Juggernaut Versus Powertech Tanking Comparison

[Gankstah]

So, funny story, I'm cruising a private forum that some theorycrafters and I use to bounce ideas off one another and I get a message from two people to check out this thread. Alright, sure, no problem. After reading this thread from start to finish I would like to clear up a couple things that have stood out to me most so far.

 

Particularly content which I authored that is being discussed in this thread. First, this:

 

Mean Mitigation is just that, an average mitigation given in one parsing circumstance.

 

I want to point out that this is inherently wrong. To illustrate why this is wrong I color coded it for the reader. The red part directly contradicts the green part. Why is this wrong? Two reasons:

1. You can't average a single sample. By definition average is the sum of several samples divided by the number of samples given.
   
2. The actual definition of the mathematical term "Mean" is average. Again, you can't average something if you only have a single measurement.
   

When I first formulated the Mean Mitigation calc it was extremely lengthy and took into account many variables. This was prior to the forum wipe pre-release; exactly 20 minutes after the NDA dropped. I received a lot of feedback; most of it was positive but there was a large chunk of readers who couldn't follow exactly what was going on.

 

So the Mean Mitigation calc went through a diet of sorts over several iterations. A lot of variables were removed as well as several common denominators to simplify it to the easier to understand more generalized version that you see today. It even went through another simplification process just recently thanks to another forumite, Tanis. The more complex versions which were it's predecessors can still be found around the web as well as being the core mechanic behind several spreadsheets and calculators that you can find on various popular fansites. Some of which many of you use yourselves.

 

With that said, the work that is being cited in this thread and, more importantly, the calc referenced is exactly what you describe in your very next sentence:

 

A better evaluation of this would be a modal score, effectively an average of several parsing circumstances.

 

The Mean Mitigation calc is designed to simulate the mitigation values you would see over several parsings. Not one but several. This is actually explained in the work which is being referenced which reads as,

 

This is only a generalization OR average. Specific parsings will yield +/- results. So please don't come back here saying, "You're wrong! I parsed at 84% against boss such-and-such!" before thoroughly understanding the definition of average/mean.

 

The object being if you have, let's say, twenty parsings and you averaged them all together you would get a mitigation value very near that of what you would find using the Mean Mitigation calc. Because that's what the Mean Mitigation calc is designed to do. I would like to also point out a few very important pieces information for the reader that NEEDS to be understood:

• The Mean Mitigation calc is not gospel. It is a generalization designed to give the reader an idea of what their expected mitigation would average out to be using the factors that are taken into consideration.
  
• The Mean Mitigation calc is not designed to be all encompassing. There are simply WAAAAY too many variables to realistically produce a calc that your average reader would be able to follow let alone attempt to use. This was the primary crux of the original iteration of the calc. For instance, long term CD's aren't taken into account (although they can be easily injected) because of this exact reason.
  
• No calculation will ever be able to give you a 100% accurate prediction of what your mitigation will be at all times. It's simply not possible. Or I should say, not reasonable. Even BioWare, the people who designed the damn system, can't give it to you. They in fact go off of metrics assimilated by you, the players, and then adjust according to those metrics. They don't even have said "magical calculation". Simply because it's not reasonable to create one.
  

 

While I do appreciate the enthusiasm of players and readers I would prefer that my work not be used as an anchor of proof. The Primer and all of it's content is not written with the intent to be used as means by which one person could "prove" another person wrong. It could be used to suggest a flaw in reasoning but it, in and of itself, is also flawed and is intentionally written to be flawed specifically BECAUSE of threads and situations just like this. To quote myself addressing another reader, "There's a reason it's called a Primer."

 

After everything is said and done, in terms of the context of this and only this thread, I am prone to side with Kitru. While I don't agree with everything he's said thus far I do by and large agree with most of what his message is. Mathematically Kitru and I have come to many similar conclusions. Obviously we have our disagreements but overall we find common ground more often than not.

 

what think you on me switching my attentions away from the Jugg...and pushing on with the Powertech?

 

Thanks in advance

 

I say give it a shot but don't expect it to be a fix all solution. The PT/Vanguard has it's own issues just as the Sin/Shadow and Jugg/Warrior does. You will not find a "perfect" tanking class. BioWare intentionally designed each class with faults for a reason. However, trying a class out for yourself is the only sure fire way to find out if you like it or not.

 

There's no harm in trying things out. Even with it's faults you might find you enjoy the PT/Vanguard more. You might hate it. No one on these forums, NO ONE, can answer that question for you. Only you can. But what's the harm in trying it out? TOR will be around for a long time.

 

There's no rush. Enjoy yourself.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Gankstah

[Kitru]

So Shadow/Assassins end up being good to best mitigation vs. single target, With PT/vans being best overall Mitigation with stability winning out over spiky damage when basically otherwise equal, and Juggs/Guards as the de facto weakest on base mitigation.

 

Juggs only end up as "de facto weakest on base mitigation" if you ignore the massive contributions they get from Sonic Barrier: a ~2k hp shield every 12 seconds (166 hp/sec) translates to the entire contribution of a Shadow's self healing from CT and HS Tk Throw (about 140-150 hp/sec) and doesn't suffer from the issues of being wasted on overhealing. If you actually look at a well played Guard/Jugg, they're actually doing exceptionally well from a mitigation standpoint.

 

then there is threat. Pretty well acknowledged that AOE threat goes to Sin/Shadow and Van/PT with Jugg/Guard being very weak on multi target tanking due to their lack of aoes.

 

This is simply not true. If you actually looked at the abilities in question, you would be able to see that a Jugg/Guard *when not played by a facerolling idiot* generates the same AoE threat as a Shadow with lower resource costs and less animation time used to do so. The only reason that Shad/Sins are now *equal* in AoE threat capacity to Jugg/Guards is because of a 30% increase to an ability with a high threat mod. Guards/Juggs are *still* better at generating AoE threat when they need to spam because Cyclone Slash does outright *more* damage than Whirling Blow does. The only reason that people *claim* that Guard/Juggs have worse AoE threat than Shadows is because the population, as a whole, is only focused on the issues with their own class rather than looking at a side-by-side comparison; in essence, Jugg/Guards have the worst *reputation* for AoE threat, but they do not *in fact* (which is what you're claiming by saying "de facto") have a legitimate claim in any way.

 

A proper comparison would place VG/PTs at the head of the pack with Jugg/Guards and Shad/Sins roughly tied behind them (with the differences between the two determined by the fight in question: Shad/Sins tend to be better when enemies are spread out whereas Jugg/Guards are better when enemies are clustered).

 

Sin/Shaddow/Van/PT also all have a pull which is a very nice threat tool both for its threat gen and control of the mobs.

 

So you're bringing up the pulls but completely ignoring the charges (Storm/Rocket Punch and Force Leap)? When getting threat on adds, Force Pull/Harpoon is of marginal use, at best, since it only affects a single target and is on a rather lengthy CD (45 secs) whereas the leap gets you over to the entire group while *also* dealing damage, such that you're capable of immediately letting loose with your AoEs. Honestly, as a player that has experienced *both* abilities, I can say that, in PvE, I would *much* rather have a charge (Force Leap/Storm) than a pull (Force Pull/Harpoon) with the numbers that the devs have given them.

 

Sin/shadow do have some range attacks to gen threat

 

Let me correct you here. The "range" on Shad/Sin "ranged" attacks is only 10m, the same as Blade Storm. I can assure you, the supposed "benefits" of Shad/Sin range are functionally nonexistent when weighed against the benefits of the low CD leap that Guard/Juggs get. 10m is such a short range that it might as well still be melee.

 

You pretty much wrote your entire post attempting to justify your preconceived notion that Jugg/Guards are the worst tanks in the game rather than attempting to accurately gauge their capabilities against those of the other tanks. The average player is *not* capable of giving an accurate assessment of performance, especially when the quality of player that goes for each specific class of tank is vastly different: since VG/PT and Shad/Sins are not "usual" tanks, those players that choose to play them tend to be intelligent and skilled players that have done their research; Jugg/Guards are the "usual" tank and, as such, a large number of inexperienced and uneducated players flock to the class and then blame the *class* for their poor performance rather than realizing that it wouldn't matter *which* tank they played, they would still be sucking at it.

 

This is why it's important to look at the *numbers* rather than the anecdotal evidence whenever possible. The numbers are entirely neutral and unaffected by player skill. When looking at the *numbers* rather than the whining of failed tanks, it's possible to get an accurate gauge of performance which doesn't place Jugg/Guards in *nearly* the same position that anecdotal evidence would suggest. The *numbers* place Shad/Sins and Jugg/Guards in roughly equal position a small but noticeable amount behind PT/VGs (especially when you consider that they have the most stable incoming damage as well as the lowest) in mitigation, AoE threat gen, and utility, which are the only areas that the tanks differ appreciably (aside from the Shad/Sins AoE mitigation difference).

 

Small differences between the performance of classes in the same role *is* acceptable though it's *not* acceptable when all of the small differences favor a single class, like they do with PT/VGs. When all of the differences favor a single class, it's not a question of all of the classes performing withing an acceptable range of variation it's a question of one tank averaging higher virtually by design since each of those small advantages compound upon one another to create one class that is the, de facto, best tank. Unless the devs do *something* to mitigate these differences (either increasing Jugg/Guard and Shad/Sin performance or decreasing PT/VG performance in all or some of the given areas), it's not going to be a question of playstyle determining "best" but rather the choice of PT/VG as opposed to the other options.

[angrydurf]

I'll admit the Sin/Shadow is the class I haven't tried out myself and that is the root of most of my misunderstanding of it. I really should have just left it out of my post entirely as all i really have to go on with it is anecdotal evidence and how it looks to work. IE I hear their AOE's do more for them for tanking groups and looking at the tooltips (which are fuzzy at best and inaccurate to current mechanics at worst) doesn't necessarily clear things up. I mostly included them out of a sense of completeness which was a flaw.

 

the BS shield may bump the Jugg/Guard up a little on base mitigation but I don't think it puts them in a position where that base mitigation is significantly better than the other classes and still suffers from the problem of spikier damage. Now health pools and damage being what they are in SWTOR spikey is not the death sentence it is in some games where even appropriately geared tanks will be dropped in 2 lucky crits from a boss but it is still in my opinion a weakness.

 

My central point being that PT/Vans have their mitigation pretty much all the time, the other classes have roughly the same numbers for that base mitigation but have situations where it become unreliable Large pulls with Sin/shadow and a bad string of rolls with Jugg/guard. Really though in both cases it's a minor enough weakness that it's not that relevant on it's own. It's well within the margin for error both in calulating and play. If that isn't the case with the Sin/Shadow I'm surprised there isn't more discussion of that.

 

With threat I think the issue is that in a single target enviroment Jugg/guard does actually have a lead. Unfortunately that lead is rendered meaningless when PT/Vans can hold threat without DPS having to throttle anyway. As gear improves however this may become more of an advantage for Juggs/Guards.

 

On AOE threat Juggs/Guards have two ways of generating the threat. Smash/sweep and Sweeping/Cyclone slash. Shadows have Whirling blow and force breach. Vans have Explosive surge, Sticky Grenade, Mortar Volley, Pulse Cannon, and Explosive round. Just on number of available abilities and thus uptime on those abilities Van/PT is WAY ahead particularly given that several of them are ranged. They are costly enough not to be spamable this is true but Van/PT is way ahead on the AOE threat gen even without spamming.

 

Shadows and Guards are closer with each having two abilities that are pretty directly comprable. Cyclone Slash and Force breach are both limited to 5 targets with a base damage of 1694-2733 internal every 15 seconds for 20 force, Cyclone slash deals 556-643 Weapon damage (energy for lightsaber thus affected by armor) and is spammable (resources allowing). Over fifteen seconds if concentrating on no other abilities other than focus gen you can get off 7 Cyclone slashes (starting with full focus and hitting Sundering strike on CD to keep focus up) this is unsustainable but available in a short term fashion, Average damage per strike is 599.5 * 7 = 4196.5 this is a weapon strike and affected by armor and can not be maintained for much longer than this time frame taking a total resource cost of 21 focus. If you add in a strike to the rotation to make this sustainable you get 4 Cyclones for a total of 599.5 8 4 = 2398 with the opportunity to be blocked by defenses as well as armor and a total resource cost of 12 using up all your GCDs for 15 seconds. Force breach will us 20 force, and one GCD to do an average of 2213.5 internal force damage that is not blocked by armor or defenses. Force breach is likely to give more threat for less cost in resources and GCDs as well as being a PBAOE with a range of 10 meters and not a cone with a range of four meters.

 

Force Sweep actually functions almost identically to Force breach as far as mechanics go. It's PBAOE and talented gives an accuracy debuff. It hits 5 targets for an average of 731.5 kinetic damage at a cost of three focus and has the same CD as force Breach. Breach has roughly tripple the damage and is not blocked by armor with a greater range. With talents force sweep can be free (though not in our defense tree). By pulling a Cyclone GCD out to add in a free sweep the average damage for the Guardian would be 3129.5 but still use up the GCDs for a full 15 seconds and use more resources than Force breach for damage that is 916 higher than force breach a difference of roughly 29%, Before mitigation. Force breach alone is likely better than both skills the guardian gets being spammed. In addition a Shadow can add in 9 whirling strikes to hit an unlimted number of targets (according to tool tip) for an average of 667.5 each or an additional 6007.5 against those in melee range. This costs 380 force over the course of 15 seconds of being hit with the stats on my level two consular I would regen 270 force (Counting combat technique bonus) does the regen rate increase at all with stats or is it basically always 8/second and 10% when hit once per second? Either way it seems that the Shadow gets alot more AOE damage output for their resource output and definately for their GCD use. Add to this that your self heal as small as it is is a constant AOE threat generator on top of those moves and I think it's pretty clear that the Shadow dominates the Guardian on AOE threat even if it is still behind Vanguards.

 

With regards to pulls. PT/Vans get a pull and a charge so they certainly win out there. Force leap is better for mobility as is guardian leap and I think personally that as far as adds go those are at least as good if not better than pulls but pulls allow for much better control for starting a fight particularly when CC is so necessary to successful tanking at least for guardians. I'm fairly certain the design intent is for leap to be guardians opener while shadows use stealth, and guardian leap is our answer to the pulls that shadows and vans get. they all have pluses and minuses. leaping around the battle drags mobs with you (or at the least reduces your ability to maintain aggro on them as you leap out of range, though it does give you opportunity to establish aggro on a group of adds. Of course Vanguards get both the pull and the charge in addition to ranged aoes to grab up add threat.

 

I want to make this clear I in no way think that the assassin/Shadow is just as powerful as the Vanguard/powertech. But they are a lot closer to that point than the juggernaut/Guardian. This comes down primarily to threat, in particular AOE threat where the Juggernaut/Guardian really under-performs.

Edited January 29, 2012 by angrydurf

[Kitru]

I'll admit the Sin/Shadow is the class I haven't tried out myself and that is the root of most of my misunderstanding of it.

 

It's also pretty obvious from your terrible comprehension of the Shadow skills in *this* analysis. You should actually try and do some research and ask or simply trust the people that have actually *played* a Shadow. You forgot some abilities as well as getting the numbers *really* wrong.

 

IE I hear their AOE's do more for them for tanking groups

 

Actually, they do less. Seriously. I've got a Guard and a Shadow both at 50. The Guard is *way* better at AoE.

 

the BS shield may bump the Jugg/Guard up a little on base mitigation but I don't think it puts them in a position where that base mitigation is significantly better than the other classes and still suffers from the problem of spikier damage.

 

I never said it did. I simply stated that Blade Barrier/Sonic Barrier are often overlooked and that, even if Jugg/Guards have worse mitigation from a raw percentage basis compared to PT/VGs, the shield makes up for it easily. I'd be willing to wager that it brings them roughly on par (especially since, unlike the Shadow self healing, their shield scales).

 

If that isn't the case with the Sin/Shadow I'm surprised there isn't more discussion of that.

 

It *is* an issue and it comes up sometimes, but there are more pressing concerns for Sin/Shads than spiky incoming damage thanks to heavy reliance on Defense, namely KW being completely worthless for AoE mitigation and being especially onerous to keep up compared to what other tanks have to deal with.

 

With threat I think the issue is that in a single target enviroment Jugg/guard does actually have a lead.

 

Most theorycrafters have actually posited that Shad/Sins have the best ST threat generation. Not much math has been done one it, but a basic overview of both classes and their capabilities and attack strings (as well as the comparative advantages each class has from a mitigation standpoint) would suggest that Shad/Sins are intended to be the best ST tanks and worst AoE tanks from both a mitigation and threat standpoint.

 

On AOE threat Juggs/Guards have two ways of generating the threat. Smash/sweep and Sweeping/Cyclone slash. Shadows have Whirling blow and force breach. Vans have Explosive surge, Sticky Grenade, Mortar Volley, Pulse Cannon, and Explosive round. Just on number of available abilities and thus uptime on those abilities Van/PT is WAY ahead particularly given that several of them are ranged. They are costly enough not to be spamable this is true but Van/PT is way ahead on the AOE threat gen even without spamming.

 

This is pretty much a worthless comparison since you're simply counting the AoEs (and not even counting *all* of the Shadow AoEs since you're ignoring Slow Time, which is the only appreciable AoE threat ability we get) rather than actually doing any calculations to weigh their advantages.

 

Shadows and Guards are closer with each having two abilities that are pretty directly comprable. Cyclone Slash and Force breach are both limited to 5 targets with a base damage of 1694-2733 internal every 15 seconds for 20 force, Cyclone slash deals 556-643 Weapon damage (energy for lightsaber thus affected by armor) and is spammable (resources allowing).

 

First off, you're getting the numbers *completely wrong* for Force Breach. You can't simply rely on TORhead for the damage numbers: CT Force Breach does about 500 damage at level 50. It's *terrible* for AoE threat.

 

Secondly, Cyclone Slash is best compared to Whirling Blow, the other no CD weapon based attack spam. Even in *this* comparison, Cyclone Slash is noticeably better since their costs are roughly commensurate (both take roughly 4.5 seconds to recover from the cost) but deals *substantially* more damage (higher base coefficient as well as a 15% increase in damage from talents compared to only 6% for Whirling Blow). Cyclone Slash blows Whirling Blow out of the water.

 

Force Sweep actually functions almost identically to Force breach as far as mechanics go.

 

No, it doesn't. Force Sweep hits roughly 4-5 times harder and can be used more often: Force Breach has a 15 sec CD in an intelligent tank spec and is only useful for the acc debuff and Force Sweep has a 12 sec CD in an intelligent tank spec and would be amazing in a tank spec thanks to its huge damage capabilities even if it *didn't* have the debuff: the debuff is just icing on the cake.

 

You're also completely ignorant of the fact that you don't need to take Effusion to make Force Sweep free: the Courage talent already *does* that in the Defense tree (if you can't block or dodge at least 3 times in 12 seconds as a tank in an AoE situation, you're doing it wrong).

 

Do some research and basic fact checking. Seriously. I'm beginning to question whether you know as little about Jugg/Guardian tanking as you do about Shad/Sin tanking. Just doing some cursory examination in game would tell you exactly how wrong you are.

 

always 8/second and 10% when hit once per second?

 

Shadows always have a base 8 Force/sec unaffected by any stats, though a talent (One with the Force) buffs this this 10.4 Force/sec. You're also completely ignorant of how DBLS actually works since it only provides 2 Force and only activates on a successful block or dodge. It's *nothing* like what you describe here.

 

I want to make this clear I in no way think that the assassin/Shadow is just as powerful as the Vanguard/powertech. But they are a lot closer to that point than the juggernaut/Guardian. This comes down primarily to threat, in particular AOE threat where the Juggernaut/Guardian really under-performs.

 

You only arrived at this conclusion because all of your information is horribly, terribly, fundamentally *wrong*. If you actually had realistic numbers and a *basic* understanding of how the classes *actually* functioned rather than making wildly inaccurate assumptions that indicate pretty well that you've pretty much never touched the actual classes in question.

[ruminate]

This is simply not true. If you actually looked at the abilities in question, you would be able to see that a Jugg/Guard *when not played by a facerolling idiot* generates the same AoE threat as a Shadow with lower resource costs and less animation time used to do so. The only reason that Shad/Sins are now *equal* in AoE threat capacity to Jugg/Guards is because of a 30% increase to an ability with a high threat mod. Guards/Juggs are *still* better at generating AoE threat when they need to spam because Cyclone Slash does outright *more* damage than Whirling Blow does. The only reason that people *claim* that Guard/Juggs have worse AoE threat than Shadows is because the population, as a whole, is only focused on the issues with their own class rather than looking at a side-by-side comparison; in essence, Jugg/Guards have the worst *reputation* for AoE threat, but they do not *in fact* (which is what you're claiming by saying "de facto") have a legitimate claim in any way.

 

Are you sure you're not talking about yourself here?

 

And the first line I underlined is hilarious. You could just as well word it this way, "The only reason that Jugg/Guards are now *equal* in AoE threat capacity to Shad/Sins is because of a 45% increase to an ability with an already high damage coefficient."

 

...that is, of course, assuming their threat is equal. Which it isn't. Shadow/Assassins still have much better AoE threat.

Edited January 29, 2012 by ruminate

[Kitru]

...that is, of course, assuming their threat is equal. Which it isn't. Shadow/Assassins still have much better AoE threat.

 

I've done the math several times before. With the 30% Slow Time buff, Shad/Sins are now roughly equal in AoE threat gen to Guard/Juggs. Force Sweep hits like a truck (45% additional damage from talents and a high base damage) and is functionally cheaper while requiring *less* resource and animation time than Shad/Sins. Time and time again I've had to point this out to Guard/Jugg players that insist they have worse AoE threat gen than Shad/Sins. Just because Shad/Sins have more AoEs does not mean that they have better AoE threat gen.

 

As to the population issues, I can assure you that it's not simply a question of player base. First off, the biggest reason is that I (and others) have actually done the math that demonstrates that Guard/Juggs have better instant and sustainable AoE threat than Shad/Sins with lower animation time and resource consumption. The only reason that a Jugg/Guard will have more problems than an equally geared Shad/Sin is if the given Guard/Jugg is simply incapable of actually using the given tools effectively (namely not knowing how to use Cyclone Slash and Force Sweep effectively, which is a pretty basic skill). I can say this with assurance since I actually have experience with both ACs: Force Sweep and Cyclone Slash are simply better than Whirling Blow, Slow Time, and Force Breach.

[ruminate]

Force Sweep hits like a truck (45% additional damage from talents and a high base damage) and is functionally cheaper while requiring *less* resource and animation time than Shad/Sins.

 

Why do you keep repeating this in multiple threads? Slow Time ALONE gives more AoE threat than Force Sweep per application(AND has a lower cooldown time!), has the exact same animation time(1.5s), and the two classes have such different resource systems that I have no idea how you can conclude that one requires less resources than the other.

[Kitru]

Why do you keep repeating this in multiple threads?

 

Because it's true. I went in game and got these formula from the in game information explicitly (damage with given Bonus Damage - damage without given Bonus Damage to determine coefficient and base damage determined by taking the damage and subtracting Bonus Damage times the determined coefficient). The information has all of the given talents factored in.

 

Slow Time: 218.5 + 1.52 * Bonus Damage

Force Sweep: 348.4 + 2.05 * Bonus Damage

 

Now, since multipliers are all additive, we can conclude that the high threat modifier attached to Slow Time only adds 33% additional threat (2.0/1.5), so, completely ignoring damage and paying attention only to threat, the equivalent numbers are these (re: only multiplied by the 1.5 stance threat modifier).

 

Slow Time: 291.3 + 2.02 * Bonus Damage

Force Sweep: 348.4 + 2.05 * Bonus Damage

 

Furthermore, Guards get an additional 6% Strength. Assuming 50% Bonus Damage contribution from your primary stat (before any multipliers), this would mean that a Guardian would get an additional 3% Bonus Damage. So, including this benefit, the formulae would look like this.

 

Slow Time: 291.3 + 2.02 * Bonus Damage

Force Sweep: 348.4 + 2.11 * Bonus Damage

 

Assuming 500 Bonus Damage, the damages and threats pre-stance mods would look like

 

Slow Time: 978.5 damage 1301.3 threat

Force Sweep: 1404.1 damage/threat

 

Averaged over their CDs (8 secs and 12 secs, respectively), we get

 

Slow Time: 122.3 damage/sec 162.6 threat/sec for 18.75% animation time consumption

Force Sweep: 117.0 damage/sec threat/sec for 12.5% animation time consumption

 

Furthermore, Courage makes Force Sweep free (3 blocks/parries/dodge every 12 secs) whereas Slow Time continues to cost the full 30 Force (3.75 Force/sec). So, on a pure 1:1 comparison, Slow Time is generates more threat and damage than Force Sweep but is less efficient from a resource consumption and animation consumption standpoint. Also, Force Sweep generates more instantaneous threat with a single application than Slow Time does. Slow Time better, but only marginally so (thanks to less time to generate threat through other mechanisms as well as an actual resource cost restricting its use).

 

Now, on to Cyclone Slash v. Whirling Blow. Base formulae (factoring in pure percent talent gains).

 

Whirling Blow: Weapon Damage * 1.06 + .79 * Bonus Damage

Cyclone Slash: Weapon Damage * 1.15 + 1.01 * Bonus Damage

 

It's important to keep in mind that DBLS have 1.2 times the base weapon damage of a standard lightsaber, so we have to multiply Whirling Blow's weapon damage by 1.2 to normalize it to a single lightsaber.

 

Whirling Blow: Weapon Damage * 1.27 + .79 * Bonus Damage

Cyclone Slash: Weapon Damage * 1.15 + 1.01 * Bonus Damage

 

In addition, Combat Technique provides a 5% debuff to melee Bonus Damage, decreasing the contributions of your Bonus damage whereas, as before the 6% additional Str providing 3% additional Bonus Damage for Cyclone Slash.

 

Whirling Blow: Weapon Damage * 1.27 + .75 * Bonus Damage

Cyclone Slash: Weapon Damage * 1.15 + 1.04 * Bonus Damage

 

Now, assuming a 3:2 default weighting of Weapon Damage to melee Bonus Damage (from looking at average weapon damage and equivalent geared Bonus Damage), from the 500 Bonus Damage used by the Force attacks, we can assume 300 Weapon Damage and 200 Bonus Damage for these attacks.

 

Whirling Blow: 531 damage/threat

Cyclone Slash: 553 damage/threat

 

Now, based on their resource costs, it takes roughly the same amount of time to recover from the incurred costs of each (40 Force compared to 3 Focus at the relevant resource generation rates) so we can assume a single sustainable use every 4.5 seconds (in a spam AoE situation, the passive regen rate of Shadows allows a Shadow to spam 4 Whirling Blows from 100 Force while a Guard will be able to spam 4 Cyclone Slashes; the costs are functionally equivalent).

 

Whirling Blow: 118.0 damage/sec for 25% consumption

Cyclone Slash: 122.9 damage/sec for 25% consumption

 

So, Cyclone Slash is better than Whirling Blow pretty much explicitly by 4% since they have the same usability and functional costs but Cyclone Slash simply does more damage.

 

Combining the two abilities in an AoE threat spam situation, the resource consumption of the two bears mentioning: since Force Sweep is functionally free (thanks to Courage), it can be used regardless of your current resource status so when you're spamming Cyclone Slash like a nut, you're still able to use Force Sweep whereas, thanks to Whirling Blow's high cost and Slow Time's similarly high cost (30 compared to the standard 25 for most Shadow abilities), you will often have to wait to use Slow Time. Because of this, Guards get an edge in Force Sweep's applicable use: as a Shadow, you either delay Slow Time by 2 GCDs to recover the Force to use it or you don't use the 4th Whirling Blow (either of which will cost enough to severely diminish the threat contributions of Slow Time such that it's actually *worse* than Force Sweep: Slow Time on an 11 sec use ratio is worse damage and equivalent threat to Force Sweep, the loss of the 510 threat would diminish the threat by more making it the worse option).

 

In any situation where AoE threat gen actually *matters*, Guards are equivalent or *better* than Shadows: they have better frontloaded threat (1404 compared to 1301 threat per application), better damage (since Force Sweep isn't high threat), less animation time used, and less resource consumed to do so.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Kitru

[ruminate]

Because it's true. I went in game and got these formula from the in game information explicitly (damage with given Bonus Damage - damage without given Bonus Damage to determine coefficient and base damage determined by taking the damage and subtracting Bonus Damage times the determined coefficient). The information has all of the given talents factored in.

 

Slow Time: 218.5 + 1.52 * Bonus Damage

Force Sweep: 348.4 + 2.05 * Bonus Damage

 

Am I the only one that ever double-checks someone else's math?

 

The following was taken straight from the game tooltips:

 

Force Damage Bonus = 545.4

Level 50, Soresu Form, Rank 8 Smash, Fully Talented = 1336-1429(your formula OVERshoots the max by ~37)

 

Force Damage Bonus = 89.5

Level 50, Soresu Form, Rank 8 Smash, Fully Talented = 444-537

 

---

 

Force Damage Bonus = 263.4

Level 42, CT, Slow Time, Fully Talented = 562-670(your formula UNDERshoots the max by ~51)

 

Force Damage Bonus = 44.4

Level 42, CT, Slow Time, Fully Talented = 226-334

 

Yet again, you're skewing your made-up formula in favor(falsely) of the Guardian/Juggernaut.

 

Now, since multipliers are all additive, we can conclude that the high threat modifier attached to Slow Time only adds 33% additional threat (2.0/1.5), so, completely ignoring damage and paying attention only to threat, the equivalent numbers are these (re: only multiplied by the 1.5 stance threat modifier).

 

Modifiers of the same TYPE are additive. Threat percentages are not the same as base coefficients or damage percentages.

Edited January 30, 2012 by ruminate

[Kitru]

The following was taken straight from the game tooltips:

 

I yanked my math right out the game and double checked it 3 times with different pieces of gear each time. The only suppositions made were those based upon factors that couldn't be removed to tweaked (re: permanent talent choices) and even then only based on the given values.

 

Yet again, you're skewing your made-up formula in favor(falsely) of the Guardian/Juggernaut.

 

I'm not making up the formulas. I'm determining them based upon the empirical data available at level 50. I got those formula by switching gear on my own characters and determining the various contributions as such. You're also completely incapable of invalidating the actual conclusions of the analysis: a 2-3% error in favor of Slow Time (I know for *damned sure* that I'm correct on Slow Time because I'm actually working with a level 50 fully trained and talented Shadow rather than a level 42 Shadow; there's also the fact that rounding error should be expected since I'm not providing the entire 4-6 digits after the decimal that I *should* be with all of the decimal multiplication involved) doesn't invalidate *any* of the actual conclusions of the analysis. Force Sweep + Cyclone Slash is *still* better than Slow Time + Whirling Blow for all of the reasons given.

 

Modifiers of the same TYPE are additive. Threat percentages are not the same as base coefficients or damage percentages.

 

Apparently you're not understanding what I was doing there. I was normalizing the high threat contributor such that it was operating under the same point-for-point comparison without having to fully multiply out for the additional 50% threat provided by the tank stances. I multiplied by 1.33 because 1.33 (the threat modifier I factored in to Slow Time) * 1.5 (stance threat mod) = 2.0 (which would be what Slow Time gets with 1.0 + .5 high threat + .5 tank stance threat modifiers). It was done to normalize the threat ratios: the ratios would have been identical if I had fully multiplied everything out by the relevant 1.5 or 2.0 threat modifier.

[ruminate]

I'm not making up the formulas. I'm determining them based upon the empirical data available at level 50. I got those formula by switching gear on my own characters and determining the various contributions as such. You're also completely incapable of invalidating the actual conclusions of the analysis: a 2-3% error in favor of Slow Time (I know for *damned sure* that I'm correct on Slow Time because I'm actually working with a level 50 fully trained and talented Shadow rather than a level 42 Shadow; there's also the fact that rounding error should be expected since I'm not providing the entire 4-6 digits after the decimal that I *should* be with all of the decimal multiplication involved) doesn't invalidate *any* of the actual conclusions of the analysis. Force Sweep + Cyclone Slash is *still* better than Slow Time + Whirling Blow for all of the reasons given.

 

 

 

In-game tooltips:

 

Force Damage Bonus = 545.4

Level 50, Soresu Form, Rank 8 Smash, Fully Talented = 1336-1429(1382 average)

 

Force Damage Bonus = 89.5

Level 50, Soresu Form, Rank 8 Smash, Fully Talented = 444-537(490 avg)

 

TORhead Smash coefficient, fully talented: 1.35(coefficient)*1.45(talent modifiers) = 1.9575

 

Is TORhead correct? Lets find out:

 

545.4(Force Bonus)*1.9575(TORhead coefficient) = 1067.62

1382(Tooltip avg damage) - 1067.62 = 314(base damage before coefficient)

 

If TORhead is correct, then multiplying their coefficient with 89.5 and then adding 314 should give us a number thats very close to 490.

....is anyone brave enough to finish this?

 

Keep in mind that Kitru claims the Force Sweep/Smash formula is 348.4(base damage) + 2.05(coefficient)

Edited January 30, 2012 by ruminate

[Pijinz]

Now, since multipliers are all additive, we can conclude that the high threat modifier attached to Slow Time only adds 33% additional threat (2.0/1.5)

 

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that the stance bonuses were multiplicative with the ability modifiers. If any testing has been done on this I'd be interested to know.

 

There's no point comparing just two abilities. I can't speak for Guard/Jug, but Sins have 7 abilities in their AoE arsenal: Wither, Discharge, Lacerate, Shock, Force Lightning, Assassinate and Saber Strike. Plus, ability use is highly dependent on the number of targets. Three or fewer targets and you can be better off using Thrash than Lacerate. Whether you use Shock and Force Lightning in amongst Lacerates depends on the number of targets. Simplify things too much and the conclusions become meaningless.

 

Latest spreadsheet here: http://www.mediafire.com/?mv7juvzv6392aqv

 

Relevant entries are TC, Lacerate(n), LC(n), Wither(n), Discharge(n) and Assassinate (n is the number of targets).

 

If you're right about threat bonuses being additive, change G15 to "=0.65*E15", G16 to "=0.65*E16" and G22 to "=E22".

 

If somebody has a similar threat breakdown for Guard/Jug, that'll give you your answer. I can't do that myself because I know jack about that class.

[ruminate]

^ You're missing a key ability in your spreadsheet: Dark Charge

You can't ignore both its damage and heals when factoring in threat.

 

Its also a bit difficult to accurately chart threat without factoring in enemy armor. Dark Charge and Discharge have a huge advantage there.(this is part of the reason why Powertechs have such good AoE... on paper, they don't look that great until you realize their 2 bread n butter AoEs ignore armor)

[Pijinz]

^ You're missing a key ability in your spreadsheet: Dark Charge

You can't ignore both its damage and heals when factoring in threat.

 

Its also a bit difficult to accurately chart threat without factoring in enemy armor. Dark Charge and Discharge have a huge advantage there.(this is part of the reason why Powertechs have such good AoE... on paper, they don't look that great until you realize their 2 bread n butter AoEs ignore armor)

 

Aye, there are a number of things I'd like to add in when I get the time. Mitigation is going to depend on accurate target data, which so far as I know doesn't exist right now (crossing fingers for combat logs ofc). I suppose a Dark Charge entry wouldn't hurt too much; I've been avoiding it because I'd have to estimate it to some degree while the other abilities should be spot on their expected values. Initially this was only supposed to be a tool to identify correct priorities, which Dark Charge has almost no effect on.

 

EDIT: Here's a very quick version: http://www.mediafire.com/?wndx0zx2druf3gw

 

Should work right, I've not really tested it (and I'm not even going to guess at the defensive stats). Dark Charge is only an approximation.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Pijinz

[Kitru]

 

I'm rolling my eyes at you too. Apparently you're incapable of actually determining what exactly the effects of the normalization are since I'm not simply trying to compare apples to oranges: I did math to directly account for the additional benefits that are not directly counted in the given formulae.

 

I gave Force Sweep a 2.05 coefficient because Guardians have 9% additional Str, and assuming they get 50% of their Force Bonus Damage from their Str (a ratio I checked to be roughly accurate), this means their coefficient should have a modifier of 1.045 when compared to the same coefficient on a Shadow tank (since they get 1.045 more Bonus Damage). If you divide 2.05 by 1.045 you get 1.96, which is exactly what you'd expect to get from the TORhead tooltip calc. If you want to ask if people are brave enough to contradict me, I first ask you to be brave enough to actually understand what exactly I'm doing rather than just grabbing numbers and acting as if they're the numbers *you* expect. The numbers I provided are all normalized such that they discount all of the unique benefits of the relevant classes: higher Bonus Damage, weapon damage, etc. so that they can actually *be* compared side-by-side. I even went step-by-step to show how the formulas were manipulated (purely from a mathematical standpoint) so that it's *easy* to understand exactly what I'm doing. If you don't understand this, it's your own fault.

 

And if it's a TL: DR situation for you, why are you even taking part in the discussion?

 

Keep in mind that Kitru claims the Force Sweep/Smash formula is 348.4(base damage) + 2.05(coefficient)

 

No, I claim that the normalized version of it that can allow it to be compared side by side with a similar normalized formula for Slow Time is that. The in-game formula are not useful as a direct comparison with other classes' abilities simply because there are factors that the tooltips account for in the back end because they get Bonus Damage and other multipliers from attributes that are affected by the given talents that have no direct effect upon the tool tip numbers. If all I did was directly compare the tooltip numbers side-by-side, the analysis would be flawed from the beginning since Shadows get a weapon that deals 20% more damage, Guards get 9% more Strength, Shadows get 5% less melee Bonus Damage, and more. I specifically altered the given formulas such that they *would* account for these differences so that the equations *could* be compared side-by-side.

 

If you want to check my math, actually *check the math* since I'm not just drawing information from the game and then dropping it onto the forums: I'm manipulating it such that real conclusions can actually be gained from it.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Kitru

[DarkwingGT]

Ok, I must be crazy because I don't see how Guardians get 9% bonus to STR. I know of the tier 2 talent in Vigilance which gives +6% STR for 2 points. I've poured over the talent trees again just to make sure. Where is the extra +3% STR coming from?

[Kitru]

Ok, I must be crazy because I don't see how Guardians get 9% bonus to STR. I know of the tier 2 talent in Vigilance which gives +6% STR for 2 points. I've poured over the talent trees again just to make sure. Where is the extra +3% STR coming from?

 

/Facepalm

 

My bad on that. Misremembered the talents. Thought it was a 3 point when it's really a 2 point talent. Fixing the numbers now.

 

This is the actual "checking my numbers" that is useful and valid. Even so, it doesn't change the conclusions (I also noted when I went in to change the numbers that I forgot to include the 6% better Weapon Damage contribution for Whirling Blow and included that). It's all still entirely valid.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Kitru

[DarkwingGT]

Something I wanted to mention, the Blade Barrier absorption shield is mentioned a lot by you, Kitru, as having been ignored. I don't think that's the case. It's my understanding that a fairly common tanking build is 18/23/0, therefore it's not possibly to get that talent as it sits on the 20+ line.

 

The issue is that Protector is a rather attractive talent and so is Unremitting. Going 31 in to Defense means not getting either and if you pick up Blade Barrier you're locked out of Protector.

 

So in the end, I think it's less of people "ignoring it" per se and more of people not having it because what are deemed more attractive options. And to be truthful, a 20% damage reduction shield for 6 seconds every 20 seems awfully attractive. Does that beat 2k every 12 seconds? I don't know really. There's also the question of if you'll be able to GL every 20 seconds, the Blade Storm animation bug where you can waste 2-3 GCDs just trying to get the thing to fire off, etc.

 

Also, I was curious if you're factoring in Pacification in your Cyclone Slash calculations? My understanding is that is not a very common talent to take as it takes 3 points on a very point heavy line already and isn't easy to backfill. I'm guessing most Guardians do not take this talent and hence weaker AOE threat. The problem is there's not a lot you can sacrifice to fill it in, especially in a 18/23/0 spec since you don't have Hilt Strike.

Edited January 30, 2012 by DarkwingGT

[thorizdin]

Something I wanted to mention, the Blade Barrier absorption shield is mentioned a lot by you, Kitru, as having been ignored. I don't think that's the case. It's my understanding that a fairly common tanking build is 18/23/0, therefore it's not possibly to get that talent as it sits on the 20+ line.

 

31/10 (or 31/8/2)is much more common for Jug tanks for end game.

[DarkwingGT]

I think at this point it's all just heresay. I'm sure a lot of the tanks you speak to are 31/10 and the ones I speak to are 18/23.

 

I was just giving one possible scenario, that it's not being ignored per se, just willfully decided against. But as I just said, it would be hard to prove which is the dominant spec without polling the community or asking Bioware.

[Kitru]

Something I wanted to mention, the Blade Barrier absorption shield is mentioned a lot by you, Kitru, as having been ignored. I don't think that's the case. It's my understanding that a fairly common tanking build is 18/23/0, therefore it's not possibly to get that talent as it sits on the 20+ line.

 

You'll also note that I don't mention any of the other really wonky builds out there in calculations (23/0/18 for Shadows comes up a lot). Even if I *did*, I would have to factor in the given improvements to damage reduction granted by the talents which would improve Guard/Jugg performance. And if the given tanks are complaining about survivability and threat performance compared with other tanks with a build that is *supposed* to generate superior survivability numbers when it's pretty obvious that the "standard" 31/8/2 is performing well compared to the other tanks, that's pretty decent evidence that the "hybrid" build is actually worse and, if they're legitimate tanks. If someone is complaining about a hybrid spec not performing well enough in a specific role compared to a pure spec, it's not a problem with the class but rather the player and their spec: whenever I hear 23/0/18 Shadows complain about threat and survivability, I have no pity for them since, if they really wanted to tank, they would be going 31/0/10.

 

Also, I was curious if you're factoring in Pacification in your Cyclone Slash calculations? My understanding is that is not a very common talent to take as it takes 3 points on a very point heavy line already and isn't easy to backfill. I'm guessing most Guardians do not take this talent and hence weaker AOE threat. The problem is there's not a lot you can sacrifice to fill it in, especially in a 18/23/0 spec since you don't have Hilt Strike.

 

The spec I "assume" a Guardian will take is this one since it makes the most sense from a tanking perspective. If someone is in a different spec and getting different results (generally poorer results), I can't really weigh in, though, if they're getting *worse* results using a different spec, I would have to say that it's pretty obvious that their spec is simply *worse* for what they're trying to do with it than the spec I used and that they can't lay their problems at the feet of the class when they have options that are better suited to their purposes that they simply refuse to take.

[thorizdin]

I think at this point it's all just heresay. I'm sure a lot of the tanks you speak to are 31/10 and the ones I speak to are 18/23.

 

I was just giving one possible scenario, that it's not being ignored per se, just willfully decided against. But as I just said, it would be hard to prove which is the dominant spec without polling the community or asking Bioware.

 

You're certainly correct that getting the overall stats is impossible without going beyond anecdotal evidence. The preponderance of Jugs tanking (and posting about it) HM Operations is very much heavy in the Immortal tree. Whether that is representative or not is unknown but at a minimum its very common among posters.

 

Its probably also worth taking a look at some of the analysis done on this topic:

 

http://sithwarrior.com/forums/Thread-Immortal-Defense-Compendium-A-Tank-s-Guide-To-The-Galaxy?pid=10239#pid10239

Edited January 30, 2012 by thorizdin

[DarkwingGT]

This is probably a factor of doing HM FPs vs Ops. Given the extreme amount of CC that's thrown on the tank on a pull, the Unremitting build is a lot more attractive.

 

@Kitru, I was only suggesting that could be a factor in why people aren't factoring in the Blade Barrier talent. However, you need to calm down and not bite back so much when people offer up alternative suggestions, even if you think they're wrong.

 

Also, my understanding was that the only way to scale Blade Barrier was the +Force Power stat and we have almost no way to scale that side from one piece of gear. If that is the case then while it is technically scaling I would argue it's scaling is negligible to the point of non consideration.

 

Also, honestly I've not been getting worse results for 18/23 vs 31/10. My personal experience is that my survivability is roughly the same and the threat is better in 18/23. I am willing to chalk that up to PEBKAC, but I've run both specs enough to think there's something more going on. The link provided earlier sort of points to that. I don't spend the majority of the fight leaping so I'm not sacrificing those GCDs for damage and thus seem to get more threat in that spec.

Edited January 30, 2012 by DarkwingGT

[Kitru]

Also, my understanding was that the only way to scale Blade Barrier was the +Force Power stat and we have almost no way to scale that side from one piece of gear. If that is the case then while it is technically scaling I would argue it's scaling is negligible to the point of non consideration.

 

First off, even if it did only scale with the Force Power that comes with weapons and shields, this would still cause gear scaling since the Force Power on those items scales directly with the rating of the weapon.

 

Secondly, Bonus Healing (the stat that scales Blade Barrier's shield) is affected by all of the same attributes that affect your Bonus Damage: it simply scales *slower*. This is why even healers stack their primary stat beyond anything else since it adds to their healing as well as their damage.

[DarkwingGT]

I did say that it would still technically scale but that the scaling would be considered low enough to not be enough to worry about. I never said that it doesn't scale.

 

I do understand what our primary stat scales, I had however read other threads saying that it was only the +Force Power and wasn't sure.

 

Again, you come out exceedingly arrogant even when someone is just trying confirm something. Tone it down some.