148 replies to this topic

[FLG 01]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 18 April 2019 - 11:33 PM, said:

I like the Mech design itself, but the gameplay is bleh

Not enough CT/Head energy mounts
Too much energy focus/not enough ballistics or missile
Side torso absorbs most of the damage
Too dang hecking slow

You know, most of those drawbacks are a result of the Mech's design. The Marauder II is designed for sustained energy weapon use in a match, using relatively few guns. This works in TT, but does not translate to MWO at all.

The number of weapons and their locations severely limit what PGI can do, energy weapons are not exactly great on IS 100t Mechs, and those JJ...

PGI failed to counterbalance those inherent design problems properly, but that is just another example of why you should not hope for quirks to save the day. Also, if you want a 100t Mechs focussed on heavy ballistic weapons, preferrably in the torso, the MAD II just is not what you are looking for.

Hopefully PGI rethinks the quirks. I'd say greater offensive quirks, especially heat, and greater agility is needed. Armor works too, of course, but it is rather boring.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gas Guzzler, on 19 April 2019 - 02:10 PM, said:

Can you guys like take this to the BattleTech Discussion forum or something?

apparently not?

[Chiasson Brinker]

So, the the 4HP with 6 MRM/10s on chainfire is a fun way to make people duck their heads back behind corners.

[Ilfi]

Chassis performance is utterly forgettable. Honestly can't remember the last recent Mech release that brought anything game-changing to the table outside of perhaps the Vapor Eagle.

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 April 2019 - 01:34 PM, said:

One, I own and referred to the original print of TRO 3055.

You are aware that one of the accepted plurals of Cannon...is Cannon? As in "how many cannon did you bring?"

If it were singular the phrasing would be "A twin guass cannon".

Note the entry: "The Behemoth features Twin Gauss Cannon and A single Large Pulse Laser mounted in each arm. "

The second was using a singular format.

Sorry hoss, no **** up involved.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (cannon, n. 2b; the linked page requires subscription) lists the use of “cannon” as a collective noun and as plural, but it does not state that this use is obsolete. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary also lists both “cannons” and “cannon” as the plural forms of the noun “cannon.”

Welp, as an American I use cannons.

When you see a naval vessel bring its starboard cannons to bear, you never say the Battleship's 3 triple-cannon open fire.

And this is the first I've ever heard of, in 34 years, of "cannon" having a plural meaning.

And you still have the fact, that while the Destroid Monster Mk II has never, ever been depicted as having a single cannon (not even the Mk I depicted decades later), the Battletech art specifically and uniquely renders a single barrel.

The prior "twin gauss cannon" could be spoken either way and mean singular... after all it isn't referring to multiple locations.

The latter must be spoken with "a" as to refer to a single entity per multiple extremities. One weapon per arm.

The artwork for the Stone Rhino 2, not only unique to Battletech in depicting two barrels, also has a description of the machine that specifically mentions that a change in engine allows it to mount two Gauss Rifles, as opposed to a Twin Gauss Cannon. Would this not strike you as rather odd wording since they both mount two gauss rifles on the TRO with no need to change engines?

[Koniving]

And as a testament to show how unique the original artwork is... the revised version of TRO 3055 used the same artwork even after the Harmony Gold fiasco... this is because Destroid Monster has never been featured with fewer than 3 cannons overhead. The Stone Rhino 2, however, had to have completely new artwork as two barrels was cutting it too close.

Even if it no longer uses this art in the Master Unit List (instead just having the black shadow of the unseen).

So, there was a lot riding on forcing a single barrel on top, regardless, so perhaps the use of "cannon" was deliberately obscure?

[FLG 01]

We all know this situation is a result of using artwork disregarding the actual stats of the Mech, as it happened so often back then. It is fine to come up with an explanation; either you have the most oversized SPL ever, or an equally strange twin gauss in a single barrel.

But we are not living in the early 90ies anymore. CGL and PGI take much greater care when commissioning artwork nowadays.
The old Stone Rhine art is a thing of the past. We should not drag its old, now irrelevant problems into modern BT, much less MWO.

[Anjian]

Trying to figure out given that the limited number of hardpoints already. The torso one is a big problem. It really increases your hit box, and if you want a slimmer profile, you have to forgo this hardpoint, reducing your hardpoints even further.

If I want to put a small laser on the torso, it should not be the biggest small laser you will ever see. It should just take the model for the small laser and stick it to the torso much like the old Marauder. I got an LBX20 in the torso of one of my old Marauders, and it doesn't stick out like that.

Edited by Anjian, 19 April 2019 - 08:21 PM.

[FupDup]

I think the way MekTek handled the Behemoth is the way MWO should if we ever get the mech here.



The CT cannon is still oversized for a Small Pulse Laser, but it's not quite as obnoxious as the original artwork. MWO could make it a bit smaller, but not too small as to deviate from the mech's iconic appearance (armor quirk the CT if necessary because unlike MW4 we're limited to the basic TT weapon locations).

[Anjian]

Another way is to just come out with three different housing sizes, one for small weapons, one for medium weapons, and the big one for heavy weapons or dual medium weapons.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Chiasson Brinker, on 19 April 2019 - 05:02 PM, said:

So, the the 4HP with 6 MRM/10s on chainfire is a fun way to make people duck their heads back behind corners.

Why 6? You can put 8 of them in there and use them like 2 MRM 40s or chainfire when required. Either way, none of the Marauders are frontline mechs. If you want to do well in them, be conservative.

[Alakarr]

I've been running my 4HP with 8 LRM5's + Artemis and 4 Med Pulses. Put the launchers on ripple fire and I can fire continuously without overheating. My first round in it - 2 solo kills, 5 most damage done, 17 components destroyed, 1033 damage. Use it in direct fire just behind the mainline and you absolutely shred any mech you focus on.

[FireDog]

Maybe giving us a railgun will make the top ballistic mount worthwhile. For now I am of the opinion that the mounted weapon should be reflected in its size and profile.

[Y E O N N E]

There is no railgun in BattleTech.

You can, however, mount a Heavy Gauss.

[FupDup]

Y E O N N E, on 20 April 2019 - 09:57 AM, said:

There is no railgun in BattleTech.

You can, however, mount a Heavy Gauss.

He might be referencing the railgun that MekTek added to MW4, which could only be mounted by the Marauder II and Behemoth II.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 20 April 2019 - 09:59 AM, said:

He might be referencing the railgun that MekTek added to MW4, which could only be mounted by the Marauder II and Behemoth II.

I see.

Honestly, the hitbox isn't even that bad for Quick Play. Really, the Marauder II (and the Nightstar) just need more firepower quirks to offset the limitations of the hardpoint placement more agility to wield it and they'd feel alright in QP. Right now, it's just painful because it can only do what a Stalker can do if I'm being generous, but worse in every way.

[SpessMarine]

FupDup, on 20 April 2019 - 09:59 AM, said:

He might be referencing the railgun that MekTek added to MW4, which could only be mounted by the Marauder II and Behemoth II.

It's funny because that was the only reason to use the Marauder II in MW4, too. If I want a trio of ER mediums in the torso mount, why does the cannon have to stay so huge? Wasn't this the whole point of the ugly dynamic weapon geometry?

Edited by SpessMarine, 20 April 2019 - 03:56 PM.

[FupDup]

SpessMarine, on 20 April 2019 - 03:56 PM, said:

It's funny because that was the only reason to use the Marauder II in MW4, too. If I want a trio of ER mediums in the torso mount, why does the cannon have to stay so huge? Wasn't this the whole point of the ugly dynamic weapon geometry?

Basically yeah. MWO's "dynamic" geometry actually isn't very dynamic at all. Too much copypasting and homogeneity.

[mabo]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 18 April 2019 - 11:33 PM, said:

I like the Mech design itself, but the gameplay is bleh

Not enough CT/Head energy mounts
Too much energy focus/not enough ballistics or missile
Side torso absorbs most of the damage
Too dang hecking slow

I had some really good matches with the 4L, but overall, I won't be using this chassis a lot unless I wanna do somethin different

Seconded

[Matthew Ace]

Y E O N N E, on 19 April 2019 - 08:30 AM, said:

4x LPL + 4xERML with 22 DHS

or

6x LL + 2x ERML with 21 DHS

For the LPL loadout:
After they reduced LPLs from 11 to 10, they felt lackluster. The range on the LPLs doesn't work quite well either.

I might try out the LL loadout though.

Do you drop the JJs?