Weekly Poll 10/1/2018 - The Gunplay!

[Snowflakez]

I don't understand why you believe so many people object to the idea to begin with. This notion a vast swath of players object to "non-FPS" game play or multiple systems of combat doesn't seem to exist. At least not in this thread. I doubt it's a common view toward a game advertised as an RPG first and foremost anyway. It does make for a suitable strawman though .

Developing two systems, with one based almost completely on character agency and the other on player agency, and slapping done on it might meet resistance. It would not be because the system based on character agency exists. It would be because the system based on player agency disregards the character attributes completely. If this isn't the intent then all is well.

Wait, why would that system disregard character attributes completely?

Player-focused RPG combat:

Stats impact bullet spread, reload speed, weapon sway. Honestly, I think this is pretty likely. It's the easiest way to have some sort of RPG impact on combat, and it will affect FPS players very little. Their bullets still go where they're aiming, but their aim and bullet spread are impacted by their character. Since they'll be shooting it up anyway, it won't take long for them to be "pros" and hit what they're aiming at.

Character-focused RPG combat would be as simple as a pause-and-select-target system. The tech is already there for the smart weapons, now the bullets just need to shoot in a straight line and players need a way to tag targets.

Heck, if you really wanted to, lock it behind cyberware that players can choose early on in the game (or at the start). Make it impossible for FPS players to get "confused" about the mode.

Like Su said, I see no issue with a "derivative" VATs system. What is the problem there?

EDIT: I'll add that I think such a mode is highly unlikely. But I don't think it would be that hard to implement. I am no game developer, though, and I don't want to come across as an arrogant "zomg why dont they just do it its so easy stupid devs" type of person.

 

[Rawls]

I don't think most gamers fit purely into any one type of combat game. I like grand strategy, adventure, FPP, TPP, melee, stealth, sniper, and a bunch of other stuff. I would bet a fair amount that most people can live with many types of combat & gunplay mechanics.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

Heck, if you really wanted to, lock it behind cyberware that players can choose early on in the game (or at the start). Make it impossible for FPS players to get "confused" about the mode.

Minus Cyberware doesn't come without cost, that would be a nerf for players who dares to play the game like an "RPG first, shooter second".

 

[Snowflakez]

I don't think most gamers fit purely into any one type of combat game. I like grand strategy, adventure, FPP, TPP, melee, stealth, sniper, and a bunch of other stuff. I would bet a fair amount that most people can live with many types of combat & gunplay mechanics.

Aye. If Cyberpunk 2077 was a pure FPS in the vein of CoD (in terms of combat, not other gameplay mechanics) I would still play it, because it overlaps enough with my other genre interests.

I'm primarily a fan of RPGs (action or classic), strategy games, stealth titles, and also adventure games. I promise I'm not just copying you, I think we just have similar tastes.

However, I also recognize that just because my genre interests overlap enough for me to like (and be capable of playing, unlike Su) an FPS combat system in 2077 does not mean that's the case for everyone. It would be nice if the "niche" crowd of more hardcore RPG players could be appeased in some way, if it was financially and technically feasible.

Frankly, I think the idea of a VATS-like system interwoven with highly-mobile movement around the battlefield is cool as f***. Believe it or not, I think even FPS players would like it. Sure, the hardcore ones would moan about it being too easy (not understanding that it's driven by stats), but they are the minority.

Minus Cyberware doesn't come without cost, that would be a nerf for players who dares to play the game like an "RPG first, shooter second".

Yeah, of course. It already seems like you'll get some Cyberware for free (V doesn't pay Victor for her wrist implant or cybereye - not right away, anyway), so there'd be no harm in making that free as well.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

Yeah, of course. It already seems like you'll get some Cyberware for free (V doesn't pay Victor for her wrist implant or cybereye - not right away, anyway), so there'd be no harm in making that free as well.

They are not free as long as there is an humanity cost.

 

[Snowflakez]

They are not free as long as there is an humanity cost.

So what if there are? Seems like a small, unimportant price to pay to have such a mechanic actually make sense within the game's world. How else do you explain "you can pause the game and aim at stuff, for reasons I guess"?

Alternatively, if it's a piece of cyberware you choose at the start, perhaps there's no humanity cost. It's (probably) safe to assume V already has some cyberware at the start of the game, and that she won't be starting as a complete fleshbag.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

So what if there are? Seems like a small, unimportant price

Then you just throw out of the window one of Cyberpunk 2020 theme.
And makes the game "FPS first, RPG second" by making playing the game as an RPG sub-obtimal as you are using the only ressource in the game that is limited.

to pay to have such a mechanic actually make sense within the game's world. How else do you explain "you can pause the game and aim at stuff, for reasons I guess"?

For the same reason I don't die from a well placed bullet, I guess.

 

[Snowflakez]

Then you just throw out of the window one of Cyberpunk 2020 theme.
And makes the game "FPS first, RPG second" by making playing the game as an RPG sub-obtimal as you are using the only ressource in the game that is limited.



For the same reason I don't die from a well placed bullet, I guess.

I'm extremely confused. Are you for or against a humanity cost for this piece of cyberware?

Because frankly, I don't care either way. It can be there or not, whatever CDPR decides is best as far as sticking to the game's roots goes. This is a very strange argument to have and an odd issue to latch onto (a bad hill to die on, in other words).

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

I'm extremely confused. Are you for or against a humanity cost for this piece of cyberware?

Because frankly, I don't care either way. It can be there or not, whatever CDPR decides is best as far as sticking to the game's roots goes. This is a very strange argument to have and an odd issue to latch onto (a bad hill to die on, in other words).

If it has to be a cyberware piece, then there should not have a humanity cost because of how humanity is important in Cyberpunk 2020, and forcing a player who knows about that to be cybered is just putting salt on the injury you made him.
I was actually infuriated when I learned the cyberdoc part of the demo was currently mandatory, it made me wonder if social gameplay would be of any importantce in the game (and it became worse after I saw that Cool would not be the sum of the different social stats turned into one).

But you shouldn't have to have a cyberware piece to be able to play as your character anyway: If your character doesn't need it to do something, then neither do you. That's what "RPG first" means for me anyway.

 

[Rawls]

forcing a player who knows about that to be cybered is just putting salt on the injury you made him.

They've already confirmed that all players are going to have cyberware of some kind. Why does having this type in place of some other salt in wounds? Smart weapons are a pretty serious advantage for shooting around cover and such.

 

[gogmeister777]

Again in the interests of keeping it simple there really is little more then coding a "pause" key and implementing CP2020/FNFF behind the scenes.

And that's the problem I have with this proposed implementation, even though I have nothing against a turn based additional mode in theory

I just feel that anything so simple so as to require very little time and effort would be like sticking a dollop of gruel on a plate of Cordon Bleu cuisine. I'd love an additional combat mode, but I'd want it to offer FAR more than the VATs we know.

This game is attempting to be another masterpiece, like W3. Any VATs would have to really stand out and take it to a higher level in terms of visuals, gameplay mechanics and, well, 'fun'. I'd want it to offer innovation over the VATs we know and be far more engaging and satisfying. That simply can't be done without time and effort, imho, unless someone over at CDPR has a magic wand

And as much as I'd absolutely LOVE to play ArmA 3 I've never even tried due to the FPS elements.

Genuinely sorry to hear that.

These days most people grew up with Mario and other action/precision games...I grew up with board games and later PnP RPGs. So I prefer a slower paced game where you have time to make decisions over one that tests my reaction times.

Yes, I remember discussing things with you before and you mentioned loving board games in the 60's. I understand and sympathise, I really do.

It's also an open world so it will be compared to Skyrim, it has modern tech so it will be compared to GTA, it has FPS so it'll be compared to CoD, ... so what if it's compared to VATS?

It doesn't matter for those first three things. CP2077 can fearlessly (hopefully anyway!) be compared to them precisely because CDPR are putting a huge amount of effort into those aspects. Mind you, I suspect it wouldn't be compared to CoD but that's another story.

However, having people/critics compare what would be a bare-bones VATs system appearing in CDPR's highly anticipated game, that follows on from the legendary W3, to a 10 year old Bethesda mechanic? That wouldn't be pretty I suspect. The similarity is just too obvious and I really feel it'd be an unflattering comparison...unless they put a big effort into it which brings us full circle back to the things I mentioned above.

That's simply because the FPS market is probably larger then the RPG one. So games should never attempt to appeal to multiple markets?

I'm not sure how to take this last bit. You say the market for FPS is larger but previously said FPS'ers were a minority? I think you said in post #222 'Probably not much larger than the RPG fanbase'. You trying to bamboozle me, Su? I'll assume you only mean 'hardcore' fps players.

Well anyway, it doesn't matter because I don't want to stick hard labels on people. I do agree with you that there are more people out there who are familiar with FPS, I think I said as much before.

I've nothing against them appealing to multiple markets, in this case the RPG market. The thing is though we disagree (which is fine) on what would be an acceptable standard for VATs. You feel they can do so by implementing a very basic system, which is a perfectly valid opinion. I'm sure they could.

However, I feel that to do it right they'd need to put lots of time and effort in and that's too much feature creep. I imagine CDPR looked at all the ideas and had to make a decision and I suspect they made that decision based on the numbers I mentioned in the 'niche' comment.

Also, one might argue they feel they already covered the most important parts of 'appealing to RPG'ers' with the rest of the game and made FPS combat precisely to cover other markets. Mind you, it could also be that the combat we see was derived entirely from their vision and totally independent from outside influence.

I can't think of much more to say but I'll answer any lingering questions, if you have them. Thank you for your patience and thanks for all the time you've taken to reply. Take care

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

They've already confirmed that all players are going to have cyberware of some kind.

Well, they said "for now" but don't know if it will stay (and I hope not).
But yes, it's entirely possible that will be one more choice taken from the player.

Why does having this type in place of some other salt in wounds? Smart weapons are a pretty serious advantage for shooting around cover and such.

Because you are forcing a player to do something that have serious conscequences to compensate the fact that you are already denying him the possibility to be on par with his character's skills.

Post automatically merged: Oct 16, 2018

Also, one might argue they feel they already covered the most important parts of 'appealing to RPG'ers' with the rest of the game and made FPS combat precisely to cover other markets.

Then I hope we'll see that "rest of the game" soon, because background and ambiant aside, I'm still seeking hard for the RPG part of the game.
It's even worse actually: the more I watch the gameplay demo, the more I see missing things.
But I'm still waiting for the "RPG gameplay demo" to make my judment final, it's just that it's hard to contain myself.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Wait, why would that system disregard character attributes completely?

That is the point. If the character ability is largely irrelevant it's a FPS system. FPS systems fit into shooters. They don't fit RPG's. Yet, previous discussion indicates some individuals see the options as full FPS or RPG, with no exceptions. Based on this view it's not RPG at all unless it's RPG in the strictest sense of the word, and almost completely character driven. Continuing along, statements claiming there is no point for a "non-RPG" system to even care about character attributes enter the equation. One can only assume this means the FPS system being referenced ignores the character.

I wouldn't like to play in a turn based, dice rolling or watered down VATs system. A video game is not PNP. I would have zero problem with it being an option. I would have a problem if the "other" choice was a pure FPS system. "FPS players" can go play a FPS . RPG zealots bent on turning CP into a graphical representation of PNP can play the... "PNP video game" mode.

It wasn't a reference to the developer statements. I highly doubt they're going to go the pure FPS vs pure RPG route.

 

[Rawls]

Because you are forcing a player to do something that have serious conscequences to compensate the fact that you are already denying him the possibility to be on par with his character's skills.

Giving someone the option to play the game the way they want to, but giving it a mechanical drawback, is not forcing them to play that way IMO. If you want to use a type of weaponry that allows for more stats based combat, then there ought to be some cost associated with it, just like with any other build decision. Consequences for build choices are a good thing in my opinion. Cyberware is the most logical way to explain such mechanics in world, so having a humanity cost associated with it makes sense, just like any other Cyberware.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

Giving someone the option to play the game the way they want to, but giving it a mechanical drawback, is not forcing them to play that way IMO. If you want to use a type of weaponry that allows for more stats based combat, then there ought to be some cost associated with it, just like with any other build decision. Consequences for build choices are a good thing in my opinion. Cyberware is the most logical way to explain such mechanics in world, so having a humanity cost associated with it makes sense, just like any other Cyberware.

The point is: Why should I HAVE TO buy a certain type of weaponry to make a Marksman V a Marksman?
Doesn't it makes sens in the world to have a marksman actually hit things, even without Cyberware?
Why can't a character use his stats/skills natural abilitys without cyberware?
Besides, there are other questions, like: Why in an "RPG first" should an FPS player need to add nothing to play how he wants when an RPG player does?

 

[Rawls]

Why should I HAVE TO buy a certain type of weaponry to make a Marksman V a Marksman?

You don't. You only "have to" if you require both that you want to be a marksman and that you want to use smart weapons. If you don't want to use smart weapons ... don't. There are options.

Why in an "RPG first" should an FPS player need to add nothing to play how he wants when an RPG player does?

That's a false premise. There are challenges a only FPS player will have to deal with too. Adjusting to choices and meaningful consequences; understanding the intricacies of builds that blend stats, skills, perks, gear & cyberware to maximize effectiveness; learning the differences between various archetypes (they may have a leg up as a solo with a power weapon, but they'll have a steeper learning curve as a techie or netrunner); if skill progression effects gunplay, as is implied by there being skills for long guns etc, then they have to deal with character's skill being a limiter. An RPG is not solely gunplay. There are a lot of systems they'll have to adapt to.

Also, it's primarily a single player game (and apparently solely so at launch) so it's not like one is at some great tactical disadvantage.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

You don't. You only "have to" if you require both that you want to be a marksman and that you want to use smart weapons. If you don't want to use smart weapons ... don't. There are options.

So you mean that if my character is a marksman, I will hit my targets no matter how bad I am at shooters?
If not, that means that I actually have to buy cyberware just to see my character do what it should be able to do anyway.
The "have to", is the problem here.

That's a false premise. There are challenges a only FPS player will have to deal with too. Adjusting to choices and meaningful consequences; understanding the intricacies of builds that blend stats, skills, perks, gear & cyberware to maximize effectiveness; learning the differences between various archetypes (they may have a leg up as a solo with a power weapon, but they'll have a steeper learning curve as a techie or netrunner); if skill progression effects gunplay, as is implied by there being skills for long guns etc, then they have to deal with character's skill being a limiter. An RPG is not solely gunplay. There are a lot of systems they'll have to adapt to.

But none will require them to lose limited ressources for it that an RPG player wouldn't.

 

[Rawls]

But none will require them to lose limited ressources for it that an RPG player wouldn't.

Your talking about a different type of optical scanner, so it probably won't be much more humanity cost than a different version. It's not like it's some huge horrible limiter on your ability to progress. More likely it means limiting the availability of other types of optical scanners (perhaps with social, netrunning, tech, or power weapon benefits). I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[gogmeister777]

Then I hope we'll see that "rest of the game" soon, because background and ambiant aside, I'm still seeking hard for the RPG part of the game...I'm still waiting for the "RPG gameplay demo" to make my judment final, it's just that it's hard to contain myself.

Yeah, I know how you feel, I can't wait to see more.

From a gunplay point of view, I'd love to see real impact from stats and skills, explained by a developer with footage running to show it in action.

As for the rest, I want to see lots of customisation possibilities with regards to builds and see it really change the pace and feel of the game when outside of combat, along with an example of just how much impact your role-playing decisions and choices make on NPCs and quest resolution....but now I'm getting off topic.

Post automatically merged: Oct 16, 2018

I would have zero problem with it being an option. I would have a problem if the "other" choice was a pure FPS system.

I agree.

After all, I voted for option 7, though I wouldn't need the effect to quite as pronounced as Vampire or DEx 2000.

 

[Suhiira]

I'm not sure how to take this last bit. You say the market for FPS is larger but previously said FPS'ers were a minority? I think you said in post #222 'Probably not much larger than the RPG fanbase'. You trying to bamboozle me, Su? I'll assume you only mean 'hardcore' fps players.

I said that in spite of their claims they aren't a majority of the game playing public. They're a minority, but probably a larger one the the RPG minority.