Warrior Aggro

[Envious]

Sucks.

[Doors]

It's not so bad. Need proc weapons and they still have better mitigation than hybrids. I'm sure they'll fix it eventually but until they do roll with obsidian shards early. Work on ssoy's past 35 or 37. No idea if you're geared or have money/level/whatever your qq post wasn't in depth enough.

[Sethius]

Sucks.

This was the most enlightening post I have ever read. Heads will suxplode upon viewing these mighty words.

But yeah, warrior aggro has always been pretty limited, lots of dex and obsidian shards should help for the lower levels. That's why warriors need to have a dps lead on raids to generate enough threat to stay ahead (at least that was the classic way).

[Vermicelli]

I never ever see it mentioned in discussions of warrior aggro, but the act of sitting actually generates a small amount of threat from a mob. Casters have doubtless seen this happen when sitting right after casting an offensive spell or a heal. I actually have a macro that will taunt, cause me to sit, then stand up and turn on attack in the space of one or two seconds. I have found it easy to grab mob aggro when breaking a mez by taunting, sitting, taunting, then sitting again before I break the mez. I dunno how it is figured in to the rest of the mob's hatelist, but you can get their attention with a sit if you are high on the list!

[greatdane]

I'm sure they'll fix it eventually

What are they supposed to fix? Warrior aggro is supposed to suck. It sucked on live at the time, and it sucks equally here. There's not some missing aggro amplifier inherent in the warrior's auto-attack that the devs here forgot to switch on. A warrior's basic aggro is directly proportional to his damage output, and since this typically won't be extremely high, it takes proccing weapons to hold aggro with any kind of consistency. People just have to accept that if their group's tank is a warrior without proc weapons, they can't do their full DPS or debuff on incoming. It's working as intended, even though it sucks.

the act of sitting actually generates a small amount of threat

It doesn't. Sitting will temporarily increase your threat by some amount or percentage, but only for as long as you remain sitting. Since you're standing right back up again, it doesn't do anything. The only situation where it might prove useful at all is if the mob has already run a good distance away to chase a caster and you're rooted or something. Then you can sit down to possibly get the mob to run for you and then try to taunt or hit it when it reaches you to regain some aggro. This rarely works because the mob will rubberband right back to said caster the instant you stand up after getting mauled for max damage.

[ziggyholiday]

I haven't played since Kunark came out, does taunt work on anything other than blue coning mobs now?

[Danth]

All three tank classes (four if you include Ranger) have a tougher time holding aggro on P1999 than they did on Live; Warriors just have it worst because the class had the smallest margin of excess hate generation to begin with. It has been said that an aggro re-vamp is on the to-do list for P1999, but given that it's been on the to-do list since the server was 'beta', it's best not to get your hopes up for immediate change. Players being the resourceful people they are, however, means groups have adjusted; rooting everything has become standard practice for many groups.

Danth

[Enderenter]

What are they supposed to fix? Warrior aggro is supposed to suck. It sucked on live at the time, and it sucks equally here. There's not some missing aggro amplifier inherent in the warrior's auto-attack that the devs here forgot to switch on. A warrior's basic aggro is directly proportional to his damage output, and since this typically won't be extremely high, it takes proccing weapons to hold aggro with any kind of consistency. People just have to accept that if their group's tank is a warrior without proc weapons, they can't do their full DPS or debuff on incoming. It's working as intended, even though it sucks.

Not true - warrior aggro is worse on here than on live. Proc weapons were not a requirement for warriors on live to hold aggro, hence Lammy and Jade Mace being expensive, highly sought after weapons. You could hold aggro with two of either, or one of each. On here, that's unlikely even at lower levels.

It's just different on here. Pick up good proc weapons and you will do fine.

[greatdane]

No you couldn't. Lammy and JM were not tank weapons. You could hold aggro with them if you out-aggroed the other group members through damage output, which would be the case if your group was worse geared than you, but there was no mechanic that made warriors generate more threat than others.

A warrior, a rogue, a ranger and a monk walk into a bar. If they do the same amount of damage, they generate the same amount of threat, assuming that they don't lose or generate any from other sources (snare, procs, feign). If anyone deals more damage than the others, they generate more threat unless others have procs or use spells that generate even more threat. Since warriors aren't particularly great DPS (about on par with a ranger that isn't OOM), and will never outdamage a rogue or monk assuming equivalent gear levels, the warrior will not hold aggro from them by default. It's even harder against casters who generate huge, uncontrollable chunks of threat in one go.

Now, I can't say whether there's some mysterious bug that makes a warrior's melee damage generate less threat than that of other classes. If that's the case, sure, there's a problem. I doubt it is, and any issues with warrior aggro are likely related to other things such as some classes doing too much damage, or threat reduction abilities not working properly. You could never hold aggro reliably with a Lammy unless the rogue was using an even lower-end weapon or your casters waited an exceedingly long time before casting.

[azeth]

No you couldn't. Lammy and JM were not tank weapons. You could hold aggro with them if you out-aggroed the other group members through damage output, which would be the case if your group was worse geared than you, but there was no mechanic that made warriors generate more threat than others.

A warrior, a rogue, a ranger and a monk walk into a bar. If they do the same amount of damage, they generate the same amount of threat, assuming that they don't lose or generate any from other sources (snare, procs, feign). If anyone deals more damage than the others, they generate more threat unless others have procs or use spells that generate even more threat. Since warriors aren't particularly great DPS (about on par with a ranger that isn't OOM), and will never outdamage a rogue or monk assuming equivalent gear levels, the warrior will not hold aggro from them by default. It's even harder against casters who generate huge, uncontrollable chunks of threat in one go.

Now, I can't say whether there's some mysterious bug that makes a warrior's melee damage generate less threat than that of other classes. If that's the case, sure, there's a problem. I doubt it is, and any issues with warrior aggro are likely related to other things such as some classes doing too much damage, or threat reduction abilities not working properly. You could never hold aggro reliably with a Lammy unless the rogue was using a Dragoon Dirk or something.

i think you're forgetting the point of the lammy in the day was to affect your offhand swing. this doesn't fly on p99 since main & off swing indepedently here, but im sure you remember folks on live with Wurm in the offhand + lammy main for that reason.

Lammy's delay allowed the warrior to hold aggro as long as their offhand choice was high dmg or procd. nothing is different on p99 aside from duel wield mechanics.

[greatdane]

It dismays me that people still harbor such misconceptions. Your main and off-hand swings were always independent, and the belief that a fast main-hand weapon reduced the delay of your off-hand is a silly myth. It never worked that way, people just thought it did. They also thought harmony gave mana regen and leaving a camp made it respawn faster.

[azeth]

sorry man, that's not true.

[greatdane]

This discussion is pointless. I'm satisfied that the developers know the truth.

[Dantes]

Root.

[PureLo]

sorry greatdane you aren't correct between live and here.... it is VERY different here than on live, it is just something that they couldn't replicate as classic apparently.

[Ronas]

It dismays me that people still harbor such misconceptions. Your main and off-hand swings were always independent, and the belief that a fast main-hand weapon reduced the delay of your off-hand is a silly myth. It never worked that way, people just thought it did. They also thought harmony gave mana regen and leaving a camp made it respawn faster.

Have a read
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=39361

[greatdane]

I'm amazed at the ignorance and persistence of some people. Anyone who played a dual-wielding class on Live and wasn't mentally handicapped could plainly see with their own eyes that your weapons swung independently of each other unless they had the same delay. It was a myth and a misconception in line with the belief that damage bonuses were native to the weapon rather than the character, which is why you'll find old posts on Allakhazam of people arguing that "no dude, my SSoY has 5 damage bonus!" and shit like that.

Are you seriously suggesting that using a Jade Mace in primary would make an off-hand Wurmslayer a 25/18 weapon, a ratio not otherwise seen until like seven or eight expansions later? Are you incapable of basic reasoning? Did you actually play a dual-wielding class for any length of time and fail to detect that your attacks would not be synchronized? Basic understanding of game mechanic rules out your belief, including the one where your main-hand delay would affect the proc rate of your off-hand weapon - procs aren't related to attack speed at all.

Have a read
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=39361

That isn't even remotely relevant to the discussion. The guy was testing the threat generation of individual weapon swings and the distinction between damage done and number of swings in regard to aggro. The person doing the study doesn't even dual-wield.

[Ronas]

Have a closer read, and in the forum within forum, they test on offhand agro using a no dmg/delay weapon in mainhand. Plus thread referring to warrior agro, thought i just toss this out there for you since you like to call people out and seem aggressive with your words.

[greatdane]

I know the threads you refer to. I read them back when they were current. They have no relevancy to this discussion, which has turned onto the question of whether your off-hand weapon delay is automatically the same as your main-hand weapon delay (spoiler: it isn't). The person doing the tests you linked to equipped a Cone of the Mystics in main hand, so how can it be used as proof? He was testing whether individual off-hand swings generated the same amount of threat as main-hand swings with the same weapon.

[baalzy]

greatdane... You keep saying things, I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

You claim that damage is what causes agro, the thread linked very clearly points out that agro is based on swings & the potential damage of the weapon. Not actual damage performed (in classic live, not here on p99). (In one test he does nearly 3x the damage of the other times he ran tests and it still took him the same number of swings to pull agro).

He's telling you you're wrong about the way agro should be generated and you're arguing that you're correct about dual wield (which you're right, hands are independent... but that's irrelevant).

[greatdane]

Oh, I know threat generation isn't a 1:1 relation to damage output, but it's generally rooted in your basic melee damage output. What the mechanic essentially does is take your potential damage per swing and turn it into threat based on some unknown formula. This means improving your melee damage output will generally improve your threat generation, whether from haste or weapons with better ratios. If he was responding to something else, he should have quoted that and not the dual-wield argument.