124 replies to this topic

[KafkaSyrup]

Not a fan of the increasing the max values and/or making FF so accessible that it becomes another de facto upgrade (Like DHS/IS are). There are enough odd balance issues to work out and advantages established players have.

I can't help but think FF was designed (pre-clan) for TT to help making playing lighter mechs more viable... not as standard issue. That being said, a reduction to using only 10 or 12 slots would make it a little more of a possibility for clever heavy/assault builds (e.g. victor/Battlemaster).

[wanderer]

Ferro-fibrous was never meant to be equal to endo-steel. It's the last in a series of optimizations that trade space for tonnage, with endosteel being the previous one.

It's inferior because in minmax terms, it's the most diminished return in a series of such things, with XL's (even with the go-boom) being the biggest payback, then endosteel (which also has no potential engine boom), and finally if you have a few spaces more to spare, ferro-fibrous. That is, they designed it so if you went for all the weight savings, it got increasingly less useful as you went along.

Making FF armor as good as endosteel would only result in breaking that. As it is, see the Clans with their 7-crit versions getting both better armor (1.2 multiplier vs 1.12 for IS) and saved weight from more compact endosteel on top of that.

Add in that FF is also an easily done field refit and also an incredible boon for armored vehicles (who usually have plenty of room for it) and you've got an upgrade that's right where the creators wanted it.

[kosmos1214]

yes but you missed the point here in less you have the 28 spare slots in mwo there is no reason to use it as there is no reason to chose ff over endo
all i look at is in mwo it should be a for real choice not a do this not that thing

Edited by kosmos1214, 17 August 2014 - 06:22 PM.

[Shrike ski]

alternate suggestion, slight heat dissipation increase (leave armor values alone)

[MauttyKoray]

Shrike ski, on 17 August 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

alternate suggestion, slight heat dissipation increase (leave armor values alone)

Armor values (and its a very small change at that) can be useful to any mech. Heat dissipation on the other hand would only be useful to energy dependant mechs, massive LRM chain boats, and allow people to drop the number of heatsinks they use. It would actually be used more often than standard over Endo because of the heat dissipation.

[Shrike ski]

MauttyKoray, on 17 August 2014 - 06:45 PM, said:

Armor values (and its a very small change at that) can be useful to any mech. Heat dissipation on the other hand would only be useful to energy dependant mechs, massive LRM chain boats, and allow people to drop the number of heatsinks they use. It would actually be used more often than standard over Endo because of the heat dissipation.

and endosteel is only useful to certain builds as well, energy boats could use the boost to heat dissipation (or just get rid of ghost heat totally)(if they used the normal battletech heat scale, heat dissipation rates and cooling times the real heat scale is brutal enough as it is it never needed it in the first place) and by small boost I am talking small boost in that if they had 22 duel heat sinks it might maybe just maybe be able to replace 1. in other words enough to make it "huh interesting" as opposed to " I MUST HAVE".

[MauttyKoray]

Shrike ski, on 17 August 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

and endosteel is only useful to certain builds as well, energy boats could use the boost to heat dissipation (or just get rid of ghost heat totally)(if they used the normal battletech heat scale, heat dissipation rates and cooling times the real heat scale is brutal enough as it is it never needed it in the first place) and by small boost I am talking small boost in that if they had 22 duel heat sinks it might maybe just maybe be able to replace 1. in other words enough to make it "huh interesting" as opposed to " I MUST HAVE".

My point is that it would be a 'must use' in any heat heavy mech and would come to always be used for it. It would make up for its used slots because it would provide a heatsink bonus which take up 3 slots using DHS. The bonus is far too much to outweigh the negative. I don't think the idea to give it something is bad, but just a straight up heat dissipation bonus is like saying it has built in heatsinks.

I'm still in favor of the raise max armor values.

Pros:
-Lighter, gives free tonnage.
-Raises max armor point cap per mech section.

Negatives:
-Takes up free slots.
-Requires tonnage to use the extra armor points. (obviously would end up needing more to fill the bonus points than given back)

I'm sure there are other suggestions to make ferro a viable choice that we aren't thinking of but unfortunately the suggestions/feature forum seems to be relatively unused in favor of bitching in the general section.

[SVK Puskin]

CocoaJin, on 27 July 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

FF provides more tonnage than Endo, easily 2-3x more

What the hell are you talking about? Stop trolling!

[Shrike ski]

MauttyKoray, on 18 August 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

My point is that it would be a 'must use' in any heat heavy mech and would come to always be used for it. It would make up for its used slots because it would provide a heatsink bonus which take up 3 slots using DHS. The bonus is far too much to outweigh the negative. I don't think the idea to give it something is bad, but just a straight up heat dissipation bonus is like saying it has built in heatsinks.

I'm still in favor of the raise max armor values.

Pros:
-Lighter, gives free tonnage.
-Raises max armor point cap per mech section.

Negatives:
-Takes up free slots.
-Requires tonnage to use the extra armor points. (obviously would end up needing more to fill the bonus points than given back)

I'm sure there are other suggestions to make ferro a viable choice that we aren't thinking of but unfortunately the suggestions/feature forum seems to be relatively unused in favor of bitching in the general section.

Alright let me see if I can agree with your math here 14 slots for FF to free up 3 slots from duel heat sink, must be that new common core math system because I don't see the net savings that you apparently do. XL engines already provide a modest boost to heat sink dissipation (IS at least it does), if you have never tried it try it sometime mirror build only difference is xl or standard engine (same rating), something else I have noticed about heat dissipation 12 doubles with xl engine is more effective than 30 singles with the same, weapon loadout is the same, I think that they do a bell curve on heat dissipation, it certainly is not linier.

[kosmos1214]

Shrike ski, on 17 August 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

alternate suggestion, slight heat dissipation increase (leave armor values alone)

that is an idea that might work im open it listening to it and kicking it around

MauttyKoray, on 18 August 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

My point is that it would be a 'must use' in any heat heavy mech and would come to always be used for it. It would make up for its used slots because it would provide a heatsink bonus which take up 3 slots using DHS. The bonus is far too much to outweigh the negative. I don't think the idea to give it something is bad, but just a straight up heat dissipation bonus is like saying it has built in heatsinks.

I'm still in favor of the raise max armor values.

Pros:
-Lighter, gives free tonnage.
-Raises max armor point cap per mech section.

Negatives:
-Takes up free slots.
-Requires tonnage to use the extra armor points. (obviously would end up needing more to fill the bonus points than given back)

I'm sure there are other suggestions to make ferro a viable choice that we aren't thinking of but unfortunately the suggestions/feature forum seems to be relatively unused in favor of bitching in the general section.

pretty much as the dumb new guy to mw / mwo / battletech in general i saw that in mwo there was no reason to use ff so then when i saw this forum i put my 2cents in lol and here we are uts kinda sad how some ppl are so blind as the think that jest lore says some thing that its the perfect answer

[MauttyKoray]

From numbers I've crunched on the FF armor bonus, fragile lights and the bigger Assaults would be at a bonus while mediums and heavies would be spending more than they gained. I haven't done enough to really make the it discernible whether it would be a good choice or not, but here's what I've found so far.
Standard @ 0.03125/point
Ferro/(+armor) @ 0.02793/point

(Head Not Included)

Locust
Total 123/133
CT 24/27
LT 20/22
RT 20/22
LA 12/13
RA 12/13
LL 16/18
RL 16/18

Standard: 3.75 tons
Ferro: 3.35 tons
Tonnage Bonus from Ferro: +0.40 tons
Tonnage for Ferro(+armor): +0.28 tons

Ferro Change Comparison
Standard: 123 pts @ 3.75 tons (57 crit slots)
Ferro: 123 pts @ 3.35 tons (43 crit slots)
Ferro(+armor): 133 pts @ 3.63 tons (43 crit slots)

===========

Kintaro
Total 352/392 +40pts
CT 72/80
LT 52/58
RT 52/58
LA 36/40
RA 36/40
LL 52/58
RL 52/58

Standard: 11 tons
Ferro: 9.83 tons
Tonnage Bonus from Ferro: +1.17 tons
Tonnage for Ferro(+armor): -1.29 tons

Ferro Change Comparison
Standard: 352 pts @ 11 tons (53 crit slots)
Ferro: 352 pts @ 9.83 tons (39 crit slots)
Ferro(+armor): 392 pts @ 11.12 tons (39 crit slots)

============

Cataphract
Total 416/473
CT 88/99
LT 60/67
RT 60/67
LA 44/49
RA 44/49
LL 60/67
RL 60/67

Standard 13 tons
Ferro: 11.61 tons
Tonnage Bonus from Ferro: +1.17 tons
Tonnage for Ferro(+armor): -1.60 tons

Ferro Change Comparison
Standard: 416 pts @ 13 tons (54 crit slots)
Ferro: 416 pts @ 11.61 tons (40 crit slots)
Ferro(+armor): 473 pts @ 13.21 tons (40 crit slots)

============

Atlas
Total 596/667
CT 124/139
LT 84/94
RT 84/94
LA 68/76
RA 68/76
LL 84/94
RL 84/94

Standard: 18.63 tons
Ferro: 16.63 tons
Tonnage Bonus from Ferro: +2.00 tons
Tonnage for Ferro(+armor): -1.99 tons

Ferro Chance Compaison
Standard: 596 @ 18.63 tons
Ferro: 596 @ 16.63 tons
Ferro(+armor): 667 @ 16.62 tons

[Mirkk Defwode]

MauttyKoray, on 19 August 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

From numbers I've crunched on the FF armor bonus, fragile lights and the bigger Assaults would be at a bonus while mediums and heavies would be spending more than they gained. I haven't done enough to really make the it discernible whether it would be a good choice or not, but here's what I've found so far.
Standard @ 0.03125/point
Ferro/(+armor) @ 0.02793/point

(Head Not Included)

Locust
Total 123/133
CT 24/27
LT 20/22
RT 20/22
LA 12/13
RA 12/13
LL 16/18
RL 16/18

Standard: 3.75 tons
Ferro: 3.35 tons
Tonnage Bonus from Ferro: +0.40 tons
Tonnage for Ferro(+armor): +0.28 tons

Ferro Change Comparison
Standard: 123 pts @ 3.75 tons (57 crit slots)
Ferro: 123 pts @ 3.35 tons (43 crit slots)
Ferro(+armor): 133 pts @ 3.63 tons (43 crit slots)

===========

Kintaro
Total 352/392 +40pts
CT 72/80
LT 52/58
RT 52/58
LA 36/40
RA 36/40
LL 52/58
RL 52/58

Standard: 11 tons
Ferro: 9.83 tons
Tonnage Bonus from Ferro: +1.17 tons
Tonnage for Ferro(+armor): -1.29 tons

Ferro Change Comparison
Standard: 352 pts @ 11 tons (53 crit slots)
Ferro: 352 pts @ 9.83 tons (39 crit slots)
Ferro(+armor): 392 pts @ 11.12 tons (39 crit slots)

============

Cataphract
Total 416/473
CT 88/99
LT 60/67
RT 60/67
LA 44/49
RA 44/49
LL 60/67
RL 60/67

Standard 13 tons
Ferro: 11.61 tons
Tonnage Bonus from Ferro: +1.17 tons
Tonnage for Ferro(+armor): -1.60 tons

Ferro Change Comparison
Standard: 416 pts @ 13 tons (54 crit slots)
Ferro: 416 pts @ 11.61 tons (40 crit slots)
Ferro(+armor): 473 pts @ 13.21 tons (40 crit slots)

============

Atlas
Total 596/667
CT 124/139
LT 84/94
RT 84/94
LA 68/76
RA 68/76
LL 84/94
RL 84/94

Standard: 18.63 tons
Ferro: 16.63 tons
Tonnage Bonus from Ferro: +2.00 tons
Tonnage for Ferro(+armor): -1.99 tons

Ferro Chance Compaison
Standard: 596 @ 18.63 tons
Ferro: 596 @ 16.63 tons
Ferro(+armor): 667 @ 16.62 tons

So basically this change would hurt Mediums and Heavies further making the Mediums be a red-headed step child. As it stands the meta for people wanting to use Heavies and Assaults is that they're easier to work with, you just hump a hill and fire like a fool. Sometimes it works, sometimes you die horribly.

I personally voted 'No' on this because I don't think it's broken. Comparing it to the clan version isn't exactly fair as the Clans are supposed to have superior technology almost across the board until 3055 and almost entirely evened out between Clan and IS technology by 3060 and the end of the Clan wars.

In any case, if there is going to be a change I'd like to see what Sturm suggested rather than the original OP. And his accounting of the additional armor types and their potential future implementation would prove that to be the most valuable changes that could occur. It makes sense within the current confines of the lore as well as mechanically for the game.

Strum Wealh, on 16 September 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Indeed - to take it a step further, a lot of people tend to miss that it's supposed to present the option of 1.) carrying the same number of armor points for less weight (at the cost of critical spaces) or 2.) carrying a greater number of armor points for equal or lesser weight (at the cost of critical spaces).

In MWO, Standard Armor is available at a ratio of 32 armor points per ton (double the value used in BattleTech), while Inner Sphere Ferro-Fibrous Armor in MWO is available at a ratio of 36 armor points per ton (1.12x the number of armor points per ton as MWO Standard Armor).

However, the maximum armor load of any given BattleMech is not a function of armor tonnage, but number of armor points.
For example, the maximum number of armor points that can be equipped to a MWO Centurion (or any other 50-ton 'Mech) is 338 - it cannot carry any more than that, regardless of the actual mass of the armor material.

• As such, a MWO Centurion carrying a full load of Standard Armor (that is, 338 armor points of Standard Armor) is carrying 10.56 tons of armor.
  
• By contrast, a MWO Centurion carrying a full load of Ferro-Fibrous Armor (that is, 338 armor points of Ferro-Fibrous Armor) is carrying only 9.39 tons of armor, rather than 10.56 tons of armor (a difference of ~12%), despite having the same level of protection/durability as its fully-armored Standard Armor equipped counterpart.
  
• However, a MWO Centurion carrying only 9.39 tons of Standard Armor (the same weight/mass as a full load of Ferro-Fibrous Armor) would have only ~301 armor points to spread across its body, rather than 338 (a difference of ~12%).

That is the point of Ferro-Fibrous Armor - it is an exchange of protection per unit of mass/weight for internal volume (and, when R&R was a factor, repair cost).


Clan-made Ferro-Fibrous Armor (assuming it maintains the 1.20x ratio from BattleTech) increases the level of protection per unit of armor mass/weight (to 38-39 armor points per ton) while reducing the cost to internal volume (to only 7 critical spaces, versus the 14 critical spaces required for IS-made Ferro-Fibrous Armor).

As such, the MWO versions of (for example) the Hellhound or Nobori-nin (both being 50-ton Clan 'Mechs that equip Clan Ferro-Fibrous Armor by default) would be able to carry a full load of Clan-made Ferro-Fibrous Armor (338 armor points - the same as the MWO Centurion, or any other 50-ton MWO 'Mech) for only 8.80 tons and 7 criticals (versus the 9.39 tons and 14 criticals needed by the fully-armored MWO Centurion equipped with IS-made Ferro-Fibrous Armor).

If we're taking the stance that some change is necessarily needed (which is niot necessarily the case), What I would like to see is normal IS Ferro-Fibrous Armor retaining its normal properties (consumes 14 criticals and grants 12% more armor points per ton) and gaining a small (no more than 10%) universal damage reduction element, while Clan FF likewise retains its normal properties and has the same universal damage reduction element added to it.
What one ends up with would be:

• IS & Clan Standard Armor: 32 pts/ton, 0 criticals consumed, 0% damage reduction
  
• IS Ferro-Fibrous Armor: 36 pts/ton, 14 criticals consumed, 10% damage reduction against all weapons
  
• Clan Ferro-Fibrous Armor: 38-39 pts/ton, 7 criticals consumed, 10% damage reduction against all weapons

The point of making the degree of damage reduction small (no more than 10%) is to have Ferro-Fibrous Armor not intrude too far into the domains of those armors whose primary characteristic is damage reduction: Hardened Armor (50% universal damage reduction), Laser-Reflective Armor (50% damage reduction versus energy weapons only), Reactive Armor (50% damage reduction versus missile & artillery weapons only), and Ferro-Lamellor Armor (20% universal damage reduction).


Thoughts?

[kosmos1214]

if we get crits that work on more stuff ie gyros ect i could see that but at it is we have a huge amount of stuff in the mechs that are jest crit padding now i tend to lean to ammo heavy mech and the like at it is crits are pretty weak right now so im not sure if people would actually use it with that in mind or if it would stay like it is now ie still need more tons after endo and have 14 slots i dont need

[VinJade]

na, I don't like it.
MWO has already increased the amount of armor any mech can have.
the head location of the Adder for example is 18 instead of 9, CT is 44 over all instead of 36 that covers the over all torso giving it 8 points more of armor and I can list more but as you can tell the game already gives the mechs more armor than the TT game.

anymore and you will be treading into that trash mw 4 game area and I say no thank you.

Edited by VinJade, 24 January 2015 - 05:31 AM.

[Mordric]

I always thought ff was meant for tanking, wile endo was to help add dps. FF harder strong armor, wile endo was lighter and allowed more weapons to be added.

[Vanguard319]

I disagree, as has been pointed out, lights are already OP as it is, and if you make the IS's FF better, you are going to have to increase the amount of protection of clan FF, simply due to the fact they refined the technology. In the end, you are left with the same problem.

Since Ferro-Fibrous is supposed to be essentially a composite armor made with woven fibers, I would suggest instead offering it a slight resistance to missiles, to reflect the lower chance of the armor spalling from a direct hit. This would make the armor a little more appealing since Missile builds are so dominant.

[PeekaBoo I C Ju]

the weight it reduces compared to how many slots it takes is laughable, so ya...good idea

[kosmos1214]

Vanguard319, on 25 January 2015 - 01:15 AM, said:

I disagree, as has been pointed out, lights are already OP as it is, and if you make the IS's FF better, you are going to have to increase the amount of protection of clan FF, simply due to the fact they refined the technology. In the end, you are left with the same problem.

Since Ferro-Fibrous is supposed to be essentially a composite armor made with woven fibers, I would suggest instead offering it a slight resistance to missiles, to reflect the lower chance of the armor spalling from a direct hit. This would make the armor a little more appealing since Missile builds are so dominant.

well it is different the only problem i see with this is what happens when the meda changes away from missle builds

[Strum Wealh]

kosmos1214, on 25 January 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

well it is different the only problem i see with this is what happens when the meda changes away from missle builds

Hence, my suggestion...

Quote

If we're taking the stance that some change is necessarily needed (which is niot necessarily the case), What I would like to see is normal IS Ferro-Fibrous Armor retaining its normal properties (consumes 14 criticals and grants 12% more armor points per ton) and gaining a small (no more than 10%) universal damage reduction element, while Clan FF likewise retains its normal properties and has the same universal damage reduction element added to it.
What one ends up with would be:

• IS & Clan Standard Armor: 32 pts/ton, 0 criticals consumed, 0% damage reduction
  
• IS Ferro-Fibrous Armor: 36 pts/ton, 14 criticals consumed, 10% damage reduction against all weapons
  
• Clan Ferro-Fibrous Armor: 38-39 pts/ton, 7 criticals consumed, 10% damage reduction against all weapons

The point of making the degree of damage reduction small (no more than 10%) is to have Ferro-Fibrous Armor not intrude too far into the domains of those armors whose primary characteristic is damage reduction: Hardened Armor (50% universal damage reduction), Laser-Reflective Armor (50% damage reduction versus energy weapons only), Reactive Armor (50% damage reduction versus missile & artillery weapons only), and Ferro-Lamellor Armor (20% universal damage reduction).

----------

Vanguard319, on 25 January 2015 - 01:15 AM, said:

I disagree, as has been pointed out, lights are already OP as it is, and if you make the IS's FF better, you are going to have to increase the amount of protection of clan FF, simply due to the fact they refined the technology. In the end, you are left with the same problem.

Since Ferro-Fibrous is supposed to be essentially a composite armor made with woven fibers, I would suggest instead offering it a slight resistance to missiles, to reflect the lower chance of the armor spalling from a direct hit. This would make the armor a little more appealing since Missile builds are so dominant.

My proposal, linked & quoted above, already addresses this.

Also, "anti-missile armor" is what Reactive Armor was for.

[Tesunie]

Though I don't disagree with FF benefits in the game being lacking, the reason it was so well in lore compared to Endo was simply one thing, Cost. FF was a cheaper alternative to save some weight, compared to the very costly expense of changing (or making) a mech with an Endo frame. Repairs also where cheaper to a FF mech, as it was cheaper to repair, compared to the Endo steel upgrade.

In this game, without R&R (I make no farther comment), it has lost it's purpose to us who are all considered in lore to be "space rich". There is no drawback for taking an Endo upgrade or FF upgrade, besides the crit spaces taken up. Once the conversion is paid for (which, by the way, excludes installation costs), we have no farther problems.

Without R&R, just like with medium mechs, a lot of the purpose for FF as an upgrade disappeared. Just like running a standard engine has started to become less ideal when you can just place an XL into your mech (which only comes with the cost of survivability once owned and installed).


If R&R is never to see, in some way shape or form, a place in this game again, than FF probably could use some attention. If R&R every does make it back into the game, then it's place without any farther upgrades gains reason once more.


Edit: I wished the poll had some option of "abstain" or something. I neither can say yes or no, though this concept does make some sense. As much sense as it makes, I also wish for this game to try and preserve what roots it can to lore. I am split about equal in this matter, and can not decide.

Edited by Tesunie, 25 January 2015 - 04:43 PM.