23 replies to this topic

[Gaussfather]

So like most long-time Battletech players I enjoyed - no I actually loved - playing the Marauder II in older Mechwarrior video games. 100 tons with a dorsal gun! What's not to love here?

But when I look at the loadout/design I don't see anything to get really excited about. OK, it has jumpjets which are great for snap turns in an assault but I'm guessing my King Crabs will be superior, or at least equal, to this mech...

I wish PGI had gotten more creative so this mech could sport some unique loadouts, i.e. 3 or 4 ballistic mounts like the Victor 9A1

1. No version that can mount an AC20 in the arms.
2. No version with ballistic in the arms and in the dorsal gun
3. Stealth/ecm version... low slung arms, PPC/Gauss nerf makes it not really interesting as a sniper... too slow for anything else. How can this be superior to the Fafnir in that role?

Anyway, I'm not trying to be a hater but for me the Marauder II was always about having a big dorsal "cannon", but in MWO it really can't compete since ballistic boating is the key to having a good ballistic assault mech. I mean the Anni & King Crab are the ones to beat.

In that perspective this mech's versions don't offer anything new, which is a pity. I hope PGI maybe sees this thread and changes 1 or 2 versions' hardpoints to offer something unique in the IS assault class.

My personal request: A no lower arm actuator version with ballistic hardpoints in each arm AND 1 ST ballistic hardpoint for the dorsal gun. That way we can try a 3 AC20 or Gauss rifle version. You can already do this and more with a Dire Wolf so it won't break the game.

And as other's have requested, the dorsal gun should follow the arm crosshair. At least as far as the firing goes, the animation itself isn't critical if that is too difficult for PGI.

[Y E O N N E]

Because a KGC can't boat 8 energy or 9 missiles.

Duh. :v

[Gaussfather]

Y E O N N E, on 19 January 2019 - 01:07 PM, said:

Because a KGC can't boat 8 energy or 9 missiles.

Duh. :v

but several other mechs can & probably do it better

[Ruccus]

In terms of value I think the Marauder 2 pack is solid. In the base pack you get the laserboat, missileboat, and a ballistic dorsal cannon version. That's a nice variety of builds where each variant can do its own thing. For the reinforcements you have the ECM gauss variant that can also do quad AC5s with 2xERLL chasers for good distance suppression and a Gauss+ERPPC version that since it's stock will likely have the HSL+1 for the PPCs.

I think there may be merit to suggesting the removal of the lower arm actuator from the hero, but there's also merit to keeping it - with the low slung arms and lower actuators tracking and killing a light mech hounding an assault is much easier than without the lower actuators.

Overall while I don't think the Marauder2 will change the meta, I think they'll be decent to good mechs.

[Y E O N N E]

Gaussfather, on 19 January 2019 - 01:09 PM, said:

but several other mechs can & probably do it better

Depends on which specific energy weapons you are loading up, and there is no 'Mech that can run as many SRMs. You can fire 4x SRM6 and 5x SRM2 without triggering ghost heat; pair that with 4x MPL or 2x SN-PPC, and with between 18 and 20 DHS, and you've got a nasty CQC 'Mech that cannot be replicated.

For the energy one, there are 'Mechs with better mounts but no 'Mechs which can run cooler.

What's really going to make or break this 'Mech is how big it is, how agile it is, and whether it got enough quirks to compensate for deficiencies in either category. If it's Nightstar size with Nightstar quirks, it will be mediocre. If it's Nightstar size with Annihilator or Fafnir quirks, it will be awesome. If it's Marauder IIC sized with Cyclops agility, it will also be awesome.

Edited by Y E O N N E, 19 January 2019 - 01:23 PM.

[Spheroid]

There is no existing I.S. Assault that can do SRM48.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Honestly there is one huge reason to Marauder II over using a KC. HIT BOXES.

The KC just has abdominal hit boxes, so much so that even the durability quirks don't help it much. Its like the Awesome, it is just is too damn easy to hit. On the other hand, since we have two other Marauders in the game and we already know they are very tanky, chances are the Marauder II will be very tanky as well.

Another thing is the width of the KC vs the Marauder II. KC is a wide mech and because of this couple things happen. It get hung up on stuff easily, it often can't maneuver well around its teammates and its weapons are spread along a wide horizontal axis. You also telegraphic your movements to the enemy because when you peek you have to extend a hell of alot of your mech out of cover to get your crosshairs to bear on the target and this takes time, especially in a slow 100-tonner. Marauders on the other hand typically have a much more compact profile. They maneuver around rocks, buildings and their teammates much better than the KC can, tend to telegraphic their movements much less and even can fire into gaps between teammates or cover that much smaller that what you would be able to do with a KC.

Now there will still be some builds available to the KC that aren't available to the Maraduer II obviously but overall I think the Marauder II will be a more comfortable ride. Like the other Marauders you will be able to just minutely flick your nose left and right to spread damage like a champ and in general, it will be just easier to get around it and engage the enemy with than the KC. This may sound like smaller differences but it will likely have a huge impact on its performance.

[Y E O N N E]

Ruccus, on 19 January 2019 - 01:14 PM, said:

I think there may be merit to suggesting the removal of the lower arm actuator from the hero, but there's also merit to keeping it - with the low slung arms and lower actuators tracking and killing a light mech hounding an assault is much easier than without the lower actuators.

The MAD-4L and MAD-AL both have twin ballistics in the arms with lower actuators and both have 2x energy in the right torso. I think they could and should probably remove the lower actuators from one of them for flavor, and since PGI tends to keep to TT builds it's not going to be the 4L (as much as it would benefit far more from it).

[Angel of Annihilation]

Y E O N N E, on 19 January 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

What's really going to make or break this 'Mech is how big it is, how agile it is, and whether it got enough quirks to compensate for deficiencies in either category. If it's Nightstar size with Nightstar quirks, it will be mediocre. If it's Nightstar size with Annihilator or Fafnir quirks, it will be awesome. If it's Marauder IIC sized with Cyclops agility, it will also be awesome.

I tend to agree with you here for the most part especially on size or really more specifically shape. If they keep the narrow, wedge type profile of the other two Marauders, it will be tanky. If they really flair out the side torsos, well we have a problem.

As for the agility or durability quirks making or breaking the mech. I am not so sure. If they keep the wedge shape, it should be easy just to flick the nose around to spread damage. In fact I think I would be pretty shocked if they added durability quirks. As for the Agility, honestly I expect it to be the same as the KC. I just can't see them making it as agile as a Cyclops. However unlike you I am not sure if this will be doom and gloom if they don't. I mean the Marauder IIC got nerfed to the point it has abysmal agility stats and it still sits as a Top Tier mech.

Overall, I think it will be just good, not great but unless PGI really mucks things up, I don't think it will DOA.

[Y E O N N E]

The STs are going to flare out, the art shows it. The MAD-IIC is already easier to steal an ST from than the IS MAD, and I worry that the MAD-II being 100-tonner size is only going to enhance that deficiency

The wedge shape is ONLY good if you can keep your front to the enemy and make the micro-twists fast enough. If the 'Mech lacks the agility to do that, it gets side-cored pretty easily. That's why the agility nerf to the MAD-IIC was an effective way to bring its potency down, and it's why the MAD-5D (my favorite) is not the CQC champ it used to be.

[Gaussfather]

Angel of Annihilation, on 19 January 2019 - 01:30 PM, said:

Honestly there is one huge reason to Marauder II over using a KC. HIT BOXES.

The KC just has abdominal hit boxes, so much so that even the durability quirks don't help it much. Its like the Awesome, it is just is too damn easy to hit. On the other hand, since we have two other Marauders in the game and we already know they are very tanky, chances are the Marauder II will be very tanky as well.

Another thing is the width of the KC vs the Marauder II. KC is a wide mech and because of this couple things happen. It get hung up on stuff easily, it often can't maneuver well around its teammates and its weapons are spread along a wide horizontal axis. You also telegraphic your movements to the enemy because when you peek you have to extend a hell of alot of your mech out of cover to get your crosshairs to bear on the target and this takes time, especially in a slow 100-tonner. Marauders on the other hand typically have a much more compact profile. They maneuver around rocks, buildings and their teammates much better than the KC can, tend to telegraphic their movements much less and even can fire into gaps between teammates or cover that much smaller that what you would be able to do with a KC.

Now there will still be some builds available to the KC that aren't available to the Maraduer II obviously but overall I think the Marauder II will be a more comfortable ride. Like the other Marauders you will be able to just minutely flick your nose left and right to spread damage like a champ and in general, it will be just easier to get around it and engage the enemy with than the KC. This may sound like smaller differences but it will likely have a huge impact on its performance.

Actually if you play the KC right it is very durable. The large and relatively high arms spread and soak up a lot of damage... what sucks in a KC is being targeted by LRM boats as the "hood" is massive. But head on most people aim for the center hitbox and its surprisingly XL friendly compared to an Awesome or Stalker (probably best analogue to how the Marauder hitboxes will be) But let's face it, every 100 tonner in the game is easy to hit as they are slow big targets.

The KC benefits from a fast torso yaw speed and large yaw angle so you really need to take advantage of that fact in the game.

[Ruccus]

Y E O N N E, on 19 January 2019 - 01:32 PM, said:

The MAD-4L and MAD-AL both have twin ballistics in the arms with lower actuators and both have 2x energy in the right torso. I think they could and should probably remove the lower actuators from one of them for flavor, and since PGI tends to keep to TT builds it's not going to be the 4L (as much as it would benefit far more from it).

Yes, that's why I think there may be merit to removing the lower arm actuator on the hero. I'm thinking since it's the hero they could make the lower arm actuators removable on the MAD-AL though I think that's only supposed to be available for omnimechs.

That would be pretty cool though - battlemechs with omnimech arms...

[Gaussfather]

Y E O N N E, on 19 January 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

Depends on which specific energy weapons you are loading up, and there is no 'Mech that can run as many SRMs. You can fire 4x SRM6 and 5x SRM2 without triggering ghost heat; pair that with 4x MPL or 2x SN-PPC, and with between 18 and 20 DHS, and you've got a nasty CQC 'Mech that cannot be replicated.

For the energy one, there are 'Mechs with better mounts but no 'Mechs which can run cooler.

What's really going to make or break this 'Mech is how big it is, how agile it is, and whether it got enough quirks to compensate for deficiencies in either category. If it's Nightstar size with Nightstar quirks, it will be mediocre. If it's Nightstar size with Annihilator or Fafnir quirks, it will be awesome. If it's Marauder IIC sized with Cyclops agility, it will also be awesome.

I have to agree, because the Cyclops is really the best SRM assault brawler because of its agility and hardpoints.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Y E O N N E, on 19 January 2019 - 01:44 PM, said:

The STs are going to flare out, the art shows it. The MAD-IIC is already easier to steal an ST from than the IS MAD, and I worry that the MAD-II being 100-tonner size is only going to enhance that deficiency

The wedge shape is ONLY good if you can keep your front to the enemy and make the micro-twists fast enough. If the 'Mech lacks the agility to do that, it gets side-cored pretty easily. That's why the agility nerf to the MAD-IIC was an effective way to bring its potency down, and it's why the MAD-5D (my favorite) is not the CQC champ it used to be.

Well it is a wedge and since it is a wedge it is pretty obviously the sides are going to flare out. What matters though is how much and from the art it doesn't appear it will be any worse of a flare than what we have seen in the existing Marauders. Basically it is still a very narrow profile. Also any design has flaws and the flaw of the Marauder design is that from the side, your a much bigger target. Still I would say your going to at least be attempting to face the enemy more often than not which is why the Marauders tend to be so tanky.

As far as the micro-twist is concerned, I think the name speaks for itself, micro being the operative word. The point here is that with minimal adjustment you can direct fire away from your CT to your ST. Whether the torso twist is super fast or somewhat slow, you still only have to move your torso about 15 degrees to the side to re-direct the damage. That is always going to be better than having to move say 45 degrees or more.

Keep in mind we are comparing the Marauder II with a KC in this thread too. I am not saying that the Marauder II will be the king of mechs. I am saying that compared to the KC it is likely to be much more tanky and easy to use, with far fewer glaring flaws than the KC. Because of this I think the Marauder II will be at least moderately superior to the KC overall.

[Y E O N N E]

The bigger the 'Mech, the bigger "micro" is. Micro is really just a short-hand for saying that you aren't doing a full shield-side twist like you would in a humanoid 'Mech like the Warhammer.

The Nightstar is an extremely similar 'Mech, and it plays extremely similarly to the Marauder. But, because it's sized as a 95 tonner and not a 75 or 85 tonner, it can't do the damage mitigation anywhere near as well. Both the NSR and the MAD II are wedges on the Y-axis as well as the Z-axis, and that is both of their weaknesses.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Y E O N N E, on 19 January 2019 - 05:00 PM, said:

The bigger the 'Mech, the bigger "micro" is. Micro is really just a short-hand for saying that you aren't doing a full shield-side twist like you would in a humanoid 'Mech like the Warhammer.

The Nightstar is an extremely similar 'Mech, and it plays extremely similarly to the Marauder. But, because it's sized as a 95 tonner and not a 75 or 85 tonner, it can't do the damage mitigation anywhere near as well. Both the NSR and the MAD II are wedges on the Y-axis as well as the Z-axis, and that is both of their weaknesses.

Again we are comparing the Marauder II to the King Crab. I mean I fully agree with everything you say, except we aren't really debating how good the Marauder II will be against every other mech in the game, we are debating if it will be better than the KC.

However, I am not sure if it was this thread or another but I still say the Marauder II will likely be better than the Nightstar. Looking at the art I have seen, the Marauder II still seems like it will have a narrower frontal profile but that isn't even the main reason why I think the Marauder II will be superior. The main reason is because the Marauder II won't have to deal with those arms sticking at 90 degree angles get caught up on everything, telegraphing your every move before you can even remotely get out of cover to fire and generally offering horrible convergence that often as not puts your shots into the backs of a friendly or the side of rock rather than the enemy your trying to hit. KC has some of these same problems, both are just too damn wide.

[Koniving]

Angel of Annihilation, on 19 January 2019 - 01:30 PM, said:

Honestly there is one huge reason to Marauder II over using a KC. HIT BOXES.

The KC just has abdominal hit boxes, so much so that even the durability quirks don't help it much. Its like the Awesome, it is just is too damn easy to hit. On the other hand, since we have two other Marauders in the game and we already know they are very tanky, chances are the Marauder II will be very tanky as well.

Another thing is the width of the KC vs the Marauder II. KC is a wide mech and because of this couple things happen. It get hung up on stuff easily, it often can't maneuver well around its teammates and its weapons are spread along a wide horizontal axis. You also telegraphic your movements to the enemy because when you peek you have to extend a hell of alot of your mech out of cover to get your crosshairs to bear on the target and this takes time, especially in a slow 100-tonner. Marauders on the other hand typically have a much more compact profile. They maneuver around rocks, buildings and their teammates much better than the KC can, tend to telegraphic their movements much less and even can fire into gaps between teammates or cover that much smaller that what you would be able to do with a KC.

Now there will still be some builds available to the KC that aren't available to the Maraduer II obviously but overall I think the Marauder II will be a more comfortable ride. Like the other Marauders you will be able to just minutely flick your nose left and right to spread damage like a champ and in general, it will be just easier to get around it and engage the enemy with than the KC. This may sound like smaller differences but it will likely have a huge impact on its performance.

You saved me a post.

And here's a picture.

While these won't be exactly what we get, its a rough idea...



So in general we're looking at a narrower front profile at the cost of a wide side profile. The top profile is gonna be big no matter how you look at it for both the Marauder II and the King Crab. In fact before we got the actual design art, one of the big things I was hoping for was a flatter, longer/wider body for the King Crab's front/side profile.

[Mr Andersson]

Angel of Annihilation, on 19 January 2019 - 01:30 PM, said:

Honestly there is one huge reason to Marauder II over using a KC. HIT BOXES.

The KC just has abdominal hit boxes, so much so that even the durability quirks don't help it much. Its like the Awesome, it is just is too damn easy to hit. On the other hand, since we have two other Marauders in the game and we already know they are very tanky, chances are the Marauder II will be very tanky as well.

This.

Geometry matters. A lot.

[Y E O N N E]

Angel of Annihilation, on 19 January 2019 - 05:36 PM, said:

Again we are comparing the Marauder II to the King Crab. I mean I fully agree with everything you say, except we aren't really debating how good the Marauder II will be against every other mech in the game, we are debating if it will be better than the KC.

Over the past week, we've debated about more than just the KGC, though.

Quote

However, I am not sure if it was this thread or another but I still say the Marauder II will likely be better than the Nightstar.

I have no doubt it will be better than the NSR, but that will be because of convergence (which also translates into better corner-peaking) and superior hardpoints.

But I just feel that, like the NSR, it's going to be trivially easy to chip away at. The MAD II will be a big d*ck, full-expose power-position/push 'Mech and meh at trading that way it can better use its armor.

[Gaussfather]

Thanks for the post showing the hitboxes, I personally like both the MAD and MAD IIC, and my reason for bringing up the KC was that in terms of ballistic loadouts it does pretty much everything the MAD II can do and more. You want a top firing "dorsal gun", the Kaiju has that. Dual AC20s... all the KCs do that and some have space for 4 UAC5s or 6 AC2s builds which the MAD II cannot do.

So I don't think the MAD II will suck, I just wish 1 or 2 variants had options for 3 ballistic location, 2 in the arms and 1 in the side torso. Basically the original MAD can already do 1 dorsal ballistic gun + 2 PPCs. And so can the Kaiju which I own.

But my point about the hit boxes on the KC is shown above: the arms/shoulders take some of the hits instead of the side torsos when you torso twist, and when you face head on most people hit the center hitbox, which has the most armor. On the MAD you really need to run a STD as on a Stalker for maximum durability.

What I notice on my KC is that in quick play I can get away with an XL because 90% of the time its mainly the CT being cored that kills me, which allows me to run faster and/or carry more weapons and heatsinks.

So I guess when the MAD II gets here we can settle the debate. I think for people with few assault mechs its a solid addition but if you are like me and have all these other 100 tonners you kind of have to ask yourself "what's unique here" compared to the others in your stable besides killer looks and nostalgia.

Edited by Gaussfather, 19 January 2019 - 06:53 PM.