Constructor Mechanics

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:28 pm

Normal gameplay mode. In experimental, cons are supposed to ignore friendlies and such. Unfortunately, since it doesn't turn pods on, experimental mode is there as a "solves some gameplay issues, but no one uses it" during prime time.

blackrob · Post by **blackrob** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:31 pm

Grimmwolf_GB wrote:QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Jan 23 2008, 02:07 AM) Finally someone followed my advice and used ICE. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Hey we know we can take your word for it /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

SaiSoma · Post by **SaiSoma** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:03 pm

so now we ram the nans into the con and MAKE them hump it, eh? easy enough.

quackdamnyou · Post by **quackdamnyou** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:38 pm

blackrob wrote:QUOTE (blackrob @ Jan 23 2008, 04:31 AM) Hey we know we can take your word for it /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Well I believed him, he just didn't give specific numbers so I didn't have complete perspective.

Sai, think of the childrennanites!

Ramaglor · Post by **Ramaglor** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:08 pm

So heavy? If constructors are made of solid plutonium, then why don't they detonate when destroyed? Anyway....is it intentional to have them unrammable?

Andon · Post by **Andon** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:16 pm

that's not just DN, that's Alleg 1.25 from MS as well.

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:13 pm

Ramaglor wrote:QUOTE (Ramaglor @ Jan 23 2008, 02:08 PM) Anyway....is it intentional to have them unrammable?

Of this I don't know. They were rammable pre-R4, that I do know. I know not the details of the changes that were made in terms of constructor code, all I know now is that it's nigh impossible to ram one off of its line up.

Atleast until someone can prove me wrong /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Adaven · Post by **Adaven** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:14 pm

Note that the collision code has changed since MS days. Previously there was a bug that allowed rammers to recieve lower damage than intended. Maybe this has some effect?

quackdamnyou · Post by **quackdamnyou** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:19 am

Drizzo wrote:QUOTE (Drizzo @ Jan 23 2008, 03:13 PM) Of this I don't know. They were rammable pre-R4, that I do know. I know not the details of the changes that were made in terms of constructor code, all I know now is that it's nigh impossible to ram one off of its line up.

Atleast until someone can prove me wrong /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

I don't know man - it's right there in the core, which has not changed. Unless the collision code was changed?

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:25 pm

quackdamnyou wrote:QUOTE (quackdamnyou @ Jan 24 2008, 10:19 PM) Unless the collision code was changed?

^^^The most probably observation.

R3, large cons were able to be rammed off of their build line. R4, you go poof when you try to.