29 replies to this topic

[Menetius]

So, I've been seeing Highlanders packing three LRM-15's with artemis lately... What's up with this?

On a related note, why wouldn't one take a loadout similar to this in lieu of 3 LRM-15's? This variant is more weight-efficient, yes?

[Stoicblitzer]

tbh i have no idea why. LRMs are still garbage compared to direct fire.

[Syllogy]

Endo Structure instead of Ferro would get ya some more tonnage to play with too.

[Joseph Mallan]

It allows you to participate in combat when the team is much faster than your Highlander. Some damage is better than no damage at all.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

They're not exactly the greatest, although Artie LRM50 + JJ's is pretty, ok?

Yeah I don't have much to say so I'll just post this and hope you're entertained.

[Menetius]

The design above is actually my own, slapped together to see if I could come up with a more efficient missile layout. I opted for Ferro over Endo for the defensive bonus, and because endo didn't provide enough weight-loss to upgrade the ballistic weapon.

I suppose the weight could be used to upgrade an LRM-10 to a 15... but then the 15 would have to fire in two volleys instead of one.

[Steadfast]

the 45er is ok. I support decently with it, not top notch, but I can't play anyhow.
I prefere in mine a bigger engine though and TAG. Most of your teammates who have no missiles won't put those TAGs inside them its your job obviously as missile boat.
Sigh.

Edited by Steadfast, 23 April 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[topgun505]

The only thing Ferro does is permit you more points of armor to mount per ton. It does not allow you to mount more armor points in total compared to Standard. It just takes less tonnage to max your armor.

So. That said. You obtain better weight savings by using Endo.

[Tastian]

topgun505, on 23 April 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

The only thing Ferro does is permit you more points of armor to mount per ton. It does not allow you to mount more armor points in total compared to Standard. It just takes less tonnage to max your armor.

So. That said. You obtain better weight savings by using Endo.

exactly. So, swapping Endo and FF you can do this: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...4ad8149b9fab7f1

[HumptyWasPushed]

Menetius, on 23 April 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

So, I've been seeing Highlanders packing three LRM-15's with artemis lately... What's up with this?

On a related note, why wouldn't one take a loadout similar to this in lieu of 3 LRM-15's? This variant is more weight-efficient, yes?

You save 1 ton and lose 5 missiles.

[Dan Nashe]

Menetius, on 23 April 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

The design above is actually my own, slapped together to see if I could come up with a more efficient missile layout. I opted for Ferro over Endo for the defensive bonus, and because endo didn't provide enough weight-loss to upgrade the ballistic weapon.

I suppose the weight could be used to upgrade an LRM-10 to a 15... but then the 15 would have to fire in two volleys instead of one.

This game needs a tutorial. There is no defensive bonus to ferro. It gets you 1.12x32 points of armor per ton instead of 32. That's it.

A mech's maximum armor is based on tonnage, nothing else.
All mechs can have their armor increased to maximum in mech lab.

Again, your max armor is points of armor. Not tons of armor.
Endo steel is always better than ferro. Always.
A few mechs can use both.

Not your fault for misunderstanding. It's not intuitive.

[Carrioncrows]

733
325XL
x4 SRM6's
ERPPC
Gauss

733P
x2 Lrg Pulse lasers
x2 Medium lasers
x2 LRM15's + Arty
SRM6

[Menetius]

If what you're saying about Endo is true, then they need to rephrase the way they're defining Ferro-Fibrous: "12% more protection per ton."

I always thought that a point of ferro fibrous was equal to 1.12 points of standard armor.

Sooo... what's the point of Ferro, then? Sounds useless, from what you guys are saying.

[Steadfast]

Menetius, on 23 April 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

If what you're saying about Endo is true, then they need to rephrase the way they're defining Ferro-Fibrous: "12% more protection per ton."

I always thought that a point of ferro fibrous was equal to 1.12 points of standard armor.

Sooo... what's the point of Ferro, then? Sounds useless, from what you guys are saying.

Its to save tonnage for slots, its all. if you got enough slots but not enough tonnages... thats your way than.

[Menetius]

DanNashe, on 23 April 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

This game needs a tutorial. There is no defensive bonus to ferro. It gets you 1.12x32 points of armor per ton instead of 32. That's it.

A mech's maximum armor is based on tonnage, nothing else.
All mechs can have their armor increased to maximum in mech lab.

Again, your max armor is points of armor. Not tons of armor.
Endo steel is always better than ferro. Always.
A few mechs can use both.

Not your fault for misunderstanding. It's not intuitive.

That's... that's a direct contradiction. You might want to rephrase that.

Edited by Menetius, 23 April 2013 - 07:50 AM.

[Syllogy]

Menetius, on 23 April 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

That's... that's a direct contradiction. You might want to rephrase that.

Maximum Armor allowed is based on points. For example, if your Max Armor on a given component is 30 points, it doesn't matter if you have 30 points of Ferro or 30 points of Standard armor, that is the absolute maximum.

The difference is that Ferro armor is lighter than Standard.

Endo always sheds more weight than Ferro, which is why Endo is always the obvious first choice between the two in any situation.

Edited by Syllogy, 23 April 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I do it because i wanted a Highlander. And didn't want to be a poptart. So I've been playing with LRM's. I'll probably make a brawler version with my next purchase if i ever make enough c-bills at the rate I play now.

[Menetius]

Ah, alright. So, the only armor types that would actually provide some sort of defensive bonus would be the un-implemented Reactive and Reflective armor systems?

[Syllogy]

Menetius, on 23 April 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Ah, alright. So, the only armor types that would actually provide some sort of defensive bonus would be the un-implemented Reactive and Reflective armor systems?

Correct.

Just a tidbit: Reactive and Reflective armors are unlikely to be implemented any time soon, they were developed much further down the timeline.

[Menetius]

Syllogy, on 23 April 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

Correct.

Just a tidbit: Reactive and Reflective armors are unlikely to be implemented any time soon, they were developed much further down the timeline.

I'm well aware, much to my dismay. A lot of the technology I'm looking forward to isn't released until the later 3050's and '60's, including LAMS, Light Engines, Advanced Armor systems, A-Pods, B-Pods, Swarm Missiles for LRM Launchers... b'aw.