Damage scaling and multipliers

+
the characters combatitive activity is based on measures of accuracy (and much less on the damage modifiers).

Whatever is the right fit for the game, I'm ok with, so long as we don't get situations where I'm breezing through combat where a challenge was expected. When I mentioned damage sponges, I was generally referring to incentives for gear/skill upgrades, whatever form that may take. In other words, justifications for the gameplay systems actually being there and being used by the player. Options in a video game is meaningless unless there are incentives for them.
 
I purchased "PoE II" yesterday and I have to say that I like level scaling approach they've used - let players choose. You can disable enemy level scaling, enable it to always scale to player level or only for the enemies that are on lower level than player characters.
 
"Brutally realistic" isn't a term that shows up in that entire thing. brutal, yes, but no mention of brutal realism.
"Realistic and brutal" on the 2:20 mark.

My problem about the main topic here is extremely simple. Just match up visual representations with bullet-sponges because we already know they're going through that route(and we all know multipliers and scaling will get modded anyway if not done right). Either through soaking up the same number output you give or lessen the numbers as it hits actual armor. I just don't want to empty 5 clips into a bald guy's head while one shotting fully armored grunts because of some floating number on their heads that represents spongyness. They should move on from that same representation that's been plaguing video games and should finally make enemies competent. We need actual armor for enemies.
 
Last edited:
I just don't want to empty 5 clips into a bald guy's head while one shotting fully armored grunts because of some floating number on their heads that represents spongyness.

Enemy levels are a far more efficient way to control the pace of content in RPGs. What you're asking for will require a tremendous amount of work and resources to accomplish, and that is the main reason why you almost never see it in video games. It's a matter of what is realistic in terms of getting the game done in a reasonable amount of time and not going over budget.

To use your example, if the entire game has nothing but bald guys and fully armored grunts, how else would they balance out the content, throughout what is potentially a 100+ hour game, unless they vary up the stats and levels for each enemy? They can't exactly give you completely unique enemies to fight in every area, as that is entirely unrealistic. Enemy AI can only achieve so much as well, as once you figure out their patterns the rest of the game is pretty much a cake walk. This is where the realism vs gamification argument comes in. It's about finding the right balance between realism and fun. Too much realism and you compromise the gameplay systems and too much sacrifice in realism and you compromise immersion.
 
Last edited:
Yes, as I mentioned earlier: the Smart Gun does all the shooting for you. If they create steep stat and skill requirements for usage of the Smart Gun, it would be balanced.

Your cut changed my question, and your ignored my parenthesis: I asked "if I make my V the best markmans ever, then I will be able to shoot ennemies consistently despide me being totally horrible at shooters? ", not if there was a workaround for me to touch things in the game. It was a question about RPG mechanics, that is way that the gameplay would acknowledge a claim supported by the game (in this case that best marksman V ever is best marksman V ever, not about finding a way to shoot things.)

Cause if I make my V the best markmans ever, I should logically be able to shoot ennemies consistently whathever the weapon V is super skilled in, that's about logic, and not just "smartguns".

Besides, I clearly stated "and before you say that: Smartguns doesn't care about V skills, so it cannot be used as a representation of that" (source: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...-about-cyberpunk-2077.11008534/#post-11588800 "The player’s skills do not affect the smart weapon technology at all, it’s all based on the gun. )
So Smartguns represent smartgun's skill, not V ability to shoot at things.

Alternative routes such using your Intellect to convince the enemies that you are no threat is also possible. In RPGs, there are many ways to "defeat" an enemy that doesn't involve blowing their brains out. CP2077 has shooting mechanics, but it is NOT a shooter as far as I can tell.

That has strictly no point with the question about best marksman V ever being able to touch things with the weapon he is skilled in.
 
Look at the bright side. Those of us that suck at (or elect not to) FPS will be able to put more skill points into Hacking and Tech skills.

Thing is that I actually almost always makes characters which are efficient at killing in case of "disagreement".
So I'll have to rely on melee instead, even if FPP melee is...
 
Thing is that I actually almost always makes characters which are efficient at killing in case of "disagreement".
So I'll have to rely on melee instead, even if FPP melee is...
*shrug*
Don't look at me. I usually go for the classic rogue archetype. Stealth and trickery but able to hold their own 1-vs-1. Yeah I can't hold off an army, that's why you bring a meatshield along.
 
As to the request of the OP, it just sounds like he/she wants a "glass cannon" build, which hopefully this game can accommodate.

That's what I am aiming for. A similar playstyle that V used in the 2018 gameplay demo, where you rush in and deal a lot of damage.
 
That's what I am aiming for. A similar playstyle that V used in the 2018 gameplay demo, where you rush in and deal a lot of damage.
Why must the cannon be made out of glass? Then it will break easily? I would say I want to build a V that is a titanium cannon, so that dealing damage, and protecting from damage is also very good. I want to have no limitations, and use my power to defeat strong enemies. Everybody (game characters) overpowered, but especially me. :D
Post automatically merged:

Look at the bright side. Those of us that suck at (or elect not to) FPS will be able to put more skill points into Hacking and Tech skills.

I'm going to do a lot of very deep hacking and stealth, but I still want to be able to do everything else instantly whenever I feel like it with the same character. I don't like limitations. peace.
 
Obviously you have limited experience with PnP RPGs and none with CP2020.

I say this because there are several PnP RPGs that don't use that mechanic and CP2020 most certainly does not.

I mean, most of the biggest tatbletops DO have big scaling though, and Cyberpunk totally allows you to create them. as I said before, the way armor works creates de facto bullet sponges. is the health pool huge? no, but all you're functionally doing is lowering the damage per hit. is it a truer representation than just giving someone 500 HP? yeah, but its still mechanically just allowing a character to soak up 5 times more hits than normal.

I do, and I was only referring to video game RPGs, which is what CDPR is attempting to make here. PnP RPGs and video games are entirely different mediums which require different approaches to make either of them work.

which is a good point, because I don't think its possible to fully recreate a tabletop in video game form, if for no other reason than that you're playing a prepackaged deal...with a faulty game master who can't reasonably allow the freedom a tabletop has.

That they do.

But not as extensive as many wish to believe. Torment, Baldurs Gate, DA: Origins come to mind as excellent video RPGs. Amend your statement to "video FPS games" I'll agree 100%. But the blanket statement you made is much, MUCH, to large.

I didn't play planescape but I do think just having pseudo turn based encounters in the bioware games doesn't represent a significant change from what we have today: the structure of an RPG's narrative and character progression is still very distinct from a true shooter like Metro, for instance. and I'm gonna push back on DA because while I loved the narrative, man, the gameplay was weak. the combat was totally unbalanced and there were too many encounters that were clearly designed for specific builds that were just annoying for anyone not min maxing their PC. and if we're mad about damage sponges....

were they good games? yes. but they were still significant departures from where they came from and to say they're so fundamentally different from a shooter hybrid too me just doesn't seem right.

Bulletspponges and damage/HP progressive systems are definitely an RPG thing to a certain extent, but while that works on games that are purely fantastic or play with higher levels of abstraction (like isometric games), it’s not really a good fit for a game like Cyberpunk. There the statistical abstraction of the characters ability should be dealt with means that fit with the intent of the content at hand, in a way that keeps the verisimilitude alive. And sponge mechanics and progression isn’t that.

I disagree that there's a specific answer here. for one, as I mentioned, armor is really just a way to get sponge mechanics into the game and totally makes sense in the world. progression also fully makes sense, if , you know, we're going to get the possibility of cybernetically enhancing ourselves. both very much fit into the world, and the spirit of the tabletop.

"Realistic and brutal" on the 2:20 mark.

yeah, its semantics, but "realistic and brutal" is a very distinct idea from "brutally realistic". one whos HOW realistic something is, the other shows two different ideas they want to work with in varying capacities.

this isn't a sim.

I just don't want to empty 5 clips into a bald guy's head while one shotting fully armored grunts because of some floating number on their heads that represents spongyness.
I mean, I don't see anyone arguing for that. I only see people pushing back on the idea that having bullet sinks is inherently bad for the game.

They should move on from that same representation that's been plaguing video games and should finally make enemies competent. We need actual armor for enemies.

this isn't exactly a common thing for shooters though. most shooters WONT make enemies randomly superpowered just because of your place in the game, most do use armor to show which spots are protected, and most do try to code useful AI.

I feel like a lot of complaints are from people who are a little out of touch with the shooter world to be making some of these charges.
 
I don't know about "realism" per say. I don't mind enemies soaking a few rounds based on their armor and body stat and the caliber they are shot with, but the HP sponge effect could relatively easily be solved via target lock and realtime locational targeting where torso might be almost guaranteed hit (unless your skill is really low) that, with armor or skinweave, might also require more rounds to penetrate, but head and limbs would be the "sweet spots" to aim for for significantly higher difficulty. Immobilize -> finish off.

It could also be that some armors are just too heavy for your puny 9mm and as such, no damage is done. But it could still momentarily stagger the enemy making it easier to pull off a headshot or a couple when required. Difficulty settings affecting the hardships of pulling off those prizeshots.

More tactical approach, little to no "instadeaths" annoying people, and no level 50 street thugs with over 9000 HP.
I like this concept.
 
Bullet sponges are a big problem in first person shooter RPGs, and I'm not convinced 2077 is going to solve that. Maybe there's hope for non-solo classes to more quickly and creatively take down large enemies.
 
Bullet sponges are a big problem in first person shooter RPGs, and I'm not convinced 2077 is going to solve that. Maybe there's hope for non-solo classes to more quickly and creatively take down large enemies.
outside of looter shooters like Borderlands, where does this really happen though?
 
yeah, its semantics, but "realistic and brutal" is a very distinct idea from "brutally realistic". one whos HOW realistic something is, the other shows two different ideas they want to work with in varying capacities.

Even so. If it claims to be the former and be as close to the theme of the CP world, then it should be closer to an immersive sim than you think given where it draws influences from.

the characters combatitive activity is based on measures of accuracy (and much less on the damage modifiers).
Is a weapon accuracy system the only way to do this? % chances your bullets hit your crosshair?
 
Even so. If it claims to be the former and be as close to the theme of the CP world, then it should be closer to an immersive sim than you think given where it draws influences from.
realism can mean many things, and can do so at many different degrees.

you're inserting your expectation of the level of realism and the nature of it, without knowing what CDPR even meant by those very carefully worded statements.

saying they want "realism" doesn't automatically mean it needs to be a sim, and assuming it draws influences from the more sim based shooters is very presumptuous. I didn't see them listing ARMA as an influence.
 
Some,not all of that crowd were turned off.
I'm actually really happy that it has good FPS mechanics in it, because I don't like most FPS games because I don't think they do things correctly, and I rarely get to enjoy a good quality single player FPS. I'm extremely happy that there are properly done FPS mechanics inside an RPG game, because it reminds me of the original first Mass Effect 1. (The only one I liked) so this is a dream game for me. :D
 
Top Bottom