Point blank range and dmg

[Zaar]

Perhaps there has been such a discussion before, if so, close this and I'll try to find it.

Before I start, this isn't a nerf call, rather "what do you guys think" call.

I'm wondering regarding ranged and long weapons (like pikes and such). I've seen people getting hit, damaged and even killed (no idea how much armor, hp, etc. and that's not the point here) by (x)bow or a pike from a very close range or should I say point blank range.

Is there any formula that determines the damage of mentioned weapons when the target is really close?

I mean, if I have a bow and shoot at something half a meter away, I don't think I'll do much dmg if any at all comapred to something further away.
Same for long weapons, pikes and such. I mean I have an advantage for fighting from far away...my weakness should be when someone closes in...Imagine carrying a 2,5-3m spear and doing same damage to someone a meter away as when he's standing i.e. 5m away.

Then again, I may be missing something, so I'll gladly listen to anyone's thoughts, good or bad as long as it's explained.
Perhaps it was talked about but cant be implemented. No idea.

Fire away! (just no flames, pls  )

[donib]

Why do you think a projectile will do more damage at a greater distance?

It will only suffer from air drag and loose its initial speed, which is highest after released from the bow, and reduces in flight.

Unless you would shoot in an arc and the shooter is on an elevated position, if the velocity of the projectile in the descent>initial velocity, which could be possible, but i dont think this is the case in crpg.

Regarding the pikes and spears, it is impossible to stab someone point blank (unless you do some fancy 360 moves or something). But even when you are able to stab, the distance doesnt matter as long the velocity of the stab is constant, more corectly would be if the energy transfer is the same, but yea it does cost more energy to move an object further away, but i think these variables are a bit too much for a game like crpg and it wouldnt really matter that much.

[Penitent]

Why do you think a projectile will do more damage at a greater distance?

An arrow DOES do more damage at a bit of a distance, rather than point blank.

When an arrow immediately comes off of a bow string, it has a lot of "wobble" to it.  Once it flies 15m or so, at minimum, the flight starts to stabilize.  A stabilized flying arrow will impart more force it its target when it strikes than a wobbly flying arrow.  The distance depends on the bow being used and the material the arrow is made of, but this is the general truth.

It's true that point blank bow shots should do a bit less damage.  The damage should peak somewhere around 15-25m, and then fall off again as air friction slows down the projectile.

Source: I do archering.

I don't know about crossbow bolts.  They are shorter and probably more stiff, so point blank would be very powerful.  Throwing should be strongest at point blank.

[Rumblood]

When an arrow immediately comes off of a bow string, it has a lot of "wobble" to it.  Once it flies 15m or so, at minimum, the flight starts to stabilize.  A stabilized flying arrow will impart more force it its target when it strikes than a wobbly flying arrow.  The distance depends on the bow being used and the material the arrow is made of, but this is the general truth.

A wobbly arrow would impart the same amount of force on a naked target, and being wobbly, would do more damage as it would create a larger wound. A stabilized arrow would focus the impact on a narrower area of the arrow, giving you more penetration and a smaller wound. So on an unarmored target, that arrow is likely to go through them anyhow, giving the wobbly arrow and larger wound more damage, whereas once it has stabilized it will penetrate armor more easily and depending on the penetration may give more or less damage (depending upon whether you reach a vital organ or not).

Source: My ass.

[Penitent]

ok ok ok unarmored doesn't matter...they get fucked by ranged any way you look at it.
I think a stabilized arrow would impart more force and penetration, but you're right....it does not create what I now like to call a "wobbly wound" on a naked target. 

Either way, I think it would be cool if devs made it so arrows peak damage is 20m out.

[donib]

Hmmm how does the wobbling affect it then, the only problem would be a different angle of impact that could be different, the amount of energy the arrow has is the initial energy minus the loss in travel. But even when the arrow strikes it starts wobbling again doesn't it? Because when you push an object it is basicly like a wave motion.

[Penitent]

Well, by "wobble" i mean the arrow flexes or wiggles for a bit as it flies.  You can look up videos of arrow flight in slow motion to see what I mean.

I'm no physics expert, but I've drawn a picture to communicate my understanding of this.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

So basically imagine you have a straight piece of wood, like a long thin dowel rod, and you jab it at someone's chest with it.  Then imagine you flop it around a bit and jab again.  The 2nd jab will likely impart less force because it will be flexed when it strikes.

The arrow shot at point blank will still have energy and straighten itself after it hits, but the straight arrow has the entire shaft driving directly behind the point.

[Teeth]

In cRPG distance heavily affects damage for ranged and as far as I know closer means higher damage. Which is realistic as a missile gets its propelling energy from the bow string and then starts to lose it due to friction, apart from the aforementioned arrow wobble, can't imagine that having an enormous effect though.

As for longspears stabbing at close range, damage is just determined by speed bonus, which is somewhat low as far as I know due to not hitting at the optimum range for the weapon.

[Zaar]

In cRPG distance heavily affects damage for ranged and as far as I know closer means higher damage. Which is realistic as a missile gets its propelling energy from the bow string and then starts to lose it due to friction, apart from the aforementioned arrow wobble, can't imagine that having an enormous effect though

I can understand it losing dmg over longer distance...but I always thought of the dmg as:

none...low...lower...normal..higher....HIGH...lower...low....

Hey, I'm high, cant explain better atm 

[Rumblood]

I can understand it losing dmg over longer distance...but I always thought of the dmg as:

none...low...lower...normal..higher....HIGH...lower...low....

Hey, I'm high, cant explain better atm 

You play too many video games and not enough time studying the world you actually live in. 

Ever see anyone say:

"Shoot him!"
"I can't! He's too close and it does no damage at that range!"

[donib]

Incoming long post

Well, by "wobble" i mean the arrow flexes or wiggles for a bit as it flies.  You can look up videos of arrow flight in slow motion to see what I mean.

I'm no physics expert, but I've drawn a picture to communicate my understanding of this.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

So basically imagine you have a straight piece of wood, like a long thin dowel rod, and you jab it at someone's chest with it.  Then imagine you flop it around a bit and jab again.  The 2nd jab will likely impart less force because it will be flexed when it strikes.

The arrow shot at point blank will still have energy and straighten itself after it hits, but the straight arrow has the entire shaft driving directly behind the point.

This is very interesting actually.

I have watched this video to try understand that wobbling a bit better

]visitors can't see pics , please register or login

The thing is, does the upper arrow have more energy than the lower one? No, it has not. Because at the moment the arrow is released the energy would be 1/2* mass* (initial) velocity. However when it travels, energy is indeed lost, mainly due to air friction, also gravity affects it, and i think if the arrow starts rotating it loses energy to it but i am not sure.

Your theory is that an arrow from up close, if it is in a state as you have described, a wobbly state where the arrow is flexed would deliver less damage than a stabilized arrow on a greater range, you have used this as an evidence.

So basically imagine you have a straight piece of wood, like a long thin dowel rod, and you jab it at someone's chest with it.  Then imagine you flop it around a bit and jab again.  The 2nd jab will likely impart less force because it will be flexed when it strikes.

Yea true you would expect that the rod would resist like some sort of spring and bend even more because it is already bent, but i dont think you can make that comparison because now you have made that a property of the rod, while the arrow is actually straight.

The reason why it wobbles is following:
Imagine you are in a vacuum space, you are standing on location A and on location B there is a button. The distance betweeen the two is a lightyear, so it would take a lightbeam to travel 1 year in order to reach, and as we know, there is no such thing as faster-than-light (only relative is possible but not faster than lightspeed in vacuum). Now imagine you have a lightyear long rod between you and the button, what would happen if you press it and at the same time you would emit light towards that direction, does this mean the rod pushed the button before the light arrives at the same spot, and therefor you transmitted information faster than light?

Nope, what actually happens, is that the rod doesnt move that fast, not directly. What you do is, you push the front row of particles in the rod, and they push the next one and so on. This moves at the speed of sound in the objects material.

This is basicly what happens:

(click to show/hide)

So lets say the arrow has stabilized and hits the target, it doesnt hit it as a completely stiff object, it happens again as above, a wave motion, so it should be wobbly at impact too as it was at launch. This happens because of the impact forces on the arrow.

Note i am not trying to argue or say you are wrong, i just like talking about such stuff, i find it fascinating for some reason.

It would be actually really cool if you would do an experiment with a arrow from close range and longer range and see which one has deeper impact, note that you must maintain the same variables at all time, especially the draw force.

And i am not a physics expert myself but it is some basic knowledge i know about energy and motion laws

[_Sebastian_]

When an arrow immediately comes off of a bow string, it has a lot of "wobble" to it.  Once it flies 15m or so, at minimum, the flight starts to stabilize.  A stabilized flying arrow will impart more force it its target when it strikes than a wobbly flying arrow.  The distance depends on the bow being used and the material the arrow is made of, but this is the general truth.

It's true that point blank bow shots should do a bit less damage.  The damage should peak somewhere around 15-25m, and then fall off again as air friction slows down the projectile.

Source: I do archering.

Woot
First of all air friction allways effects the arrow and not only after 20m of flight.
At the moment you lose the bowstring and the arrow starts to move, then air friction effects the arrow.

A moving object allways has it's most kinetic energy at the highest speed.
This "wobble" (called arrow paradoxon) of the arrow wont effect the energy which comes from the velocity.
So the arrow has it's most energy(highest velocity) directly after leaving the string, because only the string accelerates the arrow.

But the wobble of the arrow increases the friction(drag coefficient) due the bigger area of the arrow, which will be affected by the air.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Yes due the "wobble" engery is lost, but it wont come back when the arrow is stabilized.
What the heck are you smoking? 
Even the penetration with the lost energy in the flex of the arrow shaft at close range is higher, than the penetration of an allmost stabilized arrow at a distance of 25 meters.

If you do archery or not has nothing to do with your knowledge about physics.
I also do archery... I even make bows, arrows, quivers etc. by myself, but because of this you wont get any knowledge about physics.

[Little Lord Lollipop]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Paul]

Apart from the fact that all of your physics teachers deserve a beating, I think one problem for a point blank arrow against metal armor could appear when it hits at the peak of the oscillation. I have no idea if that is actually the case but maybe then this arrow has a higher chance to break on impact(against plate) compared to an arrow that connects at zero crossing of that transversal swinging or after it faded.

However an arrow loses velocity rather rapidly due air friction so the rule of thumb "the closer the better" most likely applies.

[Penitent]

Well, I think this is an interesting topic for discussion as well.

I think some of you are simplifying the physics too much.  It's not simply a factor of velocity and the arrow losing energy due to air friction.  That's how a bullet or throwing a ball work, but there is more going on here.  There are internal physics of the arrow itself that contribute here.  I'm saying that the internal physics of the arrow (its "wobble" or vibrations at close or far range) will compensate for the decrease in speed due to air friction at about 20m and allow it to penetrate deeper.

I could be wrong though!  I'm going to the range next Sat, and if I'm able to I will do some tests, shooting the same target with the same arrows and draw weight at different distances.  It won't be a lab test...but now I'm curious enough to try it out.

I just realized I don't have any wooden arrows...only aluminum which doesn't flex too much.  I'll still try it out though.