77 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

I think there is pretty much an agreement by people that Ferro Fibrous in its Inner Sphere version is extremely weak and can sometimes hurt more than it helps.
It costs you a lot of crits for a really minor weight saving, and the repair cost go up considerably.

What can we do to improve it?

Here are some ideas I had, but maybe you have more:

Option 1) Lower the Repair Cost to below those of Standard Armour
This would be mostly an ecomoical saving in the long run - if repair cost are, say, halved for armour, it may be worth it for some players (especially non-Premiums). It wouldn't have any combat performance impact, which may be desirable.

Option 2) Give it the same benefits as the Clan version. That means 7 Crits and 20 % weight reduction for armour.

Option 3) Ferro Fibrous also grants damage reduction or grants you the ability to wear more armour than you could with standard armour.
One advantage could be that FF may be able to compensate for the increased damage potential by future tech advances, but that might make it mandatory in the future, which may not be desirable.)

Option 4) Lower only the Crit cost to that of the clan version (7 Crits.). So while it is only a minor gain, it also doesn't cost all that much,

[Taryys]

I would like to see ideas too.
FF is almost not worth the effort especially, because it is super expensive to maintain.

[MrPenguin]

Does anyone know how much it adds to repair cost? I'm curious.

Edited by MrPenguin, 13 November 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[Taryys]

Allow back armor max the same as front, and allow both to reach max?

[Rathe]

ooh, I really like the idea of FF being cheaper to repair. than standard. That would make it so that you get half the weight savings of endo steel, but you additionally get less repair bill. I would totally use that.

[EtherDragon]

Personally, I like option 3. For MW:O I think it would be cool if FF allowed you to have more armor than without... Aren't we talking about a 12% increase in armor for the same tonnage, for IS? So - 12% more armor for 14 spent crit spots would be a nice little investment, but not very broken at all.

If you are an Atlas, you might have 112 armor in CT-Front rather than 100 armor.

Now the real trick is - what would this change imply for the Clan version? Would we then get 20% more armor for 7 crit slots? That *might* be game-breakingly good - depending on the repair bills.

[FunkyFritter]

Let it increase potential max armor.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Here are some alternatives to make IS FF useful.

1) increase weight savings to Clan values at 20% (note Clan is still twice as good since it requires half the crits)

2) Increase total armor allocation to each spot by 12% (on top of 12% armor savings per ton)

3) decrease cost of repairs significantly (in canon, it supposedly quite easy to replace bad FF armor panels)

[Vassago Rain]

Damage reduction.

[Greyrook]

I'm not sure if it needs an advantage. If you have to choose between endo or ferro fibrous, I don't think the choice needs to be even. There are some mechs (e.g. Jenner) which can mount both upgrades, and I think it's fine if that's the place where ferro sits: it's only viable if you can use it with endo structure. The repairs are quite high, and maybe that could be tweaked, but I don't think it needs to violate canon if the reason is just "so more people use it." There has to be stuff that will only work in a few situations, that's just the nature of a game like this.

[Joseph Mallan]

No.

[Clay Pigeon]

Taryys, on 13 November 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Allow back armor max the same as front, and allow both to reach max?

Back and front utilize a shared pool.

[Devils Advocate]

Buff potential max armor, reduce the cost of the armor so it isn't double repairs. 1.5x should do.

[Scratx]

I would favor a straight damage reduction. At around 10% it's not game breaking yet lends you extra durability in combat. It may not be financially worth it (I'd keep higher repair costs) but for those battles where you want to maximize the chance to win and C-bills are a secondary concern, it would be a nice bonus.

Alternatively, make it just cost 7 crits for the current bonus. Clan version would simply give greater bonus for the same crits. This would make FF actually worth considering in an Assault mech, unlike as it is now, and gives it an actual advantage over Endo-Steel, making it no longer a no brainer to pick ES over FF. TT purists may not like it but this isn't TT and FF is something I suspect I'll never want even in a light mech because what little it gives right now isn't worth the repair bills.

Either way I think FF probably should be made cheaper to repair. Not cheaper than standard but not 2x that either... after all, don't forget that any nick in your armor is repaired at a premium with FF, unlike ES.

For that matter I've never noticed any significant structure bills, ES or not, so ES has yet another advantage over FF, that of being effectively free once you bought it.

[MrPenguin]

My question will forever go unanswered

[Salient]

reduce crit space to 7

[Galland]

Just make it cost the same to repair as standard armor. You're already paying for the upgrade to your 'Mech and the loss of crit space.

[Joseph Mallan]

Salient, on 13 November 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

reduce crit space to 7

That's Clan Tech stats.

[zorak ramone]

The implementation of FF armor is one of the areas where the TT ruleset fails. ES is always better than FF, so I would change FF to move beyond TT rules.

I'd make it so that a mech can always carry the same amount of armor tonnage whether its using FF or standard. This would mean that a FF equipped mech would not only be able to get the same amount of armor for less tonnage, but it would be able to carry more points (but not tons) of armor than a standard mech.

For example, an atlas can carry about 19 tons (IIRC) of standard armor for a total of 608 armor points. An atlas with FF armor (IIRC FF gives a 12.5% points/ton bonus) could reach 608 armor points with 16.9 tons or could mount 19 tons of armor for a total of 684 points of armor.

[Rathe]

zorak ramone, on 13 November 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

The implementation of FF armor is one of the areas where the TT ruleset fails. ES is always better than FF, so I would change FF to move beyond TT rules.

I'd make it so that a mech can always carry the same amount of armor tonnage whether its using FF or standard. This would mean that a FF equipped mech would not only be able to get the same amount of armor for less tonnage, but it would be able to carry more points (but not tons) of armor than a standard mech.

For example, an atlas can carry about 19 tons (IIRC) of standard armor for a total of 608 armor points. An atlas with FF armor (IIRC FF gives a 12.5% points/ton bonus) could reach 608 armor points with 16.9 tons or could mount 19 tons of armor for a total of 684 points of armor.

There is only one time when FF is mathematically worthwhile, and that is when you are running both endo 'and' ff.