Vamp Or AP - Page 3 - Guild Wars Forums

Ron vo · Sep 13, 2006, 02:14 AM // 02:14

why is everyone hating on sundering?I use it because the various spikes are useful a constant 3 damage AND heal regen is pretty nice...my assassin prefers zealous my warrior uses AP simple as that,its just...most people would choose sundering...right?

lennymon · Sep 13, 2006, 07:55 AM // 07:55

Boy, almost hate to jump in here...not. Spike... I think possibly your trousers are a little tight, relax chief.
Nobody is suggesting that vamp weapons are an effective way to HEAL... just that the extra damage from the MOD alone is higher for vamp than for sundering over time. Period. Nobody wants to make anyone 'like' vamp or sundering. Whether you 'like' it or not, Savio's facts are still true. He's put together the data here for anyone who wants to make up their own *informed-non-ignorant* decicion, so perhaps instead of throwing a tantrum about how this data is a personal attack, we can just learn...

nobody hates sundering, its just less efficient while fighting. I use a sundering axe when not swinging so Im not degening. and I also switch to it from zealous when my energy is running a little low.

fallot · Sep 13, 2006, 08:22 AM // 08:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by lennymon

nobody hates sundering, its just less efficient while fighting. I use a sundering axe when not swinging so Im not degening. and I also switch to it from zealous when my energy is running a little low.

Why not save a slot and switch to elemental ?

lennymon · Sep 13, 2006, 08:38 AM // 08:38

no ele axe...sword yes, it switches around. warriors not being my fave I just never botherd to set it all up right

Ranger ftw, I own 3 vamp bows and hardly ever use any of them. I much prefer zealous in general for pve with an ele swap, crippling or poison(build depending) and elemental in pvp. I concur however that elemental vamp and zealous melee weapon is the most efficient...with a big bow for pulling, Ive just never gotten around to collecting all the different weapons for warrior.

Quaker · Sep 13, 2006, 03:31 PM // 15:31

I've been involved in several discussions about this topic. One thing you'll notice is that lots of the "anti-sundering" people show you various calculations that "prove" that Sundering is worse than Vampiric. The formulas used for this are seen in many places, including the article on "Game Mechanics" and the "Damage Calculator" on Guru itself.
What they don't tell you is that they are using "typical" damage formulas from some unknown source. The fact is, ANet has not released any details about the "actual" formulas/calculations used to in the actual game. The only real way, at this time, to determine which is best, is to test them out in-game.

The 3 main points that come from using those "typical" formulas are:

1. Vampiric is "constant" damage, while Sundering is spike damage. Not true in actual use. In actual use, both damage types have individual per-shot damage values that cover a broad range.

2. Vampiric is better than Sundering over time. Also not true - they are roughly equal over time - depending upon the target.

3. Sundering is worse versus stronger armor. Most people have observed the exact opposite - Vamp seems to be better versus "squishes" while sundering is better versus "hard" targets.

The main thing is that neither one is intrinsically better than the other. Each (& Elemental) are best under certain circumstances versus certain targets.

Here's a link to some tests I did - http://www.theamazonbasin.com/gw/for...showtopic=6487

As I said in those posts - make your own conclusions - try it yourself.

JR · Sep 13, 2006, 04:03 PM // 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

I've been involved in several discussions about this topic. One thing you'll notice is that lots of the "anti-sundering" people show you various calculations that "prove" that Sundering is worse than Vampiric. The formulas used for this are seen in many places, including the article on "Game Mechanics" and the "Damage Calculator" on Guru itself.
What they don't tell you is that they are using "typical" damage formulas from some unknown source. The fact is, ANet has not released any details about the "actual" formulas/calculations used to in the actual game. The only real way, at this time, to determine which is best, is to test them out in-game.

Actually the majority of statistics that show Sundering being undeniably inferior are also based on testing; testing involving hundreds of hits in a range of controlled circumstances.

Your tests aren't NEARLY comprehensive enough to glean any kind of conclusion.

Spike · Sep 13, 2006, 04:29 PM // 16:29

Lenneymon while savios data maybe true in testing. When PLAYING its NOT due to the FACT you do NOT hit 100% of the time. I never said vamp was a way to heal just that lost HP when useing it which btw savio proved him self to be true. The amount was not the issue just that you lost some.

The only ignorant people around here are those who A) ASSUME things and B) belive that testing = "REAL" life

No savio I'm not saying warriors should have only 1 weapon if you had read my posts you whould of seen my warrior has TWO weapons and my ranger THREE.

As far as stats go. I like this saying. "There are lies, damm lies and stats" Plus "You can prove ANYTHING with stats".

moriz · Sep 13, 2006, 04:41 PM // 16:41

actually, savio proved that you GAIN health while using a vamp weapon...

anyways, if you really believe your little motto, how about you get my guild's stats from team-iq.net and guildwars.com, and use that "prove" that i'm a better monk than JR?

huMptY DumPty · Sep 13, 2006, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Personally, I like them both, and always carry your sets.

A zealous, vampiric and a 20/20 sundering ; whether its a bow, axe, hammer or sword. Better have all when needed right?

JR · Sep 13, 2006, 05:30 PM // 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by huMptY DumPty

Personally, I like them both, and always carry your sets.

A zealous, vampiric and a 20/20 sundering ; whether its a bow, axe, hammer or sword. Better have all when needed right?

The point being made is that you never need sundering.

Savio · Sep 13, 2006, 06:00 PM // 18:00

Quaker:
The damage formulas that people use were empirically derived from tests run ingame, with thousands of hits. They've been proven accurate time and again, only occasionally being off a point because of the way the game rounds. If you want to prove anything, you're going to have to do at the minimum several hundred hits per weapon. I'd personally do several thousand; if you don't have even a single hour to spare to wail away at targets, then why are you bothering to argue about it?

As far as your generalizations:
1. I don't understand why people think sundering is for spikes, as armor penetration doesn't apply to +damage. But then again I don't understand the majority of the GW population's reasoning.
2. You need to test it more as per the above to see a noticeable difference. If I flip a coin 4 times and get 3 heads, concluding that the coin is biased towards heads would be erroneous.
3. Actually, if you observed it at all there's practically no difference between the gains against a 60 AL target, a 80 AL target, and a 100 AL target. Percentage-wise you gain more against a higher AL target; but in terms of actual damage point gains you get about the same against all of them. Sundering loses a fraction of a point of damage against higher AL targets, but due to rounding you won't notice any change.

Spike:
Maybe I haven't made it clear before now, but nobody cares about losing 120 health per minute. Even if you didn't hit anything at all, 120 health lost is easily gained back by a heal sig, or any other healing for that matter. I don't care if you want to believe that -1 health regen is oh so deadly; but don't come on this forum, make erroneous statements, and then try to cloud the debate by claiming I'm the one "ASSUMING" things. As others have said, I'd run vampiric even if I didn't get any health back.

huMptY DumPty:
What JR said, and where are your elemental weapons?

lennymon · Sep 13, 2006, 06:06 PM // 18:06

Yes, Savio proved you *can* gain health while attacking an armor dummy on isle of nameless...
Yes you degen while wielding a vamp weapon
Both of these points are completely tangential to the discussion of which does more damage over time. If you miss 1/10 times with vamp... guess what... the same is true for sundering. The point remains that on average a 3:1 vamp sword or axe WILL deal better damage with the rare exception of a crit/sundering/headshot. There are exceptions... I'd use sundering for a wild blow build (not tested - just based upon my assumptions of how the mod and wild blow interact) for example, it may not be better but thats what I'd use.

On a side note, primal rage: anyone tested to see if the 20% ap from that skill stacks with sundering mods? It would likely take about a bajillion hits since you can't use wild blow. Edit: cool just thought of a good use for the candy cane weapons

Hehe, Spike another stat phrase to add to the collection

'90% of all statistics are made up.'

LouAl · Sep 13, 2006, 07:16 PM // 19:16

Why is there an argument here?!?

I just wasted a ton of time (not really wasted I am at work after all) reading this thread, and I have to ask - Why is there even an argument?

@ Spike
You are an idiot. I am sorry, but are you just trying to make the point that vamp makes you lose health? Everyone knows and no one cares. The point that Savio is making is that the loss is not enough to matter in any way, and that the loss in health is not significant enough to make the switch (and loss of overall damage output) to a sundering mod. Is that about right Savio? That is what I got from your posts.

Here is a long bit on Statistics I suggest you read (intedned for Spike and all others who are having trouble understanding what statistics are).

Statistics don't lie. People can lie using statistics, but statistics don't lie. If you know anything about statistics you *should* know that ALL statistics should be taken only in context, and that statistics CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING. Statistics are not facts of a population, they are characteristics of a sample that can be used to represent a population. Usually in statistics you must define your confidence interval (90%, 95%, 99%). If you pick 99% it means that 99% of time, when you make a test, it will fall within the range defined by the statistical hypothesis.

Following from what Savio posted about coin flipping...Have you ever flipped a coin? Have you ever flipped a coin hundreds of times in a row? Have you ever flipped a coin thousands of times in a row? How many times did you get heads? Here is the basic truth of statistics - When you increase the number of times the coin is flipped, the ratio of heads to tails APPROACHES .5 (which is easily seen as the mathematic answer). It will never be exactly .5, so we rely on statistics to give us a general idea (with a specified confidence interval) of what is hapening.

here is another quote for you (I made it up myself)
People who trust all statistics are morons. People who trust no statistics are even worse.

Back to the topic:
My choice between vamp and sundering would be vamp, even if I could only have one weapon. I really prefer the constant damage over the 20% damage regardless of which gets higher overall returns. It is nice that, apparently, the highest overall also happens to be the constant.

Doesn't that fit with the rest of the game? Isn't the overall on a max constant absorbtion shield better than the max on a % abs shield? I am not going to try and find the thread that went over that, but I think that I remember correctly. This doesn't prove anything, I am just thinking about all the other areas of the game that seem to follow the same pattern.

EDIT:

One other thing I forgot -
You cannot prove anything with statistics. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of fact and theory.

Fact - CAN BE PROVEN. Can be counted, touched, seen, etc using human senses.
Examples of fact:
"I have 5 fingers on my left hand."
"2+2=4"
"I am wearing a shirt."

Theory - CANNOT BE PROVEN. Cannot ever be shown to be definitavely true. Cannot be seen, counted, touched, etc using human senses.
Examples of theory:
History
Cells
Atoms
Big Bang
Evolution

Angel Develin · Sep 13, 2006, 07:29 PM // 19:29

Just put 10 in strength and use vampiric, now you have 10% AP + 3 life steal

. (If i'm not wrong here)

Spike · Sep 14, 2006, 12:12 AM // 00:12

Well if no one cares about vamp weapons loseing them health why are 20/20 AP mods worth much more than vamp ones ? If everyone knew this surely it would be the other way?

History is not theory. EG D-Day is history. I can talk to people who where there and SAW it happending. Therefore its a FACT. I'm pretty damm sure cells and atoms have been proved to exist as well. Likewise with evolution. The only thing in your list that currently IS a theory is the Big Bang.

No wonder you have such strange ideas about theory lou if you have 5 fingers on your left hand :P

Oh and lou if I'M an idiot for makeing a point about loseing HP what does that make all the rest of you for agrueing with me about it. One of my other points was that vamp is NOT the best overall mod and savio agreed with me. Maybe you should go back and read the posts AGAIN.

from http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...2&postcount=39 in reponse to my post http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...2&postcount=38

In which I said "its NOT the best overall upgarde." He replied "Of course not"

Hand of Ruin · Sep 14, 2006, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Despite whether Sundering matches the damage from a vampric mod over time, I still use my Victo's as an all-purpose weapon. Especially when I know I may encounter degen... Degen + vampric = more trouble.

I'd say zealous or furious is still more useful than both...

Zealous = Much faster energy regen, allowing you to spam energy-based skills more and thus improving your dps (probably moreso than vamp or sundering)

Furious = Faster adrenaline gain, allowing you to spam adrenaline-based skills more and this improving your dps (provbably moreso than vamp or sundering)

Honestly, someone should test whether the benefiets from Furious/Zealous increase your dps... because I'm willing to bet both are better than vamp and sundering if you're concern is damage...

lennymon · Sep 14, 2006, 12:48 AM // 00:48

I <heart> zealous, dunno if I mentioned it or not

on a wild blow vs test dummy its going to be outperformed by everything. I already know this and somehow I always do better when wielding zealous as a ranger, why? Because more interrupts means alesia can do her job instead of rezzing little thom every 12.6 seconds.

moriz · Sep 14, 2006, 12:58 AM // 00:58

yes, vampiric is not the best overall upgrade, but it is better than sundering.

it is proven under controlled situations that vampiric is ALWAYS better than sundering. yes, not every situation is a "controlled situation", but tests like those that were done were designed to reflect "real life", as you put it, and represents a general case of usage. if sundering fare worse than vampiric under controlled situations, what makes you think that it will perform better in "real life"?

anyways, sundering costs more is because of the big numbers. that's about it.

Thom Bangalter · Sep 14, 2006, 01:59 AM // 01:59

sundering is garbage. anyone who prefers sundering isn't good at pvp.

there, discussion over.

Sereng Amaranth · Sep 14, 2006, 02:33 AM // 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

Here's a link to some tests I did - http://www.theamazonbasin.com/gw/for...showtopic=6487

That is my guild's website, lol.

And if you read the post by Khift, he explains vamp vs sundering very well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

One final piece of evidence is what really puts the nail in sundering's coffin in spike oriented pvp builds: Vampiric goes through prots. If you hit someone with vampiric and they've got a reversal on them the regular damage from your weapon will be negated but your 3 points of lifesteal are not. If you hit someone with a sundering weapon while they have reversal on them your sundering activation is likely to mean nothing. If you hit a target with prot spirit on them with a vampiric weapon you'll be able to do just a little more than 10% of their health in damage, but sundering won't help you any there either. Honestly, I think that is what makes vampiric better than sundering in most PvP situations.

Sep 13, 2006, 07:55 AM // 07:55	#42
lennymon Forge Runner Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Seattle Guild: Odin's Hammer [OH] - Servant's of Fortuna [SoF] Profession: R/	Boy, almost hate to jump in here...not. Spike... I think possibly your trousers are a little tight, relax chief. Nobody is suggesting that vamp weapons are an effective way to HEAL... just that the extra damage from the MOD alone is higher for vamp than for sundering over time. Period. Nobody wants to make anyone 'like' vamp or sundering. Whether you 'like' it or not, Savio's facts are still true. He's put together the data here for anyone who wants to make up their own informed-non-ignorant decicion, so perhaps instead of throwing a tantrum about how this data is a personal attack, we can just learn... nobody hates sundering, its just less efficient while fighting. I use a sundering axe when not swinging so Im not degening. and I also switch to it from zealous when my energy is running a little low. Last edited by lennymon; Sep 13, 2006 at 07:58 AM // 07:58..

Sep 13, 2006, 06:00 PM // 18:00	#51
Savio Teenager with attitude Join Date: Jul 2005 Guild: Fifteen Over Fifty [Rare]	Quaker: The damage formulas that people use were empirically derived from tests run ingame, with thousands of hits. They've been proven accurate time and again, only occasionally being off a point because of the way the game rounds. If you want to prove anything, you're going to have to do at the minimum several hundred hits per weapon. I'd personally do several thousand; if you don't have even a single hour to spare to wail away at targets, then why are you bothering to argue about it? As far as your generalizations: 1. I don't understand why people think sundering is for spikes, as armor penetration doesn't apply to +damage. But then again I don't understand the majority of the GW population's reasoning. 2. You need to test it more as per the above to see a noticeable difference. If I flip a coin 4 times and get 3 heads, concluding that the coin is biased towards heads would be erroneous. 3. Actually, if you observed it at all there's practically no difference between the gains against a 60 AL target, a 80 AL target, and a 100 AL target. Percentage-wise you gain more against a higher AL target; but in terms of actual damage point gains you get about the same against all of them. Sundering loses a fraction of a point of damage against higher AL targets, but due to rounding you won't notice any change. Spike: Maybe I haven't made it clear before now, but nobody cares about losing 120 health per minute. Even if you didn't hit anything at all, 120 health lost is easily gained back by a heal sig, or any other healing for that matter. I don't care if you want to believe that -1 health regen is oh so deadly; but don't come on this forum, make erroneous statements, and then try to cloud the debate by claiming I'm the one "ASSUMING" things. As others have said, I'd run vampiric even if I didn't get any health back. huMptY DumPty: What JR said, and where are your elemental weapons? __________________ People are stupid.

Sep 13, 2006, 06:06 PM // 18:06	#52
lennymon Forge Runner Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Seattle Guild: Odin's Hammer [OH] - Servant's of Fortuna [SoF] Profession: R/	Yes, Savio proved you can gain health while attacking an armor dummy on isle of nameless... Yes you degen while wielding a vamp weapon Both of these points are completely tangential to the discussion of which does more damage over time. If you miss 1/10 times with vamp... guess what... the same is true for sundering. The point remains that on average a 3:1 vamp sword or axe WILL deal better damage with the rare exception of a crit/sundering/headshot. There are exceptions... I'd use sundering for a wild blow build (not tested - just based upon my assumptions of how the mod and wild blow interact) for example, it may not be better but thats what I'd use. On a side note, primal rage: anyone tested to see if the 20% ap from that skill stacks with sundering mods? It would likely take about a bajillion hits since you can't use wild blow. Edit: cool just thought of a good use for the candy cane weapons Hehe, Spike another stat phrase to add to the collection '90% of all statistics are made up.' Last edited by lennymon; Sep 13, 2006 at 06:08 PM // 18:08..

Sep 13, 2006, 07:16 PM // 19:16	#53
LouAl Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Dec 2005	Why is there an argument here?!? I just wasted a ton of time (not really wasted I am at work after all) reading this thread, and I have to ask - Why is there even an argument? @ Spike You are an idiot. I am sorry, but are you just trying to make the point that vamp makes you lose health? Everyone knows and no one cares. The point that Savio is making is that the loss is not enough to matter in any way, and that the loss in health is not significant enough to make the switch (and loss of overall damage output) to a sundering mod. Is that about right Savio? That is what I got from your posts. Here is a long bit on Statistics I suggest you read (intedned for Spike and all others who are having trouble understanding what statistics are). Statistics don't lie. People can lie using statistics, but statistics don't lie. If you know anything about statistics you should know that ALL statistics should be taken only in context, and that statistics CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING. Statistics are not facts of a population, they are characteristics of a sample that can be used to represent a population. Usually in statistics you must define your confidence interval (90%, 95%, 99%). If you pick 99% it means that 99% of time, when you make a test, it will fall within the range defined by the statistical hypothesis. Following from what Savio posted about coin flipping...Have you ever flipped a coin? Have you ever flipped a coin hundreds of times in a row? Have you ever flipped a coin thousands of times in a row? How many times did you get heads? Here is the basic truth of statistics - When you increase the number of times the coin is flipped, the ratio of heads to tails APPROACHES .5 (which is easily seen as the mathematic answer). It will never be exactly .5, so we rely on statistics to give us a general idea (with a specified confidence interval) of what is hapening. here is another quote for you (I made it up myself) People who trust all statistics are morons. People who trust no statistics are even worse. Back to the topic: My choice between vamp and sundering would be vamp, even if I could only have one weapon. I really prefer the constant damage over the 20% damage regardless of which gets higher overall returns. It is nice that, apparently, the highest overall also happens to be the constant. Doesn't that fit with the rest of the game? Isn't the overall on a max constant absorbtion shield better than the max on a % abs shield? I am not going to try and find the thread that went over that, but I think that I remember correctly. This doesn't prove anything, I am just thinking about all the other areas of the game that seem to follow the same pattern. EDIT: One other thing I forgot - You cannot prove anything with statistics. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of fact and theory. Fact - CAN BE PROVEN. Can be counted, touched, seen, etc using human senses. Examples of fact: "I have 5 fingers on my left hand." "2+2=4" "I am wearing a shirt." Theory - CANNOT BE PROVEN. Cannot ever be shown to be definitavely true. Cannot be seen, counted, touched, etc using human senses. Examples of theory: History Cells Atoms Big Bang Evolution Last edited by LouAl; Sep 13, 2006 at 07:30 PM // 19:30..

Sep 13, 2006, 02:14 AM // 02:14	#41
Ron vo Ascalonian Squire Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: arizona Guild: Insert Witty Guild Name Profession: A/Me	why is everyone hating on sundering?I use it because the various spikes are useful a constant 3 damage AND heal regen is pretty nice...my assassin prefers zealous my warrior uses AP simple as that,its just...most people would choose sundering...right?

Sep 13, 2006, 08:38 AM // 08:38	#44
lennymon Forge Runner Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Seattle Guild: Odin's Hammer [OH] - Servant's of Fortuna [SoF] Profession: R/	no ele axe...sword yes, it switches around. warriors not being my fave I just never botherd to set it all up right Ranger ftw, I own 3 vamp bows and hardly ever use any of them. I much prefer zealous in general for pve with an ele swap, crippling or poison(build depending) and elemental in pvp. I concur however that elemental vamp and zealous melee weapon is the most efficient...with a big bow for pulling, Ive just never gotten around to collecting all the different weapons for warrior.

Sep 13, 2006, 03:31 PM // 15:31	#45
Quaker Hell's Protector Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Canada Guild: Brothers Disgruntled	I've been involved in several discussions about this topic. One thing you'll notice is that lots of the "anti-sundering" people show you various calculations that "prove" that Sundering is worse than Vampiric. The formulas used for this are seen in many places, including the article on "Game Mechanics" and the "Damage Calculator" on Guru itself. What they don't tell you is that they are using "typical" damage formulas from some unknown source. The fact is, ANet has not released any details about the "actual" formulas/calculations used to in the actual game. The only real way, at this time, to determine which is best, is to test them out in-game. The 3 main points that come from using those "typical" formulas are: 1. Vampiric is "constant" damage, while Sundering is spike damage. Not true in actual use. In actual use, both damage types have individual per-shot damage values that cover a broad range. 2. Vampiric is better than Sundering over time. Also not true - they are roughly equal over time - depending upon the target. 3. Sundering is worse versus stronger armor. Most people have observed the exact opposite - Vamp seems to be better versus "squishes" while sundering is better versus "hard" targets. The main thing is that neither one is intrinsically better than the other. Each (& Elemental) are best under certain circumstances versus certain targets. Here's a link to some tests I did - http://www.theamazonbasin.com/gw/for...showtopic=6487 As I said in those posts - make your own conclusions - try it yourself.

Sep 13, 2006, 04:29 PM // 16:29	#47
Spike Jungle Guide Join Date: May 2005 Location: In front of my PC Guild: Kai Profession: E/Mo	Lenneymon while savios data maybe true in testing. When PLAYING its NOT due to the FACT you do NOT hit 100% of the time. I never said vamp was a way to heal just that lost HP when useing it which btw savio proved him self to be true. The amount was not the issue just that you lost some. The only ignorant people around here are those who A) ASSUME things and B) belive that testing = "REAL" life No savio I'm not saying warriors should have only 1 weapon if you had read my posts you whould of seen my warrior has TWO weapons and my ranger THREE. As far as stats go. I like this saying. "There are lies, damm lies and stats" Plus "You can prove ANYTHING with stats".

Sep 13, 2006, 04:41 PM // 16:41	#48
moriz ??ber t??k-n??sh'??n Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Canada Profession: R/	actually, savio proved that you GAIN health while using a vamp weapon... anyways, if you really believe your little motto, how about you get my guild's stats from team-iq.net and guildwars.com, and use that "prove" that i'm a better monk than JR?

Sep 13, 2006, 04:59 PM // 16:59	#49
huMptY DumPty Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Jun 2006 Guild: [BAN] Profession: W/	Personally, I like them both, and always carry your sets. A zealous, vampiric and a 20/20 sundering ; whether its a bow, axe, hammer or sword. Better have all when needed right?

Sep 13, 2006, 07:29 PM // 19:29	#54
Angel Develin Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lions Arch Guild: Minions of Kronos Profession: N/Me	Just put 10 in strength and use vampiric, now you have 10% AP + 3 life steal . (If i'm not wrong here)

Sep 14, 2006, 12:12 AM // 00:12	#55
Spike Jungle Guide Join Date: May 2005 Location: In front of my PC Guild: Kai Profession: E/Mo	Well if no one cares about vamp weapons loseing them health why are 20/20 AP mods worth much more than vamp ones ? If everyone knew this surely it would be the other way? History is not theory. EG D-Day is history. I can talk to people who where there and SAW it happending. Therefore its a FACT. I'm pretty damm sure cells and atoms have been proved to exist as well. Likewise with evolution. The only thing in your list that currently IS a theory is the Big Bang. No wonder you have such strange ideas about theory lou if you have 5 fingers on your left hand :P Oh and lou if I'M an idiot for makeing a point about loseing HP what does that make all the rest of you for agrueing with me about it. One of my other points was that vamp is NOT the best overall mod and savio agreed with me. Maybe you should go back and read the posts AGAIN. from http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...2&postcount=39 in reponse to my post http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...2&postcount=38 In which I said "its NOT the best overall upgarde." He replied "Of course not"

Sep 14, 2006, 12:35 AM // 00:35	#56
Hand of Ruin Banned Join Date: Jul 2006	Despite whether Sundering matches the damage from a vampric mod over time, I still use my Victo's as an all-purpose weapon. Especially when I know I may encounter degen... Degen + vampric = more trouble. I'd say zealous or furious is still more useful than both... Zealous = Much faster energy regen, allowing you to spam energy-based skills more and thus improving your dps (probably moreso than vamp or sundering) Furious = Faster adrenaline gain, allowing you to spam adrenaline-based skills more and this improving your dps (provbably moreso than vamp or sundering) Honestly, someone should test whether the benefiets from Furious/Zealous increase your dps... because I'm willing to bet both are better than vamp and sundering if you're concern is damage...

Sep 14, 2006, 12:48 AM // 00:48	#57
lennymon Forge Runner Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Seattle Guild: Odin's Hammer [OH] - Servant's of Fortuna [SoF] Profession: R/	I <heart> zealous, dunno if I mentioned it or not on a wild blow vs test dummy its going to be outperformed by everything. I already know this and somehow I always do better when wielding zealous as a ranger, why? Because more interrupts means alesia can do her job instead of rezzing little thom every 12.6 seconds.

Sep 14, 2006, 12:58 AM // 00:58	#58
moriz ??ber t??k-n??sh'??n Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Canada Profession: R/	yes, vampiric is not the best overall upgrade, but it is better than sundering. it is proven under controlled situations that vampiric is ALWAYS better than sundering. yes, not every situation is a "controlled situation", but tests like those that were done were designed to reflect "real life", as you put it, and represents a general case of usage. if sundering fare worse than vampiric under controlled situations, what makes you think that it will perform better in "real life"? anyways, sundering costs more is because of the big numbers. that's about it.

Sep 14, 2006, 01:59 AM // 01:59	#59
Thom Bangalter Grindin' Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: MO Profession: E/Mo	sundering is garbage. anyone who prefers sundering isn't good at pvp. there, discussion over.