Multi Attack Proc Issue (not hitting as often as "advertised")

[Nevao]

<p><strong>UPDATE: </strong>Turns out this is actually an ACT issue, not a Multi-Attack issue.</p><p>This evening I logged my Brigand in to Test Copy to get a Baseline on the Wisdom AA Line changes before the next round of adjustments hit test. When going back through the results in ACT I noticed from the special attacks report that my Multi Attack percent was ridiculously low, around 15% even though my Multi Attack was at 104. I tried lowering my DA to below 100 to see if it was an overflow issue and received similar results. I then switched to my ranger and tried with his Bow Auto Attack to make sure it was not tied to any of the Brigand changes. I let Auto Attack run against an Epic Training dummy for over five minutes and received the same results (though this time I took a screen shot):</p><p><img src="http://gallery.mmoguildsites.com/img220159.png" width="921" height="318" /></p><p>I looked through ACT and counted up the number of attacks labeled "multi" and it was consistent with the Special Attacks report. I then ran a similar test on Live and got the following results:</p><p><img src="http://gallery.mmoguildsites.com/img220166.png" width="924" height="370" /></p><p>At first I thought it might be an ACT issue but in the same general time frame on Live I had significantly more hits.  Something is definitely off.</p>

[Yimway]

<p>Good Catch</p>

[Darkor]

<p>Thats not good, Lets hope for a fix before this goes live.</p>

[Stubbswick]

<p>FYI - Follow up from the discussion on "that other website", it looks like the issue is just ACT is just not correctly parsing Multi-Attack.  Probably due to the name change.</p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>Wubbah@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>FYI - Follow up from the discussion on "that other website", it looks like the issue is just ACT is just not correctly parsing Multi-Attack.  Probably due to the name change.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not convinced that's the case. I looked not only at that special attacks report but did scan through the normal reporting for "melee" attacks and the time stamps also showed there a lot of attacks without double attacks. I don't have the logs with me (I'm at work) but I'll pull them up tonight and post the results.</p><p>Regardless I encourage other's to test it out and see if they get the same results.</p>

[Darkor]

<p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Wubbah@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>FYI - Follow up from the discussion on "that other website", it looks like the issue is just ACT is just not correctly parsing Multi-Attack.  Probably due to the name change.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not convinced that's the case. I looked not only at that special attacks report but did scan through the normal reporting for "melee" attacks and the time stamps also showed there a lot of attacks without double attacks. I don't have the logs with me (I'm at work) but I'll pull them up tonight and post the results.</p><p>Regardless I encourage other's to test it out and see if they get the same results.</p></blockquote><p>Well since you have 100 % + double attack every attack should have a multi attack. If theres only 1 auto attack round without a multi attack we can pretty safely say that something is broken.</p>

[Stubbswick]

<p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Wubbah@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>FYI - Follow up from the discussion on "that other website", it looks like the issue is just ACT is just not correctly parsing Multi-Attack.  Probably due to the name change.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not convinced that's the case. I looked not only at that special attacks report but did scan through the normal reporting for "melee" attacks and the time stamps also showed there a lot of attacks without double attacks. I don't have the logs with me (I'm at work) but I'll pull them up tonight and post the results.</p><p>Regardless I encourage other's to test it out and see if they get the same results.</p></blockquote><p>By all means, continue testing.  That's the whole point of the test server.</p><p>But it's pretty suspect when 14 out of 92 attacks registered as a multi-attack, and somehow that added absolutely no DPS.</p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>Wubbah@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>By all means, continue testing.  That's the whole point of the test server.</p><p>But it's pretty suspect when 14 out of 92 attacks registered as a multi-attack, and somehow that added absolutely no DPS.</p></blockquote><p>I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there was more than one thing going on here. Something funny is going on and while it's good for all of us to test I think it's worth a Dev taking a quick look just based off what we have.</p><p>Regardless, more news at 11:00</p>

[EQAditu]

<p>Without having been on test or seeing the log lines myself...  but having other "insight", I'm almost completely certain that ACT will completely ignore "hit" lines that are multi-attacks.  Miss lines however are less hardcoded because the English grammar allowed such.</p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>EQAditu wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Without having been on test or seeing the log lines myself...  but having other "insight", I'm almost completely certain that ACT will completely ignore "hit" lines that are multi-attacks.  Miss lines however are less hardcoded because the English grammar allowed such.</p></blockquote><p>Fair enough. I'll check my actually eq2 logs just to be thorough but now that I understand your "insight" (from the other site) I'm feeling better. My apologies if this turns out to be a false alarm.</p><p><strong>Update:</strong> Looking at the logs directly Aditu nailed it (not that anyone should be surprised). This is a "problem" with ACT, not with Multi-Attack.</p>