12 replies to this topic

[Kin3ticX]

Some new players think FF makes armor stronger.

Some new players think FF allows more armor (thus making them tankier).

Some new players are not sure to put Endo over Ferro on bigger mechs. (there are also a few assaults that come stock with FF)

The Mechlab states that Standard armor provides 32 pts per ton. (this is good)

Mechlab shows that IS FF provides 12% more protection per ton (no good)
Mechlab shows that Clan FF provides 20% more protection per ton (no good)

It is correct, but the wording is misleading.

I recommend changing the mechlab to state 35.8 pts(IS) and 38.4 pts per ton(Clan)

but, you may also want to include something to the tune of "FF does not make armor tougher or increase maximum armor, only saves weight over standard"

Edited by Kin3ticX, 09 February 2016 - 07:30 PM.

[Skarlock]

Agreed. It should just say what it literally does, make your armor lighter, not stronger. Just show the weight savings of toggling the option.

[r3born bs]

Until i've read kinetix's mwo guide i had no idea that FF gives no additional protection, so yeah.. With me being unfamiliar with some systems of the game, the wording made me think that each ton of weight "gives" me x amount of armor, and FF increases this bonus, making me tankier. Now that i've read more about it the wording kind of makes sense, but my initial impression held up for about 2 weeks, leading me to choose FF in some of my builds over weapons or heatsinks in some cases.

So yeah i agree with this suggestion.

Edited by r3born bs, 09 February 2016 - 07:45 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

Skarlock, on 09 February 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

Agreed. It should just say what it literally does, make your armor lighter, not stronger. Just show the weight savings of toggling the option.

It just has to do with the natural tendency to think an armor upgrade = stronger armor material (like how other games may have worked) rather than how it works in battletech.

[Karl Marlow]

Technically FF armor is stronger. Just not in the way most people would think. It is lighter for the same strength.

I think that FF has always seemed kinda weak for the sacrifices you have to make to put it in. It would be nice if it had a more noticable effect.

Edited by ThomasMarik, 10 February 2016 - 01:12 AM.

[MrMadguy]

Noobs just should remember one simple thing: Endo is better, then Ferro. If you need one of them - always use Endo, don't even bother about Ferro. Use Ferro only if you need both.

[PocketYoda]

Ferro is mostly crap, sure it gives you a "little" less weight but it then fills the mech up with so it has no slots left... I seldom use it..

[LegendaryArticuno]

FF needs a buff.

[DovisKhan]

The part that is unexpected is the one where you buy endo/fero and you can't go back without paying again, that's really unexpected, since like with every other component you assume you bought it and can change it whenever you want.


But I guess the mechanics in your mech bay charge you for work or whatever...

[Mcgral18]

LegendaryArticuno, on 10 February 2016 - 06:17 AM, said:

FF needs a buff.

This may be the only sensible thing you've ever said...


Ferro does need a buff. Whichever way they go about it (damage resist=good, but buffs God Tier Clams more than others due to hitboxes, increasing max armour cap means a sacrifice needs to be made to get extra durability, but again the God Tier also has Endo to offset the cost, unlike Mr Gargles).


I guess the simplest solution, other than to fix the text, are 2 simple Attribute changes: normalize Clam and Sheroid Ferro and decrease slots required for IS Ferro to 10.

[Mechteric]

I still really like the idea of going beyond TT rules and letting FF actually go over the maximum normal armor count.

Either that or make it give the mech some kind of damage absorption quirk to make it tankier.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 10 February 2016 - 06:48 AM.

[Paigan]

OP is absolutely right, of course.
However, the basic problem is located in BT itself.

In EVERY game, computer or otherwise, a better armor offers more protection.
But not in BT, no no. In BT, it's just a backward way of saying "safe a ton or so".

Same with FF vs ES: FF make NO sense to choose over ES.


The "proper" way of fixing it would be to make those things make sense, at last.
However that wouldn't go along with BT purist zealots, so doing the reasonable fix is off the table.

My attempt at a pragmatic fix:

Make ES increase the critical hit chance of the Mech carrying it. You know, because it's a weaker structure.
That would mean it brings more tonnage than FF, but with a drawback, while the tonnage-wise weaker FF has no drawback.

Would even give a reasonable solution why so many Clan Mechs have FF over ES (which in original BT is just plain stupid): They avoid the drawback.
(And as a nice sideeffect, that would slightly nerf the high-tech-tonnage-gods SCR and TBR)

The logic for that even already exists, because the Atlas has quirks of reduced crit chance.


SO many things in MWO could be fixed in a matter of MINUTES by simply doing some XML editing and/or calling some existing program methods.

Edited by Paigan, 10 February 2016 - 06:57 AM.

[Funky Bacon]

The upgrade should state that each tonnage or point of armor is X% lighter than standard armor, resulting in less tonnage cost for the same amount of armor but takes up extra internal space.

I think that sounds very straight forward and is very hard to misunderstand.


One MAJOR buff Ferro could give is to prevent Critical hits from the hit that broke the armor.

Like now, if you have 19 armor and get hit by a AC/20 and take 1 structure damage, you still take the full 20 points of critical hit damage to your internals. What if Ferro prevented that crit from an armor breaking shot? All other shots would still do crits when rolled ofc.