Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaggles
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Again, there is no evidence gameparse is less accurate than a manually calculated log for the person running the software. It starts when you first hit the target and ends when it dies or you zone. Automating generally increases accuracy since human error is a variable.
|
You and Troxx say it has issues. Why do you admit there are problems in one post, and then pretend you didn't in the next?
You still can't explain why you can't provide logs either.
You can parse with simpler tools like word processing programs and simple programming code. I use notepad++ and some simple javascript code. This makes the process faster while removing the complexity and error from Gamparse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaggles
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Gameparse can have some averaging problems and might not pick people up for ranged fights with huge hit boxes. It is accurate though outside spell damage.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troxx
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Yep and the same parses [from Gamparse] showed a level 60 monk with Fist of Nature and 15/20 priceless wraps doing only 48dps [which is lower than Troxx expected]. I told you then and I'll tell you AGAIN that when you combine a whole wad of single fights into one composite fight that it [Gamparse] skews everything badly.
|
‐‐--------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaggles
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If the general population of active serious players believes a system is valid they are either all wrong and you are correct, or the contrary.
|
Argument from authority is a fallacy. Plenty of long time players still have incorrect ideas about the game. There is nothing wrong with that, except when it causes them to become closeminded, and assume they cannot be wrong.
I am also a long time player who parses a lot, but I actually admit when I am wrong. I don't assume I know everything just because I've played a lot. Anybody who claims otherwise is just strawmanning me. You can search the forums and find where I've admitted to being wrong.
------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaggles
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don’t mean to be rude, cynical, or cruel to you. Many of us have tried many times to explain our positions and the varied approach is often just a desperate attempt to finally land some shared understanding. Time and time again though it’s clear your mind cannot be swayed nor do you provide specifics which will allow us to suspend disbelief long enough to confirm. We all argues for about 10 pages why a level 5 turtle wouldn’t return accurate data. I’ve run hours on Bloodmaw controlling every variable and the data simply isn’t useful. I don’t take it personal wasting hours of my time, this is EQ… I just look for a better way.
|
Often times you and other posters are rude, cynical, and cruel. When posters act like this, it shows they probably don't know what they are talking about. If they were an expert who parsed all the time, it should be trivial for them to produce a bunch of logs, plug in the parsed results to the formula they believe is correct, and show us the formula matches the data. But they can't, or they won't. For an example of what I am talking about, read this post:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=440
I don't mean to be rude either. I prefer to have a civil discussion. But when multiple people are attacking me in every thread simply because I disagree with them, I end up having to spend a lot of time defending myself from obviouse nonsense.