Let's assume you have a game with these characteristics:
* There is combat involved.
* The game is not a survival game, or other game where resource management is of primary importance.
* Both melee and ranged weapons exist, and melee weapons don't generally have limited ammo.

In a game that meets these criteria, should the game track ammunition for ranged weapons, or should the game just give you unlimited ammo? For example, if you have a bow, should you be required to have arrows to fire it, or should the game just let you fire it as much as you want without worrying about ammo?

Edit: Why the low rating? Do people really hate game design discussions this much on a gaming forum?

I wrote up something snarky and mildly insulting, but I decided that was distasteful, so I'll keep my tongue for another time.

This entirely depends on if the gameplay loop is designed around resource management. Some games give you so much ammo that you might as well have unlimited ammo, some actually do give you unlimited ammo like Battlefield 2 for consoles back in the day where you had to wait a bit after you spent all your ammo. Others like Pillars of Eternity focus more around initiative of encounter, where ranged combat is balanced by long reload times in between shots.

Otherwise, "should games track ammo" is like asking if houses should be painted in lighter colors or made out of brick or wood. No, every house in the neighborhood should be giant above ground concrete bunkers painted a vomit green.

If that was a question simple to answer, all games would use the same system.

If the unlimited ammo cannot be abused or feel overpowered (and that also has to do with reload time, accuracy, damage and so on), then I think you would do well in keeping the focus of the game centred elsewhere. Because then you may have to have a way to provide more ammunition, for instance.

I think the limited ammunition does work well when you need to manage resources (as you mentioned) or when the ranged combat has strong tactical or strategical implications and you want to keep it limited (for balancing reasons) or costly (so that you need to sacrifice something else in order to bet more strongly on ranged combat).

This is what I can think of in this moment. Though it depends so much on the type of game. You could be thinking of a Doom clone or a Worms type game or an RPG.

This is the same dilemma when considering magic. consider in D&D (first few editions) where you have a mage with 1 spell, magic missile with the same damage of arrows, he shoots and blows his load; Better hope it was worth it as he should just leave the party now.

But rangers can shoot until their quiver is empty, which could be 20 or 50 arrows, and have multiple quivers.

Then melee could attack as long as they don't lose their weapon and stay standing.

So D&D has steadily increased the power of magic users, until now with Pathfinder and 5e where Cantrips can be cast endlessly. Pathfinder cantrips on par with 1d3 damage vs 1d6 from arrows, and 5e where cantrips are treated the same level of power as arrows EXCEPT for a couple that are levels higher but limited to certain classes.

So, should it matter? The crux of the problem. No. No it should not. Unless it's an extend survival or battle where you'd shoot in excess of say 50 then there's no need to keep track of mundane ammo. Otherwise especially arrows outside of combat said fighters/soldiers/rangers can make more arrows during their watch and always have a full set ready for the next day.

A system should probably have a balance pentagon, you can have high damage, penetrating, range, infinite ammo, or high speed. You can have two, but not all of them. This is more a balance thing and less a realistic thing.

For a start you dont fire a bow (or an arrow), you loose it. Shooting is also an acceptable term - though that directly references targeting.

...and yes!

You would always know how many arrows you have left as an archer - especially as you wouldn't be carrying them on your back in a tiny floating quiver half the length of the arrows (which in turn aren't long enough to get a full pull on the bows yield) so they spill out everywhere.

Unless you wanted to make a deeply accurate immersive simulation, then an ammo counter (or other on screen visualisation such as a visible clip) is neccesary.

depends on the game. genre and how it is balanced

I've heard that story before, and this time I decided to check it out. Wikipedia says that some people did use those back quivers—just not in medieval europe.

Playing archer games in VR, it feels oddly satisfying to reach behind my head for an arrow. At the very least, it makes for a good stretching exercise.

Its funny, but what I like about shooting arrows in VR is that it comes somewhat close to real-life arrow shooting; you can use the same side-way stance to get maximum reach, and aim with your primary eye. But while I praise the realism, I never found it odd to have unlimited arrows.

great, you sourced wikipedia - which isnt meant to be used as a source.

Yes, certain archery styles (specific bows) can be used with certain arrows (VERY short) to utilise a shoulder quiver.
However its the absolute least practical manner to nock arrows.
Shortbow from horseback? - Saddle quiver.
Longbow? - arrows in a ringpiece sunk into the ground.
Militia bow? Similar method - basically a barrel of arrows on the walls though.

I could go on.
I'm sure Firek will have his own angle regarding Japanese archery though (which is quite a different thing) should they pass and have time. If by "side-way stance" you mean standing side on to your target, then yes, thats realistic.

If by primary eye aiming you mean aiming down the shaft to the loose point (actually best done above the thumb on the primary arm side for safety, power and accuracy) then yes, also realistic.

Most of what comes into peoples minds these days (sorry you have me on one now) is over the hand arrows, a 45 degree angle bow...
all crap really - possible with a composite bow, but not good form and mostly useless.

Yeah, this is one of those things that irks me. XD

The Wii had a game like that but it's motion controls were just for drawing and aiming.

The wii sports resort archery minigame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_claHv3SzM



01:49

One difference, however, is that recovering magic is typically free or very cheap (the cost of an inn stay) but recovering ammunition can be more expensive (not to mention finding a shop that stocks the ammo you need, whereas finding an inn is usually much easier, and that's even in games that don't let you rest in the field).

If we are talking in computer games, yes typically everything is MP based.

In say D&D however a number of spells have components required. True you can ignore them with a focus (5e) or eschew materials (3e), or pay for them with a component pouch (50g for everything you need to cast minus expensive components). Depending on the cost in MP or slots, you have a very limited number of them, usually better for utility and less for damaging unless it's AOE stuff.

As for the type of ammo, NWN had ammo as 1g per 50 bolts/arrows i believe, and were found everywhere as random loot. The likely-hood of not having common ammunition is fairly low, and replenishing them would be again probably 1g vs whatever the inn stay was, which could be 1-100g a night (depending on setting, location, luxury, etc). Hehe i am remembering playing Phantasy Star 4, and I'd use a teleport spell to go to the starting town because it was very cheap to stay there.

One good example of having unlimited ammo is the new XCOM games. Pistols never needed to be reloaded, but the bigger weapons did, and you only had so many grenades. So ammo was centered around how many shots could you throw out before you needed to spend a turn reloading. The pistol was weak but always allowed a shot every round. Grenades were guaranteed damage in a large area, but a limited resource.

Arguably reloading would balance out the unlimited ammo in less simulationist games.

Reminds me of games like Metroid and Cave Story, where your basic shot is unlimited, but you're given some missiles that, while powerful, are limited. You could, however, pick up ammo drops from enemies.

(In some Metroid games, you're more likely to get health drops if you're at full ammo, so sometimes it was best not to use your limited ammo so that you would get more health drops.)

(Different genre, but the same principle applies.)

At that point, it feels like ammo is now a pointless mechanic, and the game would be better if it didn't track ammo at all.

Yes. I want to know if I fired six shots or only five (/joking). It's just a nice QoL thing. I don't think we're too far off from having electronics on weapons that tell you how much ordnance is left. I think fighter pilots already have something like an HUD.