Thoughts On Marauder?
#1
Posted 31 March 2016 - 11:44 PM
#2
Posted 01 April 2016 - 12:19 AM
But lets wind this up to level 10,yo What if we compared a Marauder vs a Catapult
The maurader has its strong points, as does the Catapult. *SIGH* which one to choose? Having to make such a hard choice between the two has been one of my greatest struggles with the BT hobby. Im worried that one day ill actually find out the answer to this question. And it will be one of those questions that once you know the truth your mind will totally blown and what you once new as BT would never be the same again.
#3
Posted 01 April 2016 - 12:19 AM
The current structure quirks and relatively narrow front profile give the MAD great survivability. However, Clan technology; 2 crit slot heat sinks, Clan XL engine and omnipod flexibility probably give Clan heavies the edge in a one vs one situation (yeah, right and how often does that happen in MWO?)
Marauder hardpoint locations are decent but limited e.g. a single high-mounted energy slot on only one variant, 3 ballistic slots but, to be honest, if you do use all three the bottom slot is not well located and the arms, whilst not knuckle dragging like some IS heavies, are still pretty low-slung.
To get a similar speed/firepower balance in the Marauder as you get with the Timberwolf or Ebon Jaguar means running XL and that gives Clan heavies a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd say given pilots of similar skill, it is only the structure buffs that keep the Marauder competitive.
#4
Posted 01 April 2016 - 01:35 AM
What I like a lot about the MAD is the ballistic builds you can pull off. I experimented with the following, but you can try some AC10 or AC20 combos as well:
The 3R can do 3AC5s + 2/4ML on a STD300. Or 3AC2 with bigger lasers or more heatsinks (but you should shoot for the 3AC5, it's a lot better).
The 5M can do 2UAC5 or 2LB10X + 2/4 ML on a STD300. The LB10X build is more fun than a barrel of monkeys, but not exactly efficient.
The 5D can do some interesting LL or LPL builds, but nothing that a Black Knight wouldn't do better.
I don't have the hero so I can't say anything about it.
I still drop my Marauders in CW on hot maps. They feel well when they're part of a firing line or tight formation, because the enemy can't exploit those huge side torsos.
#5
Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:16 AM
While I'm still warming up to the MAD, it's a pretty awesome Mech. The only real cons I would say is the speed and the basically huge hitboxes that are its sides. I love how customizable it is as there's plenty of space to change things up. Overall, I think it's a pretty balanced Mech as I've observed so far.
#6
Posted 02 April 2016 - 08:27 AM
They all can give you some great builds, an option for anybody. Ballistics and energy especially. But you can get some nice results with srms and lurms with that ONE variant, 5D.
The only gripe I have is why it dosent have the high mounted cannons on the Center torso? Would it become to similar to the old one in which Harmony Gold could sue PGI *** for?
If not, that would be most prefrable since the Centrl Torso have narrow hitboxes and its meant to storm head on in a fight. That gun atop of CT would be safer. Also it could get armor and structure boosts to compensate.
Another idea is why not mount top mounted hardpoint above both side torsos? Heck add hardpoint above each torso? Less convergence but it would give some interesting loadouts.
Edited by Tordin, 02 April 2016 - 08:28 AM.
#7
Posted 02 April 2016 - 09:26 PM
Tordin, on 02 April 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:
If not, that would be most prefrable since the Centrl Torso have narrow hitboxes and its meant to storm head on in a fight. That gun atop of CT would be safer. Also it could get armor and structure boosts to compensate.
Another idea is why not mount top mounted hardpoint above both side torsos? Heck add hardpoint above each torso? Less convergence but it would give some interesting loadouts.
I'm guessing because PGI bases all the Mechs and their variants on canon lore. I don't recall the MAD having a variant with 2 high-mounted hardpoints on both STs.
I just dislike the speed, it feels like I'm in an Assault.
#8
Posted 04 April 2016 - 12:12 AM
The standard engine requirement is also it's biggest weakness. If you want to carry heavy armament that utilizes the ballistic mounts, you will be slow. And to be honest, sub-70kph heavies belong in a bygone era, clan heavies have shifted the balance towards much faster mechs.
It's by no means perfect mech, but it does have it's own niche, if you want banshee level firepower (and mobility) in 20 tons lighter package. And even at the lower tonnage the tanking ability is not that much worse because of the excellent profile.
#9
Posted 04 April 2016 - 12:37 AM
Slow for the weight, tanky, long, though with some high and some lowish hardpoints,some JJ capability differences, and does best without twisting 90 degrees vs 20 degrees or so to spread.
Pretty much what they remind me of every time I play them. They just scream "baby stalker" to me. They have a niche all their own in my mind, You -can- do XL on them if you're careful about what loadout you're running, but overall I see them as a STD machine, an Assault-lite. You just have to be much more confident about where you're setting your position, firing lines and when you're committing, vs a nimble heavy making them a more niche pick compared to some of the more common powerhouses, but I wouldn't say they're by any means crappy.
Timberwolves on the otherhand are swiss-army knives, solid in many areas including the speed department. You'll find them being preferable picks in more situations as a result. When it comes to purchases (if not filling out a Drop Deck for CW) priority, I'd honestly snag Timbers first specifically because of their overall versatility. The Marauders tank better, and their are some advantages to lower burn times etc. for Energy, less spreading ACs and the like, but I'd still say the Timber trumps it overall as far as workhorses go.
Edited by Moebius Pi, 04 April 2016 - 12:42 AM.
#10
Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:03 AM
The overall package is a superb Heavy 'mech that can perform a variety of roles.
#11
Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:10 AM
Tordin, on 02 April 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:
If not, that would be most prefrable since the Centrl Torso have narrow hitboxes and its meant to storm head on in a fight. That gun atop of CT would be safer. Also it could get armor and structure boosts to compensate.
The Marauder has never had its Autocannon in the Center Torso, despite the appearances of its model. This is because while the images were originally licensed from other products, no Battlemech has more than two free slots on its center toso in Classic Battletech after engines, gyros and the like. This would limit the Marauder to a couple of AC/2s, rather than the AC/5 (I think) in its primary canon configuration. Trust me, you don't want to waste two ballistic slots on the center torso - just ask the Timber Wolf.
#12
Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:24 AM
Jimmy DiGriz, on 01 April 2016 - 12:19 AM, said:
Just put the top 2 AC5 on a different button for the early poking game and your medium lasers or MPL are for brawling anyways.
#13
Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:31 PM
#14
Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:49 PM
TBR, on the other hand, can definitely load up more firepower. Energy builds will be most successful, but it can do a variety of ballistic/missile builds, too.
You wanns be an alpha-warrior? Go TBR.
You want to be a tanky DPSer? Go MAD.
Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 05 April 2016 - 11:50 PM.
#15
Posted 08 April 2016 - 12:31 PM
#16
Posted 13 April 2016 - 04:25 AM
I must admit that although I like WHM more and I consider it better, I was surprised at how good the MAD performs. It's a solid DPS machine and in my best match I got 3 solo kills, HBK-4P, EBJ and BLR. It can pull of XL engine with no problem as I am a more of a fire&maneuver sort of pilot. If I were to rate it against the other classics I would put it just behind WHM and solidly in front of both the RFL and ARC.
MAD vs TBR a good match, victory coming down to pilot skill.
Edited by Tamagoci, 14 April 2016 - 04:51 AM.
#17
Posted 13 April 2016 - 09:15 AM
Ceryph, on 31 March 2016 - 11:44 PM, said:
I like the Mad, but I don't think it is in the Timberwolf's league. If you run with the ACs you lose most of your firepower when your RT goes; and EVERYONE focuses that RT.
None the less, I really enjoy my Mads. Just something about em. Given my low skill at this game, the fact that I have had numerous 900+ damage games in my various Mad's tells me the mech is pretty darn good.
.
#18
Posted 13 April 2016 - 11:42 AM
So the TBR has a higher top speed and can carry a more varied armament, but the MAD can take more hits and might be more nimble and turn responsive. Although they're not yet out for C-Bills, I am pretty sure MADs are cheaper than TBRs also. The MC costs of Marauders are less than TBRs and they're much cheaper if you're paying cash.
The 3R is the "ballistic build", but I have had incredible success using an XL340 and 4 LPLs and 18 heat sinks. With Speed Tweak that gets the 3R to nearly 80 kph, which makes me feel quite mobile. Also, for amusement, I swap the 4 LPL for 4 PPC. That is a lot of fun too, with the quirks.
The other variants I use are:
5D: STD300, 5 MPLs, and 2 SRM6s.
5M: STD300, 2 LBx10, 5 ML or 2 UAC5, 5 ML
#19
Posted 14 April 2016 - 05:12 AM
Aside from some dedicated builds it is possible to build pretty similar loadouts - both JJ capable, both dual energy hardpoints in arms, both offer 2x missile or multiple ballistics slots in torsos, both can equip AMS. The TBR is better at boating stuff because it can pick and choose its omnipods, but pretty much any mixed build can be paralleled.
The speed hurts it somewhat, but that can be said of many heavy mechs - I've never had a problem keeping up with the pack and getting to the front line.
Now take that with a grain of salt,as I am only tier 4, but thats my thoughts having piloted them both extensively.
#20
Posted 14 April 2016 - 05:23 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users