Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Question about hit points
caremuchless
Member Posts: 603
in Guild Wars 2
Will Professions like Warriors and Guardians have larger hit point pools than say, less 'tanky' professions like Elementalists and Rogues?
I know GW2 is its own game and there wont be dedicated tanks and healers but in other mmos, Ive hated it where classes that already had survivability abilities had ridiculous hitpoints to boot. Classes that come to mind are WoW's Death Knights, Prot Warriors and Paladins.
Has there been any word on if there will be any difference between the way hit points are calculated per class?
Comments
I just looked at some Charr gameplay video (midlevel from the demos), 2 elementalist and 2 warrior. Elementalists seem like they have 5-6k and warriors seem like they have 8500-10000, though that last number I think was buffed somehow.
Elementalist with 5600hp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJc791QDOkk
Warrior with 8500 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B-s9-rsBiU
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
If thats the case, thats bullshit and hypocritical to boot.
The numbers are incomplete and not balanced yet. Paying attention to them is pointless at this time. They do not represent the final version of the game.
You could be right, you could be wrong /shrug. Wont know till the games release.
However, everytime I have seen test servers and people make similar claims, something to the effect of, "This wont go live, its completely ridiculous the way it is now" ---9 times out of 10, it went live.
It's not a deal breaker for me but something I would like to seen done away with. If a warrior has surival abilities that make him tougher than my soft class, then those are his tools. Thats what he gets, nothing more, nothing less. Handing someone free hit points has always felt unfair. And since we dont have tank's, do away with it.
Well to me that sounds like Warriors are basically tanks and Elementists are basically glass cannons, as warriors most likely have less damage and Elementists dish out more. Not sure how this is all that different than the trinity they're trying to avoid?
If essentially Warriors have higher HP, and probably a stronger armor rating to boot. And a caster class or rogue class has less, while most likely having higher dps output, or a strong support role. What separates this from the trinity? As I thought everything was based on loadout essentially in what role you took?
If my Thief sucks at taking damage what's the point in him having a role other than what he's typically meant for?
I figured they were leveling the playing field so to speak, instead it just seems like the trinity under a different name.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
A while ago before some recent changes were made I believe that warriors did the most damage of all classes.
Well I'd hope they changed that, as what would be the point in other classes? Most HP + Most DPS = win every time.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
They did change it. The entire point of your last post is moot simply because nothing in the game is final at this time.
This question will be open until we have these facts, how will this be different?
I'm especially curious about this because of their anti-trinity rhetoric. How does it differeniate if there will be typcial RPG class structuring, unless they level the playing field 100% like an FPS would? Giving similar HP, similar DMG, etc..
I fail to see how they can deviate to far from the trinty yet maintain a somewhat balanced environment especially in PVP. Without leveling the play-field. If they're offering class specific differences, it will essentially be a trinity system, as the strength and weakness structuring, will need a balance of some sort. Trinity has always been the answer to that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
There is a reason most developers don't let regular people play and take videos of their games while their in development. That reason is because people will see what is a work in progress and will talk about it and act as if it were final. The point you made is moot.
The numbers are incomplete. If you want to discuss them then do so during beta or launch. Anytime between now and then is pointless.
Excuse me? Did you just tell me what to talk about and when I can? Did I say it was final? Did I say how anything is going to be ? No I raised a question toward it. If you don't want to speak hypothetically find someone else to respond to.
I didn't make a point I used an example given and asked a question pertaining to their wording, in reference to said example. I figured maybe someone had an idea of what they could do to make it different, rather than level the playing field. I also wonder how using typcial RPG classes, lends itself well to something other than the trinity.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
By that flawed logic we shouldn't discuss anything because nothing in the game is final.
Good idea.
I have to agree because we can't discuss anything with ANY kind of accuracy. If you're going to discuss (or criticize, more to the point) a game, then doesn't it make more sense to criticize a game that has been released? Of course that's also true of swooning over how "great" a game is too if it's not even seen LAUNCH yet.
I think over all we jump the gun on critiquing games here on MMORPG.com Discussing and criticizing or worshiping (either one) are different things.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Its good to descuss things like these but you gotta keep in mind that like romanator said nothing is final. I remember they did a huge balancing change with their attributes, and I think they might have talked about health rebalance or some such thing. But really when it comes down to it, even if the trinity in guild wars 2 is meant to be different, if your class is wearing heavy armor your more than likely to be able to boost your hitpoints beyond that of say an elementalist who is limited to robes and cloth garments. Thats not to say its automatic, they stated there are cutain perks that will make you more beefy as apposed to upping your damage output, so its very possible that it will come down to personal play style as to wether your warrior has a lot of hitpoints.
the point is, you can ask a question like you did, and people can speculate and talk about what they know and have seen and hope to see, but you cant expect anything to be final untill the product is released. Considering if you find that article they did on attribute changes, you'll see how they can tweak things pretty drastically if they see the need.
There's no need when discussing the subject of unreleased games, as this really isn't about numbers or anything that will be set in stone, it's our interpretation of what has been presented thus far, as well as statements made thus far. Is it wrong to make final judgements this far out? Yes it most certainly is, wether it be yay or nay.
However there's nothing wrong with asking questions especially in regard to the no-trinity aspect of GW2, I'm wondering if all their rhetoric was just that, rhetoric or semantics, as the whole purpose of the trinity was to balance how RPG classes come together in a multi-player setting. Strengths and weaknesses that feed off one another. Throwing away the trinity seems to be throwing away the idea of balancing these classes.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Of course nothing is final yet, however, you have to understand with Anets statements some ( me especially) are going to hold their class structuring under a microscope. As you can't go around on a high horse about your approach, if it turns out to be something very similar to what has come before; or worse, a broken mess with Op'd classes going around proving all but impossible to defeat.
For me I wonder if these statements were made too early or in a moment of excitement, rather than given logical merit in a thinking enviroment. Ie: "We're doing away with the trinity we decided that at a board meeting!! yipeee", ---a month later---- "wait, how exactly are we going to do this?"
I'm well aware anything is possible in development land, I just know from a background in both classless (skill based games) and other class based RPG's, in the end trinity always shows its face as it's the most effecient way to balance Strngth based, DEX based, OR INT based class/skill sets.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What is leading to such confusion is Anets wording on the matter, all they had to say was we're doing it a tad different and spreading it out, that's not how it's reading to many. Removing the tank role and Healer role doesn't remove the trinity, those roles just get spread out. Everyone takes their burden. People seem to expect it to play completely different than typical MMO's. I don't see that, as typical RPG functions seem to be in place.
My point is I think Anet is looking for trouble in how they're presenting their game, it's leading to many over expectations. As I also said before the only way to truly remove the trinity is to discontinue class mixing as that's what needs the trinity in the first place.
Just google no trinity GW2, there are tons of articles on this subject many seem to suggest the trinity is gone, they're doing away with it etc.. That's where I got that idea from as well untill I actually got curious about it of course.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ultimately, DPS/heal/tank just didn't cut it in our book...er, game. Our players demand more from Guild Wars 2 and we intend to deliver on that demand instead of delivering more of the same. Not only is the trinity very formulaic, but it leaves out a lot of gameplay elements that make many other games so much fun. Instead, we break these trinity categories down into a cooler, more versatile system:
You could say instead of DPS/heal/tank, we have our own trinity of damage, support, and control, but we prefer to think of them as the variety of elements that create a diverse and dynamic combat system that gives each player a toolbox to work with to solve any encounter we might throw their way. If that sounds like the kind of combat you are interested in, Guild Wars 2 is going to be a great place for you and your friends to fight together for many years to come.
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/healing-death/
http://www.arena.net/blog/jon-peters-talks-combat
Well, Guardians have got one of the lowest healthpools and necromancers have got one of the highest.
ArenaNet never said anything about numbers, other than they weren't final yet. In fact, there will never be a perfect balance. We will get a good balance AFTER release.
Anyways, Anet stated they were doing away with the traditional tank/healer/dps trinity. Now there's control, support, and damage. All classes contribute in some way to each category. One person is no longer a tank. In fact if someone does take on the traditional role of tanking, they will die very quickly. One person is no longer a healer. In fact if only one person attempts to support the group, the group will die. Everyone needs to fill every role as needed. It's not static player x is healer, player m,n,p are dps, and player z is the tank. It's fluid, with people changing with the needs of the group and how the fight is going.
They never said they were doing away with everything associated with traditional class archtypes. In fact, they are trying to stick to the traditional archtypes as much as possible. When you think of warrior, you think of heavily armored characters with lots of health. However, you don't think of them as heavy damage dealers. What they lack in damage, they make up in survivability. Lets face it, if two characters are taking equal blows and both have teh same amount of armor with only differing factor being the amount of health, the character with the greater amount of health will survive longer. However, a warrior will never be able to match what an elementalist can do when you compare both their dps. Even in Guild Wars 2, what you bring in defense, you sacrifice equally or greater in offense.
At launch it may not be that an warriors are a good 3k higher hp wise. Those will change. Damage that each profession and skill causes will change before launch, and will be changing long after launch. However, warriors will always have more hp than elementalists, due to the fact that they can't match an elementalist in damage.
Also, I should mention, Anet stated that there will be professions that are more adept at certain roles (such as the guardian at support). Warriors will be more adept at control. They did state however, all defensive skills cost more energy than offensive skills. So if that guardian is the only one in the support role, the group will fail quickly.
Don't forget that you when you level up you get attribute points which you can spend on any of the four attributes, so YOU will have the most control on your character's base damage/armor/health/critical hit chance.
For the sake of the argument, which of course we all agree is largely theoretical at this point, to some degree it may make sense for frontline fighters to have a slighty higher health pool.
Even in GW 1 there was a somewhat lesser focus on the "trinity" and emphasis also placed on front, mid and back line combat. Typically frontline fighters were more durable, because they were there to also absorb the brunt of the damage. GW2 is probably going to be more like a skewed version of that system, but more flexible so we don't have "LF Tank, X dungeon" for hours on end (like we see in many other mmorpgs).
To delve even further into the subject of "what we've been shown", well there could be some health pool differences among races, or the type of gear you're wearing, or the skills/traits you have, or it could just have been set health pools for the sake of the demo at the time.
In other words, there is a lot of context we simply don't have access too, and to make a judgement based upon a limited amount of information is folly. The discussion can be entertaining, but ultimately it's a debate in what might very well be "semantics" for lack of a better word.