322 replies to this topic

[KAT Editor]

What about upgrades ... Examle > upgrade armour give addition tonn, but that armour weak?

And where i can find good team players and add they to friends )

I not best players but a lot of time play MW and can play team ) Thats my score with 2 er ppc )



I not do only finish shoots )) Do rapid fire )

[IraqiWalker]

I don't understand your point about armor exactly, if you could say more about it, I might be able to help you.

As far as teams go, check this thread. Find a server in your region's time, or a group that has players in your time zone, and have fun.

[ThatBum42]

Ferro-Fibrous armor weighs 12% less than standard armor per point. In other words, a point of FF armor offers the same protection as a point of standard armor, but is 12% lighter.

FF is generally useful on light mechs and some mediums because they're not loaded down with lots of equipment and so have the available critical slots for the upgrade. Endo steel frees up more tonnage, it's wise to get that before FF.

[Redshift2k5]

Ferrofibrous is the exact same amount of protection as regular armor, not weaker and not stronger. It just weight less for the same amount of armor. (Which mans more armor per ton, but it does not change your maximum armor value).

endosteel is always better than FF armor, unless you have 28 free slots and can mount both.

you can look for players to group with using the factions sections in the forum http://mwomercs.com/...s-inner-sphere/ http://mwomercs.com/...factions-clans/ http://mwomercs.com/...ons-merc-corps/ or any of the public server groups, some of which are listed here http://mwomercs.com/...then-look-here/

[KAT Editor]

Ok ty ) I asked this is because if you remember in MW4 was several types of armor, one def more vs breamd enother vs explosive ... And i see in MOW not all mech have at base FF and ES, but mb they have compleate build )

[Modo44]

For general reference and pre-building mechs before you buy, use the Smurfy mechlab. The data comes directly from current game files. You will notice how ES/FF free up tonnage at the cost of slots, but do not change maximum armor values.

[IraqiWalker]

KAT Editor, on 21 April 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

Ok ty ) I asked this is because if you remember in MW4 was several types of armor, one def more vs breamd enother vs explosive ... And i see in MOW not all mech have at base FF and ES, but mb they have compleate build )

Yes I remember those armor types. They don't exist in this game, only FF and standard armors exist right now.

[Koniving]

In MWO, you get 32 points of standard armor per ton.
For Ferro, you get 36 points of standard armor. Since each point is a decimal below the allowed decimal numbers, the tonnage taken is rounded and you must have 2 tons (36 points * 2) to have perfect tonnage taken.

An example, 6 tons of standard armor is 192 points (Jagermech S I believe).
6 tons of ferro is 216 points of armor.
If you only take 5 tons worth (180 points), it will tell you there's 0.2 free of that 5th ton when there really isn't.

Your maximum armor cannot be changed though and is rated in points not tonnage (which makes no logical sense but is a tabletop rule).

Edited by Koniving, 21 April 2014 - 09:25 AM.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Koniving, on 21 April 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

Your maximum armor cannot be changed though and is rated in points not tonnage (which makes no logical sense but is a tabletop rule).

I think it was more to keep gameplay somewhat reasonable. Imagine a Jenner with no weapons, no extra heat sinks, no JJs, just as much armor as a Warhammer. "RAMMING SPEED!" It becomes a bowling ball. The max armor limit by tonnage helped curb that.

Also of interest? You'll recall that TT armor had far fewer points/ton than in MWO. Half as much, IIRC. I seem to remember a max 9 points on a mech's head, regardless of weight, though that may be wrong. It's been a long time.

[Just wanna play]

Nothing wrong with bowling balls.....

[Koniving]

TheRAbbi, on 21 April 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

I think it was more to keep gameplay somewhat reasonable. Imagine a Jenner with no weapons, no extra heat sinks, no JJs, just as much armor as a Warhammer. "RAMMING SPEED!" It becomes a bowling ball. The max armor limit by tonnage helped curb that.

Also of interest? You'll recall that TT armor had far fewer points/ton than in MWO. Half as much, IIRC. I seem to remember a max 9 points on a mech's head, regardless of weight, though that may be wrong. It's been a long time.

Edit: Rereading this again, I realized you were thinking of raising armor values or being able to put in 20 tons of armor on a 35 ton mech.

It wasn't actually what I was implying.
Instead, consider this: Lets say you weigh 20 tons. You have 4 tons of armor stock. Your max isn't even 4.5 tons. It's 4.25.

Meanwhile there's a 35 ton mech whose stock armor is 4 tons. Due to this low armor they get good hardpoints and jumpjets while you PGI had to inflate your hardpoints because it was just that depressingly sorry. But worse, when you spend the money on the same size engine, that 35 ton mech gets to sport 7.4 tons worth of armor.

How is any of that fair? You both started with identical armor, but that mech that has better hardpoints, better maneuverability, better jump, etc. gets to have better armor too? (And we wonder how meta mechs develop? With the exception of the Highlander, if you look at every meta mech... they are mechs that are supposed to have absolute garbage for armor and in return have better hardpoints, flight, etc. But that low armor means nothing; slap in some weight saving stuff and bam you have it all).

So my idea or what I meant to say is why is armor not based on the stock armor tonnage instead of a max set of points? If you start with 4 tons of armor, maybe you get 7 tons as your maximum? Sure the Locust might struggle to fit on 3 extra tons but it'll be the happiest, tankiest locust you ever did see! The Jenner would also weaken a bit from the meta position too. Or at least the Jenner D would. The Jenner K would thrive with even more armor (and maybe not need the hardpoint inflation it has).

And the less worthy Ravens? The favorite has the lowest armor, and the other two were designed as fighters. The 2X as a mixed scout/combat unit. The 4X was designed with the intention of taking out larger medium mechs in straight up fights. A Brawling light... and does that mean anything in this game of everyone has max armor? Nope. Not a thing.
------------------
Original response below.
-------------

I'm aware. We have double the points of armor. But nothing wrong with bowling balls, they cost the player using them too. I'm speaking in relation to Ferro (which didn't come until after removal of knockdowns). The tabletop rule is x max is x max. Hardened armor just gave 2 points of protection per point of armor (a get-around). Ferro just saves weight instead of additional protection.

I'd like it better and it'd make more sense in a scientific and military aspect that armor be based on tons the chassis can carry, not on an arbitrary one size fits all point system. Makes the mechs significantly more unique, and gives Ferro a tangible purpose even without repair and rearm. (The only reason to use Ferro is it was a LOT cheaper to repair than Endo Steel; Endo Steel could easily break your bank).

Edited by Koniving, 17 July 2014 - 10:41 AM.

[Modo44]

Koniving, on 21 April 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

But nothing wrong with bowling balls, they cost the player using them too.

[Koniving]

Problem at the time was that nothing governed knockdowns. They didn't have an equation or anything, and all players "weighed the same". The Atlas ragdoll was so bad at one point that it'd crash entire matches. Also Dragons were 'god mode', they knocked everything over just by touching them in most cases. Atlas rushing you? Stand still. Atlas falls over. Dragon wins. Something about the Dragon's collision mesh being able to hit the other player before the rival player's collision mesh could touch the Dragon. Took them forever to fix it. I remember a time when a Dragon knocked my Commando across Forest Colony just by backing into me at less than tip-toe speed.

They didn't come up with an actual equation to put in until a week before they took it out. Where it'd be tonnage + velocity versus tonnage and velocity.

The irony of that video.... the original machine gun was the only properly balanced MWO weapon. It did 2 damage in 10 seconds, just like tabletop. It was every other weapon that was jacked up. If AC/20 did 20 damage in 10 seconds and every weapon followed suit, MGs would have been perfect.

Right now the AC/20 does 60 damage in 10 seconds. The UAC/20 will do 120 damage in 10 seconds instead of 40. It'll be a pretty vicious cycle.

Edited by Koniving, 21 April 2014 - 10:14 AM.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Koniving, on 21 April 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

I'd like it better and it'd make more sense in a scientific and military aspect that armor be based on tons the chassis can carry, not on an arbitrary one size fits all point system.

Agreed, and quite enthusiastically so.

[Modo44]

Knockdowns can not be modelled correctly without simulating the entire fall server-side. That cost is why they were actually removed, the video is just a running joke.

[DEMAX51]

KAT Editor, on 21 April 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

Ok ty ) I asked this is because if you remember in MW4 was several types of armor, one def more vs breamd enother vs explosive ... And i see in MOW not all mech have at base FF and ES, but mb they have compleate build )

I believe you're referring to "reactive" and "reflective" armor, which are each better against one weapon type while weaker against another (i.e. reflective armor lessens the damage received by lasers, but you take additional damage from ballistics). Those armor types don't yet exist in MWO.

[KAT Editor]

And what about team balance? ) I think game havent got it, so many free wins/loses, and if see on teams tonnage ...

[Modo44]

Strict weight matching plus a small skill matching improvement are coming next patch (April 29th). From what we know, this is planned as a first step to improve the matchmaker.

[KAT Editor]

Now I understand what's the catch with this



No more slots available (

[Malcolm Vordermark]

KAT Editor, on 22 April 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

Now I understand what's the catch with this



No more slots available (

In this case drop the Ferro, pick up an XL, and then upgrade to Double Heat Sinks. It's expensive but it will feel a lot better.

Ferro is not often worth losing the crit slots unless you're a light mech. Endo is usually worth it until you're in assaults. XL just depends on the shape of the mech.

Edited by Rouken, 22 April 2014 - 10:04 AM.