Anyway, I still stand that log merging is not necessary atm. Better focus on log browser / custom event visualization
Poll: next feature
Re: Poll: next feature
Thanks for info, must've missed that back in 2.4 days.
Anyway, I still stand that log merging is not necessary atm. Better focus on log browser / custom event visualization
Anyway, I still stand that log merging is not necessary atm. Better focus on log browser / custom event visualization
Re: Poll: next feature
I believe you can set the logging range and tools like Loggerhead set it to max (50y IIRC) automatically. TBF I haven't looked too closely at this stuff for a long time and there might have been many changes since then.
There certainly seems to be no 'global instance' logging (as it's confounded by Thorim) and obviously logging out either to swap people over or from a DC will give log gaps.
I appreciate what has been said about the more real-time tracking and how merging is not going to help here 9without some very fancy work I guess) but we use it for more that that. We like to look back and see how people have developed. Point to trends and a whole load of things that really need one complete log per raid to be effective.
I've been merging logs from several people for WWS for a while now and if the figures from their client are to be trusted 2%+ discrepancy in entries exists on even logs that I thought should match pretty well (how much that is start and end of raid I dunno).
Accuracy is one argument and one that from what I can see could go either way, the other issue is simply not having the logger present for the whole time, not sure how that could be overcome without a merging option. Would be great to be able yto merge server-side too, so my officers can upload and then I just select their logs and merge them (then delete the un-merged ones). Would be interested to know what proportion of the merging votes came from GMs and officers.
I have also (today) decided that my earlier comment of having this merging feature as the last remaining reason to drop WWS for WoL was wrong. I'm transferring to a 1yr Unlimited this month. \o/
(though I still would like merging
)
tl:dr version:
Gief merging; yay WoL!
There certainly seems to be no 'global instance' logging (as it's confounded by Thorim) and obviously logging out either to swap people over or from a DC will give log gaps.
I appreciate what has been said about the more real-time tracking and how merging is not going to help here 9without some very fancy work I guess) but we use it for more that that. We like to look back and see how people have developed. Point to trends and a whole load of things that really need one complete log per raid to be effective.
I've been merging logs from several people for WWS for a while now and if the figures from their client are to be trusted 2%+ discrepancy in entries exists on even logs that I thought should match pretty well (how much that is start and end of raid I dunno).
Accuracy is one argument and one that from what I can see could go either way, the other issue is simply not having the logger present for the whole time, not sure how that could be overcome without a merging option. Would be great to be able yto merge server-side too, so my officers can upload and then I just select their logs and merge them (then delete the un-merged ones). Would be interested to know what proportion of the merging votes came from GMs and officers.
I have also (today) decided that my earlier comment of having this merging feature as the last remaining reason to drop WWS for WoL was wrong. I'm transferring to a 1yr Unlimited this month. \o/
(though I still would like merging
)tl:dr version:
Gief merging; yay WoL!
Re: Poll: next feature
Yeah. I'm still stuck at choosing an algorithm. While real time merging is still considered rocket science, but server side merging seems doable...
Option 1: Client side merging. Pro: no CPU cost. Con: need to get all logs to 1 person, cannot merge real time logs.
Option 2: Server side merging. Pro: Can merge any log - even live ones; it will create a merged copy on demand. Con: high CPU cost, will probably be limited with quotas for free accounts. More complex algorithm.
Option 3: Real live log merging while lines are coming in. Pro: It just works. F5 = new data. Con: I hate to be the one writing the algorithm for that... Other cons from #2.
I'll try #1 and #2, some of the code is common for both approaches. Still no ETA - I'm probably going to take a week off but you never know when you see a good last minute deal. Tree needs sunshine! (Yes, I'm a resto druid)
#3: Maybe when after the first version is finished and live, or if someone has a really good idea how to do it; The problem with merging is that it's so fuzzy, things may or may not have happened before / after other things, but to produce a log you need to anwser yes/no and where to insert stuff. Doing it while two or more clients are busy uploading is a bit too much for me, I've never been very good with the discrete math / AI code.
Option 1: Client side merging. Pro: no CPU cost. Con: need to get all logs to 1 person, cannot merge real time logs.
Option 2: Server side merging. Pro: Can merge any log - even live ones; it will create a merged copy on demand. Con: high CPU cost, will probably be limited with quotas for free accounts. More complex algorithm.
Option 3: Real live log merging while lines are coming in. Pro: It just works. F5 = new data. Con: I hate to be the one writing the algorithm for that... Other cons from #2.
I'll try #1 and #2, some of the code is common for both approaches. Still no ETA - I'm probably going to take a week off but you never know when you see a good last minute deal. Tree needs sunshine! (Yes, I'm a resto druid
)#3: Maybe when after the first version is finished and live, or if someone has a really good idea how to do it; The problem with merging is that it's so fuzzy, things may or may not have happened before / after other things, but to produce a log you need to anwser yes/no and where to insert stuff. Doing it while two or more clients are busy uploading is a bit too much for me, I've never been very good with the discrete math / AI code.
Re: Poll: next feature
Limiting the function to paid for accounts seems reasonable here. Chances are the only people likely to be organised enough to gather multiple logs and manage them are those organised enough to scrape together some dosh to have decent stats tracking.
If you think this will limit the CPU usage to manageable levels then I say go for it and make it a perk of supporting what you are doing.
If you think this will limit the CPU usage to manageable levels then I say go for it and make it a perk of supporting what you are doing.
Re: Poll: next feature
With option #2/3, you don't need to "gather logs", just start the client and type /combatlog.
The client side merging does require everyone uploading the text file after a raid, and that's the major con for implementing it that way. It's much more work for the ones organizing the raid unless the guild geek hacks together a few shell scripts to do it automatically.
The client side merging does require everyone uploading the text file after a raid, and that's the major con for implementing it that way. It's much more work for the ones organizing the raid unless the guild geek hacks together a few shell scripts to do it automatically.
Re: Poll: next feature
I don't know if this would be classified together with one of the available poll options, but unless I'm just not seeing it, there isn't a direct link to the buffs / debuffs listings for a fight / overall raid. In order to see the buffs gained, you have to first select a player, and then look at their buffs / debuffs, and then try to find the buff / debuff you're interested in within their list.
The problem of course is that some buffs aren't guaranteed to have proc'd on certain players. For example, if I'm looking for the Speed buff (potion of speed) or Wild Magic, if a player didn't use either of these potions in a fight, then the buff won't show up in their list, and I'll just have to randomly click through players' buffs until I finally find someone who gained it. Then I can finally click on the buff itself and see the stats for that buff over the course of a fight / raid -- i.e. the amount of times used and who used it.
It would be far less tedious to just have a direct link to this information from the get-go so we don't have to hunt and peck for this info.
The problem of course is that some buffs aren't guaranteed to have proc'd on certain players. For example, if I'm looking for the Speed buff (potion of speed) or Wild Magic, if a player didn't use either of these potions in a fight, then the buff won't show up in their list, and I'll just have to randomly click through players' buffs until I finally find someone who gained it. Then I can finally click on the buff itself and see the stats for that buff over the course of a fight / raid -- i.e. the amount of times used and who used it.
It would be far less tedious to just have a direct link to this information from the get-go so we don't have to hunt and peck for this info.
Re: Poll: next feature
Indeed, I'd love to be able to select spells and show their uptime even if they are casted by several people on several targets. At the moment it's pretty much impossible.pscot82 wrote:It would be far less tedious to just have a direct link to this information from the get-go so we don't have to hunt and peck for this info.
Re: Poll: next feature
Hmm, yeah. I've added a list of spells to the Dashboard, it will be live on the next update (~tomorrow).
Re: Poll: next feature
I just had a few minor suggestions and didnt want to clutter up with a new thread, so I figured this was a good place. I should also point out that I didnt really read or search much before posting this, so if it has been covered I apologize.
1) Auto-archiving. After it scans the log, zip it up with some sort of date as the name, maybe even throw in Ulduar-25 or whatever. With WWS, I just got used to not having to mess with that part of it. A few times already Ive gotten 2-3 bosses into a raid, and realized that I forgot to change the log. So then I have to go and split logs, which is a pain.
2) On the "Damage Done" screen, there isnt enough blank space at the bottom of the page to put the whole mouse-over displays from the people at the bottom of the list. It displays it beyond the bottom of the page, so it gives me the option to scroll down, but when I do the mouse moves off the link, and the page shrinks again and everything sorta bounces around. Either add some blank space for the last 4 guys, or change the mouse-over code so the display fills lines up rather than down. (note this might be elsewhere, but I just happened to notice it now)
3) On the Drop-down menu for Bosses at the top, on all of the boss name/try displays, could you put the total damage done next to it. I guess this is another thing I miss from WWS, but its just nice to see at a cursory glance which fights went well and which didnt. I know its all there in the Compare Fights tab (which is great btw) but sometimes if Im looking at a specific person and how they did, its nice to be able to figure out which fight is which without having another window open or something. For example, instead of "Freya 1", "Freya 2", etc. its "Freya 1 9.8M", "Freya 2 3.2M", etc.
4) Select All box for places where there are checkbox lists. Just squeeze in another checkbox in the upper left part of the header that when clicked either selects or de-selects all of em. I kinda like to see how the whole raid is preforming, and clicking through the other 15 people who arent the top 3 is rather annoying. I know it becomes a huge jumble of lines, but I like to check out things like that.
5) Pie Chart line colors. I know theres colored boxes next to each ability, and they are always arranged in about the same fashion, but on the light-orange and all of the healing green, its hard to see the white lines. Maybe blue or something, I dunno. Not really a big concern, just a little confusing at first glance.
Minor issues aside though, I must just say that I love your program. So many pretty graphs and tons of numbers, all with a slick interface and a site that isn't lagged all to hell, just what I like
1) Auto-archiving. After it scans the log, zip it up with some sort of date as the name, maybe even throw in Ulduar-25 or whatever. With WWS, I just got used to not having to mess with that part of it. A few times already Ive gotten 2-3 bosses into a raid, and realized that I forgot to change the log. So then I have to go and split logs, which is a pain.
2) On the "Damage Done" screen, there isnt enough blank space at the bottom of the page to put the whole mouse-over displays from the people at the bottom of the list. It displays it beyond the bottom of the page, so it gives me the option to scroll down, but when I do the mouse moves off the link, and the page shrinks again and everything sorta bounces around. Either add some blank space for the last 4 guys, or change the mouse-over code so the display fills lines up rather than down. (note this might be elsewhere, but I just happened to notice it now)
3) On the Drop-down menu for Bosses at the top, on all of the boss name/try displays, could you put the total damage done next to it. I guess this is another thing I miss from WWS, but its just nice to see at a cursory glance which fights went well and which didnt. I know its all there in the Compare Fights tab (which is great btw) but sometimes if Im looking at a specific person and how they did, its nice to be able to figure out which fight is which without having another window open or something. For example, instead of "Freya 1", "Freya 2", etc. its "Freya 1 9.8M", "Freya 2 3.2M", etc.
4) Select All box for places where there are checkbox lists. Just squeeze in another checkbox in the upper left part of the header that when clicked either selects or de-selects all of em. I kinda like to see how the whole raid is preforming, and clicking through the other 15 people who arent the top 3 is rather annoying. I know it becomes a huge jumble of lines, but I like to check out things like that.
5) Pie Chart line colors. I know theres colored boxes next to each ability, and they are always arranged in about the same fashion, but on the light-orange and all of the healing green, its hard to see the white lines. Maybe blue or something, I dunno. Not really a big concern, just a little confusing at first glance.
Minor issues aside though, I must just say that I love your program. So many pretty graphs and tons of numbers, all with a slick interface and a site that isn't lagged all to hell, just what I like
Re: Poll: next feature
Filed #1 to #4 as tickets. Yup, it's getting too messy to organize it all in a spreadsheet, so we're moving the requests and bugs to Trac.