Mechanical Faithfulness to Cyberpunk 2020...

[Sardukhar]

These discussions are always heavily biased with cherry picking on either end.
If they were aiming for "realism", almost the entire rpg leveling system has to be removed.

Well, Interlock and 2020 did it no problem. How? They used levelled skills and stats, not some mystical "class level".

Totally doable.

Common man, did you play Division...they are absolutely nowhere near in comparison.

Close enough for me. Bigger numbers in the Division, similar TTK. Bit worse in the Division - but not that much worse.

Your example is a particularly long one - here's a shorter one in contrast:

Even as high lvl solo ( at the end), every hit took about only about 5% of her health.

There are no "high level Solos" ( in the Witcher/DnD sense) in Cyberpunk. You are as vulnerable (without cyberware and gear) at Combat sense 10 as at 1. Same .22 round can kill you either way. Hell, with armor and cyberware, right location it'll still kill you.

FNFF combat is much more like Arma. So far, 2077 combat is much more like the Division - or maybe CoD if you want a less spongey metaphor.

I like ARMA and CoD, I'm fine either way. But at the demonstrated difficulty, combat has little mechanical faithfulness to 2020. That's all.

This all mostly comes down to people who see a CRPG and associated systems to be more in the DnD model that is typically used in CRPGs.

Part of the charm for us old hardcore Cyberpunks is that 2020 did not use that ( unrealistic, clumsy, fuzzy-edged) model to describe people, skills and the world they live in.

I think it's certainly doable in 2077, but will it be? Probably not as much as 2020 players wish. And most people who saw the gameplay are used to CoD and Division and Destiny and Skyrim and Witcher.

None of those games really do the FNFF/Interlock model justice. Which is too bad, but they are fine games anyway. And, hey, the guns could use more "snap" that's true.

 

[Harthwain]

I meant that as having RNG affect how close to the aim spot that you actually hit. There are quite a few games that use an aim circle that varies size based (at least in part) on character skill. However, even if your character skill (and, depending on the game, equipment) allow you to have an aim circle of only a single pixel, all is for naught if the player puts the crosshairs in the wrong place.

Of course. That's what differentiates between good and bad shooter: the ability to hit where you want, by putting the crosshairs in the correct place.

If character skill is high enough you are much more likely to hit the right place, because your character can control his aim better than a less skilled person. And this is the evolution of the FPP genre I was talking about: instead of stimulating aiming skill by an aim circle, we can use sway and recoil instead.

I agree that that game did melee well enough, but it's hard to say whether they did Ranged as decently. I saw no target marker from an aimbot like I did with swords nor did I see any other sort of marker, so really can't say whether there were any factors other than the player's ability to guesstimate the aim point. Considering how much more common ranged weapins are in 2077 than in 1403, that's a pretty important thing. But yes, CDPR oculd screw up the implementation.

The problem was less the aim point (I roughly aimed at where the arrow was going) and more the sway itself. But with practice (as a player) and enough Henry's own skill it was fine. But I doubt this will be a problem in CP77, because we will be able to use ADS in order to see where the aim is at.

These discussions are always heavily biased with cherry picking on either end.

Ironic of you to say that.

If they were aiming for "realism", almost the entire rpg leveling system has to be removed. Can anyone improve skill proficiency in a matter of days, to achieve mastery of it...it takes years and more of training.

That's a logical fallacy - just because in real life it takes a lot of time to improve (and there are no skills or levels) it doesn't mean we can't use skill levels to model how a character is improving his or her skill in a video game. Just because we are asking for something closer to CP2020 (which means we are asking for something that's closer to realism in certain aspects) doesn't mean we have to totally ape realism.

 

[Loostreaks]

That's a logical fallacy - just because in real life it takes a lot of time to improve (and there are no skills or levels) it doesn't mean we can't use skill levels to model how a character is improving his or her skill in a video game. Just because we are asking for something closer to CP2020 (which means we are asking for something that's closer to realism in certain aspects) doesn't mean we have to totally ape realism.

People are quoting "Realism" when it suits them and discarding it, when not: that's my point.

"You cannot pull headshots with low lvl skill and enemies shouldn't take more than one or two bullets! It's not realistic!"- Fine

"Player can achieve what takes a Lifetime of training in a matter of Days, you can instantly adapt to using Cybernetic limbs ( for which you need "Humanity points" ) and with no real recovery needed"- Who cares, it's a video game! ( In other words, your own models of skill improvement are even less realistic than the realism of combat)

And on what was mentioned previously: yes, there are shooters that do a better job at simulation aspect, like Arma. But it's not a simple matter as simply changing damage values, this completely dictates the flow of combat, depending on entire set of mechanics: from co-op, progression system, etc.

Like I said: I think they could increase damage values, recoil and skill level effect on weapon handling ( crosshair, reload, sway, etc). But asking for complete realism is a bit "unrealistic" ( ok, pun intended). In that case they would have to redesign entire system: something a lot more similar to games like Last of Us.

 

[Wenceslaus]

Are you saying that bows are entirely random until a certain skill level? Or do they simply lack the aimbot of swords and aim manually like a full-on FPS? I would hope that they'd have more consistent controls/UI.

Entirely? By far not. The sway is predictable, but it does slow you down and it is obviously harder when it's moving.
There is no aimbot. The aiming with bow is manual.

The targetlock for melee is there because melee is something different than ranged combat (more about stamina management, combos, ripostes... than just about precise targeting).

I have to say I like the idea that with the skill the players character gets rid of the beginners errors. So for firearms it could be that first levels of the skill you get rid of beginners errors like wrong alignment, slow recoil recover and reloading... etc.

Post automatically merged: Sep 12, 2018

People are quoting "Realism" when it suits them and discarding it, when not: that's my point.

"You cannot pull headshots with low lvl skill and enemies shouldn't take more than one or two bullets! It's not realistic!"- Fine

"Player can achieve what takes a Lifetime of training in a matter of Days, you can instantly adapt to using Cybernetic limbs ( for which you need "Humanity points" ) and with no real recovery needed"- Who cares, it's a video game! ( In other words, your own models of skill improvement are even less realistic than the realism of combat, but that's ok)

And on what was mentioned previously: yes, there are shooters that do a better job at simulation aspect, like ARMA. B

And that is bad? Having limits?
If you wanted to suggest it is hypocritical then I'm saying you din't get the point.
As flight simulator player I want realistic flight model. But I do not want to do long pre flight control or being captured when bail out over the enemy territory to play 3 years as POW or spend months in hospital. I want to take new plane and start again because it is about flying. And that is what you can do, even in simulators.

 

[Snowflakez]

You didn't, and they didn't.
I kept hearing how wonderful the FPS was when the demo was press only and assuming most of them didn't know what an RPG was because all they've ever seen is the FPS games with minimal RPG elements that are marketed as RPGs.

Then I saw the demo myself (feel free to look up my analysis of it) and my heart sank.
Yep, they adapted the setting and tossed the rest out the window.

I wanted to see your analysis, but I can't find it anywhere. Link? I just dug through 6 pages of posting history and couldn't find it anywhere.

 

[Loostreaks]

If you wanted to suggest it is hypocritical then I'm saying you din't get the point.
As flight simulator player I want realistic flight model. But I do not want to do long pre flight control or being captured when bail out over the enemy territory to play 3 years as POW or spend months in hospital. I want to take new plane and start again because it is about flying. And that is what you can do, even in simulators.

No, I'm saying you didn't get the point.

One unrealistic representation ( through video game mechanics ) is fine , other is not...who gets to decide here what "kind" of un/realism is accepted here? Me? You? Whoever played 2020 more?

On the matter of bullet sponges: they could add electromagnetic shields here ( I can imagine some people's faces turning pale here ).

For higher "lvl" opponents: but implemented better than in other games.

Instead of watching enemy blue bar being depleted, it could reduce amount of damage taken and each amount of fire would weaken it: this being clearly showed in strong visual effects ( shield on each successive/timeframe hit becoming more "thin"/weaker), with player being able to target shield generator directly to destroy it ( this would require very accurate precision shot, on difficult to aim location, likely at the back).

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

I meant that as having RNG affect how close to the aim spot that you actually hit. There are quite a few games that use an aim circle that varies size based (at least in part) on character skill. However, even if your character skill (and, depending on the game, equipment) allow you to have an aim circle of only a single pixel, all is for naught if the player puts the crosshairs in the wrong place.

Actually the polar opposite system would make a but compromise for an good roleplay A-RPG: the bigger the skill, the bigger the aim circle, but instead of being a "spread circle" it would be an "auto aim" one.

 

[Sardukhar]

I think, again, we should probably wait and see a bit on difficulty levels before making up our minds. Easy mode vs 2020 mode would be a big jump.

If you double damage done, both to you and the enemy, this would make much of this issue more palatable to those of us wanting to be afraid and/or cautious during a life-and-death encounter.

I think also we should realise that CDPR is doing a lot of testing on this and it's far from done. Very far.

So hoping for more weapon sway based on skill, more recoil ( reduced by skill or stats), lower TTK with proper weapons and ammunition, locationally-based critical hits affected by stats, no-auto-regen: all those sorts of thing, I think are very much being examined and could well make an appearance in the game.

 

[Snowflakez]

I think, again, we should probably wait and see a bit on difficulty levels before making up our minds. Easy mode vs 2020 mode would be a big jump.

If you double damage done, both to you and the enemy, this would make much of this issue more palatable to those of us wanting to be afraid and/or cautious during a life-and-death encounter.

I think also we should realise that CDPR is doing a lot of testing on this and it's far from done. Very far.

So hoping for more weapon sway based on skill, more recoil ( reduced by skill or stats), lower TTK with proper weapons and ammunition, locationally-based critical hits affected by stats, no-auto-regen: all those sorts of thing, I think are very much being examined and could well make an appearance in the game.

How likely do you think that last paragraph to be? Based on what we've seen so far?

Remember something, Sard: our requests for precisely those systems are not new. We have laid out our ideas, in brief and in detail, for literally years here on these forums. If CDPR was going to implement those ideas, do you not think they would have tried it by now?

They didn't have to do specifically what we asked for - heck, we didn't come to a single consensus ourselves. But the general concept was the same, and it seems they looked at that feedback, and ignored it, or tried it and realized it didn't fit their vision. Either outcome is just fine because it's their game and this isn't intended as a "they made the wrong call" post.

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate, while also trying to voice a realization I came to recently. Yes, everything is subject to change, but why weren't these changes made already if they were reading these forums (which we know they were)?

 

[Suhiira]

I wanted to see your analysis, but I can't find it anywhere. Link? I just dug through 6 pages of posting history and couldn't find it anywhere.

"Gameplay Reveal — 48-minute walkthrough" thread, post #33.

 

[Snowflakez]

"Gameplay Reveal — 48-minute walkthrough" thread, post #33.

Spot on. Good analysis, fun to read.

Direct link for the curious (and maybe CDPR): https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/gameplay-reveal-48-minute-walkthrough.10980398/page-2#post-11094788

 

[Suhiira]

Spot on. Good analysis, fun to read.

Direct link for the curious (and maybe CDPR): https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/gameplay-reveal-48-minute-walkthrough.10980398/page-2#post-11094788

Too easy.

 

[Sardukhar]

How likely do you think that last paragraph to be? Based on what we've seen so far?

Some of them? Highly likely. All of them? Not likely.

What we saw was a demo aimed at everyone - people that loved the Witcher, Deus Ex, CoD, Skyrim and, I dunno, people who've never really thought of playing a CDPR game.

Actually, let me rephrase - what we saw was a demo designed for journalists to relay what -they- saw to those people.

What we get on release will be something different, as my Witcher 3 playthrough was different than what I saw in the Witcher 3 demos. I screwed up, I died. I didn't get to regenerate - and I couldn't take on 5 mobs by myself at once and live everytime, at least not for the first half of the game.

So, yes, I think we will see higher damage, less or no regen and critical hits in combat by release. Plus some other PnP carry over surprises. Because there is a segment of people, here and at CDPR, that likes that gameplay.

Like you said, they are reading these forums.

 

[Snowflakez]

Some of them? Highly likely. All of them? Not likely.

What we saw was a demo aimed at everyone - people that loved the Witcher, Deus Ex, CoD, Skyrim and, I dunno, people who've never really thought of playing a CDPR game.

Actually, let me rephrase - what we saw was a demo designed for journalists to relay what -they- saw to those people.

What we get on release will be something different, as my Witcher 3 playthrough was different than what I saw in the Witcher 3 demos. I screwed up, I died. I didn't get to regenerate - and I couldn't take on 5 mobs by myself at once and live everytime, at least not for the first half of the game.

So, yes, I think we will see higher damage, less or no regen and critical hits in combat by release. Plus some other PnP carry over surprises. Because there is a segment of people, here and at CDPR, that likes that gameplay.

Like you said, they are reading these forums.

I appreciate your optimism. I hope you're right.

 

[ac01yte]

People are quoting "Realism" when it suits them and discarding it, when not: that's my point.

"You cannot pull headshots with low lvl skill and enemies shouldn't take more than one or two bullets! It's not realistic!"- Fine

"Player can achieve what takes a Lifetime of training in a matter of Days, you can instantly adapt to using Cybernetic limbs ( for which you need "Humanity points" ) and with no real recovery needed"- Who cares, it's a video game! ( In other words, your own models of skill improvement are even less realistic than the realism of combat)

And on what was mentioned previously: yes, there are shooters that do a better job at simulation aspect, like Arma. But it's not a simple matter as simply changing damage values, this completely dictates the flow of combat, depending on entire set of mechanics: from co-op, progression system, etc.

Like I said: I think they could increase damage values, recoil and skill level effect on weapon handling ( crosshair, reload, sway, etc). But asking for complete realism is a bit "unrealistic" ( ok, pun intended). In that case they would have to redesign entire system: something a lot more similar to games like Last of Us.

Missing a little of the point, IMO. We're asking for it to be closer to CP 2020, not nessesarily true to life simulation. CP 2020 has realistic combat, but yes, you can adapt to cyberlimbs fairly quickly. It's consistent with the world. BTW before knocking this take a look at osteointegrated prosthesis that we are developing right now, or reinnervated myoelectric limbs. You'd be surprised at what's possible even now and that's not counting the direct brain linkages we're working on. By 2077, it's going to be very interesting.

As to the rest..... Don't change the damage, but everything else should be affected by skill IMO. The game SCUM has done this fairly well, again IMO.

- Shane

 

[Harthwain]

People are quoting "Realism" when it suits them and discarding it, when not: that's my point.

Given that CP77 is supposed to be based on CP2020, which is supposed to emulate real life situations and outcomes (such as lethal combat) I'd say their objections are valid. And it's precisely why your point is not; because it isn't about realism as such, as much as it's about reflecting the mechanics of CP2020.

And on what was mentioned previously: yes, there are shooters that do a better job at simulation aspect, like Arma. But it's not a simple matter as simply changing damage values, this completely dictates the flow of combat, depending on entire set of mechanics: from co-op, progression system, etc.

Like I said: I think they could increase damage values, recoil and skill level effect on weapon handling ( crosshair, reload, sway, etc). But asking for complete realism is a bit "unrealistic" ( ok, pun intended). In that case they would have to redesign entire system: something a lot more similar to games like Last of Us.

That's exactly why I am not expecting much from CP77 anymore. Maybe I will be surprised.

 

[jervi]

...

I'm sorry that I dont' share your faith in the ability of a 5.56mm bullet to maintain enough energy over long distances to penetrate level IV protection at long range the way a larger, heavier round will, or your belief that civilians cannot get anything above II/IIa. I'm also sorry for not specifically and explicitly stating that there are various types of riding gear ranging from the more common "about as good as leather, but ligher and more breathable" to the ones I've seen that actually haveinserts and such. I guess maybe I was also wrong about things with NIJ IIa rating stopping 9mm.

Fine. You win. I'm an idiot. I'll shut up.

 

[Sardukhar]

I appreciate your optimism. I hope you're right.

Me, too, buddy. Me, too.

It's always worth remembering that CDPR really is that company. They really are trying to make a game that fits what they promised, that we will enjoy and that will be Cyberpunk.

This is how the people that run CDPR feel:

 

[wisdom000]

It's always worth remembering that CDPR really is that company. They really are trying to make a game that fits what they promised, that we will enjoy and that will be Cyberpunk.

This is what people keep saying... I am hoping.

 

[Sardukhar]

This is what people keep saying... I am hoping.

Well, it's worth remembering that they could easily make a mass-market sellout game - yearly- and make a bajillion dollars.

They don't. But they do have to compromise from what the hardcore PnP want at CDPR and what the non-PnP would prefer and enjoy. We see that also in the external audience here. Many people do not want their Cyberpunk experience to be a 2020-style one. They would prefer something more familiar. Each to their own.

So we, the hardcore PnP crowd, will also have to compromise what we want.

I hope that where we meet still -feels- like Cyberpunk to me. I think it will, but that's because I've run a 2020 game without the FNFF system being in play ( before I added it so my players could fully enjoy it, of course) and, yes, as long as the setting feels like Cyberpunk - the grit, the nastiness, the style, the glamour, the enhancements, that real sense of what-could-be-what-might-yet-be, yeah, it's Cyberpunk.