Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sylverone]

I keep running into this, although it's a little detail: the integrity view - 'w' - for the equipment doesn't seem all that useful to me. It doesn't gave a big picture that allows you to determine what is likely to break next (your at-risk equipment), unless you decide to reason it out based on coverage. (Admittedly, a person learns to do this naturally over time.)

The current view could stay if it's really useful to someone, but here's what I'm thinking:
1. Vulnerabiliy graph, the current integrity of each item divided by its coverage, scaled -- this would give a quick glance at which item is likely to break first under normal fire. It could be displayed after pressing 'c' twice.
2. Absolute integrity graph, scaled to the highest (probably replacing the current 'w' view?) -- the issue here is that treads and other strong items would squash the graphs of the remaining items out of view - not ideal maybe, but could be useful otherwise. I think it would be a more consistent and useful behavior than the current view  because a good tread at half health is still likely to outlast a gun or few at full health.

A vulnerability and/or absolute integrity graph would reflect the facts better at a glance.

Uh, and I like data and graphs, I guess? 

[Kyzrati]

I find the integrity graph minimally useful, but only because the colored boxes already give much of the same info. I do activate it sometimes for a clearer comparison, and I know players who use it as their primary graph.

Honestly my favorite is the coverage graph though, because 1) it's already relative values as the game uses them, and 2) while you have that active you can easily cross-reference it with the color box (which already displays current integrity) to get a clear idea of your situation.

That said, there is still a little more room for extra graphs (we can only have eight). I was already going to add a relative matter consumption graph, purely for weapon comparisons, that would bring the total to seven. (Well, technically if we take it far enough, secondary graphs could become optional settings so you can choose which ones you want, then we can add an unlimited number )

the issue here is that treads and other strong items would squash the graphs of the remaining items out of view

Yep, absolutely and completely squashed if you want real values. Think about how it's displayed: There are only 16 separate '|' markers, and the strongest parts have over 1000 integrity, while many utilities are below 50...

I like graphs, too . Other opinions?

[Decker]

I find the integrity graph minimally useful, but only because the colored boxes already give much of the same info. I do activate it sometimes for a clearer comparison, and I know players who use it as their primary graph.

It's the only graph I use! I've learned all my coverage values and I wouldn't even be able to tell you what the other graphs display. I need the precise health values to determine which item to replace when I come across a new one.

[Kyzrati]

See, there's one right there . I recall biomatter also telling me he mostly sticks to the integrity graph.

I do more and more switching between graphs these days to speed up decision making, but that's because I don't have a great memory and that's a quick way to compare different sets of values.

[zxc]

I sit in the Q view and only occasionally switch to check coverage. I usually only open integrity by accident.

[Sylverone]

I find the integrity graph minimally useful, but only because the colored boxes already give much of the same info. I do activate it sometimes for a clearer comparison, and I know players who use it as their primary graph.

It's the only graph I use! I've learned all my coverage values and I wouldn't even be able to tell you what the other graphs display. I need the precise health values to determine which item to replace when I come across a new one.

And that is what I'm talking about. If you have played the game a lot and know the coverages by heart (and have the right mind for that exercise) you are basically doing the vulnerability check yourself. If the equipment you are deciding on is all similar in coverage and total integrity, the relative integrity view can tell you at a glance which item is closer to breaking. The vulnerability view would work the same way (the way I described it, it's more like 'safety' - higher values are better).

The view I'm suggesting would essentially tell someone who doesn't know everything already, "which equipment of mine is likely to break first, and which will last the longest?" This could guide decisions about which way to swing your build when you have options. Besides, just like the current integrity view, it could let you see at a glance what to replace. For two parts with similar coverage values it would read essentially the same as the current integrity view.

One possible problem is that if certain items have a high integrity and very low relative coverage, they might squish the other values too much, but in that case I could use the longer method and puzzle it out via integrity and coverage views or item descriptions.

Like others I almost exclusively use the 'q' info (usually what it sits on for me also) and integrity views, occasionally glancing at coverage if it's necessary or I'm curious.

I do think the relative integrity is the most useful graph, usually (being the only one that shows changing information). Part HP bars basically. Coverage is a close second. The tactical HUD largely takes care of the other graph's duties in practice, but it's nice to have them sometimes.

So I'd be happy with just the "safety" graph. Absolute integrity is factored into it in a useful (possibly more normalized) way so there's no need to change other views. To be fair it doesn't include effects of shields and such but I figure that's okay, those items demand special consideration anyway.

[Kyzrati]

So this thread is ancient, but I've added one of its suggestions as the eighth and final visualization mode, so it's worth pointing out that the "vulnerability graph" is a thing now. I implemented it as coverage/integrity (so the bars grow with decreasing integrity, i.e. greater vulnerability), and below you can see how it compares with its component values, indicating some outliers:

[Draco18s]

Awesome. I'd definitely have to remember to make better use of this.

[Sylverone]

It was a neat surprise to stumble across this in-game. I'm curious to know if anyone has found it useful.

[Kyzrati]

Ah, the original requester has returned

I'm curious to know if anyone has found it useful.

*raises hand* Definitely me! I know others are using it, too, at least from the chat. It's turned out to be really valuable, I think, so thanks for the suggestion!

I tend to switch between a lot of different views these days, but vulnerability certainly has its place--a very good way to basically check "what you're most likely to lose next" and prepare for it in advance! (Or adjust your build.)