Jump to content

Ferro Fibrous -- How To Make It Worthwhile


66 replies to this topic

#61 Kraven Kor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,434 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:21 AM

View Posthercules1981, on 16 January 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

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?


Round to nearest whole number.

0.5 tons of armor is 16 points of armor. 12% of 16 is 1.92.

So each half ton of armor would get another 2 points, 4 for a whole ton. As you got to higher amounts of armor, the rounding would be slightly different; 12% of 160 is 19.2 (ie. 19 extra points of armor for FF with 10 tons of armor.)

Edited by Kraven Kor, 17 January 2013 - 07:22 AM.


#62 Vanguard319

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,436 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:15 AM

I would point out that Endo steel has one major drawback: it is more likely to take damage than a standard structure, so it actually gimps the durability of your mech. If you want a mech that can take abuse, you should go FF, standard structure, and standard engine.

#63 Vanguard319

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,436 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 22 January 2013 - 05:31 PM

View PostThontor, on 19 January 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

endo steel is no more likely to take damage, where did you get that from? the fact it uses critical slots? sorry but that's not the case, the critical slots are treated as empty slots when it comes to critical damage, endo steel is not more likely to take damage than standard structure


Really? Maybe I was thinking of composite internal structure.

#64 General Taskeen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,737 posts
  • LocationCircinus

Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:06 PM

View PostProtection, on 11 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:


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


Yes, kinda. More feasible than raising the cap over an intended amount. I think it would be easier to add any such armor damage resistance in that way. They've already done it for certain surfaces like missile bay doors, so (I'm guessing) adding an arbitrary damage resistance wouldn't be all that difficult rather than trying to program around actually adding more armor over cap.

#65 Sandslice

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 625 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:42 PM

Except there are already two armours (at least in TT advanced/experimental rules) that give all-type damage reduction:

-Hardened armour: 8 TT (16 MWO) armour points per ton; damage reduction 50%; causes you to lose 1 run MP (in MWO terms, it could be simulated by dropping your per-engine-ratio speed from 16.2 to 13.5.) Also immune to armour piercing and more resistant to through-armour criticals.

-Ferro-lamellor(sic): 14 TT (28 MWO) armour points per ton; damage reduction 20%; on TT, can reduce damage to nil (which renders it immune to LB-X cluster ammo.) Also immune to armour piercing AND through-armour criticals. (Yes, it really is as unbalanced as it sounds, EVEN for Clan tech; ferro-lamellor is actually an amalgam of ferro-fibrous and WarShip armour.)

There are also reflective and reactive armours that are more specific.

-Reflective: Standard weight, DR 50% to energy, but take double damage from collisions and that pesky environmental damage. Also especially vulnerable to armour-piercing. (Also artillery, but we don't have that yet.)

-Reactive: Standard weight, DR 50% to missiles, and immune to armour piercing; but the armour can suffer "through armour criticals" that destroy all the armour in the affected location.

Armour piercing, for reference, refers to autocannon (and in adv/exp tech, SRM and MRM) ammo that can possibly deal critical hits / component damage even if they hit armour, regardless of the hit location roll.

#66 Protection

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts
  • LocationVancouver

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:18 AM

View PostSandslice, on 22 January 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Except there are already two armours (at least in TT advanced/experimental rules) that give all-type damage reduction:

-Hardened armour: 8 TT (16 MWO) armour points per ton; damage reduction 50%; causes you to lose 1 run MP (in MWO terms, it could be simulated by dropping your per-engine-ratio speed from 16.2 to 13.5.) Also immune to armour piercing and more resistant to through-armour criticals.

-Ferro-lamellor(sic): 14 TT (28 MWO) armour points per ton; damage reduction 20%; on TT, can reduce damage to nil (which renders it immune to LB-X cluster ammo.) Also immune to armour piercing AND through-armour criticals. (Yes, it really is as unbalanced as it sounds, EVEN for Clan tech; ferro-lamellor is actually an amalgam of ferro-fibrous and WarShip armour.)

There are also reflective and reactive armours that are more specific.

-Reflective: Standard weight, DR 50% to energy, but take double damage from collisions and that pesky environmental damage. Also especially vulnerable to armour-piercing. (Also artillery, but we don't have that yet.)

-Reactive: Standard weight, DR 50% to missiles, and immune to armour piercing; but the armour can suffer "through armour criticals" that destroy all the armour in the affected location.

Armour piercing, for reference, refers to autocannon (and in adv/exp tech, SRM and MRM) ammo that can possibly deal critical hits / component damage even if they hit armour, regardless of the hit location roll.


Most of those are not available in 3050. And experimental/advanced rules are not being used in the design of this game AFAIK.

#67 Sandslice

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 625 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:42 PM

View PostProtection, on 23 January 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:


Most of those are not available in 3050. And experimental/advanced rules are not being used in the design of this game AFAIK.

Other than Guardian ECM giving heat-free AoE stealth functions as well as Streak-jamming in excess of experimental Angel ECM, and the entire information warfare subgame being dependent on Advanced double-blind rules, of course. But that's nitpicking. ^^

Also, here are the production dates of each of the armours, along with who creates them:
-Ferro-lam: 3070 Clan Snow Raven
-Hardened: 3047 House Steiner, 3061 Clan Ghost Bear
-Reflective: 3055 House Steiner, 3059 Clan Jade Falcon
-Reactive: 3058 House Kurita, 3061 Clan Ghost Bear
And as for standard-tech armours:
-Light FF: 3067 House Marik
-Heavy FF: 3069 House Steiner
(Stealth: 3063 House Liao)

So you are correct there too! ^_^

All the same, we do need to keep in mind that such items could exist in MWO down the road - and if we're giving passive damage reduction to ferro-fibrous now, then that would affect how those other armours could be implemented. Not to mention, Clan ferro-fibrous would get more reduction at less cost if we went there.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users