kittunz wrote:I didn't participate in the community when strider gantry got nixed, but i see the reasoning. Did anyone suggest maybe combining the spec/ops and t2 constructors? or having the t2 morph to specops versions of themselves? eliminate the need for a con that can only be built by the comm.
Discussion on the Strider Gantry (split from Suggestions)
Moderator: Content Developer
Discussion on the Strider Gantry (split from Suggestions)
-
SirMaverick
- Posts: 834
- Joined: 19 May 2009, 21:10
Re: Discussion on the Strider Gantry (split from Suggestions)
Every constructor can build it.kittunz wrote:eliminate the need for a con that can only be built by the comm.
Re: Discussion on the Strider Gantry (split from Suggestions)
Do you realize you can still build striders by specops constructor?
Re: Discussion on the Strider Gantry (split from Suggestions)
Wait, the strider gantry is gone? Since when???
-
SirMaverick
- Posts: 834
- Joined: 19 May 2009, 21:10
Re: Discussion on the Strider Gantry (split from Suggestions)
http://trac.caspring.org/changeset/5308Pxtl wrote:Wait, the strider gantry is gone? Since when???
Re: Discussion on the Strider Gantry (split from Suggestions)
whooops. Missed that. my badSirMaverick wrote:Every constructor can build it.kittunz wrote:eliminate the need for a con that can only be built by the comm.
Yes- but my point was to eliminate the need to build a specs con using another con. and the specops constructors have a couple of other differences from the regular cons- hire build rates, -and i can't remember if other constructors can cloak, but I know that specops can.Licho wrote:Do you realize you can still build striders by specops constructor?