I have to feel like I earned it. It adds to the cool factor because I was able to overcome all that dangerous stuff and actually somehow survive and even thrive in spite of it all.
I don't think you should be able to get all skills, cyberware, or abilities maxed out in a single playthrough.
The generalist vs specialist thing is a non-issue. You will be able to be a jack of all trades, but not a master of all trades. There will be a "core path" through missions that everyone can follow.
The generalist vs specialist thing is a non-issue. You will be able to be a jack of all trades, but not a master of all trades. There will be a "core path" through missions that everyone can follow.
Lol, you already know how I feel about this. I don't mind if it's optional (some sort of settings toggle, or new game+, or mods, or cheats, or whatever). I'm just re-stating my personal opinion here since it applies to the topic.
After thinking a little more about this, I noticed that it's quite difficult to balance all possible builds together with the jack-of-all-trades. Here is the problem:
1. As you already pointed out, if all builds are faced with challenging encounters, it can crush the jack-of-all-trades.
2. But, if you give the jack-of-all-traits challenging encounters, it can take away the challenge of specialized builds.
One solution would be to implement classes, that force players into a specific build from the beginning, thus completely eliminating the jack-of-all-traits. Most people (me included) wouldn't like that, because it could lock away skills. Meaning, picking or investing in skills from a different class would not be possible anymore. Like the shooter build won't be able to learn hacking, when it is only available for hacker builds. Plus, it takes away the challenge to decide for ourselves, in what skills we invest.
So, my idea will probably not please many either, yet I would suggest to use skills to increase/decrease the difficulty of player input. As example, hacking could depend entirely on a, let's say fair mini-game, maybe with a time limit. The hacking skill would just define how difficult it is and/or how much time the player has to solve it. Like:
Hacking: 1 = hard/short timer; Hacking: 50 = medium/medium timer; Hacking: 100 = easy/long timer.
Of course the level of hack-able devices must also be included, hence, as higher the devices level, as more the difficulty/time limit for the mini-game gets increased. The device level could also define if the player gets retries and how many, or how long it takes until the device is accessible again after a failed hacking attempt.
That way, a player with low hacking, might hack low level devices fairly easy, but would struggle hard with higher level devices. And a player with high hacking, would eventually be able to hack all devices fairly easy. And it wouldn't be any different from other skills. Like shooting skills, which also only make it easier (or less hard) to aim/hit enemies, but still depends entirely on player input.
Sure, all this bares the risk, that people could start complaining about it being too easy or too difficult, kinda like with Dark Souls. But no matter how high (edit: or how low) the players skills are, success would always depend on player input and in my opinion, that would be nothing less then...
...fair!
Players will complain anyway, they always do. Best thing is to innovate level ups, make them so exciting and interesting, they dont even think classes or exploration, get them hooked on something new. Yeah, distract them. Ive also suggested "excitement boost" to CDPR to bring up the excitement lvl, ooor, they can keep beating the dead horse.
Level up innovation = Game what tracks what you do, then gives you stuff based on that. I think this would be pretty nice, before you lvl up, you want to do something in order to get what you want, yeah kinda you need to think ahead.
Exicement boost = Basically "event concept with a twist", somekind of event start and theres timer, should boost player excitement a bit, like some celeb for example. Celebrity Event? Definitely first one in game industry.
Last edited:
I know I'm just trying to make you laugh, because I'm projecting my frustration and sadness upon you so that I can try to make you laugh and make you feel better, when really it is I that hope someone makes me feel better. An attempt to Compensate in order to Cope. *sigh* Peace, and please have good day
Post automatically merged:
I think the biggest issue with balance in all video games I have ever played was the very fact that balance was ever attempted to be implemented in the first place. To me, All balance is overbalance, and overbalance creates a more limiting environment for the player to experience, which only ever results in a drastic loss of enjoyment in the end, with no real notable benefits.
All and any balance = overbalance = everything is equally "balanced" = everything is equally "nerfed" or limited = everything is a very mediocre and weak or limited/restricted/uninteresting choice = everything is a non-fun choice = no fun
I believe that No balance at all, = everything is powerful = Everything is overpowered = Everything is very fun = Everything is a Good and Fun choice = just simply fun
Just my opinion.
Last edited:
I understand. We've all got some things we're trying to cope with when it comes to this game.I know I'm just trying to make you laugh, because I'm projecting my frustration and sadness upon you so that I can try to make you laugh and make you feel better, when really it is I that hope someone makes me feel better. An attempt to Compensate in order to Cope. *sigh* Peace, and please have good day
Post automatically merged:
I think the biggest issue with balance in all video games I have ever played was the very fact that balance was ever attempted to be implemented in the first place. To me, All balance is overbalance, and overbalance creates a more limiting environment for the player to experience, which only ever results in a drastic loss of enjoyment in the end, with no real notable benefits.
All and any balance = overbalance = everything is equally "balanced" = everything is equally "nerfed" or limited = everything is a very mediocre and weak or limited/restricted/uninteresting choice = everything is a non-fun choice = no fun
I believe that No balance at all, = everything is powerful = Everything is overpowered = Everything is very fun = Everything is a Good and Fun choice = just simply fun
Just my opinion.
Why can't there be other good Cyberpunk games on the horizon?! Why must we put all our (often unreasonable) hopes and dreams into this one blasted project?
It'll be good no matter what. Here's hoping you get your wish.
I think perfectly balanced is boring, probably why Ive never gotten into MOBAS etc. Overpowered is fun, just keep them coming kind of game, or then be underdog and you need to use your own skills to struggle it through so to speak.
Ive asked Ubisoft to make one Cyberpunk game.
I understand. We've all got some things we're trying to cope with when it comes to this game.
Why can't there be other good Cyberpunk games on the horizon?! Why must we put all our (often unreasonable) hopes and dreams into this one blasted project?
It'll be good no matter what. Here's hoping you get your wish.
Ive asked Ubisoft to make one Cyberpunk game.
When did you last time play any MOBA? every new hero in MOBA is more OP then the last one
, what in other MOBA is ult in HOTS is normal spell but in many RPG by the mid game you are more or less OP.
I want to play the game on hardcore right from the start like the witcher and wondering which build would be good for it.Since the hud is completely deactivated and no markers are on the screen(Hopefully not quest markers) im wondering if the stealth route would be perfect for that.
When did you last time play any MOBA? every new hero in MOBA is more OP then the last one
I tried DOTA maybe 5 years ago.
Good game should offer all kind of stuff, sometimes you feel yourself overpowered, sometimes underdog, sometimes the fight is quite even etc. I guess what Im saying is that I want dynamic challenge/difficult lvl. Skills/builds/classes are so 90s stuff. Yeah, players should be able to sense what kind of battle its, its too much to ask?
Last edited:
That sounds all well and fine, when you plan to add microtransactions and loot-boxes, because what you just described, is the same psychological bullshit used by certain companies, to trick players into spending as much money on microtransactions as possible...
...just please keep such unethical schemes outta here!
CDPR has said no microtransactions, they leave greed to others.
From: https://screenrant.com/cyberpunk-2077-microtransactions-cd-projekt-red/
I don't know, but I think that is mostly because the player input is cut off. It's like with Baldur's Gate, or the Original Sin games to name a more current title, and it is NOT my intention to bash on these games. They're still good games.I know I'm just trying to make you laugh, because I'm projecting my frustration and sadness upon you so that I can try to make you laugh and make you feel better, when really it is I that hope someone makes me feel better. An attempt to Compensate in order to Cope. *sigh* Peace, and please have good day
Post automatically merged:
I think the biggest issue with balance in all video games I have ever played was the very fact that balance was ever attempted to be implemented in the first place. To me, All balance is overbalance, and overbalance creates a more limiting environment for the player to experience, which only ever results in a drastic loss of enjoyment in the end, with no real notable benefits.
All and any balance = overbalance = everything is equally "balanced" = everything is equally "nerfed" or limited = everything is a very mediocre and weak or limited/restricted/uninteresting choice = everything is a non-fun choice = no fun
I believe that No balance at all, = everything is powerful = Everything is overpowered = Everything is very fun = Everything is a Good and Fun choice = just simply fun
Just my opinion.
But, how much player input do these games have, aside from single clicks? Everything else, from combat or lock picking, to basically any skill that is used, usually only requires a single click. In that moment, the player barely has any influence on the outcome and just can hope that the characters skills are high enough. Basically, the player just juggles around with numbers, by assigning skill points, equipping gear to boost the numbers, and such. But when it comes to actually using the skills, then the player is left with single clicks and observing how it plays out. No further input required.
This is by no means bad, as long the game is tailored around it. These games usually pose a challenge by requiring the player to think tactical, carefully moving the characters to proper positions, deciding when to trigger a special attack for its full effect, etc, etc.
As I said, these games are by no means bad, they're just not very action oriented.
Now, in a more action oriented game, this can cause issues. Imagine Dark Souls gameplay, the player actively attacks and dodges enemies, with the skills behind it governing such things like damage numbers for attacking and invincibility durations during dodging. So, no matter how high, or low, his skills are, he will always be able to attack and dodge.
If the player would now find a locked chest, which requires a hard 8 in "Lock Picking", then the player will not only be disappointed, but might even feel cheated. It goes against what he already learned from the game, which is, actions can always be used regardless of the characters skill levels.
I hate to say it, but the elder scrolls games and newer fallout games kinda did it right. The player was, right from the beginning, free to try any lock, any terminal, as much he was free to take on any enemy, regardless of the characters skill levels. Success was a combination of character skill and player input.
The only thing they did wrong, was to allow the player to save and reload for infinite retries on the spot...
...but still, I am for allowing the players to try anything to their hearts content, right from the start, and have character skills just determine how easy/hard it will be for the player, not the character.
Post automatically merged:
And still you suggested slot machine mechanics... weird!
Last edited:
It wasnt my intention to be honest. Lots of greedy companies in game industry already.
Usually people pay attention to what they say/write to match their intentions... could be worth to give it a try.
Getting personal, and off-topic; it's time to find a safer path to follow.
I also wouldn't be annoyed that I had to take the "core path" sometimes, due to not having either hacking 8, engineering 8 or sneak 8. I would however be annoyed if my investment into level 4 in all three of those skills never gave my any type of choice but the "core path".
If that is the case, we would be better off having fixed classes like laramshe mentioned. At least that way you would not be presenting the player with a false choice.
This is a rather strange concern. Do you have any specific (modern) games in mind where you've been disappointed in this regard?