Include EHP into in-game fitting simulator

(Johnny Riko) #1

Unless I’m mistaken, there isn’t a way to get EHP to be shown by active tanking modules in the in-game fitting tool: it will only show you the actual HP/s. This is made worse by the fact that you cannot see the EHP of each tank layer, you can only see the total EHP of shields, armour, and hull combined. It would be nice if there were a way to change these HP numbers into EHP.

(Old Pervert) #2

While I agree that it’s missing from the ingame simulator, it’s hard to justify developer time on it when such a simple alternative already exists. The ingame simulator is about a hair’s width above useless for anything more than very quick checks on things like cap stability and PG/CPU.

(Johnny Riko) #3

Why did they bother implementing the fitting simulator at all? It’s fairly new in EVE terms.

(Daichi Yamato) #4

It’s not perfect, but it’s quicker and easier to use than pyfa in most situations and interacts well and updates automatically with the client.

(Do Little) #5

The in game tool was never intended to replace 3rd party tools created by the community. The developers use PYFA and you can easily move fits back and forth. The in game tool has the advantage of knowing your skills and implants, it also saves corporate fits, which is handy if you have new players who don’t yet know how to fit a ship - they can simply use a corporate fit.

(ISD Sakimura) #6

With a little common sense and a little bit of math it is quite easy to do those calculations on your own. I fail to see how knowing your specific Shield, Armor and Hull EHP will help you out in any situation. All you really need to know is if you have enough Resist, Buffer and/or Active/Passive Reps.

If you want to know how much sustained DPS you can tank with your active reps, here’s a formula:

(Repair* divided by ( 1 - AvgResist** )) divided by CycleTime*** = Sustained EHP/DPS

*) Repair amount
**) AvgResist as a decimal number: 0.xx.
***) CycleTime is the duration of the Repair module.

(Old Pervert) #7

I asked that very question when they released it. There’s literally no reason for it.

I find quite the opposite. I find the ingame fitting tool to be an absolute pain in the ass to work with. It’s cumbersome, poorly designed, presents less information (and in less useful formats), lacks the ability to simulate scenarios (such as damage/resist profiles, boosts, friendly/hostile projections). Perfect example of poor design, go ahead and edit your fit. You save the changes, then you delete the old fit. Say nothing of the pointless distinction between modules and charges. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve typed a charge name into the module box.

Pyfa on the other hand suffers from none of these drawbacks. The interface is intuitive. It’s easier to work with, faster to work with, and provides scenarios.

Pyfa (and even EFT) have ESI integration. They can do all of this with ease as well (not sure about corp fits but honestly those are already fitted so simulating them is kind of pointless), at the one-time cost of putting an API key into the app.

(Krysenth) #8

ESI does not use API keys. That is CREST/XMLAPI. Unless PYFA now has you go through the SSO login/authentication chain in order to fetch skills and such, it’s going to die as a relevantly useful program in May.

(Old Pervert) #9

I guess we’ll see in May. Either way, at this point in time, Pyfa is orders of magnitude better than the in-game fitting tool. Adding something more CRESTey would likely be the same or less work as adding all of the existing pyfa features in, and it would have the advantage of providing backwards compatibility to things that are on life support like Evemon. I know they just updated it, but just the same, Evemon’s in a pretty tricky spot atm.

(Your Ex-Girlfriend) #10

Because a small but vocal group cried and cried and cried and cried and cried and cried over having to use third party software.

(Krysenth) #11

ESI is going to be the only API CCP will support going forward. Things like evemon which still use CREST/XMLAPI, and have probably been abandoned by their devs will cease functioning in May when those APIs are killed off. There wont be any backwards compatibility because devs had 18 months from the release of this devblog to begin and finish transitioning to ESI.

(Old Pervert) #12

The reason things like Evemon are suffering is because ESI sucks for that kind of thing.

If I remember correctly, something like Evemon will require the player to authenticate each pilot. It’s not a super-huge deal for the dude flying one pilot, but if they’ve got multiple accounts, cyno pilots, the full 9, it’s just obscene.

I fully expect that when Evemon breaks on May, CCP will face backlash and be required to make something that is not so onerous for bulk usage.

(Johnny Riko) #13

Yes the maths is easy, that’s not the issue. The issue is that it is time consuming when you’re trying to compare multiple fits against each other to weigh up how their active tanks compare.

The reason why having the individual layer EHP would be useful is because you could get your answer quicker by doing Repair_amount/(HP/EHP) rather than taking the mean of the four 4 damage resists.

(ISD Sakimura) #14

The purpose of the “Ship Fitting Simulator” is not as a full on Analytical Tool, but it is only a Fitting Tool Similar to how EFT used to be (yes EFT had a little bit more to offer). If you really want to test out your Ship Fittings in an active environment, you’d be better heading over to SISI where you will never have to worry about any expenses you make (everything is dirt cheap).

No matter how much you might want to theory crafting will only get you so far, there is nothing better than testing stuff out in a “LIVE” environment.

(Krysenth) #15

Unlikely to ever happen. CCP made ESI the way it is for a reason. Besides, if they have an issue with that for a mere fitting tool, they’re going to have bigger concerns.

Beyond that, the whiny brats have had over a year to complain about the SSO authentication process.

(system) #16

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.