You hate bowquest because it makes it harder for you to run around golem wanding dragons and tanks. The stuff about balance is just lip service, which is why you supported the golem wand and reaper changes even though they similarly disable casters.

In any case, this is classicquest not balancequest and you've yet to supply any evidence that bowquest isn't classic.

Drowning dragons is obviously non-classic btw.

Tune your best geared character is relegated to King Tormax protection and doesnt leave Kael ever unless it’s to cast SoW. Drybone might as well not even exist. The majority of what you play doesn’t benefit from bow quest so naturally you’re raising a fuss about it.

Allowing a lot of newer players to have strong viable pvp characters, devalues your easy tov gains. I get it.

lol bow go brrrrrrrr

This was taken from the jan 17th 2001 patch notes

The ranger's "Trueshot" discipline has had its damage increased after
analyzing data from its fix last week. Prior to the last patch, all bows, while under the discipline, were hitting as if they were 45dmg bows regardless of the delay. Last week's patch fixed it so that damage was based on the damage of the bow. This weeks patch increases damage bonuses in relation to delay (longer delays yield better damage bonuses).

clearly the damage bonus on the BOW was based off the delay of the BOW here not the main hand

there is 0 evidence that people were using weighted axes to assist with bow damage

the low iq's fighting over a 30 pop box, you guys are fucking sad in SO many ways, lets lol together today.

The issue is that when equally geared people of the same class want to have a fun, lasting fight - it comes down to a mindless random bow shot.

That is the problem. And the context you're missing. Tune may not be elegant but he just proved what I have been saying - 2H Damage Bonus did NOT apply to the bow. Even on a Ranger.

Sorry Baugi but it's not right and you know it. Let's make it how it should/was.

Thanks Nilbog and company when you have time,
Guava

Nah, you're reading your own bias into the patch note. Your assumption is that since the damage interval is based on the damage of the bow, the damage bonus should also be based on its delay. The patch note doesn't say that.

The patch just says that damage bonuses were increased relative to delay, which is also true on P99, where the damage interval is based on the damage of the bow, but the damage bonus is based on the delay of the mainhand.

I agree that it seems buggy, but I also don't know why it was coded that way in the first place (could be based on an in-era parse or a EQmac dump, ect.) and there's still no compelling evidence in this thread that it should be different.

[QUOTE=Tune;3370669]This was taken from the jan 17th 2001 patch notes

The ranger's "Trueshot" discipline has had its damage increased after
analyzing data from its fix last week. Prior to the last patch, all bows, while under the discipline, were hitting as if they were 45dmg bows regardless of the delay. Last week's patch fixed it so that damage was based on the damage of the bow. This weeks patch increases damage bonuses in relation to delay (longer delays yield better damage bonuses).QUOTE]

The damage bonus on the bow was based off the delay of the bow.

It's right there. You are being purposefully obtuse Baugi. I have no bias.

You know as well as I do it's unbalanced, too. I will leave it at that.

Pedantic maybe, but reading critically, it just doesn't say what you want it to say.

"This weeks patch increases damage bonuses in relation to delay (longer delays yield better damage bonuses)." - doesn't say where the damage bonus comes from, just that it was increased and that it applies to overall bow damage (under trueshot). If you assume that the damage bonus is calculated based on mainhand delay as it is on P99, the whole note still reads correctly.

Reading between the lines on a historic document is dangerous. You have to be careful what assumptions you come into it with.