eos367 Wrote:Actually the more HP you have the more damage mguard can soak.
You have to be able to survive 20% of the hit going to your HP.
So if a mage has 2001 HP, mguard can soak 10k damage and leave you with 1 hp.
Needing more MP is pretty much BS. For an AM your ultimate is going to cost you 7k. The piddly ass 5 mp per level you'd lose to washing isn't going to even make a dent in that. Even if you lost a full 1000 MP by your later levels which of these is more useful:
A mage with 3000 HP and 18000 MP that withstand a 15k hit or a mage with 2000 hp and 19000 MP that can take a 10k hit ?
Neither of them is getting any extra mileage for ultimate usage. No other spell in our repetoire has enough of a cost to make a noticable dent in our MP with more than 10k and our MP regen rate. That leaves a lot of 'extra" MP available to burn off right there.
There is a realistic benefit to HP washing a mage, it's not just not one many people feel the need for.
AM's who've HP washed can survive dispel much better than the rest of us because they're less risk of 1HKO by a mob while trying to get their MGuard back up. At lower levels of AM-hood Manon, Griffey and Pap can all steamroll right after you while you're stunned and dispelled. For an HP washed AM, they can survive the hit to pot until they're unstunned.
Ultimately it's up to each AM to decide on thier own if they're doing the sort of things where having that extra HP is going to help them, and if they can afford to waste money on doing something that's not strictly necessary.
The amount of HP you get per wash is not that good for a magician, and you lose something to the tune of 80 MP per wash. The equations are different for the mage than fro the other classes. So yes, you get some HP, but you lose so much MP that it's not worth it.
I don't remember the exact source from this, I think it was RoyalCatManDo's HP washing guide in SW.net. The guide was for bowmen, but people talked about washing for all classes.
Edit: you tested it yourself, I'd say 6 hp for 96 mp is "worthless" rather than "not that good." X_x