#0 - Sept. 28, 2010, 3:24 p.m.
Q u o t e:
We actually never implemented threat decay. We're not sure we'll need it.
That's from GC. How come? I was kind of excited about the idea of threat decay. It's an elegant solution to many of the existing quirks and problems with tank threat. The mechanic could have been very simple: "All threat against all creatures is reduced by 5% per second"
The upshot would be that threat would depend more on recent actions than long past ones. In particular, anything beyond the last 20 seconds would be nearly irrelevant. Here are some interesting and beneficial results of this model.
* There would be no such thing as "enough" threat. Tanks would be unable to simply ignore a mob or slack off after building a large threat lead, because decay would cause someone else's threat to win out within 20 seconds (even the healer's if the mob received no other attention).
* There would be less variability between encounters. Currently threat is a non-issue on any fight where dps swaps off the target for any length of time. Threat decay would reduce that effect considerably.
* It's easier to tune the numbers over a 20 second window than over a complex 5-8 minute fight. Threat per second would become a much more reliable metric. If a decent dps put out 5k TPS, then an excellent tank might do 10k TPS (resulting in a healthy buffer), a mediocre tank might do 6k TPS (passable, but less room for error), and a bad tank might do 4k TPS (meaning the dps must hold back, or risk pulling).
* They could make more threat management tools available without upsetting the balance. Misdirect, tricks, ice block, etc would still be potent if used correctly, but their effects would largely fade away after 20 seconds. These and other abilities could play a more central role in the strategy of an encounter, but decay would ensure that they weren't make-or-break.
Why did such an interesting idea get canned?
