124 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Though I don't disagree with FF benefits in the game being lacking, the reason it was so well in lore compared to Endo was simply one thing, Cost. FF was a cheaper alternative to save some weight, compared to the very costly expense of changing (or making) a mech with an Endo frame. Repairs also where cheaper to a FF mech, as it was cheaper to repair, compared to the Endo steel upgrade.

In this game, without R&R (I make no farther comment), it has lost it's purpose to us who are all considered in lore to be "space rich". There is no drawback for taking an Endo upgrade or FF upgrade, besides the crit spaces taken up. Once the conversion is paid for (which, by the way, excludes installation costs), we have no farther problems.

Without R&R, just like with medium mechs, a lot of the purpose for FF as an upgrade disappeared. Just like running a standard engine has started to become less ideal when you can just place an XL into your mech (which only comes with the cost of survivability once owned and installed).


If R&R is never to see, in some way shape or form, a place in this game again, than FF probably could use some attention. If R&R every does make it back into the game, then it's place without any farther upgrades gains reason once more.


Edit: I wished the poll had some option of "abstain" or something. I neither can say yes or no, though this concept does make some sense. As much sense as it makes, I also wish for this game to try and preserve what roots it can to lore. I am split about equal in this matter, and can not decide.

Edited by Tesunie, 25 January 2015 - 04:43 PM.

[kosmos1214]

Tesunie, on 25 January 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

Though I don't disagree with FF benefits in the game being lacking, the reason it was so well in lore compared to Endo was simply one thing, Cost. FF was a cheaper alternative to save some weight, compared to the very costly expense of changing (or making) a mech with an Endo frame. Repairs also where cheaper to a FF mech, as it was cheaper to repair, compared to the Endo steel upgrade.

In this game, without R&R (I make no farther comment), it has lost it's purpose to us who are all considered in lore to be "space rich". There is no drawback for taking an Endo upgrade or FF upgrade, besides the crit spaces taken up. Once the conversion is paid for (which, by the way, excludes installation costs), we have no farther problems.

Without R&R, just like with medium mechs, a lot of the purpose for FF as an upgrade disappeared. Just like running a standard engine has started to become less ideal when you can just place an XL into your mech (which only comes with the cost of survivability once owned and installed).


If R&R is never to see, in some way shape or form, a place in this game again, than FF probably could use some attention. If R&R every does make it back into the game, then it's place without any farther upgrades gains reason once more.


Edit: I wished the poll had some option of "abstain" or something. I neither can say yes or no, though this concept does make some sense. As much sense as it makes, I also wish for this game to try and preserve what roots it can to lore. I am split about equal in this matter, and can not decide.

i agree with you 100% if r&r comes back it will be fine the way it is if its not coming back they need to work on it like along list of things

[Demon Horde]

This would be awesome. currently FF is ho hum. So ho hum I've been ready to say screw cannon and insist that PGi implement Relfective and Reactive armor types. But if they made this kind of change to FF I don't think i'd care rather or not they ever do React or reflect armor types.

[VinJade]

FFA was only meant to save weight and give a little more armor per half ton(armor is normally done 0.5-1.0 ton increments) not double or triple the amount of armor one gets.

for the head the normal is 3/9 while everything else it doubled when it comes to the rest of the frame.
center torso 15/30 for example and so on depending on the frame.

besides as someone else stated before lights, more so Clans(and I run an Adder) who already are more advanced and mounts more armor compared to the IS and lights are already hard to kill.

same as the other classes.

to be honest I was surprised that omnis you could even add armor to the mechs when they should be able to add or subtract armor to any omni mech.

so still the answer is no the idea is bad.

in one battle someone said that some lights took 500+ damage and was still alive.

Edited by VinJade, 26 January 2015 - 06:14 AM.

[Vanguard319]

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

Hence, my suggestion...


----------


My proposal, linked & quoted above, already addresses this.

Also, "anti-missile armor" is what Reactive Armor was for.

I was under the impression that reactive armor reduced ballistic dmg, (or at least it did in MW4.)

[Strum Wealh]

Vanguard319, on 28 January 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

I was under the impression that reactive armor reduced ballistic dmg, (or at least it did in MW4.)

MW4 got it wrong, with regard to how it is represented & described in BattleTech - page 282 of Tactical Operations specifically states that "Reactive Armor reduces all damage from explosive-type weapons such as missiles, mortars and artillery weapons by half (rounded down, to a minimum of 1 point per hit)" and "physical attacks, as well as attacks using energy weapons, autocannons, Gauss weapons or other weapons deliver their normal damage and effects to the target".

In other words: canonical Reactive Armor is "anti-missile & anti-artillery armor", Reflective Armor "reduces all damage and heat effects from flamers, lasers, PPCs, plasma weapons and energy-based infantry weapons by half" (per page 281 of Tactical Operations), and there is no corresponding "anti-ballistics armor" other than those that provide a universal damage resistance (that is, Hardened Armor & Ferro-Lamellor Armor).

[VinJade]

If they increase the armor factor per FFA then they should increase the damage done by all weapons.

[Demon Horde]

Actually Strum Wealh MechWarrior 4 didn't just "get it wrong" they intentionally changed it for game play reasons. the most important factor being that the AI enemies were all default spec variants. Using full BT rules would have made the game ten times harder. That said MW4 Reactive and Reflective did decrease damage done by 25% from their perspective weapon/damage types. so overall the armor worked the same just not to the degree of 50% damage reduction because that would have made the single player game ridiculously harder even at low difficulty settings. But to say they "got it wrong" is like saying they just didn't do their research which I highly doubt was the case.

That said NO MechWarrior game to date has stuck strictly to cannon. and most often the combat itself is where the devs broke from cannon. because what works good on paper doesn't always translate well into an action game.

Edited by Demon Horde, 30 January 2015 - 10:05 PM.

[Tesunie]

Demon Horde, on 30 January 2015 - 10:03 PM, said:

That said NO MechWarrior game to date has stuck strictly to cannon. and most often the combat itself is where the devs broke from cannon. because what works good on paper doesn't always translate well into an action game.

I believe, for it's age of course, that MW2 was fairly close...? Nothing's perfect, and any video game made for BT will have the exact issue you mentioned, the fact that a TT game doesn't always translate perfectly into a shooter/simulator type game...

[VinJade]

@Tesunie
I always felt that MW 3 was just as good.. well save for the omni mech engine swapping.

[Tesunie]

VinJade, on 31 January 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

@Tesunie
I always felt that MW 3 was just as good.. well save for the omni mech engine swapping.

And Hard point size (and type) restrictions. I believe it was 3 that started that up, wasn't it?

2 was more close to TT rules, where as 3 was probably a better shooter style with adherence to TT rules. To be honest though, I think MW:O has a decent blend of TT rule sets as well as enough change for the shooter aspect to work.

As stated, some things just don't translate well from a TT paper and pen game into a first person shooter style game.

[VinJade]

MW 3 was as close as you could get to the TT game as you could get.
there was no hard points at all you could fit anyweapon in as long as you had the tonnage and space for them.
the weapons matched their TT counterpart well.

a good example: 3 crit 7 ton ER/ std PPC was 3 crit 7 tons while the Clan ER Counter Part was 2 crits 6 tons.

While MW 4 had messed everything up with those stupid hard points, as well as game breaking amounts of armor points for FFA that would never fly in the tt game.

an assault mech mounted so much armor that if one didn't know any better they could easily confuse it for a assault tank from the TT game.

and yet someone wants to do that again here?
no, no, no!

as it is MWO has brought a delicet balance to the game that if tilted one way or another would send it over the edge to game breaking more than it already is with the broken ecm....

Edited by VinJade, 31 January 2015 - 09:47 PM.

[Demon Horde]

my point is still not wrong , even MW2 broke from cannon , but you are right it was the closest to TT , but key word there is closest. It wasn't exactly like table top. Honestly though I'm trying to get together an old computer just to play MW2mercs again. So far I go the computer and the video card for it now I just need a copy of win 98 a new hard drive for the comp and a good old school joystick. MechWarrior Online nor met tek's MW4:mercs is satisfying my MechWarrior itch fully.

you know what would be cool .... is if PGI let an amaeture team use their resources to do a total remake of MW2 mercs. or if PGI did that them selves (minus the multiplayer , PGI still has to make money on MWO. Or better yet they made MWO the multplayer for that. Though I suppose they are still missing some of the MW2 merc mechs like the cauldron born and the Zeus.

Edited by Demon Horde, 06 February 2015 - 04:39 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Griffinhawk, on 11 September 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

I think we can all universally agree FF sucks. It sucked in the TT and sucks now. I was thinking how about something I would like. Let's make ferro-fibrous armor increase the max amount of armor in each location by 12% as well as the standard weight reduction. This would make it so there is an actual choice to be made between FF and endo.

FF does not suck, it is for some chassis very much a important thing, for others however not. increasing max armos does not really make sense by lore, instead PGI could make FF decrease crit chance by some % to make it a possible interesting choice over the ES structure. But then this is missing logic that the armor already shot off reduces critchance to internals xD

Also in clan terms, you create even more imbalance between the TBR and all the other inferior non FF mechs.

[Tesunie]

Demon Horde, on 06 February 2015 - 04:33 AM, said:

you know what would be cool .... is if PGI let an amaeture team use their resources to do a total remake of MW2 mercs. or if PGI did that them selves (minus the multiplayer , PGI still has to make money on MWO. Or better yet they made MWO the multplayer for that. Though I suppose they are still missing some of the MW2 merc mechs like the cauldron born and the Zeus.

PGI can not touch any of the previous MW items. They have to redesign everything from what I understand of their license agreement. They have the rights to use mechs that look similar to previous MW titles, but have to re design/art them. They also have to design their own systems, which is why we wont see copies of previous MW concepts (or even music). Microsoft still holds all rights to those games and their coding/property, but licensed out the rights to create MW titles to PGI.
(As cool as it may be to have a regraphiced MW2 game for play.)

[Tesunie]

Lily from animove, on 06 February 2015 - 06:43 AM, said:

FF does not suck,...

I think they mean something more like, 'FF sucks as a choice if you have to choose between Endo and FF'. And right now, if you had to chose, you always choose Endo first. FF is an "If I have room, maybe" upgrade. There is no reason to take FF right now over Endo if you had to choose one or the other.

Lets face it, though we have a lot that is TT based, we also have many elements that are not, such as Ghost heat as one example. Though I'd rather stick close to TT values/rules, we just really kinda can't as TT just doesn't transition 'perfectly' into a first person shooter styled game. Some things need to change, and other things don't. It's a matter of finding what does and does not.

FF was there as a way to save some weight on the cheap. Without any additional cost beyond the upgrade itself in game (without R&R as an example), FF has lost some of it's purpose in game. You are correct though that some chassis FF as it currently is implemented is very important, such as light mechs, some mediums and possibly even select heavies and stretching it onto a couple assaults (depending upon layout and preferences). However, it isn't a "go to" upgrade for many people, as DHS is almost always first and Endo is always the next upgrades people aim for.

AKA: I get what you mean, I'm sure you get what they mean. Just trying to clarify things.
If there were through armor crits, I could see your crit reduction as an added benefit. Seen as there isn't, I have to agree with you that your concept would be strange.

[VinJade]

@Tesunie
FFA is fine as it is.
Clan is 7/7 while the IS is 14/14 due to their inferiority to the clan's counter part.
now I wouldn't mind if they introduced LFFA early(after all they did say they wasn't following the time line fully anyways).

That would give them better armor protection at half the crits.

but by no means should the armor amount be increased. PGI has done so well with trying to keep a good balance between TT & PC game and I would hate to see them tarnish their record(ECM not withstanding) by increasing armor points by following the broken mw 4 route any more than they have (hard points).

[Tesunie]

VinJade, on 08 February 2015 - 02:48 PM, said:

@Tesunie
FFA is fine as it is.
Clan is 7/7 while the IS is 14/14 due to their inferiority to the clan's counter part.
now I wouldn't mind if they introduced LFFA early(after all they did say they wasn't following the time line fully anyways).

That would give them better armor protection at half the crits.

but by no means should the armor amount be increased. PGI has done so well with trying to keep a good balance between TT & PC game and I would hate to see them tarnish their record(ECM not withstanding) by increasing armor points by following the broken mw 4 route any more than they have (hard points).

I agree and understand what you are saying. I'd rather this game stick to lore and TT as closely as possible.

I'm mostly just saying, especially with R&R removed from the game, FF doesn't have nearly the place it once held and doesn't have the same purpose as it would have had in TT and lore. In TT and lore, FF would be a much cheaper alternative over Endo Steel, and was much more commonly used. You often didn't just change a mech from Standard structure to Endo Steel structure, as it took a lot of time, effort and c-bills (far more than is represented in game). Thus, many mechs came with FF instead (to the confusion of many who only know Battletech from MW:O).

Right now, FF armor only has a use after Endo steel has already been applied. There is currently no reason to ever take FF over Endo in this game, as it doesn't cost you any more than a one time fee. FF doesn't save you nearly as much, and takes up the same amount of crit space as Endo. FF right now only serves a select few mechs (namely lights, sometimes a few other mechs).

How this can, or even if it should, be altered to make it a more difficult and/or even choice between FF and Edo, I don't know. I'd image the armor boosts from FF would be minimal overall with this suggestion, but it's not a half bad idea. I've seen worse (my opinion of course) ideas out there. Should it be done? I wouldn't mind testing it and seeing if it would give it a more valuable place within the game, but I wouldn't want to just slap it in either.

[VinJade]

@Tesunie
I understand what you mean however I still will not get behind this game breaking idea.
now I am all for Light FFA and them bring it in very early into the game that would cut the crits in half though offering a little less armor protection and cost a little less then the normal FFA it would give players another option to work with instead of going over board with making mechs over armored.

they still need to bring light mech's hit boxes under control as it is and to add more armor to them is foolish.

Also if they increase the armor points they might as well make weapons more powerful, like for example instead of a PPC do 10 points of damage they do 20.

Edited by VinJade, 09 February 2015 - 03:12 AM.

[Tesunie]

For the record:
- MW:O already has double armor (and thus double structure). All our mechs have double health compared to TT mechs.
- Doubling damage would be bad. Very bad. It would completely negate the doubled armor already in the game.
- Our weapons already recycle faster than 10 seconds, which has already effectively increased their damage (compared to TT).

As far as the bonus armor if FF provided that weight saves as possible extra armor, you are only talking about 12% extra armor overall. I don't think this would be exactly game breaking. (Unless you consider that the clans FF does 20%, which would break the clans then, but I believe we are talking about all FF giving 12% increase here... Then again, Clans aren't suppose to be able to adjust their armor values...)

To give a concept of how much "extra" armor FF would give under this idea (taken from the extremes):
- A Locust starts off with 138 points of max armor.
- With this proposed concept (not saying it would be good or bad here), a Locust could gain an extra (16.56 rounded up to) 17 points of armor total, leading to a total of 155 points. This would be about 2 extra points of on the arms and legs, and 3 on each Torso component.
- An Atlas can have a max of 614.
- An Atlas with FF (instead of Endo, as Assaults normally are crit starved and can't often take both Endo and FF) would have gained 73.68, or 74 rounded up, increasing it's max protection to 688 points. This is an average increase of about 10 points on each limb and 11 on each torso (12 on the CT).

Do recall, while they are placing this theoretical armor onto their mechs, they are losing crit spaces (14 of them) and gaining no weight savings. That Atlas may have more armor then, but it will have less weight (and crits) for weapons, engine, and ammo. Mechs that take the option for extra armor from this upgrade would be limiting their builds in other areas. It would create a choice (Between Endo or FF) of "Do I want more armor, or do I want to save weight and get more weapons/larger engine?"


I'm not saying that this concept would or would not be good. I'd want to test it. From my theory crafting, it seems like it could be a decent idea. At most, it would grant an Atlas with this upgrade enough boosted armor (I'd make it so it did not touch structure health) that it would be able to take only an extra PPC hit (to a given location).

Honestly, this concept for FF would probably provide the most benefit for medium mechs, as most light mechs would want to retain that 12% weight reduction for more weapons instead. This could help the medium weights, a commonly mentioned issue, have a better role in the game besides "necessary filler".