I'm a bit disappointed CDPR decided to stick with "levels".

+

Tuco

Forum veteran
Well, the title should be mostly self-explanatory.

The recent surge of new content and information looks great, but a detail i couldn't help but notice is how in the end, despise some negative feedback in the past two years, CDPR decided to stick with giving characters a "level".

This is bad in general as any non-linear RPG would benefit from a system that does't gate (or scale) content strictly on the basis of their arbitrary level assignation and doesn't ramp up too steeply, and it's twice as puzzling given that it's a design choice that can't even be justified as being faithful to the original (CYberpunk was famously a level-less pen & paper system).

I genuinely don't understand why CDPR went for this solution. It introduces way more problems than the ones it solves. Even The Witcher 3 was slightly worse of what it could have been because of it.

The remaining hope at this point is that level assignation will AT LEAST be consistent (i.e. a certain type of enemy - say, a low rank street thug- will always be the same level level 5 instead of reappearing across the entire game as a level 5, 10, 15, 20, etc.) and that itemization may not be level-restricted (or worse, level-scaled) as well.
 
Last edited:
Levels can give you a sense of progression and achievement. My fear is that they'll be like Witcher 3 and nerf the xp you get from missions to 0 because you're 5 levels too high.

So long as I can do missions whenever I want and not get penalized for doing the main story first, I'll be happy.
 

Madae

Forum veteran
There really isn't that many options for a traditional RPG. It's either level based or skill based pretty much, and both have their advantages/disadvantages.
 

G30M1

Forum regular
Yes. I think it's really irritating that you can't purchase something simply because you don't have enough street cred. It just doesn't sound like the best way to handle it?

If CDPR wants to gatekeep items, I feel like it would be better to just not have those items available in the store if that player's V can't use it. That wouldn't break the immersion.

I just don't see how buying items and street cred work?

V walks up to a store. "Oh wow! Look at this awesome item! I even have enough money for it!"
The salesclerk puts a hand out at V "Sorry. You're just..." they look V up and down, sneering, "not cool enough. We don't want your money here."

Where on earth is V shopping? my gosh.
 
I wrote about this thing like, 2 years ago on these forums. I was 99.99% sure nothing was going to change, so I dont really care anymore.

But I was always disappointed that CDPR didn't choose to evolve their progression system coming to CP2077. Still living in the early 2000s I guess...
 
Also disappoibted by it.

Having a large open world that is not opened at all because progression is linear sucks.
And if you can over level your enemies and all missions become trivial and boring than its the other side of the problem.

I know many players hate scaling in RPGs, but games like AC make scaling optional and i wish it was optional here as well.

How would getting in trouble with the police or engaging in random content even be possible if cops are over leveled?

The scaling and levels also mean that enemies are damage spongy, that there are no silencers and no stealth options for gun play...
Im not 100% sure of these conclusions, but every shooter RPG had these downsides and cyberpunk could have been better than this.

Sense of progression could be felt in so many other ways besides just levels. If you're fighting enemies your own level all the time than all the difference between having levels or not is that levels gate you out of some content or make low level content unbalanced to be too easy. I find the downsides way out-weigh the advantages.
 
applause gif | Tumblr


We've been saying it so many times over the last 2 years, yet, nothing has changed: they're 4 levels higher than you? Sorry, you can't beat them.

I would've been happy even if they kept levels but make them less restrictive (just an indication of the enemy's strength) and hide quests until you reached the required level instead of giving you the option to accept them and be forced to wait until you satisfy the requirements. :giveup:

I don't even want to comment on "+10% DMG" perks when you have cyberware to justify an alternative and immersive progression system without leaving the genre of RPGs because it's self-explanatory.

P.S. there's no way seeing numbers increasing can give an even comparable feeling of progression with buying a new cyberware that unlocks a completely new ability. You don't need the first option when you have the second.
 
Last edited:

Madae

Forum veteran
they're 4 levels higher than you? Sorry, you can't beat them.
Seems rather pointless to whine about this now. It's not going to change. Is it even confirmed that level has that much of an affect? It's still a shooter, and I'd argue clever gameplay can make up for a deficiency easily enough. Also from what we've seen, it's not exactly indicative of a disparity existing.
 
It is an RPG and a sense of progression is important to the genre. Some are never going to be fans of level-gating and that's fine. However, there are ways to make level-gating better and more fun. I think TW3 did a good job in some areas, but could have improved in others. For example, I never felt like I needed to grind levels to progress the story - this was an issue in DA:I and I'm glad TW3 avoided it. I hope CP continues that.

However, it was strange to pick up these seemingly urgent contracts and have to put them aside for many in-game days because they're 20 levels above you. I feel like anything that feels urgent and is high level should only appear when the player is at the appropriate level.

Another thing is that relative levels for enemies should make sense. Guards in TW3 are a big example of this done wrong. Also, apparently a random Skellige bandit is stronger than a Velen fiend.

Finally, the extra stat buff enemies get when they're a certain number of levels higher than you. Players looking to challenge themselves by trying to take on a much stronger enemy shouldn't be punished by making the fight extremely tedious owing to extreme sponginess. Buff the damage, by all means, and have that combined with a challenging combat system that makes avoiding that damage challenging and rewarding, but don't resort to sponges.
 
It'd be great if the quests that are above your level didn't exist until you're that level.

"Hey V! I need your help!"

"Yeah uh.... that's uh, out of my level."

"Out of your what? I need your help now, it's urgent!!"

"Can you wait like, two months?"


I don't want to collect a slew of quests and by the time I'm high enough level to do them forget why I took that quest. I want to actually help people in-game, not a list of chores to check off.
 
We've been saying it so many times over the last 2 years, yet, nothing has changed: they're 4 levels higher than you? Sorry, you can't beat them.

My point isn't that you can't beat them. My point is that its entirely irrelevant whether you are 4 levels lower than them or not in such a case. If you are weaker than them, you cant beat them. But what level you are is entirely superfluous way of saying you are weaker than them. You can collect xp from stuff and buy perks, increase stats, buy better gear etc to get stronger. Its entirely irrelevant what level you are.

Level is like a price tag on a product. It tells you how much it costs, but it doesn't affect the price. It doesnt affect what the item is like, it doesnt affect what item it even is. Levels are an insult to intelligence, cause apparently you must have this number floating above an NPC that tells how strong they are.

Ugh, I have spoken.
 
I don't dislike the idea of levels. They're a good way of giving you a sense of power growth (start out weak and end up strong) and from a meta-game point of view it lets you plan out your character build (I'll get a perk point at this level and I'll get that one, then that one the next time I reach a level that gives me a perk point etc.).

What I do have a problem with though is that in many cases it comes tied to an element of scaling and often times it creates weird scenarios.

You're level 1 and some gang members in a building are the same level so you fight them and take them on on equal footing. Walk down 2 blocks and now you run into level 5 enemies from the same gang. They look the same, seemingly use the same kinds of guns, but for some reason they're kicking your ass and it's all because of that magical number above their head.
Or you find a level 1 gun. A pistol, nothing special about it. Then you later find what looks like the exact same kind of pistol but it somehow deals more damage and you can't use it yet because it has a higher number slapped on to it....?

Witcher 3 suffered from this and it was a more fun game for me (outside of specific scenarios) when I:
A) turn on level scaling (where mobs that were lower level than Geralt would be scaled up to his level)
B) installed a mod that would autolevelup lower level gear to my level (so I could use that sword I found at level 5 throughout the game if I wanted to) because I was sick of getting useless crap all the time and only using witcher gear 95% of the time.

Didn't fix the issue entirely but it was better.
Game still has issues, don't get me wrong: perk choices we very boring for the most part (whirl and rend being notable exceptions, most of everything else was just boring passives) and it only became truly interesting when you got to grandmaster with your gear and with the Blood&Wine expansion when you got access to mutations that really changed up how you played in a meaningful way. Love the game to bits, one of my all time favorites, but it had some glaring problems IMO. Thank god for mods!

So basically I wouldn't do away with levels entirely but I'd absolutely get rid of the scaling aspect of it because it most cases it's just detrimental with the nonsensical situations it creates. The scaling should come from the type of enemy it is and what weapons and armor they use (psycho squad member > common street thug), not from an arbitrary number difference (level 1 psycho squad member < level 30 common street thug).

EDIT
I forgot to mention that I do not dislike the idea of street cred because I'm optimistic it'll fix an issue I had with the Witcher 3: doing a lot of sidecontent (and I did like 95% of it I feel seeing how I got to 250+ hours in one playthrough) typically meant you outscaled the main quest. I think separating XP from side content can prove beneficial.
(sorry for the lengthy post but I like talking about these aspects of game design at length)
 
Last edited:
To be honest level gate is something that is very outdated. Is not true that you require levels in order fo feel a sense of progression.
Take Kenshi as example. No levels but skills and stat you truly start as nobody and everything can kill you permanently and easily.
Tho you get better raise your stat rasie your skill gather companions and you get at the point you will be forged by defeats becoming a very capable warrior and possibly running your own city.

All of this is done trough raising your skills and stat and get better gear for yourself and your companion.

You truly feel the sense of progression by the big things you manage to archieve.

Level based systems are good for D&D but is not the only manner to give a sense of progression just the cheap lazy one.
 

Tuco

Forum veteran
Oh wow, I remember discussing this stuff several times in the past two years, but I didn't remember I opened myself a thread that was basically a carbon copy of this one one year ago: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...ointed-leveled-enemies-are-still-in.11007823/

That said, I see some excuses never change, like the evergreen "It's a RPG so it needs to have levels" which is twice as ironic since (and I'll repeat onece again at cost of sounding like a broken record) the Cyberpunk pen & paper was famously a LEVEL-LESS ruleset.
Post automatically merged:

Level based systems are good for D&D but is not the only manner to give a sense of progression just the cheap lazy one.
Ironically enough, with all its limits even D&D manages to have non-leveled monsters with a consistent power level that never changes across the board.
A wolf will always be a wolf, a goblin a goblin, a troll a troll.
No "level 3 troll and level 30 wolf ten hours later just because".
 
Last edited:
Oh wow, I remember discussing this stuff several times in the past two years, but I didn't remember I opened myself a thread that was basically a carbon copy of this one one year ago: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...ointed-leveled-enemies-are-still-in.11007823/

That said, I see some excuses never change, like the evergreen "It's a RPG so it needs to have levels" which is twice as ironic since (and I'll repeat onece again at cost of sounding like a broken record) the Cyberpunk pen & paper was famously a LEVEL-LESS ruleset.
Post automatically merged:


Ironically enough, with all its limits even D&D manages to have non-leveled monsters with a consistent power level that never changes across the board.
A wolf will always be a wolf, a goblin a goblin, a troll a troll.
No "level 3 troll and level 30 wolf ten hours later just because".

Yes this is the main problem with Cd projekt red level systems 30 level wolves able to kill geralt a witcher thar previously killed a vampire.
In before seeing a janitor with a red skull on his head mopping you to death.
 
There really isn't that many options for a traditional RPG. It's either level based or skill based pretty much, and both have their advantages/disadvantages.

Actually "level" aren't a problem by themselves, it's giving them health and damages which is a problem.
Example: Fallout 4 have no increase in damage linked to levels. I used a mod that makes level doesn't give anyone health, and hundreds of hours later I'm far stronger yet still can die, and no bullet sponge problems nor level gated zones.
 

Tuco

Forum veteran
Actually "level" aren't a problem by themselves, it's giving them health and damages which is a problem.
Example: Fallout 4 have no increase in damage linked to levels. I used a mod that makes level doesn't give anyone health, and hundreds of hours later I'm far stronger yet still can die, and no bullet sponge problems nor level gated zones.
Well, of course.
Fallout 2 had levels for your character, but they were just meant to summarize a rough estimation of your proficiency.
The only thing that factually changed at every level up was getting few points to distribute among your skills and every few levels you also got a special perk. For all intents and purpose you could factually describe it as a level-less system.

Too bad we all know that's not how CDPR handles this stuff, if TW3 is the reference.
And it's puzzling, because not only it's a system that would work far better tied to a non-linear experience, but in the end by boosting stats across the board at every level up they also have to actively work to additional systems to compensate the issues (i.e. the so dreaded level scaling) that wouldn't be there in the first place if the growth wasn't so marked.
 
Copying it here from an old thread:


Have you managed to play TW3 without levels as well? DMG numbers are not a problem (if you know the level), but no levels means you can find yourself dead with 1 hit fighting a random group of bandits (who are levels higher than you).
I've tried, but after a few hours I turned them back on. Also, if anywhere, cyberpunk would be the world where you have an AI installed in your head that gives a numerical representation to how dangerous a person is likely to be.
whoa there, that escalated quickly :ROFLMAO: you know levels 99.9% mean bullet sponges, so... nope.
The most common alternatives would have to be no levels at all, which still could lead to running into really dangerous people and not knowing it until too late, or level scaling (which IMO is the bane of good game design).
Well, if they tell you that max-tac, trauma team, full borg conversions and big robots are very dangerous, you know it and you don't try to fight them 'till end game (but you can try, if you're very good you can do it since DMG are equal for both, they just have better "abilities/cyberware" and more advanced gear). A good game designer would make you face them gradually:
-in an early mission, first time you meet trauma team, you are forced to run away (jackie screams "jaina, trauma team is here! just run for your life!" if you don't you die),
-mid-game you start fighting a couple of them in another mission (you need to escape from a building during a swat/max-tac incursion and "the boss" before the exit is a couple of them, so you test their power in a controlled setting)
-eng-game: it's all max-tac and arasaka ninjas
We've got millions of examples in videogames where enemies are introduced this way, first one that comes to my mind (since is the most recent) is sekiro and these sons of bitches:


No levels, but trust me, you know a strong enemy when you meet one. You "just" need a good game designer who knows how to place enemies.
EDIT: demo showed how scanner can give you info about how dangerous an NPC is, that could subsitute levels with colours or word:
View attachment 11003845
So you don't end up fighting someone too strong /EDIT

An acceptable compromise for levels IMHO, is standard levels for enemy type: ALL scavengers (first demo) are level 2, ALL vodoo boys are all level 18 and ALL max tac officers are level 36 (bosses excluded, ofc). Levels do not reflect their DMG output or HPs (if not to minimum extent, an advanced assault rifle is better than a 9mm, and skinweave gives more defense or HP than a t-shirt), but their abilities:
-scavengers are normal guys with guns and that's it (level 2)
-vodoo boys have good cyberware for their limbs (unhuman strenght and speed) (level 18)
-trauma team has very good gear (level 25)
-max tac has both cyberware and gear (x-ray vision, smoke bombs, super strenght and speed, double jumps) (level 36)

You don't level up bullets' DMG or HP: a bullet deals 25HP in the body and 100 in the head, always, enemies' (and yours) defenses change thanks to gear and cyberware.
A scavenger dies with 1 headshot (100HP) from a 9mm gun (given gear has no levels), a vodoo boy as well, 2 if has skinweave (200HP), trauma team wear an helmet, so more headshots are needed, let's say 3 (300HP), max tac has everything, so can be bullet sponge for a 9mm, but all of them remain consistent throughout the game.
So you don't meet a level 2 scavenger and at end-game a level 30 scavenger which looks the same, but is stronger than a level 15 max-tac and weaker than level 40 max-tac. This is the problem with levels being immersion breaking. Not levels per se.
I like your ideas. However, they would be super hard to implement in an open world game. With linear level design they would work. But the designers can't know where the player will go next in an open world to scale things like that. Unless they block off entire zones of the city until later in the game. Which IMO would be lame.
But level gating areas has exactly the same problem, then. It's not really open world if you can't go in heywood unless you match the area's level. You can't travel to skellige before level 16 in TW3.

With the system I described, which is exactly the same as sekiro (don't know if you've played it), the world is almost completely open exactly because it has no levels and you can do different areas in the order you prefer. But sekiro doesn't have side quests (from software's side quests are not real side quests), so a good way to solve it is looking at RDR2: in RDR2 side quests appear only when it makes sense for the plot, briefly: there's an alteranation between moments when you are forced to do the main quest and moments when you can do side quests. Game pacing and rhytm are so perfect that you never think "oh my god, I'm in a hurry to find Ciri, but first lemme play some gwent".
Now, given TW3, we can assume CP2077 will have a similar structure and won't be skyrim-like. It's narrative-driven, CDPR said it several times. So devs will know exactly were we'll be and which skills we'll have during the main quest. Side quests (and vendors) will be unlocked gradually thanks to street creds (which are a brilliant idea, limped by classic levels, though).
What happens in my vision: you start the game-> tutorial-> open-world, night city is yours to explore. Jackie (or any NPC) tells you that you need to get more famous in order to catch the major league's attention. You do that completing some missions (main quest) but you can also do side quests to gain more E$ (= gear and cyberware). You're not in a hurry, it's coherent with the narrative. You have a limited number of side quests and are pretty easy (you don't have end-game quests from the beginning like in TW3 which made you wait 60 hours between accepting and completing them), being early game, so you don't end up being overpower even if you do all the side quests: you buy a better assault rifle, a better car, stuff like that. You enjoy role-playing and CDPR's top notch narrative (not that in TW3 that level gated gear had any sense to exist, since you could find better stuff every time you levelled up, which happened 34 times during each playthough). During this mission, you meet "low levels" enemies (scavengers and alike), if you don't try to get into a police station, you won't have any trouble with max tac and what not. BUT, if you manage to get into a police station and steal some corpo rifle, that's great! Risk and reward! And it's not overpower, because it's not level-gated so as I described in my previous post, a bullet from it is slightly more powerful than a 9mm bullets, but not like lvl 10 bullet vs lvl 35 bullet. You get your reward but you don't break the game.
You meet dexter de shawn, kill maelstromers, jackie dies, you want to find dexter for revenge so you need to get even more famous to get in contact with a big fixer (main quest): open world again and new (harder) side quests you can accept, buy better gear and cyberware. The cycle starts again.


TL;DR Please CDPR, at least give us consistency with levels and enemy types. :giveup:
 
Last edited:
Well, It's story-based game which means there are experiences devs want players to go through the most. Of course It's non-linear RPG, but, in fact, It's not that non-linear. It's far, far from level of freedom of Ultima games or Zelda: BotW.

I mean, how to control players without level especially to give the player sense of novelty along with story progress is a main thing in this game? I'm sure devs don't want this game to be played that way. they prepared a ton of movie-like cut-scenes, lines, music for certain situations, and spent countless days fixing story and subtle contexts. this kind of game needs some restriction I think, otherwise so many problems that are incompatible with dev's intention would appear.
 
Top Bottom