9 replies to this topic

[Runs With Scissors]

Seeing as FF armor is really only used on lights that have the space and SHS arnt used AT ALL I thought of some ways to make them useful (a little.....maybe)

For FF armor: instead of having the armor limits on mechs based on points of armor how about making it based on weight instead? That way a mech using FF can mount more armor than "normal" and might make it more useful for med-hvy-assult users

For SHS: two things, one, make it so an engine can hold twice as many SHS as opposed to DHS. I know that by TT rules there is a compact HS that does this but that would probably get used even less than SHS so toss it. And second make it so the heat limits of all HS get a boost if they're inside the engine.

For example if a HS (single or double) normally adds 2 to your heat limit (I have no idea what he value actually is) inside the engine it would add 3 instead.

of course this would assume that SHS and DHD add the same amount to the heat cap, and I have no idea if they do...they probably don't though. But if they did and just had DHD give greater dissipation of heat you might have players using SHS for striker builds that hit with a lot of weapons and run away to cool, and others that use DHS for more endurance in a fight.

and also one other thing is that these ideas wont break stock builds.

[Joseph Mallan]

Why the hate for how older tech is not as good as newer tech. I am seeing more Trial Mechs with Dubs. Buying them saves money over converting to dubs. Less and less mechs will be having single sinks so there will be no real need for single sinks to be made better. Plus single sinks worked just fine on TT cause you fired once and sink did their work, Increase he sinks effect Keep dubs twice as strong everything's fine.

The FFA idea is not bad, but do we really need More armor. I have 608 points of armor on my Atlas and 416 n my Thunderbolt. I am overjoyed for that much armor.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 December 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

Why the hate for how older tech is not as good as newer tech.

Because balance and the match-maker doesn't care about whether you use an inferior tech mech or a superior tech mech. Games that feature planned obsolence with low level gear usually don't force low level players to fight high level players.

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 December 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

Because balance and the match-maker doesn't care about whether you use an inferior tech mech or a superior tech mech. Games that feature planned obsolence with low level gear usually don't force low level players to fight high level players.

That is a good point. But we aren't Playing MW:O yet. Cause if this is what the player base thinks this game is finished... they deserve $500 paint jobs. If this is all MW:O is going to be, I can go back to TT now.

[Prezimonto]

I've had some ideas to make the lower level tech and FF more appealing. Generally, give a boost to internal HP for most "starting" tech, and make FF an actual defensive boost rather than effective offensive boost.

http://mwomercs.com/...-survivability/

Quote

What I propose is changing the upgrade (or standard) tech to incorporate more choices for defensive capability.

Give standard engines the benefit of +30% internal HP to the center torso hit location.
Give standard skeleton/frame a benefit of +10% internal HP to all hit locations.
Give each standard heat sinks a benefit of +5% internal HP to slotted location, have this stack with engine heat sinks.

For example, a completely stock mech (standard engine, skeleton, and heat sinks) that has 10 engine heat sinks would have a total of +90% internal HP(+30% for engine/+50% for SHS/+10% for stock skeleton) on the center torso, and +10% internal HP everywhere else.
This is near to the doubling of internal HP that many are calling for, but requires that you keep the stock configuration on your mech.

I suggest something a little different for FF armor.
Instead of refunding tonnage with the FF upgrade, allow FF armor to increase the total armor you can put on an individual location by 20%. increase the total armor the mech can carry by 10%. What you now have is a system where the user can pay for a defensive upgrade, and even skew the ratios of armor on individual positions, but they have to pay for it in tonnage that can't then be used for offensive capability. This would most heavily benefit mechs like the Hunchback, which have a hit location they wish to protect, and normally have a hard time protecting it.

Artemis is in a decent place, but I recommend that Artemis components receive a net gain in component HP of perhaps +5. This gives a better reason to want artemis upgrade on smaller launchers.

Thoughts?

This would give purpose to keeping the standard/stock set up for mechs. It would make trial mechs more able to take damage (good for a new player), and it would give more experienced players more choice in what upgrades to take.

Edited by Prezimonto, 20 December 2013 - 07:05 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 December 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

That is a good point. But we aren't Playing MW:O yet. Cause if this is what the player base thinks this game is finished... they deserve $500 paint jobs. If this is all MW:O is going to be, I can go back to TT now.

See you on Megamek when they allow IS and Clan mechs on the same tieam.
On topic the idea for SHS would benefit lights, maybe some mediums and the Awesome.
For FF - not sure if many would increase the overall tonnage for armour but they probably would go for upgrading the CT.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Here's how Armor would compare if the calculation was tweaked some, but the savings would be about the same as they are now it looks like if we keep their value of 36 (at 12% the gain is 32*1.12=35.84). Also have Internal structure in the table to compare. For example, an Atlas gains more from using Endo over Ferro by saving 3 extra tons if getting near its max armor of 614.

Spoiler

For heat sinks, we need to look at maybe applying a base dissipation to mechs. We already get a +30 to Capacity, which is part of what allows for high alphas for example. Then changing how much each Heat Sink raises dissipation and capacity.

Here is a table showing current values on the left and what I'd like to tweak for DHS.

Spoiler

Highlighted in yellow is where we could look to add a bonus for dissipation that is applied to all mechs, plus their mounted Heat Sink pumps.

The far right column with the green highlight is what I'd like to test for Capacity on all Heat Sinks, that would come with a boost to Dissipation with tweaks to Weapon Heat values and tweaks to heat retention and heat scale penalties to balance that reduction out.

Current stock values can also be double checked in Smurphy's Weapon Lab too.

Edit: link

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 20 December 2013 - 08:36 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Why the hate for how older tech is not as good as newer tech

Actually FF is newer than ES but outright worse.

ES gives you a weight savings of 5%
FF gives you a weight savings of ~2% (with max armor)

It's pretty clear that FF needs a buff.

Personally I think FF armor should either have set damage reduction (i.e. damage to FF armor is reduced by 1) or percentile based damage reduction (i.e. FF armor takes 10% less damage).

Either that or just increase the armor weight reduction from 12% to 20%, so its the same as clan FF, but takes up 14 crit slots instead of only 7 crit slots.

Edited by Khobai, 20 December 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 December 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

That is a good point. But we aren't Playing MW:O yet. Cause if this is what the player base thinks this game is finished... they deserve $500 paint jobs. If this is all MW:O is going to be, I can go back to TT now.

Your optimism honours you.

[Livaria]

I had an idea for Ferro Fibrous that the amount of armor you place onto a 'mech could scale FF armor weight with critical slots.

For example 12 Armor per 1 critical slot... (This is just an estimate, mind you. This math can be changed.)

If this were the case then there's demand for Standard armor as well as Ferro Fibrous. If you have too few critical slots to accommodate... Say 5 critical slots remaining on your 'mech. Your mech only ever total towards 60 armor to allocate onto your 'mech.

And quite simply if you wanted more available tonnage but have critical slots to sacrifice. FF armor would be in your favor as an upgrade.

This can also work in conjunction with some other ideas you have for improving FF armor. It makes Ferro Fibrous a conscious choice.

Edited by Livaria, 21 December 2013 - 12:18 PM.