Splitting Armor

[Gauntlet]

Is there some equivalent in tabletop to the damage reduction provided in HBS BT for standing ground?

Not directly. As in no 25% or 50% damage reduction.

What it did have is actually To Hit penalties for Attacker movement as well as an additional range band. So it was A LOT harder to hit as well as be hit.

 

[AncientRaig]

Supposed to? supposed to by who's standards? clearly not by HBS and the creator of Battletech Jordan Weisman's standards. That difference does matter in practice; it's something I've tested over and over again, obsessively, probably unhealthily waiting for the finished product. Quite clearly lighter mechs aren't as tanky as heavier mechs, all the mechs have had their max armor potential increased; the increase has merely brought more mechs passed the Atlas's sweetspot threshold.

I really rather like this change, the balance feels as nuanced as before, but with more role variety; I think you should give it a chance.




The OP got his information from watching a stream. I got my information from reading JSON files. Trust me, the max rear armor is capped at 120 or the mechs front cap whichever is lower for CT. For the STs it's the same but the hard cap is 110. And in my extensive testing I have found that the difference between 52 and 44 points of armor is a big deal. It's the difference between dying and surviving a hit from a big gun, and then surviving 3 more turns, because RNJesus trolls the enemy.

By the standards of it being the biggest, most heavily armed and armored mech in the Inner Sphere. It's designed to be the ultimate Juggernaut. Having lighter assaults able to be just as effective largely invalidates that. And while yes 52 vs 44 is the difference between tanking a PPC or going internal, lighter assaults SHOULD be less durable than heavier ones because they are lighter and therefore cannot carry as much armor.

You also have to take into account that this will effect the Atlas as well, so overall nothing will change in terms of durability ratio beyond things getting tougher than they should be and mechs being able to rearload and frontload at the same time.

I still think this change is bad. Having the rear armor be a separate armor pool from the front is just something I cannot agree with. Mechs being able to rearload and frontload their armor at the same time, especially when combined with the fully unlocked JJs for all chassis, is going to make multiplayer a nightmare with everyone jumping around with front & rear loaded jumpers, and making campaign more of a breeze because lol what's the risk of getting shot in the rear when you easily have enough rear to tank an AC20 without reducing your front at all?

 

[Rhodium]

And you should have to make that choice.

It's not really a choice. I say again. Unless they've suddenly thrown this limitation out the window - which I doubt they have since beta - rest assured you will never ever, ever, ever... ever, ever, never be able to raise your back armor beyond 120 points.

So you get through it a bit faster but you're still punching through the EXACT same amount of armor as you would be from the front.

But the number of points of armor is arbitrary isn't it? Isn't it all about how soon you can breach the armor and kill the target? Even if the enemy does have equal armor front and back, if they brace a lot you will be drilling through armor up to TWICE as fast.

Yeah, I noticed that. Sorry about that. I did go back and remove it as I saw that it could be construed like that.

I, personally, don't feel that lighter assault mechs are fine and that the Atlas, being 100 tons, deserves its place as "King of the Battlefield". Most of the 100 ton mechs are equal to the Atlas in staying power, as they should be due to them being in the same weight class. You should suffer a slight decrease in durability. And you do due to the IS/Armor ratio. Allowing for the same amount of armor on the back as the front, without needing to split it, in my opinion, goes against the spirit of the game. And doesn't really add anything to the game but takes away, or severely diminishes, one of the tactical aspects of the game. At least in my eyes.

The way I see it, stock mechs will remain as they are, but cunning mercs with big pocketbooks and wicked good techs can now find ways to layer more armor onto their mechs trunks, similar to Hardened Armor, but to a lesser degree. The King Of The Battlefield will remain king yet because of his pod space, and his ability to be that durable while bringing bigger guns. This simply allows more shrimpy assaults to specialize into that uber-tank role, whereas the stock Atlas gets to have that occupy that role while also being a well-rounded generalist.

In my experience, this actually does lead to a healthy dose of extra build diversity, without damaging balance.

 

[kvetcha]

Not directly. As in no 25% or 50% damage reduction.

What it did have is actually To Hit penalties for Attacker movement as well as an additional range band. So it was A LOT harder to hit as well as be hit.

I guess I don't see much problem with the armor rules in HBS BT being different if hitting an enemy from behind still allows you to bypass the enormous damage reduction that entrenchment provides, since that's not a tabletop mechanic to begin with. Feels like six of one, half dozen of the other.

 

[Rhodium]

By the standards of it being the biggest, most heavily armed and armored mech in the Inner Sphere. It's designed to be the ultimate Juggernaut. Having lighter assaults able to be just as effective largely invalidates that. And while yes 52 vs 44 is the difference between tanking a PPC or going internal, lighter assaults SHOULD be less durable than heavier ones because they are lighter and therefore cannot carry as much armor.

You also have to take into account that this will effect the Atlas as well, so overall nothing will change in terms of durability ratio beyond things getting tougher than they should be and mechs being able to rearload and frontload at the same time.

I still think this change is bad. Having the rear armor be a separate armor pool from the front is just something I cannot agree with. Mechs being able to rearload and frontload their armor at the same time, especially when combined with the fully unlocked JJs for all chassis, is going to make multiplayer a nightmare with everyone jumping around with front & rear loaded jumpers, and making campaign more of a breeze because lol what's the risk of getting shot in the rear when you easily have enough rear to tank an AC20 without reducing your front at all?

But your point is moot by virtue of all mechs getting a buff in armor potential. Relativistically, nothing changes, but in this balance climate, it does pull more assault up past a certain sweet spot, which I think is a good thing. I also think you vastly over-estimate how much of a detriment this is to balance. I've tried making front back loaded jumpers and they are absolutely anemic with weapons. They don't work well unless their job is just to tank. The risk of lethal backshots were never at near the top of the list that made things challenging for me in this game, I guess they were for you. Never the less, protecting against potential backshots still has an opportunity cost, and thats enough for me.

I've done a lot of custom matches, the balance is still good with this change, and believe me I love to abuse mechanics to test these things out.

 

[GenTask]

Not directly. As in no 25% or 50% damage reduction.

What it did have is actually To Hit penalties for Attacker movement as well as an additional range band. So it was A LOT harder to hit as well as be hit.

Trees, buildings, and other debris can reduce damage in Table Top.

But yeah, what @Gauntlet said - the more equivalent to reduced damage, while not standing with a building or on trees, etc. would be simply to-hit penalties on open terrain. Prone+Hull Down is the best for that, which makes you nigh unhittable with a hex height 1 in front of your vehicle/mech. The equilavent of the Mech pilot only having the arm with the weapon visible firing on an opponent or a tank with only the turret like this and this in rl, simulating a dug-in position.

 

[Gauntlet]

It's not really a choice. I say again. Unless they've suddenly thrown this limitation out the window - which I doubt they have since beta - rest assured you will never ever, ever, ever... ever, ever, never be able to raise your back armor beyond 120 points.

You're missing the point.

It has nothing to do with increasing rear armor past 120 points. What it does have to do with is the fact that, for example, I have 80 points of armor for my center torso. In the old world, I'd have to decide how to allocate those armor points. But the hard and fast rule would be that my front and rear center torsos could not have more than a total of 80 points.

In the current scenario, it's possible to have 80 points on my front as well as 80 points on my rear.

That's what I'm having a, minor, issue with.

But the number of points of armor is arbitrary isn't it? Isn't it all about how soon you can breach the armor and kill the target? Even if the enemy does have equal armor front and back, if they brace a lot you will be drilling through armor up to TWICE as fast.

This is true. And perhaps the addition of damage reduction in HBS Battletech has altered the dynamic. Changing it from "rear armor is(can) be thinner" to "rear armor is(can) be as thick as front but you're now by-passing all the damage reduction that's in place".

If that's the case, I kind of wish they had just added more to-hit penalties and removed the damage reduction all together.

Granted, this little hitch isn't going to keep me from playing and enjoying the game. It's just one more of those "little things" . . .

The way I see it, stock mechs will remain as they are, but cunning mercs with big pocketbooks and wicked good techs can now find ways to layer more armor onto their mechs trunks, similar to Hardened Armor, but to a lesser degree. The King Of The Battlefield will remain king yet because of his pod space, and his ability to be that durable while bringing bigger guns. This simply allows more shrimpy assaults to specialize into that uber-tank role, whereas the stock Atlas gets to have that occupy that role while also being a well-rounded generalist.

In my experience, this actually does lead to a healthy dose of extra build diversity, without damaging balance.

I disagree but that's the nature of things.

Stock Mechs will only remain so for as long as the Merc Commander has to pinch pennies. And they won't remain stock in PvP at all. Not unless that is the mode selected. And this is pretty much were I see this becoming in an issue.

You don't have to be a cunning merc with a big pocketbook (PS: I haven't heard that term used in a long, long time. ) you just have to bop on over to the mechlab and make the magic happen.

Do I think it will become a big issue? Probably not. But as I said before, it's just one of those little things that make me scratch my head and go "why"?

I guess I don't see much problem with the armor rules in HBS BT being different if hitting an enemy from behind still allows you to bypass the enormous damage reduction that entrenchment provides, since that's not a tabletop mechanic to begin with. Feels like six of one, half dozen of the other.

In a way it is. But for me, it's just another deviation that makes me wonder why they chose to do so.[/QUOTE]

 

[GenTask]

Stock Mechs will only remain so for as long as the Merc Commander has to pinch pennies. And they won't remain stock in PvP at all. Not unless that is the mode selected. And this is pretty much were I see this becoming in an issue.

.

For the first point in Single Player, some of us (like me) will likely play 'pure' Stock as a challenge in one game or several, and different playthroughs enforcing different rules on what I do. I forsee selling most salvage myself if none of my current Mechs use what I have found and use that extra cash instead on upgrading the Argo or other expenses. One thing I'm wondering though is how variants work in Single Player, if they are entire chassis to be bought/found or if you have to modify them into a canon variant - at least in MP there were individual variants per chassis.

 

[kvetcha]

In a way it is. But for me, it's just another deviation that makes me wonder why they chose to do so.

That's fair. My exposure to the universe was through the Genesis game + MechWarrior + the Saturday morning cartoon, so I'm less picky about the minutae. But I can sympathize with the traditionalist perspective.

I wonder if they determined it's less viscerally satisfying to land fewer hits but do more damage versus hitting more but with contextually reduced effectiveness?

 

[Gauntlet]

For the first point in Single Player, some of us (like me) will likely play 'pure' Stock as a challenge in one game or several, and different playthroughs enforcing different rules on what I do. I forsee selling most salvage myself if none of my current Mechs use what I have found and use that extra cash instead on upgrading the Argo or other expenses. One thing I'm wondering though is how variants work in Single Player, if they are entire chassis to be bought/found or if you have to modify them into a canon variant - at least in MP there were individual variants per chassis.

Yeah, not sure how variant salvage is going to work. That hasn't been explained yet.

And that's also why I pointed out my concern for MP instead of single-player. I know a lot of these things we see as "issues" are only issues when it concerns MP and not the single player game.

That's fair. My exposure to the universe was through the Genesis game + MechWarrior + the Saturday morning cartoon, so I'm less picky about the minutae. But I can sympathize with the traditionalist perspective.

I wonder if they determined it's less viscerally satisfying to land fewer hits but do more damage versus hitting more but with contextually reduced effectiveness?

It's entirely possible. I know that's why they decide to go with the turn order and combat mechanics. As well as removing one of the range bands and most of the to-hit penalties.

 

[Rhodium]

You're missing the point.

It has nothing to do with increasing rear armor past 120 points. What it does have to do with is the fact that, for example, I have 80 points of armor for my center torso. In the old world, I'd have to decide how to allocate those armor points. But the hard and fast rule would be that my front and rear center torsos could not have more than a total of 80 points.

In the current scenario, it's possible to have 80 points on my front as well as 80 points on my rear.

That's what I'm having a, minor, issue with.

I was just trying to be clear it seemed as though some people hadn't understood what I'd said the first time. They were just going off what the OP said.

Anyways, I've always found that though Battletech has been rather strong across the board with its balancing choices, its got a few weak points. One of those for me has always been how heavily it leaned on armor caps to balance the chassis. With customs you rarely if ever didn't want to max out your armor.

I never thought there shouldn't be armor caps, don't get me wrong, but I've always felt that the game could have left balancing that a little more to tonnage opportunity costs, let armor start to get you diminishing returns.

After having played with the beta, I personally feel as though HBS has eliminated this weakpoint by decoupling the front and back armor caps.

And from an immersion standpoint, I don't even feel like anything was lost: after all, armor points are an abstraction on how many plates/layers the mechs facings can mount, and to me it never made sense that the rear facings plate count would be affected by the front's.

From a diversity/customization standpoint I'm happy with the extra diversity, and I actually find it immersive that no main line mass produced mech has the max possible armor. Max armor feels like it should be an unoptimized niche custom mech thing.

This is true. And perhaps the addition of damage reduction in HBS Battletech has altered the dynamic. Changing it from "rear armor is(can) be thinner" to "rear armor is(can) be as thick as front but you're now by-passing all the damage reduction that's in place".

If that's the case, I kind of wish they had just added more to-hit penalties and removed the damage reduction all together.

Granted, this little hitch isn't going to keep me from playing and enjoying the game. It's just one more of those "little things" . . .

I don't think your going to see max back armor (even up to the 120 cap) very often. It's not worth it to go much past stock back armor. It's going to be more about the opportunity to drop a heatsink and pad out your front numbers without dropping your stock rear armor.

I disagree but that's the nature of things.

Stock Mechs will only remain so for as long as the Merc Commander has to pinch pennies. And they won't remain stock in PvP at all. Not unless that is the mode selected. And this is pretty much were I see this becoming in an issue.

You don't have to be a cunning merc with a big pocketbook (PS: I haven't heard that term used in a long, long time. ) you just have to bop on over to the mechlab and make the magic happen.

Do I think it will become a big issue? Probably not. But as I said before, it's just one of those little things that make me scratch my head and go "why"?

I can understand that. That's how I felt with being able to retreat and have the mechs i lost in the battle shipped back to me by the enemy. Ultimately I conceded to use some self-imposed house rules, and now I feel better about the whole thing.

It probably wouldn't be hard to do the same here.

Also when I was talking about stock mechs, I meant that the AI is going to be using mostly all stock mechs, so its still going to feel special in SP. And MP isn't going to be a competitive system at launch anyway.

 

[Rhodium]

And that's also why I pointed out my concern for MP instead of single-player. I know a lot of these things we see as "issues" are only issues when it concerns MP and not the single player game.

The only way I forsee it being an issue in MP is that it might perturb some people that their opponents are using mechs that they feel are not-canonically valid. Otherwise, I'm pretty certain that this armor change isn't going to pose a problem for multiplayer balance. Stock fights won't be affected, and non-stock fights will have a meta just as diverse as the game would be without this change; in fact I dare to suggest it might be more diverse.

 

[Trog16]

Such an interesting argument. I don't like the feel of this change, and also realize that it is just another weight penalty if you want to make a true 360 brawler all armored. There are still good tactical reasons to flank and get behind mechs, and once we are in the lab I think it will all work it self out as we struggle to min/max with the salvage system.

So I am going to wait for the game, again I don't like the change and have confidence it will play fine in the game.

 

[Gorski123]

-It would be nice to get a response from HBS. This could be a bug. Has anybody seen a streamer over armor a torso on another mech?

-I was already toying with the idea of a sacrificial Atlas for difficult story missions. Now it will have 24.5 tons of armor and probably an advanced gyro to keep from toppling over in difficult positions. Baby's got back!!

-I agree with the poster, forgot to quote, who said max armor was almost required for the old meta and that he liked that we have a choice now. I can see a lot of players modding the hunchback to add 1.5 tons to the right torso, but how many will downgrade to an AC10 to get the extra 4.5 tons of torso armor? I know it's not cannon, but still interesting.

-In the bitter end, we are all paid professionals. Some will just specialize more at taking it in the rear.

 

[Rhodium]

Such an interesting argument. I don't like the feel of this change, and also realize that it is just another weight penalty if you want to make a true 360 brawler all armored. There are still good tactical reasons to flank and get behind mechs, and once we are in the lab I think it will all work it self out as we struggle to min/max with the salvage system.

So I am going to wait for the game, again I don't like the change and have confidence it will play fine in the game.

Most people don't like change unless its giving them something they want. But looking at this change from a standpoint that is objective as is possible for a subjective human being, I'm sure it's going to be fine, as you say.

Most of you are just now realising this change exsists. I've been aware of it and exploiting it since beta 2, and i can say with confidence that it doesn't soil the classic battletech experience, or invalidate any preexisting designs (well, not any more than customs normally invalidate subpar stocks . Staples like the Hunchbacks and Atlai don't need modification to keep up.)

 

[Rhodium]

-It would be nice to get a response from HBS. This could be a bug. Has anybody seen a streamer over armor a torso on another mech?

-I was already toying with the idea of a sacrificial Atlas for difficult story missions. Now it will have 24.5 tons of armor and probably an advanced gyro to keep from toppling over in difficult positions. Baby's got back!!

-I agree with the poster, forgot to quote, who said max armor was almost required for the old meta and that he liked that we have a choice now. I can see a lot of players modding the hunchback to add 1.5 tons to the right torso, but how many will downgrade to an AC10 to get the extra 4.5 tons of torso armor? I know it's not cannon, but still interesting.

-In the bitter end, we are all paid professionals. Some will just specialize more at taking it in the rear.

Given how it was written into the JSON files, I don't think its a glitch. Its like that for all mechs in the beta files under chassis data.

 

[Exemplar Voss]

Yeah, not sure how variant salvage is going to work. That hasn't been explained yet.

It has. Variants are basically their own thing as far as salvage is concerned, so if you want an -AL Centurion (rather than an -A) you've got to find 3 -AL salvage bits.

 

[Gorski123]

In Cohh's last video he acquired a centurion. It's side rear torsos were capped at 110. The front side torsos were capped at 120. When he assembled this mech, the combined front/rear side torsos were just over 120.

 

[RealCadaver]

Did not know about this until now. I actually like it though. The TT rule was an artificial constraint. There is no reason for it other than an attempt to force players to front load. As this is not the TT and play has been balanced with the change in mind it should be fine. I get why purists don't like it, but again this is not TT. It is meant give you a TT "feeling" when playing, but that's not the same thing as actually playing TT. Just my 2 cents...

 

[Gauntlet]

It has. Variants are basically their own thing as far as salvage is concerned, so if you want an -AL Centurion (rather than an -A) you've got to find 3 -AL salvage bits.

Thanks for the info. I either missed it or forgot about that. (More likely forgot . . )