AddOns in Review: Damage Meters Benchmark II, solo Hunter

As we saw in the previous benchmark in our series, the surveyed Damage Meters get level 70 character solo play right. Before that one I ran a test series with my level 13 hunter, though, and the picture starts getting differentiated.

Here is the summary table:

Hunter Figures

The black squares indicate where I forgot to screenshot the data (/em slaps self). It was actually the first series I ran, though, and my mind wasn’t entirely settled on what I wanted to measure at that time.

Regarding Assessment’s Damage Done, it doesn’t show the pet separately in the total damage dealt, and rounded the figure at 11200 (hence the italics). The figure displayed above is obtained by substracting the pet damage from the drilldown view from 11200.

Recount’s pet damage started lagging below the others pretty early in the series and the gap tended to grow over time. There’s no practical mean to account for the loss of healing done tracked by either Assessment or Recount.

And then there’s DamageMeters, who was struggling on several counts:

  • Despite having the correct setting, it didn’t take the pet into account before a manual dismiss & call pet. At that point, the difference in pet damage was 156 (one fight). The gap never stopped growing fight after fight
  • In the detailed view, DMM doesn’t identify Gore 2 by name, but instead attributes some Autoshot damage to the pet, 291 damage to be precise.

Recap, SW Stats and Violation all tracked overhealing which WWS didn’t recognize, but the figures remain consistent both accross these three, and the sum of effective healing + overhealing matches the WWS total. DamageMeters got the healing figures right for that matter.

This concludes the solo play with pet for a low level toon. Due to the various troubles, I’ll run a test on my level 60 warlock next as a complement.

This entry was posted in tools and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to AddOns in Review: Damage Meters Benchmark II, solo Hunter

  1. Pingback: Benchmarking Damage Meter Addons - Introduction to a Series | Altitis

  2. Nibuca (4 comments) says:

    I love the series! I really do look forward to seeing the results and summary.. but I’m going to throw you a curve.

    After patch 2.4 -all- damage meters will need to be rewritten.

    As part of 2.4 they’re changing the format of the combat log. So -everything- will need to change to follow suit. Just sayin’.

    Nibuca
    http://warcraft.fibergeek.com/

  3. Gwaendar (217 comments) says:

    Yup, I know. I’m actually quite keen on taking a snapshot now and then come back in 2-3 months when 2.4 is live and be able to pick out the tools which manage the transition the best.

    BTW, the overhealing situation worries me a bit. In both tests now there’s some overhealing picked by some addons which appear to be otherwise, if not accurate, at least consistent with each others, and in both cases WWS sees nothing.

    Food for thought.

  4. Elsia (3 comments) says:

    I missed these tests or I’d commented earlier. Thanks these are all very interesting. I wanted to comment on two things. One being the healing/overhealing stat of WWS versus online damage meters. The other being changes to recount in the meantime.

    1) It’s a very widely held believe that WWS is most accurate and establishes a correct base line.

    This believe is not correct for healing. WWS only has as information what the combat log provides, whereas online damage meters have extra information such as the actual current health level and max health of a player. This information is not present in the combat log. It’s important to note that the combat log does not report overhealing.

    In game overhealing is calculated from the difference of current max health minus health before the heal landed compared to the incoming heal. If the incoming heal is larger than that difference the remainder is overhealing.

    WWS does not have this information, so instead it estimates overhealing by taking the incoming damage number and comparing it to the incoming healing number. If there is more heals than damage that’ll be calculated to be overhealing. This algorithm will lead WWS to underestimate overhealing and overestimate actual healing.

    In general for healing volume and overhealing stats in-game damage meters (if not subject to bugs) are more accurate than WWS.

    In general one can expect WWS to underestimate overhealing and overestimate healing. This is what you saw in your test.

    As a side-remark, the same holds for damage. If a mob has 20 health and is hit by 2000 damage all damage meters online and offline that I know will count the full 2000 damage, whereas actually this should be 20 damage and 2000 over-damage. We don’t really do this because mana-preservation isn’t such a longevity issues as it is for healers. Hence in this department WWS and online damage meters tend to agree very much, because they just calculate total damage done as displayed in the combat log.

    2) Recount: I have since made various changes and improvements to recount, specifically to pet handling. The current version of recount will properly track pet healing, overhealing on pets, damage done to pets. With 2.4 Recount will also get the pet handling rewritten and I hope that the discrepancy you reported here will be removed by then.

    Finally with 2.4 I’d expect the accuracy between meters to normalize. “Parsing” is straight forward, and certain issues that each meter may have handled differently will be unified.