11 replies to this topic

[CD0UG]

as title reads which it the better bet?

I've been played the mauler a bit and its alright but pretty unmanuverable and such.. just wanted some opinions as well as builds to go with it! thanks!

[_____]

The meta Mauler builds are all slow ballistics platforms and are usually considered better than what the Cyclops can do. They can do a bit of LRMs too if you like that. Cyclops has more variety but slightly worse builds. The CP-10-Q is a pretty fun one with up to 7 SRM launchers. In order to go fast in a Cyclops you need an XL engine and that can be risky due to the reasons I describe in this video about the CP-10-Z. Overall if you're fine with meta builds and slow ballistic platforms, then Mauler. If you like more variety, Cyclops.

Edited by BlackhawkSC, 06 November 2016 - 07:38 PM.

[AncientRaig]

While I don't own either, the Mauler looks like the better mech. Slower definitely, but it has better geometry. The Cyclops looks like it suffers from the same issue mechs like the Stalker or Mad Dog do, with tiny STs and low slung arms making it so you can't effectively shield from incoming fire. The Mauler has a much flatter torso and arms that look like decent shield arms. The hardpoints are more or less equal, but the Mauler has its arms closer to its torso mounted weapons. Might help with making sure that shots don't hit the dirt a bit.

[Audacious Aubergine]

The Mauler can bring more guns (hardpoint numbers), the Cyclops is a bit swifter on its feet (accel/decel quirks). So depends what you prefer to do?

[Kaptain]

Should you want to keep 3 mechs the cyclops offers far more variety but I still love the symmetrical design of maulers.

Sidefire, on 06 November 2016 - 07:42 PM, said:

The Cyclops looks like it suffers from the same issue mechs like the Stalker (...) with tiny STs and low slung arms making it so you can't effectively shield from incoming fire.

What? The Stalker is one of the tankiest mechs in the game and all variants get 4 very high mounted energy hard points with the other hard points being very decent.

Edited by Kaptain, 06 November 2016 - 09:56 PM.

[Recon Strike]

BlackhawkSC, on 06 November 2016 - 07:36 PM, said:

The meta Mauler builds are all slow ballistics platforms and are usually considered better than what the Cyclops can do. They can do a bit of LRMs too if you like that. Cyclops has more variety but slightly worse builds. The CP-10-Q is a pretty fun one with up to 7 SRM launchers. In order to go fast in a Cyclops you need an XL engine and that can be risky due to the reasons I describe in this video about the CP-10-Z. Overall if you're fine with meta builds and slow ballistic platforms, then Mauler. If you like more variety, Cyclops.

You can add plenty variety to the Mauler, as long as you can look beyond the one man show that is metamechs.com... The 2P variant works very well with a big engine and 6xLL. The 1R is a solid brawler with ASRM24 and 2xLBX's. The only one that might be a little redundant is the 1P, since the MX90 can basically do everything better, except when you absolutely need those 4 E hardpoints. I personally have the 4UAC5 build on the 1P and the 5AC5 build on the MX90.

[Arianrhod]

The Cyclops is faster. Whoever said a Cyclops needs to have an XL engine to go fast, is wrong. I'd say it's the inverse problem. The reason Cyclops can be fast is because they don't have as much potential for firepower—excepting the Sleipnir and the 10-Q. From the front, I think they have a better profile than the Mauler—at the very least, it's smaller, and doesn't have a bunch of geometry above the head like the Mauler does. However obviously from the side the Cyclops suffers. The Cyclops has two minor perks the Mauler doesn't have: the Tacticon B-2000 and Zombie Mode. Cyclops also has more potential for deadsiding; most Mauler builds are generally symmetrical, or else they make poor use of the hardpoints. But also the Mauler has higher arm guns and I believe higher torso mounts, and better shield arms.

So all in all I'd say they're about even. The Mauler trades speed for firepower, the Cyclops trades firepower for speed. From there it's mainly a playstyle decision.

[Void Angel]

I don't own either 'mech, so I can't give too definite of an opinion - but the Cyclops felt much more difficult to fight than the Mauler when it came out. Plus, you almost never see the Mauler on the field any more (when you do it's generally an MX90 dakka build,) and when that happens (cough*Archer*cough) there's usually a reason. You can do well and have fun with both 'mechs, I'm sure - but if I had to choose, I'd go with the Cyclops.

[Recon Strike]

Void Angel, on 07 November 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

...there's usually a reason.

... it's the KDK-3. Everybody who would enjoy the Mauler, would enjoy the kodiak more. So the only people playing Maulers are IS loyalists, maybe..

[Void Angel]

Actually, no - because the Mauler disappeared long before the Kodiak was released to pre-orders, much less for c-bills. The Mauler isn't popular because it's an overall less-effective chassis, unfortunately.

[Tordin]

Both. Neither is overall better than the other. Same tonnage bracket but different roles. Wish this would be true for all mechs of same tonnage at least.

Edited by Tordin, 17 November 2016 - 08:36 AM.

[Ghostrider0067]

It largely depends on the role you wish to play. The Mauler is a better straight up combatant with better hardpoints enabling scary firepower. The Cyclops is a secondary assault and is more a support/cleanup mech. That's not to say it can't do well straight up, but it was designed to be a command platform and the sensor suite works great for your team when used appropriately.

There are several solid choices in Cyclops depending on your choice of style. I tend to run the P and Z variants most but also find solid usefulness in my Sleipnir. I don't own the Mauler but have faced loads of them. In the right hands they are undoubtedly brutal.