49 replies to this topic

[Dracol]

Before I begin, I know TT purists will frown upon this idea considering what it involves is usually taboo.

But, a simple tweek could make Ferro Fiberous just a little less of a unfortunate mistake if chosen over Endo Steel.

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

No stock builds would be harmed in this change. All the Thor's issues wouldn't magically go away. But it would make the choice a little palatable.

To much? Not enough? How dare I even think of tampering with critical costs?

[Vassago Rain]

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

[EvilCow]

It should become a way to increase total armor instead of just saving weight. This can be easily done by allowing the same total weight of FF compared to normal armor. Right now the limit are the "armor points", which is silly.

Another point, the number of critical taken by FF should be proportional to the allocated armor weight, the current value should be for maximum allocation.

Not TT compliant (who cares) but compatible with TT builds which would be still possible.

[Vassago Rain]

EvilCow, on 31 July 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

It should become a way to increase total armor instead of just saving weight. This can be easily done by allowing the same total weight of FF compared to normal armor. Right now the limit are the "armor points", which is silly.

Another point, the number of critical taken by FF should be proportional to the allocated armor weight, the current value should be for maximum allocation.

Not TT compliant (who cares) but compatible with TT builds which would be still possible.

No, it just needs to be actual armor that reduces damage.

Say it cuts damage by 11%, in addition to the worthless effects it currently has. Wow, I might even consider putting it on my banshees over endo.

What a novel concept that better armor would provide better protection.

[NextGame]

I would like to see Ferro Fibrous armour actually give more armour or damage mitigation against specific weapon types (there are other armour types in the MWO universe, unless im thinking of some other IP ?). That way it becomes a legitimate option against Endo Steel.

[Vassago Rain]

NextGame, on 31 July 2014 - 03:49 AM, said:

I would like to see Ferro Fibrous armour actually give more armour or damage mitigation against specific weapon types (there are other armour types in the MWO universe, unless im thinking of some other IP ?). That way it becomes a legitimate option against Endo Steel.

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.

[wanderer]

Quote

It should become a way to increase total armor instead of just saving weight.

FF was designed to be the least efficient of the lot simply because they didn't want to easily stack advantages. That is,it's supposed to be diminishing returns.

There already is an unimplemented, "historical" way to increase total armor- that's hardened armor. PGI simply hasn't put it in, and the quirk system actually would allow them to model it's TT-style penalties remarkably well. In powergaming terms, there's an order to installing improvements, and FF is the last of the bunch even if plenty of fluff designs never go with endosteel first.

[Dracol]

wanderer, on 31 July 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

In powergaming terms, there's an order to installing improvements, and FF is the last of the bunch even if plenty of fluff designs never go with endosteel first.

That's how I've explained Ferro in the past to new players. Endo is the first stage of weight savings in exchange for losing crit slots. Ferro was the second set if one was so inclined.

Now, if this was explained in the upgrades section of the mech lab better, it would go a long way to helping the uninitiated learn some finer points of mech creation.

But, with Ferro now being hard wired into some builds, giving it a difference compared to Endo would go a long ways to make those mechs look less gimped.

[krash27]

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

Before I begin, I know TT purists will frown upon this idea considering what it involves is usually taboo.

But, a simple tweek could make Ferro Fiberous just a little less of a unfortunate mistake if chosen over Endo Steel.

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

No stock builds would be harmed in this change. All the Thor's issues wouldn't magically go away. But it would make the choice a little palatable.

To much? Not enough? How dare I even think of tampering with critical costs?

I wouldn't worry about TT to much. I mean, look at the game as it is. This game is not based on TT rules.

[Dracol]

EvilCow, on 31 July 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

It should become a way to increase total armor instead of just saving weight. This can be easily done by allowing the same total weight of FF compared to normal armor. Right now the limit are the "armor points", which is silly.

This would be a good idea to help boost IS mechs. As it stands now, a clan mech and an IS mech with the same tonnage will always have equal max tonnage. Giving Ferro a boast to max armor would allow IS mechs to field mechs that can take a little bit more punishment compared to their Clan tonnage equivalent.

Only a select few clan mechs that get Ferro hardwired would be able to benefit from this type of change. The summoner would have finally have a clear difference compared to the TWolf.

Edited by Dracol, 31 July 2014 - 07:02 AM.

[Alexandrix]

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.

Edited by Alexandrix, 31 July 2014 - 07:33 AM.

[NextGame]

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.

Sounds like some of these should really be getting implemented, especially as we are perennially told that mechs die too fast under current mechanics.

[Daoa Hakoke]

I like this idea. Would actually give FF a reason to be used. A 10% damage reduction would be an awesome improvement for it and it would probably be easier to implement than it giving extra armor points to be allocated.

[Ultimax]

wanderer, on 31 July 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

FF was designed to be the least efficient of the lot simply because they didn't want to easily stack advantages. That is,it's supposed to be diminishing returns.

I'm with Vassago on this.

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.

Damage resistance at least would be nice, and make it a real choice vs. Endo.

Then it would be

Do you want more tonnage for firepower (ammo/weapons/DHS cooling)?

or

Do you want more resilience, with a very insignificant weight reduction?

[TimePeriod]

The only option where I would avoid endo/FF is with DHS and laser boats, where critslots are important.

[Khobai]

FF needs a buff because mechs like the Thor are stuck with FF instead of ES and are inherently at a disadvantage because of it.

So how much damage reduction should FF give? Well we can figure that out...

An atlas weighs 100 tons and saves 5 tons by taking ES. An Atlas with max armor (19 tons) saves 2.03 tons by taking FF. That means for ES and FF to be equal, FF's damage reduction has to give the equivalent of 3 tons of extra armor.

That means FF needs to give 15% damage reduction to be equal to ES for tonnage savings.

[wolf74]

In the CBT FF armor was the easiest Upgrade to do to a Mech. Personally I think Endo-Steel should have been a Locked Item for mechs due to the fact it is the Frame of the Mech.

Real world Case the New Aluminum F150 Frame Trucks VS the older High-Strength Steel F150. There both F150 but you basically have to New truck to get the lighter Frame and odds are the mounting points are different on the Frame it self.

[Zyllos]

Ya, technically, ES should not be available as something to add to a mech. FF is always available to all mechs to add due to simplicity to adding to a chassis.

The problem is that then this creates a "any mech with ES is immediately just the best" issue.

The only way to fix this problem is to have R&R introduced, making ES extremely expensive to repair.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'd rather look elsewhere before adjusting Crit Slots.

Right now we are using limits to armor, according to armor points such as a 100 tonner at 614 for example (there's values for each weight and so on).

But if we can instead go by max allowable tons of armor, then things could get interesting.

For example, staying with an Atlas as the case study, if it can mount 19 tons of any armor, than it can get ~681 armor points from using IS-Ferro. Right now due to the cap of 614, it instead needs to drop to ~17 tons.

Here's a table with the armor to tons:

Spoiler

Otherwise a % Damage Resistance/Reduction could be interesting to explore, with the existing Armor Caps.

So maybe like 6% for IS-Ferro for each section, and 10% for Clan-Ferro?

[CocoaJin]

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.