Page 1 of 3
  1. #1
    Worth all the money Mehman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Somewhere under the rainbow

    Recount vs. Skada

    Sorry if this is posted in the wrong forum, please feel free to move it to the right one.

    i've recently switched from recount to skada because i heard it's more lightweight, and my friend is still running with recount. now the thing is that we both got into the bad habbit of linking damage after a boss to each other to say "i'm better than you, in your face" as a joke. however they are showing different results, meaning that on skada, i'm doing the most damage, and on her recount, she's doing the most damage, which kinda leaves us in an odd spot, because we dont know which to trust the most. is there anyone who knows which the is more precise of these addons, or is everyone in the unknowing about this?

  2. #2
    I use Skada, I prefer it due to it being more light weight. There's also another option called Numeration, a no-frills damage meter. Using that from time to time, and it works fine too.

  3. #3
    Last that I knew I think recount is more accurate. I always saw skada as kind of a knockoff of recount for people that use a program that doesn't have recount to install addons.

  4. #4
    Fluffy Kitten Taurenburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    The Netherlands
    I use skada as it´s cleaner in my UI.
    Pokemon Y / Pokemon OR
    Friendcode: 0791-2124-3938 (IGN: Michiel)

  5. #5
    They both read from the same damage log so they will both show the same numbers. The primary difference is that skada uses about 10x less memory than recount.

    As for why your numbers come up differently, it's likely that one of you is counting pets as player damage and the other one is not.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by brown View Post
    Last that I knew I think recount is more accurate. I always saw skada as kind of a knockoff of recount for people that use a program that doesn't have recount to install addons.

    Skada is way more accurate. it's always very close to my WoL reports, everyone in the raid using recount will post completely different data.

  7. #7
    I use Recount and my boyfriend uses Skada, they are always vastly different, like a few k difference in dps.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by crabmousse View Post

    Skada is way more accurate. it's always very close to my WoL reports, everyone in the raid using recount will post completely different data.
    I haven't used skada since wotlk and people would always poke fun at the fact that I had skada and not recount. So I thought skada was the ugly cousin and assumed it'd had kept the same status.

    It did work fine when I used it though.

  9. #9
    Doesn't skada actively ping all the players in the raid for it's data or was my friend feeding me a load of garbage?

  10. #10
    never used skada..recount does what i need it do so havn't tried anything else think i should try somthing else thoough considering all i need it for is to monitor dps to make sure people are pulling their weight >.< recount seems to have alot of bells and whistles eg fps/ ms monitor 0o

  11. #11
    High Overlord wowmolly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Europe, (did i mention i like mollies?)
    i think its just down to personal taste tbh, I use recount. I have noticed that ppl using skada will have totally different numbers to recount ppl. Not a clue why this is :S

  12. #12
    I am Murloc! Scummer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    I use recount, but want to use Skada.
    Last time I tried Skada it wouldn't record any numbers. I've obviously set a setting wrong somewhere. I couldn't find it so I just went back to recount. I'll probably have to give it another go.

    From what I've heard Skada is slightly better. The only reason recount is more popular is that it's old and everybody is familiar with it.

  13. #13
    Player 'A' and player 'B' can both be using the same parser and have different results, as their parser calculates that player's combat log. If other players are out of range for their 'event's to be presented in the log, they aren't included. This can count both for situations where there is a physical distance and for phase-shifted scenarios, as with Ultraxion.

    Other settings, such as whether pet/minion damage is included, can also account for a difference.

    Lethal, Thunderhorn-US
    (US #1 2-night guild WoD)
    Tues/Thurs 7-11pm CT
    EN 7/7 Heroic

  14. #14
    Mechagnome Sativex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    404 - Not Found
    I though the big difference between the two was the way they calculated dps. I thought it had something to do with the time they each started recording. Now I'm probably wrong, but I remember something about this a couple years ago(skada was new).

    Edit: From the sticky on this forum that linked to this(which seems to come up quite often:

    The two differ in how they calculate, one is based on the duration of combat, and the other is based on duration of activity.
    Neither is right or wrong, just different.
    Nobody can say that either approach is correct, just unfortunatly skada gets flamed often for being "incorrect" because it varies from the more commonly used recount.

    Here's some more:
    Last edited by Sativex; 2012-03-21 at 08:58 PM.
    "Here's a screenshot."
    Wonder how they got the name Huntard?

  15. #15
    Brewmaster Dutchmagoz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    The Netherlands
    Recount is DPS, skada is DPS[e].


    Recount: fight takes 20 seconds. you do 50k dps for 10 seconds, then don't hit the boss for the last 10, you did 50k dps because you didn't touch the boss in last 10 seconds.

    Skada: fight takes 20 seconds, you do 50k dps for 10 seconds, then dont'hit the boss for the last 10, you did 25k dps because it continued counting the last 10 seconds.

    This is the only difference between the 2.
    Last edited by Dutchmagoz; 2012-03-21 at 08:54 PM.
    Twitter - Armory -

    Owner of the #1 mage website, Altered time.

  16. #16
    I've used both recount and skada recently. I switched to skada when the blood dk in our guild told me the blood shields dont show up correctly on recount (they show them doing alot less absorbs than they actually would). I tried it on my blood dk and it did seem to be showing alot more healing from blood shields. However that's the only good thing i can say about skada. Comparing results from my skada and others they always showed up different. sometimes alot different. Whereas with recount they usually match other players' meters more so I dumped skada and went back to recount.

    (PS yes other people werent out of range or counting pet dmg etc lol)

  17. #17
    Herald of the Titans Grimord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    In our raid we tend to have 3~4 using Skada and the rest using Recount and usually everyone using Skada pulls up different results, while everyone on Recount has the exact same values.

    Plus, our Recount values always match our WoL data (unlike what has been claimed before), so it's good. Now I just make sure to bring one person with Skada so he can link top dmg against a specific target (like the adds on Yorsajh HC) as I can't do that with Recount, it seems.
    Fallout 4 Hype!

  18. #18
    imho - DPS is pretty useless. Damage Done is what kills mobs, not DPS. I believe Damage Done is usually pretty consistent between them (assuming no range issues)

  19. #19
    High Overlord Beruwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    imho - DPS is pretty useless. Damage Done is what kills mobs, not DPS.
    In a raid setting one follows the other, if not something went terribly wrong.

  20. #20
    I use skada because i prefer the way it presents the data, and the different data breakdowns available.
    The only thing I dislike about it is that I find its deathlog far inferior to recount.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts