Guild Wars 2

Personally I use the longbow for a couple skills and to slot a +stat on kill sigil. I think of it less as a viable weapon and more as an opener/support for the shortbow

Warriors longbow skills are the envy of most rangers.

deepwinter.9015:

I want the past three weeks of my life back. This class is broken with no fix in sight. It reminds me of another company’s game which I left to come here coughbiowarecough

Funny, i had the same thought when a saw the patch notes today. Maybe Anet has hired some former bw devs :/

In other news. Your neighbour has reported a glitch in your cars paintjob. There’s a scratch on the fendor so we have towed your car to the dump where it has been crushed into a cube. Have a nice day.

Kildari.2480:

If you go in game RIGHT NOW you’ll find a total of 117 to 118 arrows in 60 seconds. This is NOT a 30% decrease in damage.

However QZ only shoots 12 arrows now so THIS is where a nerf is.

People can claim that i’m ignorant or whatever but I have math ACTUAL math on my side. Math that can NOT be disputed unless you’re an idiot or just a troll.

Assuming your numbers are correct, you are admitting a decrease in firing rate. So yes direct damage decrease is not 30% decreased, but unless you really don’t know how to play a Ranger, you will realize that most rangers are spec’d to have a high crit rate and they spec abilities that deal damage on crit. This is where it extra nerfing comes from + the damge reduction from reduced bleed stacking.

And for the recent post about SB being OP? OMG. are you serious?

A decent Elementalist build for example will WAY outdamage a Ranger PvE and especially PvP. Takes a little more skill, but they have the closing abilities (ride lightning + the fire one) , multiple stun, knockdown abilities (updraft and a few others, can remember the names) and really high DD and condition dmg. Burn doesn’t require stacking like bleed to get max dmg, only to increase duration.

Ranger is a beginner class, it needs all the help it can get.

This “glitch fix” is rediculous. All the other builds for ranger were terrible. now the shortbow is equally as terrible. anet neets to seriously get on this……i know some peter dude said he was looking into this but i mean come on……this wasn’t supposed to be a NERF it was supposed to be a 0.04 second animation adjustment……..now when i auto attack i can notice the difference (yes, without QZ) and with QZ, oh god, the horror. there goes the best ranger build that was available hands down. this was by far my favorite class too…….

Could we get a official response from a developer on this case? I feel that the ranger class is underpowered due to this “bug”.

First of all I haven’t even noticed any graphical glitch pre-patch. All I’ve noticed now that the quickening is “bugged”, it isn’t boosting the bow like previously.

I had trouble killing level 80 mobs today because I got humped by 3 mobs, previously I would just line them up, burst away and let my pet take some damage. Right now I have trouble killing just 1 mob when 2 other mobs are on me aswell. I need a lot of dodging to avoid their slow/stun spells, also I need to focus some damage on the other mob, but because this is slower with the shortbow now it takes more time to down him, which gives the mobs more time to kill me/stun/slow.

I even rally’d today because my pet killed a mob in a pack of 3.

I don’t feel like playing another weapon, the shortbow was fine as it was, I enjoyed playing with it. I don’t think we should be forced to play other weapons because one just got nerfed to the ground.

Anyway, I think I’ll focus on a new character until there is some response from a developer. Just spend all my money into a good shortbow, which was useless after a day.

So I ask this of you: Either confirm this is correct and you won’t be changing it, or confirm that this is a bug, and that you will change it in the next patch(no need to wait multiple patches)

In my opinion this change broke gameplay, while the so called graphical glitch didn’t. If it did, please give us examples.

Signing off now.

Ethics.4519:

The patch was intended to fix an animation glitch, not nerf the ranger. It doesn’t matter if the ranger went down 10% or 1% in damage output, the fact is that it got nerfed without the intention of doing so.

This. Shouldn’t be too hard to understand that increasing casting time to fix a animation glitch that no one noticed in the first place would affect the damage output of the skill.

i am not understanding this at all in my experience the sword has been my best source of damage for pvp anyhow short bow was good for utility and some decent burst, but to say that it was our best source of damage and now its completely gone is very very inaccurate. my build with ranger not only has some decent killing power but is not crit based/glass cannon build

it is power toughness and viality and with an emphasis on sword/warhorn which in combination with QZ can be great burst i swap to shortbow for when targets are out of my range and hunters call is down. i can survive most burst specs with my utility choices and have enough health if i screw up to take a hit or 2 this small change does not affect me or my ability to kill people with ranger, unfortunately people are too wrapped up in crossfire spam to actually see how to use all of your abilities to actually survive, kill ,and win games

on the other hand spirits and pet UI is completely screwed up so when they fix those i think Ranger is going to be even more powerful that it already is

Guess what I did yesterday? Got my last exotic on my ranger! Yay me. Guess what I’m doing today? Not enjoying my ranger at ALL and rerolling. Yay me!

That was fun >.<

Seriously this cannot be what they where trying to do. If they intended to nerf the shortbow so drastically…then, I’m not sure what to say other than Ranger is not a proff that will get shown any love at all. No fixes on dozens of actual bugs and issues… yet instead of fixing the stuff that is “actually” broken…. they fix(read: break) the only thing that is really working???

Hrm.

If this was intended, why would they put in the patch notes this:

Crossfire: Increased casting time by 40 milliseconds. This was done to fix some glitches in the animation that caused problems with this skill.

Shouldn’t we read: This was done to fix the balance between the other weapons.

No, it says that it was a glitch in the animation. Changing a animation shouldn’t have so much impact on the gameplay. I remember them saying some day that the running animation can have a huge impact on the gameplay, that’s why they fine tweaked it. The shortbow felt perfect, this change just broke the feeling, and fixed the visual. What’s more important, visual or gameplay? A lot will know the answer.

Psychrome.9281:

i am not understanding this at all in my experience the sword has been my best source of damage for pvp anyhow short bow was good for utility and some decent burst, but to say that it was our best source of damage and now its completely gone is very very inaccurate. my build with ranger not only has some decent killing power but is not crit based/glass cannon build

it is power toughness and viality and with an emphasis on sword/warhorn which in combination with QZ can be great burst i swap to shortbow for when targets are out of my range and hunters call is down. i can survive most burst specs with my utility choices and have enough health if i screw up to take a hit or 2 this small change does not affect me or my ability to kill people with ranger, unfortunately people are too wrapped up in crossfire spam to actually see how to use all of your abilities to actually survive, kill ,and win games

on the other hand spirits and pet UI is completely screwed up so when they fix those i think Ranger is going to be even more powerful that it already is

Most rangers i’ve seen in PvE at least use SB. PvE has most of the players. Ranger is a Pet ranged class. Send in the pet as a tank fire from a distance. An easy beginner class.

Now there are ways to play it differently with different weapons but if you prefer to melee, there are much better melee classes for Pvp and PvE. Most of them take more skill to master so that is why some of the good Rangers can claim to pwn the other classes. But equally skilled players of different classes will generally pwn Rangers.

I’m leveling up an Ele and she is WAY more powerful than the ranger When played right. Takes a lot more skill. I go to my Ranger when i want a relaxing change. But for get serious PvP/WvW on it.

This is why most Rangers are angry.

Yes it is much slower, i think they got it wrong here, they should bring it back, its making the short bow op

Its not that the short bow was OP, its just that it was the only good weapon for the Ranger. I think most people agree that the longbow was trash. Its autoattack does as much damage as crossfire, but twice as slow (and only at max range). Too slow for PvP. The next best weapon is Axe+Torch. This works quite well, and I may just use this in PvE if this SB problem is not addressed. But compared to Mesmers, Warriors, Thieves, etc.. our burst is a joke, and that’s why our SB needed to be so fast.

saurus.8290:

yea some thief that never played ranger gives us lessons

FYI, I have a level 16 thief and a level 80 ranger.

You are correct, the base range of the shortbow is the same as the longbow. However, the longbow gains +300 range if you have Eagle Eye (which every sane longbow ranger will get), so while I posted the wrong numbers (1200 and 900), the difference is correct (1500 vs. 1200).

saurus.8290:

thats 50% less dmg

There must be something wrong with your game.

ionite.6234:

Account.9832:

Shortbow range is 900, longbow range is 1200.

It’s 900 for thieves, for rangers both are 1200.

My mistake, I meant 1200 and 1500, respectively (I subtracted Eagle Eye from the shortbow instead of adding it to the longbow).

In real world application, there isn’t much difference between 1200 and 1500 in most scenarios. At 1500, the longbow rate of fire is so slow, people can simply side step a bit to dodge it. The 1500 range definitely doesn’t make up for the fact that the longbow outputs less than half the damage of the short bow and that 1500 range comes at the cost of a trait.

Back to topic pls, any info on this? Im trying to find out will they fix it coz if not ill use this as excuse to quit for good, i had enough of Gw2 problems….

kiranslee.4829:

Back to topic pls, any info on this? Im trying to find out will they fix it coz if not ill use this as excuse to quit for good, i had enough of Gw2 problems….

As far as I can tell the last official info was from JonPeters (Dev)

’ll take a look on live right now! October 08, 2012 03:12

Devs are probably mostly on vacation (Columbus Day) and the few that are still working are probably being hammered by all the other complaints caused by the patch.

As for me I will put my Ranger on the shelf for now and level up another class.

Although, I’m in fear that any other class I choose will also end up getting massively nerfed.

My ranger will be sitting on the shelve till the ranger class gets a satifactory fix by Anet . I look for another game for the time being .i believe if this kind of bs crap can happen to ranger , any other class will get hit 1 sooner or later. So i have No interest to make another charc after spend 200 plus hours on my ranger and got a ninja nerf for no whatsoever reasonable purpose.

I noticed it immediately. Definitely longer than 40 ms. Thanks for the “animation fix,” or whatever the patch was suppose to have done :/

I play Guardian and Ranger. Now, both classes get nerfed. =O

i would still like to see where it was that people started to believe that SB was or is our best weapon for Spvp

it was and still is good, but it took me awhile to figure out the build i am currently running and once i got to it i have totally realized that the sword has higher damage potential an dcan be as fast as SB and now even faster than sb.

i can relate to people being mad about the change, and how alot of people really liked SB as a weapon for aesthetic purposes or even liked high condition buids that the SB was very very good at.(it is still good at them just a very very slight tweak downward)

people who are/were running condition rangers can still find great condition stacking with the shortbow, i can still stack up to 8 bleeds on a person very quickly when built for it. just from crossfire. is it as powerful as before, no…is it more inline with other classes ability to stack a condition as quickly? i would say yes if not still slanted towards the ranger a slight bit.

in my opinion the very good condition rangers were using axe/torch along with the shortbow to increase bleeds and add more, harder-hitting, conditions (Burns) along with chill and poison stacking. so i am guessing the better condition rangers wont find too much of a problem with this either.

again when i can see a chart comparing damage per second comparing all of our weapons, with a viable and repeatable test (damage parser and posted test guidelines) i wont be convinced that this change has killed ranger damage potential in a condition based or burst damage based build.

i will agree that the change did lower the damage potential of SB but i cannot believe that people were relying so heavily on one auto attack for all of there damage/burst potential. especially since it is very easily avoided and countered, as well as consistently dangerous against classes with confusion/retaliation.

ah well ill keep monitoring this post for responses

Can u at least believe that some rangers actually DONT wonna go for cond builds ? Can u believe some ppl wish to play with dual swords ?
Im so emo right now that i started My Little Pony series , again. Last time that happened when they nerfed paladin after 2.4.3 in wow.

I posted this in the other thread, but may as well post it here. This is the ugly math as best as I can tell via the good old scientific method:

Before nerf cast time: 480ms
After nerf cast time: 560ms
that’s an 80ms, double what it is supposed to be, the math works out when doing observed shots per minute (now around 108 w/o QZ) and explains the drop in blood stacks when traited for condition duration.

But it gets worse:

QZ and ZS are not halving the increase, they are doing the full 80ms increase on every shot. Half of 480 = 240 with QZ for 4s = 16 shots
Half of 480 = 240 + 80ms nerf = 320 for 4s = 12 shots
These numbers have been confirmed by everybody, a 25% nerf in QZ and ZS (from 4 to 3 shots)

It should never have gotten even a 40ms increase. They stealth nerfed by ‘fixing a bug’ that never existed to begin with and accidentally nerfed it more than they planned to nerf it.

if you are not going for a condition build i am not sure why you would even complain about the shortbow change, you may lose 2 attacks during qz from before but that is like saying “i rely so much on QZ that i only do real damage every 48 seconds.” so without qz you do not really miss any damage potential. the SB is still leaps and bounds better than longbow for power builds. as was mentioned earlier 40 milliseconds is almost immeasurable by the human eye and actually means that you lose one attack, compared to before, once every 400 seconds. or one attack once every 6 .66 minutes.

in regards to any bugs that were introduced with this change i have not noticed any that have been mentioned(not that they do not exist). if you are encountering bugs that yo as a customer are experiencing i highly recommend you do an ingame bug report

outside of a “feeling” that it is slower there still has not been any repeatable test done with any tool(3rd party parser) that can be shared to prove that this was as big of a change as people are claiming. while these feelings are important i strongly suggest that you put aside your feelings and find proof that you are seeing something different than what is published in the change. that way you can express your argument in terms of facts instead of “me and my buddy got a stopwatch and…” or “it feels like i cant do what i could before” or put in a bug report and wait for a response from a developer.

Rachel Spahr.8307:

I posted this in the other thread, but may as well post it here. This is the ugly math as best as I can tell via the good old scientific method:

Before nerf cast time: 480ms
After nerf cast time: 560ms
that’s an 80ms, double what it is supposed to be, the math works out when doing observed shots per minute (now around 108 w/o QZ) and explains the drop in blood stacks when traited for condition duration.

But it gets worse:

QZ and ZS are not halving the increase, they are doing the full 80ms increase on every shot. Half of 480 = 240 with QZ for 4s = 16 shots
Half of 480 = 240 + 80ms nerf = 320 for 4s = 12 shots
These numbers have been confirmed by everybody, a 25% nerf in QZ and ZS (from 4 to 3 shots)

what program or application did you use to figure this out, i would like to repeat this test and publish my own findings send me a PM or just reply here. also what were the limits of your test how was it structured?

hope to hear form you soon

@Psychrome.9281
This nerf affects power/crit builds more then cond build imo.

as was mentioned earlier 40 milliseconds is almost immeasurable by the human eye

Film is run at 24 frames per second, which is one frame every .04167 seconds (41 and 2/3 milliseconds). Due to the shutter rotation on a projector, this gives the effect of 48. This is the absolute minimum value that can be used before it becomes entirely obvious that a frame-rate exists at all. Films are moving to a true 48 frame per second standard to make motion smoother, broadcast standards are 30 interlaced or 60 frames. Going under a refresh rate of 60 hertz (60 times per second) on a monitor tends to give people headaches because they can actually detect the flickering.

The ear can detect an echo or delay as low as 20 milliseconds (or less for a trained ear).

40 milliseconds added to a 500 millisecond attack is an 8% increase or a 7.75% loss of speed.

and actually means that you lose one attack, compared to before, once every 400 seconds. or one attack once every 6 .66 minutes.

No, 1 over .04 is 25, not 400.

Also, since we are adding .04 to each attack (not to each second) it is .08 added per second, meaning we lose one attack every 12.5 seconds, way way off from your 400.

Math is hard.

in regards to any bugs that were introduced with this change i have not noticed any that have been mentioned(not that they do not exist). if you are encountering bugs that yo as a customer are experiencing i highly recommend you do an ingame bug report

Hand-waving.

outside of a “feeling” that it is slower there still has not been any repeatable test done with any tool(3rd party parser) that can be shared to prove that this was as big of a change as people are claiming. while these feelings are important i strongly suggest that you put aside your feelings and find proof that you are seeing something different than what is published in the change. that way you can express your argument in terms of facts instead of “me and my buddy got a stopwatch and…” or “it feels like i cant do what i could before” or put in a bug report and wait for a response from a developer.

Actually a lot of tests have been done, it’s just that those who don’t want their assumptions challenged disregard them.

Psychrome.9281:

what program or application did you use to figure this out, i would like to repeat this test and publish my own findings send me a PM or just reply here. also what were the limits of your test how was it structured?

hope to hear form you soon

Mostly it was repeating these experiments in in the Hall of Mysts, with stop watches and calculator apps on the iphone, but also confirming my data with what others were posting.
http://mmo-mechanics.com/forums/topic/1002-shortbow-vs-longbow/#entry21897

Strongfort.2451:

Dante Dragonhand.2538:

Its all in your head, if you didnt read patch notes you wouldnt notice any difference. Yes I know this is a fact not an opinion, they didnt nerf it by enough to make it dramatically noticeable.

Way to not read any posts in the threads and then mass post your approval of this change in multiple threads…

Try reading the factual information that many are posting.

How about I test it ingame instead, its not much of a difference. And either way idc, shortbow isnt meant to be a damage weapon, never was, and yet with a power/crit build its incredibly strong, much stronger than the longbow itself. Now it may not be and Im happy. So enjoy learning how to press 2-5

Dante Dragonhand.2538:

Strongfort.2451:

Dante Dragonhand.2538:

Its all in your head, if you didnt read patch notes you wouldnt notice any difference. Yes I know this is a fact not an opinion, they didnt nerf it by enough to make it dramatically noticeable.

Way to not read any posts in the threads and then mass post your approval of this change in multiple threads…

Try reading the factual information that many are posting.

How about I test it ingame instead, its not much of a difference. And either way idc, shortbow isnt meant to be a damage weapon, never was, and yet with a power/crit build its incredibly strong, much stronger than the longbow itself. Now it may not be and Im happy. So enjoy learning how to press 2-5

The longbow is the single worst weapon in the game from any profession. Nerfing the short bow doesn’t magically make the longbow viable. You also obviously do not play a Ranger or you would know that 3-5 aren’t really damage attacks and 2 is only good damage if it is point blank.

Rachel Spahr.8307:

Psychrome.9281:

what program or application did you use to figure this out, i would like to repeat this test and publish my own findings send me a PM or just reply here. also what were the limits of your test how was it structured?

hope to hear form you soon

Mostly it was repeating these experiments in in the Hall of Mysts, with stop watches and calculator apps on the iphone, but also confirming my data with what others were posting.
http://mmo-mechanics.com/forums/topic/1002-shortbow-vs-longbow/#entry21897

I appreciate your honesty. this is not a valid test. the idea that a human being could reliably and consistently push a stop watch button or even an i phone application quickly enough to determine 40 milliseconds of difference is not even funny. its is impossible. your hand eye coordination would have to be superhuman to accurately measure what you are seeing. did you take into account internet lag, did you take into account hand -eye coordination lag.

there is no possible way for me to repeat your test and get the same result, i am a different person than you, i live in a different area than you, i probably dont even use the same internet provider as you. therefore this type of test is invalid. to properly measure this type of data you need an application that is devoid of human interaction outside of turning it on(such as a dps parser) my reaction speed may be better or worse than yours which would throw off the results of the test by milliseconds. which is exactly what we are measuring. this is why modern track field competitions are started with hi tech equipment, to accurately measure and retrieve results. i just want facts and from the majority of these posts i wager that you all do too.

Kerri Knight.3168:

as was mentioned earlier 40 milliseconds is almost immeasurable by the human eye

Film is run at 24 frames per second, which is one frame every .04167 seconds (41 and 2/3 milliseconds). Due to the shutter rotation on a projector, this gives the effect of 48. This is the absolute minimum value that can be used before it becomes entirely obvious that a frame-rate exists at all. Films are moving to a true 48 frame per second standard to make motion smoother, broadcast standards are 30 interlaced or 60 frames. Going under a refresh rate of 60 hertz (60 times per second) on a monitor tends to give people headaches because they can actually detect the flickering.

The ear can detect an echo or delay as low as 20 milliseconds (or less for a trained ear).

40 milliseconds added to a 500 millisecond attack is an 8% increase or a 7.75% loss of speed.

and actually means that you lose one attack, compared to before, once every 400 seconds. or one attack once every 6 .66 minutes.

No, 1 over .04 is 25, not 400.

Also, since we are adding .04 to each attack (not to each second) it is .08 added per second, meaning we lose one attack every 12.5 seconds, way way off from your 400.

Math is hard.

in regards to any bugs that were introduced with this change i have not noticed any that have been mentioned(not that they do not exist). if you are encountering bugs that yo as a customer are experiencing i highly recommend you do an ingame bug report

Hand-waving.

outside of a “feeling” that it is slower there still has not been any repeatable test done with any tool(3rd party parser) that can be shared to prove that this was as big of a change as people are claiming. while these feelings are important i strongly suggest that you put aside your feelings and find proof that you are seeing something different than what is published in the change. that way you can express your argument in terms of facts instead of “me and my buddy got a stopwatch and…” or “it feels like i cant do what i could before” or put in a bug report and wait for a response from a developer.

Actually a lot of tests have been done, it’s just that those who don’t want their assumptions challenged disregard them.

i will concede that i totally screwed the pooch on the math. either way the rest of my post stands firm and concrete and personally one attack every 12.5 seconds is not significant in my opinion since i am not using crossfire for a straight 12.5 seconds, ever.

i do not see a difference in my performance or my ability to kill people in spvp or even mobs in pve. so until someone who actually posts there tests. i am sorry stop watch tests are invalid, you cannot do it without super human agility to any degree of accuracy especially when you are trying to measure milliseconds.

the only way you can run a test is by using a parser or some sort of computer application that can measure the information the game is using. i cannot prove or disprove your results unless i can use the same exact scenario you are using. and since you or other testers out there are completely different than i, that proves it is impossible to recreate these tests, that everyone seems to be doing.

i want to believe you, i want you to prove to me that you are right, but its just not happening. please, with all due respect, prove me wrong. valid tests go along way to proving a point.

i will try and remain respectful on this topic as much as i can i would appreciate you doing the same.

Psychrome.9281:

Rachel Spahr.8307:

Mostly it was repeating these experiments in in the Hall of Mysts, with stop watches and calculator apps on the iphone, but also confirming my data with what others were posting.
http://mmo-mechanics.com/forums/topic/1002-shortbow-vs-longbow/#entry21897

I appreciate your honesty. this is not a valid test. the idea that a human being could reliably and consistently push a stop watch button or even an i phone application quickly enough to determine 40 milliseconds of difference is not even funny. its is impossible. your hand eye coordination would have to be superhuman to accurately measure what you are seeing. did you take into account internet lag, did you take into account hand -eye coordination lag.

there is no possible way for me to repeat your test and get the same result, i am a different person than you, i live in a different area than you, i probably dont even use the same internet provider as you. therefore this type of test is invalid. to properly measure this type of data you need an application that is devoid of human interaction outside of turning it on(such as a dps parser) my reaction speed may be better or worse than yours which would throw off the results of the test by milliseconds. which is exactly what we are measuring. this is why modern track field competitions are started with hi tech equipment, to accurately measure and retrieve results. i just want facts and from the majority of these posts i wager that you all do too.

Your response indicates you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the information that was linked to.

The test recorded the number of shots in a time window and used the advanced mathematical principle of division to determine the rate of fire.

Nothing about clicking on the stopwatch within an interval of 40 milliseconds was discussed at all. The information supplied was an example of methodology and didn’t really even get into pre vs. post patch comparisons.

You’re basically just engaging in Confirmation Bias.

actually i just got done examining the link she posted and it is an awesome way to test it. one way or another, what i was responding to was the test she herself conducted. the link is valid but since she did not claim to have used that methodolgy and only used it for comparison of results then her test was invalid. when the guys from mmomechanics actually post there findings about this current change regarding damage done now compared to damage done before then i will be satisfied. same tester with a history of accuracy and a repeatable testing method. that says win.

the fact that this discussion is exactly about pre vs post patch. so the amazing work at mmomechanics is valid but incomplete. the poster i was referring to “Rachel Sphar” said that she had only used a stopwatch test. the stopwatch test is invalid. the FRAPS test is valid but since the results with the current stuff has not been posted yet my argument is still true.

so you are correct when i responded to her originally, i had not yet read her link. however while she has posted a valid way to test this she herself did not use the said test. i will attempt this test later today although i have never used fraps before so it will take awhile to figure the program out.

again you seem to have the same issue with regards to hidden snark comments regarding the “advanced mathematical principle of division” while your point is valid you lessen your credibility with statements like those. i can take the snark, although i warn you that i wont stoop to using those types of comments and it really doesnt help this overall issue in regards to crossfire.

6 pages and no official response

Undeniable proof that this was a stealth nerf, and they will NOT undo it

Psychrome.9281:

actually i just got done examining the link she posted and it is an awesome way to test it.

Thanks! I definitely appreciate the peer review.

The reason the stopwatch-and-counter method works for the auto-attacks is because they have no cooldown and can be strung together consecutively for as long as needed.

Some comments have stated that it would be virtually impossible to detect a difference of 40ms (0.04s) on one shot, and with that I agree. However, by timing a large number of shots performed consecutively, a potential 0.04s difference is multiplied by the number of shots in the trial. In this case, if the attack period was actually 0.52s instead of 0.48s, then the full 125-shot trial would take 65s instead of 60s.

Similarly, we can work backwards: If we assume my proficiency with the stopwatch is only accurate to within 0.500s (a very conservative estimate), then there’s a resulting uncertainty of 0.004s per shot over the 125-shot trial. In my opinion, this is sufficient for these tests.

Psychrome.9281:

when the guys from mmomechanics actually post there findings about this current change regarding damage done now compared to damage done before then i will be satisfied. same tester with a history of accuracy and a repeatable testing method. that says win.

This is the reason I put all the details about the test method in that post; if someone wants to run the same test, they should be able to do so from the information provided, and they should expect the same results.

i have yet to use your method to test have you found a significant damage drop from shortbow crossfire? or have you not yet tested as well. i get ADD when i load the game and just start playing instead of testing lol. i did not really take into consideration the small difference in reaction time of the stopwatch method i will have to reconsider my point of view on it. although the technical side of me does really want to hate it thanks for taking the time to logically respond to my statement and i appreciate it. i guess ill try the test myself a little bit later but, maybe not till after i hit rank 30(29 now) …sigh…

seriously though great job n the testing and i have always loved mmomechanics since i found them a year ago with swtor.

i will always use that site for all my number crunching needs:)