Less Than One Week Until We Get The 75 Ton King Crab-Apult
#41
Posted 24 November 2015 - 05:25 PM
#42
Posted 24 November 2015 - 06:22 PM
#43
Posted 24 November 2015 - 06:29 PM
Right behind that mech is the Marauder. From Btech to playing MW1 after my MW2 demo experience, the Marauder is ingrained in my memories. Been running PPCs since closed beta almost in preparation of the MAD. Classic, 2xPPC, 2xMedLas, AC5 for me on all three. Got lucky and was able to claim the pack as a b-day gift and can't wait to drop in it.
In a side note, I'm hoping the MAD has the same hit box "issue" as the crow: center mass flanked by large armpits.
Edited by Dracol, 24 November 2015 - 06:30 PM.
#44
Posted 25 November 2015 - 12:21 AM
Hit the Deck, on 24 November 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:
"Don't hate the players, hate the game."
It means that you can't blame players' reaction to a game's mechanics.
Not this again. Sorry i disagree. Not going to make a whole story out of it. But for some reasons in my view i 'hate' some players because they were a cause/role/factor as well.
Carry on . Dont want to derail the thread.
Edited by Sarlic, 25 November 2015 - 12:27 AM.
#45
Posted 25 November 2015 - 02:57 AM
TheCharlatan, on 24 November 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:
I'll find a way to make it work with whatever hitboxes and quirks it gets, and even if it sucks, i'll still be piloting the coolest mech around, so i won't care.
^
Who cares about hitboxes, arms for shielding or quirks of one of the most iconic battlemechs ever?
I'd make it work even if it had the worst hitboxes, lowest hanging arms and a bunch of negative quirks.
It's still a Marauder and it will cause stuff to go boom.
Even if it's only street lamps and trees...
#46
Posted 25 November 2015 - 05:49 AM
I'm not "feeling" it.
#47
Posted 25 November 2015 - 09:14 AM
Rabtar, on 24 November 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:
Could have the bounty hunter head hardpoint, which is what I thought initially.
That 3R will make a nice AC5 platform. I think you even have enough tonnage for a STD 300, 3 AC5s, and 4 MLs. Might be a little short on ammo though I can't remember.
#48
Posted 25 November 2015 - 09:18 AM
#49
Posted 25 November 2015 - 10:04 AM
MischiefSC, on 24 November 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:
The really frustrating bit is that if BT were more realistic.... that wouldn't have been a bad design concept. A shield side and weapon side given the humanoid ability to respond to incoming fire that tanks and such do not have.
Personally....
heartbreaking as it is, as much as I love the Whammy and the Maddy, I refunded both. The decision to go back to quirks (which we already know never worked) and effectively abandon IW as anything relevant to the game has left me looking at another year of MW:O exactly like the last 3 and that's not something I found appealing, so I guess I'm out. 90 days from now people will be back to the exact same complaints they had 120 days ago or 480 days ago and there are too many good games coming out for me to invest time in that.
I hope the Marauder is stunning. I like the look visually. While I don't think it'll be anything like top meta I think that it'll be above average and run T3 to T2. I think at 75 tons with the arms relatively high and the ballistic over the shoulder you could run it aggressively with an old-school face-punch style loadout. I'd have gone AC20, 2LL 2 ML and a STD300, used the narrow forward profile and bull-rushed FTW. If the torso is as narrow as it looks that'll actually have both arms relatively close together. That means that at close range you'll still have an easy time putting the AC and lasers on the same target. Also if the hitboxes are not terrible it'll spread damage very well from front-on; you won't have to twist much.
A lot of good performance potential in the MAD IMO. I hope it plays out well for you guys. The Warhammer is going to be terrible but, well, it's the Whammy.
They tried to do something different. Everyone acted like children. Some even admitting to not having tried the PTR, but still apparently considering their opinion valid enough to argue against the changes. So looks like we're back to the same thing we started with.
Because if it's not the same exact thing, they cry it's not the same exact thing. And then cry that we're still stuck in the same problems! This is where I wish PGI would just give everyone the finger and just do whatever. But they cantttttttt. Because if they do. Then everyone will revenge spam the forums and all steam reviews saying "It was so good back when!"
#50
Posted 25 November 2015 - 10:14 AM
Gas Guzzler, on 25 November 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:
Could have the bounty hunter head hardpoint, which is what I thought initially.
That 3R will make a nice AC5 platform. I think you even have enough tonnage for a STD 300, 3 AC5s, and 4 MLs. Might be a little short on ammo though I can't remember.
It better be able to. I can rock that build on my Jager, so I'll be disappointed if I cannot in my Marauder.
#52
Posted 25 November 2015 - 10:45 AM
#53
Posted 25 November 2015 - 10:51 AM
0bsidion, on 25 November 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:
I have a hunch that the 2nd will show up to the right of the 1st, and the 3rd will show up further to the right and down a hair, similar to the 3rd energy hard point on the King Crab right shoulder.
#54
Posted 25 November 2015 - 11:12 AM
I don't get all the negativity and slamming getting posted about a chassis that hasn't even been driven yet?
Or better, the post about "I'm refunding now that I've seen what it looks like... " Ummm... ahhh.... it pretty much looks like a ..... wait for it... a Marauder??
Dunno, but I love the looks. Iove the brief animations sneak peaks, and can't wait for her to get here!
#55
Posted 25 November 2015 - 11:14 AM
LordMelvin, on 24 November 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:
Pretty much this is what killed it for me. No adjustments to I.S. XL durability essentially mean the clan will maintain the speed and firepower edge with little trade off. A clan engine losing a paultry 20% speed compared to an I.S. mech blowing up? you do the math on this.
Essentially why take the maruader when you have the Timberwolf and soon the Orion IIc?
#56
Posted 25 November 2015 - 12:06 PM
Lykaon, on 25 November 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:
I get your point, and it's a fair personal stance.
For me, I'm a flavour player (I mean, my other mechs are the Zeus and Wolverine... arguably neither of which get much love or positive rep ) and I just really, really like the MAD from table top days, books, to now. I don't view either of our reasoning better than the other, I was just interested in general.
I'll drive the MAD, drive the hell out of her, and drive her some more just so I can be driving a MAD. Bent in the head? Probably. But I know whats I likes and good mech or bad, I'll make her sing out on the field and have a blast.
(oh.. and also, I'm pretty much all IS driver so a Madcat wouldn't fit my hanger anyway )
Morg
#57
Posted 25 November 2015 - 11:43 PM
Lykaon, on 25 November 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:
Clan-tech being superior to IS-tech...
Lykaon, on 25 November 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:
Because they are no Marauder.
#58
Posted 26 November 2015 - 06:27 AM
Lykaon, on 25 November 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:
Essentially why take the maruader when you have the Timberwolf and soon the Orion IIc?
Why take Marauder instead of Timberwolf? Because clanmechs can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned. Screw clantech! IS or Nothing!
#59
Posted 26 November 2015 - 06:45 AM
Lykaon, on 25 November 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:
Pretty much this is what killed it for me. No adjustments to I.S. XL durability essentially mean the clan will maintain the speed and firepower edge with little trade off. A clan engine losing a paultry 20% speed compared to an I.S. mech blowing up? you do the math on this.
Essentially why take the maruader when you have the Timberwolf and soon the Orion IIc?
Have you tried mechs like the black knight on PTS 4, where the IS XL vulnerability is mitigated by structure quirks?
Basically the direction seems to be that clan mechs retain their advantage of surviving a ST loss, but IS mech will be harder to take out STs on in the first place.
I personally like that direction because it keeps the distinction between the factions, if the IS gets enough advantage in terms of more internal structure it can work because that little extra time with full firepower is a significant advantage even if you die once the ST goes.
Basically in a 1v1 it could look like this:
When the clan mech loses it's ST it survives but will be slower and have less weapons, an IS mech having taken the same amount of ST damage will not quite have lost the ST yet but it will be orange or red. So it still has that chance to capitalise on the clan mechs speed and firepower reduction with it's own full alphas/maneuverability before it dies. Sometimes the clan mech would get through that ST and kill the IS mech, and sometimes the IS mech will get the other ST or CT with it's intact firepower.
I think it can work out, PTS 4 looks like a good step forward in that regard, and if it does it's far more interesting than having identical engine mechanics between the factions.
Saying this as a complete IS loyalist btw.
Edited by Sjorpha, 26 November 2015 - 06:46 AM.
#60
Posted 26 November 2015 - 07:24 AM
Bishop Steiner, on 24 November 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:
One more mech for minmax BS to ruin. (and I ain't hating the playahs, I am hating the game....or at least how the mechanics translated.)
Was always going to be the case with the extreme customisation this game allows, just hoping BT keeps mechs ,mechs and not twitcher platforms
Valkyrie73, on 24 November 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:
There is a special needs school not far from me, so should I try to get the MAD enrolled..
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users