Monodominant, on 25 March 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:
Its nice to have a lore element to your game but this is a PvP game... not a campaign based single player / co-op.
To me, its also funny how all the 'lore-lovers' tend to be Clan players like the OP wondering why are they not overpowered enough to walk through 100s of enemy IS mechs.
While I dont doubt that some Clan mechs suck and that they have their own problems, it is pretty clear that many of their mechs are ton for ton superior to the IS side equivalents.
To take 2 examples... Firestarter vs Arctic Cheetah and Timerwolf vs ANY IS HEAVY.
In general though this is a moot discussion. In a game with so many different mechs and different skill levels and different tactics, its almost impossible to just say one side is better than the other. It is after all , theoretically, a team game. Hence even the BEST mech out there will die in seconds to concentrated fire from ****** mechs or if a couple of lights sneak behind it and alpha it a few times (especially with the meta being to keep rear armor to a minimum to survive alphas at the front).
When I did my second account 'tour of Clan Mechs' I found myself kicking *** and taking names with much less effort than it took me to get decent with IS mechs... and I am far from decent with either. Should my empirical evidence be seen as the rule? Obviously not... cause... circumstances. Maybe I had amazing team mates or ****** opponents. Maybe I had a good day or maybe my connection was a tad bit better that day.
Regarding the question 'if they are so good, why do comp players only take the minimum' I have to say it is a strawman question. There are things like personal preference, expectations and the meta in place. These and other factors might be leading people to make the choices they make. You cant put a blanket statement ' cause they are better ' and treat it as the word of god.
You do make some valid points, several of which I have pointed out as well. This game should be about skill of the players, and while that is more often then not the case, several of the Clan mechs do actually need the help. Clans have 21 mechs counting the Kodiak. IS has 30+ mechs, so a lack of mechs combined with over nerfing in key areas has in fact affected the Clan mechs.
Dimento Graven, on 25 March 2016 - 11:25 AM, said:
Let me counter your question with one of my own:
If Clan 'mechs are just OH SO HORRIBLY BAD, why is it the Clans have such an apparently easy time marching down faction map?
More then likely as Mono pointed out, that is due to pilot skill. It's also probably due to you facing a Clan unit or one of the Merc units when they fought for the Clans, like MS or KCom. Clan mechs might have weapons advantage with range and they might be faster and able to survive having their torso's taken clean off, but that doesn't mean armor is balance across tonnage with their IS counterparts. Which might I add, is what many Clan players are looking for,
balance.
Sjorpha, on 25 March 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:
+1 Agree completely, props to PGI för that.
I will agree that our weapons are rather closely balanced which is very nice. Both sides can do a good amount of damage depending on mech, loadout, and pilot skill. However I cannot agree that the mechs are 100% completely balanced. A few may be yes, but not all.
I can say with little doubt that when the Kodiak comes out in 2 months time, a forum for it will go up asking it to be nerfed into a teddy bear because people won't be able to use a Griffin to take it down. To that I say, please don't whine, just train your hardest and use tactics, work as a team. You'd be surprised how much you can do.