How about the threat aspect of the BF debuff? Allowing the tanks to do 4% more dmg coupled with all thier threat modifiers should push the threat ceiling much higher than without it. The debuff would then trickle over to non physical dps classes as well (specifically those that are threat capped). If you are really looking at the total impact of blood frenzy in raids that should be looked into as well.

160 dps seems really low to me, assuming you use as many physical dps as we do. If you take a look at this Teron parse :Wow Web Stats the total contribution from blood frenzy comes to around 538dps, not counting the boost to my personal dps from the debuff.

Now some of the hunter and enh shaman's damage is magical, so that subtracts a little, and a couple of the melee have slightly less than 100% uptime so that also subtracts a little bit, but unless I've made some big math mistake here my total contribution to the fight should still be 2000+ dps easily, which is higher than any fury warrior I've ever seen logged

A few of the other things to remember:
-A fury warrior is using Heroic Strikes and thereby more likely to be threat limited
-An MS warrior isn't using any threat-increasing moves and thus able to do more damage before catching up to the tank.
-The BF benefit the warrior brings is essentially moving threat off of the warrior and putting it on the rogues, hunters, tank, etc. I'd much rather have a bit of extra threat as a rogue and just vanish.. or have a hunter FD.. or have the tank get more aggro which helps everyone out in a threat-capped scenerio. Certainly better than the warrior getting even more aggro.

Well, from where i see things, a BF warrior (pretty much like a survival hunter, since i've seen a quick refference to this brought up somewhere on the last page) is pretty much variable from very useful to a fifth wheel, depending on the number and performance of your physical dps team. However, (and i'll assume, for the purpose of debate, that the warrior is experienced and knows the class mechanics involved), by number crunching or by trial and error, you can adjust the raid to somehow assimilate the unconventionally specced warrior.

I'm going to cover your concerns for a bit here, as you ordered them:

*unbleedable mobs: the only situations (that i am aware of) so far are Hydross, Void Reaver, ROS and Supremus, and some affiliated trash. The rest of the mobs and bosses are vulnerable and the debuff effects are cumulated for all the physical attack sources (including druid and warrior tanks); i have no idea how threat generation scales with flat % damage increase, but as a reference to survival hunter, i am pretty sure that the tanks gain more threat than the phisycal dps do from the debuff;

*i'll use Al'ar (since it's a fight i'm familiar with) as an example: in phase one, the BF warrior can quite effectively act as a tank for the incoming adds, that will be nuked by the melee and hunters; in phase two, all melee dps will be focused on Al'ar, and, most likely, so will the BF warrior; though adjusting a strategy to fit every individual spec in the raid is an extra complication, this - oddly enough - defines individual styles and develops team spirit

*debuff slots do not necessarily need to be capped; for instance hunters can and it is quite recommended that they should stop using any sting except scorpid; warlocks and mages exist that have specced destro or arcane to avoid stacking up unnecessary debuffs on the target, or because their curses/debufs were consistently pushed off

* this is indeed true, you stray from the standard, min-max spec; however, there are factors that can reduce the dps gap between BF and fury (the threat cap resulting from HS spam, the gear - passive haste comes to mind, since by stacking it would benefit a 2hand BF build more than a 2h fury - and even group setup can tip the balance). Also, as you spend more time playing a certain spec, more finesse tricks may become available, increasing personal efficiency further, to a point where you can be very close to the standard dps warrior spec.

However, i do have a drawback i feel i need to point out regarding the BF warrior; while the debuff applies to all raid damage, much like a shadowpriest's misery debuff or a warlock's COE, it is not worth bringing more than one BF warrior to a raid. Shadowpriests have the advantage of bringing insane mana (and health) regeneration to individual groups and warlocks bring CC, healthstones and stamina buffs; a warrior brings nothing to its group, and would also require specific buffs (windfury totem, LotP, etc)

Overall, in a setup like the one in Chocula's WWS, i doubt any other spec would have brought anything remotely close for utility.

EDIT: minor grammar and typos

People keep mentioning RoS as one of those unbleedable fights. While I haven't paid attention to which phases, I've definitely gotten some pretty huge deep wounds ticks on reliquary. They must've been from deaden or from EoA's aura...but I've seen ticks for 1k+

Anyway blood frenzy has been discussed to death and it's fairly easy to figure out wether or not it's good for your raid.

I think you forgot about battle shout. Also, I wouldn't say LotP is required, but windfury sure is, yes.

You are doing exactly what I said people are doing all the time. You take a fight where BF shines in the extreme and explain how much damage it does there. Noone says BF is bad in a fight where physical dps is the base of the dps, and especially in the case where you bring 11 (!!) physical dpsers. Don't forget to check how much damage it does on bosses that are not so good for bf too, and don't forget to check how much physical dps your bring to raids is what I'm saying. In your particular case it's probably well worth it in just about every fight if you stack so much physical dps.

Many think BF will add 500 dps to every fight. And thats not the case in most guilds or encounters.

That might have been me. 2.5 is the ideal given zero lag, which never happens. A more realistic number is more like 2.8 or thereabouts.

Look at this parse from Gurtogg: Wow Web Stats

This warrior's blood frenzy, assuming he had it, added ~500dps to the raid not including the arms warrior. Gurtogg is the highest armor boss in BT/Hyjal besides bleed-immune supremus. His contribution came to around 1458

Now that's about the same as what a fury warrior could put out, probably a bit less, but a fury warrior would likely die if they tried to maintain 1500dps on gurtogg, whereas a lot of that extra blood frenzy damage was feigned or vanished off, or in the case of the tanks contributed to building more threat on gurtogg, allowing the raid to put out even more damage

Not only that, but this raid stacks magical DPS - they have 3 mages and 4 warlocks, and they're the only raid in the top 100 gurtogg parses to have that many

So what, in your mind, would be a "bad" boss for blood frenzy in endgame content, given that the highest armor boss in tier 6 content still takes a ton of damage from BF in a magic-stacked raid?

Im probaly wrong but where are you getting this 500DPS number from?

Assuming that WWS parse you posted didn't already have BF. The physical damage done by the hunters + rogues + warriors comes to 2,592,000 damage approximately.

The fight was pretty much exactly 6minutes long. 4% of 2592000; is 2592000/100 x4 which gives an extra 103,680 damage from BF over 6 minutes.

103,680 / 360 gives an extra 288 DPS.

This means the BF warrior did 958+288 = 1246DPS. Which is quite achievable for a decent fury warrior.

EDIT: Forgot to add the feral druid. But seeing as he is only doing about the same damage as the tanks, its still no were near 500 added DPS.

Using the average DPS (not instant DPS) and adding up the physical damage dealers (which includes the tanks and feral druid) the raid did about 8800 DPS via physical damage. That would put Blood Fury at 352 DPS -- considering how that raid is stacked on mages and warlocks and that there isn't an enhancement shaman to be seen, that's a very low end number. Most raids would see 400-500 dps improvement from Blood Frenzy.

But DPS and damage are different. Its not a 4% increase in DPS its a 4% increase in damage done. If I added the feral druid to my calculation, BF is giving about an extra 315DPS.

I guess you could do it either way, but im pretty sure mine is more accurate. BF increases DPS yes, but does a 4% increase in damage equal a 4% increase in DPS? Im not so sure it does.

The teron figure was using instant dps, the gurtogg one used total damage from melee divided by # of seconds in the fight multipled by .04

since WWS measures the total physical damage done to a boss I should have just used that but I didn't think of it

Just to get things clear, here's me doing the math again using the physical damage totals from the two bosses

Teron: 2,873,000 total physical damage x .04 = 114,920 total damage from BF / 202 seconds = ~568dps
Gurtogg: 3,067,000 total physical damage x .04 = 122,680 total damage from BG / 295 seconds = ~415dps



edit: come to think of it, this is still a little wrong because 100% + 4% * .04 is a slightly higher number oh well

Blood Frenzy is still good and not overrated

I'll be "that guy" -- If damage is D, then BF damage is D * 1.04.

D / T (whatever T is) = DPS

BF DPS = D * 1.04 / T

4% Damage increase is 4% DPS increase. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

DPS = damage per second.

damage * 1.04 --> 4% Increase in Damage.

(damage *1.04)/ x seconds = (damage/ x seconds) *1.04 --> 4% increase in DPS.

Edit: Dammit, Tharas!

Your right it is, I feel very stupid now. Still not near 500 DPS for that WWS however. But with a melee stacked raid the DPS increase from BF will most definately be greater than 500.

I've been saying from the beginning that BF is only as good as your raids physical DPS. Too many people (not necessarily here) blindly preached that it was the best DPS Warrior spec just because Warrior X in a top guild said it was.

Thanks to the old Windfury, it was pretty damn good.

It's still very good. At the very least it's on par with fury on most fights, and it gets better the more threat capped the fight is

It's not head and shoulders above fury, but for PvE dps it's about as good, so if we want to get semantic about it then BF builds and fury builds are both the "best" DPS warrior builds

Personally - I thought Schmity was full of it when he started talking about it, I had to try it out for myself and put a fair amount of time into planning out itemization and dealing with different raid makeups for it to be viable.

If your raids are melee heavy (numberwise or just plain damagewise) BF really shines, our last Gorefiend kill I had ~2000 effective DPS 470 of which was BF alone, but if you're like some other guilds and you're running a caster heavy raid it just isn't viable.

From an anecdotal perspective - If you consider BF to be "personal DPS" (I.E. Your DPS + BF DPS) and you run 5-6 melee you'll be topping meters almost without exception, and if not you'll still be in the top 5 while providing a very large buff for the rest of the melee.

But back to Graul's original point: if your melee are "bad" or at least low in numbers it may not be the best way to go.

This is what I have been trying to say the entire time

Because a lot of ppl who are in SSC and under are gonna read "BF=500 dps" from this thread and the kind of WWS posted in this thread. Maybe the word overrated was bad wording, but anyways this is what I ment from my first post.

Just a bit curious, but where would you guys rank [Jin'rohk, The Great Apocalypse] in the upper weapon tier ([Cataclysm's Edge], [Torch of the Damned], [Twinblade of the Phoenix] etc.) for 2h raid dps? 45 Haste Rating seems a bit of a wash, but 570 top end and 120 AP will make it hit rather hard (roughly 137 dps?). It seems like a fairly viable choice for an interim raid weapon.

Thoughts?