41 replies to this topic

[Nothing Whatsoever]

SuckyJack, on 21 October 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Actually, it's rather simple. Move away from assigning armor points to location and instead assign tons to location.

This change would still have all stock mechs valid in the design system as the TROs assign armor by tonnage. The armor points on stock mechs with FF wouldn't change.

You still display the armor points to the side but armor points becomes the effective stopping power instead of the assigning mechanic. What this means is that FF wouldn't give tonnage back but rather give more armor points per ton and raise the armor point cap for a mech accordingly.

This means that FF could give you the same protection at less tonnage or more protection at the same tonnage depending on how you built around it. It would mean that many mechs that have to choose between FF and Endo don't instantly just pick up Endo.

Currently Endo is flat out better than FF, both are designed purely to exchange Crit Slots for Tonnage, both take the same number of Crit Slots but Endo gives a much better return on tonnage than FF. Giving FF a different design function that fits the lore (FF gave more protection per ton, just BT didn't change Armor Caps) makes FF a competitive choice.

This is worth exploring.

[Roland]

Endo is supposed to be far more expensive to fit and repair... but since that is no longer a consideration, that balance factor goes out the window.

Increasing the max armor could have an effect, although I'm skeptical as to whether most folks would bother with that, as it would basically just mean that you would gain some armor but not any tonnage. There are only a few mechs that would choose to do this. I would tend to think that most folks would still just take endo, because lots of folks don't run max armor anyway.

[Zyllos]

focuspark, on 21 October 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

TT bonus is 12% this is a modest 0.5% extra. It would not break any stock builds at all.

The boosted max armor is really what people are after.

I thought it was 12.5%. The number is pointless though, it's the concept that matters.

Taemien, on 21 October 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

How would it break stock loadouts? From my understanding, the points per ton wouldn't change. So if you change your armor to increase past the max capacity, you're not stock anymore anyway. And no stock mech is going to come in overweight. 16.5 tons of FF is still 16.5 tons of FF.

The point I think most of you are trying to achieve is for FF to be worth 14 criticals in MechWarrior.

I like the idea of going over the cap. That helps heavier mechs, which have no use for FF right now. And I like the idea of reduced damage transferring. That helps all mechs. But personally I think it needs more to be worth 14 criticals. I just can't think of anything else that doesn't get fantastical.

If FF just allowed 12% increase in armor points, instead of 12% decrease in weight, all stock mechs with FF will have a 12% increase in armor tonnage because the suggestion removed the 12% weight reduction bonus.

To get stock mechs to work out to the correct weight while being a competitive option, FF would need to reduce weight by 12% and allow 12% more points to be equipped.

If you can equip 1.0t of standard armor in an arm, that allows 32 points of armor. Right now, FF doesn't change the amount of points, but the amount of tonnage, thus only ~0.89286t of FF armor in the arm, which at 35.84 points per ton, is 32 points of armor.

If you just allow 12% increase in armor over standard, but the weight be the same, thus from 32 points to 36 points (rounded up from 35.84), that means the new total weight would be 1.125t for 36 points of armor, or 32 points per ton.

From the above, if a stock loadout of 32 points of armor with FF, would weigh ~0.89286t. Instead of doing 35.84 points per ton, you do 32 points per ton, that stock loadout with FF would now weigh 1.0t, or a 12% increase, and not ~0.898286t.

So that is why your suggestion would break stock loadouts.

But, I do think allowing for over 12% increase in armor points and 12% weight reduction would be a good fix. That means a maximum loadout of armor for a particular mech tonnage would still weigh the same with FF, but an increase in 12% armor points per location (but with armor being whole numbers, the weight would actually be slightly off).

Edited by Zyllos, 21 October 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[Roland]

Quote

If FF just allowed 12% increase in armor points, instead of 12% decrease in weight, all stock mechs with FF will have a 12% increase in armor tonnage because the suggestion removed the 12% weight reduction bonus.

No it didn't dude.

He's talking about leaving the weight reduction, but also increasing the max armor cap, such that you could CHOOSE to up your armor to a level which would be equivalent tonnage to what max armor would weigh without FF.

Stock mechs would not change at all.

[Zyllos]

Roland, on 21 October 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

No it didn't dude.

He's talking about leaving the weight reduction, but also increasing the max armor cap, such that you could CHOOSE to up your armor to a level which would be equivalent tonnage to what max armor would weigh without FF.

Stock mechs would not change at all.

Look again at what he said...

focuspark, on 21 October 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

If ferro upped the max armor carried then I'd think it was useful. It wouldn't even have to be lighter to be advantagous.

Just assume having FF allowed 12.5% more armor to be carried. Same points per ton. Wouldn't most Atlas pilots equip it?

He said allow 12% more armor to be carried, but same points per ton. That means the weight of FF would be the same as Standard per allotment of points.

Edited by Zyllos, 21 October 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[Roland]

My brain must have just transformed it into a less stupid version then.

The correct change would be to just increase the armor cap limit by 12.5%, while still leaving it 12.5% lighter.

My appologies for thinking you had read him wrong.

[Zyllos]

Roland, on 21 October 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

My brain must have just transformed it into a less stupid version then.

The correct change would be to just increase the armor cap limit by 12.5%, while still leaving it 12.5% lighter.

My appologies for thinking you had read him wrong.

No problem. I know we were both on the same page but there was just a mix up in the communication.

The fact still stands, increasing the total maximum by 12% while 12% decrease in weight would give a competitive reason to take FF over ES when you can only have one or the other, as long as there is an absence of drawbacks for equipping ES on a mech that doesn't comes with ES stock.

[RandomLurker]

How about increased turn/twist/arm speed due to lower mass? Gives it a niche purpose. I have some mediums that would take it over Endo if it also had that bonus.

[Warge]

Rhent, on 20 October 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

You play a Light or Medium mech and Ferro Fibrous is very usefull.

No.

[focuspark]

Roland, on 21 October 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

My brain must have just transformed it into a less stupid version then.

The correct change would be to just increase the armor cap limit by 12.5%, while still leaving it 12.5% lighter.

My appologies for thinking you had read him wrong.

Your brain transformed what I said into what I meant. Sorry - I was posting from a mobile phone in an elevator at work between meetings - typos, auto-correct-fail, and generally brain farting I assume are to blame.

Yup - I'm suggesting making FF 12% lighter and add 12% bonus to max armor, so for 100% the weight of normal armor you get 112% the protection; or for 100% the protection of normal armor you only use 88% the weight.

Edited by focuspark, 21 October 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[focuspark]

See my feature suggestion here:

http://mwomercs.com/...-fiberous-good/

[AnarchyBurger]

ICEFANG13, on 20 October 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Allow the mech to actually add 12% more armor? Increase caps?

I like this personally.

[General Taskeen]

Monky, on 20 October 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

Make it so ferro fibrous reduces damage transfer by an additional 50%. Great for mechs who can actually fit it, ones with standard engines.

50% damage reduction is for other types of armor

http://www.sarna.net...eflective_Armor
http://www.sarna.net.../Reactive_Armor

[DoktorVivi]

As it is, I have FF on a single mech. Already had Endo, randomly had room for FF, got some extra room for armor or a heatsink or something. Don't even consider it on other mechs.

If it actually increased armor beyond your normal cap, I would definitely consider taking it a LOT more. Hell, since I max armor on all my mechs anyway, I might even look at it as my first choice for a lot of mechs, with the possibility of going Endo instead if I want to up speed / firepower instead.

[Strum Wealh]

If anything, normal IS FF should retain its normal properties (consumes 14 criticals and grants 12% more armor points per ton), and have a small (no more than 10%) universal damage reduction element added to it; Clan FF should likewise retain its normal properties (consumes 7 criticals and grants 20% more armor points per ton) and have the same universal damage reduction element added to it.

What one ends up with would be:

• Standard Armor (both IS and Clan): 32 pts/ton, 0 criticals consumed, 0% damage reduction
  
• IS FF Armor: ~36 pts/ton, 14 criticals consumed, 10% damage reduction against all weapons
  
• Clan FF Armor: ~39 pts/ton, 7 criticals consumed, 10% damage reduction against all weapons
  
• Hardened Armor (introduced in 3047 for IS & 3061 for Clans): 16 pts/ton, 0 criticals consumed, 50% damage reduction against all weapons
  
• IS Laser-Reflective Armor (introduced in 3058): 32 pts/ton, 10 criticals consumed, 50% damage reduction against energy weapons only (0% damage reduction against ballistic, missile, and artillery weapons)
  
• Clan Laser-Reflective Armor (introduced in 3061): 32 pts/ton, 5 criticals consumed, 50% damage reduction against energy weapons only (0% damage reduction against ballistic, missile, and artillery weapons)
  
• Stealth Armor (introduced in 3063, IS only): 32 pts/ton, consumes 2 critical slots in each arm, leg, and side-torso, 0% damage reduction, reduces detectability versus enemy radar, night vision, and thermal sensors (no effect against normal visual spotting or seismic sensors) - requires an ECM suite to be installed to work
  
• IS Reactive Armor (introduced in 3063): 32 pts/ton, 14 criticals consumed, 50% damage reduction against missile & artillery weapons only (0% damage reduction against energy and ballistic weapons)
  
• Clan Reactive Armor (introduced in 3065): 32 pts/ton, 7 criticals consumed, 50% damage reduction against missile & artillery weapons only (0% damage reduction against energy and ballistic weapons)
  
• Light FF Armor (introduced in 3067, IS only): ~34 pts/ton, 7 criticals consumed, 10% damage reduction against all weapons
  
• Heavy FF Armor (introduced in 3069, IS only): ~40 pts/ton, 21 criticals consumed, 10% damage reduction against all weapons
  
• Ferro-Lamellor (FL) Armor (introduced in 3070, Clans only): 28 pts/ton, 12 criticals consumed, 20% damage reduction against all weapons
  
• Modular Armor (introduced in 3072 for IS & 3074 for Clans): +10 pts/ton, 1 critical consumed per location (except Head), 0% damage reduction

With the above, each armor type (especially those whose defining characteristic is already a form of damage reduction) retains its unique characteristics (both positive and negative) and the stock builds' internal setups remain unchanged, while the FF family receives a not-insubstantial benefit (but not so large that it could adversely affect the viability/desirability of future content - notably, those armor types whose defining characteristic is already a form of damage reduction) that makes it a more competitive choice versus both Standard Armor and Endo-Steel Structure.

[FupDup]

Strum Wealh, on 21 October 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

...

• Modular Armor (introduced in 3072 for IS & 3074 for Clans): +10 pts/ton, 1 critical consumed per location (except Head), 0% damage reduction

Actually, if we consider MWO's doubled armor, then Modular Armor would provide +20 points to the location that it's mounted in instead of TT's +10.

Edited by FupDup, 21 October 2013 - 06:49 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Don't forget, Hardened Armor severely slows down a Mech as well, in game terms that should be all aspects (speed, and torso twist). Its disadvantage for such a sweet damage reduction bonus from all weapon types.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Stalker_II

Example, The 3145 Stalker (Stalker-II or "STK-9A") mounts Hardened Armor, and has the same engine as the original Stalkers (Mark 1's basically), and its top speed is reduced to 43 km/h compared to the Stalker's without it that go 54 km/h with the same engine.

[Khobai]

Quote

I think if Ferro Fibrous reduced the amount of damage you took per hit, but DIDN'T have more points per tonnage, it might sometimes be useful compared to Endo.

Lights dont need further damage reduction, they already evasion tank better than assaults can absorb damage.

If youre going to buff Ferro Fibrous, buff it in a way that ALL weight classes can benefit from it, like making it take up less critical slots (i.e. 10 instead of 14)

Edited by Khobai, 21 October 2013 - 06:55 PM.

[xRatas]

Remove Endo Steel upgrade. If a mech is built with it, it has it and can not remove it. Ferro you can refit all you like. Follows lore and works well. Nerf ones that are built with ES if necessary. Mechs now also live slightly longer, that's what everybody but me wishes it seems.

Edit: or make it so that endo upgrade costs around 5 times s much as now, and the mech stays locked for 3 months if you put it in or take it out. Representing the quite extensive labour of changing the skeleton completely.

Edited by xRatas, 21 October 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Roland, on 21 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Endo is supposed to be far more expensive to fit and repair... but since that is no longer a consideration, that balance factor goes out the window.

Increasing the max armor could have an effect, although I'm skeptical as to whether most folks would bother with that, as it would basically just mean that you would gain some armor but not any tonnage. There are only a few mechs that would choose to do this. I would tend to think that most folks would still just take endo, because lots of folks don't run max armor anyway.

The problem might be the cost in crit slots, but in general, I figure people would buff their CT and (if using XL engines at least) their side torso armour further. That's the only part where it matters.