124 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

I'm not sure it actually works out that way. With 12% less damage a 40 point alpha drops down to about 35 meaning something like an atlas would have to take an entire extra alpha to the CT alone... that seems worth a lot more to me than 2.1 tonnes of armour.

It doesnt take an entire extra alpha though.

if the atlas has 120 CT armor and its taking 40 damage alphas it takes 3 alphas to strip the armor.

if the same atlas has 120 CT armor AND 12% damage reduction and takes 35.2 damage alphas it takes 3.41 alphas to strip the armor.

So its only .41 more alphas.

Since the alphas are 40 damage .41 * 40 = 16.2

So the Center Torso is effectively able to take about 16 extra damage before being stripped due to the damage reduction.

The DR really doesnt add up to much. 12% is pretty insignificant. But it does make FF and ES pretty close to being equal.

Edited by Khobai, 05 October 2015 - 07:04 PM.

[Homeskilit]

When would you ever NOT take Endo-Steel on your mech? That is poor game design.
Why do Endo and FF offer the exact same benefit? Again, poor game design.

Now, I think you should have the option to get both because they should serve different purposes, but there should be trade offs. Decisions you make when building your mech should be way more important than they currently are. As is right now with FF and Endo there are no decisions, if you are a lighter mech you take both and if you are a heavier mech you have to choose between them (except in special cases when you can have both). These are all archaic game designs that people are clinging to because of "Lore reason" or because "it breaks stock mechs". These are poor reasons to not improve this game and it is true that changing things like FF will change the game somewhat but if it improves the game in the long run why would you not want to try it?

[Hotthedd]

The thing it seems many people do not understand is that ES and FF were never intended to be balanced against each other.

They are different things. FF is a luxury that is mostly reserved for light and medium 'mechs that do not or cannot take bulkier weapons. That is the trade-off. The choice cmes down to FF or an XL engine, or FF vs. a large ballistic weapon, NOT FF vs. ES.

Endo-Steel is BETTER. It is SUPPOSED to be better. That is how the game is designed.

[SirNotlag]

Hotthedd, on 06 October 2015 - 05:02 AM, said:

The thing it seems many people do not understand is that ES and FF were never intended to be balanced against each other.

They are different things. FF is a luxury that is mostly reserved for light and medium 'mechs that do not or cannot take bulkier weapons. That is the trade-off. The choice cmes down to FF or an XL engine, or FF vs. a large ballistic weapon, NOT FF vs. ES.

Endo-Steel is BETTER. It is SUPPOSED to be better. That is how the game is designed.

Thats **** game design and not completely true. Endo was better yes but it was that way in TT because it was harder to get, more expensive to place on your mechs, and even more expensive to repair your mechs when their structure was damaged. In TT there was plenty of reasons that you would consider or be forced to take FF over endo, non of those reasons are present in MWO.

You are comparing 2 completely different systems here in MWO everyone wants and can afford to run their mechs in tip top condition so everyone takes endo no questions asked. In TT if you fielded several mechs with FF instead of endo you saved enough money to bring an extra mech to the fight, that's how it was balanced in TT.

Edited by SirNotlag, 06 October 2015 - 05:56 AM.

[Hotthedd]

SirNotlag, on 06 October 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

Thats **** game design and not completely true. Endo was better yes but it was that way in TT because it was harder to get, more expensive to place on your mechs, and even more expensive to repair your mechs when their structure was damaged. In TT there was plenty of reasons that you would consider or be forced to take FF over endo, non of those reasons are present in MWO.

You are comparing 2 completely different systems here in MWO everyone wants and can afford to run their mechs in tip top condition so everyone takes endo no questions asked. In TT if you fielded several mechs with FF instead of endo you saved enough money to bring an extra mech to the fight.

It is not **** game design, it IS the game design. It is only **** if you mistakenly believe that the two things are supposed to be balanced against each other.

To address your very valid point, there is a simple fix, and one that we already had in the game, although it was implemented poorly: Repair and Re-arm. PGI could make ES more expensive to repair, and could make FF cheaper to repair. Add that to the Battle value system PGI is working on (ES=higher, FF=lower), and you balance things economically, the same sort of way you did in TT.

[SirNotlag]

Khobai, on 05 October 2015 - 06:55 PM, said:

It doesnt take an entire extra alpha though.

if the atlas has 120 CT armor and its taking 40 damage alphas it takes 3 alphas to strip the armor.

if the same atlas has 120 CT armor AND 12% damage reduction and takes 35.2 damage alphas it takes 3.41 alphas to strip the armor.

So its only .41 more alphas.

Since the alphas are 40 damage .41 * 40 = 16.2

So the Center Torso is effectively able to take about 16 extra damage before being stripped due to the damage reduction.

The DR really doesnt add up to much. 12% is pretty insignificant. But it does make FF and ES pretty close to being equal.

I don't know... If it saves both weight and gives the extra damage reduction I feel that makes it the superior option on all mechs. That extra durability would go longer than 1 extra heat sink or ton of ammo. That might just be me, but I feel that tips the scale in the opposite direction and makes FF the superior choice.

[Khobai]

Quote

If it saves both weight and gives the extra damage reduction I feel that makes it the superior option on all mechs

not necessarily. since endosteel means more tonnage for weapons.

in general weapons are better than armor ton-for-ton. at least until your weapons loadout hits a brickwall with heat.

[SerratedBlaze]

It seems that the questions are

1: To buff or give alternative? Damage Reduction would make any use of FF innately better than it is so that the cost will be comparable to Endo (buff). Allowing extra armor points up to the value saved in weight will net no change in weight and bonus armor at the cost of slots (alternative). Neither do anything to stock mechs whatsoever, still 32 armor for the weight cost of 36 at 14 slot tax.

2: Can we stop talking about optional add on slots for bonuses and slashing the slot cost? Obviously it causes too much drama and would be a more time consuming to implement in game (i think). Really it sounds like almost nobody wants it.

3: Are we as a community ok with each feature of MWO (we aren't rewriting TT rules, we aren't changing MW3 code) being viable within MWO? It's been stated that things have been changed for the sake of real time and this should not be the final straw. It might not be super necessary but it's a doable change that increases options in playstyle.

I say 1alternate, FF should be sub-optimal compared to endo because double endo weight savings would be too much. Gaining the current benefit and bonus DR would also be a notable buff to TTK. However; there should be a possible reason to use it on its own and this opens up a good amount of fine tuning options. 2 yes please. 3 I hope so because adding a flavor OPTION is better than slamming us down with a new horrid rulebook like ghostheat or having pointless clutter.

[Trev Firestorm]

Hotthedd, on 06 October 2015 - 06:01 AM, said:

It is not **** game design, it IS the game design. It is only **** if you mistakenly believe that the two things are supposed to be balanced against each other.

To address your very valid point, there is a simple fix, and one that we already had in the game, although it was implemented poorly: Repair and Re-arm. PGI could make ES more expensive to repair, and could make FF cheaper to repair. Add that to the Battle value system PGI is working on (ES=higher, FF=lower), and you balance things economically, the same sort of way you did in TT.

They are not working on a battle value system as you appear to be thinking. What they regret calling battle value is an internal system to aid in the rebalance based on things like hitboxes and hardpoint locations. Like it or not FF and ES are balanced against each other in this game without any of the additional TT reasons to take FF.

[Escef]

Trev Firestorm, on 06 October 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

Like it or not FF and ES are balanced against each other in this game without any of the additional TT reasons to take FF.

There weren't any reasons in TT to take ferro armor unless you were running a long campaign and replacement endosteel bones for your mech became a serious supply issue.

[Khobai]

Quote

There weren't any reasons in TT to take ferro armor unless you were running a long campaign and replacement endosteel bones for your mech became a serious supply issue.

vehicles also couldnt use endosteel

so ferro was the only option for vehicles

but mwo doesnt have vehicles so ferro has no point really

[Almond Brown]

SirNotlag, on 06 October 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

Thats **** game design and not completely true. Endo was better yes but it was that way in TT because it was harder to get, more expensive to place on your mechs, and even more expensive to repair your mechs when their structure was damaged. In TT there was plenty of reasons that you would consider or be forced to take FF over endo, non of those reasons are present in MWO.

You are comparing 2 completely different systems here in MWO everyone wants and can afford to run their mechs in tip top condition so everyone takes endo no questions asked. In TT if you fielded several mechs with FF instead of endo you saved enough money to bring an extra mech to the fight, that's how it was balanced in TT.

The difference is in the names as well ffs.

Endo-Steel Structure (Made from lighter endo-steel and weighing 5% of the 'Mech’s maximum tonnage but occupies 14 critical slots.)
vs
Ferrous-Fibre Armor... (12% more protection per ton, occupies 14 critical slots but weighs less.)

One goes on the Inside, the other on the Outside.

They are totally different things that do totally different things.

Edited by Almond Brown, 06 October 2015 - 11:13 AM.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Hotthedd, on 06 October 2015 - 06:01 AM, said:

Repair and Re-arm. PGI could make ES more expensive to repair, and could make FF cheaper to repair. Add that to the Battle value system PGI is working on (ES=higher, FF=lower), and you balance things economically, the same sort of way you did in TT.

R&R makes premium time and hero mechs Pay to Win.

Hence it was removed.

[Yosharian]

FF takes up 12 slots instead of 14. Doesn't break stock. Gives people a reason to run FF.

Done.

Wow that was hard.

Or maybe it's because PGI just isn't interested in making FF useful.

[Escef]

The Atlas Overlord, on 06 October 2015 - 11:17 AM, said:

R&R makes premium time and hero mechs Pay to Win.

Hence it was removed.

R&R was removed because it disproportionately punished new players.

You can't make a very good argument for R&R making Premium Time and Heroes P2W.

[Homeskilit]

I feel Endo needs to be reworked too. The 14 crit slots is not enough of a trade off for the mass you gain for additional offensive capabilities.

Edited by Homeskilit, 06 October 2015 - 11:48 AM.

[SirNotlag]

Almond Brown, on 06 October 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

The difference is in the names as well ffs.

Endo-Steel Structure (Made from lighter endo-steel and weighing 5% of the 'Mech’s maximum tonnage but occupies 14 critical slots.)
vs
Ferrous-Fibre Armor... (12% more protection per ton, occupies 14 critical slots but weighs less.)

One goes on the Inside, the other on the Outside.

They are totally different things that do totally different things.

Whats your point?

they are both upgrades that take up 14 slots on a mech and save weight. However endo is always better on every mech because it saves more weight.

hmm...2 upgrades... both just as difficult to place on a mech because they take up the same space... one flat out better because it save twice the weight.
...balance?

[Hotthedd]

The Atlas Overlord, on 06 October 2015 - 11:17 AM, said:

R&R makes premium time and hero mechs Pay to Win.

Hence it was removed.

It was removed because it could be abused, and was not implemented well.

You may want to check your definition of "Pay to win".

[Khobai]

Quote

I feel Endo needs to be reworked too. The 14 crit slots is not enough of a trade off for the mass you gain for additional offensive capabilities.

I think Endos fine how is it. The problem is theres no alternative to endo. Balancing FF would give an alternative to endo.

So youd have to decide if you want more free tonnage for weapons/engine rating. Or if you want 12% damage reduction from FF.

Also its a direct buff to light mechs that tend to carry both... light mechs will get a much needed 12% damage reduction.

Edited by Khobai, 06 October 2015 - 01:29 PM.

[wanderer]

Ferro-fibrous is worse because it's meant to be the lowest return on your critspacing, because they wanted the returns for using up lots of critspace (that is, stacking them) to not surpass a certain point. Thus, endo first, ferro last.