24 replies to this topic

[InspectorG]

I swear some days im a genius!

So for select mechs(*cough Summoner *ahem*)

Use quirks to provide different values for tonnage:weight ratio.

This way, Summoner and other mechs can get more free weight out of Ferro without having to introduce Endo.

As with all quirks, if it is too much or too little, it can be adjusted.

Simple and cheap fix.

PGI can compensate me with a Golden Summoner for fixing the woes of Ferro

This way top tier mechs wont be affected with a buff. Timby, Strmcrow...no need.

Yet lacking mechs can be buffed without changing much. Maybe even allow for some niche tanking-ability for certain chassis/variants. Summoner, Cicada X5, etc.

[Khobai]

overcomplicated

armor quirks accomplish the same thing... giving extra armor at no additional weight cost

[InspectorG]

Khobai, on 29 April 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

overcomplicated

armor quirks accomplish the same thing... giving extra armor at no additional weight cost

Not really.

Could be combined with armor/structure quirks to improve weight saved by Ferro at the cost of Cbills and dynamic slots.

[Sereglach]

Honestly, rather than doing your not so EZPZ fix (as you call it) there's a simpler and better way to improve the Ferro Fibrous upgrade for mechs. Simply put, with Ferro Fibrous armor equipped, allow a mech to increase all the armor in each segment up to 20% over the previous maximum. So, if an Atlas can have 124 points of armor in the center torso, it would increase to 149 (rounding up to nearest point) maximum limit. Now, that wouldn't break any canon mech builds, it wouldn't require excessive quirks, and seems perceivably much simpler and easier to implement.

It would give mechs a real defensive option to choose from, allowing them to dedicate more tonnage to armor than previously allowed; until we get hardened, reflective, and reactive armors. That is, presuming those will ever even be implemented.

[InspectorG]

Sereglach, on 29 April 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

Honestly, rather than doing your not so EZPZ fix (as you call it) there's a simpler and better way to improve the Ferro Fibrous upgrade for mechs. Simply put, with Ferro Fibrous armor equipped, allow a mech to increase all the armor in each segment up to 20% over the previous maximum. So, if an Atlas can have 124 points of armor in the center torso, it would increase to 149 (rounding up to nearest point) maximum limit. Now, that wouldn't break any canon mech builds, it wouldn't require excessive quirks, and seems perceivably much simpler and easier to implement.

It would give mechs a real defensive option to choose from, allowing them to dedicate more tonnage to armor than previously allowed; until we get hardened, reflective, and reactive armors. That is, presuming those will ever even be implemented.

So an automatic buff for the Timby and SCRO?

And a +20% armor bonus to a light mech nets you what? @2-6 extra armor a component? REAL DEFENSIVE OPTION there.
Blanket % wont work. Lights could used saved weight for heat sinks.

Edited by InspectorG, 29 April 2015 - 03:29 PM.

[Xetelian]

I think they should just straight up buff Ferro even if it buffs the SCR and TBR.

Its just not a good option for any mech compared to endo.

[Sereglach]

InspectorG, on 29 April 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

So an automatic buff for the Timby and SCRO?

And a +20% armor bonus to a light mech nets you what? @2-6 extra armor a component? REAL DEFENSIVE OPTION there.
Blanket % wont work. Lights could used saved weight for heat sinks.

It is in NO way an automatic buff. They need to invest tonnage into those armor points. That tonnage comes from somewhere. For the Ryoken and Mad Cat (Stormcrow and Timber Wolf to you clanners) that tonnage must come from weapons and/or heat sinks, because everything else is locked equipment.

You're right, IS lights would primarily be using that extra weight for other options, like heat sinks and weapons; or maybe they'd do it to fit in the next size engine. However, for heavy and assault mechs, many would be inclined to invest those few extra tons into armor. I'm sure clan lights, with their fixed slower speeds, would be happy to invest the tonnage, that an IS mech would be putting into a larger engine, into more armor for themselves.

[Ragtag soldier]

i use FF armor all the time, so i can't understand why you're bitching about the option to save weight on your armor.

here's an idea, how about PGI makes endo steel MC-only since it's much harder to make in lore, since it needs to be made in 0-G to foam properly?

[InspectorG]

Sereglach, on 29 April 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

However, for heavy and assault mechs, many would be inclined to invest those few extra tons into armor.

Current meta in MWO, firepower > extra armor.

It would penalize either ammo, cooling, or engine for that extra armor. Not a good trade.

Ragtag soldier, on 29 April 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

i use FF armor all the time, so i can't understand why you're bitching about the option to save weight on your armor.

here's an idea, how about PGI makes endo steel MC-only since it's much harder to make in lore, since it needs to be made in 0-G to foam properly?

Bitching?

Do you know the difference between Endo and Ferro, and why most decent players prefer Endo?

Sereglach, on 29 April 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

It is in NO way an automatic buff.

Yes it is.

Take an asymmetric build, strip the spare arm, add that armor IN ADDITION to the max on the weapon arm.

Xetelian, on 29 April 2015 - 03:32 PM, said:

I think they should just straight up buff Ferro even if it buffs the SCR and TBR.

That would involve some epic rage QQ, buffing those mechs.

[Sereglach]

InspectorG, on 29 April 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

Current meta in MWO, firepower > extra armor.

It would penalize either ammo, cooling, or engine for that extra armor. Not a good trade.

Yes it is.

Take an asymmetric build, strip the spare arm, add that armor IN ADDITION to the max on the weapon arm.

Translation to above: Someone is not taking it well that their idea is not being received well. Heaven forbid that we force actual choices onto players about how to build their mechs. If Timber Wolves and Stormcrows started to take asymmetrical designs to utilize extra armor as a shielding side of their mech, then they're giving up firepower that could be wielded in those omnipod hardpoints.

What you really want, as hinted in your first post, is tank-like quirk buffs to mechs like the Summoner. This is the wrong place to be posting that. There is a Developer Outreach section for least and most favorite quirks. I'd go post your desires to have a more armor-quirked Summoner there.

Good day. I won't be bothering to post in this thread any longer, as you've proven your actual standing on things through your own responses to people's posts. You won't concede to anything that doesn't exactly match your own desires.

[InspectorG]

Sereglach, on 29 April 2015 - 04:29 PM, said:

Translation to above: Someone is not taking it well that their idea is not being received well. Heaven forbid that we force actual choices onto players about how to build their mechs. If Timber Wolves and Stormcrows started to take asymmetrical designs to utilize extra armor as a shielding side of their mech, then they're giving up firepower that could be wielded in those omnipod hardpoints.

Have you seen the new pods??? I guess not.

Not angry. Im having fun with this.

"Feature suggestions" is the wrong forum?

Dont want to post here anymore? Your prerogative. You are the one who sounds sour grapes over the holes in your 20% buff.

You dont understand what i was saying with the Summoner, not TANKINESS, WEIGHT SAVINGS instead.

Only interesting idea ive seen is a buff to STD structure.

[Astarot]

Good day, your idea, is bad.

Reason: You basically just want to buff a mech, and this in fact doesn't provide anything worth wild that the devs should waste their time coding into the game.

[InspectorG]

Astarot, on 29 April 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

Good day, your idea, is bad.

Reason: You basically just want to buff a mech, and this in fact doesn't provide anything worth wild that the devs should waste their time coding into the game.

So leave Ferro sitting there like C3? The option no one with math skills uses, unless it is a fixed equip?

Mechs that come with Ferro installed:

Huginn
Arrow
X-5
Protector
IV
Hellslinger
Locust S/3M
Raven 3L
Enforcer 5D
Jaeger DD
Quickdraw 5K
Highlander 732
King Crab 000
King Crab 000B



Adder (endo)
Kitfox (endo)
Mist Lynx (endo)
Ice Ferret (endo)
**Nova has no Ferro or Endo***
SCRO (endo)
***Helbie has no Ferro or Endo***
Maddog (endo)
Summoner ***no endo***
Timby (endo)
Whale *** no endo or ferro***
Gargles ***ferro no endo***
Warhawk ***ferro no endo***

Aside from the lights, how many viable builds with these mechs use Ferro? You paid for it, and you get to pay to remove it.
Its like the DHS tax. Cbills down the drain.

Now, ideas pertaining to Ferro. How do you give it value without overcompensating the already good clan mechs?

You quirk it on chassis that come with it. Mabye give it a better blanket weight saving for IS mechs IF player wont cry lore because it may end up better than clan ferro aside from the slots it takes.

For IS lights it would free up tonnage for more DHS or Ammo. Particularly the Locust. Maybe the Raven as well. Commandos couls use more ammo as well, yes?

Mediums for the IS you have the Arrow, X-5, and Enforcer.

Arrow may run into space concerns using both endo and ferro...guess whic one most people who can count will equip?

Cicada X-5 is pretty meh. 4E and 2 terribad M, Ferro that saves more weight would allow bigger lasers with speed. There is no reason to take missiles that have 4 tubes between 2 launchers.

Enforcer 5D , may run into space concerns as well though poptart builds may like more weight for gauss ammo

Its late and i can get to the rest later.

Its not just about the Summoner if you actually thought about it. I just spam it as an example.
What do the 'bad' non-light Clan mechs have in common? Yeah Ferro with no endo is a recurring theme.

[Astarot]

80% of the mechs I use, use ferro armor. Ones that don't use ferro armor requires a rather tight fit for all of the critical slots. But if I can get away with it, all my mechs use ferro armor. Infact, I rather have ferro armor then endo-steel because structure takes a health debuff for endo-steel. Makes more effective zombie mechs.

[HlynkaCG]

We have several threads on this already and the General consensus seems to be...

• Increase max armor points proportional to weight savings.
  
• Buff standard structure (heavier = sturdier)
  
• Some combination of the two

Your method is over-complicated and fails to make FF a desirable upgrade therefore I vote "no".

[MechWarrior849305]

Make it Endo saves more weight while Ferro has permanent quirk +5 armor per location on mech (or whatever amount depend on chassis weight). That will make them even. You can make your mech more deadly with more weapons or more unpenetrable.

Edited by DuoAngel, 30 April 2015 - 12:50 AM.

[InspectorG]

HlynkaCG, on 29 April 2015 - 11:45 PM, said:

We have several threads on this already and the General consensus seems to be...

• Increase max armor points proportional to weight savings.
  
• Buff standard structure (heavier = sturdier)
  
• Some combination of the two

Your method is over-complicated and fails to make FF a desirable upgrade therefore I vote "no".

How is it overcomplicated?

A. If you "Increase max armor points proportional to weight savings." What would be the ratio and how would it not by default buff the Timby and Crow? Buff those two and you will get rage from all the IS pilots and likely many clanners as well.

Sereglach stated it would still cost weight and Clans would lose Hardpoints for deadsiding to min/max armor on the weapon side but perhaps he hasnt seen the new pods. Timby A ST has 3E up high, SCRO has an arm with 6E. Min/maxers would just strip the armor off the deadside and add it to the weapon side with no cost in weight or hardpoints.


B. "Buff standard structure" not a bad idea but it doesnt really fix Ferro in a direct way. IS mechs would really be the only ones able to use this aside from @3 clan mechs.

This would be seen as a backdoor buff for the IS. And if you compensated Clan Endo for some parity, the Ferro may be to much of a blanket buff for the Clans.

Would not really help most IS lights and certain mediums because they really need the weight savings for the 10DHS rule.

C. "combo of the two"
How is a combo going to give Ferro enough value to use without:

Giving the Clans a backdoor buff? Standard Structure bonus for Summoner/Gargles...meh. Would rather have more weight for ammo or another big weapon. Nova, nice but wont fix those broken arms. Direwhale? SURE!

Penalize Lights meeting their 10DHS requirement. This is a good part why ammo dependent Lights arent that viable unless they can spam SRM at a nice rate. SRM are light enough to fit ammo. AC's...no. LRM...no and why would you.

IS medium/large mechs that take endo AND ferro would likely be pigeonholed into 3LL type builds. Thats 14 slots for saved weight and a likely too small armor buff
IS Assaults that take Endo and ferro would be choked for space and likely would have to rely on laser spam and perhaps not enough DHS.

IS Assualt that takes Standard and Ferro like the Crab 000B can load 3LL and 2AC20...with max armor and 4 tons ammo.
Same Crab with Endo only can have the same loadout with @6 tons ammo if you shave the legs a tad.

14 shots with the AC40 vs 21. For how much extra armor/HP? Better be a good amount. Enough to eat another 7 damage alpha? Per component?

[Lily from animove]

Sereglach, on 29 April 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

It is in NO way an automatic buff. They need to invest tonnage into those armor points. That tonnage comes from somewhere. For the Ryoken and Mad Cat (Stormcrow and Timber Wolf to you clanners) that tonnage must come from weapons and/or heat sinks, because everything else is locked equipment.

You're right, IS lights would primarily be using that extra weight for other options, like heat sinks and weapons; or maybe they'd do it to fit in the next size engine. However, for heavy and assault mechs, many would be inclined to invest those few extra tons into armor. I'm sure clan lights, with their fixed slower speeds, would be happy to invest the tonnage, that an IS mech would be putting into a larger engine, into more armor for themselves.

cool, so i upp my SCR's CT and ST's because there I can still use 3 freaking lasers, much fun trying to kill that. While other mechs like the WHK with all the weapons int he arms need to invest this tonnage everywhere getting more shafted than they already are.

Sry no, but across the board changes are a horrible way to balance because the mechs we have are not born equal, and the wrong mechs would benefit a lot more than those who need it.


If any, I would buff standard Internals, because then the costs of opportunatey make the FF a bit more appealing..

Make mechs with standardinternals have 10% less crit chance. This way choosing FF as upgrade over EE for IS mechs, means keeping a bit more durability but yet not entirely gettng the full benefit of freed tonnage as ES does grant.

and on clanmechs, those shafted without FF will at least enjoy a small buff of less crits received. Which does not apply for the SCR and TBR, that in return enjoy their "more tonnage"

@inspector, why would th IS lights need any further "help" they already have the luxury that they can use ES + FF for the weight savings. Thats already quite a nice benefit.

Edited by Lily from animove, 30 April 2015 - 06:55 AM.

[HlynkaCG]

InspectorG, on 30 April 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

How is it overcomplicated?

You are proposing chassis specific function rather than a simple "FF does ____"

Quote

If you "Increase max armor points proportional to weight savings." What would be the ratio?

12%, Max armor (tonnage) remains the same, but max armor (points) goes up.

Quote

How is a combo going to give Ferro enough value to use without?

Say for the sake of argument that standard structure buffed your internal hit points by 10 - 12%, and that FF let you take 10 - 12% more armor. That's a cumulative 20 - 24% durability boost (at the cost of weight) for mechs with FF and standard structure.

That's nothing to sneeze at, hell It might even be OP .

[InspectorG]

HlynkaCG, on 30 April 2015 - 07:30 AM, said:

Say for the sake of argument that standard structure buffed your internal hit points by 10 - 12%, and that FF let you take 10 - 12% more armor. That's a cumulative 20 - 24% durability boost (at the cost of weight) for mechs with FF and standard structure.

That's nothing to sneeze at, hell It might even be OP .

Locust, 12 structure, 24 armor for the CT so lets say 12% increase > 13 and 27. It that worth losing the weight advantage of endo?
Remember, Locust has to spend tons on mandatory heat sinks. With a XL190 and max armor, you get @4.5 tons for guns.
Worth it? Endo gets you another spare ton.

Hunchback G, 2ML, AC20 STD200. 5.8 tons free. CT 40 structire /79armor. With endo: 32/64 and 8.3 tons free.

Basically, your proposition favors heavier mechs if you continue the math.

Compare the bonus to the average 'meta' alpha(30 for lights/40 for medium-heavy/ 60 for assault) and i dont think it gets worthwhile until over 50 tons.

So a blanket (HP)buff for Heavier mechs that @3 Clans mechs can use? And how would the Ferro only fair for Clans? How could it be min/max'd? How would it NOT bee seen as a buff to the Timby and Crow?

Would a HP buff be worth it vs 50-80 point alphas at the cost of diminished firepower/ammo/speed?
Seeing as how MWO is a game of coordinated firepower, the buff would likely need to be WAY higher.