In my opinion, the game could use some major rebalancing. For one, on the beginning of a player's turn, heat will be reduced by one half of the shutdown cooling rate. Another is that modules should be permanent upgrades only applicable to the torso and legs. There should also be a resist-weakness format.
Physical attacks beat Explosive defence
Explosive attacks beat Electrical defence
Electrical attacks beat Physical defence
The total damage of an attack after applying shield reduction is determined by the formula (A*(100%+W))-(A*(100%-S)), where A is attack damage after sheild reduction, W is the percentage of the weak defence, and S is the percentage of the strong defence.
Defence is based on the amount of power points that come from using weapons or defense modifiers on a torso or legs. Weapons will always provide their damage-type as defence.
Weapons that deal a certain type of damage will only be able to upgrade the same type of weapon.

I'm curious as to why you think your suggestion is game balancing? Your first part seems to be the exact opposite to me. Many players already complain that those who can buy more gold packages have a significant advantage over the rest. Your suggestion to allow modules to be permanent upgrades would simply give them an even bigger advantage over all other players.

As for resist/weakness format, you more so made a rock-paper-scissors format. While the idea is not bad, I honestly think the current system works well. Any build can beat any other, it comes down to how well you built to counter another mech in the end. An energy build with high heat resistance could easily beat a heat mech. At the same time, a heat mech with low energy resistance (but massive ability to overheat) could still overcome a high heat resistant mech by simply keeping them in a constant state of overheat. Physical builds usually simply focus on damage output. You give up strategy for more power and hope to bulldoze through your enemies defenses before they can set up their counter moves.

I get what you're saying, malicewolf. What if, say, you beat a lower ranked player, you would get less gold, but if that same player beats you, they would get more gold. This would make the high rank players, such as Dewah77, get less gold.

That is a decent idea to help the lower players, but in all honesty, those who are higher up in the ranks would still have an abundance of gold regardless. It wouldn't really affect them much. The issue I could see coming from abusers are people purposefully losing matches to be a lower ranking just so they could beat the higher ranks for more gold. If you made the advantage too much, all players would have to do is go down a rank. They could farm gold one week so that they could have endless battle credits to go for 1st individual rank the next. That'd be my only worry there. But if we don't make a decent enough gold boost per winning against higher ranks, then it really doesn't add any value. So it's a tough balance.

Two things: One, matches are based on rank, matches won, and number of mythical items. two, high level players have the ability to prestige (go back to level one and lose all items to progress through the game again.)

I agree with 1. The issue with it is we'd have some people sitting and waiting for extremely long periods of time for a competitor.

2. I'd be against this. Who would prestige and give up any mythicals they got? They had to buy them and only got them via chance. I can't think of many who would willing give that up. This isn't like Call of Duty.