PDA

View Full Version : Tanking Vengeance: the new tank throttle



Satorri
04-08-2010, 11:18 AM
So, they introduced this new concept in the Warrior preview. This is how they want to regulate tank threat scaling so that they scale as generously with gear as DPS does, but without trying to ramp up threat stats on gear too quickly.

It took some chewing to understand how it works, but I think I've deciphered it.

The general concept is that:
1.) you get a damage buff from tanking actively, getting hit improves your threat.
2.) the scale of the threat scales with your health, so in part it scales with your gear/survival value.

Let's break up the general description and use some real numbers to illustrate how it works.


Vengeance: This is a mechanic to ensure that tank damage (and therefore threat) doesn't fall behind as damage-dealing classes improve their gear during the course of the expansion. All tanking specs will have Vengeance as their second talent tree passive bonus. Whenever a tank gets hit, Vengeance will give them a stacking attack power buff equal to 5% of the damage done, up to a maximum of 10% of the character's un-buffed health. For boss encounters, we expect that tanks will always have the attack power bonus equal to 10% of their health. The 5% and 10% bonuses assume 51 talent points have been put into the Protection tree. These values will be smaller at lower levels.

Let's take a tank right now to illustrate, a tank with 60k health, and packing enough points in prot to have the max buff (10% of health as the cap, 5% of damage taken as AP). Bear in mind that this uses current relative values which we know will change with Cataclysm.

Our tank would have a maximum of 6k bonus AP he could reach. If he's taking 15k hits he will get 750 AP on every hit that lands, so he'd reach the cap in 8 hits.

The AP scale seems high, but I assume it won't with the changes that come in Clysm to relative stat values.

Here are two fundamental concerns/curiosities I have:
1.) This rewards health stacking, not damage avoidance/reduction, in fact it sort of reduces the scale for your threat by adding those. The less damage you take the less AP you get per hit, and the fewer hits you take the longer it takes to stack. This isn't a thing currently, but their intended design is that tanks should *not* be mana sponges.

2.) It is nice for tanks to always be balancing threat vs survival, but that is currently a matter of making sure you spend your benefits where you get the best net value, here investing in survival actually *reduces* your potential threat scaling.


As a counterpoint, however, we don't know how survival stats will be itemized on tank gear, or how easy it will be to scale your health or other stats upwards.

How are other people seeing this?

Please keep away from unsupported opinions as much as you can, and focus on functional reactions. So, "this sounds dumb" does not contribute, whereas "but what about this other thing that would be good for us that this doesn't play well with?" could be helpful.

Reev
04-08-2010, 11:23 AM
Interesting. This will give tanks 1 * (Whatever Health Modifier each class will have) AP per point of stamina. It'll be a little less AP per point than strength, but given that Stamina is budgeted cheaper than strength and has massive survivability benefits, this makes stamina categorically better than strength. Will they stop putting strength on our gear, I wonder?

Satorri
04-08-2010, 11:26 AM
I assume they're keeping tank gear the same otherwise, that's what they suggested otherwise.

I also assume they couldn't or you would have 0 AP until you get hit? It seems like a very large swing in damage based on getting hit or not getting hit either way.

Xaejan
04-08-2010, 11:29 AM
I thought they said they were making tank gear have equivalent stamina to DPS gear, and then you need to gem accordingly. The stamina scaling is interesting I assume it counts armor stats unlike the Tauren +10% racial.
Satorri is right, this definitely creates a greater incentive to stack health. Assuming that all things stay the same (ie no Attack power gains from avoidance) the incentive is for big health pools and big threat.

Katzazi
04-08-2010, 11:36 AM
I hate the idea.

It means that tanks will make less dmg when the are not hit - again. That is one of the main problems most tanks complain about nowadays:

- one will get less rescources (which was a problem all the time)
- warriors (and maybe others) may not be able to use all tools they have (like revenge) when not being hit
- and they will make 10% less dmg per definition if they are not hit

An other part I do not like is that we will not get dmg stats on gear - again. It seems to be impossible to get hitcap and/or expertise cap as a non-druid tank.

And at least - if it is AP and blocking and SS and stuff stays like it is it will only push part of our dmg-abilities...

Satorri
04-08-2010, 11:40 AM
That is the biggest misconception I've seen repeatedly.

They did *not* say they were giving everyone tank health (before gemming) they said they were giving cloth/leather/mail health values closer to dps plate (which has less Stam than tank plate even now).

Satorri
04-08-2010, 11:43 AM
An other part I do not like is that we will not get dmg stats on gear - again. It seems to be impossible to get hitcap and/or expertise cap as a non-druid tank.


To be fair, and to flavor, it is not *that* hard to cap currently, but it is hard to do so cleanly. Most tanks don't consider it necessary to do so for threat. Also, Blizzard has said that no one will be able to cap easily after the changes giving hit/expertise a longer range you can invest in.

Xaejan
04-08-2010, 11:50 AM
That is the biggest misconception I've seen repeatedly.

They did *not* say they were giving everyone tank health (before gemming) they said they were giving cloth/leather/mail health values closer to dps plate (which has less Stam than tank plate even now).

"We also think we figured out a budgeting scheme to let tank gear have the same basic Stamina as dps gear. It's not a huge balance concern either way, but it does look weird when dps plate has more."
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=23710460920&sid=1&pageNo=6#108

Quote from Ghostcrawler.

Sounded to me like the difference would have to be in bonuses or gems for Stamina.

Darksend
04-08-2010, 11:54 AM
I have been biting my tongue but this looks like a good place to let go.

1) I think making bosses tauntable, sans specific situations like kalecgoes where tanks were not able to build threat, was the worst design decision they made in LK. This mechanic prevents taunt-immune based encounters in the future.

2) Paladins can keep up a rotation forever as an offtank and still be able to build just as effectively. The major implication of the DK change is the tanking abilities will be TANK ONLY, meaning less reliance on rune strike and more threat gen when not taking damage, since there resources also do not rely on getting hit. This leaves warriors and druids at a huge disadvantage.

3) They did do one thing right, they made it unbuffed health, which by itself means druids will get less benefit out of this just from that if they do this right. If they want fulled buffed HP to be even druids still have the highest modifier even with the already announced changes, meaning a lower unbuffed health.

4) threat off survivability, finally. They did this with paladins and had to nerf it because paladins were the only class that had that, not because it was a bad idea. Now that all 4 have it it will work much better.

Satorri
04-08-2010, 11:55 AM
If that is the case (should provide a source link if you want to provide a quote), it would be talent bonuses and gems, but since they've also said they're taking away passive bonuses from talents, it will be interesting.

I was still holding out hope that they would introduce more focus on active survival and let that feed threat, but that isn't relevant to this discussion. =)

Satorri
04-08-2010, 11:59 AM
3) They did do one thing right, they made it unbuffed health, which by itself means druids will get less benefit out of this just from that if they do this right. If they want fulled buffed HP to be even druids still have the highest modifier even with the already announced changes, meaning a lower unbuffed health.


They did make it clear that the stam modifier would no longer be needed in such an extreme scale since Leather would now have the same stam as plate. I think they're working to make sure the scaling remains the same. They mentioned (though I snipped it from the quote) that they may have to reduce bear bonus size as they have the potential to do more damage.

And I do like that they can use this to maintain scaling on threat/damage as a simpler affair. I am more concerned about the fact that it seems like taking less damage will result in less or slower threat.

Zo
04-08-2010, 12:25 PM
1 chuck on information they left out I wish the would have touched on in the Q/A is how gaining mastery will effect vengeance. Then again I guess we don't know if Mastery will even be on tank gear.

JollyWarrior
04-08-2010, 12:32 PM
One thing is certain, these changes usually take place shortly before an expac is released and when this one inparticular takes place, tanks will be doing supremely more damage! haha it'll be pretty exciting to pull 6k+ in ICC

Satorri
04-08-2010, 12:36 PM
1 chuck on information they left out I wish the would have touched on in the Q/A is how gaining mastery will effect vengeance. Then again I guess we don't know if Mastery will even be on tank gear.

You get increasing value in the first two slots for each point spent in your main tree, up to a maximum of 51 pts. At 51 pts spent you'll get 5% of each damage bit you take as AP, stacking to a cap of 10% of your total health. That's the current value.

Mastery from wearing armor of your maximum weight, and/or mastery on gear will only benefit the third benefit, so Crit Block Chance for Warriors.

That all has been explained, but in many different places.

Zo
04-08-2010, 12:52 PM
Ah, well one thing I was just curious about and hopefully we'll find out in the next few day is the buffs duration. Assuming you gain the buff through every form of damage from big boss hits to pulsing aoes offtanks will have the buff. It will just take a while to hit the max potential. That kinda makes or breaks it.

gacktt
04-08-2010, 01:14 PM
30 second duration should be the minimum, plenty of bosses have gimmicks that can take over 20 seconds to do then they have to run up to you and hilariously miss twice in a row, 60 seconds would probably be for the best, it'll give you enough time to refresh it against any pve encounter(unless jumping in fire counts as a hit).

gacktt
04-08-2010, 01:17 PM
Ah thanks for the tip.

Muffin Man
04-08-2010, 01:27 PM
1) I think making bosses tauntable, sans specific situations like kalecgoes where tanks were not able to build threat, was the worst design decision they made in LK. This mechanic prevents taunt-immune based encounters in the future.


You know, I actually agree here. I don't think every boss has to be taunt immune and raid crushing if someone messes up. But Marrowgar being taunt immune was pretty fun. I didn't understand why they went back and nerfed him a month later. It just made no sense.

There's certainly a time and place for taunt immune bosses (Vezax is actually taunt immune) throw the raid a few curve balls in difficulty and all that, not everything has to be a don't die to raid damage fight with a few tight enrage timers thrown in....

Kazeyonoma
04-08-2010, 01:42 PM
agreed, marrowgar pre-nerf, and part of what makes LDW heroic so fun is the threat chase y ou have to do. I know i'm mashing the crap out of my buttons trying to build up to 2nd, and frantically calling for misdirects once my co-tank reaches 4 stacks. It's like GOOOOO KAZE GET TO #1 THREAT NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.... that's fun to me anyways. getting yet another passive bonus to increase my scaling ability is meh. At least now it really reinforces stacking stamina eh? ;P

Satorri
04-08-2010, 01:46 PM
I don't even mind that it gives threat value from Stam, I do mind that it penalizes your threat for using any non-stam survival stats. =(

Khordam
04-08-2010, 02:14 PM
With any luck it'll be calculated similarly to rage from damage taken, i.e. before dodge/parry/block and absorbs. Let's hope so!

Crommi
04-08-2010, 03:48 PM
I don't even mind that it gives threat value from Stam, I do mind that it penalizes your threat for using any non-stam survival stats. =(
I suppose it makes it easier to figure out what gear to wear, just go all out for max stamina and you're golden. It's not going to be that much different from what we're doing now, but will definitely make double-stamina trinkets the best choice for almost all fights. I wouldn't be surprised to see some talents or survival tools that also benefit from high healthpool, kinda like how warrior 4-piece T10 gets stronger the more health you have.

Odok
04-08-2010, 04:47 PM
I don't like that it encourages even more stamina stacking. I do like the general idea behind it. Threat tends to plateau at a certain point, where more threat isn't doing anything useful, but people aren't going to just dismiss the extra dps from tank damage. Tanking trinkets will catch the biggest backlash.

It's also hard to dwell on when we don't know how tank gear will be itemized, how mastery is going to show up (and if there will be mastery gems), how the new hit/exp caps will work, or how reforging will impact all of this.

felhoof
04-08-2010, 04:52 PM
There's nothing in that dialogue that says that druids have to have the same vengeance (or even ANY vengeance) as other tanks, and they stated explicitly that druids may not have the same value depending on how they're looking on DPS.

My concern is that health is not going to grow at the same rate that DPS grows, which means that this buff is not going to be enough. My secondary concern is that while it does add more damage, it is still not a huge amount, and it is only off of one stat; even given two stats (strength and stamina) this simply is not going to compete against DPSers gaining benefit from 4-5 stats on an itemization value unless the scaling is totally weird.

On the first point, let me illustrate. In tier7 most tanks were approaching or exceeding 40k health buffed, and maybe 30k unbuffed. Most DPS (buffed) were able to do 4-5k DPS. By tier 10, however, the unbuffed health had risen to 50k or so (not druids, mind you). This is an increase of only 66%. By comparison, DPS are able to routinely hit 12-13k DPS - an increase of 140-160%. That's bad. When you have a stat you want to scale not scale at the same rate as another stat, you're going to have problems.

Then you have the issue of the actual talents scaling with AP. Right now, many tanks have horrible scaling with AP. Druids at least have a ton of 'this does additional threat' which screws over AP scaling - and lacerate even divides the AP by 2!

Then you have the issue of stats. This is what druids have had to deal with for eons: that because they only scale with 2 or 3 important stats relative to other tanking classes, those scaling factors have to be pretty insane for them to be competitve. And naturally, that means imbalance for certain outliers, like polar gear. Same thing here; either things are going to scale too well or not well enough.

I think it's a decent idea - it gives tanks a boost to DPS based on health but only when being hit - but it's not sufficient by itself.

Vrekgar
04-08-2010, 09:40 PM
Well there are alot of questions this thing raises.

How much HP unbuffed is a tank going to have?

Will HP gains be balanced against DPS gains?

Will there be some mechanic to account for switching tanks? (Tank B taunts from Tank A, yet Tank B does not have Vengence while Tank A does. Forceing Tank A to stop his rotation lest he pull away from his partner.)

Edgewalker
04-08-2010, 10:01 PM
For a lot of fights regular threat style gear would still be more valuable than the equivalent stamina/AP bonus. For LDW Heroic and pre-nerf Marrowgar for instance, AP wasn't the deciding factor... it was your hit/expertise on the initial salvo of hits. AP does very little for opening or burst threat, that is almost entirely decided by the aforementioned stats and your choice of abilities.
This is a nice change for sustained threat... but sustained threat has really not been a tanking issue since vanilla and the heavily favored wing buffet / knockback bosses that removed %s of threat from the
main tank. Since BT and The Brutalizer, and then the expertise change, threat has been relatively easy as soon as the opening lead was established.
Overall however, I don't think it will lead to stamina stacking anymore than stamina is stacked now, and it certainly won't make traditional "threat" gear or trinkets outdated. It will just make tanking more fun, and give tanks higher and scaled numbers, and that gets an A+ from me.

Edgewalker
04-08-2010, 10:04 PM
Well there are alot of questions this thing raises.

How much HP unbuffed is a tank going to have?

Will HP gains be balanced against DPS gains?

Will there be some mechanic to account for switching tanks? (Tank B taunts from Tank A, yet Tank B does not have Vengence while Tank A does. Forceing Tank A to stop his rotation lest he pull away from his partner.)

I have 52500 unbuffed HP as a Death Knight now. Assuming Ilvl inflation, 5 levels, masteries / gems / enchantment upgrades... you are probably looking at 65-70,000 health for main tanks in the first heroic tiers of gear. Keep in mind that in the BEST gear possible for a warrior in Vanilla I was rocking 12-13K, in the BEST gear in TBC I was at 22-23K, and in Wrath I am at 52K+. Inflation has been pretty rapid lately. 70K might be lowballing it.

Passive
04-08-2010, 11:21 PM
Yeah more like 100k :D

What happened to the idea of avoiding actually causing threat?

The other thing is, in terms of threat I wonder if capping expertise and hit is going to be better than stam stacking from a threat point of view. If its more viable to stack stam (I assume this is the case, you get threat and survivability), then I wonder how much in the way of hit and expertise is going to be present on tanking gear, and whether we should be gearing for it at all. It seems pretty arbitrary that tank gear would have bits of hit and expertise scattered around, when noone is even meant to gear for it.

!3M
04-08-2010, 11:30 PM
I'm guessing that this along their plans for reforging, where we can swap certain stats except stam (can't remember where I read this or if it is even going to be so).

I'm not getting the stacking part tho, does this mean that the max stack will be 2? 5% for each stack and a CD duration that is roughly 15 seconds might make it reasonably easy to achieve even if tanks has decent survival stats. I might be wrong tho, just my 2 cents.

Morgo
04-08-2010, 11:31 PM
Since they are giving bosses "resilience" to compensate rising crit and haste values, I find it not unreasonable to hope that dps will scale at about the same rate as our survival stats increase.

But i definitely think they should add avoidance into the calculation, like "gives (X% of hp)+((dodge+parry)*y)+(block*z) as ap per hit/avoid". It's going to be interesting to see what exactly will count as a hit, I see keeping adds as "rage batteries" alive coming back... :D

Edit: Or, they just do away with blue gems. Gemming means gemming avoidance or threat, and be done with it...

Hardhat
04-09-2010, 01:26 AM
There is one point irking me:

Stacking health increases our AP through the new Vengeance mechanic.
-the higher max health is, the higher AP will stack
Stacking health reduces our rage income in the upcoming rage system.
-the lower max health is, the more rage we gain per hit. Avoidance or Mitigation will not reduce ragegain.

Leaving out the entire matter of survivability and look just at TPS/DPS:
there are two new mechanics that seem diametricaly opposed, Staminastacking
a) brings AP, but
b) lowers rageincome

the idea behind Vengeance seems to be making DPS Stats on Tankarmor less desireable, but by lowering our potential rage it might even endorse putting on more DPS Stats for trivial/farmcontent.

Given that most ragecost reducing talents will be abolished, and we will be recieving a temporary damagebonus for reaching 100 Rage, i suppose its a matter of the actual numbers that will be reached in the expansion (and the implementation of the "new" heroic strike) if Stamstacking indeed will be our route to max TPS/DPS.

I'm curious how this one will work out.


*salutes*

Satorri
04-09-2010, 06:29 AM
I suppose it makes it easier to figure out what gear to wear, just go all out for max stamina and you're golden.
There is a major problem there however.

Blizzards design for Clysm is specifically moving away from "just stack health and you're golden." That is a benefit of the readily available amount of mana healers have. Their changes to healers now requiring more mana consciousness and efficiency has a trickle down effect to (thankfully) return us to a place where it is not ok to be a mana sponge. In other words, stacking health to the neglect of factors that reduce damage taken does not make you a better tank, it makes you a tank that stresses healers.

Satorri
04-09-2010, 06:30 AM
Well there are alot of questions this thing raises.

How much HP unbuffed is a tank going to have?

Will HP gains be balanced against DPS gains?


Fortunately this can be balanced in the stat design. Scaling of health can be tailored to match the scaling of DPS above that of tanks with progressive gear levels. So, in a word, yes, it can be.

jere
04-09-2010, 01:05 PM
On the first point, let me illustrate. In tier7 most tanks were approaching or exceeding 40k health buffed, and maybe 30k unbuffed. Most DPS (buffed) were able to do 4-5k DPS. By tier 10, however, the unbuffed health had risen to 50k or so (not druids, mind you). This is an increase of only 66%. By comparison, DPS are able to routinely hit 12-13k DPS - an increase of 140-160%. That's bad. When you have a stat you want to scale not scale at the same rate as another stat, you're going to have problems.


I guess it depends on the base values as well. Going straight % comparison isn't always going to yield the best results. I know your numbers were mostly off the cuff, but consider this:



Tier Unbuffed HP AVG DPSER
7 30k 4000
8 37k 6500
9 44k 9000
10 51k 11500


In this example, avg raider DPS increased by 2.875x while unbuffed tank health increased by 1.7x However, the steps inbetween had coupling such that you could have vengeance scaling right along with raid dps.

Tank health starts with a much higher base than raider DPS, so the % hp increase will always be smaller in comparison to raid dps increases.

That doesn't make your point as a whole negated mind you, but it is possible that the scaling portion in and of itself is ok (while the other points you brought up would still be issues). It just depends on how the actual numbers fall.

Anyways, that was a good and interesting post.

Lerius
04-09-2010, 03:54 PM
You also have to remember what Blizzard said about avoidance and its problems. Maybe they want tanks to gravitate toward stam, but like you said not to abuse stam stacking. In turn maybe they will provide other connections to improving avoidance without going to high. After all avoidance is a percentage based stat and stam is not. There is probably more to this than we can see as of now.

Also don't forget about Blizzard's regards on spike damage. They stated that spike damage is why tanking has become a stam stacking frenzy and that they want to get rid of it. Maybe they will change how bosses deal damage to tanks and will provide more complex mechanics to tanking stats in general. I think we just need more info before we jump to conclusions.

Fenier
04-09-2010, 04:01 PM
There is a major problem there however.

Blizzards design for Clysm is specifically moving away from "just stack health and you're golden." That is a benefit of the readily available amount of mana healers have. Their changes to healers now requiring more mana consciousness and efficiency has a trickle down effect to (thankfully) return us to a place where it is not ok to be a mana sponge. In other words, stacking health to the neglect of factors that reduce damage taken does not make you a better tank, it makes you a tank that stresses healers.

Satorri is correct. When you are danger of running out of mana, you start to look at various systems to make sure you can last the encounter.

This include, but are not limited to:

How often / early you use mana regen abilitys
How often / early you start to use Cooldowns
How often / which heals you are using
If people -really- need to be full health all the time

It also stresses:

Tank mitigation
Tank Avoidance
Raid Awareness (move from the fire?)
DPS / Healers using damage redux cooldowns if necessary

Healers -will- run out of mana. They will be forced to decide if people are worth saving and who gets healed and who doesn't based on their mana levels far more then they do now.

Being a mana sponge is non-optimal. If your healers run out of mana for any of the reasons above, you are dead. No amount of health will prevent it at that point.

TBuckton
04-10-2010, 11:04 AM
Does anyone else think that blizz have used one of our masteries (which could be really cool) to fix something that they broke in the first place (our threat scaling with gear against dps)? Seems like a bit of a cop out if you ask me.

Bluepepper
04-10-2010, 03:45 PM
Speed of Buff Attainment: Vengeance is based off of incoming damage and the more you do to mitigate that incoming damage means you'll be waiting longer to get the full buff. With the factors of P = Player's un-buffed Health, D = Unmitigated Incoming Damage, R = Mitigation, and H = Hits required to Reach Vengeance cap, The formula for determining how many hits (spell or physical) it'll take until you reach this is:


http://www.sitmo.com/gg/latex/latex2png.2.php?z=100&eq=\frac{0.10P}{0.05[D(1-R)]}%3DH

Which simplifies to:

http://www.sitmo.com/gg/latex/latex2png.2.php?z=100&eq=\frac{2P}{[D(1-R)]}%3DH

Example: Using Satorri's numbers (P = 60k, [50k(1-0.7)] = 15k, H = 8):
[2(60,000)]/[50,000(1-0.7)]= 8

Increasing Mitigation by 1%:
[2(60,000)]/[50,000(1-0.71)]~ 8.28

Increasing Stamina also has the same effect. Keeping at R = 0.7, and Increasing Stamina by 1% yields:
[2(1.01*60,000)]/[50,000(1-0.7)]= 8.08

Increasing Stamina and Mitigation both by 1%):
[2(1.01*60,000)]/[50,000(1-0.71)]~ 8.35

With current relative values, Vengeance has problematic potential with better gearing and other mitigation mechanics. There's the possibility of mitigating all incoming damage for long periods of time while tanking (PW:Shield). Yes, you'll be dealing more damage from the extra AP you gain, but as your Mitigation and Stamina become better it'll take you longer to max out your Vengeance buff. After a certain point this is probably going to affect our threat and dps enough that it'll probably be a better idea to starting looking towards Strength,AP, and Crit rather than Stamina, Armor, Parry, and Block.

Satorri
04-10-2010, 09:03 PM
In taking a day or so away from it and re-approaching (after discussing new mechanics a lot), I want to make a couple points very clear, otherwise this discussion is very premature.

1.) We cannot discuss things in scale. Expansion means everything gets tossed up and re-juggled. Values today are not applicable to the new world order. So, as far as overall threat buffing, that is entirely moot because our AP values and health values can be balanced around the design of the new system.

however,
2.) We *can* discuss the implications of the system and what would have to be done to balance it, and how things would have to function regardless of the values you plugged in. This means we're sitting in a very theoretical place, so beware the topic unless you're good with abstract. =)


So, to re-express, my concern is not with scaling our threat with our survival stats, it is a very logical approach. Health is a central value, every tank wants it and cares about it, and so scaling our threat off that makes sense in terms of giving us a way to keep up with dps threat. As they get heavier damage stats, we get heavier survival stats and so long as the numbers are balanced properly (which they can't help but be), it will be fine for the goal.

My concerns in the functionality of the current proposition are two fold:
1.) As I said above, health is one component, but it is also one that we're going to have to put a careful balance on with damage reduction values. When healer mana/efficiency/endurance is an issue it ceases to be ok to dump every investment into health when you could take less damage. If they don't reach the value there that they've been talking about they don't actually change the system from the way it is now and everything is moot.

If Vengeance stacks from damage taken, the current description means that you get more AP with more health, but you stack smaller amounts per hit the higher your mitigation (armor/resistance/stance) goes, and less consistently/frequently the higher your avoidance (dodge) goes. And the now in-between damage smoothers (parry/block) have a balance of the two.

So there is a self-inhibiting element to the system where you help your threat with health and hurt your threat with damage reduction. That happens regardless of scale, and in fact at high levels of gear (read higher everything) you take a very long time to meet your peak as you slowly tick up to a high value.

2,) Currently, what is the one place that no one can dispute that threat can matter? The start of the fight. At that time, no matter how good your gear is, no matter what buffs you get, everyone starts at zero, and the tanks just have to outpace the dps in the first moments to make sure the dps don't get a heavy crit and/or the tank doesn't have an unfortunate string of miss/dodge/parry resulting in the dpser pulling threat.

This is also the one place where the current description of Vengeance will have the ability not helping at all. At the start of the fight you haven't been hit, so unless you're juggling over from the previous fight (which is problematic in some situations and not possible in others), you're coming in well below your peak potential threat output.

If threat is balanced to make it competitive (read: meaningful, not a write-off), then it will have to be balanced around the cruising value. That means factoring Vengeance at its peak, which will put the unstacked tank well behind in the opening moments where you are most vulnerable.

(brain storming potential solution)
So, I like the idea of turning survival value into added scaling, but I think if anything, it should work in reverse (though that has its own brain benders). If you started with a full stack of AP equal to a portion of your health, you would have a strong competition for the opening of the fight, and so long as it settled out to a reasonable level, you would then be able to work to keep cruising ahead of the dps, after each hit that lands chips away at your threat buff (note: here mitigation and avoidance would prolong your threat benefit, but health would still set the scale so it would benefit the tank as well.


So to compare the two side by side, for my own sanity:
Current reading of Vengeance = the more health you have the more threat you can put out down the road. The higher your mitigation and avoidance the longer it takes to reach that cruising level. In the short-term you are tight, in the long-term you are untouchable (if you are touchable in the long-term the buff would have to be very small for you not to have threat concerns at the start of a fight).

My flipped idea = the more health you have the more threat you can do out of the gate. The higher your mitigation and avoidance the longer you can draw out that value. It would be important that this not be too high a portion of your AP to be sure your cruising threat output is not too weak and you get passed up. In the short-term you have an advantage, in the long-term the advantage bleeds away so you still have to work to make sure you aren't caught.



Very important disclaimer:
Trust in the Blizz. This is a preview. This is just where we start, in concept. Once we enter the beta everything will get thrown against the wall and a lot of it won't stick in just the way it is described now. Some things get canned, but generally this is Blizz's way of telling us the concepts they want to implement, the sort of dimensions they want to add.

Things will change, and if you see a flaw in it now, there's no reason to believe it won't be fixed long before it goes live. The best thing you can do is make sure you are opted in to test, and really try things out and provide feedback.

Morgo
04-10-2010, 11:30 PM
I honestly don't like the reverse approach, I think ramp-up times feel natural, but getting worse at your job by doing your job feels ... wierd. I would suggest a change to bloodrage: let it apply half the vengeance stacks on cast, and maybe some more stacks during ticks. This way, you can frontload stacks at the beginning of the fight or keep your current stacks from falling off in tank-on tank-off style fights.

Khordam
04-11-2010, 03:24 AM
It seems my comment has gone unnoticed, so I'll try once more.

The Vengeance preview is very short and rather vague. We don't actually know how, exactly, the buff will stack. Most importantly, we don't know whether it stacks (a) upon actual damage received, as most of you seem to understand, or whether it stacks (b) upon damage directed our way, before avoidance, mitigation and absorption.

See, in the rage mechanics preview, we've had a lot more detail, and there, we've been told that rage on damage received will work according to (b). Seeing how the developers get that better values = less threat is not a fun concept and not something worth pursuing, I believe they'll realize or have already realized that it'd make sense to put (b) to use not only for rage income, but also for Vengeance stacking.

Such an implementation would then mean that avoidance has no negative impact on our performance, as it should be, and that any extra health is welcome as a buffer to both our longevity and our threat, the latter being only a fringe benefit.

--- Edit ---
Ah, it seems I've missed the one crucial post that was in none of the class preview threads, but in the tanking forums: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24038462392&pageNo=5&sid=1#81

Vengeance is based on damage actually taken (physical and spell). This means it might take a bit to get stacked up to the max value, but it generally will get up there on longer fights and can even stay there in between pulls if you pull quickly.

Remember, the problem we're trying to solve here is sustained damage and threat. We're not as worried about mobs sticking to you initially because you have plenty of tools to handle that now (including telling the mages they need to wait for half a second). Yes, your AP might start out a little lower if you get a string of avoidance, but with lower avoidance in Cataclysm, that is probably less of a problem as well.

Airowird
04-11-2010, 11:33 AM
Healer View:

I find it very wrong for Blizzard to tell healers that in the next expansion that mana is going to matter and that you'll be focusing more on chosing the right spell to maximize your HPM without letting people die and then turn around and say to all tanks "Ok, here's a threat bonus if you gem/enchant all stamina instead of damage reduction or avoidance". Although I can not forsee the future of how much DPS will be done to tanks etc, I'll be looking at these changing with a skeptic eye, as it feels like a contradicting design (as far as I can conclude from the information given at this point)

Fenier
04-11-2010, 11:37 AM
You can't stack all stamina because mana is going to matter. You need to reduce and avoid damage whenever possible.

Ollin
04-11-2010, 01:15 PM
Here are two fundamental concerns/curiosities I have:
1.) This rewards health stacking, not damage avoidance/reduction, in fact it sort of reduces the scale for your threat by adding those. The less damage you take the less AP you get per hit, and the fewer hits you take the longer it takes to stack. This isn't a thing currently, but their intended design is that tanks should *not* be mana sponges.

2.) It is nice for tanks to always be balancing threat vs survival, but that is currently a matter of making sure you spend your benefits where you get the best net value, here investing in survival actually *reduces* your potential threat scaling.


As a counterpoint, however, we don't know how survival stats will be itemized on tank gear, or how easy it will be to scale your health or other stats upwards.

How are other people seeing this?

Please keep away from unsupported opinions as much as you can, and focus on functional reactions. So, "this sounds dumb" does not contribute, whereas "but what about this other thing that would be good for us that this doesn't play well with?" could be helpful.

Well, I think what we're going to see is a bunch of stam stacking while healers are able to almost endlessly spam their goto-efficient heal. However, once the healers start getting better gear and tougher content forces them to start going to their inefficient heals more and more, stam stacking will begin to be more detrimental than efficient as you more easily run the healers out of mana.

Also consider this: At present, your base gear is responsible for, by far, the majority of your HP. If you gem and enchant for nothing but stam you will net a total HP boost that is, by comparison, almost trivial compared to what simply upgrading a major piece of armor to the next tier will get you. If this trend holds true into cataclysm then gemming and enchanting will be a matter of customization rather than a requirement to actually do anything. While gemming for nothing but stamina will increase both your HP and your AP, the AP bonus will be extremely minor compared to what upgrading to the next tier or half-tier will be. Also, with the changes to both parry and block affecting how they greatly decrease how much damage you take in general as individual hits from bosses increase along with the general reduction of avoidance stats in number and not just stat percentages due to the loss of defense, stats like block and parry will greatly beat out 5000 more HP through gemming and enchanting for performance. Remember that we're losing an entire avoidance stat in cataclysm because parry will no longer negate entire hits. This, more than anything, will change how tanks gear.

I don't believe that stam stacking through gems and enchants will be the way to go any more. Especially not when healers start finding that going out of mana becomes a very real issue in raids.


Vengeance
The idea that staking avoidance will make the vengeance buff drop off, I think, is a bit premature. Unless the buff has a 5-8 second duration that's not likely if bosses continue to swing like they have been in ICC. The 140 defense we've been forced to stack was responsible for quite a bit of avoidance and mitigation through dodge, parry, and block. Without defense on gear we won't have that default avoidance buffer. Add that to the simple fact that blocks and parries won't be negating (or capable of negating) entire hits any more and we're going to see a lot less straight avoidance chains where the tank takes zero damage, and a lot more mitigated hit streaks where the tank simply takes less damage.

Mitigated damage is still damage, which should (assuming it works like every other damage-dependant buff in the game, and simple logic dictate) refresh and stack the buff.

Nephelai
04-11-2010, 02:01 PM
First, if they truly make staying alive a race over time between dtps and htps, then they may actually need something that buffs the value of stamina, because it dosen't have near as much value in an 8 hit kill world that it has in a 3 hit kill world. In an 8 hit kill world pure stamina stacking just leads to a slow leaking death. That being said, I am not sure that I am crazy about the mechanic from what I have heard about it.

8 stacks gained from being hit means that even if you don't proc any dodges at all you have a minumum of 16 seconds to peak? At 25 percent dodge an average of 24 seconds? That dosen't do much for snap aggro on boss fights does it (perhaps an attempt to penalize hunters/rogues for not using md/tricks)? On the other hand, it does makes the new parry mechanic sound tempting.

It could be that they are trying to force dps to go back to standard "good practices" on pulls, by giving the tank threat that scales after the pull starts. No more 5,4,3,2,1 pull nuke (cause its the tanks job to hold aggro right). By putting in place an aggro mechanic on the tanks that has a ramp up time it could presumably create a world where if dpsers nuke on pull, they die, as a constant, and maybe thats part of the intent. Not really sure.

The other concern is the longer taunt rotation style fights. Take festergut as an example... the new tank comes in with zero stacks after the old tank has gotten to 9, so obviously dropping threat production after the taunt is a must, but then the incoming tanks threat generation against the dpsers is on the baseline, as if the fight just started, and has to stack. Meanwhile you go back to zero incoming hits, so you don't keep the buff stacked, and when its time to taunt back, you come back in fresh again.

Seems to me like the fact that this buff as described gives stamina zero threat value for snap aggro, a long ramp up time, and an uptime that could become situational depending on things like taunt rotations. I fear it's going to have alot less value in practice, then may first appear. It's hard to say for sure until we have seen it implemented though.

Edit: It will also encourage fast trash pulling in 5 mans and raids when it has been said that they want to make content more cc dependant. Kind of hard to take the time to make sure everyone knows what to cc and what to focus fire (etc) wile also trying to pull fast enough that you don't drop your buff (as it is stopping long enough to make sure that random dpsers have a time freeze order on something like OCC is often greeted by resentment and sometimes even grudge pulling by impatient asshats).

Bullwerk
04-11-2010, 04:30 PM
What I find potentially interesting about this mechanic and something that has been seemingly missed in the commentary to date is how it will require thought and purpose in selcting gear. You will not be able to view yourself as a self sustaining wall of steel and maximize your gear in a bubble. You will have to understand the mana restrictions of your healers and the threat production capabilities of your damage dealers and then you will be able to make the choice between how much stam stacking and how much avoidance stacking you need to do to best suit your particular situation which may be nearly constantly changing from day to day or week to week.

The thing I find most suprising about this is how when they (Blizzard) announced the removal of stats and some of the plans for Cata people in the WoW community at large wailed that "the game is being dumbed down!" Now to only recieve a mastery that will require forethought in order to maximize it's benefits. This is another area that will seperate the Great tanks, Good Tanks, and Crap Tanks.

We must remember as part of a raid we are part of a team and each member of that team is dependent on each other part to make things work. If you think of your character in a bubble void of anyone but the bos s and yourself you are missing most of the picture. Hopefully this becomes more and more true throughout Cata. Wrath did a poor job of encouraging us to think outside our bubble.

Edgewalker
04-11-2010, 05:28 PM
You also need to remember that Blizzard has claimed they will make tanks move away from Stamina stacking for about 5 years now, and only briefly achieved it during Brutallus in Sunwell.

Frescobald
04-12-2010, 01:41 AM
I wonder what the effect of Vengeance will be in PvP. Tank specced player in PvE DPS gear (stam, strength, dps stat 1, dps stat 2) tends to have weird scaling when tank specs are balanced around tanking gear (stam, strength, survive stat 1, survive stat 2). They could have solved that with a transformation of tanking gear (always put a threat stat instead of 2 survive stats), however, as far as I understand Blizz's quotes, it is not the case, and tanking gear will generally have survival stats, and they need to adjust tank threat/dps scaling accordingly.

Mačl
04-12-2010, 03:07 AM
I don't see a major problem with avoid stats harming Vengeance.

First of all, when choosing gear it never is a choice between life and avoid. It's rather avoid versus armor versus block.

The choice for hp only comes into play when choosing enchants, gems and trinkets. I predict, I predict, we will continue to gem for HP. The choices for tanking relevant enchants is laughable for some slots and we shift specific trinkets for specific fights.

The idea behind Vengeance is the following. Threat should come frome damage. There is no room in the stats budget for damage stats on tanking gear. The most prominent item stat generates damage to facilitate generating threat. The goal is NOT more DPS for tanks. The goal is more threat(which comes thru DPS). So once they have arrived at a comfortable threat generation they will stop tweaking Vengeance. So I wouldn't hold my breath for single target DPS that's comparable to the current 6k DPS sweet spot.

We do not yet know how exactly they balance threat. So it is a little too early to break out the calculators. They only proposed Vengeance as a solution to threat scaling. That's all we know as of now.

I know the first thing I'll do when 4.0 hits is paying Thrym an unfriendly visit. I don't know how often I have beaten that guy up :p

Katzazi
04-12-2010, 07:57 AM
If they want to give tanks more thread with better gear than they should give vengeance stacks for avoided or absorbed hits, too. (There will be shields and at least dks have an absorb-mastery that looks somewhat like the old block since it is not a percentage absorbed but a given value absorbed that depends on self-healing done.) Because better gear will have more avoidance and if you avoid you will not get a vengeance stack.

felhoof
04-12-2010, 09:57 AM
I like the idea of tanks starting with a AP buff that deteriorates as they take damage. Quite a bit, actually. If you assume that it starts at 100% of the buff and then deteriorates to 0% losing 1% every hit, you'd lose the buff (assuming about 20% maximum dodge/miss and a 2 second attack rate) sometime around the 2 minute mark. For really truly long, sustained fights that might be problematic. But for most fights that would be fine. Give it an activation with a decent CD and the inability to be used more than once per combat, like potions, and that would work pretty well.

Arikak
04-12-2010, 02:59 PM
Won't every concern in this thread be addressable by the fact at any time they want Blizzard can change the rate at which vengeance buffs stack up, fall off, AP granted, what triggers a Vengeance application, and how many stacks are needed to "max out" Vengeance?

Couple that with the fact that Blizzard isn't trying to make opening threat easier. They want DPS and tanks to have to be smart at the beginning of each pull. Vengeance is not a means to address opening threat. They are concerned about "long term" threat as DPS threat can potentially scale beyond that of tank threat, creating a threat cap during the body of a fight for the DPS. Vengeance addresses this and does it through scaling tank damage.

As for boss mechanics and Vengeance, we just don't know what encounters will be like. But the issues presented here could be addressed by something as simple as Taunting grants the taunter the vengeance stacks from the previous tank.

Just some thoughts. Can't wait until Beta!

Meloree
04-13-2010, 12:28 AM
You can't stack all stamina because mana is going to matter. You need to reduce and avoid damage whenever possible.

It's way too early to say that. The best you can say is that Blizzard wants you to believe you shouldn't stack all stamina because Blizzard wants you to believe that mana is going to matter. Blizzard wants you to believe that DTPS will be a meaningful statistic, but we have yet to see the encounters they've designed and in what way they might stress the tanks or healers or dps.

If any WotLK philosophies carry over, then normal modes won't require any form of optimization, you'll be just fine gemming spirit, and nobody will worry about threat in the least, vengeance or no. Hardmodes will either threaten tanks with throughput deaths over a long enough timeframe to encourage reactive healing - rewarding avoidance and armor - or they're going to threaten tanks in the way they always have, and we'll have to get through the health threshold for surviving spikes first.

Bosk
04-13-2010, 03:00 AM
I don't even mind that it gives threat value from Stam, I do mind that it penalizes your threat for using any non-stam survival stats. =(

It smells to me as if the intention is to further reduce the importance of threat in encounter design. Remember arriving in Northrend, before dps scaling? I didn't have Omen loaded for at least 6 months as it served no purpose whatsoever.

If the stated goal of Vengeance is to scale tank threat throughout the expansion (3x plate tanks with virtually the same HP and threat, bears balanced seperately) then I read into this that issues like 'penalising our threat for using non-stam stats' won't be a thought any of us will have; we'll get extra threat but won't stop to think where it comes form as it will largely be a non-issue.

Katzazi
04-13-2010, 07:42 AM
It smells to me as if the intention is to further reduce the importance of threat in encounter design. Remember arriving in Northrend, before dps scaling? I didn't have Omen loaded for at least 6 months as it served no purpose whatsoever.

If the stated goal of Vengeance is to scale tank threat throughout the expansion (3x plate tanks with virtually the same HP and threat, bears balanced seperately) then I read into this that issues like 'penalising our threat for using non-stam stats' won't be a thought any of us will have; we'll get extra threat but won't stop to think where it comes form as it will largely be a non-issue.

That's set in stone at the moment. It may not be a problem at the beginning. It never WAS at the beginning of an expansion. The question is if it scales well enough at the END of the expansion. Even if they had to add stuff that the never expected at the start of the expansion, like 2 more tiers of equipment.

If they do not want us to give extreme health values they have to give us mitigation, avoidance or absorb. Healers too will have absorbs and that scales with their equipment. Combined that can result in quite a lot totally mitigated hits. We will take hits even in the last tier of the expansion but will we get enough to get vengeance up fast enough? Will we never drop it even if there are transitions in between or funny thinks like Illidan speaking for hours while everybody sits tight in a bubble? Or if the boss is a caster that likes to throw stuff at other peoples and stops hitting while doing so (like every caster boss up to now)?

Bashal
04-13-2010, 08:38 AM
I like Vengeance.

Why?

Because, as was kinda touched on already, they have a single ability they can tweak, on a per-class basis, to try and balance threat issues. They should have to do less tinkering with specific abilities, and can just mess with how it stacks, how high it stacks, and so on. Messing with a single mechanic instead of redesigning abilities (when threat is the only concern) should make it way easier for Blizzard.

The only thing avoidance would do is slow down the rate it stacks. As I see it (supposition on my part) they'll design it so that during the encounter, as long as you are actively tanking, it won't fall off. Heck, they could even make it a buff with no duration, that is simply reset by exiting combat, if that's what is needed to ensure it stacks.

Bosk
04-13-2010, 08:51 AM
I think that idea of tuning and tweaking the 3 parameters per class/spec is fundamental to their design plan for 4.0 - they have made specific posts regarding this already.

i am cautiously optimistic they have a chance of avoiding the seesaw balance of Wrath.

Nahmette
04-13-2010, 11:28 AM
After reading through all the thought provoking posts of my esteemed fellow tanks and non tanks i find myself drawn back to Sartori's original purpose for this thread. I like many of you look forward to the upcoming expansion and fervently hope that blizzard will do it right. I have read every "blue" post by Ghost Crawler and his associates, and to say they are keeping their secrets undisclosed would be an understatement. I believe that Cataclysm will be thier pinacle of achievement. It will be the biggest combination of achievements andplaystyle changes we've ever seen.

They have constantly told us "wait and see'. We've waited,we've bitched and moaned, argued back and forth about this vs that, but dont forget that despite everything or anything they choose to do, that we as a community will ALWAYS find our own way though it...we will due to the amazing community find ways to improve ourselves and make the game fun for those around us)

<steps off soapbox>

themaz
04-13-2010, 01:30 PM
Speed of Buff Attainment: Vengeance is based off of incoming damage and the more you do to mitigate that incoming damage means you'll be waiting longer to get the full buff. With the factors of P = Player's un-buffed Health, D = Unmitigated Incoming Damage, R = Mitigation, and H = Hits required to Reach Vengeance cap, The formula for determining how many hits (spell or physical) it'll take until you reach this is:


http://www.sitmo.com/gg/latex/latex2png.2.php?z=100&eq=\frac{0.10P}{0.05[D(1-R)]}%3DH

Which simplifies to:

http://www.sitmo.com/gg/latex/latex2png.2.php?z=100&eq=\frac{2P}{[D(1-R)]}%3DH



You can simplify those equations even further. Since we don't know the magnitude of Clysm health pools, boss damage, nor what "reasonable" values for the Vengenance AP cap are, and, for the purposes of this discussion, really only care about how quickly Vengeance stacks, we can just set P = 1, and express D (or D modified by R even) as a number between 0 and 1, then we can ask how many hits H does it take to fully stack Vengeance if you are getting hit for D% of your health bar every hit? The equation is simple then:

H = 2 / D

If you want to add avoidance into that, assume that for an avoidance A, the boss will attack (1 + A)*H times to produce H hits on you. Plug that into the equation and simplify, and you get:

H = (2 + 2A) / D

At this point, you can pick whatever you think are reasonable values for a level 85 tank. With 0 avoidance, if the boss hits somewhere between 20% and 50% of your health per swing, you are looking at full stacks in 4 - 10 attacks. If you have 50% avoidance, that goes to 6 - 15 attacks. Avoidance actually causes the stacking time to increase linearly and slowly; taking a boss that hits for 20% of your health you'd need to increase your avoidance by 10% in order to increase the stacking time by one attack (on average, ofc). The harder the boss hits, the less effect avoidance has. Conversely, if you hold boss damage constant, and increase your mitigation/stamina, you increase the effect avoidance has on stacking time (since higher stam/mitigation = smaller D values).

You can also assume that the posted values for the Vengeance mechanic will change at some point, and simply express them as a ratio V:

V = %P for max stacks/%D each hit grants

Plugging that into the original equation, you get:

H = (V + VA) / D

(Since P and D have the same units (your health pool), V is simply a constant. Technically V is the # of health bars in damage that you must take in order to max out your stacks. For the current values, V = 2.)

Arikak
04-13-2010, 02:31 PM
If you've spent much time on this forum in the last several months, you'd have noticed a common theme is that tanks start to have threat problems again at extreme levels of gear. The problem really isn't that surprising. Say that tanks start out doing half the damage of DPS specs. All is well. But the DPS specs continue to improve their DPS stats while tanks continue to improve their survival stats. Even if tanks spend a little effort on threat stats (some of which they get naturally on their gear), they still can't keep up with the DPS specs. It's a gear scaling problem.

We considered, and rejected, many other solutions to the problem, such as increasing threat modifier or choosing to no longer make tanking gear. Ultimately we decided that there were good things about the way rage works on warriors and bears (translating incoming damage into threat) and the way the mage talent, Incanter's Absorption turned damage taken into damage done. It just provides the damage increase in a way that's controllable.

Vengeance is NOT there so that you no longer have to ever worry about threat. It's fine with us if you have to consider threat a little bit at the start of a fight. Again, if we wanted to make threat not a factor in WoW, we'd just remove it and have mobs always stick to you rather than just cranking the threat numbers up so high that you don't have to take it very seriously.

Vengeance is also not designed to keep tank dps high no matter what in any circumstances. It's designed so that when you're being hit, your damage stays elevated. The damage done scales with your health, essentially allowing tank DPS to increase as DPS specs DPS increases. It scales a little bit with damage being taken too so that you don't turn into a juggernaut if a rogue sticks you with a dagger in PvP.

Katzazi
04-15-2010, 01:41 AM
I think that idea of tuning and tweaking the 3 parameters per class/spec is fundamental to their design plan for 4.0 - they have made specific posts regarding this already.

i am cautiously optimistic they have a chance of avoiding the seesaw balance of Wrath.

Most times when they had problems to balance speccs/classes it was a problem of PVP versus PVE. If a specc was weak in both they gat a buff on an something. If a specc was too good in both they got a nerf on something.

If a specc was only weak in PVP they did not react if the class had other good speccs for PVP.

The problem to adjust a specc were weak PVE speccs that could be good (or too good) in PVP. (Like when all tanks aggreed that prot warrior needed a buff while PVP players pointed at them and cried for a nerf since they were OP there.)

If a specc is overall weak or overall to good it does not matter if you adjust one talent, one skill or whatever. They have done so repeatadley. If that is not the case they have to finetune the abilities like they did before. They cannot buff or nerf one of the 3 major parameters since the specc is already to good/weak somwhere. The sewsaw we saw in Wrath was mostly because of balancing PVE and PVP.

Further, I'm not convinced that the new 3 parameters are easier to tweak than a single ability. Most of them have a great impact on the whole specc. For example if they think blood dks need more thread and they decide to buff their vengeance that would result in higher AP which could result in more selfheal and that could result in more absorbs. So they would get 3 buffs in one even if they were fine survivability wise. The same could happen for the bear "block". If you touch the "damage reduction" it could result in a faster/slower stacking of vengeance...

I like the idea of the 3 new masteries. But I do not think that this will make it easier to balance the classes / speccs.

Satorri
04-15-2010, 06:21 AM
I like the idea of the 3 new masteries. But I do not think that this will make it easier to balance the classes / speccs.
I disagree, but only sort of.

Having a very transparent and simple baseline multiplier does allow them to tweak balance slightly. If one class is doing 10% more damage than the other, one or both modifiers can be adjusted to bring them closer to the standard aim. If one class is taking noticeably more damage than another, or maybe just enough to register their damage reduction can be dialed up slightly.

I agree, however, because each class still has a unique functionality in one respect or another, and those elements have to be close enough in line so that these Mastery's can be used as fine tuners. They cannot be used to compensate for significant functional discrepancies.

I cannot wait to see actual talent trees, Mastery values, and functionalities for classes.

We know that they are trying to preserve Warriors as the "block less often, but have chance at bigger blocks" shield class, Protadins as the "block more often, but for consistent amounts" shield class. We know they have given DKs a self-bubble of sorts to let more of their Self-Healing apply damage reduction value (ideally reclaiming some of the over-heal value that is unavoidable, though also potentially less severe in a world where healers can't top you off in one cast), and Bears are keeping their Crit Bubble. I'd wager we will see much more consistent baseline health levels, since Leather is being balanced to have roughly the same Stam levels as Plate, so Bears won't need major multipliers that mess with scaling concerns. We're seeing Parry take on a new functionality, probably, that may make DKs a more distinctive tank for their potentially higher Parry values. We're also seeing Defense rating go away, which will likely mean Miss will no longer be a changing value, only Dodge, Parry, and Block.

Things may be much more interesting or versatile than they are right now, maybe. Maybe not. Can't wait to see.

Ollin
04-18-2010, 07:23 PM
You also need to remember that Blizzard has claimed they will make tanks move away from Stamina stacking for about 5 years now, and only briefly achieved it during Brutallus in Sunwell.

I feel this is untrue simply because vanilla tanks didn't stack stam. They stacked resistance along with the rest of the raid. MC and BWL was fire, RAQ was nature, and Naxx-40 was shadow. Hell, the idea of stat stacking wasn't even introduced until BC, and IIRC there were many, many, MANY arguments between avoidance and stam with the deciding factor being weather or not you had a shield.

Stamina stacking as a goto tactic is really a Wrath of the Lich King problem.

Jericho
04-19-2010, 01:46 AM
Q: Can you go into more detail on Vengeance? As it stands it sounds like off tanks will be at a significant disadvantage.
A: We want Vengeance to have a long enough duration that off tanks won’t lose their damage bonus. In most situations, the off tank is doing some tanking along the way. The worst case scenario would be say a fight where the off tank needs to tank in phase 3 but not phase 1. Remember, even in that case though you have tools to generate high threat. Vengeance is there to keep DPS from pulling off you late in the fight.

Just to return to the original topic ... I managed to get that question answered during Friday's DevChat on Twitter. The answer doesn't quite give us a lot of information other than they will be designing content so that the buff will last a significant amount of time. I am guess 30-45 seconds . It also tells me that they still do not understand that there really should always be a place for 3 tanks in a 25man encounter, but I digress.

Either way, the problem inherent with stam stacking versus stacking avoidance are not going to go anywhere. Although, Vengeance is meant to keep dps from going over once the fight is well underway. Meaning they believe that there is enough early threat mechanics that gaining a full stack of the buff is a trivial thing to do early on. I doubt the 5% per stack number will remain as the very most they are going to want us to have to wait would probably be 5 stacks.


You also need to remember that Blizzard has claimed they will make tanks move away from Stamina stacking for about 5 years now, and only briefly achieved it during Brutallus in Sunwell.

Like it was said before me, there was no real method of stacking stamina before we could choose to gem our gear. Its unfair to say that its been 5 years. More likely about since mid TBC did they see the trend as a problem. Even then, we have seen them prove to us that we are going to be penalized for high avoidance values later in an expansion cycle. So most people will be extremely hesitant to do anything but stack that stamina gem in there. If the loss of defense as a stat hits our avoidance numbers as bad as some people think it will, then we will have to rethink that.

Satorri
04-19-2010, 05:41 AM
Blizzard's repeat response is curious to me.

I understand that I did 2k dps in Naxx and I don't usually do more than 3-4k dps (depending on the fight) in ICC, whereas great DPS did 3k in Naxx and 12k in ICC. Logically that would mean that I would be running short on threat in ICC. Thing is, I never see that, the threat modifiers manage that completely, and the only folks without that baked-in threat reduction (Hunters) can drop their threat completely multiple times. The only place I am ever challenged on single target threat is in the short-term on aggro drops or the start of a fight where the DPS actually need to open up big and early (otherwise they are all used to being sure not to hit too hard, too fast).

Normally, down the road, I see the margin getting larger and larger between my total threat and theirs. Am I alone in this? I got the sense this was most tanks' experiences, but Blizzard says Vengeance is in response to people reporting a problem with long-term threat in ICC.

Again, the principle is nice, that we should get improving threat with defensive stats to ensure competitive threat scaling, but I'm not seeing the inspiration for this change.

Bashal
04-19-2010, 07:11 AM
...Logically that would mean that I would be running short on threat in ICC. Thing is, I never see that, the threat modifiers manage that completely...Am I alone in this?

I had thought the purpose wasn't just ensuring threat wouldn't be an issue, but also to give tanks a DPS boost--or rather, to even it out between the classes, so you don't get that "I'm a prot warrior and they wont let me tank cause pally tanks do more dps" QQ. They can adjust the stack bonuses between classes to ensure this.

But as for threat -- no. I don't see DPS routinely complaining that they are threat capped by the tank, as was sometimes the case in BC. But perhaps other mechanics changes they are making, like eliminating Rune Strike and making Heroic Strike/Maul less spammy, and other stuff not yet divulged, threat would become an issue, and the buff fixes that.

Of course, this could also just be another "make the game more accessible" feature. It may very well be that more mediocre or less experienced tanks currently do have threat issues (as evidenced by some HALP! posts), and they're trying to make it so those folks don't have to try so hard. Which would make me a little sad, because then more experienced tanks would basically be able to go have a coffee after building up some threat... nobody would have a hope in heck of catching up.

Katzazi
04-19-2010, 09:30 AM
GC said somewhere that the only problem in Wrath with tank thread is at the start of the fight if you don't have misdirects etc in your group. The only tanks I have seen struggle are bears. And only because of warlocks who should be able to drop enough thread often enough.

As they asked about class feedback one of the most complained tank issues (or qualitiy of life issues) was lower dps when you are not hit. All four tank classes complained about it since the tanks that could do comparable dmg while not tanking often have to do the OTing becaus of the QQ of the other tanks. So it's not fun for every tank that some tanks do less dmg when not tanking. Blizzard knows about this. I'm not sure if they said they want to change something there (it's a long time ago). But they try to make being a tank more fun.

Non of the above issues is addressed by vengeance. They say the first issue will not be an issue in Cata since we will have those big openers. Maybe that's the case, we don't know. But what about the second issue? It's not only not addressed by vengeance its contradicted by vengeance. Tanks will do even less dmg while not tanking.

It's not fun to be the OT instead of the shiny MT for many tanks. Even if you do important and maybe harder tasks as an OT. But it's not fun to work really hard to get the most dmg out of your rage/mana (I don't know about DKs) being not able to use all of your good abilities (revenge) at all and doing less dps than when you have the easy task of just standing there and doing a normal rotation. I do not know why they even consider to make it even less fun. People that enter an encounter with a tank spec and tank gear want to tank. They don't want to wait until it's finally their turn. They don't like to "dps" after their target is down. If they are not allowed so for at least part of the time why hurt them even more? And why hurt them with the shiny new mastery-system?

If they think tanks should do more dmg why not give them more dmg overall?

PVP cannot be the answer to that question because you will get hurt in PVP. So you will stack vengeance. If they will not hurt you in PVP because vengeance would be too good a buff: even better - you may not do as high dps but you will do constant dmg to everybody out there and never die. Since Blizz will not allow such a situations you will get hurt in PVP as a tank and you will get vengeance because of that and vengeance would not be such a difference that you would be overpowerd with it compared to dps specs.

Soloing and 5mans will stack vengeance, too. So the only difference will be OTs in raids (or too much absorb / avoid in content you outgear but that's another issue).

The only problem with giving the same dmg-buff to OTs would be if it is really high. If it would bring the tank at the same or nearly the same dps-lvl as everybody else. But it cannot be as high because of PVP. So I do not understand what Blizz wants to archive with this mechanic. Beside of making the beginning of the fight and tank switching more problematic and simplifying normal thread.

Bladesong
04-19-2010, 05:43 PM
It's not fun to be the OT instead of the shiny MT for many tanks

The MT/OT line has been blurred for quite a while and speaking for my guild at least, we have different tanks on bosses/adds on a per fight basis based on class and player stengths. I was hard pressed to think of many boss fights in Wrath that only needed one tank and of those that came to mind (Thaddius, Mimiron, Hodir, Icehowl) we always kept a second tank handy due to high mortality rates.

I'm not too worried about Vengeance, as every boss fight in ICC provides a ready source of damage to all tanks through adds, cleave, aoe, blood mirror, boss taunting or in the case of Rotface you don't need much resource because you aren't spending much. As for having a pool of your resource before a pull or taunt, each class currently has the ability to generate rage/RP/Mana if needed.

Even the scaling of Vengeance seems to work out well. When raiding with entry level gear I'll need to balance my stam/armor (threat) vs my avoidance (healers don't go oom). As dps and healers get better gear I'll be able to adjust my gear to higher stam and less avoidance to increase my damage intake and thus my threat. In addition to our usual tools for adjusting stats (gems and enchants) we'll also be able to trade out one stat for another so on paper at least, it seems like we should be able to tailor our gear to fit the needs of our raids. And almost forgot, the new parry mechanic seems designed to allow for a more controlled damage intake (like block) which gives us one more thing to play with if our damage intake is too spiky.

Arikak
04-19-2010, 09:20 PM
Am I alone in this? I got the sense this was most tanks' experiences, but Blizzard says Vengeance is in response to people reporting a problem with long-term threat in ICC.

I'm with ya. The last time I cared about watching Omen was the last time I killed Patchwerk in 3.0. I just assumed there was some amazing DPS out there that were getting threat capped. But my personal experience is that my threat lead has only risen during Wrath. I can maintain second place on threat with Devastate and S&B procs alone. I can pull aggro if there is any sort of AoE damage and a full rotation.

I guess their main focus is tanks doing more damage overall. They also want tank threat to scale better with AoE threat from casters; though we will be seeing "less" AoE over all. I can see them having to drop down threat multipliers and static threat components though.

Really, its seems they just really wanted to introduce a knob to turn for tank damage. Clearly they had a lot of trouble adjusting Warriors tank to near Paladin and Druids without breaking PvP. Vengeance gives them that knob.

Jericho
04-19-2010, 10:07 PM
There is no discernible threat issue in Wrath encounters past the first 4-5 seconds of any encounter. When there is a threat issue, it is often because the tank either just fell asleep or because some idiot hunter decided to Distracting Shot Saurfang. That being said, the threat rotations of all of the tanking classes and most specifically Druids and Warriors are changing to a significant degree. We are losing Maul and HS as a spammed threat ability and our overall threat will require some work. Its hard to judge what we will need in the realm of not knowing how much overall threat loss we will see without HS spam. We have yet to see what type of rotational changes and damage/threat differences between HS and Devastate.

All that being said, this is in fact their answer to our complaints about the tank damage disparity. Unfortunately, their solution does not solve the immediate offtank concerns unless any AoE or non directed damage spell/ability will create/refresh stacks. It also creates an "un-fun" mechanic to balance tank class dps across the board. The I get hit therefore I do more damage mechanic is already alive and well in the form of rage. I am not a huge fan of putting this mechanic on all 4 tanking classes.


Really, its seems they just really wanted to introduce a knob to turn for tank damage. Clearly they had a lot of trouble adjusting Warriors tank to near Paladin and Druids without breaking PvP. Vengeance gives them that knob.

You are definitely correct, it is their knob to turn. However, they could create a more individual knob to turn for each class rather than place the same mechanics on us all. Also, with the balancing process moving away from the realm of the Arena and moved towards the 10-15-40man rated BG, we should see a bit less of the "holy crap that class is overpowered, we got to nerf them" mentality. Balancing the game for a more open pvp instead of a confined 5v5 or lower game will work to the distinct advantage of us PvE people. Here's just to hoping we see a BG that actually can hold our collective interests as tanks.

Arikak
04-19-2010, 10:26 PM
I don't think Blizzard is concerned about OT damage much at all. It's definitely a player concern but with the active roles they have developed for OT's on almost every fight I think it's largely off their list of concerns.

And ya, Vengeance is a rather clunky/boring way of introducing a knob to turn. But I think it's how they are also ensuring that Tank Plate can have more stamina than DPS plate without counting the gem sockets. Also, the formula for Vengeance apparently takes into account the amount of damage you are being hit for. So in theory it should stack faster in PvE than PvP. Which makes sense as a way to limit tank damage in PvP since we have so much control and survivability. Though if you focus the tank too much they are going to lash out and wreck someone's day.

OP is still OP whether it's Arena or the Battleground. Remember Arcane Mages at Wrath launch? Or Warriors and unlimited target Bladestorm and Sweeping strikes? (I miss that) :)

Martie
04-19-2010, 10:52 PM
They did something like Vengeance before, Touched by the Light used to give spell power from stamina. They thought it was so successfull that it lasted all of what, half a patch?

They don't want Stamina to be the absolute, undisputed ruler of stats for tanks. That's the case right now, stamina is important, and the vast majority of people swear by taking purely stamina, but people have made decent arguments for other things. Some tanks go for more socket bonuses by dipping into some defense and dodge gems. Some tanks take a little more threat-generating stats.
I doubt Vengeance as it has been stated will go live - I more expect tanks to get either armor-dependant reflective damage, a system where enemy blows fuel damage done regardless of stamina or if the blow hits, or simply a percentile damage increase that grows as you stay in combat.

Leucifer
04-21-2010, 12:10 PM
agreed, marrowgar pre-nerf, and part of what makes LDW heroic so fun is the threat chase y ou have to do. I know i'm mashing the crap out of my buttons trying to build up to 2nd, and frantically calling for misdirects once my co-tank reaches 4 stacks. It's like GOOOOO KAZE GET TO #1 THREAT NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.... that's fun to me anyways. getting yet another passive bonus to increase my scaling ability is meh. At least now it really reinforces stacking stamina eh? ;P

This post jumps out along with one other one discussing taunt-able bosses.

Part of the whole problem, as Blizzard admitted to (see the one post earlier which is a quote from Ghostcrawler), is that the dps classes/builds were beginning to FAR EXCEED the tank's.... enough so where a tank is fighting a losing race in regards to threat. Heck, I witnessed this last night with our new warrior tank and a ret pally in heroics. He just couldn't generate enough damage to pull the threat off the pally without taunting, and even when he did, the damage difference was so significant, he lost agg again shortly thereafter. I've also personally seen this in HoR, where, instead of dps burning down single targets, they ALL choose a different target and I end up playing "whack-a-mole" with the mobs and my taunts and high threat abilities.

Yes, making bosses untauntable DEFINITELY increases the challenge. Think about how many boss fights involve two tanks bouncing aggro back and forth as a debuff stacks. Removing a taunt would DRASTICALLY increase the difficulty/challenge there. You' also likely see the tanks struggling to keep threat off the dps.

On the flip side.... and this is just my personal opinion, making bosses tauntable also reduced the needed skill level, or really, the level of attention that a dps player had to give to their threat. I believe that, in a way, this encouraged a LOT of the "mindless dps" that I frequently see. That..... to me, is extremely disappointing.

Leucifer
04-21-2010, 12:46 PM
Honestly, if they want to get away from stam stacking, why don't they tie in things like defense to cooldowns? Or tie in expertise directly to a threat % increase?

Imagine if for each point of defense it increased a cooldown's timer by 0.01 seconds. 540 defense would yield a +5 sec cooldown duration (just a wag as to how to make it work). Or.... for expertise.... a +1% threat for each point, so at 26, a tank would be looking at +26% threat or a +0.26 modifer to all their abilities for threat purposes.

It'd force tanks to reassess what they need to gem for or gear for. It'd ALSO force dps to re-evaluate their builds. It'd definitely force dps to look and say, "do I WANT to be landing heavy hits ALL the time?" and force them to not just aim to push the attack power envelope..... but also to try and balance it. For them, it'd give an option for a lower dps person to be more effective with more hit/expertise.... and for a walking, talking nuke.... they'd have to either sacrifice some consistency or learn how to pace their attacks lest they hit too hard too often. It'd give them a choice between "consistency" and "burst"..... pick your poison. Either way.... you need to balance your threat versus your damage output.

It's just a thought. But honestly, if they REALLY want to get away from stam stacking.... rewarding a tank with more stam with a higher cap on an ability is just plain stupid. It's a Pavlovian response: If I am rewarded for X with Y, I will do more X. Don't get frustrated with the player, cause they are ALWAYS going to be looking for a way to work the system to their advantage! That's what we do. We want to win!

You want to make Vengeance a tool to reduce stam stacking? Tie it in to expertise or something else. Hell..... tie it in to rage! As a warrior/bear gains rage.... increase the damage accordingly. Same with runic power (which though not generated through incoming damage.... is built up by attacking). Pally could benefit in a similar manner tied to mana. It'd also make the tank have to think "do I want to use this resource on cool gadget A, or to keep up side effect B"? Or tie it in to the tank's attack power. Incoming damage for last 5 hits x 0.05 = increase in ap. Create a system that favors "creative balance" and tie in some consequences to upsetting the scale too much in any one direction.

Hell. I'm not going to play mathematician. You want me to come up with a good formula Blizz?... pay me.

Just don't be dumb and tie it in to a tank's stam/health. Not if you want to get away from that.

themaz
04-21-2010, 01:27 PM
When I first saw the Vengeance description, I read it simply as "Hey, cool. I don't have to carry around a threat equipment set anymore!" The problem it is trying to address is that while DPS focuses on upgrading their DPS oriented stats, tanks focus on upgrading their survival oriented stats. This leads to the situations where tanks will be forced, at some point, into deciding whether its worth it to sacrifice their survival for their ability to keep up with the DPS. Vengeance lets the tanks gear for survival without gimping themselves as much on the threat. Will there ever be need for a threat set? Perhaps. But the difference between the threat set and the survival set is going to be much smaller than it is today.

As for Vengeance promoting stam stacking, again, I don't see things with as dire a future. Stacking avoidance will have at best a marginal effect on how fast Vengeance stacks (we're looking at 10% increased avoidance adding ~1-4 seconds to the Vengeance stacking time). Stacking stam will allow the size of the Vengeance buff to increase, but at some point, other factors will sharply limit the desirability of further stacking stam. Assuming tanks will be spending more time in a "wounded" state, as Blizz has stated multiple times is their goal, stacking stam at the expense of other stats will turn the tank into a mana sponge. So the higher Vengeance will allow the tank to keep the DPS happy by not threat-capping them, but might piss off the healers by making them go OOM faster. Particularly with the 10% conversion ratio, exclusively stacking stam will quickly push you into mana-sponge territory for only marginal increases in AP.

All in all, I see Vengeance acting like a Happy Meal. If we are hungry, we can go buy a Happy Meal, and get both a burger and a toy. If we want more toys, we can continue to buy Happy Meals, but at some point we'll have too many burgers and start to get fat. If toys are our goal, then we can still go out to the toy store and buy our own, and not get fat at all. However, in the meantime, we can play with our Happy Meal toys and feel sorry for the kid over in the corner still trying to make a fort out of his empty burger wrapper.

kasanagi
05-05-2010, 11:19 PM
I think Vengeance will end up having an effect on the way dps handle their threat more than the tanks; If Vengeance is a core mechanic to tank TPS (as oppose to a layer of icing on top of the threat we can do now), There would be a ramp up time to threat generation that all dps would need to be aware of. And with the OT having zero or lower stacks of the buffs, this will force the dps to be aware of the tanks switch, when the OT needs a bit of ramp up time to get to the level of threat gen above others, something no dps really cares about (apart from the occasional rogue or hunter that MD/trick the right tanks :/ ). So someday in the Xpac we'll have interesting conversation along the lines of "L2TANK NUB", "No, you learn to watch my V stacks"

IMO Blizzard wanted an active mechanic that they can use to monitor and control this ramp up time, and even enforce it so tanks can't out gear contents so quickly that they can hold argro just by staring at a mob 2 raid-tiers lower than him.

I can see Vengeance having issues with scaling across all tank classes though; Wouldn't certain tanks benefit less from the AP than others?

2ndNin
05-25-2010, 11:44 AM
Speed of Buff Attainment: Vengeance is based off of incoming damage and the more you do to mitigate that incoming damage means you'll be waiting longer to get the full buff. With the factors of P = Player's un-buffed Health, D = Unmitigated Incoming Damage, R = Mitigation, and H = Hits required to Reach Vengeance cap, The formula for determining how many hits (spell or physical) it'll take until you reach this is:


http://www.sitmo.com/gg/latex/latex2png.2.php?z=100&eq=\frac{0.10P}{0.05[D(1-R)]}%3DH

Which simplifies to:

http://www.sitmo.com/gg/latex/latex2png.2.php?z=100&eq=\frac{2P}{[D(1-R)]}%3DH

Example: Using Satorri's numbers (P = 60k, [50k(1-0.7)] = 15k, H = 8):
[2(60,000)]/[50,000(1-0.7)]= 8

Increasing Mitigation by 1%:
[2(60,000)]/[50,000(1-0.71)]~ 8.28

Increasing Stamina also has the same effect. Keeping at R = 0.7, and Increasing Stamina by 1% yields:
[2(1.01*60,000)]/[50,000(1-0.7)]= 8.08

Increasing Stamina and Mitigation both by 1%):
[2(1.01*60,000)]/[50,000(1-0.71)]~ 8.35


This seems to be a largely irrelevant calculation. Attack Power gained maxes out at 10% of our health, a tank who stacks stamina gains additional attack power over one that doesn't and assuming no mitigation change will attain the same attack power bonus as the lower health tank in the same number of hits (hits to a fixed AP are constant). The higher stamina tank needs to take more hits to realise their full potential however this is not a trade off, stacking more stamina is always better overall and does not increase the time taken to get to an acceptable amount of AP.

Mitigation and avoidance will increase the stacking time, however stamina is always a simple bonus to us (unless we are actually considering maximum health to be the only viable point for the buff, in which case stamina stacking is the only way to go).

What these two masteries should allow Blizzard to do is to remove innate threat from all tank abilities without affecting PvP. Our sustained tanking TPS /DPS is:
TM = threat modifier, ITM = innate threat modifier, R = Damage Mitigation, BITM = Base Threat Innate Threat Modifier

TPS = TM*(ITM*((BaseDamage+(AP+VAP)*Scaling)*(1-R))+BaseThreat*BITM

So we can be adjusted on two separate knobs in a relatively orthogonal way (TM, and VAP) to give the required threat / DPS. I would assume TM should be around 2 (so we do 50% of DPS damage) with say a 10-20% allowance giving us a 2.1-2.2x threat modifier (similar to the 2.07 now) but without the innate threat modifiers that so many. Assuming the goal of us doing 50% of a DPS damage is met the threat race becomes important again and abilities which reduce threat become important.

Damage can likewise be tuned.

Physical Reduction = (1-VR)*(1-ArmourReduction)*(1-Stance)*(1-Misc)
Magical Reduction = (1-VR)*(1-Stance)*(1-Misc)*(1-Resistance) + random reduction from resistance

The vengeance DR being the same on both seems like a mistake, I would personally like to see it split into magic and physical to make them orthogonally tuneable. We can assume that Armour and Stance DRs will effectively be fixed per tier (barring bonus armour, but we will likely all see the same amount on plate at least) leaving misc factors like AD and similar as well as the availability of resistance gear (the DK enchants making it slightly easier for them to wear resist gear over a Paladin or Warrior).

I think it would be nice if resistance went the way of armour and actually became something we can choose to stack. Would also make resistance fights more easily available with the pure DPS classes becoming likely the best resistance tanks (compared to the traditional tanks) due to their lack of avoidance on their gear (and slightly higher damage than a hybrid dps). It would make fights more interesting if we actually had a way (and necessity) to cover magical damage as well as physical, or trade that role off to a non-tank for a duration (since we haven't done that since TBC days).

Ollin
05-31-2010, 11:37 AM
This seems to be a largely irrelevant calculation. Attack Power gained maxes out at 10% of our health, a tank who stacks stamina gains additional attack power over one that doesn't and assuming no mitigation change will attain the same attack power bonus as the lower health tank in the same number of hits (hits to a fixed AP are constant). The higher stamina tank needs to take more hits to realise their full potential however this is not a trade off, stacking more stamina is always better overall and does not increase the time taken to get to an acceptable amount of AP.


I think you're making quite a bold statement there (bolded for emphasis), because it's one hell of an assumption. We don't yet know how blizzard intends to change up how healing interacts with survivability. Depending on the content, stam stacking could very well make content more difficult overall, even if it seems less stressful from the tank's perspective. Blizzard has stated time and time again (only reason to repeat themselves is because what they're saying is important) that they want healers to risk going OOM.

Stam stacking has always increased the chance a healer will go OOM in the past. Wrath of the Lich King is unique in this because high-end healers usually don't go OOM.

I think the risk of healers going OOM is going to be quite high if you stack stam (IMO stam gems are going to give a bit more stamina than they do now by proportion) because that makes the tanking, healing, DPS interactivity quite interesting. You'll want to stack stam because it will be an attractive approach to tanking. However, doing so will raise the risk you run your healers OOM and wipe the raid. This will be interesting because the blame for healers going OOM will lie squarely on the tank if the tank is a stam stacker rather than on the healer, assuming the healer knows what he's doing. Right now, when the tank dies because the healer going OOM, the immediate response is "L2P Mr. Scrub-healer-who-can't-manage-unlimited-mana". The tank will suddenly be responsible for his own survivability for a change in the big picture.

On the flip side of this, assuming a little bit of stam goes a long way, making sure the healers don't go OOM will force the DPS to watch their threat. This puts some responsibility onto the DPS where there really hasn't been any for an entire expansion (retraining DPS in cata is going to be interesting). Especially since CC is going to be their responsibility. If the DPS can't watch their threat, the more they pull aggro the high the chance a re-CC in a boss encounter is going to be missed either due to DPS death or distraction. This, in some cases, will put the responsibility for random healer death squarely on the shoulders of the DPS.

Though, this coin then gains a third side. If the tank stacks TOO MUCH avoidance and mitigation, he risks under-threating which flips the blame for random deaths, and full wipes, in the DPS and healers to the tank rather than the DPS depending on the circumstances if the tank can't generate the threat the DPS needs them to in order to kill the boss.

Right now the paradigm goes:

If the tank dies it's the healer's fault...
If the healer dies it's the tank's fault...
If the DPS dies it's their own fault.

I think this is going to become a gross oversimplification, and it's a good thing.

OTOH, I can see a place for pure stam stacking: off tanks. Because of the nature of tank swaps with a core mechanic like vengeance, it will behoove OTs to nearly stack straight stamina to help reduce their ramp-up times and let the DPS do their jobs. So, for once, OTs will maybe gear themselves differently from MTs creating a stark difference between good OTs and bad OTs where there hasn't been one before.

...and of course, skill will be able to make up for pretty much all of it in 90% of cases. The people at the top of the curve will care, and few else.

Voley
06-01-2010, 02:21 AM
And with the OT having zero or lower stacks of the buffs, this will force the dps to be aware of the tanks switch, when the OT needs a bit of ramp up time to get to the level of threat gen above others, something no dps really cares about (apart from the occasional rogue or hunter that MD/trick the right tanks :/ )

I see a flaw in your logic here, currently when I'm tanking a mob i got at least 1/3 lead over the first dpser, lets say 1 million threat against 700k, and that's on extreme cases like DBS, usually it's much, much more. So when the switch happens, OT inherits my threat level and even if he has to stack vengeance all over in Cataclysm, it is still alot of overhead and time for him to do so, thanks to the threat lead of the first tank.
And my opinion is that it's a great change, finally we will be able to dish out more dps.

Mačl
06-01-2010, 02:40 AM
...and even if DPS is chasing your tail threatwise, it's still up to DPS to manage that. It's bad to be threat capped but it's even worse not to see you are threat capped. Especially now since Omen doesn't guess threat anymore but shows you the hard figures there is no excuse for it except gross incompetence.

Tank swaps in vanilla didn't work by taunting. Many, many bosses had threat resets after a phase change. We might see a return of that. But I wouldn't hold my breath.