View Full Version : Threat modifier based on position to target?

01-19-2008, 06:56 AM
I recently found myself in an unwarranted debate over part of Ciderhelm's guide (actually it was just over threat modifiers relating to your position). So, anyway, I was curious where did you get this information from Ciderhelm?

In the Fortifications guide, it clearly states that if a primarily ranged class has gained enough threat according to the 100-110-130 rule, they will gain aggro upon entering melee range (or within the immediate radius of the target mob).

[quote Ciderhelm]Second, it means that ranged classes take a heavy risk by moving into melee range with a large amount of threat built up -- the mob will instantly change targets to a ranged target who moves into melee.[/quote

I totally believe this, but just not sure how I can defend this theory as I don't recall any actual sources in the guide concerning this.

01-19-2008, 07:30 AM
I was curious where did you get this information from Ciderhelm? I totally believe this, but just not sure how I can defend this theory as I don't recall any actual sources in the guide concerning this.Through tests ingame. Like the rest of the info in the guide.

01-19-2008, 10:52 AM
I think it's fairly obvious Ciderhelm didn't just come up with the idea & throw it into the guide based on his own acknowledgments. What I'm asking for is a link or verifiable source because, like any good experiment or research, there needs to be supporting details for the theory or statement at hand.

It's easy to be a fan-boy of something you like or love & never question. However, surely there must be supporting facts or theories & testing that led him to his conclusions.

All I'm asking for is any previous testing or sources so that I can help uphold his theories & philosophies as a fellow player in an effort to teach others the game behind the game.

I think it's a fair question, even though I already adhere to the same principles & school of thought as Ciderhelm.

01-19-2008, 12:20 PM
The threat that you acuminate is a constant, whether it may be 1000 threat, 5000 threat, or 50000 threat. The 100%, 110%, and 130% are based of the person who has the hate at the moment (meaning that if the current tank has 1000 threat, 110% of that is 1100.)
To pull hate in melee range you need to pass the 110 mark or 130 if you are outside of the melee range. So if the tank has 1000 threat and a caster has 1200 threat, he will be fine standing outside of the melee hitbox, however the second he steps into it, he will be over the 110% mark of the tank and thus the mob will switch to him.
As far as proving it, go to a mob and hit it a few times, then have a friend stand outside of the melee range and range hit it a few times. See if he will pull at 100%, at 110% at 130% of your threat. Do the same thing but this time have your friend pull anywhere between 111% and 129% and then step into melee range.

01-19-2008, 01:04 PM
While I theoretically could go in-game & test this, what I'm asking for is a source of information which can be used to show this. I think it is impractical to ask everyone who wishes a source of information to do their own private testing.

Surely there must be some shred of evidence left over from when Ciderhelm created his guide? I took a quick look through one or two of Satrina's articles & found nothing mentioning this.

As I said originally, it's to help support these conclusions for someone else, not me. Being unable to actually prove it without recommending private testing would only contribute to skepticism in their view.


01-19-2008, 01:11 PM
I understand, however you are asking for theoretical evidence of something that is just part of game mechanics. (IE: you need 5.6 crit negation to not take crits from 73's.) I'm honestly not sure of how you can prove it unless the person would belive that what Cider had wrote is the absolute truth.

01-19-2008, 01:12 PM
That's the dilemma I, too, am facing in trying to explain this to someone else.

Maybe Ciderhelm will check this thread out some time & let us know how he learned what he did!

01-19-2008, 01:21 PM
Tell your mage and tank to download omen, have the mage pass the tank. Tell the mage to watch for 111% to 129% threat, and to stop attacking and walk up to the mob and when he gets twoshotted..?

that seems like a simple enough way to test it to me.

01-19-2008, 01:21 PM
Yeah, he's going to tell you the same thing the posters already did, that this (and the rest of the game mechanics accepted as truth) were verified by repeated in-game testing. Blue posts rarely uncover actual truths and workings behind game mechanics, so it's up to the players. The entire point of the guides and fansites about class mechanics like this one is that they've been centralized and laid out in an organized fashion, long after the point of being proven true.

01-19-2008, 09:15 PM
That's the dilemma I, too, am facing in trying to explain this to someone else.

The way to prove it is to show it in action, people have given examples of how to do it above, and it would take maybe 5 minutes at most to show to someone. Ations speak much louder then words

01-19-2008, 09:36 PM
I realize you can test this in-game, but I was hoping there was something documented (as almost everything else is) on paper, so to speak. I suppose there haven't been many real references to this outside of something like his guide, so I guess that's that. Thank you everyone for your replies.

btw, thanks for the idea about using the threat meter - that should really make it simple for anyone to see.

01-19-2008, 09:56 PM
If you want to do it plan without even using addons, you can get 2 random classes that have 0 threat reduction and 0 threat increase.
Go on a low level mob.
Hit it for sometimes for like 1000 damages.
Have the second person for example wand it for up to 1200 damages.
If he doesn't take aggro, tell him to come in melee. If he takes aggro then, you proved it right.

Takes some minutes, and noone can counter that since you did not use any addon, just combat logs.

There's no other way to show it, it all comes through testing and has never been stated by Blizzard.

Althought i think i've read they plan in the future to introduce a in-game threat meter, should that be true, at that time you would be able to show it :)

02-03-2008, 09:22 AM
Well, there's also the additional problem in the wand example that mobs generally will not switch targets until the *next* event that causes threat to change, or them to go into "reacquire target" mode.

In my experience, there are two places where it is super-easy to see the 110-130 behavior in action. One is in Gruul's Lair, on the melee trash. When these guys charge away from the person tanking them, they do not dump threat (or at least, not completely). You'll notice that if you are off-tanking and nobody else has much threat on the mob, they'll turn around and come back to you after charging. If, however, there are people with high threat near them, they'll tend to stick.

In fact, the tank needs to have 130% of the threat of the people the charge ends up near in order for the mob to come back, since the warrior is now out of melee range. If it sticks, it'll generally gib whoever the highest person is that it's next to if you're not fast on the Intervene. (Usually a warlock.)

The other place where the 110-130 behavior comes up a lot is instances with hunters who Feign Death after pulling aggro to drop aggro instead of before pulling aggro to dump threat. In this case, the mob will run over toward the hunter, get into melee range of the casters, and then the hunter will FD and the enemy will reacquire, latching onto somebody in the caster group (instead of going back to the tank.) Again, this is because the tank needs 130% compared to the 110% of the people in melee range to automatically get aggro back.

Anyway: this is all certainly testable, and pretty damned easy to see in action. If you have somebody who really refuses to accept it, you'll have to go out and test it in action to show them. Whether it's really worth it to spend that time to prove it to them is up to you. Other people have tested it, and if you need something other than "we've tested it, it's true" and are too lazy to test it yourself, you're out of luck.

02-03-2008, 10:34 AM
Actually, the 10%/30% thing is indeed in the guide to threat posted in my area. That research was originally performed by Kenco, who was the original researcher to whom we owe a great deal of our understanding of threat and its mechanics. Whether he has his original research posted somewhere, I don't know. I've verified it myself in game before posting it up but it's not something I wrote down since it is pretty trivial to test.

02-06-2008, 10:01 AM
Hypatia, thanks for your insight concerning active examples of how this mechanic can be seen (e.g. the gruul's trash). I can think of other places in the game this can/has occured now, too! I'm not too lazy to test it on my own, but there's really no need since we weren't on the same server (the guy was a bit stubborn, heh).

Thanks for the heads up Satrina, at the time I had not read all of your articles - I must have missed the section on it.

I feel pretty silly now, actually. I seem to have made nothing but confusing, silly little posts here thus far. Thanks for putting up with me guys/gals.

02-07-2008, 08:09 AM
There is never any silliness on trying to understand what's going on. It's opaque stuff, not verified by Blizz at any point, all based on experimentation. And there is enough misinformation out there that it's perfectly reasonable to ask "and how do you know?"

Good luck with your team!