As I dont have access to the game for a few days i have been checking out ufopaedia and forums for info on 1.3.
One thing that confuses me is that I found the specialist abilities on ufopaedia (http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Specialist_(LW2) ) to say that field surgeon is at corporal (sharing with interferance and grazing) and we dont get medical protocol till sergeant (sharing with scanning and trojan).
Is that info correct?
Is UFOpaedia wrong?
-
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:33 am
Re: Is UFOpaedia wrong?
That information is accurate.
-
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:02 am
Re: Is UFOpaedia wrong?
afaik, yes, that's the new specialists perk tree.
Re: Is UFOpaedia wrong?
Well ... that sucks ...
Not sure I like the specialist tree in 1.3.
And it looks like my pistol shinobi will no longer work ...
Thanks for the help guys.
Not sure I like the specialist tree in 1.3.
And it looks like my pistol shinobi will no longer work ...
Thanks for the help guys.
Re: Is UFOpaedia wrong?
It does kinda suck when a build you really like gets messed up by a patch, but think of it this way: There is probably at least one build that you will really like, which was not possible before the patch... You just have to experiment and find it.
And that's part of the fun, no?
And that's part of the fun, no?
Re: Is UFOpaedia wrong?
Ahhh, dont get me wrong. I am not raging or anything.
Just not loving that medical protocol comes so late and is "competing" with trojan while at the same time the corporal choices are ... well ... kinda trash. I would take graze on sentinel specialist but both field surgeon and interferance are talents I pretty much never chose.
And yeah, there are few other class changes that I dont like but hey, we are XCOM, we adapt.
I WAS hoping that UFOpaedia was wrong and that the trees from the 1.3. video were the ones in the game (liked that one more TBH) but doesnt mean I wont play 1.3. when I get home. Nor that I dont apreciate what Pavonis guys did here.
Just not loving that medical protocol comes so late and is "competing" with trojan while at the same time the corporal choices are ... well ... kinda trash. I would take graze on sentinel specialist but both field surgeon and interferance are talents I pretty much never chose.
And yeah, there are few other class changes that I dont like but hey, we are XCOM, we adapt.
I WAS hoping that UFOpaedia was wrong and that the trees from the 1.3. video were the ones in the game (liked that one more TBH) but doesnt mean I wont play 1.3. when I get home. Nor that I dont apreciate what Pavonis guys did here.
Re: Is UFOpaedia wrong?
No worries just trying to spread positivity where I can
I know what you mean about Field surgeon, I don't really like the medic spec very much in LW2. Interference can be useful though. If you think about all the times you use combat protocol to pop an overwatch (I know I do it a lot) you could have used interference instead, and still had an action afterwards. Still... meh. Not the best perk, not by a long shot.
I know what you mean about Field surgeon, I don't really like the medic spec very much in LW2. Interference can be useful though. If you think about all the times you use combat protocol to pop an overwatch (I know I do it a lot) you could have used interference instead, and still had an action afterwards. Still... meh. Not the best perk, not by a long shot.
Re: Is UFOpaedia wrong?
I would rate Specs, along with Techs and Shinobis, as the classes that get an enormous amount of their power at Squaddie. The ability to take over a MEC/drone and add it to your team for a few turns (which is not too difficult with a Redscreen debuff and/or t2 Gremlin), can absolutely turn a difficult fight into a cakewalk.