Weapon Lore cap and implant changes to support it?

[William Antrim]

Reading the poking thread just now I thought about how the game used to be when PE's could poke because everyone could cap aiming on their weapons without too much trouble. It made me think about weapon lore generally now compared to nc1 weapon lore and how much easier things would be across the board if we could cap the aiming on our weapons more easily.

Say for example - All guns capped aiming at 100 weapon lore. This would then mean that all reticles closed as fast as they could. If the player then chose to spec higher wep lore he would gain the other benefits to RoF/handling as normal.

Tradeskillers could instantly be more viable in (limited) combat roles. I know a few researchers who take repair/recycle as a secondary skill in order to level dex etc for example. All of their primary points are obviously in research but what if they had some implants which gave them +research (Neural advancements I am looking at you). Then they could potentially swap out chips during research and/or use combat skills more effectively. It might persuade them to level with pistols/rifles in their secondary role (their dex skills).

Newer players would also potentially be able to defend themselves better (weapon damage aside) vs each other in pvp environments and skirmishes as they could spec weapon lore up to this level and then be free to spec points in other areas for other things - psu for example to be faster at spell casting/gain more psi pool.

PE's could become viable pokers again without complete gimpage to 115 pokes that they have to at present.

There are enough implants that give a WEP LORE (Exp Ballistic weapons CPU line) bonus at present that could specifically help ALL of the combat classes to attain this theoretical cap and thus possibly make the game that little bit more fun and varied for a lot of players.

There are also weapon lore drugs obviously that would help achieve this goal too. I realise all of these things are currently in game but they do not get used due to the lack of a perceived benefit. If that benefit was a clearly defined value (ie 100 for arguments sake) almost ALL classes who require it could reach the cap without too much hassle (I think due to their low and slow levelling INT tanks might take longer but still could be viable with drugs) and therefore theoretically have the chance to spend those other precious points elsewhere.


Thoughts/comments/flames?

[Netphreak]

Reading the poking thread just now I thought about how the game used to be when PE's could poke because everyone could cap aiming on their weapons without too much trouble. It made me think about weapon lore generally now compared to nc1 weapon lore and how much easier things would be across the board if we could cap the aiming on our weapons more easily.

Say for example - All guns capped aiming at 100 weapon lore. This would then mean that all reticles closed as fast as they could. If the player then chose to spec higher wep lore he would gain the other benefits to RoF/handling as normal.

Tradeskillers could instantly be more viable in (limited) combat roles. I know a few researchers who take repair/recycle as a secondary skill in order to level dex etc for example. All of their primary points are obviously in research but what if they had some implants which gave them +research (Neural advancements I am looking at you). Then they could potentially swap out chips during research and/or use combat skills more effectively. It might persuade them to level with pistols/rifles in their secondary role (their dex skills).

Newer players would also potentially be able to defend themselves better (weapon damage aside) vs each other in pvp environments and skirmishes as they could spec weapon lore up to this level and then be free to spec points in other areas for other things - psu for example to be faster at spell casting/gain more psi pool.

PE's could become viable pokers again without complete gimpage to 115 pokes that they have to at present.

There are enough implants that give a WEP LORE (Exp Ballistic weapons CPU line) bonus at present that could specifically help ALL of the combat classes to attain this theoretical cap and thus possibly make the game that little bit more fun and varied for a lot of players.

There are also weapon lore drugs obviously that would help achieve this goal too. I realise all of these things are currently in game but they do not get used due to the lack of a perceived benefit. If that benefit was a clearly defined value (ie 100 for arguments sake) almost ALL classes who require it could reach the cap without too much hassle (I think due to their low and slow levelling INT tanks might take longer but still could be viable with drugs) and therefore theoretically have the chance to spend those other precious points elsewhere.


Thoughts/comments/flames?

I'm obviously 100% for this. I really think that it would help promote some more diversity again.

[nabbl]

doesn't sound too bad actually.

[Grogor]

Well, I have to disagree.
A hard cap is probably the worst for diversification. I admit, it will help diversivication on secondary skills, ok, but if you have a hard cap, everyone will skill towards that cap. That means everyone (ok there will be a few, very few exceptions) will have 100 weapon lore (taking the value of your example). So every PvP char. That is clearly making everyone the same in their primary skills.

For Tanks that would do much difference with that less INT since wherever that cap is, they won't have much points left so most tanks wouldn't profit from a cap unless it's that low, that it wouldn't make sense.
Taking spys, currently if you want to succed in OP fights you should skill hacking. So since there is no cap, there is no advice how much you skill in hacking. You know, every point in hacking makes your aim worse, but you need enough hacking so you succed with an acceptable number of tries hacking an outpost.
Looking in my clan that means base hacking skills from 90 to 115. (Even if that range doesn't seem to be much, don't forget increased skill point costs starting from skill lvl 100).
Even for PE, depending if you play him as hacker or Psi using, you have to try and find the best solution for yourself.
The Monk has no weapon lore, but has the same Problem with psi use.

And for different concepts, it is viable for spys and PEs having implant, it gives them the ability to use nanites. Many out there hate nanites. But if you are willing to trade weaponlore for implant you can use those and gain access incedible protection tools. Even better than shield iirc.

So I agree, if you want top damage and to aim in PvP all skill variants look the same. That wouldn't change with a hard cap. It only gives those players who aren't in for a trade off, the possiblily to have secondary skills. And sorry to say that but you can't (shouldn't) have it all. Life's not like this.

I could live with a more flatened soft cap. So that the influence of a skill point is even smaller at the end and makes it easier to say: ok from here on I could live with not being to notch. But a hard cap takes away all the fun of having different skills.

[Dribble Joy]

If it caps aiming but not dmg/rof, then people are still going to put every point they can into it. As for caps in general, look at NC2, where you specced enough then dumped the points elsewhere. There was almost no variation, like now you just went for the highest tl possible.

As for implants though, more variety (or useful variety) needs to be in place to allow people to switch (to a degree, we don't need the zero SL/xp loss loms back) between styles.

[Assimilator]

If it caps aiming but not dmg/rof, then people are still going to put every point they can into it.

What if the damage tapers off at a certain point? For those that want to make a specialized PvP character, more power to them. But maybe have the damage difference only around 5% or so? I know I probably won't care about the 5% extra and instead put those points into something else.

[onero S]

If it caps aiming but not dmg/rof, then people are still going to put every point they can into it. As for caps in general, look at NC2, where you specced enough then dumped the points elsewhere. There was almost no variation, like now you just went for the highest tl possible.

As for implants though, more variety (or useful variety) needs to be in place to allow people to switch (to a degree, we don't need the zero SL/xp loss loms back) between styles.

The idea behind caps leading to diversification stems from the idea that low tl weapons are easier to cap. Using a hypothetically viable lowtech PE setup, the thinking would be that you cap aiming fairly easily, freeing up weapon lore to go into something else (psi use for instance if it were made important to non ppus again...).

[Netphreak]

The idea behind caps leading to diversification stems from the idea that low tl weapons are easier to cap. Using a hypothetically viable lowtech PE setup, the thinking would be that you cap aiming fairly easily, freeing up weapon lore to go into something else (psi use for instance if it were made important to non ppus again...).

^ This. It used to be that combat PE's and Spies (when they had to drug to use shelter) needed to make the choice and spec for PSI Use in order to gain more PSI pool and also cast your PSI abilities quicker.

Lower more attainable aiming caps also promoted more trade skillers to come out and spec for weapons. I seem to remember Hivemind I think it was having a constructor spy that had 50 base weapon lore specced, used RoLH and managed to do quite well in pvp. Obviously not ideal for an OP fight but if you bumped into him out in the wastes you would have trouble.

We simply don't have any of that anymore. People either spec pure solo pvp (spies pick imp for nanites), pure OP pvp or pure trade skill builds, there is next to no hope for any non pure build to succeed in any aspect of this game anymore.

[Dribble Joy]

The idea behind caps leading to diversification stems from the idea that low tl weapons are easier to cap. Using a hypothetically viable lowtech PE setup, the thinking would be that you cap aiming fairly easily, freeing up weapon lore to go into something else (psi use for instance if it were made important to non ppus again...).

But if it only caps aiming and not the other attributes, why 'waste' points in other areas?

There is a big difference between pure combat setups and diversified ones, and that gap is probably too big, but I feel that the choice to spend all points in a skill in order to gain higher performance needs to be an option.

[onero S]

But if it only caps aiming and not the other attributes, why 'waste' points in other areas?

There is a big difference between pure combat setups and diversified ones, and that gap is probably too big, but I feel that the choice to spend all points in a skill in order to gain higher performance needs to be an option.

Caps don't need to remove "all out choices", at all. One of the largest advantages (in a system with caps) of using a harder to reach weapon is it can do much more dmg. I would totally support a situation where tl 95 weapons are capable without too much trouble, and where a hypothetical tl 115 weapon would be literally impossible to actually cap given current implants and skill points. This can also create a situation where trying to reach a better weapon isn't always best unless you can take advantage of it. For someone with say 140 points in a combat skill, they might do better dmg with a tl 90 weapon than say drugging for 2 extra attribute levels to use a tl 110 one.

In short, caps don't mean you can't dump all your points into a skill and see benefit, what to do is ensure that if people don't do that, there are other advantages.

[RogerRamjet]

I'd like to see something similar to the formulas used end of NC1/start of NC2, and cherry pick the better implementations since then. Probably not possible without a reversion to the old main skills/implant system, but there's definitely less variation in classes now than there ever was. APUs and PEs are next to useless, HC Tanks and AK/Dissie Spies dominate the pvp scene. Giving PPUs antibuff means you may as well just bring more PPUs to fights now as well, since they're the only viable way to play a monk. I want to see pistol spies, HC/Melee/lotech PEs again. Maybe even make MC5s restriction-less to open up some more options to people.

[William Antrim]

Grogor thanks for that interpretation. I can see where you are coming from but I think that the current system is EXACTLY what is wrong with NC. Having every spare point devoted to this stuff is what forces specialisation.

I do not mean to sound like a broken record but in NC1 we knew our guns capped at 178% dmg and 250% aiming or whatever it was. We knew what we needed to reach this and we knew that we would have spare points left over for other things. Therefore we had the opportunity to spread our points. We could diversify. The same as we had high tech and low tech viability (however I wont start on that bandwagon again).

Onero thank you - you seem to be on my wavelength and you have probably explained things a little better than I did!

[Netphreak]

Weapon Lore and aiming caps seem completely broke ATM compared to in NC1.
Aiming speed seems far more dependant on the range of your weapon than your aiming % on your weapon (assuming you're within range ofcourse).

At close range (not standing ontop of the mob but pretty damn close),
My tank with a ~tl80 plasma wave
With all 25 INT level points in Weapon Lore can aim/close the reticle faster than my Pistol PE using a tl64 laser pistol with all 60 INT level points in weapon lore can.

To me there's something seriously wrong there. Aiming with pistols used to be great, but now I've much better aiming on an H-C tank or a rifle spy.

I think the weapon lore changes and removal of the aiming cap is the reason for this.

So lack of possible/realistic diversity isn't the only thing the change messed up.

P.S. Rogers's random idea about MC5's isn't actually that crazy. Maybe requirementless wouldn't be a good idea but require something like 75 in their respective skill req... Would allow pistol and rifle tanks to use them, melee and heavy PE's to use them etc.
Though I think this is a topic/suggestion for another thread.

[onero S]

Weapon Lore and aiming caps seem completely broke ATM compared to in NC1.
Aiming speed seems far more dependant on the range of your weapon than your aiming % on your weapon (assuming you're within range ofcourse).

At close range (not standing ontop of the mob but pretty damn close),
My tank with a ~tl80 plasma wave
With all 25 INT level points in Weapon Lore can aim/close the reticle faster than my Pistol PE using a tl64 laser pistol with all 60 INT level points in weapon lore can.

To me there's something seriously wrong there. Aiming with pistols used to be great, but now I've much better aiming on an H-C tank or a rifle spy.

I think the weapon lore changes and removal of the aiming cap is the reason for this.

So lack of possible/realistic diversity isn't the only thing the change messed up.

P.S. Rogers's random idea about MC5's isn't actually that crazy. Maybe requirementless wouldn't be a good idea but require something like 75 in their respective skill req... Would allow pistol and rifle tanks to use them, melee and heavy PE's to use them etc.
Though I think this is a topic/suggestion for another thread.

I like the MC5 idea... I wonder if it would be possible to have a requirement of *highest skill*, so it would be based off of your highest skill instead of a specific one. It would mean that all classes can use any MC5.

[Dropout]

IMO MC5's should just have lowered their current requirements. I would hate not being able to use a Herc on a HC tank, or a DIP on a pistol character.
But this is quite off-topic isnt it?


Im against a WEP cap though.
I like how its hard'ish to reach aiming cap with some weapons (some weapons aim% cap should be made easier to achieve though).

I have used a WEP implant on my tanks for about 2 years now, so I can cap Dev aim. And on Terra my AK spy was pure WEP for added damage (although that had nothing to do with aim% ).