43 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

As we all know, Ferro-Fibrous is nothing more than an extra way to boost more savings in weight for criticals once you have already chosen Endo-Steel. This has always been an issue in the TT, and which in turn also in MWO, that Ferro-Fibrous is made useless by itself. This could be PGI's time to take the reigns from the original creators of CBT and re-envision Ferro-Fibrous to be more of a useful upgrade to take in of itself instead of a step upgrade beyond Endo-Steel. Here is a great proposal I heard:

Ferro-Fibrous increases the points of armor per ton by 12% and total tonnage of armor allowed by 12%.

Standard Armor: 32/t
Ferro-Fibrous: 35.84/t

Atlas CT Standard Armor: 128 points
Atlas CT Ferro-Fibrous Armor: 143.36

What this does is instead of just making the maximum armor allotment be 12% lighter, it allows for 12% more, up to the maximum tonnage allowed of Standard Armor.

What this interestingly does, is that it allows mechs a choice of either adding more armor from Ferro-Fibrous only for critical slots, or reduce tonnage from Endo-Steel for critical slots. Those mechs that normally take both now, will be hard pressed to pack on the extra weight for extra armor in the current system, so should be a good trade off. It also gives mechs an option decidedly take either extra armor or extra tonnage by themselves. This gives more options to each player in the game while breathing more life into the Ferro-Fibrous upgrade. It also does not break the canon chassises/variants due to no difference in weight/critical slots.

One major issue with implementing this, is that once Clans come along, this means they will also receive the 20% lighter armor, 20% more armor points, but only at half the critical slots, which might be too much.

Figured I would throw this out there as a suggestion for Ferro-Fibrous as I think it needs a bit of work right now.

Edited by Zyllos, 21 November 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Actually, what you describe as a problem is how FF armor is supposed to work - same number of armor points (with same damage resistance per armor point) for less tonnage at the cost of critical space (and higher maintenance/repair costs).

What you describe as a solution is essentially how Hardened Armor (introduced by the FedCom in 3047, copied by the Ghost Bears during the Clan Invasion) is supposed to work - 50% damage reduction against all weapons per armor point (essentially making each individual armor point twice as tough) and nullifies armor-piercing effects from those munitions that have them (such as certain types of AC shells).
It even does this while consuming no critical spaces!

Though, Hardened Armor comes with some hefty downsides - namely, that it is twice as heavy (8 armor points per ton in TT, vs 16 for Standard Armor; translating to 16 armor points per ton for Hardened Armor vs 32 armor points per ton for Standard Armor, using MWO values), it does not allow for more actual armor points to be mounted in a given location (that is, a MWO BattleMech's head could still only have 18 armor points... even though it would act like it has 36 armor points if Hardened Armor was used), and mounting it canonically has a negative impact on a BattleMech's movement speed.

Personally, I'd prefer to see FF continue to work as originally intended, and to see Hardened Armor (with both its positive and negative aspects intact) introduced as an additional option.

Also: precisely the same topic came up almost exactly one week prior to the opening post being posted...

Edited by Strum Wealh, 22 November 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[Jabilac]

This idea has been brought up on several different threads. It makes sense to me every time I read it

[Corvus Antaka]

I totally agree. if ferro gave a 12% armour boost it would actually be useful, and it would be a real choice to take endo for the extra wieght savings, for ferro to gain 12% armour.

[Zyllos]

Strum Wealh, on 22 November 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Actually, what you describe as a problem is how FF armor is supposed to work - same number of armor points (with same damage resistance per armor point) for less tonnage at the cost of critical space (and higher maintenance/repair costs).

What you describe as a solution is essentially how Hardened Armor (introduced by the FedCom in 3047, copied by the Ghost Bears during the Clan Invasion) is supposed to work - 50% damage reduction against all weapons per armor point (essentially making each individual armor point twice as tough) and nullifies armor-piercing effects from those munitions that have them (such as certain types of AC shells).
It even does this while consuming no critical spaces!

Though, Hardened Armor comes with some hefty downsides - namely, that it is twice as heavy (8 armor points per ton in TT, vs 16 for Standard Armor; translating to 16 armor points per ton for Hardened Armor vs 32 armor points per ton for Standard Armor, using MWO values), it does not allow for more actual armor points to be mounted in a given location (that is, a MWO BattleMech's head could still only have 18 armor points... even though it would act like it has 36 armor points if Hardened Armor was used), and mounting it canonically has a negative impact on a BattleMech's movement speed.

Personally, I'd prefer to see FF continue to work as originally intended, and to see Hardened Armor (with both its positive and negative aspects intact) introduced as an additional option.

Also: precisely the same topic came up almost exactly one week prior to the opening post being posted...

Yes, I understand this.

Hardened Armor is ment to increase the number of armor points allowed (by making each armor point worth 2 points, which is no different than allowing double the amount of armor points, other than you can now have an odd number of points).

But leaving FF as is, just leaves it in the back, only being an additional upgrade after ES. I doubt the invention of FF was never ment for it to be only taken after ES. Doing this gives that option.

Also, it feels wierd that a mech that is allowed 4 tons of armor in the CT, but with FF, only allowed 3.57 tons of armor to be equipped. Like I said in the original post, this is a chance for PGI to fix a glaring issue with FF.

Plus, this does not intrude onto Hardened Armor. Hardened Armor is a HUGE boost in armor points per location in cost of weight. While FF should be a small boost in armor points and weight for critical slots.

Edited by Zyllos, 23 November 2012 - 07:54 AM.

[John Norad]

I think 12% more armor is definitely too much. It would probably make FF mandatory, due to the strong unique selling point, and that'd be a bad thing. Maybe 5%, but I guess any amount of extra armor would lead to reversed roles.

Basically, the reason for FF being inferior is the combination of less weight savings compared to ES plus considerably more repair costs.
This is no healthy system of advantages and drawbacks, it's just drawbacks.
If FF was plain cheaper than ES across the board, it would be less of an issue.

That's why I think the upgrade costs for FF should be around 1/3 that of ES. After all it's just replacing armor, not the whole 'skeleton'.
Repair costs of armor in general should be dropped and repair costs for internal structure should be upped. At the end of the day, repair costs for FF armor should be around 75% of ES on a destroyed mech.

Since the weight saving difference between FF and ES is quite small, a noticeable difference in maintenance costs should be enough to balance them.
If not, a tiny extra armor bonus could be considered I guess. But it will take some time to get proper numbers, because players won't just switch from ES to FF if they already have ES installed.

Edited by John Norad, 23 November 2012 - 09:26 AM.

[WardenWolf]

I do not think there should be a way to add armor above and beyond the normal like that. What I would be okay with is a slightly better weight savings for FF armor... but it should not be as good as EndoSteel. Select that first, then if you have more space to burn take FF.

Edited by WardenWolf, 23 November 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[Zyllos]

WardenWolf, on 23 November 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

I do not think there should be a way to add armor above and beyond the normal like that. What I would be okay with is a slightly better weight savings for FF armor... but it should not be as good as EndoSteel. Select that first, then if you have more space to burn take FF.

Then why ever take FF over ES? There needed to be some reason to take FF over ES at some point.

FF for a much smaller weight savings but more armor.

ES for a large weight savings.

For an Atlas, you basically gain 73 armor points for the same weight of armor with FF, or you can save 5t with ES. This adds a nice choice between FF and ES.

For a Jenner, you gain 27 armor points for the same weight of armor with FF, or you can save 1.75t with ES. Sense the Jenner can do both, it ends up giving an extra 27 points of armor and 1.0t extra weight (due to using an extra 0.75t of extra armor allowed by FF).

For those mechs that can equip both, having FF and ES is a very nice bonus. But for those who can only equip one, you have a choice of extra armor or weight gain. It just makes sense.

Edited by Zyllos, 23 November 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[Zyllos]

This upgrade needs a bit more visibility in the future.

[Symbiodinium]

Agreed. There may be optimized builds out there that use ferro-fibrous armor in addition to endo-steel (I haven't used any) but I'm not aware of any reason to take ferro-fibrous armor instead of endo-steel. Making ferro-fibrous able to increase the total armor of your mech at the expense of crit slots and c-bills is an interesting choice vs. endo which trades crit slots for lighter weight.

As for staying true to tabletop, just because it was broken there is no reason for it to stay broken here, especially since they're already universally doubled armor.

[Zyllos]

Symbiodinium, on 29 November 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Agreed. There may be optimized builds out there that use ferro-fibrous armor in addition to endo-steel (I haven't used any) but I'm not aware of any reason to take ferro-fibrous armor instead of endo-steel. Making ferro-fibrous able to increase the total armor of your mech at the expense of crit slots and c-bills is an interesting choice vs. endo which trades crit slots for lighter weight.

As for staying true to tabletop, just because it was broken there is no reason for it to stay broken here, especially since they're already universally doubled armor.

This was an issue in the TT, many will agree. So for PGI to take the liberity to update FF to meaningful status should be a goal they are after.

Edited by Zyllos, 29 November 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[Brandeis]

Actually, Fero-Fibrous has uses with a stock frame just as much as with an endosteel. Infact I find that Fero-Fibrous armor combined with an XL engine of the same class (XL 245 vs STD 245) often will yield a greater savings in weight than Fero-Fibrous and Endosteel, while also leaving 8 critical slots open for other equipment such as double heat sinks. I personally do not see any reason to change the way it works from the Tabletop version so I say leave it as it is.

[Jonas]

Look I like FFA and ES but its so hard to use both if your are running a Inner Sphere Mech. I would simply reduce the critical space need for each and by doing so allow both to be used on our Mechs. I know by doing this we will see the Clan's with even less bulky FFA and ES but with a tweek here and there for all of us I do believe we all fairly happy,

FFA = 14 slots new version = 8
ES = 14 slots new version = 8
Clan FFA = 4
Clan ES = 4

[Sayyadina]

What more do you people want? This Ferro Fibrous idea is absurd, you've already got twice as much armor as canon in addition to a half dozen other violations from lore that spawned 3 awesome video games (2 of which also boasted decent if not good Multiplayer.). This game is already starting to wander so far from the fold of what many of us older players know and love as Battletech that with too many more changes and you might as well slap a Microsoft label on it.

[DemonGuard]

Maybe a combination of reduced critical space and increased maximum armor could work, e.g. 3 crits for assaults, 6 for heavies, 9 for mediums, 12 for lights and increase the maximum armor allowed to CT, RT, LT by 20% (and drop the 12% armor point bonus completely).
This would also favor picking off weapon arms or legs first, instead of just aiming for the torso like it is at the moment.

I know it is not canon, i've played the TT in the 90's myself. But we are playing a PC game here and it isn't even turn based (do you want to roll two dice everytime you try to shoot a weapon?), so you have to do adjustments to get a balanced and fun game experience.

[Shae Starfyre]

I haven't read the rules in a long time, but whenever I see FF, I can't help but think that it is suppose to be a better defense against laser weapons, but suffer more from balistics.

Although I could be thinking of another game entirely.

[Lanessar]

FF armor as it stands (standard TT implementation) just shouldn't be taken - 14 crit slots for ~1 ton weight saved? And higher repair bills?

It just doesn't make sense with the other upgrades - Artemis, DHS, EndoSteel, XL engines - no one should upgrade to FF before the rest of these have been taken, and even then, I'd heavily recommend against it (if you even have the critical spaces to manage it).

Just because it was "that way in table top" doesn't mean we need to keep a dumb upgrade that way in the game.

As far as the balancing factors, you're using 14 crit slots. This is NEVER going to be used on "every build" with a 12% armor cap increase attached to it. Most assaults won't take it unless they specifically are going tank-spec. 5% increase would make it useless for the crit space usage.

[Deadoon]

Aphoticus, on 29 November 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

I haven't read the rules in a long time, but whenever I see FF, I can't help but think that it is suppose to be a better defense against laser weapons, but suffer more from balistics.

Although I could be thinking of another game entirely.

That is reflective armor.
half damage from lasers double physical damage.

I'd love to have ferro be useful as an actual armor, double costs for a 12% increase in armor for the same weight is acceptable in my books.

I am however more partial towards Hardened armor, it is one thing I think we'll need to be able to fight the clans on closer to equal terms when they arrive. and since it weighs as much as standard for the amount of protection it provides,and costs 50% more, the downside is that instead of being bulky to get that extra protection, it is heavy. It is sort of like the compact fusion engine, gyro, or heatsinks. Higher density, but smaller. You want to fit dual Large pulse lasers in your zombie wang's torso? use a compact fusion engine or gyro and a **** ton of heat sinks outside of it. And for good measure fit the front with as much hardened as you can carry, and you are no longer a wimpy zombie mech, you are a full fledged energy turret that can take a beating.

[MaddMaxx]

Aphoticus, on 29 November 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

I haven't read the rules in a long time, but whenever I see FF, I can't help but think that it is suppose to be a better defense against laser weapons, but suffer more from balistics.

Although I could be thinking of another game entirely.

I believe your thinking of Reflective/Reactive Armor. As to the OP, any increase in total allowed armor would make FF a must have. Given even weapons load outs and similarly competent pilots, he/she who has the most armor, will more often than not win a equal engagement.

Forcing players to use FF is not a good idea. A reduction of Crit slots taken might be doable though.
(yes, adding more allowable armor via FF will force everyone to use it)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 29 November 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[WardenWolf]

Zyllos, on 23 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Then why ever take FF over ES? There needed to be some reason to take FF over ES at some point.

FF for a much smaller weight savings but more armor.

ES for a large weight savings.

For an Atlas, you basically gain 73 armor points for the same weight of armor with FF, or you can save 5t with ES. This adds a nice choice between FF and ES.

For a Jenner, you gain 27 armor points for the same weight of armor with FF, or you can save 1.75t with ES. Sense the Jenner can do both, it ends up giving an extra 27 points of armor and 1.0t extra weight (due to using an extra 0.75t of extra armor allowed by FF).

For those mechs that can equip both, having FF and ES is a very nice bonus. But for those who can only equip one, you have a choice of extra armor or weight gain. It just makes sense.

No, no there doesn't. It is the *next step* to take after ES, if you have more space to burn and want more tonnage back. It does not need to equal ES in effectiveness or you are just helping light mechs (with lots of space to use) even more! I don't mind boosting it a little, as long as it stays under ES in effectiveness.

Also, remember that whatever you do now will be even more common on Clan mechs. They only need 7 crits for ES / FF, so most of them (even big mechs) have BOTH.