A little while ago I was given the opportunity to send in some questions and get some real answers from the Developers at Bioware. I was particularly excited about the opportunity because I had a lot of questions that I wanted answers to (as I'm sure most of the rest of you have as well).
I decided to limit my questions specifically to Tanks and the Tanking role in SWTOR since that's where my real interest lies. I know a lot of the questions out there focus on "when" stuff is going to be changing/happening - but I'm far more interested in "why" stuff works how it works.
I broke my questions into four sections - General, PvE, PvP and Future Stuff. A huge thank you to Austin Peckenpaugh (Combat Designer) and Jesse Sky (Operations Designer) that took time to answer all my questions.
General
(Combat Designer Austin Peckenpaugh)TankingTOR:
Can you expound on the design philosophy of the three tank Advanced Classes. Specifically, what is unique about each class, what makes them the tank that they are?
Can you expound on the design philosophy of the three tank Advanced Classes. Specifically, what is unique about each class, what makes them the tank that they are?
Austin: Philosophically, I want each tank to be competitive with the others but have a different feel. Overall, Im fairly pleased with how close we are to that goal.
Vanguards and Powertechs are the sturdiest and toughest, passively, of the tanks. We want these tanks to feel like super soldiers, soaking up damage and using the latest shielding technology to survive.
Shadows and Assassins are the most evasive of the tanks, but they arent full-blown evasion tanks, at least not in the sense that they dodge or die. While a lot of their survivability comes from avoidance, they also use self-healing and high shield rates to stay competitive.
Guardians and Juggernauts fall somewhere in between the other tanks. They strike a balance of mitigation and avoidance, with a complement of maintained active defenses. I want Guardians and Juggernauts to feel tough, but theyre not super soldiers like Troopers and Bounty Hunters, and it just wouldnt be right if they werent deflecting and parrying a lot of incoming attacks with their lightsabers.
There you have it, directly from the horses' mouth. Which tank is right for you? Well, just take a look at this and pick the one that you like the playstyle of the most. I'm actually working on a personal comparison between the three classes, comparing and contrasting playstyle now that I have all three at 50 and have done some Ops tanking on all of them. Look out for that in the future.
TankingTOR:
(In reference to the above) Were any of them designed to be marginally better in certain areas than others? For example - Are Vanguards better at collecting AOE threat while Guardians excel at controlling the enemy?
(In reference to the above) Were any of them designed to be marginally better in certain areas than others? For example - Are Vanguards better at collecting AOE threat while Guardians excel at controlling the enemy?
Austin: I think its fair to say that things ended up that way at Launch, but it is not my express intention. One of the major pushes in Game Update 1.3 is to better normalize single-target and AOE threat generation and tank survivability. The important difference between the tanks is that they feel and play differently, but I dont want that distinction to be drawn with the presence or absence of critical gameplay capabilities like AOE threat.
I'm not sure if it's nice to hear that they didn't intend for there to be a big difference, or that they couldn't see how the gameplay made some tanks more "desirable" than others in some situations. What is nice to hear, is that they are continuing to look at it and are planning some more balancing for update 1.3 that will specifically target threat generation between different classes.
TankingTOR:
There is some discussion on how crit affects shield and vice-versa. My understanding is something like the following (to oversimplify). Roll X (1-100). If X < Crit then the attack crits, if X > 100-(shield) the attack is shielded. Can you elaborate a bit more on the second roll in the two roll system? Is it a single roll or is one roll done to check for a crit, then another roll done to check for a shield?
There is some discussion on how crit affects shield and vice-versa. My understanding is something like the following (to oversimplify). Roll X (1-100). If X < Crit then the attack crits, if X > 100-(shield) the attack is shielded. Can you elaborate a bit more on the second roll in the two roll system? Is it a single roll or is one roll done to check for a crit, then another roll done to check for a shield?
Austin: First theres an Accuracy vs Defense roll. This checks to see if the attack hits. If the attack is successful, there is a Crit vs Shield roll, assuming the attack can crit and assuming the target can shield. This checks to see if the attack does increased (critical) damage, normal damage, or reduced (shielded) damaged. At high values, shield and crit can push against each other, and while possible, this should only manifest during short-duration buffs, if at all. When it does happen, crit overcomes shield, such that a guaranteed crit versus a guaranteed shield yields a critical result.
So, this looks like it follows my understanding. Shield and Crit will push against each other, but they are NOT rolled separately. I've seen a lot of math out there that tries to make it look like shield isn't as effective as it says it is when you compare with crit. That math is completely false. If you have a 40% chance to shield an attack, then you have a 40% chance to shield an attack. The only thing that will push that down are skills that increase critical above (60% in that scenario) or are guaranteed crits.
PvE
(Combat Designer Austin Peckenpaugh)
TankingTOR:
Do threat multipliers stack multiplicatively or additively? For example, when using a skill that has a 50% threat increase and sitting in a tank stance that already has a base 50% increase, is our threat increased to 200% (of normal) or 225%.
Do threat multipliers stack multiplicatively or additively? For example, when using a skill that has a 50% threat increase and sitting in a tank stance that already has a base 50% increase, is our threat increased to 200% (of normal) or 225%.
Austin: Threat, like any stat modification, is summed with other like-types before application. In our math, additive mods are summed and applied then multiplicative mods are summed and applied. In your example, you would deal 100% additional threat (0.5 + 0.5).
I saw some theorycrafting a short time ago that was theorizing that threat was multiplicative. Which is where this question came from. While this does specifically deal with threat modifications it sounds like it would apply to any other "like" effect. I'm not clear on which are additive and which are multiplicative modifications, I think it might be more clear when looking at other specific examples.
TankingTOR:
Many tanks complain about trying to hold "Aggro" with the large mixed mob groups in Flashpoints. We assume that tanks were not designed to be a magnet for everything and should focus on specific targets while letting some "lighter" targets run free. Can you explain the vision of a tank in Flashpoints and Ops? Are we doing it wrong?
Many tanks complain about trying to hold "Aggro" with the large mixed mob groups in Flashpoints. We assume that tanks were not designed to be a magnet for everything and should focus on specific targets while letting some "lighter" targets run free. Can you explain the vision of a tank in Flashpoints and Ops? Are we doing it wrong?
Austin: Yes and no. In some cases, the lighter targets can be burned down without any attention from the tank. In other cases, some Flashpoint encounters are just unnecessarily unfriendly with threat mechanics and hidden aggro swaps. And sometimes its just the case that theres too much to hold all at once.
When it comes to trash, I personally enjoy giving DPS specs something to do like burn down the lighter targets while the tank focuses on the bigger, meaner enemies. Im not a fan of the overly complicated aggro swaps or hidden threat adjustments in some encounters, but then I dont think anyone is. This is something were working on improving in Flashpoints.
Its also unfortunate when tanks have to struggle to hold a group that theyre supposed to be able to hold. This is something were addressing in Game Update 1.3 through a boost and normalization pass on tank threat generation, with a particular emphasis on AOE threat.
This question was near and dear to my heart and I'd like to thank Austin once more for giving me such a detailed response. This is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. Any DPS out there, take a look at the second paragraph, sometimes it's your job to just kill stuff really quickly! I know most of you take care of that already, but here is a hint for anyone having "tank" issues in Flashpoints.
Interesting to note that players aren't the only ones frustrated with how badly tanks are treated in some Flashpoints. Very happy that our concerns are not falling on deaf ears.
A little while ago on one of my PvP posts I was knocking around some ideas with another player and we were talking about how Guard functions. I haven't even seen accurate theorycrafting anywhere on anyone doing testing - so I decided to go right to the source.
This is exactly how I thought guard worked, where all damage is mitigated by the Tank's defenses and not on the target's defenses. I've seen some theories that say the opposite of the above and many tanks in PvP have foregone their defensive gear for DPS gear - apparently that's a mistake and you're taking more damage than you need to.
EDIT: This is also completely false, at least from in game testing. Shield has no bearing on Guarded damage, unless that is happening somewhere behind the scenes that we can't view in the game. We do take less damage due to our higher hard mitigation values, but shield chance never appears to proc.
Reading the above it all makes sense. I've been in discussions that went round and round in circles with people finally just deciding that their way was the best way and no amount of discussion was going to make anyone change their mind.
As Austin says, this is just a simplification in a very general question - it's nice to know that weapon damage attacks deal more damage because they are meant to be mitigated ... so those tanks out there that are not maximizing their defense are really not filling the role they were meant to fill.
Personally, I've always played a tank in defensive gear in PvP and have never felt useless or like I wasn't performing at the peak of my class. I allow that it's up to you as a player to do what you feel is best (of course) but you might be missing out - tanks weren't meant to be immortal.
There you have it - your job in PvP is not to kill stuff, it's to make it very difficult to kill you. If you aren't making it as hard as possible to kill you, then you're not properly tanking.
Is a good defense really a superior offense? I leave that up to you to decide.
Thanks Jesse, I'll take what I can get - if you mention it to someone that might make it come true that works for me.
Nice to know the Dev team has some tanks on the roster so they're very aware of how things work in the "real world". I have also noticed that in some places things have gotten fixed or smoothed out over time. Looking forward to the continued work in this direction.
TankingTOR:
(In reference to the above question) I have noticed with the new content in 1.2 this has been toned down significantly. Is this a new design decision that we can look forward to as we move into future content? why was this changed?
Also, something else to look forward to in 1.3! Apparently there will be a lot of tank specific stuff coming up, so if you weren't excited yet, you should be now.
(In PvP)
(Combat Designer Austin Peckenpaugh)
TankingTOR:
When we guard another character 50% of the damage is transferred back to us. How is the damage we take calculated? Is it mitigated on the target first and we get a flat 50% of their damage, or is it unmitigated initially, transferred to us, then mitigated by our gear? Does our shield have any effect on this damage?
Austin: When a player attacks an ally that you are guarding, that players attack is split. The damage dealt is halved, with one half going to you and the other half going to your guarded ally. These two attacks are treated separately and individually; each of you applies your own avoidance and mitigation to the incoming attack. This does include all available avenues of survivability, with shields being no exception.
When we guard another character 50% of the damage is transferred back to us. How is the damage we take calculated? Is it mitigated on the target first and we get a flat 50% of their damage, or is it unmitigated initially, transferred to us, then mitigated by our gear? Does our shield have any effect on this damage?
Austin: When a player attacks an ally that you are guarding, that players attack is split. The damage dealt is halved, with one half going to you and the other half going to your guarded ally. These two attacks are treated separately and individually; each of you applies your own avoidance and mitigation to the incoming attack. This does include all available avenues of survivability, with shields being no exception.
A little while ago on one of my PvP posts I was knocking around some ideas with another player and we were talking about how Guard functions. I haven't even seen accurate theorycrafting anywhere on anyone doing testing - so I decided to go right to the source.
This is exactly how I thought guard worked, where all damage is mitigated by the Tank's defenses and not on the target's defenses. I've seen some theories that say the opposite of the above and many tanks in PvP have foregone their defensive gear for DPS gear - apparently that's a mistake and you're taking more damage than you need to.
EDIT: This is also completely false, at least from in game testing. Shield has no bearing on Guarded damage, unless that is happening somewhere behind the scenes that we can't view in the game. We do take less damage due to our higher hard mitigation values, but shield chance never appears to proc.
TankingTOR:
There is ongoing discussion on the effectiveness of Defense and Shield/Absorb in PvP. Mostly this is because Tech/Force attacks cannot be mitigated by those stats. Can you elaborate on the design choice behind that, and if we can we expect to see that change?
There is ongoing discussion on the effectiveness of Defense and Shield/Absorb in PvP. Mostly this is because Tech/Force attacks cannot be mitigated by those stats. Can you elaborate on the design choice behind that, and if we can we expect to see that change?
Austin: Among many, many other factors, there is a rock-paper-scissors element to Force/tech users, weapon damage, and tanks. I hesitate to use this example because it can be taken out of context or blown out of proportion, so keep in mind that it is a generalization and only one element of a much more complicated system.
Because weapons can be defended against, they deal more damage. If two abilities were identical in every way but one was tech-based and the other was weapon-based, the weapon-based one would deal more damage. This is true for every player ability in the game.
With that in mind, weapon damage is especially effective against Force/tech users because they dont have high defense; Force/tech users are especially effective against tanks because their defense doesnt help; tanks are especially effective against weapon damage because they avoid a lot of it.
Again, this is a gross simplification of PVP interactions, so take it with a grain of salt. The intention behind this philosophy is that no one archetype reigns supreme. It is, however, a drop in the bucket that is our balance.
Reading the above it all makes sense. I've been in discussions that went round and round in circles with people finally just deciding that their way was the best way and no amount of discussion was going to make anyone change their mind.
As Austin says, this is just a simplification in a very general question - it's nice to know that weapon damage attacks deal more damage because they are meant to be mitigated ... so those tanks out there that are not maximizing their defense are really not filling the role they were meant to fill.
Personally, I've always played a tank in defensive gear in PvP and have never felt useless or like I wasn't performing at the peak of my class. I allow that it's up to you as a player to do what you feel is best (of course) but you might be missing out - tanks weren't meant to be immortal.
TankingTOR:
Many people seem confused as to what the vision was for Tanks in PvP. They rely completely on Guard and Taunts then spec to do as much damage as possible. Can you explain what function or role they were designed to fill in a GvG (Group V/S Group) setting? Is Guard and Taunt all that make a tank a tank?
Many people seem confused as to what the vision was for Tanks in PvP. They rely completely on Guard and Taunts then spec to do as much damage as possible. Can you explain what function or role they were designed to fill in a GvG (Group V/S Group) setting? Is Guard and Taunt all that make a tank a tank?
Austin: The vision for tanks is PVP is quite simple: protect allies and make yourself an unfortunate (possibly even annoying) target for the enemy. This is done with Guard and Taunt and increased control, but its not really possible without extra survivability. Guard is only a real threat when the one providing it is a nuisance to take down.
There you have it - your job in PvP is not to kill stuff, it's to make it very difficult to kill you. If you aren't making it as hard as possible to kill you, then you're not properly tanking.
Is a good defense really a superior offense? I leave that up to you to decide.
The Future
(Operations Designer Jesse Sky)TankingTOR:
Is there any chance we could see target markers that are numbers instead of symbols sometime in the future? (Thank you for allowing us to keybind marks).
Is there any chance we could see target markers that are numbers instead of symbols sometime in the future? (Thank you for allowing us to keybind marks).
Jesse: I cant promise anything, but well raise the request with our UI team.
Thanks Jesse, I'll take what I can get - if you mention it to someone that might make it come true that works for me.
TankingTOR:
One of the most frustrating things as a tank is to deal with the over use of threat dumps (or un-tauntable mobs) and knockbacks. Can you explain why these mechanics are so prevalent in many Flashpoints and Operations?
One of the most frustrating things as a tank is to deal with the over use of threat dumps (or un-tauntable mobs) and knockbacks. Can you explain why these mechanics are so prevalent in many Flashpoints and Operations?
Jesse: Threat dumps were prevalent at launch due to some misunderstandings about how threat works, and many knockbacks could not be resisted or evaded, which made them more punishing than we intended. We have been systematically fixing these issues where possible, though certain mechanics make intentional use of them. Several of us play tanks on live, so weve been eager to address these problems.
Nice to know the Dev team has some tanks on the roster so they're very aware of how things work in the "real world". I have also noticed that in some places things have gotten fixed or smoothed out over time. Looking forward to the continued work in this direction.
TankingTOR:
(In reference to the above question) I have noticed with the new content in 1.2 this has been toned down significantly. Is this a new design decision that we can look forward to as we move into future content? why was this changed?
Jesse: Game Update 1.2 is the first time our boss designers have had a significant volume of behavioural data and player feedback to work with. That allowed us to design content that challenges players coordination rather than their patience. Our goal has always been to build fun and engaging encounters, but with GU 1.2, we went through several phases of iteration including a several experienced playtest groups. Thats definitely the direction were going with our content.
And this is why we are all quite happy with the new content released in 1.2. Challenging, different, interesting mechanics - less punishing to tanks specifically. I'm very glad to see that this has been a conscious effort to move forward in a different direction and that in new content we can expect to see more of the same.
To everyone that was advocating running previous operations with 1 tank. Apparently you should have gotten used to it before and trained your tanks to do things properly. It's all moving in this direction in the future.
TankingTOR:
It has been argued that Eternity Vault and Karaggas Palace could be done with a single Tank, Explosive Conflict definitely cannot be. Can we look forward to future operations requiring two tanks for the whole Operation instead of only a single fight?
It has been argued that Eternity Vault and Karaggas Palace could be done with a single Tank, Explosive Conflict definitely cannot be. Can we look forward to future operations requiring two tanks for the whole Operation instead of only a single fight?
Jesse: We absolutely want players to bring two tanks to the Operations, and thats the direction weve taken our encounter design.
To everyone that was advocating running previous operations with 1 tank. Apparently you should have gotten used to it before and trained your tanks to do things properly. It's all moving in this direction in the future.
