Weekly Poll 11/26/18 - Perks!

+

Perks?


  • Total voters
    102
Man, I want Veging IV right now. Totally make meal prep super easy, especially with Veging I-III. Are you kidding? Dual wield, twice as fast, and not only no knife needed, but not even hands? Sweet!

Chop with your toe nails?

Picked 2 and 4, which is similar to how Oblivion handled it.

Perks unlock new abilities as you level up your skills. Some can be passive, but more unique abilities would be welcome. I believe Oblivion gave you new combat maneuvers and techniques, for example.
 

Tuco

Forum veteran
I don't feel strongly about any of these options.


No, seriously, I think it's one of these areas where the quality of the implementation is far more relevant than the concept governing it.
My only "strong stand" on the topic is that I don't like "levels" in a non-linear game. So definitely not the first one.
To be more specific, I don't like the idea of "leveling up" and having a sudden surge of stats and hitpoints for the occasion. I don't think it adds anything to the quality of the gameplay or the progression system except introducing what leads to dreadful stat inflation.

I also don't like for challenges in the game world to be explicitly stated in levels even when consistent (i.e. one type of enemy is always the same level) and even worse I absolutely despise when we get the same enemies coming back several times across a game with different level tiers.
I'm perfectly fine with "levels" that would barely fade in the background (i.e. appearing only in your character sheet, unlocking talents/perks) on the other hand... But I think there would be better way to handle that as well.
Like rewarding you directly with the "talent points" without gating it behind a level, for instance. Think about Vampire Bloodlines as an example.

I often argued in the past that even TW3 progression system would have made a lot more sense and it could have been far more smooth if levels were removed from the equation, leaving only talents and perks point to unlock abilities/mutations, but removing the steady increase in stats that served literally no purpose.
 
I often argued in the past that even TW3 progression system would have made a lot more sense and it could have been far more smooth if levels were removed from the equation, leaving only talents and perks point to unlock abilities/mutations, but removing the steady increase in stats that served literally no purpose.
(y)
 
To be more specific, I don't like the idea of "leveling up" and having a sudden surge of stats and hitpoints for the occasion.

I also don't like for challenges in the game world to be explicitly stated in levels even when consistent (i.e. one type of enemy is always the same level) and even worse I absolutely despise when we get the same enemies coming back several times across a game with different level tiers.

I agree with all of this. My ideal preference for an RPG that puts me in direct, real-time control of a character is to have "leveling" be as organic as possible. Rather than level 1, 2, 3, etc., I'd prefer to just get points. Assigning them to various skills will eventually open up new options and mechanics at certain milestones. A sense of my character continuously getting better.

For world-building, I prefer a static / un-leveled world (not one that levels with you). Nor do I like worlds made of "areas" that are closed off until you hit a certain level. Maybe I've just got too much of the '80s in my blood. Running into a situation that's too overpowering, being forced to go elsewhere, then coming back later to smoothly get through it...that's sooo enjoyable and rewarding.

That sort of leads right into enemies and combat. I'd prefer to see things working in an ecosystem. Rather than this area being populated by junk-mob raiders, and this area being really tough mercs, and this area being full of super-elite military, I'd much prefer for them to be all mixed up. They'll interact with each other, not just me. Some of my favorite systems are the Gothic / Risen games. (Now...if only they could do something about the abysmal combat, wonky dialogue, and relatively awkward pacing.) But interacting with those worlds, exploring, and figuring out various pathways of moving forward is a joy.

And no, I'm not at all a fan of "green goblins are weak, blue goblins are stronger, and red ones are hard". No thank'ee.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all of this. My ideal preference for an RPG that puts me in direct, real-time control of a character is to have "leveling" be as organic as possible. Rather than level 1, 2, 3, etc., I'd prefer to just get points. Assigning them to various skills will eventually open up new options and mechanics at certain milestones. A sense of my character continuously getting better.
My only "strong stand" on the topic is that I don't like "levels" in a non-linear game. So definitely not the first one.
Well said, both of you.

I hope this is something that isn't "too late" to change. An unleveled world was really the #1 thing I figured they would transfer over from the PnP, since it's obvious a lot of other stuff hasn't been (or can't be, depending on time/financial/technical restrictions).
 
People miss the importance of 8 - Perks because of XP:

Example:
- You can only get the dual wielding pistol perk if you're effective enough with the pistol first.
- Perk assault rifle accuracy should only be available after having more experience with the AR.

And im all for Postive Perk makes X negative, brings more diversity in my opinion as long as you don't
make an OP path.
 

Tuco

Forum veteran
For world-building, I prefer a static / un-leveled world (not one that levels with you). Nor do I like worlds made of "areas" that are closed off until you hit a certain level. Maybe I've just got too much of the '80s in my blood. Running into a situation that's too overpowering, being forced to go elsewhere, then coming back later to smoothly get through it...that's sooo enjoyable and rewarding.
Not only I agree, but I think the whole concept of "level scaling enemies" is ironically there to highlight how pointless leveling was in the first place.
What's the use of having in your game systems that constantly ramp up numbers, when then you suddenly need to adjust enemies levels to keep up with it? It's a system that implicitly creates the very problems that you then need to solve.

There should be plenty of ways to make a character feel more "competent", strong and versatile over time without having to escalate things. Same goes with equipment, by the way. There is this unreasonable tendency to make items stat escalate way too much.
As I said in a past occasion just take a look at Breath of the Wild: it's a game without levels nor perks and STILL just by gear alone you get dangerously close to "comically overpowered" by the end of the game (especially when it comes to absorbing damage; the damage output you can obtain is mostly ok).

There should also be ways to keep encounter design interesting without constantly introducing "HP sponge" enemies. Just give them annoying abilities that don't rely exclusively on their damage, make enemies that are vulnerable to certain things and more resistant to others, ramp up their number in specific circumstances ( I can assure you a "swarm" of weak enemies (Left4Dead-style, if you want an example) can be an interesting challenge IF you are not making their damage so trivial to be easily ignorable.

That sort of leads right into enemies and combat. I'd prefer to see things working in an ecosystem. Rather than this area being populated by junk-mob raiders, and this area being really tough mercs, and this area being full of super-elite military, I'd much prefer for them to be all mixed up. They'll interact with each other, not just me. Some of my favorite systems are the Gothic / Risen games. (Now...if only they could do something about the abysmal combat, wonky dialogue, and relatively awkward pacing.) But interacting with those worlds, exploring, and figuring out various pathways of moving forward is a joy.
Preaching to the choir here. I agree. And it's not even just more interesting gameplay-wise. it can also create more immersive and coherent circumstances, that add to the variety of the challenges you'll face.
 
I agree with all of this. My ideal preference for an RPG that puts me in direct, real-time control of a character is to have "leveling" be as organic as possible. Rather than level 1, 2, 3, etc., I'd prefer to just get points. Assigning them to various skills will eventually open up new options and mechanics at certain milestones. A sense of my character continuously getting better.
All this said.
CDPR can of course have "levels" in the background if they wish or feel they "need to" for some reason. Just keep it a hidden stat NEVER seen by the player.
 
I hope this is something that isn't "too late" to change.

I don't think it's there now. V will not level up, just gain skills. There's not even a class system. As for enemies, it does seem as if there are junk mobs and bosses based on the trailer, but I'll wait to learn more about how other encounters work before trying to opine on the overall system.


Not only I agree, but I think the whole concept of "level scaling enemies" is ironically there to highlight how pointless leveling was in the first place.
What's the use of having in your game systems that constantly ramp up numbers, when then you suddenly need to adjust enemies levels to keep up with it? It's a system that implicitly creates the very problems that you then need to solve.

Time was when an RPG campaign ramped up along with the level. High level characters used to have campaigns about becoming leaders of armies or kingdoms, facing challenges from other realities, or ascending to become divine beings. The stories used to ramp up with you. I think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 did a fantastic job of this.


Preaching to the choir here. I agree. And it's not even just more interesting gameplay-wise. it can also create more immersive and coherent circumstances, that add to the variety of the challenges you'll face.

(Oh, I have no issue carrying on a conversation with people I agree with. :) More people should try it!)

Lots of modern games just keep jogging around the same block, giving the thugs on the corner bigger and bigger weapons every time the player passes. I remember facing a rage demon towards the endgame of DA: Inquisition and thinking: "How the @#$% did I ever beat one of these things when I was, like, level 5!?"

"Cohesion" is exactly the way to look at it, I think.
 
I don't think it's there now. V will not level up, just gain skills. There's not even a class system. As for enemies, it does seem as if there are junk mobs and bosses based on the trailer, but I'll wait to learn more about how other encounters work before trying to opine on the overall system.




Time was when an RPG campaign ramped up along with the level. High level characters used to have campaigns about becoming leaders of armies or kingdoms, facing challenges from other realities, or ascending to become divine beings. The stories used to ramp up with you. I think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 did a fantastic job of this.




(Oh, I have no issue carrying on a conversation with people I agree with. :) More people should try it!)

Lots of modern games just keep jogging around the same block, giving the thugs on the corner bigger and bigger weapons every time the player passes. I remember facing a rage demon towards the endgame of DA: Inquisition and thinking: "How the @#$% did I ever beat one of these things when I was, like, level 5!?"

"Cohesion" is exactly the way to look at it, I think.
I hope you're right, and I suppose it was indeed a bit of an assumption on my part. Enemies definitely have levels, but V might not.
 
People are talking about the benefits of leveling and such, so I want to use one of the best games I've ever played as an example here: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

The leveling system was garbage, and it was for one reason. The world leveled with you. It defeats the point of leveling. I disagree with the numbers-game advancement that we saw in The Witcher. It was an artificial progression that didn't actually give us any progress. It just enabled us to do the next quest. Slicing away at someone should be about as effective on one person as the other (if you connect and noone's wearing armor). I suppose it makes sense against supernatural or armored foes, but I actually think that to add insult to injury, The Witcher's combat was a dumbed-down Dark Souls.

Don't repeat this mistake. Progression should be based on player skill and achievement, and there should be a very clear connection between our greater power and the impression we get from what we do. Fighting the same enemy when we do 3 times the damage we used to feels as though there's a disconnect between the game's mechanics and the actual game.
 
Don't repeat this mistake. Progression should be based on player skill and achievement, and there should be a very clear connection between our greater power and the impression we get from what we do. Fighting the same enemy when we do 3 times the damage we used to feels as though there's a disconnect between the game's mechanics and the actual game.

Do you mean character skill? Because player skill progression is more for shooters, not RPGs. I also don't understand that bit about achievement - again, this is an RPG, leveling up (character skills, not overall level), acquiring new abilities, etc. is part of the experience.

Also, there were a lot of really cool elements to Oblivion's progression. Yeah, the world leveling with you wasn't ideal (I'd do away with overall levels entirely, as has been discussed in the past couple pages), but the skill level-ups with incremental perks/abilities in addition to flat percentage bonuses were nice. Not perfect either, but a step in the right direction. Too bad they threw the baby out with the bathwater in Skyrim.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean character skill? Because character skill progression is more for shooters, not RPGs. I also don't understand that bit about achievement - again, this is an RPG, leveling up (character skills, not overall level), acquiring new abilities, etc. is part of the experience.

Also, there were a lot of really cool elements to Oblivion's progression. Yeah, the world leveling with you wasn't ideal (I'd do away with overall levels entirely, as has been discussed in the past couple pages), but the skill level-ups with incremental perks/abilities in addition to flat percentage bonuses were nice. Not perfect either, but a step in the right direction. Too bad they threw the baby out with the bathwater in Skyrim.

The bathapult shows up again!

I told people it was popular among game devs...
 
People are talking about the benefits of leveling and such, so I want to use one of the best games I've ever played as an example here: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

The leveling system was garbage, and it was for one reason. The world leveled with you. It defeats the point of leveling.
Exactly.

If everything stays relatively the same because the world "levels" just like the character a leveling system is essentially meaningless.
 
Exactly.

If everything stays relatively the same because the world "levels" just like the character a leveling system is essentially meaningless.

Not only that, but it makes playing different sorts of characters just as pointless. Mechanically, a world that levels up with a character means that any character will always face the same challenges regardless of what they choose to do. When NPCs are static, it creates a lot of variety depending on the role a player chooses. For example, let's say that there's plot critical data stored in a heavily guarded military stronghold:

  • If the stronghold is populated with "level 20" guards while my fighter is "Level 1", gunning through the front door or intimidating the guards to let me in is not an option. I'll need to start somewhere else and handle this section toward the end of the game.

  • If I'm playing a rogue, however, I may have all the skills I need to climb through the proverbial air ducts right at "level 1", avoiding all combat and making the "level 20" guards a non-issue. So, I might actually begin the game with that section.

  • If I'm playing a techie, I may be hired by that military organization in the middle of the game to repair their automated weapon system or something, and that could give me an opportunity to hack their system on the side.

Static worlds provide a lot more opportunities for role-playing and allow for drastically different paths through the game. I do find it a bit disappointing that as time got on, more and more developers opted for linear paths through their game while limiting skills and abilities to combat considerations.
 
Do you mean character skill? Because player skill progression is more for shooters, not RPGs. I also don't understand that bit about achievement - again, this is an RPG, leveling up (character skills, not overall level), acquiring new abilities, etc. is part of the experience.

Also, there were a lot of really cool elements to Oblivion's progression.

Role-playing games are about taking on the role of a character in a story. That's it; they're based on D&D.

The whole obsession with stats is misguided. Stats are there to help define a character and to interact with the game mechanics; they help do what a computer can do in a videogame. Some aspects of stats are fine, and I also liked Oblivion's leveling system fairly well (which is why it's a shame that the aspect I derided was present).

Let's take damage as an example. Dealing damage is just a carryover from wargames to simplify combat to an implementable point. It's a departure from the immersion that is core to RPGs.

Now that we have the technology, we should do something else. Fallout 3's injury system was a decent take. I think it could be taken further. For example, one could have a body's progress toward shock and levels of shock at certain thresholds. On top of this could be focus or something (damaged by exertion for undisciplined characters, allocated to multiple tasks, and damaged by head injuries for everyone); cardio (heart and circulation, so blood loss); and mortal wounds that will kill if high-end medical intervention isn't obtained. There could be a few more, such as basic limb condition. It should be styled a bit differently than how I've presented it and, obviously, more sophisticated, but it's very much in the cards afaik.

That's what I mean about the tension between "RPG (not really)" elements and immersion. Since you mentioned the bit about shooters, I'd like to point out that this game is, in fact, a shooter. Besides that, though, mastering something is a great joy. Games are meant to be interactive, which means that player input should matter. That has everything to do with skill and ability. Then, players could be rewarded with story and gameplay once they've achieved something. That's what I'm talking about.
 
Role-playing games are about taking on the role of a character in a story. That's it; they're based on D&D.

The whole obsession with stats is misguided. Stats are there to help define a character and to interact with the game mechanics; they help do what a computer can do in a videogame. Some aspects of stats are fine, and I also liked Oblivion's leveling system fairly well (which is why it's a shame that the aspect I derided was present).

Let's take damage as an example. Dealing damage is just a carryover from wargames to simplify combat to an implementable point. It's a departure from the immersion that is core to RPGs.

Now that we have the technology, we should do something else. Fallout 3's injury system was a decent take. I think it could be taken further. For example, one could have a body's progress toward shock and levels of shock at certain thresholds. On top of this could be focus or something (damaged by exertion for undisciplined characters, allocated to multiple tasks, and damaged by head injuries for everyone); cardio (heart and circulation, so blood loss); and mortal wounds that will kill if high-end medical intervention isn't obtained. There could be a few more, such as basic limb condition. It should be styled a bit differently than how I've presented it and, obviously, more sophisticated, but it's very much in the cards afaik.

That's what I mean about the tension between "RPG (not really)" elements and immersion. Since you mentioned the bit about shooters, I'd like to point out that this game is, in fact, a shooter. Besides that, though, mastering something is a great joy. Games are meant to be interactive, which means that player input should matter. That has everything to do with skill and ability. Then, players could be rewarded with story and gameplay once they've achieved something. That's what I'm talking about.

The video game genre is based on DnD and Final Fantasy.

Basically, when making the early definitions of the video game genres, they ran across a problem: Computer-based RPGs (what we now call cRPGs) and console-based RPGs (what we now call JRPGs) had certain differences between each other, as well as a distinct lack of freedom of choice being common to both at the time that separated them from tabletop games like DnD. Rather than try to define two genres of RPGs, they simply combined them and defined the category based on the mechanical similarities between them.

For defining some others, they picked different games; the Legend of Zelda series, for example, is the codifier and flagship of the adventure category. Not a single LoZ game is considered an RPG; the latest entry, Breath of the Wild, is an action-adventure game. This is despite the fact the entire series is about you taking on the role of Link in his efforts to save Hyrule and various side adventures.

Thus, why Life is Strange is not an RPG; it's an action-adventure game because it lacks stats and levels and combat. And why games like Skyrim are hybrid RPGs.

Thus, for video games, taking on the role of a character in a story is almost completely irrelevant to whether or not it's an RPG and more a defining characteristic of the adventure and action-adventure games. What defines RPGs are the stats, levels, and mechanics that support them.

Thus, why I'm betting that CP2077 won't be an RPG. I'm betting it'll be an action-adventure game.
 
Since you mentioned the bit about shooters, I'd like to point out that this game is, in fact, a shooter.
The game is not a shooter, according to CD Projekt Red. So your words are in conflict with the developers themselves. It might have shooting combat (which we still don't for sure - it seems likely they'll add or have already added stat-influenced combat of some kind, though still in real-time), but it is not a shooter by nature.

Role-playing games are about taking on the role of a character in a story. That's it...

Uhm... That's categorically false. By all means, you can think that. But you could call literally any game on the planet an RPG if that's the only criteria you need. Is COD's singleplayer campaign an RPG? What about Battlefield? Maybe Mafia III, GTA V, or Red Dead Redemption 2?

It's clear what I, CDPR, and just about anybody else means when they say RPG - on the large scale, anyway. Stats, levels, character-centric gameplay, to some degree. We disagree on when the character should end and the player begins, but we can all mostly say there are a few core tenants of an RPG that are consistent.

Of course I'm hyperbolizing by saying "all."

Now that we have the technology, we should do something else. Fallout 3's injury system was a decent take. I think it could be taken further. For example, one could have a body's progress toward shock and levels of shock at certain thresholds. On top of this could be focus or something (damaged by exertion for undisciplined characters, allocated to multiple tasks, and damaged by head injuries for everyone); cardio (heart and circulation, so blood loss); and mortal wounds that will kill if high-end medical intervention isn't obtained. There could be a few more, such as basic limb condition. It should be styled a bit differently than how I've presented it and, obviously, more sophisticated, but it's very much in the cards afaik.

Why not both? The injury system you mention is very similar to what was already in Cyberpunk 2020. I don't disagree that we should add more layers of complexity in the form of injury systems, or other mechanics that challenge the character (and, mentally, the player). But this doesn't need to be an all or nothing situation.
 
Top Bottom