Why is Sundering considered 'perfect' when Vamp does more DPS overall. - Page 2 - Guild Wars Forums

_Nihilist_ · Dec 29, 2009, 06:30 PM // 18:30

I have to agree with Gift3ed and Chthon.

Anyone else remember when max Sundering was 10/10 instead of 20/20? Even after they buffed it, Vampiric is still better, but people who only want 1 weapon and don't want to swap would rather pay more for a Sundering because there is "no drawback" (wtfever, gtfo), lol!

stanzhao · Dec 29, 2009, 06:49 PM // 18:49

even when reading this, the -1 scared me so much i had to turn my screen around.

the only reason someone might say 'wts a perfect fellblade' and you see its sundering is because that is the norm pve sword mod. pvpers dont hang around looking for perfect swords. they may buy the skin, but add their own mods etc after.

you dont need dps over time in pve

Winterclaw · Dec 29, 2009, 06:56 PM // 18:56

Vampiric = more risk (degen) more gain.
Sundering = lesser risk (no degen) lesser gain.
Zealous = for people who want to stay out of the V-S debate.

paddymew · Dec 29, 2009, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Hammers and Scythes deal more damage that Swords and Axes, and people use both. A vampiric mod is like using a two-handed weapon instead of a weapon and a shield.

reaper with no name · Dec 29, 2009, 08:34 PM // 20:34

A) People don't do the math to discover that a vampiric mod does more damage

B) People are too dumb to realize that you actually gain far more health than you lose with a vampiric mod when it is used properly

C) People are too cheap/lazy to employ weapon swapping, which is a prerequisite for B

imnotyourmother · Dec 29, 2009, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Answer... Scale Fin Soup. there use the vamp with NO degen... nuff said

Astral_Nomad · Dec 29, 2009, 11:01 PM // 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalFear

I tried some Vamp and Sundering weapons on the Master of Damage(Axe, Bow, Sword), either autoattacking or using a set amount of attack skills.

Every time Vampiric had a higher overall damage.

So why do people want Sundering while Vamp does more damage?

ummm.. cause 15^50 is a buff without risking your own health as a consequence.. one thing you have to look out for when using vamp weaps.. its the health -1 degen issue that gets me.. lol.. i only use it if i have to do like dunes of despair to get my boys across the chasm.

x sithis x · Dec 29, 2009, 11:33 PM // 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitor

sundering has bigger numbers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morticia of Cyana

Sundering might have bigger numbers, but vamp has more numbers.

lets say u do ~25 dmg sundering
lets say you do ~23 dmg vamp ... add the -3 from vamp sword its more overall lol

Kitor · Dec 29, 2009, 11:47 PM // 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by x sithis x

lets say u do ~25 dmg sundering
lets say you do ~23 dmg vamp ... add the -3 from vamp sword its more overall lol

I was saying the mod itself has bigger numbers, not the damage.

As per the example, a sundering sword would theoretically trigger once every five attacks. If your target is a monk with 60 AR, this would cause it to add 12 damage once in 5 attacks. A Vamp sword would be guaranteed to have 3 added every single attack, causing +15 life stealing. Keeping in mind the one sundering mod might not trigger, the vamp is doing more damage more often.

So saying 25 damage per attack like you said...

25x5 is 125, + 12 is 137

25x5 is 125 + 15 is 140

So Vamp would be doing more damage, but there's a chance that Sundering wouldn't even happen.

And honestly, chances are it wouldn't trigger once every five attacks in the average situation Probly more like somewhere between 6 and 10. Vamp is way more reliable, and more damage overall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astral_Nomad

ummm.. cause 15^50 is a buff without risking your own health as a consequence.. one thing you have to look out for when using vamp weaps.. its the health -1 degen issue that gets me.. lol.. i only use it if i have to do like dunes of despair to get my boys across the chasm.

What did 15^50 have to do with it? Vamp and 15^50 aren't mutually exclusive. Vamp and Sundering are.

And, try weapon switching. The life steal causes more healing than the degen does to your health, and out of battle, just switch weapons.

maxxfury · Dec 30, 2009, 01:00 AM // 01:00

I used sundering gear on heroes, cos im just too lazy, and when i use them its rare and i dont want to have to pay too much attention to them

And cos wow! 20/20 is more than 5/-1? isnt it?

Morticia of Cyana · Dec 30, 2009, 09:29 AM // 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxxfury

I used sundering gear on heroes, cos im just too lazy

I never used vamp on my heroes, I always give them crap golds. I might try giving my heroes vamp tho.

2 things might happen then:
1. Heroes die because of -1 degen.
2. The monks spend all their expensive healing spells to outheal the -1 degen. (like they do with minions)

byteme! · Dec 30, 2009, 11:02 AM // 11:02

Most people don't play video games with a calculator in their hands. Apparently some of you do. Most people don't take video games that damn seriously. Apparently some of you do. Most people could care less if Vamp gives them +2 damage more per hit over Sundering. If you can visually notice the difference kudos to you because I'm sure that .001th of a second you saved per foe/mob was well worth it. This bashing of people based on the mods they choose to use is a little ignorant and some what immature.

Sundering has no downside. Requires no conditions. Is widely accepted as the "jack of all trades" mod. "Mathematically" vamp is better hands down. No argument what so ever. The real question is who the hell cares or finds the time to? The difference is so slight and minute it's not even worth the trouble of a debate.

Quaker · Dec 30, 2009, 04:21 PM // 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

Most people don't play video games with a calculator in their hands. Apparently some of you do. Most people don't take video games that damn seriously. Apparently some of you do. Most people could care less if Vamp gives them +2 damage more per hit over Sundering. If you can visually notice the difference kudos to you because I'm sure that .001th of a second you saved per foe/mob was well worth it. This bashing of people based on the mods they choose to use is a little ignorant and some what immature.

Sundering has no downside. Requires no conditions. Is widely accepted as the "jack of all trades" mod. "Mathematically" vamp is better hands down. No argument what so ever. The real question is who the hell cares or finds the time to? The difference is so slight and minute it's not even worth the trouble of a debate.

At last, some one who makes sense!

I'd like to add to this, that most of the people who argue about the "mathematics" of it, don't even understand the basics of how sundering works. They seem to think that sundering does 20% more damage, when in reality it causes a 20% reduction in the foes armor - which can result in more (or less) than a 20% increase in damage, depending upon the AL of the target.
The last time this issue came up I did tests where I attacked a target 20 times in a row with Vamp and Sundering and found no significant difference in the total damage done. The Vamp fanboys told me that 20 hits wasn't enough, statistically, and that if I did 200 hits I'd see that Vamp was better.
Well, hello-o!! If it takes 200 hits to see a difference, it aint much of a difference!

Anyway, kudos to Byteme for trying to put things in perspective.

Faure · Dec 30, 2009, 04:39 PM // 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enar.

Doesn't have to be ebon. it can be any elemental damage.

I'm using Cold/Zealous/Vampiric for all weapons + Sundering for Axe only.

Sundering on bows is quite dumb i find.
But whats more dumb, its that if you sell weapon that doesn't have 20/20 ,because you value zealous more then they ask to lower price which is like lol...

But there's no shieldmod vs earth dmg, and there is against the others. So you might end up attacking someone with +10 armor against your element, whereas earth never will have a counter.
Then again, I agree with 'byteme!' so I couldn't really care. I always use furious because I want my adrenal skills charged up asap.

SirNukes · Dec 30, 2009, 05:22 PM // 17:22

I agree with the people who blame laziness. Why bother switching weapons constantly for only an extra 1-2 dps in casual play?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faure

But there's no shieldmod vs earth dmg, and there is against the others. So you might end up attacking someone with +10 armor against your element, whereas earth never will have a counter.

"Like a Rolling Stone"

Dec 29, 2009, 06:30 PM // 18:30	#21
_Nihilist_ Will Bull's Strike for $! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Isle of the Dead	I have to agree with Gift3ed and Chthon. Anyone else remember when max Sundering was 10/10 instead of 20/20? Even after they buffed it, Vampiric is still better, but people who only want 1 weapon and don't want to swap would rather pay more for a Sundering because there is "no drawback" (wtfever, gtfo), lol! __________________ Warrior for Hire

Dec 30, 2009, 01:00 AM // 01:00	#30
maxxfury Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Apr 2006 Guild: [DVDF] Gp Profession: Me/A	I used sundering gear on heroes, cos im just too lazy, and when i use them its rare and i dont want to have to pay too much attention to them And cos wow! 20/20 is more than 5/-1? isnt it? Last edited by maxxfury; Dec 30, 2009 at 01:03 AM // 01:03..

Dec 30, 2009, 11:02 AM // 11:02	#32
byteme! Forge Runner Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: On Earth Profession: W/P	Most people don't play video games with a calculator in their hands. Apparently some of you do. Most people don't take video games that damn seriously. Apparently some of you do. Most people could care less if Vamp gives them +2 damage more per hit over Sundering. If you can visually notice the difference kudos to you because I'm sure that .001th of a second you saved per foe/mob was well worth it. This bashing of people based on the mods they choose to use is a little ignorant and some what immature. Sundering has no downside. Requires no conditions. Is widely accepted as the "jack of all trades" mod. "Mathematically" vamp is better hands down. No argument what so ever. The real question is who the hell cares or finds the time to? The difference is so slight and minute it's not even worth the trouble of a debate. Last edited by byteme!; Dec 30, 2009 at 04:56 PM // 16:56..

Dec 29, 2009, 06:49 PM // 18:49	#22
stanzhao Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Mar 2008	even when reading this, the -1 scared me so much i had to turn my screen around. the only reason someone might say 'wts a perfect fellblade' and you see its sundering is because that is the norm pve sword mod. pvpers dont hang around looking for perfect swords. they may buy the skin, but add their own mods etc after. you dont need dps over time in pve

Dec 29, 2009, 06:56 PM // 18:56	#23
Winterclaw Wark!!! Join Date: May 2005 Location: Florida Profession: W/	Vampiric = more risk (degen) more gain. Sundering = lesser risk (no degen) lesser gain. Zealous = for people who want to stay out of the V-S debate.

Dec 29, 2009, 07:02 PM // 19:02	#24
paddymew Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Jul 2008 Profession: D/	Hammers and Scythes deal more damage that Swords and Axes, and people use both. A vampiric mod is like using a two-handed weapon instead of a weapon and a shield.

Dec 29, 2009, 08:34 PM // 20:34	#25
reaper with no name Desert Nomad Join Date: Apr 2009 Guild: FaZ Profession: D/	A) People don't do the math to discover that a vampiric mod does more damage B) People are too dumb to realize that you actually gain far more health than you lose with a vampiric mod when it is used properly C) People are too cheap/lazy to employ weapon swapping, which is a prerequisite for B

Dec 29, 2009, 08:42 PM // 20:42	#26
imnotyourmother Desert Nomad Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: in a house Guild: The Knitters Guild Profession: W/R	Answer... Scale Fin Soup. there use the vamp with NO degen... nuff said