Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer

Meet the Developers: Rob Hinkle

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
Meet the Developers: Rob Hinkle
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

Glower's Avatar

01.18.2013 , 10:00 AM | #31
Please, make shorter Warzone development cycles. Two Warzones per year it is very very very very very long cycles.

Lots of feedback from players, lots of theorycrafting, and a lot of playtesting. We feel like for the most part our class balance is pretty good, but it will never be perfect. We will always strive for better balance and making the classes more enjoyable, though it is a never-ending process of improvement.
Really?? How about pvp mercs/commandos, sage/sorcs, useless Powertech/Vanguard tanks and mighty lol-smashers?
SWTOR goes F2P:; Dec 2016, livestream: "RNG is exciting"
A: "They’d love to do that at some point, but technically very challenging and unlikely to happen in the near future." (c)
PvP FAQ, A: "We have no plans at this time" (c)

Zannderr's Avatar

01.18.2013 , 10:10 AM | #32
Hey Rob, nice piece. It is always great hearing the behind the scenes stuff and also more about the people behind the game. I also wanted to say I loved the podcast your did with TORWars. It was very insightful.

As far as PvP I do have a couple things.

1. Resolve still seems like a crapshoot. It seems very unbalanced and confusing. Please keep working on clearing up some of the frustration with Resolve.
2. I would absolutely love to see different maps in PvP rather than completely different warzones. For instance Huttball On a Hoth or Tatooine map, hell Huttball on every planet for that matter. Or like a different Voidstar where it is a different ship or base. Same mechanic, just different map. That would be so much fun.

That is just my 2 cents. Thank you again for the article and thank you for your time and effort on designing a very enjoyable and fun game. Keep up the good work
"Fear. Fear attracts the Fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt. Fear. Fear is my ally."

Costello's Avatar

01.18.2013 , 10:13 AM | #33
It looks like the class balancing is all linked to PvP from this article, is this the case?

Is PvP such a massive part of the game that it is the bench mark of the systems team development to judge the different classes. If so why isn't there open world PvP?

Equally you talk a lot of warzones, why is this the path BW has opted to go down in PvP. Often they become little more than fight clubbing where unless using a pre-made group can end up grouped with the opposing faction. They are completely meaningless outside of the warzone and often just a means to grind out points or tokens. There is no faction control or faction buffs provided by PvP and more about where you score in the warzone than anything else. With PvP so important to the systems team why is it boxed off as a mini game segrated from the main game by expertise heavy gear which makes it impossible for a players who enjoy PvE or PvP to easily transition across without re-grinding to get the necessary gear.

FeelFlow's Avatar

01.18.2013 , 11:20 AM | #34
I love this series because you can see that the people working on the game are industry professionals, who love games and are human! I.e. they're not nameless shadowy beings doing their best to destroy the game (as seems to be the belief of most people who post in 'general' on MMO forums! ).

Ed-ward's Avatar

01.18.2013 , 11:26 AM | #35

I must say I am very dissaponted.

We feel like for the most part our class balance is pretty good
I don't understand how can you say such a thing. Whole PvP is a mess. I play warzones on daily basis so I know what I am talking about. Focus specced guardians/juggernauts "smashing" AoE for 7,5k+ damage per person is certainly not balanced (and it's a common sight), especially when you have several. Being burned down (from full health to death) by Vanguard/Powertech in 2-3 global cooldowns is not balanced either.
Some classes are not even taken to rated warzones because they are not viable.

I hope that you said it because you want the game to look well and not because you believe it...

Keyran-Halcyon's Avatar

01.18.2013 , 12:02 PM | #36
"What’s the biggest challenge you have to face in your role?
Receiving feedback from players, by far. When you’ve got players on both sides of a combat, one of them will win and one of them will lose, and no one likes losing. This can lead to emotional feedback, and we have to try to look at that feedback and get through any emotionally-driven comments to find what’s at the core of the issue. Even beyond that, almost every change we make will make some players happy and some players unhappy. We have to gauge the health of the game versus the health and happiness of our player base for almost every single change we make, no matter how minor it may be."

Honestly this comment is the main reason why the so called Smash spec hasn't been addressed. Currently its not negatively affecting the health of the game, and because a high percentage of the player base is playing this class, the dev team won't dare adjust the balance because it will make too many of their players unhappy. To me this means that the little played classes will be the last to receive fixes because their happiness is of little concern compared to the greater population.

"When it comes to class balance and PvP, what do you think is the most common misperception and why do you think that is?
That the designers favor one class or another (or one faction or another). Not just in The Old Republic, but in almost every game I’ve worked on or played in, there develops a sentiment that the designers “hate” one class and “love” another class. Beyond being a terrible business idea, all of the members of the team play different classes, so even if we wanted to favor one class over another there would be internal conflict on what class that would be. I understand why it happens, when players see their class issues go unresolved while other classes get fixes and improvements, but I promise you it has nothing to do with what class we have chosen to like more than others."

While this statement is logical, I have played several other mmo's and never really felt like one class was truly "favored" over another. However in this game I cannot help but feel that way. I feel the Imperial classes and faction is preferred and then followed by the Jedi/sith classes having preferential treatment. Looking just at the two biggest balance issues and the length at which they have endured. Scoundrel/Operative had the first and biggest negative adjustment almost exactly 1 year ago and hasn't recovered since. This class has gimped along ever since with only minor convenience adjustments. The "Smash" spec buff came about almost 10 months ago and they have remain on top since then.

I understand that it can be difficult to wade through the vast number of emotionally driven complaints to find the ones that actually have some evidence to back them up. I would love to hear from a developer that plays a Scoundrel and get their perspective as well as get some feedback to my comments.
<Art Supplies>
Captain Hûng Sôlo & Master Teh-Hauss

Gullion's Avatar

01.18.2013 , 02:19 PM | #37
I personally believe that one of the biggest challenges that the designers and devs face is that the game was (by all available evidence) designed as a PVE, story based experience. PVP seems to have been thrown in as a bonus. The trouble is that PVE and PVP are entirely different animals that are hard to reconcile. So, kudos for not always bending over backwards to please the very vocal PVP lobby.

On a different note, I am constantly amazed at how many new features and fixes are introduced with apparently little or no actual testing. For example, the preview feature was working fine, then several changes were made to enhance it. I must say that I like the enhancements, but after that change, preview on companions had several major bugs that could have easily been caught by 30 seconds of testing. Also, examining other players stopped working. I see the other player's image, but my own gear. The companion preview issues still aren't even listed on the known issues list.

Details, you ask? Okay. Lets look at sith inquisitor as a random example. Preview an item, and I see Khem's feet. His whole body is there, just not centered. In the name box, I see my current companion's name, Andronikos Revel. So, I use the right arrow button to go to Talos. He displays properly! yay! So I use the left arrow to go back to Andronikos. The name box still says Talos, but the window display is centered on a pair of naked human feet. The rest of the companion is invisible. Left button again - no change. So, right button it is. Ashara's name appears, and she displays correctly. Right button again, and Xalek appears correctly. Is it working? Right button and it's 2VR8. Right button should go to Khem, but the window goes blank, with 2VR8's name. Wait a few seconds, and Khem's body appears with 2VR8's name. Right button again, and no change. And so it goes. Left button goes back to Xalek, Ashara, Talos, Naked feet with Talos' name, naked feet, naked feet, etc.

Other issues I have discovered only after they have been reported as fixed in release notes.

I used to submit bug reports, but the last few have yielded a cloying message apologizing that the bug affected me, and stating that I will not see any further updates to my ticket. A reply to a bug report about a broken final conversation told me that 'we currently only offer support for class quests'. If I report a bug with a work-around I used, the issue is marked as resolved via email. And the issues vansh into the haze of what must be an overwhelming stack of issues that the devs face. What happened to the days when I would get a live agent contacting me in game to actually gather more information? I don't need apologies. I reported those issues in the hope that at some point they may be fixed, and improve the experience for all players.

I will offer my own apology for the rant. Overall, I would not be playing the game if I did not like it. I really feel your pain on a daily basis. I am a developer in customer support with another (non gaming) company.

Altheran's Avatar

01.18.2013 , 02:35 PM | #38
I read that you like that players bring in some math...

So sorry for the other readers here but ...

My post isn't really a question like the thread sugests to do, but my analysis about some combat mechanics. My first part about avoidance and accuracy will only involve basic maths, the second one about damage multipliers will involves probabilities. It's long and I hope that will read it and find it interesting.

1. Avoidance mechanic

Firstly, let's talk about avoidance chances. Here are the formula I use for my math, even if they don't have a real purpose, tell if they're wrong (I just picked them on the web and they're in percentages, maybe they're not written like this in your data or maybe they are approximate but they seem accurate enough) :

- Bonus Accuracy = 30 * ( 1 - ( 1 - ( 0.01 / 0.3 ) ) ^ ( ( Stat / max(Level;20) ) / 0.55 ) )
Lvl 50 exemples : 100 Accuracy give 3.48%, 200 give 6.56%, 300 give 9.27%

- Bonus avoidance has the same formula as Accuracy

Do you confirm that all attacks have a 100% base chance to land but the basic attacks which are the only one to have 90% (and off-hand one with have 30% malus) ?
If that's the case, that means that Accuracy is meant to overcome Tank's Defense rate or other's basic defense which is completely understandable.
However, what's the reasoning of letting accuracy increase efficiency on Tech and Force while there is no real defense chance coming from either NPC or players ? And if it's because of some tank player's ability to get 2% avoidance chance on these attacks, so why give them a bonus which will always be overcome by opponent's gear (and sometimes they don't even need it because of specs), or why don't give them a way to increase it (defense rate) so that this kind of talents could have a use (even if it's marginal) ?

For me it seems illogical. I think that Defense rate should affect all types of incoming attack, because as the formulas are set, a fight between a Tank with 10% defense and a DPS with 10% of additionnal accuracy will have the same result as it is now. The only difference is that it would affect combat only if the DPS player gears himself so that he doesn't have as much accuracy rate as the tank, and it will give a little meaning to the few talents which increase Tech's and Force's avoidance chances or accuracy.

I also know that if defense rate would also affect Tech and Force incoming attacks, that it would harm Sages and Sorcerers who are not meant to use accuracy rate if they don't receive a change as well. But it is perfectly possible to not harm them by adding to existing talents of DPS specs an additional effect which would increase their Force accuracy (Why in DPS specs ? Because other healers specced ACs can suffer their lack of accuracy and not them, and it's not their job to attack tanks either.)

I won't leave the dual-wielding system without criticize it. It doesn't seem balanced for some ACs. Yes it seems to break balance with its mirror AC and I'll explain you why. First of all, Marauders and Sentinels are not concerned by it since they both use the dual-wielding system, but that's not the case of Gunslingers and Mercenaries.
For the explaination let's imagine a Commando, a Mercenary, a Gunslinger, and a Sniper with both having 10% from accuracy rate, both fighting a Consular or Inquisitor which have only their basic 10% defense chance. In this case it means that only their basic accuracy has to be taken in account.
Let's assume that their raw power are all perfectly balanced in this simple case, the increased weapon damage of Commando and Sniper making for the additional off-hand damage of Gunslinger and Mercenary.
Now let's imagine that all of them receive a 5% accuracy debuff. It will tune down their accuracy to 95% for main hand, and 65% for off-hand. It will mean that all main hand attacks statistical output will be reduced by 5% (over 100 attacks, 95 will land instead of 100), but for off-hand attacks over 100 attacks they'll only have 65 of them to land instead of 70 wich means that in this area they lose more than 5% of their DPS output, which will also mean that their overall DPS output (main + off-hand) will be reduced by over 5%. Gunslingers and Mercenary are at a loss here.
The same reasonning can be made if they're buffed. Imagine that the Sniper use his 30% accuracy bonus while attacking the Consular. It will have no impact on his DPS as he will already have 100% of his attacks landing. Now imagine the Gunslinger attacking the Sorcerer using his mirrored buff. His off-hand attacks will hit for sure now, increasing his DPS. Sniper is at a loss here.
Now, I think you see that these suposedly mirrored classes doesn't have the same reactions upon accuracy buffs/debuffs. So was it really intended or it hasn't been thought of ? Will there be any chances that the Ranged off-hand mechanic to be changed ?

Personnally, I'd see a mechanic where in the case of ranged attcks, the off-hand weapon damage would be simply added to main hand bonus with a ratio to match the weapon damage provided by Cannons and Sniper Rifles, meaning also the removal of its component on the Scoundrel's "Pump rifle" and Agent's Knives to avoid them to have an unintended buff.

2. Damage modifiers (Crit & Shield)

Now let start to talk about the last and biggest part, the one which will involve some real math : crit and shielding mechanic. I use these formulas :

- Bonus Crit chances = 30 * ( 1 - ( 1 - ( 0.01 / 0.3 ) ) ^ ( ( Stat / 50 ) / 0.45 ) ) (I replaced the "max" with 50)
Lvl 50 exemples : 100 Critical give 4.20%, 200 give 7.81%, 300 give 10.91%

- Bonus Crit multiplier = 30 * ( 1 - ( 1 - ( 0.01 / 0.3 ) ) ^ ( ( Stat / 50 ) / 0.11 ) )
Lvl 50 exemples : 100 Surge give 13.80%, 200 give 21.26%, 300 give 25.28%

- Bonus Shielding = 30 * ( 1 - ( 1 - ( 0.01 / 0.5 ) ) ^ ( ( Stat / 50 ) / 0.32 ) )
Lvl 50 exemples : 100 Shield give 5.93%, 200 give 11.16%, 300 give 15.77%

- Bonus Absorption = 50 * ( 1 - ( 1 - ( 0.01 / 0.5 ) ) ^ ( ( Stat / 50 ) / 0.18 ) )
Lvl 50 exemples : 100 Absorption give 10.05%, 200 give 18.09%, 300 give 24.50%

To show my point I'll use probabilities with all the involved rates (the stat, not the percentage) at the same amount. To keep it short I'll only compare at 0, 100, 200 and 300 rates (300 on all the DPS or Tank rates is what I judge to be the limit of what's possible in PvP at the moment). I will calculate the average modifier of a DPS character attacking a Tank one, without any spec modifier, or buff/stance modifier. I'll do an exception for the Shielding percentage, and will take in account the 15% of tank stance because I assume it is a kind of "warranty" that have been set so that shields are used only by tanks, and do not become better than Focii. I do this comparison because I have the belief that people should be balanced gear wise, before to be balanced spec wise.

So the formula for the average modifier is :
Modifier = (1 - Shield Chances - Crit Chances) * 1 + Crit Chances * (1 + Crit modifier) + Shield Chances * (1 - Absorption)

Crit chances will have these values :
Rate = 0; Crit chances = 5%
Rate = 100; Crit chances = 5% + 4.20% = 9.20%
Rate = 200; Crit chances = 5% + 7.81% = 12.81%
Rate = 300; Crit chances = 5% + 10.91% = 15.91%

Crit modifier will have these values :
Rate = 0; Crit modifier = 50%
Rate = 100; Crit modifier = 50% + 13.80% = 63.80%
Rate = 200; Crit modifier = 50% + 21.26% = 71.26%
Rate = 300; Crit modifier = 50% + 25.28% = 75.28%

Shield chances will have these values :
Rate = 0; Shield chances = 5% + 15 % = 20%
Rate = 100; Shield chances = 5% + 15 % + 5.93% = 25.93%
Rate = 200; Shield chances = 5% + 15 % + 11.16% = 31.16%
Rate = 300; Shield chances = 5% + 15 % + 15.77% = 35.77%

Absorption will have these values :
Rate = 0, Absorption = 20%
Rate = 100, Absorption = 20% + 10.05% = 30.05%
Rate = 200, Absorption = 20% + 18.09% = 38.09%
Rate = 300, Absorption = 20% + 24.50% = 44.50%

So in the case of a DPS attacking a Tank, we get :
Modifier @ 0 = (1 - 20% - 5%) * 1 + 5% * (1 + 50%) + 20% * (1 - 20%) = 101.50%
Modifier @ 100 = (1 - 25.93% - 9.20%) * 1 + 9.20% * (1 + 63.80%) + 25.93% * (1 - 30.05%) = 102.58%
Modifier @ 200 = (1 - 31.16% - 12.81%) * 1 + 12.81% * (1 + 71.26%) + 31.16% * (1 - 38.09%) = 102.97%
Modifier @ 300 = (1 - 35.77% - 15.91%) * 1 + 15.91% * (1 + 75.28%) + 35.77% * (1 - 44.50%) = 102.74%

But it's the case if and only if the attack can be shielded, melee and ranged (and I assume direct hit only, DoTs are out) and so for Tech and Force attacks it becomes :
Modifier B @ 0 = (1 - 5%) * 1 + 5% * (1 + 50%) = 102.50%
Modifier B @ 100 = (1 - 9.20%) * 1 + 9.20% * (1 + 63.80%) = 105.87%
Modifier B @ 200 = (1 - 12.81%) * 1 + 12.81% * (1 + 71.26%) = 109.12%
Modifier B @ 300 = (1 - 15.91%) * 1 + 15.91% * (1 + 75.28%) = 111.98%

You can note that the value for Modifier B @ 0 is also the value for the Tank attacking the DPS whatever their respective stats are.

So now it allows us to compare the DPS relative efficiency at fighting a tank by comparing to the "Modifer B @ 0" value :
Melee/Ranged @ 0 = 101.50 / 102.50 = 99.02 %
Melee/Ranged @ 100 = 102.58 / 102.50 = 100.08 %
Melee/Ranged @ 200 = 102.97 / 102.50 = 100.46 %
Melee/Ranged @ 300 = 102.74 / 102.50 = 100.23 %
We can see that in this case the match would be even if the two fighters were to use Melee and Ranged attacks only. But now lets compare to when it comes to use Tech and Force.
Tech/Force @ 0 = 102.50 / 102.50 ) = 100 %
Tech/Force @ 100 = 105.87 / 102.50 ) = 103.29 %
Tech/Force @ 200 = 109.12 / 102.50 ) = 106.46 %
Tech/Force @ 300 = 111.98 / 102.50 ) = 109.25 %
We can see that the Tank is at a loss once the opponent start using Tech and Force attacks.

So basically, without considering specs and gear differences like Endurance and Main stat difference, and especially without considering that the tank efficiency is in reality lower than that because of the difference in Tech/Force power, the Tank is statistically the one to lose a 1vs1 without even considering what kind of attacks the opponent mainly uses.
If we assume that the Tank's advantage on Endurance, and damage reduction does make up for the loss in DPS from Mainstat and Tech/Force Power, and that both of them are fully specced, the relative effectiveness of the DPS is likely to go even higher than the percentages I sorted, because DPS specs will further increase crit chances and crit multipliers of some attacks while the tanks will increase his shield chances and absorption which can still be ignored by Tech/Force attacks. According to the mechanics, the only way a Tank get an even match, is to fight against a fully-weapon-dedicated specced opponent, like a Marksman Sniper.
In other words Tanks can statistically be dominated if the opponent's design allow it (like a Sorcerer, Operative or Vanguard who rely heavily on Tech and Force), but can't have the upperhand on anyone because if the opponent were to not make use of the flaw (like a Marksman Sniper) stats would only allow them to experience an even encounter.

Personally I really don't get why, a Shadow (for exemple) should lose to another one just because he wears some tank gear while the other one has some DPS gear.
I'm well aware that 1vs1 is not the only way of Balancing, but let's also look at tanks group wise (sorry for the coming ellipse that will not be math proven but only based on feelings)... Most of the time, they don't get so much attention because they are not so much of a threat : they don't lengthen the life span of their allies like healers, they don't hit like DPS either. They're supposedly to be just a wall of brick in the middle of the battleground. And so most of the time they're ignored as main attribute doesn't help if they're not attacked. That's why they have taunts and guard (which have no 1vs1 purpose) to match up for their uselessness if they were to not have it. But taunts are not what will really make Tanks desirable since non-tanks specced players can use it. But that's not my problem, I'm used to see non-tank specced players have taunts (Warhammer Online), and living longer and not having the attention allow to use more taunts (although their survivability is somewhat relative because a good percentage of AoEs running in WZ are Tech/Force). The concern is that the only good point they have is their guarding ability, which cannot be used freely because in order to be made useful, it requires a minimum of survivability and support but as it is now, the survivabilty part is marginal because of three points : ignorable defensive stats, low overall avoidance, average-level damage reduction. As it is now the support part is highly effective as the heals you can receive are sometimes freaking huge and make up for lack from the Tank. That's why at the moment Guard isn't freely usable, because its use is more dependent of the support your mates (healers) could give you rather than from you.

As you see, the non-effectiveness of the stats can be an hindrance (if I'm right) for Tanks in both 1vs1 and Party vs Party situations in PvP. Look at the PvP forums, and the tank threads in particular, you'll see no post (or near to zero) complaining on tanks being too powerful, but it won't be rare to see post saying that DPS and healers can be self-sufficient but tanks simply can't. The answers to persons asking for help will always be either "reroll", "use DPS gear", "go hybrid" or "find a healer". The only response that say "tanks are fine" tend to be followed by a "with a healer they are survivable enough" or "they'll become OP with a healer". The key word is "with a healer".
As for PvE they do not suffer so much of it as it seems that NPCs purposely do few Tech/Force attacks, and that you get the most of the provided heal on you.


I'd be glad that you change the mechanics of defensive stats and make them fully effective like I'd wish you to. According to my maths and my experience, it is a "to do" thing. But there are some other changes to do in order to not rock too much the balance and keep the WZ enjoyable.
Some are easy to do, like giving some accuracy to some talents in Lightning/Telekinetics and Madness/Balance for Sorcerers and Sages, but some other are more complex like changing the way healers do heal people if Tanks were to turn into undying gods.

I personally think that the healing provided by healers, altough balanced overall, their single-target healing is maybe too high... I think their healing design is too much focused on single target and strong heals in order to make up for the lack of group-wise abilities and cast-and-forget ones (HoTs, semi HoTs). It's probably a design choice, to make it harder to heal a whole group than a single person, and so the single-target heals are made to be really strong, but it can be too powerful if applied on resistant charachter like a tank. To be frank I think that Tanks are what they're now because of how healers are, because its so unlikely to sort out so perfect formulas that would make all fights even, and then choosing to not make them effective if it weren't for the sake of a combinason of specs.
You know, I have a guild mate who said "In PvP, Tanks do not tank. They guard Healers, who are the ones to tank.". I think this sentence pefectly resumes the current situation. Healers are so capable when it comes to single-target healing that Tanks are nothing without them, can't guard anyone without them, and can be substituted by them when it comes to a survivability contest.

As for the "problem" with dual-wielding ranged ACs, I admit I really don't have clue on how much it impacts the game, maybe it's marginal, but it's not perfect but perfectible, that's why I brought it up.

I hope you find it interesting, and most of all, I'd wish that you and your collegues share my point of view meaning some changes I'd be really, really happy to see because PvP tanking is what I love the most. If you feel some flaws or inconstancies in my logic, feel free to point them out.
I don't know if you played a Tank in some Mythic Entertainement games when you worked for them, but in WAR, Tanks were really enjoyable. It's sad, but here they're not, especially when playing the one who's the least effecient on mitigation on the most dependant upon rates : Shadow. I'd rather said they're enjoyable in a way, but they are not what I'd expect from a "Tank". If I'd were to compare it, I'd say it looks more like a WAR's Anguish-specced spear-equipped Blackguard. It has too few survivability, but too much damage to be called tank. A full-tank Shadow is an hybrid from my point of view. If you'd like to know how I would reduce a tank Shadow DPS output to not make it OP in the case they were granted real "tankyness", I'd be glad to tell you the ideas I already have.

Jherad's Avatar

01.19.2013 , 03:56 PM | #39
This thread is like the bermuda triangle of posts.

So yeah. No, class balance is not okay. FAR from it.

The problem is not evident in mediocre pick-up-groups playing standard warzones. If we're all okay with just basing class balance on the average player, who maybe runs a few warzones a week in average (non minmaxed) gear - then fine. Leave it alone.

If you want any measure of competition in PvP though, and feel that you should base class balance at least partly on how the top performing players and teams perform, then you have a serious problem.

Right now there are a small subset of the available ACs and specs desired for RWZs. If you're a DPS, you're expected to either be a smasher, vanguard/pt or combat sent. If you're a healer you're an operative or a bubble stun hybrid. The last spot or two go to classes with outstanding utility (tankassin and engi sniper usually).

And that's it. Anything else and you're losing potential. If you (the PvP development team) aren't acutely aware of this problem (and have serious fixes in mind) then I would strongly suggest you engage some of PvP community to understand WHY these classes are the only options for top end competitive play. (For the mods: This is a SUGGESTION).
Zacharïah - Commando / Chasso, Aargh - Merc
The Twinkletoes Legacy
Zachariah's Merc/Mando PvP Guides
2.4 is the PvP Patch! ... J/K, Removing RWZs trolololol

SilentKitty's Avatar

01.19.2013 , 07:52 PM | #40
Nice to meet you Rob Hinkle Always nice to know more about the people working on SWTOR.
Female Mandalorians who romanced Torian are missing his Resol'nare and Mando'a lessons conversations since 4.0 launched. Please fix this!