Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Parser ResultsFollow

#1 Jun 10 2009 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
**
339 posts
Nearly every damage efficiency argument that occurs makes reference to how 'weapon a' parses in relation to 'weapon b.' Back in the day I saw a few posts showing parser results, but in the past few months (if not longer) I never actually see any parser evidence; I just hear them referred to.

I have always just accepted the common claims about how 'weapon a' parses better than 'weapon b' in certain situations, but its getting to the point now that I'm trying to debate with friends in game about these issues, and I'm using these common community claims about parser evidence as the basis for my arguments.

Then I got to thinking...it would be so much easier if I could just direct them to a link showing these parser results to end the debate, as well as put my mind at ease knowing that I wasn't spreading bad info. The problem is - I don't know where these parser results are located that are so commonly referred to.

Can anyone help with this?
#2 Jun 10 2009 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,481 posts
Parse results aren't stored in a mass database, players who parse have them saved on thier individual computers. That being said, it's very difficult to accurately measure efficiency of gear A to gear B with a parser due to the large variations in player skill/aggression/buffs/debuffs/etc. Using a single parse as an "end all" for an argument is dumb.

Parses are good for measuring:
accuracy
avg dmg (melee/WS)
counters/avoids/etc

All of which can also be estimated via theorycrafting and normalized to "ideal" players for a much better indicator of general results.
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#3 Jun 10 2009 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
783 posts
When someone says "this will parse better than that" that doesn't necessarily mean they (or anyone else) actually ever parsed it. It just means from theoretical calculations we know that it will yield better damage. Actual parses have such a high uncertainty based on player efficiency that the results are generally useless, especially when trying to determine which single piece of gear is superior when the difference between the two is minimal.

For example, Askar Zucchetto versus Walahra Turban. From theoretical calculations we can predict that Askar is better to TP in because the STR/DEX bonus outweighs the Haste+1 (assuming your Acc isn't capped and you're not getting SV double March), but you would never notice a difference in a real parse.

Edited, Jun 10th 2009 3:11pm by Lothiriel
____________________________
Lothiriel on Midgardsormr
90RNG/90NIN/75DRK/90BLM/90SAM/75DNC
Bonecraft 103 (like anyone cares anymore)
#4 Jun 10 2009 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good
**
339 posts
shintasama wrote:
Parse results aren't stored in a mass database, players who parse have them saved on thier individual computers. That being said, it's very difficult to accurately measure efficiency of gear A to gear B with a parser due to the large variations in player skill/aggression/buffs/debuffs/etc. Using a single parse as an "end all" for an argument is dumb.

Parses are good for measuring:
accuracy
avg dmg (melee/WS)
counters/avoids/etc

All of which can also be estimated via theorycrafting and normalized to "ideal" players for a much better indicator of general results.


I didn't assume they were stored on a large database. I do, however, recall seeing a decent amount of parses being displayed here a long time ago on a somewhat regular basis. Maybe it was just during a kick when lots of people were displaying results.

I also didn't want to use a single parse to be the end-all authority on the subject. I figured the best thing to do would be to dig up a few examples just to have as that: a few examples to refer to. They wouldn't be the basis for the claims completely, but they would certainly help as some bit of "back up" for those who believe the claims but don't actively parse themselves.

Edited, Jun 10th 2009 2:47pm by TheTang
#5 Jun 10 2009 at 12:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,481 posts
Quote:
I figured the best thing to do would be to dig up a few examples just to have as that: a few examples to refer to. They wouldn't be the basis for the claims completely, but they would certainly help as some bit of "back up" for those who believe the claims but don't actively parse themselves.
They're usually not even good "back up" evidence for gear A vs gear B though. People tend to take them as end all proof, so even just using them as corroborating evidence is a bad precedent. Player A is just too different from Player B most of the time for for even large (5-10%) gear/SJ changes to reflect well.

ex: shinta writes long, thought out post on how Soboro+/DRG will outdo Hagun+/DRG, Ruk writes a long thought out post about how Hagun+/DRG will outdo Hagun+/WAR, shinta states if A>B and B>C then A>C. Deboro posts a poorly controlled parse of him doing 2% better Hagun+/WAR than a unknowing Soboro+DRG, states that this is proof that Hagun+/WAR is superior. Shinta pulls out several parses of Soboro+/DRG doing 1.5->2x as much as Hagun+/WAR. Deboro refuses to budge because he thinks his one parse is an end all answer, despite real evidence showing otherwise (note: shinta's parses aren't real evidence either, shinta is aggressive as **** compared to most people, shinta's original math and the countless hours people have spent figuring out all the math for how the game works is the real evidence).
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#6 Jun 10 2009 at 10:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
*****
10,813 posts
TheTang wrote:
Nearly every damage efficiency argument that occurs makes reference to how 'weapon a' parses in relation to 'weapon b.' Back in the day I saw a few posts showing parser results, but in the past few months (if not longer) I never actually see any parser evidence; I just hear them referred to.

I have always just accepted the common claims about how 'weapon a' parses better than 'weapon b' in certain situations, but its getting to the point now that I'm trying to debate with friends in game about these issues, and I'm using these common community claims about parser evidence as the basis for my arguments.

Then I got to thinking...it would be so much easier if I could just direct them to a link showing these parser results to end the debate, as well as put my mind at ease knowing that I wasn't spreading bad info. The problem is - I don't know where these parser results are located that are so commonly referred to.

Can anyone help with this?


parses can be interesting, but their greatest use is in confirming theorycrafting. "competitive parses" don't accomplish much, even if you're very controlled or parse against yourself. parsing is good to confirm sh*t like "theorycrafters say i should have 93%~ ACC at this camp. let's see about that..." and such. but when it comes to "which weapon/item is better?" theorycrafting and knowledge of what stats do decide that.

honestly, over something like 2-3 years of parsing the majority of my XP parties and a lot of events, i've probably done 5 parses or less that were actually enlightening to me in any way.

the main one i can think of concerns haste. for a long time, i (like anyone else who grasps what haste does to delay) acknowledged haste's increasing returns and its general value, but like a lot of people i refused to accept that small amounts of haste could make a difference in a short fight. starfox helpfully (and often rudely) explained it to me repeatedly on alla, but for some reason i didn't understand his explanation (if you're interested, the explanation is that for any variable you think will introduce bias and stop haste's benefits from being realized, there's at least 5 more variables that reintroduce enough randomness in fights for haste to be realized. for example, even if you and your friends always autotarget together, you won't always do the same number of JA or WS, and mobs will be different level and have different HP, so there's always that random situation where 3% more haste means 3%~ more chance of hitting when you wouldn't have, and you do, 3%~ of the time).

it took me a long time to grasp this explanation (which is a bit embarrassing), but i accepted starfox's (and other people who claimed % increase in attack rounds per minute translated directly into % increases and DoT) because of parsing. there's a guy on phoenix named 'gates' who is a long time MNK like me (also a really nice guy). we used to party in KRT, and i always remembered him as the only MNK who could outparse me, even though my gear was often inferior to my PT members (knowledge, aggressiveness, and proper gear/macro/food choices make a HUGE difference for DD). as we partied more often, i noticed that he and i were equally aggressive in WS, equally attentive to macros, equally mindful of positioning for autotarget, equally good and making quick choices to maximize damage. he also did HNM sh*t either before i did or with more successful groups than i did at the time, so he ended up with byakko's haidate before me, black belt before me, etc. when we would parse, he'd always have 1-2 superior pieces of gear to me, and would always win.

during the height of my arguing against the benefits of small amounts of haste, i remember parsing a few parties with him when he had black belt and i had brown belt. in every one, he outparsed me by about 5%-7% (depending on buffs), which is more or less exactly what the theorycrafting predicted. i'd even look at our total melee damage or number of hits, and he got just the amount more you'd expect. these are as controlled parsing conditions as you can get; identical playstyle, identical macros and gear, identical merits, identical attitude toward damage dealing. to me, the results meant that, whether i grasped why haste cleanly gave the results it did or not, haste just did work the way starfox said. that was the main parsing experience i had that made any difference at all to my thoughts about the game.

other things that interested me were seeing the DoT potential of PLD/NIN with joy/justice, getting outparsed by WAR/SAM and seeing where his damage came from, and maybe a couple others like that. the really interesting thing about parsing is the examples it gives of damage distributions (melee, WS, enspell, whatever). on the one hand, it informs theorycrafting by reeling it in and showing you what realistic parties are like, mathwise. on the other hand, it lets you see the problems in people's playstyle; for example, whenever i see people post parses proving that their hot shot DD "is better than BB monk," i almost uniformly notice that the MNK in question averages her/his asuran fists anywhere from 100-200 damage lower than mine. you see what people aren't doing, and what's holding them back.

but say you want to compare hagun and shinsoku. the role of parsing there is to show damage distribution and such. you'll never see the actual comparison from a parse. people play too differently. i could maybe bring out such differences by parsing with gates, but we're not studio gobli or ffxi scientists; we're just average players who want to have fun (and he and i don't even really know each other or interact too much because we're never in the same ls). even then, the parses would only serve to confirm the theorycrafting or show what may have been misguided about theorycrafting. the parse itself is not the deciding argument against a piece of gear.

so, if you want to help ls members or win gear arguments, learn what stats do. think of things in terms of % increases to DoT (that way you can usefully compare disparate damage sources like haste, ACC, STR, DA, etc), learn the kind of trends that operate with these things, and work on being able to lay out explanations of them concisely so people don't just tune you out. actual parses usually say more about player than gear.

Edited, Jun 11th 2009 2:40am by milich
____________________________
pahn
retired monk

i wish to be the red comet.
#7 Jun 10 2009 at 11:00 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
299 posts
I'm relatively new to parsing. Used to play on PS2 and even when I switched to PC, I didn't look into getting a parser for a long time (tbh, I have no idea why). Haven't really gotten in the whole theorycrafting thing either. I first used the parser on my COR and discovered that I had too much Racc on my WS macros. Over the course of 110+ colibris, I hit a staggering 98% on WS (the majority of them slug shots). Bit of a run of luck there obviously but still it told me I could trade out some Racc and pile on some STR. I could never break 1K back in the day (was also /rng then, not /war). Since then, I've broken 2400 in merits. That's the exception not the rule but with berserk and chaos up, 1500-1600 is the avg. Without them, 1100ish or so. Either way, I'd attribute my increased dmg on COR to being able to see what my gear was doing for me and knowing what to do to take advantage of it.

Parsed my SAM in a merit pt for the first time last night and also broke in my tomoe. Wanted to make sure my pole tp set was on point. Spamming crab sushi, my melee acc was 95.07%. Right at the cap.

But competitive parses are fun too lol. Whether they provide useful info or not, the time my COR beat an ebody WAR for TOTAL DMG (I sh*t you not), was pretty funny. But that probly tells you more about the other guy's shortcomings than anything else.

#8 Jun 10 2009 at 11:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
*****
10,813 posts
TDGSW wrote:
I'm relatively new to parsing. Used to play on PS2 and even when I switched to PC, I didn't look into getting a parser for a long time (tbh, I have no idea why). Haven't really gotten in the whole theorycrafting thing either. I first used the parser on my COR and discovered that I had too much Racc on my WS macros. Over the course of 110+ colibris, I hit a staggering 98% on WS (the majority of them slug shots). Bit of a run of luck there obviously but still it told me I could trade out some Racc and pile on some STR. I could never break 1K back in the day (was also /rng then, not /war). Since then, I've broken 2400 in merits. That's the exception not the rule but with berserk and chaos up, 1500-1600 is the avg. Without them, 1100ish or so. Either way, I'd attribute my increased dmg on COR to being able to see what my gear was doing for me and knowing what to do to take advantage of it.

Parsed my SAM in a merit pt for the first time last night and also broke in my tomoe. Wanted to make sure my pole tp set was on point. Spamming crab sushi, my melee acc was 95.07%. Right at the cap.

But competitive parses are fun too lol. Whether they provide useful info or not, the time my COR beat an ebody WAR for TOTAL DMG (I sh*t you not), was pretty funny. But that probly tells you more about the other guy's shortcomings than anything else.



exactly. unless you're actively involved in trying to refine theorycrafting itself (which isn't a huge discipline; there's only so much to know about this game), parsing offers two pretty simple benefits: seeing what's up with gear/food/etc choices, and having meaningless (but often fun) epeen comparisons. no dis on parses, but that's pretty much what they're good for.

if you find dynamic uses for them or things to investigate, definitely use kparser, and get in touch with kinematics for advice. he's endlessly helpful and friendly, and his parser is great.
____________________________
pahn
retired monk

i wish to be the red comet.
#9 Jun 11 2009 at 11:04 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,209 posts
milich wrote:
the main one i can think of concerns haste. for a long time, i (like anyone else who grasps what haste does to delay) acknowledged haste's increasing returns and its general value, but like a lot of people i refused to accept that small amounts of haste could make a difference in a short fight. starfox helpfully (and often rudely) explained it to me repeatedly on alla, but for some reason i didn't understand his explanation (if you're interested, the explanation is that for any variable you think will introduce bias and stop haste's benefits from being realized, there's at least 5 more variables that reintroduce enough randomness in fights for haste to be realized. for example, even if you and your friends always autotarget together, you won't always do the same number of JA or WS, and mobs will be different level and have different HP, so there's always that random situation where 3% more haste means 3%~ more chance of hitting when you wouldn't have, and you do, 3%~ of the time).

Actually, while you're still talking about this.

I haven't found any alla link from KI thread you linked on dusk vs askar thread in WAR forum. Maybe you didn't put any link in the first place? I don't bother reading KI **** stupidity and provocation.

I still can't think any other variables that has atomicity similar to haste, or if there's any that I can guess, I don't see any correlations to haste.
____________________________
Princess ThePsychoticOne wrote:
int stands for int.

#10 Jun 11 2009 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
*****
10,813 posts
VZX wrote:
milich wrote:
the main one i can think of concerns haste. for a long time, i (like anyone else who grasps what haste does to delay) acknowledged haste's increasing returns and its general value, but like a lot of people i refused to accept that small amounts of haste could make a difference in a short fight. starfox helpfully (and often rudely) explained it to me repeatedly on alla, but for some reason i didn't understand his explanation (if you're interested, the explanation is that for any variable you think will introduce bias and stop haste's benefits from being realized, there's at least 5 more variables that reintroduce enough randomness in fights for haste to be realized. for example, even if you and your friends always autotarget together, you won't always do the same number of JA or WS, and mobs will be different level and have different HP, so there's always that random situation where 3% more haste means 3%~ more chance of hitting when you wouldn't have, and you do, 3%~ of the time).

Actually, while you're still talking about this.

I haven't found any alla link from KI thread you linked on dusk vs askar thread in WAR forum. Maybe you didn't put any link in the first place? I don't bother reading KI **** stupidity and provocation.

I still can't think any other variables that has atomicity similar to haste, or if there's any that I can guess, I don't see any correlations to haste.


here's 2 relevant links if you have some spare time (both involve a lot of chaff with the wheat).

concise explanation of jitter and other variables explaining small % haste getting realized by starfox in this thread.

lots of vitriolic arguments (but more important, many computer simulations of merit parties to illustrate starfox's point) in this thread. i may just be being arrogant, but i think that i raised all the most powerful anti-small amounts of haste arguments (generally more conceptual than expressly mathematical) in that thread, and still lost the argument.

(bonus thread with testing, which happens to be the thread i found the link to the old fumas/dunes thread in.
____________________________
pahn
retired monk

i wish to be the red comet.
#11 Jun 12 2009 at 12:05 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,209 posts
mmm ok good (ohmygodsolong) read.
Too bad I think I just crunch 60% of the content and skipped a lot of HW equations from StarFox (that feels like num. method once again).

/derail
I still think my argument about dusk vs askar still correct though. Starfox main assumption is there's equal probability between DDs to land the first hit which, consequently, realize the small percent of haste.

I'll read/re-read again later when I have time.

EDIT:
Yeah, I really think those random number when the mob is dead really providing more and more those "small windows" where the haste gives you 1 extra hit in that fight.

Edited, Jun 12th 2009 1:13am by VZX
____________________________
Princess ThePsychoticOne wrote:
int stands for int.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (15)