458 replies to this topic

[Krovik]

For the sake of myself, TheB33f, John80sk and anyone else who ever runs the triple gauss Ilya (aka the Boomphract) please make an exception for the Ilya. It's a troll build with no armor, but its so much damn fun.

Please

[The Boneshaman]

Can we put Clan tech on IS mechs? If not will it be better off selling ALL my IS mechs and replacing them with clan?

[Mystere]

ScarecrowES, on 08 June 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

This is PGI... I mean, come on. "Balance" has always been synonymous with "nerf." It's about the highest level of thinking they can attach to a problem.

Well, that could also be because much of the player base has the same level of thinking.

What is my proof? Well, I present you the MWO forums.

[wanderer]

The Boneshaman, on 08 June 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

Can we put Clan tech on IS mechs? If not will it be better off selling ALL my IS mechs and replacing them with clan?

No and no. Especially when Clan 'Mechs are missing weapons and functionality as it is.

[Reno Blade]

The Boneshaman, on 08 June 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

Can we put Clan tech on IS mechs? If not will it be better off selling ALL my IS mechs and replacing them with clan?

wanderer, on 08 June 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

No and no. Especially when Clan 'Mechs are missing weapons and functionality as it is.

^
As it stands, the Clans will have more fire power, but the IS will have the strongest FLD pinpoint meta builds that probably still wins over anything else.
As long as IS PPCs and ACs are not changed aswell, the Clans will not be dominating.
... just too bad for any non-meta IS mech build

Edited by Reno Blade, 08 June 2014 - 09:08 PM.

[New Breed]

I just hope my money goes towards getting competent coders

[Leigus]

Why not add a half-second "lockout" to all Gauss Rifles? (If you fire another weapon, you can't fire a Gauss for .5s, if you fire a Gauss, you can't fire another weapon for .5s). It makes sense and fits canon description that a weapon of that power would briefly starve the mech of energy.

Then you could remove the goofy, non-cannon, non-physics charge-up mechanic (the Gauss Rifle still explodes so the capacitors are obviously already at a high level of charge...) You'd see more mechs mounting a single Gauss as a primary were that the case.

[Raigner]

I am very disappointed, and with the TC the CC and the weapons, this whole thing just reeks of poor planning, last minute ideas to throw something up and complete lack of testing. and in the case of the CC shear laziness. i have been fighting the whole clans DOA on arrival since the beginning but this just confirms it for me you guys have no idea what your doing.

You want me to solve your LBX problem? you got the stats right? the weapon coded?good give it 0 weight, 0 crit space cost, and attach it as a ghost weapon to every clan lbs canister shot type, so when they equip on they actually equip 2 AC's one in a phantom slot. Then when you press the toggle fire mode button it just changes the whole gun out. Same effect as switchable ammunition, but a whole lot easier. oh and put a fire prevention script in whatever weapon occupies the phantom AC slot. naturally the autocannon once switched out will weigh noting and take up no space but that's inconsequential once you actually in a match, and it would have to draw from 2 ammo pools for cluster and slug ammo but that's what you are aiming for on this weapon anyways.

Clan PPCs? you already got your mechanic in place. Most clan mechs only come with 2 CERPPC's per stock verrent let them only be able too fire 2 at the same time, and give them there actual values, what are you afraid of? it will barely deliver more damage then a guass rifle but with 15 times the heat generation. this will stop people boating them. as for the warhawk? its supposed to chain fire them anyways. give both clan ERPPCS and the IS ERPPC the same splash mechanic, this will actually give people a reason to use the IS ERPPC over the standard IS PPC. let the clans keep there 15 point core damage, this way you will not be gimping the clans work horse weapon. even at the current rate its going to take around 9 CERPPC hits to the center torso to kill a Battlemaster 10-11 for an Atlas vs the 14-15 shots it will take now.

As for the LRM's fine whatever they don't work and you haven't even started testing, my question is 2 fold if you haven't even started testing then how so you know how these LRMs will preform with no minimum range? you fear a streak 20, i believe the damage will be so spread out over the chassis you wont have to worry. but whatever not working not tested. so my second question what have you been doing? you have 6 months to get these LRMs working and you haven't even started testing them yet?

As for the Targeting Computer and Command Console. you had no idea what these weapons would do till Russ asked you last week did you? because this absolutely reeks of last minute desperation. just stat value adjustments. that's like a days worth of work testing not included. the targeting computer is supposed to change the HUD for clan weapons providing shot vectors more detailed ballistics info the targets direction and velocity and a leading cross hair for more accurate shot placement all things that the cry engine is more then capable of doing.

As for the command console you guys said yourself that that was supposed to provide advanced battlefield orders for commanders get PIP functionally with reconnaissance lances and call in off map artillery and air strikes. something you replaced with consumables. then after 2 and a half years of waiting you intrduce it as the targeting computers gimped little brother? 2 and a half years to make a beagle active probe with double the weight 4 times the price and plus 5% zoom? really? making this the opposite to the targeting computer because the IS has to have something similar in order for it to fill balanced is just lazy and cowardly. and once again tells me that this was just something slapped together.

The clans excelled at dueling and quick fast engagements on a small scale at extreme range, they were renowned for there accuracy so at least the targeting computer keeps to the theme. the Inner Sphere were better then the clans at large scale all out warfare as they have been doing it for 400 years. have the command console keep into the theme of that, have it do something or adjust something that is unique to the IS rather then be a targeting computer with 3/4th of its legs shot out form under it.

I look at all of this and i think you could do better. so much better.

Edited by raigner, 08 June 2014 - 10:16 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

darkkterror, on 08 June 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

Is anyone else wondering how a Warhawk Prime is going to manage 4 ER PPCs? At least, without turning into a molten puddle of metal.

*Raises hand*

Im seriously wondering how this mech will play out. 1 week and I will prolly spend more time with it in the training rooms then in actual battles...

[Zerberus]

ScarecrowES, on 08 June 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

I do find that arguement laughable as well. It's not like clan omnimechs get a higher heat table to deal with all the extra heat their weapons would likely generate for balancing purposes in MWO. Hell, firing 6 standard IS MLs at once is more than a lot of mechs can handle. You're not getting more than 3 alphas of that on any IS mech without pushing into overheat. The Nova is rocking 12, sure, which seams like an awful lot of firepower until you realise that in a 50-ton mech you likely can only fire half of those, and not at full rate, if you expect to not sit in shutdown after every volley. Strictly speaking, given the specs, you may not even be able to chain-fire all those MLs and get through all 12 before you overheat. That's really not an advantage.

Of course, in tabletop, 6MLs would have done enough damage to strip 2 tons of armor from a mech... which is the equivelant of 60pts of damage in MWO. That's an Atlas side torso. One volley each of the left and right arms on a Nova would have been enough to core out an Atlas through the CT with plenty of heat to spare.

Following modified tabletop construction rules without actually following tabletop gameplay mechanics is not a path to "balance."

Expect most players to drop 2/3 of that "firepower" for more heatsinks - if we're even allowed to do that. The omnimech construction rules are a little vague about how you can add or remove heat sinks.

If you`re going to use numbers, the language of truth, don`t embarrass yourself by using hyperbole (= a lie) to inflate them.

An atlas has 84 pts armor /side torso, of that most people put 70 OR MORE on the front.
It also has 124 points of CT armor, with usually only about 20 on the back.

60 Pts of damage MIGHT strip the armor off a side torso, but there`s another 40 points if IS to deal with, so all you did is piss him of.

120 dmg to a center torso is no where near enough to "core out" a (properly built) atlas. 104 (124-20 for front armor) + 62 = 166 damage needed to "core out" said mech. Its teh armor and a scratch, no more, no less.

ALL of this assuming that, unlike TT, you are actually keeping those lasers on one spot, something that most pilots regularly prove wholly incapable of.

[Zerberus]

*doublepost, but I can`t delete it mysaelf for some reason?*

Edited by Zerberus, 08 June 2014 - 10:44 PM.

[ATao]

CERPPC mechanics looks the worst atm. Damage spread and especially the part "2.5 damage will dissipate into nothing" together look like a way to create another useless weapon.

Removing splash and giving CERPPC charging mechanics of a gauss is better than this. And mind you I'm still against charging at all as it's easily countered by simple macros.

At the very least damage should not dissipate but rather transfer as 5 points to single adjacent location available.

Also is there really a necessity for splash damage? You can bump up ghost heat to make sure that only 2 CERPPCs are used at once.

And I can't agree more with what other posters already mentioned. IS ERPPC is already heavily underused due to it's heavy heat build-up. It's a very situational weapon as you can't maintain good dps with it due to overheating after just a few shots. Introducing appropriate CERPPC could give this weapon type some love it really deserves as it will take a niche of low rof but high damage weapon.


P.S.: gave the feedback above just for the sake of giving it. I strongly believe that Clan Tech should not be balanced by changing weapon stats. It is superior to IS Tech and this technical superiority is one of the main pillars of classic BT. It should be balanced via economy and/or other means that are not directly affecting mech and weapon stats.

Edited by Alexander Malthus, 09 June 2014 - 12:08 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Clan weapons and clan tech is supposed to be superior, period. Instead of "balancing" clan weapons or more like "nerfing them to the ground" you should have balanced them same way lore balances them, less clan mechs more IS mechs, plus the costs of clan equipment in R&R. But I guess you've shown already that you want your game to have nothing to do with actual BT lore except for that "A BattleTech Game" in the logo. As somebody said ... you had to put it there so people will know, because it is completely obvious from actually playing the game ... NOT.

[Onmyoudo]

PhoenixFire55, on 08 June 2014 - 11:51 PM, said:

Clan weapons and clan tech is supposed to be superior, period. Instead of "balancing" clan weapons or more like "nerfing them to the ground" you should have balanced them same way lore balances them, less clan mechs more IS mechs, plus the costs of clan equipment in R&R.

Balancing by economy and R&R just means newbies get wrecked because they don't have the millions of c-bills saved like the founders do, and hence is a terrible idea (just as it was a terrible idea previously and hence was removed).

Also, less people better mechs would never work in online play with actual people in the pilot's seat. The better mechs would win every time because they'd just have to alpha an extra once each to take down the extra 2 mechs on the IS side. In addition, they haven't figured out how to match IS vs Clans so that would take a lot of extra work/might not be possible due to population limits.

[PhoenixFire55]

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

Balancing by economy and R&R just means newbies get wrecked because they don't have the millions of c-bills saved like the founders do, and hence is a terrible idea (just as it was a terrible idea previously and hence was removed).

As if now they don't get wrecked? Because MM that puts 4 complete newbs vs me plus 3 other people I know since CB is totally "working as intended". Newbs play with newbs, veterans play with veterans, tryhards play with tryhards, everyone happy. This is a MM issue and has nothing to do with weapon balancing. And if MM is working, it is balanced that a better weapon (actual clan tech and not the crap that PGI will sell us for actual clan tech prices) costs far more than inferior weapon.

Second ... Founders aren't any different from anyone else who playes the game. All our beta savings were wiped out. Everyone had and still has the ability to grind and earn equally high amounts of c-bills in the game. Do you really think new players should be able to buy elite clan mechs after like 20 matches? You want elite equipment, earn it. Just like any other game, single player, multiplayer, doesn't matter. And again, issue of matching trial mechs vs tryhard meta is a MM issue.

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

Also, less people better mechs would never work in online play with actual people in the pilot's seat. The better mechs would win every time because they'd just have to alpha an extra once each to take down the extra 2 mechs on the IS side. In addition, they haven't figured out how to match IS vs Clans so that would take a lot of extra work/might not be possible due to population limits.

For starters I doubt it'll be as easy as you think to extra-alpha just a couple IS mechs. Population limit is (sorry) just a lame excuse. As for a lot of work ... they haven't really done a lot of work as of yet, so why not?

[Clideb50]

A lot of these changes look interesting and I'll reserve final judgment until I've seen them in the field. They do look good so far though in my opinion. (of course my opinion might be off because I'm just tired of all the pin point front load, poptarting junk that feels like it's been "play this or lose" since the highlander came out.)

As for people who are a bit upset about losing some damage due to the cerppc hitting a limb; just think of it arcing into the ground or wall (thus being wasted). Plus if I recall correctly, the devs wanted clan tech to reward better skill so I just see the arcing damage as bonus damage for a good torso shot.

[Onmyoudo]

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

As if now they don't get wrecked? Because MM that puts 4 complete newbs vs me plus 3 other people I know since CB is totally "working as intended". Newbs play with newbs, veterans play with veterans, tryhards play with tryhards, everyone happy. This is a MM issue and has nothing to do with weapon balancing. And if MM is working, it is balanced that a better weapon (actual clan tech and not the crap that PGI will sell us for actual clan tech prices) costs far more than inferior weapon.

Yeah, that's an issue as well but a slightly different one. If for example rich long term players could afford to run LRMs and LRMs were mega-powerful, but cost so much to rearm that you were basically making a loss every match meaning equally-skilled newer players without the cash were getting owned because they were priced out of using a weapons system - you think that is fair?

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

Second ... Founders aren't any different from anyone else who playes the game. All our beta savings were wiped out. Everyone had and still has the ability to grind and earn equally high amounts of c-bills in the game.

Founders was a term I used to indicate someone that's guaranteed to have been playing for a long time and has guaranteed +percentage c-bill mechs, along with premium time they may or may not have used and probably a couple hero mechs from the founder's MC. In addition the economy at the start of OB was much friendlier than it is now so anyone playing back then would likely have earned a lot more than if they played for the same period of time today.

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

Do you really think new players should be able to buy elite clan mechs after like 20 matches? You want elite equipment, earn it. Just like any other game, single player, multiplayer, doesn't matter. And again, issue of matching trial mechs vs tryhard meta is a MM issue.

Yes, I do. If that's what they want to play and buy with their 20 matches of c-bill bonus then absolutely they should be able to buy an "elite" clan mech. This is a game where buying mechs is literally the only content we have to supplement the endless deathmatch, so people should be able to buy and play whatever they want. Modules are supposed to be the "endgame" c-bill sinks, plus whatever the "epic gear" is that PGI said they were thinking about some time ago, not mechs.

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

For starters I doubt it'll be as easy as you think to extra-alpha just a couple IS mechs. Population limit is (sorry) just a lame excuse. As for a lot of work ... they haven't really done a lot of work as of yet, so why not?

Maybe it wouldn't be a couple alphas... but maybe it would. Let's put all the Lords in overpowered "elite" mechs - the Lords are "elite", right? - and sick them on a raft of pugs. It ain't gonna matter how many pugs there are, they'll be slaughtered. So even though your stance is somewhat contradictory here, the other thing you said where MM matches on equal skill gives 12 people inferior mechs and 10 people better mechs, right? Do you really think those extra 2 mechs, let's say a medium and a heavy for balance, would make that much difference? Remember Clans are already getting un-nerfed UAC20s, CERPPCs, lasers, Streak 6s, everything. A star would take down a lance significantly quicker than the lance could take them, 3 on 4. Only in situations where both teams met each other at full strength would it be a bit more equal, and even that I feel would be lopsided.

Realistically we'll never know because it's not happening.

Population limit is a fine excuse. If clan mechs are objectively superior, who's going to play IS? LARPers and... maybe newbies who can't afford "elite" clan mechs, I guess?

As for the work, well. PGI is slow and ineffective as you've implied. You think they could make the matchmaker work around this?

[PhoenixFire55]

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

Yeah, that's an issue as well but a slightly different one. If for example rich long term players could afford to run LRMs and LRMs were mega-powerful, but cost so much to rearm that you were basically making a loss every match meaning equally-skilled newer players without the cash were getting owned because they were priced out of using a weapons system - you think that is fair?

Perfectly fair if they aren't matched against each other, just as I already said. As for equal skill ... if you bring a Fiat into a touring car race do you complain about guys in Ferrari and Porsche being overpowered? Of course they are.

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

Founders was a term I used to indicate someone that's guaranteed to have been playing for a long time and has guaranteed +percentage c-bill mechs, along with premium time they may or may not have used and probably a couple hero mechs from the founder's MC. In addition the economy at the start of OB was much friendlier than it is now so anyone playing back then would likely have earned a lot more than if they played for the same period of time today.

Founders are guaranteed nothing. I know founders who played all the time for 2 years. Same time I know founders who got maybe 50 games under their belt since open beta. Also, nothing to do with economy, but rather fail matchmaker.

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

Yes, I do. If that's what they want to play and buy with their 20 matches of c-bill bonus then absolutely they should be able to buy an "elite" clan mech. This is a game where buying mechs is literally the only content we have to supplement the endless deathmatch, so people should be able to buy and play whatever they want. Modules are supposed to be the "endgame" c-bill sinks, plus whatever the "epic gear" is that PGI said they were thinking about some time ago, not mechs.

Well if you really think that 'hey-I-spent-one-hour-playing-your-game-now-give-me-all-the-best-equipment' kinda thing is good for this (or any other game) then I pity you. Even me, a guy who is saying for 2 years that PGI are shameless moneygrabs, can't agree its a good business strategy. Plus, it kills the fun. Plus, it kills the already dwindling population even further.

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

Maybe it wouldn't be a couple alphas... but maybe it would. Let's put all the Lords in overpowered "elite" mechs - the Lords are "elite", right? - and sick them on a raft of pugs. It ain't gonna matter how many pugs there are, they'll be slaughtered. So even though your stance is somewhat contradictory here, the other thing you said where MM matches on equal skill gives 12 people inferior mechs and 10 people better mechs, right? Do you really think those extra 2 mechs, let's say a medium and a heavy for balance, would make that much difference? Remember Clans are already getting un-nerfed UAC20s, CERPPCs, lasers, Streak 6s, everything. A star would take down a lance significantly quicker than the lance could take them, 3 on 4. Only in situations where both teams met each other at full strength would it be a bit more equal, and even that I feel would be lopsided.

First. Lords and PUGs have nothing to do with the point we debate. Equally skilled pilots in unequal mechs are balanced by different amounts of those mechs.

Second. Lords are only dominant for a few reasons. They choose to use comms, PUGs don't. They know a meaning of a team and teamplay, PUGs don't. They dictate the course of the match by being aggressive and fighting on their terms, PUGs don't. But, this isn't any different from any other skilled 4-man group in PUGs. The only difference is that they type the famous ggclose at the start of the match, thus the plebs (don't take offense but most times it is the only way I can describe what people are in games vs Lords etc.) is cowering somewhere in the corner, doing nothing useful, just waiting while the rest of their team who choose to resist dies to superior numbers. Mechs has nothing to do with it. My last game yesterday my team had 3 DragonSlayers + 3D in alpha lance, enemy team had Lords on 3 DragonSlayers + 3D in alpha lance. Our alpha combined for ~400 damage, theirs for ~2500. Same mechs, pretty sure they were same builds as well ... results vary greatly.

Also, I've never said 12 vs 10. Or 5 vs 8. These are the numbers that make sense lore-wise, numbers that the devs can use as a starting point for balance. Plus, if you are afraid of Clan mechs being so OP and disbalanced even in 10 vs 12 matches, then why aren't you crying about current disbalance among IS mechs? Because pilots of same skill in Victor and Awesome are perfectly balanced within current MM? All disbalance comes from one thing... matchmaker. Even if clan tech is so OP that it takes 5 IS mechs to kill one clanner, you can always make a MM that'll balance it.

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

Realistically we'll never know because it's not happening.

If they'll finfally wisen up and realize that a BattleValue system was made for TT games for a reason, then it can happen.

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

Population limit is a fine excuse. If clan mechs are objectively superior, who's going to play IS? LARPers and... maybe newbies who can't afford "elite" clan mechs, I guess?

Couple years back when we only started there was a popular poll "when clans come out which side are you gonna play" with two options - IS and Clan. Back then people knew the lore and were well aware that clans are supposed to be OP and believed that they will be OP in MWO. Poll resulted in smth like 52% on 48% (I don't remember which side got what nor does it matter).

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

As for the work, well. PGI is slow and ineffective as you've implied. You think they could make the matchmaker work around this?

We'll see. People once thought it was impossible to reach the Moon. Only a few centuries later ...

[Kmieciu]

Onmyoudo, on 09 June 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

In addition the economy at the start of OB was much friendlier than it is now so anyone playing back then would likely have earned a lot more than if they played for the same period of time today.

Have to disagree on that one. At the beginning of the OB I had to grind about 30 matches in trial STOCK mechs using SHS just to buy my first commando. That was before cadet bonus and champion mechs were introduced. Back then trial mechs earned C-Bills at a reduced rate and did not earn XP.
On a plus side one I got my COM-2D the game suddenly turned pretty easy due to lag shield and ECM.

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 June 2014 - 10:02 AM.

[Onmyoudo]

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 02:54 AM, said:

Perfectly fair if they aren't matched against each other, just as I already said. As for equal skill ... if you bring a Fiat into a touring car race do you complain about guys in Ferrari and Porsche being overpowered? Of course they are.

So only people with the cash (c-bills or MC) should bother, gotcha.

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 02:54 AM, said:

Founders are guaranteed nothing. I know founders who played all the time for 2 years. Same time I know founders who got maybe 50 games under their belt since open beta. Also, nothing to do with economy, but rather fail matchmaker.

The founders that only played 50 games aren't here to be a part of the discussion then, are they?

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 02:54 AM, said:

Well if you really think that 'hey-I-spent-one-hour-playing-your-game-now-give-me-all-the-best-equipment' kinda thing is good for this (or any other game) then I pity you. Even me, a guy who is saying for 2 years that PGI are shameless moneygrabs, can't agree its a good business strategy. Plus, it kills the fun. Plus, it kills the already dwindling population even further.

The equipment you can buy with what, 8million c-bills? isn't really a lot. You can buy and kit out one mech, if you know what you're doing and chances are you don't if you're new enough to be getting the bonus. It kills the fun in your opinion. Whether it would affect the population is anybody's guess. Limiting clan mechs to those who are space-rich just provides advantages to those already at the top.

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 02:54 AM, said:

First. Lords and PUGs have nothing to do with the point we debate. Equally skilled pilots in unequal mechs are balanced by different amounts of those mechs.

Second. Lords are only dominant for a few reasons. They choose to use comms, PUGs don't. They know a meaning of a team and teamplay, PUGs don't. They dictate the course of the match by being aggressive and fighting on their terms, PUGs don't. But, this isn't any different from any other skilled 4-man group in PUGs. The only difference is that they type the famous ggclose at the start of the match, thus the plebs (don't take offense but most times it is the only way I can describe what people are in games vs Lords etc.) is cowering somewhere in the corner, doing nothing useful, just waiting while the rest of their team who choose to resist dies to superior numbers. Mechs has nothing to do with it. My last game yesterday my team had 3 DragonSlayers + 3D in alpha lance, enemy team had Lords on 3 DragonSlayers + 3D in alpha lance. Our alpha combined for ~400 damage, theirs for ~2500. Same mechs, pretty sure they were same builds as well ... results vary greatly.

Pugs suck and are welcome to everything they get, gotcha.

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 02:54 AM, said:

Also, I've never said 12 vs 10. Or 5 vs 8. These are the numbers that make sense lore-wise, numbers that the devs can use as a starting point for balance. Plus, if you are afraid of Clan mechs being so OP and disbalanced even in 10 vs 12 matches, then why aren't you crying about current disbalance among IS mechs? Because pilots of same skill in Victor and Awesome are perfectly balanced within current MM? All disbalance comes from one thing... matchmaker. Even if clan tech is so OP that it takes 5 IS mechs to kill one clanner, you can always make a MM that'll balance it.

Yeah, IS mechs are pretty unbalanced. That should be fixed too. And it's going to be bad enough with the same kind of imbalance between the clan chassis (e.g. Dire Wolf) without all the clans stomping over the IS as well.

PhoenixFire55, on 09 June 2014 - 02:54 AM, said:

Couple years back when we only started there was a popular poll "when clans come out which side are you gonna play" with two options - IS and Clan. Back then people knew the lore and were well aware that clans are supposed to be OP and believed that they will be OP in MWO. Poll resulted in smth like 52% on 48% (I don't remember which side got what nor does it matter).

Wonder if you'd still get the same now, knowing how slow and poor balance changes have been over those couple years.

Kmieciu, on 09 June 2014 - 02:57 AM, said:

Have to disagree on that one. At the beginning of the OB I had to grind about 30 mathes in trial STOCK mechs using SHS just to buy my first commando. That was before cadet bonus and champion mechs were introduced. Back then trial mechs earned C-Bills at a reduced rate and did not earn XP. On a plus side one I got my COM-2D the game suddenly turned pretty easy due to lag shield and ECM.

Fair point, stock trial mechs were awful and the cadet bonus certainly helps. I was referring more to the actual economy once you had a mech up and running though.