77 replies to this topic

[Dakkath]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 November 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

No.

Agreed.

There is no need to tweak FF. It's advantages and disadvantages are already in play.

FF's saves weight at the expense of critical slots. 'nuff said.

[MustrumRidcully]

MrForeverUnansweredPenguin, on 13 November 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

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

No, just that it does.

[Taryys]

Yes, but their max is not the same.
You rear armor has a lower max than your front armor.

This would not be a huge advantage, but allow Mechs to shore up a weak back.

Clay Pigeon, on 13 November 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

Back and front utilize a shared pool.

[Rathe]

MustrumRidcully, on 13 November 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

No, just that it does.

I believe it adds double.

[WardenWolf]

It can't be anything that is outright more powerful than normal armor: it is basically impossible to mount on larger mechs, where crits are all filled up with weapons and gear, so it would give an unfair advantage to lighter mechs (who are currently in no need of buffs).

Now I could see it being a little more effective at saving weight: maybe bring it up a little closer to what EndoSteel does? *Maybe*

Personally, though, what is wrong with it now? If you want to save weight in trade for crits you start with EndoSteel. If you have more crits to burn, then you go and add Ferro - but you get less return for the space. How is this a big problem? No one is making you use it

If repair cost vs benefit is the issue, just reduce its premium on fixing cost.

[Relic1701]

Have it cost the same to replace as standard, so although it is technically an upgrade, you don't lose out in the wallet department (except for the upgrade cost).

[Solis Obscuri]

I'd increase the armor points/ton to match Clan (but leave it at 14 crits). I think that would be the least likely to break anything, make it a little more useful, and the Clan upgrade would still have the same advantage as Clan ES (halved crit requirement).

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 13 November 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[NovaFury]

Reduce the repair costs. While FF armor is technically more expensive to produce, the modularity and ease of repairs significantly reduce the maintenance cost in the mechbay.

[Zyllos]

Forcing ES to be chassis specifc is the only sure method, beyond outright modifying FF.

[Comassion]

http://mwomercs.com/...-12-more-armor/

[3rdworld]

It needs to lower weight by roughly 23.7% at max armor to as good as Endo.

[Ghogiel]

It's not a matter of making it as good as Endo..

Anyway FF I think I only have taken on my Jenner. None of my other mechs can fit it after Endo.

[Felicitatem Parco]

SInce FFA and ES take up 14 slots each, you can't run DHS, FFA, and ES at the same time, and that FFA is the least-yielding upgrade available, There are 2 ways I can see this going:

• 1). Significantly reduce the "Conversion Fee" for FFA and shunt the cost burden to Armor Repair. FFA is the lowest-yielding Upgrade and installation is less intrusive than swapping out internals, so the cost should reflect that. It can be a stop-gap upgrade for when you don't have ES or DHS yet.

OR

• 2) Increase the Armor weight savings from 12.5% to 20+%, because as things are right now ES saves you more tons in every case, every time for the same number of ctirical slots... and armor is shot away more frequently than internals, so you're basically repairing your FFA all the time, but not repairing your ES all the time.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 13 November 2012 - 12:54 PM.

[Taryys]

Yes and no.

For me I would like to see taking FF as somewhat an equal or different trade off than taking ES... partially competitive for my crit slots. Having one just plain suck and not be interesting, is ... not interesting, nor does it give us other interesting tactical choices and tradeoffs to think about... no more depth to the game choice we make between ES and FF.

Ghogiel, on 13 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

It's not a matter of making it as good as Endo..

I would prefer more expensive to install, but less expensive or equally as costly as normal armor, otherwise it is just one huge money sink, especially since it is armor which you always, always have to change which greatly increases its TCO over the life of the mech making FF an even crappier choice.

Prosperity Park, on 13 November 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

SInce FFA and ES take up 14 slots each, you can't run DHS, FFA, and ES at the same time, and that FFA is the least-yielding upgrade available, There are 2 ways I can see this going.

[Keifomofutu]

I'd just make it take 7 crit slots. This would let assaults use it if they couldn't spare the room for 14 crit. They wouldn't get as much out of it but would be more likely to be able to take it than endo.

Downside would be the repair cost of course. Although I think its too expensive to repair currently.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 13 November 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[Qarnage]

Quote

The maximum amount of protection is not changed; merely the weight of armor required to achieve that level of protection. For a unit which already has maximum armor protection, it is therefore considered a weight-saving measure, at the cost of critical space.

Quote

The weight savings for Endo Steel are greater than those saved by ferro-fibrous armor, but it is more costly and obviously more difficult to repair or add as an upgrade to a 'Mech.

— From Sarna.net

But for some reason, actually Ferro Fibrous seems to be generally more expensive than Endo Steel. The base price and repair costs for Endo Steel could be raised up, and repair costs for Ferro Fibrous could be lowered.

Edited by Qarnage, 16 November 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[Clay Pigeon]

Make it so the max tonnage of armor doesn't change, thus the total coverage can potentially increase by 12%

[Tuhalu]

Ferro-fibrous should never increase the maximum amount of armor you can have on a mech. That would make it a flat out upgrade to regular armor always. Even worse than Double Heat Sinks vs Singles.

I favor the following changes (in order of greatest effect):

• Make Endo-steel only available to mech variants that already have it, like Jump Jets.
  
• Ferro-fibrous critical slots halved.
  
• Repair costs of 1.5x regular armor.

[Keifomofutu]

Tuhalu, on 16 November 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Ferro-fibrous should never increase the maximum amount of armor you can have on a mech. That would make it a flat out upgrade to regular armor always. Even worse than Double Heat Sinks vs Singles.

I favor the following changes (in order of greatest effect):

• Make Endo-steel only available to mech variants that already have it, like Jump Jets.
  
• Ferro-fibrous critical slots halved.
  
• Repair costs of 1.5x regular armor.

Endo steel is already a flat out upgrade to regular structure. Why shouldn't ferro-fibrous be the same? In most cases you would give up the free tonnage of endo for weapons to take the 12% armor.

[EvilCow]

I would leave it as is but, unlike TT rules, allow for a greater protection up to the maximum armor tonnage for the class (12% more if I remember well).

Edited by EvilCow, 16 November 2012 - 02:23 PM.