Combat system

+
Kofi there is no way they're going with any type of pseudo turn-based combat where stats override player skill. You might as well kiss half of your audience goodbye. Alpha Protocol got raked over the flames for that and rightly so. Those systems are for top down traditional RPGs, not FP or TP combat.

I'm afraid I have to totally disagree.
RPGs should use character skills to perform any action, other then dialog and "do I turn left or right" sort of things. That's what makes them an RPG ... you are playing a character with skills and attributes you personally may or may not posses.
FPSs utilize player skills and the game is merely a set of mechanics allowing the player to interact with the game world.
 
I have been wondering for a long time whether it would be feasible to have enemies killing the player with a single shot to the head. Unfortunately I've never had the opportunity to play the original PnP, but I read that this was a feature and was quite excited by it. It would really heighten the tension of combat and prevent the player from letting their guard down completely even at higher levels. Of course, this assumes Cyberpunk 2077 can be played as an FPS.

Nonetheless I understand bots taking the player out 1 second into a fight would really piss a majority of people off, so I've been trying to think of solutions to this problem. Perhaps headgear could lessen the damage somewhat...? I briefly considered a warning feature where your non-fleshy parts could alert you if the enemy was trying to take a shot at your head, but this might be too unrealistic and meatbags wouldn't have this rather essential advantage. Or maybe the enemy would simply find it difficult to get a bead on your moving head? But if that were the case enemies would feel rather inept when the player easily aims at their heads with the mouse.

Any thoughts?
 
I've run, and played in, many games where one-hit kills are possible (and that's ignoring the huge number of "you are dead" stuff in games if you twitch at the wrong moment or the wrong direction). For a puter/console game you can just reload a save when this happens, for human run ones the GM needs to "cheat" a little in favor of the characters. No one wants lose a character to a single unlucky die roll. So when this happens the DM needs to get a bit creative. Lop off an ear or their nose instead of their entire head.
 
*liked Alpha Protocol*

Also... as much as people thing that Alpha Protocol was/is universally disliked... that is just plainly not true... you just have to look around online for a bit and you should pretty quickly find that it is pretty well liked. It's clearly not for everyone, but it still had some life in it for some several years after it's release. I would pick AP over most FPS games any day (only Crysis and Far Cry would ever really get picked befor AP for me).
 
It's clearly not for everyone, but it still had some life in it for some several years after it's release. I would pick AP over most FPS games any day (only Crysis and Far Cry would ever really get picked befor AP for me).

Same here, although I'd pick it over any Far Cries and Crysis' too.

It's the sort of rough diamond game. It does a fairly good job at reflecting Thornton's skill in the gameplay (which obviously goes against what mainstream FPS players would prefer), and it has its problems with level pacing and how much it focuses on combat over other aspects (like stealth).

I would enjoy Cyberpunk 2077 more if its combat mechanics were modeled after AP rather than any other 1st/3rd person shooter out there. Any. :p

Though obviously I don't want any copypaste things here. I want a new system that does its own thing as well as possible. But if.
 
Thinking of combat systems... I've made the suggestion for a target lock system (using a timed aim buff and such) a couple of times in other threads, and I noticed a funny thing... CDPR almost (almost) nailed the visual style I was looking for already with that Christmas selfie GIF of theirs. :p

 
There's no way they will do any type of turn based, (Thank god we got XCOM2 and more Shadow Run on the way).

But here is what I think:

1. First Person. Ranged combat effected by stats like Deus Ex. Melee combat like Dark Messiah.

or

2. Third Person style, Ranged effected by stats like Mass Effect. Melee like Dark Souls.


Hopefully there is both solid melee and ranged options.
 
There's no way they will do any type of turn based, (Thank god we got XCOM2 and more Shadow Run on the way).

But here is what I think:

1. First Person. Ranged combat effected by stats like Deus Ex. Melee combat like Dark Messiah.

or

2. Third Person style, Ranged effected by stats like Mass Effect. Melee like Dark Souls.


Hopefully there is both solid melee and ranged options.

If they don't make it First and Third person eh idk.

But hopefully they'll be able to make the ranged combat as good as the melee combat.
 
There's no way they will do any type of turn based, (Thank god we got XCOM2 and more Shadow Run on the way).

Well. they have advertised some sort of "tactical mode". So while combat in generall will in all likelyhood be your run-off-the-mill shooter stuff like every other firearms related cRPG around (though hopefully not, since there are other ways of doing it), they could hypothetically build up that "tactical mode" to resemble something of a turnbased scenario (and no, the nu-Fallout VATS is not that, nor is any other slow-time-pick-your-shots gimmick).
 
Last edited:
Turn based system imo works great on pen and paper sessions, and it's cleary part of them.
I'ts also great 'cause during a game with your friends, there's talking, joking, drinking, and the session could go up until sun rises.

Baldur's gate was an almost perfect transition/copy of dungeon n dragons rules and at the time, an in 1998, i enjoyed it very much... but to me maybe it's a dated approach in rpgs.
i played baldur's gate series, icewind dale, neverwinter as soon as they came out at the time, but today i dont miss at all the turn based thing.
I played bg2 from gog the other day, and i spent about 1 hour making party members, 1 hour exiting irenicus dungeon, and then shut it down... (bear in mind that i loved the game).

I also hear a lot of people complains about TW3 "too easy" combat system, and i dont' get it, cause i personally would hate rpg game+ harsh punishing combat game.


*the following with no disrespect to bloodborne or darksouls guys, - i appreciate all of you- i just don't have that kind of tenacity*

To me it's storyline, storyline, storyline,and if the combat system blocks constantly the flow of the story, 'cause "it's the 5000th time that the same guy kills me" ...i'd be disappointed.


OT: Mass effect combat approach was balanced to me. (i'm expecting "lessons from mass effect" thread now :), expecially learning/not learning from omega )
 
Last edited:
to me if combat is not challenging, there isn't really a point. they have to find a good balance in quantity though. the witcher 3 had way too many combat situations in quests and I think the world was a bit too saturated with monsters as well. too much combat with the same kind of enemies makes me bored. I especially hate the respawning enemies in fallout 4. if I worked on clearing a place, I don't wanna see the exact same guys there an hour later. if there is a story that someone else moved in, then fine. but don't do it for the sake of combat.
 
Not combat system ... but combat in games as a whole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXsE-Zwb_j4
Not really. It's about violence (and narrative), not combat.

kofeiiniturpa said:
Well. they have advertised some sort of "tactical mode". So while combat in generall will in all likelyhood be your run-off-the-mill shooter stuff like every other firearms related cRPG around (though hopefully not, since there are other ways of doing it), they could hypothetically build up that "tactical mode" to resemble something of a turnbased scenario (and no, the nu-Fallout VATS is not that, nor is any other slow-time-pick-your-shots gimmick).
I doubt it will have to do anything with turn-based stuff.

Here are my predictions:

1) Tactical mode could be just a HUD of sorts that gives you tactical information: highlights blood traces, interprets bullets' trajectory, identifies sound sources, etc.

2) A map of an area, with known enemies/devices/points of interest marked, etc.

3) A separate mode you enter when doing a co-op mission with a team made up of players. Basically a planning board.
 
No turn based combat please.This is 2016. Real time combat with many options of approach,thats the only way to go

We-ellll.

A normal human in Cyberpunk runs 4-5 on a scale of 1 to 10 for Reflexes. 1 being really, REALLY bad and 2 being minimum player start. Modern city humans are slow, so I usually go with 4-5 as average. 5 if you used to play sports as a kid.

A cybered character can be running Reflexes of 13, before gene mods. Three times as fast as Joe the Paper Pusher.

Normal initiative, how fast you respond, is a number range for a normal human from 6 to 16. that's how fast Joe responds. Another Joe or Judy, same story. Average of about 11.

A cyber-enhanced, extremely combat-experienced character looks at a response time range from 24 to 35. Average of about 27, depending on how experienced that professional is. Nearly three times as fast to react. If luck is with you and not them, you could be, ohhhh, SIX times as quick to react as Joe. Yep.

In other words, while Joe is going, "Holy crap! Is that guy going for his gun?!" Morgan has drawn, fired, accurately, three times or more, and probably holstered his weapon. He shot the two gangers closing in behind Joe and shot the bigger guy twice, just to be sure.

Before Joe can even react. Waaaaay before. He's that experienced, he's that enhanced, he's that fast.


Now, that speed is pretty hard to put in a real-time game, because, let's be frank, you are Joe. Probably. Odds are, you are Joe.

This is the charm of turn-based or semi-turn-based systems. They allow regular people to play persons who are waaaaaay faster and more accurate than Real Life.

You could argue, in fact, that it's an essential part of role-play. Without this edge, there is simply no way you can play that super-fast person.

So, yeah. I want to see some kind of activated-turn-based option, or bullet-time or freeze-time, target-lock.

Because I plan to -have- those in-game Reflexes, thanks.
 
Now, that speed is pretty hard to put in a real-time game, because, let's be frank, you are Joe. Probably. Odds are, you are Joe.

Playing the devil's advocate, it would however be cool if the action was fast-paced and didn't include any pauses that would break the flow of the game.
I imagine CDPR is aiming for 60fps, so if you had the whole cycle (draw-shoot-holster) happen in one game frame, then equals 0.016 sec. which is very close to the world record in weapon drawing (0.0252 sec). Skills and other stuff can be done in real-time and the more player skill you have, the closer you can get to the turn-based strategy equivalent.

Going the shadowrun approach is cool too, but I reckon it breaks the atmosphere if the combat pauses, especially in third-person.

I think what real-time battle would really suffer vs turn-based is the control of multiple actors at once.

Bullet-time is cool, but it won't be possible to have mp matches with bullet-time, unless they go for the killing floor 2 approach, in which everyone pauses when bullet time happens, and the trigger-man has more control over the affected. But that would still be bad in mp, imagine if you freeze every once in a while and no one is at your side of the map. Will take you ages to move.

To me, the best approach is to have command chains (think macros - only for skills) that you can have triggered in battle or when a specified event happens. That would require strategy too and a lot of proactive thinking. So at the heat of the battle, a good command chain will allow you to do 2 things at once.

Another approach would be to switch to a third person and let everyone fight while giving commands in real-time, but I personally don't like the idea of alienating the character from the camera. I want bullets flying around the player, feeling the heat and anxiety. Given the depth of Cyberpunk 2020, combat is a choice most of the times, a choice you took and you have to bear the consequences. Making it turn-based will break this feeling, as it nullifies the fear of combat realism over increased fun & gameplay. Look at Dark Souls, Hotline Miami.

You need to feel like you are on a race where you life in at stake, not a chess game.
 
Just because the game is based on DnD,doesn't mean it has to work like pen and paper.Games are their own medium and when you are transfering literature,table top games or what else in another medium,you can't keep it intact.

There are other ways to use DnD mechanics like reflexes or whatsoever in a realtime combat environemnt,don't forget that realtime combat has numbers behind it like hitpoint,weapon range,weapon hitboxes. Reflexes could implement some sort of bullet time for instance.

In my opinion making it a turn based,it might satisfy those who play pen and paper,but will fail to impress the majority of the gaming audience.


Bottom line: Just don't do turn based combat please
 
Top Bottom