New mechanics for ammo destruction

[d3k0]

Hi all,
playing a hunter or arcane marksman is often frustrating because of lack of arrows in early levels, until you get to Lair or to a decent Piety level for Okawaru.
I dont mean it's impossible, you have various possibilities, most obvious being:
- going into melee
- training another ranged skill
- being lucky enough to find a spellbook with a low level "zap"
On the other side, management of arrows is a good thing, that adds depth to the game.
But MICROmanagement of arrows is not fun.

So, my idea is to create a mechanism to give very low damage arrows (for example, -0,-1 arrows or -0,-2 arrows) to truly ranged backgrounds without sacrificing balance or game depth.

Two mechanics came to my mind:
1) Missiles do not get destroyed, but are "damaged" (like frayed nets), so you can pick them up and use as "damaged -0,-N arrows")
2) True ranged backgrounds get an ability to create misseles from the appropriate thing (the easiest is from dead monster skeletons). This creates a "bone arrow" with lower base damage.

I think the second is funnier, but the first is easier to implement (much easier).

The point here is to keep the game balance but remove the "not funny" part.

What do you think?

[Marbit]

Option 1) That previously existed in crawl to some degree (stones were previously enchantable) and it was removed because it created a mess in the inventory.
Option 2) It could be interesting but tedious to create arrows. Also you don't want to give some backgrounds some ability that others cannot obtain in the game.

I'd suggest two other options:
Option 3) Give the backgrounds that start with normal missiles/launchers more ammo.
Option 4) Create some vaults that appear in every game and give you some ammo.

Of all the options probably option 4 would be the easiest to implement because you won't need to convince a dev to do some work for you, you will only need to convince them that the vaults that you created will benefit the game and deserve to be included.

[Sar]

Hunters start with some kind of melee weapon (short sword, IIRC). You can take it as a hint and not waste arrows on stuff like rats. You don't even have to train melee skills for that (and of course you can pick up a better weapon later).

[Klown]

Think there should be more crosstraining options for ranged weapon skills, so if you see a bow you can jump into it more smoothly once you see your other weapon's ammo is getting low.

[1010011010]

I actually see the bone arrow method as a good means to make hunter classes more ranged weapon orientated, but I wouldn't have it as an ability by rather automatic when a character butchers with an appropriate ranged weapon in inventory.

[njvack]

What do you think?

I think the intent is that you train melee.

[Sandman25]

Another idea is to create a new brand for missiles which makes missiles immune to mulching but reduces damage to 90% and is impossible to be generated on random missiles. Hunters and Arcane Mages could start with a small number (like 5 or so), other backgrounds could use scrolls of acquirements if needed. Trog and Okawaru could grant such missiles too.

[dck]

Another idea is to train melee instead of making new missile brands that are completely useless.

[drywall]

All of the ranged weapons do good damage at low skill early on - it's not a bad idea to use your primary weapon to kill dangerous things and use other types to weaken or kill lesser monsters. Crossbows in particular are really good at low skill and slings are common on the first few floors. And of course, there's blowguns and tomahawks...

[Sandman25]

Another idea is to train melee instead of making new missile brands that are completely useless.

It looks like you are not aware that there are some rogue-likes where pure ranger is a first class character who does not need to train melee/magic/invocation/whatever to be able to win.

[dck]

It looks like you're not aware pure anything in crawl is a self-imposed, wildly crippling conduct.

[Sandman25]

It looks like you're not aware pure anything in crawl is a self-imposed, wildly crippling conduct.

That's not putting anything, that's fixing ranged combat. You can win with pure melee, pure conjurations, pure summoning, pure necromancy. Why not pure sling/bow/crossbow? I don't think I know another game which has pure archer almost impossible to win with.

[One-Eyed Jack]

Both of those options increase micromanagement

That's not putting anything, that's fixing ranged combat. You can win with pure melee, pure conjurations, pure summoning, pure necromancy. Why not pure sling/bow/crossbow? I don't think I know another game which has pure archer almost impossible to win with..

Fortuitously, crawl is not another game and is actually crawl

[Sandman25]

Both of those options increase micromanagement

Could you please elaborate on that? I don't see how having an extra brand increases micromanagement. Yes, you have one extra slot for missiles but you can free another slot by not training melee.
Or do you mean quivering?

[One-Eyed Jack]

Both of those options increase micromanagement

Could you please elaborate on that? I don't see how having an extra brand increases micromanagement. Yes, you have one extra slot for missiles but you can free another slot by not training melee.
Or do you mean quivering?

The first option increases micromanagement partly because you have to account for more inventory slots and you should frequently still carry at least one melee weapon even if you have no skill in it, but the main point is that instead of deciding, "do I shoot this or kill it in melee" you decide, "do I kill this in melee or shoot this with my +1 arrow or shoot this with my -1 arrow or..." which is generally a much less interesting decision. Also there's a weapon switch hotkey that you can use for the former case which doesn't work with the latter case

The second option obviously adds an undesirable "chop every skeleton" mechanic on top of that

[Hurkyl]

It looks like you're not aware pure anything in crawl is a self-imposed, wildly crippling conduct.

... but with the distinct advantage of lessening micromanagement. It's annoying to switch weapons every other enemy. It's much more annoying when you would want to juggle three weapons.

[Amnesiac]

I remember not training anything but bows on a CeHu until 27 skill level. It was quite ok.

[reaver]

This has already been given an extremely through discussion here, and I don't think it's any more likely to be accepted this time. I don't see much problem with ranged as it is - past the first couple levels you can use your bow for anything. I don't think the ammo mechanics are ideal, but this isn't a big issue and I don't see a simple solution.

[and into]

You can win "pure" almost anything, for a *reasonable* definition of pure (whether it is a good idea is of course another story).

If by "pure ranger" you mean, literally, "never hits an enemy with anything except a bolt, arrow, or stone/sling bullet fired from launcher," then yes that would often be a very difficult (self-imposed!) conduct even with Trog or Okie giving you ammo.

"But you can win 'pure' summoner"!

Again, what do you mean by "pure"? Unless you are doing challenge conditions (again completely self-imposed), you need to train dodging, possibly armor, fighting, etc. You'll probably use evocables, whether you train the skill or not. For a very strict definition of "pure," every character to *ever* win the game is a hybrid, and even starts as a hybrid, seeing as spell casters begin with a bit of stealth and dodging. (Which newer players can take as a clue, "Oh, these skills are useful even if I'm not the stereotypical RPG assassin/rogue(TM) build.")

It is completely easy to grab a decent weapon on D1 to D3 and get a few skill levels in it so that hobgobs, orcs, etc. can be meleed. The amount you need to train that weapon for it to be viable for this particular use is far less than the skill investment that you will inevitably put into fighting (even though it doesn't help ranged combat!) for HP, dodging, armor, possibly evocables, any magic you want, etc. So using melee is not "diluting" your "pure" ranger any more than those other things.

If you want to play without training a melee skill at all that's your call, it usually makes the game harder for *any* background-species combo, but it is doable for at least some. It need not be viable for all, because, needless to say (I hope), core game mechanics should not be altered in order to accommodate bizarre challenge conditions that people want to impose upon themselves.

[d3k0]

Some of you got my point, and some did not.
The point is not about the power, the ease, being tedious or not.
The point is about fun, or pleasure in playing ranged characters.
It's just not funny to use another weapon (melee, btw) to kill bats - adders - kobolds - and so on.
And it's not funny developing bows until level 10 and not finding any arrow.
Two days ago I went from dungeon level 5 to 7 without an arrow (using wands and daggers), because I did not find ANY arrow.
It was pretty epic. Then I died slayed by a ooze.
This is what I mean.
You could "create arrows from bones" like you "chop", it gives you 1d(HD of the dead monster) "bone arrows" with base damage 2 (or 1).
Bone arrows have the usual probability of being destroyed, at the moment 12.5% i think (1 every 8 arrows).
I think that this does not break balance, does not makes things easier... it's jsut more "ranged way" than going melee.

For those who say "use a sling", try to hit things with a ranged weapon for which your skill is zero... I tried, and it's frustrating.
I had a bit more success with spears that do a decent damage.

If bows crosstrained with (put here any other ranged weapon) it would be easier, but I dont think it's the right way to go.
Shooting a crossbow is quite different than shooting a bow.

And using vaults to give "many arrows" it's not right. That DOES break current game balance, and I dont want that.

The key here is that I respect completely the sentence from the linked thread:

Some players expect that a **Hu should be able to kill everything with the bow which was never intended.

but i think that it would be funnier to be able to kill every bat with my bow without worrying about ammo.

[Abominae]

No one is arguing that playing a **Be that only ever trains axes is how things work. Nor is anyone arguing that **Cj should never train anything that isn't conjurations. What is being argued is that unlike a lot of backgrounds, Hunter is practically forced to find a secondary means of dealing damage because your primary source of damage is finite. This is unlike melee, conjurations, or summons in this regard. With those characters, your primary means of dealing damage is infinite, and using a secondary means of offense is a relative exception and usually draws from a finite pool of resources (piety, consumables, wands). Ranged characters are the inverse; you use a secondary, infinite means of dealing damage to handle insignificant problems, and you use your primary, finite means of dealing damage to handle significant threats.

If this is the intended design, that's fine. I personally find this dynamic really annoying, and I've never completed a ranged character because of this. I don't like to have to prepare in any way, shape, or form for monsters that pose zero threat to my character; I don't find this kind of play fun at all.

[and into]

Serious proposal:

Problem: Although ammo management has been drastically improved in the latest few versions, there can still be some minor annoyances. Retrieving ammo can be finicky, especially when things get stuck behind plants. When you fire all the ammo of one type and switch to another, it will auto-switch back when you retrieve the ammo. None of these are major problems, but they can make ranged combat a bit annoying to use. I find myself hitting "autoexplore" then trying to time hitting another button to cancel autoexplore right after it has finished picking up ammo. This is tedious and silly even though it is often optimal, because hunting down all your ammo can be difficult in certain cases, and on the other hand just letting autoexplore go without canceling it after ammo retrieval can land you into trouble, especially on wide-open levels. (This little trick also requires that you have your autoexplore actions displayed, at fast speed, rather than just setting you init file so that the game skips ahead.)

Solution:

Large rocks, stones, darts, needles, and steel ammo [EDIT: and javelins!] can probably stay as they are.

Arrows and non-steel sling bullets and bolts (including "of fire," "of penetration," etc.) *always* mulch upon use. Whenever the RNG generates these ammo types, multiply number to appear by 8. (So they don't spawn more often, but when they do spawn, 8 times more appear, on average. Including on centaurs and yaktaurs and the like.) Reduce weight of ammo by at least 7/8, if not a bit more. Note that Current mulch rate is 1 in 8, if I'm not mistaken, so this will all mean exactly the same amount on average.

Because mulch is guaranteed, no more tedious management at all, no more retrieval, you know *exactly* how many shots of each type of ammo you have, and every shot is meaningful (and you'll know in advance exactly *how* meaningful).Puts a bit of pressure to kill centaurs etc. quickly, if you want their ammo, but that's probably not a big deal because honestly you don't want ranged guys taking pot shots at you any more than necessary, as it stands, for obvious reasons. And if the amount of ammo that enemies carry actually starts to matter (even if a little bit) that's better than now, when it really doesn't matter at all.

This does also mean that jellies are less annoying for players using bows and xbows. I think this is minor enough that the gameplay and interface improvements more than compensate. [EDIT: You could also have the Jelly eat the bolt or sling bullet or arrow automatically, even though it would normally mulch. It does its usual amount of damage, but then the jelly absorbs the piece of ammo and gets some life back. This would keep jellies at same difficulty level for ranged combat folks as they are now. Not a major concern either way, though. ]

The only potential problem I see with this is that arrows are also used for Sticks to Snakes, so that (already very powerful) spell will be buffed somewhat. Transmuters should still start with their normal (12, I think?) number of arrows, and I don't think much will change. It is exceedingly rare that I have a problem on Transmuters not having enough arrows, even as early as D6 or D7, so while technically a buff I don't think it will change game play *that* much. (And I play transmuters a lot, one of my favorite backgrounds.) As mentioned earlier, stones won't be changed, so earth elementalists will *not* get unneeded buff with stoneblast. (Some EEs I've run do sometimes run out of stones before stone arrow becomes fully reliable, this is a liability of an otherwise extremely strong background in early game, that should be retained, in my opinion.)


EDIT: Oh yeah, also, mulch rate is a bit spoilery (unless that has been added to ammo descriptions and I just missed it) so removing that is a good thing too. Even if it has been added to ammo descriptions, new players might not think to check and might therefore under- or overestimate the number of shots they have. Having it always mulch addresses this problem as well.

[and into]

What you guys seem to miss is that having ammo *potentially* be a liability is part of what 1.) balances ranged combat and 2.) makes it distinct from melee. So yes giving essentially limitless ammo would in and of itself break game balance. Currently you sometimes have meaningful choices: "Do I shoot this enemy that is relatively weak but not entirely a pushover with my arrow?" If you suddenly had a limitless supply of weaker "bone arrows" you *no longer have any* meaningful decisions about ammo, ever. Maybe the manner in which those meaningful decisions play out is kind of frustrating or needlessly tedious, fine, but simply eliminating them serves no purpose but to make ranged combat less distinctive, more brainless, and more powerful than it already is. (And it is extremely powerful already.)

My proposal would address some of the tedium involved in the mechanics of ranged combat, while *actually* retaining game balance, and everything that is distinctive about ranged combat. It would also make large rocks, stones, and javelins "feel" a bit different from arrows and the like, which would always mulch, and that is probably a good thing too IMO.

Sometimes you have to switch weapons tactically in this game, on the fly. Sorry if you find that a bit annoying, but the game already has ways to make that very easy, by hitting ', and also by assigning other letters to your weapons. (I often have primary a, secondary b, then a tertiary set to w, and another, if necessary, set to e, so I can quickly change by hitting ww or we, once I started doing this it became intuitive very quickly and weapon switching doesn't bother me, but YMMV.) If you find weapon switching tedious propose a better interface for it. You are probably not going to get a lot of support for making it so that you never need to switch weapons tactically, because that would make the game more one-dimensional, which is a bad thing.

[d3k0]

I get what you mean, and it actually makes sense.
+1 for the proposal of the "always munch" that is easier to understand and more intuitive
Rethinking my own proposal, having (potentially) infinite "low level" ammo actually breaks balance because of kiting (I didnt think about it with my first post).
You can slow enemies (or fast yourself) and killing any enemy with potentially infinite ammo.
By the way, many monsters are already slower than you, so kiting with infinite "bone arrows" would be a trivial trick.

[Siegurt]

Just my two bits:

First bit:
I like and into's proposal better than "skeleton chopping"
I'm not sure this would work for upgrading from prior versions, however that's a minor concern.
Also if S2S was determined to be overpowered we could make it take 8x the number of arrows for the same number of snakes.
Also I think it probably should be applied to darts/javelins/tomahawks/largerocks/stones potentially with a different multiplier (And sandblast should be modified to suck down an appropriately multiplied number of stones/largerocks)

Second bit:
When I play a Bow-using Hu, I just whack nonthreatening stuff with whatever's handy (or unarmed) I don't train for it and it works just fine, a shortsword, dagger, club, whip, hand axe, or even Centaur's unarmed are plenty to kill rats, bats, goblins etc. By the time "nonthreatening" is outside of the range of "easy to kill with an unskilled melee weapon" I typically have plenty of arrows, even without Oka or Trog. Bolts do take longer and I typically train up some melee for Crossbow users. Slings can be done from the get-go without any melee at all, you just have to use stones instead of bullets for the wimpy stuff, once in a while as a sling user I've needed to melee things because I was low on stones and hadn't gotten stacks of bullets yet, but it's not common.

[Abominae]

Okay, this thread is getting weird.
It has been established that you can use your launcher on every relevant threat your character encounters, and the chance of running out of ammo is close to nil.
In order to make sure you don't run out of ammo, you switch to a weapon much weaker than your primary weapon solely to conserve a finite resource. The monsters your character faces without their ranged weapon has virtually no chance of killing your character. There is no meaningful decision here; if you think a monster could mess you up, you pop a cap in that ass. If you know a monster can't touch you, you conserve your ammo by swatting at it with something.
So, what is the difference between being able to just kill them all with arrows?
There is no rise in power for ranged combat; you are already using your launcher against any monster that poses a threat to your survival.
The new monsters you are now killing with your launcher didn't have the capability of killing your character regardless.
Melee already plays radically different from a ranged character regardless of ammo being finite; there is quite a big difference between being able to attack in full LoS and having to be adjacent to a monster. Managing ammo does differentiate the two more, but at the cost of being tedious, annoying, and arguably detracting from gameplay.
I would love an answer as to how infinite ammo would "break the balance" of the game when what it really changes is the fact that I can kill rats with arrows instead of some melee weapon.

So, what is the argument that ammo should be finite? I'd settle for "because I said so."

[Klown]

Quickfix
+crosstraining for each ranged weapon skill
+increased ammo spawns

[njvack]

So, what is the argument that ammo should be finite? I'd settle for "because I said so."

It would change balance quite a lot in the early game, which is where it matters most. Right now, chars with bows (or good lord, crossbows) have a great high-damage answer to that early adder or ant. (Plus, y'know, any normal speed dudes you don't want to walk away from for some reason.) Infinite ammo means you don't need to think about "is this a big enough threat to spend my limited arrows on?" before you start meeting centaurs.

Even a new, low-damage brand would mean you can soften up ogres and gnolls and such, or slow and kite them. That would be bad.

Ammo management as implemented is a good early-game balance mechanic, which becomes less meaningful once many monsters have powerful ranged attacks themselves. This is good.

FWIW, I'm all for and into's guaranteed mulch proposal. Ammo mulch chance is, I think, a leftover of ammo enchantment and probably isn't meaningful anymore.

[Daggtex]

What would be the problem in going the opposite way, eliminating mulching and instead reducing ammo spawns? Ammo found is thus never lost, however you will have to be ready to retrieve what you use (maybe even have some of it stick in monsters if it's sharp). Retrieval is an intuitive necessity of ranged that adds realism and helps differentiate from ranged magic. If the balance can be refined and not mess with the intuitive realism, I think that would be better.

Edit: Also, to keep similar decision-making in the early game (to keep the early game from suddenly becoming stupidly easy), the character should start with less arrows. Maybe even only 1 to 3. Imagine an early player with 1 arrow having to decide to shoot it and risk being without ammo while they go on retrieval, or keep it with them for the next baddie that comes around the corner. This would also make mid-battle arrow retrieval become much more prominent a decision when enemies won't go down in the few shots you have. (Do I run and get my arrows, which are more powerful to me as a ranger, or do I switch melee and not spend time exposed)

[Hurkyl]

Ammo management as implemented is a good early-game balance mechanic, which becomes less meaningful once many monsters have powerful ranged attacks themselves. This is good.

This suggests two possible fixes:

• Make the mulch chance depend on your weapon skill.
• Add a "preservation" brand to ammo that eliminates mulching and becomes relatively common once you get deeper into the dungeon. Or tweak the existing brands to eliminate mulching (or make steel more common, possibly eliminating its mulch chance).

[and into]

• Make the mulch chance depend on your weapon skill.
• Add a "preservation" brand to ammo that eliminates mulching and becomes relatively common once you get deeper into the dungeon. Or tweak the existing brands to eliminate mulching (or make steel more common, possibly eliminating its mulch chance).

Both of these proposals mean you mulch less once you are pretty deep into the game. However, once you are deeper into the dungeon, running out of ammo is not a concern anyway, except some times for sling bullets. (Which is why you use stones for weak stuff, and stones are most ubiquitous of all anyway so not a problem, this helps differentiate slings because they have a near-limitless source of a weak ammunition and more limited number of stronger ammunition.)

So preservation or skill reducing the mulch rate address this problem precisely at the point when it stops being a problem naturally thanks to yaktaurs and centaurs out the wazoo.

And even then these suggestions don't address the real *problem*, anyway: namely the minor but unnecessary tedium (however minor, it is still unnecessary and tedious) sometimes involved in ranged combat. Rather they address the non-issue of running out of ammo. (To clarify: non-issue from a *design* standpoint. Ranged combat is very very strong and having the potential to run out of ammo be a liability differentiates it from other things and also balances, this is completely reasonable, even if, sure, the power-gamer in all of us wants unlimited ammo hacks and steel ammo strewn copiously about the dungeon floor.)

What would be the problem in going the opposite way, eliminating mulching and instead reducing ammo spawns?

How would this square with ranged enemies you fight? You get effectively infinite ammo when you kill your first centaur? Or even with the RNG: A few arrows happen to spawn early on and you have, in effect, unlimited ammo. More importantly, how would it improve game play if you only have three shots at that adder or ant or early gnoll pack that corners you? You don't get more interesting decisions this way. Assuming you have no means of escape, you just shoot all three arrows. Then your character dies because you only brought your 3 indestructible arrows rather than 40 destructable ones that break one in eight times they are used. Aside from being a huge ridiculous nerf to hunters in early game (which matters most for background-choosing purposes), this proposal actually removes interesting tactical decisions, because indestructible ammo means there is no pressure to conserve, you just use whatever you have (however small in number) and hope for the best.

Ranged combat is already very different from magic, it isn't the retrieval aspect that meaningfully differentiates it currently, retrieval just makes ranged combat more finicky and annoying than it needs to be.

Appealing to realism is a bad argument, but it especially doesn't make sense here: Hunters carrying 2 or 3 indestructable arrows makes significantly less sense than carrying a reasonable number of arrows that are unusable after X number of shots, which is usually the case with arrows actually used for hunt rather than sport (particularly, I imagine, if you shot them full strength into plate mail and the like). Always mulch is a lot more realistic than 1/8 chance mulch, even, to be honest. More important than any of this, though, I think my proposal would mean better game play, which trumps realism.

As njvack said, the 1/8 mulching rate is a carry-over from the days of ammo enchantment and probably doesn't make much sense to keep. Let's just fully rationalize the way ammo is managed, taking one or two more steps down the road already laid out, rather than introduce crazy zigs and zags all of the sudden that don't actually address the lingering problems with ranged combat.

[Hurkyl]

• Make the mulch chance depend on your weapon skill.
• Add a "preservation" brand to ammo that eliminates mulching and becomes relatively common once you get deeper into the dungeon. Or tweak the existing brands to eliminate mulching (or make steel more common, possibly eliminating its mulch chance).

Both of these proposals mean you mulch less once you are pretty deep into the game.

That was by design, as that was what some people were asking for. (although I had imagined it coming somewhere before "pretty deep" that was still sometime after "early game")

[rebthor]

@and_into, I can see one more potential problem by increased ammo spawns - (x)bow scores will probably shoot up much higher. I know that several of my wins "lost" a lot of turns to ammo collection. That would essentially go away for all but sling users.

[johlstei]

Melee dudes don't exactly have infinite "ammo" either. You think it is bad running out of arrows, try standing next to dudes trying to hit them with a sword and running out of health!

[and into]

Melee dudes don't exactly have infinite "ammo" either. You think it is bad running out of arrows, try standing next to dudes trying to hit them with a sword and running out of health!

Health is a poor analogy to ammo, because both ranged and melee guys need to keep their health up, and there are many ranged threats in Crawl. Indeed there are many enemies for which ranged fighters will want to close in to melee range, even if they keep firing their bow into the enemy point blank. So both melee and ranged fighters need to keep health up, ranged fighters in addition need to worry about ammo, but primarily that is only a problem in early game (xbows have a bit more trouble, until a bit later in the game though). But most ranged fighters need (some) degree of melee or some other form of damage, due to ammo concerns, which is an important balancing mechanism, because being able to stay at range when you want to is a very big benefit. For the same reason, melee dudes generally get at least some form of reliable ranged option online, at some point.

@and_into, I can see one more potential problem by increased ammo spawns - (x)bow scores will probably shoot up much higher. I know that several of my wins "lost" a lot of turns to ammo collection. That would essentially go away for all but sling users.

Well, stones can be made to operate the same way as the other ammo types in my proposal, as Siegurt recommended.

I don't see how this is a problem at all, though. Removing victory dancing lowered average turn-count for everyone, I'm sure, but it did not do so evenly. Certain builds (berserkers in particular) could largely if not entirely avoid victory dancing already, magic-users in particular could not. Taking out sickness and nausea is much the same. I don't think kobolds are "nerfed" in any meaningful sense by virtue of the fact that all other species don't have to deal with nausea (or before that, sickness). Lower turn-count is a fairly remote advantage of kobold's innate gourmand, at least from a design perspective. Keeping fidelity of turn-count comparison from one version to another in general has not been considered a design concern, and thank god for that, because it would have prevented a great deal of improvements to the game that have been implemented recently.

[dpeg]

I think we already conducted this discussion at least once

d3k0: It's alright if you find it unfun to play your hunters the way you currently have to. However, I don't think you can expect a change on that -- for most people (including all developers, as far as I know), ranged combat is basically alright.

Any game that has both bows and damage spells has to think about to make these two types of ranged attacks different. Here is how Crawl does it (in my opinion -- other opinions might differ and be more to the point than mine): (a) spellcasters need to manage MP, spell slots and quite a few skills, whereas bow users need to manage ammunition and a single skill; (b) spellcasters have access to a large toolbox (many other spells), whereas bow users can only upgrade their bow type, enchant bows, and use different brands of ammunition. Note that bows are very strong already -- we are certainly happy if bow use comes with a few decisions (the ammunition minigame is one, even if mostly early on).

From another point of view: I think it'd be discomforting design-wise if a bow user was guaranteed to get by with the arrows she starts with, finds (and makes, given some of the proposals in this thread). Note how a berserker has to manage piety and the use of berserk is non-trivial; note how a spellcaster has to manage spells and MP. Using bows has little overhead (a few item slots and a single skill give you access to full range damage).

Finally, the comparison argument "pure melee is possible" is not entirely fair: First, as a challenge "pure bow use" is probably possible (it should definitely not be more than a challenge, just like "pure pacifist" or "pure Venom Mage" are). Second, melee combat is about positioning and taking damage -- features we find interesting. Ranged damage is less interesting because you can potentially plink away at monsters before they do stuff. Here, "less interesting" is a subjective notion, but someone has to make the decisions, right? Compare the stance on summoning, which is considered even less interesting when kills happen offscreen.

[dpeg]

and_into: Your auto-mulch proposal sounds interesting! I think the only thing to be done for S2S is to make the spell only accept mundane arrows.

[DracheReborn]

I find myself hitting "autoexplore" then trying to time hitting another button to cancel autoexplore right after it has finished picking up ammo.

There's a proposal for an auto-loot command that pokes through all items on the ground without moving into unexplored territory: viewtopic.php?p=121600#p121600

Since this seems to be basically an interface issue, I tend to agree that it should be addressed by an interface fix.

Regarding always-mulch ammo. This seems to make bows/xbows a bit more like wands. Well, enchantable, brandable wands anyway. Not sure whether that's a good thing or not.

[1010011010]

100% mulch rate makes range weapons a bit shoot and forget, you lose the fact that your shooting a valuable resource which should be collected after

This seems to make bows/xbows a bit more like wands.

pretty much this.

also currently, early game, if you have 20 arrows, that's 20 arrows for a fight even if it is like 160 shots. If you bite more than you can chew then there is a clear consequence.
If I had 160 arrows, then it wouldn't matter what or where I shoot since I lose the arrow as soon as I've shot it.

[dpeg]

bitcode: That's a good argument! I think the old idea for a pickup-ammo command would do a better job then.

[and into]

100% mulch rate makes range weapons a bit shoot and forget, you lose the fact that your shooting a valuable resource which should be collected after

This seems to make bows/xbows a bit more like wands.

pretty much this.

also currently, early game, if you have 20 arrows, that's 20 arrows for a fight even if it is like 160 shots. If you bite more than you can chew then there is a clear consequence.
If I had 160 arrows, then it wouldn't matter what or where I shoot since I lose the arrow as soon as I've shot it.

The number of starting ammo could be tweaked, I'm sure, in order to have a reasonable opening for always-mulch ammo. But the point about ranged weapons becoming "shoot and forget," perhaps making them too similar to wands and the like, is a very good point and well taken.

I've played a good deal of ranged characters—not hundreds, but quite a few—and in my own experience with them, arrow retrieval is not what made combat with them feel that much different. Quivering as a zero-aut action so I can match up ammo brands versus situation, having ranged attacks with less-than-one-turn time cost, and occasional ammo considerations during combat were much more meaningful in terms of differentiating ranged combat. However, if lots of players feel differently, and retrieving arrows after combat is something that they feel meaningfully makes ranged combat different from other options for them, then it should be kept and my proposal should be rejected. In that case, the auto-retrieve interface option that was mentioned would be the best fix.

[One-Eyed Jack]

100% mulch rate makes range weapons a bit shoot and forget, you lose the fact that your shooting a valuable resource which should be collected after

This is just a silly. Whatever the optimal situation about mulching is, the actual act of picking up ammo after a fight is over is tedious and pointless and should either be automated as much as is possible or not happen. Yes, it makes ranged weapons "fire and forget" but that's good because nothing you do with a missile between when you fire it and when you fire it again is interesting.

The second point is technically sound, but how often do hunters currently run out of ammo in a fight? The minor loss of tactical depth in a few fringe cases to me sounds like it's worth removing the tedium of ammo collection and removing an unavoidable chance-based mechanic.

[DracheReborn]

and into:

I think your always-mulch proposal has merits beyond removing the need for ammo retrieval. All those reasons you mentioned in your initial post seem good to me. But if it does happen, I think it should be a carefully rebalanced change and not simply multiply ammo numbers by 8. I'd suggest, for example, that hunters start with a mix of normal (always-mulch) ammo and steel (never or rarely-mulch) ammo. Spawn rates of both normal and steel ammo to be adjusted as well, of course.

Btw, the continued existence of steel ammo (and large rocks and javelins) in your proposal implies that some kind of auto-ammo-pickup interface fix is needed anyway.

[galehar]

the actual act of picking up ammo after a fight is over is tedious and pointless and should either be automated as much as is possible

Yes, autopickup would be a great addition, wouldn't it?

Another relevant thing with ammo retrieval, is that you can't do it if you flee. This is sometimes relevant. Should I engage? Maybe I'll have to flee and won't be able to pick my ammo for some time. Maybe I'll give it a try but not with my precious branded ammunition.

Ammo is what makes ranged combat different. If you don't like it, just play a conjurer instead of asking to turn it to conjuration with infinite MP. Autoloot would be help with the times when you want to pick up your ammo and not start exploring right after.

[johlstei]

For what it's worth I've had a case where I needed to make the hard decision to run away from an ice cave where my 75% of my ammo was on the ground, and obviously couldn't return to pick it up. It was my own mistakes that got me to that point of course, but always-mulch ammo would have spared me the loss at least(assuming more ammo dropped overall as stated). I think the decision for me to keep fighting despite the risk of losing my ammo for good if I had to bail was an interesting one, and one I made incorrectly. This is admittedly something that I think happens a small number of games, but it sure hit me hard that time.

Unrealistic option: level 1/2 spell that requires having no monsters in view for a few turns to finish casting, which vacuums up all ammo that you've marked as autopickup from the floor in a large area.

Also if anyone had told me that day that I'd, at some point in the future, use the experience to defend ammo mulching, I'd have laughed in their face. With a more level head I see now that it was probably a kind of cool thing even if it sucked hitting '<'.

[and into]

For what it's worth I've had a case where I needed to make the hard decision to run away from an ice cave where my 75% of my ammo was on the ground, and obviously couldn't return to pick it up. It was my own mistakes that got me to that point of course, but always-mulch ammo would have spared me the loss at least(assuming more ammo dropped overall as stated). I think the decision for me to keep fighting despite the risk of losing my ammo for good if I had to bail was an interesting one, and one I made incorrectly. This is admittedly something that I think happens a small number of games, but it sure hit me hard that time.

Unrealistic option: level 1/2 spell that requires having no monsters in view for a few turns to finish casting, which vacuums up all ammo that you've marked as autopickup from the floor in a large area.

I have had a few instances in my games in which when and how to retrieve ammo was a bit of a concern, but nothing like this. My earlier proposal notwithstanding, I actually think an interface improvement is a better fix. If ammo retrieval is not often meaningful, things should be introduced to the game that make it more (tactically) meaningful, because the potential apparently is there (even if I had missed it). However, the auto-retrieve interface improvement, for those situations in which retrieval is not tactically meaningful, would then really be necessary.

EDIT: But it should be an interface adjustment, not a spell.

[tasonir]

I understand it's possible to use melee and conserve ammo early on, but it still strikes me as somewhat of a harsh limit to only give hunters 20 arrows/bolts/etc. You're basically forced into a weak fighter role until you get lucky with RNG, or if you're using bows, find a few centaur.

Adding another 20, or another 30, etc, will mean almost nothing over the course of a game, but make getting to lair using your ranged weapon somewhat more practical.

Hunters with unusual ammo tend to fair a bit better; 5 large rocks last a really time, but if you wanted to bump that up too, that'd be fine. Might hit weight limits though! This could also be applied to arcane marksmen, or limited to pure hunters.

[dck]

What happens with hunters is you give them a ranged weapon from D: 1 and then even a side weapon so they don't have the chance of getting their first random mace cursed and they get all uppity and tell you that they need more ammo so they can tab everything without hitting ' and still have ammo left to use their hugely overpowered ranged weapons against early game's actual threats.

[Klown]

Or change it to where you have infinite ammo, but have to wait and reload after emptying a quiver of arrows(9 arrows per quiver or so).

[WalkerBoh]

Or just remove ammo altogether and you can press 'f' to fire arrows which instantly mulch upon being used.