Constructor Mechanics

ImmortalZ · Post by **ImmortalZ** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:56 am

A bug was fixed. Constructor AI was not changed. You now take the ramming damage you should.

I don't get the "again" in that request.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:18 pm

ImmortalZ wrote:QUOTE (ImmortalZ @ Jan 31 2008, 09:56 AM) A bug was fixed. Constructor AI was not changed. You now take the ramming damage you should.

I don't get the "again" in that request.

Can't speak for MW, or course, but here's what I meant.

Previously it was possible to nudge even the large cons out of alignment, and delay their building. This was harder than with small cons, but possible. I'd like this to be the case again.

It can be hard, and requite one to pod oneself on the side of the large con in an int. That's ok. At the moment it's like ramming an apartment building in a scooter.

I also got the impression that the huge mass of the large cons is there as an attempt to make them hard to ram. Now that the bug has been fixed, it makes it impossible to ram them at all. I'm not sure, of course, but I suspect that their current behaviour isn't what was originally meant... but this is just one pilot's opinion, of course. I'm one of those who knows not to ram large cons, so I suppose I'm benefitting at the moment.

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:49 pm

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jan 31 2008, 07:18 AM) Previously it was possible to nudge even the large cons out of alignment, and delay their building. This was harder than with small cons, but possible. I'd like this to be the case again.

QFT

Adept wrote:I'm not sure, of course, but I suspect that their current behaviour isn't what was originally meant.

Irrelevant. Large cons being able to be rammed is good for balanced enjoyable game play. Originally meaning should not be taken into account when you talk about what it should be today.

Post by **Raveen** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:33 pm

It should be possible with a core rebalance to allow large cons to be pushed off a bit. The bug fix was well publicised before and, afaik, no core dev felt it was worth a change.

factoid · Post by **factoid** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:57 pm

Or maybe knock the con down to 25% health before you start throwing yourself at it. Mass hasn't changed, ramming large cons knocks them off their build line, ram damage has been fixed, and damage is based on the total current HP and SP of the con.

Oh, you didn't catch the con until it was at the rock? Maybe don't ram it, camp the $#@!ing thing and get a bomber there. And probe better next time.

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:52 pm

factoid wrote:QUOTE (factoid @ Jan 31 2008, 08:57 AM) Oh, you didn't catch the con until it was at the rock? Maybe don't ram it, camp the $#@!ing thing and get a bomber there. And probe better next time.

Vanguards with laser 2, old blossom, and hyperbooster were overpowered.

Would you suggest that they remained existent because you could just kill the enemy miners to stop them from getting out?

This is the same. Its overpowered beyond reason under certain situations, in others it is not. But its still overpowered, so you fix it.

zecro · Post by **zecro** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:18 pm

factoid wrote:QUOTE (factoid @ Jan 31 2008, 08:57 AM) Oh, you didn't catch the con until it was at the rock? Maybe don't ram it, camp the $#@!ing thing and get a bomber there. And probe better next time.

QFT

A few people shouldn't be able to stall large cons while the rest of the team gets there. That's why you probe tech rocks.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:18 pm

zecro wrote:QUOTE (zecro @ Jan 31 2008, 06:18 PM) QFT

A few people shouldn't be able to stall large cons while the rest of the team gets there. That's why you probe tech rocks.

I must say I appreciate the brighter side of this coin occasionally. I was in a game just now, when a large con (GT palisade) was cought with IC basic tech, light ints and scouts, with very little defense. Coming to nan the con from far away (as our con D was taken down one by one) I could rely on the fact that the enemy couldn't keep it from building if I can get there and and nan it enough so they won't kill it before it's in the rock.

That worked quite well (even though the rest of the game quickly went south soon after). In my earlier comments I just meant that the utterly huge mass of the large con seems to have been there to balance the ramming bug, and should probably be changed to some more believable numbers.

Still, that's one for the devs...

factoid · Post by **factoid** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:17 pm

Well, *core devs*. There's nothing wrong with the mechanics, and if you're not on experemental mode, nothing has changed aside from the ramming code. If the cons are too massive, that's up to the core devs to fix. I got the impression from the original poster that he felt Dogbones and the FAZ team should be doing something about this.

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:43 pm

Oh no, my original intentions were to get people to stop humping cons. Also a nudge to have experimental mode become standardized.

Anyway, a page back I mentioned something about being able to interrupt a con. Well it turns out that if you manage to lob some missiles at it *just* as it gets to the rock (when it begins its line up) it will wiggle around a bit and try to dodge them, freeing up about 3-6 seconds extra time before it begins its line up. But be careful. If you have bad luck like me, the con will wiggle into place and enter the rock instantly (I hate it when that happens).