GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

We are currently performing an upgrade to our software. This upgrade will bring MediaWiki from version 1.31 to 1.33. While the upgrade is being performed on your wiki it will be in read-only mode. For more information check here.

Talk:Vampiric

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

i have a question: does the vampiric effect with the daggers work on the multiple targets "hit" by the skill deaths blossom? i dont use vamp weapons very much because people in the group usualy get made because it is a constant -1 degen (yes i know to change weapon sets when not in a fight) and i also never use that skill because i try to stay away from big groups 8(. So can some one do a test for me? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.82.104.120 (contribs) .

Yes, if a skill makes you hit multiple targets, then each hit counts individually. This goes for negative effects (Spiteful Spirit, Empathy, ...) as well as positive effects Live Vicariously, Life stealing, ...). So it is a popular combo to use for example a zealous axe in combination with Cyclone Axe, or a vampiric sword in combination with Hundred Blades. --Tetris L 10:36, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
Wait a second. I just read the skill discription of Death Blossom, and it only says that adjacent foes "take damage", it doesn't explicitely say that you attack them. So it may not count as individual attacks after all. I have little experience with Assassin skills, so I can't confirm myself. --Tetris L 10:53, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
Tetris is correct. The enemies besides your immediate target are not hit by death blossom. --68.142.14.61 17:58, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

I would like to remove the reference. The person that did the math did not show his work. It is hard to verify that he indeed did any calculations correctly. It says that he uses 4% penetration, which seems incorrect. What he should have done is use a weighted average with 20% penetration. When I get time, I'll compute. StatMan 23:04, 25 December 2006 (CST)

His numbers, at least for sundering, are right. That 4% is 20% * 20%, the average AP of a 20/20 mod. --Fyren 23:33, 25 December 2006 (CST)

That is not the way to compute averages in this case. Since sundering cancels 20% of the armor, we will do 41.42% more damage against an AL 100 20% of the time. This 41.42% more damage is computed by 2^(20/40) which is the difference in damage given that all other variables are the same, using the damage page here at gw wiki. To get the average increase, multiply this by 1/5, then add 1(non sudering hit) * 4/5 (chance of non-sundering attacks) to compute a weighted average. I get 1.0828427. If you use 4%, then you get 2^(4/40) which is 1.07177. StatMan 23:38, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Fyren, you are a busy person. I just browsed your profile. Because armor's effect is exponetial, a simple average of 4% is incorrect. The way to compute averages is take the value gained, multiplied by its probability (as shown above).I would compute the average %damage gained from vampiric, but I don't know where to put it here in wiki. Maybe I should find out and make a page on Sundering vs Vampiric? StatMan 23:34, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Okay, saying 4% AP average is wrong. But the 1.0828 you just calculated is the 8.3% he states in his post. --Fyren 01:28, 5 January 2007 (CST)
I calculated the AL 60, and got 1.022, where he got 1.046. I tried using just 4% sundering, and got 1.042466. Also, I don't know where he got the base damage for weapons, so that he could calculate the damage % increase for vampiric. StatMan 10:41, 25 January 2007 (CST)
Assuming 16 weapon mastery and 2 lvl 20s, (1-crit%) * (max dmg - min dmg)/2 * 2^((68-AL)/40) + crit% * max dmg * 2^((88-AL)/40). - Savio 3 mini.gif Savio 10:55, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Icon[edit source]

It seems that damage from Vampiric mods has its own icon in the damage monitor on left side of screen: Image:Vampiric.jpg Anyone wanna get a better picture? --Gimmethegepgun 22:38, 3 March 2007 (CST)

There is one at Life stealing. --Dirigible 22:40, 3 March 2007 (CST)
I think the icon should be in here at Vampiric since that's what it's from, not in Life stealing since that is a general thing --Gimmethegepgun 23:02, 3 March 2007 (CST)
Added the icon Turkwoyz 07:50, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

25% IAS[edit source]

Can we have a table section that has the calculations for 25% IAS? Not every build that might benefit from Vampiric includes a 33% IAS. Perhaps the different sections of the table could be colored to make reference easier. Issa Dabir 16:10, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

16 DM[edit source]

Can another section of the table be added for 16 or 15 DM, preferably 16? A lot of assassin primaries run with 16. - 12.218.0.130

Bug[edit source]

Something I noticed while killing crap out in the Echovald: if you attack wit a non-vampiric weapon and switch to a vampiric weapon before it hits, it is treated as if you attacked with a vampiric weapon. It's only really noticeable with a longbow or flatbow, but buggy nonetheless. - Ayumbhara Ayumsig.jpg 01:20, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

You fired an arrow from a vampiric bow, and switch to another bow before that SAME arrow hits. Of course it's vampiric. It's not a bug, you're just thinking along the wrong lines. --Foblove 19:45, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
Foblove, you got the order wrong. If you switch from non-vampiric to vampiric during the attack, the arrow will be vampiric, as the game checks your status just before it hits, but well after you've made the attack. This is how Rangers can get blinded after they've shot an arrow and still have the arrow miss. --Kale Ironfist 19:51, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

ive got a real bug...i found a dead bow with a 4:2 vamp on it. WTH? in game name is My Gods Im Chubby. add me to friends ill show you if you dont believe me. makes for a quick sac in FFF so its not all bad.

In Journey To Maximizing Damage[edit source]

I would like to make a note on this page that since the Vampiric mod will make the player's weapon non-physical, Greater Conflagration will not take effect. As a result, players with Greater Conflagration will not be able to harness the bonus damage of Conjure Flame. Likewise, players with Winter and Greater Conflagration will not be able to harness the bonus damage of Conjure Frost.--╬KaceysChevalier╬ 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not physical damage? That's the first I hear about that :S Are you sure?--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 18:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I tested it on Master of Damage. The maximum output of my weapon decreased significantly when I was using the vampiric mod.--╬KaceysChevalier╬ 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (Sorry forgot to sign).
Time for experimenting. I'm going to test if Vampiric weapons have their damage increased by Barbs or the like. --╬KaceysChevalier╬ 03:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (blast i keep forgetting to sign)
You must have messed something up because I just tested, and barbs triggers off vamp weapons.--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ 03:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Weird! And cool. And thank you for testing =). I'll work on Greater Conflag/Winter, Conjure Frost + Vampiric bow some more and see how things go.--╬KaceysChevalier╬ 04:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You can use a vampiric bow with Kindle Arrows and Conjure Flame. Entropy Entropy Sig 2.jpg (C) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I did some more research against Master of Damage, and I have these results (sorry for how raw it is):
Greater Conflageration + Winter + Conjure Frost: First Bow: Icy 15% ^50 customized +20% avg. 17dps with 624dmg total over 36 seconds.
Same setup with second bow: Vampiric +5/-1hp 15^50 customized +20% avg 16dps with 597dmg total over 36 seconds.
New setup: Kindle Arrows and Conjure Flame: First bow: Icy 15% ^50 customized +20% avg 27dps with 628dmg total over 23 seconds.
Same new setup: Second bow: Vampiric +5/-1hp 15^50 customized +20% avg 29dps with 621dmg over 21 seconds.
So Icy is 17dps to vampire/icy 16, and Fiery is 27 to vampiric/fiery 29. I'm Probably going to test each setup ten times or so, at a later date, and then clean up this poor excuse for a chart to easier see what's going on. --╬KaceysChevalier╬ 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mending[edit source]

you should totally add a note that mending is useful to counter the health degen from these mods. Githyan 17:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we really shoudn't. No, really. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 17:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
mending is so 2009. ∵Scythe∵ 19:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)