66 replies to this topic

[Kraven Kor]

Fut, on 09 January 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Thanks for responding.

It doesn't make sense to me in a realistic way (all 50 tonne mechs, regardless of anything/everything else can only have X amount of armor... That seems very arbitrary), but I suppose it's just one of those games mechanics that doesn't correlate directly to real life.

If it is a weight restriction, of sorts, people should be able to go balls-to-the-walls crazy with armor, but then only have enough weight left over for a small weapon. It'd allow for more customization of Mechs overall... But that's a conversation for another day and another thread.

Again, thanks for your help, Thontor.

In the Lore / Canon, a given mech variant had X amount of armor.

There were rules for modifying mechs, and then rules for constructing mechs. For the sake of simplicity, these rules were largely interchangeable.

Those GM's who were nuts about canon mechs would simply not allow for modifications; you have the base armor of that variant.

My group, however, said "@#$% that, all mechs should have max armor," ignored the text about how rare modified mechs were, went hog-wild building a better robot, and the rest is history.

[Sandslice]

Rejarial Galatan, on 20 November 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

idk man, my atlas dropped a few tons when I made the FF switch from standard armor...

3 tons. If you'd switched to endo instead, you would have dropped 5.

[sC4r]

agree with OP

as of now there is absolutely no point in picking up FF over Endo... i counted it and endo always saved more tonnage than ferro did even on atlas

[Protection]

I figure a lot of people would like to have reason to consider one or the other, rather than having one obvious optimal choice.

[TungstenWall]

I have an idea Not to say that I don't like the 12% more armor. (and i prefer 12% more armor)

The multiple layers that make up FF armor have an unintended (but not unwelcome) effect as it helps insulate the mech from outside heat sources (Ambient Temp, flamers, lasers, est.)

Edited by TungstenWall, 09 January 2013 - 09:26 PM.

[Kristina Sarah McEvedy]

Here's an idea: Reactive Armour Blending and Reflective Armour Blending.

Both require you to have Ferro Fibrous Armour equipped, you can only have one type equipped, and it costs quite a bit to add onto your Ferro Fibrous Armour.

Reactive Armour Blending alters the consistency of the Ferro Fibrous Armour slightly, reducing the damage the Mech receives from Ballistic Weapons, however having absolutely no added bonus against Energy Weapons or Missile Weapons.

Reflective Armour Blending alters the consistency of the Ferro Fibrous Armour slightly, reducing the damage the Mech receives from Energy Weapons, however having absolutely no added bonus against Ballistic Weapons or Missile Weapons.

This would allow the basic Ferro Fibrous Armour to remain as a cheap alternative to Endo-Steel, but also has upgrade options for those that want that bit of extra protection at an increased C-Bill value without providing an overall boost to armour effectiveness in across the board.

[hercules1981]

I agree with the 12% extra armor some1 said early in this topic endo steel will free up more tonnage so just do that at this point or make ff only 7 critical slots witch is half endo steel I think. Whatever the slot # is make it half endo steel or give the 12% bonus with ff any1 would take endo over ff and u will not have any room for weapons if u take both right now

[ParasiteX]

Heres another thought. Now lets imagine you would be able to add 12% extra armor with FF.

Now remember that FF is lighter, but much bulkier than standard armor. Now if we where to some how magically mount 12% extra armor, of something that's bulkier than standard armor.. we would end up with mechs looking like the Marshmallow Man..

[Tharkan Stuermer]

Sorry, but I think, the thread is just a very big QQ-thread à la 'my Assault needs another M-Laser, but it doesn't have the tonnage'. Seriously, any buffs of FF would buff almost exclusively light and medium 'Mechs, which can mount both ES and FF. There is absolutely no need to do that, since some designs like the Raven L or the Cicada M are already seriously overpowered, thanks to the ECM-systems.

In addition, FF is also not supposed to be an alternative to ES, like the XL-engine isn't supposed to be an alternative to ES, either. The only thing that should be changed, is the price of ES, which is, as far as I am concerned, far too low.

[Ryken]

I would also like to see FF armor increase the armor cap by 12%

ParasiteX

"Now remember that FF is lighter, but much bulkier than standard armor. Now if we where to some how magically mount 12% extra armor, of something that's bulkier than standard armor.. we would end up with mechs looking like the Marshmallow Man.."

Wrong. It bulks inwards, that is why you sacrifice 14 slots.

Edited by Ryken, 10 January 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[ParasiteX]

Ryken, on 10 January 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

I would also like to see FF armor increase the armor cap by 12%

ParasiteX

"Now remember that FF is lighter, but much bulkier than standard armor. Now if we where to some how magically mount 12% extra armor, of something that's bulkier than standard armor.. we would end up with mechs looking like the Marshmallow Man.."

Wrong. It bulks inwards, that is why you sacrifice 14 slots.

Yeah which is how its initially balanced. But now you proposing it magically springs even more armor. The added bulk is indeed pushed internally. But now youre all supporting we add even more armor to that? When the added bulk is already pushed internally?

Fact of the matter is. FF is not supposed to be an alternative to Endo like has been stated several times already.

The main problem right now is that Endo-steel upgrade is so cheap.. for a process that involves completely replacing the entire skeleton structure of a mech....

Once they re-add repair and rearm again. And with proper high costs of repairing endo steel skeleton, then you'll suddenly find Ferro to be a pretty nice alternative to Endo.

Also.. theres Light Ferro that will be released in the future. Not to mention clan FF, which is far superior to IS FF.

Quoting Sarna

Quote

While the weight savings for Endo Steel are greater than those saved by Ferro-Fibrous armor, its use is hampered by the extremely low number of orbital factories in existence, significantly driving up costs due to low availability. Further, as it makes up the skeleton of a 'Mech, adding it to existing 'Mechs generally requires lengthy factory level refits, and in general makes field repair more difficult than standard skeletons.

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.

Edited by ParasiteX, 10 January 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

An Atlas with FULL armor is 614 pts. Add 12% and you have 688 (rounded up). That is 74 extra points. If allowed to distribute as one saw fit on the Chassis, it would indeed be ridiculous.

[Kraven Kor]

MaddMaxx, on 10 January 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

An Atlas with FULL armor is 614 pts. Add 12% and you have 688 (rounded up). That is 74 extra points. If allowed to distribute as one saw fit on the Chassis, it would indeed be ridiculous.

It would have to be evenly distributed I would imagine - FF would increase the maximum Armor of every location by 12%.

So if you could put 100 armor total on CT, you can now do 112 - 8 more on front, 4 more on rear.

It isn't as OP as it sounds.

[Protection]

Just enough to take one extra Gauss round to the CT. And that would be 14 crits on an Atlas - a pretty hefty investment for a mech of that size. And in exchange for the 5 tons you would have saved with Endo Steel. Seems reasonable to me.

[Fut]

MaddMaxx, on 09 January 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

The BBB called. Your assertion is incorrect. Please recheck your data.

Well I've already admitted in this thread that my understanding of FF was incorrect, so you're a bit late at pointing this out.

But I do like how you conveniently decided to not comment on the fact that Max Armor is not currently a "must have", nor would it be if FF actually did provide a 12% bonus to max armor like you claimed.

Edited by Fut, 10 January 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Kraven Kor]

Fut, on 10 January 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Well I've already admitted in this thread that my understanding of FF was incorrect, so you're a bit late at pointing this out.

But I do like how you conveniently decided to not comment on the fact that Max Armor is not currently a "must have", nor would it be if FF actually did provide a 12% bonus to max armor like you claimed.

It is not a "must have" but I'm betting 80% or more are doing max armor or just a few points shaved off to give another 1/2 ton or so.

[MaddMaxx]

Fut, on 10 January 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Well I've already admitted in this thread that my understanding of FF was incorrect, so you're a bit late at pointing this out.

But I do like how you conveniently decided to not comment on the fact that Max Armor is not currently a "must have", nor would it be if FF actually did provide a 12% bonus to max armor like you claimed.

One can't be monitoring this stuff 24/7 ffs. As for those not running near Max armor, they would just love a Free 12% to help offset the fact they skimped to outfit those extra weapons.

So am I to understand that it is agreed that if the 12% saving in weight was indeed more armor via FF, it would "have" to be APPLIED to the Mechs armor right?

There would be no other use for the weight saving, as it is now a generic savings and can be re-applied as the player sees fit.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 11 January 2013 - 08:18 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Increasing the armor cap beyond what a stated amount like 600/500 is, etc., wouldn't work. It would be easier to artificially give FF 12% extra damage reduction per pt of armor and that's it. That would make it kind of similar to other armor types in BT that actually do have damage reduction. So 1pt of SA armor stops 1 Damage. 1 pt of FF stops 1.12 damage.

[Protection]

General Taskeen, on 11 January 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

Increasing the armor cap beyond what a stated amount like 600/500 is, etc., wouldn't work. It would be easier to artificially give FF 12% extra damage reduction per pt of armor and that's it. That would make it kind of similar to other armor types in BT that actually do have damage reduction. So 1pt of SA armor stops 1 Damage. 1 pt of FF stops 1.12 damage.

Wouldn't that be the exact same thing, mathematically?

[hercules1981]

Protection, on 11 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Wouldn't that be the exact same thing, mathematically?

Yes it would be the same so really it would come down to how pgi would think it would be easier to code that in the game.
Add more points total or have a 12% bonus damage threshold per point or reduce damage 12% from weapons how ever u want to word it. I'm sure 1 way would b easier to code the game for then the other. I'm guessing just add 12% more armor points to each location would b the easiest way to go but then again a % may not round out to a full extra point so what happens then?

Edited by hercules1981, 16 January 2013 - 03:07 PM.