Vamp Or AP

Well...yea...i remember that thread... i bought a sundering mod...but so what...vampiric is good for damage dealing, but for me its risky, thats why i have designated two skils in my skill bar (sheild stance and healing singet) for healing me when i make a mistake or two

Just to get some actual figures from a far more productive thread on Sundering out there...

http://www.team-iq.net/forums/showth...id=1319&page=1

This data is all very well BUT I never disputed the fact that vs an armour dummy and with OUT useing skills vamp wins. However IF you USE AP skills with a sword with a sundering mod IT COULD do more damage over time than a vamp moded sword

Since the game is NOT played by attacking armour dummies and WITH OUT skills. The data is not that usefull.

Shadowfox1125 you can use any mod you like, I don't care. But if your going to enter a debate in progress you really should read the posts other people have made before posting your self so you don't make clueless blanket statements and/or look stupid, like several people have.

Sundering only increases damage on the base portion of the damage, not on the +damage. So the +42 damage from an executioners strikes is +42 regardless of if the mod processes or not so I fail to see how adding skills into the equation changes anything?

The + Damage from skills does not in any way, shape, or form change the damage output from Sundering. The data is 100% valid, and accurate. Heck, the data is even 100% applicable to the debate of Sundering versus Vampiric in an actual in-game setting. So I don't know what you're talking about, I dbout you do either, so I'll leave it at that. Now I say to you,

PLEASE GET INFORMED BEFORE POSTING (AGAIN). THANKS.

(Unfortunately, Size and Color tags don't work here, so that's not in Size 42 Red text)

Take your own advice. Thanks.

From Savio's post http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...2&postcount=74

"Maximum AP is 60% (any attack with 20% AP or Primal Rage (http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Primal_Rage) + Judge's Insight (http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Judge%27s_Insight) + Sundering). At that point sundering does more damage over time than vampiric."

Once again you failed to read previous posts before posting AGAIN. Maybe if you actually PLAYED the game instead of just testing things on the isle of the nameless and makeing your self look stupid on here. You might actually have a GO RED ENGINE clue what your talking about. If there is any one who needs to get informed before posting AGAIN that would be YOU.

Spike, swords don't have very high criticals, so they barely break above vampiric (by 0.08 dps, of all things) with the above setup. Anything below the above setup and vampiric blows away sundering. You'd have to use an axe or hammer to get anything decent dps-wise out of it. (Incidentally, those numbers came from testing at the Isle of the Nameless; Primal Rage is crap and shouldn't be run unless you want to be slogging around most of the time.)

The only other time where sundering does more than vampiric over time is with a hammer with JI and a decent amount of strength.

Also, your entire post (aside from quoting me) is pretty much flaming; others are starting to go that same downhill path too. I will close this thread if it can't rise above namecalling soon, although I'd much rather clarify a few more points.

Ok, so that's what you were talking about. Sorry, when you mentioned "With a Sword" it didn't hit me that you were talking about using Primal Rage with Judges Insight. I simply assumed that you were assuming that Sundering somehow had an effect on the + Damage skills add, like Final Thrust, for example. You didn't communicate effectively, and I therefore misunderstood your point. It seems dgb also assumed the exact same thing I did, too.

However, you can't constantly use skills such as Penetrating Blow or Penetrating Chop, so you will never be able to count on always having the 20% Armor Penetration from that, and you can't keep Primal Rage up forever, so you can't count on always having the 20% Armor Penetration from that. Plus, Primal Rage is a horrible skill which no one would seriously run, even in PvE, because any way you look at it, there are better skills for dealing Damage, and Damage is the entire point to Primal Rage. Because of this, it's entirely impossible to use the scenario Savio presented in a real in-game situation, unless you'd only be fighting for the duration of Primal Rage, wouldn't be fighting again until Primal Rage recharged, your target was entirely stationary, and you would be unable to use any other skills if you didn't have Primal Rage. Oh, you'd need to have Judge's Insight on you the entire time too, and you'd have to hope that there's no Warrior-hate or block/evade stances/enchantments, which could cause a hit that sundering would have proced on to miss. When you find a situation like that in PvP or PvE, you let me know. Savio said as much in his post.

I read Savio's post. In fact, I read it the day it was posted. You simply didn't communicate clearly enough. If we look at this and apply the principle of Occam's Razor, we would have to conclude that you most likely did not communicate effectively, because the odds of one person being in error is greater than the odds of two people being in error, and being in error the exact same way. Obviously, it's possible all three of us were in error, or you are totally infallible and both dbg and myself are idiots that simply can't understand what you're talking about. Considering you can't even spell engaging correctly, I doubt it's the later.

Unfortunately, the example you were trying to convey is only applicable when testing at the Isle of The Nameless. The figures I posted can actually be applied to real in-game situations much easier than the ones you were refering to. Also, you would have noticed those are not my figures, and I did no testing or math for them, aside from checking them on my own, credits for them go solely to Fender and Galen respectively, not to me.

Interesting debate, all the evidence points to Vamp being superior to Sundering in most cases.

It's nice of you to say that, but in what way is it flawed? Is it flawed because it doesn't support your pet theory.

It doesn't seem to me to matter whether the results are what they are because of "critical hits", or whatever. The main point, that you seem to have no counter arguement for, is that the test DO NOT show Vampiric as being better than Sundering.

Don't bother to tell me how many others have tested this in the past, or show some other meaningless calculations on what SHOULD theorectically happen - show me why it doesn't happen NOW. Show me the results of your own tests (not calculations) that you've done recently.

I'm still waiting.

As I stated before:

You don't list what attributes you use for the sword tests, it's 16 swords from what I can see. Sword crits for 49 without AP and 61 with 20% AP. I don't see how you could've gotten a 64 in sword 60 AL vamp #2 unless again you were running JI or Primal Rage. (Or somehow a weapon with both sundering and vampiric.)

So in short, why don't you bother testing again?


The attached txt file is a test I ran (in less than half an hour) with a Sundering PvP Sword and a Vampiric PvP Sword vs 60 AL targets.

Summary:
Sundering
277 hits
67 criticals, of which 10 were sundercrits
35.68 average damage

Vampiric
269 hits
66 criticals
36.97 average damage
(the +3 isn't added to the raw data; it's easier just to add it at the end)

An additional note: I didn't use any skills whatsoever. Some vampiric runs I had to throw out. First, I lagged and then had 10 numbers thrown all at once at me. Also, when the target had 3 or less health, the life steal applied first, so my regular damage never hit and showed the damage.

Finally... It takes someone to go out there to test it to prove a point. I had an Excel Spreadsheet with all this calculated automatically (i.e. all variables were listed on a datasheet so when TF changed from 33% to 25% all you needed to do was to change that figure) but I can't seem to find it 4 computers and a notebook doesn't really help and then formatting one computer without copying the data out of "Shared Documents" doesn't really help either.

Thanks Savio... sense has returned.

BTW To keep all the AP enchants and skills up that uses ALOT OF ENERGY and alot of SPREAD of attribute points on a ranger in the end I think it hurts running something like that is akin to a 100m sprinter and a 1500m runner. Quick Burst but if they survive your screwed.

Regards

Er... I believe there are the results of about 3-5 different test runs posted in the thread already, all proving the same point Savio's further reinforces the data available.

Personally, I use a vampiric sword because swords have better attack speeds, an adrenaline hammer because of the hammer's high adrenal cost, and a sundering axe becuase... i've never managed to get another axe mod!

(In other words, I use the victo's set)

Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong...

You're wrong. Axes and swords have IDENTICLE attack speeds.

My attributes, at the time of testing the swords, were Swords 16, strength 11, & tactics 9. I used no skills, therefore, I listed none. I don't see what difference my attributes should make though - my setup is pretty normal, not something you'd never see. Are you telling me that I need to have attributes set a particular way to show a difference? Whether my attributes in swords affects the outcome or not, doesn't matter, what matters is what output I get with my (normal for PvE) setup.

Congratulations! You came up with the same result I did - a small (3.6%) advantage to Vampiric vs a Level 60 target. ( (v-s)/s )
I suggest you go test again. Only this time, use a Level 80 target - especially since 80 AL is the "norm" most people use in their calculations. Then, if you have the time, do it again with a Level 100 target.

Quaker:

1. You still haven't explained your 64 critical with a vampiric sword against a 60 AL target. I'm not going to take a single number of yours seriously until you do. (Most likely you forgot to switch weapons.)

2. "roughly equal" does not mean "small," nor does it mean a 3.6% difference, nor a 1.4 damage per hit difference.

3. No, but you should list exactly how you performed your tests so that anyone can repeat them.

4. For someone who shows disdain for what other people think on damage formulas, you seem to rely a lot upon "norms" and "conventional wisdoms" that other people have, and not as much on even your own tests.


Attached is the same 20 runs with sundering, 20 runs with vampiric against an AL 100 target.

Summary:
Sundering
471 hits
130 crits, of which 22 were sundercrits
18.69 average damage

Vampiric
458 hits
116 crits
20.10 average damage

Additional note: swords are the crappiest when it comes to sundering and AP. There isn't a justifiable reason to run sundering on a sword. It's much easier to justify running sundering on a hammer (though the sundercrits on a hammer aren't strong enough to justify it imo.)

“Conventional wisdom”: Sundering is “easier” to use. You won’t have monks grouching at you to swap down to another weapon while you’re in motion to an attack.

That’s not a statement of fact, it’s a reminder of in-game reality. Such is the difference between knowledge and wisdom (conventional or not)

Damagewise, vamp consistently beats sundering in tests. It doesn't beat it much; then again its not supposed to.

I suppose the only question anyone should be asking is:

“Does the added degen from Vamp make it prohibitive to the group?” Is that one pip of degen prohibitave or balanced to the 3.6% (quoting Savio above) difference in single player damage?

Being honest, it’s a question we can’t really answer. I can’t at least. There’s no way to show (without exposing a test warrior to every hex and condition, damage dealer or block/evade/miss skill) what effect that one pip has.

All I know is its just one darn pip of degen. If I’m a monk crying about that, I’m nitpicking because I don’t have enough to do.

Debating is one thing, arguing a lost cause is another.