Talk:Aggro


 * Older discussions
 * Talk:Aggro/Archive1
 * Talk:Aggro/Archive2

Threat mechanics differences on certain instance mob types
I have confirmed that threat mechanics are not completely universal, even with encounter bosses excluded. I performed the following tests as a priest on the Death Talon Wyrmguard packs in BWL (these come in linked-packs of three and are considered quite tricky to handle on the first pull due to random abilities that cannot be pre-determined and are unique per saved instance). They are not bosses and thus do not place the entire raid in combat when pulled:


 * Warrior proximity pulls three pack, thus generating no specific threat, yet enters combat and is placed on each mob's threat table.
 * Priest, at range and not yet in combat, casts Power Word: Shield on the warrior. This, as expected, places the priest in combat and generates approximately 10% of the shield's maximum absorb value as threat, spread across all three mobs with some unknown coefficient applied (possibly .10 * absorb_value / 3 * 2).  Again, as expected, all three mobs switch aggro to the priest.
 * Priest casts Fade, applying a temporary -820 threat modifier buff for 10 seconds to all threat calculations. Fade also causes an immediate threat recalc with -820 applied.
 * Variation in behavior begins here. The mobs did not switch aggro back to the warrior as expected and tested with other mob-types, both in and out of instances. Instead the priest continued to have aggro.
 * Warrior uses a very low damage (< 100) ranged weapon on one mob. This did not cause the warrior to gain aggro, suggesting that the priest had threat-per-mob greater than zero, even after Fade being applied.

An additional test was performed:


 * Warrior shoot-pulls, using a very low damage (< 100) ranged weapon against one mob. As expected, the warrior was placed in combat with all three mobs and had aggro.
 * Priest, at range and not yet in combat, casts Power Word: Shield on the warrior. As above, priest is now in combat and pulls aggro.
 * Priest casts Fade, applying the temporary -820 threat modifier buff as above.
 * The one mob whom the warrior applied a small amount of initial damage to now switches aggro back to the Warrior. This is, of course, expected behavior.  Again, as above, the unexpected part is that the remaining two mobs that had no initial threat applied, remained aggroed on the priest.


 * The arcane creatures in Arcatraz seem to have really weird aggro as well. 05:21, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, this does make sense. Mobs change target when they are currently targeting player A, and player B is either in melee range of the mob and exceeds 110% of player A's threat; or is out of melee range, and exceeds 130%. In this example, the warrior gets on all the mobs threat tables with the body pull, but has established 0 threat on the two off mobs. After the priest shields and then fades, the priest once again has 0 threat on the two off mobs... however, the warrior also still has 0 threat on these mobs. Since the priest is the current target, and the fade doesnt move anyone up high enough to force a target change, the mobs stay on the priest.

Of course, since the priest is at 0 threat, anything will pull them onto the warrior (eg, demo shout). As long as the warrior has generated 77% (1/130%) of the priest's aggro from the shield on each mob, the warrior will maintain aggro when fade expires.

Stampy 10:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Druid crowd-control test performed

 * The druid Hibernate spell appears to produce zero threat. However, if Faerie Fire is used on a hibernated target, standard FF threat is applied even though the CC is not broken (as FF is zero-damage).

-- Flood 14:40, 24 January 2007 (EST)


 * Hibernate upsets nearby or linked beasties, and when it breaks, the hibernated whateveritwas will come after the druid. We used to use me to pull the two wolves, wolf handler, warlock and melee guys in LBRS right after the jump down, just after sapping one if we had a rogue. I'd get up on the railing and knock out the nearest wolf, and everything would come for me. --Azaram 05:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT) (Druid)


 * Update: Hibernate upsets linked beasties. When doing the quest in Blade's Edge Mountains to free Rexxar's wyvern, there are some very tough ogres patrolling with raptors that look like, but are not, linked pets. We would hibernate the raptor, pull the ogre away, beat him down, and by that time the raptor had awakened... and gone on with it's patrol route. --Azaram 06:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Update to the update: This is no longer true; they're linked now. --Azaram 09:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Restructuring Threat Tables
I've been working on reorganizing the threat tables displayed from this page. Instead of dividing the effects by more/less threat, the new tables divide between threat auras (Defensive Stance, Blessing of Salvation, etc) and threat modifying abilities (Revenge, Heroic Strike, Feint, Vanish, etc).

The old tables (currently in use) are Template:Aggro:IncrementModifierTable and Template:Aggro:ReductionModifierTable. I have drafts of the new tables ready for inspection: Template:ThreatAuraTable and Template:ThreatModifierTable.

By resorting, we can distinguish between effects that persist (the auras) vs. threat changes that are caused per ability usage (the modifiers).

I had considered splitting increasing/decreasing effects for each of the tables, but I felt that this would clutter the layout far too much.

What does everyone think? If no strong objections, I'll update the Formulas:Aggro template calls later this week. --Phaze 14:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've switched the Tables over. Let me know if there are any problems/typos/omissions! --Phaze 10:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Mortal Strike Threat
I'm a huge fan of a 41/5/15 arms/prot hybrid spec (endless rage, improved MS, last stand, improved shield block, and defiance) for having great offtanking and dps viability; and in a guild with plenty of protection warriors, were at the point where a hybrid spec bring a lot more utility to some of our raid makeups. One number ive never been able to come up with is the innate threat value for the mortal strike debuff (or, if that number is 0).

Before anyone flames this with "MS isnt a tanking ability!" or "Just be prot if you want to maximize threat," I know... I spend most of my time protection specced, and I'm not hybrid specced to out-tank a prot warrior. My goal is maximizing threat when im hybrid specced, with the tools I have available in the hybrid spec. An innate threat number on MS lets me make a more informed decision as to whether its worth popping MS as often as possible, only in high-rage situation, or never; and if its worth switching to a slow tanking weapon.

Anyone have any idea what that number might be, or the patience to test?

Stampy 11:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)


 * From looking at the KTM files, there's no mention of MS having any bonus threat attached. If you're unsatisfied with Kenco's results, you can easily verify the values using your Warrior and a 2nd character.  Just set up a threat test as Kenco recommends:  body-pull an NPC, perform your move, record damage, then record the required damage from 2nd char to pull aggro.  Do the math to cancel out the damage from your move, to leave only the bonus value.  Repeat test as many times as necessary to narrow the range.  I strongly suspect you'll find that MS has no bonus threat, since its designed purpose is damage/debuff and not threat generation. --Phaze 15:12, 1 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Yeah... I did some less-than rigorous testing, and I have to agree its 0 or very close to it. I was under the impressions that almost all debuffs include some minor threat; but if it is adding any its 15 or less... insignificant enough that I dont see any value in testing it all the way down to zero. A slow tanking weapon is definitely a bad idea. Any time theres enough rage to make mortal strike even a consideration, you can heroic strike on the vast majority of swings, and more heroic strikes with a fast weapon is vastly superior. --Stampy 10:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Relocating Threat section?
I'm considering relocating the Threat section in this article to Threat. Conceptually, it's a better fit, since Formulas:Aggro is for describing how Aggro behaves, based on threat. The Threat article would then be the direct source for info on Threat values and mechanics. The reshuffling would help with slimming down the article some, which (IMO) would improve the readability of this article. What does everyone else think? If no objections, I'll look into moving things around this weekend. --Phaze 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the Threat article, so that it now contains the entire Threat section that is present in the current Formulas:Aggro article. I'll leave the Aggro page alone for a bit, to see if there are any issues. If no problems, I'll update the Aggro article soon. --Phaze 15:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Threat section relocated to Threat. For the info from the BC beta: with updated values for many abilities now showing on their personal pages as well as the main list, should this be archived instead? Also, I'll be adding the References to the Threat article, since they apply there. --Phaze 14:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aggro or Monster Hate
When I began translating this article I stumbled across another closely related term: Monster Hate. It seems like Blizzard prefers the latter while Wowwiki sticks to the rather puzzling and irregular word aggro. Perhaps this article should be flagged for a rewriting?

Aggro: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Aggro /Voluspå 13:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Importantly, most players call it "aggro". 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That should change - I think we should begin here /Voluspå 11:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not the point of the wiki. 16:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 6 years later, history has proven "aggro" the victor :P Even Blizzard has come around - though I would be fascinated to see some historic texts where they call it "hate", that seems like such a hilariously loaded term to be the official one! - Jerodast (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also if you notice in-game, you can see the word aggro for the interface. 23:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Tend /. should?
"Hunters tend to turn off their pet's Growl when it's hitting the main tank's target, and turn on Cower if their pet has it."

I would have worded this as 'hunters should turn off...' rather than 'tend'. If growl is on, the pet will eventually pull aggro (happened to me in Black Morass a couple of times last night) which means the tank has to expend cooldowns or rage to get it back. But, I didn't want to hack up the article without seeing what others thought, even though one word is a fairly minor change... --Azaram 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good change. However, I changed it to "hunters should generally turn off...", because there are certain exceptions to the general rule. Sometimes you might intend for the pet to offtank one mob, or whatever. WoWWiki-Sakkura (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Paladin tank
Added section on paladin tank. English may be not perfect (i'm not native speaker, sorry) and/or shortened for better relevance.

"Aggressive"
Surely aggro is more likely to be a shortened version of aggravation (like the British slang which is mentioned in the same sentence), not "aggression" which makes a lot less sense. You can aggravate someone in real life, the more you do the more likely they are to hit you. Just a thought. --Catbeef 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The page previously stated that aggro was come from "aggravation" but someone edited it to "aggression" recently. I'm not sure which one is correct. Maybe someone can do some research to find it out? WakemanCK 10:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how it entered the game world - it may well have been via the British slang, which has a known derivation. However, once it spread throughout the WoW community, for many of whom this was the first exposure to the word, the old meaning became unimportant as it evolved according to the context it was used by the players, and whatever it meant to them and their raids. So we could argue about whether, in the WoW context, it's short for "aggravation" or "aggression", but the real answer is that while it is related to both those ideas, it is short for neither of them. It is its own word, with a specific meaning in the game (that is more about mechanics than emotion). Congratulations, you've witnessed the evolution of language in action! I genuinely think that's pretty cool :) - Jerodast (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)