sv3672;n10642611 said:
I think it depends on the type of game you want to make.
KCD uses a hardcore "esque" save system (it's not Ironman, you just need to buy or brew a save potion to save outside of sleeping or exiting the game - reloading deletes the exit-save, though), and they are under absolutely no obligation to make it "Accessible" to the general population.
They wanted to make their game like that. It was a creative decision that was advertised well ahead of launch. Everybody that was following the game -- I.E. their backers, the people who actually made the project happen -- was on board with it. But, then, the game releases, and people who have never played the game start venting their frustrations about it. And that's fine. They can do that. But if a company wants to make their game a certain way, that's their perogative.
I really don't think save restrictions are in any way a punishment. It's a creative decision, nothing else. It's like making a game like Dark Souls or Super Meat Boy. The creators made that game difficult because they wanted to make it difficult. DRM, on the other hand, is not in any way a creative decision.
All of that said, I have nothing against standard save systems. It depends entirely on the type of RPG CDPR is making. If they are making a game where choices really matter and your character's role and roleplaying is emphasized, I can see them going with a limited save system. People can still reload, but only to their last sleep, or their last save-item usage, etc. But I really don't think they're going to make a "true" (I hate using that word, but I can't think of anything better) RPG in that sense.
If they are making a game like Skyrim where it's more about letting players do whatever they want ( a strong possibility given their "sandbox" claims ) then unrestricted saving makes more sense. People try getting smacked with a giant's club because its funny, then they reload and try fus-ro-dah-ing the Jarl of Whiterun for the lulz, and then they turn on god mode and kill everyone in the city, etc. Nothing wrong with any of that.
To the skill vs Perk discussion...
Personally, I'd go for an Oblivion system. New abilities are automatically unlocked as you level up various skills. It represents you simply getting better at the skill - there can still be a ton of variety in what these skills do and what the abilities, but you don't need to use a "perk point" system. I think perk points emphasize the jack of all trades mentality way too much.
For example, if you want to be super good at sneaking and super good at combat, in a skill system, that comes at the expense of other stuff - at least initially. You may be worse at charisma skills because you didn't dedicate your playtime to them.
Eventually, though, it's probably impossible (without a level cap, but a lot of us don't want character levels at all) to stop a player from getting good at everything if a playthrough lasts long enough. But, early to mid game, forcing a player to specialize and role play the character they've created is the ideal situation for me.
Too many games put the emphasis on "YOU CAN DO ANYTHING" over "you can be really great at certain things" and act like their approach is inherently better... it's not. It's not necessarily worse, either, just different.
Snowflakez;n10644801 said:
Oh it is when you release a super-buggy game that crashes all over the place. It's a punishment for people who don't mod. Which I did the same day. Because holy CRAP there's nothing like losing a few hours of your life on a bugged quest that also bugs out that save slot.
Save frequently. Save often. Computer games are not reliable, stable mechanisms.
Sardukhar;n10644951 said:
So developers should never try a system like that because games are inherently buggy? If so, I don't agree with that point of view. Bugs can be fixed. Yes, it sucks to lose progress, but sometimes its inevitable, and if it gets fixed promptly (As has been the case with KCD), I don't see the problem. I mean, again, the alternative is to just never make a system like that in the first place, which seems like an awfully silly concept to me. On the other hand, if a game just stays buggy forever, sure, that's a problem, but I'd argue those devs have more problems than just a save system to worry about if that's the case...
It's not like you're losing an entire save file. As long as you make liberal use of the potions and sleep often (something anybody should learn to do when playing a game with such a system for more than a few hours), you'll never lose more than 20 minutes of progress in that game due to a crash. Frustrating? Sure. But there's loads of benefits, and it sets the tone for the rest of the game. Choices matter. It forces people to think more carefully about what they do, and live with consequences if their decision doesn't pan out. If that's not their thing, that's fine, plenty of other games out there.
I think the idea that every game must appeal to every player is flawed, at best - Warhorse wanted to make they game they wanted to make, and it doesn't need to, nor should it, suit everyone's tastes.
To be clear, I seriously doubt CDPR is going to do this. There is not a single thing they've said or alluded to that hints at that possibility. I'm willing to bet a 1/4 of my paycheck they have a similar, if not identical, save system to what TW3 had, at least by default (maybe there's an "ironman" optional mode or something). So... nobody should worry about it.
I'm a compulsive F5 presser. Every few steps... there's rarely a reason for it, but just in case... just in case.... And I do like to be able to save when ever I wish. But I don't think I'd actually jump out of my pantaloons if the game had some form of "free-save" restriction that made me think at least a more carefully about my approaches.
For example I'd not be opposed to a solution where there'd be some phonebooth-like "service-stations" all around the city where the player might check news, check his vitals, messages, get some vitalizing natura-light treatment to counter the darkness and artificial light exposure, or what ever, and save the game (so no need to travel all the way "home" or carry extra items).
I don't wish that, but I don't think it'd kill the game.
For example I'd not be opposed to a solution where there'd be some phonebooth-like "service-stations" all around the city where the player might check news, check his vitals, messages, get some vitalizing natura-light treatment to counter the darkness and artificial light exposure, or what ever, and save the game (so no need to travel all the way "home" or carry extra items).
I don't wish that, but I don't think it'd kill the game.
Snowflakez;n10645081 said:
Yep. If you can't control your bugs to the degree they wipe hours of progress, do not make a restrictive save system. One or the other. Also they aren't "trying" anything - it's not like this is some brilliant new gaming invention. It's a technique used typically by consoles - controlled save points - since the dawn of videogame time.
I don't think it contributes much to an RPG.
Either a) have an option for save whenever or b) have a save on exit option. Or c) make sure the bugs that inhibit progress don't waste hours of your consumers lives and force them to redo everything. Not a huge fan of Dark Souls for just that reason and would prefer not to have my RPGs force me to play with the same risk unless I choose it. Saviour Schnapps seemed like a good idea - so did quest-point autosaves. Bugs made them highly unreliable.
Sardukhar;n10648221 said:
We will have to agree to disagree. I like that sort of save system. If a dev wants to make a game where that is the default system, that's their perogative. Doesn't need to be for everyone. And, in KCD's case, there's already a save on exit system now (Granted, it wasn't in on launch, so criticism helped in that case). I think it can contribute a ton to an RPG for reasons I've already explained, but the save system in and of itself does nothing. You need to have an entire game designed around a certain mentality for your save system to have weight. For example, if 2077 was about freedom and trying different things out, just throwing a hardcore save system in wouldn't do much.. could even hurt the game.
I do understand your concerns, though. Bugs suck, and crashes suck, too. Personally, I guess I'm willing to lose 20 minutes of progress because I think the system adds more than it takes away, but I also wouldn't want it in every game ever. I think that's one flaw in many discussions.
People tend to want every single RPG in existence to fit a very specific mold, but that would be incredibly boring. It's well and good to talk about the stuff we'd like to see in 2077, but ultimately, I don't want Baldur's Gate: 2077, or Fallout: 2077 or even KC: 2077. We have those games, and we have their spiritual successors (PoE, etc.). Nothing wrong with "different strokes for different folks." So, if you uniformly don't want that save system in any RPG ever, that's fine, but it shouldn't stop a dev from going that route anyway if they want to and their audience wants it.
Snowflakez;n10644801 said:
I meant it in the sense that it makes the game worse for those who have the self control not to abuse free saving and loading anyway, but can now lose progress because of bugs and other issues, as well as get reduced functionality. Especially if the system is limited to only one auto-save, and it does not allow sharing your saves with other people. In the case of only one auto-save, it is also possible for bugs to result in having to replay the entire game from scratch. On the other hand, people who really want to save scum might just download mods/hacks that work around the restrictions.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with an optional "hardcore" mode, or even just giving an achievement for completing the main story on the hardest difficulty without ever loading manual saves or quick saves.
The Skyrim style system, if done right, allows for more specialization. For example, with Sneak, you can choose to become better at stealth attacks, or at avoiding detection (non-lethal stealth). With the Oblivion approach, you just get both automatically in a linear way.
Suhiira;n10648481 said:
I'm also of this persuasion. I do think that some developers release things in woefully unfinished states, but I've also become familiar with the inhumane levels of complexity resulting in very obscure but damaging bugs.
Since I'd rather have games that push the envelope, I've sort of changed my mentality toward playing them over time. I tend to treat my first playthrough of most RPGs as a "let's see how it breaks", playthrough. I'll simply putz around, play the same combat encounters to test out different strategies, start over a whole bunch of times, generally get a good grasp on how to play. Only when I notice patching beginning to slow down and tech support issues beginning to sound repetitious do I really dig in for the experience. I just assume that I'll encounter a host of issues, and then I'm neither disappointed nor frustrated when they crop up. (For example, I usually won't sit down to play a Bethesda game for real until at least 1-2 years after its release.)
I don't think its even feasible to create something on the scale of Skyrim or TW3 without game-breaking bugs hiding somewhere in the code.
Rawls;n8997950 said:
- I'm going to call these base attributes (or just attributes) to seperate them from abilities and/or ability points.
- I will also use STREIGTH and ENDURANCE as attributes instead of BODY TYPE, I'll explain why later.
I like your idea of the 1-10 scale but I'd change it so that...
... The actual scale would be 0-10, where 0 in Empathy would mean cyberpsychosis, 0 in intelligence would mean that you are vegetable, etc.
... In the start/charecter creation, there would be 1 in each attribute that you cant take away and 4 points per each attribute to allocate your self. This way, if you distribute these evenly; you would end up with a character that has 5 in everything. This is important because this way you would have to sacrifice something to be good at something else, instead of rolling demi-god (charecter that has streights and no weaknesses).
... 5 in any attribute would mean that you are the avarage or normal in that. 3-4 and 6-7 would mean that you are worse or better than avarage, 2 and 8 would mean that you are bad or good at it. 1 and 9 would mean you are at the edge of total fail or allmost perfect. 0 and 10 would be total fail or perfect. These stats could go to negative, or over 10, but it wouldnt bring extra difficulty or extra benefit.
I'd also keep those relatively unchangable but I'd say that implants, lets say whole arm implant, would add more streight (or body type). The game mechanics also affect emphaty, and they sound kind of neat. And I'd say that if theres main storyline, class mission chains or smt like that, I'd say that giving attribute points from those, lets say 1 point per attribute trought the whole game, would be ok. (And players kind of like improving their charecters, so little extra motivation from that too, while not making them considerably better than avarage joe.)
Rawls;n8997950 said:
Ok, this is good approach, but I'd favour different approach that is bit similar to Anarcy Online / Eve Online one;
Instead of base attributes affecting directly to effect (like more damage) and a skill (like carrying stuff), I'd have them adding base amount to a skill.
Example; Instead of streight giving you more carry capacity (witch is quite accurate to assume it does), it would add you more skill in "carrying" skill and it would be that "carrying" skill that would add more carry capacity. This way, you could add carry capacity by an item like floating backback, whitout adding streight attribute.
Example: Your Streight attribute wouldn't add you more melee damage, it would add you more base in the skill that adds melee damage. Futher more, melee damage with lightsaber isnt really streight based, but melee damage with two handed damage is. So this way, your streight could add you more damage to "blut weapons" than in "energy weapons", instead of over simplifying it.
This is also more realistic. You can pickup any weapon, lets say assault rifle, and shoot it (if its not complicated fingerprint locked one) and the bullets would do same amount of damage. But in reality, when you full auto kalashnikov to a target in 150 meters away, you dont hit one bullet w/o aiming (so theres a skill involved) and at max 2 bullets if you dont know how to keep the kick down or burst/aim/burst. So anyone can use, but you need the training/expirience... represented as skill in game... to be usefull at it.
Rawls;n8997950 said:
In this...
BODY TYPE is a problem, because its basicly a primary stat for everyone (hitpoints) and at the same time primary stat for tanking and melee damage dealing roles. (So anyone with high value in this becomes automaticly attuned to melee damage dealing).
... So I'd split this to more traditional approach, where STREIGHT is the brawler attribute (melee damage) and CONSTITUTION is the tank attribute (hitpoints).
REFLEXES is a problem because its a defencive stat (dodge/evade) and ranged damage dealer stat at the same time.
... So I'd split this to REFLEXES, as in defencive stat and reaction speed, and COORDINATION, as in hand-to-eye coordination, being organized, space and time awareness needed to shoot where the enemy is going to be instead of where it is.
TECH again is not really an attribute. None of us borns with assembling guides downloaded to our head. It's a learned skill, and we have INTELLIGENCE affecting the learing. But theres also the physical aspect of some people being just "good with their hands", and we now have COORDINATION to represent that.
... So I'd remove this as an attribute, and use INTELLIGENCE+COORDINATION, as base attribute to affect the technical, mechanical and medical skills. With varying % offcourse, Medical work are more INT based, where as building a flying car is more COORDINATION based. Ofcourse theres surgeon lvl stuff too, witch needs more coordination. So bit variation from that too.
... I'd keep the EMPATHY and COOL attributes, and i'd use them mixed aswell... As they say in military; Before you can give orders, you must know how to follow orders... I'd put this thinking to these stats and EMP would be understanding of people and COOL would be how to lead/cheat them.
So I take a shot at this table thing...
| ATTRIBUTE-> | Streight | Reflexes | Constitution | Coordination | Intelligence | Empathy | Cool |
| Type-> | Physical | Physical | Physical | Physical/Mental | Mental | Mental | Mental |
| Affects skills-> (for example) | Brawling Melee Damage Carry Capacity H.Weap. handling | Dodge/Evade Attack Speed Melee Attacks Reactions Sneaking | Hitpoints Resists | Ranged Accurancy Movement Prediction Dodge/Evade Building/Crafting Driving/Flying Sneaking | Hacking Chemistry First Aid Using machines Using weapons Learning | Understanding Hunams Understanding motives Seeing trought Bluffs predicting hunam actions Maintaining humanity or human like appearance | Leading Cheating Making deals Sales pitches convincing persuade, etc. music |
| Can be improved by | Implants (attribute) going to gym | Armor (resists) Implants (resists) gaining weight | AI brain 2.0 but unlikely | AI brain 2.0 but unlikely | Going to therapy after psychosis because installed ai brain 2.0 | clothes, bling | |
| Can decrese by | installing implants | ||||||
| Importat for: | Brawlers Melee Weaps Heavy Weaps | Brawlers Melee Weaps Ranged Weaps | Tanks Everyone | Ranged weaps Drivers Ninjas Crafters | Hackers Medicals | everyone hustlers opportunists rockstars deal makers | rockstars leaders hustlers |
So something like that and now, when you come to the skills;
1) theres no need to lock them under the attributes and everyone can have access to every skill.
2) each skill can be affected by 2-3 base attributes (and get small base amount from those.)
3) and you still need to level up the skills with..
3a) getting small set of starting skills from your charecter creation class/role selected (like in eve online)
3b1) getting better at them by using them (like in elder scrolls online)
3b2) or earning xp untill you get skill point to distribute to the skill (like in the secred world)
4) you can also restrict or hinder players from building unnatural combos by
- using the class selection to set price of the skills and set maximum skill cap
- using the attributes to set the price of the skills and set the maximum skill cap.
So all skills would be a big list like (just an quick example).
| SKILL | PRIMARY ATT | SECONDARY ATT | MINOR ATT | EDUCATION | EXPERIENCE |
| Piercing melee weapons (daggers) | COORDINATION 50% | STREIGHT 40% | REFLELEXES 10% | +6 Points | + 14 points |
| Edged melee weapons | STREIGHT 50% | COORDINATION 30% | REFLEXES 20% | 0 | |
| Bazookas | STREIGHT 90% | COOL 10% | 0 points | + 3 points | |
| Persuade | COOL 60% | EMPATHY 30% | INTELLIGENCE 10% | 0 | + 31 points |
So our avarage joe (with all 5's) would get base value (from attributes) of 5 points on each. plus those invested points.
Someone with 10 in streight and 1 in all other would get. 9+0,1=9.1 points in bazooka plus those invested.
And after this; the game makers can figure the math of what will happen if avarage joe shoots bazooka vs mr.strong shoots bazooka. (the dice rolling).
-----
I dont like the idea of unlockable "perks" or "spells". I'd rather have actions that are bind to items and charecters who can do them well or not.
For example; everyone can shoot with kalashnikov. Everyone can burst fire. Everyone can full auto. Most cant aim w/o guidance. Most dont hit with every bullet. So it's not that the actions/abilities of the kalashnikov are locked, its that you need skill/experience to use them.
Or another example; Everyone can type in code to computer, but it takes some knowledge and smarts to type in working program.
---
As far as the levels; I dont like the levels...
... But I have noticed that it's hard to identify good/suitable healer or damage dealer for team... So I'd have some lvls on the roles;
Like, when you need to hack inside supercomputer, you dont go for 15 yo neighbours son, you go for lvl5 guru.
And mayby give players some skills as they progress to next role lvl. (or move max cap on the skills)
And mayby allow dual roles. I dont see why a "cop" couldnt have some cpr training and be lvl3 cop and lvl1 med.tech.
---
Well, something like that... I guess this is more of "how i would do it" instead of "what i guess it to be" but its little bit of both.
For the sake of argument ... how would your proposed system handle something as commonplace as say your character joining the military?
Your strength and endurance would increase due to lots of exercise, you'd gain basic skills in such things as hand-to-hand, melee: bayonet, handgun, rifle, and whatever your specialty might be (infantry, cook, electronics tech, whatever). And if you stayed more then one enlistment you'd continue to gain skill in various things.
Your strength and endurance would increase due to lots of exercise, you'd gain basic skills in such things as hand-to-hand, melee: bayonet, handgun, rifle, and whatever your specialty might be (infantry, cook, electronics tech, whatever). And if you stayed more then one enlistment you'd continue to gain skill in various things.
Suhiira;n10902561 said:
Yes, this is very close to what I'm thinking.
Please note that in my suggestion;
- streight (attribute) can increase by exercise
- constitution (attribute) can increase by gaining weight
= and these two are the opposites.
I'd handle the "joining army" part as class/role selection and have levels on those classes/roles. Mayby something like 5 levels. And this would be only because the need to distribute extra attribute points and to seperete the beginner and veteran for team play.
As for the attribute point. I'd have the player to decide where to put it instead of class/role...
For me, military service did give more streight, but it didnt do the same for everyone. My friend was tank repairer, and he gained weight instead. My sergenant lost weight. My firesquad friend didnt gain streight, even tought he'd needed it for carrying his bag, but he still completed the training because he was good shooter....
... So theres a lot of ways this can go. And player probably knows best if hes char is a cook or navy seal.
And I wouldnt give the option of "enlist to army" and then go offline to wait. Nope, I'd have the players to do the missions. So the normal xp to skills thing.
I think if you were going to entertain a more dynamic attribute system where they could change over time ... it ought to be quest related. Complete the join the army and get through bootcamp questline, get +1 body and +1 reflexes or whatever you want to call it. Also probably would get +1 in firearms and +1 in melee/brawling/whatever.Suhiira;n10902561 said:
However ... I'm not sure I would include a join the army quest in the game as it would be either
(1) very long or;
(2) risk giving too many rewards for not enough gameplay investment
Because the benefits of such an act are many ... but only come with a significant amount of time and effort invested. And many of the tasks associated with bootcamp probably wouldn't be the most stimulating in a videogame.
That's a problem in almost any system tho.Rawls;n10906631 said:
Intense courses on various things exist (For instance the one I one got from the US Army that taught me how to pick locks and locate and bypass alarms ... yes ... Burglary 101 ... I was there to learn how to set-up security systems ... honest!) and are hard to handle due to the amount learned in a short period of time. Mostly they come with their own drawbacks however; want to learn "soldier 101", commit to 4-years as an NPC.
Personally, except for intelligence, I see any stat/skill as being able to be altered slightly. I once had a player that wanted the maximum allowable strength of 25 in my 1-20 (stats generated with 3d6+2 so mostly in the 11-13 range, 21+ possible due to racial/gender traits and a "rob Peter to pay Paul" system, but DAMN rare) system, so I insisted that he got a job at the local rock quarry to justify it.
Last edited:
