49 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

Quote

If it's not going to save weight (in any practical capacity outside of light and some med builds), then it really needs to provide something.

You're using FF for it's practical capacity on IS designs if it's saving a bit of weight on light/meds. It's not meant to be a major buff otherwise.

What's needed is hardened armor, which works a bit differently. It doesn't provide weight savings (in fact, you get half the points for the weight), but rather damage resistance- every point of hardened armor takes two points of damage to destroy, with the same maximum number of points as a limit. The armor also slows a 'Mech slightly and makes it a bit more clumsy to handle (in TT, -1 running MP and +1 to piloting rolls).

Your 'Mech can carry 20 points of standard/FF armor? You can pack 20 hardened points on the same location instead- twice the tonnage, but it takes the equivalent of 40 damage to destroy. Lights that can shrug off a 50-point Dire Wolf alpha? You betcha. It literally is the "tanky" armor,and it's available in 3049. Just not in MWO.

FF armor isn't meant to be equal to endosteel in utility. Nor should it be.

[Ultimax]

wanderer, on 31 July 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

You're using FF for it's practical capacity on IS designs if it's saving a bit of weight on light/meds. It's not meant to be a major buff otherwise.

That's basically moot now as we have 85 Ton Warhawks that inexplicably have FF - and it provides them no real value.

Even some IS mechs that fall outside of your Light/Med range have it stock, like the Jager DD - but at least the DDs can pay the upgrade tax to remove it and then pay the second upgrade for the actually useful Endo.

For the Warhawk on the other hand, it doesn't really save them any weight, and they can't even remove it for the crit slots, nor can they swap it for Endo to gain tonnage.

It's basically just a dead upgrade that functions as a nerf.


"Upgrades" like this are dumb. They are legacy items from a game that we are not playing. They made sense in that game for that game's economic factors that are all basically irrelevant here as we customize pretty much to our hearts content.


FF has sucked for a long time, but now we have mechs that are stuck with it - so I think it's time for a revamp so its at least a useful option.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 31 July 2014 - 08:28 AM.

[CocoaJin]

Those weren't upgrades for the Clans, they were standard build specs/tech for them. It's like calling the fiberglass shell of a Chevy Corvette a bad upgrade and being disappointed in not being able to use a metal alternative.

While the IS we're using lower tech builds, so they had room to improve, thus upgrade.


Yeah, I know, why foes the upgrade have yo use slots? Slots where a brilliant mechanic to model trade-off, of counter-balance. Contrary to popular belief, slots weren't just a place to hang your pew-pew stuff, it's actually the means for limiting your stuff...so we wouldn't have the abominations people are constantly seeking to build now.

Edited by CocoaJin, 31 July 2014 - 08:49 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

Vassago Rain, on 31 July 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

FF needs to be a flat damage reduction, but this will never happen.

No it does not, there are other armor types that would do that, but those are all experimental, don't fit the timeline or both.
Ferro fibrous is fine, it just needs a new description that reads:
*****IMPORTANT! INSTALL ENDO STEEL INTERNALS FIRST!*****

Edited by Satan n stuff, 31 July 2014 - 08:37 AM.

[CocoaJin]

Satan n stuff, on 31 July 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

No it does not, there are other armor types that would do that, but those are all experimental, don't fit the timeline or both.
Ferro fibrous is fine, it just needs a new description that reads:
*****IMPORTANT! INSTALL ENDO STEEL INTERNALS FIRST!*****

*****OH YEAH! UNLESS YOU ARE A LIGHT MECH...MAYBE A MEDIUM TOO!*****

@the OP and his supporters:
Because in this heavy and assault centric player mind-set, it turns out FF is just fine for us little guys.

This thread is about as sensible as me complaining Endo doesn't do enough for Locusts, so let's boost it.

So leave it alone, it's working ad intended, it's properly balanced, stop messing with it....geesh, you'd guys would break your own ass if it didn't already have a crack in it.

Edited by CocoaJin, 31 July 2014 - 08:55 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

Leave it alone. It's all a ploy so some one can squeeze another PPC on their favorite mech. It will serve no other purpose as to further throw the inherent balance of BattleTech(a feat I find rather impressive considering the magnitude of units) spiraling out of control with increased alpha damage, increased sustainability of alphas and add yet another generation of exploit-a-mech abominations because the devs insist on a no-limits approach to build mechanics.

Please, no more perversions of the lore...not because I care that much about lore, but because I appreciate and value the massive achievement in creating such an inherently balanced IP. A balance that the players and devs would happily destroy if left to their own devices.

Come on guys, look past your own nose and take pride in adapting within the limits of the game. Don't break change the rules because of how cool it would be if you do X.

CBT has worse balance than 7th edition warhammer 40k.

[FupDup]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

...such an inherently balanced IP....

[CocoaJin]

Granted on a unit level, there are better and worse units...which is fine, for every 109 there is a Hurricane, for every Sherman, there is. Tiger. But it's balance is in how it attempts to balance customization and use of a chassis. The idea that everything has a cost and a real time consequence in its use. The IP isn't so overly focused on improvements and ad dons that it neglects to consider drawbacks for each gain you strap on.

In this respect, the IP does a better job than the vast percentage of games put out.

Edited by CocoaJin, 31 July 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[Dracol]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

*****OH YEAH! UNLESS YOU ARE A LIGHT MECH...MAYBE A MEDIUM TOO!*****

@the OP and his supporters:
Because in this heavy and assault centric player mind-set, it turns out FF is just fine for us little guys.

First off, for lights and mediums (and a very few heavier builds) yes Ferro is beneficial when combined with Endo. When only one of the upgrades is equipped though, Endo is the better choice by every measure except cbill cost no matter the tonnage of the mech. How it is explained now within the game interface it does not illustrate this fact well.

A more apt description within the roll overs would allow less experienced players make a more informed choice.

As for my suggestion of a change to Ferro, this idea steamed from the introduction of mechs forced to take it. A single crit slot being opened up on mechs like the Thor and Warhawk wouldn't be game breaking and would give a little more logical explanation why those mechs have them equipped out side of lore which is currently not displayed in game and not readily known by players that do not follow table top.

The dual crit reduction on IS mechs would give the upgrade a second category to differentiate it from Endo steel out as well as give a more interesting choice.

Currently, IS have:
Endo for most weight savings, equal crits, and more expensive
Ferro has less of a weight savings, equal crits, and less expensive

The only people who would choose Ferro are those who are cost conscious. (maybe they are saving up for a clan mech when they are released but want to squeeze in an additional med laser onto their build)

My proposal would have:
Endo for most weight savings, a little less space available, and more expensive
Ferro has less of a weight savings, a little more space available, and less expensive

Now we would have cost conscious pilots making a choice as well as pilots whose builds could utilize a pair of crit slots better instead of a little bit of extra weight.

Light and Medium IS as well as heavies and assaults would benefit. How much one class or another is benefited would be dependent upon particular builds. If I recall correctly though, the more prominent meta builds wouldn't gain much of a buff, but I could be mistaken on this point.

[Vassago Rain]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Granted on a unit level, there are better and worse units...which is fine, for every 109 there is a Hurricane, for every Sherman, there is. Tiger. But it's balance is in how it attempts to balance customization and use of a chassis. The idea that everything has a cost and a real time consequence in its use. The IP isn't so overly focused on improvements and ad dons that it neglects to consider drawbacks for each gain you strap on.

In this respect, the IP does a better job than the vast percentage of games put out.

lol no.

I play CBT, 40k, fantasy, and various other tabletop games. You clearly don't.

[Roadkill]

Dracol, on 31 July 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

I propose reducing IS Ferro down two criticals and Clan Ferro down one critical.

The two things that will likely never change for any reason are component weight and component crit slots.

Why? Because changing either of those affects stock builds. So if you want your proposal to be taken seriously, don't even bother suggesting changing crits or weight.

(And yes, I'm aware that reducing either of those would still result in valid stock builds, but in the case of weight reductions they'd be underweight. So still not going to happen.)

[CocoaJin]

Vassago Rain, on 31 July 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

lol no.

I play CBT, 40k, fantasy, and various other tabletop games. You clearly don't.

No, I don't play table tops. So, perhaps it falls short of other TTs, but it is vastly better than other video(for clarification) games. From what i see, the types of balance the IP brings to this genre of video/PC game is better flesh out than most. Perhaps if we were playing Warhammer Online, it's IP would provide improved balance within its game than BattleTech, but that's a moot point here. BT does bring a good balance structure to this genre of PC game...and so I think it good to leave it alone or risk disrupting and messing up something good,even if it's only relative.

[Vassago Rain]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

No, I don't play table tops. So, perhaps it falls short of other TTs, but it is vastly better than other video(for clarification) games. From what i see, the types of balance the IP brings to this genre of video/PC game is better flesh out than most. Perhaps if we were playing Warhammer Online, it's IP would provide improved balance within its game than BattleTech, but that's a moot point here. BT does bring a good balance structure to this genre of PC game...and so I think it good to leave it alone or risk disrupting and messing up something good,even if it's only relative.

Mechwarrior games always come down to gunbags. They are terrible for multiplayer because of this.

If you want a good game that ties into an established franchise, you play dawn of war.

[FupDup]

Vassago Rain, on 31 July 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

If you want a good game that ties into an established franchise, you play dawn of war.

SPESS MAHREENS!

Edited by FupDup, 31 July 2014 - 10:00 AM.

[CocoaJin]

Vassago Rain, on 31 July 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

Mechwarrior games always come down to gunbags. They are terrible for multiplayer because of this.

If you want a good game that ties into an established franchise, you play dawn of war.

I want to play a good MechWarrior game...I'm not willing to write this off and settle on making it a good game that happens to be MechWarrior themed. This game deserves to have its IP respected and protected from being constantly lobbied by those would suggest throwing out the lore so they can further uberfy their builds. I'm not saying nothing can change, but I feel its important to maintain the spirit of the IP. I'd rather we not reduce the trade-off costs for various systems...I see it as an important counter-balance in game and an integral connection to the IP and what it was trying to affect.

Now, perhaps a Dawn of War is a good game, may be it'd like it, but it's irrelevant with respect to the proposal to fiddle with some aspect of MWO. The opinion that Dawn of War is better than MWO doesn't write MWO off as not worthy of maintaining its integrity.

How about we embrace the IP for what it is, the good, the bad and the ugly....and seek to improve this game within the confines of the IP's individual uniqueness? That way this becomes as good a MechWarrior game as it can be, and not some throw away game because it's not Dawn of War.

Edited by CocoaJin, 31 July 2014 - 10:23 AM.

[Simbacca]

Alexandrix, on 31 July 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

I'd like to see it increase the max armor points allowed,or just provide a straight damage resistance. I'd say a straight damage resistance would probably be the easiest and least complicated(for pgi) way of doing it.They could just use the quirk system to slap on a % damage reduction to all components armor(but not internals for obvious reasons) if the mech mounted ferro.Much the same way clan mechs can swap quirks in and out with omni pods.Say maybe around 10% or whatever? Ferro sucks in comparison to endo.It always has and it always will until someone steps up and does something about it.

I can live with a 10% damage reduction. If that is too much it could be 10% damage reduction against all ballistic based weapons, but normal resistance against missile and energy.

Edited by Simbacca, 31 July 2014 - 10:28 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

*****OH YEAH! UNLESS YOU ARE A LIGHT MECH...MAYBE A MEDIUM TOO!*****

Well I did say to install endo first, obviously if you have enough space you'll want both.

[Blood Rose]

Vassago Rain, on 31 July 2014 - 03:57 AM, said:

There's about a billion different types of armor. You can have laser reflective armor, light FF armor, heavy FF armor, FF lamellor, ferro aluminum, heavy armor, FF carbide, primitive armor, fire-resistant armor, hardened armor, mimetic armor, stealth armor, standard stealth armor, reactive armor, armored components, industrial armor, commercial armor, modular armor...

But we only ever get the worst of the worst of the most outdated FF armor implementation that no one actually uses, even in the tabletop.

I do use FF in TT. When it is canon to do so (Such as on Marauders and Highlanders) and on Vehicles.

However, I do feel that FF should give a damage reduction. I would then take it on my Atlas.

[Vassago Rain]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

I want to play a good MechWarrior game...I'm not willing to write this off and settle on making it a good game that happens to be MechWarrior themed. This game deserves to have its IP respected and protected from being constantly lobbied by those would suggest throwing out the lore so they can further uberfy their builds. I'm not saying nothing can change, but I feel its important to maintain the spirit of the IP. I'd rather we not reduce the trade-off costs for various systems...I see it as an important counter-balance in game and an integral connection to the IP and what it was trying to affect.

Now, perhaps a Dawn of War is a good game, may be it'd like it, but it's irrelevant with respect to the proposal to fiddle with some aspect of MWO. The opinion that Dawn of War is better than MWO doesn't write MWO off as not worthy of maintaining its integrity.

How about we embrace the IP for what it is, the good, the bad and the ugly....and seek to improve this game within the confines of the IP's individual uniqueness? That way this becomes as good a MechWarrior game as it can be, and not some throw away game because it's not Dawn of War.

How about we stop putting worthless legacy systems into the game, and fix the ones that already exist?

[CocoaJin]

Vassago Rain, on 31 July 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

How about we stop putting worthless legacy systems into the game, and fix the ones that already exist?

Fixing is fine, worthless is subjective and better then nothing since anything and everything added from the IP to the game is conveniently wrapped up into this wonderful thing call development.

The devs who add aren't necessarily the devs that fix, so let the former add and grow the game world. We will forever find something for the fixers to fix...but that doesn't justify up rooting the IP because you are jaded with the process. Don't spite your head because of your cockpit glass.

With all that said, fixing and content choices is still a moot point with respect to subject of the thread...and does not justify the idea of perverting the IP.