Jump to content

Let's Talk: Mauler Champion Discussion


22 replies to this topic

#1 Tina Benoit

    Community Manager

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 817 posts

Posted 23 January 2017 - 05:46 PM

Regarding the community-created Mauler Builds here: https://mwomercs.com...champion-build/

Let's discuss the top 3 voted Mauler builds! Answer the following:
- Which one of the below 3 builds do you think should get implemented as the champion?
- Why would this fit best as the Mauler Champion?
- Is your pick new-player friendly? If so, how?

Build #1: Mauler MX90
Build #2: Mauler MX90
Build #3: Mauler MX90


Discuss! Also please try to keep it fairly short as a designer will be taking their time to review this thread to make the final call.

#2 Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,806 posts

Posted 23 January 2017 - 06:57 PM

I pick build #1. new players could definitely use an effective mid range DPS assault, the Mauler is the best one in the IS. Build #1 also has UACs, so new players can get used to their jam chances.

#3 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,104 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 23 January 2017 - 07:11 PM

#1 is my pick -- 4x UAC5 may have jam chance, but it's the faster than the rest. Likewise if they simply wish not to jam, holding the fire than double-tap will solve that.

#4 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 23 January 2017 - 10:18 PM

#1... Even though I love the quad shotgun build its a little light on the ammo load and I wouldn't use any of them that way because of that. The Ultra/5 build at least has sufficient rounds I think for most new players.

Edited by Dee Eight, 23 January 2017 - 10:23 PM.


#5 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,558 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 24 January 2017 - 01:38 AM

Build #1 - good build.

Build #2 - not a *bad* build per se, but I wouldn't make a trial mech that slow.

Build #3 - this is a brawler that only goes 50 kph. No.



I vote for Build #1.

#6 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,257 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 24 January 2017 - 11:36 AM

I vote Build #1 due to its firepower and extra speed over Build #2. The 4 Ultras will be more fun for new players in the public queue than the 5 AC5 build, which is more of a high level, long range build.

#7 Dom the Destroyer

    Member

  • Pip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 16 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNYC

Posted 24 January 2017 - 11:04 PM

Build #1 was my contribution so obviously it is my pick as well. Posted Image

Its the best combination of speed, firepower, armor and cooling efficiency.

I feel this build is a great platform for beginners venturing into assault territory. It a good choice for learning timing to minimize the jam chance of UAC's. It also shows them how armor can be distributed to different areas of the mech where needed and that not every weapon slot needs to be utilized to be effective.

Edited by Dom the Destroyer, 25 January 2017 - 01:30 AM.


#8 Kuaron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Senior Captain
  • Senior Captain
  • 1,105 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 06:36 AM

I vote #3. Because shotguns.
Honestly, #1 is probably the better one, less slow and with a range better forgiving the lack of speed.
But with no shotguns.

#9 Leonidas the First

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 43 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 08:30 AM

#3. With the cool down you can launch 2 alphas for 80 damage for most opponents 1 alpha. The U/AC 5's can not match the DPS if they do not jam, and said jamming reduces reliability. This build has just enough time to fire, turn and shield, and turn back to fire while U/AC require face tanking and turning when you THINK your enemy is going to fire, which further reduced the DPS in comparison. When I started learning assaults this was my first great build, so this will be good for noobs!

#10 Dom the Destroyer

    Member

  • Pip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 16 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNYC

Posted 26 January 2017 - 08:23 AM

Lets be honest... #3 is just way too slow and doesn't have adequate armor. The LB cooldown in my opinion is too long and combined with the slow speed of the mech, it will be a sitting duck.

Edited by Dom the Destroyer, 26 January 2017 - 08:24 AM.


#11 Soviet Alex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 626 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 04:06 PM

I'd go with Build 2: 5xAC5. Ultras jamming isn't fun, and a Trial mech has to be fun. 5 AC5 Dakka Dakka is fun. Posted Image

#12 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 04:12 PM

Can't recommend any of these again.

The rear armor is too light on all of them. I know more advanced players are thinking in terms of facing the enemy, but a newer player is much more likely to advance into a surrounded position, or stand where they can be ambushed. 'Oh crap I should move let me try and shoot this 'mech to get them to back off while I move to a better spot' is an infinitely better learning experience for a new player than 'Oh gee I just fell over I'm done for the match.' Not because it's a softer lesson, but because it's more likely the new player is going to be able, willing, and ready to acknowledge that their positioning was bad, rather than that the game was unfair.

Ordinarily, this might be enough armor, given it's an assault and there's a lot of internal structure there, but this is a super-ammo-dependent 'mech in all three builds and that makes it very prone to gooey kablooies and frustrated hamster hueys.


The four-LB-10X build is not for new players. It makes an already slow and unwieldy 'mech slower and harder to pilot effectively, and new players are not going to be ready for the twist-and-shoot it's designed for.

The five-autocannon build will similarly drive like a basking whale on valium. And a new player in a slow assault who gets left behind is basically fodder.

Quad Yewwacks is at least semi-acceptable, but as with many others here, I'm a little leery of the jam chance. Inconsistent 'mechs are not something you want a new player piloting, because they will generate an even more arbitrarily good/bad experience, and visibly arbitrary win-loss in combat is not something you want a new player to face.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 26 January 2017 - 04:13 PM.


#13 VirtualRiot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 201 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 05:36 PM

I vote build #2, although I feel less ammo and a larger engine would be better, for the following reasons,

1. No jam chance, very consistent. A new(er) player is going to expect their weapons to fire when they press the key. The jam chance mechanic on the UACs is just too frustrating.
2. Higher alpha, higher chance of a new player getting a kill.
3. Less likely to lose weapons due to crits vs the UAC build.
Overall, build #2 is the most RELIABLE mech of the three, and I feel thats what a new player is going to have the best experience piloting.

BONUS!! - Get rid of half a ton of ac5 ammo and put a C.A.S.E. in the left torso you dimwits, do you even play the game? The last thing you want is a new player getting ****** because someone got a lucky gauss crit on that torso ammo.
Ok, I'm done.

Edited by VirtualRiot, 26 January 2017 - 05:36 PM.


#14 Wraith 1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 723 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 06:14 PM

Build #1 is very similar to the King Crab champion. I know they probably won't ever be in rotation at the same time, but 5 AC/5 is a very fun build that is currently unique to the MAL-MX90.

The engine on build #2 is a little small for an unbasiced mech, but swap some ammo for a bigger engine and I think it'd be good.

Build #3 is not something I'd put a new player in. Almost as slow as build #2, but with a third of the effective range.

#15 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 26 January 2017 - 07:29 PM

No energy backup for any of these. Not enough ammo, either. 2 and 3 are horribly slow, too. I have to go with 1, for the bigger engine and slightly better ammo load.

#16 Kamikaze Viking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationStay on Topic... STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Posted 26 January 2017 - 08:50 PM

While Build 2 is unique to the MX-90 and the 4uac's can be done elsewhere I would agree with the majority of this thread that the Build 1 is the best of the options here for variety and ease of use for new players.

Vote Build 1

#17 Cato Zilks

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hero of Marik
  • Hero of Marik
  • 698 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationPrinceton, NJ

Posted 26 January 2017 - 09:09 PM

#1

#18 Kmieciu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 3,437 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 27 January 2017 - 06:21 AM

Build #1
UAC5 is the most versatile IS ballistic weapon.

#19 SlippnGriff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • 220 posts
  • LocationSpud farm

Posted 03 February 2017 - 09:54 AM

build #1
the other two are too slow and usually only seasoned players run them for fun. #1 has some more speed and new players can have fun with uac's

#20 Aelix

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 7 posts

Posted 03 February 2017 - 01:50 PM

Ever since I got my first pack (resistance) I have /loved/ my Maulers. And while I want to have the Quad-Shotgun build be the champion, I cannot let the one you proposed here be the champion.

I too am putting in my vote for the #1 UAC/5 build.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users