BOTs For MultiPlayer!

[Mybrokenenglish]

Bots wouldn't make sense unless the multiplayer modes are standard competitive fare, which I don't think CD Projekt Red has any interest in doing.

I think those standard modes will be in the game, 100%. No brainer: classic, easy to implement, people like them. The question is, what will the rest be like? I think some co-op PvE campaign will be the main course with PvP from time to time. Think the division but with important narrative. Maybe with C&C as well (RDO but deeper).
Whether I'll be interested or not strongly depends on how match making will work (I need to be able to choose from my friends list) and how mature the community will be (= not GTA). And I don't do PvP.
Also, my connection is shit.

Definitely not looking forward to it, though.

 

[Snowflakez]

I think those standard modes will be in the game, 100%. No brainer: classic, easy to implement, people like them. The question is, what will the rest be like? I think some co-op PvE campaign will be the main course with PvP from time to time. Think the division but with important narrative. Maybe with C&C as well (RDO but deeper).
Whether I'll be interested or not strongly depends on how match making will work (I need to be able to choose from my friends list) and how mature the community will be (= not GTA). And I don't do PvP.
Also, my connection is shit.

Definitely not looking forward to it, though.

Hmm, maybe. I suppose even GTA Online had that stuff.

I don't think it will be the focus, though. Also, I'll be avoiding it with a 10 foot pole. Don't like competitive shooters. Cooperative missions? Heck yeah, right up my alley, although I definitely want them to focus on singleplayer.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I don't think it will be the focus, though. Also, I'll be avoiding it with a 10 foot pole. Don't like competitive shooters. Cooperative missions? Heck yeah, right up my alley, although I definitely want them to focus on singleplayer.

The larger issue with competitive shooter style game mode mechanics is narrative driven RPG's don't tend to translate well to competitive shooters. A competitive shooter and a narrative driven RPG are a very different thing. The same could be said for most single-player RPG's and MMO's. You can try to copy and paste the narrative driven RPG into either of these two different environments but odds are high it's going to turn out as a lackluster competitive shooter or MMO.

To put that differently, if you wanted a competitive shooter or MMO you would play a competitive shooter or MMO. One built from top to bottom for those respective purposes or experiences. At least, odds are extremely high it would be a superior experience.

This is why I've had the viewpoint the best version of MP functionality would be small group co-op. It thematically fits with pnp and doesn't require many changes to the core mechanics of the game play. It would probably be cheaper to provide too. None of this is to say expanding small group co-op functionality couldn't be done well. I just don't think the status quo and current trends in the online arena really fit with the type of game CP2077 is allegedly supposed to be. If those are the goal they may as well develop a separate game for CP multiplayer.

 

[CyberBobber]

Theres so many things they could do, they could do Battle Royal ala Fortnite or Apex Legends, somekind of competitive shooter for fame, gang wars, corp wars, GTA online, they could follow Ubisoft its online mode is quite unique etc. It could be even mobile game as far we know.

Wish they could shed a light a bit on the MP. I agree that they should keep "Pen and Paper" in mind when making the MP. If player gets "Pen and Paper" vibes from it, that would be cool.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Theres so many things they could do, they could do Battle Royal ala Fortnite or Apex Legends, somekind of competitive shooter for fame, gang wars, corp wars, GTA online, they could follow Ubisoft its online mode is quite unique etc. It could be even mobile game as far we know.

"Battle Royale" is a pretty good example of what I was getting at. Team death match, competitive objective modes, etc. are also good examples. Basically, most of the common game modes you find in competitive shooters. This type of stuff just doesn't fit into an RPG. Most of the systems you find in an RPG get in the way of this type of game play. They're excess baggage. Likewise, this type of game play doesn't thematically fit with a narrative driven RPG.

Something like corp wars might be able to fit. Say, groups of players existing in the same game world performing tasks to further the agenda of their respective faction or corporation, and hinder the agenda of the rest. If they go with a game mode route in their MP this is the way it should be done. Granted, this could be done regardless of how the MP is designed (MMO style, smaller scale groups with matchmaking, whatever).

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

If those are the goal they may as well develop a separate game for CP multiplayer.

They are, CEO claimed it recently.

I agree that small group co-op will be the main focus, probably with more rigid class system compared to CP77, but some PvP will be there, both teams that all vs all. Something like the division.

 

[Audie_Carpenter]

I agree that the multiplayer platform should be a small co-op based feature. But I wouldn't be opposed to PvP so long as it's featured in an elaborate way that doesn't solely involve in shooting at each other.

There are some things I wouldn't want to see, at all:

• Objectives in an open lobby. What is the logic in hoping to succeed inside a lobby against 20 other hungry players desperately wanting win your earnings? 'S dumb. "Hey, here, have everything that've I grinded for over an hour ago. You're welc's."
• Pay to win.
• Grinding for peanuts. I see this more in competitive games and so companies push for micro-transaction. I usually don't mind grinding in a game unless the rewards are pathetic, just borderline useless.

 

[CyberBobber]

Something like corp wars might be able to fit. Say, groups of players existing in the same game world performing tasks to further the agenda of their respective faction or corporation, and hinder the agenda of the rest. If they go with a game mode route in their MP this is the way it should be done. Granted, this could be done regardless of how the MP is designed (MMO style, smaller scale groups with matchmaking, whatever).

Corps are more like cutthroats than team players from what Ive read.

 

[Nicademusx]

Would any multiplayer option more than team based co-op missions be diverting away from RPGs or strategic team gameplay?

IMO, if you want to battle royal, play fortnight or pubg. If you want any other of the overdone multiplayer kill/die/repeat games, try any of the call of duty.

Without microtransactions multiplayer anything cannot move forward, nigh impossible.

I'm hoping that cyberpunk multiplayer is as different from current multiplayer as it is different from other RPG's

 

[SigilFey]

Without microtransactions multiplayer anything cannot move forward, nigh impossible.

There are studios and producers that would have people believe this, all in an effort to continue fueling the dishonest, exploitative, or outright predatory systems that have made investors and "leadership teams" simply disgusting amounts of money, often at the direct expense of the players and the developers. In my opinion, it's an irresponsible and utterly repulsive system based on greed and entitlement. I'll never support that type of thing.

On the other hand, when handled responsibly, microtransactions can be an effective way of funding a project, but they are by no means the only way of doing so. Plenty of multiplayer games (or modes) were built, released, and supported for years after the title stopped generating massive revenue. (And that's waaay before the gaming industry was capable of generating billions of dollars. Things like servers and internet access was also much more expensive back then and had a much smaller audience. Things overall have gotten less expensive, not more [barring greed]). This is also what can be accomplished today when a company says "no" to heavyweight investors / producers demanding outrageous returns under threat of pulling their support. Instead, companies can choose manage their resources responsibly, work within their means, and deliver things people actually want to play. And (...magically...), they still make profits.

I'm hoping that cyberpunk multiplayer is as different from current multiplayer as it is different from other RPG's

I'd imagine whatever they come up with will be innovative. That's sort of what CDPR does. I'd say that most of the things people are listing here as "please, don't"s are things that the designers will work hard to avoid. I also think that Gwent was a great learning process for a lot of multiplayer concerns (balance issues, evolution of the gameplay, server management, production schedules, etc.)

As for what it will be, I'm not sure! I'd really like to see something with story elements. It would be super cool to have interactive story elements be a part of it. Quality bots, like NPCs in the SP, would be a great addition, allowing people to enjoy an SP experience for the MP stuff.

 

[Suhiira]

Quality bots, like NPCs in the SP, would be a great addition, allowing people to enjoy an SP experience for the MP stuff.

If your MP plays the same as your SP because of bots what's the point of the MP?
Why bother creating an MP in the first place?

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

I'd imagine whatever they come up with will be innovative. That's sort of what CDPR does.

I don't wanna sound pretestuous but I really can't think of any innovation in TW series except adding great narrative to fetch quests (which is more like setting the bar than innovating IMHO). Not saying you're wrong per se, just not sure I remember right.

 

[Guest 4211861]

I want full-on city multiplayer, like GTA Online, except not crappy.

 

[SigilFey]

If your MP plays the same as your SP because of bots what's the point of the MP?
Why bother creating an MP in the first place?

Additional content that can be played MP. People love choices. It's also more convenient if I can't get enough people together and don't really feel like playing with random people. (I play with a couple of friends, the bots fill in the gaps, and we get exactly the experience we wanted.)

I don't wanna sound pretestuous but I really can't think of any innovation in TW series except adding great narrative to fetch quests (which is more like setting the bar than innovating IMHO). Not saying you're wrong per se, just not sure I remember right.

Innovative doesn't need to mean "revolutionary". I would call the following pretty significant innovations:

• Detailed, narrative arcs for even the smallest of side-quests. Everything had a history. Everything impacted the characters in an emotional and often surprsing way.
• The sheer scope and detail of the environments. It's arguable that games like Assassin's Creed had equally complex cities, but certainly not at that level of fine detail, and certainly not as part of such a large, open-world space.
• Choice / consequence worked in so intricately. Choices the player makes during the prologue will come back to visit them even in the final chapters.
• The amount of time spent on performance for the VO and motion capture. That is A LOT of work for everything else this game offers.
• The combat system, while not something never seen before, was pretty darn functional, fluent, and varied compared to TW1 or TW2.
• It's rare for a game to remain so very faithful to both its story, its characters, and its energy while also offering so much gameplay.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

Innovative doesn't need to mean "revolutionary". I would call the following pretty significant innovations:

• Detailed, narrative arcs for even the smallest of side-quests. Everything had a history. Everything impacted the characters in an emotional and often surprsing way.
• The sheer scope and detail of the environments. It's arguable that games like Assassin's Creed had equally complex cities, but certainly not at that level of fine detail, and certainly not as part of such a large, open-world space.
• Choice / consequence worked in so intricately. Choices the player makes during the prologue will come back to visit them even in the final chapters.
• The amount of time spent on performance for the VO and motion capture. That is A LOT of work for everything else this game offers.
• The combat system, while not something never seen before, was pretty darn functional, fluent, and varied compared to TW1 or TW2.
• It's rare for a game to remain so very faithful to both its story, its characters, and its energy while also offering so much gameplay.

your points are all valid (except the combat, you admit as well is not innovative) but I don't qualify them as innovatve. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[CyberBobber]

If your MP plays the same as your SP because of bots what's the point of the MP?
Why bother creating an MP in the first place?

Matchmaking isnt easiest thing to accomplish in online games. i would rather play 4 player vs 3 + 1 bot instead of 4 player vs 3 player. I believe Doom series uses this, or wait was it Quake. Sure, you lose competitive players when using bots, but still tons of people can have fun with it. Quake's bots are badass, they move like ligtning and kill you fast, their moving skills are much better than average players.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Matchmaking isnt easiest thing to accomplish in online games. i would rather play 4 player vs 3 + 1 bot instead of 4 player vs 3 player. I believe Doom series uses this, or wait was it Quake.

Those are first person shooters. So is a game like CS. Using bots in multiplayer there might make sense. Of course, game AI is sub-par for.... every game.... so it's not like bots in this context provide much value (maybe a game like Fear pulled it off sorta kinda? Not that the AI was smart there it just sorta kinda looked like it was.....). Maybe as a warm-up for shooting things in the dome. Beyond that it has zero value.

If CP MP goes with a game mode concept and uses modes typical of a FPS, let alone a competitive FPS, it's not going to end well. Call it an RPG, throw a progression system behind it, have stats and skills, whatever. Ultimately those game modes boil down to competing directly against other players and curb stomping them. In terms of game play it's the polar opposite of a narrative driven SP RPG.

Do you know what players want from competitive FPS play? An even playing field where player ability is the driving force behind everything and the winner is determined by said player ability. Progression systems, skills, stats, etc. get in the way of that.

Full disclosure, I find both types of game play enjoyable. Sometimes I like a narrative driven RPG. Sometimes I just like to blast virtual avatars in the dome. What I don't like is when game devs try to combine the two and play both fields. The end result of that is almost always I, as the player, get screwed. I end up with action game play where I don't want it (shooters are a subset of the action genre) or I get held back by RPG mechanics. Worst of all it applies to each and every mode of play. AKA, both the RPG and action modes end up worse off.

 

[CyberBobber]

Those are first person shooters. So is a game like CS. Using bots in multiplayer there might make sense. Of course, game AI is sub-par for.... every game.... so it's not like bots in this context provide much value (maybe a game like Fear pulled it off sorta kinda? Not that the AI was smart there it just sorta kinda looked like it was.....). Maybe as a warm-up for shooting things in the dome. Beyond that it has zero value.

If CP MP goes with a game mode concept and uses modes typical of a FPS, let alone a competitive FPS, it's not going to end well. Call it an RPG, throw a progression system behind it, have stats and skills, whatever. Ultimately those game modes boil down to competing directly against other players and curb stomping them. In terms of game play it's the polar opposite of a narrative driven SP RPG.

Do you know what players want from competitive FPS play? An even playing field where player ability is the driving force behind everything and the winner is determined by said player ability. Progression systems, skills, stats, etc. get in the way of that.

Full disclosure, I find both types of game play enjoyable. Sometimes I like a narrative driven RPG. Sometimes I just like to blast virtual avatars in the dome. What I don't like is when game devs try to combine the two and play both fields. The end result of that is almost always I, as the player, get screwed. I end up with action game play where I don't want it (shooters are a subset of the action genre) or I get held back by RPG mechanics. Worst of all it applies to each and every mode of play. AKA, both the RPG and action modes end up worse off.

We dont even know if its PVP, all we know it could be PVE game. People just assume its PVP when MP is mentioned. It could be somekind of Corp management game. Corps are massive thing in the world. Let players run own Corp, make them more powerful sounds like one path they could take.

Bots sounds pretty Cyberpunk to me btw. Cyberpunk is a world of Ai and such etc.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

We dont even know if its PVP, all we know it could be PVE game. People just assume its PVP when MP is mentioned. It could be somekind of Corp management game. Corps are massive thing in the world. Let players run own Corp, make them more powerful sounds like one path they could take.

Bots sounds pretty Cyberpunk to me btw. Cyberpunk is a world of Ai and such etc.

Well, I liked the corp wars concept because it would pit players against each other indirectly. I envision that as multiple teams or individual players working for a specific corp. Getting missions and whatnot in a game world to further the goals of their respective corps or hinder the goals of the competition. This is very different from pitting players directly against each other in some manner of death match style game mode.

You can make the above concept fit with an RPG like a glove because those players aren't engaging in the game play to blast each other in the face. It's not the purpose of the game play. You meet NPC's, get assigned tasks and have to complete them. Even though you're technically competing it's not in line with a competitive FPS.

You could extend this concept in any number of ways. The underlying idea is players aren't playing the game to directly confront other players and re-purpose them into a piece of luggage in a black bag. Gang wars, corp wars, the list goes on.

Throw other game modes into the mix, like co-op and similar concepts. To me that sounds like very good multiplayer. In a way where it isn't trying to bait and switch different types of players for more benjamins. Instead it's trying to deliver solid game play, fitting within the confines of the game genre.

In terms of bots... Well, bots only serve to substitute for players. You don't need to substitute bots for players if you provide MP functionality capable of reeling in enough players. You don't do that by trying to force various game genres into a single video game.

 

[imitenotbecrazy]

I'm betting it'll just be like the shadowrun reboot. PvP with "roles" as skillsets and "moves". CP2077 looks pretty basic as far as shooters, that's what you're going to get with multiplayer. I'd be shocked if it was a story driven co-op style, otherwise they would be advertising the shit out of that. Seems like an obvious cash grab to keep things running after CP2077 release. Expect mtx