^^ This... With parsers arriving to a game you get a subset of players lurking around forums, the "Parser Heroes", that go around showing their results in the most favorable circumstances without informing ppl about the details... ...They also will show you comparative parsers on "real" fights when other DPSers are badly impaired by the random events on them... So learn to dissect a combat log to spot anomalies like: Very high crit chances, impossible to-hit figures or anomalously high hits. Returning to average parsers, you also have to take into account group synergies. Sentinels are buff givers, so, on their "fully buffed" solo parsers they have the effects of their own raid-wide buffs... On a real combat the shadows, that are strictly buff receivers, are also buffed when a sentinel is close... So if you want to learn about your class on a given fight through parsers, ALWAYS ask you why things happen or which synergies are affecting you on a given session.

I have a direct feedback to this 8-man NiM (We didn't have problems with enrage timers or whatever... Was a pure healing problem). Done on 1.2.0c with a Shadow Tank on Columi/Rakata (More of the former thant the later) on Jarg... Was a tight fight but doable (I was the Shadow tank and I was reserving my HS to trigger it after Jarg spike) and we one-shoted them (In theory, we were expecting a "bad" NiM run because I was forced to go tank and I'm mainly one of the top DPSers). Tried to do on 1.2.1 this Thurdsday with 2xfull Rakata JG tanks (The one on Jarg fully tweaked and with as much augment slots as possible). Wiped and wiped and wiped with the JG on Jarg always dying... Had to swap to Hard mode. Then we reached Fabricator (No issues on Foreman NiM) on NiM and got the patience to actually reclean on the trash after each wipe (Thanks BW to add even more anoying bugs). Same situation... on 1.2.0c with an undergeared Shadow Tank we one-shotted without problems. Yesterday (On Thurdsday session we were so pissed that we stoped after Foreman) was a constant wipe fest because of tanks dying... Pure lack of healing. Again swap to HM and one-shot... We were so pissed again that we didn't even bother with Karaga on NiM... We just wanted to get the hell out of there. The healers are full rakata Commando & Sage were the same on both Weekly runs... Only 1 of the tanks swaped (In theory, past week, with decent runs with the worst geared tank) and, OFC, the 2 intermediate game patches. The pattern is there, ofc, Self Healing vs Defense Avoiding attacks... But if it's this tight... Why the same team sees such a radically different results on content that was on farm before? EDIT: Wish I had "solid proof" as like the healing/tanking logs of both weeks... Will have next week to see exactly were the source of this diametrally different experience is. EDIT2: Just to clarify, before 1.2 with less gear we got KP NiM on farm, btw. And we didn't notice anything strange with me as "backup" tank on the run after 1.2 hitted.

So with the above results there are a bunch of things to do/avoid. Taunt Spam If you calculate the threat rate generation of taunt spam you get the following formula: TG = t x TT x SF / TCD Where: TG = Taunt Threat generation per second. t = Time spend on the fight (in seconds). TT = Top Threat generated per second (by the most threatening participant on the fight). SF = Stability Factor based on the distance to the target at which taunts are performed. TCD = Taunt Cooldown (in seconds). If you now check at which moment of the fight Taunt Spam threat rate equals the highest source of threat against a target you get that: t = TCD / SF So with independence of you gear/specc/power use or how hard your DPSers are hitting a target, for as long as you can spam your taunt and your target do not alter the threat list, it's mathematically impossible to loose agro after: 15 / 0.3 = 50s if you are "far" (Against all big mobs) or after 15/0.1 = 150s if you are "close" (Against character sized mobs). Max Range DPS Another direct consequence is that melee DPS should always do it at max range... Against Big Mobs it's very easy to do and will guarantee that you delay the max an agro swap. If you are with a tank that's not spamming taunt and he uses it right after you get agro on a Big Mob he will instantaneously increase his threat by 60%. Personal Opinion This is a subjective opinion, ofc, but we think Taunt actual status reduces the role of a tank on OPs to a single button spammer that focus his attention to his active defenses and, as a matter of team contribution, to do as much DPS as possible to beat enrage timers... Threat generation is just a matter of dealing with those 50 initial seconds (26 effective ones... Or just 20 if AOE taunt is an option). The usefullness of "High Threat" powers is really marginal and, on some cases, there are builds that can skip them to get higher mitigation (Particularly true for Guardians) and higher DPS. A taunt immunity debuff should be in order (Or at least a "Self Taunt" debuff) to appear as a generalized mechanic on PvE for tanks to really have to think about the threat they generate through DPS.

After 1.2, the combatlog we have provides numeric data on threat generated by most actions. We went in and got our hands dirty checking what those numbers meant and to try to spot if something was fishy. If you are just interested in some easy to use recipes, check the next reply. This is a description of the tests and conclusions so hopefully some other ppl can confirm/deny them and add the tests we couldn't. Experiments' Setup: - Tests done in Live game version 1.2.0c. - Tools: ACT with SWTOR plugin (Modified to take into account avoided hits). We also directly inspected the Combatlog source, specially for evaluating Taunt performance. - Classes: Guardian & Shadow (Remember when speaking about "general" effects we checked them with this 2 classes exclusively). - Targets: Variety of Elite/Champion PvE mobs (Of different sizes... Important later). - Event: Our "Sanity Check" was an agro transition on naked "Saber Strike"/"Strike" (non critical) hit without any damage proc around 450 mitigated damage (We worked with threat pools varying from 20k up to 80k, depending on mob and healing requirements. So any "sanity check" comes with a max error of 2%). Agro transitions were triggered by the person in less than 4 "real" meters (Not the "Hud" ones) of the target (ie 10% stability factor) unless the speficic experiment states otherwise. See below the difference between "Range" and "Effective Range". - Healing Threat: Kept under control coming from Companions and always the minimum possible. Specially important on Taunt Checks. Important Notice: There is a difference between "Range" and "Effective Range" in this game. Effective range is the magnitude shown on your Hud and it's the distance between your character hit box and the hit box of your enemy. Range, follows the usual definition on most 3D engines which is the distance between the centers of the models involved (In this case the player and his target). It will be important, again, later. Action Threat and threat modifiers Test We applied varied actions (damage types, attack types, etc) and then we proceed to trigger an agro transition using our "Sanity Check". We checked the threat generated vs the threat reported for the attacker at the moment of the transition. We did this under different modifiers (Tank Stance & Guard) applied on the generator and the checker. Taunts required their own specialized Tests (see below). RESULT: All numerical Threat matched the "sanity check". Modifiers are proportional increases (or decreases) of the basic premise 1 point of damage = 1 point of threat. So a player in tanking stance, 1 PD = 1.5 PT. Or a dpser under Guard (and at less than 15m effective Range) 1 PD = 0.75 PT. Agro Transition range dependency We generated a given ammount of threat and then the 2nd character generated threat at different distances until agro swaped. We checked the extra threat needed for the 2nd character to trigger the swap. RESULT: Based on the REAL range between centers, transitions happen at 10% when the 2nd character was closer than 4m ("close" transition) and at 30% when he was farther (To be sure we never stood closer than 5m when checking "far" transitions). Obviously, against big hitbox mobs you can be at melee and "far" at the same time... In fact, current agro holder can't avoid been "far" against big mobs... Only others can get close enough to trigger a "close" agro transition. NOTICE: To trigger agro transitions at range on "small" opponents we had to use Telekinetic Throw ticks which are somehow unreliable to interrupt. This means that the max error on this sanity checks grown to 3%. Taunt reported Threat We created a given ammount of threat and then the other character taunted at different distances. Then the original threat generator performed the "sanity check". Then we did the same approach with the taunter generating around 1/4 the original threat pool BEFORE applying Taunt. We also repeated the tests under Tank Stance threat modifier. RESULT: Threat reported by combatlog on taunt was the initial threat modified by the Stability Factor based on Range (Not Effective Range) which is 10% for 4- m ("close"). and 30% otherwise ("far"). When the taunter was doing some threat before Taunt the ammount reported was reduced by that threat generated. Threat Modifiers DO NOT affect the ammount of threat reported by Taunt. AOE Taunt reported Threat We created a given ammount of threat against 2 different mobs (Named differently) and then the other character performed an AOE taunt. Then the original threat generator performed a "sanity check" on each of the mobs. We "mixed" ranges in different combinations (2 mobs "close", 1 "far" and another "close" and 2 "far"). RESULT: AOE Taunt behaves as if a single target Taunt was applied against each target individually. Including Stability Factor range dependency & threat reported. NOTICE: Due to the increased ammount of damage received the "sanity error" on this test increased to 4% because we had to use smaller (12k) individual pools of threat on each mob. Self Taunt Threat We created a given ammount of threat against a single target. The same character then applied 2 Taunts in a row as fast as possible (2 Single on 15s CD or 1 single and 1 AOE in 7s CD). The other character performed a "modified sanity check" (Using "Saber Strike"/"Strike" only on the last estimated 20% and using higher damaging attacks before that... Was due to the length of the test and the needs to keep healing to a minimum. We died a couple of times because of this until we found the correct "throttle up" on direct damage threat to trigger the "agro transition"). RESULT: Taunts performed by current agro holder when he is also the top threat generate stability factor threat according to Range to the target. "High Threat" labeled powers We created a given ammount of threat by exclusively using "High Threat" labeled powers. The other character performed a "sanity check" and we checked the reported values. We did this also under different combinations of Threat Modifiers (Tank Stance & Guard). RESULT: All "High Threat" powers generated 50% extra threat per point of applied damage. When combined with Threat Modifiers they did it multiplicatively ( Tank Stance + High Threat = 1.5 x 1.5 = 2.25. Guard + High Threat = 0.75 x 1.5 = 1.125). Avoided Hits Threat We created a given ammount of threat with 90% basic melee accuracy just using "Saber Strike" and "Strike". The other character used a taunt and we checked the ammount of threat reported by it to compare with the threat generated by the hits that landed on the target. RESULT: Avoided Hits (miss/dodge/parry) generate no threat or negligible threat (Less than the rounding errors of using integer magnitudes on the log). This matches the way combatlog reports them. Stability Factor changes and agro transitions A character generated a certain ammount of threat. The other character generated around 20% more threat "far" (We had to use Big Mobs when the JG was this 2nd character due to the low Threat Gen at range of this class). Then the 2nd character got "close" and performed a single "Saber Strike"/"Strike". We did this with variedly sized mobs. RESULT: Just been "close" with more than 10% threat over current agro holder is not enough to trigger an agro swap. The character also has to generate any threat towards the target to trigger the transition. THINGS WE DIDN'T TEST: - Player generated Healing. Companion generated healing seems to follow 1 PH = 0.5 PT. And is also affected by proportional threat reductions ("Healing Stance" and Guard... Combined multiplicatively). - Companion Healing against multiple targets. We didn't check how healing threat is split against multiple hostiles. - Taunt threat generated when current agro holder IS NOT the top threat. - Any Vanguard power/mechanic. - Taunts performed within an active Agro Redirection buff. We ran out of time to come back to do a batch of tests specifically for this which would tell us when taunt threat is really applied or if there is somekind of "immunity" period for as long as the 6s buff is there.

We do this instance regularly and a few tips for L-5R (I would add tips for all bosses... But that will make this a Bibble, soz): - Your melee and your Tank needs to be as close as possible to existing Electric Spheres (They grow twice after the initial deployment). That way half each sphere will be "lost in the other". DO this and you will have always a place to run. Ranged DPS should do the same as they have more placement options but's not a requirement. If you have melee DPS ONLY, be carefull to not block completely a row of Specimen Tubes... "Patient Zero" are ranged and you may find yourself unable to DPS them. - Incinerate IS an AOE DoT. It affects EVERYTHING in 4m around the current target. Every1 should keep 5m+ from the tank at all times. The DoT channel can be fully interrupted with fast reflexes. The DoT CAN BE CLEANSED (it has 3 charges on a fully complete channel) but any GCD spent on cleansing will remove 2 of them. 1 DoT charge is healable without problems. - "Experimental Cannon" is a pain not because of the damage or agro reset... It's because, combined with a badly placed Electrical Sphere may trigger a situation were a melee-only interrupt tank find himself away from the Boss when "Experimental Cannon" ends, well... If the tank is not on melee range, L will alter the casting order and will mostly try to Incinerate. WATCHOUT this combo if your tank is a JK. The tank should taunt the Boss right before EC channel is about to end because is at the end were agro is cleaned. - Interrupt as much "Plasma Arc" as possible... But only by ppl not the MT. On an average party you have another interrupter also (If it's the healer tell him to Focus the boss and use a "Cast on focus" on his interruption power). From all the above tips the most important one to explain, if you find yourself as the leader of a PuG, is "Get as close as possible to existing Electrical Spheres"... Just by doing this you will avoid most of the "bad combos" that can happen. Obviously, interrupting Incinerate is not that hard to do (with the caveat I explained above).

Ops dummy has higher kinetic mitigation... So the numbers should decrease. On Real Raids Ops you have around 1, 2 (Or even 3 if you have a good class balance) armor debuffs on that should balance this for the kinetic section of Infil DPS (The one that's the main responsible of our burst DPS coming from a full force bar)... I have a pending recheck on if armor debuffs still stack the way they did before 1.2, btw (On the particular burst scenarios in EC, Commando & JK debuffs are slow stacking so their impact is also lessened... So everything is a bit harder to "theorize" tbh).

DoTs have their use... Luckily for the survivality of the Infil specc on PvE, EC is full of burst DPS checks were Infil has a huge advantage over Balance. I got the chance to play EC last boss and the important parts I could get some data from similarly geared (Remember that gear for Balance is slightly different than for Infil) Shadows (Full Rakata with some BH... Each Shadow with more or less gear distribution adapted to each of the speccs): - Bombardiers. Infil: 2.1k DPS. Balance: 1.1k DPS (Balance shadow was using SS in his build, btw). My Infil DPS was a bit impaired because I was 1st Stunner on them, meaning that most of the time I had to reserve GCDs for doing a precisse Force Stun on them. - Walker vulnerable periods. Infil: 1.8k DPS. Balance: 1.4k DPS. (We both were reserving our CDs for the Walker vulnerability periods... So the above is the average of the 2+1 Walker periods. NO Adrenal was used... But stims and full raid buffs were present). The above averages come from just 2 sessions (Were we both stood together)... They were more or less average performance (With some lucky streaks on Upheaval procs against the Walker that could result in an extra 100 DPS theoretically). In the minefield minigame the differences were slightly less against the Probes but here I got some really lucky streaks with Upheaval that net 1.6k DPS (Infil) vs 1.3k DPS (Balance)... So I need to wait for other sessions that show a better average (We one shotted this boss... so I could only get 1 fight recorded ). We were both using ACT with SWTOR parsing plugin as our analisys tool and we were manualy spliting the DPS against each type of mob (Very easy to do on this EC encounters, btw). For completion in the other "more steady" (OFC with a pinch of salt... Because even Commander V has the anoying knockback) EC encounters (Again I could only got 1 fight recorded ): - T&Z. Infil: 1.1k DPS, Balance: 1.29k DPS - F&S. Infil: 1.2k DPS, Balance: 1.2k DPS (Here it's tricky because of the swap to adds and the imposibility for Balance to do AOE because of the Shield Pods... So it's basically a single target fight with frequent swaps, which, ofc benefits Infil over balance). - Commander V. Infil: 1.1k DPS, Balance: 1.3k DPS (We were both affected by 2 Explosive Mines... So that random chance "balanced" on this single fight). EDIT: My Infil performance is overloaded on Final boss because I was always reserving a full force bar and 5xExit Strategy for the next Bombardier (And most of the time also had rdy 2xCV+2xCS for the 1st Project on them)... Meaning that I was sacrifying DPS on regular adds to be able to increase it on Bombardiers (or the Probe in the minefield).

The main issue to deal with this is which tile you select 1st and how long it takes you to do reach the 3rd row... You are on a good try if you reach the 3rd row with just 1 Probe. If you don't manage... Usually it's safer to just bail out and retry. So before spending the 1st bot BE SURE you have a path to the 3rd row requiring just 1 disarm. - Optimize your probe usage... They appear ALWAYS on the same spot. Select the one that's closer... If you have melee, the sooner they start the sooner you kill. - Keep 1 DPS on the Tower with the clicker (usually the 2nd tank) helps tons at cutting down the spawn of the 1st Probe... After that 1st add on the Tower is killed that DPS should go down and help the rest of the team. - Synch the yellow marking with the death of the probe. Depending on your DPS, if you call the marking when the Probe is around 10-15% you have enough time to defuse it. The clicker should immediatly summon the next probe ASAP before keep on looking at the Minefield. When doing this BE SURE the clicker is aware about the "Panel Cooldown" when revealing mines... or when the call is issued the panel may be on CD and thus he/She can't mark yellow when needed, loosing valuable seconds. Finnally there are tries that require 5 defusals... If you didn't spend enough time to reveal the 3rd row BEFORE selecting the initial tile on your path. Tricky decission... As the initial delay on 1st Probe can't be increased forever... So accept the bad luck and retry.

Just a small whishlist. As Infil Shadow mainly PvE (Very casual PvP). - Spinning Strike should award Clarvoyance, If specced up to Clarvoyant Strike ofc. Spinning Strike should be giving Clarvoyance so under 30% HP we can enjoy the theoretical DPS boost to compensate from been melee (Melee classes are the ones that come with "execute-type" powers). ATM Spinning is not a CS substitute because it does not provide it (And 1 stack of Clarvoyance is bugged and not modifying Project at all), meaning that we are still forced to perform 2xCS before each Project, instead of a real DPS boost sequence like SS+CS+Project. As Kinetic Shadow exclusively PvE. - Kinetic Ward use should have a higher effect on performance. ATM is still "another buff" to keep up without having to think too much about it. I like to have active defenses... But they have to reward better its accurate use and penalize worser the careless spam (Resilience is a good example of a well designed active defense). There have been plenty of ideas already written about how to do this... BW just need to listen to them (If they want to provide a more "active experience") or simply turn this buff into a toggle or passive (if they want to reduce the difficulty of playing a Kinetic Shadow)... When an action is better used by a timed macro than a human... You know you have to change something.

Rakghoul Plague? There are solider & bots that will kill you on those zones... If it takes too much to load you may not be seeing them.

It's not blasphemy... It's how Inf works. Real fights have interruptions and, contrary to the typical status of other MMOs, Infil build is better at dealing with them beacuse: - We are energy starved. And, by design, our highest DPS cycles are the less efficient. Meaning that a Shadow that knows when to swap to high DPS when returning from a brief interruption will enjoy a high peak of DPS. Meanwhile, a Balance can only loose DPS when interrupted and due to the short duration of their DoTs (Compared to other MMOs) is very easy they miss a refresh window even with the slightest interruptions. - Our DPS boosting buffs are very flexible allowing us to alter on the fly the order of powers to suit particular DPS boosting patterns or to avoid DPS degrading ones (We have to meet some order requirements but the penalties are lesser than for Balance). Balance aren't as flexible again because of the refresh requirements. Related to this we can "save" our DPS boosts while travelling between targets because our "setup time" on a new target is smaller than Balance and with some strategy we can generate Buffs on 1 target and apply them on the next. Meanwhile Balance suffers from the standard drawbacks on multitarget (Notice that I speak about multitarget... Not AOE) as most DoT builds, long setup time and waste of trail DoTs. This happens on ToR and not on other MMOs because, traditionally, DoT builds are very efficient (Most of the time they can ignore their action bars) but on ToR, Balance is more efficient but not to the point of been able to make too much mistakes wasting DoT lifetimes. So in short... That's why Balance should be the king on steady fights... An infil player has the option to adapt their cycles to deal with Short Interruptions/Weakness windows and thus outperform Balance on those situations.

Can you post the gear of your Operative?... ...I highly doubt you can get past Project with 2 melee DPSers if you aren't full Rakata as Healer (So you can outheal Virulent). And I mean optimized Rakata... Not the crap default itemization Scoundrels have. As curiosity, what your Assassin was doing on Project when Virulent landed? EDIT: I assume you talk about a Hard Mode run, ofc.

To be more precisse... Kaon is done by a L4D fan... ...All "specials" are there, the "witch" scream also and, ofc... ...The Roaring Boulder-Throwing Tank vulnerable to fire damage we all loved to run away from like headless chickens is also there .

All the above holds until... ...You realize Avoided hits ALSO remove secondary effects (CC, debuffs & DoTs)... ...While Shield attacks do not protect you from secondary effects. Also you are making a mistake regarding the defense layer order. The order in which layers of defense are evaluated matter, sadly. If, using normalized chances, A and B are Defense Chance and Shield Combined Absorption (Shield Chance x Absorption) respectively. Your average mitigation (before armor/reduction applies) on SWTOR is: A+(1-A)xB -> A + B - AxB Apparently the above total mitigation formula is symetrical for A & B but... Try to calculate the same if shield chance was checked 1st... You couldn't even use "Shield Combined Absorption" at all. Returning to the "apparently symetrical" formula. A is coming from a single Gear Budget, while B requires 2 Gear Budgets. OFC, each of the magnitudes comes with its own diminishing return curve (Gear budget stricly follows 1/1 ratio between the 3 of them). There are plenty of posts linking the 3 magnitudes towards the curves. You have a good point regarding "steady mitigation" but you don't need Absorption for that... You sacrifice Optimum average mitigation to minimize the chance of "double failure on mitigation" event to happen. That's in the realm of Defense & Shield Chance alone. Then you have the KW problem... On KW exhaustion scenarios each Defended attack is one less charge of KW you loose on the same period. As a final point... Defense & Shield Chance contribute at force management, while Absorption do not for Shadows. It's a 2nd order effect... But it's there. The main self heal mechanism comes from an adequate use of Harnessed Shadows assisted TK. Granted that it's also one of our strong Threat generators... But if you can afford it, you don't wait for "procs to happen"... You adapt your TK cycle to use it right after been smashed were the chances to trigger overhealing are reduced. When you go on "active self healing" you are "patching" those "bad luck" streaks. So the Shadow situation is full of conflicting scenarios you can't solve with the same defensive stat allocation, sadly.

Just a friendly reminder for all combatlog analyzers... ...Remember that most bias are easy to check (Anomalous lucky crit streaks, etc...) with 1 exception... ...Upheaval procs are "masked" because the 2nd chunk is reported also as a Project. Meaning you require a custom filter to count how many times the 45% chance happened by checking the damage of each Project hit. The problem is that, if you use the Power relic, there is a potential overlapping between the minimum damage of a normal project and the maximum damage of a "splinter" boosted by the relic (Depending on how much base power you have). So until BW labels the splinter as an independent attack... Analyze Project performance with upheaval average performance to see if you are in a "bad/good" luck steak parser or in an average one (Or use filters that look for combined events... Ie 2 Project hits on the same GCD). This is what inherently makes Upheaval builds to appear "more random" on parsers. Is not easy to distinguish when you have a decent average parser because it requires extra checking. It's just one of the many "systematic errors" combatlog parsers come with that makes some "builds" to appear different.

The "double proc" bug is affecting ALL Shadow's Techniques procs, and has been like this since the game went live. The highest "lucky streak" I have recorded was with Shadow Technique by having 6 hits over 3 seconds (This apparent "tripple proc" was just 3 double procs in a row combined with the rounding errors on timelines most parsers make). The best way to perceive it on any Technique is to use whirldwind strike against multiple targets. You will see how you get double procs affecting different targets... That way you are 100% sure it's not a Combatlog bug, the floating text is really appearing under the correct target. Saber strike, Clarvoyance Strike/Double Strike & Whirldwind Strike are the only attacks able to do this. On my tests regarding the real application I did BEFORE 1.2. I got the following results (I used PvP duels to check this): - Damage section of the 3 techniques is applied for real on your target/s. - Each proc damage section can crit independently (Another strong clue... They are not simply "echos"). - Secondary Effects linked to proc apply. FB charges linked to Shadow Technique, the best example. You got 2 charges per GCD, which, in theory, is impossible. - Healing IS NOT "doubly" applied to the player on Combat Technique. - The frequency is more or less stable. Around 10% of the procs result in a double proc. I have never seen a tripple proc (Potentially could only be triggered by Saber & Whirldwind... If my speculation applies). Speculative-wise, the code thread that evaluates multihit attacks on the server may get out of synch sometimes with the one that evaluates and trigger internal CDs, probably because 1 of them operates in GCD "steps" and the other don't. EDIT: BW should really take a deep look at this... Because this is not the only anomaly regarding procs the new combatlogs are allowing us to "confirm". EDIT2: By "Really Applied" I mean that the relevant HP bar was really affected by the double proc damage (or healing). Notice that even this is not a 100% confirmation. At least on PvE, it sometimes happens that enemies "die" when their HP bars are still not 0... Which suggest that, somehow, HP bars we see may get out of synch with the ones the Server stores (The other common cause is that, under stress, the server do not send more info related to already death entities to some of the combat participants). I used PvP duels to check how the 2 clients were, in fact, seeing the same HP values.

Mainly for Flashpoints (And Heroic missions... But only 1 could be chosen). I have to add a few comments: - Server ONLY option. I don't want to repeat the arguments I have against anonymous dungeoneering which is basically needed for ppl not interested in the activity covered by the LFG Tool but that for some reasson needs its rewards. This is the core of the problem... Player interest. - Honor my Ignore list. I don't want to spend time with ppl I do not like... That's what an Ignore list is for. Please, revise the size of the list. At the very moment automatic LFG tools appear my ignore lists start to fill up. Things that will follow (And the main reasson why I don't want the LFG tool to apply for Operations): - All content accessible by the LFG tool will be streamlined to remove any class depedency -> Players using their class specializations will find a decreased level of difficulty -> Potential removal of this "Classes Specializations" in the future to offer "balanced progress" for any class using The Tool. - Increase on number of activities starting but... Decrease on the proportion of activities fully completed -> Simplyfication of the learning curve on the activities accessed through The Tool to reduce the frustation, specially if the activity rewards are better the longer you stay (ie the last boss of a FP gives much better loot than the initial ones). The above 2 points have happened invariably on the MMOs were the LFG tool was added later meaning that players interested in challenging content will not find what they look for on the content accessible through the LFG tool. I accept that I do not belong to the mayority, but feedback comes from varied types of players.

Let me guess... All DPS ranged with BM weapons... ...Don't fool yourself... Getting 140 rating weapons is much easier on PvP than on PvE, combined with the atrocious default itemization of Rakata you are at Columi+ level for PvE, specially if those BM already did the PvP/PvE popular gear hybridation that was a must before.

Just some feedback on a "learning run" on this instance. Going to try to avoid spoiling the fun of learning them. We were a standard party with 0 experience on the FP (On purpose we avoided spoiling the fun of our wipe learning process. Took 3.5h in total over 2 "sessions"): - Shadow DPS. Mainly Rakata (Lacking only the Chest... That I got after killing the last boss). - Commando DPS. Full Rakata. - Sage Healer. Columi, lacking MH (That he got after killing the last boss). - Guardian Tank. Mainly Rakata (Lacking only the Chest). 1st Boss (Fight on the pixel): Very Hard to Brute Force. Moderate once ALL ppl knows how to place Shields properly (A requirement to do it with melee DPS, even 2 can do it if you know this), how to face the boss properly (Again a requirement if you have melee, or too many adds spawn) and interrupt swiftly. 2nd Boss (Knockback prediction): Easy to figure and very interesting knockback mechanic. Enrage timer PREATY tight. Impossible to do on Columi with 1 or more melee DPSers. At Rakata level (In particular the healer) it can be done with a pure melee by incurring in extra healing but... With 2 pure melee DPSers it's simply impossible. By pure I mean someone that can't do some DPS at 10m (JK). A shadow can partially offset this problem by attacking from 10m when affected by Virulence. Optional Boss (Freeze man): Another fun mechanic. Easy to figure. Another enrage timer that it becomes impossible to reach with 2 melee DPSers. Having 1 melee DPS requires a strict formation and no room for mistakes (And a bit of extra healing). Final Boss (Mutate!!!): Easy to figure (With 1 exception). Nice touch added by requiring "Active defense" by the tank... It may be not obvious for new players to MMOs that will lead to a biased perception on the difficulty of this Boss (Specially for healers that seem to be running out of juice... I guess it's because their tanks haven't learned the trick that's common on other more "active" MMOs). No melee/ranged preference here. So, in short, it's a tough Hard Mode... The difficulty justifies the final Rakata reward plus the columi main hand AND the 8xBH commendations (On the weekly, coupled with Kaon) but... ...I find profoundly disturbing the fact that the 2nd Boss is a Hard Lock for pure melee DPSers (And the Optional one also... But well, BW can shield themselves on the "optional" nature). The 2nd Boss could be easily made "melee friendly" if the Virulent mechanic got a minimum range to be applied for as long as 1 person was out of it. EDIT: Every1 was using DPS/HPS boosting consumables, btw. We also enjoyed "Lucky Shots" thanks to Legacy multiclass buffs. EDIT: To the casual whiners... This Hard Mode basically removes SOA from the game as an effective Gear Source... Anything else but the difficulty you are seeing (Without any kind of lock) will be a joke to the gearing process.

I was doing some tests myself on the OP dummy and on full rakata (with a bit high accuracy 99.20%, meaning that I could probably alter the item budget to parse even better by reducing ACC) and raid buffs (Plus blue resolve consumable) I can keep 1330 dps (This includes adequate uses of Blackout, Force Cloak & Power Relic and ofc BR & CP)... ...I'm using 2/31/8 BUT... ...I DO NOT priorize project... It's basically a mistake on steady fights (Notice that coming from a full bar after an interruption, or when generating bursts, it's the opposite... Project Cycle is your burst). The Cycle 2xCS+Project is the WORSE force-wise. With my tests here are the numbers regarding damage done per point of force: - FB = 158.05 - SS = 112.26 - 2xCS+Project = 73.5 Notice that on real raids the "cycle" efficiency raises because of armor debuf pressence but never reaches SS efficiency. Also, against Raid Bosses, you will see how some of your Saber hits are dodged/parried (and some missed if you do not have a decent accuracy... This has a direct impact on your energy gains as each missed Saber hit do not trigger the 2 pieces set bonus) This are the advices I can try to give: - FB is a no brainer. Use on CD and really be strict about it. - FW drift control. You can meassure how good an Infil Cycle is by how many FW assisted SS the player launches. The important thing is not when you use SS... But been sure you are doing a Saber or a 2xCS EACH time the 10s Internal CD passes. Another interesting 2nd effect of this is that it's HIGHLY likely you trigger a Shadow Technique proc right before SS... Which in turn will have a decent chance to crit to refresh, again, your "Force Synergy" proc (It's a failsafe just in case your previous FC or Project didn't crit). - Finnally, you will have to "dump" your extra force using 2xCS+Project (That's why ppl usually recommends "use project when above 50% energy). Once you focus on the 2 previous points you will see naturally how Projects fit into the equation... You simply get too much energy otherwise. When I say 2xCS+Project, obvously, I'm not saying you have to do them in a row, you have to interlace the other powers because they are higher on Prio. - Synch your Relic with Force Cloak... On those 20s of extra power you want to have as much energy as possible. Also learn to "fill up" (Reach 100% energy) when CD is about to finish so you can launch a high DPS barrage under its effects. - BR & CP are nice to use on opening with the Relic but in general DO NOT wait for the Relic to synch with them. Activate Combat Potency use a FB and then Project... You don't want to spend the 2nd charge of your CP on the weak Upheaval proc.

I don't really know were to put this but as it requires combat log analysis I thought this was the right section. I have been analyzing the performance of my Shadow's Infil build on PvE and I have spotted a strange behaviour on "Campaing Relic of Dark Radiance" proc called "Corrosive Injection" (CI from now on). It systematically shows an average of 10% less crit chance than "Shadow Technique" proc (ST from now on). From Shadow PoV, seems this proc is not considered a "Power" as its crits do not trigger "Force Synergy", as ST crits do, for example (I do not discard the possibility that "Force Synergy" may be modifying CI chances... But even in that case the chances to crit are always below the ones of Shadow Technique... That's what makes everything so apparent). The tests have been recorded under Raid buff pressence that nets 39.49% chance for melee attacks and 38.23% chance for force powers, against real Raid Bosses and against the Operation Dummy... Everything seems consistent (remember that we are talking about crit chances... So expect deviances on that "-10% reduction" on each experiment). For the record, from the 14 sessions (A minimum of 6m of effective combat duration to be considered a "valid" session) recorded the maximum difference I have seen is CI: 18%, ST:37% and the minimum difference is CI: 32%, ST: 35%. To those combatlog analyzers around... Have any of you spotted a behaviour similar to this on any of your Proc Relics? EDIT: The combatlog analyzer tool used was ACT with its SWTOR plugin installed. EDIT2: A friend suggested a crazy idea... Which is that "Force Synergy" is somehow substracting its 9% chance instead of adding it on this particular proc (My CS & SB are correctly modified by FS, btw).

Sorry to sound like a troll... But Sage whinners just grow used to the OP healing capabilities at AOE and at single target... ...For those whinners that are "menacing to BW" to reroll other healers... ...Do not do that or when you reach L50 with the other, you will find yourself having the same difficulty and with less AOE healing capabilitites. Those of you that, like me, have bothered to play other healers... Will know what I'm talking about (Commando efficiency was also targeted, btw, and much closer to Scoundrel's now).

Sorry but we meassure "difficulty" in different ways. It has been like this on most MMOs so far on PvE... ...Any build requiring a possitional attack is always replaced by 1 with DoTs. The reasson is that you suddenly do not have to pay attention to what your enemy is doing and just can focus on keeping the DoTs (This is understandable on Hero Engine MMOs which systematically screw possitional attack users by the miriad of bugs related to foe possition/facing). Until now everything makes sense... Then you discover that refreshing DoTs on long fights is just something a timed macro does for you with 99% accuracy, so your "hard to keep DoT build" suddenly turns into a boring excercise of seeing your timed macros doing everything for you. Luckily on SWTOR, even the DoT build has to pay attention to some procs and administer them partially but the main "anoying part" is solvable by timed macros. The second part of is that a DoT build do not have to pay attention to bursts, is just struggling to keep the perfectly energy efficient rotation. Meanwhile a "bursty" build has to swap modes based on expected interruptions or high damage cycles (This is also related to how energy-deficient Infil is compared to Balance, ofc). So to put it short: - Balance -> Upkeep effort. No need to consider bursts nor facings. - Infil -> Reaction effort. Need to consider bursts and facings. So at the very moment you "assist yourself" with timed macros, Balance difficulty drops to the ground.

Some comments regarding Upheaval... So far it looks an improvement BUT only if you keep the priority on FB & SS. The reasson is that, on the average, a Project requires 2xClarvoyance so when you analyze the whole cycle energy cost vs damage applied it's less efficient than SS or FB. Obviously the above only applies on long fights... Each time you are interrupted or you have to trigger a burst, Project has priority, for as long as you did the 2xClarvoyance before the interruption and your energy has recovered. You have to be sure you always do FB 1st on Potency activations or, indeed, you may spend the 2nd charge on the 50% one. Finnally, you will require the new combat logs to really be sure were the "turning point" is, but remember that on Ops is quite common to enjoy a lot of Armor Reducers (JK,Comm & Guns) on enemies which can tilt the balance of the cycle from the Armor Bypassers (SS & FB) towards the pure kinetic cycle 2xCS+Project... ...Sadly we will have to wait for 1.2 to hit to evaluate this but, at the same time all those evasive comments about "underlaying changes" and a direct reference to armor debuff stacking makes me think that we may have to check how all this stack/interact with each other again, to spot any potential "ninja changes". EDIT: Oh, one last comment regarding that build... As of today, when you are using "Spining Strike" DO NOT fall in the trap to use Project with just 1 charge of Clarvoyance, it's bugged and 1 charge of Clarvoyance is not increasing the damage of project by 15%.

Personally I don't care what they do with this, but... ...It's infuriating that a power as important as Project is not perfectly mirrored between Factions. They could make Rep Instant or... ...They could add a slow travelling "Lightning Ball" effect to Sins. The current situation systematically benefits Sins on any 1v1, and that makes no sense at all.