If the character don't know how to handle a gun, he cannot magically become a marksman because of the player. If the character is a marksman, it will hit things not matter how bad the player is.
I meant in the context of the discussion I was having there. If the game is made with direct player control in mind, why hamper it with RPG mechanics in the first place (as the intended audience clearly isn't a bunch to support diminished control)?
That's obviously not what I'd support, I believe I've been pretty clear about that, but if the RPG mechanics aren't made properly and left out as delicious as room temperature milk that stood in a glass on a table over night... it doesn't really serve anyone.
It's only fair in the sense that both players can roll a die, but the outcome isn't fair - it's random. I was playing Blood Bowl 2 so I know this much.
It doesn't really change anything. It's still random, regardless of the method of measurement you are using (which can range from a coin, a six-sided die to percentages and other stuff as well).
Everybody makes mistakes no matter how good they are, and even the most inept might have a fluke every once in a while. It presents an organic situation and solution for the character whose range of ability and understanding it represents.
Letting the player to actually do it, while having the character's skill play the key role at the same time, is also an organic solution. With its ups and downs.
RNG is a random variable that is called upon to decide the outcome. And so is the player, who is thrown off-balance by the mechanic and his/her own skill or lack of thereoff, which does add the variability to the outcome.
I've suggested a similar thing before. But I don't think recoil alone would do the trick. It's not really that different with bullet angles, the characters facing just changes a bit.
Recoil and sway could do it. At least enough of it so you have problems when not aiming and targeting the center of mass when you're not very close to your target.
Oh, so it's something similar to The Council or Call of Cthulhu: The Official Video Game (you can associate or ask about things that your character has previously noticed). It's a good feature.
I meant in the context of the discussion I was having there. If the game is made with direct player control in mind, why hamper it with RPG mechanics in the first place (as the intended audience clearly isn't a bunch to support diminished control)?
To reflect the skill (or lack there of) of the character. It doesn't have to be one or the other, there is a whole lot of middle ground between modern FPS and old school RPGs. Reducing weapon sway worked really well in the Last of Us to simulated better skill in aiming as a progression mechanic.
Oh, so it's something similar to The Council or Call of Cthulhu: The Official Video Game (you can associate or ask about things that your character has previously noticed). It's a good feature.
Yeah it sounds like noticing things can lead to extra dialogue/actions, and discussions are still "scenes" but aren't cutscenes, so your still in gameplay while talking. That's very different from TW3, and challenging to plan for in an open world game.
The results are random, but that's part of how probability works, that's the name of the game. The results are random for everyone and the probabilities that diminish the range of possible failure are the same for everyone with the same amount of skill for their character. You can't compensate it with being a good gamer.
This means that everyone, regardless of their personal wit and dexterity, are at the same line.
You can test this by taking a d10 and throw it against a skill of 1 for a 100 times. See how many 1's you get. Then do the same with a skill of 9 and throw again trying to get something between 1 and 9 and see how many you get within that range.
Don't confuse the decisions a player makes as to where to go, what to attack, who to speak to, etc. with with mechanics of how outcomes are determined. They are two entirely separate things.
The mechanics used to determine outcome are what make a shooter a shooter, or an RPG an RPG.
Yes, the distinction between the two is the idea behind the question.
In the classic RPG example the player has control over character combat actions. The player does not have control over the outcome of those combat actions. Those outcomes are dictated completely by the rules of the game, so to speak. This is what I would define as pure RPG combat.
To clarify, compare BG2 to W3. In BG2 the player can decide to cast spell X at an enemy (combat action) but the results are decided by the game rules (combat action outcome). In W3 if I want to slash at a Witch Hunter because.... he deserves it... I have to push a button at the right moment to swing the sword and hit him. A hit or miss isn't completely determined by a game rule. It's controlled by me, the player.
Basically, the question was must the game follow the BG2 formula to be viewed as RPG combat? Or can it follow a formula similar to W3? Once again, my answer would be the W3 path is acceptable if the character ability sufficiently influences the combat results. I get the feeling other posters would prefer a system more in line with the BG2 formula. Ideally the ability to select either one would be available. Unfortunately, it's a tall order and probably unrealistic to expect two different combat systems.
The results are random, but that's part of how probability works, that's the name of the game. The results are random for everyone and the probabilities that diminish the range of possible failure are the same for everyone with the same amount of skill for their character. You can't compensate it with being a good gamer.
But ok. I see I'm getting bombarded here from all directions now ane these posts are getting confusing to manage, so I'll give up and step aside.
So, if the game had a combat system that adjusted bullet spread (this would probably be the least noticeable for obvious reasons), weapon sway, reload speed, recoil based on character skill, that wouldn't be enough for you? No judgement, I'm just confirming your perspective.
To me, that system is not just "better than nothing," it'd actually be pretty cool and fun. It's the closest I think we will get to a real "Action RPG." It blends as many RPG elements into combat as possible without fully eliminating character skill from the equation. I think it actually could "satisfy both parties." It might be a bit different than what the average gamer is used to, but so what?
Note: Such a system is not the same as Bloodlines, where RNG is used for shots (though you still have to aim in the enemy's general direction, true).
I don't mean to bombard, of course. That's happened to me before, it gets annoying, I know.
So, if the game had a combat system that adjusted bullet spread (this would probably be the least noticeable for obvious reasons), weapon sway, reload speed, recoil based on character skill, that wouldn't be enough for you? No judgement, I'm just confirming your perspective.
I don't rightly know the discussion been about "what should CP2077 combat play like" for a while anymore, but rather what constitutes 'best' for an RPG. I made a suggestion about a cyberware based combat that uses dicerolls, but nobody quoted that and the debate started before that already.
Manual combat can well work as you explained, to some degree at least. How "fun" and "cool" it will be remains to be seen (if it happens that way -- all the games that've done it have been scorned for it and then went to straight FPS in sequels). This is more about those additional ways of doing combat (smart guns, cy-ware HUD usage, tactical mode, etc) in a non-FPS way that Su and I have been pushing for (and which CDPR has implied an interest in doing... even if not very well so far with the smart guns).
Thats why i suggest system, where gunplay turns from military sim (arma like) to more casual (like in borderlands) with the development of shooting skills. The more points you have in stat, more casually it will be. I know players of classic RPG doesn't accept it, but some of them usually doesn't accept anything, if not turn based combat in isometry.
You're right.
As an RPG player I don't like being penalized by being required to put (usually scarce) character stat/skill points into things other players can just ignore, thus allowing them to put those points into other things I'll never be able to master because I had to put points into certain areas just to be able to play the game.
It’s fair amidst the players. Bad rolls are just a fact if life (metaphorically; and literally in games). The randomness is weighted against the characters ability and the tasks difficulty, it’s not 50/50. Everybody makes mistakes no matter how good they are, and even the most inept might have a fluke every once in a while. It presents an organic situation and solution for the character whose range of ability and understanding it represents.
And RNG is not the outside force, theplayer is. RNG is the games representation of the situation at hand. The player is a guide who’s outside-the-game ability can nullify the whole point of character systems existing and leads to watered down systems in attempt to prevent that.
Some people want their actions as a player to dictate outcomes and feel that anything that detracts from their ability to do so makes a game bad. Others are perfectly willing to let a game decide the outcome based on decisions they made previously (stats, skills, and equipment) and intimidate ones (who to shoot first). This is the core difference between an action/FPS games and RPGs.
Which is "better"?
Neither.
But they are fundamentally different, and mutually incompatible.
We've been discussing the same stuff for around 3 years now. More for some members. But new members are constantly coming in so these arguments have to be rehashed.
We've been discussing the same stuff for around 3 years now. More for some members. But new members are constantly coming in so these arguments have to be rehashed.
We've been discussing the same stuff for around 3 years now. More for some members. But new members are constantly coming in so these arguments have to be rehashed.
The results are random, but that's part of how probability works, that's the name of the game. The results are random for everyone and the probabilities that diminish the range of possible failure are the same for everyone with the same amount of skill for their character. You can't compensate it with being a good gamer.
This means that everyone, regardless of their personal wit and dexterity, are at the same line.
That's the thing: they are not. But I guess we are using different meanings of "fair."
Just because they have, theoretically, the same chance of rolling something doesn't mean anything. Because at the end of the day it's all down to something outside of anybody's control - luck. And luck isn't something that's fair. Otherwise everybody would be hitting the same numbers over and over again, and that's not the case. One only has to look at gambling to realize that.
You can test this by taking a d10 and throw it against a skill of 1 for a 100 times. See how many 1's you get. Then do the same with a skill of 9 and throw again trying to get something between 1 and 9 and see how many you get within that range.
1) A skill of 9? That's awfully generous of you. Way too generous. I get that technically you are allowed to have as high skill as you want in CP2020, but I doubt that will happen in a video game where the character's growth is expected in order to maintain a difficulty curve (as well as make use of the "you get better by doing things" system) and the sense of progression.
2) The problem with the law of large numbers is that you need to have enough of rolls in order for the effect to occur. Otherwise the ratio won't even out. And not every roll check is equal in value - it's very possible to fail a roll that can made a difference between staying alive and dying, which means you really can't count on having enough rolls for your luck to "even out".
It's still random though. You can have 90% chance and fail or you can have 20% and win. Sure, you can expect 90% chance to be more likely to win than 20% chance, but in the end random is random and anything can happen.
I kinda have to. I don't know how to explain this to you. You're not a daft person, but there is some kind of a barrier that prevents me from getting through. Maybe it's the way I use this language, maybe it's the way I form my responses, maybe both... I don't know.
But, eh... Ok. Randomness itself, when looked at in isolation, is not fair. Nor is it unfair. It just is what it is and does what it does at any given time regardless of who uses it. That's just how it works. For better or worse.
But when you limit the randomness within a range, separate it into living success and fail categories and start to look at the probabilities for each, the picture changes a bit. The larger the category of success gets, the less the randomness matters. because with a skill 9/10, rolling 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 randomly doesn't matter because every random number there is a success, 1...9 is literally one and the same, the only one that matters is the 10 that fails. And the other way around, with a skill of 1/10, the only number than matters is the 1 because all else (2-10) is a failure. In the former example, you are basically lucky if you fail, while in the latter, you are lucky to succeed. And the same applies to all the different ranges.... 3/10, 6/10, 7/10... the ranges change and the probabilities change (randomness does not) and everyone within the same ranges gets equal probabilities; equal chances.
The probability of success is the fairness of it, not the randomness behind the number you get with the roll. It is fair because luck and probability are the same for everyone (within the same range of success/failure) regardless of who they are, good or bad luck. It's not a coin toss where you always have about 50/50 chance (I'm not counting the coing staying upright on its edge here) and the results are very likely wild. Don't look at averages, that distorts the picture.
To recap... Bad or good rolls aren't fair or unfair, because they are random. But the probability (and luck) is because it doesn't look at the players personal input (which would constitute for an outside force affecting the outcome).
Some people want their actions as a player to dictate outcomes and feel that anything that detracts from their ability to do so makes a game bad. Others are perfectly willing to let a game decide the outcome based on decisions they made previously (stats, skills, and equipment) and intimidate ones (who to shoot first). This is the core difference between an action/FPS games and RPGs.
Yeah. It doesn't compute to call a game an RPG if it doesn't work like one.
Stats existing doesn't make a game an RPG, it's how the stats work to form the outcomes of the attempts at anything governed by the stats. And if the stats are but a minuscule barrier people can pretty much ignore and still play the game well, they are not working as they should as the role of the role is diminished.
There is. But for some reason it is rarely if ever utilized to the degree where either side would not suffer disproportionally (and usually it's the RPG side that takes the biggest hit).
Sure CDPR, and their investors want to make a profit ... duh. But CDPR is an indie developer at it's core. They just happened to hit the big time with the Witcher games and you seem to assume they'll totally forget what made them successful to this point and become another "follow the trends and make the maximum profit" company.
Yeah. It doesn't compute to call a game an RPG if it doesn't work like one.
Stats existing doesn't make a game an RPG, it's how the stats work to form the outcomes of the attempts at anything governed by the stats. And if the stats are but a minuscule barrier people can pretty much ignore and still play the game well, they are not working as they should as the role of the role is diminished.
The main disagreement lies with the notion both player skill and character ability cannot simultaneously exert a large influence on combat results, in a reasonably balanced way. Yes, it's difficult to achieve such a goal. Yes, plenty of past developers have either screwed it up or claimed it was a goal when they had zero intention of doing it, or both. Neither of these make it impossible.
It may be true player skill exerting an influence, at least in a way where character attributes didn't have close to absolute control over combat results, isn't pure RPG combat. I don't think it's entirely fair to automatically classify it as FPS combat though. If the character attributes are of minor influence, as you described in your last sentence above, then it's completely understandable to be upset. That would indicate they consistently claimed, "RPG, RPG, RPG", when in reality is was complete horseshit the entire time .
Yeah. It doesn't compute to call a game an RPG if it doesn't work like one.
Stats existing doesn't make a game an RPG, it's how the stats work to form the outcomes of the attempts at anything governed by the stats. And if the stats are but a minuscule barrier people can pretty much ignore and still play the game well, they are not working as they should as the role of the role is diminished.
To recap... Bad or good rolls aren't fair or unfair, because they are random. But the probability (and luck) is because it doesn't look at the players personal input (which would constitute for an outside force affecting the outcome).
Yeah. It doesn't compute to call a game an RPG if it doesn't work like one.
Stats existing doesn't make a game an RPG, it's how the stats work to form the outcomes of the attempts at anything governed by the stats. And if the stats are but a minuscule barrier people can pretty much ignore and still play the game well, they are not working as they should as the role of the role is diminished.
What about a situation in which the stats are preventing people from "playing the game well", unless they put points in associated skills? Because I think we both agree when it comes to a principle of what makes an RPG. What we differ about is the execution.
Thread going in circles...
