Skada VS Recount

[idz]

Been thinking about switching to skada for a while now and would like to know why or why not i should do it.

Are the numbers accurate or maybe even more accurate in skada, and so forth.

(this is probably the 340th post about this but the searchfunction was disabled and i couldnt be arsed to scroll thru more than 10 pages of posts.)

[Oneoldfogie]

Skada doesn't start recording until you're actually in combat, so it gives funny numbers compared to recount sometimes. On the upside however, if you download the HealingAbsorbs thing for it, then it accurately adds absorbs onto healing, which is why I use it, seeing as absorbs are as good as healing, and im a priest, so meh.

[lawomous]

Generally the consensus is that Skada takes up less memory.

It also records much less data, so if you're simply after a "DPS meter" which is pretty fire and forget, then go for Skada.

Recount records a lot more information, and if you use it to report to people, or see how someone died, or use the information in any important way, then Recount would come out on top.

Both addons show similar numbers when compared, Skada doesn't stop recording someone's DPS when they die, Recount does. So DoT class numbers may be pretty off.

[elchali]

Skada.
In Recount I have trouble finding out how to see what caused players death? - is that even possible to see in recount?
It is in Skada at least.

[Octan]

I liked Skada because its lightweight, easily customizable and has pretty colours

[Zykothepsycho]

Skada.
In Recount I have trouble finding out how to see what caused players death? - is that even possible to see in recount?
It is in Skada at least.

Go to the category called "Deaths", click the person you want to see, and it will show what damage/healing they took and how many seconds it was before they died. You can report this to the raid/party/guild or whatever also.

[Taryble]

Honestly, in my opinion, Recount vs. Skada is a bad comparison to make. Recount is an on-the-fly encounter analyzer, while Skada is a series of meters. Admittedly, 99% of people use Recount for just the meters, and nothing else - if you're one of that 99%, Skada is fine.

When I did raid leading in a previous guild, I used Recount. Now that I'm just a mook, I use Skada - I'm not trying to analyze anything, just wanna see quicky comparisons.

When it comes to accuracy, they're both very accurate - they just measure time in combat in different ways, which means you can't really compare Recount numbers to Skada numbers. It's an apples to oranges type of thing.

[ComputerNerd]

Until there is a recognised means by which you measure damage/healing in terms of how that relates to the time spent in combat then those two meters, and others will vary in their results.
Nobody can give an answer as to what is the right or wrong way.
Recount may be seen as a resource hog, but it offers a lot more, and some useful tools which like those seemingly offered by gearscore are overlooked due to being dazzled by big numbers.
If you do nothing more than link your spammage meters, then skada is more than enough, but if you have the intent to get something useful out of the information then recount can offer that.

[Taryble]

I will, however, say that Skada does include more tools than most people believe. I admit it has more tools than I thought it did. It's just not got quite the comprehensive suite that Recount provides.

[Bfarm]

didn't read what anyone else said but,

Recount is a memory whore but accurate
Skada is inaccurate but uses less memory

[KeoDK]

Poop vs crap

[ComputerNerd]

Not innacurate, only different for the reasons I previously stated.
Nobody can properly define how you calculate the numbers, and until that happens then they will vary.
Each one is no more correct in its numbers than any others.

Skada is wrong simply because it does not agree with recount ?
Then why is recount not wrong by that same arguement ?

[Squirreludecker]

Skada is wrong simply because it does not agree with recount ?
Then why is recount not wrong by that same arguement ?

because recount cant be wrong. DUH! obvious fact is obvious. (hah)

[Psychos]

IMO Skada is better as a go-to DPS or HPS meters, it provides more accurate numbers I think... but for overall raid utility Recount is better even if it doesn't have a fails function like Skada...

[ComputerNerd]

No it is not obvious.
I have seen too many arguements flaming skada as being incorrect because it does not agree with their beloved recount.
Demonstrated very well by Psychos.

Until people can agree on how you calculate the numbers, there is not one more accurate than the other because they are both using different, and valid methods.
Until someone can put together a standard that people agree on, there is not one which is wrong, and not one which is right. Just slightly different.

[Yohassakura]

If you want to look at your dps, use skada.
If you want to analyse data (during a raid/instance when there's a short break), use recount.
If you want to analyse data in depth, use a weblog program (World of Logs / WoW meters online).

[muffinboy]

Logg out, delete it (or take it off) and install a treat meter instead ... problem solved

Seriously ... i HATE the spamming this causes

[Razariel]

If you want to look at your dps, use skada.
If you want to analyse data (during a raid/instance when there's a short break), use recount.
If you want to analyse data in depth, use a weblog program (World of Logs / WoW meters online).

Pretty much this.

[zox]

Skada.
In Recount I have trouble finding out how to see what caused players death? - is that even possible to see in recount?
It is in Skada at least.

Yes, it is possible, if you chose the "deaths" tab, then click on an individual person, you can see what damages and heals they got before dieing.

[Kabbalah]

Logg out, delete it (or take it off) and install a treat meter instead ... problem solved

Seriously ... i HATE the spamming this causes

Skada automatically switches to threat mode when you are in combat.