Jump to content
Whispers in the Walls: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

EHP in arsenal UI?


Recommended Posts

Edit: It has been pointed out below that my implementation of "Effective Health" or "EHP" in the UI would be confusing. So for every instance of "Effective Health"/"EHP" in this post, just imagine something else like "Total Durability" or "Gross Resilience" or something like that.

At the moment the arsenal UI shows warframe stats as follows:

47MF6Gk.png

This is ok... but let's face it, not only is it weird to just have statistics ordered by alphabetical order instead of ordered/grouped by importance/relevance, but it also obscures a piece of important information from new players that not only wont know how to calculate it themselves but will also be totally unaware that it is something that needs calculation.

That piece of information is EHP

So I suggest that instead the arsenal stats be re-organised like so:

YRfsTyI.png

(I prefer the one on the right)

Accompany the new statistic with a tooltip along the lines of: "Effective health is the total amount of damage you can sustain before death, it is derived from your health, armour, and shields. But it does not factor in special damage resistances such as those granted by warframe abilities"

Adding this in would give new players a real-time representation of how effective their defensive mods are as they are adding/removing them, and would hopefully provide these players with a better understanding of exactly what effect their mods are having on their warframe's durability

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

I would remove shields personally.

Effective health is the amount of health damage you can take before death. Shields are a buffer before taking health damage.

Yeah that's true, but it would also directly demonstrate to a player that putting shields on a high armour warframe is less effective than health.
I certainly know I used to stack as much shields as possible, because I thought "hey, it regenerates, that means it's objectively better" and then as I got further into the game i was thinking "why am I dying so quickly?", haha!

If a new player gets rhino they will likely think that putting redirection on will be better than vitality, not just because of the fact that it regenerates but because rhino has more shields than health, so they are getting more bang for their buck, right? But if the effective health stat includes shields then they would have the opportunity to see that, in reality, adding vitality is better.

Edit: or it would at least let them be informed so they can make the decision to sacrifice some overall durability to focus more on the regenerative portion of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

Yeah that's true, but it would also directly demonstrate to a player that putting shields on a high armour warframe is less effective than health.

Surely that problem is already solved by including EHP as a value anyway.

You put an unranked Vitality on an unranked Rhino, taking his health from 100 to 140, and his ehp value from 175 to 245.

You put an unranked Redirection on an unranked Rhino, and his shields go from 150 to 210.

Along with the aforementioned tooltip explaining how the values are reached, it's more than enough. Giving you a total ehp, of which a percentage operates by different damage resistances, recharges and is modded differently is... completely unnecessary for most frames, and I can only see it confusing more people than it helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Surely that problem is already solved by including EHP as a value anyway.

You put an unranked Vitality on an unranked Rhino, taking his health from 100 to 140, and his ehp value from 175 to 245.

You put an unranked Redirection on an unranked Rhino, and his shields go from 150 to 210.

Along with the aforementioned tooltip explaining how the values are reached, it's more than enough. Giving you a total ehp, of which a percentage operates by different damage resistances, recharges and is modded differently is... completely unnecessary for most frames, and I can only see it confusing more people than it helps.

Ahh but you see, this is why we need shields included!

Shields now have an innate damage resistance of 25%
Which means to calculate the real gains of redirection you need to multiply shields by 1.33r
So, rank 0 vitality gives you +70 EHP
But rank 0 redirection gives you +79.8 EHP
Without an armour mod, shields are actually more effective on rhino!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

Ahh but you see, this is why we need shields included!

You know, we could have an "effective shield pool" statistic as well listed. I feel like I outline pretty well why it's just going to confuse matters to combine the two, and results in an inaccurate representation of what effective health is and how it applies in game.

"Reee, how did I die to this Mutalist Osprey, I have 3,000 ehp listed from all my shield mods!!!" > User with 300 ehp and 2700 shields who got confused by the two being thrown together and didn't realise toxin damage would ignore 90% of their ehp".

Effective health is the effective amount in your health pool, not shield+health pool, and operates under the same rules as your health pool, be it health restoration, health modding or external health modifiers from say Wisp. Shields operate by a different set of rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

You know, we could have an "effective shield pool" statistic as well listed. I feel like I outline pretty well why it's just going to confuse matters to combine the two, and results in an inaccurate representation of what effective health is and how it applies in game.

"Reee, how did I die to this Mutalist Osprey, I have 3,000 ehp listed from all my shield mods!!!" > User with 300 ehp and 2700 shields who got confused by the two being thrown together and didn't realise toxin damage would ignore 90% of their ehp".

Effective health is the effective amount in your health pool, not shield+health pool, and operates under the same rules as your health pool, be it health restoration, health modding or external health modifiers from say Wisp. Shields operate by a different set of rules.

Ok then, rename Effective Health to "Total Resilience" or something like that, the problem of the definition of "effective health" is solved! 
Also there are no mods that directly increase the damage resistance of shields in the same way as an armour mod does so you might as well just remove the shields damage resistance and increase all the shield capacities by 1.33 to avoid confusion, instead of having a stat called "shields" and then another stat that is basically "shields, but 33% more!".

Also just to note:

  • 1-in-5 frames get more protection out of redirection than vitality (without steel fiber)
    • Every single one of these warframes have methods to recharge their shields built into their kit (if you count iron skin allowing shield regen)
  • ~1-in-10 frames get more protection out of redirection than vitality (even with steel fiber)
  • 2 of the 3 starter frames are in this camp, meaning omitting shields from the Effecti "Total Resilience" stat could cause more confusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

Also there are no mods that directly increase the damage resistance of shields in the same way as an armour mod does so you might as well just remove the shields damage resistance and increase all the shield capacities by 1.33 to avoid confusion, instead of having a stat called "shields" and then another stat that is basically "shields, but 33% more!".

DE's problem, I don't know why they didn't just increase everything either.

1 minute ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

Ok then, rename Effective Health to "Total Resilience" or something like that, the problem of the definition of "effective health" is solved! 

Honestly, this just sounds more and more nonsensical the deeper you go.

Effective health is a great value to know, and I entirely support having that included, but now you're talking about a made up "total resilience", which is borderline useless in the gameplay environment. What practical purpose does it solve to have such a convoluted stat? 

The only purpose I can see would be seeing whether it goes up more through applying a shield mod or a health/armour mod which, granted is the premise of the thread, but is really really niche, and that exact same purpose could be solved with basic math skills, and I mean really basic. Really really basic.

Effective health has gameplay significance, if I know I have 20,000 ehp on Chroma because the game told me so and I'm at 50% health, then I know I have 10,000 ehp remaining. If I know that I have 20,000 ehp and a Gunner does 500 damage per shot at "x" level, I know I can take at least 39 shots before death. If I have 20,000 total resilience and I'm at 50% health then... who knows what that translates to. I'd have to look at my shield as well, multiply them by 33%, multiply my health by my armour, add it all together. How many shots can I take? Depends on how much shield I have vs how much is actual health covered by the superior armour. By the time you've done that the value is irrelevant because you're dead.

So, on the basis that EHP is actually a useful stat to know going into a mission and I fully support it's inclusion, "total resilience" would have to be a secondary statistic... and if we're having a secondary statistic then you might as well just have it be "effective shield pool", and rely on people's abilities to work out whether 80 is higher than 70 or not, that way you avoid an unnecessary and convoluted stat, and the endless "what is the point of total resilience?" questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

weird to just have statistics ordered by alphabetical order instead of ordered/grouped by importance/relevance

Just wanted to make sure this gets some due recognition, it's been bugging me ever since I started playing.


As for the EHP thing ... sure why not, dunno if I need it as a "main" stat, but as part of a hover-over info for Health
(like how Armor now finally tells us how much damage reduction it actually gives) that could work, I guess.

oh no did I really just advocate putting more hover functionality into the game what have I become

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NinjaZeku said:

Just wanted to make sure this gets some due recognition, it's been bugging me ever since I started playing.


As for the EHP thing ... sure why not, dunno if I need it as a "main" stat, but as part of a hover-over info for Health
(like how Armor now finally tells us how much damage reduction it actually gives) could work, I guess.

oh no did I really just advocate putting more hover functionality into the game what have I become

The hover-over would be ok, but I'm more envisioning someone replacing a health mod with a shield mod (or vice versa), or replacing a shield mod with an armour mod (or vice versa, again) and seeing a number immediately change, coloured either red or green like what happens with other stats when you change them.

But yeah that alphabetised layout is wack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

DE's problem, I don't know why they didn't just increase everything either.

Honestly, this just sounds more and more nonsensical the deeper you go.

Effective health is a great value to know, and I entirely support having that included, but now you're talking about a made up "total resilience", which is borderline useless in the gameplay environment. What practical purpose does it solve to have such a convoluted stat? 

The only purpose I can see would be seeing whether it goes up more through applying a shield mod or a health/armour mod which, granted is the premise of the thread, but is really really niche, and that exact same purpose could be solved with basic math skills, and I mean really basic. Really really basic.

Effective health has gameplay significance, if I know I have 20,000 ehp on Chroma because the game told me so and I'm at 50% health, then I know I have 10,000 ehp remaining. If I know that I have 20,000 ehp and a Gunner does 500 damage per shot at "x" level, I know I can take at least 39 shots before death. If I have 20,000 total resilience and I'm at 50% health then... who knows what that translates to. I'd have to look at my shield as well, multiply them by 33%, multiply my health by my armour, add it all together. How many shots can I take? Depends on how much shield I have vs how much is actual health covered by the superior armour. By the time you've done that the value is irrelevant because you're dead.

So, on the basis that EHP is actually a useful stat to know going into a mission and I fully support it's inclusion, "total resilience" would have to be a secondary statistic... and if we're having a secondary statistic then you might as well just have it be "effective shield pool", and rely on people's abilities to work out whether 80 is higher than 70 or not, that way you avoid an unnecessary and convoluted stat, and the endless "what is the point of total resilience?" questions. 

I used a different term because YOU complained that using the term "effective health" would be confusing, because I was including shields.
The purpose the combined stat serves is to make it simpler for new players to know whether or not one mod choice is generally better than another; choosing an armour mod over a shield mod could be statistically better or worse depending on the warframe, with the general "health/armour is better than shields" advice actually being wrong for 2/3 starter frames.
With the "effective health" and "effective shields" setup you have suggested, replacing one mod with another would require the player to then check to see how much one stat changed by, subtract it off the other stat that changed, and then check to see if it was a net positive or a net negative... Why not just have a single number that shows that for them?
DE did it with weapons! There's a handy "Total" damage stat that instantly shows any change to damage! It doesn't cover crits and status, but heck, it's infinitely better than having to tally up every single change across all the damage types just because I had the gall to see if Heated Charge was better than Augur Pact! (it was, kinda)
And yes, you can work it out yourself with "really basic maths skills", but

  1. It requires you to know the formulae, which is not found ANYWHERE ingame! You have to either ask someone on the forums, or venture onto the wiki, and guess what? DE has specifically stated in the past that they want to reduce players reliance on the wiki!
  2. Some people legitimately have disabilities/learning difficulties that make it very hard to do maths! So yeah, having a single number that turns green when you make your frame more durable is a good thing!
  3. Some people just want to know immediately whether or not they have improved something instead of having to do maths!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

YOU complained that using the term "effective health" would be confusing, because I was including shields.

You know that's not my complaint, I've been very clear on what my complaint is.

Effective health is a great and useful statistic that should be listed. What you're proposing is not overly useful, and not even effective health.

7 hours ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

With the "effective health" and "effective shields" setup you have suggested, replacing one mod with another would require the player to then check to see how much one stat changed by, subtract it off the other stat that changed, and then check to see if it was a net positive or a net negative...

There's very little difference in the suggestions.

Yours: Check to see the increase with one mod, then replace the mod to see the new value and whether it's green or red?

Mine: Check to see the increase with one mod, then replace and see the other increase. Perform basic math to determine which change was greater.

Building off of something you mentioned previously, DE could helpfully include a +70 value besides the increased stat, and a -80 beside the reduced one, just incase people struggle with working out the difference between 175 and 245. It's common in other games, and no math is even needed at that point.

7 hours ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

DE did it with weapons! There's a handy "Total" damage stat that instantly shows any change to damage!

Damage is damage, it's built off the same base number. Every addition is a multiplier to that base value, giving a useful total. This works the same as effective health does, in that it works off a single value (base health) where everything is a multiplier to that value.

Your proposed total resilience is not built off the same base number, it is two separate numbers with separate modifiers lumped together for an incredibly niche and completely useless (to the absolute majority) purpose.

A closer analogy would be if a weapons "total" damage included everything the average shot would have. The potential for a crit, the potential for a status proc that causes a DoT, the value of that DoT proc assuming it runs it's course. That would be a complete travesty of a statistic, but it would be useful for determining the most effective way of increasing your "potential per shot damage", sure.

7 hours ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

And yes, you can work it out yourself with "really basic maths skills", but

  1. It requires you to know the formulae, which is not found ANYWHERE ingame! You have to either ask someone on the forums, or venture onto the wiki, and guess what? DE has specifically stated in the past that they want to reduce players reliance on the wiki!

What formula? The only math required would be working out how much the stat increased by, which honestly DE could just provide. Take the Rhino example. Health increased by 70. Shields increased by 80. 80 is higher than 70. Your suggestion is for new players, not people with Umbral mods trying to work stuff out in the thousands.

Math done. Infants are capable of this, and whilst mathematical learning difficulties such as dysnumeria and discalculia exist, neither render someone incapable of determining whether 8 is greater than 7 or not.

7 hours ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

Some people just want to know immediately whether or not they have improved something instead of having to do maths!

Thankfully then my above proposal provides exactly that, an instant indication of which had the greater effect on your stats.

Enter arsenal, swap mods, see the resulting reduction to one stat and increase to the other.

Quick mock up example, swapping Vitality for Redirection on Mag Prime:

Spoiler

Xcc3bO0.png

Without any math at all I can see that the increase to the shields was greater than the reduction to Health, because 60 is more than 40.

Now carry that across to an effective health and effective shield value and you're laughing. (Of course, DE could just get rid of shield's DR value and increase it across the board making this a hell of a lot easier, but oh well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

You know that's not my complaint, I've been very clear on what my complaint is.

...

Spoiler
15 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

I would remove shields personally.

Effective health is the amount of health damage you can take before death. Shields are a buffer before taking health damage.

^ there is you telling me that effective health is not what i suggested, so i suggested a name change

14 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

You know, we could have an "effective shield pool" statistic as well listed. I feel like I outline pretty well why it's just going to confuse matters to combine the two, and results in an inaccurate representation of what effective health is and how it applies in game.

(snip)

Effective health is the effective amount in your health pool, not shield+health pool, and operates under the same rules as your health pool, be it health restoration, health modding or external health modifiers from say Wisp. Shields operate by a different set of rules.

^ here you are complaining about the fact that i called something "effective health" that does not match with the "official" definition... so i suggested a name change

11 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

You know that's not my complaint, I've been very clear on what my complaint is.

Effective health is a great and useful statistic that should be listed. What you're proposing is not overly useful, and not even effective health.

^ here you are complaining about what I named this statistic, immediately after saying you didn't complain about the name "effective health" AFTER i suggested that we name it something else!

 

11 hours ago, DeMonkey said:
Spoiler

 

You know that's not my complaint, I've been very clear on what my complaint is.

Effective health is a great and useful statistic that should be listed. What you're proposing is not overly useful, and not even effective health.

There's very little difference in the suggestions.

Yours: Check to see the increase with one mod, then replace the mod to see the new value and whether it's green or red?

Mine: Check to see the increase with one mod, then replace and see the other increase. Perform basic math to determine which change was greater.

Building off of something you mentioned previously, DE could helpfully include a +70 value besides the increased stat, and a -80 beside the reduced one, just incase people struggle with working out the difference between 175 and 245. It's common in other games, and no math is even needed at that point.

Damage is damage, it's built off the same base number. Every addition is a multiplier to that base value, giving a useful total. This works the same as effective health does, in that it works off a single value (base health) where everything is a multiplier to that value.

Your proposed total resilience is not built off the same base number, it is two separate numbers with separate modifiers lumped together for an incredibly niche and completely useless (to the absolute majority) purpose.

A closer analogy would be if a weapons "total" damage included everything the average shot would have. The potential for a crit, the potential for a status proc that causes a DoT, the value of that DoT proc assuming it runs it's course. That would be a complete travesty of a statistic, but it would be useful for determining the most effective way of increasing your "potential per shot damage", sure.

What formula? The only math required would be working out how much the stat increased by, which honestly DE could just provide. Take the Rhino example. Health increased by 70. Shields increased by 80. 80 is higher than 70. Your suggestion is for new players, not people with Umbral mods trying to work stuff out in the thousands.

Math done. Infants are capable of this, and whilst mathematical learning difficulties such as dysnumeria and discalculia exist, neither render someone incapable of determining whether 8 is greater than 7 or not.

Thankfully then my above proposal provides exactly that, an instant indication of which had the greater effect on your stats.

Enter arsenal, swap mods, see the resulting reduction to one stat and increase to the other.

Quick mock up example, swapping Vitality for Redirection on Mag Prime:

  Hide contents

Xcc3bO0.png

Without any math at all I can see that the increase to the shields was greater than the reduction to Health, because 60 is more than 40.

Now carry that across to an effective health and effective shield value and you're laughing. (Of course, DE could just get rid of shield's DR value and increase it across the board making this a hell of a lot easier, but oh well).

 

(i spoilered it to condense it)

Otherwise the rest of your complaint boils down to: Knowing effective health is extremely useful, but knowing how much damage I can sustain from both my health and shields combined is not useful at all to new players.

The mockup of the +/- health/shield you provided doesn't capture the whole picture, I'm curious what your basic maths would tell you if those values were "-60 shields" and "+60 health"

And more specifically, how much difference is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

AFTER i suggested that we name it something else!

Have you considered the fact that despite suggesting name changes, my complaints not stopping means I wasn't complaining about the name. I have been clear.

Effective health stat, good, for everyone.

Proposed stat, bad, confusing for newer players and useless the moment they understand modding a bit better.

21 minutes ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

Knowing effective health is extremely useful, but knowing how much damage I can sustain from both my health and shields combined is not useful at all to new players

Correct. I know you're deliberately constructing that in a way to make out that I'm being unreasonable, suggesting such a "useful" stat is useless, but it is yes. I have already explained why the stat has no real gameplay benefit, and why it could even be considered misleading.

29 minutes ago, DeckChairVonBananaCamel said:

I'm curious what your basic maths would tell you if those values were "-60 health" and "+60 shields

I've given it a lot of thought, but I think it's "0".

I've explained as best I can why I disagree with your proposed addition, I can't really be bothered to continue when you're going to be disingenuous and misconstrue what's been said. And I really can't be bothered to repeat myself any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

Have you considered the fact that despite suggesting name changes, my complaints not stopping means I wasn't complaining about the name. I have been clear.

Effective health stat, good, for everyone.

Proposed stat, bad, confusing for newer players and useless the moment they understand modding a bit better.

i literally provided 3 instances of you complaining about that exact thing three times, and I never stated it was ALL you were complaining about.

4 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

Correct. I know you're deliberately constructing that in a way to make out that I'm being unreasonable, suggesting such a "useful" stat is useless, but it is yes. I have already explained why the stat has no real gameplay benefit, and why it could even be considered misleading.

Because you are being a little unreasonable, people get turned away from this game when they see the upgrades screen.
Steve Sinclair has mentioned a friend stating "i am not smart enough for this game"
I have tried to introduce 2 friends to this game that also stopped at the upgrade screen, one said "this is the exact opposite of the fun gameplay" and another said "this is way too complicated for me, dude".
The wall of stats is intimidating for a bunch of people, for a bunch of different reasons. What I am suggesting is a single stat that is a sum of "effective health" and your "effective shields" suggestion, a single stat that, for example, a tutorial can highlight, and say "Hey, all those other stats are there if you are interested, but see this number? Make this number go up if you want to die slower."
But what it seems you are arguing is "One number that represents your total defensive capability is too confusing and misleading, either make it 2 separate numbers instead, or ignore shields entirely because including shields in a summary of your defensive capability is useless".. 

Useless for you, maybe... But you have been playing this game for long enough that you are probably making use of more advanced builds that take maximum advantage of things like shield-gating, health conversion + ability-based damage resistance, or otherwise just stacking on of many powerful damage resist effects. New players don't have that luxury, they basically only have access to health, shield, and armour mods.

4 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

I've given it a lot of thought, but I think it's "0".

I've explained as best I can why I disagree with your proposed addition, I can't really be bothered to continue when you're going to be disingenuous and misconstrue what's been said. And I really can't be bothered to repeat myself any further.

Fun fact, it's not actually "0"... it's pretty close though, at least for Mag Prime, if you had chosen Excalibur on the other hand, the difference would have been a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...