77 replies to this topic

[Tuhalu]

Keifomofutu, on 16 November 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

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.

Endo-steel is a weight saving option at the cost of critical slots. It does not give you extra internal structure points.. People are suggesting having Ferro-fibrous give a mech the ability to have 12% more points of armor than you are allowed to with regular armor. That's a flat out upgrade.

[bobthebomb]

option 3 seem a good start :

they should remove the weight saving part and increase the armour value by 10/30%.

[Keifomofutu]

Tuhalu, on 16 November 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Endo-steel is a weight saving option at the cost of critical slots. It does not give you extra internal structure points.. People are suggesting having Ferro-fibrous give a mech the ability to have 12% more points of armor than you are allowed to with regular armor. That's a flat out upgrade.

And having 5% of your tonnage more weapons and heatsinks isn't a flat out upgrade how?

Edited by Keifomofutu, 16 November 2012 - 02:37 PM.

[Sprouticus]

Qarnage, on 16 November 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

— 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.

I could go into the details,l but it has to do with the meta-economics of MWO. The short verison is that by making internal repairs really expensive (which they had for a while) you have HUGe swings in repair bills depending on internals damaged. Which made it difficult to regu;late the min/max net income for matches, which made the economy really difficult to manage. Same issue caused problems with engine damage.

Onto the oriigional post:

1) THEY CANNOT CHANGE WEIGHT. It breaks stock mechs, which they wont do.
2) They CAN change crit slots, but Im guessing they wont. Going to 10 or 7 crit slots might be an option, but I would be concerned about unintended consequences.
3) The WONT make Endo or ferro variant specific. This would actually be my preferred option, but oh well. I sort of understand why though, if they went by canon, it would severely limit how many mechs had ES/FF. If they didnt and just gave it to 'weak' variants, TT nazis would have a fit.


That leaves:

Reduce cost- for sure!
Reduce repairs- Either equal to or less than std armor. I like this one a lot. It is a metagame tradeoff, but armor is usually the biggest repair cost.
Increase max armor allowed- HIGHLY unlikely.


In the end, I think they will reduce the cost and repairs if they do anything. It is possible it will go to the bottom of the priority list and be ignored. It doesnt actually BREAK anything right now. Which is more I can say for the netcode....

[Tuhalu]

Keifomofutu, on 16 November 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

And having 5% of your tonnage more weapons and heatsinks isn't a flat out upgrade how?

OK. Let me clarify. It's not a SURVIVABILITY upgrade. If you get an extra heatsink or laser, you'll still die just as fast. if you get 12% more armor, you'll die slower than anyone without it. If ferro-fibrous is changed in that manner, you'll NEED to get it if at all possible to remain competitive.

Edited by Tuhalu, 16 November 2012 - 03:00 PM.

[Applecrow]

AS much as I'd LOVE to get more armor on my Atlas, I will gladly accept anything that does not allow lights to gain more armor, especially when its something that is easier to put on a smaller mech than a larger one.

[BlackSquirrel]

If you do damage reduction it will then become the new de facto/have to have it. Up the initial cost, and reduce repair.

[Rhyshaelkan]

I do not feel FF needs balancing. It is exactly as it should be. Where MWO falls apart is the departure from TT stats regarding various weapons. Which spawns from the inclusion of cycle times for weapons. That is for a different thread though.

[Vassago Rain]

BlackSquirrel, on 16 November 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

If you do damage reduction it will then become the new de facto/have to have it. Up the initial cost, and reduce repair.

And this would be bad, because...?

[BlackSquirrel]

Vassago Rain, on 16 November 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

And this would be bad, because...?

Because there would be no point in standard armor... Not really a trade off. It then become a requirement to have to compete.

[Keifomofutu]

BlackSquirrel, on 16 November 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Because there would be no point in standard armor... Not really a trade off. It then become a requirement to have to compete.

The tradeoff would be you didn't take the 5% x yourtonnage more weapons and heatskins instead. Because currently there is no real reason to not take endo steel over ff every ... single ... time.

[Khobai]

Damage reduction is a terrible idea. Light mechs are already too good as it is. They dont need damage reduction on top of lag shielding.

[BlightFang]

Tuhalu, on 16 November 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

OK. Let me clarify. It's not a SURVIVABILITY upgrade. If you get an extra heatsink or laser, you'll still die just as fast. if you get 12% more armor, you'll die slower than anyone without it. If ferro-fibrous is changed in that manner, you'll NEED to get it if at all possible to remain competitive.

A few extra tons from endosteel can give you 10% or much more dps increase or a few tons more armor that you couldn't weight in before(which could be 30% more armor or more) or a few tons of ammo which could double your damage potential. DPS would kill the enemy faster increasing your survivability. Having 30%+ armor > 12% max armor which you would put at the expense of weapons(due to weight). Having more damage potential would let you kill more enemies toward the end of the game where-as your opponents might be out of ammo(free kills).

[unwary]

That's the thing with advanced tech, it costs more to repair and requires that you actually think carefully about how you build your mechs. Endosteel, ferrofibrous, and DHS (1.4x heatsinks) are well balanced imo. Artemis and LRMs on the other are very bad at the moment.

[rgreat]

Increase maximum points of armor you can put on mech instead of weighting less.

Will make a difference.

[Khobai]

Quote

Increase maximum points of armor you can put on mech instead of weighting less.

Will make a difference.

yeah lets just make light mechs invincible too while were at it.

[Hurnn]

FF was awful in TT. So why would you think it would be a worth while upgrade in MWO? The only reason to run FF was you had crits to throw away after you bought DHS, Endo, and or an Xl engine.

[Kraven Kor]

Just make max armor be determined by tonnage, and then Ferro Fibrous gives you a few more points of armor per ton, so you end up with higher max armor with Ferro Fibrous, rather than merely saving weight for the same armor amount.

We are talking, what, an additional 3 or 4 points of armor per ton, even with MWO's doubling? But at least then it provides some benefit over Endo Steel.

ES would save tonnage. FF would increase armor total (or "save weight" if you don't max out armor tonnage.)

[Vassago Rain]

BlackSquirrel, on 16 November 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Because there would be no point in standard armor... Not really a trade off. It then become a requirement to have to compete.

There's not supposed to be a need fo standard armor if you have money. That's how this whole 'someting's better than something else'-model works.

Unfortunately, FF is useless, and will remain so until it gets actual damage reduction. The in-game description is terrible, and reads like that's what it has.

[DrSecretStache]

You guys act like 12% extra is a lot for a light. That's like, 10-20 more. That's really not much at all, unless you focus it all in one area, but then if you do that, you're still easier to kill and all the other mechs that distribute it are going to have a fun time.

I think that it should have trade-offs around ES and standard armor. As in, it should give different benefits than ES, and it should still have tradeoffs compared to standard armor, to make it more interesting. While I like the idea of cost reduction and would greatly appreciate it, it doesn't really create a trade off.

I don't think either that it should only be a weight saving option, as that's basically what ES is, and ES beats FF directly.

They should be different, so that if you're choosing one or the other, your either making a choice based on the mech you play, personal preference, or something along those lines, not just because one is better than the other.

12% reduction of damage would be interesting, for sure. If you think that's not properly balanced, an additional 12% max armor increase would have the same effect, but you'd have to put tonnage into it. Personally, I like that one the best, but I think we should look for different options as well, although none are really coming to mind... you can always mess with the numbers as those aren't strictly cannon and shouldn't make people upset too much.