An experiment: a request of my readers

I intend to test fade to better confirm how it works. For all priests most of the time and most priests all of the time, this information will be useless trivia. Once in a while, it may matter. What I’m asking is that if you read through this and decide to test the experiment, let me know your results. Oh, I intend to do the experiment too. But a lesson I’ve learned the hard way – test multiple times, and preferably across enough variations (players, classes, and even races) to neutralize other variables. So, experiment first, then discussion of what’s being examined and why, and then a summary of the experiment.

You will need a partner. You will need mobs that can take over 1,000 (probably more -see experiment) damage. You will conduct this exercise at casting range (outside 15 yards) from your partner.

Your partner will do 1,000 points of damage (and threat) to the mob. If your partner has threat-enhancing gear and/or skills, adjust damage to get the threat as close to 1,000 as possible, or don’t use the gear/skills. If DoTs are used, try to have them end before the next phase begins, and have their threat value identified.

You will proceed to generate approximately 1300 threat, and then barely exceed it so as to pull aggro. You may do so by healing for 2600 (blast or multiple smalls) or by doing damage to the mob as you prefer and such that the mob won’t die. Again, you may use HoT/DoT spells, but ensure they do not keep ticking after you pull aggro.

Pop The Big Fade (Fade rank 7). The mob will attack your partner.

OBSERVATION FOR THE EXPERIMENT. When your fade ends, does the mob return to you, or does it stay with your partner?

SUBSEQUENT TEST. If the mob stayed with your partner, use a low-powered spell/wand to determine how much more threat you have to apply to pull the mob back.

THE WEEDS WE’RE TESTING. Some oddities have nagged at me, and I begin to suspect how we think fade works isn’t really true – and if it’s not true, we may have ourselves a small opportunity in certain cases.

The question is: when you fade, is it a temporary debuff on you (subtractive), or is it a threat addition to everybody else (additive)? note that regardless of mechanism you will have the threat added to you at the end.

Let’s look at the theoretical numbers of the experiment to see why this could (though not necessarily will) matter. Tank has 1000 threat. You do 1301 threat and pull mob. You fade. EITHER your threat is now 0 (Zero) -or- your tank now has 2500 threat. Either way it’s well over the amount needed to pull you away. But here’s the catch.

If Fade is subtractive, then at the end of 10 seconds you return to 1301 and pull the mob again. But if Fade is ADDITIVE, then at the end of 10 seconds you have 1301+1500=2801 threat. To pull aggro from the tank, however, you need 3251 threat, or another 450 threat which is 900 heal points per mob.

There are two situations I can see where this could be useful. First, with four mobs left to kill that’s one greater heal without pulling aggro. Second, some situations require you to MOVE. And at 2801 you are only 51 threat higher than the 110% for the tank. Which means if your tank hit the mob with ANYTHING during the fade, you can move into melee range without becoming the George.

It’s not live or die knowledge, but it’s a small thing that may help give you an edge. IF, that is, fade’s effect is additive. So with the weeds examined, let’s restate the experiment.

Two person experiment – you and your partner. Your partner develops 1000 threat on a mob. You do barely enough to pull the mob – 1301 threat in a perfect world. Fade, and neither of you act till fade is complete.

Test: When fade ends, does the mob stay with the partner or return to you?

Possible follow-on: If the mob stayed, apply incremental threat. At what point does the mob change back to you?

Just stick your results here, and after I have enough to see a trend I’ll do a compilation post.


~ by Kirk on August 18, 2007.

3 Responses to “An experiment: a request of my readers”

  1. very interesting, but I don’t agree with you

  2. Idetrorce, I pondered long before I approved your comment. Congratulations, you’re an object lesson.

    I have no problem with disagreement. I have a problem with disagreement by fiat. With what part do you disagree, and why? What tests have you done, or experiences have you had that lead you to this disagreement?

    Argument by declarative is stupid — it’s opinionated fools bickering at one another. Argument by evidence is educational – the evidence can be tested and the theory proven or disproven as appropriate, and everyone gains.

    Please – you’re invited to provide support for your disagreement. Heck, I’m going to point out that my theory is a possibility, not a certainty, and I offer a test. Ideally you’ve done the test and gotten a failure. Great.

    But don’t come here and fiat. It does nothing to help me get better.

  3. Eh.. Sometimes I just have to go with my sleepy refugee I have read a good joke in internet 😉 What do you need to split an atom? A fission License.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: