No way, were you that guy that talks like a Hippy out of a 70's/60's flick?
2 or 4 player coop would be neat.
Is no must though. If the story is great then Sp alone is also okay. See Deus Ex or similar games (they also didn't need mp)
Is no must though. If the story is great then Sp alone is also okay. See Deus Ex or similar games (they also didn't need mp)
The thing is that even the most basic netcode to get reasonably synced and stable multiplayer functionalities up and running would probably eat up quite a bit of development resources.
Development resources I'd rather see put into making the definitive Cyberpunk RPG singleplayer experience even Deus Ex (2000) couldn't hold a candle to.
Development resources I'd rather see put into making the definitive Cyberpunk RPG singleplayer experience even Deus Ex (2000) couldn't hold a candle to.
Very interesting blog entry on competitiveness and cooperation.
In short: long term benefits from cooperation should outweight short term benefits from competition as long term competition generates loss over time. So you might get away once, but as people will know this your strategy should stop being as profitable and gets more risky (because you can run into people you crossed and act of betrayal will provoke retaliation) while cooperation will breed cooperation. Question is then, how make cooperation more beneficial over competition. Perhaps not being able to complete more complex missions (as no one can have all the skills)?
In short: long term benefits from cooperation should outweight short term benefits from competition as long term competition generates loss over time. So you might get away once, but as people will know this your strategy should stop being as profitable and gets more risky (because you can run into people you crossed and act of betrayal will provoke retaliation) while cooperation will breed cooperation. Question is then, how make cooperation more beneficial over competition. Perhaps not being able to complete more complex missions (as no one can have all the skills)?
Last edited:
Not just skills but no one can pay attention to too many things at once.
Say you have to hack an isolated (i.e. not connected to the net) puter after infiltrating your target location, who's gonna guard your body?
Can you drive and shoot at the same time?
Do you really want to walk into a combat zone without someone to watch your back?
Say you have to hack an isolated (i.e. not connected to the net) puter after infiltrating your target location, who's gonna guard your body?
Can you drive and shoot at the same time?
Do you really want to walk into a combat zone without someone to watch your back?
If you want to promote cooperation, it's simple:
Give them something for being a good boy.
Otherwise, if they can shoot you dead and steal your things, they won't think much and shoot you on sight.
Just look how games like Day Z, etc... are running, most people will prefer to shoot you more than help you.
The only time you'll join forces is when a bigger threat is upon a few players, they'll have to be united to fight back.
Anyway, Coop & Competition are two totaly different things, in Coop, you focus on your allies strenght "What can he give me?"
In Competiition you focus on his flaws "Where do I have to hit so he bite the dust?", it's two totally different mindsets.
I'm looking for both in CP77 if there is a real multiplayer, if the game is well balanced it could be pretty interesting.
Give them something for being a good boy.
Otherwise, if they can shoot you dead and steal your things, they won't think much and shoot you on sight.
Just look how games like Day Z, etc... are running, most people will prefer to shoot you more than help you.
The only time you'll join forces is when a bigger threat is upon a few players, they'll have to be united to fight back.
Anyway, Coop & Competition are two totaly different things, in Coop, you focus on your allies strenght "What can he give me?"
In Competiition you focus on his flaws "Where do I have to hit so he bite the dust?", it's two totally different mindsets.
I'm looking for both in CP77 if there is a real multiplayer, if the game is well balanced it could be pretty interesting.
@Suhiira
If such basic things would require a team then the game becomes primairly a multiplayer experience and consensus is that CDPR is not aiming at multiplayer experience at cost of singleplayer.
@Maelcom404
Rewarding cooperation more than competition was not questioned to begin with. The question was in what way cooperation can be rewarded so that long term benefits will promote cooperation over competition. That's why Day Z is on kill-on-sight loop right now: there are no long term benefits to cooperation and as such everyone defaults to killing people on sight as there is no reason not to.
If such basic things would require a team then the game becomes primairly a multiplayer experience and consensus is that CDPR is not aiming at multiplayer experience at cost of singleplayer.
@Maelcom404
Rewarding cooperation more than competition was not questioned to begin with. The question was in what way cooperation can be rewarded so that long term benefits will promote cooperation over competition. That's why Day Z is on kill-on-sight loop right now: there are no long term benefits to cooperation and as such everyone defaults to killing people on sight as there is no reason not to.
Having not played Day-Z, I wouldn't know, but I figure a clan who plays together regularly would have an advantage over the random stragglers and gankers?
Well, the thign about us deciding what is or isn't at the cost of single or multiplayer is that really, we don't have much idea. We don't know how CDPR is allocating resources, we don't know what it takes to create a AAA video game and we don't knwo where the biggest pitfalls are. I honestly have no clue if devoting reesources towards a solid multiplayer would reduce SP in any way, although that would seem to follow from a limited resource economic model. Game creation isn't just aout economics, though - art and technique play a big part, too.
As for DayZ...sigh. Isn't that disappointing? I still think ti could be repaired, back to how it was...
Huge. Takes cooperation and time, though - most players aren't in such a clan. Also, to a point, kindof ruins the Lonely Survivor effect DayZ is so good at getting you to feel.
One of the reasons (the other being its FPS) I don't play Day Z, in spite of it looking very interesting.
I dont really want a multiplayer or coop.
Like the Witcher series, this game could benefit from the funds they would have spent on the multiplayer in the single player.
Like the Witcher series, this game could benefit from the funds they would have spent on the multiplayer in the single player.
DayZ's problem can be a result of people not having strong enough reason to prioritize cooperation over competition.
You don't need skills to manufacture goods like food, ammo or vehicles. You can find it all in large quantities on your own and once you're stocked there is little else to do besides survival (which in current state means you have to be good at avoiding people or killing them). Now, if you'd require a farmer to grow food, a group to fend off zombies and bandits (or scavenge for supplies), a mechanic to repair vehicles (shortening distances, increasing carrying capacity, etc.) or a handyman to produce ammo out of components (or doctor to make bandages) that'd provide stronger incentives to cooperate.
At same time reducing the amount of food, ammo and firearms, and increasing zombies' "power" could help discouraging people from doing something stupid. Fewer firearms around mean zombies are more dangerous as you need to either avoid them or get your hands dirty. There are blood transfusions that help with infections, but you can't do them on your own. You wouldn't want to lose precious ammo on stupid zombies if there is no need. Fewer firearms mean less trigger-happy bandits who can't kill you with impunity firearms give and their rarity could be another reason to play it safer than "shoot-them-all". Less food around could make some people become bandits, but it also could serve as another reason to start forming a civilization of sorts.
You don't need skills to manufacture goods like food, ammo or vehicles. You can find it all in large quantities on your own and once you're stocked there is little else to do besides survival (which in current state means you have to be good at avoiding people or killing them). Now, if you'd require a farmer to grow food, a group to fend off zombies and bandits (or scavenge for supplies), a mechanic to repair vehicles (shortening distances, increasing carrying capacity, etc.) or a handyman to produce ammo out of components (or doctor to make bandages) that'd provide stronger incentives to cooperate.
At same time reducing the amount of food, ammo and firearms, and increasing zombies' "power" could help discouraging people from doing something stupid. Fewer firearms around mean zombies are more dangerous as you need to either avoid them or get your hands dirty. There are blood transfusions that help with infections, but you can't do them on your own. You wouldn't want to lose precious ammo on stupid zombies if there is no need. Fewer firearms mean less trigger-happy bandits who can't kill you with impunity firearms give and their rarity could be another reason to play it safer than "shoot-them-all". Less food around could make some people become bandits, but it also could serve as another reason to start forming a civilization of sorts.
It would be awesome to have a big Cyberpunk cooperation game to play with friends, but I doubt it's going to happen. They want to do the best RPGs they can for solo experience, they said it a lot of times already but maybe after the witcher 3 and the success of Dragon Age Inquisition Multiplayer, they will want to give it a try. Anyway, multiplayer or only single player game, I will defininitely buy Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, in 2016 or 2017.
Two major factors are involved in multi-player aren't even a concern in single-player.
1 - Networking code, need to make sure everyone sees the same things and information at the same time.
2 - Balance issues, while there's no need for a class-to-class, skill-to-skill, weapon-to-weapon balance the OVERALL effect has to insure no one class/skill/weapon is so under/overpowered it ruins play balance.
This is why MMOs require constant tweaking, and the good ones get it monthly or even weekly.
Thus adding multi-player requires significant amounts of time/talent/money.
And unless all three are unlimited single-player must suffer because of this division of resources.
Huh?
The only thing it's succeeding at is making EA (and Bioware) a bit more money. Only a very small number of people (compared to the number of DA players overall) even mess with multi-player beyond a one-time "see what it's all about" run.
Like most similar games it's VERY repetitive and requires HUGE amounts of time doing the same thing over-an-over-an-over to "win", thus hard core players spend real $. Are there enough of these to pay for the time/effort invested to create it? Probably in the long run, but certainly they're not seeing any return on their investment yet (the game hasn't been out long enough).
Last edited:
Well. Balance is actually pretty important in Single Player. That overall effect is not easy to achieve. Witness DAI and the Knight Enchanter. Fire Mine + a couple other spells and you are looking at 14,000 damage on Nightmare. I had fun, but it aboslutely reduced my enjoyment of the last thrid of the game. Sure, I could have stopped using them - and I did mess around with other spells and characters - but I also could have played with one eye shut or in no armour or whatever. I have fun by overcoming the game challenges with the available game mechanics.
Thus, single player balance is pretttty important.
Although I agree that single player probalby suffers from resoure allocation, there are a couple things to consider: 1) resources aren't a magic pool. You have so many for one thing, so many for another. If your single player team says they are fine and things look great and you have money, hire a multiplayer team. You know you cannot just throw money at something to make it successful, so if the SP is coming along as you like it, rather than play tag with SP feature creep, consider other, separate areas of the game your resources could go to that wouldn't affect single player.
Like T shirts!
Which leads me to part 2 of this long winded thingy: features. IF your SP is coming along nicely AND you're sure it will make your SP audience happy, ( and you'd know, it's your business and you're good at it), why not also try to attract the multiplayer audience? As well as people like myself who enjoy both?
GAME balance is necessary in both single and multi-player (and obviously F'd up in DA:I).
PLAYER balance isn't an issue in single-player.
As you've noted with DA:I rarely does a game "get it all right" when first released. If for no other reason then QA only has so much time to devote to testing, and their main concern is "does it work at all" not "if I combine X+Y+Z then I get XYZ[SUP]4[/SUP]".
500,000 players however will find such "bugs" FAST.
Last edited:
I agree, in some game you can be overpowered over some kind of NPC, it's not really a big deal if the difficulty of the game is itself balanced (less powered npc, but a lot more of them, as an example)
In multiplayer, if you don't balance everything, it easily can be broken, just like a lot of people use snipers in FPS as a "standar" rifle, just because it one-shot you (less skill needed), when you have to give a clean shot to kill with every other weapons.
Even when it comes to hand-to-hand, if some character have an unbalanced technic / combo, if you can't counter it, this is how you break a game.
spamming the same move / combo over and over isn't what I call "balance" or "having fun", there need to be a challenge, but a balanced one, you're supposed to be able to beat every other character / class / role with anyone you'll choose, and in a lot of game, you have one or two "good" class/character, and a lot of crappy one to fill the blank.
lol.
Nothing wrong with using a sniper rifle as a main rifle.
In terms of balance, KISS rules apply.
Nothing wrong with using a sniper rifle as a main rifle.
In terms of balance, KISS rules apply.