Immortal | Defense Discussion - Printable Version
+- SWTOR Mechanics Forums (http://mmo-mechanics.com/swtor/forums)
+-- Forum: Class Discussion (/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: Sith Warrior and Jedi Knight (/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Immortal | Defense Discussion (/thread-974.html)
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - Fuhrerschein - 05-08-2012 12:03 AM
(05-07-2012 04:53 AM)Saeria Wrote: Food for thought. This discussion about the strength of Rakata 4 piece and F. Scream has got me thinking about something.
or you could swap in all the mods so you have the supercommando bonus with str stats
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - Caeden - 05-09-2012 03:57 AM
^ That only works for Rakata. For campaign, the set bonus will follow the armorings. Surely he was implying all other non-set bonus items would be swapped. I'm not entirely sure if you started with the Supercommando Rakata shell and subbed in the Juggernaut campaign armorings what would happen to the set bonus.
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - Fuhrerschein - 05-09-2012 05:53 AM
correct. i figured he meant take warrior black hole mods/armoring and put them into rakata BH shell
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - BigRedJedi - 05-11-2012 06:57 PM
(05-09-2012 03:57 AM)Caeden Wrote: ^ That only works for Rakata. For campaign, the set bonus will follow the armorings. Surely he was implying all other non-set bonus items would be swapped. I'm not entirely sure if you started with the Supercommando Rakata shell and subbed in the Juggernaut campaign armorings what would happen to the set bonus.
This was answered in a Dev post just recently, stating that the armoring would overwrite the shell (specifically mentioned to prevent over-stacking). I will see if I can find the link when I get home from work.
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - West - 06-07-2012 06:10 AM
I've seen various hybrid builds in here that go into Vengeance/Vigilance more than Defense for increased survivability, and I always considered them semi-viable, if not for the higher threat that Guardian slash provides.
With its damage being lowered in 1.3, and Soresu stance's threat increasing to 100% (from 50%), I see that as less of an issue. Is there any real incentive to not going hybrid tank spec now?
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - Havok - 07-11-2012 03:55 PM
Hey guys, I decided to chime in to this discussion with some stuff that I came up with. Unfortunately, since 1.3 came out, the previous talent trees broke (as in I couldn't see them online), so I tried my best to replicate it. You can check it out at http://swtor.askmrrobot.com/character/bba73078-f71d-4f1d-ac57-2897dad3de81 (15/24/2). It's not perfect (as I currently don't have access to my game so I can't see things like how much damage impale does, or how much bleeds do), but it's a starting point. I've tested this against a deep immortal tree with the same exact gear as in my wishlist (full campaign war leader, two war hero war leader relic of imperiling serenity, 11 defence augments and 3 absorb augments), and the data does indeed support that the hybrid spec is superior mitigation-wise. I used LagunaD's calculator, and the deep immortal spec returned a squishiness of 0.27315, whereas the hybrid returned a squishiness of 0.25853. If anyone would like to improve the hybrid spec, please feel free to do so! As for myself, I'll take a closer look at it in the coming days when I can actually compare the values in-game.
EDIT: I also forgot to mention that I'm currently running deep immortal tree with crappier gear than in my wishlist (obviously lol), and I've main tanked SM EC and NiM KP without any difficulties whatsoever. Threat generation is good, rage upkeep is good, damage is OK (for a tank) and I'm not dying. Once I give the hybrid spec a try, I'll let you guys know if my performance improves or not.
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - Darcstarr - 07-12-2012 03:32 AM
I can't help but think the Immortal/Defense tree (or maybe all of Jugg/Guardian) needs a major overhaul, it seems ridiculous that going all-out pure tanking spec gives you LESS survivability than hybrid.
The various numbers/posts seem to speak for themselves (and I'd leave debating it to smarter people anyway) but you would think that for tanking you'd use the tanking tree!
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - hanth - 07-12-2012 10:00 AM
All they have to do to accomplish this is to take away the 4% flat damage reduction from deafening defense. I can't see the sense in it anyway, as it allready provides a dmg reduction cd.
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - Havok - 07-12-2012 01:25 PM
So I did a test run against the Operations Training Target MK-5 and the hybrid spec completely crushes deep immortal in all instances (I'm using the same spec as the one I made above; I like it very much so far). Not only do you get greater mitigation as I've stated before, but you also get more damage and threat generation (check out the downloadable combat parser on AskMrRobots website). In spite of this dummy not attacking us, and not getting more rage from soresu form because of this, I was able to output about 100 more DPS and about 25k more threat in a two minute inverval.
Some real data would be the best though. Unfortunately I don't have data from the deep immortal tree, but once I run some NiMs or Denova, I'll get back to you on that. Also, I don't know if my new rotation is perfect, but it'll do until someone better than myself at this comes along.
RE: Immortal | Defense Discussion - Quiljoy - 07-25-2012 01:49 AM
I have recently switched from Immortal to a hybrid for MT in our 8m EC HM runs. Currently it is: http://www.torhead.com/skill-calc#101hMGzu0MZZcGrMMhkzM.2
The build feels better on threat and survivability. I will note early on I opted for around half crit/surge augments as they produce FAR more dps(threat) than power or strength and have endurance on the backend, and threat issues on EC HM T&Z, FB&SC caused far more wipes than low mitigation. Mitigation has never been a problem (until 1v1 Kephess now, lol). Either way, I had these augments while in Immortal and still felt improved threat gen in hybrid. I also successfully tanked FPs for testing with a 17/22/2 (dropping Impale for Decimate smash bonus) with a very strong, unguarded dps with minimum threat issues (and no taunt boosting). I was pretty bored with that build though and have improved threat in the linked spec.
I have only rarely used the activated Enraged Defense as a CD so far but I have been able to hold threat so far by following it with a single taunt and Enrage and just continuing rotation. Still I would be sure to have your AoE taunt ready. The stats of Enraged Defense with the 15%dmg red and small self heals on dmg is comparable or better in mitigation than Invincible, and it has a 45s CD.
Rage can be an (easily managed) issue. First, if you can't rage boost with Saber Throw/Force Leap for a long time, you will not be able to keep Impale and Force Scream perfectly on CD (prioritize for threat or mitigation as needed). The key to making this viable is the same as DPS builds: keep Sundering on CD. The loss of Backhand stun and unchannelled Force Choke is the only thing I really miss, but bosses laugh at these.
Still seeing 52% static Dmg Red easily compensates for these. Questions? Thoughts?