154 replies to this topic

[FLG 01]

Sydney Sender, on 14 April 2019 - 08:07 AM, said:

The 360 Engine cap is going to kill this mech, more so than the trash structure quirks (oh boy, more overheat buffer for a mech that's terrible heat management can be instantly improved with DHS and replacement of PPCs with LPLs) it's a 100 ton IS assault. it should be able to mount a 400 rated engine for a 4/6 movement profile instead of 3/5 with the 300 (Standard engine for the MAD-II). 360 won't move you an additional hex in tabletop, and it's something that has annoyed me about this game for a very long time, max engine rating on IS mechs, especially heavies and assaults, has been stunted for years to knock down their maximum agility potential. This is the graceful Marauder II. It should not have agility stats equivalent to the pondersome atlas, also, mechs like the marauder and timber wolf having severely limited arm yaw despite hyper-extending actuators etc.

Let me begin by saying I agree the Marauder II must be more mobile. +1, you have my axe. That being said, the engine cap is not a big problem and I say this as a firm believer in cavalry Mechs.

First, the agility has nothing to do with the engine. Acceleration, Deceleration, turn rate(s), and pitch and yaw angle are independent values set by PGI. They are quirks if you will. And I do agree many Mechs should be more agile.

Second, the rating of the engine merely determines the Mech's top speed, and using a 100t Mech every KPH will cost you tons. Going from a 350 engine to a 400 engine means an increase in speed of 8.1 kph while losing 17 tons, using an LFE. Realistically it is rare to use a rating bigger than 350, and even 350 is rather excessive for most builds. (Although you can count on me using them).

[Kuaron]

True.
Engine rating 400 may be an option for some Clan assaults with their cheaty C-XL engines, and even there you'll usually stop at 375 or 390 at most.

The accel/decel/turn rate is still an issue.

I don’t regret preordering it, but only because I expect to see some buffs in the future, concerning armour quirks and agility.

[Slambot]

I am kinda disappointed with the overall look of the quirks on this mech. IS assaults NEED durability in order to be viable. Especially those mechs that have architecture that REQUIRES full-on face time. One over the cockpit weapon mount, though lore friendly, does not a hill humper make. Given that the MAD II looks like its gonna handle like a dead fish and it will be about as durable as a kodiak, with out the great hardpoints of the KDK,... I am not very optimistic about the chances for survival for this mech.

Given the information presented, this mech looks to be about 1/2 as viable as an annihilator. The annihilator has similar mobility, better hardpoints, better architecture, AND vastly superior durability. Glad I got this as a freebie for MW5.

[kapusta11]

Once again PGI showed their complete lack of understanding of what makes a mech good or bad. Why does it have the worst quirks out of all IS 100 tonners? Do you expect it to outperform Dual HGauss mechs or UAC boats? But wait, it can do 2 Gauss + 1 ERPPC build, on a slow 100 ton chassis... What a joke.

[Thorn Hallis]

kapusta11, on 15 April 2019 - 01:07 AM, said:

But wait, it can do 2 Gauss + 1 ERPPC build, on a slow 100 ton chassis... What a joke.

I guess ECM and jump jets are to blame here.

[MovinTarget]

Slambot, on 14 April 2019 - 09:16 PM, said:

I am kinda disappointed with the overall look of the quirks on this mech. IS assaults NEED durability in order to be viable. Especially those mechs that have architecture that REQUIRES full-on face time. One over the cockpit weapon mount, though lore friendly, does not a hill humper make. Given that the MAD II looks like its gonna handle like a dead fish and it will be about as durable as a kodiak, with out the great hardpoints of the KDK,... I am not very optimistic about the chances for survival for this mech.

Given the information presented, this mech looks to be about 1/2 as viable as an annihilator. The annihilator has similar mobility, better hardpoints, better architecture, AND vastly superior durability. Glad I got this as a freebie for MW5.

If it has the hitboxes of other Marauders, it has a chance. Yes the Anni is more durable but that is partly b/c it has a 300 max engine rating.

We all know in QP that the key to playing assault is to not be the slowest on the NASCAR track...

Also remember that the difference between a 360 Engine and a 400 for a 100 tonner is a WHOPPING 6kph!!! ZOMG!?!?!?!?! Which is why many KDK pilots don't even use that 400XL...

Note that the 300 vs 360 is slightly more noticeable at 48kph vs 58kph... almost twice the difference in speed as 360 vs 400.

Yes its faster but you have to be doing some serious hiking to outdistance something an appreciable margin at that difference. So engine cap shouldn't be *that* big an argument with desync in effect.

[RickySpanish]

Thorn Hallis, on 15 April 2019 - 01:45 AM, said:

I guess ECM and jump jets are to blame here.

Yeeah but PGI have forgotten that Assault class jets don't send you far and weigh a lot. The gauss rifles are low slung so to get that alpha off you must expose most of the 'Mech, not to mention charging the rifles. It's a neat gimmick but the lack of armour quirks on all variants is overly cautious imo.

[Gas Guzzler]

Thorn Hallis, on 15 April 2019 - 01:45 AM, said:

I guess ECM and jump jets are to blame here.

100 tonners are too slow and clumsy to do jumpy 40 damage ppfld thing. Needs moar deeps

Koniving, on 13 April 2019 - 12:02 PM, said:

People still do this Solaris thing?

I didn't say that. Obviously PGI regards it as a strong performer if they threw it in to D1.

[Gas Guzzler]

Well, its a little difficult to say because of how the screenshots were taken, but it does look like it has a good front profile, as expected for Marauders.

[Jackal Noble]

Gas Guzzler, on 15 April 2019 - 09:39 AM, said:

Well, its a little difficult to say because of how the screenshots were taken, but it does look like it has a good front profile, as expected for Marauders.

This. It looks like it has a crazy good frontal profile

[Jackal Noble]

I know I'm an aesthetics gronk, but I generally approach mech stance with what I imagine the practical would be;
why are the arms angled out (that's fine) and as a result the in arm ballistics, in this case UAC10s, are also at an weird, non-sense seeming angle?


Don't get me wrong, the model looks pretty damn cool.
just don't apply logic.

Edited by Jackal Noble, 15 April 2019 - 10:06 AM.

[Luscious Dan]

Jackal Noble, on 15 April 2019 - 10:04 AM, said:

I know I'm an aesthetics gronk, but I generally approach mech stance with what I imagine the practical would be;
why are the arms angled out (that's fine) and as a result the in arm ballistics, in this case UAC10s, are also at an weird, non-sense seeming angle?

[Archer voice]: Do you want more ugly t-pose models? Because this is how you get more ugly t-pose models.

[Verilligo]

Not sure a good frontal profile is going to matter much when the mech is incapable of torso twisting appropriately and has a large dorsal section that can be targeted from nearly any angle. That's not even in reference to the central gun assigned to the RT, it's just got a large CT bump that's begging to get shot at. I don't understand these weird angles for doing size comparisons, though. It seems like it's being done to make the mech look flattering, rather than actually expose a proper comparison.

[Dekontoroga]

I must admit, the Marauder is a big Boy but at least not almost as big as i feared he would be. Cant wait to try him out next Day! Even if some might think it will be bad, i am more then happy for another Marauder!

[Jackal Noble]

to this

[Jackal Noble]

and holy **** the Notre Dame is on fire

[kapusta11]

Gotta love those wide angle lens scale comparisons.

[Chiasson Brinker]

Here’s a question;

If the Marauder II’s dorsal gun proves to somehow be less of a liability than people are expecting it to be, will we see the other Marauder models in-game be retrofitted with altered geometry to better reflect the source material?

Edited by Chiasson Brinker, 15 April 2019 - 12:20 PM.

[RickySpanish]

Jackal Noble, on 15 April 2019 - 10:35 AM, said:

and holy **** the Notre Dame is on fire

It needed more structure quirks

[Jackal Noble]

RickySpanish, on 15 April 2019 - 12:37 PM, said:

It needed more structure quirks

you went there