772 replies to this topic

[NienBall]

IraqiWalker, on 11 September 2015 - 04:54 PM, said:

Whatever you're smoking, I want some of that.

Coordinated chess match? What game have you been playing? The only chess that exists is when it's a 1v1 fight.

That argument is the worst I've heard for why a PVP game shouldn't be balanced. Which is quite impressive considering the arguments that have been posted in these forums over the years.

Let's do a 1v1 drop. You get into a commando, and I'll jump into a firestarter. Tell me how that would play out. After we're done, we'll do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, ad infinitum. Then let's see if you won't quit, or ask to pilot a firestarter yourself.

Not smoking anything, I got this crazy all by myself and the game I've been playing is the classic tabletop version. Granted I still hold to my opinion but I don't think I my reasoning came across they way I wanted in the first post so I'll try and reword things so I don't sound as rambling.

I think that if they make some changes or a new game mode that encourages closer teamwork and specific roles as much as it does straight fighting like they are talking about it would be a good thing and help keep the game more strategy like than the average shooter sim. However I also think that if you overbalance or nerf mechs and weapons so that one build or variant is roughly equal with all the others in their class it kinda defeats the purpose of having clan mechs, and the current balance between the two is exactly where it needs to be.

As far as the Firestarter vs Commando deal if I go hard charging out in the open as is the norm in a lot of faster paced PvPs against a longer ranged or more powerful opponent I don't deserve an equal chance at winning for the sake of game balance, I deserve to lose, now if I played smart then I should have a bit of a chance, although not enough of one I could afford to make a mistake and still win a one on one duel.

Edited by NienBall, 11 September 2015 - 10:25 PM.

[Telmasa]

Well Paul, for what it's worth, I'm happy about this PTS, the direction the balance changes are going, and what I can look forward to over the next month or two.

[FupDup]

Telmasa, on 11 September 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

Well Paul, for what it's worth, I'm happy about this PTS, the direction the balance changes are going, and what I can look forward to over the next month or two.

[Major Smoke]

While we all understand the desire to balance Inner Sphere Mechs against Clan Mechs, MechWarrior is based on Battletech is based on MechWarrior. PGI is always talking about Clan invasion and counterstriking etc etc etc.....the whole point of the Clan invasion is that the Mechs of the Inner Sphere are NOT balanced against the Clans. It took the Inner Sphere decades of Mech, engine, armor, cooling and weapons development to bring their Mechs up to par with Clan Tech in order to meet the threat and they had lots of help from Wolf's Dragoons and the Helm memory core not to mention Comstar. That is because the Inner Sphere had underwent 300 years of technological regression while the Clans had gone through 150+ years of progress based solely on the perfection of war.
In short, balancing Inner Sphere Mechs against Clan Mechs in the 3050-3054 era nullifies the entire point of the invasion! If you do that then why bother with the Clan invasion at all? You might as well go back to the 3025 era where all weapons are simplified and the Mech, pilot and tactics make all the difference and the tech level has nothing to do with it.
We understand that PGI wants MWO to be its own game and animal but you call this MechWarrior and its licensed under the MechWarrior theme. If you're going to use Battletech/MechWarrior canon then you cant just throw out the most important aspect of the Clan invasion and still call it such.
Clan Mechs are SUPPOSED to be outbalanced against Inner Sphere Mechs, not just a little bit but by a lot.
That said, there was balance in the way the Clans fought. They worked only loosely as a unit. They fought individual battles (duals) and were highly limited by Bachall and underbidding.
Rather than balance Clan Mechs with Inner Sphere Mechs and totally change the entire system which right now is working quite well, you should balance the pairings.
Instead of pairing similar tonnages and Mech Classes of Inner Sphere and Clan Mechs against each other, pair Inner Sphere Mechs against Clan Mechs, Clan vs Clan and Inner Sphere against Inner Sphere only. Don't mix tech types within teams.
Further, when Clan teams face Inner Sphere teams, base teams on the battle values of those Mechs with equal battle values per team. That way the pairings are evenly balanced, tactics matter, and Clan teams cant possibly be over-balanced because the Inner Sphere teams will be either heavier or the Clan teams will be lighter.
This is how it work in CBT gameplay and it works very well.
Clan Weapons are supposed to have longer ranges. The weapons are supposed to be lighter and hit harder. Clan Mechs are supposed to carry more weapons and do more damage. But Clan weapons also often have significantly higher heat levels, and Clan Mechs often have significant heat issues meaning they have to be managed much more carefully. A missed Alpha strike or an Alpha strike at the wrong time results in death by shutdown....
Inner Sphere Mechs do much better at close range than long range and brawl very well. I.S. Mechs also weather damage very well (fewer XL engines), are team centric and focused on EW, and use massed fires and ambushes to balance out battles. Missiles and Autocannon become more important for softening up mechs at long range. Clan get very limtied Artillery strikes and Aerospace strikes (while the Inner Sphere use them often).
Give Clan Mechs point penalties for massing fires on a single Mech while IS Mechs get bonus points for the very same tactic (or maybe not penalize Clans for that tactic but they cant earn "honor" points for those tactics. Clan Mechs could get bonus points (or maybe honor points) for duel (solo) kills, while Inner Sphere pilots gain factional or Merc points for ambush tactics, scouting, spotting, recon, back shots etc. Clans get penalized for Backstabbing (back shots) or ramming since those are dishonorable tactics (aka Dezgra).

In short, balancing Inner Sphere vs Clan as per lore and long established canon shouldn't be about nerfing Clan tech or beefing up IS tech, it should be done through Pair/team Balancing, rewards and tactics. Otherwise, you might as well just go back to the 3025 era or jump ahead to 3060 because during the first years of the Clan invasion Clan Mechs are supposed to be over-balanced. That's part of the fun of playing those years.

[IraqiWalker]

MischiefSC, on 11 September 2015 - 10:07 PM, said:

How was it balanced? How would that work in MW:O? What would it look like?

How about this - actually make a regular event for IS vs Clan and see if you can make the population work. Saying 'people shouldn't care about KDR' is like saying 'people shouldn't be greedy'.

Okay. Great. Good luck with that.

I appreciate everyones anecdotal references to 'how great it was/how well it would work'. Any and all telemetry about how people play MW:O, how people play (and played) TT BT and even MegaMek points towards asymetric IS vs Clans balance with Clans being OP is seven shades of doomed out of the gate. Unless we're going to reduce player skill to dice-rolls, like it is in TT and get people to stop caring about how often they kill the enemy relative to how often they get killed (and have to just spectate the rest of the match). Also how many people want to play the Hero character and how many want to play the Peon - all the time.

Again, fortunately PGI already settled this question. It's not going to happen.

Okay. I think you're mistaking my post with someone else's? Where did I say people shouldn't care about KDR, or any of the other things?

I just said that TT was/is a lot more balanced than you make it out to be.

[MischiefSC]

IraqiWalker, on 11 September 2015 - 10:17 PM, said:

Okay. I think you're mistaking my post with someone else's? Where did I say people shouldn't care about KDR, or any of the other things?

I just said that TT was/is a lot more balanced than you make it out to be.

Fair enough, though I'd debate the TT bit - until, what, dark ages and such. For 3050 it's broke as hell. If we want to move into Dark Ages, sure.

[--Saint--]

I like the attempt to add another dimension to the game by incorporating information warfare. It was about time!

I don´t think PGI is too far off the mark here. I oftern use a ninja scout Kit fox, specifically to find the enemy and plot its general movements, so that my teammates can check their maps and make better decisions on where to group up and where to flank.

somtimes its a battle winner. sometimes, it isnt. Still, I like the idea of encouraging scouting roles. An infowarfare advantage that can help coordination at team-level, is very powerful. It also believe it could relax the Deathball a little.

But thinking now at the pilot level, the rag doll targeting data speed increase is nice, but only a starting point. Some builds are Alpha, straight to the CT, no brainers. So faster data is pointless. But some of my builds don´t have a high alpha or are crit seekers / precision shooters (LBXs, or PPC +TComps) and so need good info on where to land shots. Getting that quickly is definitely a plus.

However I´d take it one step better and make that info more quality oriented. For example, in an uber infowarmech with a TcompV, you could make the ragdoll picture overlay the targetted mech, so you are looking directly at the weakpoints without having to keep glancing top right every couple of seconds.

Expanding on this idea, it happens often that you run into 2 or 3 or 4 mechs at the same time, in a flanking position. A window of oportunity! Right now, to decide which one is most vulnerable, I have to select one mech, wait for data, evaluate and shift to the next. And then the next, etc. Way too slow and decisions are normally pure guesswork/instinct . But being able to instantly grasp damage levels for all targets, and make a snap decision on solid info, will most likely lead to landing a crippling blow on the enemy

Increased lock times based on distance means we could now choose to lose that radar derp module and take something more useful. Similar effect if you increase AMS effectiveness (better tracking, ammo efficiency etc). You could increase chassis sensor ranges and save 1 ton by losing the clan probe and getting another heat sink, ton of ammo or 2xMG rig. You could also increase your own locking times or give LRMs smarter flight paths (better route calculations, movement prediction algorithms, whatever!)

You could implement cloaking buffs (special coatings/ radar baffling profile) and decrease chassis visibility on the heat and night vision scopes (For long range scouts). Or just the opposite! Make some mechs able to signal bloom so upclose you overload the scopes and blind enemies (for CQB ambushers!!!)

Tools like the UAV could be made to map enemy targets onto the scout´s HUD so you can see their movements real time (through buildings!) for X seconds. You could even have ninja UAV´s, that also have better range or cloaking tech or buff targetting speeds for LRM support boats, etc..

Fine tune the Quake sensor to judge the weight of recognized targets, even upload the tremor image into the HUD, so you can track it real time without having to look at the map every second.

Better HUD intel / design / readings. for example local temp level and its % effect on the cooling efficiency as you move around the map. Collision alerts, enhanced field of vision etc.

A well thought out infowarfare package that gives pilots higher decision making agility, wins fights. Individually or as a team. Its also probably more dangerous to the enemy than carrying one or two extra mlas.

[IraqiWalker]

MischiefSC, on 11 September 2015 - 10:20 PM, said:

Fair enough, though I'd debate the TT bit - until, what, dark ages and such. For 3050 it's broke as hell. If we want to move into Dark Ages, sure.

That I can live with.

[MischiefSC]

SO. Derail over.

What I really just need to hear from PGI is that this is just looking at a foundation for mobility quirks. This isn't 'balancing', other than just balancing mobility and the new sensor system.

I can live with that. Be happy with it even. If there's weapon balancing coming later at a macro and micro scale that's great.

[30ft SMURF]

Tennex, on 11 September 2015 - 01:48 PM, said:

From what is posted above seems to be under the assumption that all 4 components that you guys are looking at (firepower, movement, protection, infotech) are of equal contribution to balance. But with information warfare as it is now, it doesn't seem like that particular part of the rhombus is as robust as it should be. Therefore buffing/nerfing the information ability of a mech in this "Mechwarrior Value" system may have very limited impact.

For example, as Information warfare works in game now, i dont personally see any reason to take a mech with its rhombus leading towards Information Warfare over one with high firepower. (Why take a mech that can acquire targets 50% faster over one that has 5% more damage to Medium Lasers?)

Heres a suggestion from a previous thread that got 120+ upvotes. It can potentially bring a lot of depth to information warfare I hope you guys will consider it, at least further down the line:

http://mwomercs.com/...49#entry4564949





Tried it out, and honestly the Information Warfare system you guys are trying which resolves around target gathering time, and target relay time which differs between chassis makes things needlessly complicated while having almost unmeasurable gameplay impact.

Its like a 1million dollar machine designed only to run in place.



I think if the Information Warfare system was more robust, you guys would have more to work with. But right now all its doing is making things complicated and not really contributing much in the end.

This needs to be liked much more

[Peiper]

I looked at the test server quirk list and was not happy. Granted, I knew the goal was to make all mechs equal without making them the same or something like that - but that's not true of mechs, no matter what their weight is. In tabletop, each mech and variant thereof have a baltte value. These values when added up and matched against an opposing force of the same battle value ideally made for a balance game, no matter what the technology or types of units (included air, infantry, mechanized, battle armor, etc...)

This is what I was hoping PGI would do to balance things. An Orion and a Timber Wolf are not the same, not equal in any way EXCEPT tonnage. Forcing equality among mechs that were not designed equal is not the way to go. Call in mech value if you wish, but mech value should be used for matchmaking over tonnage, it is more important than tonnage. Mech value should tell you what the mechs can DO, not what they look like.

Use Mech Value to balance out matchmaking - whether enforcing players and teams to take only up to a certain mech value or using it to match up in public drops.

The QUIRK SYSTEM should be in place only to help make mechs PLAYABLE and VIABLE, not to make them into something they are not. Don't give +50 structure points to every part of an Atlas D and call it equal to a Dire Wolf. In actuality, an Atlas should should be equal to maybe a gargoyle. Yes, that's because Omnimechs ARE that much more powerful than inner sphere mechs. Adding uber-stats to a lesser quality mech is is stupid. Just admit that all mechs are NOT created equal.

TLDR:
Quirks should simply make crappy mechs playable, not make them equal.

Mech Value should replace tonnage in matchmaking and especially CW.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, PAUL!

[NienBall]

I'll admit I'd love for them to jump to the 3060+ timeline, some of the IS weapons the clans have no answer to and they definitely tilt the power back towards the Inner Sphere. The IS gets extended range everything plus light gauss rifle, heavy gauss rifle, rotary autocannons, MRMs, Thunderbolt missiles, special ammo for standard autocannons, MMLs, Light Engines, C3 systems, X-pulse lasers, TSM, and a few other things like the periphery made rocket launchers while the Clanners only get the unreliable heavy lasers and ATM system. You have one of the new IS omnimechs or phoenix designs with some of those weapons and you can bulldoze through most clan mechs of equal tonnage easy.

SmokeJaguarSix, on 11 September 2015 - 10:15 PM, said:

While we all understand the desire to balance Inner Sphere Mechs against Clan Mechs, MechWarrior is based on Battletech is based on MechWarrior. PGI is always talking about Clan invasion and counterstriking etc etc etc.....the whole point of the Clan invasion is that the Mechs of the Inner Sphere are NOT balanced against the Clans. It took the Inner Sphere decades of Mech, engine, armor, cooling and weapons development to bring their Mechs up to par with Clan Tech in order to meet the threat and they had lots of help from Wolf's Dragoons and the Helm memory core not to mention Comstar. That is because the Inner Sphere had underwent 300 years of technological regression while the Clans had gone through 150+ years of progress based solely on the perfection of war.
In short, balancing Inner Sphere Mechs against Clan Mechs in the 3050-3054 era nullifies the entire point of the invasion! If you do that then why bother with the Clan invasion at all? You might as well go back to the 3025 era where all weapons are simplified and the Mech, pilot and tactics make all the difference and the tech level has nothing to do with it.
We understand that PGI wants MWO to be its own game and animal but you call this MechWarrior and its licensed under the MechWarrior theme. If you're going to use Battletech/MechWarrior canon then you cant just throw out the most important aspect of the Clan invasion and still call it such.
Clan Mechs are SUPPOSED to be outbalanced against Inner Sphere Mechs, not just a little bit but by a lot.
That said, there was balance in the way the Clans fought. They worked only loosely as a unit. They fought individual battles (duals) and were highly limited by Bachall and underbidding.
Rather than balance Clan Mechs with Inner Sphere Mechs and totally change the entire system which right now is working quite well, you should balance the pairings.
Instead of pairing similar tonnages and Mech Classes of Inner Sphere and Clan Mechs against each other, pair Inner Sphere Mechs against Clan Mechs, Clan vs Clan and Inner Sphere against Inner Sphere only. Don't mix tech types within teams.
Further, when Clan teams face Inner Sphere teams, base teams on the battle values of those Mechs with equal battle values per team. That way the pairings are evenly balanced, tactics matter, and Clan teams cant possibly be over-balanced because the Inner Sphere teams will be either heavier or the Clan teams will be lighter.
This is how it work in CBT gameplay and it works very well.
Clan Weapons are supposed to have longer ranges. The weapons are supposed to be lighter and hit harder. Clan Mechs are supposed to carry more weapons and do more damage. But Clan weapons also often have significantly higher heat levels, and Clan Mechs often have significant heat issues meaning they have to be managed much more carefully. A missed Alpha strike or an Alpha strike at the wrong time results in death by shutdown....
Inner Sphere Mechs do much better at close range than long range and brawl very well. I.S. Mechs also weather damage very well (fewer XL engines), are team centric and focused on EW, and use massed fires and ambushes to balance out battles. Missiles and Autocannon become more important for softening up mechs at long range. Clan get very limtied Artillery strikes and Aerospace strikes (while the Inner Sphere use them often).
Give Clan Mechs point penalties for massing fires on a single Mech while IS Mechs get bonus points for the very same tactic (or maybe not penalize Clans for that tactic but they cant earn "honor" points for those tactics. Clan Mechs could get bonus points (or maybe honor points) for duel (solo) kills, while Inner Sphere pilots gain factional or Merc points for ambush tactics, scouting, spotting, recon, back shots etc. Clans get penalized for Backstabbing (back shots) or ramming since those are dishonorable tactics (aka Dezgra).

In short, balancing Inner Sphere vs Clan as per lore and long established canon shouldn't be about nerfing Clan tech or beefing up IS tech, it should be done through Pair/team Balancing, rewards and tactics. Otherwise, you might as well just go back to the 3025 era or jump ahead to 3060 because during the first years of the Clan invasion Clan Mechs are supposed to be over-balanced. That's part of the fun of playing those years.

[lsp]

Lord Squeezy Fetladral, on 11 September 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

How about this for a crazy idea to make info tech relevant and deal with pin point alpha with no lock:
If you have no lock, your weapons don't pin point as well and will drift a little from each other with the effect getting worse the farther you are away from your target. If you want super accurate pinpoint damage at long range, you need a radar lock. Without it, your damage spreads out making it very hard to one shot some one at distance. Then you will really need scout lights to help those heavy/assault maximize their damage over distance. And a light with ecm will be hard to leg because without a lock, your damage spreads too much to one shot a leg.

No, maybe they should just make mechwarrior? Look at MW LL, like that. That game is 20 times better than this one and it was made by some guys in their moms basement, for free. If that game still had a active population I would be playing it. But no, This crappy front of a mechwarrior game forced them to shut down.

[IraqiWalker]

Peiper, on 11 September 2015 - 10:37 PM, said:

TLDR:
Quirks should simply make crappy mechs playable, not make them equal.

Mech Value should replace tonnage in matchmaking and especially CW.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, PAUL!

No quirks should actually make them equal.
You seem to forget something VERY important about BV matching. We had ASYMMETRICAL teams in TT. So BV worked because your OP mech allows me to field 2 or 3 mechs against it.

How are you going to do that in a 12 v 12 game, where quirks make bad mechs "usable" instead of "on equal footing"?

[NienBall]

Nailed it, I had forgotten about the BV system from the tabletop, works extremely well because of exactly what you said. A Timberwolf and an Orion are not equal, or even designed for the same role for that matter. A support unit like the Orion is rugged and works well with a team, the Timberwolf is a glass cannon made to duel one on one, trying to make them equal defeats the point behind each, not to mention it'll have FASA rolling over in it's grave.

Peiper, on 11 September 2015 - 10:37 PM, said:

I looked at the test server quirk list and was not happy. Granted, I knew the goal was to make all mechs equal without making them the same or something like that - but that's not true of mechs, no matter what their weight is. In tabletop, each mech and variant thereof have a baltte value. These values when added up and matched against an opposing force of the same battle value ideally made for a balance game, no matter what the technology or types of units (included air, infantry, mechanized, battle armor, etc...)

This is what I was hoping PGI would do to balance things. An Orion and a Timber Wolf are not the same, not equal in any way EXCEPT tonnage. Forcing equality among mechs that were not designed equal is not the way to go. Call in mech value if you wish, but mech value should be used for matchmaking over tonnage, it is more important than tonnage. Mech value should tell you what the mechs can DO, not what they look like.

Use Mech Value to balance out matchmaking - whether enforcing players and teams to take only up to a certain mech value or using it to match up in public drops.

The QUIRK SYSTEM should be in place only to help make mechs PLAYABLE and VIABLE, not to make them into something they are not. Don't give +50 structure points to every part of an Atlas D and call it equal to a Dire Wolf. In actuality, an Atlas should should be equal to maybe a gargoyle. Yes, that's because Omnimechs ARE that much more powerful than inner sphere mechs. Adding uber-stats to a lesser quality mech is is stupid. Just admit that all mechs are NOT created equal.

TLDR:
Quirks should simply make crappy mechs playable, not make them equal.

Mech Value should replace tonnage in matchmaking and especially CW.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, PAUL!

[Lily from animove]

I don't know exactly, we need to see how i turns out, but, please consider that "infotech" is not very important in MWO, ecm for example totalyl negates lockign on mwchs and gatehrign informations so whats the point having a "info buffed" mech when ecm mkes this pointless?

Firepower and mobility ALWAYS work. Info not, because the current way how MWO maps work amke them minor in importance. Pleae bear that in mind when giving this out. because at any time in the game If one mech offers +10% mobility, while the other has 20% target info gathering time, I would never ever choose the info time. It's just in most situations not needed.
Same for protection, for some mechs this works and is needed other "poke" mechs don't need much protection. they just appear fire diseappear without getting returnfire. and then "poke"mechs with "info" and "pritection" will always stay inferior to those with mobility and firepower.

And for the sake of OMNIMECHS do not gice individual CT quirks, never ever do so. unless a specific CT has a hardopoint the others of its chassis don't have.

IraqiWalker, on 11 September 2015 - 10:43 PM, said:

No quirks should actually make them equal.
You seem to forget something VERY important about BV matching. We had ASYMMETRICAL teams in TT. So BV worked because your OP mech allows me to field 2 or 3 mechs against it.

How are you going to do that in a 12 v 12 game, where quirks make bad mechs "usable" instead of "on equal footing"?

all mechs are "playable" but only a few are used, because they are not equal enough to hold their ground in true competition or value/tonnage.

Edited by Lily from animove, 11 September 2015 - 11:04 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Lily from animove, on 11 September 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:

I don't know exactly, we need to see how i turns out, but, please consider that "infotech" is not very important in MWO, ecm for example totalyl negates lockign on mwchs and gatehrign informations so whats the point having a "info buffed" mech when ecm mkes this pointless?

Firepower and mobility ALWAYS work. Info not, because the current way how MWO maps work amke them minor in importance. Pleae bear that in mind when iving this out.
Same for protection, for some mechs this works and is needed other "poke" mechs don't need much protection. they just appear fire diseappear without getting returnfire. and then "poke"mechs with "info" and "pritection" will always stay inferior to those with mobility and firepower.

And for the sake of OMNIMECHS do not gice individual CT quirks, never ever do so. unless a specific CT has a hardopoint the others of its chassis don't have.



all mechs are "playable" but only a few are used, because they are not equal enough to hold their ground in true competition or value/tonnage.

I get what you're saying but end of the day the game doesn't work if IS and Clans are not equal on the field, player for player mech for mech. You can't control how people play - you can't compel more people to play one side than the other, especially if they're going to lose more often in context of killing vs being killed. That doesn't work in a game full of people you don't know.

[Lily from animove]

MischiefSC, on 11 September 2015 - 11:04 PM, said:

I get what you're saying but end of the day the game doesn't work if IS and Clans are not equal on the field, player for player mech for mech. You can't control how people play - you can't compel more people to play one side than the other, especially if they're going to lose more often in context of killing vs being killed. That doesn't work in a game full of people you don't know.

Poeple need to entirely get rid of the idea clan vs IS, balance is a chassis vs chassis thing. But given this what you say, if some IS mech don't get significant firepowerbuffs they will never be working in competition. Not even with instant targeting info will this ever close any gap. In th end Firepower is the priority value of a mech, then mobility then survival, then info.
What I miss is coolant. because mechs like the NVA have by hardpoints too much firepower avalable to handle for the coolant. it would therefore good to take coolant into a variable as well. Especially some light mechs which run too hot due to 8+2 DHS could get some coolant buffs. This indirectly buffs firepower by allowing them to fire longer.

And by, this yes, you can't control how people play, but you can analyse how people play, and why. Things that matter in MWO, are very clear. Info warfare isn't much. I eman i jut take the SCR as example and try to think about how the system they intent wants to make other medium mechs being buffed to be a compettiive choice.


@PAUL, also don't rescale the NVA, seriously it looks to sawesome to be broken by rescaling.

Edited by Lily from animove, 11 September 2015 - 11:12 PM.

[MadLibrarian]

Oh man, this is great. I can't wait to see the next iteration. Firepower definitely seems to be significantly more important in the current state of the game. Once PvE is implemented, the roles could be even more useful.
This really makes me want to test a 10v12 Clan Vs IS game mode.

Keep up the good work. No such thing as a bad Public Test. Moar Please!

Edited by MadLibrarian, 11 September 2015 - 11:17 PM.

[Sickening Spying Scheming Eunuch]

Asking out of curiosity. If you earn some c-bills at Public Test server, do the amount of money you gain get transferred to your normal, non-public-test account or are those 2 accounts separate?