38 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Now that things have had time to settle in, figured it would be a good time to review Bushwackers, since most should have had plenty of time to at least master the basic pack by now, or equivalent.

For myself, I still find most of my initial findings seem to be holding. To truly maximize potential, I find myself sticking to XLs. This does make one very vulnerable to flanking, but seems to pay off most matches. The exception being of course when your team is composed of wet cardboard, and collapse at the first push....

I've ran a few with STDs, and was generally unimpressed, just as I was with Centurions and a lot of the other 50-55 tonners people try to squeeze more "survivability" out of. It could last longer, but generally had far less impact on the match compared to an XL version, taking full advantage of it's added firepower.

Most matches, I am able to keep the opfor in front, or at least put obstacles and terrain between me and my flanks... and the BSW shakes off damage quite well as long as you present just your frontal profile and "twitch" it back and forth, instead of traditional twisting.

That said, I found them most satisfying when running them in variants of the stock design (usually swapping SRMs for LRMs) then when trying to MinMax Meta-ize them.... because they really don't minmax that impressively to begin with.

TL;DR- In all, I would say they are not Competitive, and it will be the rare match where a BSW carries the whole team (rare, but not impossible. If I can do it in a Vindicator, then the BSW can do it to), but it is a fun, versatile robot, that seems best suited to roaming the second line of the engagement, and reinforcing where needed, rather than being the tip of the spear or off roaming on it's own. That said, they actually are a lot more fun than I thought they would be. Though I would kill to have one with a second ballistic arm, or one with dual missiles in each arm..... but that's just me.

How about you?

[jper4]

I like that you can do a little bit of everything with them. the only one I use with a std engine is the 6 missile slot one that I pack with srm4s- kept me in the fight planet of times where I would have died with the xl, but the rest I stick with xl. I find I either get too aggressive/impatient and die horribly or have very good by my standards matches with them if i'm more patient. I do like that you're not just doing the same ol' same ol' for all the variants like some of the other mechs.

I also haven't seen any carry someone to victory but they're a good support role. unfortunately due to assault timidity I find myself at the front far too often with them. but if I can tag along with some bigger mechs that are actually advancing I can do well. even with the LRM one.

I do suffer from the "overtwist" with them which has led me to getting killed when I think I have an arm interposed to block the shot a lot, especially with the xl engines. that's about my biggest issue with them as far as my playstyle goes. i put them in the middle as far as my playstlye goes. better than shadowhawks and wolverines, but not up to griffins and just a hair behind kintaros

[Bishop Steiner]

Tanar, on 18 February 2017 - 10:15 AM, said:

I like that you can do a little bit of everything with them. the only one I use with a std engine is the 6 missile slot one that I pack with srm4s- kept me in the fight planet of times where I would have died with the xl, but the rest I stick with xl. I find I either get too aggressive/impatient and die horribly or have very good by my standards matches with them if i'm more patient. I do like that you're not just doing the same ol' same ol' for all the variants like some of the other mechs.

I also haven't seen any carry someone to victory but they're a good support role. unfortunately due to assault timidity I find myself at the front far too often with them. but if I can tag along with some bigger mechs that are actually advancing I can do well. even with the LRM one.

I do suffer from the "overtwist" with them which has led me to getting killed when I think I have an arm interposed to block the shot a lot, especially with the xl engines. that's about my biggest issue with them as far as my playstyle goes. i put them in the middle as far as my playstlye goes. better than shadowhawks and wolverines, but not up to griffins and just a hair behind kintaros

Yeah, as a splat brawler, between the ST geometry, nature of splatfights and of course, lightweight, comparatively, of SRMs, that is really the one time a STD does make sense. Though, tbh, I'd probably still prefer a Griffin for the role for better ability to roll damage, and of course, JJs.

[jper4]

yeah one thing i really miss is that the bushwhackers don't have JJs, that would really make them more of a force on the battlefield than they are. but yeah griffins are still the best 55 tonner on the IS side. you can shield arm without losing weapons, JJs, ecm and tankier.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Still the same as before:
#MEDIOCRE

[Bishop Steiner]

Tanar, on 18 February 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

yeah one thing i really miss is that the bushwhackers don't have JJs, that would really make them more of a force on the battlefield than they are. but yeah griffins are still the best 55 tonner on the IS side. you can shield arm without losing weapons, JJs, ecm and tankier.

I don't have the Missile BSW to compare, but how well does it cluster missiles? I know the various GRFs group aSRM6s disgustingly well.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 February 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

Still the same as before:
#MEDIOCRE

Yes, but so are most of us players, so let us have fun with our Mediocre robots, tyvm!

Ever think that maybe if you can't wring top performance out of them...that maybe it's you that's mediocre??? Huh? HUH?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 18 February 2017 - 10:53 AM.

[jper4]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 February 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

I don't have the Missile BSW to compare, but how well does it cluster missiles? I know the various GRFs group aSRM6s disgustingly well.

the torso/high launchers cluster pretty well though the two in the arm tend to be a little off compared to the others up close. seems to converge a bit better at longer ranges though. though i might just be imagining this.

[FLG 01]

Not a world beater but I did not expect it to be. (In fact, I have not seen anyone, anywhere claiming it would be). It is a solid Mech and fun. Here is a more detailed analysis of the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of its performance:


The Good

As I expected the geometry does a lot to help the Mech. Its very slim frontal profile is very well suited for mid- and long range engagements, and generally does well as long as you are facing the enemy. Spreading damage is very easy since it happens almost automatically – so much so that you have to stare straight at the enemy sometimes. Under those conditions it is relatively XL-safe allowing a respectable loadout.

Alternatively, you can run a STD engine. It is less effective, imo, but still technically possible. It can take quite a beating as the CT can be protected by twisting. However a competent enemy will still be capable of hitting your CT from many angles.

The hardpoints provide you with many options how to build the Bushwacker. Unique among the 55 tonners is the capacity to run dual AC/10 or dual UAC/5 in combination with the XL-engine. Both are viable builds for midrange combat, but the UAC/5s desperately needs backup weaponry because they will jam in the absence of anti-jam quirks. It is up to you if you add a battery of small SRM launchers or make use of the CT energy hardpoints, or both. Be it dual AC/10 or dual UAC/5, with the XL-engine you are still fast enough to serve as highly mobile fire support Mech. This is something I struggle to see in other IS mediums and it's what I like the Bushwacker for.

However the Bushwacker can also serve a SRM or LRM boat, both of which can be combined with MGs or heavier weapons. The reason I do not run such builds very often is because other Mechs can do it better. But then, there is something satisfying about sandblasting enemy Mechs with a barrage of SRMs and LB-10X pellets.

Although the armour quirks are nice, the true strength of the Bushwacker is fire support.


The Bad

Again: geometry. Decent players will quickly figure out if you run an XL-build or not – and act accordingly. Taking out your STs is quite easy, especially in a brawl or if you are surprised. This is why the Bushwacker feels a lot less survivable than it actually can be. It gets even worse if a missile launcher is mounted on the ST, because that can be shot from every angle and there is no way to protect it. Even with a STD-engine brawling should be avoided. It is just not the strength of the Mech.

Then there is the lack of energy weapons. Most Bushwacker variants have CT hardpoints only, and it is just a single one. It is tempting to place a LL or a LPL there, but for most builds that would be bad. It is better to double down on your missiles or ballistic weapons, and invest in more ammo. In fact, you may experiment with ignoring the energy HP entirely in favour of more ammo. A single additional ML is just for making you feel better anyway; it is pure psychology.

The lack of JJ limits the movement profile of the Bushwacker and can be a terminal weakness on some maps. It means you have to plan ahead a lot, scanning possible ingress and egress routes for your attacks.



The Ugly

There are still issues with the hitboxes. You can easily hit the rear of the Mech from the front if you know what to aim for and that cost me some matches.

The quirks are likely intended to work with the new skill tree but they certainly do not work well on their own. This Mech needs stronger offensive quirks, especially for the ballistic weapons.

Edited by FLG 01, 18 February 2017 - 11:43 AM.

[Lupis Volk]

A joy to play with and a go to scout mech for me, only have one with XL the rest have STD engines. Overall a great medium and i'd recommend it for anyone once it comes out for C-bills.

[FireStoat]

I don't own one, but I've fought a sizable number of them as a Clan player. The mech is tough. You can pour a fair amount of firepower that would destroy a similar mech but the Bushwacker will more often than not say ' U wot m8? ' and survive and keep moving into cover. If I have a fair fight with one in my Huntsman or Kitfox, I go in with the mindset that what I'm fighting will twist and be as durable as a Crab.

When the technology advancement patch hits and Inner Sphere gets Light Fusion Engines, I'll grab a pair of Bushwakcers for Cbills for certain.

Edited by FireStoat, 18 February 2017 - 12:08 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Much like the Crabs and Marauders, I've been enjoying the Bushwackers and have found that STD engines make them incredibly durable. I cannot count the number of times I've fought another 'Wacker and won because he tried to pop my XL and I kept going while he died when I took out his. Really, that applies to all three of the aforementioned mechs while fighting pretty much anyone. Maximizing the use of the payload that I have available while using as much of my mech as possible to soak damage before I finally die tends to get me kills that more raw firepower but significantly increased vulnerability would not be able to match.

[Coolant]

I don't own one, and they seem to be fragile and it doesn't seem to be able to pack much firepower, but it could just be the ones I've faced. At first I thought the art/style was really amazing and the way mechs look don't usually make a difference to me, but it was very unique...now I've changed my mind and think it looks kinda odd with that tail, but it seems to be popular so pilots much be enjoying it.

[mouser42]

It's alot of fun to play good in scouting or pug. Little surprised I have not seen any nerf hammer posts about it being to op. It's a good mech as long as the nerf herders don't whine to much and get it rescaled the size of a dir-wale, I would recommend it. The bushwacker is a fun IS ride with a good punch.

[Cabusha]

I didn't buy them myself. Despite playing MW3 and MW4, I've never had much nostalgia for them. My impressions from running alongside/against them is they suffer a bit from Stalker syndrome, easy to isolate side torsos from the side. Reasonably tanky from the front because of the excessive armor quirks. Honestly, they're more of an annoyance than a real threat.

It would've been pretty cool 2 years ago pre-clan and pre quirkening.

[Snazzy Dragon]

I love wasting damage in solo queue just to blast their arms off and see them hop around looking like a fish.

[Maurice Thorez]

I think most of your assessment is spot on. I have not bought the pack myself, but on paper their inability to boat certain types of weapons and tendancy to lean towards mixed builds limits them. This seems to play out in practice too with the builds I see.

The BSW-P1 seems to be the best build due to the 6 missile hard points it can use for SRM4s. The 4 left side missile hard points appear to cluster well and you can stagger your fire with the right side tubes to mitigate ghost heat. Unfortunately, using that build almost forces you into equipping an XL to get a full loadout of SRM4s or taking Artemis with a mix of tubes. I cannot imagine a STD engine vesion of that build being anywhere near as viable due to the cooling and firepower it would lose. Honestly though, the Griffin and a few other IS mechs can boat SRMs quite a bit better and with STD engines too.

I think its' biggest issue is that I find it very easy to XL check and the 10 structure just does not do enough to stop that. I have been playing mostly HBKs and a BJ-3 since the release and I have felt confident enough against them to play aggressively or push against them in most instances without much concern. I think if they were to get a buff, receiving some additional structure in some or all torsos(5-8 points) would be a big help.

That said, I will certainly be getting them later when they come out for C-bill release. They look like a very fun platform to play a large variety of laser/missile, ballistic/laser, and even ballistic/missile mixed builds on. Really feels like it could be the reverse of the Crab in terms of customisation.

[TercieI]

They don't scare me, die easy enough and there's no build that makes me want to play it.

Big ol' meh.

[Bishop Steiner]

TercieI, on 18 February 2017 - 05:29 PM, said:

They don't scare me, die easy enough and there's no build that makes me want to play it.

Big ol' meh.

Yes, that's going to be the standard Tier 1 response. Not a shock. Still digging in my heels every chance I get to avoid being forced into such "rarefied" air......

[Bishop Steiner]

FLG 01, on 18 February 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

Not a world beater but I did not expect it to be. (In fact, I have not seen anyone, anywhere claiming it would be). It is a solid Mech and fun. Here is a more detailed analysis of the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of its performance:


The Good

As I expected the geometry does a lot to help the Mech. Its very slim frontal profile is very well suited for mid- and long range engagements, and generally does well as long as you are facing the enemy. Spreading damage is very easy since it happens almost automatically – so much so that you have to stare straight at the enemy sometimes. Under those conditions it is relatively XL-safe allowing a respectable loadout.

Alternatively, you can run a STD engine. It is less effective, imo, but still technically possible. It can take quite a beating as the CT can be protected by twisting. However a competent enemy will still be capable of hitting your CT from many angles.

The hardpoints provide you with many options how to build the Bushwacker. Unique among the 55 tonners is the capacity to run dual AC/10 or dual UAC/5 in combination with the XL-engine. Both are viable builds for midrange combat, but the UAC/5s desperately needs backup weaponry because they will jam in the absence of anti-jam quirks. It is up to you if you add a battery of small SRM launchers or make use of the CT energy hardpoints, or both. Be it dual AC/10 or dual UAC/5, with the XL-engine you are still fast enough to serve as highly mobile fire support Mech. This is something I struggle to see in other IS mediums and it's what I like the Bushwacker for.

However the Bushwacker can also serve a SRM or LRM boat, both of which can be combined with MGs or heavier weapons. The reason I do not run such builds very often is because other Mechs can do it better. But then, there is something satisfying about sandblasting enemy Mechs with a barrage of SRMs and LB-10X pellets.

Although the armour quirks are nice, the true strength of the Bushwacker is fire support.


The Bad

Again: geometry. Decent players will quickly figure out if you run an XL-build or not – and act accordingly. Taking out your STs is quite easy, especially in a brawl or if you are surprised. This is why the Bushwacker feels a lot less survivable than it actually can be. It gets even worse if a missile launcher is mounted on the ST, because that can be shot from every angle and there is no way to protect it. Even with a STD-engine brawling should be avoided. It is just not the strength of the Mech.

Then there is the lack of energy weapons. Most Bushwacker variants have CT hardpoints only, and it is just a single one. It is tempting to place a LL or a LPL there, but for most builds that would be bad. It is better to double down on your missiles or ballistic weapons, and invest in more ammo. In fact, you may experiment with ignoring the energy HP entirely in favour of more ammo. A single additional ML is just for making you feel better anyway; it is pure psychology.

The lack of JJ limits the movement profile of the Bushwacker and can be a terminal weakness on some maps. It means you have to plan ahead a lot, scanning possible ingress and egress routes for your attacks.



The Ugly

There are still issues with the hitboxes. You can easily hit the rear of the Mech from the front if you know what to aim for and that cost me some matches.

The quirks are likely intended to work with the new skill tree but they certainly do not work well on their own. This Mech needs stronger offensive quirks, especially for the ballistic weapons.

Very good summation.

I ran the dual AC10 version, tbh, prefer that on my RFL-3N. Not only do I try not to duplicate builds, but the RFLs quirks jsut cater to that build brilliantly. I do run the Dual UAC version though, and find it rather effective, overall. BSW-X2
I feel... a bit perturbed by the empty arm though, TBH. And I know the Minmax Crowd would be aghast I actually mounted armor on the arms. (and tbh, this is one mech I might agree with them, as unlike MANY mechs they strip, like the CN9 or GRF... the arms on this mach don't really intercept much fire. I always find that stripping the armor from a true shield arm is pretty silly...since that is that much less actual damage it can intercept. )

Most of my other build, I pretty much HAVE to slap weapons in the arm. Just.... feel cheezy not doing so. And there is already way too much cheeze up in this joint for my lactose intolerance.

Lupis Volk, on 18 February 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

A joy to play with and a go to scout mech for me, only have one with XL the rest have STD engines. Overall a great medium and i'd recommend it for anyone once it comes out for C-bills.

I did find yours rather tasty the other night.....

FireStoat, on 18 February 2017 - 12:07 PM, said:

I don't own one, but I've fought a sizable number of them as a Clan player. The mech is tough. You can pour a fair amount of firepower that would destroy a similar mech but the Bushwacker will more often than not say ' U wot m8? ' and survive and keep moving into cover. If I have a fair fight with one in my Huntsman or Kitfox, I go in with the mindset that what I'm fighting will twist and be as durable as a Crab.

When the technology advancement patch hits and Inner Sphere gets Light Fusion Engines, I'll grab a pair of Bushwakcers for Cbills for certain.

Indeed, these will be second after my Hunchbacks for LFE retrofits, should those indeed arrive this summer. (I don't want to get my hopes up, as PGI's primary business is dealing in smashed dreams and trampled hopes.....)

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 18 February 2017 - 12:08 PM, said:

Much like the Crabs and Marauders, I've been enjoying the Bushwackers and have found that STD engines make them incredibly durable. I cannot count the number of times I've fought another 'Wacker and won because he tried to pop my XL and I kept going while he died when I took out his. Really, that applies to all three of the aforementioned mechs while fighting pretty much anyone. Maximizing the use of the payload that I have available while using as much of my mech as possible to soak damage before I finally die tends to get me kills that more raw firepower but significantly increased vulnerability would not be able to match.

I tend to find quite the opposite.... the speed to disengage, and the firepower to end fights decisively tends to matter much more in my average match than the ability to wander around as a stick, but to each their own. (There are people who still think ZOmbie Cents are good builds, after all.)

[Ruar]

I haven't played them much, but I find the Bushwacker to be mediocre. I can have better matches in my Shadow Hawk or Enforcer. The lack of JJ's really hurts the mobility. The hardpoint placement and the high tail fin make it difficult to poke.

All in all it's an ok short range support mech, but that's not a role I enjoy.

If they wanted me to make the Bushwacker a primarily played mech it would need jump jets, the tail fin brought down. and the arm geometry made bigger so it can shield. There are just too many drawbacks to make the Bushwacker a truly effective mech.