New Information on Threat

[Maidel]

I assume this would work

 

You can use an ability that you have to be within 4m to use.. I think most classes get one. If the ability is lit up then you are wihtin 4m if darkened then you are futher than 4m

 

Oh I know.

 

But as this is clearly an important mechanic having to constantly back in and out of range to assure being at the right point is a bit of a cumbersome way of maintaining distance.

[XFrOzEnX]

Hey just wanted to say thanks for all your hard work theorycrafting man. This is definitely useful information especially the info about taunts.

[_gideon]

I assume this would work

 

You can use an ability that you have to be within 4m to use.. I think most classes get one. If the ability is lit up then you are wihtin 4m if darkened then you are futher than 4m

 

Dead wrong. His whole point was that those abilities are to the edge of the mob but threat is from the middle of the mob. Just inch back to the maximum at which those 4m abilities will work and you'll count as "ranged."

[daMarek]

taunts are amazing for generating threat, and that's a really good thing for tanks to know.

 

no WAY!

 

 

 

 

 

/sarcasm lol

Edited March 4, 2012 by daMarek

[Sparklehorse]

Thanks OP. Good post. I learned things.

[Daellia]

no WAY!

 

 

 

 

 

/sarcasm lol

 

Yes, it's obvious that taunts are good at getting aggro back. However, the fact that taunts actually generate threat, even if the mob is already attacking you, is very important (and very different from recent MMOs like WoW and Rift). This means that if you're in a circumstance where you can reasonably assume you won't need to taunt for the next 15 seconds (or you have your AoE taunt up as an emergency taunt), you can use taunt as a raw threat increase. This is a very unintuitive use of the ability, and one most tanks wouldn't actually think about unless they see information like this.

[daMarek]

Yes, it's obvious that taunts are good at getting aggro back. However, the fact that taunts actually generate threat, even if the mob is already attacking you, is very important (and very different from recent MMOs like WoW and Rift). This means that if you're in a circumstance where you can reasonably assume you won't need to taunt for the next 15 seconds (or you have your AoE taunt up as an emergency taunt), you can use taunt as a raw threat increase. This is a very unintuitive use of the ability, and one most tanks wouldn't actually think about unless they see information like this.

 

Ok, I see your point.

 

When I first read it it sounded like Lightning actually does damage and thats good to know for all sorc trollolololololol.

 

Ga its early excuse mi ignorance.

[Shinybum]

Really good info for tanks, but also for DPS classes since it helps us help the tanks do their job (which in turn makes us able to be better at ours). Knowing how your team-mates work can help you be a better part of that team.

 

Thanks for putting the work in on this, and for sharing it with us.

[Derfmiolleh]

Very helpful, Thank you for taking the time to study this and especially for sharing this with the rest of us.

[Destronicus]

Got it.

 

Now all the need to do is introduce a ruler into the game so I know how far off I am and I'm sorted.

 

Underneath the target unit frame, the distance from the target is listed. At least it is for a Sniper. I use it quite a lot.

[Veriu]

I think that's got to be a bug.

 

Assuming sims are accurate, the top DPS specs are at like 1800 DPS...call it an even 2000 for easy math. It would make sense that tanks do somewhere between 1500-2000 TPS (2000/1.3=1500ish, so a tank putting out 1,500 TPS maintains agro)....With taunt working as you describe, 50 seconds in to the fight, the tank has to do nothing other than taunt every 15 seconds.

 

2000 DPS/TPS * 50 seconds = 100,000 threat *1.3= 130,000 threat

130,000-100,000= 30,000 threat generated by taunt

30,000/15 = 2000 TPS

 

That's just dumb. that would mean that 1minute 40 seconds into a fight, a single tank could maintain agro on 2 mobs just by alternating taunts & dancing in a corner.

 

Also, sometimes a ranged DPS will move in close to the boss and gain agro. For example, last week on NiM Soa our sniper moved in during phase 1 due to green circle thing on the ground. He was still behind me by a few meters, but just running up to the boss caused him to gain agro (not the random targeted attacks, but actual agro). He was definitely further than 4 meters from the center of the boss. At the time, I assumed he went from ranged to melee threat and pulled because of it....if that wasn't what happened, then i r confused.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Veriu

[Mephismo]

Thanks for this, biggest surprise for me is that taunt does increase threat even if the taunter is the mobs current target.

 

Which is incredibly useful information to have (slightly surprised that other posters can't seem to see why this is useful to know but there ya go.)

 

Well it is but if the mob is owning your friendly dps, do you need numbers to know you lost threat ?

[Blackardin]

Another interesting mechanic we discovered was with taunts. They set the tank's threat to how much would be necessary for the tank to pull of the current aggro target (based on his current position relative to the taunted target), even if the current aggro target is said tank! For example, if a tank (standing at max melee range, so 130% threat threshold) generates 10000 threat, then while the mob is still attacking him he taunts it, his threat would be set to 13000 threat, even though the mob was attacking him the entire time. Thus using taunts in a tanking rotation can be a massive source of threat generation, particularly late in the fight.

 

Outstanding.

 

This is the stuff I come to these boards for.

[Blackardin]

Well it is but if the mob is owning your friendly dps, do you need numbers to know you lost threat ?

 

Knowing this can help insure that the mob never gets to the point of "owning your friendly dps", jumping out of position in a raid while you taunt him back etc. There in lies the relevance.

[FalcoLombardi]

I noticed that if I stun a foe, choke or whatever. They seem to want to hit me more. Have you tested if stuns increase threat?

[Daellia]

I noticed that if I stun a foe, choke or whatever. They seem to want to hit me more. Have you tested if stuns increase threat?

 

Negative, I'll add that to the list.

 

Assuming sims are accurate, the top DPS specs are at like 1800 DPS...call it an even 2000 for easy math. It would make sense that tanks do somewhere between 1500-2000 TPS (2000/1.3=1500ish, so a tank putting out 1,500 TPS maintains agro)....With taunt working as you describe, 50 seconds in to the fight, the tank has to do nothing other than taunt every 15 seconds.

 

Actually, current sims are only showing 1200-1350 dps, at least for sorcs (the only class we have Simcraft working for thus far). I'm not sure I buy that other classes can exceed our dps by 50%...

 

Still, your point remains. Within a couple minutes, taunt is all that's needed to maintain threat. Go go high-damage rotation.

[RabidPopcorn]

So...are you saying that taunt not only redirects the mob to the tank for the duration of the taunt, but also completely fills up the threat gauge?

[Daellia]

So...are you saying that taunt not only redirects the mob to the tank for the duration of the taunt, but also completely fills up the threat gauge?

 

It sets the tank's threat at the minimum threat that would be necessary to pull the taunted target off its current aggro target, regardless of who that aggro target is. If it's another player, it sets your threat to 130% of theirs (assuming you're in the "ranged" category, which includes a portion of melee range for most mobs) and sets you as the aggro target for 6 seconds. If you are the current aggro target, it sets your threat to 130% of your current threat (again, assuming "ranged"), as well as forcing you as the aggro target for 6 seconds.

 

If the current aggro target (you or another player) is close enough to count as "melee" for threat, both 130%'s change to 110% instead.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Daellia

[RabidPopcorn]

It sets the tank's threat at the minimum threat that would be necessary to pull the taunted target off its current aggro target, regardless of who that aggro target is. If it's another player, it sets your threat to 130% of theirs (assuming you're in the "ranged" category, which includes a portion of melee range for most mobs) and sets you as the aggro target for 6 seconds. If you are the current aggro target, it sets your threat to 130% of your current threat (again, assuming "ranged"), as well as forcing you as the aggro target for 6 seconds.

 

If the current aggro target (you or another player) is close enough to count as "melee" for threat, both 130%'s change to 110% instead.

 

Ahh, so in addition to the traditional changing of aggro target, it scales up the tank's threat based on whoever the previous aggro target was. Nice, so as long as no one can increase their threat by 30% (or 10%) over the duration of the taunt cooldown, all the tank needs to do is taunt.

[juanni]

Great thread! Thanks for taking the time to work out stuff like this.

[Gaxar]

great post and very interesting info on the taunting.

 

can you please clarify if you tested this purely for the main single target 'taunt' ability of each tanking AC, or did you also math it out for the aoe taunts also?

[Daellia]

great post and very interesting info on the taunting.

 

can you please clarify if you tested this purely for the main single target 'taunt' ability of each tanking AC, or did you also math it out for the aoe taunts also?

 

cmf was the one that tested the taunts, and I'm not sure if he tested the AoE ones. I'll check with him.

[TheSwamper]

I hope my intent for this post is clear.

 

First of all, props to the OP for all the work done to come up with these numbers, I'm sure it took quite some time of recording data, trial and error, verification, etc. I mean this, in no way, to denigrate the considerable effort he has put in.

 

However, and I can't quite put my finger on why, but when I see reports of such specific numbers, it bugs me that it is even possible for a player of the game to learn this information.

 

It just seems to turn the game into less of a group of Imperials storming an enemy base and more of a game of spreadsheets. I feel similar to the way I do when I learn how a magician's trick works; all sense of magic and immersion is gone, and we're left with boring math.

 

I can appreciate how this might appeal to min/maxer's, and to each his own. But for me, I'd rather there was just enough intentional randomness, from slight variations in such numbers to the odd, unpredictable spike, to make this kind of thing impossible. To make it uncertain and unknowable, even to those who wrote the code.

 

I don't know, but I suspect that few gamers today would agree with my sentiment.

[RabidPopcorn]

I hope my intent for this post is clear.

 

First of all, props to the OP for all the work done to come up with these numbers, I'm sure it took quite some time of recording data, trial and error, verification, etc. I mean this, in no way, to denigrate the considerable effort he has put in.

 

However, and I can't quite put my finger on why, but when I see reports of such specific numbers, it bugs me that it is even possible for a player of the game to learn this information.

 

It just seems to turn the game into less of a group of Imperials storming an enemy base and more of a game of spreadsheets. I feel similar to the way I do when I learn how a magician's trick works; all sense of magic and immersion is gone, and we're left with boring math.

 

I can appreciate how this might appeal to min/maxer's, and to each his own. But for me, I'd rather there was just enough intentional randomness, from slight variations in such numbers to the odd, unpredictable spike, to make this kind of thing impossible. To make it uncertain and unknowable, even to those who wrote the code.

 

I don't know, but I suspect that few gamers today would agree with my sentiment.

 

How else would designers design harder content? They would need the assistance of numbers to know how much players can do, and how much the boss can do. At least that's how I think of it.

[Daeada]

I can appreciate how this might appeal to min/maxer's, and to each his own. But for me, I'd rather there was just enough intentional randomness, from slight variations in such numbers to the odd, unpredictable spike, to make this kind of thing impossible. To make it uncertain and unknowable, even to those who wrote the code.

 

Don't mean to flame, but this paragraph.... You can't code true random, and if the developer's didn't understand their own code, they wouldn't be good developers in the first place. Computer *have* to be static, and all games, in reality, are spreadsheets.