know the amount of time before he releases, I used to gather silver arrows this way. My question is how is manual aim going to not be this easy to dodge?



Aim Assist, which is a more correct name, will assist you with aiming, it's there to make sure that the circle of dispersion created by the marksmanship skill is always having it's center squarely on your the target, or with dynamic lead, on the future place of the target, provided you don't go far off the target or scroll over a new enemy. It's different from auto block, because auto block, as you envision it, doesn't assist you with blocking, it controls blocking, same as auto striking will not assist you with striking, but take over and control striking. Auto strike and Auto block would work for other rpgs that don't have First Person Perspective (FPP), but rather have top down perspective like diablo and such. FPP already demands player control over the body, we can't have true Auto Aim either, it can't take control of aim, because that would take control of your view as well, the closest thing is gonna be something like Red Dead Redemption. I've already said that it's a small flaw, really I play loads of FPS games, and not having Aim Assist is not gonna be a gamebreaking thing, but from roleplay perspective, it's still a flaw, however minor, in that it doesn't truly represent the skill of the character, which is why I've been arguing over it. Hell if they implement you system it is still gonna be great.



Because you need to think over what who to attack first, when you have a conjurer at a distance summoning minions, while you have tank raging towards you, who you attack can be important to how difficult the encounter is gonna be. Add to that different elemental resistances, or different enemy types, and you have a lot of stuff to think about.



I don't see how, only if taking the shot was the only satisfaction, and if taking the shot is the only satisfaction, then we have a worse problem. I find that it is the consequence of the hit that is satisfying, not the hit itself.

Yeah, no auto aim please. Auto aim takes away the satisfaction of actually hitting your target. What needs to be added to the game is effects when you hit a target in a different body part. Like if you shoot them in their left arm they drop their sword or something like that and massive damage if you hit someone in the head.

Yes. But if it does massive damage, then you should also see that by the enemy's reactions. Massive damage shouldn't just mean numbers
It should mean that the enemy perhaps fall to the ground, starts bleeding a lot, screams in pain, becomes dizzy, etc.

Your proposal for an auto-aim system would take hand-holding to a nursing home level. As Andrimner has already said several times, removing player skill from the archery system would effectively reduce archery to a point-and-click game. Yes, selecting a target is important, but I don't think it is nearly as engaging or challenging as aiming.

The "consequence of the hit" is just a corpse. A corpse is not satisfying because I can produce a corpse just by hitting someone several times with a sword, which is not at all challenging. I find that the "hit itself" can be very satisfying, because in some cases it can requires the archer to compensate for gravity, elevation, the speed of the arrow, and the movement of the target. All of these factors can make some shots very difficult to pull off, making them much more satisfying if they are successful; this is what makes archery fun.

1) It doesn't matter what you call it, it isn't aim. As I've said time and time again, aiming is the practice of lining up the sights with the target. The errors I'm talking about ISN'T about lining up the sights with the target, and they cannot be overcome through use of the sights. They are NOT aiming mistakes. Not being able to place the sights over the target isn't the same type of error as not being able to reduce dispersion to a minimum.

2) Actually, the game goes a very long way towards reducing aiming errors. Instead of having to line up sights with eachother, OR use the arrow as a reference, you are given a fault-free single reticule that represents the proper "bore-sight"-line. No parallax or aiming-errors to worry about there, as one would have in real life. The only "challenge" the player is left with is actually placing the single reticule (representing perfectly lined up sights) over the target, which is ridiculously simple. It is not too much to ask of the player to be able to place this reticule properly over the target.

3) Dynamic lead will mess up your aim because it will only calculate lead based on the target movement immideately before release, and then assume the target will continue that movement indefinitely. If the target starts out moving rapidly to one side (an initial rapid side-step, for instance), and then slows down, dynamic lead will cause a miss. Automatic dynamic lead will do this EVERY time, completely regardless of any patterns the target might develop - so it will ignore a pattern where the target performs a rapid side-step followed by slower movement, no matter how many times it is done. It also won't take terrain into consideration - it will happily launch arrows into walls if the target is moving towards the wall, where your manual aim would be better placed at the point before the wall, where the target will have to stop.

Manual aim is less predictable, and therefore much more difficult to dodge. That's the reason enemy archers in Oblivion tend to end up with 15-20 arrows sticking out of them, whereas you end up with none.


4) See the other posts made after yours for further comments on how auto-aim will adversely affect gameplay/enjoyment.

So you say that everything from diablo to baldur's gate to dragon age has nursing home hand holding? And that somehow this was inhibiting on your roleplaying experience.



Gross simplification of consequence of hitting, you pretty much just stated that getting a back stab attack or knock down, poison, ragdoll physics, death animations, and everything in between, is irrelevant because in the end it's just a corpse.



but:



That is you saying one of the errors is lining up the sights.



Are you saying that dispersion isn't intrusive on where you aim? Try pointing a laser at a wall, you cannot tell me that this is not intrusive on where you aim. Just because you're aiming for something doesn't mean that you're aiming at the target when you release. How can this not be part of aiming.



Which is why it is a small error, I've always said this, you make it sound like it's a simple target that stands still for you, I'm of course not talking about that when I'm talking about Aim assist, nobody missed in Oblivion when the target is not moving or moving slowly, at tops you missed once.



I still think this can be adjusted for, I mean you don't have computer controlled characters missing all the time so something has to be wrong with your assessment. The reason why you can't dodge a bullet like this is because it moves fast, if we have the arrow fly fast the more you hold it, time will be against the one trying to dodge.



But even with Aim Assist you would still have dispersion circles, which will introduce a random element.



I don't care if I have to argue against a million people, If you are roleplaying an archer with his own skill of marksmanship, having the outcome of his marksmanship be effected by an outside influence like player skill is misrepresenting his marksmanship, since the best he can be is you, and you aren't a master archer. You're supposed to roleplay him, not the other way around.

People can just say "fine, I'm okay with his marksmanship depending on me", It's a small flaw, I can live with your scenario, but if people are gonna continue trying to convince me that there is nothing wrong with this scenario in a roleplaying game, then I'm gonna say they're wrong.

1) Yes, as I have said a million times before, aiming errors consists of errors that are related either to aligning the sights against eachother, or aligning the sights against the target. The first kind of error is eliminated in TES, since you deal with a "perfect" reticule that doesn not allow for inproper alignment or parallax. The other possible error consists of improper alignment of the sights against the target. This is ridiculously simple in TES, because of the above. Eliminating this error from the game means giving up all control apart from releasing the arrow. Pointless.

The OTHER source of error is the sum of human error that cause dispersion. Your original argument was that this arrangement somehow created a "double error", where human error was represented twice. As you can see, this is clearly wrong. The paragraph above deals with improper aiming (although only the mindnumbingly easy aiming), the marksman skill is intended to deal with these kinds of errors, NOT place the reticule on the target for you. It's a game, not a video.

2) Yes, I am saying that dispersion doesn't affect your aim. Dispersion doesn't occur until release/trigger pull, while aiming takes place BEFORE this. In order to be an AIMING error, the error has to be related to AIMING the weapon. AIMING the weapon means aligning the sights with eachother and the target. If the error isn't caused by AIMING the weapon, that is - aligning the sights with the target - then it is not an AIMING error. It is NOT possible to detect the kinds of errors I am talking about by looking through the sights, because they generally don't occur before release. They CANNOT be corrected through better aiming. Your laser-example shows you are confusing sightlines and borelines. They are very different things.

3) Computer players hit targets that continue moving at the same speed and in the same direction. If the target CHANGE speed or direction, they miss. This would also apply to bullets. It even applies to tank rounds, the fastest of which are almost twice as fast as bullets(1500 m/s). This is, AFAIK, over 15 times the speed of an arrow. The idea that this can be overcome by making the arrows go faster is ludicrous - it would completely eliminate the need for lead altogether.

The only ways to eliminate this problem with auto-aim and inconsistent target movement are the following:
- Make impacts instantaneous by giving arrows the speed of light
- Guide arrows to the target after release

Any other solutions will result in the problem above.

4) Your point against manual aim wrt dispersion circles introducing a "random element" doesn't make any sense.

5) Role-playing: Here is the MAJOR flaw in your argument: If you want the outcome of the game to be dependent solely on the characters skills, not your own, you need an auto-pilot you can switch on the moment you step out of prison. Part of being a skilled swordsman is knowing when to strike and when to block - yet these actions are NOT determined by the characters skill, but by player actions (or skill, if you will). The same goes for stealth; a master of stealth would obviously be much better suited to pick out the optimum route within a dungeon to stay hidden than you, the player would be. So if you want the characters stealth skill to govern those same choices, you should also leave the choice of route to the character by putting him on auto-pilot. Remember, he can't be better than you, if you're picking out his route. So you can can the whole "misrepresenting"-argument, because it basically means reducing the player to watch TES V: The Movie without any control of the character whatsoever. The game is about COMBINING player skill with character skill, not eliminating the former.

There is a major point to be made in the fact that the game is supposed to give you an immersive impression that you are, in-fact, wielding a bow. A system that reduces bow-wielding to a target-selection-feature is a massive fail in that regard.

Nope, because you still control who you shoot at and how. Have you considered that we have a perfect reticule because inproper alignment or parallax is supposed to be represented as part of marksmanship? You told me before that marksmanship isn't just pointing at the target, are you then telling me that human dispersion is only what marksmanship is, so I can be an expert marksman but still have incredibly bad aim, only I will fail splendidly, I will miss, but in a very precise manner?



Being good at aiming is supposed to be part of marksmanship, or else it simply accuracy, so why call it marksmanship, or are you of the opinion that marksmanship is only management of human dispersion, because that's the only way I can make sense of what your saying.



So the trembles that make you shake with a laser er different from the trembles that occur when you tighten you grip, to pull the trigger? One of the them effect aim, but the other doesn't?



The faster the arrow, the less distance you have to predict, until the speed of which the target can change isn't faster than the arrow can reach the target. At some point from someone shooting at me, to me changing dodging, I can't shift direction fast enough to get my mass out of the bullets pathway.



Speed of light is pretty fast, I'm pretty sure we can go for less, but the theory is good enough, the longer you hold the arrow the more the flight time goes towards zero.



Are you saying that the arrow will not hit randomly inside the circles you are proposing?



True and false at the same time, it's false that I would need auto pilot, in rpgs you need to be able to be someone else, as well as yourself but with other attributes, having an auto pilot will not allow this, you still need to be the independent thought behind the character. Other rpgs with more character centric systems aren't auto-pilots. It is true that part of being a skilled swordsman is knowing when to strike and when to block, but because we have a First Person Perspective, these are by default in the players control, fortunately, knowing when to strike and when to block aren't as important as know how to strike, and how to block, which can perfectly be expressed through skills. Should we just drop attempting because we can't get the ideal?



Stealth is governing how silent and undetected you are, it doesn't govern where you go.



I'm thinking the game is more supposed to give you an immersive impression that your character is, in-fact, wielding a bow, you decide, he executes. You tell him to pull draw the arrow, he draws the arrow, you tell him what to aim for, he aims for it.

The whole point which the Daydark/Andrimner argument seems to be missing is that there are several different ways to play the game. What works for one will not work for the other. If you have no option besides "auto aim", then there's not a whole lot of satisfaction to be gained by specializing in archery; it's just another way to generate corpses. If there isn't any "auto aim" or "auto assist", then many players who are only using archery as a "supporting" weapon for their primarily melee or thieving character will find it too tedious to bother with, and it will end up being removed for TES VI, like Spears were in TES IV, "because nobody used them".

There either needs to be an OPTIONAL "hand-holding" mode, or some form of compromise that keeps the mechanics somewhere in the middle of the character-skill versus player-skill continuum. If it's optional, I'll probably use it with some characters, and not others, depending on their focus, and on how well Bethesda implements each of the two modes.

Bow and arrows are already hard enought to aim with gravity and no instant hit so i prefer to not have this circle [censored]

Improper alignment and parallax error ISN'T in the marksman skill in TES IV, because that skill doesn't affect accuracy in any noticable way. So no, that is not the case. And it is not the case with this suggestion either.
Your point about "bad aim" really isn't valid, as "aiming" merely consists of putting one very simple reticule over a target, obviously this should still be left to the player.




The character is good at aiming with a high markmanship skill. He will hit the point you place the reticule over with a high degree of accuracy. God-like reflexes does not factor in. A master marksman can still miss if the target moves immideately before release.




YES!!! Finally you get it. The first one occurs DURING aim, the last one doesn't exist before you pull the trigger! I've seen readouts from gunnery trainers, and the "spikes" in movement upon trigger pull are remarkably higher than the ones during aiming.

If you ever get hold of a handgun, try placing a coin horizontally on top of the front sight. Make sure the gun is unloaded, c-ock it, aim at a random target in a safe direction and pull the trigger. Watch what happens to the coin.




An arrow moves about 70 m/s. That means that at a distance of 70 metres, the arrow will need 1 full second to hit you. How far can you move during that second? You need to move about 0,5 metres in order for the arrow to miss, at normal walking speed I manage to move 2 paces (= 1 metre) in that time. If you aren't disabled, moving out of the way can be achieved in a fraction of a second. Assuming you double the speed of the arrow, the target still has half of a second to dodge it, which is plenty of time. And this is at 70 metres - at 140 metres, the flight time will be more than doubled. (And don't think of this as a concious dodging the target performs AFTER watching your release. I'm talking about random "jinxing" here)

This applies to ALL ranged weapons, even modern ones. Even tank gunners need to factor this in, and their rounds have a muzzle velocity of 1500 m/s. Increasing speed will reduce the need for lead, but it will NEVER eliminate it. And increasing the speed to ridiculous levels just to make aiming easier definitely isn't improving the marksman skill - it would ruin it.



I'm saying your point literally doesn't make any sense, in the sense that I cannot understand what you are trying to say



We should go for the compromise between player skill and character skill that is the most immersive. In my opinion, this is best achieved by leaving target aquisition, range estimation and reticule placement to the player. This will make sure that archery continues to be a challenging exercise throughout the game, while at the same time providing significant accuracy bonuses via the marksman skill.



Obviously, a master of stealth would be much better at picking out a route that would leave him undetected than a novice would. Having you, the player, pick out an inferior route would inhibit the stealth skill of the master because he'd know what route was superior.

Using your logic in that reply on the marksman skill: Marksman governs how accurate your shot is, it doesn't govern where you point your bow. Which is how it should be.



That's basically the movie-idea again.

This is a fantastic topic, I love marksman based characters in TES and I recall a very similar discussion going on when Oblivion was in development. I'm in favour of the dispersion circle idea, just like Archery on Wii Sports - a shirking dispersion circle (without crosshair) that eventually expands quickly after the bow is drawn back for more than a few seconds.

I also love the snap shot circle idea as currently careful aiming works well for the first shot but once your enemy is charging at you quicker shots are definitely needed.

To address others bringing up strength as an attribute in pulling bows, perhaps 2 bow classes are needed - a Heavy bow where strength is a factor (this would be like an English Longbow) and light or cavalry bows where agility and speed are more important (this would be like a Mongol Composite bow). One obviously does harder hitting longer range shots at a slower rate whilst the other is a short range quicker firing but lower damage bow.

If memory serves i think there was a mod in Morrowind that introduced such bow classes.

Bringing it back to the dispersion circle idea, perhaps in addition to marksman skill different bows will have a marginal effect on dispersion too eg +/- the time before the circle starts to expand or how quickly the dispersion circle shrinks etc.

Additional perks for the marksman could be the current zooming combined perhaps with some sort of bullet time? representing the ability to fire rapidly in quick succession (but with slightly lower damage),
Another perk to fire 2 or 3 arrows at once for double/triple damage would be great too (tho having it hit multiple targets sounds too complicated to implement and would stray into WoW-style archery territory which is awful to say the least)

My initial opinion on this.... I think it is a very well thought out idea, but I don't feel it fits in w/ ES. Just my initial thought...

If I read this right then it's the same way archery works in Mount & Blade. I'd love it if it worked this way in Skyrim aswell. As far as skill improving damage my preference would be for it not to. The positioning of your shots should improve the damage done. So if you get a well placed head shot it should kill or do a significant amount of damage, but if you hit them in the hand it should do less damage and cripple them(Kinda like Fallout 3/New Vegas, but maybe with more defined areas).

In Mount and Blade, when you pulled back your string, the circle would first start large, then grow smaller and more accurate. However, if you held it for too long (just a few seconds), the circle would begin to grow more and more as your arm strained against the weight of the string. This forced a marksman to be decisive and also limited their firing speed so that you couldn't launch arrows like a medieval minigun.

What about adding strength requirements to pull back certain kinds or warbows and recurve bows. :/

I mean, historical English longbows have been known to reach a draw weight of 180 pounds. It's kind of silly fo your level 1 character to be able to pull back all the bows in the world.