Lacerate threat finally measured

Athinira · 03/07/07, 2:38 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, 2:45 PM

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

Ochiba · 03/07/07, 2:47 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, 2:48 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, 2:49 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, 2:57 PM

Thanks for testing!

Crowbite · 03/07/07, 3:13 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, 3:24 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, 3:24 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, 3:44 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, 5:14 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, 5:30 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, 6:09 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, 7:08 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, 7:30 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.