431 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Scout Derek, on 19 May 2015 - 10:17 AM, said:

Well, hope you guys have the time and dedication...

I'll be counting...

8 hours a day minimum 5-7 days a week.

[Andi Nagasia]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 May 2015 - 10:16 AM, said:

You think this is a Long Argument? My Family can carry an argument for years! This is amateur level.

i think Scout Derek was getting at we need to get back on topic, which i agree,


so do you Guys think C-ACs(AC/UAC/LBX) should get,

1) Shells per C-ACs Burst reduced to 2(perShot)?
-C-AC2= 2shots@1DamageEach(Ammo is 150, didnt Change)
-C-AC5= 2shots@2.5DamageEach(Ammo Changed to 60)
-C-AC10= 2shots@5DamageEach(Ammo Changed to 30)
-C-AC20= 2shots@10DamageEach(Ammo Changed to 14)
-(Ammo counts based on IS AC Ammo Counts x2)

2) Velocity increased on all C-ACs?
-C-AC2= Velocity increased to 3200(1Damage per shell)
-C-AC5= Velocity increased to 2400(1.6Damage per shell)
-C-AC10= Velocity increased to 1600(2.5Damage per shell)
-C-AC20= Velocity increased to 1200(4Damage per shell)

3) Burst decreased on all C-ACs?
-C-AC2= Burst decreased to 0.30 from 0.60(for all Shells to Fire)
-C-AC5= Burst decreased to 0.35 from 0.70(for all Shells to Fire)
-C-AC10= Burst decreased to 0.40 from 0.80(for all Shells to Fire)
-C-AC20= Burst decreased to 0.45 from 0.90(for all Shells to Fire)

4) Other Please Post
Edit-

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 19 May 2015 - 10:28 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Almost ALL AutoCannons are supposed to burst-fire. Some are supposed to fire streams of a hundred bullets!

If i were in charge, i would make IS ACs burst fire too; however, they would fire 2,2,3 and 4 bullets, with much less time between each shot and faster than in Clan UACs; then, i would buff make Clan UAC/s, but they would not get as much velocity etc. as IS ACs, and they would have more bullets (2,3,4,5 as they are now). This way, IS ACs would still be almost pinpoint, but still require a bit more skill, while CUAC/s will still require more skill but should spread their damage a bit less...

Lot of testing should tell what the best values are.

But for some reason, i know it will never happen ...

Clan ACs? I do not even care about them, to be honest. They should not even exist, they are just placeholders. For all i am concerned about, i am happy if they are the worst weapons in the game

Edited by CyclonerM, 19 May 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Andi Nagasia, on 19 May 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

i think Scout Derek was getting at we need to get back on topic, which i agree,


so do you Guys think C-ACs(AC/UAC/LBX) should get,

1) Shells per C-ACs Burst reduced to 2(perShot)?
-C-AC2= 2shots@1DamageEach(Ammo is 150, didnt Change)
-C-AC5= 2shots@2.5DamageEach(Ammo Changed to 60)
-C-AC10= 2shots@5DamageEach(Ammo Changed to 30)
-C-AC20= 2shots@10DamageEach(Ammo Changed to 14)
-(Ammo counts based on IS AC Ammo Counts x2)

2) Velocity increased on all C-ACs?
-C-AC2= Velocity increased to 3200(1Damage per shell)
-C-AC5= Velocity increased to 2400(1.6Damage per shell)
-C-AC10= Velocity increased to 1600(2.5Damage per shell)
-C-AC20= Velocity increased to 1200(4Damage per shell)

3) Burst decreased on all C-ACs?
-C-AC2= Burst decreased to 0.30 from 0.60(for all Shells to Fire)
-C-AC5= Burst decreased to 0.35 from 0.70(for all Shells to Fire)
-C-AC10= Burst decreased to 0.40 from 0.80(for all Shells to Fire)
-C-AC20= Burst decreased to 0.45 from 0.90(for all Shells to Fire)

4) Other Please Post
Edit-

I think Clan UACs should be FLD firing double rate of fire in double tap mode.

[nimdabew]

Why not make autocannons like this? Make different rates of fire, tweak damage per shell, and make jam chance different for both clan and IS auto cannons and ultra auto cannons. Ultras just fire FASTER than their regular versions. Also, make carrying a lot of ammo important because the auto cannons will chew through the ammo fast.

Fast forward to 1:35

Edited by nimdabew, 19 May 2015 - 11:21 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

nimdabew, on 19 May 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

Why not make autocannons like this? Make different rates of fire, tweak damage per shell, and make jam chance different for both clan and IS auto cannons and ultra auto cannons. Ultras just fire FASTER than their regular versions. Also, make carrying a lot of ammo important because the auto cannons will chew through the ammo fast.

Fast forward to 1:35

How does it even make sense an AC would fire that fast? To maintain a ROF like that for more then 10 seconds they would need an ammo bin the size of a battleship. And how does one think a 203mm shell(AC20), would even begin to fire that fast? 120mm? 105mm? Mechs are not as humungous as one thinks. Along with the armor, reactor, weapons, internals, there is no way ACs actually fire that fast and can carry that much ammo....

By high speed stream, im sure it means more like an auto loader system or revolver style reloading system that gives it a much higher RoF over like a Gauss. More like NAval cannons now, over a Gau-8 Avenger 203mm Minigun....

[IraqiWalker]

Knyx, on 19 May 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

I have tried to leave the poor kids alone and let them live in their fantasy world where basic math and science principles do not exist, but a new one keeps popping up. I don't want to be an internet bully, but it's not like there is an ignore button right on the same page. I really do feel bad for them though.

Oh God Knyx. Please stop. This is beyond pathetic now. You failed at math, you don't understand the scientific method you keep on spouting about, and you clearly have no understanding of how balance works (For the record, if we were going to go with your original asinine comparison of C-LPL, with IS-LPL, the scaling should have been down to 0.5 seconds, if you want nice numbers, or to 0.67 seconds. Not to a full second, where the gaping hole of an IS-LPL being physically incapable of firing twice in 1 second showed how little you understand about comparative analysis).

Seriously, this is too boring.

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 May 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

How does it even make sense an AC would fire that fast? To maintain a ROF like that for more then 10 seconds they would need an ammo bin the size of a battleship. And how does one think a 203mm shell(AC20), would even begin to fire that fast? 120mm? 105mm? Mechs are not as humungous as one thinks. Along with the armor, reactor, weapons, internals, there is no way ACs actually fire that fast and can carry that much ammo....

By high speed stream, im sure it means more like an auto loader system or revolver style reloading system that gives it a much higher RoF over like a Gauss. More like NAval cannons now, over a Gau-8 Avenger 203mm Minigun....

For the record, the Pontiac 100 fired a 100 20mm shells in 10 seconds. Each dealing 0.2 damage per shell. Totaling up to 20 damage in 1 turn. In MWO this fire rate would be almost tripled.

Honestly. If we're going to introduce variable shot count ballistics (which I really want to see). Then we should introduce the whole lot.

There are over 20 different types of AC 5, firing anywhere between 1, and 10 shots. There is a lot of variety with all other ballistic weapons. If we can give each one it's own stat line, and price. Then we can make all ACs burst fire (the clans would definitely have an advantage considering the better size, and weight, but I think we can find a way to balance that out).

Another AC 20 fired 4x185mm shells, each dealing 5 damage, in 10 seconds.

Most people will immediately think that fewer shots will be the better gun, but if the gun that fires more shots has increased projectile velocity, costs less, and possibly can fire to longer ranges, then that could help.

{For those who don't know *cough*Knyx*cough*, a single turn in Tabletop Battletech is 10 seconds long. So each weapon was classed based on the amount of damage it dealt in that one turn.}

Hypothetical example

Spoiler

This is a hypothetical stat line for the Pontiac 100, and Chemjet AC20s:

Both will take up 10 slots, and 14 tons, since they are AC 20s.

Pontiac 100:
100 rounds x 0.2 damage = 20 damage.

Price: 400,000

Heat: 6

Cooldown: 3.50

Range: 300 (Max 600)

Projectile Speed: 2400

Ammo per ton: 700 (that's 7 shots)

Duration: 2.5 seconds

Chemjet:
4 rounds x 5 damage = 20 damage

Price: 600,000

Heat: 5 (fires fewer shots, should be a bit colder)

Cooldown: 4.25 (maybe even 4.50)

Range: 270 (Max 540)

Projectile Speed: 800 (maybe even 850-900)

Ammo per ton: 28 (that's 7 shots)

Duration: 3.30 seconds

I just wrote these up right now.

[nimdabew]

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 May 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

How does it even make sense an AC would fire that fast? To maintain a ROF like that for more then 10 seconds they would need an ammo bin the size of a battleship. And how does one think a 203mm shell(AC20), would even begin to fire that fast? 120mm? 105mm? Mechs are not as humungous as one thinks. Along with the armor, reactor, weapons, internals, there is no way ACs actually fire that fast and can carry that much ammo....

By high speed stream, im sure it means more like an auto loader system or revolver style reloading system that gives it a much higher RoF over like a Gauss. More like NAval cannons now, over a Gau-8 Avenger 203mm Minigun....

Stolen from this site:
http://bg.battletech...nnon-questions/





[color=red]DISCLAIMER AND WARNING:[/color] Before you start making objections I don't care what the fluff says, okay? The caliber and figures given in various books are random numbers pulled out of thin air by writers that didn't really know what they were talking about. I do know. The fluff numbers only give you a vague idea of the order of magnitude involved. My figures are based on game stats, wich trump fluff anytime, and my interpretation of what the original games designer were thinking, based on my knowledge of ballistics, artillery, and my own research. I don't care what the fluff says, all I am saying is that based on stats and physics, these are the most accurate, best fit numbers for this kind of sci fi weaponry. Please appreciate the work and effort I put into this to give you some plausible numbers before making objections. You can pick about precise numbers, but there is not much possible deviation from these parameters



I should add that in order to make the numbers fit, you should rename the AC/2 an AC/4 doing 4 points of damage, and the AC/5 should be converted to an AC/7 doing 7 points of damage. In between, there is an intermediate short barrel cannon, the AC/6, like those mounted in the Hermes and Wolverine.


In the real world, ballistic follows a curve where the bigger the caliber, the bigger the range and damage. For game balance purposes in Battletech happens the reverse, wich can be rationalized, these being burst firing weapons, that the recoil diminishes accuracy and range.

To have plausible Autocannons that are a best fit for the laws of ballistics and known ammo weights, ranges should be altered as well, AC/4, 7 and 10 should have the same range 18 hexes (same as PPC), AC/6 being a short barrelled gun would have less muzzle velocity and more recoil so having a range of 15 hexes (same as Large Laser), AC/20 should have a range of 12 hexes ( S 4, M 8 L 12). If you realize Battletech ranges are an abstraction for games purposes to allow for some maneuvering in game, and think for range purposes one hex is 100 meters, then you have average effective ranges of 1000 to 1500 meters, wich are reasonable engagements ranges for tank cannons. You can hit at longer distances than that, but as velocity decreases so does armor penetration. If Battletech ACs were single shot tank cannons, then their range would be greater, but no doubt inspired by modern ship cannon, the designers made their walking tanks wield burst firing cannon, wich rely more on multiple hits than single shot accuracy.

With those assumptions in mind, the large mass and size of autocannons in game stats are plausible. The sci part is the ability to fire a burst of several rounds in one or two seconds at most, and the ability to withstand the recoil. The concept is plausible as today, in the beginning of the 21st century, there have been developed artillery cannons that can fire several rounds in quick succesion. These use compressed gas cylinders to drive back the gun into position after its recoilm, faster than hidraulic pistons can. I envision that myomer bundles would replace the hidraulic recoil absorbers and recovery system, and work better than gas. The heat caused by the weapon is not so much from barrel heating but from the electrical power consumption of operating the reloading mechanism and the myomer absorbers that make possible burst firing.


With all these things in mind, here's the best fit solution to the game stats, after doing the number crunching, I am assuming a 2 second burst, wich gives cyclic rates of fire between 240 rpm and 120 rpm wich is reasonable enough compared with light antiaircraft guns of the 20th century or shipborne guns after WWII. A 1 second burst would be too high a rate of fire, a 1.5 second burst would still be reasonable, I settled on 2 seconds for simplicity and as a conservative estimate.



AC/4

1 Ton/40 shots = 1 game shot = 25 kilos, burst of 8 rounds 40 mm caliber, each round (cartridge + slug) = 2.5 kilos. 320 rounds per ton



AC/6

1 Ton/25 shots = 1 game shot = 40 kilos, burst of 6 rounds 50 mm caliber, each round (cartridge + slug) = 6.5 kilos. 150 rounds per ton

AC/7

1 Ton/20 shots = 1 game shot = 50 kilos, burst of 5 rounds 75 mm caliber, each round (cartridge + slug) = 10 kilos. 100 rounds per ton


AC/10

1 Ton/10 shots = 1 game shot = 100 kilos, burst of 4 rounds 100 mm caliber, each round (cartridge + slug) = 25 kilos. 40 rounds per ton



AC/20

1 Ton/5 shots = 1 game shot = 200 kilos, burst of 4 rounds 150 mm caliber, each round (cartridge + slug) = 50 kilos. 20 rounds per ton


Calibers are approximate, using even numbers for simplicity. Real word historical equivalents would be the following.

The best match and the one that was used as the baseline from where the other calibers were derived is the AC/10. It is obviously based on the standard tank gun of NATO at the time Battletec was designed in the early 1980s, the 105mm.

It is important to note here that all cannons are rifled ones. At the time Battletech was written, smoothbore guns hadn't come into widespread service. From the game background of the original 3025 set it is clear that aim is made by optical meters, technological decay and countermeasures prevent the use of laser rangefinders, so gunnery is still an art based on optical sights and guesswork. This rules out smoothbore guns as unfeasible, making them lostech.

Moreover, the basic round is an armor piercing discarding sabot slug (APDS) , you could also fire high explosive or hollow charge rounds from Autocannons, but that would recquire advanced rules based on those of Maximum Tech. For game purposes, assume AP as the basic load. You only need explosive rounds when dealing with infantry or blowing up fortifications and buildings. To have better accuracy with HE rounds you need the gun to be rifled. Hollow charges (like missile warheads) can also be fired by guns, wich would be a compromise between an armor piercing round and an antipersonnel. The spin imparted by rifling hampered hollow charge effectiveness when fired by guns, but this was solved around 1980 by the use of driving bands or ball bearings in the shell to cancel the spin.


The AC/7 (formerly known as AC/5) is analogous to the high velocity 75mm tank guns of the Second World War, specifically the German long barrelled 75 guns ( like the PAK 40 L48 mounted in the Panzer IV G marks )

AC/20 is a logical futuristic development of the AC/10. It would theoretically match with the 150mm tank guns in the drawing board towards the end of the Cold War projected for the next generation of tanks. It is important to note that there is doesn't exist a linear relation between the increase in caliber (wich means larger propellant charge hence more energy and speed) and the range and penetration (damage) of the gun.

This explains the jump from 10 to 20 points of damage , wich makes sense once you realize kinetic energy is a square function of speed.

However, this humongous weapon is pushing the technology limits. The large caliber means a big barrel wich cannot be as long and it doesn't optimize the force of the increased propellant charge. Short barrel and vicious recoil means the range is diminished, though it is much more powerful at short range. If it were a handgun, it would be a .44 Magnum snub nosed revolver.

The AC/4 (AC/2 in the game) is comparable with the antitank guns of early WWII, from 37mm to 40mm (British 2 pounder), or even better still with automatic antiaircraft guns like the German Flak 37mm or the Bofors 40mm, but with a bigger case with more propellant (about double size) and even more velocity. It is a fast firing gun with a very long barrel wich fires a high speed round with a modest recoil, wich gives it a long range, but due to the small size and mass of the round, its penetration (damage) is weak (though it certainly should do 4 points of damage, not 2!)

This makes the gun an ideal oversized machinegun for firing at infantry or aircraft, wich explains why the Jagermech mounts a pair. Only nitpicking is that the Vulcan gun should be longer barrelled, but everything else fits.

The AC/6 is an idea I developed to fit into 'Mechs wich have guns wich nominally are AC/5s but obviously are a different smaller gun, like the Wolverine and Hermes. It fits a niche between the AC/4 and AC/7 and is similar to the antitank and tank guns of the middle of the Second World War, like the German short barrelled 50mm gun mounted on the Panzer III, or the 57mm (British 3 pounder). It has a higher caliber than the AC/4, but a short barrel wich coupled with the higher recoil means its precision and range are lower. On the plus side, it is lighter, and despite it's higher rate of fire, it has more ammo per ton than an AC/7


The biggest difference with their historical equivalents is that Battletech autocannons fire bursts, not single shots, wich gives them awesome firepower, particularly when firing high explosive shells, but on the down side makes them high ammo consumption.


On a related subject, machineguns would be multiple barrelled Gatling guns in the 15- 30mm range similar to those that we have today, but wich are still peashooters compared with the autocannons.


Besides making holes in armor, one advantage of the autocannons is their ability to use special munitions for use against infantry, aircraft, or smoke and incendiary rounds.

Hope this was of interest.

[color=#000000]
[/color]

[IraqiWalker]

nimdabew, on 19 May 2015 - 09:55 PM, said:

The post where the word "caliber" is misused

So a couple of things to clarify:

Caliber is a measure of the of the internal diameter or bore of a gun barrel.

The class of an an AC has NOTHING to do with it's caliber.

The class is based on the amount of damage the gun can do in the span of 1 turn of combat.

So here's a proper example that uses Class, and Caliber correctly:

The Pontiac 100 is a CLASS 20 Autocannon (AC 20, for short)

It is a 20mm CALIBER gun.

It fires 100 20mm shells, each dealing 0.2 damage, during the span of 10 seconds. Totaling up to (you guessed it) 20 damage in one turn.

The Chemjet gun is a CLASS 20 Autocannon

It is a 185mm CALIBER gun

It fires 4 185mm shells. Each dealing 5 damage, during the span of 10 seconds. Totaling up to 20 damage. Which is why it is a CLASS 20 gun.

[Mcgral18]

IraqiWalker, on 19 May 2015 - 10:17 PM, said:

So a couple of things to clarify:

Caliber is a measure of the of the internal diameter or bore of a gun barrel.

The class of an an AC has NOTHING to do with it's caliber.

The class is based on the amount of damage the gun can do in the span of 1 turn of combat.

So here's a proper example that uses Class, and Caliber correctly:

The Pontiac 100 is a CLASS 20 Autocannon (AC 20, for short)

It is a 20mm CALIBER gun.

It fires 100 20mm shells, each dealing 0.2 damage, during the span of 10 seconds. Totaling up to (you guessed it) 20 damage in one turn.

The Chemjet gun is a CLASS 20 Autocannon

It is a 185mm CALIBER gun

It fires 4 185mm shells. Each dealing 5 damage, during the span of 10 seconds. Totaling up to 20 damage. Which is why it is a CLASS 20 gun.

In other news, the Hunch 4G mounts an AC100

The Dragon 1N mounts 2 AC90s

The vanilla 6 ton "AC2" with a cooldown of 0.68s is actually a ~AC30

Edited by Mcgral18, 19 May 2015 - 11:24 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Mcgral18, on 19 May 2015 - 11:23 PM, said:

In other news, the Hunch 4G mounts an AC100

The Dragon 1N mounts 2 AC90s

The vanilla 6 ton "AC2" with a cooldown of 0.68s is actually a ~AC30

Almost.

Most of our ACs have triple the fire rate of their TT counterparts. To be specific, they have triple the damage of their TT Counterparts. The IS AC 20 has a cooldown of 4 seconds. That means it fires twice in 10 seconds. Making it actually an AC 40 (if the cooldown was 3 seconds it would've been an AC 60).

Those are the CLASSES of the ACs, not their CALIBERS. {Caliber measures the diameter of the barrel of the gun}

Another thing to keep in mind is that those are TT numbers. Where a turn takes 10 seconds, while in this game, we don't have 10 second turns.

So while the current gun we have that we call an AC 2 is almost an AC 30 in TT. It's not the same. They don't translate right.

[anonymous161]

Meh you kids can continue to argue on the forums I rather just take a long break from the game and come out when things improve. I dont like them playing this nerf and buff game any longer I'm bored of it at this point and time I feel us players deserve the game we were originally promised.

People need to stop throwing money at the game because they like the game you only bring those who want it to improve down. Pgi wont listen to your words but your wallots.

Show some spine and do something about it even if it's leaving the game for a while and closing your wallot.

Take 2 or 3 months off try something new if by then they still haven't made important fixes and just continuing this pathetic mech pack sale garbage then dont bother coming back.

We all know inside this game is done it's just on borrowed time, cw is a failure hardly anyone plays it the game balance will never be fixed because then they wouldn't be able to sell op'd garbage mechs to nerf a few weeks later or a month at the most, we will never get a story, never get anything of real value.

This is why the gaming industry to slowly dying we are seeing franchises that once were of exellent value get brought down by this pathetic free to play model. Just means they dont have to deliver on promised content first to get your money.

.i.. gamers who are loving this type of gaming garbage it's sickening if you truly enjoy games you would demand the best not this crap.

Edited by Darth Bane001, 19 May 2015 - 11:47 PM.

[SmoothCriminal]

Disregarding the cynicism in this thread (and all the TT discussions - apologies but I think a majority of the player base don't really care) - best way to buff Clan ACs is to reduce the shell count/spread as has been suggested...

[Knyx]

Since IS has superior lasers, ballistics and LRMs, and now they nerfed the only competitive clan mechs while barely touching the extremely overpowered quirk monsters. I think it is fair to ask for an extreme in this area. Clans should get the PPFLD and IS gets the burst, clans should get lower jam chance whilst IS gets more ammo per ton. If they want to complain about something that they can't even prove has an effect (like slot+weight of their weapons), we can easily fire back with their quirks. It's too bad there isn't more clan players to post on the forums and make mass demands like the IS players do, since PGI knee jerk nerfs and buffs based on forum whine and not actual metrics like a real dev

[Joseph Mallan]

nimdabew, on 19 May 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

Why not make autocannons like this? Make different rates of fire, tweak damage per shell, and make jam chance different for both clan and IS auto cannons and ultra auto cannons. Ultras just fire FASTER than their regular versions. Also, make carrying a lot of ammo important because the auto cannons will chew through the ammo fast.

Fast forward to 1:35

Only reason I can see for not doing this is laziness, of complexity of the programming. Which really means laziness.

[Widowmaker1981]

El Bandito, on 12 May 2015 - 07:46 PM, said:

Since we are trying to make things equal on weapon basis, shorten IS Gauss charge timer. Cause Clanners have Gauss with 3 ton less weight.

OK then, let clan mechs install and remove Endo and Ferro and swap engine sizes.. oh wait, thats not going to happen - thus IS weapons cannot be 1 to 1 with Clan weapons, or clans become objectively inferior (in 99% of cases stock engines are not optimal, due to the tabletop rule that engine size must be a multiple of chassis weight not applying in MWO)

[El Bandito]

Widowmaker1981, on 20 May 2015 - 04:54 AM, said:

OK then, let clan mechs install and remove Endo and Ferro and swap engine sizes.. oh wait, thats not going to happen - thus IS weapons cannot be 1 to 1 with Clan weapons, or clans become objectively inferior (in 99% of cases stock engines are not optimal, due to the tabletop rule that engine size must be a multiple of chassis weight not applying in MWO)

I am trying to keep it in weapon to weapon basis. However, if you wish to expand onto other areas...

If Clanners wish to add Endo and Ferro and change engine sizes, they must give up omni-pod swapping in return.

Checks and balances.

Edited by El Bandito, 20 May 2015 - 05:12 AM.

[Knyx]

El Bandito, on 20 May 2015 - 05:03 AM, said:

I am talking in weapon to weapon basis.

If Clanners wish to remove Endo and Ferro and change engine sizes, they must give up omni-pod swapping in return.

Sure and IS get all quirks wiped and clan weapons get buffed. Deal

[El Bandito]

Knyx, on 20 May 2015 - 05:11 AM, said:

Sure and IS get all quirks wiped and clan weapons get buffed. Deal

Sure, and Clan DHS and Clan XL STs now cost 3 slots and Clan XL is now vulnerable to single ST destruction death. Deal.

Edited by El Bandito, 20 May 2015 - 05:15 AM.

[Knyx]

El Bandito, on 20 May 2015 - 05:14 AM, said:

Sure, and Clan DHS and Clan XL STs now cost 3 slots and Clan XL is now vulnerable to single ST destruction death. Deal.

Sure as soon as IS get quirks they have right now wiped, clan weapons get buffed to actually be equal, and most IS mechs get massive negative quirks instead like the timber and scr. Deal

Edited by Knyx, 20 May 2015 - 05:17 AM.