U49 Preview 2: Bow Combat Style Revamp

[Nugaot]

It's too early to be talking about buffs when reports from lammania suggest otherwise especially in combination with the proposed changes to doubleshot/strike for "game performance".
The devs have yet to strike a balance between old manyshot and new just being equal let alone a buff.

In the end the bows mentioned still retain a better crit range than other bows while helping closing the difference between the bows.
This is where you lose the plot - You are singularly focused on the crit range while completely ignoring every other enhancement.
Read your own words carefully, "closing the difference between the bows" what does this imply - some bows getting stronger while other are getting weaker (getting weaker sounds like nerf)
As has been mentioned several times in this thread already, if the crit threat range is actually a problem - what will the replacement be?
Remove -1 crit threat range and add
Augment Slot
3d6 damage
+ 2 enhancement bonus
(insert any idea here)

The last line in your post fits so perfectly here
Remove the shutters of looking at a singular attribute not getting buffed (still not losing) and look at the entire pass.

Genuinely asking here - what's so bad about a 17-20 crit profile on a bow that legacy items needed to be changed ahead of the pass? There's lots of ways to achieve a crit profile that high or even higher on many other weapon types, including ranged weapons.

[VinoeWhines]

Greetings,

Was wondering to differentiate and give Shortbow it's place in ddo.

Longbow seems to be about raw power with Range Power DPS.

Shortbow would seem to be about Stealthy use, adding Sneak Attack(dice and bonus damage), CC or distraction affects.

Can you add grenade arrows that doe AOE damage.
Grenade Arrows that cause a Glitterdust Affect.
Grenade Arrows that create Wall Of Fire(Grease with Flaming Sphere effect)
Please make Longbows and Shortbows different tactically to use as oppose to making Shortbows just an inferior version of Longbows.
Shortbows seem to be about compact size to use tactically in situations.

[Smokewolf]

How about adding a Named arrow with 100% returning and a few craft options to allow for customization?

[Smokewolf]

Greetings,

Was wondering to differentiate and give Shortbow it's place in ddo.

Longbow seems to be about raw power with Range Power DPS.

Shortbow would seem to be about Stealthy use, adding Sneak Attack(dice and bonus damage), CC or distraction affects.

Can you add grenade arrows that doe AOE damage.
Grenade Arrows that cause a Glitterdust Affect.
Grenade Arrows that create Wall Of Fire(Grease with Flaming Sphere effect)
Please make Longbows and Shortbows different tactically to use as oppose to making Shortbows just an inferior version of Longbows.
Shortbows seem to be about compact size to use tactically in situations.

+1

[barecm]

I totally agree, I'd love to not have to lean on elf AA, falconry and destinies to define my 20 monk archer build. My most viable build with all these changes uses 0 AP in monk trees.

I think if you are going to use a bow and want to use wisdom, you will have some falconry in your build... monk or not. I can see them maybe reworking monk in the future to allow a lot of the melee only stuff to work with bows. I think I heard that somewhere along the line, probably a year out or more though.

[Zoveride]

Genuinely asking here - what's so bad about a 17-20 crit profile on a bow that legacy items needed to be changed ahead of the pass? There's lots of ways to achieve a crit profile that high or even higher on many other weapon types, including ranged weapons.

That's a great question and I honestly have no clue. Some forum members seems obsessed with trying to nerf it and seem to believe that no type of compensation is in order. I guess they just hate bows/bow users?
Personally, I know tempest can get 15-20 (might even be 14-20) and that is dual wielding lol AND AOE.
There is also SoS and lots of other things, but apparently some people think bows are overpowered at the moment, LOL

[anticlimax]

I can see them maybe reworking monk in the future to allow a lot of the melee only stuff to work with bows. I think I heard that somewhere along the line, probably a year out or more though.

The idea that monk abilities might be made to work with ranged has been dangled in my face for so long now I don't believe the maybes and somewhere along the lines.. I still want it as it would be the holy grail for my main but, I think continued lobbying for it is a far better strategy than just sitting back hoping it will happen.

[Pandjed]

Genuinely asking here - what's so bad about a 17-20 crit profile on a bow that legacy items needed to be changed ahead of the pass? There's lots of ways to achieve a crit profile that high or even higher on many other weapon types, including ranged weapons.

Actually, the 18-20 thing was just a later change to some of these bows, when the IC-feat was reworked to get their "crit profile back", cuz IC used to double the base crit chance, which was however not very efficient in terms of server power, IIRC.

As I crunched some numbers before, I can tell that in a white room environment, that the change does less than anticipated and more than you might think. The real problem here is all the snowballing, how each of your bonuses become more significant with greater threat range, couple that with enough ranged power, and you get easily an average of 50+ more damage per shot compared to newer, high level bows, as the damage procs can't hold up.

Do I think these bows needed it? No. Do I agree, that going from 20/x3 as base crit profile to bows to 18-20/x3 for special as strange and counter-intuitive? Yes. Do I think, that these bows should get some buffs that make them better weapons for their level, instead of the crazy high achievers in epics, where they shouldn't belong? Also yes.
Wouldn't mind the SoS treatment of double range and one more multiplier (so 19-20/x4), as these weapons only had their crits to go with in the first place, and it's less threatening for epics and is much more intuitive.

The real problem, however, is the design space. Game design becomes increasingly harder, the more you go along, especially given that DDO started out at the dawn of MMORPG and therefore have little future-proof design there, while nowadays the "new team" has to deal with it, in addition to legal issues (there are things they can change from the D&D-rules it's based upon and things they can't; such as how ridiculous Falchions are, that's how the book has written them and the old dev team implemented them in the game and hence 15 years of falchions are now here) and such.
It's more about getting some room again, as every new weapon their introduce has somewhat compare with what's there and the desire to earn money to eat is always lingering in their minds. I mean, if everyone starts asking, why there aren't any good new bows, and the answer is "the old stuff is too good and we're not comfortable with adding more oil into this fire of madness", then re-thinking old bows while adding to general bow combat overall seems a sensible choice.

Only thing I'm really discontent with is that Unwavering Ardency falls into it after making it part of the 15th Anniversary weapons. I know, it's a gift, but still leaves a sour taste, that the weapon you got doesn't remain the weapon you have.

[Deathlylife]

In the end the bows mentioned still retain a better crit range than other bows while helping closing the difference between the bows.
This is where you lose the plot - You are singularly focused on the crit range while completely ignoring every other enhancement.
Read your own words carefully, "closing the difference between the bows" what does this imply - some bows getting stronger while other are getting weaker (getting weaker sounds like nerf)
As has been mentioned several times in this thread already, if the crit threat range is actually a problem - what will the replacement be?

The last line in your post fits so perfectly here
Remove the shutters of looking at a singular attribute not getting buffed (still not losing) and look at the entire pass.

We can disagree if compensation is required, but please stop saying it is a nerf or loss of power when nothing was taken away.

The attempt to say I am only focused on crit range and you are not is hilarious when you immediately turn around and start talking only about the crit range for a select few bows. If people are dead set at fighting for the bows, please revisit the concept of what closing the difference is. I will try to use an easy to understand relation to better describe how I view the situation. (Reducing reading level helps with understanding, I am not trying to insult anyone but to better convey how I view the situation to come to an understanding)

James has 3 apples and Timmy has 1 apple. The teacher did not like the large difference between them and so gave Timmy 1 more apple. The new totals are James 3 and Timmy 2. Please describe how giving Timmy an apple affected James in any way. Now replace apple with crit range and look at that, the crit range did not get weaker at all, it is just not as far ahead while it never lost any and still has more.

"closing the difference between the bows" what does this imply - some bows getting stronger while other are getting weaker (getting weaker sounds like nerf)"
This is a blatantly misleading statement trying to divert from what is actually happening. You are combining two statements into one while dropping some context.
Some bows are getting stronger + others are getting weaker in comparison
Missing those last two key words completely changes the meaning. Not including them shows the attempt to misinform people following the discussion. I will agree that in comparison that the bows in question are not as far ahead as they currently are, but I disagree that they are getting any weaker (go back to timmy and james for reference for how I view this).

Expanding beyond the shutters that were reentered. The addition of crit multi, ranged power, and doubleshot will then buff said bows with all other bows. This is every bow getting a buff. James and Timmy both get equal amounts oranges to go with their apples.

From how I view the way people are arguing about the bows in question, they seem upset Timmy got another apple even when James never lost any and still has more.
I do not believe James needs a compensation of fruit snacks just because he did not also get an apple when he never lost any and still has more.

We can disagree if compensation is required since Timmy got something that James didn't, but please stop saying it is a nerf or loss of power when nothing was taken away.

[salmag]

We can disagree if compensation is required, but please stop saying it is a nerf or loss of power when nothing was taken away.

The attempt to say I am only focused on crit range and you are not is hilarious when you immediately turn around and start talking only about the crit range for a select few bows. If people are dead set at fighting for the bows, please revisit the concept of what closing the difference is. I will try to use an easy to understand relation to better describe how I view the situation. (Reducing reading level helps with understanding, I am not trying to insult anyone but to better convey how I view the situation to come to an understanding)

James has 3 apples and Timmy has 1 apple. The teacher did not like the large difference between them and so gave Timmy 1 more apple. The new totals are James 3 and Timmy 2. Please describe how giving Timmy an apple affected James in any way. Now replace apple with crit range and look at that, the crit range did not get weaker at all, it is just not as far ahead while it never lost any and still has more.

"closing the difference between the bows" what does this imply - some bows getting stronger while other are getting weaker (getting weaker sounds like nerf)"
This is a blatantly misleading statement trying to divert from what is actually happening. You are combining two statements into one while dropping some context.
Some bows are getting stronger + others are getting weaker in comparison
Missing those last two key words completely changes the meaning. Not including them shows the attempt to misinform people following the discussion. I will agree that in comparison that the bows in question are not as far ahead as they currently are, but I disagree that they are getting any weaker (go back to timmy and james for reference for how I view this).

Expanding beyond the shutters that were reentered. The addition of crit multi, ranged power, and doubleshot will then buff said bows with all other bows. This is every bow getting a buff. James and Timmy both get equal amounts oranges to go with their apples.

From how I view the way people are arguing about the bows in question, they seem upset Timmy got another apple even when James never lost any and still has more.
I do not believe James needs a compensation of fruit snacks just because he did not also get an apple when he never lost any and still has more.

We can disagree if compensation is required since Timmy got something that James didn't, but please stop saying it is a nerf or loss of power when nothing was taken away.

I love this analogy.

The teacher arbitrarily showed favoritism to Timmy because he had less apples than Jimmy. Is that fair to Jimmy just because he somehow got 3 instead of 1? No it's not. Jimmy farmed (grinded) for the apples he received. The teacher should treat Jimmy the same as Timmy, regardless of the amount of apples he has. If the teacher gives something to one, the teacher should give something to the other. That's fair.

Replace apples with Crit Range, Crit Multiplier, Rare Bows, whatever you want to.

[elvesunited]

This might sound silly but if they left the crit range of those few special bows alone but instead changed point blank shot feat to:

---- Point Blank Shot ----
Grants a +1 bonus to hit within 15 meters and your ranged and thrown weapons deal +1[W]
Bows that a normal critical threat range and those with Keen gain +1 critical threat range.
( point blank range not required for increased threat range )

Would that solve the nerfed high critical range bow problem?

[Deathlylife]

I love this analogy.

The teacher arbitrarily showed favoritism to Timmy because he had less apples than Jimmy. Is that fair to Jimmy just because he somehow got 3 instead of 1? No it's not. Jimmy farmed (grinded) for the apples he received. The teacher should treat Jimmy the same as Timmy, regardless of the amount of apples he has. If the teacher gives something to one, the teacher should give something to the other. That's fair.

Replace apples with Crit Range, Crit Multiplier, Rare Bows, whatever you want to.

Thank you for the response. I am glad the analogy worked. Hopefully others find it useful as well so we can discuss the matter with better understanding of each other.

I better understand your definition of fair. "If the teacher gives something to one, the teacher should give something to the other."

I still disagree as I believe equalization and closing the gap to be what I consider as fair.

It would be hard to define fair considering there is a grind involved. I think that giving Timmy a boost (not equalizing, there is still some incentive to grind) considering he joined later seems appropriate. I consider that at the time Jimmy got his 3 apples it was something relevant other people were also doing at the time (running the content as it was released and groups are easier to form). Compared to now when that content is very rarely run making it even harder to get people to help with the same task. I picture a group of kids working together to boost each other up a tree to grab the apples. The more kids helping the easier it is for all to get their apples. Back then kids could either jump high enough on their own (solo but might take more jumps) or had help getting a boost (grouping). Compared to now where most people have to jump on their own (even if they aren't great at jumping) and there is a lot less opportunity for others to help (already have their apples, not interested in the apple tree, busy running the track as fast as possible, less kids playing in general).

Also, since some people were able to receive some of the bows for free (Pinion and UA), in my eyes it reduces the relevancy of the grind a little since there wasn't any grind for some people (the teacher just handed them said apples because they were around at a certain time to get the free apples).

I believe it is harder now then it used to be to get said items because of this time relevance. Since I view it as harder to get now, helping remove the disparity seems alright without compensation.

I will add that I disagree in complete equalization. The grind needs to be respected and leave some incentive for others in the future, but I do not see a problem in gap closing because of the increased difficulty to get the same thing.

I hope others will chime in with their opinions on gap closing and equal compensation.

[GoldyGopher]

I love this analogy.

The teacher arbitrarily showed favoritism to Timmy because he had less apples than Jimmy. Is that fair to Jimmy just because he somehow got 3 instead of 1? No it's not. Jimmy farmed (grinded) for the apples he received. The teacher should treat Jimmy the same as Timmy, regardless of the amount of apples he has. If the teacher gives something to one, the teacher should give something to the other. That's fair.

Replace apples with Crit Range, Crit Multiplier, Rare Bows, whatever you want to.

Is it fair to Jimmy, no, is it the right thing to do, yes, yes it is.

My wife teaches in one of the poorest schools in the country. Everyday she makes that decision. Everyday she gives the extra apple to the student who may not have eaten since yesterday's school lunch. And it may be Monday.

[rabidfox]

I'd love it if point blank shot gave +1 crit range to all ranged weapons (instead of just bows) and they dialed back all other extended crit range ranged weapons too. Every ranged build I do uses point blank shot so it would be a net gain overall for my poor TR cache that's full of various BtC gear. Sure I spent time (and shards/timers/etc.) to grind out that gear but I'd take the QoL upgrade of more gear options being viable if they offered it.

[IlIllI]

I've been on DDO since June 2020 - and have played nothing but an elf bow/dex ranger the entire time.
Thus while I won't say I know more about bows than anyone - I will say that there are probably not so many people who have spent that much time as a bow/dex ranger as I have.

The proposed changes - I understand the rationale behind them: animation speed limits on bow attack frequency and manyshot impact on lag.
Less openly discussed: the apparent desire to increase usage of bows. Right now, it seems like crossbows all the time with the exception of the handful of bow/dex rangers - at least from my point of view on Thelanis.

However, while I understand the changes - it really feels like the changes are more about bringing other classes closer to bow/dex ranger capability than it is about shifting the entire genre in a particular direction.

You say fighter bows? I've literally never seen anyone playing such a char. In my guild (Tycoons of Tomorrow) - there are maybe 3 bow/dex rangers in the entire guild vs. dozens of any other class. The number of people using crossbows vs. bows is 5 or 10 to 1.

My point being: if you are effectively improving bow usage for everyone but keeping bow/dex rangers the same - you are effectively nerfing the ranger class at least to some degree. Why bother playing a bow/dex ranger if you can do pretty much the same thing as a paladin, figher, cleric etc?

Rangers are supposed to be primo with the bow - are they still?

Not clear but I guess I will find out.

[Zoveride]

We can disagree if compensation is required, but please stop saying it is a nerf or loss of power when nothing was taken away.

The attempt to say I am only focused on crit range and you are not is hilarious when you immediately turn around and start talking only about the crit range for a select few bows. If people are dead set at fighting for the bows, please revisit the concept of what closing the difference is. I will try to use an easy to understand relation to better describe how I view the situation. (Reducing reading level helps with understanding, I am not trying to insult anyone but to better convey how I view the situation to come to an understanding)

Let's use your own analogy and see if it will help you better understand the situation.
The teacher has stated that they will give ALL STUDENTS + 1 apple. (This is bow pass not selective pass)
Timmy had 1 apple and the teacher gives him 1 apple. Timmy now has 2 apples (1+1=2)
James had 3 apples and the teachers takes 1 apple away from James and then gives it back to him. James now has 3 apples (3-1=2. 2+1=3) James says, HEY, where is my extra apple?
(hopefully you understand now)

James has 3 apples and Timmy has 1 apple. The teacher did not like the large difference between them and so gave Timmy 1 more apple. The new totals are James 3 and Timmy 2. Please describe how giving Timmy an apple affected James in any way. Now replace apple with crit range and look at that, the crit range did not get weaker at all, it is just not as far ahead while it never lost any and still has more.

"closing the difference between the bows" what does this imply - some bows getting stronger while other are getting weaker (getting weaker sounds like nerf)"
This is a blatantly misleading statement trying to divert from what is actually happening. You are combining two statements into one while dropping some context.
Some bows are getting stronger + others are getting weaker in comparison
Missing those last two key words completely changes the meaning. Not including them shows the attempt to misinform people following the discussion. I will agree that in comparison that the bows in question are not as far ahead as they currently are, but I disagree that they are getting any weaker (go back to timmy and james for reference for how I view this).

This is not misleading, if you subtract and then add the same number there is no increase, therefore there is no buff. This is supposed to be a buff to bows and bow users.

Expanding beyond the shutters that were reentered. The addition of crit multi, ranged power, and doubleshot will then buff said bows with all other bows. This is every bow getting a buff. James and Timmy both get equal amounts oranges to go with their apples.

Are you still stuck with shutters? What are you talking about. This addition is not even compensating for the loss/restructuring of manyshot at the moment let alone a buff to any bow wielder.

From how I view the way people are arguing about the bows in question, they seem upset Timmy got another apple even when James never lost any and still has more.
I do not believe James needs a compensation of fruit snacks just because he did not also get an apple when he never lost any and still has more.

This is your view and opinion not fact. James wants his compensation because he was told he would get an apple. In fact, the teacher TOOK his apple and gave it back to him.
Let me try to give you an analogy
Timmy goes to a store. He asks for an item. The item costs $10. He goes into the register and takes out $10 and hands it to the cashier to pay for his $10 item and proceeds to walk out the door.
Timmy doesn't understand why security is after him. He doesn't understand why the store isn't happy that he gave them $10.



We can disagree if compensation is required since Timmy got something that James didn't, but please stop saying it is a nerf or loss of power when nothing was taken away.

It's sad that you feel the need to silence people and silence the truth.
If you actually look at the items "being altered" you will see that they indeed are being nerfed. (-1 to crit threat range is a nerf to that item)

[Jinxx]

The changes to these bows that the devs are singling out are 100%, unequivocally a nerf. It is not an opinion, it is a fact. You don't need to make up school kid analogies to see it. I'll make it as plain for you as I can using one of the bows from the list:

Before U49
Silver Longbow
Damage and Type [1d10] + 3 Pierce, Good, Magic
Critical threat range 18-20 / x3

After U49
Silver Longbow
Damage and Type [1d10] + 3 Pierce, Good, Magic
Critical threat range 19-20 / x3

See the difference? Is the bow after U49 worse than before U49? Yes! (i.e. a nerf)

You would have to spend a feat slot in order to get back what you had before the nerf.

[FengXian]

A nerf relative to other bows is still a nerf.

It may feel counterintuitive to you, but it is. Same as nerfing alchemist/fire sorc was an indirect (relative) buff to everything else.

Weapons don't exist in a vacuum, they are constantly compared to other weapons, be it of the same type or different.

In this case some legacy bows are getting nerfed, even if you could perceive it as a buff to every other bow.

And said nerf is unnecessary and unfair, at the very least to some of those bows.

I only need ONE counterexample to prove that the current nerf-list is wrong.

Most blatant seems Epic Thornlord. But there are others as well.

[Deathlylife]

It's sad that you feel the need to silence people and silence the truth.
If you actually look at the items "being altered" you will see that they indeed are being nerfed. (-1 to crit threat range is a nerf to that item)

Reading your direct response I initially thought that we had come to some understanding.

You wish for all students to get an additional apple. Here we disagree but I can understand your viewpoint.

I stand by my original statement that saying there is a nerf is misleading. You seemed to acknowledge this by saying " This is not misleading, if you subtract and then add the same number there is no increase, therefore there is no buff. This is supposed to be a buff to bows." I am sorry, but as far as I know not getting a buff is not the same as a nerf, it is a net neutral.

We seem to disagree on the other aspects of bow changes being a buff/nerf/neutral but this is honestly a matter of opinion, I recognize your viewpoint that the compensation for a manyshot loss may not seem enough, I disagree but we seem to have the same basic understanding.

The statement "never lost any and still has more" is an irrefutable fact. 3 is still equal to 3 and 3 is greater then 2. The opinion I included was that compensation is not necessary since no loss occurred. A differing opinion is that compensation is necessary to maintain the power gap (either also giving +1 or an aug slot, etc). Disagreeing on these opinions is a productive conversation. Disagreeing on 3=3 and 3>2 shows a lack of understanding on the actual changes occurring. Repeating the falsity that the bows are getting nerfed is only harmful and can confuse others in future discussion.

The analogy you provided at the end has little to no connection to the changes being proposed. The store may have saw cash -10 and +10 to equal out but since Timmy still took the apple, the store is actually at -10. If this is what was happening, I would also be asking for the apple back, but that is not the full case. It is closer to losing the 10 and then getting reimbursed for the loss. The store will see net 0. From here we can disagree if the store needs extra compensation (takes work to file a claim and regain the lost 10) or should be satisfied with net neutral outcome.

If you look individually at the item, yes the item alone will be nerfed when in a vacuum. I agree on this fact. What I do not see as a problem, and what people are trying to ignore, is that it will easily regain the loss with a single feat that is already vital and taken by every single ranged build. People mentioning you cannot look at the vacuum, just looked into a vacuum of only the mentioned items, and not including the feat that will then apply. Every ranged build will have the feat (it is a prereq for lots of things).

A nerf relative to other bows is still a nerf.

It may feel counterintuitive to you, but it is. Same as nerfing alchemist/fire sorc was an indirect (relative) buff to everything else.

Weapons don't exist in a vacuum, they are constantly compared to other weapons, be it of the same type or different.

In this case some legacy bows are getting nerfed, even if you could perceive it as a buff to every other bow.

It is entirely counter intuitive and not based in reality.
I am sorry but saying a tree that is 30 feet high surrounded by 10 foot trees that is then surrounded by 20 foot trees does not change the fact that the tallest tree is still 30 feet. The tree did not get shorter, it just didn't get the same growth.
(A closer analogy) If you chop off 10 feet from the highest tree and then raise the ground 10 feet for all trees, the tallest tree is still the tallest. The tallest tree is still the same end height, there is now just less of a difference.

Mentioning fire sorc/alchy is not relevant, they received a nerf and no way to recoup the loss (show me the feat everyone already takes that got buffed to bring it back to the exact same place). I agree that it was a relative buff to others since the others are not as far behind now. The bow changes are not the same since they can recoup, they just don't maintain the same lead.

If you mention that weapons are not in a vacuum, please leave the vacuum and apply the feat.

[Zoveride]

Reading your direct response I initially thought that we had come to some understanding.

You wish for all students to get an additional apple. Here we disagree but I can understand your viewpoint.

I stand by my original statement that saying there is a nerf is misleading. You seemed to acknowledge this by saying " This is not misleading, if you subtract and then add the same number there is no increase, therefore there is no buff. This is supposed to be a buff to bows." I am sorry, but as far as I know not getting a buff is not the same as a nerf, it is a net neutral.

We seem to disagree on the other aspects of bow changes being a buff/nerf/neutral but this is honestly a matter of opinion, I recognize your viewpoint that the compensation for a manyshot loss may not seem enough, I disagree but we seem to have the same basic understanding.

The statement "never lost any and still has more" is an irrefutable fact. 3 is still equal to 3 and 3 is greater then 2. The opinion I included was that compensation is not necessary since no loss occurred. A differing opinion is that compensation is necessary to maintain the power gap (either also giving +1 or an aug slot, etc). Disagreeing on these opinions is a productive conversation. Disagreeing on 3=3 and 3>2 shows a lack of understanding on the actual changes occurring. Repeating the falsity that the bows are getting nerfed is only harmful and can confuse others in future discussion.

The analogy you provided at the end has little to no connection to the changes being proposed. The store may have saw cash -10 and +10 to equal out but since Timmy still took the apple, the store is actually at -10. If this is what was happening, I would also be asking for the apple back, but that is not the full case. It is closer to losing the 10 and then getting reimbursed for the loss. The store will see net 0. From here we can disagree if the store needs extra compensation (takes work to file a claim and regain the lost 10) or should be satisfied with net neutral outcome.

If you look individually at the item, yes the item alone will be nerfed when in a vacuum. I agree on this fact. What I do not see as a problem, and what people are trying to ignore, is that it will easily regain the loss with a single feat that is already vital and taken by every single ranged build. People mentioning you cannot look at the vacuum, just looked into a vacuum of only the mentioned items, and not including the feat that will then apply. Every ranged build will have the feat (it is a prereq for lots of things).



It is entirely counter intuitive and not based in reality.
I am sorry but saying a tree that is 30 feet high surrounded by 10 foot trees that is then surrounded by 20 foot trees does not change the fact that the tallest tree is still 30 feet. The tree did not get shorter, it just didn't get the same growth.
(A closer analogy) If you chop off 10 feet from the highest tree and then raise the ground 10 feet for all trees, the tallest tree is still the tallest. The tallest tree is still the same end height, there is now just less of a difference.

Mentioning fire sorc/alchy is not relevant, they received a nerf and no way to recoup the loss (show me the feat everyone already takes that got buffed to bring it back to the exact same place). I agree that it was a relative buff to others since the others are not as far behind now. The bow changes are not the same since they can recoup, they just don't maintain the same lead.

If you mention that weapons are not in a vacuum, please leave the vacuum and apply the feat.

Mate you have lost the plot, it's actually hilarious now.
A nerf is a nerf. There is loss. The bow is losing 1 crit range on the item itself can you really not understand that?
Regardless of the fact that you can purchase that crit range threat back, you have to in fact purchase it and add it from somewhere else. This is a nerf plain and simple. I'm sorry you can't understand that and at this point it seems no childish analogies will help you see the truth.
It simply cannot be made any clearer.
Your whole rambling post is trying to conclude that there was no loss when there clearly was.
You are trying to argue that these bows are not being altered. They are.