The Care and Feeding of Warriors: Mastery, threat decay and Cataclysm tanking
The Care and Feeding of Warriors is about warriors, who hurl themselves into the fray, the very teeth of danger, armed with nothing more than the biggest weapons and armored with the absolutely heaviest armor we can find. Hey, we're not stupid -- we're just crazy.
Last week we talked about tanking and Cataclysm beta patch 13033, which was superseded almost immediately by patch 13066. Hard upon the heels of that comes patch 13117. If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that there will be more beta patches that will bring with them more mechanical changes to the class. But I wanted to take this time to cover a couple of interesting recent posts about the way the class is shaping up.
We'll cover the patch 13117 changes first, the move on.
Arms
Fury
Protection
Incoming damage taxes us
First up, from a discussion of how mastery was shaping up to be pretty underwhelming for both prot warriors and paladins (you'll remember I said that a few weeks ago), we have this response, which I found very interesting.
Ghostcrawler - Re: Paladin/Warrior Mastery Undertuned
Increasing the value per point of mastery for paladins or warriors is not hard to do. Likewise, we might shift more of the warrior mastery between block and critical block because of the value of Shield Block.
I'm also not sure we're that worried about paladins (or anyone) blocking, dodging or parrying every hit. That isn't the game breaking scenario that it used to be. If in later tiers of gear you manage to do it, probably by giving up on other stats, I'm not sure it's a huge danger. Sixty percent of damage is still a lot and none of those stats help with magic damage. In a world where two back to back normal hits could kill you, it would be a lot more valuable. In Cataclysm, it might just translate to healer mana savings. We'll keep an eye on it of course.
We did change parry to scale from Strength.
I have to agree that the protection mastery is fairly undertuned. Applying more of it to Critical Block (so that you have a higher chance of blocking for more) is a good idea, in my opinion, and would keep the mastery attractive without really making it overly so.
It is interesting to me that there still seems to be a sense that one or two big, back-to-back hits won't kill you. Frankly, this didn't jibe with my experience tanking heroics. At least as heroics are currently tuned, going into a heroic dungeon in the gear that you are allowed to queue in (ilevel 329 blue gear) means that some mobs absolutely will hit you hard enough to kill you in two swings without proactive cooldown usage. Not every mob will do this, of course, but some absolutely will. This implies a few potential things, to my mind.
Ghostcrawler - Re: 4.0 Protection Paladin Feedback
What this means, clearly, is that Blizzard anticipates that in Cataclysm, we won't hit the 70 percent or higher avoidance numbers. Without such high avoidance, without mechanics that push damage entirely away (but instead cause it to deal less damage, mitigation over avoidance like the new block, in which 30 percent of the time you take 30 percent less damage), you'll never need to reach such high levels of avoidance. Hopefully this model will in fact work as intended going forward. A steady stream of incoming damage works as a tanking model with the new healing model so long as it's not steadily more than can be avoided, mitigated and healed at once.
Less streaky incoming damage with a more triage-style healing paradigm (and allowing warriors and paladins to get some parry from strength, to fix the tank balance issue above) will hopefully mean that mobs hitting for half your health per swing will only do so when it's within a good healer's means to keep that kind of damage under control and a good tank's means to reduce it in some way.
An exquisite threat corpse?
Another interesting post discussed threat decay, the proposed mechanic wherein threat generated would decay over time. We talked about it when it was first mentioned. What ended up happening with that?
Ghostcrawler - Re: Why was threat decay scrapped?
I'll be honest, threat decay is one of those concepts that I believe needs to be implemented very carefully. I understand the appeal to baking into the concept of tanking an idea that says, "You're not done tanking until the monster is dead." We've all seen those fights in which, for one reason or another, tanks quickly build a massive threat lead; for them, then, tanking is less about actively engaging the attention of the boss and more about just staying alive. A taunt trade fight, a fight where DPS has to switch off of a boss like Putricide -- these are fights in which tank threat can quickly become insurmountable and tanks can coast. I get why you wouldn't want that.
Rather than introduce a general threat decay mechanic, however, I think it's best to bake that kind of attrition into the fights themselves. Put in threat resets, make tanks switch off of bosses to tank other mobs so that they can't get complacent -- mechanics we're already familiar with. Especially since moves like Misdirection and Tricks of the Trade no longer provide threat handouts to tanks, you won't really need to include a static decay mechanism into the process to make tanks care about threat (at least, not motivated ones -- to be frank, I never care how much of a threat lead I have and I always work for more ... it's just part of my nature). However, if a threat decay mechanic were handled correctly and implemented in a way that made sure not to punish tanks for doing things like scanning the battlefield, then I think it could be a positive boon. Tanks should be working for threat, gearing for threat, thinking about threat. It should never even be feasible for a tank to say, "Threat's not an issue." That way leads to pets tanking bosses in progression content (remember Sartharion?), and that should never, ever happen.
I expect we'll see threat decay as an active, rather than passive, mechanic on specific fights to test out the concept in action. It's not hard to imagine a boss council fight where each boss has a steadily increasing threat decay mechanic (perhaps similar to Deathwhisper) that causes all threat generated by whoever has that debuff to fall off at the 20-second mark. This would lead to an inevitable threat loss, especially if said boss were not tauntable. Since Blizzard has expressed an interest in the idea of threat decay, expect this expansion to see multiple models of it tested in boss fights till the developers find one they really like.
Next week: Is Arms the most improved talent tree of the coming expansion?
Check out more strategies and tips for warriors of all specs in Matthew Rossi's weekly class column, The Care and Feeding of Warriors.
Last week we talked about tanking and Cataclysm beta patch 13033, which was superseded almost immediately by patch 13066. Hard upon the heels of that comes patch 13117. If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that there will be more beta patches that will bring with them more mechanical changes to the class. But I wanted to take this time to cover a couple of interesting recent posts about the way the class is shaping up.
We'll cover the patch 13117 changes first, the move on.
Arms
- Mortal Strike now costs 25 rage, down from 30 rage.
Fury
- Slam now costs 20 rage, up from 15 rage.
- Bloodthirst now restores 0.5% of max health, down from 1%.
Protection
- Defensive Stance now increases threat by 125%, up from 100%.
Incoming damage taxes us
First up, from a discussion of how mastery was shaping up to be pretty underwhelming for both prot warriors and paladins (you'll remember I said that a few weeks ago), we have this response, which I found very interesting.
Increasing the value per point of mastery for paladins or warriors is not hard to do. Likewise, we might shift more of the warrior mastery between block and critical block because of the value of Shield Block.
I'm also not sure we're that worried about paladins (or anyone) blocking, dodging or parrying every hit. That isn't the game breaking scenario that it used to be. If in later tiers of gear you manage to do it, probably by giving up on other stats, I'm not sure it's a huge danger. Sixty percent of damage is still a lot and none of those stats help with magic damage. In a world where two back to back normal hits could kill you, it would be a lot more valuable. In Cataclysm, it might just translate to healer mana savings. We'll keep an eye on it of course.
We did change parry to scale from Strength.
I have to agree that the protection mastery is fairly undertuned. Applying more of it to Critical Block (so that you have a higher chance of blocking for more) is a good idea, in my opinion, and would keep the mastery attractive without really making it overly so.
It is interesting to me that there still seems to be a sense that one or two big, back-to-back hits won't kill you. Frankly, this didn't jibe with my experience tanking heroics. At least as heroics are currently tuned, going into a heroic dungeon in the gear that you are allowed to queue in (ilevel 329 blue gear) means that some mobs absolutely will hit you hard enough to kill you in two swings without proactive cooldown usage. Not every mob will do this, of course, but some absolutely will. This implies a few potential things, to my mind.
- Heroics will be tuned slightly less aggressively when Cataclysm is released. When I say "slightly," what I mean is that I expect the biggest non-boss hit to be around half your health (100k in the blue gear I had available).
- It's also possible that heroics will in fact not be tuned less aggressively, because we'll be expected to have new gems, new enchants and so on to help give us, as tanks, more of a cushion. If I'd had around 120k health, two hits would have left me at 11k, and the mobs that do the big burst physical damage tend to swing slowly. I think it's fair to expect a heal within 8 seconds of taking damage, meaning that with 120k health I'd have at least 12 seconds before a big swinger doing 60k damage per hit could kill me. That should be enough time.
- Damage will be a lot less streaky. When crushing blows were removed from the raid/heroic level in Wrath, Allison Roberts noted for us that big-damage magic attacks were the new crushing blows. Furthermore, they were crushing blows that couldn't be pushed off of the attack table by any means. All that could be done was to use cooldowns to weather them. As health pools and avoidance/mitigation climbed in Wrath, these enormous bursts of damage only got more enormous to compensate. Eventually, this model could not be sustained and we ended up with avoidance so high it made it almost impossible for bosses to physically hit some tanks, which led to one of two choices. Either magical blasts could hit the tank so hard she or he would die, or avoidance had to come down.
As far as tank balance goes, in beta we found that DKs and Feral druids were taking less damage than paladins and warriors. This is partially because of the Sanctuary bug (where it just wasn't working). Beyond that, the avoidance of the former were just a lot higher. Druids get dodge and DKs get parry just from wearing Agi and Str respectively. Block tanks used to get a little mitigation from Strength, but it was never much, and that won't really work any longer with the new model. Solutions include letting Str affect parry (for everyone in the same way Agi provides dodge) or giving all plate users some kind of Forceful Deflection passive or talent.
Basically, we think that avoidance below 20% or so doesn't feel very good because you don't see it, and avoidance above around 70% or so breaks encounters and forces us to add "radiance" debuffs to raids.
Basically, we think that avoidance below 20% or so doesn't feel very good because you don't see it, and avoidance above around 70% or so breaks encounters and forces us to add "radiance" debuffs to raids.
What this means, clearly, is that Blizzard anticipates that in Cataclysm, we won't hit the 70 percent or higher avoidance numbers. Without such high avoidance, without mechanics that push damage entirely away (but instead cause it to deal less damage, mitigation over avoidance like the new block, in which 30 percent of the time you take 30 percent less damage), you'll never need to reach such high levels of avoidance. Hopefully this model will in fact work as intended going forward. A steady stream of incoming damage works as a tanking model with the new healing model so long as it's not steadily more than can be avoided, mitigated and healed at once.
Less streaky incoming damage with a more triage-style healing paradigm (and allowing warriors and paladins to get some parry from strength, to fix the tank balance issue above) will hopefully mean that mobs hitting for half your health per swing will only do so when it's within a good healer's means to keep that kind of damage under control and a good tank's means to reduce it in some way.
An exquisite threat corpse?
Another interesting post discussed threat decay, the proposed mechanic wherein threat generated would decay over time. We talked about it when it was first mentioned. What ended up happening with that?
We scrapped it because we didn't think it was necessary and we wanted to focus on things we thought were necessary. We ended up changing threat modifiers quite a bit and getting rid of a lot of the threat management talents. Furthermore, Vengeance is keeping tank dps up pretty well in beta tests -- often 75% or higher of dps. Finally, it was causing a lot of concern among tanks. The intent was to make threat generation more engaging, ultimately to make tanking more fun. But I think we ended up changing so many aspects of tanking (large health pools so avoidance matters more, less AE tanking, mana mattering more, Vengeance, etc.) that changing threat on top of all of that just seemed to some* tanks to be that final straw that made Cataclysm tanking feel totally unfamiliar to them.
I'll be honest, threat decay is one of those concepts that I believe needs to be implemented very carefully. I understand the appeal to baking into the concept of tanking an idea that says, "You're not done tanking until the monster is dead." We've all seen those fights in which, for one reason or another, tanks quickly build a massive threat lead; for them, then, tanking is less about actively engaging the attention of the boss and more about just staying alive. A taunt trade fight, a fight where DPS has to switch off of a boss like Putricide -- these are fights in which tank threat can quickly become insurmountable and tanks can coast. I get why you wouldn't want that.
Rather than introduce a general threat decay mechanic, however, I think it's best to bake that kind of attrition into the fights themselves. Put in threat resets, make tanks switch off of bosses to tank other mobs so that they can't get complacent -- mechanics we're already familiar with. Especially since moves like Misdirection and Tricks of the Trade no longer provide threat handouts to tanks, you won't really need to include a static decay mechanism into the process to make tanks care about threat (at least, not motivated ones -- to be frank, I never care how much of a threat lead I have and I always work for more ... it's just part of my nature). However, if a threat decay mechanic were handled correctly and implemented in a way that made sure not to punish tanks for doing things like scanning the battlefield, then I think it could be a positive boon. Tanks should be working for threat, gearing for threat, thinking about threat. It should never even be feasible for a tank to say, "Threat's not an issue." That way leads to pets tanking bosses in progression content (remember Sartharion?), and that should never, ever happen.
I expect we'll see threat decay as an active, rather than passive, mechanic on specific fights to test out the concept in action. It's not hard to imagine a boss council fight where each boss has a steadily increasing threat decay mechanic (perhaps similar to Deathwhisper) that causes all threat generated by whoever has that debuff to fall off at the 20-second mark. This would lead to an inevitable threat loss, especially if said boss were not tauntable. Since Blizzard has expressed an interest in the idea of threat decay, expect this expansion to see multiple models of it tested in boss fights till the developers find one they really like.
Next week: Is Arms the most improved talent tree of the coming expansion?
Filed under: Warrior, Analysis / Opinion, (Warrior) The Care and Feeding of Warriors, Cataclysm







Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
razion Oct 1st 2010 4:11PM
*Distracted by Mining Monkeys...*
niko Oct 1st 2010 6:48PM
This is heroic deadmines I believe!
Natsumi Oct 1st 2010 8:06PM
correct
Possum Oct 1st 2010 8:26PM
There are monkeys in Westfall now?
Byron Oct 1st 2010 8:53PM
"There are monkeys in Westfall now?"
Yes, they used to be known as "Alliance".
;p
Bonham Oct 1st 2010 4:16PM
That goblin tank looks totally badass. I'm alliance with all of my characters, but I may have to level a goblin just for the cool factor. And for that awesome cinematic of course :P
Lloren Oct 1st 2010 4:36PM
That's definitely a night elf just FYI... Note the green hair, not skin, the long skinny purple-tinged ears, and the tips of the eyebrows hovering over the top of his head. But I do agree that goblins are coming in to their own as a pretty bad ass horde class. :-D
Natsumi Oct 1st 2010 8:08PM
Lloren is correct on all but his last point. Goblins are shaping up to be a cool RACE not CLASS. ;)
Ronin Oct 1st 2010 9:46PM
In fact, whatever it is (and yes, I agree it's a N Elf, but bear with me here), you can hardly see it. So if it in fact looks badass, I'd say it's the armor, not the race, that makes it so.
Although my N Elf Warrior _is_ badass...
Wirhl Oct 1st 2010 4:28PM
I see the mining monkeys...cool...I see the Goblin Overseers...cool...I see a...MINE BUNNY...???...with a red bar...my first thought...Rabbit of Caerbannog. :)
TJC Oct 1st 2010 6:41PM
It could be the fabled Bun'kar, slayer of Lowping.
If it is, may the Naaru have mercy on our souls...
Natsumi Oct 1st 2010 8:09PM
It's a female Goblin carrying a drink tray. I'm not saying she's a gold digger.....
jordan Oct 1st 2010 4:29PM
Threat decay was a lofty goal perhaps too lofty with all the balancing that still needs to be done and the release being pushed back.
Natsumi Oct 1st 2010 8:09PM
If only it worked for DPS too :p
jordan Oct 1st 2010 4:35PM
Was the slam nerf and ms buff because some warriors were using slam spam instead of using ms? Some people were saying that slam worked out to higher damage per rage... not too sure about that claim.
Natsumi Oct 1st 2010 8:12PM
Slam is higher DPR, but MS is linked to multiple DPS increasing talents making it a better button to push. The reduced rage is to bring it more in line with the other two signature strikes, Bloodthirst and Shield Slam.
I still hate Slam with a cast time, even if I can use it while moving, it still makes Haste bad for Arms.
Zorbak Oct 1st 2010 5:10PM
I believe there are a few changes Boub didn't pick up on, I know MS got buffed to 125% weapon damage, there may be more.
Nyold Oct 1st 2010 5:22PM
I'm confused with your statement that damage is less streaky. In the model where they want healers to triage, wouldn't it be better to have damage more streaky? As in, 10k damage per second is better than 40k damage every four seconds? Because if tanks can be killed in two shots, don't we practically go back to the Wrath model of tanking and healing where ALL damage is basically spiky?
Sleutel Oct 1st 2010 7:51PM
I think you misunderstand the term. 10k DPS versus 40k DP4S is LESS streaky, not more. "Streaky" means periods of no damage followed by periods of high damage, versus more lower damage coming in more consistently.
Pyromelter Oct 1st 2010 6:04PM
"Rather than introduce a general threat decay mechanic, however, I think it's best to bake that kind of attrition into the fights themselves. Put in threat resets..."
I don't know Matt, I kind of see your point, but I don't completely agree with you here. Total threat resets in my opinion are not fun in any way. And threat decay can be really dangerous on add-intensive fights. (Weren't you the one complaining about BC tanking alt-tabbing and spamming heroic strike or something and that giving you carpal tunnel?)
I mean, I agree that any threat mechanics need to be carefully implemented if changed. I really don't see the problem with the way it is on live or how it will be in cataclysm. On my top dps character, I continue to threat-cap myself and have to use threat dropping cooldowns. And last I checked, fury warriors, feral druids, and warlocks were also not getting any extra threat dropping mechanics in the expansion.
I think if you really want to make a threat mini-game, doing it like Lady Deathwhisper would be the way to go, where the stacking debuff reduces your ability to generate threat.
Maybe you are seeing it from a tank perspective, and I'm seeing it from a dps perspective. To be honest, I think the way threat works on live is fairly balanced. The threat mini-game is there, but it's not so important that your eyes are glued to Omen for 5 straight minutes. But the point is, if you are a high threat dps, holding back on your rotations is just really about the least fun thing in the game, so if any mechanic were introduced that would nerf tank threat and buff dps threat, I feel it would be a pretty big downer for most dps. The bottom line is that the threat system as it is seems to be pretty balanced, and vengeance will make it even more "fun" for tanks, so why fix what isn't broken, you know?
All in all, i think blizzard made the right call on that one.