Threat conversation

[Belaganor]

So I've been living under the "warrior threat sucks" belief since SWTOR started. I definitely have the priority and blow a power adrenal on boss pulls and do all the "right" moves, but warrior threat still has some issues.

I think this recent thread may actually finally pinpoint the issue. Note that I normally tank using the 34/7/0 Immortal spec. But I did try the 14/27 spec last night after reading this. It seemed to be better. I'm still convinced the immortal spec is more stable for most fights and leads to more dps from the raid, but this mechanic in the spec regarding threat may carry some weight.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=324058
7th post down 1st page

In short: every hit/action adds to threat. Not the dmg, just the hit itself. Hence, bleeds that tick add additional hits. Hots add additional threat for each tick. Assassin abilities that heal and do dmg have 2 actions. Powertech bleeds add threat. Therefore the 14/27 warrior tanking spec with 2 "bleeds" should have better threat. In testing a little last night, I think they may be on to something. I still need more data though.....

hence....thoughts?

[Crutches]

Very interesting. It shouldn't be very hard to test. I'm going to get a dps out of my guild and go find something big to beat on tonight and see if this is actually the case. I'm a little bit skeptical based on aoe situations, threat modified abilities like back hand, and how the threat system accounts for healing. I'll post some results tonight.

[Adam]

(02-28-2012 12:41 AM)Belaganor Wrote:  In short: every hit/action adds to threat. Not the dmg, just the hit itself. Hence, bleeds that tick add additional hits. Hots add additional threat for each tick. Assassin abilities that heal and do dmg have 2 actions. Powertech bleeds add threat. Therefore the 14/27 warrior tanking spec with 2 "bleeds" should have better threat. In testing a little last night, I think they may be on to something. I still need more data though.....

I'm not a juggernaut so i can't test it; but doesn't mean that your basic "3-hit-attack" on a 1.5 GCD would be near-impossible to pull aggro off of, unless someone were to surpass your hits / second? Mix in a bleed or two and GG; you're ubertank?

[Kaedis]

Holy crap, this needs to be investigated further. If accurate, that's the single laziest threat mechanic I've ever seen.

To the laboratory! I'll report back with results.

[Sercc]

(02-28-2012 06:33 AM)Adam Wrote:  I'm not a juggernaut so i can't test it; but doesn't mean that your basic "3-hit-attack" on a 1.5 GCD would be near-impossible to pull aggro off of, unless someone were to surpass your hits / second? Mix in a bleed or two and GG; you're ubertank?

No. Even though Assault says it's three hits, and the animation is three attacks, it does all its damage at once. Mechanically, it's just one attack.

[LagunaD]

(02-28-2012 07:41 AM)Sercc Wrote:  No. Even though Assault says it's three hits, and the animation is three attacks, it does all its damage at once. Mechanically, it's just one attack.

Evidence?

The client files list it as one 2-attack flurry, and one additional attack (plus off-hand for Sentinel/Marauder). Each swing has a chance to proc things like Ataru strikes.

As far as threat being based off number of attacks rather than damage, I am extremely skeptical. To take just one of many examples, my Sentinel regularly pulls aggro on mobs Kira has been attacking for some time, just by unleashing a single 3K auto-crit Blade Storm...

[Annai]

Very interesting (and I'll do some testing as well, it seems). Noteworthy: The DPS mentioned in the original post was a Sentinel (melee), and pulled at 10 attacks (after "9" tank attacks). Just equivalent to 111% "threat" (can't resist the quotation marks for this mechanic).

Does that mean a sniper would be able to unload 11 full damage attacks safely (122%) and only pull on the 12th? I think the "pull aggro" values were confirmed from game data.

[Anonymousy]

so a naked tank beats 10 times on a mob and a full geared dps pulls aggro after one big skill.
that would be enough to disprove the idea, right?

[Turbopuschel]

(02-28-2012 07:14 PM)Anonymousy Wrote:  so a naked tank beats 10 times on a mob and a full geared dps pulls aggro after one big skill.
that would be enough to disprove the idea, right?

That would certainly disprove that threat depends only on the number of attacks (or better "damage sources"? Since it was suggested that every DoT tick counts for one attack?). But threat might be dependant on some mix of overall damage and number of damage sources. That would certainly be harder to test.

[Annai]

Could not reproduce this today (28. Feb 2012).

Our testing was a Juggernaut tank wielding the lowest level vibrosword I could find on the auction house and otherwise naked. After hitting the target 6 times (counting charge) with no bleed attacks (Force Charge, Crushing Blow, Sundering Assault, Assault, Force Scream, Retaliation) my Bounty Hunter (fully dressed) started shooting from close to maximum range (Missile Blast).

The damage of Missile Blast was approximately 1000 per hit in her current gear.

When I was using no gear (except for the vibroblade), aggro was pulled after 4 hits (first attempt) and 5 hits (second attempt). With full gear equipped it took her 7 hits (first go) and 11 hits (second go) to pull aggro.

The target we used was "The First" on Dromund Kaas. Minor setback - after his knockback, the aggro table resets, which made testing a bit annoying.