Multiplayer Idea(s)

[Suhiira]

Its funny how many Cyberpunk fans are opposed to multiplayer when the PnP is a co operative and competitive game, as well as the over all theme of cyberpunk as a hardcore dystopian world with degenerate human beings, perfect for MP I'd say, and most people are complaining about the game even having such a mode. All the millennials want a safe bubble in such a hardened setting full of corruption in an imperfect society.

Not at all.
In a PnP game you generally get to choose who you want to play with, in most PvP games you don't.
And this very anonymity is what creates 90% of the problems in PvP games. Most of the players that perform such acts would never dare do so if they were within punching distance of the other players.

 

[Shavod]

EDIT: The interview where he mentions that could mean anything. Just read it. He wasn't specifically referencing any game, could have been referring to CDPR as a whole - which makes WAY more sense, by the way, because pretty much anyone can agree that having multiplayer games in your arsenal is very, very good for long term success indeed.

Later in the interview he talks about how in some distant future they might develop a catalog of free-to-play online games similar to Gwent, supported by GOG Galaxy, while when he talked about Cyberpunk online element, he seemed to kinda downplay it, so you might be right about it, especially since they already said that there will be no extra microtransactions for Cyberpunk 2077.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

GTAO is a god awful comparison for what online element should be for 2077.

Also I wouldn't underestimate CDPR inspiration from the Demons Souls /Dark Souls series

GTA is fun and it made a lot of money.

 

[Snowflakez]

GTA is fun and it made a lot of money.

While we're posting gifs.

There are plenty of us that wanted a GTA game for its singleplayer, because, y'know, that's what the franchise had entirely been about prior to GTAO. DLC was planned, and then scrapped. Because greed. We felt screwed.

Don't want more of that. CP2077 will be a single player RPG.

Not that any of us have much say in the matter regarding how its ultimately implemented. None of us know what the heck CDPR is going to do. But I'll take a non-toxic Dark Souls-like coop/PvP system that is relatively easy to implement and doesn't take much focus from the main game over an entirely different mode that absolutely, unavoidably will.

 

[Guest 4149880]

GTA is fun and it made a lot of money.

With that mindset, Minecraft sold tens of millions, Voxelpunk 2077 it is.

The only thing GTA currently has in common with proposed ideas for 2077 is that it's open world within a city, right? It pretty much stops there.

Not that any of us have much say in the matter regarding how its ultimately implemented. None of us know what the heck CDPR is going to do. But I'll take a non-toxic Dark Souls-like coop/PvP system that is relatively easy to implement and doesn't take much focus from the main game over an entirely different mode that absolutely, unavoidably will.

I'd say that's the best way to implement Mp for those who want it as an option over and separate mode. Its a Win-Win for everyone. Multiplayer is optional and it doesn't neglect the single player portion of the game and I agree it shouldn't.

I don't think the Mp should be a deeply integrated system that effects anything regarding the core game. Its should be rather shallow in the sense that its main purpose to allow the community to gather in the social hubs as it could give the game a living world feel, as well as allow friends to co op in an open world, play mini games together and do some light PvP, and those who like the MP options available will do as much of it as they want without ever disturbing those who would rather not even take part. It doesn't need to be that difficult to implement in that respect.

As far as game balance goes for MP, every system from single player should work the same in MP. There should be no change or modifiers to gear and weapon damage simply because of co op. I wouldn't see the need in it. Easier said than done of course, without any regards to development cost and time, its just the idea here I'm proposing.

 

[Sardukhar]

With that mindset, Minecraft sold tens of millions, Voxelpunk 2077 it is.

The only thing GTA currently has in common with proposed ideas for 2077 is that it's open world within a city, right? It pretty much stops there.

Well and Mike said GTA is basically Cyberpunk without the cyber. So, that.

I dunno. A passive social hub a la Destiny would be kinda meh to me.

But a full-on MP with CP2020 style lethality and rules would be pretty violent and make non-combat classes pointless, unless you also had NPC and PC police units that were actually effective. Respawns would have to punitive or limited or people would just get killed by SWAT or CSWAT and then start their spree again.

Applying some kind of limiting factor in order to recreate a viable MP living city, now, hrm.

I'd be really interested in seeing such a thing, though.

 

[Guest 4149880]

Well and Mike said GTA is basically Cyberpunk without the cyber. So, that.

Maybe the GTA of old, not the GTAO joke that it has become.

I dunno. A passive social hub a la Destiny would be kinda meh to me.

Well they had an idea, but I don't think it was well planned out. It was merely a way to interact with vender/mission NPC with hardly any reason to interact with other players. I think if 2077 has Hubs, it should be just for that reason of kicking back and socializing within the game world.

But a full-on MP with CP2020 style lethality and rules would be pretty violent and make non-combat classes pointless, unless you also had NPC and PC police units that were actually effective. Respawns would have to punitive or limited or people would just get killed by SWAT or CSWAT and then start their spree again.
Applying some kind of limiting factor in order to recreate a viable MP living city, now, hrm.

I don't see the pnp ruleset allowing for the type of MP people expect from modern games. It would have to either be almost completely changed or done in a very limited manner that doesn't allow for these respawn death matches.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Maybe the GTA of old, not the GTAO joke that it has become.

Is PVP really that bad?

 

[Snowflakez]

Well and Mike said GTA is basically Cyberpunk without the cyber. So, that.

I dunno. A passive social hub a la Destiny would be kinda meh to me.

But a full-on MP with CP2020 style lethality and rules would be pretty violent and make non-combat classes pointless, unless you also had NPC and PC police units that were actually effective. Respawns would have to punitive or limited or people would just get killed by SWAT or CSWAT and then start their spree again.

Applying some kind of limiting factor in order to recreate a viable MP living city, now, hrm.

I'd be really interested in seeing such a thing, though.

All depends on the implementation. A "viable MP living city" sounds AWESOME on paper, but in practice? Well, look at GTA:O. If they can avoid that situation and create something that isn't a garbage-fire for single-player gamers who would just like to play with their friends, I'm all for it.

But I have less than zero interest in playing " yet another open world PvP deathmatch". There's way, way too many of those games out there and there's absolutely zero need to cater to that audience further with 2077. Nobody is more starved for choice right now than single player fans with a taste for coop in their RPGs and open world games. We've got, what, Divinity Original Sin 2 and I guess Dark Souls/Souls-likes? I'm sure there's a few I'm not thinking of, but you get the point.

Everybody else has Ark, Rust, GTA:O and lord knows how many others.

Is PVP really that bad?

Have you not played it yet? Gosh, it's terrible. The PvP modes themselves are standard and are neither offensive or inoffensive (deathmatch and the like, nothing special) but the world of GTA O itself is quite possibly one of the most toxic, miserable environments I've ever been in while playing a video game. Players think its funny to smash into the front of liquor stores to block your exit, camp outside your apartment to repeatedly smash into you with their vehicle, and find ways around the whole "non-PvP" flagged system to ruin your day. Last time I played, you could also see everybody on the map 24/7, so it's not like you can hide from anybody on the other end of the map.

Clearly, that sort of thing appeals to a large amount of people. That's fine. They can keep playing (and paying) GTA:O, then. I don't want it in 2077. I'd rather CDPR come up with something truly unique and fun for single player fans, with, as I said, a taste for coop and maybe unintrusive PvP.

 

[Guest 4149880]

All depends on the implementation. A "viable MP living city" sounds AWESOME on paper, but in practice? Well, look at GTA:O. If they can avoid that situation and create something that isn't a garbage-fire for single-player gamers who would just like to play with their friends, I'm all for it.

But I have less than zero interest in playing " yet another open world PvP deathmatch". There's way, way too many of those games out there and there's absolutely zero need to cater to that audience further with 2077. Nobody is more starved for choice right now than single player fans with a taste for coop in their RPGs and open world games. We've got, what, Divinity Original Sin 2 and I guess Dark Souls/Souls-likes? I'm sure there's a few I'm not thinking of, but you get the point.

Everybody else has Ark, Rust, GTA:O and lord knows how many others.



Have you not played it yet? Gosh, it's terrible. The PvP modes themselves are standard and are neither offensive or inoffensive (deathmatch and the like, nothing special) but the world of GTA O itself is quite possibly one of the most toxic, miserable environments I've ever been in while playing a video game. Players think its funny to smash into the front of liquor stores to block your exit, camp outside your apartment to repeatedly smash into you with their vehicle, and find ways around the whole "non-PvP" flagged system to ruin your day. Last time I played, you could also see everybody on the map 24/7, so it's not like you can hide from anybody on the other end of the map.

Clearly, that sort of thing appeals to a large amount of people. That's fine. They can keep playing (and paying) GTA:O, then. I don't want it in 2077. I'd rather CDPR come up with something truly unique and fun for single player fans, with, as I said, a taste for coop and maybe unintrusive PvP.

Quite sums it up, I 110% agree.

The single player RPG genre lacks the social aspect of MP and those that try go way to far and it loses its way, but without becoming an MMO or just out right chaos. Its another reason why I'm a huge fan of the Dark Souls games is because its a singe player RPG through in through first, but also has a deep enough small scale MP component to add a lot to the experience and enough freedom to allow players to get creative with and how they use it.

Just because 2077 will be a huge open world doesn't necessarily mean the MP should follow suit with the likes of Rockstar's games.

Personally, I envision a MP PvP system working a lot like Watchdogs/Dark Souls in that its instant and in close proximity to where the opposing players are in the city itself, rather then having the enemy player have a open free for all running around your city, you're kind of tethered together to the general area until the battle has finished, who ever wins. Other wise it could be frustrating having chase someone down all the time when they run, and they will run.

This is at most a very basic concept with flaws for online but with the world of Cyberpunk, there are many factors to consider when talking about potential MP elements. Gang wars, Cops vs criminals, bounty hunters, MAX TAC vs Cyber psycho, rebels vs corporation. Players choice and roles could affect what who other players are to them, could be your allies or enemies base on what they've aliened with. Certainly excited to see what this game will be.

 

[BjornTheBandit]

I'm with Snow and Beast on this one. I did have fun with the private GTA:O cities, where you had to invite folks because my brothers and I really enjoy just screwing around. I played the online world, and I created a traffic jam on the freeway using a dumptruck to see if I could break the game and count at what number of vehicles the game would stop spawning them in, and some 7 year old (seriously parents, there are more creative and better games to grow your child's mind than GTA. Just stop) just rammed me with his private jet and ruined it. And I know he was that young because he was giggling over his mic, and then proceeded to do a really awful job of shit-talking.

I've decided that the reason people descend to that level of douchery is that they are actually really really bored with a skin depth game and are desperately trying to keep liking it, because everyone else thinks it's fun, right?

So, GTA could work if it was deeper and I can block morons from jumping into my game. Deeper combat, deeper interactions with citizens than going to a strip club. I want to go to a noodle joint and hear people speaking in a street-talk like mishmash of different languages that I can learn and get useful rumors and info out of, or not if I so choose to not be bothered. It'd be fun to have conversations with someone else who's in recovery after some augmentation surgery and compare "scars," as it were. Or to be in that weakened state and the same guy you were chatting with has a malfunction that you have to deal with in a clever way. I want to be able to find my pals (as chummy as you can afford to get in Night City, anyway) and have a drink with them. Not in the same way as GTA where it's "get smashed, stumble through the yacht someone spent IRL money on, make lewd gestures behind the french bar-keep, rinse and repeat. That is funny ONCE, then is very stale quickly.

I guess I just feel that the City needs to be the main character, and all of us and the NPC's are just different aspects of it.

If done well, an optional social hub wouldn't be an issue for me. I want to get lost in the dark, glassy, cold eyes of the City I love despite it's wanton destruction and wishing a horrible death on me. But not everyone will, so give them a place to get their freak on so that my romance isn't interrupted.

 

[Suhiira]

So, GTA could work if it was deeper and I can block morons from jumping into my game. Deeper combat, deeper interactions with citizens than going to a strip club. I want to go to a noodle joint and hear people speaking in a street-talk like mishmash of different languages that I can learn and get useful rumors and info out of, or not if I so choose to not be bothered. It'd be fun to have conversations with someone else who's in recovery after some augmentation surgery and compare "scars," as it were. Or to be in that weakened state and the same guy you were chatting with has a malfunction that you have to deal with in a clever way. I want to be able to find my pals (as chummy as you can afford to get in Night City, anyway) and have a drink with them. Not in the same way as GTA where it's "get smashed, stumble through the yacht someone spent IRL money on, make lewd gestures behind the french bar-keep, rinse and repeat. That is funny ONCE, then is very stale quickly.

I guess I just feel that the City needs to be the main character, and all of us and the NPC's are just different aspects of it.

If done well, an optional social hub wouldn't be an issue for me. I want to get lost in the dark, glassy, cold eyes of the City I love despite it's wanton destruction and wishing a horrible death on me.

While I fully agree with everything you said ... I also have a pretty good idea of the amount of coding needed to achieve it.

For myself I'd be perfectly happy with a fairly basic MP system at launch and one (or more) DLCs that flesh out the city as a living breathing entity. Concentrate on the single-player game first, then worry about the multi-player.

 

[Snowflakez]

A city can feel like a living, breathing entity with absolutely no multiplayer mechanic at all. Not at all an important or necessary part of the experience. This game should be a singleplayer experience first and foremost.

Honestly, the mere mention of a multiplayer component terrified me, because it instantly means resources aren't being spent on the singleplayer game when they could be.

So, I'm hoping the trade-off is worth it - I hope it results in something unique. Not something AMAZING, just something interesting that isn't total garbage.

A dull-as-dishwater PvP deathmatch mode is essentially wasted resources - just look at games like Andromeda. When you shoehorn multiplayer into a singleplayer game just to have it, it ain't gonna succeed very long (the multiplayer, that is) and you might as well have spent that time and money on making even more awesome content for singleplayer users.

If people want Call of Duty, they have that already. If people want Battlefield, they have that already. So on and so forth. Why waste time making an inferior version of something that already exists?

What I want from a multiplayer mode -- if one MUST exist at all -- is the ability to experience the game in some capacity with my friends. No other players coming to crap all over our experience, not unless we opt in to it.

 

[Guest 4149880]

Clearly, that sort of thing appeals to a large amount of people. That's fine. They can keep playing (and paying) GTA:O, then. I don't want it in 2077. I'd rather CDPR come up with something truly unique and fun for single player fans, with, as I said, a taste for coop and maybe unintrusive PvP.

Co op should be built around completing the Host's objectives with friends in the single player world, maybe 4 players total. Beating bosses, fighting PvE battles.

PvP should be built for those that would like an extra challenge within the single player world by invading/getting invaded by enemy players, while playing in PvE/Co op.

Also there should be no such thing as respawns within the MP sessions. If your co op players die, they're sent back to their game, if the host dies, the whole game session ends. In PvP, the same system should apply because death should be the end of the battle. A respawn system has no consequences for player actions. Death is the end.

If death is meaningless in Cyberpunk, by all means go with team death match. Otherwise, it should be more in depth.

 

[Sardukhar]

Honestly, the mere mention of a multiplayer component terrified me, because it instantly means resources aren't being spent on the singleplayer game when they could be.

This is something that comes up fairly often, resources expenditure. Limited resources = hard choices, so more resources should be spent on what you want most, right?

But you can't just throw money and people at a game and make it good. Team size is far from a guarantee of quality.

If you have the money and you think you can manage the feature creep, you hire separate teams and specialists.

I know this seems obvious, but it does bear mentioning. We aren't worried that GWENT is cutting into CPunk, are we? Or vice versa?

Now, combining MP and SP in one game is the tricky part and that could well be an issue. But that's a design issue more than a resources issue and although valid, takes it's place alongside worries about vehicles, melee/ranged balance, character Role integration, RP-systems and so forth.

People who don't care about MP find it an unnecessary risk, but the same can be said for people that don't care about Persuasion checks or vehicle integration or character creation.

We will have to see how CDPR deals with these issues and working them all into a great RPG.

 

[Snowflakez]

This is something that comes up fairly often, resources expenditure. Limited resources = hard choices, so more resources should be spent on what you want most, right?

But you can't just throw money and people at a game and make it good. Team size is far from a guarantee of quality.

If you have the money and you think you can manage the feature creep, you hire separate teams and specialists.

I know this seems obvious, but it does bear mentioning. We aren't worried that GWENT is cutting into CPunk, are we? Or vice versa?

Now, combining MP and SP in one game is the tricky part and that could well be an issue. But that's a design issue more than a resources issue and although valid, takes it's place alongside worries about vehicles, melee/ranged balance, character Role integration, RP-systems and so forth.

People who don't care about MP find it an unnecessary risk, but the same can be said for people that don't care about Persuasion checks or vehicle integration or character creation.

We will have to see how CDPR deals with these issues and working them all into a great RPG.

Fair points!

It's absolutely possible that CP2077's multiplayer component (if it exists in a more interesting capacity than "here's a deathmatch mode!") is being worked on by a separate team or a group of specialists, and that would probably be the ideal situation.

You're also correct that RP systems and the like present similar challenges... But I think the major difference is that all of those things fall under "one umbrella", so to speak - single player. One main focus. Everybody working on singleplayer is working towards a common goal, even if their tasks differ.

Warning: The following is probably going to be hard to follow. I had a very, very difficult time articulating my thoughts, so hopefully it makes some amount of sense. Plus, it's 10PM and I just finished re-watching the 3+ hr Blade Runner 2049, so I'm tired.

In my ideal "multiplayer mode", you're playing the game as normal, but if you toggle a certain option in your settings, you can invite your friends to come do "radiant" style side content (content that doesn't strictly rely on your created character's strengths/weaknesses - how would you balance that for multiple people?), and you can encounter hostile (or non hostile) enemy players as you explore the city.

In this hypothetical mode, there isn't a single feature (For the most part) that is exclusive to multiplayer. None. No risk of the dev team's resources being wasted on a dedicated "MP mode" like team deathmatch, or capture the flag, or battle royale... Everyone is playing the same single player game, just with other people during "free roam" points.

But there's a lot of risks with this system.

How do you handle differing world states for every player - do you just have the other players pop into the host's world?

How do you handle the host interacting with a story or side quest NPC that isn't "radiant" - Are the players who aren't hosts booted out? If not, do they show up in cutscenes?

Lot of issues, and I don't really have many solutions - but this is the only multiplayer system I can see being developed that doesn't directly pull dev resources from the single player side of things. Anything else and you're still developing separate systems with separate ultimate goals. How significant the resource allocation difference is depends on a number of factors... A small "Social hub" may require very little, for example.

 

[Raxaphan]

Multiplayer is a love-hate mode because in the majority of time you meet elitists, trolls that ruin the atmosphere.
What I am more interested is the Co-op aspect.
I don't want to feel useless or like a npc when I join and help a host. I want my actions and presence to matter. Not be there like an auxiliary thing.

The conversation choices should be made by the host if there are any, but the other triggers in the mission should take into account the other players skills/reputation too.
For example: the host goes to a npc to start an extraction mission that requires hostages to be saved. If the host is joined by a netrunner, and a player that can heal(forgot the role name) the mission should have objectives for the other two roles.
The end rewards should receive a bonus because of the actions done by all the players.

Why I mean by being useless in a co-op mission. In GW2 when you join a host in his/her story mission you have no saying in that story, you are just a player helping killing enemies. At the end the mission asks you if you want to save the progression made to your personal story.
Of course the story in that game is identical to everyone.

The point I wanted to make is that I want all the players feel like a team not like one host plus the npc.

Sorry if I don't make too much sense.

 

[Snowflakez]

Multiplayer is a love-hate mode because in the majority of time you meet elitists, trolls that ruin the atmosphere.
What I am more interested is the Co-op aspect.
I don't want to feel useless or like a npc when I join and help a host. I want my actions and presence to matter. Not be there like an auxiliary thing.

The conversation choices should be made by the host if there are any, but the other triggers in the mission should take into account the other players skills/reputation too.
For example: the host goes to a npc to start an extraction mission that requires hostages to be saved. If the host is joined by a netrunner, and a player that can heal(forgot the role name) the mission should have objectives for the other two roles.
The end rewards should receive a bonus because of the actions done by all the players.

Why I mean by being useless in a co-op mission. In GW2 when you join a host in his/her story mission you have no saying in that story, you are just a player helping killing enemies. At the end the mission asks you if you want to save the progression made to your personal story.
Of course the story in that game is identical to everyone.

The point I wanted to make is that I want all the players feel like a team not like one host plus the npc.

Sorry if I don't make too much sense.

The problem then is that you're developing a coop game, which CP2077 is not. I like the idea of other players having an impact on the story and the like, but that requires a completely different development approach than developing for one isolated player - which is why I suggested other players being there just for "radiant" content, content that doesn't necessarily have any story or side quest impact.

If you want to be a part of the story in a coop session, you just go play in your singleplayer world. That's pretty much the only way I see it working with the game being singleplayer.

 

[BjornTheBandit]

Multiplayer is a love-hate mode because in the majority of time you meet elitists, trolls that ruin the atmosphere.
What I am more interested is the Co-op aspect.
I don't want to feel useless or like a npc when I join and help a host. I want my actions and presence to matter. Not be there like an auxiliary thing.

My friend, we are on the same wavelength. Anybody ever try the co-op for Fable 2?

I also don't want to be tethered to the host, I want to be able to be on complete opposite sides of the map if needed. Also Fable 2 co-op.

Did I mention Fable 2 co-op was awful?

 

[Guest 4149880]

Multiplayer is a love-hate mode because in the majority of time you meet elitists, trolls that ruin the atmosphere.

I agree and I think everyone is going to pull ideas from their best and worst multiplayer experiences and might want to see those implemented into 2077. But I also think its a lot of the developers' fault for building their MP games to allow for such ridiculous trolling that it spreads like a wildfire.

No game is troll proof but some games have a pretty good handle on it. I think it comes down to gameplay features and balance. Yes some players simply get trolled easily because they might lack knowledge and skill within the game but it can also come from faulty or unnecessary features or over powered items and weapons that a mass of players lean towards simply because its power doesn't match its accessibility.

A lot of us are basing our ideas on existing MP games but I don't think that's wise because when is the last time there has been a AAA Cyberpunk game based on a PnP. I think its a unique game that's going to have to take some extra effort with unique ideas to make it work unlike what's been done before.