177 replies to this topic

[Fred013]

Instead of trawling through 20 pages of King Crab discussion, I'd like to see the numbers.

Edited by Fred013, 01 August 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[FupDup]

PGI knows that a dual-Gauss capable assault mech would break their heat scale system in half, though, so it probably won't happen.

[Bishop Steiner]

also, just to get the show rolling on the title page:


Yup, Kiriage~san took my KGC and made it look amazing. And there is more to come.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 September 2013 - 09:55 AM.

[GizmoGecko]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

PGI knows that a dual-Gauss capable assault mech would break their heat scale system in half, though, so it probably won't happen.

We've got gauss heavies and I don't see a lot of them anymore? Although that might be to do with the XL engines in Jagers and 'Pults coupled with the gauss explosion, and I'd definitely run a standard in my King Crab.

With all the possible disadvantages that could be attached to the 'mech like 0 degree arm yaw, slow torso turning speed, decreased rate of deceleration and a large surface area that would make my beloved Dragon seem like a spider in comparison, I'm sure they could make it work?

Please make it work it's not you it's me, don't let it end like this, you had me at hello...


To the people that said no, I'd like to hear your plea.

Edited by GizmoGecko, 01 August 2013 - 04:02 AM.

[SgtMagor]

if the Clan mechs are going to be added to the game Dire Wolf, Timber Wolf, Warhawk, why not the King Crab!

[Strum Wealh]

SgtMagor, on 01 August 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

if the Clan mechs are going to be added to the game Dire Wolf, Timber Wolf, Warhawk, why not the King Crab!

Because PGI had made a point of mirroring the known loadouts (e.g. where a record sheet exists) of each 'Mech (with one exception: moving the normally leg-mounted Machine Guns up to the respective side-torsi for the CDA-3C), and that two of the three available KGC variants (the KGC-000 and KGC-0000) would thus necessarily require splitting the criticals of each of the AC/20s between the arm and respective side-torso.

[Throat Punch]

As some one who was honored by being canonized as a King Crab notable mechwarrior in TRO 3050 Upgrade I fully support the addition of my favorite 'mech into Mechwarrior online.

[SgtMagor]

Strum Wealh, on 01 August 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Because PGI had made a point of mirroring the known loadouts (e.g. where a record sheet exists) of each 'Mech (with one exception: moving the normally leg-mounted Machine Guns up to the respective side-torsi for the CDA-3C), and that two of the three available KGC variants (the KGC-000 and KGC-0000) would thus necessarily require splitting the criticals of each of the AC/20s between the arm and respective side-torso.

this is whats not making sense to me. why does the King Crab need to split critcals, when evey mech in the game that can mount a Ac20 in the arm doesn't have to. what makes the King Crab unable to fully mount an Ac20 in the arms?

Strum Wealh, on 01 August 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Because PGI had made a point of mirroring the known loadouts (e.g. where a record sheet exists) of each 'Mech (with one exception: moving the normally leg-mounted Machine Guns up to the respective side-torsi for the CDA-3C), and that two of the three available KGC variants (the KGC-000 and KGC-0000) would thus necessarily require splitting the criticals of each of the AC/20s between the arm and respective side-torso.

Strum Wealh, on 01 August 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Because PGI had made a point of mirroring the known loadouts (e.g. where a record sheet exists) of each 'Mech (with one exception: moving the normally leg-mounted Machine Guns up to the respective side-torsi for the CDA-3C), and that two of the three available KGC variants (the KGC-000 and KGC-0000) would thus necessarily require splitting the criticals of each of the AC/20s between the arm and respective side-torso.

Strum Wealh, on 01 August 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Because PGI had made a point of mirroring the known loadouts (e.g. where a record sheet exists) of each 'Mech (with one exception: moving the normally leg-mounted Machine Guns up to the respective side-torsi for the CDA-3C), and that two of the three available KGC variants (the KGC-000 and KGC-0000) would thus necessarily require splitting the criticals of each of the AC/20s between the arm and respective side-torso.

[Lugh]

I voted no because with the map movement rules currently in place Jagemechs get stuck on every other rock on that Volcano, in the Canyon and so many other maps.

This mech would be a usless scrap heap stuck to moving straight along roadways. And only able to fire both AC20s once every 6 seconds or so...

[Darzok]

The KC and Crab should both be added there great mechs.

The KC has massive firepower but its big and slow and its going to be a free kill for a good light/med and even some fast heavy builds.

The KC could have split crits if needed the code is in game due to how the XL's work but if thats not good for balance remove the lower arm actuators and bang no need to split and you add another weakness to the KC to balance the firepower.

I fail to see why people think the KC would be to powerfull we still have dual guass/AC20 builds running around yes they lack armor but the KC would be slow as hell so easy to flank and kill unless the enemy team cover it making them easy to snipe with ppc builds.

Then the Crab well its just awesome thats reason enough.

Edited by Darzok, 01 August 2013 - 04:39 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

SgtMagor, on 01 August 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

this is whats not making sense to me. why does the King Crab need to split critcals, when evey mech in the game that can mount a Ac20 in the arm doesn't have to. what makes the King Crab unable to fully mount an Ac20 in the arms?

Because it has a hand and lower arm actuator.

It doesn't need it for anything in MW:O, of course, so they could just ditch that.

*also, the forum acting up again*

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 01 August 2013 - 04:53 AM.

[John MatriX82]

Highlander 733C and the newly released Victors don't have lower arm actuators but devs enabled some yaw movement nevertheless (this because the other arm had the lower arm actuator). So why not do this for the king crab?

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 01 August 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Because PGI had made a point of mirroring the known loadouts (e.g. where a record sheet exists) of each 'Mech (with one exception: moving the normally leg-mounted Machine Guns up to the respective side-torsi for the CDA-3C), and that two of the three available KGC variants (the KGC-000 and KGC-0000) would thus necessarily require splitting the criticals of each of the AC/20s between the arm and respective side-torso.

MEH. Not like the hand actuators were ever useful anyhow. Simple enough to just move all the AC20 crits into the arms, turns the "claws" into protective covers like the flaps on a Catapult, and be done with it. Letting it have dual ac20 AND the lateral movement of lower arm actuators WOULD probably be crazy OP anyhow.

[MustrumRidcully]

John MatriX82, on 01 August 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

Highlander 733C and the newly released Victors don't have lower arm actuators but devs enabled some yaw movement nevertheless (this because the other arm had the lower arm actuator). So why not do this for the king crab?

If I understand the crit-splitting limitation correctly, the King Crab couldn't actually use the arm movement range in the table top game, so it could really just be treated like a Catapult or Stalker arms are.

The only "unfair" advantage this could create is that the King Crab now has 4 crit slots more useable on the chassis then it would have normally, but it's not like PGI cares about this right now. Instead of movable arms, mechs like the Catapult or Jenner had greater torso twist rates, making the theoretical disadvantage of not having movable arms mostly irrelevant (especicially if you then also consider mechs like the Cataprhact, who pay full price for their actuators, but have a limited movement range, originally because of a clipping problem!)

[MonkeyCheese]

Can we have the crab too?
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Crab

[blacklp]

I vote yes, of course.
We need another 100 tonner.
With the King Crab we wouldn't have the issues that a devastator or thunderhawk would bring.
@ whoever voted no because of movement issues that is the least sensible reason I could think of to not want any mech in this game.

Edited by blacklp, 01 August 2013 - 06:39 AM.

[Carrioncrows]

I'll hop on this bandy wagon

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 August 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

MEH. Not like the hand actuators were ever useful anyhow. Simple enough to just move all the AC20 crits into the arms, turns the "claws" into protective covers like the flaps on a Catapult, and be done with it. Letting it have dual ac20 AND the lateral movement of lower arm actuators WOULD probably be crazy OP anyhow.

Which doesn't help the KGC-0000, where the ACs are actually in the torso sections (which are shared with the Large Laser and the LRM-5 launcher), with the overflowed criticals spilling over into the arms (in contrast to the KGC-000, where the ACs are actually in the arms, with the overflowed criticals spilling over into the torso sections).

[C E Dwyer]

Ugly asked thing..

Should only be one 100 tonne mech and we have that, as it was presented, before this franchise went into stupid mode

[blacklp]

I guess we should have the Mackie instead of the Atlas. Since that is the original 100 ton mech, before this franchise went into stupid mode.