124 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Homeskilit, on 04 October 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

So make isFF cost 7 crit also, unlock Clan chassis, and implement the above changes to FF. I agree it is probably far down the list of necessary changes but if you are going to make sweeping changes might as well sweep up everything.



All of this was addressed in my original post. And the advantage of a lighter chassis over a heavier one is speed and mobility.

If you change the crit space allotment or the functionality of FF armor, you fundamentally change the game from BattleTech. This would make MW:O lose many players.

Speed and mobility are nice, but pinpoint precise alpha strikes negate that advantage considerably.

Ferro Fibrous armor is not something that needs to be changed.

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 04 October 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

So make isFF cost 7 crit also, unlock Clan chassis, and implement the above changes to FF. I agree it is probably far down the list of necessary changes but if you are going to make sweeping changes might as well sweep up everything.

Can't do that: PGI has made it abundantly clear that they will not ever alter tonnage or slot requirements for any equipment, period.

So, if you are going to make changes to anything in this game, it has to be to the more dynamic elements (i.e. damage, cool-down, heat, etc.). In the case of FF, the only thing they can really do to it is uncap 'Mech armor and give players the option to over-armor because everything else affects a crit-slot or tonnage change on the equipment side.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 04 October 2015 - 07:43 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Hotthedd, on 04 October 2015 - 07:39 PM, said:

If you change the crit space allotment or the functionality of FF armor, you fundamentally change the game from BattleTech. This would make MW:O lose many players.

Speed and mobility are nice, but pinpoint precise alpha strikes negate that advantage considerably.

Ferro Fibrous armor is not something that needs to be changed.

Homeskilit, on 04 October 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

I know this is not what the Lore says but I am making this suggestion under the assumption that Ferrous Fiber in its current iteration is terrible and needs to be rethought, so do not bother with that argument.

If you want to cling to the Lore religiously that is your choice, I am an an advocate of change if it means improving the game. Obviously whether it will improve the game or not is subject to opinion and that is what we are discussing here (if the changes I suggested can improve the game), simply saying you cannot do this because of Lore does not fly in this thread, please do not bring that up again.

Edited by Homeskilit, 04 October 2015 - 07:46 PM.

[TheMadTypist]

Hotthedd, on 04 October 2015 - 07:39 PM, said:

If you change the crit space allotment or the functionality of FF armor, you fundamentally change the game from BattleTech. This would make MW:O lose many players.

Speed and mobility are nice, but pinpoint precise alpha strikes negate that advantage considerably.

Ferro Fibrous armor is not something that needs to be changed.

We endured 1.4 DHS. We endured a lack of minimum range on AC 5's and 2's. We endured 2x armor. We endured quirks, range nerfs to every clan ER weapon, a magical +10% speed buff from a pilot skill, and freakn' ghost heat.

I think we can live with adding functionality like increased armor cap to Ferro, if it increases build diversity without breaking stock builds.

[Chuck Jager]

Burktross, on 04 October 2015 - 06:53 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=187

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=234

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=212

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=191

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=285

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=97

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=158

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=204

Every single one of these stoff FF no endo is a point against the useability of lore in MWO

[GreyNovember]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 October 2015 - 07:42 PM, said:

Can't do that: PGI has made it abundantly clear that they will not ever alter tonnage or slot requirements for any equipment, period.

So, if you are going to make changes to anything in this game, it has to be to the more dynamic elements (i.e. damage, cool-down, heat, etc.). In the case of FF, the only thing they can really do to it is uncap 'Mech armor and give players the option to over-armor because everything else affects a crit-slot or tonnage change on the equipment side.

And in the case of clan mechs, make Endo give penalties to internals. Hell, make it IS mechs too.

You want Endo? Fine. Pay the price with less HP.

You want to negate that with armor and get more weight bonuses? Okay, sure. Ferro then. But now you're down 28 slots. 14 if you're a timberwolf..

[Hotthedd]

Homeskilit, on 04 October 2015 - 07:45 PM, said:

If you want to cling to the Lore religiously that is your choice, I am an an advocate of change if it means improving the game. Obviously whether it will improve the game or not is subject to opinion and that is what we are discussing here (if the changes I suggested can improve the game), simply saying you cannot do this because of Lore does not fly in this thread, please do not bring that up again.

Why wouldn't it fly? It IS a valid concern.

I appreciate the fact that you are coming up with innovative ways to improve the game. I think it is fantastic and I love that you have enough passion for the game to try.

I am just bringing up a reason why it might not be the best idea. It could lose players who are drawn to this game due to it being a BattleTech based game, because , frankly, the change you suggest just isn't BattleTech.

TheMadTypist, on 04 October 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

We endured 1.4 DHS. We endured a lack of minimum range on AC 5's and 2's. We endured 2x armor. We endured quirks, range nerfs to every clan ER weapon, a magical +10% speed buff from a pilot skill, and freakn' ghost heat.

I think we can live with adding functionality like increased armor cap to Ferro, if it increases build diversity without breaking stock builds.

I am not sure the core fanbase CAN endure too much more breaking of the BattleTech universe.

[TheMadTypist]

Hotthedd, on 04 October 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

Why wouldn't it fly? It IS a valid concern.

I appreciate the fact that you are coming up with innovative ways to improve the game. I think it is fantastic and I love that you have enough passion for the game to try.

I am just bringing up a reason why it might not be the best idea. It could lose players who are drawn to this game due to it being a BattleTech based game, because , frankly, the change you suggest just isn't BattleTech.

I am not sure the core fanbase CAN endure too much more breaking of the BattleTech universe.

ECM as the magic Jesus box, Bap canceling ECM instead of the other way round, Clan LRM's having damage reduction at close range, whatever the hell clan targeting computers are doing, MASC offering less bonus to smaller 'mechs, extinct designs roaming the battlefields as commonly as any other, an absence of non-battlemech combat elements, critical hits dealing structure damage, seriously- if just buffing one of the equipment upgrades its the straw that brakes your camel's back, you haven't been paying attention.

[Darlith]

Homeskilit, on 04 October 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

Figures they are all Clan mechs. Two possible solutions come to mind, one would be to tie the extra weight to the chassis, as long as they do not take Endo they get the free 1-2 tons but if they do switch to Endo those free tons would disapperar in favor of Endo's upgrade.

Or you could forcable switch Endo and FF for the affected mechs and add additional heat sinks, armor, or ammunition (no weapons) to make up the difference. No solution will be perfect but I think any solution is better than leaving it the way it is. As the saying goes "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Not all of those are clan mechs, a few more mechs with FF in stock without Endo, to fill out the IS side. Skipping hero mechs since so many of them are made up.
JM6-DD
QKD-5K
HGN-732B
HGN-732
KGC-000
KGC-000B
ZEU-9S
ENF-5D
KTO-20
KTO-19
JR7-K
RVN-3L

See FF is a fairly common upgrade in the Inner Sphere on the tabletop game because it didn't require nearly the resources that changing out the whole structure for endosteel would. All those mechs would have their standard loadouts messed up if you changed it from weight savings to anything else. Obviously it is a bit late to balance FF versus Endo by making it take massive resources and time to upgrade a mech to endo. So you have to look for solutions like maybe increasing the damage each point of FF armor could take. Of course then people would scream even more about "Mech taxes" and "It isn't fair to have something be a straight upgrade, make standard structure, and armor, and single heatsinks worth taking."

[Homeskilit]

Hotthedd, on 04 October 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

Why wouldn't it fly? It IS a valid concern.

It does not fly because I said at the start we are leaving that bias at the door and having a discussion without those concerns.

Hotthedd, on 04 October 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

It could lose players who are drawn to this game due to it being a BattleTech based game, because , frankly, the change you suggest just isn't BattleTech.

I am not sure the core fanbase CAN endure too much more breaking of the BattleTech universe.

BattleTech based game, not perfect rendition of a TT into a FPS, if some things need to change for that to work, so be it. How many more people are going to leave the game because it is broken? How many people are actually going to leave because of a suggested change to how FF works (And I seriously think it will make implementing the other forms of armor easier)? Are these players we want? What if it makes the game better? Do you think all those players are going to leave before they even test it?

See what I am getting at? It is a whole can of worms that is not worth opening. If it makes the game better more people will come to play it, it is a perfect example of "Needs of the many over the needs of the few" if 100 people leave because we changed something that is the "core" of BT (and come on, FF is not the core of BT) but 1000 new players join because the game is better, is that not a net gain?

Yeonne Greene, on 04 October 2015 - 07:42 PM, said:

Can't do that: PGI has made it abundantly clear that they will not ever alter tonnage or slot requirements for any equipment, period.

That sounds like a cop out.

@Darlith - Seems there were many more mechs that used that set of upgrades than I initially thought, I still think it is something worth looking into though as the problem will only increase as we add more mechs to the game. Out of curiosity, can anyone who owns any of those mechs switch FF and Endo and let us know the weight difference?

Edited by Homeskilit, 04 October 2015 - 08:20 PM.

[Hotthedd]

TheMadTypist, on 04 October 2015 - 08:01 PM, said:

ECM as the magic Jesus box, Bap canceling ECM instead of the other way round, Clan LRM's having damage reduction at close range, whatever the hell clan targeting computers are doing, MASC offering less bonus to smaller 'mechs, extinct designs roaming the battlefields as commonly as any other, an absence of non-battlemech combat elements, critical hits dealing structure damage, seriously- if just buffing one of the equipment upgrades its the straw that brakes your camel's back, you haven't been paying attention.

How many more straws would you like to add? Eventually one will be too much for someone. Many have already left because of those very straws you list.

Wouldn't it be smarter to stop adding straws, especially if they are unnecessary?

[GrimRiver]

Homeskilit, on 04 October 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

First off I know there are tons of threads about this, I have read through some of them but I wanted to discuss this without getting hit by one of them necro cards.

So, FF and Endo both serve as weight saving options you must choose between (unless you are a Clanner but we are not going there). While I think having decision points for a player is one of the most important things a game can do, this is a very bad one. Mainly because Endo is the obvious choice every time but also because most mechs do not have enough crit space to use both.

What if instead of just saving weight at the expense of crit space, it cost more weight but raised your available armor points as the trade off. The amount of weight each point costs should be relative to the weight of the mech (so adding more points to a 100 ton mech will cost more weight than adding points to a 30 ton mech) and its cost in crit space should be normalized across both factions. Since FF is supposed to weigh less this means you can add more armor to your mech.

The decision point then becomes "Should I take additional defense at the cost of weight" rather then "Which of these weight saving measures should I take". This also opens the door for the other types of armor to be implemented in a similar manner.

I know this is not what the Lore says but I am making this suggestion under the assumption that Ferrous Fiber in its current iteration is terrible and needs to be rethought, so do not bother with that argument.

I think endo should give you a structure buff per slot on mechs like 2+ structure per unused slot. Exp: say the left arm has 6 slots and a weapon takes up 3 slots, thats 3 unused slots that can go to endo giving you 6+ structure to that arm while removing weight like endo already does.

And FF works the same way as endo only for armor(2+armor per unused slot), both of endo+FF still takes up 14 slots.

[Khobai]

Just give FF armor 12% damage reduction. So FF would both make armor weigh 12% less AND give armor 12% damage reduction. Nice and simple and makes FF and ES roughly equal.


Endosteel on an Atlas saves 5 tons by reducing the weight of 10 tons of structure by 50%.

For FF on an Atlas to also save 5 tons it would need to have an equivalent effect of reducing the weight of 20 tons of armor by 25%.

FF already reduces the weight of armor by 12%. So if you also gave FF 12% damage reduction it would come out to 24% which is pretty close to the 25% it needs to be at to be equal to ES.


Then thered be a reason to use both. If you want more weapons or a bigger engine you use ES. If you want more armor you use FF.

Edited by Khobai, 04 October 2015 - 08:29 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Homeskilit, on 04 October 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

It does not fly because I said at the start we are leaving that bias at the door and having a discussion without those concerns.


BattleTech based game, not perfect rendition of a TT into a FPS, if some things need to change for that to work, so be it. How many more people are going to leave the game because it is broken? How many people are actually going to leave because of a suggested change to how FF works (And I seriously think it will make implementing the other forms of armor easier)? Are these players we want? What if it makes the game better? Do you think all those players are going to leave before they even test it?

See what I am getting at? It is a whole can of worms that is not worth opening. If it makes the game better more people will come to play it, it is a perfect example of "Needs of the many over the needs of the few" if 100 people leave because we changed something that is the "core" of BT (and come on, FF is not the core of BT) but 101 new players join because the game is better, is that not a net gain?


That sounds like a cop out.

@Darlith - Seems there were many more mechs that used that set of upgrades than I initially thought, I still think it is something worth looking into though as the problem will only increase as we add more mechs to the game.

There is more to BattleTech than the table top game.

If we can assume that re-writing the core 'Mech building rules will alienate a core segment of current players, some that may leave over it, many who might leave over the many changes (this being one of them), how are we to assume that the changes will attract new players?

It really doesn't affect core game play, it's just another TTK bandaid. Therefore "better" is a subjective term. "Different" is a correct term, and too different from BT will lose players.

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 04 October 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

That sounds like a cop out.

A cop-out from me or a cop-out from PGI?

Because if it was me, I would totally screw the current weight and slot requirements. I would link you where PGI said they would not change requirements, but it's been so long now that I don't remember where it was or what format it was in (i.e. video or text); you can search it if you really want the proof.

If you think it's a cop-out from me, I will humbly point out that by essentially saying "trash the current system," you are avoiding the expenditure of effort and ignoring the foundations of the game. There are ways to make things work within the hard rules PGI has set, but you are unwilling to discover them. Khobai's damage reduction is a good idea that can work within the rules, and so is allowing over-armoring.

Now, if PGI comes out and says they are willing to just completely ignore the TT requirements, all bets are off. To date, they haven't made such a statement.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 October 2015 - 08:27 PM, said:

A cop-out from me or a cop-out from PGI?

Sorry, I was distracted and was not very clear with that response, total cop out from PGI. To me that statement says that they are not capable of making those kinds of changes so they are not going to bother. It does make me wonder if it is a technical issue or a philosophical issue though.

Edited by Homeskilit, 04 October 2015 - 08:56 PM.

[Alek Ituin]

TheMadTypist, on 04 October 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

We endured a lack of minimum range on AC/2's

Because the second worst ballistic weapon in the game is such an OP meta-cheese munchkin crutch that it needs to be made even worse, amirite?

[SerratedBlaze]

I think a previous post said that FF was meant to be a diminishing return type deal and that stock doesn't work in wmo anyways so there's no point in worrying about the stock mechs that only take ff. Then there is the lore reason of endo being so rare that even the inferior ff is worth having which is why there are so many broken bad stock mechs.

I had just accepted that stock is stupid for this game (since the rules are totally butchered, and if that bothers you take out the minis and play over skype) and FF is meant to be used when endo isn't good enough on its own.

I do really like the ideas here though, especially with clan mechs stuck with only ff. Allowing a mech with FF to take the same armor weight maximum as a standard armor counterpart which means higher armor points is a good use of it. That means you could either take it to save weight on a set # of armor points or take it to trade slots for bonus armor points and no change in weight. Two styles of play! The tax aspect is questionable because you do pay in slots either way.

How would that change stock mechs anyways? If FF allows you to take more and stock doesn't come with more then there is no difference. They'd be using it as weight savings per normal instead of bonus armor.

The damage reduction thing is tricky in my opinion, possibly a coding problem or will lead to more bugs. Endo doesn't need to strengthen a structure, its already serving a purpose quite well. We should get more low weight high slot items to make it less of a tax though.

Edited by SerratedBlaze, 04 October 2015 - 08:46 PM.

[TheMadTypist]

Alek Ituin, on 04 October 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

Because the second worst ballistic weapon in the game is such an OP meta-cheese munchkin crutch that it needs to be made even worse, amirite?

Not saying the changes were bad, just saying they exist.

The point being, if the presence of changes alone is reason to throw all the toys out of the pram, the changes are upon us already, numerous and all-pervading. If it makes the game better, and doesn't take away the core, lore-bound functionality, what does it matter? If the old guard really are willing to get upset about that, then they're free to do what I do about modules and pretend it doesn't exist.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

I've suggested before to give ferro a fixed % armor boost and standard internals a fixed % structure boost.