31 replies to this topic

[Swinebeast]

Hey guys, any buffs in using FerroFibrous armour other than weight?
I figured it was just that, less weight, less slots, but I recently read a reference in the forums that seemed to point to some other advantage.

[Rasc4l]

Swinebeast, on 23 April 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

Hey guys, any buffs in using FerroFibrous armour other than weight?

No.

[Gtbuck]

There is no other advantage other then weight savings. I would also like to point out that in any case that you have to choose between FF or Endo Steel always choose endo steel, it will save more weight then FF
There are a lot of light builds when you can use both, but anything bigger than a cicada will likely run out of slots if using both endo and FF.

[BLOOD WOLF]

I have actually do love to use FF whenever i can.

[IraqiWalker]

Ferro Fiberous weights a bit less than Standard armor, so you get 32 points of armor per ton of standard, or 36 points of armor per ton with FF.

The weight saving is minuscule to be honest, however, there are builds where it works, but I've never seen a build that took FF instead of Endo, and was efficient or worked correctly.

Check This thread out for more information on everything related to mech building.

I would also appreciate any feedback you have.

[AlmightyAeng]

Swinebeast, on 23 April 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

Hey guys, any buffs in using FerroFibrous armour other than weight?
I figured it was just that, less weight, less slots, but I recently read a reference in the forums that seemed to point to some other advantage.

Yup. Ferro reduces the weight of your currently equipped armor. Doesn't increase the max armor that goes on, so it's literally just a weight saver.

Since Endo and Ferro both take up 14 slots, but Endo returns MORE tonnage, you almost never see a mech with Ferro instead of Endo (if you do it's likely because they can't afford to switch it around yet) but you WILL sometimes see mechs with BOTH (most often on cool-running light mechs) where the extra tonnage is more important than the slots because they don't need as many double heatsinks (which take up 3 slots a piece).

[mailin]

With Ferro, there's a misconception that it will give you more armor: it won't. The maximum armor value is the same, Ferro, just makes your armor lighter, at the cost of 14 crit slots, which frees up tonnage for other things. Think of it and endo as trading some crit slots for available tonnage, and in the bargain, endo is a better deal.

[TheCaptainJZ]

As said already, FF armor is NOT better in any way and you still cannot add any extra armor you couldn't with standard armor. All it does is take the same number of armor hitpoints, and decrease the tonnage slightly. However, Endo steel does the same thing (weighs less) and in fact always gives you a better weight savings so Endo steel is always better than FF armor. Don't ever pick FF over Endo.

[Bront]

All FF does is mean you get 12% more armor per ton. The armor points are the same, the max armor values are the same, you just use less tonnage.

So, always use Endosteel first, and then build most of the rest of your mech. If you have enough room, throw FF in there. Usually this is on lights, smaller mediums, and occasionally special builds of other mechs.

[Pygar]

Here's the way I look at it: If you are starting a build and are looking to trade slots for tonnage, Endo Steel is the way to go, because you will almost always get more spare tonnage that way. If you are coming down to the end of a build, have the spare slots, but only want extra armor then Ferro Fiber is the way to go.

[Appogee]

In the tabletop game FF offered advantages other than weight.

In MWO: it conserves a little weight only, at the price of slots and CBills.

(Why nothing else...? Answer: PGI.)

[Kyynele]

10 people before me already covered the answer.

I just wanted to add: Always pick Endo over FF.

[Bront]

Appogee, on 23 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

In the tabletop game FF offered advantages other than weight.

Um, no it didn't. It was this lame in TT too.

[Kin3ticX]

did some write-ups on FF here

https://docs.google....d.gb8ed7ef2_043

[Koniving]

Swinebeast, on 23 April 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

Hey guys, any buffs in using FerroFibrous armour other than weight?
I figured it was just that, less weight, less slots, but I recently read a reference in the forums that seemed to point to some other advantage.

From another thread on the same topic. You may have read this; but this other advantage will not exist again until after Community Warfare -- if it ever exists again at all. It depends entirely on whether or not repair and rearm actually returns.

Koniving, on 22 April 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

In general, no. But some mechs do benefit.

The difference is roughly 32 points per ton standard armor versus 36 points per ton ferro armor.
The reason ferro exists is currently obsolete due to the removal (permanent or temporary) of repair and rearm.

When repairs are concerned, ferro is slightly more expensive than standard armor. However, ferro is significantly cheaper to repair than endo steel so in a fight where you have been defeated, the cost of endo steel's repairs might drown you in debt. Especially if it were on an assault mech (where lots of endo steel is likely to be lost).

[Mad Strike]

It was a low cost weight saving upgrade because before Repair and Rearm was taken out its maintenance was less expensive than endo steel.

I want Repair and Rearm again !!!!! T_T

[Koniving]

Alternatively, you may have read what is simply titled the "Armor Concept," which attempts to restore role warfare through a few simple tweaks to the existing rule about maximum armor.

In which case that is only an idea being spread around and NOT something that actually exists in the game. Some of us just hope it will.

Example using Ravens.

Spoiler

Universal armor rule: Stock armor tonnage + 3 tons = new max armor. Apply to all mechs.
Normal armor: 32 points.
Ferro armor: 36 points.
Raven
3-L
161 -- INVALID NUMBER. Not an armor amount achieved within an increment of 0.5 tons and thus not truly a stock number.
160 = 5 tons.
256 max standard.
288 max ferro.

2X
6.5
208
304 max standard.
342 max ferro.

4X
224 stock
7 tons
320 max standard
360 max ferro.

Huginn
232 = 6.444444 tons INVALID. Rounding to nearest 0.5.
234 = 6.5 tons Ferro.
342 Ferro max.
304 standard max.

[Mad Porthos]

Like many here have said, it doesn't always offer an advantage and so it's uses are niche. Most of the time, if you want to save weight, you use ENDO-STEEL as the upgrade and gain tons of extra payload, at the loss of some space on the mech. If you then also run an XL engine, very often Ferro-Fibrous won't even be possible, because you will not have enough free space to "pay" for/mount it.

On occasion however, you'll have a mech where you've already got ENDO-STEEL structure, but purchased a standard engine for durabilty. You find yourself just short of the tonnage you need to mount some weapon or a BAP, but still have plenty of unused critical locations. It's then that you consider using Ferro-Fibrous Armor, because you may gain the .7 tons you need to mount a BAP, the remaining you can get by decreasing your overall armor and removing a .5 ton jump jet or CASE installation. That's when you pop for Ferro-Fibrous, because that's when it's an advantage.

Another example I just noticed recently. My Spider 5d I traditionally had run as a Large Pulse Laser, 2 medium laser skirmisher. It ran about 139kph with speed tweak (xl 235 engine, don't quite recall) and mounts both Endo-Steel Structure and well...obviously, XL engine. I never bothered with Ferro-Fibrous before, because I needed all the slots I could get as far as I was concerned, for the LPL and 2 medium lasers... and of course the Guardian ECM. Then, the other day a buddy recommended I try the 2 ER Large Laser sniper spider build. He saw I was pretty good zotting things at range with LL on another mech and knew I was also a light pilot, but had never seen my spidering with LL. I was working on the build and couldn't for the life of me figure how to get the second ER Large laser onto the mech, in terms of tonnage. I was just short, even if I dropped two jump jets, leaving only two of four. Then I saw it. I realized without the two jump jets, I was up to 14 total free critical spaces, which would allow for Ferro-Fibrous upgrade. Taking the two medium lasers out would give me the two slots needed for the second ER Large Laser and shave a bit of armor made the whole thing come together. I couldn't have done it without the Ferro-Fibrous, but it's use is situational. Much of the time, it really makes no sense to use it, other upgrades being more effective.

[Koniving]

Appogee, on 23 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

In the tabletop game FF offered advantages other than weight.

Bront, on 23 April 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Um, no it didn't. It was this lame in TT too.

In campaigns, it did. Cost of repairs. Faster and easier to repair too. Ferro was significantly easier to repair than endo steel, as well as cheaper to put on while keeping your battle value you down so that you could field more units. Attempt to repair endo steel resulted in more frequent failures which were devastating when the campaign was on a time limit, cost more, and often left you pretty screwed. Especially since you could only do 'so much' before the next part of the campaign hit.

But in a way tangible to MWO or a single tabletop match, yeah it was pretty lame and useless.

[Appogee]

Bront, on 23 April 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Um, no it didn't. It was this lame in TT too.

I recall it was quicker and easier to repair...?

EDIT: What Koniving said.

Edited by Appogee, 23 April 2014 - 01:17 PM.