23 replies to this topic

[focuspark]

I've seen several threads bouncing about with regards to ferrofiberous armor and how to make it an option that people not piloting a Locust might consider. The primary concern is that ferrofiberous armor only role it to trade internal critical slots for weight savings but is less effective than endosteel and nearly completely useless to medium, heavy, and assault 'mechs.

Here's my suggestion:

Make ferrofiberous consume 14 internal critical slots, reduce the weight of a point of armor by 12.5% and increase the maximum points of armor each section can mount by 12.5%.

This makes ferrofiberous useful not only as a weight savings tool (like a lesser version of endosteel) but also makes it a defensive tool as well. Assault 'mech pilots should seriously consider ferrofiberous because it would add survivability.

Edited by focuspark, 21 October 2013 - 09:25 AM.

[fandre]

Add a poll and i will vote yes.

[focuspark]

fandre, on 21 October 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Add a poll and i will vote yes.

Poll added (thanks)

[CDLord HHGD]

Idea merits testing. Technically there's only so much armor a Mech can hold, and not just in weight, in bulk as well..... I certainly don't want to see an Atlas with even more armor.....

[FinsT]

I voted "yes", but one thing: i suspect this is still a bit "too small" thing, even with addition of extra armor. Let's take an Atlas as an example. By "paying" a price of 14 slots, i'd get ~15 point of extra armor to central torso, and ~10 to each side torso. Total 35 points. This is just a bit more than one hit with 6x medium lasers some medium mech can easily do - or one good volley from an LRM boat. What i'd lose - with many assault mech builds, if not most of them, - is some ability to mount weapons (since slots is the main limit on assault class mech). Which means my enemies will be destroyed significantly slower. Which means they'll have more time to fire at me. And if just one additional alpha from just one enemy is _more_ than enough to negate that additional 35 armor on torso area, - then i feel 14 slots cost does not worth it at all.

If it'd be 50% more armor possible, then i might consider it. But 12.5%? Naaah. Too small!

Edited by FinsT, 21 October 2013 - 10:46 PM.

[focuspark]

FinsT, on 21 October 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

I voted "yes", but one thing: i suspect this is still a bit "too small" thing, even with addition of extra armor. Let's take an Atlas as an example. By "paying" a price of 14 slots, i'd get ~15 point of extra armor to central torso, and ~10 to each side torso. Total 35 points. This is just a bit more than one hit with 6x medium lasers some medium mech can easily do - or one good volley from an LRM boat. What i'd lose - with many assault mech builds, if not most of them, - is some ability to mount weapons (since slots is the main limit on assault class mech). Which means my enemies will be destroyed significantly slower. Which means they'll have more time to fire at me. And if just one additional alpha from just one enemy is _more_ than enough to negate that additional 35 armor on torso area, - then i feel 14 slots cost does not worth it at all.

If it'd be 50% more armor possible, then i might consider it. But 12.5%? Naaah. Too small!

Well, to be honest we have a few things to contend with.

First is the "Golden Rule": stock loadouts from BattleTech Technical Manuals cannot be invalidated. They can suck, but must remain valid.

Condense is that you want it be a difficult choice. One that is valid with or without the upgrade. If it's an obvious improvement and everyone should take it, it's not a choice but a tax. 12.5% bonus for 14 critical slots is small enough to make it a difficult choice on upping the armor limit on your mech or saving that space for endo + more weapons.

I can see novel and useful builds involving an D-DC with a STD360, Endo, and FF (this version) being used to charge the back lines of the enemy. Oh what chaos it could bring, even if it didn't have massive firepower.

Edited by focuspark, 22 October 2013 - 12:15 PM.

[Felio]

The trouble with percentage-based bonuses to armor is that they help the mechs that need it the most the least. Same problem as with the doubling of TT values. This would increase the "time to kill" of the Atlas by 12.5% and the time to kill of the Locust by 0%.

I do think it's a step in the right direction, though, and I voted yes.

[Christof Romulus]

Felio, on 22 October 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

The trouble with percentage-based bonuses to armor is that they help the mechs that need it the most the least. Same problem as with the doubling of TT values. This would increase the "time to kill" of the Atlas by 12.5% and the time to kill of the Locust by 0%.

I do think it's a step in the right direction, though, and I voted yes.

Going to have to agree with you here, even liked your post.... but...

The point of this thread was to make FF more viable to mechs outside of the "Light" bracket - All Jenners, Locusts, Spiders (etc) use FF, but NO Atlas ever will (outside of Cannon, of course).

If both an Atlas and a Jenner used FF, the Jenner wouldn't be using it for the 12.5% armor, it would be using it for the additional half ton (approx.) it would get back, while the Atlas would be trying to survive those sweet, sweet alpha strikes.

[Kolaghan]

Yes, yes and yes. This is something that i really wanted for a long time.

keep in mind that most lights would be harder to kill if this would to be implemented.

[focuspark]

Christof Romulus, on 23 October 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Going to have to agree with you here, even liked your post.... but...

The point of this thread was to make FF more viable to mechs outside of the "Light" bracket - All Jenners, Locusts, Spiders (etc) use FF, but NO Atlas ever will (outside of Cannon, of course).

If both an Atlas and a Jenner used FF, the Jenner wouldn't be using it for the 12.5% armor, it would be using it for the additional half ton (approx.) it would get back, while the Atlas would be trying to survive those sweet, sweet alpha strikes.

Spot on. This is exactly what I was thinking. It's useful to both ends of the spectrum (specifically because it's percentage based) and it's not always a good idea to have (unlike ECM, DHS, and Endo are today).

PressureCooker, on 23 October 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Yes, yes and yes. This is something that i really wanted for a long time.

keep in mind that most lights would be harder to kill if this would to be implemented.

roughly 12.5% harder, which doesn't mean all that much. The fact that lights are difficult to kill today is a balance question, but solving that issue would only help make this suggestion more reasonable.

[Aurien Titus]

Another let's make FF a mandatory upgrade thread. Because which Atlas builds wouldn't take an additional 15 points of armor in the center torso plus additional armor in all it's other spots? Yes because what MWO really needs is all the assaults and heavier 'mechs having even more armor. Considering how stupid and broken this idea is, I'm sure PGI will implement it soon™.

[focuspark]

Aurien Titus, on 23 October 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Another let's make FF a mandatory upgrade thread. Because which Atlas builds wouldn't take an additional 15 points of armor in the center torso plus additional armor in all it's other spots? Yes because what MWO really needs is all the assaults and heavier 'mechs having even more armor. Considering how stupid and broken this idea is, I'm sure PGI will implement it soon™.

Anger issues? Not sure how giving up 14 critical slots for 15 points of CT armor is completely OP. Said Atlas would be able to soak an extra Gauss hit but mounting a whole less alpha. Seems fairly balanced to me.

As it stands now FF is complete waste of time.

[CrashieJ]

just make it cheaper, Ferro-Fiber is too expensive for the price given.

ALSO

have it so swapping FerroFiber out is free once purchased... it's not like Endosteel.

[Aurien Titus]

focuspark, on 23 October 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Anger issues? Not sure how giving up 14 critical slots for 15 points of CT armor is completely OP. Said Atlas would be able to soak an extra Gauss hit but mounting a whole less alpha. Seems fairly balanced to me.

As it stands now FF is complete waste of time.

See complete lack of actually understanding your "fix" showing there. You're not trading 14 crit slots for 15 ct, you're trading 14 crit slots for 76 more points of armor to a 100 ton 'mech. 61 points on an 85 ton 'mech. That's over half the total armor value of a light, that would be added to assaults. So what assault build wouldn't be fitting FF?

Edit: On an Atlas with max armor except for legs, bring them to around 50 each, there is only a 3 ton difference between ES and FF. Not hard to swap from ES to FF for more armor. Plus what's your plan when Clans come rolling in with 7 slot ES and FF? If allowed to be customized, they won't have to chose, take both.

Edited by Aurien Titus, 23 October 2013 - 08:44 PM.

[Modo44]

This keeps coming up with saddening consistency: "FF is slightly worse than ES, so make it way, waaay better." Please, understand that it is a secondary upgrade, only making sense in some circumstances. It is really not supposed to cure cancer.

[FinsT]

gavilatius, on 23 October 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

just make it cheaper, Ferro-Fiber is too expensive for the price given.
...

Oh, this too, yes. Most definitely!

I still wonder why FF armor is 14 crit slots - exactly as much as endosteel structure. It's obvious FF "frees" way less tonnage, - times less. And it's obvious that having two upgrades which "costs" slots to get having very SAME price, - is quite artificial reduction of total diversity of possible builds. Small reduction, yes, but still.

Why not make FF armor to cost, say, 8 crits or something like that? Suddenly some folks who can't "afford" crit cost of endosteel - would become able to upgrade to FF. And some other folks who were not able to afford endosteel + FF - would be able to get both. Both kinds would still pay 8 slots price which means their max cooling efficiency will suffer (less crits = less heatsinks possible).

[Kazairl]

How about just a 25% ballistic damage reduction.

[Karl Streiger]

That would be interesting indeed - give you really a hard time to choose
ES for more weapons or FF for more armor.
But completely remove the weight saving aspect of FF - should make the choise much more difficult.

For example - your T-Bolt has only 10tons remaining...with ES you can mount 13t what is near maximum.
with FF you gain nothing.

Other example - you have 14t and 14crit remaining...wit ES you can get 17t - maybe upgrade those 3 MLAS towards MPLAS - or you take FF - and can place 14t of armor

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 October 2013 - 03:01 AM.

[Randalf Yorgen]

Just bring in the missing armour types, Along with Standard and FF there should also be Ablative (anti laser (not PPC)) and reactive (anti balistic) Then let the players choose what suits them for the roll they want to play.

[focuspark]

Karl Streiger, on 24 October 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

That would be interesting indeed - give you really a hard time to choose
ES for more weapons or FF for more armor.
But completely remove the weight saving aspect of FF - should make the choise much more difficult.

For example - your T-Bolt has only 10tons remaining...with ES you can mount 13t what is near maximum.
with FF you gain nothing.

Other example - you have 14t and 14crit remaining...wit ES you can get 17t - maybe upgrade those 3 MLAS towards MPLAS - or you take FF - and can place 14t of armor

The problem with removing weight savings is compatibility with the tomes of pre-existing BattleTech 'mech designs. The dev team has promised you'll always be able to recreate your favorite 'mechs from the BT Technical Readouts (so long as they fit the hard point system...).

FinsT, on 24 October 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

Why not make FF armor to cost, say, 8 crits or something like that? Suddenly some folks who can't "afford" crit cost of endosteel - would become able to upgrade to FF. And some other folks who were not able to afford endosteel + FF - would be able to get both. Both kinds would still pay 8 slots price which means their max cooling efficiency will suffer (less crits = less heatsinks possible).

Then it's just a poor man's ES. Personally, I'd rather have it offer something different from ES. I'd drop the eight reduction, but to keep the TRO 'mechs buildable it must be preserved.

Modo44, on 23 October 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

This keeps coming up with saddening consistency: "FF is slightly worse than ES, so make it way, waaay better." Please, understand that it is a secondary upgrade, only making sense in some circumstances. It is really not supposed to cure cancer.

What's the point of a "secondary upgrade" in a multiplayer, competitive video game? How many of your 'mech have FF? How many have ES? That right there tells you FF isn't balance well with ES and therefore isn't designed correctly. A good yardstick of if ES and FF are balanced is we should see roughly an even split between 'mechs with ES, 'mechs with FF, and 'mechs with neither (and a small fraction with both).