Search the Ramblings

Loading...

Thursday, September 13, 2012

The Greatest Threat (is threat itself, or lack of it)

Omen Anub'Rekhan Photobucket
Since Zellviren's post about protection warriors in 5.0.4 I've been thinking about threat. What threat was, what it is, and what it has meant to me. I've played since The Burning Crusade, and threat and how it works has changed a lot since then - and so have player attitudes towards it. Disclaimer: All statements are based on my own experiences and may not be representative of Every Player Ever.

I "grew up" as a Hunter pugging my way through dungeons on my way to max level, learning kill marks (skull, then cross, square for trap, etc!), trapping, dungeon skills, etiquette and dps rotations. I learned which players were fun to group with, and why - usually by how good they were at communicating, marking, following instructions and managing threat.

Much of what I learned was necessary because of how threat worked at the time. Warrior and Druid Tanks could manage one mob easily, two mobs with effort, and three or four with superhuman skill (or so you'd think to hear them talk ;). Paladins were the only Tanks with good AoE threat built into their class, yet large pulls were still unwise due to the high mob damage relative to player health pools.

Kill Markings Photobucket
Crowd control (including off-tanking), waiting for Tanks to build aggro, and a good understanding of kill markings was required for most if not all pulls. This provided a clear and obvious skill-check - Tanks had to be good at holding threat, and DPS had to be good at enabling them to do so. These were skills to learn and take pride in that weren't just a number on a damage meter - I don't even remember discussing damage that much in pugs back then, it was utility and execution of tactics - and that is the atmosphere in which I learned to play the game.

There were flaws. Paladins were the go-to tank for any encounter that required good AoE threat. The developers deliberately inserted raid mechanics that prevented classes other than Warriors from main tanking for some bosses. Pantsless tanking in outgeared content was common due to the way rage and mana (and by extension, threat) worked with incoming damage. Classes who lacked crowd control abilities could find it very difficult to find groups for certain dungeons. Healers could accidentally grab aggro from mobs after throwing out an early heal.

Wrath of the Lich King introduced Death Knights to address the lack of available Tanks. Druids and Paladins were improved to make them as viable as Warriors for the main tanking role. These changes were beneficial to raid guilds and it also made five man pugs far more accessible due to the overall increase in tanking players. Even 10 and 25 man raid pugs started to become viable for relevant content.

Beasts Omen Photobucket
Tank AoE threat was buffed across the board which meant as soon as players were sufficiently geared up in the new heroics, the combination of increased Tank AoE threat and increased DPS AoE damage meant crowd control skills began to fall by the wayside. This lead to most heroic dungeons becoming a daily speed grind.

This didn't mean that DPS players en masse started denying their own responsibility for managing threat. Hunters and Rogues had threat transfer tools that were extremely useful for helping the tank establish initial threat. Kill markers were still used throughout the original heroics and raids up to Trial of the Crusader. While they started to fall out of fashion due to the exceptionally easy to come by raid gear of that patch, they made a comeback during the difficult Icecrown heroics and Icecrown Citadel.

However some DPS players didn't seem to understand the difficulty Tanks faced in holding threat and they didn't appreciate their potential role in aiding them. As the expansion progressed, with the unprecedented ease of outgearing content, I came across many players who had little respect for the Tank getting a couple of GCDs off. Additionally, there were many Tanks who didn't mark or communicate who then yelled at DPS when they hit the wrong thing. Neither DPS nor Tanks seemed to value communication and co-operation; to the point where PvE sometimes felt like PvP, only you're not allowed to kill the players. Unless you were a healer who could "accidentally" forget to heal a troublesome party member. Not that I ever took advantage of that or anything. ;)

Murozond Photobucket

Also during Wrath of the Lich King, some Tanks successfully campaigned to have taunts and interrupts be 100% successful even without reaching the hit cap. They wanted to gear defensively instead of a mix of defensive and threat stats. As a result threat management became even less of an issue.

Vengeance, introduced in Cataclysm, is an attempt at resolving Tank threat scaling versus DPS threat scaling. An additional change in 4.3 was aimed at increasing the initial threat on the pull. Its debatable whether Vengeance is an effective solution, but what it has done is made managing threat largely obsolete for both Tank and DPS players.

I also think it has made pulling threat from a Tank something that "shouldn't happen", and that pulling threat off a Tank is never seen as a flaw in the DPS player, but always in the Tank. I don't think blame should be that automatic.

I feel this has removed a part of the game I found fun. I took pride in being skilled at managing my threat. I think the heart of the problem is that Vengeance has trivialised threat as a mechanic and I hope that Blizzard reconsiders this in the future.

19 comments:

  1. "These were skills to learn and take pride in that weren't just a number on a damage meter - I don't even remember discussing damage that much in pugs back then, it was utility and execution of tactics - and that is the atmosphere in which I learned to play the game."

    Most people didn't have Recount or something similar and mechanics were so easy that there was no real DPS check anyway.

    "Neither DPS nor Tanks seemed to value communication and co-operation; to the point where PvE sometimes felt like PvP, only you're not allowed to kill the players."

    The latter part of the sentence describes the situation throughout all of Vanilla and TBC. I don't know if you remember the original Onyxia "3 sunders and go SLOWLY" idea. Plus most DPS were truly terrible at actual numbers.

    In addition, some classes could inherently generate less threat or could drop it, which caused some further issues. Such as fury warriors, whose aggro reset was death.

    "I also think it has made pulling threat from a Tank something that "shouldn't happen", and that pulling threat off a Tank is never seen as a flaw in the DPS player, but always in the Tank. I don't think blame should be that automatic."

    In an age of incredibly strict enrage timers, why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hiratha14/9/12

      Excuse me if I come across as a bit short - bad health day + problems interacting with the comment box on my iPad.

      1. I did occasionally discuss dps (usually in discussions about how-doI-improve etc) so I don't think damage was as unimportant as all that, just not the be-all and end-all of class skill it largely is now. I think enough people had Recount or similar that the lack of damage being bandied around as the major point of debate is still noteworthy. I lack stats, obviously, but they're a bit difficult to come by for add on usage versus heroic dungeon/raid involvement. Do let me know if you have numbers to point at though, I'd love to know for sure!

      2. I believe I mentioned that I began playing in TBC so no, I don't have personal experience of fighting Onyxia at 60. I'm reasonably sure there's been a variety of skill levels throughout the history of the game, but part of my point is that threat being a true mechanic rather than the neutered thing it is now lead to there being more depth to certain aspects of combat (utility skill based, rather than deeps/dodging fire based). Do you disagree with my point about that, or just that people valued those skills at the time?

      3. I'm aware of the problems inherent in melee threat having a lower threshold for pulling aggro than ranged combined with lacking a threat dump. I did intent on working into the flaws but I seem to have forgotten - at any rate, I don't believe that to be a deal breaker for threat being a cool mechanic, just a detail to be worked out. Tweaking without eradicating.

      4. Because strict enrage timers are more interesting to me if the tank has to work harder to hold the threat, threat dumps mean something, threat transfers mean something, etc. Just deepsing, while entertaining from the point of view of shiny numbers, is not all that deep.

      I can't quite tell if you disagree with my whole post - that threat as a meaningful mechanic was interesting and added depth to the game in a variety of ways - or just with the specifics. Would you mind clarifying?

      Delete
    2. Reference point 3:

      I think it’s deeply unfortunate that the WoW community has gone down the road of “perfect now, or fundamentally flawed”. If someone argues that threat needed to be removed because some classes didn’t have decent ways to manage it, they’re basically jumping from one extreme to the other and the game is being developed in that fashion. As you say, there’s a difference between tweaking and eradication that people just seem to wholly ignore.

      Incidentally, I’m not implying Balkoth is guilty of this; I enjoy our conversations. I’m just getting wholly fed up with this design team simply taking away parts of the game because there was the slightest imperfection in it. Threat, to me, is the most galling casualty of this approach.

      Delete
  2. SpiritusRex14/9/12

    Well, look at the upside, you can get a pretty good indicator of how long a person has been playing by how they react to kill markers.

    Personally, I'm right on board with Hiratha here - managing threat has always been the minigame I've enjoyed playing. To see it emasculated like it has been, in my opinion, has turned WOW from a MMORPG to a first-person shooter. I mean, let us use all of the tools in our toolbox instead of just facerolling three keybinds that Blizz (or the meters) indicate maximize damage output. The worst part of all this? Many players might find that their DpS actually would go up if they followed kill order given the multitude of debuffs put on a target (armor reduction, bleeds, etc.) by classes working in unison.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hiratha15/9/12

      Good point! DPS is much nicer and kills much cleaner if you manage at least one or two kill markers. You can even keybind them!

      Delete
  3. Braaaaaaaaayden14/9/12

    This makes it look like Chris knows how to play in that screenshot... :o

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's not get carried away.

      Delete
    2. Hiratha15/9/12

      I think I feigned death shortly before that if it puts it into perspective. ;)

      Anubby bugged on that fight. Floated high up in the sky and not hitting a damn thing with teh spikes - was awesome.

      Delete
  4. "I can't quite tell if you disagree with my whole post - that threat as a meaningful mechanic was interesting and added depth to the game in a variety of ways - or just with the specifics. Would you mind clarifying?"

    Really more the whole post. I'm struggling to think of an implementation of threat as a major mechanic that does more good than harm. Note that I don't think threat should necessarily be COMPLETELY trivial...a tank shouldn't do AoE threat and be able to hold off a DPS nuking down a single target. But if it's tuned close enough to be meaningful then I think it presents more problems than any benefits.

    "1. I did occasionally discuss dps (usually in discussions about how-doI-improve etc) so I don't think damage was as unimportant as all that, just not the be-all and end-all of class skill it largely is now."

    People were 20 manning MC in blues if they were decent. Most guilds would hit the Sons of Flame summoned by Ragnaros at 3:00 and others would even hit a SECOND set of Sons of Flame.

    Still other guilds did this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBoUH8abKMo

    And got 1:16 kills.

    I walked into ZG as a combat rogue using a level 50 blue dagger and green sword. Did like 20% more than the person in third place and beyond (second place was a fury warrior friend). Most people were even worse than they are now at actual DPS, it just didn't matter except for the harder raid bosses.

    "but part of my point is that threat being a true mechanic rather than the neutered thing it is now lead to there being more depth to certain aspects of combat (utility skill based, rather than deeps/dodging fire based)."

    As a rogue? Vanish like 1 minute into the fight and then ignore threat (with some exceptions on bosses with threat drops).

    As a shadow priest? Just had to stop DPSing and do nothing.

    And the only people with misdirect were Hunters.

    I think it's also worth pointing out that threat meters didn't even exist for much of Vanilla and weren't very wide-spread. So DPS were just guessing anyway, which definitely doesn't add depth.

    "I don't believe that to be a deal breaker for threat being a cool mechanic, just a detail to be worked out."

    Assuming you had a good tank and a good DPS, how would having threat as a "true" mechanic be different than now? I guess we're also assuming threat meters?

    "Because strict enrage timers are more interesting to me if the tank has to work harder to hold the threat, threat dumps mean something, threat transfers mean something, etc."

    In other words, if we tuned threat to be on a razor's edge, whether a raid could beat the enrage would largely be dependent on the tank rather than the DPS. Doesn't that seem a bit odd?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In other words, if we tuned threat to be on a razor's edge, whether a raid could beat the enrage would largely be dependent on the tank rather than the DPS. Doesn't that seem a bit odd?"

      That's reductio ad absurdum. It doesn't have to be a razor's edge to be meaningful, the implication is purely that a decent tank will generate the required threat so that the damage dealers can do their job; just as it was in WotLK, when hit and expertise were meaningful stats.

      Threat mattered, and there was none of this throttling. I don't think (and I hope you don't) that raid group DPS should suffer no consequences from having a bad tank.

      Delete
    2. "That's reductio ad absurdum. It doesn't have to be a razor's edge to be meaningful, the implication is purely that a decent tank will generate the required threat so that the damage dealers can do their job; just as it was in WotLK, when hit and expertise were meaningful stats."

      So what's an example where threat wasn't tuned closely but was still meaningful? Because it seems to me that if there's never a real danger of pulling threat that it's kind of meaningless.

      In addition, if you want tank DPS to be significant, then aren't hit/expertise still important? Arguably MORE important now with Vengeance?

      "Threat mattered, and there was none of this throttling. I don't think (and I hope you don't) that raid group DPS should suffer no consequences from having a bad tank."

      I can't speak to WotLK. I do know there was a ton of threat throttling in Vanilla/BC, though, where threat was more important (as far as I can tell) than WotLK.

      I do think raid group DPS should suffer a consequence, namely they lose DPS from the tank not putting out much. I don't see why the individual damage dealers should be punished in a situation where the tank already is likely to be terrible at cooldowns and control.

      It seems like a double whammy. You lose the DPS from the tank AND everyone loses DPS due to threat. Since tank DPS and threat are generally tied very closely together.

      Delete
    3. *Double whammy in addition to the fact that the tank is already causing OTHER issues in terms of survivability and handling mobs. So that's like a quadruple whammy.

      Delete
    4. "So what's an example where threat wasn't tuned closely but was still meaningful? Because it seems to me that if there's never a real danger of pulling threat that it's kind of meaningless."

      It's a bummer because you can't relate to it, but WotLK. There WAS a danger of pulling threat if your tank was bad, but not if your tank was capable.

      It was skill-dependent.

      "In addition, if you want tank DPS to be significant, then aren't hit/expertise still important? Arguably MORE important now with Vengeance?"

      IF tank DPS/TPS was important then, yes, hit/expertise would be important. Now they're not, as tank output is considered unimportant and warriors get far better TDR by (shocker) stacking mastery again.

      " I don't see why the individual damage dealers should be punished in a situation where the tank already is likely to be terrible at cooldowns and control."

      Because raiding is a group activity, where everyone should be interdependent on one another. Damage dealers being able to do what the hell they like, irrespective of how good a tank is, is bad design because it doesn't promote synergy, it promotes isolation.

      It seems that what you're arguing is that tanks and healers should suffer/benefit from each other AND have to deal with encounter mechanics, while damage dealers should play no part in this shared responsibility.

      No chance. It's bad design and, personally, I feel it's probably a large part as to why damage dealers have plumbed new depths in being awful throughout Cataclysm.

      Delete
  5. "It's a bummer because you can't relate to it, but WotLK. There WAS a danger of pulling threat if your tank was bad, but not if your tank was capable.

    It was skill-dependent."

    Well, I meant specific fights. But let's assume you had a capable tank. How was threat meaningful then?

    It just seems you view threat as a way to punish DPS for bad tanks. You're basically saying "If the DPS could pull off the tank, the tank was bad."

    "IF tank DPS/TPS was important then, yes, hit/expertise would be important. Now they're not, as tank output is considered unimportant and warriors get far better TDR by (shocker) stacking mastery again."

    You don't think tank DPS was important on heroic modes with tight enrage checks? I mean, there's a reason why feral druids were *extremely* popular in Dragon Soul.

    Especially on a fight like Ultraxion, if the DPS was very tight I can easily see tanks getting expertise/hit capped at a minimum. Tank death wasn't the issue there.

    "Because raiding is a group activity, where everyone should be interdependent on one another."

    Maybe we should make a chart or something here.

    Tanks are dependent on healers for... ???
    Tanks are dependent on DPS for... ???

    Healers are dependent on tanks for... ???
    Healers are dependent on DPS for... ???

    DPS are dependent on healers for... ???
    DPS are dependent on tanks for... ???

    "It seems that what you're arguing is that tanks and healers should suffer/benefit from each other AND have to deal with encounter mechanics, while damage dealers should play no part in this shared responsibility."

    Didn't I just talk about how healers were dependent on DPS for, as an example, killing the Blistering Tentacles quickly? That seemed to be a very non-binary mechanic where superb DPS would drastically make it easier for healers.

    "No chance. It's bad design and, personally, I feel it's probably a large part as to why damage dealers have plumbed new depths in being awful throughout Cataclysm."

    What do you mean by the last part?

    Are you referring to DPS in 5 man heroics?

    DPS in LFR?

    DPS in normal raids?

    DPS in heroic raiding guilds?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "But let's assume you had a capable tank. How was threat meaningful then?"

    That's an utterly pointless question; it answers itself. You can't assume a capable tank outside of probably heroic raiding guilds (a tiny percentage of the playing population), and many tanks found the threat game enjoyable.

    You're trying to boil the issue down to an extraordinarily contrived question to avoid having to admit that, yes, threat can be meaningful without throttling damage dealers.

    "It just seems you view threat as a way to punish DPS for bad tanks."

    First off, there's nothing wrong with that in my view. Nothing. Secondly, I view threat as a gameplay mechanic that can involve players in multiple ways including gearing, rotations, skill levels, encounters and even talents.

    Now? Gone.

    "You don't think tank DPS was important on heroic modes with tight enrage checks? I mean, there's a reason why feral druids were *extremely* popular in Dragon Soul."

    I'm talking about MoP and the commentary behind it.

    Also, you're assuming everyone is on the bleeding edge of content - the majority (VAST majority) of raiding guilds are not at that standard, to the point where even Ghostcrawler batted off discussions about tank DPS discrepancy by saying enrages mean you're better off looking at your DPS players.

    "Didn't I just talk about how healers were dependent on DPS for, as an example, killing the Blistering Tentacles quickly? That seemed to be a very non-binary mechanic where superb DPS would drastically make it easier for healers."

    That's an encounter mechanic, somewhat divorced from the idea of a group being interdependent on one another. For every example you post about healers benefitting from good DPS, I can give you ten examples where they don't benefit at all.

    Essentially, the Patchwerk test applies here, and even Ultraxion could. DPS players have no responsibility to their raid group, other than putting out as much damage as they can (and not dying to mechanics that tanks and healers also have to handle).

    Also: heroic modes are tuned to be tackled once some normal mode gearing has been done. Competitive guilds aren't doing that, they're trying to complete encounters often severely undergeared and therefore can't be taken as the basis of any argument.

    Again, not even Ghostcrawler does that.

    "What do you mean by the last part?"

    Everything from normal modes down. I think there's an argument that those at the top have never been better, actually, but the gap between best and worst has also never been wider.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What are you arguing this for? I've already stated (and you quoted it) that comp-related limitations are fine in some encounters."

      But it would seem to be nearly every encounter. Any encounter with a reasonably tight enrage. And if you remove the enrage, you either have to throw adds at a certain timer to force DPS requirements or it gets much easier to just drop DPS and outlast the bonus (since healers basically will never run out of mana in that case).

      "Because the tank has to be good, and you have many more options in encounter design than you do if you remove threat entirely. Which they've done."

      Like...what?

      "The reverse IS true. You're assuming that anything less than a very good tank wouldn't generate enough threat, and that's not the barometer I'm working from. There are a great many more standards than just "good" or "bad"."

      So if a decent tank can produce enough threat that it's never an issue...what's the point of it? Bad tanks will already gear/gem/play poorly as is and be bad at surviving/DPSing.

      It sounds like you think threat should exist to punish sub-par tanks who are placed with excellent DPS. Because sub-par tanks with sub-par DPS wouldn't have issues.

      "First off, there's nothing wrong with that in my view. Nothing. Secondly, I view threat as a gameplay mechanic that can involve players in multiple ways including gearing, rotations, skill levels, encounters and even talents."

      A bad healer doesn't change the ability of a good tank to mitigate damage. A bad tank doesn't change the ability of a good healer to heal effectively and use cooldowns to try to keep the tank alive.

      In other words, a bad tank is ALWAYS much better off with a good healer compared to a bad healer.

      A bad healer is ALWAYS much better off with a good tank compared to a bad tank.

      But with threat, a bad tank becomes no better off with a DPS who's good compared to a bad DPS (assuming the bad DPS can roughly match the tank's threat).

      "That's an encounter mechanic, somewhat divorced from the idea of a group being interdependent on one another. For every example you post about healers benefitting from good DPS, I can give you ten examples where they don't benefit at all."

      Are we counting enrage timers, DPS defensive cooldowns, adds being spawned, stuff like Baleroc crystal soaking, etc?

      "Essentially, the Patchwerk test applies here, and even Ultraxion could. DPS players have no responsibility to their raid group, other than putting out as much damage as they can (and not dying to mechanics that tanks and healers also have to handle)."

      Then you're missing the entire point of Patchwerk. The point is the ENTIRE responsibility of the fight rested on the DPS. It was *assumed* that the tanks and healers would last until the berserk. The *question,* the *challenge,* was beating the berserk timer with sufficient DPS.

      "Everything from normal modes down. I think there's an argument that those at the top have never been better, actually, but the gap between best and worst has also never been wider."

      That's true because of the reason you've stated. The DPS at the bottom haven't gotten worse, they've just never improved. People doing *raids* in Vanilla were often *terrible.* As bad or worse than people in LFR today.

      Delete
    2. "Like...what?"

      Threat drop encounters were common during TBC and had seperate mechanics tied to them, while encounters such as Malygos and Hodir's hard mode made tanks consider different gearing.

      "So if a decent tank can produce enough threat that it's never an issue...what's the point of it?"

      As said in the other topic, this is a pointless question. You're contriving it from the view purely of a DPS player and ignoring the impact it has on the tank.

      "It sounds like you think threat should exist to punish sub-par tanks who are placed with excellent DPS. Because sub-par tanks with sub-par DPS wouldn't have issues."

      Yes, equilibriating is a good thing. But that's not the only reason threat should exist; if that's what you're boiling it down to, you're deliberately ignoring both the OP and the commentary I've put in since.

      I could boil you down to a DPS main who thinks your only responsibility is an enrage.

      Luckily, I'm a bit more open-minded than that.

      "But with threat, a bad tank becomes no better off with a DPS who's good compared to a bad DPS (assuming the bad DPS can roughly match the tank's threat)."

      Tanking isn't JUST about threat. It's about threat, it's about your mitigation, it's about positioning and it's about decision-making. "Bad with threat" doesn't mean "bad with everything".

      "The point is the ENTIRE responsibility of the fight rested on the DPS. It was *assumed* that the tanks and healers would last until the berserk. The *question,* the *challenge,* was beating the berserk timer with sufficient DPS."

      So Hateful Strikes were managed by the DPS?

      "That's true because of the reason you've stated. The DPS at the bottom haven't gotten worse, they've just never improved. People doing *raids* in Vanilla were often *terrible.* As bad or worse than people in LFR today."

      I think that's a fair summary.

      Delete
    3. "Threat drop encounters were common during TBC and had seperate mechanics tied to them, while encounters such as Malygos and Hodir's hard mode made tanks consider different gearing."

      I'm assuming you mean *tank* threat drop encounters, right?

      Kara: None
      Gruul/Mag: None
      SSC: None
      TK: Void Reaver
      Hyjal: None
      BT: None

      First three bosses of Sunwell: None

      Didn't do last three while relevant.

      If you're referring to any fight with a threat drop, then what "separate mechanics" besides "don't DPS right as threat drops" are you referring to?

      "As said in the other topic, this is a pointless question. You're contriving it from the view purely of a DPS player and ignoring the impact it has on the tank."

      What impact does it have on the tank?

      One of your points is that we're not just talking about heroic raiding or even normal raids here. So if it's a sub-par tank, he's just going to do exactly what he does now, and if someone pulls threat he'll be pissed at them for being "bad." And said DPS will be pissed at the tank for being bad at generating threat, even if they severely outgear him.

      "Yes, equilibriating is a good thing. But that's not the only reason threat should exist; if that's what you're boiling it down to, you're deliberately ignoring both the OP and the commentary I've put in since."

      Help me understand, then. I seriously haven't seen a reason for threat beyond a way to punish good DPS who get put with bad tanks.

      "I could boil you down to a DPS main who thinks your only responsibility is an enrage."

      DPS responsibilities, excluding shared ones like "Use personal defensive cooldowns" and "Don't get hit by fire" are...

      - Berserk/soft enrages
      - Adds
      - Utility (Rageface on Shannox, Rhyolith steering, Baleroc crystals, etc)

      But "adds" barely begins to cover it. You have everything from hunters needing to solo Beth'tilac spiderlings to the Fragments/Sparks on Rhyolith (who will kill people if not killed quickly) to interrupting casters/killing meteor on Alysrazor to Ragnaros Sons of Flame/Molten Seeds/Meteors.

      And that's just in Firelands alone. There's a reason it's usually said that tanks and healers tend to be the most important in normal modes but fights are won by DPS on heroic.

      "Tanking isn't JUST about threat. It's about threat, it's about your mitigation, it's about positioning and it's about decision-making. "Bad with threat" doesn't mean "bad with everything"."

      You don't think it generally does?

      And given how you're talking about how tanking involves all of those other things...I admit I am wondering why threat is so important, especially if you should only ever notice it with a tank bad at producing threat with a good DPS.

      Delete
    4. “Help me understand, then. I seriously haven't seen a reason for threat beyond a way to punish good DPS who get put with bad tanks.”

      This comment is essentially a conversation-killer. It shows only that you’ve not bothered to read or engage with the vast number of answers given to this specific question, and simply stuck to what you came in with like a dog and his bone.

      You don’t like threat as a gameplay mechanic. That’s okay, it’s your prerogative.

      But saying that you “haven’t see a reason for threat”, when even a cursory glance up the page disproves you, is bordering on delusional.

      "But "adds" barely begins to cover it. You have everything from hunters needing to solo Beth'tilac spiderlings to the Fragments/Sparks on Rhyolith (who will kill people if not killed quickly) to interrupting casters/killing meteor on Alysrazor to Ragnaros Sons of Flame/Molten Seeds/Meteors.”

      Tanks and healers frequently deal with such mechanics, too, and just as many besides.

      And, of course, assuming your DPS players are all capable, why are any of these mechanics challenging to damage dealers? If you’re not carrying anyone and a fight is properly tuned, how meaningful is a berserk if you’re going to beat it?

      This is your pointless argument about threat, rehashed to show the contradiction in it via your own argument.

      “There's a reason it's usually said that tanks and healers tend to be the most important in normal modes but fights are won by DPS on heroic.”

      Which raid is the most prolific? Normal mode or heroic mode? We both know the answer to that, and the introduction of LFR makes group-mates attempting to help each other out more important than it’s ever been.

      "And given how you're talking about how tanking involves all of those other things...I admit I am wondering why threat is so important, especially if you should only ever notice it with a tank bad at producing threat with a good DPS.”

      And I admit I am wondering why you’ve tried to push this agenda, to the exclusion of clear contrary evidence, especially if you should only ever notice a berserk timer with the bad DPS you’ve assumed away all debate long.

      This discussion is going nowhere and, as such, I’m going to close it before it descends into a full-blown argument.

      I think “some players don’t like threat as a gameplay mechanic, while others do – both views are based on personal preference, and are perfectly valid” rounds it up.

      Delete