Please accommodate both specialists and generalist builds

[fridgeband]

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.

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: Jul 21, 2019

And still you suggested slot machine mechanics... weird!

Can you provide a shorter and more clear example? I'm not grasping anything you're saying I don't see where what I said connects to what you are saying in your reply to what I said. Sorry, I gave it a very good try.

[Edited -- SigilFey]

 

[Snowflakez]

Muff.... Draco.... SNOWFLAKES YOU ARE DRACONIFORS?

Hah, no, sorry. You are maybe joking, but just to be clear, I was saying Muff is Draconifors. They changed their name a while back and I refuse to call them by the new one.

 

[Atalvyr]

The original Deus Ex in particular. Here the hacking options you got increased in difficulty towards the endgame in order to challenge those specializing in that. This meant that if you were only Trained or even Advanced, you would be out of luck when everything required Master level hacking after a certain point in the game. Likewise with the lockpicking skill for doors.

It is an extremely common concern in PnP. If you have a group with 1 combat monster, 2 ultra specialist and 1 generalist, it becomes hard for the DM to craft an encounter that will fit the group (for CP2077, think of the group as 4 different V's). If they try to challenge the combat focused character, the enemies will crush the non-combat characters in short order. If they let the ultra specialists do their thing, no one except a master of the skill can really contribute and if they craft a challenge requiring a moderate level of skill for the generalist to tackle, odds are that the challenge will be completely trivial to one of the hyper specialized characters.

In PnP, the solution to this is often to either let everyone cookie-cutter their characters for fun and profit, or enforce some level of "generalization" for all characters by requiring them to have side-skills not related to their main specialty and limiting how deep they can go in their main area of focus. For CP2077, the best solution is probably to allow "partial-success", where you get some benefit from having some of the skill required for the hacking path, but not having enough to complete the encounter fully via hacking. Likewise for the other skills; if you are good enough at sneaking that you can get inside the building unnoticed, hacking will be easier than trying to breach the network from the outside.

 

[laramshe]

Can you provide a shorter and more clear example? I'm not grasping anything you're saying I don't see where what I said connects to what you are saying in your reply to what I said. Sorry, I gave it a very good try.

I admit, I overdid it with my reply and got a little off the rails, I'll try again.

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.

So, I think games where tasks mostly depend on in game characters skills, need the most balancing, because of lots of numbers. Devs need to balance the multipliers (for weapon damages, and such) to ensure, no build has an unintended advantage over the other.
The biggest issue, in my opinion, are hard skill checks. Meaning, a chest needs "Lock Picking: 10+", any player below that just gets a disappointing message akin to "You're lock picking is to low!". This is especially disappointing, when the player tries to go for a thief build, but is forced towards a different build due to unbalanced game mechanics. I've seen this a couple of times, RPG's that forced the player into a combat build, because of unbalanced enemies.

Older RPG's, like Baldur's Gate or Fallout I & II, accounted for that with actual skill checks.
Basically the game, you could say "rolled the dices" in the background. This gave the advantage, that even a character with "Lock Picking: 1" could possibly pick a high level lock. Instead of a "You're lock picking is too low!", the player either gets "Lock picking failed!" or "Lock picking succeeded!". The biggest benefit of this in my opinion is, that the player is free to try basically anything in the game, and is not restricted by "You're Skill is too low!".
It also makes it much less disappointing, when the game is somewhat unbalanced and partially forces one into a different build.

With Cyberpunk 2077 looking more action oriented and dynamic (in hard contrast to slow, turn based combat), I thought of player input as well. I remember Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and 4 included mini-games for lock picking and hacking. Basically combining the in game characters skills, with the players RL skill as requirement for success. Meaning, higher character skills made mini-games (for hacking/lock picking) easier for the player to solve.
I liked that a lot, because I as a player, had the feeling that success heavily depended on me, and not just entirely on the characters skills. I would like to see something like that in Cyberpunk as well.

It still got a little lengthy... sorry, I tried my best

 

[Snowflakez]

I admit, I overdid it with my reply and got a little off the rails, I'll try again.

So, I think games where tasks mostly depend on in game characters skills, need the most balancing, because of lots of numbers. Devs need to balance the multipliers (for weapon damages, and such) to ensure, no build has an unintended advantage over the other.
The biggest issue, in my opinion, are hard skill checks. Meaning, a chest needs "Lock Picking: 10+", any player below that just gets a disappointing message akin to "You're lock picking is to low!". This is especially disappointing, when the player tries to go for a thief build, but is forced towards a different build due to unbalanced game mechanics. I've seen this a couple of times, RPG's that forced the player into a combat build, because of unbalanced enemies.

Older RPG's, like Baldur's Gate or Fallout I & II, accounted for that with actual skill checks.
Basically the game, you could say "rolled the dices" in the background. This gave the advantage, that even a character with "Lock Picking: 1" could possibly pick a high level lock. Instead of a "You're lock picking is too low!", the player either gets "Lock picking failed!" or "Lock picking succeeded!". The biggest benefit of this in my opinion is, that the player is free to try basically anything in the game, and is not restricted by "You're Skill is too low!".
It also makes it much less disappointing, when the game is somewhat unbalanced and partially forces one into a different build.

With Cyberpunk 2077 looking more action oriented and dynamic (in hard contrast to slow, turn based combat), I thought of player input as well. I remember Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and 4 included mini-games for lock picking and hacking. Basically combining the in game characters skills, with the players RL skill as requirement for success. Meaning, higher character skills made mini-games (for hacking/lock picking) easier for the player to solve.
I liked that a lot, because I as a player, had the feeling that success heavily depended on me, and not just entirely on the characters skills. I would like to see something like that in Cyberpunk as well.

It still got a little lengthy... sorry, I tried my best

I'm 100% behind semi RNG-based skill checks, but these days, the average gamer does not enjoy them in the slightest. It's seen as outdated, unnecessary, frustrating, etc., because it means (unless you have a stupidly, possibly impossibly high skill level) that even an experienced character can fail at something.

 

[laramshe]

I'm 100% behind semi RNG-based skill checks, but these days, the average gamer does not enjoy them in the slightest. It's seen as outdated, unnecessary, frustrating, etc., because it means (unless you have a stupidly, possibly impossibly high skill level) that even an experienced character can fail at something.

Or the other way around, that even an untrained, inexperienced, level 1 noob character could succeed in anything. I think in Fallout 3, New Vegas, Oblivion, possibly Skyrim too, the player could succeed in dialog checks by pure luck...
...or constant reloading to get infinite retries. And I am guilty of that, like a kid with the hand in the cookie jar.

 

[fridgeband]

I admit, I overdid it with my reply and got a little off the rails, I'll try again.

So, I think games where tasks mostly depend on in game characters skills, need the most balancing, because of lots of numbers. Devs need to balance the multipliers (for weapon damages, and such) to ensure, no build has an unintended advantage over the other.
The biggest issue, in my opinion, are hard skill checks. Meaning, a chest needs "Lock Picking: 10+", any player below that just gets a disappointing message akin to "You're lock picking is to low!". This is especially disappointing, when the player tries to go for a thief build, but is forced towards a different build due to unbalanced game mechanics. I've seen this a couple of times, RPG's that forced the player into a combat build, because of unbalanced enemies.

Older RPG's, like Baldur's Gate or Fallout I & II, accounted for that with actual skill checks.
Basically the game, you could say "rolled the dices" in the background. This gave the advantage, that even a character with "Lock Picking: 1" could possibly pick a high level lock. Instead of a "You're lock picking is too low!", the player either gets "Lock picking failed!" or "Lock picking succeeded!". The biggest benefit of this in my opinion is, that the player is free to try basically anything in the game, and is not restricted by "You're Skill is too low!".
It also makes it much less disappointing, when the game is somewhat unbalanced and partially forces one into a different build.

With Cyberpunk 2077 looking more action oriented and dynamic (in hard contrast to slow, turn based combat), I thought of player input as well. I remember Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and 4 included mini-games for lock picking and hacking. Basically combining the in game characters skills, with the players RL skill as requirement for success. Meaning, higher character skills made mini-games (for hacking/lock picking) easier for the player to solve.
I liked that a lot, because I as a player, had the feeling that success heavily depended on me, and not just entirely on the characters skills. I would like to see something like that in Cyberpunk as well.

It still got a little lengthy... sorry, I tried my best

I'm sorry my brain still melted. I don't know why I fail to grasp it. I'm sorry Thank you for your trying though. srry.

Post automatically merged: Jul 29, 2019

I'm 100% behind semi RNG-based skill checks, but these days, the average gamer does not enjoy them in the slightest. It's seen as outdated, unnecessary, frustrating, etc., because it means (unless you have a stupidly, possibly impossibly high skill level) that even an experienced character can fail at something.

This I understood and fully agree with. I could grasp this. Yea.
I mean like I agree with this part

these days, the average gamer does not enjoy them in the slightest. It's seen as outdated, unnecessary, frustrating, etc., because it means (unless you have a stupidly, possibly impossibly high skill level) that even an experienced character can fail at something.

 

[laramshe]

I'm sorry my brain still melted. I don't know why I fail to grasp it. I'm sorry Thank you for your trying though. srry.

Give me one last chance... maybe some visual aid helps. It also bugs me, that I failed to explain this in an easier way

This is lock-picking from Divinity: Original Sin 2, it's right at the beginning...

Spoiler: D:OS2

...the player just clicks on "Pick Lock" and the player is not needed to do anything further. The game just does a skill check, and that's it.

This is lock-picking from "Skyrim"...

Spoiler: Skyrim

...here the player actually has to do something, a little mini-game so to speak. It doesn't just depend on a skill check.

My suggestion was, to use something like Skyrim, and have skills determine how hard/easy the mini-game will be, like this:
- Low lock picking skill, mini-game will be harder.
- High lock picking skill, mini-game will be easier.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I'm sorry my brain still melted. I don't know why I fail to grasp it.

I think the easiest way to explain it would be pointing to older, isometric RPG combat. You were in control of selecting characters, picking targets and asking the character to perform an action. If it was, say, a Fighter character you would select the character and give them a target to attack. From there the game assumes control, your character moves to the target, a series of attack animations run on a loop and the consequences of the combat boiled down to simplified background math.

Laramshe is saying it is preferable to avoid this style of game play. It's not very interactive. The player makes choices and is then relegated to an observer while the results are determined. From the standpoint of feeling like you're "in" the moment I can fully understand his/her perspective. This type of game play can conflict with that feeling.

I think the tricky part with an RPG, particularly with mini-games, is getting the right formula. Designing it in a way where the player is interacting with the game world while performing actions but their successes and failures are appropriately modeled by the character proficiency with those actions. The character strengths and weaknesses should matter when performing actions. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of having character attributes.

I'm sure die-hard RPG fanatics would say the old style, dice roll + character modifiers systems better represented the character ability. Removing the ability of the player to influence action results was done intentionally. The core of an RPG is the player assumes the role of a character. You're playing a role. The trouble I have here is the character modifiers represented the character ability in those systems. The random dice rolls do not. Furthermore, I do not think those systems would translate well to modern gaming (a point Laramshe also mentioned).

Basically, I agree with him/her. Any system is an approximation of the character. I'd rather game developers go the extra mile and attempt to make the approximated component more interactive. Instead of placing it into the hands of pseudo-random dice rolls. Let the player perform actions but integrate the character strengths and weaknesses into those results appropriately. Yes, some players might be able to succeed where others could not. As long as the character attributes have an appropriate amount of influence on those actions it's not a huge deal breaker.

 

[laramshe]

I think the tricky part with an RPG, particularly with mini-games, is getting the right formula. Designing it in a way where the player is interacting with the game world while performing actions but their successes and failures are appropriately modeled by the character proficiency with those actions. The character strengths and weaknesses should matter when performing actions. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of having character attributes.

Actually the right formula is already there. Just look at Dark Souls. The skills are basically used as a difficulty setting, meaning as higher the skills, the easier the combat becomes. FromSoft also (at least usually...) balanced this very well with the enemies, like the player dealing more damage and has an easier time to dodge, but still must pay attention to enemies movement, learning attack patterns and spotting the right time to attack. It's a good mix of in game character skill + RL player skill.
The same can be applied to non-combat tasks like lock-picking, hacking and such.

I'm sure die-hard RPG fanatics would say the old style, dice roll + character modifiers systems better represented the character ability. Removing the ability of the player to influence action results was done intentionally. The core of an RPG is the player assumes the role of a character. You're playing a role. The trouble I have here is the character modifiers represented the character ability in those systems. The random dice rolls do not. Furthermore, I do not think those systems would translate well to modern gaming (a point Laramshe also mentioned).

I still would argue that PnP style RPG's still have their own right to exist and certainly do have an iconic flair. Plus much more fleshed out dialogues, sure, it's a lot to read from time to time, but the lack of synchronization allows for deeper dialogues.

Yes, some players might be able to succeed where others could not.

I say let them, be it for the sake of dumb luck or to reward the patience to try over and over. Just make such tasks more time consuming on lower levels, to encourage the player to look for alternative ways that suit their skills better. Aside from that, all it really needs is some context, like this:

V attempts to hack a high security lock with hacking skill 1, and succeeds due to dumb luck.
V: "Seriously...?!? 1-2-3-4...?!? Idiots!"

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

Actually the right formula is already there. Just look at Dark Souls. The skills are basically used as a difficulty setting, meaning as higher the skills, the easier the combat becomes. FromSoft also (at least usually...) balanced this very well with the enemies, like the player dealing more damage and has an easier time to dodge, but still must pay attention to enemies movement, learning attack patterns and spotting the right time to attack. It's a good mix of in game character skill + RL player skill.
The same can be applied to non-combat tasks like lock-picking, hacking and such.

Dark Soul is great game, but not a RPG, you don't have skills in Dark Souls, only skills you have is dodge and parry that are your own skills as a player, even if you focus on magic build in Dark Soul you still going to end up hiting a enemy with your weapon, and some boss and enemy are broken and op without reason.

About lock picking, hacking....... i would more like something like Divinity Original Sin 2 or Pillars and Pathfinder, you raise your skills and than you have fix number that you need like in Divinity or it is chance based like Pillars/Pathfinder, it give better feeling that your character can do that skills that he know that skills, but if hacking and lock picking is mini game than your character didn't really do nothing it is just you who solve mini puzzle.

 

[laramshe]

...but if hacking and lock picking is mini game than your character didn't really do nothing it is just you who solve mini puzzle.

That's the point!

You see, in isometric RPG's, like Divinity as example, EVERYTHING is calculated (aka: skill checks) in the background by the game. The player is only required to do some tactical choices. But attacks, dodges and stuff, are handled the same way as lock-picking, thus depending entirely on character attributes/skills, NOT on player skill.

This doesn't quite work anymore for an action-RPG like Dark Souls. And I don't even know where you got the idea, that it is not an RPG. Just type it into google and it's right there on the right side, underneath designers and developers.
Genre: Action role-playing game, Dungeon crawl Doesn't get more obvious then that, does it?
And Dark Souls has attributes quite similar to other RPG's, you know, strength, dexterity, bla-bla-bla. Raising these attributes can increase the invincibility-frames during dodging, thus making it easier to dodge. Raising attributes can also increase the damage you deal, which makes it easier to reduce enemy HP. Increasing attributes can also avoid the fat roll during blocking when wearing heavy equip. Attributes even determine weapon handling. Like when strength is to low, attacks with heavy weapons will be slower and more clunkier.
You see how character attributes benefit player skill? I'm curious what arguments could possibly exist for DS not being an RPG...

...now, in Cyberpunk 2077, combat works in a similar way, as we already have seen in last years gameplay demo. YOU will do the shooting, YOU will do the dodging, YOU will do the reloading, the double jumping, the punching, taking cover, and so on. YOU will do all the action just like in DS. Character attributes/skills will benefit YOUR skill as a player. Like increased accuracy, faster reloading, faster dodging, dealing more damage when attributes/skills get raised.

So, why should it be any different for non-combat tasks akin to lock-picking/hacking? Wouldn't that not only break consistency but also immersion? And wouldn't it be even unfair to take away control over some tasks, but not others? Like, shooting enemies requires your own skill, but lock-picking does not?

Where's the logic in that?

 

[Atalvyr]

Been a while since I chimed in on this topic, but I actually really like your point laramshe.

If combat is player skill based, with difficulty modified by character skill/equipment, then it makes sense for other parts of the game to follow the same formula. This also follows with the addition of driving to the game, where you can get a better car, but you still need to actually drive it as well.

For hacking, it looks like they are already working with some sort of "cipher" mini-game, so hopefully they can make it so that even with hacking level 1 you can attempt any hack, but solving the cipher might require a lot of luck or time (making notes on a pad) if its high level.

Not sure how you would implement something similar for engineering checks, but perhaps the Skryrim lock-picking mini-game could provide some inspiration. Perhaps something involving wires and the crossing thereof?

That leaves crafting as the only skill-dependent action without a "game" component, though that might be taking it too far. But if someone could think of something that would actually be fun, then by all means.

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

And from demo game look like any other FPS, i still wait to see is Stats impact V in any way, aim or melee dmg...., i don't like that Cool stat will limit my weapon skills or that Cool will contribute to your Aim and reload, if you are calm under presure that don't make you better sharpshooter if you never trained shooting, if any Dex or Reflex not sure how it is call in cyberpunk 2077, need to be tie to your range weapon skills and range weapon accessibility and aim, VtmB from 15 years ago have good RPG combat and system where your character skills and stats contribute in all aspect of the game.

Lock-picking in both Skyrim and Fallout is nothing special or fun, it is simple puzzle and leveling lock-picking only let you to pick high level locks, but it is same simple puzzle nothing drasticly don't change.

I don't plan to argue with you, if you think that mini games are fun and great way to do lock picking or hacking good for you.

 

[Bellator Pius Gratus]

I've yet to discover a game that I like, "difficult."
No, let me rephrase that: a game that I like is always played on highest difficulty setting because of pacing, setting, atmosphere.
So in Deus Ex I had realistic difficulty. I learned from trial and error and never once hated it.
I'm an explorer see, and Deus Ex-games reward that. With XP. Ergo, a lot of experience to place in skills.

I hope that no matter what build you opt for in Cyberpunk 2077, you'll get a rewarding experience. No matter how you play.
A hacker or non-combat character will, I guess, sneak around. But so will a combat-oriented solo such as I.
Why? Because I want to. I love to explore, and it will enhance my experince of being a careful infiltrator, no matter how combat-oriented my character is.

EDIT: What I'm saying is that no matter specialisation, I might as well dabble in uncharted territory just for the fun of it. And I shouldn't be punished for it, but neither will I have an easy time of it.

 

[Atalvyr]

i don't like that Cool stat will limit my weapon skills or that Cool will contribute to your Aim and reload, if you are calm under presure that don't make you better sharpshooter if you never trained shooting, if any Dex or Reflex not sure how it is call in cyberpunk 2077, need to be tie to your range weapon skills and range weapon accessibility and aim,

In the PnP game it was Reflex that tied to ranged weapon accuracy. I don't fully understand why it was changed to use Cool instead, but my guess is that it was to break with the PnP issue of Reflex being the only stat (besides Body) that you would focus on for combat and Cool was something you only took for RP'ing. By moving ranged weapons to Cool, they make that stat more useful. If Reflex is still tied to melee weapons and acrobatics, then it is still valuable in its own right, without having quite as much a monopoly on combat.

If it is so, it looks like it will be Body (heavy weapons + health), Reflex (movement + melee) and Cool (ranged weapons) that are your "direct" stats, with Intelligence (hacking) and Tech (engineering) as the more "indirect" stats.

 

[laramshe]

For hacking, it looks like they are already working with some sort of "cipher" mini-game,...

Well, I'm curious how this will work during combat, where hacking needs to be done "on the fly" so to speak. Pausing combat for a mini-game to pop up, would completely break the pace.

My idea would be, to apply shooting mechanics to hacking, as in: Aiming (establishing WiFi connection) at whatever you want to hack, and execute (shooting) hacking-programs at it. Hack-able devices/enemies can have firewalls with their own HP. Programs will reduce the firewalls HP, thus increasing the chance that the program will get through and causes malfunctions in the enemies cyberware/implants. Think of bullets vs armor...

The hacking skill can increase accuracy during aiming for hacking, increase damage on firewall, increase length of malfunctions, and so on. It could basically work like combat skills increasing aiming, damage, reload speed...
The programs themselves can be treated like magic spells, which become stronger/more effective as higher the hacking skill. Allowing the player to modify the programs themselves could also be a fun mechanic (I just thought of Tyranny, where magic spells could be modified with different signs...). I mean, wouldn't it be fun, to modify a program with an AOE effect, causing malfunctions in an entire group of enemies?

Well, this would be my idea for hacking "on the fly"...

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

They did say that during hacking time slow down.

 

[laramshe]

They did say that during hacking time slow down.

That doesn't say much and gives us little to nothing to imagine. I mean, does it mean, that we will do the "cypher" mini-game in the middle of combat, with time slowed down around us? It also tells us nothing about the mini-game itself, as in: How complex/complicated is it? How long will it takes us on average to solve the mini-game?

There's still a lot of room for it to break the pace of action, something one would want to avoid in an action oriented game.
That's why I am curious on how CDPR is going to handle hacking "on the fly".

 

[Shavod]

Well, I'm curious how this will work during combat, where hacking needs to be done "on the fly" so to speak. Pausing combat for a mini-game to pop up, would completely break the pace.

You do the minigame only once when breaking into the local security network, after that you unlock the option of performing quick hacks on the enemies who are connected to it.