Combat system

[user_nam_e]

i dont think: combat system from game A + shooting system from game B would really work. While Sleeping dogs combat was pretty good but it works only for this character and it's not good enough for something cyber77 requires.
Let's take those characters from the teaser

if you played as a cop you would like to be able to actually have some chances to kill that robolady. Now if you decided that your weapon of choice is a gun you would want to have an option of what gun/bullets you want to use. You can shoot at her with normal bullets which would require high % acc. and/or being focused on some weak parts of her body ( that cool helmet the cop has could be used to find weak spots in her armor) to do damage. In this case you can go with normal guns/bullets + spend skill points on something else. Or spend those skill points on better guns/bullets which require less accuracy but limits your way defend yourself when she's near you.

As for the lady. You would want to make use of that cool blades she has. For this she needs to get close to the opponent. You can make this easier by spending skill points on speed or evading but at the price of powerful attacks. Or you go for strong attacks/combos but that would probably require some more hidding/dodging skills because of the bullets.

if you go for this simple scenario:
cop: 1. less damage + higher acc required + more evading skills 2. more damage + lower acc + less evading skills
lady: 1. less damage/combos + evading skills 2. more damage/combos + less evading skills

that gives you 6 completly different fights with 2 characters and depend on your choices.
(cop1 vs cop1, cop 1 vs cop 2, cop 2 vs cop 2, lady 1 vs lady 1, lady 1 vs lady 2, lady 2 vs lady 2)

this is how i would see it.

 

[Grimbriar]

Vampire Bloodlines? Anyone other than Mick and I play this? I liked how they did combat for ranged - melee was clumsy, though. Go with Witcher melee for that.. They did a crossover of stat and human based skills for the value sets, too.

I also like how they did Disciplines ( powers) and skills in conversations.

Check this game out if you get a chance.

I, too, will -require- a grapplefist option and animation. And for my other three arms. And, possibly my cyberlegs. And...cyber other things. GRAPPLES AWAY!

Not only have I been playing it since it launched, I still have the original CD box-set I bought as well as the Steam version.

I love World of Darkness, so I just had to have Bloodlines.

 

[rebelins]

I haven't tried a gun path in VTMB, but from what I experienced, the melee was pretty sloppy and too easy to win with. You could spam up Celerity in every situation and blow through dudes, and anytime there was a clear path, you could go for blood to fuel back up.

The Witcher 2 had a very strong melee combat system with a good balance of skill/timing based dodge, parry, block and strikes; I'm confident that the developers will nail this part.

I think the most important thing that should be introduced is a sense of "stylish" lethality. The aesthetic of weaving past a wave of bullet fire, then expertly aiming a melee strike on the assailant should look cool as fuck. This should be absolutely possible without the use of QTEs. CDPR has already demonstrated that they have a strong grasp on dramatic cinematography with their teaser trailer.

I think some good games to look at for inspiration would be the Devil May Cry series, and most games that Platinum Games puts out (Bayonetta, Vanquish, MGS Rising). Those games are stylish and combo-focused, and more importantly mesh well with gun combat.

 

[Grimbriar]

I haven't tried a gun path in VTMB, but from what I experienced, the melee was pretty sloppy and too easy to win with. You could spam up Celerity in every situation and blow through dudes, and anytime there was a clear path, you could go for blood to fuel back up.

It's stated several times in the game that melee is the way to go after a vampire. Just like in the tabletop version, guns just kind of sting, they don't do that much damage to the Undead. Cutting off a limb is much more effective.

Sadly the whole Celerity spam works all too well in the tabletop game as well.

 

[rebelins]

Yeah, I noticed that about guns vs melee.

Another thing I want to add about the combat system is something that the fine folks at Obsidian are doing with Project Eternity, and their armor class system. Basically, in that they explained that weapon damage types (slashing, piercing, crushing) had varying effectiveness against differing armor types. It's more than just the traditional die roll minus defense roll mechanic.

Slashing would deal the most damage overall and be the best against unarmored enemies, but shitty versus heavy armor.
Piercing deals the least amount of damage, but ignores a certain amount of armor, making it good versus medium armor.
Crushing deals the most amount of damage through heavy armor.

I think CP2077 could expand on this weapon type principle, especially when put in the context of cybernetics. Maybe a specific 'electromagnetic pulse' or 'viral' melee attack would disable some of the enemy's functions temporarily if they had heavy cybernetic modifications, but be weaker against traditional bulletproof vests. And of course, this would be expanded to included bullet damage types; things like lasers, anti-armor rounds, hollow point, incendiary bullets, or explosive rounds.

 

[Grimbriar]

Yeah, I noticed that about guns vs melee.

Another thing I want to add about the combat system is something that the fine folks at Obsidian are doing with Project Eternity, and their armor class system. Basically, in that they explained that weapon damage types (slashing, piercing, crushing) had varying effectiveness against differing armor types. It's more than just the traditional die roll minus defense roll mechanic.

Slashing would deal the most damage overall and be the best against unarmored enemies, but shitty versus heavy armor.
Piercing deals the least amount of damage, but ignores a certain amount of armor, making it good versus medium armor.
Crushing deals the most amount of damage through heavy armor.

I think CP2077 could expand on this weapon type principle, especially when put in the context of cybernetics. Maybe a specific 'electromagnetic pulse' or 'viral' melee attack would disable some of the enemy's functions temporarily if they had heavy cybernetic modifications, but be weaker against traditional bulletproof vests. And of course, this would be expanded to included bullet damage types; things like lasers, anti-armor rounds, hollow point, incendiary bullets, or explosive rounds.

Actually Gary Gygax designed a multigenre gaming system called Dangerous Journeys about 20 years back. It had the whole system with differing armor vs weapon types. It was quite detailed and complicated, especially when newer generations of tabletop gaming engines were coming out, streamlining combat into the attack roll vs defense roll systems that are quite common today.

The only game that came out of that was Mythus, which, if you like fantasy rpgs, was quite fun.

 

[daddy300]

After some heavy augmentations I bet we will be able to do some nice leaping and grabbing too

Lets dont people will abuse it and it will become another Just Cause 2. Which is a Comedy and not Action-RPG.

 

[username_3644576]

The problem of picking the appropriate combat mechanic is that the game is supposed to support multiple, diverse classes. It's not a huge problem to go with a shooter mechanic if you play a solo or a nomad. But what happens if you'd like to be able to play a corp or a netrunner as well?

When you think of a stereotypical corp character, (s)he will be slick, suave, well dressed and probably a heartless bastard. What he won't be is a guy with a huge gun who gets involved in massive shootouts and sweeping room after room full of enemies. Think Burke from Aliens (I know it's not cyberpunk, but a good example nonetheless). He's there to keep an eye on things and make sure nothing with a substantial dollar value attached to it gets blown to bits. He's not there to do much fighting - for that, he's got an APC full of grunts. No offense.

One solution to represent this would be to simply create a game where combat (or most of it) can be avoided altogether. Unfortunately cRPGs tend to feature a LOT of combat (much more than PnP games anyway) and getting rid of it isn't really feasible as it's often the meat of the game.

That means supporting a class such as a corp requires a well implemented minion mechanic that is fun to play. Otherwise you'll essentially be playing yet another solo, except he's wearing a suit and isn't so good at fighting but makes up for it by being able to reduce the number of enemies by dialogue options. If it doesn't sound very appealing, it's because it isn't.

That means it's vital to be able to represent a situation where some characters arrive at the scene surrounded by a crack team of enforcers rather than trying to overpower foes on their own. Doing it via a Mass Effect-like shooter-with-sidekicks is a possibility, but it doesnt feel very satisfying as it still assumes most of the fighting will be done by the main character himself. So, I'd say go with an interactive pause tactical game. This might be more action-like in case of brawler classes, where you might have very little reason to actually use the interactive pause. But in case of characters that are not meant to be frontline fighers managing your bodyguards well should be the bulk of the mechanic, turning it into a more tactical, brainy experience.

That would represent the difference in approach to combat situations that should exist between certain classes. I think it would also allow for a more direct adaptation of some of the PnP mechanics than a shooter would.

Of course, it would be no trivial task to balance playstyles so diverse and make sure no matter how you play the game, it remains deep and requires skill. Still, if you don't want classes to be superficial "flavor" choices, that's the way to go.

 

[wisdom000]

Um... really why should a corp or any class have a separate mechanic for fighting... that doesn't even make sense.

Fighting is fighting, some classes are going to be better at it, but the mechanical system behind it should be the same.

Roles that aren't as good as fighting will be superior in other aspects of the game, like social, or technological...

Ideally, as I have said many many times now, the characters should not be limited to one role. If a medtech gets into a fight, they should start earning combat Sense to Become a solo. If a cop tries his hand at hacking, he should get interface points to become a netrunner.

A secondary class should never be able to get quite as high as the primary, but it should come close... this way no one gets left out, there is still plenty of viability, as primary role should determine mission objectives and manner. But you don't have to play a corp who has been involved in a couple of extractions, but still wets his pants every time a bang is heard.

I would really prefer if combat, both guns and melee, worked as they did in Sleeping Dogs... its system was simply brilliant.

 

[username_3644576]

I never said I want separate mechanics for different classes. I said I want an interactive pause tactical game that you can play as a single, very powerful fighter character, but can also feature a team lead by main character - not too unlike traditional party system present in many cRPGs.

See, the argument that "combat should be the same" because non-solo classes make up for it in social/technological aspects doesn't quite work for a simple reason. Whether you like it or not, in cRPGs combat is the bulk of the game. Technological/social is a part of it as well, but it's never nearly as important. In real world if you choose to be a soldier, you expect to shoot and be shot at. If you choose to become a businessperson instead, you expect to participate in business projects. However, if no matter what career you choose, you'll spend substantial amount of time in combat, what exactly is the point of not becoming a soldier to begin with?

I'd imagine if I wanted to have a career in the corporation in the Cyberpunk 2020/2077 setting, I'd do it for the money and power, not to run around the city with a gun. I didn't get an academic degree, study the law, learn the game of constant corporate backstabbing and conspiracies only to end up like your average bouncer - getting on the street alone and shoot stuff up. Except the bouncers actually spend their time getting good at beating and shooting stuff and I probably suck at it by comparison. How is my "social" skill meant to make up for it? Sure, I can sometimes avoid some fights by talking my way out, but I'm still screwed in all the scenarios when I can't avoid a fight. And there will be plenty of those.

That's why I'd like the combat mechanics to be flexible enough to represent the fact that my advancement as a corporate character isn't about getting better and better at shooting stuff but at getting better and better at obtaining, organizing and managing a powerful force that is going to fight for me. Anything else means I'm still playing a solo that is crap at fighting compared to the "real" solos but can talk a lot. And what's the fun in that?

 

[Chewin3]

*snip*

While I agree that there should be an option to avoid fights altogether, though each class (or certain ones) having a separate combat mechanic--while sounding intriguing--isn't that ideal, both from a gameplay and development point of view. It's easier to simply allow for those specific classes that don't have a 'strong focus' on certain combat areas to be superior in a different aspect.

And even though e.g. a Corporate isn't 'experienced' in certain combat areas, instead of restricting them altogether from it, they could easily spent skill points (or whatever CP77 will have) on it.

 

[Chewin3]

See, the argument that "combat should be the same" because non-solo classes make up for it in social/technological aspects doesn't quite work for a simple reason. Whether you like it or not, in cRPGs combat is the bulk of the game. Technological/social is a part of it as well, but it's never nearly as important. In real world if you choose to be a soldier, you expect to shoot and be shot at. If you choose to become a businessperson instead, you expect to participate in business projects. However, if no matter what career you choose, you'll spend substantial amount of time in combat, what exactly is the point of not becoming a soldier to begin with?

Now you aren't talking about the combat mechanics in the game, but about the gameplay as a whole.

Playing as a businessman doesn't require to change the combat experience for classes. If you choose to pursue a career path, act verbally and work in "business projects" then that is your choice. But if someone prefers to "act in the field" even if they are playing as a Corporate, that shouldn't be a restriction.

 

[username_3644576]

Now you aren't talking about the combat mechanics in the game, but about the gameplay as a whole.

Playing as a businessman doesn't require to change the combat experience for classes. If you choose to pursue a career path, act verbally and work in "business projects" then that is your choice. But if someone prefers to "act in the field" even if they are playing as a Corporate, that shouldn't be a restriction.

Agreed there should be no such restriction, though it baffles me why anyone would want to play a shoot'em up game as a corporate character. The point is, if "field work" (that is, combat) will most likely be the heart of the game no matter what, the characters that don't focus on combat (at least not on personal level) should have the opportunity to participate in it the way you'd expect them to. A solo might go in alone with guns blazing, a netrunner might go in supported by security bots he hijacked from the enemy (assuming he won't bypass the real world entirely and solve the entire thing by netrunning), a corporate might be leading a crack team of wet work specialists and so on. It is important for the game's combat mechanics to support all those scenarios.

Don't force a netrunner to dump his skill points in combat abilities and turn himself into a rambo so he doesn't feel handicapped for half of the game. After all, if the game focused on hacking various devices or being able to lie or persuade people to do what you want and your Schwartzenegger-style brawler was forced to spend a lion's share of his skill points on social/technological abilities in order to be able to progress, you'd probably find it a bad game design wouldn't you? After all, you didn't create a brawler character to turn him into a lawyer or a tech-junkie. That goes both ways.

 

[wisdom000]

hmmm

 

[Chewin3]

*snip*

Agreed. But in the end, it goes for preference. If I understand it correctly, roles in Cyberpunk aren't solely focused on their abilities in specific fields / aspects, and are able to choose their own "branches" of their own. If someone prefers to have the "hacking skills" of a Netrunner, and as well being "Rambo" in the field, then that is their play stile.

However, if someone complains that a Netrunner sucks b/c they can't stand out in a e.g. warzone as good as a Solo, then that's another story.

 

[username_3644576]

However, if someone complains that a Netrunner sucks b/c they can't stand out in a e.g. warzone as good as a Solo, then that's another story.

Of course they shouldn't be able to fight as well as solos in the combat zones and anyone arguing that they should is being silly. They should be able to either avoid or overcome combat situations via other means however, without having to invest in personal combat skills, as the latter makes class choice largely irrelevant beyond "flavor".

So far my only idea is to do it by introducing minion (bodyguard/bot/ally/follower) mechanic. And the only idea to make bodyguards interesting and balanced, is to include managing them by the player as a part of the gameplay. There's no way to do that in a shooter type game though, hence my idea for the combat mechanic to be a tactical game (for all classes, mind you) rather than arcade or shooter.

 

[solidillusion]

I want the combat to offer some type of tactical system were the player must think about how to approach every enemy.....Might as well give the player the option of stealth or pure blazing while at it too...

 

[Garrison72]

I want the combat to offer some type of tactical system were the player must think about how to approach every enemy.....Might as well give the player the option of stealth or pure blazing while at it too...

Yep this is crucial, and where Deus Ex should provide a template. Giving the player lots of freedom to solve conflicts in a variety of ways, all of it hinging on their role and character builds.

 

[kilravok]

I would ;like to see detailed hit locations...not just what limb but also what organ or cyberware option slot, as detailed and small as an eye. and each needing its own detailed treatment for healing or repairing/replacing

 

[Aver]

I won't say any details about how combat system should looks like until CDPR say if CP2077 will be FPP or TPP, but for me skills should affect accuracy. Some people say that it's against spirit of action games, but even Far Cry 3 did this, so...