Lacerate threat finally measured

Athinira · 03/07/07, 3:38 PM

After 6 hours of non-stop testing, we finally managed to figure the exact numbers out.

Innate (frontload) threat: 285
Threat from direct damage and bleed: 20% of damage done (aka. 1000 damage = 200 threat regardless of bleed or direct damage).

The above numbers are before Bear Form threat modifier (+30% standard, +45% with Feral instinct). If you want the math, Tangedyn have it since i didn't write it down.

Tests were performed on Ravencrest (EU). Thanks to Tangedyn, Dragonblight (US) for helping out.

Cryect · 03/07/07, 3:45 PM

Hmm thats pretty decent, would mean its always better to spam Lacerate instead of spam Swipe for single targets.

Ochiba · 03/07/07, 3:47 PM

So if you do 50 damage to a bleed-immune mob that's 295 threat? There's another thread where the consensus seemed to be that if the debuff wasn't applied, the innate threat was not also. This changed with the hotfix?

Tinweasele · 03/07/07, 3:48 PM

could we get your data as well as testing strategy? im interested in bear tanking^_^.

also could i get some clarification on

"Threat from direct damage and bleed: 20% of damage done (aka. 1000 damage = 200 threat regardless of bleed or direct damage). "

makes no sense to me.

vorda · 03/07/07, 3:49 PM

Yes, from the hotfix notes:

1. Lacerate will now do a small amount of direct damage to the target. This means it will generate threat rather than an immune message when used on bleed-immune creatures. However, bleed-immune creatures will still not receive the debuff from Lacerate. This should address concerns about Druids being able to tank in specific bleed-immune encounters.

The initial treath is applied with the direct damage component.

Apate · 03/07/07, 3:57 PM

Thanks for testing!

Crowbite · 03/07/07, 4:13 PM

Originally Posted by Ochiba

So if you do 50 damage to a bleed-immune mob that's 295 threat? There's another thread where the consensus seemed to be that if the debuff wasn't applied, the innate threat was not also. This changed with the hotfix?

I must be reading it totally wrong then. If you do 50 damage, with bearfiance, doesn't that equal 485.75. Where am I going wrong?

(285 innate threat + 50 damage) * 1.45 bearfiance = 485.75

Am I way off base?

vorda · 03/07/07, 4:24 PM

The 50 damage would only be 10 base threat, according to "Threat from direct damage and bleed: 20% of damage done".

Ochiba · 03/07/07, 4:24 PM

Originally Posted by Tytal

I must be reading it totally wrong then. If you do 50 damage, with bearfiance, doesn't that equal 485.75. Where am I going wrong?

(285 innate threat + 50 damage) * 1.45 bearfiance = 485.75

Am I way off base?

Athinira's numbers are before threat modifiers.

Athinira · 03/07/07, 4:44 PM

Originally Posted by Ochiba

So if you do 50 damage to a bleed-immune mob that's 295 threat?

Correct.

Originally Posted by Tinweasele

could we get your data as well as testing strategy? im interested in bear tanking^_^.

Sure, Tangedyn posted how we did it.

Originally Posted by Tangedyn

**snicker**
http://tangedyn.9tribes.net/pics/athinira.jpg

Ok here are the raw numbers
Athinira starts with a lacerate on a target mob, hopefully without critting or autoattacking.
I then healed him with a priest (5/5 Silent Resolve) from a distance until I pull aggro

First we started with the bleed-immune Earth Elementals in Nagrand. Numbers are (did not pull - pull)
23 direct damage, no bleed damage
Healing done:
1326-1365
1346-1366
1362-1378
Window: 1362-1365 /2/1.45/1.3*0.8 -> 289.02 - 289.66

We then worked on the Talbuks nearby:
21 direct damage, 170 bleed damage
Healing done:
1520-1533
1519-1532
1512-1525
1521-1536
Window: 1521-1525 /2/1.45/1.3*0.8 -> 322.76 - 323.61

We went back to STV to find some low armored mobs, working on some tigers and panthers:
29 direct damage, 170 bleed damage
Healing done:
1517-1532
1526-1539
1525-1538
1530-1543
Window: 1530-1532 /2/1.45/1.3*0.8 -> 324.67 - 325.09

The first order of business is to determine the coefficient of the direct damage. The min/max possible coefficients are (324.67-323.61)/8 to (325.09-322.76)/8 -> 0.13 to 0.29

From here we can try to work out the min/max possible coefficients for the bleed damage:
Minimum: (324.67-289.66-0.29*(29-23)) / 170 = 0.1957
Maximum: (325.09-289.02-0.13*(29-23)) / 170 = 0.2075

From here we can be pretty confident that the coefficient for the bleed damage is 0.20. Also it makes sense for the coefficient to be the same for the bleed and direct damage, so we can safely assume that it is 0.20 for the direct damage to, as it falls in between the 0.13 to 0.29 range. It is very tough to test this accurately because of the small amount of damage differences we can obtain.

Now we can work out the innate threat from the 3 windows we have above by subtracting away the direct damage and bleed threat, obtaining:
284.87-285.29
284.42-285.06
284.56-285.41

Therefore the innate thread for Lacerate is 285.

Athinira · 03/08/07, 6:14 AM

Originally Posted by Tytal

I must be reading it totally wrong then. If you do 50 damage, with bearfiance, doesn't that equal 485.75. Where am I going wrong?

(285 innate threat + 50 damage) * 1.45 bearfiance = 485.75

Am I way off base?

(285 + 50 * 0.2) * 1.45 = 427.75 threat

Whiteknight · 03/08/07, 6:30 AM

Nice work getting some concrete numbers.

Only thing I'd point out is - bear form with feral instinct is x1.495 threat, not 1.45. The stance modifier is multiplicative with the talent, so 1.30 x 1.15.

Just thought I'd point that out.

sulliwan · 03/08/07, 7:09 AM

Wait, so the bleed damage only does 20% of the damage done in threat? That makes absolutely 0 sense considering how other similar effects work.

mek · 03/08/07, 8:08 AM

Originally Posted by sulliwan

Wait, so the bleed damage only does 20% of the damage done in threat? That makes absolutely 0 sense considering how other similar effects work.

This does seem really weird. Is there any other ability in-game that does less threat than damage, without some sort of threat-reducing talent affecting it? I suppose there are some "threat-free" damage types... but for a tank ability, it's extra strange.

Vernichter · 03/08/07, 8:30 AM

While that is certainly a strange mechanic, it makes a lot more sense than the previous incarnation of the skill. It would seem as if the developers had a target amount of threat they wanted lacerate to provide, but they had to balance it for tanking bleed immune mobs. My guess is that they were unsatisfied with having the bleed tick for 1 to 1 threat/damage and then having a much smaller initial threat tag. While this makes it less effective against deaggroing mobs, at least it is generally consistent regardless of if the mob is immune to the bleed or not.

Jini · 03/08/07, 9:03 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteknight

Nice work getting some concrete numbers.

Only thing I'd point out is - bear form with feral instinct is x1.495 threat, not 1.45. The stance modifier is multiplicative with the talent, so 1.30 x 1.15.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Previous testing has found that since 2.0 druids do not have their stance modifier multiplied with their talent modifier, it is instead additive.

Given that this has, presumably, remained the case since the patch Blizzard intends this to be the case for druids.

This does indeed seem to perform quite a bit differently than the previous model for lacerate threat. I wonder whether the previous model was correct or if Blizzard completely changed the mechanic with a hotfix.

Athinira · 03/08/07, 9:06 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteknight

Nice work getting some concrete numbers.

Only thing I'd point out is - bear form with feral instinct is x1.495 threat, not 1.45. The stance modifier is multiplicative with the talent, so 1.30 x 1.15.

Just thought I'd point that out.

No, this is NOT the case for druids, only for warriors.

Liar · 03/08/07, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by sulliwan

Wait, so the bleed damage only does 20% of the damage done in threat? That makes absolutely 0 sense considering how other similar effects work.

It also makes the Lacerate Idol utterly useless (Idol of Ursoc). Not just that, it also destroys a good situational use of the skill to bring back mobs that reset aggro on you. Moreover, there is no more need to even manage your timing with Lacerate. I mean, for what? 20 more threat?

Either the testing is wrong or Blizzard really messed up half of Lacerate's use.

Athinira · 03/08/07, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Liar

It also makes the Lacerate Idol utterly useless (Idol of Ursoc). Not just that, it also destroys a good situational use of the skill to bring back mobs that reset aggro on you. Moreover, there is no more need to even manage your timing with Lacerate. I mean, for what? 20 more threat?

Either the testing is wrong or Blizzard really messed up half of Lacerate's use.

The testing is 99.9% accurate. Its Blizzard who screwed up as usual.

♦ blindworld · 03/08/07, 10:55 AM

I can't think of anything to add constructively to the post, but thanks a lot for doing this. I know I for one really appreciate the time and effort put into it and I'm sure a lot of others do as well. Thanks.

Zyrxil · 03/08/07, 1:03 PM

Considering the strangeness of the 20% damage done mechanic, in a "If that's 'special', what else could be..." sort of way, have you tested the possibility that the Bleed threat is applied up front, and not over the course of the bleed?

• Hamlet · 03/08/07, 1:14 PM

Cool. Did someone tell Kenco?

Athinira · 03/08/07, 1:25 PM

Originally Posted by Zyrxil

Considering the strangeness of the 20% damage done mechanic, in a "If that's 'special', what else could be..." sort of way, have you tested the possibility that the Bleed threat is applied up front, and not over the course of the bleed?

Thats not possible according to our testing. As you can clearly see, the total threat generated is different on bleed immune mobs and mobs subject to bleed effects.

Cool. Did someone tell Kenco?

Yes, he is informed.

Crowbite · 03/08/07, 4:21 PM

Originally Posted by Athinira

(285 + 50 * 0.2) * 1.45 = 427.75 threat

Sorry I'm confused again. You quoted the above in response to my terrible math but said earlier that 295 threat is applied by doing 50 damage to a bleed immune mob was correct. I take it you mean 295 before modifiers?

Whiteknight · 03/08/07, 4:36 PM

Originally Posted by Athinira

No, this is NOT the case for druids, only for warriors.

Huh, that's bizarre - I wasn't aware of that.
Thanks though - I'll go update the threat thread.