GamParse 2.0.0.x Beta

This may be fixed already, but since a few patches ago, my SK pet shows as "unknown" class and won't let me attach it to myself.

Comparing 2 remedies is generally pointless because the higher one is always going to be better.

You'd compare the efficiency between spells of different lines, e.g. remedy vs light.

I mean, I don't want to tell you how to heal/play your class, but in the modern game generally speaking faster heals are almost always better than slow heals due to the faster pace of modern EQ. There is a reason why Complete Heal went out of favor a long, long time ago.

What it really comes down to is the fact that Heals are NOT analogous to Damage because heals have a cap (full HP) where damage doesn't (unless the mob is HP locked but that's a whole other deal).

And really, you can't boil *anything* in EQ, (including damage), down to a single number because it is so varied:

DPS by itself is a completely worthless number. It only becomes semi-relevant if you include a time/duration, but even then it is still pretty bad because it doesn't give you ANY context:

• Did you engage the NPC halfway through the fight?
• Does the NPC HP lock at any point?
• Does the NPC wipe debuffs?
• Does the NPC Silence/stun/mez/charm/etc?
• Were you burning?
• Did you have ADPS?
• Is the NPC weak/strong against your damage type?
• Etc.

There are SO many factors that are needed to give proper context to ANY parse that if your goal is for me to spit out one number that tells you everything you're going to be disappointed because it just doesn't work like that.

(All that said, I do plan to include AHPS/FHPS numbers on the breakdown tabs. Part of the issue is that there is SO much information I can display I have to figure out ways to make it manageable in the UI. A box with 50 columns of info is just going to drown everyone in data and make their eyes glaze over).

Pet linking is fixed already.

Assigning a class to a pet depends on that pet casting a spell that is unique to that pet type, or a unique type of proc, or in the case of warders, if the pet name is literally XXXXX's warder it knows it's a beastlord pet.

Sorry, this is probably just me being brain-dead, but I can't find where to download the beta version. The elitegamerslounge link in post #1 is dead, and the link in your sig only has the 1.6.1.7 download. Not sure what I'm missing.

The link on page #1 worked for me yesterday, and just worked for me again now.

Yep, just worked for me.

Since I hadn't checked there in over a year, I assumed it was perma-down, but I guess it was just temporarily down last night.

Thanks

OK, next silly question I should probably be able to figure out myself, but can't so far....

I got a new J5 melee merc and went out to test the new higher-DPS changes. I pulled two mobs, and just healed the merc. When I went to the parser, the fights don't show up, probably due to the fact that I didn't do any damage. I just can't find the settings so it will still parse the fights.

Are we still at 2.0.0.98 ? (The current Page 1 link).

Been using that version for a while now (months), but a number of things are listed in this thread as 'been fixed' (such as Glyphs) so wondering if i'm not getting the right version ?

Regards

Sorry dumb question but is there a tutorial somewhere for how to use this? The "getting started" on the gamparse website is very out-dated.

i dont know why but all of a sudden my gamparse opens and instantly closes itself

me too, i click to run it and it says not recognized and closes instantly

I was able to fix mine not sure why windows 10 randomly put a unlock thing like do for zip files on this exe and i had to right click on it and hit unblock and it started working again

man this thing is like one of them crowd funded MMOs staying in beta/alpha forever lol.

Combining all targets of a specific heal spell, by heal caster, would be awesome. Or if is a way I don't see, that does that already?

For example, if could see combined totals for AH values, by heal cast, instead of having to add each received target together, would be super easy to compare heals.

Right now what I'm doing, is if I want to see what my average AH value is for Spiritual Remedy as an example, I have to go through and manually add up what they are for every toon I cast the spell on, sometimes a dozen different toons, then manually add averages then divide by total toons that was cast on, to get average AH for that spell, that event / mob.

But the higher one is not better, when applying AH to FH ratio logic. And for the same reason, for all other heal spells, is why AH to FH ratio is not the way to compare heals.

The bad logic is the same, whether comparing higher/lower remedies, or Remedy to Light. I'd never cast it in a raid environment, but my guess is Light would be better AH/FH than Remedy. But obviously, it's a much worse heal. Because it's cast + recast time is too slow, for what it's AH value would be.

Specifically, I want to compare Spiritual Remedy to Sincere Intervention, Merciful Intervention, and Dire Renewal, and know where they 'should' be placed in a single target multibind, during specific phases of different events. I believe this will vary quite a bit, with many different factors, and no cleric can 'say' what is better, and will vary a lot, depending on tank being healed gear, AA, discs running, etc, number of additional healers healing the tank, and many other factors that are going to continuously change. I think this is going to be an individual thing needing comparisons by each healer, to be 'best' heals provided at specific parts of events.

My guess is Spiritual Remedy will almost always be better when multiple healers healing 1 target. My guess is Sincere Intervention will be better than Spiritual Remedy, and possibly better than Merciful Remedy, when I'm getting only minimal additional healing besides myself on an offtank of a hard hitting mob. My guess is Dire Renewal will almost never be better than Spiritual Remedy, because of it's slow cast time, but, I don't know that. It's purely just a guess. I'd like to know, for sure.

IMO, the only way to fairly determine this is by AH values compared to cast + actual recast time (which is NOT 1.5s, but variable for everyone, with several factors).

tried unblocking it, but still not responding for me

Would appreciate if you could fix the order of operations in the tank tab now that misses are checked first.

It already does.

The repetition of this statement is evolving into a lie, the longer your internal version doesn't match what users have available. Commitment to quality is one thing, but people are already using a thing that doesn't work. They'd like to update that to something that's closer to correct.

And I was referring to what is available.

Combat order used to be Defensive checks > Hit/Miss > DA.

If you rolled a defensive check but then rolled a miss, EQ reported the miss, but didn't report the successful defensive check.

If you rolled a defensive check, but then rolled a miss, but then rolled a DA, EQ reported the DA, but didn't report the miss or the successful defensive check.

Because EQ only reports the results of the last roll, to get accurate percentages in GamParse I had to make it check in partial reverse order (DA>Miss>Defensives [in correct order]):

1) GamParse counts total number of attempts. E.g. 100 attempts
2) GamParse checks DA. E.g you are DA for 10 hits. 100 attempts 10/100 DA (10%)
3) GamParse checks Hit/Miss. E.g you are missed 20 times. 100-10 (DA) = 90 attempt 20/90 (22.22%).
4) GamParse checks riposte/parry/dodge/block.

In the above example it is *possible* that some of those 10 DA hits were also misses. Unfortunately there is no way for a player to now that so it subtracts out the 10 DA hits and calculates misses out of 90. Likewise for misses and defenses.

The effect of this is that the pure raw number of successful defensive checks and hit/misses can be wrong, but the PERCENTAGE of them is correct because any data that can't be confirmed is subtracted out.



The only difference with regard to how this works on my current version is that now the raw hit/miss numbers might be a little higher than before, nothing more. To be clear: If you are talking about a very short parse then yes the current public version will be slightly less accurate. But I would hope by now people know for reliable data they need longer parses and with a longer parse you won't see any difference.

Maybe I am wrong but shouldn't it be
97/219 for miss chance
12/122 ripo chance
since misses are now calculated first

https://ibb.co/nnGzn1k