Outdated Prot Guide, Please remove.

Warrior
Prev 1 2 3 4 34 Next
Thanks for the guide! If it weren't past 3am I'd log in now and change some things around :p
Shout before you charge. 2 points for 10 rage that is useful once per encounter is an extremely poor use of points.


alright, gotcha ;)
im gonna be missing the ability to snare an extra 2 mobs with that skill though :(
Why Incite? I can understand how it would up your threat but my crit chance is all of 10% I can't see it being that w/ a crit chance that low.
Many thanks for the guide! I just got back into the game, and this will help for the Cataclysm.
I know the priority for single target threat that you presented is for Cataclysm. Is it worth keeping rend up with T-Cap? Like I would like to see some sort of proof since I myself don't have the beta yet which restricts me to test this. I know on live servers atm it seems keeping rend up on a single target isn't worth it
I'm not saying Thunderstruck is an amazingly awful talent; It's just mediocre. Obviously if you're making an AoE focused build, its worth taking. Frankly though, how often is AoE tanking a focus? Its definitely the target for points for utility.

Rend single target is also a threat gain after the scalar buffs in a recent patch to Thunderclap and Rend (10->20% of AP on TC, Rend bleed damage increased by 25%.) This obviously doesn't apply to live yet, though.
Where are you pulling your values from re: single target threat rotation? Where are the numbers to support a priority system that is completely different to the one in WotLK? I am interested to see these.
The numbers are very easy to check; If you don't feel like running the numbers yourself, there is a still in development spreadsheet on Tankspot that isn't 100% accurate yet.
Awesome treat. =)
I will try make like you'r saing there. ^^

By the way, i am BS and JC you think i should take BS and Mining or my combination is OK?
The numbers are very easy to check; If you don't feel like running the numbers yourself, there is a still in development spreadsheet on Tankspot that isn't 100% accurate yet.


As the poster of this guide, I believe the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. If you're going to claim your method is superior, you should provide direct evidence that supports it. I'm also curious to see the numbers supporting the use of 2 talent points to make rend a single-target threat increase.

My gut tells me that GCD and those 2 talent points could be used more effectively, but I welcome good evidence that shows otherwise.

Edit: Since we're talking specifically about level 85, the numbers are NOT easy to check. Most of us are not in beta, and not everyone bows to the almighty spreadsheet.
Am I missing something? As to why rend, thunderclap, and shockwave are better than revenge for single target threat?
The math is completely visible in that spreadsheet. Alternatively, you can check other resources for the scalar math on abilites if you so desire. It is a damage increase (and therefore a threat increase) both empirically and theoretically to roll a rend throughout a fight single target after the buffs to thunderclap and rend go live.
Am I missing something? As to why rend, thunderclap, and shockwave are better than revenge for single target threat?


Shockwave has always been better single target (outside of revenge proccing S&B;) rolling a rend will only be better once the most recent AP scalar buffs go into live.
The math is completely visible in that spreadsheet. Alternatively, you can check other resources for the scalar math on abilites if you so desire. It is a damage increase (and therefore a threat increase) both empirically and theoretically to roll a rend throughout a fight single target after the buffs to thunderclap and rend go live.

Ok you missed his point it's your responsibility to prove your point. You can't just say "oh well this spread sheet says so" and not provide even the spreadsheet. Don't make a guide without backing up your claims.

You seem to have a basic understanding of how scientific claims are made, yet you don't apply that. Positive claims require evidence. You have yet to actually provide any.
The current mindset is that rend is a single-target decrease. You are proposing that this changes at level 85, but you refuse to actually provide the evidence. Directing me to a spreadsheet that you admit "isn't 100% accurate yet," is just bad method.

The numbers are very easy to check; If you don't feel like running the numbers yourself, there is a still in development spreadsheet on Tankspot that isn't 100% accurate yet.
Proving things via math without a spreadsheet is a large time sink that I'm not willing to even start on (various AP points, various weapon speeds, etc.) I didn't have the spreadsheet's link on hand, so I didn't link it.
Since you're harassing me about it : http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.php?71824-The-Cataclystic-Protection-Warrior-Spreadsheet
As he mentions, his rend formula is still off (it's damage is too low.) There are also multiple other bugs of varying forms, but it isn't miles off.

If you don't want to rip the math from the spreadsheet, we can go about it like this.
Blatantly copy/pasted from Jathine (outside of revenge) on the old forums in the mirror of this thread:
SS = 1919 + 0.6 * AP * 1.1 (SS Glyph) * (1- mob mitigation)
Rend = 528+0.1071* Wpn Spd * AP+0.75 * Wpn Max +0.75 * Wpn Min * (1+ # of points into Thunderstruck * 0.03) * 1.3 (Mangle/Trauma if Present)
TC = (AP * 0.2 + 271) * (1+# of points into Thunderstruck * 0.03) * (1-mob mitigation)
Revenge = ( (1619+1977) / 2 + 0.3105 * AP ) * (1 + # of points in Imp Revenge * 0.3) * (1-mob mit)

You can compare at different AP values/weapon speeds/weapon dps if you want. That's what a spreadsheet is for.
Basing claims off faulty assumptions gives you faulty results! I may look back at this once you actually feel like providing A: Claims not based on faulty evidence, and B: Are willing to back up your claims via mathematics.
I wasn't aware showing you all of the relevant formulas wasn't math. Silly me.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum