Scaling: Enemies, Loot and Quests in Cyberpunk

[Suhiira]

I honestly don't see the problem... If they stick to pen and paper skill and stat instead adding pointless stuff that have no room in cyberpunk like XP and level you can do a perfectly believable world avoiding gamey things like level scaling...

Situational context are the key...

Yep, too many open world games seem to think they have to tailor the world to fit the character because of course you need to be able to do anything ant any time ... right?
WRONG !
You should have the opportunity to anything your character is skilled enough to do.

The last place I need more politically correct affirmative action is in my games. I don't need my ego stroked so I feel good when I can do what I want even tho I'm not skilled/qualified to do it. I play games for fun and for a challenge, overcoming challenges is the whole point, if you make the game such that I don't have any ... or they're carefully crafted not to be "too challenging" you're not doing me a service. You're basically telling me hard work and planning don't matter because we'll give you want you want even without it.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Yep, too many open world games seem to think they have to tailor the world to fit the character because of course you need to be able to do anything ant any time ... right?

The game should just let the player figure it out. Wether he's off the deep end or not, where the the opportunities/challenges lie and how able he is to tackle them with his current character. No pampering, no scaling. And that isn't bordered to combat and loot. One thing seemingly missing from games like these nowadays is making the player think for himself. It's more of a guided and cushioned tour with an occasional obstacle in the form of HP or armor bloated enemy.

 

[Suhiira]

It's more of a guided and cushioned tour with an occasional obstacle in the form of HP or armor bloated enemy.

Very much so.

Most players aren't going to rage quit because they can't beat something the first time they see it, they'll try again, or go elsewhere and gain some skills/equipment then come back later and try again.

 

[tropit9]

just wanted to add i love new game plus feature in games, and hopefully, this one will has it. if so i hope that there will no ng+ redandent skils ile in the witcher 3 taht makes them nigh usless in ng+. i know this is vastly different but my hope is that such skills will not exist and/or would be handeld better than in witcher 3. also most of what postmaker says +1 to him, very cool and good ideas.

 

[NewVigiL]

One of biggest problems in Witcher, ( as I've seen people complain about), was how they handled these three in open world format. Now, there are no ideal solutions to this, but to me just scaling this to player level is less a design decision and more of a lazy work around.

What I don't want to see:

Enemies in underwear absorbing ridiculous amount of gunfire because they have a floating skull above their heads.

Open world games are centered around immersion and player should be able to ascertain enemy threat just by their visual design. The higher enemy level is: the better their equipment, they are more heavily armored, they have more "aggressive coloring"/posture/dialogue lines.

Loot: Should be on the same level as the risk to obtain it. If the player gains something a few levels more powerful than he is, then: Let him.

Please no more of : "You cannot equip item x , because you're not level y".

So many items turned out useless, because of this senseless, arbitrary restriction. In my opinion, Dark Souls has the best approach to this with stat scaling, keeping top quality gear in check with player progression.

If the player is not strong/skilled enough, there should be visual feedback indicating this...melee weapons swing slower, guns affected by less steady aim, etc. But it should still be usable.

Also less, but hand placed loot is a superior option than overwhelming amount of randomly generated one. When it comes to second option, it always gets out of control, clutters the inventory and ruins the economy/game balance.

Quests:

No more of "recommended level for quest x"...they should give a set amount of experience, like with loot, that's apropriate to it's difficulty. From direct dialogue with characters, Journal entries, Environment storytelling: all should indicate this.

Dude you hit the nail on this one. I agree 100 percent and would love to see this incorporated. I'm gonna guess, the quests will be very similar in terms of design to Witcher 3 unfortunately, (alright sneak into arasaka and steal blueprints) recommended level 35 you're level 10 it's tougher because the random security guards are bullet sponges and they're basic assault rifles do triple damage per bullet come back later please. I feel ya....

 

[darcler]

I think the core problem lies in designing the gameplay loop itself. You start with a sprawling city and fill it with interesting locations. To get to those locations you have to travel, but travelling and just watching your character moving forward for several minutes would be boring, especially if done multiple times in succession. So what do you do? You put in mobs, just to give player something to do to break the monotony. But this has its own implications. If the combat is ruthless and unforgiving, and player is unprepared, he will most likely die and loose some (perhaps a lot) of progress. This can be fun, but it can also quickly turn to frustration.

But let's assume the mob is just about right for the player. Even if you have mobs, i.e. whole groups of enemies, the balance of power should be roughly equal between both sides. This means that the player (i.e. one character, his avatar) should be able to defeat a whole group of NPCs. Which means, of course, that the PC will be so much stronger than any one given NPC in the group. But why, though? Where would his advantage come from, what would make him so much more powerful than a random thug? Better skills? Equipment? Temporary boosts? Everything contributes, but in open world the devs can't predict their configuration, thus problems with balancing. The more variables, the more unpredictable the result, hence balancing issues.

But let's go even further. Let's assume the encountered mob has, say, 5 people. If the encounter is just about right for the player and his current setup, this would mean that:

1 PC >= 5 NPC

But, but, but - there are enemies in the city whom the player cannot yet beat, because they're just so awesome. A thug from another mob encountered earlier one-shotted the player on the spot. This would mean that:

1 thug > 1 PC >= 5 NPC

So the high-level thug is probably several times stronger than the whole low-level mob. And as the game progresses, and as enemies scale - either with the player or because they are deliberately created so in certain areas - the power of characters rises not simply by some arbitrary percentage, but by constant multiplication - to exorbitant levels.

As a way of escaping this level-loop I propose slowing the game down by having combat situations small and far between. Each encounter should be a big deal, something to be almost celebrated, and not an annoying nuisance like those hordes of wolves, drowners or bandits in TW3. Gangs should clearly mark their territories, so that player would know when he's entering dangerous grounds and would have the opportunity to prepare. But when he does, the combat should indeed be tough enough to provide a relatively short yet intense deluge of emotions, something that would be remembered afterwards.

Plus if we don't have throngs of enemies to defeat, we won't be collecting as much loot, breaking the economy in the process.

The question is with what to fill the inevitable times of transition between places. Frankly, I don't really have any ready ideas. My hope is that there will be vehicles in the game, so that transit times will be shorter and chances of random encounters will drop.

 

[Suhiira]

As a way of escaping this level-loop I propose slowing the game down by having combat situations small and far between. Each encounter should be a big deal, something to be almost celebrated, and not an annoying nuisance like those hordes of wolves, drowners or bandits in TW3. Gangs should clearly mark their territories, so that player would know when he's entering dangerous grounds and would have the opportunity to prepare. But when he does, the combat should indeed be tough enough to provide a relatively short yet intense deluge of emotions, something that would be remembered afterwards.

It's not so much "slowing down" the game as not designing it as an "action" game.
While a good many game players enjoy the non-stop thrills of an "action" game they also expect to be able to beat almost all situations as they encounter them. In a non-action game there are situations you can't beat anytime soon, or at all. Unbeatable situations can't exist in an "action" game. Non-stop encounters detract from a non-action game because they are essentially meaningless as they exist solely to provide "action".

 

[Sardukhar]

Unbeatable situations can't exist in an "action" game. Non-stop encounters detract from a non-action game because they are essentially meaningless as they exist solely to provide "action".

OOoh. This is a very good point. Can't have an unfightable challenge in a shooter/sworder. Have to always be able to shoot your way through.

Really waters down the depth of the game mechanisms.

 

[darcler]

It's not so much "slowing down" the game as not designing it as an "action" game.

That was my somewhat veiled point, thanks for claryfying

Still action bits are the most obvious and possibly simplest way of filling the map with Things To Do. While it may be fun to just hit the road and explore, when you'll be going the same way for the sixteenth time with nothing to amuse you on the way, it'll quickly become a chore. Not that fighting for the hundred time with another bunch of the same enemies is particularity amusing as well...