I actually want to know that too. From my not so detailed calculations the old set bonus for shadows gives you an overall better mitigation. The 5% shield bonus during Kinetic Wards out weights the 3 extra stacks of Kinetic Ward and this is without taking the fact that in a lot of fights you never run out of stacks. The faster taunts are just ridiculous set bonus. Not even close two 2% damage reduction.

First off, I run out of stacks on several fights in this tier. Bulo, Sword Squadron, Underlurker and Revanite commanders, to be specific. Also Torque during certain phases. Basically, damage just comes faster than it used to, so I'm really not sure I would classify the three extra stacks as "optional".

Second off, the shorter CD taunts is a better set bonus than it appears on the surface. It allows you to move up your taunt cycle in your opener, permadebuffing the boss for the first 18 seconds of the fight, starting in the first GCD. The set bonus also allows you to cover mistimings and mistakes during the burn phase of Revanite Commanders, which helps during progression.

Finally, the six piece bonus, while far from "great", does take the edge off of losing the 2% damage reduction, especially with good awareness and timing.

In summary, I would not recommend holding onto the old armorings. Or rather, I would recommend saving them for a rainy day, but I'm using the full Revanite set bonuses on my shadow tank.

So I went through the damage I took this week and broke it down by "things I defended against" and "things I did not defend against". I figured that's a pretty solid way to determine if something is melee/ranged or force/tech. I added up the number from what I took and from that the percentage of damage from defensible sources and non-defensible sources presented itself. Admittedly we are not seeing everything in HM yet so I will have to update my spreadsheet as we see the fights, but as of now I have:

• Malaphar - 100% defensible
  
• Sword Squadron - 66.66% defensible
  
• Underlurker - 100% defensible
  
• Revanite Commanders - 95.20% defensible
  
• Revan - 88.96% defensible
  
• Sparky - 64.05% defensible
  
• Bulo - 95.16% defensible
  
• Torque - 64.14% defensible
  
• Blaster - 65.34% defensible
  
• Coratanni - 73.88% defensible
  

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rXAg7RUJjZpUPWDbk2pmc0OMUYcUCpHwaSvVkran1e8/edit?usp=sharing

So based on some prompting from reddit, I went back and changed the way I was looking at the data. I wrote a script that parses the log files and looks for these codes to determine if something is defensible or not:

• DODGE="836045448945505"
  
• DEFLECT="836045448945508"
  
• MISS="836045448945502"
  
• PARRY="836045448945503"
  

Which should eliminate Resilience from confusing whether an ability is defensible.

From there, it takes the average of the incoming attacks before mitigation where it can determine that as the logs don't tell you what an attack would have hit you for if it misses, and then multiplies that by the amount of times the attack happened giving, what I'd think would be a pretty reasonable assessment of average damage during the fight.

The script then takes the things that were defensible and the things that weren't and generates the percentage of incoming damage that could be affected by Defense. The numbers I came up with are now:

• Malaphar - 52.22% defensible
  
• Sword Squadron - 51.14% defensible
  
• Underlurker - 83.08% defensible
  
• Revanite Commanders - 79.12% defensible
  
• Revan - 56.88% defensible
  
• Sparky - 57.21% defensible
  
• Bulo - 77.65% defensible
  
• Torque - 74.25% defensible
  
• Blaster - 72.27% defensible
  
• Coratanni - 52.07% defensible
  

Updated spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rXAg7RUJjZpUPWDbk2pmc0OMUYcUCpHwaSvVkran1e8/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone going to use the Bulwark / whatever the defense variant was enhancements? Or is everyone going with the high end ones?

Edit: nm, don't post while tired. Mixed up the merchant vs token enhancements lol.

So based on some prompting from reddit, I went back and changed the way I was looking at the data. I wrote a script that parses the log files and looks for these codes to determine if something is defensible or not:

 

• DODGE="836045448945505"
  
• DEFLECT="836045448945508"
  
• MISS="836045448945502"
  
• PARRY="836045448945503"
  

 

Which should eliminate Resilience from confusing whether an ability is defensible.

 

From there, it takes the average of the incoming attacks before mitigation where it can determine that as the logs don't tell you what an attack would have hit you for if it misses, and then multiplies that by the amount of times the attack happened giving, what I'd think would be a pretty reasonable assessment of average damage during the fight.

 

The script then takes the things that were defensible and the things that weren't and generates the percentage of incoming damage that could be affected by Defense. The numbers I came up with are now:

 

• Malaphar - 52.22% defensible
  
• Sword Squadron - 51.14% defensible
  
• Underlurker - 83.08% defensible
  
• Revanite Commanders - 79.12% defensible
  
• Revan - 56.88% defensible
  
• Sparky - 57.21% defensible
  
• Bulo - 77.65% defensible
  
• Torque - 74.25% defensible
  
• Blaster - 72.27% defensible
  
• Coratanni - 52.07% defensible
  

 

Updated spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rXAg7RUJjZpUPWDbk2pmc0OMUYcUCpHwaSvVkran1e8/edit?usp=sharing

Thank god for B mods amirite?

So based on some prompting from reddit, I went back and changed the way I was looking at the data. I wrote a script that parses the log files and looks for these codes to determine if something is defensible or not:

 

• DODGE="836045448945505"
  
• DEFLECT="836045448945508"
  
• MISS="836045448945502"
  
• PARRY="836045448945503"
  

 

Which should eliminate Resilience from confusing whether an ability is defensible.

 

From there, it takes the average of the incoming attacks before mitigation where it can determine that as the logs don't tell you what an attack would have hit you for if it misses, and then multiplies that by the amount of times the attack happened giving, what I'd think would be a pretty reasonable assessment of average damage during the fight.

 

The script then takes the things that were defensible and the things that weren't and generates the percentage of incoming damage that could be affected by Defense. The numbers I came up with are now:

 

• Malaphar - 52.22% defensible
  
• Sword Squadron - 51.14% defensible
  
• Underlurker - 83.08% defensible
  
• Revanite Commanders - 79.12% defensible
  
• Revan - 56.88% defensible
  
• Sparky - 57.21% defensible
  
• Bulo - 77.65% defensible
  
• Torque - 74.25% defensible
  
• Blaster - 72.27% defensible
  
• Coratanni - 52.07% defensible
  

 

Updated spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rXAg7RUJjZpUPWDbk2pmc0OMUYcUCpHwaSvVkran1e8/edit?usp=sharing

For accuracy I would suggest that you also break down what attacks are Internal/Elemental and therefore cannot be shielded. This is important if you intend to use your numbers to determine an ideal defensive stat balance.

For instance, you list Malaphar as having 52.22% defensible damage. This would seem relatively low compared to the other boss fights, and might indicate that Shield Rating would be more valuable on this fight. But since all the non-defensible damage from Malaphar is Internal dmg, Shield Rating is actually nigh useless there.

Conversely, you list Sparky as being 57.21% defensible, but most of his major "non defensible" attacks can be shielded (Body Slam, etc.) This indicates that Shield Rating would be more important to mitigate these large hits.

Also, your damage numbers reflect your role within your raid group and would differ widely from a tank who held the attention of a different boss. For instance, during Master and Blaster you clearly were not tanking Master since you completely omitted all of his major attacks.

Updated spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rXAg7RUJjZpUPWDbk2pmc0OMUYcUCpHwaSvVkran1e8/edit?usp=sharing

The spreadsheet you have drawn together really is nicely done; it's a great starting point. Thanks for making it.

Another thing I noticed when checking your calculations...

Currently it looks like you are doing the following to determine the ideal stat balance for each boss:

You take the difference between KBN's "High Melee/Ranged" and "Low Melee/Ranged" stat values and multiply it by the % defensible damage in the fight, then add that to the "Low Melee/Ranged" value.

This is a nice, simple approach, but sadly it is wrong.

That calculation would only be accurate if KBN's "high" numbers were for 100% defensible damage and his "low" numbers were 100% non-defensible. Instead, the "high" numbers are for the average of the dmg ratios in the Nefra & Grobthok fights (93% defensible.) The "low" numbers are for the average damage ratios in the Bestia and Corrupter Zero fights (35% defensible.)

In practice, this skews your numbers too heavily towards the "High melee/ranged" values.

Blaster - 72.27% defensible

Are this SM values? In Hm Master hits harder and his dmg is either force/tech or Internal/elemental, thus not defendable. My log shows 56 defendable and 44 not defendable.

Btw. the thing with the defensible and non-defensible calculation is kinda wrong. As a tank i want to know how effective is defense, shield and hp. So lets look at your Sparky numbers :

Sparky - 57.21% defensible

So most ppl would think going for shield + absorb is the best thing to do. Because shield would not only reduce the 57,21% defensible dmg biut also reduce the 42,79% dmg that is not defensible. Thats however wrong. All of sparky's attacks are defensible except for his roar and his rampage. Both are not shieldable. In addition Shoulder Throw is also not shieldable and not defensible. The dmg of the adds is defensible. So defense is the best thing to do, because the incoming damage which is not defensible is internal/elemental dmg which can not be reduced by defstats. Now lets look at my numbers, those are for Hm :

#1 Sparky :

M/R+K/E : 72,2%

F/T+K/E : 0%

F/T+I/E : 27,8%

Thus basically :

72,2% defensible

I guess we have different roles/raidsetups/tactics for this boss this might be the reason for the difference in %. But your numbers don't actually show how useless Shield+absorb is for this boss because you are focussing only on the defensible % and do not evaluate how much %dmg can only be shielded. In order to improve your calculations you should have %defensible and %shieldable.

So it would look like this :

72,2% defensible

72,2% Shieldable

Now there is another variabel which is internal/elemental dmg. This is not reduced by defstats but Hp can be helpful in fight that have a lot of internal/elemental dmg income. This should also be mentioned :

72,2% defensible

72,2% shieldable

27,8% not mitgateable

Before questions occur : Damage that is defendable is also shieldable, thats why in this case defensible = shieldable. To show you what i mean let me give you another example.

HM Blaster :

40,4% defensible

81,3% Shieldable

18,7% not mitgateable

So shield is basically MR/KE + FT/K/E. In this example 40% is defensible and around 40% is only shieldable. This example shows a tank much more how to equip towards an encounter than only showing how much % can be defended. But it is no different from the lists kbn is doing for 2 years or longer that show M/R+K/E <defensible>, F/T+K/E <only shieldable> and F/T+I/E <not miitgateable>. Only showing one of the aspects is not viable enough to be a good help for tanks that strive for min-maxing.

Are this SM values? In Hm Master hits harder and his dmg is either force/tech or Internal/elemental, thus not defendable. My log shows 56 defendable and 44 not defendable.

As I mentioned in my post, he completely left off all the attacks from Master. Obviously it is SM and he never tanked Master.

All of sparky's attacks are defensible except for his roar and his rampage. Both are not shieldable. In addition Shoulder Throw is also not shieldable and not defensible. The dmg of the adds is defensible. So defense is the best thing to do, because the incoming damage which is not defensible is internal/elemental dmg which can not be reduced by defstats.

Actually Body Slam, Brutal Pounce, Rage Pounce, and Rampage Pounce are all Force/Tech+Kinetic/Energy.

My Assassin tank numbers for HM Sparky look like this:

M/R+K/E: 62.51%

F/T+K/E: 23.10%

F/T+I/E: 14.39%

Actually Body Slam, Brutal Pounce, Rage Pounce, and Rampage Pounce are all Force/Tech+Kinetic/Energy.

Interesting, i never shielded nor defended them despite having 48% Shieldchance on my Jug, thats why i thought it would be F/T+I/E.

Interesting, i never shielded nor defended them despite having 48% Shieldchance on my Jug, thats why i thought it would be F/T+I/E.

Internal/Elemental damage is thankfully very easy to check. Each line of damage taken in your combat log lists the type of damage, whether that be Internal, Elemental, Kinetic or Energy.

#5 Coratanni HM < Cora + Ruugar>

M/R+K/E : 31,9%

F/T+K/E : 28,7%

F/T+I/E : 39,4%

Actually Body Slam, Brutal Pounce, Rage Pounce, and Rampage Pounce are all Force/Tech+Kinetic/Energy.

OK... checked Parsec again and it says that these are all "internal damage" in Hardmode...

i did not defend or shield any of these attacks as well...

Currently i don't have any logs left had to delete 5Gb of logs. Next ID i'll look at the numbers and i'l let you know.

Each line of damage taken in your combat log lists the type of damage, whether that be Internal, Elemental, Kinetic or Energy.

Not a viable way, because there it only lists internal,elemental,kinetic or energy. But not whether the dmg is shieldable or defendable. There is kinetic/energy dmg which is not defendable. Furthermore sometimes the log is not accurate. Crushing Darkness is listed as Internal dmg but its kinetic if one believes its tooltip.

For Sparky numbers. Its not really that much of a difference. It is still a Bossfight with tends to be heavier on MR+K/E

I know Crushing Darkness initial dmg is kinetic and the dot is internal, but most parsers list the whole dot + initialdmg as internal.

OK... checked Parsec again and it says that these are all "internal damage" in Hardmode...

 

i did not defend or shield any of these attacks as well...

I suggest you post a log of the fight. Here is mine for reference: http://swtor-parser.elasticbeanstalk.com/parser/view/13073

If you look through it, you will clearly see the lines where those attacks are listed as Kinetic damage.

Not a viable way, because there it only lists internal,elemental,kinetic or energy. But not whether the dmg is shieldable or defendable. There is kinetic/energy dmg which is not defendable. Furthermore sometimes the log is not accurate. Crushing Darkness is listed as Internal dmg but its kinetic if one believes its tooltip.

That's why it's best not to use a parser program, because those tend to make mistakes where the actual log file is completely accurate. Look through the actual log file to see:

1) Which attacks are tagged as internal or elemental (because these cannot ever be shielded)

2) And then for the remainder, look to see which attacks are never listed as "miss" or "parry." That will clearly show which attacks are Force/Tech.

For Sparky numbers. Its not really that much of a difference. It is still a Bossfight with tends to be heavier on MR+K/E

This whole topic is about finding the ideal stat balance for each boss fight. In that context it is a huge difference.

If Body Slam, Brutal Pounce, Rage Pounce, and Rampage Pounce were all internal damage (they aren't) then the damage profile would be roughly this (based on my own numbers from the log I linked above):

M/R:KE - 62.51%

F/T:K/E - 0%

F/T:I/E - 37.49%

This damage profile indicates that 62.51% of the damage can be defended or shielded, and 37.49% cannot be defended or shielded. When both shield and defense can affect the same attack, defense will provide a much higher reduction in damage over the course of a fight. Therefore for this damage profile we would expect Defense stat to be best, and shield/absorb to be night useless in comparison. This falls squarely into KBN's category of "High Melee/Ranged" and would fit the Nefra profile of ideal stats.

However, the actual damage profile is as follows (once again, based on the log I linked above):

M/R:KE - 62.51%

F/T:K/E - 23.10%

F/T:I/E - 14.39%

This damage profile indicates that 62.51% of the damage can be defended or shielded, 23.10% can only be shielded, and 14.39% cannot be defended or shielded. This balance falls near KBN's "average" numbers, where Shield Rating and Defense Rating are close to equal importance.

If you look through it, you will clearly see the lines where those attacks are listed as Kinetic damage.

Sorry, what i was writing was completely crap... i seems i mixed someting up with translation of abilities... i don't know what i was looking for.

OK... i looked through the last posts in this thread... i got confused by Methoxas answer myself not looking for correct translation of boss-abilities.

In fact in my parse only "shoulder-throw" and "roar-abilities" are internal damage. All other abilities are kinetic.

Sorry again...

You are right...

Parsed the Sparky fight and i have to admit that you are right. The only attacks that are internal, or better not shieldable are shoulder throw, desperate roar and brutalize.

M/R+K/E : 48%

F/T+K/E : 18,8%

F/T+I/E : 33,2%

In this try i received brutalize but survived it. It did however 75k dmg over the whole duration. Lately our tanks always get it after the second rampage. We found a way how our bosstank can still survive it without receiving miilions of damage. But of course that changes the dmg profile as brutalize is 13% internal dmg.

So without brutalize on tank dmg profile would be:

M/R+K/E : 54.24%

F/T+K/E : 23.14%

F/T+I/E : 23,2%

On a side note : We do not switch tanks, so i have the boss no matter how many stacks i've got. The other tank taunts adds off me.

So my Juggernaut has base stat 3803 separated for defence 1640, shield 1175 and absorb 988. I read in other KBN thread that ideal would be 1191, 1287 and 1322 for base stat 3800. Clearly I have too much defence now and I should go for more shield and absorb. Am I a bad tank if I don't have ideal stats?

What I did, I bought some absorb and shield mods and enhancements for balancing my stats. This lowered my base stats so I had thoughts it cant be right? I replaced my all defence augments with absorb augments but im not event close to ideal.

Does anyone has to say for this?

Am I a bad tank if I don't have ideal stats?

No.

It's very, very important for everyone to remember that gearing (and more narrowly, gear optimization) is one element of tanking. It's not a completely insignificant element, but it is only one. Other elements (such as your reaction to mechanics, management of active mitigation, fight and class knowledge, etc) will have a much more significant impact. I am very confident that I could take my shadow tank, throw stock Ultimate Commendation gear on him, maybe mix in a little alacrity, and still clear 8/10 without a problem.

That's not to say that gear (or gear optimization) is irrelevant! In the above "ultimate com experiment," I would absolutely take more damage than I do with my optimized Revanite gear. I would be harder to heal, more prone to spikes in unexpected places, and so on. Ultimately, if your choice is between "optimized gear" and "unoptimized gear", you may as well choose the optimized gear since it isn't going to make your tanking worse!

Optimization is also a very relative question. If you're 100 points off in every stat bucket, you're taking a measurable amount of unnecessary damage, but it's not going to make or break any group on any fight. If you're a thousand points off in every category, you're starting to drift into territory that is noticeable without the aid of combat logging.

What I did, I bought some absorb and shield mods and enhancements for balancing my stats. This lowered my base stats so I had thoughts it cant be right? I replaced my all defence augments with absorb augments but im not event close to ideal.

Rule of thumb: increasing stat budget >> optimizing what you have. When in doubt, get more stats. Worry about optimizing later. There's obviously a limit to this, but in the sorts of magnitudes that most of us deal in (e.g. trading 80 absorb for 100 defense even though it pushes us too high in defense), it's fine.

Thank you for wise comments. After 3.0 I have noticed that tanks are having less and same amount of health points like DPS. Should I ignore this or stack more endurance detriment mitigation stats?

Pre-3.0, tanks only had access to the mid tier Bastion and Bulwark enhancements. Since 3.0, tanks have access to the best in slot low endurance/high mitigation enhancements (i.e. Immunity and Sturdiness) through their set pieces. To counter the lower health pools as a result of using the Immunity and Sturdiness enhancements, some tanks have switched to using the "B" lettered mods from the commendations vendor. This combination also gives more mitigation stats then the unlettered mods with the Bastion and Bulwark enhancements.

PvP

 

M/R+K/E: 30.6%

F/T+K/E: 54.1%

F/T+I/E: 15.3%

DtPS: 7000

These numbers are based on a spreadsheet tabulated by Ilmar. As he is a Scoundrel DPS and not a tank, the exact percentages are going to be a bit different for tanking. However, these still represent the most authoritative values we have. Assuming a 25% natural crit chance (on average) and adding the auto-crit attacks found in Ilmar's spreadsheet, we assume a 33.25% crit rate overall (thus reducing the value of shield). The 7k DtPS value roughly approximates two geared DPS focus firing with all cooldowns available over a span of roughly 12 seconds. Average values over an entire match are clearly much lower than this, but also much less interesting since the healer (and tank) is primarily concerned with who is being bursted and by how much.

I had most of a post written up in response to this, but then I realized that this was a repost of a older thread.

However I am going to point out that the crit rates are in reality much lower in PvP for 3.0. I would hazard that they where probably lower back when that post was made too, but here is the data I have. Global crit rate is towards the bottom, the program is a WIP which is why its only showing select classes, however the global crit rate is still being pulled from all, however it does include crits from internal/elemental attacks.

#1 Malaphar : M/R+K/E: 52,6%

F/T+K/E: 0%

F/T+I/E: 47.4%

I get MR, FT, IE... what is K/E? Kinetic/Energy?

I get MR, FT, IE... what is K/E? Kinetic/Energy?

Yes as compared to Internal/Elemental