Weekly Poll 10/1/2018 - The Gunplay!

[Restlessdingo32]

I went back to the demo and looked at the main firefight. I was trying to imagine how a pause based, auto combat system would work. How often would we pause? Would we queue up actions?

One way to make it real-time is to require the player to aim but remove the need for complete accuracy. Instead of targeting a certain spot just get the crosshair on target (anywhere) and fire the weapon. From there the game takes over and determines exact shot location, hit or miss and damage inflicted from the character attributes. Allow inputs to be mapped to different target zones for more granularity (head, torso, limbs). Slap an on demand pause on top with a small action queue.

 

[Snowflakez]

I'm shocked that so many people WANT slower combat. Isn't the whole point of Cyberpunk fast and lethal gunplay?

 

[gogmeister777]

I'm shocked that so many people WANT slower combat. Isn't the whole point of Cyberpunk fast and lethal gunplay?

Yeah, I get what you mean and it does sound funny put that way but maybe it's just that those people are making more 'noise', given the demo showed us gameplay that goes against their desires? If the situation were reversed, maybe advocates of faster gunplay would be the ones speaking up more? I don't know.

I mean, according to the poll, there's almost twice as many people who want ultra fast gunplay as opposed to those who want a pause option. Then you can add options 2&3 that, combined, make 46%/57%.

In fact, although option 7 involves a lot of character skill, combat was still pretty fast and very deadly in Vampire and DEx 2000 so you can throw that number into the mix too.

Milsim isn't that fast in the typical sense, but it usually is deadly.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'm shocked that so many people WANT slower combat. Isn't the whole point of Cyberpunk fast and lethal gunplay?

"Fast" can be understood in a couple of ways here. Either "gameplay is fast" or "killing/dying is fast".

In don't think it'd really be for the better if the games combat was built for a few second skirmishes and patience to relaod and try again after every sudden death that seemingly came from nowhere (kinda like Hotline Miami).

Lethality is OK and even desireable, but the player needs to be aware of what's going on. 2020 has that because it's turnbased... as should 2077, but... yeah.

Dying should be easy (for everyone). Killing should be more difficult (again for everyone NPC's and all sorts of players alike). That doesn't require overt gameplay speed.

 

[Snowflakez]

"Fast" can be understood in a couple of ways here. Either "gameplay is fast" or "killing/dying is fast".

In don't think it'd really be for the better if the games combat was built for a few second skirmishes and patience to relaod and try again after every sudden death that seemingly came from nowhere (kinda like Hotline Miami).

Lethality is OK and even desireable, but the player needs to be aware of what's going on. 2020 has that because it's turnbased... as should 2077, but... yeah.

Dying should be easy (for everyone). Killing should be more difficult (again for everyone NPC's and all sorts of players alike). That doesn't require overt gameplay speed.

Right, I agree. I wasn't referring to hop-on-the-walls gameplay. But Borderlands is filled with bullet sponges. You just sit there and pump bullet after bullet into bosses that refuse to go down. People apparently want that here.

 

[gogmeister777]

Right, I agree. I wasn't referring to hop-on-the-walls gameplay. But Borderlands is filled with bullet sponges. You just sit there and pump bullet after bullet into bosses that refuse to go down. People apparently want that here.

Oh, I seem to have misunderstood what you meant by speed. Oops.

I've no problem with the amount of rounds an enemy can take as long as it doesn't take long. In other words, if an enemy needs 20 bullets to take down, fine, as long as I can deliver those 20 bullets quickly. Some people don't like how that seems from a realism point of view but I'm easy going about it. 3 bullets, 20, as long as it's over quick that's fine by me.

However, repeatedly shooting someone in the torso at close range with a shotgun, then needing to take cover to reload and then repeat several times over? Not so keen.

Bioshock had Leadheads and Bruisers, Mass Effect had shields, biotics and armour. It worked well but...my personal taste for this particular game would be to go with more lethality.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Right, I agree. I wasn't referring to hop-on-the-walls gameplay. But Borderlands is filled with bullet sponges. You just sit there and pump bullet after bullet into bosses that refuse to go down. People apparently want that here.

Not everyone . I'd prefer relatively lethal combat. Going with what Kofe said above, killing and dying is fast. I'd prefer slower and more... tactical game play. The main reason is bullet sponginess makes combat feel tedious and repetitive. It also destroys the immersion because you feel like you can waltz into a room against a dozen "bad guys" and completely ignore protecting yourself. There is no feeling of danger.

It doesn't have to be absolute realism. Where getting shot in the hand has a very real possibility of killing you and melee combat is more about one individual making a minuscule mistake and it's over. No, it doesn't need to be that severe. As long as the unarmored bad guy doesn't take six shots between the eyes to take down.

Obviously there are exceptions to the above. Certain cyberware might speed up the game play itself, for instance. Enemies or the player might have some form of advanced protection.

Most of this can easily be solved and appeal to a wide audience with difficulty levels and game options.

 

[Harthwain]

I'm shocked that so many people WANT slower combat. Isn't the whole point of Cyberpunk fast and lethal gunplay?

Lethal? Sure. Slower? More like "deliberate". And impactful. Both in terms of aforementioned lethality as well as in terms of making the gunplay feel like you are actually using firearms (sway, recoil, muzzle flash, sounds, etc.).

Right, I agree. I wasn't referring to hop-on-the-walls gameplay. But Borderlands is filled with bullet sponges. You just sit there and pump bullet after bullet into bosses that refuse to go down. People apparently want that here.

Do they? Because I think this was the most common complaint AGAINST the current gunplay.

 

[Suhiira]

CDPR would want turn based gunplay to be of very high quality and for that they'd have try a multitude of designs, with all the balancing, skill calculations, playtesting and endless iteration that it necessitates until it was worthy. That's a huge amount of work, this is a huge AAA game. Imho, simply making the game pause and then choosing enemies to shoot, would stick out like a sore thumb compared to the quality of the other elements of the game.

Ummm ...
The design and balancing work is already done ... CP2020/FNFF.

I went back to the demo and looked at the main firefight. I was trying to imagine how a pause based, auto combat system would work. How often would we pause? Would we queue up actions?

As often as you want ... it's a pause to allow the player to select the target for the character skills to be applied to.
You could permit actions to be queued, but it would be much easier to just default back to AI control ... and AI control already exists ... NPCs use it .. no need to reinvent the wheel. Next time you want to over-ride the AI you pause and direct the character to do something else.

Now that was just for the most basic actions. What about jumping? Double jumping? Sliding into a room and turning to blow someones legs off? Wall climbing?

What about them?
There's a pause option in combat, it's not being turned into a turn based game.

What percentage of players are going to need/enjoy this amount of pausing?

Need? Probably less then 5%, those with physical limitations that make FPS games difficult or impossible to play.
Want? Any RPG fan. How many of those there will be we can only guess.

Again what "amount" of pausing? It's not mandatory to direct the characters every action, it's an option to over-ride whatever they're doing. Say you want to run across a room, bounce off the wall, turn a summersalt, and fire at the three opponents in the room. Well ... assuming the game even allows you to bounce off a wall and turn a summersalt you just do whatever in necessary to perform those actions, and at some point in the process you pause ... select your targets ... unpause ... and the character does their thing, then you continue on.

Yes ... it really is pretty simple. You're (unintentionally) making it seem much more complex then it is.
K.I.S.S.

 

[Snowflakez]

Lethal? Sure. Slower? More like "deliberate". And impactful. Both in terms of aforementioned lethality as well as in terms of making the gunplay feel like you are actually using firearms (sway, recoil, muzzle flash, sounds, etc.).


Do they? Because I think this was the most common complaint AGAINST the current gunplay.

Yes, they do. The poll specifically mentions Mass Effect and Borderlands, and it has the most votes.

Ummm ...
The design and balancing work is already done ... CP2020/FNFF.


As often as you want ... it's a pause to allow the player to select the target for the character skills to be applied to.
You could permit actions to be queued, but it would be much easier to just default back to AI control ... and AI control already exists ... NPCs use it .. no need to reinvent the wheel. Next time you want to over-ride the AI you pause and direct the character to do something else.


What about them?
There's a pause option in combat, it's not being turned into a turn based game.


Need? Probably less then 5%, those with physical limitations that make FPS games difficult or impossible to play.
Want? Any RPG fan. How many of those there will be we can only guess.

Again what "amount" of pausing? It's not mandatory to direct the characters every action, it's an option to over-ride whatever they're doing. Say you want to run across a room, bounce off the wall, turn a summersalt, and fire at the three opponents in the room. Well ... assuming the game even allows you to bounce off a wall and turn a summersalt you just do whatever in necessary to perform those actions, and at some point in the process you pause ... select your targets ... unpause ... and the character does their thing, then you continue on.

Yes ... it really is pretty simple. You're (unintentionally) making it seem much more complex then it is.
K.I.S.S.

You know... This idea only just made sense to me now. I didn't think it could ever work, but now it seems pretty easy, actually. Basically just VATs, but not slowed down.

I quite like it, and don't think it would be terribly hard to implement. You can still run around on walls, duck behind cover, etc., but you just turn on the mode, point your camera towards the enemies, and let your character do the rest.

I really hope they do this now. And not just for your sake, it actually sounds really fun to me.

 

[ihavacoolname]

If somebody gets shot in the head or heart, and they don't have backup cybernetics to keep them functioning and don't have armor, they should die. I want realism. Same thing if I get shot. Just give me the ability to get armor, healing systems, whatever. Add in a bunch of cybernetics and abilities to spice things up--cybernetically enhanced parkour, bullet-time (fine I guess), special weapons, kinetic shields, whatever fits--the works.

I've played some competitive FPS titles and have to say that I love the mechanically intensive style of gameplay. Make the skill ceiling very high, please. You might be able to just include a difficulty setting for people like me, like "hardcore" or "realistic".

 

[Poison19]

I copied my post here.

Suddenly i have an idea. It came from my thoughts about "everyone can do 1-2 precise shots until hands start shaking". Do you guys remember sniping in most of shooters? Where when you aiming with scope, your aim shaking terribly, and you have a "hold your breath" or concentration ability which negates aim shaking. My idea is apply the basics of this mechanics to aiming in general. When the player aims at the sight, he has a few seconds of stable aiming, after this time the sight begins to tremble. The amount of time of stable aiming depends on character's skill of shooting. The strength of the shaking also depends on the shooting skill. For example you have 0,5 or 1 second of stable aiming at low level of shooting skill, which increases to 5-8 seconds at high level. At max level of shooting skill your aim is always steady (or maybe you can even get aim assist).

Now, to details. If you moving and jumping while fight your "steady aiming time" is also spends but slowly. When your "steady aim time" is ended it needs to "recharged" which you can do by standing still or sitting behind a cover. It's not a cooldown, you can use your "steady aiming time" at any time. But how many "steady aiming time" is recharged, so much is spent. When you shoot from hip, you have bullet spread, which also depends on stats.

What you think?

 

[gogmeister777]

Thanks for your reply Su

Ummm ...
The design and balancing work is already done ... CP2020/FNFF.

I thought about that when I wrote my original post but didn't comment on it specifically because it was already very long and I simply don't think it effects my main point; that it would require a large amount of work, or at least it would if it were to reach the level of engagement that I suspect CDPR would demand. Otherwise it risks feeling like some kind of hastily applied bandage, imho. Just a gut instinct.

As often as you want ... it's a pause to allow the player to select the target for the character skills to be applied to. You could permit actions to be queued, but it would be much easier to just default back to AI control

I agree. Queuing would require far more work. I mentioned it because of KofOR and because queuing is a means to less pausing. Not that pausing is inherently bad.

What about them?
There's a pause option in combat, it's not being turned into a turn based game.

I WAS referring to jumping etc, in the context of pause/unpause COMBAT, specifically if queuing were involved for people who have difficulty with 'twitch' gameplay. Moving long distances in a large area with verticality would require some kind of navigation system. I think it's quite interesting to imagine how it would work but I guess it's a moot point now since you don't seem to like the queuing idea anyway. Fair enough.

Need? Probably less then 5%, those with physical limitations that make FPS games difficult or impossible to play. Want? Any RPG fan. How many of those there will be we can only guess.

Well, I mentioned the poll results precisely because the figures do seem to hint that they are in a small minority. Which really surprised me tbh.

That's in spite of the fact that this should be one of the best places to get a far larger vote for pause gunplay. I believe you yourself mentioned in a post somewhere that there are 'a lot of old farts here who like traditional RPG combat' or words to that effect. Forgive me if I'm not remembering that correctly. My point stands regardless.

Any RPG fan? Sure. ALL RPG fans? I doubt it. After all, I'm an RPG fan but I'm not fussed. I suppose one could give me the old 'no true Scotsman' bit here. Go ahead, I can take it

So again, from CDPR's point of view, is adding pause gunplay just too niche or out of character for their video game interpretation of CP?

Again what "amount" of pausing? It's not mandatory to direct the characters every action, it's an option to over-ride whatever they're doing.

No complaint here.

Say you want to run across a room, bounce off the wall, turn a summersalt, and fire at the three opponents in the room. ...you just do whatever in necessary to perform those actions, and at some point in the process you pause ... select your targets ... unpause ...

I mentioned the more acrobatic stuff for two reasons.

1. It wouldn't be very straightforward to implement and would require quite some work I think, IF you desired it to be part of the pausing/queuing. Again, moot point now.

2. I was trying to gauge how much 'twitchy-ness' people would accept alongside pause based gunplay. I'm curious how many RPG fans who'd buy the game because it has VATS would then like to manually sprint, double jump, wall spring turn and then click pause while in the air to select three targets. Not that anyone would be forcing them to of course, but it seems CDPR feel it's part of the games dynamics/style so there's that bandage again.

Yes ... it really is pretty simple. You're (unintentionally) making it seem much more complex then it is.

Well, in fairness to both of us, there's a lot subjectivity here and that includes what would be considered complex.

The reason I listed so many permutations and tried to get into the nitty gritty, thereby possibly making it sound complicated, was simply to get an in-depth idea of precisely how you, or others, would go about pause gunplay.

The clearest way, and the most interesting possibly, would be for someone to give us a step by step run through of say... 41:10 to 41:30 of the gameplay trailer. That'd be rather pointless though if we're literally talking about a simplified VATS system with complete and unlimited pause. I just don't think CDPR would be happy with that. They'd want to innovate more, hence more work being involved. Again, only mho.

K.I.S.S.

Now, now, deary. Maybe I should take back my thanks? Besides, who's complicating things here? After all, what could be simpler for the developers than having a single combat mode where one merely points and shoots? Why, it's simplicity itself!

 

[Rawls]

Yes, they do. The poll specifically mentions Mass Effect and Borderlands, and it has the most votes.

Yeah but it depends. My vote much more heavily leaned towards Mass Effect 3 than Borderlands. Something where straight up aim as well as a more ability inspired combat style are viable. Bullet spongy-ness isn't the worst thing in the world IMO so long as it's not really over done. Having said all that, maybe something more like PUBG is more what I'm thinking. I didn't vote for it because I've never played it, but that style may be more close to what I have in mind. Chaotic but still tactical is really the "feel" I want. I do want skills to be important and so am tempted by option 7, but feel is more important than any particular mechanical feature IMO. Changing vote from 3 to 2.

 

[gogmeister777]

I copied my post here. What you think?

I think it's very interesting and very unusual/innovative.

I can see it being quite tense in so far as your 'steady-aimed-shots' (S.A.S, heh) would be really precious so you'd have to use them wisely and make them count. Nice one, I like it

The only thing I'd tweak is when your S.A.S is recharging. I wouldn't have it decrease while moving. Sprinting yes, moving no. The reason is because I personally wouldn't want to stay still or simply hide while it recharged. I find that too static, especially if enemies just hang back.

Having said that, if the enemy AI is good and they start to hunt you down then it would also add to the tension. It also wouldn't be a problem if the charging was quite fast so I suppose your way (taking cover) would then work out fine for me.

EDIT: Corrected the abbreviation from SAT, must have had a brain fart

 

[Poison19]

I think it's very interesting and very unusual/innovative.

I can see it being quite tense in so far as your 'steady-aimed-shots' (SAT, heh) would be really precious so you'd have to use them wisely and make them count. Nice one, I like it

The only thing I'd tweak is when your SAT is recharging. I wouldn't have it decrease while moving. Sprinting yes, moving no. The reason is because I personally wouldn't want to stay still or simply hide while it recharged. I find that too static, especially if enemies just hang back.

Having said that, if the enemy AI is good and they start to hunt you down then it would also add to the tension. It also wouldn't be a problem if the charging was quite fast so I suppose your way (taking cover) would then work out fine for me.

Thanks!
What i can say about recharging. Maybe recharge time can be decreased with stats, with cool for example (cool person can calm much faster than irascible one) or strenght. Maybe recharge can be just fast enough, i suggest 5-6 second to full recharge. It can be tweaked in many ways.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Not that pausing is inherently bad.

It's not inherently bad but does have drawbacks. I'm going to throw the often over-used "immersion" word into the conversation. Based on the information provided it feels safe to say it's a focal point of the game. This is to say they want the player to feel like they're in the world. Not just a part of it. Interruptions or pauses in game play have the exact opposite effect. This very well could be part of the reason turn based or pseudo turn based systems have fallen into the minority.

None of the above means pause or turn based functionality is bad. It means it's not for everyone. It's isn't at all necessary to deliver the character driven combat model certain individuals desire either. If it comes as a separate combat mode or optional feature, by all means.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'm going to throw the often over-used "immersion" word into the conversation. Based on the information provided it feels safe to say it's a focal point of the game. This is to say they want the player to feel like they're in the world. Not just a part of it.

I hate how that buzzword and how it’s been owned for all things FPP and FPS, but it’s part of the reason I keep pushing for that cyberware target lock thing (that nobody ever reads and then I get accused of just complaining without ever providing solutions or being too controversial with a desire to turn the clock back for 20+ years ).

 

[gogmeister777]

I'm going to throw the often over-used "immersion" word into the conversation...it feels safe to say it's a focal point of the game... they want the player to feel like they're in the world... Interruptions or pauses in game play have the exact opposite effect. This very well could be part of the reason turn based or pseudo turn based systems have fallen into the minority.

Good points and I think you're probably right, especially when it seems CDPR are aiming to make gunplay seem fluid, to have an ebb and flow, with a mixture of cover based cautiousness punctuated with flurries of movement.

Did you ever play Knights of the Old Republic (2003)? It was 3rd person. You'd pause, click on an enemy and then, unless you needed to change something, everything would be automated. It was quite static to look at, though at the time it was fine. Melee looked quite flashy (for the day) but the shooting looked very basic in terms of animation. In fact I'll try and stick a link in here. Never done that before so here's hoping I don't mess up and/or annoy the mods.

In FPP it might feel and look even weirder without any frills. I guess that's why in Fallout VATS would do things in slow-mo and show so many third person 'cinematic' bits.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Did you ever play Knights of the Old Republic (2003)? It was 3rd person. You'd pause, click on an enemy and then, unless you needed to change something, everything would be automated. It was quite static to look at, though at the time it was fine. Melee looked quite flashy (for the day) but the shooting looked very basic in terms of animation. In fact I'll try and stick a link in here. Never done that before so here's hoping I don't mess up and/or annoy the mods.

No, I missed that one . It is a good example of what I'd like to avoid though. It appears too much like being an observer. You're not really in the combat so much as watching it occur. Pause game, pick target, rinse/repeat. All of the substance comes into play before you reach the encounter via the character development. It's one thing to do this from isometric or 3rd person perspective when you're in control of multiple characters, with different strengths and weaknesses. It's another when you control a single character from first person perspective. It ends up feeling clumsy and non-interactive.

A VATs style system might be an improvement but, to be totally honest, it's not my cup of tea. I don't see a reason to break game play, make the player select a body part and throw fancy camera angles and animations in their face. It may be designed to amplify the game play but accomplishes the exact opposite. It's unnecessary clutter. Combat turns into a mini-game instead of game play.

This is where the earlier statement came from. Moving the crosshair over a target and pressing fire is the selection mechanism. Instead of using a VATs system with a pause and select location concept allow input mapping to specific targeting zones. To target a leg vs a head doesn't require stopping play this way. You simply press a different button after "selecting" a target. From there just add some type of display showing hit chances for different targeting zones (maybe a small hud element pops up when you have the crosshair over or near a target). Toss an on-demand pause option in for good measure so the player can slow the process down when necessary. Whether it be due to lack of ability or to better deal with critical moments.

In a nutshell, VATs in real-time with an optional pause. The only player controlled aspects would be target selection (moving the crosshair to a target, anywhere) and pressing the shoot button. With the shoot button changing depending on which area of the target you intended to shoot. Whether you hit the intended area, how much damage is done, what happens as a result, etc. would be determined by character attributes.