Talk:Bow

Is there any confirmed source for bows firing speed and ranges? All bows at GuildWiki have there stats listed, but where do those come from? I didn't find any reference with google. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 22:26, 11 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Bow information is comparable to Hanhsoo's FAQ (of GWonline.net and GameFAQs fame). --Rustjive 22:45, 26 October 2005 (EST)

I removed "Edit: Axe/Sword speed is actually one swing per 1.33 seconds, hammer is one swing per 1.75 seconds.", since that's exactly what is in the table. However, what is "Flight Time" for axes, swords & hammers supposed to mean? And what about the "melee/seconds/'/x" line? 134.130.183.83 18:25, 2 November 2005 (EST)


 * The table is linked from this template: Template:Weapon_properties (further talk there) The melee line, and the weapon flight times for axe/hammer/sword, make no sense to me at all either. Nectarine 18:55, 2 November 2005 (EST)

k, so I moved the table over from the template, removed the nonsensical melee line, and put NA in the flight time for the axe/sword/hammer lines. So... Since this page could be best used for comparisons of all the bows. How can we improve this table? Nectarine 22:22, 2 November 2005 (EST)


 * Compared to the |Projectile link that was in the template, the values vary somewhat. --Fyren 22:57, 2 November 2005 (EST)


 * That's rather odd. The original editor of the template was Ollj (spelling?). I just copied and pasted this table. They also vary from the prima guide. Not sure which was published first, the guildwars guru article is dated february. The prima guide has the ranges as approximately double to that listed in the guildwars guru article. And they list the 'bubble' as the approximate spellcasting range, as 88 feet. Note the prima guid also has a typo in the ranges table (has longbow as 167 feet, and flatbow as 67 feet)... So what do we use? Nectarine 23:18, 2 November 2005 (EST)

Do we have a backup source that's sure that the horned bow types have 10% armor penetration? I've heard that before, but recall that there were big debates about that on other forums. --JoDiamonds 06:23, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * Someone posted research they did with a horn bow and it was consistently higher damage than the other bows. --Karlos 07:00, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * It's on the Horn Bow talk page Nectarine 14:01, 3 November 2005 (EST)

I just had a look at range, the ranges there are the same as in the prima guide, and radically different to these. I say we change these ones to match that. And we might as well go with their recharge times too. These ones are definitely inaccurate. The flight times would need to be verified experimentally. Which seems rather tricky. Also, perhaps this page should be renamed Bow Comparison or something? There is a catagory called Bows. Nectarine 14:15, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * The category is for item articles. The Prima guide isn't really a good source of info, from what I've gathered from player opinion of it.  But, Ensign's info is from the beta days and so is very old.  Perhaps we should just remove the info till someone tests or finds a more recent source.  --Fyren 14:27, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * I'm curious as to how anyone could come up with figures on these to begin with. Is there some way to know the distance in feet to something? If we remove this data, we should also remove the range and refire rate information from all the bows. They are the same as this table. And what about the range page? is that meaningful? It doesn't seem to be noted where that info came from. Nectarine 15:07, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * Or maybe we can just direct people to this link, was the first thing in the list after googling "guildwars bow range". No mention of distances in feet at all. Just multiples of the aggro range. Nectarine 15:15, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * Skills that have the same word (nearby, adjacent, etc.) can have varying ranges, so the range page is kind of useless. If you go to the glossary in the online manual, there are numbers listed for some of them.  I suppose the data might have come from there.  (Maybe it's in the real manual, too.  I don't have one.)  I think the only mention of measurement in game is Well of Power's description.  Multiples of aggro range sounds much better to me.  As for the forum post, I'd rather have the data in the article.  Not to belittle the poster's research, if he did the work, but it's not hard to test.  Maybe verify it ourselves.  --Fyren 17:09, 3 November 2005 (EST)

Arc Size
I thought Arc size directly affects flight time, in which case it's odd to see both the 0.75 sec flight time and the 0.65 sec flight time as having the "same" arc size. Or maybe the arc size was just approximated (maybe because the ppl who originally put it together can't come up with more than 3 divisions)? -PanSola 07:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I just copied the arc size from the mentioned article. However when comparing bows, it is something that we should definitly mention. --Xeeron 07:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you guys check this? I was just in a party where people (who actually have rangers) were having this debate that the smaller the arc size the more accurate your bow will be. i.e. They said that a Flatbow has little chance of hitting a moving target and a Recurve has a high chance. When thinking about it, that makes sense. It would compensate for the 10% armor penetration. --Karlos 17:16, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm pretty sure that it's correct, the accuracy for a Flatbow on a moving target is worse. It might be a bit hard to test though, perhaps you could fire upon the Master of Healing (who seems to kite) with the different bows but I think it's pretty much accepted anyway. --Xasxas256 17:32, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I've updated this page with more accurate values (calculated with some 60FPS frapsing). The values listed are from measurements we did in the second beta weekend, and all the bows were tweaked after that time.  I'm surprised it's flaoted around for that long. If people are happy with the new values supplied, I'll roll them out to the specific bow pages--Pharalon 21:55, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Factions
Here's the bow types I've found so far during the Factions preview. -- Gordon Ecker 13:03, 26 March 2006 (CST)
 * Amber Bow
 * Bramble Longbow
 * Bramble Recurve Bow
 * Jade Bow
 * Naga Longbow
 * Naga Short Bow
 * Plagueborn Bow
 * Platinum Bow
 * Found Bramble Longbow, Bramble Short Bow, Naga Longbow, Platinum Bow and Plagueborn Bow here . -- Gordon Ecker 11:06, 1 April 2006 (CST)

Bow Classes
Added accuracies according to the following in-game description

''There are a number of different types of bows available for use, each varying slightly in range, attack speed, and accuracy. The longbow offers a fair attack speed, a long range, and fair accuracy. The shortbow has a good attack speed, poor range, and good accuracy. The flatbow provides a good attack speed, a good range, and poor accuracy. The recurve bow has a fair attack speed, a fair range, and good accuracy. The hornbow provides a poor attack speed, a fair range, and fair accuracy, but has armor penetration.''

-- Tablet of Wisdom (Bows), Linnok Courtyard


 * Accuracy is directly reflected by arc size and flight time. The Tablet use a very vague description. -PanSola 10:03, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * "Flight time and arc size directly affects the accuracy" is just as vague, perhaps moreso to a beginner. How do they affect accuracy?  I know right off that something with 'good' accuracy hits more often than something with 'fair' accuracy, but I may not know that a 'small' arc is better than a 'normal' one for accuracy. 'Good' and 'poor' are qualitative measurements that everyone can compare immediately.  Just because something is qualitative and not quantitative doesn't mean it's a 'bad' measurement. -Tometheus 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I didn't say it's "bad". I merely think it's completely redundent.  Though you brought up a very good point: I actually can't tell right off which one is better, "good" or "fair".  I always have to look at arc size and flight time to deduce it. -PanSola 14:58, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * You do very well for a non-native English speaker :) I would have never known until you mentioned that and I looked at your user page.  (By now, my Chinese is terrible.  I haven't used it since college.)  The ranking system for evaluations is usually given as Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Terrible.  (Of course, extremes will often be left off, as in the game.)  --Tometheus 17:18, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * "usually" is the key. It's especially confusing for me because "fair" in the context of looks tend to be stronger than "good".  A "fair maiden" is presumably more pleasing to look at than a "good looking girl".  There might be other instances where Fair gets ranked higher than Good, and thus I generally avoid using both of them in the same ranking system.  I'd rather spend a paragraph discussing how arc size adn refire rate affects accuracy than use both terms on the same scale. -PanSola 17:22, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, it gets more confusing in that context, because 'fair' in a 'fair maiden' actually refers to 'blonde' or light skinned. (See definition #9 ) (which in turn was because that was considered better than 'dark', but anyways.) (And since 'good maiden' usually implied an ethical evaluation rather than a physical evaluation, you couldn't really use that at the time.)  --Tometheus 17:31, 11 May 2006 (CDT)