without getting into the numbers of it, bless body benefits some classes more than others in regards to pvp.
basically if a tank recieves bless body he might gain an additional 11% to his total cp and hp, but if an archer or mage recieves bless body they would recieve 17%
What are you on about, BtB gives a fixed percentage regardless of class.
well judging by the other posts (I have no first hand expierence) It would seem that btb doesn't take int account hp increasing skills. So if a mage gets btb he would go from 100 hp to 110 hp. so a 10% increase. However a tank that has 100 natural and 150 (will hp boost skills) would go from 150 to 160 hp, so a mage gets more out of btb then a tank.
Like I said... that's what I think i'm reading at this point...
I've heard that as well, although I haven't tested either. Even assuming it's correct, however, I will also respectfully disagree that a mage is actually gaining more benefit. They are gaining proportionately more HP, yes, but that doesn't necessarily equate to more actual survivability.
I will first state that I strongly suspect the made-up numbers the OP posted are drastically incorrect. HP-boosting passives give an exceptionally small amount of HP, your class and level is by far the biggest factor. Change that 17% and 11% to be more like 15% and 14% for BtB2 and I suspect we'd be in the right ballpark.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, that 1% difference in the bonus (which equates to less than a percent by proportion) will generally fail to save a nuker's life. If he were, say, 6 hits to kill with a 15% increase in HP, how often do you really think that will save him when 14% wouldn't have? I would honestly be surprised if it ever made a difference in practice.
So no, I don't have a problem with this. Granted, I wouldn't have a problem with the BtB calculation adding in all relevant bonuses before multiplying HP either, but I honestly don't believe that a nuker is going to get a real advantage here in practice, only on paper--and even then, a small one.
I think the best test is to strip the tank and mage first before using btb. Tanks usually have +hp gear which is not calculated when using btb thus making it statistically look like the tank is gaining less.
basically if a tank recieves bless body he might gain an additional 11% to his total cp and hp, but if an archer or mage recieves bless body they would recieve 17%
Wait...so is the complaint not about +hp at all, but rather that BtB doesn't account for CP?
It would help reading if the OP had actually said what he was talking about rather than just assuming we'd know :p
Nameless plainly said that because the HP/CP ratio is different for different types of classes, BtB has a very noticably bigger comparitive effect on a nuker than on a dwarf.
When he says TOTAL does this mean with gear? Because when comparing a mage and warrior getting bts (yes bless the soul) it seems the warrior get more out of it percentage wise especially if the mage is using +mp robes and mana up weapon. Naked the statistics are about the same. So I would assume this applies to btb as well.
Nameless plainly said that because the HP/CP ratio is different for different types of classes, BtB has a very noticably bigger comparitive effect on a nuker than on a dwarf.
Then I'm going to have to go back to being unconvinced. If we're talking about actual effect, I'm not so sure nukers are coming out ahead here. How are you measuring the actual effect, it can't be by how many hits it's going to take to down a nuker or a tank...
...and, if that was what he's talking about, then the problem appears to be that some classes get a proportionally higher CP. There's a baseline apparent from most classes, but it seems warrior-esque classes get a bonus, and that bonus is throwing off the ratio. You know what the NC solution to that problem would be, and I don't think that's what a warrior would want. :eek:
sorry guys i was off for the weekend so i'll clarify abit
my original post was regarding the fact that tank classes have a higher percentage of their total cp/hp leaning towards cp
so for example a tank may have 5.5k hp and 4.5k cp, getting bless body would give them 20% additional hp a total of 1100 hp which would be a 9% increase in total hp and cp
a mage however might have 3k hp and 1k cp, a 20% increase would be 600 more hp giving a total increase of cp and hp of 15%
*hopes maffs was done right*
Then I'm going to have to go back to being unconvinced. If we're talking about actual effect, I'm not so sure nukers are coming out ahead here. How are you measuring the actual effect, it can't be by how many hits it's going to take to down a nuker or a tank...
the ability not to get hit is built into mages and archers
the problem lies that haveing our slight BB advantage torn apart at range we then get into range and have to deal with a nuker which is proportianally stronger than they would normally be
The base numbers there look a little odd to me, but that does clarify the topic at hand nicely.
the ability not to get hit is built into mages and archers
And the cheetah is the fastest land mammal. :confused:
(You're wandering around topics, if you make this a "range is an advantage" argument rather than the original "BtB favors nukers" argument, the original will never go anywhere. Unless you wanted to hijack your own thread?)
and have to deal with a nuker which is proportianally stronger than they would normally be
Again, I have to doubt this. If a nuker actually lets you get into melee range in the first place (you brought it up :p), and sits still long enough for you to break his CP and his un-BtBed HP, do you really think BtB is going to save his incompetent butt? The advantage exists on paper, but I don't think it exists in practice. If your tank (I thought you played a warrior, btw?) is going to kill him without BtB, you'll probably kill him with BtB...so the difference between "with BtB counting CP bonuses" and "with BtB not counting CP bonuses", which is something like a 5% difference in "net worth", seems pretty darn insignificant.
And please, do read the last 2/3 of the post you were apparently responding to. I made a point I still consider quite relevant, but you appear to have not seen it on the page.