Game Mechanics: Archery bonus Incorrectly Using Mainhand Primary

[Awsten_Tx]

Believe tranquils were banned from ToT...

[Tomacco]

It does not seem to apply to throwing. It’s been tested with shurikens and throwing boulders on red.

[Jimjam]

From what I’ve tested by quizzing other players for what they see… Equipping the bow doesn’t even display it to other players.

[nilbog]

I’m currently looking into this to identify possible causes.

Are there any in-era logs, forum posts, screenshots, or other references showing players using a known bow that I could use as a baseline for damage comparison in testing?

[nilbog]

I found the source of the issue. Before implementing a fix, I need to better understand what the expected bow damage should be.

For example, if you remove your melee weapons (placing them in inventory) and then fire a ranged weapon, does the resulting damage look correct?

Additionally, I'd like to understand what ranger damage should look like normally, and with their discipline.

[Tomacco]

There isn't a lot of in-era data about bow damage, I think likely because bows weren't very useful (better for rangers, but not great) until Luclin bow buffs.

Here is a post that talks about 70-80 damage with a bow of the huntsman, and crits for 140 - https://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/...97715029532147

Not a lot of context but seems to be a Ranger vs stationary mobs ("really could only do it against the giants...") Currently on p99 a ranger with an earthshaker can hit significantly harder than that, a warrior with a weighted axe has a *minimum* hit of over 100 damage.

It sounds like you agree that this is a bug, but I would consider this further evidence "20/30 with proc spirit strike. Which is STILL Better than Windsaber" (same post) - Windsaber is a superior bow on P99 because of this bug.

The patch notes referenced earlier in this thread imply that bows have their own bonus damage, but it's not clear if that's ranger only: https://everquest.allakhazam.com/his...es-2001-1.html

"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)."

It's pretty obvious that the context is bow delay, not main hand weapon delay.

I'll try to find more in-era damage context, it's pretty spares though.

I would say that removing main hand weapon makes the bow damage feel more appropriate.
Rangers should definitely have the upper hand where archery is concerned, but I think the stationary double damage and critical hits were the only classic implementations of that.

[Awsten_Tx]

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I found the source of the issue. Before implementing a fix, I need to better understand what the expected bow damage should be.

For example, if you remove your melee weapons (placing them in inventory) and then fire a ranged weapon, does the resulting damage look correct?

Additionally, I'd like to understand what ranger damage should look like normally, and with their discipline.

Nilbog,

First, THANK YOU!

the base damage of the weapons appears to be correct.

However the bonus damage, AND proc rate formula, pulls from the main hand delay. This gives significant inappropriate advantage to large races wielding a weighted axe in their main hand.

I will go find all my research and repost here for your review.

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’m currently looking into this to identify possible causes.

Are there any in-era logs, forum posts, screenshots, or other references showing players using a known bow that I could use as a baseline for damage comparison in testing?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...44&postcount=9
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...3&postcount=10

[Ruthbader]

Thank you old friend!

Please disregard Tomacco Nilbog, and focus on Baugi's esteemed works.

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by Ruthbader [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thank you old friend!

Hope you're doing well.

Logs are courtesy of the folks over at TAKP though (I think originally Kicnlag?).