Combat system

[Suhiira]

I'm sorry, Sue. Did you..not know about Torment? Or sign up for the KS?

Yes, and yes. Just hadn't seen the results/analysis of the "combat style" debate before. Any number of excellent points brought up in it and even better good analysis of "why".

I also have HIGH hopes for Torment (probably to high, but hey that's my problem not theirs). I'm not overly familiar with the Numenera rules or background and am actually intentionally avoiding learning too much about it. I know many (most?) folks prefer to know all that can before diving into a game but I figure if I don't know much I'll be thrilled with is included rather then disappointed by what isn't. Also, it'll be like when DA:O was first released; we knew little to nothing about the game system or world background and that first playthru had a special "magic" to it because we were exploring something new and different.

 

[Sardukhar]

we knew little to nothing about the game system or world background and that first playthru had a special "magic" to it because we were exploring something new and different.

Naaaah. Numenera is HUGE. If they include the sample setting, great, but the setting is mostly unexplored. I think they have maybe a...small part of a Europe-like area mapped out? Size of France, perhaps? The rest is unknown.

The reason to read it is some familiarity with the rules is nice - I know they are using the Effort buy-in system, which is quite cool. This Crisis thing they talk about doesn't ring bells with me.

The other reason to read it is that the character choices and backgrounds are really cool and well worth your time.

I read that argument they posted when they posted it and, frankly, I felt a lot of it was balderdash. They want Turn Based and they used some pretty weak arguments to support it. I like Turn based just fine and managed to actually forget PST was Real Time, but the counter argument, "This is true, but the lack of realism is inherent in most videogame combat and gameplay (again, turn-based conversations come to mind), and RTwP combat isn’t immune to this issue. "

is quite weak. Sure, videogame combat often lacks realism - but much of it gets a lot closer to combat than others. I've been in some - you've been in more - and turn based lacks the fearful immediacy that real combat brings. Which they could have said! "Yes, it is even farther from realism than RTwP, but we think the sense of control is more fun." Not, "realism isn't at the core of Torment's party-based combat". Which could be used to justify nearly anything, no matter how silly, in the name of fun.

Same could be said for their arguments about TB being slow, immersion, etc. They didn't come back with really solid stuff, just variations on, "No, no, we don't care because we like it that way and it's better anyway this way!"

Edit: I wonder if I'm bored by TB now. I didn't finish DOS or XCOM...no, wait, I still love Shadowrun and Wasteland 2 looks great and..yeah, I'm fine.

 

[Harthwain]

Same could be said for their arguments about TB being slow, immersion, etc. They didn't come back with really solid stuff, just variations on, "No, no, we don't care because we like it that way and it's better anyway this way!"

The main argument is pretty solid: PST wasn't an action game. Personally I've found combat there as leftover from IE. Combat was the worst aspect of it, given how different it was from other IE games (which were all dungeon crawlers). It's understandable they want something that'll fit their design of the game. Realism or immersion are both pretty weak arguments in video games anyway. It all comes down to design where these aspect can matter or not. I didn't find RTwP any more immersive than TB and I played both. It's just a matter of taste, I guess.

 

[Sardukhar]

The main argument is pretty solid: PST wasn't an action game. It all comes down to design where these aspect can matter or not. I didn't find RTwP any more immersive than TB and I played both. It's just a matter of taste, I guess.

Absolutely - but that's making combat and action synonymous. Which they sort-of are...but. Rainbow Six, back in the day, was quite interesting. You grouped up, planned your moves, told your guys what they were doing when they got where you sent them, then said go and hoped for the best. SWAT 4, too, iirc. In that case, although the combat was pretty action-filled, the planning stage was also very tense. Planescape Torment may not have been an action game..but there was a HECK of a lot of action in it. It was a primary method of communicating with the enemy.

So PST was very much a combat game. It didn't have to be, but combat was the first method to arise in conflict and what would happen if you didn't plan for something else first.

I always found RTwP a little clumsy. I'd prefer something like what Rainbow Six did...plan and then hope for the best as stuff goes off. But turn based is fine.



Here's my thing with immersion - the further away I get from the game, the less immersed I am. I'm actually much more immersed in PnP RPGs than I am most CRPGs, just because the action in my mind is pretty enveloping and I don't see jarring discrepancies there - like the world pausing unnaturally for conversations or combat, or, say, the back of/top of my head.

It's a lot like the Uncanny Valley effect - only everywhere, all the time. In that sense, RTwP is less jarring than TB.

 

[Harthwain]

To be honest I don't see much difference in turn-based combat and being able to pause at any given moment. Sure, you don't have to pause in RTwP and you can't escape from turns i TB, but in the essence they both stop the flow of the game (to the point where you could just as well have TB instead of RTwP), so that's why I am OK with either of them. Both are very tactical too. Not that I am not fine with action games without pause, but - as I said - it depends heavily on the design.

 

[Sardukhar]

but - as I said - it depends heavily on the design.

It really does. And people having open minds. I've been surprised by lots of game systems I thought would be stupid. I liked Witcher 1 combat. I played a game where you developed your soul with colour control. Braid was a game with time control - very clever.

Good game design and open mind beats format in terms of fun.

 

[Suhiira]

Yeah I don't expect to see a lot of ambush/stealth/sniper combat in CP2077 either so it's very unlikely that it'll be as lethal as PnP. If it was 50%+ of the players would be screaming bloody murder because they died 50 times in the first hour of game play trying to "Rambo" their way thru combat like they can with (almost) every other FPS on the market.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Yeah I don't expect to see a lot of ambush/stealth/sniper combat in CP2077 either so it's very unlikely that it'll be as lethal as PnP. If it was 50%+ of the players would be screaming bloody murder because they died 50 times in the first hour of game play trying to "Rambo" their way thru combat like they can with (almost) every other FPS on the market.

If it's well done, they wouldn't (or at least I wouldn't), because ArmA/most tactical shooters has this careful dynamic already.

 

[Calistarius]

Oh I am totally going the stealth route, always have in games... even in games where "stealth" per say is not even something that actually effects the gameplay at all, because there is no real mechanics for it or something. I even use stealth in games where it's not really that effective based on equipment etc... like in Skyrim, most of my characters have been guys in heavy armour, and yet I sneak basicly everywhere anyway.

Sneaking around and figuring out where all enemies are, where to best hit them so noone else notices it, find all the possible entrences to a place, etc, is my thing. And then either go in and do it silently at close range, or silently at long range, depending on the current situation. And if I where to be noticed at some point how I react would depend on the game.

In games where it is possible to get back into hiding and eventually the enemies calm down, I will move away, hide, and wait, and then reassess the situation, and get back to work. In games where once your noticed all enemies instantly know where you are, and you can not get back into hiding untill all enemies are gone, then I try to find a possition where they can only come at me from one direction so that I can pick them off one by one befor they reach me.

I love this style of gameplay, it fits me a lot. I rather spend 30+ minutes doing it this way, then run and gun by way in and be done in less then 3. EVEN IF I do not get any kind of "reward" in the game for doing it silently and unoticed. I do it despite the kind of game it is, and/or despite any actual kind of reward you might or might not get, and/or other reasons.

As for autoaim...

If the game ends up being that it is my own skill with FPS gaming that is the guiding facor to how good I will be at hitting the opponents, then I DO NOT want any kind of autoaiming. I do not mind if that kind of autoaiming is in the game, as long as I can turn it off compleatly.

If the game however have full stat's based accuracy and hit chance, then I do not mind if there is "autoaim" i the game that increases the characters chance to hit. Of course it must not be to powerful, I would not want Autoaim to be so powerful that a character, who is not combat oriented, becomes almost as good as a combat oriented character.

 

[Suhiira]

Yeah if there's an autoaim mechanic it HAS to be character skill based. If your character sux you should miss a LOT, however if your character is Anne Oakley the autoaim should reflect that.
My problem is the other side of the coin.
Many players are quite good at FPS games so would much prefer that sort of game mechanic. Trouble is they can then totally ignore their characters combat skills thus imbalance the rest of the game by being more highly skilled at non-combat skills (since they don't spend any points on combat skills) then they "should" be.

 

[Sardukhar]

Yeah if there's an autoaim mechanic it HAS to be character skill based. If your character sux you should miss a LOT, however if your character is Anne Oakley the autoaim should reflect that.
My problem is the other side of the coin.
Many players are quite good at FPS games so would much prefer that sort of game mechanic. Trouble is they can then totally ignore their characters combat skills thus imbalance the rest of the game by being more highly skilled at non-combat skills (since they don't spend any points on combat skills) then they "should" be.

Aaaas we drift away from the topic, ( sort-of) and back to Combat Mechanics, I'd point out that a simple way to handle this is actually in the PnP already - penalties to multiple actions. Like, shooting and moving or reloading or multiple targets, etc etc.

So, whereas Solo A has AR 8 and can easily absorb 2 extra actions, ( at -3 apiece in the PnP) without cost, like reloading and moving to cover, THEN firing, Solo B with Assault Rifle 2 would see immediate penalties for the next 2 actions - he'd be slower on the move/relaod or his crosshair would jiggle like mad or, more likely, both.

This allows our trained, expert shooter to reload, get to cover and accurately shoot our FPS-happy but untrained shooter much more easily. Hell, the slowed reload animation alone is reason to up your skills. Fast, accurate reload, as Sue is well aware, is a small skill of it's own in real life!

This also means that a skilled shooter who is a Cop or Corporate could have quite an advantage on the untrained FPS-kid. Which is as an RPG should be. Not skill replacement, but skill amplification. Much like how in PnP you don't override your own tactical or imaginative abilities, but amplify them with character stats. Or limit them, of course.

So your Role, to be back on topic, shouldn't limit you too much - unless against someone whose Special Ability exemplifies their expertise and years of experience.

 

[blank_redge]

Yeah if there's an autoaim mechanic it HAS to be character skill based. If your character sux you should miss a LOT, however if your character is Anne Oakley the autoaim should reflect that.
My problem is the other side of the coin.
Many players are quite good at FPS games so would much prefer that sort of game mechanic. Trouble is they can then totally ignore their characters combat skills thus imbalance the rest of the game by being more highly skilled at non-combat skills (since they don't spend any points on combat skills) then they "should" be.

Can't be arsed to dig up the convo right now, but the idea that was put forward a while ago was that the more points you had in the applicable firearm skill, the less spread / deviation there would be, for a given range.

At five feet, even the most untrained chump can hit their target.

At 150 feet, the hardcore FPS player could opt to sink points into other skills, and use their twitch reflex to compensate for their character's spread deviation, whereas the casual gamer can invest points, and their character would have a tighter grouping at range.

 

[Suhiira]

Aaaas we drift away from the topic, ( sort-of) and back to Combat Mechanics, I'd point out that a simple way to handle this is actually in the PnP already - penalties to multiple actions. Like, shooting and moving or reloading or multiple targets, etc etc.

I like it.
But as you say let's move this to combat mechanics.
Maybe you could exercise some of your god-like powers and tack a copy of the last few posts on the end of that thread.

Can't be arsed to dig up the convo right now, but the idea that was put forward a while ago was that the more points you had in the applicable firearm skill, the less spread / deviation there would be, for a given range.

At five feet, even the most untrained chump can hit their target.

At 150 feet, the hardcore FPS player could opt to sink points into other skills, and use their twitch reflex to compensate for their character's spread deviation, whereas the casual gamer can invest points, and their character would have a tighter grouping at range.

If the deviation was random (rather then say always high and to the right) and large enough even the FPS folks would find investing points in weapons skills worthwhile.

 

[blank_redge]

If the deviation was random (rather then say always high and to the right) and large enough even the FPS folks would find investing points in weapons skills worthwhile.

Yep; that was my idea.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

I think we should make allowance for people who use sarcasm toooooo much. They obviously like small dogs and green apples. Of course, who doesn't?!

Furthermore, WHOOPS, more Big Boy wordages needed, less snarky comments!

And then I realised that I was, in fact, not Hieronymous Bosch. This was shocking to both myself and my patient.

 

[Tacticka]

God please more RPG than shooter. So sick and tired of shooters. Please avoid going in a borderlands/destiny/mass effect direction.

 

[Sardukhar]

God please more RPG than shooter. So sick and tired of shooters. Please avoid going in a borderlands/destiny/mass effect direction.

Well.

The issue is, there can be a LOT of shooting in Cyberpunk. In the PnP, this probably won't happen more than once or twice a session unless you like dying. In the CRPG, it will be a primary method of resolving violent conflict.

Shooters, as we see them today, try to take the experience of being behind the sights of a firearm and making that fun, ( as opposed to the very careful, titchy, technical process accurate shooting actually is, of course..), much the same way racing/driving games try to render vehicle driving fun. And, I'd say RPGS and conversation, but so few, if any actually manage a conversational/persuasion simulator.

CDPR's history in RPG world indicates a bent towards a more action-oriented combat style, supported by abilities and the very basest of statistics in terms of character rendering. What's Geralt's strength? His reflexes? Perception? Exactly.

Cyberpunk 2020, on the other hand, is very stat-heavy, so I'll bet we see a combination of action-(moderate twitch reflexes) and stat-based combat.

But in terms of your interface, bet a lot on it being a first or third-person based shooter perspective for firearms combat.

 

[Suhiira]

The problem is shooters are a good investment for a company.
Develop a game engine and some shooter style mechanics then release several games that are nothing but a few art changes and a tweak or two to the game engine/mechanics.
Also the current trend of making games "accessible" to the masses by adding things like quest markers/pathing, minigames that have zero relevance to the game itself, fast health regeneration, repetitive daily quests (in MMOs) or just plain simple quests in other games, and generally making games more action and less thought oriented.
Add to that Electronics Arts current requirement (yes - REQUIREMENT) that all games it publishes must have a multi-player component and it's pretty clear that milking the cash cow is far more important then making a quality product to many.

Now don't get me wrong.
Some folks enjoy this type of game, and more power to them.
But don't expect that, or complain when, every new game you may want to play doesn't follow the same model.

 

[Calistarius]

I guess I am one of the lucky ones. Where even if I do really like turnbased and very stat heavy games, where my own skill in FPS styles shooters does not matter, not to mention a long and good story, etc... I still enjoy games that do not have those things.

Would I be a bit dissapointed if CP2077 turned into a FPS styled shooter where my characters skills does not matter one bit really in combat, on top of what ever else the game might lose due to going a FPS route... of course, because it would feel like a HUGE missed oppertunity to create something compleatly unique. To create something we almost never get to see in the market because the majority of gamers don't like those "unique" kinds of games, and we the minority usually tend to have to dig through the scraps to even find something remotly close to what we have always wanted.

So yeah... to an extent I am lucky that I can enjoy such a varied array of gametypes. The only difference will be how long I play the game.

If it becomes just another FPS like game, I might get 20 hours out of it at the most... which means I will probably be done with the game in 2 days... and I will probably never return to the game ever again (unless it was unusually good FPS of course, but even then it's not certain)

Or if I get a game that I REALLY want, I will probably have to spend atleast 40-50 hours on it for just the main story of the game, if not 200-300+ hours doing everything in the game... which will mean that I play the game for at the very least a week, if not several weeks... maybe even possibly months... and I might actually come back to it years down the road as well and replay it (even if the whole thing was just "decent", I mean heck, I keep coming back to Fallout Tactics, more often then FO1 or 2, even though FoT was just "decent" compared to the other two). XD

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Well.

The issue is, there can be a LOT of shooting in Cyberpunk.

Why is this an issue? Combat will be designed around the system that's being used; if it's more like an RPG (rather than a shooter), then that's how it will be designed too.

In the CRPG, it will be a primary method of resolving violent conflict.

Doesn't have to be. There are plenty of ways you can resolve a violent conflict by using the environment (items, people, entrances....).

Would I be a bit dissapointed if CP2077 turned into a FPS styled shooter where my characters skills does not matter one bit really in combat, on top of what ever else the game might lose due to going a FPS route... of course, because it would feel like a HUGE missed oppertunity to create something compleatly unique. To create something we almost never get to see in the market because the majority of gamers don't like those "unique" kinds of games, and we the minority usually tend to have to dig through the scraps to even find something remotly close to what we have always wanted.

If it becomes just another FPS like game, I might get 20 hours out of it at the most... which means I will probably be done with the game in 2 days... and I will probably never return to the game ever again (unless it was unusually good FPS of course, but even then it's not certain)

That's about where I've been standing too since the announcement.