342 replies to this topic

[Weebi]

More Crab please

[Ashrok]

So here's this Giant Enemy Crab...

And you attack its weakpoint for massive damage. -clears throat-

[POOTYTANGASAUR]

blacklp, on 11 July 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

Keep it on topic please. This thread is about the King Crab.

We are not going to talk about the Devastator, Annihilator, Mauler, Thunderhawk, or any canon-time appropriate ballistic assaults.

I truly believe that this mech should be in game. I understand the basic issues of OP AC40 OMGWTFBBQ.

That being said, it would be a realistic area denial mech, not a 4-6 PPC one shot sniper.(which if heat penalties get all sussed out won't be so much of an issue soon). It can be beaten down from range with ease. Its huge, slow, and in the game would have its arm movement restricted to one axis or the other.

Also, we will need something to counter Clan Assaults. Dire Wolf with UAC40. We all worry about AC40 Jagers now, imagine when those things come out?
Added bonus, could add another medium with the Crab, and sell them for MC early as some sort of seafood deluxe mech package. PGI I know you like them dolla bills.

Plus we all know FD sketched them, so why not take it all the way.

Well you said not to mention it but i must. The devastator with 2 gauss, 2 erppcs, 4 medium lasers would be much much much more effective versus clans. It could brawl, snipe, and just tank damage. I would run 2 gauss and 4 medium lasers with a large and i mean like std 360 engine. Then i would stomp all other assaults currently in game. Then when clans come i would swap to a small standard or xl and carry the 2 gauss, 2 erppcs, 4 medium lasers. Also the crab just wouldn't have the aesthetic possibilites that the devastator does. The devastator has a very average humanoid profile but can be extremely heavily modified for the game. The king crab would look wierd as ****. If it had a rounder and smoother look it would just stick out and look totally stupid. If it had a more straight-edged and square profile it would look wierder and dumber. But also hardpoint wise it is a carbon copy of the cataphract-4x just 30 tons heavier and 100 times uglier. There is no mech in game with 6 energy and 2 ballistic (except the firebrand which is a hero and doesn't count since it has custom hardpoints) am i the only one who wants to see a devastator hero? Anyway i want to see another 100 tonner soon but i really never want to see the annihilator or the king crab. I would rather a 95 tonner like a nightstar (95 tons right??) the redesign on that could be amazing. Like a madcat without the missile racks and much fatter and with better weapons.

[Ialdabaoth]

Seriously, if they won't make crit splitting happen then they can just remove the King Crab's arm actuators - plenty of variants remove the actuators anyway.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ialdabaoth, on 18 July 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Seriously, if they won't make crit splitting happen then they can just remove the King Crab's arm actuators - plenty of variants remove the actuators anyway.

killer GIF.

And my proposed re-design (apparently on the previous page now) used essentially the Centurion AH's arm, so no LA or Hand anyhow. My Victor proves they aren't THAT crucial.

[Chavette]

1OOt with static arms would be absolute trash category. If anything the arms should travel atleast horizontally.

Ashrok, on 18 July 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

So here's this Giant Enemy Crab...

And you attack its weakpoint for massive damage. -clears throat-

The amount of hours I spent crying over Giant crab YTP...

[The Silent Protagonist]

Two things:

One: Bishop, are you suggesting spaced armour on your king crab design? Those reinforced plates you were talking about on the torso? Because that might just be the best idea ever.

Two:

Ialdabaoth, on 18 July 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Seriously, if they won't make crit splitting happen then they can just remove the King Crab's arm actuators - plenty of variants remove the actuators anyway.

Metal Slug 3 is one of the greatest games ever made. Kudos, my friend.

[blacklp]

So if there ever was a time when the devs made a mech based on fan art, I think this should be it.

[ICUBurn]

This is one that I would most definatly get.

[SirLoinofBeeeef]

Ashrok, on 18 July 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

So here's this Giant Enemy Crab...

And you attack its weakpoint for massive damage. -clears throat-

Man I tried that old meme earlier and all I got was a gameplay balance lecture. E3 2006 FTW

[Bishop Steiner]

Chavette, on 18 July 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

1OOt with static arms would be absolute trash category. If anything the arms should travel atleast horizontally.



The amount of hours I spent crying over Giant crab YTP...

about as much trash as 85 tons with Static Arms has proven to be I suspect.

Lt XKalibur, on 19 July 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

Two things:

One: Bishop, are you suggesting spaced armour on your king crab design? Those reinforced plates you were talking about on the torso? Because that might just be the best idea ever.

Two:


Metal Slug 3 is one of the greatest games ever made. Kudos, my friend.

sorta kinda, And now I need to find Metal Slug 3.

[Herodes]

Quote

Also the crab just wouldn't have the aesthetic possibilites that the devastator does. The devastator has a very average humanoid profile but can be extremely heavily modified for the game. The king crab would look wierd as ****.

How dare you compare a, like you said, average humanoid profile (=boring as hell, too much of those already in game) to something as unique and charming like the KGC? Style means separation from the common and usual stuff. KGC is style. The Devastator might be very effective and powerful. But honestly ... who cares? Looks and style trump raw power any day.


Bishop ... simply awesome. I LOVE all those new visions of my King Crab that see the light of day now. Keep them coming.

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 July 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

hit boxes are based off the art model. Unless they totally and radically change the art model ( not a pattern followed to date) the Mech will in all likelihood be BIGGER AND WIDER than whatever Alex whips out.

Spoiler

THIS

(and this, by Alex, no less)

(and this)

(this too)


is a King Crab.

In a video I posted earlier I talk about how only certain tanks are supposed to be capable of using the single shot AC/20s as the lore of it says that the Atlas could not mount it (since it could not realistically use it without remaining stationary, braced, and even then could barely handle the recoil without toppling over -- never mind trying to get within 270 meters and fire while under fire by enemy weapons).

Vid.

Spoiler

Later, through researching I found out that the Devastator Variant (203mm single shot AC/20) is permitted on specific mechs (book-wise, tabletop technically 'variants' don't really exist in the standard rulesets) on the King Crab, and a UAC/20 version of it is used on the Cauldron Born. These mechs share something in common.

Have you heard the phrase: "Wider is better" used for SUVs? Wider SUVs, wider cars, etc. are less likely to fall over under the force of a sharp turn. The same is true for tanks. If it were not true, we would put Howitzers on tall skinny towers and make battleships into tall, thin, short towers that are hard to hit while moving while exponentially increasing the potential range of their weapons. Shorter and wider is more stable than thinner and taller.

They are shorter than most mechs in their weight class. Long. Wide. Lots of top-down surface area, very small vertical (height) profiles. (By appearance, as big as the King Crab is, it should be as short as a Jagermech, and thusly would be shorter than an Awesome. As a consequence, the huge wide-area of the torso is extremely vulnerable to LRM fire, artillery strikes, and airstrikes). The Cauldron Born while not necessarily superbly wide, fits all the other characteristics.

It is the King Crab's short, wide, long nature that allows it handle the recoil of not just one but two single-shot 203mm AC/20s. That's two cannons that belong on a US Naval Destroyer! Our AC/40 Jagermechs should not be physically capable of maintaining after firing two while braced in a crouching position!

From the description of my vid: Includes link to the mechs on Sarna with info and pictures of them.

Spoiler

Are there mechs that can use single shot AC/20s in lore? Turns out, yes.

I found out there are a few mechs that can use them in lore. Specifically I found two that can use the 203mm AC/20 without falling over. They are mounted on saucer-shaped mechs, such as King Crab http://www.sarna.net/wiki/King_Crab and Cauldron Born http://www.sarna.net...i/Cauldron_Born [as a single-shot 20 damage, twin-chamber UAC/20] and can probably use them to their wide, stable, and shorter stances compared to most.

If you really compare the Cauldron Born and the King Crab, they are wide, long, short mechs with a profile from the side, top, and front akin to an actual tank. Unlike an Atlas who is essentially a semi-thin tower Eiffel Tower, these tank-like mechs distribute their weight over a wide area. As said in that famous commercial, "Wider is better," and wider vehicles are less likely to flip when force is applied (such as the recoil of the single shot AC/20 that the Atlas must brace himself to avoid falling over to use).

My point here, is if they limit the single shot AC/20 variants to appropriate mechs that lore-wise are the only ones that could wield them; the risks associated with their size would certainly be tolerable.

--------

Another possibility of allowing the King Crab to not be so easily killed due its size is tweaking how they apply the hitboxes a bit.

Not every mech has equal hitboxes.

For example: a Jagermech gets a simple slice-up. LT, CT, RT. LT and RT front counts the front and the sides. LT and RT back counts the back. This is very basic, and a good standard to compare.

Spoiler

But the Jenner has the CT hitbox encompass the entire phallus. Jenner's side torso counts the shoulders as side torsos.
Picture included.

Spoiler

While a Stalker or Catapult has a CT that only encompasses the front-center, top, and bottom, their front ST covers most of the sides to include side top and bottom.

Spoiler

Blackjacks have front side torsos that are modest, while rear side torsos cover half of their center-back, so you can allocate high on the rear sides (preferably evenly across LT and RT F/R) and high on the ct front to live longer from all directions.
Image.

Spoiler

The Raven 'bleeds' its hit boxes over the sides to help protect them without guaranteeing damage to either when it comes to laser fire. This is why it's so hard to do consistent side torso damage to Ravens yet it's so easy to leg them.

Spoiler

The Hunchback's right front torso hitbox covers the Hunch on all directions including the back. The right rear armor only protects a strip of the back under the Hunch, and with 46 RT front armor and 2 RT rear armor I can dance in front of people with an XL engine and survive the match with incredible damage.
(The picture poofed.)


That said: What if they did something like that with the hitboxes for the Crab?

If so, how would you arrange the LT F/R, RT F/R, and CT F/R armor hitboxes to best protect your crab? Would you simply slice it like this?
. F
(L|C|R)?
. R


Might you try it this way? It'd give it optimum protection against LRMs and splash weapons; the "Shell" top and bottom is CT front/rear (top/bottom), and so you can't hit the "shell" if you want to do damage to the weaker LT and RT hitboxes (which RT would be front back and LT would be left/right).
. . RT <--Cockpit side
LT (C|C|C) LT?
. . RT <---Rear side.

I could easily picture some way of making an underside weakness like this.
For example in this split:
. F
(L|C|R)?
. F
The armor would count as "front" for all sides. LT, CT, RT front, back, and top would count as "front armor," but then the underside would count as "rear" armor. Since the King Crab is very low to the ground, it'd take a mech like a Locust or a Jenner to be able to hit the underside. That, or hit it while it's leaning forward to shoot downhill or peg it when it looks up?

If not one of the random examples above, how would you go about it? I'm very curious.

Edited by Koniving, 19 July 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Yiazmat]

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 19 July 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

[/size]

In a video I posted earlier I talk about how only certain tanks are supposed to be capable of using the single shot AC/20s as the lore of it says that the Atlas could not mount it (since it could not realistically use it without remaining stationary, braced, and even then could barely handle the recoil without toppling over -- never mind trying to get within 270 meters and fire while under fire by enemy weapons).


Later, through researching I found out that the Devastator Variant (203mm single shot AC/20) is also used on the King Crab, and a UAC/20 version of it is used on the Cauldron Born. These mechs share something in common.

They are shorter than most mechs in their weight class. Long. Wide. Lots of top-down surface area, very small vertical (height) profiles. (By appearance, as big as the King Crab is, it should be as short as a Jagermech, and thusly would be shorter than an Awesome. As a consequence, the huge wide-area of the torso is extremely vulnerable to LRM fire, artillery strikes, and airstrikes). The Cauldron Born while not necessarily superbly wide, fits all the other characteristics.

Are there mechs that can use single shot AC/20s in lore? Turns out, yes.

I found out there are a few mechs that can use them in lore. Specifically I found two that can use the 203mm AC/20 without falling over. They are mounted on saucer-shaped mechs, such as King Crab http://www.sarna.net/wiki/King_Crab and Cauldron Born http://www.sarna.net...i/Cauldron_Born [as a single-shot 20 damage, twin-chamber UAC/20] and can probably use them to their wide, stable, and shorter stances compared to most.

If you really compare the Cauldron Born and the King Crab, they are wide, long, short mechs with a profile from the side, top, and front akin to an actual tank. Unlike an Atlas who is essentially a semi-thin tower Eiffel Tower, these tank-like mechs distribute their weight over a wide area. As said in that famous commercial, "Wider is better," and wider vehicles are less likely to flip when force is applied (such as the recoil of the single shot AC/20 that the Atlas must brace himself to avoid falling over to use).
[/spoiler]

My point here, is if they limit the single shot AC/20 variants to appropriate mechs that lore-wise are the only ones that could wield them; the risks associated with their size would certainly be easier.

--------

Another possibility is reduxing the hitboxes a bit. For example the Jenner has the CT hitbox encompass the entire phallus, while a Stalker or Catapult has a CT that only encompasses the front-center, top, and bottom. Their front ST covers most of the sides while the Jenner's side torso barely counts the shoulders as side torsos.



Blackjacks have front side torsos that are small, while rear side torsos cover half of their center-back, so you can allocate high on the rear sides and high on the ct front to live longer from all directions.

The Hunchback's right front torso hitbox covers the Hunch on all directions including the back. The right rear armor only protects a strip of the back under the Hunch, and with 46 RT front armor and 2 RT rear armor I can dance in front of people with an XL engine and survive the match with incredible damage.

That said: What if they did something like that with the hitboxes for the Crab?

If so, how would you arrange the LT F/R, RT F/R, and CT F/R armor hitboxes to best protect your crab? Would you simply slice it like this?
(L|C|R)?

Or would you try
. . RT
LT (C|C|C) LT?
. . RT

How would you go about it? I'm very curious.

well, go back some on this thread, and I think I have a version of my concept KGC up with hit boxes delineated. My solution was to embrace the relatively wide, but short and flat Side Torsos, and have them act as extra armor for the relatively compact (from the front, anyhow) CT. Then I added massive arms, 1) to represent those 203mm Autocannons, but ALSO, to Centurion-Style add MORE armor to cover the core.



So in effect, it WOULD be more vulnerable to LRMs, because of it's broad flat back, but it's short height allows it to use other cover more effectively. An XL would likely be a BIG no-no, but in most upper end assaults, that is standard MO anyhow. But with the massive armor a 100 tonner could carry, and how much firepower it would STILL have even AFTER one whole torso/arm is destroyed, I think it would do a lovely job as an area-denial weapon. Any cave or tunnel, in particular, would belong to it.

And here is an example of a "Maxed" (normal TT armor pts used, double them for MWO) King Crab. Basically saying... "Come Get some!".

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 July 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[Ragnar Darkmane]

Ashrok, on 18 July 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

So here's this Giant Enemy Crab...

And you attack its weakpoint for massive damage. -clears throat-

There are no weakpoints. Resistance is futile. Bow to the King, king of Crabs!

[Bishop Steiner]

Ragnar Darkmane, on 19 July 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

There are no weakpoints. Resistance is futile. Bow to the King, king of Crabs!

I got yer "weak point" right here........

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 July 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

I'm confused as to the hitboxes you suggested. I can understand the CT one. As I'm reading I think you mean the side torsos will encompass that huge area of the front akin to how it works with the Stalker? If so then yes XL engines would definitely be a no-no.

(The way you did the outlines on the arms are what threw me off.)

Okay, yes that'd be the basic way PGI would likely do it if they just said "okay give it hitboxes." It'd be akin to the Stalker in how difficult it is to destroy. Easy to get rid of side torsos, but then doing so makes it harder to take out the core.

But you do realize how easy it is to destroy side torsos? You're counting on the 50% damage reduction to the destroyed side torsos to protect your center torso, without looking ahead to whether or not PGI will implement complete removal / destruction of side torsos with exposed internals? I like to think ahead for what PGI might do to the future (it keeps me sane).

Btw: Those are some massive side torsos!

--------

Personally I favor my more creative ideas, though I confess while one of my ideas would allow you to allocate lots of armor to the CT (top/bottom of the shell; assuming a more saucer-shaped crab), and however much to the RT (mech's front/back) as you please, the LT (mech's left / right) armor would be very limited (since you'd have to balance it to equally protect left and right) but the hit boxes fairly small for the actual 'front / back' and 'left/right' weakpoints. But this is mainly because the Crab would be a lot more like a Crab with a shell to crack or small spaces to cut into.

It'd make killing it more interesting, but it'd also make an XL engine very appealing. Since the entire shell top and bottom would count as the CT, and the bottom wouldn't be easy to hit, you could mount all 124 points of armor to the top to protect yourself from LRMs and usual weapons fire. With RT as center's front/back under the spaces of the shell, you'd get 84 armor to allocate between front/back. Then LT as left/right you'd get another 84 that you'd likely evenly divide into 42 and 42 on either side at where the arms connect into the shell.

Mind you I'm picturing one of these two when I talk about this hitbox design:

Spoiler

With the under shell beneath what you can see from the front being CT rear, the rest of the shell being CT front so that the shell can have up to 124 points of armor.
The "front" and "back" of the entire center body being RT front/back for the 84 total armor there (so the front CT would essentially have the armor of an Atlas's side torso while the shell has the maximum possible armor and structure health of an Atlas's CT).
The left-right sides under the shell's protective overhangs would count as the LT front/back, and to evenly protect them both would have the very weak 42 each (84 total, so the armor of the Atlas's other side torso split between the two points).

or this. Same armor allocation concept.

​

Because of this, the actual loss of "LT" would result in losing both arms. The loss of RT would be actual death.

But my concept while very interesting in how it reworks armor allocation has a few complicated flaws. Which means unless Paul looks at it, it'll never happen.

Your way probably is much more likely to happen in both your own art and Alex's art.

Any other ideas out there? It's a good topic.

Edited by Koniving, 19 July 2013 - 11:55 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 19 July 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

[/size]

I'm confused as to the hitboxes you suggested. I can understand the CT one. As I'm reading I think you mean the side torsos will encompass that huge area of the front akin to how it works with the Stalker? If so then yes XL engines would definitely be a no-no.

(The way you did the outlines on the arms are what threw me off.)

Okay, yes that'd be the basic way PGI would likely do it if they just said "okay give it hitboxes." It'd be akin to the Stalker in how difficult it is to destroy. Easy to get rid of side torsos, but then doing so makes it harder to take out the core.

But you do realize how easy it is to destroy side torsos? You're counting on the 50% damage reduction to the destroyed side torsos to protect your center torso, without looking ahead to whether or not PGI will implement complete removal / destruction of side torsos with exposed internals? I like to think ahead for what PGI might do to the future (it keeps me sane).

Btw: Those are some massive side torsos!

Personally I favor my more creative ideas, though I confess while one of my ideas would allow you to allocate lots of armor to the CT (top/bottom of the shell; assuming a more saucer-shaped crab), and however much to the RT (mech's front/back) as you please, the LT (mech's left / right) armor would be very limited (since you'd have to balance it to equally protect left and right) but the hit boxes fairly small for the actual 'front / back' and 'left/right' weakpoints. But this is mainly because the Crab would be a lot more like a Crab with a shell to crack or small spaces to cut into.

arm outline was for Strum Weah. He commented on the lack of "Claws" so I outlined the claws.

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 July 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

arm outline was for Strum Weah. He commented on the lack of "Claws" so I outlined the claws.

Nods, nods.

Also I usually edit and clear up things in my posts about 50 times over after I send the actual post. >.> So yeah, aside from that they also get longer, so dwarving the quotes; great idea.