Enkidu

I'm afraid that doesn't give the Warrior any threat B.Lan, the damage is counted as the mob damaging itself and not attributed to the reflecting Warrior.

 

alienangel

Does this threat only apply when the total power actually increases? I.e. if the pet has full focus already, GftT still shows in the combat log as pet gaining 50 focus. Would that still cause threat?

 

Mordinm

If the threat works in the same way healing threat does then no. A direct heal on someone with full life will show up in the combat log but will not generate threat.

 

• Whiteknight

Has anyone done any threat testing on Lifebloom?

One of my guildmates and I spent a little while on it and basically concluded that it's complicated.

For reference, the druid in this test has the Subtlety talent (0.8x hate on heals). No buffs were used.

We did the following tests:
- The lifebloom buff generates no threat.
This test was conducted by having a warlock lifetap down to half and then body pull a mob. The druid cast Lifebloom on the warlock, while the warlock spamclicked the buff off before the HOT ticked. The druid was put in combat, but aggro stayed on the Warlock for the duration of the test (5 casts).

- The end heal of Lifebloom generates zero threat to the person it heals.
This test was done to try and unravel some of the complexities. Based on the way Prayer of Mending works and the wording on in the combat log it was expected that the end-heal might attribute threat to the recipient.
This test was conducted by having the warlock lifetap to half and the druid casting Lifebloom on the warlock, before the pull is made. After the cast, the warlock body pulled a mob and waited for the Lifebloom to expire. The druid remained out of combat and aggro stayed on the warlock. The druid then pulled hate with a 4-damage unarmed hit. (Lifebloom end-heal was 600).

- The HOT part of Lifebloom generates less threat than expected.
In order to separate the different parts of the Lifebloom heal, this test involved clicking off the Lifebloom buff before the end heal procced, but letting the HOT tick a few times.
The warlock tapped down and body pulled a mob. The druid cast Lifebloom on the warlock who let it tick a bit before clicking it off.
5 casts total, 4932 heal.
The warlock then meleed the mob till aggro was returned to the warlock. This took 451-491 damage. If normal heal-hate were generated, we would have expected aggro to swap at close to 2170 damage ( 4932 x 0.5 x 0.8 x 1.1 ).


A couple of tests running the full Lifebloom produced the follwing results:

HOT=978, Heal=991, aggro transferred after 239 damage (1 cast).
HOT=600, Heal=1200, aggro transferred after 143 damage (2 casts).
HOT=902, Heal=1800, aggro transferred after 122 damage (3 casts).


I'm somewhat at a loss to explain exactly what's going on here.

Granted these tests were fairly quickly done, so if anything the only thing we can conclude is that the buff has no threat, the end-heal doesn't attribute threat to the recipient, and the heal produces significantly less threat than expected.

 

Deathwing

Is the threat value on thunderclap accurate? The way I understood it, tclap does threat based upon how much damage it does?

Anyone gotten on the PTR and seen if tclap's agro has changed? Would be nice to know so I can make the warriors in my guild respec. None of them have improved tclap, not even the dps ones

 

Juno

Yep, Thunderclap damage x 2.0 = Threat.
Thunderclap is also mitigated by armor, will receive -10% damage in def stance and not gain additional defensive stance threat multiplier on its threat.
For pretty much every prot tank, Imp Thunderclap will be dreamy addition so force some to spec it

 

Boevis

Curious what mobs you tested that on Whiteknight. I've observed many mobs to have extremely abnormal threat (swithing back and forth between targets that weren't doing anything)

 

Deathwing

So, what's the 130 threat on the first post of the thread? And you've tested this on the PTR? Never understood why static threat abilities aren't modified by stance.

 

• Whiteknight

There's no reason to assume thunderclap won't be modified by defensive stance - it's never been available in that stance for us to test.

In fact I'd be highly surprised if it doesn't get affected - everything else is affected by the def stance modifiers - including heals, weapon procs etc. The def stance threat thing is an aura which applies to everything the player does.


@Boevis - we just popped down to Zangarmarsh and played with one of the manta-ray things outside of Telredor. I didn't see any difference when we swapped to testing on one of the yellow glow-bugs either.
I'm really not sure what's going on with lifebloom - I need to take time out to do a 3person threat test to see if I can further separate out the behaviour.

 

Juno

Not really assuming, going by what people have said though. There's a stickied thread on the EU warrior forums with testing done with it. And it does not do more threat in defensive stance than it does pre-2.10 in battlestance. So according to the testing I've seen been done, it's not modified by defensive stance other than it gets -10% damage penalty.
I would get a link to support this if the EU forums wouldn't be down for maintenance the entire day. But I'll get back to you as soon as I can with some more solid info.
The reason it's not modified by def stance is that it'd be superior to Sunder armor/devestate in single target threat even.

 

Roana

I've done some testing on Thunder Clap on the PTR. While I wish I had more concrete numbers, it seems pretty conclusive that if you have Defiance, then TC in defensive stance will generate two points of threat for each point of damage (that would be a threat multiplier of about 1.34 before stance modifiers). Not having Defiance will reduce the threat from TC in defensive stance, as will using TC in Battle Stance.

Caveat: These numbers are about a week old and may have changed since.

Overall, this is a slight nerf to the threat of TC (because defensive stance reduces damage by 10%). However, the convenience of not having to change stances should make up for that.

The 130 innate threat from Kenco's original testing came from the assumption that TC had static innate threat, which it actually doesn't have.

 

◊ Fellwraith

I thought I saw somewhere around here it was [(damage) * (250%) * (stance modifier)]?

It will simplify to (damage * 200%) in battlestance because there's a base 0.8 stance modifier.

Assuming that's correct the new threat would be:
[(damage) * (250%) * (1.3) * (1.15)] = (damage * 3.74)

Or 3.74 threat for every point of damage. I kind of doubt they'd let it be that good for long. An aoe threat move that does up to 919 threat every 4 seconds is a bit much. Also, the -10% defensive stance penalty can be offset by 1h spec.

 

Roana

You can assume all you want, but that's not how it actually played out on the PTR, I fear.

 

Roana

Thunder Clap is the one warrior ability that is not affected by One-Handed Weapon Specialization.

 

◊ Fellwraith

You sure about that? I was under the impression that 1h spec was an aura and that's why it also affected abilities like shield slam.

Edit: Also I would expect it's not going to mimic the assumption on the PTR. It'd be way too good if it did.

 

Suesse

Maybe it's an aura for physical abilities? Thunderclap may deal physical damage, but doesn't it deal 1.5X damage on crits? and doesn't crit very often (assuming spell crit)?

 

Aramul

1h spec affects any weapon-type abilities. Thunderclap is possibly the only damaging spell-type ability warriors have.

 

slitz

You can't even use it while silenced so the assumption is most likely correct.

 

Juno

People might've assumed it was 250% * stance cause they couldn't test it any other stance. Damage * 200% fits from what I've seen, and would also make sense that it didn't get a modifier from defensive stance.
And yea, thunderclap seems to go off spellcrit, it does physical magical damage (mitigated by armor, can't be avoided but can be resisted) which could be a reason if it's not affected by Onehand spec. Imp TC will be a very needed talent now though.

And yep, EU forums still down :\

 

Roana

I was under the impression, too (and yes, it is an aura -- see http://www.thottbot.com/?sp=16542). Until I sundered a Gnomeregan mob down to zero armor and didn't get the 10% bonus when TC-ing it.

I'm actually baffled why it doesn't affect TC.

 

Deathwing

I think it's because, as Aramul said above, it's our only damaging ability that doesn't require a weapon.

EDIT: ok, that doesn't explain Bloodthirst. It's our only spell-like damaging ability that doesn't require a weapon? They do eventually need to add some scaling to it though.

 

◊ Fellwraith

I wonder if it's just legacy code from when thunderclap used to be nature elemental damage. It looks like the aura is only on physical damage, they probably haven't re-tagged thunderclap to be physical (even though they tagged it to be affected by armor and removed the nature damage, ok that's just plain odd).

Since it's a flat 10-20% attack speed reduction, scaling really isn't that important imo. It's still competitive with cleave or sunder since it affects 4 targets, and neither of those abilities scale that well.

 

Roana

I did some quick and dirty testing after the servers came up.

It looks as though Thunder Clap now has a 1.75 threat multiplier on the live realms (before stances). That's about a 2.62 multiplier in defensive stance with Defiance.

Data: 196 damage TC in defensive stance with Defiance, 558 damage didn't draw aggro, 568 did draw aggro.

Additional tests seem to indicate (from looking at the SW Stats display while running the tests) that this is not an outlier, but the expected value, though I haven't tallied the data from the other tests yet.

 

Deathwing

So, if the target has 30% or less, tclap is better single-target agro than sunder? Damnit Blizzard, stop making me want to switch back to my warrior.