You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Due to the complexity of properly verifying damage attributions, which would look something like this:
Keep track of all individual stats for individual players.
Go through all events and reverse engineer the proper damage values, pre-buff and post-buff.
Due to how stat tracking is implemented, or rather not implemented, in the combatlog this is a complex solution to solve, since it would require a lot of work to manually keep accurrate track of stats. The only stat "event" that is logged is a snapshot of the players stats on combat start.
Approach
As such we will apply a more simplified approach. For this approach we make two assumptions:
The value of an individual buff is the same for all spells.
Current damage events with attribution are correct.
What this essentially means is that the correcting/normalization that is being done is strictly to events that have support events missing and empty events. When one of these is found a new event is fabricated and an estimation of the supported amount is made. These estimations are generally a low-ball estimate. The weights being used for these estimations are freely configurable.
This solution isn't perfect but it does help reduce the gap between fact and fiction.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Preface
Due to the complexity of properly verifying damage attributions, which would look something like this:
Due to how stat tracking is implemented, or rather not implemented, in the combatlog this is a complex solution to solve, since it would require a lot of work to manually keep accurrate track of stats. The only stat "event" that is logged is a snapshot of the players stats on combat start.
Approach
As such we will apply a more simplified approach. For this approach we make two assumptions:
What this essentially means is that the correcting/normalization that is being done is strictly to events that have support events missing and empty events. When one of these is found a new event is fabricated and an estimation of the supported amount is made. These estimations are generally a low-ball estimate. The weights being used for these estimations are freely configurable.
This solution isn't perfect but it does help reduce the gap between fact and fiction.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: