110 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

kf envy, on 14 July 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

the FF is fine and PGI already doubled the armor of all mechs. just git gud

not really Constructive to the Conversation, also what does Doubled Armor have to do with Ferro?
TT Armor is 16Points per Ton, MWO is 32Points Per Ton, doubling armor didnt effect Ferro's Use at all,

[Andi Nagasia]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 July 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

Yeah, their reluctance to reduce crit slots (hello, totally useless IS LB20X!) is a real shame. I'd just rather plug for the "easier" (SCR goes here) option.

Im hoping they Change their Mind with the LBX20, as it was possable to put it in your arm in TT,
though as per Crit Splitting, that sadly we dont have in MWO, but im hopeful, we'll find out come Tuesday,

Brain Cancer, on 14 July 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

Every time someone says "let's reduce tonnage or crits!", I laugh.

Catalyst (the guys who own the BTech IP) want a universe where they can take units and have them scale properly to everything else.

This means you don't get to reduce/add crits or tonnage. Period. Otherwise, very rapidly MWO will produce variants that simply cannot function in TT due to breaking construction rules. Note how most MWO-specific variants tend to have small amounts of ammo stock vs. the larger amounts we stuff into them later?

They're being designed with compatibility with tabletop in mind, the eventual inclusion in some form in a format useful to the main game. Alex's artwork, too. One big happy system.

Otherwise, we could just throw out everything and break all the rules. But we can't. Given, I'm still in favor of just making Clantech a "tier of it's own" and using asymmetric balance like we already have in FW...but that doesn't work well with QP's mixed queues.

i think its in PGIs control to make all LBX follow the LBX10 model,
reduce LBX(2/5/20) Weight by 1 vs IS-ACs, and reduce LBX(5/20) Size by 1 vs IS-ACs,
Catalyst can always make a new LBX Line, call them AmmoLocked LBXs(LBX that cant Switch Ammo)
(also remember Clan ACs dont Exist in TT, but they do Exist in MWO)

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

i think its in PGIs control to make all LBX follow the LBX10 model,
reduce LBX(2/5/20) Weight by 1 vs IS-ACs, and reduce LBX(5/20) Size by 1 vs IS-ACs,

Which, incidentally would be the precise reverse of the deliberate change FASA made.

The LB-10X came out first and was considered OP due to it's better stats, leading to other LB-X guns being statted as the bulkier weapons they are considerably later (in real time and game time). Since they couldn't go back and re-stat the LB-10X, it remained a superior weapon ever since, the exception to the rule.

Quote

(also remember Clan ACs dont Exist in TT, but they do Exist in MWO

They actually shouldn't exist here, either- Paul's excuse that they're "placeholders" for proper LB-X is the only reason they do. Real Clan AC's are actually the (P)AC used most notably as main guns for Protomechs, but work in bigger robots as well.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 14 July 2017 - 03:08 PM.

[SirNotlag]

This idea has come up time and time again. I Really wish it would become part of the game as its not an immediate buff to Ferro it just provides more choice in how you build mechs instead of immediately going endo.

unfourtunatly the same people just shoot it down claiming, "LORE", "or its always been this way". which isnt much of an argument in my opinion. Not compared to actually balancing the game or giving choice to builds instead of just a C-bill tax.

Plus Ferro was designed to be inferiour to Endo in TT where the cost per mech is taken into account and also how rare something is to get, or difficult to repair. Ferro was cheaper to put on the mechs, easier to get your hands on it, and cheaper to repair then endo, which was why it still saw use in those games.

Endo being better than Ferro is exactly like in any RPG how a +5 sword is better than a +1 sword. The plus 5 is better in everyway but the reason there are +1 swords and +5 swords is because you had to kill a F***ing dragon to get the +5 sword. In a PVP arena game you dont put +5 and +1 swords in, it just doesn't make sense.

Edited by SirNotlag, 14 July 2017 - 03:54 PM.

[jss78]

Hm, I'm really not sure that ferro has a problem. It's worse than Endo, but then in fairly frequent cases you get to use both (most lights, many mediums, occasional heavies). Then you'll put it in and get extra weight savings without any tradeoff.

I don't think equipment that's in many cases a no-brainer has a balance issue. The stuff no-one ever uses have balance issues (hi command console).

SirNotlag, on 14 July 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

Endo being better than Ferro is exactly like in any RPG how a +5 sword is better than a +1 sword. The plus 5 is better in everyway but the reason there are +1 swords and +5 swords is because you had to kill a F***ing dragon to get the +5 sword. In a PVP arena game you dont put +5 and +1 swords in, it just doesn't make sense.

Except here, once in a while, you get to wield both swords.^^

[Andi Nagasia]

Brain Cancer, on 14 July 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

Which, incidentally would be the precise reverse of the deliberate change FASA made.

The LB-10X came out first and was considered OP due to it's better stats, leading to other LB-X guns being statted as the bulkier weapons they are considerably later (in real time and game time). Since they couldn't go back and re-stat the LB-10X, it remained a superior weapon ever since, the exception to the rule.

i understand that,
but what i was getting at is more on the Lines of Caseless Ammo for IS-ACs, vs Caseless AutoCannons,
one is an Ammo Type that gives x2Ammo but Chance of Jam, the other is its own weapon that uses Caseless Ammo,

PGI could make their Own Form of LBX that dont have Ammo Switching,
(lets call them LBS(LargeBore & SingleShot) as compared to LBX(LargeBore & XtraShot)
this would allow PGI to work in their Own Stats, and balance LBS(ShotGun)

and if Catalyst Games likes a ShotGun only LBX they could always add it to TT,
as they could always balance it with Cost and BattleValue, where we cant here in MWO,

Brain Cancer, on 14 July 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

They actually shouldn't exist here, either- Paul's excuse that they're "placeholders" for proper LB-X is the only reason they do. Real Clan AC's are actually the (P)AC used most notably as main guns for Protomechs, but work in bigger robots as well.

true, but i was just giving it as an example,
not saying these are the only ways to balance LBX, just saying its a possible option,
and they could be interesting to see, but we are getting off topic,

[kf envy]

TheArisen, on 14 July 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

Lol get reading comprehension.

This has nothing to do with players getting owned or whatever, just discussing how to make FF worth it when compared to endo.

you already have double amount of armor per ton that already makes it worth taking. and as in TT FF takes up crit space and endo takes up crit space too both save weight and both have a down side. as it is now its fine.

[Andi Nagasia]

kf envy, on 14 July 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

you already have double amount of armor per ton that already makes it worth taking. and as in TT FF takes up crit space and endo takes up crit space too both save weight and both have a down side. as it is now its fine.

what do you mean? we have double armor per Ton, but that has nothing to do with Ferro,
having x2 Armor vs TT, doesnt Change how Ferro works, it still gives the same savings ether way,

[kf envy]

Andi Nagasia, on 14 July 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:

what do you mean? we have double armor per Ton, but that has nothing to do with Ferro,
having x2 Armor vs TT, doesnt Change how Ferro works, it still gives the same savings ether way,

you only pay 1ton for 2x armor per ton it gives you more of a saving but still takes up the same number of crit as if it was not doubled it gives you double the savings.


try this. go in your mech lab an pick any mech you like to use and do really good in. and before you play just remove 1/2 of all the armor off each part of the mech. then see how the drop goes. oh head has a max armor of 9 on all mechs like on a summoner you get 5.5 tons worth of FF armor for free do to doubling that armor of all mechs


but the way it is now I feel it is fine if anything I like to go back to non double armor there is no more R&R

Edited by kf envy, 14 July 2017 - 05:24 PM.

[Khobai]

but endo gives you double the savings too

so the ratio between ferro and endo is still the same.

it hasnt changed...

[Andi Nagasia]

kf envy, on 14 July 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

you only pay 1ton for 2x armor per ton it gives you more of a saving but still takes up the same number of crit as if it was not doubled it gives you double the savings.

try this. go in your mech lab an pick any mech you like to use and do really good in. and before you play just remove 1/2 of all the armor off each part of the mech. then see how the drop goes. oh head has a max armor of 9 on all mechs like on a summoner you get 5.5 tons worth of FF armor for free do to doubling that armor of all mechs

but the way it is now I feel it is fine if anything I like to go back to non double armor there is no more R&R

um thats not how it works, Armor wasnt just Doubled, it was Doubled and its Weight halfed,
(in TT 16Points of Armor = 1Ton)(in MWO 32Points of Armor = 1Ton)

Armor Weight didnt Change so the Bonus Ferro gives didnt change,
Ferro wasnt buffed when Armor was doubled, nothing changed but Mech Health,

[kf envy]

Khobai, on 14 July 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

but endo gives you double the savings too

so the ratio between ferro and endo is still the same.

it hasnt changed...

what the tonnage pgi set for it?

[Khobai]

Quote

what the tonnage pgi set for it?

You save 5% tonnage for endo (5 tons on a 100 ton atlas)

You save about ~2% tonnage for ferro if you have max armor (~2 tons on a 100ton atlas with max armor)


The best way to make sure ferro gets used would be to have std structure make up the 3% difference. That way if you take std structure + ferro armor you end up getting the same 5% as endo.

To make up that 3% difference as an internal structure bonus, std structure would have to give about a 25% internal structure increase and lets say a 10% crit chance reduction.


It makes far more sense to balance armor/structure types as combinations rather than individually, since they always come in combinations and never individually. You cant take just ferro for example, you have to take ferro with either std structure or endo structure.

The three combinations being endo structure+std armor, std structure+ferro armor, and endo structure+ferro armor

Edited by Khobai, 14 July 2017 - 08:07 PM.

[TheArisen]

Well it looks like most people would be in favor some kind of buff to FF or std structure

[SirNotlag]

TheArisen, on 15 July 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

Well it looks like most people would be in favor some kind of buff to FF or std structure

at least the people who actually vote. That is normally the case you can get a skewed view of opinions on the forums due to a vocal minority. Its really only polls that give you an idea of how many actually think that way.

Edited by SirNotlag, 15 July 2017 - 10:21 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

SirNotlag, on 15 July 2017 - 10:20 PM, said:

at least the people who actually vote. That is normally the case you can get a skewed view of opinions on the forums due to a vocal minority. Its really only polls that give you an idea of how many actually think that way.

this is why i try to put a Poll on most of my Idea Topics,
their never 100% accurate, but i can gather some things from people who Frequent them,
1) those who like it will Vote and may Comment, but usually just say their Peace and head on,
2) those dislike it will Vote and Comment, they usually have a problem with it, which i then try to fix,
3) and those who dont really care about it too much(it doesnt affect them), they may or may not vote,

the Forums arnt unbiased but id like to think theirs an equal Spread of Bias on the Forums,
with that in mind, with a poll, i can gauge, how people see the Topic, and Concept Idea,
and whether of not i need to Change up my idea to better please the Majority,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 16 July 2017 - 07:52 AM.

[CJ Daxion]

I'd really like to see armor changes.

I forget the names, is it reflective and refractive? The ones that give a bonus verse ballistics or lasers?

[TheArisen]

CJ Daxion, on 16 July 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

I'd really like to see armor changes.

I forget the names, is it reflective and refractive? The ones that give a bonus verse ballistics or lasers?

I used to be a fan of those but after thinking about them they'd be too situational. Hardened armor would be interesting though.

[Pixel Hunter]

i think the IS ferro giving more armor fit's in with the concept of larger, heavier, and tougher IS things

[Andi Nagasia]

TheArisen, on 16 July 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

I used to be a fan of those but after thinking about them they'd be too situational. Hardened armor would be interesting though.

my God i would love Hardened armor for MWO,
though it would be akin to +50% Armor Weight for -50% Damage Taken,