Youtube Chan : http://www.youtube.com/user/eqbobyboucher
Armory : http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...Odina/advanced
From personal experience recount is an absolute load of trash, inaccurate when compared with (my guilds at least) logs, caused people in my guilds raids to lag (a lot).
Skada for me is more accurate, doesn't cause me to lag at all.
As for HPS I always found as a mute point, did everyone live... good heals did their job. You only need to look at HPS if there is a healing issue, considering most issue aren't, it shouldn't come up a lot.
Different classes, different specs, different assignments, different gear, sheer dumb luck.
Too many factors to make a simplified display of hps/dps or any other measure meaningful without context.
And that is context you simply cannot get during combat, nor really is feasible with in-game interfaces.
There's also things such as trivial / farm content, and though it's on farm I still like to play competitively.
I like doing more hps through Eminence healing each week on Jin'rokh.
I like trying to push more hps on Tortos each week. (since there's basically no overheal, log-wise)
More things could come to mind... and as I said: It doesn't necessarily need to be Damage Done & Healing Done, there's tons of options in Skada.
Most important point, for both of those addons, is probably: I tried both and simply liked Skada better. If it's the opposite for you: Go for it.
Last edited by ccKep; 2013-07-06 at 12:43 PM.
I like recount. Always has been using it. Always will
The only number that counts when discussing accuracy is damage done
Not dps or hps or anything with a /time denominator.
The reason is that is not a matter of accuracy but preference on the author's part (and arguably the following of the addon)
on when to 'start combat time' and 'end combat time'.
start it when you start the spell cast, vs when the first damaging ability lands, vs when you enter combat etc.
end it when your last dot ticks, when you exit combat, etc.
Then each will do damage done/time.
If damage done is the same and the same as WoL reports (assuming WoL's parsing is accurate) then both are equally accurate.
What they choose to show as DPS (or HPS etc) is a matter of implementation not an inaccuracy.
So for accuracy I'm pretty sure Recount and Skada are on par with each other.
As to performance they start at opposite sides of the spectrum if speaking about default configurations.
Recount comes as a monolithic package and starts with alot of options enabled and consequently alot more details available to the user which brings a big performance hit.
Skada comes with separate modules and starts with minimal tracking done, consequently less details available to the user and a smaller performance hit.
Recount is quite optimized for what it does but it does alot by default.
To make it lighter you have to go through the options and disable cpu or memory intensive capabilities you don't care about.
If you need more information from Skada then you have to use optional plugins (eg. Deaths, Graphs etc).
By the time you reach the functionality Recount gives with all features enabled, believe me you'll be getting a similar performance hit from Skada + friends as well.
One important difference between the two (last I checked I don't know if Skada core or a plugin has since added that functionality) is that Recount can optionally 'sync' stats through the addon-communication channel which means it will be vastly superior on fights that involve parts of the raid being out of combatlog range from each other or phased if most the raid is using Recount and they have the sync option enabled.
Last edited by Drii; 2013-07-06 at 06:22 PM.
I was a die hard Recount user but have swapped to Skada, the biggest reason was Recount is a memory hog and generates more lag, if you want accuracy and more facts then do uploads to World of Logs.
For me I've always found that Skada is more on par with WoL, rather than recount.
Skada is more accurate, and has been for a long time. I tried both and the numbers on Skada was closer than the ones on recount when i checked on WoL
For me, Recount always matches what WoL says. Whereas some guy in my guild who uses Skada will have different numbers for the same fights
That's enough for me to use Recount
You know what, instead of pointless trash talk, just use WoL instead?
Who needs senseless ingame epeen linking anyways?
I don't know for sure personally whats more accurate but I've been using recount for years (when I bother to have it installed).
Infectionate Serenades Bubblesbee[A] ↑ ↓ [H]
Nasturtium Fisticuffs Blesshu Sinnocence Shoctologist Ellipsis Hiddenfee Teddiursa
Recount is way more detailed but also takes more memory. As a healer I only need the death log to be detailed which is why im using skada in addition to the addon death note which is miles better than skada and recount for measuring deaths. If I had been playing as a dps I would be using recount but I would also disable death note.
WoL > both addons, so this thread is pretty much a moot point
You're comparing a post-combat log-analyzer to a live representation. They don't fit the same role.
To the people saying either is "more accurate":
How do you define "accurate" ? Who is to say WoL is "accurate" ?
WoL, Skada and Recount all have
a) different conditions on when to start a segment (eg. player entering combat, raid member entering combat, boss unit receiving the first damage)
b) different conditions on when to end a segment (player leaving combat, all players leaving combat, encounter defeat / wipe)
c) different definitions of "active time", and this is very important.
a and b are responsible for the overall time and damage that gets attributed to everyone, so basically: dps = damage/time.
c is responsible to show your effective dps ( dps(e) ). Some stop counting time if you haven't cast anything for X seconds, some if you haven't dealt any damage for X seconds (this is important when dots come into play).
They are all accurate, yet all of them show different numbers. Depending on how close their parameters are the results will be equally close, and this seems to be what you people define as "accurate".
Long story short, as has been said many times:
- Neither is better, some people just like one over the other. And this is totally a matter of personal taste.
- Neither is "more accurate" than the other. If you say something like this, provide proof (steps to reproduce). Otherwise you're just making up numbers.
It's ok to say "x uses more resources than y". But if you do so: Provide some meaningful information (addon settings, raid size, encounter, combat time, memory usage) and comparable values.